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.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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.

That system is something I have thought about for a while, but I think you need a D10 still to get enough graduation between units. The game is much bigger than in 1994 and it has outgrown the D6.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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.

Don't forget that while many weapons had armor save modifiers, there were also to-hit modifiers as well, so while armor in and of itself wasn't quite as valuable, you overall would face fewer casualties from many weapons because they wouldn't hit very often.

Lets take say 3 BS3 autocannons. Under the current system, if you're in cover with MEQ unit, you'd take an average of 0.833 wounds from those 3 autocannons. Now, under 2E, where the AC had a -3 ASM on it, you'd only save on 6's, but because you were in cover they were also only hitting you on 6's, you'd take an average of 0.6944 wounds, and you'd actually be better off than you would now. It makes cover have a lot more purpose.

People are too hung up on just getting to roll that 3+ I've found in my experiences.

with all the upgrades that space marines have gotten in their last codex and im sure they will receive a bunch more in the next codex, I just can't see how they would buff regular tac marines to make them more elite.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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.

Don't forget that while many weapons had armor save modifiers, there were also to-hit modifiers as well, so while armor in and of itself wasn't quite as valuable, you overall would face fewer casualties from many weapons because they wouldn't hit very often.

Lets take say 3 BS3 autocannons. Under the current system, if you're in cover with MEQ unit, you'd take an average of 0.833 wounds from those 3 autocannons. Now, under 2E, where the AC had a -3 ASM on it, you'd only save on 6's, but because you were in cover they were also only hitting you on 6's, you'd take an average of 0.6944 wounds, and you'd actually be better off than you would now. It makes cover have a lot more purpose.

People are too hung up on just getting to roll that 3+ I've found in my experiences.

Yeah, but a .14 difference isn't really addressing the problem, which is overcosted/underperforming Tactical Marines. Basically you're just saying that Tactical Marines were marginalized differently in 2nd than in the current system, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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.

That system is something I have thought about for a while, but I think you need a D10 still to get enough graduation between units. The game is much bigger than in 1994 and it has outgrown the D6.

Potentially. D6 will always be a problem. But I've been sticking with it initially, because everything else in the game is statted out for the D6.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
with all the upgrades that space marines have gotten in their last codex and im sure they will receive a bunch more in the next codex, I just can't see how they would buff regular tac marines to make them more elite.

Bolters being slightly better and/or double Special Weapons on Marines. Nobody wants the Heavy Weapon EVER because the ability to move and actually shoot is necessary. If I want Heavy Weapons, I have Sternguard, Devastators, and Centurions for that purpose.

Well with Jetbikes getting scatter lasers, seems there isn't going to be any less units gaining S6 High dakka.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Well with Jetbikes getting scatter lasers, seems there isn't going to be any less units gaining S6 High dakka.

yeah with what I'm hearing of the eldar 'dex space Marines despiratly need... I dunno.. something

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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.

Don't forget that while many weapons had armor save modifiers, there were also to-hit modifiers as well, so while armor in and of itself wasn't quite as valuable, you overall would face fewer casualties from many weapons because they wouldn't hit very often.

Lets take say 3 BS3 autocannons. Under the current system, if you're in cover with MEQ unit, you'd take an average of 0.833 wounds from those 3 autocannons. Now, under 2E, where the AC had a -3 ASM on it, you'd only save on 6's, but because you were in cover they were also only hitting you on 6's, you'd take an average of 0.6944 wounds, and you'd actually be better off than you would now. It makes cover have a lot more purpose.

People are too hung up on just getting to roll that 3+ I've found in my experiences.

Yeah, but a .14 difference isn't really addressing the problem, which is overcosted/underperforming Tactical Marines. Basically you're just saying that Tactical Marines were marginalized differently in 2nd than in the current system, lol.

That's a nearly 20% improvement in resiliency. But again, the bigger point was that ASM's didn't exist in a vacuum, they functioned together with to-hit modifiers. GW got rid of ASM's but everyone is now always hitting at full ballistic skill all the time.

If we look at something with a smaller ASM, say the humble Lasgun, we see a huge difference. Against a Marine in heavy cover in 2E, you'd inflict an average of 0.02777 wounds, with the Marine saving on 4's due to ASM's. Under the current AP system, you'd inflict 0.05555, *halving* the marine's survivability even though he's now always saving on 3's instead of 4's.

But everyone got the same use of cover back in those days. It's not inherently part of SM survivability.

 Ashiraya wrote:
But everyone got the same use of cover back in those days. It's not inherently part of SM survivability.

Except it's a bonus, Cover still helped everyone, rather then those automatically penetrated by a weapon, or improving armor saves for those with very poor to none.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

I think I was taking 7 mans with a laz cannon or plasma cannon - DE always got to charge first - just turbo boost raider right in front of marines - it gets a 4+ invo for that - and you can't explode it cause moving skimmers 6" were always hull down - on the charge it didn't really matter what was inside. wyches, incubi, or even just warriors - seemed to get wiped everytime. I know it seems nuts but the syberites always seemed to kill 2-3 marines and all losses were before I could strike most the time and i'd lose 2-3 more from the warriors. 3-5 marines attacking back with 1 attack each was a joke. It's really just the fact that they always got to charge and their vehicals being made of paper were more durable than my tanks. Not really much has changed - except you can blow up an open topped vehical pretty easy and now there is over watch and you can glance out armor 10 pretty easy to with just bolters. I also didn't have a lot of unit selection at the time. I got a wirlwind and that helped out a lot in 4ed vs DE but nothing I did would stop that archon from destroying squad after squad. Got to the point were I was playing full mech vs DE cause it was the only thing they didn't charge and get fully evaporated.

 Mumblez wrote:
I'm gonna be honest, I can't ever take these complaints seriously. Marines not being good enough, I can sort of agree with, but that's caused by the increasingly devestating weaponry that's become available to many factions.

Marines not living up to their gakky fluff? Just because the majority of 40K novels are badly written and happen to be bolter porn doesn't mean marines should become unstoppable juggernauts.

If someone really wants to do movie marines, they could just field an unbound army of all chapter masters/captains. This is exactly the sort of stuff 7th exists for!

My dream marines wouldn't be unstoppable juggernaughts, but having stats of Guard major hero characters with a Marine stat modifier on top of it. So, multiple wounds, multiple attacks and bonus to strength, toughness, initiative and weapon skills.
This would follow the idea of Marines being exceptional individuals going through extremely harsh selection and then uber-elite training and then on top of that are augmented.

Basic problem with Marines is that their stat profile (not counting Armour which is an equivalent of RT terminator armour) is practically unchanged from the times of Rogue Trader where they were a bunch of press-ganged psychopathic hive scum that was given some surgical modifications.
Index Astartes articles have changed the character of marines making the modifications pretty hardcore and later introducing extreme recruitment process that involves brutal trials that weed out anyone who isn't already exceptional.

SM stat profile was created to represent these guys:


While currently Space Marines are these guys:


It's not just a question of the novels. Space Marines statline simply represents that something that no longer exists in the Wh40k sense setting and fails to represent what replaced it.

I will just mention this , I am not sure if any one has.
In the beginning of 40k, they started with Imperial Guard human as the yard stick.All other races were developed from and costed from this basic profile.
(As 40k rules are a WHFB clone this makes sense.)

So all factions races were slightly different to humans, and had distinct play styles.
SM were the elite human force , the scalpel of the Imperium, rather than the sledgehammer of the IG.
And because they were FEW in number on the table , they had to be played well.There were no specially developed armies for new player armies back then,

However, over time GW realized that SM were the poster boys of 40k, (The only thing that was not instantly recognizable as ' fantasy in space'.)So spent more time developing and promoting them.
So more people wanted to play SM , unsurprisingly.
However, the super elite force , was not adaptable enough to cover all the play styles new players might like .
So they made the SM the jack of all trades master of none type army.(SM became very forgiving to play when their main weakness of low model count was done away with.)
They basically made the super human elite the new player army of choice.
So rather than being one of many factions with distinct strengths and weaknesses , SM became the army you saw everywhere.

And so to try to claw back some game play , GW gave all other factions the ability to deal with the now common place SM armies.

So in trying to maximize sales of the range GW wanted as the 'face of 40k' they totally messed up the game play and totally ignored the original background that made 40k so appealing to so many people.


IF 40k rules were written specifically for the 40k game play as derived from the background .The developers would start with the basic IG as the yard stick every other faction was developed from and compared to.

Space Marines would be more elite, but also far more expensive in PV.
BUT more importantly there would be a reason to play other armies beyond 'they look nice'.

Exalted. Very eloquently put.

I personally like how Space Marines are already as it emphasises the grimmdark nature of 40k; even humanity's finest are no real match to the atrocities of the galaxy

Yes, SMs should be more elite than the C:SM presents them.
But how is GW supposed to survive if their best-selling army is powered-up far enough so their battleforce box costs 1500 points to deploy?
A force that elite would be fewer models on the table, and GW would sell less stuff.

SGTPozy wrote:
I personally like how Space Marines are already as it emphasises the grimmdark nature of 40k; even humanity's finest are no real match to the atrocities of the galaxy

Atrocities of the galaxy like cultists with lasguns and orks with shootas.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Yes, SMs should be more elite than the C:SM presents them.
But how is GW supposed to survive if their best-selling army is powered-up far enough so their battleforce box costs 1500 points to deploy?
A force that elite would be fewer models on the table, and GW would sell less stuff.

Well, they could make some special quality truescale marine models or something like that and make marines expensive.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Loyalist marines don't need to be more elite, non-Marines just need to be weaker.

Doesn't this accomplish the exact same thing?

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Atrocities of the galaxy like cultists with lasguns and orks with shootas.

I am pretty sure that orks are pretty scary. Remember that one time when one almost killed the Emperor? Sure beats what some anonymous space marine can ever hope to achieve, right?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Atrocities of the galaxy like cultists with lasguns and orks with shootas.

I am pretty sure that orks are pretty scary. Remember that one time when one almost killed the Emperor? Sure beats what some anonymous space marine can ever hope to achieve, right?

I do not think that Ork should be considered representative of his species. Besides, it is in debate how close he was - it is highly possible the Emperor faked it to build a bond with Horus.

SGTPozy wrote:
I personally like how Space Marines are already as it emphasises the grimmdark nature of 40k; even humanity's finest are no real match to the atrocities of the galaxy

But that is fake grimdark. The setting is not grimdark for everyone. Nurgle Daemons, for example, are very happy and pleased with the state of things, and live in what is essentially their paradise.

The 'horrors of the galaxy' are not so grimdark if your average fruitshop owner who happened to find a meltagun can kill every last one of them without issues. It becomes 'humanity feth yeah' which is also viable for a setting, but it is not grimdark and it is not really what 40k is going for.

40K is grimdark not only because humanity is fethed, but because you, the human soldier, is a guy in okay armour, with an okay gun, sent to battle demigods of war. And the Space Marines who do compete on that level are brainwashed crazy zealous gene-modified abominations who are not actually human any longer, and you could not become one even if you wanted to sacrifice everything you are to be one. More grimdark!

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do not think that Ork should be considered representative of his species.

Is she representative of the average ork? Nope. She totally is much more powerful. Should orks be discarded as weak? No. They is a huge range of threat level among the ork species. But they can be incredible opponents, for sure. Some of them are more than any lone marine can chew. And even your average girlz is still a threat.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The 'horrors of the galaxy' are not so grimdark if your average fruitshop owner who happened to find a meltagun can kill every last one of them without issues.

A melta gun will not help you if you are just a cashier, and some genestealer come for you. Because you will never be able to aim at him. Same if even a small brood of hormagaunts come to eat your entrails. What will you to if termagants riddle your body with worms that eats you from the inside? Worse, what will you do against, say, a cultist with a lasgun? His gun outrange yours by far, and he has better training. You are dead now.

The fact that there are some very close range weapons that are very powerful does not make the setting less grimdark. Use that melta against this enslaver invasion? Oh, wait, you cannot, you are already a puppet to her will! Use that melta gun against that Dark Eldar raid? Who are you kidding now, when you see them it will already be too late! You will be a slave for the pits!

SGTPozy wrote:
I personally like how Space Marines are already as it emphasises the grimmdark nature of 40k; even humanity's finest are no real match to the atrocities of the galaxy

There's only 1000 Space Marines per chapter. If they were as soft as in the tabletop game, they'd die out very quickly. I think that a much better representation of the horrors of galaxy is that Imperial Guard which is top 20% of the Imperial Army is considered to be cannon fodder.

Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.

I now want to check how many primarchs you should put against those 20 marines to have the same amount of points on each side. I guess marines seems very close to primarchs in power level now .

I think it would be more like 30-35ppm for the basic tactical marine, 40-45ppm for the different veterans, 60-65ppm for terminators, and maybe 100ppm for centurions.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.

I now want to check how many primarchs you should put against those 20 marines to have the same amount of points on each side. I guess marines seems very close to primarchs in power level now .

No one is asking for buffs to primarcs. Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.

What about daemon princes? What about Carnifex? What about Genestealers? What about 9/10th of the models in the game, actually?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.

What about daemon princes? What about Carnifex? What about Genestealers? What about 9/10th of the models in the game, actually?

If the points match their value you can leave them the same. Or you can increase their abilities if you want and increase their points as well.

You need to realize that this is a matter of preference to matching a perceived "need" for fluff reasons. Space Marines are pretty balanced right now imo from a tabletop perspective, but could use a few small tweaks here and there( like terminators hence 40gazillion terminator threads in proposed rules)

I'd be fine if SM were made more elite, or if we toned down the other things like eldar and necrons to a reasonable level.

Xenomancers wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.

I now want to check how many primarchs you should put against those 20 marines to have the same amount of points on each side. I guess marines seems very close to primarchs in power level now .

No one is asking for buffs to primarcs. Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.

My vision would be WS 5, BS 5, S 4, T 4, W 3, I 5 A 3 Ld 8 Sv 3+ base Marine.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
My vision would be WS 5, BS 5, S 4, T 4, W 3, I 5 A 3 Ld 8 Sv 3+ base Marine.

Space Marines shooting better than Eldar aspect warriors specialized in shooting makes no sense. Even Eldar snipers do not have BS5. So, no.
(Even though I would just LOVE shooting those marines with melta or an exorcist missile launcher. Whooom, there you go with you 3 hp! Instant death baby!)

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Also, take into account that elite marine armies would be much smaller because they'd probably end up costing about 100 points per miniature. You'd literally deploy 20 marines in a 2000 point game.

I now want to check how many primarchs you should put against those 20 marines to have the same amount of points on each side. I guess marines seems very close to primarchs in power level now .

No one is asking for buffs to primarcs. Unless of marine base Str T and Int go up - then primachs and all HQ should be adjusted accordingly in cost.

My vision would be WS 5, BS 5, S 4, T 4, W 3, I 5 A 3 Ld 8 Sv 3+ base Marine.

And I'm pretty sure that would be about 35ppm. Not bad actually. Alot of people gripe about having extra T added to them. Although 2W is probably more reasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The bs5 and ws5 should probably be reserved for sternguard and vanguard respectively