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.

 gmaleron wrote:
So the fact that you play one aspect of Space Marines or in this case chapter that does not fit the mold that doesn't automatically mean Marines are not a top-tier army or are stronger than Eldar in certain aspects. You choose to play with them like that which is cool because Raven guard are awesome however it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of chapter tactics are really strong and are compatible with everything that makes them a top tier Army to begin with.

"The vast majority of Chapter Tactics" are not strong by any stretch of the imagination. White Scars and Ultramarines are the strong ones; Iron Hands are fairly middling but become strong when paired with their unique relics and now their unique Detachment. Imperial Fists and Black Templars are...okay, but not anywhere near amazing. Salamanders and Raven Guard are the duds of the book.

Singling out a weak aspect of your book to justify an entire range doesn't work, that would be like me saying Eldar suck because storm Guardians are not that good you have to look at it as a whole.

No, it really wouldn't be. Storm Guardians are a unit that you can 100% completely ignore. Eldar have THREE Core choices; one of which(Wind Rider Host) is so far beyond the pale of common fething sense that it boggles the mind as to whether it was meant to be an Auxiliary.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
Have to disagree that Eldar are the biggest power army out there now, definitely at the start of 7th Edition they were but after the barrage of releases giving Space Marines better and better shenanigans each time I am starting to think that they are the power army of the game at this point. The flexibility, options and just how strong the recent releases (Psychic Powers, Formations ect.) to me makes them stronger the Eldar in a lot of aspects, I dread facing both equally at this point.

You can disagree all you want; you're still wrong.

No need to be a rude Kanluwen. Just agree to disagree.


Anyway.

I don't hate marines or want to see marines go. I'm not all that surprised about the defense the marines are getting. I'm just asking people to take minute and think about how marines, as a faction are constructed and how the game being based around the marine stats, weapons and abilities has unfolded.

I don't think the game can be only fixed by some rule changes. I think that if the game was based around a guard. BS3, WS3, T3, S3, 5+ save we wouldn't see all those high strength, Ap3,2,1 weapons. These marine killing weapons decimate lesser units. Str6 is great for killing marines but instakills T3.

Also we wouldn't see the crazy need for Long range, twinlinking/ignore cover/ re-roll wounds, poison, haywire etc... special rules that in essence were built to give (WEAK, NOT TOUGH, Poor saves, Lower Save) units the ability to deal with T5 bike marines, Stealth and shrouded marines, etc..

I will admit. Some core functions in the game are broken. WS should act more like BS. Random elements like warlord traits, psychic powers, charge distances, etc... should be fixed. Instant Death brutalizes many armies because everyone takes units with weapons Str 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, in their lists to be able to combat marines.

Do Walkers need to become MCs? Probably.
Should vehicles go back to the old damage table or be given a 3+ save against glancing hits sure.
SHOULD MOVEMENT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN PRICING UNITS - UNDOUBTEDLY - this is a big one. GW does't cost things appropriately in part because they don't factor in movement to as a unit benefit. With Maelstrom games being standard and ITC type games having objectives to capture, units with great mobility should cost more.

But to say that tweaking every codex here and there and simplifying the rules will fix the game is mistaken. The game needs a rebuild. Every codex needs a rebuild. At the same time. Play tested or computer simulated. Run through different scenarios. Released at the same time.

Naaris wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
Have to disagree that Eldar are the biggest power army out there now, definitely at the start of 7th Edition they were but after the barrage of releases giving Space Marines better and better shenanigans each time I am starting to think that they are the power army of the game at this point. The flexibility, options and just how strong the recent releases (Psychic Powers, Formations ect.) to me makes them stronger the Eldar in a lot of aspects, I dread facing both equally at this point.

You can disagree all you want; you're still wrong.

No need to be a rude Kanluwen. Just agree to disagree.


Anyway.

I don't hate marines or want to see marines go. I'm not all that surprised about the defense the marines are getting. I'm just asking people to take minute and think about how marines, as a faction are constructed and how the game being based around the marine stats, weapons and abilities has unfolded.

