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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bremon wrote:
This edition as a whole has not worked out how GW expected I don’t think; Gravis Armour giving +1T accomplishes very little but was expected to be good.

There isn’t solely one issue with marines, Tac marines especially. The changes to hitting/wounding charts, the way AP works, etc. Basically things that used to absolutely obliterate cheap troops (even the lowly heavy bolter killing little nids on a 2+), heavy flamers, flamestorm cannons, etc. have lost killing power. Every piece of crap troop in the game became more resilient against small arms fire with the change of the edition, while plasma being abundant means there are myriad cheap ways to kill elite troops. It’s a depressing state of affairs. I remember when my Guardians getting hit by a bolter meant death with a successful wound. I’m not sure what the solution is but I can say I miss the way AP used to work, and modified saves like WHFB don’t make much sense with high powered rifles instead of getting smacked by greatswords.

If rules stay the same then a points break for marines is the only solution. 11 ppm Tacs sounds reasonable in my mind.

I think this was part of the point of this edition, actually - part of the complaints about earlier editions was "troops don't matter" and "basic armies that look like actual armies are bad" and "deathstars are too op". The only way to address this problem is make basic line infantry actually good, and the only way to make them "actually good" without making them 'elite' is to have them die slowly enough that they provide a function for the army. I think GW accomplished that, for sure, and it can't be denied that some armies are actually taking troopers now, even above and beyond the minimum requirements.

The problem is Marines don't really have a 'basic trooper'. Their basic trooper is considerably better than AM Scions, stat wise (and arguably armament wise though that's target dependent). And scions are the "elite troopers" for AM.

Bremon wrote:
3W Primaris is too ridiculous. 3W terminators would be alright. The distinction between mini marines and Primaris should never have been made imo; they should have made all marines 2W base, and intercessors should have been a new better sculpt of Tacs.

Agreed on these points, which I missed in my first quote.

I guess the removal of small and big templates did also it's part for that.For exemple a flamer now hits max 6 models on average 3.5. wounds a guardsmen in 2/3rds so 2.333 wounds.
A nade launcher on frag generates 3.5 shots and deals now on average against a guardsmen target 1.75 wound.
I guess my point is that dedicated anti infantery weaponry, mainly frag nades, flammers and others are way to innefective.

At the bare minimum 12 points, but really their current points are fine, they need something like a stratagem or better chapter tactics (make the Chapter Tactics give a bigger bonus to tacticals, for exmaple).

 Melissia wrote:
At the bare minimum 12 points, but really their current points are fine, they need something like a stratagem or better chapter tactics (make the Chapter Tactics give a bigger bonus to tacticals, for exmaple).

That was my idea! XD

Each Chapter Tactic should have a second paragraph/sentence/whatever dealing with Tactical Marines. For example: "Tactical Marine squads with the Iron Hands Chapter Tactics ignore wounds on a 5+ rather than a 6+" or something. Essentially the Chapter Tactic +1.

As for why the Veterans don't get it? Because Tactical Marines need something. You can't just give everything the Tactical Marines have going for them to everyone else, because that's reinforcing the problem of Tactical Marines being "X unit but worse".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think this was part of the point of this edition, actually - part of the complaints about earlier editions was "troops don't matter" and "basic armies that look like actual armies are bad" and "deathstars are too op". The only way to address this problem is make basic line infantry actually good, and the only way to make them "actually good" without making them 'elite' is to have them die slowly enough that they provide a function for the army. I think GW accomplished that, for sure, and it can't be denied that some armies are actually taking troopers now, even above and beyond the minimum requirements.

The problem is Marines don't really have a 'basic trooper'. Their basic trooper is considerably better than AM Scions, stat wise (and arguably armament wise though that's target dependent). And scions are the "elite troopers" for AM..

Your point is well taken and I agree with where you’re coming from. The changes made have largely changed the game so armies look like armies. The problem is marines took an absolute beating in that transition, and they’re left with troops that still aren’t worth taking. Tacticals aren’t tactical enough; they’re just bad. I think even if Tacs could take 2 heavies/specials per 5 men they’d be in a better place. If I could get 5 Tacs with 2 Heavy Bolters for 75 points (factoring in 11 point Tacs) I'd be much more inclined to put more troops in my BA. Intercessors being 30k style mono squads after Guilliman supposedly learned that the codex is too rigid is a mistake. 110 points for 5 intercessors with 2 HBs would make a nice building block for a firebase. Instead I’m encouraged to take min troops to generate CP so that my high damage dealing Death Stars can do enough damage to win some games. I love the Intercessor sculpts; if I could make intercessors more useful than “choose your flavour of bolter and for one point you can Hail Mary a grenade” I’d enjoy playing them as much as I enjoy painting them.

Bremon wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think this was part of the point of this edition, actually - part of the complaints about earlier editions was "troops don't matter" and "basic armies that look like actual armies are bad" and "deathstars are too op". The only way to address this problem is make basic line infantry actually good, and the only way to make them "actually good" without making them 'elite' is to have them die slowly enough that they provide a function for the army. I think GW accomplished that, for sure, and it can't be denied that some armies are actually taking troopers now, even above and beyond the minimum requirements.

The problem is Marines don't really have a 'basic trooper'. Their basic trooper is considerably better than AM Scions, stat wise (and arguably armament wise though that's target dependent). And scions are the "elite troopers" for AM..

Your point is well taken and I agree with where you’re coming from. The changes made have largely changed the game so armies look like armies. The problem is marines took an absolute beating in that transition, and they’re left with troops that still aren’t worth taking. Tacticals aren’t tactical enough; they’re just bad. I think even if Tacs could take 2 heavies/specials per 5 men they’d be in a better place. If I could get 5 Tacs with 2 Heavy Bolters for 75 points (factoring in 11 point Tacs) I'd be much more inclined to put more troops in my BA. Intercessors being 30k style mono squads after Guilliman supposedly learned that the codex is too rigid is a mistake. 110 points for 5 intercessors with 2 HBs would make a nice building block for a firebase. Instead I’m encouraged to take min troops to generate CP so that my high damage dealing Death Stars can do enough damage to win some games. I love the Intercessor sculpts; if I could make intercessors more useful than “choose your flavour of bolter and for one point you can Hail Mary a grenade” I’d enjoy playing them as much as I enjoy painting them.

2 problems:
1) Space Marines are not really an army. I'll say it here and everyone will jump down my throat, but as far as "line armies fighting slogging matches against other line armies" (open warfare seems to be the style 40k games are going for), elite special-forces type shock troops just won't be as useful as line infantry. There's a reason the Army Rangers are bigger than the Navy SEALs, and why the Army's line infantry brigades are much much more massive than the Army Rangers: there's a point at which "elite" becomes "too expensive to train and equip" for open-warfare line engagements.

Marines getting mediocre is a natural consequence of making "real armies" good, and Guard getting stronger is in the same vein, because they are the quintessential "open warfare line army". The best army, is, of course, a soup of both, and coincidentally that's exactly how the Imperium operates in the fluff...

2) 2 specials per 5 is good, but 2 heavies isn't, imo. 2 heavy bolters for 75 points (that are BS3+, have 3 ablative wounds, and a 2+ save if parked in cover) is extremely good. Like holy gak good. Specials are fine because generally the army has to maneuver to employ them, but getting 10 such squads for 750 points is ridiculous. A 10 man tactical squad with 4/10 would literally be indistinguishable from a 10 man devastator squad with 4/10.

I agree with that, but that isn't what they did so the distinction exists, and without all the options of normal marines if you don't give primaris something they cease to have a point in the game. You act like 2 w primaris don't die. They die all the time in my games. Sure if you sit them in cover against weapons with no AP they are hard to remove. But they should be. I'm not saying don't adjust their points to add the extra stuff, You say all those weapons are useless...that is a really strong word. Plasma would still kill them off, overcharged would wound on 2s, and give them a 6+ save. it just wouldn't be 1 wound = 1 kill. Heck, I'd be fine with inceptors being ~30 points with 3 wounds because it is a big step up in resiliance over 2 wounds.

Alternatively make keep them at 2 wounds and make them T5 for the extra durability from their size, then make gravis armor primaris 3 wounds with higher cost.

Or eliminate mini-marines entirely, and flesh out the primaris line, then just have people counts as.

I agree it was a mistake to have both styles of marines at the same time, it makes the design space tough to work in. But that isn't the way GW went because they did not want rage from all the marine players for "invalidating" their army.

What I don't want though is cheap horde marines, the game in general needs less models not more. It will never go that way, because GW want to sell more models, but it should..

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2 problems:
1) Space Marines are not really an army. I'll say it here and everyone will jump down my throat, but as far as "line armies fighting slogging matches against other line armies" (open warfare seems to be the style 40k games are going for), elite special-forces type shock troops just won't be as useful as line infantry. There's a reason the Army Rangers are bigger than the Navy SEALs, and why the Army's line infantry brigades are much much more massive than the Army Rangers: there's a point at which "elite" becomes "too expensive to train and equip" for open-warfare line engagements.

Marines getting mediocre is a natural consequence of making "real armies" good, and Guard getting stronger is in the same vein, because they are the quintessential "open warfare line army". The best army, is, of course, a soup of both, and coincidentally that's exactly how the Imperium operates in the fluff...

2) 2 specials per 5 is good, but 2 heavies isn't, imo. 2 heavy bolters for 75 points (that are BS3+, have 3 ablative wounds, and a 2+ save if parked in cover) is extremely good. Like holy gak good. Specials are fine because generally the army has to maneuver to employ them, but getting 10 such squads for 750 points is ridiculous. A 10 man tactical squad with 4/10 would literally be indistinguishable from a 10 man devastator squad with 4/10.

The problem with the idea of soup is even then marines are out shone massively by Custodes, hence why imperial soup always tastes like Custard soup.

If marines are supposed to be imperial shock troops they need some sort of rule to make them shocking to play against. The obvious solution being allow drop pods to break the beta rule, but that isn't going to happen and probably isn't enough to save them as an army also it would just turn them into turn 1 suicide drops like scions.

I get that GW wanted to push primaris models hard and shift them in volume, but they need to about face on that one its a lost cause.
They either need to launch the full range and accept that they will loose a lot of business or accept it was a bad plan and merge them back into the same stat line and wait for natural transition from old to primaris sculpts, over a couple of years.

The rules/points adjustments show a clear bias towards primaris but even they aren't realy that great in a competitive setting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2) 2 specials per 5 is good, but 2 heavies isn't, imo. 2 heavy bolters for 75 points (that are BS3+, have 3 ablative wounds, and a 2+ save if parked in cover) is extremely good. Like holy gak good. Specials are fine because generally the army has to maneuver to employ them, but getting 10 such squads for 750 points is ridiculous. A 10 man tactical squad with 4/10 would literally be indistinguishable from a 10 man devastator squad with 4/10.

Except the devs get to fire twice once and get to shoot one at 2+ BS. I also should have said 2 of each max, so double what they can do now; nobody takes 10 Tacs with a heavy bolter and a plasma gun. No one will take 10 with two of each. Not many people currently take 5 ablative wounds in their dev squads either.

Do IG not have ablative wounds for their specials? Tac marines still die to a stiff breeze in 8th. Intercessors die to 2 stiff breezes, and 2 heavy bolters is still only 4 S5 -1 hits on average...they aren’t taking down tanks and are only slightly better at killing grunts than a standard crappy Tac marine. A tax marine squad with 2 heavy bolters is likely still worse at killing guardsman or nids etc. than a naked squad of Tac marines was prior to 8th, so I really don’t see the problem. Basically every army I play against has better basic troops than me (per point and for weapon options) and doubling the amount of specials or heavies I can take in a troop squad doesn’t swing the tides massively the other way.

Breng77 wrote:
it just wouldn't be 1 wound = 1 kill.

This is literally the definition of a basic troop. Plasma guns and autocannons are heavy and special weapons, akin to 30mm RARDEN and LAW rocket launchers. As soon as you have an army whose basic troop is one against which an autocannon manifestly struggles then you've jumped the shark.

Like I said, Custodes are that army, and are already ridiculous.

DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bremon wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think this was part of the point of this edition, actually - part of the complaints about earlier editions was "troops don't matter" and "basic armies that look like actual armies are bad" and "deathstars are too op". The only way to address this problem is make basic line infantry actually good, and the only way to make them "actually good" without making them 'elite' is to have them die slowly enough that they provide a function for the army. I think GW accomplished that, for sure, and it can't be denied that some armies are actually taking troopers now, even above and beyond the minimum requirements.

The problem is Marines don't really have a 'basic trooper'. Their basic trooper is considerably better than AM Scions, stat wise (and arguably armament wise though that's target dependent). And scions are the "elite troopers" for AM..

Your point is well taken and I agree with where you’re coming from. The changes made have largely changed the game so armies look like armies. The problem is marines took an absolute beating in that transition, and they’re left with troops that still aren’t worth taking. Tacticals aren’t tactical enough; they’re just bad. I think even if Tacs could take 2 heavies/specials per 5 men they’d be in a better place. If I could get 5 Tacs with 2 Heavy Bolters for 75 points (factoring in 11 point Tacs) I'd be much more inclined to put more troops in my BA. Intercessors being 30k style mono squads after Guilliman supposedly learned that the codex is too rigid is a mistake. 110 points for 5 intercessors with 2 HBs would make a nice building block for a firebase. Instead I’m encouraged to take min troops to generate CP so that my high damage dealing Death Stars can do enough damage to win some games. I love the Intercessor sculpts; if I could make intercessors more useful than “choose your flavour of bolter and for one point you can Hail Mary a grenade” I’d enjoy playing them as much as I enjoy painting them.

2 problems:
1) Space Marines are not really an army. I'll say it here and everyone will jump down my throat, but as far as "line armies fighting slogging matches against other line armies" (open warfare seems to be the style 40k games are going for), elite special-forces type shock troops just won't be as useful as line infantry. There's a reason the Army Rangers are bigger than the Navy SEALs, and why the Army's line infantry brigades are much much more massive than the Army Rangers: there's a point at which "elite" becomes "too expensive to train and equip" for open-warfare line engagements.

Marines getting mediocre is a natural consequence of making "real armies" good, and Guard getting stronger is in the same vein, because they are the quintessential "open warfare line army". The best army, is, of course, a soup of both, and coincidentally that's exactly how the Imperium operates in the fluff...

2) 2 specials per 5 is good, but 2 heavies isn't, imo. 2 heavy bolters for 75 points (that are BS3+, have 3 ablative wounds, and a 2+ save if parked in cover) is extremely good. Like holy gak good. Specials are fine because generally the army has to maneuver to employ them, but getting 10 such squads for 750 points is ridiculous. A 10 man tactical squad with 4/10 would literally be indistinguishable from a 10 man devastator squad with 4/10.

The answer to #1 is that you actually need to make the army "elite" enough to operate that way. SO I agree it is a problem. With soup right now you may as well throw out 90% of the marine options because they are bad. If GW just made imperium an army things would work a lot better. But they have spent years splitting the imperium into 500 different distinct factions, which is the problem. A real fix to marines, is to make imperium like the DE codex. Have Marine chapters, Imperial guard regiments etc. Remove options from some of those books, and make it so that the intent is that they funciton as 1. SO make do things like eliminate scouts (those models are ugly) and give their deployment option to "tactical squads' primaris marines. Have marines function much more like deathwatch, but with chapter tactics etc. I'd be fine with that. What I don't like is requiring tons of books to run that army optimally.

Bremon wrote:
Do IG not have ablative wounds for their specials? Tac marines still die to a stiff breeze in 8th. Intercessors die to 2 stiff breezes, and 2 heavy bolters is still only 4 S5 -1 hits on average...they aren’t taking down tanks and are only slightly better at killing grunts than a standard crappy Tac marine. A tax marine squad with 2 heavy bolters is likely still worse at killing guardsman or nids etc. than a naked squad of Tac marines was prior to 8th.

It depends on what way the IG take their specials, but no, not always. And Tactical Marines do not die to a stiff breeze. Heavy Weapons Are Not A Stiff Breeze. Call it the "Unit" Principle, with the premise that "heavy weapons are not a stiff breeze" and "If you need a 20-1 advantage in small arms to reliably kill a foe, then that foe does not die to a stiff breeze."

And the problem isn't the two heavy bolters per five specifically, but rather the dramatically increasing lethality of the game. If the problem with tactical marines is that heavy weapons kill them too quickly, then the problem is not fixed by saying yay more heavy weapons.

Breng77 wrote:
The answer to #1 is that you actually need to make the army "elite" enough to operate that way. SO I agree it is a problem. With soup right now you may as well throw out 90% of the marine options because they are bad. If GW just made imperium an army things would work a lot better. But they have spent years splitting the imperium into 500 different distinct factions, which is the problem. A real fix to marines, is to make imperium like the DE codex. Have Marine chapters, Imperial guard regiments etc. Remove options from some of those books, and make it so that the intent is that they funciton as 1. SO make do things like eliminate scouts (those models are ugly) and give their deployment option to "tactical squads' primaris marines. Have marines function much more like deathwatch, but with chapter tactics etc. I'd be fine with that. What I don't like is requiring tons of books to run that army optimally.

So literally the problem is you have to carry too many books.

If only there was some sort of device we could read books on, some sort of storage unit with a screen, with oodles of information at our fingertips... like something out of TNG. They could read gak on these little pads, it was so cool. Tis a pity we don't have that nowadays.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
it just wouldn't be 1 wound = 1 kill.

This is literally the definition of a basic troop. Plasma guns and autocannons are heavy and special weapons, akin to 30mm RARDEN and LAW rocket launchers. As soon as you have an army whose basic troop is one against which an autocannon manifestly struggles then you've jumped the shark.

Like I said, Custodes are that army, and are already ridiculous.

DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough.

Except when the army in question isn't supposed to have any "basic dudes", If anything the marine issue shows that you cannot both have "elite" armies and "basic dudes" it doesn't work. Either you have elite horde armies (9-10 point MEQ) or you raise points and make model themselves better. Custodes are an entirely different thing that a T4 3 wound 3+ save marine. You are looking at an entire army with FNP against mortal wounds, 2+ saves, 4++ saves, and T5. They also have WS and BS 2+ So small arms wounds them on 5s not 4s, Plasma wounds them on 3s not 2s. And they get a 4+ save against it in the open. For that you are paying 40 points base. SO -1T, -1 armor, -1 S, -1 WS, -1 BS. Seems reasonable for 25-30 points. The model isn't a basic trooper, it is a troop in an elite army. Beyond that custodes are ridiculous in the exact function you would have them do, as a component to soup. As an army with no guard etc, they are good but not broken, because they lack board presence. I mean the discussion of "basic trooper" is dumb anyway in a game where custodes exist, knights exist etc. You have armies already where you don't field basic troops.

Breng77 wrote:
You have armies already where you don't field basic troops.

But those armies make lots of sacrifices to do so. Mono-knights is not a good army, nor is really mono-Custodes, as you mention.

Wanting to make Marines "elite" and also wanting to make them "competitive" in a mono-codex setting strikes me as trying to have your cake and eat it to - to date, mono-armies have been worse than soup, and elite mono-armies even more extremely so.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bremon wrote:
Do IG not have ablative wounds for their specials? Tac marines still die to a stiff breeze in 8th. Intercessors die to 2 stiff breezes, and 2 heavy bolters is still only 4 S5 -1 hits on average...they aren’t taking down tanks and are only slightly better at killing grunts than a standard crappy Tac marine. A tax marine squad with 2 heavy bolters is likely still worse at killing guardsman or nids etc. than a naked squad of Tac marines was prior to 8th.

It depends on what way the IG take their specials, but no, not always. And Tactical Marines do not die to a stiff breeze. Heavy Weapons Are Not A Stiff Breeze. Call it the "Unit" Principle, with the premise that "heavy weapons are not a stiff breeze" and "If you need a 20-1 advantage in small arms to reliably kill a foe, then that foe does not die to a stiff breeze."

And the problem isn't the two heavy bolters per five specifically, but rather the dramatically increasing lethality of the game. If the problem with tactical marines is that heavy weapons kill them too quickly, then the problem is not fixed by saying yay more heavy weapons.

Breng77 wrote:
The answer to #1 is that you actually need to make the army "elite" enough to operate that way. SO I agree it is a problem. With soup right now you may as well throw out 90% of the marine options because they are bad. If GW just made imperium an army things would work a lot better. But they have spent years splitting the imperium into 500 different distinct factions, which is the problem. A real fix to marines, is to make imperium like the DE codex. Have Marine chapters, Imperial guard regiments etc. Remove options from some of those books, and make it so that the intent is that they funciton as 1. SO make do things like eliminate scouts (those models are ugly) and give their deployment option to "tactical squads' primaris marines. Have marines function much more like deathwatch, but with chapter tactics etc. I'd be fine with that. What I don't like is requiring tons of books to run that army optimally.

So literally the problem is you have to carry too many books.

If only there was some sort of device we could read books
on, some sort of storage unit with a screen, with oodles of information at our fingertips... like something out of TNG. They could read gak on these little pads, it was so cool. Tis a pity we don't have that nowadays.

No the problem is i have to buy too many books. Beyond witch tablets suck for trying to play with. I have most books on digital and hard copy, but always have a hard copy of my rules at a game because it is easier to flip back and forth, show my opponent etc.

It is an unpopular opinion, but the game would be better balanced if fewer options existed. People don't want that though they want the option to do whatever they want and have it work. As Marines are clearly meant to be a stand alone army, and not require soup, it is no more valid to say, "make them cheaper", than it is to say "make them better but more expensive". For me I'd rather seem them 2 steps down from a custodes army, than 2 steps up from a guard one. Then they become a useful option. Right now in soup for the most part they aren't even that competitively because as you pointed out custodes are better at what you would want the marines for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
You have armies already where you don't field basic troops.

But those armies make lots of sacrifices to do so. Mono-knights is not a good army, nor is really mono-Custodes, as you mention.

Wanting to make Marines "elite" and also wanting to make them "competitive" in a mono-codex setting strikes me as trying to have your cake and eat it to - to date, mono-armies have been worse than soup, and elite mono-armies even more extremely so.

True, but currently Marine Soup is worse than, pure IG in most cases, worse than soup with custodes etc. I don't even really have a large issue with where things are now. I play a "soup army" with sisters and marines, take no tactical marine equivalents because they are pretty bad, and run scouts, Primaris stuff, marine characters, sisters. Because that is what works. Prior to that I ran a "marine soup" with Ravenwing and White scars, again no tactical equivalents. I'm fine with that, but it just means the tactical marine statline is bad, the only thing they are passible at is sitting on a back field objective in cover as your enemy is largely required to use heavy weapons or special weapons to remove them.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Secondly they are easily underpinned with no points, don't forget that Cold and Bitter exists and Word Bearers also have better morale without additional points.

Cold and Bitter means your warlord babysitting cultists, which is not a small amount of points. Sure you could make it some scrub, but then he'll get sniped. Word Bearers get a reroll. You need Apostles to get them up from LD6.

It doesn't matter how you cut it - you're spending points to keep them on the table.

Thirdly my point was , that the Tac Marines and CSM lost to much in equipment and that cheaper alternatives have taken over. Also in regards to kabalites, i know that their weaponry is diffrent, however my point stands that their profile is to good, when compared to a regular marine.

Their poison wounds GEQ on a 4. They die like GEQ for more points. You need to look at the full picture.

Shooting for my exemple above is on average 32.5 hits with s3 against t3 targets i will wound on 4s so again half of those wounds. 16.25 wounds
the 20 marines will shoot 20 times 2/3rds are hits and against a t3 target 2/3rds will wound= 8,88888.... wounds.
So to conclude cultists allow you more firepower, and are way better at area denial.

Again this is not the point. You can put a gak gun on literally anything and as long as the body is cheap enough it doesn't matter.

Your measurement of these units deals with none of their durability either through morale or toughness.

Let's say I get 10 BP/CS CSM stuck in against 32 cultists.

CSM shoot - 10 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 3.7 (14 points) (pistols)
CSM fight - 19 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 7 cultists (28 points) (one died to overwatch)
Cultists fight - 33 * .5 * .333 * .333 = 1.8 marines (24 points)

And because tactics don't exist in this game if I approach you correctly you'll lose 1/3 or more of your attacks in the first round just getting to me.

(red lines are 1", blue 2", green 3")

If you're using CCW cultists - great - you can't shoot as far and i'll let you come to me while i'm in cover.

Breng77 wrote:
It is an unpopular opinion, but the game would be better balanced if fewer options existed. People don't want that though they want the option to do whatever they want and have it work. As Marines are clearly meant to be a stand alone army, and not require soup, it is no more valid to say, "make them cheaper", than it is to say "make them better but more expensive". For me I'd rather seem them 2 steps down from a custodes army, than 2 steps up from a guard one. Then they become a useful option. Right now in soup for the most part they aren't even that competitively because as you pointed out custodes are better at what you would want the marines for.

Marines are fine in soup, or are Blood Angels not marines now?

Seriously, part of the problem with marines is there are so many options that Marine players are drowning in them. If I owned a neutrally-coloured Marine army, I'd have something over 100 unit options to choose from, and like 20 different factions across 5 codexes. It's no wonder that some get left out to dry while others are the best thing since sliced bread - there is more variation between Keyword: Adeptus Astartes than there is between Keyword: Necrons. And one of those is a lvl 2 faction keyword after Imperium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
True, but currently Marine Soup is worse than, pure IG in most cases, worse than soup with custodes etc. I don't even really have a large issue with where things are now. I play a "soup army" with sisters and marines, take no tactical marine equivalents because they are pretty bad, and run scouts, Primaris stuff, marine characters, sisters. Because that is what works. Prior to that I ran a "marine soup" with Ravenwing and White scars, again no tactical equivalents. I'm fine with that, but it just means the tactical marine statline is bad, the only thing they are passible at is sitting on a back field objective in cover as your enemy is largely required to use heavy weapons or special weapons to remove them.

You have a basic, generic unit that you admit the enemy is largely required to use heavy or special weapons to shift, and that unit is bad.

That just strikes me as ridiculous. It's like saying "Yeah, my 3 wound marines are so bad. I mean, the enemy can kill one with a lascannon, that's atrocious." *eyeroll*

The problem with the game is ridiculously high lethality, and increasing that lethality is a bad thing. We should instead try to reduce lethality for everyone.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bremon wrote:
Do IG not have ablative wounds for their specials? Tac marines still die to a stiff breeze in 8th. Intercessors die to 2 stiff breezes, and 2 heavy bolters is still only 4 S5 -1 hits on average...they aren’t taking down tanks and are only slightly better at killing grunts than a standard crappy Tac marine. A tax marine squad with 2 heavy bolters is likely still worse at killing guardsman or nids etc. than a naked squad of Tac marines was prior to 8th.

It depends on what way the IG take their specials, but no, not always. And Tactical Marines do not die to a stiff breeze. Heavy Weapons Are Not A Stiff Breeze. Call it the "Unit" Principle, with the premise that "heavy weapons are not a stiff breeze" and "If you need a 20-1 advantage in small arms to reliably kill a foe, then that foe does not die to a stiff breeze."

Except when you take points into consideration, a stiff breeze of any predetermined amount of small arms fire kills chaff and marines practically equally when points are brought into the equation, which they need to be. The state of the game is such that a large amount of wounds holding a large amount of small arms is going to be advantageous to a smaller amount of wounds with a smaller amount of weapons. Point per point 3 guardsmen, Guardians, and Tacticsl marines should have fairly equal killing power. Point per point. The elite army with the smaller footprint needs more elite weaponry to be able to compete; I don’t have the bodies to hold objectives as casually as hordes do. The granularity of points distribution means a horde can bring its forces to bear with far more liquidity. Without more heavies and specials a Tactical isn’t tactical at all. It isn’t jack of all trades, master of none; it’s a jack of no trades. Nearly every army has troops worth taking; marines don’t. How do we fix that?

That unit is good, if I have an objective to sit on in cover, and otherwise contributes 0 to the game. In the open they die to a stiff breeze, against any AP they die. They are not a good unit for the points, and certainly not worth taking more than a single copy. It isn't a good unit. I also always take Intercessors over tacticals in this role because they actually require heavy/special weapons, and can put up a fight in close combat, have better guns, and better range. So the tactical marines are redundant in that role.

Reducing lethality is ok, but the problem is that makes units that are already durable (hordes) even better.

On a per point basis marines are neither durable nor effective at causing damage. The second point is obvious, while the first takes some math. Some of it was already calculated in this thread.

Unit is taking a very fluff based approach, while math is more clarifying in this case.

Bremon wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bremon wrote:
Do IG not have ablative wounds for their specials? Tac marines still die to a stiff breeze in 8th. Intercessors die to 2 stiff breezes, and 2 heavy bolters is still only 4 S5 -1 hits on average...they aren’t taking down tanks and are only slightly better at killing grunts than a standard crappy Tac marine. A tax marine squad with 2 heavy bolters is likely still worse at killing guardsman or nids etc. than a naked squad of Tac marines was prior to 8th.

It depends on what way the IG take their specials, but no, not always. And Tactical Marines do not die to a stiff breeze. Heavy Weapons Are Not A Stiff Breeze. Call it the "Unit" Principle, with the premise that "heavy weapons are not a stiff breeze" and "If you need a 20-1 advantage in small arms to reliably kill a foe, then that foe does not die to a stiff breeze."

Except when you take points into consideration, a stiff breeze of any predetermined amount of small arms fire kills chaff and marines practically equally when points are brought into the equation, which they need to be. The state of the game is such that a large amount of wounds holding a large amount of small arms is going to be advantageous to a smaller amount of wounds with a smaller amount of weapons. Point per point 3 guardsmen, Guardians, and Tacticsl marines should have fairly equal killing power. Point per point. The elite army with the smaller footprint needs more elite weaponry to be able to compete; I don’t have the bodies to hold objectives as casually as hordes do. The granularity of points distribution means a horde can bring its forces to bear with far more liquidity. Without more heavies and specials a Tactical isn’t tactical at all. It isn’t jack of all trades, master of none; it’s a jack of no trades. Nearly every army has troops worth taking; marines don’t. How do we fix that?

That's not necessarily true. Having a smaller number of models in the game with equal weapons but higher durability compared to their foes should be viable in the game, because it improves force concentration. A firefight between 20 marines and 20 guardsmen will be won by the marines; there may be 60 guardsmen on the battlefield for the price of 20 marines, but it should be unwieldy to utilize those larger numbers when compared to the smaller numbers of marines.

I suspect the reasons this don't happen are varied and myriad, but terrain can influence it for sure. I think the general terrain used for 40k games is bad - I know that if I set up the amount of terrain I'm comfortable with for a game, force concentration absolutely becomes a problem for large horde armies. Additionally, playing the game on a 12x8 really makes the Marines shine, as they can use things like drop pods and speedy, cheapo Rhinos to outmaneuver most Imperial Guard forces quite handily. But no one uses that size table because "it's too hard" so we're stuck with weapon ranges that cross the entire board in one turn carried by like, a dude. Force concentration goes away when Fred can shoot across the entire board.

Breng77 wrote:That unit is good, if I have an objective to sit on in cover, and otherwise contributes 0 to the game. In the open they die to a stiff breeze, against any AP they die. They are not a good unit for the points, and certainly not worth taking more than a single copy. It isn't a good unit. I also always take Intercessors over tacticals in this role because they actually require heavy/special weapons, and can put up a fight in close combat, have better guns, and better range. So the tactical marines are redundant in that role.

Reducing lethality is ok, but the problem is that makes units that are already durable (hordes) even better.

I guess I have to invoke the Unit Principle:
With a few notable exceptions, weapons with AP are heavy weapons, and no army in the game should expect to just mill around out of cover and not take horrific casualties. Not even the vaunted Imperial Guard tolerates being out of cover without suffering tremendous casualty rates. And yes, I'd say they're not good for their points and I agree they need looking at, but some of the suggestions here are bonkers. I'd be okay giving Tacts 2 wounds, for sure, or 2 specials/5, definitely. 3 wound primaris marines?!! That's beyond the pale.

Martel732 wrote:On a per point basis marines are neither durable nor effective at causing damage. The second point is obvious, while the first takes some math. Some of it was already calculated in this thread.

Unit is taking a very fluff based approach, while math is more clarifying in this case.

Marines are durable. But individually, they are durable for sure. This "math" you say proves it is that it takes 2 squads of unbuffed guardsmen in rapid fire range of a marine in cover to kill him, or 4 squads when he isn't in cover. That's pretty goddamn durable.

Daed provided some of the math upthread vs Cultists. And a bit of tactics about how to use them beyond just throw them around.

I still think their core problem is the game isn't balanced around a flamer/melta being scary anymore. They still work in a lot of ways, but aren't the ideal for tournies. I'm still ok with a points drop, though.

It's much more than flamer/melta problems, as been illustrated in this thread many times.

Bremon wrote:
Basically every army I play against has better basic troops than me (per point and for weapon options) and doubling the amount of specials or heavies I can take in a troop squad doesn’t swing the tides massively the other way.

I disagree that the tac marine should be considered 'the' space marine basic troop squad. It is certainly 'a' troop choice - but not the only one. Scouts are simply way better. Is there a reason why we consider tactical marines the only troop choice here?

Lemondish wrote:

Bremon wrote:
Basically every army I play against has better basic troops than me (per point and for weapon options) and doubling the amount of specials or heavies I can take in a troop squad doesn’t swing the tides massively the other way.

I disagree that the tac marine should be considered 'the' space marine basic troop squad. It is certainly 'a' troop choice - but not the only one. Scouts are simply way better. Is there a reason why we consider tactical marines the only troop choice here?

Or Primaris, too. The role of a Tactical Marine is "Intercessor, but ~30% cheaper and less durable."

This thread has got me thinking a bit. Do bolters need buffing? It seems like the consensus in the thread is they're a waste of time. Would giving them a -AP make standard Tacticals more viable?

I think Tacticals would be in a good place if pistols came free along with a bolter, Chainsword for 1 or 2 points as an upgrade for CCW, Make Bolters + Pistols AP-1, and leaving them at their current cost. I really like my painted up demi-company and wish I had more reasons to run it with every squad at 10 man and kitted out.

I think you get that consensus because you're in a thread with mostly Marine players. Sure, they aren't that effective against Marines in cover. But DAs in the open? Or other non-Marines? They're scarier than most SM players realize, because most SM players aren't on the receiving end of what small arms can do.

Making bolters + pistols AP-1 would hurt Marines too. It's just pushing up the firepower. Marines actually lose out, despite it being a buff to Marines.

I think they need to tone firepower *down* and readjust to the point where the 'basic' specials/heavies (basically, what Tacs can take, and their equivelents in other factions) are actually a threat. Unfortunately, doing so would take a ton of rebalancing. Which is too bad, because it'd make Tacs freaking awesome.

I don't think there is much place for 13 ppm one wound models/troops in 8th. How do you that fix the problems that that ratio causes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I think you get that consensus because you're in a thread with mostly Marine players. Sure, they aren't that effective against Marines in cover. But DAs in the open? Or other non-Marines? They're scarier than most SM players realize, because most SM players aren't on the receiving end of what small arms can do.

Making bolters + pistols AP-1 would hurt Marines too. It's just pushing up the firepower. Marines actually lose out, despite it being a buff to Marines.

I think they need to tone firepower *down* and readjust to the point where the 'basic' specials/heavies (basically, what Tacs can take, and their equivelents in other factions) are actually a threat. Unfortunately, doing so would take a ton of rebalancing. Which is too bad, because it'd make Tacs freaking awesome.

Doesn't matter, marines still have terrible output/pt.

Compare them to other similarly costed models?

DAs are in the same price range at 1W. Half the durability to small arms. Twice the firepower (compared to naked tacs) on hard targets. They aren't amazing, but are good at what they do.

Necron Warriors are in the same price range at 1W. Super durable, but super inflexible. Do they really have no place to be?

Scioons are 1W infantry that wouldn't be terrible at 13ppm.

Zerkers are 1W infantry.

The points:wounds is certainly fixable.

I'm with Bharring here. Small arms are strength three, and Strength 5 is the realm of Heavy Weapons.

Strength 4 is pretty boss, and devastating. It's a 20-1 advantage to kill a single marine in cover for Imperial Guard in rapid fire; conversely, it's only 2(roughly, it's 2.25 precisely) marines shooting back to kill one Imperial Guardsman who is in cover on average.

Martel732 wrote:
On a per point basis marines are neither durable nor effective at causing damage. The second point is obvious, while the first takes some math. Some of it was already calculated in this thread.

Unit is taking a very fluff based approach, while math is more clarifying in this case.

I'm not disagreeing with the premise that marines are weak. I just disagree with the degree, the assumptions fueling it, and the proposed changes.

This is 100 hits of each weapon weighted to points.

Clearly marines need to be in cover to match up to GEQ at 4 points (which is why IS should be 5...anyway), but perform admirably compared to Kabalites.



This is a 10 point marine:



This is 12 point marine, 7 kabalite, 5 IS. Notice how these results track closely to just dropping a marine to 10 points.





This is weighted damage dealt.



Change the points here will close the game some, but IS and Kabalites will still be better - there HAS to be a trade off for the durability. SM will still be heavily more durable and stronger (relatively) in CC. Add combat squadding and strong weapon choice and you're doing just fine.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hatachi wrote:
This thread has got me thinking a bit. Do bolters need buffing? It seems like the consensus in the thread is they're a waste of time. Would giving them a -AP make standard Tacticals more viable?

I think Tacticals would be in a good place if pistols came free along with a bolter, Chainsword for 1 or 2 points as an upgrade for CCW, Make Bolters + Pistols AP-1, and leaving them at their current cost. I really like my painted up demi-company and wish I had more reasons to run it with every squad at 10 man and kitted out.

Maybe. There are 2 directions:

1) Make marines more durable by dropping them to 12 points (no more than this).
2) Make marines more killy by making the bolter better.

AP is problematic, because so many other bolter variants have AP and would be affected. Personally I think the bolter could get Bolter Drill as standard and make Bolter Drill +1 to hit with Bolters.