I still think 40k could really do with doubling the cost of every unit in the game. It would give them a lot more design space to work with in terms of tweaking costs.
As it stands, at the level of guardsmen, it's virtually impossible to raise or lower the points on a unit without both having a big impact (e.g. raising Conscripts to 4ppm was a 33% increase in cost) and also treading on the toes of another unit.
You've currently got Gretchin, Conscripts, Guardsmen and Termagants all in the 3-4pt range. However, if you doubled the cost of every unit in 40k and worked from there, you could have Gretchin at 5pts, Conscripts at 6-7pts, Termagants at 7-8pts, Guardsmen at 9pts. It just gives you a lot more flexibility.
I have considered this and I honestly think this would solve a lot of balance problems 40k has right now. Points have been squished so far down that there is no where left to go. There was a time in this game when an infantry squad costed 60pts base and you had to bring mandatory platoon command squads, and average games were only 1k-1.5k pts. Double the cost of every single unit in the game, and then balance from there for better point margins.
Honestly that idea that guardsmen should be as expensive as guardians makes me laugh.
This a reason the game should have a dodge save. Eldar should be better at not getting shot than necrons. Why is it as easy to kill a guardsman as it is to kill a guardian, why is it as easy to kill a guard vet as it is to kill a conscript? Also, I’d like to buff the hell out of guardians and aspect warriors because even if they get harder to kill they’ll still be a lot easier for marines to kill than wave serpents are. I mean yeah, guardsmen everywhere if they are being used as key offensive units and not just as bubble wrap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There’s this persistent problem that sternguard used to be 25 pts, and before that marine vets were just tactical squads that could buy terminator honors for more points and in elites. They could both be killed just as easily as a marine, and so could PA grey knights. There should just be a dodge save.
Honestly that idea that guardsmen should be as expensive as guardians makes me laugh.
This a reason the game should have a dodge save. Eldar should be better at not getting shot than necrons. Why is it as easy to kill a guardsman as it is to kill a guardian, why is it as easy to kill a guard vet as it is to kill a conscript? Also, I’d like to buff the hell out of guardians and aspect warriors because even if they get harder to kill they’ll still be a lot easier for marines to kill than wave serpents are. I mean yeah, guardsmen everywhere if they are being used as key offensive units and not just as bubble wrap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There’s this persistent problem that sternguard used to be 25 pts, and before that marine vets were just tactical squads that could buy terminator honors for more points and in elites. They could both be killed just as easily as a marine, and so could PA grey knights. There should just be a dodge save.
It's almost like you're suggesting a...
To hit penalty?
Elbows wrote: I wouldn't mind at all seeing points doubled....revert back to days of second edition, where a Tactical Squad was 300 points + additional gear.
Well, like it or not, gradual escalation in model counts and fall in point costs is completely logical move from GW, it's not an accident.
On the topic of Power Armor: Warp Talons base cost is currently 12 pts (!!!!!!) with MEQ statline, deep strike, 12" move, 5++, and some non-factor rule.
Why is this? The unit has to buy pair of lightning claws for every model, essentially they pay +12 to get +1A and AP -2 attacks.
This unit is perfect example how GW has dropped the ball in current edition with some units and refuses to make stuff playable even with CA and faqs. It's so blatant intentional profiteering and outright lying with 'balance' it's disgusting.
Honestly that idea that guardsmen should be as expensive as guardians makes me laugh.
This a reason the game should have a dodge save. Eldar should be better at not getting shot than necrons. Why is it as easy to kill a guardsman as it is to kill a guardian, why is it as easy to kill a guard vet as it is to kill a conscript?
Because the differences are minute enough to be irrelevant at the scale 40k is played at, and while being graceful and possessing lightning-fast reflexes is great and all, automatic weapons and high explosives shells don't really care unless they're truly exceptional.
That sort of thing can be expressed well in RPG's. An Eldar Guardian does indeed find it easier to dodge than a guardsman at that scale under the various 40kRPG rulesets. These rulesets also dramatically simplify rules when dealing with combats at the scale of the 40k game for the same reason 40k doesn't portray such things.
Elbows wrote: I wouldn't mind at all seeing points doubled....revert back to days of second edition, where a Tactical Squad was 300 points + additional gear.
Well, like it or not, gradual escalation in model counts and fall in point costs is completely logical move from GW, it's not an accident.
On the topic of Power Armor: Warp Talons base cost is currently 12 pts (!!!!!!) with MEQ statline, deep strike, 12" move, 5++, and some non-factor rule.
Why is this? The unit has to buy pair of lightning claws for every model, essentially they pay +12 to get +1A and AP -2 attacks.
This unit is perfect example how GW has dropped the ball in current edition with some units and refuses to make stuff playable even with CA and faqs. It's so blatant intentional profiteering and outright lying with 'balance' it's disgusting.
Oh no, the company wants to make money! The horror!
Yeah balance could be WAY better than it is now, but let's not pretend that GW is that good at knowing what they're doing. There have been several new kits where the unit wasn't any good, like the Warp Talons/Raptors in question.
Honestly that idea that guardsmen should be as expensive as guardians makes me laugh.
This a reason the game should have a dodge save. Eldar should be better at not getting shot than necrons. Why is it as easy to kill a guardsman as it is to kill a guardian, why is it as easy to kill a guard vet as it is to kill a conscript?
Because the differences are minute enough to be irrelevant at the scale 40k is played at, and while being graceful and possessing lightning-fast reflexes is great and all, automatic weapons and high explosives shells don't really care unless they're truly exceptional.
That sort of thing can be expressed well in RPG's. An Eldar Guardian does indeed find it easier to dodge than a guardsman at that scale under the various 40kRPG rulesets. These rulesets also dramatically simplify rules when dealing with combats at the scale of the 40k game for the same reason 40k doesn't portray such things.
For small nuances like that we really would need to scale up in dice. D8 is my favorite.
Vaktathi wrote: at the scale 40k is played at, and while being graceful and possessing lightning-fast reflexes is great and all,.
Flames of War is 15mm and the primary difference between elite basic and conscript units is how hard they are to hit. It’s not from some kind of superhuman ability to see bullets and duck out of the way. It’s just that they don’t stick their heads out of cover and spend 50 seconds standing stock still to take a shot.
I think there are several units in 40k that are undercosted, some of them extremely undercosted. I've just made a few examples, who said that other troops, if they are too cheap for what they do, should remain unchanged? The majority of the undercosted stuff also doesn't belong to the troops choices.
Sure. But it's rather strange that you bring up 3 troop choices rather than the Knights or other units that actually do the real work in lists.
Yeah knights are overpowered but I was referring to "the power armor problem". I think SM suffer more from cheap troops that outperform them than the fact that there are overpowered and undercosted superheroes. The knight doesn't compete with tacticals, guardsmen do.
Doubling the cost of every unit in the game worths nothing, it would be playing at 1000 points claiming they are 2000 points instead. You can already play at 1000 points if you want to.
That doesn't even make sense.
Didn't you suggest to double every units' cost in the game? This way you'd keep the same proportions and you'll actually end up playing 1000 points instead of 2000.
So "basically guardsmen" equates to having:
- Worse WS - Worse BS - Drastically worse Morale
- Fail Orders on a 4+
- No Sergeant
- Can't take Special Weapons
- Can't take Heavy Weapons
Your definition of what should cost 3-4pts seems designed to arbitrarily exclude Conscripts, despite them being a really awful unit.
They don't look awful at all, not for the purpose they should serve, aka unlocking CPs and screening shooty unit. Just not overpowered. The issue with AM troops is that they are cheap like any other useless troop that just serves tactical purposes but they're also quite deadly against anti infantries and quite resilient. 10 guardsmen at 70 points would cost more than 5 stock tacticals and the same of 10 ork boyz by they would still overperform both of them because they can work on their own while SM and boyz still need lots of other points invested on them (weapons, transport, more models, etc...).
My definition of what should cost 3-4 points is something that would be wiped out against 10 bolter shots. Like T2 no save. Not T3 5+ save.
IMHO one of the main issues with power armor dudes is the competition with (too) cheap troops.
Demonstrably untrue. Being cheap is no guarantee that a unit will see play. Remind me - how many competitive lists are running 6pt Kabalites?
Well if you can spam 5 overpowered/undercosted units and litterally everything have 4++ or 5++, 6+++ and or -1 (or even better) to hit you don't need cheap troops. In fact aeldari can work amazingly even without lots of CPs and their best performing units are all cheap for what they do. So they actually playing with a full list of cheap dudes, they just aren't troops, because they don't need them. If you are forced to go monocodex however you'd need 3 troops and between 9ppm wracks, 8ppm wyches and 7pts kabalites I'd still take the kabalites unless you really want to go heavy with the coven stuff, which is legit but not auto-take.
I may be wrong but I remember a drukhari Black Heart brigade as a top tier list a couple of months ago, that had 30 kabalite warriors. It was posted in an article that listed the most effective armies in 40k, maybe on reddit??
Blackie wrote: Units like boyz are absolute trash in a 3x10 set up, which means 210 points already, worse than 3x5 tacs with no upgrades which are even 15pts cheaper, you need a lot more plus buffing characters and CPs invested on them.
So . . . are you arguing against yourself now? Because you seem to be proving that your previous statement was untrue.
I was arguing that no cheap troops should be both cheap and effective on their own. Orks can be cheap at 70 points but they won't be effective at all. Guardsmen are extremely effective at 40 points.
Blackie wrote: No HQs should cost less than 50ppm either.
Why? Why should a HQ that's not worth 50pts have to cost 50pts anyway?
I really don't understand what you want at this point. Unless you just really like sh*tting on IG and IG players?
I was right, then. You want nothing more than to sh*t on IG players. I guess you're one of those people who thinks that IG should be an NPC faction that only exists to get curb-stomped by other armies.
Because no one advocating for balance would be deliberately trying to make units "trash". If you really wanted balance, you'd be trying to make sure that *no* unit was trash.
Being an HQ and giving some auras already worths 50ish points. I also think that AM should be hit more than anyone else, they're the most overpowered stand alone army IMHO.
Also drukhari are, but only for 5ish units, AM have tons of undercosted stuff.
I don't want them to be nerfed into the ground of course, but I do think that they need some significant hit. They will still be performing against any other stand alone army if forced to play with 300 less points, due to new appropriate points costs. Just cut a tank and a few guardsmen. AM will definitely perform even with -5/7 CPs, -1 tank and -20/30 guardsmen.
Honestly that idea that guardsmen should be as expensive as guardians makes me laugh.
This a reason the game should have a dodge save. Eldar should be better at not getting shot than necrons. Why is it as easy to kill a guardsman as it is to kill a guardian, why is it as easy to kill a guard vet as it is to kill a conscript?
Because the differences are minute enough to be irrelevant at the scale 40k is played at, and while being graceful and possessing lightning-fast reflexes is great and all, automatic weapons and high explosives shells don't really care unless they're truly exceptional.
That sort of thing can be expressed well in RPG's. An Eldar Guardian does indeed find it easier to dodge than a guardsman at that scale under the various 40kRPG rulesets. These rulesets also dramatically simplify rules when dealing with combats at the scale of the 40k game for the same reason 40k doesn't portray such things.
For small nuances like that we really would need to scale up in dice. D8 is my favorite.
From a rules perspective I'd really like D10's personally.
but man, rolling anything other than D6's en-masse gets really awkward
Vaktathi wrote: at the scale 40k is played at, and while being graceful and possessing lightning-fast reflexes is great and all,.
Flames of War is 15mm and the primary difference between elite basic and conscript units is how hard they are to hit. It’s not from some kind of superhuman ability to see bullets and duck out of the way. It’s just that they don’t stick their heads out of cover and spend 50 seconds standing stock still to take a shot.
*from
Sure, but they don't have Toughness or Ballistic Skill or Weapons Skill either. It's also a game where the relative differences between units are much smaller, we're talking humans with broadly similar characteristics and weapons. Experience and Training is the differentiator there. 40k uses other mechanics for that or has such a dramatically more broad scale that such aspects aren't relevant. What in Flames of War separates a Veteran and a Conscript is a dramatically larger difference than that represented in 40k for instance, because Flames of War isn't also having to deal with genetically engineered super soldiers, literal demons, space elves, everything bad from the Alien and Terminator franchise x1000, and now we're getting into small Godzilla scale with Knights, all on the same D6.
Ghorgul wrote: On the topic of Power Armor: Warp Talons base cost is currently 12 pts (!!!!!!) with MEQ statline, deep strike, 12" move, 5++, and some non-factor rule.
Why is this? The unit has to buy pair of lightning claws for every model, essentially they pay +12 to get +1A and AP -2 attacks.
This unit is perfect example how GW has dropped the ball in current edition with some units and refuses to make stuff playable even with CA and faqs. It's so blatant intentional profiteering and outright lying with 'balance' it's disgusting.
Oh no, the company wants to make money! The horror!
Yeah balance could be WAY better than it is now, but let's not pretend that GW is that good at knowing what they're doing. There have been several new kits where the unit wasn't any good, like the Warp Talons/Raptors in question.
I have accepted many units are on kind of 'legacy'-support (Which is still in disconnect with the purpose of CA, but whatever, I'm beating a dead horse here) even when they are in Codex and are updated on the CA, although on GW's part it would have been more honest toward everyone to leave Warp Talons as Index unit if no real effort is made to keep them playable.
Vaktathi wrote: At that point I suspect you'll start to run into issues where it's just more cost effective to bring more basic dudes to achieve the same killing power in many instances. We've seen this with IG and Grenade Launchers for instance.
Definitely don't mean it as a real fix, just saying more expensive weapons means things feel more durable since you can't offhandedly turn things into tissue paper.
That said, the broad scope of the game could use some revision downward. We're basically playing mini-epic at 2k and have been for a few editions now. Playing at 750pts is a whole different ballgame to 2k. Playing with less stuff, fewer or no super units like Knights and Primarchs, no tank companies or custodes jetbike captains and the like, and suddenly more classic units start to feel a whole lot tougher and more meaningful.
I'd be fine with apoc or something else coming back to give separate senses of scale again.
How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Blackie wrote: Termies durability is already fine now that they have a 3++ for 2pts. It's their damage output that should be buffed.
Only not all termintors have access to stormshields.
Sure. But it's rather strange that you bring up 3 troop choices rather than the Knights or other units that actually do the real work in lists.
If it wasn't for troops of the chaff kind, the castellans would be getting charged by s spears and smash cpts. the whole triple soup works exactly because IG do two things. They give CP and they give chaff. It doesn't matter that the loyal 32 cost less then a knight in points, for list effectivness they are just as crucial. Same way w serpents are important for eldar, even if they aren't blowing up the opposing army.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
Why do you say all the weapons. When it is hardly the thing that happens while playing the game. Most of the weapons that do get used or get spamed in 8th ed kill terminators well or kill them very well for a lot less points then what a termintor costs.
Also all the weapons that didn't ignore termintor saves before 8th ed, and I must admit I don't know how many of those are being used in 8th right now, now very well modify the termintor save.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
Plasma guns, star cannons, all ap3 weapons were ignored by termies Now they have to use their +5
Lascannons force them to use their invulnerable save like before...
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
Plasma guns, star cannons, all ap3 weapons were ignored by termies Now they have to use their +5
Lascannons force them to use their invulnerable save like before...
So no. Its a bit worse because of plasma.
Plasma Guns were AP2. They ignored terminator save.
Terminators are pretty much the same against formerly AP2 weapons, but are relatively worse because they're paying for a 5+ invuln that doesn't actually matter against those AP2 weapons anymore. (Since they'd have a 5+ save anyways.)
What Terminators are worse against are formerly AP3 and AP4 weapons, which they did blatantly ignore but now treat normally. Power Swords and Mauls used to bounce off Terminators but now kill them handily, Heavy Bolters and Autocannons are a reliable way to kill them (especially Storm Shield variants), Missile Launchers and other AP-2 weapons are especially good when they used to be crap.
Plasma guns and Starcannons were all AP2 in previous editions and definitely ignored Terminator armor saves.
Termi's are worse against AP -1 D2+ and AP -2 weapons than they were to previously AP4 and AP3 weapons. They should be equally good or superior in 8E relative to all other weapons in previous editions due to the second wound.
Even against stuff like Lascannons, they're very slightly better as the Lascannon even on a successful wound that fails a save a 1/6 chance on the Damage roll can fail to kill the Termi, whereas in 7E or earlier there would have been no such chance.
Regarding Terminators, I think part of the issue is that GW keeps giving durability upgrades to models that pay for speed.
e.g. SM Bikes now get +1T and +1W (as do any characters riding them).
If you want to have units that specifically pay for extra durability, then you can't go around handing out extra durability to units that are paying for speed.
(To be clear, I think the same of all bike units - I just think the SM ones are among the worst offenders because of their competing options.)
Today I Learned:
Terminators are vulnerable to anti-Terminator weapons, and not only is that a problem, but they should be able to outright ignore them...
The problem with Terminators isn't that they're not durable. They're very durable. They get a 4+ in cover against lascannons. It's that weapons that are good against them (plasma, lascannons) are also the weapons that everyone brings for ever.
Reduce the amount of plasma and lascannons in the game, encourage people to bring anti-infantry weapons, and terminators become good again! Just like in earlier editions: people spamming AP2 is bad for 2+ save models. News at 11. The problem isn't the 2+ save model. The problem is that "spamming AP2" is a thing.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
Plasma guns, star cannons, all ap3 weapons were ignored by termies Now they have to use their +5
Lascannons force them to use their invulnerable save like before...
So no. Its a bit worse because of plasma.
Plasma Guns were AP2. They ignored terminator save.
Terminators are pretty much the same against formerly AP2 weapons, but are relatively worse because they're paying for a 5+ invuln that doesn't actually matter against those AP2 weapons anymore. (Since they'd have a 5+ save anyways.)
What Terminators are worse against are formerly AP3 and AP4 weapons, which they did blatantly ignore but now treat normally. Power Swords and Mauls used to bounce off Terminators but now kill them handily, Heavy Bolters and Autocannons are a reliable way to kill them (especially Storm Shield variants), Missile Launchers and other AP-2 weapons are especially good when they used to be crap.
Terminators are actually the same durability vs Heavy Bolters and most other AP-1 weapons barring very specific instances like Autocannons and Gauss Blasters. Power Mauls are the same fate as well. Nobody ran Power Swords and ran Axes, so honestly vs Power Weapons it's a wash.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
Plasma guns, star cannons, all ap3 weapons were ignored by termies Now they have to use their +5
Lascannons force them to use their invulnerable save like before...
So no. Its a bit worse because of plasma.
Against Plasma they're actually better off bar someone using the charged profile, so there's that.
Star Cannons wound at a worse rate (3+) and have varying damage if I recall (DD3 isn't it?)
Asherian Command wrote: To get right off, I've been reading the forums and talking with people and friends. And I've felt this could be hopefully a constructive thread. I know from some threads that people get very hyper about what is best or what is worst. But I always felt there is time for self reflection on our power armored friends. Lately I have yet to face a single space marine opponent in months. I play regularly and even I stopped playing with my space marines as I was tired of losing every single game. So I picked up my eldar Uthwe army and wrecked most factions with my dark reaper spam.
But lets get to the crux of this thread....
Dakknauts, what do you think is wrong with Space Marines? *And Grey Knights, Chaos Space Marines, And all the other flavors of space marines
I would love to hear your thoughts. Because of this, I have spoilered my own thoughts. Read at your own risk.
2 wounds and attacks base would be a start. They are just overcost for their under powered defense and offense. They are overcost and an elite army with small units, they'll never be good in 8th unless GW drastically change them. They are probably one of the worst armies you could have thought of while creating 8th's rules.
My thoughts Please do not read my opinion until you are done writing your own. I want to hear your thoughts. Not mine!
Spoiler:
Intro Okay a bit of background, I've been playing this hobby since I could hold a pen. I started at the end of 3rd and even played in the black crusade campaign with my brother. Learning from him how to play. I got my first space marine army when I was 8 and then got my Eldar army when i was 10. I have been collecting and playing ever since. But I quit in 6th edition as college got in the way and I wanted to pursue my degree in Game Design, and my eventual Masters which I am preparing to look for. I have at least 4-5 years of game mechanical engineering, game design, gameplay programming, and product development. Not to gloat but system designing is one of my favorite past times finding errors in systems is a fun hobby. And returning to the 8th edition I immensely enjoy the challenge of seeing what is wrong with it. And I think the first issue is with our Power Armored Friends.
What could it be? First off, I know space marines are currently overcosted and don't perform that well. Even in the many games i've played I always felt like I was on the backfoot event when I had the advantage. The points for space marines seem to be structured entirely around having an active aura effect all the time... While AP damage systems seem to really punish space marines and normal armor saves its really hard to defend against increasingly high amounts of AP damage. It seems to be that every single unit that has power armor is paying a premium for subpar stats that make little different when they don't have a large killing potential compared to other similarly priced units.
An Old System ?
Space Marines are currently in my opinion overcosted and underperforming because they were balanced around the old AP system because of this their +3 armor save means absolutely nothing without an invulnerable save. Without it, a tactical squad or assaults squad will always underperform because there are better alternatives. They don't put out enough damage to really make a difference. Space marines have always been expensive but they always had the competitive edge of always having a +3 armor save and having very few things that could penetrate and make you lose that +3 armor save. With the new AP system, it punishes and severely limits all power armor in the entire game. Once you face something with an ap -3 or -4 that squad of marines is dead. And those have become very common in 8th edition. Every single army has one in spades except for space marines. (or they are extremely overcosted because it is a space marine list).
There is also the problem that marines have no damage output at all, their baseline bolter is horrifically bad and has a very low chance of killing most other targets in the game (except for gaunts) but even then space marines are never taken at full tactical squad capacity because there is 0 benefit.
Old Rules for an Old age
Combat Squads is a completely useless skill for 8th if you don't have the max of 10. There is no reason to combat your squad if you want CP generation. So that makes their entire 'special rule' completely moot. You don't want to have extra points in one detachment if you can get more powerful units in another. Again this is another holdover of previous editions, you had to work in the end with a very limiting system, and there was no cp generation. You were given one chart and told "Go crazy!". Because of this you wanted to have as many as you could in one squad so you combat squad it and move it into separate directions because marines were extremely durable. Especially for tactics as you got access to more specialists weapons. Space marines in previous editions were extremely durable because the AP and most systems were BALANCED around space marines. This edition I have no idea whom they balanced it around but it is obvious that space marines are in a lackluster position because most of their rules are from previous editions.
If space marines were played in any other edition except 8th they would be a great army. But they aren't causing you are punished for playing as space marines.
Conclusion
In short Space Marines have rulesets, power, and killing power issues that stem from overbalancing and just seems to be lazy design. They have rules that do absolutely nothing and cannot be activated as they are rarely beneficary to the player (Stares intently at Combat Squads). This would require an entire rework of the entire space marine collection for space marines to be considered viable. Every unit in the space marine codex needs to be looked at carefully and revevaluated in terms of roles in the space marine army.
Against Plasma they're actually better off bar someone using the charged profile, so there's that.
Star Cannons wound at a worse rate (3+) and have varying damage if I recall (DD3 isn't it?)
What the helk was ap3 then? I completely forgot its been so long was the krak missiles then?
Almost nothing, which was a big part of why terminators suffered in the previous editions. Everything that looked like even remotely capable punching trough armour got AP2.
Aka - primaris marines. GW just needs to finish up converting all of the old options over and then they'll move to more aggressively phase out the older stuff.
vipoid wrote: Regarding Terminators, I think part of the issue is that GW keeps giving durability upgrades to models that pay for speed.
e.g. SM Bikes now get +1T and +1W (as do any characters riding them).
If you want to have units that specifically pay for extra durability, then you can't go around handing out extra durability to units that are paying for speed.
(To be clear, I think the same of all bike units - I just think the SM ones are among the worst offenders because of their competing options.)
Bikes always had +1T. There was never a point where Bikes weren't both more durable and faster, at least not since 4th edition - I'm not familiar with earlier editions.
vipoid wrote: Regarding Terminators, I think part of the issue is that GW keeps giving durability upgrades to models that pay for speed.
e.g. SM Bikes now get +1T and +1W (as do any characters riding them).
If you want to have units that specifically pay for extra durability, then you can't go around handing out extra durability to units that are paying for speed.
(To be clear, I think the same of all bike units - I just think the SM ones are among the worst offenders because of their competing options.)
Yeah, this has been an issue with Terminators for a while in all SM flavors There's too many things that can fill the same role or fill a much more specialized niche in a much more efficient and specialized manner. Bikes, Centurions, Oblits, etc.
Reduce the amount of plasma and lascannons in the game, encourage people to bring anti-infantry weapons, and terminators become good again! Just like in earlier editions: people spamming AP2 is bad for 2+ save models. News at 11. The problem isn't the 2+ save model. The problem is that "spamming AP2" is a thing.
the problem here is that without spamming AP2 weapons, there's really no way for lots of armies to deal with stuff like Knights, Custodes, etc. We're gonna have to shrink the scale of the game really so that we're not routinely trying to hamfist heavy infantry designed for close quarters boarding operations onto the same battlespace as artillery, crew served heavy weapons, and giant robots
Against Plasma they're actually better off bar someone using the charged profile, so there's that.
Star Cannons wound at a worse rate (3+) and have varying damage if I recall (DD3 isn't it?)
What the helk was ap3 then? I completely forgot its been so long was the krak missiles then?
Krak missiles, Vengeance Round SIA (which didn't see a lot of use to be fair, because the overheat on those AND the other rounds had more use overall), Warp Ammo for Rubrics, Power Swords, Basilisk rounds, and Battlecannons.
I think the Snipers that AdMech has might've been AP3, but it could've been AP2.
Those are the only ones that stick out. Most of the time, GW usually skipped AP3 and went straight to AP2 a lot of the time, as AP2 was the clincher if you could kill most of the characters and units you might want to kill. That's basically what made some relics go from what could've been a good choice to being bad. In this instance, I'm glad. I mean, the Spartean could easily be worth a few points now compared to how it operates last edition after all.
Well super heavies should be limited, just like how i think it was dumb to give knights their own codex :/
Its okay for knights to exist but they should have titan guard and shouldn't be well... all by themselves on the tabletop as the break the entire balance of the game.
I think termies, in general, need more firepower than they currently put out, while also having very little weakness to moving and shooting.
Asherian Command wrote: Well super heavies should be limited, just like how i think it was dumb to give knights their own codex :/
Its okay for knights to exist but they should have titan guard and shouldn't be well... all by themselves on the tabletop as the break the entire balance of the game.
That's what Armigers and Secutarii are for. However it isn't like they have a guard at ALL times though.
Asherian Command wrote: Well super heavies should be limited, just like how i think it was dumb to give knights their own codex :/
Its okay for knights to exist but they should have titan guard and shouldn't be well... all by themselves on the tabletop as the break the entire balance of the game.
In practice Knights are rarely fielded on their own, they're often accompanied by titan guard, 32 of them, at least. (Mine will go with less competitive but more fluffy Skitarii.)
Aka - primaris marines. GW just needs to finish up converting all of the old options over and then they'll move to more aggressively phase out the older stuff.
But trying to fix non-primaris marines is pointless. They're legacy units that will be phased out. Even though they will probably have some sort of rule support to foreseeable future, there is no financial interest for GW to keep them particularly viable.
But trying to fix non-primaris marines is pointless. They're legacy units that will be phased out. Even though they will probably have some sort of rule support to foreseeable future, there is no financial interest for GW to keep them particularly viable.
Yes balancing the most common and best selling model line GW every produced is pointless. We should all melt our old marines and pretend that they don't exist anymore. GW should make zero effort to support models that they currently sell.
But trying to fix non-primaris marines is pointless. They're legacy units that will be phased out. Even though they will probably have some sort of rule support to foreseeable future, there is no financial interest for GW to keep them particularly viable.
Yes balancing the most common and best selling model line GW every produced is pointless. We should all melt our old marines and pretend that they don't exist anymore. GW should make zero effort to support models that they currently sell.
Essentially. I think it is incredibly short sighted for people to suggest completeley get rid of marines. They have to balance them. Grey Knights, 30k, its completely pointless for them to get rid of them if they are the longest lasting miniature line GW has ever produced.
They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.
Crimson wrote: They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.
Except a new player who wants to have any chance playing marines either needs a ton of allies from another book or needs to buy at least some of the older kits. A primaris only army is one of the weaker builds the marine book has. It's clear that it's going to be years before GW can uncouple the two.
I know termies are still popular, as are dreadnoughts, and devastators are really common in some lists. Space marine regular captains are still very common to use as that space wolf list showed us from ITC.
I think it is premature to call it the death of the old space marines. Like i've said dozens of times, no one has stated that they will die, and i even provided a source of GW Saying they aren't getting of regular marines. They aren't replacements but supplements.
Crimson wrote: They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.
If their goal is for people to buy primaris, and ditch the bad marines. Then why do they exclude them from some armies. I get giving something bad rules, but if they don't give anything in return, people won't be happy. From what I understand about eldar history in w40k, they are always good, but each edition most good stuff changes. Not sure if it is good or bad design, but it seems to work. Haven't seen many angry eldar players.
But if they nerf the old stuff of some armies, and don't give anything good in return, then their policy is either different or they just do rule changes as random.
Crimson wrote: They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.
If their goal is for people to buy primaris, and ditch the bad marines. Then why do they exclude them from some armies. I get giving something bad rules, but if they don't give anything in return, people won't be happy. From what I understand about eldar history in w40k, they are always good, but each edition most good stuff changes. Not sure if it is good or bad design, but it seems to work. Haven't seen many angry eldar players.
But if they nerf the old stuff of some armies, and don't give anything good in return, then their policy is either different or they just do rule changes as random.
There would be hell to pay if they made Farseers and Warlocks gak. (i mean they sorta kind of did with their nerf to toughness and strength but eh)
There's really not much to say. It's clear that 2019 is essentially going to be a repeat of the second half of 2018, post Knight codex.
Stability isn't always a bad thing. Hopefully games workshop will learn more with a full year of virtually everyone having a codex. When specific armies win continuously through 2019, and other armies are obviously absent, maybe 2020 will see some real change. Or, even better, a new edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Supplements to complement your forces until GW can convince you to supplant your forces with them.
GW said they'd never Squat another army after Sqauts. So GW saying they won't do something doesn't mean they won't.
People suggesting marine lines would be squatted need to get a clue. It is very expensive for them to create new sculpts. Think of all of the marine sculpts that would need to be remade. And, with primaris marines not selling nearly as well as they'd hoped, i doubt they'll do this.
I've even heard that Mortarian didn't sell as well as they would have hoped, which is insane because he's on every other table, but that doesn't change that i heard it.
I don't think most people think Real Marines are going to just get squatted overnight. I think most think they'll go the way of the Dodo via lack of attention and attrition. New kits won't be made often, old kits won't be promoted as much, and rules will continue to not help them out.
CA read like it was written by the rules designers with 12ppm Tacs. And Marketing took that line out at last minute.
Crimson wrote: They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.
Except a new player who wants to have any chance playing marines either needs a ton of allies from another book or needs to buy at least some of the older kits. A primaris only army is one of the weaker builds the marine book has. It's clear that it's going to be years before GW can uncouple the two.
There will be new Primaris wave later this year. And then the third and fourth. Look at the Stormcast, they were very limited in the beginning too, but now just after few years they have a crazy amount of models. It will happen faster than you think.
People suggesting marine lines would be squatted need to get a clue. It is very expensive for them to create new sculpts. Think of all of the marine sculpts that would need to be remade. And, with primaris marines not selling nearly as well as they'd hoped, i doubt they'll do this.
I've even heard that Mortarian didn't sell as well as they would have hoped, which is insane because he's on every other table, but that doesn't change that i heard it.
Not surprisingly the priced themselves into a bloody corner with Primaris Prices. Which are ridiculously expensive. 60$ for a squad of ten? Yeah feth that.
Bharring wrote: I don't think most people think Real Marines are going to just get squatted overnight. I think most think they'll go the way of the Dodo via lack of attention and attrition. New kits won't be made often, old kits won't be promoted as much, and rules will continue to not help them out.
But trying to fix non-primaris marines is pointless. They're legacy units that will be phased out. Even though they will probably have some sort of rule support to foreseeable future, there is no financial interest for GW to keep them particularly viable.
And yet VV, Chosen, and Stormshields all went down in cost.
Surely no new "old marine" kit will ever be made, but the production of them will be around for as long as they're profitable.
CSM will also not be getting Primaris. They're staying as old marines as we can see from BSF - just with bigger models.
Bharring wrote: I don't think most people think Real Marines are going to just get squatted overnight. I think most think they'll go the way of the Dodo via lack of attention and attrition. New kits won't be made often, old kits won't be promoted as much, and rules will continue to not help them out.
CA read like it was written by the rules designers with 12ppm Tacs. And Marketing took that line out at last minute.
People not buying or playing a model line because they suck out loud on the table doesn't mean the line has been squatted. When was the last time you saw a Space Wolves army in a tournament? For me i have to go back to November of 2017.
And yet VV, Chosen, and Stormshields all went down in cost.
Surely no new "old marine" kit will ever be made, but the production of them will be around for as long as they're profitable.
So Tacticals, who already have their direct Primaris replacements remained bad, whilst elite units which yet do not have Primaris equivalents got buffed...
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
I will bite, from the space marine list we got
In Gmans aura
Last edition a tac marine shoting them with a melta gun would have done .46 of a wound each shot now it wounds .576 and that would turn into a 56% chance of doing the two wounds needed to kill the termi now each shot or about a 22% increase in damage
How about a power fist? Would have done .34 wounds last edition now it has a .37% chance of killing a termi with it and a chance of doing one wound as well.
How about a plasma gun? Last edition it would get .92 of a wound now it has a can get 1.152 kills and has lower chance of killing the guy using it. Or about a 25% up in kills
Sure they got better vs the stuff they could tank anyways like flamers or bolters but the kind of stuff the was killing terminators is doing so better even other then grav since it got gutted.
But they could/should have been, if not for (presumed) economic implications for GW.
If 8th edition had kicked off and tactical marines were 2 wounds, 2 attacks with a 30" AP -1 boltgun for 20 points a model then that would have been that, with GW pushing a new 'truescale' marine line.
And really any weapon that was AP3 in 7th edition became way stronger against terminators in 8th. Because much of it became AP-2. And 2 wounds with a 4+ save isn't really more durable than 1 wound with a 2+ save. (Obvious math: 6 saves versus 4 saves to kill, and that's not factoring in multi-damage.)
They gained nothing but an extra wound against AP2 transitioning to AP-3. So while that is extra durability, those guns and weapons also gained the bog-standard 8th edition shot increase.
There's still design space and fluff space for them to roll Primaris and Real marines into the same statline. I hope that's the direction they go.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "And really any weapon that was AP3 in 7th edition became way stronger against terminators in 8th."
Shouldn't AP3 weapons - things liked shaped-charge missiles - have been better at cracking 2+ armor than AP- stuff?
I always found it odd that the main gun of Predator tank was just as likely to pierce the armor of a Space Marine as a Lasgun was. The ASM route lets them actually model that. They can have the Autocannon have light armor piercing (AP-1) without it being as good against armor as a Lascannon.
The problem is they handed AP-1 and AP-2 out like candy.
Elbows wrote:I wouldn't mind at all seeing points doubled....revert back to days of second edition, where a Tactical Squad was 300 points + additional gear.
Sorry, I saw a mention of second ed and just had to stop by
With all this talk of Tactical Squads and giving them more wounds etc, might it be a bit easier to just let a 10 man tac squad take two heavy and two special weapons? That seems a reasonable way of making them tactically useful, as they can carry a mix of weaponry to deal with different threats, kind of like a tactically flexible unit might?
Bharring wrote: There's still design space and fluff space for them to roll Primaris and Real marines into the same statline. I hope that's the direction they go.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "And really any weapon that was AP3 in 7th edition became way stronger against terminators in 8th."
Shouldn't AP3 weapons - things liked shaped-charge missiles - have been better at cracking 2+ armor than AP- stuff?
I always found it odd that the main gun of Predator tank was just as likely to pierce the armor of a Space Marine as a Lasgun was. The ASM route lets them actually model that. They can have the Autocannon have light armor piercing (AP-1) without it being as good against armor as a Lascannon.
The problem is they handed AP-1 and AP-2 out like candy.
AP 0 lays waste to 3+ armor in 8th just fine. They handed out rof like candy, too. Power armor just doesn't work in 8th. Theres lethality in multiple forms in 8th, and power armor works against none of it.
Crimson wrote: They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.
Except a new player who wants to have any chance playing marines either needs a ton of allies from another book or needs to buy at least some of the older kits. A primaris only army is one of the weaker builds the marine book has. It's clear that it's going to be years before GW can uncouple the two.
There will be new Primaris wave later this year. And then the third and fourth. Look at the Stormcast, they were very limited in the beginning too, but now just after few years they have a crazy amount of models. It will happen faster than you think.
I'd hardly call there range crazy. They have 64 entries over all and over half of that is clam pack characters or easy to build duplicates of other kits. The space marine line is much larger than that and that's not even looking at FW.
The current marine line has dozens of speeders, tanks, drop pods, dreadnaughts, and transports.
And yet VV, Chosen, and Stormshields all went down in cost.
Surely no new "old marine" kit will ever be made, but the production of them will be around for as long as they're profitable.
So Tacticals, who already have their direct Primaris replacements remained bad, whilst elite units which yet do not have Primaris equivalents got buffed...
You think Inceptors, Reivers, and Agressors are not equivalents of other marine units?
I'd hardly call there range crazy. They have 64 entries over all and over half of that is clam pack characters or easy to build duplicates of other kits. The space marine line is much larger than that and that's not even looking at FW.
The current marine line has dozens of speeders, tanks, drop pods, dreadnaughts, and transports.
The primaris have five kits and one tank.
One of the most extensive indeed. I don't think many armies or factions have that many modelling kits.
Great! So minimarines are fixed now and this thread is unnecessary!
And really any weapon that was AP3 in 7th edition became way stronger against terminators in 8th. Because much of it became AP-2. And 2 wounds with a 4+ save isn't really more durable than 1 wound with a 2+ save. (Obvious math: 6 saves versus 4 saves to kill, and that's not factoring in multi-damage.)
They gained nothing but an extra wound against AP2 transitioning to AP-3. So while that is extra durability, those guns and weapons also gained the bog-standard 8th edition shot increase.
While true, these are also corner cases. It should also be pointed out that the Basilisk was hot garbage in basically every edition until 8E, few people ever saw one on an actual table. I can count on one hand the number of Basilisks I saw in non-apoc games before 8E in the preceding four editions.
If we are talking IG artillery, we should also not forget that there was the Medusa, which got to play with S10 and AP2, so it's not like IG artillery units didn't have an option to play with for that.
And really any weapon that was AP3 in 7th edition became way stronger against terminators in 8th. Because much of it became AP-2. And 2 wounds with a 4+ save isn't really more durable than 1 wound with a 2+ save. (Obvious math: 6 saves versus 4 saves to kill, and that's not factoring in multi-damage.)
They gained nothing but an extra wound against AP2 transitioning to AP-3. So while that is extra durability, those guns and weapons also gained the bog-standard 8th edition shot increase.
While true, these are also corner cases. It should also be pointed out that the Basilisk was hot garbage in basically every edition until 8E, few people ever saw one on an actual table. I can count on one hand the number of Basilisks I saw in non-apoc games before 8E in the preceding four editions.
If we are talking IG artillery, we should also not forget that there was the Medusa, which got to play with S10 and AP2, so it's not like IG artillery units didn't have an option to play with for that.
Or heaven forbid a deathstrike missile which was one of the ig's best artillery until it went the way of the dodo.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
I will bite, from the space marine list we got
In Gmans aura
Last edition a tac marine shoting them with a melta gun would have done .46 of a wound each shot now it wounds .576 and that would turn into a 56% chance of doing the two wounds needed to kill the termi now each shot or about a 22% increase in damage
How about a power fist? Would have done .34 wounds last edition now it has a .37% chance of killing a termi with it and a chance of doing one wound as well.
How about a plasma gun? Last edition it would get .92 of a wound now it has a can get 1.152 kills and has lower chance of killing the guy using it. Or about a 25% up in kills
Sure they got better vs the stuff they could tank anyways like flamers or bolters but the kind of stuff the was killing terminators is doing so better even other then grav since it got gutted.
The moment you decided you should put everyone in Roboute's aura it was dishonest math. Sorry, but that doesn't prove your point at all.
Asherian Command wrote: Essentially. I think it is incredibly short sighted for people to suggest completeley get rid of marines. They have to balance them. Grey Knights, 30k, its completely pointless for them to get rid of them if they are the longest lasting miniature line GW has ever produced.
Oh they are going away:
"You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain"
Second Heresy confimed! They will become CSM.
Asherian Command wrote: Essentially. I think it is incredibly short sighted for people to suggest completeley get rid of marines. They have to balance them. Grey Knights, 30k, its completely pointless for them to get rid of them if they are the longest lasting miniature line GW has ever produced.
Oh they are going away:
"You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain"
Second Heresy confimed! They will become CSM.
At worst they will have to "just" have their already over bloated range. They already have everything they would eve need (*) which is why GW resorted to making a whole new type of Marines.
(*) They could have done a signature unit for lots of neglected Chapters rather than just churning out flanderised units for the snowflake chapters.....
No, not as directly as Intercessors are to Tacticals.
So because it doesn't meet your very specific criteria it doesn't count?
Great! So minimarines are fixed now and this thread is unnecessary!
There will be a lot to unpack from CA and the FAQ, which is less than 3 months out. They may not be opaquely stronger, but they're not worse off, either.
Asherian Command wrote: Well super heavies should be limited, just like how i think it was dumb to give knights their own codex :/
Well one of the main reason why SM are suffering in this edition is the spam of undercosted superheavies/superheroes and the fact that some T3 5+ troops cost less than 6-7 points. It's hard to make heavy infantries or heavy armored light infantries (like power armour dudes) shine while there is a huge amount of firepower that has an high AP in each list to counter those big scary guys. At the same time with the new AP system you can't make T3 5+ dudes less resilient against light firepower without also making SM less resilient against the same weapons. If AP- weapons get a better AP they'd also be more efficient against power armour. Hence the need to increase the cost of some cheap troops which have the same points costs of previous editions, when CPs didn't exist and light firepower completely bypassed their saves.
I think termies, in general, need more firepower than they currently put out, while also having very little weakness to moving and shooting.
Or you have to start considering them as pure melee specialists, which is also something that SM may lack. 3++ shield and close combat weapon, that would give them a role. There are already too many shooty units in all SM armies, and to work properly they need to lose their generalist role. Giving both shooting and melee options would make termies too expensive, aka a very underperforming unit points wise. 5 dudes with PF and shield is only 170 points now.
I'm kinda wishing GW would actually use the AP modifiers a bit more creatively. Say, a weapon with like 30 shots, S2 and +1 AP (yes, +1 AP, not -1 AP). This'd actually be better at killing Guardsmen than Marines.
Unfortunately, due to the new To Wound chart, it'd also be weirdly effective at killing high-toughness models, and because 2+ armour would gain nothing from the +1 AP it'd (relatively) massacre Terminator-equivalents.
Karol wrote: Ok, but how would GW fix the termintors that can't take Stormshields? GK termintors are ment to be generalists, they are troops.
Just introduce the invuln option also for them maybe?
I play SW, which are an elite army maybe not that elite compared to GK but still very far from an horde army, and I litterally never bring generalists. My troops are always anti infantries with maybe a single anti tank weapon (plasma gun for grey hunters or power fist for blood claws) which doesn't make them particularly more expensive. More expensive units like characters, TWC, termies, wulfen, wolf guard are 100% anti infantries or anti tank/monsters/characters. So are shooty units. I do the same with orks but also DE, where only kabalites get a single anti tank weapon but most of the times I just give them shredders to be 100% anti infantries.
I'm not familiar with GK but to make them work you should be able to field them as anti infantries or anti tank, not generalists. Since you need multiple squads of them just give every unit a clear role on the table. The generalists concept can work only on overpowered/undercosted units or super cheap ones, it's something that should be avoided at competitive levels since everything must be optimized.
Space Wolves can run horde units though through Wolves themselves, and they have lots of cheap units like Sentry Guns and Attack Bikes (though their Attack Bikes are actually super garbage).
Look at the cheapest unit for each slot for GK and you'll see an issue there.
So I’ve been testing various fixes for marines for the last 3 months now with the help of my local group.
More firepower:
1st: We changed all boltguns to rapid fire 3 18”, storm bolters to rapid fire 4 18” and heavy bolters to rapid fire 3 30”
This worked quite well but with stratagems it became OP pretty quickly, in a game without re rolls for everything and strats this would work as far as we were concerned but that is not the game we play so this idea needs tweaking or scrapping.
10pt marines: this idea also worked, but the downside (if you choose to call it that) was loss of theme, marines went from elite to heavy armour horde, we did see an upsurge in large infantry lists and the loss of MSU with an average of 4/5 full tactical squads in most games, but then we might as well be playing heresy with the sheer amount of bodies on the table, it also added a further problem as most armies just could not deal with that much power armour, so again, tweak it or scrap it.
Mixed: we adjusted the first idea of firepower with the slightly cheaper marine, after a lot of games we decided around 11/12pts per tactical marine, we then gave them the following weapon that only marines have access to (sorry every other army that can get bolters, primaris we are leaving alone at the moment)
Astartes boltgun: range 24” rapid fire 2 ap-1 mass reactive: on a roll to hit of 6+ This weapons becomes damage 2, allocate these hits separately.
None of these solutions are perfect, but at the moment marines have a power armour problem, after a lot of games we think it’s a firepower problem mainly as the standard marine simply cannot put the wounds on thing through lack of AP and low shots
Formosa wrote: So I’ve been testing various fixes for marines for the last 3 months now with the help of my local group.
More firepower: 1st: We changed all boltguns to rapid fire 3 18”, storm bolters to rapid fire 4 18” and heavy bolters to rapid fire 3 30”
This worked quite well but with stratagems it became OP pretty quickly, in a game without re rolls for everything and strats this would work as far as we were concerned but that is not the game we play so this idea needs tweaking or scrapping.
10pt marines: this idea also worked, but the downside (if you choose to call it that) was loss of theme, marines went from elite to heavy armour horde, we did see an upsurge in large infantry lists and the loss of MSU with an average of 4/5 full tactical squads in most games, but then we might as well be playing heresy with the sheer amount of bodies on the table, it also added a further problem as most armies just could not deal with that much power armour, so again, tweak it or scrap it.
Mixed: we adjusted the first idea of firepower with the slightly cheaper marine, after a lot of games we decided around 11/12pts per tactical marine, we then gave them the following weapon that only marines have access to (sorry every other army that can get bolters, primaris we are leaving alone at the moment) Astartes boltgun: range 24” rapid fire 2 ap-1 mass reactive: on a roll to hit of 6+ This weapons becomes damage 2, allocate these hits separately.
None of these solutions are perfect, but at the moment marines have a power armour problem, after a lot of games we think it’s a firepower problem mainly as the standard marine simply cannot put the wounds on thing through lack of AP and low shots
Interesting. I wonder if storm bolters would improve because of that.
Would fit the lore, and in 30k they had bolter drills as a standard where you could unload the entirety of your clip in one turn but you couldn't use that ability again for the rest of the game. I actually quite like that idea for tacticals and intercessors.
I think to balance scouts you just make em cost 10 - 9pts.
Mr Morden wrote: Seriously - 8 shots from each stormbolter within 9"?
Wow.
Yeah, this is the sort of stuff that makes people not take the complaints about marine underperformance seriously. Utterly ludicrous. Hey, let's triple the firepower and lower the cost!
I've tried "Primaris-as-resculpt" where "Primaris Marines" aren't distinct units and everyone gets two wounds and a bolt rifle, but the end result seems mostly to just screw everyone else's small arms even harder. I honestly don't think the fix to Marines is a change to Marines; making them bigger/killier just passes the buck for the basic size creep problem on to units rendered irrelevant by bigger/killer Marines.
Mr Morden wrote: Seriously - 8 shots from each stormbolter within 9"?
Wow.
Yeah, this is the sort of stuff that makes people not take the complaints about marine underperformance seriously. Utterly ludicrous. Hey, let's triple the firepower and lower the cost!
Yea no to the above. PA issue is that the game has gotten much deadlier and defensive saves/durability has been left well behind. Even the Primaris stat line is kinda a joke given how common two plus damage weapons are. The main way to fix this would be to limit offensive output and put superheavies back were they belong (apoc). GW won't do that though because they make a lot of money off of knights and other big stompy things. I miss 5th edition when a 3+ save actually meant something.
Mr Morden wrote: Seriously - 8 shots from each stormbolter within 9"?
Wow.
I mean he did say they thought it was too cheesy and powerful.
I honestly don't think the fix to Marines is a change to Marines; making them bigger/killier just passes the buck for the basic size creep problem on to units rendered irrelevant by bigger/killer Marines.
Formosa wrote: Astartes boltgun: range 24” rapid fire 2 ap-1 mass reactive: on a roll to hit of 6+ This weapons becomes damage 2, allocate these hits separately.
None of these solutions are perfect, but at the moment marines have a power armour problem, after a lot of games we think it’s a firepower problem mainly as the standard marine simply cannot put the wounds on thing through lack of AP and low shots
This Astartes boltgun of yours:
Do you really mean this as 24" rapid fire 2 (TWO)? AP -1. Rapid fire 2 means 4 at half range, so 4 AP -1 shots at 12" this is pretty crazy buff.
Doubling the rapid fire doubles their firepower, and then adding AP -1 to that they gain like +116.7% firepower against units with saves of 6+ or better, compared to previous version. This is too much, unless their point cost is increased, although I would say there isn't that much 'space' to increase their point cost without increasing their durability at the same time, even if their firepower is increased. Marine unit of 5 isn't really durable at all, and increasing their point cost would make the durability problem even worse, even if firepower were to be increased.
I honestly don't think the fix to Marines is a change to Marines; making them bigger/killier just passes the buck for the basic size creep problem on to units rendered irrelevant by bigger/killer Marines.
Then what would you suggest?
I've tossed around the idea of WHFB percentage-based army composition caps, where you'd get, say, 25% of your points to spend on the "giant guns" section of the org chart (anything that's got a large number of long-range multi-damage shots lives here, so at current prices three Russes at 2,000pts is about all you could afford); the problem with any comp-based system is that it screws the people whose Troops are bad and rewards the people whose Troops are good, so it'd have to come with a broader overhaul to just about everything to better control what goes in what slot. I've got other grand-overhaul question-notes about things like the AP system (set up to reward spamming -1/-2 AP way more than having better AP), the damage system (10-wound tanks feel like tissue paper and d6-damage guns create frustrating levels of randomness ("I got a lascannon shot through! (rolls damage) aaand...One damage! Good job, team!")), and the number of conflicting profiles (it frequently feels like "veterans" are a hold-over from older editions when Ld was relevant that end up just cluttering the granularity spectrum; a "Veteran" has to be between a Tactical Marine and a Terminator so there aren't as many things you can do to either of those profiles).
Mr Morden wrote: Seriously - 8 shots from each stormbolter within 9"?
Wow.
Yeah, this is the sort of stuff that makes people not take the complaints about marine underperformance seriously. Utterly ludicrous. Hey, let's triple the firepower and lower the cost!
you go too far before you dial it back, and given that marines are nearly triple the cost of guardsman for the same firepower, triple the firepower for triple the cost at an extremely short range isnt much to ask
Formosa wrote: Astartes boltgun: range 24” rapid fire 2 ap-1 mass reactive: on a roll to hit of 6+ This weapons becomes damage 2, allocate these hits separately.
None of these solutions are perfect, but at the moment marines have a power armour problem, after a lot of games we think it’s a firepower problem mainly as the standard marine simply cannot put the wounds on thing through lack of AP and low shots
This Astartes boltgun of yours:
Do you really mean this as 24" rapid fire 2 (TWO)? AP -1. Rapid fire 2 means 4 at half range, so 4 AP -1 shots at 12" this is pretty crazy buff.
Doubling the rapid fire doubles their firepower, and then adding AP -1 to that they gain like +116.7% firepower against units with saves of 6+ or better, compared to previous version. This is too much, unless their point cost is increased, although I would say there isn't that much 'space' to increase their point cost without increasing their durability at the same time, even if their firepower is increased. Marine unit of 5 isn't really durable at all, and increasing their point cost would make the durability problem even worse, even if firepower were to be increased.
Yep its a pretty crazy buff but its the one that we have settled on at the moment, as it stands now they have awful firepower and awful durability, lowering cost and upping firepower is the way we went with it after a lot of games of multiple tweaks in various ways.
think to yourself if this was GW that made this version of the boltgun not one of you would bat an eyelid, but because its just one of us (gamers) and it strays from the status quo a large amount, its jarring, marines need a large fix to deal with hordes, this version of the bolter does that AND for the first time shows the power of the weapon.
I honestly don't think the fix to Marines is a change to Marines; making them bigger/killier just passes the buck for the basic size creep problem on to units rendered irrelevant by bigger/killer Marines.
Then what would you suggest?
Infantry are almost completely left behind by the stuff that can carry big weapons and move fast. Yet they’re still clearly useful to the factions like in the fluff and also they’re the good looking models that people get into the hobby for lots of the time. So infantry in general need a massive boost in usefulness. I say two things. One is that if they get the conditions right in the game, like they are in half range and in cover and whatever, then they can do extra wounds so they can hurt war machines. The other is that infantry can shoot or charge in their opponent’s turn. They just take turns, all the units in player A’s army and all the infantry in player B’s army, and you just don’t remove casualties until the end of the phase.
So just huge buffs to infantry, and that improves marines because A they are infantry and B if they were good at killing anything, it’d be other infantry.
Then on top of hat I’d give buffs to elite infantry in general. If your elite infantry is in cover in addition to their +1 armor save they’d get a 5+++ against anything g that’s less elite. And since elite infantry should massacre crappier infantry, your elite infantry get -1ap against anything less elite. How do you know your infantry is more or less elite than other units? Simple, they have a higher attacks characteristic. Then you give +1 a to marine squads, eldar guardians, +2 A to aspect warriors, +1 A to some of the better mortals like Seraphim and IG and MT command squads.
The exceptions to infantry being bad rn are very specific cases of fearless cheap hordes that give CP. that’s not enough infantry and it’s not balanced.
HoundsofDemos wrote: The main way to fix this would be to limit offensive output and put superheavies back were they belong (apoc). GW won't do that though because they make a lot of money off of knights and other big stompy things. I miss 5th edition when a 3+ save actually meant something.
I really don’t like the idea of this game. It’s a war game, but all of the sides have agreed that infantry and tank units are going to live in an artificial world where they never run get hit by air strikes or surprised by superheavies. It’s like I have characters and minis that I’m attached to but I won’t respect the reality that they supposedly live in.
Bharring wrote: There's still design space and fluff space for them to roll Primaris and Real marines into the same statline. I hope that's the direction they go.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "And really any weapon that was AP3 in 7th edition became way stronger against terminators in 8th."
Shouldn't AP3 weapons - things liked shaped-charge missiles - have been better at cracking 2+ armor than AP- stuff?
I always found it odd that the main gun of Predator tank was just as likely to pierce the armor of a Space Marine as a Lasgun was. The ASM route lets them actually model that. They can have the Autocannon have light armor piercing (AP-1) without it being as good against armor as a Lascannon.
The problem is they handed AP-1 and AP-2 out like candy.
I mean this is the fundamental problem with invulnerable saves though isn't it? And if everything that was AP-1 and AP-2 went to AP0, then terminators are kind of in the same area where AP-2 doesn't chip their save.
The core problem is that the AP system is just too simple. Different types of guns should be more effective against different types of armors.
For example, if we had armor classifications, and weapon classifications, that would be an interesting way for them to play off of one another. As it stands terminators are supposed to have "heavy armor," but the problem is that this designation is currently a combination of save, toughness, and wounds.
Consider the Boltgun. This gun should be:
Excellent against unarmored foes
Excellent against light class armor
Decent against medium class armor
Weak against heavy class armor
Useless against titan class armor
Each gun in this game technically has its own design space if you embrace the complexity. So it could be...
Light/Unarmored: AP-2, automatically wounds
Medium armor: AP-1
Heavy armor: AP0
Titan class armor: AP0, wounds on 6 only
Coming up with proper classes and bonuses/penalties for weapons would take time. It is very possible that the list i created wouldn't be very good. But it doesn't make sense that a Hot Shot Lasgun reduces an Imperial Knight to a 5+ save.
Crimson wrote: Right. So we are now at the phase where people completely redesign the game from the ground up...
What else is there to say?
Guardsmen built for melee have 3 attacks at strength 4 in melee with free fight twice. Even with these HQs they're cheaper than Marines.
Sisters will also have strength 4 multiple attacks, free fight twice, 3+/4++, and vastly superior dakka.
Meanwhile marines can stack their HQs to get reroll1 to hit and reroll1 to wound, and the paltry cost of 200+ points just for those 2 auras. Meanwhile other armies triple their attack volume and increase their strength.
I've been running Dark Eldar and Tyranids for pretty much the entirety of 8th edition. I do not even think about marines when planning my lists & strategies. They are a non factor because other imperium armies do everything better and cheaper than they do.
Make Guardsmen five points, nerf some of the orders (MMM: roll two dice for advance, pick the better, FRFSRF: one extra las shot if the unit didn't move, etc.)
Make Intercessors 16 point (Some other Primaris units need to be cheaper too, esp. Reivers.)
Make many of the D2 weapons in the game a bit more expensive.
Forget the minimarines exist. (Or if you must, make the tactical eleven point or something.)
Guardsmen should be 7 points per model. Sisters should be 13 points per model. Termagants should be 5 points per model. Conscripts should be 6 points per model. Hormagants should be 6 points per model. Kabalite Warriors should be 8 points per model. Ork Boyz should be 9 points per model. Fire Warriors should be 9 points per model.
Guard Commanders should be 90 points. Guard Psykers should be 80 points. Commissars should be 70 points. Priests should be 100 points per model. Named characters should double in price. Slabshields should cost 20 points per model.
Marmatag wrote: Guardsmen should be 7 points per model.
Sisters should be 13 points per model.
Termagants should be 5 points per model.
Conscripts should be 6 points per model.
Hormagants should be 6 points per model.
Kabalite Warriors should be 8 points per model.
Ork Boyz should be 9 points per model.
Fire Warriors should be 9 points per model.
Guard Commanders should be 90 points.
Guard Psykers should be 80 points.
Commissars should be 70 points.
Weird Boyz should be 100 points per model.
And this is why no one can take anything Marmatag says seriously anymore. It's sad. But Sororitas have no business being the same price as tactical marines, nor IG psykers half the price of a Keeper of Secrets. I think the Keeper of Secrets is more than twice as useful, even just in the psychic phase...
Marmatag wrote: Guardsmen should be 7 points per model. Sisters should be 13 points per model. Termagants should be 5 points per model. Conscripts should be 6 points per model. Hormagants should be 6 points per model. Kabalite Warriors should be 8 points per model. Ork Boyz should be 9 points per model. Fire Warriors should be 9 points per model.
Guard Commanders should be 90 points. Guard Psykers should be 80 points. Commissars should be 70 points.
Weird Boyz should be 100 points per model.
And this is why no one can take anything Marmatag says seriously anymore. It's sad. But Sororitas have no business being the same price as tactical marines, nor IG psykers half the price of a Keeper of Secrets. I think the Keeper of Secrets is more than twice as useful, even just in the psychic phase...
The difference between a Sister and a Marine at this point is:
-1 toughness 5++ or 4++ invulnerable save Acts of faith
They are absolutely superior to tac marines. Marines are costed based on auras and synergies, so should sisters.
Nearly ALL light infantry and infantry in this game are undercosted, badly. Super heavies are also undercosted.
But let's trust the guy who identifies as a "sisters player" to be the definitive source of fair balance for an army he has a vested interest in.
Marmatag wrote: The difference between a Sister and a Marine at this point is:
-1 toughness 5++ or 4++ invulnerable save Acts of faith
They are absolutely superior to tac marines.
Nearly ALL light infantry and infantry in this game are undercosted, badly. Super heavies are also undercosted.
By the same logic you've applied (making gak up about a unit based on what it could have maybe someday if certain conditions are met) then a Tactical Marine is
+1 toughness 3++ invulnerable save Mission Tactics Storm Bolter by default
EDIT: Sure, accuse me of not wanting Sororitas to be the same price as a Marine. Do you want the data on how many tournament wins Sororitas have at 9pts vs how many Marines have at 13? Because I'll tell you now: one is more than zero.
I'm not even going to argue with you anymore in this thread, Marmatag. You've become so embittered about your Marines (who do need a buff) that you have actively come to want other armies to fail. That's not healthy, both for yourself and the game.
You're the ultimate fake news poster on this forum.
You read something you don't like and distract with nonsense or scream fake news. What you posted is nonsense.
Will sisters players not run Celestine? Will they not take +1 strength? Will they not use their free acts of faith to fight twice? Will they not expand acts of faith to be auras? Will they not fire AP-2, 2 damage storm bolters?
Everything below Celestine in that list costs 0 points. And, she's always been brutally cheap.
It's not bitter, it's a fact. You'll notice i listed more than just Sisters in my post, but that's all you see, because you're biased. I am advocating for points increases for both of the armies that i play.
The reality, whether you see it or not, is that some factions possess troops / infantry that are simply too cheap.
I want a balanced game. You want overpowered sisters, guard, and whatever nonsense you claim to be on a weekly basis.
Marmatag wrote: Guardsmen should be 7 points per model.
Sisters should be 13 points per model.
Termagants should be 5 points per model.
Conscripts should be 6 points per model.
Hormagants should be 6 points per model.
Kabalite Warriors should be 8 points per model.
Ork Boyz should be 9 points per model.
Fire Warriors should be 9 points per model.
Guard Commanders should be 90 points.
Guard Psykers should be 80 points.
Commissars should be 70 points.
Priests should be 100 points per model.
Named characters should double in price.
Slabshields should cost 20 points per model.
Weird Boyz should be 100 points per model.
Conscripts should be 5ppm
Regular guardsmen should be 6ppm
Kabalite fair should be the same cost as guardians. (i thought they were.....)
Guard commanders being 90pts makes some sense, but a bit too expensive, maybe 60 - 70pts (equalivent of a Primaris LT)
Commissars are fine with their current cost, but lord commissars should be the same cost as guard commanders
Priests (HQ version) should be fine at 80pts.
Overall makes some sense. Sisters costing 9ppm was already interesting considering they have a 5++ invulnerable save on base.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Acts of faith are really unreliable and the stratagem affects only one unit and costs CP.
You're the ultimate fake news poster on this forum. You read something you don't like and distract with nonsense or scream fake news. What you posted is nonsense.
Because some venues don't allow it. I'm playing in a campaign right now that does not allow special characters. EDIT: Also, not every Sister will be within 6" of Celestine.
Because it's not "+1 strength" unless certain conditions are met, and its arguably not even the best Order. The 5+ overwatch and losing one model to morale is right up there with it, as is the Ebon Chalice +1 to Act of Faith using. You know, the one that's basically the Dark Angels and the one that buffs the Army Special Rule, which is okay I guess.
Marmatag wrote: Will they not use their free acts of faith to fight twice?
Because they don't have much control over when this happens, because it's only 33% of the time unless you build your army to maximize it, at which point it's not free anymore?
Marmatag wrote: Will they not expand acts of faith to be auras?
Because Acts of Faith are bad, and not worth splashing for 3CP. Go read the Tactica thread where players are writing battle reports and coming to the conclusion that Vessels of the Emperor isn't worth their time.
Marmatag wrote: Will they not fire AP-2, 2 damage storm bolters?
Because that's a stratagem and limited to once per turn, you dingus.
Marmatag wrote: Everything below Celestine in that list costs 0 points. And, she's always been brutally cheap.
Yes, because it has other drawbacks and conditions that addressing does cost points. But you peddle fake news, so of course you'd omit that.
Marmatag wrote: It's not bitter, it's a fact. You'll notice i listed more than just Sisters in my post, but that's all you see, because you're biased. I am advocating for points increases for both of the armies that i play.
It's all I see because it's all I can address. I can't speak to whether or not Fire Warriors should be 9pts. I think they're fine where they are, but I have less evidence since I don't play them.
I can't believe I'm having this discussion. It's so obviously false... I don't even know how to address it except using facts, and I know that you don't even care about facts and will probably weasel around having to address them somehow.
Some venues not allowing Celestine doesn't change the fact that she exists. There is no matched play rule that says Celestine should be restricted, and armies are balanced around access to their full model range. This is a spurious argument you just made, how on earth do you not see this?
And no, if you've played even 1 game of 40k you'll know that the ability to take your strength 3 models to strength 4 is absolutely worth it. Look at Catachan guard, sisters can be just as effective offensively (and, they blow guardsmen out of the water defensively).
You will have acts of faith. It is not 33% chance, let's not pretend that rerolls aren't a thing. And paying CP to make everything within a bubble range fight twice is BONKERS, you don't see it, again, because of bias.
As it stands Sisters can throw 100 bodies on the table that will be...
3+/4++ Strength 4 in combat Fighting twice with ladyorders
You can just push that up the table and win. There is no argument here. Let's not even factor in their very, very good transports and other synergies. Meltaguns got cheaper, too, remember?
And, there's nothing stopping you from throwing in a Castellan, just like everyone else with undercosted chaff.
Forget the minimarines exist. (Or if you must, make the tactical eleven point or something.)
Yeah, forget they exist. People who have never met me are angry that I’m not playing third edition and they are insulted that primaris exist.
These are small but realistic fixes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote:
Honestly I am not against that.
Would you like a pony with that? It's not gonna happen.
Your stuff is never going to happen, Bess GW is going to do whatever it wants and it’s priority is not to go through and incrementally adjust points for d2 guns. Chances are, the next time there’s an IG codex the orders will be almost completely unrecognizable.
If there aren’t any points changes, and there aren’t any picayune tweaks to one or two specific armies, on the other hand, changes can happen when the hell ever anyone feels like it, because people don’t have to change their models or write new army lists.
Yeah it’s not hard to just put an extra half of a normal turn of shooting into the opponents turn but wait it makes it way more fun.
Your stuff is never going to happen, Bess GW is going to do whatever it wants and it’s priority is not to go through and incrementally adjust points for d2 guns.
Point changes are absolutely the likeliest of any of the fixes to actually happen. They change the point costs annually, sweeping changes to the rules of a huge line of units such as marines on the other hand are a pipe dream, and sweeping changes to the core rules of the game are even beyond that.
Crimson wrote: Ok, Marmatag, I'm looking forward you winning tournaments with your invincible Sister list!
Yeah, honestly, if they're as unstoppable as he claims them to be, I look forwards to them actually coming out on top of tournaments for once.
I wouldn't bet on it, but I'll concede defeat when an army of Bloody Rose Sisters with 100 girls wins several major tournaments, I think.
As it stands, assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and I'm done arguing with people who do it in bad faith. I do, though, wonder sometimes if they honestly believe what they say, or are just trying to cause trouble. The first sounds too incredible to be true, but the second is malicious and spiteful, so I guess it depends on what I want to believe about people.
Marmatag wrote: And no, if you've played even 1 game of 40k you'll know that the ability to take your strength 3 models to strength 4 is absolutely worth it. Look at Catachan guard, sisters can be just as effective offensively (and, they blow guardsmen out of the water defensively).
You will have acts of faith. It is not 33% chance, let's not pretend that rerolls aren't a thing. And paying CP to make everything within a bubble range fight twice is BONKERS, you don't see it, again, because of bias.
As it stands Sisters can throw 100 bodies on the table that will be...
3+/4++
Strength 4 in combat
Fighting twice with ladyorders
You can just push that up the table and win. There is no argument here. Let's not even factor in their very, very good transports and other synergies. Meltaguns got cheaper, too, remember?
And, there's nothing stopping you from throwing in a Castellan, just like everyone else with undercosted chaff.
Have to say this is much closer to my reading of the Sisters codex than the general doom and gloom.
It does require people to go and buy 100 models though - rather than use the 30~ relics from a metal age they have right now. Which I think is why people see it differently.
Marmatag wrote: But let's trust the guy who identifies as a "sisters player" to be the definitive source of fair balance for an army he has a vested interest in.
Instead, you expect us to trust the player who wants to nerf into oblivion specifically the armies that he plays against on a regular basis, while deliberately misrepresenting their rules (you know full well by now that Fix Bayonets is not a 'fight twice' ability, that's arguing in bad faith).
But you're not biased, no sirree, because you'll recommend an increase of a single point on some of the core units you use. While advocating a 75% price hike on the one you face, and complain about, the most, along with doubling or tripling the cost of their characters. And a random hike on units that nobody is complaining about. Fire Warriors? Really? Did a Fireblade gunline beat you last weekend?
'Space Marines all get rerolling all hits and wounds because for just 13ppm, they should be 20 points and girlyman should be 1000pts, you're biased because you play marines, I'm not biased because I say my guard should be 5 points'.
Is that the metric for what makes an army good? Winning a major? Basically first place means you're good, otherwise, all arguments are bad and the army is bad?
Marmatag wrote: Is that the metric for what makes an army good? Winning a major? Basically first place means you're good, otherwise, all arguments are bad and the army is bad?
There is a vast gulf between "overpowered" and "bad." You can not come in first at a GT and have an army that is just fine. Because remember, "just fine" is the goal, not "Bad" nor "too good". Sisters are not bad. I don't think they're good, either. I think they're adequate, balanced, just fine. I don't expect them to win any major tournaments, nor do I expect them to be as badly off as GK or Necrons.
And yes, any argument that sisters are too good is bad if sisters aren't too good. I figure that'd be self-evident.
Yes, and it should not be. Marines need a buff (as I mentioned above...).
Shifting focus... What do you think would be best for marines? That would be a tide over buff for marines in general?
A special rule?
Making tactical ten mans more valuable?
Factionwide space marine rules?
Mono army buffs if you play marines entirely by themselves?
And yes, any argument that sisters are too good is bad if sisters aren't too good. I figure that'd be self-evident.
For reference i've already made this argument before and got proven wrong, sisters do have acts of faith but they are still not as powerful as just loyal 32 as they lack armor penetration or the tactical options marines have.
Marmatag wrote: Is that the metric for what makes an army good? Winning a major? Basically first place means you're good, otherwise, all arguments are bad and the army is bad?
There is a vast gulf between "overpowered" and "bad." You can not come in first at a GT and have an army that is just fine. Because remember, "just fine" is the goal, not "Bad" nor "too good". Sisters are not bad. I don't think they're good, either. I think they're adequate, balanced, just fine. I don't expect them to win any major tournaments, nor do I expect them to be as badly off as GK or Necrons.
And yes, any argument that sisters are too good is bad if sisters aren't too good. I figure that'd be self-evident.
You guys are citing majors and other tournaments as an indicator of balance. Fine. Then you really can't also come back with arguments that say "well you can't assume Celestine because clownshoes format #12 doesn't allow named characters." You're wishy washy and inconsistent.
I mean its like every marine and sisters list always accounting for having their super buffer nearby it doesn't always happen and while players say they can its pretty rare for them all to stay in a 6" buffer range. Which is a problem with auras in general.
Yes, and it should not be. Marines need a buff (as I mentioned above...).
Shifting focus... What do you think would be best for marines? That would be a tide over buff for marines in general?
A special rule?
Making tactical ten mans more valuable?
Factionwide space marine rules?
Mono army buffs if you play marines entirely by themselves?
I'm not really sure, exactly, because I don't play them (and unlike Marmatag, I am reluctant to prognosticate about armies I don't play).
My experience with Marine players tends to be that their good units are actually pretty good (e.g. smash captains), but most of their other units aren't good (e.g. BA tacticals). But I'm not sure what's wrong other than points costs; every time I think of a thing someone else says another army has that is OP, I realize some flavor of Marines already has it, except for cheapness (e.g. +1 strength for Sororitas on the charge is less good than +1 To-Wound from BA, but BA aren't good, and apparently +1 Strength totally is).
So probably I would drop their points costs by a good bit. Start with 11ppm tactical marines, then like 12-13 pt veteran marines. But that's just a guess from someone who doesn't play the army.
Marmatag wrote: Is that the metric for what makes an army good? Winning a major? Basically first place means you're good, otherwise, all arguments are bad and the army is bad?
There is a vast gulf between "overpowered" and "bad." You can not come in first at a GT and have an army that is just fine. Because remember, "just fine" is the goal, not "Bad" nor "too good". Sisters are not bad. I don't think they're good, either. I think they're adequate, balanced, just fine. I don't expect them to win any major tournaments, nor do I expect them to be as badly off as GK or Necrons.
And yes, any argument that sisters are too good is bad if sisters aren't too good. I figure that'd be self-evident.
You guys are citing majors and other tournaments as an indicator of balance. Fine. Then you really can't also come back with arguments that say "well you can't assume Celestine because clownshoes format #12 doesn't allow named characters." You're wishy washy and inconsistent.
Right. I conceded the Celestine argument, by saying "alright, sure, they can bring Celestine." But my criterion for Sisters actually being an army that's too good is whether or not they can win several tournaments, as the powerful armies have done (yes, including IG, whom I readily concede are very powerful right now. I think we disagree on the reasons why).
Marmatag wrote: But let's trust the guy who identifies as a "sisters player" to be the definitive source of fair balance for an army he has a vested interest in.
Instead, you expect us to trust the player who wants to nerf into oblivion specifically the armies that he plays against on a regular basis, while deliberately misrepresenting their rules (you know full well by now that Fix Bayonets is not a 'fight twice' ability, that's arguing in bad faith).
But you're not biased, no sirree, because you'll recommend an increase of a single point on some of the core units you use. While advocating a 75% price hike on the one you face, and complain about, the most, along with doubling or tripling the cost of their characters. And a random hike on units that nobody is complaining about. Fire Warriors? Really? Did a Fireblade gunline beat you last weekend?
'Space Marines all get rerolling all hits and wounds because for just 13ppm, they should be 20 points and girlyman should be 1000pts, you're biased because you play marines, I'm not biased because I say my guard should be 5 points'.
Come. On.
Actually no, I didn't lose to a Fireblade Gunline. But firewarriors are very good for their points, and thematically as i've said almost all troops / infantry are undercosted in this game right now, as with super heavies. Like it or not the point is consistent.
Tau would instantly become better if Super Heavies were banned from competitive play. I'm not suggesting that super heavies be banned, but it illustrates a point that a faction can be fine overall but suffer from imbalances in another. And FWIW, Tau have done well at majors even in spite of the current game.
Combine some infantry squads, wrap around and you will get to fight twice. It exists. If you run into a squad of 20 and kill 10, you'll eat 90 S4 attacks before you swing again.
Marmatag wrote: Combine some infantry squads, wrap around and you will get to fight twice. It exists. If you run into a squad of 20 and kill 10, you'll eat 90 S4 attacks before you swing again.
*Does math* So Catachan in a Straken bubble have +1 attack, with another +1 for a priest, for 3 attacks each, 4 on the Sergeant. 10 Guardsmen (assuming the Combined Squad kept both sergeants alive) is 8 Guardsmen plus two Sergeants, or 16 attacks plus eight attacks, for 24 attacks.
That happens once after you kill the ten, once in their shooting phase, and once in their fight phase, for a total of ... 72 attacks. Hardly 90.
We could also just use the epic rules for simplicity's sake and to expedite the shooting phase. AP is combined with your hit role and doesn't effect armor saves at all unless it's a really big gun.
Marmatag wrote: Combine some infantry squads, wrap around and you will get to fight twice. It exists. If you run into a squad of 20 and kill 10, you'll eat 90 S4 attacks before you swing again.
*Does math* So Catachan in a Straken bubble have +1 attack, with another +1 for a priest, for 3 attacks each, 4 on the Sergeant. 10 Guardsmen (assuming the Combined Squad kept both sergeants alive) is 8 Guardsmen plus two Sergeants, or 16 attacks plus eight attacks, for 24 attacks.
That happens once after you kill the ten, once in their shooting phase, and once in their fight phase, for a total of ... 72 attacks. Hardly 90.
Is there a buff I am missing?
Frankly, being able to stack all those buffs on 4 point models is crazy and shouldn't be allowed. Marmatag of might be is exaggerating (EDIT: he wasn't), but it is still quite ludicrous in the reality too.
Oh wait, I did the Imperial Guardsmen's math wrong, it's not 16 per fight time, it's 24, giving you 32 attacks, which is actually 96 before the opponent fights again.
You were right, Marmatag, the fight twice order is bonkers when paired with Straken and a Priest, and needs a good hard look. I'd say it should just be removed, honestly. Fix Bayonets! is a cool thing to shout, but should really just give a bonus to charge distances in exchange for not shooting or something. It doesn't make sense to me they'd be fixing bayonets while someone's already trying to stab them anyways.
Crimson, I did my math wrong. He's not even exaggerating; I was off by 8 attacks per swing, which actually gives them something like 96 attacks... the Fight Twice order is ridiculous, in that light.
As is, a naked marine delivers about twice the firepower against other marines and about 1.8 times the firepower against GEQ's relative to a Guardsmen for three times the cost, and requires about 2.66 times as many BS3+ bolter shots to kill as a Guardsmen does and 3x the number of BS4+ lasgun shots to kill as a Guardsmen does. So, in the broad scheme of things, at the infantry vs infantry level, marines are a bit pillow-fisted next to the current champion of efficiency, but are about where they should be in terms of resiliency.
I don't think there's a case for RF3 Bolters unless we're assuming Guardsmen have always-on, no-cost FRFSRF, and are assuming that should be the optimal balance point to work around.
Now, there's a case for increasing Space Marine killing power in some regards, particularly in this comparison, but not to RF3 levels. A simple cost reduction to 10/11ppm would really solve a lot of issues.
More to the point though, I think the scale of the game (particularly coupled with the terrain/cover rules) is such that the firepower available means infantry of almost any kind often just evaporate. Infantry are largey priced in relation to other similar units, but we're playing with stuff operating at very different scales, with basically no force composition restrictions, and so even if we perfectly match Marines to Guardsmen, we're still going to run into issues where the firepower being thrown about doesn't care and wipes either off the board just as easily as the other, almost regardless of AP issues. To a Knight, a Space Marine, Guardsman, Kabalite, Ork Boy, Dire Avenger, Termagant, Sister, Necron Warrior, etc all go "squish" the same.
Also, lets be real, Plasma should probably be more expensive across the board, GW has really made most alternate weapons pointless by comparison between the alternate fire modes and cheap costing, and Plasma works jus as well at killing GEQ's, MEQ's, TEQ's and Monsters/Tanks, so why take anything else? Why Meltaguns cost more is beyond me when they're only marginally better at tank hunting under half range than an overcharged plasma and worse in every other way, while Flamers need to be like 5pts and Heavy Flamers no more than 10pts and both should ignore cover.
What do you think would be best for marines? That would be a tide over buff for marines in general?
A special rule?
Making tactical ten mans more valuable?
Factionwide space marine rules?
Mono army buffs if you play marines entirely by themselves?
Start small, from two different directions.
Direction 1. Increase base firefight performance.
1a: +1 Bolter (Storm Bolter, Bolt Pistol) shot per number of shots in profile. Bolter becomes Rapid Fire 1 +1. Something like that.
1b: Improve Flamers into an anti-horde weapon effective for it's niche. (opposite of Grav, confer more hits against units with 5+ armor or worse)
Direction 2. Increase viability of vehicles by. . .
2a: Take a hard look at Knights, kill the potential for a 3++ on them.
2b: Land Raider be able to either shoot out of combat, or fall back and shoot. Two LR variants are specifically intended for CQB, so let allow them to keep shooting.
Then see where we're at.
Pet peeve: Aura Buffs. I use them because I have to, but I dislike how the blob plays.
More to the point though, I think the scale of the game (particularly coupled with the terrain/cover rules) is such that the firepower available means infantry of almost any kind often just evaporate.
This is also very true. It even makes sense that it works this way. But just a little bit of tuning the terrain rules/density could go a long way. Personally I'm looking forward to trying the new Cityfight rules, as well as trying more games with more Rhinos being used as mobile bunkers/walls.
I was off by 8 attacks per swing, which actually gives them something like 96 attacks... the Fight Twice order is ridiculous, in that light.
thats way too many attacks and my marines get.... maybe 12 attacks?
Direction 1. Increase base firefight performance.
1a: +1 Bolter (Storm Bolter, Bolt Pistol) shot per number of shots in profile. Bolter becomes Rapid Fire 1 +1. Something like that.
1b: Improve Flamers into an anti-horde weapon effective for it's niche. (opposite of Grav, confer more hits against units with 5+ armor or worse)
Direction 2. Increase viability of vehicles by. . .
2a: Take a hard look at Knights, kill the potential for a 3++ on them.
2b: Land Raider be able to either shoot out of combat, or fall back and shoot. Two LR variants are specifically intended for CQB, so let allow them to keep shooting.
Then see where we're at.
Pet peeve: Aura Buffs. I use them because I have to, but I dislike how the blob plays.
All valid points. I think aura buffs should just be removed, or bring back templates... I really think they helped players with spacing and yeah you had moments where they weren't effective or players played around them completely, but in normal games that was pretty uncommon. Especially after they got rid of partial templates.
What about combat squads? Should that be kept at all or just outright replaced with Angels of death?
Marmatag wrote: Combine some infantry squads, wrap around and you will get to fight twice. It exists. If you run into a squad of 20 and kill 10, you'll eat 90 S4 attacks before you swing again.
So when you say 'fight twice' you don't really mean 'fight twice' in the sense of every other faction with a similar ability, where you pay 3CP and a unit gets to fight again immediately.
Instead, you mean paying a CP to permanently combine two units, which has to be done well before they get into melee. This renders them extremely vulnerable to morale loss, especially if for one reason or another they don't get into melee. You need both favorable terrain and a good charge roll to surround the target so it can't disengage, which has to be done on the charge in your turn, as a 3" pile in after getting charged isn't nearly enough. You then need to survive your opponent's entire turn (again, there is no way on earth you cut off their retreat with a pile in) in which you each fight another round of melee with no buff. And then, if you still have Straken and a Priest within 6", whoever's still alive can get an extra chance to fight in the Shooting phase.
The difference between the two is why the Fix Bayonets order is almost universally regarded as useless. Guard are never in a position where it's beneficial to use it, unlike an actual 'fight twice' stratagem that is useful to anything that fights in melee.
If it were anyone else I would assume they just don't know the army all that well, but I know this has been explained to you before, yet you're still repeating 'fight twice' in your list of hyperbolic bullet points about why the army you coincidentally face most often is the most OP thing to exist. It's disingenuous, and frankly it's baffling, since it's not hard to make the case that the Catachan+Straken+Priest combo is overpowered (it is!) even ignoring Fix Bayonets entirely. I don't see how you expect anyone to take your balance suggestions seriously when you twist everything you dislike into a complete exaggeration.
Bolters should be AP-1, to get them closer to the killing power they used to demonstrate against basic infantry. Throw on a cost reduction to Tacticals and/or Fury Of The Legion type rule. Give Flamers a rule to scale their hits to the number of enemies in a unit. Simple tweaks. None of this absurd pearl-clutching about all the armies you fight needing to be outright doubled in price.
More to the point though, I think the scale of the game (particularly coupled with the terrain/cover rules) is such that the firepower available means infantry of almost any kind often just evaporate. Infantry are largey priced in relation to other similar units, but we're playing with stuff operating at very different scales, with basically no force composition restrictions, and so even if we perfectly match Marines to Guardsmen, we're still going to run into issues where the firepower being thrown about doesn't care and wipes either off the board just as easily as the other, almost regardless of AP issues. To a Knight, a Space Marine, Guardsman, Kabalite, Ork Boy, Dire Avenger, Termagant, Sister, Necron Warrior, etc all go "squish" the same.
Also, lets be real, Plasma should probably be more expensive across the board, GW has really made most alternate weapons pointless by comparison between the alternate fire modes and cheap costing, and Plasma works jus as well at killing GEQ's, MEQ's, TEQ's and Monsters/Tanks, so why take anything else? Why Meltaguns cost more is beyond me when they're only marginally better at tank hunting under half range than an overcharged plasma and worse in every other way, while Flamers need to be like 5pts and Heavy Flamers no more than 10pts and both should ignore cover.
I completely agree with the fact that plasma an alternatively more powerful weapon to melta is somehow less expensive is ludicrous.
Plasma is supposed to be rare! Melta isn't rare its actually far more common! Flamers are supposed to be everywhere yet marines will not take it because flamers just suck.
I think a great idea would be to increase the effectiveness of flame weapons so that they retain their 'template' ability. Maybe they increase the number of shots from the flamer based on unit size? (Sorta like the grav bombard). Increasing it by an additional d6 (guaranteed 3 at a minimum in total).
The big thing i don't like is how variable the D6 is currently. I wish that there was a rule to prevent it from being so variable, so that a lascannon and a flamer always has a minimum amount of dice thrown (not just 1!) Cause currently that uncertainity is a bit too much.
Flamers should be less expensive, as should meltas, rockets, and freaking anything but plasma. Plasma should be 12pts, and and plasma cannons are fine at 16pts.... but rockets costing more than a plasma cannon? Oh give me a break.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And people seriously told me that "Fight Twice, reroll failed charges" would be a broken Chapter Tactic for Black Templars. Jesus.
Black templars suck in combat compared to guardsmen god that is rich
Sorry correction Marines are supposed to suck they are the baseline army /sarcasm
Even my scorpions cannot put out that much damage!
I was off by 8 attacks per swing, which actually gives them something like 96 attacks... the Fight Twice order is ridiculous, in that light.
thats way too many attacks and my marines get.... maybe 12 attacks?
Here is a comparative analysis:
Imperial Guard spend 1 HQ, 1 Elite, and 2 Troops choices, 1 CP, an army trait, and 190 points to do this.
Space Marines can spend 1 troops choice on 10 Intercessors for somewhat cheaper than that price (170 points), giving them 22 attacks per fight phase; if they charge you and keep you pinned (somehow) for the entire length that the Catachans had you pinned for, they could achieve 88 attacks, but it costs 6 CP and assumes 0 Casualties, while the guard lost half the unit before swinging.
I was off by 8 attacks per swing, which actually gives them something like 96 attacks... the Fight Twice order is ridiculous, in that light.
thats way too many attacks and my marines get.... maybe 12 attacks?
Here is a comparative analysis:
Imperial Guard spend 1 HQ, 1 Elite, and 2 Troops choices, 1 CP, an army trait, and 190 points to do this.
Space Marines can get 10 Intercessors for somewhat cheaper than that price (170 points), giving them 22 attacks per fight phase; if they charge you and keep you pinned (somehow) for the entire length that the Catachans had you pinned for, they could achieve 88 attacks, but it costs 6 CP and assumes 0 Casualties, while the guard lost half the unit before swinging.
Compared to a tactical squad, thats just 11 attacks... for 130pts.
Also can a single squad now target multiple units in a single fight phase? Or is it you choose one squad to fight and that is what that current squad fights?
I was off by 8 attacks per swing, which actually gives them something like 96 attacks... the Fight Twice order is ridiculous, in that light.
thats way too many attacks and my marines get.... maybe 12 attacks?
Here is a comparative analysis:
Imperial Guard spend 1 HQ, 1 Elite, and 2 Troops choices, 1 CP, an army trait, and 190 points to do this.
Space Marines can get 10 Intercessors for somewhat cheaper than that price (170 points), giving them 22 attacks per fight phase; if they charge you and keep you pinned (somehow) for the entire length that the Catachans had you pinned for, they could achieve 88 attacks, but it costs 6 CP and assumes 0 Casualties, while the guard lost half the unit before swinging.
Compared to a tactical squad, thats just 11 attacks... for 130pts.
Well, tacticals are bad. Primaris marines are what I would base my Marines off of. Hence how the Primaris Marines achieve 88 attacks. However, the 6 CP cost is absolutely prohibitive.
However, if you are curious the math for Tacticals is: 195 points buys you 15. 12 attacks from the 10-man, 7 attacks from the 5 man, (for a total of 19) or 7 attacks per 3 five man (for 21 total). If you pin the enemy in the same place (somehow) and spend the 6 CP on one of the units, you get 62 attacks for 1 ten man and 1 five man, or 56 for the 3 five-man squads. So yes, WAY worse than the Primaris, and WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY worse than the IG.
EDIT: You can, and always could split the squad's attacks by model, or even a model's attack, to strike whomever you wish so long as they are in range.
Personally I'd rather just remove rapid fire from bolters altogether. Just make them assault 2 and storm bolters assault 4. That right there would solve a lot of problems for mariness as they wouldn't have to get within the maximum effectiveness of FRFSRF to get shots off.
Yes, and it should not be. Marines need a buff (as I mentioned above...).
Shifting focus...
What do you think would be best for marines? That would be a tide over buff for marines in general?
A special rule?
Making tactical ten mans more valuable?
Factionwide space marine rules?
Mono army buffs if you play marines entirely by themselves?
I'm not really sure, exactly, because I don't play them (and unlike Marmatag, I am reluctant to prognosticate about armies I don't play).
My experience with Marine players tends to be that their good units are actually pretty good (e.g. smash captains), but most of their other units aren't good (e.g. BA tacticals). But I'm not sure what's wrong other than points costs; every time I think of a thing someone else says another army has that is OP, I realize some flavor of Marines already has it, except for cheapness (e.g. +1 strength for Sororitas on the charge is less good than +1 To-Wound from BA, but BA aren't good, and apparently +1 Strength totally is).
So probably I would drop their points costs by a good bit. Start with 11ppm tactical marines, then like 12-13 pt veteran marines. But that's just a guess from someone who doesn't play the army.
Marmatag wrote: Is that the metric for what makes an army good? Winning a major? Basically first place means you're good, otherwise, all arguments are bad and the army is bad?
There is a vast gulf between "overpowered" and "bad." You can not come in first at a GT and have an army that is just fine. Because remember, "just fine" is the goal, not "Bad" nor "too good". Sisters are not bad. I don't think they're good, either. I think they're adequate, balanced, just fine. I don't expect them to win any major tournaments, nor do I expect them to be as badly off as GK or Necrons.
And yes, any argument that sisters are too good is bad if sisters aren't too good. I figure that'd be self-evident.
You guys are citing majors and other tournaments as an indicator of balance. Fine. Then you really can't also come back with arguments that say "well you can't assume Celestine because clownshoes format #12 doesn't allow named characters." You're wishy washy and inconsistent.
Right. I conceded the Celestine argument, by saying "alright, sure, they can bring Celestine." But my criterion for Sisters actually being an army that's too good is whether or not they can win several tournaments, as the powerful armies have done (yes, including IG, whom I readily concede are very powerful right now. I think we disagree on the reasons why).
Actually the Sisters get the +1S and an extra attack, whether charged or charging. It's strictly better than World Eaters (which is only an additional attack IF they charge).
Wyzilla wrote: Personally I'd rather just remove rapid fire from bolters altogether. Just make them assault 2 and storm bolters assault 4. That right there would solve a lot of problems for mariness as they wouldn't have to get within the maximum effectiveness of FRFSRF to get shots off.
Primaris marines already have that. Auto Bolt Rifle and Reiver Bolt Carbine are both assault 2 bolters. Though they're considered bad. But I think it would be fine if normal bolters became bolt carbines, as they look pretty much the same. Then Auto Bolt Rifles could get old Stormbolter rules and Stormbolters would get Assault 4. This would improve the Tacticals, the GK and the worst Intercessor weapon (though it would become flat out better than the standard Bolt Rifle in most situations.) Now DW veterans would become even crazier, but that could be fixed by giving all SIA weapons a boint bump that they should have gotten anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually the Sisters get the +1S and an extra attack, whether charged or charging. It's strictly better than World Eaters (which is only an additional attack IF they charge).
Sisters are not good in melee naturally. Their melee trait must be pretty strong to make it worth considering over others which better synergise with their playstyle.
MarsNZ wrote: I find it pretty funny how marine armour is supposedly modified to uselessness by every gun in the game but the same people claim guard armour saves have gotten so much better in the new edition.
Also I'm probably having a stroke because I agree with Peregrine's original response 100%.
I guess we need to go back to AP weapons of 3E, which fixed the ASM problem of 2E.
Hold on, what?!?!?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: I think a great idea would be to increase the effectiveness of flame weapons so that they retain their 'template' ability. Maybe they increase the number of shots from the flamer based on unit size?
Flamers automatically hit ALL models in a unit.
Small blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 4+
Large blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 2+.
Wyzilla wrote: Personally I'd rather just remove rapid fire from bolters altogether. Just make them assault 2 and storm bolters assault 4. That right there would solve a lot of problems for mariness as they wouldn't have to get within the maximum effectiveness of FRFSRF to get shots off.
Primaris marines already have that. Auto Bolt Rifle and Reiver Bolt Carbine are both assault 2 bolters. Though they're considered bad. But I think it would be fine if normal bolters became bolt carbines, as they look pretty much the same. Then Auto Bolt Rifles could get old Stormbolter rules and Stormbolters would get Assault 4. This would improve the Tacticals, the GK and the worst Intercessor weapon (though it would become flat out better than the standard Bolt Rifle in most situations.) Now DW veterans would become even crazier, but that could be fixed by giving all SIA weapons a boint bump that they should have gotten anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually the Sisters get the +1S and an extra attack, whether charged or charging. It's strictly better than World Eaters (which is only an additional attack IF they charge).
Sisters are not good in melee naturally. Their melee trait must be pretty strong to make it worth considering over others which better synergise with their playstyle.
Auto bolters are only bad because they're competing with a literally free rapid fire 1 weapon that's got AP-1. Although I'd rather differentiate auto bolters by just replacing them in rules with storm bolters (because we need to consolidate the bloody boltguns profiles, it's getting ridiculous) so you have an assault 4 bolter with no AP versus and assault 2 bolter with -1 ap. Just slap some more points on the "auto bolters" to balance out the difference between the free AP -1 assault 2 bolt rifle with longer range.
Flamers automatically hit ALL models in a unit.
Small blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 4+
Large blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 2+.
You're welcome.
Auto bolters are only bad because they're competing with a literally free rapid fire 1 weapon that's got AP-1. Although I'd rather differentiate auto bolters by just replacing them in rules with storm bolters (because we need to consolidate the bloody boltguns profiles, it's getting ridiculous) so you have an assault 4 bolter with no AP versus and assault 2 bolter with -1 ap. Just slap some more points on the "auto bolters" to balance out the difference between the free AP -1 assault 2 bolt rifle with longer range.
Marines badly need a squash in their profiles, so many entries for captains... Just give me 1 entry and an armory section!
Flamers automatically hit ALL models in a unit. Small blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 4+ Large blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 2+.
Wyzilla wrote: Personally I'd rather just remove rapid fire from bolters altogether. Just make them assault 2 and storm bolters assault 4. That right there would solve a lot of problems for mariness as they wouldn't have to get within the maximum effectiveness of FRFSRF to get shots off.
Primaris marines already have that. Auto Bolt Rifle and Reiver Bolt Carbine are both assault 2 bolters. Though they're considered bad. But I think it would be fine if normal bolters became bolt carbines, as they look pretty much the same. Then Auto Bolt Rifles could get old Stormbolter rules and Stormbolters would get Assault 4. This would improve the Tacticals, the GK and the worst Intercessor weapon (though it would become flat out better than the standard Bolt Rifle in most situations.) Now DW veterans would become even crazier, but that could be fixed by giving all SIA weapons a boint bump that they should have gotten anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually the Sisters get the +1S and an extra attack, whether charged or charging. It's strictly better than World Eaters (which is only an additional attack IF they charge).
Sisters are not good in melee naturally. Their melee trait must be pretty strong to make it worth considering over others which better synergise with their playstyle
Well, believe it or not, most Marine units (and a surprising amount of CSM) are garbage for melee. Yet, Loyalists get support via Black Templars, White Scars, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves. The latter two really don't do much better. Then you have World Eaters and Emperors Children, so make of those as you will.
They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.
At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.
Well, believe it or not, most Marine units (and a surprising amount of CSM) are garbage for melee. Yet, Loyalists get support via Black Templars, White Scars, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves. The latter two really don't do much better. Then you have World Eaters and Emperors Children, so make of those as you will.
So what's your point?
You reinforced my point. They didn't want to repeat the mistake they did with the BT. If you give an army that is mediocre in melee and mostly a shooty army a tame melee trait, no one in their right mind will ever pick it. And sisters suck in mlee even more than marines. If the trait goes against the preferred playsyle of the army, it needs to be relatively stronger or it will get ignored.
They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.
At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.
Ah thank you!
I've never played 2nd edition before (or anything before 7th) but all those little special rules makes it seem more interesting than 8th!
It could be a mess in uncontrolled settings, sure. But it had some very interesting options and tactics available to you if you didn't go the "Spam Pulsa Rokkits" or whatever route.
Martel732 wrote: BA are great in 8th, too, if I can talk my opponent out of bringing effective units.
A LOT of those interesting tactics could be effectively used against WAAC types. The number of times I blinded the majority of an Ork army with a Chaplain dismounting a bike. . . glorious.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah I saw that with chaos lords vs ig. Just seemed cheap to me.
My "Cheap" threshold stopped at souping during 2nd for Imperial Agents with access to Smoke Grenades, since I could see through them and many other armies/units couldn't. But since my friend had a strong WAAC tendency, I kept up with the Jones's.
They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.
At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.
This is one of the real issues with 40k - there's no more depth in the game, and there hasn't been since it moved out of second edition. While you need to be careful with mechanical bloat, wargames need deep tactical mechanics to prevent the game just degenerating into people shoving blobs of models around with a broom and the emergence of death stars. Things such as suppression, smoke, and shock would all benefit both the wargame and marines by increasing the tactics involved in the game itself with marines being able to behave like actual shock infantry. But with the game as-is, they're just a crappier blob of models in a game where the only thing that matters is the cheapness of the unit and the volume of fire it can pump out.
They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.
At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.
This is one of the real issues with 40k - there's no more depth in the game, and there hasn't been since it moved out of second edition. While you need to be careful with mechanical bloat, wargames need deep tactical mechanics to prevent the game just degenerating into people shoving blobs of models around with a broom and the emergence of death stars. Things such as suppression, smoke, and shock would all benefit both the wargame and marines by increasing the tactics involved in the game itself with marines being able to behave like actual shock infantry. But with the game as-is, they're just a crappier blob of models in a game where the only thing that matters is the cheapness of the unit and the volume of fire it can pump out.
They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.
At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.
This is one of the real issues with 40k - there's no more depth in the game, and there hasn't been since it moved out of second edition. While you need to be careful with mechanical bloat, wargames need deep tactical mechanics to prevent the game just degenerating into people shoving blobs of models around with a broom and the emergence of death stars. Things such as suppression, smoke, and shock would all benefit both the wargame and marines by increasing the tactics involved in the game itself with marines being able to behave like actual shock infantry. But with the game as-is, they're just a crappier blob of models in a game where the only thing that matters is the cheapness of the unit and the volume of fire it can pump out.
Nonsense, there's still depth. It's just not the "flavor" of depth you want it to be. The scale of the game has shifted beyond certain details, and that's fine. Most of the complaints leveled at 8th could be leveled at 2nd. Allies get crazy, Deathstars, balance issues, I could go on. 40K has always had an amount of "You get out what you put in." I saw plenty of absolutely awful games in 2nd ed. The vast majority of the time throughout the years you could make the game more tactically engaging by just changing some things up in your terrain collection.
They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.
At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.
This is one of the real issues with 40k - there's no more depth in the game, and there hasn't been since it moved out of second edition. While you need to be careful with mechanical bloat, wargames need deep tactical mechanics to prevent the game just degenerating into people shoving blobs of models around with a broom and the emergence of death stars. Things such as suppression, smoke, and shock would all benefit both the wargame and marines by increasing the tactics involved in the game itself with marines being able to behave like actual shock infantry. But with the game as-is, they're just a crappier blob of models in a game where the only thing that matters is the cheapness of the unit and the volume of fire it can pump out.
Nonsense, there's still depth. It's just not the "flavor" of depth you want it to be. The scale of the game has shifted beyond certain details, and that's fine. Most of the complaints leveled at 8th could be leveled at 2nd. Allies get crazy, Deathstars, balance issues, I could go on. 40K has always had an amount of "You get out what you put in." I saw plenty of absolutely awful games in 2nd ed. The vast majority of the time throughout the years you could make the game more tactically engaging by just changing some things up in your terrain collection.
It hasn't "shifted". It's degenerated. Depth is having complex mechanics (while not overdoing it) that actually add depth to the game for things such as movement, morale, vehicles, deployment, etc. 40k has none of that. "Tactics" in warhammer boil down to rudimentary reserves, bubblewrapping, and aura stacking. That isn't tactics unless we're going by the most rudimentary definition and is an utter joke when compared to older GW games - let alone other wargames that simulate the exact same scale as 40k with far better mechanics.
Wyzilla wrote: Depth is having complex mechanics (while not overdoing it) that actually add depth to the game for things such as movement, morale, vehicles, deployment, etc. .
That would mean Go is a very shallow game. But it ain't.
Wyzilla wrote: Depth is having complex mechanics (while not overdoing it) that actually add depth to the game for things such as movement, morale, vehicles, deployment, etc. .
That would mean Go is a very shallow game. But it ain't.
GO like chess is is incredibly simple, GO like chess scales based on player competence, neither is remotely comparable to a system that has over a dozen factions to balance, if those games did have as many factions then both would need a lot more tactical depth and nuance between the factions than it currently does, a better example of apples and oranges I have never seen.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
I will bite, from the space marine list we got
In Gmans aura
Last edition a tac marine shoting them with a melta gun would have done .46 of a wound each shot now it wounds .576 and that would turn into a 56% chance of doing the two wounds needed to kill the termi now each shot or about a 22% increase in damage
How about a power fist? Would have done .34 wounds last edition now it has a .37% chance of killing a termi with it and a chance of doing one wound as well.
How about a plasma gun? Last edition it would get .92 of a wound now it has a can get 1.152 kills and has lower chance of killing the guy using it. Or about a 25% up in kills
Sure they got better vs the stuff they could tank anyways like flamers or bolters but the kind of stuff the was killing terminators is doing so better even other then grav since it got gutted.
The moment you decided you should put everyone in Roboute's aura it was dishonest math. Sorry, but that doesn't prove your point at all.
"Terminator's are more durable then ever except when the opponent uses their units effectively."
Wyzilla wrote: Depth is having complex mechanics (while not overdoing it) that actually add depth to the game for things such as movement, morale, vehicles, deployment, etc. .
That would mean Go is a very shallow game. But it ain't.
GO like chess is is incredibly simple, GO like chess scales based on player competence, neither is remotely comparable to a system that has over a dozen factions to balance, if those games did have as many factions then both would need a lot more tactical depth and nuance between the factions than it currently does, a better example of apples and oranges I have never seen.
Does that make the counter implication that 40K played without factions or unit diversity once again becomes a tactical game? I'm not convinced the amount of unit options directly correlates with a lack of depth.
Depth and complexity are not the same thing. Depth is about importance of choices. That is why Go and Chess have great depth but are simple non-complex games.
On Youtube Extracredits did a great video about it. "Depth vs. Complexity". It is in the context of video games however. I would post a link, but I think that would be against forum rules.
I still maintain if it is the plethora of high str, high damage weapons out there, devaluing the effectiveness of power armour (and terminator armour), then increase the cost of weapons. Everyone likes cheap plasma weapons in their lists, but no one likes facing plentiful plasma weapons because they are cheap.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Space Wolves can run horde units though through Wolves themselves, and they have lots of cheap units like Sentry Guns and Attack Bikes (though their Attack Bikes are actually super garbage).
Look at the cheapest unit for each slot for GK and you'll see an issue there.
I've never seen competitive SW 8th edition lists with wolves and attack bikes. The only real cheap units they have that may serve some purpose are single cyberwolves as FA for 15 points. Quite useful in very small games, at 2000 points you'll never see them either. The only "horde" unit that can be worthy is the blood claw one with 15 dudes plus a WG. Thanks to the CPs system you'll always want 3x5 instead of 1x15 though.
Wyzilla wrote: Depth is having complex mechanics (while not overdoing it) that actually add depth to the game for things such as movement, morale, vehicles, deployment, etc. .
That would mean Go is a very shallow game. But it ain't.
GO like chess is is incredibly simple, GO like chess scales based on player competence, neither is remotely comparable to a system that has over a dozen factions to balance, if those games did have as many factions then both would need a lot more tactical depth and nuance between the factions than it currently does, a better example of apples and oranges I have never seen.
Does that make the counter implication that 40K played without factions or unit diversity once again becomes a tactical game? I'm not convinced the amount of unit options directly correlates with a lack of depth.
nope, because then it wouldnt be 40k, true balance is one of those utopian ideals that can only be strived for but will never be achieved and should never be forced, what we have in this thread are people trying to force it, people trying to strive for it and people blindly believing we already have it (those people are insufferable).
While you are not convinced that the more units you have the more variation you need so the more tactical depth is required to differentiate them, well... your belief is not required, a well designed system knows that in order to show the difference in multi faction games you need to have a sufficient depth of rules otherwise you get heavy overlap in rules and everything ends up feeling "vanilla" and "bland" this has been the death nell for several good games, on the flip side you get games that have variation of units rather than factions, battletech has a vast vast array of units all different from each other, but this makes for a nightmare for new players, thats too much depth.
then we have 40k, its trying to have its cake and eat it, its trying to show multi factions but the main rules simply do not allow for the complexity and depth needed to show the differences in each faction, this is mainly down to the D6 system they have chosen in my mind, they have severely limited their own scope for expansion, they have tried to address the 1-10 scale for stats but its still limited by the D6, in order to see that I am right about this you need only look at the codexs and see the massive amount of crossover in rules and themes.
Sadly this limit hits low armour save units in this ed (and pretty much every ed after 3rd) the hardest, in a marine was to have a 3+ save on a D10. and then apply modifiers, power armour would be worth something, the D10 system could easily show the differences in power armour too, astartes 3+, soriatus 4+, hell you could even throw in the marks, but thats a bit far, imagine if terminator armour had a 1+ save on a d10, then you would be forced to use massively powerful weapons to actually dent them, as it should be.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
I will bite, from the space marine list we got
In Gmans aura
Last edition a tac marine shoting them with a melta gun would have done .46 of a wound each shot now it wounds .576 and that would turn into a 56% chance of doing the two wounds needed to kill the termi now each shot or about a 22% increase in damage
How about a power fist? Would have done .34 wounds last edition now it has a .37% chance of killing a termi with it and a chance of doing one wound as well.
How about a plasma gun? Last edition it would get .92 of a wound now it has a can get 1.152 kills and has lower chance of killing the guy using it. Or about a 25% up in kills
Sure they got better vs the stuff they could tank anyways like flamers or bolters but the kind of stuff the was killing terminators is doing so better even other then grav since it got gutted.
The moment you decided you should put everyone in Roboute's aura it was dishonest math. Sorry, but that doesn't prove your point at all.
"Terminator's are more durable then ever except when the opponent uses their units effectively."
Roboute makes anything better is the issue. If you don't incorporate him into your mathematical model with point comparisons, it doesn't work. Roboute isn't just a free bonus. Or are you saying that Marines are finely priced as you're always running him?
So please by all means, do the math again without him. Or are you afraid you're wrong?
Insectum7 wrote:They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters.
Yep. It was bolters, bolt pistol and Storm Bolter. Much death to potentially be dealt and they could even use it while on overwatch.
fraser1191 wrote:I've never played 2nd edition before
Heresy!!
Martel732 wrote:It wasn't. Turn 1 tablings were a thing.
Ah Virus bombs. To be fair you could avoid this if you were using a decent dollop of terrain, ripped up the Virus Bomb card, ignored the Callidus Assassin/Assassination combo mission, Vortex grenades, absuing the allies mechanics to take an army of 100% characters.... It was a horribly written game. So much wasted potential.
Wyzilla wrote:This is one of the real issues with 40k - there's no more depth in the game, and there hasn't been since it moved out of second edition. While you need to be careful with mechanical bloat, wargames need deep tactical mechanics to prevent the game just degenerating into people shoving blobs of models around with a broom and the emergence of death stars. Things such as suppression, smoke, and shock would all benefit both the wargame and marines by increasing the tactics involved in the game itself with marines being able to behave like actual shock infantry. But with the game as-is, they're just a crappier blob of models in a game where the only thing that matters is the cheapness of the unit and the volume of fire it can pump out.
You have to remember that 2nd Edition was written as a borderline roleplaying game. It certainly wasn't designed for large scale combat. The close combat phase required you to clear your diary for a week just to do one squad vs squad clash. It did have lots of interesting mechanics like the way cover worked, which made using cover and thinking tactically about movement highly advantageous, but it's best legacy would be as the core basis for a rules sets for someone to come along and edit down heavily (as virtually everyone did with various house rules).
Tygre wrote:Depth and complexity are not the same thing. Depth is about importance of choices. That is why Go and Chess have great depth but are simple non-complex games.
On Youtube Extracredits did a great video about it. "Depth vs. Complexity". It is in the context of video games however. I would post a link, but I think that would be against forum rules.
I still maintain if it is the plethora of high str, high damage weapons out there, devaluing the effectiveness of power armour (and terminator armour), then increase the cost of weapons. Everyone likes cheap plasma weapons in their lists, but no one likes facing plentiful plasma weapons because they are cheap.
One of the problems with Marines I haven't seen touched on too much is that the way detachments work punishes fluffy play. Marine units start at 5-strong, and can be bought up to 10-strong, which is what the fluff states is a full-sized, codex-compliant squad. Game mechanics wise, taking one 10-man squad instead of two 5-man squads is a terrible idea, because it only takes one detachment slot instead of the two that could have been filled by the two 5-man squads. This also makes the combat squads ability completely useless, as if you're going to split the unit into two squads anyway, you might as well just buy it as two 5-man squads in order to fill detachment slots. I don't know if Combat Squads was a significant factor in how GW decided to price Marines, but if it was, then Marine players are definitely paying for an ability they are never going to use.
In order to see 10-man squads hit the table, Marines would need a special detachment that rewards taking 10-man squads - maybe giving a bonus CP for every 10 man squad in the detachment.
Also, in 8th edition the difference between a bad unit and a good unit is often what stratagems the unit has access to, and Tac Marines don't really have access to any that are particularly sexy. A couple good strats might improve them tremendously. Say, one strat that lets them fire all their weapons twice, and another that lets them disembark from a transport after it moved. Those might make Tac Marines a tempting choice again. Unfortunately, the existence of Primaris Marines probably indicates that GW isn't really interested in doing much to improve OldMarines anymore. While I don't think there's imminent danger GW is going to stop supporting OldMarines in the foreseeable future, I also don't think they're going to expend much creativity or effort in keeping them competitively viable. If any OldMarine units remain competitively viable, it'll be more by accident than design.
In order to see 10-man squads hit the table, Marines would need a special detachment that rewards taking 10-man squads - maybe giving a bonus CP for every 10 man squad in the detachment.
Alternatively larger squads should gain some special rules, stats or more special wargear allowed (like 5-6 heavy/special weapons allowed in a 10 man squad).
Take ork boyz: the size squad doesn't give the army more CPs but the unit gains two effective buffs, an higher Ld and +1A. You invest more points in the troop squad but you also gain a stronger unit, that's the concept behind troops squads of units that aren't the cheapest ones. Gretchins serve a better role for the army in min squads of 10, the more expensive boyz are better in units of 20+ models than min squads. To make 10 man SM squads worthy they should be way more efficient than 2x5 man squads. Maybe with more weapons allowed or even +1BS if the unit is 6+ dudes: if SM are in good numbers they are more relaxed or confident in themselves and shoot at their best, if their unit becomes too small they start feeling nervous and their BS drops by one point
That should be applied to all those troops that don't work as screeners and gain no benefit in being played in units bigger than their min size.
I'm of the idea that Tactical Marines would be better if they had better weapon saturation in larger squads. Personally I'd like to see a Skitarii sorta setup, but you get 2 Special 1 Heavy or 2 Heavy 1 Special once you hit 10 dudes. Min squads would stay the same.
Fix the Bolter and cut a point off, and you're good to go.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Space Marines, the faction with the tagline "And They Shall Know No Fear", become "nervous" if they operate in smaller squads?
Yeah, this thing of being superdudes is just imperium propaganda. They just wet their pants like any other soldier if they're actually in a real war and start feeling outnumbered
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm of the idea that Tactical Marines would be better if they had better weapon saturation in larger squads. Personally I'd like to see a Skitarii sorta setup, but you get 2 Special 1 Heavy or 2 Heavy 1 Special once you hit 10 dudes. Min squads would stay the same.
Fix the Bolter and cut a point off, and you're good to go.
I don't think I'd take a max sized squad only if I get the change of adding just one special/heavy weapon to the squad. 10 man squads also means no razorbacks to ride in, which are definitely SM best transports. I think that 10 man squads should get something more significant, just like orks when they are 20+. If they get the chance of bringing more weapons I'd go with 4 at least, maybe even 5, not just 3.
Kabalite warriors have something like the bonus you propose, they can have 1 special per 5 dudes, but 2 specials and a heavy if they are 10. And yet 5 man squads are way more common than the 10 man one. Even if you want 10 dudes in a raider it's usually 2x5 with a blaster/shredder in each squad instead of 10 with 2 blasters/shredder and a dark lance/splinter cannon.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Space Marines, the faction with the tagline "And They Shall Know No Fear", become "nervous" if they operate in smaller squads?
Yeah, this thing of being superdudes is just imperium propaganda. They just wet their pants like any other soldier if they're actually in a real war and start feeling outnumbered
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm of the idea that Tactical Marines would be better if they had better weapon saturation in larger squads. Personally I'd like to see a Skitarii sorta setup, but you get 2 Special 1 Heavy or 2 Heavy 1 Special once you hit 10 dudes. Min squads would stay the same.
Fix the Bolter and cut a point off, and you're good to go.
I don't think I'd take a max sized squad only if I get the change of adding just one special/heavy weapon to the squad. 10 man squads also means no razorbacks to ride in, which are definitely SM best transports. I think that 10 man squads should get something more significant, just like orks when they are 20+. If they get the chance of bringing more weapons I'd go with 4 at least, maybe even 5, not just 3.
Kabalite warriors have something like the bonus you propose, they can have 1 special per 5 dudes, but 2 specials and a heavy if they are 10. And yet 5 man squads are way more common than the 10 man one. Even if you want 10 dudes in a raider it's usually 2x5 with a blaster/shredder in each squad instead of 10 with 2 blasters/shredder and a dark lance/splinter cannon.
Which has to do with the CP system coming into play, as everyone wants to just meet a quota even with excellent troop choices. After all, if I were running a DE Battalion and just wanted the CP real quick, 4 ×5 dudes would be more helpful for me to use, even with better weapon saturation. A system of working backwards or being slightly more liberal with CP handout would go a long way to fixing that.
Also Razorbacks are garbage transports, so I don't see how that helps your point. They're excellent battle tanks though!
Which has to do with the CP system coming into play, as everyone wants to just meet a quota even with excellent troop choices. After all, if I were running a DE Battalion and just wanted the CP real quick, 4 ×5 dudes would be more helpful for me to use, even with better weapon saturation. A system of working backwards or being slightly more liberal with CP handout would go a long way to fixing that.
Yeah, the point is disposing of more CPs is definitely more appealing that having just +1 gun per squad. The bonus that big squads get should be something very rewarding, like the boyz ones. In comparison to make 10 man tacs squads interesting, compared to 2x5 ones, they should get +1BS or -1AP, something like that. Maybe also the ability of auto passing morale tests if the squad if 5+ dudes.
Also Razorbacks are garbage transports, so I don't see how that helps your point. They're excellent battle tanks though!
Razorbacks are excellent transports because they let you reduce the drops as you want at least 3x 5-6 man squads of dudes anyway. If you want to play with pure marines and you're SW (so no scouts as troops) 5 GH are decent enough to be embarked in turn 1 and then pop up to screen the tanks and provide some little shooting. Ass can razorbacks may also want to move in turn 1 due to their weapon range. Long fangs also benefit a lot from being inside a tank during alpha strike. I'd never take razorbacks with no one inside.
Rhinos are the worse transports instead: they're cheaper, no shooting penalties if they move, more transport capacity but way less synergies with the rest of the army. Basically with my SW it's just blood claws that may want such ride. Many SM armies have litterally zero units that like to ride in a rhino.
And nothing rides in the Razorback, as those will be Scouts or camping Lascannons or Heavy Bolters. If you want strictly a transport though, Rhinos do it as they don't sacrifice any shooting to do so.
That's the key difference. Dark Eldar don't have to worry about this anyway though because anyone can shoot out of the Raider/Venom.
Giving Rhinoes their fire points back would certainly be a start. Between the gimping of Rhinoes and Drop Pods the two workhorse transports for Space Marines were essentially dead on arrival in 8th edition.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Giving Rhinoes their fire points back would certainly be a start. Between the gimping of Rhinoes and Drop Pods the two workhorse transports for Space Marines were essentially dead on arrival in 8th edition.
Wait rhinos lost firepoints? (Tells you how often i use them!)
Put it this way: If Space Marines had a special rule on a non-HQ unit in 7th edition and it wasn't Power of the Machine Spirit, it probably got removed. Relentless on Terminators, the ability to fit Dreadnoughts and Centurions in Drop Pods, fire points on Rhinoes, the list goes on and on and on...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Put it this way: If Space Marines had a special rule on a non-HQ unit in 7th edition and it wasn't Power of the Machine Spirit, it probably got removed. Relentless on Terminators, the ability to fit Dreadnoughts and Centurions in Drop Pods, fire points on Rhinoes, the list goes on and on and on...
Hrm, those are also some good points (though, IIRC, fire points on transports have largely disappeared except the Repressor). Why Dreads cant be podded anymore is certainly a head scratcher.
I've always been surprised by how absolute kittens marines are in close combat. There are some decent melee specialist marines, but your average bolter bros are laughably bad.
And in my thousand boyz army, even terminators are terribad at melee.
It's possible I'm spoiled by my main army for years has been orks.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I've always been surprised by how absolute kittens marines are in close combat. There are some decent melee specialist marines, but your average bolter bros are laughably bad.
And in my thousand boyz army, even terminators are terribad at melee.
It's possible I'm spoiled by my main army for years has been orks.
Well, yea, Orks put almost anything to shame even when they don't have Choppas.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Put it this way: If Space Marines had a special rule on a non-HQ unit in 7th edition and it wasn't Power of the Machine Spirit, it probably got removed. Relentless on Terminators, the ability to fit Dreadnoughts and Centurions in Drop Pods, fire points on Rhinoes, the list goes on and on and on...
So heroic intervention for vanguard (which made them amazing), all +1 attacks for having a pistol and a close combat weapon... +2 attacks for dual weapon. all that made marines great are gone.
Yeah so much for the "Marines are fine." Comments i've seen.
I've always been surprised by how absolute kittens marines are in close combat.
Marines in general lost special rules that made them very good to take. Tacticals lost their and they shall know no fear and combat tactics ability, and they lose their +1 attack from their combat knives.
Its a laughably horrible situation for marines because they have lost a lot of the fluff that made them good, and the units that should be better just aren't. Like how a land raider cannot fire as well as an aggressor or a venerable dreadnought suffers - to hit when moving are all stupid and unfluffy.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Put it this way: If Space Marines had a special rule on a non-HQ unit in 7th edition and it wasn't Power of the Machine Spirit, it probably got removed. Relentless on Terminators, the ability to fit Dreadnoughts and Centurions in Drop Pods, fire points on Rhinoes, the list goes on and on and on...
Hrm, those are also some good points (though, IIRC, fire points on transports have largely disappeared except the Repressor). Why Dreads cant be podded anymore is certainly a head scratcher.
Fire points being removed sorta invalidates what made rhinos worth taking. You would sometimes put squads of marines in rhinos to give them extra protection for their heavy weapons. That ability disappearing hurts marines more than any other race.
Marines being awful in close combat is really the kicker.
If marines were 2w, 2a base, then it'd probably be fine.
The other issue is that armies like Orks are also more mobile than space marines. Better in melee is one thing, but better mobility and better melee is another. You're winning pretty much every fight and also dictating the engagements.
Marmatag wrote: Marines being awful in close combat is really the kicker.
If marines were 2w, 2a base, then it'd probably be fine.
Agreed, I think.
Or had some other ability that made their close-combat worth anything at all, though simply upping their attacks to 2 might be enough. With corresponding upgrades to other units, like ASM having 2+1 or Sergeants having 3, etc. If I had my 'druthers, I'd just drop the Primaris to 15 points, squat the Tactical Marines, and make Primaris have similar weapon options to the Tac Squad. Then, add a Designer's Note that Minimarines are valid models for these nu-marines, s'long as the wargear is recognizable (e.g. dual-wielding bolters or the like for ASM->Inceptor change).
Kap'n Krump wrote: I've always been surprised by how absolute kittens marines are in close combat. There are some decent melee specialist marines, but your average bolter bros are laughably bad.
And in my thousand boyz army, even terminators are terribad at melee.
It's possible I'm spoiled by my main army for years has been orks.
To be fair, they didn't use to need to be super killy to be good. Now, everything has to be killed to the last man in CC or people can leave combat, whereas in older eras a Marine squad could win combat by one or two in the first round with charge bonuses and then break their opponent and sweep them off the board. I can recall lots of games where only one or two models were killed by a charging Tac or CSM squad, but because of the other mechanics that was all they needed. Now the game is dramatically more directly attritional which doesn't work so well with the way things are in 8E.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I've always been surprised by how absolute kittens marines are in close combat. There are some decent melee specialist marines, but your average bolter bros are laughably bad.
And in my thousand boyz army, even terminators are terribad at melee.
It's possible I'm spoiled by my main army for years has been orks.
To be fair, they didn't use to need to be super killy to be good. Now, everything has to be killed to the last man in CC or people can leave combat, whereas in older eras a Marine squad could win combat by one or two in the first round with charge bonuses and then break their opponent and sweep them off the board. I can recall lots of games where only one or two models were killed by a charging Tac or CSM squad, but because of the other mechanics that was all they needed. Now the game is dramatically more directly attritional which doesn't work so well with the way things are in 8E.
That's a good point. Tacts used to be very good at Sweeping Advancing entire IG squads off the table, while now you have to kill something like 7 to really be able to do that. And, if in earlier editions, you failed, you at least were protected from bullets, and your superior stats meant that you could use the time to win the combat.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Put it this way: If Space Marines had a special rule on a non-HQ unit in 7th edition and it wasn't Power of the Machine Spirit, it probably got removed. Relentless on Terminators, the ability to fit Dreadnoughts and Centurions in Drop Pods, fire points on Rhinoes, the list goes on and on and on...
So heroic intervention for vanguard (which made them amazing), all +1 attacks for having a pistol and a close combat weapon... +2 attacks for dual weapon. all that made marines great are gone.
Yeah so much for the "Marines are fine." Comments i've seen.
I've always been surprised by how absolute kittens marines are in close combat.
Marines in general lost special rules that made them very good to take. Tacticals lost their and they shall know no fear and combat tactics ability, and they lose their +1 attack from their combat knives.
Its a laughably horrible situation for marines because they have lost a lot of the fluff that made them good, and the units that should be better just aren't. Like how a land raider cannot fire as well as an aggressor or a venerable dreadnought suffers - to hit when moving are all stupid and unfluffy.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Put it this way: If Space Marines had a special rule on a non-HQ unit in 7th edition and it wasn't Power of the Machine Spirit, it probably got removed. Relentless on Terminators, the ability to fit Dreadnoughts and Centurions in Drop Pods, fire points on Rhinoes, the list goes on and on and on...
Hrm, those are also some good points (though, IIRC, fire points on transports have largely disappeared except the Repressor). Why Dreads cant be podded anymore is certainly a head scratcher.
Fire points being removed sorta invalidates what made rhinos worth taking. You would sometimes put squads of marines in rhinos to give them extra protection for their heavy weapons. That ability disappearing hurts marines more than any other race.
On the other side of that (the standard) WS4 marines used to hit other WS4 units on 4s, but it's now a 3 all of the time. Of course, now Orks do, too...
+1 attack for BP/CCW is still around as Chainsword. I don't recall a +2 for dual LC.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Put it this way: If Space Marines had a special rule on a non-HQ unit in 7th edition and it wasn't Power of the Machine Spirit, it probably got removed. Relentless on Terminators, the ability to fit Dreadnoughts and Centurions in Drop Pods, fire points on Rhinoes, the list goes on and on and on...
So heroic intervention for vanguard (which made them amazing), all +1 attacks for having a pistol and a close combat weapon... +2 attacks for dual weapon. all that made marines great are gone.
Yeah so much for the "Marines are fine." Comments i've seen.
I've always been surprised by how absolute kittens marines are in close combat.
Marines in general lost special rules that made them very good to take. Tacticals lost their and they shall know no fear and combat tactics ability, and they lose their +1 attack from their combat knives.
Its a laughably horrible situation for marines because they have lost a lot of the fluff that made them good, and the units that should be better just aren't. Like how a land raider cannot fire as well as an aggressor or a venerable dreadnought suffers - to hit when moving are all stupid and unfluffy.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Put it this way: If Space Marines had a special rule on a non-HQ unit in 7th edition and it wasn't Power of the Machine Spirit, it probably got removed. Relentless on Terminators, the ability to fit Dreadnoughts and Centurions in Drop Pods, fire points on Rhinoes, the list goes on and on and on...
Hrm, those are also some good points (though, IIRC, fire points on transports have largely disappeared except the Repressor). Why Dreads cant be podded anymore is certainly a head scratcher.
Fire points being removed sorta invalidates what made rhinos worth taking. You would sometimes put squads of marines in rhinos to give them extra protection for their heavy weapons. That ability disappearing hurts marines more than any other race.
On the other side of that (the standard) WS4 marines used to hit other WS4 units on 4s, but it's now a 3 all of the time. Of course, now Orks do, too...
+1 attack for BP/CCW is still around as Chainsword. I don't recall a +2 for dual LC.
You would get +1 attack from lightning claws, not +2, but honors gave them +1 attack on base and +1 attack on charge. so you would on base have +4 attacks per unit with rerolls for wounds and hits. With vanguard vets you could charge the same turn you arrived from deepstrike. Which gave them amazing protection and lethality. Now they are erm... better assault marines.
They would hit on 4s indeed, honestly it also prevented certain other races from getting out of control, dreads would murder most infantry that got into range because of its higher WS and armor value.
Removing alot of the rules associated with space marine units just destroys marines in general.
Marmatag wrote: Marines being awful in close combat is really the kicker.
If marines were 2w, 2a base, then it'd probably be fine.
Agreed, I think.
Or had some other ability that made their close-combat worth anything at all, though simply upping their attacks to 2 might be enough. With corresponding upgrades to other units, like ASM having 2+1 or Sergeants having 3, etc. If I had my 'druthers, I'd just drop the Primaris to 15 points, squat the Tactical Marines, and make Primaris have similar weapon options to the Tac Squad. Then, add a Designer's Note that Minimarines are valid models for these nu-marines, s'long as the wargear is recognizable (e.g. dual-wielding bolters or the like for ASM->Inceptor change).
Or just make "primaris upgrades" be a 1 point per model cost available to any squad, taken for the entire squad. This would increase their attack by 1, their wounds by 1, and add -1 ap to their chainswords and boltguns. And it needs to be available to all squads, not just basic marines. Primaris Death Company. Primaris Wulfen. Primaris Black Knights. Primaris Thunderwolf Cavalry. Primaris Grey Knight Paladins. All at the cost of 1ppm to upgrade. Suddenly marines can specialize a bit, and they don't have to pay for extra wounds where they don't need it.
In truth they could get creative with their Primaris Upgrades if they wanted. Some units might not get an extra wound, they might get an extra strength instead. Or treat it like combat drugs, where you have a spate of options:
Kap'n Krump wrote: I've always been surprised by how absolute kittens marines are in close combat. There are some decent melee specialist marines, but your average bolter bros are laughably bad.
And in my thousand boyz army, even terminators are terribad at melee.
It's possible I'm spoiled by my main army for years has been orks.
To be fair, they didn't use to need to be super killy to be good. Now, everything has to be killed to the last man in CC or people can leave combat, whereas in older eras a Marine squad could win combat by one or two in the first round with charge bonuses and then break their opponent and sweep them off the board. I can recall lots of games where only one or two models were killed by a charging Tac or CSM squad, but because of the other mechanics that was all they needed. Now the game is dramatically more directly attritional which doesn't work so well with the way things are in 8E.
That's a good point. Tacts used to be very good at Sweeping Advancing entire IG squads off the table, while now you have to kill something like 7 to really be able to do that. And, if in earlier editions, you failed, you at least were protected from bullets, and your superior stats meant that you could use the time to win the combat.
Yeah, the CC changes made them much less capable. To be fair, there were some issues with horde CC units like Boyz (5E No Retreat was ridiculous) being treated badly under that system at times, but I think we need to see something more in line with the old concept return if the current statline is to be retained. Otherwise some choppiness enhancement is required.
Asherian Command wrote:
Fire points being removed sorta invalidates what made rhinos worth taking. You would sometimes put squads of marines in rhinos to give them extra protection for their heavy weapons. That ability disappearing hurts marines more than any other race.
To be fair, if Chimeras had been worth taking between 2012 and the end of 2018, they'd have felt it at least as bad too
But yes, it was a big nerf to the utility of the Rhino for sure.
Or just make "primaris upgrades" be a 1 point per model cost available to any squad, taken for the entire squad. This would increase their attack by 1, their wounds by 1, and add -1 ap to their chainswords and boltguns. And it needs to be available to all squads, not just basic marines. Primaris Death Company. Primaris Wulfen. Primaris Black Knights. Primaris Thunderwolf Cavalry. Primaris Grey Knight Paladins. All at the cost of 1ppm to upgrade. Suddenly marines can specialize a bit, and they don't have to pay for extra wounds where they don't need it.
At 1ppm, this would be a mandatory no-brainer always take option that nobody would ever not avail themselves of
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And nothing rides in the Razorback, as those will be Scouts or camping Lascannons or Heavy Bolters. If you want strictly a transport though, Rhinos do it as they don't sacrifice any shooting to do so.
That's the key difference. Dark Eldar don't have to worry about this anyway though because anyone can shoot out of the Raider/Venom.
I play SW so scouts are not troops and my tacs can't have heavy bolters or lascannons. Razorbacks are mostly gunboats but their transport capacity is definitely useful. Drukhari vehicles are open topped, which is a huge difference, but unless you embark wyches or incubi they're not really transports, just protections for the shooty units that fire safely from the vehicles. They're also gunboats mostly, just like razorbacks.
I'd love rhinos with 2 firing ports but it still wouldn't affect the size of the embarked squad. 2x5 dudes with a special weapon would be the way to go.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And nothing rides in the Razorback, as those will be Scouts or camping Lascannons or Heavy Bolters. If you want strictly a transport though, Rhinos do it as they don't sacrifice any shooting to do so.
That's the key difference. Dark Eldar don't have to worry about this anyway though because anyone can shoot out of the Raider/Venom.
I play SW so scouts are not troops and my tacs can't have heavy bolters or lascannons. Razorbacks are mostly gunboats but their transport capacity is definitely useful. Drukhari vehicles are open topped, which is a huge difference, but unless you embark wyches or incubi they're not really transports, just protections for the shooty units that fire safely from the vehicles. They're also gunboats mostly, just like razorbacks.
I'd love rhinos with 2 firing ports but it still wouldn't affect the size of the embarked squad. 2x5 dudes with a special weapon would be the way to go.
Maybe that's why you don't understand any of the core Marine issues.
Space Wolves have always been Marines +1. Remember how stupid Grey Hunters were with the 5th edition codex?
Decrease special weapon costs for melta and flamer.
Give space marines back their bolter drill ability as a stratagem that works on all space marine units with 'bolt' in their profile.
Unload - Space marines fire two times in a turn but cannot fire the next turn and this ability cannot be used again.
Land Raider- Can disengage from combat and fire into combatants they are engaged with.
Vindicator - Just Remove it.
Hellblasters - 2pts less, 10pts less for all the hellblaster equipment, give them an anti-infantry 'gattling gun' variant. Name changed to Support Unit
Reivers moved to troop choice 3pts less.
Scouts Decrease to 10pts ppm. (Might not be good)
Tactical Squad - Decrease to 12ppm, if you have a full squad of tactical space marines they count as two troop choices when fulfilling the requirements of a detachment position, they do not take up an additional troop slot. In addition, they gain +1 attack and +1LD. And may use combat squads as normal.
Terminators ignore 1 ap on anything that has less strength than terminator's current toughness.
Apothecaries can take combi-weapons/storm bolters.
Librarians - give them back their gates of infinity, vortex of doom, force dome, and avenger.
Avenger - Assault D6 - Strength 5 Ap -3 D1 - this weapon automatically hits.
Can manifest on a 7
Force Dome
All units nearby within 8" gain a +5 invulnerable save.
Warp charge 7
Vortex of Doom
S 10 Ap -6 Heavy 2 D6 D - ignores all - to hit
Warp Charge of 5
Gates of Infinity -5th Edition Codex- Can either travel by himself or take a single unit into the warp into deep strike then deploy 24". But if he travels with a unit increases the chance of an issue, if a double is rolled one member of the unit is automatically removed.
When Equipped with a lascannon or lascannon destroyer for every 6 rolled on to hit deals 2 hits instead of the normal 1 hit when the targeting unit is firing upon TITAN and SUPER HEAVY Units.
Tactical Squad / Devastator / Stern Guard / Terminators - Bolter Training (1CP) May fire an additional time when equipped with any bolt weapons. If this unit excluding Terminators moves this turn they cannot use this strategem and may not fire twice with a bolt weapon.
Vanguard Veterans - Gain Heroic Intervention - If a jump pack is equipped vanguard vets can elect to perform a heroic intervention, they cannot shoot the turn they arrive from deep strike but can assault (provided they are close enough) and gain +1 attack if they make a successful charge.
Sternguard Veterans - Special Ammunition - Check 5th edition codex.....
Terminators - Relentless - Ignores all - to hit on heavy weapons...
Terminators - Ceramite Shell - Ignore 1 ap.
Honor Guard - May equip storm shields...
Chapter Champion - May equip stormshield.... or a powe axe, or a relic blade...
Drop Pod reduced in cost to 40pts.
Techmarine - Forgemaster for an additional 20pts gain +2 BS and 6Ws may equip a conversion beamer in addition to a servo arm and servo harness. may use bolster defenses.
Bolster Defense (Imperial Fists Only Chapter Tactic),
For imperial fists, place three shielded walls or cover improve the save of that terrain by +1. Select one shield wall to improve the save of that terrain by +1
Raven Guard (Chapter Tactic) Infiltrate.... (Why wasn't this a thing already?!) All infantry, special characters, and DREADNOUGHTS can infiltrate. In additional all jump pack armed units can immunity to overwatch, they may ignore overwatched units entirely.
Stratagem Sabotage - Select an enemy unit that is deployed this game, that unit suffers -1 to hit for the rest of the game. (2cp) (can only be used once!)
Iron Hands (Chapter Tactic) Iron within - All Infantry models gain +1 to their toughness.
Stratagem -
Binary Diversion - Select a friendly iron hands character and then one of your opponent's vehicle or titan unit that is within 6" that unit cannot fire or make attacks this turn. (2CP)
White Scars (Chapter Tactic) Swordstorm - On charge, if an infantry, jump pack, or bike unit is within 1" for every model in the squad roll a d6, on a 6+ that unit suffers a mortal wound. All characters hit on 5+.
Stratagem Masters of the Wind- Select a unit of infantry or bike unit, this unit gains an additional 2" to their movement and their assault and charge for one turn only. (1cp)
Ultramarines (Chapter Tactic) Progressive Assault - Units that fire at the same unit can call out or mark a single unit (Can only be done once per a turn from all ultramarines for that turn). Any Ultramarines that fire at that marked unit gain +1 to hit with all ULTRAMARINE units and ignore all penalties to hit. 1s will always fail. (Does not work on scouts or servitors)
Stratagem Tactical Retreat - When an Ultramarine unit is charged, this unit may elect to retreat during your opponent's charge (2cp)
Salamanders (Chapter Tactic) Masters of the Forge - All flame, thunder hammers, and melta weapons are half cost. Any weapons that are decimal are rounded up.
Stratagem Holy Flame of Nocturne - Roll an additional D6 when firing with flame weapons from a single unit this turn (2cp)
Black Templar (Chapter Tactic) SUFFER NOT THE UNCLEAN TO LIVE - On rolls of 6 when on charge or attacking in close combat, gain an additional hit. If this unit has charged this turn gain an additional attack if a charge was successfully made by the unit possessing this ability in addition to the attacks generated from Suffer, not the unclean to live!
Stratagem Sword Brethren - select a unit of veterans they gain +1 attack and +1 to their leadership to their profile to a max of 3(1/2/3 CP)
These chapter tactics can either be: Only for mono marine factions... or cost 1 cp.... (similar to detachments but are given a rule automatically)
If marines were 2w, 2a base, then it'd probably be fine.
They are.
Not shiny metal, psker marines and spikey marines nor many non-Primaris marine weapon loadouts. It is all fine and well that GW wants to make Primaris the new marine. But they seem to be dragging their heels getting those models out to fully replace them. It is still uncertain if some factions are even going see Primaris nearly has much as it is exactly uncertain how future Primaris loadouts are going to look. If I had the datasheets to that basically matched the old wargear options as 'Primaris' Chaos Space Marines I would just count as all my models and keep gaming. I imagine the same goes for other loyalist marine players who want the wargrear options non-Primaris marines.
However, just like Marmatag's upgrade idea (which I think it a good idea), I don't see GW doing it anytime soon as most players probably would do like I would and just count-as their marines as Primaris without buying new models. Yes, I get that those stats exist for a handful of units. But those stats aren't available yet for a few factions nor with the loadout availability of the disenfranchised poster-boys of the setting.
Honestly almost everything in 40k could use a points increase and bump the default game size to 2500 points or something.
Points have become way too compressed toward the bottom and mid-high priced stuff comparably too cheap.
How can we balance units like guardsmen or ork boyz when the points are so damn close to each other?
Guardsman/Conscript 4
Cultist 5
Kabalite Warrior 6
Fire Warrior/Ork Boy 7
Wych/Guardian 8
With all of these 1 point away from each other you can't adjust any points values without having to debate "Is a guardsman as good as a cultist who can be a 30 man mob with VotLT and ToT?". "A Kabalite Warrior might be too cheap at 6 points, but it's not as good as an Ork Boy or a FW so you can't increase them to 7". You also run into Conscripts being worthless at the same price as a guardsman, but 3ppm would be way too good.
You also can't just increase the price of the cheap units because a lot of vehicles would feel even cheaper by comparison. Increase the cost of everything in the game, spread out the points of the basic infantry so that an increase of 1-2 ppm isn't a massive difference like it is now. Then you make the default game size 2500 or 3k points instead of 2k and you have about the same size game but with the ability to adjust points much more subtly.
Almost all of the troops under 10 ppm should be looked at, seriously, as most likely undercosted.
Some of the super heavies in this game are also way undercosted.
Lethality really is a problem in 40k. Thus making it a race to the bottom for troops, wounds per point is king over anything else. Of course it doesn't help that Guardsmen can also pump out 3x str4 attacks per model for effectively nothing, as you already bring HQs for a battalion tax.
Asherian Command wrote: That i can agree. Increasing points across the board might be helpful for all involved. Move marines back to 15pts, and guardsmen up to 8pts.
Guardsmen should be 7 points even if marines don't change at all.
Asherian Command wrote: That i can agree. Increasing points across the board might be helpful for all involved. Move marines back to 15pts, and guardsmen up to 8pts.
Guardsmen should be 7 points even if marines don't change at all.
You mean *gasps* the original cost of guardsmen!? (stand corrected ignore this point!)
Wow we're back full circle!
I still cannot believe they decreased the cost of guardsmen so much. And then increased the cost of wraith knights to be more expensive than knights. (even though they used to cost 225pts now they are 480pts for the same gear....)
If anything Imperial Knights and other super heavies should be above 400pts at a minimum.
All infantry needs to be raised in cost, I am fine with that, as long as my infantry is worthwhile in taking.
Give us back some abilities that were taken away for no discernable reason.
They were 10ppm in 2E (when Marines were 27), 5 and then 6 in 3E and 3.5E/4E (and Guard were arguably at their worst in this era) and they've been 5ppm since then until 8E.
Also, all 7ppm Guardsmen are going to result in is the absence of Guard infantry aside from Stormtroopers on tables, you're not fixing anything there, that's not a serious game design solution to anything, it's just hyperbole.
They were 10ppm in 2E (when Marines were 27), 5 and then 6 in 3E and 3.5E/4E (and Guard were arguably at their worst in this era) and they've been 5ppm since then until 8E.
Also, all 7ppm Guardsmen are going to result in is the absence of Guard infantry aside from Stormtroopers on tables, you're not fixing anything there, that's not a serious game design solution to anything, it's just hyperbole.
So the best thing to do is to what then?
increase costs or decrease them? Or add rules? There are many avenues we can go here.
cmspano wrote:Honestly almost everything in 40k could use a points increase and bump the default game size to 2500 points or something.
Points have become way too compressed toward the bottom and mid-high priced stuff comparably too cheap.
I wasn't joking in the Unpopular Opinion thread about increasing the points to things so a 2000 point list would be 40,000 points. I don't think many players actually calculate their points by hand anymore anyways and those that do probably could handle it. Those that don't could use Power Level which at that point feels like it would have more of a purpose since the granular ranges are so different. With 40,000 points GW should have plenty of wiggle room (more than they should ever need) to get the points to a decent balance as far a points can balance anything.
They were 10ppm in 2E (when Marines were 27), 5 and then 6 in 3E and 3.5E/4E (and Guard were arguably at their worst in this era) and they've been 5ppm since then until 8E.
Also, all 7ppm Guardsmen are going to result in is the absence of Guard infantry aside from Stormtroopers on tables, you're not fixing anything there, that's not a serious game design solution to anything, it's just hyperbole.
So the best thing to do is to what then?
increase costs or decrease them? Or add rules? There are many avenues we can go here.
I think Guardsmen strictly as an infantry unit facing other infantry units is fine at 4-5 points per model. It is all the other things that can be buffed on them that make them seem like they should be more expensive. That, and CP generation. I think increasing the cost of the unit itself doesn't really treat the problem cheap guardsmen are creating.
Honestly marines just need stratagems that make their units worth taking, and units that feel worthwhile to take that have options of defensive abilities
40k needs to shift from mega battles and armaggeddon battles. Super heavies should not be in 2k games.
Honestly marines just need stratagems that make their units worth taking, and units that feel worthwhile to take that have options of defensive abilities
40k needs to shift from mega battles and armaggeddon battles. Super heavies should not be in 2k games.
Why shouldn't someone be able to use a knight or two in a standard game? Why am I putting a ban on what models my opponent can use?
Because some people want to play an SM company, Ork horde, Guardsman force, or Aspect Warrior warhost. And wants to play a game about infantry supported by things, including tanks. Which doesn't happen when they play against someone who wants to play Gundam Wars instead.
I expect Guardsmen will be bumped to 5ppm at some point (as I've mentioned before, I was surprised this didn't happen in CA2018), but 7ppm is just going to see them become exctinct, and isn't going to do anything for Space Marines.
If we want to keep the current Marine statline, a 10-25% price cut on most infantry units (so a Tac would be 10/11ppm, a jetpack Assault Marine 12/13) would solve a lot of major issues. I'm also fine with Marines being choppier in close combat and many other suggested changes.
There's lots of issues with the game and plenty of potential fixes, but making Guardsmen absurdly expensive isn't going to fix much. I think there's a particular over focus on the basic Guardsmen in and of itself, but I think toning down things like Catachan & Cadian doctrines (Catachans should not field the most powerful artillery detachments), CP Generation, Tank Commanders, tweaking a couple of orders, etc will deliver a whole lot more than anything done to the basic guardsman will as far as Guard are concerned.
Honestly marines just need stratagems that make their units worth taking, and units that feel worthwhile to take that have options of defensive abilities
40k needs to shift from mega battles and armaggeddon battles. Super heavies should not be in 2k games.
Bharring wrote:Because some people want to play an SM company, Ork horde, Guardsman force, or Aspect Warrior warhost. And wants to play a game about infantry supported by things, including tanks. Which doesn't happen when they play against someone who wants to play Gundam Wars instead.
Increasingly I think playing 750-1000pts instead of 2000pts may yield an overall more playable game.
fraser1191 wrote: Barring new units and vehicles getting Stat lines, have Stat lines for marines, guard, eldar etc stayed the same?
I understand maintaining Stat lines edition to edition but when changing how things are wounded more wiggle room is made.
Exarchs were nerfed across the board for eldar, but they gained +1 wound, which might be more valuable for them. But we did lose bladestorm for dire avengers, and the +3 save for all exarchs.
Guardsmen stayed the same, marines stayed the same but lost a lot of abilities and some of their attacks in combat and their ap 5. (combat tactics, and their original and they shall know no fear were also lost hampering marines tactical advantage of choosing to retreat and reforming at the end of the turn).
Why shouldn't someone be able to use a knight or two in a standard game? Why am I putting a ban on what models my opponent can use?
Because Knight Titans break the game at their current cost. Making them more expensive or have them have a requirement barrier for entry would go a long way in balancing the game. Super heavies are overall bad for the game, and eldar will continue to run amock as long as their counters cannot deal with titans. I should not be facing someone in a 2k game who has 2 levithian dreadnoughts or 2 knight titans. Its unfair to some armies and it completely breaks the games focus. 40k is about small time tactics not mega battles.
Increasingly I think playing 750-1000pts instead of 2000pts may yield an overall more playable game.
Possibly true. Those games would be incredibly small, and people can still fit a few knights into those armies, I've seen someone run a Levi Dread at 1k. I think increasing the costs of knights would go a long way. (especially to 400pts +, limiting their warlord traits, and preventing players from taking super heavy detachments entirely by themselves in lists or having CP only per faction (so you can only generate it towards your current faction of that detachment) )
I even suggested giving Libarians their utlity skills back such as their force dome ability which gave all units they were attached to a +5 invulnerable save for the turn...
Giving All these abilities back to marines would increase their utility.
In the same way that Marines "lost" AP 5:
-Guardsmen lost AP6
-Poison lost AP5
-Shuriken lost AP5
-LasBlasters lost AP5
-Scorpion swords lost AP6
-Scatter Lasers lost AP6
-Pulse lost AP5
-Kroot Rifles lost AP5
-Didn't Shootas lose AP5?
Very, very few weapons went from AP5 to AP-1 or better - for basic weapons, just Necrons that I can think of. And that was more a change than a translation.
"Increasingly I think playing 750-1000pts instead of 2000pts may yield an overall more playable game."
I try to aim for 1500pt games, but most people want to play 2k.
Bharring wrote: In the same way that Marines "lost" AP 5: -Guardsmen lost AP6 -Poison lost AP5 -Shuriken lost AP5 -LasBlasters lost AP5 -Scorpion swords lost AP6 -Scatter Lasers lost AP6 -Pulse lost AP5 -Kroot Rifles lost AP5 -Didn't Shootas lose AP5?
Very, very few weapons went from AP5 to AP-1 or better - for basic weapons, just Necrons that I can think of. And that was more a change than a translation.
"Increasingly I think playing 750-1000pts instead of 2000pts may yield an overall more playable game." I try to aim for 1500pt games, but most people want to play 2k.
Ap5 is very minor, but them losing ATSNKF and combat tactics was a big blow to marines viability.
Marines losing their +1 attack another. Vanguard losing their charge immediately the turn they arrive another blow. Dreadnoughts suffering from moving and shooting... Terminators losing the same ability... Terminators getting increases in cost to their assault cannon and losing rending on their assault cannon... Many great abilities that made marines have some special abilities are out the window. Lost to 7th edition. Flamers became inefficent and expensive... Meltas are somehow more expensive than plasma !?
Then we have the most powerful weapons marines had Grav Weaponry nerfed into the ground by costs increases.
Rhinos losing open topped / fire points. Its such an expanding list that I wonder if i even read the space marine codex, cause i keep getting caught playing like as if they still have those abilities.
Combat Tactics were basically Chapter Tactics, though, with the default (may choose to fail Morale) being UltraMarine's.
I agree with most of what you share here, but "Losing rending on their Assault Cannon" didn't really happen. It went from 4 shots with 6s ignoring Armor to 6 shots with AP-1 - so still about a 1/6 chance to ignore armor, but with half again the number of shots.
Combat Tactics were basically Chapter Tactics, though, with the default (may choose to fail Morale) being UltraMarine's.
I agree with most of what you share here, but "Losing rending on their Assault Cannon" didn't really happen. It went from 4 shots with 6s ignoring Armor to 6 shots with AP-1 - so still about a 1/6 chance to ignore armor, but with half again the number of shots.
I mean rending just usually flat out ignored saves in most cases, it was great for horde clearing or glancing shots against vehicles. Fantastic and fluffy ability now it is just a better heavy bolter. I like the more shots but I don't think it a valuable weapon in its current state of 22pts (10 pts more expensive than a reaper auto cannon!?). Missile launchers for termies are expensive as all hell too. I am surprised at how little dakka and effective termies and vanguard are now. Though that might be because they don't generate enough attacks to be useful. Genestealers mop and exterminate termies and vanguard even more so, and gaunts lock down termies in close combat forever.
Just had a thought on the subject of Stratagems: why not give Marines a bunch of decent Stratagems that cost 0 CP? That way you wouldn't be penalized for not playing a Horde army, as you'd not have to pay Command Points to use them, but you'd also not be able to spam them on every unit. You could even give the Stratagems some sort of Keyword system so that if you popped our hypothetical +1 to hit stratagem on a unit of Hellblasters and the Stratagem had a "Firepower" keyword, that'd prevent you from using the hypothetical Advance and shoot weapons at full BS stratagem with the "Firepower" keyword (examples only, disregard any balance or lack thereof between the two).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just had a thought on the subject of Stratagems: why not give Marines a bunch of decent Stratagems that cost 0 CP? That way you wouldn't be penalized for not playing a Horde army, as you'd not have to pay Command Points to use them, but you'd also not be able to spam them on every unit. You could even give the Stratagems some sort of Keyword system so that if you popped our hypothetical +1 to hit stratagem on a unit of Hellblasters and the Stratagem had a "Firepower" keyword, that'd prevent you from using the hypothetical Advance and shoot weapons at full BS stratagem with the "Firepower" keyword (examples only, disregard any balance or lack thereof between the two).
At that point why not make it a special rule with that specific unit?
What if marines could dish out mortal wounds, to represent them being untouchable superhuman killing machines. Roll a 6 to wound with shooting or melee and you inflict a mortal wound on top of all other damage.
Future War Cultist wrote: What if marines could dish out mortal wounds, to represent them being untouchable superhuman killing machines. Roll a 6 to wound with shooting or melee and you inflict a mortal wound on top of all other damage.
Future War Cultist wrote: What if marines could dish out mortal wounds, to represent them being untouchable superhuman killing machines. Roll a 6 to wound with shooting or melee and you inflict a mortal wound on top of all other damage.
I’m only half joking.
Please no hahaha.
Yeah I’m just being silly. Thing is though, I think that if you really want to fix them, it requires a rethink of the whole game, because the problems
go way deeper than marines. It’s a problem of scale. The game still can’t decide what scale it’s playing at (platoon, company, army?)
Future War Cultist wrote: What if marines could dish out mortal wounds, to represent them being untouchable superhuman killing machines. Roll a 6 to wound with shooting or melee and you inflict a mortal wound on top of all other damage.
I’m only half joking.
Please no hahaha.
Yeah I’m just being silly. Thing is though, I think that if you really want to fix marines, it requires a rethink of the whole game, because the problems
go way deeper than them.
Over-rewarding CP batteries, not enough punishment for bad positioning...
Mono-armies being punished for wanting to be mono armies. There is a lot of potential with this edition it just lacks the fluidity of previous editions depth. Its large as an ocean but as shallow as a puddle as it were.
There could be a great many abilities they could add, but i think personally space marines are lacking their famous utility they have a great number of character profiles but they don't mean anything if they aren't used.
cmspano wrote: Honestly almost everything in 40k could use a points increase and bump the default game size to 2500 points or something.
Points have become way too compressed toward the bottom and mid-high priced stuff comparably too cheap.
How can we balance units like guardsmen or ork boyz when the points are so damn close to each other?
Guardsman/Conscript 4
Cultist 5
Kabalite Warrior 6
Fire Warrior/Ork Boy 7
Wych/Guardian 8
With all of these 1 point away from each other you can't adjust any points values without having to debate "Is a guardsman as good as a cultist who can be a 30 man mob with VotLT and ToT?". "A Kabalite Warrior might be too cheap at 6 points, but it's not as good as an Ork Boy or a FW so you can't increase them to 7". You also run into Conscripts being worthless at the same price as a guardsman, but 3ppm would be way too good.
You also can't just increase the price of the cheap units because a lot of vehicles would feel even cheaper by comparison. Increase the cost of everything in the game, spread out the points of the basic infantry so that an increase of 1-2 ppm isn't a massive difference like it is now. Then you make the default game size 2500 or 3k points instead of 2k and you have about the same size game but with the ability to adjust points much more subtly.
My local club plays 1000 point games all the time, with the odd 2000 pt game for flavor. You could triple the point costs of everything without changing the basic game size from 2000 and it would be fine. GW would have a ton more room to make point adjustments if they did that.
Love how threads like this go 38 pages when the answer is so simple.
Power armor costs too much on 1 wound models. It's not as bad on 2 wound models like interecessors but they mainly suffer from every other weapons in the game having multi damage. Interecessors are pretty darn durable vs 1 damage weapons - so are rubrics. The reality is though. If you are paying for situational protection you should be paying significantly less for all these units.
Gaurdsmen are great because they never was points on protection - your damage to a gaurd unit is limited mostly by your number of shots. Your damage against a marine unit with something like a lasgun is statistically low but technically the potential damage is the same between a lasgun and a bolter and an infernal bolt gun - this creates an inherenet risk with paying for this protection. This risk is not reward with points savings - it should be - it really is that simple.
Then it gets to the point where if you are facing a army that has nothing but quality shots - your risk can't even possibly come out to your benifit. This should create even more points savings...but it doesn't.
A marine really isn't worth more than 9-10 points and anyone with half a brain or experience knows this.
The options are simple - make a marine worth 13 points or drop them to 9-10. How do you make a marine worth 13 points? IDK exactly the best way - dropping their points makes the most sense IMO. OFC this means a lot of other units need to drop in points too so don't think I'm just a marine fan boy over here - cause I am not. One thing I can say with absolute certainty is the risk/reward point value has never been there for a marine without giving them F tones of uber cheap upgrades like we currently have with DW or 5th ed strike marines/grey hunters ECT. Those units were still taking risks in paying for their protection though - they just had the potential to come out on top because their were able to do more damage consistently enough to make up for their losses. It really is sad for such iconic 40k units too be so bad for so long.
Bharring wrote: Because some people want to play an SM company, Ork horde, Guardsman force, or Aspect Warrior warhost. And wants to play a game about infantry supported by things, including tanks. Which doesn't happen when they play against someone who wants to play Gundam Wars instead.
Yeah and now those models can actually harm Knights. Look at that. Maybe not well for the cost, but it's there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: In the same way that Marines "lost" AP 5:
-Guardsmen lost AP6
-Poison lost AP5
-Shuriken lost AP5
-LasBlasters lost AP5
-Scorpion swords lost AP6
-Scatter Lasers lost AP6
-Pulse lost AP5
-Kroot Rifles lost AP5
-Didn't Shootas lose AP5?
Very, very few weapons went from AP5 to AP-1 or better - for basic weapons, just Necrons that I can think of. And that was more a change than a translation.
"Increasingly I think playing 750-1000pts instead of 2000pts may yield an overall more playable game."
I try to aim for 1500pt games, but most people want to play 2k.
Lasguns were always AP-, and Shootas/Kroot Rifles were AP6 (which actually didn't matter for Kroot, because they wanted to charge. Couldn't do that with Rapid Fire standard).
The rest of the weapon didn't lose Special Rules though is the difference. Bolters gave strictly AP5, and that was it compared to everyone else, which is why you saw the Bolter complaints as is.
Now they have literally nothing. You could even switch standard Marines to Lasguns and maybe not notice because of the wounding system basically treating Bolters the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the trick for AP6 is that it didn't do anything basically as that only affected Gaunts and Orks.
fraser1191 wrote: Barring new units and vehicles getting Stat lines, have Stat lines for marines, guard, eldar etc stayed the same?
I understand maintaining Stat lines edition to edition but when changing how things are wounded more wiggle room is made.
Exarchs were nerfed across the board for eldar, but they gained +1 wound, which might be more valuable for them. But we did lose bladestorm for dire avengers, and the +3 save for all exarchs.
Guardsmen stayed the same, marines stayed the same but lost a lot of abilities and some of their attacks in combat and their ap 5. (combat tactics, and their original and they shall know no fear were also lost hampering marines tactical advantage of choosing to retreat and reforming at the end of the turn).
I was more or less getting at if most Stat lines have evolved over time or remained consistent
Another thing I'm wondering about is how many marines do people think should be brought to a 2000 point game. A full demi company, a full battle company? How much room should there be for upgrades/transports and such?
I know marines can have many different builds, but I'm talking a "basic" list that would eventually have units removed for other units and such(like removing a dev squad for a predator)
fraser1191 wrote: Barring new units and vehicles getting Stat lines, have Stat lines for marines, guard, eldar etc stayed the same?
I understand maintaining Stat lines edition to edition but when changing how things are wounded more wiggle room is made.
Exarchs were nerfed across the board for eldar, but they gained +1 wound, which might be more valuable for them. But we did lose bladestorm for dire avengers, and the +3 save for all exarchs.
Guardsmen stayed the same, marines stayed the same but lost a lot of abilities and some of their attacks in combat and their ap 5. (combat tactics, and their original and they shall know no fear were also lost hampering marines tactical advantage of choosing to retreat and reforming at the end of the turn).
I was more or less getting at if most Stat lines have evolved over time or remained consistent
Another thing I'm wondering about is how many marines do people think should be brought to a 2000 point game. A full demi company, a full battle company? How much room should there be for upgrades/transports and such?
I know marines can have many different builds, but I'm talking a "basic" list that would eventually have units removed for other units and such(like removing a dev squad for a predator)
Well I am going to pop open my 5th edition codex. I ran several tactical squads way back and even now I would probably run around 60 space marines.
3 Full Tactical Squads / Intercessors 30
2 Half Devastator Squads 10
2 Veteran Units 10
2 Biker Units (5 mans) 10
1 Inceptor Squad
1 Captain
2 LTS
1 Libarian
1 Chaplain
2 - 4 Vehicles....
I'm more in argument of more special rules to justify their cost.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And nothing rides in the Razorback, as those will be Scouts or camping Lascannons or Heavy Bolters. If you want strictly a transport though, Rhinos do it as they don't sacrifice any shooting to do so.
That's the key difference. Dark Eldar don't have to worry about this anyway though because anyone can shoot out of the Raider/Venom.
I play SW so scouts are not troops and my tacs can't have heavy bolters or lascannons. Razorbacks are mostly gunboats but their transport capacity is definitely useful. Drukhari vehicles are open topped, which is a huge difference, but unless you embark wyches or incubi they're not really transports, just protections for the shooty units that fire safely from the vehicles. They're also gunboats mostly, just like razorbacks.
I'd love rhinos with 2 firing ports but it still wouldn't affect the size of the embarked squad. 2x5 dudes with a special weapon would be the way to go.
Maybe that's why you don't understand any of the core Marine issues.
Space Wolves have always been Marines +1. Remember how stupid Grey Hunters were with the 5th edition codex?
I only played orks before 7th edition so I can't really say about older editions SW.
But at the moment Ultramarines are definitely more competitive than SW. They're not marines +1, in fact that basically only applies in combat: about many things they're just marines -1. Also blood angels are probably better.
The Rhino idea is good. Rhino getting back fire points would be one good step, but is not going to fix marines by itself.
Chapter/Legion traits will never be extended to Vehicles because of the Raven Guard/Alpha Legion trait being -1 to hit. -2 to hit Fire Raptors would be bonkers against some armies, and CSM could stack -3 to hit on their Fire Raptor with psychic powers. So enjoy, we cant have nice things because Raven Guard/Alpha Legion traits exist.
I still think giving every marine unit ability to ignore 1 non-mortal wound per phase would give them more durability.
Give every marine +1 A.
Create 1 CP stratagem 'Overwhelming Firepower' which allows Tactical Squad or Chaos Space Marine unit to fire twice in the shooting phase. Yeah it's powerful, but the scaling is controlled really well by limited weapon options on normal squads.
Consolidate -1 to hit to all the marine infantry and give Raven Guard/Alpha Legion some other trait.
This could be 'Sneaky Marines' trait: Every InfantryBikerDreadnought can make 6" move before first game round and add +1" to Movement value and +1" to every advance roll result.
EDIT: Both loyalist and traitor marines need better Ld or other better ways to protect themselves from Morale phase, 10+ man units are incredibly risky. Currently there are so many downsides to playing large 10+ man units (well Black Legion can do that with Abaddon) because they get wiped so easily and the downsides hardly justify the possibility for 2nd special/heavy weapon. Also few large units make opponent's weapon shot allocation far simpler. Running large units of marines offers literally no positives, there are no stratagems that provide good multipliers because their firepower is really bad and short range to begin with.
Well said Ghorgul. Your suggestions actually reminded me of an idea I had ages ago, a new version of combat doctrines wereby when a marine unit is activated, you roll 2D6, and if the score is equal to or less than the number of models in the unit, you could move or shoot before doing something else, or got specific rerolls. I’ve always wondered if it could be adapted to the modern game. Like, pass the test, gain a CP? Could be open to so much abuse though...
Also, remind me, a ten man squad costs the same as two 5 man squads yes? If so, it’ll never be competitive. Two smaller squads is almost always better (more flexible, fills out detachment better, less vulnerable to morale). My suggestion, slight discount on the cost of the extra 5 option, somehow. On Power level? Whatever makes a ten man squad cheaper.
Ghorgul wrote: The Rhino idea is good. Rhino getting back fire points would be one good step, but is not going to fix marines by itself.
Chapter/Legion traits will never be extended to Vehicles because of the Raven Guard/Alpha Legion trait being -1 to hit. -2 to hit Fire Raptors would be bonkers against some armies, and CSM could stack -3 to hit on their Fire Raptor with psychic powers. So enjoy, we cant have nice things because Raven Guard/Alpha Legion traits exist.
I still think giving every marine unit ability to ignore 1 non-mortal wound per phase would give them more durability.
Give every marine +1 A.
Create 1 CP stratagem 'Overwhelming Firepower' which allows Tactical Squad or Chaos Space Marine unit to fire twice in the shooting phase. Yeah it's powerful, but the scaling is controlled really well by limited weapon options on normal squads.
Consolidate -1 to hit to all the marine infantry and give Raven Guard/Alpha Legion some other trait.
This could be 'Sneaky Marines' trait: Every InfantryBikerDreadnought can make 6" move before first game round and add +1" to Movement value and +1" to every advance roll result.
EDIT: Both loyalist and traitor marines need better Ld or other better ways to protect themselves from Morale phase, 10+ man units are incredibly risky. Currently there are so many downsides to playing large 10+ man units (well Black Legion can do that with Abaddon) because they get wiped so easily and the downsides hardly justify the possibility for 2nd special/heavy weapon. Also few large units make opponent's weapon shot allocation far simpler. Running large units of marines offers literally no positives, there are no stratagems that provide good multipliers because their firepower is really bad and short range to begin with.
I simply don't get why marine flyers having -2 to hit is apparently OP but Alitoc stacking -2 on many units and -3 if they want is ok?
Marines need chapter tactics on vehicals as otherwise their vehicles are always going to be overcosted as everyone else gets them for 0 points cost. That or the vehicals need a survivability boost.
I'm sorry but double shooting choosen of combi spam terminators for 1 CP is broken also it makes at most 1 maybe 2 units of tacs worth taking.
If anything-1 amy wide needs to be banished from the game not added toi.
I simply don't get why marine flyers having -2 to hit is apparently OP but Alitoc stacking -2 on many units and -3 if they want is ok?
Marines need chapter tactics on vehicals as otherwise their vehicles are always going to be overcosted as everyone else gets them for 0 points cost. That or the vehicals need a survivability boost.
I'm sorry but double shooting choosen of combi spam terminators for 1 CP is broken also it makes at most 1 maybe 2 units of tacs worth taking.
If anything-1 amy wide needs to be banished from the game not added toi.
I agree about everything. Other factions's vehicles get the chapter bonus so also SM should get it.
Shooting twice is usually a 2CP stratagem, double shooting for free or just 1 CP is always a broken combo unless it's on a very poor shooting unit like the ork gunwagon.
-1 to hit simply shouldn't stack with other -1 to hit bonuses and reduced to some single units with that ability in their profile or a bonus that units get under some auras. -2 or -3 to hit should be illegal. .
Ghorgul wrote: The Rhino idea is good. Rhino getting back fire points would be one good step, but is not going to fix marines by itself.
Chapter/Legion traits will never be extended to Vehicles because of the Raven Guard/Alpha Legion trait being -1 to hit. -2 to hit Fire Raptors would be bonkers against some armies, and CSM could stack -3 to hit on their Fire Raptor with psychic powers. So enjoy, we cant have nice things because Raven Guard/Alpha Legion traits exist.
I still think giving every marine unit ability to ignore 1 non-mortal wound per phase would give them more durability.
Give every marine +1 A.
Create 1 CP stratagem 'Overwhelming Firepower' which allows [b]Tactical Squad or Chaos Space Marine unit to fire twice in the shooting phase. Yeah it's powerful, but the scaling is controlled really well by limited weapon options on normal squads.
[/b]
Consolidate -1 to hit to all the marine infantry and give Raven Guard/Alpha Legion some other trait.
This could be 'Sneaky Marines' trait: Every InfantryBikerDreadnought can make 6" move before first game round and add +1" to Movement value and +1" to every advance roll result.
EDIT: Both loyalist and traitor marines need better Ld or other better ways to protect themselves from Morale phase, 10+ man units are incredibly risky. Currently there are so many downsides to playing large 10+ man units (well Black Legion can do that with Abaddon) because they get wiped so easily and the downsides hardly justify the possibility for 2nd special/heavy weapon. Also few large units make opponent's weapon shot allocation far simpler. Running large units of marines offers literally no positives, there are no stratagems that provide good multipliers because their firepower is really bad and short range to begin with.
The highlighted statements are bad in terms of balancing.
1) Giving every single marine +1 attack would make certain units more useless than ever: Scout would be even more used than Tacticals for the mere fact thay they would take advantage of it going for double tap + close combat quarter and being one of the best anti infantry in the entire codex.
2) Not bad per se but would need to be 2 CPs and still won't make people use Tacticals (1 unit at most for the stratagem)
Ice_can wrote: I simply don't get why marine flyers having -2 to hit is apparently OP but Alitoc stacking -2 on many units and -3 if they want is ok?
I don't think anyone should be able to stack -2 or -3 on anything. I'm trying to keep suggestions sensible.
I'm sorry but double shooting choosen of combi spam terminators for 1 CP is broken also it makes at most 1 maybe 2 units of tacs worth taking.
If anything-1 amy wide needs to be banished from the game not added toi.
The stratagem suggestion was worded in a way that it can be only used on Troop Choice Tactical Squad or Chaos Space Marines units. Troop choices Space Marine 'Tactical Squad' unit has Tactical Squad keyword, and CSM 'Chaos Space Marines' unit Chaos Space Marines keyword. Like I said in the my post, the limited weapon options for the troop choice marines already limit this stratagem greatly. This would be simply to allow basic troop marine choices, especially larger 10+ man units more firepower. Yeah, it's semi powerful, 10 man unit with 2 lascannons however costs 180 points, so it's not that cheap really and with the current amount of firepower in the game shooting 10 marines off the board is academic discussion at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Shooting twice is usually a 2CP stratagem, double shooting for free or just 1 CP is always a broken combo unless it's on a very poor shooting unit like the ork gunwagon.
Did any of you really read the stratagem suggestion? It was specifically worded so that it only works for Troop Choice Space Marine 'Tactical Squad' unit or CSM 'Chaos Space Marines' unit (well I admit I wrote 'Chaos Space Marine' originally without the -s for plural). Neither of those units are good at shooting, except if you let them come within 12" of you, but whose fault would that be really? Maybe someone would actually get drop pods if this stratagem existed.
I'll admit for Black Legion CSM running 20 man Chaos Space Marines troop choice unit(s) with Abaddon this suggested stratagem could be too powerful.
Ice_can wrote: I simply don't get why marine flyers having -2 to hit is apparently OP but Alitoc stacking -2 on many units and -3 if they want is ok?
I don't think anyone should be able to stack -2 or -3 on anything. I'm trying to keep suggestions sensible.
I'm sorry but double shooting choosen of combi spam terminators for 1 CP is broken also it makes at most 1 maybe 2 units of tacs worth taking.
If anything-1 amy wide needs to be banished from the game not added toi.
The stratagem suggestion was worded in a way that it can be only used on Troop Choice Tactical Squad or Chaos Space Marines units. Troop choices Space Marine 'Tactical Squad' unit has Tactical Squad keyword, and CSM 'Chaos Space Marines' unit Chaos Space Marines keyword. Like I said in the my post, the limited weapon options for the troop choice marines already limit this stratagem greatly. This would be simply to allow basic troop marine choices, especially larger 10+ man units more firepower. Yeah, it's semi powerful, 10 man unit with 2 lascannons however costs 180 points, so it's not that cheap really and with the current amount of firepower in the game shooting 10 marines off the board is academic discussion at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Shooting twice is usually a 2CP stratagem, double shooting for free or just 1 CP is always a broken combo unless it's on a very poor shooting unit like the ork gunwagon.
Did any of you really read the stratagem suggestion? It was specifically worded so that it only works for Troop Choice Space Marine 'Tactical Squad' unit or CSM 'Chaos Space Marines' unit (well I admit I wrote 'Chaos Space Marine' originally without the -s for plural). Neither of those units are good at shooting, except if you let them come within 12" of you, but whose fault would that be really? Maybe someone would actually get drop pods if this stratagem existed.
I'll admit for Black Legion CSM running 20 man Chaos Space Marines troop choice unit(s) with Abaddon this suggested stratagem could be too powerful.
Except for the fact that with Guilliman they would be rerolling everything, something that you are not accounting for (that's why I'm advocating a complete rework of Bobby G. rules).
Many codices that have the "shoot twice" Stratagems do not have any (or minor ones at most) rerolls available for this very reason
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kap'n Krump wrote: I've always been surprised by how absolute kittens marines are in close combat. There are some decent melee specialist marines, but your average bolter bros are laughably bad.
And in my thousand boyz army, even terminators are terribad at melee.
It's possible I'm spoiled by my main army for years has been orks.
Terminators are bad because 2 attacks at 4+ is BAD BAD BAD. If they were hitting at 3s their damage output would be decent
KurtAngle2 wrote: Except for the fact that with Guilliman they would be rerolling everything, something that you are not accounting for (that's why I'm advocating a complete rework of Bobby G. rules).
Many codices that have the "shoot twice" Stratagems do not have any (or minor ones at most) rerolls available for this very reason
At this point I feel like normal Marines and Chaos Marines can't have nice things because Bobby G and Abaddon exist.
At some point in tournaments people were running 'Abaddon's Artillery Train': Abaddon + 3 Hellforged Scorpius Tanks. Basically firing 18D3 S 6 AP -2 D 2 shots a turn, with re-rolls to hit from Abaddon.
Well, basic troop MEQs still do need some firepower increase, good question is how to do it with all the buff synergies available and CSM codex having fire twice stratagem. Apparently these units are condemned to be bad outside the 1 or 2 combos, too expensive for screens, so expensive that it's actually ok deal to shoot AT weaponry at them if there are no vehicle targets available.
Basic MEQs also easily lose objectives if contesting unit has objective secured because 1) they don't have model count to begin with 2) the model count they have is really easy to thin down with most weapons in game.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just had a thought on the subject of Stratagems: why not give Marines a bunch of decent Stratagems that cost 0 CP? That way you wouldn't be penalized for not playing a Horde army, as you'd not have to pay Command Points to use them, but you'd also not be able to spam them on every unit. You could even give the Stratagems some sort of Keyword system so that if you popped our hypothetical +1 to hit stratagem on a unit of Hellblasters and the Stratagem had a "Firepower" keyword, that'd prevent you from using the hypothetical Advance and shoot weapons at full BS stratagem with the "Firepower" keyword (examples only, disregard any balance or lack thereof between the two).
At that point why not make it a special rule with that specific unit?
Because having a Stratagem for 0 CP that says "Pick a friendly <ADEPTUS ASTARTES> Unit. This unit gains +1 to hit until the end of your turn" works on any one unit in the army, but you'd be limited to only using it on one thing per turn in order to limit crazy rules-interactions somewhat.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just had a thought on the subject of Stratagems: why not give Marines a bunch of decent Stratagems that cost 0 CP? That way you wouldn't be penalized for not playing a Horde army, as you'd not have to pay Command Points to use them, but you'd also not be able to spam them on every unit. You could even give the Stratagems some sort of Keyword system so that if you popped our hypothetical +1 to hit stratagem on a unit of Hellblasters and the Stratagem had a "Firepower" keyword, that'd prevent you from using the hypothetical Advance and shoot weapons at full BS stratagem with the "Firepower" keyword (examples only, disregard any balance or lack thereof between the two).
At that point why not make it a special rule with that specific unit?
Because having a Stratagem for 0 CP that says "Pick a friendly <ADEPTUS ASTARTES> Unit. This unit gains +1 to hit until the end of your turn" works on any one unit in the army, but you'd be limited to only using it on one thing per turn in order to limit crazy rules-interactions somewhat.
True, and it's generally good idea, however it would still allow some crazy combo stacking even in the form you suggested it.
to all the people that think +1A and +1W are going to fix marines. I would like to point out that termintors already can have those. And they have better basic weapons then tacs, and a better save and inv. They still suck.
GK strike can have 2A with falchions, and they aren't good either.
Now on the other hand making marines 10pts would be bad too. So in my opinion the only way to fix marines is through rules. Maybe they need some point adjustments. Termintors still cost too much for what they do. But what they really need is good rules. If primaris had a good rule set they could be good. They just need something on the level of Inari soulfire or reaper no rule set.
Ice_can wrote: I simply don't get why marine flyers having -2 to hit is apparently OP but Alitoc stacking -2 on many units and -3 if they want is ok?
I don't think anyone should be able to stack -2 or -3 on anything. I'm trying to keep suggestions sensible.
I'm sorry but double shooting choosen of combi spam terminators for 1 CP is broken also it makes at most 1 maybe 2 units of tacs worth taking.
If anything-1 amy wide needs to be banished from the game not added toi.
The stratagem suggestion was worded in a way that it can be only used on Troop Choice Tactical Squad or Chaos Space Marines units. Troop choices Space Marine 'Tactical Squad' unit has Tactical Squad keyword, and CSM 'Chaos Space Marines' unit Chaos Space Marines keyword. Like I said in the my post, the limited weapon options for the troop choice marines already limit this stratagem greatly. This would be simply to allow basic troop marine choices, especially larger 10+ man units more firepower. Yeah, it's semi powerful, 10 man unit with 2 lascannons however costs 180 points, so it's not that cheap really and with the current amount of firepower in the game shooting 10 marines off the board is academic discussion at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Shooting twice is usually a 2CP stratagem, double shooting for free or just 1 CP is always a broken combo unless it's on a very poor shooting unit like the ork gunwagon.
Did any of you really read the stratagem suggestion? It was specifically worded so that it only works for Troop Choice Space Marine 'Tactical Squad' unit or CSM 'Chaos Space Marines' unit (well I admit I wrote 'Chaos Space Marine' originally without the -s for plural). Neither of those units are good at shooting, except if you let them come within 12" of you, but whose fault would that be really? Maybe someone would actually get drop pods if this stratagem existed.
I'll admit for Black Legion CSM running 20 man Chaos Space Marines troop choice unit(s) with Abaddon this suggested stratagem could be too powerful.
Or they can just make the shooting twice Strategem 3CP just like the fighting twice one.
Karol wrote: to all the people that think +1A and +1W are going to fix marines. I would like to point out that termintors already can have those. And they have better basic weapons then tacs, and a better save and inv. They still suck.
GK strike can have 2A with falchions, and they aren't good either.
Now on the other hand making marines 10pts would be bad too. So in my opinion the only way to fix marines is through rules. Maybe they need some point adjustments. Termintors still cost too much for what they do. But what they really need is good rules. If primaris had a good rule set they could be good. They just need something on the level of Inari soulfire or reaper no rule set.
I think doing what the 30k marines had for rules is best, each squad needs to have a unique ability that gives them power.
ITs why I've suggested over and over again that marines should get bolter drill as a passive for tacticals where they unload every single bolter they have, as long as they have not moved that turn, and it would work only on bolt weapons. Encouraging people to take multiple bolt weaponry not just plasma weapons.
Terminators need Relentless as a rule and some form of sweeping advance.
For full tacticals/intercessors the unit gains +1 attack and +1ld and counts as two troop choices as long as they are combat squaded.
Vanguard regain their heroic intervention ability and can enter from deepstrike and charge the same turn but they can't shoot their weapons or run.
Sternguard are given back their ammo differences. (This should've enver been removed)
Techmarines can improve the cover of your choice.
Whirlwinds can lay mines.
Landspeeders can guide and improve shots from other vehicles.
Predators can combine shots to become titan killers.
Land Raiders can fire into melee when engaged in melee and can auto repair.
Storm Ravens have flares that they can shoot out. (Essentially an invulnerable save / halves wounds from missiles)
There are so many things you can do to make marines viable and have valuable troops. I completely agree with better special rules that is what Marines are extremely lacking.
fraser1191 wrote: Marines having less "heavy" heavy weapons would be a huge buff in my opinion.
Like Galef said making the heavy bolter rapid fire 2 would be good
Making the multi melta assault 1 or assault 2 at 12", or lord even heavy 2 at 24" would be nice. I'm not a big fan of paying 22 points for 1 shot
But I'd go with a lazy patch by making everything "astartes X" so there's no cascading effect
I would also say the same thing about assault cannons give em back rending of some kind it would make its point cost actually be like "Oh yeah that makes sense." Not just a better heavy bolter with +1 strength and 3 attacks more...
Storm Bolters honestly should be an assault weapon.
But i agree marine weapons already cost a premium to use. it would make sense they would have differences compared to other armies that use them.
It's just weird that some weapons were changed with a play style in mind. Off the top of my head there the DE splinter cannon which went from Salvo to rapid fire (though I think if they made it heavy no one would bother). That was made with Raiders in mind, but I guess marines are expected to stand and shoot?
It's just weird that some weapons were changed with a play style in mind. Off the top of my head there the DE splinter cannon which went from Salvo to rapid fire (though I think if they made it heavy no one would bother). That was made with Raiders in mind, but I guess marines are expected to stand and shoot?
Isn't that the opposite of what marines do in the lore? They aren't really the standing shooting type.
I think +1 str to all bolt weapons might be enough to help Marines. Now their basic guys wound T8 on a 5+ and all basic infantry on a 3+. Also to help power armor I’d like to give them +1 to save vs ap -1 damage.
Those two changes should be enough to make Marines competitive.
fraser1191 wrote: Marines having less "heavy" heavy weapons would be a huge buff in my opinion.
Like Galef said making the heavy bolter rapid fire 2 would be good
Making the multi melta assault 1 or assault 2 at 12", or lord even heavy 2 at 24" would be nice. I'm not a big fan of paying 22 points for 1 shot
But I'd go with a lazy patch by making everything "astartes X" so there's no cascading effect
So, here's a thought for an Astartes-only rule. Give it a cheesy name as appropriate.
-Rapid Fire weapons become Assault, and double the number of shots. So a Bolter becomes 24" Assault 2.
-Heavy weapons ignore the penalty for moving and firing.
-Assault weapons ignore the penalty for advancing and firing.
Because this is an army-wide rule rather than a weapon rule, the weapon profiles can remain the same, so no impact on non-Astartes factions.
Your Bolters become able to fire twice at 24", and can fire at -1 while Advancing if needed. Heavy weapons can't fire while Advancing, but can move and fire to keep up. Assault weapons become fully usable even while maximizing movement. Marines get more firepower at long range on their basic weapons, and generally more ability to move while firing army-wide.
Would that be sufficient to make Marines useful at their current price point?
fraser1191 wrote: Marines having less "heavy" heavy weapons would be a huge buff in my opinion.
Like Galef said making the heavy bolter rapid fire 2 would be good
Making the multi melta assault 1 or assault 2 at 12", or lord even heavy 2 at 24" would be nice. I'm not a big fan of paying 22 points for 1 shot
But I'd go with a lazy patch by making everything "astartes X" so there's no cascading effect
So, here's a thought for an Astartes-only rule. Give it a cheesy name as appropriate. -Rapid Fire weapons become Assault, and double the number of shots. So a Bolter becomes 24" Assault 2. -Heavy weapons ignore the penalty for moving and firing. -Assault weapons ignore the penalty for advancing and firing.
Because this is an army-wide rule rather than a weapon rule, the weapon profiles can remain the same, so no impact on non-Astartes factions.
Your Bolters become able to fire twice at 24", and can fire at -1 while Advancing if needed. Heavy weapons can't fire while Advancing, but can move and fire to keep up. Assault weapons become fully usable even while maximizing movement. Marines get more firepower at long range on their basic weapons, and generally more ability to move while firing army-wide.
Would that be sufficient to make Marines useful at their current price point?
Honestly it would make sense for them to do that. But what would be the difference between an assault bolter and a regular cawl bolter for intercessors? Would they have differences at all or would it be Assault 4 for the auto bolt rifle, and Assault 2 for the regular cawl bolter?
But rules make the army not just the weapons.
Marines suffer from LD and low amount of damage output for their points cost.
LD is a huge problem for whom shalt not know any fear. They seem to experience far more than any other army because of how few there are of them and how they are punished for having full squads. Tacticals / Intercessors / Every single squad in the space marine codex a full squad is always above 170 pts +. A Full Terminator Squad is around 400pts. Almost as expensive as a Knight titan, but less wounds, less dakka and less toughness, and a worse invulnerable save.
This exponential increase of unit costs causes entire space marines to be over inflated if they even try to gather entire squads, and there is no benefit or advantage for marines to have full squads other than preventing LD problems.
Space Marines need something that makes you want to drop a 1/4 of your points on a single squad. And gives incentive for you to play small elite armies in general.
Space marines generally suffer from not having enough CP generation.
As a mono army (taking it as a mono army at least) they don't have any benefits specifically for playing by themselves....
I'm telling you, space marines could be a lot better if they had Astartes Upgrades they could select for any squad with the ADEPTUS ASTARTES keyword (Infantry, Cavalry, Walkers, Bikers only).
Allow marines to pay 1 ppm for an upgrade like +1w/+1a, or +1w/+1s, or +1w/+1t.
They just become functional generalists. None of this would be game breaking. They still drown in volume attacks, they still die just as fast to eldar weapons, they still can't compete with Guard artillery. But the gap would be a lot less.
Marmatag wrote: I'm telling you, space marines could be a lot better if they had Astartes Upgrades they could select for any squad with the ADEPTUS ASTARTES keyword (Infantry, Cavalry, Walkers, Bikers only).
Allow marines to pay 1 ppm for an upgrade like +1w/+1a, or +1w/+1s, or +1w/+1t.
They just become functional generalists. None of this would be game breaking. They still drown in volume attacks, they still die just as fast to eldar weapons, they still can't compete with Guard artillery. But the gap would be a lot less.
You keep reposting the same point and I disagree it becomes an auto include at that point and not really tactically interesting or gives much depth to any space marine army.
Marmatag wrote: I'm telling you, space marines could be a lot better if they had Astartes Upgrades they could select for any squad with the ADEPTUS ASTARTES keyword (Infantry, Cavalry, Walkers, Bikers only).
Allow marines to pay 1 ppm for an upgrade like +1w/+1a, or +1w/+1s, or +1w/+1t.
They just become functional generalists. None of this would be game breaking. They still drown in volume attacks, they still die just as fast to eldar weapons, they still can't compete with Guard artillery. But the gap would be a lot less.
You keep reposting the same point and I disagree it becomes an auto include at that point and not really tactically interesting or gives much depth to any space marine army.
It's auto-include the same way combat drugs are auto-include. You still have an intelligent choice to make. You cannot make the case that you'd pick the same upgrade for every squad in your army.
And here's a fun fact.
In 2018 ITC season, space wolves have finished in the top 3 in a major or GT two times. Two. Imperial Guard have 62 times, and various Eldars have over 30 each. Dark Angels are in the exact same boat with two.
These factions are dying, and in need of desperate help. No one plays them anymore and that isn't good for the game.
Marmatag wrote: I'm telling you, space marines could be a lot better if they had Astartes Upgrades they could select for any squad with the ADEPTUS ASTARTES keyword (Infantry, Cavalry, Walkers, Bikers only).
Allow marines to pay 1 ppm for an upgrade like +1w/+1a, or +1w/+1s, or +1w/+1t.
They just become functional generalists. None of this would be game breaking. They still drown in volume attacks, they still die just as fast to eldar weapons, they still can't compete with Guard artillery. But the gap would be a lot less.
At 1ppm, those upgrades are auto-takes, there is no illusion of choice here, you're going to take them on everything all the time every time you can.
Asherian Command wrote: Honestly it would make sense for them to do that. But what would be the difference between an assault bolter and a regular cawl bolter for intercessors? Would they have differences at all or would it be Assault 4 for the auto bolt rifle, and Assault 2 for the regular cawl bolter?
But rules make the army not just the weapons.
Marines suffer from LD and low amount of damage output for their points cost.
LD is a huge problem for whom shalt not know any fear. They seem to experience far more than any other army because of how few there are of them and how they are punished for having full squads. Tacticals / Intercessors / Every single squad in the space marine codex a full squad is always above 170 pts +. A Full Terminator Squad is around 400pts. Almost as expensive as a Knight titan, but less wounds, less dakka and less toughness, and a worse invulnerable save.
This exponential increase of unit costs causes entire space marines to be over inflated if they even try to gather entire squads, and there is no benefit or advantage for marines to have full squads other than preventing LD problems.
Space Marines need something that makes you want to drop a 1/4 of your points on a single squad. And gives incentive for you to play small elite armies in general.
Space marines generally suffer from not having enough CP generation.
As a mono army (taking it as a mono army at least) they don't have any benefits specifically for playing by themselves....
I suggested an idea for Marine squads to generate CPs by a sort of test (the bigger the squad the better the chance) but I haven't fully fleshed it out yet. Could be they can try to 'buy back' any CPs used. Again, I haven't thought it all the way through.
About leadership; ATSKNF is fine as is, but rather than coming up with complicated rules to cover the gap...why not just bump up their LD stat? At leadership 8 (Sergeant 9), you'll need to kill at least 4 of them to cause a panic. And that's not even counting the re-roll...
I'll be honest, I don't think the current stats of marines suit them at all. I honestly think that they should have a WS and BS of 2+ for starters. Save 3+ for elite regular humans These are Astartes. But this is just the limits of the D6 system I suppose...
Until (so never) GW scales the game back to what it was a few editions ago and puts superheavies and the like back to were they belong in Apoc, you can't fix marines or most units for that matter. The game is so lethal and players can bring so much fire power to a game that marines, terminators etc die just as easily as guardsmen or cultists, meaning marines are paying for stats and abilities that they will never get to use.
For power armor to be useful, things that weaken or ignore it need to be rare and costly.
Hmm. Good idea. I've tried compiling all the suggestions so far, but they are sorta all over the place.
One group wants primaris stats for all space marines.
Another wants ap-1 for all bolt weapons
Another wants special rules that are meaningful for marines
Others want a point cost reduction for space marines.
Some dont care and call marine players cry babies.
Some argue that we need old abilities to make a return for marines.
Others argue we need 8th to shift focus entirely away from super heavies.
I suggested often in the past a squash of the current line and reducing the line considerably to refocus the space marine miniature line. (Namely to remove excess or randomly added units that have very little to add to the space marine codex, do we really need three separate siege vehicles?)
Though we might see a second space marine codex that may hopefully refocus marines a bit more as the current codex is all over the place.
Yes, we either see a new codex or some sort of supplement soon. And it will come with new Primaris units, making a full Primaris army much more viable, and hopefully making marines more competitive. But because a large section of Dakka likes to pretend that the Primaris do not exist, people will keep complaining, and suggesting here things that already exist in the game.
Though we might see a second space marine codex that may hopefully refocus marines a bit more as the current codex is all over the place.
Yes, we either see a new codex or some sort of supplement soon. And it will come with new Primaris units, making a full Primaris army much more viable, and hopefully making marines more competitive. But because a large section of Dakka likes to pretend that the Primaris do not exist, people will keep complaining, and suggesting here things that already exist in the game.
Honestly I am fine with primaris but rolling all marines into one group is kind of bleh. I am fine with marines having 3 troop choices. its the most they've ever had. The problem is primaris lack options which hopefully they will address and update the current kit to have more armor types and weapon types. No one uses the sniper bolters, the auto bolt rifle is useless outside of deathwatch.
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe Stalker boltguns need boosted to full sniper rifle level; mortal wounds and character targeting?
Yeah. They got that as a stratagem in Vigilus, but they should just have it as a standard ability. One annoying problem with the Primaris is that along with lacking options (which is understandable as they're new range) many of the options they actually have are non-options. Both the Intercessors and the Hellblasters get to choose from three guns, but one of them is just plain better, so there is really not much point in the other two existing. It is also hilarious because the best ones come in the Dark Imperium set, so there is really no incentive to buy the more expensive multipart kits. Along with a balance fail, that's also a marketing fail.
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe Stalker boltguns need boosted to full sniper rifle level; mortal wounds and character targeting?
Yeah. They got that as a stratagem in Vigilus, but they should just have it as a standard ability. One annoying problem with the Primaris is that along with lacking options (which is understandable as they're new range) many of the options they actually have are non-options. Both the Intercessors and the Hellblasters get to choose from three guns, but one of them is just plain better, so there is really not much point in the other two existing. It is also hilarious because the best ones come in the Dark Imperium set, so there is really no incentive to buy the more expensive multipart kits. Along with a balance fail, that's also a marketing fail.
I am surprised they didn't have a massive grav gun version of hellblasters, or melta gun variants. Would at least distinguish them a small amount.... Hellblasters and Intercessors i just use the same guys don't even change out the guns/parts cause they look near identical.
Primaris feel half baked, and these different 'versions' are so lackluster in comparison to one another is negligible.
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe Stalker boltguns need boosted to full sniper rifle level; mortal wounds and character targeting?
I wouldn't be opposed to it.
It gives them a real purpose. Right now, they’re just an ever slightly more powerful bolt rifle that is less mobile. With sniper rules, they become character/big game hunters.
Future War Cultist wrote: Maybe Stalker boltguns need boosted to full sniper rifle level; mortal wounds and character targeting?
I wouldn't be opposed to it.
It gives them a real purpose. Right now, they’re just an ever slightly more powerful bolt rifle that is less mobile. With sniper rules, they become character/big game hunters.
Oh no i agree, i think any intercessors that take it should be able to take camo cloaks as well so they can be the 'recon' teams.
Though we might see a second space marine codex that may hopefully refocus marines a bit more as the current codex is all over the place.
Yes, we either see a new codex or some sort of supplement soon. And it will come with new Primaris units, making a full Primaris army much more viable, and hopefully making marines more competitive. But because a large section of Dakka likes to pretend that the Primaris do not exist, people will keep complaining, and suggesting here things that already exist in the game.
I think the issue stems from Primaris not having a lot of selections but a lot of it still being stronger than collections that are already built.
I had the disprivelage of having my armies destroyed, so it's easy for me to start over and find a way to incorporate Primaris stat lines into my army (I bought like 15 Mk3 Boarding Shield Marines for my stand-in Intercessors because I obsess only over Mk5 and below), but I don't know why other people won't do the same.
Though we might see a second space marine codex that may hopefully refocus marines a bit more as the current codex is all over the place.
Yes, we either see a new codex or some sort of supplement soon. And it will come with new Primaris units, making a full Primaris army much more viable, and hopefully making marines more competitive. But because a large section of Dakka likes to pretend that the Primaris do not exist, people will keep complaining, and suggesting here things that already exist in the game.
I think the issue stems from Primaris not having a lot of selections but a lot of it still being stronger than collections that are already built.
I had the disprivelage of having my armies destroyed, so it's easy for me to start over and find a way to incorporate Primaris stat lines into my army (I bought like 15 Mk3 Boarding Shield Marines for my stand-in Intercessors because I obsess only over Mk5 and below), but I don't know why other people won't do the same.
I've had a few purists yell at me for having regular marines instead of the primaris models. Or doing conversions of existing models or kitbashes because i didn't like the look of certain models (Hellblasters / aggressors)
The only snipers I have interest in is the skitarii rifles, at least they are strength 7
Besides GW wouldn't give us the option to make recon teams when they can make a specific unit with cloaks. At least that's what the cynic in me thinks
I think stalker bolt rifle just need the sniper rules naturally. I'd say make them heavy 2 but I'm not sure if that would defeat the standard bolt rifle. At least there'd be a choice to make instead of going for the standard issue.
The auto variant is a joke, sure you can advance and shoot but once you're within 15" the standard is better. Maybe just go assault 3 for that one?
Though we might see a second space marine codex that may hopefully refocus marines a bit more as the current codex is all over the place.
Yes, we either see a new codex or some sort of supplement soon. And it will come with new Primaris units, making a full Primaris army much more viable, and hopefully making marines more competitive. But because a large section of Dakka likes to pretend that the Primaris do not exist, people will keep complaining, and suggesting here things that already exist in the game.
I think the issue stems from Primaris not having a lot of selections but a lot of it still being stronger than collections that are already built.
I had the disprivelage of having my armies destroyed, so it's easy for me to start over and find a way to incorporate Primaris stat lines into my army (I bought like 15 Mk3 Boarding Shield Marines for my stand-in Intercessors because I obsess only over Mk5 and below), but I don't know why other people won't do the same.
I've had a few purists yell at me for having regular marines instead of the primaris models. Or doing conversions of existing models or kitbashes because i didn't like the look of certain models (Hellblasters / aggressors)
If they're distinctive enough I think you would be fine. Nothing else would carry a boarding shield and Bolter though, so it makes sense to me
fraser1191 wrote: The auto variant is a joke, sure you can advance and shoot but once you're within 15" the standard is better. Maybe just go assault 3 for that one?
Yeah, I think 3 shots is needed there. Otherwise the regular bolt rifle has it beat. There’s precedent too. I think Skitarrii Vanguards radium jezzils are assault 3 aren’t they?
Asherian Command wrote: Oh no i agree, i think any intercessors that take it should be able to take camo cloaks as well so they can be the 'recon' teams.
Nice! Yeah I could see that!
This whole discussion has made me realise something though; no matter how many options a unit has, people will always gravitate towards the best one, and because of wysiwyg, they’ll be assembled with said option, meaning that the others will never get a look in. Sort of a waste in a way.
Yeah, I think 3 shots is needed there. Otherwise the regular bolt rifle has it beat. There’s precedent too. I think Skitarrii Vanguards radium jezzils are assault 3 aren’t they?
The problem is that then it beats the regular one even at rapid fire range (3 shot auto would be better against guard and equal against marines in such a situation.) I have actually thought about these weapons quite a bit and done math with various fix attempts, and pretty much always one of them just ends up better. They have such a similar role that it is nigh impossible for this not to happen. Perhaps they should just accept this, and make one of the loadouts some sort of Primaris Sternguard that just have flat out better, but more expensive weapons. Visually the auto rifle would communicate that well, I think.
fraser1191 wrote: The only snipers I have interest in is the skitarii rifles, at least they are strength 7
Besides GW wouldn't give us the option to make recon teams when they can make a specific unit with cloaks. At least that's what the cynic in me thinks
I think stalker bolt rifle just need the sniper rules naturally. I'd say make them heavy 2 but I'm not sure if that would defeat the standard bolt rifle. At least there'd be a choice to make instead of going for the standard issue.
The auto variant is a joke, sure you can advance and shoot but once you're within 15" the standard is better. Maybe just go assault 3 for that one?
The Assault one makes sense for Deathwatch at least.
fraser1191 wrote: The auto variant is a joke, sure you can advance and shoot but once you're within 15" the standard is better. Maybe just go assault 3 for that one?
Yeah, I think 3 shots is needed there. Otherwise the regular bolt rifle has it beat. There’s precedent too. I think Skitarrii Vanguards radium jezzils are assault 3 aren’t they?
Heavy 2 but the striders have a stratagem to more or less fire heavy at no penalty IIRC. I was referring to the arquebus, which is H1 S7 - 2 D3 damage and can target characters and does extra MW on 6s. This this is fearsome. I've been able to "lock down" areas from getting character support with these.
fraser1191 wrote: The auto variant is a joke, sure you can advance and shoot but once you're within 15" the standard is better. Maybe just go assault 3 for that one?
Yeah, I think 3 shots is needed there. Otherwise the regular bolt rifle has it beat. There’s precedent too. I think Skitarrii Vanguards radium jezzils are assault 3 aren’t they?
Heavy 2 but the striders have a stratagem to more or less fire heavy at no penalty IIRC. I was referring to the arquebus, which is H1 S7 - 2 D3 damage and can target characters and does extra MW on 6s. This this is fearsome. I've been able to "lock down" areas from getting character support with these.
And Slayer Deathwatch is the exception lol
Use those Skitarii in groups of 10 for most efficient use of the Strategem. Get near a reroll epicentre and you're good to go.
Can't remember if I suggested it here or elsewhere, but why not just let a ten man tac squad take two special and two heavy weapons? You don't have to mess with their points at all and you partly solve one of the major issues people have in the form of their offensive weakness.
bouncingboredom wrote: Can't remember if I suggested it here or elsewhere, but why not just let a ten man tac squad take two special and two heavy weapons? You don't have to mess with their points at all and you partly solve one of the major issues people have in the form of their offensive weakness.
I've been hammering my idea of 2 Special 1 Heavy or 2 Heavy 1 Special as a way to sorta specialize but keep them unique compared to how other troop choices do it.
bouncingboredom wrote: Can't remember if I suggested it here or elsewhere, but why not just let a ten man tac squad take two special and two heavy weapons? You don't have to mess with their points at all and you partly solve one of the major issues people have in the form of their offensive weakness.
I've been hammering my idea of 2 Special 1 Heavy or 2 Heavy 1 Special as a way to sorta specialize but keep them unique compared to how other troop choices do it.
I'd like the two specials. Two plasma or flamers and a matching combi gives them a good boost in fire power.
bouncingboredom wrote: Can't remember if I suggested it here or elsewhere, but why not just let a ten man tac squad take two special and two heavy weapons? You don't have to mess with their points at all and you partly solve one of the major issues people have in the form of their offensive weakness.
I've been hammering my idea of 2 Special 1 Heavy or 2 Heavy 1 Special as a way to sorta specialize but keep them unique compared to how other troop choices do it.
I'd like the two specials. Two plasma or flamers and a matching combi gives them a good boost in fire power.
The elephant in the room is whether or not space marines should get a reward for having full squads like ORKS. Giving them more cohesion or a squad ability might be useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bouncingboredom wrote: Can't remember if I suggested it here or elsewhere, but why not just let a ten man tac squad take two special and two heavy weapons? You don't have to mess with their points at all and you partly solve one of the major issues people have in the form of their offensive weakness.
Yeah problem here is that then that tactical squad would be around 180 - 190pts. For 10 models. Thats crazy.
That squad better come with some more than two special weapons and have something to boot that increases in offensive or defensive power.
Crimson wrote: The problem is that then it beats the regular one even at rapid fire range (3 shot auto would be better against guard and equal against marines in such a situation.) I have actually thought about these weapons quite a bit and done math with various fix attempts, and pretty much always one of them just ends up better. They have such a similar role that it is nigh impossible for this not to happen. Perhaps they should just accept this, and make one of the loadouts some sort of Primaris Sternguard that just have flat out better, but more expensive weapons. Visually the auto rifle would communicate that well, I think.
Yep, very true. It's like I said earlier, there will always be one option that's the best hands down, and people will always gravitate towards it, rendering the others useless and unused, thanks to wysiwyg. It's like you might as well just have the one weapon option to begin with.
Asherian Command wrote: That squad better come with some more than two special weapons and have something to boot that increases in offensive or defensive power.
They would have the option of taking two heavy and two specials (2 combis perhaps?). That's what would make them tactically flexible, the ability to dish out punishment at range and up close, the ability to have strong anti-vehicle and anti-hoarde capabilities, or the ability to tool up quite heavily for certain tasks, before you even start with combat squadding. This may not be the ideal solution, but it strikes me as one that can be done with every little disruption to the rest of the game.
Though of course this argument, like most I see about Marines, presumes that there aren't major issues with game at is functional level which make tinkering around the edges of certain units ultimately a little pointless.
Asherian Command wrote: That squad better come with some more than two special weapons and have something to boot that increases in offensive or defensive power.
They would have the option of taking two heavy and two specials (2 combis perhaps?). That's what would make them tactically flexible, the ability to dish out punishment at range and up close, the ability to have strong anti-vehicle and anti-hoarde capabilities, or the ability to tool up quite heavily for certain tasks, before you even start with combat squadding. This may not be the ideal solution, but it strikes me as one that can be done with every little disruption to the rest of the game.
Though of course this argument, like most I see about Marines, presumes that there aren't major issues with game at is functional level which make tinkering around the edges of certain units ultimately a little pointless.
Problem with that is just how expensive of a points cost that would be, if we took two plasma guns and two combis that is 44 points. Thats 174 not including the sgt's own combi weapon that would be 185 for 5 plasma.
Is 185 points for 5 plasmas really expensive? 10 shots at BS3+ maybe with also some re-rolls thanks to characters you may want anyway?
10 tankbustas cost 170 points at BS5+ with re-rolls against vehicles and DDD which basically put them at being BS4+ or slightly above that (only if they target vehicles) and they are considered amazing. Of course still t-shirt save 17ppm dudes.
Tankbustas are amazing because they're the Ork answer to Knights, which is currently the meta-threat to counter. Plasma guns won't do more than tickle a Knight. You can't just look at the number of shots and completely ignore the rest of the differences between the weapons.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Tankbustas are amazing because they're the Ork answer to Knights, which is currently the meta-threat to counter. Plasma guns won't do more than tickle a Knight. You can't just look at the number of shots and completely ignore the rest of the differences between the weapons.
There are at least half the factions that can't have knights in their lists. You're also assuming that every imperium player uses knights.
Tankbustas' rokkits are S8 AP-2 D3 mounted on T4 6+ save 17ppm models.
The real answer orks have to imperial knights is to bring all T4 6+ and T2 no save dudes other than characters. Tipycally competitive ork players don't bother killing knights, they focus on scoring and killing the rest of the army. Good luck killing a castellan with tankbustas. Even with the max squad of 315 points (15 bustas + 6 bomb squigs) and 6 CPs to let them deep strike, generating more shots and firing twice (tellyporta, more dakka, showing off) you should strip just half the wounds off a castellan and the unit dies the subsequent turn just by a volley of bolters or lasguns.
If you compare those 185 points of plasma dudes with 180 of bustas (10 of them + 1 bomb squig) you'll notice that there isn't that much difference in terms of killyness. The SM should be more deadly actually. Against monsters and characters there's even no contest here.
how about giving marines some non weapon upgrades. Maybe a junior apothecary to give boost them in some way. Or guys carrying portable shields to boost their save when they don't move. Or like someone said give cloaks to reapers, if they can't have special or melee weapons.
If the upgrades were costed in a crazy maner aka not free, but also not 80pts, it could give birth to some new ways to use certain units without invalidating older ways to play. And it could be done to both primaris and normal marines. Maybe the bigger primaris could just carry bigger or more stuff, or maybe they would be more specilised as in only get 1 "specialist" while normal tacticals could have two.
bouncingboredom wrote:Can't remember if I suggested it here or elsewhere, but why not just let a ten man tac squad take two special and two heavy weapons? You don't have to mess with their points at all and you partly solve one of the major issues people have in the form of their offensive weakness.
The problem there is that the 10 man squad still only uses one detachment slot. Marine players struggle to fill out enough detachments to gain needed CP as it is. No one is going to more than double their required investment in a Troops slot for such a modest increase in offensive output when they could get almost the same amount of offense from two 5-man squads and fill two detachment slots.
Blackie wrote:
If you compare those 185 points of plasma dudes with 180 of bustas (10 of them + 1 bomb squig) you'll notice that there isn't that much difference in terms of killyness. The SM should be more deadly actually. Against monsters and characters there's even no contest here.
The difference there is Tankbustas are not a Troops choice (to the best of my knowledge anyway - traditionally they have not been). Orks can fill their Troops slots with cheap and useful squads of Gretchin, which can increase the durability of the Tankbustas by taking hits for them
And also vs Knights, the difference in durability between a SMTac Squad and a similar size squad of Ork Tankbustas is minimal. Anything Knights throw at Space Marines is apt to mostly or entirely deny them their saves anyway, and their Toughness is the same. If anything, the Orks are more durable because they can exploit Gretchin to take hits for them, and Gretchin are cheap.
"If you compare those 185 points of plasma dudes with 180 of bustas (10 of them + 1 bomb squig) you'll notice that there isn't that much difference in terms of killyness. The SM should be more deadly actually. Against monsters and characters there's even no contest here."
Wait a second. You're concerned that 10 T4 3+ models only do roughly the same damage as 11 T4 6+ models vs the ideal target for the latter unit?
fraser1191 wrote: If marines have such a hard time filling lists why not make Devs and ASMs troops like they were in whichever previous edition.
Give each one a special rule(devs already have the signum) and filling slots is suddenly easy
Or you make the core troop choices (intercessors) count as two troop choices when they are 10 mans and make it so combat squads fills that role it wants to so desperately wants to be. Its all there GW has decided not to use it.
Then give an added bonus for having 10 per a squad. Not just more special weapons.
thats way too many attacks and my marines get.... maybe 12 attacks?
crazy.