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.

I like the idea of exploding wounds, but would it be against a single model, or spread around?

Because the latter doesn't seem right.
Since when in the fluff could a bolter take out multiple enemies with a single shot? The explosion isn't that big. I know people like to compare bolters to automatic grenade launchers, but they really aren't like that.
2 wounds against a single model makes more sense as it would reflect the 2 stage process of the bolt penetrating and then detonating inside of the target.
It's not as if there isn't already an ability like that; I'm pretty sure tyranids have a ccw that causes extra wounds on a 6 against a single model.
The difference though is that marines would get it at range and on a basic weapon.
If the damage could be spread around, that would make bolters into psuedo mortal wounds generators. And that's not good.

 Galef wrote:
Then why isn't Tesla considered OP? Is it just because you then have to roll to wound?

-

Yes, that's exactly why.
With extra hits you have to roll to wound and then your opponent gets a save. That's 2 steps.
With extra wounds your opponent gets a save. That's one step, which is made harder because they would have to take multiple ones all of a sudden.
Wounds are inherently stronger because they bypass a step of damage mitigation.

Tesla are also 9 points a weapon. Which is ludicrous.

I actually like to see it have an effect on morale, because bolters are supposed to be demoralizing. I'm not sure how effective it would be though, as there are too many abilities in hoard armies that outright negate or mitigate morale damage.

You completely ignored the poem. Cheaper is better.

And makes marines more what they aren't supposed to be, a power armour horde.

We've gone over cheaper, it's a poop buff.

The ship has sailed on that. They are never going to be what they are supposed to be. Cost them for the effectiveness they actually show on the table.

There is no acceptable bolter improvement that makes them 13 ppm. Nor bolt rifle improvement that makes intercessors 18 ppm.

Martel732 wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
*sing-song voice*

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
That’s really all they need to do!
No special rules - they’re the baseline troop,
All other ideas can go screw!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
It’s the simplest way to make do!
Fixes all the relative iss-sues
Without making a big pile of poo!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
The chassis is the rotten bit!
Price them more like a Guardsman,
Y’all can stop this spazzy gak!

Now Everybody!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper...

Genius. Absolute genius.

Agreed, very clever. But I only partially agree with the message. I'll quote myself from one of the other "fix Marines" threads:

 Galef wrote:
And with no actually changes to rules and/or stat, there is no "reasonable" cost for Marines. At 13ppm they are just overcosted. At 11ppm they are a bit better, but still not great. At 9ppm, they are probably worth their cost, but now you have a unit that is cheaper than other options that they are SUPPOSED to be better than.

The only "fix" that will make MEQs appropriate is a 1-2 punch of points decrease AND some kind of rule change/special ability.

Marines need to be cheaper, yes, but they do NOT need to be "cheap". They still need to have some weight in comparison to other "baseline" Troops, which BTW many of those DO have weapons with special traits.

IMO, 11ppm Marines with "Exploding Rounds" (the 2 wounds per 6 against non-Vehicles version) is the sweet spot. Cheap enough to field plenty of Marines, but not cheaper than other, weaker Troops, and have greater impact on the army's overall damage output.
This also helps make Terminators a bit better too, although they also need a point drop.

"Exploding Rounds" is a small change that, combined with minimal point decreases, should make Marines "feel" like Marines

-

Martel732 wrote:
The ship has sailed on that. They are never going to be what they are supposed to be. Cost them for the effectiveness they actually show on the table.

There is no acceptable bolter improvement that makes them 13 ppm. Nor bolt rifle improvement that makes intercessors 18 ppm.

If only we had room to expand marines that weren't limited by their bigger brothers.

Tell me, why weren't normal marines just given Primaris stat lines again? That's the best fix.

Sir Heckington wrote:
Tell me, why weren't normal marines just given Primaris stat lines again? That's the best fix.

Likely because GW chickened out, or someone had the idea to milk the product line for more sales.
I've posted before that I truly think GW was designing Marines in the early stages of 8E to have 2W/2A like Primaris, but something changed in that process that made them split into a separate line instead.
Sadly, GW could have had their cake AND eaten it too. All Basic Marines should have had the Primaris Statline, while all the new Primaris models they had planned could have just been a new Armour mark with better equipment. Maybe Primaris could have been T5? That increase in T and improved equipment would still result in plenty of sales, yet not been as much of a huge dump on older Marines.

Imagine how 8E would be if basic Marines (both Loyalist and Chaos) has 2W/2A base, and everything scaled up from there?

-

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
*sing-song voice*

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
That’s really all they need to do!
No special rules - they’re the baseline troop,
All other ideas can go screw!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
It’s the simplest way to make do!
Fixes all the relative iss-sues
Without making a big pile of poo!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
The chassis is the rotten bit!
Price them more like a Guardsman,
Y’all can stop this spazzy gak!

Now Everybody!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper...

Genius. Absolute genius.

Agreed, very clever. But I only partially agree with the message. I'll quote myself from one of the other "fix Marines" threads:

 Galef wrote:
And with no actually changes to rules and/or stat, there is no "reasonable" cost for Marines. At 13ppm they are just overcosted. At 11ppm they are a bit better, but still not great. At 9ppm, they are probably worth their cost, but now you have a unit that is cheaper than other options that they are SUPPOSED to be better than.

The only "fix" that will make MEQs appropriate is a 1-2 punch of points decrease AND some kind of rule change/special ability.

Marines need to be cheaper, yes, but they do NOT need to be "cheap". They still need to have some weight in comparison to other "baseline" Troops, which BTW many of those DO have weapons with special traits.

IMO, 11ppm Marines with "Exploding Rounds" (the 2 wounds per 6 against non-Vehicles version) is the sweet spot. Cheap enough to field plenty of Marines, but not cheaper than other, weaker Troops, and have greater impact on the army's overall damage output.
This also helps make Terminators a bit better too, although they also need a point drop.

"Exploding Rounds" is a small change that, combined with minimal point decreases, should make Marines "feel" like Marines

-

Would you build off of this and have 10 point marines and a 1 point boltgun?

Maybe, although GWs points system is surprising consistent in that anything that is ALWAYS base wargear gets a 0pt cost. Since nothing in any Marine codex (that I'm aware of) has the OPTION to take a Bolt gun above their standard wargear, it would break this consistency.

It's the same reason why a Pulse Laser cost 0pts in the Eldar Codex, despite being very similar to a Twin-Lascannon. The only units that can take a PL are the Falcon and Crimson Hunters, so the cost of the PL is rolled into their cost instead.

Likewise Dire Avengers and Necron Immortals have weird costs that don't include their gun, because their guns can be taken as options for other units in their Codices above those other units' base wargear. Namely Autarchs/Exarchs and various Necron vehicles. Otherwise those guns would also have a 0ppm cost

So while it would make sense to have 10ppm Marines with 1ppm Bolt guns, I don't see it happening.
Although, I don't see my "Exploding Rounds" suggestion happening either, and the best we can hope for is 10-11ppm Marines via CA.
Which is sad because it will mean Marine still won't "feel" like Marines, even if they are closer to being worth their cost

-

VoidSempai wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Just making Astartes (not other Imperial) bolters -1 save would be fine in my book...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Who remembers the old citadel journal article on different ways to fire bolters? My favourite was a 1 inch blaster template at strength 3 no save mod (instead of strength 4 -1 save) , to reflect them hosing an area with shrapnel from the exploding rounds! idea was you had more choices when firing the weapons...

wasn't that the way that old rubric marine fired their bolter, IIRC? They put a small blast template, but I think it was S4 AP5 or AP4, it was pretty good.

Alt fire mode!

range 24 Rapid 1, Str 4, dmg 1, save -1
OR
range 24 Assault 2, Str 3, dmg 1, save -

The thing about Bolter-buffs is that it doesn’t fix board control issues or durability issues.

8th edition is a kill them before they kill you edition. The only real protection against that is more bodies.

Lower points fixes...

Relative damage output: MEQ at 11 points per model allows for more damage output per point. Not just bolters, but access to MORE units, that allows more access to special, Heavy, and close combat upgrades.

Relative durability: More bodies, at lower points per model directly increases the ability to soak damage efficiently. Note also, this applies to keeping upgrades alive. As a long-time Guard player, I can tell you having extra bodies to keep the upgrades alive is key to their victory. If you have Death Company with a pair of CC upgrades, the rest of the squad is really just there to soak wounds. If you can afford two more dudes, you go from being wiped out to making it to combat with the two dudes that matter.

Board control: More bodies mean you can spread out to deny deep strike, block charges, and resist efforts to prevent you from doing so. Having more bodies comes into play with securing objectives.

The mechanics of 8th is edition reward board control. The little tactical depth that the game posesses lies in that. Having access to “disposable” troops allows you options for game changing plays that don’t involve simply killing everything you see.

Which is why I also want 11ppm Marines AND something extra. I don't even play Marines (outside of games at home with my kids), but they are my favorite opponent.
I get that every army should have something "expendable" in war, but with the investment given into making Marines, it just feels wrong to make them "cheap" for that purpose.

They certainly need to be cheaper, and I think most of us agree 11ppm is a pretty good spot for them, I just like to see something added that make a single unit of Marines a bit more fearsome than other Faction's basic Troop (excluding the super-Elite Factions like Custodes, of course).

Explosive Rounds could be that thing. As could 2W/2A, or 2+ Armour. This list could, and indeed is, going on. So many opportunities to make Marine feel like Marines compared to other armies.

-

I've found the biggest issue marines have is durability, not offensive output. I started in 5th and back then T4 and a 3+ meant something. It wasn't invincible but it was durable. Now it's a joke and the main reason most very competitive lists have a few big stompy/smash units and then a ton of cheap chaff to screen, hold objectives and give CP. Your paying points for things that you should such as strength, BS, WS but it doesn't matter when you die as easily as a guardsmen.

In an edition that finally moved away from 3 to 4 wounds being the max a model will have, marines have to few and power armor needs to be improved some how.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I've found the biggest issue marines have is durability, not offensive output. I started in 5th and back then T4 and a 3+ meant something. It wasn't invincible but it was durable. Now it's a joke and the main reason most very competitive lists have a few big stompy/smash units and then a ton of cheap chaff to screen, hold objectives and give CP. Your paying points for things that you should such as strength, BS, WS but it doesn't matter when you die as easily as a guardsmen.

In an edition that finally moved away from 3 to 4 wounds being the max a model will have, marines have to few and power armor needs to be improved some how.

I certainly agree, which is why months ago I suggested +1W across the board for ALL Marines, whether Infantry, Bikes, Terminators, whatever. No points adjustment needed for most units (Death Guard and T-sons might need a bump in points, however).
But aside from meaning you'd have more Marines alive in later turns, that doesn't add to their damage output, which is important in 8E.

Maybe we'll get 2W Marines (3W Termies) in 9E?

-

A single unit of Marines is more fearsome than a single unit (at least) of:
-Guardsmen
-Hormagaunts
-Termigaunts
-Guardians (both)
-Rangers
-Dire Avengers
-Fire Warriors
-Kroot

They are about even - goes both ways - when facing
-Ork Boyz in large mobs - so depends on kit of each squad
-Necron Warriors - come in 20man squads, and should be about as scary man-for-man
-Necron Immortals - which should be scarrier

And are scared by
-Custode troops?

A single unit of Marines is *already* more fearesome than almost all basic troops in the game. The problem is that they aren't more fearsome per point.

 Galef wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I've found the biggest issue marines have is durability, not offensive output. I started in 5th and back then T4 and a 3+ meant something. It wasn't invincible but it was durable. Now it's a joke and the main reason most very competitive lists have a few big stompy/smash units and then a ton of cheap chaff to screen, hold objectives and give CP. Your paying points for things that you should such as strength, BS, WS but it doesn't matter when you die as easily as a guardsmen.

In an edition that finally moved away from 3 to 4 wounds being the max a model will have, marines have to few and power armor needs to be improved some how.

I certainly agree, which is why months ago I suggested +1W across the board for ALL Marines, whether Infantry, Bikes, Terminators, whatever. No points adjustment needed for most units (Death Guard and T-sons might need a bump in points, however).
But aside from meaning you'd have more Marines alive in later turns, that doesn't add to their damage output, which is important in 8E.

Maybe we'll get 2W Marines (3W Termies) in 9E?

-

I got their damage output.

-1 AP boltguns. 2 Attacks.



On a serious note, yeah, Marine's are basically screwed in 8th. The best we'll get is a point drops realistically, and if we're optimistic a special rule like yours.

Having played Eldar vs Marines many, many times and playing small games that consisted of most just Tac Marines, Guardians and/or Dire Avengers, I can say from experience that a Single unit of Marines is certainly NOT more fearsome than a single unit of Guardians or DAs.
5 Marines drop far faster to 10 Guardian catapults or 5 DA catapults (that can stay outside RF range), than those same Guardians or DAs fall to 5 Bolters.

But the main thesis of this thread is that 5 Bolters do less damage that 10 Lasguns, which is pathetic.

DA catapaults only stay outside RF range if you Fire & Fade. Otherwise, the SM close to within RF range before firing every turn.

5 Marines shooting DAs:
5x2x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 10x(2/9), or 20/9 wounds/round

5 DAs shooting Marines:
5x2x(2/3)[(1/3)(1/3) + (1/6)(5/6)] = 20/12 wounds/round
So it's fairly even.

5 Marines shooting Guardians:
5x2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 80/27

10 Guardians shooting Marines:
2x[DA shooting] = 40/12

So 5 naked Marines outshoot 5 naked Dire Avengers.
10 Guardians slightly outshoot 5 Marines by about 10% - but are in 6" charge range after one round of shooting, and do even worse there.

Supported (CP, psykers, other units), DAs/Guardians certainly do outperform Marines. But Dire Avengers die faster to Boltguns than Marines die to Shuriken. Guardians do die 10% slower than twice as fast to Marines, but only get one round of shooting. That unit of Marines is more fearsome to either than they are to the Marines.

Gotta be honest, I have no idea what that math translates to.
I get what the numbers represent (5 shots x 2 for RF, 2/3 chance to hit, 2/3 chance to wound, etc), but I have no idea what "80/27" means at the end

When I "math out" stats in my head, I do it in increments of 6, 9 or 12 if possible and round down.
So I know 5 Marines with 10 Shots hitting on 3+ is 6-7 hits, rounding down to account for "bad luck" means you should only rely on about 6 hits, which then leads to 4 wounds on T3 models. Or 2 dead Dire Avengers

I prefer this method rather than doing 5x2x2/3x2/3, etc
So with no snark implied, can you help me understand what "80/27" translates to? Or is it just a method of comparison?

-

 Galef wrote:
Maybe, although GWs points system is surprising consistent in that anything that is ALWAYS base wargear gets a 0pt cost. Since nothing in any Marine codex (that I'm aware of) has the OPTION to take a Bolt gun above their standard wargear, it would break this consistency.

It's the same reason why a Pulse Laser cost 0pts in the Eldar Codex, despite being very similar to a Twin-Lascannon. The only units that can take a PL are the Falcon and Crimson Hunters, so the cost of the PL is rolled into their cost instead.

Likewise Dire Avengers and Necron Immortals have weird costs that don't include their gun, because their guns can be taken as options for other units in their Codices above those other units' base wargear. Namely Autarchs/Exarchs and various Necron vehicles. Otherwise those guns would also have a 0ppm cost

So while it would make sense to have 10ppm Marines with 1ppm Bolt guns, I don't see it happening.
Although, I don't see my "Exploding Rounds" suggestion happening either, and the best we can hope for is 10-11ppm Marines via CA.
Which is sad because it will mean Marine still won't "feel" like Marines, even if they are closer to being worth their cost

-

Marines in 2nd ed were getting tabled without taking a turn. GW has never matched marines to fluff, or even gotten close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
A single unit of Marines is more fearsome than a single unit (at least) of:
-Guardsmen
-Hormagaunts
-Termigaunts
-Guardians (both)
-Rangers
-Dire Avengers
-Fire Warriors
-Kroot

They are about even - goes both ways - when facing
-Ork Boyz in large mobs - so depends on kit of each squad
-Necron Warriors - come in 20man squads, and should be about as scary man-for-man
-Necron Immortals - which should be scarrier

And are scared by
-Custode troops?

A single unit of Marines is *already* more fearesome than almost all basic troops in the game. The problem is that they aren't more fearsome per point.

Or even equal in most cases. Equal would fine and desirable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marines and eldar identical problems. Comparing them to each other is not informative. Compare how many points a wyvern volley removes of marines/eldar and then cheap troops like rangers or guardsmen.

Galef,
"80/27" means that it does 80 27ths of a wound. So 2.96... wounds. Reducing to a decimal gets complaints about rounding to the "wrong" way.

The problem with using whole numbers and gut feeling roundings is that they introduce a lot of uncertanty and bias. You could still do the whole thing as numbers though:

Marines would be (2/3)(2/3)(1/2), (5 models, two attacks each, hit rate, wound rate, failed save rate), which could also be expresssed as 2x2x1 (4) wounds for every 3x3x2 shot

DAs get a bit harder to do: (2/3)[(1/3)(1/3) + (1/6)(5/6)] becomes 2x[inner stuff] for every 3 shots. I'm going to skip the math that shows a Shuriken shot has a (1/4) chance to wound, so that gives us 2x1 (2) wounds for every 3x4 shots.

3x4 (12) shots and 3x3x2 (18) shots can both be factored to 3x3x4 shots (36). Multiply the DAs by 3 and the Marines by 2.

Thus, per how you want to look at it, for every 36 shots, Marines kill 8 Dire Avengers, and Dire Avengers kill 6 Marines.

Per round, they each get the same number of shots. So Dire Avengers lose a head-to-head by 6:8.

The fractionals are much easier to grok and wield, though.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit:
Case in point with your rounding: you rounded 2.96 to 2.

Thanx, that makes a lot more sense. Admittedly, I intentionally round down, even if the rounding should go up. This is an old habit I've developed for making quick in-game decisions.
If a unit can't do something with poor roles, I'm more hesitant to commit then to that action.

Seems to work out really well for me, but does give me a biased outlook on a unit's performance. But that outlook does also match my experience, so I roll with it.

At the end of the day, I'd be happy with 11ppm Marines as-is. But it is just a shame that a simple special rule for Bolters could easily be added that not only makes then feel more fluffy, but also adds to a Marines potential output. Yet just will not be added.

-

The first suggestion is pretty cool. On a 6 to wound you deal 2 separate wounds.

That’s called truncating. You do it at the end of all the multiplying, not the middle, and that way of doing number is even less convincing that either wounds on sixes or trimming to 11 would have any effect. That gives you what, forty, sixty, or eighty extra points? I guess it buys you another minimum tactical squad, which isn’t nothing.

Those numbers were without doublekills or triplekills on 6s. There were as it is now.

With the two-wounds-on-6 rule proposed above, it's 10 dead DAs for every 6 dead Marines. With three-wounds-on-6, it's *12* to 6 - that is, Marines kill *twice* as many Dire Avengers as Dire Avengers kill Marines. Naked.

Bharring wrote:
With the two-wounds-on-6 rule proposed above, it's 10 dead DAs for every 6 dead Marines...... Naked.

Which at their current price point, would be perfectly fair and fluffy, IMO, especially considering Eldar are supposed to be squishing and avoid being in RF range of big scary gorillas with shotguns (which is basically what Marines are to the Aeldari).
The idea is that if Marines can get that close, it's all over for the Eldar, but if the Eldar can coordinate their forces to pick off enough Marines before they get close, DAs and Gaurdians can swoop in a finish off the remainders.
In a 1-1 fight, Marines should win 90% of the time, but instead Marines and DAs are about even.

-

The extra hit on a 6... or whatever, is on average identical to a +1 to hit.

If you consider that for every 4/6 hits a Marine would generate, you now create 5 hits... 1 each for 3,4,5, and 2 for a 6 means 5 hits instead of 4.

Marines just need to be chee-eeper,
Bolters don't need to be that great!
I don't get the obsession with Bolt-ter porn
It's not how I'd want to master...

-WAIT!

What?

-You can't say that here! This is a family show!

Bah, you and your rules. Ahem...

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
You may need to buy more dudes!
If you add bolter rules the costs go up,
You can't kill all the little 'Nid broods.

How would points go up? You just don’t increase their points.

The problem with changing a weapon system that is prolific as the bolter type or even just the boltgun is the inherent fact it is prolific among many armies/factions. It doesn't just affect Space Marines or Chapters from their codex, it affects other chapters and factions eg: Deathwatch and all other released Marine codexes, Grey knights, Imperial guard, Chaos, Inquisition, Sisters of Battle and a lot more armies.

That's a massive change, to fix Space marines.

I think there's 2 things going on, and people are focusing on different aspects:
1. Basic marines aren't good units for their cost
2. Basic marines don't feel elite for many people

So, the simple and immediate solution is to drop their point cost to 11-12 pts and see how that works. With no other changes they're less "superhuman mini-tanks" and more just basic medium/heavy infantry. This is most likely to be the only change we'll see this edition, and we should probably be prepared to live with it.

Now, the question of how to make marines more elite is trickier because everyone imagines marines differently. For example, I personally think all marines should all just use primaris stats as a base, but that's just my opinion. There are quite a few people who disagree for various reasons, but it is what it is. Needless to say, I don't think any such changes will happen this edition at least.

As an aside I also think special issue ammunition for all marines could go along way to represent the generalist and tactical nature of the marines (i.e. being able to adapt), while improving the "elite" feel. Maybe Chaos gets super warp rounds and grey knights get more psy-type bolts. It also leaves non-marine bolters unaffected.