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.

Dudeface wrote:
No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.

Except that this isn't the point Insectum is making.

He's not talking about whether these interactions are balanced by the current points but how they feel to play.

I'm sure it feels great for Marines when their elites can tank masses of firepower from the shooty-troops of other armies. What you're ignoring is that it feels far less good for the shooting armies, as they realise it would take an entire Battalion's worth of troops, all in rapid-fire range, to kill a single Marine squad standing in the open.

We've had similar problems with elites (or units that were once elite) having to basically dogpile Marines with sheer numbers in order to accomplish anything. Again, I'm sure it feels great for Marine players but far less so for the players whose elites are barely distinguishable from cannon-fodder. This is something that isn't fixed by balancing point costs because it's not about whether the scenario is theoretically balanced but the fact that it just feels bad when you need ridiculous numbers of supposedly-elite units to accomplish anything against Marine troops.

But this is a problem even with troops. In the scenario above, even if the point costs are theoretically balanced, there's just no reason for players to invest points in troops with such dismal returns. Indeed, as was suggested previously, the Tau player would be far better off taking only the minimum number of troops and putting the saved points into units like Riptides that can actually accomplish something.

I doubt its especially fun for Marine players to face off against a Myriad of walkers and battlesuits with super-weapons and masses of armour-destroying firepower, yet that is precisely what happens when you beg GW to make your units more and more and more elite, to the point where small-arms fire isn't worth bothering with.

Well because w40k is rather one diminesional game, the only other options marine players get to live through, is when marines die from everything other armies have. To a point where it is not worth to have actual marines in a marine army. And having the option to pick from you having fun and some else having fun, not many people are willing to pick others to have fun. Specialy with how much money and time investment the game costs.

Karol wrote:
Well because w40k is rather one diminesional game, the only other options marine players get to live through, is when marines die from everything other armies have. To a point where it is not worth to have actual marines in a marine army.

Except that this problem is in no way unique to Marines. Do you think it's any more fun for infantry-Guard players to basically need a dustpan and brush to keep up with the casualties their army suffers each turn?

The game absolutely has problems with escalating lethality but that should be looked at across all faction, not just from the perspective of Marine players.

Otherwise you end up where we are now - with designers' pet factions getting special rules on top of special rules to fix the issues of special rules and then also some special rules to make sure that they're not themselves held back by the special rules designed to fix the problems caused by special rules . . .

 vipoid wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well because w40k is rather one diminesional game, the only other options marine players get to live through, is when marines die from everything other armies have. To a point where it is not worth to have actual marines in a marine army.

Except that this problem is in no way unique to Marines. Do you think it's any more fun for infantry-Guard players to basically need a dustpan and brush to keep up with the casualties their army suffers each turn?

The game absolutely has problems with escalating lethality but that should be looked at across all faction, not just from the perspective of Marine players.

Otherwise you end up where we are now - with designers' pet factions getting special rules on top of special rules to fix the issues of special rules and then also some special rules to make sure that they're not themselves held back by the special rules designed to fix the problems caused by special rules . . .

I agree with a lot of this, I'd argue the fluff of guard is very much "you guys die in droves" it's sort of what you should expect to happen for them. But you're right, rewind 12 months or however long and I feel the same way you do about marines regards the idea of DG getting increased lethality if they'd kept old DR and people wanted.

Another bolter variant for the bolter porn!

'stalker marksman bolt carbine' for the KT upgrade sprue..

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/05/26/headshot-enemy-operatives-in-their-own-turn-with-kill-team-morochs-incursor-marksman/

* A stalker bolt rifle is more accurate than a bolt rifle, and a marksman bolt carbine is more accurate than a bolt carbine, so…

That is way too many words and doesn't even make sense as carbines tend not be as accurate as full sized rifles due to the shorter barrel.
So really it would just be a bolt carbine that's really accurate compared to other bolt carbines, but not that impressive when compared to bolt rifles.

Dudeface wrote:
No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.

If 5ppm t2 marines matches the fluff in some capacity then sure.

Another post goes into the "missed the point" pile!

Vipod has essentially responded for me otherwise.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.

If 5ppm t2 marines matches the fluff in some capacity then sure.

Another post goes into the "missed the point" pile!

Vipod has essentially responded for me otherwise.

I'd suggest if there's a pile it might be worth reiterating in a manner that isn't comparing battlefield efficiency, I understood Vipod immediately.

Voss wrote:Another bolter variant for the bolter porn!

'stalker marksman bolt carbine' for the KT upgrade sprue..

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/05/26/headshot-enemy-operatives-in-their-own-turn-with-kill-team-morochs-incursor-marksman/

* A stalker bolt rifle is more accurate than a bolt rifle, and a marksman bolt carbine is more accurate than a bolt carbine, so…

CthuluIsSpy wrote:That is way too many words and doesn't even make sense as carbines tend not be as accurate as full sized rifles due to the shorter barrel.
So really it would just be a bolt carbine that's really accurate compared to other bolt carbines, but not that impressive when compared to bolt rifles.

I stalker bolt rifle is a bolt rifle with but heavy instead of rapid fire, +6" to range and -1 AP and +1 Damage.

A marksman bolt carbine is a rapid fire 1 range 24" S4 AP 0 D1, autowounding on hit rolls of 6.

So a stalker marksman bolt carbine is likely going to be heavy 1 range 30", S4 AP -1 D2 and autowounding on hit rolls of 6.

Wow bolters really are nonsensical bloat these days.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That is way too many words and doesn't even make sense as carbines tend not be as accurate as full sized rifles due to the shorter barrel.
So really it would just be a bolt carbine that's really accurate compared to other bolt carbines, but not that impressive when compared to bolt rifles.

Yeah...so it's a carbine with a longer barrel? That would be a rifle then. Or it's a carbine firing heavier ammo with a fancy scope? That would be...pointless?

One annoying thing about adding all these weapons so you can make units different is it ignores the obvious possibility of using special rules on the model/unit instead. In 40k Incursors and Infiltrators carry weapons with the same profile as a bolter. If they added the special rule for each weapon to the unit we'd reduce a small amount of the weapon bloat at least.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.

If 5ppm t2 marines matches the fluff in some capacity then sure.

Another post goes into the "missed the point" pile!

Vipod has essentially responded for me otherwise.

I'd suggest if there's a pile it might be worth reiterating in a manner that isn't comparing battlefield efficiency, I understood Vipod immediately.

There's a whole string of posts laying out my arguments here, including multiple posts explaining why your interpretation of my argument was incorrect. Vipod got it. Other opposition posters eventually got it. Now maybe I could have layed it out better, but given all the conversation around it I think you coulda done better.

 vipoid wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well because w40k is rather one diminesional game, the only other options marine players get to live through, is when marines die from everything other armies have. To a point where it is not worth to have actual marines in a marine army.

Except that this problem is in no way unique to Marines. Do you think it's any more fun for infantry-Guard players to basically need a dustpan and brush to keep up with the casualties their army suffers each turn?

The game absolutely has problems with escalating lethality but that should be looked at across all faction, not just from the perspective of Marine players.

Otherwise you end up where we are now - with designers' pet factions getting special rules on top of special rules to fix the issues of special rules and then also some special rules to make sure that they're not themselves held back by the special rules designed to fix the problems caused by special rules . . .

Well Guard and Ork players were the most vocal on negative hit modifiers, and now we're capped at +/-1. I wanted MORE ways for modifiers to happen, which would've helped with lethality.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Well Guard and Ork players were the most vocal on negative hit modifiers, and now we're capped at +/-1. I wanted MORE ways for modifiers to happen, which would've helped with lethality.

yeah, Autohit on 6's was the correct fix, adding the modifier cap on top of that was stupid.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
No Insectum, the 20 vs 10 illustrates how the marines as an elite force are operating outnumbered and still able to perform evenly on the table via game balance. You need to factor in points to show how things are relative to each other on the tabletop.

If 5ppm t2 marines matches the fluff in some capacity then sure.

Another post goes into the "missed the point" pile!

Vipod has essentially responded for me otherwise.

I'd suggest if there's a pile it might be worth reiterating in a manner that isn't comparing battlefield efficiency, I understood Vipod immediately.

There's a whole string of posts laying out my arguments here, including multiple posts explaining why your interpretation of my argument was incorrect. Vipod got it. Other opposition posters eventually got it. Now maybe I could have layed it out better, but given all the conversation around it I think you coulda done better.

Meh, chalk it up to crossed wires as in the end, I agree the fluff and the representation needs more thought, likewise after a step back, I agree I've been in the same situation and sadly the last 12 months has normalised the lethality race for me.

Dudeface wrote:

Meh, chalk it up to crossed wires as in the end, I agree the fluff and the representation needs more thought, likewise after a step back, I agree I've been in the same situation and sadly the last 12 months has normalised the lethality race for me.

Crossed wires it is then, lord knows I've done it too

The lethality race is a problem. Unfortunately the current tragedy is that the "fix" appears to be a faction-specific AoC, rather than the more global readdressing it really needs to be. And it further puts us here, where formerly dangerous xenos units get trounced upon for the sake of Marines. . . again. It's a sorry state of affairs.

Slipspace wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That is way too many words and doesn't even make sense as carbines tend not be as accurate as full sized rifles due to the shorter barrel.
So really it would just be a bolt carbine that's really accurate compared to other bolt carbines, but not that impressive when compared to bolt rifles.

Yeah...so it's a carbine with a longer barrel? That would be a rifle then. Or it's a carbine firing heavier ammo with a fancy scope? That would be...pointless?

One annoying thing about adding all these weapons so you can make units different is it ignores the obvious possibility of using special rules on the model/unit instead. In 40k Incursors and Infiltrators carry weapons with the same profile as a bolter. If they added the special rule for each weapon to the unit we'd reduce a small amount of the weapon bloat at least.

I can't wait for the mastercrafted stalker marksmen auto bolt carbine (+1, of smiting).

Yeah, I think it would be simpler if the unit just had a rule or unit upgrade like "Scopes. This unit put optics on their rifles. They get a +6" increase to range when they make a ranged attack with their rifles."
GW used to do something like that, before they made 100+ different weapons with slight stat differences and put unit upgrades in stratagems for some silly reason.
It's funny, because the weapon bloat used to be an issue in 6th-7th ed and was one of the things that was dropped when they "streamlined" the game during the dawn of 8th ed. So much for that I guess.

I don't know if one could say they reduced the weapon bloat for 8th when they were simultaneously introducing Primaris, where each unit seems to bring along several new unique weapon profiles.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't know if one could say they reduced the weapon bloat for 8th when they were simultaneously introducing Primaris, where each unit seems to bring along several new unique weapon profiles.

This, GW seems to want a unique profile for each unit, especially for the new ones. And since there are countless different bolter platforms we ended up with countless bolter variants.

 Blackie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't know if one could say they reduced the weapon bloat for 8th when they were simultaneously introducing Primaris, where each unit seems to bring along several new unique weapon profiles.

This, GW seems to want a unique profile for each unit, especially for the new ones. And since there are countless different bolter platforms we ended up with countless bolter variants.

Specifically only with Marines, I think. Possible because they didn't like people swapping in marines as Tacticals, Devastators, whatever?

Hecaton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't know if one could say they reduced the weapon bloat for 8th when they were simultaneously introducing Primaris, where each unit seems to bring along several new unique weapon profiles.

This, GW seems to want a unique profile for each unit, especially for the new ones. And since there are countless different bolter platforms we ended up with countless bolter variants.

Specifically only with Marines, I think. Possible because they didn't like people swapping in marines as Tacticals, Devastators, whatever?

And to be fair, I'm FINE with three profiles (Rapid Fire, Assault, and Heavy), but there's far too much after that. Just make Tacticool Marines and Reivers take the assault variant and call it a day.

Thinkin about it, we don’t need Primaris, just count em as normal marines. Hellblasters are just plasma gunners.

It seems like there's a policy of every unit having its own weapon stats so it gives GW another thing you can alter to try and create a niche or balance it against other options.

Whereas if you go "X is a platform for bolters, Y is also a platform for bolters, and who'd have guessed it, Z is also a platform for bolters", people will inevitably go "that platform is best for the points, the end."

Tyel wrote:
It seems like there's a policy of every unit having its own weapon stats so it gives GW another thing you can alter to try and create a niche or balance it against other options.

Whereas if you go "X is a platform for bolters, Y is also a platform for bolters, and who'd have guessed it, Z is also a platform for bolters", people will inevitably go "that platform is best for the points, the end."

TBH I think it's much more about discouraging 3rd party bits sources and encouraging the purchase of more kits to get variation.

Tyel wrote:
It seems like there's a policy of every unit having its own weapon stats so it gives GW another thing you can alter to try and create a niche or balance it against other options.

I think it's more a misguided attempt to make each unit unique. The problem is the game doesn't allow for the number of niches GW is trying to create. There's a limit to how different you can make a single weapon type before you're just pointlessly shifting numbers around.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't know if one could say they reduced the weapon bloat for 8th when they were simultaneously introducing Primaris, where each unit seems to bring along several new unique weapon profiles.

This, GW seems to want a unique profile for each unit, especially for the new ones. And since there are countless different bolter platforms we ended up with countless bolter variants.

Specifically only with Marines, I think. Possible because they didn't like people swapping in marines as Tacticals, Devastators, whatever?

And to be fair, I'm FINE with three profiles (Rapid Fire, Assault, and Heavy), but there's far too much after that. Just make Tacticool Marines and Reivers take the assault variant and call it a day.

My point was - wasn't it true in the past that players would use bolter-armed marines to fill out the numbers in Devastator and Tactical squads? This prevents that. Now they're bespoke.

Right, it's to prevent an easy "respecializing" of a squad. In a Tac squad you swap a heavy weapon for a different one. The Primaris paradigm requires a swap of every model. Plus many squads of true Space Marines are highly interchangeable. Command, Sternguard, Tactical and Devastator can use all the same models. If you want a different list you can just reorganize the same collection of models.