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.
Necron_Mason wrote: Said' fixes referring to previous sentence talking about fixes that have not been released yet but are undoubtedly on their way. Its pointless to try to balance MEQ right now, as they would probably need to be balanced again once those fixes are eventually released.
For example: If MEQ went up to 2 wounds, they would be stronger against hoards. However, the fix to hoards comes in (increase in points, changing weapons to be better against hoards, ect.), hoards will lose power and come in line with other unit types. We would then have MEQ with this anti-hoard buff against now weaker hoards, making MEQOP against hoards and requiring them to be nerfed back down to 1 wound.
Whatever changes they make to address the major problems of 40k, MEQ will more than likely have to be balanced afterwards despite whether they balance them right now or not.
So completely hypothetical assumptions on your part, which was what I was alluding to in my response. I'm also a bit baffled that you claim we shouldn't change marines because GW is going to fix the glaring problems of the game later, as though the changes people use or suggest in this proposed rules forum would somehow be 'official.' Then to suggest that GW would blindly add these changes into their updates without any understanding of how they function together with what they're working on--it's just weirdly absurd.
I'm not sure why you or anyone else posting in this part of the forum thinks that somehow suggested changes posted here will be adopted by the designers. I see this section as more inspiration for players willing to use house rules and aren't confined to playing only GW stamped material.
If you read my post, you would know that it is far from theoretical. GW has made it clear that they are determined to fix these changes, and they have shown that with 8th edition. They would not of taken such drastic measures when they designed, playtested, and released 8th edition if they were not serious about issues like this.
You are making incorrect jumps in logic here. I am far from suggesting that these proposed rules will become official or that GW pulls there rules from here. Correct me if I am wrong, but Proposed Rules is also for what we think the rules should be and what GW should do, as well as house rules to patch the game in between GW changes. The original post looks much less like house rules and more like explaining how to fix the MEQ, so I was trying to say that talking about what GW should do with MEQ is pointless until we know what GW is doing about other problems. That is the impression that I got from the original post, so I apologize if that is not how it was intended. House rules to patch the game while GW is working on fixing the core problems is great, but for gameplay sake the changes should be small things like point reductions and work their way up if that is not enough, as changing key things like wounds and adding new rules could easily throw off the balance.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/16 00:53:31
That is partly true. You either have to keep the rest of the game in mind, or whatever other potential fixes you have in mind and make mention of them.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That is partly true. You either have to keep the rest of the game in mind, or whatever other potential fixes you have in mind and make mention of them.
Indeed, it is extremely difficult to change major things in the game without checking against every opponent you could face, as you can easily lose balance. Changing things like BS/WS, Wounds, and adding rules could inadvertently effect Marines matchup verses other armies in negitive ways. Adding an extra wound could easily have a negitive effect against Necrons and their Warriors. 10 MEQ vs 10 Warriors would probably outlast the Warriors, as unless the Warriors make 10 successful 5+ RP rolls, the Marines have more survivalibily. Necron's main tactic is attrition, so Marines possibily beating them in that aspect seems a bit unfair. Of course I haven't done any mathhammer and that is within a vacuum while not considering outside units, but you get the theoretical idea.
I think a more effective way to go about this would be to come up with "House Rules when facing 'X' army" and only use those rules against that army, but that is only if we are still talking about temporary rules and not what we think the rules actually should be. It would take a lot more rule crafting, but it would be easier to balance compared to a blanket rule change.
Necron_Mason wrote: If you read my post, you would know that it is far from theoretical. GW has made it clear that they are determined to fix these changes, and they have shown that with 8th edition. They would not of taken such drastic measures when they designed, playtested, and released 8th edition if they were not serious about issues like this.
You are making incorrect jumps in logic here. I am far from suggesting that these proposed rules will become official or that GW pulls there rules from here. Correct me if I am wrong, but Proposed Rules is also for what we think the rules should be and what GW should do, as well as house rules to patch the game in between GW changes. The original post looks much less like house rules and more like explaining how to fix the MEQ, so I was trying to say that talking about what GW should do with MEQ is pointless until we know what GW is doing about other problems. That is the impression that I got from the original post, so I apologize if that is not how it was intended. House rules to patch the game while GW is working on fixing the core problems is great, but for gameplay sake the changes should be small things like point reductions and work their way up if that is not enough, as changing key things like wounds and adding new rules could easily throw off the balance.
I've read your post. The theoretical part is on your end that GW is going to nerf hoards. How do you know? What does that mean exactly? How will it help marines specifically? How will it change their poor stat-line and base weaponry that were lazily ported over into 8th? How does 2 wounds weaken hoards, or rather, why is it specifically a matter of marines vs hoards and not a consideration against all armies? You used 'hoards' as an example, but gave no details as to why 2w marines with other changes/points updates was problematic against them.
There's no incorrect jump of logic on my end at all. I see it all the time, people posting in here to vehemently oppose a rule or proposal with the mentality that these will somehow be adopted by GW. Some people think that's how rules should be when posting here. Others realize that the proposed rules forum is meant more to encourage players to house rule their own changes. If it has enough backing then maybe GW will pay attention, but that's a long stretch to assume that and (most often) people posting here with that mentality are wasting their time. The OP is probably guilty of this thought process, I don't know. People want to suggest changes to get GW's attention but it often does little or nothing at all. Who knows what the 40k games designers have planned for space marines at the moment. If I had to guess, it's probably more of the same from the first chapter approved--some points tweaks. I truly want to be wrong though. I want to see a balanced game from them, but I doubt they're capable.
House rules can be as large or small as desired. They also can be incredibly useful, but sadly most (40k) players aren't willing to house rule very often. Obviously in pick-up games its difficult to come to those agreements where changing the rules or stats of the game will give advantages to one player, even if it's to offset the disadvantages. In those situations it's near impossible to use any modifications, so it makes sense that some people don't like to or can't use house rules.
But claiming house rule changes throw off the balance when there's very little of it in the first place is somewhat ironic. My group of 40k players came up with significant changes to 7th and it played much more balanced than GW's version. We knew it because we played it and modified it--over and over again. We saw the current problems, and found issues/imbalance with what we were changing and we fixed them That's what play-testing accomplishes. It's also why I'm suspicious when GW claims this edition is the most play-tested ever. Which means what exactly--going from little or no play testing to slightly more play testing is the most play tested ever by their standards? It's still grossly meaningless, especially when there are such obvious issues with game-play and codex balance that even the most casual players notice after a few games.
In regards to marines having 2 wounds. I absolutely believe this should be the case now. I also think they should have made 'primaris' marines the new model successor to the old kits making this issue completely irrelevant with only one stat-line to figure out and balance. However, I asked one of the long-time marines players in our group if he believed they should have 2 wounds and essentially use the primaris stats, and he said it wasn't necessary with the other changes we've been using to fix marines. So we've been using those changes instead.
As an aside, I've played many armies throughout several editions of 40k. My first army was blood angels, but I sold them years ago. I now play chaos daemons (without csm allies) as my primary army and I realize that marines are in a bad place at the moment. It's easy to see for anyone that isn't in complete denial. So much so that I was easily crushing the marine players every game, especially when they weren't using a crutch like Roboute.
I like a challenge, and my opponents don't like to get stomped every game--if they do, they lose desire to play 40k and quit. That's why we've been making changes to marines, because they aren't good, and they aren't where they need to be in 8th.
Necron_Mason wrote: If you read my post, you would know that it is far from theoretical. GW has made it clear that they are determined to fix these changes, and they have shown that with 8th edition. They would not of taken such drastic measures when they designed, playtested, and released 8th edition if they were not serious about issues like this.
You are making incorrect jumps in logic here. I am far from suggesting that these proposed rules will become official or that GW pulls there rules from here. Correct me if I am wrong, but Proposed Rules is also for what we think the rules should be and what GW should do, as well as house rules to patch the game in between GW changes. The original post looks much less like house rules and more like explaining how to fix the MEQ, so I was trying to say that talking about what GW should do with MEQ is pointless until we know what GW is doing about other problems. That is the impression that I got from the original post, so I apologize if that is not how it was intended. House rules to patch the game while GW is working on fixing the core problems is great, but for gameplay sake the changes should be small things like point reductions and work their way up if that is not enough, as changing key things like wounds and adding new rules could easily throw off the balance.
