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.

Lets look at it this way:

GKs managed the transition from 5th to 6th. They fielded super-elite space marines for 20(!!!) ppm base. Recognizing how profoundly inflexible that was, GW added Inquisitors, notably Cortez, who opened up much cheaper but generic customizable squads. With one codex they got a lot of test information on relative strengths, across the 5ed - 6ed chasm. As stated elsewhere, SMarines make up half of the books and a huge percentage of the consumer base.

Xenos armies, meant to be specialists, are "balanced" against GK and DA (and each other). CSM gets shoehorned in because they're going to be rebalanced in supplements.

Space Marines are the logical next step. They're meant to be less shooty and more sturdy. To do that effectively, you need people to play more shooty (Xenos) and more sturdy (Nurgle CSM, GK) and do their best to exploit powerful force multipliers in those armies. CSM are the ultimate test platform because they are so customizable, GW really gets to see what kind of combinations are good before applying those lessons to vanilla SM

Flying Monstrous Creatures and Fliers in general were a new addition to 6th, and needed a lot of play testing. I honestly expect that the Space Marine codex is going to do the following:

Close the value gap between FMCs/Fliers and an equivalent number of points of elites.
Utilize more rule-bubbles, special units that impart their rules on allied units within 12" (bubble 5++?)
Another assault transport (cheaper)
Shooty dreadknights
Servo-skulls
Some jetpack wearing nonsense that can assault fliers or, more crudely, missiles


Things I'd like to see are:
a more potent sniper platform
More valuable techmarines (increase attached units BS by 1 including shooting fliers [but not overwatch]) and apothecaries (combat stims)
Some ridiculously shooty unit


Things I don't want to see:
Jump-pack terminators
Super cheap marines
Banners


Expect horde armies to get rebalanced after this. Daemons was a huge wake-up. Even with 5++ against the Xenos Ap, hordes need support from MFCs except for super-fast assaulting units! (Thus why I think SM will get another assault transport)

Actually, something that might help SM would be a slight bump to overwatch BS. Considering you can't assault after firing rapid-fire, marines just sort of stand there awkwardly while whatever they fired at charges them. Giving them a slight boost (BS2) to overwatch shots with a bolter (maybe a Bolter Specialization rule), would help to even the odds a little.

^^ could just use bolt pistols.

I think the real problem is every new army release is compared to SM as the 'standard army'.
And so every army has a unit -combo that can be effective vs SM.

Rather than compare every new army to Bog standard infantry IG, Orks etc.
They take the superhuman elite of the universe , and find ways to beat it.

Making SM the most popular army , skews the balance of the game play.

So because every new army has a way to deal with SM, makes it seem like the SMs are just the bland every day joe average army.
Which runs counter to the fluff.

Not even a month old, so I hope this isn't Necroposting:

This was a really good discussion on what marines need to be viable again.

So my question now, with most of the details out there on the new 'dex (if you trust the 40k radio guys, and I do).... Is it enough? Have handing out twin-linked effects and lowering costs of the less intimidating marines made them worth taking again? I just played a game using the new rules against a wave serpent / duel wraith knight list, and marines were pretty substantial, especially the ultramarine tacticals... cheaper and deadly accurate shots, much much better.

 Lobukia wrote:
Not even a month old, so I hope this isn't Necroposting:

This was a really good discussion on what marines need to be viable again.

So my question now, with most of the details out there on the new 'dex (if you trust the 40k radio guys, and I do).... Is it enough? Have handing out twin-linked effects and lowering costs of the less intimidating marines made them worth taking again? I just played a game using the new rules against a wave serpent / duel wraith knight list, and marines were pretty substantial, especially the ultramarine tacticals... cheaper and deadly accurate shots, much much better.

If it does make it worthwhile, then only C:SM is gonna be that way.

IMO, the only thing that leans the viability back in any direction but no is cost reductions.

Special rules and survivability is nice and definately costed fairly, the issue however is that there's no demand for those things at the moment; Whats wanted in troops is mass and low cost.

Its like walking past a store and seeing a really nice winter coat at a really fair price, but not wanting to buy it cause it's june.

Thing is, Marines aren't supposed to be cheap troops en masse. They are supposed to be uber, yet expensive, elite troops.

If you want cheap troops en masse, they need to also be non-uber. Cheap, great statline, great armour and great rules is what is commonly referred to as broken-as-gak

If you want to field cheap, en masse troops you need to be playing a different army.

Pretty much. What Marines needed was rules to make them worth their points, not a points drop. The fact they got both is interesting. Obviously it's not enough to make them fieldable in a horde, but it'll be enough to add a new unit or two.

But then, every army is getting cheaper as GW feeds the 'bigger is better' theory of game size, so they're still not going to be as numerous as other armies.

 Ascalam wrote:
Thing is, Marines aren't supposed to be cheap troops en masse. They are supposed to be uber, yet expensive, elite troops.

If you want cheap troops en masse, they need to also be non-uber. Cheap, great statline, great armour and great rules is what is commonly referred to as broken-as-gak

If you want to field cheap, en masse troops you need to be playing a different army.

I never said they should get it... I said thats what 6th ed wantsfrom its troops.

Fair enough.

To be frank though, cheap and en masse isn't doing so hot right now either, unless it also has some serious survivability.

Orks, for example, have cheap, en masse troops. You can put 180+ of them on a table and still have room for more toys. They die in a stiff breeze, as they have no survivability unless they take a KFF, which is easily negated by some armies these days.

 Ascalam wrote:
Fair enough.

To be frank though, cheap and en masse isn't doing so hot right now either, unless it also has some serious survivability.

Orks, for example, have cheap, en masse troops. You can put 180+ of them on a table and still have room for more toys. They die in a stiff breeze, as they have no survivability unless they take a KFF, which is easily negated by some armies these days.

OTOH, if they add more ignore covering guns, marines get better, providing they are bolter equivalents.

The issue right now is if an marine or guardsman are hit by a plasma gun in cover, both die the same statistically.
Yet, the guardsmen will outnumber the marines 3:1, meaning a single plasma gun can not kill 15pts of guardsmen no matter what, but it can drop 15-30 pts worth of marines.

And therein lies the issue

Amen akiasura.

Another thing to keep in mind, that survivability need not be necessarily direct. Take cultists for example.

They have gak stats, gak weapons and terribly utility... but because of that, there are more important things to kill. Sure you can wipe the table of cultists in a turn, but then you have to bear the full brundt of the other persons army, even if you went first. Likewise, if you know you have cultists, that cant kill things, aren't a useful screen, and don't have to ablate for some special character, you lose absolutely nothing having them walk into the table from reserves in the later game.

Marines cost way too much to sit there doing nothing in the back, so you have to pay an additional tax to get them foward (drop pod or rhino/razor). Razorbacks are terribly over-costed, and despite being awesome, pods are a one trick pony unless you give them the missiles, in which case, they are super expensive, and cannot even start shooting until turn 3.

Likewise, if you want them to be doing 'something' from the back you need to buy them a heavy weapon in which case, they can do something, as long as that something isn't move. Furthermore, if you want them to be a bit more useful at moving ahead, then you also have to make sure that you buy a ten man squad, since special weapons are only unlocked at ten for vanilla.

So if points reduction doesn't help a marines cause because of the whole "should be super elite tough guy, not en masse blobs of throw away joes." Wouldn't increasing the PPM and adding a wound be more of a balance? They still get instagibbed by one of the more previlant new mechanics, MCs, but maintain the super elite tough guy status. And gives them a little umph to the comment that in cover a guardsman and a marine are 100% equal in life expectancy.

 Goat wrote:
So if points reduction doesn't help a marines cause because of the whole "should be super elite tough guy, not en masse blobs of throw away joes." Wouldn't increasing the PPM and adding a wound be more of a balance? They still get instagibbed by one of the more previlant new mechanics, MCs, but maintain the super elite tough guy status. And gives them a little umph to the comment that in cover a guardsman and a marine are 100% equal in life expectancy.

I really like this idea

My mistake, having elite armies means you don't need as many models, and not needing a lot of models means you won't buy lots of models...
...well played GW...

 Goat wrote:
So if points reduction doesn't help a marines cause because of the whole "should be super elite tough guy, not en masse blobs of throw away joes." Wouldn't increasing the PPM and adding a wound be more of a balance? They still get instagibbed by one of the more previlant new mechanics, MCs, but maintain the super elite tough guy status. And gives them a little umph to the comment that in cover a guardsman and a marine are 100% equal in life expectancy.

Honestly, they'd be broken if you made any changes to their survivability. The issue isn't that they don't function as intended, its that they don' function in the current meta. They did pretty good when the meta was mostly about surviving though to the end of the game and killing, because they do those two thingsat least passably. Currently the missions favor sitting patiently on top of a pog.

Looking at tournament missions and books missions... you have to go get and hold objectives in the meta (I have no clue about local meta). Eldar can move very quickly to objectives... marines not so much, so durability can at least be increased by the ability to kill off units within the 30' window.

Eldar and Tau suffer at ranges over 30' but I really don't see the marines being able to much more than alpha strike and hang on for dear life to compete with Eldar, Tau, and even Necrons. Devastator Centurions have great range, but they're taking away a ton of points from objective holding units.

It looks like building the better alpha is the way for marines to beat the top tier lists... I hope its enough (and if it is, doesn't embitter people as games will be decided one way or another at the end of turn 2).