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.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
Please provide a direct quote where people in this thread demand Marines to become 'unkillable supermen'.

It's really hard to fix MEQs when even in this thread we get borderline trolls and other apologists who deny even the existence of the problem and come and invent illusionary wishes and requests by some 'others', who agree there being a problem.

Gonna note, the post after yours is saying just add more wounds. Which then just amounts to either custodes level durability, or more plasma spam.

Meanwhile I'll keep beating my "Your stupid powerful weapons are all far under costed" drum and remind people that perhaps the game should be about more than blasting the other guy off the table faster.

Double the cost of special weapons, suddenly armies will seem far more durable.

At that point I suspect you'll start to run into issues where it's just more cost effective to bring more basic dudes to achieve the same killing power in many instances. We've seen this with IG and Grenade Launchers for instance.

That said, the broad scope of the game could use some revision downward. We're basically playing mini-epic at 2k and have been for a few editions now. Playing at 750pts is a whole different ballgame to 2k. Playing with less stuff, fewer or no super units like Knights and Primarchs, no tank companies or custodes jetbike captains and the like, and suddenly more classic units start to feel a whole lot tougher and more meaningful.

Ghorgul wrote:
It's really hard to fix MEQs when even in this thread we get borderline trolls and other apologists who deny even the existence of the problem and come and invent illusionary wishes and requests by some 'others', who agree there being a problem.

This is probably a throwback to the last big marine thread two months back, you'll find it in proposed rules forum - I gave up on that one after, and I quote, "Marines should lose shootouts to crisis suits and wraithguard and heavy tanks, not any regular infantry. Ever."

That's not to say that tactical marines aren't incredibly underwhelming, nor that GW made a mess of the transition to 8th edition rules with their light infantry and anti-infantry weapons (guardsman should probably have 7+ saves for instance). Chances not taken I suppose with changing the baselines of units, pushing all marines to primaris, etc, etc.

Ah unkillable marines... they existed once, as movie marines!, fun times.

 warmaster21 wrote:
Ah unkillable marines... they existed once, as movie marines!, fun times.

That is from white dwarf 300. Which still has the best conversions for space marines i've ever seen.

Also has dave taylors grey knight custodes army.

I think giving marines less expensive options or more tactical troop choices better opportunity or a full squad of tacticals that is cheaper than the current one. 12pts for a squad of 10 bolters? BS+3? T4 S3?

Would be an interesting unit would give marines a flexible unit but a good troop choice and a callback to the original legions.

I think the old Movie Marie's are actually pretty good for 8th.

 Blndmage wrote:
I think the old Movie Marie's are actually pretty good for 8th.

They are still a bit OP, i might play test to see what happens.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I think the old Movie Marie's are actually pretty good for 8th.

They are still a bit OP, i might play test to see what happens.

Those Movie Marines weren't in the slightest OP. They were, in fact, underpowered.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I think the old Movie Marie's are actually pretty good for 8th.

They are still a bit OP, i might play test to see what happens.

Those Movie Marines weren't in the slightest OP. They were, in fact, underpowered.

I feel like, with the right translation to 8th, Movie Marines could be a really viable way to show the "'elite' aspect that a force of Marines should project. Refluffing the rules so they aren't hokey would fix the vast majority of it.

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I think the old Movie Marie's are actually pretty good for 8th.

They are still a bit OP, i might play test to see what happens.

Those Movie Marines weren't in the slightest OP. They were, in fact, underpowered.

I feel like, with the right translation to 8th, Movie Marines could be a really viable way to show the "'elite' aspect that a force of Marines should project. Refluffing the rules so they aren't hokey would fix the vast majority of it.

Movie Marines...reboot?

Ghorgul wrote:
Please provide a direct quote where people in this thread demand Marines to become 'unkillable supermen'.

Ta Daaaa!!! :

 Blndmage wrote:

I feel like, with the right translation to 8th, Movie Marines could be a really viable way to show the "'elite' aspect that a force of Marines should project. Refluffing the rules so they aren't hokey would fix the vast majority of it.

Illustrating exactly the sentiment that I'm talking about. ". . .show the "elite" aspect that a force of Marines should project."

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
Please provide a direct quote where people in this thread demand Marines to become 'unkillable supermen'.

Ta Daaaa!!! :

 Blndmage wrote:

I feel like, with the right translation to 8th, Movie Marines could be a really viable way to show the "'elite' aspect that a force of Marines should project. Refluffing the rules so they aren't hokey would fix the vast majority of it.

Illustrating exactly the sentiment that I'm talking about. ". . .show the "elite" aspect that a force of Marines should project."

