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.

 Crimson wrote:

Bharring wrote:

But, if we were trying to fix Real Marines, in addition to some other changes, +1A for Tacs/Devs/Asm would help. NOt enough alone to fix them, but probably part of a wider change.

People keep suggesting giving marines extra attack, wounds or AP. This is not going to happen. These are Primaris things, GW is not going to give them to old marines. If you want such rules, you can play primaris (or use your old marines as counts as primaris.) Trying to improve old marines at this point is about as relevant as trying to improve Bretonnians during the End Times.

That doesn't exactly help Chaos Space Marines. Well at least until GW decides to add Primaris Chaos Space Marines which I hope is never a thing. Granted, I think it is entirely possible that GW will just have Chaos Space Marines be not very good for time immortal too.

There were some 2++ CWE/DE lists that were scary. I had forgotten that the DE were more than a token presence there. Good point. CWE could do 2+ rerollable Deathstars without DE, but DE couldn't do gak without CWE.

CWE are the book that's been OP the most consistently. The runner up is Marines, which don't even come close. It's kinda scary.

But where is this idea that they're dominating this edition coming from? They had a strong couple months after their Codex, and are still a top-tier book. But looking at the past few months, pulling 10 top-placing lists at random, I was seeing 1/10 lists were CWE lists. That's not dominating. I was certainly seeing more Knight/IG/Etc than CWE/etc lists. And certainly more DE than CWE.

Whether you want to say it's Knight > CWE, IG > CWE, Etc > CWE, or IoM Soup > Eldar Soup, it's still clear CWE aren't the current #1. Even ignoring DE.

 Crimson wrote:

Karol wrote:

Ok great for all the normal marines. But if in case of GK, they said they won't get primaris and the stats of GK unit wont get change, it just means they will end up bad for ever.

They will probably get Primaris models eventually, but that requires redoing almost the whole line just for them, as they're too distinct to share most models with other chapters. As this will be not happening any time soon, GW said it is not happening lest people stop buying current GK models (in case the there were some people who were not deterred by the quality of their rules.)

So if they know that the primaris GK aren't coming soon, why aren't they fixing the rules. I get that they wouldn't want people to buy normal marines, if the near future means a AoS style of squashing normal marines. They want to avoid the flakk they got and are still getting anywhere outside of UK and US for what they did to WFB. Makes sense, I have no problem with it. But what is the sense in keeping an army bad, when you won't update it any time soon and the quality of the rules does not help at all. People more or less have to be tricked in to starting GK. And If stuff like CA is ment to for it, it is a rather scumy thing to do.

Well, I don't think there's any grand strategy nor malice behind GK being bad. GW just failed with the codex, then they got hit by blanket nerfs aimed at other stuff. And now they probably don't know how to fix them. They tried in CA, and whilst it may not be enough it is better than nothing. GK are kinda tricky army to balance though, as they have such an limited selection of units.

Generally, marines are as good as their transports. In 7th edition, having free, open topped transports was good, so marines were good.

Currently, marines have no effective way to gain mobility. You can have the right tool for the job but getting it to where it needs to be is a rather difficult proposition if the unit can't DS.

Secondly, the number of attacks per model has amped up so much in 8e. Orks throwing out 5 attacks with exploding 6s per model. There is no defense against this. A unit of Skarboyz fighting twice expects to kill a basic Imperial Knight. That attack volume is intense. Imperial Guardsmen can effortlessly throw out 3x Strength 4 attacks per model. All the while, marines really don't have good volume defense, or volume offense.

A good start is 2w, 2a marines, base. Most people assumed at the start of 8th edition that marines would have 2 wounds, because it made sense based on the fundamentals of 8th edition. 2 attacks also seemed reasonable. There were some Space Marine models (like Purifiers) that actually lost attacks from 7th to 8th.

Another good change would be to reduce the cost of Rhinos, and Razorbacks. Marines with 2a, 2w, riding inside affordable rhinos & razors would change the game in a good way.

Additionally, scaling squads really needs to happen. Marines are really the only army that suffers from morale. Every other army has either amazing mitigation, or models so cheap it doesn't matter. ATSKNF is weak. Super weak. The morale mechanic prohibits 10 man squads, and also, with the command point structure + squad loadout options, it is objectively a bad decision to run 10 man squads outside of niche cases supported by stratagems. A 10 man squad with 2 sergeants and 4 special weapons might mean something, if it was also running around immune to morale (as an example).

For whatever reason folks on dakka have a vested interest in keeping space marines bad. I don't understand why, but that's the case. As a competitive player, marines are kind of a joke right now. They can win games, sure, but by in large they have numerous hard counters, and frankly have a very difficult time building to address other meta lists.

