The "Terminator" thread seems to have become "how to make Marines better". So to put all that into its own thread, these are some changes I propose:
1) +1W to all MEQs and TEQs. In an edition in which weapons can cause multiple damage per a single failed save, there really is no reason that a standard Marine should only have 1W Tactical Marines, Assault marines, Devs, etc as well as all the Chaos equivalents should be 2W standard. This MIGHT come with a 1-2ppm increase, but really no more than that Scouts can stay at 1W. TEQs and Bike, therefore, should come standard with 3W. Primaris Marines can stay as is, because they will have 2 attacks (I'd keep regular Marines at 1atk) and would have Bolt Rifles (which are also improved below). Maybe give them a slight points drop.
I would also apply this to Chaos TEQs and Chosen getting WS/BS2+ Oblits gain BS2+, Mutilators get WS2+, but both would stay at 3W (i.e. not gain +1W as above)
3) Bolters. *sigh* I personally would have liked Bolt weapons to get something like what Eldar Shuriken weapons have now: AP-3 on a to-wound roll of 6 to represent the additional damage the exploding round would do. We could make it so that it is AP-2 on a 6 to wound for regular Bolters and pistols, but AP-3 on a 6 for HBs and Bolt rifles. The round is bigger, so it should cause more damage
If this change is made, Shuriken weapons for Eldar should be adjusted too, to keep "uniqueness" between the factions. I would make them AP-1 standard, with +1 shot and -1Str. So a Catapult would be Assault 3, S3 Ap-1, a Cannon would be Assault 4, S5, AP-1. No special ability needed. This, I feel, better represents the sheer hail of "ninja stars" the weapons spit out in each volley. They shouldn't be strong (hence S3) but should have lots of shots at AP-1
Heavy Bolter also needs a slight tweak. I would make them Rapidfire 2. Mechanically they work the same as a regular bolter, just bigger, so why be Heavy? RF2 makes them much more appealing as you wound not suffer -1 for moving (thus evening out the -1 shot outside 18" range) and give a benefit for getting within 18" by gaining 4 total shots. This can provide MUCH needed anti-Horde options for Marines in general, especially combined with being AP-3 on a 6 to wound. The HB becomes the all-rounder weapons it SHOULD be.
--------------- Those 3 changes should make Marines and CSM "feel" more like they should in the fluff as well as balance specific inadequacies that currently exist. I truly do not feel these changes would make Marines OP considering this editions meta still favors Hordes.
I still think bs 2+ is too much, more shots or a real chance to get into cc would be my preference. The wound I have warmed up to after doing some best case scenarios with dice. Bolters bug me being RF since it keeps mobility and options down, reducing chance to eventually get into melee or be useful getting to a point.
As for terminators, the wounds help and more important than having perfect aim is using the cc weapons they pay for. Now that T1 deepstriking is gone I would consider reducing the 9" distance. If teleport strike were 6" it would still have some risk of failure and be out of melta range but terminators could do precision strikes like they were made for. Obviously it would have been OP before the T1 nerf, but now...
I like bikes, the trade off of cover and climbing for speed is ok. The weapon are very nice (for csm at least) survivability will be good for the cost at 3w, maybe a 2pt increase like the rest of it. Again bolters being rf limits what they do unless using chapter tactics, voice is good but why have options that don't quite work?
Stormonu wrote: I think making any basic troops 2W is a bad, slippery slope. Many xeno armies could argue their basic troops should be 2W too (Necrons surely, for 1).
In prior editions, in which 1 failed save only did 1 wound, unless it was Instant Death. I'd agree with you. But in 8E, more than half the weapons do multiple wounds. Having a higher T and better armour save is no longer an adequate representation of a Marine's durability.
Please keep in mind that my proposed changes are not only for balance, but to better represent how the units SHOULD perform in the fluff compared to others. A super human walking tank should not die as easily to small arms fire as a regular, barely armoured human. A Marine dying to a single lasgun wound just doesn't make any sense, no matter how hard it was to get that wound through the T and armour.
Necrons already have RPs, so they have already have the chance to get extra wounds. They also have better LD and better stock weapons. Other Xenos Troops also have things that make them better than the current 1W Marines. Marines as Troops need a "niche" and I think it should be durability
Please keep in mind that my proposed changes are not only for balance, but to better represent how the units SHOULD perform in the fluff compared to others.
A super human walking tank should not die as easily to small arms fire as a regular, barely armoured human.
A Marine dying to a single lasgun wound just doesn't make any sense, no matter how hard it was to get that wound through the T and armour.
Does that mean my Rocket Launchers should instantly kill your Marines as they're using anti-tank warheads, instead of making your save 5+? Should Chainfists automatically wound vehicles as in the fluff they're used to cut open starship bulkheads?
Saying "well they do it in the fluff" isn't really an excuse, Marines should stay 1 wound.
As covered in other threads, the wound change alone puts the Tac on an even playing field with Fire Warriors in a gunline shootout.
It puts them scads ahead of Necron Warriors, Dire Avengers, Guardians, Rangers, and more.
As for the weapons, you're turning CWE weapons into "Necrons, but weaker, with more shots". I'd personally like that change, but that's not really the subject here.
For the weapon change, consider that Guardians pay 8ppm for a 4ppm model (Guardsman) plus a weapon directly inferior to the Boltgun you're implementing.
Heavy Bolters, if they don't get Bladestorm, would be a great candidate for RF3. But with Bladestorm, RF2 36" makes them better than what Shuriken Cannons are currently (A3 24"). Current SCs have S6, but the native AP-1 on the HB is better than the +1S.
Necron RP would have to go to a 4+, maybe even a 3+ to compensate.
If Termies go to WS/BS2+, I'd rather Stern and Van also got WS/BS2+ instead of one or the other. The in-game impact is marginal (Van don't shoot much, Stern don't do much in CC). But it's added crunch (which vets are WS2+? Which are BS2+?), and less fluffy (often, the difference between a Sternie and a Termie is what shirt they put on this morning). But then, as long as Crisis are BS4+ and Exarchs are WS/BS3+, SM Vets beign WS/BS2+ isn't fluffy (yes, they have hundreds of years of experience, but Exarchs have thousands). Wouldn't oppose it myself, though.
"But in 8E, more than half the weapons do multiple wounds."
Simply not true. More weapons do multiple wounds than ever before, and more than should, but nowhere near half.
"Having a higher T and better armour save is no longer an adequate representation of a Marine's durability."
Somewhat agree. But it looks like that primarily because you're mostly only seeing the multiple-wound weapons. Which is mostly because, unlike many other armies, you're actually relatively durable to a lot of 1W weapons. 2W Marines takes you from twice as durable vs small arms to *four times* as durable. All while being maybe twice as expensive in points per model compared to most (read: not all, certainly not hordes like Guardsmen or Gaunts) infantry.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for "Marines shouldn't die to lasguns".
When they roll a 5 or 6 and you roll a 1 or 2. One out of every 9 hits.
A Space Elf ninja samurai shouldn't be hit by Lasguns.
It happens when they roll a 4, 5, or 6. Roughly one out of every 2 shots.
Bharring wrote: As covered in other threads, the wound change alone puts the Tac on an even playing field with Fire Warriors in a gunline shootout.
It puts them scads ahead of Necron Warriors, Dire Avengers, Guardians, Rangers, and more.
But those have better weapons and/or other special rules that make them on par. I do think 2W Marines should be 14-15ppm. Ignore my Bolter/Shuriken change (which I agree is the weakest of my 3 proposals), 15ppm 2W Marines would absolutely be on par with those other choices.
At minimum, I would like change #1 & 2 along with Heavy Bolters being RF2 or even 3. Added durability can push Marines into a "niche" that compensates for there lack of offense (therefore winning games by attrition rather than outright force). Having decent HBs as a cheap all purpose weapon would also help It reinforces a factional identity for them (instead of just being a generic standard) and quite frankly should create situations that are more similar to the fluff (which should be a consideration, no matter how much someone disagrees)
If you think fluff should be ignored for rules, then please remove RP from Necrons, ATSNKF for Marines, Invul saves from Daemons and pretty much every other rule. GW comes up with a concept in the fluff and try to implement a rule to reflect it. Just because they aren't the best at it, doesn't mean fluff wasn't the driving force behind the rule If you think fluff doesn't drive what rules do in the game, maybe take up chess instead?
Well, sure, they have better weapons. Without their better weapon, each one of those would be worse than Marines as-is. With those better weapons, they're worse than Marines with just the +1W Marines, even at 15ppm.
It might seem like it'd make Marines fit their fluff better.
In practice, Marines become those darned robot aliens who you just can't kill with conventional weapons. So they'd behave like Necrons in the fluff, not like Marines.
In practice, Aspect Warriors go from elite models to trash, now that half the troops you see can laugh off most of them. Aspect Warriors are supposed to be as elite as Marines, and now they're half as elite.
Fire Warriors go from "the gunline troop" as a horde, to a niche that can barely hold their own in a firefight against the most common troops in the game. So Tau goes from British Redcoats to Afghan Cave-dwellers in tabletop representation.
Guardsmen do somewhat get put in their place vs Marines, but no other factions are helped.
I don't see how this change will make games feel more fluffy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On HB specifically:
I could see RF2 and/or a drop to 5 pts. If you've got a special/heavy slot that you didn't fill out, 5pts to replace a boltgun with a Heavy Bolter would certainly give it a place.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also - I'm not arguing the rules shouldn't fit the fluff. I'm arguing that the proposed rules is less representative of the fluff.
It just seems dumb to me that Marines are designed to be withstand damage that would kill a normal human (even without the armour), but on the table-top, 5 Marines (with the armour) die faster than 10 GEQs in just about every situation.
With so many multi-damage weapons around and even armour modifications, giving Marines 2W and a slight points bump would make them perform in 8E about the same as they did in prior editions with only 1W and AP4, 5 or 6 meant nothing to them.
It also better represents the "gap" between a Marine and regular human/Eldar/T'au/Ork. Necron Immortals, Lychgaurd, Pretorians, etc might also get the 2W treatment, but for those units it should come with a higher pts bump as successfully rolling RP would give them back the entire 2Ws rather than only the current 1W. Warriors, I think are ok at 1W because they do not have nearly the bulk of the others.
Give termies the ability to define their roll. Anti-infantry with storm bolters and a cheap +1 attack CC weapon, Anti elite/vehicle with full squad of special weapons and power fists. Similar to the assault termies with TH+ss or lightning claws (which need another 2 point price reduction)
Not sure about the +1 wound for tacs. Maybe just bump power armor up to a 2+ save and increase offense.
PoTMS on dreads + preds
Grav cannons down to 20 points, assault cannons + 'cane bolters back to pre-nerf value
Flamers d3 hits per 5 models in unit, st 4 +1 ap
melta double str w/in half range
New BT/white scar tactics
+1 shots for marine bolters (sisters are too cheap to get rf 2 boltguns, rf 3 storm bolters, heavy 4 heavy bolters)
Chapter tactics for vehicles (not just a port of the existing tactic but a special rule the chapters apply to their vehicles)
New strats (-1 to hit, +1 to save, deepstrike, +1 to hit, shoot again, steal cps, anything any good)
chainswords -1 ap
Centurians re-write (like 50% reduction for the dev versions) Native deepstrike. If you guys think termies are bad...
Guilliman re-write (re-roll wounds/hits of 1 for all codex compliant chapters w/in 12", use all chapter tactics in mixed detachments, reduce points back to 350)
Re-work all charges to be movement + d6"
Assault marines +1 attack on charge
Reivers auto apply concision grenades on charge
Disembark after moving for rhinos and land raiders (or just land raiders but rhinos get 2 firing ports) Counts as moved after disembarking.
Repulsor and land raider price reductions
Chaplins can deny the witch, re-roll 1s to hit and wound in fight phase
My idea for marines starts with Tacs with other units being built of of them:
-2W
-2A
"Rapid Fire Drill": Add 1 to the number of attacks made by boltguns while within half range.
-15-16pts
So we get an increase in durability and offense that encourages close encounters (such as out of say... a Drop Pod). The boltgun itself becomes the best anti-infantry gun marines have. i.e. it's better against guardsmen than it is against other marines. (no AP high number of shots)
Against anti-infantry guns, marines are very durable, but against plasma and autocannons they start dropping fast.
And while we're at it, I would be totally cool with 2W necrons and orks. More 2W basic infantry would be cool.
----------
As for the heavy bolter idea I don't agree. Guard heavy weapon teams use heavy bolters too so RF doesn't make much sense there. At most I would give them Heavy 4.
Bharring wrote: Well, sure, they have better weapons. Without their better weapon, each one of those would be worse than Marines as-is. With those better weapons, they're worse than Marines with just the +1W Marines, even at 15ppm.
It might seem like it'd make Marines fit their fluff better.
In practice, Marines become those darned robot aliens who you just can't kill with conventional weapons. So they'd behave like Necrons in the fluff, not like Marines.
In practice, Aspect Warriors go from elite models to trash, now that half the troops you see can laugh off most of them. Aspect Warriors are supposed to be as elite as Marines, and now they're half as elite.
Fire Warriors go from "the gunline troop" as a horde, to a niche that can barely hold their own in a firefight against the most common troops in the game. So Tau goes from British Redcoats to Afghan Cave-dwellers in tabletop representation.
Guardsmen do somewhat get put in their place vs Marines, but no other factions are helped.
I don't see how this change will make games feel more fluffy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On HB specifically:
I could see RF2 and/or a drop to 5 pts. If you've got a special/heavy slot that you didn't fill out, 5pts to replace a boltgun with a Heavy Bolter would certainly give it a place.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also - I'm not arguing the rules shouldn't fit the fluff. I'm arguing that the proposed rules is less representative of the fluff.
The thing that really is at the crux of the matter is cheap hoards have no real counters currently as traditional anti horde shooting/templates don't scale they deal d6 shots to 20-40 model units so they don't hit them as hard as 5 model msu's who take the same d6 shots.
Basically post the IG codex every troop is compaired to IS and comes out looking bad, if they balance against each other but not IG the issue is IG codex, not everyone else.
"It also better represents the "gap" between a Marine and regular human/Eldar/T'au/Ork."
The durability gap? Maybe. Debatable about where exactly it should be. Certainly no worse off than they are now (twice as durable), but not necessarily 4x as durable.
Or are you talking about the elitism gap? You do realize that there are other things in the 40k universe that are, by fluff, as elite as Marines, right?
I just played out a scenario of 488pts of csm terminators (10 bodies of 3W, combi-bolter, power mace and termie lord of the same loadout) against 488pts of T'au Sept battalion (30FW strike, 7 pathfinder +3 ion rifle, cadre fire blade, quad cib crisis commander). Keeping costs and skills as is.
The lessons learned was that the 3rd wound helped, but didn't make them op as they got tabled T2 (largely from overwatch after two charges) and reducing deepstrike range to 6" would have helped against anything other than tau sept fire warriors (oh, i forgot to use TUD, that would have hurt).
I was reluctant to give a 3rd wound since Terminators are quite durable against small arms fire, Except that the units that have small arms are so incredibly low cost and buffable that even 2+save gets whittled away pretty readily. That is except marines, who get fewer shots or str or ap generally.
Offensively the terminators did ok. Not incredible in part from dice favoring tau, but still they did some damage each turn and made an impact. Melee also made an impact, forcing morale rolls (one of which got bonding knifed). If I bothered with endless cacophony or armor rerolls it might have gone better.
Overall the change seems like the right direction. I would think that a real game looks different since a battalion shouldn't be unscathed T2 and assaulted by the precision strike team. But hey massed fire still counters them, Dd3 dmg and even D2 counters them alright (especially with fnps)
I'll try against hammerheads using power fits and melta to check viability there.
"You do realize that there are other things in the 40k universe that are, by fluff, as elite as Marines, right? " - Bharring. That should not be forgotten.
Ice_can,
Yes, I think there are things that are in more need of balance than Marines. Such as:
-IG troopers too good for their points
-Plas got too good
-Flamers & related not good enough
-Dissie/Reaper/Spears too good
"Oddly", when you look at most of the things people have been complaining about this edition, many of them are D:2 weapons:
-Plas -Reapers
-Spears
-Dissies
Bharring wrote: "It also better represents the "gap" between a Marine and regular human/Eldar/T'au/Ork." The durability gap? Maybe. Debatable about where exactly it should be. Certainly no worse off than they are now (twice as durable), but not necessarily 4x as durable.
Or are you talking about the elitism gap? You do realize that there are other things in the 40k universe that are, by fluff, as elite as Marines, right?
Kind of, but what I am trying to point out is that 'A' Marine isn't actual twice as durable as "A" Guardsman when you factor in AP modifiers and the 8E to Wound charge. Take the current HB, for example. Wound both on 3+. Reduces dice roll by -1 on both. If failed, both models die. While it is true that the Marine would get a 4+ to ignore, while the Guardsman only a 6+, than is NOT twice as durable. The Marine is also over 3x as expensive, so has more to lose.
Having 2W isn't even enough to double a Marine's durability due to so many weapons killing them anyway. The extra wound does almost nothing against Lascannons, Autocannon, Overcharging Plasma, Meltas, Missiles, Starcannons, and a myriad of other weapons that are ALREADY go-to choices to kill Marines. The extra wound only helps against other Troop's basic weapons and the very few weapons that only do D1. Considering other Troops weapons are often tailor made to benefit most against MEQs, I think it's more than fair.
Bharring wrote: "Oddly", when you look at most of the things people have been complaining about this edition, many of them are D:2 weapons: -Plas -Reapers -Spears -Dissies
Exactly my point above. The weapons that are currently the "best" don't even care about Marines being 2W. Except maybe Plasma which would want to Overcharge against them more than currently. 2W Marines are to make them less vulnerable to small arms fire.
EDIT: An alternative idea (that I'm not a huge fan of, but it might work) is to give all MEQs (and bikes) 2+ armour and TEQs 1+. With armour save modification, this change is more plausible in 8E than in prior editions. It would make Marines tougher to all weapons without needing +1W. You would also have to address TEQs now redundant invul save. Terminator armour, with this change, should either reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. **OR** have a rule like Venerable Dreads instead of the invul.
You brought up Chaos Terminators and Chosen getting the WS/BS2+ here and I'm glad you kinda did.
My issue with Chaos Marines is that these are supposed to be Vets Of The Long War...but they don't have Vet stats.
So while the wrong thread, I would actually get rid of the Chaos Marine entry entirely. Chosen are now the basic Troop choice and are base 15 points like most Marine Vets need to be. Then Havocs gain Vet stats as well.
I also have an idea that Cultists would act as blockers for any unit that's not a vehicle in a similar manner as Characters. Wrong thread though.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You brought up Chaos Terminators and Chosen getting the WS/BS2+ here and I'm glad you kinda did.
My issue with Chaos Marines is that these are supposed to be Vets Of The Long War...but they don't have Vet stats.
So while the wrong thread, I would actually get rid of the Chaos Marine entry entirely. Chosen are now the basic Troop choice and are base 15 points like most Marine Vets need to be. Then Havocs gain Vet stats as well. I also have an idea that Cultists would act as blockers for any unit that's not a vehicle in a similar manner as Characters. Wrong thread though.
Keep in mind that not all CSM have 10,000 years experience. Some are recently turned Renegades, others think the Heresy just happened yesterday due to the time affects of the Eye of Terror. So while some CSM should have boosted stats like Chosen and Termies, having Tac Marine equivalents as Troops is not far fetched.
Yeah, 2w marines is no big deal, but would conflicts with the primaris (but primaris shouldn't exist so ...).
What do you think about the 3k rule of "if a Tac squad didn't move, it can shoot twice" ? I have never seen anyone complaining about it .
godardc wrote: Yeah, 2w marines is no big deal, but would conflicts with the primaris (but primaris shouldn't exist so ...).
Agreed, but they do exist now. If we add +1W to the Marine line, I might keep Primaris at 2W/2A, but to make them different, I'd give them a rule that ignores damage on 6+ like a Venerable, or even 5+. Primaris would still have 2A (b/c I'd keep Tacs at 1A) and have a Bolt rifle. That should make them stand out enough
True, and for "Tactical" squads that have spent time training as Devs or Assault Marines, it certainly fits what they could potential do. It would also help against any target given that they could fire twice with their special/heavy weapon.
I might amend it to allow them to shoot twice regardless of moving, but if they chose to do so, they suffer -1 to hit if they moved. So you either: -Stay still and shoot twice, -Move and shoot once, -or move and shoot twice at -1 to hit
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You brought up Chaos Terminators and Chosen getting the WS/BS2+ here and I'm glad you kinda did.
My issue with Chaos Marines is that these are supposed to be Vets Of The Long War...but they don't have Vet stats.
So while the wrong thread, I would actually get rid of the Chaos Marine entry entirely. Chosen are now the basic Troop choice and are base 15 points like most Marine Vets need to be. Then Havocs gain Vet stats as well.
I also have an idea that Cultists would act as blockers for any unit that's not a vehicle in a similar manner as Characters. Wrong thread though.
Keep in mind that not all CSM have 10,000 years experience. Some are recently turned Renegades, others think the Heresy just happened yesterday due to the time affects of the Eye of Terror.
So while some CSM should have boosted stats like Chosen and Termies, having Tac Marine equivalents as Troops is not far fetched.
-
The Renegades argument doesn't work because any Renegades aren't going to have things like Reaper Autocannons or suddenly lose their Grav Guns.
Renegades need to be done in a Vanilla Codex setting because of this. You would choose your Chapter Tactic, but basically no access to those main Characters (Calgar ain't a Chaos Marine, duh), change around the keywords, and BAM done.
WS / BS: 2+
S / T: 8
A: 6
W: 12
Sv: 2+, ignores the first -2 points of AP Ld: 12
When an Astartes model is involved in a die roll, the opponent subtracts 1 from all die rolls. This penalty is increased to -2 in situations that the owner of the Astartes model feels is appropriate in their concept of the fluff.
The Boltgun profile is replaced with 30" range, S8, -3 AP, D3, Assault 8. This is to represent the Boltgun being superior to all weapons, even orbital bombardment.
Chainswords now Exile targeted creatures. If you pay 1 cp, and tap the top of the model, you may instead Exile target Vehicle. No Roll to hit is necessary. This ability can be used to target creatures and vehicles that would otherwise be untargetable, such as creatures with Shroud.
Transports now cost no points, and include a 5 man tactical squad for free. No more than 10 such units may be included in a battleforged army.
Marines are now 40 points base, to balance these upgrades (excluding free Tacticals included with free transports).
We should remember that 8th is has very little wiggle room to define attributes. 4+ws means well trained, well supported, lifelong soldiers. 3+ws means many lifespans of preparation and likely past experience. 2+ws means not just a seasoned warrior or even veteran but tech'd out leader with plot armor. GW wants every lieutenant to have a name and backstory (hence warlord traits and relics), not just the standard named characters of their printed stories.
So we can't go assigning +1ws to marines on their 400th birthday just like how crisis suits aren't between FW and marine WS because there is no room between 3+ and 4+. There is the fairly consistent convention of +1A +1Ld to account for experience. All marines get higher Ld than standard infantry and some people like myself would prefer their "jack of all trades" stats to include the extra attack to balance out (or allow bolter and chainsword intead of those pistols, some exclusions apply).
We should also limit the exaggeration of what's bad. This is more challenging when Aeldari forces are so min/maxed while things like csm traits tend to provide options that aren't particularly better than each other. (black legion bikers vs renegade, vs night lord bikers for example. i still can't decide). We shouldn't look to make everything the best, but bring it all to a fun medium. I'd rather see killiness toned down in general than have everything dakka like oblits in january.
+1A on Marines sounds like a good change. Not a major change, and wouldn't be anywhere close to enough to make them balanced. +1A 11ppm might be enough for Tacs themselves.
Bharring wrote: +1A on Marines sounds like a good change. Not a major change, and wouldn't be anywhere close to enough to make them balanced. +1A 11ppm might be enough for Tacs themselves.
Yeah, I prefer +1A in all situations instead of WS/BS2+, but it means "veterans" end up with like 4attacks each.
Again, who is elite in the fluff is irrelevant. What matters is whether 13 point models and 18 pt models play like 13 and 18 pt models. They don't. That's what matters. They're not even close. Trot your marines out against triple ravager and get back to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: +1A on Marines sounds like a good change. Not a major change, and wouldn't be anywhere close to enough to make them balanced. +1A 11ppm might be enough for Tacs themselves.
Shas'O'Ceris wrote: We should remember that 8th is has very little wiggle room to define attributes. 4+ws means well trained, well supported, lifelong soldiers. 3+ws means many lifespans of preparation and likely past experience. 2+ws means not just a seasoned warrior or even veteran but tech'd out leader with plot armor. GW wants every lieutenant to have a name and backstory (hence warlord traits and relics), not just the standard named characters of their printed stories.
So we can't go assigning +1ws to marines on their 400th birthday just like how crisis suits aren't between FW and marine WS because there is no room between 3+ and 4+. There is the fairly consistent convention of +1A +1Ld to account for experience. All marines get higher Ld than standard infantry and some people like myself would prefer their "jack of all trades" stats to include the extra attack to balance out (or allow bolter and chainsword intead of those pistols, some exclusions apply).
We should also limit the exaggeration of what's bad. This is more challenging when Aeldari forces are so min/maxed while things like csm traits tend to provide options that aren't particularly better than each other. (black legion bikers vs renegade, vs night lord bikers for example. i still can't decide). We shouldn't look to make everything the best, but bring it all to a fun medium. I'd rather see killiness toned down in general than have everything dakka like oblits in january.
Actually I'm all for Crisis Suits getting BS3+. Are you not for that?
Stormonu wrote: I think making any basic troops 2W is a bad, slippery slope. Many xeno armies could argue their basic troops should be 2W too (Necrons surely, for 1).
In prior editions, in which 1 failed save only did 1 wound, unless it was Instant Death. I'd agree with you.
But in 8E, more than half the weapons do multiple wounds. Having a higher T and better armour save is no longer an adequate representation of a Marine's durability.
Please keep in mind that my proposed changes are not only for balance, but to better represent how the units SHOULD perform in the fluff compared to others.
A super human walking tank should not die as easily to small arms fire as a regular, barely armoured human.
A Marine dying to a single lasgun wound just doesn't make any sense, no matter how hard it was to get that wound through the T and armour.
Necrons already have RPs, so they have already have the chance to get extra wounds. They also have better LD and better stock weapons.
Other Xenos Troops also have things that make them better than the current 1W Marines. Marines as Troops need a "niche" and I think it should be durability
-
RP is a terrible mechanic to really base durability on.
Martel732 wrote: I disagree. Things go wrong. Resorces are finite. At worst, its forcing some overkill.