I've read your post. The theoretical part is on your end that GW is going to nerf hoards. How do you know? What does that mean exactly? How will it help marines specifically? How will it change their poor stat-line and base weaponry that were lazily ported over into 8th? How does 2 wounds weaken hoards, or rather, why is it specifically a matter of marines vs hoards and not a consideration against all armies? You used 'hoards' as an example, but gave no details as to why 2w marines with other changes/points updates was problematic against them.
There's no incorrect jump of logic on my end at all. I see it all the time, people posting in here to vehemently oppose a rule or proposal with the mentality that these will somehow be adopted by GW. Some people think that's how rules should be when posting here. Others realize that the proposed rules forum is meant more to encourage players to house rule their own changes. If it has enough backing then maybe GW will pay attention, but that's a long stretch to assume that and (most often) people posting here with that mentality are wasting their time. The OP is probably guilty of this thought process, I don't know. People want to suggest changes to get GW's attention but it often does little or nothing at all. Who knows what the 40k games designers have planned for space marines at the moment. If I had to guess, it's probably more of the same from the first chapter approved--some points tweaks. I truly want to be wrong though. I want to see a balanced game from them, but I doubt they're capable.
House rules can be as large or small as desired. They also can be incredibly useful, but sadly most (40k) players aren't willing to house rule very often. Obviously in pick-up games its difficult to come to those agreements where changing the rules or stats of the game will give advantages to one player, even if it's to offset the disadvantages. In those situations it's near impossible to use any modifications, so it makes sense that some people don't like to or can't use house rules.
But claiming house rule changes throw off the balance when there's very little of it in the first place is somewhat ironic. My group of 40k players came up with significant changes to 7th and it played much more balanced than GW's version. We knew it because we played it and modified it--over and over again. We saw the current problems, and found issues/imbalance with what we were changing and we fixed them That's what play-testing accomplishes. It's also why I'm suspicious when GW claims this edition is the most play-tested ever. Which means what exactly--going from little or no play testing to slightly more play testing is the most play tested ever by their standards? It's still grossly meaningless, especially when there are such obvious issues with game-play and codex balance that even the most casual players notice after a few games.
In regards to marines having 2 wounds. I absolutely believe this should be the case now. I also think they should have made 'primaris' marines the new model successor to the old kits making this issue completely irrelevant with only one stat-line to figure out and balance. However, I asked one of the long-time marines players in our group if he believed they should have 2 wounds and essentially use the primaris stats, and he said it wasn't necessary with the other changes we've been using to fix marines. So we've been using those changes instead.
As an aside, I've played many armies throughout several editions of 40k. My first army was blood angels, but I sold them years ago. I now play chaos daemons (without csm allies) as my primary army and I realize that marines are in a bad place at the moment. It's easy to see for anyone that isn't in complete denial. So much so that I was easily crushing the marine players every game, especially when they weren't using a crutch like Roboute.
I like a challenge, and my opponents don't like to get stomped every game--if they do, they lose desire to play 40k and quit. That's why we've been making changes to marines, because they aren't good, and they aren't where they need to be in 8th.
That is quiet a bit to address, so let me go in order...
Spoiler:
The theoretical part is on your end that GW is going to nerf hoards. How do you know?
It is theoretical in the sense that it is not confirmed to be true, but with the massive shift in GW's attitude towards rule balancing they have done since 8th edition, it is a fair statement to say they are working on a fix for hoards. They did a massive overhaul of the entire game and they have made significant changes towards things were OP (Flyrants and first turn Deepstriking being two prime examples), so they are obviously making an drastically improved effort to fix glaring issues that are hurting the game's health. Since the hoard meta is something that is hurting the game's health, it's safe to assume that they are working on correcting it.
What does that mean exactly? How will it help marines specifically? How will it change their poor stat-line and base weaponry that were lazily ported over into 8th?
It means that there will be a change that results in hoards not being the best pick in nearly all situations and weaken their oppressive power over elite armies. I am not GW so I don't know exactly what they plan to do. Pretty much everyone was ported over poorly into 8th edition. However it is not because GW was lazy, but because they wanted everyone to have an army with updated rules so that they could play 8th edition. If they didn't rush it out like that, they would of had to take multiple months building and play testing each codex, while many armies would sit unplayable since they would not have updated rules. The Indexes brought everyone into 8th, the Codices improved and build upon what the Indexes established, and if my guess is correct, the second wave of Codices will bring much more creative and work on changing the rules that did not port over well. The Indexes build the foundation, the first wave of Codices are building on top of said foundation, and more than likely the second wave of Codices will fine tune everything while also introducing new things since they won't have to rush it. In short, they didn't rush it because they were lazy, but because they wanted everyone to be able to play 8th to a reasonable standard as soon as possible.
How does 2 wounds weaken hoards, or rather, why is it specifically a matter of marines vs hoards and not a consideration against all armies? You used 'hoards' as an example, but gave no details as to why 2w marines with other changes/points updates was problematic against them.
It weakens them by making Marines more hoard-like against hoards. Hoards usually have weak weapons, so a high armored, high wound model with a decent gun helps as it essentially doubles the damage that the hoards need to put out to get rid of them. I am fully aware that these changes would effect other armies, and go into detail about what it can do to other armies in another post. However I was just using hoards as an example and assumed that people knew that blanket rule changes would also inadvertently effect other armies, so I didn't bring it up until someone else did. It's "problematic" in the sense that it would make MEQ better against hoards, but also better against other things that they were balanced against. An example can be found in the comment replying to Slayer-Fan123
There's no incorrect jump of logic on my end at all. I see it all the time, people posting in here to vehemently oppose a rule or proposal with the mentality that these will somehow be adopted by GW. Some people think that's how rules should be when posting here. Others realize that the proposed rules forum is meant more to encourage players to house rule their own changes. If it has enough backing then maybe GW will pay attention, but that's a long stretch to assume that and (most often) people posting here with that mentality are wasting their time. The OP is probably guilty of this thought process, I don't know. People want to suggest changes to get GW's attention but it often does little or nothing at all.
Your incorrect jump in logic is thinking that I also think this way, while in fact I have a similar view. I was saying that we shouldn't discuss absolute rule changes that GW should do because it is pointless to do so at this moment, we just approach it from different reasoning. You think that Proposed Rules (correct me if I am wrong) should mainly be house rules to make the game more balanced as there is no point in discussing rules that GW should implement, while I say it's okay to discuss rules that GW should implement as long as the game is in a state where those rule changes would be acceptable. There is little to no chance that a GW developer is actively stalking the Proposed Rules section looking for tips, but there is an email they have that is dedicated for rule change ideas. Proposed Rules is a great place to hone our rule ideas, see what does and doesn't work, and send them in. The problem arises when our rules ideas will more than likely become obsolete when GW rolls out their own fixes for the problem, making this all moot. Instead of theory crafting rules to making MEQ better against hoards and sending them in to GW, we should just focus on making hoards not as good. It makes more sense to nerf hoards than to buff literally everything else. On the other hand we can just create temporary "patch rules" for each army that has an unfair advantage against Marines, every set of rule changes being tailor made to make Marines more balanced against that specific army. This would avoid making Marines more powerful against targets that they are fine against, and would create a more balanced game for Marine players until new rules eventually come out.
If I had to guess, it's probably more of the same from the first chapter approved--some points tweaks. I truly want to be wrong though. I want to see a balanced game from them, but I doubt they're capable.
Now you are making hypothetical assumptions saying that since GW didn't fix the Marine's situation in the last CA, but probably won't. There is more evidence for the fact that they focused on other issues that they knew they could address quickly and didn't address Marines and hoards because that is a much more difficult problem that takes much more rule crafting and playtesting to resolve. Problems like the Alpha Strike meta had much more simple solutions that they could easily resolve. They even delayed CA to get those changes in! They clearly are working hard on creating a more balanced game, much harder than they have in the past.
