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.

 Desubot wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Giving them a 6+ or 5+ FNP might be interesting. They would be tougher against small arms, but still die against anti-tank weaponry (as they should).

I feel it needs to be a 6+ otherwise i think plauge marines would be sad pandas. and so would icon of excess

Well, in my brain, any boosts to loyalist marines would be carried over or similarly implemented in chaos marines. So if, for instance, all marines gained a wound or a point of toughness, so would their chaos equivalents. If this resulted in a current option being unreasonable or redundant, you would modify that option to bring it in line with the new rules.

Not to derail my own thread, but (tac) terminators and land raiders are both considered to be pretty overpriced. So even if their points did go up as a result of making them more individually powerful, it would probably be a relatively small increase to account for their high price. Although being AV 14, I'm not sure I'd want to see the land raider get too much of a boost. It's actually pretty solid defensively, and adding more shots to it or something just seems lazy. I'd rather the land raider just get a modest points reduction.

Similarly, things that already work well such as centurions, thunderfires, etc. either wouldn't get buffed or would get bare minimum buffs to bring them in-line with whatever changes are made to "standard" marines. The idea isn't to turn the thunderfire into an intercontinental artillery piece. It's to keep tac marines from dropping like guardsmen.

Honestly the issue with landraiders is that a single super lucky 10 point melta shots will wreck it to no end.

You need to use a little bit of planing to avoid it

Dont be lazy and just give it ceraimite plating as that would be dull.

i think a slight points decrease or maybe the ability to repair (doesnt it have something like that in fluff?)

 Desubot wrote:
they seem to die just as quickly as guardsmen which is kinda sad :/

They do not. I know, I play with flamers and heavy flamers!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Honestly the issue with landraiders is that a single super lucky 10 point melta shots will wreck it to no end.

That is not the problem. The problem is that a super lucky melta shot cannot one-shot a monstrous creature .
Melta : just one shot, very short range, but will definitely annihilate what you are shooting at.

 Desubot wrote:
Honestly the issue with landraiders is that a single super lucky 10 point melta shots will wreck it to no end.

You need to use a little bit of planing to avoid it

Dont be lazy and just give it ceraimite plating as that would be dull.

i think a slight points decrease or maybe the ability to repair (doesnt it have something like that in fluff?)

Also the fact that it's literally the only assault vehicle and it's one of the most expensive costs in the codex, carrying other very expensive units.

It's got that whole "Eggs in a hand basket" issue, along with a vast majority of other issue, not counting the schizophrenic design of the godhammer (standard) variant.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
they seem to die just as quickly as guardsmen which is kinda sad :/

They do not. I know, I play with flamers and heavy flamers!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Honestly the issue with landraiders is that a single super lucky 10 point melta shots will wreck it to no end.

That is not the problem. The problem is that a super lucky melta shot cannot one-shot a monstrous creature .
Melta : just one shot, very short range, but will definitely annihilate what you are shooting at.

Ehhhh im talkign about the 1 shot 1 kill syndrome. never really made sense to me that nearly the same lasgun shot that hurt a guardsman would also equally hurt a marine.
when a marine would be able to take a few shots, and still be trucking most of the time.

Fluff wise the only army that should receive a 6+ FNP would be the orks. The fluff constantly talks about how the orks will suffer gunshot wounds and either ignore them completely or they heal ridiculously quickly.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Fluff wise the only army that should receive a 6+ FNP would be the orks. The fluff constantly talks about how the orks will suffer gunshot wounds and either ignore them completely or they heal ridiculously quickly.

Kinda like every Chaos Bezerker, the Nurglites that have their organs hang out and don't care, the fanatical ones who fight on to the death...

didn't they fluff the nurglites by giving them +1 toughness?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
didn't they fluff the nurglites by giving them +1 toughness?

And FNP for plague marines, just one of those strange things where a Chaos Lord or anyone else doesn't count.

Also Slaaneshi who enjoy pain, and fight on for more. Plenty of things by 40k Standards should be ignoring it.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Fluff wise the only army that should receive a 6+ FNP would be the orks. The fluff constantly talks about how the orks will suffer gunshot wounds and either ignore them completely or they heal ridiculously quickly.

So I take it you're new to Space Marine fluff.

I hope you're enjoying your new 40K hobby. You chose Orks, one of my favorite factions, so you should have fun.

Uh...

A boltgun round is 4 times as likely to kill a Guardsman as a Marine.

(1)(1/2)(1/3) vs (1)(2/3)(1)
(1/6) vs (4/6)

This 'not more durable' thing is a myth. Not everything is s6+ or ap3-, much less both. Even s6 spam usually isn't ap3.

If you assume anything less than s6 ap3 is useless, well, we play different games.

The real problem with 40K is the all or nothing nature of armor saves. A combination AP and modifier system would go a long way to fixing this issue.

Bharring wrote:
Uh...

A boltgun round is 4 times as likely to kill a Guardsman as a Marine.

(1)(1/2)(1/3) vs (1)(2/3)(1)
(1/6) vs (4/6)

This 'not more durable' thing is a myth. Not everything is s6+ or ap3-, much less both. Even s6 spam usually isn't ap3.

If you assume anything less than s6 ap3 is useless, well, we play different games.

Shouldn't be too hard to gain some cover, but typically with the amount of S6+ and save ignore abilities against 3+ have basically made for feeling like CSM are overpriced point sinks.

An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.

The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy.

I think I'd love it paired with stacked saves, but those threads quickly go off the rails.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some cover, sure. But let's say you always find ruins for all your Guardsmen. Still twice as likely to die as a Marine.

Bharring wrote:
Uh...

A boltgun round is 4 times as likely to kill a Guardsman as a Marine.

(1)(1/2)(1/3) vs (1)(2/3)(1)
(1/6) vs (4/6)

This 'not more durable' thing is a myth. Not everything is s6+ or ap3-, much less both. Even s6 spam usually isn't ap3.

If you assume anything less than s6 ap3 is useless, well, we play different games.

Give the guardmen cover and then suddenly become much more cost effective than a marine. Give the marine cover, and they gain nothing. AP 5 is terrible for this exact reason. This is why I'd rather have an Ork shoota over a boltgun.

For more potent weapons, AP 3/2 at least knocks the 3+ save down to a cover save. S6 high ROF spam cares not for any of this and is therefore superior.

With the current cover rules, cheap wounds trump power armor in terms of durability/pt.

1) Cover Saves! Huzzah, with a 4+ cover save, I only lose twice as many Guardsmen as Marines! So I'm clearly just as durable, model-for-model!

Getting 5+ cover is quite likely, but does force your hand deployment-wise when dependant on it. And it reinforces that Guardsmen aren't as elite as Marines.

Saves are just part of the difference. T3 vs T4 matters quite a lot for most small arms in the game.

If all you are worried about is heavy weaponry, then the problem with the game isn't the variation between troop survivability, but rather the ready availability of heavy weapons.

(2) High ROF S6 is rarely AP3. That means a Marine will be anywhere from twice to three times as survivable. Again, that is quite elite. High ROF S6 cares quite a lot about a 3+. If enough S6 is brought to bear to kill the Marines, its a lot more than the amount required to kill the same number of Guardsmen. You may claim that there shouldn't be that much heavy weapon firepower in the game, and I'd agree, but surviving 2-3 times as much of it sure sounds elite to me.

(3) How elite Marines are is a model-to-model comparison. Balance is on a point level, but is a different question.

Bharring wrote:
An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.

The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy.

I think I'd love it paired with stacked saves, but those threads quickly go off the rails.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some cover, sure. But let's say you always find ruins for all your Guardsmen. Still twice as likely to die as a Marine.

Armor save modifiers could work with a D10 system or even D12, but not D6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
1) Cover Saves! Huzzah, with a 4+ cover save, I only lose twice as many Guardsmen as Marines! So I'm clearly just as durable, model-for-model!

Getting 5+ cover is quite likely, but does force your hand deployment-wise when dependant on it. And it reinforces that Guardsmen aren't as elite as Marines.

Saves are just part of the difference. T3 vs T4 matters quite a lot for most small arms in the game.

If all you are worried about is heavy weaponry, then the problem with the game isn't the variation between troop survivability, but rather the ready availability of heavy weapons.

(2) High ROF S6 is rarely AP3. That means a Marine will be anywhere from twice to three times as survivable. Again, that is quite elite. High ROF S6 cares quite a lot about a 3+. If enough S6 is brought to bear to kill the Marines, its a lot more than the amount required to kill the same number of Guardsmen. You may claim that there shouldn't be that much heavy weapon firepower in the game, and I'd agree, but surviving 2-3 times as much of it sure sounds elite to me.

(3) How elite Marines are is a model-to-model comparison. Balance is on a point level, but is a different question.

I disagree that high ROF S6 cares about 3+ armor. They have enough shots to just get through it. Cheaper models in cover are actually worse for those kinds of weapon, because you are killing so many fewer points with each failed cover save. Model-for-model is a pointless comparison, imo. Everything is in the context of the cost to field the model. The bottom line is that marines lose at least 14 pts per failed save and guard lose 5 pts. Heck, against scatter lasers and shields, guardsmen get their armor saves. Small arms without special rules are largely irrelevant in this game unless they are coming in huge numbers. Boltguns have neither.

Bharring wrote:
Uh...

A boltgun round is 4 times as likely to kill a Guardsman as a Marine.

(1)(1/2)(1/3) vs (1)(2/3)(1)
(1/6) vs (4/6)

This 'not more durable' thing is a myth. Not everything is s6+ or ap3-, much less both. Even s6 spam usually isn't ap3.

If you assume anything less than s6 ap3 is useless, well, we play different games.

I exaggerate when I say "as easily," but the issue is that when marines drop, they simply drop. On average, a marine should be able to tank a handful of lasgun shots before dropping. However, the chances of him dying to a single lasgun are also pretty high. As indicated by your math, one in every 6 guardsmen to rapid fire at an adeptus astartes will kill him on the first try. I'm pretty sure the imperium is putting more than six guardsmen worth of resources into each marine. It's not bad mechanically, but it is pretty anticlimactic. After undergoing intense surgical and genetic modifications, being given equipment that only they can wield that is valuable enough to have been preserved for millenia, and studying the art of war until they can outmaneuver Ender Wiggin, a five man squad of marines can't take on a single squad of guardsmen without losing a guy.

I don't want invulnerable marines, but something like an extra wound or a "plot point" mechanic that lets them stay alive or make the shot that matters might be nice.

im aware of the fluff for Space marines having a god amount of resilience as far as fluff goes, but I assume they ALSO benefitted from T4 as the answer to the fluff, you know since guardsmen are T3

The sad part in all this is durability is where tactical marines fail the least. T4's stock continues to drop in this game. Orks should be keenly aware of this as well.

Those were boltgun hits.

Guardsmen shooting stuff:
Marines: (1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 1/18 dead Marines per shot
Guardsmen: (1/2)(1/2)(2/3) = 1/6 dead Guardsmen

S6 spam (using SL, so AP6) out of cover kills 10 points of Guardsmen for every 13 points of CSMs it would kill.

Yeah, that isn't so great for Marines, but using a heavy weapon to kill generic troopers with little/no protection is a clear example of overkill, so it should be fewer points. Soaking heavy weapons fire like a champ is a big part of what cheap GEQ armies *do*. Makes sense to me that they would be marginally more survivable per point there.

Bharring wrote:
Those were boltgun hits.

Guardsmen shooting stuff:
Marines: (1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 1/18 dead Marines per shot
Guardsmen: (1/2)(1/2)(2/3) = 1/6 dead Guardsmen

S6 spam (using SL, so AP6) out of cover kills 10 points of Guardsmen for every 13 points of CSMs it would kill.

Yeah, that isn't so great for Marines, but using a heavy weapon to kill generic troopers with little/no protection is a clear example of overkill, so it should be fewer points. Soaking heavy weapons fire like a champ is a big part of what cheap GEQ armies *do*. Makes sense to me that they would be marginally more survivable per point there.

We're never going to quite agree on this, and I don't have a clear idea of what needs to happen, but marines being mowed down like chaff has gotten tiresome over the last three editions. We don't agree on the frequency of this occurrence, but I can tell you that since 5th foot marines are basically dead men.

Said both eloquently and stately.

(Please don't mistake my mannerisms for disdain, Martel.)

I knew the game was forever changed when I saw the 5th ed IG book kill 57 marines in one turn with a few fortunate blast markers. Well, changed back to 2nd ed, at any rate.

Functionally, the marines were elite in 3rd ed. And that's about it. I don't know about 4th. But in 2nd, and in 5th onward the generic tactical marine is just a victim.

Martel732 wrote:
I knew the game was forever changed when I saw the 5th ed IG book kill 57 marines in one turn with a few fortunate blast markers. Well, changed back to 2nd ed, at any rate.

Functionally, the marines were elite in 3rd ed. And that's about it. I don't know about 4th. But in 2nd, and in 5th onward the generic tactical marine is just a victim.

Been a victim for the whole time I've played this game. When I first started I'd play marines vs DE in 4th edition. Basic DE warriors would beat me in assault with a single syberite with an agonizer. Must played 15 games vs DE - lost every time - those archons.... Not until 5th edition did I see actual competitive marines. Just cause of Vulcan making meltas and heavy flamers twinlinked. Then 5th ed blood angels came out with armywide FNP and fast raorbacks, then spacewolves came out with super greyhunters and long fangs and thunderwolves. Still though - the tactical marine has been gak the whole time and it still is.

The Gak Space marine is still one of the better infantry units in the game. If played right they can hold objectives and play backfield with a combat squad with a heavy weapon. Everyone expects marines to out shoot, out hit, and out assault everyone else. if that were the case nobody would play any army except marines. Marines can out assault Tau but get boned by firepower, Marines can out shoot basic orks but get boned in the assault. Theres a trade off.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
The Gak Space marine is still one of the better infantry units in the game. If played right they can hold objectives and play backfield with a combat squad with a heavy weapon. Everyone expects marines to out shoot, out hit, and out assault everyone else. if that were the case nobody would play any army except marines. Marines can out assault Tau but get boned by firepower, Marines can out shoot basic orks but get boned in the assault. Theres a trade off.

The problem is they pay for their average specialization in a game where it's better to be all or nothing.

Also they are pretty poor at assaulting in most cases, otherwise Assault Marines would be worth something I suppose.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I knew the game was forever changed when I saw the 5th ed IG book kill 57 marines in one turn with a few fortunate blast markers. Well, changed back to 2nd ed, at any rate.

Functionally, the marines were elite in 3rd ed. And that's about it. I don't know about 4th. But in 2nd, and in 5th onward the generic tactical marine is just a victim.

Been a victim for the whole time I've played this game. When I first started I'd play marines vs DE in 4th edition. Basic DE warriors would beat me in assault with a single syberite with an agonizer. Must played 15 games vs DE - lost every time - those archons.... Not until 5th edition did I see actual competitive marines. Just cause of Vulcan making meltas and heavy flamers twinlinked. Then 5th ed blood angels came out with armywide FNP and fast raorbacks, then spacewolves came out with super greyhunters and long fangs and thunderwolves. Still though - the tactical marine has been gak the whole time and it still is.

While Dark Eldar have historically been a pretty solid hardcounter to MEQ armies, losing assaults to Warriors with anything near regularity just because of an Agonizer is...atypical. On average, on a charge, a Sybarite striking with 4 attacks is going to hit with two, and wound with one, killing a single Space Marine on average, meanwhile the Warriors aren't much better than Guardsmen in close combat.

Assuming a 10man 4E tac marine squad with a powerfist (because the powerfist was never *not* taken pretty much) gets charged by a 10man Warrrior squad with an Agnozier Sybarite, the Warriors inflict 2 wounds total before the Marines strike back, and the marines inflict and average of 3.2 wounds back, marines win. It's really only if you get a 20man Warrior squad that the balance shifts in favor of the DE, and even then really only for the initial Charge.

Wyches were what always borked me in 4E with my CSM's.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
The Gak Space marine is still one of the better infantry units in the game. If played right they can hold objectives and play backfield with a combat squad with a heavy weapon. Everyone expects marines to out shoot, out hit, and out assault everyone else. if that were the case nobody would play any army except marines. Marines can out assault Tau but get boned by firepower, Marines can out shoot basic orks but get boned in the assault. Theres a trade off.

Except they aren't one of the better units on a per point basis. They are still 14pt/W. In the case of the Tau, the average marine won't survive to out assault them, and in the case of the Ork, can't shoot enough to make a difference in melee. Only marine magic bullet units make them viable. Almost all the classic marine units are crap now.

Bharring wrote:
An AP modifier would be a cool system. There has been a bunch of comments on it in Proposed Rules.

The general consensus is that it would make the beefier stuff - mostly MEQ but TEQ too - too squishy..

It just needs to not be all or nothing. Keep the AP system, and the the modifier system be far more gradual (reserving -2 or higher for anti-armor weapons). RT and 2E's save modifiers were too common, reducing armor effectiveness far too much. The problem with the AP system is it creates an all or nothing scenario, wherein heavier armored troops have no use for cover except to gain a small save against high AP weapons. Which, of course then became more of a problem as higher (lower?) AP weapons became commonplace. Of course, the other problem was cover become a "save" rather than a to-hit modifier like in most good systems.

A system where a weapon is AP 5/-1 would automatically defeat 5+ or worse, and give a -1 to everything else. A weapon like a plasma gun could (for example) be AP 4/-2, thus defeating most armor, and degrading higher end stuff.