Switch Theme:

The Power Armor Problem  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Dakka Veteran




Karol wrote:
But how would the merge even work? Something like SW wulfen or anything GK is vastly different from what anything marines have.

3rd edition worked relatively well if we are talking about consolidating books; BA, DA, SW were all 28-32 page books with unit entries that said “refer to Codex: Space Marines. The main vanilla codex was a fraction of what a codex is today. Everything could fit in a codex the size of an 8th edition snowflake chapter codex, instead of having vanilla alone be a hefty tome outweighed only by a BRB that has what, 15 page of rules in it?

For all it’s reputation of “fun, simple, streamlined” I don’t see much in 8th that does much to improve on 3rd edition. People seem to like it because 7th sounds like a flaming pile of dog crap but I’m thankful I stopped at 5th. With the current state of the game I wish I hadn’t come back for 8ths launch. Waiting and starting again with Kill Team and then playing that until CA 2019 likely would have been smarter.
   
Made in jp
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ice_can wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Bolter gets ap - 1 marines ignore a point of Ap

I don't see many faults in this but I won't say I have it's perfect just seems like a decent band aid
Given the prevalence of marines your not really changing anything as it's a net zero, it also screws armies that don't have mass high AP or AP- fire.
It also gets increasingly difficult to justify why sisters with bolters and power armour etc shouldn't get the same rules..


It does make one if they just forgot about those. Inquisitors as well, though they usually take bigger stuff than bolters.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

 stonehorse wrote:
 Wyzilla wrote:
The issue is just that at its core the 40k game is completely and utterly fethed. The balance between infantry/vehicles is basically nonexistent, there's a ton of mechanics that just don't make a lick of sense, and a lot of the new rules neither reduce the playtime or make the game simpler as was advertised. Blast templates were easy, and all they needed to fix them was to simply reduce or remove scattering altogether- instead we now have d6 hit mechanics that take even more time. Marine infantry wasn't stupendous in prior editions as mentioned, but at least there was transport and sweeping advance rules to give them an edge over your basic guardsmen squad. That's all gone now, and instead we have a terrible edition of poorly implemented mechanics that weren't thought out well - coupled with bizarre religious adherence to statlines even though the limits to strength and toughness have been removed. And keeping the asinine turn system that encourages "shot off the board syndrome", where you either have enough cover to protect your army or expect to lose a significant chunk on the first shooting phase.

If you want to improve marines, you need to improve 40k so there's actual tactics for heavy and elite infantry compared to the standard gameplay of just pushing up the table with blobs of units trying to screen as much fire as possible for your deathstar(s), a concept that also needs to be taken outside and shot once and for all. I wouldn't opt for just stat increases, but completely and utterly changing the wargame to add deep mechanics for both infantry and vehicles while also speeding things up for gameplay's sake (such as minimal/no scatter templates). Add suppression mechanics to infantry, make dedicated AT weapons suffer minuses to hit against infantry targets, bring back things like sweeping advances to quickly resolve melee combat, mandate heavy use of terrain in the rules themselves, and use alternating unit turns to prevent one person just activating all of their units and blowing units clean off the table. All elite infantry such as Space Marines, Custodes, and Aspect squads should be a pain in the ass to kill without using the proper tools for the job, and inferior infantry units such as guardsmen shouldn't be able to outshoot them on a per-points basis.

Cause it's not just Marines. Aspect Warriors, Custodes, warriors, etc are all gak units with no place on the table in a game that caters mostly to superheavies and blobs of infantry where "tactics" consist of merely spamming shots and managing auras. GW keeps creeping the scale forward and shoving more Epic units in without giving a single damn as to how it'll effect the meta, and doesn't seem to care about game design either really. It's just about getting people to field expensive blobs of infantry and superheavies now to be pushed on and off the table with a broom as people dump bucketloads of dice that take forever to count hits. At this point the community either needs to make its own rules or just switch to kill team, because there's probably no improving 40k for there to even be a place for elite armies at this point.


This.
40K is a hot mess, sure the models and the background are wonderful. However the rules are some of the worst I have encountered in my 30 years of miniature gaming. So full of needless bloat to try to add flavour, and also lacking in any real decision making.

