I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?
Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?
Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!
Agreed. GW has already declined to reduce power armor costs. The only thing left is raise the floor.
Terminator Armor:
-1 to wound and Ap 1 is treated as Ap 0
If this implemented:
Melta +1 strength (to still wound on 2s) and all melta like weapons (fusion, ect)
Holy cripes Panda, we were just discussing this last night! This is a great idea!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?
Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!
Lol, it's not actually. This is a great fix for marines that brings them much more in line with established fluff. Points adjustments are bandaids, not fixes for issues. 20 Guardsmen shouldn't be able to jack squat to a terminator 80 to 90% of the time.
Gir Spirit Bane wrote:I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?
Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!
A carnifex should be wounded the same and saving the same as the Marines. With respect to chaff guns. The only difference is you have less wounds. I am not entirely sure if the points work out.
It is out there. But the math really doesn't shift the probability in too horrible of a direction. Lasguns will deal half as many wounds. And bolter like weapons by a 3rd. Strength loses 17% strength 6-7 no change and strength 8 loses 17% after that no change. Marine will survive all weapon types better and be worth having 10 bolter like Marines on the table for 130pts base.
But maybe it is too much. Mathematically though it makes me feel Marines would be a formidable tough foe.
Martel732 wrote:
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?
Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!
Agreed. GW has already declined to reduce power armor costs. The only thing left is raise the floor.
Agreed completely with this thinking. However one doesn't always need to change pts to change value. See the added points i have elaborated on.
Chaff loses half to 1/3 their wounds.
Higher weapons lose 1/6th
9 or more in changed
I request people to try it to confirm it rather than paper it out.
lifeafter wrote:I agree that this is a bit extreme.
It is. But it is just an idea. And it can be tried out for fun. See what happens.
I think an easier "fix" would be to give all Astartes (both Loyal and Heretic) the following rule to represent their ability to anticipate incoming fire:
"Brace for Impact": Units with this ability are adept at tilting their armour to maximize its effectiveness against incoming shots. Armour saves rolls from enemies outside 12" may add +1 to the result.
This rule would not only add to the Marines' durability, but also encourage enemy units to get close to ignore it, thus putting them in ideal positions for said Marines.
It has great interaction from both players.
Galef wrote: I think an easier "fix" would be to give all Astartes (both Loyal and Heretic) the following rule to represent their ability to anticipate incoming fire:
"Brace for Impact": Units with this ability are adept at tilting their armour to maximize its effectiveness against incoming shots. Armour saves rolls from enemies outside 12" may add +1 to the result.
This rule would not only add to the Marines' durability, but also encourage enemy units to get close to ignore it, thus putting them in ideal positions for said Marines.
It has great interaction from both players.
-
Dangerously close to all is dust tho. Should Rubrics have both? They would be pretty much unkillable against anything. They would save the new chaincannons on 2+ out in the open, 1+ when in cover.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Dangerously close to all is dust tho. Should Rubrics have both? They would be pretty much unkillable against anything. They would save the new chaincannons on 2+ out in the open, 1+ when in cover.
I don't see why they wouldn't be stackable. Currently even regular Terminators have a 1+ armour in cover, but those are harder dominating anywhere (or even showing up on the table). Weight of fire tends to remove even 2+ save models quickly
Remember: Natural rolls of 1 still fail; Rubrics are only 1W; AP-2/3 weapons are prevalent.
My proposed change would make MEQs harder to kill with small arms fire, which is what they should be. But volume of fire will still get the job done.
I think a much simpler solution is simply to give regular marines a 2nd wound and tone down overcharged plasma to str. 7. Primaris can go to three wounds or toughness 5. It would halve the effectiveness of 1 damage weapons without the need for over complicated special rules. Certain weapons will still be effective against them but weight of fire and things like heavy bolters will be much less effective at deleting squads.
I don't like this rule change-at least, definitely not at their current price point. If it came with a points increase, maybe.
Also, I'd cap it at 6+, since there are S2 units in the game. I get that Nurglings or Grots or Ratlings shouldn't be much of a threat to Marines in Close Combat, but at the same time, it's ridiculous to say that an ordinary Marine is completely invulnerable to a Nurgling's scrabbling claws while a Land Raider or Imperial Knight can still be wounded.
Terminator Armor:
-1 to wound and Ap 1 is treated as Ap 0
If this implemented:
Melta +1 strength (to still wound on 2s) and all melta like weapons (fusion, ect)
Holy cripes Panda, we were just discussing this last night! This is a great idea!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?
Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!
Lol, it's not actually. This is a great fix for marines that brings them much more in line with established fluff. Points adjustments are bandaids, not fixes for issues. 20 Guardsmen shouldn't be able to jack squat to a terminator 80 to 90% of the time.
Fluff is not crunch. Fluff is a terrible reason to justify anything.
Lance845 wrote: Fluff is not crunch. Fluff is a terrible reason to justify anything.
If fluff is not crunch, I don't know what IG/Orks/Nids are because apparently, their strength is supposed to be numbers and I think this is pretty damn well depicted in the game. It doesn't follow that you can make a 'fluffy' horde army but you can't represent movie marines.
At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.
skchsan wrote: At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.
Agreed. 5ppm Guardsmen and 11-12ppm Marines would represent this quite well. A Marine should be just above 2x the cost of a Guarsmen, but currently they are 1pt more than 3x the cost.
skchsan wrote: At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.
Agreed. 5ppm Guardsmen and 11-12ppm Marines would represent this quite well. A Marine should be just above 2x the cost of a Guarsmen, but currently they are 1pt more than 3x the cost.
-
This would be fine if the rules represented these values. But they don't. A four point model should have no army tactic, no buffs available, nothing. You pay for bare bones, you get bare bones.
Galef wrote:I think an easier "fix" would be to give all Astartes (both Loyal and Heretic) the following rule to represent their ability to anticipate incoming fire:
"Brace for Impact": Units with this ability are adept at tilting their armour to maximize its effectiveness against incoming shots. Armour saves rolls from enemies outside 12" may add +1 to the result.
This rule would not only add to the Marines' durability, but also encourage enemy units to get close to ignore it, thus putting them in ideal positions for said Marines.
It has great interaction from both players.
-
I like this idea. And I can see it's value. However, +1 save doesnt really add value to the model in any real situation. Terminators are already best killed by mass amounts of chaff shooting. A common favorite.
I feel this returns to buy lots of chaff and it is a better choice. Hence I don't want this to be the solution.
topaxygouroun i wrote:
Galef wrote: I think an easier "fix" would be to give all Astartes (both Loyal and Heretic) the following rule to represent their ability to anticipate incoming fire:
"Brace for Impact": Units with this ability are adept at tilting their armour to maximize its effectiveness against incoming shots. Armour saves rolls from enemies outside 12" may add +1 to the result.
This rule would not only add to the Marines' durability, but also encourage enemy units to get close to ignore it, thus putting them in ideal positions for said Marines.
It has great interaction from both players.
-
Dangerously close to all is dust tho. Should Rubrics have both? They would be pretty much unkillable against anything. They would save the new chaincannons on 2+ out in the open, 1+ when in cover.
Even if it did stack it wouldn't change the math of wounds that goes through.
Galef wrote:
topaxygouroun i wrote: Dangerously close to all is dust tho. Should Rubrics have both? They would be pretty much unkillable against anything. They would save the new chaincannons on 2+ out in the open, 1+ when in cover.
I don't see why they wouldn't be stackable. Currently even regular Terminators have a 1+ armour in cover, but those are harder dominating anywhere (or even showing up on the table). Weight of fire tends to remove even 2+ save models quickly
Remember: Natural rolls of 1 still fail; Rubrics are only 1W; AP-2/3 weapons are prevalent.
My proposed change would make MEQs harder to kill with small arms fire, which is what they should be. But volume of fire will still get the job done.
-
It does offer some improvement. But only 17% more saves. Not really reducing the wound pool or incoming fire which has more impact on game play survivability. It also continues to encourage the issue at hand. Which is buy more chaff.
The reduced wound roll actually encourages players to accumulate more powerful weapons and less chaff.
Martel732 wrote:Even easier would be to have some weapons be ap +1. Like lasguns and splinter.
Thank you for your input. However this is more dangerous than the threads suggestion in my opinion because...
This helps everything not just Marines. Which we are ok with interactions else where. It is just chaff and power armor we are interested in. Both chaos and loyal.
ComradeRed1308 wrote:I think a much simpler solution is simply to give regular marines a 2nd wound and tone down overcharged plasma to str. 7. Primaris can go to three wounds or toughness 5. It would halve the effectiveness of 1 damage weapons without the need for over complicated special rules. Certain weapons will still be effective against them but weight of fire and things like heavy bolters will be much less effective at deleting squads.
So give non primarus, primarus and make primarus more. +1 W is basically the same as -1 wound roll if you really look at the math of it. Actually even more impactful really.
JNAProductions wrote:I don't like this rule change-at least, definitely not at their current price point. If it came with a points increase, maybe.
Also, I'd cap it at 6+, since there are S2 units in the game. I get that Nurglings or Grots or Ratlings shouldn't be much of a threat to Marines in Close Combat, but at the same time, it's ridiculous to say that an ordinary Marine is completely invulnerable to a Nurgling's scrabbling claws while a Land Raider or Imperial Knight can still be wounded.
Thanks for the input. And I agree with this too.
We don't need to worry about 7+ situations because 6s always work. The rule isn't intended to over ride that. This rule is only meant to reduce to a Max of 6+. But I didn't feel the limit needed to be stated because it is already in the core rules.
Terminator Armor:
-1 to wound and Ap 1 is treated as Ap 0
If this implemented:
Melta +1 strength (to still wound on 2s) and all melta like weapons (fusion, ect)
Holy cripes Panda, we were just discussing this last night! This is a great idea!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?
Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!
Lol, it's not actually. This is a great fix for marines that brings them much more in line with established fluff. Points adjustments are bandaids, not fixes for issues. 20 Guardsmen shouldn't be able to jack squat to a terminator 80 to 90% of the time.
Fluff is not crunch. Fluff is a terrible reason to justify anything.
Agreed. This was approached at a more probability and logical sense than fluff.
skchsan wrote:
Lance845 wrote: Fluff is not crunch. Fluff is a terrible reason to justify anything.
If fluff is not crunch, I don't know what IG/Orks/Nids are because apparently, their strength is supposed to be numbers and I think this is pretty damn well depicted in the game. It doesn't follow that you can make a 'fluffy' horde army but you can't represent movie marines.
At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.
This is an excellent point. And by providing a -1 wound you are adding in basically another 17-33% more survivability to the body count you have. Another view is you have an imaginary 33% more elite bodies on the field. Reducing the number gap.
Galef wrote:
skchsan wrote: At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.
Agreed. 5ppm Guardsmen and 11-12ppm Marines would represent this quite well. A Marine should be just above 2x the cost of a Guarsmen, but currently they are 1pt more than 3x the cost.
skchsan wrote: At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.
Agreed. 5ppm Guardsmen and 11-12ppm Marines would represent this quite well. A Marine should be just above 2x the cost of a Guarsmen, but currently they are 1pt more than 3x the cost.
-
This would be fine if the rules represented these values. But they don't. A four point model should have no army tactic, no buffs available, nothing. You pay for bare bones, you get bare bones.
To avoid derailing the thread I would like for us to focus on adjust power armor and power armor alone and nothing else.
I understand a more desirable situation maybe changing several things but that doesn't really measure the game state in a usable way for us. Let's do a more methodical approach and change one at a time. Yes I suggested 2 rules but it's for 1 problem: astartes on foot.
Galef wrote:I think an easier "fix" would be to give all Astartes (both Loyal and Heretic) the following rule to represent their ability to anticipate incoming fire:
"Brace for Impact": Units with this ability are adept at tilting their armour to maximize its effectiveness against incoming shots. Armour saves rolls from enemies outside 12" may add +1 to the result.
This rule would not only add to the Marines' durability, but also encourage enemy units to get close to ignore it, thus putting them in ideal positions for said Marines. It has great interaction from both players.
-
I like this idea. And I can see it's value. However, +1 save doesnt really add value to the model in any real situation. Terminators are already best killed by mass amounts of chaff shooting. A common favorite.
I feel this returns to buy lots of chaff and it is a better choice. Hence I don't want this to be the solution.
But, +1 to saving throws would help greatly against AP-1/2 weapons which are plentiful. And while I agree weight of dice will still remove Power armour and Termie units, +1 to those saves will mean more dakka must be allocated, resulting in a bigger points investment of those chaff used to put on that weight. I've actually tested this rule in several games (tracking when the +1 would have mattered) and it made a noticeable difference. Often I'd have to dedicate a whole additional unit's shooting to drop all the MEQs in the unit.
That shooting could have gone to another unit to start chipping wounds, but wasn't able to.
Best solution is to nerf the weight of dice: either by buffing marines in offense and defence, or reduce & increase cost of marines and hordes respectively.
I'm all for adding special rules but there's a fine line between bloat and buff.
skchsan wrote: .... there's a fine line between bloat and buff.
While I wholeheartedly agree, at this point in 8E, that train has sailed and bloat is unavoidable.
The only time 8E wasn't bloated was prior to Codices coming out. Everything we do now will just add bloat. And while points changes do most of the work to maintain balance, they cannot go the full distance (mostly because GW refuses to update glaring point issued like 4ppm Guard and 13ppm Marines)
The best solutions are, unfortunately, going to be added rules like Bolter Discipline and "Brace for Impact"
Lance845 wrote: Fluff is not crunch. Fluff is a terrible reason to justify anything.
If fluff is not crunch, I don't know what IG/Orks/Nids are because apparently, their strength is supposed to be numbers and I think this is pretty damn well depicted in the game. It doesn't follow that you can make a 'fluffy' horde army but you can't represent movie marines.
At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.
Oh yeah? So you think shadow in the warp does ANYTHING in the crunch like its represented in the fluff? Or syanpse? Both should be covering the entire table. Not 12 -18 inches and the shadow should be applying ld penalties to every model while psykers should be risking death to manifest powers.
skchsan wrote: .... there's a fine line between bloat and buff.
While I wholeheartedly agree, at this point in 8E, that train has sailed and bloat is unavoidable.
The only time 8E wasn't bloated was prior to Codices coming out. Everything we do now will just add bloat. And while points changes do most of the work to maintain balance, they cannot go the full distance (mostly because GW refuses to update glaring point issued like 4ppm Guard and 13ppm Marines)
The best solutions are, unfortunately, going to be added rules like Bolter Discipline and "Brace for Impact"
-
What if we merge the two concepts. And had -1 to wound outside of 12"
In the cities of death rules (which everyone should be using because they're so much better than base core rules) natural 6s always hit. I wouldn't be surprised to see this applied to wound rolls too one day but currebtly (to my knowledge) theres no natural 6s auto wound.
JNAProductions wrote:There is no 6’s always hit or 6’s always wound.
If you have Strength half the target’s Toughness, and they inflict a -1 wound penalty, you can’t wound them.
Also makes it impossible to get Sniper Mortal Wounds on Marines, it AP-3 on Shuriken weapons.
This is a really good point unless these rules trigger on unmodified results this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
It is to my understanding a natural 6 always wounds and a natural 1 always fails in the core rules.
Giantwalkingchair wrote:In the cities of death rules (which everyone should be using because they're so much better than base core rules) natural 6s always hit. I wouldn't be surprised to see this applied to wound rolls too one day but currebtly (to my knowledge) theres no natural 6s auto wound.
The wound table always has a 6 is a wound on it but it doesn't account for modifiers that I am aware of and there is no modifer to wound rolled I am of aware of.
I think it maybe better to describe this as doesn't modify natural 6s.
And currently, the only malus to wound is from a Shadowseer, and only applies to T3 models. Since nothing in the game is S1, they can always be wounded.
And currently, the only malus to wound is from a Shadowseer, and only applies to T3 models. Since nothing in the game is S1, they can always be wounded.
In conclusion then the suggest modification is now -1 to wound ignoring natural 6s.
And a secondary concept of adding a 12" range band.
And currently, the only malus to wound is from a Shadowseer, and only applies to T3 models. Since nothing in the game is S1, they can always be wounded.
In conclusion then the suggest modification is now -1 to wound ignoring natural 6s.
And a secondary concept of adding a 12" range band.
And currently, the only malus to wound is from a Shadowseer, and only applies to T3 models. Since nothing in the game is S1, they can always be wounded.
In conclusion then the suggest modification is now -1 to wound ignoring natural 6s.
And a secondary concept of adding a 12" range band.
What do you mean "Ignoring natural 6s"?
It has to be worded clearly and intuitively.
