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.

Bharring wrote:
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 largely disagree in a game with kabalites and guardsmen.

The only 1 W infantry meq-priced I can think of that I fear are dark reapers, who have insane weapons, and a rule that negates the single most effective shooting protection.

I don't consider scions meq-priced. In fact, scions take all the best parts, keep them, and then throw away all the useless rules.

Necron warriors have been dropped from my meta completely in favor of immortals and destroyer spam.

Zerkers are the closest thing on your list to reasonable, and then only by virtue of a VERY powerful special rule that the loyalists don't have access to. Again, you are having to hand out a very potent upgrade to make them remotely competitive.

" there HAS to be a trade off for the durability"

Does there? When that "durability" is easily negating by many cheap Xeno options?

Also, being tied to cover is incredibly dumb for a "shock troop" or a model that wants to get into CQC with most of the troops in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, why did you change the price on the kabalite and guardsmen? That's not what we should be looking at, because we should aim to change as few units as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, try 11 pt marines with 4 pt guardsmen and 6 pt kabalites. I voted for 11 in the poll.

Martel732 wrote:


" there HAS to be a trade off for the durability"

Does there? When that "durability" is easily negating by many cheap Xeno options?

If you go dropping points you can't keep dropping them until their ranged effectiveness is equivalent otherwise you make them absurdly durable.

Case in point. A 10 point marine with a bolter STILL is not as effective a shooter as a 6 point Kabalite. It's just more durable. You can't make marines both more durable and more shooty without wrecking the scale.

Also, being tied to cover is incredibly dumb for a "shock troop" or a model that wants to get into CQC with most of the troops in the game.

Yes, I very much agree, but it is an advantage that cannot be ignored.

Also, why did you change the price on the kabalite and guardsmen? That's not what we should be looking at, because we should aim to change as few units as possible.

Why is that sacred? Wouldn't change more things in smaller increments make for a more durable balance than a wide swing on a single unit?

Based on that math - a 1 point change for two units is about the same result as a 3 point change for one.

It's only "sacred" because it avoids nerfs (psychologically useful) and it doesn't look like GW is going to increase guardsmen ever.

" You can't make marines both more durable and more shooty without wrecking the scale. "

Fair enough, but I don't think the idea of taking Xeno alphas to the face and then shooting spitwads back is going to work out.

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?

We’ve had 7 editions of the tactical marine being the base unit the game is built and promoted around by Games Workshop, and one edition where it shares that distinction with a unit that GW was too scared to outright replace it with. Scouts being way better is a symptom of the garbage game balance GW is building with 13 ppm tacs. If we had 7 editions of ugly little monkey Scout models being replicated at 7 feet tall in GW stores is be more inclined to use them as a starting point in this thread. If the fluff was built around Chapters having 440ish scouts as the backbone of the chapter and most Companies I’d be more inclined to use them as a starting point in this thread.

Scouts are not that exciting when other factions are getting 4+ save units MUCH cheaper. Like.. firewarriors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bremon wrote:

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?

We’ve had 7 editions of the tactical marine being the base unit the game is built and promoted around by Games Workshop, and one edition where it shares that distinction with a unit that GW was too scared to outright replace it with. Scouts being way better is a symptom of the garbage game balance GW is building with 13 ppm tacs. If we had 7 editions of ugly little monkey Scout models being replicated at 7 feet tall in GW stores is be more inclined to use them as a starting point in this thread. If the fluff was built around Chapters having 440ish scouts as the backbone of the chapter and most Companies I’d be more inclined to use them as a starting point in this thread.

Ironically, we complained about this a lot in 2nd ed, and it was largely fixed in 3rd. But then, the creep started again and we are back to 2nd ed status for tac marines, even though they are 17 pts cheaper than in 2nd!

Martel732 wrote:
Scouts are not that exciting when other factions are getting 4+ save units MUCH cheaper. Like.. firewarriors.

Today I learned that -1 str, -2 ws, -1 T, and -1BS were worth less than two points.

That does of course mean that Strength 4, WS2+ guardsmen with T4 and BS3+ should be less than 6 points. After all, those stat increases aren't worth 2 points.

Isn't saying Scouts are bad because Fire Warriors get a 4+ cheaper a lot like saying Dire Avengers are bad because Marines get a transport cheaper?

No. Not at all. I didn't say they were bad. I said they weren't exciting. Cheaper is usually better in 8th ed, and scouts are NOT cheap. Especially for 4+ armor. Sorry your aspect warriors got hosed too, but "elite infantry" doesn't work well in 8th. I'm frankly disappointed every time I bring scouts.

Even though guardsmen and kabalites are underpriced, there need to be as few changed rules as possible, and nudging points around for those two or three units is picayune.

The worst thing about changing points for marines, guard, and DE together is reconfiguring lists. If you were going to make DIY rules, the best way to do it is to assume it’s a tournament pack for a super local RTT, one time only. To say nothing of it being harder to change three factions than just one, it’s better to change no factions’ points, since the point is to get buy in from players with as little effort as possible, just bringing their normal TAC or tournament lists.