But claiming house rule changes throw off the balance when there's very little of it in the first place is somewhat ironic. My group of 40k players came up with significant changes to 7th and it played much more balanced than GW's version. We knew it because we played it and modified it--over and over again.
"Screw trying to introduce balanced house rules the game because there such little balance to begin with" is a very unhealthy way to look at this game. Saying that while also claiming that you implement house rules to create a more balanced game is the true irony here. I would prefer house rules that are balanced, no matter how unbalanced the game already is. I am sure that is not what you meant, but that is surely what it sounded like.
We saw the current problems, and found issues/imbalance with what we were changing and we fixed them That's what play-testing accomplishes. It's also why I'm suspicious when GW claims this edition is the most play-tested ever. Which means what exactly--going from little or no play testing to slightly more play testing is the most play tested ever by their standards? It's still grossly meaningless, especially when there are such obvious issues with game-play and codex balance that even the most casual players notice after a few games.
GW probably did the same thing, but consider this. You had the luxury of working with a base set of already existing rules. With 8th edition, GW started from a relatively clean slate. They changed a lot in this edition and probably required much more playtesting to begin with compared to other editions, let alone the amount of playtesting needed to make it balanced. Is GW the best at balancing? Of course not. They are however getting better. They went to a major tournament to observe and see what they saw wrong. Then they corrected said issues they saw. Some were better corrected than others, but they are getting better at it.
I now play chaos daemons (without csm allies) as my primary army and I realize that marines are in a bad place at the moment. It's easy to see for anyone that isn't in complete denial. So much so that I was easily crushing the marine players every game, especially when they weren't using a crutch like Roboute.
I like a challenge, and my opponents don't like to get stomped every game--if they do, they lose desire to play 40k and quit. That's why we've been making changes to marines, because they aren't good, and they aren't where they need to be in 8th.
I absolutely agree, Marines are in a horrible place right now. However, what changes we do make need to consider two things...
1. The changes should not be considered for what the official rules should be and will need to be updated when GW tries to fix the problem.
2. The changes should be tailored specifically for each army (a set of rule changes for against Orks, a set rule changes for against IG, etc.) OR that the rules should be tailored specifically for the group of people I usually play against.
The second rule is mainly for if Marines are fighting against an army they are relatively balanced against (not sure that exist, but it applies to house rules for non-Marine armies as well), they do not get a buff against them that makes it unfair and not fun for the player playing against the Marines.
I find this discussion insightful, so thank you for commenting on it ^_^
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 04:06:24
ALL (including non marines) power armour goes to 2+ save, Artificer and Terminator to 1+
Get rid of all the pointless snowflake units and give those all options to the vanilla Marines - so give all Terminators the option to have all mixed squads, Tacticals to have chainsword option etc - this would allow all the myriad of currently non represented Chapters to be represented who have similar or the same combat styles as the super special Chapters. The fluff remains the same.
Where possible make the snowflake units available to generic Marines - again a "Cavalry" unit option rather than just WOLFY WOLF Wolves. Psychic Dreadnoughts etc
Keep the very few actual unique units (1 or 2 per Chapter) and add new ones - Raven Guard stealth team, Salmander Terminators, etc
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 11:11:11
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
ALL (including non marines) power armour goes to 2+ save, Artificer and Terminator to 1+
Get rid of all the pointless snowflake units and give those all options to the vanilla Marines - so give all Terminators the option to have all mixed squads, Tacticals to have chainsword option etc - this would allow all the myriad of currently non represented Chapters to be represented who have similar or the same combat styles as the super special Chapters. The fluff remains the same.
Where possible make the snowflake units available to generic Marines - again a "Cavalry" unit option rather than just WOLFY WOLF Wolves. Psychic Dreadnoughts etc
Keep the very few actual unique units.
Yes! This I could get behind! I would love some acces to baal pattern predators for my templars. (after all we offered up our crusader LR pattern). And inferno pistols for sergeants! And heavy flamers for tacticals! Enough of the special treatments for certain capters.
ALL (including non marines) power armour goes to 2+ save, Artificer and Terminator to 1+
Get rid of all the pointless snowflake units and give those all options to the vanilla Marines - so give all Terminators the option to have all mixed squads, Tacticals to have chainsword option etc - this would allow all the myriad of currently non represented Chapters to be represented who have similar or the same combat styles as the super special Chapters. The fluff remains the same.
Where possible make the snowflake units available to generic Marines - again a "Cavalry" unit option rather than just WOLFY WOLF Wolves. Psychic Dreadnoughts etc
Keep the very few actual unique units.
Yes! This I could get behind! I would love some acces to baal pattern predators for my templars. (after all we offered up our crusader LR pattern). And inferno pistols for sergeants! And heavy flamers for tacticals! Enough of the special treatments for certain capters.
Indeed there is variety in the Astartes - nothing like the Guard but still some and so many Chapters are not represented currently. Add in Sniper rifle options for tacticals etc (Raven Guard) and look at non snowflake Chapters for other interesting things - make Marines much more interesting and variable without having to flanderise a few.
Keep the fluff but reduce the unnecessary units that mforce vanilla units have to be worse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 11:10:24
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Corennus wrote: Terminator armour should be a 2+ normal save and 4+ inv save. going down to 3+ with storm shield
Should be +1A
1+ is more effective against small arms and gives it a 4+ save against many AT weapons.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
ALL (including non marines) power armour goes to 2+ save, Artificer and Terminator to 1+
Get rid of all the pointless snowflake units and give those all options to the vanilla Marines - so give all Terminators the option to have all mixed squads, Tacticals to have chainsword option etc - this would allow all the myriad of currently non represented Chapters to be represented who have similar or the same combat styles as the super special Chapters. The fluff remains the same.
Where possible make the snowflake units available to generic Marines - again a "Cavalry" unit option rather than just WOLFY WOLF Wolves. Psychic Dreadnoughts etc
Keep the very few actual unique units (1 or 2 per Chapter) and add new ones - Raven Guard stealth team, Salmander Terminators, etc
I'm not for consolidating Space Wolves but the Angel chapters would be pretty easy to handle.
ALL (including non marines) power armour goes to 2+ save, Artificer and Terminator to 1+
Get rid of all the pointless snowflake units and give those all options to the vanilla Marines - so give all Terminators the option to have all mixed squads, Tacticals to have chainsword option etc - this would allow all the myriad of currently non represented Chapters to be represented who have similar or the same combat styles as the super special Chapters. The fluff remains the same.
Where possible make the snowflake units available to generic Marines - again a "Cavalry" unit option rather than just WOLFY WOLF Wolves. Psychic Dreadnoughts etc
Keep the very few actual unique units (1 or 2 per Chapter) and add new ones - Raven Guard stealth team, Salmander Terminators, etc
Especially when most unique units can be represented by other units. Ironclad Dreads for Furiosos anyone?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 16:04:04
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
godardc wrote: Yeah, 2w marines is no big deal, but would conflicts with the primaris (but primaris shouldn't exist so ...).
What do you think about the 3k rule of "if a Tac squad didn't move, it can shoot twice" ? I have never seen anyone complaining about it .
I don't like that rule - marines want to be moving.
While true Primaris "shouldn't" exist. They do exist. So - lets at least make the best of them.
Space marine 14 points 2w/2A with a trash bolter and weapons options (Grav Cannon goes down to 18 points/ Plasma Cannon and Multi Melta 15 points/Rock and lascannon 20 points/ heavy bolter 8 - Plasma guns 12/ melta 10/ flamer 5)
Primaris marine 20 points 3w/3A with better bolters - Bolter rilfes 0 points no change - assault bolters 0 points str 4 assault 3 18" - +2 points stalker bolter (gets sniper rule)
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Good lord, lemme throw all my fixes in a post. Some of these suggestions are ridiculous.
A primaris marine is the size of an organ. Warriors have 3 wounds and 3 attacks and probably need a price drop to 16 or 18 or so. If space marines are 2 wounds - which they absolutely should be - 3 wound primaris makes the most sense.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Then present arguments outside the usual compelling "They work against my bad opponents".
Quoth some guy named Slayer:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Marines are okay already for durability. If you want more than that, you have options (Iron Hands and Raven Guard, Alpha Legion). My issue is offense entirely.
You do it. I'm so bored with it. I did in the other thread already anyways. "It cheapens everyone else's basic units and weapons."
Then present arguments outside the usual compelling "They work against my bad opponents".
Quoth some guy named Slayer:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Marines are okay already for durability. If you want more than that, you have options (Iron Hands and Raven Guard, Alpha Legion). My issue is offense entirely.
You do it. I'm so bored with it. I did in the other thread already anyways. "It cheapens everyone else's basic units and weapons."
My point is that we are presenting arguments and you aren't. In this subforum you gotta do better than "No".
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
-I really like the idea of Gman rewriting his codex so that the basic marine troop choice is “marine squad,” and then you can just take wargear to make them ASM or devs etc.
-No marine should have less than 2 swings in melee. For the supposed-to-be generalists, 1A is unacceptable.
-astartes power armor cuts AP value in half, rounded down. If you want to get through the best-armored basic troop’s armor save, bring some heavy stuff. They shouldn’t be dropping left and right to ap 1 and 2.
-bolters become rapid fire 2 if the unit doesn’t move. Give the gun with a weight of fire statline some actual weight of fire. Alternatively buff it into a powerful gun. Either way they need to decide what it should be, because right now it’s a weight of fire gun that you get power-gun amounts of.
The way I see it, is there are fundamental problems with Marines in terms of durability per point- which were exasperated by 8th edition.
1) Changes to Damage Tables makes differences in toughness and strength less meaningful 2) Changes to Armor Penetration makes differences in armor saves less meaningful 3) the introduction of multi wound weapons makes differences in number of wounds less meaningful.
Of course, when combined with these changes, GW did not tone down weapons or armies access to weapons. What this essentially creates is a top heavy system where a models damage potential far outpaces their defensive potential. Defensive stats are still worth something of course, but in the scheme of things they are worth less than they are currently priced at by GW, and they are worse less than they have ever been in the game previously.
This leads to the current situation where the best defense for your important units, is other units screening for them. The best defensive "stat" is now # of models. So if you have an important gun unit in your army, that outputs a ton of damage. The best way to protect it is to put a wall of fleshy bits inbetween your opponent and your unit. Keeping your opponent from getting at your best unit with rapid fire or assault, and making them deal with a large number of disposable bodies before they can get at the good stuff. AP -3 is wasted vs a 6+ armor save, S9 is wasted vs t3, S5 is equivalent vs T3 and T4. D6 wounds is wasted on single wound models. Etc.
To compound this issue, armies are actually heavily rewarded by taking larger numbers of cheap squads because they are frequently troops and thus reward the player with a larger number of Command points. To further bolster the effectiveness of their damage dealing squads.
Enter the basic Guardsmen. At 4 points per model, 30 of him can be fielded for 120 points. Providing the player with a large number of disposable bodies, that take up a lot of space, to clog your opponent up, and generate you command points.
Elite armies are going to stagnate in 8th edition unless GW can figure out a way to make Defensive Stats worthwhile. Right now the best defense in 40K is having a wall of cheap disposable flesh between you and the enemy. They only way they are going to be able to do that is to reduce access to heavy and special weapons across the board, and / or reduce the power of those weapons so that the added durability of Marines can actually protect them.
Second, GW needs to divorce Command Points from number of squads. Right now having more small squads generates more command points which makes your damage dealers more efficient because stratagems are very good. If you want people to actually have an incentive to take elite troops, you need to make sure that an elite army and a horde army have comparable numbers of CP, otherwise the horde will always prevail because they will often have double or triple the CP!!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/17 20:41:35
akaean wrote: The way I see it, is there are fundamental problems with Marines in terms of durability per point- which were exasperated by 8th edition.
1) Changes to Damage Tables makes differences in toughness and strength less meaningful 2) Changes to Armor Penetration makes differences in armor saves less meaningful 3) the introduction of multi wound weapons makes differences in number of wounds less meaningful.
Of course, when combined with these changes, GW did not tone down weapons or armies access to weapons. What this essentially creates is a top heavy system where a models damage potential far outpaces their defensive potential. Defensive stats are still worth something of course, but in the scheme of things they are worth less than they are currently priced at by GW, and they are worse less than they have ever been in the game previously.
This leads to the current situation where the best defense for your important units, is other units screening for them. The best defensive "stat" is now # of models. So if you have an important gun unit in your army, that outputs a ton of damage. The best way to protect it is to put a wall of fleshy bits inbetween your opponent and your unit. Keeping your opponent from getting at your best unit with rapid fire or assault, and making them deal with a large number of disposable bodies before they can get at the good stuff. AP -3 is wasted vs a 6+ armor save, S9 is wasted vs t3, S5 is equivalent vs T3 and T4. D6 wounds is wasted on single wound models. Etc.
This is very well said and illustrates why I think Marines were not adequately translated into 8E. Better T and armour used to be enough to represent them, but now it is not.
What is sad is that it looks like GW had this thought (2W Marines) early on when developing 8E. They also seem to have wanted to make some new Marine models.
But rather than push forward and start 8E with regular Marines having the Primaris stat line with some alternate new sculpts available, GW wussed out and created the Primaris line instead.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 21:52:49
GW just needs to come up with a formula that assigns point costs to units and equipment.
Most of the unbalanced units in 8th result from the fact that their point cost is about the same as in 7th while the effectiveness of weapons changed drastically, for better or worse.
Basically any melee units are examples for worse weapons, that didn't scale with the change of wounds per model.
In contrast to that, most units that had twin linked weapons and a BS of 5+ or better got 25% or even more hits while most ranged weapons scale much better with the new wound system, especially on vehicles (just think about how most armies have less than 3 d6 damage melee weapons, which can be used on 1 or 2 units at most).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 22:17:19
In regards to marines having 2 wounds. I absolutely believe this should be the case now. I also think they should have made 'primaris' marines the new model successor to the old kits making this issue completely irrelevant with only one stat-line to figure out and balance. However, I asked one of the long-time marines players in our group if he believed they should have 2 wounds and essentially use the primaris stats, and he said it wasn't necessary with the other changes we've been using to fix marines. So we've been using those changes instead.
What other changes have you been using? I was thinking about the "Astartes built" rule as proposed in some threads (ignore the first ap point for 3+ PA and two for Termies). Although just giving +1W to the whole range of infantry marines would be ok (maybe with tacs being 14ppm)
Martel732 wrote: Formulas don't work because of emergent properties.
A thought-through formula should work a lot better than what they do currently. It won't be perfect, but it is the only practical way to fix the issues that most codices have simultaneously, because you can fix all units at the same time by entering their stats and special rules into a database and run the program that calculates the costs. If, like it is now, the number of wounds is the best defensive stat because Guardsmen and Cultists cost 4 points each, they can adjust the influence of that and recalculate the cost for all codices.
The point cost section is a page that you can tear out of half of the codices anyway because CA changed many units, so this doesn't count.
I am aware that synergies are barely representable in a formula but apart from rerolls, the number of synergies is rather low for many codices anyway.
Actually isn't the problem that marine prices stayed the same from 7th to 8th while the prices for chaff of other units or even within the codex (cultists cough cough*) dropped?
Consider this a IG guardsmen dropped from 5 to 4 ppm, yet still has the same equipment and capability as before. That is atleast just with those numbers a increase in their effectiveness of 20% from the higher point cost.
Kabalites went down from 8ppm i belive to now 6 ppm. that is 25% more effectiveness.
Cultists went down from 5 to 4 like guardsmen, another 20% increase in their effectivness. Meanwhile CSM lost their full loadout with boltpistol, bolter and Chainsword and stayed at 13ppm.
If we would apply a general reduction of marine prices of the 20% that would result in 10-11ppm marines. This would still not make them auto- includes as there are still cheaper troop taxes, but they would atleast be brought back in line with the general reduction of ppm for other troop units.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
20000+ points