I don't think the game can be only fixed by some rule changes. I think that if the game was based around a guard. BS3, WS3, T3, S3, 5+ save we wouldn't see all those high strength, Ap3,2,1 weapons. These marine killing weapons decimate lesser units. Str6 is great for killing marines but instakills T3.

Also we wouldn't see the crazy need for Long range, twinlinking/ignore cover/ re-roll wounds, poison, haywire etc... special rules that in essence were built to give (WEAK, NOT TOUGH, Poor saves, Lower Save) units the ability to deal with T5 bike marines, Stealth and shrouded marines, etc..

I will admit. Some core functions in the game are broken. WS should act more like BS. Random elements like warlord traits, psychic powers, charge distances, etc... should be fixed. Instant Death brutalizes many armies because everyone takes units with weapons Str 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, in their lists to be able to combat marines.

Do Walkers need to become MCs? Probably.
Should vehicles go back to the old damage table or be given a 3+ save against glancing hits sure.
SHOULD MOVEMENT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN PRICING UNITS - UNDOUBTEDLY - this is a big one. GW does't cost things appropriately in part because they don't factor in movement to as a unit benefit. With Maelstrom games being standard and ITC type games having objectives to capture, units with great mobility should cost more.

But to say that tweaking every codex here and there and simplifying the rules will fix the game is mistaken. The game needs a rebuild. Every codex needs a rebuild. At the same time. Play tested or computer simulated. Run through different scenarios. Released at the same time.

If the game was built around Guardsmen, then we'd need to drop a lot of the S and AP of weapons and up the price of the Guardsmen. Yes, the Guardsmen is weaker than a Space Marine, but his cost takes that into account.

Honestly, the main problems you're pointing at Marines are not Marines, it's the OP stuff Marines can take, like:
-Bikes as Troops. Remove this, now your Troops are back at T4
-Free Transports: Just a terrible, terrible idea all around
-Stealth/Shrouded Marines: Eh? Really the only ones who use this to great effect are Ravenwing, and giving them rerollable cover saves was a dumb idea.

So take all this stuff away, tone down Grav and the super friends lists (which they've done in the most recent FAQ), and Marines are back on par with most armies as far as not being super overpowered.

Yes, every codex needs to be rewritten and updated, but guess what? It's not just marines. Eldar and Necrons are broken too. Part of that is it comes from a flawed game system.

 gmaleron wrote:
So the fact that you play one aspect of Space Marines or in this case chapter that does not fit the mold that doesn't automatically mean Marines are not a top-tier army or are stronger than Eldar in certain aspects. You choose to play with them like that which is cool because Raven guard are awesome however it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of chapter tactics are really strong and are compatible with everything that makes them a top tier Army to begin with.

Singling out a weak aspect of your book to justify an entire range doesn't work, that would be like me saying Eldar suck because storm Guardians are not that good you have to look at it as a whole.

I disagree.Marine formations are very limiting and have excessive tax (this makes them fair). For example- Gladius requires you to take 6 tacitcal squads and 2 assault squads and 2 dev squads a chaplain and a captain. Except fro the devs (sometimes the captain) these are very unoptimal units - in fact - you'd would never take them if you didn't have to. Unlike eldar formations and tau formations that give you everything you want with nice bonuses with no tax unit. Except on this fourm I never hear anyone complaining about marines. Maybe space wolfs but not marines.

Anyone that thinks the Tactical Marine is worth a damn needs to play them outside a Gladius.
Without free transports they aren't good. Inability to specialize is part of it, and the hit to grenades from the FAQ makes their situation worse.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone that thinks the Tactical Marine is worth a damn needs to play them outside a Gladius.
Without free transports they aren't good. Inability to specialize is part of it, and the hit to grenades from the FAQ makes their situation worse.

Free transports itself isn't that problematic. Objective Secured to everyone in a Demi-company is.

I am completely fine with a rules re-write.

In another thread, there was some excellent discussion of what should stay and what should go.

The ball is in GW's court.

 gmaleron wrote:
Have to disagree that Eldar are the biggest power army out there now, definitely at the start of 7th Edition they were but after the barrage of releases giving Space Marines better and better shenanigans each time I am starting to think that they are now the power army of the game. The flexibility, options and just how strong the recent releases (Psychic Powers, Formations ect.) to me makes them stronger the Eldar in a lot of aspects, I dread facing both equally at this point. Eldar, Necrons, Tau and Marines all have shenanigans and are all top tier hands down, however have to agree Marines are now the top of the pile, feel many on here claim Eldar are because they are Marine players themselves.

Well you would be wrong. The scatterbike alone keeps Eldar on top. There is no marine troop that can do what a scatterbike does. There is no replacement for cheap, mobile mass S6 in 7th ed. I say Eldar because I know what it's like to face both them and space marines with BA. BA play nothing like space marines at the moment, so it's a very valid viewpoint.

What GW needs to do, is outsource rules to wizards of the coast. Tell them this is the core rules we want, these are the order of the phases, this is how shooting and combat work, this is how/what the units do/lore. You make the rules and make it balanced

What war game does wizard of the coast produce that would imply they could do a better job?

(honest question)

 Desubot wrote:
What war game does wizard of the coast produce that would imply they could do a better job?

(honest question)

None but they, imo, are a hell of a lot better at writing rules than GW have been

Sounds like a lot of blind fate.

only going off of MTG i REALLY dont need more garbage units and rules with a small handful of stupidly OP models.

oh and about 7 edition changes per year

 Desubot wrote:
Sounds like a lot of blind fate.

only going off of MTG i REALLY dont need more garbage units and rules with a small handful of stupidly OP models.

oh and about 7 edition changes per year

They do DnD as well and have for ever figure that's enough time to get rule creation down. And balancing

The issue is that the game is based off d6s so its almost impossible to accurately reflect the range of abilities.

If a d10 system were used it could work better. guardsmen could be bs4, eldar 5 marines 6, orks bs 2, grots bs3 and it would work much better

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
The issue is that the game is based off d6s so its almost impossible to accurately reflect the range of abilities.

If a d10 system were used it could work better. guardsmen could be bs4, eldar 5 marines 6, orks bs 2, grots bs3 and it would work much better

This.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Sounds like a lot of blind fate.

only going off of MTG i REALLY dont need more garbage units and rules with a small handful of stupidly OP models.

oh and about 7 edition changes per year

They do DnD as well and have for ever figure that's enough time to get rule creation down. And balancing

They also still had favored classes and would often be pretty broken.

IIRC it was druids (i think bard for pathfinder)

Also while both games are dice based i dont really think RPG and wargaming really meshs well without the need for a GM. (1st edition 40k needed a gm iirc)

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Sounds like a lot of blind fate.

only going off of MTG i REALLY dont need more garbage units and rules with a small handful of stupidly OP models.

oh and about 7 edition changes per year

They do DnD as well and have for ever figure that's enough time to get rule creation down. And balancing

Really? REALLY? D&D? Have you looked at 3rd edition? Please. Don't quote D&D as balanced, you'll only hurt yourself.

Druids are still OP in Pathfinder. 3.X is a horrible example of balance.

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
The issue is that the game is based off d6s so its almost impossible to accurately reflect the range of abilities.

If a d10 system were used it could work better. guardsmen could be bs4, eldar 5 marines 6, orks bs 2, grots bs3 and it would work much better

Essentially this is the issue, and is similar to the issue presented in the OP. The issue is we have a 10 point statline, but only a 6 sided dice. This means that there are diminishing returns on stat increases. Essentially we have a game with rules for things like T1 but no unit has T1.

Regardless what the OP is suggesting is that the game would be well served by Skewing stats downward. Infact if you did it enough you could get rid of the vehicle rules as you could skew weapon strength lower as toughness would be lower. If say a grot was T1, a standard human/eldar T2 and a Marine T3, and you dropped weapon S equivalently you would be able to have Vehicles at the top end of the T scale and have high strength guns like a las cannon be S6 or 7. If you did that and added say a dodge/evasion statistic you could also skew WS/BS down as well, as the to hit results would be opposed instead of a straight number like BS is now. This would work even if you kept the D6 and would make the game much easier. If all rolls were comparitive you would end up with on chart similar to the current WS chart for all rolls.

I basically agree with the underlying ideas of the OP, though I disagree with his assessment that marines should never have been a stand-alone army.

GW should have resisted the psychological impulse of the playerbase to make the space marines the "standard" in comparison to other units, armies and codices.

Space marines are not the basic infantrymen of Warhammer 40k.

Bolters are not the basic assault rifle of warhammer 40k.

Guardsmen are the basic infantrymen, and the lasgun is the basic assault rifle.

The game should be balanced around GEQs, not MEQs.

Space marines should be exceptional in their capacities, though relatively few in number in comparison to GEQs.

What's required to balance the game is to rebalance non-marine armies. "Normal" troops need to be made more unexceptional. Fire warriors need to have a gun that fires S4. Windriders need a 4+ save and a BS of 3.

Just for starters.

There's a lot of talk about a complete or near-complete rewrite but you're only interested in an official ruleset, right? Could you be persuaded to play a non-official ruleset if it brilliantly fixed 95% of the game?

 Traditio wrote:
I basically agree with the underlying ideas of the OP, though I disagree with his assessment that marines should never have been a stand-alone army.

GW should have resisted the psychological impulse of the playerbase to make the space marines the "standard" in comparison to other units, armies and codices.

Space marines are not the basic infantrymen of Warhammer 40k.

Bolters are not the basic assault rifle of warhammer 40k.

Guardsmen are the basic infantrymen, and the lasgun is the basic assault rifle.

The game should be balanced around GEQs, not MEQs.

Space marines should be exceptional in their capacities, though relatively few in number in comparison to GEQs.

What's required to balance the game is to rebalance non-marine armies. "Normal" troops need to be made more unexceptional. Fire warriors need to have a gun that fires S4. Windriders need a 4+ save and a BS of 3.

Just for starters.

Space Marines aren't the standard? Space Marines, the guys the game is built around, everything the fluff was built around, they shouldn't be the standard? What are you talking about?

 jreilly89 wrote:

Naaris wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
Have to disagree that Eldar are the biggest power army out there now, definitely at the start of 7th Edition they were but after the barrage of releases giving Space Marines better and better shenanigans each time I am starting to think that they are the power army of the game at this point. The flexibility, options and just how strong the recent releases (Psychic Powers, Formations ect.) to me makes them stronger the Eldar in a lot of aspects, I dread facing both equally at this point.

You can disagree all you want; you're still wrong.

No need to be a rude Kanluwen. Just agree to disagree.


Anyway.

I don't hate marines or want to see marines go. I'm not all that surprised about the defense the marines are getting. I'm just asking people to take minute and think about how marines, as a faction are constructed and how the game being based around the marine stats, weapons and abilities has unfolded.

I don't think the game can be only fixed by some rule changes. I think that if the game was based around a guard. BS3, WS3, T3, S3, 5+ save we wouldn't see all those high strength, Ap3,2,1 weapons. These marine killing weapons decimate lesser units. Str6 is great for killing marines but instakills T3.

Also we wouldn't see the crazy need for Long range, twinlinking/ignore cover/ re-roll wounds, poison, haywire etc... special rules that in essence were built to give (WEAK, NOT TOUGH, Poor saves, Lower Save) units the ability to deal with T5 bike marines, Stealth and shrouded marines, etc..

I will admit. Some core functions in the game are broken. WS should act more like BS. Random elements like warlord traits, psychic powers, charge distances, etc... should be fixed. Instant Death brutalizes many armies because everyone takes units with weapons Str 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, in their lists to be able to combat marines.

Do Walkers need to become MCs? Probably.
Should vehicles go back to the old damage table or be given a 3+ save against glancing hits sure.
SHOULD MOVEMENT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN PRICING UNITS - UNDOUBTEDLY - this is a big one. GW does't cost things appropriately in part because they don't factor in movement to as a unit benefit. With Maelstrom games being standard and ITC type games having objectives to capture, units with great mobility should cost more.

But to say that tweaking every codex here and there and simplifying the rules will fix the game is mistaken. The game needs a rebuild. Every codex needs a rebuild. At the same time. Play tested or computer simulated. Run through different scenarios. Released at the same time.

If the game was built around Guardsmen, then we'd need to drop a lot of the S and AP of weapons and up the price of the Guardsmen. Yes, the Guardsmen is weaker than a Space Marine, but his cost takes that into account.

Honestly, the main problems you're pointing at Marines are not Marines, it's the OP stuff Marines can take, like:
-Bikes as Troops. Remove this, now your Troops are back at T4
-Free Transports: Just a terrible, terrible idea all around
-Stealth/Shrouded Marines: Eh? Really the only ones who use this to great effect are Ravenwing, and giving them rerollable cover saves was a dumb idea.

So take all this stuff away, tone down Grav and the super friends lists (which they've done in the most recent FAQ), and Marines are back on par with most armies as far as not being super overpowered.

If I could exalt this a dozen times I would. I mean outside of white scars gladius or IH bike stars with smash fether and conclave, there are literally no other top tier builds coming from the vanilla dex. Wolfstar with Librarius is a separate issue entirely as is the stupidity that is ravenwing jink saves. The new FAQ absolutely NUKED SM ability to run power armored allies. As far as what that means for power levels... Basically tournament marines are going to be solo white, black or furry. Without the ability to transport allies or run super friends IF,CF, BT and Sallies are pretty much dead in the water as far as top tier builds go. Now we do still have grav and some pretty potent psychic shenanigans (cast Veil of time on hammernators last game and I'm still reeling from how dumb that plays) but as far as stuff that's worth bitching about, as of the FAQ release you're talking strictly WS, IH or SW and that's only one specific build per chapter.


OP: if you're looking for 4 stat armies that are extremely unfun to play against, Necrons want to have a word with you. Wanna know a secret ? Their dex started the power creep too.

 jreilly89 wrote:


Space Marines aren't the standard? Space Marines, the guys the game is built around, everything the fluff was built around, they shouldn't be the standard? What are you talking about?

He's saying that since the start all the work GW did to promote SM as the posterboys of 40k shouldn't have been done to then, but to Astra Militarum. So, everything we take as base now is from SM, when, as he said, should have been from Guard.

jreilly89 wrote:Space Marines aren't the standard? Space Marines, the guys the game is built around, everything the fluff was built around, they shouldn't be the standard? What are you talking about?

What I am saying is this:

Yes. The fluff is built around space marines. Yes, the "face" for advertising for 40k are space marines.

In universe, however, space marines are a rarity. They are meant to be exceptional. The player who plays a non-marine army simply has an unreasonable expectation if he wants his basic troops to be as good as space marines. Space marines are elites. They are genetically enhanced superhumans who are supposed to be superior to the normal, common, run-of-the-mill soldier. The basic tactical marine should be as good as an elite FOC selection in any other army. My marine army is basically an entire army of Captains America.

That shouldn't be "average." That should be exceptional.

And If an entire space marine battle-company actually takes the field, that should be an awe-inspiring thing.

Other average stat-line, capabilities, etc. shouldn't be compared to space marines.

They should be compared to guardsmen. They are the very definition of "normal" and "average." A 3 on the statline shouldn't be "bad." It should be perfectly average. A 4 should be understood as exceptional, not merely average.

Thus the reason Tau fire warriors shouldn't have S5 guns and why windriders shouldn't have 3+ armor.

Seriously. They're just guardians on bikes. Why should they have 3+ armor?

And again, a chaos space marine should be positively terrifying (as should a regular space marine). It shouldn't be the laughing stock of the game.

 gmaleron wrote:
So the fact that you play one aspect of Space Marines or in this case chapter that does not fit the mold that doesn't automatically mean Marines are not a top-tier army or are stronger than Eldar in certain aspects. You choose to play with them like that which is cool because Raven guard are awesome however it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of chapter tactics are really strong and are compatible with everything that makes them a top tier Army to begin with.

Singling out a weak aspect of your book to justify an entire range doesn't work, that would be like me saying Eldar suck because storm Guardians are not that good you have to look at it as a whole.

The vast majority? I play Salamanders and I'll completely disagree that my Chapter Tactic is considered strong. It's OK at best. Black Templars also have weak CT as well. Gdubs pretty much made the White Scars and Iron Hands the best CT in the book.

 Traditio wrote:
In universe, however, space marines are a rarity. They are meant to be exceptional. The player who plays a non-marine army simply has an unreasonable expectation if he wants his basic troops to be as good as space marines. Space marines are elites. They are genetically enhanced superhumans who are supposed to be superior to the normal, common, run-of-the-mill soldier. The basic tactical marine should be as good as an elite FOC selection in any other army.

And here's where you are wrong. Space marines are super-elites relative to the Imperium. They aren't elites relative to everyone else. For example, the Tau make a sad joke of the Imperium's forces at equal numbers (their disadvantage is their small size). Their basic troops are space marine level in power because everything the Tau have is better. Even gun drones, their cheap expendable cannon fodder, are vastly more capable than "normal" human troops. Really the only thing wrong fluff-wise with fire warriors is that they only have BS 3 for balance purposes, to make them dependent on markerlights for maximum effectiveness.

Then of course the same applies to other factions. Eldar jetbikes get 3+ armor because they've been fighting galactic-scale wars since long before humanity figured out how to stab something with a pointy stick, and even the low-tier civilian armor they give to their amateur soldiers is a god-level work of art compared to Imperial technology.

My marine army is basically an entire army of Captains America.

And here's the problem: fluff-wise your army isn't. Nor is "my army is the bestest at everything evar" a reasonable thing to expect in a game where other players have different armies. The solution is for you to drop the idea that your space marines are special snowflakes of god-like power and accept that everyone else is pretty good too.

Peregrine wrote:And here's where you are wrong. Space marines are super-elites relative to the Imperium.

Peregrine is arguing against Peregrine, it seems:

"Except this isn't true because of two problems: power creep and stat compression. The original intent of the game's stat system was that a 2 is cannon fodder, 3 is average, 4 is elite, and 5 is heroic. That's three possible stat values for "normal" units, and one for exceptional characters. But if you make space marines the standard then a 3 is cannon fodder, 4 is average, and 5 is still heroic. Now only only have two possible stat values for "normal" units, and everyone is going to complain that their average units should get 4s because they clearly aren't cannon fodder (for example, GW making all the BS 3 Eldar units BS 4). And then you get more power creep because everyone has to be able to fight the new average. Weapons that have AP 4-6 might as well be AP - and all that matters is AP 2-3, etc. Then of course space marines need their elite stuff to be properly elite, so let's add on even more of a bloated mess of rules because there aren't enough numbers left to do it with the stat line alone" (Peregrine, p. 1 of this thread).

The obvious intent in making the SM army, in giving it a solid stat-line of 4s across the board, was to make it an army of elites. That solid stat-line of 4s was meant to rule out space marines from being any kind of in-game, in-universe standard.

Yes, 3s become fodder relative to space marines as they would be for any elite unit.

GW's mistake was not in making a stand-alone marines army. GWs mistake was to cave in/pander to the non-space marines player base by making pretty much everyone "elite" in some fashion, as opposed to letting space marines be the exception, and everyone else be basically normal for the most part.

Space marines need to keep their 4s. Other armies need to have their troops reduced to 3s or less. And they need to get rid of this power creep nonsense.

That's what it comes down to.

[Or at the very least, things need to be appropriately costed. A wind-rider bike should not be a 17 ppm model, nor should a wraithknight be 295 ppm).

And here's the problem: fluff-wise your army isn't.

Yes, it is. Captain America = genetically altered super soldier. A space marine is Captain America X 10 plus extra organs.

Nor is "my army is the bestest at everything evar" a reasonable thing to expect in a game where other players have different armies.

It's perfectly reasonable. My army should be "the bestest at everything evar," but should have a high points cost per model to reflect their elite status.

The solution is for you to drop the idea that your space marines are special snowflakes of god-like power and accept that everyone else is pretty good too.

Except, they are supposed to be "special snowflakes of god-like power." By your own admission in your analysis of what numbers represent. Not everyone is supposed to be elite. Most units should be average, and elites should be relatively rare.

It's a symptom of poor design on GW's part that they made elites "average."

 Traditio wrote:
Peregrine is arguing against Peregrine, it seems:

No, you're just confusing "GW did this" with "I agree with this". My actual position is that the game needs to get rid of the D6 system. Moving to a D10/D20 system gives a much bigger range of potential numbers, eliminating the problem where 90% of the game is a 3+ or a 4+.

Space marines need to keep their 4s. Other armies need to have their troops reduced to 3s or less. And they need to get rid of this power creep nonsense.

No, space marines just need to be nerfed back to being average. Tactical marines should be BS 3/WS 3 (the standard for trained soldiers), with elite melee units getting WS 3 and elite shooting units getting WS 4. Power armor should be initiative 2 (representing the lag in translating control inputs to servo actions), terminator armor should be initiative 1, and centurions should cease to exist. Bolters become AP -, making armor saves on other standard troops relevant again. Marines get to keep their S 4 and T4, representing their improved physical strength and durability over a normal human.

Now you have an army that is good at one thing (durable basic troops) instead of the best at everything. There's no more problem with power creep and stat compression because the different "elite" armies have different strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, it is. Captain America = genetically altered super soldier. A space marine is Captain America X 10 plus extra organs.

Sure, relative to a guardsman. Relative to a fire warrior or dire avenger he's just another generic soldier.

It's perfectly reasonable. My army should be "the bestest at everything evar," but should have a high points cost per model to reflect their elite status.

No, that's the space marine fanboy answer. Space marines should be better at most things relative to ork boyz or guardsmen, but relative to Tau/Eldar/Necrons they should be equal. Fire warriors should always out-shoot tactical marines, dire avengers should always out-maneuver tactical marines, and Necron troops should always out-survive tactical marines. Because that's how it works in the fluff. Space marines are awesome, but so are the other elite armies.

It's a symptom of poor design on GW's part that they made elites "average."

Yep. Therefore marines should be nerfed to being average. Nerf their basic troops to give them some 3s for stats, and take away all the new units they've been given since 5th edition.

Well if we look at the history of 40k..

WHFB was the massive game everyone knew about , and it was the stand by game of non historical gamers.
So when GW plc wanted to increase sales of its scifi line of minatures, basing the new game on WHFB was a sound sales decision to allow for cross over to the new system.

As RP an BA realized the heavy bias towards close combat and maneuver WHFB rules had, they sensibly wrote a skirmish game , which matched the scale of the minatures and the game play restrictions ancient model based rules have.

RT and 2nd ed 40k were over complicated but very characterful rules sets, and it was obvious the rules were just a guide line for players to modify and change to get the games they wanted.Back when WD was a rule supplement and minature catalog, it had lots of new rules ideas and revisions .

If 40k had kept to this skirmish game size , it would have been fine.(Probably closer to BtGoA if RP had been left in charge of it.)
As the compromise of being based on WHFB would not have been such an issue.

Unfortunately 3rd ed onwards was heavily infuenced by GW sales department who upped model count to silly levels and made selling Space Marines to children the focus of 40k.

The Space Marine Faction is not to blame for currupting the rules for 40k.Its the GW senior management and the GW sales department!

However, the desire to push space marines as the go to faction for new players has messed up the game balance.

I sort of agree with the OP.
IF bog standard IG was the most common army in 40k, and was used as the yardstick to measure all other factions against.Then ALL factions would be easier to balance.

Compared to the current set up of ''well they have to be inferior to Space Marines , but being able to deal with them in limited ways''.