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.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck

Exactly.

Any concenus on rule changes? +1 wound and attack for starters? 2 wound, 2 attack regular marines, 3 wound 3 attack Primarus?

Trying to get people to universally agree about something is like herding cats.

Personally I'd bump marines to 15, give them an extra attack and wound, probably the ap-1 to boot. Then so they aren't carbon copies of Primaris I'd have Primaris as S5 T5 with a S5 bolt rifle. Would make things very different from where we currently sit.

In that case i would increase primaris to be 18pts per. So that they are a bit more expensive. And we keep scouts being the worst infantry in the space marine codex... like they should be.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck

Exactly.

Any concenus on rule changes? +1 wound and attack for starters? 2 wound, 2 attack regular marines, 3 wound 3 attack Primarus?

Trying to get people to universally agree about something is like herding cats.

Personally I'd bump marines to 15, give them an extra attack and wound, probably the ap-1 to boot. Then so they aren't carbon copies of Primaris I'd have Primaris as S5 T5 with a S5 bolt rifle. Would make things very different from where we currently sit.

In that case i would increase primaris to be 18pts per. So that they are a bit more expensive. And we keep scouts being the worst infantry in the space marine codex... like they should be.

Yeah, I agree. I'd even consider making scouts BS/WS 4+ and stay at 1W and 1A. Granted I don't know how I'd point them, but they'd probably go down to 10.

As long as scouts have their deployment option they will be the worst choice but bring something unique to the table

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck

Exactly.

Any concenus on rule changes? +1 wound and attack for starters? 2 wound, 2 attack regular marines, 3 wound 3 attack Primarus?

Trying to get people to universally agree about something is like herding cats.

Personally I'd bump marines to 15, give them an extra attack and wound, probably the ap-1 to boot. Then so they aren't carbon copies of Primaris I'd have Primaris as S5 T5 with a S5 bolt rifle. Would make things very different from where we currently sit.

In that case i would increase primaris to be 18pts per. So that they are a bit more expensive. And we keep scouts being the worst infantry in the space marine codex... like they should be.

Yeah, I agree. I'd even consider making scouts BS/WS 4+ and stay at 1W and 1A. Granted I don't know how I'd point them, but they'd probably go down to 10.

As long as scouts have their deployment option they will be the worst choice but bring something unique to the table

Scouts were actually WS/BS3+ for most of their incarnations. It would be silly to revert again just because you're sick of seeing them.

Plus, even when they were BS4+, they were STILL taken over Tactical Marines. Doesn't that say there's more an issue with one unit rather than trying to nerf the other?

13 point, 2w, 2a is what is needed to give assault based marines even the tiniest chance to be relevant. Orks spitting out 5 attacks on WS2 with exploding 6s, with a 5++ and a 6+++? For 7 points per model? What? 2w and 2a isn't going to salvage you in this fight but at least you can take out more than 3 Orks before you lose an entire assault unit.

Marines would also benefit if some of the complexity were to return to the game. Suppression, Shock, and other penalties for various things might make marines better. If a unit is suppressed by sustained fire, it would dramatically affect their ability to act, whereas marines can act normally. This wouldn't allow them to win a fight against Orks straight up, but in the right setup they could maybe, if they got enough of an advantage.

Meanwhile what we have now is:

Orks charge marines = marines lose.
Marines charge Orks = marines lose, no question.
There isn't a scenario where you can win in melee and that's a fundamental problem.

Of course, if we really want a balanced game we'd be on board with buffing marines. But not everyone wants a balanced game.

MEQ whether 1 or 2 wounds will still struggle until GW greatly reduces how casually they throw around 2+D weapons and AP -2 or more being super common and the best all commers option.

I remember back in 5th, due to how you killed a marine was different from how you kill a vehicle and further different from how you dealt with a horde. A 3+ save was actually worth something. These days it just isn't so just bring guardsmen.

I'm hardly sick of seeing scouts I just want there to be variety and choice.

Do I take the cheaper novice or the more expensive "standard" soldier?

 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm hardly sick of seeing scouts I just want there to be variety and choice.

Do I take the cheaper novice or the more expensive "standard" soldier?

It isn't like Scouts are just total novices either. Having the same BS as Infantry is silly as Scouts get considerably more training. In fact, the matter that Space Wolves Scouts have the same attack stat but are supposed to be Vets is utterly silly and one of GW's inconsistencies.

 Marmatag wrote:
13 point, 2w, 2a is what is needed to give assault based marines even the tiniest chance to be relevant. Orks spitting out 5 attacks on WS2 with exploding 6s, with a 5++ and a 6+++? For 7 points per model? What? 2w and 2a isn't going to salvage you in this fight but at least you can take out more than 3 Orks before you lose an entire assault unit.

Marines would also benefit if some of the complexity were to return to the game. Suppression, Shock, and other penalties for various things might make marines better. If a unit is suppressed by sustained fire, it would dramatically affect their ability to act, whereas marines can act normally. This wouldn't allow them to win a fight against Orks straight up, but in the right setup they could maybe, if they got enough of an advantage.

Meanwhile what we have now is:

Orks charge marines = marines lose.
Marines charge Orks = marines lose, no question.
There isn't a scenario where you can win in melee and that's a fundamental problem.

Of course, if we really want a balanced game we'd be on board with buffing marines. But not everyone wants a balanced game.

That is the point isn't it? That is how bad a marine is. You could give it +1 W and +1 attack for no additional cost and it still isn't that great. Intercessors cost +4 points (after their second point drop) from that but get a marginally better gun. Obviously...it's not competitive. These threads just bore the hell out of me. The truth is - everyone that doesn't play marines - wants them to suck.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck

I'm glad you pointed this out, lest someone stopping by for a quick glance at the thread would have been concerned it wasn't addressed despite never being said.

---

What seems clear at this point is that there's no consensus of even what the problems for marines are except "they suck hurr durr". I imagine in the face of knowing no matter what you do a vocal group will still exclaim that they still suck or that it wasn't enough or some other inane drivel. In the face of that, the status quo seems almost more bearable.

Lemondish wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck

I'm glad you pointed this out, lest someone stopping by for a quick glance at the thread would have been concerned it wasn't addressed despite never being said.

---

What seems clear at this point is that there's no consensus of even what the problems for marines are except "they suck hurr durr". I imagine in the face of knowing no matter what you do a vocal group will still exclaim that they still suck or that it wasn't enough or some other inane drivel. In the face of that, the status quo seems almost more bearable.

I like reading the creative solutions though.

Issue is that there hasn't been anything creative said in a while.

I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.

I still am sorta against giving marines an additional wound, but more special rules, stratagems and more effective shooting. (Not better ap for regular bolters though)

And maybe a rework of 8th edition to prevent certain weapons from doing damage to heavy vechicles. Like a lasgun should have 0 chance to hurt a land raider or a warlord titan.

Termies need a rework to have more firepower and ability to dish out more damage or prevent damage. (one thing that should go out the window is the -1 to hit or give them a +2BS (Only a +2BS))

The crowd on here is so uninformed compared to the real life tourney crowd. It was a given at the Toledo gt that marines were miserable af.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.

I still am sorta against giving marines an additional wound, but more special rules, stratagems and more effective shooting. (Not better ap for regular bolters though)

And maybe a rework of 8th edition to prevent certain weapons from doing damage to heavy vechicles. Like a lasgun should have 0 chance to hurt a land raider or a warlord titan.

Termies need a rework to have more firepower and ability to dish out more damage or prevent damage. (one thing that should go out the window is the -1 to hit or give them a +2BS (Only a +2BS))

Problem is that 8the favours skew lists.
Knights force all armies to basically instagib atleast one per turn, ergo most lists see more At then ever.
Consequently the other skew is horde armies that basically try to keep the board controll and win via objectives.

I quite like scouts being 1 wound, regular marines 2 and Primarus being 3. With 2 attacks for regular marines (including scouts), and 3 for primes. However, as HoundsofDemos said, with all that super powerful weaponry knocking about and even basic rend affecting their save, these changes still feel like pissing in the wind tbh.

