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.
"Their transports are slow, have no fire points, and not being able to disembark after moving makes them very reactionary. They also cost so much that it's rarely worth paying their cost to deliver any of the squads Marines can actually put inside of them."
Slow compared to what? Eldar? We're not going to get Eldar speeds for Rhinos, and we shouldn't. Otherwise we have a transport Flyer, which is insanely fast. We also have Drop Pods, which are instant delivery, and you disembark after delivery. Are they too expensive? Many say yes. I say Rhinos and Pods are cheaper than many options in other codexes.
Their damage focused vehicles are punished if they move because they almost exclusively have heavy weapons. This especially hurts attack bikes and landspeeders, as they are designed to be rapidly moving into position with short range heavy weapons like multi-meltas. Their actual tank vehicles also get shut down very easily in close combat.
Same as most factions. Vypers and War Walkers suffer the same penalties for moving when armed with anything other than Shuriken Cannons. Guard Tanks also get shut down easily via close combat. Welcome to 8th ed.
"For their troops, they have to choose between static heavy weapons or short range special weapons to actually start doing damage, but don't have the mobility to get into range with the special weapons, and the heavy weapons are too focused on 1 shot D6 damage to effectively get past enemy invul saves. They also cost too much. "
Moving is only a -1 to hit, and we have easier access to mass re-rolls than anyone else. Buck up and move if you need to. Assault Cannons, Heavy Bolters, Grav Cannons and Plasma Cannons all have multiple shots. The Space Marine armory is larger than any other faction, too. Saying that we're limited to one shot heavy weapons is nonsense.
"Defensively, the more aspects of enemy guns you can ignore, the better you are. Having a 6+ armor save means you ignore a lot of the AP on enemy guns. Having an invul save means you ignore AP. Having FNP means you ignore damage and mortal wounds.
In general, most Marine units don't ignore the damage stats of enemy weapons at all, so when you shoot at them you are getting the full use of your firepower."
If you use basic marines, you bypass the benefits multiple damage weapons.
"This goes for their tanks as well. It isn't a coincidence the best marine vehicle, the Leviathan dreadnought, has a 4++, which flat out ignores any AP over -1. Everything else just dies too easily."
The Leviathan has a 2+ save, and so ignores AP beyond -2. Marines in cover have a 5+ against AP-3. Dark Reapers only have AP -2, and shooting weapons beyond a -3 are pretty rare.
"Because of all this, Marines need to either get significant rules buffs and new abilities, or they need to get much cheaper. Until that happens they aren't going to be able to compete with armies that have wide spread invuls, negatives to hit, FNP, masses of bodies, the fly keyword, smite spam, and high mobility. Right now they aren't actually GOOD at anything, and pay for durability that isn't real. "
Basic Marines can get negatives to hit (Raven Guard), or Fly-Lite (Ultramarines). Their access to massed re-rolls is better than any other army, and their re-rolls come on the most customize-able heroes of any army.
Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate that someone is able to be optimistic about Marines. I've been playing almost pure codex Marines this whole edition and don't really have any intention to stop, as it's the army I own and enjoy modeling, so I am also trying to make the most of the faction.
In response:
The issue with Marines is much more than just one data point. It's the overwhelming combination of factors that make classic Marine units inferior to pretty much any other faction.
For example, its fine to look at the rhino in a vacuum and think it's not that bad. It actually is pretty good at some things. It's fairly durable, for one. It actually works okay in chaos lists, where you can put zerkers in it and rush up the table, since they are actually dangerous enough to be worth the cost invested in getting them into position. Rhinos are also fairly good at taking up space in the board to deny deepstrike, and pretty good at locking up shooty targets and denying overwatch for other units in the charge phase. I frequently used 1-2 rhinos in lists. I own 12 of them (oh 5 edition...).
However, in an 8th edition non chaos marine army, there aren't really any units worth putting in a rhino. A rhino is 72 points. Two 5 man tac squads with plasma inside bring it to 253 points. In order for those tacs to do anything, the rhino has to move forward, wait a full turn, and then they can get out and start being useful. During that turn the enemy player can react in a number of different ways from moving away out of the marine's range to surrounding to rhino in Melee. This always leaves the marine player reacting to what the other players actions, which is never what you want.
Compared to previous editions where the contents of the rhino could disembark after the movement, or at least shoot a few guns out the top hatch, this is much too slow, and locks up too many points in inaction. Plus, when they do finally get to get out and be useful, those 2 tac squads don't typically do enough damage or take enough damage to be worth everything that was just invested, which is 250+ points and at least 1 turn of doing little to nothing. The previously mentioned zerkers at least are likely to utterly delete something, but it just doesn't work for most other Marine based armies.
As for the tanks and heavy weapons, I don't know how many war walkers or vypers we see in competitive lists, so it sounds like they probably suffer from the same issues. 8th edition, particularly the ITC mission meta, is dominated by mobility. Effective units must be able to to get into position and deal effective damage. If a unit only has heavy weapons, but moving into range has too much of a penalty (like the current 25% reduction in damage), then those units just stop being viable. Land speeders and attack bikes are the most obvious examples of this. I don't know the last time I've seen them played.
As for being locked up in combat, I think it's a mistake to compare space marine vehicles to guard vehicles because the two armies have such different playstyles. It's not unreasonable to expect that guard should be able to bubble wrap their tanks with chaff infantry. It's practically impossible to do this with space Marines. Many guard vehicles also rely on their range to effective, whereas many space marine vehicles seem intended to be closer to the front (razorbacks, landraiders, etc). A ranged gunline in the back of the board having the weakness of being locked in combat, and having the ability to defend against that sort of thing with cheap bubble wrap, is much different than an army that uses short range firepower forward battle tanks and elite infantry not being able to afford getting locked in combat. The viable tanks IG do have that move forward are hellhounds, which are somewhat resistant to charges due to their excellent overwatch. Chimeras aren't seen too much for similar reasons that rhinos aren't.
As for invuls, cover, and so on: my mistake about the Leviathan, yes the 2++ helps it significantly as well. Generally, though, las cannons, meltas, grav, plasma, and a myriad of different weapons all have AP 3 or better. These weapons should be and are good against most imperial vehicles because they don't have invul saves. They falter against vehicles with invul saves, since they rely somewhat significantly on their AP to get their low number of shots through to do damage.
This is exacerbated by the frequency of -1 or better to hit abilities. They hurt single shot high AP high damage weapons because they typically rely on decent BS to get their hits. Re-rolls also don't help much against negatives to hit because of the re-rolls before negatives order of opperations. FNP at least effects most weapons evenly.
This makes the armies with lots of invuls and negatives to hit the best defensively, and armies with high rate of fire medium AP guns, or mortal wounds effective defensively. The dark reapers only having AP2 it's fine, because of how many invuls are out there on the good units. Always hitting on 3s is also amazing. They are actually an example of exactly what I'm talking about.
As for cover, a lot of the time you just can't count on having it, especially with vehicles. It is good when you can get it though, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
Just because ravenguard and ultramarines get access to abilities that are useful doesn't mean the above issues are nullified. Does -1 to hit help ravenguard? Sure. But it really only effects dreads and devastators, plus whatever other footslogging objective holding Marines you might have. Is the ultramarine tactic useful? Of course. It's especially useful against but assaults intended to tie up multiple shooting units. But, because Marines are typically incentivised to form small squads, so they frequently die when they get into combat with anything mildly scary, and can also sometimes get trapped in combat by enemy positioning. So the tactic is a nice perk, but it doesn't fix Marines. The same goes for pretty much all of the chapter tactics. You'd pretty much have to let Marines use all 7 chapter tactics at once to have them start making up for the rest of their issues.
The re-rolls Marines have are good as well. I have issues with Roboute's aura, as it buffs weak weapons much more than strong ones, but that's a sperate issue. But again just because they have some good qualities doesn't mean they have no bad ones.
In order to compete in the current state of the game, Marines need a number of things. This doesn't seem debatable to me, given tournement showings and the general consensus of the community.
If Marines are supposed to be the generalist army, with all around effective shooting, melee, mobility, etc, they need their durability, flexibility, and ability to opperate with tenacity and flexibility increased.
I think if it were up to me, id consider something like the changes below. Maybe not all of them at once, and points would definitely have to move around here and there, but to me the marine issue is less one of simple points cost issues and more of not having the abilities needed to opperate in 8th edition. To me these changes are more about making Marines feel like Marines, and be fun and interesting to play again, than just making them competitive. Obviously it's mostly foolish wish listing.
So here goes:
Spoiler:
First I'd make a few game wide changes:
1. Heavy weapon movement penalties only effect infantry. Why put them on vehicles if not to offer effective mobility.
2. All <vehicle> units can fall back and still shoot at -1 BS. <Fly> units can shoot normally. Fly can be better (as if the movement abilities aren't enough), but it doesn't need to be night and day.
3. CP generation is based on the number of points spent on troops and HQs, not generated from detachments. Perhaps 1CP per 100 points. Certain units or armies like knights could have special rules giving them extra CP as needed.
4. Change the deepstrike restriction to 25% of the points level, but let it happen during any turn. Deepstrike should be powerful but not overwhelming.
5. All strategems that let a unit deploy 9" away from the opponent on the first turn should be limited to 1 use per game. It's just not fun to have your opponent set up large multible units of aggressors, electropriests, zerkers, cultists, and so on with little to no counterplay other than who gets the first turn.
6. No unit can ever benefit from more than one -1 to hit modifier they give themselves. 1 is really bad enough. The exception to this would be negative to hit modifiers the firing unit gives itself by moving with heavy weapons and so on, and these also cap out at 1, for a max of -2 if you have yourself a penalty, and the target also gives you one.
7. Shooting attacks always hit on a 6 regardless of the modifier.
For Marines specifically:
1. Everything in the codex should ignore the first point of AP that effects their armor. So they always get a their save against anything worse than AP2. This wouldn't effect cover, so a heavy bolter against a marine in cover would still save on a 3+ since it didn't reduce their actual armor save. AP2 against a marine in cover would also save on a 3+ since the cover would be ignored and the first point of AP would be ignored. This notably doesn't make them any more durable against weapons without an AP value, but helps them stick around against heavier guns. This gives marines reasonable durability without making them heavy infantry or require D2 weapons to remove.
2. ATSKNF gets the ultramarine chapter tactic added into it. This let's all marine units fall out of combats they don't want to be in and still shoot.
3. All Marines with 1 attack should be bumped up to 2. This makes up for the loss of the attack they used to gain from charging and makes them fairly effective in close combat against typical troop units of similar cost.
4. Rhinos should have 2 fire points. There should also be a universal rhino 1 point strategem to let a squad disembark and still shoot from a rhino after it moved.
5. Bolters and chainswords gain AP1. Remember that Marines would mostly ignore this AP. It would help them chew through some tougher targets, and give them a slight increase to damage against light infantry (remember that the worse your armor save, the less they are bothered by enemy AP).
6. OC plasma gets a nerf / buff: it causes one mortal wound to the bearing model on any roll of an unmodified roll 1 to hit, whether it gets rerolled or not. Each shot can only cause one mortal wound, so if you do roll a 1 and then reroll to another 1, you still only take 1 MW. This makes Plasma more dangerous to single wound infantry but doesn't nerf its power. It also makes Terminator, hellblaster, and vehicle durability count for something as a plasma platform.
7. Melta and Las get a special rule causing them to never do less than 3 damage. It's worth noting that this only bumps the average damage from 3.5 to 4, but makes them much more consistent and satisfying when it does get through invuls.
8. Drop pods should have to be 9" away from the enemy, but the guys shouldn't have that limitation when they disembark. If you pay that much for a pod, you should be able to use your flamers and assault easier. Otherwise why buy a pod? If you think this is overpowered then look at what units like bloodletters can do the turn they come in.
9. Land raiders should be able to disembark their contents after moving. The units should then be able to shoot and charge.
10. Smoke launchers should be something you activate at the beginning of your opponents shooting phase, once a game. Choosing between shooting and smoke is a non choice 99% of the time. Makes smoke launchers actually useful.
11. Killshot, line breaker bombardment, and empyric channeling change to only require 2 of the units, but line breaker only does 2D3 if you use two tanks and 3D3 for three.
12. Honor guard, company vets, terminators of all types, vanguard Vets, sternguard, and the similar versions of vets other Marine books have all get BS2+/WS2+.
13. Apothecaries should be able to grant 1 unit within 6" with a 5+ FNP in addition to what they do now.
14. Vindicators should have 3 shots, +1D3 for every 5 models in the unit.
15. Chaplains should cause units to reroll all wounds in close combat instead of hits. This might make them actually worth taking. And doesn't invalidate captains.
16. Flamer weapons need to do 2d6 hits vs units over with over 5 models.
17. Gravguns should be assault 2 and all grav weapons should wound all vehicles and monsters on a 4+.
Finally, chapter tactics need a rework. Obviously they need to also effect vehicles. They also all need to be worth taking. My ideas here might not be as polished as some of these others.
A. Ultramarines can auto pass leadership tests, and overwatch on a 5+. Their strategem should change to allow a unit to fire twice. I would nerf Roboute, though, so that his aura no longer grants re-rolls to anyone but himself. He then no longer removes the need to for captains, Calgar, chapter masters, and LTs. He can then drop by about 100 points and just be a close combat god.
B. White scars should treat rapid fire weapons like assault weapons with half the range but double the shots (so a bolter becomes assault 2, 12"), in addition to their current bonuses. Their vehicles would treat all heavy weapons as assault weapons.
C. Imperial fists should gain +2 to their saves when they are in cover instead of +1, and their vehicles should only need to be 25% obscured to get cover. They lose all of their current bonuses.
D. Black Templars gain have a 4+ save mortal wounds, and reroll their charges.
E. Salanders keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
F. Ravenguard keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
G. Iron hands get an army wide +1T. Their strat changes to let them use 5+ FNP for 1 unit that turn.
I'm making no effort to twist out of my stance, nor am I intending to move goal posts. I apologize if that seems to be the case.
I think I'm taking a firmer stance that a TAC Marine army can run a 33% chance to win against anything. I likely should have said a Marine TAC army has at least a 33% chance to against another TAC army.
If you take 10 games, and lose 1 more than half, you wind up with a 40% win rate. If you take 20 games and lose one more than half, you get a 45% win rate. It may sound like a large percentage, but one win +/- shifts things an awful lot unless you're playing 50 or more games in a year.
If you flip a coin 10 times, you're unlikely to get an even distribution of 5/5. You're more likely to get (6/4 or 4/6) then you are to get 5/5. That's just probability.
I'm taking a stance against the impression that because Marines aren't the best at "something" then they are trash tier. Marines haven't been, with the exception of 7th's Gladius style detachments, the Best at something. They've always been second best at many things. This continues today. The Marines have a leg up and a leg down on all armies. Sometimes it's left leg up, right down, sometimes right up, left down... sometimes front legs up rear legs down... Depends how many legs the beast has in the analogy.
But if you try to always play the Marines as a left leg up, you'll find other armies have a higher left leg. So if you don't play to the right leg up strategy, you'll lose. So many leg analogies. I'm starting to feel like a one-legged man at a donkey kicking contest.
First I'd make a few game wide changes:
1. Heavy weapon movement penalties only effect infantry. Why put them on vehicles if not to offer effective mobility.
2. All <vehicle> units can fall back and still shoot at -1 BS. <Fly> units can shoot normally. Fly can be better (as if the movement abilities aren't enough), but it doesn't need to be night and day.
3. CP generation is based on the number of points spent on troops and HQs, not generated from detachments. Perhaps 1CP per 100 points. Certain units or armies like knights could have special rules giving them extra CP as needed.
4. Change the deepstrike restriction to 25% of the points level, but let it happen during any turn. Deepstrike should be powerful but not overwhelming.
5. All strategems that let a unit deploy 9" away from the opponent on the first turn should be limited to 1 use per game. It's just not fun to have your opponent set up large multible units of aggressors, electropriests, zerkers, cultists, and so on with little to no counterplay other than who gets the first turn.
6. No unit can ever benefit from more than one -1 to hit modifier they give themselves. 1 is really bad enough. The exception to this would be negative to hit modifiers the firing unit gives itself by moving with heavy weapons and so on, and these also cap out at 1, for a max of -2 if you have yourself a penalty, and the target also gives you one.
7. Shooting attacks always hit on a 6 regardless of the modifier.
These aren't bad. Except for the change to CP generation, that will re-introduce unit spam armies.
For Marines specifically:
1. Everything in the codex should ignore the first point of AP that effects their armor. So they always get a their save against anything worse than AP2. This wouldn't effect cover, so a heavy bolter against a marine in cover would still save on a 3+ since it didn't reduce their actual armor save. AP2 against a marine in cover would also save on a 3+ since the cover would be ignored and the first point of AP would be ignored. This notably doesn't make them any more durable against weapons without an AP value, but helps them stick around against heavier guns. This gives marines reasonable durability without making them heavy infantry or require D2 weapons to remove.
Just *this* by itself would be enough to 'fix' marines, but the rest is a little...
2. ATSKNF gets the ultramarine chapter tactic added into it. This let's all marine units fall out of combats they don't want to be in and still shoot.
No. Just no. Already melee based armies suffer because of 'ez mode' retreat, lets not make it even worse.
3. All Marines with 1 attack should be bumped up to 2. This makes up for the loss of the attack they used to gain from charging and makes them fairly effective in close combat against typical troop units of similar cost.
Congratulations, your base marine (with chainsaw) now has as many attacks as an Ork boy, and space wolves are now running an army of heavily armored (but accurate) orks.
4. Rhinos should have 2 fire points. There should also be a universal rhino 1 point strategem to let a squad disembark and still shoot from a rhino after it moved.
MSU Devastators squad with 2 lascannons in Rhinos anyone?
5. Bolters and chainswords gain AP1. Remember that Marines would mostly ignore this AP. It would help them chew through some tougher targets, and give them a slight increase to damage against light infantry (remember that the worse your armor save, the less they are bothered by enemy AP).
Not only do they now attack like Orks, they now have more AP than most melee! Lets complain about marines being weak when it comes to armour saves being reduced - and then follow it up by introducing extra -AP on the majority of guns. I'm guessing Stormbolters will have this too?
6. OC plasma gets a nerf / buff: it causes one mortal wound to the bearing model on any roll of an unmodified roll 1 to hit, whether it gets rerolled or not. Each shot can only cause one mortal wound, so if you do roll a 1 and then reroll to another 1, you still only take 1 MW. This makes Plasma more dangerous to single wound infantry but doesn't nerf its power. It also makes Terminator, hellblaster, and vehicle durability count for something as a plasma platform.
No. Hellblasters are great enough as it is. Only thing Plasma needs is a if <Character> is firing this, deal 1 mortal wound instead
7. Melta and Las get a special rule causing them to never do less than 3 damage. It's worth noting that this only bumps the average damage from 3.5 to 4, but makes them much more consistent and satisfying when it does get through invuls.
Melta yes, las no.
8. Drop pods should have to be 9" away from the enemy, but the guys shouldn't have that limitation when they disembark. If you pay that much for a pod, you should be able to use your flamers and assault easier. Otherwise why buy a pod? If you think this is overpowered then look at what units like bloodletters can do the turn they come in.
No. Just no. a 6" charge range on turn one? Did you even think this through? You were *just* talking about deepstrike alphas and yet you re-introduce it with 3 Attack AP -1 assault marine alpha strikes
9. Land raiders should be able to disembark their contents after moving. The units should then be able to shoot and charge.
An upgrade with a point cost? Most heavy transports should have this.
10. Smoke launchers should be something you activate at the beginning of your opponents shooting phase, once a game. Choosing between shooting and smoke is a non choice 99% of the time. Makes smoke launchers actually useful.
No, it removes strategy and just becomes 'bait out the smoke launcher'
11. Killshot, line breaker bombardment, and empyric channeling change to only require 2 of the units, but line breaker only does 2D3 if you use two tanks and 3D3 for three.
Agreed, this should be a global change for all stratagems that require X units.
12. Honor guard, company vets, terminators of all types, vanguard Vets, sternguard, and the similar versions of vets other Marine books have all get BS2+/WS2+.
No. Another thoughtless change - we do NOT need more 2+ to hit, reroll 1's nonsense in the game.
13. Apothecaries should be able to grant 1 unit within 6" with a 5+ FNP in addition to what they do now.
Now better than their Ork counterpart, for less points and higher armour.
14. Vindicators should have 3 shots, +1D3 for every 5 models in the unit.
15. Chaplains should cause units to reroll all wounds in close combat instead of hits. This might make them actually worth taking. And doesn't invalidate captains.
Why not give them something unique that isn't a boring copy paste ability
16. Flamer weapons need to do 2d6 hits vs units over with over 5 models.
Yes. But with your 6" deepstrike suggestion up above this will be broken.
17. Gravguns should be assault 2 and all grav weapons should wound all vehicles and monsters on a 4+.
What's this change for?
And here below are the worst of the changes:
Finally, chapter tactics need a rework. Obviously they need to also effect vehicles. They also all need to be worth taking. My ideas here might not be as polished as some of these others.
A. Ultramarines can auto pass leadership tests, and overwatch on a 5+. Their strategem should change to allow a unit to fire twice. I would nerf Roboute, though, so that his aura no longer grants re-rolls to anyone but himself. He then no longer removes the need to for captains, Calgar, chapter masters, and LTs. He can then drop by about 100 points and just be a close combat god.
So your marine now attacks better in melee than an Ork, has higher AP than every other MSU in the game - IGNORES leadership and Overwatches as well as a dire avenger?
B. White scars should treat rapid fire weapons like assault weapons with half the range but double the shots (so a bolter becomes assault 2, 12"), in addition to their current bonuses. Their vehicles would treat all heavy weapons as assault weapons.
Surprisingly a sane suggestion
C. Imperial fists should gain +2 to their saves when they are in cover instead of +1, and their vehicles should only need to be 25% obscured to get cover. They lose all of their current bonuses.
More 2+ camp in aura marines? Eh, no thanks. I'd rather see Imperial Fists given a 5+ invulnerable save.
D. Black Templars gain have a 4+ save mortal wounds, and reroll their charges.
So it makes Black Templars into Orks?
E. Salanders keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
F. Ravenguard keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
G. Iron hands get an army wide +1T. Their strat changes to let them use 5+ FNP for 1 unit that turn.
Congratulations,a free +1 Toughness is possibly the most egregious suggestion you have. This basically acts as a -1 to hit but for all MEQ weapons. While also reducing the effectiveness of ALL S8, S9 weapons.
Okay, I get you want to make marines stronger... but the majority of these changes are horrible and over the top. Not only are you buffing an army that already sees play by a LOT, all these changes you suggested would also HAVE to effect all the other snowflake marines too.
See the commentary in red
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 06:00:09
I'm making no effort to twist out of my stance, nor am I intending to move goal posts. I apologize if that seems to be the case.
I think I'm taking a firmer stance that a TAC Marine army can run a 33% chance to win against anything. I likely should have said a Marine TAC army has at least a 33% chance to against another TAC army.
If you take 10 games, and lose 1 more than half, you wind up with a 40% win rate. If you take 20 games and lose one more than half, you get a 45% win rate. It may sound like a large percentage, but one win +/- shifts things an awful lot unless you're playing 50 or more games in a year.
If you flip a coin 10 times, you're unlikely to get an even distribution of 5/5. You're more likely to get (6/4 or 4/6) then you are to get 5/5. That's just probability.
I'm taking a stance against the impression that because Marines aren't the best at "something" then they are trash tier. Marines haven't been, with the exception of 7th's Gladius style detachments, the Best at something. They've always been second best at many things. This continues today. The Marines have a leg up and a leg down on all armies. Sometimes it's left leg up, right down, sometimes right up, left down... sometimes front legs up rear legs down... Depends how many legs the beast has in the analogy.
But if you try to always play the Marines as a left leg up, you'll find other armies have a higher left leg. So if you don't play to the right leg up strategy, you'll lose. So many leg analogies. I'm starting to feel like a one-legged man at a donkey kicking contest.
See, that’s good in theory. In practice marines lift the right leg against someone with a big left leg and still lose. Your analogy assumes that the marines are efficient enough at alternate strategies to make them work. In reality they’re just an overcosted second rate shooty army with the occasional scary character*. (*character scariness varies by chapter.)
Not only that, but the game is point costed. You might have had somewhat of a point if marines got to have a sideboard or have some kind of list-tailor special rule, but what actually happens is that you go into the game locked in with what you have, so when your opponent’s list is hyper-focused on shooting, and you tried to take a balanced army so that you could have some good response units to any strategy, you end up in a situation where they just need to have their full list obliterate your few units that can put up a fight against them, and then they have effectively won.
The game design heavily rewards focused units and armies, as well as competitively priced offensive power. Marines in general have none of that. The reason we’re having constant “improve marines” threads all over the internet isn’t because a whole bunch of marine players suddenly forgot how to play. It’s because they’re slowly realizing that the army really is in a rough times right now.
Take a marine and compare him to the same points in guardsmen, kabalite warriors or fire warriors.
He is no tougher to kill with any weapons in the game - in fact he is often easier to kill, because there are specialised weapons that deal with 3+ saves while there are no goblin hewer style weapons with a special rule that shreds GEQ.
He is not better in assault, because 1 3+/S4 attack for 13 points is not good, and doesn't compare especially favourably with over 3 4+/S3 attacks, or even with 2 3+(2+)/4+ S3 attacks.
At the same time he is significantly worse at shooting - which is a shame, because this is his principle damage output rather than throwing a fist. Most troops choices do 160% to double the shooting damage of marines.
Having fewer bodies makes getting cover saves easier - which is a perk - but it is also means you find it harder to hold an objective with Ob Sec versus horde Ob Sec.
TL/DR for the same points, you just have an inferior article.
Now if he got free/efficient buffs that might change - but he doesn't. Way back when RG was considerably cheaper this was the case but it isn't now. Buffs are expensive and the chapter tactics aside from Raven Guard are not great. So tactical marines - or anything that is much the same as tactical marines - are out.
I still think Raven Guard Primaris can give a lot of armies a game - it isn't an auto lose by any means - but it isn't likely to go the distance in a tournament.
Insectum7 wrote: A predator can move a more meaningful distance and fire at the BS the Leman Russ starts with. A Leman Russ firing at full speed is really hurting. The Leman Russ is good at it's crawl, the Predator can dart around pretty nicely.
When you say "Battle Tanks", you are specifically overlooking the Land Raider. Being a higher PL doesn't make it not a "battle tank". And it's got machine spirit.
Requiring rerolls to function isn't really a sin. Necrons require ressurection protocalls to function. It's just the way that Space Marine "leading from the front" manifests itself this edition. An alternative if you don't like it is taking Salamanders CT which allows you to decentralize.
I would say that the Sicarian can dart around pretty nicely. Assault 8 guns. Eldars and Harlequins can dart around pretty nicely. The Predator can move around and peashoot if needed, but if you're moving your 48" guns to get into range, you're doing it wrong or you've already won.
I was focused on vechicles that had comparable costs and a similar battle role in their respective armies. And I actually mentioned the Land Raider and the Storm Raven in my previous post and said that they cost too much for what they offer. In PL terms is 10 more than all others vehicles. You said that you wanted a more apple to apple comparison with the Land Speeder vs Vyper example, so I stuck with it.
As I said in my post "IT'S FINE BY A DESIGN STANDPOINT". I like the idea. Supposely elite or semi elite armies should have more access to rerolls to balance out the weight of dice of horde armies. It's the point costs and execution of some things that leaves me baffled. I played with the Salamander tactics. MSU style, 0 vehicles, all heavy/special weapons decentralized. Efficiency of each single shot weapon got higher, but durability was just too low for my tastes, I prefer Ravenguard all hands down.
Oh and if you think that Necrons need reanimation protocols to work.... eh.. no.
I think I'm taking a firmer stance that a TAC Marine army can run a 33% chance to win against anything. I likely should have said a Marine TAC army has at least a 33% chance to against another TAC army.
I can read that also as "you'll lose 2/3 of the games you play". Which is not that great. What I said before with the 50% chance of winning is the ideal situation that any game should find itself in. Like the old Terran vs Protoss vs Zerg debacle. Which is best? According to Blizzard's own data, they all are between few points of the 50% of each other. That's a balanced game. 40k is not, so if you have to get out of yourself for a mere 33% chance as something good, it means that there is something wrong with the rules (and there is).
I'm taking a stance against the impression that because Marines aren't the best at "something" then they are trash tier. Marines haven't been, with the exception of 7th's Gladius style detachments, the Best at something. They've always been second best at many things. This continues today. The Marines have a leg up and a leg down on all armies.
This happens with other "bad" armies. When you go against the good ones, you rarely feel like you have a leg ahead and a leg down, but you have all down. In my gaming group we lack Tyranids (and their cults) and T'au, the rest is all present one form or another. That's my general impression of my common adversaries. And I always build TAC lists, I never tailor. Why? 'reasons.
Admech: They have 0 mobility except the infiltrating stratagem (same as RG one) and a couple of deepstriking units that rarely do something. Against them I feel pretty confident in my win because you can take out their main batteries, they are easy to kite around if you have superior speed on your side. I think I actually never lost against them. Even if the player seems to roll hot on every single dice. In this case, a leg behind in firepower, a leg up for movement I would say. Durability is somewhat similar due to all of their repairs and those kastelans.
Grey Knights: They can't do anything wortwhile. The dreadknight are fearsome, but SM have heavy weapons on their side. The player playing GK left them in the dust because he couldn't do anything with them after all the other codices arrived. Here equal footing in all aspect, above in the firepower department.
Chaos: Oh boy. They can compensate every weakness they have. Bodies? Cultists. Bodies that actually do something? Alpha legion for -1, prescience for +1hit, VOTLW for +1 wound. Suddently you have units of 20-30 marines with S4 or 5 weapons. Bodies that actually do something V2? Poxwalkers. Actual close combat unit that melts everything? Bersekers. Deep striking units that actually do something? Slaneesh Obliterators. Morale problems? Abaddon solves it. Big scary stuff? Demons. The good thing is that the player using chaos likes to mix and always brings different things and he rarely goes super competitive. All with the same codex mind you, even if he soups with Deathguard. But the feel I have with Marines is that I'm always figthing an uphill battle. On all fronts. I'm not more durable, not have more firepower, not better in melee, nor in mobility (warp time ). The only thing I can do is focus fire on the bigger threats with the most efficient weapon and pray for the dice gods. I don't have a single, tangible advantage.
Imperial Guard: easy win for me. Why? They should be top tier. Absolutely true. But the player playing them is abysmal. He is learning, the old guys are teaching him, but he has a weird approach to the game. He gets scared of dice rolls. If they fudge even once, his mind goes berserk and start doing weird things. My RG-1 helps a ton against him. As a fun fact, he plays catachan and I once tries to do the usual "move - shoot - charge" that Marines are famous for, I mean, they're guardsmen right how bad... well I lost squads. Never again. I once took its IG for a spin. I felt actually powerful in the dakka department. Didn't have any problems that made me think "I wish I was playing Space Marines instead".
Eldar ahahahahahahah. The good thing is that the Eldar player is busy and plays rarely. When he plays he tables us. All of us. A leg up? At least 2 legs down. In all departments. And he doesn't even field ynnary or super-super competitive lists. But when you have bikes with 4+ invuln and that with a move-shoot-charge pretty much clears any target from the table.... With them I fell like having a 0% chance of winning.
Imperial Knights The new hotness here. Everyone seems to be fielding either one or bases the army around them. As pure SM can't really do much. Can play for objectives and simply shoot everything at a single target at a time. The firepower is simply not there for SM. Once I lose the big guns it's all peashooting against them.
I still have to play against necrons, the player is still finishing building them.
So, in general, against bad armies, yeah I feel like I have a leg up and one below. Against the good ones? Not a chance. Mind this is all skewed by personal experience, but I feel like personal experience is what shapes us more than pure mathammering in a vacuum. Otherwise insectum would not be so defending of Marines otherwise.
Tyel wrote: I don't see how marines are generalists.
Take a marine and compare him to the same points in guardsmen, kabalite warriors or fire warriors.
He is no tougher to kill with any weapons in the game - in fact he is often easier to kill, because there are specialised weapons that deal with 3+ saves while there are no goblin hewer style weapons with a special rule that shreds GEQ.
He is not better in assault, because 1 3+/S4 attack for 13 points is not good, and doesn't compare especially favourably with over 3 4+/S3 attacks, or even with 2 3+(2+)/4+ S3 attacks.
At the same time he is significantly worse at shooting - which is a shame, because this is his principle damage output rather than throwing a fist. Most troops choices do 160% to double the shooting damage of marines.
Having fewer bodies makes getting cover saves easier - which is a perk - but it is also means you find it harder to hold an objective with Ob Sec versus horde Ob Sec.
TL/DR for the same points, you just have an inferior article.
Now if he got free/efficient buffs that might change - but he doesn't. Way back when RG was considerably cheaper this was the case but it isn't now. Buffs are expensive and the chapter tactics aside from Raven Guard are not great. So tactical marines - or anything that is much the same as tactical marines - are out.
I still think Raven Guard Primaris can give a lot of armies a game - it isn't an auto lose by any means - but it isn't likely to go the distance in a tournament.
To play devils advocate and argue for the other side a little here, I don't think anyone is saying that tactical marines are great generalists to be fair!
Tacticals are a pretty poor unit. I think the suggestion is that Marines as an army can be built as having at least one of above average shooting, above average durability, above average melee, or above average mobility.
I'm not sure we've really shown that to be true either, but I don't think there's any dispute that is NOT true when just looking at Tacticals!
Tyel wrote: I don't see how marines are generalists.
Take a marine and compare him to the same points in guardsmen, kabalite warriors or fire warriors.
He is no tougher to kill with any weapons in the game - in fact he is often easier to kill, because there are specialised weapons that deal with 3+ saves while there are no goblin hewer style weapons with a special rule that shreds GEQ.
He is not better in assault, because 1 3+/S4 attack for 13 points is not good, and doesn't compare especially favourably with over 3 4+/S3 attacks, or even with 2 3+(2+)/4+ S3 attacks.
At the same time he is significantly worse at shooting - which is a shame, because this is his principle damage output rather than throwing a fist. Most troops choices do 160% to double the shooting damage of marines.
Having fewer bodies makes getting cover saves easier - which is a perk - but it is also means you find it harder to hold an objective with Ob Sec versus horde Ob Sec.
TL/DR for the same points, you just have an inferior article.
Now if he got free/efficient buffs that might change - but he doesn't. Way back when RG was considerably cheaper this was the case but it isn't now. Buffs are expensive and the chapter tactics aside from Raven Guard are not great. So tactical marines - or anything that is much the same as tactical marines - are out.
I still think Raven Guard Primaris can give a lot of armies a game - it isn't an auto lose by any means - but it isn't likely to go the distance in a tournament.
To play devils advocate and argue for the other side a little here, I don't think anyone is saying that tactical marines are great generalists to be fair!
Tacticals are a pretty poor unit. I think the suggestion is that Marines as an army can be built as having at least one of above average shooting, above average durability, above average melee, or above average mobility.
I'm not sure we've really shown that to be true either, but I don't think there's any dispute that is NOT true when just looking at Tacticals!
There are actually people on Dakka that swear tacticals are one of the better if not best units in the game. *holds flashlight to face as if telling a horror story.*
First I'd make a few game wide changes:
1. Heavy weapon movement penalties only effect infantry. Why put them on vehicles if not to offer effective mobility.
2. All <vehicle> units can fall back and still shoot at -1 BS. <Fly> units can shoot normally. Fly can be better (as if the movement abilities aren't enough), but it doesn't need to be night and day.
3. CP generation is based on the number of points spent on troops and HQs, not generated from detachments. Perhaps 1CP per 100 points. Certain units or armies like knights could have special rules giving them extra CP as needed.
4. Change the deepstrike restriction to 25% of the points level, but let it happen during any turn. Deepstrike should be powerful but not overwhelming.
5. All strategems that let a unit deploy 9" away from the opponent on the first turn should be limited to 1 use per game. It's just not fun to have your opponent set up large multible units of aggressors, electropriests, zerkers, cultists, and so on with little to no counterplay other than who gets the first turn.
6. No unit can ever benefit from more than one -1 to hit modifier they give themselves. 1 is really bad enough. The exception to this would be negative to hit modifiers the firing unit gives itself by moving with heavy weapons and so on, and these also cap out at 1, for a max of -2 if you have yourself a penalty, and the target also gives you one.
7. Shooting attacks always hit on a 6 regardless of the modifier.
These aren't bad. Except for the change to CP generation, that will re-introduce unit spam armies.
For Marines specifically:
1. Everything in the codex should ignore the first point of AP that effects their armor. So they always get a their save against anything worse than AP2. This wouldn't effect cover, so a heavy bolter against a marine in cover would still save on a 3+ since it didn't reduce their actual armor save. AP2 against a marine in cover would also save on a 3+ since the cover would be ignored and the first point of AP would be ignored. This notably doesn't make them any more durable against weapons without an AP value, but helps them stick around against heavier guns. This gives marines reasonable durability without making them heavy infantry or require D2 weapons to remove.
Just *this* by itself would be enough to 'fix' marines, but the rest is a little...
2. ATSKNF gets the ultramarine chapter tactic added into it. This let's all marine units fall out of combats they don't want to be in and still shoot.
No. Just no. Already melee based armies suffer because of 'ez mode' retreat, lets not make it even worse.
3. All Marines with 1 attack should be bumped up to 2. This makes up for the loss of the attack they used to gain from charging and makes them fairly effective in close combat against typical troop units of similar cost.
Congratulations, your base marine (with chainsaw) now has as many attacks as an Ork boy, and space wolves are now running an army of heavily armored (but accurate) orks.
4. Rhinos should have 2 fire points. There should also be a universal rhino 1 point strategem to let a squad disembark and still shoot from a rhino after it moved.
MSU Devastators squad with 2 lascannons in Rhinos anyone?
5. Bolters and chainswords gain AP1. Remember that Marines would mostly ignore this AP. It would help them chew through some tougher targets, and give them a slight increase to damage against light infantry (remember that the worse your armor save, the less they are bothered by enemy AP).
Not only do they now attack like Orks, they now have more AP than most melee! Lets complain about marines being weak when it comes to armour saves being reduced - and then follow it up by introducing extra -AP on the majority of guns. I'm guessing Stormbolters will have this too?
6. OC plasma gets a nerf / buff: it causes one mortal wound to the bearing model on any roll of an unmodified roll 1 to hit, whether it gets rerolled or not. Each shot can only cause one mortal wound, so if you do roll a 1 and then reroll to another 1, you still only take 1 MW. This makes Plasma more dangerous to single wound infantry but doesn't nerf its power. It also makes Terminator, hellblaster, and vehicle durability count for something as a plasma platform.
No. Hellblasters are great enough as it is. Only thing Plasma needs is a if <Character> is firing this, deal 1 mortal wound instead
7. Melta and Las get a special rule causing them to never do less than 3 damage. It's worth noting that this only bumps the average damage from 3.5 to 4, but makes them much more consistent and satisfying when it does get through invuls.
Melta yes, las no.
8. Drop pods should have to be 9" away from the enemy, but the guys shouldn't have that limitation when they disembark. If you pay that much for a pod, you should be able to use your flamers and assault easier. Otherwise why buy a pod? If you think this is overpowered then look at what units like bloodletters can do the turn they come in.
No. Just no. a 6" charge range on turn one? Did you even think this through? You were *just* talking about deepstrike alphas and yet you re-introduce it with 3 Attack AP -1 assault marine alpha strikes
9. Land raiders should be able to disembark their contents after moving. The units should then be able to shoot and charge.
An upgrade with a point cost? Most heavy transports should have this.
10. Smoke launchers should be something you activate at the beginning of your opponents shooting phase, once a game. Choosing between shooting and smoke is a non choice 99% of the time. Makes smoke launchers actually useful.
No, it removes strategy and just becomes 'bait out the smoke launcher'
11. Killshot, line breaker bombardment, and empyric channeling change to only require 2 of the units, but line breaker only does 2D3 if you use two tanks and 3D3 for three.
Agreed, this should be a global change for all stratagems that require X units.
12. Honor guard, company vets, terminators of all types, vanguard Vets, sternguard, and the similar versions of vets other Marine books have all get BS2+/WS2+.
No. Another thoughtless change - we do NOT need more 2+ to hit, reroll 1's nonsense in the game.
13. Apothecaries should be able to grant 1 unit within 6" with a 5+ FNP in addition to what they do now.
Now better than their Ork counterpart, for less points and higher armour.
14. Vindicators should have 3 shots, +1D3 for every 5 models in the unit.
15. Chaplains should cause units to reroll all wounds in close combat instead of hits. This might make them actually worth taking. And doesn't invalidate captains.
Why not give them something unique that isn't a boring copy paste ability
16. Flamer weapons need to do 2d6 hits vs units over with over 5 models.
Yes. But with your 6" deepstrike suggestion up above this will be broken.
17. Gravguns should be assault 2 and all grav weapons should wound all vehicles and monsters on a 4+.
What's this change for?
And here below are the worst of the changes:
Finally, chapter tactics need a rework. Obviously they need to also effect vehicles. They also all need to be worth taking. My ideas here might not be as polished as some of these others.
A. Ultramarines can auto pass leadership tests, and overwatch on a 5+. Their strategem should change to allow a unit to fire twice. I would nerf Roboute, though, so that his aura no longer grants re-rolls to anyone but himself. He then no longer removes the need to for captains, Calgar, chapter masters, and LTs. He can then drop by about 100 points and just be a close combat god.
So your marine now attacks better in melee than an Ork, has higher AP than every other MSU in the game - IGNORES leadership and Overwatches as well as a dire avenger?
B. White scars should treat rapid fire weapons like assault weapons with half the range but double the shots (so a bolter becomes assault 2, 12"), in addition to their current bonuses. Their vehicles would treat all heavy weapons as assault weapons.
Surprisingly a sane suggestion
C. Imperial fists should gain +2 to their saves when they are in cover instead of +1, and their vehicles should only need to be 25% obscured to get cover. They lose all of their current bonuses.
More 2+ camp in aura marines? Eh, no thanks. I'd rather see Imperial Fists given a 5+ invulnerable save.
D. Black Templars gain have a 4+ save mortal wounds, and reroll their charges.
So it makes Black Templars into Orks?
E. Salanders keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
F. Ravenguard keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
G. Iron hands get an army wide +1T. Their strat changes to let them use 5+ FNP for 1 unit that turn.
Congratulations,a free +1 Toughness is possibly the most egregious suggestion you have. This basically acts as a -1 to hit but for all MEQ weapons. While also reducing the effectiveness of ALL S8, S9 weapons.
Okay, I get you want to make marines stronger... but the majority of these changes are horrible and over the top. Not only are you buffing an army that already sees play by a LOT, all these changes you suggested would also HAVE to effect all the other snowflake marines too.
See the commentary in red
It's actually not about making them stronger. Simple points changes could do that if they made Marines into a horde, it's about making them feel like Marines. If you look at most of the changes I've suggested, they are mostly worse versions of things other armies can already do. It's also important to look at the math of the changes in suggesting before deciding they are OP.
To respond to your responses (I'll spoiler them because I doubt anyone cares lol)
Spoiler:
I'm not sure how CP generation bring based on points spent on troops and HQs causes spam, since if you are supposed to spam anything, it's probably troops, and HQs are rarely worth spamming. I might have misunderstood you though.
Because Marines are so elite, I think it's okay if they could all fall back and shoot. Harlequins can fall back over things, shoot normally, and then assault normally. This is also basically what ATSKNF allowed them to do in previous editions. So think don't think it's game breaking. Most of the time Marines would just go poof in close conbat the way they do now. The times any survived, you could get some shots off. Feels mariney to me.
Orks cost 6 points, so I guess I'm okay with a 13+ point model being about as good in close combat, yes. Plus orks have access to a large number of buffs giving them more attacks and whatnot. Plus Marines could always cost more than do now if 13 was too little after all of these changes. The goal is balance, as well as fun effectiveness.
Rhinos have had fire points for at least 3 editions. So it's not game breaking. If you want to pay 72 for a rhino and then 120 for a Dev squad inside, more power too you? Its a bad unit. Just buy a predator at that point. A heavy bolter and missile launcher might be okay because of the strategems, but honestly that doesn't feel that bad either. Rhinos aren't that hard to kill.
Having -1 AP against factions that typically have 4+ or worse armor saves isn't actually THAT good. Going from a 4+ save to a 5+ is only a 33% increase in damage taken, 5+ to 6+ is a 25% increase, and 6+ to no save is only 20%. Compared to the 50% increase in damage taken to going from 3+ to 4+, or the 100% increase going from 2+ to 3+. So yes bolters and chainswords can be AP 1 if Marines, the main faction relying on a 3+ save, ignore the first point of AP. Most other units in the game that rely on 3+ saves have other sources of durability, such as high T, so they would likely be okay.
The plamsa change if definitely still a nerf. You'd blow up 1/6th of the time no matter what, compared to 1/36 you have no when you have re-rolls of 1. So hellblasters would lose a guy every 12 shots instead of 36. This would be much better than little guys, though.
I think it should be for Las too. Melta still gets bonuses for being closer, and has more AP. Las gets an extra strength. But rolling 1s for damage is just annoying in a gun that is that expensive. Again it's only a .5 increase to Las.
The drop pods thing probably isn't perfect. But they should be powerful for how much you are paying for them. Also keep in mind that if the restrictions were changed to only 25% of your points could be in DS, you could only bring 2 of these pods worth of units. It would probably be good, but still not as good as other options in other books. Again, bloodletters.
I left points costs out, but no it would be stock on the land raider, as that is the intended function of the assault ramp. Other vehicles probably should not have access to that as it would be pretty powerful.
I think the smoke launchers thing would just make the first turn better for Marines, and actually good enough to use the ability. I'm open to other ideas though. As it is, they just never get used.
Orks FNP is a bubble that can give it to multiple units. This wouldn't be better overall, it would only be better for the one unit. And again Marines cost more than orks so each wound is more valuable.
I couldn't think of another option for the chaplain at the time, but I'm sure there could be other good buffs. The point is they would need to be worth taking.
Grav just isn't that good right now.
I did say the chapter tactics ideas might be the least polished lol.
Tau have an overwatch on 5s trait, and a much better overwatch, so yeah I don't see Ultras having it too as a problem. And Marines already ignore leadership most of the time anyway. But+1 ld is probably fine too so you can still do things like reduce their LD with abilities.
I feel like IFs should have something to do with cover and digging in? Maybe they only get the +2 cover if they didn't move? Idk.
Again the ork comparison falls apart when you look at points, so yeah I think this for BT is fine, at the risk if actually not being good enough.
+1 T is actually worse than -1 to hit in general, since it doesn't change a number of S weapons to wound rolls, whereas -1 to hit changes nearly all shooting rolls. For Marines, this would only matter for S4, 5, 8, and 9 bring at -1 to wound. For their tanks, it would only hurt S4, 7, and 8. The only good thing about it compared to -1 to hit is that it also helps in melee.
Insectum7 wrote: A predator can move a more meaningful distance and fire at the BS the Leman Russ starts with. A Leman Russ firing at full speed is really hurting. The Leman Russ is good at it's crawl, the Predator can dart around pretty nicely.
When you say "Battle Tanks", you are specifically overlooking the Land Raider. Being a higher PL doesn't make it not a "battle tank". And it's got machine spirit.
Requiring rerolls to function isn't really a sin. Necrons require ressurection protocalls to function. It's just the way that Space Marine "leading from the front" manifests itself this edition. An alternative if you don't like it is taking Salamanders CT which allows you to decentralize.
I would say that the Sicarian can dart around pretty nicely. Assault 8 guns. Eldars and Harlequins can dart around pretty nicely. The Predator can move around and peashoot if needed, but if you're moving your 48" guns to get into range, you're doing it wrong or you've already won.
I was focused on vechicles that had comparable costs and a similar battle role in their respective armies. And I actually mentioned the Land Raider and the Storm Raven in my previous post and said that they cost too much for what they offer. In PL terms is 10 more than all others vehicles. You said that you wanted a more apple to apple comparison with the Land Speeder vs Vyper example, so I stuck with it.
As I said in my post "IT'S FINE BY A DESIGN STANDPOINT". I like the idea. Supposely elite or semi elite armies should have more access to rerolls to balance out the weight of dice of horde armies. It's the point costs and execution of some things that leaves me baffled. I played with the Salamander tactics. MSU style, 0 vehicles, all heavy/special weapons decentralized. Efficiency of each single shot weapon got higher, but durability was just too low for my tastes, I prefer Ravenguard all hands down.
Oh and if you think that Necrons need reanimation protocols to work.... eh.. no.
The Predator still degrades much less than a Leman Russ moving at full speed. They are all on a spectrum, they all have different strengths and weaknesses.
Saying "our army lacks special rules" when our army clearly gets special rules is just weird. On principle we don't even need special rules, we just need appropriate costs for units. For the record I don't use Predators. If they cost less I might use them more. I find them a bit inflexible, and they just don't seem to gel with my builds.
As for Reanimation Protocalls, maybe Necrons don't "need" it in their current form. They sure did in past editions. They probably require it for certain builds now. *Shrug, doesn't really matter. I think the point stands.
Salamanders vs. RG. It's very clear why RG tactics are popular. Each CTs prefers certain unit types over others, and getting the most out of each is pretty interesting. My issue with the RG tactics is that it prefers your models to be outside of 12", when the basic marine gun (and plasma) doubles it's output within 12". That and I just prefer big squads, close ranges and assaults, so UM for me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 13:44:04
I think a lot of the problem also comes from only reading the Marine fluff.
In the average Marine engagement, it's over before it starts. They come in, hit hard, and do their job.
Marines are Super. But in games, they're always up against something else that is Super.
-Necrons: Up against super unstoppable robot aliens.
-Tyranids: Mix of super swarmy Gaunts and super scary big alien walking tanks
-CWE: Super space ninja samurai elves
-DE: Super fast/killy in large number
-Harlequins: Super Clowns
-CSM/Demons: Super lovecraftian threats
-Guard: Super numerous well-trained well-armed troops
"When everyone is super, noone is."
Necron Warriors should be about as powerful as Marines, but in a more inevitable way. Aspect Warriors should be just as powerful per model, but less durable and faster. Harlequins should be just as super as well.
To meet the fluff, it's really just Guardsmen that SM (and others) should be doing better against per model. The Marine is easily worth more than 2 Guardsmen when fighting on the Guardsmen's terms, according to the crunch. Just how many should it be able to handle in a direct toe-to-toe battle (which Marines shouldn't be fighting)?
By the crunch, the Lasgun ignores the Marine's armor one out of every 3 hits. And, even assuming it will ignore armor, a Marine will average 3 Lasgun hits through the armor before being taken down. THat's 1 out of every 9 hits (or 18 shots) that actually drop a Marine. Is that really so unfluffy?
By comparision, a super fast space elf ninja samurai moves so fast in the fluff, that Guardsmen can't even hit him/her. One out of every 2 shots from the Guardsman connects. One out of every 3, if a stratagem or other rule is used. For a model just as elite as a Marine. Is that any more or less fluffy than the 1 of 9 hits hurting a Marine?
Bharring wrote: I think a lot of the problem also comes from only reading the Marine fluff.
This cannot be overstated.
Agreed. Rules cannot be dictated by fluff. For a start, every faction is the best in their own fluff, it outright contradicts itself all over the place in that way!
I honestly don’t care about the fluff on the table beyond using it as loose inspiration for what the units can do. I don’t mind whether they decide a marine is worth 1, 2 or 20 guardsmen. I’d just like to see them statted and given gear and abilities worthy of their point cost with consideration of how the game actually plays.
The Predator still degrades much less than a Leman Russ moving at full speed. They are all on a spectrum, they all have different strengths and weaknesses.
Saying "our army lacks special rules" when our army clearly gets special rules is just weird. On principle we don't even need special rules, we just need appropriate costs for units. For the record I don't use Predators. If they cost less I might use them more. I find them a bit inflexible, and they just don't seem to gel with my builds.
As for Reanimation Protocalls, maybe Necrons don't "need" it in their current form. They sure did in past editions. They probably require it for certain builds now. *Shrug, doesn't really matter. I think the point stands.
Salamanders vs. RG. It's very clear why RG tactics are popular. Each CTs prefers certain unit types over others, and getting the most out of each is pretty interesting. My issue with the RG tactics is that it prefers your models to be outside of 12", when the basic marine gun (and plasma) doubles it's output within 12". That and I just prefer big squads, close ranges and assaults, so UM for me.
I've been saying that we need appropriate costs for units, not that we need special rules. Maybe I wasn't that clear in how I explained things. My line of reasoning is this: Space Marine vehicles have no peculiar built in advantage (no CT applied to them, no assault weapons for mobility, and so on) but are costed like they have. And when they do actually have it (LR, SR and Repulsor for example) they are overcosted. While their advantage is external (rerolls with HQ). Simplest solution is point decrease. There is value in simplicity.
For the 12", that's the trick. When you go in the 12" range, you go in for the kill, not to trade blows. If you want to trade, at that distance, you've already lost.
Edited for clarity.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/16 18:34:11
niv-mizzet wrote: I honestly don’t care about the fluff on the table beyond using it as loose inspiration for what the units can do. I don’t mind whether they decide a marine is worth 1, 2 or 20 guardsmen. I’d just like to see them statted and given gear and abilities worthy of their point cost with consideration of how the game actually plays.
I agree with you to a point. But for me part of that loose inspiration means a single Marine should require 3 or so regular soldiers to match at least.
For that reason, I don't really want point drops for marines. I'd much rather see a durability and killing power buff. There should be a niche in this game for troops with a point cost in the teens, it just seems GW haven't really hit it yet.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 14:56:05
Tactical Marines simply suffer from being overcosted. Not by much, maybe a point. Guardsmen are undercosted by 1 point each. A squad of 10 should be 50 points.
10 Marines with Bolters @ 120 pts vs 24 Guardsmen with Lasguns @ 120 pts (no buffs, either side) is pretty darned close, if I recall the mathammering. That's a fairly simple balance issue, but it has not been addressed by GW.
Tac Marines are adequate. They aren't great. Salamanders have accurate Heavies on the move, and a cheap CC upgrade for the Sarge makes them quite flexible. If you want an infantry screen for advancing vehicles, or Dreanoughts (also vehicles) you could do a lot worse. If an IG Infantry squad were to advance with a Lascannon, you'd have a 33% chance to hit, and it would cost you 60 points. 5 Salamanders with a single LC are 85 points (?) and have 75% accuracy.
You're getting trades there, more accurate vs more durable. You then have a handful of bolter shots and a double-handful of lasguns as well.
Really, that IG Lascannon should cost 70 points, and the Sally 5-man should cost 80. They aren't impossibly poor choices, just not as good as others. It doesn't mean you can't take them, or that they don't have a functional role, even if they're inefficient.
Scouts are generally point-for-point better, because Infiltration is good, and sometimes bodies in the right place is important.
I'm not going to convince anyone that believes MEQ are a down and out, unsalvageable mess, that they aren't. I'm here to say that opinion is misguided, and that MEQ are playable. I used to get a game in every other week through most of 6th and 7th edition, with relatively weak codices. Marines aren't as bad off as many of those games that I played. They get worse press than they deserve.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 17:33:38
Pretty sure we have already established that space marines lose to practically every troop choice in the game in a pitched battle point for point even when they are allowed to shoot first. These are actually the units space marines should be most effective against. Plus they are also vulnerable to heavy weapons because of their PPW so they are 2 to 3 times more vulnerable to these kinds of weapons.
At this point if you are against giving marines meaningful buffs - you are just a marine hating troll.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
I agree with you to an extent, however it is imperative that we take special weapons into consideration. Even in a usual game, lasguns, bolters and other small arms are just filler pieces in an army, and are actually almost never counted on to do any real work. The issue is that heavy and special weapons are far far more effective at scything apart marines than guardsmen, and most lists are built with the idea of fitting in as many heavy and special weapons as possible.
Coincidentally, that is the other problem with tactical marines- the standard load out of Sarge, 1 Heavy and 1 Special is really limiting when trying to cram in efficiency through special weapons. Look at a Chaos Raptor squad- a squad that we can all agree is considered weak in the current meta. Most Raptor load outs are 2 Plasma Guns, and a Combi Plasma on the Champion. The bolt pistols are an after thought. Even still Raptors are considered under performing, but I think people can agree that they are in a better place than a tactical squad.
I do agree that MEQ isn't unsalvagable, and a 3+ armor save, t4 and s4 and 3+ to hit is worth something. The question is what it is worth. Generally speaking under the 8th edition rules scheme, those things are worse less than they were in previous editions. Finally the end result is that accurate priced marines won't feel like an elite army, which isn't why people want to play marines in the first place. Generally people emotionally want marines to be expensive and worth the points paid for. An elite few warriors standing strong. So the problem is twofold. 1) Basic Marines aren't worth their current price and 2) people don't want swarm marines
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/16 18:21:49
wuestenfux wrote: Tactical Marines - the jack of all trades, but the master of none.
Primaris are the way to go these days unless you have a specific battle plan (BA, DA, SM with traits).
Don’t you mean trash at all trades and pays too much for all? Tac squads are trash. For half the price I can 2 fire warriors which are a thousand times better.
The Predator still degrades much less than a Leman Russ moving at full speed. They are all on a spectrum, they all have different strengths and weaknesses.
Saying "our army lacks special rules" when our army clearly gets special rules is just weird. On principle we don't even need special rules, we just need appropriate costs for units. For the record I don't use Predators. If they cost less I might use them more. I find them a bit inflexible, and they just don't seem to gel with my builds.
As for Reanimation Protocalls, maybe Necrons don't "need" it in their current form. They sure did in past editions. They probably require it for certain builds now. *Shrug, doesn't really matter. I think the point stands.
Salamanders vs. RG. It's very clear why RG tactics are popular. Each CTs prefers certain unit types over others, and getting the most out of each is pretty interesting. My issue with the RG tactics is that it prefers your models to be outside of 12", when the basic marine gun (and plasma) doubles it's output within 12". That and I just prefer big squads, close ranges and assaults, so UM for me.
I've been saying that we need appropriate costs for units, not that we need special rules.
Fair enough, but there sure is a lot of talk about special rules here:
It's true that "outside of context", all vehicles (and all units for that matter) suffer the .1 to hit after moving. The problem is another: how other armies can mitigate this. Special rules are everywhere except on Marine Codices.
Imperial Guard sure has the -1 to hit when moving.... too bad that the Leman Russ chassis, their main battle tank like, akin to a predator, has a rule that enables to fire their main weapon twice without penalties to hit. Dunecrawler Onagers, the Admech "battletank", they can fire on the move with no penalty, Dark Eldars all have Assault Weapons on their flying things, be them transport, heavy support or actual flyers. And they actually have a weapon profile, the Dark Lance that says: "Heavy 1 bla bla bla - change this weapon type from Heavy to Assault if it's equipped on a Vechicle". ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Harlequins same thing, all assault. Craftworld Eldars have more heavy weapons, but they "main battle tank", the Fire Prism, has the same rule as the Leman Russ to shoot twice, thus mitigating on its own the -1 to hit if moving half move. And their harf move is like, 8". T'au and Necrons have the same problem as Marines on their main battle tanks, and Necron not even that if you consider that their tank platform are the destroyers that negate the movement penalty.
That's mostly the problems with marines. They adhere to the rules and have few exceptions. Those costs usually too much for what they bring to the table (Land Raider and StormRaven). Other armies have all extra rules and mitigations built in.
Plus the post you were responding to was my post in response to (among other things) a request for special rules. So you can at least see where I might get that idea. Otherwise, sure, if the costs make sense we're all good, imo.
Also the "I don't use predators" puts into perspective your perspective on that.
I'm not sure what you're implying. I use basically a skew list of power armor spam. Vehicles other than Transports don't see much use.
I tried using them, not worth it. For the 12", that's the trick. When you go in the 12" range, you go in for the kill, not to trade blows. If you want to trade, at that distance, you've already lost.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Imo within 12" is often where the battle is won. If I can touch a 200 point unit and stop it from shooting, why bother shooting it when I can spread the love elsewhere. If an enemy can't stop me from shooting by touching me, he's gonna have to put in the extra effort to kill everything. It's not about "trading blows", it's about sustained efficiency. A marine unit with firepower is not efficient when it can't shoot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Pretty sure we have already established that space marines lose to practically every troop choice in the game in a pitched battle point for point even when they are allowed to shoot first.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Tac squad wins.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 19:51:34
Hillariously, despite CWE being one of the top books in the game, it's a faction where it's troops are worse or equal to SM troops, such as Scouts and Tacs.
Bharring wrote: Hillariously, despite CWE being one of the top books in the game, it's a faction where it's troops are worse or equal to SM troops, such as Scouts and Tacs.
I find that very strange.
Their other units aren't directly derived from them. It's not strange at all. Plus, I have seen several Eldar lists with no troops at all.
Eldar also have vastly superior psykers, vehicles, etc.
If I could get away from the problems of the marine statline by ignoring just the troop slot, I probably would.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/16 20:19:44
20000+ points
). The only thing I can do is focus fire on the bigger threats with the most efficient weapon and pray for the dice gods. I don't have a single, tangible advantage.
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts. 
