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.

 Corennus wrote:
10 points per marine would be a good compromise i think.

You could then choose between expensive but tough primaris or loads of cheaper tacticals.

Or reimplement the 1ppm chainsword buy option additionally?
so they would still be 11ppm but atleast they are now tactical allrounders like they are supposed and priced to be?

Personally, I don’t think regular marines (i.e. the old-school stuff) need a resilience bump, so much as an effectiveness bump in tens of damage output. Give the regular Marine stat line +1 Attack, and give them a special rule to let them fire Bolt weapons twice in any shooting phase. If a guardsman can be trained/ordered to fire his lasgun twice as fast, why couldn’t one of the galaxy’s finest soldiers do likewise with his Bolter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If double attacks with Bolt weapons is overdoing it, why not +1 attack every time they shoot?

 Corennus wrote:
10 points per marine would be a good compromise i think.

You then have to follow that through at all levels.

You now get two and a half guardsmen per marine (with some vocal pushing for 5pt guardsmen). Less than two veterans per marine.
One admech vanguard, battle sister, or scion per marine.
You outnumber cron warriors.

And so on.

Has this actually fixed the underlying problems or just made them so cheap that they can be spammed against better units while leaving no room for any kind of points differentiation of weaker units.

But remember AT, marine's defensive stats are worth less than they have ever been. Imperial Guard Veterans have the important stats that Marines do- namely access to special weapons, and ballistic skill 3+.

The defensive stats of Marines are currently not worth 2 veteran infantry bodies. You would need to make fundamental changes to the way 8th edition is structured to make Marines actually worth 2 veterans.

You are falling into this conundrum where you still believe marines are an elite fighting force. However GW has systematically devalued all of their defensive stats, and created a system where number of models is the best defense. Marines are worth less than they have ever been.

 akaean wrote:
But remember AT, marine's defensive stats are worth less than they have ever been. Imperial Guard Veterans have the important stats that Marines do- namely access to special weapons, and ballistic skill 3+

Same argument that i'd heard before when comparing marines and sisters - that WS 3+, S4, and T4 are effectively worthless because they don't affect the marines ability to shoot a plasma gun.
Of course the thought of dropping all marines to WS 4+, S3, T3 along with the cost was rejected.


The marines cost is in roughly the right spot relative to other similar chaff when facing one another - the problem is with the rest of the game, the solution is to make them more expensive and better suited to facing the stronger attacks (i.e. +1 wound/attack, and not for just a point or two), or make them cheaper and weaker to match those units that are already cheaper and weaker.

A.T. wrote:

 akaean wrote:
But remember AT, marine's defensive stats are worth less than they have ever been. Imperial Guard Veterans have the important stats that Marines do- namely access to special weapons, and ballistic skill 3+

Same argument that i'd heard before when comparing marines and sisters - that WS 3+, S4, and T4 are effectively worthless because they don't affect the marines ability to shoot a plasma gun.
Of course the thought of dropping all marines to WS 4+, S3, T3 along with the cost was rejected.


The marines cost is in roughly the right spot relative to other similar chaff when facing one another - the problem is with the rest of the game, the solution is to make them more expensive and better suited to facing the stronger attacks (i.e. +1 wound/attack, and not for just a point or two), or make them cheaper and weaker to match those units that are already cheaper and weaker.

You are missing the point again. Nobody is saying S4 / T4 / 3+ save is worthless. Its just not worth as much as it currently is priced at. What people are saying is maybe a 3 Veterans are worth 2 Marines. Maybe 4 Sisters of Battle are worth 3 Marines.
- Remember, when fired at by a Heavy Bolter a Battle Sister and a Space Marine are defensively equivalent.
- Remember, when shooting at anything with toughness five, like a Plague Marine or Biker, a Las Gun and a Bolter are offensively equivalent.

There isn't really an excuse for a single marine to be more expensive than 2 Veterans. Here is the other thing. Necron Warriors are a bad example, because they are already under performing- especially compared to Tesla Immortals. You should be comparing Marine performance to those Tesla Immortals which are the actual troops Necron Players are taking, and separately look at why Necron Warriors are underperforming and fix those issues.

Not Online!!! wrote:
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.

Also keep in mind that AP4,5 & 6 did NOTHING against Marines in prior editions, while outright ignoring those chaff unit's save. But now, even a Heavy Bolter makes a Marine roll only a 4+ amrour, while those Chaff units have their full save against regular Bolters.
This, combined with those chaff units being much cheaper has really inverted the durability of these units.
Equal points of Marine die much fast then equal points of Chaff. The opposite should be true

I like the AP system and Wound chart for 8E, a lot. I also like weapons having variable damage per shot. These are fantastic changes for the game overall.
But Marines staying at 3+armour with T4 and only 1W does not translate well, especially for the cost
You could make them cheaper, but why are we trying to make Marines into chaff? They shouldn't be chaff. 2W Marines makes them feel as durable as they did in prior editions IN COMPARISON to other Troop units.
It also makes the Ellite, Fast and Heavy Marines FEEL like Elite, Fast and Heavy units.

-

A.T. wrote:

 akaean wrote:
But remember AT, marine's defensive stats are worth less than they have ever been. Imperial Guard Veterans have the important stats that Marines do- namely access to special weapons, and ballistic skill 3+

Same argument that i'd heard before when comparing marines and sisters - that WS 3+, S4, and T4 are effectively worthless because they don't affect the marines ability to shoot a plasma gun.
Of course the thought of dropping all marines to WS 4+, S3, T3 along with the cost was rejected.


The marines cost is in roughly the right spot relative to other similar chaff when facing one another - the problem is with the rest of the game, the solution is to make them more expensive and better suited to facing the stronger attacks (i.e. +1 wound/attack, and not for just a point or two), or make them cheaper and weaker to match those units that are already cheaper and weaker.

Hell no, just no.
I brought up exemples of some of the most played troop choices in the game, that got a massive boost in their effectiveness per point. Literally none of these units lost anything, instead they got a massive price reduction a piece.
Now compare that to a tac Squad. Bolter do nothing against armor anymore, Guardsmen Flak armor is now usefull against them.
Armor can now be degraded by weaponry that before could do jack all against marines.
A cut in gear.

Additionally: Your exemple of Necron warriors is bad. It is known that they suffer likewise, heck nearly the whole cron Codex is overpriced and contrary to marines which can rely on Rowboat and guardsmen soup to carry them to victory, crons can't. The only reason why it is worse for the Tac Squad to suck is, because they lend their profile to Elites and Assult troops. A raptor in essence is still a CSM with a bigger price tag (albeit atleast he can do morale shenanigans), A biker is still a regular SM. A terminator in essence is still a Marine profile except his armor which gives him a 2w and an additional attack. They still suffer from the same lackluster Bolter's of any flavour compared to earlier versions, Termniators now also suffer armor value degradation and cost 2 CSM and a Cultist WITHOUT any wargear, which in case for loyalists is really bad because PF's are massively overpriced and stuck on a platform that is slow whilest CSM terminators can pick 4pts energy maces/ swords to reduce their pricetag.

Now you could argue that the price cuts were terrible, because they lead to a race to the bottom, which they do, but what GW did, aka remove a fith or a quarter of pts of the cheap chaff whilest not doing the same for marines and necrons and then expecting them to do good is foolish. Especially when in 7th allready regular marines were phased out. Frankly it does not surprise me that they shaved of horde units pts cost, because you can sell now more boxes, but that should not come at the expense for balance.
I do agree generaly though that potentially a doubling in pts cost per unit would do us all a massive favour because then we can beginn to finetune pts cost, of equipment and bodies, etc.

Trollbert wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Formulas don't work because of emergent properties.

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.

I think this last part is important because units need to be priced based on what they can probably do, rather than be priced based on other units helping them. Make the units function without Roboute, and then we can see how much he's really worth.

 Galef wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
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.

Also keep in mind that AP4,5 & 6 did NOTHING against Marines in prior editions, while outright ignoring those chaff unit's save. But now, even a Heavy Bolter makes a Marine roll only a 4+ amrour, while those Chaff units have their full save against regular Bolters.
This, combined with those chaff units being much cheaper has really inverted the durability of these units.
Equal points of Marine die much fast then equal points of Chaff. The opposite should be true

I like the AP system and Wound chart for 8E, a lot. I also like weapons having variable damage per shot. These are fantastic changes for the game overall.
But Marines staying at 3+armour with T4 and only 1W does not translate well, especially for the cost
You could make them cheaper, but why are we trying to make Marines into chaff? They shouldn't be chaff. 2W Marines makes them feel as durable as they did in prior editions IN COMPARISON to other Troop units.
It also makes the Ellite, Fast and Heavy Marines FEEL like Elite, Fast and Heavy units.

-

- AP4-6 did nothing last edition. But Cover did nothing to help Marines against those weapons either.

-When you say Chaff. You're probably saying "Guard". I just did the math of bolters vs. Gants and vs. Marines, and the Gants die a bit faster, per point. Guard may be the outlier here when it comes to small arms.

-"Chaff". . . sorta by definition is there to soak casualties. So by being good at it doesn't it just mean that it's succeeding in its battlefield role?

- Being killed off on a "point by point" basis is not necessarily a valid metric to begin with. On a turn by turn basis, clearing bodies may be more valuable regardless of their points. So killing five Guard to 2 Marines (or whatever) might still be fine.

- Did you take into account morale? (my guess is probably not)

 niv-mizzet wrote:
-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.

This is the only way a Tactical Marine can EVER be represented as actually being "tactical".

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
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.

Also keep in mind that AP4,5 & 6 did NOTHING against Marines in prior editions, while outright ignoring those chaff unit's save. But now, even a Heavy Bolter makes a Marine roll only a 4+ amrour, while those Chaff units have their full save against regular Bolters.
This, combined with those chaff units being much cheaper has really inverted the durability of these units.
Equal points of Marine die much fast then equal points of Chaff. The opposite should be true

I like the AP system and Wound chart for 8E, a lot. I also like weapons having variable damage per shot. These are fantastic changes for the game overall.
But Marines staying at 3+armour with T4 and only 1W does not translate well, especially for the cost
You could make them cheaper, but why are we trying to make Marines into chaff? They shouldn't be chaff. 2W Marines makes them feel as durable as they did in prior editions IN COMPARISON to other Troop units.
It also makes the Ellite, Fast and Heavy Marines FEEL like Elite, Fast and Heavy units.

-

- AP4-6 did nothing last edition. But Cover did nothing to help Marines against those weapons either.

-When you say Chaff. You're probably saying "Guard". I just did the math of bolters vs. Gants and vs. Marines, and the Gants die a bit faster, per point. Guard may be the outlier here when it comes to small arms.

-"Chaff". . . sorta by definition is there to soak casualties. So by being good at it doesn't it just mean that it's succeeding in its battlefield role?

- Being killed off on a "point by point" basis is not necessarily a valid metric to begin with. On a turn by turn basis, clearing bodies may be more valuable regardless of their points. So killing five Guard to 2 Marines (or whatever) might still be fine.

- Did you take into account morale? (my guess is probably not)

Nobody takes Morale into account because morale doesn't matter. Ever. It didn't in 6th, it didn't in 7th, and it doesn't in 8th. You essentially build to ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 akaean wrote:
But remember AT, marine's defensive stats are worth less than they have ever been. Imperial Guard Veterans have the important stats that Marines do- namely access to special weapons, and ballistic skill 3+

Same argument that i'd heard before when comparing marines and sisters - that WS 3+, S4, and T4 are effectively worthless because they don't affect the marines ability to shoot a plasma gun.
Of course the thought of dropping all marines to WS 4+, S3, T3 along with the cost was rejected.


The marines cost is in roughly the right spot relative to other similar chaff when facing one another - the problem is with the rest of the game, the solution is to make them more expensive and better suited to facing the stronger attacks (i.e. +1 wound/attack, and not for just a point or two), or make them cheaper and weaker to match those units that are already cheaper and weaker.

I wouldn't care about those drops at all, but it doesn't help most of the units either.

I guess I just define "chaff" differently. I see it as the expendable, "we have more where that came from" cannon fodder. They're meat shields for the more important stuff

Even if we ignore fluff (which we shouldn't) it is pretty clear by their design that Marines are not meant to be "chaff" by this definition. Having a "decent" armour save clearly implies the faction is investing in keeping the soldiers alive. This is reinforced by the faction's "Specialists" (elites, fast and heavy) being essentially the same but with better wargear.
This is why I will oppose "just make Marines cheap" even though I 100% agree that are not worth their current cost.

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody takes Morale into account because morale doesn't matter. Ever. It didn't in 6th, it didn't in 7th, and it doesn't in 8th. You essentially build to ignore it.

Guard can't build to ignore it. Min size 10.

 Galef wrote:
I guess I just define "chaff" differently. I see it as the expendable, "we have more where that came from" cannon fodder. They're meat shields for the more important stuff

Even if we ignore fluff (which we shouldn't) it is pretty clear by their design that Marines are not meant to be "chaff" by this definition. Having a "decent" armour save clearly implies the faction is investing in keeping the soldiers alive. This is reinforced by the faction's "Specialists" (elites, fast and heavy) being essentially the same but with better wargear.
This is why I will oppose "just make Marines cheap" even though I 100% agree that are not worth their current cost.

-

Chaff - But a chaff unit should be good at being chaff though, yes? If that's their purpose and they're bad at it, then that would also be a problem.

I oppose Marines being too cheap as well, I just also oppose 2W marines for a number of reasons.

 akaean wrote:
You are missing the point again. Nobody is saying S4 / T4 / 3+ save is worthless.

My point is that a common argument for dropping marine points is to focus entirely on areas where cheaper units compare while glossing over those areas where they don't.

For example :

 akaean wrote:
- Remember, when fired at by a Heavy Bolter a Battle Sister and a Space Marine are defensively equivalent.
- Remember, when shooting at anything with toughness five, like a Plague Marine or Biker, a Las Gun and a Bolter are offensively equivalent.

At the end of the day a bolter isn't a lasgun, and a units worth is not dictated only by it's ability to stand and shoot without ever recieving return fire or assault. As another poster correctly pointed out it would simply result in a race to the bottom as everything else was readjusted to match the new cheap marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody takes Morale into account because morale doesn't matter. Ever. It didn't in 6th, it didn't in 7th, and it doesn't in 8th. You essentially build to ignore it.

Guard can't build to ignore it. Min size 10.

 Galef wrote:
I guess I just define "chaff" differently. I see it as the expendable, "we have more where that came from" cannon fodder. They're meat shields for the more important stuff

Even if we ignore fluff (which we shouldn't) it is pretty clear by their design that Marines are not meant to be "chaff" by this definition. Having a "decent" armour save clearly implies the faction is investing in keeping the soldiers alive. This is reinforced by the faction's "Specialists" (elites, fast and heavy) being essentially the same but with better wargear.
This is why I will oppose "just make Marines cheap" even though I 100% agree that are not worth their current cost.

-

Chaff - But a chaff unit should be good at being chaff though, yes? If that's their purpose and they're bad at it, then that would also be a problem.

I oppose Marines being too cheap as well, I just also oppose 2W marines for a number of reasons.

Min size is 9 once you buy the heavy weapon. Still makes them cheaper than a min sized Tactical Marine squad too!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Min size is 9 once you buy the heavy weapon. Still makes them cheaper than a min sized Tactical Marine squad too!

Heh, I guess that's true. Fair enough.

Still not to small enough to ignore morale though.

You ignore Morale because there is a strat that everyone has access to do so. Albeit only 1 unit per turn. But armies that have large chaff units often have far more CPs to use for this strat and others.

So Morale is ignored when discussing pretty much anything outside of edge cases.

I'd also like to note for those who would prefer to see more Marines on the board, even at my most expensive suggestion (15ppm) you can still get 100 Marines for 1500pts. That leaves 500pts for wargear and other options. And at 2W per model, that 200 wounds worth.
I doubt many people would run 100 Marines in a list even if they went down to 10ppm with 1W.

Marines shouldn't die to a single lasgun wound. It should take bigger better weapons to one-shot them
While statistically it takes many lasguns *or equivalent standard weapon*, it can only take 1. I want that to be impossible

-

If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.

The points drops are too far, a race to the bottom is not a solution and only rewards GW with more sales and we all suffer slower games.

Marine's problems also extend beyond foot marines, to vehicals etc across all flavours of loyalist and heritic.

Non primaris Marines do need +1Attack across the board.

Battle tanks Predators, vindicators, Sicarans, repulsive get 2+Sv

Landraiders get T9 they should be Tougher than they are

Their strategums need more work than I can think of right now.

"a race to the bottom is not a solution"

So far, it's the only solution in 8th. Even Custodes can't stand against Xeno guns.

Ice_can wrote:
If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.

The points drops are too far, a race to the bottom is not a solution and only rewards GW with more sales and we all suffer slower games.

Marine's problems also extend beyond foot marines, to vehicals etc across all flavours of loyalist and heritic.

Non primaris Marines do need +1Attack across the board.

Battle tanks Predators, vindicators, Sicarans, repulsive get 2+Sv

Landraiders get T9 they should be Tougher than they are

Their strategums need more work than I can think of right now.

I brought this point up earlier. We should be looking to scale well, and Rubric/Plague Marines would be super hard to kill, and forget about Noise and Berserker Marines fulfilling Glass Cannon status.

While I'm okay-is with an extra attack, it makes Vet equivalents less appealing as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"a race to the bottom is not a solution"

So far, it's the only solution in 8th. Even Custodes can't stand against Xeno guns.

You're partly exaggerating. Having used Custodes Guard I can tell you how silly this almost sounds.

I haven't seen a Custodes list last past turn 4 vs Drukhari.

Ice_can wrote:
If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.

Agreed, which is why I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread the "special" units need special adjustment after this change.
Deathguard Marines, would therefore need more that just a few points increase if they got 2W.
We start with the standard MEQs, TEQs and Bikes. Make everything consistent, then adjust points for units that obviously benefit more.
If a regular 2W CSM is now 15ppm, a 2W DG Marine should be no less that 20ppm due to it's ~33% increase in durability from Resilience.

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:
If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.

The points drops are too far, a race to the bottom is not a solution and only rewards GW with more sales and we all suffer slower games.

Marine's problems also extend beyond foot marines, to vehicals etc across all flavours of loyalist and heritic.

Non primaris Marines do need +1Attack across the board.

Battle tanks Predators, vindicators, Sicarans, repulsive get 2+Sv

Landraiders get T9 they should be Tougher than they are

Their strategums need more work than I can think of right now.

I brought this point up earlier. We should be looking to scale well, and Rubric/Plague Marines would be super hard to kill, and forget about Noise and Berserker Marines fulfilling Glass Cannon status.

While I'm okay-is with an extra attack, it makes Vet equivalents less appealing as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"a race to the bottom is not a solution"

So far, it's the only solution in 8th. Even Custodes can't stand against Xeno guns.

You're partly exaggerating. Having used Custodes Guard I can tell you how silly this almost sounds.

Maybe it wasn't clear but I mean +1 to every power armour unit so vets would be 3 attacks.

That could work, too. Who knows? But is sure feels like cheaper is always better in 8th. Esp with mortal wounds.

 Galef wrote:
You ignore Morale because there is a strat that everyone has access to do so. Albeit only 1 unit per turn. But armies that have large chaff units often have far more CPs to use for this strat and others.

So Morale is ignored when discussing pretty much anything outside of edge cases.

I'd also like to note for those who would prefer to see more Marines on the board, even at my most expensive suggestion (15ppm) you can still get 100 Marines for 1500pts. That leaves 500pts for wargear and other options. And at 2W per model, that 200 wounds worth.
I doubt many people would run 100 Marines in a list even if they went down to 10ppm with 1W.

Marines shouldn't die to a single lasgun wound. It should take bigger better weapons to one-shot them
While statistically it takes many lasguns *or equivalent standard weapon*, it can only take 1. I want that to be impossible

-

You ignore morale as well because trying to attack it is pretty useless. How many psyker powers are handy because they attack LD? How well do you think Night Lords actually function? Are you buying Interrogator Chaplains over regular Chaplains for the sole chance to inflict a -1 modifier?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:
If someone really wants 2 wounds base for marines, try playing against Deathguard with an additional wound across the board and then tell me it's not game breaking.

The points drops are too far, a race to the bottom is not a solution and only rewards GW with more sales and we all suffer slower games.

Marine's problems also extend beyond foot marines, to vehicals etc across all flavours of loyalist and heritic.

Non primaris Marines do need +1Attack across the board.

Battle tanks Predators, vindicators, Sicarans, repulsive get 2+Sv

Landraiders get T9 they should be Tougher than they are

Their strategums need more work than I can think of right now.

I brought this point up earlier. We should be looking to scale well, and Rubric/Plague Marines would be super hard to kill, and forget about Noise and Berserker Marines fulfilling Glass Cannon status.

While I'm okay-is with an extra attack, it makes Vet equivalents less appealing as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"a race to the bottom is not a solution"

So far, it's the only solution in 8th. Even Custodes can't stand against Xeno guns.

You're partly exaggerating. Having used Custodes Guard I can tell you how silly this almost sounds.

Maybe it wasn't clear but I mean +1 to every power armour unit so vets would be 3 attacks.

Makes Grey Hunters 3 attacks.

I mean it's worth having a look at but I'm always going to be wary of scaling issues. I really do think fixing the core issues with Bolt weapons would go a long way.

I'm glad that most of us seem to agree that Marines in general need +1attack across the board.

I like the idea of some f the tanks getting 2+ armour as well.

-

I'd rather preds got to move and fire with no penalty, and kill shot worked off two preds. The vehicles are such a dumpster fire across the board. I basically have given up on them.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd rather preds got to move and fire with no penalty, and kill shot worked off two preds.

That's a good point. Why don't they have Machine Spirit? Did they not have it in prior editions?

-

I know you don't care so much about the fluff, but seriously? Because SM vehicles are so stable and graceful compared to the lumbering behomoths CWE and others operate?