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.

From the view of a longtime GK player, there are 2 primary things hurting elite infantry right now:
1. The 8th ed AP/SV system. Before, when elite models had a 2+ save, they could survive 5/6 of small arms shots directed at them. Terminators used to laugh at heavy bolters and heavy flamers; now they are a credible threat. Up until the beginning of 7th, there wasn’t a lot that was ideal to get through good armor saves. Additionally, elite infantry had the tools to kill other elites: power weapons. Ranged weapons that ignored all armor were rare outside of plasma/melta. I’d argue that the very beginning of 6th was one of the few good times to be a terminator in 40k; power weapons got AP values and grav hadn’t shown up yet. But with AP-1 affecting everyone now, medium grade weapons that are commonly found in most armies wreck elites, vehicles, and light infantry alike.
2. Elite infantry tend to be specialized a little too much. A GK power armored marine puts out a lot of damage, which he pays for...but he dies like any other space marine. Harlequins are even better examples of the glass cannon. On the other hand, “tough” units like terminators pay for durability but put out so little damage that they can be ignored. IMO, Custodes are doing fine precisely because while expensive they put out elite-level damage but also are tough enough to survive under fire (the bikes are perhaps the perfect 40k unit).

Terminators honestly needs a rule that they ignore 1 point of AP, that way HF, HB, BR, etc.. they still have 2+ saves.

I have read some good suggestions so far.

Peregrine's analysis seems spot on: the idea that the battlefield for elite infantry is not a literal field battle. It'd be like seeing the Spetznaz used as tankodesantniki at Kursk.

There are other ideas, too, but they're mostly marine-centric (e.g. +1 toughness on terminators). But I'm talking about other elite infantry as well: crisis suits, Lychguard, etc. I think giving them a niche is hard with the simplified rules (other posters have mentioned this too) and increasing toughness seems to throw things out of whack a bit I think.

I'm confident GW will find a solution, but it may require a restructuring or years of work (or both). Custodes come close to being "really good elite infantry" but I still put them in the category of "just not quite good enough" and they're already pushing the boundaries of what I'd consider infantry: more well armoured than a tank, better invulnerable saves than a Knight, and as tough as some vehicles.

 Peregrine wrote:
There are two problems with elite infantry in 40k:

1) GW doesn't want to reduce model counts to the level required to represent true elite infantry. If you make space marines T5 W3 SV2+ you might bring them closer to certain versions of the fluff, but then they can't be 15ppm anymore. That means fewer marines in a given size of army, and fewer sales of marine kits. Unless GW wants to increase the dollar price per model of elite infantry to a point where even the biggest GW apologists would be skeptical that means less revenue from their most important product line. Therefore elite infantry have a limit on how elite they can be.

2) 40k doesn't represent the kind of battle where elite infantry matter most. The advantage of a single elite soldier over a horde of basic conscripts is force concentration. Getting all the power of a whole squad in a single human-size package means a simpler chain of command, easier logistics, lower footprint, etc. On a strategic level it means a couple pods of marines can drop in and annihilate a weak point, effectively fighting a battle at 2000 points vs. 500 points without having to arrange dozens of transports. But those battles are not interesting in a tabletop game. Similarly, elite infantry would be extremely powerful in tight spaces (such as boarding a ship and fighting in tight corridors) where they can bring a lot of combat power into a tight space and the horde of conscripts can't. But, on top of the fun issue, 40k's rules don't really support that kind of game. They're designed for open-field battles where even hordes have few problems getting into combat with their full strength. Footprint is a minor factor, and all that matters is how much total firepower each side has.

I think you have glanced off (if not hit squarely) the real root of the problem here, and it has nothing to do with stat lines or point cost imbalances. The real issue is that most of us are playing on fairly open boards. For this game to make sense as written you need three or four times more terrain than most of us are actually using. We've all seen the boards GW uses when they're setting up art-shots, I think they think that's the sort of setup we should actually be playing on.

Also, they really need to do away with true LOS rules. I should not be able to fire my Captain's Bolt Gun over the heads of the Marines in front of him just because he has his sword up in the air.

It'd be like seeing the Spetznaz used as tankodesantniki at Kursk.

Didn't they actually try that durning the first chechen war, the one that Russia lost?


I think we have two problems in w40k. People wanting for armies to feel like fluff. Which will never happen, because we would have to have tacticals destroy regiments of IG with tank support. The other thing is GW over pricing stuff on the base that the unit can hypotheticly do something, if the opponent lets you do it, both players play using no tactics other then rush the middle etc. Then we end up with stuff like GK or marines costing as much as they do, or on the flip side of things Eldar reapers costing as much as they do, because GW thinks people are going to take one unit of 3, "because there is so much other cool stuff in the codex".

IMO what GW testers should do is to build pre made armies that work first, and later work on how the stuff should be costed in. I know people dislike limiations, but it is, IMO, a better thing to have 12-15 working lists at 2000pts, even if you are forced to play in a specific way, then having 2-3 lists that are soups and having whole codex of units that will never see play because IG+custodes is the best marine type of army out there.

And they can easily do it through codex specific detachments, or even pre build detachments. Lets say an army bought unit by unit costs 2500pts, but if you buy a specific detachment it costs only 2000pts. Then marines and many other armies would get better, at the same time it would remove the problem of inter codex combos, because a "normal" sized army wouldn't be able to play all the units needed to get the discount detachment and some other powerful detachment.

Karol wrote:

It'd be like seeing the Spetznaz used as tankodesantniki at Kursk.

Didn't they actually try that durning the first chechen war, the one that Russia lost?


I think we have two problems in w40k. People wanting for armies to feel like fluff. Which will never happen, because we would have to have tacticals destroy regiments of IG with tank support. The other thing is GW over pricing stuff on the base that the unit can hypotheticly do something, if the opponent lets you do it, both players play using no tactics other then rush the middle etc. Then we end up with stuff like GK or marines costing as much as they do, or on the flip side of things Eldar reapers costing as much as they do, because GW thinks people are going to take one unit of 3, "because there is so much other cool stuff in the codex".

IMO what GW testers should do is to build pre made armies that work first, and later work on how the stuff should be costed in. I know people dislike limiations, but it is, IMO, a better thing to have 12-15 working lists at 2000pts, even if you are forced to play in a specific way, then having 2-3 lists that are soups and having whole codex of units that will never see play because IG+custodes is the best marine type of army out there.

And they can easily do it through codex specific detachments, or even pre build detachments. Lets say an army bought unit by unit costs 2500pts, but if you buy a specific detachment it costs only 2000pts. Then marines and many other armies would get better, at the same time it would remove the problem of inter codex combos, because a "normal" sized army wouldn't be able to play all the units needed to get the discount detachment and some other powerful detachment.

I think 7th edition literally had all the stuff you were asking for (formations were basically pre-built armies that gave you discounts if you filled them out in some cases) and it was an utter disaster.

Formation idea is wonderful, GW didnt balance them well.

If formations where balanced we wouldnt have seen the crap that we did see in 7th, they were and still are an amazing idea, just like points are an amazing idea, but GW didnt balance them well, dont blame the paints/model for a badly painted model, blame the painter.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Formation idea is wonderful, GW didnt balance them well.

If formations where balanced we wouldnt have seen the crap that we did see in 7th, they were and still are an amazing idea, just like points are an amazing idea, but GW didnt balance them well, dont blame the paints/model for a badly painted model, blame the painter.

You could say this about literally anything though. I could say "the current non-formation structure we have is fine, just badly implemented." That's a non-statement. It's like saying "The world is 100% perfect in every way, just badly implemented."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Formation idea is wonderful, GW didnt balance them well.

If formations where balanced we wouldnt have seen the crap that we did see in 7th, they were and still are an amazing idea, just like points are an amazing idea, but GW didnt balance them well, dont blame the paints/model for a badly painted model, blame the painter.

You could say this about literally anything though. I could say "the current non-formation structure we have is fine, just badly implemented." That's a non-statement. It's like saying "The world is 100% perfect in every way, just badly implemented."

You know what i mean.... formations are an option to have a fluffy army based of the idea's of that army and you gain a bonus for doing so. The mix factions for all isnt a good idea IMO, i'd rather see an Ally system like AoS.

And that is also a valid view, if you think some things in 8th are good but done poorly, then talk about how they can better balance them, isnt that the point of these discussions?

This has come up repeatedly, and I think its always wrongly pursued.

The issue with a Marine or Terminator over a Guardsmen isn't that T4/3+ or T4/2+ save doesn't compare with T3/5+ save - but that a boltgun is a crap take for 13 points compared with 3+ lasguns.

Lets shoot some Fire Warriors.

Guardsmen: 3*1/2*1/2*1/2=0.375 dead Tau.
Marine: 1*2/3*2/3*1/2=0.222 dead Tau.

A Terminator is worse. You get twice the shooting as the marine, so 0.444 dead Tau, but you cost 3 times the points.

Now okay the Terminator gets 2 punches with a power fist - but again, for around 40 points (not sure what it all is after CA, you never see them) this kind of sucks against a lot of targets. Guardsmen are for instance about as good as terminators against a DE Ravager - the fists only win vs T6 and up. Guardsmen are considerably better versus basic infantry.

So even before we get on to the fact high AP, D2 damage weapons are handed out far too cheaply and as a result are far too efficient against these targets, the flaw is that they don't do enough damage.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Terminators honestly needs a rule that they ignore 1 point of AP, that way HF, HB, BR, etc.. they still have 2+ saves.

Generally speaking there's a lot of value in AP resistance as an alternative to Invul.

Marines are Tac units, they are rules/stats bloat, thats the problem, why take a unit that is good at 3 thing but cost 2x the points when you can ignore a part of the game to save large amounts of points to be good at 1 roll?

The sad thing is, many units are multi-purpose and under preform b.c of it or are over costed and can be fix, but NOT by points, but rules changes.

Imagine if all bikers had Hit and run, just a keyword for Bike uits, they can Fallback shoot and charge, i bet every army now would take them at current points.

Or if terminator armor has -1 to wound always, now those Lasguns dont hurt so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Terminators honestly needs a rule that they ignore 1 point of AP, that way HF, HB, BR, etc.. they still have 2+ saves.

Generally speaking there's a lot of value in AP resistance as an alternative to Invul.

After taking a nap and looking into it more, i would rather have Terminators be -1 to wound vs anything S5 or lower.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Terminators honestly needs a rule that they ignore 1 point of AP, that way HF, HB, BR, etc.. they still have 2+ saves.

Generally speaking there's a lot of value in AP resistance as an alternative to Invul.

After taking a nap and looking into it more, i would rather have Terminators be -1 to wound vs anything S5 or lower.

I definitely think the biggest quirk with the current system is how wildly to wound rolls swing in the S4/T4 area. That spot needs some room to breathe.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Terminators honestly needs a rule that they ignore 1 point of AP, that way HF, HB, BR, etc.. they still have 2+ saves.

SoT basically have that via "All is Dust" and they're still called bad (because anti-tank weapons nuke them). Basically you can't win, Terminators will "always" be bad.

Or just make them appropriately costed for a game with dissy cannons in it. If marines are gonna die like grots, you can't charge much for them. Enter the power armor horde. If you don't like that, you've got a LOT of weapons to change.

Martel732 wrote:
Or just make them appropriately costed for a game with dissy cannons in it. If marines are gonna die like grots, you can't charge much for them. Enter the power armor horde. If you don't like that, you've got a LOT of weapons to change.

Many multishot + multidamage weapons in the game are too cheap. It is a huge problem for primaris, but it is bad design in general, as such weapons are pretty decent against all targets, they're no-brainer choices.

I know my lists have tons of autocannon equivalents now. Or battle cannons. I can't rely on lascannons because of all the Xeno invulns and quantum shields. But I can 2 damage almost everything to death and those that I can't, get capt smash or the libby dead to the face.

Is it great? No. But it's better than mono-BA.

Martel732 wrote:
I know my lists have tons of autocannon equivalents now. Or battle cannons. I can't rely on lascannons because of all the Xeno invulns and quantum shields. But I can 2 damage almost everything to death

Right. This is bad design. It is fine for some versatile weapons to exist, but they should pay for that versatility. Otherwise everyone will just take those over more specialised variants, and the game loses a lot of its depth.

It's not just the weapons. Xenos have SO MANY invulns that it really makes taking a large AP weapon risky. Large AP is primarily anti-imperium. I've basically banished lascannons and melta from my lists entirely because of Xenos. My target AP is -2. Paying for more is a waste far too often. I'm not sure I like that meta, either.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Formation idea is wonderful, GW didnt balance them well.

If formations where balanced we wouldnt have seen the crap that we did see in 7th, they were and still are an amazing idea, just like points are an amazing idea, but GW didnt balance them well, dont blame the paints/model for a badly painted model, blame the painter.

Formations are a great example of why GW doesn't make a good game from a balance perspective. Formations were a great idea - you exchanged flexibility for rules for your army overall or you could take a specialist group that was good at a single task. The problem came from GW ignoring obviously OP combinations like the Aspect Host. But instead of putting effort into balancing things for example limiting how many of each Aspect could be in each Host they decided to make 8th. So now you have a different set of problems that GW will likely just replace rather than fix.

Though I don't have a solution at the top of my head, the issue to me is that since i started playing back in 5th is that fire power has increased exponentially and basic infantry durability has been either static or gotten worse. It used to take a decent amount of fire power to down a vehicle or kill a squad of MEQ. Now it takes nearly nothing to kill either, so the only thing worth taking is the hardest hitting units or chaff.

Well, because you can mess with Terminators in perfect isolation, now, why not give them some real stand out stuff?

What about these?

Augmented Strength: In the fight phase, all wound rolls of 6 cause a mortal wound in addition to normal damage.

Unrivalled Protection: This unit has a 1+ armour save. (I was going to suggest going back to the old 3+ on 2d6 for this rule but it'd mean rolling for each model separately for each save. I don't mind this but it could slow things down a lot for termie heavy armies)

Banville wrote:
Well, because you can mess with Terminators in perfect isolation, now, why not give them some real stand out stuff?

What about these?

Augmented Strength: In the fight phase, all wound rolls of 6 cause a mortal wound in addition to normal damage.

Unrivalled Protection: This unit has a 1+ armour save. (I was going to suggest going back to the old 3+ on 2d6 for this rule but it'd mean rolling for each model separately for each save. I don't mind this but it could slow things down a lot for termie heavy armies)

Just accept their crapiness and charge less. That's the best buff in the game. Getting cheaper. You get more bodies, more table coverage, more guns. Stormbolters are good. Power fists are okay. 2+ is good. Just what they charge for the package is not good. Make tac marines and assault marines 10 pts and terminators 25 pts, and a lot of problems go away.

Martel732 wrote:
Or just make them appropriately costed for a game with dissy cannons in it. If marines are gonna die like grots, you can't charge much for them. Enter the power armor horde. If you don't like that, you've got a LOT of weapons to change.

The Black Tide is basically the Horde Marine build, and it still dies like Grots on a Space Hulk infested with Genestealers and Daemons.

I mean it's okay in casual metas, but if you have a bit of hard crunch rolling around your meta like some kind of malignant star, then it's going to feel the pain.

Marines definitely need a rework from the ground up. Extra weapons help, but even with an extra point of toughness (which would only reduce how many wounds they take from S5 (wounding on 4s) and S8-9 (which would only wound on 3s instead of 2s) they could still end up just as screwed over against a Guard or Tau gunline due to the volume of fire they're facing. You could stack a list of change on them, say they're 20 points each and I'm positive someone would argue that they're still worthless.

One thing that might mitigate this is changing the role of units inside of a codex. Scouts shouldn't basically be diet Marines, but rather bring options/wargear than regular Marines don't. Shotguns and sniper rifles are good examples of this, and taking away bolters would help to keep the Marine chaffe unit from stepping on the toes of the Tacticals themselves. Giving out combat knives to all the Marines standard would help a lot too (2 attacks standard would help them feel stronger, even if you don't throw them into melee since 10 models would be throwing out 20 attacks making regular Marines able to fight off hordes in melee, you know, like they do in the lore. I'd say give them to the Primaris would work too since they're even more easilly out numbered, giving them a reasonable volume of attacks would go a long way to making Marines feel like a true TAC army with decent shooting and decent melee instead of decent shooting and pants melee).

Sternguard should come with a chainsword standard since they're basically Tacticals + fancy gun, the least they can be is Tacticals +1 all around. Vanguard Vets should come standard with bolters (or perhaps an assault version of the bolter, like Sternguard have)and the option for combi-weapons in addition to their chainswords to make them feel more like an elite head hunting unit.

Reivers need -1 on their knives to make melee an option for them beyond a moment of opportunity when you're not shooting targets with their bolters.

I could go on and on, but I feel like each unit needs it's own fix, and it has to do with balancing the weaker units in the codex with the more elite ones so the chaffe isn't always the better choice. Part of this is CP needs to move away from being based on the list you're playing. I argued PL since elite armies can end up with more PL than a horde, but to make it more match play centric, 1 CP per 250 points would give each player the same number of points to start with which would go a long way to balancing horde versus elite in that game. Limit CP regenerating relics to once per game to balance them more and the spamming of cheap troops should stop being as attractive for CP farming at least.

And while lore will never be 100% on the table, it should definitely inform the way stats and rules work for the army. I'm not saying we should get crazy (I mean if you wanted to argue it, every Marine should hit on 2+, come with a chainsword or knife standard, have at least 2 attacks and wounds (3 for Primaris and vets) base, be T/S5 (T6 for Terminators and Plague Marines and T7 for Plague Marines in Terminator armour), a 5+ to ignore wounds (4+ for Plague Marines) and the ability to kill things as they die (only to be boosted by characters or standards and really boosted by both), but if a unit is shown as a BAMF then it should feel at least a little like a BAMF on the table instead of something you groan about putting into your list.

Marines also need better stratagems (where's our Vortex grenade? Holy Orbs of Antioch? Ect). More chapter specific ones would be nice too, but that's something I feel every army wants: more stuff that they're dudes can do specifically over other armies.

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Formation idea is wonderful, GW didnt balance them well.

If formations where balanced we wouldnt have seen the crap that we did see in 7th, they were and still are an amazing idea, just like points are an amazing idea, but GW didnt balance them well, dont blame the paints/model for a badly painted model, blame the painter.

Formations are a great example of why GW doesn't make a good game from a balance perspective. Formations were a great idea - you exchanged flexibility for rules for your army overall or you could take a specialist group that was good at a single task. The problem came from GW ignoring obviously OP combinations like the Aspect Host. But instead of putting effort into balancing things for example limiting how many of each Aspect could be in each Host they decided to make 8th. So now you have a different set of problems that GW will likely just replace rather than fix.

Bespoke unit lists with unique bonuses are just kind of a balance nightmare in general. Too many variables to manage and too much stuff to effectively revist. It's the same reason that PP went from each caster having their own theme to breaking factions down into more generic sub factions in MK3.

8th's bespoke rules fit into two categories: unique and general.

And what makes it "fun" is a lot of rules that look unique, are just a general mechanic given a different name (like every method we have for putting stuff in reserves as an example, though Tau actually put that to good use by using Manta Strike based suits as a specific restriction for one strategem).

So while the unique rules are a frightful pain at times, I've noticed that most of them are on characters and not on general units.

 LunarSol wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Formation idea is wonderful, GW didnt balance them well.

If formations where balanced we wouldnt have seen the crap that we did see in 7th, they were and still are an amazing idea, just like points are an amazing idea, but GW didnt balance them well, dont blame the paints/model for a badly painted model, blame the painter.

Formations are a great example of why GW doesn't make a good game from a balance perspective. Formations were a great idea - you exchanged flexibility for rules for your army overall or you could take a specialist group that was good at a single task. The problem came from GW ignoring obviously OP combinations like the Aspect Host. But instead of putting effort into balancing things for example limiting how many of each Aspect could be in each Host they decided to make 8th. So now you have a different set of problems that GW will likely just replace rather than fix.

Bespoke unit lists with unique bonuses are just kind of a balance nightmare in general. Too many variables to manage and too much stuff to effectively revist. It's the same reason that PP went from each caster having their own theme to breaking factions down into more generic sub factions in MK3.

I'm not arguing that it's easy but they very clearly didn't even try. That's what annoys me about things. They didn't even try to balance a system with so much potential they just binned it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
8th's bespoke rules fit into two categories: unique and general.

And what makes it "fun" is a lot of rules that look unique, are just a general mechanic given a different name (like every method we have for putting stuff in reserves as an example, though Tau actually put that to good use by using Manta Strike based suits as a specific restriction for one strategem).

So while the unique rules are a frightful pain at times, I've noticed that most of them are on characters and not on general units.

I think there's room for cleanup, but generally yes, I agree its nice having different names for the same thing based on fluff.

I was referring to the formation style bespoke army build things. Those quickly get out of hand and rarely suffer a fate beyond "useless" and "completely broken" in any game system I've played.

pm713 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Formation idea is wonderful, GW didnt balance them well.

If formations where balanced we wouldnt have seen the crap that we did see in 7th, they were and still are an amazing idea, just like points are an amazing idea, but GW didnt balance them well, dont blame the paints/model for a badly painted model, blame the painter.

Formations are a great example of why GW doesn't make a good game from a balance perspective. Formations were a great idea - you exchanged flexibility for rules for your army overall or you could take a specialist group that was good at a single task. The problem came from GW ignoring obviously OP combinations like the Aspect Host. But instead of putting effort into balancing things for example limiting how many of each Aspect could be in each Host they decided to make 8th. So now you have a different set of problems that GW will likely just replace rather than fix.

Bespoke unit lists with unique bonuses are just kind of a balance nightmare in general. Too many variables to manage and too much stuff to effectively revist. It's the same reason that PP went from each caster having their own theme to breaking factions down into more generic sub factions in MK3.

I'm not arguing that it's easy but they very clearly didn't even try. That's what annoys me about things. They didn't even try to balance a system with so much potential they just binned it.

This ^, we saw some like DE that cave +1 to nightfight rule (even tho its only a 50/50 chance to have NF for turn one only) and then you have SM, Tau, etc.. ones where they were completely OP, Skyhammer Assault, Riptide Wing etc...

The literally didnt even try to balance it.

Martel732 wrote:

Banville wrote:
Well, because you can mess with Terminators in perfect isolation, now, why not give them some real stand out stuff?

What about these?

Augmented Strength: In the fight phase, all wound rolls of 6 cause a mortal wound in addition to normal damage.

Unrivalled Protection: This unit has a 1+ armour save. (I was going to suggest going back to the old 3+ on 2d6 for this rule but it'd mean rolling for each model separately for each save. I don't mind this but it could slow things down a lot for termie heavy armies)

Just accept their crapiness and charge less. That's the best buff in the game. Getting cheaper. You get more bodies, more table coverage, more guns. Stormbolters are good. Power fists are okay. 2+ is good. Just what they charge for the package is not good. Make tac marines and assault marines 10 pts and terminators 25 pts, and a lot of problems go away.

And Marines really need access to AutoCannons on the basic infantry. They used to be able to take them, no idea why that changed.

I'm not actually sure that basic Marines need to get cheaper, but they definitely shouldn't be paying more than Guard for the same special/heavy weapons. Yes those guns are more efficient but you're already paying for everything that makes that true when you buy the Marine.

And there is no way that GravCannons and MultiMeltas should cost more than LasCannons and Plasma Cannons.