The intention is to make 6s always wound and trigger their effects. I suppose that is the better wording.
i changed it to Natural 6s always wound and trigger their effects if any
After coming back, Im afraid I still believe this is a massive overstep to the whole 'marine durability' fix. so for 13 points a model with this change, assuming you're in cover (which is very easy for marines to do, not so much my Gaunt hordes) you're 2+ -1 to wound and THEN any other faction bonuses on top (Alpha legion/Raven Guard -1, then psychic powers or other bonuses)
I just can't wrap my head around the massive leap it would give to marine durability, completely dwarfing virtually every other choice. Why should a marine never been wounded on worse than a 3+? There's infinitely more durable things out there. Hell if you want to pull the fluff card (I love the fluff in 40k, but keep it the hell out of the core rules!) Necrons are MUCH more deserving of such a change.
Marines are fine in a void by themselves, its things being too cheap and access to too much dice to drown them in that makes them feel bad, paired with seemingly anaemic firepower (then again compared to Guard/knights everything feels bad)
This change would be a cool psychic power (borrowing from Galefs earlier idea) some kind of barrier which gave models within 6" -1 to be wounded from attacks further than 12".
A blanket across the board -1 to wound for free would be crazy, hell suddenly marines are equally as tough as custodies?
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: After coming back, Im afraid I still believe this is a massive overstep to the whole 'marine durability' fix. so for 13 points a model with this change, assuming you're in cover (which is very easy for marines to do, not so much my Gaunt hordes) you're 2+ -1 to wound and THEN any other faction bonuses on top (Alpha legion/Raven Guard -1, then psychic powers or other bonuses)
I just can't wrap my head around the massive leap it would give to marine durability, completely dwarfing virtually every other choice. Why should a marine never been wounded on worse than a 3+? There's infinitely more durable things out there. Hell if you want to pull the fluff card (I love the fluff in 40k, but keep it the hell out of the core rules!) Necrons are MUCH more deserving of such a change.
Marines are fine in a void by themselves, its things being too cheap and access to too much dice to drown them in that makes them feel bad, paired with seemingly anaemic firepower (then again compared to Guard/knights everything feels bad)
This change would be a cool psychic power (borrowing from Galefs earlier idea) some kind of barrier which gave models within 6" -1 to be wounded from attacks further than 12".
A blanket across the board -1 to wound for free would be crazy, hell suddenly marines are equally as tough as custodies?
This is your typical SM blanket fix that has not even considered Chaos marines and variants.
And frankly beyond ridicoulous, imagine the following scenario but apply it to an Alpha legion plague marine. (we didn't even consider Miasma,or other psy in that case.)
A simple "Treat AP-1 as AP0" would be enough frankly... MEQ are not *that* fragile against chaff fire. Also, Cover benefits 3+ saves a lot more than it benefits 6, 5 or even 4+ saves.
Not Online!!! wrote: This is your typical SM blanket fix that has not even considered Chaos marines and variants. And frankly beyond ridicoulous, imagine the following scenario but apply it to an Alpha legion plague marine. (we didn't even consider Miasma,or other psy in that case.)
I agree, which I why I absolutely do not think -1 to wound is a good idea. +1 to armour saves outside 12" is much better because it can be circumvented by the right weapons a lot easier. Let's look at that AL Plague Marine in cover under both versions. Lets also use Plasma. No need to supercharge as the T5 and 1W does not merit supercharging.
Outside 12" you get -1 to hit from AL. With -1 to wounds as the OP suggestion you go from a 67% chance to wound, to only 50/50. 5+ armour save after both cover and AP-3, so 33% chance of ignoring by armour. So just the to wound and armour = 16.5% chance the wound goes through
With +1 armour instead, you still wound on 3s for a 67% chance to wound, but not the cover + AP-3 + bonus = 4+ armour, or 50%. That's a 33.5% chance the wound gets through, which is DOUBLE the chance of -1 to wound. It's still a bonus, but not so much that Chaos Marines such as Plague Marine and Rubric become OP unkillable. Armour can be circumvented much easier that ignoring a -1 to wound.
+1 to Armour save rolls is just enough of a bonus to either make "weight of fire" tactics ineffective, thus requiring the use of more heavy weapons, OR it makes weight of fire need just a bit more investment to get the job done, thus making them less cost effective. It also puts the "bonus" in the hands of the MARINE player, rather than their opponent. And rules in which MY dice get a bonus are, IMO, more fun than those that put a negative on YOUR dice.
Not Online!!! wrote: This is your typical SM blanket fix that has not even considered Chaos marines and variants.
And frankly beyond ridicoulous, imagine the following scenario but apply it to an Alpha legion plague marine. (we didn't even consider Miasma,or other psy in that case.)
I agree, which I why I absolutely do not think -1 to wound is a good idea. +1 to armour saves outside 12" is much better because it can be circumvented by the right weapons a lot easier.
Let's look at that AL Plague Marine in cover under both versions. Lets also use Plasma. No need to supercharge as the T5 and 1W does not merit supercharging.
Outside 12" you get -1 to hit from AL. With -1 to wounds as the OP suggestion you go from a 67% chance to wound, to only 50/50. 5+ armour save after both cover and AP-3, so 33% chance of ignoring by armour. So just the to wound and armour = 16.5% chance the wound goes through
With +1 armour instead, you still wound on 3s for a 67% chance to wound, but not the cover + AP-3 + bonus = 4+ armour, or 50%. That's a 33.5% chance the wound gets through, which is DOUBLE the chance of -1 to wound.
It's still a bonus, but not so much that Chaos Marines such as Plague Marine and Rubric become OP unkillable.
Armour can be circumvented much easier that ignoring a -1 to wound.
+1 to Armour save rolls is just enough of a bonus to either make "weight of fire" tactics ineffective, thus requiring the use of more heavy weapons, OR it makes weight of fire need just a bit more investment to get the job done, thus making them less cost effective.
It also puts the "bonus" in the hands of the MARINE player, rather than their opponent. And rules in which MY dice get a bonus are, IMO, more fun than those that put a negative on YOUR dice.
-
This is certainly a better and more competent fix, especially considering that marines due to the great new beta bolter rule now want to sit around.
I would loathe to see -1 to hit -1 to wound T5 models witha 3+/5+++ for 16 pts.
+1 to armor would also incentivice stuff with ap 1 (AC, GL, HB's, etc.)
Not Online!!! wrote: +1 to armor would also incentivice stuff with ap 1 (AC, GL, HB's, etc.)
This is also a great point about why I really don't like the "Treat AP-1 as AP-0" It dissuades use of weapons that already have a hard time getting use.
+1 to armour has the same affect against AP-1 weapons, but don't specifically target just those weapons. It applies to things like Lascannons and Plasma just as well.
-1 to wound is a bit much. But let's make it -1 strength instead. I still get what I feel is enough for Marines to feel scary tough.
I don't feel +1 to save really adds any value and invalidates Marie's desiring to take cover against the majority of weapons.
The other thing is army wide -1 to hit is too good of a tactic. And shouldn't be in the game. It adds too much value to everything going away 17-50% of range shooting attack pool.
Where as I am aiming at the same thing at the wound stage. And you are all suggesting a 17% more likely to save to 50% at range on the save roll. And you prefer it because there is more modifiers on that segment and thus you can "ignore it" by purchasing more big guns.
If I were to have my -1 to wound or -1 strength I would prefer -1 to hitting to be non existent as well.
And if making power armor work for you is changing it to a 2+ that still leaves terminators sad.
Not Online!!! wrote: +1 to armor would also incentivice stuff with ap 1 (AC, GL, HB's, etc.)
This is also a great point about why I really don't like the "Treat AP-1 as AP-0" It dissuades use of weapons that already have a hard time getting use.
+1 to armour has the same affect against AP-1 weapons, but don't specifically target just those weapons. It applies to things like Lascannons and Plasma just as well.
-
+X to save roll mechanic already exists - see Bullgryn/slab shield.
I think it's an existing design space that would fit well for what you're trying to implement.
Not Online!!! wrote: +1 to armor would also incentivice stuff with ap 1 (AC, GL, HB's, etc.)
This is also a great point about why I really don't like the "Treat AP-1 as AP-0" It dissuades use of weapons that already have a hard time getting use.
+1 to armour has the same affect against AP-1 weapons, but don't specifically target just those weapons. It applies to things like Lascannons and Plasma just as well.
-
+X to save roll mechanic already exists - see Bullgryn/slab shield.
I think it's an existing design space that would fit well for what you're trying to implement.
It is. And if the community prefers it to be in the save portion of the damage system that is fine. I was interested in taking it in the middle of the system at wounding as oppose to accuracy or saving. The resultant probability doesn't really shift. But the interaction between units of various flavors. Perhaps boosting saving is the best (least interaction mangling between units), but it bottoms out in capability, which does stop potential win able situations (read as over powered).
I am interested to see what the change is if any coming up.
Maybe marines would become 9 pts a model? who knows.
Not Online!!! wrote: +1 to armor would also incentivice stuff with ap 1 (AC, GL, HB's, etc.)
This is also a great point about why I really don't like the "Treat AP-1 as AP-0" It dissuades use of weapons that already have a hard time getting use.
+1 to armour has the same affect against AP-1 weapons, but don't specifically target just those weapons. It applies to things like Lascannons and Plasma just as well.
-
+X to save roll mechanic already exists - see Bullgryn/slab shield.
I think it's an existing design space that would fit well for what you're trying to implement.
It is. And if the community prefers it to be in the save portion of the damage system that is fine. I was interested in taking it in the middle of the system at wounding as oppose to accuracy or saving. The resultant probability doesn't really shift. But the interaction between units of various flavors. Perhaps boosting saving is the best (least interaction mangling between units), but it bottoms out in capability, which does stop potential win able situations (read as over powered).
I am interested to see what the change is if any coming up.
Maybe marines would become 9 pts a model? who knows.
If GEQ's could now roll 5+ saves against flamers and boltguns, I think marines saving on a roll of 5+ against plasma is a fair game. In fact, the way AP system works it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement more AP negation mechanic at infantry levels.
Natural roll of 1 fails anyways, so the +X to save system is one of the weaker defensive gimmick which would prevent marines becoming overly tough.
As for implementation across the game:
-T5 for CSM -AP negation for TSon
-FNP for DG -+X to save for SM flavors
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cormadepanda wrote: I don't feel +1 to save really adds any value and invalidates Marie's desiring to take cover against the majority of weapons.
This is exactly it. If marines get anything it should be that they don't have to rely on cover except for against vaporizong kind of weapons.
Marines always have been the "easy to learn" army throughout the history of 40k. Less tactics required, more marine-y they'll be (at least on tabletop).
JNAProductions wrote: I would much rather Marines be made worth 13 PPM than dropping them to match their current poor showing.
Agreed. Marines seem "right" at 13ppm as a comparison to other Troops' "value". But the current Marine is NOT worth 13ppm.
I'll keep saying they SHOULD have been 2Ws at the start of 8E (for maybe 15ppm) until it actually happens.
But since that is unlikely to happen, we are more likely to see a points drop, or more preferably, something like a Bolter-Discipline add-on to help their 1W durability.
JNAProductions wrote: I would much rather Marines be made worth 13 PPM than dropping them to match their current poor showing.
Agreed. Marines seem "right" at 13ppm as a comparison to other Troops' "value". But the current Marine is NOT worth 13ppm.
I'll keep saying they SHOULD have been 2Ws at the start of 8E (for maybe 15ppm) until it actually happens.
But since that is unlikely to happen, we are more likely to see a points drop, or more preferably, something like a Bolter-Discipline add-on to help their 1W durability.
-
The thing is 1W durability isn't that terrible vrs Ap0 especially S3, they durability is really an issue because they are do so little damage your opponent can concentrate on the units that will hurt and mop up your marines later, even with Beta Bolters it doesn't make a tac marine great as it costs movement on a usually low model count army. So maximising the bonus is almost impossible.
The real issue is the AP system is kinda brutal against the better armour, the better your armour the higher the impact of -Ap.
Also, what "troops" "value" are you comparing them to?
CSM? Necron Warriors? Aspect Warriors? They should be roughly the same "eliteness" - and are, points wise.
Custodes, GK, Cult Troops? Marines should be - and are - less elite.
Guardians/Rangers/Scouts/etc? Marines are more "elite", but not overwhelmingly so.
Kabs, Guardsmen, etc? Marines should be significantly more elite, and are.
At 11ppm/12ppm, they're still well priced relative to their "fluffy" eliteness when looking at other "Elite" infantry - Custodes, Aspect Warriors, Necron Warriors, etc.
JNAProductions wrote: I would much rather Marines be made worth 13 PPM than dropping them to match their current poor showing.
Agreed. Marines seem "right" at 13ppm as a comparison to other Troops' "value". But the current Marine is NOT worth 13ppm.
I'll keep saying they SHOULD have been 2Ws at the start of 8E (for maybe 15ppm) until it actually happens.
But since that is unlikely to happen, we are more likely to see a points drop, or more preferably, something like a Bolter-Discipline add-on to help their 1W durability.
-
The thing is 1W durability isn't that terrible vrs Ap0 especially S3, they durability is really an issue because they are do so little damage your opponent can concentrate on the units that will hurt and mop up your marines later, even with Beta Bolters it doesn't make a tac marine great as it costs movement on a usually low model count army. So maximising the bonus is almost impossible.
The real issue is the AP system is kinda brutal against the better armour, the better your armour the higher the impact of -Ap.
Which is why my +1 to armour rolls is a godo solution. It basically makes AP3 ->2, AP-2 ->1 and so on. Combined with Cover and AP weapons don't punish Marines so badly.
The issue is that there is not enough design space in the current system to give a realistic scale from grots to titans.
Currently a space marine has the same armour save as a tank. A terminator (unless I'm mistaken) has a better save than a dreadnaught - even though it is "Tactical Dreadnaught Armour".
The only way I can see there being sufficient space is to do a fair bit of shunting;
Shunt all AP down 1 - meaning that AP - is now AP+1 (adds 1 to saves).
Shunt all saves down 1 - meaning that marines are now 4+, orks are 7+, and so on
These 2 will essentially cancel out - you will still get the same save as you do now. However, it will allow a little more design space to tweak things.
Then, I suggest that we split vehicles and infantry again. They should have different profiles, it shouldn't require the same mechanic to cut someones throat as it does to stab your little blade into an armoured battle-tank (which presumably has a little "off" button on the back so that it's fair to gretchin).
I think that yes, there should be things which you cannot hurt, and those should be vehicles. a gretchin should not be able to hurt a landraider.
I also think that the vehicles should get easier to hurt the more you damage ethem - once there's a hole in the side, a gretchin will find it very easy to cause some havoc!
As such, I think that vehicles should go into the realm of 1+, 0+, -1+ etc. saves, and that natural rolls of 1 should not fail (have a rule specifically for vehicles, and certain massive monsters). Then you will need to bring anti tank, to hurt a tank. I really don't think that this is a bad thing!
Then you just have the reducing profile, which a lot of vehicles have already, but have the save reduce dramatically after the first tier - once it's damaged, you can hurt it with mostly anything.
Now that you've got the scope to make vehicles as good as they should be, you've left a vacuum in the "hard to wound, but always possible" section, which can be filled by the elites. Give Marines and terminators a higher toughness and a normal save, and they will be more survivable, without encroaching onto a tanks domain (a marine should be easier to kill than a rhino, otherwise they wouldn't need rhinos!)
so a marine with T6 and 4+ save, where lasguns give +1 to saves, is very hard to kill with a lasgun. However, it's not comparable to a rhino, which would be T7 and have a 0+ save - meaning you need AP-2 to actually hurt it.
Looking at that, you would probably need a bit of a jump for true anti-tank - but it's fairly reasonable that a lascannon should do a damn-sight more damage than a lasgun. marines and termies shouldn't get saves from them at all, and they should bring vehicles down to 4+ or worse.
Gauss can then be implemented as negating the "natural rolls of a 1 do not fail for vehicle saves" rule, much like the old "glances on a 6" rule they used to have. They still have to hit and wound, so it's just a little bit of help, and adds flavour to the army.
Vehicles would also have to have a "+1 to hit" rule, as they are large targets and hitting them with a lascannon is a lot more crucial if your bolters are useless.
General guidelines:
Weak vehicles (trukks, buggies, landspeeders etc) would have 2+ save, and so can be hurt by anything currently AP-1 or better.
Medium vehicles (chimeras, rhinos, big trakks) would have a 1+ save, and so will need what is currently AP-2 to hurt them.
Heavy vehicles (Russes, Battlewagons) will have a 0+ save, and so need what is currently AP-3 to hurt them.
Superheavy vehicles (Landraiders, knights, most superheavies) will have a -1+ save, and so need what is currently AP-4 to hurt them.
Again, lascannons, missiles and meltaguns etc. would get a big buff to AP, and would get +1 to hit vehicles (everything would) so they will still inflict damage. They would also need a boost to damage as well. such things can be ironed out.
Points will have to be adjusted to reflect increased survivability, but this would work well I think - and leave a gap for marines to fit in to where they are supposed to be.
Give them a reroll of 1s for armour saves if the attacking ranged weapon is str 3 or below. Now, they can be movie marines and terminators will be almost unkillable to lasguns.
Given the "simplicitiy" and "immediate availabilitity of reference by having everything wirrten down on datasheet" approach, it wouldn't be bad to fully implement and dish out "improve X characteristic/roll by N if target has Y keyword" mechanics much like how poisoned weapons and sniper have against infantries.
It would provide the granularity we'd need to holistically tone down AP.
Togusa wrote: Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.
As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.
I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.
Here is the real question on this issue:
Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?
Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?
Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.
Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.
Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.
Finally someone else see's it.
Unfortunately with hellblasters GW seems to have doubled down and lent into plasma must be OP as feth to make up for how terrible primaris marines are.
Togusa wrote: Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.
As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.
I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.
Here is the real question on this issue:
Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?
Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?
Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.
Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.
Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.
Finally someone else see's it.
Unfortunately with hellblasters GW seems to have doubled down and lent into plasma must be OP as feth to make up for how terrible primaris marines are.
Yeah, I deepstruck 6 termies on Sunday in a game, shot, killed 4 Hellblasters. With a banner with the 3+ relic, he shot back and killed 4 Terminataors (Because why not over charge?) and that was it. I lost all my great cc potential. Plasma is absolutely over powered at its current stats and price zone. There is no reason for meltas, flamers or gravity guns to exist. At all. Ever. Plasma kills tanks, it kills elite infantry, heavy armored infantry. Multi-wound models. Custodes. All of it.
Bharring wrote: Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.
Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.
As almost all Plasma should be. It's not the only 1D plasma out there, but I meant almost all Plasma should be D1, not that all plasma was currenlty D2+.
Togusa wrote: Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.
As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.
I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.
Here is the real question on this issue:
Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?
Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?
Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.
Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.
Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.
Finally someone else see's it.
Unfortunately with hellblasters GW seems to have doubled down and lent into plasma must be OP as feth to make up for how terrible primaris marines are.
Yeah, I deepstruck 6 termies on Sunday in a game, shot, killed 4 Hellblasters. With a banner with the 3+ relic, he shot back and killed 4 Terminataors (Because why not over charge?) and that was it. I lost all my great cc potential. Plasma is absolutely over powered at its current stats and price zone. There is no reason for meltas, flamers or gravity guns to exist. At all. Ever. Plasma kills tanks, it kills elite infantry, heavy armored infantry. Multi-wound models. Custodes. All of it.
Bharring wrote: Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.
Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.
I still don't understand why hellblasters are rapidfire and ap -4. If anything they should at the very least be HEAVY 1.
It's really more like - terminators should have a better save.
Plasma is actually pretty under powered. It is the only weapon worth taking for space marines AND it just so happens to slay your models when you use it. Even with rerolls...you lose a good chunk of points every time you shoot. Realistically. You should have shot the hellblasters down with something before they got within 15" of anything. They have no mobility - no gimmick to get in range and cost just about as much as a terminator. Hellblasters aren't even good enough to make my all primaris list. Plasma inteceptors are superior IMO.
Bharring wrote: Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.
Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.
As almost all Plasma should be. It's not the only 1D plasma out there, but I meant almost all Plasma should be D1, not that all plasma was currenlty D2+.
Without getting too far off topic, I agree. Plasma should be aces at ignoring armor, but not at killing whats inside of it. To do both at such a cheap cost is not healthy for the game.
Bharring wrote: Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.
Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.
As almost all Plasma should be. It's not the only 1D plasma out there, but I meant almost all Plasma should be D1, not that all plasma was currenlty D2+.
Bharring wrote: Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.
There's too many others. Those crazy spike rifles the nids have, GSC demo charges, most of the IG codex, etc. Nerfing plasma just puts a new king on the throne. It won't help at all.
I don't use plasma at all as it is. It's instalose vs Alaitoc and Drukhari.
Togusa wrote: Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.
As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.
I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.
Here is the real question on this issue:
Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?
Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?
Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.
Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.
Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.
Finally someone else see's it.
Unfortunately with hellblasters GW seems to have doubled down and lent into plasma must be OP as feth to make up for how terrible primaris marines are.
Yeah, I deepstruck 6 termies on Sunday in a game, shot, killed 4 Hellblasters. With a banner with the 3+ relic, he shot back and killed 4 Terminataors (Because why not over charge?) and that was it. I lost all my great cc potential. Plasma is absolutely over powered at its current stats and price zone. There is no reason for meltas, flamers or gravity guns to exist. At all. Ever. Plasma kills tanks, it kills elite infantry, heavy armored infantry. Multi-wound models. Custodes. All of it.
Bharring wrote: Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.
Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.
I still don't understand why hellblasters are rapidfire and ap -4. If anything they should at the very least be HEAVY 1.
It's really more like - terminators should have a better save.
Plasma is actually pretty under powered. It is the only weapon worth taking for space marines AND it just so happens to slay your models when you use it. Even with rerolls...you lose a good chunk of points every time you shoot. Realistically. You should have shot the hellblasters down with something before they got within 15" of anything. They have no mobility - no gimmick to get in range and cost just about as much as a terminator. Hellblasters aren't even good enough to make my all primaris list. Plasma inteceptors are superior IMO.
He hid his Plasma dudes quite well, there really wasn't any way for me to get at them without deepstriking in front of them for all the terrain in the way. Unfortunately Chaos Marines do not get snipers that ignore LoS, add +2 to their hit rolls when they shoot.
As for Hellblasters and Plasma Marines, you only die should you choose to over charge, and if you're running them next to a cappy and a lieutenant, they almost never die to their own folly. Then, with your relic banner, you still get to shoot, sans penalty at whatever kills you, overcharged!
Bharring wrote: Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.
Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.
As almost all Plasma should be. It's not the only 1D plasma out there, but I meant almost all Plasma should be D1, not that all plasma was currenlty D2+.
Without getting too far off topic, I agree. Plasma should be aces at ignoring armor, but not at killing whats inside of it. To do both at such a cheap cost is not healthy for the game.
It's not offtopic. The whole game gaks on power armor and terminators. Everything is on topic.
Togusa wrote: Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.
As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.
I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.
Here is the real question on this issue:
Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?
Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?
Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.
Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.
Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.
Finally someone else see's it.
Unfortunately with hellblasters GW seems to have doubled down and lent into plasma must be OP as feth to make up for how terrible primaris marines are.
Yeah, I deepstruck 6 termies on Sunday in a game, shot, killed 4 Hellblasters. With a banner with the 3+ relic, he shot back and killed 4 Terminataors (Because why not over charge?) and that was it. I lost all my great cc potential. Plasma is absolutely over powered at its current stats and price zone. There is no reason for meltas, flamers or gravity guns to exist. At all. Ever. Plasma kills tanks, it kills elite infantry, heavy armored infantry. Multi-wound models. Custodes. All of it.
Bharring wrote: Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.
Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.
I still don't understand why hellblasters are rapidfire and ap -4. If anything they should at the very least be HEAVY 1.
It's really more like - terminators should have a better save.
Plasma is actually pretty under powered. It is the only weapon worth taking for space marines AND it just so happens to slay your models when you use it. Even with rerolls...you lose a good chunk of points every time you shoot. Realistically. You should have shot the hellblasters down with something before they got within 15" of anything. They have no mobility - no gimmick to get in range and cost just about as much as a terminator. Hellblasters aren't even good enough to make my all primaris list. Plasma inteceptors are superior IMO.
He hid his Plasma dudes quite well, there really wasn't any way for me to get at them without deepstriking in front of them for all the terrain in the way. Unfortunately Chaos Marines do not get snipers that ignore LoS, add +2 to their hit rolls when they shoot.
As for Hellblasters and Plasma Marines, you only die should you choose to over charge, and if you're running them next to a cappy and a lieutenant, they almost never die to their own folly. Then, with your relic banner, you still get to shoot, sans penalty at whatever kills you, overcharged!
It's a little ridiculous.
Relic banner is crazy I agree with that. It's auto include. Marines have no shoot twice stratagems though. So it makes up for it.
The amount of havok and benefit it gives for its very low cost of 60ish points is one of the better deals in 40k. If you are already grouping up to be in Gmans and a captermaster LT aura anyways...it is really easy to get another 6 " aura in there to shoot back on a 3+ (with the relic).
Example of its power. Against orks a 30 man boy dropped down in front of my intercessors. I auspex scanned and killed 8. Then the orks (who are supposed to be bad at shooting) killed 16 intercessors in the shooting phase. The banner shot back and killed 15 more orks. 7 Orks wasn't enough to kill the unit it charged and the result is that unit would have pulverized me only killed 2 intercessors. (The shooting damage was freaking inevitable). Without his gimick he was doomed. I one shot his lootas with rapid fire in my turn. My gimmick wins. Gimmick 40k baby.
If you really think about it. It is 2/3rd of another shooting phase if you focus on infantry bubble aura...and I do.
Multidamage is now everywhere because they changed vehicles and characters, which now have more wounds.
Marines have the same survivability against plasma as in 7e, they get wounded more easily but still have an armor save, in an edition where lethality is immensely increased.
If you want movie marines, you already have them. They are called characters. Movie marines have plotarmor, as do characters who have additional wounds which indicates plot armor for me most of the time. (monsters, dreadnoughts, Cawl being exceptions.)
Unit comparison stops as soon as you compare them to guardsmen, which are the best troop choice.
Togusa wrote: Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.
As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.
I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.
Here is the real question on this issue:
Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?
Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?
Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.
Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.
Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.
Finally someone else see's it.
Unfortunately with hellblasters GW seems to have doubled down and lent into plasma must be OP as feth to make up for how terrible primaris marines are.
Yeah, I deepstruck 6 termies on Sunday in a game, shot, killed 4 Hellblasters. With a banner with the 3+ relic, he shot back and killed 4 Terminataors (Because why not over charge?) and that was it. I lost all my great cc potential. Plasma is absolutely over powered at its current stats and price zone. There is no reason for meltas, flamers or gravity guns to exist. At all. Ever. Plasma kills tanks, it kills elite infantry, heavy armored infantry. Multi-wound models. Custodes. All of it.
Bharring wrote: Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.
Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.
I still don't understand why hellblasters are rapidfire and ap -4. If anything they should at the very least be HEAVY 1.
It's really more like - terminators should have a better save.
Plasma is actually pretty under powered. It is the only weapon worth taking for space marines AND it just so happens to slay your models when you use it. Even with rerolls...you lose a good chunk of points every time you shoot. Realistically. You should have shot the hellblasters down with something before they got within 15" of anything. They have no mobility - no gimmick to get in range and cost just about as much as a terminator. Hellblasters aren't even good enough to make my all primaris list. Plasma inteceptors are superior IMO.
I disagree with most of what your saying, because if we compair 7th to 8th which doesn't quite read across perfectly.
But points changes,
Flamer +1
Melta +4
Grav -3
Plasma -4
Plasma guns got rediculous reductions in points comparatively.
Lets check those stats to see if their is any reasonable excuse for some of these changes
Flamer lost AP5, went from template to D6 at 8 inch a side great at best if being generous.
Melta went from AP1 to -4, from armour pen to increased damage.
Grav, ouch salvo 2/3 to rapid fire, AP2 to -3, lost concussion, and now randomly becomes a Damage d3 weapon against marines or better.
Plasma guns got +1 Strength, Ap2 to Ap-3, and Damage D2, additionally got a S7 Ap-3 D1 shooting mode aswell. How did this thing get more point's reduction when it clearly got a relative rules buff?
The reason hellblasters suck is more that the dude holding the gun sucks give pladma incinerators to scions and you're creating something 7th edition formation levels of broke.
Flamers got worse and more expensive BAD
Melta didn't really change but got 40% point increase BAD
Grav got nerfed so probably did deserve a points deduction. Ok
Plasma got buffed and the biggest points deduction. Rediculous The issue is Plasma set the tone for GW to balance against and then handed the most buffed weapon to the most buffed faction at an even cheaper points cost.
Grav was boosted in 7th to give marines a boost without buffing non marines.
Just to compete with plasma Melta would need to drop back to 10 points maybe even down to 8 seing as how rediculously better plasma is.
Flamers would need to be 2 points or such to be worth taking.
Plasma got a lot worse. It used to allow you an invun save and a FNP for the single wound it did to you per fail. Now it outright slays you. You can't ignore this. Killing yourself is terrible. If a weapon can do that - it should get about a 50% drop in points.
Grav became worthless. It lost its easy wounding properties and in general lost a shot too.
Melta is fine but suffers from the games rules of -1 to hit and invulnerable save inflation. When units don't have these things melta is amazing. I think Melta should probably get "+1 to wound against vehicals" then it might start to compete as a choice. That and MM needs to be 2 friggin shots (for 0 points increases)
Xenomancers wrote: Plasma got a lot worse. It used to allow you an invun save and a FNP for the single wound it did to you per fail. Now it outright slays you. You can't ignore this. Killing yourself is terrible. If a weapon can do that - it should get about a 50% drop in points.
Grav became worthless. It lost its easy wounding properties and in general lost a shot too.
Melta is fine but suffers from the games rules of -1 to hit and invulnerable save inflation. When units don't have these things melta is amazing. I think Melta should probably get "+1 to wound against vehicals" then it might start to compete as a choice. That and MM needs to be 2 friggin shots (for 0 points increases)
Except for the fact that this never matters for space marines. I've not lost a model to an overcharge in weeks. Used correctly, you should be hitting on 2+ rerolling 1's.
That aside:
Melta should go to S9, drop the 2D6 pick the highest dmg in favor of cause an extra wound to vehicles on a 2+ to hit.
Flamers should have "when selecting this weapon to fire overwatch, roll 1d3 automatic hits.
Gravity...I have no idea what to do with gravity.
I never understood why the MM was "more range" instead of "more shots" putting two barrels on a shot gun doesn't make it shot farther.
Xenomancers wrote: Plasma got a lot worse. It used to allow you an invun save and a FNP for the single wound it did to you per fail. Now it outright slays you. You can't ignore this. Killing yourself is terrible. If a weapon can do that - it should get about a 50% drop in points.
Grav became worthless. It lost its easy wounding properties and in general lost a shot too.
Melta is fine but suffers from the games rules of -1 to hit and invulnerable save inflation. When units don't have these things melta is amazing. I think Melta should probably get "+1 to wound against vehicals" then it might start to compete as a choice. That and MM needs to be 2 friggin shots (for 0 points increases)
Disagree with your assessment, you say plasma got worse because of the changes to overheat, I say that's so irrelevant due to the ability to reroll almost everything being so widespread.
Also how many invulnerable saves and FNP's were you rolling fir tac marines etc in 7th edition?
Also you can't really deny that if your using rhe 7th edition equivalent statline that 8th edition plasma doesn't actually have a gets hot rule.
Xenomancers wrote: Plasma got a lot worse. It used to allow you an invun save and a FNP for the single wound it did to you per fail. Now it outright slays you. You can't ignore this. Killing yourself is terrible. If a weapon can do that - it should get about a 50% drop in points.
Grav became worthless. It lost its easy wounding properties and in general lost a shot too.
Melta is fine but suffers from the games rules of -1 to hit and invulnerable save inflation. When units don't have these things melta is amazing. I think Melta should probably get "+1 to wound against vehicals" then it might start to compete as a choice. That and MM needs to be 2 friggin shots (for 0 points increases)
Disagree with your assessment, you say plasma got worse because of the changes to overheat, I say that's so irrelevant due to the ability to reroll almost everything being so widespread.
Also how many invulnerable saves and FNP's were you rolling fir tac marines etc in 7th edition?
Also you can't really deny that if your using rhe 7th edition equivalent statline that 8th edition plasma doesn't actually have a gets hot rule.
I can tell you don't actually play marines. THe only army really using plasma because it has no other option.
With no -1 to hit penalties 1/3 of your hits miss - and it's well within reason for up to half miss on a typical dice roll. So when you are shooting 14-20ish plasma shots (think plasma inceptors and Hellblasters). You are rerolling between 6-10 dice. You can mitgate this by not rerolling your 2's BUT mathematically you are better off rerolling them. Doesn't mean it will work out for you. Roll 2-3 ones on that roll and you deal just about as much damage to yourself as you dealt to your opponent (esp if they have 4++ or 3++ saves).
Any alderi can basically make your plasma useless.
Custodians always have the -1 to hit banner
Flyers
Tau can do it on demand
not to mention all the units that have natural -1 to hits
Forget all that -1 to hit nonsense though. Plasma is more than capable of inflicting crippling damage on yourself even with reroll 1's.
Xenomancers wrote: Plasma got a lot worse. It used to allow you an invun save and a FNP for the single wound it did to you per fail. Now it outright slays you. You can't ignore this. Killing yourself is terrible. If a weapon can do that - it should get about a 50% drop in points.
Plasma got a straight buff.
In 6E/7E, it was S7 and risked hurting you on 1s.
In 8E, it is S7 with no risk.
They added an Overcharge version - you can now hit as hard as a MeltaGun on a RF1 24" gun, but risk blowing yourself up a fraction of the time.
That's a pure, direct upgrade. It is the exact same in every way except for where it's better. And that's before considering it can now be "overcharged".
Melta is fine but suffers from the games rules of -1 to hit and invulnerable save inflation. When units don't have these things melta is amazing. I think Melta should probably get "+1 to wound against vehicals" then it might start to compete as a choice.
Melta lost out huge. Before 8th, it had a good chance for any given hit to outright destroy a vehicle. And, even if the pen dice hated you, it'd pop almost any vehicle in 3 wounds - 4 for stuff like Land Raiders. Now, it's not even possible to kill most vehicles with one, only light vehicles can be killed even if you're lucky with 2. You need 3 successful wounds to possibly kill a Land Raider if you roll amazing - it could take up to 16!
Melta is still, in theory, the weapon you take because it's the highest S and highest D of the Specials. But Plasma kills Vehicles even faster (albeit with a small risk of going boom). While also killing everything else faster.
So why specialize with Melta, when Plasma does it - and every other job - better?
Clearly, either Plasma needs a nerf or Melta needs a buff (possbly both).
That and MM needs to be 2 friggin shots (for 0 points increases)
MM does need a buff (although not wild about 2 shots).
Xenomancers wrote: Plasma got a lot worse. It used to allow you an invun save and a FNP for the single wound it did to you per fail. Now it outright slays you. You can't ignore this. Killing yourself is terrible. If a weapon can do that - it should get about a 50% drop in points.
Grav became worthless. It lost its easy wounding properties and in general lost a shot too.
Melta is fine but suffers from the games rules of -1 to hit and invulnerable save inflation. When units don't have these things melta is amazing. I think Melta should probably get "+1 to wound against vehicals" then it might start to compete as a choice. That and MM needs to be 2 friggin shots (for 0 points increases)
Disagree with your assessment, you say plasma got worse because of the changes to overheat, I say that's so irrelevant due to the ability to reroll almost everything being so widespread.
Also how many invulnerable saves and FNP's were you rolling fir tac marines etc in 7th edition?
Also you can't really deny that if your using rhe 7th edition equivalent statline that 8th edition plasma doesn't actually have a gets hot rule.
I can tell you don't actually play marines. THe only army really using plasma because it has no other option.
With no -1 to hit penalties 1/3 of your hits miss - and it's well within reason for up to half miss on a typical dice roll. So when you are shooting 14-20ish plasma shots (think plasma inceptors and Hellblasters). You are rerolling between 6-10 dice. You can mitgate this by not rerolling your 2's BUT mathematically you are better off rerolling them. Doesn't mean it will work out for you. Roll 2-3 ones on that roll and you deal just about as much damage to yourself as you dealt to your opponent (esp if they have 4++ or 3++ saves).
Any alderi can basically make your plasma useless.
If you're overcharging when shooting at Rangers halfway across the map with LQR and Conceal, you're doing it wrong.
If you're overcharging shooting Eldar infantry, you're doing it wrong, too. S7 D1 kills them just as readily as S8 D2.
If you're shooting tanks, you have the choice between risking the firer for more than double damage, or not risking the firer. Either way, you do serious damage to them (Again, unless you're firing at >12" against a LQR Alaitoc vehicle that advanced last turn with engines - but you shouldn't be able to hit that thing easily.)
Custodians always have the -1 to hit banner
Flyers
Tau can do it on demand
not to mention all the units that have natural -1 to hits
Forget all that -1 to hit nonsense though. Plasma is more than capable of inflicting crippling damage on yourself even with reroll 1's.
If you don't want to risk blowing up, then don't overcharge - S7 with good AP is good. If you want uber OC damage, you pay for it with the risk of going boom. It's still a flat upgrade over what it was last edition.
Bharring wrote: Depends on the target. For many, it wounds on 2s and denies any armor save - at RF2.
But the cost is high as well as the opportunity cost.
Are you telling me you'd take flamers (ha), meltaguns (one shot), or grav-guns (9" rapid fire?) if the multi-damage mode didn't have good targets on your plasma guns?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Uhhh - there are so many weapons that give boom without killing themselves. That argument is meaningless.
One needs only to look at dessie cannons and star cannons to know plasma is Gak.
This strikes me as an odd comparison, given that starcannons and disintegrators are the primary armament of tanks and a plasma gun is a rifle a random infantryman can cart around.
So all your complaints about how utterly useless your Space Marines are are based on squads that you've deliberately built to be unable to effectively damage anything bigger than a Guardsman?
Martel732 wrote: That's not the fundamental problem. All the special weapons are now fatally flawed for marines. Plasma is great on scions, trash on marines.
I'm not using squads that can even take plasma anymore.
Also, killing guardsmen is often a limiting factor, so i dont understand your counterpoint.
I have to agree the fundamental problem with marines is they're over paying heavily for a statline that means nothing like what it's pointed as if it means. Making tac marines more points without a defensive buff is just handing out free points realy.
Reapers have a nasty habit of spending tne whole game out of los. They also potentially nuke all deep strikers, ignore to hit, and have amazing frag ammo. They have 55 pts of rules for less than 40. They are a terrible example.
Dissy cannons are on cheap platforms that ignore heavy and fire 36".
Xenomancers wrote: Plasma got a lot worse. It used to allow you an invun save and a FNP for the single wound it did to you per fail. Now it outright slays you. You can't ignore this. Killing yourself is terrible. If a weapon can do that - it should get about a 50% drop in points.
Grav became worthless. It lost its easy wounding properties and in general lost a shot too.
Melta is fine but suffers from the games rules of -1 to hit and invulnerable save inflation. When units don't have these things melta is amazing. I think Melta should probably get "+1 to wound against vehicals" then it might start to compete as a choice. That and MM needs to be 2 friggin shots (for 0 points increases)
Disagree with your assessment, you say plasma got worse because of the changes to overheat, I say that's so irrelevant due to the ability to reroll almost everything being so widespread.
Also how many invulnerable saves and FNP's were you rolling fir tac marines etc in 7th edition?
Also you can't really deny that if your using rhe 7th edition equivalent statline that 8th edition plasma doesn't actually have a gets hot rule.
I can tell you don't actually play marines. THe only army really using plasma because it has no other option.
With no -1 to hit penalties 1/3 of your hits miss - and it's well within reason for up to half miss on a typical dice roll. So when you are shooting 14-20ish plasma shots (think plasma inceptors and Hellblasters). You are rerolling between 6-10 dice. You can mitgate this by not rerolling your 2's BUT mathematically you are better off rerolling them. Doesn't mean it will work out for you. Roll 2-3 ones on that roll and you deal just about as much damage to yourself as you dealt to your opponent (esp if they have 4++ or 3++ saves).
Any alderi can basically make your plasma useless.
Custodians always have the -1 to hit banner
Flyers
Tau can do it on demand
not to mention all the units that have natural -1 to hits
Forget all that -1 to hit nonsense though. Plasma is more than capable of inflicting crippling damage on yourself even with reroll 1's.
Well you half right, half wrong, I do actually play marines, I just haven't lent into primaris as much as you obviously have.
Hellblasters are just a joke of unit design, overpriced bodies with OP weapons and then complain about the self inflicted damage, were is you chapter master, as marines haven't exactly got much better in the way of HQ choices?, wisdom of the ancients if your in a pinch and need to overcharge.
But frankly 1W power armour is so bad I gave up with them even in casual probably a year ago after watching them get wiped game after game, they never made it past turn 4 and rarely past T2.
Martel732 wrote: Penalties to hit rain on your parade. Its very relevant for marines.
Penalties to hit are irrelevant for overcharged weaponry.
You lose a model (or suffer a mortal wound) on a roll of 1 – that's a 16% chance.
Because it doesn't specify "unmodified", a +1 modifier turns that into a 0% chance, because now the lowest you can roll is 2.
Re-roll 1s instead turns that into a 0.027% chance. Your 1/6 chance is divided by 1/6 again.
Conversely, a -1 to hit modifier keeps it at 16% – your 2s become 1s, and your 1s become 0s, which don't trigger the overcharge damage because it doesn't specify "1 or lower".
Ironically, combining re-roll 1s with a -1 to hit modifier actually increases your odds of suffering overcharge to 19% – your 2s are triggering damage but not being re-rolled, and your 1s aren't triggering damage but are.
Reapers have a nasty habit of spending tne whole game out of los. They also potentially nuke all deep strikers, ignore to hit, and have amazing frag ammo. They have 55 pts of rules for less than 40. They are a terrible example.
Dissy cannons are on cheap platforms that ignore heavy and fire 36".
What are you getting at?
That Tac Marines are not the only platform that carries Plasma.
Martel732 wrote: Penalties to hit rain on your parade. Its very relevant for marines.
Penalties to hit are irrelevant for overcharged weaponry.
You lose a model (or suffer a mortal wound) on a roll of 1 – that's a 16% chance.
Because it doesn't specify "unmodified", a +1 modifier turns that into a 0% chance, because now the lowest you can roll is 2.
Re-roll 1s instead turns that into a 0.027% chance. Your 1/6 chance is divided by 1/6 again.
Conversely, a -1 to hit modifier keeps it at 16% – your 2s become 1s, and your 1s become 0s, which don't trigger the overcharge damage because it doesn't specify "1 or lower".
Ironically, combining re-roll 1s with a -1 to hit modifier actually increases your odds of suffering overcharge to 19% – your 2s are triggering damage but not being re-rolled, and your 1s aren't triggering damage but are.
I have never seen anyone play it this way. Edit: designers commentary shoots this down. 1-1=1 in 40k.
Reapers have a nasty habit of spending tne whole game out of los. They also potentially nuke all deep strikers, ignore to hit, and have amazing frag ammo. They have 55 pts of rules for less than 40. They are a terrible example.
Dissy cannons are on cheap platforms that ignore heavy and fire 36".
What are you getting at?
That Tac Marines are not the only platform that carries Plasma.
Reapers have a nasty habit of spending tne whole game out of los. They also potentially nuke all deep strikers, ignore to hit, and have amazing frag ammo. They have 55 pts of rules for less than 40. They are a terrible example.
Dissy cannons are on cheap platforms that ignore heavy and fire 36".
What are you getting at?
That Tac Marines are not the only platform that carries Plasma.
Asm arent better. What else are you thinking of?
Starcannons, Disintigrator Cannons, Hellblasters, or Dark Reapers.
You might want to read my posts twice, because you always seem to read the weirdest interpretation.
Unless Hellblasters are now 24pt 1-wound models - did an FAQ come out and make that change and I never noticed?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: And yet i still dont use it or think its good. IOM plasma, that is. Not taking armor saves vs overheats destroys any value from the buff.
Not needing to take armor saves when you roll a 1 increased it's value. You now *can't* kill yourself with that profile now.
S8 D2 but outright-die on a 1 is an added profile - it can still do everything it did, but better, without using it. Using it just makes you risk your life to do great damage.
"Starcannons, Disintigrator Cannons, and Reaper StarSwarm are all Plasma, they just weren't buffed the way IoM Plasma was with 8th Ed."
This statement means you think IMO plasma is buffed compared to these profiles. Considering it is the only weapon among all of these that can SLAY the bearer and it does comparable damage with less range....It used to do 1 wound which could be saved - it no does infinite wounds with no save allowed....how is that a buff? It is a net loss. I would trade str 8 for no slaying ALL day.
When people say "The way X was in Y", they mean "the same way".
Each of those clearly *was* buffed in 8th, just not the same way IoM Plasma was. None of those had "Gets Hot" before 8th, so it didn't get buffed by removing "Gets Hot". None of those received an alternate profile that was S8 with a more-dangerous Gets Hot. Each of those stayed the same strength and got +D. That's certainly not the same way - but that's not to say IoM Plasma's buff was better.
IoM Plasma, when overcharged, does the same damage as all the above, but at much higher strength. It risks killing the user, but it also wounds most vehicles on 3s instead of 5s. And wounds most infantry on 2s instead of 3s. Of course it needs a big downside - overcharged Plasma is much stronger than these others, per shot.
Did you know that Shining Spears weren't buffed the same way Tac Squads were, going into 8th? I'm certainly not claiming Tac Squads are better than Spears, or improved by more - just that they improved differently.
I understand all that, but at the end of the day, iom plasma is still bad compared to xeno "plasma". Especially for marines, who cant afford self kills.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
You really need to step back and stop projecting what you think people as saying instead of what they are saying.
Hellblasters as a unit concept suck, ergo they suck.
Giving a bad unit an OP weapon doesn't make it a good unit, it makes it a bad unit with a rediculous weapon.
It's a prime example of GW trying to make primaris a stand alone army without actually having the right units and weapons loadouts.
So magically having a 15 point 30 inch rapid fire Ap-4
Thats AP2 plasma gun in 7th edition without overheating you can't seriously be sayingthat isn't blatant lethality creep.
The fack the dude holding said weapon sucks is a diffrent issue.
A scouts with plasma incinerators would be more worthwhile than hellblasters because of the ability to use the weapon, the weapons nuts the issue is the sack of fail holding it.
If you seriously think power armor and termie armor is in a good place because "plasma was nerfed", you obviously don't have any idea and are simply trolling, and have nothing meaningful to offer to this discussion.
Within a larger picture, the offensive capabilities of power/termie armored units against any given army are comparable to a guardsmen blob attempting to down a T8 Sv+3/5++. Defensively, it's similar to a blob of guardsmen going against massed assault cannons.
The power balance for middlings are so terrible that it might as well be a game of 'Horde Vs. Monsters'
Paying for -4 ap is insane where most worthwhile targets have an invuln.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: If you seriously think power armor and termie armor is in a good place because "plasma was nerfed", you obviously don't have any idea and are simply trolling, and have nothing meaningful to offer to this discussion.
Within a larger picture, the offensive capabilities of power/termie armored units against any given army are comparable to a guardsmen blob attempting to down a T8 Sv+3/5++. Defensively, it's similar to a blob of guardsmen going against massed assault cannons.
The power balance for middlings are so terrible that it might as well be a game of 'Horde Vs. Monsters'
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
You really need to step back and stop projecting what you think people as saying instead of what they are saying.
Hellblasters as a unit concept suck, ergo they suck.
Giving a bad unit an OP weapon doesn't make it a good unit, it makes it a bad unit with a rediculous weapon.
It's a prime example of GW trying to make primaris a stand alone army without actually having the right units and weapons loadouts.
So magically having a 15 point 30 inch rapid fire Ap-4
Thats AP2 plasma gun in 7th edition without overheating you can't seriously be sayingthat isn't blatant lethality creep.
The fack the dude holding said weapon sucks is a diffrent issue.
A scouts with plasma incinerators would be more worthwhile than hellblasters because of the ability to use the weapon, the weapons nuts the issue is the sack of fail holding it.
How can one actually complain about plasma when shinning spears exist. They are going to shoot you turn 1 with AP -4 flat 2 damage turn 1 the assault you turn 1 with 2 more of the same attacks. For about the same cost.
No, it isn't. My local meta is FILLED with plasma and half of them never overcharge it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
I have. You know what happened to me? Five over charging hellblasters annihilated all 12 wounds of my deepstriking Obliterators, BEFORE I got to even shoot.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
You really need to step back and stop projecting what you think people as saying instead of what they are saying.
Hellblasters as a unit concept suck, ergo they suck.
Giving a bad unit an OP weapon doesn't make it a good unit, it makes it a bad unit with a rediculous weapon.
It's a prime example of GW trying to make primaris a stand alone army without actually having the right units and weapons loadouts.
So magically having a 15 point 30 inch rapid fire Ap-4
Thats AP2 plasma gun in 7th edition without overheating you can't seriously be sayingthat isn't blatant lethality creep.
The fack the dude holding said weapon sucks is a diffrent issue.
A scouts with plasma incinerators would be more worthwhile than hellblasters because of the ability to use the weapon, the weapons nuts the issue is the sack of fail holding it.
How can one actually complain about plasma when shinning spears exist. They are going to shoot you turn 1 with AP -4 flat 2 damage turn 1 the assault you turn 1 with 2 more of the same attacks. For about the same cost.
Because 1 shot at S6 at 6 inch range isn't remotely comparable to S8 at 30 inch and 2 S8 shots at 15.
The 4++ is a problem but it's at this point in 8th edition standard fair outside of guard equivalent that want to survive the insane lethality.
Again your trying to redirect the discussion instead of actually answering the point, which is is a plasma incinerator rediculous when compaired with plasma's previous editions.
That primaris marines suck is a seperate issue. Plasma was the start of the lethality creep and GW has doubled down since.
If lethality creep continues then we'll end up with 13pt Primaris marines and they'll be as useless as proper marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: If you seriously think power armor and termie armor is in a good place because "plasma was nerfed", you obviously don't have any idea and are simply trolling, and have nothing meaningful to offer to this discussion.
Within a larger picture, the offensive capabilities of power/termie armored units against any given army are comparable to a guardsmen blob attempting to down a T8 Sv+3/5++. Defensively, it's similar to a blob of guardsmen going against massed assault cannons.
The power balance for middlings are so terrible that it might as well be a game of 'Horde Vs. Monsters'
You want to try again as your not making it clear what your responding too?
As no-one has said marines issues will be magically solved by plasma being nerfed, but terminators and primaris units would be a lot less instant fail, if their wasn't so much Ap-3/4 D2 weapons in the game. Some weapons make sence with a high/medium strength and D2, but most of them are Ap-1 so marines in cover are fairly safe, the over lap with Drukari transports etc are too close to change these weapons stats much.
But making plasma Ap-3 D2 just instantly invalidated the buff to primaris of being 2W.
No, it isn't. My local meta is FILLED with plasma and half of them never overcharge it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
I have. You know what happened to me? Five over charging hellblasters annihilated all 12 wounds of my deepstriking Obliterators, BEFORE I got to even shoot.
I would argue they are wasting their points. I haven't missed plasma at all since dumping it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are plenty of 2 damage weapons outside of iom plasma. Why single it out?
No, it isn't. My local meta is FILLED with plasma and half of them never overcharge it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
I have. You know what happened to me? Five over charging hellblasters annihilated all 12 wounds of my deepstriking Obliterators, BEFORE I got to even shoot.
It seems like you are having more issues with the ancient banner than the plasma though. You know your oblitz were going to kill 15 + of his marines hitting on 2 rerolling 1's and wounding on 2's. Shoot that unit first Always. My advice to beat marines would always be to kill the hellblasters first from long range on turn 1 before you deep strike and attack near them because at 15 inches they are probably going to get their points back just for dying next to the banner.
No, it isn't. My local meta is FILLED with plasma and half of them never overcharge it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
I have. You know what happened to me? Five over charging hellblasters annihilated all 12 wounds of my deepstriking Obliterators, BEFORE I got to even shoot.
I would argue they are wasting their points. I haven't missed plasma at all since dumping it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are plenty of 2 damage weapons outside of iom plasma. Why single it out?
Plasma is being used as a shorthand for high-rate-of-fire S5+/AP-2 or better/Dd3 or D2-3 weapons, which includes battle cannons, disintegrators, starcannons, Reaper launchers, every weapon on a Knight...
The problem is that high-volume good-against-all-targets guns with that damage profile get spammed in 8e because they're better than taking a specialist tool. And the most cost-effective target for the most versatile gun in the game is armoured multi-wound infantry (like, oh, say, Primaris Marines...).
Plasma is frequently used to illustrate the problem because when a Space Marine or a Guardsman is given the option to take a "special weapon" the plasma gun is a better anti-tank gun than the meltagun, a better anti-horde weapon than the flamer, and a better anti-armoured-infantry weapon than the grav-gun. The weapon with all its stats in the middle is a better pick than the weapon that pushes one or two stats to an extreme.
Realistically - I am never doing something tactically unsound to get an objective point. Unless the game is over. Oblitz have 24 inch range and should pretty much never be your spearhead. Goodluck winning your game if your super unit gets evaporated before it shoots. You just lost the game at that point.
No, it isn't. My local meta is FILLED with plasma and half of them never overcharge it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
I have. You know what happened to me? Five over charging hellblasters annihilated all 12 wounds of my deepstriking Obliterators, BEFORE I got to even shoot.
I would argue they are wasting their points. I haven't missed plasma at all since dumping it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are plenty of 2 damage weapons outside of iom plasma. Why single it out?
Plasma is being used as a shorthand for high-rate-of-fire S5+/AP-2 or better/Dd3 or D2-3 weapons, which includes battle cannons, disintegrators, starcannons, Reaper launchers, every weapon on a Knight...
The problem is that high-volume good-against-all-targets guns with that damage profile get spammed in 8e because they're better than taking a specialist tool. And the most cost-effective target for the most versatile gun in the game is armoured multi-wound infantry (like, oh, say, Primaris Marines...).
Plasma is frequently used to illustrate the problem because when a Space Marine or a Guardsman is given the option to take a "special weapon" the plasma gun is a better anti-tank gun than the meltagun, a better anti-horde weapon than the flamer, and a better anti-armoured-infantry weapon than the grav-gun. The weapon with all its stats in the middle is a better pick than the weapon that pushes one or two stats to an extreme.
I was actually referring to Disintigrators, Star Cannons, etc as actually-Plasma, not just generally in the same profile.
That said, I agree that almost all the high-ROF multi-damage and/or good AP wapons should be nerfed.
No, it isn't. My local meta is FILLED with plasma and half of them never overcharge it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
I have. You know what happened to me? Five over charging hellblasters annihilated all 12 wounds of my deepstriking Obliterators, BEFORE I got to even shoot.
I would argue they are wasting their points. I haven't missed plasma at all since dumping it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are plenty of 2 damage weapons outside of iom plasma. Why single it out?
Plasma is being used as a shorthand for high-rate-of-fire S5+/AP-2 or better/Dd3 or D2-3 weapons, which includes battle cannons, disintegrators, starcannons, Reaper launchers, every weapon on a Knight...
The problem is that high-volume good-against-all-targets guns with that damage profile get spammed in 8e because they're better than taking a specialist tool. And the most cost-effective target for the most versatile gun in the game is armoured multi-wound infantry (like, oh, say, Primaris Marines...).
Plasma is frequently used to illustrate the problem because when a Space Marine or a Guardsman is given the option to take a "special weapon" the plasma gun is a better anti-tank gun than the meltagun, a better anti-horde weapon than the flamer, and a better anti-armoured-infantry weapon than the grav-gun. The weapon with all its stats in the middle is a better pick than the weapon that pushes one or two stats to an extreme.
I was actually referring to Disintigrators, Star Cannons, etc as actually-Plasma, not just generally in the same profile.
That said, I agree that almost all the high-ROF multi-damage and/or good AP wapons should be nerfed.
Grav costs almost the same and is terrible. It goes to damage 1 against non 3+ targets and its only 18" range too....it sucks. It's not about the str so much.
It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
Lets see...
Okay lets see....what is it bad against.
Orks
Harliquens
DE Str 5 is also not sufficient for heavy infantry killing with T5. So what is it good against....killing marines pretty much. Plasma does that just fine with better range...grav needs big buff. When it does people will stop using plasma.
6" range is also a big deal. Look at the difference between a metla gun and a blaster. Blasters are phenomenal - melta guns suck. The difference. 6 ".
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
Lets see...
Okay lets see....what is it bad against.
Orks
Harliquens
DE Str 5 is also not sufficient for heavy infantry killing with T5. So what is it good against....killing marines pretty much. Plasma does that just fine with better range...grav needs big buff. When it does people will stop using plasma.
6" range is also a big deal. Look at the difference between a metla gun and a blaster. Blasters are phenomenal - melta guns suck. The difference. 6 ".
The difference is Transports.
Blasters on foot? Suck.
Blasters in a Raider or Venom? Good.
Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
Lets see...
Okay lets see....what is it bad against.
Orks
Harliquens
DE
Wait, you think D:1 makes the weapon bad against Harlequins and Orkz? DE, I get, as the Covens have some multi-wound infantry.
I've never had trouble killing multiwound Harlequin infantry units, but that might just be because *THERE ARE NONE*
Str 5 is also not sufficient for heavy infantry killing with T5. So what is it good against....killing marines pretty much. Plasma does that just fine with better range...grav needs big buff.
IOW, S5 isn't as good as S8. So, to put your arguments together:
-Grav is bad, but not because it's not S8
-Grav is bad, because it's not S8
Do you see my problem?
When it does people will stop using plasma.
6" range is also a big deal. Look at the difference between a metla gun and a blaster. Blasters are phenomenal - melta guns suck. The difference. 6 ".
6" difference in range certainly isn't nothing. It's just not nearly as impactful as S8 vs S5.
Aren't you one of those guys who thinks Avenger Shuriken Catapaults being 18" instead of 24" isn't really a downside, because it's just 6"? But when it's a *Marine* weapon that's only 18", suddenly it's a BFD.
Are you saying you wouldn't take 17 point blasters on marines over plasma guns? Cause I would in a heart beat. Priamris marine unit with 10 blasters...yeah...I'd take that.
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
Lets see...
Okay lets see....what is it bad against.
Orks
Harliquens
DE
Wait, you think D:1 makes the weapon bad against Harlequins and Orkz? DE, I get, as the Covens have some multi-wound infantry.
I've never had trouble killing multiwound Harlequin infantry units, but that might just be because *THERE ARE NONE*
Str 5 is also not sufficient for heavy infantry killing with T5. So what is it good against....killing marines pretty much. Plasma does that just fine with better range...grav needs big buff.
IOW, S5 isn't as good as S8. So, to put your arguments together:
-Grav is bad, but not because it's not S8
-Grav is bad, because it's not S8
Do you see my problem?
When it does people will stop using plasma.
6" range is also a big deal. Look at the difference between a metla gun and a blaster. Blasters are phenomenal - melta guns suck. The difference. 6 ".
6" difference in range certainly isn't nothing. It's just not nearly as impactful as S8 vs S5.
Aren't you one of those guys who thinks Avenger Shuriken Catapaults being 18" instead of 24" isn't really a downside, because it's just 6"? But when it's a *Marine* weapon that's only 18", suddenly it's a BFD.
Starweavers...Venoms....these kinds of units. Normally str 5 is a great str profile but it usually comes with 3 or more shots...at 2 shots str 5 is freaking garbage.
No i am not - I am a firm believer that a dire avenger and a marine should be about 1 point difference and a marine should be 11 or 10 points. This is ofc in a world where an infantry is 4ppm and and a guardian should probably be 7.
From a conceptual perspective, I'd rather a Lascannon or a MeltaGun, depending on the squad. Either holding ground while putting heavy AT downrange, or getting up close and melting something.
From a crunch perspective, the MG is simply outclassed by the PG.
Blaster is more or less a sidegrade to the MG. A little better, sure, but not in PG territory.
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
Lets see...
Okay lets see....what is it bad against.
Orks
Harliquens
DE
Wait, you think D:1 makes the weapon bad against Harlequins and Orkz? DE, I get, as the Covens have some multi-wound infantry.
I've never had trouble killing multiwound Harlequin infantry units, but that might just be because *THERE ARE NONE*
Str 5 is also not sufficient for heavy infantry killing with T5. So what is it good against....killing marines pretty much. Plasma does that just fine with better range...grav needs big buff.
IOW, S5 isn't as good as S8. So, to put your arguments together:
-Grav is bad, but not because it's not S8
-Grav is bad, because it's not S8
Do you see my problem?
When it does people will stop using plasma.
6" range is also a big deal. Look at the difference between a metla gun and a blaster. Blasters are phenomenal - melta guns suck. The difference. 6 ".
6" difference in range certainly isn't nothing. It's just not nearly as impactful as S8 vs S5.
Aren't you one of those guys who thinks Avenger Shuriken Catapaults being 18" instead of 24" isn't really a downside, because it's just 6"? But when it's a *Marine* weapon that's only 18", suddenly it's a BFD.
Starweavers...Venoms....these kinds of units. Normally str 5 is a great str profile but it usually comes with 3 or more shots...at 2 shots str 5 is freaking garbage.
I'm so glad to hear that 2 shots str 5 is garbage. So are Dark Reapers going down in points with the FAQ?
More seriously 2 shots str 5 isn't great (in this case), because it's only Str 5. 2 shots Str 8 is great.
Starweavers and Venoms - you'd rather have S5 shooting them than S8? Why?
S8 is a huge upgrade over S5.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadenuat wrote: Marines are part of the game game has to be changed around, not part that needs change and more special rules.
That's my dream.
The first change is, IMO, dropping almost all AP-1/AP-2 down a point of AP. When there's less high-ROFAP-1/-2 out and about, Marines will do better. Certainly not the only change needed, but probably the most impactful one.
That would make clearing out cheaper units harder as well.
I find it incredible when you can take like, 7 point or so model and still do your job quite well compared to more expensive ones, or even 3-4 point models and still do some job you want done in the army.
Doubling all points in the game for more fine tuning would be good for a start. I am not sure GW will do that though. I think they have a belief that some unit prices are like, legacy stuff, and should not change.
Martel732 wrote: Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Personally I think Grav Guns should have translated to RF2 18 inch
Grav Cannons & Amp RF3 24 inch
You can buff or nerf Grav as required to balance out loyalist marines for the most part as it's not shared with the rest of the imperial soup armies like plasma is.
Plasma should have got S6 Ap-3 D1 with S7 Ap-3 D1 and overheating as profiles.
Martel732 wrote: Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Personally I think Grav Guns should have translated to RF2 18 inch
Grav Cannons & Amp RF3 24 inch
You can buff or nerf Grav as required to balance out loyalist marines for the most part as it's not shared with the rest of the imperial soup armies like plasma is.
Plasma should have got S6 Ap-3 D1 with S7 Ap-3 D1 and overheating as profiles.
I'm okay with Plasma going from S7 regular and S8 Overcharge. That's 3+ and 2+, respectively, against T4. Which seems reasonable.
I do agree that if it stayed D1 the whole time, it'd be a lot better balanced relative to the other specials. (Of course, Marines suck right now and that'd be a distinct nerf, but hey.)
Martel732 wrote: Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Personally I think Grav Guns should have translated to RF2 18 inch
Grav Cannons & Amp RF3 24 inch
You can buff or nerf Grav as required to balance out loyalist marines for the most part as it's not shared with the rest of the imperial soup armies like plasma is.
Plasma should have got S6 Ap-3 D1 with S7 Ap-3 D1 and overheating as profiles.
I'm okay with Plasma going from S7 regular and S8 Overcharge. That's 3+ and 2+, respectively, against T4. Which seems reasonable.
I do agree that if it stayed D1 the whole time, it'd be a lot better balanced relative to the other specials. (Of course, Marines suck right now and that'd be a distinct nerf, but hey.)
Marines sucking isn't an excuse to make plasma OP, because a guardsmen with a plasmagun is way better than a marine with 1.
Plasma needs to loose the strength inflation it got for a meltagun to even have the hint of design space to exsist in.
There are a number of reasons people are getting annoyed with Plasma, but at the core is the fact that a lot of guns aren't all that different any more.
The essential components to a gun are Type, Range, Strength, AP, Damage, and Abilities.
It used to be that every single one of these (except Damage, which didn't exist) was a major dividing factor, because the game was much more binary. A low AP gun and a high AP gun were completely different, because firing an AP4 gun at a Space Marine was no better than firing an AP6 gun. Each AP level therefore existed in a strict "tier" of what it was good for, and changing that AP changed the whole context of the gun. Strength hasn't changed quite as obviously, but previously you could fire a gun with no chance whatsoever to wound a target that was too tough, and its role in Armour Values was extremely important. With vehicles now using Wounds and Toughness, Instant Death completely gone, and every Strength having a chance to wound every Toughness, that's a less important distinction. The game is much more granular; each pip of AP isn't a massive change, it's just a 16% (or less) boost to the wounds you inflict.
Let me explain what I mean by way of example. Imagine a Strength 2, AP2 gun, and a Strength 6, AP6 gun. In earlier editions, there is no way to compare the two. They are both completely different weapons with completely different uses and no real overlap in terms of tactical role. In 8th edition, those same guns (let's translate them to AP-4 and AP-0, for argument's sake) are much more comparable; all those two values do is nudge the wounds you inflict up by 16% (or less) per pip. Strength won't affect vehicles or Instant Death, and AP won't fail against a highly-armoured unit. Damage has largely absorbed these two distinctions; Vehicles use Wounds, so you need high Damage to get them, not high Strength. Terminators represent their bulkiness with an extra Wound, so you need D2 to get them, as much as AP2.
(I prefer the streamlining done in 8th edition, but with the exception of Pistols it's also hard to argue that Types aren't less distinct than they used to be. Everything can now be fired on the move and before a charge, just with a -16% penalty for Heavy. Blast weapons are also much more homogenized thanks to the loss of templates and the increased prevalence of random shots in general)
So in YE OLDEN DAYS, plasma guns were all risky because, as a high-AP high-Strength weapon with a decent number of shots, there was very little they weren't good at. They couldn't bust open a Land Raider, but they had an okay shot against any vehicle short of that, and shredded even elite infantry. The middling range and Gets Hot! were the trade-off for that. In the modern game, where the plasma gun exists on a sliding scale from the boltgun rather than a whole other dimension, that's a much harder sell. It's less different, so why should I risk killing myself? The plasma gun doesn't do anything special, after all, it just does the same thing but better. Overcharge is therefore an attempted compromise; you can have your "better bolter" with no risk, but Overcharge adds +1D (and an extra pip of Strength, which would have been a much bigger deal a few editions ago), which is the new, valuable difference-maker in this edition.
The result of trying to hack the traditional Plasma Gun into an edition that can no longer accommodate it is a weapon that against many targets has no reason to be Overcharged (against Guard or Tau infantry? same difference), but that is obscenely strong against those that do call for an Overcharge, while also being much easier to avoid backlash from due to ubiquitous rerolls and +1 modifiers. C'est la vie.
Shadenuat wrote: That would make clearing out cheaper units harder as well.
I find it incredible when you can take like, 7 point or so model and still do your job quite well compared to more expensive ones, or even 3-4 point models and still do some job you want done in the army.
Doubling all points in the game for more fine tuning would be good for a start. I am not sure GW will do that though. I think they have a belief that some unit prices are like, legacy stuff, and should not change.
While it makes Guardsmen and Guardians 20% harder to kill, it makes Marines 50% harder to kill (assuming no cover on a currently-AP-1 weapon). Net advantage: Marines in that change.
"The first change is, IMO, dropping almost all AP-1/AP-2 down a point of AP. When there's less high-ROFAP-1/-2 out and about, Marines will do better. Certainly not the only change needed, but probably the most impactful one."
Doesn't matter as long as lasguns kill more marines than guardsmen. You're just making things like baneblades harder to deal with.
Martel732 wrote: "The first change is, IMO, dropping almost all AP-1/AP-2 down a point of AP. When there's less high-ROFAP-1/-2 out and about, Marines will do better. Certainly not the only change needed, but probably the most impactful one."
Doesn't matter as long as lasguns kill more marines than guardsmen. You're just making things like baneblades harder to deal with.
Bluntly, things like Baneblades shouldn't be worried by things like Heavy Bolters or Stalker Bolt Rifles in the first place.
Martel732 wrote: "The first change is, IMO, dropping almost all AP-1/AP-2 down a point of AP. When there's less high-ROFAP-1/-2 out and about, Marines will do better. Certainly not the only change needed, but probably the most impactful one."
Doesn't matter as long as lasguns kill more marines than guardsmen. You're just making things like baneblades harder to deal with.
Bluntly, things like Baneblades shouldn't be worried by things like Heavy Bolters or Stalker Bolt Rifles in the first place.
Thank the simpification of the damage table for that one....
It's also why VotWL is so strong.
Martel732 wrote: Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Personally I think Grav Guns should have translated to RF2 18 inch
Grav Cannons & Amp RF3 24 inch
You can buff or nerf Grav as required to balance out loyalist marines for the most part as it's not shared with the rest of the imperial soup armies like plasma is.
Plasma should have got S6 Ap-3 D1 with S7 Ap-3 D1 and overheating as profiles.
Dude....you literally want to double the power of a gravgun and more than half the power of a plasma gun...why?
If you look at competitive play - you will see approximately 0 plasma guns. Like literally 0 - at LVO I saw 0 plasma guns. OFc you don't see any grav guns ether because no one is playing marines because marine price points are terrible. I can't believe anyone is suggesting a nerf to plasma guns - it is blowing my mind. They are already quite a bad weapon. One of the few weapons that can outright slay your own 16 wound vehicle. "Just don't overcharge" is just such a laughable response - all I hear is "use the much weaker profile that you paid way too much for"
Grav just needs to wound based on armor save again and just make it assault 2 for cannons heavy 4 24 "with reroll wounds.
Melta needs +1 to wound vehicles MM needs to be 2 shots (twinlinked) maybe with a cost of like 30 points.
LC needs a drop to 20 points
Rockets needs to be 15 points
GC with that profile - 25 points.
Lastalon needs to change too. It needs to be better than a twin las. If it's going to have half the range. IDK...maybe make it str 10 flat 3 damage or something.
Martel732 wrote: Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Personally I think Grav Guns should have translated to RF2 18 inch
Grav Cannons & Amp RF3 24 inch
You can buff or nerf Grav as required to balance out loyalist marines for the most part as it's not shared with the rest of the imperial soup armies like plasma is.
Plasma should have got S6 Ap-3 D1 with S7 Ap-3 D1 and overheating as profiles.
Dude....you literally want to double the power of a gravgun and more than half the power of a plasma gun...why?
If you look at competitive play - you will see approximately 0 plasma guns. Like literally 0 - at LVO I saw 0 plasma guns. OFc you don't see any grav guns ether because no one is playing marines because marine price points are terrible. I can't believe anyone is suggesting a nerf to plasma guns - it is blowing my mind. They are already quite a bad weapon. One of the few weapons that can outright slay your own 16 wound vehicle. "Just don't overcharge" is just such a laughable response - all I hear is "use the much weaker profile that you paid way too much for"
Grav just needs to wound based on armor save again and just make it assault 2 for cannons heavy 4 24 "with reroll wounds.
Melta needs +1 to wound vehicles MM needs to be 2 shots (twinlinked) maybe with a cost of like 30 points.
LC needs a drop to 20 points
Rockets needs to be 15 points
GC with that profile - 25 points.
Lastalon needs to change too. It needs to be better than a twin las. If it's going to have half the range. IDK...maybe make it str 10 flat 3 damage or something.
I think this is because you're still looking at Plasma as anti-tank. S7 D1 isn't half the power when you're shooting at 1W models.
As for your example showing how bad plasma was - being picked 0 times when the guys who take it were present 0 times just tells us it's not good enough to make an otherwise bad unit OP.
I also think you're missing the fact that we're talking about nerfing all Plasma, not just IoM Plasma.
As for
"Just don't overcharge" is just such a laughable response - all I hear is "use the much weaker profile that you paid way too much for"
The argument is that you *didn't* pay for 24" RF S8 D2 with no downsides; you're paying less than you'd pay for 6" S8 Dd6 with "no downsides".
Now, you're certainly overpaying for what's taking those options - which is a whole other problem.
Dessie cannon ravagers are more effective vs t8 and dark lance ravagers. This is just the way the game works. Plus - plasma has always been effective anti tank. It just wasn't good for destroying land raiders...vs rhinos and other light vehicles it was totally fine. That is pretty much where it is now.
Literally every space marine weapon is over costed...Plasma is the only option that does reasonable damage per cost but it kills you. It is the option that no one wants to take but is the only choice.
You are absolutely paying for the overcharge damage profile with the added stipulation that it kills you. It is absolutely not worth the point not overcharged.
Nerfing all the damage in the game is a joke. Just up the defensive stats on the units you want to help or reduce their cost. It is much easier.
I don't see why you are focused on plasma when there are dozen of other 2 damage and D3 damage weapons out there. I've lost way more marines to battlecannons that magically shoot twice than plasma.
Oh, right you are counting dissy cannons as "plasma". I'm sure the Drukhari community is going to be just fine with your classification and nerf of their #1 heavy weapon.
Dessie cannon ravagers are more effective vs t8 and dark lance ravagers. This is just the way the game works.
Well, maybe, it shouldn't. Blasters and Lances and Melta and Lascannons should terrify vehicles. Plasma should terrify MEQ.
Plus - plasma has always been effective anti tank. It just wasn't good for destroying land raiders...vs rhinos and other light vehicles it was totally fine. That is pretty much where it is now.
Plasma has always been better than Bolt or Flamer against light tanks, but not great. And bad against heavy vehicles. And it's S7 D1 profile still is.
Literally every space marine weapon is over costed...Plasma is the only option that does reasonable damage per cost but it kills you. It is the option that no one wants to take but is the only choice.
Or maybe, just maybe - there's a problem in the cost/effectiveness of *marines*? If every other option is worse for the points, isn't it smart to improve the platform and bring the one outlier into balance?
You are absolutely paying for the overcharge damage profile with the added stipulation that it kills you. It is absolutely not worth the point not overcharged.
I dunno. It's not a lot of points for something that wounds most troops on 2s and makes their armor saves a joke. But certainly, part of it's value is that you can out-Melta Melta with it for cheaper at a risk, in exchange for the flexibility.
Nerfing all the damage in the game is a joke. Just up the defensive stats on the units you want to help or reduce their cost. It is much easier.
Just upping the defensive stats and/or reducing the cost on all the units in the game is a joke. Just nerf the damage or up the cost on the weapons you want to hurt. It is much easier.
No matter how you change marines, melta, flamer, grav will not be taken at their current cost. I'll just buy more suppressors. IoM Plasma isn't even being used in its current incarnation. Why nerf it?
Marines have to play scared in 8th. Overcharging is extremely unattractive, imo. Except against 2W models with high value. Like primaris.
I'd agree that specifically IoM Plasma has become a distraction to this thread. Most of the proponents of nerfing it are proposing broader nerfs which also apply to IoM Plasma; most of the opponents are arguing that the proponents are just trying to nerf IoM Plasma. It's clearly going nowhere.
If you nerf things that are decimating marines, then a lot of OTHER units get a lot better, too. Many of those don't need to be better. The problem is marines, not what's shooting at them. Not really. Everyone deals with the lethality problem. Marines, due to their cost, just can't. Does the IG really care about dissy cannons? No. Because they are well-costed.
Which is why just nerfing the MEQ-killers isn't the only change needed to bring Marines back to where they should be.
But if you buff Marines directly without addressing the MEQ-killers, you have to buff them to the point where every list must use MEQ-killers. If you nerf MEQ-killers and then buff Marines, they fit the game more naturally.
Everything is an meq-killer, though. Because of costing. Doubly so when you put non-zero cost equipment on them. GW won't allow power armor horde, which is the only fix appropriate for 8th. Because survivability is not an option.
Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.
Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?
For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots
Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.
0XFallen wrote: Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.
Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?
For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots
Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.
AP-1 increases the wounds a Space Marine takes from a weapon by 50%. AP-1 increases the wounds a Guardsman takes from a weapon by 25%.
An Infantry Squad with a Plasma Gun and Heavy Bolter is 10 points cheaper than a naked Tactical Squad. The Marines will do 1.5 wounds to the Guardsmen, who can do 1.1 wounds to them. Each Guardsman lost reduces your killing power by 0.05 wounds, since you can remove lasguns first. Every Marine lost reduces your killing power by 0.3 wounds, since you don't have a buffer. So even if the Marines get the first turn, they'll wipe first in a straightforward competition. In practice, the Guardsmen are more durable, more flexible, and more dangerous point-for-point than the Marines; a disparity which only gets worse as you build a whole army, and those 10 points start adding up. In a 500 point army, that's two extra squads.
Similarly, Ork Boyz are half the cost and more than twice as good in melee (which is where you want them). Sure, they don't have a 3+ save, but that just means AP is wasted on them; and besides, that 3+ save lets Space Marines soak up 66% extra wounds before AP... but being half the cost lets Ork Boyz soak up 100% extra wounds regardless of AP, D, or whatever else. Hell, you wanna know something horrifying? Give them shootas, and the Orks will win a pure shootout, too. The only hope Space Marines have is moving into 12" for Rapid Fire, at which point the Orks gleefully charge and win.
Now, yes, Space Marines are better than Guard at close combat and broadly better than Orks at range... but you can't do both at once, and they're not so much better that it's worth being twice the points. Specialists are more valuable than generalists in this game. Flexibility of build is better than flexibility of action.
0XFallen wrote: Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.
Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?
For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots
Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.
Space Marines are fairly costed when compared to most other infantry in an infantry v. infantry vacuum. The advantages of being a Space Marine rather than a cheaper infantryman are rendered pretty much moot by even low-grade heavy weapons fire, at which point the advantages of cheaper bodies (lower tax per upgrade gun, more targets on the table, more command points, better deep-strike screening...) start to come into play.
0XFallen wrote: Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.
Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?
For example Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots
Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.
AP-1 increases the wounds a Space Marine takes from a weapon by 50%. AP-1 increases the wounds a Guardsman takes from a weapon by 25%.
This is the dumbest argument.
Ive seen it before.
Lets explain. A hormagaunt takes 16% more damage from AP1. However they also take 100% of all damage from AP1 because they don't get a save.
Spacemarines might take more damage then they would otherwise (like everyone). And the amount of damage increase they take is the same as everyones. 1 Sv value less than what they would get otherwise. BUT they still soak 50% of all damage coming at them.
Your "Marines take 50% more damage" argument is both incredibly misleading and meaningless. You choose only the numbers to support your piss pour argument while ignoring all the context that would give it any kind of value.
0XFallen wrote: Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.
Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?
For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots
Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.
AP-1 increases the wounds a Space Marine takes from a weapon by 50%. AP-1 increases the wounds a Guardsman takes from a weapon by 25%.
This is the dumbest argument.
Ive seen it before.
Lets explain. A hormagaunt takes 16% more damage from AP1. However they also take 100% of all damage from AP1 because they don't get a save.
Spacemarines might take more damage then they would otherwise (like everyone). And the amount of damage increase they take is the same as everyones. 1 Sv value less than what they would get otherwise. BUT they still soak 50% of all damage coming at them.
Your "Marines take 50% more damage" argument is both incredibly misleading and meaningless. You choose only the numbers to support your piss pour argument while ignoring all the context that would give it any kind of value.
...excuse you? Maybe step away from the keyboard and cool down a touch.
The statement made was "I don't think AP takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competitively almost always have good invuln".
My rebuttal made it clear that, in fact, AP-1 did have a big role against Marines. Bigger than it does against a more lightly armoured enemy. What are you disputing?
Also, hey, here's a thought experiment. You have one unit armed with AP-0 weapons and one unit armed with (otherwise identical) AP-1 weapons. Which do you use to shoot at the oncoming Cultists, and which do you use to shoot at the nearby Chaos Space Marines? By your logic, they should be interchangeable, right?
0XFallen wrote: Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.
Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?
For example Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots
Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.
AP-1 increases the wounds a Space Marine takes from a weapon by 50%. AP-1 increases the wounds a Guardsman takes from a weapon by 25%.
This is the dumbest argument.
Ive seen it before.
Lets explain. A hormagaunt takes 16% more damage from AP1. However they also take 100% of all damage from AP1 because they don't get a save.
Spacemarines might take more damage then they would otherwise (like everyone). And the amount of damage increase they take is the same as everyones. 1 Sv value less than what they would get otherwise. BUT they still soak 50% of all damage coming at them.
Your "Marines take 50% more damage" argument is both incredibly misleading and meaningless. You choose only the numbers to support your piss pour argument while ignoring all the context that would give it any kind of value.
...excuse you? Maybe step away from the keyboard and cool down a touch.
Just because I explained in incredibly blunt terms how crap your statement was doesn't mean I was in any way not calm.
The statement made was "I don't think AP takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competitively almost always have good invuln".
My rebuttal made it clear that, in fact, AP-1 did have a big role against Marines. Bigger than it does against a more lightly armoured enemy. What are you disputing?
That whole statement. You're wrong. Again, termagants. No saves. Guards, a 6+. Marines, a 4+. The degree of impact on everyone is exactly equal. The end result of the over all effect puts marines at the tippy top best case scenario of facing AP-1.
Also, hey, here's a thought experiment. You have one unit armed with AP-0 weapons and one unit armed with (otherwise identical) AP-1 weapons. Which do you use to shoot at the oncoming Cultists, and which do you use to shoot at the nearby Chaos Space Marines? By your logic, they should be interchangeable, right?
I didn't say they were interchangeable. I said SM don't take 50% more damage and that SM did not end up getting it worse than anyone else. You have to ignore more than half the math to come to that conclusion.
0XFallen wrote: Someone enlighten me as a not space marine player.
Why are Spacemarines considered so bad in comparison to other troop choices when they out gun them while having better leader ship and melee?
For example
Space marines vs Skitarii 1,54 damage with 7 shots | Skitarii ranger vs sm 1,4 with 13 shots
Space marines vs Guard 1,19 damage with 4 shots | Guardsman vs sm 0,72 with 13 shots
Edit: My take is the abundance of Mortal Wounds. I dont think Ap takes a big role as not many take them because units that are played competetively almost always have a good invuln.
AP-1 increases the wounds a Space Marine takes from a weapon by 50%. AP-1 increases the wounds a Guardsman takes from a weapon by 25%.
This is the dumbest argument.
Ive seen it before.
Lets explain. A hormagaunt takes 16% more damage from AP1. However they also take 100% of all damage from AP1 because they don't get a save.
Spacemarines might take more damage then they would otherwise (like everyone). And the amount of damage increase they take is the same as everyones. 1 Sv value less than what they would get otherwise. BUT they still soak 50% of all damage coming at them.
Your "Marines take 50% more damage" argument is both incredibly misleading and meaningless. You choose only the numbers to support your piss pour argument while ignoring all the context that would give it any kind of value.
It's a mathematically sound argument. Wounds that clear is the important number, not wounds soaked. -1 AP doubles the number of dead 2+ models, for example. It doesn't matter how many pass.
Amount of failed saves vs. AP0 by a Marine: 33.333...%. Amount of failed saves vs. AP-1 by a Marine: 50%. 50%-33.333...% is 16.666...%, which is 50% of 33.333...%. An AP-1 weapon thus increases the amount of dead marines by 50% compared to an AP0 weapon.
Amount of failed saves vs. AP0 by a Hormagaunt: 83.333...%. Amount of failed saves vs. AP-1 by a Hormagaunt: 100%. 100%-83.333...% is 16.666...%, which is only 20% of 83.333...%, thus increasing the amount of dead Hormagaunts by 20% compared to an AP0 weapon.
The fact that the percentage in absolute terms is the same does not mean that the relative impact on the Marine is lessened in any way. You may want to have a bit more of a clue about what you are talking about before you go full snark on everyone. A Marine is actually affected 250% (!!) more by moving from AP0 to AP-1 (50% is 250% of 20%).
I said it misrepresents the situation and is a bs argument. 50% more SM dead could be 2 models instead of 1.
16% more hormagaunts could be 10 instead of 8.
10 wounds lost. 2 wounds lost. A 50% chance to save is still a pretty damn good chance. A 0% chance to save is a garanteed dead model for every wound. Again, SM have the VERY BEST that could be asked for against ap-1. The 50% increase isnt a good metric to be measuring. Especially if you are not stacking up the end effect against the rest of the spectrum.
AP-1 should increase the casualty rate of 3+ Sv models more than 5+ Sv models. That's the point of AP.
AP0 weapons should be better at removing 5+ Sv models than 3+ Sv models - and is.
AP-X weapons should see a higher increase in the rate it kills 3+ Sv models than 5+ Sv; because it's designed to cut through armor saves.
As X goes up, the kill rate vs 3+ models gets closer and closer to 5+ models, but never *exceeds* it. In other words, AP-X is never more deadly for MEQ than GEQ. But the higher the X, the less benefit MEQ have over GEQ (and, at AP-4 or better, there is no benefit).
With Armor Save Modfiers, an AP-1/-2 weapon is very much more anti-MEQ than anti-GEQ.
So the math works the way it should. The problem is execution.
Why the hell are Heavy Bolters and other anti-GEQ weaponry AP-1? Too many weapons are intended as anti-GEQ but statted to be anti-MEQ. These need to be AP0.
Now, Marines (and Termies) have other problems, too. But the problem with ASMs is that they handed out AP-1/-2 like candy, not because it just doesn't work for MEQs.
50% is not good when you are paying what they pay to exist. It gets much worse when you give them any kind of equipment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: AP-1 should increase the casualty rate of 3+ Sv models more than 5+ Sv models. That's the point of AP.
AP0 weapons should be better at removing 5+ Sv models than 3+ Sv models - and is.
AP-X weapons should see a higher increase in the rate it kills 3+ Sv models than 5+ Sv; because it's designed to cut through armor saves.
As X goes up, the kill rate vs 3+ models gets closer and closer to 5+ models, but never *exceeds* it. In other words, AP-X is never more deadly for MEQ than GEQ. But the higher the X, the less benefit MEQ have over GEQ (and, at AP-4 or better, there is no benefit).
With Armor Save Modfiers, an AP-1/-2 weapon is very much more anti-MEQ than anti-GEQ.
So the math works the way it should. The problem is execution.
Why the hell are Heavy Bolters and other anti-GEQ weaponry AP-1? Too many weapons are intended as anti-GEQ but statted to be anti-MEQ. These need to be AP0.
Now, Marines (and Termies) have other problems, too. But the problem with ASMs is that they handed out AP-1/-2 like candy, not because it just doesn't work for MEQs.
Marines also suffer from lack of table presence and lack of throw weight. On top of this, they have to stay clustered up for auras making their table coverage even WORSE.
I don't think any of that is coming. GW has had many chances. It's 2nd ed redux. I think primaris is the best we can expect. Which is pretty sad, actually.
Lance845 wrote: Just because I explained in incredibly blunt terms how crap your statement was doesn't mean I was in any way not calm.
Oh, so you're not angry, you're just rude. Good to know.
Incidentally, while being rude is bad form to begin with, being rude and wrong is even worse.
Lance845 wrote: That whole statement. You're wrong. Again, termagants. No saves. Guards, a 6+. Marines, a 4+. The degree of impact on everyone is exactly equal. The end result of the over all effect puts marines at the tippy top best case scenario of facing AP-1.
I didn't say they were interchangeable. I said SM don't take 50% more damage and that SM did not end up getting it worse than anyone else. You have to ignore more than half the math to come to that conclusion.
If I fire 120 bolt pistol shots at a Terminator Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~7 unsaved wounds.
If I fire 120 heavy bolt pistol shots at a Terminator Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~13 unsaved wounds.
AP-1 got me ~7 extra wounds. ~7 is 100% of ~7. Therefore, AP-1 got me 100% extra wounds against a 2+ save.
If I fire 120 bolt pistol shots at a Tactical Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~13 unsaved wounds.
If I fire 120 heavy bolt pistol shots at a Tactical Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~20 unsaved wounds.
AP-1 got me ~7 extra wounds. ~7 is 50% of ~13. Therefore, AP-1 got me 50% extra wounds against a 3+ save.
If I fire 120 bolt pistol shots at a Scout Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~20 unsaved wounds.
If I fire 120 heavy bolt pistol shots at a Scout Squad of Space Marines, I will score ~80 hits, ~40 wounds, and ~27 unsaved wounds.
AP-1 got me ~7 extra wounds. ~7 is 33% of ~13. Therefore, AP-1 got me 33% extra wounds against a 4+ save.
In all three scenarios, AP-1 got me ~7 extra wounds. Even setting aside the cost of a Scout vs the cost of a Tactical Marine vs the cost of a Terminator, this was a more significant increase against the unit with the higher save.
Honestly, I'm one of those people who never saw the problem with the old AP system. If you fire a pebble from a slingshot and a 20mm autocannon round at the main armour belt of a battleship, they are going to achieve exactly the same end result despite the autocannon round being orders of magnitude more powerful. People complained that it was strange that AP4 weapons didn't penetrate Power Armour better than AP- weapons, but that's the entire point of armour in the first place.
We should've had a bunch of weapons that are AP0 but with a special rule like "Ignores saves of 5+ or worse" (flamers come to mind); instead we got a bunch of weapons that relatively speaking are better against Marines than their intended targets, while dropping the offensive output of Marines at the same time.
That's not inherent in the systems though, that's more a problem with using points as a balancing factor. The old AP system at least had the advantage that it always had the same impact, so you could price it correctly more easily. AP5 in the old system either increased casualties by 50% or by 0%. Similarly, AP3 was always either 200% or 0%. How do you price a weapon that is sometimes a 100% increase, sometimes a 50% increase, and sometimes a 20% increase correctly?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's not inherent in the systems though, that's more a problem with using points as a balancing factor. The old AP system at least had the advantage that it always had the same impact, so you could price it correctly more easily. AP5 in the old system either increased casualties by 50% or by 0%. Similarly, AP3 was always either 200% or 0%. How do you price a weapon that is sometimes a 100% increase, sometimes a 50% increase, and sometimes a 20% increase correctly?
Lots of playtesting. You don't have to get any unit perfect. Just somewhere between autopass and autotake is good enough. GW can't even do that.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Honestly, I'm one of those people who never saw the problem with the old AP system. If you fire a pebble from a slingshot and a 20mm autocannon round at the main armour belt of a battleship, they are going to achieve exactly the same end result despite the autocannon round being orders of magnitude more powerful. People complained that it was strange that AP4 weapons didn't penetrate Power Armour better than AP- weapons, but that's the entire point of armour in the first place.
We should've had a bunch of weapons that are AP0 but with a special rule like "Ignores saves of 5+ or worse" (flamers come to mind); instead we got a bunch of weapons that relatively speaking are better against Marines than their intended targets, while dropping the offensive output of Marines at the same time.
I would go so far as to argue that AP-1 should never be an option available one a basic gun for a basic troop. Bolters could compensate by being DMG 2 perhaps.
I would also say that AP-4 shouldn't exist except for in rare cases, weapons on tanks, or a single weapon available to a character or walker type.
There needs to be an equipment list for all armies. The ability to purchase things like a 5++ or a 6+++ for a unit.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's not inherent in the systems though, that's more a problem with using points as a balancing factor. The old AP system at least had the advantage that it always had the same impact, so you could price it correctly more easily. AP5 in the old system either increased casualties by 50% or by 0%. Similarly, AP3 was always either 200% or 0%. How do you price a weapon that is sometimes a 100% increase, sometimes a 50% increase, and sometimes a 20% increase correctly?
Lots of playtesting. You don't have to get any unit perfect. Just somewhere between autopass and autotake is good enough. GW can't even do that.
Isn't Frontline doing the majority of the play-testing for GW? Shouldn't they share as much of the blame?
Let's not fool ourselves. Marines crumble to AP 0 as well. 3+ saves just allow too many wounds through. See: scatterbikes from 7th and FRFSRF from 8th.
Martel732 wrote: Let's not fool ourselves. Marines crumble to AP 0 as well. 3+ saves just allow too many wounds through. See: scatterbikes from 7th and FRFSRF from 8th.
you realise that pointswise Guardsmen can't win against Marines right? Especially at 24"-12" range.
Martel732 wrote: And yet, they constantly do in practice. Fine, insert aggressors instead. Happy? AP 0 works against power armor fine.
So what, it is a matter of fact that primaris were a bad idea and shrunk the design space for marines even more then necessary.
Only main issue is that CSM which are more restricted troop wise get to suffer from it indirectly due to their linkage with tacticals.
Martel732 wrote: Primaris were kind of a good idea, and then they made the dissy cannon. And ton of other cheap, 2 damage sources.
You seriously think that?
You realise that they are one of the reason your average marine profile can't be buffed into a place where it actually is worth the salt.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Honestly, I'm one of those people who never saw the problem with the old AP system. If you fire a pebble from a slingshot and a 20mm autocannon round at the main armour belt of a battleship, they are going to achieve exactly the same end result despite the autocannon round being orders of magnitude more powerful. People complained that it was strange that AP4 weapons didn't penetrate Power Armour better than AP- weapons, but that's the entire point of armour in the first place.
We should've had a bunch of weapons that are AP0 but with a special rule like "Ignores saves of 5+ or worse" (flamers come to mind); instead we got a bunch of weapons that relatively speaking are better against Marines than their intended targets, while dropping the offensive output of Marines at the same time.
While I miss many of the effects the old AP (and Toughness) systems had in practice, in theory the new system is much more straightforward and fits right into 8e's "everything is modifiers" milieu. It's just that the knock-on effects of that system haven't been properly calibrated for.
One thing I don't miss is scanning every codex in desperate search of an AP3 gun I could take in the highest possible quantities, because Space Marines were (and remain) the most common enemy for anyone to fight, and anything short of AP3 might as well have been a lasgun under the circumstances. The sliding scale ensures that AP is useful at every level, and I don't have to agonize over whether I should even bother taking an AP4 weapon. It's just that AP is now too useful even at its lowest level, while remaining just as ubiquitous as before.
If we hit a 9e or a second round of army books within 8e, I'd actually expect to see more abilities along the lines of All Is Dust, approaching your "AP-1 but only against low saves" idea from the opposite end. Or "D1 weapons subtract -1 when rolling to wound this vehicle", effectively immunizing them against small arms fire again. Another option is weapons that force re-rolls on saves – a weapon that forces targets to re-roll saving throws of 6 is effectively an old-style AP6 weapon that has only a minor effect on Terminators but screws 6+ saves almost to nothing.
Martel732 wrote: Primaris were kind of a good idea, and then they made the dissy cannon. And ton of other cheap, 2 damage sources.
You seriously think that?
You realise that they are one of the reason your average marine profile can't be buffed into a place where it actually is worth the salt.
Average marines are irrelevant now, I think. They won't get anymore buffs for the most part. They will slowly fade. I'm not going to complain about 8.5 pts/wound vs 1 damage weapons vs 13 pts/wound.
Martel732 wrote: Primaris were kind of a good idea, and then they made the dissy cannon. And ton of other cheap, 2 damage sources.
You seriously think that?
You realise that they are one of the reason your average marine profile can't be buffed into a place where it actually is worth the salt.
Primaris were a good idea poorly executed. If GW had said "Space Marines are now 2W/model with AP-1 boltguns, here are your resculpts but old Marine models use the same profiles" everything would have been fine, basic transports would have been way better, and we might have escaped the idiotic Buzz Lightyear units. The fact that Primaris Marines are distinct units is what's screwing everything up; it means that the units with interesting weapons are stuck with unusable profiles and the units with usable profiles are stuck with uninteresting weapons, so a Primaris army is locked into wildly inflexible mono-builds if it wants to fill out a detachment because you can't (for instance) engage vehicles with your Troops slot.
In my experience of 8e the "Space Marine" unit that functions most like I expect a Tactical Squad should function is a Deathwatch Primaris Kill-Team with five Intercessors, two Hellblasters, and one Aggressor. The Intercessors do strong rifle work with the AP and allow me to remove cheaper models when shot rather than dropping Hellblasters straight away, the Aggressor makes up for the fact that the cost per shot is too high to clear chaff by offering cheap 4/0/1 shots, and the Hellblasters allow the unit to effectively engage things that the riflemen can't. It's a tough, flexible workhorse of a unit that can sit back and provide covering fire or advance to objectives equally well, and it is very much what I wish Space Marines in general felt like on the tabletop.
Martel732 wrote: Primaris were kind of a good idea, and then they made the dissy cannon. And ton of other cheap, 2 damage sources.
You seriously think that?
You realise that they are one of the reason your average marine profile can't be buffed into a place where it actually is worth the salt.
Primaris were a good idea poorly executed. If GW had said "Space Marines are now 2W/model with AP-1 boltguns, here are your resculpts but old Marine models use the same profiles" everything would have been fine, basic transports would have been way better, and we might have escaped the idiotic Buzz Lightyear units. The fact that Primaris Marines are distinct units is what's screwing everything up; it means that the units with interesting weapons are stuck with unusable profiles and the units with usable profiles are stuck with uninteresting weapons, so a Primaris army is locked into wildly inflexible mono-builds if it wants to fill out a detachment because you can't (for instance) engage vehicles with your Troops slot.
In my experience of 8e the "Space Marine" unit that functions most like I expect a Tactical Squad should function is a Deathwatch Primaris Kill-Team with five Intercessors, two Hellblasters, and one Aggressor. The Intercessors do strong rifle work with the AP and allow me to remove cheaper models when shot rather than dropping Hellblasters straight away, the Aggressor makes up for the fact that the cost per shot is too high to clear chaff by offering cheap 4/0/1 shots, and the Hellblasters allow the unit to effectively engage things that the riflemen can't. It's a tough, flexible workhorse of a unit that can sit back and provide covering fire or advance to objectives equally well, and it is very much what I wish Space Marines in general felt like on the tabletop.
This is pretty much perfectly summed up what i thought.
Martel732 wrote: Primaris were kind of a good idea, and then they made the dissy cannon. And ton of other cheap, 2 damage sources.
You seriously think that?
You realise that they are one of the reason your average marine profile can't be buffed into a place where it actually is worth the salt.
Why do Primaris even exist? Who was asking for "True Scale" marines anyway. I literally never even heard the term until the leaked photo of the first Primaris came out, and at that point I'd been playing the game for three years.
Martel732 wrote: Let's not fool ourselves. Marines crumble to AP 0 as well. 3+ saves just allow too many wounds through. See: scatterbikes from 7th and FRFSRF from 8th.
you realise that pointswise Guardsmen can't win against Marines right? Especially at 24"-12" range.
What maths are you using to work that out
Even with 7 marines vrs 20 guardsmen (11 point advantage Marines, IG without orders) the guard are last man standing.
Primaris win in a point for point against infantry squads but add in Russ, Basalisk etc and they take a beating.
Because they look really cool, justify a big shake-up of the setting and lots of exciting new products, and allow GW to more quickly phase out an aesthetic choice ("Heroic Scale") that has been largely obsoleted by advances in modelling technology. There's a reason the new Chaos Space Marines look conspicuously taller and less "Heroic" in scale, despite not having gone under Cawl's scalpel at any point. And thank god for that, because they are gorgeous.
Because they look really cool, justify a big shake-up of the setting and lots of exciting new products, and allow GW to more quickly phase out an aesthetic choice ("Heroic Scale") that has been largely obsoleted by advances in modelling technology. There's a reason the new Chaos Space Marines look conspicuously taller and less "Heroic" in scale, despite not having gone under Cawl's scalpel at any point. And thank god for that, because they are gorgeous.
That's fine by me, all the merrier. But why give them completely different rules and stats. Why not just do as was suggested and say "Here is the new stuff, it's the same as the old in rules (maybe a new rule here and there) and then boom. Done. They LITERALLY did this with the CSM stuff.
Martel732 wrote: Let's not fool ourselves. Marines crumble to AP 0 as well. 3+ saves just allow too many wounds through. See: scatterbikes from 7th and FRFSRF from 8th.
you realise that pointswise Guardsmen can't win against Marines right? Especially at 24"-12" range.
What maths are you using to work that out
Even with 7 marines vrs 20 guardsmen (11 point advantage Marines, IG without orders) the guard are last man standing.
Primaris win in a point for point against infantry squads but add in Russ, Basalisk etc and they take a beating.
