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.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 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.

Spoiler:

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.

 Marmatag wrote:
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 had a similar idea I posted a while back in proposed rules.
40k already has a unit tag mechanic, why not make it have more use with weaponry?

 Xenomancers wrote:

My personal prefernce is to make marines have better stats and bump their points up 1-2 points.

When I heard they were making a new eddition and adding damage profiles to weapons - I was really excited. I figured marines would look something like this.
T4 Str4 2W 3+ save with 2 attacks I also thought they might get better mobility too. That is basically a primaris marine. Now - that is a good statline. It's not worth 18 points with a bolt rifle though. I'd say that is worth more like 14-15 with a standard bolter which I also hoped would be a better weapon. D2 of 6's or something. Anything to make it stand out. If we made that change then what are primaris to be? IDK - throw a wound on them for 19 and that sounds right.

I think 3 Wound Primaris is a bit over the top, as 2 W is *only* bad right now due to the over abundance of 2 Damage weapons.

imo the only solution is a new mechanic, not more stats as everyone and their mother uses marines as the baseline.
Not to mention that the change cannot be blown out of proportion by the other marine factions.

Here's some of the restricted design space:
- Marines cannot have an extra attack
- Space Wolves and Blood Angels benefit from it too much
- Marines cannot have BS 2+ / WS 2+
- Space Wolves trait is now useless
- Removes design space for veterans
- Marines cannot have a FNP
- Iron Hands trait is now useless
- No extra wound or attack
- muh primaris
- No higher armour save
- Kills terminator space
- No rerolling armour save
- 2+ rerolling in cover is bad design

This basically means marines must be improved sideways, not vertically.
Some examples of sideways upgrades:
- Ignore first AP of all weapons shot at them
- Reduce damage taken by 1, to a minimum of 1 (This may only apply to Primaris and their brethren)
- Special ammunition variations for all bolters, unique to snowflake faction ( Perhaps change for 1 CP at the start of your turn ) ie.
- Exploding Shot: 2 damage against < INFANTRY > targets
- Neurotoxin Shot: Units shot at by this weapon strike as if they did not charge this turn (Including in overwatch)
- Haywire Shot: For everyone 1 damage suffered by weapons with this shot, reduce its M by 1" and its BS by 1 (to a maximum of 6+).

The special ammunition would also make taking 'max marine squads' good again, as it minimises the cost of changing shots.

That basically means there is no design space.

Martel732 wrote:
That basically means there is no design space.

So cheaper they need to go then since we can't seem to buff them and they suck ATM.

Yeah that really seems to be the only way. Because "it affects other armies to much" - personally - I am okay with a complete overhaul.

Any overhaul must start with custodes. Custodes need t6 w6 to leave room for other elites.

Format glitched. Too lazy to fix.

What if they dropped ASM’s a point or two and made them a troop choice? Mobile, deepstriking objective grabbers?

Median Trace wrote:
What if they dropped ASM’s a point or two and made them a troop choice? Mobile, deepstriking objective grabbers?

If you drop them two points then you still cost more then a tac marine and are still worse than it and it is not even like tacs are very good in the first place so they would still be trash.

I'm not sure an ASM with jetpack is worse than a stock Tac. Worse at gunlining. Worse at holding an objective. But a lot more manuverable. That's what you use ASM for. They should be complementing yoru Tacs, not replacing them.

Bharring wrote:
I'm not sure an ASM with jetpack is worse than a stock Tac. Worse at gunlining. Worse at holding an objective. But a lot more manuverable. That's what you use ASM for. They should be complementing yoru Tacs, not replacing them.

But they do that worse than Vanguard. Assault Marines has no purpose is the issue.

The design space thing that Eonfuzz is more or less the same kind of conclusion I had reached intuitively. Therefore the only options left are:

-drop points.

-change SM weapon rules. Specifically I'm thinking the chainsword here.

-adding in a stratagem that's really good for jump troops (or possibly even Assault Marines if you want to highlight them over Vanguard Vets/Death Company).

There is room for design here. But it would require special rules by chapter.

Maybe ultramarines assault marines get a different bonus than iron hands, etc.

But, this would add complexity that GW seems unwilling to do. I would be open to going back to the days where each chapter got their own codex. Ultramarines codex, Black Templars, etc.

