General Marine fixes

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.

**Martel732**

Again, who is elite in the fluff is irrelevant. What matters is whether 13 point models and 18 pt models play like 13 and 18 pt models. They don't. That's what matters. They're not even close. Trot your marines out against triple ravager and get back to me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
+1A on Marines sounds like a good change. Not a major change, and wouldn't be anywhere close to enough to make them balanced. +1A 11ppm might be enough for Tacs themselves.

Worth trying. That's probably worth 11 ppm.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
We should remember that 8th is has very little wiggle room to define attributes. 4+ws means well trained, well supported, lifelong soldiers. 3+ws means many lifespans of preparation and likely past experience. 2+ws means not just a seasoned warrior or even veteran but tech'd out leader with plot armor. GW wants every lieutenant to have a name and backstory (hence warlord traits and relics), not just the standard named characters of their printed stories.

So we can't go assigning +1ws to marines on their 400th birthday just like how crisis suits aren't between FW and marine WS because there is no room between 3+ and 4+. There is the fairly consistent convention of +1A +1Ld to account for experience. All marines get higher Ld than standard infantry and some people like myself would prefer their "jack of all trades" stats to include the extra attack to balance out (or allow bolter and chainsword intead of those pistols, some exclusions apply).

We should also limit the exaggeration of what's bad. This is more challenging when Aeldari forces are so min/maxed while things like csm traits tend to provide options that aren't particularly better than each other. (black legion bikers vs renegade, vs night lord bikers for example. i still can't decide). We shouldn't look to make everything the best, but bring it all to a fun medium. I'd rather see killiness toned down in general than have everything dakka like oblits in january.

Actually I'm all for Crisis Suits getting BS3+. Are you not for that?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galef wrote:
Stormonu wrote:
I think making any basic troops 2W is a bad, slippery slope. Many xeno armies could argue their basic troops should be 2W too (Necrons surely, for 1).
In prior editions, in which 1 failed save only did 1 wound, unless it was Instant Death. I'd agree with you.
But in 8E, more than half the weapons do multiple wounds. Having a higher T and better armour save is no longer an adequate representation of a Marine's durability.

Please keep in mind that my proposed changes are not only for balance, but to better represent how the units SHOULD perform in the fluff compared to others.
A super human walking tank should not die as easily to small arms fire as a regular, barely armoured human.
A Marine dying to a single lasgun wound just doesn't make any sense, no matter how hard it was to get that wound through the T and armour.

Necrons already have RPs, so they have already have the chance to get extra wounds. They also have better LD and better stock weapons.
Other Xenos Troops also have things that make them better than the current 1W Marines. Marines as Troops need a "niche" and I think it should be durability

-

RP is a terrible mechanic to really base durability on.

**Martel732**

RP is swingy, but i'll take my chances with warriors over tac marines.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Martel732 wrote:
RP is swingy, but i'll take my chances with warriors over tac marines.

It isn't swingy, especially when everyone has a universal Split Fire now.

**Martel732**

From my games against necrons, and observing still more, i'll disagree. It's a small point, anyway.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Martel732 wrote:
From my games against necrons, and observing still more, i'll disagree. It's a small point, anyway.

Then you're bad against Necrons, full stop. All of you.

RP as a mechanic might as well not exist in most of my games.

**Martel732**

I disagree. Things go wrong. Resorces are finite. At worst, its forcing some overkill.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. Things go wrong. Resorces are finite. At worst, its forcing some overkill.

You only ever need to try and reach for the average to kill what's left of the squad. You can always go for a little above average for emergencies but that's it. Need two Bolters? Use three in case. You'd do that in every other situation anyway.

**Biasn**

RP is a really bad mechanic. It doensn't scale and it's build in the point cost. Want to make Marines 2W? Fine. You also need to increase W count on several other troops too.

Necrons don't have the flexibility Marines have.

**Martel732**

That doesn't really address the issue, then. Marine troops need to be far and away the best, because the SAME STATLINE is their elite, heavy, etc. Marines don't get dark reapers, destroyers, gundam suits, etc. Marine vehicles are basically useless, except for a couple exceptions that WILL get the nerf hammer I'm sure.

**Wyldhunt**

I like these proposed rules, Galef. Assault units still a feel a little underwhelming, and the changes to shuriken weaponry probably warrant their own discussion, but 2 and 3 wound marines with "rending" bolters feels about right if you want to keep the cost of marines roughly the same.

Personally, I'd kind of like to see an overhaul of marines where they're a little less numerous and a little more individually powerful, but you've struck a good balance here.

**koooaei**

Galef wrote:

1) +1W to all MEQs and TEQs.
In an edition in which weapons can cause multiple damage per a single failed save, there really is no reason that a standard Marine should only have 1W
Tactical Marines, Assault marines, Devs, etc as well as all the Chaos equivalents should be 2W standard. This MIGHT come with a 1-2ppm increase, but really no more than that

A 15 ppm 2 wound marine is exactly 2 times tougher than an ork boy point for point Vs d1 no ap weapons.
Besides after that you'll want them to be killier for points and get like, i don't know, ap1 and extra 6" on their bolters. Oh, and maybe rename them to something like primaris.
All it will lead to is make non-d2 weapons worse and d2 weapons better. As if plasma needs even more buffs.

It's hard to get for someone who plays multiple factions, including marines, how you can consider their current statline bad. Tacticals are decent atm.

**Slayer-Fan123**

koooaei wrote:
Galef wrote:

1) +1W to all MEQs and TEQs.
In an edition in which weapons can cause multiple damage per a single failed save, there really is no reason that a standard Marine should only have 1W
Tactical Marines, Assault marines, Devs, etc as well as all the Chaos equivalents should be 2W standard. This MIGHT come with a 1-2ppm increase, but really no more than that

A 15 ppm 2 wound marine is exactly 2 times tougher than an ork boy point for point Vs d1 no ap weapons.
Besides after that you'll want them to be killier for points and get like, i don't know, ap1 and extra 6" on their bolters. Oh, and maybe rename them to something like primaris.
All it will lead to is make non-d2 weapons worse and d2 weapons better. As if plasma needs even more buffs.

It's hard to get for someone who plays multiple factions, including marines, how you can consider their current statline bad. Tacticals are decent atm.

I play AdMech, Necrons, Loyalist Scum and the Traitors. I can assure you the starline is bad.

**koooaei**

Well, you said mutilators were bad in 7th and i've won 2 out of 3 highly competitive games running 6 of them. And they've been doing really good all along. In fact, better than obliterators that were widely considered good.

**Slayer-Fan123**

koooaei wrote:
Well, you said mutilators were bad in 7th and i've won 2 out of 3 highly competitive games running 6 of them. And they've been doing really good all along. In fact, better than obliterators that were widely considered good.

And this is why nobody is taking you seriously, especially in the Grey Knight thread where you just said Crowe was a good HQ choice.

**koooaei**

But well, he kinda is.

**Slayer-Fan123**

koooaei wrote:
But well, he kinda is.

Then go into the GK Tactica and tell all about it. I'm looking forward to the backlash as you don't know what you're talking about.

**koooaei**

Why would i need that. A person asked a question about what's good, i've answered. If you really need someone else to tap you on the back and reinforce your overwhelming pointless negativity, you can do it yourself (go to the gk thread and say that everything sucks and feel better, i guess).

**Slayer-Fan123**

koooaei wrote:
Why would i need that. A person asked a question about what's good, i've answered. If you really need someone else to tap you on the back and reinforce your overwhelming pointless negativity, you can do it yourself (go to the gk thread and say that everything sucks and feel better, i guess).

Oh cool, the whole "You're too negative" argument.

I think there's a reason you won't do it. Please dont defend Crowe if you don't have the guts to do it in the GK Tactica thread. Same logic is gonna apply in this thread as well, as Insectum7 is one of the singular people going to defend the Tactical Marine entry, but at least he'll attempt in the Marine thread as well.

**Mchagen**

I've been play-testing marines with 2 base attacks, a rule similar to that suggested in the astartes-built thread (reduce 1 ap for weapons with a damage of 1 or reduce 1 ap for weapons with a strength 5 or less), and a revised bolter drill (add 1 to the number of shots on bolt weapons). They become very durable, and their offensive output is significantly better.

Terminators with 3 wounds and 3 attacks hold up well, even with a slight points increase. Also, a teleport shunt stratagem to help them gain some needed mobility once they're on the battlefield.

**w1zard**

koooaei wrote:
A 15 ppm 2 wound marine is exactly 2 times tougher than an ork boy point for point Vs d1 no ap weapons.
Besides after that you'll want them to be killier for points and get like, i don't know, ap1 and extra 6" on their bolters. Oh, and maybe rename them to something like primaris.
All it will lead to is make non-d2 weapons worse and d2 weapons better. As if plasma needs even more buffs.

