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.

 Blackie wrote:

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.

If Kabalites really were as effective as you claim, then most (if not all) tournament lists would be running a Kabal Battalion, which would give 5 times as many CPs as a Spearhead or Airwing. Instead, what we see is competitive DE players avoiding Kabalites like the plague.

Yes, Kabalites are cheap, but their guns are complete garbage. You've basically got a single Blaster and 4 ablative wounds for it.

More importantly, you're not just buying the Kabalites - you're also buying transports for them (which generally cost more than the actual squads). However, the Venom only brings more useless guns and the Raider is a mix of inefficient and 'too many eggs in one basket'.

What's more, Kabalites have basically no support. Guardsmen are good because of stuff like FRFSRF. Kabalites don't have anything even remotely comparable. The best they can do is reroll 1s to-hit thanks to the Archon's aura... which doesn't work if they're in transports. And they will be in transports because that's the whole point of Kabal.

 Blackie wrote:

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.

6pts is still way too much for Cultists or Guardsmen.

Unless, once again, you plan to increase the cost of everything else in the game by ~50%?

Ghorgul 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.

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

Regarding Bolters, what about giving them +1 to wound against units with a Toughness of 3 or less?

 vipoid wrote:
Regarding Bolters, what about giving them +1 to wound against units with a Toughness of 3 or less?

Depends on whether we think it's just a Marines vs. Guard problem, or a Marine damage output problem, and whether we want to bring Sisters of Battle along with us. My feeling is that Battle Sisters are probably fine and a bolter upgrade might buff them too much. I'm not really sure.

I like the idea of Marines getting extra shots in order to minimize special rules, pump overall damage output, but not affect other bolter weilding units. I could be wrong with that direction though. Its also a legacy thing.

 vipoid wrote:
Unless, once again, you plan to increase the cost of everything else in the game by ~50%?

Wouldn't be a bad plan - the low points values are pretty crowded.

 Insectum7 wrote:
My feeling is that Battle Sisters are probably fine and a bolter upgrade might buff them too much. I'm not really sure.

The beta dex could always do with another playtester.
They have parity with marines against small arms (die more, cost less), greater numbers, worse guns, and suck in assault. A bolter upgrade would definitely benefit them more than marines simply due to weight of numbers - 3 bolter sisters for every 2 bolter marines - and their favoured special weapon being two bolters glued together.

What about other 3+ units?
Or are we now just talking Marines?

 Blndmage wrote:
What about other 3+ units?
Or are we now just talking Marines?

Well, if we went the "dedicated horde clearing weapon" route, it would help the relationship between all 3+save units and horde-style units. I think most factions have some sort of flamer, too.

Added bonus for Marines is that improved flamers give a niche for Assault Marines in comparisson to Vanguard.

As far as "Dedicated horde clearing weapons" go, I'd just like to see more weapons and rules that interact with large squads.

I remember when 8th was first being teased by Games Workshop hearing a rumor (I think it was even an official GW teaser, in fact) saying that Frag Grenades would by d6 hits, but if you attacked a unit in a building (or was it a ruin?) they would instead get an automatic 6. I'd like to see things like that, but adapted for killing large squads.

Certain anti-infantry weapons that do random shots instead get a set number of shots. (Say, frag missiles could get one shot per five models, to a maximum of six.) Flamers get one automatic hit for every two models in range, up to... Say, five. (This would also solve the problem of flame and "blast" weapons being better against characters than they are against infantry.)

These numbers would obviously require tweaking and rebalancing, and it'd have to be handled on a unit by unit basis, but I think it'd be an effective way to add weapons that are actually better against infantry than they are against heavy infantry, instead of the current situation where volume of fire is blatantly good against all targets and so "anti infantry" weapons become "anti everything" weapons.

The best fix for marines at this time is new strats. We have the worst strats by far and I feel that is what is hurting marines the most. Other factions live and die by their strats (and psychic powers) and marines are lacking so much in these categories that the army is just a mess.

Applies only to marine armies. Don't have to worry about re-writing existing codexes. We already see GW milking the SM players with vigilus and now white dwarf for rules so there's precedent for adding new strats. Will also have minimal impact on other codexes that wear power armor and use bolters. [tinfoil] Actually I'm pretty sure this is the route GW is going to take as it allows them to milk the largest player base by making the books "required" for a functioning marine army and they can push whatever models they want by applying the strats to them [/tinfoil]

Not sure on the cost of these or if they should be phase, round or turn. But access to some good strategems would make marines actually feel tactical and reward players for bringing as many CP as possible (hopefully the loyal 32 will be drug out back and shot soon with Gulliman).

