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.

If AP is already too abundant, than why would you entertain giving AP to more units (Boltguns/boltpistols) as a potential balancing factor?

Seems like a bad idea to me.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't play SM but what I gather from this thread is that the problem lies mainly with the Tactical marine having no role in the game. What if the tactical marine gained an additional special rule?

For example, inspired by DoW 2:
When your opponent is declaring one of your non-tactical Marine squads as a target of one of their units in the shooting phase, you can choose one of your Tactical Marine squads in 6" to the target unit. Your opponent has to shoot at the tactical Marines instead. The tactical Marine squad also gains +1 to cover against this attack.

That would be a cool stratagem. You could replace it with the absolutely worthless stratagem to split a 10 man marine unit into 2 5 mans when the unit literally starts with an equally worthless ability to combat squad at the start of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
If AP is already too abundant, than why would you entertain giving AP to more units (Boltguns/boltpistols) as a potential balancing factor?

Seems like a bad idea to me.

I'd go a step further - remove invo saves entirely and nerf ap by 1 on every weapon or go even further and have ap only affect certain types of models...like say - mechanical/biological/psionic....wait...I think I've seen this somewhere before. The problem with this game is there are too many perfect weapons. Like disintigrators and battle cannons - they are so good at killing everything you don't need to take anything else.

In the current system, the more rules you can ignore defensively, the more effective you are.

Having 1 wound is better than paying for 2 wounds, since you get to ignore the extra damage of weapons with 2+ damage.

Having no armor save or an invul save is better than paying for a good armor save, since you aren't effected as much by enemy AP.

Having FNP is good, because nothing the enemy weapon does can negate it. Reanimation protocols is similar as well.

T3 is better than paying for T4, because a lot of weapons test it the same as T4 (S5, S8+, poison, mortal wounds, etc) and being easier to wound in the first place reduces the effectiveness of enemies having to wound modifiers.

The scale for how much GW thinks defensive stats are worth is fundamentally flawed.

Bharring wrote:
If AP is already too abundant, than why would you entertain giving AP to more units (Boltguns/boltpistols) as a potential balancing factor?

Seems like a bad idea to me.

I didn't suggest that.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I would think Astartes of all stripes should have a rule giving -1AP to their bolt weapons to account for training, heavier caliber, etc.

Yes please. I would love my -3 AP bolters back (rubrics).

jcd386 wrote:
In the current system, the more rules you can ignore defensively, the more effective you are.

Having 1 wound is better than paying for 2 wounds, since you get to ignore the extra damage of weapons with 2+ damage.

Having no armor save or an invul save is better than paying for a good armor save, since you aren't effected as much by enemy AP.

Having FNP is good, because nothing the enemy weapon does can negate it. Reanimation protocols is similar as well.

T3 is better than paying for T4, because a lot of weapons test it the same as T4 (S5, S8+, poison, mortal wounds, etc) and being easier to wound in the first place reduces the effectiveness of enemies having to wound modifiers.

The scale for how much GW thinks defensive stats are worth is fundamentally flawed.

This is only true if you pay a premium for those things. 2 wounds is objectively better than 1, it is when 1 wounds costs way fewer points. 2 wound marines at 15 points would be better than 1 wound at 13. What makes what you describe as best best is that it comes super cheap. What you describe is GW over valuing those stats/ the difference in stats. The spot GW needs to find is where models that are meant to be tough against small arms fire to be significantly better per point than chaff models, but less efficient against weapons designed to deal with them. Right now this isn’t the case.

Breng77 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
In the current system, the more rules you can ignore defensively, the more effective you are.

Having 1 wound is better than paying for 2 wounds, since you get to ignore the extra damage of weapons with 2+ damage.

Having no armor save or an invul save is better than paying for a good armor save, since you aren't effected as much by enemy AP.

Having FNP is good, because nothing the enemy weapon does can negate it. Reanimation protocols is similar as well.

T3 is better than paying for T4, because a lot of weapons test it the same as T4 (S5, S8+, poison, mortal wounds, etc) and being easier to wound in the first place reduces the effectiveness of enemies having to wound modifiers.

The scale for how much GW thinks defensive stats are worth is fundamentally flawed.

This is only true if you pay a premium for those things. 2 wounds is objectively better than 1, it is when 1 wounds costs way fewer points. 2 wound marines at 15 points would be better than 1 wound at 13. What makes what you describe as best best is that it comes super cheap. What you describe is GW over valuing those stats/ the difference in stats. The spot GW needs to find is where models that are meant to be tough against small arms fire to be significantly better per point than chaff models, but less efficient against weapons designed to deal with them. Right now this isn’t the case.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I am saying. In the current system and points values, the things I said are generally true. 2 wounds is only better than one if the price you pay for it is worth the durability it gives you. Same for toughness, armor save, etc. And right now I'd say they aren't worth the price.