Current points wise, it seems only fair that a basic marine should be 3 times as good as an imperial guardsmen, and a Primarus 5 times as good! How to achieve that though...

2 wounds with a 3+ save, 2 attacks and a strength 4 ap -1 gun is surely 3 times as good as a 1 wound with a 5+ save, 1 attack model with a strength 3 ap - gun yes?

EDIT: guard are 4pts each aren’t they? And tacticals are 13 and intercessors 20 yes?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.

I still am sorta against giving marines an additional wound, but more special rules, stratagems and more effective shooting. (Not better ap for regular bolters though)

And maybe a rework of 8th edition to prevent certain weapons from doing damage to heavy vechicles. Like a lasgun should have 0 chance to hurt a land raider or a warlord titan.

Termies need a rework to have more firepower and ability to dish out more damage or prevent damage. (one thing that should go out the window is the -1 to hit or give them a +2BS (Only a +2BS))

Problem is that 8the favours skew lists.
Knights force all armies to basically instagib atleast one per turn, ergo most lists see more At then ever.
Consequently the other skew is horde armies that basically try to keep the board controll and win via objectives.

So basically super control vs super horde spammy armies got it.

To make a bit of an equivalency statement.

In hearthstone there has always been this dichotomy of Midrange - IE the perfect game state where you could play from low to high with your deck, in this case you deck has low amount of high cards, but it iss balanced about always having something on tempo, there are some control cards, and some are tempo cards, but the key thing is that your not rushing you always have cards in your hand to use. There are two other decks that are often taking center stage, control decks (super powered decks with major high tier cards, the whole point control the board and waste your opponents resources), and Aggro decks (Aggro decks are all about flooding the board). If we talk about warhammer tabletop in these terms i think we might see people come to a realization how similar a card game is to a tabletop with miniatures.

In this case marines as an aspect similar to a class has a lot of variety but nothing to formulate a balanced objective of being able to control or spam the field effectively. Marines are the mid range of 40k. Eldar are the Elite Control the Board types, but have the ability to spam certain units that are highly effective, while titans are super controllers, that need support from loyal 32.

Marines Should not be midrange. Their whole shtick is controlling the board, the ability to deploy on the board in multidudes of ways, with drop pods, rhinos and aircraft. They currently also lack the firepower to prove their engagement potential on the tabletop. In essence marines lack sufficient ways to punish opponents for positioning even with their 'rapid fire' ability, rapid-fire had been in the past a rarer ability found mostly on marines (bolters), sadly many have acquired this ability punishing marines even further and removing their identity abilities. (Combat Tactics, and ANTSKNF, along with Facitonwide Meaningful Chapter Tactics, +1 Attack on Charge, Sweeping Advance, Relentless, deployment, deep strike benefits unique to them, heavy armor vehicles, etc.)

Marines are lacking as I have said this whole thread (not the first page, believe it or not, I changed my mind), they lack abilities that are meaningful that allow for counterplay. Marines have always been known as the bulwark when it comes to leadership, with leadership not being as important this edition or stressed, marines suffer as their leaders no longer give their leadership ability just by being near or equipped to the squad.

Utility units such as Librarians lost their force dome ability which gave ALL marines in a squad a +5 invulnerable or the original might of heroes which gave more attacks to a character or squad. These all build upon one another and its clear as day for many. Marines are not overcosted, they are costed as if they already have these synergies available to them from the get-go. Marines need options to control the board, and sadly they don't have ways to punish bad positioning or to create traps for their opponents. With every unit in the game being able to contest an objective effective troop with good armor saves as choices have flown right out the window this edition.

Suggestions for Overhaul for ninth :

Only Troop Choices and Qualified units can take objectives...
If your strength of the weapon your attacking with is less than half of the total toughness of the model your attacking you cannot do any damage to it. Even on 6s (Except otherwise notified with the weapon profile, AKA RENDING).

 Asherian Command wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.

I still am sorta against giving marines an additional wound, but more special rules, stratagems and more effective shooting. (Not better ap for regular bolters though)

And maybe a rework of 8th edition to prevent certain weapons from doing damage to heavy vechicles. Like a lasgun should have 0 chance to hurt a land raider or a warlord titan.

Termies need a rework to have more firepower and ability to dish out more damage or prevent damage. (one thing that should go out the window is the -1 to hit or give them a +2BS (Only a +2BS))

Problem is that 8the favours skew lists.
Knights force all armies to basically instagib atleast one per turn, ergo most lists see more At then ever.
Consequently the other skew is horde armies that basically try to keep the board controll and win via objectives.

So basically super control vs super horde spammy armies got it.

To make a bit of an equivalency statement.

In hearthstone there has always been this dichotomy of Midrange - IE the perfect game state where you could play from low to high with your deck, in this case you deck has low amount of high cards, but it iss balanced about always having something on tempo, there are some control cards, and some are tempo cards, but the key thing is that your not rushing you always have cards in your hand to use. There are two other decks that are often taking center stage, control decks (super powered decks with major high tier cards, the whole point control the board and waste your opponents resources), and Aggro decks (Aggro decks are all about flooding the board). If we talk about warhammer tabletop in these terms i think we might see people come to a realization how similar a card game is to a tabletop with miniatures.

In this case marines as an aspect similar to a class has a lot of variety but nothing to formulate a balanced objective of being able to control or spam the field effectively. Marines are the mid range of 40k. Eldar are the Elite Control the Board types, but have the ability to spam certain units that are highly effective, while titans are super controllers, that need support from loyal 32.

Marines Should not be midrange. Their whole shtick is controlling the board, the ability to deploy on the board in multidudes of ways, with drop pods, rhinos and aircraft. They currently also lack the firepower to prove their engagement potential on the tabletop. In essence marines lack sufficient ways to punish opponents for positioning even with their 'rapid fire' ability, rapid-fire had been in the past a rarer ability found mostly on marines (bolters), sadly many have acquired this ability punishing marines even further and removing their identity abilities. (Combat Tactics, and ANTSKNF, along with Facitonwide Meaningful Chapter Tactics, +1 Attack on Charge, Sweeping Advance, Relentless, deployment, deep strike benefits unique to them, heavy armor vehicles, etc.)

Marines are lacking as I have said this whole thread (not the first page, believe it or not, I changed my mind), they lack abilities that are meaningful that allow for counterplay. Marines have always been known as the bulwark when it comes to leadership, with leadership not being as important this edition or stressed, marines suffer as their leaders no longer give their leadership ability just by being near or equipped to the squad.

Utility units such as Librarians lost their force dome ability which gave ALL marines in a squad a +5 invulnerable or the original might of heroes which gave more attacks to a character or squad. These all build upon one another and its clear as day for many. Marines are not overcosted, they are costed as if they already have these synergies available to them from the get-go. Marines need options to control the board, and sadly they don't have ways to punish bad positioning or to create traps for their opponents. With every unit in the game being able to contest an objective effective troop with good armor saves as choices have flown right out the window this edition.

Suggestions for Overhaul for ninth :

Only Troop Choices and Qualified units can take objectives...
If your strength of the weapon your attacking with is less than half of the total toughness of the model your attacking you cannot do any damage to it. Even on 6s (Except otherwise notified with the weapon profile, AKA RENDING).

Yes and no,
As in eldar would be the combo deck archetype, atleast ynnari soulbourst soup shenanigans would be.

Your change would just further horde armies and generally how the game is Set up small cheap infantry is vastly superior to Elite infantry so you have made the situation worse, kinda.

The main comparison would be that you 'd have about 3 common lists in the ladder and to compete you have to hard tech against all of them. Basically you can't do that so they force all other armies out of the meta.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.

You realise that whether or not anyone comments on them will make zero difference to the game though right?

Martel732 wrote:
The crowd on here is so uninformed compared to the real life tourney crowd. It was a given at the Toledo gt that marines were miserable af.

There really is no solid way to run marines. Deathwatch are good, that's it, because of the insane poisoned 2+ ammo.

 Stux wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I mean I've tired offering solutions but they've been ignored or no one has commentated on them.

You realise that whether or not anyone comments on them will make zero difference to the game though right?

Yes? And?

Let us look at it this way. No one in here is expecting GW to read our statements or discussions, this isn't GW's official forum nor are they actual game company. They are a modeling company first.

If some people expect their examples to be taken as gospel as "THIS IS WHAT GW SHOULD DO! CAUSE ISAY SO!" Are misguided. GW is under no obligation to follow a forum post, that's silly. This is a discussion between hobbyists and house rule discussions for people to try out in their own settings not for GW to take as an example. That is the major difference between a video game and a tabletop game, a tabletop game is at its heart a community-driven, people can ignore GW rules, and many do, somewhat often to make the game more fun. Not everyone is going to play a top competitive game, but people are willing to try different things to have fun on the tabletop. And that's what I advocate, honestly, GW is too stringent on certain rules, but abstract on others.

This doesn't make these discussions any less valuable but it could lead to further discussion. In the end, this isn't telling GW what to do, but it is at its heart fan criticism so others can look at what others purposed to try out. And maybe those rules get popularity. Who knows. Sometimes fans do have an effect but the original creator of that idea is probably not going to even know some of their ideas indirectly were added in.

No one here should be disillusioned that this just a thread discussing what is wrong with marines and power armored characters in general. I even said at the beginning of the thread that chaos marines and grey knights suffer horribly. We could add that as another thing, because we don't see chaos space marines played nearly as much as we do cultists, and its because they are cheap and inexpensive, GK just suck, and only have maybe two or three things they can use adequately well. But that doesn't make the GK, SW, BA, DA, or SM any better just because a couple units are good if you use them in tangent with one another.

A game should be based on whether or not a mono army is good by itself, because that is the typical tabletop game.

People will use knights though, so your list will suffer if it doesn't have anti-armor against knights (But thats another rabbit hole entirely as knights are just OP with a ++3 invulnerable)

Your change would just further horde armies

So vechicles not dying to cheap infantry fire isn't going to stop that? What?!

related:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm hardly sick of seeing scouts I just want there to be variety and choice.

Do I take the cheaper novice or the more expensive "standard" soldier?

It isn't like Scouts are just total novices either. Having the same BS as Infantry is silly as Scouts get considerably more training. In fact, the matter that Space Wolves Scouts have the same attack stat but are supposed to be Vets is utterly silly and one of GW's inconsistencies.

True, though they also don't have the decades of experience compared to tacticals and such. But I suppose the difference would be negligible.

Why don't just give special ammunition and +1 atk to every marine?

DW proves that it will not make an army op. Even more - they hardly even top tier, just good.

DW still will have an unique unit composition - intercessors and hellblasters in same unit a big thing.

 Marmatag wrote:
13 point, 2w, 2a is what is needed to give assault based marines even the tiniest chance to be relevant. Orks spitting out 5 attacks on WS2 with exploding 6s, with a 5++ and a 6+++? For 7 points per model? What? 2w and 2a isn't going to salvage you in this fight but at least you can take out more than 3 Orks before you lose an entire assault unit.

Marines would also benefit if some of the complexity were to return to the game. Suppression, Shock, and other penalties for various things might make marines better. If a unit is suppressed by sustained fire, it would dramatically affect their ability to act, whereas marines can act normally. This wouldn't allow them to win a fight against Orks straight up, but in the right setup they could maybe, if they got enough of an advantage.

Meanwhile what we have now is:

Orks charge marines = marines lose.
Marines charge Orks = marines lose, no question.
There isn't a scenario where you can win in melee and that's a fundamental problem.

Of course, if we really want a balanced game we'd be on board with buffing marines. But not everyone wants a balanced game.

Really? What about the shooting phase? How many points of orks will disappear by SM shooting?

I see it in a different way, 2 orks cost like 1 marine who have the firepower to kill them both before they manage to charge. Or, assuming average rolls, just kill one ork by shooting, charge and have decent odds to kill the second boy. Even if he fails to kill it that boy will now swing back, 3A so 2 hits, 1W and then 3+ save, the marine should tank it and survives. 1 SM definitely worths 2 orks.