Count bolter weapons as in rapid fire all the way to the weapons max range
+1 to hit with bolter weapons
+1 to wound with bolter weapons
A units bolter weapons gain -1 ap
+1 save on an infantry unit
4++ save on an infantry unit
5++ FNP on an infantry unit
Vehicle may use smoke and fire this turn (maybe shooting at a -1)
A unit (aggressors) counts as not moving this phase/turn/round
Enemy must re-roll successful charges vs unit that hasn't moved (scouts only maybe, before charge distance is rolled)
Deepstrike or some crazy counter deepstrike (enemy must roll a 4+ in order to deepstrike a unit this turn)
Re-deploy after enemy has deployed
There are tons of options to make marines play like actual tactical tools without resorting to re-writing the entire codex.

If marines could do this in response to enemy actions/composition marines would at least be fun to play, would remove some of the point and click aspect to the game and actually give marines some tactical options outside of castle up around buffs. Would give marines a unique flavor without having to write a bunch of special rules in their data sheets.

If we want to get crazy remove re-roll auras, bake re-roll 1's to hit into the marine profile and give captians/lts some of the above as "orders" for a couple units and call it a day. Auto re-rolls help the offensive problem vs bad save troops but doesn't do as much against marines. Allows marines to not have to castle up as much (doubt this will happen as it requires too much of a change, chapter tactics and data sheets but I hate auras).

 vipoid wrote:


If Kabalites really were as effective as you claim, then most (if not all) tournament lists would be running a Kabal Battalion, which would give 5 times as many CPs as a Spearhead or Airwing. Instead, what we see is competitive DE players avoiding Kabalites like the plague.

Yes, Kabalites are cheap, but their guns are complete garbage. You've basically got a single Blaster and 4 ablative wounds for it.

More importantly, you're not just buying the Kabalites - you're also buying transports for them (which generally cost more than the actual squads). However, the Venom only brings more useless guns and the Raider is a mix of inefficient and 'too many eggs in one basket'.

What's more, Kabalites have basically no support. Guardsmen are good because of stuff like FRFSRF. Kabalites don't have anything even remotely comparable. The best they can do is reroll 1s to-hit thanks to the Archon's aura... which doesn't work if they're in transports. And they will be in transports because that's the whole point of Kabal.

What competitive players run at tournaments is irrelevant. They mostly run soups and there are more efficient aeldari troops than drukhari ones. That's also another thing, both drukhari and aeldari soups don't need tons of CPs to be effective so there's no reason to build the list like the imperium and its loyal 32 concept. That's why you see spamming grots, talos, ravagers and flyers mostly.

3x5 kabalites and a blaster archon in two raders are cheap and effective, venoms are not needed even if they're not garbage either.

 vipoid wrote:


6pts is still way too much for Cultists or Guardsmen.

Unless, once again, you plan to increase the cost of everything else in the game by ~50%?

No, only undercosted stuff. AM has half the codex that is undercosted so they definitely should get several price hikes. Again, if ork boyz are ok at 7pts also those troops should be priced around that standard. Gretchins are T2 no saves, no kultur bonus, can't use stratagems (but their own one) and they're 3ppm. Guardsmen at only 4pts don't make any sense, they're definitely twice as good and gretchins can't go under 3 pts or we'll see 150 of them in every game. I also think that TACs are ok for 12-13 ppm which means that the cheapest shooty troops like kabals, cultists and guardsmen make sense at 7ppm. I feel like guardsmen are extremely undercosted and other troops slightly undercosted, so no, I wouldn't plan on increasing the cost of everything else in the game, not even by 10%, only undercosted stuff.

