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.

Assault Marines, and possibly ever other unit in the game, need to impose some further penalties or damage on the unit walking away from combat. Assault Marines should be coming down, charging, and messing your opponent up. As it stands, they come down, do a little damage, unit walks away and the Assault Squad dies.

Why is it any time we talk about any issue in 40k the same crowd of people show up and mention "IGOUGO" as the problem? Like pick a different game. There is nothing wrong with "i go you go." And in the fight phase, it IS ALREADY ALTERNATIVE ACTIVATIONS, which is what we're talking about.

My god.

 Marmatag wrote:
Why is it any time we talk about any issue in 40k the same crowd of people show up and mention "IGOUGO" as the problem? Like pick a different game. There is nothing wrong with "i go you go." And in the fight phase, it IS ALREADY ALTERNATIVE ACTIVATIONS, which is what we're talking about.

My god.

Andy Chambers says you're wrong.

Sadly, we're at a point where if it doesn't have 3+ attacks base in addition to a bunch of other gimmicks, it doesn't really have a spot as an assault specialist.

Unfortunately, the whole 'assault the shooty stuff' strategy doesn't work as well when most armies have access to enough close combat options that will scare the hell out of assault marines anyway, and those that don't can just walk out and shoot you to death. Assault units need to have the firepower to kill or cripple their targets in one go these days, and Assault Marines just don't have that. You could make the argument for tying stuff up and controlling the board, but assault marines have either too high a cost or not enough durability to fit that role.

On one hand, the whole close combat arms race needs to die. On the other, there needs to be more significant punishment for walking out of combat, especially as options to deal with the penalties become more and more available. And on yet the other, close combat needs to be made viable outside of more than just infiltration gimmicks. As it stands, you put up with a lot of risk for not a whole lot of payoff. In older editions, at least you could bank on getting some value out of a high volume of wounds leading to decent morale losses. But most armies that would even bother to be affected by that now have more than enough methods to mitigate morale entirely.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I think they need what all marines need, essentially to be replaced with the Primaris Statline. If they were 2 wounds and attacks base (with a small price increase), with an extra attack for their chainsword they would be a decent combat force. At 20 points per model for instance 31 attacks in close combat would be pretty decent.

Garbage. For you I hope they make a primaris assault marine equivalent, that'd be fine. But please dont 'primaris' the line.

I'll take all this a different route. Assault troopers ought to be good at running interference for the rest of the army, and lets face it, they were never hugely known for doing damage, leave that to Vanguard. What if instead, Assault Marines made it harder for the enemy to fall back out of combat, and therefore pin units down.

This gives them better utility, but doesn't mean stepping on the toes of Vanguard.

What inherently is wrong with the idea that all marines should have the PRIMARIS STATLINE, I don't care if they replace units or models but 2 wounds and 2 attacks base feel far more like marines should than the 1W 1A marines ever will. The problem with marines in general is that their statline (especially durability and combat) does not accomplish what it needs to for marines to be an elite generalist faction. You talk about stepping on the toes of Vanguard, Vanguard already aren't good enough because they are too flimsy for their points to make use of most of their options. If instead they had the PRIMARIS STATLINE for veterans and had 3 attacks, they might actually be worth putting special weapons on.

Essentially, every time any marine book drops you see the same complaints, their troops suck (CSM, Tacticals), their vets cost too much (Vanguard, chosen). This is because they cannot trade blows with anyone and win point for point. Primaris marines are better able to do so because of their better stat line (not their weapons as those are the same for the most part, with less options)

I would definitely agree with giving all Marines the primaris statline. It does a lot to make them feel like the tough, elite infantry that they really should be. It wouldn't solve all their problems, but it would definitely make them feel a lot more fluff appropriate.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Why is it any time we talk about any issue in 40k the same crowd of people show up and mention "IGOUGO" as the problem? Like pick a different game. There is nothing wrong with "i go you go." And in the fight phase, it IS ALREADY ALTERNATIVE ACTIVATIONS, which is what we're talking about.

My god.

Andy Chambers says you're wrong.

To be fair, it's not clear exactly what mr. Chambers is proposing either. My stance is that both types of system can work, but also that it's not really a help in a discussion about Assault Squads.

Breng77 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I think they need what all marines need, essentially to be replaced with the Primaris Statline. If they were 2 wounds and attacks base (with a small price increase), with an extra attack for their chainsword they would be a decent combat force. At 20 points per model for instance 31 attacks in close combat would be pretty decent.

Garbage. For you I hope they make a primaris assault marine equivalent, that'd be fine. But please dont 'primaris' the line.

I'll take all this a different route. Assault troopers ought to be good at running interference for the rest of the army, and lets face it, they were never hugely known for doing damage, leave that to Vanguard. What if instead, Assault Marines made it harder for the enemy to fall back out of combat, and therefore pin units down.

This gives them better utility, but doesn't mean stepping on the toes of Vanguard.

What inherently is wrong with the idea that all marines should have the PRIMARIS STATLINE, I don't care if they replace units or models but 2 wounds and 2 attacks base feel far more like marines should than the 1W 1A marines ever will. The problem with marines in general is that their statline (especially durability and combat) does not accomplish what it needs to for marines to be an elite generalist faction. You talk about stepping on the toes of Vanguard, Vanguard already aren't good enough because they are too flimsy for their points to make use of most of their options. If instead they had the PRIMARIS STATLINE for veterans and had 3 attacks, they might actually be worth putting special weapons on.

Essentially, every time any marine book drops you see the same complaints, their troops suck (CSM, Tacticals), their vets cost too much (Vanguard, chosen). This is because they cannot trade blows with anyone and win point for point. Primaris marines are better able to do so because of their better stat line (not their weapons as those are the same for the most part, with less options)

"Feel more like marines should" has been the cry for all sorts of wishlisting since the days of 2nd-edition, and maybe Rogue Trader. But Marines have also been a solid army since those days. The issue as I primarily see it, is one of model count and fun for the other players. Also lopsided expense for armies potentially harming the meta. If you need one quarter of the models to play one faction vs. another, it's going to skew the player base even more than it is.

Also, in my experience, Marines aren't usually dying in droves to small arms. It's the anti light vehicle, anti elite, and artillery types of weapons that are killing them. Giving them two wounds doesn't really help them much there. It's one of the reasons I think Primaris armies are fragile. Plasma spam will still kill them just as dead, they just cost more.

That being said, I do understand that some of my sentiment is "cuz legacy". I'm open to being convinced. I just don't want to give in to "fantasy marines", and am genuinely concerned about the meta.

I do think Marines could be better in assault, as they've lost some of their advantages of the past. It used to be that running down entire squads of lesser troops was a thing, even if the individual marines weren't contributing too much damage. That always made them feel more effective. The new morale mechanics, plus fall back, has mitigated the advantages of assaulting somewhat.

The problem with Space Marine meele units is that with 1 attack base (2 for veterans) they don't do nothing.

The problem of Primaris Marines is that, even having the number of attacks (A 5 man squad of Reivers has 16 attacks (With knive) compared with the 11 (With Chainsword) of a Assault Squad) they don't have the weapons to put those attacks to work.

The problems of Vanguard Veterans is that they have the number of attacks and the weapons but with only one wound they die very easy to small arms fire.

This is all fixed if you mix the normal Space Marine options with the Primaris Statline.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Why is it any time we talk about any issue in 40k the same crowd of people show up and mention "IGOUGO" as the problem? Like pick a different game. There is nothing wrong with "i go you go." And in the fight phase, it IS ALREADY ALTERNATIVE ACTIVATIONS, which is what we're talking about.

My god.

Andy Chambers says you're wrong.

To be fair, it's not clear exactly what mr. Chambers is proposing either. My stance is that both types of system can work, but also that it's not really a help in a discussion about Assault Squads.

Breng77 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I think they need what all marines need, essentially to be replaced with the Primaris Statline. If they were 2 wounds and attacks base (with a small price increase), with an extra attack for their chainsword they would be a decent combat force. At 20 points per model for instance 31 attacks in close combat would be pretty decent.

Garbage. For you I hope they make a primaris assault marine equivalent, that'd be fine. But please dont 'primaris' the line.

I'll take all this a different route. Assault troopers ought to be good at running interference for the rest of the army, and lets face it, they were never hugely known for doing damage, leave that to Vanguard. What if instead, Assault Marines made it harder for the enemy to fall back out of combat, and therefore pin units down.

This gives them better utility, but doesn't mean stepping on the toes of Vanguard.

What inherently is wrong with the idea that all marines should have the PRIMARIS STATLINE, I don't care if they replace units or models but 2 wounds and 2 attacks base feel far more like marines should than the 1W 1A marines ever will. The problem with marines in general is that their statline (especially durability and combat) does not accomplish what it needs to for marines to be an elite generalist faction. You talk about stepping on the toes of Vanguard, Vanguard already aren't good enough because they are too flimsy for their points to make use of most of their options. If instead they had the PRIMARIS STATLINE for veterans and had 3 attacks, they might actually be worth putting special weapons on.

Essentially, every time any marine book drops you see the same complaints, their troops suck (CSM, Tacticals), their vets cost too much (Vanguard, chosen). This is because they cannot trade blows with anyone and win point for point. Primaris marines are better able to do so because of their better stat line (not their weapons as those are the same for the most part, with less options)

"Feel more like marines should" has been the cry for all sorts of wishlisting since the days of 2nd-edition, and maybe Rogue Trader. But Marines have also been a solid army since those days. The issue as I primarily see it, is one of model count and fun for the other players. Also lopsided expense for armies potentially harming the meta. If you need one quarter of the models to play one faction vs. another, it's going to skew the player base even more than it is.

Also, in my experience, Marines aren't usually dying in droves to small arms. It's the anti light vehicle, anti elite, and artillery types of weapons that are killing them. Giving them two wounds doesn't really help them much there. It's one of the reasons I think Primaris armies are fragile. Plasma spam will still kill them just as dead, they just cost more.

That being said, I do understand that some of my sentiment is "cuz legacy". I'm open to being convinced. I just don't want to give in to "fantasy marines", and am genuinely concerned about the meta.

I do think Marines could be better in assault, as they've lost some of their advantages of the past. It used to be that running down entire squads of lesser troops was a thing, even if the individual marines weren't contributing too much damage. That always made them feel more effective. The new morale mechanics, plus fall back, has mitigated the advantages of assaulting somewhat.

Marines already have 1/3rd - 1/4th the models of many armies (IG, Orks, Nids, daemons etc.) As for what marines are dying to, I think it is a bit of both, sure plasma may mow down primaris, but it needs to be overcharged for that to happen, and if they are, that is fire not killing their Razorbacks, or Dreads, or Storm Ravens etc.) I see regular marines die to small arms all the time (maybe that comes from playing Orks as my other faction, where I kill them with a ton of attacks with low to no AP, and they are weaker against that type of attack per point than many other troops in the game (6 bolter hits kill 1 marine, 2.25 kill a guardsman so it takes ~7 shots to kill 12 points of guard, vs 6 killing 13 points of marine.). I understand not wanting marines to be "Movie Marines" but I don't think they would be unbalanced at ~20 points with the Primaris Statline (if you believe otherwise you then must believe primaris are unbalanced).

Essentially this change is worse than dropping Marines to 10 points per model. If assault marines were 2 attacks base, and 2 wounds at 20 points (pre-jump pack), they would be worse than those same marines being 10 points each. Against small arms they have the same durability of 2 marines, against multiple damage they are worse. They would have 1 less attack with chainswords (3 vs 4)

As for durability vs other infantry against anti-infantry weapons (anti-elite weapons would be good against them as they should be.) - it would take 12 bolter hits to kill 1 marine, the equivalent would kill 5.33 guardsman, or ~20 points worth of guardsman. So at least that evens out their durability a bit against cheaper infantry.

Honestly you could give all marines +1 base attack, give bolters 1 AP, and also give chainswords 1 AP, all for no point increase, and dollars to donuts you still wouldn't see battle-brothers in upper tables beyond the detachment minimums.

Give ASM "tactical disruption: units may not fall back from this unit" and maybe they'd have somewhat of a use.