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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The point about D2 weapons is valid. However, the issue is mainly that such qeapons are too common and too cheap. This can be fixed, old marine statline however cannot be saved without rewriting the system. The Primaris statline can work though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
[. How about giving bolters some kind of rending?

Like AP -1? Already happened.

Did it ? where was that? Have I missed an update?

He's talking about bolt rifles.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The point about D2 weapons is valid. However, the issue is mainly that such qeapons are too common and too cheap. This can be fixed, old marine statline however cannot be saved without rewriting the system. The Primaris statline can work though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
[. How about giving bolters some kind of rending?

Like AP -1? Already happened.

Did it ? where was that? Have I missed an update?

As far as I know it didn't happen. My guess is one of you is talking about Primaris and one of you is talking about regular marines

Whilst I agree that marines need help, people's attemts to fix them are hilarious as they end up reinventing the Primaris. Almost like GW had already realised these issues and offered a solution. If you want marines that are more durable against small arms and have better bolters you already have them!

 Crimson wrote:
Whilst I agree that marines need help, people's attemts to fix them are hilarious as they end up reinventing the Primaris. Almost like GW had already realised these issues and offered a solution. If you want marines that are more durable against small arms and have better bolters you already have them!

They also cost too much, though. Good for 7th, not 8th.

 Crimson wrote:
Whilst I agree that marines need help, people's attemts to fix them are hilarious as they end up reinventing the Primaris. Almost like GW had already realised these issues and offered a solution. If you want marines that are more durable against small arms and have better bolters you already have them!

You have to reinvent the primaris. Their cost is based off the tactical marine. Any change to tactical marine really requires changes to the entire marine infantry line - across all codex. This is why you shouldn't release an army with such a phenomenally over-costed base model that is used for almost 25% of all unit entrees in the whole of the game. You'd really think they'd want to get that right. Also - considering - space marines is the first experience with 40k most players will have. If it is a bad experience - there is a good chance they wont get another army.

Tactical marines are obsolete, forger them. People basically want Primaris marines which cost the same as the regular marines.

Primaris probably need to be couple of cheaper and many D2 weapons need to be more expensive. And that's marines fixed.

 Crimson wrote:
Sure. But people basically want Primaris marines which cost the same as the egular marines.

Primaris probably need to be couple of cheaper and many D2 weapons need to be more expensive. And that's marines fixed.

If the d2 weapons don't change, which many of don't think they will, primaris will need to cost 13 pts. This the hole gw has dug.

What if this was the plan all along. Make people hate their majority player marine armies, so that when 9th ed comes and primaris are superior no one is going to make an uproar about them replacing the normal marines, because by then everyone and their grandmother is going to hate all stuff marine?

Wow. That's a really good point.

I kind of assumed that was obvious by this point...

They also could have just given marines a new stat line and new models, instead of callling them primaris and creating a fluff nightmare.
And the “oh players will be pissed with new models”...really? Has anyone ever actually been upset when their model range got updated, especially if they continued to produce the old models as an option? Cause at least that way you can still use the models you have, rather than the “less enraging” option everyone seems to be advocating where ALL your old marines no longer have rules.

I really enjoy how some people are ready to cite the evil genius cunning of GW in one thread, but castigate them as potato incompetent fish washers in the next thread down.

Make up your mind.

Marines, all in all, are mostly fine.

People discussing sweeping changes to the core marine statline and costs need to understand that this would just make deathwatch the best SM army out there. The conversation wouldn't be, "which chapter should I use," it would be "why aren't you playing deathwatch?" And, deathwatch are good, right now. They can field very solid lists and act as a surprisingly solid counter to many lists. Knights have really ruined them, but Knights have ruined everyone. The meta is on its heels because of Guard & Knights, which will be addressed (hopefully) in September FAQ.

Core marines need a few things.

Tactical squad improvements:
(a) ATSKNF should just be that you may choose to automatically pass any morale test in the morale phase of the game. Forcing an auto-pass is good too, but if you have one guy surrounded, you might want him to flee so that a squad is not locked in combat. It's a good change that would really help. Also, it would unlock 10 man squads. Next, on that note...

(b) Cheaper special weapons, and allow 3 per 10 man squad, + the combi. It's kind of silly that most of the duders in a TAC squad are just slogging around carrying bolters. On that note, give standard marines an AP-1 on wound rolls of 6 with their boltguns. NOTE: This needs to apply to only marines, not all boltguns.

(c) A couple more stratagems. For instance, Imperial Guard has "go to ground," i would think that there should be a 1CP stratagem for marines, something like "Hunker Down," used when targeted, where they get a +1 save, and can fire adding 1 to hit rolls if they don't move in the next movement phase. Another stratagem, like "Fury of Terra," allowing them to disembark after a rhino concludes its movement.

(d) Give everyone a chainsword. Also, give marines in melee a special rule, wound rolls of 6 are AP-1.

Transport changes:
(a) Make Rhinos T8.
(b) Reduce the cost of drop pods.
(c) Give land raiders the ability to shoot all of their guns into combat. Give them a 5++ invulnerable save. There's far too much in the way of AP-5 now.

In my opinion this would really help marines. And, it doesn't require fundamental repointing - just changes to the cost of a few special weapons, which we all know are overcosted (such as melta).

Primaris troops do not actually bleed points that fast to D2 weapons.

A dark reaper for example doesn't make a good chunk of it's points back when shooting an intercessor.It's 1/3 per turn, which is decent but not great, especially for a glasscannon.

Bursttides net about 1/4 per turn when going offensive nova.

Dissie ravagers are nasty, but they are nasty to everything in the game right now, they are OP.

Martel732 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Sure. But people basically want Primaris marines which cost the same as the egular marines.

Primaris probably need to be couple of cheaper and many D2 weapons need to be more expensive. And that's marines fixed.

If the d2 weapons don't change, which many of don't think they will, primaris will need to cost 13 pts. This the hole gw has dug.

To be fair - I think intercessors are properly costed at 15-16. The bolt rifle is nice. They need some options (like 1 model can take a plasma incinerator per 5) (Sargent needs full access to wargear) and they need to be able to ride in any trasnport - and all those transports need major point drops.

I don't think that's sufficient. You are still overpaying significantly for each base marine. T4 3+ is not getting it done defensively in 8th ed.

The obscene cost of most marine gear is just salt in the wound of the base model being awful. It's not a fix in and of itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Sure. But people basically want Primaris marines which cost the same as the egular marines.

Primaris probably need to be couple of cheaper and many D2 weapons need to be more expensive. And that's marines fixed.

If the d2 weapons don't change, which many of don't think they will, primaris will need to cost 13 pts. This the hole gw has dug.

To be fair - I think intercessors are properly costed at 15-16. The bolt rifle is nice. They need some options (like 1 model can take a plasma incinerator per 5) (Sargent needs full access to wargear) and they need to be able to ride in any trasnport - and all those transports need major point drops.

I don't know. D2 or D(d3) is super common, super accessible, and frequently super cheap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Primaris troops do not actually bleed points that fast to D2 weapons.

A dark reaper for example doesn't make a good chunk of it's points back when shooting an intercessor.It's 1/3 per turn, which is decent but not great, especially for a glasscannon.

Bursttides net about 1/4 per turn when going offensive nova.

Dissie ravagers are nasty, but they are nasty to everything in the game right now, they are OP.

I'd kill for my marines to have a 1/3 return in a turn. Primaris bleed pretty damn fast to D2 at 18 ppm. It get so much worse for things like inceptors.

The forthcoming Chapter Approved is supposed to have the new Sisters list so they may combine that with an update for all Rhino and thier variants which are used across quite a few factions:

Sisters of Battle, Sisters of Silence, Chaos Marines, Marines and all the myriad Snowflake Marines.

- cos otherwise the book would not be dominated by Marines (again)

 Crimson wrote:
Whilst I agree that marines need help, people's attemts to fix them are hilarious as they end up reinventing the Primaris. Almost like GW had already realised these issues and offered a solution. If you want marines that are more durable against small arms and have better bolters you already have them!

I think you're right.

 greyknight12 wrote:
They also could have just given marines a new stat line and new models, instead of callling them primaris and creating a fluff nightmare.
And the “oh players will be pissed with new models”...really? Has anyone ever actually been upset when their model range got updated, especially if they continued to produce the old models as an option? Cause at least that way you can still use the models you have, rather than the “less enraging” option everyone seems to be advocating where ALL your old marines no longer have rules.

The most interesting part about the GW approach with Primaris isn't just an adjustment to new models and a new statline, but a complete change to marine infantry options. Primaris stats would have been a sufficient solution for marine issues if it applied to all marines, but it doesn't. And that's clearly by design. Fluff aside, the GW approach here is much more layered than just updating stats. They appear to be keen on redefining what space marines are as a fighting force above and beyond simply adding AP to boltguns and doubling wounds and attacks. For better or worse, I like the approach here to try and redefine space marines as an army, but they wouldn't be able to do that if they're forever shackled to the old legacy marine units.

I'm eager to see the next step here in hopes that it truly does resolve some of the biggest issues this army faces.

Lack of access to heavy weapons is killing primaris as well.

Hellblasters are too reliant on babysitter buffs and AP in a game where over half the non-marines have access to a plethora of invuln saves.

Martel732 wrote:
Lack of access to heavy weapons is killing primaris as well.

Hellblasters are too reliant on babysitter buffs and AP in a game where over half the non-marines have access to a plethora of invuln saves.

More then anything Hellblasters suffer from a lack of ablative wounds.
Hellblasters are great, but they only shoot once because every enemy gun will target them and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Lack of access to heavy weapons is killing primaris as well.

Hellblasters are too reliant on babysitter buffs and AP in a game where over half the non-marines have access to a plethora of invuln saves.

More then anything Hellblasters suffer from a lack of ablative wounds.
Hellblasters are great, but they only shoot once because every enemy gun will target them and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

That's an additional problem, but you are paying a lot of points for that AP -4. If it's negated by invuln, they lose a LOT of value. Also, -1 to hit trait just lays waste to them. That's a bad flaw in the current meta.

Martel732 wrote:
Lack of access to heavy weapons is killing primaris as well.

Hellblasters are too reliant on babysitter buffs and AP in a game where over half the non-marines have access to a plethora of invuln saves.

Weapon and unit options in general are lacking, but that can be solved by new releases, not fundamental FAQ or CA rule and point changes.

Except for maybe on the heavy incinerators...that's certainly an avenue to consider.

I'm personally more a fan of buffing marines so they last longer on the table rather than increasing their numbers via points drops or increasing their lethality against similar units with tweaked weapon stats, special rules, loadout options, or points costs. I'd rather they burn dimmer for several turns than burn brightly for one. That's mostly because an increase in the lethality of the basic infantry of the most played faction in the game will not solve the problem if they end up dying faster than they do now.

Whichever way they go, be it in the FAQ or the CA, it'll be interesting to see if it brings legacy marines along with it.

Making things last in 8th is a challenge for sure.

Martel732 wrote:
Making things last in 8th is a challenge for sure.

Absolutely, but I think it's a fundamentally better avenue to take than simple balancing through points drops. I'd rather not see T4, 3+ turn into a pseudo-horde army, personally.

Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.

What if you approached from another direction and made Guardsmen equivalents more easy to kill?

Martel732 wrote:
Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.

Well if the latest roumers are correct and GW is doing a 2.0 Codex Adaptes Astartes for the back end of next year we might get to find out, in all honesty though I really suspect that the fundamental issue is that primaris marines stats are what marine stats for 8th edition need to be. The issue is GW tried to keep old marines and nee primaris marines and this has resulted in neither really working.

Primaris need a vanguard vets equivalent and maybe a sternguard equivelent hellblasters need lascannons and there is the start of a viable army.

Ice_can wrote:

Well if the latest roumers are correct and GW is doing a 2.0 Codex Adaptes Astartes for the back end of next year

What is the source of these rumours? Could we get a ling or something?

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Well if the latest roumers are correct and GW is doing a 2.0 Codex Adaptes Astartes for the back end of next year

What is the source of these rumours? Could we get a ling or something?

Was in a podcast I'll see if I can find it, but it was talking Q4 2019

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Well if the latest roumers are correct and GW is doing a 2.0 Codex Adaptes Astartes for the back end of next year

What is the source of these rumours? Could we get a ling or something?

Was in a podcast I'll see if I can find it, but it was talking Q4 2019

Can you imagine having to wait 'till the end of 2019 for changes. That would suck.