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.

 Sparkadia wrote:
I don't think any of this is a good idea. Marines are already tough, and highly resilient to standard infantry guns. Things that are AP3 or less are designed for the very function of ignoring armour like this. The gun is made with the objective of killing people in mind, it is going to be pretty good at it.

Why exactly would a battlecannon not turn a marine into pulp? only exceptionally blast-resistant armour (so, terminators) has any chance of withstanding the forces that will crush a marine to bits inside his own suit, and that's only factoring in the shockwave from an explosion, not even the whole shrapnel and fire part. Something like an Autocannon wounds easily on a 2 because they not only have a high RoF (as Furyou mentioned) but fire large-caliber shells that once they -do- pierce the armour, they will (or, at least 5/6 times) instantly cause a fatal wound. The only protection is your suit, once it fails, you're done.

No, marines aren't as tough int he game as they are in the fluff. But neither is anything.

Okay, I'd be happy with the same restrictions as FNP. But that makes the ion accelerator a 83% fatal again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Ehm.

Sparkadia, are you arguing that Marines are fine gamewise because of fluff reasons or balance reasons?

I am not sure if I see what this thread is trying to do. Either it is trying to make Marines fluffy-tough (Almost entirely doomed to fail in the current system) or it tries to make them balanced gamewise (Which they arguably are, the issue is just that nobody sees it since there are other troops choices that are too good, and weapons that are too good at killing Marines for their steep cost, so Marines seem UP in comparison.)

Marines already have poor offense. That's what's really killing them in 6th. They pay more for these "durable" models, so they have fewer dice the throw on their turn. The balance to this is that they are SUPPOSED to last longer. But that is no longer happening from what I've seen. On a per point basis, marines are less durable than Orks against non AP 3 shooting and even worse still against AP 3 or better.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:


I am not sure if I see what this thread is trying to do. Either it is trying to make Marines fluffy-tough (Almost entirely doomed to fail in the current system) or it tries to make them balanced gamewise (Which they arguably are, the issue is just that nobody sees it since there are other troops choices that are too good, and weapons that are too good at killing Marines for their steep cost, so Marines seem UP in comparison.)

If you want a hundred white ducks, and you have a 99 whites and one black, is it easier to paint all the whites black or the black one white? (no animals were harmed in this metaphor.)

I don't believe that marines are balanced for reasons I stated earlier, which in essence sums up to: each marine is paying a lot more to be just as tough as a sister of battle in the current game. Except without the 6+ invuln.

I think the idea itself is decent, actually. That said, it has its issues, but I've seen worse.

Battlecannons are also sorta OP compared to a Predator autocannon. Both are supposed to be the turret gun of a main battle tank. Those statlines, I mean lolwut? Pretty much my entire meta is agreeing that 72" range is weird and unnecessary.

But regardless. We might try this out. Plague Marines and Bikers would not be overly buffed by this, really, since most small arms wound them on 5+ anyway.

It will also, like the Walrus said, buff HB equivalents, something that is very needed.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
I instantly disagree with Marines getting more buffs. Wait until the next SM codex. They'll get stupid good again. Always do.

They just got a codex. And they are mediocre at best, and likely going to end up even worse than that, because there are many more codices left to drop in 6th.

Seems simpler enough to just give em a 6+ FNP. and bump up iron hands. they will become far more resilient against small arms while still dieing to things that are supposed to vaiporize them (battle cannon ion accelerator.)

6+ FNP is a lot less efficacious than not being wounded on a "2".

Wait, maybe not. Let me look at that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay this rule would save a marine squad 4 wounds up front from a full scatter walker broadside, from 20 down to 16.

A 6+ feel no pain roll makes the save chance from 66.66% to 72.2%.

So against the full broadside, the proposed marines take 5.333 casualties and the FNP marines take 5.56 casualties. Standard marines are taking 6.67 casualties.

I guess the difference isn't that big.

Wow. Over 3 turns, a scatter walker squad will destroy TWO ENTIRE SQUADS of normal marines from 36" away, and cover doesn't help. And that is just a single heavy choice from the Eldar. This rule would make it a mere squad and a half. Yay us.

BrotherHaraldus wrote:Ehm.

Sparkadia, are you arguing that Marines are fine gamewise because of fluff reasons or balance reasons?

I am not sure if I see what this thread is trying to do. Either it is trying to make Marines fluffy-tough (Almost entirely doomed to fail in the current system) or it tries to make them balanced gamewise (Which they arguably are, the issue is just that nobody sees it since there are other troops choices that are too good, and weapons that are too good at killing Marines for their steep cost, so Marines seem UP in comparison.)

niv-mizzet wrote:

 Sparkadia wrote:
Marines are already tough, and highly resilient to standard infantry guns.

This wouldn't make them any tougher against standard infantry guns. Those tend to wound marines on 5's, 4's or 3's in the case of the really strong tau ones. I mentioned earlier that I find this to be working nice, and didn't want it messed with, so a toughness raise was out of the question.

Things that are AP3 or less are designed for the very function of ignoring armour like this. The gun is made with the objective of killing people in mind, it is going to be pretty good at it.

This suggestion wouldn't negate AP3, or change its function at all. Marines would still die when successfully wounded by ap3 or better.

Why exactly would a battlecannon not turn a marine into pulp?

Because you roll low to wound? Two questions for you:
A: If a battlecannon/any big super cannon should instantly kill any infantry similar to strength D, why bother with not wounding on 1's?
B: Why exactly should a gretchin stand the same chance of living as a power-armored marine?

No, marines aren't as tough int he game as they are in the fluff. But neither is anything.

I'm using the fluff as an example for part of the reasoning, sure, but its just a support. The main argument in the crunch game is actual game balance. At the end of the day, in the actual game stats, the balance is the goal, fluff be damned.

My argument is that Marines are the 'baseline' which all infantry are measured from, and do not need any additional buffs. They are statistically good, with no weaknesses of any description, backed up by ATSKNF and access to Special/Heavy Weapons. They excel in every field, compared to other infantry. The problem is that the game demands that they are still able to be killed, so representing their unparalleled toughness (as shown in the fluff) would be impractical. I suppose my main beef with this is; why should Marines get this treatment but others do not? Why do Orks not get a 4+ FNP, considering they are unbelievably resilient and tenacious? How about Tyranids? They are also living war machines, their very engineering is designed to withstand damage equal to (or superior to) Spess Mahreens yet they do not get this rule?

This isn't taking a shot at either of you Haraldus or Mizzet, I just needed a way to put a method of comparison in. I mean no offence. I simply don't believe Marines, who already get plenty of "'free" power from things like Chapter Tactics, deserve this buff over other armies because of 'reasons'.

Then again, I am a renowned Marine hater. So, expect bias.

 Sparkadia wrote:

BrotherHaraldus wrote:Ehm.

Sparkadia, are you arguing that Marines are fine gamewise because of fluff reasons or balance reasons?

I am not sure if I see what this thread is trying to do. Either it is trying to make Marines fluffy-tough (Almost entirely doomed to fail in the current system) or it tries to make them balanced gamewise (Which they arguably are, the issue is just that nobody sees it since there are other troops choices that are too good, and weapons that are too good at killing Marines for their steep cost, so Marines seem UP in comparison.)

niv-mizzet wrote:

 Sparkadia wrote:
Marines are already tough, and highly resilient to standard infantry guns.

This wouldn't make them any tougher against standard infantry guns. Those tend to wound marines on 5's, 4's or 3's in the case of the really strong tau ones. I mentioned earlier that I find this to be working nice, and didn't want it messed with, so a toughness raise was out of the question.

Things that are AP3 or less are designed for the very function of ignoring armour like this. The gun is made with the objective of killing people in mind, it is going to be pretty good at it.

This suggestion wouldn't negate AP3, or change its function at all. Marines would still die when successfully wounded by ap3 or better.

Why exactly would a battlecannon not turn a marine into pulp?

Because you roll low to wound? Two questions for you:
A: If a battlecannon/any big super cannon should instantly kill any infantry similar to strength D, why bother with not wounding on 1's?
B: Why exactly should a gretchin stand the same chance of living as a power-armored marine?

No, marines aren't as tough int he game as they are in the fluff. But neither is anything.

I'm using the fluff as an example for part of the reasoning, sure, but its just a support. The main argument in the crunch game is actual game balance. At the end of the day, in the actual game stats, the balance is the goal, fluff be damned.

My argument is that Marines are the 'baseline' which all infantry are measured from, and do not need any additional buffs. They are statistically good, with no weaknesses of any description, backed up by ATSKNF and access to Special/Heavy Weapons. They excel in every field, compared to other infantry. The problem is that the game demands that they are still able to be killed, so representing their unparalleled toughness (as shown in the fluff) would be impractical. I suppose my main beef with this is; why should Marines get this treatment but others do not? Why do Orks not get a 4+ FNP, considering they are unbelievably resilient and tenacious? How about Tyranids? They are also living war machines, their very engineering is designed to withstand damage equal to (or superior to) Spess Mahreens yet they do not get this rule?

This isn't taking a shot at either of you Haraldus or Mizzet, I just needed a way to put a method of comparison in. I mean no offence. I simply don't believe Marines, who already get plenty of "'free" power from things like Chapter Tactics, deserve this buff over other armies because of 'reasons'.

Then again, I am a renowned Marine hater. So, expect bias.

Well, you certainly got your wish this edition. I'm having flashbacks to 2nd. All I ask is that marines are worth the points we pay. Given the way 6th edition works, I don't think that they are, due to poor offensive output on a per point basis. ATSKNF doesn't matter anymore, because the Xenos just kill me to the man. No morale checks necessary. I just showed above what a single scatter walker squadron can do.

Martel732 wrote:

 Sparkadia wrote:

BrotherHaraldus wrote:Ehm.

Sparkadia, are you arguing that Marines are fine gamewise because of fluff reasons or balance reasons?

I am not sure if I see what this thread is trying to do. Either it is trying to make Marines fluffy-tough (Almost entirely doomed to fail in the current system) or it tries to make them balanced gamewise (Which they arguably are, the issue is just that nobody sees it since there are other troops choices that are too good, and weapons that are too good at killing Marines for their steep cost, so Marines seem UP in comparison.)

niv-mizzet wrote:

 Sparkadia wrote:
Marines are already tough, and highly resilient to standard infantry guns.

This wouldn't make them any tougher against standard infantry guns. Those tend to wound marines on 5's, 4's or 3's in the case of the really strong tau ones. I mentioned earlier that I find this to be working nice, and didn't want it messed with, so a toughness raise was out of the question.

Things that are AP3 or less are designed for the very function of ignoring armour like this. The gun is made with the objective of killing people in mind, it is going to be pretty good at it.

This suggestion wouldn't negate AP3, or change its function at all. Marines would still die when successfully wounded by ap3 or better.

Why exactly would a battlecannon not turn a marine into pulp?

Because you roll low to wound? Two questions for you:
A: If a battlecannon/any big super cannon should instantly kill any infantry similar to strength D, why bother with not wounding on 1's?
B: Why exactly should a gretchin stand the same chance of living as a power-armored marine?

No, marines aren't as tough int he game as they are in the fluff. But neither is anything.

I'm using the fluff as an example for part of the reasoning, sure, but its just a support. The main argument in the crunch game is actual game balance. At the end of the day, in the actual game stats, the balance is the goal, fluff be damned.

My argument is that Marines are the 'baseline' which all infantry are measured from, and do not need any additional buffs. They are statistically good, with no weaknesses of any description, backed up by ATSKNF and access to Special/Heavy Weapons. They excel in every field, compared to other infantry. The problem is that the game demands that they are still able to be killed, so representing their unparalleled toughness (as shown in the fluff) would be impractical. I suppose my main beef with this is; why should Marines get this treatment but others do not? Why do Orks not get a 4+ FNP, considering they are unbelievably resilient and tenacious? How about Tyranids? They are also living war machines, their very engineering is designed to withstand damage equal to (or superior to) Spess Mahreens yet they do not get this rule?

This isn't taking a shot at either of you Haraldus or Mizzet, I just needed a way to put a method of comparison in. I mean no offence. I simply don't believe Marines, who already get plenty of "'free" power from things like Chapter Tactics, deserve this buff over other armies because of 'reasons'.

Then again, I am a renowned Marine hater. So, expect bias.

Well, you certainly got your wish this edition. I'm having flashbacks to 2nd. All I ask is that marines are worth the points we pay. Given the way 6th edition works, I don't think that they are, due to poor offensive output on a per point basis. ATSKNF doesn't matter anymore, because the Xenos just kill me to the man. No morale checks necessary. I just showed above what a single scatter walker squadron can do.

Then perhaps the amendments should look to fixing offensive rather than defensive potential, because relatively it is easier to fix. Buffing Bolters may turn out to be a bit much, but perhaps giving Marines more access to Special/Heavy would help. I don't play Marines (and never, ever, ever will) so I can't really relate to expensive infantry, or offer any real input for an efficient solution. What do you think?

I seem to have a history with not agreeing with Martel on much, even when I'd see him post while lurking, and not post myself.

On this, I agree with him heavily.

Lascannons can hit a ratling with no cover and not kill him. All I'm asking is: shouldn't a marine have a little bit better of a chance than the ratling? Even with this, the majority of marines hit by lascannons will still die. It wouldn't make them as resilient as say...necron foot soldiers, who boast an amazing 33% or even 50% (orb) survival rate against ap2 instadeath weapons, AFTER taking their 17% chance of just not getting wounded that every infantry gets.

Remember, I'm talking about rolling a TWO to wound failing. I'm not talking about someone rolling a 5 or 6 to wound, representing a beautiful headshot or removing everything from the torso up from existence. No, talkin' about a two here, as in, the next roll above "miserable auto-fail." So that would be...a near-miss that will still fry the troop from ridiculous heat? An arm hit? I don't see why it's so outlandish that one of the most expensive basic troops in the game could have a rule that says they survive a few more of those than the cheap throwaway troops.

And as martel said, getting to use atsknf implies that we survived the shooting. That's implying quite a bit.

I may want to seriously try playtesting "the nekkid marines" at some point, and I'll laugh when it actually performs well. How much do you think a marine statline without the power armor should cost? 7 or 8? Probably still above an ork boy, but not much.

"hen perhaps the amendments should look to fixing offensive rather than defensive potential, because relatively it is easier to fix. Buffing Bolters may turn out to be a bit much, but perhaps giving Marines more access to Special/Heavy would help. I don't play Marines (and never, ever, ever will) so I can't really relate to expensive infantry, or offer any real input for an efficient solution. What do you think? "

I disagree, because now we are getting into the issue of Imperial weapons, and more importantly, platforms, not being very good. What kind of changes to marine offense are going to let them handle Riptides, Screamerstars, WS, Jetseers? Or even more efficient troop choices?

The marines simply don't have the ranged throw weight to sling back at these Xeno lists. Part of this is marines are paying for gear that doesn't matter anymore and stats that don't matter anymore and armor that largely doesn't matter anymore. This means fewer guys holding guns, which means fewer dice going back at the Xenos.

Yeah, one of the main traits of marines is *supposed to be* individual model staying power 2nd only to the 'crons. They could get this buff twice over and still not eclipse them in that regard.

I like different armies with different strategies. I don't want the game to turn into a crazy shoot-fest where every unit that gets looked at dies on either side. At that point, we might as well go back to little wars by H.G. Wells, where there was only infantry, cavalry, and cannons on both sides. Because every army would just be all about offense. In magic terms, I'd like control, combo, and all-around decks to be a viable thing, not just a dozen different flavored of aggro.

niv-mizzet wrote:
I seem to have a history with not agreeing with Martel on much, even when I'd see him post while lurking, and not post myself.

On this, I agree with him heavily.

Lascannons can hit a ratling with no cover and not kill him. All I'm asking is: shouldn't a marine have a little bit better of a chance than the ratling? Even with this, the majority of marines hit by lascannons will still die. It wouldn't make them as resilient as say...necron foot soldiers, who boast an amazing 33% or even 50% (orb) survival rate against ap2 instadeath weapons, AFTER taking their 17% chance of just not getting wounded that every infantry gets.

Remember, I'm talking about rolling a TWO to wound failing. I'm not talking about someone rolling a 5 or 6 to wound, representing a beautiful headshot or removing everything from the torso up from existence. No, talkin' about a two here, as in, the next roll above "miserable auto-fail." So that would be...a near-miss that will still fry the troop from ridiculous heat? An arm hit? I don't see why it's so outlandish that one of the most expensive basic troops in the game could have a rule that says they survive a few more of those than the cheap throwaway troops.

And as martel said, getting to use atsknf implies that we survived the shooting. That's implying quite a bit.

I may want to seriously try playtesting "the nekkid marines" at some point, and I'll laugh when it actually performs well. How much do you think a marine statline without the power armor should cost? 7 or 8? Probably still above an ork boy, but not much.

But Necrons are more expensive. Granted, their rule is tremendous, but they pay for it with a reduced save and if the whole unit dies in one phase (which as you claim is pretty common for units with this statline), their precious Reanimation was a waste of points entirely. I think Necrons generally get the good end of the survivability stick but not in a ludicrous way.

I get what you mean, and I agree in a way, but a D6 system is simply not good enough to represent the discrepancies in situations like this. I think this buff is too strong, but if this were a D20 system instead, it would be a great thing. Unfortunately, in 40K as it stands, it can't get a resounding yes from me.

I also think it will really put a damper on the fun for the other player. If my Guardsmen actually get a hit with the Lascannon on a Marine, but then it comes up with a 2 to wound and I'm all like "Aww Yiss" and the other player informs me that, no, because they are posterboys that doesn't hurt them, I would be both confused and displeased. I think the fact a Carnifex is more likely to get hurt by a Lascannon than a Marine is a bit far-fetched. How about a RipTide, this huge battlesuit, T6, is more likely to be hurt by the shot than a basic bloke in Power Armour. I can see where you are coming from, but it would need to be in a huge system overhaul, so that odd non sequiturs like that do not occur. Also this would have to be a thing for Tyranid Warriors, they suffer from a very similar fate to the poor Marine, but only moreso due to higher cost and Instant Death.

Look, I think it's a good idea. I just don't see it being practical for 40K as it exists today.

No comments on my counter proposal in a page and a half of posts?

Was it just that cringeworthy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No comments on my counter proposal in a page and a half of posts?

Was it just that cringeworthy?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
No comments on my counter proposal in a page and a half of posts?

Was it just that cringeworthy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No comments on my counter proposal in a page and a half of posts?

Was it just that cringeworthy?

No, your idea is good, but the Eldar people are not going to let us retcon their codex. Solutions must come in the Tau/Eldar/Daemon environment.

Furyou Miko wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Counter proposal? This is the best I've seen so far.

Reduce the strength of high RoF, weak AP weapons. With the exception of Baleflamers, everything that has AP3 or better is an anti-tank gun. Multilasers? Scatter lasers? Assault cannons?

These are all AP4 or worse. These are anti-infantry weapons. Highly effective anti-infantry weapons. In the case of these three weapons especially, their high Strength score is supposed to represent their insane rate of fire compared to equivalent weapons.

Remember, the Assault Cannon (S6) fires the same rounds as a Heavy Stubber (S4).

So, the answer to the problem of Marines being slaughtered by high strength anti-infantry weapons is to cap strength based on AP value. Say, anything with an AP of 4, 5 or 6 can only have a maximum Strength of 5. This has a similar effect to setting a maximum 'to wound' calculation, but keeps things more in line with sanity - a krak missile is still going to turn a Marine into chunky salsa, because anything powerful enough to ignore power armour is just going to go straight through a living creature, even one whose ribcage is as hard as steel (Which is still weaker than ceramite). Then for things like the Multilaser and Assault Cannon, push their rate of fire back up to represent their rate of fire, or give them Rending.

Furyou Miko wrote:No comments on my counter proposal in a page and a half of posts?

Was it just that cringeworthy?

Like Martel, I enjoy having a wide variety of weapons, effects, types, rates of fire ect. and I think this could reduce the sample size and homogenise weapons even more than they are now. It is still a nice idea, though. Better than anything I could come up with.

I also went back and looked at it, and I think it would be a nightmare to explain to new players. (Not that it's easy now)
It has a good spirit in mind, but for a game with this many rules, the KISS rule needs to be honored highly.

niv-mizzet wrote:
I also went back and looked at it, and I think it would be a nightmare to explain to new players. (Not that it's easy now)
It has a good spirit in mind, but for a game with this many rules, the KISS rule needs to be honored highly.

Exactly right. It has good intent to fix a problem that does exist with Marines. I've introduce probably 6 or 7 people to this game (and I love it dearly) but boy, it is really tough to get someone standing on their own feet when it comes to all the rules. But we all need somebody to lean on, right?

 Sparkadia wrote:


But Necrons are more expensive. Granted, their rule is tremendous, but they pay for it with a reduced save and if the whole unit dies in one phase (which as you claim is pretty common for units with this statline), their precious Reanimation was a waste of points entirely. I think Necrons generally get the good end of the survivability stick but not in a ludicrous way.

They're actually 1 point cheaper than the new updated tactical marines, 3 points cheaper than an old BA tac marine, and a whopping 5 points cheaper per model than a BA assault marine. They can also come in groups of 20, or 10 in a MUCH sturdier (4hp 13 13 11) transport than a rhino. (or a damn dedicated flyer if they want it, but that's another story...) Chewing through 20 of them is a good deal more difficult than 10 marines. Unless you do some significant focus firing, you probably won't deny the squad their protocols, especially if a lord in the mid-back of the unit starts tanking with t5 and an armor or invuln upgrade to make sure at least one warrior survives. Or you could keep the 3+ armor by taking immortals, putting their cost at 1 point below the assault marines, that come with a s5 ap4 rapid fire gauss gun, or the ever popular six-shooting teslas, so at least part of the cost for them is the sweeter weaponry.

I also think it will really put a damper on the fun for the other player. If my Guardsmen actually get a hit with the Lascannon on a Marine, but then it comes up with a 2 to wound and I'm all like "Aww Yiss" and the other player informs me that, no, because they are posterboys that doesn't hurt them, I would be both confused and displeased.

I think it's a simple enough rule that you'd always remember it from the time it was leaked as a spoiler. They ARE the guys who, crunch-wise, are paying the most for survivability without being a space-tech-zombie.

I think the fact a Carnifex is more likely to get hurt by a Lascannon than a Marine is a bit far-fetched. How about a RipTide, this huge battlesuit, T6, is more likely to be hurt by the shot than a basic bloke in Power Armour. I can see where you are coming from, but it would need to be in a huge system overhaul, so that odd non sequiturs like that do not occur. Also this would have to be a thing for Tyranid Warriors, they suffer from a very similar fate to the poor Marine, but only moreso due to higher cost and Instant Death.

\o.o/ Too big a target and easy to aim for a weak spot?
Those creatures (and mecha that somehow gets treated like one) don't have a bunch of redundant vital organs?

The Carnifex's durability is higher based on the fact that a minimum of 4 lascannons are needed to bring him down, and the riptide 5, but most likely much more. They may be more likely to take some damage from 1 shot, but the marine will die long before they do.

Again, I may have been using fluff to help people understand the theme of the rule, but the theory was born from the crunch. It all comes down to models getting shafted for their points costs. If the game is going to become like a mini apocalypse game where save and toughness ignoring blasts are flying every which way, I should probably sell the marines and settle down with a nice horde or invuln-reroll star, rather than be stuck with the guys who cost the most just to be pulled off the table and tossed back in the case.

Look, I think it's a good idea. I just don't see it being practical for 40K as it exists today.

I think somewhere, there's an alternate universe where it's already in effect, and most of the 40k players there have no problem with the fact that marines survive big shots slightly more often than dime-a-dozen infantry. And I bet these alternate universe marine armies are still just considered "middle of the road" quality for play.

As a side note, if a marine and a sister are standing in the open, the sister is actually more resilient than the marine against any s6 or higher.

niv-mizzet wrote:
I had the idea for a core rule in a Blood Angels thread that seemed to hit an ok approval rating, so I'll repost it here so the people not interested in BA can see.

-Who has the rule?

All Astartes. From scouts to special characters. Anyone who, in the fluff, got a gene-seed from a primarch and went through a dozen surgeries to turn their body into a war machine. This DOES include chaos marines.

-okay, what rule?

Closer to monster than man: Due to the intense amount of alterations, the astartes' bodies are much better equipped to handle extreme damage that would place other races in mortal peril. As long as all models in the unit possess this special rule, any roll to wound made against a model with this rule automatically fails to wound on a roll of 2, in addition to the normal automatic failure of rolling a 1.

-What is the design intent of this rule?

Currently, if a unit of astartes models and a unit of 2 month old helpless babies (all stats .1) are out in the open, and each unit is hit by one of the following: battle cannon, ion accelerator, krak missile, lascannon, meltagun/fusion blaster, plasma, monstrous creature melee attacks, and many many more, there is no statistical difference between the marines and the pile of soon-to-be-dead babies. Assuming the same dice rolls, both units will go down at the same speed.

The intent of the rule is to up the survival rate of all marine models by 17% specifically against higher strength weapons. This would have no effect on any weapon strength 5 or lower. (But would have an effect on poison 2+, making it 3+ instead!)

Do they need this?

In my opinion, yes. Here, have a thread to yank the idea about.

Also, I would absolutely love to hear of any playtest results if someone decides to try the rule out in a game.

This is an awesome way to make Space Marines durable like they should be and does not break it to much, of course slight point increases would have to take in affect. It does allow for some of the fluff about their toughness and durability to play in.

I personally don't have a problem with Space Marines current durability. Its not thats the problem, the problem is the current allies rules. At my FLGS we, well most of us, play pure army lists with no allies. I run Raven Guard chapter tactics with my space marines and out of my past 5 games, I have won 4 of them. I beat an Eldar player really badly, but I stole initiative on him and he failed his shield roll on his wave serpent, The other 3 games I won were all even until the end, against a tyranid player, tau player we both had one or two units alive at the end but I still won because of objectives. i lost to an Imperial guard player which was also a really close game.

So Space Marines as intended are still really durable its just with the allies system they do need this upgrade. Its an interesting thought and I am suprised no one came up with this before. I might see if my FLGS will want to test this out. They will most likely say no though since I am already that great of a player without this enhancmenet

Dat Guy wrote:
I might see if my FLGS will want to test this out. They will most likely say no though since I am already that great of a player without this enhancmenet

By all means please do and report results. I'm a scientist at heart, so I love having more data points. Tell them "It's not a competitive game, just wanna test this rule." Alternatively, let them play the marines to test the rule, and use their army against yours. Try and take it down as hard as you can and see what you think.

I said it earlier, but I won't have time to playtest it until next week minimum, so I'd love to hear any other playtest attempts.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
I think the idea itself is decent, actually. That said, it has its issues, but I've seen worse.

Battlecannons are also sorta OP compared to a Predator autocannon. Both are supposed to be the turret gun of a main battle tank. Those statlines, I mean lolwut? Pretty much my entire meta is agreeing that 72" range is weird and unnecessary.

You do realize that the battle cannon has been a 72" S8, MEQ-save-ignoring pieplate since 2nd edition (about 20 years now) right? It's a key element in an army of T3 5+sv lasgun toting weenies to make them capable. It's also an exceedingly simple weapon to defend against. A modicum of cover and minimal spread will reduce casualties even on a direct drastically, add in scatter and it's not very scary anymore.

niv-mizzet wrote:
I seem to have a history with not agreeing with Martel on much, even when I'd see him post while lurking, and not post myself.

On this, I agree with him heavily.

Lascannons can hit a ratling with no cover and not kill him. All I'm asking is: shouldn't a marine have a little bit better of a chance than the ratling?

Not really.

If it'll cut through an AV14 tank, the difference between a Grot and a Space Marine should be trivial. One can look at it this way, a June Bug is an order of magnitude bigger than your average Ant. It's better armored, stronger (in absolute terms at least), and heavier. Arguably a far larger gap than between a human and a Space Marine. But if you're talking about which one is going to survive being stepped on better, well, none of that will matter, being stronger and larger and armored in this case makes zero difference because the force you're exerting on it with your foot is so huge that it just does not matter. About the only difference will be that you may hear an audible "crunch" with the beetle as opposed to the ant.

 Vaktathi wrote:
One can look at it this way, a June Bug is an order of magnitude bigger than your average Ant. It's better armored, stronger (in absolute terms at least), and heavier. Arguably a far larger gap than between a human and a Space Marine. But if you're talking about which one is going to survive being stepped on better, well, none of that will matter, being stronger and larger and armored in this case makes zero difference because the force you're exerting on it with your foot is so huge that it just does not matter. About the only difference will be that you may hear an audible "crunch" with the beetle as opposed to the ant.

It's more like a some...large-bug-that-I-don't-know-that-dies-when-stepped-on-because-I-don't-know-bugs and a cockroach though. And whereas I don't think I've ever failed to kill an ant in one try, I have failed to kill unidentifiable tougher bugs. Despite the order of magnitude difference, you could kill the ant by pressing a finger on it. You might have to make a fist or grab a shoe for the tougher one. At least I would because ew. They're both trivial, and you may not, but *I* notice a difference in the effort needed for dispatching them.

Anyway that's all just off-topic banter. The more important issue is the balance, not the realism or the fluff. I think it's a good rule that would make marine troops more worth their price-tag. Even if I had no fluff or realism basis beyond "lol magic," my main goal is making a slight mechanics adjustment to an issue that I think is a bit inefficient at the moment.

Well, I'll answer this way then, as both someone who plays IG and has Tau, Tyranid, and Eldar armies, and someone who routinely plays Chaos Space Marines and has enough loyalist stuff to run probably close to 4k of loyalist SM's and a Grey Knight army, I've never found such a rule really necessary, and if SM's got it then it would of course track through numerous other units like Tyranid Warriors and the like and just end up being a further mess.

The biggest problem right now (to me at least) is not really the survivability of the infantry but a lack of effective means to employ their "jack of all trades" utility. They're too slow to march across the board effectively (though not unique to SM's by any means), their transports are too easily killed and the changes to transport functionality remove too much of their primary utility, and there's just too many better alternative specialist units that can be made to get massive bonuses (e.g. Bikers with White Scars rules) and can be made to fill the same role as the Tac equivalents.

Welp, actually snuck in a quick game vs. Chaos marines with Blood Angels. As far as strength 6+ was concerned, I had 3 Las/plas razorbacks, a meltagun in each squad, 2 LRC's with assault cannons, and 2 meltas in each of those squads, a power fist priest, and Corbulo when he's furious charging. As well as krak grenades, which I pretty much always use 1 during shooting if I'm within 8". Additionally, a melta/assault cannon and missiles stormraven.

His strength 6+ was obliterator weapons, some mutilator weapons (he infiltrated them with Huron,) Huron's str 6 claw, Axe of blind fury on a lord, and power fists on Terminators with the lord, in a land raider with the typical lascannons.

Overall the rule saved us about a dozen wounds each throughout the whole game, half of which would've still allowed armor saves (non-rending assault cannon wounds.) Game ended turn 5, and he had only a few guys in combats left on the table. He did his fair share of damage throughout the game though. But I'd say in the loyalist vs. chaos matchup, the test rule made us both a bit more resilient, but didn't largely change the game at all. The wounds-that-would-have-been were spread out to maybe 2 a turn.

There WAS a time when I had the power fist priest roll two 2's to wound the raptors, saving him 2 guys immediately there.

There was also one point at which I had one of the big assault squads wiped out, BUT the priest and librarian survived. 17% more wounding would probably have downed one or the other, maybe both, but just barely. I also had a small assault squad stuck with a wounded nurgle obliterator that wouldn't go down. At the end of the game, just the sarge was left fighting it, and he would've been dead already if not for the not-wounded on 2's rule. All three razorbacks were pretty much sitting around at that point though, so if he did get out of the combat, he would've died, and it was big guns, so him staying safe in combat cost me a VP.

We didn't have time to do a fully documented test, as he had places to be and couldn't pull of anything more than a quick game, but our general impression was the same:

"huh, that's kinda neat" pretty much sums it up. He elaborated that it "pretty much felt like a normal game, and if I had snuck out the 2's from the wound rolls on all the s6+ without telling him, (he) probably wouldn't have noticed."

niv-mizzet wrote:
Welp, actually snuck in a quick game vs. Chaos marines with Blood Angels. As far as strength 6+ was concerned, I had 3 Las/plas razorbacks, a meltagun in each squad, 2 LRC's with assault cannons, and 2 meltas in each of those squads, a power fist priest, and Corbulo when he's furious charging. As well as krak grenades, which I pretty much always use 1 during shooting if I'm within 8". Additionally, a melta/assault cannon and missiles stormraven.

His strength 6+ was obliterator weapons, some mutilator weapons (he infiltrated them with Huron,) Huron's str 6 claw, Axe of blind fury on a lord, and power fists on Terminators with the lord, in a land raider with the typical lascannons.

Overall the rule saved us about a dozen wounds each throughout the whole game, half of which would've still allowed armor saves (non-rending assault cannon wounds.) Game ended turn 5, and he had only a few guys in combats left on the table. He did his fair share of damage throughout the game though. But I'd say in the loyalist vs. chaos matchup, the test rule made us both a bit more resilient, but didn't largely change the game at all. The wounds-that-would-have-been were spread out to maybe 2 a turn.

There WAS a time when I had the power fist priest roll two 2's to wound the raptors, saving him 2 guys immediately there.

There was also one point at which I had one of the big assault squads wiped out, BUT the priest and librarian survived. 17% more wounding would probably have downed one or the other, maybe both, but just barely. I also had a small assault squad stuck with a wounded nurgle obliterator that wouldn't go down. At the end of the game, just the sarge was left fighting it, and he would've been dead already if not for the not-wounded on 2's rule. All three razorbacks were pretty much sitting around at that point though, so if he did get out of the combat, he would've died, and it was big guns, so him staying safe in combat cost me a VP.

We didn't have time to do a fully documented test, as he had places to be and couldn't pull of anything more than a quick game, but our general impression was the same:

"huh, that's kinda neat" pretty much sums it up. He elaborated that it "pretty much felt like a normal game, and if I had snuck out the 2's from the wound rolls on all the s6+ without telling him, (he) probably wouldn't have noticed."

I'll believe i'll be playing tonight against Marines. If my opponent is happy to, he can try it. I think it's OP, but we can playtest it anyway and see how it pans out. I beat them every time anyway (not Marines, just these particular Marine players), so it will be nice to mix it up.

Eh, that it has been the same way for a long time does not mean it is right. After all, the rules are not designed after voting.

Guardsmen should compensate for s3 t3 5+ by being extraordinarily cheap, not by having some arbitrary strong big guns that you need to take to compensate for your footsoldiers. You should be able to run a 100% footsoldier list without being gimped.

Battle Cannons do not cut through AV14 tanks, they have a 1/3 chance of glancing them. That is not 'cut through'

Space Marine armour and overall resilience is commonly likened to light-medium tank durability. I can very well see a Space Marine surviving a few Lascannon shots, especially non-headshots, and to me it seems far more likely than the 1-in-6-chance that the game uses to represent 'very unlikely situations' such as a Grot surviving a direct, single-target hit from a Heavy Railgun.

 Sparkadia wrote:


I'll believe i'll be playing tonight against Marines. If my opponent is happy to, he can try it. I think it's OP, but we can playtest it anyway and see how it pans out. I beat them every time anyway (not Marines, just these particular Marine players), so it will be nice to mix it up.

At best, if you have the time, do a batrep (pics or just description, I ain't picky) and keep track of the wounds that got discounted from rolling 2's, that would have wounded otherwise, and if they were beating the armor's AP or not.

At worst, if you don't have time for a batrep, just jot down a tally. Also, a quick rundown of the lists. I'm guessing you'll be running orks, so it looks like your only weapons relevant to this will probably be power klaws, loota deffguns, and maybe deff rollas on wagons? Not sure what you have or run for your army.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 Sparkadia wrote:


I'll believe i'll be playing tonight against Marines. If my opponent is happy to, he can try it. I think it's OP, but we can playtest it anyway and see how it pans out. I beat them every time anyway (not Marines, just these particular Marine players), so it will be nice to mix it up.

At best, if you have the time, do a batrep (pics or just description, I ain't picky) and keep track of the wounds that got discounted from rolling 2's, that would have wounded otherwise, and if they were beating the armor's AP or not.

At worst, if you don't have time for a batrep, just jot down a tally. Also, a quick rundown of the lists. I'm guessing you'll be running orks, so it looks like your only weapons relevant to this will probably be power klaws, loota deffguns, and maybe deff rollas on wagons? Not sure what you have or run for your army.

I'll probably be running IG, at 1000 points. I'll bring along some real contenders (like Autocannon and naked Russes) to see how it plays out. I'll tell my mates to remind me to record the numbers. I'd take pictures, but my army is horribly underpainted and incomplete and I don't want to be unduly judged, haha.

Also to note, my opponents generally run fluffy or funziez lists, none of us are powergamers (if anyone was of the group, it would be me) and so the lists tend to be a bit... odd. For example, my last Marine opponent brought Vanguard Vets. The Executioner gave them what for, i'll tell you that much.

I'll do what I can. To be honest, I may end up forgetting about this until Monday next week as I only really check Dakka at work. We shall see how good my memory is, I guess.

Works for me! Yeah we have some people like that too. As seen above, where mutilators were involved in the chaos vs. BA game from this morning.