"But they do that worse than Vanguard. Assault Marines has no purpose is the issue."
I would certainly take 5-6ppm ASM over currently-priced VV. I don't think anyone here is saying that ASM are worth their *current* points.

As for design space, I think there is space, but requires a hard look at killyness across the game.

Design space that doesn't require a full rewrite. GW has hardcoded killiness into 8th. Marines are just mathematically some of the worst at surviving it.

It really is simple to just drop their points - it worked for everyone else. It will work for these trash units too. In basically 100% of cases - units aren't taken because they are not worth the points. Not because their job isn't needed. This is usually indicative of at least a 15-20% over-costing compared to what they can do. So any change that does not at least make the under-performer at least 15- 20% cheaper - are worthless. So when making suggesting on how to fix bad units. Don't under do it. The point is we want people to play units that are unplayable.

Lets take the space marine vindicator for example. You'd think being dropped in price twice from index to codex and again in chapter approved this thing would be a bargain.

Well - not really - because it's original 145 price point was beyond absurd. It averages 2 shots hitting on 4's (cause it's always moving). One +1 str lascannon hit for 145 points? No - that is worth much more like 110-100 points.

So see how making small adjustments does nothing? When is the last time you saw a vindicator? You've got to get a real sense of how bad a unit is - realize what it would take to make that unit playable. Then make it happen.

Assault marines are bad. Probably among the worst 10 units in the game. They need roughly a 30% price drop to be playable.

They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.

They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.

Right, a 30% price drop would be ~5 pts (from the Jump version, which I *think* is what we are talking about here, to 11 pts.

Breaking it down, I see it as this:
-the basic Astartes stat line comes in at 11 pts. (ie, Tacticals)

Assault Marines get a -1 discount for not having ObjSec and not having a bolter, so start at 10, and pay 1 pt. instead for a jump pack (if they want it, or they can run around on foot with pistol and chainsword for 10 pts., LOL).

Devastators pay +2 pts for the privilege of holding a heavy weapon and getting a free signum (or you can break this up however you want, the point is, people are happy to pay 13 pts for a devastator right now and they are common in most space marine lists).

Bharring wrote:
They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.

They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.

\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1. Maybe a Gretchen is worse. Maybe a pathfinder. Maybe a tervigon. IDK. There are a lot of really bad units. Every Codex has a stinker. Assault marines are in the top 10 worst units though.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.

They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.

\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1. Maybe a Gretchen is worse. Maybe a pathfinder. Maybe a tervigon. IDK. There are a lot of really bad units. Every Codex has a stinker. Assault marines are in the top 10 worst units though.

Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight. there are more, at least ASM can DS onto objectives and are just Marines with FLY, Fly is a good Keyword.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.

They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.

\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1. Maybe a Gretchen is worse. Maybe a pathfinder. Maybe a tervigon. IDK. There are a lot of really bad units. Every Codex has a stinker. Assault marines are in the top 10 worst units though.

Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight. there are more, at least ASM can DS onto objectives and are just Marines with FLY, Fly is a good Keyword.

Naming index units is kinda dishonest, and Assault Centurions are certainly better than Assault Marines.

"Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1."
Amish gives:
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight

Just because, here's 10 more!
1. Storm Guardians
2. Banshees
3. Falcons
4. Necron Monolith
5. Dev Cents
6. Assault Termies
7. Tac Termies
8. Wraithblades
9. Incubi
10. Avatar of Khaine


Most are either the same book or an Eldar book (higher tier)

So two players each just pulled 10 different worse units out of the air. ASM are not bottom 10.

Sidenote: what makes Assault Cents better than ASM? I'd rather have the ASM, myself.

It's tough when arguing between two units that never see play what is worse, because what is worse has to be a measure of how playable it is.

In that regard, Wraithblades are definitely better than Assault Marines, as are most of the things in that list. Assault centurions might be worse, but it's difficult to make a case either way, because neither unit has a use case in the meta.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.

They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.

\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse?

Tactical Marines
Space Marine Assault Centurions
Tyrannocyte
Grey Knight Paladins
Primaris Reivers (Which perform the same role in the same faction!)
Eldar Nightspinner Tanks (think I got the name right...)
Space Marine Terminators
Eldar Avatar of Kaine
Chaos Space Marines
Space Marine Standard Dreadnought (seriously, 8 wounds and nearly impossible to hide behind terrain. Don't worry though, most configurations will cost more than the more survivable predator)

Assault marines could use a buff, but I think it's more a consequence of them using the overcosted tac marine for their base cost instead of anything wrong with the unit.

Bharring wrote:
"Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1."
Amish gives:
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight

Just because, here's 10 more!
1. Storm Guardians
2. Banshees
3. Falcons
4. Necron Monolith
5. Dev Cents
6. Assault Termies
7. Tac Termies
8. Wraithblades
9. Incubi
10. Avatar of Khaine


Most are either the same book or an Eldar book (higher tier)

So two players each just pulled 10 different worse units out of the air. ASM are not bottom 10.

Sidenote: what makes Assault Cents better than ASM? I'd rather have the ASM, myself.

At least you can SFtS the Centurions for 3 Hurricane Bolters to the face.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
They only look like they're in the bottom 10 because you care about them. Most books have at least one entry worse than even them.

They are bad, and the 30% price drop is roughly in line with what's been more seriously suggested here.

\
Can you name me 10 units that are worse?

Tactical Marines
Space Marine Assault Centurions
Tyrannocyte
Grey Knight Paladins
Primaris Reivers (Which perform the same role in the same faction!)
Eldar Nightspinner Tanks (think I got the name right...)
Space Marine Terminators
Eldar Avatar of Kaine
Chaos Space Marines
Space Marine Standard Dreadnought (seriously, 8 wounds and nearly impossible to hide behind terrain. Don't worry though, most configurations will cost more than the more survivable predator)

Whoa, I flatly disagree with much of this.

For example, Reivers in the context of deathwatch aren't bad at all.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1."
Amish gives:
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight

Just because, here's 10 more!
1. Storm Guardians
2. Banshees
3. Falcons
4. Necron Monolith
5. Dev Cents
6. Assault Termies
7. Tac Termies
8. Wraithblades
9. Incubi
10. Avatar of Khaine


Most are either the same book or an Eldar book (higher tier)

So two players each just pulled 10 different worse units out of the air. ASM are not bottom 10.

Sidenote: what makes Assault Cents better than ASM? I'd rather have the ASM, myself.

At least you can SFtS the Centurions for 3 Hurricane Bolters to the face.

Hope you can kill 243 points of models in one shot, because they aren't getting a second one. That's assuming you are using the stock flamers that won't get to overwatch if you fail the charge.

At their price, you're getting a 5-man ASM squad for every Centurion.

3 Hurricane Bolters are nice. 18-Naked-Tac-Marine nice. For a little more than 18 naked Tac Marines.

ASM have a huge mobility increase over Assault Cents. Don't get me wrong, there are things Assault Cents can do that ASM can't. They're very different units - you shouldn't be replacing one directly with the other. But there's a much wider array of things those ASM can do that those Cents can't.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"Can you name me 10 units that are worse? I am having trouble thinking of 1."
Amish gives:
Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, Vindicators, Penitent engine, Centurion Assault Squad, Hive Crone, Tyrannocyte, Dimachaeron, Wraithknight

Just because, here's 10 more!
1. Storm Guardians
2. Banshees
3. Falcons
4. Necron Monolith
5. Dev Cents
6. Assault Termies
7. Tac Termies
8. Wraithblades
9. Incubi
10. Avatar of Khaine


Most are either the same book or an Eldar book (higher tier)

So two players each just pulled 10 different worse units out of the air. ASM are not bottom 10.

Sidenote: what makes Assault Cents better than ASM? I'd rather have the ASM, myself.

At least you can SFtS the Centurions for 3 Hurricane Bolters to the face.

Hope you can kill 243 points of models in one shot, because they aren't getting a second one. That's assuming you are using the stock flamers that won't get to overwatch if you fail the charge.

Anything with that capability at range is gonna suffer the -1 to hit. Melee would be bad for them though. Ironically.

If you're rapidfiring a unit, then claiming a -1-to-be-hit from RG when it shoots back, you're doing it wrong.