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.

To start, let me just say that as it stands 9th edition Space Marines are probably too strong. I say probably rather than stating that they are because we simply don't have the data to prove it yet. My definition of too strong is also that they dominate tournaments, that's my focus so I really don't care if their mid-tier units are over tuned against another faction's mid-tier units. With that out of the way, I would like to look at the problem with generalist units at high tiers of play.

Traditionally the mantra has been 'fight the shooty stuff, shoot the fighty stuff' but rarely has that ever worked outside of casual metas. The reason is that it's always better to pay for only the stats you need for your role. For example, if you're a suicide melta unit of editions past you want to be as cheap as possible to get a high RoI hence why 3-man Chaos Terminators units were considered good but 5-man Tactical Marines with a melta and combi-melta in a drop pod weren't even though they only managed one fewer shot than the Terminators.

The other reason is that you still lose to specialists in spite of your 'good' stats. No elite melee unit is going to baulk at charging a Devestaror squad just because they're better at melee than a Guardsman, so those extra stats you paid for haven't done anything. Your 3+ armour and 4 toughness isn't going to make you tough because most marine lists aren't tank heavy so the anti-tank unit just shoots at your infantry and gets a fair RoI because Marines aren't cheap the way Orks and Guardsmen are. At the same time, 1W MEQs weren't so tough that they didn't still die to massed S3 and S4 fire that the did get saves against; this is the point lost when somebody points of how much tougher a Marine is against lasgun fire compared to their Ork Boyz.

So given these problems how does one go about designing a Marine unit that uses the MEQ statline that is good enough to be top tier in a given role without just being the best at everything?

It sounds like you're addressing more fundamental issues than just stas and rules alone. 40k is not a deep game-so it's hard to make a lot of things work the way they should.

Do note: I disagree with your assertion that the only meta that matters is the tournament meta. That's because, if you go to a tournament, you're going in KNOWING that people will play hardball. You might not play full hardball yourself-maybe you're a fluffy player who wants to do the best they can with their Demi-Company, or it's just a good way to get a lot of games in a day or two-but you know you'll face mean lists. In a casual setting, an unbalanced Dex (especially one like the Marine Dex, which is NOT just one or two OP units and the rest garbage, but across the board really flipping good) is worse, since there's not the same acknowledgement that at least some people (those aiming for the top) will have the meanest lists possible.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It sounds like you're addressing more fundamental issues than just stas and rules alone. 40k is not a deep game-so it's hard to make a lot of things work the way they should.

That's the goal. I've been trying to do this in the I don’t think marines should have two wounds thread but it's been difficult to gain traction and get people to discuss this design issue there.

Do note: I disagree with your assertion that the only meta that matters is the tournament meta. That's because, if you go to a tournament, you're going in KNOWING that people will play hardball. You might not play full hardball yourself-maybe you're a fluffy player who wants to do the best they can with their Demi-Company, or it's just a good way to get a lot of games in a day or two-but you know you'll face mean lists. In a casual setting, an unbalanced Dex (especially one like the Marine Dex, which is NOT just one or two OP units and the rest garbage, but across the board really flipping good) is worse, since there's not the same acknowledgement that at least some people (those aiming for the top) will have the meanest lists possible.

I don't disagree with that. It's just that my focus is at the top end so it's what I want to analyze.

I guess boiled down the question is, can you make a generalist unit that's OP that doesn't feel OP at everything? Followed up by, can you make an OP Marine unit that people won't complain about given how large a percentage of players are Marine players?

The number 1 problem has nothing to do with generalist or specialists.

The marines are specialists in lore - specialists in strategic and operational flexibility, specialists in speed and shock of attack, and specialists in combat power concentration.

Unfortunately, 40k is such a shallow game that those aren't direct benefits, and it takes a very skilled player to leverage things like combat power concentration on such a tiny board (really, the only way to do it is identify crucial terrain pieces that will break up the enemy army into smaller chunks that can be engaged by your more mobile and less-space-consuming Marines).

The real problem with marines isn't that they're generalists. It's that 40k is a shallow game, and the lore benefits of Marines don't make themselves known the way they did in Epic or in 3rd / 4th with Strategy Rating.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The number 1 problem has nothing to do with generalist or specialists.

The marines are specialists in lore - specialists in strategic and operational flexibility, specialists in speed and shock of attack, and specialists in combat power concentration.

Unfortunately, 40k is such a shallow game that those aren't direct benefits, and it takes a very skilled player to leverage things like combat power concentration on such a tiny board (really, the only way to do it is identify crucial terrain pieces that will break up the enemy army into smaller chunks that can be engaged by your more mobile and less-space-consuming Marines).

The real problem with marines isn't that they're generalists. It's that 40k is a shallow game, and the lore benefits of Marines don't make themselves known the way they did in Epic or in 3rd / 4th with Strategy Rating.

Agreed. If you bring back Strategry Rating, more meaningful morale, Ld checks to target non-closest units and multiple krak grenades in combat, you've got a good start. Then reintroduce blinding, gas and virus weapons where they can gain the benefits of their sealed environments. Throw in some targeters for good measure.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The number 1 problem has nothing to do with generalist or specialists.

The marines are specialists in lore - specialists in strategic and operational flexibility, specialists in speed and shock of attack, and specialists in combat power concentration.

Unfortunately, 40k is such a shallow game that those aren't direct benefits, and it takes a very skilled player to leverage things like combat power concentration on such a tiny board (really, the only way to do it is identify crucial terrain pieces that will break up the enemy army into smaller chunks that can be engaged by your more mobile and less-space-consuming Marines).

The real problem with marines isn't that they're generalists. It's that 40k is a shallow game, and the lore benefits of Marines don't make themselves known the way they did in Epic or in 3rd / 4th with Strategy Rating.

Agreed. If you bring back Strategry Rating, more meaningful morale, Ld checks to target non-closest units and multiple krak grenades in combat, you've got a good start. Then reintroduce blinding, gas and virus weapons where they can gain the benefits of their sealed environments. Throw in some targeters for good measure.

I agree.

40k as a setting has plenty of depth to make each faction feel unique and it's a shame that the rules we get stifle this. None of that changes that GW won't make those rules and we're stuck* with them and that in such a shallow system it is hard to balance generalists. If you guys want to, I'll gladly talk hypothetical 40k where we get deep satisfying rules and there's tons of room for skill expression, but in general when you see me out posting in the wild I'm talking about the game I expect GW to make based on what they've done in the past.

*Outside of putting in a lot of effort and building our own community that uses a homebrew system that GW doesn't sue us for.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The number 1 problem has nothing to do with generalist or specialists.

The marines are specialists in lore - specialists in strategic and operational flexibility, specialists in speed and shock of attack, and specialists in combat power concentration.

Unfortunately, 40k is such a shallow game that those aren't direct benefits, and it takes a very skilled player to leverage things like combat power concentration on such a tiny board (really, the only way to do it is identify crucial terrain pieces that will break up the enemy army into smaller chunks that can be engaged by your more mobile and less-space-consuming Marines).

The real problem with marines isn't that they're generalists. It's that 40k is a shallow game, and the lore benefits of Marines don't make themselves known the way they did in Epic or in 3rd / 4th with Strategy Rating.

Agreed. If you bring back Strategry Rating, more meaningful morale, Ld checks to target non-closest units and multiple krak grenades in combat, you've got a good start. Then reintroduce blinding, gas and virus weapons where they can gain the benefits of their sealed environments. Throw in some targeters for good measure.

sadly if they brought in gas attacks and made marines immune you'd see the same complaints leveraged against that you saw against morale and ATSKNF pre-8th edition, namely that "it's pointless to have the rule when half the armies ignore it"

 JNAProductions wrote:

Do note: I disagree with your assertion that the only meta that matters is the tournament meta. That's because, if you go to a tournament, you're going in KNOWING that people will play hardball. You might not play full hardball yourself-maybe you're a fluffy player who wants to do the best they can with their Demi-Company, or it's just a good way to get a lot of games in a day or two-but you know you'll face mean lists. In a casual setting, an unbalanced Dex (especially one like the Marine Dex, which is NOT just one or two OP units and the rest garbage, but across the board really flipping good) is worse, since there's not the same acknowledgement that at least some people (those aiming for the top) will have the meanest lists possible.

I think that the ONLY meta that matters is the tourney meta. Hear me out here.



TLDR;
Tournament meta is the only meta that matters. GW repeatedly has proven that changes to the game are driven by tournament player complaints, or judges calls.
We can play fluff/friendly/narrative games however we want with whatever changes to the rules and models we want, but if you want to play at a FLGS outside your circle of 40k buddies, you're gonna have to play tryhards.
This has been my experience, at least. Maybe yours is diffrent, but judging from the stuff I read in the various forums, this seems to be the case everywhere.

I think 9th's rules facilitate a generalist style of play. Units are much more likely to make use of their movement, shooting and assault potential because they have to fight over objectives rather than castle in a corner all game.

I also don't think there was anything wrong with the 1 wound MEQ profile, it was just overcosted. If you left them with basic weapons (certainly before the doctrines) they did very little damage (or rather, units costing half the points did the same or better). Unfortunately if you loaded them up with bling so their damage output was reasonable they got very expensive. Paying 25-35 points a wound was clearly madness.

But this strange idea T4/3+ *doesn't work* but say T3 5+ *does* is just weird. Its purely a function of points. There was always a middle point GW could have reached, but they didn't, they did massive buffs, then 2 wounds and cheaper specials instead.

friendly reminder that marine """"generalist""" units can beat opposing specialist units at their role.

Equal points firefight at 30" away? Intercessors beat Fire Warriors or Skitarii Rangers without breaking a sweat.

Melee combat vs a unit that has zippity doo dah ranged weaponry, as in none, none at all? Equal points of marines beat Howling Banshees, Genestealers, Daemonettes, and Harlequins - all basically gun-less anti-marine melee specialists.

Yeah. Marines shouldn't be able to confront the specialists on their own field and win. That's obviously absurd.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. Marines shouldn't be able to confront the specialists on their own field and win. That's obviously absurd.

I mean therein lies the issue. if you'll recall, earlier in the edition, a lot of hay was made about how marines pay for all these stats they'll never get to use - a 5++ in terminators that only triggers vs AP-4, W2 on troops that will just get targeted by D2 weaponry, pistols on their belts that only get used if they'e in an unlikely melee combat and just decide to not fall back, A2 on long range antitank specialists, a reroll to LD on units that will be fielded in units of 3 or 5 so they never take morale tests anyway, etc.

GWs dilemma when it comes to costing these kinds of options is, well - do they pay a fair price for them? or do they get them basically for free where they can then go up against other armies that don't get all the assorted bonus extras and have an advantage for no points?

Marines 1.0 was the former - and marines were bottom of the barrel bad. Marines 2.0 is the latter, and you've got a bunch of marine units running around that do the same thing as other factions' specialists but get triple the attacks and +1S, or better morale, or free bolt pistols and whatever other junk just for free.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. Marines shouldn't be able to confront the specialists on their own field and win. That's obviously absurd.

I mean therein lies the issue. if you'll recall, earlier in the edition, a lot of hay was made about how marines pay for all these stats they'll never get to use - a 5++ in terminators that only triggers vs AP-4, W2 on troops that will just get targeted by D2 weaponry, pistols on their belts that only get used if they'e in an unlikely melee combat and just decide to not fall back, A2 on long range antitank specialists, a reroll to LD on units that will be fielded in units of 3 or 5 so they never take morale tests anyway, etc.

GWs dilemma when it comes to costing these kinds of options is, well - do they pay a fair price for them? or do they get them basically for free where they can then go up against other armies that don't get all the assorted bonus extras and have an advantage for no points?

Marines 1.0 was the former - and marines were bottom of the barrel bad. Marines 2.0 is the latter, and you've got a bunch of marine units running around that do the same thing as other factions' specialists but get triple the attacks and +1S, or better morale, or free bolt pistols and whatever other junk just for free.

Marines weren't really bottom-of-the-barrel bad. I see this assertion a lot, but I'd say they were solidly middling, better than the worst (e.g. GK, Necrons) but worse than the top (e.g. knight&guard).

As for "paying points for things they'll never get to use" - well, then use them. A generalist is supposed to give you options - for example, if you don't fall back, you lose attacks from not having Shock Assault, right? Well, wrong, because you have pistols. Pistols give you the option to stay in combat, if, for example, you didn't want the enemy unit to be free to charge on its own turn. That A2 on your long range antitank specialists (what unit is this btw) will go a long way when Daemons deep strike next to their feet and charge them - so you can leave them a little less protected than you would if they were 1A with WS4+. If you're only fielding 3 or 5 men, perhaps field 6 or 10 - you can combat squad anyways, if you want...

that's the point of a generalist. Flexibility. You pay points to be able to wipe out Daemonettes that deep strike and charge you, while other armies would suffer (or dedicate assets to screening the deepstrike).You pay points for the ability to shoot while inhibiting the enemy's shooting and charging by staying in combat, etc. You just have to use your tools, instead of derp2win with obvious units doing obvious things while obvious.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. Marines shouldn't be able to confront the specialists on their own field and win. That's obviously absurd.

I mean therein lies the issue. if you'll recall, earlier in the edition, a lot of hay was made about how marines pay for all these stats they'll never get to use - a 5++ in terminators that only triggers vs AP-4, W2 on troops that will just get targeted by D2 weaponry, pistols on their belts that only get used if they'e in an unlikely melee combat and just decide to not fall back, A2 on long range antitank specialists, a reroll to LD on units that will be fielded in units of 3 or 5 so they never take morale tests anyway, etc.

GWs dilemma when it comes to costing these kinds of options is, well - do they pay a fair price for them? or do they get them basically for free where they can then go up against other armies that don't get all the assorted bonus extras and have an advantage for no points?

Marines 1.0 was the former - and marines were bottom of the barrel bad. Marines 2.0 is the latter, and you've got a bunch of marine units running around that do the same thing as other factions' specialists but get triple the attacks and +1S, or better morale, or free bolt pistols and whatever other junk just for free.

Marines weren't really bottom-of-the-barrel bad. I see this assertion a lot, but I'd say they were solidly middling, better than the worst (e.g. GK, Necrons) but worse than the top (e.g. knight&guard).

As for "paying points for things they'll never get to use" - well, then use them. A generalist is supposed to give you options - for example, if you don't fall back, you lose attacks from not having Shock Assault, right? Well, wrong, because you have pistols. Pistols give you the option to stay in combat, if, for example, you didn't want the enemy unit to be free to charge on its own turn. That A2 on your long range antitank specialists (what unit is this btw) will go a long way when Daemons deep strike next to their feet and charge them - so you can leave them a little less protected than you would if they were 1A with WS4+. If you're only fielding 3 or 5 men, perhaps field 6 or 10 - you can combat squad anyways, if you want...

that's the point of a generalist. Flexibility. You pay points to be able to wipe out Daemonettes that deep strike and charge you, while other armies would suffer (or dedicate assets to screening the deepstrike).You pay points for the ability to shoot while inhibiting the enemy's shooting and charging by staying in combat, etc. You just have to use your tools, instead of derp2win with obvious units doing obvious things while obvious.

100% agree. There is no issue where SM pay for things they don't use. The point of the SM being good but not the best at everything is you can attempt to control how you engage your enemy. If they suck in a melee you can try to force them into a melee. If they prefer a melee you can hold up better then any non melee unit, survive it with your durability, break free and shoot the gak out of them.

There are a lot of things to talk about here.

1. Tournament vs casual- I would argue that assuming tournament play is the be-all and end-all and casual play can see 'trickle-down' benefits is a mistake. If we could get the game to where [insert any faction] felt great in casual play but didn't show up to LVO, I'd consider that a net win.

I think it's a mistake to assume that casual play directly reflects the tournament meta; while in general better tournament balance leads to better casual balance, these two environments don't always align in terms of list composition or playstyle. In addition to tournament balance not taking things like fluff into account, different units will behave differently at different levels of play. A unit that might be a challenge but beatable in a tournament could be unstoppable in casual play, or a unit that rocks in casual just sucks when you get to a tournament level. The different contexts regarding list composition, playstyle, and most importantly player skill all make a difference

2. Tying in with the above, the biggest advantage of a generalist profile is margin for error. No, the fact that Devastators are tougher and fightier than Guardsmen won't stop me from charging them with Genestealers- but there is a non-negligible chance that I'm going to get bogged down fighting them, maybe even lose a few 'Stealers depending on how the rolls go, and give you time to counter. Furthermore, I have to engage in force with a squad of 10+ expensive 'Stealers; if I throw a couple of Gaunts at them to tie them up it's pretty likely you'll kill them all and I'll accomplish nothing. Meanwhile if you're Guard and I have the opportunity to get even just a couple Termagants into your heavy weapon teams, those heavy weapons are going to be either dead or tied up for the rest of the game. A mistake that might be survivable with the generalists is game over for the specialists.

And that's not even getting into the opportunities that broad capabilities allow you to exploit. As a melee army, a gunline that has the potential to charge me and do a significant amount of damage makes a huge difference to my tactics compared to one that will never, ever willingly charge.

This sort of 'forgiveness' and flexibility is significantly more useful to casual players than to tournament players, who already know their game plan before the models hit the table. Another good example is Aggressors, where you want them to be shooting but if they get caught in melee it's not the worst thing in the world. I have seen casual players make good use of this; whereas tournament players are looking at them solely as shooting units and consider them unattractive on that basis.

This is, fundamentally, what the idea of skill floors and skill ceilings is about. Generalist factions that can't specialize too much tend to have high skill floors (meaning, it is difficult to screw up as badly with them as you can with a less-forgiving faction) but low skill ceilings (meaning, there's only so much optimization you can do with them). This is not intrinsically a bad thing- unless you have the expectation that every faction is going to show up equally in tournaments (ie, they all have the exact same skill ceiling), and that's where problems start.

3. As others have mentioned, the things Marines should be good at aren't well represented in 40K. Drop Pods are actually the one thing that lets them feel special, with your army coming down in optimal positions on turn 1. But given the lore-based advantages of excellent C&C, excellent coordination, good shock assault, good operational speed, and small footprint, the things Marines should be excelling at are:
-Responding to changes on the battlefield instantly and with coordination.
-Appearing from deep strike accurately, precisely, and just when needed.
-Concentrating force into a small area to leverage their individual eliteness, seal-clubbing normal troopers while avoiding their specialists/heavy weapons.

You see the problem? In a game where everyone has perfect information all the time and everything reacts instantly with perfect coordination like a chess piece, Marine C&C doesn't matter. In a game where everyone can DS in on turn 2 and appear exactly where they want 9.1" away from the enemy, Marine precision in insertion doesn't matter. In a game where basic rifles can now shoot all the way across the board, force concentration isn't possible.

You build up a Marine army in Epic and hand it to a newbie and they can still beat the snot out of Orks who, going by stats alone, should kick their asses sideways- because the newbie is going to have an army that does what they want where they want, while the Ork player is constantly struggling to get his troops where they're needed and assemble enough force to stop the Marines from eating his army piecemeal.

Without those elements, Marines cannot be the special forces they are in the lore. You can't make Navy SEALs actually feel like Navy SEALs if they're expected to be able to take on a Soviet armor brigade on an open field. So making them viable as generalists is all we have left.

4. In the past, GW used to charge too much for generalists. Having two units that can each fight decently and shoot decently has never been as good as having one unit that can fight well and one unit that can shoot well. Currently, GW charges Marines too little for generalists, in that they tend to have the same power as specialists while also having secondary abilities. It is possible, and reasonable, to meet somewhere in the middle, where a Marine unit that can shoot and fight is going to pay more than a non-Marine unit that can just shoot, but not that much more.

There's a heuristic here that can be scaled to target the appropriate level of play. In a bleeding-edge tournament meta, those secondary capabilities are so unimportant that they should be worth a pittance- but then in casual play, it's a pretty feels-bad moment for the kid who just started Tau to find that the Marines are 90% as good at shooting as them, point for point, but also smashes them in melee. Adjust the heuristic to target that casual meta, and now tournament players will bemoan Marines sucking again.

Furthermore, 9th Ed's mission design rewards generalists a lot more than 8th did, so I think there is real value to be placed there. A unit that can shoot and then charge is perfect for taking objectives from the enemy, and the armies that can't do this are currently suffering even in those cutthroat tournament metas.

I don't think there's a solution that will make everybody happy. But it is possible to roughly balance generalists, to the point at least where they're fine in general play but might not be top dog in tournaments.

TBF playing a melee army against Marines at the end of 8th was.... not wholly enjoyable.

Don't get into melee? Get shot to death.
Get into melee? Lose because the other guys have more attacks and all sorts of stratagems and tricks and weird shenanigans (depending on what color they were painted at the time, it could range from fight last to HI from 6" away to exploding 6s to hit to rerolls...).

Options? None, except really be on the struggle bus or (ironically)_play like Marines should play and concentrate so much combat power into so tiny of an area that you can get local victories, and then expand that advantage while the Marines struggle to maneuver in response...

...which is now harder to pull off on a smaller board. Wheeeee.

I'll throw this out as a long time player that isn't too enamored with the direction of the game right now. I could be wrong, but here it goes:

For a long time, at least up through 6th edition, the whole game was kinda predicated on the idea that for any given faction you had to take some number of Troop choices and that Troop choices specifically were needed for securing objectives - creating a decent incentive to use basic Troops. Moreover, most armies only had a few options for Troops, but they formed the backbone of your army nonetheless. Even moreover, it was generally understood that Troops were some of least effective units in your army - largely because by design they tended to be non-specialists.

Starting in 7th edition, and continuing since with formations, multiple detachments, CP-shenanigan's, etc. the basic Troop choice selections were often able to be avoided all together, and I think it's really hurt the character and feeing of the game and what a balanced army looks like - and more importantly plays like. All armies have become cheese armies, and it's a matter of who can bring the cheesiest platter to the table.

So in a way, generalists units, whether SM or another faction, were never meant to be "good" or better in a specialty role than a specialists was. The fact that this basic tenant of the game was tossed in the dumpster is causing a lot of consternation it seems.

Marines in past editions were generally and consistently the toughest troop choices in the game as it was. How much more tough did they really need to be? They already lived up to their lore IMHO - and it seems crazy to be making them even stronger and doing specialists jobs, at the basic troop level.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The number 1 problem has nothing to do with generalist or specialists.

The marines are specialists in lore - specialists in strategic and operational flexibility, specialists in speed and shock of attack, and specialists in combat power concentration.

Unfortunately, 40k is such a shallow game that those aren't direct benefits, and it takes a very skilled player to leverage things like combat power concentration on such a tiny board (really, the only way to do it is identify crucial terrain pieces that will break up the enemy army into smaller chunks that can be engaged by your more mobile and less-space-consuming Marines).

The real problem with marines isn't that they're generalists. It's that 40k is a shallow game, and the lore benefits of Marines don't make themselves known the way they did in Epic or in 3rd / 4th with Strategy Rating.

Agreed. If you bring back Strategry Rating, more meaningful morale, Ld checks to target non-closest units and multiple krak grenades in combat, you've got a good start. Then reintroduce blinding, gas and virus weapons where they can gain the benefits of their sealed environments. Throw in some targeters for good measure.

sadly if they brought in gas attacks and made marines immune you'd see the same complaints leveraged against that you saw against morale and ATSKNF pre-8th edition, namely that "it's pointless to have the rule when half the armies ignore it"

Just because people are complaining about something doesnt make it a valid complaint. Game designers just got to put on the big boy pants and weather some ire.

Not like gas attacks are the hill to die on, just that people are going to complain regardless, and the customer is not always right.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'll throw this out as a long time player that isn't too enamored with the direction of the game right now. I could be wrong, but here it goes:

For a long time, at least up through 6th edition, the whole game was kinda predicated on the idea that for any given faction you had to take some number of Troop choices and that Troop choices specifically were needed for securing objectives - creating a decent incentive to use basic Troops. Moreover, most armies only had a few options for Troops, but they formed the backbone of your army nonetheless. Even moreover, it was generally understood that Troops were some of least effective units in your army - largely because by design they tended to be non-specialists.

Starting in 7th edition, and continuing since with formations, multiple detachments, CP-shenanigan's, etc. the basic Troop choice selections were often able to be avoided all together, and I think it's really hurt the character and feeing of the game and what a balanced army looks like - and more importantly plays like. All armies have become cheese armies, and it's a matter of who can bring the cheesiest platter to the table.

So in a way, generalists units, whether SM or another faction, were never meant to be "good" or better in a specialty role than a specialists was. The fact that this basic tenant of the game was tossed in the dumpster is causing a lot of consternation it seems.

Marines in past editions were generally and consistently the toughest troop choices in the game as it was. How much more tough did they really need to be? They already lived up to their lore IMHO - and it seems crazy to be making them even stronger and doing specialists jobs, at the basic troop level.

I remember playing Plague Marines in 5th and sitting on top of objectives for days ,,, debatably they were the toughest troop unit to try and shift in 5th... saying that I completely agree... Heavy intercessors are, IMO, the most egregious of this. They are specialist in two areas and they fit a troop spot... even if playing 5th edition style missions where only troops take objectives this would be too much.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'll throw this out as a long time player that isn't too enamored with the direction of the game right now. I could be wrong, but here it goes:

For a long time, at least up through 6th edition, the whole game was kinda predicated on the idea that for any given faction you had to take some number of Troop choices and that Troop choices specifically were needed for securing objectives - creating a decent incentive to use basic Troops. Moreover, most armies only had a few options for Troops, but they formed the backbone of your army nonetheless. Even moreover, it was generally understood that Troops were some of least effective units in your army - largely because by design they tended to be non-specialists.

Starting in 7th edition, and continuing since with formations, multiple detachments, CP-shenanigan's, etc. the basic Troop choice selections were often able to be avoided all together, and I think it's really hurt the character and feeing of the game and what a balanced army looks like - and more importantly plays like. All armies have become cheese armies, and it's a matter of who can bring the cheesiest platter to the table.

So in a way, generalists units, whether SM or another faction, were never meant to be "good" or better in a specialty role than a specialists was. The face that this basic tenant of the game was tossed in the dumpster is causing a lot of consternation it seems.

Marines in past editions were generally and consistently the toughest troop choices in the game as it was. How much more tough did they really need to be? They already lived up to their lore IMHO - and it seems to crazy to be making them even stronger at the basic troop level.

I mean, from 5th thru 7th anything that got out of a transport was basically either performing a suicide attack or was about to get wiped off the board. between the twin options of just "pile on fire and wait for the 1s and 2s" and "just point your ap3 weaponry at them" marines did not feel particularly durable to me, as a player of such factions as Orks and Dark Eldar.

I actually really really like marines at W2. I do.and I don't REALLY mind shock assault - I really wish it didnt key off being charged though. I wish it was actually, you know, SHOCK ASSAULT, where if the marines charge you, you are SHOCKED by their ASSAULT, and not "shock defense" where you charge your howling banshees into a squad of marines wielding heavy weapons and they make the same number of attacks back against you with their sweet taekwondo kicks.

Marine assault units needed a damage bump. Shock assault does that, that's great. I'm glad assault marines are A3 now, about time. I'm glad tacticals feel like walking tanks, about time.

The things I hate most are:

-everything about bolter discipline. If Tau had bolter discipline marine players would be screeching endlessly that they'd ruined the game with their horrible game destroying antifun unfair cancerous apocalyptic oppressive personally offensive fascist horrific monstrous indefensible rules treason and all tau players had to be killed IMMEDIATELY or they'd boycott the game and go on hunger strikes.

-the fact that marines do more damage for the points than basically every "glass cannon" unit and faction now. They're as tough as necrons, but they deal way more damage way easier, both in melee and in shooting. there's a reason necron melee specialists are like "COWER in fear before my TWO STRENGTH SEVEN ATTACKS HI-YAH!"

Tone down the oppressive long range, tone down the capability to easily table opposing forces, and marines are better than they've ever been at feeling like marines. As soon as marines went from "close range shock assault troops" to "sits 30" away plunking away at you just as effectively as if they were right next to you" they became more cancerous than Tau. At least when you charge tau they lose.

 Lance845 wrote:


100% agree. There is no issue where SM pay for things they don't use. The point of the SM being good but not the best at everything is you can attempt to control how you engage your enemy. If they suck in a melee you can try to force them into a melee. If they prefer a melee you can hold up better then any non melee unit, survive it with your durability, break free and shoot the gak out of them.

Only the reality looks like this. If marines don't beat good melee and good shoting units, then all the marine player has to do, when half the store or more plays marines, is to skew their army in to running as much good or better melee or shoting and win half their games. And vs other xenos it is either a roll of dice, or the edition decides. If shoting is better, then an army with great shoting beats out all the marine players , beats those that are running melee armies and the only real problem are other people playing very shoty armies. Depending on how many games someone plays per month and how many people are there at the store, you may not have a single bad game for the entire edition. And that is accepting every game invite. If you don't play mirrors and skip on playing vs armies with better shoting then you, it is fun 10 out of 10 times all edition, or at least till GW nerfs the shoting of your army. Which is something that happened to Inari, although they were good at both melee and shoting at the same time.

Karol wrote:
Only the reality looks like this. If marines don't beat good melee and good shoting units, then all the marine player has to do, when half the store or more plays marines, is to skew their army in to running as much good or better melee or shoting and win half their games.

Clearly the only solution is for Marines to be better at shooting than shooting-only armies and better at melee than melee-only armies, because expecting them to play to their respective strengths and weaknesses in any given matchup is far too much to ask.

Karol wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


100% agree. There is no issue where SM pay for things they don't use. The point of the SM being good but not the best at everything is you can attempt to control how you engage your enemy. If they suck in a melee you can try to force them into a melee. If they prefer a melee you can hold up better then any non melee unit, survive it with your durability, break free and shoot the gak out of them.

Only the reality looks like this. If marines don't beat good melee and good shoting units, then all the marine player has to do, when half the store or more plays marines, is to skew their army in to running as much good or better melee or shoting and win half their games.

And then either the meta adjusts or you are a dick for list tailoring. Welcome to 40k.

And vs other xenos it is either a roll of dice, or the edition decides. If shoting is better, then an army with great shoting beats out all the marine players , beats those that are running melee armies and the only real problem are other people playing very shoty armies. Depending on how many games someone plays per month and how many people are there at the store, you may not have a single bad game for the entire edition. And that is accepting every game invite. If you don't play mirrors and skip on playing vs armies with better shoting then you, it is fun 10 out of 10 times all edition, or at least till GW nerfs the shoting of your army. Which is something that happened to Inari, although they were good at both melee and shoting at the same time.

THIS is a problem with the base game. Not marines. Everyone plays with this issue. This is because 40k is a tactically shallow gak show. You don't make it worse for every other army because you don't like playing on the same level playing field.

Well if it is a problem with the base game, and GW has not changed it in 9th ed, then probably they are not going to change it in the future. Why should the majority of players, which what the marine players are, be happy with the fact that the minority can easily buy and run armies for entire armies which are litteral marine killers. It is even happening right now. Harlequins and orks are beating marines both in and outside of events, because both can skew in a such a way that marines can't deal with them, and there aren't enough players of both for them to be running consistent enough in to each other to create any problems for them, and balance for other players.

No one in their right mind is going to accept the nerfing of their army just, so other player can have fun. There is zero logic behind it, and even less if it comes with some sort of expectation for GW to fix it somehow. Because if the marine players are the biggest buyers of GW products, making them their main source of income, making the marine player unhappy is just anti growth. If GW wants to keep up sales they had in 8th, or because of the coof something close to what they had in 8th, they are not going to start sacrificing their biggest audiance, just so the minority can have better gaming expiriance.

And then either the meta adjusts or you are a dick for list tailoring. Welcome to 40k.

tell me how did the GK or necron meta game 8th, or any bad armis from prior editions, adjusted to the top tier armies in prior editions?
I mean besides the people playing those armies being told to change armies of course.

did an eldar player spaming scatter bikers, wave serpents and WK tailor? seemed like it have been a basic eldar army at some time. Some strange lists with few units and buckets of characters seemed to have worked in the past too. I heard horror stories about invisibility psychic power and weapons that had no strenght, but killed stuff on hit ignoring W, T and Inv saves. I am sure that armies that the factions that had no access to those had great time in the past.

Karol wrote:
No one in their right mind is going to accept the nerfing of their army just, so other player can have fun.

I don't think I've ever heard someone openly admit their selfishness so brazenly before, in any medium. I think I know why everyone in Karol's meta plays hardball when he's around - because they can't expect any recompense from him in return.

Hi. I am of my right mind. I am happy to receive nerfs to create as balanced a product as GW can conceivably create. I do not give a single feth what form that takes.

Remember formations? It was a nerf to remove them. Perfect. Formations were bad for the game. Know doctrines? I think they are bad for the game. Kill them too. Know strategems? They are the new formations. And while their implementation is better in 9th they were a pox on 8th and should have been squatted.

Your whole argument Karol is that sometimes you fight an uphill battle agaisnt an army that has been purpose built to beat you and so you think your entire army should become immune to such practices.

YOU are bad for the game if that is your stance and thank all the gods you have no say in how anything gets made.

BrianDavion wrote:
sadly if they brought in gas attacks and made marines immune you'd see the same complaints leveraged against that you saw against morale and ATSKNF pre-8th edition, namely that "it's pointless to have the rule when half the armies ignore it"

To me at least, this seems like a perfectly valid complaint.

I'm not saying that it's inaccurate from a lore perspective, but from a game-design perspective 'my army is immune to X, Y and Z' just seems like poor design from the offset.

Let's be honest - this was a problem for many abilities in past editions. Stuff like Fear or similar Ld-based abilities were all but worthless when whole armies had good Ld and free rerolls, whilst others were outright Fearless. Hell, Knights were an army that were completely immune to all weapons of S5 or under (and practically immune to S6 weapons as well).

At the very least, you're either going to create inevitable feels-bad situations (when one player realises that all the fun equipment he spent points/CP on are completely worthless against his opponent's army) or else guarantee that a lot of weapons and wargear just never sees play (because it's too unreliable).

If you were going to do something like this, I'd suggest that it might work better to incorporate it into missions/terrain. e.g. having gas leaks in some areas or around objectives, which act as hazardous terrain except for Marines (and perhaps Necrons).

It would let Marines leverage some advantage from their gear without making the other player feel like they've wasted points on weapons that aren't worth a damn.

 Lance845 wrote:
Hi. I am of my right mind. I am happy to receive nerfs to create as balanced a product as GW can conceivably create.

Seconded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
sadly if they brought in gas attacks and made marines immune you'd see the same complaints leveraged against that you saw against morale and ATSKNF pre-8th edition, namely that "it's pointless to have the rule when half the armies ignore it"

To me at least, this seems like a perfectly valid complaint.

I'm not saying that it's inaccurate from a lore perspective, but from a game-design perspective 'my army is immune to X, Y and Z' just seems like poor design from the offset.

Let's be honest - this was a problem for many abilities in past editions. Stuff like Fear or similar Ld-based abilities were all but worthless when whole armies had good Ld and free rerolls, whilst others were outright Fearless. Hell, Knights were an army that were completely immune to all weapons of S5 or under (and practically immune to S6 weapons as well).

At the very least, you're either going to create inevitable feels-bad situations (when one player realises that all the fun equipment he spent points/CP on are completely worthless against his opponent's army) or else guarantee that a lot of weapons and wargear just never sees play (because it's too unreliable).

If you were going to do something like this, I'd suggest that it might work better to incorporate it into missions/terrain. e.g. having gas leaks in some areas or around objectives, which act as hazardous terrain except for Marines (and perhaps Necrons).

It would let Marines leverage some advantage from their gear without making the other player feel like they've wasted points on weapons that aren't worth a damn.

The Knight thing was perfectly effing fixable had they just let armies that could take entire units of anti-tank grenades ACTUALLY USE THEM. When a mob of 10 Tankbustas could only use ONE meltabomb against a Knight, bad times were had.

Edit:
As for the actual subject of your post , I think there's way to balance that all out in a reasonable fashion. You already have weapons that are good against some targets and not good against others, gas etc. is just another layer of that.

Karol wrote:
No one in their right mind is going to accept the nerfing of their army just, so other player can have fun. There is zero logic behind it

This is so far removed from normal human interaction I don't even know where to begin. Outright saying that the game should be unbalanced in favor of Marines so that their players stay happy is just shameless.

 vipoid wrote:
If you were going to do something like this, I'd suggest that it might work better to incorporate it into missions/terrain. e.g. having gas leaks in some areas or around objectives, which act as hazardous terrain except for Marines (and perhaps Necrons).

It would let Marines leverage some advantage from their gear without making the other player feel like they've wasted points on weapons that aren't worth a damn.

I expect that would go much like Chimeras being amphibious did in prior editions: almost never relevant, because outside of narrative-based gaming most players don't like when the scenario overtly favors one side or the other. Let alone the wailing, gnashing of teeth, and instant ITC houserule that would occur if this were applied in tournaments.

Immunity to gas might work if, like, gas ammunition were readily available for grenade launchers, missile launchers, artillery, and so on. That way it'd be something that players aren't actively buying with points, but Marines would still be able to cut off a potential weapon used against them.

"This is so far removed from normal human interaction I don't even know where to begin. Outright saying that the game should be unbalanced in favor of Marines so that their players stay happy is just shameless."

Nah, sounds on point for the marketing team.