It doesnt matter. Any ap 0 works. Thats the point, not more ig math
Martel732 wrote: Let's not fool ourselves. Marines crumble to AP 0 as well. 3+ saves just allow too many wounds through. See: scatterbikes from 7th and FRFSRF from 8th.
you realise that pointswise Guardsmen can't win against Marines right? Especially at 24"-12" range.
What maths are you using to work that out
Even with 7 marines vrs 20 guardsmen (11 point advantage Marines, IG without orders) the guard are last man standing.
Primaris win in a point for point against infantry squads but add in Russ, Basalisk etc and they take a beating.
It doesnt matter. Any ap 0 works. Thats the point, not more ig math
Again the issue is a 13point marine statline just doesn't work in 8th edition.
Primaris sort of look OK untill you point anti light tank weapons at them and they then bleed points worse than marines.
8th edition rewards cheapest wound durability above all.
Because they look really cool, justify a big shake-up of the setting and lots of exciting new products, and allow GW to more quickly phase out an aesthetic choice ("Heroic Scale") that has been largely obsoleted by advances in modelling technology. There's a reason the new Chaos Space Marines look conspicuously taller and less "Heroic" in scale, despite not having gone under Cawl's scalpel at any point. And thank god for that, because they are gorgeous.
That's fine by me, all the merrier. But why give them completely different rules and stats. Why not just do as was suggested and say "Here is the new stuff, it's the same as the old in rules (maybe a new rule here and there) and then boom. Done. They LITERALLY did this with the CSM stuff.
Because they panicked and overcompensated when the Age of Sigmar launch (during which they said "People with old models can f*** off, buy the new shiny hotness!") caused such an incredible outpouring of hate and sent the fanbase running for the hills. They were scared of what would happen if they came out and explicitly replaced old Marines or made Primaris Marines better than old Marines. An explosion of hate from the WHFB fanbase didn't really matter to GW because it was a sideshow that didn't represent a huge chunk of the bottom line, if the 40k fanbase decided en masse that GW were being dicks and left the company wouldn't survive.
Martel732 wrote: Let's not fool ourselves. Marines crumble to AP 0 as well. 3+ saves just allow too many wounds through. See: scatterbikes from 7th and FRFSRF from 8th.
you realise that pointswise Guardsmen can't win against Marines right? Especially at 24"-12" range.
What maths are you using to work that out
Even with 7 marines vrs 20 guardsmen (11 point advantage Marines, IG without orders) the guard are last man standing.
Primaris win in a point for point against infantry squads but add in Russ, Basalisk etc and they take a beating.
It doesnt matter. Any ap 0 works. Thats the point, not more ig math
Again the issue is a 13point marine statline just doesn't work in 8th edition.
Primaris sort of look OK untill you point anti light tank weapons at them and they then bleed points worse than marines.
8th edition rewards cheapest wound durability above all.
Sort of. As a thought experiment consider for the moment what would happen if a Guardsman was 4pts and a Space Marine was 5pts. Would you still spend 40pts on a Guardsman squad if you could spend 25pts on a Tactical Squad?
There is some value to higher statlines, but the reason 8e has become a race to the bottom is that GW has assigned too much value to higher statlines, not because higher statlines can't be worthwhile in 8e.
Martel732 wrote: Average marine profile hasnt been good since 4th, so can we blame primaris?
How many marine haters will actually agree with that. They still bitter about bark star and super friends.
5e was the start of size creep; Marines were good when tools that casually and efficiently wiped squads (cover-ignoring Riptides, for instance) weren't a thing and when there were no volume-of-fire AT guns.
Barkstar and Superfriends have nothing to do with whether the base Marine profile was any good and everything to do with the fact that Invisibility and rerollable 2++ existed. Remember that in the same edition where superfriends was a thing GW chose to try to encourage people to play more Space Marines by giving you 550pts of free Razorbacks. You don't need to spot people five hundred points if they're fairly costed.
Just the right amount of defensive gimmick and marines definitely can be worth while @ 13ppm. Maybe not the best-in-slot, but certainly worth a consideration.
The truth of the matter is some weapons MUST BE taken to deal with larger/tougher targets, but these weapons taken deals with power amour/terminator better than it deals with the larger/tougher targets intended for while being effectively and practically ineffective against cheaper bodies typically 11 ppm or less (due to relativity of opportunity costs - it makes sense to take a 7 pt weapon on a 4 ppm model to deal with 13pt model where as it does not against 9 pt models).
Similarly, an anti-power/termie armor weapons have decent chance at chipping away at wounds of larger/tougher models, so these weapons become the go-to weapon for most lists.
Slayer6 wrote: Give SM Power Armor a 6++ so it is a miniaturized version of a Terminator suit...
That way it can stand out from the armies that don't have the Black Carapace...
How many AP-4 or greater weapons are there in the game? Plus, Sisters already have a 6++, so it wouldn't achieve a thing to differentiate Marines from non-Marine Power Armour anyway. It's almost to the point where I suspect you're being sarcastic and I'm just missing it.
Slayer6 wrote: Give SM Power Armor a 6++ so it is a miniaturized version of a Terminator suit...
That way it can stand out from the armies that don't have the Black Carapace...
This idea would be fine, except for the way Invulnerable Saves and Armour Saves interact in 8e.
In previous editions, Armour Saves were binary. You had your full Armour Save, or you had no Armour Save. Therefore, Invulnerable Saves were an extremely useful backup that kicked in when you had no Armour Save. A Terminator always had a 2+ Armour Save... but even if your opponent went to the trouble of bypassing that save with an AP1 Meltagun or a Power Sword, your Terminator could still get a 5+ Invulnerable Save. Your Terminator was super tough against light arms fire, and still pretty tough against the most powerful weapons in the game!
In this edition, Armour Saves exist on a sliding scale, which means that your Terminator's 5+ Invulnerable Save isn't so much of an emergency backup as it is a lower threshold. This has the perverse effect of encouraging the use of middling-AP weapons against units with combined Armour/Invulnerable Saves. AP-1 weapons work normally against Terminators, reducing them to a 3+ Sv. AP-2 weapons work normally against Terminators, reducing them to a 4+ Sv. AP-3 weapons work normally against Terminators, reducing them to a 5+ Sv. It's only AP-4 weapons (or the very, very rare AP-5) that are in the least bit relevant to a Terminator's Invulnerable Save, and that's basically just Meltaguns, Lances, Heavy Plasma, and Chainfists. Everything else, from Power Fists to Plasma Guns, works just fine.
One potential solution would be to remove the idea that Invulnerable Saves are immune to AP – instead, "split" AP penalties equally between a unit's Invulnerable and Armour Saves. that way, a Terminator hit by an AP-2 weapon would reduce its Invulnerable Save to 6+ and its Armour Save to 3+, instead of just being stuck with an Armour Save of 4+ and an Invulnerable Save it didn't use. Not sure how well that'd work in practice, though, and it seems a little fiddly. It's basically a free All Is Dust to everything with a 5+ Invulnerable Save.
Slayer6 wrote: Give SM Power Armor a 6++ so it is a miniaturized version of a Terminator suit...
That way it can stand out from the armies that don't have the Black Carapace...
How many AP-4 or greater weapons are there in the game? Plus, Sisters already have a 6++, so it wouldn't achieve a thing to differentiate Marines from non-Marine Power Armour anyway. It's almost to the point where I suspect you're being sarcastic and I'm just missing it.
Again, if T3 Sv5+ can save against a flamer and bolters on a 5+, a T4 Sv3+ saving on 5+ against plasma is a fair game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RevlidRas wrote: One potential solution would be to remove the idea that Invulnerable Saves are immune to AP – instead, "split" AP penalties equally between a unit's Invulnerable and Armour Saves. that way, a Terminator hit by an AP-2 weapon would reduce its Invulnerable Save to 6+ and its Armour Save to 3+, instead of just being stuck with an Armour Save of 4+ and an Invulnerable Save it didn't use. Not sure how well that'd work in practice, though, and it seems a little fiddly. It's basically a free All Is Dust to everything with a 5+ Invulnerable Save.
Alternatively, revise X++ system into AP negation mechanism.
If a model has 2++, then AP-2 is effectively ignored. If it has AP-4, then -2 would spill over to affect its X+ save.
Slayer6 wrote: Give SM Power Armor a 6++ so it is a miniaturized version of a Terminator suit...
That way it can stand out from the armies that don't have the Black Carapace...
How many AP-4 or greater weapons are there in the game? Plus, Sisters already have a 6++, so it wouldn't achieve a thing to differentiate Marines from non-Marine Power Armour anyway. It's almost to the point where I suspect you're being sarcastic and I'm just missing it.
Again, if T3 Sv5+ can save against a flamer and bolters on a 5+, a T4 Sv3+ saving on 5+ against plasma is a fair game.
How would a 6++ on a 3+ armour model let you save on 5+ against an AP-3 weapon?
Martel732 wrote: Let's not fool ourselves. Marines crumble to AP 0 as well. 3+ saves just allow too many wounds through. See: scatterbikes from 7th and FRFSRF from 8th.
you realise that pointswise Guardsmen can't win against Marines right? Especially at 24"-12" range.
What maths are you using to work that out
Even with 7 marines vrs 20 guardsmen (11 point advantage Marines, IG without orders) the guard are last man standing.
Primaris win in a point for point against infantry squads but add in Russ, Basalisk etc and they take a beating.
It doesnt matter. Any ap 0 works. Thats the point, not more ig math
Again the issue is a 13point marine statline just doesn't work in 8th edition.
Primaris sort of look OK untill you point anti light tank weapons at them and they then bleed points worse than marines.
8th edition rewards cheapest wound durability above all.
Sort of. As a thought experiment consider for the moment what would happen if a Guardsman was 4pts and a Space Marine was 5pts. Would you still spend 40pts on a Guardsman squad if you could spend 25pts on a Tactical Squad?
There is some value to higher statlines, but the reason 8e has become a race to the bottom is that GW has assigned too much value to higher statlines, not because higher statlines can't be worthwhile in 8e.
Martel732 wrote: Average marine profile hasnt been good since 4th, so can we blame primaris?
How many marine haters will actually agree with that. They still bitter about bark star and super friends.
5e was the start of size creep; Marines were good when tools that casually and efficiently wiped squads (cover-ignoring Riptides, for instance) weren't a thing and when there were no volume-of-fire AT guns.
Barkstar and Superfriends have nothing to do with whether the base Marine profile was any good and everything to do with the fact that Invisibility and rerollable 2++ existed. Remember that in the same edition where superfriends was a thing GW chose to try to encourage people to play more Space Marines by giving you 550pts of free Razorbacks. You don't need to spot people five hundred points if they're fairly costed.
Yeah totally. Can't tell you how many times I got tabled running 500 free points of razorbacks. The answer is many. Marines have been garbage for so long people expect them to be bad units. Same for Terminators. Terms were good for a short while in 5th eddition with THSS back when an invulnerable save was something of a rarity and they got free MCTH for being salamanders.
That said, why *should* Marines have a 5+ or better save vs AP-3 weapons? Isn't that like giving an IK an invuln vs AT weapons?
They shouldn't. But consider that necrons are a weak list and can have an entire army of -2 AP. It's a mess. It's been a mess for marines since 5th on the whole. As soon as I saw my first IG list with 24 plasma guns in 5th, I knew it was over for marines. GW wont' make them horde, but don't have a clue of how to make them provide 13 pts or 17 pts of value. But they sure can make 4 pt models godly.
Slayer6 wrote: Give SM Power Armor a 6++ so it is a miniaturized version of a Terminator suit...
That way it can stand out from the armies that don't have the Black Carapace...
How many AP-4 or greater weapons are there in the game? Plus, Sisters already have a 6++, so it wouldn't achieve a thing to differentiate Marines from non-Marine Power Armour anyway. It's almost to the point where I suspect you're being sarcastic and I'm just missing it.
Again, if T3 Sv5+ can save against a flamer and bolters on a 5+, a T4 Sv3+ saving on 5+ against plasma is a fair game.
How would a 6++ on a 3+ armour model let you save on 5+ against an AP-3 weapon?
It was an allusion to what should be which that isn't.
GEQ statlines were effectively buffed through the removal of AP value on what was traditionally considered an 'anti-horde' weapon. That which used to offer no armour saves against Sv +5 now has no effect on GEQ's ability to save on 5+. The same is not true for MEQ's vs plasmas, what was considered as a 'anti-MEQ' weapon.
Making power armour 3+/5++ and termies 2+/4++ (or keep it where it is and lower their price) can be an effective but not overbearing way to make marines more worff.
Martel732 wrote: That's not really going to help I think. I smoke plenty of marines with -2 AP. And have them smoked.
Exactly. It's not a panacea nor is it a way to make them into movie marines but it's a start in dealing with the current way AP is scaled where AP is worthless against lightly armored targets.
If guardsmen can take a 5+ save against flamers then marines better damn well be able to at least save on 5+ against plasmas.
Martel732 wrote: They don't want them balanced, they want them gone. That's my guess.
Judging from the remodelled chaos power armor and terminator armors, I doubt GW wants to outright invalidate them. It would be terrible decision to completely replace existing marine lines with the new primaris.
I still think they shouldve just released a new army with primaris. They would've made perfect range for Arbites given their 'space police' look.
Martel732 wrote: They don't want them balanced, they want them gone. That's my guess.
Judging from the remodelled chaos power armor and terminator armors, I doubt GW wants to outright invalidate them. It would be terrible decision to completely replace existing marine lines with the new primaris.
I still think they shouldve just released a new army with primaris. They would've made perfect range for Arbites given their 'space police' look.
To be fair even thier replacement unit design isn't exactly stomping tournament lists either.
Heck look at the amount cultists got nerfed and people still take them over choas power armour.
They got made that much worse and they still outshine marines, I'm not sure GW have the bottle to nerf guardsmen etc enough that people would actually start taking marines over them
Martel732 wrote: They don't want them balanced, they want them gone. That's my guess.
Judging from the remodelled chaos power armor and terminator armors, I doubt GW wants to outright invalidate them. It would be terrible decision to completely replace existing marine lines with the new primaris.
I still think they shouldve just released a new army with primaris. They would've made perfect range for Arbites given their 'space police' look.
To be fair even thier replacement unit design isn't exactly stomping tournament lists either.
Heck look at the amount cultists got nerfed and people still take them over choas power armour.
They got made that much worse and they still outshine marines, I'm not sure GW have the bottle to nerf guardsmen etc enough that people would actually start taking marines over them
Actually they don't, atleast not compared to RC in what matters for a troop choice, namely generating CP.
Or we could make weapons that remove all your armour overpenetrate and hit other models. Like, if I shoot a Meltagun at a Guardsman his mate behind him probably won't be fine either.
Intercessors at 15ppm, or 7.5 points per wound. Pretty much puts them in line with every other infantry unit in the game. Even at 15ppm I don't think they'd be crushing tables
In my games it is weight of fire that always kills my marines, normal and Primaris.
I believe allowing marines to re-roll failed saves will help them a lot. AP0 and -1 will barely kill any without massive amounts of firepower, but dedicated anti-MEQ weapons will still be viable and will hurt.
This would make chaff much less effective to marines and increase their durability.
A "dedicated anti-MEQ" AP-2 weapon would still kill less than half the number of times it wounds.
Meanwhile, it now takes 18 S4 AP0 hits to kill a single Marine. That's 27 Marines firing boltguns (or similar).
It takes 54 Guardsmen shots to kill a single Marine. A Guardsman squad in RF range with FRFSRF gets 37 shots. So you need 8 Guardsmen squads (320 points) and 4 HQs to kill a single 65pt Marine squad.
And that's normal Marines out of cover. Killing a single such Marine in cover requires 6*6*3*2. 216 Guardsman shots to kill a marine. 1080 to kill a single 5-man. We're talking *30* Guardsman squads in RF range with FRFSRF to kill a single 65pt Marine squad in cover. That's most of a 2,000 point army.
That would make a 10-man Marine squad more durable than a Castellan.
Have them ignore a given amount of AP. 1 for power armour, 2 for Terminator armour, maybe +1 to that for a storm shield. It wouldn't solve their issues with weight of fire AP0, but it'd at least solve the problem with AP1. It's something I've been wanting to try since 8th came out, though I first thought of it as a way to reduce Marines relying on cover. It wouldn't stack with cover, but because cover is a save bonus it'd be a bit wonky to word properly.
Personally I think they need a 2 plus save a 3 plus isnt what it once was. Terminators would then become 2 plus but ignore the first AP (and you could make them halve damage suffered if they were still weak). Anything else that has a 2 plus save would need to be balanced as well. The real problem is gw need to either accept marines are not going to be elite and therefore reduce their cost or up both their offence and defence.
Personally I think they need a 2 plus save a 3 plus isnt what it once was. Terminators would then become 2 plus but ignore the first AP (and you could make them halve damage suffered if they were still weak). Anything else that has a 2 plus save would need to be balanced as well.
The real problem is gw need to either accept marines are not going to be elite and therefore reduce their cost or up both their offence and defence.