There isn't a scenario in which the same amount of points of boyz will win by shooting against SM. Orks are supposed to be melee oriented, it would be a terrible unbalanced game if SM could outshoot them and also pair with them in melee.

The issue between a 7 point boyz and a 13 point SM is that the current meta is heavily anti tank oriented and armies with just T4 6+ spam and/or gretchin spam break this meta. Nerf the super dudes, and marines will come out better.

 Marmatag wrote:
13 point, 2w, 2a is what is needed to give assault based marines even the tiniest chance to be relevant. Orks spitting out 5 attacks on WS2 with exploding 6s, with a 5++ and a 6+++? For 7 points per model?

No, those models now cost around 20 ppm because you've integrated buffs from a Weirdboy, a Waaaaagh banner Nob and a Big Mek in MA with KFF. They also lose the 5++ in melee.

You're dreaming if you think marines are getting an extra wound and attack at 13 points. It also barely helps assault based marines. If you want assault based marines to work, buff chainswords to be +2 attacks or +3 attacks if the unit they're fighting is over twice the size of the marine unit.

 Marmatag wrote:
Marines would also benefit if some of the complexity were to return to the game. Suppression, Shock, and other penalties for various things might make marines better. If a unit is suppressed by sustained fire, it would dramatically affect their ability to act, whereas marines can act normally. This wouldn't allow them to win a fight against Orks straight up, but in the right setup they could maybe, if they got enough of an advantage.

Meanwhile what we have now is:

Orks charge marines = marines lose.
Marines charge Orks = marines lose, no question.
There isn't a scenario where you can win in melee and that's a fundamental problem.

Of course, if we really want a balanced game we'd be on board with buffing marines. But not everyone wants a balanced game.

What on earth? Can someone provide actual proof of all these Ork lists dominating SM outside of anecdotal uselessness? I asked this a page back and had nothing but anecdotal, heavily biased theory hammer. Things like "if [the most competitive elements of an Ork list] goes against [an extremely unoptimised SM list] the Ork list will win. Yes. That is normal and to be expected. The opposite is also true. I'd be interested to see how a Crimson Fist list stacks up against my Ork Biker army, for exsmple.

And the reason there isn't a scenario where SM win in melee against Orks is because they should never be engaging Orks only in melee, they have bolters that hit on 3s or 2s depending on your tactic. They should probably use them. So by the time the Orks get to the marine lines they are thinned out enough to deal with.

Struggling to see how a T4, 6+ save unit at 7 points is in any way more durable than a T4, 3+ save unit at 13 too.

To the topic it's pretty obvious why pure SM struggle - they lack a cheap screening unit. Which they can immediately mitigate by taking Guardsmen (so it becomes a non-issue). If you aren't willing to soup and you have the option you're not playing competitively. If you want mono SM to be competitive suggest GW remove soup in competitive play and petition for a cheap, screening unit.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I quite like scouts being 1 wound, regular marines 2 and Primarus being 3. With 2 attacks for regular marines (including scouts), and 3 for primes. However, as HoundsofDemos said, with all that super powerful weaponry knocking about and even basic rend affecting their save, these changes still feel like pissing in the wind tbh.

Current points wise, it seems only fair that a basic marine should be 3 times as good as an imperial guardsmen, and a Primarus 5 times as good! How to achieve that though...

2 wounds with a 3+ save, 2 attacks and a strength 4 ap -1 gun is surely 3 times as good as a 1 wound with a 5+ save, 1 attack model with a strength 3 ap - gun yes?

EDIT: guard are 4pts each aren’t they? And tacticals are 13 and intercessors 20 yes?

This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
13 point, 2w, 2a is what is needed to give assault based marines even the tiniest chance to be relevant. Orks spitting out 5 attacks on WS2 with exploding 6s, with a 5++ and a 6+++? For 7 points per model?

No, those models now cost around 20 ppm because you've integrated buffs from a Weirdboy, a Waaaaagh banner Nob and a Big Mek in MA with KFF. They also lose the 5++ in melee.

You're dreaming if you think marines are getting an extra wound and attack at 13 points. It also barely helps assault based marines. If you want assault based marines to work, buff chainswords to be +2 attacks or +3 attacks if the unit they're fighting is over twice the size of the marine unit.

 Marmatag wrote:
Marines would also benefit if some of the complexity were to return to the game. Suppression, Shock, and other penalties for various things might make marines better. If a unit is suppressed by sustained fire, it would dramatically affect their ability to act, whereas marines can act normally. This wouldn't allow them to win a fight against Orks straight up, but in the right setup they could maybe, if they got enough of an advantage.

Meanwhile what we have now is:

Orks charge marines = marines lose.
Marines charge Orks = marines lose, no question.
There isn't a scenario where you can win in melee and that's a fundamental problem.

Of course, if we really want a balanced game we'd be on board with buffing marines. But not everyone wants a balanced game.

What on earth? Can someone provide actual proof of all these Ork lists dominating SM outside of anecdotal uselessness? I asked this a page back and had nothing but anecdotal, heavily biased theory hammer. Things like "if [the most competitive elements of an Ork list] goes against [an extremely unoptimised SM list] the Ork list will win. Yes. That is normal and to be expected. The opposite is also true. I'd be interested to see how a Crimson Fist list stacks up against my Ork Biker army, for exsmple.

And the reason there isn't a scenario where SM win in melee against Orks is because they should never be engaging Orks only in melee, they have bolters that hit on 3s or 2s depending on your tactic. They should probably use them. So by the time the Orks get to the marine lines they are thinned out enough to deal with.

Struggling to see how a T4, 6+ save unit at 7 points is in any way more durable than a T4, 3+ save unit at 13 too.

To the topic it's pretty obvious why pure SM struggle - they lack a cheap screening unit. Which they can immediately mitigate by taking Guardsmen (so it becomes a non-issue). If you aren't willing to soup and you have the option you're not playing competitively. If you want mono SM to be competitive suggest GW remove soup in competitive play and petition for a cheap, screening unit.

The thing is 7ppm boys arn't the base line for shooting troop units 4ppm guardsmen are, (and some people complain they underperform) who can boost their shooting by 95% for 15 points
Orks are the baseline for assualt troops and they also have some insane buffs built in, necessary in some cases but unbuffed unit of ork choppa boys can get how many attacks?

Ice_can wrote:
This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.

How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.

How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?

7 for the Boy 8 for the fire warrior

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
This assumes that 4ppm guardsmen arn't broken.
How does your 3 times as good as a guardsmen marine compair to a ork boy firewarrior etc? Are they more than twice as good as them, because they aren't double their points.

How many points does an ork boy and a firewarrior cost?

7 for the Boy 8 for the fire warrior

Fire warrior is only 8 points with the pistol 7 points without it.
And they already loose to guardsmen aswell,


Also how do they compair to 5ppm cultists? Short version you can't be balanced against 4ppm Guard and 5ppm cultists.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Just because marines are the most common doesn't mean they have to suck

Exactly.

Any concenus on rule changes? +1 wound and attack for starters? 2 wound, 2 attack regular marines, 3 wound 3 attack Primarus?

Trying to get people to universally agree about something is like herding cats.

Personally I'd bump marines to 15, give them an extra attack and wound, probably the ap-1 to boot. Then so they aren't carbon copies of Primaris I'd have Primaris as S5 T5 with a S5 bolt rifle. Would make things very different from where we currently sit.

Well with those bumps to marines we'd need to buff my beloved Tyranid warriors as they would look so inferior in comparison, and S5 and T5 primaris would have me absolutely annoyed compared to my options in the Tyranid book. Buffing marine Wounds would need a lot of other units would need buffs their wounds otherwise you have a marine being more durable with W2 and 3+ than a lot of Tyranid medium options point for point.

Buffing marines leaves Warriors even worse, and I'd love to see a more eloquent option for the fix. Then again I want W4 or 5, T6 Tyrant guard so they can actually do their job of protecting a foot tyrant.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I like reading the creative solutions though.

Issue is that there hasn't been anything creative said in a while.

But can there be anything creative writen about them, within the way GW writes their rules or changes them? We can write 2000 pages about exploding bolter ammo getting some wacky rules and interactions, but in the end GW way of doing things is. Nerf stuff, and they are not going to nerf eldar, IG,knights etc, they had enough chances to do that. Plus they can just make an errata to "fix" stuff in like 10 min and put it up on their site.

Other option is to give marines points drops. And here we hit the place where we find out that rule stacking, rule synergies are much important then basic stats. To make marines "good" they would have to stay with the same point costs and get something crazy like stock t5-6 or bolters that shot 4 times. That will never happen.

Then there is GW buff to the marine stat line in the form of primaris. At first glance +1A and +1 wound seems like a 100% buff to how efficient a model is, but then as someone else has show in this treat a 7pts boy gets better rules and overlaping stat buffs then a almost 20pts primaris.

GW could make them good, but to make them good they would have to rewrite the whole marine codex. Probablly dumping all old models, and giving the same level of synergy other armies have. Having some weapons or rules that are of the OP kind wouldn't hurt either. But for something like that to happen, GW would have to make at least a new marine codex, and probably start a new edition.

Till that happens marines are relagated to gimmik single models like the smash captin or army build that pray for opponent to focus on countering horde or knights, and somehow not taking anything that is very efficient vs marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And the reason there isn't a scenario where SM win in melee against Orks is because they should never be engaging Orks only in melee, they have bolters that hit on 3s or 2s depending on your tactic. They should probably use them. So by the time the Orks get to the marine lines they are thinned out enough to deal with.

Dude, but unless you change your army every game, an avarge marine army can't do shoting and melee at the same time. There just isn't enough points, and sometimes units, that can do both things, then get the units to buff them, and then get the counter to specific builds in the army too. Marines aren't eldar they don't have reapers and s spears to run in their lists.

If a marine players go full melee he still loses to horde, because marine melee is overpriced, and doesn't have a huge edge over shoting armies other factions have. If a marine goes only shoting, he has to spam units, gets rolled over by horde armies, still struggles vs melee armies, and is no where near as shoty as shoting armies of other factions go. The shoty the melee and melee the shoty advice just doesn't work for marines.

Karol wrote:


If a marine players go full melee he still loses to horde, because marine melee is overpriced, and doesn't have a huge edge over shoting armies other factions have. If a marine goes only shoting, he has to spam units, gets rolled over by horde armies, still struggles vs melee armies, and is no where near as shoty as shoting armies of other factions go. The shoty the melee and melee the shoty advice just doesn't work for marines.

It's true but a TAC SM list should kill all the boyz within 3 turns of shooting. Of course it's impossible to do that if the meta is centered around knights and SM lists have 75% of their firepower dedicated to armored stuff. But just 3 razorbacks with assault cannons, a unit of devastators with heavy bolters and bolters from various units should kill 30ish orks per turn with just 25% of the SM list. it doesn't look a big deal if 500ish points of SM kill 215 points of orks but remember that those orks are melee only so they won't have their retaliation soon. If you do that for 3 turns those 500 points of SM will kill 650 points of orks and so on. Things like the stormraven alone combined with characters auras can wipe out a full unit of boyz or at least 20 of them plus 2 CPs to avoid them running away. What happens in practise is that 30 boyz arrive from deep strike and charge. If they fail then the next round of fire will delete them with no problem, remember that they won't have the LD from other units as they'll be probably too far away. But even if they charge just put scouts or min squad of tacs to mess their deep strike arrival so those 30 orks are forced to overkill some expendable unit and then they'll vanish in the following turn. Many competitive orks lists that are focussed on assault just use 1 or 2 mob of boyz that arrive by strike, anything else is gretchins and toys. The full green tide with 90+ boyz can be meta breaking but it isn't always rewarding.

Now orks can be very good at competitive levels not only because horde armies are meta breaking, but mostly because those games actually last 3 turns due to time limitations. A list that performs well in 3 turns can be tabled with no particular effort in a regular game. Keep it in mind when you talk about orks and their rankings at major events.