Part of the problem may also be that there are so many high volume, AP1 or better, D2+ weapons out there, or some combination thereof, that it just isn't typically worth it to invest points in durable units unless they have a 4++ or better invul save, FNP, or both, or if you have one or two ways to get -1 to hit, since that straight up reduces the ability of all enemy weapons no matter what stats they have. Otherwise your units are just going to die. You can say S5+ are heavy weapons, but when it's all I see any unit in most good armies running, I'm not sure that matters.

 akaean wrote:
I will say that Elite infantry does have a place in objective heavy games. And that is worth something. Force Concentration is actually a good thing to have from a tactical standpoint, although it is difficult to put a value on it.

This is a good point. I think here the crowding of a 40k table compared to say 2nd edition makes it worth a lot less though. Somewhere where Marines get to show this off well is the old Epic game.

Space Marine armies do extremely well as there is a lot of space on the table, armies can deploy in a variety of ways and Marines can concentrate forces in a way say the Imperial Guard can't. Here is a couple of successful lists written as their 40k equivalents (quite easy given how Epic formations are picked).

Steel Legion
Regimental commander
2 company commanders
3 Command squads
18 infantry squads with autocannon
Sniper special weapons squad
6 rough rider squads
8 Storm trooper squads
4 valkries
7 Chimera transports
5 Hydra
3 Basilisks
2 deathstrikes
1 Shadowsword
1 Warhound
4 Thunderbolt fighters

~200 guys and a bunch of horses
40 Stormtroopers
21 vehicles
1 super heavy
1 scout titan
4 aircraft (valkries aren't fast enough in Epic and are essentially super skimmers)

These guys would be sweating buckets going up against

Codex Marines
Strike Cruiser (it is only in the game for 1 turn, bombards pre picked cordinates and can drop pod in troops that you decide to load whilst setting up, costs the same as 4 squads of scouts)
2 Thunderhawks
4 five man squads of Terminators
Terminator Chaplain
4 five man squads of scouts
2 10 man squads of assualt marines with jump packs
5 attack bikes (bikes with sidecars armed with heavy bolters)
1 Dreadnought (missile launcher and twin lascannon)
2 10 man Devestator sqads with missile launchers
3 10 man Tactical squads with missile launchers
Chapter master
1 Hunter AA tank
2 Razorbacks (twin lascannon)
7 Rhino (can be replaced with drop pods while setting up if you want to drop in)
2 Warhounds
2 Thunderbolts

20 Terminators
20 Scouts
70 Marines
10 Vehicles, 5 attack bikes
2 Scout titans
2 Super heavies
2 Aircraft
1 Space support

Some people prefer 4 predators to the warhound.

I did mention how much more valuable force concentration becomes on tables with good terrain and a large size (giving the example of 12x8).

I do acknowledge that people don't play that way though.

4 X 6 tables with good terrain will still have a good number of firing lanes. That's just way it has to be. There is no terrain-based solution to marines getting shot to pieces, because they need LoS just like the enemy.

Martel732 wrote:
4 X 6 tables with good terrain will still have a good number of firing lanes. That's just way it has to be. There is no terrain-based solution to marines getting shot to pieces, because they need LoS just like the enemy.

The idea is that when you have certain firing lanes, the horde army can't cram as many guns into them as the elite army, because the elite army takes up less space. So while it may be 20 marines vs 60 guardsmen in cost, if they're fighting in an alleyway or some hypothetical firing lane, 40 of the guardsmen won't be able to participate because they can't physically fit, reducing the parameters of the engagement to 20 vs 20, which the space marines handily win. The guard, can, of course, replenish their losses by moving models into the gaps made by the Marine's shooting, but they will never be able (in theory) to reach the critical mass where they absolutely and unquestionably outclass the space marines, instead slowly feeding models into a losing battle.

That's theoretically possible until you factor in all the ignore LoS stuff the IG has. While guardsmen theoretically have higher damage output per point than marines, their real job is to be physical barriers to the big guns. The lasguns are just icing on the cake. I've never lost a match because the guardsmen actually outshot marines. It was decided by mortars, wyverns, basilisks, manticores, and battlecannons.

This is why I hate only comparing marines to other troops. Marines true failings are only clear when armies are viewed holistically. The inefficiencies of the tac marine get pumped down to every unit based around the tac marine. This is why ASM are universally reviled; they are just tac marine with jump packs. A tac marine equivalent has to fill every role in a marine list: heavy support, elite, fast attack etc.

So while marines might be okay against enemy troops under certain circumstances, they cannot match the specialization power that other lists bring to bear.

Martel732 wrote:
That's theoretically possible until you factor in all the ignore LoS stuff the IG has. While guardsmen theoretically have higher damage output per point than marines, their real job is to be physical barriers to the big guns. The lasguns are just icing on the cake. I've never lost a match because the guardsmen actually outshot marines. It was decided by mortars, wyverns, basilisks, manticores, and battlecannons.

This is why I hate only comparing marines to other troops. Marines true failings are only clear when armies are viewed holistically. The inefficiencies of the tac marine get pumped down to every unit based around the tac marine. This is why ASM are universally reviled; they are just tac marine with jump packs. A tac marine equivalent has to fill every role in a marine list: heavy support, elite, fast attack etc.

So while marines might be okay against enemy troops under certain circumstances, they cannot match the specialization power that other lists bring to bear.

So the problem isn't "tac marines are worse than Guardsmen" its that "Devastators are worse than Heavy Weapon Squads?" Because I'd argue that heavy weapon squads are so bad you don't see them anymore, hardly.

Devastators are worse than heavy weapon platforms available in other codices in general. Part of this is that marines pay too much to be marines, and the other part is that marines pay too much for their heavy weapons. Heavy weapon squads have nothing to do with it. I didn't even mention them. I guess mortars can come on heavy weapon squads, but they can come in every infantry squad, too.

Martel732 wrote:
Devastators are worse than heavy weapon platforms available in other codices in general. Heavy weapon squads have nothing to do with it. I didn't even mention them. I guess mortars can come on heavy weapon squads, but they can come in every infantry squad, too.

Well, I am trying to clarify what you mean by "heavy weapon platforms" because I'm afraid you're trying to compare Devastators to Basilisks, or Ravagers, or Mek Gunz, or something, which they're clearly not. Of course the tactical marine with a single heavy weapon won't measure up to a main battle tank.

I'd argue that most man-portable heavy weapons teams are actually worse than devastators, barring the obvious Dark Reaper.

I mean on a per point basis, not model for model basis. I'm always talking point for point, not model for model.

I'm not limiting my comparison to man portable weapons. There's no reason to do that. My opponent is not limited by my selections. But marine vehicles suck too, so it's choose your way to suck with heavy weapons for marines.

I'm just illustrating how the inefficiency of the tac marine gets propagated through the whole codex.

Martel732 wrote:
I mean on a per point basis, not model for model basis. I'm always talking point for point, not model for model.

I'm not limiting my comparison to man portable weapons. There's no reason to do that. My opponent is not limited by my selections. But marine vehicles suck too, so it's choose your way to suck with heavy weapons for marines.

I'm just illustrating how the inefficiency of the tac marine gets propagated through the whole codex.

The problem with doing a per-point basis rather than a per-model basis is that, in theory, the terrain should allow a per-model conflict to evolve (and the Marine player should be doing everything they can to force this situation).

And you should absolutely compare like-for-like. Devastators aren't Predators, and a Lascannon Predator kills tanks better than any Leman Russ, slightly edging out the Leman Russ Annihilator. This topic has been done to death.

The "inefficiency" of the tac marine comes from an inability for marine players to do either or both of the following:
1) Ensure the table is set up in such a way that space taken up by horde armies is a detriment. The space that a warm body (as it were) takes up can and should be a detriment, because force concentration should be what horde armies struggle with.

2) Ensure that every conflict becomes a 1v1 or 1v2 fight. 20 Marines can hit 20 Guardsman easy, and spar with 40 fairly reliably. They can't deal with 60, but 60 models takes up almost 60 square inches of board space, so if you're letting that happen, either you goofed tactically or the table is wrong.

I disagree. Point for point ends up being far more relevant in most situations.

There's no reason to compare like to like. We can agree to disagree on that.

I've already described how marines can never actually get a local advantage on IG.

As was mentioned the idea of force concentration fails when non-Los shooting exists with no penalty. Marines cannot force a situation where they have the mathematical advantage when terrain does not matter. Personally I wish all shooting required LOS. Barring that weapons that ignore LOS should either be -1 to hit when they lack LOS, or have a minimum range giving them blindspots, and those blind spots should be significant. Barring something like that the idea of model to model comparison fall apart because there is no way to force that interaction.

Or make all ignore LoS weaponry whirlwind effectiveness.

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. Point for point ends up being far more relevant in most situations.

There's no reason to compare like to like. We can agree to disagree on that.

I've already described how marines can never actually get a local advantage on IG.

Point for point is only relevant for situations where neither side is using tactics. The whole point of a wargame is that it's not a computer simulation - you can't just load up the lists, feed them into a computer that lines them up across the table from each other, does some die-roll adjudication, and prints out the results. 2000 points of marines fits in a different space than 2000 points of Guard, and should, in theory and with proper terrain, be able to cut off portions of the Imperial Guard army from participating in the fight, making it difficult for the IG to bring their firepower to bear meaningfully.

I will concede that in certain army builds that include indirect fire (which is probably a lot of competitive builds), this is much harder to do (damn near impossible in the case of indirect fire exclusively). But those army builds have weaknesses to other builds in competitive settings if they bring more than 2 or 3 artillery pieces, and only 2 or 3 pieces is tolerable. So the meta rolls on.

Nah that never really works because like everything else a tank with worse armor, worse BS etc ends up cheaper despite those stats not making as much of a difference when you can hide.

It's almost like IG players know that this COULD be an issue and take steps to minimize it. Again, no one cares if some lasguns are out of LoS. They aren't doing the heavy lifting.

I'm glad you conceded that artillery lines exist, as that's almost every IG list I play against Because IG artillery is stupid effective.

Point for point is always relevant, because both sides can use tactics, and are mathematically limited by their point for point capabilities.

I get what your getting at but with 4k of models plus objectives on a 6x4 table. The terrain rules suck so hard and the normal level of terrain doesn't have enough impact on the game to allow the sort of match ups your describing to actually happen, even when they do it's usually countered by either NLOS firepower with full table range or flying units swooping in.

Just to clarify the play still your describing is how I play tau, but they have better mobility and firepower concentration than marines have and even then it takes skill to pull off properly with 8th edition's sucky terrain rules.

Also, scion drops don't care about your marine tactics. A bunch of expensive stuff is getting melted by plasma.

Point for point tacticals & CSM should shoot twice with bolt guns.

That would make them competitive with newer codexes.

Breng77 wrote:As was mentioned the idea of force concentration fails when non-Los shooting exists with no penalty. Marines cannot force a situation where they have the mathematical advantage when terrain does not matter. Personally I wish all shooting required LOS. Barring that weapons that ignore LOS should either be -1 to hit when they lack LOS, or have a minimum range giving them blindspots, and those blind spots should be significant. Barring something like that the idea of model to model comparison fall apart because there is no way to force that interaction.

Ignore LOS weapons have some pretty glaring weaknesses to certain army builds which will ensure that people probably won't take more than 3, possibly 4 pieces.

Martel732 wrote:Or make all ignore LoS weaponry whirlwind effectiveness.

I know you disagree, but I actually think Whirlwinds are pretty awesome artillery, in general. It's 100-115 points of goodness.

The only type of adjustment I'd do is charge 110 and give it both types of ammunition, allowing it to choose what it fires. It's not that far away from being bad.

EDIT:
Wow this thread moved on.
Suffice to say I've routinely creamed IG artillery lists in my local meta (one guy used to run a ton of Manticores), to the point where they're slowing down and I'm more commonly seeing a single basilisk and a single manticore with a couple of Russes and whatnot.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. Point for point ends up being far more relevant in most situations.

There's no reason to compare like to like. We can agree to disagree on that.

I've already described how marines can never actually get a local advantage on IG.

Point for point is only relevant for situations where neither side is using tactics. The whole point of a wargame is that it's not a computer simulation - you can't just load up the lists, feed them into a computer that lines them up across the table from each other, does some die-roll adjudication, and prints out the results. 2000 points of marines fits in a different space than 2000 points of Guard, and should, in theory and with proper terrain, be able to cut off portions of the Imperial Guard army from participating in the fight, making it difficult for the IG to bring their firepower to bear meaningfully.

I will concede that in certain army builds that include indirect fire (which is probably a lot of competitive builds), this is much harder to do (damn near impossible in the case of indirect fire exclusively). But those army builds have weaknesses to other builds in competitive settings if they bring more than 2 or 3 artillery pieces, and only 2 or 3 pieces is tolerable. So the meta rolls on.

Most competitive guard builds (or imperium builds) have 9+ mortars, and then many have 3-4 artillery tanks on top of that. So they are pretty common but not unbeatable by any stretch they just make the idea of forcing 1-1 confrontation impossible. The answer to them oddly enough is -1 to hit armies, that can hit their lines quickly. I personally don’t like ignores LOS shooting because it has very limited counter play and no real trade off for its benefit.

Martel732 wrote:
Also, scion drops don't care about your marine tactics. A bunch of expensive stuff is getting melted by plasma.

Screen better

"gnore LOS weapons have some pretty glaring weaknesses to certain army builds which will ensure that people probably won't take more than 3, possibly 4 pieces."

Like what? Because I've never seen any.

Whirlwinds are white hot gak. Please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Also, scion drops don't care about your marine tactics. A bunch of expensive stuff is getting melted by plasma.

Screen better

They're dead. My lord. Do you ever play vs IG?Also, all marine screens are expensive. So again: what are you talking about?