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.

This is the suggested modification.

Power Armor:
-1 to strength of incoming fire
Natural 6s always wound and trigger their effects if any

Terminator Armor:
-1 to strength of incoming fire and Ap 1 is treated as Ap 0
Natural 6s always wound and trigger their effects if any

Or alternatively
-1 to strength of incoming fire at 12" or more

If this implemented:
Melta +1 strength (to still wound on 2s) and all melta like weapons (fusion, ect)

I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?

Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?

Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!

Agreed. GW has already declined to reduce power armor costs. The only thing left is raise the floor.

I agree that this is a bit extreme.

 cormadepanda wrote:
This is the suggested modification.

Power Armor:
-1 to wound

Terminator Armor:
-1 to wound and Ap 1 is treated as Ap 0

If this implemented:
Melta +1 strength (to still wound on 2s) and all melta like weapons (fusion, ect)

Holy cripes Panda, we were just discussing this last night! This is a great idea!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?

Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!

Lol, it's not actually. This is a great fix for marines that brings them much more in line with established fluff. Points adjustments are bandaids, not fixes for issues. 20 Guardsmen shouldn't be able to jack squat to a terminator 80 to 90% of the time.

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?

Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!

A carnifex should be wounded the same and saving the same as the Marines. With respect to chaff guns. The only difference is you have less wounds. I am not entirely sure if the points work out.

It is out there. But the math really doesn't shift the probability in too horrible of a direction. Lasguns will deal half as many wounds. And bolter like weapons by a 3rd. Strength loses 17% strength 6-7 no change and strength 8 loses 17% after that no change. Marine will survive all weapon types better and be worth having 10 bolter like Marines on the table for 130pts base.

But maybe it is too much. Mathematically though it makes me feel Marines would be a formidable tough foe.

Martel732 wrote:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?

Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!

Agreed. GW has already declined to reduce power armor costs. The only thing left is raise the floor.

Agreed completely with this thinking. However one doesn't always need to change pts to change value. See the added points i have elaborated on.

Chaff loses half to 1/3 their wounds.
Higher weapons lose 1/6th
9 or more in changed

I request people to try it to confirm it rather than paper it out.

lifeafter wrote:I agree that this is a bit extreme.

It is. But it is just an idea. And it can be tried out for fun. See what happens.

I think an easier "fix" would be to give all Astartes (both Loyal and Heretic) the following rule to represent their ability to anticipate incoming fire:

"Brace for Impact": Units with this ability are adept at tilting their armour to maximize its effectiveness against incoming shots. Armour saves rolls from enemies outside 12" may add +1 to the result.

This rule would not only add to the Marines' durability, but also encourage enemy units to get close to ignore it, thus putting them in ideal positions for said Marines.
It has great interaction from both players.

-

 Galef wrote:
I think an easier "fix" would be to give all Astartes (both Loyal and Heretic) the following rule to represent their ability to anticipate incoming fire:

"Brace for Impact": Units with this ability are adept at tilting their armour to maximize its effectiveness against incoming shots. Armour saves rolls from enemies outside 12" may add +1 to the result.

This rule would not only add to the Marines' durability, but also encourage enemy units to get close to ignore it, thus putting them in ideal positions for said Marines.
It has great interaction from both players.

-

Dangerously close to all is dust tho. Should Rubrics have both? They would be pretty much unkillable against anything. They would save the new chaincannons on 2+ out in the open, 1+ when in cover.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Dangerously close to all is dust tho. Should Rubrics have both? They would be pretty much unkillable against anything. They would save the new chaincannons on 2+ out in the open, 1+ when in cover.

I don't see why they wouldn't be stackable. Currently even regular Terminators have a 1+ armour in cover, but those are harder dominating anywhere (or even showing up on the table). Weight of fire tends to remove even 2+ save models quickly

Remember: Natural rolls of 1 still fail; Rubrics are only 1W; AP-2/3 weapons are prevalent.

My proposed change would make MEQs harder to kill with small arms fire, which is what they should be. But volume of fire will still get the job done.

-

Even easier would be to have some weapons be ap +1. Like lasguns and splinter.

I think a much simpler solution is simply to give regular marines a 2nd wound and tone down overcharged plasma to str. 7. Primaris can go to three wounds or toughness 5. It would halve the effectiveness of 1 damage weapons without the need for over complicated special rules. Certain weapons will still be effective against them but weight of fire and things like heavy bolters will be much less effective at deleting squads.

I don't like this rule change-at least, definitely not at their current price point. If it came with a points increase, maybe.

Also, I'd cap it at 6+, since there are S2 units in the game. I get that Nurglings or Grots or Ratlings shouldn't be much of a threat to Marines in Close Combat, but at the same time, it's ridiculous to say that an ordinary Marine is completely invulnerable to a Nurgling's scrabbling claws while a Land Raider or Imperial Knight can still be wounded.

 Togusa wrote:

 cormadepanda wrote:
This is the suggested modification.

Power Armor:
-1 to wound

Terminator Armor:
-1 to wound and Ap 1 is treated as Ap 0

If this implemented:
Melta +1 strength (to still wound on 2s) and all melta like weapons (fusion, ect)

Holy cripes Panda, we were just discussing this last night! This is a great idea!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?

Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!

Lol, it's not actually. This is a great fix for marines that brings them much more in line with established fluff. Points adjustments are bandaids, not fixes for issues. 20 Guardsmen shouldn't be able to jack squat to a terminator 80 to 90% of the time.

Fluff is not crunch. Fluff is a terrible reason to justify anything.

 Lance845 wrote:
Fluff is not crunch. Fluff is a terrible reason to justify anything.

If fluff is not crunch, I don't know what IG/Orks/Nids are because apparently, their strength is supposed to be numbers and I think this is pretty damn well depicted in the game. It doesn't follow that you can make a 'fluffy' horde army but you can't represent movie marines.

At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.

 skchsan wrote:
At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.

Agreed. 5ppm Guardsmen and 11-12ppm Marines would represent this quite well. A Marine should be just above 2x the cost of a Guarsmen, but currently they are 1pt more than 3x the cost.

-

 Galef wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.

Agreed. 5ppm Guardsmen and 11-12ppm Marines would represent this quite well. A Marine should be just above 2x the cost of a Guarsmen, but currently they are 1pt more than 3x the cost.

-

This would be fine if the rules represented these values. But they don't. A four point model should have no army tactic, no buffs available, nothing. You pay for bare bones, you get bare bones.

Galef wrote:I think an easier "fix" would be to give all Astartes (both Loyal and Heretic) the following rule to represent their ability to anticipate incoming fire:

"Brace for Impact": Units with this ability are adept at tilting their armour to maximize its effectiveness against incoming shots. Armour saves rolls from enemies outside 12" may add +1 to the result.

This rule would not only add to the Marines' durability, but also encourage enemy units to get close to ignore it, thus putting them in ideal positions for said Marines.
It has great interaction from both players.

-

I like this idea. And I can see it's value. However, +1 save doesnt really add value to the model in any real situation. Terminators are already best killed by mass amounts of chaff shooting. A common favorite.

I feel this returns to buy lots of chaff and it is a better choice. Hence I don't want this to be the solution.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think an easier "fix" would be to give all Astartes (both Loyal and Heretic) the following rule to represent their ability to anticipate incoming fire:

"Brace for Impact": Units with this ability are adept at tilting their armour to maximize its effectiveness against incoming shots. Armour saves rolls from enemies outside 12" may add +1 to the result.

This rule would not only add to the Marines' durability, but also encourage enemy units to get close to ignore it, thus putting them in ideal positions for said Marines.
It has great interaction from both players.

-

Dangerously close to all is dust tho. Should Rubrics have both? They would be pretty much unkillable against anything. They would save the new chaincannons on 2+ out in the open, 1+ when in cover.

Even if it did stack it wouldn't change the math of wounds that goes through.

Galef wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Dangerously close to all is dust tho. Should Rubrics have both? They would be pretty much unkillable against anything. They would save the new chaincannons on 2+ out in the open, 1+ when in cover.

I don't see why they wouldn't be stackable. Currently even regular Terminators have a 1+ armour in cover, but those are harder dominating anywhere (or even showing up on the table). Weight of fire tends to remove even 2+ save models quickly

Remember: Natural rolls of 1 still fail; Rubrics are only 1W; AP-2/3 weapons are prevalent.

My proposed change would make MEQs harder to kill with small arms fire, which is what they should be. But volume of fire will still get the job done.

-

It does offer some improvement. But only 17% more saves. Not really reducing the wound pool or incoming fire which has more impact on game play survivability. It also continues to encourage the issue at hand. Which is buy more chaff.

The reduced wound roll actually encourages players to accumulate more powerful weapons and less chaff.

Martel732 wrote:Even easier would be to have some weapons be ap +1. Like lasguns and splinter.

Thank you for your input. However this is more dangerous than the threads suggestion in my opinion because...

This helps everything not just Marines. Which we are ok with interactions else where. It is just chaff and power armor we are interested in. Both chaos and loyal.

ComradeRed1308 wrote:I think a much simpler solution is simply to give regular marines a 2nd wound and tone down overcharged plasma to str. 7. Primaris can go to three wounds or toughness 5. It would halve the effectiveness of 1 damage weapons without the need for over complicated special rules. Certain weapons will still be effective against them but weight of fire and things like heavy bolters will be much less effective at deleting squads.

So give non primarus, primarus and make primarus more. +1 W is basically the same as -1 wound roll if you really look at the math of it. Actually even more impactful really.

JNAProductions wrote:I don't like this rule change-at least, definitely not at their current price point. If it came with a points increase, maybe.

Also, I'd cap it at 6+, since there are S2 units in the game. I get that Nurglings or Grots or Ratlings shouldn't be much of a threat to Marines in Close Combat, but at the same time, it's ridiculous to say that an ordinary Marine is completely invulnerable to a Nurgling's scrabbling claws while a Land Raider or Imperial Knight can still be wounded.

Thanks for the input. And I agree with this too.

We don't need to worry about 7+ situations because 6s always work. The rule isn't intended to over ride that. This rule is only meant to reduce to a Max of 6+. But I didn't feel the limit needed to be stated because it is already in the core rules.

Lance845 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 cormadepanda wrote:
This is the suggested modification.

Power Armor:
-1 to wound

Terminator Armor:
-1 to wound and Ap 1 is treated as Ap 0

If this implemented:
Melta +1 strength (to still wound on 2s) and all melta like weapons (fusion, ect)

Holy cripes Panda, we were just discussing this last night! This is a great idea!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
I think this is all a bit crazy, las guns suddenly wound on 6's? Str 4 wounds of 5's?

Marine durability is fine this edition in comparison to other models, the price is wrong. cheap chaff with guns need to be more expensive to make MEQ equivalent. This proposal is just frankly obscene! Squad of marines would be harder to kill than my Carnifexs!

Lol, it's not actually. This is a great fix for marines that brings them much more in line with established fluff. Points adjustments are bandaids, not fixes for issues. 20 Guardsmen shouldn't be able to jack squat to a terminator 80 to 90% of the time.

Fluff is not crunch. Fluff is a terrible reason to justify anything.

Agreed. This was approached at a more probability and logical sense than fluff.

skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Fluff is not crunch. Fluff is a terrible reason to justify anything.

If fluff is not crunch, I don't know what IG/Orks/Nids are because apparently, their strength is supposed to be numbers and I think this is pretty damn well depicted in the game. It doesn't follow that you can make a 'fluffy' horde army but you can't represent movie marines.

At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.

This is an excellent point. And by providing a -1 wound you are adding in basically another 17-33% more survivability to the body count you have. Another view is you have an imaginary 33% more elite bodies on the field. Reducing the number gap.

Galef wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.

Agreed. 5ppm Guardsmen and 11-12ppm Marines would represent this quite well. A Marine should be just above 2x the cost of a Guarsmen, but currently they are 1pt more than 3x the cost.

-

Martel732 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.

Agreed. 5ppm Guardsmen and 11-12ppm Marines would represent this quite well. A Marine should be just above 2x the cost of a Guarsmen, but currently they are 1pt more than 3x the cost.

-

This would be fine if the rules represented these values. But they don't. A four point model should have no army tactic, no buffs available, nothing. You pay for bare bones, you get bare bones.

To avoid derailing the thread I would like for us to focus on adjust power armor and power armor alone and nothing else.

I understand a more desirable situation maybe changing several things but that doesn't really measure the game state in a usable way for us. Let's do a more methodical approach and change one at a time. Yes I suggested 2 rules but it's for 1 problem: astartes on foot.

 cormadepanda wrote:

Galef wrote:I think an easier "fix" would be to give all Astartes (both Loyal and Heretic) the following rule to represent their ability to anticipate incoming fire:

"Brace for Impact": Units with this ability are adept at tilting their armour to maximize its effectiveness against incoming shots. Armour saves rolls from enemies outside 12" may add +1 to the result.

This rule would not only add to the Marines' durability, but also encourage enemy units to get close to ignore it, thus putting them in ideal positions for said Marines.
It has great interaction from both players.

-

I like this idea. And I can see it's value. However, +1 save doesnt really add value to the model in any real situation. Terminators are already best killed by mass amounts of chaff shooting. A common favorite.

I feel this returns to buy lots of chaff and it is a better choice. Hence I don't want this to be the solution.

But, +1 to saving throws would help greatly against AP-1/2 weapons which are plentiful.
And while I agree weight of dice will still remove Power armour and Termie units, +1 to those saves will mean more dakka must be allocated, resulting in a bigger points investment of those chaff used to put on that weight.
I've actually tested this rule in several games (tracking when the +1 would have mattered) and it made a noticeable difference. Often I'd have to dedicate a whole additional unit's shooting to drop all the MEQs in the unit.

That shooting could have gone to another unit to start chipping wounds, but wasn't able to.

-

Best solution is to nerf the weight of dice: either by buffing marines in offense and defence, or reduce & increase cost of marines and hordes respectively.

I'm all for adding special rules but there's a fine line between bloat and buff.

 skchsan wrote:
.... there's a fine line between bloat and buff.

While I wholeheartedly agree, at this point in 8E, that train has sailed and bloat is unavoidable.
The only time 8E wasn't bloated was prior to Codices coming out. Everything we do now will just add bloat. And while points changes do most of the work to maintain balance, they cannot go the full distance (mostly because GW refuses to update glaring point issued like 4ppm Guard and 13ppm Marines)

The best solutions are, unfortunately, going to be added rules like Bolter Discipline and "Brace for Impact"

-

 skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Fluff is not crunch. Fluff is a terrible reason to justify anything.

If fluff is not crunch, I don't know what IG/Orks/Nids are because apparently, their strength is supposed to be numbers and I think this is pretty damn well depicted in the game. It doesn't follow that you can make a 'fluffy' horde army but you can't represent movie marines.

At best, body count differential between a 'horde' army and an 'elite' army should be no greater than 2 times under the current available granularity of the game. It's utterly ridiculous you can out number elite armies by 3 fold or more.

Oh yeah? So you think shadow in the warp does ANYTHING in the crunch like its represented in the fluff? Or syanpse? Both should be covering the entire table. Not 12 -18 inches and the shadow should be applying ld penalties to every model while psykers should be risking death to manifest powers.

Again, fluff is not crunch.

Galef wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
.... there's a fine line between bloat and buff.

While I wholeheartedly agree, at this point in 8E, that train has sailed and bloat is unavoidable.
The only time 8E wasn't bloated was prior to Codices coming out. Everything we do now will just add bloat. And while points changes do most of the work to maintain balance, they cannot go the full distance (mostly because GW refuses to update glaring point issued like 4ppm Guard and 13ppm Marines)

The best solutions are, unfortunately, going to be added rules like Bolter Discipline and "Brace for Impact"

-

What if we merge the two concepts. And had -1 to wound outside of 12"

There is no 6’s always hit or 6’s always wound.

If you have Strength half the target’s Toughness, and they inflict a -1 wound penalty, you can’t wound them.

Also makes it impossible to get Sniper Mortal Wounds on Marines, it AP-3 on Shuriken weapons.

In the cities of death rules (which everyone should be using because they're so much better than base core rules) natural 6s always hit. I wouldn't be surprised to see this applied to wound rolls too one day but currebtly (to my knowledge) theres no natural 6s auto wound.

JNAProductions wrote:There is no 6’s always hit or 6’s always wound.

If you have Strength half the target’s Toughness, and they inflict a -1 wound penalty, you can’t wound them.

Also makes it impossible to get Sniper Mortal Wounds on Marines, it AP-3 on Shuriken weapons.

This is a really good point unless these rules trigger on unmodified results this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

It is to my understanding a natural 6 always wounds and a natural 1 always fails in the core rules.

Giantwalkingchair wrote:In the cities of death rules (which everyone should be using because they're so much better than base core rules) natural 6s always hit. I wouldn't be surprised to see this applied to wound rolls too one day but currebtly (to my knowledge) theres no natural 6s auto wound.

The wound table always has a 6 is a wound on it but it doesn't account for modifiers that I am aware of and there is no modifer to wound rolled I am of aware of.

I think it maybe better to describe this as doesn't modify natural 6s.

Except very little cares about natural sixes.

Snipers don’t.
Shurikens don’t.
Buffed Plaguebearers don’t.

And currently, the only malus to wound is from a Shadowseer, and only applies to T3 models. Since nothing in the game is S1, they can always be wounded.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except very little cares about natural sixes.

Snipers don’t.
Shurikens don’t.
Buffed Plaguebearers don’t.

And currently, the only malus to wound is from a Shadowseer, and only applies to T3 models. Since nothing in the game is S1, they can always be wounded.

In conclusion then the suggest modification is now -1 to wound ignoring natural 6s.

And a secondary concept of adding a 12" range band.

 cormadepanda wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except very little cares about natural sixes.

Snipers don’t.
Shurikens don’t.
Buffed Plaguebearers don’t.

And currently, the only malus to wound is from a Shadowseer, and only applies to T3 models. Since nothing in the game is S1, they can always be wounded.

In conclusion then the suggest modification is now -1 to wound ignoring natural 6s.

And a secondary concept of adding a 12" range band.

What do you mean "Ignoring natural 6s"?

It has to be worded clearly and intuitively.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 cormadepanda wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except very little cares about natural sixes.

Snipers don’t.
Shurikens don’t.
Buffed Plaguebearers don’t.

And currently, the only malus to wound is from a Shadowseer, and only applies to T3 models. Since nothing in the game is S1, they can always be wounded.

In conclusion then the suggest modification is now -1 to wound ignoring natural 6s.

And a secondary concept of adding a 12" range band.

What do you mean "Ignoring natural 6s"?

It has to be worded clearly and intuitively.

The intention is to make 6s always wound and trigger their effects. I suppose that is the better wording.

i changed it to Natural 6s always wound and trigger their effects if any

So what about effects that trigger on a 7+ to-wound?