Switch Theme:

Marine Fix?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
[MOD]
Villanous Scum








Stop insulting other people for having a different opinion, rule 1 is polite and it is mandatory.

On parle toujours mal quand on n'a rien à dire. 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




To be more clear, I don't REALLY want them as NPCs, but having them as no-brainer autotakes is getting very old. Just like windriders.
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Bobthehero wrote:
Guardsmen now get 5+ vs boltguns that previously ignored their armor, Marines get 5+ vs a vast array of weapons that ignored their armor as well, why is it only a problem when Guardsmen are involved?

Because of the durability for the cost being too high because of the new AP system? Did you literally just miss that part on purpose?
On the broad whole, except specifically against formerly AP4 (now AP-1) weapons, Marines are as well or better off than they were before, the AP system isn't hurting them that bad in and of itself. Anything AP5/6 before didn't do squat then and doesn't now, AP4 they ignored before but now knocks them down to 4+, AP2/3/ ignored MEQ armor entirely, but now allow armor saves, and AP1 functions as before. Cover actually does something against anti-infantry weapons for marines.

Likewise, while Guardsmen get a save against bolters now, they're also not getting ubiquitous unmodifiable 4+ cover saves (that did nothing for Marines against anti-infantry fire) either as was commonplace in previous editions. Likewise, much of what wounded Marines on 2's in previous editions only wounds on 3's now, while for Guardsmen that's really only true of S5 weapons.

The bigger issues I think are the scale of firepower (Castellan doesn't care if you're T3 5+ or T4 3+, and Custodes define durability now with multiwound T5 2+/4++) and the lack of a Sweeping Advance mechanism for close combat. The A1 of a Marine profile made sense when you could charge in, kill only one or two enemy models, absorb a couple minor attacks back, then break the unit and sweep it off the table, but if they're now having to hack each dude down individually, then that's just not enough killing output. The current morale mechanic is just doesn't accomplish the same thing.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Yeah, the morale mechanic is gak. But again, thats not a marine issue. Its a core game issue and everyone suffers under it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/26 01:41:51



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, the morale mechanic is gak. But again, thats not a marine issue. Its a core game issue and everyone suffers under it.
I think in the case of Marines and some other similar marine units it hurts a whole lot more. Guard for instance don't care because generally they were never going to get into CC in the first place, while Eldar are just as happy to be shooting as chopping and don't need to rely on their troops to be multirole. I think there's a good case for Marines to get additional CC attacks, as their ability to clear weeny infantry in close combat as they have in previous editions is uniquely broken as it relied so much more heavily on that morale mechanic to do things than most other armies. An Ork Mob is happy to blend an enemy infantry unit to paste, but a Tactical Squad doesn't have the time to do that even if it can eventually win through attrition.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Vaktathi wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Bobthehero wrote:
Guardsmen now get 5+ vs boltguns that previously ignored their armor, Marines get 5+ vs a vast array of weapons that ignored their armor as well, why is it only a problem when Guardsmen are involved?

Because of the durability for the cost being too high because of the new AP system? Did you literally just miss that part on purpose?
On the broad whole, except specifically against formerly AP4 (now AP-1) weapons, Marines are as well or better off than they were before, the AP system isn't hurting them that bad in and of itself. Anything AP5/6 before didn't do squat then and doesn't now, AP4 they ignored before but now knocks them down to 4+, AP2/3/ ignored MEQ armor entirely, but now allow armor saves, and AP1 functions as before. Cover actually does something against anti-infantry weapons for marines.

Likewise, while Guardsmen get a save against bolters now, they're also not getting ubiquitous unmodifiable 4+ cover saves (that did nothing for Marines against anti-infantry fire) either as was commonplace in previous editions. Likewise, much of what wounded Marines on 2's in previous editions only wounds on 3's now, while for Guardsmen that's really only true of S5 weapons.

The bigger issues I think are the scale of firepower (Castellan doesn't care if you're T3 5+ or T4 3+, and Custodes define durability now with multiwound T5 2+/4++) and the lack of a Sweeping Advance mechanism for close combat. The A1 of a Marine profile made sense when you could charge in, kill only one or two enemy models, absorb a couple minor attacks back, then break the unit and sweep it off the table, but if they're now having to hack each dude down individually, then that's just not enough killing output. The current morale mechanic is just doesn't accomplish the same thing.

You do realize I'm never the one complaining about Marine durability, right?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Vaktathi wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Bobthehero wrote:
Guardsmen now get 5+ vs boltguns that previously ignored their armor, Marines get 5+ vs a vast array of weapons that ignored their armor as well, why is it only a problem when Guardsmen are involved?

Because of the durability for the cost being too high because of the new AP system? Did you literally just miss that part on purpose?
On the broad whole, except specifically against formerly AP4 (now AP-1) weapons, Marines are as well or better off than they were before, the AP system isn't hurting them that bad in and of itself. Anything AP5/6 before didn't do squat then and doesn't now, AP4 they ignored before but now knocks them down to 4+, AP2/3/ ignored MEQ armor entirely, but now allow armor saves, and AP1 functions as before. Cover actually does something against anti-infantry weapons for marines.

Likewise, while Guardsmen get a save against bolters now, they're also not getting ubiquitous unmodifiable 4+ cover saves (that did nothing for Marines against anti-infantry fire) either as was commonplace in previous editions. Likewise, much of what wounded Marines on 2's in previous editions only wounds on 3's now, while for Guardsmen that's really only true of S5 weapons.

The bigger issues I think are the scale of firepower (Castellan doesn't care if you're T3 5+ or T4 3+, and Custodes define durability now with multiwound T5 2+/4++) and the lack of a Sweeping Advance mechanism for close combat. The A1 of a Marine profile made sense when you could charge in, kill only one or two enemy models, absorb a couple minor attacks back, then break the unit and sweep it off the table, but if they're now having to hack each dude down individually, then that's just not enough killing output. The current morale mechanic is just doesn't accomplish the same thing.



They vastly increased lethality and made lower end troops cheaper and more durable simultaneously.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Vaktathi wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, the morale mechanic is gak. But again, thats not a marine issue. Its a core game issue and everyone suffers under it.
I think in the case of Marines and some other similar marine units it hurts a whole lot more.


You think wrong. You can either patch each unit/army one by one applying band aid fixes to make the current crap morale rules function on some level for those units or you can fix the actual problem and have it work for everybody. It doesn't hurt SM any more or less then anyone else.

Guard for instance don't care because generally they were never going to get into CC in the first place, while Eldar are just as happy to be shooting as chopping and don't need to rely on their troops to be multirole.


Morale is not just for melee. It happens from shooting too. But the current mechanic doesn't just give immunity to armies with special rules for it like tyranids synapse, guards getting BLAM!ed, or Orks being clubbed by a Knob/mob rules. It also means SM are never even at risk if you bring them in units of 5. Yet necrons are susceptible and it cripples their one key army rule (reanimation protocols). The whole set up is crap. Nobody should have blanket immunity. All these auto pass rules should instead be applying a bonus to the roll but the roll should still be happening with a always risk for at least 1 model eating gak and running away. Even if that chance is rolling a double or a 1 or whatever. A critical fail should always be a chance. Morale needs to mean something. That or go the BTGoA route and have morale actually act as suppressing fire and apply penalties until the unit can regroup.

I think there's a good case for Marines to get additional CC attacks, as their ability to clear weeny infantry in close combat as they have in previous editions is uniquely broken as it relied so much more heavily on that morale mechanic to do things than most other armies. An Ork Mob is happy to blend an enemy infantry unit to paste, but a Tactical Squad doesn't have the time to do that even if it can eventually win through attrition.


I am not 100% opposed to SM getting 1 more attack. Again, I think SM offensive capability in the form of the number of dice rolled is really their weak point that needs addressing. But also them needing an extra attack doesn't have any real impact on how morale gets fixed.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/03/26 04:22:35



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought





UK

How about this?

A full man unit of marines is Fearless.

Once they start taking casualties they have normal morale.
   
Made in hk
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant




 Corennus wrote:
How about this?

A full man unit of marines is Fearless.

Once they start taking casualties they have normal morale.


???

Under the Current morale rule, it is when you take casualty you need to check morale.

So a full strength unit never need morale check anyway.
   
Made in gb
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought





UK

why don't we just make pimaris marines essentially unkillable? then they'll be just about as powerful as they are in the fluff about them.

Marines don't need fixing. people need to adapt how they play
   
Made in us
Shrieking Traitor Sentinel Pilot




USA

 Corennus wrote:
why don't we just make pimaris marines essentially unkillable? then they'll be just about as powerful as they are in the fluff about them.

Marines don't need fixing. people need to adapt how they play


Didn't realize that marines were unkillable, marine spanking anyone?

Anyway, Marine's do need fixed, and their issue is offense, 100%, not durability.

"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed. 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 Corennus wrote:
why don't we just make pimaris marines essentially unkillable? then they'll be just about as powerful as they are in the fluff about them.

Marines don't need fixing. people need to adapt how they play


Yeah, git gud!

What's that? Marines are at sub-40% win rate levels*? Git gud-er!

*according to 40kstats.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Corennus wrote:
why don't we just make pimaris marines essentially unkillable? then they'll be just about as powerful as they are in the fluff about them.

Marines don't need fixing. people need to adapt how they play
By "adapting to play" you mean either take guilliman or don't play SM? Or do you mean take hellblasters and azrael?

The fact of matter is SM has maybe one or two viable, not a go-to, choice per FOC. And they have the most range of units in the game. Maybe thats a good thing. Maybe its not. Who knows?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Removing the 2CP Stratagem to ignore morale tests would indirectly buff MEQ. Removing this stratagem would make bolters more dangerous to GEQ which is really what they need. Typically SM squads are taken in smaller squads and get to reroll fail morale tests. I think with the ability to deny deepstrike with 12' inches, the bolter rule, nerfs to cultists, MEQ is going to start over taking GEQ for troops choices.
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





United States

So I sent GW an email suggesting the idea that power armor (all types including terminator armor) has +1 save against AP-1 and AP -0 weapons.

We've been testing this in my local group since we first saw the rule in the GSC codex, and it works great! It makes marines a lot tougher against massed low S low AP fire and helps to mitigate some of the higher strength shots.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Togusa wrote:
So I sent GW an email suggesting the idea that power armor (all types including terminator armor) has +1 save against AP-1 and AP -0 weapons.

We've been testing this in my local group since we first saw the rule in the GSC codex, and it works great! It makes marines a lot tougher against massed low S low AP fire and helps to mitigate some of the higher strength shots.

The only thing I would, personally, do is make it so that Phobos keyworded models can't get this benefit or to make it a USR for Power Armor units in general.
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





United States

 Kanluwen wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
So I sent GW an email suggesting the idea that power armor (all types including terminator armor) has +1 save against AP-1 and AP -0 weapons.

We've been testing this in my local group since we first saw the rule in the GSC codex, and it works great! It makes marines a lot tougher against massed low S low AP fire and helps to mitigate some of the higher strength shots.

The only thing I would, personally, do is make it so that Phobos keyworded models can't get this benefit or to make it a USR for Power Armor units in general.


I'm not sure why Phobos would matter, power armor is power armor. We have mostly been testing this with Chaos marines and old marines, but a few primaris.

I will say one of our players uses the new vanguard stuff, and they didn't appear to be any more OP with this rule. But I will ask a few others to test it and see just to be sure.

Primaris can be such a pain sometimes...

   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Togusa wrote:

I'm not sure why Phobos would matter, power armor is power armor. We have mostly been testing this with Chaos marines and old marines, but a few primaris.

I will say one of our players uses the new vanguard stuff, and they didn't appear to be any more OP with this rule. But I will ask a few others to test it and see just to be sure.

Primaris can be such a pain sometimes...

The 'fluff' reasoning would be that it's because Phobos stuff is supposed to be 'stripped down' gear: it still protects you for the most part, but it's not head to toe coverage.
The reasoning I personally would go for?

It gives each variant of the Mark X armour a unique flavor outside of just their weapons.
Building off your rule, I would do the following:
Terminators, Centurions, and Gravis armoured individuals(Inceptors, Aggressors, and the Gravis Captain) get a reroll for their armour saves and/or the +1 to saves is expanded to include anything of AP-2, -1, or 0.
This is something I've been toying with since I saw the Death Riders for DKoK getting a similar protection vs these low AP, high ROF weapons.

Power Armour and Tacitus Armour get the +1 to saves for AP-1 and 0.
This would be the 'baseline' rule. I've been leaning towards rerolls rather than a flat +1, but either one works.

I've been toying around with Phobos Armoured units being able to Advance and Charge or make an Advance move after firing. So far it hasn't seemed too crazy but we're still in the early stages really..
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




The Phobos marines are already overcosted. Significantly.
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





United States

 Kanluwen wrote:
 Togusa wrote:

I'm not sure why Phobos would matter, power armor is power armor. We have mostly been testing this with Chaos marines and old marines, but a few primaris.

I will say one of our players uses the new vanguard stuff, and they didn't appear to be any more OP with this rule. But I will ask a few others to test it and see just to be sure.

Primaris can be such a pain sometimes...

The 'fluff' reasoning would be that it's because Phobos stuff is supposed to be 'stripped down' gear: it still protects you for the most part, but it's not head to toe coverage.
The reasoning I personally would go for?

It gives each variant of the Mark X armour a unique flavor outside of just their weapons.
Building off your rule, I would do the following:
Terminators, Centurions, and Gravis armoured individuals(Inceptors, Aggressors, and the Gravis Captain) get a reroll for their armour saves and/or the +1 to saves is expanded to include anything of AP-2, -1, or 0.
This is something I've been toying with since I saw the Death Riders for DKoK getting a similar protection vs these low AP, high ROF weapons.

Power Armour and Tacitus Armour get the +1 to saves for AP-1 and 0.
This would be the 'baseline' rule. I've been leaning towards rerolls rather than a flat +1, but either one works.

I've been toying around with Phobos Armoured units being able to Advance and Charge or make an Advance move after firing. So far it hasn't seemed too crazy but we're still in the early stages really..


Our goal was to provide an army wide buff that was uniform. If you start getting into AP -2 giving a +2 or something like that, it got more complicated.

In our recent discussion, we all agreed that Chaos marines should be S5 T5 to represent "the empowerment of warp" running through their bodies and to compensate their remaining at 1 wound. But we've not tested that yet.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Togusa wrote:

Our goal was to provide an army wide buff that was uniform. If you start getting into AP -2 giving a +2 or something like that, it got more complicated.

It's still an "armywide buff " that has fairly uniform effects, it just has varying levels associated with it. This is where Keywords come into play.

In our recent discussion, we all agreed that Chaos marines should be S5 T5 to represent "the empowerment of warp" running through their bodies and to compensate their remaining at 1 wound. But we've not tested that yet.

They've recently added T5 to Obliterators and Havocs to represent exactly this.

I'd argue that something like your suggestion could be tied to VoTLW. I don't see Red Corsairs or recently turned Renegades having that "Empowerment of the Warp".

Remember that non-Primaris have stayed at 1W. That bonus 1W is supposed to represent the Belisarian Furnace, something that lets a Primaris fight even when he should be dead.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/26 17:28:26


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





United States

 Kanluwen wrote:
 Togusa wrote:

Our goal was to provide an army wide buff that was uniform. If you start getting into AP -2 giving a +2 or something like that, it got more complicated.

It's still an "armywide buff " that has fairly uniform effects, it just has varying levels associated with it. This is where Keywords come into play.

In our recent discussion, we all agreed that Chaos marines should be S5 T5 to represent "the empowerment of warp" running through their bodies and to compensate their remaining at 1 wound. But we've not tested that yet.

They've recently added T5 to Obliterators and Havocs to represent exactly this.

I'd argue that something like your suggestion could be tied to VoTLW. I don't see Red Corsairs or recently turned Renegades having that "Empowerment of the Warp".

Remember that non-Primaris have stayed at 1W. That bonus 1W is supposed to represent the Belisarian Furnace, something that lets a Primaris fight even when he should be dead.


Well, Veterans of the Long War should be an inbuilt ability, like And they Shall Know no Fear, tbh. Again, we're trying to keep the game uniform and simple. When you start getting into semantics about renagades vs. legions and stuff, that's just extra complicated nonsense. Chaos marines is chaos marines.

We don't want the Black Legion player having a rule on his squad of Chaos marines, that Crimson Slaughter for some reason, running the exact same models don't have. This gets into that territory about marines forgetting their chapter tactics when they sit in the driver seat of a Predator, but the eldar pilot is perfectly fine with his -1 to hit skillz and his spiffy Fireprism.

One of the things we like about 8th is that it is dirt simple, all of the keywords and stuff we saw in seventh with units having 8-9 different rules stacked with buffs is gone in favor of a much simpler and enjoyable game. That said, we can build the data sheets back up to an acceptable level., adding some bloat without making it inconsistent bloat.

Heck, remember 7th edition "crack shot?" It had three completely different rules depending on what faction was using it! Confusion abounds.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/03/26 19:37:56


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Marines are costed like premium army when they clearly do not function nor play as one. Many debates/arguments have already been presented backed up with math.

T4/Sv3+ is not as fancy as many of you would argue. It's only a minor upgrade from the current baseline of T3/Sv5+ because of how AP system works and how it soft caps beyond 7+. Because of the power scale of the game where it's based on the two ends of the power spectrum that is the humble guardsmen and the might knights, we are more or less required to bring in the heavy guns to deal with the upper spectrum of the power scale. But as evidently pointed out numerous times, there are diminishing returns on the opportunity cost of optional weapon upgrades when they are used against the current baseline (i.e. T3/Sv5+), but increasing returns when used on the non-big-things the said weapons are supposedly designed to be used against.

"But marines can get 2+ Save if they hug a terrain! It must surely be costed accordingly!" Well here's the catch - terrain is board element that either side can take advantage of. Why should marines pay for the benefits in THEIR cost when no one else is? Taking advantage of terrain is one of the only remaining tactics in the game and no one side should be paying extra just because [REASONS]. That's like saying "oh you have a bigger nose than mine so you have to pay extra tax for the air, but I don't have to pay anything extra because my nose is smaller."

You have to recognize that 1. Sv doesn't carry the same value as it once did, 2. We cannot apply the same logic of power scale as before because it has shifted.

The difference between T3 to T4 vs T3 to T5 is just simply too much to justify the current cost of T4 models.

The point cost system needs to take on a bracketed increments similar to how taxes work. T4 and below needs to stay on the same bracket, T5 on another, T6-T7 on another and T8 on another. The current system does not recognize the breaking points of the T values as currently implemented.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/26 21:13:16


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 skchsan wrote:
Marines are costed like premium army when they clearly do not function nor play as one. Many debates/arguments have already been presented backed up with math.

T4/Sv3+ is not as fancy as many of you would argue. It's only a minor upgrade from the current baseline of T3/Sv5+ because of how AP system works and how it soft caps beyond 7+. Because of the power scale of the game where it's based on the two ends of the power spectrum that is the humble guardsmen and the might knights, we are more or less required to bring in the heavy guns to deal with the upper spectrum of the power scale. But as evidently pointed out numerous times, there are diminishing returns on the opportunity cost of optional weapon upgrades when they are used against the current baseline (i.e. T3/Sv5+), but increasing returns when used on the non-big-things the said weapons are supposedly designed to be used against.

"But marines can get 2+ Save if they hug a terrain! It must surely be costed accordingly!" Well here's the catch - terrain is board element that either side can take advantage of. Why should marines pay for the benefits in THEIR cost when no one else is? Taking advantage of terrain is one of the only remaining tactics in the game and no one side should be paying extra just because [REASONS]. That's like saying "oh you have a bigger nose than mine so you have to pay extra tax for the air, but I don't have to pay anything extra because my nose is smaller."

You have to recognize that 1. Sv doesn't carry the same value as it once did, 2. We cannot apply the same logic of power scale as before because it has shifted.

The difference between T3 to T4 vs T3 to T5 is just simply too much to justify the current cost of T4 models.

The point cost system needs to take on a bracketed increments similar to how taxes work. T4 and below needs to stay on the same bracket, T5 on another, T6-T7 on another and T8 on another. The current system does not recognize the breaking points of the T values as currently implemented.


So, you're saying that T4 models should be costed the same as T3 models?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Togusa wrote:

Well, Veterans of the Long War should be an inbuilt ability, like And they Shall Know no Fear, tbh. Again, we're trying to keep the game uniform and simple. When you start getting into semantics about renagades vs. legions and stuff, that's just extra complicated nonsense. Chaos marines is chaos marines.

The problem is that while ATSKNF is an inbuilt ability that everyone has...not everyone is a VoTLW.

Now, if you want to argue that Legion Traits should include VoTLW while Renegade ones have something else? Cool.

We don't want the Black Legion player having a rule on his squad of Chaos marines, that Crimson Slaughter for some reason, running the exact same models don't have. This gets into that territory about marines forgetting their chapter tactics when they sit in the driver seat of a Predator, but the eldar pilot is perfectly fine with his -1 to hit skillz and his spiffy Fireprism.

It really doesn't go into the same territory. I get what you're trying to say(that some factions receive benefits from their <> traits on everything and some don't) but it really isn't a comparable situation.

And it is worth mentioning that the whole thing about Marines not getting CTs for vehicles while Aeldari do has been done basically to death at this point. Marines didn't get it. We know, and it sucks.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 JNAProductions wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Marines are costed like premium army when they clearly do not function nor play as one. Many debates/arguments have already been presented backed up with math.

T4/Sv3+ is not as fancy as many of you would argue. It's only a minor upgrade from the current baseline of T3/Sv5+ because of how AP system works and how it soft caps beyond 7+. Because of the power scale of the game where it's based on the two ends of the power spectrum that is the humble guardsmen and the might knights, we are more or less required to bring in the heavy guns to deal with the upper spectrum of the power scale. But as evidently pointed out numerous times, there are diminishing returns on the opportunity cost of optional weapon upgrades when they are used against the current baseline (i.e. T3/Sv5+), but increasing returns when used on the non-big-things the said weapons are supposedly designed to be used against.

"But marines can get 2+ Save if they hug a terrain! It must surely be costed accordingly!" Well here's the catch - terrain is board element that either side can take advantage of. Why should marines pay for the benefits in THEIR cost when no one else is? Taking advantage of terrain is one of the only remaining tactics in the game and no one side should be paying extra just because [REASONS]. That's like saying "oh you have a bigger nose than mine so you have to pay extra tax for the air, but I don't have to pay anything extra because my nose is smaller."

You have to recognize that 1. Sv doesn't carry the same value as it once did, 2. We cannot apply the same logic of power scale as before because it has shifted.

The difference between T3 to T4 vs T3 to T5 is just simply too much to justify the current cost of T4 models.

The point cost system needs to take on a bracketed increments similar to how taxes work. T4 and below needs to stay on the same bracket, T5 on another, T6-T7 on another and T8 on another. The current system does not recognize the breaking points of the T values as currently implemented.


So, you're saying that T4 models should be costed the same as T3 models?
No T1-T4 has linear rate of increase in points and not the exponential increase that it is now.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





There are no T1 units I know of.

There are T2, T3, and T4.

You can know the points disparity between T2 and T3, and between T3 and T4.

Two datapoints can't be exponential - it can be 100% defined by a line.

You could say that the disparity between the job from T2 to T3 and T3 to T4 is high, but there's no series to compare it against. It's just a constant variance between two points.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Gw overvalues durability, but its nowhere near as bad as your making it out to be. Tac marines need to drop 1 or 2 points. No more.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Marines need a jury rigged quad lasgun to replace their bolters to make marines better.

They also need a rule to increase the amounts of attacks they get.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/27 04:24:07


In the Grimdark future of DerpHammer40k, there are only dank memes! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: