To get right off, I've been reading the forums and talking with people and friends. And I've felt this could be hopefully a constructive thread. I know from some threads that people get very hyper about what is best or what is worst. But I always felt there is time for self reflection on our power armored friends. Lately I have yet to face a single space marine opponent in months. I play regularly and even I stopped playing with my space marines as I was tired of losing every single game. So I picked up my eldar Uthwe army and wrecked most factions with my dark reaper spam. But lets get to the crux of this thread....
Dakknauts, what do you think is wrong with Space Marines? *And Grey Knights, Chaos Space Marines, And all the other flavors of space marines
I would love to hear your thoughts. Because of this, I have spoilered my own thoughts. Read at your own risk.
Suggestions
Spoiler:
Lets just make this simpler similar to orks we can have it so that a full squad IN GENERAL for space marines gives :
+1 Attack and +1 LD and counts as two selections for the purpose of a detachment. Some units (Tacticals, Intercessors, Terminator squads) can have up to 3 special weapons / heavy weapons. All Sarges are upgraded to Veteran Sarge and have +1 wound
*encouraging people to have larger squads overall.*
Then we give termies, vanguard vets, sternguard their special rules back...
We give intercessors and tacticals their own unique 'volley' fire ability which allows them to unload all of their weapons in a single turn (shoot twice with bolt weapons) but cannot fire the next turn or we make it so they can't rapid fire the next turn.
Then we give land raiders an ability to shoot into melee combat, and give them a higher toughness and wound count. give them an ability to shrug off glancing shots, and all their equipment options are much cheaper. (decrease their cost to 250pts, 225 for crusader, 230 for redeemer)
Venerable Dreadnought gain : Ancient Wisdom and can be taken as a HQ choice. Ancient Wisdom allows them to give a squad nearby their BS Skill (must be a space marine from the same chapter)
Make all chapter rules work for all space marine units...
Give marines a benefit for when they fight in monoarmies:
Decrease special weapon costs for melta and flamer.
Give space marines back their bolter drill ability as a stratagem that works on all space marine units with 'bolt' in their profile.
Unload - Space marines fire two times in a turn but cannot fire the next turn and this ability cannot be used again.
Land Raider- Can disengage from combat and fire into combatants they are engaged with.
Vindicator - Just Remove it.
Hellblasters - 2pts less, 10pts less for all the hellblaster equipment, give them an anti-infantry 'gattling gun' variant. Name changed to Support Unit
Reivers moved to troop choice 3pts less.
Scouts Decrease to 10pts ppm. (Might not be good)
Tactical Squad - Decrease to 12ppm, if you have a full squad of tactical space marines they count as two troop choices when fulfilling the requirements of a detachment position, they do not take up an additional troop slot. In addition, they gain +1 attack and +1LD. And may use combat squads as normal.
Terminators ignore 1 ap on anything that has less strength than terminator's current toughness.
Apothecaries can take combi-weapons/storm bolters.
Librarians - give them back their gates of infinity, vortex of doom, force dome, and avenger.
Avenger - Assault D6 - Strength 5 Ap -3 D1 - this weapon automatically hits.
Can manifest on a 7
Force Dome
All units nearby within 8" gain a +5 invulnerable save.
Warp charge 7
Vortex of Doom
S 10 Ap -6 Heavy 2 D6 D - ignores all - to hit
Warp Charge of 5
Gates of Infinity -5th Edition Codex- Can either travel by himself or take a single unit into the warp into deep strike then deploy 24". But if he travels with a unit increases the chance of an issue, if a double is rolled one member of the unit is automatically removed.
When Equipped with a lascannon or lascannon destroyer for every 6 rolled on to hit deals 2 hits instead of the normal 1 hit when the targeting unit is firing upon TITAN and SUPER HEAVY Units.
Tactical Squad / Devastator / Stern Guard / Terminators - Bolter Training (1CP) May fire an additional time when equipped with any bolt weapons. If this unit excluding Terminators moves this turn they cannot use this strategem and may not fire twice with a bolt weapon.
Vanguard Veterans - Gain Heroic Intervention - If a jump pack is equipped vanguard vets can elect to perform a heroic intervention, they cannot shoot the turn they arrive from deep strike but can assault (provided they are close enough) and gain +1 attack if they make a successful charge.
Sternguard Veterans - Special Ammunition - Check 5th edition codex.....
Terminators - Relentless - Ignores all - to hit on heavy weapons...
Terminators - Ceramite Shell - Ignore 1 ap.
Honor Guard - May equip storm shields...
Chapter Champion - May equip stormshield.... or a powe axe, or a relic blade...
Drop Pod reduced in cost to 40pts.
Techmarine - Forgemaster for an additional 20pts gain +2 BS and 6Ws may equip a conversion beamer in addition to a servo arm and servo harness. may use bolster defenses.
Bolster Defense (Imperial Fists Only Chapter Tactic),
For imperial fists, place three shielded walls or cover improve the save of that terrain by +1. Select one shield wall to improve the save of that terrain by +1
Raven Guard (Chapter Tactic) Infiltrate.... (Why wasn't this a thing already?!) All infantry, special characters, and DREADNOUGHTS can infiltrate. In additional all jump pack armed units can immunity to overwatch, they may ignore overwatched units entirely.
Stratagem Sabotage - Select an enemy unit that is deployed this game, that unit suffers -1 to hit for the rest of the game. (2cp) (can only be used once!)
Iron Hands (Chapter Tactic) Iron within - All Infantry models gain +1 to their toughness.
Stratagem -
Binary Diversion - Select a friendly iron hands character and then one of your opponent's vehicle or titan unit that is within 6" that unit cannot fire or make attacks this turn. (2CP)
White Scars (Chapter Tactic) Swordstorm - On charge, if an infantry, jump pack, or bike unit is within 1" for every model in the squad roll a d6, on a 6+ that unit suffers a mortal wound. All characters hit on 5+.
Stratagem Masters of the Wind- Select a unit of infantry or bike unit, this unit gains an additional 2" to their movement and their assault and charge for one turn only. (1cp)
Ultramarines (Chapter Tactic) Progressive Assault - Units that fire at the same unit can call out or mark a single unit (Can only be done once per a turn from all ultramarines for that turn). Any Ultramarines that fire at that marked unit gain +1 to hit with all ULTRAMARINE units and ignore all penalties to hit. 1s will always fail. (Does not work on scouts or servitors)
Stratagem Tactical Retreat - When an Ultramarine unit is charged, this unit may elect to retreat during your opponent's charge (2cp)
Salamanders (Chapter Tactic) Masters of the Forge - All flame, thunder hammers, and melta weapons are half cost. Any weapons that are decimal are rounded up.
Stratagem Holy Flame of Nocturne - Roll an additional D6 when firing with flame weapons from a single unit this turn (2cp)
Black Templar (Chapter Tactic) SUFFER NOT THE UNCLEAN TO LIVE - On rolls of 6 when on charge or attacking in close combat, gain an additional hit. If this unit has charged this turn gain an additional attack if a charge was successfully made by the unit possessing this ability in addition to the attacks generated from Suffer, not the unclean to live!
Stratagem Sword Brethren - select a unit of veterans they gain +1 attack and +1 to their leadership to their profile to a max of 3(1/2/3 CP)
These chapter tactics can either be: Only for mono marine factions... or cost 1 cp.... (similar to detachments but are given a rule automatically)
The problem is marine fanboys that expect them to be space Jesus because the fluff says one marine can conquer a planet and get outraged every time they fail a 2+ save. The solution is to accept that even marines are still basic infantry, make this clear in the fluff, and maybe drop their points a bit.
At the most basic level, the basic Space Marine statline is overpriced by GW. Against S3/4 AP0 D1 attacks, a Space Marine is nearly twice as resilient as a Guardsman. Against Toughness 3/4 targets, a Space Marine is nearly twice as deadly as a Guardsman. But the moment you wander away from basic weapons, Space Marines become less and less powerful compared to models with less "impressive" basic stats.
Yet, a Tactical Marine (the baseline for Space Marine Infantry) is 325% as expensive as a Infantry Squad Guardsmen (the baseline for Imperial Guard Infantry). Even factoring in additional rules such as ATKNF, Bolt Pistols, and Krak Grenades, there is simply no way this makes sense. It puts Marines on the blackfoot when facing other infantry. Instead of stomping them into the ground, they end up suffering a death of a thousand cuts from the hordes or less expensive special weapons they end up facing.
In short, Marines need either a radical rewrite to be worth their points or a drastic revision to the points values of all Infantry units so that they can actually compete under their current stats.
In general they should quite a bit more damage than they do.
Fluff wise, they are a blitzkreig type shock and awe force that strikes the enemy at its weakest point and breaks it with overwhelming force.
Their current competitive list...gun line. How boring can you get?
They should be a force to reckon with at short range. In both melee and shooting.
Almost none of their rules reflect this. Their stat line is over-costed and subpar.
A lot of people think that marines should be more survivable, when in reality they need to do more damage to reflect their fluff and to fix the army in general.
CA2018 was a good opportunity for GW to lower the cost of marines drastically and see their impact before a new marine Codex, hopefully to come in 2019.
Sure they need new rules but for short term gains a 2 point drop to marines and having tactics apply to vehicles would have helped them a long way.
Had a look at your inputs. While I agree that 3+ armor isnt everything, its also an issue because people dont take enough of it so the few squads that do get taken get removed pretty quickly.
As for combat squads, its not point costed into the space marine cost so becomes irrelevant.
The thing I think they could have done was give marines an option to upgrade to a primaris bolter. It makes no sense that the soldiers that have been fighting for the last 10,000 years do not get access to new gear simply because GW didnt feel like it.
The forced distinction between Primaris and OldMarines is hurting both. It’s not hard to make Marines in general reasonably strong and fitting to theme, but unfortunately GW won’t do it for marketing and sales reasons.
Marines would work fine if every non-Primaris model got the +1W/+1A and 1 better AP on Bolters/Storm Bolters/Combi-Bolters/Hurricane Bolters//Heavy Bolters/combat knife/chainsword, and the Primaris distinction was removed to let Hellblasters et al use transports. Make said standardised Marine profile 15pts including weapons and make Stalker/Assault Bolters a free sidegrade rather than costing points. Make a basic Terminator body 23pts and drop the costs of all melee weapons. From there you can add the snowflake elements for various Chapters.
Peregrine wrote: The problem is marine fanboys that expect them to be space Jesus because the fluff says one marine can conquer a planet and get outraged every time they fail a 2+ save. The solution is to accept that even marines are still basic infantry, make this clear in the fluff, and maybe drop their points a bit.
I am not sure the fluff has to change, and GW wont change it. I dont feel like fluff has to reflect accurately to a table top game. Even the strongest of fluff characters can die easily in 40k. 100 space marines can conceivable lose to 500 guardsmen on the table top. That doesnt make sense in the fluff by any stretch.
When a marine has to be balanced to a guardsmen you know its going to mess with the fluff either way.
Broadly speaking, next to most other infantry in the game, Marines aren't too far out of place, a tad expensive but not awful for the most part.
The problem is when the game starts and heavy weapons fire immediately zaps 30-40 infantry without much caring about their toughness or armor, the differences between infantry becomes rather irrelevant. As the scale of the game has pushed upward and things like Custodes and Knights come into the game, infantry detail has been compressed in relevancy.
I think at this point, a quick and dirty fix would be to make them something like 10ppm for a tac squad/equivalent.
What's wrong is that the basic Marine statline, and the basic Marine as a whole, just doesn't have a place in the game. And I'm honestly not sure it ever has. What is their purpose? At best, it's to hold down objectives while hiding from an opponent. They don't have the muscle to actually kill anything. Problem is, they also don't have the survivability to hold up either to damage. If you want something to hold objectives, you take cheaper things, because having a model not getting shot and holding an objective is worth the same regardless of how many points the model is or how survivable it is. If you want something to kill opponents and capture their objectives, you go for the bigger, stronger, tougher stuff that needs to engage.
At the end of the day, a generic Tactical Marine won't be selected until it costs competitively less per model for what it does compared to weaker stuff, but still costs more per unit.
So; The game needs to realize that "tax units" are a thing, and work within that system. In a tax-unit system, being the cheapest is a quality all on its own, and just as valuable as lethality, movement, and survivability. These units of cheap models should, first, cost more compared to what they're bringing to the table, especially when they're so tough (though that's more of the current system, rather than how 40k works as a whole). In essence, your Elite units should cost less for the models, but more for the unit. Your "tax-filler" units should cost more for the models, but less for the unit. In doing so, you introduce the choice of "have this tax-filling unit that makes the rest of your army better by allowing you to spend more on stuff that isn't tax" or "have this tax-filling unit that is a bit better on its own, but the rest of your army might suffer a bit because you'll have less points to spend on stuff that isn't tax".
Example:
Tactical Marines - MUST take unit of 10 models, up to max of 20 models. 13 points per model. 130 points total for base unit.
Scouts - MUST take unit of 5 models, up to max of 10 models. 13 points per model. 65 points total for base unit.
The Scouts are categorically worse, except for certain situations due to Sniper Rifles (camo cloaks shouldn't be a bonus that makes them as survivable as Space Marines without the points for the unit going over 100 minium). You take Scouts because they're fewer points for the minimum sized unit, and you simply need something to stand somewhere. But you might take a unit of Tacticals still because you want a unit that can survive better while still holding the objective. The Tacticals cost just as much per model for a better model, but you're committing to spending more points on a unit that's still just a Tactical Marine.
That's something that should be factored into the game; sometimes being less points is the thing that's worthwhile. Same with Cultsts vs Chaos Space Marines;
Chaos Space Marines - Unit size 5-20. 12 points per model. Base unit is 60 points.
Cultists - Unit size 10-30. 6 points per model. Base unit is 60 points.
Same idea here. Cultists are hugely worse in everything except wound count, and they cost exactly as much for the base unit. Here, you got a choice where you might want more wounds some times, and more resilience and lethality from your tax unit at other times.
Grey Knights and other similar forces without lower-cost units suffer a further problem, though it's more an Imperial problem. Guardsmen. They're so cheap, you use the Guard for generating Command Points, and you're basically in the same situation as before; base unit costs for Guard are just so low. This just needs to be designed around. Having the whole "Platoon" structure like before could alleviate this by, again, forcing you to spend more for the base "platoon" of 25 Guardsmen, even though their cost per model is low.
Guardsmen - Platoon of 2 Infantry Squads (10 men each), plus a Platoon Command Squad (5 men). 6 points per model. Base Platoon is 150 points.
Conscripts - Unit size 10-30. 6 points per model. Base unit is 60 points.
You want those orders? Pay the taxman and commit to a lot of Guardsmen! They cost the same amount as a Conscript, but filling out with Conscripts frees up more of your list for tanks. Problem? Conscripts are worse in just so many ways.
So long as cheap stuff is "as effective" as their comparable points cost in bigger, tougher, stuff, then you get hurt on the scale. Note, at the high end, you need to be careful too. Those really big, really strong units need to pay more of a premium for what they are achieving. You should be using the tax-filler cheap units to access these things. Low-end items should be cheaper per model, but more for units. High-end models should be more expensive per model, but cheaper per unit.
Yarium wrote: What's wrong is that the basic Marine statline, and the basic Marine as a whole, just doesn't have a place in the game. And I'm honestly not sure it ever has. What is their purpose? At best, it's to hold down objectives while hiding from an opponent. They don't have the muscle to actually kill anything. Problem is, they also don't have the survivability to hold up either to damage. If you want something to hold objectives, you take cheaper things, because having a model not getting shot and holding an objective is worth the same regardless of how many points the model is or how survivable it is. If you want something to kill opponents and capture their objectives, you go for the bigger, stronger, tougher stuff that needs to engage.
At the end of the day, a generic Tactical Marine won't be selected until it costs competitively less per model for what it does compared to weaker stuff, but still costs more per unit.
So; The game needs to realize that "tax units" are a thing, and work within that system. In a tax-unit system, being the cheapest is a quality all on its own, and just as valuable as lethality, movement, and survivability. These units of cheap models should, first, cost more compared to what they're bringing to the table, especially when they're so tough (though that's more of the current system, rather than how 40k works as a whole). In essence, your Elite units should cost less for the models, but more for the unit. Your "tax-filler" units should cost more for the models, but less for the unit. In doing so, you introduce the choice of "have this tax-filling unit that makes the rest of your army better by allowing you to spend more on stuff that isn't tax" or "have this tax-filling unit that is a bit better on its own, but the rest of your army might suffer a bit because you'll have less points to spend on stuff that isn't tax".
Example:
Tactical Marines - MUST take unit of 10 models, up to max of 20 models. 13 points per model. 130 points total for base unit.
Scouts - MUST take unit of 5 models, up to max of 10 models. 13 points per model. 65 points total for base unit.
The Scouts are categorically worse, except for certain situations due to Sniper Rifles (camo cloaks shouldn't be a bonus that makes them as survivable as Space Marines without the points for the unit going over 100 minium). You take Scouts because they're fewer points for the minimum sized unit, and you simply need something to stand somewhere. But you might take a unit of Tacticals still because you want a unit that can survive better while still holding the objective. The Tacticals cost just as much per model for a better model, but you're committing to spending more points on a unit that's still just a Tactical Marine.
That's something that should be factored into the game; sometimes being less points is the thing that's worthwhile. Same with Cultsts vs Chaos Space Marines;
Chaos Space Marines - Unit size 5-20. 12 points per model. Base unit is 60 points.
Cultists - Unit size 10-30. 6 points per model. Base unit is 60 points.
Same idea here. Cultists are hugely worse in everything except wound count, and they cost exactly as much for the base unit. Here, you got a choice where you might want more wounds some times, and more resilience and lethality from your tax unit at other times.
Grey Knights and other similar forces without lower-cost units suffer a further problem, though it's more an Imperial problem. Guardsmen. They're so cheap, you use the Guard for generating Command Points, and you're basically in the same situation as before; base unit costs for Guard are just so low. This just needs to be designed around. Having the whole "Platoon" structure like before could alleviate this by, again, forcing you to spend more for the base "platoon" of 25 Guardsmen, even though their cost per model is low.
Guardsmen - Platoon of 2 Infantry Squads (10 men each), plus a Platoon Command Squad (5 men). 6 points per model. Base Platoon is 150 points.
Conscripts - Unit size 10-30. 6 points per model. Base unit is 60 points.
You want those orders? Pay the taxman and commit to a lot of Guardsmen! They cost the same amount as a Conscript, but filling out with Conscripts frees up more of your list for tanks. Problem? Conscripts are worse in just so many ways.
So long as cheap stuff is "as effective" as their comparable points cost in bigger, tougher, stuff, then you get hurt on the scale. Note, at the high end, you need to be careful too. Those really big, really strong units need to pay more of a premium for what they are achieving. You should be using the tax-filler cheap units to access these things. Low-end items should be cheaper per model, but more for units. High-end models should be more expensive per model, but cheaper per unit.
What is wrong with Space Marines is that 40K has turned into Epic, where you have a proliferation of tanks, vehicles and knights that make common infantry redundant, and the heavy armor of marines worthless.
Short of going back to an infantry-only game with 0-1 vehicle-sized support units, you can't do anything to make marines worth taking.
Had a look at your inputs. While I agree that 3+ armor isnt everything, its also an issue because people dont take enough of it so the few squads that do get taken get removed pretty quickly.
As for combat squads, its not point costed into the space marine cost so becomes irrelevant.
The thing I think they could have done was give marines an option to upgrade to a primaris bolter. It makes no sense that the soldiers that have been fighting for the last 10,000 years do not get access to new gear simply because GW didnt feel like it.
I can agree with that. combat Squads being in is more of a distraction of a problem and just isn't even worth being in the space marine codex, and should just be a general rule for all factions that you can split up a squad whenever you want. Space marines just need better rules along with doing more damage that are relevant to the whole army.
I think giving space marines the exclusive ability to gain +1 attack on charge or +1 attack for all bolters would go a long way for the army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: What is wrong with Space Marines is that 40K has turned into Epic, where you have a proliferation of tanks, vehicles and knights that make common infantry redundant, and the heavy armor of marines worthless.
Short of going back to an infantry-only game with 0-1 vehicle-sized support units, you can't do anything to make marines worth taking.
A WWI French general once said (and I'm roughly transating here), war is making 90 kilos men wrestle against 90 kilos bombs. That's Space Marine (and by extention 40K) "problem" in a nutshell.
Space Marines are 500 kilos supermen who are sent to wrestle with 1 000 000 degree plasma beam, 500 kilos cannon shells, etc. They get slaughter like simple guardsmen because they are forced to face off against armies filled with weapons design to kill them or even tougher things.
What 40K needs is a redesign of its infantry vs vehicle/monstruous creature point value as well as a redesign of its special/heavy weapons vs normal weapons. As of now, Tactical Space Marines are rather well priced when compared with other basic infantry before any upgrades are taken.
SM's are completely fine relative to other infantry in the game.
Not quite. They're not miles off, but little differences can have a big impact. The game's basic infantry would be better balanced with 5pt Guardsmen, 9pt Sisters of Battle, 10pt Necron Warriors, 11pt Space Marines, 15pt Necron Immortals and 15pt Primaris Marines. Others with better knowledge of armies I don't play could fill in the other Xenos factions better than I.
That's based off the notion that, if something is double the cost of another, it has to have double the utility. That includes double the durability and double the offensive output, as well as some other advantage for the more expensive model to account for the inherent advantages that the cheaper model has - more area control, better ability to outnumber the enemy on an objective, and being hard to overkill and waste firepower. The Sister has not quite twice the durability and firepower of a Guardsman and her special rules don't make up enough ground, so she costs not quite twice a Guardsman.
SM's are completely fine relative to other infantry in the game.
Sooo 5ppm Guardsmen and 360-400 pt knight titans are acceptable? When if a space marine unit equal in cost 2 predators could both be popped on the same turn by a single Knight Titan?
Space marines pay quite a bit for ineffective vehicles and infantry that does not put out as much damage output as other races.
A striking scorpion is a 11ppm and has an exarch that gives them an ability cause mortal wounds upon touch effectively giving the squad at 55 points +5 attacks on immediate base contact when charging.... an assault squad costs 13ppms and are 65 points in total. You have maybe 11 attacks on base at t4 S4 WS3. Striking scorpions get 17 attacks, 5 which cause mortal wounds. They also gain +1 to their rolls if they are fighting in cover. And every single time the unit makes a hit roll of 6+ they gain another attack... So effectively has 21 attacks.... at WS 3 S4 with a 2W sarge.... so 6 wounds in total for the striking scorpion squad. Compared to the marines 5 wounds. So yeah Totally fine! Space marines not only have no benefits in close combat (I gave the assault squad an additional attack from their chainsword ability). But they have no way to counter this even with their elite option is more expensive and you can take far more scorpions and upgrades, and they have a better option for shooting.
So not only am I paying effectively 2 points per a model extra for 1 toughness but I am also dying far more often with ineffective weapons that don't do nearly as much damage. Tell me how is that fair? (we are comparing an elite unit to a fast attack option though, but the point still stands the elite choice is better in every respect to the assault squad which costs more even without jumppacks!)
Asherian Command wrote: Once you face something with an ap -3 or -4 that squad of marines is dead. And those have become very common in 8th edition. Every single army has one in spades except for space marines. (or they are extremely overcosted because it is a space marine list).
Here you are somewhat off. AP3-4 weapons aren't the issue compared to old and current. Those would have ignored marine save completely before anyway! It's not like marines before had 3++. -4 weapons were AP1 weapons(ignore flat out any non-inv save). -3 were stuff like lascannon. -2 stuff like krak missiles. In fact against some weapons like krak missiles(5+) and lascannons(6+) marines gets better save than before. The ones that hurt marine more are AP4 or worse weapons of old that have AP better than 0 which increase the marine casualty rate.
AP change hurts more of the marines damage output than survival. What hurts marines survival more is simply upping of heavy weapon shots armies put out and all the special rules resulting in save mattering less eventhough AP system itself could even be helping.
Asherian Command wrote: Once you face something with an ap -3 or -4 that squad of marines is dead. And those have become very common in 8th edition. Every single army has one in spades except for space marines. (or they are extremely overcosted because it is a space marine list).
Here you are somewhat off. AP3-4 weapons aren't the issue compared to old and current. Those would have ignored marine save completely before anyway! It's not like marines before had 3++. -4 weapons were AP1 weapons(ignore flat out any non-inv save). -3 were stuff like lascannon. -2 stuff like krak missiles. In fact against some weapons like krak missiles(5+) and lascannons(6+) marines gets better save than before. The ones that hurt marine more are AP4 or worse weapons of old that have AP better than 0 which increase the marine casualty rate.
AP change hurts more of the marines damage output than survival. What hurts marines survival more is simply upping of heavy weapon shots armies put out and all the special rules resulting in save mattering less eventhough AP system itself could even be helping.
I agree completely! The ap- for every single weapon in the game is quite annoying which decreases the value of most saves. Plus cheaper infantry options for all imperial players means space marines are subpar due to efficiency.
That and lacking any decent AP on all bolter weapons except for primaris.
Peregrine wrote: The problem is marine fanboys that expect them to be space Jesus because the fluff says one marine can conquer a planet and get outraged every time they fail a 2+ save. The solution is to accept that even marines are still basic infantry, make this clear in the fluff, and maybe drop their points a bit.
Exactly this.
Power armor is strong in 8th edition. Most of the weapons that now have AP-2 or -3 like the diss cannons were AP2 in previous editions and power armor dudes had no save at all against those, now they still have a 5+ or 6+. It's only the former AP4 weapons that are better against marines, but they're not that common. My rokkits could bypass all the saves against marines, now they still have a 5+.
Peregrine wrote: The problem is marine fanboys that expect them to be space Jesus because the fluff says one marine can conquer a planet and get outraged every time they fail a 2+ save. The solution is to accept that even marines are still basic infantry, make this clear in the fluff, and maybe drop their points a bit.
Exactly this.
Power armor is strong in 8th edition. Most of the weapons that now have AP-2 or -3 like the diss cannons were AP2 in previous editions and power armor dudes had no save at all against those, now they still have a 5+ or 6+. It's only the former AP4 weapons that are better against marines, but they're not that common. My rokkits could bypass all the saves against marines, now they still have a 5+.
Your rokkits etc have gone up in numbers and gained special rules by the bucketloads though. Offensive ability in 8th ed has gone up the roof while leaving # of wounds on board as primary defence ability.
Orks sure didn't use to have firepower to take down Magnus by 1 unit in one round. Or riptide. Now that's not even that hard to do. And that's just orks. Shooty gunlines have gone up in similar way.
I wasn't referring to 1-shot a superhero, I was talking to kill regular power armor dudes. The thread is about power armors being terrible, in fact they're more effective than previous editions unless targeted by the former AP4 weapons like heavy bolters or big choppas.
Not even power klaws or lascannons can bypass their save now.
Bolters seem kind of weak for the awesome background they get. All the talk at an exploding round with a shaped charge AP tip detonaing inside the target and being so devastating just doesn't reflect in the stats.
Problem is marines are over pointed for what you get in relation to other factions and also internally in the codex post chapter approved .
Solutions:
-Lower the points to around 10pts/marine
-or give them sternguard stats and weapon options and 2+ armour save. (this could warrant a small point increase)
Space marine solution idea: between their geneseed enhancements and power armor support systems they get to reroll failed toughness saves. Still bones by mortal wounds but hard to kill otherwise, better reflecting their superhuman physique and armor support systems but still possible to drop from one hit.
Marine units are supposed to be flexible, durable units. In the past, they generally had less offensive power than equivalent pts of equivalent options from other factions, but made up for it with the durability of the 3+ save. They also had a lot of hybrid units that had decent ranged and melee. Their durability allowed them to leverage various game mechanics to win despite lower offensive power. But in 8th edition, their offense dropped even lower, and most of these mechanics disappeared.
For example: Marines didn't have as strong melee power as other factions, but even tac marines could still kill non-melee specialist units via sweeping advance, even if they couldn't actually kill that many models. This worked because sweeping advance was based on your losses vs theirs, and the tacs could avoid losses due to 3+ being good. So you could sweep away fire warriors or guard units all day with tacs even though they sucked at actually killing stuff efficiently. Now, it would take the whole game for a tac squad to melee down a bunch of fire warriors or guardians. And of course, they'd actually just fall back and shoot you to bits.
The Space Marine play style relied on a bunch of mechanics that no longer exist:
1) Sweeping Advance
2) Always having grenades to ignore penalties for charging into cover (giving them an edge over many melee specialists who were more choppy, but didn't)
3) Blast and template weapons being super efficient vs hordes (they are now marginal with the CA changes)
4) Being able to disembark and shoot after moving (Rhino Rush), which meant staying safe in your transports turn 1, and then rushing up and wiping some units with focus fire turn 2.
5) Low numbers of high strength attacks being able to kill characters and vehicles reliably (instant death and back armor hits.)
6) Being able to easily shake/stun vehicles with anti tank weapons, giving your units a chance to get close to them with meltas and powerfists
7) Relatively cheap transports across the whole game
8) Having comparatively more options to safely deep strike than other factions/units
9) Having lots of durable, highly mobile heavy weapons that could reliably kill armor (goes with 5) such as multi melta attack bikes.
So that's a huge amount of mechanics that used to be more in their favor than anyone else, and are now gone. To really drive the point home, consider what a tac squad or CSM squad could do in 5th edition:
A) Reliably kill any type of vehicle at range with its melta(s) with a good enough probability of 1 shotting them to be a serious threat
B) Reliably kill any type of vehicle except a walker in melee with the sargeant's powerfist
C) Reliably kill any character without eternal warrior in melee with the powerfist
D) Do decent anti horde damage with their basic bolter due to AP5, or serious, green tide stopping damage if given anti horde special weapons.
E) Survive a turn or two of shooting from pretty much anything except plasma spam, and still have almost all it's offensive power left because special weapons die last
F) Survive several turns in melee with anything that isn't a CC specialist with multiple power weapons, and not suffer much offensive power loss
G) Charge and likely sweeping advance any non-marine, non-cc specialist unit
H) Be hard enough to kill to hold down objectives even under heavy fire, especially in cover.
Tacs did all that and were STILL considered mediocre (CSM were better.) And now, in 8th, they do ABSOLUTELY ZERO OF THOSE THINGS. Instead they have some of the lowest durability vs pts ratio, some of the weakest firepower due to bolters not becoming AP-1 (even though most other AP5 weapons did), terrible anti tank and anti character due to the changes to weapon damage system, and lost their mobility due to transport rule and cost changes. Auras and stratagems do very little to make up for it.
So yeah. Read my other two posts to get more into the details. But the changes are HUGE. This is why marines cannot be fixed merely by dropping their points. Perhaps the old system was silly because so much of a squad's power was loaded into a couple special weapon guys and the sergeant. It'd be nice if it was more evenly spread out. But marines need huge stat and rule changes.
Most of the things you listed affect all the units in 40k, not only power armor dudes. My orks used to wreck faces with their pks, now they're almost dead weight. Oh, and they cost more than the SM equivalent.
Most of the things you listed affect all the units in 40k, not only power armor dudes. My orks used to wreck faces with their pks, now they're almost dead weight. Oh, and they cost more than the SM equivalent.
Yes, certainly. It is hurting some Ork units as compared to in the past. But Orks have other options as well, and have picked up some new tricks and mechanics. I am not saying this only affected marines. I am saying that the way marine units used to operate, that used to make them viable, is no longer a thing.
Guard also lost out on the relative power of the powerfist sarge. But it doesn't really bother them, because guard wasn't built around using those to kill tanks. Guard was about gun lines and armor. And they are still able to be about gun lines and armor.
In general they should quite a bit more damage than they do.
Fluff wise, they are a blitzkreig type shock and awe force that strikes the enemy at its weakest point and breaks it with overwhelming force.
Their current competitive list...gun line. How boring can you get?
They should be a force to reckon with at short range. In both melee and shooting.
Almost none of their rules reflect this. Their stat line is over-costed and subpar.
A lot of people think that marines should be more survivable, when in reality they need to do more damage to reflect their fluff and to fix the army in general.
One hundred per cent this. Marines die. Less easily than Guard, but they die. The issue is that a Tactical Marine does no damage. FAQ their guns into ASTARTES Bolters and do the same for Chaos Marines. Like they do for Astartes shotguns. Give them a higher rate of fire or plus 1 strength at half range. Anything.
Blackie wrote: And also cost 12 points instead of 5 though.
I wasn't referring to 1-shot a superhero, I was talking to kill regular power armor dudes. The thread is about power armors being terrible, in fact they're more effective than previous editions unless targeted by the former AP4 weapons like heavy bolters or big choppas.
Not even power klaws or lascannons can bypass their save now.
And if something can kill Magnus in one go how many power armour marines that kills? 18 whether that's 1-2 wound models. Like how last time I played vs space marines one shotted death company and sanquinary guard(minus 1 of them as he got the 1 he needed with 1d6 with reroll).
Hint: If something can kill Magnus it usually kills crapload of infantry as well ;-)
Fluff wise, they are a blitzkreig type shock and awe force that strikes the enemy at its weakest point and breaks it with overwhelming force.
Well if they'd stop nerfing deep strike I'd be able to properly get on with that....
Yeah, deep strike is not really that viable with marines if it means them immediately dying upon arrival.
They don't die immediately upon arrival, I mean , I DO get a shooting phase (+ an assault phase if I roll well - wich is up from what I got in previous editions). But getting killed isn't really the problem. I expect that to happen in fairly short order. It's been happening for decades. If I wasn't OK with that I wouldn't be DSing.
No, it's the not being allowed to land within 9" of an enemy. That creates giant swathes of empty table where I simply can't land - for reasons. Like an enemies rear area in order to hunt down objective holders, indirect fire units, etc.
But oh, hey, that's not enough. Now I can't land in turn 1. Or turn 4+ (here in the real world games DO go beyond turn 3)
Most of the things you listed affect all the units in 40k, not only power armor dudes. My orks used to wreck faces with their pks, now they're almost dead weight. Oh, and they cost more than the SM equivalent.
That sounds like you are saying "marine players have edition lag". But have to say what he said is true and actually for the cost over durability or cost over "killability", the removal of those gaming mechanics do hurt marines much harder than any other armies.
Blackie wrote: And also cost 12 points instead of 5 though.
I wasn't referring to 1-shot a superhero, I was talking to kill regular power armor dudes. The thread is about power armors being terrible, in fact they're more effective than previous editions unless targeted by the former AP4 weapons like heavy bolters or big choppas.
Not even power klaws or lascannons can bypass their save now.
And if something can kill Magnus in one go how many power armour marines that kills? 18 whether that's 1-2 wound models. Like how last time I played vs space marines one shotted death company and sanquinary guard(minus 1 of them as he got the 1 he needed with 1d6 with reroll).
Hint: If something can kill Magnus it usually kills crapload of infantry as well ;-)
Maybe, but that's not the point. Rokkits are less efficient vs SM than they used to be, that's a fact. Another fact is that power armor dudes are now more resilient against anything but the former AP4 weapons, which aren't even common. Hence the assumption of power armors that were able to soak a lot of shots in previous edition and now are melted by anything or too easily is completely false.
Most of the things you listed affect all the units in 40k, not only power armor dudes. My orks used to wreck faces with their pks, now they're almost dead weight. Oh, and they cost more than the SM equivalent.
That sounds like you are saying "marine players have edition lag". But have to say what he said is true and actually for the cost over durability or cost over "killability", the removal of those gaming mechanics do hurt marines much harder than any other armies.
I don't think so. Tac dudes were competitive only because they were part of a formation that granted 300+ points of free stuff. They weren't particularly amazing once. The only things I can admit they have become really worse are flamers and melta guns that were pretty effective options for power armor dudes. Also grav but grav spam was something insane and I'm glad that GW has nerfed it into the ground. Plasma guns are now way better than before though. Not to mention ass cannons, storm bolters and heavy bolters, all better now.
The issue is just that at its core the 40k game is completely and utterly fethed. The balance between infantry/vehicles is basically nonexistent, there's a ton of mechanics that just don't make a lick of sense, and a lot of the new rules neither reduce the playtime or make the game simpler as was advertised. Blast templates were easy, and all they needed to fix them was to simply reduce or remove scattering altogether- instead we now have d6 hit mechanics that take even more time. Marine infantry wasn't stupendous in prior editions as mentioned, but at least there was transport and sweeping advance rules to give them an edge over your basic guardsmen squad. That's all gone now, and instead we have a terrible edition of poorly implemented mechanics that weren't thought out well - coupled with bizarre religious adherence to statlines even though the limits to strength and toughness have been removed. And keeping the asinine turn system that encourages "shot off the board syndrome", where you either have enough cover to protect your army or expect to lose a significant chunk on the first shooting phase.
If you want to improve marines, you need to improve 40k so there's actual tactics for heavy and elite infantry compared to the standard gameplay of just pushing up the table with blobs of units trying to screen as much fire as possible for your deathstar(s), a concept that also needs to be taken outside and shot once and for all. I wouldn't opt for just stat increases, but completely and utterly changing the wargame to add deep mechanics for both infantry and vehicles while also speeding things up for gameplay's sake (such as minimal/no scatter templates). Add suppression mechanics to infantry, make dedicated AT weapons suffer minuses to hit against infantry targets, bring back things like sweeping advances to quickly resolve melee combat, mandate heavy use of terrain in the rules themselves, and use alternating unit turns to prevent one person just activating all of their units and blowing units clean off the table. All elite infantry such as Space Marines, Custodes, and Aspect squads should be a pain in the ass to kill without using the proper tools for the job, and inferior infantry units such as guardsmen shouldn't be able to outshoot them on a per-points basis.
Cause it's not just Marines. Aspect Warriors, Custodes, warriors, etc are all gak units with no place on the table in a game that caters mostly to superheavies and blobs of infantry where "tactics" consist of merely spamming shots and managing auras. GW keeps creeping the scale forward and shoving more Epic units in without giving a single damn as to how it'll effect the meta, and doesn't seem to care about game design either really. It's just about getting people to field expensive blobs of infantry and superheavies now to be pushed on and off the table with a broom as people dump bucketloads of dice that take forever to count hits. At this point the community either needs to make its own rules or just switch to kill team, because there's probably no improving 40k for there to even be a place for elite armies at this point.
SM's are completely fine relative to other infantry in the game.
Sooo 5ppm Guardsmen and 360-400 pt knight titans are acceptable? When if a space marine unit equal in cost 2 predators could both be popped on the same turn by a single Knight Titan?
Space marines pay quite a bit for ineffective vehicles and infantry that does not put out as much damage output as other races.
A striking scorpion is a 11ppm and has an exarch that gives them an ability cause mortal wounds upon touch effectively giving the squad at 55 points +5 attacks on immediate base contact when charging.... an assault squad costs 13ppms and are 65 points in total. You have maybe 11 attacks on base at t4 S4 WS3. Striking scorpions get 17 attacks, 5 which cause mortal wounds. They also gain +1 to their rolls if they are fighting in cover. And every single time the unit makes a hit roll of 6+ they gain another attack... So effectively has 21 attacks.... at WS 3 S4 with a 2W sarge.... so 6 wounds in total for the striking scorpion squad. Compared to the marines 5 wounds. So yeah Totally fine! Space marines not only have no benefits in close combat (I gave the assault squad an additional attack from their chainsword ability). But they have no way to counter this even with their elite option is more expensive and you can take far more scorpions and upgrades, and they have a better option for shooting.
So not only am I paying effectively 2 points per a model extra for 1 toughness but I am also dying far more often with ineffective weapons that don't do nearly as much damage. Tell me how is that fair? (we are comparing an elite unit to a fast attack option though, but the point still stands the elite choice is better in every respect to the assault squad which costs more even without jumppacks!)
The way you're whining, guardsmen should be 2 pts, and conscripts 1 pt.
No problem with Knights... If you are consistently losing multiple expensive units of SMs each turn to single Knights, the problem is not SM. The problem is that you are a bad player. L2P
Scorpions, Harlies, and Genestealers should all always auto-win any flavor of basic SM in Assault. It's stupid of you to argue otherwise. L2P
The issue you have is that you want SM to be a no-skill unkillable army that matches semi-elite Assault Marines equal to hyper-elite assault, when that hss never been what they were or should be. AMs are only supposed to be faster SMs, not Uber killer
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyzilla wrote: 8nferior infantry units such as guardsmen shouldn't be able to outshoot them on a per-points basis.
WTF? If guard can't outshoot SM, and they certainly should not out-fight them, what's the point of even having them. Of course Guard should always out-shoot SM! That's what they do!
In general play there is nothing really that wrong with Space Marines. Tactical marines are a bit bleh as they have always been; they suffer from the problem that generalist units just have efficiency problems in competitive play in the hands of good players. A specialist unit in the hands of a good player will be performing its specialist role nearly every turn and will be inherently more efficient than a generalist unit in that role which *could* have been doing something else that turn but is not. The other marine units are a mix of good and bad just like in every other faction.
So what is wrong with Space Marines: slightly overcosted for what they do. If we look at the running totals on the 40K stats page (https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report) they are running at 39% win rate. Ideally we would want every major faction to be in that average 2-3 wins out of a 5 game tournament which would be the 40-60% win rate range, having the single biggest faction drop below that is not what we would want. On the other hand we are not exactly far from that range so clearly some points adjustments should be able to do the job.
My experience from tournaments (typically 2-3 per year, I am definitely not a hardcore tournament player) is that you see a lot of really bad marine armies from inexperienced players. It is like having all those choices confuse players and they put out an army that is less than the sum of its parts - i.e. there are some good things in there but it just does not function as a whole. I think this factor will hold marines back from a 50% win rate unless they are actually undercosted or suddenly have enough auto-take obviously good options that it cuts through any amount of inexperience or confusion and just shouts "take ME!" in the same way that whatever is stupid good in any given Eldar codex usually does. However this last "fix" is basically just a call for terrible internal balance in the codex and I would not want to see it happen.
So despite the amount of dakka hate this might draw my way - I think the answer is "not that much". They are slightly below par but not by enough that really needs more than a slight points tweak and maybe a few more options in the form of specialist detachments to supplement their rather meh range of stratagems.
Of course if you believe marine armies should by right dominate the top tables and only measure an army but how many enormous tournaments they are winning - then I just disagree with you on a far more fundamental level
JohnHwangDD wrote: WTF? If guard can't outshoot SM, and they certainly should not out-fight them, what's the point of even having them. Of course Guard should always out-shoot SM! That's what they do!
Guard =/= basic infantry squad. Basic infantry should be cannon fodder whose primary role is to set up camp somewhere (preferably on an objective) and die so that something more important doesn't. The IG units that should be out-shooting marines are the veterans, tanks, etc.
I don't know what is precisely with marines and how to fix them. All I know is that a 20+pts meq stats model with no resilient would have to have a god like fire power and alfa strike possibility build in, to be considered ok. If it does not have that, then it just doesn't make sense as far the game mechanics in 8th ed go.
Same points put in to IG are more resilient and more shoty, and that is not counting any support options. From what I understand other marines live on their support options and auras etc. GK don't have working versions of those, which makes them quad or quint punished in the game.
I can't think of a single aspect of the game, be it speed, buffs, synergy etc that does not work as far as GK goes. Add being high cost to that and the army will never work, save for something crazy like a flat 75% drop of unit cost. But something like that could fix, almost anything in w40k.
To a degree I have a feeling that GK have rules ment either for next edition or one of the editions prior to this one, and because their rules end up being copy pasted instead of actually designed from ground up, the state of the faction is the way it is now.
SM's are completely fine relative to other infantry in the game.
Sooo 5ppm Guardsmen and 360-400 pt knight titans are acceptable? When if a space marine unit equal in cost 2 predators could both be popped on the same turn by a single Knight Titan?
Space marines pay quite a bit for ineffective vehicles and infantry that does not put out as much damage output as other races.
A striking scorpion is a 11ppm and has an exarch that gives them an ability cause mortal wounds upon touch effectively giving the squad at 55 points +5 attacks on immediate base contact when charging.... an assault squad costs 13ppms and are 65 points in total. You have maybe 11 attacks on base at t4 S4 WS3. Striking scorpions get 17 attacks, 5 which cause mortal wounds. They also gain +1 to their rolls if they are fighting in cover. And every single time the unit makes a hit roll of 6+ they gain another attack... So effectively has 21 attacks.... at WS 3 S4 with a 2W sarge.... so 6 wounds in total for the striking scorpion squad. Compared to the marines 5 wounds. So yeah Totally fine! Space marines not only have no benefits in close combat (I gave the assault squad an additional attack from their chainsword ability). But they have no way to counter this even with their elite option is more expensive and you can take far more scorpions and upgrades, and they have a better option for shooting.
So not only am I paying effectively 2 points per a model extra for 1 toughness but I am also dying far more often with ineffective weapons that don't do nearly as much damage. Tell me how is that fair? (we are comparing an elite unit to a fast attack option though, but the point still stands the elite choice is better in every respect to the assault squad which costs more even without jumppacks!)
The way you're whining, guardsmen should be 2 pts, and conscripts 1 pt.
No problem with Knights... If you are consistently losing multiple expensive units of SMs each turn to single Knights, the problem is not SM. The problem is that you are a bad player. L2P
Scorpions, Harlies, and Genestealers should all always auto-win any flavor of basic SM in Assault. It's stupid of you to argue otherwise. L2P
The issue you have is that you want SM to be a no-skill unkillable army that matches semi-elite Assault Marines equal to hyper-elite assault, when that hss never been what they were or should be. AMs are only supposed to be faster SMs, not Uber killer
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyzilla wrote: 8nferior infantry units such as guardsmen shouldn't be able to outshoot them on a per-points basis.
WTF? If guard can't outshoot SM, and they certainly should not out-fight them, what's the point of even having them. Of course Guard should always out-shoot SM! That's what they do!
Light infantry isn't for out shooting something, it's for occupying the line. You don't bring guard to out-shoot elite infantry but to engage in attrition warfare. Dig in and force the enemy to evict your infantry in order to take the objective or push the line of board control. In turn while the heavy/elite infantry is busy mopping up cheap and worthless light infantry, they aren't dealing with your tanks, artillery, or air support. Which is also part of the critique regarding 40k lacking actual strategy, you shouldn't just be spamming shots at something to resolve the issue. Trying to engage in a shooting match with a unit catered to annihilate you in a shooting match should only result in you getting wiped out, no different from trying to attack an AT emplacement head-on as a tank. You resolve your issues with combined arms, looking for artillery or armor support to deal with the heavy infantry.
JohnHwangDD wrote: WTF? If guard can't outshoot SM, and they certainly should not out-fight them, what's the point of even having them. Of course Guard should always out-shoot SM! That's what they do!
Guard =/= basic infantry squad. Basic infantry should be cannon fodder whose primary role is to set up camp somewhere (preferably on an objective) and die so that something more important doesn't. The IG units that should be out-shooting marines are the veterans, tanks, etc.
IMO the things countering a basic tactical marine squad should be Scions, not Veterans. Mechanically what Veterans should do is being harder to wipe out in sweeps in charges or just being highly resistant to routing - ultimately they're still equipped with the same gakky weapons as the rest of the Guard. It's the Scions who bring the heavy firepower to the field, especially modern Scions and their LMG-analogous volley gun.
JohnHwangDD wrote: WTF? If guard can't outshoot SM, and they certainly should not out-fight them, what's the point of even having them. Of course Guard should always out-shoot SM! That's what they do!
Guard =/= basic infantry squad. Basic infantry should be cannon fodder whose primary role is to set up camp somewhere (preferably on an objective) and die so that something more important doesn't. The IG units that should be out-shooting marines are the veterans, tanks, etc.
That's ignoring the fact that 4ppm Catachan's whoop them in CC Point for point.
Rogue Trader, 2nd Ed, 8th Ed. It's been modifiable.
For those (who no fault of their own I might add) new to armour modifiers, they need to adapt their playstyle.
Cover now boosts your standard Marines, but Heavy Weapons pose more of a threat. So gone are the days of just treating a massed barrage of Heavy Bolters as a shower.
But Marines do need AP-1 on their Bolters. It just seems wrong for them to not have that!
Wyzilla wrote: IMO the things countering a basic tactical marine squad should be Scions, not Veterans. Mechanically what Veterans should do is being harder to wipe out in sweeps in charges or just being highly resistant to routing - ultimately they're still equipped with the same gakky weapons as the rest of the Guard. It's the Scions who bring the heavy firepower to the field, especially modern Scions and their LMG-analogous volley gun.
The original idea of veterans was that they weren't armed with the same weapons, they scrounged up better gear than a normal squad. That's why they got three special weapons and the option to buy camo cloaks or carapace armor or a whole pile of melta bombs. Storm troopers have better generic guns, but their emphasis was (and should be) the alternate deployment options that make them pinpoint assassins vs. the veterans that bring better firepower but with only the conventional Chimeras or Valkyries to deploy it. In strategic terms storm troopers wipe out key targets anywhere on the table, veterans provide force concentration alongside the rest of the main line. It's just unfortunate that GW, in their desperate attempt to sell the new faction (because the awful fluff sure wasn't doing it), stripped veterans of all of their toys and put them in a useless slot.
The solution IMO is to give veterans back their camo/carapace/demolitions options, put them back in the troops slot, throw the Taurox in the garbage where it belongs, and stop trying to treat storm troopers as a separate sub-faction.
Ice_can wrote: That's ignoring the fact that 4ppm Catachan's whoop them in CC Point for point.
Err, what? How is it ignoring that when I'm talking about hypothetical alternative rules, not the current (broken) state of the game?
Sorry i didn't communicate what I ment.
The current rules allow Guard to actually out fight marines in CC let alone outshoot them.
Infantry should loose both of those fights, that they don't shows one of the main issue with marine's can't out shoot or out fight models at 1/3 of their cost. Partly because those models are ao cheap but marine's don't have quantity or quality of damage in any phase.
Wyzilla wrote: IMO the things countering a basic tactical marine squad should be Scions, not Veterans. Mechanically what Veterans should do is being harder to wipe out in sweeps in charges or just being highly resistant to routing - ultimately they're still equipped with the same gakky weapons as the rest of the Guard. It's the Scions who bring the heavy firepower to the field, especially modern Scions and their LMG-analogous volley gun.
The original idea of veterans was that they weren't armed with the same weapons, they scrounged up better gear than a normal squad. That's why they got three special weapons and the option to buy camo cloaks or carapace armor or a whole pile of melta bombs. Storm troopers have better generic guns, but their emphasis was (and should be) the alternate deployment options that make them pinpoint assassins vs. the veterans that bring better firepower but with only the conventional Chimeras or Valkyries to deploy it. In strategic terms storm troopers wipe out key targets anywhere on the table, veterans provide force concentration alongside the rest of the main line. It's just unfortunate that GW, in their desperate attempt to sell the new faction (because the awful fluff sure wasn't doing it), stripped veterans of all of their toys and put them in a useless slot.
The solution IMO is to give veterans back their camo/carapace/demolitions options, put them back in the troops slot, throw the Taurox in the garbage where it belongs, and stop trying to treat storm troopers as a separate sub-faction.
Huh, I always forgot that Veterans didn't use to just be Guardsmen +1. Although that's just compounded by the lack of model options, I'm just used to "Veterans" being a guardsmen squad with some fancy hats to signify their Veterancy instead of being decked out in carapace like the old Storm Trooper models that GW squatted.
And I agree the Taurox belongs in the trash. Both for mechanical redundancy and being a crime against aesthetics.
Stormonu wrote:What is wrong with Space Marines is that 40K has turned into Epic, where you have a proliferation of tanks, vehicles and knights that make common infantry redundant, and the heavy armor of marines worthless.
Short of going back to an infantry-only game with 0-1 vehicle-sized support units, you can't do anything to make marines worth taking.
Pretty much this. The scale of the game and the escalation/abundance of extremely powerful weapons has made mere boots on the ground with more sidearms and longarms essentially pointless.
Look to this first.
epronovost wrote:A WWI French general once said (and I'm roughly transating here), war is making 90 kilos men wrestle against 90 kilos bombs. That's Space Marine (and by extention 40K) "problem" in a nutshell.
Space Marines are 500 kilos supermen who are sent to wrestle with 1 000 000 degree plasma beam, 500 kilos cannon shells, etc. They get slaughter like simple guardsmen because they are forced to face off against armies filled with weapons design to kill them or even tougher things.
What 40K needs is a redesign of its infantry vs vehicle/monstruous creature point value as well as a redesign of its special/heavy weapons vs normal weapons. As of now, Tactical Space Marines are rather well priced when compared with other basic infantry before any upgrades are taken.
Hmm, rather than points values, I'd look to caps on vehicles and heavy/special weapons first . Look at how Infinity has an SWC limit for its 'big' guns.
If you look at a game system like Horus Heresy, the tactical marine is very important and not so bad. But why is that?
Simple, they are ~11ppm, they have fury of the legion (fire twice now but can't fire next round), and only troops can capture objectives. I personally think that making it so that anything can score in 8th edition was a mistake, but making bolter space marines cheaper is a start.
RedGriefer wrote: If you look at a game system like Horus Heresy, the tactical marine is very important and not so bad. But why is that?
Maybe because all factions are marines?
Allowing only troops to score would make cheap troops like guardsmen even more effective and required at competitive games.
There is also Ad Mech, Solar, Custodes, Titans, Demons.... They have fewer factions. Not because all of them are space marines. The fewer the factions the easier to balance.
Guardsmen are already required for all imperial soup lists so that wouldn't change anything.
Heres a fun article on ppm and effectiveness : www.3plusplus.net/2017/12/mathammer-why-tactical-squads-and-a-lot-of-elite-infantry-generally-suck/
The way you're whining, guardsmen should be 2 pts, and conscripts 1 pt.
Ignoring your insult. I am arguing "This doesn't feel right from a gameplay prespective." Telling someone they are whining is not very constructive to a conversation is it not? It is very dismissive.
No, Per a Point Effectively guardsmen are fine and they are by which all imperial faction troops are tested. And guardsmen beat space marines overall in shooting, durability, and resistance. You can get a full squad of 10 for half the cost of a space marine squad. This makes them far more durable. It also doesn't help space marine tacticals have no ap whatsoever or additional firepower for cheap. Elite infantry do not perform well, and that is what space marines are as a whole, they pay more because they are elite infantry, in lore and on the tabletop.
The problem is that you are a bad player. L2P
Or Knights area very powerful unit that Space marines currently have an issue in handling cause most of their anti tank is very expensive. And is the most expensive it has ever been.
Of course if you believe marine armies should by right dominate the top tables and only measure an army but how many enormous tournaments they are winning - then I just disagree with you on a far more fundamental level!
No, Marines shouldn't be the 'best' army in the game, but they should at least be competitive from a Mono army standpoint. if their basic infantry cannot stand up to the basic infantry of other factions then something needs to be looked at fundamentally. Space Marines are supposed to be the 'beginner race' the faction that takes the least amount of skill to perfect but does not have a high skill curve. Most 'competitive' marine lists are the same, scouts, gulliman, scout bikers, and a bunch of Devastators. Nothing else in their codex is viable for Vanilla. Then you take imperial soup to increase its effectiveness artificially inflating how 'good' the army actually is.
Rogue Trader, 2nd Ed, 8th Ed. It's been modifiable.
For those (who no fault of their own I might add) new to armour modifiers, they need to adapt their playstyle.
Cover now boosts your standard Marines, but Heavy Weapons pose more of a threat. So gone are the days of just treating a massed barrage of Heavy Bolters as a shower.
But Marines do need AP-1 on their Bolters. It just seems wrong for them to not have that!
but everyone knows that. The question is about how to adapt to this when your basic cheapest dude is 20pts or more. In case of GK it aint speed, because they don't have it, you cant stack up on the supper killer stuff and just use throw away troops, because there are no throw away troops in the codex the way it is costed and the super killy stuff isn't that super killy comparing to other factions. You can't just do it DG way and tank the shots, because again no cultists, no cheap chaff and the 20+pts dudes aren't as resilient as DG. the best thing people came up on this forum is take as few GK as possible and load up on IG, and hope that the IG part will not be burdened too much by the GK part, and will carry the list.
Allowing only troops to score would make cheap troops like guardsmen even more effective and required at competitive games.
It would do the same to casual games too. 10-15 GK strikes just don't surive till end game. So if everything else is not scoring, all opponents have to do is kill or keep away from objectives 15 power armored models in 1-2 turns.
Banville wrote: One hundred per cent this. Marines die. Less easily than Guard, but they die. The issue is that a Tactical Marine does no damage. FAQ their guns into ASTARTES Bolters and do the same for Chaos Marines. Like they do for Astartes shotguns. Give them a higher rate of fire or plus 1 strength at half range. Anything.
It's a damage thing, but also a durability thing. Consider this example:
Heavy Bolter, 3 hits (consider both SM and Guardsman equally easy to hit), firing at:
1. Guardsman (4 points)
3 shots, 3 x 2/3 hits, 3 x 2/3 x 2/3 wounds, 3 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 5/6 unsaved wounds = 1.11 damage; 1.11 x 4 = 4.44 points destroyed on average.
2. MEQ (13 points)
3 hits, 3 x 2/3 hits, 3 x 2/3 x 2/3 wounds, 3 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/2 unsaved wounds = 0.66 damage, 0.66 x 13 = 8.58 points destroyed on average.
Same trend goes on, flamer is point-by-point more efficient against MEQ than Guardsmen, almost anything is more efficient against MEQs. Even Guardsmen shooting autoguns at MEQs is more efficient than at shooting other Guardsmen or equivalent. Note MEQs are point by point more durable now than Cultists against Autogun fire. But this difference goes away with weapons that have strength 4 or higher.
Also let's consider 10 Space Marines (130 pts) firing at 32 Guardsmen (128 pts) within 12" distance.
Space Marines do 23.7 points worth of damage (5.92 damage).
Guardsmen do 46.2 points worth of damage (3.55 damage).
Space marines lose these 'stand off' even if they fire first volley. Space Marines only win if they get 2 free volleys. Close Combat won't change this. I disregarded Morale Phase effect.
So in short, MEQs don't have damage output and they can't take the fire either.
Its less marine survivability, and more marine firepower.
For 1 Tac Marine with a Bolter, you can get 3 guardsmen at equal distance, with orders for 2 or 3 shots each, giving you 9 shots to 2.
The math is apparent that the weight of dice make the guard more dangerous.
The issue is the humble bolter needs an RoF increase, or Marines need a rule improving their armor save by 1 against weapons with no AP, or otherwise ignore the first point of AP.
I get it, marines die, but when you're playing a marine army, and the consensus is that taking marine bodies is actually a tax/inefficient, you have a serious problem.
In general, the issue is armor save modifiers returning. The last time there was armor save mods, it was 2nd edition. The game was very, very different back then. The Marine statline, while virtually identical (your heroes had S5/T5 though IIRC) meant a lot more back then.
Part of it is that they die easily, but are priced as though they are resilient. Before when you had the old AP system, it was all or nothing so most non-special/heavy weapons didn't affect your save. When most weapons now do affect your save, your survivability takes a hit but they haven't gotten anything to really compensate for the game-changing around them. They are priced/positioned the same way as they were in 3rd through 7th edition, but without the survivability since their armor is more easily reduced.
Wayniac wrote: In general, the issue is armor save modifiers returning. The last time there was armor save mods, it was 2nd edition. The game was very, very different back then. The Marine statline, while virtually identical (your heroes had S5/T5 though IIRC) meant a lot more back then.
Part of it is that they die easily, but are priced as though they are resilient. Before when you had the old AP system, it was all or nothing so most non-special/heavy weapons didn't affect your save. When most weapons now do affect your save, your survivability takes a hit but they haven't gotten anything to really compensate for the game-changing around them. They are priced/positioned the same way as they were in 3rd through 7th edition, but without the survivability since their armor is more easily reduced.
Why you all keep saying that when it's actually the opposite? Modifiers made power armor stronger.
In previous editions all AP2 and AP3 completely bypassed SM save, now they get a 6+ and 5+ against the same weapons. The former AP5 and AP6 are now AP- so they don't affect marine save at all. Only the former AP4 is now more dangerous against marines, but those kind of weapons are not extremely common. And they still save the wound at 4+ against those weapons.
The only thing about the returning of armor save modifiers that made marines worse is that enemy dudes with 5+ and 6+ save now actually roll a save against the former imperium AP5 or AP6 weapons. But marines durability is now superior, let's be honest about that.
A lot of the value of marines in 6th/7th was their ATSKNF which made them basically stay in the fight until every one of them died unlike guardsmen who where quite susceptible to getting swept, falling back which made them combat ineffective for at least 1 turn, and when below 25% total models if they where running away they basically never returned to the fight. The new morale system and the very weak new form of ATSKNF makes guardsmen a far less liability while making Marines way closer in function to other infantry units.
All that being said Marines in 6th and 7th where still considered somewhat over costed given their still lackluster damage output and dubious melee capability.
I don't think they should get cheaper, they should be elite which implies not that numerous, but they should get better. If I could go the whole hog…
Armour
Astartes Power Armour (not sisters of battle etc)
Larger, heavier and better integrated with the users nervous system, Astartes power armour provides incredible protection.
Save 2+
Terminator armour
Save 1+/5++
Special rule – Tactical Dreadnaught Armour
Designed for the harshest environments Terminator armour reduces all damage suffered from any source by 1 to a minimum of 1. For example an autocannon would do 1 damage to an Astartes wearing Terminator armour.
Bolters
Astartes have access to larger calibres and the assistance of autosenses and extensive training to make best use of the armour penetrating mass reactive ammunition they fire. In particular the ability to use mass reactive explosions amongst tightly packed hordes of enemies while rapidly advancing into close range.
Bolter
range 24/Rapid Fire 1/Str 4/Dmg 1/Sv -1
OR
range 24/Assault 2/Str 3/Dmg 1/Sv 0
Bolt Pistol
Gets the -1 (as should a chainsword to be honest…)
Storm Bolter is double a bolter with both fire modes.
Etc.
Heavy bolter stats not affected.
Give all marines +1 wound, so marines go to 2W, terminators go to 3W, Primaris gain +1 toughness instead of +1 wound.
Give marines "Astartes Bolters", which have +1 strength -1AP from regular bolters, so they're basically firing heavy bolter shots, but keep them at Rapid Fire 1.
The_Real_Chris wrote: I don't think they should get cheaper, they should be elite which implies not that numerous, but they should get better. If I could go the whole hog…
Armour
Astartes Power Armour (not sisters of battle etc)
Larger, heavier and better integrated with the users nervous system, Astartes power armour provides incredible protection.
Save 2+
Terminator armour
Save 1+/5++
Special rule – Tactical Dreadnaught Armour
Designed for the harshest environments Terminator armour reduces all damage suffered from any source by 1 to a minimum of 1. For example an autocannon would do 1 damage to an Astartes wearing Terminator armour.
Bolters
Astartes have access to larger calibres and the assistance of autosenses and extensive training to make best use of the armour penetrating mass reactive ammunition they fire. In particular the ability to use mass reactive explosions amongst tightly packed hordes of enemies while rapidly advancing into close range.
Bolter
range 24/Rapid Fire 1/Str 4/Dmg 1/Sv -1
OR
range 24/Assault 2/Str 3/Dmg 1/Sv 0
Bolt Pistol
Gets the -1 (as should a chainsword to be honest…)
Storm Bolter is double a bolter with both fire modes.
Etc.
Heavy bolter stats not affected.
I can accept the bolter changes but in no way are those armour changes justified. Your going from too weak to greating 2+,3++ stormbolter vets that would be in better armour than custodes and primarchs etc.
I still find it hillarious that 3+ is *obviously* the problem, especially at such a high PPM, after a year of people complaining about *Dark Reapers* and *Shining Spears*.
The problem isn't the Power Armor. It's that everyone and their dog has AP modifiers. If Ap-1/AP-2 were much rarer, Marines would do a lot better.
I disagree. Reapers and Spears have tremendous offense for their cost. Marines have pop guns AND the high AP problem. If you just make AP rarer, marines would not be much better off at all I think. The game you want existed for the first half of 3rd and maybe part of 4th. Maybe. The rest of the game is base marines doing nothing and dying like bitches.
I still think it’s more that your basic or garden variety Astartes has no AP.
From 3rd-7th Ed, the humble Bolter was pretty good in the hands of a Marine. Barring cover, every wounding hit squished a lot of infantry. Now, 1/3rd of those previous casualties survive. And half if they’re in cover. Whereas whilst Marines now benefit from Cover (about time too), they ultimately struggle in attrition, because they just can’t summon the killing power they once did.
It also means the opponent has more time, and less risk, in seizing objectives.
Give Bolters -1 AP, and you start to shift that balance back a bit.
Heck, even take a page out of the Heresy and allow Bolter armed Tacticals to double tap with something akin to Fury of the Legion. Let them punch their weight.
Bolters don't need AP-1. If you want that so desperately, Intercessors are only 17 points now. 4 points for a wound, attack, and better base weapon? Yes please.
The issue extends to all Marine Bolt weapons, on top of units having such outdated weapon loadouts. Know why Scions work? They get two special weapons at base and can get two more after being maxed out.
Space Marine gets 1 extra shot, per "number of shots stat" for bolters and storm bolters. Bolter shoots 3 times in rapid-fire range, twice at long range. Storm bolter shoots 6 times at short range, 4 times at long range.
The problem with space marines has always been that they are over costed. Previously the problem was that MEQ's paid for a 3+ armour save that they rarely got because everyone took weapons that were AP3 or better - and GW needed to realize that lower their points. Sadly they didn't. Under 8th it isn't as easy as that anymore because most weapons modify armour saves now but marines remain expensive points wise.
I don't see many faults in this but I won't say I have it's perfect just seems like a decent band aid
Given the prevalence of marines your not really changing anything as it's a net zero, it also screws armies that don't have mass high AP or AP- fire.
It also gets increasingly difficult to justify why sisters with bolters and power armour etc shouldn't get the same rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Space Marine gets 1 extra shot, per "number of shots stat" for bolters and storm bolters. Bolter shoots 3 times in rapid-fire range, twice at long range. Storm bolter shoots 6 times at short range, 4 times at long range.
still doesn't make a bolter a better weapon, really the bolter even for SoS, SoB, GK sucks it only actually works fir Deathwatch, Fixing the bolter is better solution than just giving marines a get you by special rule.
kombatwombat wrote: The forced distinction between Primaris and OldMarines is hurting both. It’s not hard to make Marines in general reasonably strong and fitting to theme, but unfortunately GW won’t do it for marketing and sales reasons.
Marines would work fine if every non-Primaris model got the +1W/+1A and 1 better AP on Bolters/Storm Bolters/Combi-Bolters/Hurricane Bolters//Heavy Bolters/combat knife/chainsword, and the Primaris distinction was removed to let Hellblasters et al use transp....
This. Plus too much trademark gimmickiness. Rather than open to 2d6 armor on some heavy units like old skool termies and to level ranged weapons down by increasing the role of cover on to hit and terrain on movement including charge and making overwatch more tactical a la old skool overwatch, GW has decided to dumb everything down then bloat the new more absract system with all sorts of card games taking place avove the level of the battlefield.
Wayniac wrote: In general, the issue is armor save modifiers returning. The last time there was armor save mods, it was 2nd edition. The game was very, very different back then. The Marine statline, while virtually identical (your heroes had S5/T5 though IIRC) meant a lot more back then.
Part of it is that they die easily, but are priced as though they are resilient. Before when you had the old AP system, it was all or nothing so most non-special/heavy weapons didn't affect your save. When most weapons now do affect your save, your survivability takes a hit but they haven't gotten anything to really compensate for the game-changing around them. They are priced/positioned the same way as they were in 3rd through 7th edition, but without the survivability since their armor is more easily reduced.
Why you all keep saying that when it's actually the opposite? Modifiers made power armor stronger.
In previous editions all AP2 and AP3 completely bypassed SM save, now they get a 6+ and 5+ against the same weapons. The former AP5 and AP6 are now AP- so they don't affect marine save at all. Only the former AP4 is now more dangerous against marines, but those kind of weapons are not extremely common. And they still save the wound at 4+ against those weapons.
The only thing about the returning of armor save modifiers that made marines worse is that enemy dudes with 5+ and 6+ save now actually roll a save against the former imperium AP5 or AP6 weapons. But marines durability is now superior, let's be honest about that.
Perhaps you need to make a chart for these people.
Horst wrote: Give all marines +1 wound, so marines go to 2W, terminators go to 3W, Primaris gain +1 toughness instead of +1 wound.
Give marines "Astartes Bolters", which have +1 strength -1AP from regular bolters, so they're basically firing heavy bolter shots, but keep them at Rapid Fire 1.
Then I think marines would be fine.
Not sure of the bolters but your first part I think is great and would love to see it implemented.
Wayniac wrote: In general, the issue is armor save modifiers returning. The last time there was armor save mods, it was 2nd edition. The game was very, very different back then. The Marine statline, while virtually identical (your heroes had S5/T5 though IIRC) meant a lot more back then.
Part of it is that they die easily, but are priced as though they are resilient. Before when you had the old AP system, it was all or nothing so most non-special/heavy weapons didn't affect your save. When most weapons now do affect your save, your survivability takes a hit but they haven't gotten anything to really compensate for the game-changing around them. They are priced/positioned the same way as they were in 3rd through 7th edition, but without the survivability since their armor is more easily reduced.
Why you all keep saying that when it's actually the opposite? Modifiers made power armor stronger.
In previous editions all AP2 and AP3 completely bypassed SM save, now they get a 6+ and 5+ against the same weapons. The former AP5 and AP6 are now AP- so they don't affect marine save at all. Only the former AP4 is now more dangerous against marines, but those kind of weapons are not extremely common. And they still save the wound at 4+ against those weapons.
The only thing about the returning of armor save modifiers that made marines worse is that enemy dudes with 5+ and 6+ save now actually roll a save against the former imperium AP5 or AP6 weapons. But marines durability is now superior, let's be honest about that.
Perhaps you need to make a chart for these people.
While he's at it, he can make a chart to prove what I've been saying about Terminators being the most durable they've been in several years.
It is clear that marines need some sort of defensive special rule to bring them back to the sort of durability that they had in the past. They got one in killteam, so we know that GW knows this. The issue is making one that doesn't require too much extra dice rolling or math. It could be a 2+ instead of 3+, or a FNP, or something like All is Dust does. But I think the easiest is just to go back to power armor working like the old AP system did, because it worked under that system:
Astartes Power Armor: Treat ap -1 and -2 weapons as ap0.
That's not gonna fix everything, but at least it restores their toughness to something more like previous editions.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: It is clear that marines need some sort of defensive special rule to bring them back to the sort of durability that they had in the past. They got one in killteam, so we know that GW knows this. The issue is making one that doesn't require too much extra dice rolling or math. It could be a 2+ instead of 3+, or a FNP, or something like All is Dust does. But I think the easiest is just to go back to power armor working like the old AP system did, because it worked under that system:
Astartes Power Armor: Treat ap -1 and -2 weapons as ap0.
That's not gonna fix everything, but at least it restores their toughness to something more like previous editions.
So a marine should fear a lasgun as much as a battlecannon? That's mad, Also if Ppwer Armous is a 2+Sv you'll be ok with 2+ sisters etc?
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: It is clear that marines need some sort of defensive special rule to bring them back to the sort of durability that they had in the past. They got one in killteam, so we know that GW knows this. The issue is making one that doesn't require too much extra dice rolling or math. It could be a 2+ instead of 3+, or a FNP, or something like All is Dust does. But I think the easiest is just to go back to power armor working like the old AP system did, because it worked under that system:
Astartes Power Armor: Treat ap -1 and -2 weapons as ap0.
That's not gonna fix everything, but at least it restores their toughness to something more like previous editions.
So a marine should fear a lasgun as much as a battlecannon? That's mad, Also if Ppwer Armous is a 2+Sv you'll be ok with 2+ sisters etc?
That's why I'm glad they got rid of the old AP system. It scaled REALLY terribly.
Stratagem: The Emperor Protects! (1/2 CP)
Use at the beginning of the phase (or when targeted by an attack) on an Adeptus Astartes Infantry unit (excluding scouts perhaps, up for debate). Until the end of the phase, the unit treats all wounds taken and AP0. 1 CP if used on a troop-choice unit. 2 CP if used on a non-troop choice unit.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: It is clear that marines need some sort of defensive special rule to bring them back to the sort of durability that they had in the past. They got one in killteam, so we know that GW knows this. The issue is making one that doesn't require too much extra dice rolling or math. It could be a 2+ instead of 3+, or a FNP, or something like All is Dust does. But I think the easiest is just to go back to power armor working like the old AP system did, because it worked under that system:
Astartes Power Armor: Treat ap -1 and -2 weapons as ap0.
That's not gonna fix everything, but at least it restores their toughness to something more like previous editions.
So a marine should fear a lasgun as much as a battlecannon? That's mad, Also if Ppwer Armous is a 2+Sv you'll be ok with 2+ sisters etc?
One of those wounds on 2's, and the other on 5's, so that's hardly the same thing. Of course, battle cannons used to be AP3 and ignore marine armor. But we also used to have 4+ cover saves that were much easier to get. It'll work out better than the current situation.
Sisters could have 2+ as well if they went that route, but they don't necessarily need it since they are much cheaper. I wouldn't see anything wrong with Astartes Power armor being 2+ and human power armor being 3+.
Stratagem: The Emperor Protects! (1/2 CP)
Use at the beginning of the phase (or when targeted by an attack) on an Adeptus Astartes Infantry unit (excluding scouts perhaps, up for debate). Until the end of the phase, the unit treats all wounds taken and AP0. 1 CP if used on a troop-choice unit. 2 CP if used on a non-troop choice unit.
We shouldn't have to burn through CP to have durability. Marines should just have that, as they did in every previous edition.
I guess if you buffed the armour they might eventually be worth it - but that's really not the issue.
The problem is the boltgun sucks for 13 points.
A single S4 punch to the face sucks for 13 points.
This is about half as effective as almost every other troop type in the game.
Net result tacticals suck. Assault marines suck. They are not "generalists". They are just bad.
Net result you have a unit which can't shoot, can't assault, has an okay armour save vs S3/4 AP- weapons but is disproportionately hurt by anything stronger in either category.
-1 AP might help - but really I think they just need a points reduction or more shots/attacks.
I don't buy the claim of "Oh I don't want cheaper Marines because that makes them less special" because right now you see zero on the table because they are so awful. Ditto for basic CSM. (And I don't care if someone shows up saying they currently run 50 tactical marines in their exciting games of garage hammer.)
Primaris are moving in the right direction with every patch - but they still suck for a similar reason. 2 S4/AP-1 shots for 17 points is not good, nor is 2 punches to the face. Not when the same could have bought you over 4 guardsmen or 3 kabalites.
Insectum7 wrote: Space Marine gets 1 extra shot, per "number of shots stat" for bolters and storm bolters. Bolter shoots 3 times in rapid-fire range, twice at long range. Storm bolter shoots 6 times at short range, 4 times at long range.
still doesn't make a bolter a better weapon, really the bolter even for SoS, SoB, GK sucks it only actually works fir Deathwatch, Fixing the bolter is better solution than just giving marines a get you by special rule.
Honestly, that's the first time I've heard anyone complain about bolters for Sisters.
Tyel wrote: I guess if you buffed the armour they might eventually be worth it - but that's really not the issue.
The problem is the boltgun sucks for 13 points.
A single S4 punch to the face sucks for 13 points.
This is about half as effective as almost every other troop type in the game.
Net result tacticals suck. Assault marines suck. They are not "generalists". They are just bad.
Net result you have a unit which can't shoot, can't assault, has an okay armour save vs S3/4 AP- weapons but is disproportionately hurt by anything stronger in either category.
-1 AP might help - but really I think they just need a points reduction or more shots/attacks.
I don't buy the claim of "Oh I don't want cheaper Marines because that makes them less special" because right now you see zero on the table because they are so awful. Ditto for basic CSM. (And I don't care if someone shows up saying they currently run 50 tactical marines in their exciting games of garage hammer.)
Primaris are moving in the right direction with every patch - but they still suck for a similar reason. 2 S4/AP-1 shots for 17 points is not good, nor is 2 punches to the face. Not when the same could have bought you over 4 guardsmen or 3 kabalites.
Exactly primaris at 17 are a touch too expensive at 16ppm they work against 5ppm Guardsmen
I can maybe see why some wany15 ppm, though I think 15 with cultists having been raised to 5ppm would be too far for interfaction balance. GW just need to fix codex 2 copies for 1.
Insectum7 wrote: Space Marine gets 1 extra shot, per "number of shots stat" for bolters and storm bolters. Bolter shoots 3 times in rapid-fire range, twice at long range. Storm bolter shoots 6 times at short range, 4 times at long range.
still doesn't make a bolter a better weapon, really the bolter even for SoS, SoB, GK sucks it only actually works fir Deathwatch, Fixing the bolter is better solution than just giving marines a get you by special rule.
Honestly, that's the first time I've heard anyone complain about bolters for Sisters.
Few people probably still trying to make SoS work, thank you CA. SoB get by with acts of faith to prop them up, just look at how the beta codex has been received.
Smirrors wrote: Had a look at your inputs. While I agree that 3+ armor isnt everything, its also an issue because people dont take enough of it so the few squads that do get taken get removed pretty quickly.
I haven't finished reading the thread, but I had to respond to this because it isn't true.
For quite a while my basic 1000 point list was 42 Marines (Captain and Lieutenant with minimal gear, five 5-man tac squads with a spread of heavies, and three 5-man dev squads with only two heavies each), and I can tell you that a big pile of power armor doesn't hold up any better than a small pile of power armor supporting vehicles. It was not uncommon to lose more than half those Marines before turn 2.
Tyel wrote: I guess if you buffed the armour they might eventually be worth it - but that's really not the issue.
The problem is the boltgun sucks for 13 points.
A single S4 punch to the face sucks for 13 points.
This is about half as effective as almost every other troop type in the game.
Net result tacticals suck. Assault marines suck. They are not "generalists". They are just bad.
Net result you have a unit which can't shoot, can't assault, has an okay armour save vs S3/4 AP- weapons but is disproportionately hurt by anything stronger in either category.
-1 AP might help - but really I think they just need a points reduction or more shots/attacks.
I don't buy the claim of "Oh I don't want cheaper Marines because that makes them less special" because right now you see zero on the table because they are so awful. Ditto for basic CSM. (And I don't care if someone shows up saying they currently run 50 tactical marines in their exciting games of garage hammer.)
Primaris are moving in the right direction with every patch - but they still suck for a similar reason. 2 S4/AP-1 shots for 17 points is not good, nor is 2 punches to the face. Not when the same could have bought you over 4 guardsmen or 3 kabalites.
This we can all hopefully agree on. Assault marines don't do their job, with the striking scorpion vs assault marine example was : A) showcasing their output compared to other similarly priced units. B) showcasing issues with space marines dealing damage with close combat units. C) their weapons in general not being up to par to other races.
For 'basic' infantry space marines lack staying power and firepower. They are expensive but you aren't really paying for anything special with marines other than your basic save is a +3 armor save.
As I've said I've been playing Eldar for a while now, I remember well having to avoid assault squads with my striking scorpions cause they would tie me up in close combat for eons. Now My scorpions get into base combat and the assault marines are dead by the end of the fight phase. Every single time. To make matters even worse my scorpions are cheaper and far more effective than the assault squad is.
Most marine units are balanced around the old AP rules as I have stated previously because of this they are subpar. I am not advocating redoing the new AP system but how Marines handle AP. AP -3 is very common, every eldar has a 1/6 chance of having an ap-3 and its a lot more common if your shooting 40 shots from one squad into a tactical squad! I've wiped out entire squads of space marines in a single shooting face with my guardians. Guardians! Not only are my guardian squads more effective than a baseline marine, but they don't suffer penalties as marines do, yeah they have a worse armor save, but they have a higher possibility of getting invulnerable saves across the entire unit rather easily. Space Marines have no effective way to get a bubble shield other than running Azrael. But again what if your not running a super tournament list with Bobby G And the Ice Cream Parade? There is no reason why that should be acceptable for a marine army to be viable is to play all flavors of space marines.
The icing on the cake is that guardians have specific strategems and abilities that just flat out make them a fantastic troop choice. In eldar armies you need your troop choices, in space marines you don't want your troop choices as they are always subpar compared to just other choices.
Stratagem: The Emperor Protects! (1/2 CP)
Use at the beginning of the phase (or when targeted by an attack) on an Adeptus Astartes Infantry unit (excluding scouts perhaps, up for debate). Until the end of the phase, the unit treats all wounds taken and AP0. 1 CP if used on a troop-choice unit. 2 CP if used on a non-troop choice unit.
No just make it a basic special rule get rid of combat squads just keep this as a universal special rule for space marines.
Xenomancers wrote: The solution is to let all marines take 2 point storm sheilds.
Combat shields a fundamentally worse equipment is now more expensive than a +3 invulnerable save.
Whoever balanced CA needs to get their bolts straightened. Cause honestly at this point a combat shield should just be free.
A stormshield should be 5pts, and/or a combat shield is 2pts. now 2pts. For petes sake.
I think we just need less invulnerable saves. Not more. More invulnerable saves just create blatant power creep. Every squad getting invulnerable saves is just annoying to everyone involved.
Odd, my Striking Scorpions still need to avoid equal numbers of ASM or they get bogged down. You get MWs on 6s, sure, but you wound on 4s and they wound on 3s. Same attacks. Scorpions have a minor edge thanks to the MW, but ASM have either more manueverability (jetpacks) or are cheaper (no jetpacks).
I don't see Scorpions doing anything ASM don't do.
Bharring wrote: Odd, my Striking Scorpions still need to avoid equal numbers of ASM or they get bogged down. You get MWs on 6s, sure, but you wound on 4s and they wound on 3s. Same attacks. Scorpions have a minor edge thanks to the MW, but ASM have either more manueverability (jetpacks) or are cheaper (no jetpacks).
I don't see Scorpions doing anything ASM don't do.
Scorpions are now 11pts per CA changes. Assault marines are 14pts per. Originally scorpions were 13pts per. still 1 pt cheaper but scorpions have better movement and +1 strength, and ap - 1 on their basic swords. They also have pistols that on 6s have an ap-3... Oh and a grenade option that is d6 s4 ap-1 on each scorpion.
I don't see many faults in this but I won't say I have it's perfect just seems like a decent band aid
Given the prevalence of marines your not really changing anything as it's a net zero, it also screws armies that don't have mass high AP or AP- fire.
It also gets increasingly difficult to justify why sisters with bolters and power armour etc shouldn't get the same rules.
Truthfully I was aiming for a net 0 with marine on marine violence. As far as the reasoning for sisters not getting the same bonuses I'd say their armour isn't as thick and they use a smaller caliber. It is a bit of a cop out.
I dunno if I had my way I think I'd just bump marines to 15, give them the Primaris stats minus the 30" range. Then I'd make Primaris S5 T5 with S5 bolt rifle, then they might be worth their initial cost of 20
Asherian,
I had forgotten that. Fortunately ASM with jumppacks went down a point too!
Scorpions and ASM with packs should be the same points. They are great foils of eachother. But Scorpions were cheaper than ASM pre-CA, and still considered bad. What that means for ASM...
You can extend this to other options. Dire Avengers were just fine compared to Tacs at 12ppm. And they weren't considered good. DAs went down to 11ppm, and Tacs stayed at 13ppm. And that's with a free Exarch that certainly shouldn't be free.
At least Devs are now cheaper than Reapers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Scorpions get +1s on their swords, but AP0 just like Chainswords. However, that +1s on their swords brings them up to ASM levels (S4) - so it brings them to parity, it doesn't bring them above.
Their pistols are better, and so are their grenades. But their mobility is worse, and their toughness is worse. A fairly fair tradeoff model-for-model. Which is why they should be the same PPM.
Once again, shows how boned ASM are.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (on mobility, Scoprions have M7, but ASM have M12 + Fly...)
Bharring wrote: Asherian, I had forgotten that. Fortunately ASM with jumppacks went down a point too!
Scorpions and ASM with packs should be the same points. They are great foils of eachother. But Scorpions were cheaper than ASM pre-CA, and still considered bad. What that means for ASM...
You can extend this to other options. Dire Avengers were just fine compared to Tacs at 12ppm. And they weren't considered good. DAs went down to 11ppm, and Tacs stayed at 13ppm. And that's with a free Exarch that certainly shouldn't be free.
At least Devs are now cheaper than Reapers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Scorpions get +1s on their swords, but AP0 just like Chainswords. However, that +1s on their swords brings them up to ASM levels (S4) - so it brings them to parity, it doesn't bring them above.
Their pistols are better, and so are their grenades. But their mobility is worse, and their toughness is worse. A fairly fair tradeoff model-for-model. Which is why they should be the same PPM. Once again, shows how boned ASM are.
If you cant tell but they are my most favorite units in the entire game.
Oh and yes you are right tehy don't have the minus ap! I seem to have read the biting blade profile! (which is amazing) That mortal wounds on 6s really also helps, (also doesn't help I roll really well). Plus typically with scorpions have a squad of 6 with an exarch with claw. Which only makes the squad more deadly. and their chance to get more attacks on 6s. (also when they are fighting in cover that is alot easier to have done cause of the +1 attack whilst fighting in cover. They are insane unit and the fact they are cheaper than vanguard and assault marines in terms of stats and PPM makes them SM killers.
but ASM have M12 + Fly...)
Only if they pay for jumppacks which is 16 pts ppm? so for a squad of 5 assault marines compared to scorpions, I could have 7 scorpions, so 7 mortal wounds per base touch or 7D6 AP - 1 S4 grenades.
There are some finer points here:
-The Exarch can take a better weapon. So can the Sarge. You can also take a Flamer or Plas Pistol, and/or an Eviscerator. I'd put the options slightly into the Scorpion's favor, but not by much.
-Only the Exarch explodes attacks on 6s. Which won't happen with the Claw, because you can't roll a 6. Being in cover does make that possible again, but we're talking one extra attack every other round at best. But cover takes me to:
-You should rarely be getting the +1 for fighting a unit in cover. The enemy just needs to have one model not in cover, and no bonus.
At their new 11ppm, they probably aren't bad anymore. But we certainly agree that ASM shouldn't cost more than Scorpions. And that this is a great example to show ASM are baaad.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Only if they pay for jumppacks which is 16 pts ppm? so for a squad of 5 assault marines compared to scorpions, I could have 7 scorpions"
Exactly the problem. If it were 5 JP ASM vs 5 Scorpions, it'd be a fair tradeoff.
"7 scorpions, so 7 mortal wounds per base touch or 7D6 AP - 1 S4 grenades."
7/6 expected MW from a 7man squad. So just over 1 MW for that squad. Less than 1 for a min squad.
Plas Grenades are Grenades, so regardless of the models in the unit, it's 1d6 AP-1 S4 grenade shots.
Bharring wrote: Odd, my Striking Scorpions still need to avoid equal numbers of ASM or they get bogged down. You get MWs on 6s, sure, but you wound on 4s and they wound on 3s. Same attacks. Scorpions have a minor edge thanks to the MW, but ASM have either more manueverability (jetpacks) or are cheaper (no jetpacks).
I don't see Scorpions doing anything ASM don't do.
Xenomancers wrote: The solution is to let all marines take 2 point storm sheilds.
Combat shields a fundamentally worse equipment is now more expensive than a +3 invulnerable save.
Whoever balanced CA needs to get their bolts straightened. Cause honestly at this point a combat shield should just be free.
A stormshield should be 5pts, and/or a combat shield is 2pts. now 2pts. For petes sake.
I think we just need less invulnerable saves. Not more. More invulnerable saves just create blatant power creep. Every squad getting invulnerable saves is just annoying to everyone involved.
Yeah - my friends and I have already started joking.
"At least chapter approved taught us the true value of a 3+ save - 0 points - cause 3++ is 2 points LOL"
Martel732 wrote: I disagree. Reapers and Spears have tremendous offense for their cost. Marines have pop guns AND the high AP problem. If you just make AP rarer, marines would not be much better off at all I think. The game you want existed for the first half of 3rd and maybe part of 4th. Maybe. The rest of the game is base marines doing nothing and dying like bitches.
Which marines have pop guns? Do you mean Tac Marines who are and have been for as long as I can remember little more than a filler unit? Even Tac marines can and usually should take special weapons and heavy weapons - and then treat the rest of the squad as ablative wounds.
The marine codex has more than Tac marines in it and surprisingly they are not all equipped with just bolters.
Bremon wrote: ASM are one of the worst units in a codex filled to the brim with more bad units than other factions have total units, good or bad.
Isn't that the space marine codex though? "A bunch of bad units?"
I mean yeah some cases of people use a vindicator. But does anyone actually use it competitively? Oh what about Centurions? Oh yeah no one uses those seriously... What about Whirlwinds? Nah nobody uses that.... Oh what about. The list goes on there are so many stupid space marine units that have very little place existing in the codex as it is now. If the vindicator, whirlwind, and centurions just didn't appear in the next codex, no one would care less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: 11ppm Scorpions are far less unplayable than 15ppm ASM, though!
Plus with Karandras just being 125pts it is now worth it to take him along with your scorpions to make a megadeath star for less than 300 pts
For that same amount of points you could afford um... two tactical squads? (actually thats two expensive!) Oh what about a full squad of terminators oh wait still too expensive...
To all the people suggesting that marines ignore AP -1: you can't do that. Giving such an rule to the most popular faction in the game would completely skew the value of AP -1. That relates to the larger issue with marines, they're the baseline, so they really cannot get anything really extraordinary.
I still think 2xScorps will outperform Karandras + Scorps, and for fewer points.
Exploding hits is a trap. Even in cover, with +1tohit power, you're looking at 50% more basic-sword-attacks. Twice the unit does 100% more basic-sword-attacks, and everything else.
A couple of things on the Scorpions which can make them very slightly "okay", but still sub-par when it comes to tournaments perhaps.
1) The Exarchs claw does not suffer a -1 to hit (so he can get exploding attacks)
2) The biting blade is now cheaper, where before it was so close to the claw, but worse...it was illogical
3) The Striking Scorpions gain +1 to hit vs. enemies in cover, and it doesn't state shooting or melee...so you'd have 2+ to shoot and fight vs. models in cover (re-rolling 1's on the Shuriken Pistol if you have Biel-Tan craftworld)
4) The mortal wound mask occurs each fighting phase, not just yours. While '6's are rough...occasionally you're going to luck out and roll those 3-4 sixes and kill dead something decent.
5) They're now better priced (almost cheap)
A squad of 10 is around 115 points or so, which is reasonable, but they're just not a "power" unit. If anything, I think they're now one of the most accurately statted and costed units - meaning, of course, they fall under all of the over-effective units.
EDIT: I will agree that another squad of Scorpions is definitely better than Karandras, one of the less well equipped Phoenix Lords (though he's still cool and I look forward to fielding him again sometime). Even with reductions, Phoenix Lords are still in a bad spot.
I know it's not really pertinent to 8th edition, but since the problem is old (people have been complaining about Space Marine durability for about as long as Space Marines have faced heavy and special weapons), I thought it could give another angle.
As a "fix" for Space Marines in 7th edition, I proposed the following changes. Bolters gain a range of 30 inches. Storm Bolters become Assault 3 (but remain 24 in range). Heavy Bolter become Salvo 4/2. All Space Marines gain a free close combat weapon for an extra attack. Assault Marines gain the option to take special close combat weapons in addition to special weapons. Jump Pack can be used for movement and charge in the same round. Terminators gain an extra wound and so do all characters in Terminator Armor. The modification on Bolters, Stormbolters and Heavy Bolters carry over to all factions who uses them.
The idea was that by giving htem more range, Space Marine could gain a bit of an edge against most other armies in firefights. They could force other troops to advance and thus negate them the use of some heavy weapons and more time, perhapse even gain a round of shooting without being in harms way and weaken close combat hordes like orks or tyranids. Stormbolters used to be very underwhelming, but fortunately this has been fixed, Heavy Bolters could use a little bit more love and mobility. The extra attack transformed you normal tactical marine in a good close combat fighter, capable of cleaning up what has been shot previously. assault marine would be especially fast and would have stronger charges. All in all, I think it approched the problem in a smarter way then by just slapping even more armor on Marines or making their bolters super bolters.
My solution to the Marine problem is give them more range and give them more speed. This way, they can maximise their abilities and become more tactically flexible which is both fluffy and important on the tabletop. Plus, these upgrades can be passed on to Sisters without breaking them too and diminishing them when compared to their bigger brothers. a bit more range gave their force a little bit of an edge considering they fight really close in general.
Elbows wrote: A couple of things on the Scorpions which can make them very slightly "okay", but still sub-par when it comes to tournaments perhaps.
1) The Exarchs claw does not suffer a -1 to hit (so he can get exploding attacks)
2) The biting blade is now cheaper, where before it was so close to the claw, but worse...it was illogical
3) The Striking Scorpions gain +1 to hit vs. enemies in cover, and it doesn't state shooting or melee...so you'd have 2+ to shoot and fight vs. models in cover (re-rolling 1's on the Shuriken Pistol if you have Biel-Tan craftworld)
4) The mortal wound mask occurs each fighting phase, not just yours. While '6's are rough...occasionally you're going to luck out and roll those 3-4 sixes and kill dead something decent.
5) They're now better priced (almost cheap)
A squad of 10 is around 115 points or so, which is reasonable, but they're just not a "power" unit. If anything, I think they're now one of the most accurately statted and costed units - meaning, of course, they fall under all of the over-effective units.
EDIT: I will agree that another squad of Scorpions is definitely better than Karandras, one of the less well equipped Phoenix Lords (though he's still cool and I look forward to fielding him again sometime). Even with reductions, Phoenix Lords are still in a bad spot.
So this should be the aim of most squads in the game to be this effective when it comes to cost and efficiency? Cause Scorpions have a lot of abilities that make them worthwhile to take over Banshees. (Who still need some help in terms of movement and maybe an invulernable save?)
The problem with assault is that is hard to do - so getting average results isn't enough if you pull it off. You need murder whatever you get into contact with - doing around 60-70% of your points value. Preferably with a near guaranteed turn 2 charge - if not reasonable odds of connecting turn 1. This can be offset if you have good shooting - but pistols that may do nothing in the 1st turn hardly qualify.
So its hard to see say 115 point units of 10 Scorps killing 70 points worth of stuff - not least because most basic infantry they might bully don't run in units of that size (tactical are probably the exception, but thats because they are overcosted). Wiping a 10 man guardsmen or 5 kabalites/fire warriors then being shot to death isn't worth it.
Really 5 man units of Scorpions and Assault Marines need to be able to bully these min-sized units, and they just don't. If you kill 5 Guardsmen and they can just walk the survivors away next turn they are not going to be broken up about it.
Big squads who can multi-charge with rerolls are the way to go.
Tyel wrote: The problem with assault is that is hard to do - so getting average results isn't enough if you pull it off. You need murder whatever you get into contact with - doing around 60-70% of your points value. Preferably with a near guaranteed turn 2 charge - if not reasonable odds of connecting turn 1. This can be offset if you have good shooting - but pistols that may do nothing in the 1st turn hardly qualify.
So its hard to see say 115 point units of 10 Scorps killing 70 points worth of stuff - not least because most basic infantry they might bully don't run in units of that size (tactical are probably the exception, but thats because they are overcosted). Wiping a 10 man guardsmen or 5 kabalites/fire warriors then being shot to death isn't worth it.
Really 5 man units of Scorpions and Assault Marines need to be able to bully these min-sized units, and they just don't. If you kill 5 Guardsmen and they can just walk the survivors away next turn they are not going to be broken up about it.
Big squads who can multi-charge with rerolls are the way to go.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
The problem with marines is that in fluff each marine is supposed to be as good as 10 to 100 guardsmen) but in game its only 16% better stats while costing something like 3x more than the base guardsmen.
this means ether space marines are severely over costed, or guardsmen type models are under costed.
That and the AP system doesnt help the extra cost of power armor. and that the weapons with higher ap have gotten cheaper and more available.
Just as a straight example of expectations vs what we got. not saying that marines are weak or guardsmen them selves are strong but im sure this sort of pattern will continue if examining everything to everything.
Asherian Command wrote: To get right off, I've been reading the forums and talking with people and friends. And I've felt this could be hopefully a constructive thread. I know from some threads that people get very hyper about what is best or what is worst. But I always felt there is time for self reflection on our power armored friends. Lately I have yet to face a single space marine opponent in months. I play regularly and even I stopped playing with my space marines as I was tired of losing every single game. So I picked up my eldar Uthwe army and wrecked most factions with my dark reaper spam.
But lets get to the crux of this thread....
Dakknauts, what do you think is wrong with Space Marines? *And Grey Knights, Chaos Space Marines, And all the other flavors of space marines
I would love to hear your thoughts. Because of this, I have spoilered my own thoughts. Read at your own risk.
My thoughts Please do not read my opinion until you are done writing your own. I want to hear your thoughts. Not mine!
Spoiler:
Intro Okay a bit of background, I've been playing this hobby since I could hold a pen. I started at the end of 3rd and even played in the black crusade campaign with my brother. Learning from him how to play. I got my first space marine army when I was 8 and then got my Eldar army when i was 10. I have been collecting and playing ever since. But I quit in 6th edition as college got in the way and I wanted to pursue my degree in Game Design, and my eventual Masters which I am preparing to look for. I have at least 4-5 years of game mechanical engineering, game design, gameplay programming, and product development. Not to gloat but system designing is one of my favorite past times finding errors in systems is a fun hobby. And returning to the 8th edition I immensely enjoy the challenge of seeing what is wrong with it. And I think the first issue is with our Power Armored Friends.
What could it be? First off, I know space marines are currently overcosted and don't perform that well. Even in the many games i've played I always felt like I was on the backfoot event when I had the advantage. The points for space marines seem to be structured entirely around having an active aura effect all the time... While AP damage systems seem to really punish space marines and normal armor saves its really hard to defend against increasingly high amounts of AP damage. It seems to be that every single unit that has power armor is paying a premium for subpar stats that make little different when they don't have a large killing potential compared to other similarly priced units.
An Old System ?
Space Marines are currently in my opinion overcosted and underperforming because they were balanced around the old AP system because of this their +3 armor save means absolutely nothing without an invulnerable save. Without it, a tactical squad or assaults squad will always underperform because there are better alternatives. They don't put out enough damage to really make a difference. Space marines have always been expensive but they always had the competitive edge of always having a +3 armor save and having very few things that could penetrate and make you lose that +3 armor save. With the new AP system, it punishes and severely limits all power armor in the entire game. Once you face something with an ap -3 or -4 that squad of marines is dead. And those have become very common in 8th edition. Every single army has one in spades except for space marines. (or they are extremely overcosted because it is a space marine list).
There is also the problem that marines have no damage output at all, their baseline bolter is horrifically bad and has a very low chance of killing most other targets in the game (except for gaunts) but even then space marines are never taken at full tactical squad capacity because there is 0 benefit.
Old Rules for an Old age
Combat Squads is a completely useless skill for 8th if you don't have the max of 10. There is no reason to combat your squad if you want CP generation. So that makes their entire 'special rule' completely moot. You don't want to have extra points in one detachment if you can get more powerful units in another. Again this is another holdover of previous editions, you had to work in the end with a very limiting system, and there was no cp generation. You were given one chart and told "Go crazy!". Because of this you wanted to have as many as you could in one squad so you combat squad it and move it into separate directions because marines were extremely durable. Especially for tactics as you got access to more specialists weapons. Space marines in previous editions were extremely durable because the AP and most systems were BALANCED around space marines. This edition I have no idea whom they balanced it around but it is obvious that space marines are in a lackluster position because most of their rules are from previous editions.
If space marines were played in any other edition except 8th they would be a great army. But they aren't causing you are punished for playing as space marines.
Conclusion
In short Space Marines have rulesets, power, and killing power issues that stem from overbalancing and just seems to be lazy design. They have rules that do absolutely nothing and cannot be activated as they are rarely beneficary to the player (Stares intently at Combat Squads). This would require an entire rework of the entire space marine collection for space marines to be considered viable. Every unit in the space marine codex needs to be looked at carefully and revevaluated in terms of roles in the space marine army.
Here are my thoughts on this topic.
Marines suffer from several problems on the table top, the worst of which is that their 3+ armor save just doesn't mean anything anymore. Partly this is because so many armies can spam high strength, high armor penetration weapons on their basic troops too easily.
Case in point, Plasma on Guard infantry, Blasters on Kabalites, Ion or Rail on Pathfinders, Helblasters, etc.
But, I've often argued for a few suggestions.
1. Make bolters much more beefier. In some way they have done this with the new primaris bolters, but it's not enough. Consider the following as a suggestion to improve bolter weapons.
-Add "when this weapons target has a toughness of 3 or less, roll +1 to wound, If this models save characteristic is a 4+ or higher, add AP-1"
This would make bolters much more effective against low toughness high save models such as Guard, Kabalites and so on, better representing the destructive nature of this weapon.
Another suggestion is to improve the survive-ability of marines in the face of small arms fire. The best way to do this in my opinion is to add "Power Armor: Reduce the damage of all incoming attacks by 1, to a minimum of 1. In addition a model in power armor may re-roll failed saving throws of 1, if the weapon has no AP characteristic." This way it doesn't drastically remove the effectiveness of high ap weapons.
Chapter tactics should apply to all infantry and vehicles. It doesn't make sense that a Salamanders tank gunner or driver would forget how to better use his weapons just because he's now in a tank. Not being able to apply our benefits to our tanks, makes them much less effective.
But, there is something else beyond all this I want to suggest.
Marines are in the very beginning of a transition, the entire line is like to be different by the middle of 2020. Because of that very fact I would expect marines to not be doing all that well despite not also being the worst army in the game.
One more side note.
Are they really that bad? I play my Primaris/Old Marine mix force about 4-5 times per month. They're quite fun and I have a fairly even win/loss rate with them. They likely don't do well at events, but every day games seem to be just fine.
Tyel wrote: The problem with assault is that is hard to do - so getting average results isn't enough if you pull it off. You need murder whatever you get into contact with - doing around 60-70% of your points value. Preferably with a near guaranteed turn 2 charge - if not reasonable odds of connecting turn 1. This can be offset if you have good shooting - but pistols that may do nothing in the 1st turn hardly qualify.
So its hard to see say 115 point units of 10 Scorps killing 70 points worth of stuff - not least because most basic infantry they might bully don't run in units of that size (tactical are probably the exception, but thats because they are overcosted). Wiping a 10 man guardsmen or 5 kabalites/fire warriors then being shot to death isn't worth it.
Really 5 man units of Scorpions and Assault Marines need to be able to bully these min-sized units, and they just don't. If you kill 5 Guardsmen and they can just walk the survivors away next turn they are not going to be broken up about it.
Big squads who can multi-charge with rerolls are the way to go.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
I miss sweeping advance. As a guard player I'd still choose to risk it and fall back because they're just guardsmen, but yea it doesn't make sense that infantry can just run away from guys hacking at them with chainsaws and get away without risk.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
Are they really that bad? I play my Primaris/Old Marine mix force about 4-5 times per month. They're quite fun and I have a fairly even win/loss rate with them. They likely don't do well at events, but every day games seem to be just fine.
Most of your points are salient and I agree with them.
They are pretty bad especially in tournaments and matched play. AT my store its mostly knight meta so marines just bellyflop when they face one.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
I would up that considering they are literally right next to them so hits on 5+, 6+ would make sense if they are charging at you, not away from you. Its easier to hit someone in the back than someone running straight at you.
I don't think Marines suck. Or, more accurately, I don't think Marines such significantly more than most other (troop) infantry in the game.
The issue with 40k is that there's rarely any value in even having infantry. What exactly does infantry do that makes them worth taking?
Outside of a few exceptions, infantry are basically just tanks - except slower and with significantly worse armour and firepower. There's basically nothing they can do that can't be done just as well (and usually much better) by vehicles or monsters. And please don't give me any crap about Objective Secured. Objective Secured is utterly worthless when your troops are smeared across the battlefield because you were stupid enough to bring infantry to a Mechwarrior fight.
What's more, infantry are almost always hampered by having to take garbage weapons on most members - which are useless against everything but infantry, and still pretty poor even then.
It's compounded even more by the fact that GW adamantly refuses to give most large models weaknesses. In virtually every case, they're vastly more durable than infantry and have vastly more firepower, but then they compound that by also being drastically more mobile. You have Imperial Knights that move at the same speed as Dark Eldar Raiders. Again, what is even the point of infantry? If Knights and such were at least slow, then they might need infantry to support them and go forward to capture objectives and such. But when Knights travel at the speed of Anime-Mechas, why would anyone bother?
Even IG Infantry Squads - probably the best infantry in the game at present - still only get used as a cheap way to generate CP, in order to fuel the Knights and such to actually do the legwork. Anything the infantry do on the battlefield after that is basically just a bonus.
If you want Space Marines to be worthwhile, then the first thing that needs to change is for Infantry to stop being treated as nothing more than target-practise for Knights. They need a meaningful role. Either go back to 5th and make it that only troops can capture objectives, or else give troops a way to punch above their weight class (at least under certain circumstances).
Further to this, I'd suggest that most/all Auras should only affect infantry. Stacking buffs is one of the things that actually makes a few infantry units worth taking. However, when a commander's aura is equally effective on infantry and vehicles, then you might as well stick with the one that packs more firepower by default.
Tyel wrote: The problem with assault is that is hard to do - so getting average results isn't enough if you pull it off. You need murder whatever you get into contact with - doing around 60-70% of your points value. Preferably with a near guaranteed turn 2 charge - if not reasonable odds of connecting turn 1. This can be offset if you have good shooting - but pistols that may do nothing in the 1st turn hardly qualify.
So its hard to see say 115 point units of 10 Scorps killing 70 points worth of stuff - not least because most basic infantry they might bully don't run in units of that size (tactical are probably the exception, but thats because they are overcosted). Wiping a 10 man guardsmen or 5 kabalites/fire warriors then being shot to death isn't worth it.
Really 5 man units of Scorpions and Assault Marines need to be able to bully these min-sized units, and they just don't. If you kill 5 Guardsmen and they can just walk the survivors away next turn they are not going to be broken up about it.
Big squads who can multi-charge with rerolls are the way to go.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
I've always thought retreating should have a dice roll too, if you fail you can still retreat but take D3 MW on the way out or something.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
I think leaving combat should come with two conditions:
You must roll equal to or lower than your highest leadership in the unit.
If you roll under your LD you get away, no problem.
If you roll equal to your LD, you get away, but the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If you roll above your LD, you are locked in combat for this turn.
It's simple, easy to use and doesn't complicate the game in any fashion.
Are they really that bad? I play my Primaris/Old Marine mix force about 4-5 times per month. They're quite fun and I have a fairly even win/loss rate with them. They likely don't do well at events, but every day games seem to be just fine.
Most of your points are salient and I agree with them.
They are pretty bad especially in tournaments and matched play. AT my store its mostly knight meta so marines just bellyflop when they face one.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
I would up that considering they are literally right next to them so hits on 5+, 6+ would make sense if they are charging at you, not away from you. Its easier to hit someone in the back than someone running straight at you.
Ah! Of course. We had three knight players and they all abandoned Knights the moment the changes to Command points happened. So we never see even a single Knight in our games these days. That does make a huge difference!
vipoid wrote: I don't think Marines suck. Or, more accurately, I don't think Marines such significantly more than most other (troop) infantry in the game.
The issue with 40k is that there's rarely any value in even having infantry. What exactly does infantry do that makes them worth taking?
Outside of a few exceptions, infantry are basically just tanks - except slower and with significantly worse armour and firepower. There's basically nothing they can do that can't be done just as well (and usually much better) by vehicles or monsters. And please don't give me any crap about Objective Secured. Objective Secured is utterly worthless when your troops are smeared across the battlefield because you were stupid enough to bring infantry to a Mechwarrior fight.
What's more, infantry are almost always hampered by having to take garbage weapons on most members - which are useless against everything but infantry, and still pretty poor even then.
It's compounded even more by the fact that GW adamantly refuses to give most large models weaknesses. In virtually every case, they're vastly more durable than infantry and have vastly more firepower, but then they compound that by also being drastically more mobile. You have Imperial Knights that move at the same speed as Dark Eldar Raiders. Again, what is even the point of infantry? If Knights and such were at least slow, then they might need infantry to support them and go forward to capture objectives and such. But when Knights travel at the speed of Anime-Mechas, why would anyone bother?
Even IG Infantry Squads - probably the best infantry in the game at present - still only get used as a cheap way to generate CP, in order to fuel the Knights and such to actually do the legwork. Anything the infantry do on the battlefield after that is basically just a bonus.
If you want Space Marines to be worthwhile, then the first thing that needs to change is for Infantry to stop being treated as nothing more than target-practise for Knights. They need a meaningful role. Either go back to 5th and make it that only troops can capture objectives, or else give troops a way to punch above their weight class (at least under certain circumstances).
Further to this, I'd suggest that most/all Auras should only affect infantry. Stacking buffs is one of the things that actually makes a few infantry units worth taking. However, when a commander's aura is equally effective on infantry and vehicles, then you might as well stick with the one that packs more firepower by default.
So meta lists with 1000 points or more in Guard mostly infantry are just wasting over half their points to power up that solo castellen? It's not like that list did well against a yannari list without the Castellen.
Marine infantry squads suck, but that doesn't mean all infantry do.
Being cheap and hence available in number makes units effective, everything wounds everything on a 6 now meaning 40 dice wounding on 6's is often better than 5 wounding on 4+, quantity has a quality all of its own.
Also you know that useless rule of ObSec, guess what 2 guardsmen at 8 points on an objective scoreeven with a 600 point enemy knight or such standing on the same objective.
Most of these models do have weakness just marines suck at exploiting them, but thats more because short of expensive units marines threat level is pathetic for their point.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
I think leaving combat should come with two conditions:
You must roll equal to or lower than your highest leadership in the unit.
If you roll under your LD you get away, no problem.
If you roll equal to your LD, you get away, but the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If you roll above your LD, you are locked in combat for this turn.
It's simple, easy to use and doesn't complicate the game in any fashion.
Are they really that bad? I play my Primaris/Old Marine mix force about 4-5 times per month. They're quite fun and I have a fairly even win/loss rate with them. They likely don't do well at events, but every day games seem to be just fine.
Most of your points are salient and I agree with them.
They are pretty bad especially in tournaments and matched play. AT my store its mostly knight meta so marines just bellyflop when they face one.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
I would up that considering they are literally right next to them so hits on 5+, 6+ would make sense if they are charging at you, not away from you. Its easier to hit someone in the back than someone running straight at you.
Ah! Of course. We had three knight players and they all abandoned Knights the moment the changes to Command points happened. So we never see even a single Knight in our games these days. That does make a huge difference!
No way is the D3 MW justified, seriously what is it with people and MW it's a garbage mechanic, should a landraider take 3MW just because it was touched by a poxwalker?
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
I think leaving combat should come with two conditions:
You must roll equal to or lower than your highest leadership in the unit.
If you roll under your LD you get away, no problem.
If you roll equal to your LD, you get away, but the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If you roll above your LD, you are locked in combat for this turn.
It's simple, easy to use and doesn't complicate the game in any fashion.
How would this factor in with a vast majority of units being LD 7 and higher? I like the idea behind it, I definitely think there should be some sort of draw back or chance of failure to trying to retreat
So meta lists with 1000 points or more in Guard mostly infantry are just wasting over half their points to power up that solo castellen? It's not like that list did well against a yannari list without the Castellen.
No, you're right. I guess everyone must have just hallucinated all those lists that just took minimum infantry squads and spent the rest on Knights, Custodes etc.
Being cheap and hence available in number makes units effective, everything wounds everything on a 6 now meaning 40 dice wounding on 6's is often better than 5 wounding on 4+, quantity has a quality all of its own.
Even in terms of cheap infantry, it's often not worth it. Kabalites are just 6pts now and are still rarely ever used.
Also you know that useless rule of ObSec, guess what 2 guardsmen at 8 points on an objective scoreeven with a 600 point enemy knight or such standing on the same objective.
Guess what, a knight standing next to two puddles of ichor that were once guardsmen. But don't worry - you can console yourself with the fact that those red smears have Objective Secured.
Most of these models do have weakness just marines suck at exploiting them, but thats more because short of expensive units marines threat level is pathetic for their point.
Except that the same point applies to most infantry, not just marines.
vipoid wrote: I don't think Marines suck. Or, more accurately, I don't think Marines such significantly more than most other (troop) infantry in the game.
The issue with 40k is that there's rarely any value in even having infantry. What exactly does infantry do that makes them worth taking?
Outside of a few exceptions, infantry are basically just tanks - except slower and with significantly worse armour and firepower. There's basically nothing they can do that can't be done just as well (and usually much better) by vehicles or monsters. And please don't give me any crap about Objective Secured. Objective Secured is utterly worthless when your troops are smeared across the battlefield because you were stupid enough to bring infantry to a Mechwarrior fight.
What's more, infantry are almost always hampered by having to take garbage weapons on most members - which are useless against everything but infantry, and still pretty poor even then.
It's compounded even more by the fact that GW adamantly refuses to give most large models weaknesses. In virtually every case, they're vastly more durable than infantry and have vastly more firepower, but then they compound that by also being drastically more mobile. You have Imperial Knights that move at the same speed as Dark Eldar Raiders. Again, what is even the point of infantry? If Knights and such were at least slow, then they might need infantry to support them and go forward to capture objectives and such. But when Knights travel at the speed of Anime-Mechas, why would anyone bother?
Even IG Infantry Squads - probably the best infantry in the game at present - still only get used as a cheap way to generate CP, in order to fuel the Knights and such to actually do the legwork. Anything the infantry do on the battlefield after that is basically just a bonus.
If you want Space Marines to be worthwhile, then the first thing that needs to change is for Infantry to stop being treated as nothing more than target-practise for Knights. They need a meaningful role. Either go back to 5th and make it that only troops can capture objectives, or else give troops a way to punch above their weight class (at least under certain circumstances).
Further to this, I'd suggest that most/all Auras should only affect infantry. Stacking buffs is one of the things that actually makes a few infantry units worth taking. However, when a commander's aura is equally effective on infantry and vehicles, then you might as well stick with the one that packs more firepower by default.
So meta lists with 1000 points or more in Guard mostly infantry are just wasting over half their points to power up that solo castellen? It's not like that list did well against a yannari list without the Castellen.
Marine infantry squads suck, but that doesn't mean all infantry do.
Being cheap and hence available in number makes units effective, everything wounds everything on a 6 now meaning 40 dice wounding on 6's is often better than 5 wounding on 4+, quantity has a quality all of its own.
Also you know that useless rule of ObSec, guess what 2 guardsmen at 8 points on an objective scoreeven with a 600 point enemy knight or such standing on the same objective.
Most of these models do have weakness just marines suck at exploiting them, but thats more because short of expensive units marines threat level is pathetic for their point.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
I think leaving combat should come with two conditions:
You must roll equal to or lower than your highest leadership in the unit.
If you roll under your LD you get away, no problem.
If you roll equal to your LD, you get away, but the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If you roll above your LD, you are locked in combat for this turn.
It's simple, easy to use and doesn't complicate the game in any fashion.
Are they really that bad? I play my Primaris/Old Marine mix force about 4-5 times per month. They're quite fun and I have a fairly even win/loss rate with them. They likely don't do well at events, but every day games seem to be just fine.
Most of your points are salient and I agree with them.
They are pretty bad especially in tournaments and matched play. AT my store its mostly knight meta so marines just bellyflop when they face one.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
I would up that considering they are literally right next to them so hits on 5+, 6+ would make sense if they are charging at you, not away from you. Its easier to hit someone in the back than someone running straight at you.
Ah! Of course. We had three knight players and they all abandoned Knights the moment the changes to Command points happened. So we never see even a single Knight in our games these days. That does make a huge difference!
No way is the D3 MW justified, seriously what is it with people and MW it's a garbage mechanic, should a landraider take 3MW just because it was touched by a poxwalker?
I dunno, I love the mechanic. And I think there should be danger in trying to leave combat. the Mortal wounds serve this puropse because there isn't some sort of attack of opportunity mechanic that would further bog the game down and waste time.
The mortal wounds can represent anything, in your example of the pox walker and the landraider, perhaps the poxwalker stuck the drive in the eye through a hole in the tank or some such. The point is, it's a quick and simple rule that makes combat much more deadly and the choice to leave harder for some players. Also, vehicals could have different rules, for example perhaps a vehicle could ignore the table and just leave, representing the ability of a land raider to drive over cc people.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
I think leaving combat should come with two conditions:
You must roll equal to or lower than your highest leadership in the unit.
If you roll under your LD you get away, no problem.
If you roll equal to your LD, you get away, but the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If you roll above your LD, you are locked in combat for this turn.
It's simple, easy to use and doesn't complicate the game in any fashion.
How would this factor in with a vast majority of units being LD 7 and higher? I like the idea behind it, I definitely think there should be some sort of draw back or chance of failure to trying to retreat
to be honest, I'm not sure. I'd be open to opinions.
I can tell you that we've run some test games in my group using this exact rule and haven't had any issues that seemed glaring with it.
Or forcing people to have a dice roll to see if they can exit combat... Not this automatic retreat. The opponent should have an opportunity to deal with your opponent trying to exit combat.
It is really bizarre that in order to assault you need to roll the dice to see whether you succeed and then the enemy gets to shoot you, but you can leave from the close combat automatically and with no risk at all. At minimum there should a CC equivalent of overwatch where the enemy gets to hit you but hits only on sixes.
I think leaving combat should come with two conditions:
You must roll equal to or lower than your highest leadership in the unit.
If you roll under your LD you get away, no problem.
If you roll equal to your LD, you get away, but the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If you roll above your LD, you are locked in combat for this turn.
It's simple, easy to use and doesn't complicate the game in any fashion.
How would this factor in with a vast majority of units being LD 7 and higher? I like the idea behind it, I definitely think there should be some sort of draw back or chance of failure to trying to retreat
Well it means all leadership sorta matters right now in and out of close combat. This would also mean space marines need their older leadership profiles back if it meant their leadership was actually more useful other than for 1 case.
-Generalist design philosophy
-Shared across multiple factions and Codecies
Generalist units simply don't function outside of small scale or skirmish games. Marine units fail to specialise in any purpose and thus fail to excel in anything. The army can have a balanced, general approach but that doesn't mean each unit has to - thankfully Primaris have started a clean slate and have rectified this. Intercessors are designed to engage light infantry and hold objectives. Hellblasters are designed purely for putting out damage against elite units in the shooting phase. Inceptors are designed to arrive from reserve and instantly put the hurt out, etc
Finally we have some effective units, and the future expansion of the range will plug the holes in the Primaris capability.
Going back to my second point: it has become very difficult to balance or rebalance the range. Are Las Cannon Devastators a bit rubbish? Perhaps they are. Too bad you can't change their statline because it means you'd need to change every other unit in the book. Same with the weapons - it's hard to balance a Las Cannon in a situation where making it stronger would lead to spam across multiple units. Look at Primaris - each unit has a unique weapon and a unique armour in most cases! It means you can change the weapon if it's too strong or too weak without affecting anything else in the book.
Now we hit another problem. If you make Marines better in terms of stats this has a huge impact across multiple factions. Take a Plague Marine - this is literally a Space Marine who's empowered further by the power of Chaos. If you make a regular Marine T5 with 2 wounds that means a Plague Marine must now be T6 with 2 wounds? Suddenly it becomes a mess that needs to address a minimum of 8 books.
Thank the Lord for the clean slate that is Primaris. Some haters will complain, but a few years from now we'll all be glad.
-Generalist design philosophy
-Shared across multiple factions and Codecies
Generalist units simply don't function outside of small scale or skirmish games. Marine units fail to specialise in any purpose and thus fail to excel in anything. The army can have a balanced, general approach but that doesn't mean each unit has to - thankfully Primaris have started a clean slate and have rectified this. Intercessors are designed to engage light infantry and hold objectives. Hellblasters are designed purely for putting out damage against elite units in the shooting phase. Inceptors are designed to arrive from reserve and instantly put the hurt out, etc
Finally we have some effective units, and the future expansion of the range will plug the holes in the Primaris capability.
Going back to my second point: it has become very difficult to balance or rebalance the range. Are Las Cannon Devastators a bit rubbish? Perhaps they are. Too bad you can't change their statline because it means you'd need to change every other unit in the book. Same with the weapons - it's hard to balance a Las Cannon in a situation where making it stronger would lead to spam across multiple units. Look at Primaris - each unit has a unique weapon and a unique armour in most cases! It means you can change the weapon if it's too strong or too weak without affecting anything else in the book.
Now we hit another problem. If you make Marines better in terms of stats this has a huge impact across multiple factions. Take a Plague Marine - this is literally a Space Marine who's empowered further by the power of Chaos. If you make a regular Marine T5 with 2 wounds that means a Plague Marine must now be T6 with 2 wounds? Suddenly it becomes a mess that needs to address a minimum of 8 books.
Thank the Lord for the clean slate that is Primaris. Some haters will complain, but a few years from now we'll all be glad.
Not true. Fluff =/= rules. All units are now simply datasheets. The model is just a physical representation of an abstract set of rules and stats. What, exactly is stopping anyone writing a new rule into a Devastator squad that says 'If all models are armed with 4 of the same heavy weapon, they reroll all to wound rolls.' or up their BS or something. Nothing at all. And why would you need to change Nurgle stuff on the basis of fluff and flavour text? If we were going on that, ten marines should be able to slaughter 30 Guard, easy. Especially so in close combat.
Because that's not the design philosophy of how the classic Astartes operate.
And it's clear for all to see that there is a connection between Astartes and their +1 Chaotic counterparts.
As for Guard I will concede that GW has failed to price cheaper horde units appropriately and has created a value imbalance between the disposable and the elite. This needs to be addressed more than most things.
Ishagu wrote: Because that's not the design philosophy of how the classic Astartes operate.
And it's clear for all to see that there is a connection between Astartes and their +1 Chaotic counterparts.
As for Guard I will concede that GW has failed to price cheaper horde units appropriately and has created a value imbalance between the disposable and the elite. This needs to be addressed more than most things.
Well the classic astartes have a primaris upgrade. Deathguard still have disgusting resilient and +1 toughness.
Space marines just need 1 wound and better bolters. Deathguard have only been recently redone in that way.
Elbows wrote: A couple of things on the Scorpions which can make them very slightly "okay", but still sub-par when it comes to tournaments perhaps.
1) The Exarchs claw does not suffer a -1 to hit (so he can get exploding attacks)
2) The biting blade is now cheaper, where before it was so close to the claw, but worse...it was illogical
3) The Striking Scorpions gain +1 to hit vs. enemies in cover, and it doesn't state shooting or melee...so you'd have 2+ to shoot and fight vs. models in cover (re-rolling 1's on the Shuriken Pistol if you have Biel-Tan craftworld)
4) The mortal wound mask occurs each fighting phase, not just yours. While '6's are rough...occasionally you're going to luck out and roll those 3-4 sixes and kill dead something decent.
5) They're now better priced (almost cheap)
A squad of 10 is around 115 points or so, which is reasonable, but they're just not a "power" unit. If anything, I think they're now one of the most accurately statted and costed units - meaning, of course, they fall under all of the over-effective units.
EDIT: I will agree that another squad of Scorpions is definitely better than Karandras, one of the less well equipped Phoenix Lords (though he's still cool and I look forward to fielding him again sometime). Even with reductions, Phoenix Lords are still in a bad spot.
Even with those additions, I'd go a step further and give them their damn regular Infiltration back.
Elbows wrote: A couple of things on the Scorpions which can make them very slightly "okay", but still sub-par when it comes to tournaments perhaps.
1) The Exarchs claw does not suffer a -1 to hit (so he can get exploding attacks)
2) The biting blade is now cheaper, where before it was so close to the claw, but worse...it was illogical
3) The Striking Scorpions gain +1 to hit vs. enemies in cover, and it doesn't state shooting or melee...so you'd have 2+ to shoot and fight vs. models in cover (re-rolling 1's on the Shuriken Pistol if you have Biel-Tan craftworld)
4) The mortal wound mask occurs each fighting phase, not just yours. While '6's are rough...occasionally you're going to luck out and roll those 3-4 sixes and kill dead something decent.
5) They're now better priced (almost cheap)
A squad of 10 is around 115 points or so, which is reasonable, but they're just not a "power" unit. If anything, I think they're now one of the most accurately statted and costed units - meaning, of course, they fall under all of the over-effective units.
EDIT: I will agree that another squad of Scorpions is definitely better than Karandras, one of the less well equipped Phoenix Lords (though he's still cool and I look forward to fielding him again sometime). Even with reductions, Phoenix Lords are still in a bad spot.
Even with those additions, I'd go a step further and give them their damn regular Infiltration back.
They already do. They can set up 9inches away from enemy units.
Ishagu: I have seen a lot of your comments over a long period of time regarding marines, and I largely agree with most of what you've posted (even though you frequently get a lot of flak haha). I've been playing 40k since 3rd and I play marines and 5 other armies, so my opinion is not faction bias. The old marine statline is no longer really relevant to the way the game is going and I'm not that sad about it. I have 3000-4000 points of old school marines, but the models are showing their age, and I was glad to upgrade to play mainly Primaris infantry, and forge world tanks (until Primaris gets some good tanks at least.) I'm hoping some of the vehicles will stick around longer, since I think their aesthetic still mostly looks fine next to Primaris. A lot of the fixes people want to apply to marines is basically what Primaris marines already are, but with a points decrease, and I bet over another chapter approved, intercessors will come down yet again. Whether its good or bad, and no matter what people wish list, Primaris marines will continue to get better, and old marines will get less and less relevant; it's just a fact and I'm pretty much cool with it.
I also don't understand why guard infantry squads get made out to be such a bogeyman compared to other infantry. (Imperial soup not withstanding, but my group all play mono faction). I regularly play against and use massed guard squads, and they are never scary to me or feel like a huge asset when I use them. They occupy space on the line and plunk out moderately effective shots here and there till they die. When I play against guard squads, my dedicated anti infantry platforms mow them down like they're nothing, points efficiency be damned. They're just not that hard to kill in my opinion. My intercessors often die in inglorious ways if I deploy them poorly, or if the opponent has a lot of indirect fire, or efficient solutions to them, but I've also had games where I hide them well, or have them in good cover, and they hold the line and kill a few infantry. The only thing I want more out of intercessors is a bit more killing power, but from the looks of the vigilus release, it seems they may be getting some stratagems to help with that.
Bottom line, as a marine player in a casual, semi competitive environment; do I think marines could get a little better? Yes. Do I think they're terrible? No.
And I think as more Primaris releases happen they will get better, and old marines will not. Anything else is wishful thinking.
Elbows wrote: A couple of things on the Scorpions which can make them very slightly "okay", but still sub-par when it comes to tournaments perhaps.
1) The Exarchs claw does not suffer a -1 to hit (so he can get exploding attacks)
2) The biting blade is now cheaper, where before it was so close to the claw, but worse...it was illogical
3) The Striking Scorpions gain +1 to hit vs. enemies in cover, and it doesn't state shooting or melee...so you'd have 2+ to shoot and fight vs. models in cover (re-rolling 1's on the Shuriken Pistol if you have Biel-Tan craftworld)
4) The mortal wound mask occurs each fighting phase, not just yours. While '6's are rough...occasionally you're going to luck out and roll those 3-4 sixes and kill dead something decent.
5) They're now better priced (almost cheap)
A squad of 10 is around 115 points or so, which is reasonable, but they're just not a "power" unit. If anything, I think they're now one of the most accurately statted and costed units - meaning, of course, they fall under all of the over-effective units.
EDIT: I will agree that another squad of Scorpions is definitely better than Karandras, one of the less well equipped Phoenix Lords (though he's still cool and I look forward to fielding him again sometime). Even with reductions, Phoenix Lords are still in a bad spot.
Even with those additions, I'd go a step further and give them their damn regular Infiltration back.
They already do. They can set up 9inches away from enemy units.
I was told it was worded like a Deep Strike so they wouldn't be able to move or anything.
Marines are really good at things that core game doesn’t count. They’re good at moving under fire, and shooting under fire, and shutting down what’s shooting at them.
That doesn’t happen directly in 40k. There is a movement stat, there are advance moves, charges, and a variety of Fleet style rerolls, but none of them are slowed down by enemy actions and neither is shooting.
Generalist units simply don't function outside of small scale or skirmish games. Marine units fail to specialise in any purpose and thus fail to excel in anything.
Except if you choose any other game system at random, good odds are it would have some kind of pinning rules built in. I can see a set of pinning rules where a unit of hellblasters would get snowed in by shooting and took serious penalties before it got to fire. The defense would be that you’d have to surround them on all sides with bolter marines to win the cover fire fight and stop the pin from getting them. That’s what the designs of old marine squads are supposed to do.
40k ports lots of its stats and dice rules from WHFB. Problem is the actual gameplay of fantasy was about block units doing wheel moves and flank charges, and they didn’t replace that with a shooting version which probably would have been pinning. As a result it’s just dice rolling and that’s why specialist units work better.
-Generalist design philosophy
-Shared across multiple factions and Codecies
Generalist units simply don't function outside of small scale or skirmish games. Marine units fail to specialise in any purpose and thus fail to excel in anything. The army can have a balanced, general approach but that doesn't mean each unit has to - thankfully Primaris have started a clean slate and have rectified this. Intercessors are designed to engage light infantry and hold objectives. Hellblasters are designed purely for putting out damage against elite units in the shooting phase. Inceptors are designed to arrive from reserve and instantly put the hurt out, etc
Finally we have some effective units, and the future expansion of the range will plug the holes in the Primaris capability.
Going back to my second point: it has become very difficult to balance or rebalance the range. Are Las Cannon Devastators a bit rubbish? Perhaps they are. Too bad you can't change their statline because it means you'd need to change every other unit in the book. Same with the weapons - it's hard to balance a Las Cannon in a situation where making it stronger would lead to spam across multiple units. Look at Primaris - each unit has a unique weapon and a unique armour in most cases! It means you can change the weapon if it's too strong or too weak without affecting anything else in the book.
Now we hit another problem. If you make Marines better in terms of stats this has a huge impact across multiple factions. Take a Plague Marine - this is literally a Space Marine who's empowered further by the power of Chaos. If you make a regular Marine T5 with 2 wounds that means a Plague Marine must now be T6 with 2 wounds? Suddenly it becomes a mess that needs to address a minimum of 8 books.
Thank the Lord for the clean slate that is Primaris. Some haters will complain, but a few years from now we'll all be glad.
The simple answer is to cease the idiocy of codices, get rid of them, and fold all space marines into a single faction, and all chaos into a single book while also severing all bonds between each other's stats with the excuse of the warp mutating chaos space marines. We don't need Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Scions, Harlequins, Deathwatch, Custodes, Assassins, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, or Genestealers. All of them can be folded into bigger faction books to cut down on redundancy and eliminate needless faction bloat.
from 2nd edition on I always thought that Heavy weapons were meant to take down big targets....no infantry.
What would happen if battlecannons, Frak Missiles, Lascanons, etc ....things meant to take down dreadnoughts, vehicles, etc. ALL got a minus to hit when targeting small mobile infantry?
-2 to hit a tac marine with a lascanon, -1 to hit a terminator, normal modifiers to hit a massive land raider.
Seems Marines would then be subject to smaller arms weapons and the 3+ saves would go further.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...With something like that in place...heavy bolters would be a serious consideration. Do I take 10 lascannons or 10 heavy bolters...or should I just take 5 of each?
admironheart wrote: from 2nd edition on I always thought that Heavy weapons were meant to take down big targets....no infantry.
What would happen if battlecannons, Frak Missiles, Lascanons, etc ....things meant to take down dreadnoughts, vehicles, etc. ALL got a minus to hit when targeting small mobile infantry?
-2 to hit a tac marine with a lascanon, -1 to hit a terminator, normal modifiers to hit a massive land raider.
Seems Marines would then be subject to smaller arms weapons and the 3+ saves would go further.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...With something like that in place...heavy bolters would be a serious consideration. Do I take 10 lascannons or 10 heavy bolters...or should I just take 5 of each?
On top of further restructuring, ideally "going to ground" should induce a -1 to hit with infantry but take up their action for that turn, being in cover should be a -1 to hit, and trying to shoot infantry with a dedicated anti-tank heavy weapon like a lascannon or bright lance should also incur a -1 to hit.
pelicaniforce wrote: 40k ports lots of its stats and dice rules from WHFB. Problem is the actual gameplay of fantasy was about block units doing wheel moves and flank charges, and they didn’t replace that with a shooting version which probably would have been pinning. As a result it’s just dice rolling and that’s why specialist units work better.
Incorrect tense on that one. 40K ported lost of its stats and dice rules from WHFB. The situation has changed somewhat in that regard when they proceeded with the Dark Imperium. Not as much as Age of Sigmar, but the amount of WHFB is considerably less in 40K today than it was a couple years ago in 7th Edition. It's been rather needed, and I think that it has progressed in a good direction. Now, if they could just be better focused on making the game balanced and work without more pages in the errata than rules, we'll be starting to cook with something more than cow pies.
Asherian Command wrote: I really hate the -1 to hit mechanic especially if it could be abused as it is currently with almost every faction that has it.
If anything it should give a +1 to save.
No, the save mechanic is dumb and doesn't make a lick of sense. Cover doesn't increase your armor because cover makes you harder to hit, not increasing your durability. And using cover should simply be countered with auto-hitting/minimal scatter template weapons, grenades, or just suppressing the crap out of the respective unit to effectively neutralize via pinning. The issue is that you're still looking at things with a 40k lense, and not looking at how to fix 40k by abandoning its fairly crappy conditions. Because let's face it, 40k under the traditional mechanics is never improving. The game is never going to improve from endless cycles of terrible-ness and imbalance because the game devs don't give a gak about the game. These past editions it's marines that have been anemic and weak, and next edition it will be somebody else. And so-on and so-forth. If you want to really improve things, that means abandoning GW madness such as sub-faction traits.
From a game perspective....more modifiers to hit are preferred.
Do it up front to limit the dice rolling.....so if in an example 1 out of 3 misses....roll and move on
If you add the bonuses to the same effect for saves....so 1 in 3 is the net effect of a rule....you have the TO HIT roll, then the TO WOUND roll and finally the TO SAVE roll.
Cut down on all the dice rolling and time wasting. More modifiers to hit and miss rather than AP to saves.
vipoid wrote: The issue with 40k is that there's rarely any value in even having infantry. What exactly does infantry do that makes them worth taking?
Outside of a few exceptions, infantry are basically just tanks - except slower and with significantly worse armour and firepower. There's basically nothing they can do that can't be done just as well (and usually much better) by vehicles or monsters. And please don't give me any crap about Objective Secured. Objective Secured is utterly worthless when your troops are smeared across the battlefield because you were stupid enough to bring infantry to a Mechwarrior fight.
What's more, infantry are almost always hampered by having to take garbage weapons on most members - which are useless against everything but infantry, and still pretty poor even then.
It's compounded even more by the fact that GW adamantly refuses to give most large models weaknesses. In virtually every case, they're vastly more durable than infantry and have vastly more firepower, but then they compound that by also being drastically more mobile. You have Imperial Knights that move at the same speed as Dark Eldar Raiders. Again, what is even the point of infantry? If Knights and such were at least slow, then they might need infantry to support them and go forward to capture objectives and such. But when Knights travel at the speed of Anime-Mechas, why would anyone bother?
Even IG Infantry Squads - probably the best infantry in the game at present - still only get used as a cheap way to generate CP, in order to fuel the Knights and such to actually do the legwork. Anything the infantry do on the battlefield after that is basically just a bonus.
If you want Space Marines to be worthwhile, then the first thing that needs to change is for Infantry to stop being treated as nothing more than target-practise for Knights. They need a meaningful role. Either go back to 5th and make it that only troops can capture objectives, or else give troops a way to punch above their weight class (at least under certain circumstances).
So much of this is true. At one time people used to take four squads of kabalites with dark lances and no raider and just shoot with them. They’d take guardians and dire avengers without transports either. If that were still the case then there’d be at least an effect from these ideas about combat knives and ap-1 bolters. As it is you just have one kind of infantry that’s rubbish buffed up to fight infantry that are never on the board and it doesn’t help to kill if they are.
I really would like infantry to be at the center of games. I’d like them to get over watch against enemy moving and shooting, I think infantry should get a whole shooting round in the enemy turn as well as in their own. That might balance out vehicles carrying great big guns and moving fast, and ideally getting relentless back as well.
I appreciate the person who said infantry might have a -1 to hit against anti tank weapons. It’s thinking in a good direction.
Charistoph wrote: the
amount of WHFB is considerably less in 40K today than it was a couple years ago in 7th Edition. It's been rather needed, and I think that it has progressed in a good direction. Now, if they could just be better focused on making the game balanced and work without more pages in the errata than rules, we'll be starting to cook with something more than cow pies.
The game in WHFB was getting people out of position via the march moves and facing rules. 40k doesn’t have any analogue, where’s the analoguentonthat?
admironheart wrote: from 2nd edition on I always thought that Heavy weapons were meant to take down big targets....no infantry.
What would happen if battlecannons, Frak Missiles, Lascanons, etc ....things meant to take down dreadnoughts, vehicles, etc. ALL got a minus to hit when targeting small mobile infantry?
-2 to hit a tac marine with a lascanon, -1 to hit a terminator, normal modifiers to hit a massive land raider.
Seems Marines would then be subject to smaller arms weapons and the 3+ saves would go further.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...With something like that in place...heavy bolters would be a serious consideration. Do I take 10 lascannons or 10 heavy bolters...or should I just take 5 of each?
On top of further restructuring, ideally "going to ground" should induce a -1 to hit with infantry but take up their action for that turn, being in cover should be a -1 to hit, and trying to shoot infantry with a dedicated anti-tank heavy weapon like a lascannon or bright lance should also incur a -1 to hit.
I made a very similar suggestion in another thread. +1 AS in the confines of the AP system is useless and hardly a defensive strategy.
Charistoph wrote: the amount of WHFB is considerably less in 40K today than it was a couple years ago in 7th Edition. It's been rather needed, and I think that it has progressed in a good direction. Now, if they could just be better focused on making the game balanced and work without more pages in the errata than rules, we'll be starting to cook with something more than cow pies.
The game in WHFB was getting people out of position via the march moves and facing rules. 40k doesn’t have any analogue, where’s the analoguentonthat?
Read what I quoted for context of what I said. Your response bears little correlation to what was being discussed.
Here it is with a little emphasis:
pelicaniforce wrote: 40k ports lots of its stats and dice rules from WHFB. Problem is the actual gameplay of fantasy was about block units doing wheel moves and flank charges, and they didn’t replace that with a shooting version which probably would have been pinning. As a result it’s just dice rolling and that’s why specialist units work better.
You’re exactly right Charistoph, what’s not being discussed is that while 40k has had a variety of changes in the way it rolls dice, it has always lacked mechanisms for maneuver and board control that similar games do have. Space marines are great at maneuver warfare, so where is the maneuver mechanic 40k, and isn’t it terrible that the discussion is so distracted by more talk about dice rolling?
pelicaniforce wrote: You’re exactly right Charistoph, what’s not being discussed is that while 40k has had a variety of changes in the way it rolls dice, it has always lacked mechanisms for maneuver and board control that similar games do have. Space marines are great at maneuver warfare, so where is the maneuver mechanic 40k, and isn’t it terrible that the discussion is so distracted by more talk about dice rolling?
Yes, and no. Maneuver in WW2 was markedly different than maneuver in ye olden days of the Roman Legions, the pike and shot era, or even the Napoleonic Wars. During the time of block formations, it was largely about getting enough press in to a formation to cause it to break, and this is what flanking was for. In modern times, it is as much about eliminating cover as providing that press, and sometimes more about eliminating cover. How does 40K not represent that before or now?
Theoretically, the purpose of Power Armor is to reduce the dependence on cover and provide protection out in the open or in the press of melee (for the purposes of 40K, at any rate). However, there is always a race between weapons and armor, and Power Armor has been on a losing battle with it for some few editions now. It used to be that weapons that ignored armor were relatively rare, like Plasma or Power Weapons. By 7th Edition, such weapons were actually rather prolific due to the carrying price going down. Some Melee Weapons did see a drop in performance when Melee Weapons gained AP, but this was relatively unimpactful for Power Armor, unless you had a penchant for Chaplains, as Power Swords were just as capable as before. The Dark Imperium gave a slight reprieve on that with AP not being so absolute, but reductive in capacity, but most of the price points changed little, and leaving the power and terminator armor classes still with issues.
Certain types of power armor should have different benefits beyond their simple Save. The Eldar approach doesn't match the Imperium's any more than the Tau's matches either. Tau's benefits are obvious being able to pack more Wargear on the model than the others, but how to address Eldar and Imperium's armor? Primaris is good for Space Marines of ALL types, as it gets them up to Movie Marine status, but that won't work for the Sisters and Inquisition, nor does it fit at all for the Eldar.
Side Note: Yes, I know the Orks, Necrons, and others have benefits, too, but Ork armor is ramshackle, Necrons rebuild themselves, and Tyranids are usually massive.
Togusa wrote: I think leaving combat should come with two conditions:
You must roll equal to or lower than your highest leadership in the unit.
If you roll under your LD you get away, no problem.
If you roll equal to your LD, you get away, but the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If you roll above your LD, you are locked in combat for this turn.
We do not need more Mortal Wounds in this game. MWs are an unbalanceable and anti-fun mechanic that deserves to be dragged out back by its hair to be beaten, shot, waterboarded and shot again.
On the other hand, a mechanic that adds a risk element to falling out of combat is sorely needed. My preferred solution would be to give the unit attacking a free swing as their target turns to flee. After all, trying to run away from a crippled Rhino isn’t going to be particularly dangerous, but turning your back on Khârn the Betrayer is asking for a chainaxe where the sun don’t shine. Something like:
Cut Down: When a unit declares that it is Falling Back, before it moves, all units that have a model within 1” of the unit Falling Back may make a Cut Down attack. A model making a Cut Down attack fights exactly as if it had been chosen to fight in the Fight Phase, with the following restrictions:
- a model may not make a Cut Down attack if it is within 1” of an enemy model that is not part of the unit Falling Back
- a model may not Pile In, Consolidate or otherwise move when making a Cut Down attack
- a model making a Cut Down attack may not be selected to fight a second time using Stratagems or other special rules
- all attacks made by a Cut Down attack must be directed at the unit Falling Back
- the order in which units make a Cut Down attack is determined by the player making Cut Down attacks
- note that, if casualties taken from an earlier Cut Down attack leave no models from the unit Falling Back within 1” of a unit that has not yet attempted a Cut Down attack, that unit will be ineligible for making a Cut Down attack against the unit
After all Cut Down attacks have been resolved and casualties removed, the unit Falling Back then makes its Fall Back move.
It could use some fine tuning and it’s a bit wordy (because if you aren’t wordy players will pick it apart for any advantage) but the basic concept is there: you fall back, whatever you fall back from gets to swing at you unless it’s also engaged with something else. I’ve stopped the attacking unit from moving since that opens the door to shenanigans. I toyed with the idea of limiting any given unit to making one Cut Down attack per turn, but didn’t because you can currently make unlimited Overwatch attacks.
It introduces an interesting little tactical counter-play: if you have multiple units in combat, what order do you fall back with them? Do you leave a sacrificial unit there to block the Cut Down? It makes positioning and moving in the previous Fight Phase tactically important for the defender.
Asherian Command wrote: I really hate the -1 to hit mechanic especially if it could be abused as it is currently with almost every faction that has it.
If anything it should give a +1 to save.
No, the save mechanic is dumb and doesn't make a lick of sense. Cover doesn't increase your armor because cover makes you harder to hit, not increasing your durability. And using cover should simply be countered with auto-hitting/minimal scatter template weapons, grenades, or just suppressing the crap out of the respective unit to effectively neutralize via pinning. The issue is that you're still looking at things with a 40k lense, and not looking at how to fix 40k by abandoning its fairly crappy conditions. Because let's face it, 40k under the traditional mechanics is never improving. The game is never going to improve from endless cycles of terrible-ness and imbalance because the game devs don't give a gak about the game. These past editions it's marines that have been anemic and weak, and next edition it will be somebody else. And so-on and so-forth. If you want to really improve things, that means abandoning GW madness such as sub-faction traits.
The -1 to hit as a free chapter trait is broken, something that should never existed. Orks Blood Axes, which are supposed to be sneaky and invisible, get +1 to their save if they're shot from distance. Not a -1 to hit for free. A -1 to hit granted by psychic power or stratagem, or because the specific unit is supposed to be super fast or able to dodge bullets, makes more sense.
Asherian Command wrote: I really hate the -1 to hit mechanic especially if it could be abused as it is currently with almost every faction that has it.
If anything it should give a +1 to save.
No, the save mechanic is dumb and doesn't make a lick of sense. Cover doesn't increase your armor because cover makes you harder to hit, not increasing your durability. And using cover should simply be countered with auto-hitting/minimal scatter template weapons, grenades, or just suppressing the crap out of the respective unit to effectively neutralize via pinning. The issue is that you're still looking at things with a 40k lense, and not looking at how to fix 40k by abandoning its fairly crappy conditions. Because let's face it, 40k under the traditional mechanics is never improving. The game is never going to improve from endless cycles of terrible-ness and imbalance because the game devs don't give a gak about the game. These past editions it's marines that have been anemic and weak, and next edition it will be somebody else. And so-on and so-forth. If you want to really improve things, that means abandoning GW madness such as sub-faction traits.
The -1 to hit as a free chapter trait is broken, something that should never existed. Orks Blood Axes, which are supposed to be sneaky and invisible, get +1 to their save if they're shot from distance. Not a -1 to hit for free. A -1 to hit granted by psychic power or stratagem, or because the specific unit is supposed to be super fast or able to dodge bullets, makes more sense.
Like I said, sub-faction traits are dumb and shouldn't exist either. They increase complexity needlessly while adding more to balance and will always have a "best" option. Remove the -1 to hit traits and another chapter/culture/craftworld/etc becomes the best option. Best to just throw it all out and return to choosing units that fit the fluff of your army if you want to go that route, and viciously curbing the ability to make optimized lists resulting in units being relegated as "non-viable".
Like I said, sub-faction traits are dumb and shouldn't exist either. They increase complexity needlessly while adding more to balance and will always have a "best" option. Remove the -1 to hit traits and another chapter/culture/craftworld/etc becomes the best option. Best to just throw it all out and return to choosing units that fit the fluff of your army if you want to go that route, and viciously curbing the ability to make optimized lists resulting in units being relegated as "non-viable".
Only from an overly competitive point of view, where all that matters is the most effective list available. Sub factons traits add variety to the game and even a non perfect trait could add a lot of fun.
The -1 to hit should be removed not because it's the best trait some armies have, but because it's too powerful for being just a free bonus.
Wyzilla wrote: The issue is just that at its core the 40k game is completely and utterly fethed. The balance between infantry/vehicles is basically nonexistent, there's a ton of mechanics that just don't make a lick of sense, and a lot of the new rules neither reduce the playtime or make the game simpler as was advertised. Blast templates were easy, and all they needed to fix them was to simply reduce or remove scattering altogether- instead we now have d6 hit mechanics that take even more time. Marine infantry wasn't stupendous in prior editions as mentioned, but at least there was transport and sweeping advance rules to give them an edge over your basic guardsmen squad. That's all gone now, and instead we have a terrible edition of poorly implemented mechanics that weren't thought out well - coupled with bizarre religious adherence to statlines even though the limits to strength and toughness have been removed. And keeping the asinine turn system that encourages "shot off the board syndrome", where you either have enough cover to protect your army or expect to lose a significant chunk on the first shooting phase.
If you want to improve marines, you need to improve 40k so there's actual tactics for heavy and elite infantry compared to the standard gameplay of just pushing up the table with blobs of units trying to screen as much fire as possible for your deathstar(s), a concept that also needs to be taken outside and shot once and for all. I wouldn't opt for just stat increases, but completely and utterly changing the wargame to add deep mechanics for both infantry and vehicles while also speeding things up for gameplay's sake (such as minimal/no scatter templates). Add suppression mechanics to infantry, make dedicated AT weapons suffer minuses to hit against infantry targets, bring back things like sweeping advances to quickly resolve melee combat, mandate heavy use of terrain in the rules themselves, and use alternating unit turns to prevent one person just activating all of their units and blowing units clean off the table. All elite infantry such as Space Marines, Custodes, and Aspect squads should be a pain in the ass to kill without using the proper tools for the job, and inferior infantry units such as guardsmen shouldn't be able to outshoot them on a per-points basis.
Cause it's not just Marines. Aspect Warriors, Custodes, warriors, etc are all gak units with no place on the table in a game that caters mostly to superheavies and blobs of infantry where "tactics" consist of merely spamming shots and managing auras. GW keeps creeping the scale forward and shoving more Epic units in without giving a single damn as to how it'll effect the meta, and doesn't seem to care about game design either really. It's just about getting people to field expensive blobs of infantry and superheavies now to be pushed on and off the table with a broom as people dump bucketloads of dice that take forever to count hits. At this point the community either needs to make its own rules or just switch to kill team, because there's probably no improving 40k for there to even be a place for elite armies at this point.
This.
40K is a hot mess, sure the models and the background are wonderful. However the rules are some of the worst I have encountered in my 30 years of miniature gaming. So full of needless bloat to try to add flavour, and also lacking in any real decision making.
If people want to try a game of what 40k should be, play One Page Rules Grim Dark. The rules are very easy to learn, but offer a lot more than what current 40k does.
As it is GW will not fix their broken system, as they are too addictied to adding special rules, and will not adopt Alternative Activations. Also they need to abandon the armour save mechanic, and instead have Armour as a stat the attack needs to equal or beat in order to cause a wound, armour should be constantly active, not passive.
JohnHwangDD wrote: WTF? If guard can't outshoot SM, and they certainly should not out-fight them, what's the point of even having them. Of course Guard should always out-shoot SM! That's what they do!
Guard =/= basic infantry squad. Basic infantry should be cannon fodder whose primary role is to set up camp somewhere (preferably on an objective) and die so that something more important doesn't. The IG units that should be out-shooting marines are the veterans, tanks, etc.
So basic infantry. Like Space Marine tactical squads.
Karol wrote: But how would the merge even work? Something like SW wulfen or anything GK is vastly different from what anything marines have.
3rd edition worked relatively well if we are talking about consolidating books; BA, DA, SW were all 28-32 page books with unit entries that said “refer to Codex: Space Marines. The main vanilla codex was a fraction of what a codex is today. Everything could fit in a codex the size of an 8th edition snowflake chapter codex, instead of having vanilla alone be a hefty tome outweighed only by a BRB that has what, 15 page of rules in it?
For all it’s reputation of “fun, simple, streamlined” I don’t see much in 8th that does much to improve on 3rd edition. People seem to like it because 7th sounds like a flaming pile of dog crap but I’m thankful I stopped at 5th. With the current state of the game I wish I hadn’t come back for 8ths launch. Waiting and starting again with Kill Team and then playing that until CA 2019 likely would have been smarter.
I don't see many faults in this but I won't say I have it's perfect just seems like a decent band aid
Given the prevalence of marines your not really changing anything as it's a net zero, it also screws armies that don't have mass high AP or AP- fire.
It also gets increasingly difficult to justify why sisters with bolters and power armour etc shouldn't get the same rules..
It does make one if they just forgot about those. Inquisitors as well, though they usually take bigger stuff than bolters.
Wyzilla wrote: The issue is just that at its core the 40k game is completely and utterly fethed. The balance between infantry/vehicles is basically nonexistent, there's a ton of mechanics that just don't make a lick of sense, and a lot of the new rules neither reduce the playtime or make the game simpler as was advertised. Blast templates were easy, and all they needed to fix them was to simply reduce or remove scattering altogether- instead we now have d6 hit mechanics that take even more time. Marine infantry wasn't stupendous in prior editions as mentioned, but at least there was transport and sweeping advance rules to give them an edge over your basic guardsmen squad. That's all gone now, and instead we have a terrible edition of poorly implemented mechanics that weren't thought out well - coupled with bizarre religious adherence to statlines even though the limits to strength and toughness have been removed. And keeping the asinine turn system that encourages "shot off the board syndrome", where you either have enough cover to protect your army or expect to lose a significant chunk on the first shooting phase.
If you want to improve marines, you need to improve 40k so there's actual tactics for heavy and elite infantry compared to the standard gameplay of just pushing up the table with blobs of units trying to screen as much fire as possible for your deathstar(s), a concept that also needs to be taken outside and shot once and for all. I wouldn't opt for just stat increases, but completely and utterly changing the wargame to add deep mechanics for both infantry and vehicles while also speeding things up for gameplay's sake (such as minimal/no scatter templates). Add suppression mechanics to infantry, make dedicated AT weapons suffer minuses to hit against infantry targets, bring back things like sweeping advances to quickly resolve melee combat, mandate heavy use of terrain in the rules themselves, and use alternating unit turns to prevent one person just activating all of their units and blowing units clean off the table. All elite infantry such as Space Marines, Custodes, and Aspect squads should be a pain in the ass to kill without using the proper tools for the job, and inferior infantry units such as guardsmen shouldn't be able to outshoot them on a per-points basis.
Cause it's not just Marines. Aspect Warriors, Custodes, warriors, etc are all gak units with no place on the table in a game that caters mostly to superheavies and blobs of infantry where "tactics" consist of merely spamming shots and managing auras. GW keeps creeping the scale forward and shoving more Epic units in without giving a single damn as to how it'll effect the meta, and doesn't seem to care about game design either really. It's just about getting people to field expensive blobs of infantry and superheavies now to be pushed on and off the table with a broom as people dump bucketloads of dice that take forever to count hits. At this point the community either needs to make its own rules or just switch to kill team, because there's probably no improving 40k for there to even be a place for elite armies at this point.
This.
40K is a hot mess, sure the models and the background are wonderful. However the rules are some of the worst I have encountered in my 30 years of miniature gaming. So full of needless bloat to try to add flavour, and also lacking in any real decision making.
If people want to try a game of what 40k should be, play One Page Rules Grim Dark. The rules are very easy to learn, but offer a lot more than what current 40k does.
As it is GW will not fix their broken system, as they are too addictied to adding special rules, and will not adopt Alternative Activations. Also they need to abandon the armour save mechanic, and instead have Armour as a stat the attack needs to equal or beat in order to cause a wound, armour should be constantly active, not passive.
Lol I'm sorry but you are entirely wrong. The game is definitely not perfect but it's a quality wargame with more dynamics and variety than others. The sales and fans certainly agree. If you're having a bad time you might need to adjust your army, play-style or move on to something different. Not everyone likes chocolate, doesn't mean it doesn't taste sweet.
Wyzilla wrote: The issue is just that at its core the 40k game is completely and utterly fethed. The balance between infantry/vehicles is basically nonexistent, there's a ton of mechanics that just don't make a lick of sense, and a lot of the new rules neither reduce the playtime or make the game simpler as was advertised. Blast templates were easy, and all they needed to fix them was to simply reduce or remove scattering altogether- instead we now have d6 hit mechanics that take even more time. Marine infantry wasn't stupendous in prior editions as mentioned, but at least there was transport and sweeping advance rules to give them an edge over your basic guardsmen squad. That's all gone now, and instead we have a terrible edition of poorly implemented mechanics that weren't thought out well - coupled with bizarre religious adherence to statlines even though the limits to strength and toughness have been removed. And keeping the asinine turn system that encourages "shot off the board syndrome", where you either have enough cover to protect your army or expect to lose a significant chunk on the first shooting phase.
If you want to improve marines, you need to improve 40k so there's actual tactics for heavy and elite infantry compared to the standard gameplay of just pushing up the table with blobs of units trying to screen as much fire as possible for your deathstar(s), a concept that also needs to be taken outside and shot once and for all. I wouldn't opt for just stat increases, but completely and utterly changing the wargame to add deep mechanics for both infantry and vehicles while also speeding things up for gameplay's sake (such as minimal/no scatter templates). Add suppression mechanics to infantry, make dedicated AT weapons suffer minuses to hit against infantry targets, bring back things like sweeping advances to quickly resolve melee combat, mandate heavy use of terrain in the rules themselves, and use alternating unit turns to prevent one person just activating all of their units and blowing units clean off the table. All elite infantry such as Space Marines, Custodes, and Aspect squads should be a pain in the ass to kill without using the proper tools for the job, and inferior infantry units such as guardsmen shouldn't be able to outshoot them on a per-points basis.
Cause it's not just Marines. Aspect Warriors, Custodes, warriors, etc are all gak units with no place on the table in a game that caters mostly to superheavies and blobs of infantry where "tactics" consist of merely spamming shots and managing auras. GW keeps creeping the scale forward and shoving more Epic units in without giving a single damn as to how it'll effect the meta, and doesn't seem to care about game design either really. It's just about getting people to field expensive blobs of infantry and superheavies now to be pushed on and off the table with a broom as people dump bucketloads of dice that take forever to count hits. At this point the community either needs to make its own rules or just switch to kill team, because there's probably no improving 40k for there to even be a place for elite armies at this point.
This. 40K is a hot mess, sure the models and the background are wonderful. However the rules are some of the worst I have encountered in my 30 years of miniature gaming. So full of needless bloat to try to add flavour, and also lacking in any real decision making.
If people want to try a game of what 40k should be, play One Page Rules Grim Dark. The rules are very easy to learn, but offer a lot more than what current 40k does.
As it is GW will not fix their broken system, as they are too addictied to adding special rules, and will not adopt Alternative Activations. Also they need to abandon the armour save mechanic, and instead have Armour as a stat the attack needs to equal or beat in order to cause a wound, armour should be constantly active, not passive.
Lol I'm sorry but you are entirely wrong. The game is definitely not perfect but it's a quality wargame with more dynamics and variety than others. The sales and fans certainly agree. If you're having a bad time you might need to adjust your army, play-style or move on to something different. Not everyone likes chocolate, doesn't mean it doesn't taste sweet.
Popularity is no measure of quality - merely the gullibility, and complacency of the general population; the fans will buy literally anything GW gives them out of misplaced, blind loyalty.
Wyzilla wrote: Popularity is no measure of quality - merely the gullibility, and complacency of the general population; the fans will buy literally anything GW gives them out of misplaced, blind loyalty.
If this were true GW's sales would presumably have remained constant over the past years - and decades.
Wyzilla wrote: Popularity is no measure of quality - merely the gullibility, and complacency of the general population; the fans will buy literally anything GW gives them out of misplaced, blind loyalty.
If this were true GW's sales would presumably have remained constant over the past years - and decades.
That they had sales at all is impressive considering each edition is minting out a game with only minor rule changes for little benefit. Looking back on it the whole edition mechanic is surreal, considering it allows GW to re-sell the game every 5-10 years consistently and not really suffer for it, instead of just releasing a well balanced set of rules and never touching it again to avoid disrupting a carefully catered meta. But then again I suppose people also keep buying videogames like Call of Duty or Madden, so peer pressure seems quite an effective marketing tool to coerce people into buy into the same product.
Popularity is no measure of quality - merely the gullibility, and complacency of the general population; the fans will buy literally anything GW gives them out of misplaced, blind loyalty.
Generally speaking you're right: just look at MCU movies and stuff like that. Pretty mediocre movies but gross more than billion. We can say the same for a bazillion of commercial musical "artists".
However people that buy miniatures that they don't like are extremely uncommon. They buy the models because the game, especially the competitve one, is only a fraction of the hobby. People that consider 40k a complete mess are those ones who are eager to prove how skillful they are and at the same time don't want to invest money and time chasing the most competitive lists of the moment. Those people want something that 40k will never have IMHO and it's probably a good thing.
Popularity is no measure of quality - merely the gullibility, and complacency of the general population; the fans will buy literally anything GW gives them out of misplaced, blind loyalty.
Generally speaking you're right: just look at MCU movies and stuff like that. Pretty mediocre movies but gross more than billion. We can say the same for a bazillion of commercial musical "artists".
However people that buy miniatures that they don't like are extremely uncommon. They buy the models because the game, especially the competitve one, is only a fraction of the hobby. People that consider 40k a complete mess are those ones who are eager to prove how skillful they are and at the same time don't want to invest money and time chasing the most competitive lists of the moment. Those people want something that 40k will never have IMHO and it's probably a good thing.
unit by unit activation would be a pain. (more reasons to explain than this thread should hold)
I loved the Psychic Phase in 2nd ed. it was a fun mini game.
But it did slow up the game.
3rd had Psychics in lieu of shooting. I think that is the right track. Make Psychics either a movement or shooting or assault phase depending on the power.
THEN
to make the unit activation people happy and the "I got tabled b4 my 1st turn".....try this
The game goes by unit types for activations during phases.
Example:
Fast Attack units for Player A, Then Fast Attack units for Player B.
Then HQ units for Player A, followed by Player B's
Then Elite Units for Player A...followed by Player B's
Infantry Troops would come next
Follow them with Flyers, Heavy Support, LoW and finally Fortifications.
We all love Heavies and big killy things, but now units that are supposed to be fast reactionary units can gain a benefit.
I can see Tactical Marines all getting an ELITE ability to make Marine forces better than hammer forces of the Guard and such.
I'd rather not see marines reduced in points. I think they suffer from a lack of offensive power and any type of strats/powers to help improve their durability.
Re-rolls need to be divorced from the characters and just given as a basic marine rule. Re-roll 1's to hit and wounds for all marine infantry. Increases lethality, reflects the fluff of super soldiers and tactically allows marines to operate as individual strike teams.
Castling with marines is such bad gameplay. Give the HQs cool abilities (-1 to ap bubbles, re-roll save bubbles, +1 str bubble, extra shot if they don't move bubbles) to allow HQs to "specialize" the basic troops.
Native deepstrike or a deepstrike strat (paying 63 points or whatever for a drop pod is a tax that marines can't afford at the moment).
Higher levels of special weapon saturation would be nice as well. 2 specials and 1 heavy per 5 man would be nice. NF should be roll moral tests on 2 dice pick the lowest.
Chainswords need to be -1 ap.
Different chapter tactics with alternative tactics for vehicles.
All of this and a complete stratagem overhaul. Drop pod assault, X cp deploy all troops as if they were scouts. Some sort of shoot twice strat. +1 to save strat. Re-roll failed save strat. Ignore over-heat strat. Invuln save strat. Mobility strat (move twice/teleport on table). Disembark after moving strat. Redeploy strat.
With all of that and no points decrease I think marines would at least be fun to play and present some tactical choices which they do not have now (being forced to castle up around gulliman with sniper scouts is terrible). Plus these changes don't mess with the basic marine too much so if those filthy traitors got their hands on them GW wouldn't have to re-write 10 books.
40k sells well due to many reasons. Product recognition, easy of player base, immersion of the setting, wonderful models, and brand loyalty. Not every sale is linked into a support of the current system, not everyone uses GW miniatures for gaming or even for GW games.
Also strong sales is not a good measure of quality, because that means that SubWay and McDonalds are now the world's best restaurants, so naturally they serve the best food.
Too often people only play GW games and dismiss any other miniature game out of hand before even trying it. Yes, GW make some good games (Warhammer Underworlds comes to mind), but their core flagship games are quite behind when it comes to modern game design. The hobby of pushing around plastic/metal toys and making pew pew noises is vast, I urge everyone to go out and explore it.
The white knighting of GW rules is insane here. You are welcome to enjoy the game as much as you want, but that does not make 8th Ed. A good rules set. It’s frankly quite terrible.
Popularity has never, ever been an indicator as to how good something is. Just look at the VHS vs Beta technology back in the 80’s. Beta was superior in every way quality wise. The only reason VHS won out is because the Porn industry adopted it as its medium of choice due to its lower manufacturing cost.
There is so much wrong with 40k, it hurts my head to think about why they would have designed it like that. And AOS is even worse.
I’m not trying to be mean here, but the entirety of GW games development team should be fired.
bananathug wrote: I'd rather not see marines reduced in points. I think they suffer from a lack of offensive power and any type of strats/powers to help improve their durability.
Re-rolls need to be divorced from the characters and just given as a basic marine rule. Re-roll 1's to hit and wounds for all marine infantry. Increases lethality, reflects the fluff of super soldiers and tactically allows marines to operate as individual strike teams.
Castling with marines is such bad gameplay. Give the HQs cool abilities (-1 to ap bubbles, re-roll save bubbles, +1 str bubble, extra shot if they don't move bubbles) to allow HQs to "specialize" the basic troops.
Native deepstrike or a deepstrike strat (paying 63 points or whatever for a drop pod is a tax that marines can't afford at the moment).
Higher levels of special weapon saturation would be nice as well. 2 specials and 1 heavy per 5 man would be nice. NF should be roll moral tests on 2 dice pick the lowest.
Chainswords need to be -1 ap.
Different chapter tactics with alternative tactics for vehicles.
All of this and a complete stratagem overhaul. Drop pod assault, X cp deploy all troops as if they were scouts. Some sort of shoot twice strat. +1 to save strat. Re-roll failed save strat. Ignore over-heat strat. Invuln save strat. Mobility strat (move twice/teleport on table). Disembark after moving strat. Redeploy strat.
With all of that and no points decrease I think marines would at least be fun to play and present some tactical choices which they do not have now (being forced to castle up around gulliman with sniper scouts is terrible). Plus these changes don't mess with the basic marine too much so if those filthy traitors got their hands on them GW wouldn't have to re-write 10 books.
I think giving them legion rules from 30k would benefit the entirety of the space marines. Chapter rules need to be looked at and seriously considered in making them more eventful and allowing for emergent gameplay choices that give players agency.
The current -1 to hit is such a stupid mechanic because it is not an emergent choice it is a flat out decrease that cannot be avoided unless it is otherwise stated. And especially with the importance of gunline armies and close combat being so underwhelming it is no wonder why we don't see close combat infantry because they outright suck compared to gunline counterparts.
Brutus_Apex wrote: The white knighting of GW rules is insane here. You are welcome to enjoy the game as much as you want, but that does not make 8th Ed. A good rules set. It’s frankly quite terrible.
Popularity has never, ever been an indicator as to how good something is. Just look at the VHS vs Beta technology back in the 80’s. Beta was superior in every way quality wise. The only reason VHS won out is because the Porn industry adopted it as its medium of choice due to its lower manufacturing cost.
There is so much wrong with 40k, it hurts my head to think about why they would have designed it like that. And AOS is even worse.
I’m not trying to be mean here, but the entirety of GW games development team should be fired.
It’s so weird that you accurately describe the problem that the market gives incentives to make something other than a good product but then say the designers should be fired as though a new set of designers wouldn’t be controlled by the same production incentives and demand eleasticity and management and make the same kind of sloppy product.
To make a good product they’d need to not be driven by sales and capital intensity. And unfortunately there isn’t an immediate alternative to that because if it were a creator owned game and the rules and models were free electronic files then they’d not get very much done and they’d get oushed into a corner of the market by some highly capitalized business making a suboptimal game just like GW is now.
bananathug wrote: I'd rather not see marines reduced in points. I think they suffer from a lack of offensive power and any type of strats/powers to help improve their durability.
Re-rolls need to be divorced from the characters and just given as a basic marine rule. Re-roll 1's to hit and wounds for all marine infantry. Increases lethality, reflects the fluff of super soldiers and tactically allows marines to operate as individual strike teams.
Castling with marines is such bad gameplay. Give the HQs cool abilities (-1 to ap bubbles, re-roll save bubbles, +1 str bubble, extra shot if they don't move bubbles) to allow HQs to "specialize" the basic troops.
Native deepstrike or a deepstrike strat (paying 63 points or whatever for a drop pod is a tax that marines can't afford at the moment).
Higher levels of special weapon saturation would be nice as well. 2 specials and 1 heavy per 5 man would be nice. NF should be roll moral tests on 2 dice pick the lowest.
Chainswords need to be -1 ap.
Different chapter tactics with alternative tactics for vehicles.
All of this and a complete stratagem overhaul. Drop pod assault, X cp deploy all troops as if they were scouts. Some sort of shoot twice strat. +1 to save strat. Re-roll failed save strat. Ignore over-heat strat. Invuln save strat. Mobility strat (move twice/teleport on table). Disembark after moving strat. Redeploy strat.
With all of that and no points decrease I think marines would at least be fun to play and present some tactical choices which they do not have now (being forced to castle up around gulliman with sniper scouts is terrible). Plus these changes don't mess with the basic marine too much so if those filthy traitors got their hands on them GW wouldn't have to re-write 10 books.
So is all of this written with competitive tournaments in mind? I have yet to have a game where I suffer from a lack of offensive punch, but I haven't played in the competitive scene yet. That being said, there are no shortage of ways for me to put a lot of damage on the table, so I don't see where this is coming from.
I really like the idea of NF having a roll 2 take the better result mechanic. I like it a LOT actually. The more we can remove rerolls the quicker game play can be. I also don't understand the mindset to deny chapter tactics to our vehicles. I think that was a mistake.
As someone who plays BT, and runs Crusader Squads with a ton of CS... I would LOVE to see -1ap added to them, but I feel like that would be unbalanced.
Ishagu wrote: The game is definitely not perfect but it's a quality wargame with more dynamics and variety than others. The sales and fans certainly agree.
I have never met anyone who switched to 40K from Dust, Bolt Action, Flames of War, Infinity, Dropzone Commander, or any other reasonably popular wargame because they liked 40K's rules more. Models, yes, fluff, yes, availability, yes, community, yes, rules- hell no. The mechanical changes in AoS and Kill Team show that new-GW is at least willing to innovate on the core WHF/40K system, but they're still a long ways from having a ruleset that is appealing to wargamers on its own right.
Having the rules support a model range rather than the other way around means they're wedded to all the bloat and chrome that gets in the way of good design, but they could at least take a page from the rest of the industry (or their prior games, see: Epic) and consider things like command systems, alternating activation, and range modifiers. Epic's command/activation system gave elite armies like Space Marines a simple, tangible advantage over Orks or Guard that had nothing to do with rivet-counting weapon stats or slapping special rules on them.
I remember the extensive threads about how the AP system in 3-7 edition hurt power armor the most, now we're hearing the same about armor modifiers (even by the same people) Same with sweeping advance, or grenades, or cover, or pistols, or a hundred other things.
SM players have absolutely shown an unwillingness to use any advantage they have, and deny any winning strategy as "not counting", because they'd rather be able to win tournaments with the any they got straight out of Assault on Black Reach. And when they lose, rather than change, they just start crying to GW for a shower of buffs.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I remember the extensive threads about how the AP system in 3-7 edition hurt power armor the most, now we're hearing the same about armor modifiers (even by the same people) Same with sweeping advance, or grenades, or cover, or pistols, or a hundred other things.
SM players have absolutely shown an unwillingness to use any advantage they have, and deny any winning strategy as "not counting", because they'd rather be able to win tournaments with the any they got straight out of Assault on Black Reach. And when they lose, rather than change, they just start crying to GW for a shower of buffs.
I think players have taken into account that marines are not cost effective. Even at the local hobby scene, people struggle to justify playing marines over the stronger races. Its also just they underperform at every event?
Blaming players for being salty or 'being too stubborn' is a rash over generalization.
If anything marines just need better weapons, better rules, and rules that actually matter. Making Marines 'the baseline' has been a mistake for years.
With the advent of knights all infantry balance is thrown out the window as it is now "How do we beat knights?" Instead of "How do we deal with MEQ?"
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I remember the extensive threads about how the AP system in 3-7 edition hurt power armor the most, now we're hearing the same about armor modifiers (even by the same people) Same with sweeping advance, or grenades, or cover, or pistols, or a hundred other things.
SM players have absolutely shown an unwillingness to use any advantage they have, and deny any winning strategy as "not counting", because they'd rather be able to win tournaments with the any they got straight out of Assault on Black Reach. And when they lose, rather than change, they just start crying to GW for a shower of buffs.
The way cover interacted with saves back in 3rd meant you never worried about it for your super soldiers, and countless threads defended 40k’s AP system as being more realistic with regards to ballistic weaponry compared to WHFB’s system that represented metal armour being crunched by bigger metal weapons. Now we have poorly transitioned to the AP system of a dead game. Pretty cool.
Feel free to chime in and let SM players know what their advantage is though, and what they’re doing wrong. If you could refrain from chiming in that their advantage is being able to ally in Guard and Knights that would be great. Thanks Luke.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I remember the extensive threads about how the AP system in 3-7 edition hurt power armor the most, now we're hearing the same about armor modifiers (even by the same people) Same with sweeping advance, or grenades, or cover, or pistols, or a hundred other things.
SM players have absolutely shown an unwillingness to use any advantage they have, and deny any winning strategy as "not counting", because they'd rather be able to win tournaments with the any they got straight out of Assault on Black Reach. And when they lose, rather than change, they just start crying to GW for a shower of buffs.
Except not all of us in here play space marines, and can recognize that they're in a really bad place, but this also comes with a modicum of self awareness.
"People would win, if they were smart like me." Pretty gross statement to make really.
Imperial Guard have won the most tournaments out of anyone. Does that mean your average guard player is smarter than the average Necrons player? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that one army is overpowered and one army sucks?
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
Rerolling saves was stupid the first time it was introduced.
Durability is fine. It's the offensive power they lack.
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
Remove the defense ability and keep that only for terminators. otherwise good list of changes I might run a test game against my eldar and see what happens.
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
Rerolling saves was stupid the first time it was introduced.
Durability is fine. It's the offensive power they lack.
Except this isn't the past, it's 8th edition. What edition do you think it is?
Durability isn't fine. Simple math exercises prove this.
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
Rerolling saves was stupid the first time it was introduced.
Durability is fine. It's the offensive power they lack.
Except this isn't the past, it's 8th edition. What edition do you think it is?
Durability isn't fine. Simple math exercises prove this.
I remember posting an article about this, but PPM its that a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage to a squad of space marines.
Blackie wrote:However people that buy miniatures that they don't like are extremely uncommon. They buy the models because the game, especially the competitve one, is only a fraction of the hobby. People that consider 40k a complete mess are those ones who are eager to prove how skillful they are and at the same time don't want to invest money and time chasing the most competitive lists of the moment. Those people want something that 40k will never have IMHO and it's probably a good thing.
Not entirely true. I've known 40K to be a mess of rules for quite some time. It happened when I started to become a rule hound in 6th Ed. I built for the hobby and played for the group. I stopped when I knew I would have arguments with the group over how the rules should operate because the rules would say one thing and the FAQ another, with no change to the actual written rule, particularly the Independent Character rule (which could be the biggest hot mess of rules 40K has ever had). Since then I turned to WMH because I enjoyed the lore and models as much, but wouldn't have to worry about having a noisy argument over the rules over the table. I may return to 40K and start AoS at some time because I enjoy the company of the groups who play them (though, many are WMH players, too) and I like the models, but that will be after my income is back up to par.
Asherian Command wrote: I remember posting an article about this, but PPM its that a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage to a squad of space marines.
Its different problems for different units.
Being able to reroll armour saves would be nice for say Devestators or - assuming we making it universal - Strike Marines.
It would however do very little to make tactical or assault marines worth taking.
Which really comes down to the issue. When people talk about the "Power Armour Problem" - do they mean "Marine Armies suck" or "these units are garbage".
Because cynically I suspect we shall see some stormsheild spam Marine lists in the post-CA world that may well not be that bad. They are certainly not going to be weak on the survivability side of things.
But its almost certainly going to be some min units of scouts to get a bit of board control & CP. Tactical marines need not apply.
And Chaos is just lolworthy. You can't get stormsheilds - but you might have got drop double-tap plasma, so nerf.
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
Without commenting on #'s 2-5, idea #1 is a wee bit overboard.
Small arms fire becomes so ineffective as to be pointless or better used against tanks.
Case in point, lets use lasguns and bolters. You basically triple the number of shots needed to inflict a wound. You need an average of 54 BS4+ lasguns or 27 BS3+ bolters to kill a marine at that point, 108/54 to kill a Primaris marine.
To kill a squad of marines, you'd need more concentrated lasgun fire than it takes to kill a battle tank. If you brought enough Lasguns to bear to kill a Leman Russ, you'd average 8 dead marines with the same firepower. To kill a squad of 10 Primaris marines, youd need almost as many lasguns as youd need to kill a T8 W16 2+sv Land Raider, well over a thousand shots.
For what it would take to Lasgun 10 Terminators to death, you could slay a Reaver Titan.
It doesn't get much better with heavy weapons either. With AP-3 weapons, they effectively have a 5+ save and against AP-2 weapons have a slightly better than 4+ save. Specialized anti-meq weapons like Disintegrators with S5 and AP-2 become better anti-tank than anti-meq in that context. You'd need 26 BS3+ overcharged plasma guns to kill a squad of marines (either flavor).
A W2 Primaris Marine rerolling all failed armor saves, immune to morale, and AP-1 on 6's to hit us going to be worth far more than 17pts.
While marines could use some assistance, rerolling failed saves takes it wayyy too far the other way.
I think cutting 3ppm off most marine infantry units would alleviate most major balance issues without getting into gobs of special rules.
Vaktathi wrote: Without commenting on #'s 2-5, idea #1 is a wee bit overboard.
Perhaps a modification of it then. Reroll failed armor saves on a 5+, with armor save modifiers applied. So AP -1 would grant a 6+ reroll, and better APs don't grant anything. That makes Marines more durable against smallarms fire, but not especially so against weapons that should be popping tanks.
It occurs to me there's nothing really wrong with power armor Marines a couple good stratagems couldn't solve. Perhaps a strat that would let them disembark from a transport after it moved, and another strat that lets a squad shoot twice with its bolters.
Also, I don't think we've ever had an edition where Marine players were mechanically encouraged to play Marines in the way the fluff suggests they should be played. According to the fluff, the most common Marine fighting formation should be a Battle Company, so the most fluffy lists would represent this and be comprised of 10-man Tac, Assault, and Dev Squads. I think the closest we've come to this actually translating to the table would be 5th edition, when it was advantageous to base a list around a couple of 10-man Tac Squads in Rhinos (with melta/multimelta). 7th ed also came fairly close, although only by bribing Marine players with boatloads of free transports and turning Marine lists almost into horde armies.
Currently, it is not efficient to run 10-man squads unless doing so maximizes the benefit of using a strat. Otherwise, you're essentially cheating yourself out of CP. If I buy a 10-man Tac Squad, I'm paying more points than I would pay for 3 IG Infantry Squads. It makes no sense for me to do so, particularly when that 130pts gets me a pretty mediocre unit that requires the expenditure of more points to make it even marginally useful, while there is an alternative that can be useful without needing extra points spent on it, and is cheaper to boot (Scouts).
Another fix for Marines might be for their core units to be eligible to count as 2 units for the purposes of filling compulsory detachment slots if they are at 10-man strength. That plus a few decent strats for the core units might be enough to entice players into using them.
I really don't think this game needs more rerolls. The durability buff the marines need is to move fully to Primaris and either nerfing or increasing the cost of some of the D2 weapons in the game.
Crimson wrote: I really don't think this game needs more rerolls. The durability buff the marines need is to move fully to Primaris and either nerfing or increasing the cost of some of the D2 weapons in the game.
2W would help but so would a reroll, The reroll adds more durability but slows down the game.
Possibly just giving all marines on base a 6+ Invulnerable save would probably help.
Brutus_Apex wrote: The white knighting of GW rules is insane here. You are welcome to enjoy the game as much as you want, but that does not make 8th Ed. A good rules set. It’s frankly quite terrible.
Popularity has never, ever been an indicator as to how good something is. Just look at the VHS vs Beta technology back in the 80’s. Beta was superior in every way quality wise. The only reason VHS won out is because the Porn industry adopted it as its medium of choice due to its lower manufacturing cost.
There is so much wrong with 40k, it hurts my head to think about why they would have designed it like that. And AOS is even worse.
I’m not trying to be mean here, but the entirety of GW games development team should be fired.
8E 40K has an “okay” set of rules - not great, but not the worst thing either. The big problem is the rule set was written for a casual crowd, by a casual-to-story focused company and with a much lower point value in mind than the company is actually pushing. Further, the game never has been, nor will it ever be suitable for a competitive-style game. It’s been shoehorned to work in tournaments because a whole segment of the community would lose their top if GW didn’t make an attempt to acknowledge their existence.
The last thing we need is more Re-rolls. I like the idea of giving all marines Fury of the Legion. Fire twice with bolters but have to reload next turn. Marines should really shred stuff at 12 inches. I don't think durability is an issue. You want the game to be fun for both people. And if that means marines die, then so be it. Remember how annoying it was to play against the Decurion?
Banville wrote: The last thing we need is more Re-rolls. I like the idea of giving all marines Fury of the Legion. Fire twice with bolters but have to reload next turn. Marines should really shred stuff at 12 inches. I don't think durability is an issue. You want the game to be fun for both people. And if that means marines die, then so be it. Remember how annoying it was to play against the Decurion?
We could also limit so that you can only take 1 super heavy per a 2k points. Then have it so all knights were super heavys.
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
Barf.
The only thing in there that's really palatable is ATSKNF buff.
And
quote: Slayer-Fan123 "Durability is fine. It's the offensive power they lack."
Slayer-Fan and I agree on this. Slayer-Fan and I NEVER agree. But he's 100% right on this. Marine durability is fine. Any improvement to marine durability heads straight into novel-*ank-ville, and makes most other basic infantry feel like ****. Right now a full squad of Guardsmen rapid-firing only take down a single marine. If the marine is in cover, it takes two full squads firing at short range to take one down. It takes four squads rapid-firing to kill a Terminator. Improvements to marine durability are unnecessary.
Marines die because they are infantry in a tank battle, and that's fine.
I remember posting an article about this, but PPM its that a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage to a squad of space marines.
So don't waste your time shooting your Plasma into Guardsmen. Shoot it at the tank behind them.
It confuses me that people complain about how massed infantry fire does more pts of damage to Marines than Guardsmen.
Isn't that how it should be? Aren't Guard supposed to be meatshields, there to absorb firepower so that it doesn't damage more valuable things? If anything, the problem is that with their orders, cheapness, and 8th Ed AP system, Guardsmen have much better firepower for the points, and that's not how it should be at all.
I don't like the idea of Marines auto-passing morale, but then again, I don't like how morale currently has minimal impact on the game. If morale were reworked to allow units like Guardsmen to be rendered combat-ineffective with relatively few casualties, then having much superior morale would make Marines much more resilient in comparison.
In general they should quite a bit more damage than they do.
Fluff wise, they are a blitzkreig type shock and awe force that strikes the enemy at its weakest point and breaks it with overwhelming force.
Their current competitive list...gun line. How boring can you get?
They should be a force to reckon with at short range. In both melee and shooting.
Almost none of their rules reflect this. Their stat line is over-costed and subpar.
A lot of people think that marines should be more survivable, when in reality they need to do more damage to reflect their fluff and to fix the army in general.
definitely agree here, in the fluff marines are basically special forces who drop in from thunderhawk or drop pod with a companycor demi company sized force and rip the heart out of the enenmy causing massive damage. on the tabletop though they act like smaller more armoured guardsmen.
So don't waste your time shooting your Plasma into Guardsmen. Shoot it at the tank behind them.
what...
That isn't what. Here read this
At 24 inches, a Guardsman firing at a Predator (T7, 3+ AS) causes 0.0069 Wounds per Point (hereafter referred to as WPP for brevity’s sake): 1 shot, hitting 50% of the time, wounding 16% of the time and going through the tank’s armour 33% of the time will do 0.027 wounds, which is then divided by the model’s cost (4 points), giving us 0.0069 WPP. At the same range, a Tactical Marine will cause 0.0056 WPP to the vehicle: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 33% of the time and defeating the tank’s armour 33% of the time causes 074 wounds, which is then divided by the model’s cost (13 points), giving us 0.0056 WPP. If you’re even the least bit good at math, you will have already calculated that the Guardsman does over 20% more Wounds per Point that a Tactical Marine against the Predator.
“Well, so what? It’s not like shooting at tanks is what Bolters are supposed to be good at, anyways!”
True, but the bad news is that it only goes downhill from here:
At 24 inches, a Guardsman firing at a Chaos Marine (T4, 3+ AS) will cause 0.0138 WPP: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 33% of the time and going through the armour 33% of the time will cause 0.055 wounds. Divided by model cost of 4 points leaves us with 0.0138 WWP. At the same range, a Tactical Marine will cause 0.0085 WPP to his heretical counterpart: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and going through the filthy corrupted armour 33% of time will cause 0.111 wounds; divided by 13 points, we get 0.0085 WPP. So, that’s over 60% more WPP against the Chaos Marine for the Imperial Guardsman. Ouch.
“Hmm… well ok, that’s bad, but bolters have always been best at shredding light infantry anyways!”
Hang on to your hat, my friend!
At 24 inches, a Guardsman firing at another Guardsman will cause 0.0416 WPP: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and going through the armour 66% of the time will cause 0.166 wound, which is then divided by the model’s cost of 4 points = 0.0416 WPP. At the same range, a Tactical Marine will cause 0.0227 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 66% of the time and going through the armour 66% of the time, divided by a model cost of 13 pts = 0.0227 WWP. That is over 80% more WPP in favour of the Guardsman! Holy smokes!
“Well, ok, Tacticals don’t do a lot of damage, but at least they are durable, right?”
Are they really, though? Let’s take a look:
A 4-points Guardsman will suffer 0.66 WPP from a Chaos Cultist (BS 4+) firing an autogun (S3 Ap0) at him from 24 inches away: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and bypassing the flak armour 66% of time will cause 0.16 wounds, which is then multiplied by the model’s cost (4 points), giving us 0.66 WPP suffered. A 13-points Tactical Marine will suffer 0.72 WPP from the same Chaos Cultist: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 33% of the time, bypassing the Marine’s armour 33% will cause 0.05 wounds, which multiplied by 13 (points), gives us 0.72 WPP. So the Tactical Marine will suffer about 8% more WPP than the Guardsman will in this instance. That’s unbalanced but within the realm of the tolerable. The thing is that once again, that’s just the tip of the iceberg…
When shot at by a Chaos Marine (BS 3+) wielding a Boltgun (S4 Ap 0), our Guardsman loses 1.18 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 66% of the time and bypassing the Guardsman’s armour 66% of the time causes 0.29 wounds, which multiplied by 4 points gives us 1.18 WPP. In the same situation, our Tactical Marine will suffer 1.44 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and bypassing power armour 33% of the time will cause 0.11 wounds, which multiplied by 13 points gives 1.44 WPP. In this scenario, our Tactical Marines suffers over 20% more WPP than the Guardsman! And if you think that’s bad, just wait when we introduce a weapon with a good AP into the mix!
When shot by a Tempestus Scion Stormtrooper (BS 3+) with a Plasmagun (S7 Ap -3), a Guardsman will suffer 2.22 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 83% of the time and completing negating his armour will cause 0.55 wounds. Multiplied by 4 points gives us 2.22 WPP. In the same situation, our Tactical Marine will lose 4.81 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 66% of the time and bypassing the armour 83% of the time will cause 0.37 wounds. Multiplied by 13 gives us 4.81 WPP.
catbarf wrote: It confuses me that people complain about how massed infantry fire does more pts of damage to Marines than Guardsmen.
Isn't that how it should be? Aren't Guard supposed to be meatshields, there to absorb firepower so that it doesn't damage more valuable things? If anything, the problem is that with their orders, cheapness, and 8th Ed AP system, Guardsmen have much better firepower for the points, and that's not how it should be at all.
I don't like the idea of Marines auto-passing morale, but then again, I don't like how morale currently has minimal impact on the game. If morale were reworked to allow units like Guardsmen to be rendered combat-ineffective with relatively few casualties, then having much superior morale would make Marines much more resilient in comparison.
I think their major issue is that the durability decreases so dramatically among space marines saying "oh well they are better than ever with having their save completely decrease by every single -ap is better than any other edition!" Is missing the point, you rarely have you +3 save because everyone can ignore it so easily. -AP weapons are far more common because of specialists being inexpensive and knights being run in every army. Marines having more damage might solve the issue but that doesn't fix their fundamental flaw, which is their +3 save not saving them at all.
So don't waste your time shooting your Plasma into Guardsmen. Shoot it at the tank behind them.
what...
That isn't what. Here read this
At 24 inches, a Guardsman firing at a Predator (T7, 3+ AS) causes 0.0069 Wounds per Point (hereafter referred to as WPP for brevity’s sake): 1 shot, hitting 50% of the time, wounding 16% of the time and going through the tank’s armour 33% of the time will do 0.027 wounds, which is then divided by the model’s cost (4 points), giving us 0.0069 WPP.
At the same range, a Tactical Marine will cause 0.0056 WPP to the vehicle: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 33% of the time and defeating the tank’s armour 33% of the time causes 074 wounds, which is then divided by the model’s cost (13 points), giving us 0.0056 WPP.
If you’re even the least bit good at math, you will have already calculated that the Guardsman does over 20% more Wounds per Point that a Tactical Marine against the Predator.
“Well, so what? It’s not like shooting at tanks is what Bolters are supposed to be good at, anyways!”
True, but the bad news is that it only goes downhill from here:
At 24 inches, a Guardsman firing at a Chaos Marine (T4, 3+ AS) will cause 0.0138 WPP: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 33% of the time and going through the armour 33% of the time will cause 0.055 wounds. Divided by model cost of 4 points leaves us with 0.0138 WWP.
At the same range, a Tactical Marine will cause 0.0085 WPP to his heretical counterpart: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and going through the filthy corrupted armour 33% of time will cause 0.111 wounds; divided by 13 points, we get 0.0085 WPP.
So, that’s over 60% more WPP against the Chaos Marine for the Imperial Guardsman. Ouch.
“Hmm… well ok, that’s bad, but bolters have always been best at shredding light infantry anyways!”
Hang on to your hat, my friend!
At 24 inches, a Guardsman firing at another Guardsman will cause 0.0416 WPP: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and going through the armour 66% of the time will cause 0.166 wound, which is then divided by the model’s cost of 4 points = 0.0416 WPP.
At the same range, a Tactical Marine will cause 0.0227 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 66% of the time and going through the armour 66% of the time, divided by a model cost of 13 pts = 0.0227 WWP.
That is over 80% more WPP in favour of the Guardsman! Holy smokes!
“Well, ok, Tacticals don’t do a lot of damage, but at least they are durable, right?”
Are they really, though? Let’s take a look:
A 4-points Guardsman will suffer 0.66 WPP from a Chaos Cultist (BS 4+) firing an autogun (S3 Ap0) at him from 24 inches away: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and bypassing the flak armour 66% of time will cause 0.16 wounds, which is then multiplied by the model’s cost (4 points), giving us 0.66 WPP suffered.
A 13-points Tactical Marine will suffer 0.72 WPP from the same Chaos Cultist: 1 shot hitting 50% of the time, wounding 33% of the time, bypassing the Marine’s armour 33% will cause 0.05 wounds, which multiplied by 13 (points), gives us 0.72 WPP.
So the Tactical Marine will suffer about 8% more WPP than the Guardsman will in this instance. That’s unbalanced but within the realm of the tolerable. The thing is that once again, that’s just the tip of the iceberg…
When shot at by a Chaos Marine (BS 3+) wielding a Boltgun (S4 Ap 0), our Guardsman loses 1.18 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 66% of the time and bypassing the Guardsman’s armour 66% of the time causes 0.29 wounds, which multiplied by 4 points gives us 1.18 WPP.
In the same situation, our Tactical Marine will suffer 1.44 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 50% of the time and bypassing power armour 33% of the time will cause 0.11 wounds, which multiplied by 13 points gives 1.44 WPP.
In this scenario, our Tactical Marines suffers over 20% more WPP than the Guardsman! And if you think that’s bad, just wait when we introduce a weapon with a good AP into the mix!
When shot by a Tempestus Scion Stormtrooper (BS 3+) with a Plasmagun (S7 Ap -3), a Guardsman will suffer 2.22 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 83% of the time and completing negating his armour will cause 0.55 wounds. Multiplied by 4 points gives us 2.22 WPP.
In the same situation, our Tactical Marine will lose 4.81 WPP: 1 shot hitting 66% of the time, wounding 66% of the time and bypassing the armour 83% of the time will cause 0.37 wounds. Multiplied by 13 gives us 4.81 WPP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: It confuses me that people complain about how massed infantry fire does more pts of damage to Marines than Guardsmen.
Isn't that how it should be? Aren't Guard supposed to be meatshields, there to absorb firepower so that it doesn't damage more valuable things? If anything, the problem is that with their orders, cheapness, and 8th Ed AP system, Guardsmen have much better firepower for the points, and that's not how it should be at all.
I don't like the idea of Marines auto-passing morale, but then again, I don't like how morale currently has minimal impact on the game. If morale were reworked to allow units like Guardsmen to be rendered combat-ineffective with relatively few casualties, then having much superior morale would make Marines much more resilient in comparison.
I think their major issue is that the durability decreases so dramatically among space marines saying "oh well they are better than ever with having their save completely decrease by every single -ap is better than any other edition!" Is missing the point, you rarely have you +3 save because everyone can ignore it so easily. -AP weapons are far more common because of specialists being inexpensive and knights being run in every army. Marines having more damage might solve the issue but that doesn't fix their fundamental flaw, which is their +3 save not saving them at all.
I remember posting an article about this, but PPM its that a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage to a squad of space marines.
Did you mean:" . . .a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage than a squad of space marines."?
I still don't get how we get from your statement to the long post.
Did you mean:" . . .a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage than a squad of space marines."?
No
Marines are dealt more damage to the entire unit and are less effective because of their points cost. If two of them die to a single plasma gun rapid fire that is 28pts down the drain, giving guardsmen and everyone wide access to ap-3 destroys space marines competitive edge.
I read that my original post to your statement is spot on.
"a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage to a squad of space marines."
Don't waste your time firing plasma at Guardsmen. Shoot at something that will give a better return on points, if that's your metric.
I read that my original post to your statement is spot on.
"a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage to a squad of space marines."
Don't waste your time firing plasma at Guardsmen. Shoot at something that will give a better return on points, if that's your metric.
How does that solve the problem? If a guardsmen squad does more PPW to space marines, and space marines suffer WPM how is that a 'good' metric. You can't just ignore an entire squad of guardsmen that is lunacy, especially for space marines. Read the article and at least understand that stand point.
Blndmage wrote: If people are worried about durability, why not have a reroll on any successful roll to wound any ASTARTIES INFANTRY.
It'd be an ASTARTIES only thing.
Rerolls slow down the game as is.
I think the best thing for marines is the ability to ignore all weapons with a strength less than the marines toughness lowers that ap - by 1.
So
Iron within Iron Without (something along those lines)
Due to having superior toughness than most beings and near inhuman ability to recover from almost any wound. Space Marines may ignore 1 ap from any ranged weapon or close combat weapon if the opposing unit or weapon has less total strength than the toughness of the space marine.
It would make bikes very powerful, aggressors incredibly durable, and all space marine tanks ungodly powerful. This would have to be fine tuned but marines are already expensive removing combat squads for that ability would make them the most durable units in the game. Especially their vechiles and dreadnoughts.
Crimson wrote: People, no fiddly special rules. TWO WOUNDS! That's simple and easy.
That makes deathguard worse then!
Not if they get two wounds too! Just squat the minimarines and give all the remaining marines the Primaris statline. That is actually workable under the current system.
What if, instead of squatting MiniMarines, we came to the conclusion that the gulf in capability between Real Marines and Primaris Marines is smaller than the gulf between stats? So they use the same rules?
An Ork Boy is less capable than an Ork Boy that's 10% bigger, but they both use the same statline and rules.
Bharring wrote: What if, instead of squatting MiniMarines, we came to the conclusion that the gulf in capability between Real Marines and Primaris Marines is smaller than the gulf between stats? So they use the same rules?
An Ork Boy is less capable than an Ork Boy that's 10% bigger, but they both use the same statline and rules.
Sure, that's fine too. The point ultimately being that the old marine statline does not work whilst the primaris statline can work.
I read that my original post to your statement is spot on.
"a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage to a squad of space marines."
Don't waste your time firing plasma at Guardsmen. Shoot at something that will give a better return on points, if that's your metric.
How does that solve the problem? If a guardsmen squad does more PPW to space marines, and space marines suffer WPM how is that a 'good' metric. You can't just ignore an entire squad of guardsmen that is lunacy, especially for space marines. Read the article and at least understand that stand point.
You know what has excellent durability for it's points? A Rhino. Guardsmen are 4 points per wound for 10 T3, 5+ wounds. A Rhino is 7 ppw for 10 T7 3+ wounds. Put your Space Marines in a Rhino. Or behind a Rhino. Or use the Rhino to charge the Guardsmen while your Space Marines shoot the tank with their Plasmagun/whatever. But in response to "You can't just ignore an entire squad of guardsmen that is lunacy" the Guardsmen aren't armed with a Plasma Gun(and they frequently aren't) It might be perfectly acceptable to ignore their potential return fire anyways, given that it takes 18ish Lasgun shots to kill a single Space Marine out of cover.
You can do all the math in the world to try and illustrate the issue, but there are a number of other units available to you, and as long as there is some answer to the issue among the 90 units in the Space Marine book, you're doing ok.
Also, given the full read of the long post, the entire first half of it is about Space Marines lack of offensive capability per point. Why the focus on defense when you can fix offense instead?
Asherian Command wrote: Space marines also need to deal more damage, just adding a wound won't fix space marines fundemental flaw of not dealing enough damage.
Sure. The Primaris marines already have better bolters, though they're still not doing enough damage.
I read that my original post to your statement is spot on.
"a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage to a squad of space marines."
Don't waste your time firing plasma at Guardsmen. Shoot at something that will give a better return on points, if that's your metric.
How does that solve the problem? If a guardsmen squad does more PPW to space marines, and space marines suffer WPM how is that a 'good' metric. You can't just ignore an entire squad of guardsmen that is lunacy, especially for space marines. Read the article and at least understand that stand point.
You know what has excellent durability for it's points? A Rhino. Guardsmen are 4 points per wound for 10 T3, 5+ wounds. A Rhino is 7 ppw for 10 T7 3+ wounds. Put your Space Marines in a Rhino. Or behind a Rhino. Or use the Rhino to charge the Guardsmen while your Space Marines shoot the tank with their Plasmagun/whatever. But in response to "You can't just ignore an entire squad of guardsmen that is lunacy" the Guardsmen aren't armed with a Plasma Gun(and they frequently aren't) It might be perfectly acceptable to ignore their potential return fire anyways, given that it takes 18ish Lasgun shots to kill a single Space Marine out of cover.
You can do all the math in the world to try and illustrate the issue, but there are a number of other units available to you, and as long as there is some answer to the issue among the 90 units in the Space Marine book, you're doing ok.
Also, given the full read of the long post, the entire first half of it is about Space Marines lack of offensive capability per point. Why the focus on defense when you can fix offense instead?
Asherian Command wrote: Space marines also need to deal more damage, just adding a wound won't fix space marines fundemental flaw of not dealing enough damage.
Sure. The Primaris marines already have better bolters, though they're still not doing enough damage.
So just give bolters their -1 ap again.... Like they used to have for all 7 editions
The fact heavy bolters don't have their -2 ap is mind-bogglingly stupid.
I like to think of tabletop mechanics as the following - if you need rerolls it means that the thing you're re-rolling is fundamentally broken. They aren't good game design but a band-aid slapped on to make things passably work. Like commander auras or special abilities, dice should be dice and their results should not be reset. I concur that just upgrading them all to a 2W statline would both be better and saner. And if 2w doesn't do enough or the scale creeps forward again, jack up their toughness because for the love of god the toughness and strength limit is GONE. No reason why we can't have toughness 16 tanks and such.
Also, given the full read of the long post, the entire first half of it is about Space Marines lack of offensive capability per point. Why the focus on defense when you can fix offense instead?
Thats what i've been talking about
Well, you've also been talking about durability:
Asherian Command wrote: "2W would help but so would a reroll, The reroll adds more durability but slows down the game.
Possibly just giving all marines on base a 6+ Invulnerable save would probably help."
vipoid wrote: Would it help at all if Bolters gained +1 to wound against Infantry models?
Yes, but again, we're talking about the most basic weapons in the game. Special rules should be avoided, just adjust the profile.
Give all normal bolters the bolt carbine rules (Assault 2, R24) (they look the same anyway.)
Normal bolt rifle can stay as it.
Give auto bolt rifles the current stormbolter rules (they should have different rules than bolt carbines and need to be better than they're now)
Stalker bolt rifles get the sniper rule.
Stormbolters can become assault 4, range 18, or something, I'm not sure about that.
(Just spitballing here, I've not done rigorous analysis of effects of this.)
Proliferation of AP -1 should be avoided, it ultimately hurts marines the most.
Marmatag wrote: Marines need a reroll of saves or a way to mitigate the volume of attacks or shots that other infantry have. Or just be 2W 2A base at 13pts.
2W 2A works fine. My issue is adding any further amount to rolling dice in the game and purely sticking to modifiers, because the current system is ridiculous
-Roll to advance
-Roll in the psychic phase
-Roll to deny
-Roll to hit
-Re-roll a fair chunk of hits
-Roll to wound
-Re-roll a fair chunk of to-wounds
-Roll your saves
Tacking on re-rolls on top of that is going to really slow gak down, especially infantry combat where a fair amount of hits and wounds are going to succeed.
Marmatag wrote: Marines need a reroll of saves or a way to mitigate the volume of attacks or shots that other infantry have. Or just be 2W 2A base at 13pts.
There's nothing wrong with marines dying to weight of fire. Like I said before you want the game to be fun for both parties, not have your opponent eye roll as his well-worked-out plans are scuppered because marines can just shrug stuff off due to rules and stats that have feck all to do with player skill.
I think most people would rather have marines behave like the shock troops they are and delete things at short range. As it is they're pillow-fisted assault troops toting around cap guns.
Marmatag wrote: Marines need a reroll of saves or a way to mitigate the volume of attacks or shots that other infantry have. Or just be 2W 2A base at 13pts.
There's nothing wrong with marines dying to weight of fire. Like I said before you want the game to be fun for both parties, not have your opponent eye roll as his well-worked-out plans are scuppered because marines can just shrug stuff off due to rules and stats that have feck all to do with player skill.
I think most people would rather have marines behave like the shock troops they are and delete things at short range. As it is they're pillow-fisted assault troops toting around cap guns.
Right. In the following scenario, which would you rather improve:
10 man Guard Infantry vs. 5 Marines. (simultaneously for illustration)
Infantry rapid fire at the marines, killing 1. Marines rapid fire at Guard killing 3.
What would you prefer for the game? No Marines dying? Or more Guard dying? I am firmly on the more Guard dying side.
I think marine resilience should be such that they lose less points than guardsmen against small arms. That should be the point of the power armour. It is obviously fine for them to lose more points against dedicated anti-elite weapons, such as plasma. Intercessors actually achieve this.
Crimson wrote: I think marine resilience should be such that they lose less points than guardsmen against small arms. That should be the point of the power armour. It is obviously fine for them to lose more points against dedicated anti-elite weapons, such as plasma. Intercessors actually achieve this.
And the you remember that guardsmen for 5 points can have BS3+, making this equation really turn into a gak sandwich.
Crimson wrote: I think marine resilience should be such that they lose less points than guardsmen against small arms. That should be the point of the power armour. It is obviously fine for them to lose more points against dedicated anti-elite weapons, such as plasma. Intercessors actually achieve this.
But would you prefer that over doing more damage?
Because for me, I'd prefer Marines to strike harder in order to clear battlespace more effectively. More resiliency moves them more towards a gunline, imo.
Crimson wrote: I think marine resilience should be such that they lose less points than guardsmen against small arms. That should be the point of the power armour. It is obviously fine for them to lose more points against dedicated anti-elite weapons, such as plasma. Intercessors actually achieve this.
But would you prefer that over doing more damage?
Because for me, I'd prefer Marines to strike harder in order to clear battlespace more effectively. More resiliency moves them more towards a gunline, imo.
They really need both. Big power armour blokes can't be just glass cannons, that's the job for the space elves.
Crimson wrote: I think marine resilience should be such that they lose less points than guardsmen against small arms. That should be the point of the power armour. It is obviously fine for them to lose more points against dedicated anti-elite weapons, such as plasma. Intercessors actually achieve this.
But would you prefer that over doing more damage?
Because for me, I'd prefer Marines to strike harder in order to clear battlespace more effectively. More resiliency moves them more towards a gunline, imo.
I think giving them a +1 attack on charge would also give them an edge in close combat. And then reworking their bolters to be ap - 1 and to have rapid fire 2 on normal bolters. Could be a way to increase their killing potential while also preventing horde armies from overwhelming them as they are currently.
Then we get rid of all the useless units in the codex to cut down on space and bam space marines are viable.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I remember the extensive threads about how the AP system in 3-7 edition hurt power armor the most, now we're hearing the same about armor modifiers (even by the same people) Same with sweeping advance, or grenades, or cover, or pistols, or a hundred other things.
SM players have absolutely shown an unwillingness to use any advantage they have, and deny any winning strategy as "not counting", because they'd rather be able to win tournaments with the any they got straight out of Assault on Black Reach. And when they lose, rather than change, they just start crying to GW for a shower of buffs.
I think players have taken into account that marines are not cost effective. Even at the local hobby scene, people struggle to justify playing marines over the stronger races. Its also just they underperform at every event?
Blaming players for being salty or 'being too stubborn' is a rash over generalization.
If anything marines just need better weapons, better rules, and rules that actually matter. Making Marines 'the baseline' has been a mistake for years.
With the advent of knights all infantry balance is thrown out the window as it is now "How do we beat knights?" Instead of "How do we deal with MEQ?"
The point of a generalist unit is that you're sacrificing raw efficency for flexibility, one to one stat comparisons is evitibly going to make you look bad. Maybe more people should look at points cost as abslolute rather than relative move often. bring worse at shoot vs a unit doesn't mean you should not pay for your melee, melee, or special rules. And for an army that's so terrible, they seem to keep sneaking into top spots in tournaments.
I wouldn't call it a rash over-generalization. This is an observation made over four editions and several people. I get they're not all like that but the ones who busy themselves with topics like this certainly do.
.Making "How do we deal with MEQ?" the gate for list building is the problem. Even for a supposed horde meta people are still reaching for plasma and equivilent (Think about what disintigrators and reaper launchers are mean to deal with. It's not orks). SMs' popularity and ubiquity is their own downfall, coupled with warpped expectations.
Crimson wrote: I think marine resilience should be such that they lose less points than guardsmen against small arms. That should be the point of the power armour. It is obviously fine for them to lose more points against dedicated anti-elite weapons, such as plasma. Intercessors actually achieve this.
But would you prefer that over doing more damage?
Because for me, I'd prefer Marines to strike harder in order to clear battlespace more effectively. More resiliency moves them more towards a gunline, imo.
They really need both. Big power armour blokes can't be just glass cannons, that's the job for the space elves.
Way to dodge the question.
Howabout a percentage? You have a limited supply of balancing power, how do you spend it? 60% Offense, 40% defense? 80% defense, 20% offense, 20% ATSKNF upgrade?
Crimson wrote: I think marine resilience should be such that they lose less points than guardsmen against small arms. That should be the point of the power armour. It is obviously fine for them to lose more points against dedicated anti-elite weapons, such as plasma. Intercessors actually achieve this.
But would you prefer that over doing more damage?
Because for me, I'd prefer Marines to strike harder in order to clear battlespace more effectively. More resiliency moves them more towards a gunline, imo.
They really need both. Big power armour blokes can't be just glass cannons, that's the job for the space elves.
Way to dodge the question.
Howabout a percentage? You have a limited supply of balancing power, how do you spend it? 60% Offense, 40% defense? 80% defense, 20% offense, 20% ATSKNF upgrade?
I really can't think it in those terms. I think basic marines (Tacticals and Intercessors) don't need to have super effective damage for their points. Still, they should be able to match the guardsmen, which they currently can't. Their resilience compared to the guardsmen should be as I said earlier: weaker (per points) against anti-elite weapons such as plasma or hotshots, better against small arms such as lasguns and bolters.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I remember the extensive threads about how the AP system in 3-7 edition hurt power armor the most, now we're hearing the same about armor modifiers (even by the same people) Same with sweeping advance, or grenades, or cover, or pistols, or a hundred other things.
SM players have absolutely shown an unwillingness to use any advantage they have, and deny any winning strategy as "not counting", because they'd rather be able to win tournaments with the any they got straight out of Assault on Black Reach. And when they lose, rather than change, they just start crying to GW for a shower of buffs.
I think players have taken into account that marines are not cost effective. Even at the local hobby scene, people struggle to justify playing marines over the stronger races. Its also just they underperform at every event?
Blaming players for being salty or 'being too stubborn' is a rash over generalization.
If anything marines just need better weapons, better rules, and rules that actually matter. Making Marines 'the baseline' has been a mistake for years.
With the advent of knights all infantry balance is thrown out the window as it is now "How do we beat knights?" Instead of "How do we deal with MEQ?"
The point of a generalist unit is that you're sacrificing raw efficency for flexibility, one to one stat comparisons is evitibly going to make you look bad. Maybe more people should look at points cost as abslolute rather than relative move often. bring worse at shoot vs a unit doesn't mean you should not pay for your melee, melee, or special rules. And for an army that's so terrible, they seem to keep sneaking into top spots in tournaments.
I wouldn't call it a rash over-generalization. This is an observation made over four editions and several people. I get they're not all like that but the ones who busy themselves with topics like this certainly do.
.Making "How do we deal with MEQ?" the gate for list building is the problem. Even for a supposed horde meta people are still reaching for plasma and equivilent (Think about what disintigrators and reaper launchers are mean to deal with. It's not orks). SMs' popularity and ubiquity is their own downfall, coupled with warpped expectations.
You haven't read a single thing in this entire thread, have you? None of the discussions about WPPM, WPM, APPM, or anything. The problem here is that they are paying a premium cost for power armor saves. They have lackluster equipment that only they can use. and they are over-inflated in cost. A normal space marine is 13pts, it has over its counterparts only +1 toughness over all others, making them far less effective compared to their counterparts from other armies. if we do the math space marines will constantly underperform because of lackluster weaponry and damage. Grey Knights also have this issue as well for having force weapon costs baked into everything including their heavy support units that don't have force weapons. They also have massive issues with dealing with mass amounts of infantry and dumbed down rules that make all MEQ suffer. Removing +1 attack on the charge has completely destroyed space marines in fight phases as that was the major benefit marines always had was if they charged they were super effective for their points cost because they can lay down a lot of damage in close combat. Now marines do not have that option at all.
Saying "its an observation of several people." Is just what that is an observation, not something that is a general theme, we have people who can be wrong about the directions of marines, but that is the point of this discussion to come to clarity with how the community sees space marines, and most agree "They are in a tough spot." If we see in tournament lists that marines are never run in solo mono armies or do well by themselves (without other marine codexes) then that is not indictiative of what they truly do in terms of power or potential damage.
Saying they get to top spots in tournaments is a rarity, that happened once. And that army only abused systems and used every single marine list. We are talking mono lists here, not this imperial soup that has completely destroyed 8th edition and has made rampant every single problem. If a space marine cannot match up in damage potential to a guardsman or in Points value, then they are not worth taking. If a company vet is underperforming compared to a custode, then the custode is far more useful to the guard player. Every single imperial soup army utilizes guardsmen for Cheap CP generation for Knights, you won't see many imperial soup lists that don't abuse that and skip over space marines other than to run Bobby G.
People are packing plasma now not because of marines, but because of knights. Its high value strength and cost efficiency, not because "Oh space marines oh no!" Space marines don't even make it into consideration for list building, when I take three dark reaper squads its to kill those pesky Gallants and their support units. To force them to have an invulernable save. People are picking up plasma because its a cheap alternative to a lascannon or missile launcher. Not to mention that plasma / special weapons can be taken by veteran squads enmasse.
Crimson wrote: I think marine resilience should be such that they lose less points than guardsmen against small arms. That should be the point of the power armour. It is obviously fine for them to lose more points against dedicated anti-elite weapons, such as plasma. Intercessors actually achieve this.
But would you prefer that over doing more damage?
Because for me, I'd prefer Marines to strike harder in order to clear battlespace more effectively. More resiliency moves them more towards a gunline, imo.
They really need both. Big power armour blokes can't be just glass cannons, that's the job for the space elves.
Way to dodge the question.
Howabout a percentage? You have a limited supply of balancing power, how do you spend it? 60% Offense, 40% defense? 80% defense, 20% offense, 20% ATSKNF upgrade?
I really can't think it in those terms. I think basic marines (Tacticals and Intercessors) don't need to have super effective damage for their points. Still, they should be able to match the guardsmen, which they currently can't. Their resilience compared to the guardsmen should be as I said earlier: weaker (per points) against anti-elite weapons such as plasma or hotshots, better against small arms such as lasguns and bolters.
Ok, fair enough. But to be "weaker (per points) against anti-elite weapons such as plasma or hotshots, better against small arms such as lasguns and bolters." I think that's basically Priamris with their 2W. It takes more Lasguns to take one down, but it's a better return ppw when Plasma, etc. is fired at them.
Because for me, I'd prefer Marines to strike harder in order to clear battlespace more effectively. More resiliency moves them more towards a gunline, imo.
They really need both. Big power armour blokes can't be just glass cannons, that's the job for the space elves.
We’ve had versions of tough marines for a long time, we had rubrics and plague marines and what happens to them is they drown, their shooting isn’t worth anything. Rubrics in 2002 were 2 wounds with normal rapid fire bolters, and they were very weak.
If marines are fighting 50 guardsmen, chances are not all the guardsmen have range to shoot them right away. If you have toughmarines with 2w, all that happens is that they kill a few guard on the first turn, weather the fire of 20 guard who are in range without losing more than one model, and then the rest of the platoon comes into range next turn and the marines eventually either lose by attrition, or more importantly they get stuck and can’t get to the objective. They need greater improvement in movement and firepower than they do in durability. I definitely can’t imagine marines having 2w without the boost in attack from having -1 ap, and like everyone has said, -1 ap shouldn’t be that common.
Because for me, I'd prefer Marines to strike harder in order to clear battlespace more effectively. More resiliency moves them more towards a gunline, imo.
They really need both. Big power armour blokes can't be just glass cannons, that's the job for the space elves.
We’ve had versions of tough marines for a long time, we had rubrics and plague marines and what happens to them is they drown, their shooting isn’t worth anything. Rubrics in 2002 were 2 wounds with normal rapid fire bolters, and they were very weak.
If marines are fighting 50 guardsmen, chances are not all the guardsmen have range to shoot them right away. If you have toughmarines with 2w, all that happens is that they kill a few guard on the first turn, weather the fire of 20 guard who are in range without losing more than one model, and then the rest of the platoon comes into range next turn and the marines eventually either lose by attrition, or more importantly they get stuck and can’t get to the objective. They need greater improvement in movement and firepower than they do in durability. I definitely can’t imagine marines having 2w without the boost in attack from having -1 ap, and like everyone has said, -1 ap shouldn’t be that common.
Exactly. My hundred guard don't care that you have T5 and 2W. They're not going to try and wipe you out with lasguns. They'll just swamp you and win by attrition and stopping you claiming objectives. If a squad of ten marines could reliably kill ten guard at 12" range, then that changes things.
^And when Bolters were AP 5, and Flamers used templates, ignored cover and also had AP 5, Guardsmen died plenty quick. Quick enough that you rarely saw them taken.
Ok, fair enough. But to be "weaker (per points) against anti-elite weapons such as plasma or hotshots, better against small arms such as lasguns and bolters." I think that's basically Priamris with their 2W. It takes more Lasguns to take one down, but it's a better return ppw when Plasma, etc. is fired at them.
Yes! I said that. The Intercessors have the proper marine durability. This is why I think the Primaris statline should be the starting point to any attempted marine fix; it can actually work.
Insectum7 wrote: ^And when Bolters were AP 5, and Flamers used templates, ignored cover and also had AP 5, Guardsmen died plenty quick. Quick enough that you rarely saw them taken.
Let’s bring that back. Or some compromise between the slaughter of guardsmen and the current situation that you find reasonable for both factions.
I’m mostly open to the idea of morale doing something in this game.
just reroll all saves of 1. Works with invul save to make those 5+ invul save that termie get a bit more tasty, make marine super good at surviving AP-0, but scale with AP nicely so that more AP is really dangerous.
Insectum7 wrote: ^And when Bolters were AP 5, and Flamers used templates, ignored cover and also had AP 5, Guardsmen died plenty quick. Quick enough that you rarely saw them taken.
Let’s bring that back. Or some compromise between the slaughter of guardsmen and the current situation that you find reasonable for both factions.
I’m mostly open to the idea of morale doing something in this game.
Morale being used for when you try to retreat? Instead of an auto "RETREAT!"
Make it so morale has to be taken after 25% of a units has been lost. Or 25% of your wounds are gone for single models. If they fail it causes a rout and will continue to retreat d6 to the nearest board edge until you recover their LD. Then force LD to be taken against certain 'terror' units that specifically designed for you to have to constantly take leadership checks on your units. Would make close combat terrifying and make gunline armies less prominent. Bring back terror grenades!
Space marines being given back their general ap - 1 for all bolter weapons Would make them one of the best armies on the table. Let primaris keep their ap - 1 and range 30. And they should be fine. essentially an upgrade for tactical squads.
Space marines being given back their general ap - 1 for all bolter weapons Would make them one of the best armies on the table. Let primaris keep their ap - 1 and range 30. And they should be fine. essentially an upgrade for tactical squads.
Giving bolters AP -1 increases their ability to kill marines more than it increases their ability to kill guardsmen.
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
So, you're willing to add 1, 2, 3, and 5 to inquisitors, both types of sisters, and custodes then?
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
So, you're willing to add 1, 2, 3, and 5 to inquisitors, both types of sisters, and custodes then?
Blndmage wrote: If people are worried about durability, why not have a reroll on any successful roll to wound any ASTARTIES INFANTRY.
It'd be an ASTARTIES only thing.
Rerolls slow down the game as is.
I think the best thing for marines is the ability to ignore all weapons with a strength less than the marines toughness lowers that ap - by 1.
So
Iron within Iron Without (something along those lines)
Due to having superior toughness than most beings and near inhuman ability to recover from almost any wound. Space Marines may ignore 1 ap from any ranged weapon or close combat weapon if the opposing unit or weapon has less total strength than the toughness of the space marine.
It would make bikes very powerful, aggressors incredibly durable, and all space marine tanks ungodly powerful. This would have to be fine tuned but marines are already expensive removing combat squads for that ability would make them the most durable units in the game. Especially their vechiles and dreadnoughts.
This is how you get people to refuse to play against marines.
Ok, fair enough. But to be "weaker (per points) against anti-elite weapons such as plasma or hotshots, better against small arms such as lasguns and bolters." I think that's basically Priamris with their 2W. It takes more Lasguns to take one down, but it's a better return ppw when Plasma, etc. is fired at them.
Yes! I said that. The Intercessors have the proper marine durability. This is why I think the Primaris statline should be the starting point to any attempted marine fix; it can actually work.
Do that and then there's no reason to have Intercessors. They'd just be marines with AP -1 Bolters. Which would, in turn just be worse Sternguard, who would have AP -2 bolters.
I don't think it's a good fix anyways, to just neuter the damage output of normal infantry further down than it is. When it takes 40 lasgun shots to kill a marine, I think it's too many. Imo more dynamic for the game to boost their offense.
Asherian Command wrote:
"2W would help but so would a reroll, The reroll adds more durability but slows down the game.
Possibly just giving all marines on base a 6+ Invulnerable save would probably help."
This wouldn't help. The only common weapons with AP -4 are wraithguard and melta. Everything else will leave you with a 6+ armor save, making the invulnerable unnecessary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: There is something wrong with them dying to weight of fire when the weight is so easily attainable.
Orks with 5 attacks per model with exploding 6s and baked in rerolls?
Guardsmen with 3 attacks per model? 4 shots per gun in rapid fire? Dirt cheap mortar spam, wyverns, etc?
Fire Warriors with 30" rapid fire guns wounding on 3s?
Weight of dice is a joke in this game right now.
No, weight of dice is the only thing besides plasma spam that works on marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: I think marine resilience should be such that they lose less points than guardsmen against small arms. That should be the point of the power armour. It is obviously fine for them to lose more points against dedicated anti-elite weapons, such as plasma. Intercessors actually achieve this.
So as Insectum 7 posted, keep things the same than.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I think they want 70% offense, 70% defense, and 30% utility.
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
So, you're willing to add 1, 2, 3, and 5 to inquisitors, both types of sisters, and custodes then?
Are they ADEPTUS ASTARTES keyword? Can you read?
I can in fact read! However, the points I referred to are equpiment based, and those armies have access to the same or better equipment. Try being less aggressively offensive, your heart will thank you.
Do that and then there's no reason to have Intercessors. They'd just be marines with AP -1 Bolters. Which would, in turn just be worse Sternguard, who would have AP -2 bolters.
Forget the minimarines. Squat minimarines or combine the Intercessors with the Tacticals, I don't care. The point is that Intercessors have the profile marines need to have.
I don't think it's a good fix anyways, to just neuter the damage output of normal infantry further down than it is. When it takes 40 lasgun shots to kill a marine, I think it's too many. Imo more dynamic for the game to boost their offense.
You cannot achieve the situation where the small arms are less effective against marines than the guardsmen under the current, system, unless you give marines two wounds. Otherwise you'd need to drop the marine point cost really low, turning them into a semi horde army, and that's just wrong.
Do that and then there's no reason to have Intercessors. They'd just be marines with AP -1 Bolters. Which would, in turn just be worse Sternguard, who would have AP -2 bolters.
Forget the minimarines. Squat minimarines or combine the Intercessors with the Tacticals, I don't care. The point is that Intercessors have the profile marines need to have.
Well, I'll never agree to that. I love my minimarines and my Tac squads in Rhinos and Pods. And I'm not rebuying/repainting my reinforced company. I'd prefer to keep adding to it, rather than replace it.
I don't think it's a good fix anyways, to just neuter the damage output of normal infantry further down than it is. When it takes 40 lasgun shots to kill a marine, I think it's too many. Imo more dynamic for the game to boost their offense.
You cannot achieve the situation where the small arms are less effective against marines than the guardsmen under the current, system, unless you give marines two wounds. Otherwise you'd need to drop the marine point cost really low, turning them into a semi horde army, and that's just wrong.
OR, you make marines better against the light infantry, and use fire and maneuver tactics instead of castling defensively. Strike fast and lethal, minimize the weapons the enemy can bring to bear, and don't get bogged down. Far better way to go, imo.
OR, you make marines better against the light infantry, and use fire and maneuver tactics instead of castling defensively. Strike fast and lethal, minimize the weapons the enemy can bring to bear, and don't get bogged down. Far better way to go, imo.
But you cannot do that without at the same time making the marines better against marines too! That's the whole fething problem! Unless you start to add some weird gimmickly special rules or give marines S2 weapons with insane amount of shots, any increase in their offensive power will increase their offensive power against other marines too, in most cases in greater degree. I am not quite sure you understand the math involved here.
Crimson wrote: I really don't think this game needs more rerolls. The durability buff the marines need is to move fully to Primaris and either nerfing or increasing the cost of some of the D2 weapons in the game.
2W would help but so would a reroll, The reroll adds more durability but slows down the game.
Possibly just giving all marines on base a 6+ Invulnerable save would probably help.
A 6+ invulnerable save? This is an excellent idea, at least in the rules we use. I'll be sure to mention this idea to our group.
Of course, we don't play 8th Ed., and our 15 point marines are still viable.
Blndmage wrote: If people are worried about durability, why not have a reroll on any successful roll to wound any ASTARTIES INFANTRY.
It'd be an ASTARTIES only thing.
Rerolls slow down the game as is.
I think the best thing for marines is the ability to ignore all weapons with a strength less than the marines toughness lowers that ap - by 1.
So
Iron within Iron Without (something along those lines)
Due to having superior toughness than most beings and near inhuman ability to recover from almost any wound. Space Marines may ignore 1 ap from any ranged weapon or close combat weapon if the opposing unit or weapon has less total strength than the toughness of the space marine.
It would make bikes very powerful, aggressors incredibly durable, and all space marine tanks ungodly powerful. This would have to be fine tuned but marines are already expensive removing combat squads for that ability would make them the most durable units in the game. Especially their vechiles and dreadnoughts.
This is how you get people to refuse to play against marines.
That effects less than 10% of weapons in the entire game.
OR, you make marines better against the light infantry, and use fire and maneuver tactics instead of castling defensively. Strike fast and lethal, minimize the weapons the enemy can bring to bear, and don't get bogged down. Far better way to go, imo.
But you cannot do that without at the same time making the marines better against marines too! That's the whole fething problem! Unless you start to add some weird gimmickly special rules or give marines S2 weapons with insane amount of shots, any increase in their offensive power will increase their offensive power against other marines too, in most cases in greater degree. I am not quite sure you understand the math involved here.
Yes, yes you can do that. The bad ap system from 3rd - seventh editions did exactly that it made bolsters much better against guardsman than marines. You are right that blanket ap-1 on bolters is a bad idea, that’s what happened in second edition and marines almost never got their 3+.
It’s also true that basic troops in the intro army shouldn’t have a raft of bespoke special rules, rerolls, or exploding attacks those are all terrible. The situation of tough marines with feeble attacks is not a good base for an army, so using the basic rules of the game, marines have to be good at killing 5+ and even 4+ save units.
The great thing about the solution of giving OldMarines +1W/+1A and AP-1 on their basic bolter/chainsword weaponry is that it's already been playtested for 18 months. Intercessors are just fixed Tactical Marines. They aren't going to set the world on fire but they do a decent job of filling the role of troops, they have reasonable firepower and durability, and most importantly they feel like Space Marines to play. Their only real issue is that they could stand to drop a couple of points - I would say the sweet spot is 15pts for an Intercessor with a Bolt Rifle.
Yes giving Marines AP-1 hurts Marines more than other units, but by also giving them an extra wound they have a net gain in durability. You can't just do one part of the solution (+1 Wound OR +1 Attack OR an extra AP on Bolters/Bolt Pistols/Storm Bolters/Hurricane Bolters/Heavy Bolters/Chainswords/Combat Knives), you need to go the whole hog and give all 3 to have a working solution.
It's time to lay OldMarines to rest. Its 200+.M42 now; all the OldMarines have died from attrition or taken the Rubicon process to become Primaris. Keep all the old favourite loadouts like Tactical Squads and Terminators and Crusader Squads and Long Fangs, but accept that they have steel cables in their muscles now and fix the rules with a solution that has been proven to work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: But you cannot do that without at the same time making the marines better against marines too! That's the whole fething problem! Unless you start to add some weird gimmickly special rules or give marines S2 weapons with insane amount of shots, any increase in their offensive power will increase their offensive power against other marines too, in most cases in greater degree. I am not quite sure you understand the math involved here.
The maths show that the only possible weapon profile that is more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Marines is Str2 AP0 with a bucketload of shots. But that doesn’t work either, since such a weapon is weirdly effective at tank-hunting; it causes the exact same number of wounds against a Warhound Titan as it does a Space Marine!
2 wounds is the solution to Marines’ durability, and +1 Attack and AP-1 on their basic weaponry is a workable solution to their lack of offensive punch. We’ve already seen this in the wild - I don’t understand how people could take issue with the Primaris statline (aside from it being perhaps a touch too expensive).
Blndmage wrote: If people are worried about durability, why not have a reroll on any successful roll to wound any ASTARTIES INFANTRY.
It'd be an ASTARTIES only thing.
Rerolls slow down the game as is.
I think the best thing for marines is the ability to ignore all weapons with a strength less than the marines toughness lowers that ap - by 1.
So
Iron within Iron Without (something along those lines)
Due to having superior toughness than most beings and near inhuman ability to recover from almost any wound. Space Marines may ignore 1 ap from any ranged weapon or close combat weapon if the opposing unit or weapon has less total strength than the toughness of the space marine.
It would make bikes very powerful, aggressors incredibly durable, and all space marine tanks ungodly powerful. This would have to be fine tuned but marines are already expensive removing combat squads for that ability would make them the most durable units in the game. Especially their vechiles and dreadnoughts.
This is how you get people to refuse to play against marines.
That effects less than 10% of weapons in the entire game.
By number, not by deployed on the table top. When you look at them by deployment it's closer to 80%
That way I see it, there are three possible solutions to the Power Armor Problem aka MEQ Stat line sucks:
Reprice Infantry: Reevaluate the points value of all basic infantry in the game with around the comparable effectiveness of a specific unit (Infantry Squad or Tactical Marine). This keeps the MEQ Statline as it is for all those Marine Models in existence. It is the path of least resistance as it doesn't require a rewrite of the rules and publishing of 8 new Marine Codexes (Imperial and Chaos), just new points values.
Primarisize Them: Abandon the old Marine Statline by upgrading all non-Primarus Marines that have 1 wound (or 2 in Terminator Armor) with an extra wound and extra attack. Suddenly Marines are a lot more resilient and a lot more dangerous in Close Combat. Their Shooting isn't any better, but Marines are shock troops, not a gunline.
Special Rules: Load up Marines with Special Rules to increase their effectiveness. They should be simple and fast, but not anything that changes the actual rules for the wargear they have causing knockoff effects to other armies. The big problem I see here is that so many good Marine +1 abilities are already in use that their really isn't anything to give them that doesn't steal somebodies thunder. Death Guard have FNP sowed up. Thousand Sons grabbed +1 Save versus D1 weapons. Extra Hits/Attacks on rolls of 6 are already claimed by multiple Factions or weapons.
So really, I think that repricing Infantry overall is the right way to go. Given the effectiveness of large models like Knights, I'm hesitant to suggest increasing the cost too much on the low end, so I think 5 Point Infantry Squad and 11 Point Tactical Marine are the right waypoints to evaluate Infantry Model cost around.
alextroy wrote: That way I see it, there are three possible solutions to the Power Armor Problem aka MEQ Stat line sucks:
Reprice Infantry: Reevaluate the points value of all basic infantry in the game with around the comparable effectiveness of a specific unit (Infantry Squad or Tactical Marine). This keeps the MEQ Statline as it is for all those Marine Models in existence. It is the path of least resistance as it doesn't require a rewrite of the rules and publishing of 8 new Marine Codexes (Imperial and Chaos), just new points values.
Primarisize Them: Abandon the old Marine Statline by upgrading all non-Primarus Marines that have 1 wound (or 2 in Terminator Armor) with an extra wound and extra attack. Suddenly Marines are a lot more resilient and a lot more dangerous in Close Combat. Their Shooting isn't any better, but Marines are shock troops, not a gunline.
Special Rules: Load up Marines with Special Rules to increase their effectiveness. They should be simple and fast, but not anything that changes the actual rules for the wargear they have causing knockoff effects to other armies. The big problem I see here is that so many good Marine +1 abilities are already in use that their really isn't anything to give them that doesn't steal somebodies thunder. Death Guard have FNP sowed up. Thousand Sons grabbed +1 Save versus D1 weapons. Extra Hits/Attacks on rolls of 6 are already claimed by multiple Factions or weapons.
So really, I think that repricing Infantry overall is the right way to go. Given the effectiveness of large models like Knights, I'm hesitant to suggest increasing the cost too much on the low end, so I think 5 Point Infantry Squad and 11 Point Tactical Marine are the right waypoints to evaluate Infantry Model cost around.
That’s a good write up of the situation, but I think it misses something critical: player satisfaction.
The last option, special rules, makes the game big and unwieldy. A good example is Custodes in 30k - they have the rules they need to make them play how they should, but there just so many rules going on that both players lose track of what’s happening. I think we can eliminate this as an option.
The first option, points rescaling, is as you say the path of least resistance. But it also offers the least player satisfaction - Marines end up as a semi-horde army that doesn’t play how people want them to play.
The second option, Primarisising, gives the most player satisfaction by making the army play how people want them to play, without bogging down the army in a mire of special rules.
OR, you make marines better against the light infantry, and use fire and maneuver tactics instead of castling defensively. Strike fast and lethal, minimize the weapons the enemy can bring to bear, and don't get bogged down. Far better way to go, imo.
But you cannot do that without at the same time making the marines better against marines too!
OR, you make marines better against the light infantry, and use fire and maneuver tactics instead of castling defensively. Strike fast and lethal, minimize the weapons the enemy can bring to bear, and don't get bogged down. Far better way to go, imo.
But you cannot do that without at the same time making the marines better against marines too!
So what? I really don't see that as a problem.
"The only thing that could an Astartes, is another Astartes" - Horus Rising
You don't see it as a problem that it is impossible to have a weapon that is better against guardsmen than it is against marines? Well, we're not going to agree then, I think it is a pretty huge problem.
AP-1 on bolters is a bad idea. I mean it could be ok, but only if ALL the other former AP5 weapons in the game got AP-1 as well. That means that the former AP4 become AP-2 now (like heavy bolters, autocannon, etc...), the current AP-3 become AP-4 (yeah more powerful diss cannons)....
I don't think SM need more powerful weapons, they've already got a grapton of effective options to chose from, they don't need to be more resilient as well. They lack one thing only: synergies between the army that aren't pure re-rolls on shooting. Psychic powers, stratagems and auras, synergies in close combat. Those things SM need.
You don't see it as a problem that it is impossible to have a weapon that is better against guardsmen than it is against marines? Well, we're not going to agree then, I think it is a pretty huge problem.
I may be missing some context but i'm pretty sure a boltgun kills more guardsmen per shot than it does marines. The rest is just points.
You don't see it as a problem that it is impossible to have a weapon that is better against guardsmen than it is against marines? Well, we're not going to agree then, I think it is a pretty huge problem.
I may be missing some context but i'm pretty sure a boltgun kills more guardsmen per shot than it does marines. The rest is just points.
Yes, the points are kinda big deal. It kills more points of marines than guardsmen. For that not to be the case marines should cost ten points. Do we want that?
You don't see it as a problem that it is impossible to have a weapon that is better against guardsmen than it is against marines? Well, we're not going to agree then, I think it is a pretty huge problem.
I may be missing some context but i'm pretty sure a boltgun kills more guardsmen per shot than it does marines. The rest is just points.
Yes, the points are kinda big deal. It kills more points of marines than guardsmen. For that not to be the case marines should cost ten points. Do we want that?
What's your point? This has been the case since the RT days. And it will continue to be true as long as a SM costs more pts than a guardsman.
You don't see it as a problem that it is impossible to have a weapon that is better against guardsmen than it is against marines? Well, we're not going to agree then, I think it is a pretty huge problem.
I may be missing some context but i'm pretty sure a boltgun kills more guardsmen per shot than it does marines. The rest is just points.
Yes, the points are kinda big deal. It kills more points of marines than guardsmen. For that not to be the case marines should cost ten points. Do we want that?
10-11 pts sounds about right for a marine, given the context of other infantry, so yes we want that. Though I'd prefer that overperformers (guard, skitarii, DE) go up rather than marines go down because it keeps that space from getting crammed. I had hoped 5 pt cultist and 7 pt boyz heralded as much but... no.
Keep your fancy marine fixes for next edition, cuz they ain't happening anytime soon.
What's your point? This has been the case since the RT days. And it will continue to be true as long as a SM costs more pts than a guardsman.
No, it hasn't always been the case. Due the AP change guard resilience against small arms has markedly increased, whilst the marines remained the same. Do the math.
What's your point? This has been the case since the RT days. And it will continue to be true as long as a SM costs more pts than a guardsman.
No, it hasn't always been the case. Due the AP change guard resilience against small arms has markedly increased, whilst the marines remained the same. Do the math.
True, but marines became more resilient against the former AP2 and AP3 which completely bypassed their save in the previous edtitions and now they roll 5+ or 6+ saves.
As I said if bolters become AP-1 then all the other weapons in the game should follow the same example and SM will become even less resilient than now.
to me the issue is less "power armour" but GWs inability to price the robustness and survivability of models generally, when the game was mostly infantry the T4 3+ save marine was pretty good, especially with the old AP system. The problem is now the game is larger, there are a lot more heavier weapons so the marine, while still identical in stats, like a lot of "elite" models simply isn't as effective as they were because they are a lot easier to remove.
with the current point system there are as I see it three potential solutions.
1. re-work the cover system to make *all* infantry more robust, .g. give heavy weapons -1 to hit v infantry, when they hit they hit hard but they don't hit as often - you use faster firing anti infantry weapons v infantry - in effect give infantry some cover v some weapon types all the time
2. make more elite models cheaper, to reflect they die reasonably easily, applies especially to the basic marine, less so to the 2W primaris and less still to those with 3+ wounds. side effect of this is you start to see a fair few more marines on the table and other elites
3. up the cost of the cheaper infantry to be more in line with the elites, creates space for the truly dire and makes infantry more equal, also means you will seldom see it and the game focuses on larger models
of the three personally I'd suggest a combination of 1 & 2, essentially saying that infantry can fight infantry well, and anti-infantry weapons become the weapons of choice for shooting infantry, not anti armour ones. plus a smaller reduction in infantry costs.
this promotes more of a combined arms approach, you can then have elite infantry more expensive than the troops of the same faction, but more capable and critically, more survivable
to me the issue is less "power armour" but GWs inability to price the robustness and survivability of models generally, when the game was mostly infantry the T4 3+ save marine was pretty good, especially with the old AP system. The problem is now the game is larger, there are a lot more heavier weapons so the marine, while still identical in stats, like a lot of "elite" models simply isn't as effective as they were because they are a lot easier to remove.
with the current point system there are as I see it three potential solutions.
1. re-work the cover system to make *all* infantry more robust, .g. give heavy weapons -1 to hit v infantry, when they hit they hit hard but they don't hit as often - you use faster firing anti infantry weapons v infantry - in effect give infantry some cover v some weapon types all the time
2. make more elite models cheaper, to reflect they die reasonably easily, applies especially to the basic marine, less so to the 2W primaris and less still to those with 3+ wounds. side effect of this is you start to see a fair few more marines on the table and other elites
3. up the cost of the cheaper infantry to be more in line with the elites, creates space for the truly dire and makes infantry more equal, also means you will seldom see it and the game focuses on larger models
of the three personally I'd suggest a combination of 1 & 2, essentially saying that infantry can fight infantry well, and anti-infantry weapons become the weapons of choice for shooting infantry, not anti armour ones. plus a smaller reduction in infantry costs.
this promotes more of a combined arms approach, you can then have elite infantry more expensive than the troops of the same faction, but more capable and critically, more survivable
Except 3 is needed as fundamentally different power models are being costed the same as the granularity has been wiped from the game with the current points.
1&2 probably need to happen aswell but fundamentally powrr armour of all flavours stops looking so trash tier if 4ppm Guard are 5ppm especially if combined with 40ppm CC order bags.
As I said if bolters become AP-1 then all the other weapons in the game should follow the same example
Why?
What law set in stone mandates that this be true?
If your justification is only that ‘last edition bolters were AP5 like Shuriken Catapults and Shootas and so on, so they should be the same AP now’ is the same ‘7th Edition thinking in 8th Edition’ that have us the travesty of a Mortal Wound mechanic.
If your justification is that Marines don’t need the boost, have you played Marines this edition?
If your justification is that AP-1 would be too big a boost on Marines, have you played Primaris Marines this edition?
If your justification is that it doesn’t make lore sense for Marines to have stronger guns, there is no basic infantry in 40k lore can go 1-1 with a Marine and expect to win. (Aside from Custodes, but they’re kind of a special case.) Bolters are described as doing ungodly things to fleshy targets and pushing through armour effectively. Also remember that Gauss weapons have AP-1 and Shurikans have rending.
Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:
1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.
2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.
3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.
4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.
5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
So, you're willing to add 1, 2, 3, and 5 to inquisitors, both types of sisters, and custodes then?
Yes I regularly play SW and they do fine outside tournaments lists. Not a single time I felt like bolters should have been AP-1. We already have heavy bolters, assault cannons and we can spam stom bolters for dirt cheap to clear infantries. We've got a crapton of ranged effective anti tank weapons as well.
I don't play primaris because I despise the models.
I think marines need other kinds of boosts. More effective psychic powers, stratagems, chapter traits, characters' auras that are not flat re-rolls on shooting and more synergies in close combat.
The AP-1 on bolters not only is unfair, but also un-needed since you can boost SM a lot in the shooting phase but if you keep playing them like they were AM-1 or tau they will always struggle. Weapons like orks deffguns, which are meant to be devastating and huge, get AP-1. Heavy bolters also, etc... it would be a bad game design to give regular bolters a better AP.
At the moment no basic infantry will win against a marine in a 1:1 match.
For everyone calling for point decrease on a marine to anywhere between 10-13 points I see that having a significant knock on effect compared to other troops.
My elder Guardian defenders are 8ppm, have to buy a platform to field special weapons (so costs significantly more than having marine #143 a plasma gun) 3 T, 5+ and a 12" gun. The shuriken catapult might be a better gun once in range but short of CP spending or investing in other methods of getting that guardian upfield its pretty crappy.
Dire Avengers are what, 11-12 points each in recent CA and I think they're fair for the cost, and I view marines in the same way. Just give Astartes Bolters (all 'Bolters' Storm Bolters, bolt carbines, Stalker bolters, bolt rifle, but not heavy bolter, no need to step on Ass cannons feet) +1 shot and call it a day.
Marines are relatively durable individually and are supposed to be shock troops, extra shots on the infantry weapons would help I believe and give incentive to move into rapid fire range to really lay the hurt, wjhilst letting that Tac squad output reasonable fire whilst bunkering down.
Next best is to embrace your Primaris overlords and let us Eldar and Chaos daemon players wish we had as much access to 3+ on troop choices. (I miss T4 bloodletters, seriously!)
Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
Its 5 fold
1) We almost double the shots from older editions, TL is now strait double the shots and its easier to get more weapons due to Detachments, I can have 18 units of 4 HB, or 4 ML, etc.. now. NO other edition could do this 2) AP breaks armor a bit everytime now, Marines used to always get 3+ saves on a large majority of weapons (Will add more to this in cover saves) and to add Bolters didnt get any ap at all... 3) Re-rolls are way to common now. Re-rolls used to be rare for hits and even more rare for wounds, now you can get at least re-rolls 1's to both for your full army without trying, and re-roll all kinda easily 4) Cover is MUCH harder to get and cover use to be an Invul save if it broke your army (well a save that cant be modified), so now with Cover only being a +1 sv, before when behind good cover Cover (there was 4 types of cover, 6+, 5+, 4+, 3+) it was at least a 4+ or 5+ save. AND much EASIER to get. Currently if a -3AP shot shoots you and in cover you only get a 5+ where before you could have gotten a 4+ (Cough, cough DE Dis Cannons), but it was easy to get 4+ as battlements were 4+ saves, and those are 100% gone now, Heck even against -4ap at least you could get a 5+ for behind behind almost anything. 5) This is Minor but its still important, SM lost attacks more than most armies (could have 3 attacks in melee, Sargent's could have 4 making PS's worth it, this is why Assault Marines are hot trash atm as well, lack of any damage other than from 2 specials. So they lost 2/3 of their melee hitting power as well. Marines used to be the "jack of all" but they completely lost their melee abilities, they are a joke in melee now.
SO...... TLR
At least a 50% increase in the amounts of Shots AP always removes a part of the save At least 33% in wounding shots via re-rolls Hits/Wounds Cover is a joke Melee is lacking by at least 50%
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.
I was really excited for 5ppm Guardsmen and 12ppm Marines. It would have really helped that issue. But without across-the-board nerfs to killiness, it wouldn't have done enough.
Most AP-1 needs to be AP0
Most AP-2 needs to be AP-1
Kinda, though it is rather difficult. Morale matters less in this edition than in the previous; that is another boost the guard got in the relation to the marines.
But frankly, if you're OK with super fragile marines with more offence, you can just play your Tacticals as Sternguard.
Just a complete aside, would there be any value to reducing Guard to getting 1 shot with their Lasguns and only getting Rapid Fire with orders - or would it make Guard infantry total trash?
As I recall, in early version of 40K only marines got rapid fire for a couple editions until it spread around to the likes of the guard.
Stormonu wrote: Just a complete aside, would there be any value to reducing Guard to getting 1 shot with their Lasguns and only getting Rapid Fire with orders - or would it make Guard infantry total trash?
As I recall, in early version of 40K only marines got rapid fire for a couple editions until it spread around to the likes of the guard.
Just giving marines their ap - 1 would be enough. People who say "well that will break the game!" Don't remember marines always having ap -1 on all their units.
Rapid Fire for guard is fine, its just that marines cannot do enough damage, giving them the ability to have far more damaging weapons will increase per a wound damage for a tactical marines. If a marine rapid fires into a squad of guardsmen right now there is a 2/6 chance of the guardsmen saving himself. With an AP-1 bolter now there is a 1/6 chance. (This is not counting all the previous damage)
Ap-1 would give marines far better options and would make terminators quite formindable as their main weapon is a storm bolter or combi-bolter.
It'd take a new edition, but if RF were just " you get one shot", and Marines special rule was "Your RF weapons get two shots at half range", it'd be interesting.
But the history of that rule is one of the reasons I'm so resistant to special rules for Marines. It's just an escalation. Special Rules nearly always propogate to others.
The other reason is look at CWE Aspect Warriors. They're basically "Marines, but super specialists instead of Super Soldiers". GW keeps giving them special rules. How fun is it to face all their special rules? Do you think we should have more of those in the game? And that's before you consider that the special rules don't always even make the unit good. When was the last time you saw DAs, Fire Dragons, Banshees, Scorpions, Spectres, Hawks, or Spiders at top tables? Spears and Reapers are hated for being Aspect Warriors, but most Aspect Warriors have special rules and aren't that great.
So I really don't think the answer is just tacking more special rules onto Marines. It won't help long term, and just makes the game worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Just giving marines their ap - 1 would be enough. People who say "well that will break the game!" Don't remember marines always having ap -1 on all their units."
Do you recall the stats of the other basic weapons at the same time? Didn't they also have much better stats?
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
Its 5 fold
1) We almost double the shots from older editions, TL is now strait double the shots and its easier to get more weapons due to Detachments, I can have 18 units of 4 HB, or 4 ML, etc.. now. NO other edition could do this
2) AP breaks armor a bit everytime now, Marines used to always get 3+ saves on a large majority of weapons (Will add more to this in cover saves) and to add Bolters didnt get any ap at all...
3) Re-rolls are way to common now. Re-rolls used to be rare for hits and even more rare for wounds, now you can get at least re-rolls 1's to both for your full army without trying, and re-roll all kinda easily
4) Cover is MUCH harder to get and cover use to be an Invul save if it broke your army (well a save that cant be modified), so now with Cover only being a +1 sv, before when behind good cover Cover (there was 4 types of cover, 6+, 5+, 4+, 3+) it was at least a 4+ or 5+ save. AND much EASIER to get. Currently if a -3AP shot shoots you and in cover you only get a 5+ where before you could have gotten a 4+ (Cough, cough DE Dis Cannons), but it was easy to get 4+ as battlements were 4+ saves, and those are 100% gone now, Heck even against -4ap at least you could get a 5+ for behind behind almost anything.
5) This is Minor but its still important, SM lost attacks more than most armies (could have 3 attacks in melee, Sargent's could have 4 making PS's worth it, this is why Assault Marines are hot trash atm as well, lack of any damage other than from 2 specials. So they lost 2/3 of their melee hitting power as well. Marines used to be the "jack of all" but they completely lost their melee abilities, they are a joke in melee now.
SO...... TLR
At least a 50% increase in the amounts of Shots
AP always removes a part of the save
At least 33% in wounding shots via re-rolls Hits/Wounds
Cover is a joke
Melee is lacking by at least 50%
1. This isn't true in the slightest. Twin linked wasn't common enough to double, or even give a 25% increase.
2.If looking at weapons in an absolute this is correct. But in practice everyone was maxing on plasma, grav, and melta, which all just flat out ignored 3+ armor. Now you're getting at least a 6+ against it, and a 5+ in cover.
3. For space marines. Rerolls are rarer for the other armies.
4. Yeah, cover isn't broken now. What do you mean that bush makes you immune to anti-tank lasers?
5. Space marines lost as many attacks by model, and fewer by army. Each army had something that could spam 3+ attacks/model without being a character. Take off the rose colored glasses.
So TL/DR
A slight increase in shot due to twin linked changes, and more due to larger armies in general.
AP only removes part of the save, rather than flat out ignoring it.
More like 16.5% increase in hits.
Cover is less broken.
Melee in still roughly balanced across all armies. Why are you trying to charge tac marines into ork boyz?
Kinda, though it is rather difficult. Morale matters less in this edition than in the previous; that is another boost the guard got in the relation to the marines.
But frankly, if you're OK with super fragile marines with more offence, you can just play your Tacticals as Sternguard.
And I disagree with you. Strongly.
Moral hurts guard the most. Have you read the rules for commissars?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Stormonu wrote: Just a complete aside, would there be any value to reducing Guard to getting 1 shot with their Lasguns and only getting Rapid Fire with orders - or would it make Guard infantry total trash?
As I recall, in early version of 40K only marines got rapid fire for a couple editions until it spread around to the likes of the guard.
This would make guard utter trash. Lasguns have been rapid fire since 3rd ed, as have (to my recollect) bolters.
Stormonu wrote: Just a complete aside, would there be any value to reducing Guard to getting 1 shot with their Lasguns and only getting Rapid Fire with orders - or would it make Guard infantry total trash?
As I recall, in early version of 40K only marines got rapid fire for a couple editions until it spread around to the likes of the guard.
Just giving marines their ap - 1 would be enough. People who say "well that will break the game!" Don't remember marines always having ap -1 on all their units.
Rapid Fire for guard is fine, its just that marines cannot do enough damage, giving them the ability to have far more damaging weapons will increase per a wound damage for a tactical marines. If a marine rapid fires into a squad of guardsmen right now there is a 2/6 chance of the guardsmen saving himself. With an AP-1 bolter now there is a 1/6 chance. (This is not counting all the previous damage)
Ap-1 would give marines far better options and would make terminators quite formindable as their main weapon is a storm bolter or combi-bolter.
As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.
Bharring wrote: It'd take a new edition, but if RF were just " you get one shot", and Marines special rule was "Your RF weapons get two shots at half range", it'd be interesting.
But the history of that rule is one of the reasons I'm so resistant to special rules for Marines. It's just an escalation. Special Rules nearly always propogate to others.
The other reason is look at CWE Aspect Warriors. They're basically "Marines, but super specialists instead of Super Soldiers". GW keeps giving them special rules. How fun is it to face all their special rules? Do you think we should have more of those in the game? And that's before you consider that the special rules don't always even make the unit good. When was the last time you saw DAs, Fire Dragons, Banshees, Scorpions, Spectres, Hawks, or Spiders at top tables? Spears and Reapers are hated for being Aspect Warriors, but most Aspect Warriors have special rules and aren't that great.
So I really don't think the answer is just tacking more special rules onto Marines. It won't help long term, and just makes the game worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Just giving marines their ap - 1 would be enough. People who say "well that will break the game!" Don't remember marines always having ap -1 on all their units." Do you recall the stats of the other basic weapons at the same time? Didn't they also have much better stats?
To answer this universal special rules used to be all over the place so... No. Infact many space marine units lost their special rules. Terminators, Vanguard, Sternguard for example all lost their special rules that made them quite powerful. Terminators lost their relentless special rule, Sternguard lost their special ammunition. Vanguard lost their heroic intervention ability. Land Raiders lost their ability to fire even when shaken etc. The whole point is marine squads were dumbed down too much. Their special rules mean nothing if they can't be used. Combat Squads is and will never be used now that CP generation is now a factor.
Ap-1 on bolters would go a long way to make marines viable. They have always had it. And most those other 'basic weapons' already have the correct stats or something to make up for it, bolters overall were completely nerfed, as were heavy bolters and storm bolters in terms of effectiveness.
As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.
Thats fine with me honestly.
Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.
As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.
Thats fine with me honestly.
Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.
The problem with that though is that the armies you want to punish already get shellacked by bolter fire. Sure they're more resilient than in 7th, but massed S4 hurts them.
As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.
Thats fine with me honestly.
Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.
The problem with that though is that the armies you want to punish already get shellacked by bolter fire. Sure they're more resilient than in 7th, but massed S4 hurts them.
Not in terms of saves. S4 only helps a small bit. not completely as ap is generally how 'killy' a weapon can be against infantry. Strength helps with wound rolls but if it is a s10 ap0 its not going to do as much damage as a s10 ap-1. that changes the die by 1/6.
Bolters should be more powerful and would make some lacking armies much more powerful and have actual killing potential cause currently bolters are overpriced and not worthwhile compared to guardsmen with lasguns.
"Ap-1 on bolters would go a long way to make marines viable. They have always had it."
If you're talking AP5, then so did Pulse, Shuriken, Shootas, and Splinter. But I'm sure you're not talking about giving ap-1?
On the point of AP and cover for the basic Marine unit...
In the previous 3E AP paradigm, yes Marines always got their 3+ if they got to take a save. However, they got it straight up entirely ignored much of the time as well. In fact, for most of that paradigm, there were complaints about too much AP2/3 in the game making MEQ armor worthless. There's lots of threads about that over many editions.
The weapons that modify a marines armor now act differently than they used to. What used to entirely ignore a marines save (Battlecannons, Disintegrators, Plasma Guns, Dark Lances, Lascannons, Starcannons, etc) now allows a modified save of 5+ or 6+. Weapons with middling AP are the only place SM armor is worse now, stuff like Heavy Bolters and the like (though they still better off than against say, 2E ASM's where a marine only got a 4+ against lasguns and a 6+ against heavy bolters). That said, AP-1 weapons aren't a primary headache for Marines in this edition either.
Cover in previous editions was a 5+ or 4+ alternative save that was pointless for Marines against most weapons. Now this applies against all attacks (allowing marines a 2+ save against small arms fire that cover did nothing for in previous editions), and in fact against most weapons they'd have needed Cover against in previous editions they do just as well now (e.g. battlecannon or plasma gun still gives 4+ or 5+ saves in cover).
AP and cover aren't hurting marines this edition, at least not anything more than anyone else. The issue is that the scale of the game has upshifted over time such that we're all playing small games of Epic rather than a skirmish game with a couple dozen infantry. A Space Marine is very impressive next to an Ork or Guardsmen when there's only a couple dozen infantry models on the board. A Knight, Shadowsword, battery of intermediate range cruise missiles, orbital bombardments, hundreds of infantry, etc however don't find such distinctions as relevant however.
Stormonu wrote: Just a complete aside, would there be any value to reducing Guard to getting 1 shot with their Lasguns and only getting Rapid Fire with orders - or would it make Guard infantry total trash?
As I recall, in early version of 40K only marines got rapid fire for a couple editions until it spread around to the likes of the guard.
That was 2E. However, that was also when infantry had firing arcs, Lasguns had a -1 ASM, basic shuriken catapults had a -2 ASM, Marines only got a 6+ save against Heavy Bolters, and 3 shots was about the most any weapon in the game had, barring some sustained fire dice weapons and accompanying jam/explodes potentials. A full sized naked tactical squad was 300pts.
Within the current paradigm, I think such a change would do more harm than good, especially with how relatively little offesive damage output most basic infantry weapons do anyway in most games.
Bharring wrote: "Ap-1 on bolters would go a long way to make marines viable. They have always had it."
If you're talking AP5, then so did Pulse, Shuriken, Shootas, and Splinter. But I'm sure you're not talking about giving ap-1?
Shurikens have Rending on 6+
Shootas get an additional attack when shot. (They are fine)
Pulse have farther range and strength of 5 rapid fire 1. I think giving them on a roll of 6+ Ap - 2 would be fair.
Splinter has Deteriment strength Rapid Fire 24" and Poisoned profile.
These are all fine overall. The dark eldar and eldar don't need more buffs.
Tygre wrote: Isn't the problem the over abundance of high powered weaponry? Why not increase the price of all weapons. Perhaps start with doubling the cost of all weapons and modify from there.
It is part of the problem but not the biggest problem. Even if you toned down all the shooting, all weapons would still kill more points of marines than of guard.
A: That's not auto-bad.
B: Are you taking morale into account?
Morale is that thing you either never roll or just use 2 cp on, right?
Shuriken catapults are not fine. Their range is absurd. It is even more absurd for a weapon for the citizen militia whose main purpose is to guard heavy weapon platform with long ranged weapons. I know it was the second edition when they last had proper rules, but I will never get over this.
Crimson wrote: Shuriken catapults are not fine. Their range is absurd. It is even more absurd for a weapon for the citizen militia whose main purpose is to guard heavy weapon platform with long ranged weapons. I know it was the second edition when they last had proper rules, but I will never get over this.
I run eldar, my guardians kill more than I would like to admit, an entire terminator squad dead in one round of shooting. 40 shots / 6, that would be 6 - 7 ap -3 weapons with 2 shuriken cannons firing as well. Guardians are very powerful with an attached warlock. Their range should be short cause they have so many options for movement. Uthwe allows me to teleport all over the field. They also have a lot of power in terms of sheer weight of fire. The only time the army struggles is against tau. But even then I just throw out my windriders or wave serpent brigade and they carry them out into combat.
Guardians have far more utility than a tactical squad now and have strategems that support them extremely well. (Also having a 6+++ across 20 models is kind of erm... stupid.)
I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "I run eldar, my guardians kill more than I would like to admit, an entire terminator squad dead in one round of shooting. 40 shots / 6, that would be 6 - 7 ap -3 weapons with 2 shuriken cannons firing as well."
THat's 5.1 pseudorends, not 6-7. And that's all-in on a max squad.
I think it's strong enough. What it really needs are:
1. To be a 'side arm' again. You don't field militia as standing troops. You field them to man a weapon. Or to escort specialists. Or, if you're really boned, to fill space. So their platforms, special weapons, or artillery pieces should be doing the damage, with the sidearms only for if the enemy gets close. That'd be the ideal.
2. CWE needs to lose WWP. Many of our infantry are predicated on it being hard to bring to bear easily/cheaply. WWP removes that.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying DE and CWE need buffs. I'm just pointing out that Marines didn't "lose" AP-1 any more than most of the other factions did. AP5 became AP0. AP4 became AP-1. There were changes atop that as well, but Marines didn't lose AP-1.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Marines lost out on having powerful equipment everyone else was given special rules or additional power to their weaponry while space marines stayed in the back with a terrible weapon. AP-1 would not harm everyone as marines already have an ap-1 bolter but only for primaris.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their fire power back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Apart the morale Primaris have this pretty much covered. Stalker and Auto Bolt Rifles need a boost, and they need more units in general, but they're a solid starting point.
Okay so how would you go about changing bolters to be viable?
How you change And they Shall know no fear to be viable as an ability again?
How would you make morale more of a constant?
How would you give space marines more power in close combat?
How would you give space marines their firepower back?
Cause right now what I see is that marines are underpowered in the shooting of all their primary weaponry. We can't just give marines more specialists cause that just racks up the costs again.
Apart the morale Primaris have this pretty much covered. Stalker and Auto Bolt Rifles need a boost, and they need more units in general, but they're a solid starting point.
I still disagree fundamentally with giving marines +1 wound. That makes em too effective. I agree with giving all sarges +1 wound though.
Ideas
Give sarges +1 wound.
Or maybe just give marines a 'shoot twice' mechanic for bolter equipment?
Issue But that doesn't fix their close combat issue. Maybe giving All marines +1 attack on charge always?
Another issue is staying power and punishing opponents for leaving close combat... Maybe a factionwide "Sweeping Advance." (or just make it a universal rule for all factions?)
What I'd do?
-Merge Prmairs + Real Marines: same statlines, even the same datasheet for Tacs and Intercessors
-Drop AP across the board and nerf invulns
-5ppm Guardsmen, 12ppm Marines
Bharring wrote: What I'd do? -Merge Prmairs + Real Marines: same statlines, even the same datasheet for Tacs and Intercessors -Drop AP across the board and nerf invulns -5ppm Guardsmen, 12ppm Marines
I think Marines wouldn't be bad.
They'd be far too effective at 12ppm, 13ppm is a bit balanced with a +2 pt increase if they want the primaris 'upgrade'.
Giving marines +1 wound doesn't help their damage output. It only increases durability which isn't the issue. It could be an issue but I don't really think it is.
As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.
Thats fine with me honestly.
Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.
The problem with that though is that the armies you want to punish already get shellacked by bolter fire. Sure they're more resilient than in 7th, but massed S4 hurts them.
Not in terms of saves. S4 only helps a small bit. not completely as ap is generally how 'killy' a weapon can be against infantry. Strength helps with wound rolls but if it is a s10 ap0 its not going to do as much damage as a s10 ap-1. that changes the die by 1/6.
Bolters should be more powerful and would make some lacking armies much more powerful and have actual killing potential cause currently bolters are overpriced and not worthwhile compared to guardsmen with lasguns.
They are more powerful. They wound guard on a 3+ and marines on a 4+. They're currently -0- points. Sorry but you're not going to convince me that bolters are weak if you're comparing them to lasguns.
As long as you change everyone's bolters, sure. Go for it.
Thats fine with me honestly.
Bolters are supposed to be terrifying on the field, and it would boost the power of grey knights to ludiciorus degree which I am a fan of. It will help every single faction that uses bolter weapons and that is completely fine. It also punishes eldar, orks, and tau considerably. And makes a Chaos Space Marine squads, Paladins, Deathwing, Sisters of Battle, very good and I am all for making all those races super viable like they are supposed to be.
The problem with that though is that the armies you want to punish already get shellacked by bolter fire. Sure they're more resilient than in 7th, but massed S4 hurts them.
Not in terms of saves. S4 only helps a small bit. not completely as ap is generally how 'killy' a weapon can be against infantry. Strength helps with wound rolls but if it is a s10 ap0 its not going to do as much damage as a s10 ap-1. that changes the die by 1/6.
Bolters should be more powerful and would make some lacking armies much more powerful and have actual killing potential cause currently bolters are overpriced and not worthwhile compared to guardsmen with lasguns.
They are more powerful. They wound guard on a 3+ and marines on a 4+. They're currently -0- points. Sorry but you're not going to convince me that bolters are weak if you're comparing them to lasguns.
The models that require bolters are expensive mate. Stormbolters gaining an AP-1 would be very helpful and would justify the cost it takes to for the unit that can take them.
I am comparing bolters to lasguns because a lasgun is only 1 strength less than a bolter? So that justifies them being almost as powerful as a bolter? In a previous addition a bolter was AP5. So a -1 ap to 6+ saves. Now they are so close in profile its laughable.
Bharring wrote: "Ap-1 on bolters would go a long way to make marines viable. They have always had it."
If you're talking AP5, then so did Pulse, Shuriken, Shootas, and Splinter. But I'm sure you're not talking about giving ap-1?
Shurikens have Rending on 6+
Shootas get an additional attack when shot. (They are fine)
Pulse have farther range and strength of 5 rapid fire 1. I think giving them on a roll of 6+ Ap - 2 would be fair.
Splinter has Deteriment strength Rapid Fire 24" and Poisoned profile.
These are all fine overall. The dark eldar and eldar don't need more buffs.
The bolter is 24" Rapid fire, S4, AP0 1D
Shurikens used to be AP:5 and had rending. If we're going to make bolters AP: -1 then no reason not to do the same with shurikens.
Pulse weapons were AP: 5. If we're going to make bolters AP: -1 then no reason not to do the same with pulse weapons.
Shootas were AP: 6. I wouldn't really change them either.
Spinter used to be AP: 5. If we're going to make bolters AP: -1 then no reason not to do the same with splinters.
As for Eldar, the units that primarily carry shuriken and splinter weapons aren't the units that people complain are broken.
These Dakka 'How to Fix Marines' threads are always so fething pointless.
Poster 1: "How to fix problem X, Y and Z on marines'
Poster2: "Primaris have fixed the problems X, Y and Z."
Poster1: "Noo, Primaris bad! No Primaris!"
Well, why? If Guard are intended to be a tough unit, and they function as a tough unit, what's wrong with that? There's not really a strong reason to make Marines tougher per-point than Guard.
Kinda, though it is rather difficult. Morale matters less in this edition than in the previous; that is another boost the guard got in the relation to the marines.
But frankly, if you're OK with super fragile marines with more offence, you can just play your Tacticals as Sternguard.
Not taking morale into account is disingenuous, as it is part of unit durability.
20 Bolter shots kills about 6 Guardsmen. At which point they have a 50% chance (4+) of losing 3 more. For a total loss of (9x4) 36 points. (average roll would be 3.5, so 34 points if you want to count it that way)
20 Bolter shots kills 2.2 Marines. No losses to morale. For a total loss of 28ish points.
So when you're dealing with small amounts of small arms, Guard are more durable pp, but when dealing with larger amounts of small arms, Space Marines are more durable.
Not to mention the effect of cover, in which Space Marines halve the damage dealt to them by small arms.
Here read this