Do you think that drukhari transport are undercosted? They cost more than the max size of the unit that rides in them, which is ridiculous IMHO, a transport should always be cheaper than the crew embarked. And yet venoms and raiders seem to be priced correctly, maybe they're even a bit overcosted. I'd definitely prefer 7ppm kabals (and wyches), 50-55ppm venoms, 65-70ppm raiders than 6ppm kabals, 65ppm venoms and 80ppm raiders.

bananathug wrote:
Count bolter weapons as in rapid fire all the way to the weapons max range
+1 to hit with bolter weapons
+1 to wound with bolter weapons
A units bolter weapons gain -1 ap
+1 save on an infantry unit
4++ save on an infantry unit
5++ FNP on an infantry unit
Vehicle may use smoke and fire this turn (maybe shooting at a -1)
A unit (aggressors) counts as not moving this phase/turn/round
Enemy must re-roll successful charges vs unit that hasn't moved (scouts only maybe, before charge distance is rolled)
Deepstrike or some crazy counter deepstrike (enemy must roll a 4+ in order to deepstrike a unit this turn)
Re-deploy after enemy has deployed
There are tons of options to make marines play like actual tactical tools without resorting to re-writing the entire codex.

If marines could do this in response to enemy actions/composition marines would at least be fun to play, would remove some of the point and click aspect to the game and actually give marines some tactical options outside of castle up around buffs. Would give marines a unique flavor without having to write a bunch of special rules in their data sheets.

Plenty of good options there.

Also it occured to me, why couldn't they put "tactical" back into tactical squads and allow marines to purchase special weapon just as a *special weapon* and the player could choose which special weapon the unit is equipped with at start of match up instead of being hard locked like now. Of course this would need to be modelled, but I'm sure this extra-modelling-needed still satisfies any possible money grabbing urges from GW, especially when they apparently tried to go for Power Level approach which inherently allowed this.

 Blackie wrote:

What competitive players run at tournaments is irrelevant.

No, it just proves that you're talking nonsense.

 Blackie wrote:
They mostly run soups and there are more efficient aeldari troops than drukhari ones.

So why are you advocating for the Drukhari troops to get a price hike, instead of the more efficient troops?

 Blackie wrote:
That's also another thing, both drukhari and aeldari soups don't need tons of CPs to be effective so there's no reason to build the list like the imperium and its loyal 32 concept. That's why you see spamming grots, talos, ravagers and flyers mostly.

They might not be quite as reliant on CPs, but they still have a lot of good Stratagems. If, as you say, Kabalite Warriors were super-efficient to the point of being undercosted, then there would be no reason to not take a few units of them and get 5x the CPs.

 Blackie wrote:

3x5 kabalites and a blaster archon in two raders are cheap and effective, venoms are not needed even if they're not garbage either.

You can make these claims all you want, but at some point you'll have to face the fact that reality doesn't back them up.

Once again, if this is such a great build, then why aren't any tournament lists running it?

And if you say 'because there are even better options elsewhere', then why are you campaigning for Kabalites to get a price-hike, instead of whichever Eldar/DE/Harlequin troops are out-competing them?

 Blackie wrote:
No, only undercosted stuff.

Oh, so your plan is to just pick 3 units you don't like and make them unplayable. Gotcha.

 Blackie wrote:
AM has half the codex that is undercosted so they definitely should get several price hikes.

Even if we accept that Infantry Squads are undercosted, the price-hikes you're asking for are plain ludicrous.

You're not asking for them to be reasonable costed, you're asking for them to be so expensive as to be unplayable.

 Blackie wrote:
Again, if ork boyz are ok at 7pts also those troops should be priced around that standard.

Since when did the cost of an Ork Boy become the standard by which all troops were measured?

Also, we seem to be ignoring the fact that the Ork Boy is S4 T4, compared to S3 T3 for the guardsman. I guess a Space Marine should also be 7pts.

 Blackie wrote:
Gretchins are T2 no saves, no kultur bonus, can't use stratagems (but their own one) and they're 3ppm.

Depends how you look at them. They're very bad on their own, sure. But no one is taking Gretchin for their statlines. They're taking them to give much more valuable units a 2++, thanks to their stratagem.

 Blackie wrote:
Guardsmen at only 4pts don't make any sense, they're definitely twice as good and gretchins can't go under 3 pts or we'll see 150 of them in every game.

You literally just answered your own question as to why Gretchin are 3pts. Because they're right at the limit of what a unit can reasonably cost before being so cheap that there's no reason to not just spam the hell out of them.

If you want to suggest doubling the points on every unit in the game to give us more design space, I'd be all up for that.

 Blackie wrote:
I also think that TACs are ok for 12-13 ppm which means that the cheapest shooty troops like kabals, cultists and guardsmen make sense at 7ppm.

Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

"TACs are okay at 12-13ppm, therefore Infantry Squads and Cultists need to be so expensive as to be unplayable. This is literally what you're asking for."
"TACs are okay at 12-13pom, therefore Kabalites need to be 7ppm even though competitive lists already avoid them like the plague even at 6ppm."

 Blackie wrote:
I feel like guardsmen are extremely undercosted and other troops slightly undercosted, so no, I wouldn't plan on increasing the cost of everything else in the game, not even by 10%, only undercosted stuff.

So because you think guardsman are undercosted, you want to make them unplayably expensive?

Look, I can understand wanting to see guardsmen go up in price (Lord knows the topic has been debated enough on this site), but you're overcorrecting far too much. A guardsmen simply should not cost more than 5pts. Literally the only thing that makes them worthwhile is that they're cheap enough to be used en masse, and you're proposing that that should be taken away from them.

Moreover, have you considered the effect on other units in the IG codex? You say that a lot of stuff is overcosted and yet, most of the infantry sees little to no use at all. Special Weapons Squads cost the same as guardsmen but can take 3 special weapons per 6 men. Mathematically they're incredibly efficient... yet no one ever uses them. Veterans, in spite of BS3+ and the ability to take 3 special weapons, were never taken at 6ppm. Now that they're 5pts, I think they're finally starting to see a bit of use. But if they go up to 8 or 9pts, then no one will ever use them again.

 Blackie wrote:
Do you think that drukhari transport are undercosted?

Not in the slightest.

 Blackie wrote:
They cost more than the max size of the unit that rides in them, which is ridiculous IMHO, a transport should always be cheaper than the crew embarked.

I think it depends on the transport. If it's something like a Rhino - where the armament is negligible - then definitely. However, if the transport is meant to also bring decent firepower, then I can get behind it being expensive.

 Blackie wrote:
And yet venoms and raiders seem to be priced correctly, maybe they're even a bit overcosted. I'd definitely prefer 7ppm kabals (and wyches), 50-55ppm venoms, 65-70ppm raiders than 6ppm kabals, 65ppm venoms and 80ppm raiders.

Regarding Venoms, I think the issue is that same as with Kabalites - they're supposed to be gunboats, yet their guns are abysmal. Poison just isn't a worthwhile rule in 8th, and on top of that GW saw fit to halve the optimum range of the Venom.

I'd really like to see Poison replaced by a more meaningful rule, so that my "glass cannon" infantry and transports don't feel so pillow-fisted. In this case, I'd be more than happy to see Kabalites go up in price.

bananathug wrote:
The best fix for marines at this time is new strats. We have the worst strats by far and I feel that is what is hurting marines the most. Other factions live and die by their strats (and psychic powers) and marines are lacking so much in these categories that the army is just a mess.

Applies only to marine armies. Don't have to worry about re-writing existing codexes. We already see GW milking the SM players with vigilus and now white dwarf for rules so there's precedent for adding new strats. Will also have minimal impact on other codexes that wear power armor and use bolters. [tinfoil] Actually I'm pretty sure this is the route GW is going to take as it allows them to milk the largest player base by making the books "required" for a functioning marine army and they can push whatever models they want by applying the strats to them [/tinfoil]

All other conversation to the side, fixing strats does feel like the actual answer to the problem, and the one GW is going for as well.

Marines don't have a good all-purpose weapon that can handle anti-horde and anti-tank duties, Vigilus lets Imperial Fist go mortal-wound fishing on vehicles with selected units that would otherwise only be good against infantry (and isn't it convenient that Centurions and Redemptors do full dakka-mode better than almost anything else in the book, and that full-dakka is their cheapest mode, and that both of them also needed more of a price cut than they got in CA?)

That formation also partially addresses the issue with non-smurf Marines almost always taking the Captain/Lieutenant combo by adding the "Lieutenant Buff artifact" so you can try some of the other HQ options without shooting yourself in the foot. It's not really fixing the problem (Marine shooting being inefficient without the auras) but it's at least letting some of the other choices out of the display case.

GW also seems to be addressing the complaints about how lethal the current rules are with the Cities of Death rules, if most tournaments don't wind up adopting those rules as the standard I'll be very surprised. (And hey, Vigilus made Imperal Fists more viable just as ignoring the cover rules suddenly got better.)

The Newman wrote:
Marines don't have a good all-purpose weapon that can handle anti-horde and anti-tank duties ...

Can you give an example of a weapon you want to emulate in this role?

Also, why does it have to be a weapon rather than a unit or other option.

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Marines don't have a good all-purpose weapon that can handle anti-horde and anti-tank duties ...

Can you give an example of a weapon you want to emulate in this role?

Also, why does it have to be a weapon rather than a unit or other option.

The optimal gun in 8e is moderate to high Strength/intermediate AP, does multiple damage, and fires a large number of shots; battle cannons, heavy burst cannons, Knight gatling cannons, and the like. Space Marines sort of have a weapon in this bracket in the form of Hellblaster squads, but they're hard-countered to death by other peoples' optimal guns since they're two-wound T4 models and lose shots every time they lose models where giant vehicle cannons don't (on top of being out-ranged by the rest of the optimal guns), they're more expensive because their AP is higher than it needs to be (the way armour and Invulnerable saves on the units people actually take work there's diminishing returns for any AP better than about -2), and they need a 100pt character to do nothing other than babysit them to make sure they don't blow themselves up when shooting.

It isn't so much about being a weapon that can handle anti-horde and anti-tank duties as it is about reliability (compare a meltagun to a plasma gun; the odds of a plasma gun doing squat are dramatically lower than those of a meltagun doing squat simply because it has two shots); Space Marines' anti-tank relies on either single-shot d6-damage guns or plasma-spam, which is why you see so much more plasma-spam than anything else because it doesn't whiff so much. And plasma-spam is way better at dealing with multi-wound units.

 vipoid wrote:


Once again, if this is such a great build, then why aren't any tournament lists running it?

And if you say 'because there are even better options elsewhere', then why are you campaigning for Kabalites to get a price-hike, instead of whichever Eldar/DE/Harlequin troops are out-competing them?

Well, I'm also advocating to ban the soups which is IMHO the main issue of 40k. I'm only interested in stand alone armies at competitive levels since many soups look like "legal cheating" for the amount of cheese with no drawbacks that they can have.

You say that more expensive guardsmen, cultists, etc would be unplayable but I don't think it's true. AM seems to play with 150+ points thanks to all their undercosted stuff, that's a fact.

Ork boyz may be T4 S4 but also 6+ save and BS5+. They work fine only in huge numbers, which make them expensive units, not cheap sources of CPs, you take boyz because you focus some tactics, involving CPs and/or buffing characters, around them. Melee troops are not even remotely as effective as shooty ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:


"TACs are okay at 12-13ppm, therefore Infantry Squads and Cultists need to be so expensive as to be unplayable. This is literally what you're asking for."
"TACs are okay at 12-13pom, therefore Kabalites need to be 7ppm even though competitive lists already avoid them like the plague even at 6ppm."

I think 6-7 points of difference are fair between the cheap troops I listed and tacs. But I wouldn't make tacs 10ppm, they'd be undercosted. 7ppm cultists and guardsmen wouldn't be unplayable, they'd be mediocre, which is what cheap troops are supposed to be. Yet mandatory for screening more valuable units and to get more CPs.

Those competitive drukhari/aeldari lists should be nerfed quite badly to be honest. 3x flyers + 3 ravagers + 20 grots are insane, that's not even 40k IMHO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:


Oh, so your plan is to just pick 3 units you don't like and make them unplayable. Gotcha.

There are several units that are undercosted, considering all factions, not just 3. Don't you agree? Think about super cheap HQs, with orks and drukhari I can't go under 62 (ok 55 with a stock big mek but it would be a plain tax with no use in the game) and 50 points and 50 is just the cost of the succubus, if I want a coven or kabal detachment I can't invest less than 72-75 points on an HQ. Same with SW. Those AM super cheap HQs should get price hikes or become elites.

Who said I don't like them? I use kabalites in most of my drukhari lists.

 vipoid wrote:


Depends how you look at them. They're very bad on their own, sure. But no one is taking Gretchin for their statlines. They're taking them to give much more valuable units a 2++, thanks to their stratagem.

Not only for the stratagem, which only shields a single unit per turn and it's not even that efficient in mechanized lists. Ork players spam gretchins because they are an area denial unit, cheap objective grabbers and, most important, they unlock CPs for dirt cheap and orks are completely dependant on CPs to work. I'd consider taking gretchins even at 4ppm to be honest.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Marines don't have a good all-purpose weapon that can handle anti-horde and anti-tank duties ...

Can you give an example of a weapon you want to emulate in this role?

Also, why does it have to be a weapon rather than a unit or other option.

The optimal gun in 8e is moderate to high Strength/intermediate AP, does multiple damage, and fires a large number of shots; battle cannons, heavy burst cannons, Knight gatling cannons, and the like. Space Marines sort of have a weapon in this bracket in the form of Hellblaster squads, but they're hard-countered to death by other peoples' optimal guns since they're two-wound T4 models and lose shots every time they lose models where giant vehicle cannons don't (on top of being out-ranged by the rest of the optimal guns), they're more expensive because their AP is higher than it needs to be (the way armour and Invulnerable saves on the units people actually take work there's diminishing returns for any AP better than about -2), and they need a 100pt character to do nothing other than babysit them to make sure they don't blow themselves up when shooting.

It isn't so much about being a weapon that can handle anti-horde and anti-tank duties as it is about reliability (compare a meltagun to a plasma gun; the odds of a plasma gun doing squat are dramatically lower than those of a meltagun doing squat simply because it has two shots); Space Marines' anti-tank relies on either single-shot d6-damage guns or plasma-spam, which is why you see so much more plasma-spam than anything else because it doesn't whiff so much. And plasma-spam is way better at dealing with multi-wound units.

Plasma Cannons and Predator Autocannons. Those seem to fit the bill pretty well. With the price drops Im starting to look at Stalkers and Vengeance Whirlwinds too. Honerable mention for Grav Cannons, but they're expensive and they don't get multi damage against Ravagers. Imo we have the tools.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Marines don't have a good all-purpose weapon that can handle anti-horde and anti-tank duties ...

Can you give an example of a weapon you want to emulate in this role?

Also, why does it have to be a weapon rather than a unit or other option.

The optimal gun in 8e is moderate to high Strength/intermediate AP, does multiple damage, and fires a large number of shots; battle cannons, heavy burst cannons, Knight gatling cannons, and the like. Space Marines sort of have a weapon in this bracket in the form of Hellblaster squads, but they're hard-countered to death by other peoples' optimal guns since they're two-wound T4 models and lose shots every time they lose models where giant vehicle cannons don't (on top of being out-ranged by the rest of the optimal guns), they're more expensive because their AP is higher than it needs to be (the way armour and Invulnerable saves on the units people actually take work there's diminishing returns for any AP better than about -2), and they need a 100pt character to do nothing other than babysit them to make sure they don't blow themselves up when shooting.

It isn't so much about being a weapon that can handle anti-horde and anti-tank duties as it is about reliability (compare a meltagun to a plasma gun; the odds of a plasma gun doing squat are dramatically lower than those of a meltagun doing squat simply because it has two shots); Space Marines' anti-tank relies on either single-shot d6-damage guns or plasma-spam, which is why you see so much more plasma-spam than anything else because it doesn't whiff so much. And plasma-spam is way better at dealing with multi-wound units.

Basically this. And also that the less wiffy guns also tend to have lower top-end damage unless you're willing to risk blowing them up. The 36 point Macro Plasma Blaster has the same average damage output as a 25 point Lascannon if you're not supercharging it. If you are supercharging it then you need a Techmarine and auras to keep it from destroying the Redemptor that's carrying it.

It's not even that Marines are completely out in the cold on weapons that match those parameters. The Demolisher Cannon, Centurion Missile Launcher, twin Autocannons, and Predator Autocannon all fit the bill, but all of them are limited to lackluster platforms even after CA.

Basic Marines not being able to take Autocannons anymore doesn't help things any, that's an awfully cheap weapon for it's output.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Marines don't have a good all-purpose weapon that can handle anti-horde and anti-tank duties ...

Can you give an example of a weapon you want to emulate in this role?

Also, why does it have to be a weapon rather than a unit or other option.

The optimal gun in 8e is moderate to high Strength/intermediate AP, does multiple damage, and fires a large number of shots; battle cannons, heavy burst cannons, Knight gatling cannons, and the like. Space Marines sort of have a weapon in this bracket in the form of Hellblaster squads, but they're hard-countered to death by other peoples' optimal guns since they're two-wound T4 models and lose shots every time they lose models where giant vehicle cannons don't (on top of being out-ranged by the rest of the optimal guns), they're more expensive because their AP is higher than it needs to be (the way armour and Invulnerable saves on the units people actually take work there's diminishing returns for any AP better than about -2), and they need a 100pt character to do nothing other than babysit them to make sure they don't blow themselves up when shooting.

It isn't so much about being a weapon that can handle anti-horde and anti-tank duties as it is about reliability (compare a meltagun to a plasma gun; the odds of a plasma gun doing squat are dramatically lower than those of a meltagun doing squat simply because it has two shots); Space Marines' anti-tank relies on either single-shot d6-damage guns or plasma-spam, which is why you see so much more plasma-spam than anything else because it doesn't whiff so much. And plasma-spam is way better at dealing with multi-wound units.

Plasma Cannons and Predator Autocannons. Those seem to fit the bill pretty well. With the price drops Im starting to look at Stalkers and Vengeance Whirlwinds too. Honerable mention for Grav Cannons, but they're expensive and they don't get multi damage against Ravagers. Imo we have the tools.

The problem with predator autocannons is they’re on predators; overpriced and made of paper. Plasma cannons are reasonable but need babysat unless you’re taking a dev squad with one, in which case you’re taking a tac squad that generates pitiful CP.

What you call babysitting I call improving their damage output.

I have mixed feelings about the predator, but it does have the sort of thing you're looking for. Dakka Pred is pretty cheap, and if it's made of paper a Leman russ is a light cardstock.

Otherwise you have Stalkers and Whirlwinds for Autocannon equivalents.

 Insectum7 wrote:
What you call babysitting I call improving their damage output.

I have mixed feelings about the predator, but it does have the sort of thing you're looking for. Dakka Pred is pretty cheap, and if it's made of paper a Leman russ is a light cardstock.

Otherwise you have Stalkers and Whirlwinds for Autocannon equivalents.

Actually that does bring up another point; a lot of the good guns that Marines have access to are on platforms that don't get the Chapter Trait bonuses. Some of those traits are fairly significant.

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
What you call babysitting I call improving their damage output.

I have mixed feelings about the predator, but it does have the sort of thing you're looking for. Dakka Pred is pretty cheap, and if it's made of paper a Leman russ is a light cardstock.

Otherwise you have Stalkers and Whirlwinds for Autocannon equivalents.

Actually that does bring up another point; a lot of the good guns that Marines have access to are on platforms that don't get the Chapter Trait bonuses. Some of those traits are fairly significant.

Maybe not, but they do benefit from potentially immense buff auras that other factions don't get. Seems like a fairly common subfaction trait is reroll 1s to hit if you don't move, which Space Marines get a better version of anyways for just buying fairly mandatory HQs.

Plasma Cannons are on platforms that get the Chapter Traits. Dreadnoughts are cheap now. Iirc the Leviathan came down in cost, too.

Honestly, between Assault Cannons, Autocannon equivalents like the Icarus Stormcannon or Vengeance Launcher, the Leviathan Cannon-things, Predator Autocannons, Grav Cannons and oh-so-so-much-Plasma, it's not like Marines don't have options.

Storm Cannon Array is one of the best guns in the game. I feel like, now that the Lev has not only avoided nerfs but received a few little buffs in the past 2 Chapter Approveds, we need to put the unit front and centre of the faction, and figure it into our discussions in the same way that the Y'vahra is with Tau. It's a key unit for SMs.

A.T. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Unless, once again, you plan to increase the cost of everything else in the game by ~50%?

Wouldn't be a bad plan - the low points values are pretty crowded.

Lol you think that a 6pts guardsman would help balance when something like a strike would cost 40pts and a termintor almost 90, when both could die to 6-20pts guns en mass?

the Leviathan came down in cost, too.

Can they be legaly taken by all space marines?

They just need to bring back the old AP system... Invun saves weren't as prevalent on everything, and things giving invun saves weren't as common; the 3+ save was great as only heavy weapons or specialized weapons negated your save.

The new AP system is a load of crap; especially when they started giving everything a way to get a 5++.

 Zid wrote:
They just need to bring back the old AP system... Invun saves weren't as prevalent on everything, and things giving invun saves weren't as common; the 3+ save was great as only heavy weapons or specialized weapons negated your save.

The new AP system is a load of crap; especially when they started giving everything a way to get a 5++.

But with the new system, many of those heavy and specialized weapons don't negate your armour, they still give you a 5+ or 6+.

Karol wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Unless, once again, you plan to increase the cost of everything else in the game by ~50%?

Wouldn't be a bad plan - the low points values are pretty crowded.

Lol you think that a 6pts guardsman would help balance when something like a strike would cost 40pts and a termintor almost 90, when both could die to 6-20pts guns en mass?

I think if you increased the price of everything, across the board, then it would be easier to fine tune the points of the infantry units.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Zid wrote:
They just need to bring back the old AP system... Invun saves weren't as prevalent on everything, and things giving invun saves weren't as common; the 3+ save was great as only heavy weapons or specialized weapons negated your save.

The new AP system is a load of crap; especially when they started giving everything a way to get a 5++.

But with the new system, many of those heavy and specialized weapons don't negate your armour, they still give you a 5+ or 6+.

Many of those specialized weapons weren't necessary to kill a 4-5 point model before, though.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Zid wrote:
They just need to bring back the old AP system... Invun saves weren't as prevalent on everything, and things giving invun saves weren't as common; the 3+ save was great as only heavy weapons or specialized weapons negated your save.

The new AP system is a load of crap; especially when they started giving everything a way to get a 5++.

But with the new system, many of those heavy and specialized weapons don't negate your armour, they still give you a 5+ or 6+.

It's true that the new AP system has improved a little bit the durability of power armors and other 3+ saves, but the new AP system is even more generous with 5+ saves. These saves used to be canceled by pretty much everything, especially by basic weapons like bolters, pulse rifle or shuriken catapult to name just a few. They allowed elite infantry to counter more efficently light infantry, while light infantry was preferable when faced with heavy and special weapons besides flamers and grenade launchers. Now, light infantry is more resilient to heavy infantry firepower and both of them are still similarly affected by heavy weapons. Thinking about it, maybe we would need two AP modifier and a new key word <light armor> and <heavy armor>. Depending on which key word your unit as, you use a different AP profile. But that would require an entire new edition of the game or some very extensive house rules.

 Zid wrote:
They just need to bring back the old AP system... Invun saves weren't as prevalent on everything, and things giving invun saves weren't as common; the 3+ save was great as only heavy weapons or specialized weapons negated your save.

The new AP system is a load of crap; especially when they started giving everything a way to get a 5++.

The current AP system adds a lot more flexibility to weapons and all those weapons that were flat out ignoring a 3+ entirely before are now typically offering a 5+ or 6+ instead (plasma, battlecannons, lascannons, starcannons, lances, disintegrators, krak missiles, etc). The only place Marines are worse off than before against weapons is against AP-1/formerly AP4 stuff.

epronovost wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Zid wrote:
They just need to bring back the old AP system... Invun saves weren't as prevalent on everything, and things giving invun saves weren't as common; the 3+ save was great as only heavy weapons or specialized weapons negated your save.

The new AP system is a load of crap; especially when they started giving everything a way to get a 5++.

But with the new system, many of those heavy and specialized weapons don't negate your armour, they still give you a 5+ or 6+.

It's true that the new AP system has improved a little bit the durability of power armors and other 3+ saves, but the new AP system is even more generous with 5+ saves. These saves used to be canceled by pretty much everything, especially by basic weapons like bolters, pulse rifle or shuriken catapult to name just a few. They allowed elite infantry to counter more efficently light infantry, while light infantry was preferable when faced with heavy and special weapons besides flamers and grenade launchers. Now, light infantry is more resilient to heavy infantry firepower and both of them are still similarly affected by heavy weapons. Thinking about it, maybe we would need two AP modifier and a new key word <light armor> and <heavy armor>. Depending on which key word your unit as, you use a different AP profile. But that would require an entire new edition of the game or some very extensive house rules.

In all fairness, lets not forget that previous editions had lots of cover that acted as a save instead of a save enhancement, and many were notorious for "4+ cover everywhere all the time!", where bolters would seemingly always be hitting up against 4+ cover instead of punching through 5+ or 6+ armor, but would only benefit themselves against heavy weapons.

Now, the flame weapons ignoring cover had a lot of use there that doesn't exist in 8E, which is a fair point, but hard to measure the impact of.