If people want to try a game of what 40k should be, play One Page Rules Grim Dark. The rules are very easy to learn, but offer a lot more than what current 40k does.

As it is GW will not fix their broken system, as they are too addictied to adding special rules, and will not adopt Alternative Activations. Also they need to abandon the armour save mechanic, and instead have Armour as a stat the attack needs to equal or beat in order to cause a wound, armour should be constantly active, not passive.


Lol I'm sorry but you are entirely wrong. The game is definitely not perfect but it's a quality wargame with more dynamics and variety than others. The sales and fans certainly agree. If you're having a bad time you might need to adjust your army, play-style or move on to something different. Not everyone likes chocolate, doesn't mean it doesn't taste sweet.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





 Ishagu wrote:
 stonehorse wrote:
 Wyzilla wrote:
The issue is just that at its core the 40k game is completely and utterly fethed. The balance between infantry/vehicles is basically nonexistent, there's a ton of mechanics that just don't make a lick of sense, and a lot of the new rules neither reduce the playtime or make the game simpler as was advertised. Blast templates were easy, and all they needed to fix them was to simply reduce or remove scattering altogether- instead we now have d6 hit mechanics that take even more time. Marine infantry wasn't stupendous in prior editions as mentioned, but at least there was transport and sweeping advance rules to give them an edge over your basic guardsmen squad. That's all gone now, and instead we have a terrible edition of poorly implemented mechanics that weren't thought out well - coupled with bizarre religious adherence to statlines even though the limits to strength and toughness have been removed. And keeping the asinine turn system that encourages "shot off the board syndrome", where you either have enough cover to protect your army or expect to lose a significant chunk on the first shooting phase.

If you want to improve marines, you need to improve 40k so there's actual tactics for heavy and elite infantry compared to the standard gameplay of just pushing up the table with blobs of units trying to screen as much fire as possible for your deathstar(s), a concept that also needs to be taken outside and shot once and for all. I wouldn't opt for just stat increases, but completely and utterly changing the wargame to add deep mechanics for both infantry and vehicles while also speeding things up for gameplay's sake (such as minimal/no scatter templates). Add suppression mechanics to infantry, make dedicated AT weapons suffer minuses to hit against infantry targets, bring back things like sweeping advances to quickly resolve melee combat, mandate heavy use of terrain in the rules themselves, and use alternating unit turns to prevent one person just activating all of their units and blowing units clean off the table. All elite infantry such as Space Marines, Custodes, and Aspect squads should be a pain in the ass to kill without using the proper tools for the job, and inferior infantry units such as guardsmen shouldn't be able to outshoot them on a per-points basis.

Cause it's not just Marines. Aspect Warriors, Custodes, warriors, etc are all gak units with no place on the table in a game that caters mostly to superheavies and blobs of infantry where "tactics" consist of merely spamming shots and managing auras. GW keeps creeping the scale forward and shoving more Epic units in without giving a single damn as to how it'll effect the meta, and doesn't seem to care about game design either really. It's just about getting people to field expensive blobs of infantry and superheavies now to be pushed on and off the table with a broom as people dump bucketloads of dice that take forever to count hits. At this point the community either needs to make its own rules or just switch to kill team, because there's probably no improving 40k for there to even be a place for elite armies at this point.


This.
40K is a hot mess, sure the models and the background are wonderful. However the rules are some of the worst I have encountered in my 30 years of miniature gaming. So full of needless bloat to try to add flavour, and also lacking in any real decision making.

If people want to try a game of what 40k should be, play One Page Rules Grim Dark. The rules are very easy to learn, but offer a lot more than what current 40k does.

As it is GW will not fix their broken system, as they are too addictied to adding special rules, and will not adopt Alternative Activations. Also they need to abandon the armour save mechanic, and instead have Armour as a stat the attack needs to equal or beat in order to cause a wound, armour should be constantly active, not passive.


Lol I'm sorry but you are entirely wrong. The game is definitely not perfect but it's a quality wargame with more dynamics and variety than others. The sales and fans certainly agree. If you're having a bad time you might need to adjust your army, play-style or move on to something different. Not everyone likes chocolate, doesn't mean it doesn't taste sweet.


Popularity is no measure of quality - merely the gullibility, and complacency of the general population; the fans will buy literally anything GW gives them out of misplaced, blind loyalty.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/13 13:25:08


“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Wyzilla wrote:
Popularity is no measure of quality - merely the gullibility, and complacency of the general population; the fans will buy literally anything GW gives them out of misplaced, blind loyalty.


If this were true GW's sales would presumably have remained constant over the past years - and decades.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





Tyel wrote:
 Wyzilla wrote:
Popularity is no measure of quality - merely the gullibility, and complacency of the general population; the fans will buy literally anything GW gives them out of misplaced, blind loyalty.


If this were true GW's sales would presumably have remained constant over the past years - and decades.

That they had sales at all is impressive considering each edition is minting out a game with only minor rule changes for little benefit. Looking back on it the whole edition mechanic is surreal, considering it allows GW to re-sell the game every 5-10 years consistently and not really suffer for it, instead of just releasing a well balanced set of rules and never touching it again to avoid disrupting a carefully catered meta. But then again I suppose people also keep buying videogames like Call of Duty or Madden, so peer pressure seems quite an effective marketing tool to coerce people into buy into the same product.

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Wyzilla wrote:


Popularity is no measure of quality - merely the gullibility, and complacency of the general population; the fans will buy literally anything GW gives them out of misplaced, blind loyalty.


Generally speaking you're right: just look at MCU movies and stuff like that. Pretty mediocre movies but gross more than billion. We can say the same for a bazillion of commercial musical "artists".

However people that buy miniatures that they don't like are extremely uncommon. They buy the models because the game, especially the competitve one, is only a fraction of the hobby. People that consider 40k a complete mess are those ones who are eager to prove how skillful they are and at the same time don't want to invest money and time chasing the most competitive lists of the moment. Those people want something that 40k will never have IMHO and it's probably a good thing.

 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

 Blackie wrote:
 Wyzilla wrote:


Popularity is no measure of quality - merely the gullibility, and complacency of the general population; the fans will buy literally anything GW gives them out of misplaced, blind loyalty.


Generally speaking you're right: just look at MCU movies and stuff like that. Pretty mediocre movies but gross more than billion. We can say the same for a bazillion of commercial musical "artists".

However people that buy miniatures that they don't like are extremely uncommon. They buy the models because the game, especially the competitve one, is only a fraction of the hobby. People that consider 40k a complete mess are those ones who are eager to prove how skillful they are and at the same time don't want to invest money and time chasing the most competitive lists of the moment. Those people want something that 40k will never have IMHO and it's probably a good thing.


This is true

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Screaming Shining Spear





USA

unit by unit activation would be a pain. (more reasons to explain than this thread should hold)

I loved the Psychic Phase in 2nd ed. it was a fun mini game.

But it did slow up the game.

3rd had Psychics in lieu of shooting. I think that is the right track. Make Psychics either a movement or shooting or assault phase depending on the power.

THEN

to make the unit activation people happy and the "I got tabled b4 my 1st turn".....try this

The game goes by unit types for activations during phases.

Example:
Fast Attack units for Player A, Then Fast Attack units for Player B.
Then HQ units for Player A, followed by Player B's
Then Elite Units for Player A...followed by Player B's
Infantry Troops would come next
Follow them with Flyers, Heavy Support, LoW and finally Fortifications.

We all love Heavies and big killy things, but now units that are supposed to be fast reactionary units can gain a benefit.
I can see Tactical Marines all getting an ELITE ability to make Marine forces better than hammer forces of the Guard and such.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/13 14:40:50


 koooaei wrote:
We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




I'd rather not see marines reduced in points. I think they suffer from a lack of offensive power and any type of strats/powers to help improve their durability.

Re-rolls need to be divorced from the characters and just given as a basic marine rule. Re-roll 1's to hit and wounds for all marine infantry. Increases lethality, reflects the fluff of super soldiers and tactically allows marines to operate as individual strike teams.

Castling with marines is such bad gameplay. Give the HQs cool abilities (-1 to ap bubbles, re-roll save bubbles, +1 str bubble, extra shot if they don't move bubbles) to allow HQs to "specialize" the basic troops.

Native deepstrike or a deepstrike strat (paying 63 points or whatever for a drop pod is a tax that marines can't afford at the moment).

Higher levels of special weapon saturation would be nice as well. 2 specials and 1 heavy per 5 man would be nice. NF should be roll moral tests on 2 dice pick the lowest.

Chainswords need to be -1 ap.

Different chapter tactics with alternative tactics for vehicles.

All of this and a complete stratagem overhaul. Drop pod assault, X cp deploy all troops as if they were scouts. Some sort of shoot twice strat. +1 to save strat. Re-roll failed save strat. Ignore over-heat strat. Invuln save strat. Mobility strat (move twice/teleport on table). Disembark after moving strat. Redeploy strat.

With all of that and no points decrease I think marines would at least be fun to play and present some tactical choices which they do not have now (being forced to castle up around gulliman with sniper scouts is terrible). Plus these changes don't mess with the basic marine too much so if those filthy traitors got their hands on them GW wouldn't have to re-write 10 books.
   
Made in ie
Longtime Dakkanaut




Ireland

40k sells well due to many reasons. Product recognition, easy of player base, immersion of the setting, wonderful models, and brand loyalty. Not every sale is linked into a support of the current system, not everyone uses GW miniatures for gaming or even for GW games.

Also strong sales is not a good measure of quality, because that means that SubWay and McDonalds are now the world's best restaurants, so naturally they serve the best food.

Too often people only play GW games and dismiss any other miniature game out of hand before even trying it. Yes, GW make some good games (Warhammer Underworlds comes to mind), but their core flagship games are quite behind when it comes to modern game design. The hobby of pushing around plastic/metal toys and making pew pew noises is vast, I urge everyone to go out and explore it.

The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






The white knighting of GW rules is insane here. You are welcome to enjoy the game as much as you want, but that does not make 8th Ed. A good rules set. It’s frankly quite terrible.

Popularity has never, ever been an indicator as to how good something is. Just look at the VHS vs Beta technology back in the 80’s. Beta was superior in every way quality wise. The only reason VHS won out is because the Porn industry adopted it as its medium of choice due to its lower manufacturing cost.

There is so much wrong with 40k, it hurts my head to think about why they would have designed it like that. And AOS is even worse.

I’m not trying to be mean here, but the entirety of GW games development team should be fired.

Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

bananathug wrote:
I'd rather not see marines reduced in points. I think they suffer from a lack of offensive power and any type of strats/powers to help improve their durability.

Re-rolls need to be divorced from the characters and just given as a basic marine rule. Re-roll 1's to hit and wounds for all marine infantry. Increases lethality, reflects the fluff of super soldiers and tactically allows marines to operate as individual strike teams.

Castling with marines is such bad gameplay. Give the HQs cool abilities (-1 to ap bubbles, re-roll save bubbles, +1 str bubble, extra shot if they don't move bubbles) to allow HQs to "specialize" the basic troops.

Native deepstrike or a deepstrike strat (paying 63 points or whatever for a drop pod is a tax that marines can't afford at the moment).

Higher levels of special weapon saturation would be nice as well. 2 specials and 1 heavy per 5 man would be nice. NF should be roll moral tests on 2 dice pick the lowest.

Chainswords need to be -1 ap.

Different chapter tactics with alternative tactics for vehicles.

All of this and a complete stratagem overhaul. Drop pod assault, X cp deploy all troops as if they were scouts. Some sort of shoot twice strat. +1 to save strat. Re-roll failed save strat. Ignore over-heat strat. Invuln save strat. Mobility strat (move twice/teleport on table). Disembark after moving strat. Redeploy strat.

With all of that and no points decrease I think marines would at least be fun to play and present some tactical choices which they do not have now (being forced to castle up around gulliman with sniper scouts is terrible). Plus these changes don't mess with the basic marine too much so if those filthy traitors got their hands on them GW wouldn't have to re-write 10 books.


I think giving them legion rules from 30k would benefit the entirety of the space marines. Chapter rules need to be looked at and seriously considered in making them more eventful and allowing for emergent gameplay choices that give players agency.