I'll elaborate on my comment.

I personally don't think Movie Marines are needed, but I can totally see why they could work for those who are looking for that effect.

I also think things like Necrons should be back to their proper 3+ saves. 3+ isn't what it was in old editions, but everything is different now. We can't look to past edition rules for specific math, but we can look at past editions for themes that need to be upheld when working to keep faction theme relevant.

A.T. wrote:
That's not to say that tactical marines aren't incredibly underwhelming, nor that GW made a mess of the transition to 8th edition rules with their light infantry and anti-infantry weapons (guardsman should probably have 7+ saves for instance). Chances not taken I suppose with changing the baselines of units, pushing all marines to primaris, etc, etc.

7+? What the heck?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
Please provide a direct quote where people in this thread demand Marines to become 'unkillable supermen'.

Ta Daaaa!!! :

 Blndmage wrote:

I feel like, with the right translation to 8th, Movie Marines could be a really viable way to show the "'elite' aspect that a force of Marines should project. Refluffing the rules so they aren't hokey would fix the vast majority of it.

Illustrating exactly the sentiment that I'm talking about. ". . .show the "elite" aspect that a force of Marines should project."

I'll elaborate on my comment.

I personally don't think Movie Marines are needed, but I can totally see why they could work for those who are looking for that effect.

Sure, but whether you are serious or not it is a sort of ideal that many players crave, hence the mere existence of "movie marines" in the first place. There is a very pervasive fantasy around what marines "should be" (even if not quite that extreme). It colors expectations for tabletop performance.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
Please provide a direct quote where people in this thread demand Marines to become 'unkillable supermen'.

Ta Daaaa!!! :

 Blndmage wrote:

I feel like, with the right translation to 8th, Movie Marines could be a really viable way to show the "'elite' aspect that a force of Marines should project. Refluffing the rules so they aren't hokey would fix the vast majority of it.

Illustrating exactly the sentiment that I'm talking about. ". . .show the "elite" aspect that a force of Marines should project."

That's a late contender for "Strawman of the Year".

It's much easier to have a conversation on a subject if you don't put words in people's mouths you know.

Insectum7 wrote:Sure, but whether you are serious or not it is a sort of ideal that many players crave, hence the mere existence of "movie marines" in the first place. There is a very pervasive fantasy around what marines "should be" (even if not quite that extreme). It colors expectations for tabletop performance.

There is a galactic supercluster of difference between ‘Marines should play more elite than their current rules allow’ and ‘Marines should be Movie-Marines’.

Marines currently do not feel elite at all. People wishing for them to be at least somewhat more elite does not mean Marine players are childish fanboys that just want to run dick first at the enemy and win every game, no matter how much you wish for that to be the case.

Dysartes wrote:

A.T. wrote:
That's not to say that tactical marines aren't incredibly underwhelming, nor that GW made a mess of the transition to 8th edition rules with their light infantry and anti-infantry weapons (guardsman should probably have 7+ saves for instance). Chances not taken I suppose with changing the baselines of units, pushing all marines to primaris, etc, etc.

7+? What the heck?

It’s not that outlandish an idea. For twenty years Guardsmen haven’t gotten a save against most armies’ basic guns. This would really just make that true again.

i wasn't intending movie marines to come off as sarcasm or anything, they were fun times lol.

It would be great to see them come back again. GW needs to do things like that more often.

kombatwombat wrote:


It’s not that outlandish an idea. For twenty years Guardsmen haven’t gotten a save against most armies’ basic guns. This would really just make that true again.

Yeah but also power armors didn't get any save against anti elite-tanks weapons, now they save the same shots at 5+ or 6+. Terminators even on 4+ or 5+.

The new game design is to allow saves, unless you're targeting a unit with a weapon that is absolutely devastating for that target like an AP-4 or -5 against a power armor or an AP-2 against a cheap infantry. That works for light infantries against anti horde weapons but also for elites against some anti tank. Ork rokkits were amazing against SM, instant killing them on 2s with no save allowed. Now they still wound on 2s, but SM get a 5+ save and 4+ wounds T4 characters are not instant killed anymore by a single shot.

And that made a lot of units more significantly durable compared to Marine units.

kombatwombat wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Sure, but whether you are serious or not it is a sort of ideal that many players crave, hence the mere existence of "movie marines" in the first place. There is a very pervasive fantasy around what marines "should be" (even if not quite that extreme). It colors expectations for tabletop performance.

There is a galactic supercluster of difference between ‘Marines should play more elite than their current rules allow’ and ‘Marines should be Movie-Marines’.

