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.

They give up far fewer points to those disinegrators and heavy gauss. That's what's important.

Marines shouldn't be cheaper, they should be better.

I think the easiest fix would be to give all Marines +1 Wound. As in ALL Marines. Tacs, Bikes, Terminators, Primaris, etc. No points increase, just an extra wound.

Apply this to Chaso Marines as well, and both armies should play more effectively in comparison to other factions

-

 Galef wrote:
Marines shouldn't be cheaper, they should be better.

I think the easiest fix would be to give all Marines +1 Wound. As in ALL Marines. Tacs, Bikes, Terminators, Primaris, etc. No points increase, just an extra wound.

Apply this to Chaso Marines as well, and both armies should play more effectively in comparison to other factions

-

I maintain that trying to make them better is folly. GW's trying that, and they are just making multiple wound weapons crazy strong. It just makes things like overcharged riptides even better. Mitigating how many points my opponent can take off the table in one shooting phase is critical.

If your only use for troops is give up fewest points, Marines can't be that unless you either strip out what remains of their effectiveness or make them completely OP.

Units based on "so what if I die" should care less if they lose models than units based on other things.

Marines aren't Guard. They shouldn't be fielded like Guard.

That's not to say they're worth 13ppm, but they shouldn't reach point parity in the open vs heavy weapons with Guard.

When you compare durability per point between Marines and the non-horde non-tanky Troops, Marines do well. Twice the durability of FW or DAs to small arms, for much less than double the points. When you compare their durability per point to Guardsmen, you shouldn't come out ahead.

the_scotsman wrote:
a couple points of melee stats that aren't worth much

Out of curiosity, would you pay 10 points for a T4, S3, WS 4+ tactical/assault/devastator marine?

Martel732 wrote:
Stormbolters. They get 3 per 5 chicks. That's amazingly efficient.

Slightly less efficient in that they pay Deathwatch rather than regular marine prices for their SB's (4 points vs 2, unless I've missed something in a FAQ) but a 40% increase in price for a 100% increase in firepower is pretty solid though.

Does kind of make your price point complaint interesting that you're factoring in the sisters as having no gear (9ppm) when they're getting shot, but you're factoring them as having 3 storm bolters per 5 when they're shooting. Raises the average price of a sister in the squad to 11.4.

I disagree. They should have parity. Otherwise, we get the mess that currently exists.

Marines' don't have twice the durability of FW. The cost too much for that.

AS above, the S4 AP 0 hit kills 2.16 pts of marines
the S4 AP 0 hit kills 2.33 pts of firewarriors.

With splinter, it tilts in favor of the firewarrior. Marines basically don't do well against anything in the game atm.

I'm a much bigger fan of toning down the game as opposed to dropping the points of Marines, as stated. But, again as stated, it's not going to happen.

If a single Melta or Flamer were actually something to fear, and if good S/AP weapons won't so cheap or easy to bring to bear, the Marine statline would mean a lot more. Marines in cover are already quite resiliant to small arms.

In this edition, they took all PGs, made them completely safe, then added a GetsHot version that is simply much better. Without making Plas harder to get or notably more expensive.

They've made things like Reapers far too cheap, and made T3 not as big a handicap as it was last edition.

Some changes did help the Marines (Cover is a *lot* better for them than it was, and they stripped AP5 from everybody instead of giving it AP-1, which would murder Marines), but this upscaling of firepower makes midling-survivability pointless.

I vote 10 - scouts should drop to 10 too - 1 T for special deployment is a fair tradeoff. Seriously guy - PA has been avoided like plague in every edition - it has never been worth it's points.

A.T. wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
a couple points of melee stats that aren't worth much

Out of curiosity, would you pay 10 points for a T4, S3, WS 4+ tactical/assault/devastator marine?

Yeah, that'd be a steal, obviously not on the assault marine but on the other two all day every day.

+1 to WS and S on a shooting oriented model with 1 attack is worth a fraction of a point. Nothing's worth zero, but it cannot be worth much at all. The point of toughness and the access to a somewhat deeper weapon pool/many more character buffs is the primary balance factor for me here, which is why I'm inclined to round up to 11.

sisters don't have a "reroll all hits and all wounds" aura anywhere in their army. Heck, they don't even get Lieutenants.

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Stormbolters. They get 3 per 5 chicks. That's amazingly efficient.

Slightly less efficient in that they pay Deathwatch rather than regular marine prices for their SB's (4 points vs 2, unless I've missed something in a FAQ) but a 40% increase in price for a 100% increase in firepower is pretty solid though.

Does kind of make your price point complaint interesting that you're factoring in the sisters as having no gear (9ppm) when they're getting shot, but you're factoring them as having 3 storm bolters per 5 when they're shooting. Raises the average price of a sister in the squad to 11.4.

And you don't think the marines are going to have gear? MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE gear? Get real. I'm giving the marines the benefit of the doubt here. A single plasma gun takes them to 15.6 ppm.

Bharring wrote:
I'm a much bigger fan of toning down the game as opposed to dropping the points of Marines, as stated. But, again as stated, it's not going to happen.

If a single Melta or Flamer were actually something to fear, and if good S/AP weapons won't so cheap or easy to bring to bear, the Marine statline would mean a lot more. Marines in cover are already quite resiliant to small arms.

In this edition, they took all PGs, made them completely safe, then added a GetsHot version that is simply much better. Without making Plas harder to get or notably more expensive.

They've made things like Reapers far too cheap, and made T3 not as big a handicap as it was last edition.

Some changes did help the Marines (Cover is a *lot* better for them than it was, and they stripped AP5 from everybody instead of giving it AP-1, which would murder Marines), but this upscaling of firepower makes midling-survivability pointless.

Honestly - I'd be a fan of 30-40 point marines which were actually powerful but people just make fun of me for suggesting those things. They sure like golden boys though.

the_scotsman wrote:

A.T. wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
a couple points of melee stats that aren't worth much

Out of curiosity, would you pay 10 points for a T4, S3, WS 4+ tactical/assault/devastator marine?

Yeah, that'd be a steal, obviously not on the assault marine but on the other two all day every day.

+1 to WS and S on a shooting oriented model with 1 attack is worth a fraction of a point. Nothing's worth zero, but it cannot be worth much at all. The point of toughness and the access to a somewhat deeper weapon pool/many more character buffs is the primary balance factor for me here, which is why I'm inclined to round up to 11.

sisters don't have a "reroll all hits and all wounds" aura anywhere in their army. Heck, they don't even get Lieutenants.

Overcosted reroll batteries applied to overcosted models is not getting you ahead.

As a question, how are regular Chaos Space Marines doing?

Are they suffering from the same problems as Tactical Marines?

If not, what's different about them that allows them to be more effective? Anything that we can apply to Tacticals to improve them without just dropping their cost?

"Twice the durability of FW or DAs to small arms, for much less than double the points."

"Marines' don't have twice the durability of FW. The cost too much for that. [continues to show durability/pt]".

You're now doublecounting points - they have double the durabilty *per model*, at less than double the points. Meaning they have more durability per point. Being 4x as efficient at surviving S4AP0 would be crazy.

FW, at 9ppm, give up 18 points for every 13 points Marines give up to S4AP0 - which is good, because they have better standard guns. DAs have it worse - 24 pts for every 13 pts of Marines. But both of those have better guns. One has more range but less flexability and the other has more flexibility but less range.

It's easy to forget the Marine's strengths when they are overcosted, but it's foolish to ignore them.

Regular Chaos Space Marines aren't taken because Cultists, Berzerkers, Death Guard, and Thousand Sons exist. They're bad and there's much better options available.

So pretty much the same as Tac Marines except the alternative Troops choices are even better.

"PA has been avoided like plague in every edition - it has never been worth it's points."

Except when it has been?

PA lists have done well more often than most *armies*. Tacs were spammed in top lists in at least two different periods of 7th. Tac spam (with Bobby G) was actually a thing in 8th before CA. Rhino Rush years ago. And more.

To say nothing of other PA units that have been a thing.

Marines are in a bad spot now, but how can we hope to consider balance if we blind ourselves to when they did well?

 vipoid wrote:
As a question, how are regular Chaos Space Marines doing?

Are they suffering from the same problems as Tactical Marines?

If not, what's different about them that allows them to be more effective? Anything that we can apply to Tacticals to improve them without just dropping their cost?

They are equally as bad - they have slight QOL differences. Can take 2 heavies at 10 - Can be taken in 20 mans. Better spells to use on them. They still sucks badly. They shoudl realistically drop to 10-11 also.

I'm not double counting. You are ignoring point costs.

If we have to change the points rather than change the stats, then I'd say 11ppm for Tac Marines and CSMs with just bolters

I still think they should be elevated in durability instead, but if that is too much to ask, then 11ppm it is.
10 would be too cheap and they are supposed to be boarder-line Elite Shock troopers, not generic rank-n-file schmoes.

 Galef wrote:
If we have to change the points rather than change the stats, then I'd say 11ppm for Tac Marines and CSMs with just bolters

I still think they should be elevated in durability instead, but if that is too much to ask, then 11ppm it is.

What do you have in mind in terms of increasing their durability?

Firewarriors are 7 pts i thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"PA has been avoided like plague in every edition - it has never been worth it's points."

Except when it has been?

PA lists have done well more often than most *armies*. Tacs were spammed in top lists in at least two different periods of 7th. Tac spam (with Bobby G) was actually a thing in 8th before CA. Rhino Rush years ago. And more.

To say nothing of other PA units that have been a thing.

Marines are in a bad spot now, but how can we hope to consider balance if we blind ourselves to when they did well?

They did well in spite of tacs, not because of them.

Bharring wrote:
"PA has been avoided like plague in every edition - it has never been worth it's points."

Except when it has been?

PA lists have done well more often than most *armies*. Tacs were spammed in top lists in at least two different periods of 7th. Tac spam (with Bobby G) was actually a thing in 8th before CA. Rhino Rush years ago. And more.

To say nothing of other PA units that have been a thing.

Marines are in a bad spot now, but how can we hope to consider balance if we blind ourselves to when they did well?

They haven't been dude - it is a farce. Index 8th is not 8th edition and literally every aspect of that list went up in points. Gman/Razors/Storm Ravens - all up in price. You can't honestly suggest gladius - where buying a tac squad granted you a free transport as being a justification for their absurd point cost. Imagine if buying 10 necron warriors got you a free ghost ark? Do you really think gladius would have faired well against that?

Care to elaborate where I'm ignoring them? The "double" was before points were taken into account, and compared to the divisor - which was less than 2.

1 S4 AP0 hit kills:

13x(1/2)(1/3) = 13/6 pts/hit vs Marines - about 2.17
12x(2/3)(1/2) = 4 pts/hit vs DAs
7x(2/3)(1/2) = 7/3 pts/hit vs FWs - about 2.33

If that's the form you want, it's fairly clear. Marines are *much* more durable per point than FWs or DAs.

The original point figured we didn't need to math it out that far. Twice the durability divided by less than twice the points is necessarily more, without doing any further math. But that's certainly not ignoring points.

To say nothing of cover. Better save units benefit a *lot* more from cover than lower save units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit - Martel, sorry forgot FW were 7ppm now. Point still stands, but marginally so (FW are thus 13/14ths as durable as Marines).

No your point doesn't stand. Recalulate for splinter or str 5 guns.

Xeno/Martel - the point is that, if we want to constructively discuss balance, we need to understand how they have performed.

Claims like they've always been avoided like the plague make it a lot harder to actually discuss balance. And how can saying "They have not always been trash that was avoided" somehow mean I'm justifying the *current* points?

And do you really still think lists from before the 7e SM codex were using Gladius? And that lists with 6 Tac squads beyond min in that era were "avoiding PA like the plague"?

Do you also think Gladius was involved in the Rhino Rush tactics that preceeded 7th Ed?

Do we really need another 10 pages of denial and revisionism?

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not double counting. You are ignoring point costs.

We are ignoring points costs because the thread is about speculating how much marines *SHOULD* cost, so *CURRENT* point costs are irrelevant, except when you're looking at the comparison point units that you are holding up as properly costed - i.e. if a Sister is balanced at 9 points, one should look at what a marine gets compared to a sister and decide how much of a points increase that is worth.

 vipoid wrote:

 Galef wrote:
If we have to change the points rather than change the stats, then I'd say 11ppm for Tac Marines and CSMs with just bolters

I still think they should be elevated in durability instead, but if that is too much to ask, then 11ppm it is.

What do you have in mind in terms of increasing their durability?

I already mentioned it: +1 Wound for all Marines/ CSMs. If things like Bikes have 3 wounds and Jump pack Marines have 2wounds each, that takes more pressure off the Troops, which by having 2 wounds each, now you kinda have to use multi-damage weapons on them. 3 wounds also makes Terminators closer to viable.

Yes, I know the counter argument is that "players will just use more multi-damage weapons", but think that through. Most armies CANNOT take that much multi-damage weaponry, and MOST multi-damage weapons do more than 2 wounds. If your opponent is having to use a Lascannon to take out a 13ppm Marine, who is the real winner there?

Yes, there are units and armies that can take a ton of 2-3 damage weapons, but those weapons are still killing Marines right now anyway.
Having +1W across the board for non-vehicle/non-character Marines/CSMs is a simple and quite frankly elegant solution for help not only Tac Marines, but also Jump packs and Terminators be more efficient, particularly against small arms fire, which is the point

-

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Stormbolters. They get 3 per 5 chicks. That's amazingly efficient.

Slightly less efficient in that they pay Deathwatch rather than regular marine prices for their SB's (4 points vs 2, unless I've missed something in a FAQ) but a 40% increase in price for a 100% increase in firepower is pretty solid though.

Does kind of make your price point complaint interesting that you're factoring in the sisters as having no gear (9ppm) when they're getting shot, but you're factoring them as having 3 storm bolters per 5 when they're shooting. Raises the average price of a sister in the squad to 11.4.

Yep you did miss it in CA - Sisters now pay 2pts for Stormbolters.

Sisters get -1 in WS, S and T, far less heavy weapon selections, no ATSKNF, currently don't have Regimental tactics or loads of Stratagems and only "may" get them in 6-8 months time "Emperor Willing".

They have a 6++ Save (occasionally useful), a ultra crap Deny the Witch and a couple of Acts of Faith which are seldom used on Battle Sisters.

If you make Marines 10pts then make Sisters 7-8pts max.

On the problem - no easy answer - GW always wanted to sell lots of SM so they were relatively weak compared to fluff, they also had the snowflake chapter marines who have to be a bit better than their vanilla equivalents to justify their own existence.

Bharring wrote:
Xeno/Martel - the point is that, if we want to constructively discuss balance, we need to understand how they have performed.

Claims like they've always been avoided like the plague make it a lot harder to actually discuss balance. And how can saying "They have not always been trash that was avoided" somehow mean I'm justifying the *current* points?

And do you really still think lists from before the 7e SM codex were using Gladius? And that lists with 6 Tac squads beyond min in that era were "avoiding PA like the plague"?

Do you also think Gladius was involved in the Rhino Rush tactics that preceeded 7th Ed?

Do we really need another 10 pages of denial and revisionism?

You mean 3rd ed? That rhino rush?