The current -1 to hit is such a stupid mechanic because it is not an emergent choice it is a flat out decrease that cannot be avoided unless it is otherwise stated. And especially with the importance of gunline armies and close combat being so underwhelming it is no wonder why we don't see close combat infantry because they outright suck compared to gunline counterparts.

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Rhinox Rider




 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The white knighting of GW rules is insane here. You are welcome to enjoy the game as much as you want, but that does not make 8th Ed. A good rules set. It’s frankly quite terrible.

Popularity has never, ever been an indicator as to how good something is. Just look at the VHS vs Beta technology back in the 80’s. Beta was superior in every way quality wise. The only reason VHS won out is because the Porn industry adopted it as its medium of choice due to its lower manufacturing cost.

There is so much wrong with 40k, it hurts my head to think about why they would have designed it like that. And AOS is even worse.

I’m not trying to be mean here, but the entirety of GW games development team should be fired.


It’s so weird that you accurately describe the problem that the market gives incentives to make something other than a good product but then say the designers should be fired as though a new set of designers wouldn’t be controlled by the same production incentives and demand eleasticity and management and make the same kind of sloppy product.

To make a good product they’d need to not be driven by sales and capital intensity. And unfortunately there isn’t an immediate alternative to that because if it were a creator owned game and the rules and models were free electronic files then they’d not get very much done and they’d get oushed into a corner of the market by some highly capitalized business making a suboptimal game just like GW is now.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Texas

bananathug wrote:
I'd rather not see marines reduced in points. I think they suffer from a lack of offensive power and any type of strats/powers to help improve their durability.

Re-rolls need to be divorced from the characters and just given as a basic marine rule. Re-roll 1's to hit and wounds for all marine infantry. Increases lethality, reflects the fluff of super soldiers and tactically allows marines to operate as individual strike teams.

Castling with marines is such bad gameplay. Give the HQs cool abilities (-1 to ap bubbles, re-roll save bubbles, +1 str bubble, extra shot if they don't move bubbles) to allow HQs to "specialize" the basic troops.

Native deepstrike or a deepstrike strat (paying 63 points or whatever for a drop pod is a tax that marines can't afford at the moment).

Higher levels of special weapon saturation would be nice as well. 2 specials and 1 heavy per 5 man would be nice. NF should be roll moral tests on 2 dice pick the lowest.

Chainswords need to be -1 ap.

Different chapter tactics with alternative tactics for vehicles.

All of this and a complete stratagem overhaul. Drop pod assault, X cp deploy all troops as if they were scouts. Some sort of shoot twice strat. +1 to save strat. Re-roll failed save strat. Ignore over-heat strat. Invuln save strat. Mobility strat (move twice/teleport on table). Disembark after moving strat. Redeploy strat.

With all of that and no points decrease I think marines would at least be fun to play and present some tactical choices which they do not have now (being forced to castle up around gulliman with sniper scouts is terrible). Plus these changes don't mess with the basic marine too much so if those filthy traitors got their hands on them GW wouldn't have to re-write 10 books.


So is all of this written with competitive tournaments in mind? I have yet to have a game where I suffer from a lack of offensive punch, but I haven't played in the competitive scene yet. That being said, there are no shortage of ways for me to put a lot of damage on the table, so I don't see where this is coming from.

I really like the idea of NF having a roll 2 take the better result mechanic. I like it a LOT actually. The more we can remove rerolls the quicker game play can be. I also don't understand the mindset to deny chapter tactics to our vehicles. I think that was a mistake.

As someone who plays BT, and runs Crusader Squads with a ton of CS... I would LOVE to see -1ap added to them, but I feel like that would be unbalanced.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/13 17:09:07


No Pity! No Remorse! No fear! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Ishagu wrote:
The game is definitely not perfect but it's a quality wargame with more dynamics and variety than others. The sales and fans certainly agree.


I have never met anyone who switched to 40K from Dust, Bolt Action, Flames of War, Infinity, Dropzone Commander, or any other reasonably popular wargame because they liked 40K's rules more. Models, yes, fluff, yes, availability, yes, community, yes, rules- hell no. The mechanical changes in AoS and Kill Team show that new-GW is at least willing to innovate on the core WHF/40K system, but they're still a long ways from having a ruleset that is appealing to wargamers on its own right.

Having the rules support a model range rather than the other way around means they're wedded to all the bloat and chrome that gets in the way of good design, but they could at least take a page from the rest of the industry (or their prior games, see: Epic) and consider things like command systems, alternating activation, and range modifiers. Epic's command/activation system gave elite armies like Space Marines a simple, tangible advantage over Orks or Guard that had nothing to do with rivet-counting weapon stats or slapping special rules on them.

   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Between Alpha and Omega, and a little to the left

I remember the extensive threads about how the AP system in 3-7 edition hurt power armor the most, now we're hearing the same about armor modifiers (even by the same people) Same with sweeping advance, or grenades, or cover, or pistols, or a hundred other things.

SM players have absolutely shown an unwillingness to use any advantage they have, and deny any winning strategy as "not counting", because they'd rather be able to win tournaments with the any they got straight out of Assault on Black Reach. And when they lose, rather than change, they just start crying to GW for a shower of buffs.


Want to help support my plastic addiction? I sell stories about humans fighting to survive in a space age frontier.
Lord Harrab wrote:"Gimme back my leg-bone! *wack* Ow, don't hit me with it!" commonly uttered by Guardsman when in close combat with Orks.

Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts.  
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I remember the extensive threads about how the AP system in 3-7 edition hurt power armor the most, now we're hearing the same about armor modifiers (even by the same people) Same with sweeping advance, or grenades, or cover, or pistols, or a hundred other things.

SM players have absolutely shown an unwillingness to use any advantage they have, and deny any winning strategy as "not counting", because they'd rather be able to win tournaments with the any they got straight out of Assault on Black Reach. And when they lose, rather than change, they just start crying to GW for a shower of buffs.



I think players have taken into account that marines are not cost effective. Even at the local hobby scene, people struggle to justify playing marines over the stronger races. Its also just they underperform at every event?

Blaming players for being salty or 'being too stubborn' is a rash over generalization.

If anything marines just need better weapons, better rules, and rules that actually matter. Making Marines 'the baseline' has been a mistake for years.

With the advent of knights all infantry balance is thrown out the window as it is now "How do we beat knights?" Instead of "How do we deal with MEQ?"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/13 17:32:13


From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

Here is how I would boost ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:

1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.

2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.

3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.

4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.

5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/13 17:49:01


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran




 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I remember the extensive threads about how the AP system in 3-7 edition hurt power armor the most, now we're hearing the same about armor modifiers (even by the same people) Same with sweeping advance, or grenades, or cover, or pistols, or a hundred other things.

SM players have absolutely shown an unwillingness to use any advantage they have, and deny any winning strategy as "not counting", because they'd rather be able to win tournaments with the any they got straight out of Assault on Black Reach. And when they lose, rather than change, they just start crying to GW for a shower of buffs.


The way cover interacted with saves back in 3rd meant you never worried about it for your super soldiers, and countless threads defended 40k’s AP system as being more realistic with regards to ballistic weaponry compared to WHFB’s system that represented metal armour being crunched by bigger metal weapons. Now we have poorly transitioned to the AP system of a dead game. Pretty cool.

Feel free to chime in and let SM players know what their advantage is though, and what they’re doing wrong. If you could refrain from chiming in that their advantage is being able to ally in Guard and Knights that would be great. Thanks Luke.
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I remember the extensive threads about how the AP system in 3-7 edition hurt power armor the most, now we're hearing the same about armor modifiers (even by the same people) Same with sweeping advance, or grenades, or cover, or pistols, or a hundred other things.

SM players have absolutely shown an unwillingness to use any advantage they have, and deny any winning strategy as "not counting", because they'd rather be able to win tournaments with the any they got straight out of Assault on Black Reach. And when they lose, rather than change, they just start crying to GW for a shower of buffs.



Except not all of us in here play space marines, and can recognize that they're in a really bad place, but this also comes with a modicum of self awareness.

"People would win, if they were smart like me." Pretty gross statement to make really.

Imperial Guard have won the most tournaments out of anyone. Does that mean your average guard player is smarter than the average Necrons player? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that one army is overpowered and one army sucks?

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Marmatag wrote:
Here is how I would boost ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:

1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.

2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.

3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.

4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.

5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.

Rerolling saves was stupid the first time it was introduced.

Durability is fine. It's the offensive power they lack.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 Marmatag wrote:
Here is how I would boost ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:

1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.

2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.

3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.

4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.

5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.


Remove the defense ability and keep that only for terminators. otherwise good list of changes I might run a test game against my eldar and see what happens.

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
Here is how I would boost ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:

1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.

2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.

3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.

4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.

5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.

Rerolling saves was stupid the first time it was introduced.

Durability is fine. It's the offensive power they lack.


Except this isn't the past, it's 8th edition. What edition do you think it is?

Durability isn't fine. Simple math exercises prove this.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 Marmatag wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
Here is how I would boost ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:

1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.

2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.

3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.

4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.

5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.

Rerolling saves was stupid the first time it was introduced.

Durability is fine. It's the offensive power they lack.


Except this isn't the past, it's 8th edition. What edition do you think it is?

Durability isn't fine. Simple math exercises prove this.


I remember posting an article about this, but PPM its that a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage to a squad of space marines.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/13 18:27:18


From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Blackie wrote:However people that buy miniatures that they don't like are extremely uncommon. They buy the models because the game, especially the competitve one, is only a fraction of the hobby. People that consider 40k a complete mess are those ones who are eager to prove how skillful they are and at the same time don't want to invest money and time chasing the most competitive lists of the moment. Those people want something that 40k will never have IMHO and it's probably a good thing.

Not entirely true. I've known 40K to be a mess of rules for quite some time. It happened when I started to become a rule hound in 6th Ed. I built for the hobby and played for the group. I stopped when I knew I would have arguments with the group over how the rules should operate because the rules would say one thing and the FAQ another, with no change to the actual written rule, particularly the Independent Character rule (which could be the biggest hot mess of rules 40K has ever had). Since then I turned to WMH because I enjoyed the lore and models as much, but wouldn't have to worry about having a noisy argument over the rules over the table. I may return to 40K and start AoS at some time because I enjoy the company of the groups who play them (though, many are WMH players, too) and I like the models, but that will be after my income is back up to par.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Asherian Command wrote:
I remember posting an article about this, but PPM its that a single plasma gun rapid firing into a squad of guardsmen will do much more damage to a squad of space marines.


Its different problems for different units.

Being able to reroll armour saves would be nice for say Devestators or - assuming we making it universal - Strike Marines.
It would however do very little to make tactical or assault marines worth taking.

Which really comes down to the issue. When people talk about the "Power Armour Problem" - do they mean "Marine Armies suck" or "these units are garbage".

Because cynically I suspect we shall see some stormsheild spam Marine lists in the post-CA world that may well not be that bad. They are certainly not going to be weak on the survivability side of things.
But its almost certainly going to be some min units of scouts to get a bit of board control & CP. Tactical marines need not apply.
And Chaos is just lolworthy. You can't get stormsheilds - but you might have got drop double-tap plasma, so nerf.
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Marmatag wrote:
Here is how I would boost ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

Infantry, Walkers, Bikers, Cavalry all gain the following buffs:

1. Reroll failed armor saves. Invulnerable saves are not rerolled. This gives units an added layer of durability against smaller arms fire. It requires that people bring anti-armor guns to bear to deal with marines. Currently you don't need to, because anything that kills guardsmen is more efficient points wise at killing marines.

2. ATSKNF improved. Marine units can elect to auto-pass morale checks.

3. 10-man unit boosts. Marine units with 10 models can take an extra sergeant, as well as two extra special weapons. Currently there is no reason to bring more than 5 models, because you need sergeants and the special weapons scale linearly. So a 10 man unit has: 2 sergeants, 3 special weapons, 5 tac marines. Whereas 2 5x man units has 2 sergeants, 2 special weapons, and 6 tac marines. It's a slight improvement of scale, and also, with the improvement to ATSKNF they won't be wiped off of the table.

4. Primaris upgrade. Any unit can pay 4 points to get the primaris upgrade, for +1W, +1A base per model. So if you wanted to make jump-pack primaris assault marines you could. They would gain the PRIMARIS keyword which would restrict their transport options. This could also be a pre-battle stratagem costing 1CP which could target a unit.

5. Deadly Accuracy. Hit rolls of 6 add an extra AP to the weapon. So hit rolls of 6 in shooting or melee with a boltgun or a chainsword would be resolved at -1 instead of AP0. Marines would be better at clearing other light infantry.
Without commenting on #'s 2-5, idea #1 is a wee bit overboard.

Small arms fire becomes so ineffective as to be pointless or better used against tanks.

Case in point, lets use lasguns and bolters. You basically triple the number of shots needed to inflict a wound. You need an average of 54 BS4+ lasguns or 27 BS3+ bolters to kill a marine at that point, 108/54 to kill a Primaris marine.

To kill a squad of marines, you'd need more concentrated lasgun fire than it takes to kill a battle tank. If you brought enough Lasguns to bear to kill a Leman Russ, you'd average 8 dead marines with the same firepower. To kill a squad of 10 Primaris marines, youd need almost as many lasguns as youd need to kill a T8 W16 2+sv Land Raider, well over a thousand shots.

For what it would take to Lasgun 10 Terminators to death, you could slay a Reaver Titan.

It doesn't get much better with heavy weapons either. With AP-3 weapons, they effectively have a 5+ save and against AP-2 weapons have a slightly better than 4+ save. Specialized anti-meq weapons like Disintegrators with S5 and AP-2 become better anti-tank than anti-meq in that context. You'd need 26 BS3+ overcharged plasma guns to kill a squad of marines (either flavor).

A W2 Primaris Marine rerolling all failed armor saves, immune to morale, and AP-1 on 6's to hit us going to be worth far more than 17pts.


While marines could use some assistance, rerolling failed saves takes it wayyy too far the other way.

I think cutting 3ppm off most marine infantry units would alleviate most major balance issues without getting into gobs of special rules.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Eastern CT

 Vaktathi wrote:
Without commenting on #'s 2-5, idea #1 is a wee bit overboard.


Perhaps a modification of it then. Reroll failed armor saves on a 5+, with armor save modifiers applied. So AP -1 would grant a 6+ reroll, and better APs don't grant anything. That makes Marines more durable against smallarms fire, but not especially so against weapons that should be popping tanks.

It occurs to me there's nothing really wrong with power armor Marines a couple good stratagems couldn't solve. Perhaps a strat that would let them disembark from a transport after it moved, and another strat that lets a squad shoot twice with its bolters.

Also, I don't think we've ever had an edition where Marine players were mechanically encouraged to play Marines in the way the fluff suggests they should be played. According to the fluff, the most common Marine fighting formation should be a Battle Company, so the most fluffy lists would represent this and be comprised of 10-man Tac, Assault, and Dev Squads. I think the closest we've come to this actually translating to the table would be 5th edition, when it was advantageous to base a list around a couple of 10-man Tac Squads in Rhinos (with melta/multimelta). 7th ed also came fairly close, although only by bribing Marine players with boatloads of free transports and turning Marine lists almost into horde armies.

Currently, it is not efficient to run 10-man squads unless doing so maximizes the benefit of using a strat. Otherwise, you're essentially cheating yourself out of CP. If I buy a 10-man Tac Squad, I'm paying more points than I would pay for 3 IG Infantry Squads. It makes no sense for me to do so, particularly when that 130pts gets me a pretty mediocre unit that requires the expenditure of more points to make it even marginally useful, while there is an alternative that can be useful without needing extra points spent on it, and is cheaper to boot (Scouts).

Another fix for Marines might be for their core units to be eligible to count as 2 units for the purposes of filling compulsory detachment slots if they are at 10-man strength. That plus a few decent strats for the core units might be enough to entice players into using them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/13 19:25:58


Check out my brand new 40K/gaming blog: Crafting Cave Games 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






I really don't think this game needs more rerolls. The durability buff the marines need is to move fully to Primaris and either nerfing or increasing the cost of some of the D2 weapons in the game.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: