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.

I love math arguments. Keep it up guys(girls?)!!!

Also, thanks for keeping the tone civil.

Ideally, the Tactical Marine is worth 11 points and pays a point for the Bolter, but the issue is how the squad can be loaded out as well. The classic 1 Special/1 Heavy at 7 men and then an additional of either at 10 for 2 Special/1 Heavy or 2 Heavy/1 Special would be unique and at least slightly more functional.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

And somehow that's not good enough? Crazypants.

I get the desire for 2w, but it's wrong.

The thing is, 2W/2A Marines is not just trying to align to the fluff - it’s a concession to gameplay.

Negative, it is a concession to power fantasy.

Because look at it from evey other factions perspective.

It already takes 10 Guardsmen, rapid firing, to kill one marine.
30 Hormagaunts don't even kill 5 marines
10 Dire Avengers kill 4ish (I think)
10 Fire Warriors rapid firing kill 2

These are core units of other factions, and what you'd be doing is cutting their effectivenes vs. Marines in half. The "concession to gameplay" is every other basic infantry unit concedes gameplay. Would it be fun as a fan of Fire Warriors to barely kill a marine with a full squad rapid firing? You make the charge with 30 Hormagaunts and kill 2 guys? That gameplay sucks.


The issue basic marines have is that they're fighting in a pitched battle where everyone is taking loads of heavy weapons and anti-elite weapons. An extra wound isn't necessarily going to help that, see the primaris complaints. They're still just dudes showing up to a tank battle, effectively. Especially considering the terrain conditions tournaments are under. So an extra wound doesn't really solve your problem, but it sure gives the middle finger to everyone elses basic infantry.

It's not a solution.

Edit: Also, there is a lore justification - cutting a Marine in half won’t stop him attacking you. Cut off his arm an he keeps hitting you with the other one without missing a beat. Shoot him in the heart or lungs and his backup ones take over. Give him a wound that would make him bleed out, he clots and forms scar tissue instantly. Of all basic-troop-shaped things in the game, they are kind of the leading contender for having two wounds.

Marines are not still attacking you after being cut in half.

For everything else, see Ork. Orks feel little pain, and will continue fighting without limbs with bullets in their heads. That's T4.


Edit: That's a little more strongly worded than it could be, I apologize.

You are missing the point insectum. Marines are no more durable than other infantry per point against anti infantry. They are much less durable against heavy weapons per point. They have less firepower per point. In essence - they are worse in every way to other infantry units in the game.

Realistically. Marines should get something for putting more points into 1 wound or they should just get more wounds.

I am not missing the point, but you're assuming that the only solution to your problem is to make them two wounds. When obviously there are other potential solutions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are missing the point insectum. Marines are no more durable than other infantry per point against anti infantry. They are much less durable against heavy weapons per point. They have less firepower per point. In essence - they are worse in every way to other infantry units in the game.

Realistically. Marines should get something for putting more points into 1 wound or they should just get more wounds.

So, if I took a unit that has a whole lot of points into one wound - say, a Dark Reaper - and I demonstrate that there is some other infantry unit in the game that is better at EVERYTHING than it (not sure how you do that, but let's say you did so let's say I did) how does that indicate to me that Dark Reapers deserve buffs and not that this other infantry unit deserves nerfs?

Because looking at tournament lists...boy oh boy, there seem to be a whole lot of guardsmen, and not a whole lot of...well, a lot of infantry units.

Does that mean EVERY infantry unit we don't see in tournaments should be buffed until they do something better than guardsmen?

Can't wait to see what my gretchins perform like after this next codex then

Space Marine vs. Guardsman is fine. The problem is, the game has moved to Epic level combat. It isn’t Guardsmen w/ lasguns anymore shooting marines - it’s their Leman Russes, or Guardsmen with lascannons or any other number of heavy weapons/vehicle/monsters.

That’s why marines are bad now. At killteam levels of play, people would be bitching how unkillable marines are. Against the current levels of firepower a 2,000 point list can bring, they’re nothing - and always will be nothing.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I am not missing the point, but you're assuming that the only solution to your problem is to make them two wounds. When obviously there are other potential solutions.

You could (for example) make them 11pts base.

The reason for why that's not acceptable to marine players is usually "well yes but we don't want that."

I had the idea of giving primaris marines the same ability aberrants have where they reduce damage they take by 1 to a minimum of one then giving them a slight point increase. Suddenly they feel like elite forces and their wounds matter. You would have to appropriate point cost them though. Too much and they're still not putting out enough damage to win firefights and if it is too little they are going to tank too much and just grind out a win.

As for normal marines I don't really see a way for them to get better going forward outside of point adjustments.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I had the idea of giving primaris marines the same ability aberrants have where they reduce damage they take by 1 to a minimum of one then giving them a slight point increase. Suddenly they feel like elite forces and their wounds matter. You would have to appropriate point cost them though. Too much and they're still not putting out enough damage to win firefights and if it is too little they are going to tank too much and just grind out a win.

As for normal marines I don't really see a way for them to get better going forward outside of point adjustments.

Personally I've never understood the desire for space marines to be this grinding army of unstoppable mega-armor that everything just bounces off of, when they're supposed to be an elite lightning-strike force. The whole formula of BIG BEEFY DEFENSIVE STATS iiiiiiiitty bitty gun just seems so broken, when we know for a fact if you take a unit like Deathwatch veterans with storm bolters suddenly it flips around and hey, they can actually kill things. They're a bit of a glass cannon, not as much as for example a dark eldar lightning strike unit but just enough where if you use your space marines to cripple or heavily damage the opposition, they don't have the firepower to get past the T4 and the 3+sv.

Let the Babys First Marines be the tanky necron wannabes. Buff normal marines' offense.

10 Guardsmen on rapid fire kill 1 Marines.
3 Marines on Rapid fire kill 2 Guardsmen.

Do the math and tell me who runs out of men first.

To be fair if you're a Marine player trying to go gun-line to gun-line with a Guard player you're probably doing it wrong.

To the original question Marines do need adjustments, but I think it's more the elites than the basic troops and needing Strategems/CTs that play to their actual strengths, and I don't think Vanilla Marines need a whole new codex to do that.

Give Termies and Centurions an extra wound, give Centurions drop-pod access, give Flash Grenades to Assault Marines, let more (maybe all) of the SM vehicles move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty...actually that would probably help basic Marines too, that sort of thing. They're supposed to be a scalpel, their rules shouldn't encourage you to try to gun-line with them. (Whoever suggested it, I like Grinding Advance on the Vindicator. Maybe the Whirlwind as well.)

the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I am not missing the point, but you're assuming that the only solution to your problem is to make them two wounds. When obviously there are other potential solutions.

You could (for example) make them 11pts base.

The reason for why that's not acceptable to marine players is usually "well yes but we don't want that."

Sure, points adjustment is one solution. Increasing lethality would be another. I'm not convinced marines are broken in the first place, but if I were to pick one, I think I'd go with lethality. Be that an extra bolter shot, or whatever.

I'm fine with them not changing, I'm fine with a minor points adjustment, I'm fine with slight buff to shooting or whatever. But the 2W thing should really be off the table, as far as I'm concerned.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I had the idea of giving primaris marines the same ability aberrants have where they reduce damage they take by 1 to a minimum of one then giving them a slight point increase. Suddenly they feel like elite forces and their wounds matter. You would have to appropriate point cost them though. Too much and they're still not putting out enough damage to win firefights and if it is too little they are going to tank too much and just grind out a win.

As for normal marines I don't really see a way for them to get better going forward outside of point adjustments.

Personally I've never understood the desire for space marines to be this grinding army of unstoppable mega-armor that everything just bounces off of, when they're supposed to be an elite lightning-strike force. The whole formula of BIG BEEFY DEFENSIVE STATS iiiiiiiitty bitty gun just seems so broken, when we know for a fact if you take a unit like Deathwatch veterans with storm bolters suddenly it flips around and hey, they can actually kill things. They're a bit of a glass cannon, not as much as for example a dark eldar lightning strike unit but just enough where if you use your space marines to cripple or heavily damage the opposition, they don't have the firepower to get past the T4 and the 3+sv.

Let the Babys First Marines be the tanky necron wannabes. Buff normal marines' offense.

Well I wouldn't say marines are always a lightning strike force. Several chapters prefer to grind down their opponents through overwhelming firepower and durability. Part of the idea of a marine is this super soldier behemoth of a man that can fight on to the bitter end. When they drop like flies it really takes away from the feel of the faction and the power of a marine. I find Deathwatch marines have appropriate levels of offensive capability, but fall behind in durability. The problem is that due to their durability they are unable to outlast their opponents. One big problem with marines is that they are all geared to be hybrid specialists, but in reality they are incapable of performing this well. Any melee unit worth anything will beat marines and any shooty unit worth anything will out shoot marines. You can't have marines perform their rolls well at all with the current system. The premium you pay for "versatility" hurts you more than helps you. The only way to really fix that is to buff the offensive and defensive abilities of marines (which is going to really change how a lot of units are balanced) or drop their points which is easier, but far less flavorful and thematic.

"Marines are no more durable than other infantry per point against anti infantry."

This comes up in every thread.

Marines are no more durable per point than Guardsmen in the open.

They are more durable per point (to anti-infantry weapons, in the open) than:
-Fire Warriors
-Scouts
-Guardians
-Harlequins
-Genestealers
-Dire Avengers
-Rangers

In fact, they are more durable per point than *most infantry*.

The infantry that *are* more durable per point than Marines are those defined by it - be it Necrons "Evil space robots that reubild themselves", Ork "Tides of soccer hooligans", Nid "Swarm of tiny bugs", and Guardsmen "Supernumerous bullet sponges".

Which of those should they, thematically, be more durable per *point* than?

(And that's in the in open. Cover does a *lot* more for Marines than most infantry.)

Bharring wrote:
"Marines are no more durable than other infantry per point against anti infantry."

This comes up in every thread.

Marines are no more durable per point than Guardsmen in the open.

They are more durable per point (to anti-infantry weapons, in the open) than:
-Fire Warriors
-Scouts
-Guardians
-Harlequins
-Genestealers
-Dire Avengers
-Rangers

In fact, they are more durable per point than *most infantry*.

The infantry that *are* more durable per point than Marines are those defined by it - be it Necrons "Evil space robots that reubild themselves", Ork "Tides of soccer hooligans", Nid "Swarm of tiny bugs", and Guardsmen "Supernumerous bullet sponges".

Which of those should they, thematically, be more durable per *point* than?

(And that's in the in open. Cover does a *lot* more for Marines than most infantry.)

I think it is important to also compare the offensive output they bring to those other units. Harlequins and geanstealers have invulns which is going to be better than armor against a lot of things as well as possessing FAR superior melee capabilities alongside FAR superior mobility. Fire warriors are superior at killing things in every way (straight up better gun) and heck I'd even take guardsmen over marines for killing power due to the orders they can receive etc etc. I can tell you from a lot of experience I have had playing with Primaris marines that even intercessors with ap-1 bolters are laughed at by my club for how pathetic their damage output is. Sure they can be pretty durable against 1d weapons with low AP, but they don't do any damage worth noting.

However Primaris intercessors are pretty scary with their special ammo, but still easily countered by very popular meta heavy weapons like basilisks, plasma guns and Dissy cannons. That and they are also more expensive.

Fire Warriors are only 7 points so they are more durable. T3 W2 4+ is more durable than T4 W1 3+

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are missing the point insectum. Marines are no more durable than other infantry per point against anti infantry. They are much less durable against heavy weapons per point. They have less firepower per point. In essence - they are worse in every way to other infantry units in the game.

Realistically. Marines should get something for putting more points into 1 wound or they should just get more wounds.

So, if I took a unit that has a whole lot of points into one wound - say, a Dark Reaper - and I demonstrate that there is some other infantry unit in the game that is better at EVERYTHING than it (not sure how you do that, but let's say you did so let's say I did) how does that indicate to me that Dark Reapers deserve buffs and not that this other infantry unit deserves nerfs?

Because looking at tournament lists...boy oh boy, there seem to be a whole lot of guardsmen, and not a whole lot of...well, a lot of infantry units.

Does that mean EVERY infantry unit we don't see in tournaments should be buffed until they do something better than guardsmen?

Can't wait to see what my gretchins perform like after this next codex then

I absolutely think if a unit costs more points than another unit - it should do something better than a comparable unit. Otherwise it is not worth more points.

The marine problem really does seem to stem from the Bolter. It's not so much that its a bad weapon, but its in an awkward place where it doesn't really have a viable target. Being the baseline, most everything in the game's durability is defined by why its good against Bolters. GEQ are durable against its low volume of fire. Being S5 is good because it puts them at the same wound roll as flashlights. Even marines themselves are proud of their armor save vs the things. There's just not anything you want to be targeting with the things, so what role are the bodies attached to it supposed to serve?

Fire Warriors die *twice* as fast vs anti-infantry weapons such as Bolters, moreso than Lasguns. Sure, it's only 14pts:13pts in Marine's favor vs S4, but it's still *in Marine's favor*.

As with all these threads, that's not to say Marines > Fire Warriors. It's only to say that Marines are more durable per point to anti-infantry weapons than Fire Warriors, if only marginally so.

T3 4+ is exactly half as durable vs S4AP0 in the open. Worse, in cover.

And that's probably the *closest* in my list. DAs are only 1ppm cheaper, yet die twice as fast to the weaponry discussed. Harlies are more expensive and die even faster.

Comments are much more constructive when they are accurate. It's not like this is the first time this statement has come up and been corrected.

Only SM players can see an army with 20+ unviable units and literally argue "well it's not as bad as ours so it should NEVER GET FIXED". Forgot how irrational this army makes certain players. Stick to the fluff Xenomancers, that power fantasy you're looking for doesn't belong in a balanced multi-player game, something you've never understood.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Only SM players can see an army with 20+ unviable units and literally argue "well it's not as bad as ours so it should NEVER GET FIXED". Forgot how irrational this army makes certain players. Stick to the fluff Xenomancers, that power fantasy you're looking for doesn't belong in a balanced multi-player game, something you've never understood.

I play both armies my friend. Nids is probably my most played army in 8th. My opinion is that it is a very good codex with lots of viable units and combos. I play toned down nids armies ALL THE TIME against armies like pure costodes - TS - admech - tau - harliquens. I still usually win. Space marines are the only army I play that I feel like it's over before it starts. Since eldar got a codex I havn't been able to beat them with marines. They even struggle against weak armies like admech and TS.

I regularly play with 9 man units of warriors with prime support / haruspex / toxicrines (both of which have flat 3 damage explosions that just murder elite units) / swarmlord with tyrant guard / tyranofex. Admittedly I am carried usually by carnifex which is usually include a few of. I even started removing geenstealers and replacing with trash units like hormagants (actually not such a bad unit with 1 cost stratagems giving out huge amounts of mortals). Again I am not disagreeing with you that internal balance is an issue for lots of armies including Nids - for me it's more of an issues that middle tier nids units still cream marines. External balance is a much more important factor though. I really can't sympathize for an army that can field multiple viable army compositions when the most viable marines armies have been constantly nerfed. FFS - the codex for marines was almost a nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
The marine problem really does seem to stem from the Bolter. It's not so much that its a bad weapon, but its in an awkward place where it doesn't really have a viable target. Being the baseline, most everything in the game's durability is defined by why its good against Bolters. GEQ are durable against its low volume of fire. Being S5 is good because it puts them at the same wound roll as flashlights. Even marines themselves are proud of their armor save vs the things. There's just not anything you want to be targeting with the things, so what role are the bodies attached to it supposed to serve?

Playing against admech with 3 knights the other day - my firewarriors shined. Hit his crusader knight with +1 to wound strat and 5 markers. About 35 Fire warriors did about 20 wounds to the sucker. Wounding him on 4's.

I actually think all marines should have the primaris statline. It makes sense from a fluff side where a single marine is easily worth an entire platoon of guardsmen, and is strong enough to rip a turret off a tank with his bare power armored hands, even without a power fist.

However, I think they should be more expensive then tac marines are now if that were the case... maybe not as expensive as current primaris marines are, but definitely more expensive then tacs are now. I think marines should truly be a low model count, elite army. Not as much as GK or custodes, but more so then any other faction. I don't want to see power armored hordes, that is the sisters' schtick. As it stands now tacs aren't worth 13 points, and making them any lower risks turning them into a horde army. The marine statline needs to be revisited in this new edition.

w1zard wrote:
I actually think all marines should have the primaris statline. It makes sense from a fluff side where a single marine is easily worth an entire platoon of guardsmen, and is strong enough to rip a turret off a tank with his bare power armored hands, even without a power fist.

That's why I don't read much black library. Pulling a turret off a tank now? Are you sure that's not "pulling a pintle mounted heavy bolter off its mount"?

"Worth an entire platoon of Guardsmen" are we going with a stand up fight in an open field? Or are we going with a marine can kill 30 guardmen if they're only getting to him piecemeal? Or maybe we should go with the fact that they can deploy incredibly fast, making short work of a task that a slower force would have to spend more time and more bodies to do? How do you quantify the "worth"?

And how do marines stack up to Aspect Warriors in the fluff? Is it consistent? Or is it all over the place, especially when taking into the account the stories told ftom an Eldar point of view? How does fluff talk about Chaos Marines, are they treated the same? Or does the fluff tell us that loyalists should have 2 wounds, while Chaos marines should only have 1.

Actually Chaos Marines are said to be more powerful, which is why I think the Chosen should be the basic troop rather than the Chaos Marine profile. These are all supposed to be Vets of the long war after all...why aren't they Vet stats?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I am not missing the point, but you're assuming that the only solution to your problem is to make them two wounds. When obviously there are other potential solutions.

You could (for example) make them 11pts base.

The reason for why that's not acceptable to marine players is usually "well yes but we don't want that."

I'll take it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Actually Chaos Marines are said to be more powerful, which is why I think the Chosen should be the basic troop rather than the Chaos Marine profile. These are all supposed to be Vets of the long war after all...why aren't they Vet stats?

Yeah, I like Chosen. I'm glad they got their bonus chainsword option back, too. I'm not sure every model is supposed to be a vet. But maybe because of the tyrannical nature of the chaos legions, or just lack of discipline, many marines don't progress as far/fast.

Or if every model had access to the bonus chainsword like they used to.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Actually Chaos Marines are said to be more powerful, which is why I think the Chosen should be the basic troop rather than the Chaos Marine profile. These are all supposed to be Vets of the long war after all...why aren't they Vet stats?

Yeah, I like Chosen. I'm glad they got their bonus chainsword option back, too. I'm not sure every model is supposed to be a vet. But maybe because of the tyrannical nature of the chaos legions, or just lack of discipline, many marines don't progress as far/fast.

Or if every model had access to the bonus chainsword like they used to.

I would also say it's because not every chaos space marine is a veteran. Some may be fresh chaos space marines made by the legions or recently turned traitor marines from the chapters.

Excuse me while I jump in here having only read the first page:

Marines need a whole new codex (and CSM, Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, DG.) This is because they have issues that go far beyond some rules tweaks or point changes to fix.

I've gone into detail on this issue in previous posts:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751394.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/755217.page

To give a quick summary:

1: Changes to offensive power (ap changes, proliferation of rerolls, etc) removed the survivability advantage that marines had.

2: Infantry hordes are incredibly strong due to AP changes and the almost complete uselessness of formerly powerful and cheap anti horde weapons (flamers, blasts, etc.). This means that, adjusted for points, cheap and weak horde units have more survivability than power armored MeQs.

3: The loss of the ability for low shot but high damage weapons to quickly eliminate targets has invalidated most elite armies. In the past, you could rely on some marines with meltas/fists/dreadnought ccws to reliably kill vehicles and characters. Now they cannot due to the new wounds and damage system. This means massing cheaper firepower is the only viable option. And on top of that, meltas got more expensive. Basic marine squads used to be a decent unit because you'd generally have a melta (or 2 as CSM) and a powerfist. This meant the squad could potentially threaten anything. Half the offensive firepower came from special weapons, and half the squads damage in melee came from the sergeant's power fist. And you had 7 tough ablative wounds protecting those 3 models. It was a solid anti-anything unit. Now, powerfists are no longer able to 1 shot vehicles and characters. I think it's silly that they were so much of the squad's power, but it still worked out well for the squad overall. The point is that marines didn't gain anything to make up for these losses in power. So now they are just worthless.

4: There is no price point that actually works for the basic MeQ statline without being absurd. They could cost 10 points, like sisters, and tactical marines will still be inferior to Guard Infantry or Guardians. Heck, tacs could cost 8 points per model and SM still wouldn't be good.

5: You could give every marine the primaris statline (+1 A, +1 W) right now, for free, and SM still wouldn't be that great because 2 strength 4 attacks is still garbage, and the types of weapons that wreck marines are mostly D2 anyway. And they'd still be less durable than an equivalent points value of guardsmen. And they'd still have poor firepower.

6: Death Watch has shown us that even having double the firepower (stormbolter) and wounding on 2's (special ammo), triple the melee attacks (a3 with chainsword) and having readily available re-roll 1's to wound (trait), re-roll hits (watch master = cheapest chapter master) and + 1 to wound strats barely makes MeQs useful. It's a big improvement for sure, but we're not seeing death watch overturning the previous meta. This is enough to solve the offensive firepower problem, but they still just die. We can't expect tacs to get this sort of stuff. And short of it, they aren't worth using.

So overall, for marines to be fixed, we need several large scale changes to 8th in terms of fixing hordes and anti horde weapons. And then we need either major changes to the marine statline, or major changes to their traits and rules to compensate for the problems with their statline. And that's going to need a new round of marine Codices.

Garbage.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Garbage.

Tell us more about your SM list that uses proper tactical squads and wins.