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.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think 6pt guardsmen would work too.

So 1ppm (to 7) would buy you +1 BS, +1 save, a 6+ invulnerable save, +6" of range, AP-1 on a 6+ to wound with shooting weapons, Forge World dogmas, and Canticles of the Omnissiah?

Yeah, not buying it. All that is worth more than 1 pt.

Lackluster infantry could be the guard's "weakness". That's why it works. It could balance their god-mode vehicles/artillery. I know ig is not used to balance, but most lists have a thing called a weakness. For marines, its basically everything atm, so i think ig would be fine with a single weakness.

Before 8th, when was the last time Guard were good? 6th? 5th?

They had AT LEAST an entire edition of sucking HARD. So no, don't act like Guard players are cheesemongers.

I doubt GW will lower the points for MEQ. There was already a point reduction for Primaris in CA.

 Primark G wrote:

There are some competitive snow flake lists that don’t use Primaris such as BA and DA. Even if SM are not one of the top three competitive armies that’s hardly a bad thing - for example you won’t get the hate like some armies do... not every codex can be top three. There’s always soup too (at least for now) if you’re into that kind of thing. It’s not like SM are bottom of the barrel. Sure no more free transports or super Devastors in drop pods but really isn’t that a good thing for the game? I’m okay with GW not making Primaris totally over the top to be honest and for me they are a lot of fun to play.

I play Dark Angels, and I don't know what lists you're talking about. DA Tac Marines are every bit as bad as vanilla Marines' are. I think the most common competitive DA list these days is 10 Hellblasters+Azrael+Lieutenant, and I think Ravenwing is seeing some play, because there are some good strats for Ravenwing. Devs and Company Vets see some play too, but Tacs and Assault Squads? Not so much.

The problem with Tac Marines are multitudinous. They're too expensive, they're supposedly generalists, but I'd argue in order to be generalists, they'd have to be better at BOTH shooting AND close combat. They don't particularly min-max well, and you need other units (namely transports) in order to get them to do much besides be ablative wounds around a heavy weapon, which makes them a drain on CP-generation.

Battle Sister Squads got brought up a couple pages back. For a few editions now, BSSes have worked better than Tacs at being useful Troops choices. They can take 2 special weapons at minimum size, and the Sister Superior can take a combi-weapon (or storm bolter), so you can get 3 specials in a 5-woman squad. You can also stick them in a heavily armed transport that was pretty points-efficient. They're a little pricey now, but still not bad.

In order for Tacs to successfully be a legitimate generalist unit in this edition, they'd need boosts to both shooting and close combat. Rather than one heavy/special at 5 and the other at 10, I'd argue they'd have to be two at 5, with a bonus additional weapon at 10, not including what the sergeant can tote. They'd also have to have 2 attacks per man, either base or by giving them a CCW granting them a bonus attack. Even doing all that isn't necessarily going to make people want to take them over Scouts, because there are still other units that will do those varying functions better, and Scouts fill a role by creating a bubble of can't-DS-here.

Tacs getting 2 heavies at 5-strong is not as ridiculous as it sounds. At current prices, if a 5-man SM Tac Squad could take 2 lascannons, it'd cost 115pts. Two IG Infantry Squads with a lascannon each cost 120. Sure, the SM unit would be getting 2 lascannons cheaper at a higher BS, but the IG units are bringing with them 15 more bodies, and are taking 2 slots in a detachment, so they're doing a better job at generating CP. That sounds a sight better balanced than the current situation.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think 6pt guardsmen would work too.

So 1ppm (to 7) would buy you +1 BS, +1 save, a 6+ invulnerable save, +6" of range, AP-1 on a 6+ to wound with shooting weapons, Forge World dogmas, and Canticles of the Omnissiah?

Yeah, not buying it. All that is worth more than 1 pt.

Lackluster infantry could be the guard's "weakness". That's why it works. It could balance their god-mode vehicles/artillery. I know ig is not used to balance, but most lists have a thing called a weakness. For marines, its basically everything atm, so i think ig would be fine with a single weakness.

Before 8th, when was the last time Guard were good? 6th? 5th?

They had AT LEAST an entire edition of sucking HARD. So no, don't act like Guard players are cheesemongers.

Then stop posting like cheesemongers. You guys act just like 7th ed eldar players. 100 pt basilisk? Totally fair! Just like scatbikes were if you asked eldar two years ago. Or maybe tau is a better comparison, there exists a few more broken combos keeping ig from lvo glory. Dark reapers are the new invisible wolfstar.

Martel, let me put it this way-it doesn't matter how good OR how bad something is or has been. The goal should be balance-not retribution or vindication.

I think ig units in general are currently so strong 5/6 ppm guardsmen would be balanced. A 6ppm guardsmen is still better than a marine or guardian. After dark reapers get their well deserved shafting, eldar are hurting vs ig again. Who knows maybe we'll all be welcoming our tau overlords.

"Tries to think of a time when IG were actually bad..."

Pretty sure if we are talking mono codex. IG have been superior to space marines since the beginning of time.

Know why? Because of the subject we are talking about. MEQ has always been inferior to GEQ. Russ has always been superior to the predator. Plus until recently the Chimera has been superior to the rhino.

In my time I have never felt good going into a game against IG. Plasma executioners still give me nightmares.

Seriously though - I've seen a lot of great ideas to fix MeQ. Reducing point will work fine but then we are just talking a marine horde. It would make more sense to just give them the stats they deserve - like maybe a 4++ as standard on PA and a 3++ on terms (for some reason it's okay for a 7 point pink horror to have a 4++ but a 13 point space marine can't?). Maybe storm sheilds should give rule that blocks your first wound per phase on a 3+ (like a 1 time use FNP).

In general I think most of the issues with MEQ has to do with AP being handed out like candy with no real reason to include a lot of weapons that don't have good AP. In other words good AP on a weapon in too cheap and it always has been.

There isn't any evidence to suggest Tau are going to be top tier IMHO. Unless they have a way to deal with artillery which is out of line of sight, or protected behind multiple layers of chaff + scout moves.

They may counter chaos a bit, specifically Obliterators and Berzerkers.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think 6pt guardsmen would work too.

So 1ppm (to 7) would buy you +1 BS, +1 save, a 6+ invulnerable save, +6" of range, AP-1 on a 6+ to wound with shooting weapons, Forge World dogmas, and Canticles of the Omnissiah?

Yeah, not buying it. All that is worth more than 1 pt.

Lackluster infantry could be the guard's "weakness". That's why it works. It could balance their god-mode vehicles/artillery. I know ig is not used to balance, but most lists have a thing called a weakness. For marines, its basically everything atm, so i think ig would be fine with a single weakness.

Except that you know as well as I that soup lists exist, and so if you make guard infantry atrociously bad, all you do is make Skitarii the competitive meta and cripple pure-IG in the casual meta.

I suppose if you don't really care about the casual meta or pure IG that's fine, but you won't actually be helping yourself. An army's "weakness" can get papered over, so kneecapping a single unit and saying "there, weakness" isn't how you balance things in 8th.

Plus, IG's weakness is to close combat. They cannot into combat very well.

 Xenomancers wrote:
"Tries to think of a time when IG were actually bad..."

Pretty sure if we are talking mono codex. IG have been superior to space marines since the beginning of time.

Know why? Because of the subject we are talking about. MEQ has always been inferior to GEQ. Russ has always been superior to the predator. Plus until recently the Chimera has been superior to the rhino.

In my time I have never felt good going into a game against IG. Plasma executioners still give me nightmares.

Seriously though - I've seen a lot of great ideas to fix MeQ. Reducing point will work fine but then we are just talking a marine horde. It would make more sense to just give them the stats they deserve - like maybe a 4++ as standard on PA and a 3++ on terms (for some reason it's okay for a 7 point pink horror to have a 4++ but a 13 point space marine can't?). Maybe storm sheilds should give rule that blocks your first wound per phase on a 3+ (like a 1 time use FNP).

In general I think most of the issues with MEQ has to do with AP being handed out like candy with no real reason to include a lot of weapons that don't have good AP. In other words good AP on a weapon in too cheap and it always has been.

Marines were IMO better than Guard in 3rd and early 4th edition. This is because of assaulting out of transports or being able to consolidate/sweep advance from one combat into another and lock down wide swathes of the IG firepower. Locking down wide swathes of firepower because....

Comparing IG vs. Marines has always been a problem because of Special/Heavy Weapon spam-ability. IG has always been able to spam more weapons per point of troop in every edition. Yes even if you factor in Devastators before (remember heavy weapons were more expensive for Devs than Tacs), IG could do it cheaper with their Heavy Support Teams (apple to apple comparison). Obviously, the biggest difference is BS 3 vs. BS4.

However, the mathematics of it the BS 3 vs. BS4, for whatever reason, GW never factors in points cost or assumes players won't spam unit choices. Example: Mathematically 12 lascannons at BS3 perform the same as 9 lascannons at BS4 with both having 6 successful hits as expected outcomes. Thus, if the cost in points is the same for Guard to acquire 12 lascannons as marines to acquire 9, it's equivalent. Granted, fully admit there are other factors and stats involved such as the armor save, leadership, and close combat stats on marine body. However, the disconnect has always been there where guard just seem to be able to get those 12 lascannons cheaper than Marines and then spam those unit choices further gaining efficiencies.

What I described above, isn't this sort of stats balancing against a rule engine what Madden or FIFA has to do every year? Isn't this similar to their player ratings? I'm not arguing what an individual player rating should be, but rather the system should be a rather mathematical or modeling exercise. Since GW has been doing this for so many years, I can assume that it's not out of lack of tools or capabilities to get this balance example above right. I think it's just the cultural attitude that this is just a hobby and people don't min/max as it's not the gentlemanly or narrative way to play.

Rocmistro wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Would 10pt marines help?

In HH they are 10pts and feel "right" they lack ATSKNF, but I would happily give up that very situational rule.

I think 10 is too low. That puts them lower than a scout, which...feels off.

lower scouts to match then?

Errr Mhur GHHUURD! I play IG. I very actively DO NOT pretend we aren't a top-teir codex. So Martel, you can take your crap and shovel it.

Marines at 11 pts, Infantry squad at 5 points would work to balance IG vs Tacticals. It may not be 100% exact, but you'd be right in the ballpark. And I agree, the basic 1 wound MEQ should be based on the Tac at 11 pts.

Devs do not in any way compare "Apples to Apples" with Heavy Weapon Squads. To the best of my recall, a HWT is 32 pts with a Lascannon, you must buy exactly 3 models, and you have Ld 6. Like Terminators, multi-wound attacks chew through them crazy fast. You CAN'T buy ablative wounds.


Again, making TACs better doesn't solve the Board Control issue they currently face, which is the niche that needs to be filled. Amusingly, TACS could be worth less than Scouts. Fluff-Murder, but accurate for table-top. Scout Deployment options are superior to the +1 Save. Scouts have fewer weapon options, but that's not particularly relevant to the Board Control use. Cheaper space-filler lets you buy more expensive piece-killers.

Guardsmen don't need to be nerfed, just pointed correctly. Tacticals don't need buffs, just pointed correctly. The units work as they are, they don't need rules reworks or tweaks. Just proper points for what they should do. Hold the board, while other units kill stuff.

This, by-the-by, helps to improve 40k's lack of depth, too. "Defensive Units" can play a part. Where their offensive output isn't the measure of the unit, but their ability to resist opponent's actions. You don't need "Hordes" of Tacticals. 40 of them on the board would be more than enough, (600 pts with upgrades / 1500 to 2000) to fulfill their Pawn-like purpose.

The table-top can't support the idea of MEQ as "Elite" anymore. There are too many "Elite-Elite" units, and WAY too many "Elite-Elite-Elite-Elite" Units. TAC < GK Grunt < Primaris < SM Vet < GK Vet < Sanguinary Guard < DA Super Terminators < SM Heroes < Custodes < Custodes Elites < Custodes Heroes.

At some point, you've got to realize the game has 4 Imperial options "less elite" than a Tac Marine. Conscript < Guardsmen < Storm Trooper < GEQ Heroes < TAC (fluff). So the TAC Marine needs to be priced relative to that, if you want competitive units that are Elite-Elite-Elite-Elite. A GEQ Commander is what, 35 points with a pair of orders? I can't remember. A Tac Marine is worth about 1/3 that. It's a joke. Commander could easily be a 50 pt model, and a Tac could be 11.

Yes, the Tac is not as "Awesome" on the board as a Company Commander. Fluff-Murder, I know. But it would be good for the game.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

The problem with Tac Marines are multitudinous. They're too expensive, they're supposedly generalists, but I'd argue in order to be generalists, they'd have to be better at BOTH shooting AND close combat. They don't particularly min-max well, and you need other units (namely transports) in order to get them to do much besides be ablative wounds around a heavy weapon, which makes them a drain on CP-generation.

Battle Sister Squads got brought up a couple pages back. For a few editions now, BSSes have worked better than Tacs at being useful Troops choices. They can take 2 special weapons at minimum size, and the Sister Superior can take a combi-weapon (or storm bolter), so you can get 3 specials in a 5-woman squad. You can also stick them in a heavily armed transport that was pretty points-efficient. They're a little pricey now, but still not bad.

In order for Tacs to successfully be a legitimate generalist unit in this edition, they'd need boosts to both shooting and close combat. Rather than one heavy/special at 5 and the other at 10, I'd argue they'd have to be two at 5, with a bonus additional weapon at 10, not including what the sergeant can tote. They'd also have to have 2 attacks per man, either base or by giving them a CCW granting them a bonus attack. .

The extra special or heavy could work, but why not 2 special or 2 heavy? Say 1 special / heavy at 5, 2 special / heavy at 10

I like the idea of an extra attack for marines, but make that +1 A across the board (except scouts and all non-walker vehicles).

For buffing marine shooting, how about a rule to all bolter weapons that when a target's armour (post -AP reduction) is 4+ (or 5+) or worse you can re-roll to wound.

I'd also like to see +1 wound applied across all marines (GK, successors, vehicles, chaos etc.) but not scouts .
With a points increase maybe as I'm a little fed up with the "race to the bottom" model of balancing units.

Been lurking here a while.... and I'll bet all of what I've said has already been mentioned.

I think, in the very simplest of terms, the game left the basic Marine stat line a long time ago. It wasn't caused by 8th, but by the generic power creep for a couple of editions now. What sells? Something more powerful, not less powerful. So all armies have been gaining more and more powerful units (be it characters, special weapons, etc.).

Even silly stuff like Eldar Guardians and Space Marine scouts were - for no logical reason - bumped to WS/BS 3+ each, etc. Termagants were given guns which outshoot bolt guns, etc. The game itself just left the basic marine behind, without adjusting either their stats or their rules to make them appear useful. Couple that with Primaris appearing (and now you can't really bump marines without bumping Primaris) and it's all been compounded. Do I still think, in a non-tournament setting a Space Marine squad is viable? Sure. It's not a bad stat-line, but in a spammed/competitive meta, they are indeed relatively pointless.

I still have plenty o' standard marines in my CSM army, but I know they're not some amazing unit.

"Errr Mhur GHHUURD! I play IG. I very actively DO NOT pretend we aren't a top-teir codex. So Martel, you can take your crap and shovel it."

My apologies; you are drowned out by your brethren.

 Elbows wrote:
I think, in the very simplest of terms, the game left the basic Marine stat line a long time ago. It wasn't caused by 8th, but by the generic power creep for a couple of editions now. What sells? Something more powerful, not less powerful. So all armies have been gaining more and more powerful units (be it characters, special weapons, etc.).

Even silly stuff like Eldar Guardians and Space Marine scouts were - for no logical reason - bumped to WS/BS 3+ each, etc. Termagants were given guns which outshoot bolt guns, etc. The game itself just left the basic marine behind, without adjusting either their stats or their rules to make them appear useful. Couple that with Primaris appearing (and now you can't really bump marines without bumping Primaris) and it's all been compounded. Do I still think, in a non-tournament setting a Space Marine squad is viable? Sure. It's not a bad stat-line, but in a spammed/competitive meta, they are indeed relatively pointless.

I still have plenty o' standard marines in my CSM army, but I know they're not some amazing unit.

I cannot speak for how Guardians were, but there is a justification for Scouts in that they actually used to be BS3+ in the first place, with only two Codices doing otherwise to my knowledge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think 6pt guardsmen would work too.

So 1ppm (to 7) would buy you +1 BS, +1 save, a 6+ invulnerable save, +6" of range, AP-1 on a 6+ to wound with shooting weapons, Forge World dogmas, and Canticles of the Omnissiah?

Yeah, not buying it. All that is worth more than 1 pt.

Lackluster infantry could be the guard's "weakness". That's why it works. It could balance their god-mode vehicles/artillery. I know ig is not used to balance, but most lists have a thing called a weakness. For marines, its basically everything atm, so i think ig would be fine with a single weakness.

That's not how it is supposed to work Martel. You should be almost disregarded for this post.

Comparing Termagants /w Devourers to Marines is an interesting thought, but there are some differences between these and marines.

For easy math let's look at: 50x Str4, BS3+, AP0, 1dmg shots fired into marines, termagants, and guardsmen.

Into Termagants this kills ~150 points
Into Marines this kills ~72 points
Into Guardsmen this kills ~60 points

Because being 8PPM with a 6+ save, 3 toughness, and no invuln or FNP makes you a liability.

So it actually makes sense here. The Termagants are incredibly easy to kill, and they are costly enough where this is a heavy penalty. Meanwhile, the marines are more than twice as durable. Guardsmen are a huge outlier. So mentioning devourer termagants in the same breath is really misguided.

 Elbows wrote:
I think, in the very simplest of terms, the game left the basic Marine stat line a long time ago. It wasn't caused by 8th, but by the generic power creep for a couple of editions now. What sells? Something more powerful, not less powerful. So all armies have been gaining more and more powerful units (be it characters, special weapons, etc.).

Even silly stuff like Eldar Guardians and Space Marine scouts were - for no logical reason - bumped to WS/BS 3+ each, etc. Termagants were given guns which outshoot bolt guns, etc. The game itself just left the basic marine behind, without adjusting either their stats or their rules to make them appear useful. Couple that with Primaris appearing (and now you can't really bump marines without bumping Primaris) and it's all been compounded. Do I still think, in a non-tournament setting a Space Marine squad is viable? Sure. It's not a bad stat-line, but in a spammed/competitive meta, they are indeed relatively pointless.

I still have plenty o' standard marines in my CSM army, but I know they're not some amazing unit.

Careful, people will probably lose their minds reading that seeing as how we have Gulliman

 Marmatag wrote:
Comparing Termagants /w Devourers to Marines is an interesting thought, but there are some differences between these and marines.

For easy math let's look at: 50x Str4, BS3+, AP0, 1dmg shots fired into marines, termagants, and guardsmen.

Into Termagants this kills ~150 points
Into Marines this kills ~72 points
Into Guardsmen this kills ~60 points

Because being 8PPM with a 6+ save, 3 toughness, and no invuln or FNP makes you a liability.

So it actually makes sense here. The Termagants are incredibly easy to kill, and they are costly enough where this is a heavy penalty. Meanwhile, the marines are more than twice as durable. Guardsmen are a huge outlier. So mentioning devourer termagants in the same breath is really misguided.

Termagants are a pretty terrible unit that would never be used at all if not for a deep strike option and a stratagem which doubles their damage.

You are right that termagants don't really belong in the discussion but as I have pointed out in another thread. Looking at how formally bad units become good units - the same formula could be applied to tactical marines. Termagants can deep strike and double shoot - if tactical marines could do the same thing - they would at least have a niche roll to play. Since they get 0 stratagem support - they don't. Guardians are another example - can deep strike and shoot twice also (if ynarri) or deepstrike and shoot at bs2+ (if ulthwe).

 Insectum7 wrote:
Thats nice, the example I provided was the Grav Cannon. I'm not much keen on giving Tacs the Plasma Cannon either. Though the Plasma Cannon remains a nice choice for Devs.

I read Plasma Cannon, my bad.

That said, you would hope a weapon would perform slightly better for being MORE than twice the cost of the Plasma Gun. Under your logic, a squad with two Grav Cannons would be better, right?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Comparing Termagants /w Devourers to Marines is an interesting thought, but there are some differences between these and marines.

For easy math let's look at: 50x Str4, BS3+, AP0, 1dmg shots fired into marines, termagants, and guardsmen.

Into Termagants this kills ~150 points
Into Marines this kills ~72 points
Into Guardsmen this kills ~60 points

Because being 8PPM with a 6+ save, 3 toughness, and no invuln or FNP makes you a liability.

So it actually makes sense here. The Termagants are incredibly easy to kill, and they are costly enough where this is a heavy penalty. Meanwhile, the marines are more than twice as durable. Guardsmen are a huge outlier. So mentioning devourer termagants in the same breath is really misguided.

Termagants are a pretty terrible unit that would never be used at all if not for a deep strike option and a stratagem which doubles their damage.

You are right that termagants don't really belong in the discussion but as I have pointed out in another thread. Looking at how formally bad units become good units - the same formula could be applied to tactical marines. Termagants can deep strike and double shoot - if tactical marines could do the same thing - they would at least have a niche roll to play. Since they get 0 stratagem support - they don't. Guardians are another example - can deep strike and shoot twice also (if ynarri) or deepstrike and shoot at bs2+ (if ulthwe).

I agree that stratagems for marines are absolutely *awful* by in large.

Hopefully they'll continue to add stratagems to each faction as 8th edition grows.

Marines have some solid strategems like Scions of Guilliman. Hellfire and Flakk Missile can be game winners but completely situational.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

There are some competitive snow flake lists that don’t use Primaris such as BA and DA. Even if SM are not one of the top three competitive armies that’s hardly a bad thing - for example you won’t get the hate like some armies do... not every codex can be top three. There’s always soup too (at least for now) if you’re into that kind of thing. It’s not like SM are bottom of the barrel. Sure no more free transports or super Devastors in drop pods but really isn’t that a good thing for the game? I’m okay with GW not making Primaris totally over the top to be honest and for me they are a lot of fun to play.

I play Dark Angels, and I don't know what lists you're talking about. DA Tac Marines are every bit as bad as vanilla Marines' are. I think the most common competitive DA list these days is 10 Hellblasters+Azrael+Lieutenant, and I think Ravenwing is seeing some play, because there are some good strats for Ravenwing. Devs and Company Vets see some play too, but Tacs and Assault Squads? Not so much.

The problem with Tac Marines are multitudinous. They're too expensive, they're supposedly generalists, but I'd argue in order to be generalists, they'd have to be better at BOTH shooting AND close combat. They don't particularly min-max well, and you need other units (namely transports) in order to get them to do much besides be ablative wounds around a heavy weapon, which makes them a drain on CP-generation.

Battle Sister Squads got brought up a couple pages back. For a few editions now, BSSes have worked better than Tacs at being useful Troops choices. They can take 2 special weapons at minimum size, and the Sister Superior can take a combi-weapon (or storm bolter), so you can get 3 specials in a 5-woman squad. You can also stick them in a heavily armed transport that was pretty points-efficient. They're a little pricey now, but still not bad.

In order for Tacs to successfully be a legitimate generalist unit in this edition, they'd need boosts to both shooting and close combat. Rather than one heavy/special at 5 and the other at 10, I'd argue they'd have to be two at 5, with a bonus additional weapon at 10, not including what the sergeant can tote. They'd also have to have 2 attacks per man, either base or by giving them a CCW granting them a bonus attack. Even doing all that isn't necessarily going to make people want to take them over Scouts, because there are still other units that will do those varying functions better, and Scouts fill a role by creating a bubble of can't-DS-here.

Tacs getting 2 heavies at 5-strong is not as ridiculous as it sounds. At current prices, if a 5-man SM Tac Squad could take 2 lascannons, it'd cost 115pts. Two IG Infantry Squads with a lascannon each cost 120. Sure, the SM unit would be getting 2 lascannons cheaper at a higher BS, but the IG units are bringing with them 15 more bodies, and are taking 2 slots in a detachment, so they're doing a better job at generating CP. That sounds a sight better balanced than the current situation.

DA did okay at LVO though the top lists did not revolve around tactical Marines.

 Primark G wrote:
Hellfire and Flakk Missile can be game winners

There is definitely a disconnect about to happen here.

I can't count the number of times I have finished off a tank or monster using these two strategems.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Thats nice, the example I provided was the Grav Cannon. I'm not much keen on giving Tacs the Plasma Cannon either. Though the Plasma Cannon remains a nice choice for Devs.

I read Plasma Cannon, my bad.

That said, you would hope a weapon would perform slightly better for being MORE than twice the cost of the Plasma Gun. Under your logic, a squad with two Grav Cannons would be better, right?

The correct answer is "sometimes". Sometimes two Plasmas is better than a Grav Cannon. Sometimes a Grav Cannon is better than two Plasmas. But the point of Tacticals is to be flexible, and that's why they have both. You can even split the squad to optimize.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Thats nice, the example I provided was the Grav Cannon. I'm not much keen on giving Tacs the Plasma Cannon either. Though the Plasma Cannon remains a nice choice for Devs.

I read Plasma Cannon, my bad.

That said, you would hope a weapon would perform slightly better for being MORE than twice the cost of the Plasma Gun. Under your logic, a squad with two Grav Cannons would be better, right?

The correct answer is "sometimes". Sometimes two Plasmas is better than a Grav Cannon. Sometimes a Grav Cannon is better than two Plasmas. But the point of Tacticals is to be flexible, and that's why they have both. You can even split the squad to optimize.

Or you buy two separate squads in the first place to meet troop requirements instead of a gimmick rule or wasting a CP when it only works when they doesn't take even a single casualty.

The main point being we need to make the 10 man squad not terrible too, on top of helping the basic Tactical Marine and Chaos Marine.

 Primark G wrote:
I can't count the number of times I have finished off a tank or monster using these two strategems.

Same. People discount the auto d3 wounds with a 36"/48" range way too easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
And this is gets closer to the OP question, because assault marines use their MEq statline, don't have plasmaguns or lascannons to confuse/dilute the issue of the MEq statline, and they are still pretty bad. So either the MEq statline has to change, meaning the answer to the OP is no, the statline can't be saved, or the rules of the game have to change to value the current MEq statline better.

I've always thought that the Primaris statline represents marines quite well. 2 Wounds, 2 Attacks, 30" boltgun with -1AP. Make this standard across the board for marines at 15-16pts p/m

But that's "storybook marine", not "marines are roughly equivalent to Eldar Aspect Warrior marine". Imo the rough equivalency of Aspect Warriors to Marines is important, and is an oooold relationship.

But if we're talking about narratives and the "feel" of marines. Remember it currently takes 10 Guardsmen at close range to average a single marine kill. 20 if that marine is in cover. That's plenty of room to accommodate Black Library narratives.

Who's talking about storybook marines?

The primaris statline is hardly "1 marine takes on an a whole army" and they are obviously not dominating any meta's.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Thats nice, the example I provided was the Grav Cannon. I'm not much keen on giving Tacs the Plasma Cannon either. Though the Plasma Cannon remains a nice choice for Devs.

I read Plasma Cannon, my bad.

That said, you would hope a weapon would perform slightly better for being MORE than twice the cost of the Plasma Gun. Under your logic, a squad with two Grav Cannons would be better, right?

The correct answer is "sometimes". Sometimes two Plasmas is better than a Grav Cannon. Sometimes a Grav Cannon is better than two Plasmas. But the point of Tacticals is to be flexible, and that's why they have both. You can even split the squad to optimize.

Or you buy two separate squads in the first place to meet troop requirements instead of a gimmick rule or wasting a CP when it only works when they doesn't take even a single casualty.

The main point being we need to make the 10 man squad not terrible too, on top of helping the basic Tactical Marine and Chaos Marine.

10 man squad can deploy as such for fewer drops, or better take advantage of Stratagems. Flexibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Who's talking about storybook marines?

The primaris statline is hardly "1 marine takes on an a whole army" and they are obviously not dominating any meta's.

Metas actually have nothing to do with my point. My point is still that Space Marines and Aspect Warriors should be roughly equivalent.

A Primaris marine takes 2 full squads of Lasgun rapid-fire to take down. 4 (4!!) if he's in cover. 80ish lasgun shots. That's bolter-porn territory if I ever heard of it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Who's talking about storybook marines?

The primaris statline is hardly "1 marine takes on an a whole army" and they are obviously not dominating any meta's.

Metas actually have nothing to do with my point. My point is still that Space Marines and Aspect Warriors should be roughly equivalent.

A Primaris marine takes 2 full squads of Lasgun rapid-fire to take down. 4 (4!!) if he's in cover. 80ish lasgun shots. That's bolter-porn territory if I ever heard of it.

Aspect Warriors are roughly equivalent due to them being able to specialise their weapons to fit their role, much better than a tac squad could ever achieve. I wish Bolters had the shuriken rule. I'd argue that most aspect warriors are better than a marine in most cases.

Well then, a unit of 5 terminators must be tabling entire IG armies. Who knew they were the answer

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
But if we're talking about narratives and the "feel" of marines. Remember it currently takes 10 Guardsmen at close range to average a single marine kill. 20 if that marine is in cover. That's plenty of room to accommodate Black Library narratives.

But the SM is going to kill one guardsman a turn if he's lucky, which is a big disconnect from the narrative.
Tacs just aren't killy or cheap in a game about being killy and/or cheap.

I understand where you're coming from here, but I think there's room for what we got.

A: An unsupported 10 man Marine squad gets 5.9 kills with Bolters, (slightly more with a Frag), plus another 3.2 with a successful charge, guaranteeing a failed morale check and wiping of the squad. So ten marines acting aggressively can kill 10 guardsmen in a round. If terrain is on your side, if you're tying up other units or blocking LOS with Rhinos or whatever, or we're talking a boarding action where marines are besieging corridors where the enemy can't bring numbers to bear. Marines can continue killing Guardsmen at a fine pace, without taking many casualties themselves.

B: The edition shift brought the new Twin-Linked, which is a bit of a marine specialty. I can't think of many IG models that have twin-linked weapons, while many of the marine vehicles/units have them. Plus, the marine-only Assault Cannon jumped from 4 to 6 shots. Our Razorback which used to have 4 shots now has 12, with that juicy 2+ to wound GEQ. What we lost a bit in the move from guard-armor-ignoring-bolters, we gained in moar dakka elsewhere.

In the end MEQ can fare well against Guardsmen on their own by engaging favorably, or with the close support of their transports. They're not Rambo-ing, but they can do well enough with the basic units we'd expect to see. With some clever play you can have a small force take on a larger force by splitting it up into bite size chunks and handling it piecemeal. That's "narrative-friendly" enough for me. I haven't read that many BL books, but the battle scenes I recall aren't "marines standing in the open and mowing down renegade guardsmen in waves." There's usually cover, protracted action, disorganized badguys, stuff like that.

. . .
C: Flamers should be better. If done well they'd ideally help with this MEQ vs. GEQ thing. That would take a special rule to wiggle around the comparative statistics, but something like "models killed with flamers count double for morale purposes". GEQ with their lighter armor take more casualties, thus lose even more to morale, while marines have higher Ld. and ATSKNF and better armor, keeping them in the fight.

D: Having played against some infantry heavy Guard in previous editions, I could tell that it sometimes just sucked to have them scooped up from the table in droves. I can think of some turns where a squad of Assault Troopers and maybe a Chaplain managed to kill 30+ Guardsmen in a round with Grenades, Flamers, Assaults etc. once morale had been tallied and units run down after combat. While that's great gameplay from my perspective, I could tell it sucked for the other guy. For the sake of the fact that 40K is a game meant to be enjoyed, the wholesale slaughter of GEQ in previous editions isn't necessarily a great aspiration. I'm fine with those same casualty ratios taking an extra turn or two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Who's talking about storybook marines?

The primaris statline is hardly "1 marine takes on an a whole army" and they are obviously not dominating any meta's.

Metas actually have nothing to do with my point. My point is still that Space Marines and Aspect Warriors should be roughly equivalent.

A Primaris marine takes 2 full squads of Lasgun rapid-fire to take down. 4 (4!!) if he's in cover. 80ish lasgun shots. That's bolter-porn territory if I ever heard of it.

Aspect Warriors are roughly equivalent due to them being able to specialise their weapons to fit their role, much better than a tac squad could ever achieve. I wish Bolters had the shuriken rule. I'd argue that most aspect warriors are better than a marine in most cases.

Well then, a unit of 5 terminators must be tabling entire IG armies. Who knew they were the answer

Plasma and Grav does a pretty good number on Aspect Warriors. The real dangerous Aspect Warriors cost a lot more per model.

The Terminators comment is out of context. We know they don't fare well because of the setting of the actual game, which is equally(ish) matched armies with lots of fancy units on either side usually on a high-los table. While Terminators are actually equipped for close quarters boarding actions and the like. Put Terminators into a confined space where they face room after room of Guardsmen and they can chew through them at a rate of 20 per turn, possibly 30 if you include morale. On the table they're guys in tank suits in an environment with a bunch of anti-tank weapons. It's only natural they get targeted by lots of heavy weapons and get killed.