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.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
His point is that if you took a full Company (6xTac squads, 2xDevs, 2xASM), for instance, you can actually have them all in a 2k list - that's only 1300 points of bodies.

It's a poor point, because 100 bodies of Marines with 700 points of support/gear is much worse than 100 bodies of Marines with 1000 points of support/gear. 300 points is quite a lot (+15% current points).

He's saying people would spam marines if they were 10 points. He is wrong. You might see 30 on the table at that price. Which is a savings of about 90 points. With how poorly marines perform do you really think that would be game breaking?

I already spam marines at 13 ppm, taking 70-90 in a 2000 pointer. I'd be taking over 100 if they were 10, it would be a no brainer.

You're not a good example of how this game is generally played. To be completely fair.

I'm not convinced 10 points is a fair price. To me the problem lies with the chapter tactics being mostly garbage and the wargear being generally overcosted.

Mamatag RG have the cookie cuter best chapter tactic in the game and their bolter marines still suck it is pretty clearly not just a wargear and chapter tactic probem.

 mew28 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
His point is that if you took a full Company (6xTac squads, 2xDevs, 2xASM), for instance, you can actually have them all in a 2k list - that's only 1300 points of bodies.

It's a poor point, because 100 bodies of Marines with 700 points of support/gear is much worse than 100 bodies of Marines with 1000 points of support/gear. 300 points is quite a lot (+15% current points).

He's saying people would spam marines if they were 10 points. He is wrong. You might see 30 on the table at that price. Which is a savings of about 90 points. With how poorly marines perform do you really think that would be game breaking?

I already spam marines at 13 ppm, taking 70-90 in a 2000 pointer. I'd be taking over 100 if they were 10, it would be a no brainer.

You're not a good example of how this game is generally played. To be completely fair.

I'm not convinced 10 points is a fair price. To me the problem lies with the chapter tactics being mostly garbage and the wargear being generally overcosted.

Mamatag RG have the cookie cuter best chapter tactic in the game and their bolter marines still suck it is pretty clearly not just a wargear and chapter tactic probem.

Because the game isn't fought troops vs troops. And you know this.

Raven Guard tactics would be an entirely different story if they affected everything, not just infantry and walkers.

The best Alaitoc units aren't just dark reapers.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
His point is that if you took a full Company (6xTac squads, 2xDevs, 2xASM), for instance, you can actually have them all in a 2k list - that's only 1300 points of bodies.

It's a poor point, because 100 bodies of Marines with 700 points of support/gear is much worse than 100 bodies of Marines with 1000 points of support/gear. 300 points is quite a lot (+15% current points).

He's saying people would spam marines if they were 10 points. He is wrong. You might see 30 on the table at that price. Which is a savings of about 90 points. With how poorly marines perform do you really think that would be game breaking?

I already spam marines at 13 ppm, taking 70-90 in a 2000 pointer. I'd be taking over 100 if they were 10, it would be a no brainer.

You're not a good example of how this game is generally played. To be completely fair.

I'm not convinced 10 points is a fair price. To me the problem lies with the chapter tactics being mostly garbage and the wargear being generally overcosted.

Yeaahh... maybe... but:

I recently played a locals tournament, and came in 2nd with my marine horde featuring 10 man Tac Squads, 4 Rhinos, Devs etc. Now the guy that came in first ran IG Custodes soup. 3 Bike Captains, Scions, mortars, I think Pask, Tanks etc. Now, because of the tourney setup (random opponents) we never actually fought each other, and we both won all our games quite handily. Due to time limits, I couldn't table my opponents as we never got past turn 3, however I'd say I was well on my way to tabling each. (1900pts, 1800ish, and 1400ish pts killed respectively, and me with plenty left to finish the job). Essentially he came out ahead because he could table his opponents faster than I could, and that's fair enough. We've got ourselves a "grudge match" scheduled and that ought to be a good fight.

But my takeaway from that is that marines can still beat the snot out of lots of opponents, given the right play. I don't buy all the crap they're getting, especially if I can do well without what the internet tells me is "best". (Guilliman, RG, Leviathans, etc) I don't even play Forge World, just straight codex with essentially units that were available 20 years ago.

Now some of my perspective is certainly "big fish small pond" I'm sure. But I'm also sure that a lot of the "complaining" perspective is straight up lacking in smart play and giving up early on units that require a different strategy to play.

If your games are only going to turn 3, that is awful, that must be a teeth-pullingly slow affair. I am sorry you got your score crippled by slowplayers.

Playing over 100 models in a double battalion i can get 6 turns done in 2.5-3 hours.

100+ models isnt an issue if every squad all has the same weapon and no re-rolls. . . And they're dying fast.

 Marmatag wrote:

Spoiler:

 mew28 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
His point is that if you took a full Company (6xTac squads, 2xDevs, 2xASM), for instance, you can actually have them all in a 2k list - that's only 1300 points of bodies.

It's a poor point, because 100 bodies of Marines with 700 points of support/gear is much worse than 100 bodies of Marines with 1000 points of support/gear. 300 points is quite a lot (+15% current points).

He's saying people would spam marines if they were 10 points. He is wrong. You might see 30 on the table at that price. Which is a savings of about 90 points. With how poorly marines perform do you really think that would be game breaking?

I already spam marines at 13 ppm, taking 70-90 in a 2000 pointer. I'd be taking over 100 if they were 10, it would be a no brainer.

You're not a good example of how this game is generally played. To be completely fair.

I'm not convinced 10 points is a fair price. To me the problem lies with the chapter tactics being mostly garbage and the wargear being generally overcosted.

Mamatag RG have the cookie cuter best chapter tactic in the game and their bolter marines still suck it is pretty clearly not just a wargear and chapter tactic probem.

Because the game isn't fought troops vs troops. And you know this.

Raven Guard tactics would be an entirely different story if they affected everything, not just infantry and walkers.

The best Alaitoc units aren't just dark reapers.

What dose the RG tactic working on tanks have to do with their tactical marines sucking? It is pretty clear bolter marines are bad no matter how much you try and shift the issue onto their tactics and wargear despite having some of the best of both with the RG trait and the ability to take plasma guns.

Well - the RG tactic not affecting vehicles is a big deal.

Like - how good would a -1 to hit repulsor be?
How good would a -2 to hit fireraptor be? or Levi dread?
Even razorbacks at -1 to hit would be super sturdy.

Clearly - the tactics not affecting vehicles is a big deal. However - here is where the issue really becomes clear. The most viable method to play space marines is to spam mech! The infantry are so bad - players avoid them even though they get free rules like...the best army trait in the game (-1 to hit).

The issue is marines over pay for t4 and a 3+ save on every infantry model base in their army. Or even worse they overpay for 2+ saves on everything else.

The wargear is also overcosted. So you can't even really pay the unfortunate tax to get a nice weapon - you overpay there too.

10 might be to low but 11 still feels too much. If marines are 11 points they would still need a buff to the bolter - which I'd actually be in favor of.

My problem is that cheaper marines means Tyranid troops are even more screwed. In my Tyranids Wishlist thread I suggested giving tyranid troops improved saves (except genestealers) by +1, and people lost their minds.

10 pts may be too cheap, but I'd still crap turds of joy if I got Tacs/Devs/ASM for 11 pts. Adjust a couple special and heavy weapon prices (meltaguns, grav guns) and I'd be happy as a clam.

 Marmatag wrote:
My problem is that cheaper marines means Tyranid troops are even more screwed. In my Tyranids Wishlist thread I suggested giving tyranid troops improved saves (except genestealers) by +1, and people lost their minds.

That is because they are fools and don't want opponents armies to get stronger.
Every nid infantry should have a 5+ save at their current price point. Warriors go to 3+.
Infantry go up to 5 points for IG.

If those changes went through today - I don't think you'd have a problem with 10-11 point marines.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rocmistro wrote:
10 pts may be too cheap, but I'd still crap turds of joy if I got Tacs/Devs/ASM for 11 pts. Adjust a couple special and heavy weapon prices (meltaguns, grav guns) and I'd be happy as a clam.

And grav cannons (15) and multi meltas (15) and las cannons (20)

Marines have the toughness of a 12 point unit but the damage output of a 6-7 point unit. I guess putting them at 11 points would be something, but I don't think it would make tacticals a good use of points.

They don't seem to be talked about - but its the same problem as Necron Warriors.

Or you could fix Bolt weapons and Marine melee. You can't just make everything cheaper as sometimes it won't scale correctly.

 Xenomancers wrote:

If those changes went through today - I don't think you'd have a problem with 10-11 point marines.

Xeno, I'll give credit where credit is due - you haven't changed this stance throughout the thread.
But I don't feel like anyone here will be satisfied with point cost reductions on marines while a better solution is around.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or you could fix Bolt weapons and Marine melee. You can't just make everything cheaper as sometimes it won't scale correctly.

The man speaks truth.
Marines will never be taken while there exists a cheaper troops choice available - that fulfils the role of detachment tax - while being cheaper and generating MORE of what you take the troops for.

This is a problem with soup and the basic 'no-asymmetrical balance' design of 8e.

Before people get up and in arms about this I want to clarify that I'm talking about asymmetrical point costs

Marines instead need to be unique, and able to fulfil a function or niche that doesn't just have a "better choice" available by souping.
Where does that leave us?

In order to be a staple (in the realm of soup), marines need to be able to either:
- Be a cheaper alternative to Guardsmen when it comes to CP and detachments
- Have higher Damage Per Turn than Guardsmen
- Survive longer than Guardsmen
- Perform a function Guardsmen cannot do (ie, unique abilities and tactics)

Right now *most* people are picking out the easiest to theory craft of the four options "Being cheaper..." and that, my friends is not the right choice for the games health in the long term, as a race to the bottom is never good for anyone.

There is no design space left for marines. Race to the bottom it is.

Race to the bottom though is no good for new players. They come here expecting to shoot stuff with bolters and then discover that bolters are one of the weakest weapons in the game.

Bolters and chainswords are the problem, they are not weapons good enough for an elite model, but you can't make them better, because you overstep on primaris weapons, which are supposed to be better.

IMHO the only solution is to add a rule, there is no other way out of this.

I propose the following:

For tactical squads "Fire Pattern: If this unit includes at least 5 models, you can add 1 to its hit rolls in the shooting phase. In addition, models in this unit may fire an additional shot with bolters when shooting at a target within half weapon's range."

For assault squads"Assault formation: If this unit includes at least 5 models, you can add 1 to its hit rolls in the figthing phase. In addition, models in this unit may perform an additional attack with chainswords every time they fight"

Those would make bolters and chainswords more powerful on those models, while at the same time improving the effects of special weapons in the squad.

This way, a special weapon in a tactical/assault squad is more effective than one in the hands of a devastator/veteran, but limited in number. Seems fair as a mechanic for the basic elements of a faction. It also encourages 10 men squads, which would finally give a meaning to ATSKNF.

I'd also prefer buffed Marines over cheap Marines. For example:

Let them ignore the first point of incoming AP that would reduce their save to something worse than their normal armor save (so AP1 would still remove their cover save). This is a massive increase in durability against the weapons that currently butcher Marines without increasing it against non AP attacks (like giving them a second wound would do).

Give all Marines +1 attack the turn they charge. This gives them something to do when they get up close to stuff, and incentivises charging them before they charge you.

Give the chainsword and bolt weapons AP1. Remember that Marines would be able to ignore a point of AP, so this only increases their damage vs other factions, which are typically more lightly armored targets, and are less hurt less by incoming AP. It's also worth noting that I'd give necrons almost the same buffs to ignore AP that I'm talking about for Marines, but that's another topic.

These changes would make a 10 man assault marine squad do 31 attacks on the charge with S4, AP1. This would realistically kill 11 guardsmen on a charge. If you think that's too powerful, consider that space wolves skyclaws currently kill the exact same number of guardsmen, and I don't think anyone is calling them overpowered.

Defensively, these assault Marines would still die when focused down with AP0 fire or basic melee attacks, and AP1 would still reduce their cover saves, but they'd also get their 3++ a whole lot more vs weapons with AP, which would let them stick around a bit longer but not make them too annoying to kill (which should be the role of primaris).

I'd try these changes at marines current points costs, then buff/ nerf things from there. There would still be a number of other fixes needed (like fixing marine vehicles and repointing special and heavy weapons) but I think these changes would be a good first step in the marine statline not being a liability.

To me that all sounds like way too much, but I'm just a noob with 65..err....66 posts so what do I know?

What about making the bolter an assault 2 / 18" weapon instead of Rapid Fire?

Rocmistro wrote:
To me that all sounds like way too much, but I'm just a noob with 65..err....66 posts so what do I know?

What about making the bolter an assault 2 / 18" weapon instead of Rapid Fire?

The only problem with that is the Rapid Fire 1 24" weapon is the game's baseline. Nearly every faction has access to that profile on a base troop choice. Aren't astartes shotguns Assault 2 18" or am I misremembering the range?

