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.

marines are by far the most popular faction. Most people do not want marines to be bad. You are not an oppressed minority. Sorry? You really seem attached to the idea that you are.

I think a lot of people here aren't factoring in the fact that Tactical Marines have access to special and heavy weapons, aswell as some of the best Auras available in the game. It's not all s4 ap0 shooting after all.

Darsath wrote:
I think a lot of people here aren't factoring in the fact that Tactical Marines have access to special and heavy weapons, aswell as some of the best Auras available in the game. It's not all s4 ap0 shooting after all.

Another good point. But so do Guardsmen, and FRFSRF, and so on.

Stux wrote:

Bharring wrote:
In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.

Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.

That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.

Absolutely, all very true. I'm not saying the calculation is truly representative of what would happen in a battle, but conversely I've not given Guard an officer to issue FRFSRF or anything like that.

The point is to show how much of a hill Marines have to climb to get an advantage at all.

But if you swap 4ppm guardsmen squads for 5ppm guardsmen squads how do things go is it close. If that works and marines trade ok ish with other troops their is the solution.

Bharring wrote:
In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.

Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.

That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.

Okay. So how do the Marines do against Infantry that are camping in cover?

Bharring wrote:

Most people want Marines to not suck. And most people think they're subpar right now. But most people don't want 2W Marines with Bladestorm or 13ppm Intercessors. That's not not "bad". That's stupidly OP.

Marines need to have two wounds to for proper durability against small arms fire. The old marine statline just is not functional as elite infantry under the current system.

Ice_can wrote:

Stux wrote:

Bharring wrote:
In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.

Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.

That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.

Absolutely, all very true. I'm not saying the calculation is truly representative of what would happen in a battle, but conversely I've not given Guard an officer to issue FRFSRF or anything like that.

The point is to show how much of a hill Marines have to climb to get an advantage at all.

But if you swap 4ppm guardsmen squads for 5ppm guardsmen squads how do things go is it close. If that works and marines trade ok ish with other troops their is the solution.

Marines win after 9 turns. 2 marines left standing.

That's with Marines starting first still.

Marines need a buff, but start running some of these calculations with 2W marines.

2W Marines beat FireWarriors in the open fighting British Redcoat style. How is that acceptable?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.

Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.

That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.

Okay. So how do the Marines do against Infantry that are camping in cover?

EDIT - MISREAD COMMENT
If Marines only are in cover they win after 9 turns. Again, going first still.

If Guard are in cover too then Guard win after 12 turns.

Guardsmen "winning" after 12 turns isn't really Guardsmen winning. Best case, it's a draw. More likely, Marines claim the territory as they run the engagement (Guardsmen can't let Marines charge or they lose hard).

Bharring wrote:
Marines need a buff, but start running some of these calculations with 2W marines.

2W Marines beat FireWarriors in the open fighting British Redcoat style. How is that acceptable?

Two wound marines cost 18 points.

Currently. Some of the 2W Tac Marine suggestions also bump the price to ~15, but others keep it at 13.

Currently, Marines need a buff. Many suggested buffs go too far.

Intercessors need to cost 16 or 15 points, and several of the multidamage weapons in the game need a point increase. You can forget about tactical marines, they're going to be phased out anyway.

Bharring wrote:
Guardsmen "winning" after 12 turns isn't really Guardsmen winning. Best case, it's a draw. More likely, Marines claim the territory as they run the engagement (Guardsmen can't let Marines charge or they lose hard).

That's not true.

Guardsmen have the same number of attacks as Tactical Marines body for body, but they have a lot more bodies. And their attacks are equivalent to Lasguns Vs Boltguns. So guard still win in melee purely on weight of numbers.

Also, to add in real game factors, Fix Bayonets is a thing.

Stux wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think a lot of people here aren't factoring in the fact that Tactical Marines have access to special and heavy weapons, aswell as some of the best Auras available in the game. It's not all s4 ap0 shooting after all.

Another good point. But so do Guardsmen, and FRFSRF, and so on.

This has been true for multiple editions for sure, but you have a fair point. Still, comparing to Guardsmen isn't exactly a good way of justifying the argument that they're bad. It really just shows that they're not the best. And in all honesty, if they were just as good as guardsmen then you the alliances between Guard and Marines would get even stronger.

Bharring wrote:
Currently. Some of the 2W Tac Marine suggestions also bump the price to ~15, but others keep it at 13.

Currently, Marines need a buff. Many suggested buffs go too far.

The way I see it is at 15ppm with 2 wounds(maybe, maybe a second attack) they are a little over double the cost of 2 fire warriors. Similar points per wound, same amount of wounds, same amount of attacks, less shots, "weaker" gun, but better Armour save.

I would love to try marines like this but find myself unable to play most times. And frankly people are still gonna say it's not enough thanks to 2D weapons but hey I wouldn't look this Gift horse in the mouth. (Intercessors are a whole other headache, I dunno scale them up? Leave them and make them cheaper to close the gap???)

Bharring wrote:
Marines need a buff, but start running some of these calculations with 2W marines.

2W Marines beat FireWarriors in the open fighting British Redcoat style. How is that acceptable?

Because the rest of marine units suck for the most part.

 Crimson wrote:
Intercessors need to cost 16 or 15 points, and several of the multidamage weapons in the game need a point increase. You can forget about tactical marines, they're going to be phased out anyway.

I don't know about 16 points but I'd be content with 17 point Intercessors. A 19 point Deathwatch Intercessor would be pretty darn good after all. 18 seems like too cheap though for them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Intercessors need to cost 16 or 15 points, and several of the multidamage weapons in the game need a point increase. You can forget about tactical marines, they're going to be phased out anyway.

I don't know about 16 points but I'd be content with 17 point Intercessors. A 19 point Deathwatch Intercessor would be pretty darn good after all. 18 seems like too cheap though for them.

Deathwatch Intercessors do not need point decrease. Currently it is completely absurd how much better they're than vanilla ones for a very minor cost increase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Currently. Some of the 2W Tac Marine suggestions also bump the price to ~15, but others keep it at 13.

Currently, Marines need a buff. Many suggested buffs go too far.

The way I see it is at 15ppm with 2 wounds(maybe, maybe a second attack) they are a little over double the cost of 2 fire warriors. Similar points per wound, same amount of wounds, same amount of attacks, less shots, "weaker" gun, but better Armour save.

I would love to try marines like this but find myself unable to play most times. And frankly people are still gonna say it's not enough thanks to 2D weapons but hey I wouldn't look this Gift horse in the mouth. (Intercessors are a whole other headache, I dunno scale them up? Leave them and make them cheaper to close the gap???)

So basically you want Tactical Marines to be Intercessors... Why not just use Intercessors at this point?

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Intercessors need to cost 16 or 15 points, and several of the multidamage weapons in the game need a point increase. You can forget about tactical marines, they're going to be phased out anyway.

I don't know about 16 points but I'd be content with 17 point Intercessors. A 19 point Deathwatch Intercessor would be pretty darn good after all. 18 seems like too cheap though for them.

Deathwatch Intercessors do not need point decrease. Currently it is completely absurd how much better they're than vanilla ones for a very minor cost increase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Currently. Some of the 2W Tac Marine suggestions also bump the price to ~15, but others keep it at 13.

Currently, Marines need a buff. Many suggested buffs go too far.

The way I see it is at 15ppm with 2 wounds(maybe, maybe a second attack) they are a little over double the cost of 2 fire warriors. Similar points per wound, same amount of wounds, same amount of attacks, less shots, "weaker" gun, but better Armour save.

I would love to try marines like this but find myself unable to play most times. And frankly people are still gonna say it's not enough thanks to 2D weapons but hey I wouldn't look this Gift horse in the mouth. (Intercessors are a whole other headache, I dunno scale them up? Leave them and make them cheaper to close the gap???)

So basically you want Tactical Marines to be Intercessors... Why not just use Intercessors at this point?

But Intercessors are at a universal price. The question is what's that universal price?

Space Marines in power armor makes a fantastic shelf-space-taker-upper, right next to terminators.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

But Intercessors are at a universal price. The question is what's that universal price?

They shouldn't. Or SIA should cost more. Whatever the base cost is, there is no way that DW Intercessor is only two point's worth better than a vanilla one.

 Crimson wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Currently. Some of the 2W Tac Marine suggestions also bump the price to ~15, but others keep it at 13.

Currently, Marines need a buff. Many suggested buffs go too far.

The way I see it is at 15ppm with 2 wounds(maybe, maybe a second attack) they are a little over double the cost of 2 fire warriors. Similar points per wound, same amount of wounds, same amount of attacks, less shots, "weaker" gun, but better Armour save.

I would love to try marines like this but find myself unable to play most times. And frankly people are still gonna say it's not enough thanks to 2D weapons but hey I wouldn't look this Gift horse in the mouth. (Intercessors are a whole other headache, I dunno scale them up? Leave them and make them cheaper to close the gap???)

So basically you want Tactical Marines to be Intercessors... Why not just use Intercessors at this point?

Okie doke
Intercessors can't take special weapons, heavy weapons, they only have one transport, I only have 15 of these guys compared to the scores of OG marines so maybe I'm biased, that being said if Intercessors dropped that low I'd for sure use them as campers with their improved basic weapons. But I won't shelf the OG marines, not until Primaris get a bargain bin transport.

Bharring wrote:
Marines need a buff, but start running some of these calculations with 2W marines.

2W Marines beat FireWarriors in the open fighting British Redcoat style. How is that acceptable?

I mean they beat fire warriors in shot for shot in 7th and I don't think anyone was crying about them being op back then.

Stux wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Stux wrote:

Bharring wrote:
In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.

Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.

That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.

Absolutely, all very true. I'm not saying the calculation is truly representative of what would happen in a battle, but conversely I've not given Guard an officer to issue FRFSRF or anything like that.

The point is to show how much of a hill Marines have to climb to get an advantage at all.

But if you swap 4ppm guardsmen squads for 5ppm guardsmen squads how do things go is it close. If that works and marines trade ok ish with other troops their is the solution.

Marines win after 9 turns. 2 marines left standing.

That's with Marines starting first still.

That sounds more like the true issue, because marines beating Fire warriors point for point in a gun fight doesn't sound right.

Marine's seem weak but when you stop compairing them to guardsmen they don't sound so bad.

SIA intercessors still cost too much at 20 ppm. That's too much liability in a game as lethal as 8th ed.

Martel732 wrote:
SIA intercessors still cost too much at 20 ppm. That's too much liability in a game as lethal as 8th ed.

Perhaps. But SIA Intercessor for 20 points is hella better deal than Intercessor without SIA for 18 points.

18 pt intercessors are unfieldable because anyone csn ignore them all game. I know i do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Stux wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Stux wrote:

Bharring wrote:
In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.

Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.

That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.

Absolutely, all very true. I'm not saying the calculation is truly representative of what would happen in a battle, but conversely I've not given Guard an officer to issue FRFSRF or anything like that.

The point is to show how much of a hill Marines have to climb to get an advantage at all.

But if you swap 4ppm guardsmen squads for 5ppm guardsmen squads how do things go is it close. If that works and marines trade ok ish with other troops their is the solution.

Marines win after 9 turns. 2 marines left standing.

That's with Marines starting first still.

That sounds more like the true issue, because marines beating Fire warriors point for point in a gun fight doesn't sound right.

Marine's seem weak but when you stop compairing them to guardsmen they don't sound so bad.

It's fine, because marines need the best troops hands down because their troops are also their heavies, their elites, etc. This would balance marines at an army level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darsath wrote:
I think a lot of people here aren't factoring in the fact that Tactical Marines have access to special and heavy weapons, aswell as some of the best Auras available in the game. It's not all s4 ap0 shooting after all.

The special/heavy weapons make the problem even worse because of how they are costed.

Has anyone compared bolter marines to stuff like eldar guardians, ork shoota boyz, dark eldar warriors, necron warriors and so on?

The talk is only about guardsmen, but we all know they are under costed anyways. It would be nice to see a more broad study of basic rifle units vs marines than comparing with the best every time.

You can't compare marines only to other troops. That's mistake number one in this analysis.