Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd have a better chance than I would with 13 pt marines. That's the point.

Dark reapers will get points increase in March.

The main problem here is that AM has comparable stat lines as any other armies, whose bodies/vehicle platforms are too cheap, and the weapons are cheaper than the exact counter part of other armies.

But hey, that's what AM's supposed be, right? Quantity is its own quality? So then where does rest of the armies stand? What role does straight up quality in the game play?

Do we tone down AM to even out with the game or do we fix rest of the game to be on par at AM level?

 skchsan wrote:
The main problem here is that AM has comparable stat lines as any other armies, whose bodies/vehicle platforms are too cheap, and the weapons are cheaper than the exact counter part of other armies.

But hey, that's what AM's supposed be, right? Quantity is its own quality? So then where does rest of the armies stand? What role does straight up quality in the game play?

Do we tone down AM to even out with the game or do we fix rest of the game to be on par at AM level?

Depends. Are you happy with games ending top of turn one? Then yes. Take the Manticore as your baseline and buff everything else to compensate. Do you want a game that people might enjoy playing? Stop the ever-bigger-guns death spiral and start putting limitations on heavy weapon spam.

Make the manticore cost 185 pts and things get better. Almost everything can be fixed with costing.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
40K marines need to be costed for the reality you just described. It's that simple. Other troops should frankly be terrified of marines anyway, as that seems to be marines' "thing". We don't even get our tactics on our non-troops, so by that line of reasoning, marines should have the best troops far and away.

...My assertion is that Tactical Marines cannot be costed for the 8e heavy-weapon-spam meta. There is no price at which a Tactical Marine will be 'durable'. The statline required to make a Tactical Marine 'durable' would have wonky ripples across the entire infantry space that would do things like make Guardsmen a worse problem than they are. The solution to the problem you guys are describing is to do something about the heavy-weapon-spam meta.

They're not even that durable to small arms though.

So what I'm hearing is that I need to keep the spreadsheets around, because every time you say something like that I redo the math to point out that Marines win every firefight between Troops units with small arms handily (point for point) and you forget about it five minutes later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
We are limiting ourselves to what GW is realistically going to do. At least, I am. Yes, rewriting the game will fix it, too. The admech 72 S6 -2 shots aren't going anywhere. Price marines accordingly.

THIS IS PROPOSED RULES. If you want to "limit yourself to what GW is going to do" please go to the section of the forums that isn't entirely about doing things GW isn't going to do.

Go ahead and present your spreadsheets then.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Depends. Are you happy with games ending top of turn one? Then yes. Take the Manticore as your baseline and buff everything else to compensate. Do you want a game that people might enjoy playing? Stop the ever-bigger-guns death spiral and start putting limitations on heavy weapon spam.

So if we buff everything up to AM's level, the game will last only 1 turn? Because that isn't happening now anyways? So it's perfectly normal for AM to use the standard 200-man double-chevron meat shield with manticores and banes' and mortars sitting in backfield because that's the kind of game that people enjoy playing right? Since AM's built around cheap heavy weapons, I suppose we need to put more limitations on AM.

Dumbing down heavy weapons is only going favor chaff armies even further. The game needs to be balanced in a way that the cheapest units can't do same damage as ones that cost 2-3 times more than them. The simplest way you can change this is by either by increasing the cost of the cheapest units or decreasing the cost of the units that cost 2-3 times more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And take for example plague marines - with +1T and +5 FnP they're paying 4 extra ppm, and all of a sudden they become decent troop choice. They're are allowed up to 2 special weapons per unit, regardless of how many models are in the unit.

But nonetheless, troop slots are better filled by cultists and poxwalkers - why? because they're dirt cheap and do what they do well - being a chaff bubble wrap.

Dare I suggest, the core of the problem here is not the marine, but the overabundance of these mid to high power weapons that to quote several, "kill a marine as easily as a guardsman." Perhaps powerful heavy and special weapons should be actually special, i.e. limited and not readily spammable. On the other hand rifles that are supposed to be advanced can be boosted a bit to the point that they're solid, if still unremarkable weapons, and not the semi-effective "take them because you have to" fillers that they currently are.

Now obviously this is never going to happen because GW opened the floodgates and encouraged players to field armies entirely made of tanks and aircraft, or containing multiple superheavies and gargantuan creatures, not to mention certain deathstar units, and one needs large numbers of killy to very killy guns to deal with the abundance of such hard targets...that should not be abundant at all. And nor do they want to sell less of these big pricy models. But ah just my idea of what would make the game better...

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Dare I suggest, the core of the problem here is not the marine, but the overabundance of these mid to high power weapons that to quote several, "kill a marine as easily as a guardsman." Perhaps powerful heavy and special weapons should be actually special, i.e. limited and not readily spammable. On the other hand rifles that are supposed to be advanced can be boosted a bit to the point that they're solid, if still unremarkable weapons, and not the semi-effective "take them because you have to" fillers that they currently are.

Now obviously this is never going to happen because GW opened the floodgates and encouraged players to field armies entirely made of tanks and aircraft, or containing multiple superheavies and gargantuan creatures, not to mention certain deathstar units, and one needs large numbers of killy to very killy guns to deal with the abundance of such hard targets...that should not be abundant at all. And nor do they want to sell less of these big pricy models. But ah just my idea of what would make the game better...

Then it'll truly become "marines are OP" because there wont be enough weapons to take down a company of marines in time IMO. What's being suggested is that "let the anti-MEQ be as effective in what they do, but stop letting anti-GEQ weapons to be just as efficient at killing MEQ's, whether it may be in buff in the characteristics or in reduced points for the MEQ"

The game has lost its mid-tier units - by that I mean, prior to 8th ed, classifications like GEQ, MEQ, and TEQ had a meaning - GEQ: bring AP5's; MEQ: bring AP3's; TEQ: bring AP2/1's or tons of dakka. 8th edition has granted the weakest of the units to be able to wound anything, albeit with small chances. In a way of compensating for this boost in threat (although minor), in order to properly establish what the weakest attacks can do to the toughest of vehicles, GW has made the interactions of stats in a way so that the weakest weapon have less than ~1/100th chance of wounding it. What they've failed to do is increase the survivability of mid-grade units with the increased potential threat of weakest of the units, along with the increased survivability of vehicles as they were translated to wound system.

 skchsan wrote:

Then it'll truly become "marines are OP" because there wont be enough weapons to take down a company of marines in time IMO. What's being suggested is that "let the anti-MEQ be as effective in what they do, but stop letting anti-GEQ weapons to be just as efficient at killing MEQ's, whether it may be in buff in the characteristics or in reduced points for the MEQ"

But are half the posts here not complaining (and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't play 8th) that marines are not even proving problematic, points for points, against the same small arms that kill guardsmen? So if everyone and their uncle can bring a plasma gun to the battlefield... Not that this is any way a new issue -I'm reminded of strong sentiments from 6E players that AP2 pie plates shouldn't even exist in the game.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Then it'll truly become "marines are OP" because there wont be enough weapons to take down a company of marines in time IMO. What's being suggested is that "let the anti-MEQ be as effective in what they do, but stop letting anti-GEQ weapons to be just as efficient at killing MEQ's, whether it may be in buff in the characteristics or in reduced points for the MEQ"

But are half the posts here not complaining (and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't play 8th) that marines are not even proving problematic, points for points, against the same small arms that kill guardsmen? So if everyone and their uncle can bring a plasma gun to the battlefield...

Don't worry. GW heard your pleas and released a Tougher space marine unit armed entirely with plasmaguns to help deal with the special weapon spam!

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Then it'll truly become "marines are OP" because there wont be enough weapons to take down a company of marines in time IMO. What's being suggested is that "let the anti-MEQ be as effective in what they do, but stop letting anti-GEQ weapons to be just as efficient at killing MEQ's, whether it may be in buff in the characteristics or in reduced points for the MEQ"

But are half the posts here not complaining (and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't play 8th) that marines are not even proving problematic, points for points, against the same small arms that kill guardsmen? So if everyone and their uncle can bring a plasma gun to the battlefield...

If I understand your double negation properly, yes. Weaker guns perform better per point, and are able to be critical massed cheaper. Everyone brings their plasmas at a point, although AM pays significantly less. So the question is, do we make the weaker guns even weaker? Or make MEQ's more kill-ier? Or make MEQ's slightly tougher?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Go ahead and present your spreadsheets then.

20 lasguns @
GEQ 3.33 = (.5 x .5 x .666)
MEQ 1.1 = (.5 x .333 x .333)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

2: Marines at 13pts perform better than any other Troops unit in the game in a straight-up fight between Troops units with small arms, according to my math.

Tyranid Warriors get em.
10 marines = 130 pts.
5 Warriors w/ Deathspitters = 125 (are Deathspitters "small arms"?, they are not Heavy, but they're basically a Heavy Bolter. Suck it Bolt Rifle.)

10 marines @ Warriors (20 x .666 x .5 x .5) = 3.33 w (1 Tyranid Warrior is 3 W, so 1/5 the squad.
5 Warriors @ Marines (15 x .5 x .666 x .5) = 2.25 w (1/4) the squad.

Jormungandr Warriors fare better w/ a 3+ save. RG Marines need to be out of Rapid Fire range to get their bonus, which would not be good for them.

SMs get most of the fluff so that is your exchange for power.

Space marines just need to have a few points dropped. Power armour is not as good in the new edition because of the AP- rule, but I personally think it works. Also guard are broken this edition(so far) the amount of fire they can put out is ridiculous and can kill most things.(sorry for going off topic there)

SM should be 9 points but with a different profile.

T3 S3 armor 4+

Scouts for 8 points but elites and with a 5+ save.

I love armies that are infantry based but T4 and 3+ save guys can't be discounted, they'd be too durable. Guardsmen are broken, to fix the game just adjust their points, it's wrong to make another troop broken to counter them. And not every army should play with the horde style, an infantry based SM list should have 40ish power armor guys, considering all the units that are part of the list, not only tacticals.

WTF? T3 S3 4+ save marines? Why break fluff that badly? They are already weak compared to fluff(remember marines bare armed can punch human to death with glancing blow or bend metal and power armour just boosts it while power armour ensures it's impervious to small arm and even if it gets penetrated shot can blow out some internal organs and marine STILL keeps fighting). S3 T3 4+ save would not make sense at all.

And it's not like S4 T4 3+ is some sort of super unbeatable stat line...It's fairly mediocre as it is.

And 40 models with those stats? 40 models at T4 3+ save can get blown out of game in a turn as it is...

Personally, I think that the problem is more that the stuff at the bottom of the infantry scale – the most obvious example being Guardsmen – is probably too cheap now, given the boosts they’ve received as a consequence of changes in mechanics from 3rd-7th to 8th. In the case of Guard it’s particularly egregious as they can now use Orders much more reliably. Yet their point cost, relative to other regular infantry, has remained unchanged. As such, rather than dropping the cost of medium infantry, would it be better to push up the cost of light infantry. The obvious drawback to point *reductions* for anything costing less than, say, 15 points is that you very quickly run out of room for adjustment.

tneva82 wrote:
WTF? T3 S3 4+ save marines? Why break fluff that badly? They are already weak compared to fluff(remember marines bare armed can punch human to death with glancing blow or bend metal and power armour just boosts it while power armour ensures it's impervious to small arm and even if it gets penetrated shot can blow out some internal organs and marine STILL keeps fighting). S3 T3 4+ save would not make sense at all.

And it's not like S4 T4 3+ is some sort of super unbeatable stat line...It's fairly mediocre as it is.

For a troop the 3+ save is huge since most anti infantry weapons don't have any AP, and some just AP-1.

About the stats, you don't have to compare guardsmen, they're broken, we all know that. Compare marines to eldar guardians, kabalite warriors, wyches, hormagaunts, termagants, necron warriors, ork boyz... and of course all the specialists that are just regular dudes with additional wargear. SM are certainly among the most durable ones and their cost is appropriate. I honestly don't see a power armor guy being stronger than a regular dude, primaris with S4 and T4 make sense, but regular SM should have the same profile as other humans just with a better save, which is the bonus power armours give. Ork boyz are S4 T4 and look like Hulk compared to SM, and yet they have the same T and S. Aesthetically speaking SM look as strong as eldar, tyranids but also guardsmen, which are all T3.

To make them cheaper you must nerf their profile, simple. Otherwise they'd be broken just like guardsmen.

tneva82 wrote:

And 40 models with those stats? 40 models at T4 3+ save can get blown out of game in a turn as it is...

40-50 space marines plus vehicles, termies, centurions, primaris, flyers.... of course I didn't mean to consider an army of 40 guys and nothing else

I think marines are fine as they are but to have more durable dudes the only possible option is to lower their stats and make them cheaper.

 Blackie wrote:
About the stats, you don't have to compare guardsmen, they're broken, we all know that. Compare marines to eldar guardians, kabalite warriors, wyches, hormagaunts, termagants, necron warriors, ork boyz... and of course all the specialists that are just regular dudes with additional wargear. SM are certainly among the most durable ones and their cost is appropriate. I honestly don't see a power armor guy being stronger than a regular dude, primaris with S4 and T4 make sense, but regular SM should have the same profile as other humans just with a better save, which is the bonus power armours give. Ork boyz are S4 T4 and look like Hulk compared to SM, and yet they have the same T and S. Aesthetically speaking SM look as strong as eldar, tyranids but also guardsmen, which are all T3.

Marine can lose HEART and still fight. Lung? Keep on fighting. Bullet through stomach? Not going to stop him. Body heals entrance and exit wounds and marines have redundancies to deal with organs being lost.

Seriously you think guy that can lose a heart is guy that's as easy to hurt as regular human?

Yeah, “make Marines as terrible as Guardsmen” is a bizarre suggestion from both a fluff and crunch perspective.

The cheapest units in the gane are too cheap and 2018 will bear this out. Marines are not fine in that a shot from almost any weapon removes more points of marines than cheapo troops. Maybe the game needed ap +1 as well.

 Blackie wrote:
I honestly don't see a power armor guy being stronger than a regular dude, primaris with S4 and T4 make sense, but regular SM should have the same profile as other humans just with a better save, which is the bonus power armours give. Ork boyz are S4 T4 and look like Hulk compared to SM, and yet they have the same T and S. Aesthetically speaking SM look as strong as eldar, tyranids but also guardsmen, which are all.

This is an issue with the scaling of GW space marines, and the whole reason for the primaris line. People wanted SM models that matched the fluff, AKA "true scale", and GW decided to give them that in a way which didn't render the entire SM line (and chaos marines) obsolete. Primaris models are what marines should have looked like to start with. The problem is that the new guys now take up the space that marines need to be in to play well (not surprising, in theory should help Gw sell their new baby).

So a buff is unlikely, as that would step on the toes of primaris marines. However IMO if you reduce marine stats to equal that of a GEQ then you are no longer playing space marines. Marines are not just a guardsman in power armour. If you were holding a pistol/chainsword and had to kill a naked, unarmed marine then my money would be on him. All of it. Every penny. Hell, have one of his hearts out of action at the start and my money would still be 100% on him.

 Blackie wrote:
SM should be 9 points but with a different profile.

T3 S3 armor 4+

Scouts for 8 points but elites and with a 5+ save.

I love armies that are infantry based but T4 and 3+ save guys can't be discounted, they'd be too durable. Guardsmen are broken, to fix the game just adjust their points, it's wrong to make another troop broken to counter them. And not every army should play with the horde style, an infantry based SM list should have 40ish power armor guys, considering all the units that are part of the list, not only tacticals.

My infantry based SM list with T4 3+ save has over 70 models in it, over 60 in Power Armor. It's not hard to do as is. Techinically, 100 Power Armored Space Marines comes in at 1300 points. Plenty of space to load out your company if you want to hoard out.

Would it be bad to do any debuffs on marines, even to balance buffs in other places?

In fifth and sixth editions I tried marines with 4+ saves who could add one to their save rolls, and then later 2 to their saves. It made a real difference for heavy bolters and especially power mauls - why did chaplains, the most internal-affairs, anti-traitor character in a chapter, have a weapon that didn't affect power armor? Preposterous.

Then having the debuff of being hurt by ap4 effectively paid for buffs to other abilities, so the points cost didn't have to increase and nobody in these games had to rewrite army lists.


It also later gave a 2+ save against lasguns and shootas, etc., which nobody would have tolerated if there weren't common ap4 weapons that could make up for it.

So yes, it can be good idea to knock down some stats like toughness, especially since it against some weapons (s5) it isn't a nerf. I think toughness isn't the right choice, but it's a good idea.

 hippyjr wrote:


This is an issue with the scaling of GW space marines, and the whole reason for the primaris line. People wanted SM models that matched the fluff, AKA "true scale", and GW decided to give them that in a way which didn't render the entire SM line (and chaos marines) obsolete. Primaris models are what marines should have looked like to start with.

Not every player wanted that. I hate how primaris look for example, IMHO the worst models in the entire GW catalogue along with the DG guys, and I'd rather get the fluff changed than the dimension of the basic models increased. I prefer marines to be guardsmen in power armor with better training, which means better WS and BS. IMHO the issue was not the scale but the fluff, too silly.

This doesn't affect Marines' durability but I think the best buff apply would be to give them the special ability they have in 30k. I can't remember the name right now but it allows them to fire twice if they remain stationary and are willing to give up shooting next turn. Gives them the chance to actually erase a unit that might be threatening them.

 Blackie wrote:
Not every player wanted that. I hate how primaris look for example, IMHO the worst models in the entire GW catalogue along with the DG guys, and I'd rather get the fluff changed than the dimension of the basic models increased. I prefer marines to be guardsmen in power armor with better training, which means better WS and BS. IMHO the issue was not the scale but the fluff, too silly.

Just gonna say, run them as sisters and you've got this already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Dare I suggest, the core of the problem here is not the marine, but the overabundance of these mid to high power weapons that to quote several, "kill a marine as easily as a guardsman." Perhaps powerful heavy and special weapons should be actually special, i.e. limited and not readily spammable. On the other hand rifles that are supposed to be advanced can be boosted a bit to the point that they're solid, if still unremarkable weapons, and not the semi-effective "take them because you have to" fillers that they currently are.

Now obviously this is never going to happen because GW opened the floodgates and encouraged players to field armies entirely made of tanks and aircraft, or containing multiple superheavies and gargantuan creatures, not to mention certain deathstar units, and one needs large numbers of killy to very killy guns to deal with the abundance of such hard targets...that should not be abundant at all. And nor do they want to sell less of these big pricy models. But ah just my idea of what would make the game better...

If people really have a problem with this then they should setup their own league using only the core three formations and only allow one of them per faction. It's something I've considered myself so people can actually have fun rather than selecting who gets thrown to the wolves each week to the power gamer.

 Blackie wrote:

 hippyjr wrote:


This is an issue with the scaling of GW space marines, and the whole reason for the primaris line. People wanted SM models that matched the fluff, AKA "true scale", and GW decided to give them that in a way which didn't render the entire SM line (and chaos marines) obsolete. Primaris models are what marines should have looked like to start with.

Not every player wanted that. I hate how primaris look for example, IMHO the worst models in the entire GW catalogue along with the DG guys, and I'd rather get the fluff changed than the dimension of the basic models increased. I prefer marines to be guardsmen in power armor with better training, which means better WS and BS. IMHO the issue was not the scale but the fluff, too silly.

You're exaggerating if you think the Primaris are the worst models in their catalogue when Logan Clause, Nipple Armor Blood Angels, Obliterators/Mutilators, Possessed etc. are Marine models that currently exist.

You don't have to be a fan of Primaris models. I'm not. I'm using Boarding Shield Marines as my Intercessors because Mk3 for life. The worst models in the entire GW catalogue past and present? You're literally lying, sorry.

 Blackie wrote:

 hippyjr wrote:


This is an issue with the scaling of GW space marines, and the whole reason for the primaris line. People wanted SM models that matched the fluff, AKA "true scale", and GW decided to give them that in a way which didn't render the entire SM line (and chaos marines) obsolete. Primaris models are what marines should have looked like to start with.

Not every player wanted that. I hate how primaris look for example, IMHO the worst models in the entire GW catalogue along with the DG guys, and I'd rather get the fluff changed than the dimension of the basic models increased. I prefer marines to be guardsmen in power armor with better training, which means better WS and BS. IMHO the issue was not the scale but the fluff, too silly.

The fluff is too silly?

Just quit 40k cause every faction has silly fluff.

Orks fluff is waaay more silly compared to marines, they're a giant fungus that becomes sentient. How is that less silly than a super soldier?
How about necrons? A race that decided to put everyone in metal skeletons to live on a planet with so much radiation they couldn't survive for long
What about sisters of battle? The church wasn't aloud to have an army of men so he raised an army of women, like that's just foolish

You clearly don't understand 40k fluff if you think a marine should be T3, marines are not human per say, they go through multiple surgeries. Grow to 8ft tall have extras of organs, like the heart. Marines tower over most races except orks who are also T4 for what it's worth

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 hippyjr wrote:


This is an issue with the scaling of GW space marines, and the whole reason for the primaris line. People wanted SM models that matched the fluff, AKA "true scale", and GW decided to give them that in a way which didn't render the entire SM line (and chaos marines) obsolete. Primaris models are what marines should have looked like to start with.

Not every player wanted that. I hate how primaris look for example, IMHO the worst models in the entire GW catalogue along with the DG guys, and I'd rather get the fluff changed than the dimension of the basic models increased. I prefer marines to be guardsmen in power armor with better training, which means better WS and BS. IMHO the issue was not the scale but the fluff, too silly.

The fluff is too silly?

Just quit 40k cause every faction has silly fluff.

Orks fluff is waaay more silly compared to marines, they're a giant fungus that becomes sentient. How is that less silly than a super soldier?
How about necrons? A race that decided to put everyone in metal skeletons to live on a planet with so much radiation they couldn't survive for long
What about sisters of battle? The church wasn't aloud to have an army of men so he raised an army of women, like that's just foolish

You clearly don't understand 40k fluff if you think a marine should be T3, marines are not human per say, they go through multiple surgeries. Grow to 8ft tall have extras of organs, like the heart. Marines tower over most races except orks who are also T4 for what it's worth

yeah T3 marines would be rediculas. Marines are fluffed VERY clearly as being signficigently tougher then mere humans. if anything you could proably argue marines should all go up 2 toughness over regular humans instead of just 1