Marines currently do not feel elite at all. People wishing for them to be at least somewhat more elite does not mean Marine players are childish fanboys that just want to run dick first at the enemy and win every game, no matter how much you wish for that to be the case.

Note in my quote "not quite that extreme".

Then note a call in the thread for marines to have rerollable saves, giving the basic tac marine better than a 2+ save. (Which really would allow them to run dick first against a number of units).

Here's a good litmus test: How elite should a Tac marine feel compated to other "elite" units? Aspect Warriors, Necron Immortals, Ork Nobz, etc. Where does the problem lie?

I think the Primaris feel almost appropriately elite to me. This is really not about the army being good overall, but small number of models get gak done and are pretty hard to kill. Some units (Reivers, Intercessors) lack a bit of offence, but overall a full Primaris force feels more like a Space Marine army (IMHO) should than marines in any previous edition of the game.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Here's a good litmus test: How elite should a Tac marine feel compated to other "elite" units? Aspect Warriors, Necron Immortals, Ork Nobz, etc. Where does the problem lie?

Pretty much all faction have an elite branch of troops, beside those named above, we could add Tyranid Warriors, Genestealers (especially the cult version), Wraithguard, Tempestus Scions, Sisters of Battle, Harlequins, Incubi and even, up to a certain point, Skitarii.

In my opinion, your basic (tactical, assault, devastator) Space Marine should probably be pretty much be in the middle of the pack at most when compared with these ones.

From what I get from this thread. Power armor or 3+ save aren't the problem. Many of these units do have power armors or an equivalent. The problem seems to be on Space Marines head and more particularly on Tactical and Assault squad head.

epronovost wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Here's a good litmus test: How elite should a Tac marine feel compated to other "elite" units? Aspect Warriors, Necron Immortals, Ork Nobz, etc. Where does the problem lie?

Pretty much all faction have an elite branch of troops, beside those named above, we could add Tyranid Warriors, Genestealers (especially the cult version), Wraithguard, Tempestus Scions, Sisters of Battle, Harlequins, Incubi and even, up to a certain point, Skitarii.

In my opinion, your basic (tactical, assault, devastator) Space Marine should probably be pretty much be in the middle of the pack at most when compared with these ones.

From what I get from this thread. Power armor or 3+ save aren't the problem. Many of these units do have power armors or an equivalent. The problem seems to be on Space Marines head and more particularly on Tactical and Assault squad head.

That's why I always say the problem is primarily the abysmal offense.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Here's a good litmus test: How elite should a Tac marine feel compated to other "elite" units? Aspect Warriors, Necron Immortals, Ork Nobz, etc. Where does the problem lie?

Pretty much all faction have an elite branch of troops, beside those named above, we could add Tyranid Warriors, Genestealers (especially the cult version), Wraithguard, Tempestus Scions, Sisters of Battle, Harlequins, Incubi and even, up to a certain point, Skitarii.

In my opinion, your basic (tactical, assault, devastator) Space Marine should probably be pretty much be in the middle of the pack at most when compared with these ones.

From what I get from this thread. Power armor or 3+ save aren't the problem. Many of these units do have power armors or an equivalent. The problem seems to be on Space Marines head and more particularly on Tactical and Assault squad head.

That's why I always say the problem is primarily the abysmal offense.

To me, it's more a problem of pricing. Two points of reduction on individual Marines in Tactical squad and the problem is pretty much solved. Space Marines guns aren't that great compared to those of the units mentioned above (of course those that happen to have guns, you won't suffer much casualties from Incubi shooting). If not, I already talked about increasing the range of boltguns and adding a bit more oomph to close combat by giving Marines an extra attack either through gear or through statline (I would favor gear).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And that made a lot of units more significantly durable compared to Marine units.

That's true but mostly because many of those cheap dudes are undercosted. Cultists, kabals and guardsmen should be 7ppm not 4, 5 or 6. Many anti horde weapons could inflict more wounds with the blast/template than the current D3-D6 system which is another thing that made Marines less durable per point than cheap dudes. Add the need to bring all the anti tank in the world because the most broken things are unkillable superheroes/walkers and marines look screwed by the new system, even if it's not the real reason behind marines durability. Just make some undercosted troops more expensive, double the shots on former blast/template weapons, nerf the strongest superheroes. Marines durability fixed.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And that made a lot of units more significantly durable compared to Marine units.

That's true but mostly because many of those cheap dudes are undercosted. Cultists, kabals and guardsmen should be 7ppm not 4, 5 or 6. Many anti horde weapons could inflict more wounds with the blast/template than the current D3-D6 system which is another thing that made Marines less durable per point than cheap dudes. Add the need to bring all the anti tank in the world because the most broken things are unkillable superheroes/walkers and marines look screwed by the new system, even if it's not the real reason behind marines durability. Just make some undercosted troops more expensive, double the shots on former blast/template weapons, nerf the strongest superheroes. Marines durability fixed.

Well, no, you'll just have broken those weeny infantry units. Nobody is going to play with 7ppm Cultists or Guardsmen.

Doubling the shots on former blast/template weapons makes Marines less survivable as well because their saves are being overwhelmed at twice the rate they are now

Marines biggest problem isn't being outshone by lighter infantry. You could remove Guardsmen and Cultists from the game and Marines would still have issues.

The fundamental scale of the game has run away on itself, and the differences between "elite" and "horde" have become compressed, a Space Marine is a whole lot closer to a Guardsman than they are a Custodes for instance, and the firepower in the game has skyrocketed and basic infantry of all types regardless of how powerful they may be all dies the same, and a gaggle of Knights doesn't much find a difference between stepping on a Marine or a Guardsmen (they both go "squish").

A 15-25% reduction on points costs for most non-vehicle Space Marine units is probably in order. If a Tac Squad is more 10/11ppm than 13, and a Jet Pack Assault Squad is more 12ppm than 16, things start to look a lot better, and without mucking with lots of other stuff.

I think this was suggested before, but do you think it would help if Marines were given an extra attack?

If they're meant to be decent in both shooting and assault, then it seems silly that they only have one attack apiece. Especially when it comes to stuff like Grey Knights.

 Blackie wrote:

That's true but mostly because many of those cheap dudes are undercosted. Cultists, kabals and guardsmen should be 7ppm not 4, 5 or 6. Many anti horde weapons could inflict more wounds with the blast/template than the current D3-D6 system which is another thing that made Marines less durable per point than cheap dudes.

I don't think it's that simple.

You list Kabalites, but in spite of their low cost, most competitive DE lists avoid taking Kabalite Warriors entirely. They just take Spearheads and/or Air-Wings. Hence, I'm not seeing how making an already dubious unit more expensive will help matters.

Unless you also plan to replace their pop-guns with actual weapons?


And 7pt Cultists and Guardsmen would just be ludicrous, unless you also plan to increase the cost of everything else in the game by 50%.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Sure, but whether you are serious or not it is a sort of ideal that many players crave, hence the mere existence of "movie marines" in the first place. There is a very pervasive fantasy around what marines "should be" (even if not quite that extreme). It colors expectations for tabletop performance.

And you circle back to your opinion that Power Armor is just fine as is and this thread is pointless? Great!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
I think this was suggested before, but do you think it would help if Marines were given an extra attack?

If they're meant to be decent in both shooting and assault, then it seems silly that they only have one attack apiece. Especially when it comes to stuff like Grey Knights.

I'm not sure if even giving just +1 A to every marine would fix the problem. It's just really hard to get around the fact that you pay 13 points for 1 wound model that isn't even durable in any significant amount. Like has been stated before, almost every 'anti-horde' kills statistically more marines in points than actual cheap horde units, like guardsmen in this case.

I think +1 A and maybe like 11-12 points per model would be justified if Bolter's damage output was increased a little somehow (AP -1?) so in general the durability stayed the same, priced decreased slightly and damage output increased. General damage output and price can't be changed too much, otherwise there is risk of seeing 15-20 man Black Legion marine hordes with Abaddon that wreck everything with buff+stratagem stacking. So there is risk that too much buffing to basic statline and rules can make the already available buff-stratagem stacking combos too efficient, so the GW possibly has painted itself in corner and the basic Troop Marines are balanced relative to the best combos available.
This balancing based on the best-case (or worst-case, depending whether you are on the receiving end or not) combo scenarios seems to recurring theme with 8th edition, this seemingly happened with cultists when they were increased to 5 pts per model.

Ghorgul wrote:

I think +1 A and maybe like 11-12 points per model would be justified if Bolter's damage output was increased a little somehow (AP -1?) so in general the durability stayed the same, priced decreased slightly and damage output increased.

Do you not thing Marines getting +1A, a damage increase on Bolters *and* a drop in price might be a tad excessive?

 vipoid wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:

I think +1 A and maybe like 11-12 points per model would be justified if Bolter's damage output was increased a little somehow (AP -1?) so in general the durability stayed the same, priced decreased slightly and damage output increased.

Do you not thing Marines getting +1A, a damage increase on Bolters *and* a drop in price might be a tad excessive?

Yeah, I agree it might be a problem, I did not start making exact comparison calculations on this. I think it's a bit problematic to just increase their damage output while their durability would stay the same as their durability is really weak to begin with. They would still pay 13 points for 1 wound while you get 3 wounds of guardsmen with same amount of points.
+1 A would 'double' their CC efficiency but it would still be complicated to get to melee consistently, and if 5 marines would have killed 1.77 GEQs per turn previously, doubling this to 3.55 GEQs per turn would hardly be significant. Similarly Bolter firepower (rapid fire) would increase from 2.96 GEQs per turn to 3.70 GEQs per turn, so changing bolter AP to -1 is not that significant. And arguably it's opponents failure if he allows huge blob of marines to get to rapid fire range and charge him without cutting down their numbers first. Together these would be significant change obviously, but this wouldn't change the fact that 4 point guardsmen are still very nice massed wound screening unit while marines are not. So of course marines should instead have better damage output.
Currently MEQs can't even hold or contest objectives against objective secured horde-like cheap wound units because they don't have durability (in relative manner), models or firepower. Just increasing the firepower is not going to entirely fix the problem of relatively poor durability and the fact that they pay 13 points per 1 wound/model, which is just plain bad.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And that made a lot of units more significantly durable compared to Marine units.

That's true but mostly because many of those cheap dudes are undercosted. Cultists, kabals and guardsmen should be 7ppm not 4, 5 or 6. Many anti horde weapons could inflict more wounds with the blast/template than the current D3-D6 system which is another thing that made Marines less durable per point than cheap dudes. Add the need to bring all the anti tank in the world because the most broken things are unkillable superheroes/walkers and marines look screwed by the new system, even if it's not the real reason behind marines durability. Just make some undercosted troops more expensive, double the shots on former blast/template weapons, nerf the strongest superheroes. Marines durability fixed.

Well, no, you'll just have broken those weeny infantry units. Nobody is going to play with 7ppm Cultists or Guardsmen.

Doubling the shots on former blast/template weapons makes Marines less survivable as well because their saves are being overwhelmed at twice the rate they are now

Marines biggest problem isn't being outshone by lighter infantry. You could remove Guardsmen and Cultists from the game and Marines would still have issues.

The fundamental scale of the game has run away on itself, and the differences between "elite" and "horde" have become compressed, a Space Marine is a whole lot closer to a Guardsman than they are a Custodes for instance, and the firepower in the game has skyrocketed and basic infantry of all types regardless of how powerful they may be all dies the same, and a gaggle of Knights doesn't much find a difference between stepping on a Marine or a Guardsmen (they both go "squish").

A 15-25% reduction on points costs for most non-vehicle Space Marine units is probably in order. If a Tac Squad is more 10/11ppm than 13, and a Jet Pack Assault Squad is more 12ppm than 16, things start to look a lot better, and without mucking with lots of other stuff.

Well people need CPs so troops are always needed. IMHO no troop choice should be under 7ppm unless it's something like gretchins, aka T2 no saves at all. Maybe people won't spam min squads of troops just to get cheap batteries of CPs, and that would be great. Tacs are maybe overcosted but 10ppm is definitely too much. I'd make them 12ppm. 10-11ppm is ok for units like blood claws which only have pistols and BS4+.

I agree that lighter infantries are not the cause of SM problem, or at least they're not the only cause. As I said they suffer from a competitive meta in which if you don't design your list in order to 1-shot a knight you won't have any chance, and that's ridiculous. I play sometimes in a competitive group in which there are two house rules: no soups, no LoWs. That changes the meta quite a lot and SM have indeed more durability. They still have issues of course but in a more balanced meta they already can perform. SM already got lots of points reductions, I don't think that giving them 20-30 additional points due to cheaper tacs will make a huge difference.

I'd keep 13ppm SM if they get effective combos like the most competitive armies. Better chapter traits, stratagems, psychic powers and some close combat synergies. Those are things that SM desperately need, not more durability or better damage output. Their shooting is already above average.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:


You list Kabalites, but in spite of their low cost, most competitive DE lists avoid taking Kabalite Warriors entirely. They just take Spearheads and/or Air-Wings. Hence, I'm not seeing how making an already dubious unit more expensive will help matters.

Unless you also plan to replace their pop-guns with actual weapons?

And 7pt Cultists and Guardsmen would just be ludicrous, unless you also plan to increase the cost of everything else in the game by 50%.

Yeah because drukhari can have some broken lists with just vehicles and tons of coven stuff. But 6ppm kabalites are among the most effective troops.

I don't think cultists and guardsmen are worse than ork boyz to be honest, maybe just -1ppm so 6ppm instead of 7ppm. But definitely not almost half the cost of an ork boy.