It's hard to get for someone who plays multiple factions, including marines, how you can consider their current statline bad. Tacticals are decent atm.

I think marines should be 16 points and 2W.

The math is actually not bad if you compare ork boys point for point getting shot at by say... a bolter.

New Marine
2 shots -> (4/3) hits -> (2/3) wounds -> (2/9) damage -> (1/9) marines dead -> 1.78 points gone

Boy
2 shots -> (4/3) hits -> (2/3) wounds -> (5/9) damage -> (5/9) boyz dead -> 3.33 points gome

So a 2W space marine is only 1.87 times as durable point for point as an ork boy vs bolters... which is totally acceptable for me considering the boy has better damage output, and is the bolter's primary target (light infantry) while the marine isn't (heavy infantry). Add on top of that, the inherent advantages that having your wounds spread across multiple models provides...

**Necron_Mason**

Honestly GW (and ourselves) should address the glaring issues that are breaking the game before attempting in fixing things like this. The problem with MEQ is at least partially dependant on a lot of other problems with the game, most of which will be addressed eventually. If we buff MEQ against hoards and then hoards are nerfed, MEQ will probably be too good against hoards and need to be nerfed back down making the initial buff pointless.

The problem with MEQ won't and shouldn't be addressed until the fixes to other major problems are implemented so they can be balanced around said fixes.

**Mchagen**

Necron_Mason wrote:
Honestly GW (and ourselves) should address the glaring issues that are breaking the game before attempting in fixing things like this. The problem with MEQ is at least partially dependant on a lot of other problems with the game, most of which will be addressed eventually. If we buff MEQ against hoards and then hoards are nerfed, MEQ will probably be too good against hoards and need to be nerfed back down making the initial buff pointless.

The problem with MEQ won't and shouldn't be addressed until the fixes to other major problems are implemented so they can be balanced around said fixes.

Which 'said' fixes? I don't agree with you one bit, but I'm willing to read what you are thinking.

**Necron_Mason**

Mchagen wrote:
Necron_Mason wrote:
Honestly GW (and ourselves) should address the glaring issues that are breaking the game before attempting in fixing things like this. The problem with MEQ is at least partially dependant on a lot of other problems with the game, most of which will be addressed eventually. If we buff MEQ against hoards and then hoards are nerfed, MEQ will probably be too good against hoards and need to be nerfed back down making the initial buff pointless.

The problem with MEQ won't and shouldn't be addressed until the fixes to other major problems are implemented so they can be balanced around said fixes.
Which 'said' fixes? I don't agree with you one bit, but I'm willing to read what you are thinking.

'Said' fixes referring to previous sentence talking about fixes that have not been released yet but are undoubtedly on their way. Its pointless to try to balance MEQ right now, as they would probably need to be balanced again once those fixes are eventually released.

For example: If MEQ went up to 2 wounds, they would be stronger against hoards. However, the fix to hoards comes in (increase in points, changing weapons to be better against hoards, ect.), hoards will lose power and come in line with other unit types. We would then have MEQ with this anti-hoard buff against now weaker hoards, making MEQ OP against hoards and requiring them to be nerfed back down to 1 wound.

Whatever changes they make to address the major problems of 40k, MEQ will more than likely have to be balanced afterwards despite whether they balance them right now or not.

**Ice_can**

Necron_Mason wrote:
Mchagen wrote:
Necron_Mason wrote:
Honestly GW (and ourselves) should address the glaring issues that are breaking the game before attempting in fixing things like this. The problem with MEQ is at least partially dependant on a lot of other problems with the game, most of which will be addressed eventually. If we buff MEQ against hoards and then hoards are nerfed, MEQ will probably be too good against hoards and need to be nerfed back down making the initial buff pointless.

The problem with MEQ won't and shouldn't be addressed until the fixes to other major problems are implemented so they can be balanced around said fixes.
Which 'said' fixes? I don't agree with you one bit, but I'm willing to read what you are thinking.

'Said' fixes referring to previous sentence talking about fixes that have not been released yet but are undoubtedly on their way. Its pointless to try to balance MEQ right now, as they would probably need to be balanced again once those fixes are eventually released.

For example: If MEQ went up to 2 wounds, they would be stronger against hoards. However, the fix to hoards comes in (increase in points, changing weapons to be better against hoards, ect.), hoards will lose power and come in line with other unit types. We would then have MEQ with this anti-hoard buff against now weaker hoards, making MEQ OP against hoards and requiring them to be nerfed back down to 1 wound.

Whatever changes they make to the major problems to 40k, MEQ will more than likely have to be balanced afterwards, despite whether they balance them right now or not.

I agree that hoards need rebalancing, but is there actually any evidence that GW is putting any effort into doing so?

They seem to be more concerned that shine new primaris (not marines in general) are nowhere to be seen rather than the reasons why that is the case.
I'm genuinely expect CA 2018 to just cut the points of primaris down to another 2 points across the board and them call it done. As GW wont care if its only deathwatch aslong as primaris start showing at events.

**Necron_Mason**

Ice_can wrote:

I agree that hoards need rebalancing, but is there actually any evidence that GW is putting any effort into doing so?

They seem to be more concerned that shine new primaris (not marines in general) are nowhere to be seen rather than the reasons why that is the case.
I'm genuinely expect CA 2018 to just cut the points of primaris down to another 2 points across the board and them call it done. As GW wont care if its only deathwatch aslong as primaris start showing at events.

I am sure that making sure that Primaris are more playable is high on their agenda, but if they have any business sense at all they will be working on addressing the main issues that are hurting the health of their game. It was because of issues like those that required them to do a whole revamp of the game, so that shows that they are putting forth effort to address these problems. If they didn't have any plans to fix these issues, they wouldn't have gone as far with 8th as they did.

**Martel732**

There are over a dozen BA kits, but the only BA units being used are scouts and captains. That's got to concern them as well.

**Ice_can**

Martel732 wrote:
There are over a dozen BA kits, but the only BA units being used are scouts and captains. That's got to concern them as well.

Actually from a business perspective probably not as most people playing blood angles probably already own those kits, it's about selling new kits not making old kits playable. Hence why managment are pissed that primaris marines arn't selling as well as they want.

With marines the only way to get exsisting players to buy new kits is primaris as everything else has basically been done. Squatting marines would be bad business due to the PR/player backlash but just making primaris marines slowly better than old marines is more likely to be successful. Though how exactlly they intend to bridge the gap with vehicals I have no idea as the repulsor is offensively ugly and terrible in game.

**Mchagen**

Necron_Mason wrote:
Said' fixes referring to previous sentence talking about fixes that have not been released yet but are undoubtedly on their way. Its pointless to try to balance MEQ right now, as they would probably need to be balanced again once those fixes are eventually released.

For example: If MEQ went up to 2 wounds, they would be stronger against hoards. However, the fix to hoards comes in (increase in points, changing weapons to be better against hoards, ect.), hoards will lose power and come in line with other unit types. We would then have MEQ with this anti-hoard buff against now weaker hoards, making MEQ OP against hoards and requiring them to be nerfed back down to 1 wound.

Whatever changes they make to address the major problems of 40k, MEQ will more than likely have to be balanced afterwards despite whether they balance them right now or not.

So completely hypothetical assumptions on your part, which was what I was alluding to in my response. I'm also a bit baffled that you claim we shouldn't change marines because GW is going to fix the glaring problems of the game later, as though the changes people use or suggest in this proposed rules forum would somehow be 'official.' Then to suggest that GW would blindly add these changes into their updates without any understanding of how they function together with what they're working on--it's just weirdly absurd.

I'm not sure why you or anyone else posting in this part of the forum thinks that somehow suggested changes posted here will be adopted by the designers. I see this section as more inspiration for players willing to use house rules and aren't confined to playing only GW stamped material.

**Martel732**

Ice_can wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
There are over a dozen BA kits, but the only BA units being used are scouts and captains. That's got to concern them as well.
Actually from a business perspective probably not as most people playing blood angles probably already own those kits, it's about selling new kits not making old kits playable. Hence why managment are pissed that primaris marines arn't selling as well as they want.

With marines the only way to get exsisting players to buy new kits is primaris as everything else has basically been done. Squatting marines would be bad business due to the PR/player backlash but just making primaris marines slowly better than old marines is more likely to be successful. Though how exactlly they intend to bridge the gap with vehicals I have no idea as the repulsor is offensively ugly and terrible in game.

My play group has two brand new players who want to run BA and have no old models. That's 5% of the group.