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.

Well, I haven't rolled dice since 4e so I can't really say I have a real opinion on them. What I do know is that for 1 point per man I'm willing to put them on my AM squadleaders.

M.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
What about 2d6 pick best for "Marine Armor" saves?

The problem with 40k's whole base of mechanics is that resolution is very course; there isn't much room to bump something up a level without completely changing its apparent nature.

M.

Would be great but that would slow things down. What about just removing 1 ap from an attack, so ap -3 would be treated as -2 and then give marines cause they have 2 hearts lol

But its kinda getting away from the gun. which id say is fine and that its the "platform" that is the problem

-1 AP to an attack would be a great stat for a marine and for terms.

Marines don't need more durability. They need the offensive power without adding to ridiculous power creep.

Well for Marines like I said, they are trained for years and are essentially immortal. So they need a special rule for shooting because then there wont be a huge shift with other units from other armies that can take the bolter or other variations of the bolter. I'm fine with the bolter but I Expect a marine to use it better as opposed to a sister, who has the same BS which in my mind is "why would I bother with this guy when a girl is cheaper and does the same thing?" lol

If they had made all the AP5 weapons Ap-1 (and improved everything else by 1), wouldn't Marines players be the most salty? After all, most weapons would then treat their 3+ as a 4+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Slayer,
Both things I ran the numbers on are very close, so small changes in the setup could swing it.

For the 5 vs 10 in CC, I was doing simultaneous attacks (not technically possible, but giving either first attack is unfair). If you had DAs attacking first, DAs would win 5 vs 10 (but not 6 v 10) on average.

But I suppose that's why I like giving Sarges power weapons, but not Exarchs - Tac squads don't need to be better than CC units to win CC against enemy ranged units. Situational, but 4 pts per squad, for a nice little threat-in-being.

Exarchs only pay 4 pts per power weapon, but then can't take a ShuriKat (or two). Considering you take DAs for their base weapon, not for squad specials, it's kinda a big deal.

The numbers vs Tac Termies were close as well. Depending on the target, it might have swung the other way.

Where this applies to the thread, is that this is mostly about Tac Marines. The SM equivelent to ASCs and Gauss Rifles are PL/Combi/+Bolters, not the bolters alone.

When you compare PL/Combi + Bolters vs things, Tacs start seeming more reasonable (but not great). Against DAs, I think they are very close (DAs should either cost 14ppm, or pay 10 points for their Exarchs - otherwise, they're fair).

Similar comparisons can be made with a lot of troop choices in the game. I just don't see the Tacs as the unbalanced one. Enjoy your specials, your Lascannons, your durability.

Less durability per point than the spammy troops, but more than the glass cannon armies. Better shooty per point than the spammy troops, but less than the glass cannon shooters. Better choppy than the shooty or spammy troops, but less than the choppy.

DAs are slightly better (by maybe 1 or 2 ppm). Conscripts were notably better. IG Infantry is debatable. But there are many, many more troops in the game that have it worse than SM Tacs.

I don't know about that. Infantry is largely for taking up space and providing chaff. They are ineffective at shooting compared to the units they protect. Marines are some of the worst screens, so they are among the worst in this role.

Marines don't really have the durabilty you think they in a real match, because non-troop weapons are doing the work. Agsinst ig and eldar guns, marines are a liability for sure.

The special weapons you refer to end up costing too many points.

You can leave boltguns where they are, but then i think marines need a pricedrop because they are so weak offensively.

But don't non-Tacs die to the same weapons, but much faster (per model or per point)?

Per point almost certainly not. That's the problem. Especially if you pay for combi/special/heavy weapons. Marines become around 20 ppm if you do. That's nuts.

Bharring wrote:
But don't non-Tacs die to the same weapons, but much faster (per model or per point)?

Which is part of the issue. Devastators get Heavy Weapons and the ability to boost them without additional help (Cherub and Signum, and that only gets better when you include a bonus), Veterans and Sternguard do the special weapon saturation for cheaper and better, etc.

So at that point the only thing Tactical Marines have is Objective Secured, which is a non-rule. I can count on one hand how many times that mattered since 7th itself started! If you want those CP, there's ways of going about it or replicating it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, this thread is not about the Tactical Marine. It's about the Bolter. Nobody wants them. That's why your Scouts never take them when they have the option. That's why you readily replace them with any other squad.

Personally I think the best fix to bolters would be to make them all storm bolters (including the 2 point increase)

Tac marines and bolters are an inseparable issue.

Personally I would also give all bolters special ammo to really lend toward their all arounder style unit type.

I think Intercessors with Special ammo storm bolters at their current price point would seem like a good place for marines to be. (replace tactical marines essentially as what a marine should feel like). Then give them 2 base attacks in close combat, and options to swap out for chainswords etc.

Martel,
You might want to doublecheck your math about other Troops not dying faster per point than Tacs. Some don't - specifically the spammy ones, who's only purpose is to not die faster per point (conscripts, gaunts, Necron Warriors). Most others do:
-Scouts
-Guardians
-Dire Avengers
-Rangers
-Kalabites
-Wyches
-Fire Warriors
-Kroot

Not all troops are Tacs or Conscripts.

The reason it's relevant, is because once you give Tacs CombiBolters - even for 2ppm - all other troops are now even worse off. Because Tacs will mow them down even faster than today.

Equip the marines as you propose and then double check your math.

Which is why I would want them to be like intercessors at 20 PPM so they would be slightly more like they are in the fluff, though that should be true for other races as well. Troops in the game in general could use a buff especially in an edition where they are not necessary. I want marines in general to be outnumbered 2 to one or more by most standard troops though, but be equipped to actually handle that with smart play.

Actually without even taking special ammo into account a 20 point 2 wound space marine balances well point for point against a guardsman.

20 points of marine at 12" putting out 4 shots, hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s, against a 5+ save kills 1.18 guardsman = so 4 rounds kills 4.74 guardsmans (Rounding puts it to 5) which is 20 points
20 points guardsman (5) put out 10 shots, hit 5 (on 4+), wound 1.7 (5+), do 0.56 wounds (3+ save), so~ 4 rounds of shooting to kill a single marine (2.22 wounds) so that is pretty close.

In combat those the marine kills 2 guardsman in 4 rounds, and takes a single wound.

They're never going to be able to do that, though.

Scouts become cheaper per point.

Guardians without equipping them get close, with equipping them they cost more.

Dire Avengers are really close, but still worse off unless all the shooting is S8+ AP-4+.

Rangers can vary by BS of the shooter.

Kalabites are worse if you equip them similarly.

Wyches are still worse

Fire Warriors are marginally even vs small arms, better vs the big stuff. But the Tacs have better firepower, now.

Kroot still die faster per point

(Assuming 20ppm, with 5 Marines having 1 PG 1 Combi.)

So, yeah. Still.

The difference in practice must always be supporting units, because my marines are dying way faster than other troops on a per point basis in the actual games.

My opponent loses 4 dire avengers and i lose 20 marines. Nothing to see here!

Bharring wrote:
If they had made all the AP5 weapons Ap-1 (and improved everything else by 1), wouldn't Marines players be the most salty? After all, most weapons would then treat their 3+ as a 4+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Slayer,
Both things I ran the numbers on are very close, so small changes in the setup could swing it.

For the 5 vs 10 in CC, I was doing simultaneous attacks (not technically possible, but giving either first attack is unfair). If you had DAs attacking first, DAs would win 5 vs 10 (but not 6 v 10) on average.

But I suppose that's why I like giving Sarges power weapons, but not Exarchs - Tac squads don't need to be better than CC units to win CC against enemy ranged units. Situational, but 4 pts per squad, for a nice little threat-in-being.

Exarchs only pay 4 pts per power weapon, but then can't take a ShuriKat (or two). Considering you take DAs for their base weapon, not for squad specials, it's kinda a big deal.

The numbers vs Tac Termies were close as well. Depending on the target, it might have swung the other way.

Where this applies to the thread, is that this is mostly about Tac Marines. The SM equivelent to ASCs and Gauss Rifles are PL/Combi/+Bolters, not the bolters alone.

When you compare PL/Combi + Bolters vs things, Tacs start seeming more reasonable (but not great). Against DAs, I think they are very close (DAs should either cost 14ppm, or pay 10 points for their Exarchs - otherwise, they're fair).

Similar comparisons can be made with a lot of troop choices in the game. I just don't see the Tacs as the unbalanced one. Enjoy your specials, your Lascannons, your durability.

Less durability per point than the spammy troops, but more than the glass cannon armies. Better shooty per point than the spammy troops, but less than the glass cannon shooters. Better choppy than the shooty or spammy troops, but less than the choppy.

DAs are slightly better (by maybe 1 or 2 ppm). Conscripts were notably better. IG Infantry is debatable. But there are many, many more troops in the game that have it worse than SM Tacs.

Small changes would include Chapter Tactics as well. If you give the Dire Avengers the rerolls of 1 on the Shuriken weapons, that equates near another dead marine (which is 2.2 to 2.6 with 12 shots, which matters on round 2). Only thing I could give Tactical Marines in that Scenario was Ignores Cover, which gives the edge when both units are in cover at the same time.

The other part is how many Troop choices are worse off? In terms of Codices already released, I know Guardians are still crummy, and that the basic Chaos Marine is equal for everything besides that it can get double the same weapon at 10 dudes or switch their Bolters for a CCW, which technically makes them better because of choices but that's a non-bonus. I also can tell you the fact that Grey Knight Terminators went up in price rather than down is basically insulting. However, AdMech has acceptable screening troops and Kataphrons aren't terrible, though they'd actually be fine offensively if we got any transports for Skitarii. Grey Knight Strike Squads offer the same amount of durability for a few more points, but have double the shots and attacks (assuming you go Falcions, but you're already doing that), and the Psilencer is a pretty cool weapon. Berserker Marines and Noise Marines do their thing and Cultists get their CP generation done for a cheap price. Scouts offer several tools and can be on the offensive without having to be transported (you're either using Sniper Rifles or Infiltrating, so the Storm is a useless unit entry), Dire Avengers and Rangers have their defined roles and do them correctly instead of trying to be a unit that does everything below average, and lastly we got Infantry and Conscripts, both of which have shown how excellent they are mathematically (but you don't take Infantry squads because Scions exist, which is another troop choice).

I still haven't gone over the Tyranid codex so I can't make any commentary on it.

For the Codices released they're sure near the bottom, and with the units that are just already better in the first place (Immortals, Boyz, Kalabites), they'll get their fix with a codex and continue doing better.
I'm not trying to make Bolters AP-5, I'm simply trying to give Bolter units as a whole more offensive bite so the Bolter is actually taken but not hated. However you have two extremes here, where one side says they're fine and L2P, and you got people straight up adding another AP-1 even though that's the gimmick of Necrons.

You can give Tac Marines 6+++. That helps some.

You can give Tac Marines the ability to fall back and then shoot. That helps a lot in the CC discussion (both units would rather shoot that stab, but Tac Marines destroy DAs in shooting).

You can give Tac Marines Sally tactics, which matters when talking about shooting Termies.

Tac Marines could take RG tactics, but that's likely to only matter in the first round of shooting.

There are many other troops in the game. Kalabites. Wyches. Fire Warriors. Kroot. Storm Guardians. Ork Boyz.

GKs offer different things, but at close to double the cost with close to double the dakka, they suffer from having close to half the durability per point. They actually don't compare favorably on the dakka to survivability side of things.

For if the Marine dex is near the bottom, there's already a huge super long thread in General about that (near or exactly middle of released dexes, way above most indexes).

For if Marines are better or worse than troops in the codexes released?
-Scouts have different options - sidegrade from Marines. Plus, they have Boltguns.
-Guardians are maybe a little worse off than Tacs, but same ballpark. Their weapon is a sidegrade (Marines would rather have the ShuriKats, Guardians would rather have Boltguns).
-Rangers have the same role as Sniper Scouts - so sidegrade
-Dire Avengers are very marginally better than Tacs, but are better
-CSM are basically carbon copies, with minor variation in loadout options
-PAGK have DS and twice the shooting, some CC and Psyker shenanigans, and no extra durability, for about twice the cost. Also without the loadout options. Sidegrade at best. Many roles Tacs can do PAGK cannot.
-Cult Troops might be a point, but are cult troops. Half of them might be better, half of them might be worse.

That just leaves the chaff units. Conscripts, Cultits, etc. Even assuming that they're all better than Tacs, still puts Tacs at or near the top.

Let's see what chapter approved does.

I'd rank fire warriors above tac marines for sure because of range and they can always stay in cover to do their thing. And their cost.

I don't think the marine codex is one of the worst atm, but it IS heavily reliant on Girlyman, and I think every xeno codex that comes out will outright crush it, starting with Eldar and Tyranids.

I think the issue in general with tactical marines has always been that other troops might be worse, but most of those armies have cheaper/better options, so their troops get more support.

For me I'd just like to see marines actually be the back bone of a marine army.

I'd love to see the supports/heavies etc be less common, and see the Troops actually matter more.

It felt like the Indexes went that direction. I was fine paying that much more for the big stuff because everyone was.

But the Codexes seem to be reversing direction on that.

You don't need super heavies. You just need manticores/wyverns/fire prism/exocrine. The exocrine is so good vs power armor that I'd sometimes rather have grots.

And yes, marines STILL suffer from really skeezy support choices. Preds? Whirlwinds? There's a reason that razorbacks are being abused atm.

Bottom line, this is a game of cheap bodies protecting big guns. Marines can't clear those bodies without a lot of list-gymnastics. Looks like twin asscannon is getting a price hike too, which is fine except that this problem then gets worse.

So, I guess if you aren't going to "fix" boltguns, then you need to give more potent support options, because marines don't have the bodies to give and currently don't have the firepower to clear the bodies outside of a couple specific builds.

Another concern is that the only big-ticket marine unit worth a damn is also slated for a price increase: the stormraven. Make the land raider and repulsor worthwhile and tac marines become more forgivable.

What makes the Quad-Las Pred worse than say, the Falcon?

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know about that. Infantry is largely for taking up space and providing chaff. They are ineffective at shooting compared to the units they protect. Marines are some of the worst screens, so they are among the worst in this role.

Marines don't really have the durabilty you think they in a real match, because non-troop weapons are doing the work. Agsinst ig and eldar guns, marines are a liability for sure.

The special weapons you refer to end up costing too many points.

You can leave boltguns where they are, but then i think marines need a pricedrop because they are so weak offensively.

That is not why an elite infantry like a marine is for. A space marine compared to a guardsmen - the space marine should seem like a heavy support choice. This games scale is so bad. You have a 1000 lb armored suit with a 75mm rapid fire grenade launcher compared to a human being In kevlar weilding a battle rifle and they are effective against the same units and the same units are effective against them. It is a massive joke. They have done marines all wrong. The need increased damage/points/and durability. I'd be perfectly fine with a marine being 50 points each but worth their points.

No chapter tactics, inferior upgrade options. Also, compared to fire prism, no grinding advance, and compared to wave serpent, no shield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know about that. Infantry is largely for taking up space and providing chaff. They are ineffective at shooting compared to the units they protect. Marines are some of the worst screens, so they are among the worst in this role.

Marines don't really have the durabilty you think they in a real match, because non-troop weapons are doing the work. Agsinst ig and eldar guns, marines are a liability for sure.

The special weapons you refer to end up costing too many points.

You can leave boltguns where they are, but then i think marines need a pricedrop because they are so weak offensively.

That is not why an elite infantry like a marine is for. A space marine compared to a guardsmen - the space marine should seem like a heavy support choice. This games scale is so bad. You have a 1000 lb armored suit with a 75mm rapid fire grenade launcher compared to a human being In kevlar weilding a battle rifle and they are effective against the same units and the same units are effective against them. It is a massive joke. They have done marines all wrong. The need increased damage/points/and durability. I'd be perfectly fine with a marine being 50 points each but worth their points.

Marines are space fillers. Even elite infantry is a space filler, because they can't do damage or withstand damage from support options from the various lists.

"Inferior Upgrade Options": 2 Lascannons vs 1 Brightlance?

Fire Prisms have Grinding Advance, and I haven't run the numbers for them. Hence why I said Falcon.

The Tri-Las Pred has 4 Lascannons to the Serpent's 2 Brightlances. I should hope the Serpent has *some* advantages (like the shield). Twice the guns, while the gun itself is superior?

Anyways, this is more about the Boltgun, I was just shocked by the claim.

If all you want are fillers, there are much better fillers out there. If you buff the Marine such that it's as good a filler, those who use it for more than that will be OP.

Not disagreeing with the way this game functions but that effectively makes elite infantry worthless. Why have a game where you most popular armies most popular unit - is absolutely worthless in your game?

I'm just sad that the bolter relegates the marine to "expensive filler unit". It's more of a purpose than they have had before, but cheaper units are almost always better in practice. Because they give up fewer points when hit by the exocrine or dark reapers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Not disagreeing with the way this game functions but that effectively makes elite infantry worthless. Why have a game where you most popular armies most popular unit - is absolutely worthless in your game?

They did it in 2nd, fixed it in 3rd, and then slowly let the tac marine slide into worthlessness again. We are basically back in 2nd with the AP modifiers.