You only ever need to try and reach for the average to kill what's left of the squad. You can always go for a little above average for emergencies but that's it. Need two Bolters? Use three in case. You'd do that in every other situation anyway.
RP is a really bad mechanic. It doensn't scale and it's build in the point cost. Want to make Marines 2W? Fine. You also need to increase W count on several other troops too.
That doesn't really address the issue, then. Marine troops need to be far and away the best, because the SAME STATLINE is their elite, heavy, etc. Marines don't get dark reapers, destroyers, gundam suits, etc. Marine vehicles are basically useless, except for a couple exceptions that WILL get the nerf hammer I'm sure.
I like these proposed rules, Galef. Assault units still a feel a little underwhelming, and the changes to shuriken weaponry probably warrant their own discussion, but 2 and 3 wound marines with "rending" bolters feels about right if you want to keep the cost of marines roughly the same.
Personally, I'd kind of like to see an overhaul of marines where they're a little less numerous and a little more individually powerful, but you've struck a good balance here.
1) +1W to all MEQs and TEQs.
In an edition in which weapons can cause multiple damage per a single failed save, there really is no reason that a standard Marine should only have 1W
Tactical Marines, Assault marines, Devs, etc as well as all the Chaos equivalents should be 2W standard. This MIGHT come with a 1-2ppm increase, but really no more than that
A 15 ppm 2 wound marine is exactly 2 times tougher than an ork boy point for point Vs d1 no ap weapons.
Besides after that you'll want them to be killier for points and get like, i don't know, ap1 and extra 6" on their bolters. Oh, and maybe rename them to something like primaris.
All it will lead to is make non-d2 weapons worse and d2 weapons better. As if plasma needs even more buffs.
It's hard to get for someone who plays multiple factions, including marines, how you can consider their current statline bad. Tacticals are decent atm.
1) +1W to all MEQs and TEQs.
In an edition in which weapons can cause multiple damage per a single failed save, there really is no reason that a standard Marine should only have 1W
Tactical Marines, Assault marines, Devs, etc as well as all the Chaos equivalents should be 2W standard. This MIGHT come with a 1-2ppm increase, but really no more than that
A 15 ppm 2 wound marine is exactly 2 times tougher than an ork boy point for point Vs d1 no ap weapons.
Besides after that you'll want them to be killier for points and get like, i don't know, ap1 and extra 6" on their bolters. Oh, and maybe rename them to something like primaris.
All it will lead to is make non-d2 weapons worse and d2 weapons better. As if plasma needs even more buffs.
It's hard to get for someone who plays multiple factions, including marines, how you can consider their current statline bad. Tacticals are decent atm.
I play AdMech, Necrons, Loyalist Scum and the Traitors. I can assure you the starline is bad.
Well, you said mutilators were bad in 7th and i've won 2 out of 3 highly competitive games running 6 of them. And they've been doing really good all along. In fact, better than obliterators that were widely considered good.
koooaei wrote: Well, you said mutilators were bad in 7th and i've won 2 out of 3 highly competitive games running 6 of them. And they've been doing really good all along. In fact, better than obliterators that were widely considered good.
And this is why nobody is taking you seriously, especially in the Grey Knight thread where you just said Crowe was a good HQ choice.
Why would i need that. A person asked a question about what's good, i've answered. If you really need someone else to tap you on the back and reinforce your overwhelming pointless negativity, you can do it yourself (go to the gk thread and say that everything sucks and feel better, i guess).
koooaei wrote: Why would i need that. A person asked a question about what's good, i've answered. If you really need someone else to tap you on the back and reinforce your overwhelming pointless negativity, you can do it yourself (go to the gk thread and say that everything sucks and feel better, i guess).
Oh cool, the whole "You're too negative" argument.
I think there's a reason you won't do it. Please dont defend Crowe if you don't have the guts to do it in the GK Tactica thread. Same logic is gonna apply in this thread as well, as Insectum7 is one of the singular people going to defend the Tactical Marine entry, but at least he'll attempt in the Marine thread as well.
I've been play-testing marines with 2 base attacks, a rule similar to that suggested in the astartes-built thread (reduce 1 ap for weapons with a damage of 1 or reduce 1 ap for weapons with a strength 5 or less), and a revised bolter drill (add 1 to the number of shots on bolt weapons). They become very durable, and their offensive output is significantly better.
Terminators with 3 wounds and 3 attacks hold up well, even with a slight points increase. Also, a teleport shunt stratagem to help them gain some needed mobility once they're on the battlefield.
koooaei wrote: A 15 ppm 2 wound marine is exactly 2 times tougher than an ork boy point for point Vs d1 no ap weapons.
Besides after that you'll want them to be killier for points and get like, i don't know, ap1 and extra 6" on their bolters. Oh, and maybe rename them to something like primaris.
All it will lead to is make non-d2 weapons worse and d2 weapons better. As if plasma needs even more buffs.
It's hard to get for someone who plays multiple factions, including marines, how you can consider their current statline bad. Tacticals are decent atm.
I think marines should be 16 points and 2W.
The math is actually not bad if you compare ork boys point for point getting shot at by say... a bolter.
Boy
2 shots -> (4/3) hits -> (2/3) wounds -> (5/9) damage -> (5/9) boyz dead -> 3.33 points gome
So a 2W space marine is only 1.87 times as durable point for point as an ork boy vs bolters... which is totally acceptable for me considering the boy has better damage output, and is the bolter's primary target (light infantry) while the marine isn't (heavy infantry). Add on top of that, the inherent advantages that having your wounds spread across multiple models provides...
Honestly GW (and ourselves) should address the glaring issues that are breaking the game before attempting in fixing things like this. The problem with MEQ is at least partially dependant on a lot of other problems with the game, most of which will be addressed eventually. If we buff MEQ against hoards and then hoards are nerfed, MEQ will probably be too good against hoards and need to be nerfed back down making the initial buff pointless.
The problem with MEQ won't and shouldn't be addressed until the fixes to other major problems are implemented so they can be balanced around said fixes.
Necron_Mason wrote: Honestly GW (and ourselves) should address the glaring issues that are breaking the game before attempting in fixing things like this. The problem with MEQ is at least partially dependant on a lot of other problems with the game, most of which will be addressed eventually. If we buff MEQ against hoards and then hoards are nerfed, MEQ will probably be too good against hoards and need to be nerfed back down making the initial buff pointless.
The problem with MEQ won't and shouldn't be addressed until the fixes to other major problems are implemented so they can be balanced around said fixes.
Which 'said' fixes? I don't agree with you one bit, but I'm willing to read what you are thinking.
Necron_Mason wrote: Honestly GW (and ourselves) should address the glaring issues that are breaking the game before attempting in fixing things like this. The problem with MEQ is at least partially dependant on a lot of other problems with the game, most of which will be addressed eventually. If we buff MEQ against hoards and then hoards are nerfed, MEQ will probably be too good against hoards and need to be nerfed back down making the initial buff pointless.
The problem with MEQ won't and shouldn't be addressed until the fixes to other major problems are implemented so they can be balanced around said fixes.
Which 'said' fixes? I don't agree with you one bit, but I'm willing to read what you are thinking.
'Said' fixes referring to previous sentence talking about fixes that have not been released yet but are undoubtedly on their way. Its pointless to try to balance MEQ right now, as they would probably need to be balanced again once those fixes are eventually released.
For example: If MEQ went up to 2 wounds, they would be stronger against hoards. However, the fix to hoards comes in (increase in points, changing weapons to be better against hoards, ect.), hoards will lose power and come in line with other unit types. We would then have MEQ with this anti-hoard buff against now weaker hoards, making MEQOP against hoards and requiring them to be nerfed back down to 1 wound.
Whatever changes they make to address the major problems of 40k, MEQ will more than likely have to be balanced afterwards despite whether they balance them right now or not.
Necron_Mason wrote: Honestly GW (and ourselves) should address the glaring issues that are breaking the game before attempting in fixing things like this. The problem with MEQ is at least partially dependant on a lot of other problems with the game, most of which will be addressed eventually. If we buff MEQ against hoards and then hoards are nerfed, MEQ will probably be too good against hoards and need to be nerfed back down making the initial buff pointless.
The problem with MEQ won't and shouldn't be addressed until the fixes to other major problems are implemented so they can be balanced around said fixes.
Which 'said' fixes? I don't agree with you one bit, but I'm willing to read what you are thinking.
'Said' fixes referring to previous sentence talking about fixes that have not been released yet but are undoubtedly on their way. Its pointless to try to balance MEQ right now, as they would probably need to be balanced again once those fixes are eventually released.
For example: If MEQ went up to 2 wounds, they would be stronger against hoards. However, the fix to hoards comes in (increase in points, changing weapons to be better against hoards, ect.), hoards will lose power and come in line with other unit types. We would then have MEQ with this anti-hoard buff against now weaker hoards, making MEQOP against hoards and requiring them to be nerfed back down to 1 wound.
Whatever changes they make to the major problems to 40k, MEQ will more than likely have to be balanced afterwards, despite whether they balance them right now or not.
I agree that hoards need rebalancing, but is there actually any evidence that GW is putting any effort into doing so?
They seem to be more concerned that shine new primaris (not marines in general) are nowhere to be seen rather than the reasons why that is the case.
I'm genuinely expect CA 2018 to just cut the points of primaris down to another 2 points across the board and them call it done. As GW wont care if its only deathwatch aslong as primaris start showing at events.
I agree that hoards need rebalancing, but is there actually any evidence that GW is putting any effort into doing so?
They seem to be more concerned that shine new primaris (not marines in general) are nowhere to be seen rather than the reasons why that is the case.
I'm genuinely expect CA 2018 to just cut the points of primaris down to another 2 points across the board and them call it done. As GW wont care if its only deathwatch aslong as primaris start showing at events.
I am sure that making sure that Primaris are more playable is high on their agenda, but if they have any business sense at all they will be working on addressing the main issues that are hurting the health of their game. It was because of issues like those that required them to do a whole revamp of the game, so that shows that they are putting forth effort to address these problems. If they didn't have any plans to fix these issues, they wouldn't have gone as far with 8th as they did.
Martel732 wrote: There are over a dozen BA kits, but the only BA units being used are scouts and captains. That's got to concern them as well.
Actually from a business perspective probably not as most people playing blood angles probably already own those kits, it's about selling new kits not making old kits playable. Hence why managment are pissed that primaris marines arn't selling as well as they want.
With marines the only way to get exsisting players to buy new kits is primaris as everything else has basically been done. Squatting marines would be bad business due to the PR/player backlash but just making primaris marines slowly better than old marines is more likely to be successful. Though how exactlly they intend to bridge the gap with vehicals I have no idea as the repulsor is offensively ugly and terrible in game.
Necron_Mason wrote: Said' fixes referring to previous sentence talking about fixes that have not been released yet but are undoubtedly on their way. Its pointless to try to balance MEQ right now, as they would probably need to be balanced again once those fixes are eventually released.
For example: If MEQ went up to 2 wounds, they would be stronger against hoards. However, the fix to hoards comes in (increase in points, changing weapons to be better against hoards, ect.), hoards will lose power and come in line with other unit types. We would then have MEQ with this anti-hoard buff against now weaker hoards, making MEQOP against hoards and requiring them to be nerfed back down to 1 wound.
Whatever changes they make to address the major problems of 40k, MEQ will more than likely have to be balanced afterwards despite whether they balance them right now or not.
So completely hypothetical assumptions on your part, which was what I was alluding to in my response. I'm also a bit baffled that you claim we shouldn't change marines because GW is going to fix the glaring problems of the game later, as though the changes people use or suggest in this proposed rules forum would somehow be 'official.' Then to suggest that GW would blindly add these changes into their updates without any understanding of how they function together with what they're working on--it's just weirdly absurd.
I'm not sure why you or anyone else posting in this part of the forum thinks that somehow suggested changes posted here will be adopted by the designers. I see this section as more inspiration for players willing to use house rules and aren't confined to playing only GW stamped material.
Martel732 wrote: There are over a dozen BA kits, but the only BA units being used are scouts and captains. That's got to concern them as well.
Actually from a business perspective probably not as most people playing blood angles probably already own those kits, it's about selling new kits not making old kits playable. Hence why managment are pissed that primaris marines arn't selling as well as they want.
With marines the only way to get exsisting players to buy new kits is primaris as everything else has basically been done. Squatting marines would be bad business due to the PR/player backlash but just making primaris marines slowly better than old marines is more likely to be successful. Though how exactlly they intend to bridge the gap with vehicals I have no idea as the repulsor is offensively ugly and terrible in game.
My play group has two brand new players who want to run BA and have no old models. That's 5% of the group.
Necron_Mason wrote: Said' fixes referring to previous sentence talking about fixes that have not been released yet but are undoubtedly on their way. Its pointless to try to balance MEQ right now, as they would probably need to be balanced again once those fixes are eventually released.
For example: If MEQ went up to 2 wounds, they would be stronger against hoards. However, the fix to hoards comes in (increase in points, changing weapons to be better against hoards, ect.), hoards will lose power and come in line with other unit types. We would then have MEQ with this anti-hoard buff against now weaker hoards, making MEQOP against hoards and requiring them to be nerfed back down to 1 wound.
Whatever changes they make to address the major problems of 40k, MEQ will more than likely have to be balanced afterwards despite whether they balance them right now or not.
So completely hypothetical assumptions on your part, which was what I was alluding to in my response. I'm also a bit baffled that you claim we shouldn't change marines because GW is going to fix the glaring problems of the game later, as though the changes people use or suggest in this proposed rules forum would somehow be 'official.' Then to suggest that GW would blindly add these changes into their updates without any understanding of how they function together with what they're working on--it's just weirdly absurd.
I'm not sure why you or anyone else posting in this part of the forum thinks that somehow suggested changes posted here will be adopted by the designers. I see this section as more inspiration for players willing to use house rules and aren't confined to playing only GW stamped material.
If you read my post, you would know that it is far from theoretical. GW has made it clear that they are determined to fix these changes, and they have shown that with 8th edition. They would not of taken such drastic measures when they designed, playtested, and released 8th edition if they were not serious about issues like this.
You are making incorrect jumps in logic here. I am far from suggesting that these proposed rules will become official or that GW pulls there rules from here. Correct me if I am wrong, but Proposed Rules is also for what we think the rules should be and what GW should do, as well as house rules to patch the game in between GW changes. The original post looks much less like house rules and more like explaining how to fix the MEQ, so I was trying to say that talking about what GW should do with MEQ is pointless until we know what GW is doing about other problems. That is the impression that I got from the original post, so I apologize if that is not how it was intended. House rules to patch the game while GW is working on fixing the core problems is great, but for gameplay sake the changes should be small things like point reductions and work their way up if that is not enough, as changing key things like wounds and adding new rules could easily throw off the balance.
That is partly true. You either have to keep the rest of the game in mind, or whatever other potential fixes you have in mind and make mention of them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That is partly true. You either have to keep the rest of the game in mind, or whatever other potential fixes you have in mind and make mention of them.
Indeed, it is extremely difficult to change major things in the game without checking against every opponent you could face, as you can easily lose balance. Changing things like BS/WS, Wounds, and adding rules could inadvertently effect Marines matchup verses other armies in negitive ways. Adding an extra wound could easily have a negitive effect against Necrons and their Warriors. 10 MEQ vs 10 Warriors would probably outlast the Warriors, as unless the Warriors make 10 successful 5+ RP rolls, the Marines have more survivalibily. Necron's main tactic is attrition, so Marines possibily beating them in that aspect seems a bit unfair. Of course I haven't done any mathhammer and that is within a vacuum while not considering outside units, but you get the theoretical idea.
I think a more effective way to go about this would be to come up with "House Rules when facing 'X' army" and only use those rules against that army, but that is only if we are still talking about temporary rules and not what we think the rules actually should be. It would take a lot more rule crafting, but it would be easier to balance compared to a blanket rule change.
Necron_Mason wrote: If you read my post, you would know that it is far from theoretical. GW has made it clear that they are determined to fix these changes, and they have shown that with 8th edition. They would not of taken such drastic measures when they designed, playtested, and released 8th edition if they were not serious about issues like this.
You are making incorrect jumps in logic here. I am far from suggesting that these proposed rules will become official or that GW pulls there rules from here. Correct me if I am wrong, but Proposed Rules is also for what we think the rules should be and what GW should do, as well as house rules to patch the game in between GW changes. The original post looks much less like house rules and more like explaining how to fix the MEQ, so I was trying to say that talking about what GW should do with MEQ is pointless until we know what GW is doing about other problems. That is the impression that I got from the original post, so I apologize if that is not how it was intended. House rules to patch the game while GW is working on fixing the core problems is great, but for gameplay sake the changes should be small things like point reductions and work their way up if that is not enough, as changing key things like wounds and adding new rules could easily throw off the balance.
I've read your post. The theoretical part is on your end that GW is going to nerf hoards. How do you know? What does that mean exactly? How will it help marines specifically? How will it change their poor stat-line and base weaponry that were lazily ported over into 8th? How does 2 wounds weaken hoards, or rather, why is it specifically a matter of marines vs hoards and not a consideration against all armies? You used 'hoards' as an example, but gave no details as to why 2w marines with other changes/points updates was problematic against them.
There's no incorrect jump of logic on my end at all. I see it all the time, people posting in here to vehemently oppose a rule or proposal with the mentality that these will somehow be adopted by GW. Some people think that's how rules should be when posting here. Others realize that the proposed rules forum is meant more to encourage players to house rule their own changes. If it has enough backing then maybe GW will pay attention, but that's a long stretch to assume that and (most often) people posting here with that mentality are wasting their time. The OP is probably guilty of this thought process, I don't know. People want to suggest changes to get GW's attention but it often does little or nothing at all. Who knows what the 40k games designers have planned for space marines at the moment. If I had to guess, it's probably more of the same from the first chapter approved--some points tweaks. I truly want to be wrong though. I want to see a balanced game from them, but I doubt they're capable.
House rules can be as large or small as desired. They also can be incredibly useful, but sadly most (40k) players aren't willing to house rule very often. Obviously in pick-up games its difficult to come to those agreements where changing the rules or stats of the game will give advantages to one player, even if it's to offset the disadvantages. In those situations it's near impossible to use any modifications, so it makes sense that some people don't like to or can't use house rules.
But claiming house rule changes throw off the balance when there's very little of it in the first place is somewhat ironic. My group of 40k players came up with significant changes to 7th and it played much more balanced than GW's version. We knew it because we played it and modified it--over and over again. We saw the current problems, and found issues/imbalance with what we were changing and we fixed them That's what play-testing accomplishes. It's also why I'm suspicious when GW claims this edition is the most play-tested ever. Which means what exactly--going from little or no play testing to slightly more play testing is the most play tested ever by their standards? It's still grossly meaningless, especially when there are such obvious issues with game-play and codex balance that even the most casual players notice after a few games.
In regards to marines having 2 wounds. I absolutely believe this should be the case now. I also think they should have made 'primaris' marines the new model successor to the old kits making this issue completely irrelevant with only one stat-line to figure out and balance. However, I asked one of the long-time marines players in our group if he believed they should have 2 wounds and essentially use the primaris stats, and he said it wasn't necessary with the other changes we've been using to fix marines. So we've been using those changes instead.
As an aside, I've played many armies throughout several editions of 40k. My first army was blood angels, but I sold them years ago. I now play chaos daemons (without csm allies) as my primary army and I realize that marines are in a bad place at the moment. It's easy to see for anyone that isn't in complete denial. So much so that I was easily crushing the marine players every game, especially when they weren't using a crutch like Roboute.
I like a challenge, and my opponents don't like to get stomped every game--if they do, they lose desire to play 40k and quit. That's why we've been making changes to marines, because they aren't good, and they aren't where they need to be in 8th.
Necron_Mason wrote: If you read my post, you would know that it is far from theoretical. GW has made it clear that they are determined to fix these changes, and they have shown that with 8th edition. They would not of taken such drastic measures when they designed, playtested, and released 8th edition if they were not serious about issues like this.
You are making incorrect jumps in logic here. I am far from suggesting that these proposed rules will become official or that GW pulls there rules from here. Correct me if I am wrong, but Proposed Rules is also for what we think the rules should be and what GW should do, as well as house rules to patch the game in between GW changes. The original post looks much less like house rules and more like explaining how to fix the MEQ, so I was trying to say that talking about what GW should do with MEQ is pointless until we know what GW is doing about other problems. That is the impression that I got from the original post, so I apologize if that is not how it was intended. House rules to patch the game while GW is working on fixing the core problems is great, but for gameplay sake the changes should be small things like point reductions and work their way up if that is not enough, as changing key things like wounds and adding new rules could easily throw off the balance.
I've read your post. The theoretical part is on your end that GW is going to nerf hoards. How do you know? What does that mean exactly? How will it help marines specifically? How will it change their poor stat-line and base weaponry that were lazily ported over into 8th? How does 2 wounds weaken hoards, or rather, why is it specifically a matter of marines vs hoards and not a consideration against all armies? You used 'hoards' as an example, but gave no details as to why 2w marines with other changes/points updates was problematic against them.
There's no incorrect jump of logic on my end at all. I see it all the time, people posting in here to vehemently oppose a rule or proposal with the mentality that these will somehow be adopted by GW. Some people think that's how rules should be when posting here. Others realize that the proposed rules forum is meant more to encourage players to house rule their own changes. If it has enough backing then maybe GW will pay attention, but that's a long stretch to assume that and (most often) people posting here with that mentality are wasting their time. The OP is probably guilty of this thought process, I don't know. People want to suggest changes to get GW's attention but it often does little or nothing at all. Who knows what the 40k games designers have planned for space marines at the moment. If I had to guess, it's probably more of the same from the first chapter approved--some points tweaks. I truly want to be wrong though. I want to see a balanced game from them, but I doubt they're capable.
House rules can be as large or small as desired. They also can be incredibly useful, but sadly most (40k) players aren't willing to house rule very often. Obviously in pick-up games its difficult to come to those agreements where changing the rules or stats of the game will give advantages to one player, even if it's to offset the disadvantages. In those situations it's near impossible to use any modifications, so it makes sense that some people don't like to or can't use house rules.
But claiming house rule changes throw off the balance when there's very little of it in the first place is somewhat ironic. My group of 40k players came up with significant changes to 7th and it played much more balanced than GW's version. We knew it because we played it and modified it--over and over again. We saw the current problems, and found issues/imbalance with what we were changing and we fixed them That's what play-testing accomplishes. It's also why I'm suspicious when GW claims this edition is the most play-tested ever. Which means what exactly--going from little or no play testing to slightly more play testing is the most play tested ever by their standards? It's still grossly meaningless, especially when there are such obvious issues with game-play and codex balance that even the most casual players notice after a few games.
In regards to marines having 2 wounds. I absolutely believe this should be the case now. I also think they should have made 'primaris' marines the new model successor to the old kits making this issue completely irrelevant with only one stat-line to figure out and balance. However, I asked one of the long-time marines players in our group if he believed they should have 2 wounds and essentially use the primaris stats, and he said it wasn't necessary with the other changes we've been using to fix marines. So we've been using those changes instead.
As an aside, I've played many armies throughout several editions of 40k. My first army was blood angels, but I sold them years ago. I now play chaos daemons (without csm allies) as my primary army and I realize that marines are in a bad place at the moment. It's easy to see for anyone that isn't in complete denial. So much so that I was easily crushing the marine players every game, especially when they weren't using a crutch like Roboute.
I like a challenge, and my opponents don't like to get stomped every game--if they do, they lose desire to play 40k and quit. That's why we've been making changes to marines, because they aren't good, and they aren't where they need to be in 8th.
That is quiet a bit to address, so let me go in order...
Spoiler:
The theoretical part is on your end that GW is going to nerf hoards. How do you know?
It is theoretical in the sense that it is not confirmed to be true, but with the massive shift in GW's attitude towards rule balancing they have done since 8th edition, it is a fair statement to say they are working on a fix for hoards. They did a massive overhaul of the entire game and they have made significant changes towards things were OP (Flyrants and first turn Deepstriking being two prime examples), so they are obviously making an drastically improved effort to fix glaring issues that are hurting the game's health. Since the hoard meta is something that is hurting the game's health, it's safe to assume that they are working on correcting it.
What does that mean exactly? How will it help marines specifically? How will it change their poor stat-line and base weaponry that were lazily ported over into 8th?
It means that there will be a change that results in hoards not being the best pick in nearly all situations and weaken their oppressive power over elite armies. I am not GW so I don't know exactly what they plan to do. Pretty much everyone was ported over poorly into 8th edition. However it is not because GW was lazy, but because they wanted everyone to have an army with updated rules so that they could play 8th edition. If they didn't rush it out like that, they would of had to take multiple months building and play testing each codex, while many armies would sit unplayable since they would not have updated rules. The Indexes brought everyone into 8th, the Codices improved and build upon what the Indexes established, and if my guess is correct, the second wave of Codices will bring much more creative and work on changing the rules that did not port over well. The Indexes build the foundation, the first wave of Codices are building on top of said foundation, and more than likely the second wave of Codices will fine tune everything while also introducing new things since they won't have to rush it. In short, they didn't rush it because they were lazy, but because they wanted everyone to be able to play 8th to a reasonable standard as soon as possible.
How does 2 wounds weaken hoards, or rather, why is it specifically a matter of marines vs hoards and not a consideration against all armies? You used 'hoards' as an example, but gave no details as to why 2w marines with other changes/points updates was problematic against them.
It weakens them by making Marines more hoard-like against hoards. Hoards usually have weak weapons, so a high armored, high wound model with a decent gun helps as it essentially doubles the damage that the hoards need to put out to get rid of them. I am fully aware that these changes would effect other armies, and go into detail about what it can do to other armies in another post. However I was just using hoards as an example and assumed that people knew that blanket rule changes would also inadvertently effect other armies, so I didn't bring it up until someone else did. It's "problematic" in the sense that it would make MEQ better against hoards, but also better against other things that they were balanced against. An example can be found in the comment replying to Slayer-Fan123
There's no incorrect jump of logic on my end at all. I see it all the time, people posting in here to vehemently oppose a rule or proposal with the mentality that these will somehow be adopted by GW. Some people think that's how rules should be when posting here. Others realize that the proposed rules forum is meant more to encourage players to house rule their own changes. If it has enough backing then maybe GW will pay attention, but that's a long stretch to assume that and (most often) people posting here with that mentality are wasting their time. The OP is probably guilty of this thought process, I don't know. People want to suggest changes to get GW's attention but it often does little or nothing at all.
Your incorrect jump in logic is thinking that I also think this way, while in fact I have a similar view. I was saying that we shouldn't discuss absolute rule changes that GW should do because it is pointless to do so at this moment, we just approach it from different reasoning. You think that Proposed Rules (correct me if I am wrong) should mainly be house rules to make the game more balanced as there is no point in discussing rules that GW should implement, while I say it's okay to discuss rules that GW should implement as long as the game is in a state where those rule changes would be acceptable. There is little to no chance that a GW developer is actively stalking the Proposed Rules section looking for tips, but there is an email they have that is dedicated for rule change ideas. Proposed Rules is a great place to hone our rule ideas, see what does and doesn't work, and send them in. The problem arises when our rules ideas will more than likely become obsolete when GW rolls out their own fixes for the problem, making this all moot. Instead of theory crafting rules to making MEQ better against hoards and sending them in to GW, we should just focus on making hoards not as good. It makes more sense to nerf hoards than to buff literally everything else. On the other hand we can just create temporary "patch rules" for each army that has an unfair advantage against Marines, every set of rule changes being tailor made to make Marines more balanced against that specific army. This would avoid making Marines more powerful against targets that they are fine against, and would create a more balanced game for Marine players until new rules eventually come out.
If I had to guess, it's probably more of the same from the first chapter approved--some points tweaks. I truly want to be wrong though. I want to see a balanced game from them, but I doubt they're capable.
Now you are making hypothetical assumptions saying that since GW didn't fix the Marine's situation in the last CA, but probably won't. There is more evidence for the fact that they focused on other issues that they knew they could address quickly and didn't address Marines and hoards because that is a much more difficult problem that takes much more rule crafting and playtesting to resolve. Problems like the Alpha Strike meta had much more simple solutions that they could easily resolve. They even delayed CA to get those changes in! They clearly are working hard on creating a more balanced game, much harder than they have in the past.
But claiming house rule changes throw off the balance when there's very little of it in the first place is somewhat ironic. My group of 40k players came up with significant changes to 7th and it played much more balanced than GW's version. We knew it because we played it and modified it--over and over again.
"Screw trying to introduce balanced house rules the game because there such little balance to begin with" is a very unhealthy way to look at this game. Saying that while also claiming that you implement house rules to create a more balanced game is the true irony here. I would prefer house rules that are balanced, no matter how unbalanced the game already is. I am sure that is not what you meant, but that is surely what it sounded like.
We saw the current problems, and found issues/imbalance with what we were changing and we fixed them That's what play-testing accomplishes. It's also why I'm suspicious when GW claims this edition is the most play-tested ever. Which means what exactly--going from little or no play testing to slightly more play testing is the most play tested ever by their standards? It's still grossly meaningless, especially when there are such obvious issues with game-play and codex balance that even the most casual players notice after a few games.
GW probably did the same thing, but consider this. You had the luxury of working with a base set of already existing rules. With 8th edition, GW started from a relatively clean slate. They changed a lot in this edition and probably required much more playtesting to begin with compared to other editions, let alone the amount of playtesting needed to make it balanced. Is GW the best at balancing? Of course not. They are however getting better. They went to a major tournament to observe and see what they saw wrong. Then they corrected said issues they saw. Some were better corrected than others, but they are getting better at it.
I now play chaos daemons (without csm allies) as my primary army and I realize that marines are in a bad place at the moment. It's easy to see for anyone that isn't in complete denial. So much so that I was easily crushing the marine players every game, especially when they weren't using a crutch like Roboute.
I like a challenge, and my opponents don't like to get stomped every game--if they do, they lose desire to play 40k and quit. That's why we've been making changes to marines, because they aren't good, and they aren't where they need to be in 8th.
I absolutely agree, Marines are in a horrible place right now. However, what changes we do make need to consider two things...
1. The changes should not be considered for what the official rules should be and will need to be updated when GW tries to fix the problem.
2. The changes should be tailored specifically for each army (a set of rule changes for against Orks, a set rule changes for against IG, etc.) OR that the rules should be tailored specifically for the group of people I usually play against.
The second rule is mainly for if Marines are fighting against an army they are relatively balanced against (not sure that exist, but it applies to house rules for non-Marine armies as well), they do not get a buff against them that makes it unfair and not fun for the player playing against the Marines.
I find this discussion insightful, so thank you for commenting on it ^_^
ALL (including non marines) power armour goes to 2+ save, Artificer and Terminator to 1+
Get rid of all the pointless snowflake units and give those all options to the vanilla Marines - so give all Terminators the option to have all mixed squads, Tacticals to have chainsword option etc - this would allow all the myriad of currently non represented Chapters to be represented who have similar or the same combat styles as the super special Chapters. The fluff remains the same.
Where possible make the snowflake units available to generic Marines - again a "Cavalry" unit option rather than just WOLFY WOLF Wolves. Psychic Dreadnoughts etc
Keep the very few actual unique units (1 or 2 per Chapter) and add new ones - Raven Guard stealth team, Salmander Terminators, etc
ALL (including non marines) power armour goes to 2+ save, Artificer and Terminator to 1+
Get rid of all the pointless snowflake units and give those all options to the vanilla Marines - so give all Terminators the option to have all mixed squads, Tacticals to have chainsword option etc - this would allow all the myriad of currently non represented Chapters to be represented who have similar or the same combat styles as the super special Chapters. The fluff remains the same.
Where possible make the snowflake units available to generic Marines - again a "Cavalry" unit option rather than just WOLFY WOLF Wolves. Psychic Dreadnoughts etc
Keep the very few actual unique units.
Yes! This I could get behind! I would love some acces to baal pattern predators for my templars. (after all we offered up our crusader LR pattern). And inferno pistols for sergeants! And heavy flamers for tacticals! Enough of the special treatments for certain capters.
ALL (including non marines) power armour goes to 2+ save, Artificer and Terminator to 1+
Get rid of all the pointless snowflake units and give those all options to the vanilla Marines - so give all Terminators the option to have all mixed squads, Tacticals to have chainsword option etc - this would allow all the myriad of currently non represented Chapters to be represented who have similar or the same combat styles as the super special Chapters. The fluff remains the same.
Where possible make the snowflake units available to generic Marines - again a "Cavalry" unit option rather than just WOLFY WOLF Wolves. Psychic Dreadnoughts etc
Keep the very few actual unique units.
Yes! This I could get behind! I would love some acces to baal pattern predators for my templars. (after all we offered up our crusader LR pattern). And inferno pistols for sergeants! And heavy flamers for tacticals! Enough of the special treatments for certain capters.
Indeed there is variety in the Astartes - nothing like the Guard but still some and so many Chapters are not represented currently. Add in Sniper rifle options for tacticals etc (Raven Guard) and look at non snowflake Chapters for other interesting things - make Marines much more interesting and variable without having to flanderise a few.
Keep the fluff but reduce the unnecessary units that mforce vanilla units have to be worse.
ALL (including non marines) power armour goes to 2+ save, Artificer and Terminator to 1+
Get rid of all the pointless snowflake units and give those all options to the vanilla Marines - so give all Terminators the option to have all mixed squads, Tacticals to have chainsword option etc - this would allow all the myriad of currently non represented Chapters to be represented who have similar or the same combat styles as the super special Chapters. The fluff remains the same.
Where possible make the snowflake units available to generic Marines - again a "Cavalry" unit option rather than just WOLFY WOLF Wolves. Psychic Dreadnoughts etc
Keep the very few actual unique units (1 or 2 per Chapter) and add new ones - Raven Guard stealth team, Salmander Terminators, etc
I'm not for consolidating Space Wolves but the Angel chapters would be pretty easy to handle.
ALL (including non marines) power armour goes to 2+ save, Artificer and Terminator to 1+
Get rid of all the pointless snowflake units and give those all options to the vanilla Marines - so give all Terminators the option to have all mixed squads, Tacticals to have chainsword option etc - this would allow all the myriad of currently non represented Chapters to be represented who have similar or the same combat styles as the super special Chapters. The fluff remains the same.
Where possible make the snowflake units available to generic Marines - again a "Cavalry" unit option rather than just WOLFY WOLF Wolves. Psychic Dreadnoughts etc
Keep the very few actual unique units (1 or 2 per Chapter) and add new ones - Raven Guard stealth team, Salmander Terminators, etc
Especially when most unique units can be represented by other units. Ironclad Dreads for Furiosos anyone?
godardc wrote: Yeah, 2w marines is no big deal, but would conflicts with the primaris (but primaris shouldn't exist so ...).
What do you think about the 3k rule of "if a Tac squad didn't move, it can shoot twice" ? I have never seen anyone complaining about it .
I don't like that rule - marines want to be moving.
While true Primaris "shouldn't" exist. They do exist. So - lets at least make the best of them.
Space marine 14 points 2w/2A with a trash bolter and weapons options (Grav Cannon goes down to 18 points/ Plasma Cannon and Multi Melta 15 points/Rock and lascannon 20 points/ heavy bolter 8 - Plasma guns 12/ melta 10/ flamer 5)
Primaris marine 20 points 3w/3A with better bolters - Bolter rilfes 0 points no change - assault bolters 0 points str 4 assault 3 18" - +2 points stalker bolter (gets sniper rule)
Good lord, lemme throw all my fixes in a post. Some of these suggestions are ridiculous.
A primaris marine is the size of an organ. Warriors have 3 wounds and 3 attacks and probably need a price drop to 16 or 18 or so. If space marines are 2 wounds - which they absolutely should be - 3 wound primaris makes the most sense.
Then present arguments outside the usual compelling "They work against my bad opponents".
Quoth some guy named Slayer:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Marines are okay already for durability. If you want more than that, you have options (Iron Hands and Raven Guard, Alpha Legion). My issue is offense entirely.
You do it. I'm so bored with it. I did in the other thread already anyways. "It cheapens everyone else's basic units and weapons."
Then present arguments outside the usual compelling "They work against my bad opponents".
Quoth some guy named Slayer:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Marines are okay already for durability. If you want more than that, you have options (Iron Hands and Raven Guard, Alpha Legion). My issue is offense entirely.
You do it. I'm so bored with it. I did in the other thread already anyways. "It cheapens everyone else's basic units and weapons."
My point is that we are presenting arguments and you aren't. In this subforum you gotta do better than "No".
-I really like the idea of Gman rewriting his codex so that the basic marine troop choice is “marine squad,” and then you can just take wargear to make them ASM or devs etc.
-No marine should have less than 2 swings in melee. For the supposed-to-be generalists, 1A is unacceptable.
-astartes power armor cuts AP value in half, rounded down. If you want to get through the best-armored basic troop’s armor save, bring some heavy stuff. They shouldn’t be dropping left and right to ap 1 and 2.
-bolters become rapid fire 2 if the unit doesn’t move. Give the gun with a weight of fire statline some actual weight of fire. Alternatively buff it into a powerful gun. Either way they need to decide what it should be, because right now it’s a weight of fire gun that you get power-gun amounts of.
The way I see it, is there are fundamental problems with Marines in terms of durability per point- which were exasperated by 8th edition.
1) Changes to Damage Tables makes differences in toughness and strength less meaningful 2) Changes to Armor Penetration makes differences in armor saves less meaningful 3) the introduction of multi wound weapons makes differences in number of wounds less meaningful.
Of course, when combined with these changes, GW did not tone down weapons or armies access to weapons. What this essentially creates is a top heavy system where a models damage potential far outpaces their defensive potential. Defensive stats are still worth something of course, but in the scheme of things they are worth less than they are currently priced at by GW, and they are worse less than they have ever been in the game previously.
This leads to the current situation where the best defense for your important units, is other units screening for them. The best defensive "stat" is now # of models. So if you have an important gun unit in your army, that outputs a ton of damage. The best way to protect it is to put a wall of fleshy bits inbetween your opponent and your unit. Keeping your opponent from getting at your best unit with rapid fire or assault, and making them deal with a large number of disposable bodies before they can get at the good stuff. AP -3 is wasted vs a 6+ armor save, S9 is wasted vs t3, S5 is equivalent vs T3 and T4. D6 wounds is wasted on single wound models. Etc.
To compound this issue, armies are actually heavily rewarded by taking larger numbers of cheap squads because they are frequently troops and thus reward the player with a larger number of Command points. To further bolster the effectiveness of their damage dealing squads.
Enter the basic Guardsmen. At 4 points per model, 30 of him can be fielded for 120 points. Providing the player with a large number of disposable bodies, that take up a lot of space, to clog your opponent up, and generate you command points.
Elite armies are going to stagnate in 8th edition unless GW can figure out a way to make Defensive Stats worthwhile. Right now the best defense in 40K is having a wall of cheap disposable flesh between you and the enemy. They only way they are going to be able to do that is to reduce access to heavy and special weapons across the board, and / or reduce the power of those weapons so that the added durability of Marines can actually protect them.
Second, GW needs to divorce Command Points from number of squads. Right now having more small squads generates more command points which makes your damage dealers more efficient because stratagems are very good. If you want people to actually have an incentive to take elite troops, you need to make sure that an elite army and a horde army have comparable numbers of CP, otherwise the horde will always prevail because they will often have double or triple the CP!!
akaean wrote: The way I see it, is there are fundamental problems with Marines in terms of durability per point- which were exasperated by 8th edition.
1) Changes to Damage Tables makes differences in toughness and strength less meaningful 2) Changes to Armor Penetration makes differences in armor saves less meaningful 3) the introduction of multi wound weapons makes differences in number of wounds less meaningful.
Of course, when combined with these changes, GW did not tone down weapons or armies access to weapons. What this essentially creates is a top heavy system where a models damage potential far outpaces their defensive potential. Defensive stats are still worth something of course, but in the scheme of things they are worth less than they are currently priced at by GW, and they are worse less than they have ever been in the game previously.
This leads to the current situation where the best defense for your important units, is other units screening for them. The best defensive "stat" is now # of models. So if you have an important gun unit in your army, that outputs a ton of damage. The best way to protect it is to put a wall of fleshy bits inbetween your opponent and your unit. Keeping your opponent from getting at your best unit with rapid fire or assault, and making them deal with a large number of disposable bodies before they can get at the good stuff. AP -3 is wasted vs a 6+ armor save, S9 is wasted vs t3, S5 is equivalent vs T3 and T4. D6 wounds is wasted on single wound models. Etc.
This is very well said and illustrates why I think Marines were not adequately translated into 8E. Better T and armour used to be enough to represent them, but now it is not.
What is sad is that it looks like GW had this thought (2W Marines) early on when developing 8E. They also seem to have wanted to make some new Marine models.
But rather than push forward and start 8E with regular Marines having the Primaris stat line with some alternate new sculpts available, GW wussed out and created the Primaris line instead.
GW just needs to come up with a formula that assigns point costs to units and equipment.
Most of the unbalanced units in 8th result from the fact that their point cost is about the same as in 7th while the effectiveness of weapons changed drastically, for better or worse.
Basically any melee units are examples for worse weapons, that didn't scale with the change of wounds per model.
In contrast to that, most units that had twin linked weapons and a BS of 5+ or better got 25% or even more hits while most ranged weapons scale much better with the new wound system, especially on vehicles (just think about how most armies have less than 3 d6 damage melee weapons, which can be used on 1 or 2 units at most).
In regards to marines having 2 wounds. I absolutely believe this should be the case now. I also think they should have made 'primaris' marines the new model successor to the old kits making this issue completely irrelevant with only one stat-line to figure out and balance. However, I asked one of the long-time marines players in our group if he believed they should have 2 wounds and essentially use the primaris stats, and he said it wasn't necessary with the other changes we've been using to fix marines. So we've been using those changes instead.
What other changes have you been using? I was thinking about the "Astartes built" rule as proposed in some threads (ignore the first ap point for 3+ PA and two for Termies). Although just giving +1W to the whole range of infantry marines would be ok (maybe with tacs being 14ppm)
Martel732 wrote: Formulas don't work because of emergent properties.
A thought-through formula should work a lot better than what they do currently. It won't be perfect, but it is the only practical way to fix the issues that most codices have simultaneously, because you can fix all units at the same time by entering their stats and special rules into a database and run the program that calculates the costs. If, like it is now, the number of wounds is the best defensive stat because Guardsmen and Cultists cost 4 points each, they can adjust the influence of that and recalculate the cost for all codices.
The point cost section is a page that you can tear out of half of the codices anyway because CA changed many units, so this doesn't count.
I am aware that synergies are barely representable in a formula but apart from rerolls, the number of synergies is rather low for many codices anyway.
Actually isn't the problem that marine prices stayed the same from 7th to 8th while the prices for chaff of other units or even within the codex (cultists cough cough*) dropped?
Consider this a IG guardsmen dropped from 5 to 4 ppm, yet still has the same equipment and capability as before. That is atleast just with those numbers a increase in their effectiveness of 20% from the higher point cost.
Kabalites went down from 8ppm i belive to now 6 ppm. that is 25% more effectiveness.
Cultists went down from 5 to 4 like guardsmen, another 20% increase in their effectivness. Meanwhile CSM lost their full loadout with boltpistol, bolter and Chainsword and stayed at 13ppm.
If we would apply a general reduction of marine prices of the 20% that would result in 10-11ppm marines. This would still not make them auto- includes as there are still cheaper troop taxes, but they would atleast be brought back in line with the general reduction of ppm for other troop units.
Corennus wrote: 10 points per marine would be a good compromise i think.
You could then choose between expensive but tough primaris or loads of cheaper tacticals.
Or reimplement the 1ppm chainsword buy option additionally?
so they would still be 11ppm but atleast they are now tactical allrounders like they are supposed and priced to be?
Personally, I don’t think regular marines (i.e. the old-school stuff) need a resilience bump, so much as an effectiveness bump in tens of damage output. Give the regular Marine stat line +1 Attack, and give them a special rule to let them fire Bolt weapons twice in any shooting phase. If a guardsman can be trained/ordered to fire his lasgun twice as fast, why couldn’t one of the galaxy’s finest soldiers do likewise with his Bolter?
Automatically Appended Next Post: If double attacks with Bolt weapons is overdoing it, why not +1 attack every time they shoot?
Corennus wrote: 10 points per marine would be a good compromise i think.
You then have to follow that through at all levels.
You now get two and a half guardsmen per marine (with some vocal pushing for 5pt guardsmen). Less than two veterans per marine.
One admech vanguard, battle sister, or scion per marine.
You outnumber cron warriors.
And so on.
Has this actually fixed the underlying problems or just made them so cheap that they can be spammed against better units while leaving no room for any kind of points differentiation of weaker units.
But remember AT, marine's defensive stats are worth less than they have ever been. Imperial Guard Veterans have the important stats that Marines do- namely access to special weapons, and ballistic skill 3+.
The defensive stats of Marines are currently not worth 2 veteran infantry bodies. You would need to make fundamental changes to the way 8th edition is structured to make Marines actually worth 2 veterans.
You are falling into this conundrum where you still believe marines are an elite fighting force. However GW has systematically devalued all of their defensive stats, and created a system where number of models is the best defense. Marines are worth less than they have ever been.
akaean wrote: But remember AT, marine's defensive stats are worth less than they have ever been. Imperial Guard Veterans have the important stats that Marines do- namely access to special weapons, and ballistic skill 3+
Same argument that i'd heard before when comparing marines and sisters - that WS 3+, S4, and T4 are effectively worthless because they don't affect the marines ability to shoot a plasma gun.
Of course the thought of dropping all marines to WS 4+, S3, T3 along with the cost was rejected.
The marines cost is in roughly the right spot relative to other similar chaff when facing one another - the problem is with the rest of the game, the solution is to make them more expensive and better suited to facing the stronger attacks (i.e. +1 wound/attack, and not for just a point or two), or make them cheaper and weaker to match those units that are already cheaper and weaker.
akaean wrote: But remember AT, marine's defensive stats are worth less than they have ever been. Imperial Guard Veterans have the important stats that Marines do- namely access to special weapons, and ballistic skill 3+
Same argument that i'd heard before when comparing marines and sisters - that WS 3+, S4, and T4 are effectively worthless because they don't affect the marines ability to shoot a plasma gun. Of course the thought of dropping all marines to WS 4+, S3, T3 along with the cost was rejected.
The marines cost is in roughly the right spot relative to other similar chaff when facing one another - the problem is with the rest of the game, the solution is to make them more expensive and better suited to facing the stronger attacks (i.e. +1 wound/attack, and not for just a point or two), or make them cheaper and weaker to match those units that are already cheaper and weaker.
You are missing the point again. Nobody is saying S4 / T4 / 3+ save is worthless. Its just not worth as much as it currently is priced at. What people are saying is maybe a 3 Veterans are worth 2 Marines. Maybe 4 Sisters of Battle are worth 3 Marines. - Remember, when fired at by a Heavy Bolter a Battle Sister and a Space Marine are defensively equivalent. - Remember, when shooting at anything with toughness five, like a Plague Marine or Biker, a Las Gun and a Bolter are offensively equivalent.
There isn't really an excuse for a single marine to be more expensive than 2 Veterans. Here is the other thing. Necron Warriors are a bad example, because they are already under performing- especially compared to Tesla Immortals. You should be comparing Marine performance to those Tesla Immortals which are the actual troops Necron Players are taking, and separately look at why Necron Warriors are underperforming and fix those issues.
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually isn't the problem that marine prices stayed the same from 7th to 8th while the prices for chaff of other units or even within the codex (cultists cough cough*) dropped? Consider this a IG guardsmen dropped from 5 to 4 ppm, yet still has the same equipment and capability as before. That is atleast just with those numbers a increase in their effectiveness of 20% from the higher point cost. Kabalites went down from 8ppm i belive to now 6 ppm. that is 25% more effectiveness. Cultists went down from 5 to 4 like guardsmen, another 20% increase in their effectivness. Meanwhile CSM lost their full loadout with boltpistol, bolter and Chainsword and stayed at 13ppm. If we would apply a general reduction of marine prices of the 20% that would result in 10-11ppm marines. This would still not make them auto- includes as there are still cheaper troop taxes, but they would atleast be brought back in line with the general reduction of ppm for other troop units.
Also keep in mind that AP4,5 & 6 did NOTHING against Marines in prior editions, while outright ignoring those chaff unit's save. But now, even a Heavy Bolter makes a Marine roll only a 4+ amrour, while those Chaff units have their full save against regular Bolters. This, combined with those chaff units being much cheaper has really inverted the durability of these units. Equal points of Marine die much fast then equal points of Chaff. The opposite should be true
I like the AP system and Wound chart for 8E, a lot. I also like weapons having variable damage per shot. These are fantastic changes for the game overall. But Marines staying at 3+armour with T4 and only 1W does not translate well, especially for the cost You could make them cheaper, but why are we trying to make Marines into chaff? They shouldn't be chaff. 2W Marines makes them feel as durable as they did in prior editions IN COMPARISON to other Troop units. It also makes the Ellite, Fast and Heavy Marines FEEL like Elite, Fast and Heavy units.
akaean wrote: But remember AT, marine's defensive stats are worth less than they have ever been. Imperial Guard Veterans have the important stats that Marines do- namely access to special weapons, and ballistic skill 3+
Same argument that i'd heard before when comparing marines and sisters - that WS 3+, S4, and T4 are effectively worthless because they don't affect the marines ability to shoot a plasma gun.
Of course the thought of dropping all marines to WS 4+, S3, T3 along with the cost was rejected.
The marines cost is in roughly the right spot relative to other similar chaff when facing one another - the problem is with the rest of the game, the solution is to make them more expensive and better suited to facing the stronger attacks (i.e. +1 wound/attack, and not for just a point or two), or make them cheaper and weaker to match those units that are already cheaper and weaker.
Hell no, just no.
I brought up exemples of some of the most played troop choices in the game, that got a massive boost in their effectiveness per point. Literally none of these units lost anything, instead they got a massive price reduction a piece.
Now compare that to a tac Squad. Bolter do nothing against armor anymore, Guardsmen Flak armor is now usefull against them.
Armor can now be degraded by weaponry that before could do jack all against marines.
A cut in gear.
Additionally: Your exemple of Necron warriors is bad. It is known that they suffer likewise, heck nearly the whole cron Codex is overpriced and contrary to marines which can rely on Rowboat and guardsmen soup to carry them to victory, crons can't. The only reason why it is worse for the Tac Squad to suck is, because they lend their profile to Elites and Assult troops. A raptor in essence is still a CSM with a bigger price tag (albeit atleast he can do morale shenanigans), A biker is still a regular SM. A terminator in essence is still a Marine profile except his armor which gives him a 2w and an additional attack. They still suffer from the same lackluster Bolter's of any flavour compared to earlier versions, Termniators now also suffer armor value degradation and cost 2 CSM and a Cultist WITHOUT any wargear, which in case for loyalists is really bad because PF's are massively overpriced and stuck on a platform that is slow whilest CSM terminators can pick 4pts energy maces/ swords to reduce their pricetag.
Now you could argue that the price cuts were terrible, because they lead to a race to the bottom, which they do, but what GW did, aka remove a fith or a quarter of pts of the cheap chaff whilest not doing the same for marines and necrons and then expecting them to do good is foolish. Especially when in 7th allready regular marines were phased out. Frankly it does not surprise me that they shaved of horde units pts cost, because you can sell now more boxes, but that should not come at the expense for balance.
I do agree generaly though that potentially a doubling in pts cost per unit would do us all a massive favour because then we can beginn to finetune pts cost, of equipment and bodies, etc.
Martel732 wrote: Formulas don't work because of emergent properties.
I am aware that synergies are barely representable in a formula but apart from rerolls, the number of synergies is rather low for many codices anyway.
I think this last part is important because units need to be priced based on what they can probably do, rather than be priced based on other units helping them. Make the units function without Roboute, and then we can see how much he's really worth.
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually isn't the problem that marine prices stayed the same from 7th to 8th while the prices for chaff of other units or even within the codex (cultists cough cough*) dropped?
Consider this a IG guardsmen dropped from 5 to 4 ppm, yet still has the same equipment and capability as before. That is atleast just with those numbers a increase in their effectiveness of 20% from the higher point cost.
Kabalites went down from 8ppm i belive to now 6 ppm. that is 25% more effectiveness.
Cultists went down from 5 to 4 like guardsmen, another 20% increase in their effectivness. Meanwhile CSM lost their full loadout with boltpistol, bolter and Chainsword and stayed at 13ppm.
If we would apply a general reduction of marine prices of the 20% that would result in 10-11ppm marines. This would still not make them auto- includes as there are still cheaper troop taxes, but they would atleast be brought back in line with the general reduction of ppm for other troop units.
Also keep in mind that AP4,5 & 6 did NOTHING against Marines in prior editions, while outright ignoring those chaff unit's save. But now, even a Heavy Bolter makes a Marine roll only a 4+ amrour, while those Chaff units have their full save against regular Bolters.
This, combined with those chaff units being much cheaper has really inverted the durability of these units.
Equal points of Marine die much fast then equal points of Chaff. The opposite should be true
I like the AP system and Wound chart for 8E, a lot. I also like weapons having variable damage per shot. These are fantastic changes for the game overall.
But Marines staying at 3+armour with T4 and only 1W does not translate well, especially for the cost
You could make them cheaper, but why are we trying to make Marines into chaff? They shouldn't be chaff. 2W Marines makes them feel as durable as they did in prior editions IN COMPARISON to other Troop units.
It also makes the Ellite, Fast and Heavy Marines FEEL like Elite, Fast and Heavy units.
-
- AP4-6 did nothing last edition. But Cover did nothing to help Marines against those weapons either.
-When you say Chaff. You're probably saying "Guard". I just did the math of bolters vs. Gants and vs. Marines, and the Gants die a bit faster, per point. Guard may be the outlier here when it comes to small arms.
-"Chaff". . . sorta by definition is there to soak casualties. So by being good at it doesn't it just mean that it's succeeding in its battlefield role?
- Being killed off on a "point by point" basis is not necessarily a valid metric to begin with. On a turn by turn basis, clearing bodies may be more valuable regardless of their points. So killing five Guard to 2 Marines (or whatever) might still be fine.
- Did you take into account morale? (my guess is probably not)
niv-mizzet wrote: -I really like the idea of Gman rewriting his codex so that the basic marine troop choice is “marine squad,” and then you can just take wargear to make them ASM or devs etc.
This is the only way a Tactical Marine can EVER be represented as actually being "tactical".
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually isn't the problem that marine prices stayed the same from 7th to 8th while the prices for chaff of other units or even within the codex (cultists cough cough*) dropped?
Consider this a IG guardsmen dropped from 5 to 4 ppm, yet still has the same equipment and capability as before. That is atleast just with those numbers a increase in their effectiveness of 20% from the higher point cost.
Kabalites went down from 8ppm i belive to now 6 ppm. that is 25% more effectiveness.
Cultists went down from 5 to 4 like guardsmen, another 20% increase in their effectivness. Meanwhile CSM lost their full loadout with boltpistol, bolter and Chainsword and stayed at 13ppm.
If we would apply a general reduction of marine prices of the 20% that would result in 10-11ppm marines. This would still not make them auto- includes as there are still cheaper troop taxes, but they would atleast be brought back in line with the general reduction of ppm for other troop units.
Also keep in mind that AP4,5 & 6 did NOTHING against Marines in prior editions, while outright ignoring those chaff unit's save. But now, even a Heavy Bolter makes a Marine roll only a 4+ amrour, while those Chaff units have their full save against regular Bolters.
This, combined with those chaff units being much cheaper has really inverted the durability of these units.
Equal points of Marine die much fast then equal points of Chaff. The opposite should be true
I like the AP system and Wound chart for 8E, a lot. I also like weapons having variable damage per shot. These are fantastic changes for the game overall.
But Marines staying at 3+armour with T4 and only 1W does not translate well, especially for the cost
You could make them cheaper, but why are we trying to make Marines into chaff? They shouldn't be chaff. 2W Marines makes them feel as durable as they did in prior editions IN COMPARISON to other Troop units.
It also makes the Ellite, Fast and Heavy Marines FEEL like Elite, Fast and Heavy units.
-
- AP4-6 did nothing last edition. But Cover did nothing to help Marines against those weapons either.
-When you say Chaff. You're probably saying "Guard". I just did the math of bolters vs. Gants and vs. Marines, and the Gants die a bit faster, per point. Guard may be the outlier here when it comes to small arms.
-"Chaff". . . sorta by definition is there to soak casualties. So by being good at it doesn't it just mean that it's succeeding in its battlefield role?
- Being killed off on a "point by point" basis is not necessarily a valid metric to begin with. On a turn by turn basis, clearing bodies may be more valuable regardless of their points. So killing five Guard to 2 Marines (or whatever) might still be fine.
- Did you take into account morale? (my guess is probably not)
Nobody takes Morale into account because morale doesn't matter. Ever. It didn't in 6th, it didn't in 7th, and it doesn't in 8th. You essentially build to ignore it.
akaean wrote: But remember AT, marine's defensive stats are worth less than they have ever been. Imperial Guard Veterans have the important stats that Marines do- namely access to special weapons, and ballistic skill 3+
Same argument that i'd heard before when comparing marines and sisters - that WS 3+, S4, and T4 are effectively worthless because they don't affect the marines ability to shoot a plasma gun.
Of course the thought of dropping all marines to WS 4+, S3, T3 along with the cost was rejected.
The marines cost is in roughly the right spot relative to other similar chaff when facing one another - the problem is with the rest of the game, the solution is to make them more expensive and better suited to facing the stronger attacks (i.e. +1 wound/attack, and not for just a point or two), or make them cheaper and weaker to match those units that are already cheaper and weaker.
I wouldn't care about those drops at all, but it doesn't help most of the units either.
I guess I just define "chaff" differently. I see it as the expendable, "we have more where that came from" cannon fodder. They're meat shields for the more important stuff
Even if we ignore fluff (which we shouldn't) it is pretty clear by their design that Marines are not meant to be "chaff" by this definition. Having a "decent" armour save clearly implies the faction is investing in keeping the soldiers alive. This is reinforced by the faction's "Specialists" (elites, fast and heavy) being essentially the same but with better wargear. This is why I will oppose "just make Marines cheap" even though I 100% agree that are not worth their current cost.
Nobody takes Morale into account because morale doesn't matter. Ever. It didn't in 6th, it didn't in 7th, and it doesn't in 8th. You essentially build to ignore it.
Guard can't build to ignore it. Min size 10.
Galef wrote: I guess I just define "chaff" differently. I see it as the expendable, "we have more where that came from" cannon fodder. They're meat shields for the more important stuff
Even if we ignore fluff (which we shouldn't) it is pretty clear by their design that Marines are not meant to be "chaff" by this definition. Having a "decent" armour save clearly implies the faction is investing in keeping the soldiers alive. This is reinforced by the faction's "Specialists" (elites, fast and heavy) being essentially the same but with better wargear.
This is why I will oppose "just make Marines cheap" even though I 100% agree that are not worth their current cost.
-
Chaff - But a chaff unit should be good at being chaff though, yes? If that's their purpose and they're bad at it, then that would also be a problem.
I oppose Marines being too cheap as well, I just also oppose 2W marines for a number of reasons.
akaean wrote: You are missing the point again. Nobody is saying S4 / T4 / 3+ save is worthless.
My point is that a common argument for dropping marine points is to focus entirely on areas where cheaper units compare while glossing over those areas where they don't.
For example :
akaean wrote: - Remember, when fired at by a Heavy Bolter a Battle Sister and a Space Marine are defensively equivalent.
- Remember, when shooting at anything with toughness five, like a Plague Marine or Biker, a Las Gun and a Bolter are offensively equivalent.
At the end of the day a bolter isn't a lasgun, and a units worth is not dictated only by it's ability to stand and shoot without ever recieving return fire or assault. As another poster correctly pointed out it would simply result in a race to the bottom as everything else was readjusted to match the new cheap marines.
Nobody takes Morale into account because morale doesn't matter. Ever. It didn't in 6th, it didn't in 7th, and it doesn't in 8th. You essentially build to ignore it.
Guard can't build to ignore it. Min size 10.
Galef wrote: I guess I just define "chaff" differently. I see it as the expendable, "we have more where that came from" cannon fodder. They're meat shields for the more important stuff
Even if we ignore fluff (which we shouldn't) it is pretty clear by their design that Marines are not meant to be "chaff" by this definition. Having a "decent" armour save clearly implies the faction is investing in keeping the soldiers alive. This is reinforced by the faction's "Specialists" (elites, fast and heavy) being essentially the same but with better wargear.
This is why I will oppose "just make Marines cheap" even though I 100% agree that are not worth their current cost.
-
Chaff - But a chaff unit should be good at being chaff though, yes? If that's their purpose and they're bad at it, then that would also be a problem.
I oppose Marines being too cheap as well, I just also oppose 2W marines for a number of reasons.
Min size is 9 once you buy the heavy weapon. Still makes them cheaper than a min sized Tactical Marine squad too!
You ignore Morale because there is a strat that everyone has access to do so. Albeit only 1 unit per turn. But armies that have large chaff units often have far more CPs to use for this strat and others.
So Morale is ignored when discussing pretty much anything outside of edge cases.
I'd also like to note for those who would prefer to see more Marines on the board, even at my most expensive suggestion (15ppm) you can still get 100 Marines for 1500pts. That leaves 500pts for wargear and other options. And at 2W per model, that 200 wounds worth. I doubt many people would run 100 Marines in a list even if they went down to 10ppm with 1W.
Marines shouldn't die to a single lasgun wound. It should take bigger better weapons to one-shot them While statistically it takes many lasguns *or equivalent standard weapon*, it can only take 1. I want that to be impossible
If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.
The points drops are too far, a race to the bottom is not a solution and only rewards GW with more sales and we all suffer slower games.
Marine's problems also extend beyond foot marines, to vehicals etc across all flavours of loyalist and heritic.
Non primaris Marines do need +1Attack across the board.
Battle tanks Predators, vindicators, Sicarans, repulsive get 2+Sv
Landraiders get T9 they should be Tougher than they are
Their strategums need more work than I can think of right now.
Ice_can wrote: If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.
The points drops are too far, a race to the bottom is not a solution and only rewards GW with more sales and we all suffer slower games.
Marine's problems also extend beyond foot marines, to vehicals etc across all flavours of loyalist and heritic.
Non primaris Marines do need +1Attack across the board.
Battle tanks Predators, vindicators, Sicarans, repulsive get 2+Sv
Landraiders get T9 they should be Tougher than they are
Their strategums need more work than I can think of right now.
I brought this point up earlier. We should be looking to scale well, and Rubric/Plague Marines would be super hard to kill, and forget about Noise and Berserker Marines fulfilling Glass Cannon status.
While I'm okay-is with an extra attack, it makes Vet equivalents less appealing as well.
Ice_can wrote: If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.
Agreed, which is why I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread the "special" units need special adjustment after this change. Deathguard Marines, would therefore need more that just a few points increase if they got 2W. We start with the standard MEQs, TEQs and Bikes. Make everything consistent, then adjust points for units that obviously benefit more. If a regular 2W CSM is now 15ppm, a 2W DG Marine should be no less that 20ppm due to it's ~33% increase in durability from Resilience.
Ice_can wrote: If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.
The points drops are too far, a race to the bottom is not a solution and only rewards GW with more sales and we all suffer slower games.
Marine's problems also extend beyond foot marines, to vehicals etc across all flavours of loyalist and heritic.
Non primaris Marines do need +1Attack across the board.
Battle tanks Predators, vindicators, Sicarans, repulsive get 2+Sv
Landraiders get T9 they should be Tougher than they are
Their strategums need more work than I can think of right now.
I brought this point up earlier. We should be looking to scale well, and Rubric/Plague Marines would be super hard to kill, and forget about Noise and Berserker Marines fulfilling Glass Cannon status.
While I'm okay-is with an extra attack, it makes Vet equivalents less appealing as well.
Galef wrote: You ignore Morale because there is a strat that everyone has access to do so. Albeit only 1 unit per turn. But armies that have large chaff units often have far more CPs to use for this strat and others.
So Morale is ignored when discussing pretty much anything outside of edge cases.
I'd also like to note for those who would prefer to see more Marines on the board, even at my most expensive suggestion (15ppm) you can still get 100 Marines for 1500pts. That leaves 500pts for wargear and other options. And at 2W per model, that 200 wounds worth.
I doubt many people would run 100 Marines in a list even if they went down to 10ppm with 1W.
Marines shouldn't die to a single lasgun wound. It should take bigger better weapons to one-shot them
While statistically it takes many lasguns *or equivalent standard weapon*, it can only take 1. I want that to be impossible
-
You ignore morale as well because trying to attack it is pretty useless. How many psyker powers are handy because they attack LD? How well do you think Night Lords actually function? Are you buying Interrogator Chaplains over regular Chaplains for the sole chance to inflict a -1 modifier?
Ice_can wrote: If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.
The points drops are too far, a race to the bottom is not a solution and only rewards GW with more sales and we all suffer slower games.
Marine's problems also extend beyond foot marines, to vehicals etc across all flavours of loyalist and heritic.
Non primaris Marines do need +1Attack across the board.
Battle tanks Predators, vindicators, Sicarans, repulsive get 2+Sv
Landraiders get T9 they should be Tougher than they are
Their strategums need more work than I can think of right now.
I brought this point up earlier. We should be looking to scale well, and Rubric/Plague Marines would be super hard to kill, and forget about Noise and Berserker Marines fulfilling Glass Cannon status.
While I'm okay-is with an extra attack, it makes Vet equivalents less appealing as well.
So far, it's the only solution in 8th. Even Custodes can't stand against Xeno guns.
You're partly exaggerating. Having used Custodes Guard I can tell you how silly this almost sounds.
Maybe it wasn't clear but I mean +1 to every power armour unit so vets would be 3 attacks.
Makes Grey Hunters 3 attacks.
I mean it's worth having a look at but I'm always going to be wary of scaling issues. I really do think fixing the core issues with Bolt weapons would go a long way.
I'd rather preds got to move and fire with no penalty, and kill shot worked off two preds. The vehicles are such a dumpster fire across the board. I basically have given up on them.
I know you don't care so much about the fluff, but seriously? Because SM vehicles are so stable and graceful compared to the lumbering behomoths CWE and others operate?
Galef wrote: You ignore Morale because there is a strat that everyone has access to do so. Albeit only 1 unit per turn. But armies that have large chaff units often have far more CPs to use for this strat and others.-
No, you don't get to ignore it when the enemy can attack it. If I deal 7 wounds each to three Guardsmen squads, I'm averaging 9 more "kills" unless my opponent spends 2 CP to save 3 Guardsmen. I've done this in practice.
Marines shouldn't die to a single lasgun wound. It should take bigger better weapons to one-shot them
While statistically it takes many lasguns *or equivalent standard weapon*, it can only take 1. I want that to be impossible
-
One very lucky lasgun can kill a marine. That's ok. I don't think there's any reason this has to be impossible. About a 5% chance. Half that in cover.
(that said, a 2+ armor save on heavily armored variants of the Rhino chasis would be great. The Pred and Rhino being in the same durability class means either the Rhino is too heavy or the Pred is too light.)
Bharring wrote: I know you don't care so much about the fluff, but seriously? Because SM vehicles are so stable and graceful compared to the lumbering behomoths CWE and others operate?
Was giving a crunch preference. I don't care about justifications.
Five very lucky boltguns can kill a 3W T4 2+ rerollable on overwatch. That doesn't mean it's likely to happen. I use that exact scenario because I've seen it happen.
A single Lasgun can kill a Marine. A single Marine squad can kill a Landraider in one round of shooting. It's not going to happen, though.
Bharring wrote: (that said, a 2+ armor save on heavily armored variants of the Rhino chasis would be great. The Pred and Rhino being in the same durability class means either the Rhino is too heavy or the Pred is too light.)
That one is odd to me. I suppose the idea is that they're on the same chassis. It has that one extra wound but that's a tiny difference.
Martel732 wrote: Plenty of -4, which makes 2+ armor basically useless.
Remarkably little. Meltaguns - which are still inferior to plasma, eviscerators - the poor brothers to thunderhammers, and not all that much else in any quantity.
Bharring wrote: I know you don't care so much about the fluff, but seriously? Because SM vehicles are so stable and graceful compared to the lumbering behomoths CWE and others operate?
Well it's more everyone else gets rules to ignore those penalties as a whole. Dark Eldar get Assault on everything the moment it's thrown on a vehicle. Guard ignore penalties if they move a small amount and get a firing twice bonus. Sicarans can advance and fire at full BS if memory serves me right on their Autocannon. Wave Serpents have mostly Assault weapons and Fire Prisms can reroll everything if you have an another one (which you will because redundancy makes everything more effective) AND they can get a double firing clause as well! Tyrannofexs don't ignore any penalties but they can get a double firing clause too.
The moment the Predator moves an inch, though, it suffers penalties. It's the only Battle Tank basically that doesn't get some double firing clause. It's left out for no real reasons.
Then give your predator a Storm Bolter! Then they can ignore mvoement penalties like CWE?
More seriously, Wave Serpents are Assault weapons because of the penalty. And Shuriken Cannons are the only Assault heavy. Their Lascannon equivelent is still shorter range and Heavy. Falcon Pulse Lasers are heavy. Fire Prisms need to use CP to get the reroll, and need double firepower to still do less than a Pred without stratagems.
So why should quadlas Pred get no penalty, but a BL Serpent, Falcon, or Vyper get the penalty?
"The moment the Predator moves an inch, though, it suffers penalties."
So does any CWE heavy weapon aside from the Shuriken Cannon.
"It's the only Battle Tank basically that doesn't get some double firing clause."
Falcon.
Night Spinner.
Firestorm.
Wasp.
Serpent.
The doublefiring is Guard and Fire Prism. It's not nearly as common as you think.
Preds aren't 'left out for no reason'. Both rules are missing on most platforms. One faction gets that rule, and one tank in one other faction gets half that rule.
Martel732 wrote: Plenty of -4, which makes 2+ armor basically useless.
Remarkably little. Meltaguns - which are still inferior to plasma, eviscerators - the poor brothers to thunderhammers, and not all that much else in any quantity.
From Xenos. Not Imperium.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Then give your predator a Storm Bolter! Then they can ignore mvoement penalties like CWE?
More seriously, Wave Serpents are Assault weapons because of the penalty. And Shuriken Cannons are the only Assault heavy. Their Lascannon equivelent is still shorter range and Heavy. Falcon Pulse Lasers are heavy. Fire Prisms need to use CP to get the reroll, and need double firepower to still do less than a Pred without stratagems.
So why should quadlas Pred get no penalty, but a BL Serpent, Falcon, or Vyper get the penalty?
"The moment the Predator moves an inch, though, it suffers penalties."
So does any CWE heavy weapon aside from the Shuriken Cannon.
"It's the only Battle Tank basically that doesn't get some double firing clause."
Falcon.
Night Spinner.
Firestorm.
Wasp.
Serpent.
The doublefiring is Guard and Fire Prism. It's not nearly as common as you think.
Preds aren't 'left out for no reason'. Both rules are missing on most platforms. One faction gets that rule, and one tank in one other faction gets half that rule.
Jesus dude. It was just a suggestion to make it a more worthwhile vehicle. Because right now, it sucks balls and has been tossed out of every list I run in favor of Russes.
"Jesus dude. It was just a suggestion to make it a more worthwhile vehicle. Because right now, it sucks balls and has been tossed out of every list I run in favor of Russes."
That particular response was to the idea that Preds are the only tank that don't get those rules. When it's most tanks.
Yes, Russes get great rules. That doesn't mean non-russes have said rules.
Sicarans don't get that, they only get to ignore modifiers against fly targets. Fireprisms are heavy so do take the penalty to hit for moving so thier is atleast 16.6% of shots they can't reroll. Tau also take the penalty to hit and don't get double shooting.
Not to add fuel to the dumpster fire, but Eldar tanks can be upgraded with "Crystal Targeting Matrix" allowing them to ignore the to hit penalty from moving as long as their target is the closest unit to them. And it's only 5ppm.
You need to call out Eldar players using this if they are not targeting the closest unit, though.
Some marine vehicle fixes that could help incrementally
Rhino:15-20pt Decrease. Addition of 2 firing ports
Predator: The turret ignores movement penalties. It allows the tank to be mobile instead of stuck in a corner. Killshot strategem changed to gaining +1 to wound if there are 2 preds within 6, and gaining +1 damage if there are 3 preds within 6.
Vindicator: Ignores heavy, Please. Linebreaker Strat changed to d3 MW per vindicator within 6" of each other.
Landraider. All attacks against the landraider are -1 to wound.
Basic Dreadnought Chassis: +2 Movement. Melee dreadnoughts aren't really effective because of the slow footslog.
Drop-pods: Pick one of 3:
Significant point drop
Strategem to allow half of DPs rounding up ignore first turn reserves rule
Units may use to 3" disembark to be inside the 9" reserves bubble
General Vehicle fixes (could be applied to other factions as well)
Defensive Smoke Screen strategem. Choose this strategem at the beginning of the other players first shooting phase if you went second. All vehicles equipped with smoke launchers may use them. This does expend one use Smoke launchers
Non-flying vehicles get some bonus to melee attacks if they charge. Possibly an increase to hit or damaging leadership of the units that they charged.
Predator: The turret ignores movement penalties. It allows the tank to be mobile instead of stuck in a corner. Killshot strategem changed to gaining +1 to wound if there are 2 preds within 6, and gaining +1 damage if there are 3 preds within 6.
Nope on the turret changes its just making everything the same and bland.
Kill shot as is is unusable, yours could work.
Vindicator: Ignores heavy, Please. Linebreaker Strat changed to d3 MW per vindicator within 6" of each other.
The linebreaker stratageum just staight up doesn't work. Mw to units for why? Against fortifications fine but fliers and infantry makes no sence.
Blast weapons don't work but the minus to hit should stay IMHO and blast weaposn made to work in 8th.
Drop-pods: Pick one of 3:
Significant point drop
Strategem to allow half of DPs rounding up ignore first turn reserves rule
Units may use to 3" disembark to be inside the 9" reserves bubble
1 I can see why you might say this but your also untouchable untill you deploy its balancing that trade-off, without turn 1 deepstrike it's over costed but probably not by as much as some people think
2 nope thats just bringing in the equivalent of skyhammer formation BS from 7th
General Vehicle fixes (could be applied to other factions as well)
Defensive Smoke Screen strategem. Choose this strategem at the beginning of the other players first shooting phase if you went second. All vehicles equipped with smoke launchers may use them. This does expend one use Smoke launchers
I get what your trying to do but this isn't as balnced as you might think. With end game scoring etc this is another reason for people to want to go second people will just delay untill turn 2 for a massive strike with deepstrike aswell.
Bharring wrote: Then give your predator a Storm Bolter! Then they can ignore mvoement penalties like CWE?
More seriously, Wave Serpents are Assault weapons because of the penalty. And Shuriken Cannons are the only Assault heavy. Their Lascannon equivelent is still shorter range and Heavy. Falcon Pulse Lasers are heavy. Fire Prisms need to use CP to get the reroll, and need double firepower to still do less than a Pred without stratagems.
So why should quadlas Pred get no penalty, but a BL Serpent, Falcon, or Vyper get the penalty?
"The moment the Predator moves an inch, though, it suffers penalties."
So does any CWE heavy weapon aside from the Shuriken Cannon.
"It's the only Battle Tank basically that doesn't get some double firing clause."
Falcon.
Night Spinner.
Firestorm.
Wasp.
Serpent.
The doublefiring is Guard and Fire Prism. It's not nearly as common as you think.
Preds aren't 'left out for no reason'. Both rules are missing on most platforms. One faction gets that rule, and one tank in one other faction gets half that rule.
Which of those things you listed are actually a battle tank role? The moment you said "Serpent" I felt like you were just listing random units.
Falcon certainly does. It also has a transport cap of 6, but does that in addition to being an MBT.
The Hammerhead is an MBT. Does it have the double-firing rule now?
The Landraider is an MBT+. Did I miss it getting the double-firing rule?
The others are debateable, sure. I have trouble not calling the Serpent an MBT.
If you mean "MBT that don't also have transport cap, and not Tank Destroyers/mechanized artillery" then what MBTs are actually in the game? Just the Russ and the Pred? So 1 of 2 doesn't have a rule? How is that special?
Bharring wrote: Then give your predator a Storm Bolter! Then they can ignore mvoement penalties like CWE?
More seriously, Wave Serpents are Assault weapons because of the penalty. And Shuriken Cannons are the only Assault heavy. Their Lascannon equivelent is still shorter range and Heavy. Falcon Pulse Lasers are heavy. Fire Prisms need to use CP to get the reroll, and need double firepower to still do less than a Pred without stratagems.
So why should quadlas Pred get no penalty, but a BL Serpent, Falcon, or Vyper get the penalty?
"The moment the Predator moves an inch, though, it suffers penalties." So does any CWE heavy weapon aside from the Shuriken Cannon.
"It's the only Battle Tank basically that doesn't get some double firing clause." Falcon. Night Spinner. Firestorm. Wasp. Serpent.
The doublefiring is Guard and Fire Prism. It's not nearly as common as you think.
Preds aren't 'left out for no reason'. Both rules are missing on most platforms. One faction gets that rule, and one tank in one other faction gets half that rule.
Which of those things you listed are actually a battle tank role? The moment you said "Serpent" I felt like you were just listing random units.
For decades the Eldar Grav-tanks have been described as....tanks. Serpents included. Falcons, Spinners, Prims, etc all fill the "battle tank" role, but Serpents end up being better AND have transport capacity. At the end of the day, Serpents have always been closer to LRs than Razorbacks, both of which are "battle tanks"
Bharring wrote: Falcon certainly does. It also has a transport cap of 6, but does that in addition to being an MBT.
The Hammerhead is an MBT. Does it have the double-firing rule now?
The Landraider is an MBT+. Did I miss it getting the double-firing rule?
The others are debateable, sure. I have trouble not calling the Serpent an MBT.
If you mean "MBT that don't also have transport cap, and not Tank Destroyers/mechanized artillery" then what MBTs are actually in the game? Just the Russ and the Pred? So 1 of 2 doesn't have a rule? How is that special?
The Land Raider is NOT an mbt, it is a heavy assult tank for heavy assult units. At 300+ pts it is also massively overpriced.
Hammerhead has Fly, that alone makes it more viable then predators. Also markerlights.
Ork battlewagons can be mbt technically but more often are used as assult tanks ( but so overpriced it hurts)
Td's are also not really in the game, the only Td is the vanquisher, which is useless. (except fw)
Technically you could categorise the defiler as a MBW.
Practically it is still tad to pricy and the terrible accuracy makes it generally a meh choice.
Bharring wrote: Then give your predator a Storm Bolter! Then they can ignore mvoement penalties like CWE?
More seriously, Wave Serpents are Assault weapons because of the penalty. And Shuriken Cannons are the only Assault heavy. Their Lascannon equivelent is still shorter range and Heavy. Falcon Pulse Lasers are heavy. Fire Prisms need to use CP to get the reroll, and need double firepower to still do less than a Pred without stratagems.
So why should quadlas Pred get no penalty, but a BL Serpent, Falcon, or Vyper get the penalty?
"The moment the Predator moves an inch, though, it suffers penalties."
So does any CWE heavy weapon aside from the Shuriken Cannon.
"It's the only Battle Tank basically that doesn't get some double firing clause."
Falcon.
Night Spinner.
Firestorm.
Wasp.
Serpent.
The doublefiring is Guard and Fire Prism. It's not nearly as common as you think.
Preds aren't 'left out for no reason'. Both rules are missing on most platforms. One faction gets that rule, and one tank in one other faction gets half that rule.
Which of those things you listed are actually a battle tank role? The moment you said "Serpent" I felt like you were just listing random units.
For decades the Eldar Grav-tanks have been described as....tanks. Serpents included. Falcons, Spinners, Prims, etc all fill the "battle tank" role, but Serpents end up being better AND have transport capacity.
At the end of the day, Serpents have always been closer to LRs than Razorbacks, both of which are "battle tanks"
Bharring wrote: Falcon certainly does. It also has a transport cap of 6, but does that in addition to being an MBT.
The Hammerhead is an MBT. Does it have the double-firing rule now?
The Landraider is an MBT+. Did I miss it getting the double-firing rule?
The others are debateable, sure. I have trouble not calling the Serpent an MBT.
If you mean "MBT that don't also have transport cap, and not Tank Destroyers/mechanized artillery" then what MBTs are actually in the game? Just the Russ and the Pred? So 1 of 2 doesn't have a rule? How is that special?
I think the Hammerhead is the only other exception.
Otherwise, the Land Raider is supposed to a premium transport that's durable and has lots of guns. It just fails spectacularly at that.
Also the Wave Serpent was just mathematically better at fighting, but that didn't make it a battle tank in the same way the current Razorback shouldn't BE acting like a battle tank but ends up doing so because of its cost relatively to its guns.
If that makes sense. I think that's coherent enough.
Predator: The turret ignores movement penalties. It allows the tank to be mobile instead of stuck in a corner. Killshot strategem changed to gaining +1 to wound if there are 2 preds within 6, and gaining +1 damage if there are 3 preds within 6.
Nope on the turret changes its just making everything the same and bland.
Kill shot as is is unusable, yours could work.
Vindicator: Ignores heavy, Please. Linebreaker Strat changed to d3 MW per vindicator within 6" of each other.
The linebreaker stratageum just staight up doesn't work. Mw to units for why? Against fortifications fine but fliers and infantry makes no sence.
Blast weapons don't work but the minus to hit should stay IMHO and blast weaposn made to work in 8th.
Drop-pods: Pick one of 3:
Significant point drop
Strategem to allow half of DPs rounding up ignore first turn reserves rule
Units may use to 3" disembark to be inside the 9" reserves bubble
1 I can see why you might say this but your also untouchable untill you deploy its balancing that trade-off, without turn 1 deepstrike it's over costed but probably not by as much as some people think
2 nope thats just bringing in the equivalent of skyhammer formation BS from 7th
General Vehicle fixes (could be applied to other factions as well)
Defensive Smoke Screen strategem. Choose this strategem at the beginning of the other players first shooting phase if you went second. All vehicles equipped with smoke launchers may use them. This does expend one use Smoke launchers
I get what your trying to do but this isn't as balnced as you might think. With end game scoring etc this is another reason for people to want to go second people will just delay untill turn 2 for a massive strike with deepstrike aswell.
Non-flying vehicles get some bonus to melee attacks if they charge. Possibly an increase to hit or damaging leadership of the units that they charged.
Why vehicals without melee weapons shouldn't be charging eveything in sight?
Rhinos really aren't that durable. Special weapons that can pop T7 3++ are ubiquitous, and while they are more durable then most people realize they simply aren't worth the cost. I've been experimenting with them, and sinking 222 points into units that don't heavily contribute to the fight isn't worth it.
Allowing the turrets to ignore the heavy penalty would do the opposite of making things bland because it allows for the marine player to be mobile, instead of forcing them to castle.
And when was the last time you saw a vindicator in play? They are an under performing unit that can't perform it's only task of bringing a heavy weapon to bear effectively. Its d3 shot (upgraded to d6 when the target has 5 or more models), a -1 to hit is kind of intolerable at that low level of shots when it is it's only gun (asides from a SB)
The drop pod is significantly overcosted. I understand the value of keeping units in reserve, but compared to both internal and external options it is way to high. For example, 5 jumpack vanguard with 5 plasma pistols cost 125 pts. 5 Tactical Marines with a plasma gun and combi-plas in a drop pod cost 173. So for 1 less plasma shot, 6 more bolter shots, 6 inches less movement, 1 lower LD, and 6" less movement, you get 8 T6 3+ wounds with a single SB. Another example is how several other factions simply spend CP to put stuff in reserve. Depending on how you build your army CP can be extremely expendable compared to points.
As for Skyhammer, that was last edition. This edition is so radically different with deepstrike that they aren't super comparable. Starting from the fact that all units can assault from deepstrike, all units no longer scatter, and units must still stay 9" away it would be a far cry from skyhammer. The units inside aren't relentless, cannot deny overwatch, and do not get to reroll charges. Because that's what skyhammer actually did. Drop pods could deploy half rounding up first turn since 5th edition. Long before skyhammer.
Players delaying for turn 2 is great. A major problem with this edition, (mostly due to the changes in cover) is alpha-striking before the other player has had the chance to maneuver, pop smoke, and apply defensive buffs. Several games are simply determined by who goes first, which isn't fun or engaging. Simply popping smoke isn't going to completely mitigate the opposing players shooting either. The first player still gets to determine where most of the engagements are going to occur and the tempo for most of the game, but the shooting is degraded slightly.
Why should vehicles without fly be able to charge enemy vehicles, denying a turn of shooting, and then leave without consequence? Giving vehicles a tangible benefit to charging rewards controlling the flow of engagement instead of being put on the back foot the entire time. I should also clarify, this would essentially be 8th eds version of tank shock. So it would probably require it to be vehicles at 10+ wounds w/o fly.
I wasn't necessarily saying that the Hammerhead isn't viable compared to the Pred. My point is that the Pred is not the *only* MBT that doesn't have the rule.
Unless you consider the Ravager an MBT (I wouldn't call it a tank), isn't the Russ the only one with the rule?
Even the Fire Prism, which has half the rule (fire twice, not ignore the penalty) isn't an MBT. It's a tank destroyer/mechanised artillery hybrid.
I agree that the Chimera, Razorback, and potentially the Devilfish are IFV, not MBTs.
The Serpent feels too heavy to be considered an IFV. I consider it an MBT, but could accept it's exclusion. It's not simply "better at fighting" It's built as a tank, for battle, but with an extended cab for transport.
So a conservative list of MBTs would include:
-Russes
-Predators
-Hammerheads
-Falcons
Of which, only 1 of the 4 has the rule. The claim is that the Pred is the *only* MBT without the rule. That seems
Guess the point was more moving and shooting without penalty for that.
Eldar can upgrade their tanks, LRBT have grinding advance, hammerheads have markerlights support.
The predator has nothing in that regard. Frankly it does not need double shooting, what it needs is a ignore movement penalty.
The Land Raider is NOT an mbt, it is a heavy assult tank for heavy assult units. At 300+ pts it is also massively overpriced.
It's totally an MBT if you've ever played Epic.
No.
A Mbt is a general purpose direct fire support tank.
A Land Raider serves as a assult tank against massively entrenched positions and delivers it's payload of terminators. Aka a assult tank.
Though the Predator can be gunned out more than most, and has a higher base BS than LRBTs and Hammerheads. Even the Falcon tops out at 3 Lascannon-ish weapons. And that boost to S 9 for the Predator makes it better vs. heavier targets.
Eldar can upgrade their tanks to fire at the nearest target. That's a huge difference compared to just not have the penalty. How frequently do you want to put that Brightlance/Lascannon into what's actually closest to your Falcon/Pred? Now, just how frequent do you imagine it'll be if you only ignore the penalty on the nearest target? If your answer to either wasn't "extremely rarely", I'm actually surprised.
At least the Lascannon has 48" range. The Brightlance is 36", which used to be offset by most Brightlance platforms having Relentless. Now, it's 5 pts cheaper. So why should the Pred get that ability and not the Falcon/Serpent/Vyper?
Not Online!!! wrote: Guess the point was more moving and shooting without penalty for that.
Eldar can upgrade their tanks, LRBT have grinding advance, hammerheads have markerlights support.
The predator has nothing in that regard. Frankly it does not need double shooting, what it needs is a ignore movement penalty.
The Land Raider is NOT an mbt, it is a heavy assult tank for heavy assult units. At 300+ pts it is also massively overpriced.
It's totally an MBT if you've ever played Epic.
No.
A Mbt is a general purpose direct fire support tank.
A Land Raider serves as a assult tank against massively entrenched positions and delivers it's payload of terminators. Aka a assult tank.
In Epic they're fielded in free roaming squadrons and are perfectly content with blowing other vehicles away. I get what you're saying but they easily serve both roles.
Not Online!!! wrote: Guess the point was more moving and shooting without penalty for that.
Eldar can upgrade their tanks, LRBT have grinding advance, hammerheads have markerlights support.
The predator has nothing in that regard. Frankly it does not need double shooting, what it needs is a ignore movement penalty.
The Land Raider is NOT an mbt, it is a heavy assult tank for heavy assult units. At 300+ pts it is also massively overpriced.
It's totally an MBT if you've ever played Epic.
No.
A Mbt is a general purpose direct fire support tank.
A Land Raider serves as a assult tank against massively entrenched positions and delivers it's payload of terminators. Aka a assult tank.
In Epic they're fielded in free roaming squadrons and are perfectly content with blowing other vehicles away. I get what you're saying but they easily serve both roles.
At most they Serve as a Td without a turret. But aslong as we don't have firing positions back for sponsons and can fire 360 with all weapons that does not matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Eldar can upgrade their tanks to fire at the nearest target. That's a huge difference compared to just not have the penalty. How frequently do you want to put that Brightlance/Lascannon into what's actually closest to your Falcon/Pred? Now, just how frequent do you imagine it'll be if you only ignore the penalty on the nearest target? If your answer to either wasn't "extremely rarely", I'm actually surprised.
At least the Lascannon has 48" range. The Brightlance is 36", which used to be offset by most Brightlance platforms having Relentless. Now, it's 5 pts cheaper. So why should the Pred get that ability and not the Falcon/Serpent/Vyper?
Excuse me but an upgrade that get's it's pts back in one turn and get's to ignore base mechanics is still superior to a predator. Also eldar vehicle = high manouverbility = low chance to not beeing able to use it.
Additionally Fly.
"Excuse me but an upgrade that get's it's pts back in one turn and get's to ignore base mechanics is still superior to a predator."
So 5 pts gets my Falcon's points back in one turn by letting me shoot some Guardsmen or Marines without penalty instead of shooting at a tank? With Lascannon(light) weaponry?
Yes, CWE tanks are high manouverability. So why should Preds be better at firing while manouvering?
It is more manouverability, but unless you advance, you're still not likely to pick which model you're closest to.
I'm not arguing that Pred > Falcon. I'm arguing that the Matrix is nowhere close to as good as a flat "Ignore the penalty to move".
At most they Serve as a Td without a turret. But aslong as we don't have firing positions back for sponsons and can fire 360 with all weapons that does not matter.
Not that it matters but "Td"?
Edit: nm. Tank Destroyer.
Then wtf is the Predator not a tank destroyer then?
I think they're using the "Armored vehicle with really, really big gun" definition of Tank Destroyer. Not technically accurate, but aligns with many implementations. If you look up WW2 Tank Destroyers, you see stuff like turrets that are only partially enclosed or vanishingly little side armor on what's mostly a motorized field gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (to be fair, I used the same definition when classifying the Fire Prism as a Tank Destroyer/Mechanised Artillery - it's really just mechanized/armored Artillery, not meant to be an MBT or TD).
At most they Serve as a Td without a turret. But aslong as we don't have firing positions back for sponsons and can fire 360 with all weapons that does not matter.
Not that it matters but "Td"?
Edit: nm. Tank Destroyer.
Then wtf is the Predator not a tank destroyer then?
Mbt with Pred autocannon and bolters.
Td with twin Lascannon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I think they're using the "Armored vehicle with really, really big gun" definition of Tank Destroyer. Not technically accurate, but aligns with many implementations. If you look up WW2 Tank Destroyers, you see stuff like turrets that are only partially enclosed or vanishingly little side armor on what's mostly a motorized field gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (to be fair, I used the same definition when classifying the Fire Prism as a Tank Destroyer/Mechanised Artillery - it's really just mechanized/armored Artillery, not meant to be an MBT or TD).
WW 2 anyways had some odd outliers, considering that the stug which is a spa (self propelled artillery) worked better as a Td then it's intended use.
Frankly what is the price for a upgraded Falcon?
I could see the predator working fine if it would've been priced a tad cheaper.
Mbt with Pred autocannon and bolters.
Td with twin Lascannon.
And the Predator with Twin Las and Heavy Bolters? Not an MBT?
Land Raider with Lascannons and Heavy Bolters is a Tank Destroyer instead of an MBT? Sounds totally arbitrary. Big armored thing. Drives around. Shoots stuff. Pew pew.
Predator has access to moarbigger guns than Falcon. Wounds t8 on 3s. Longer range with all guns. Has modifier when moves.
Falcon comes to about 160 with Pulse Laser, Shuriken Cannon, Blight Lance and the Matrix. Is faster, has Fly, can carry some models and gets Craftworld bonus. That's a pretty good deal. Somebody's price definitely seems off when comparing the two.
I really wish I hadn't even mentioned this. Predators need something to make them not an auto-pass compared to Russes or Dunecrawlers. At this point, I need a reason to field BA units other than scouts and captains. Every other BA unit is basically useless., and the scouts are just there as CP life support, and contribute nothing of value. Vanilla is mostly the same, except they can bring Bobby G. The BA chapter tactic is godawful except on one trick unit. Pathetic.
How about give combat knife to all marines and a cool rule for jump pack marines (to compensate them somehow), like the inceptor have. Isn't a huge change and could be easy to implement.
Martel732 wrote: I really wish I hadn't even mentioned this. Predators need something to make them not an auto-pass compared to Russes or Dunecrawlers. At this point, I need a reason to field BA units other than scouts and captains. Every other BA unit is basically useless., and the scouts are just there as CP life support, and contribute nothing of value. Vanilla is mostly the same, except they can bring Bobby G. The BA chapter tactic is godawful except on one trick unit. Pathetic.
Oh yeah I forgot about Dunecrawlers! They just straight up have old Relentless.
So that's basically only Predators and Hammerheads that don't have anything to compensate. I haven't heard of Tau players loving their Hammerheads so...
Which none of those armies have? Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Mechanicus have the same access to rerolls and Guard can get them just being Cadian (reroll for the Blast weapons on Catachan might be better for you. Math was done elsewhere as far as I know).
Slayer-Fan123 760395 10071929 wrote:
Oh yeah I forgot about Dunecrawlers! They just straight up have old Relentless.
So that's basically only Predators and Hammerheads that don't have anything to compensate. I haven't heard of Tau players loving their Hammerheads so...
I love my hammerheads, longstrike is a sizable part of that though. I kind of feel like they are slightly under priced, but predators have heavier anti tank with quad las. Chaos preds can spend a cp for relentless.
I think that predators ignoring movement is a great idea. Encourages mobile tanks, and most importantly, differentiates it from the razorback. It also means I don't need to go all out and whack sponsons on it too. If I just want a mobile predator autocannonor twin lascannons, I can get them for 130/140 points which is pretty reasonable.
Which none of those armies have? Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Mechanicus have the same access to rerolls and Guard can get them just being Cadian (reroll for the Blast weapons on Catachan might be better for you. Math was done elsewhere as far as I know).
Not as thoroughly and plentiful, off the top of my head. All to hit, 1s to wound, for potentially everything against anything.
Which none of those armies have? Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Mechanicus have the same access to rerolls and Guard can get them just being Cadian (reroll for the Blast weapons on Catachan might be better for you. Math was done elsewhere as far as I know).
Not as thoroughly and plentiful, off the top of my head. All to hit, 1s to wound, for potentially everything against anything.
Archons? Autarchs? Dominus? Ya know, the HQ's you're already taking, with the former two being cheaper than Captains?
Meanwhile Cadians get them just for sitting still, which really isn't hard when you ignore LoS and have a lot of range, or even both.
Mbt with Pred autocannon and bolters.
Td with twin Lascannon.
And the Predator with Twin Las and Heavy Bolters? Not an MBT?
Land Raider with Lascannons and Heavy Bolters is a Tank Destroyer instead of an MBT? Sounds totally arbitrary. Big armored thing. Drives around. Shoots stuff. Pew pew.
Predator has access to moarbigger guns than Falcon. Wounds t8 on 3s. Longer range with all guns. Has modifier when moves.
Falcon comes to about 160 with Pulse Laser, Shuriken Cannon, Blight Lance and the Matrix. Is faster, has Fly, can carry some models and gets Craftworld bonus. That's a pretty good deal. Somebody's price definitely seems off when comparing the two.
Not really, the link is not arbitrary, it has to do with the main armament which decides their specificaton. Autocannon is an allround gun, Lascannon is a At gun.
Which none of those armies have? Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Mechanicus have the same access to rerolls and Guard can get them just being Cadian (reroll for the Blast weapons on Catachan might be better for you. Math was done elsewhere as far as I know).
Not as thoroughly and plentiful, off the top of my head. All to hit, 1s to wound, for potentially everything against anything.
Archons? Autarchs? Dominus? Ya know, the HQ's you're already taking, with the former two being cheaper than Captains?
Meanwhile Cadians get them just for sitting still, which really isn't hard when you ignore LoS and have a lot of range, or even both.
Do they get full re-rolls to hit (not just 1's) and any re-rolls to wound?
Which none of those armies have? Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Mechanicus have the same access to rerolls and Guard can get them just being Cadian (reroll for the Blast weapons on Catachan might be better for you. Math was done elsewhere as far as I know).
Not as thoroughly and plentiful, off the top of my head. All to hit, 1s to wound, for potentially everything against anything.
Archons? Autarchs? Dominus? Ya know, the HQ's you're already taking, with the former two being cheaper than Captains?
Meanwhile Cadians get them just for sitting still, which really isn't hard when you ignore LoS and have a lot of range, or even both.
Do they get full re-rolls to hit (not just 1's) and any re-rolls to wound?
Do you get the same in your army without wasting 3CP?
I'd love it if *most* battle tanks could move half distance and not be penalized. Preds, Falcons, *and* HammerHeads (among others).
That said, why should the Pred get it but not the Falcon? The only battle tanks I can think of that would deserve it *less* would be the Hammerhead and Ork BattleWagon - and those are debateable. It is *really* hard to picture Preds being more mobile and fluid than the Falcon chasis.
The quad-las Pred seems decent for it's points compared to Falcons and similar. It just doesn't compete with the top-tier choices out there.
The HB/AC Pred seems a bit weaker, but mostly because you can get better shooting than HB elsewhere. The AC got a good buff recently. But if the HB were buffed (H:4 or RF2/3), that version of the Pred is better too.
Killshot having utility beyond forcing the opponent to pop one Pred immediately would help to.
So, how's this for a starting point to discuss from:
Preds: Sv 2+
HB: RF3
Killshot: 2+ Preds, wound on 1 better
Ice_can wrote: If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.
.
I'm actually not persuaded it would be game breaking to have 2 wound Plague Marines or Rubrics. I mean really think about it, how many *competitive* Death Guard lists actually field Plague Marines. I mean the general consensus is that they aren't worth the price tag even in Death Guard compared to Cultists, Pox Walkers, Nurglings, and Plague Bearers which typically fill out the core of these types of lists. Maybe if they had that extra wound we might actually see Plague Marines in a Death Guard army. Maybe.
I'm not saying that people don't use Plague Marines casually, and I'm not saying that Plague Marines are awful for their points- but at the end of the day, nobody is taking them when preparing for a tournament. And that is because they still need help.
Ice_can wrote: If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking. .
I'm actually not persuaded it would be game breaking to have 2 wound Plague Marines or Rubrics. I mean really think about it, how many *competitive* Death Guard lists actually field Plague Marines. I mean the general consensus is that they aren't worth the price tag even in Death Guard compared to Cultists, Pox Walkers, Nurglings, and Plague Bearers which typically fill out the core of these types of lists. Maybe if they had that extra wound we might actually see Plague Marines in a Death Guard army. Maybe.
I'm not saying that people don't use Plague Marines casually, and I'm not saying that Plague Marines are awful for their points- but at the end of the day, nobody is taking them when preparing for a tournament. And that is because they still need help.
Excellent points.
For me, a failed save, is a failed save, is a failed save. It still removes the model entirely. Having better armour and T doesn't matter as much in this edition as having more wounds. Chaff units have more wounds per point and, even better, they are spread out so the multi-damage weapons are wasted on them. In order for Marines to compete with "squishier" options, they need to have close to the same amount of wounds per point. 2W Plague Marines at their current cost would STILL be overlooked in favor of those 1W options that can afford to lose models.
You will never be able to justify a 1W Marine being almost as cheap as other non-Marine 1W options. Marines will have better T and armour save and will pay for it. Meaning you end up with the same situation: "Marines are too expensive, I'll just take Scouts/Guard/Cultists instead"
The changes to AP, the Wound chart and mulit-damage weapons demand Marine have more than 1 measly wound. Otherwise, why bother? Just spam Guard and Cultists troops
I'm actually not persuaded it would be game breaking to have 2 wound Plague Marines or Rubrics. I mean really think about it, how many *competitive* Death Guard lists actually field Plague Marines. I mean the general consensus is that they aren't worth the price tag even in Death Guard compared to Cultists, Pox Walkers, Nurglings, and Plague Bearers which typically fill out the core of these types of lists. Maybe if they had that extra wound we might actually see Plague Marines in a Death Guard army. Maybe.
I'm not saying that people don't use Plague Marines casually, and I'm not saying that Plague Marines are awful for their points- but at the end of the day, nobody is taking them when preparing for a tournament. And that is because they still need help.
I am all for this, but also do it for Inmortals, some orks, etc. More wounds/resiliance in general makes the game more interesting; specially with hordes or big models all around the table
Ice_can wrote: If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.
.
I'm actually not persuaded it would be game breaking to have 2 wound Plague Marines or Rubrics. I mean really think about it, how many *competitive* Death Guard lists actually field Plague Marines. I mean the general consensus is that they aren't worth the price tag even in Death Guard compared to Cultists, Pox Walkers, Nurglings, and Plague Bearers which typically fill out the core of these types of lists. Maybe if they had that extra wound we might actually see Plague Marines in a Death Guard army. Maybe.
I'm not saying that people don't use Plague Marines casually, and I'm not saying that Plague Marines are awful for their points- but at the end of the day, nobody is taking them when preparing for a tournament. And that is because they still need help.
Two wound plague marines at T5 2W with 5+FNP is game changing go play that game with no point changes and tell me it's not too much.
Maybe if it was a 6+fnp it would be so bad but needing to get 3 failed saves just to remove a single 17 point model turns the game into a no fun grinding match. Rubrics ironically wouldn't benifit as much due to all is dust being for D1 weapons.
Ice_can wrote: If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking. .
I'm actually not persuaded it would be game breaking to have 2 wound Plague Marines or Rubrics. I mean really think about it, how many *competitive* Death Guard lists actually field Plague Marines. I mean the general consensus is that they aren't worth the price tag even in Death Guard compared to Cultists, Pox Walkers, Nurglings, and Plague Bearers which typically fill out the core of these types of lists. Maybe if they had that extra wound we might actually see Plague Marines in a Death Guard army. Maybe.
I'm not saying that people don't use Plague Marines casually, and I'm not saying that Plague Marines are awful for their points- but at the end of the day, nobody is taking them when preparing for a tournament. And that is because they still need help.
Two wound plague marines at T5 2W with 5+FNP would is game changing go play that game with no point changes and tell me it's not too much.
Here's the beauty of why giving Marines 2W is no big deal: About half the weapons that kill Marines currently do multiple wounds already. In many, many cases, the weapons used to kill Marines are the ones with decent AP. Most of those also have multiple damage. So the extra wound ONLY helps against 1D weapons.
You cannot seriously tell me that you've been successfully killing PMs with 1D weapons. You should already be shooting heavier guns at Plague Marines But I can agree that maybe a 6+ Resilience would be a good compromise as they will also still have T5.
Which none of those armies have? Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Mechanicus have the same access to rerolls and Guard can get them just being Cadian (reroll for the Blast weapons on Catachan might be better for you. Math was done elsewhere as far as I know).
Not as thoroughly and plentiful, off the top of my head. All to hit, 1s to wound, for potentially everything against anything.
Archons? Autarchs? Dominus? Ya know, the HQ's you're already taking, with the former two being cheaper than Captains?
Meanwhile Cadians get them just for sitting still, which really isn't hard when you ignore LoS and have a lot of range, or even both.
Do they get full re-rolls to hit (not just 1's) and any re-rolls to wound?
Do you get the same in your army without wasting 3CP?
I'll take your avoidance of answering the question as a "no".
Corennus wrote: So you're saying all marines except HQ should have 2 wounds.......interesting.
Would certainly make Tacticals more viable and an alternative again to Intercessors.
But I think Scouts should still be 1 wound. they're not fully inducted yet.
Yes, that is basically what I am saying. All current 1W MEQs should have 2Ws. So Tacs, Assault, Devs and their Chaos equivalents. I am also saying Terminators and Bikes should have 3W. Assault Bikes 4W.
HQs already have plenty of wounds as well as Character protection, so they are fine as-is. I agree, Scouts should stay at 1W, Scout Bikes at 2W
I am also ok with Necron Immortals having 2W, but due to their RP rule and vastly "better than Bolters" weapon options, they should be no less than 20ppm for this. But I am also ok with Immortals staying as they are at 1W. Afterall, they do not have layered armour in the same way as a Marine. Their "armour" is their body. So I'm 50/50 on Immortals. Either way Necron Warriors could drop a point or two. But this is all for a different thread
Which none of those armies have? Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Mechanicus have the same access to rerolls and Guard can get them just being Cadian (reroll for the Blast weapons on Catachan might be better for you. Math was done elsewhere as far as I know).
Not as thoroughly and plentiful, off the top of my head. All to hit, 1s to wound, for potentially everything against anything.
Archons? Autarchs? Dominus? Ya know, the HQ's you're already taking, with the former two being cheaper than Captains?
Meanwhile Cadians get them just for sitting still, which really isn't hard when you ignore LoS and have a lot of range, or even both.
Do they get full re-rolls to hit (not just 1's) and any re-rolls to wound?
Do you get the same in your army without wasting 3CP?
I'll take your avoidance of answering the question as a "no".
More re-rolls are available to SM.
No it really isn't.
Marines currently have:
1. Captains
2. Wisdom Of The Ancient (which is redundant and a bad Strategem)
3. Named Chapter Masters (which you don't use, as that would clearly be too broken for your casual games obviously)
4. The Chapter Master Strategem, which is a whopping 3CP.
All those are bad outside the named Chapter Masters and Captains. So we can actually call it two sources of bonuses to hit, as much as you want to protest. I almost can't wait to see the follow up post on why Wisdom Of The Ancients is so great from you. You love defending horrid balance.
For wounding you have the Lt. and Killshot, the latter of which being horribly specific to the point it almost doesn't exist thanks to Rule Of Three.
So what do other armies have outside all the bonuses I named? Let's take a look.
1. AdMech have the Dominus (Captain), Cawl (named Chapter Master), Benediction Of The Omnissiah, and the Protector Doctrina Imperative. So the Dunecrawlers, on top of not receiving negative bonuses moving, get the same generic HQ dudes providing rerolls and don't have some stupidly specific Strategems. Then of course Benediction isn't hard to activate. There's a clear winner here whether you want to admit it or not. Rerolling to sound only matters if you can hit, and there's a clear value to modifying your hit rolls instead of an always varying Wound roll.
2. Eldar once again have the Autarch (Captain), Linked Fire, and Runes Of Witnessing. There's no full reroll, but Fire Prisms can fire twice without any penalty if they barely moved, making the bonuses for Autarchs and Runes Of Witnessing to come into play. More importantly is Linked Fire, as Wave Serpents don't need to even be near each other. You get full rerolls and Shred. That's much better than Killshot. Once again we have a clear winner.
3. I don't actually need to go into everything Russes get do I?
4. The only one you're correct on is Dark Eldar. You have Archons and there's some Warlord trait with a reroll of 1 to wound somewhere.
Corennus wrote: So you're saying all marines except HQ should have 2 wounds.......interesting.
Would certainly make Tacticals more viable and an alternative again to Intercessors.
But I think Scouts should still be 1 wound. they're not fully inducted yet.
Yes, that is basically what I am saying. All current 1W MEQs should have 2Ws. So Tacs, Assault, Devs and their Chaos equivalents.
I am also saying Terminators and Bikes should have 3W. Assault Bikes 4W.
HQs already have plenty of wounds as well as Character protection, so they are fine as-is.
I agree, Scouts should stay at 1W, Scout Bikes at 2W
I am also ok with Necron Immortals having 2W, but due to their RP rule and vastly "better than Bolters" weapon options, they should be no less than 20ppm for this.
But I am also ok with Immortals staying as they are at 1W. Afterall, they do not have layered armour in the same way as a Marine. Their "armour" is their body.
So I'm 50/50 on Immortals. Either way Necron Warriors could drop a point or two. But this is all for a different thread
-
There in lies your scale problem the moment you introduce more wounds as even a concept.
Do Orks get two wounds? Necron Immortals and therefore we scale up for everyone else like Wraiths and Lychguard and Praetorians? Thunderwolves get another wound?
"but Fire Prisms can fire twice without any penalty if they barely moved"
If by "without penalty" you mean "with penalty", sure.
As for Fire Prisms firing twice, you should run the numbers on what one Fire Prism does compared to one Pred. Or per point. A Pred does a lot more firing once than a Fire Prism does firing twice at the appropriate target.
The stratagem changes things, when used. But it can't always be used, and isn't free.
"More importantly is Linked Fire, as Wave Serpents don't need to even be near each other."
Of course they don't. Because it doesn't impact Serpents. It's a stratagem that *only* impacts Fire Prisms. No other CWE anything.
"You get full rerolls and Shred."
Umm, what is Shred giving that "full rerolls" isn't? And that's only by using a stratagem. And then only for Fire Prisms. And then only against a single target a turn.
I think you need to take a second look at the CWE codex. Your opponents aren't playing right.
Ice_can wrote: [If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking. .
I played. With my friend. We are both terribly unhappy with the state of our armies (of my six, three are loyal marines, and he has all of chaos space marines armies) and so we decided to test some features, including marines with two wounds.
Two games, literally three weeks ago, I play with simple space marines, one for the custodians, one for the adeptus mechanicus. A friend had twenty-five models of plague marines in three rhinos and another staff.
What can I say? Two wins (AC and AM), one draw and one defeat (SM).. Plague marines became noticeably tenacious, yes. But they did not become indestructible. I would say that they turned from a fan unit into working horses. They just began to work out their cost.
Also, yay, Runes of Witnessing. CWE can take 2 primary HQs and pay 2 CP a turn to get the same aura buffs as an SM that takes 1 primary and 1 secondary HQ and pays no CP.
Weren't you complaining that the ChapterMaster didn't count because you had to pay 3 CP to have him? But 2 CP every turn means nothing?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There in lies your scale problem the moment you introduce more wounds as even a concept. Do Orks get two wounds? Necron Immortals and therefore we scale up for everyone else like Wraiths and Lychguard and Praetorians? Thunderwolves get another wound?
Just slabbing on wounds doesn't scale. At all.
It does scale, actually. Why else do Terminators and Bikes get 100% more wounds than a regular marine? Because even GW realized that the system in 8th allows a scale of wounds. They just didn't go far enough and Marines are paying the price for their hesitance. My proposal would make Termies and Bikes only have 50% more wounds than a regular Marine, thus make the "scale" more appropriate.
And yes, you need to add a wound to Praetorians and Lych Guard *if* you do the same to Immortals. That should be assumed. Which is why I stated I would be ok with Immorals staying at 1W. The interaction with RP makes adding wound to Necron require heavier cost increases.
Orks having 2W works for the bigger ones (so NOT Boyz). I believe Nobs already have 2W. Orks are also meant to be more plentiful, but easier to kill. This is a good example of wounds representing "stamina" or "discipline" rather that just "bulk". A Marine is far more likely to fight on when wounded due to their training, than some random Ork who just thinks "fightin' is fun". It's the exact reason (or at least the only logical one) for why Eldar Aspect Exarchs have more wounds that their squad members. They literally are the same but the Exarchs have more experience and discipline, ergo they don't die to a single wound and can muster the strength to fight on.
Remember that GW has never defined losing the last wound as the model being "dead". In fact in prior editions they made it clear that the model could still be alive but is either wounded too grievously to keep fighting, simply knocked out, or is just unable to fight. The model is "slain" in that they can't take part in the battle (i.e. game) any longer.
"It's the exact reason (or at least the only logical one) for why Eldar Aspect Exarchs have more wounds that their squad members. They literally are the same "things' but the Exacts have more experience and discipline, ergo they don't die to a single wound and can muster the strength to fight on."
Exarchs are not Aspect Warriors. They are nothing like Marine Seargents.
Exarchs are suits of armor, currently occupied by the body of the last Eldar whos soul merged with it. It is not just a more experienced Aspect Warrior.
Whether they should have 2W can be debated. Previously, they had a 3+ armor save regardless of aspect instead of 2W.
A Marine Sarge is a Marine. Same kit. Same physical body. Just more experience. An Exarch is not.
So you are saying Exarchs have +1W because the ARMOUR is better? So...just like standard SM armour? Shouldn't that mean Exarchs would have +1 saving throw, not +1W? Because if you are saying the armour gives +1 wound, I'd argue Power armour is better than regular Aspect armour all day, thus supporting my stance that it should give +1W. And yes, they are a more experienced Aspect warrior because they become merged with the .... experiences ... of the previous wearers of the suit.
But whether it's the armour or the discipline gained from lifetimes of battle, Exarchs have +1W for reasons that SHOULD follow through to Marines. So we have not only a fluff reason to make them 2W, but it helps balance then in game too. +1W is a WIN-WIN, as is minimum 2atx for basic Marines
I firmly believe GW had this thought when designing 8E, but chickened out in altering their golden goose and created a lame duck that is the Primaris line. That sentence was poultry in motion.
Eldar Exarchs have always been a bit special. In earlier editions this was represented by a bump in weapon skill and ballistic skill. However, they were just as durable as the rest of the squad members (with the exception that Banshee and Dire Avenger Exarchs were upgraded to a 3+ armor save).
It baffles me that this was changed in 8th edition to give them 2 wounds and keep the same ballistic skill / weapon skill as their peers. It makes no sense, adds meaningless book keeping and has a relatively minor impact on the game. Its just bizarre. Aspect Warrior Exarchs should absolutely have 1 wound.
I think the true strength of xenos is ignoring rerolls and still being witheringly effective. I hate the reroll scheme for marines because the babysitters are expensive and mostly useless.
"So you are saying Exarchs have +1W because the ARMOUR is better? So...just like standard SM armour?"
Exarchs used to have a 3+, and that felt more fitting. I always shrug a little when a Dire Avenger Exarch walks off a boltgun to the face.
That said, you're still thinking of the armor as an inanimate layer atop the Exarch. The soulstone*s* are embedded on the armor, not the body. Further, Soulstone-embedded armor is harder to destroy, and the will to drive the Exarch comes from the soulstones, not the body.
"I'd argue Power armour is better than regular Aspect armour all day,"
You could also argue that the sky is green.
First, Power Armor is certainly stronger as a whole than a Howling Banshee suit of armor. But it's not clear that it's stronger (or weaker) than Striking Scorpion or Shining Spear or Incubi armor.
Then, there's the nature of the armor. Against power armor, you need to destroy the person inside. Against Exarchs, you need to destroy the armor. Typically piercing armor is easier than outright destroying it.
Eternal Warrior was once a way to show that the Phoenix Lords - the extreme conclusion of an Exarch over thousands of years, according to theory - isn't stopped just by bashing the meat inside it a little. It takes more than that. Exarchs haven't had EW, but then they're not as powerful as Phoenix Lords.
"But whether it's the armour or the discipline gained from lifetimes of battle, Exarchs have +1W for reasons that SHOULD follow through to Marines."
Armor: The 2W is what it takes to kill the Exarch's armor. The 1W is what it takes to pierce PA and hurt what's inside. 1W on the Exarch may "kill" the body inside, that may not stop it. A suit of PA isn't destroyed every time it's wearer is killed, but the unit is. An Exarch isn't destroyed every time it's 'wearer' is killed, and neither is the unit.
Discipline gained from lifetimes of battle: SM Sarges may have hundreds of years experience. Exarchs may have thousands. And not necessarily consecutively: even an Exarch who's oldest part is 500 years old could have hundreds of lifetimes. They're nowwhere near the same thing.
I'm not sold on Exarchs being 2W. I'd rather either a 3+ or just fluff acknowledgement and no rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, fluffwise, the CWE beatsticks/combat heroes are Exarchs, not Autarchs. But HeroHammer being what it is, the rules don't reflect this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Eldar Exarchs have always been a bit special. In earlier editions this was represented by a bump in weapon skill and ballistic skill. However, they were just as durable as the rest of the squad members (with the exception that Banshee and Dire Avenger Exarchs were upgraded to a 3+ armor save)."
And Hawks. As in, all the 4+ armor save Exarchs.
They gained their second wound in the 7E Codex, not the 8E Index.
That said, I certainly support 1W Exarchs with no other changes. I'd rather 1W Exarchs with +1 WS/BS, but whatever.
I'll say this: It is very difficult to not talk about fluff when trying to support my proposal. I completely get that you can justify or disprove just about anything in the fluff.
It's just...even at 10ppm with 1W, Marines still suck compared to two 1W models at 5ppm, regardless of T or armour. At minimum, it only takes 1 shot to kill the Marine, whereas it requires double that for the others. Statistics aside, that is the real reason Marines suck right now. It takes less firepower to kill them than equal points of lesser unit that spread their durability across multiple models. This is compounded by their lack of damage output (which would be better if more Marines could like 1-2 turns longer to add their damage output)
Marines are paying for "what if" durability. As in "if they pass their armour" or "if they T makes them harder to wound". When throwing lots of dice, this "what if" durability ends up favoring units that forego actual T and saves for bodies
Here's another funny thing: 2W Marines @15ppm is actually LESS powerful than 1W Marines @10ppm Here's why: For 30pts, you either get three 1W Marines or two 2W Marines. The 1W Marines have 3 total wounds that care not about multi-damage weapons, have 3 bolters and more melee attacks The 2W Marines, while having 4 total wounds, DO care about multi-damage weapons and only have 2 Bolters and less melee attacks.
IMO, either change would be acceptable, but being more durable to small arms fire just seems more acceptable and doesn't create as many head scratching situations like "Why is X now more expensive than a Marine? It has less T and worse Armour". Which could lead to X getting cheaper, and now Marines are too expensive by comparison AGAIN.
Consider:
It's just...even at 30ppm with 1W, Dark Reapers still suck compared to two 1W models at 13ppm, regardless of T or armour. At minimum, it only takes 1 shot to kill the Dark Reaper, whereas it requires double that for the others.
Statistics aside, that is the real reason Dark Reapers suck right now. It takes less firepower to kill them than equal points of lesser unit that spread their durability across multiple models.
Or:
Dark Reapers are paying for "what if" fiirepower. As in "if they pass their 3+ hit roll" or "if the S makes them more likely to wound". When throwing lots of dice, this "what if" firepower ends up favoring units that forego actual S and AP for shots
Those statements are just as logically accurate, but are clearly wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd rather field or go up against 3 10-pt Marines than 2 2W 15pt Marines, actually. Not really for balance reasons, though.
At any rate, I thought most people considered Marines to be fine at 11ppm, but undercosted at 10ppm.
Those statements are just as logically accurate, but are clearly wrong.
Horrible example. Reapers have a very good gun, which is why the REAPER is 8ppm, and the GUN is 22ppm. Marines are paying for their durability, Reapers are paying for the gun. Marines are paying TOO MUCH for durability that is basically an illusion, while Reapers obviously are worth what they pay for.
I'd rather field or go up against 3 10-pt Marines than 2 2W 15pt Marines, actually. Not really for balance reasons, though.
At any rate, I thought most people considered Marines to be fine at 11ppm, but undercosted at 10ppm.
11ppm for current Marines might be fine with no changes. As-is they are arguably worse than Dire Avengers or Necron Warriors (only comparing these as they are close in points) so being cheaper than these is fair. My complaint is that Tactical Marines SHOULD NOT BE WORSE than these, or similar choices. Not only because they are friggin Marines, but because they are the template for the Elite, Fast and Heavy choices.
So while making Marines pay for what they are worth is the idea, I believe they should be WORTH more and not just cost less.
But trying to show that 2W 15pt Marines are fine because they match up against something else that isn't in the game and hasn't been accepted as fair doesn't really add much.
I'm fine with being cheaper than Dire Avengers (especially as long as the Exarch is free), but why should Marines be *worth* more than a Dire Avenger? Aren't they each equally-elite super troops? Just in different ways?
Bharring wrote: But trying to show that 2W 15pt Marines are fine because they match up against something else that isn't in the game and hasn't been accepted as fair doesn't really add much.
Granted. It made perfect sense to me, but I see your point about comparing unproven hypotheticals
Bharring wrote: I'm fine with being cheaper than Dire Avengers (especially as long as the Exarch is free), but why should Marines be *worth* more than a Dire Avenger? Aren't they each equally-elite super troops? Just in different ways?
My fluff response would be that in every story I've even seen involving Marines vs non-Marine is that they are always fewer in number and take a considerable effort to be killed.
But restraining from fluff, I can say it has been this way since I started in 4th and I suspect before. Marines have never been cheap compared to other infantry Troops. They have always been more by at least 2-3ppm, implying that GW wants them to be the "elite" Troops. This is central to what Marines are, at least from what I've observed.
Fairly sure the Marines and Eldar were in about equal number in that.
Fluff has CWE also almost always outnumbered.
As for points, Dire Avengers have usually been 1ppm less than a Marine since 6E at least. They were a bit more ppm in the Index, which is the one exception I can think of. I don't recall Marines ever being more than 1ppm more than DAs. Because DAs are also "elite" troops.
I've done a complete breakdown in another post of all the infantry that need adjustments if we are just going to keep the same stats and adjust points to the Infantry/Kabalites/Firewarriors/battle sister.
Guardians 7 Storms being 6
Dire avengers 9
Tac Marine/CSM (base for all PA units) 10
Necron Warrior 10
Intercessor 15
hormagant 4
termagant 3
Tyranid warrior 17
I might be missing some troops but these are the major offenders.
Off the top of my head here are some other units that need dramatic fixes
Crisis suits 25 base
terminators (includes CSM varients) 26 fully equiped (ad or subtract up to 5 points base based on abilities)
Rhino 52 with storm bolter
Drop pod (20 points + cost 1 command point)
Devilfish 65 base
Chimera 70 Fully equped
Strike squad marine 16 fully equiped
Rubric marine 15 with bolter
Ad mech destroyer 28 base
I remember an edition in which Marines were 15ppm and DA were 12ppm. Can't remember which. DA's are probably another poor example, especially considering DAs are currently 8ppm, not 12. Their gun, which is obviously better than a Bolter, is 4ppm.
I'd be happy with 10-11ppm Marines as it's fair enough. I'd be happier with 2W Marines as it's more fluffy and makes army lists with lots of Marines far more fun to play against.
Xenomancers wrote: I've done a complete breakdown in another post of all the infantry that need adjustments if we are just going to keep the same stats and adjust points to the Infantry/Kabalites/Firewarriors/battle sister.
Guardians 7 Storms being 6 Dire avengers 9 Tac Marine/CSM (base for all PA units) 10 Necron Warrior 10 Intercessor 15 hormagant 4 termagant 3 Tyranid warrior 17
I might be missing some troops but these are the major offenders.
Yeah, I can dig those changes. Still sucks for a Marine to just die to 1 failed save, but at least the proportion to the other choice is appropriate.
Galef wrote: I remember an edition in which Marines were 15ppm and DA were 12ppm. Can't remember which.
DA's are probably another poor example, especially considering DAs are currently 8ppm, not 12. Their gun, which is obviously better than a Bolter, is 4ppm.
I'd be happy with 10-11ppm Marines as it's fair enough. I'd be happier with 2W Marines as it's more fluffy and makes army lists with lots of Marines far more fun to play against.
Xenomancers wrote: I've done a complete breakdown in another post of all the infantry that need adjustments if we are just going to keep the same stats and adjust points to the Infantry/Kabalites/Firewarriors/battle sister.
Guardians 7 Storms being 6
Dire avengers 9
Tac Marine/CSM (base for all PA units) 10
Necron Warrior 10
Intercessor 15
hormagant 4
termagant 3
Tyranid warrior 17
I might be missing some troops but these are the major offenders.
Yeah, I can dig those changes. Still sucks for a Marine to just die to 1 failed save, but at least the proportion to the other choice is appropriate.
-
It would be fun to play them regardless. They have been a tax every edition I've played. To have them be an asset and accomplish things in games would be amazing. Who cares if they play more like an ork boy than a space marine?
The other thing do consider (for me specifically) is the likelihood of which change might happen. With Chapter Approved being primarily a method to adjust points, rather than contain massive amount of updated datasheets, it's pretty clear that 2W Marines is the fever dream of a mad man.
I can only hope that the next CA at least makes Marines and Terminators playable in competitive settings by making the points appealing.
Bharring wrote: But trying to show that 2W 15pt Marines are fine because they match up against something else that isn't in the game and hasn't been accepted as fair doesn't really add much.
I'm fine with being cheaper than Dire Avengers (especially as long as the Exarch is free), but why should Marines be *worth* more than a Dire Avenger? Aren't they each equally-elite super troops? Just in different ways?
Because marines are the template for every other slot in the army. Making marine vehicles not pure garbage would help, too, but that seems secondary to me. They've been garbage a long time now.
Galef wrote: I remember an edition in which Marines were 15ppm and DA were 12ppm. Can't remember which.
4th edition
Marines had no grenades or pistols and half the cost of their heavy weapon baked into their points - actually worked out 11pts a model if you discounted a full lascannon from an MSU squad.
DA had assault 2 bolters. Bladestorm was a 27pt squad upgrade to shoot twice in a turn followed by not shooting the next turn.
Totally different game back then.
Xenomancers wrote: I've done a complete breakdown in another post of all the infantry that need adjustments if we are just going to keep the same stats and adjust points to the Infantry/Kabalites/Firewarriors/battle sister.
You seem to be missing those four units from your list, unless you are suggesting they are priced correctly.
I wonder if GW went/go through half the effort people are pouring into this discussion when coming out with marines?
It's hard to imagine that they did. I really wish I could take this whole thread and just send it to GW. This forum really never agrees on anything but some how we've gotten everyone (except Shuppet...) to agree that marines are over-priced.
The solutions range from 2+ saves, +1 wound or reducing the price to 10-11 points.
It also seem universal that their offensive out-put is too low and should be resolved with +1 A across the board. The shooting power doesn't seem to have the same universal solution but I think it depends on the durability solution. Increase the armor/+1w and they need from double the shots to exploding sixes.
The rest of the codex is still in a bad spot (paper thin "tanks", over costed transports, drop pods, slow as poop dreads, Guilliman, chaplins, deepstrike rule, flyers, vindicators, centurians, land raiders, terminators, psychic powers, strategems). But with the amount of work it's taken people to just come together on tacs I'm not sure if we have the collective willpower to even consider the rest of the issues.
I wonder if GW went/go through half the effort people are pouring into this discussion when coming out with marines?
It's hard to imagine that they did. I really wish I could take this whole thread and just send it to GW. This forum really never agrees on anything but some how we've gotten everyone (except Shuppet...) to agree that marines are over-priced.
The solutions range from 2+ saves, +1 wound or reducing the price to 10-11 points.
It also seem universal that their offensive out-put is too low and should be resolved with +1 A across the board. The shooting power doesn't seem to have the same universal solution but I think it depends on the durability solution. Increase the armor/+1w and they need from double the shots to exploding sixes.
The rest of the codex is still in a bad spot (paper thin "tanks", over costed transports, drop pods, slow as poop dreads, Guilliman, chaplins, deepstrike rule, flyers, vindicators, centurians, land raiders, terminators, psychic powers, strategems). But with the amount of work it's taken people to just come together on tacs I'm not sure if we have the collective willpower to even consider the rest of the issues.
Fair synopsis?
Close enough. I will concede that 10-11ppm Marines present a better solution to the offense issue than having 2W. Getting more bodies on the table means more bolters and more melee attacks.
How does everyone feel about giving Marines the Exarch treatment? Keeping Marines at 1W. but unit leaders like Sgts and Champions get +1W? You can hardly argue the precedence isn't there. Unit leaders are little mini-heroes afterall.
bananathug wrote: The solutions range from 2+ saves, +1 wound or reducing the price to 10-11 points.
It also seem universal that their offensive out-put is too low and should be resolved with +1 A across the board. The shooting power doesn't seem to have the same universal solution but I think it depends on the durability solution. Increase the armor/+1w and they need from double the shots to exploding sixes.
+1 wound, +1 attack, and with a little extra firepower
It's a primaris intercessor. Can't be long before GW starts releasing special and heavy weapons for them either.
Which none of those armies have? Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Mechanicus have the same access to rerolls and Guard can get them just being Cadian (reroll for the Blast weapons on Catachan might be better for you. Math was done elsewhere as far as I know).
Not as thoroughly and plentiful, off the top of my head. All to hit, 1s to wound, for potentially everything against anything.
Archons? Autarchs? Dominus? Ya know, the HQ's you're already taking, with the former two being cheaper than Captains?
Meanwhile Cadians get them just for sitting still, which really isn't hard when you ignore LoS and have a lot of range, or even both.
Do they get full re-rolls to hit (not just 1's) and any re-rolls to wound?
Do you get the same in your army without wasting 3CP?
I'll take your avoidance of answering the question as a "no".
More re-rolls are available to SM.
No it really isn't.
Marines currently have:
1. Captains
2. Wisdom Of The Ancient (which is redundant and a bad Strategem)
3. Named Chapter Masters (which you don't use, as that would clearly be too broken for your casual games obviously)
4. The Chapter Master Strategem, which is a whopping 3CP.
All those are bad outside the named Chapter Masters and Captains. So we can actually call it two sources of bonuses to hit, as much as you want to protest. I almost can't wait to see the follow up post on why Wisdom Of The Ancients is so great from you. You love defending horrid balance.
For wounding you have the Lt. and Killshot, the latter of which being horribly specific to the point it almost doesn't exist thanks to Rule Of Three.
So what do other armies have outside all the bonuses I named? Let's take a look.
1. AdMech have the Dominus (Captain), Cawl (named Chapter Master), Benediction Of The Omnissiah, and the Protector Doctrina Imperative. So the Dunecrawlers, on top of not receiving negative bonuses moving, get the same generic HQ dudes providing rerolls and don't have some stupidly specific Strategems. Then of course Benediction isn't hard to activate. There's a clear winner here whether you want to admit it or not. Rerolling to sound only matters if you can hit, and there's a clear value to modifying your hit rolls instead of an always varying Wound roll.
2. Eldar once again have the Autarch (Captain), Linked Fire, and Runes Of Witnessing. There's no full reroll, but Fire Prisms can fire twice without any penalty if they barely moved, making the bonuses for Autarchs and Runes Of Witnessing to come into play. More importantly is Linked Fire, as Wave Serpents don't need to even be near each other. You get full rerolls and Shred. That's much better than Killshot. Once again we have a clear winner.
3. I don't actually need to go into everything Russes get do I?
4. The only one you're correct on is Dark Eldar. You have Archons and there's some Warlord trait with a reroll of 1 to wound somewhere.
1. Maybe Admech have similar access to re-rolls. You'll have to be more detailed as I'm not too familiar with them. I don't think anybody's writing home about Admech as a competitive army though. They're still new and pretty low on choices, if I recall. Value for re-rolls is also dependent on the units that can get them.
2. Fewer re-rolls overall. Increased output on a few units doesn't equal increased output to every unit.
3. Russes are a single unit. Not even every weapon they have gets to fire twice. Unless your army is made entirely of Russes, the total bonus is still less.
4. No need to comment.
Chapter Master + Lt. can basically increase the damage output of the entire army by 50%. There's no rational way to ignore the impact of that.
But not as plot armor - as being different from the squad.
Don't Orkz also have a bigger Ork who's 2W? But he's bigger.
Harlequin Troup Masters kinda fit this bill for a short period in 7th, but they're HQs now.
Edit - I'm curious where the precedence for +1W from plot armor on the squad leader is coming from. There's certainly precedence for leaders to have plot-armor wounds (see almost every HQ ever).
I wonder if GW went/go through half the effort people are pouring into this discussion when coming out with marines?
It's hard to imagine that they did. I really wish I could take this whole thread and just send it to GW. This forum really never agrees on anything but some how we've gotten everyone (except Shuppet...) to agree that marines are over-priced.
The solutions range from 2+ saves, +1 wound or reducing the price to 10-11 points.
It also seem universal that their offensive out-put is too low and should be resolved with +1 A across the board. The shooting power doesn't seem to have the same universal solution but I think it depends on the durability solution. Increase the armor/+1w and they need from double the shots to exploding sixes.
The rest of the codex is still in a bad spot (paper thin "tanks", over costed transports, drop pods, slow as poop dreads, Guilliman, chaplins, deepstrike rule, flyers, vindicators, centurians, land raiders, terminators, psychic powers, strategems). But with the amount of work it's taken people to just come together on tacs I'm not sure if we have the collective willpower to even consider the rest of the issues.
Fair synopsis?
Close enough.
I will concede that 10-11ppm Marines present a better solution to the offense issue than having 2W. Getting more bodies on the table means more bolters and more melee attacks.
How does everyone feel about giving Marines the Exarch treatment? Keeping Marines at 1W. but unit leaders like Sgts and Champions get +1W?
You can hardly argue the precedence isn't there. Unit leaders are little mini-heroes afterall.
-
2W on the Sergeant I would be ok with, but it does dilute the Exarch a bit. Originally Exarchs were more like Autarchs are now. Incredibly customize-able heroes that functioned separately and independently. Not only have they fallen far, but Autarchs are now very limited in their builds because of the lack of currently sold models, which is sad.
On the offensive front, I'd rather marines stay 13ppm and have a shooting bonus, because I tend towards tradition. In 2nd, Marines had Rapid-Fire and nobody else did, which meant that they could fire twice with Boltguns and Storm Bolters if they didn't move. Personally I'd rather keep marines mobile, so I'd propose something like "Marines in Power Armor or Terminator Armor can fire an additional shot for every "shot" in a bolt weapons profile." At close range Bolters would fire 3 shots, and fire 2 at long range. Storm Bolters would fire 6 shots up close, and 4 at long range. Heavy Bolters would fire 6 shots in the hands of a Marine. The restriction on armor keeps Boltstorm Gauntlets on Aggressors from getting way outta hand. (Or adjust with whatever fine print you want to substitute.)
I say this to counter Galefs "durability issue from fluff." Fluffwise it seems more appropriate to me that Marines killed GEQ faster than they do currently, as they're already pretty tough up against Lasguns. Fictionally you sorta expect 10 marines to clear out GEQ types much faster than they do on the table. In general I don't trust "fluff=play", this is just how I lean on the issue.
Which none of those armies have? Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Mechanicus have the same access to rerolls and Guard can get them just being Cadian (reroll for the Blast weapons on Catachan might be better for you. Math was done elsewhere as far as I know).
Not as thoroughly and plentiful, off the top of my head. All to hit, 1s to wound, for potentially everything against anything.
Archons? Autarchs? Dominus? Ya know, the HQ's you're already taking, with the former two being cheaper than Captains?
Meanwhile Cadians get them just for sitting still, which really isn't hard when you ignore LoS and have a lot of range, or even both.
Do they get full re-rolls to hit (not just 1's) and any re-rolls to wound?
Do you get the same in your army without wasting 3CP?
I'll take your avoidance of answering the question as a "no".
More re-rolls are available to SM.
No it really isn't.
Marines currently have:
1. Captains
2. Wisdom Of The Ancient (which is redundant and a bad Strategem)
3. Named Chapter Masters (which you don't use, as that would clearly be too broken for your casual games obviously)
4. The Chapter Master Strategem, which is a whopping 3CP.
All those are bad outside the named Chapter Masters and Captains. So we can actually call it two sources of bonuses to hit, as much as you want to protest. I almost can't wait to see the follow up post on why Wisdom Of The Ancients is so great from you. You love defending horrid balance.
For wounding you have the Lt. and Killshot, the latter of which being horribly specific to the point it almost doesn't exist thanks to Rule Of Three.
So what do other armies have outside all the bonuses I named? Let's take a look.
1. AdMech have the Dominus (Captain), Cawl (named Chapter Master), Benediction Of The Omnissiah, and the Protector Doctrina Imperative. So the Dunecrawlers, on top of not receiving negative bonuses moving, get the same generic HQ dudes providing rerolls and don't have some stupidly specific Strategems. Then of course Benediction isn't hard to activate. There's a clear winner here whether you want to admit it or not. Rerolling to sound only matters if you can hit, and there's a clear value to modifying your hit rolls instead of an always varying Wound roll.
2. Eldar once again have the Autarch (Captain), Linked Fire, and Runes Of Witnessing. There's no full reroll, but Fire Prisms can fire twice without any penalty if they barely moved, making the bonuses for Autarchs and Runes Of Witnessing to come into play. More importantly is Linked Fire, as Wave Serpents don't need to even be near each other. You get full rerolls and Shred. That's much better than Killshot. Once again we have a clear winner.
3. I don't actually need to go into everything Russes get do I?
4. The only one you're correct on is Dark Eldar. You have Archons and there's some Warlord trait with a reroll of 1 to wound somewhere.
1. Maybe Admech have similar access to re-rolls. You'll have to be more detailed as I'm not too familiar with them. I don't think anybody's writing home about Admech as a competitive army though. They're still new and pretty low on choices, if I recall. Value for re-rolls is also dependent on the units that can get them.
2. Fewer re-rolls overall. Increased output on a few units doesn't equal increased output to every unit.
3. Russes are a single unit. Not even every weapon they have gets to fire twice. Unless your army is made entirely of Russes, the total bonus is still less.
4. No need to comment.
Chapter Master + Lt. can basically increase the damage output of the entire army by 50%. There's no rational way to ignore the impact of that.
1. AdMech doesn't have transports, and therefore you were stuck with gunline (which is Cawlbots) or using CP for either Infiltrate/Deep Strike (Stygies and Lucius respectively). Now that they have the drill available courtesy of FW, us AdMech players are figuring out new ways to play the army.
2. It's only fewer rerolls as long as you include the redundant Strategems you won't use. Luckily the Eldar codex doesn't have THAT much redundancy. More importantly, Linked Fire is an easier Strategem to activate and has better benefits compared to Killshot.
3. The important weapon is firing twice and either rerolling its number of shots or rerolling 1's to hit. You don't even need sponsons; they're just the icing on the cake.
Corennus wrote: So you're saying all marines except HQ should have 2 wounds.......interesting.
Would certainly make Tacticals more viable and an alternative again to Intercessors.
But I think Scouts should still be 1 wound. they're not fully inducted yet.
Yes, that is basically what I am saying. All current 1W MEQs should have 2Ws. So Tacs, Assault, Devs and their Chaos equivalents.
I am also saying Terminators and Bikes should have 3W. Assault Bikes 4W.
HQs already have plenty of wounds as well as Character protection, so they are fine as-is.
I agree, Scouts should stay at 1W, Scout Bikes at 2W
I am also ok with Necron Immortals having 2W, but due to their RP rule and vastly "better than Bolters" weapon options, they should be no less than 20ppm for this.
But I am also ok with Immortals staying as they are at 1W. Afterall, they do not have layered armour in the same way as a Marine. Their "armour" is their body.
So I'm 50/50 on Immortals. Either way Necron Warriors could drop a point or two. But this is all for a different thread
-
You seriously need to quit pricing out RP like it matters at all.
propose something like "Marines in Power Armor or Terminator Armor can fire an additional shot for every "shot" in a bolt weapons profile." At close range Bolters would fire 3 shots, and fire 2 at long range. Storm Bolters would fire 6 shots up close, and 4 at long range. Heavy Bolters would fire 6 shots in the hands of a Marine. The restriction on armor keeps Boltstorm Gauntlets on Aggressors from getting way outta hand. (Or adjust with whatever fine print you want to substitute.)
I say this to counter Galefs "durability issue from fluff." Fluffwise it seems more appropriate to me that Marines killed GEQ faster than they do currently, as they're already pretty tough up against Lasguns. Fictionally you sorta expect 10 marines to clear out GEQ types much faster than they do on the table. In general I don't trust "fluff=play", this is just how I lean on the issue.
Oh yes we tried this in fifth edition. At the time it didn’t really mean much because big models were more important.
It’s definitely important for marines to punch harder at short range shooting, and punch harder per point, so I was only humoring people when they wanted to try extra wounds, at the time.
Well sure, although much of the "grounds for complaint" comes from the marines vs. Guard scenario. Also, Bolters are more effective against big models in this edition, so that'd play out slightly differently.
The other "back to 2nd Ed roots" idea would be to give all marine heavy weapons a targeter again for +1 to hit. That would be broke as ----- without point adjustments.
Insectum7 wrote: Well sure, although much of the "grounds for complaint" comes from the marines vs. Guard scenario. Also, Bolters are more effective against big models in this edition, so that'd play out slightly differently.
The other "back to 2nd Ed roots" idea would be to give all marine heavy weapons a targeter again for +1 to hit. That would be broke as ----- without point adjustments.
The Bolters aren't more effective for the points. What's gonna cause more damage: 1 BS3+ S4 shot, or 3 BS4+ S3 shots? The number of shots matters here.
You're missing the context. Bolters being more effective against larger models than prior editions. A bolter can hurt the equivalent of AV 11+ now. They also wound T6 and 7 on a 5+.
Insectum7 wrote: You're missing the context. Bolters being more effective against larger models than prior editions. A bolter can hurt the equivalent of AV 11+ now. They also wound T6 and 7 on a 5+.
If you really want to look at it that way...the Lasgun got WAY more benefits from the new sounding chart...
WARNING MATHS
(everything to 3 decimal places) For Firepower
Spoiler:
Target Space Marines
IG with Lasguns (3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.055
SM with Boltguns (4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.111
Ratio = 0.111/0.055 = 2.018 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Marines
Target Imperial Guard
IG with Lasguns (3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.167
SM with Boltguns (4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.296
Ratio = 0.296/0.167 = 1.772 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Imperial Guard
For Durability
Spoiler:
against IG with Lasguns: IG=0.167 SM=0.055 Ratio=0.167/0.055 =3.036 SM 3.036x more durable than IG against IG against SM with Boltguns: IG=0.296 SM=0.111 Ratio=0.296/0.111=2.666 SM 2.666x more durable than IG against SM
So it takes 2x as many IG to equal the firepower of SM; but it takes 3x as many guard to equal the durability of SM. If IG outnumber SM 2:1 IG lose; but if IG outnumber SM 3:1 IG win. We can average it ((2+3)/2=2.5) to find the tipping point.
If SM have 2 wounds each we straight up double their durability. And when we average it ((2+(3*2))/2=4), to find IG will need to outnumber SM 4:1 just to be even.
If SM have an additional single shot
Spoiler:
Target Space Marines
IG 12" and under with Lasguns 2*(3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.111
IG over 12" with Lasguns 1*(3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.055
SM 12" and under with Boltguns 3*(4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.333
SM over 12" with Boltguns 2*(4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.222
Averages IG: (0.111+0.055)/2=0.083 SM: (0.333+0.222)/2=0.276
Ratio = 0.276/0.083 = 3.209 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Marines
Target Imperial Guard
IG 12" and under with Lasguns 2*(3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.333
IG over 12" with Lasguns 1*(3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.167
SM 12" and under with Boltguns 3*(4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.889
SM over 12" with Boltguns 2*(4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.593
Averages IG: (0.333+0.167)/2=0.25 SM: (0.889+0.593)/2=0.741
Ratio = 0.741/0.25 = 2.964 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Imperial Guard
So SM will have 3x the firepower and 3x the durability than IG. So IG will need to outnumber SM 3:1 for an even chance.
I am actually surprised about how the maths on the suggestions turned out.
What ratio do you think SM should be at. 4pt IG and 16pt 2 wound SM; 4pt IG and 12pt increased firepower SM; 4pt IG and 10pt current SM; 5pt IG and 20pt 2 wound SM; 5pt IG and 15pt increased firepower SM; 5pt IG and 12.5pt current SM. Something else?
Personally I would prefer 10pt IG and 25pt SM; but that's another discussion.
It's going to always be relevant. Being able to hit Rhinos on the front side with Bolters finally doesn't do anything when it isn't great mathematically. 10 shots rapid fire is only 0.75 wounds. 19 Lasgun shots (silly Sarge doesn't get a Lasgun!) is instead 0.52.
That makes it SEEM like the Bolter is better and got the most out of the new edition, until you actually incorporate cost. This is the minimum of each squad, AKA 65 points of Marines and 40 points of Infantry. Pretending we can get more Infantry in a squad for whatever reason with only Lasguns (so that's 6 more dudes in Rapid Fire) they inflict 0.83 wounds.
So that's why when you say the Bolter got buffs...did it really? It did if you ignore any other weapon that somehow didn't get buffed. Then they once again lag behind like usual.
Tygre wrote: WARNING MATHS
(everything to 3 decimal places) For Firepower
Spoiler:
Target Space Marines
IG with Lasguns (3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.055
SM with Boltguns (4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.111
Ratio = 0.111/0.055 = 2.018 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Marines
Target Imperial Guard
IG with Lasguns (3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.167
SM with Boltguns (4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.296
Ratio = 0.296/0.167 = 1.772 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Imperial Guard
For Durability
Spoiler:
against IG with Lasguns: IG=0.167 SM=0.055 Ratio=0.167/0.055 =3.036 SM 3.036x more durable than IG against IG against SM with Boltguns: IG=0.296 SM=0.111 Ratio=0.296/0.111=2.666 SM 2.666x more durable than IG against SM
So it takes 2x as many IG to equal the firepower of SM; but it takes 3x as many guard to equal the durability of SM. If IG outnumber SM 2:1 IG lose; but if IG outnumber SM 3:1 IG win. We can average it ((2+3)/2=2.5) to find the tipping point.
If SM have 2 wounds each we straight up double their durability. And when we average it ((2+(3*2))/2=4), to find IG will need to outnumber SM 4:1 just to be even.
If SM have an additional single shot
Spoiler:
Target Space Marines
IG 12" and under with Lasguns 2*(3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.111
IG over 12" with Lasguns 1*(3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.055
SM 12" and under with Boltguns 3*(4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.333
SM over 12" with Boltguns 2*(4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.222
Averages IG: (0.111+0.055)/2=0.083 SM: (0.333+0.222)/2=0.276
Ratio = 0.276/0.083 = 3.209 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Marines
Target Imperial Guard
IG 12" and under with Lasguns 2*(3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.333
IG over 12" with Lasguns 1*(3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.167
SM 12" and under with Boltguns 3*(4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.889
SM over 12" with Boltguns 2*(4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.593
Averages IG: (0.333+0.167)/2=0.25 SM: (0.889+0.593)/2=0.741
Ratio = 0.741/0.25 = 2.964 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Imperial Guard
So SM will have 3x the firepower and 3x the durability than IG. So IG will need to outnumber SM 3:1 for an even chance.
I am actually surprised about how the maths on the suggestions turned out.
What ratio do you think SM should be at. 4pt IG and 16pt 2 wound SM; 4pt IG and 12pt increased firepower SM; 4pt IG and 10pt current SM; 5pt IG and 20pt 2 wound SM; 5pt IG and 15pt increased firepower SM; 5pt IG and 12.5pt current SM. Something else?
Personally I would prefer 10pt IG and 25pt SM; but that's another discussion.
I don't think we should be balancing anything around 4ppm guardsmen as that's less than they should be its widely acknowledged that they're more 5ppm than 4ppm. Again doubling points would allow for much more granularity but as is they need to be 5ppm.
0x of a point isn't really an option.
Personally I think 5ppm guard 12 ppm marines but with 2A they really need the second attack to be viable generalists.
I like how people suggest an additional A is going to make marines into generalists, when infact melee is to most stupid manoeuvre you can pull off on a regular unit.
Why? Because the enemey either:
A)dies off completely/ falls back. Welcome to the firing Squad, judgment will be served.
B) The unit get's to fight back and severly hurts you, then it is falling back. Again Firing Squad is ready, judgement will be served.
The only marine unit that is used in mellee often are the Khorne Berzerkers. Mind you double fighting phase is really good but they are played in Alpha Legion, which gives them first a cheap way to be close enough to reach the enemy lines and secondly gives them some more durability by lowering the ammounts of hits. They are also a glass cannon unit.
Additionally if we scale this up, do you really want even more attacks on Khorne berzerkers? I mean Terminators could do well with that but more attacks from a unit that allready has 2+1 per fighting phase and doubles that each time it fights? I mean all you have really done is, giving a stat to a unit that does not really want to melee, scaled up Raptors and Warptalons in the might be usefull realm allong with assult marines, and maybee even made Terminators better at melee but did nothing to fix their pricing? whilest making Khorne Berzerker completely insane. Additionally Devastors and Havocs are still not better with that stat.
We still have not solved the fact that a Anti-Infantery Predator costs 146 pts and does not really profit from stratagems aswell as beeing comparatively low on the damage output whilest not beeing particulary durable.
The additional A isn't meant to suddenly make CC with Tacs great. It's to marginally improve it to where they'll out-cc non-CC units more comfortably.
Imagine many of the 'Marines vs IG' mathhammer writeups we see. They start out with one side shooting the other. They continue adnausium.
What's more likely is that, even if they start shooting it out at equal points (which Marines shouldn't try), if they're within 12", those Marines are moving 6" closer, tossing a grenade, then charging in.
Currently, 4pt Guardsmen make this not as viable point-for-point for Marines. Now, Marines can still do this to almost any other shooty troop. And Marines should not be going head to head with equal points. But the numbers are closer than we'd like.
2A Tac Marines still won't beat Zerkers or most CC units in CC (although Banshees are in trouble, they're in trouble anyways). However, it does give the Marine player more lattitude in unit matchups. Suddenly, other troops trading fire for multiple rounds with them isn't possible.
They still won't be worth 13ppm in the current meta (although I still think the problem is other books, not them). But they get to play their part better. And, hopefully, other changes happen too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for CC not mattering because the unit can fall back, I assure you that my Aspect Warriors, Guardians, Rangers, Fire Warriors, and Pathfinders don't necessarily just die off in large numbers to Tacs, even if they had 2W. And what does fall back, if it survives, loses a turn. While Guardians/Fire Warriors/Pathfinders might be cheaper, the Aspect Warriors are not. And certainly not cheap enough to consider it a win.
As for fighting back, few non-CC infantry do more damage to Tacs than Tacs do to them. Whether they strike first or second.
I see what you mean about CC units suddenly getting an extra attack. Perhaps only increase the A:1 models to A:2. Some finetuning could be done. But Raptors/ASM/Termies/etc aren't OP right now.
Devs and Havocs with +1A are suddenly less suceptible to Swooping Hawks or Spiders or ASM or Suits charging in. Not by a ton, but we're looking for improvements on the margins here. Also, have you never charged anythign with your Devs?
"We still have not solved the fact that a Anti-Infantery Predator costs 146 pts and does not really profit from stratagems aswell as beeing comparatively low on the damage output whilest not beeing particulary durable. "
Totally agree.
I like the idea of SM not having Tactics on their vehicles, but it's really hard to balance. In that regard, I'd certainly accept Tactics on their vehicles.
Either way on that, here are some suggestions I floated earlier:
Reinforced Rhino chasis: As per Rhino, but 2+ Sv -Pred and Vindi use this chasis
-Stalker and Whirlwind could go either way
-Rhino and Razor unchanged in stats
-Rhino down to 55ppm
It's hard to make the Rhino chasis beefy enough for a battle tank like the Pred, but light enough to be cheap enough to keep Marines mobile as a Rhino
Heavy Bolters:
-Heavy 5
-5pts
This gives IoM an anti-GEQ high-ROF weapon.
While this also buffs Tacs, the purpose of this section is specifically the Pred. It'd drop the dakka pred by 10 points, and give it more shots.
It also serves to indirectly nerf Marines, so should be considered carefully (it's AP-1 - one of the reasons I don't like AP-1 boltguns is because they hurt Marines too easily)
Not necessarily a comprehensive list, but what do you think?
Galef wrote: I remember an edition in which Marines were 15ppm and DA were 12ppm. Can't remember which.
4th edition
Marines had no grenades or pistols and half the cost of their heavy weapon baked into their points - actually worked out 11pts a model if you discounted a full lascannon from an MSU squad.
DA had assault 2 bolters. Bladestorm was a 27pt squad upgrade to shoot twice in a turn followed by not shooting the next turn.
Totally different game back then.
Xenomancers wrote: I've done a complete breakdown in another post of all the infantry that need adjustments if we are just going to keep the same stats and adjust points to the Infantry/Kabalites/Firewarriors/battle sister.
You seem to be missing those four units from your list, unless you are suggesting they are priced correctly.
Yeah exactly. They seem to be the baseline we have to work from now.
A.T. wrote: You seem to be missing those four units from your list, unless you are suggesting they are priced correctly.
Yeah exactly. They seem to be the baseline we have to work from now.
Then move onto stage two - field 1000+ pts of these newly re-costed marines against their closest comparable unit (battle sisters in this case) and against a common 'competitive' target such as craftworld eldar.
Ensure that you take the best selection of wargear available to each side to face the other, make full use of stratagems, relics, chapter tactics, and avoid units that are not like for like - stick to the troops and units you are changing or comparing to where ever possible
Play several games, switch players, optionally run with a guard CP detachment in each. Determine if your new 10 point marine is, point for point, the equal of your 9 point baseline comparison. And then adjust up and repeat until your two compared armies share the victories and defeats at an even pace.
Tygre wrote: WARNING MATHS
(everything to 3 decimal places) For Firepower
Spoiler:
Target Space Marines
IG with Lasguns (3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.055
SM with Boltguns (4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.111
Ratio = 0.111/0.055 = 2.018 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Marines
Target Imperial Guard
IG with Lasguns (3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.167
SM with Boltguns (4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.296
Ratio = 0.296/0.167 = 1.772 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Imperial Guard
For Durability
Spoiler:
against IG with Lasguns: IG=0.167 SM=0.055 Ratio=0.167/0.055 =3.036 SM 3.036x more durable than IG against IG against SM with Boltguns: IG=0.296 SM=0.111 Ratio=0.296/0.111=2.666 SM 2.666x more durable than IG against SM
So it takes 2x as many IG to equal the firepower of SM; but it takes 3x as many guard to equal the durability of SM. If IG outnumber SM 2:1 IG lose; but if IG outnumber SM 3:1 IG win. We can average it ((2+3)/2=2.5) to find the tipping point.
If SM have 2 wounds each we straight up double their durability. And when we average it ((2+(3*2))/2=4), to find IG will need to outnumber SM 4:1 just to be even.
If SM have an additional single shot
Spoiler:
Target Space Marines
IG 12" and under with Lasguns 2*(3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.111
IG over 12" with Lasguns 1*(3/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)=0.055
SM 12" and under with Boltguns 3*(4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.333
SM over 12" with Boltguns 2*(4/6)*(3/6)*(2/6)=0.222
Averages IG: (0.111+0.055)/2=0.083 SM: (0.333+0.222)/2=0.276
Ratio = 0.276/0.083 = 3.209 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Marines
Target Imperial Guard
IG 12" and under with Lasguns 2*(3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.333
IG over 12" with Lasguns 1*(3/6)*(3/6)*(4/6)=0.167
SM 12" and under with Boltguns 3*(4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.889
SM over 12" with Boltguns 2*(4/6)*(4/6)*(4/6)=0.593
Averages IG: (0.333+0.167)/2=0.25 SM: (0.889+0.593)/2=0.741
Ratio = 0.741/0.25 = 2.964 Lasguns per Boltgun vs Imperial Guard
So SM will have 3x the firepower and 3x the durability than IG. So IG will need to outnumber SM 3:1 for an even chance.
I am actually surprised about how the maths on the suggestions turned out.
What ratio do you think SM should be at. 4pt IG and 16pt 2 wound SM; 4pt IG and 12pt increased firepower SM; 4pt IG and 10pt current SM; 5pt IG and 20pt 2 wound SM; 5pt IG and 15pt increased firepower SM; 5pt IG and 12.5pt current SM. Something else?
Personally I would prefer 10pt IG and 25pt SM; but that's another discussion.
Something that doesn't show up in the math.
IG infantry and company commanders are basically a combined entry. They are taken together in 2:1 ratio to fill battalions. This means that every analysis of infantry should include firing twice.
Sure - give marines reroll all hits...I promise you firing twice is better...they all also get it for a lot cheaper than marines get reroll all hits.
Another thing is battle field roll.
Infantry take up more space - their job is to take up space and they do it 3 times better than marines do. So what do marines get for taking up less space? Nothing - they get to be inferior with no benefit - they aren't even harder to kill in a points comparison. If you include in game scenarios - the math shows they are actually EASIER to kill.
For more expensive troops to be viable they have to do something 2-3 times better than IG infantry to because they take up less space - this should be ether killing power or resilience.
So it's totally okay for a 10 point marine to crush 4 point infantry. That would be good game design. It's called using the right tool to do the right job. Just like when you wipe those marines with basically any heavy/ assualt weapon of your choosing - you get more value out of killing them than infantry squads.
But not everything the Marine fights is a 4 point Infantryman.
Also, Marines crushing Infantry point-for-point when used as Infantrymen is bad game design. Marines should need to be played as Marines to crush Infantry.
Martel732 wrote: I disagree. I think marines strength needs to be their troops. Instead of an across-the-board weakness.
I think what he meant is that if you smash a blob of marines into a blob of guard, the guard should win. Whereas if you concentrate your marines you should be able to overwhelm the same guard blob a piece at a time with local superiority while much of the guard are too far away or too cumbersome to contribute.
As soon as you get to 100pts of marines == 100pts of guard in a straight face to face fight you've failed at balance, since that's the marines worst case scenario.
Bharring wrote: But not everything the Marine fights is a 4 point Infantryman.
Also, Marines crushing Infantry point-for-point when used as Infantrymen is bad game design. Marines should need to be played as Marines to crush Infantry.
They do - they have to move up to increase their damage and utilize their assault profile. this in turn makes them even easier to kill.
I mean if you do the math on marines and infantry shooting at each other from 24" it is pretty pathetic.
Indeed, Marines *should* be played as infantry. In an Guard vs Marine battle the Space Marine should be played as a general ground unit similar to an Guardsman unit, however the Marine unit should be unquestionably superior to the Guardsmen unit in a one v one situation. Marines should be elite infantry which are capable of defeating other infantry when played as infantry. Marines need to be able to do this because their higher per model cost makes them take up less space (making them less capable of acting as screens), and their vulnerability to heavy and special weapons (meaning more weapons can fully make use of their profiles against them).
Remember, a game of 40K is not all about Lasguns facing off against Bolters, even though these weapons are being thrown around. In a standard SM vs IG battle, even if the Marines are statistically better than 6 Guardsmen with lasguns, in terms of durability and firepower, the Marine's comparative weakness to plasma averages those numbers down. The game is not fought in a vaacume of Marine and Guardsmen Squads squaring off. Take a Leman Russ Executioner, and calculate its points effectivness shooting at Guardsmen, then shooting at Tactical Marines, then shooting at Primarus. The Marine units lose considerably more points than the guardsmen units and this increased vulnerability to special and heavy weapons absolutely needs to be reflected in the price of the marines as well. If not, then the individual price of special and heavy weapons needs to be drastically increased to bring its comparative effectiveness against Marines down to the same level. Or anti horde weapons- such as Flamers or Heavy Bolters, need to be drastically increased in effectiveness for dismantling hordes- and any large Blasts, such as battle cannons, should be reworked to be less effective against Marines and drastically more effective against large mobs.
I do agree that Marines should be more effective per point when facing AP0 weaponry, certainly.
But if you take 100pts of Marines and 100pts of Guardsmen, put them all within 12" of eachother and don't allow any charging/shenaningans, who should win?
In other words, Redcoat style line infantry lining up and trading shots.
Shouldn't that go to the faction(s) designed for that (Tau Fire Warriors and IG Guardsmen)?
akaean wrote: Or anti horde weapons- such as Flamers or Heavy Bolters, need to be drastically increased in effectiveness for dismantling hordes
Now this is something that needs to be looked at, and the general loss of anti-horde firepower was a notable change from 7th to 8th.
Stand a squad of guard in a shrubbery patch in 7th and you weren't going to have much of a unit left if a flamer came by. Same guard squad in 8th will lose one model on average. Anti-infantry weapons just aren't very good at killing light infantry.
And are too good at doing damage to single models. Former templates make great anti-air! Former blasts make great anti-tank!
There have been a number of proposed fixes for that (my favorite, cap hits from those on model count of target unit and up the shots). But it certainly feels like it just adds insult to injury for more elite armies/units.
Bharring wrote: I do agree that Marines should be more effective per point when facing AP0 weaponry, certainly.
But if you take 100pts of Marines and 100pts of Guardsmen, put them all within 12" of eachother and don't allow any charging/shenaningans, who should win?
In other words, Redcoat style line infantry lining up and trading shots.
Shouldn't that go to the faction(s) designed for that (Tau Fire Warriors and IG Guardsmen)?
Not in the case of marines. Marines should lose shootouts to crisis suits and wraithguard and heavy tanks, not any regular infantry. Ever.
And further because they have other weaknesses outside of just "winning the fight".
Even if Marines outperform Guardsmen when fighting as Guardsmen, their small footprint for screening, and increased vulnerability to enemy heavy and special weaponry balance out their higher performance at infantry vs infantry combat. Infantry have more than one job. Marines should be unquestionably better at fighting than guardsmen and should always beat them in a straight shoot out between equal points. However Guardsmen have other advantages to Marines that make them worth taking. They cover more ground making them far more effective at screening, each individual squad is far cheaper, making them ideal for claiming objectives, and heavy / special weapons currently are very cost ineffective against a guardsmen. These non infantry v infantry combat advantages have very important in game roles, and the only way to balance marines against these advantages inherant to the guardsman stateline is to make them unquestionably better at fighting.
You should not ask your self, would an army of vanilla tactical space marines beat an army of vanilla guardsmen, but look at them as a mix of infantry and tanks. Maybe 10 Marines would always beat 30 guardsmen, but 10 Marines and A Predator would not defeat 30 Guardsmen and an Executioner. Or it may be a fair fight, etc. You cannot balance marines vs guard in a vacuum, completely ignore the support available to both of them. Squads are allowed to have strengths and weaknesses. It makes the game interesting.
To put this another way, do Tacs need to be able to handle Guardsmen in a shootout using Guardsmen's preferred tactics, for ASM or Devs to be able to threaten them? Or threaten the HWTs or Basilisks?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Marines take less transport cap for the same threat presence.
Marines have more cost-effective deployment and mechanization options.
Marines should be better at getting the majority of their force to engage a minority of IGs at a time.
There are benefits to smaller footprints.
Specials/heavies, and their equivelents in most factions, seem to be poor choices for engaging GEQ. That certainly should change.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I suppose I want Marines to be super-Marines first and super-Soldiers second, and you're looking for Marines to be super-Soldiers first and super-Marines second.
Bharring wrote: To put this another way, do Tacs need to be able to handle Guardsmen in a shootout using Guardsmen's preferred tactics, for ASM or Devs to be able to threaten them? Or threaten the HWTs or Basilisks?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Marines take less transport cap for the same threat presence.
Marines have more cost-effective deployment and mechanization options.
Marines should be better at getting the majority of their force to engage a minority of IGs at a time.
There are benefits to smaller footprints.
Specials/heavies, and their equivelents in most factions, seem to be poor choices for engaging GEQ. That certainly should change.
Yeah they should beat gaurdsmen in a gunline fight...
Gaurdsmen strength is weight of fire against targets with weak saves.
Marines strength resilience is against small arms with str 4 weapons which are the most efficient vs t3.
Marines are supposed to be the counter to units like guardsmen.
What I am saying is. Bringing tacs against gaurdsmen is supposed to produce results like using plasma russ on terminators - maybe not to that degree but you get what I am saying.
To show what I mean:
It wouldn't be a Pred + 10 Marines vs 30 Guardsmen and an Executioner.
It'd be a Drop Pod with 10 Marines with MG, combi, CC weapon on Sarge, and MultiMelta vs 30 Guardsmen and an Executioner.
Drop in next to to the executioner, hit it with the Melta, Guardsmen with the boltguns (7 boys + pod storm bolter), eat one turn of return fire from Guardsmen, light up another guard squad, and charge the unhurt one.
If the rules were "right", that's how Marines would fight. Unfortunately, the rules don't really make that a thing right now.
Bharring wrote: To put this another way, do Tacs need to be able to handle Guardsmen in a shootout using Guardsmen's preferred tactics, for ASM or Devs to be able to threaten them? Or threaten the HWTs or Basilisks?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Marines take less transport cap for the same threat presence.
Marines have more cost-effective deployment and mechanization options.
Marines should be better at getting the majority of their force to engage a minority of IGs at a time.
There are benefits to smaller footprints.
Specials/heavies, and their equivelents in most factions, seem to be poor choices for engaging GEQ. That certainly should change.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I suppose I want Marines to be super-Marines first and super-Soldiers second, and you're looking for Marines to be super-Soldiers first and super-Marines second.
I don't even consider transports in this game. Make them good and I might consider them (and i don't just mean a price decrease). As it stands nether guard nor marines have any need to put anything inside a rhino or a chimera.
I'm not saying Tac Marines shouldn't be the answer to Guardsmen. I'm saying that line-firing brainlessly shouldn't be the answer. Line-firing with Marines should be like taking a Combi-Melta to go after a tank, and using the Bolter profile only. Sure, you took the right tool, but you're doing it wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "As it stands" is the problem. Tac Marines should need their Rhinos/Pods.
You don’t need cost effective transport when you can cover the board with models and just be everywhere.
You do need to be able to use devastator, tactical, and assault squads to fight knight engines, as well as guard. They should overmatch guard infantry, point for point, the same way a line of leman russes should overmatch a line of infantry walking towards them, because they also have to assume they’ll use basic marines to fight super heavy tanks and take 80% casualties at least.
Rhinos aren't terrible now that they can charge things and be a general nuisance. As a transport they are terrible, but as a harassing unit that can be difficult for a non cc oriented squad to damage, and armed with 2 storm bolters they can be decent for many lists. I think Chaos synchs with Rhinos a bit better because they gain a lot more benefit from using them to soak overwatch, and tend to actually *want* to move their guys closer to the enemy. I would much rather push forwards inside a Rhino that can pop smoke than run marines across an open field.
Bharring wrote: WIth half the armies in the game being Marines, though, doesn't that make all the other infantry auto-lose?
As for those other entries, shouldn't they also be statted to win the fight when fighting as Marines but not when fighting as Guardsmen?
Yes, the other infantry SHOULD be auto-lose, since that's the whole point to space marines. Marines should countered by crap like Riptides and Russes and stuff. As it stands, they are countered by everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: To show what I mean:
It wouldn't be a Pred + 10 Marines vs 30 Guardsmen and an Executioner.
It'd be a Drop Pod with 10 Marines with MG, combi, CC weapon on Sarge, and MultiMelta vs 30 Guardsmen and an Executioner.
Drop in next to to the executioner, hit it with the Melta, Guardsmen with the boltguns (7 boys + pod storm bolter), eat one turn of return fire from Guardsmen, light up another guard squad, and charge the unhurt one.
If the rules were "right", that's how Marines would fight. Unfortunately, the rules don't really make that a thing right now.
You know, IG players have learned how to space out their dudes pretty well, too.
No, they shouldn’t, they should almost never use rhinos.
From the perspectives of a) modeling and b) price, they should barely use pods either woah, what a waste of life. I hate when my players cart in their pod armies.
Yes, the other infantry SHOULD be auto-lose, since that's the whole point to space marines. Marines should countered by crap like Riptides and Russes and stuff. As it stands, they are countered by everything.
As for spacing, perhaps I'm just geometrically impared, but how do you arrange 30 bodies such that nothing can get within 12" of a specific tank, yet there's no point within 12" of some that isn't within 18" of all of them?
Bharring wrote: As for spacing, perhaps I'm just geometrically impared, but how do you arrange 30 bodies such that nothing can get within 12" of a specific tank, yet there's no point within 12" of some that isn't within 18" of all of them?
Well theres the fact that you can't walk through enemy troops. You also can't deepstrike within 9" of them. That alone is all you need.
Bharring wrote: The point is, if they're that spread out, you don't need to be able to take on all of them at once - take on only part of them.
That completely depends on the circumstance. Guard is a poor example, because there's always the artillery timer on your list. After X turns, you have no army left, so the race is on to silence those guns. I've seen so many assault lists hosed by guardsmen just moving up to 2" and standing there.
Bharring wrote: I do agree that Marines should be more effective per point when facing AP0 weaponry, certainly.
But if you take 100pts of Marines and 100pts of Guardsmen, put them all within 12" of eachother and don't allow any charging/shenaningans, who should win?
In other words, Redcoat style line infantry lining up and trading shots.
Shouldn't that go to the faction(s) designed for that (Tau Fire Warriors and IG Guardsmen)?
Not in the case of marines. Marines should lose shootouts to crisis suits and wraithguard and heavy tanks, not any regular infantry. Ever.
100% disagree. In most cases, it should be a fight dependent on position and opportunity. Because "game".
Bharring wrote: I do agree that Marines should be more effective per point when facing AP0 weaponry, certainly.
But if you take 100pts of Marines and 100pts of Guardsmen, put them all within 12" of eachother and don't allow any charging/shenaningans, who should win?
In other words, Redcoat style line infantry lining up and trading shots.
Shouldn't that go to the faction(s) designed for that (Tau Fire Warriors and IG Guardsmen)?
Not in the case of marines. Marines should lose shootouts to crisis suits and wraithguard and heavy tanks, not any regular infantry. Ever.
100% disagree. In most cases, it should be a fight dependent on position and opportunity. Because "game".
You have to ignore Martel at times, mostly in Marine fix threads.
You've a 10-man Marine squad facing 3 10-man Guard squads. You let yourself get surrounded because reasons.
You shoot the 2nd closest squad, and charge the closest.
The remains of the closest falls back.
You're only shot by half of what they started with. Sure, not getting shot at all would be better, but the assault killed some Guardsmen and made the rest of that unit useless for the turn.
You've a 10-man Marine squad facing 3 10-man Guard squads. You let yourself get surrounded because reasons.
You shoot the 2nd closest squad, and charge the closest.
The remains of the closest falls back.
You're only shot by half of what they started with. Sure, not getting shot at all would be better, but the assault killed some Guardsmen and made the rest of that unit useless for the turn.
It's the rest of the army that kills you. No one cares if 10 random guardsmen can't fire. Which they CAN with a 100% reliable order. And they don't even get a penalty like Ultramarines. This is another reason balancing at just the troop level doesn't work. IG troops do their job in their list much better than marines do. IG aren't counting on the killing power of guardsmen at all. At least, they shouldn't be. They'd be a bargain with no lasguns at all at 4 ppm. They're just buying time for the big guns to kill everything.
So one of your arguments is that they use an Order to have the remains of a squad that ran away shoot at you instead of having something else FRFSRF? Isn't that a good thing? The Order isn't any more free than SMHQs or CP or rules.
On the other argument, the rest of the army shooting. Sure, if they have 30 guardsmen plus another army behind them they should beat your 10 Marines. But shouldn't the rest of their army be busy dealing with the rest of yours?
Bharring wrote: So one of your arguments is that they use an Order to have the remains of a squad that ran away shoot at you instead of having something else FRFSRF? Isn't that a good thing? The Order isn't any more free than SMHQs or CP or rules.
On the other argument, the rest of the army shooting. Sure, if they have 30 guardsmen plus another army behind them they should beat your 10 Marines. But shouldn't the rest of their army be busy dealing with the rest of yours?
But they're not necessarily dealing with the rest of army. That's the weakness of marines. Most marine units are thoroughly ignorable. I know this, because I ignore most of them while using marines! They only have to care about the ones that are threatening to touch the big guns in CC. They can easily ignore most marine shooting for a turn or two if necessary because it is so cost ineffective.
Compared to other more expensive units that can NEVER shoot after falling back, it's not a good thing. IG orders are very much free compared to the price tag on marine characters. 30 pts is a joke.
So silence those big guns. ASM/VV can jump over small dudes. Devs can put LC shots downrange.
I'm not saying SM are balanced as is. Current rules make that impractical. What I'm saying is this:
The rules fixes should allow Marines to win if they can utilize their army to feel like Marines. If the Marine player fails to do so, their force should fail.
This is where we disagree:
-You (and others) feel that "Play like Marines" is put them down, move them forward, shoot the nearest thing (in simplest terms)
-I (and others) feel that "Play like Marines" means not engaging head-to head, but rather use force concentration and combined arms to control the matchup and flow.
"You (and others) feel that "Play like Marines" is put them down, move them forward, shoot the nearest thing (in simplest terms) "
No, I don't think that.
I just think marines should be the strongest troops, hands down. If you want to go through all their other slots one unit at a time, be my guest, but you can fix 10+ units by fixing one. Most marine vehicles are crap, and they have a mediocre transport group being generous. The transports would look at lot better if they were transporting nasty units instead of pure gak.
"but you can fix 10+ units by fixing one. "
And relegate half of the units in 10+ books to the trash, at the same time!
I think my post didn't do justice to the claim being made. I'll update it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rewritten, to be more fair.
The rules fixes should allow Marines to win if they can utilize their army to feel like Marines. If the Marine player fails to do so, their force should fail.
This is where we disagree:
-You (and others) feel that "Play like Marines" should mean dealing with other Infantry by going toe-to-toe with them with Tacs.
-I (and others) feel that "Play like Marines" means not engaging head-to head, but rather use force concentration and combined arms to control the matchup and flow.
Bharring wrote: "but you can fix 10+ units by fixing one. "
And relegate half of the units in 10+ books to the trash, at the same time!
I think my post didn't do justice to the claim being made. I'll update it.
They wouldn't be trash. That's what you are not understanding. Xeno troops and IG troops should NOT be there to fight marine troops. That's what their heavies and elites are for. Against marines, those lists should be relying on those slots to carry the day. Because they can't matchup against what should be the strongest troops.
Think of it this way on a rating scale of 1-10.
Marines would have say
Troops: 10
FA: 4
Heavy : 3
Elite: 6
HQ: 6
Eldar would have say
Troops: 3
FA: 7
Heavy : 7
Elite: 9
HQ: 10
for overall slot ratings. I don't even think that adds up. But is that more clear?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "but you can fix 10+ units by fixing one. "
And relegate half of the units in 10+ books to the trash, at the same time!
I think my post didn't do justice to the claim being made. I'll update it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rewritten, to be more fair.
The rules fixes should allow Marines to win if they can utilize their army to feel like Marines. If the Marine player fails to do so, their force should fail.
This is where we disagree:
-You (and others) feel that "Play like Marines" should mean dealing with other Infantry by going toe-to-toe with them with Tacs.
-I (and others) feel that "Play like Marines" means not engaging head-to head, but rather use force concentration and combined arms to control the matchup and flow.
Marines have no tools to do what you describe. You'd have to shoehorn them in. They can't control anything when 85% of the codex isn't a threat to anything.
But yes, Tacs should be completely curb stomping other troops, and then take heavy losses vs the elites and heavies. Marines should NOT need to rely on combined arms against enemy troops.
I get what you're saying, but I strongly disagree.
Troops shouldn't just be a 'tax' slot. Ideally, it's what each faction would use to put weight of boots on the ground. Each Troop unit should have a purpose or use.
Some factions should be a little stronger in some areas than others. But it shouldn't be "This is the Troop faction" vs "This is the HS faction".
To your point, a Guardian warhost shouldn't be engaging Marines with Guardians themselves (and already can't, on a large scale). It's the other slots that should be engaging Marines. On the other hand, *in the same book*, Dire Avengers should be there to handle Tac Marines for a Swordwind army. But those DAs shouldn't handle ASM or Devs, or vehicles of any kind.
Necron Warriors are another Troop that Marines shouldn't trump. The archetypical Necron list - Silver Tide - is mostly Troops. Their lists rarely have weapons with > 24" range. They do have a few tricks and units that can engage Tacs, but Silver Tide doesn't include many of them. Should they autolose to Marines?
I think the marine should be THE troop faction. Period. I think that would fix a lot of problems that have been plaguing them for a long time.
Make Necron troops similarly powered to marines, then. I kind of forgot about them.
Troops have been taxes for a long time, but xenos (not Eldar so much) and IG have always had access to very cheap options.
I don't think dire avengers should be able to handle marines. Sorry. I think that the Eldar are stomping them in too many other areas for that to be tenable. Eldar should be relying on star cannons and such to remove marines effectively. Dire avengers would be death against say, termagants. That would be their job. Against marines, they just slow them down as best they can, and wait for the star cannons to whittle. Effectively, faster guardsmen vs marines.
I'd also like to point out that GW has been doing it your way for decades and has never really gotten it right. This mess is further complicated by those willing to accept power armor horde and those not.
For that to work you would need two very important changes -
1) A requirement or penalty for not having a mix of all those slots. For instance your example marines should struggle due to poor heavy support, but struggle _more_ if they took troops in preference to any support.
2) No allies, or you just take the 10 rated marine troops with the 10 rated guard heavy weapons and so on.
For that to work you would need two very important changes -
1) A requirement or penalty for not having a mix of all those slots. For instance your example marines should struggle due to poor heavy support, but struggle _more_ if they took troops in preference to any support.
2) No allies, or you just take the 10 rated marine troops with the 10 rated guard heavy weapons and so on.
Yeah, there's a lot problems to unpack here. This was just my "vision" of how they would work as a force.
Bharring wrote: So one of your arguments is that they use an Order to have the remains of a squad that ran away shoot at you instead of having something else FRFSRF? Isn't that a good thing? The Order isn't any more free than SMHQs or CP or rules.
The order isn't anymore free. Absolutely. It all sounds great.
So here's another question: how many points is that dude issuing Orders?
Minimum Tactical Squad and a Captain is considerably less points than two Infantry squads and an Officer to the point those two Infantry squads can get weapon upgrades!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "but you can fix 10+ units by fixing one. "
And relegate half of the units in 10+ books to the trash, at the same time!
Half of fixing the codices would be consolidating Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Renegades into the Vanilla codex actually. They each have tools that are exclusive for no good reason other than to sell codices. It's as though they think no Dark Angels successor ever got Thunderfire Cannons. Ever ever.
Bharring wrote: Martel,
What you're describing is basically asking for bad Dire Avengers, but Marine-slaughtering Reapers and Spears. Why would that be better?
First off, you've already got the latter. Making marines better than other troops gives them some kind of quantifiable niche that can be designed around.
Or, as the above poster pointed out, maybe not. But at least they provided a crunch reason why this might not work.
Basically, despite your claims that you understand marines are quite weak, you seem to want to keep them trash to keep up Eldar sanctity. That's how it seems from here. Marines can't be better than any part of your army. That seems like a big problem to me, when Eldar are already better in every slot compared to marines.
Conversely, it seems you want all armies to have units - units they must take, even - that can't be better than Marines in any way.
There is a difference, though. You're asking for all armies to have units that can't beat Marines in any way. I'm asking for Marines to have ways to win, while also having ways to lose.
Bharring wrote: Conversely, it seems you want all armies to have units - units they must take, even - that can't be better than Marines in any way.
There is a difference, though. You're asking for all armies to have units that can't beat Marines in any way. I'm asking for Marines to have ways to win, while also having ways to lose.
There would still be a ton of ways to lose. For example, it's unlikely that Drukhari would be affected by this paradigm at all, since their troops' actual stats rarely matter. No, the real problems were pointed out above. Marine killing weapons would still be worth their weight in gold and probably be spammed out the ass as usual.
I'm really asking for the best troop to be marines instead of guardsmen. Given how many other duds there are for marines, I don't think this is a crazy thing. But, I know, your dire avengers need their pound of flesh.
Bharring wrote: Martel,
What you're describing is basically asking for bad Dire Avengers, but Marine-slaughtering Reapers and Spears. Why would that be better?
Avengers are in kind of a weird spot. I think they probably should be in for consideration for a 3 shot catapult AND cost 9-10 points. Trust me - I pay the dire avenger tax every game I play with eldar and I am not happy about them sucking as hard as they do ether.
Martel is correct though - DA sucking does not effect eldar in the same way. They are a crappy tax unit but at the very least they provide some mobile firepower and can hurt things with ap-3 while still being reasonably cheap with a pretty decent threat range. Plus - the only reason the can be fielded at all is because a wave serpent is a beautiful vehicle (practically indestructable for it's cost) So DA are safe until you need them (which might be never because you are eldar).
Again^ see my proposed buff for them. See that I am fair across the board with all armies (except with space wolves - feth them). Not some marine fan boy that wants marines to be auto win. What I want is a level playing field - as quickly as possible.
The base marine sucking basically ensures the entire codex is going to suck too. And - they really do suck.
What about Ork Boyz? Why should you be stomping green tide automatically?
Silver Tide?
Harlequins?
Should Tau be Suits or GTFO?
There are lots of troop-based armies that, thematically, use troops to do their heavy lifting. If Tacs are straight-up superior, how can they stay in the game? Or should those options just be dropped?
Would buffing everything to Guardsmen level be easier?
Unlikely.
There are a surprising number of units in the rules who are on the same level as Marines. There are only a handful of units in the rules on the same level as Guardsmen.
I just don't think Marines should need to be able to stomp other forces head-to-head to win games.
Let me try to turn the table to get my point across.
If Guardians take on Marines, head to head, they should (and do) lose. But Guardians can win against Marines. They are faster, and can use force concentration to overcome the Marines.
That's what I want to see when Marines go up against Guardsmen. Head-to-head, it shouldn't go well. But they should use their elite capabilities to fight in other ways. If they spread out, consolidate on a flank. If they bunch up, take other parts of the board. Don't take them head on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "I am on the 10 point marine now. Because it is the most likely fix to happen."
I'm fairly sure the consensus has been anything cheaper than 11ppm would be too far, even without changes. I highly doubt we'll see Marines at 10ppm soon.
Bharring wrote: Would buffing everything to Guardsmen level be easier?
Unlikely.
There are a surprising number of units in the rules who are on the same level as Marines. There are only a handful of units in the rules on the same level as Guardsmen.
I disagree. I think there are a lot of units above marines and below geq. The pricetag is just a killer. And it gets paid over and over. You're saying there's a lot of units that assault marines are effective agsinst? Hell, after the faq, dc aren't even effective anymore!
In 8th ed, it is simply not viable to give up a minimum of 13 points per failed 3+ save. Usually the squad average is MUCH higher after gear.
"You're saying there's a lot of units that Storm Guardians are effective against?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: "below geq"
Guardsmen and Kabs are only two examples of GEQ. There are many, many more that aren't at that level. They are some below even Marines.
Bharring wrote: I just don't think Marines should need to be able to stomp other forces head-to-head to win games.
Let me try to turn the table to get my point across.
If Guardians take on Marines, head to head, they should (and do) lose. But Guardians can win against Marines. They are faster, and can use force concentration to overcome the Marines.
That's what I want to see when Marines go up against Guardsmen. Head-to-head, it shouldn't go well. But they should use their elite capabilities to fight in other ways. If they spread out, consolidate on a flank. If they bunch up, take other parts of the board. Don't take them head on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "I am on the 10 point marine now. Because it is the most likely fix to happen."
I'm fairly sure the consensus has been anything cheaper than 11ppm would be too far, even without changes. I highly doubt we'll see Marines at 10ppm soon.
There isn't a single situation where marines would beat gardians.
Gardians have automatic first strike by ether being in a serpant or deep strike for a cp. Marines can't do that with buying an 80 point drop pod *the cost of 10 gardians. When you drop 40 shuriken cats on a 10 man tac it just dies with any amount of support - jinx = goodby squad - doom = goodby squad. 10 marines kill 8 guardians with reroll all hits.
Marines with boltguns should win a fight against Guard with lasguns. Why? Because boltguns and lasguns are anti-infantry weapons, low strength no AP. But the Marines are heavy infantry and should be vulnerable to special/heavy weapons (which they currently are too). Autocannons and plasma don't care about your 2W (if that's what you go for)
Another point, the standard tactical squad would feel much more flexible if it could operate solo and beat it's intended target. It's when FRFSRF, Volley Fire etc... come in that the other infantry outperform the tacs.
Also, I noticed some objections to 2W marines because of necrons and orks being 1W, and honestly, giving those factions 2W would be pretty cool I think. 2W Boyz and 3W Nobz (Ogryns are 3W so whats the holdup here?) 2W Necron Warriors and 3W Lychguard. Sounds good to me.
Bharring wrote: Would buffing everything to Guardsmen level be easier?
Unlikely.
There are a surprising number of units in the rules who are on the same level as Marines. There are only a handful of units in the rules on the same level as Guardsmen.
Not in terms of of troops, and on top of that none of those elite choices outside Sisters are actually based entirely on the Troop just being slightly better. Those units actually end up with defined roles.
"Gardians have automatic first strike by ether being in a serpant or deep strike for a cp. "
So paying CP and an opportunity cost or paying 130 for a transport (yes, that transport is nearly worth its points without the Guardians) to ambush the Marines is somehow meeting them head-to-head?
You could argue that it's too easy for Guardians to do this, and I'd agree. Marines can do the same, but the Drop Pod costs way too much, and the Rhino isn't as good as the Serpent.
"with any amount of support"
Really? So if you buy a Farseer and Warlock, deepstrike them too (well, one of them, put the other on a bike and bring a second warlock to let the non-DSer get there, too! totally cheap and not worth counting the points) and CP as needed to ensure the powers get off allow a 160 point unit to do tons of damage to a 130 point unit? What a shocker?
More seriously, Podding in or WWP in or riding up in a transport isn't going head to head. Marines have 24" range. They get the alpha.
Now, you could argue that WWP > Pod and Serpent > Rhino. I'd agree with both of those.
But just straight on the table, go up to eachother and start shooting, Marines get the first and sometimes the second round of shooting, and beat Guardians in a straight head to head.