But then do you bring Marines up to their level and hose Scouts, Sisters, etc? Or do you keep Marines on par with Scouts/Sisters/DAs/etc?

Sisters wouldn't be hosed. They are fantastic at 9 ppm.

Sm should be elite. Very few of them should be awesome and they are not this. They cost too much I think. Should have one wound more and one point more T.

The worst thing about changing points for marines, guard, and DE together is reconfiguring lists. If you were going to make DIY rules, the best way to do it is to assume it’s a tournament pack for a super local RTT, one time only. To say nothing of it being harder to change three factions than just one, it’s better to change no factions’ points, since the point is to get buy-in from players with as little effort as possible, just bringing their normal TAC or tournament lists.

Elite infantry doesn’t work as a concept. Pricing for guard infantry and kabalites is only a small part of that problem.

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters wouldn't be hosed. They are fantastic at 9 ppm.

I'm calling it now. Sisters are gonna drop to 8 ppm

A) to sell more of them

B) to race to the bottom

Quit bumming me out! It's bad enough already!

Alex_85 wrote:
Sm should be elite. Very few of them should be awesome and they are not this. They cost too much I think. Should have one wound more and one point more T.

Anyone can tell that this doesn’t make them elite.

pelicaniforce wrote:
The worst thing about changing points for marines, guard, and DE together is reconfiguring lists. If you were going to make DIY rules, the best way to do it is to assume it’s a tournament pack for a super local RTT, one time only. To say nothing of it being harder to change three factions than just one, it’s better to change no factions’ points, since the point is to get buy-in from players with as little effort as possible, just bringing their normal TAC or tournament lists.

Elite infantry doesn’t work as a concept. Pricing for guard infantry and kabalites is only a small part of that problem.

I will say that Elite infantry does have a place in objective heavy games. And that is worth something. Force Concentration is actually a good thing to have from a tactical standpoint, although it is difficult to put a value on it. The general idea is that you can focus 500 points of Marines on the battlefield in a far lower total area than 500 points of say, Guardsmen or Orcs. Because of the logistics and size of their squads the Marines in theory are able to launch devastating assaults where they are able to pit a higher percentage of their army against their opponent, say 1000 points v 700 points or so. Even though they are outnumbered in a perfect situation they should be able to do that. Durability is also important when it comes to objectives. It can be difficult to sift 100 points of Marines in cover on an objective, This plays into force concentration because you normally will only be able to fit so many of your guardsmen on an objective, and it is relatively easier to blow the offending squad off of it.

don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Marines are in a good place right now, and I'm not saying they are fairly priced for what they are capable of, but to say that there is no real benefits to durability and everything should just be measured in wounds + firepower isn't quite accurate. In a game where armies are fighting over objectives being able to leverage greater durability can be a huge advantage. Marine's biggest problem is that they pay too many points for their durability and the current meta where most anti elite infantry tech is also the best anti vehicle tech, nearly every army they face is loaded to the gills with hard counters to Marines.

If they were T5 2 wounds for 13 points they would be very elite. Probably too good at that point level BUT they still wouldn't be shyte to the likes of shining spears which would still 1 shot them and wound them on 3's - with 6's taking away most their save on their 4 shot shurikens - taking dix for damage from their bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 akaean wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
The worst thing about changing points for marines, guard, and DE together is reconfiguring lists. If you were going to make DIY rules, the best way to do it is to assume it’s a tournament pack for a super local RTT, one time only. To say nothing of it being harder to change three factions than just one, it’s better to change no factions’ points, since the point is to get buy-in from players with as little effort as possible, just bringing their normal TAC or tournament lists.

Elite infantry doesn’t work as a concept. Pricing for guard infantry and kabalites is only a small part of that problem.

I will say that Elite infantry does have a place in objective heavy games. And that is worth something. Force Concentration is actually a good thing to have from a tactical standpoint, although it is difficult to put a value on it. The general idea is that you can focus 500 points of Marines on the battlefield in a far lower total area than 500 points of say, Guardsmen or Orcs. Because of the logistics and size of their squads the Marines in theory are able to launch devastating assaults where they are able to pit a higher percentage of their army against their opponent, say 1000 points v 700 points or so. Even though they are outnumbered in a perfect situation they should be able to do that. Durability is also important when it comes to objectives. It can be difficult to sift 100 points of Marines in cover on an objective, This plays into force concentration because you normally will only be able to fit so many of your guardsmen on an objective, and it is relatively easier to blow the offending squad off of it.

don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Marines are in a good place right now, and I'm not saying they are fairly priced for what they are capable of, but to say that there is no real benefits to durability and everything should just be measured in wounds + firepower isn't quite accurate. In a game where armies are fighting over objectives being able to leverage greater durability can be a huge advantage. Marine's biggest problem is that they pay too many points for their durability and the current meta where most anti elite infantry tech is also the best anti vehicle tech, nearly every army they face is loaded to the gills with hard counters to Marines.

It's all about durability for cost - too many weapons remove their armor and wound them on 3's for it really to be considered difficult to remove. It is much harder to remove hordes with lots of wounds - ESP if they have invo saves or FNP or a 5+ base save in cover.

8 Tac marines in cover on an objective... you can easily have 2 squads of 13 cultists for that. One gets obliterated, the other moves into the objective. Or one giant unit where you take casualties from the outside and never get close to the 3” objective radius as the attacking unit. Not apply that to all the fearless type horde troops out there and the problem is worse. 8 Tac marines aren’t holding on to anything the enemy doesn’t feel comfortable letting you hold onto.

Leveraging your superior stats point for point only works if you have multiple attacks, which Tac marines don’t, and how are you getting into CC with that many points in the first place? Best case scenario you kill a chaff unit, consolidate into another, next turn they fall back (or are content to have your crappy MEQ locked up) and shoot a ton of other stuff.

Hordes attack a list's ability to generate X number of effective shots. Elite infantry can be handled with both number of shots and quality of shots. That's a problem.

Yes, gotta get around that somehow.

This is a problem for all expensive infantry, scouts and dire avengers on up. Seems like custodes get around it only slightly, even with lots of wounds and shields.

Custodes, while initially successful, have had difficultly in full length games lately it seems.

Martel732 wrote:
Hordes attack a list's ability to generate X number of effective shots. Elite infantry can be handled with both number of shots and quality of shots. That's a problem.

Yep - vunerability to every weapon type in the game is precisely marines issue - how do you fix this? You lower their points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Custodes, while initially successful, have had difficultly in full length games lately it seems.

I have no trouble against custodes with casual nids lists I play against them. Oh you have melle beasts? Me too! The game is kinda fun like this actually.

Martel732 wrote:
Hordes attack a list's ability to generate X number of effective shots. Elite infantry can be handled with both number of shots and quality of shots. That's a problem.

It comes a lot from the focus on averages by people in these discussions as well. The above discussion about it taking 20 Guardsman to on average remove 1 marine in cover, and 2 Marines to remove 1 guardsman in cover. Both are true. However the marines can at most kill 4 models, those 20 guardsman can kill 40 models. Due to how math functions hordes are much more likely to be statistically average in their results because you roll more. If we look at equal points of marines and guardsman (3 Marines vs 10 Guardsman). ON average out of cover those 3 marines kill 1.78 Guardsman(7.12 points). Those guardsman kill 1.11 marines (14.4 points). Not only are the guardsman more resilient to marine fire than the opposite they are more damaging. Someone above said their needs to be a trade off and I agree, no unit should be both better offensively and defensively for its points. Throw in that with dice falling the guard way that 1.11 can turn to 7, something which can never happen on the marine side.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Yes, gotta get around that somehow.

This is a problem for all expensive infantry, scouts and dire avengers on up. Seems like custodes get around it only slightly, even with lots of wounds and shields.

custodes get around by being vunerable to practically nothing - they cost a lot per model though - so individual save rolls become very important and often swing things north or south. They also have a very OP banner which gives them -1 to hit bubble. I mean...if eldar had that it would be GFG.

hence why I argued for increase in wounds, and attacks. Doing that makes marines much less susceptible to small arms fire. Primaris already show this, they are just a bit high in cost to be truely great.

I don't play SM but what I gather from this thread is that the problem lies mainly with the Tactical marine having no role in the game. What if the tactical marine gained an additional special rule?

For example, inspired by DoW 2:
When your opponent is declaring one of your non-tactical Marine squads as a target of one of their units in the shooting phase, you can choose one of your Tactical Marine squads in 6" to the target unit. Your opponent has to shoot at the tactical Marines instead. The tactical Marine squad also gains +1 to cover against this attack.

Bremon wrote:
8 Tac marines in cover on an objective... you can easily have 2 squads of 13 cultists for that. One gets obliterated, the other moves into the objective. Or one giant unit where you take casualties from the outside and never get close to the 3” objective radius as the attacking unit. Not apply that to all the fearless type horde troops out there and the problem is worse. 8 Tac marines aren’t holding on to anything the enemy doesn’t feel comfortable letting you hold onto.

Leveraging your superior stats point for point only works if you have multiple attacks, which Tac marines don’t, and how are you getting into CC with that many points in the first place? Best case scenario you kill a chaff unit, consolidate into another, next turn they fall back (or are content to have your crappy MEQ locked up) and shoot a ton of other stuff.

Hypothetical

44 bolter shots, 22 on each cultist unit means both will be likely gone after morale.
On the other hand that means 5 marines die (not in cover) and you'll very likely still be around.

Those cultists will be harder to get all perched in cover and those marines are almost guaranteed to be on objective.

That's a fair point, but once you start taking fire from -AP weapons, the cultists become far, far more valuable. And -AP stuff is EVERYWHERE.

Martel732 wrote:
That's a fair point, but once you start taking fire from -AP weapons, the cultists become far, far more valuable. And -AP stuff is EVERYWHERE.

Sure. Cultists laugh at disintegrators. But that's more a criticism of cheap weapons rather than cheap bodies.

I think it's fine for armies to have stand-out specialized weapons like the HBC. Not everything needs to be "the same". But the disintegrators cross the line a little too far. Especially when it's not limited to one per model like the HBC.