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.

A Space Marine is 50% more resilient to a Battlecannon (S8 AP -2) than a Guardsman, although only marginally more resilient to overloaded Plasma (S8 AP -3).

This pushes the idea that a Space Marine should really be closer to twice as expensive as a Guardsman. But everyone seems to object to 5 Point Guardmen and 10 Point Space Marines.

 Crimson wrote:
Again. People want more resilient marines with better bolters and more punch in the melee. These already exist, they're called Intercessors. No need to reinvent them. Sure, they're overcosted, but what people basically want is Intercessors at cost of a tactical marine (and possibly called tactical marines so they can continue to pretend primaris do not exist.) Drop Primaris point costs about 20% that's marines fixed.

No, because some people actually want to use their regular marines. Otherwise it's like saying AM Infantry Squads are fixed by tweaking Scions.

 tvih wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Again. People want more resilient marines with better bolters and more punch in the melee. These already exist, they're called Intercessors. No need to reinvent them. Sure, they're overcosted, but what people basically want is Intercessors at cost of a tactical marine (and possibly called tactical marines so they can continue to pretend primaris do not exist.) Drop Primaris point costs about 20% that's marines fixed.

No, because some people actually want to use their regular marines. Otherwise it's like saying AM Infantry Squads are fixed by tweaking Scions.

Okay, but then we need to recognize that tournament Eldar armies aren't exactly running a bunch of Dire Avengers either. The expectation of marines being competetive with top-tier, and the desire to field tactical marines, aren't really the same thing.

Bolter get Ap - 1
Marines ignore 1 point of Ap

Hell make the bolter cost 2 points and a marine cost 11

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2W would be way too good for their current cost.

While I think 2 wounds is absolutely silly (especially when Primaris exist for that role), you're like the last person that should be saying Marines are fine in any way. In your casual "do whatever you want" area, you'll literally never see a problem ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
SM don't have profiles or points costs issues, they just don't have effective synergies that don't involve a gunline. Strategems are also very bland.

Their own troops lose to firefights against most other troops, are out-fought by several troops, and can't specialize in an effective manner. Are you SURE your post is correct?

That's why they need synergies, better bonuses or more effective auras and better stratagems. I'm not a SM player but never considered my SW troops that bad, even fighting against competitive lists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
I don't want cheaper marines, I want them to be more effective. A very good start would be to allow 2 special weapons plus the champs weapon in a squad of 5. Like scions or sisters etc.
Considering marines are supposed to be the pinnacle of the universe's warriors I find it ridiculous that 3 in 5 of them are only capable of picking up a humble bolter...

It's exactly this. They don't need to be cheaper or more resilient. They just need to have more punch, especially in combat. And more effective strategems: when I read the codex SM I haven't seen a single one that appealed to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Bolters are not supposed to be humble, that's the main problem.

Why not? They are supposed to be the standard S4 anti infantry weapon that every army has, or an equivalent to it.

Right now they are not equivalent to anything, they are bad weapons. They are worse than gauss, shurikens, pulse rifles, volkite and many many other basic weapons. The bolter is currently not correctly represented in game, or at the least it is not correctly represented when in the hands of a marine. I can understand a guard sergeant getting mild effects with one, but marines should defintely get some bonuses when using bolters. Even something like giving all marines with a bolter a full reroll to wound wouldn't be so out of it. Then you increase to cost of the bolter to 3 points and lower the cost of the marines by 3. This way you made all speacial weapons cheaper by 3 points without impacting the balance between them.

Same with stormbolters at 5 or 6 points.

I don't want to delve into bolter porn but right now the bolters are clearly performing way under what is expected from those weapons in the narrative, and that's the biggest issue of the marine faction.

There are already intercessors' bolters, heavy bolters, 2pts storm bolters and assault cannons, most of those can be spammed quite easily.... compare bolters to shootas or poisoned drukhari rifles. They're not that bad, in fact they're even better than those examples. SM already have more effective anti infantry weapons, bolters just need to be the cheapest and less effective weapon.

Well that's because Space Wolves have literally always been Space Marines +1. Of COURSE you don't think there's a problem. Grey Hunters cost the same as a Tactical but have an extra attack and can double up on Plasma Guns rather than being forced into a Heavy Weapon when they want to always be on the move.

It's completely bonkers, AND Grey Hunters are just considered okay!

Also Storm Bolters really can't be spammed outside the Elite slot. Heavy Bolters though we are blessed with the Tarantula Sentry Gun (literally my favorite Fast Attack choice). Also you get 2 shots with the poisoned Splinter for every Bolter. 1 shot at S4 or 2 shots just wounding on a 4+? That choice is clear as Kalabites are cheap enough that it doesn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tvih wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Again. People want more resilient marines with better bolters and more punch in the melee. These already exist, they're called Intercessors. No need to reinvent them. Sure, they're overcosted, but what people basically want is Intercessors at cost of a tactical marine (and possibly called tactical marines so they can continue to pretend primaris do not exist.) Drop Primaris point costs about 20% that's marines fixed.

No, because some people actually want to use their regular marines. Otherwise it's like saying AM Infantry Squads are fixed by tweaking Scions.

But turning basic Marines into Intercessors is silly because Intercessors exist. A better equivalent would be suggesting to fix Infantry squads by giving them Deep Strike and more AP on their guns.

Scouts are supposed to be disruptive, Tactical Marines are supposed to have punch, and Intercessors are supposed to be durable. Those are the clear rules. The issue is how they all perform at them, with Scouts being only okay and Intercessors only doing the job vs certain weapons. Then Tactical Marines are left in the cold because anything you want to do with them you can get in another slot, and then the other troop choices can just hold the objectives better.

 Stux wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

2+ PA without any point cost change would be totally OP. I can see Termies at 1+ without big changes, but a tactical with a 2+ would have to cost at least 18 points, and you would still have the same problems with a basic troop which costs a lot for a really bad offensive output.

18 points for a 2+ armour Tactical Marine is absolute madness.

Probably yes, but i'm giving the benefit of the doubt because they would have an atrocious offensive at that cost.

The big problem here is that a 2+ save makes them significantly harder to take down with small arms (which they're already decently durable against) and doesn't really help much at all against the real marine killers like Plasma.

I believe the main issue is that high AP, especially on plasma weapons, is generally undercosted.

Assuming we're moving to Primaris as a standard anyway, if there was a game wide revaluation of high AP, multidamage weaponry that increased mid level options a reasonable amount, that would fix a lot of for the issues with marines.

Add to that some better strats and chapter tactics that affect all models and I think we'd be good.

Plasma has nothing to do with marine mortality rates, and if your enemy is shooting plasma guns at your basic troops to take them out they've already lost when there's likely an Imperial Knight stomping across the field or some other big bad unit. The issue that marines do have is with small arms fire because a 3+ save is ultimately garbage statistically. It just doesn't save enough to justify its value against the buckets of dice that other armies can put out. 66.68% chance to save is worthless when the enemy's infantry units pump out so many shots to be rolling 30 dice or even more in the shooting phase that can swiftly wipe a marine squad off the board. A 2+ save however would make marines actually valuable, as a 2+ save gives them a 83.35% chance on each roll to come out alive and worth their cost. The issue is the attack-creep of other factions making 3+ saves completely worthless by volume of fire. 4+ and 5+ are likewise worthless saves, but at least the troops with them are so damn cheap that you can field mass hordes of them. Which also increases the volume of fire being put out.

Just so you know, from a person with an army with termintors as based troop. The +2 sv is too good vs small arms is a lie. If the game was one termintors vs 1 IG trooper, then yeah termintor would be busted. But the fact is that my 5 dudes, buy an IG player almost 32 dudes with HQs.

Karol wrote:
Just so you know, from a person with an army with termintors as based troop. The +2 sv is too good vs small arms is a lie. If the game was one termintors vs 1 IG trooper, then yeah termintor would be busted. But the fact is that my 5 dudes, buy an IG player almost 32 dudes with HQs.

Which is why Terminators also need their durability cranked the hell up to justify their absurd cost. 2+ save however should be enough to make tactical marines slightly viable as a troop at their current cost, although toughness 5 certainly couldn't hurt. The critical failure of 8th edition is the stupid, needless tradition of toughness and strength stats. With the toughness and strength caps removed, there's no reason why orks can't be toughness 5, marines 6, or carnifexes 12.

And that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is and everything to do with the comparable points value Terminators to Imperial Guard Troops and HQ. I'm sure you won't be complaining if you could by 10 Terminators for the cost of the Loyal 32.

 alextroy wrote:
And that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is and everything to do with the comparable points value Terminators to Imperial Guard Troops and HQ. I'm sure you won't be complaining if you could by 10 Terminators for the cost of the Loyal 32.

No, I would because turning an elite army is utterly moronic and merely continuing the 8th edition trend of boiling away all remaining tactical depth from the game. There's not even a point to space marines if all they are turned into is power armored guardsmen that are fielded en masse when they are supposed to be ridiculously rare and horribly outnumbered. Elite armies need to be elite, not a mass of models pushed across the table with a broom.

Karol wrote:
Just so you know, from a person with an army with termintors as based troop. The +2 sv is too good vs small arms is a lie. If the game was one termintors vs 1 IG trooper, then yeah termintor would be busted. But the fact is that my 5 dudes, buy an IG player almost 32 dudes with HQs.

Do you realise it takes an average of 72 shots from a Guardsman to down ONE terminator?

That's 36 guardsman shooting normally in rapid fire range, 18 with FRFSRF.

At best case that's 72pts in Guardsman, not including the commander to buff it.

The loyal 32 costs 180 pts and when shooting terminators will on average, with maximum possible shots, fail to kill a second terminator.

And that's the best block of infantry in the game.

Terminators are FINE against small arms.

 Stux wrote:

Karol wrote:
Just so you know, from a person with an army with termintors as based troop. The +2 sv is too good vs small arms is a lie. If the game was one termintors vs 1 IG trooper, then yeah termintor would be busted. But the fact is that my 5 dudes, buy an IG player almost 32 dudes with HQs.

Do you realise it takes an average of 72 shots from a Guardsman to down ONE terminator?

That's 36 guardsman shooting normally in rapid fire range, 18 with FRFSRF.

At best case that's 72pts in Guardsman, not including the commander to buff it.

The loyal 32 costs 180 pts and when shooting terminators will on average, with maximum possible shots, fail to kill a second terminator.

And that's the best block of infantry in the game.

Terminators are FINE against small arms.

Exactly what I've been saying. Everyone forgets how much their durability improved vs a significant number of weapons, with only losing durability in super specific situations (like Battlecannons and Autocannons and against Gauss Immortals). They need their damage output fixed. Simple as that.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
And that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is and everything to do with the comparable points value Terminators to Imperial Guard Troops and HQ. I'm sure you won't be complaining if you could by 10 Terminators for the cost of the Loyal 32.

No, I would because turning an elite army is utterly moronic and merely continuing the 8th edition trend of boiling away all remaining tactical depth from the game. There's not even a point to space marines if all they are turned into is power armored guardsmen that are fielded en masse when they are supposed to be ridiculously rare and horribly outnumbered. Elite armies need to be elite, not a mass of models pushed across the table with a broom.

But that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is. That is a thematic issue. Space Marines of any sort have not been that sort of "Elite" since Third edition dropped. You are arguing that they should be something they simply have not been in the memory of most players.

Simply put, Warhammer 40,000 tabletop miniature game Space Marines are not Black Library Space Marines. And they never will be because GW doesn't want your Space Marine army to be a tenth the size of your opponents Imperial Guard army.

 alextroy wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
And that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is and everything to do with the comparable points value Terminators to Imperial Guard Troops and HQ. I'm sure you won't be complaining if you could by 10 Terminators for the cost of the Loyal 32.

No, I would because turning an elite army is utterly moronic and merely continuing the 8th edition trend of boiling away all remaining tactical depth from the game. There's not even a point to space marines if all they are turned into is power armored guardsmen that are fielded en masse when they are supposed to be ridiculously rare and horribly outnumbered. Elite armies need to be elite, not a mass of models pushed across the table with a broom.

But that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is. That is a thematic issue. Space Marines of any sort have not been that sort of "Elite" since Third edition dropped. You are arguing that they should be something they simply have not been in the memory of most players.

Simply put, Warhammer 40,000 tabletop miniature game Space Marines are not Black Library Space Marines. And they never will be because GW doesn't want your Space Marine army to be a tenth the size of your opponents Imperial Guard army.

Which isn't an argument beyond showing that the game has been in a fairly state for a long while, and is in need of an overhaul. And it has everything to do with how good a 2+ save is, as it's the 2+ save that is actually worth something, and marines are well overdue for a stats overhaul. Reducing the points cost does nothing but make the game objectively worse by watering down one faction to be nothing more than a gakky copy of another.

Idgaf about being harder to kill.

Normal shooting if you run

Double shooting if you don’t run (except heavies)

Double shooting everything if you don’t move.

Not for scouts.

+1 attack.

Definitive no to better armor or more wounds unless they get even more offensive boosts on top.

No. It supports castling

What, getting to move 6+d6” and then unload a plasma gun and bolsters supports castling?

No, double shooting heavies when stationary supports castling. It also doesn't solve the melee deficiency of the Codex; +1 attack isn't going to be enough to make a difference.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, double shooting heavies when stationary supports castling. It also doesn't solve the melee deficiency of the Codex; +1 attack isn't going to be enough to make a difference.

And what's the problem with castling?
For chapters like Iron Fists it makes absolute sense no?
Additionally the "decent" meleestats are what makes marines too expensive.

Well that's because Space Wolves have literally always been Space Marines +1. Of COURSE you don't think there's a problem. Grey Hunters cost the same as a Tactical but have an extra attack and can double up on Plasma Guns rather than being forced into a Heavy Weapon when they want to always be on the move.

It's completely bonkers, AND Grey Hunters are just considered okay!

Also Storm Bolters really can't be spammed outside the Elite slot. Heavy Bolters though we are blessed with the Tarantula Sentry Gun (literally my favorite Fast Attack choice). Also you get 2 shots with the poisoned Splinter for every Bolter. 1 shot at S4 or 2 shots just wounding on a 4+? That choice is clear as Kalabites are cheap enough that it doesn't matter.

Csm also can do that and we don't, simply put the availability of the PG is literally a non consideration to take a troop choice. Infact so long the basic CSM squad will not generate better CP then we will not switch away from the wannabee guardsmen, which are worse then IG, to generate CP. Not to mention that the cultists stratagem are fine whilest the stratagems for CSM are, let's just say, toned down....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Well that's because Space Wolves have literally always been Space Marines +1. Of COURSE you don't think there's a problem. Grey Hunters cost the same as a Tactical but have an extra attack and can double up on Plasma Guns rather than being forced into a Heavy Weapon when they want to always be on the move.

It's completely bonkers, AND Grey Hunters are just considered okay!

Well it's not that common to bring 2 plasmas in a unit of GH. They usually are played in 3 packs of 5 dudes just to field a Battallion. Plasma gun in each squad but since they are just screens for the tanks/long fangs I always missed the heavy weapon option, and plasma gun it's also the only real choice available since they can have just plasma guns, flamers and melta guns, no other weapons. Plasmas also need babysitters which you may want near the fight, not in the back field. I'm forced to bring two Wolf Lords to get plasmas re-rolls most of the times.

I agree that GH are better than regular marines, but that's only because SW are better than SM so they have more synergy with the rest of the army. The profile is basically the same, and 5 dudes are not that killy in combat even with +1A and +1WS, but they could add some support since SW have efficient choppy units. SM are mostly played as a boring gunline with no tactics involved after deployment.

SM need a codex that makes units like terminators or assault marines good units in doing their job, adding variety and more synergies: characters' auras, chapter bonuses and stratagems that buff melee mostly but not only. Otherwirse they'll always be AM -1 and that's not because of tactical marines.

SM need a codex that makes units like terminators or assault marines good units in doing their job, adding variety and more synergies: characters' auras, chapter bonuses and stratagems that buff melee mostly but not only. Otherwirse they'll always be AM -1 and that's not because of tactical marines.

Not gonna lie, but all Terminators, need to be better at their job, Hard hitting tough Shocktroops, which they are atm not really, mainly due to their pricetag which is abbhorrently high for laughable output / movement speed.

Yes, castling is bad. Marines have bring up their ratio of offense to defense way way more before even thinking of extra survival boosts like 2+ armor. At 13ppm their offense is paltry and staying at those points they first need more attack power as a base. If they then get survival boosts that needs to be accompanied by yet more offense to keep that ratio on offense. Marines are underpowered in both and I just want to address the imbalance in offense before raising their overall power.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, double shooting heavies when stationary supports castling.

It sounds like the existence of heavy weapons promotes castling.

Not Online!!! wrote:

SM need a codex that makes units like terminators or assault marines good units in doing their job, adding variety and more synergies: characters' auras, chapter bonuses and stratagems that buff melee mostly but not only. Otherwirse they'll always be AM -1 and that's not because of tactical marines.

Not gonna lie, but all Terminators, need to be better at their job, Hard hitting tough Shocktroops, which they are atm not really, mainly due to their pricetag which is abbhorrently high for laughable output / movement speed.

All Terminators (in all factions) get 1+ armour and do not suffer penalties to hit with melee weapons - its not hard.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

SM need a codex that makes units like terminators or assault marines good units in doing their job, adding variety and more synergies: characters' auras, chapter bonuses and stratagems that buff melee mostly but not only. Otherwirse they'll always be AM -1 and that's not because of tactical marines.

Not gonna lie, but all Terminators, need to be better at their job, Hard hitting tough Shocktroops, which they are atm not really, mainly due to their pricetag which is abbhorrently high for laughable output / movement speed.

All Terminators (in all factions) get 1+ armour and do not suffer penalties to hit with melee weapons - its not hard.

And that does nothing to fix the LC ones and anyone carrying Power Weapons.

Terminators are all about being put in situations like ship to ship boarding where they can survive a lot more than a regular marine and dish out enough damage to overwealm what is in front of them. Not open battlefield as minature tanks. Though of course that is what they are used as.

I would be quite happy with:

Uiversal rule - Astartes bolters, bolt pistols and storm bolters are -1 to armour saves due to their larger caliber rounds and superior targetting of enemy weak points using their armours auto senses.

Terminator armour - 1+ save, 5+ invulnerable, all incoming damage is reduced by one to a minimum of one (same as tough creatures like Hyrid abominations). This is the toughest armour known to man and the civilian versions are used for astroid mining and working inside plasma reactors after all...

Astartes power armour - 2+ save. The superor way it meshes with an astartes body grants incredible agility and range of motion compared to conventional powered armour and this combined with training and the black carapace means it grants a higher save than a mere human can have in it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, double shooting heavies when stationary supports castling. It also doesn't solve the melee deficiency of the Codex; +1 attack isn't going to be enough to make a difference.

And what's the problem with castling?
For chapters like Iron Fists it makes absolute sense no?
Additionally the "decent" meleestats are what makes marines too expensive.

Well that's because Space Wolves have literally always been Space Marines +1. Of COURSE you don't think there's a problem. Grey Hunters cost the same as a Tactical but have an extra attack and can double up on Plasma Guns rather than being forced into a Heavy Weapon when they want to always be on the move.

It's completely bonkers, AND Grey Hunters are just considered okay!

Also Storm Bolters really can't be spammed outside the Elite slot. Heavy Bolters though we are blessed with the Tarantula Sentry Gun (literally my favorite Fast Attack choice). Also you get 2 shots with the poisoned Splinter for every Bolter. 1 shot at S4 or 2 shots just wounding on a 4+? That choice is clear as Kalabites are cheap enough that it doesn't matter.

Csm also can do that and we don't, simply put the availability of the PG is literally a non consideration to take a troop choice. Infact so long the basic CSM squad will not generate better CP then we will not switch away from the wannabee guardsmen, which are worse then IG, to generate CP. Not to mention that the cultists stratagem are fine whilest the stratagems for CSM are, let's just say, toned down....

CSM don't do that because on top of the Bolter being silly bad, we also have Cultists to fulfill our needs.

I'm also of the opinion the regular CSM entry needs to be scrapped though and Chosen should be the default troop choice to show they're actually Vets. That's just the codex not doing fluff equating crunch as usual though.

Just my $0.02...

The issue is that, thanks to the new AP system, Power Armor is completely worthless.

GW has sadly created this issue because AP modifiers are being handed out like AOL disc's in the 90's.

I'm not sure what the correction is or should be, but to me it seems like the AP problem has now grown into an uncontrollable monster.

Even AP 0 does work on marines outside of cover. A lot of work. Sisters work. Marines don't. Make marines more like sisters.

Martel732 wrote:
Even AP 0 does work on marines outside of cover. A lot of work. Sisters work. Marines don't. Make marines more like sisters.

Then go play Sisters. This thread is more about making those smaller, more elite armies work. Nobody is stopping you from playing Sisters.

Martel732 wrote:
Even AP 0 does work on marines outside of cover. A lot of work. Sisters work. Marines don't. Make marines more like sisters.

To be fair sister's of battle work in small numbers due to AoF etc but full army of sisters tends to suck a bit, really maybe Power armour does need to be a 2+ to be worthwhile in 8th edition.