Marines are outclassed by guardsmen in shooting and melee. When will this madness end?

I don't understand why, but that's the case.

Cause marines are for new players and they need training wheels.

/sarcasm

Honestly, people on here are very defensive when it comes to marines vs guardsmen. If yo saw the discussions on this thread, it got heated even though we have actual math to prove that marines statistically lose to guardsmen in WPP and PPW.

People will look at data and think "That means nothing from my experiences!" Which is a common mentality among people? I've seen it here so many times it kind deflates everyone's arguments. I certainly got a bit peeved when someone said that. It became a waste of time as we know from even mathematics and from tournament listings... People don't bring marines in. Even in soup lists.

Marines are terrible and will continue to be terrible until they are overhauled. SAying they don't need one is living outside of the reality of the tournament scene. just because 1 character that is a space marine shows up at an ITC for 1 list does not mean "marines are great!"

While even from my own personal experiences I've not played a marine player in months. no one wants to play them, no one has fun playing them. Players will drop them not because they don't look cool but because they are so poorly optimized for this edition. Points Costs, and stats, in general, would help marines. Taking them as 'normal' line infantry only makes sense if you can take them in numbers. But you can't there is no point to take a full squad of marines because they are far too expensive to be considered valuable. You can take 1 additional combi weapon compared to a guardsmen squad but thats not why people run guardsmen, guardsmen are run for CHEAP CP and the bonuses they get from knights.

This edition is a mess due to the over prevelance of super heavies. Honestly just ban super heavies from tournaments and matched play and most complaints would disappiate but marines still suffer from fighting in close combat where they are undoubtedly the weakest apart from tau who are supposed to be bad...

The runner up is not marines. It is space wolves. And no, its not close.

IGNORE ME

Was replying to Bharring.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This is what I find hilarious:
-IG were bad for several editions. 8E hit, now they're top tier. GG OP IG GAME IS BAD.
-DE were bad for several editions. 8E hit, they're still terrible. 8E codex hits, now they're OP. GG OP ELDAR GAME IS BAD.
-Marines were top tier at several points in 7E, and for a brief period of time in 8E. Now they're bad. GG OP ELDAR GAME IS BAD MARINES ALWAYS SUCK.

That's literally not what's going on. At all

It really is though.

As for 3rd ed eldar. As the 6th ed chaos book showed us, having one good spam list doesn't make a top tier codex. 3rd ed eldar was all star cannons all the time.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This is what I find hilarious:
-IG were bad for several editions. 8E hit, now they're top tier. GG OP IG GAME IS BAD.
-DE were bad for several editions. 8E hit, they're still terrible. 8E codex hits, now they're OP. GG OP ELDAR GAME IS BAD.
-Marines were top tier at several points in 7E, and for a brief period of time in 8E. Now they're bad. GG OP ELDAR GAME IS BAD MARINES ALWAYS SUCK.

That's literally not what's going on. At all

It really is though.

As for 3rd ed eldar. As the 6th ed chaos book showed us, having one good spam list doesn't make a top tier codex. 3rd ed eldar was all star cannons all the time.

6th edition CSM was top tier in certain aspects. Huron/Ahriman infiltrating Plague Zombies, Heldrakes, Obliterators being...okayish, Daemon Princes with Relics, Juggerlords w/ Bikers or Spawn...

The issue is how utterly garbage the codex was written, which eventually brought it down. When you only get one Juggerlord and one Mace Prince and your opponent has like 6+ Wave Serpents, what're you gonna do?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This is what I find hilarious:
-IG were bad for several editions. 8E hit, now they're top tier. GG OP IG GAME IS BAD.
-DE were bad for several editions. 8E hit, they're still terrible. 8E codex hits, now they're OP. GG OP ELDAR GAME IS BAD.
-Marines were top tier at several points in 7E, and for a brief period of time in 8E. Now they're bad. GG OP ELDAR GAME IS BAD MARINES ALWAYS SUCK.

That's literally not what's going on. At all

It really is though.

As for 3rd ed eldar. As the 6th ed chaos book showed us, having one good spam list doesn't make a top tier codex. 3rd ed eldar was all star cannons all the time.

6th edition CSM was top tier in certain aspects. Huron/Ahriman infiltrating Plague Zombies, Heldrakes, Obliterators being...okayish, Daemon Princes with Relics, Juggerlords w/ Bikers or Spawn...

The issue is how utterly garbage the codex was written, which eventually brought it down. When you only get one Juggerlord and one Mace Prince and your opponent has like 6+ Wave Serpents, what're you gonna do?

Nah, Eldar was still top, fro the start they had Beaststar, (beastmen Deathstar with Baron, Farseer on bike, Shadowseer, and max Beasts, it all was buffed from powers, hit and run, move run and charge, and was almost impossible to kill with large damage output. After that the CWE codex came out and Wave Serpent spam was a thing. Chaos was only strong in local areas that didnt know the killer Deathstar combos

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm pretty sure a majority of Space Marine players would be perfectly fine with Primaris Marines replacing normal Marines rules-wise, the current problem is that the old models are left in a gakky rules-situation and Intercessors not having the options of normal Marines. Drop "normal" Marines, give Primaris comparable loadouts so people don't have to can their entire armies and call it a day.

The fact that everytime this is brought up it faces heavy resistance says otherwise.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm pretty sure a majority of Space Marine players would be perfectly fine with Primaris Marines replacing normal Marines rules-wise, the current problem is that the old models are left in a gakky rules-situation and Intercessors not having the options of normal Marines. Drop "normal" Marines, give Primaris comparable loadouts so people don't have to can their entire armies and call it a day.

The fact that everytime this is brought up it faces heavy resistance says otherwise.

Admittedly I have said "It won't be" because i haven't seen evidence of it. If anything regular marines will just be normal troops for space marine armies probably replacing scouts. (cause when was the last time they released a scout model?)

 Asherian Command wrote:

I don't understand why, but that's the case.

Cause marines are for new players and they need training wheels.

/sarcasm

Honestly, people on here are very defensive when it comes to marines vs guardsmen. If yo saw the discussions on this thread, it got heated even though we have actual math to prove that marines statistically lose to guardsmen in WPP and PPW.

People will look at data and think "That means nothing from my experiences!" Which is a common mentality among people? I've seen it here so many times it kind deflates everyone's arguments. I certainly got a bit peeved when someone said that. It became a waste of time as we know from even mathematics and from tournament listings... People don't bring marines in. Even in soup lists.

Marines are terrible and will continue to be terrible until they are overhauled. SAying they don't need one is living outside of the reality of the tournament scene. just because 1 character that is a space marine shows up at an ITC for 1 list does not mean "marines are great!"

While even from my own personal experiences I've not played a marine player in months. no one wants to play them, no one has fun playing them. Players will drop them not because they don't look cool but because they are so poorly optimized for this edition. Points Costs, and stats, in general, would help marines. Taking them as 'normal' line infantry only makes sense if you can take them in numbers. But you can't there is no point to take a full squad of marines because they are far too expensive to be considered valuable. You can take 1 additional combi weapon compared to a guardsmen squad but thats not why people run guardsmen, guardsmen are run for CHEAP CP and the bonuses they get from knights.

This edition is a mess due to the over prevelance of super heavies. Honestly just ban super heavies from tournaments and matched play and most complaints would disappiate but marines still suffer from fighting in close combat where they are undoubtedly the weakest apart from tau who are supposed to be bad...

Except that people are disagreeing with your math and the conclusions you draw from it.
No one is claiming marines are strong. People are showing that your conclusions are off and your fixes are problematic, barring a minor change in points.
The main reason you don't see them in tournaments is because they're .01% (number is for emphasis, not accuracy) less efficient then another army book in soup.

Your issue isn't with the powerlevel of marines vs IG. Your issue is that anything no matter how crappy, costs less and is a troop choice. Of course IG make a better suicide screen and CP battery. They're cheaper. But if IG were 5 points each and WS/BS 6+ people would still take them over marines for that role.

Ultimately your issue is CP generation, the effect of soup on highly tuned tournament lists, and the fact that you apparently want your tac squads to run dick first into an entire army and win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This is what I find hilarious:
-IG were bad for several editions. 8E hit, now they're top tier. GG OP IG GAME IS BAD.
-DE were bad for several editions. 8E hit, they're still terrible. 8E codex hits, now they're OP. GG OP ELDAR GAME IS BAD.
-Marines were top tier at several points in 7E, and for a brief period of time in 8E. Now they're bad. GG OP ELDAR GAME IS BAD MARINES ALWAYS SUCK.

That's literally not what's going on. At all

It really is though.

As for 3rd ed eldar. As the 6th ed chaos book showed us, having one good spam list doesn't make a top tier codex. 3rd ed eldar was all star cannons all the time.

6th edition CSM was top tier in certain aspects. Huron/Ahriman infiltrating Plague Zombies, Heldrakes, Obliterators being...okayish, Daemon Princes with Relics, Juggerlords w/ Bikers or Spawn...

The issue is how utterly garbage the codex was written, which eventually brought it down. When you only get one Juggerlord and one Mace Prince and your opponent has like 6+ Wave Serpents, what're you gonna do?

As you say. Had some good builds, but weren't close to top tier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm pretty sure a majority of Space Marine players would be perfectly fine with Primaris Marines replacing normal Marines rules-wise, the current problem is that the old models are left in a gakky rules-situation and Intercessors not having the options of normal Marines. Drop "normal" Marines, give Primaris comparable loadouts so people don't have to can their entire armies and call it a day.

The fact that everytime this is brought up it faces heavy resistance says otherwise.

Admittedly I have said "It won't be" because i haven't seen evidence of it. If anything regular marines will just be normal troops for space marine armies probably replacing scouts. (cause when was the last time they released a scout model?)

But that's still speculation with nothing behind it. Just a rumor mill that's churning between releases and over enthusiasm from people like Crimson.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Canonness is maybe 45-50 points. That's not a great investment.

Sorry, Snipers aren't dangerous. Quit pretending they are.

A Cannoness with Power Sword and Inferno Pistol - which has an official model and isn’t the worst loadout - is 56pts. A Deathmarks unit killing her in one go for 170pts is a 3.0:1 ratio, which isn’t the best ever but isn’t bad either. If your whole army could pull a 3.0:1 points kill ratio, in any game where you got first turn you’d effectively be playing with a 2000pt army against a 1333pt army, which is pretty much an auto-win.

A unit doesn’t have to have a 1:1 or better points kill ratio to be good. Snipers are a niche unit whose purpose is to remove a lynchpin model from your opponent’s army, not have an extreme points kill ratio. If you can’t understand why removing the model that enables synergy from an army whose strength comes from synergy is worth a points kill ratio that is ok rather than great, then I can’t help you.

the fact that you apparently want your tac squads to run dick first into an entire army and win.

Where did I claim this?

I think all i've said is "make em better."

Give em 1 attack each, on a roll of 6 or give them bolter drill.

Every time people mention using force multipliers that help marines more than IG, you double down on pounding the mathz again.

That's why I think you're saying it.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
What if we let marine armor ignore 1 level of save mod? So a -3 mods becomes a -2 for example.

Little late reply. I don't like this. Thinking about it now. Plasma weaponry should be the bane of space marines no matter what. Infact I wish plasma sorta outright ignored +3 armor saves.

Every time people mention using force multipliers that help marines more than IG, you double down on pounding the mathz again.

That's why I think you're saying it.

Not quite. But i do think that IG do get more CP and have cheaper access to better strategems. (which might be because GW wants to sell vigilius the jerks!)

Cheaper CP generation would be great for marines, but we won't see that at all.

Maybe just a points cost reduction for tac marines? and just make them into the cheap cp generation and remove their special weapons and heavy weapons and make that only for veteran squads? (like 30k possibly? I personally prefer that honestly)

Plasma wasn't like that in 2nd. Not sure why it needed a promotion.

 Mmmpi wrote:
and the fact that you apparently want your tac squads to run dick first into an entire army and win.

I'm laughing so hard at this.

Martel732 wrote:
Plasma wasn't like that in 2nd. Not sure why it needed a promotion.

It became like that in 4th right? because even then I could ignore marine armor but i always had the opportunity to explode on a 1.

(maybe thats the big issue here is that not many people ever supercharge because their isn't much of a point to because the risk is too high?)

 Asherian Command wrote:
just make them into the cheap cp generation and remove their special weapons and heavy weapons and make that only for veteran squads? (like 30k possibly? I personally prefer that honestly)

Get right the &*#@ out.

Take Scouts if you want.

While I've stated before that this problem is sourced entirely from 40k terribleness, it's also compounded by CP's. If you want a more balanced game, just don't use stratagems or CP's at all. They're a terrible gimmick anyway that act purely as a crutch for poor rule writing and balancing.

 Wyzilla wrote:
While I've stated before that this problem is sourced entirely from 40k terribleness, it's also compounded by CP's. If you want a more balanced game, just don't use stratagems or CP's at all. They're a terrible gimmick anyway that act purely as a crutch for poor rule writing and balancing.

I think if CPs rewarded you more for completely a detachment they would be less gimmicky

Currently there is no benefit to filling out a full detachment.

A probable way to do that is also to have players or require players to spend CP in order to have super heavies.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
While I've stated before that this problem is sourced entirely from 40k terribleness, it's also compounded by CP's. If you want a more balanced game, just don't use stratagems or CP's at all. They're a terrible gimmick anyway that act purely as a crutch for poor rule writing and balancing.

I think if CPs rewarded you more for completely a detachment they would be less gimmicky

Currently there is no benefit to filling out a full detachment.

A probable way to do that is also to have players or require players to spend CP in order to have super heavies.

Eh? Detatchments reward me a lot considering they allow me to turn some hellblasters/ravenwing black knights into a plasma doomstar pumping out enough shots from just one stratagem use that they'll turn most armor units into mush when concluded. The issue is that if you're using CP's to fix marines, you haven't fixed anything. You've just slapped a band-aid on that's going to peel off in a couple months and given up.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
While I've stated before that this problem is sourced entirely from 40k terribleness, it's also compounded by CP's. If you want a more balanced game, just don't use stratagems or CP's at all. They're a terrible gimmick anyway that act purely as a crutch for poor rule writing and balancing.

I think if CPs rewarded you more for completely a detachment they would be less gimmicky

Currently there is no benefit to filling out a full detachment.

A probable way to do that is also to have players or require players to spend CP in order to have super heavies.

I could get behind this detachment idea.

Have a battalion for example give 2CP, three if at 2/3rds, and five if full. Granted at that point you'll see the loyal 36, rather than 32. On initial look though it has some promise.

As for super heavies costing CP. No. We want people's lists to work without batteries, not require them to take more.

I'm going to have to challenge rhino nay-sayers a bit more, I suppose.

A squad of 10 tacs is 130.
A squad of 5 tacs and a rhino with 2 SB is 139.
A squad of 5 tacs and a razor with THB and SB is 154.

Let's say you expect to lose half your marines getting them into a good spot. Why *wouldn't* you just drop that half, pay 9 points more, and get a 12" move, 10 T7 wounds instead of 5 T4, and one less bolter equivalent? Or hell, a razorback with a twin heavy bolter and storm bolter for only 24 points more?

Last I knew there are few melee oriented armies that can fall back and shoot and fewer still that can flee a rhino and then charge. Orks certainly have no way to avoid being pinned by a rhino and losing a round or two of combat. Guardsmen are compartmentalized, so shooting (and charging) them (with rhinos) before they charge you makes them a whole lot weaker.

It seems people are reluctant for a few reasons: 1) rhinos are not troops and so do not help with battalions, 2) they think rhinos are too expensive, and 3) they want to transport "something worthwhile".

1) There is no helping this. It's a legitimate downside.
2) If rhinos went down 5 points you'd save 25 points for 5 of them in your list. Why does 25 points stop you?
3) Two parts here --
a) Spending a lot of points on a unit makes you want to have it outside the transport, anyway
b) Chosen and the like are decently priced now and you don't need a special weapon on every damn model.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
While I've stated before that this problem is sourced entirely from 40k terribleness, it's also compounded by CP's. If you want a more balanced game, just don't use stratagems or CP's at all. They're a terrible gimmick anyway that act purely as a crutch for poor rule writing and balancing.

I think if CPs rewarded you more for completely a detachment they would be less gimmicky

Currently there is no benefit to filling out a full detachment.

A probable way to do that is also to have players or require players to spend CP in order to have super heavies.

I could get behind this detachment idea.

Have a battalion for example give 2CP, three if at 2/3rds, and five if full. Granted at that point you'll see the loyal 36, rather than 32. On initial look though it has some promise.

As for super heavies costing CP. No. We want people's lists to work without batteries, not require them to take more.

Well they would need 3 hqs, 6 troops, 3 fast attack, and 3 heavy support


So to fill this out... you would need

HQ
3 Company Commanders

Troop
6 Infantry Squads

Elite
3 commissars

Fast Attack
3 Scout Sentinels

Heavy Support
3 Tarantula batteries

for 585 pts

Honestly, that is around 4 times more expensive than the original! (math is bad mkay)

Honestly there could be a way to also have a scoring system based on points cost per a detachment. But i am not too sure that would work or might unnecessary punish certain lists. (this would only be relevant to battalions or brigade detachments).

Whether not that works is up for debate.

Another could just be limiting CPs to only factions. (so if I am a guardsmen I can only take guardsmen CP for my guardsmen strategies)

Which would encourage monofactions?

I am not sure that might kill competitive lists entirely.

cmspano wrote:


IG are better than Eldar? Really?

Absolutely. AM are by far the most powerful stand alone army. And they are since day one of 8th edition, since index times. Crafworld are definitely a top tier army but AM is insane.

Also their imperium soup is more powerful than the elves' one at the moment as the castellan combo is the most broken thing in 40k.