Astartes shotguns are Str 4, assault 2, 12".

Spoletta wrote:
Race to the bottom though is no good for new players. They come here expecting to shoot stuff with bolters and then discover that bolters are one of the weakest weapons in the game.

Bolters and chainswords are the problem, they are not weapons good enough for an elite model, but you can't make them better, because you overstep on primaris weapons, which are supposed to be better.

IMHO the only solution is to add a rule, there is no other way out of this.

I propose the following:

For tactical squads "Fire Pattern: If this unit includes at least 5 models, you can add 1 to its hit rolls in the shooting phase. In addition, models in this unit may fire an additional shot with bolters when shooting at a target within half weapon's range."

For assault squads"Assault formation: If this unit includes at least 5 models, you can add 1 to its hit rolls in the figthing phase. In addition, models in this unit may perform an additional attack with chainswords every time they fight"

Those would make bolters and chainswords more powerful on those models, while at the same time improving the effects of special weapons in the squad.

This way, a special weapon in a tactical/assault squad is more effective than one in the hands of a devastator/veteran, but limited in number. Seems fair as a mechanic for the basic elements of a faction. It also encourages 10 men squads, which would finally give a meaning to ATSKNF.

That would screw GK over so hard. Normal marines can afford to run more dudes per squad then 5, and they do have chainswords and normal bolters on their troops. This would make marines more efficient, even if their points cost wouldn't change.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My problem is that cheaper marines means Tyranid troops are even more screwed. In my Tyranids Wishlist thread I suggested giving tyranid troops improved saves (except genestealers) by +1, and people lost their minds.

That is because they are fools and don't want opponents armies to get stronger.
Every nid infantry should have a 5+ save at their current price point. Warriors go to 3+.
Infantry go up to 5 points for IG.

If those changes went through today - I don't think you'd have a problem with 10-11 point marines.

Yes then I would be fine with it. 3+ save warriors would also make it more balanced. It would give me a comparative option to fight marine tide. They would out-range me but i would be better in melee. I'll take that if it's a reasonably fair trade off.

I still think nerfing firepower/buffing durability across the board would help Marines out. Check out the 'Durability' thread in Proposed Rules. It alone doesn't fix Marines, but would it help?

The AP system is largely fine.

There is a simple problem - some infantry is just too cheap.

The easier solution is for models like guardsmen to be T2.

Or, have weapons improve based on the type of armor they're shooting at. For instance, against Light Armor, the heavy bolter is -2, whereas versus Medium Armor it's ap-1, and Heavy Armor it's AP-0. But this layer of complexity is just too much when the game wants to be as simple as it is.

I still think its much easier to admit that marines are a flawed concept and adjust points accordingly. The buff marines camp and nerf everything else camps suffer from crazy amounts of unintended consequences.

Accept that plasma and dissy cannons make marines functionally grots. Price to reflect this mathematical reality.

Marines are not the only units affected by anti-MEQ/TEQ weapons being too available, though.

Bharring wrote:
I still think nerfing firepower/buffing durability across the board would help Marines out. Check out the 'Durability' thread in Proposed Rules. It alone doesn't fix Marines, but would it help?

Too many codices have it too good now. Nerfing firepower just makes guardsmen even more immortal for their cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Marines are not the only units affected by anti-MEQ/TEQ weapons being too available, though.

So? Did i say change only marines? All elite infantry are basically victims atm. Because of costing, all weapons are anti-meq, and none are anti-geq. Sounds like the problem is costing, not too much firepower.

Not all elite infantry are basically victims. Custodes. AL Zerkers. Reapers.

Keep on going. What? No more examples?

I'd argue foot custodes are not good.

Bharring wrote:
Not all elite infantry are basically victims. Custodes. AL Zerkers. Reapers.

Sorry what.
Al zerkers are half the time victims. namely after you used forward operatives and didn't get the first turn.
That - 1 isn't going to save you in that circumstance. (not only that but you wasted a good cp per squad for a HIMMELFAHRTSKOMMANDO)

Additionally what do these dudes have in common? They all can pack a mean fast punch. Some more reliable then others.
The custodes also have the thoughness (somewhat) to back the punch up, whilest the eldar is just ignoring happily your shooting phase.

Now your regular Spike or spikeless marine has none of the above. Same with tyranid warriors. Same with necron warriors. See the problem?

Foot custodes are solid enough. They don't suffer from their statline, they suffer from the ITC format wherein mobility actually matters.