Switch Theme:

Can the MeQ statline be saved?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine




The Void

(Reposting from https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/751335.page as suggested so it can get more discussion. Also minor edits)

It seems that the whole edition is suffering from a glaring problem: Basic marine units are not good. Pretty much every base MeQ is lackluster unless it has a huge number of special rules. Str 4, T4, 3+, 1A, and Str 4 shooting models that cost in the low to mid teens in points are pretty much never worth using across the board. This is a huge problem, because it covers the majority of Marine infantry. The days of an army consisting of 2 tacs, an assault, a dev, and then some elites and heavy support are gone. Marine Infantry troops are only filler for Loyalists and Chaos alike, and generally inferior to horde units. Not to imply that these lists were ever super competitive, but they were at least viable B tier lists. It seems to me that GW should care that a large amount of their model line is not viable on tabletop.

Tac Marines, Assault Marines, Bikers, Chaos Marines, Raptors, etc are all not worth using. We see that marines and Chaos alike are using swarm +elites and heavies for their armies, usually as part of a soup list. More elite versions of these units like Cult Marines are generally a bit better off, but you still cannot make the core of your army based around them and end up with enough models on the board to be useful.

The MeQ statline has depreciated since previous editions due to the changes in AP and offensive power. A 3+ armor save is just not what it used to be in the new AP system. And on top of that, they got shafted in that many armies weapons moved to an equivalent AP in the new system, but basic bolters did not. They used to be AP 5, which ignored 5+ and 6+ saves, meaning basic bolter fire was an effective anti hoard weapon. Now they are AP 0, which means they lost a significant amount of offensive power against common units like guardsmen and boyz. Aura stacking helps bring their firepower level back, but other armies also got that.

I would argue that the basic MeQ statline is the hardest hit by a large amount of 8th's changes. To summarize:

1) AP changes made 3+ less strong

2) Bolters effectively losing AP made them so inefficient they are barely worth rolling

3) Lack of ability to lock foes in combat hurt marine units like assault marines that are proportionally lower damage but higher survivability compared to other melee units

4) Changes to template and blast weapons hit marines harder than other armies because they relied on them more to cover more army roles.

5) The combination of bolters becoming proportionally weaker and flamers/frag missiles becoming weaker, less reliable, and more expensive totally destroyed the ability of normal marine units to provide anti-swarm.

6) The new vehicle wound system hits marines hardest because they relied on low shot high damage weapons like Meltas for their anti tank. Meltas have gone up in price, and lost their ability to 1 shot vehicles, which has hugely decreased the potential of normal marine infantry to counter armor.

7) Power fist changes have hurt marines more than other races, as the power fist sergeant was often half of a squads melee damage output, a solid tank/monster deterrent, and the majority of an army's anti-character power. I'm not sad that this changed because it was silly, but it's still left them overall weaker.

8) In the past, marine infantry relied on a good armor save to out attrition their opponents. But now the offensive power of everyone has increased considerably, so they've lost their ability to take in damage without getting wiped out early. The changes to cover have also hurt them, but not necessarily more than other races.

9) The loss of mechanized lists due to transport changes has hurt too. You can no longer move, disembark, and shoot, which was a major trick of Tacs and CSM. And even if you could, you wouldn't want to as you no longer have the durability to receive a charge and whittle down a unit, or hold until reinforcements come. And drop pods can no longer come in close enough for short range melta shots, and as mentioned above those aren't what they used to be. And transports now cost an arm and a leg.

10) Loss of Pistol+bolter+ccw on many marine units (especially CSM)

11) They did get a couple points cheaper overall, but it's really not enough to help.

Even elite marines units just aren't that great. Berzerkers may be the exception because their special rule and weapons are so phenomenal. But consider the other cult troops: Plague marines give you a lot for their points, but their firepower is so low that it just doesn't matter. So we see poxwalker spam instead. Noise marines are cool and also have some nasty rules and guns, but the points add up really fast. If you try to build an army using more than a couple 5 man objective holding squads, you just won't have enough other stuff. And they die easily. And Rubrics, even with their new powers, just don't have enough firepower. And even with All is Dust, they are proportionally less survivable than most swarm infantry, point for point. These units are not bad in a vacuum (except maybe rubrics), and seem like what we should be forming our armies around. But it just doesn't work.

Primaris marines are more on the right track. If all MeQs had just been given that statline, things would be much different (except plasma spam would still pwn them.) The extra melee attack, extra ap point on bolt weapons, and extra wound really help. But we still don't see armies of primaris the way we saw armies of regular MeQs back in, say, 5th (my main point of comparison as I played it most.) Because even the extra stats at only a few extra points per model doesn't make the units worth using over swarm units + elites and heavy support. The exception may be Blood Angels, because they can stack enough buffs to make Primaris versatile, durable, and efficient in both shooting and melee.

Note I'm not saying that Marines and Chaos are weak overall. Their elite and soup lists are doing fine. But the standard marine infantry has gotten shafted by this edition and it needs help. But there's no easy fix either because the problems go beyond a small points change. It's the entire design philosophy of 8th. And it effect so many units that aren't united by keywords or common names that it'd be hard to change that many overall.

Some combination of the following would help, applied to everyone or only to marines (to represent their greater skill, bigger weapons, etc). I'm trying to keep away from all out statline changes.

A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.

B) Make flamer/other former template weapons more reliable. Instead of d6 shots, let them be 3+d3, or an amount based on the size of the attacking unit.

C) Increase the power of pretty much all Chapter traits except Blood Angels and Death Guard to help infantry.

D) Give Bolter+Chainsword option for Tacs and CSM and their elite variants

E) Give Jump Pack troops the ability to lock enemies in close combat, or perhaps follow them if they fall back (can be based on leadership check.)

F) Award extra CP for detachments of basic MeQs

All that wishlisting aside, I doubt they'll touch this. Which means this is the edition of Xenos and Soup!

Always 1 on the crazed roll. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




A) I totally agree with they were ap -1 for bolters and pistols in second ed AP with a heavy bolter as AP -2
Sniper rifles where also -1 ap which would also help scouts alot.

B) i'm warry of this as I can't see a way of this being limited to just marines and it also generates the odd situation where blast weapons are better vehical kills than lascannons and melta. Blast weapons shouldn't have been workarounded into multi shot heavy weapons its game breaking. Atleast without a each shot must be allocated to a seperate model rule.

C) Chapter and legion traits should have effected the whole army like the newer codex's.

D) All the yes or even call it Astartes Combat Blade which would allow the chainsword to be blanced without handing out a buff to every marine. Also making assualt marines more assaulty, chainswords used to have ap in second they could potentialy go to -1 ap but thats more and assualt marine fix than tacs.

E) I'm going to say no it can already be done with careful model movement but locking things in CC is a bad mechanic, it removes tactical choice.

F) I actually think the CP system is backwords to real life. The larger the army the harder it is to manage. Smaller more elite armies would be better able to adapt on the fly than a large untrained mass. But under the current system how about the second and every additional max strength tac squads of 10 generate a CP/choas equivalent

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 21:37:51


 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




I think the problem really boils down to points cost. You can certainly make MeQ good if you cost them efficiently enough. Having them be more swarmy may may not fit the “fantasy” that marines are supposed to fill, but that’s another issue.

The problem is, based on how marine squads are set up, they can’t price bolter marines efficiently. Because that bolter marine isn’t just a bolter marine. Him and his 3 buddies are extra wounds for that lascannon in the squad. They would be overpowered if they were costed efficiently on their own. And they can’t bake that cost into the special weapon, because the cost should vary depending on the number of extra wounds you’re giving it. Guard have this problem too, which is probably one of the reasons a lot of people say they’re undercosted. They already had to adjust the price of plasma guns based on the BS of the “platform” so this is clearly something they are struggling with.

Even taking that into consideration marines are probably still overcosted, but this will always be a balance struggle as long as the damage variance between weapons in 40k is so huge. I think that’s why primaris units were set up the way they were – when you shoot at a hellblaster, you know that you’re killing hellblaster. It means they can price intercessors for what they are, not what they could be hiding in their squad.
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






I may be a race traitor here seen as I play Orks but I gotta admit...

Orks are T4, S4... ect... for 6pts but marines are nearly double for same T and S. It's really up to opinion on if 3+ save and 3+ BS is worth double. I think it is as you're double durable but I can see arguments.

But Guardsmen.... for 1 S, BS and T less you're 3 times as cheap as a marine! And yet not 3 times as vulnerable with a 5+ save. You're half as effective for a third of the price.
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




The solution to the marine being an extra wound for a Lascannon in a Tac Squad is to disallow heavy weapons in a Tac squad and allow a 2nd special weapon instead.

As a mono-GK player I feel the MEQ pinch quite fiercely. I'd love to see some improvement in their performance even if it did mean a slight point increase. I'm willing to concede improved performance=increased cost.

As to bolters (and other weapons) they should have 2 AP values, 1 for vehicles/monsters and 1 for everything else. That way you can tailor your weapon for it's job. A flamer could be AP 0/-3 so that it's less effective vs vehicles but better against troops. (Just making up numbers not really proposing them.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 21:51:25


 
   
Made in us
The Last Chancer Who Survived




On moon miranda.

Honestly, with the changes to CC, Damage, S vs T, AP, Cover, terrain, etc, I think there's a good case to be made for some changes.

I don't think AP value changes for bolt weapons are good, that could get real wonky real quickly against units they aren't intended to be great against.

Flame weapons in general tend to need a bit of a boost, heavy flamers are absurdly expensive and normal flamers are just too ineffective. 3+D3/2D3/etc shots may be a good solution to the volume of fire issue, heavy flamers and the like may need some cost reductions.

I really think the basic MEQ statline *needs* A2 base. They need greater volume of attacks in CC to really function as generalists at this point.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Vaktathi wrote:
Honestly, with the changes to CC, Damage, S vs T, AP, Cover, terrain, etc, I think there's a good case to be made for some changes.

I don't think AP value changes for bolt weapons are good, that could get real wonky real quickly against units they aren't intended to be great against.

Flame weapons in general tend to need a bit of a boost, heavy flamers are absurdly expensive and normal flamers are just too ineffective. 3+D3/2D3/etc shots may be a good solution to the volume of fire issue, heavy flamers and the like may need some cost reductions.

I really think the basic MEQ statline *needs* A2 base. They need greater volume of attacks in CC to really function as generalists at this point.


Heavy flamers should just get back the extra range that they shouldn't have lost and they would be fine, heck even 10 inch range would make them scary. It's the very situational nature of them that makes them not worth taking in 8th or make the range of a flamer 9 and heavy flamer 12.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




MEQs are typically just overpriced relative to the good light infantry options out there. I don't think it's much more complicated than that. Battle Sisters are much closer to right, and Marines gain very little for the 44% price increase.

I'd point out that giving regular bolters AP helps Marines, specifically, but the basic idea here actually worsens the overall trend that you're worried about. AP is better against better saves. As-is, heavy bolters are highly specialized MEQ-killing weapons. Especially if you also upgrade xenos weapons that are already supposed to be stronger than bolters -- such as pulse rifles, shuriken catapults, and gauss rifles -- you're going to drive MEQs out of the game entirely by making their armor almost irrelevant. Why would you take tactical Marines if every Imperium vehicle is running around with high rate of fire AP -2 shooting?

DraxiusII wrote:

The problem is, based on how marine squads are set up, they can’t price bolter marines efficiently. Because that bolter marine isn’t just a bolter marine. Him and his 3 buddies are extra wounds for that lascannon in the squad. They would be overpowered if they were costed efficiently on their own. And they can’t bake that cost into the special weapon, because the cost should vary depending on the number of extra wounds you’re giving it. Guard have this problem too, which is probably one of the reasons a lot of people say they’re undercosted. They already had to adjust the price of plasma guns based on the BS of the “platform” so this is clearly something they are struggling with.

I don't think this is right. There's already a cost to adding extra Marines to a squad with a lascannon -- you reduce the efficiency of the squad. Add too many Marines and hole up in cover and eventually your opponent will just ignore the squad, because you're paying 168 points for a single lascannon shot per turn. No one's complaining about Guard squads hiding heavy weapons and plasma guns; they're complaining about naked Guard squads (plus a mortar to bring them down to 9 models for ITC objectives) which are difficult to remove efficiently. Plasma guns weren't nerfed for BS3+ Guardsmen because they were being hidden in Veterans squads; they were nerfed because people were taking all-plasma Scion Command Squads, Hellblaster-style, and deep-striking them. It has basically always been the specialist units like this that GW has had a harder time balancing, just because they tend to under-perform massively if they get shot before they shoot and over-perform massively if they get to shoot before they get shot. This is the Eldar pendulum. Primaris units avoid it to some extent because the models themselves are also pretty beefy -- their offense to defense ratio isn't as extreme as Fire Dragons' or Scions'.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




No, it can't. Because it's impossible to leverage all the stats consistently enough. Generalists need discounts.
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
(Reposting from https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/751335.page as suggested so it can get more discussion. Also minor edits)

It seems that the whole edition is suffering from a glaring problem: Basic marine units are not good.


And this is a problem?

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Pretty much every base MeQ is lackluster unless it has a huge number of special rules. Str 4, T4, 3+, 1A, and Str 4 shooting models that cost in the low to mid teens in points are pretty much never worth using across the board. This is a huge problem, because it covers the majority of Marine infantry. The days of an army consisting of 2 tacs, an assault, a dev, and then some elites and heavy support are gone. Marine Infantry troops are only filler for Loyalists and Chaos alike, and generally inferior to horde units. Not to imply that these lists were ever super competitive, but they were at least viable B tier lists. It seems to me that GW should care that a large amount of their model line is not viable on tabletop.


That's a bit of hyperbole. My Space Wolves are doing just fine as a mono-faction army, fielding mostly infantry.

In addition, I don't think "2 tacticals, 1 assault, 1 devastators, + a few cool things" was a particularly awesome plan unless you were rewarded with free tanks for doing so. Also, devastators are pretty good.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Tac Marines, Assault Marines, Bikers, Chaos Marines, Raptors, etc are all not worth using. We see that marines and Chaos alike are using swarm +elites and heavies for their armies, usually as part of a soup list. More elite versions of these units like Cult Marines are generally a bit better off, but you still cannot make the core of your army based around them and end up with enough models on the board to be useful.


When there's 20 options with varying degrees of specialization, of course the generalized not-crap-at-everything option isn't going to be stellar. When you bring units to perform specific tasks, having a unit that isn't actually good at anything is a unit wasting points.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
The MeQ statline has depreciated since previous editions due to the changes in AP and offensive power. A 3+ armor save is just not what it used to be in the new AP system. And on top of that, they got shafted in that many armies weapons moved to an equivalent AP in the new system, but basic bolters did not. They used to be AP 5, which ignored 5+ and 6+ saves, meaning basic bolter fire was an effective anti hoard weapon. Now they are AP 0, which means they lost a significant amount of offensive power against common units like guardsmen and boyz. Aura stacking helps bring their firepower level back, but other armies also got that.

I would argue that the basic MeQ statline is the hardest hit by a large amount of 8th's changes. To summarize:

1) AP changes made 3+ less strong


This is untrue. First off, everyone but the Necron's basic infantry weapons are AP0, which is no change for the Space Marine's armor save. Against a Lasgun or Bolter, Space Marines are just as tough as they ever were.

AP3 has translated to AP-2. What would previously completely ignore Space Marine armorsaves now allows them a 5+. Against a Leman Russ Battle Cannon, the Space Marine will survive far more often [and that's without mentioning the reduced anti-infantry power of the heavy guns this edition]. In cover, you're exactly the same as before, otherwise, you're considerably tougher.

The last set of weapons commonly employed against Marines also grant improvements in Space Marine resilience. Plasma weapons and those similar used to wound space marines on a two, and ignore all saves. They're now only 80% as likely to wound, and do allow 6+ saves.

The range of weapons that were S6/7 and AP4 is the only range where Marines became less resilient. These weapons are now generally AP1, but they also no-longer wound on 2's. However, these weren't commonly fired at Space Marines anyway, generally at light vehicles. Assault Cannons are the big deal here, because they've received a solid improvement in fire output and effectiveness against infantry of all types.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
2) Bolters effectively losing AP made them so inefficient they are barely worth rolling


That's some serious hyperbole. If you're not rolling your bolter fire, that might explain why you're not impressed with Marines .

On bolters though: The basic bolter statline is exactly that: basic. It's impossible for it to be good because it is the measure by which all is compared to. However, it didn't really get worse from last edition: first off, it didn't ignore the armor saves of most of the enemy infantry, so it didn't get worse against those. Second, anything that was 5+ or 6+ would be hiding in vehicles or behind cover for the duration of the game.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
3) Lack of ability to lock foes in combat hurt marine units like assault marines that are proportionally lower damage but higher survivability compared to other melee units


Um, what? The melee lock ability this edition is insanely powerful. I am of the opinion that the actual power of close quarters combat is the most powerful it's been since I started playing in 5th edition. First off, a greater array of things can be locked in combat to greater tactical effect than before. In addition, the ability to leave combat is a greater benefit to the one doing the charging than the one being charged. If a unit falls back, it can neither shoot nor charge. Going into close quarters is one of the best ways to temporarily deactivate enemy units considerably more valuable than the units doing the charging, and the ability to retreat means that the charging unit no longer has to actually be able to eventually kill it's target.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
4) Changes to template and blast weapons hit marines harder than other armies because they relied on them more to cover more army roles.

5) The combination of bolters becoming proportionally weaker and flamers/frag missiles becoming weaker, less reliable, and more expensive totally destroyed the ability of normal marine units to provide anti-swarm.


Frag missiles are not weaker than they were before. The small blast was basically worthless and equivalent to a single shot, so you might as well fire the Krak missile, which was more likely to kill.

Flamers are weaker, but Storm Bolters are not. Also, Assault Cannons are pretty effective anti-horde weapons, and massed bolter fire is not significantly worse. In fact, considering that Guardsmen were generally in cover it really isn't any less effective.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
6) The new vehicle wound system hits marines hardest because they relied on low shot high damage weapons like Meltas for their anti tank. Meltas have gone up in price, and lost their ability to 1 shot vehicles, which has hugely decreased the potential of normal marine infantry to counter armor.


Umm... Lascannons? Plasmaguns? Autocannons? There are plenty of effective ways for the Space Marines to counter vehicles, and more efficiently than before.

And I wouldn't say the Space Marines were even close to relying exclusively on meltaguns or trying to one-shot vehicles. Vehicle one-shots were unreliable enough to not be something you're banking on ever since hull points became a thing.


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
7) Power fist changes have hurt marines more than other races, as the power fist sergeant was often half of a squads melee damage output, a solid tank/monster deterrent, and the majority of an army's anti-character power. I'm not sad that this changed because it was silly, but it's still left them overall weaker.

8) In the past, marine infantry relied on a good armor save to out attrition their opponents. But now the offensive power of everyone has increased considerably, so they've lost their ability to take in damage without getting wiped out early. The changes to cover have also hurt them, but not necessarily more than other races.

9) The loss of mechanized lists due to transport changes has hurt too. You can no longer move, disembark, and shoot, which was a major trick of Tacs and CSM. And even if you could, you wouldn't want to as you no longer have the durability to receive a charge and whittle down a unit, or hold until reinforcements come. And drop pods can no longer come in close enough for short range melta shots, and as mentioned above those aren't what they used to be. And transports now cost an arm and a leg.


First off, compared to last edition, disembark-move-shoot isn't particularly different from move-disembark-shoot. It's 3" lost movement, which isn't enough to get into rapid-fire range anyway [24" from zone-to-zone, 12" move, 12" RF leaves you mathematically just short]. I wouldn't also call it a major trick of Space Marines or tacticals. Transports work just fine as transports, actually, carrying short-ranged troops and close-quarters troops forward into range in comparative shelter. Of greater relevance is the loss of fire points, which is what has made gun vehicles preferable to transports for shooting armies, since a gun unit in a transport isn't shooting.

Did drop pods ever come in close enough from short-ranged melta-shots? I seem to remember having a solid 9" perimeter around my armor. Second, meltaguns don't need to be in short range to be effective anymore, so you can fire away from 12" just fine.


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
10) Loss of Pistol+bolter+ccw on many marine units (especially CSM)

11) They did get a couple points cheaper overall, but it's really not enough to help.

Even elite marines units just aren't that great. Berzerkers may be the exception because their special rule and weapons are so phenomenal. But consider the other cult troops: Plague marines give you a lot for their points, but their firepower is so low that it just doesn't matter. So we see poxwalker spam instead. Noise marines are cool and also have some nasty rules and guns, but the points add up really fast. If you try to build an army using more than a couple 5 man objective holding squads, you just won't have enough other stuff. And they die easily. And Rubrics, even with their new powers, just don't have enough firepower. And even with All is Dust, they are proportionally less survivable than most swarm infantry, point for point. These units are not bad in a vacuum (except maybe rubrics), and seem like what we should be forming our armies around. But it just doesn't work.

Primaris marines are more on the right track. If all MeQs had just been given that statline, things would be much different (except plasma spam would still pwn them.) The extra melee attack, extra ap point on bolt weapons, and extra wound really help. But we still don't see armies of primaris the way we saw armies of regular MeQs back in, say, 5th (my main point of comparison as I played it most.) Because even the extra stats at only a few extra points per model doesn't make the units worth using over swarm units + elites and heavy support. The exception may be Blood Angels, because they can stack enough buffs to make Primaris versatile, durable, and efficient in both shooting and melee.

Note I'm not saying that Marines and Chaos are weak overall. Their elite and soup lists are doing fine. But the standard marine infantry has gotten shafted by this edition and it needs help. But there's no easy fix either because the problems go beyond a small points change. It's the entire design philosophy of 8th. And it effect so many units that aren't united by keywords or common names that it'd be hard to change that many overall.

Some combination of the following would help, applied to everyone or only to marines (to represent their greater skill, bigger weapons, etc). I'm trying to keep away from all out statline changes.

A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.


Unnecessary, and only really compounds the problem. Just make them cheaper, or give greater access to Storm Bolters. It's lack of shots, not lack of AP.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
B) Make flamer/other former template weapons more reliable. Instead of d6 shots, let them be 3+d3, or an amount based on the size of the attacking unit.


Flamers need to not be drastically more than a Storm Bolter for equivalent effect at drastically reduced ranges. I'm not sure 3+d3 would make the difference.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
C) Increase the power of pretty much all Chapter traits except Blood Angels and Death Guard to help infantry.


I think CT should apply to vehicles. I'm not sure why vehicles are apparently not part of chapter doctrines.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
D) Give Bolter+Chainsword option for Tacs and CSM and their elite variants


I'm not convinced this does anything.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
E) Give Jump Pack troops the ability to lock enemies in close combat, or perhaps follow them if they fall back (can be based on leadership check.)


Why? CQC is plenty good. Troops that have been charged are already locked out, what you're trying to do is give the charging units artificial protection from retaliation, which would be the opposite of productive. At that point, a unit that has been charged is effectively destroyed, which would be insane cost-efficiency for such a unit.

If you want to make assault marines more dangerous, give them 3d6b2 on the charge out of deep strike. This would be the most relevant thing you could do. The major weakness of close-quarters troops is that, off the drop, they're not reliable at getting into close-quarters. If you paid for expensive melee weapons, you don't get to use them early.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
F) Award extra CP for detachments of basic MeQs

All that wishlisting aside, I doubt they'll touch this. Which means this is the edition of Xenos and Soup!


I was unaware this was the edition of Xenos. We'll have to see once the Tau, 'crons, and Orks codecies drops.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 22:32:40


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




A lot of these ideas are good, but you would want to apply just 1 fix - applying all of them will swing too far in the other direction, and make marines too strong.

Option A:
Give all marines types that cost 13 points or more a 2 point reduction, and terminator types a 5 point reduction.
(beserkers, fallen, devastators/havoc, death company, and noise marines maybe just 1 point reduction).


Option B:
Make bolters/storm bolters/combi bolters have AP -1.
This will balance marines and terminators, but will make rhinos and razorbacks stronger as well (due to their 2 point free storm bolter). It also doesn't help units that don't use regular bolters like rubric marines.


Option A has the drawback of a huge number of point cost changes for nearly all infantry in marine codexes.

Option B is simple (just changes for 2 weapons), but has the drawback of unequal balance across different units.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Dionysodorus wrote:
MEQs are typically just overpriced relative to the good light infantry options out there. I don't think it's much more complicated than that. Battle Sisters are much closer to right, and Marines gain very little for the 44% price increase.

I'd point out that giving regular bolters AP helps Marines, specifically, but the basic idea here actually worsens the overall trend that you're worried about. AP is better against better saves. As-is, heavy bolters are highly specialized MEQ-killing weapons. Especially if you also upgrade xenos weapons that are already supposed to be stronger than bolters -- such as pulse rifles, shuriken catapults, and gauss rifles -- you're going to drive MEQs out of the game entirely by making their armor almost irrelevant. Why would you take tactical Marines if every Imperium vehicle is running around with high rate of fire AP -2 shooting?

DraxiusII wrote:

The problem is, based on how marine squads are set up, they can’t price bolter marines efficiently. Because that bolter marine isn’t just a bolter marine. Him and his 3 buddies are extra wounds for that lascannon in the squad. They would be overpowered if they were costed efficiently on their own. And they can’t bake that cost into the special weapon, because the cost should vary depending on the number of extra wounds you’re giving it. Guard have this problem too, which is probably one of the reasons a lot of people say they’re undercosted. They already had to adjust the price of plasma guns based on the BS of the “platform” so this is clearly something they are struggling with.

I don't think this is right. There's already a cost to adding extra Marines to a squad with a lascannon -- you reduce the efficiency of the squad. Add too many Marines and hole up in cover and eventually your opponent will just ignore the squad, because you're paying 168 points for a single lascannon shot per turn. No one's complaining about Guard squads hiding heavy weapons and plasma guns; they're complaining about naked Guard squads (plus a mortar to bring them down to 9 models for ITC objectives) which are difficult to remove efficiently. Plasma guns weren't nerfed for BS3+ Guardsmen because they were being hidden in Veterans squads; they were nerfed because people were taking all-plasma Scion Command Squads, Hellblaster-style, and deep-striking them. It has basically always been the specialist units like this that GW has had a harder time balancing, just because they tend to under-perform massively if they get shot before they shoot and over-perform massively if they get to shoot before they get shot. This is the Eldar pendulum. Primaris units avoid it to some extent because the models themselves are also pretty beefy -- their offense to defense ratio isn't as extreme as Fire Dragons' or Scions'.


But it's 90 points for 5 marines with a lascannon and 65 points for 5 marines without one, yet the squad with a lascannon is going to accomplish so much more (more than the ~40% increase in cost would justify). There's no way to reconcile it and make the bolter squad balanced without making the lascannon squad overpowered. No points cost for a marine would make both of those squads good. If they were, that means the cost is baked into the special weapon and dev squads wouldn't be worth running. Maybe if bolters were less bad in comparison to everything else it wouldn't be as big of a problem, but then you have problems of everything being too lethal like you noted.

And a lascannon is just an example. Insert any decent weapon here.

I'm not saying there aren't other problems too - I'd rather my marines be beefier than they are now, but I think this is definitely a factor. And GW must think so, because they gave primaris the "eldar" squad design.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I do find it kind of hilarious that the only time my MEQs feel legitimately durable is when they're being shot by bolters. :(
   
Made in fr
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor





France

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
(Reposting from https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/751335.page as suggested so it can get more discussion. Also minor edits)

It seems that the whole edition is suffering from a glaring problem: Basic marine units are not good.


And this is a problem?

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Pretty much every base MeQ is lackluster unless it has a huge number of special rules. Str 4, T4, 3+, 1A, and Str 4 shooting models that cost in the low to mid teens in points are pretty much never worth using across the board. This is a huge problem, because it covers the majority of Marine infantry. The days of an army consisting of 2 tacs, an assault, a dev, and then some elites and heavy support are gone. Marine Infantry troops are only filler for Loyalists and Chaos alike, and generally inferior to horde units. Not to imply that these lists were ever super competitive, but they were at least viable B tier lists. It seems to me that GW should care that a large amount of their model line is not viable on tabletop.


That's a bit of hyperbole. My Space Wolves are doing just fine as a mono-faction army, fielding mostly infantry.

In addition, I don't think "2 tacticals, 1 assault, 1 devastators, + a few cool things" was a particularly awesome plan unless you were rewarded with free tanks for doing so. Also, devastators are pretty good.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Tac Marines, Assault Marines, Bikers, Chaos Marines, Raptors, etc are all not worth using. We see that marines and Chaos alike are using swarm +elites and heavies for their armies, usually as part of a soup list. More elite versions of these units like Cult Marines are generally a bit better off, but you still cannot make the core of your army based around them and end up with enough models on the board to be useful.


When there's 20 options with varying degrees of specialization, of course the generalized not-crap-at-everything option isn't going to be stellar. When you bring units to perform specific tasks, having a unit that isn't actually good at anything is a unit wasting points.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
The MeQ statline has depreciated since previous editions due to the changes in AP and offensive power. A 3+ armor save is just not what it used to be in the new AP system. And on top of that, they got shafted in that many armies weapons moved to an equivalent AP in the new system, but basic bolters did not. They used to be AP 5, which ignored 5+ and 6+ saves, meaning basic bolter fire was an effective anti hoard weapon. Now they are AP 0, which means they lost a significant amount of offensive power against common units like guardsmen and boyz. Aura stacking helps bring their firepower level back, but other armies also got that.

I would argue that the basic MeQ statline is the hardest hit by a large amount of 8th's changes. To summarize:

1) AP changes made 3+ less strong


This is untrue. First off, everyone but the Necron's basic infantry weapons are AP0, which is no change for the Space Marine's armor save. Against a Lasgun or Bolter, Space Marines are just as tough as they ever were.

AP3 has translated to AP-2. What would previously completely ignore Space Marine armorsaves now allows them a 5+. Against a Leman Russ Battle Cannon, the Space Marine will survive far more often [and that's without mentioning the reduced anti-infantry power of the heavy guns this edition]. In cover, you're exactly the same as before, otherwise, you're considerably tougher.

The last set of weapons commonly employed against Marines also grant improvements in Space Marine resilience. Plasma weapons and those similar used to wound space marines on a two, and ignore all saves. They're now only 80% as likely to wound, and do allow 6+ saves.

The range of weapons that were S6/7 and AP4 is the only range where Marines became less resilient. These weapons are now generally AP1, but they also no-longer wound on 2's. However, these weren't commonly fired at Space Marines anyway, generally at light vehicles. Assault Cannons are the big deal here, because they've received a solid improvement in fire output and effectiveness against infantry of all types.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
2) Bolters effectively losing AP made them so inefficient they are barely worth rolling


That's some serious hyperbole. If you're not rolling your bolter fire, that might explain why you're not impressed with Marines .

On bolters though: The basic bolter statline is exactly that: basic. It's impossible for it to be good because it is the measure by which all is compared to. However, it didn't really get worse from last edition: first off, it didn't ignore the armor saves of most of the enemy infantry, so it didn't get worse against those. Second, anything that was 5+ or 6+ would be hiding in vehicles or behind cover for the duration of the game.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
3) Lack of ability to lock foes in combat hurt marine units like assault marines that are proportionally lower damage but higher survivability compared to other melee units


Um, what? The melee lock ability this edition is insanely powerful. I am of the opinion that the actual power of close quarters combat is the most powerful it's been since I started playing in 5th edition. First off, a greater array of things can be locked in combat to greater tactical effect than before. In addition, the ability to leave combat is a greater benefit to the one doing the charging than the one being charged. If a unit falls back, it can neither shoot nor charge. Going into close quarters is one of the best ways to temporarily deactivate enemy units considerably more valuable than the units doing the charging, and the ability to retreat means that the charging unit no longer has to actually be able to eventually kill it's target.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
4) Changes to template and blast weapons hit marines harder than other armies because they relied on them more to cover more army roles.

5) The combination of bolters becoming proportionally weaker and flamers/frag missiles becoming weaker, less reliable, and more expensive totally destroyed the ability of normal marine units to provide anti-swarm.


Frag missiles are not weaker than they were before. The small blast was basically worthless and equivalent to a single shot, so you might as well fire the Krak missile, which was more likely to kill.

Flamers are weaker, but Storm Bolters are not. Also, Assault Cannons are pretty effective anti-horde weapons, and massed bolter fire is not significantly worse. In fact, considering that Guardsmen were generally in cover it really isn't any less effective.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
6) The new vehicle wound system hits marines hardest because they relied on low shot high damage weapons like Meltas for their anti tank. Meltas have gone up in price, and lost their ability to 1 shot vehicles, which has hugely decreased the potential of normal marine infantry to counter armor.


Umm... Lascannons? Plasmaguns? Autocannons? There are plenty of effective ways for the Space Marines to counter vehicles, and more efficiently than before.

And I wouldn't say the Space Marines were even close to relying exclusively on meltaguns or trying to one-shot vehicles. Vehicle one-shots were unreliable enough to not be something you're banking on ever since hull points became a thing.


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
7) Power fist changes have hurt marines more than other races, as the power fist sergeant was often half of a squads melee damage output, a solid tank/monster deterrent, and the majority of an army's anti-character power. I'm not sad that this changed because it was silly, but it's still left them overall weaker.

8) In the past, marine infantry relied on a good armor save to out attrition their opponents. But now the offensive power of everyone has increased considerably, so they've lost their ability to take in damage without getting wiped out early. The changes to cover have also hurt them, but not necessarily more than other races.

9) The loss of mechanized lists due to transport changes has hurt too. You can no longer move, disembark, and shoot, which was a major trick of Tacs and CSM. And even if you could, you wouldn't want to as you no longer have the durability to receive a charge and whittle down a unit, or hold until reinforcements come. And drop pods can no longer come in close enough for short range melta shots, and as mentioned above those aren't what they used to be. And transports now cost an arm and a leg.


First off, compared to last edition, disembark-move-shoot isn't particularly different from move-disembark-shoot. It's 3" lost movement, which isn't enough to get into rapid-fire range anyway [24" from zone-to-zone, 12" move, 12" RF leaves you mathematically just short]. I wouldn't also call it a major trick of Space Marines or tacticals. Transports work just fine as transports, actually, carrying short-ranged troops and close-quarters troops forward into range in comparative shelter. Of greater relevance is the loss of fire points, which is what has made gun vehicles preferable to transports for shooting armies, since a gun unit in a transport isn't shooting.

Did drop pods ever come in close enough from short-ranged melta-shots? I seem to remember having a solid 9" perimeter around my armor. Second, meltaguns don't need to be in short range to be effective anymore, so you can fire away from 12" just fine.


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
10) Loss of Pistol+bolter+ccw on many marine units (especially CSM)

11) They did get a couple points cheaper overall, but it's really not enough to help.

Even elite marines units just aren't that great. Berzerkers may be the exception because their special rule and weapons are so phenomenal. But consider the other cult troops: Plague marines give you a lot for their points, but their firepower is so low that it just doesn't matter. So we see poxwalker spam instead. Noise marines are cool and also have some nasty rules and guns, but the points add up really fast. If you try to build an army using more than a couple 5 man objective holding squads, you just won't have enough other stuff. And they die easily. And Rubrics, even with their new powers, just don't have enough firepower. And even with All is Dust, they are proportionally less survivable than most swarm infantry, point for point. These units are not bad in a vacuum (except maybe rubrics), and seem like what we should be forming our armies around. But it just doesn't work.

Primaris marines are more on the right track. If all MeQs had just been given that statline, things would be much different (except plasma spam would still pwn them.) The extra melee attack, extra ap point on bolt weapons, and extra wound really help. But we still don't see armies of primaris the way we saw armies of regular MeQs back in, say, 5th (my main point of comparison as I played it most.) Because even the extra stats at only a few extra points per model doesn't make the units worth using over swarm units + elites and heavy support. The exception may be Blood Angels, because they can stack enough buffs to make Primaris versatile, durable, and efficient in both shooting and melee.

Note I'm not saying that Marines and Chaos are weak overall. Their elite and soup lists are doing fine. But the standard marine infantry has gotten shafted by this edition and it needs help. But there's no easy fix either because the problems go beyond a small points change. It's the entire design philosophy of 8th. And it effect so many units that aren't united by keywords or common names that it'd be hard to change that many overall.

Some combination of the following would help, applied to everyone or only to marines (to represent their greater skill, bigger weapons, etc). I'm trying to keep away from all out statline changes.

A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.


Unnecessary, and only really compounds the problem. Just make them cheaper, or give greater access to Storm Bolters. It's lack of shots, not lack of AP.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
B) Make flamer/other former template weapons more reliable. Instead of d6 shots, let them be 3+d3, or an amount based on the size of the attacking unit.


Flamers need to not be drastically more than a Storm Bolter for equivalent effect at drastically reduced ranges. I'm not sure 3+d3 would make the difference.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
C) Increase the power of pretty much all Chapter traits except Blood Angels and Death Guard to help infantry.


I think CT should apply to vehicles. I'm not sure why vehicles are apparently not part of chapter doctrines.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
D) Give Bolter+Chainsword option for Tacs and CSM and their elite variants


I'm not convinced this does anything.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
E) Give Jump Pack troops the ability to lock enemies in close combat, or perhaps follow them if they fall back (can be based on leadership check.)


Why? CQC is plenty good. Troops that have been charged are already locked out, what you're trying to do is give the charging units artificial protection from retaliation, which would be the opposite of productive. At that point, a unit that has been charged is effectively destroyed, which would be insane cost-efficiency for such a unit.

If you want to make assault marines more dangerous, give them 3d6b2 on the charge out of deep strike. This would be the most relevant thing you could do. The major weakness of close-quarters troops is that, off the drop, they're not reliable at getting into close-quarters. If you paid for expensive melee weapons, you don't get to use them early.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
F) Award extra CP for detachments of basic MeQs

All that wishlisting aside, I doubt they'll touch this. Which means this is the edition of Xenos and Soup!


I was unaware this was the edition of Xenos. We'll have to see once the Tau, 'crons, and Orks codecies drops.



Wow there is so much wrong in this post
Everyone knows that marines are perfect and that's why they are number 1 at all tournaments and events, of course.
How stupid I was, I thought it was codex Guilliman + soup

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 23:08:57


   
Made in us
Hardened Veteran Guardsman




ashmizen wrote:
A lot of these ideas are good, but you would want to apply just 1 fix - applying all of them will swing too far in the other direction, and make marines too strong.

Option A:
Give all marines types that cost 13 points or more a 2 point reduction, and terminator types a 5 point reduction.
(beserkers, fallen, devastators/havoc, death company, and noise marines maybe just 1 point reduction).


Option B:
Make bolters/storm bolters/combi bolters have AP -1.
This will balance marines and terminators, but will make rhinos and razorbacks stronger as well (due to their 2 point free storm bolter). It also doesn't help units that don't use regular bolters like rubric marines.


Option A has the drawback of a huge number of point cost changes for nearly all infantry in marine codexes.

Option B is simple (just changes for 2 weapons), but has the drawback of unequal balance across different units.


How many factions get bolters/storm bolters? You'd still have to make errata for, off the top of my head, Sisters, Guard, every Space Marine faction, and Inquisition. And would other formerly AP5 weapons also be altered as such? Or would it only be the bolter?

Also giving bolters a straight AP -1 puts them back into where they were in previous editions: completely negating the armor of several units (most gaunts, most ork infantry, cultists).

I'd personally rather some rejiggering of the Marine itself - drop the price of a tac marine by 1-2 points, add 1 to their attack stat, and then maybe give them a specialist rule where damage rolls with bolters count as AP -1 on a damage roll of 6. Points drop for the obvious reason, +1 attack so that they do not lose any firepower going from rapid fire range to melee, and a situational AP so that bolters don't become a "just pack up and go home" weapon for units with poor saves.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





A big part of the issue is just that the game's combat engine is clearly built around MEQ being the baseline for everything. Everything else is defined as "weaker and cheaper than MEQ or better ranged but less melee" or something similar. The main reason MEQ flounders is because it doesn't have an identity, where everything else is a min-maxed specialist.

I am curious if tables need to be designed around the cover rules a bit better though. I haven't seen a lot of games where it seems to be a major feature of the game, but its always impactful when I use it.
   
Made in us
Hardened Veteran Guardsman




 LunarSol wrote:
A big part of the issue is just that the game's combat engine is clearly built around MEQ being the baseline for everything. Everything else is defined as "weaker and cheaper than MEQ or better ranged but less melee" or something similar. The main reason MEQ flounders is because it doesn't have an identity, where everything else is a min-maxed specialist.

I am curious if tables need to be designed around the cover rules a bit better though. I haven't seen a lot of games where it seems to be a major feature of the game, but its always impactful when I use it.


Probably the closest comparison to MEQ would be Battle Sisters - before upgrades both are power armored units with bolters.

Battle Sister - 9 points
Tactical Space Marine - 13 points

Marine gets 1 better WS, +1 Str, +1 T, ATSKNF, Chapter Tactics (of varying use for a Tac Marine depending on Chapter)

Sisters get Shield of Faith (6+ invulnerable save, a weak method of denying psykers), Acts of Faith (usable by only 1 unit per turn, need to make a check [albeit an easy one] to use), Order (no rules yet, but once the codex drops there probably will be some)

Basically it comes down to whether you think +1 WS, Str, and T, and a reroll on morale (and losing a 6+ invulnerable save) is worth 4 points. On a dedicated Melee unit it might be, but on a generalist like the Tactical Marine Squad, probably not.
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

What made marines unique is that 3+. SOB, Dark Reapers, etc, should have a 5+ save. Anything better than 5+ should be restricted to models that are 10+ ppm.

Stop giving out ridiculous saves and suddenly marines aren't so bad, because a 3+ is fairly durable relative to the field.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 23:33:51


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord






Ah, of course...no one should have 3+ armour except marines (and all those alien units which have had them for the past 20+ years...?)

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Marmatag wrote:
What made marines unique is that 3+. SOB, Dark Reapers, etc, should have a 5+ save. Anything better than 5+ should be restricted to models that are 10+ ppm.

Stop giving out ridiculous saves and suddenly marines aren't so bad, because a 3+ is fairly durable relative to the field.


SOB in power armour should have a 5+ save?
But marine in power armour is 3+ save?

Prepair to be eaten alive by those plastic sisters fans
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Heroic Senior Officer





Murray, Kentucky

I wish Marines felt like they were actually Marines. In the lore they sound like these badass superhumans but in game they're always pushovers. Heck a single IG company commander can often take on 3 or 4 just by himself.

It really felt like primaris statlines were meant to be basic Marines. They're still too expensive, but when you're fighting those guys you at least get the feeling you're fighting some sort of tougher unit. If it weren't for plasma being so crazy good and being S8 D2 all the time, I think giving all Marines the primaris statline with 0 pts increases would at least be a good start, combined with a slight discount on primaris as well. If plasma wasn't so insanely good, that would be a very solid place to be.

In addition, there should be some difference between space marine weapons and their lesser equivalents. I find it really odd that a bolter my IG Sarge carries is no different than one a space marine carries, yet the space marine one is twice as big and clearly fires a bigger round.

Part of the issue is also the d6 system that attributes are based on. It's really hard to make units feel genuinely different with so little wiggle room, especially since the scale really only exists between T3 and t5 for infantry, with T2 and 1 being rarities and t6 and up being reserved for mondters.

'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader

"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell  
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




3+ is meaningless this edition, with the amount of AP weapons and mortal wounds.

Yes, 3+ space marines are twice as durable as 5+ hordesmen against AP 0 weapons, but very few wounds in a competitive games are caused by AP 0 weapons. My guess is 25% or less.

Most alpha strike weapons have high AP, leaving space marines with a 6+ or no save at all. Then there's all the
mortal wounds from smite, spells, abilities, and exploding vehicles.

3+ has been costed like it makes a 1 wound model twice as durable than a 5+, and that simply isn't the case in 8th edition.
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






This again/still?

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
War Walker Pilot with Withering Fire




ashmizen wrote:
3+ is meaningless this edition, with the amount of AP weapons and mortal wounds...

Most alpha strike weapons have high AP, leaving space marines with a 6+ or no save at all. Then there's all the
mortal wounds from smite, spells, abilities, and exploding vehicles.


Yeah, totally meaningless. In a world that was dominated for the first half of its life by assault cannon spam (which was just -1 to AP, I believe?), that 4+ (or 3+ in cover) didn't help you save any units at all. /s

I also find it funny that one of your listed chief concerns is exploding vehicles, which only happens on a 6+ (usually), but somehow also so upset that a 6+ save is bad. So two events that have the exact same probability are simultaneously so likely to be dangerous to you, but also so unlikely to be helpful when the table turns. I think we call that logical flaw "loss aversion" in the economics world.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Scrap marines, sold us all the primaris units that GW is keeping in the hoven.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/22 00:10:56


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Strongly disagree with the premise here. Baseline MEQs are showing up in tournament lists (RG, BA, Bobby G, various Imperial soups). They might not be the stars, but how many lists can say their troop choices are better than "good at holding down the fort for the real workhorses"? Even IG can't claim that.

I get the contempt for soup, and Lord knows that there's some overall balance issues in this edition, but come the on. There are literally dozens of units that just don't see play even in casual contexts, but we're focused on 5ish units with wildly different roles across two unrelated factions because ... they're all T4 and Sv 3+? Because they all have Unkillium-forged special-mans armor? Because they're not Scouts or Devastators?

... Though I'll concede that bikers could get some love. But only if they have sweet mohawks.

My Nurgle modeling/painting blog: Lux Larvalis 
   
Made in us
Stormblade




While I'll agree they may be overcosted compared to SoB, I think the real issue is that 75% of armies have space marines in them.

I don't mean 75% of GWs armies are space marines, but at my own shop, 75% of people either play some variant of Space Marines or Chaos Space Marines. So, if you don't bring weapons capable of wiping them out with AP or volume, you'll lose to most armies.

Once you learn to deal with space marines of one flavor, you've effectively learned to deal with them all.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Heroic Senior Officer





Murray, Kentucky

Mewens wrote:
Strongly disagree with the premise here. Baseline MEQs are showing up in tournament lists (RG, BA, Bobby G, various Imperial soups). They might not be the stars, but how many lists can say their troop choices are better than "good at holding down the fort for the real workhorses"? Even IG can't claim that.

I get the contempt for soup, and Lord knows that there's some overall balance issues in this edition, but come the on. There are literally dozens of units that just don't see play even in casual contexts, but we're focused on 5ish units with wildly different roles across two unrelated factions because ... they're all T4 and Sv 3+? Because they all have Unkillium-forged special-mans armor? Because they're not Scouts or Devastators?

... Though I'll concede that bikers could get some love. But only if they have sweet mohawks.

I think the issue is more that these guys are sold on the premise that even a basic tactical squad is supposed to be the equivalent of other armies super special elite units. For example, a tac squad should be able to mop the floor with an IG veteran squad, yet the IG vets will usually win that trade considering they can afford a ton of special weapons for the cost of just a baseline tac squad. And IG vets are overall a pretty mediocre unit this edition, to say nothing of Stormtroopers, which are far and away superior to tac Marines in almost every way.

People are annoyed that Marines are underwhelming in much the same way they would be if IG tanks sucked or say Eldar pyskers were the worst in the game. Tac Marines and by extension other baseline power armored Marines are supposed to be truly terrifying to face in the lore, yet in game I can easily crush them with an equivalent pts worth of guardsmen to the point that it's trivial. These are the poster child units for their codex, the ones that make the army what it is in the lore. For an army that has its whole identity based on being elite that's a huge red flag, and I say this as a guy who can't stand the amount of marine spank in 40k.

Power armored tac Marines are supposed to be veterans of dozens of battles that can put the baseline of most other armies to shame, and yet they're so terrible that new players are outright told to avoid them. That's a serious sign of an army not working as intended. I personally see it as no different than if IG infantry squads or Ork boys were terrible. This is a unit that is supposed to make up the bulk of your army. When players are going out of their way to avoid these units it's a sign you have failed at writing that codex.

'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader

"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell  
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine




The Void

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Mewens wrote:
Strongly disagree with the premise here. Baseline MEQs are showing up in tournament lists (RG, BA, Bobby G, various Imperial soups). They might not be the stars, but how many lists can say their troop choices are better than "good at holding down the fort for the real workhorses"? Even IG can't claim that.

I get the contempt for soup, and Lord knows that there's some overall balance issues in this edition, but come the on. There are literally dozens of units that just don't see play even in casual contexts, but we're focused on 5ish units with wildly different roles across two unrelated factions because ... they're all T4 and Sv 3+? Because they all have Unkillium-forged special-mans armor? Because they're not Scouts or Devastators?

... Though I'll concede that bikers could get some love. But only if they have sweet mohawks.

I think the issue is more that these guys are sold on the premise that even a basic tactical squad is supposed to be the equivalent of other armies super special elite units. For example, a tac squad should be able to mop the floor with an IG veteran squad, yet the IG vets will usually win that trade considering they can afford a ton of special weapons for the cost of just a baseline tac squad. And IG vets are overall a pretty mediocre unit this edition, to say nothing of Stormtroopers, which are far and away superior to tac Marines in almost every way.

People are annoyed that Marines are underwhelming in much the same way they would be if IG tanks sucked or say Eldar pyskers were the worst in the game. Tac Marines and by extension other baseline power armored Marines are supposed to be truly terrifying to face in the lore, yet in game I can easily crush them with an equivalent pts worth of guardsmen to the point that it's trivial. These are the poster child units for their codex, the ones that make the army what it is in the lore. For an army that has its whole identity based on being elite that's a huge red flag, and I say this as a guy who can't stand the amount of marine spank in 40k.

Power armored tac Marines are supposed to be veterans of dozens of battles that can put the baseline of most other armies to shame, and yet they're so terrible that new players are outright told to avoid them. That's a serious sign of an army not working as intended. I personally see it as no different than if IG infantry squads or Ork boys were terrible. This is a unit that is supposed to make up the bulk of your army. When players are going out of their way to avoid these units it's a sign you have failed at writing that codex.


This. It is frustrating that viable lists have departed so much from what these armies are supposed to be. Marine forces are not supposed to be all elite units and Guillman. I'm not asking for classic Codex style lists to be tournament winners, but it'd be nice to have them be at least B lists, not what they are now. I'd like to play Thousand Sons and actually use Thousand Sons units. I'd like to play Word Bearers or Black Legion and use their foot infantry. These troops aren't supposed to be super powered killing machines like elites or heavies, but they aren't supposed to be worthless either.

Regardless of the individual merit of any specific unit, it's undeniable that Marines of all sorts have been forced into less and less fluffy list builds over time. I'm not going to say it's the end of the world, and I understand the balance issues and difficulty to fix. But I am going to say that its really lame, and a trend that is bad for the game. I would like to see GW work on improving the usability of their basic marine units. People join and invest in the hobby because they think Space Marines are cool, not razor back spam. "I really love Chaos Marines. I can't wait to run Magnus + Morty + Brimstone horrors" said no one ever. And while there have been countless bad fluff chapters, I don't think anybody ever envisioned a warband made of Alpha Legion Berzerkers and Obliterators as being their thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/22 02:36:30


Always 1 on the crazed roll. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: