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.

it sounds like marines in 8th edition have issues being terrible? I have yet to play 8th, and am not really that motivated to do so. Yet I doubt their balancing issue is a particular one unique to an edition, more like a very fundamental one.

GW is more concerned about selling more marines than less. Consider how interesting a space marine list might be with dramatically lower model count? That's the crux of the issue. They could care less about delivering an enjoyable/unique game, just a game that is enjoyable enough - relative to improving sales. In other words, the customer base should not trust them to make rules. Models yes, rules no.

So if things are actually going to improve (for all armies), there needs to be a movement for the community - and popularize a new set of rules without GWs perspective.

You know it is very easy to make any unit good. Just keep lowering the cost until it is.

Another one of these? The last one is still going.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/768146.page

 mew28 wrote:
You know it is very easy to make any unit good. Just keep lowering the cost until it is.

Cuz lowering cost when a unit is under powered is the default, best solution?

Yep, sounds like a GW approach.


You know, some people would like to play an infantry game that isn't epic scale 28mm.

So, if you haven't played 8th & only "heard" that x is bad in it, explain to me why should I waste time listening to you on how to fix it.
Be concise.

ccs wrote:
So, if you haven't played 8th & only "heard" that x is bad in it, explain to me why should I waste time listening to you on how to fix it.
Be concise.

Cuz patterns - over the years?
and I'm just tryin to be transparent. I could have left that out and make myself out to be something that I'm not.

Sometimes people can make great points without participating in the thing.

I'm not claiming to have a particular fix for 8th, I'm pointing out the bigger picture issue.... and attempting to stir discussion.

Don't you find it at least a possibility for a model company to justify bad lore/watered down gameplay for increased profits?

 kveldulf wrote:

 mew28 wrote:
You know it is very easy to make any unit good. Just keep lowering the cost until it is.

Cuz lowering cost when a unit is under powered is the default, best solution?

Yep, sounds like a GW approach.


You know, some people would like to play an infantry game that isn't epic scale 28mm.

Yes it is the default best solution everyone wins with it. I get to make my SM army bigger, GW sells more models, SM players get usable units. Also it is extremely simple and easy to redo as needed until it is at a point you like.

Make power armor ignore -1 AP
Make them ignore the heavy weapon rule.
Make Bolters have additional AP or damage on a 6 to represent them exploding
Make their strategems affect the whole codex rather than a unit in the codex
Cahpter tactics affect Vehicles.
Make Droppods allow you to ignore the rules for DS and you can disembark 3",

Maybe GW wants to sell kits from other armies and since SM already sell very well they don't think that making them more performing will give the company some financial benefit.

If the current state of SM makes them sell more kits overall in their eyes the SM codex is perfect as it is. That's my take about the matter.

 kveldulf wrote:
So if things are actually going to improve (for all armies), there needs to be a movement for the community - and popularize a new set of rules without GWs perspective.

You need to get people looking purely to make a balanced game, with no investment in winning with 'their' factions. Which is not so easy when you consider that they need to be competitive enough to know/playtest the system competently and invested enough to do the work and do the factions justice without playing favourites.

The last hundred threads about turning marines into game breaking supermen should tell you that crowdsourcing the job to dakka isn't going to fix 8th.

A.T. wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
So if things are actually going to improve (for all armies), there needs to be a movement for the community - and popularize a new set of rules without GWs perspective.

You need to get people looking purely to make a balanced game, with no investment in winning with 'their' factions. Which is not so easy when you consider that they need to be competitive enough to know/playtest the system competently and invested enough to do the work and do the factions justice without playing favourites.

The last hundred threads about turning marines into game breaking supermen should tell you that crowdsourcing the job to dakka isn't going to fix 8th.

There’s something called a mass line. In this case it means listening to the popular complaint - chaos marine armies don’t have any actual marines in them - and then fixing the underlying problem instead of just going buff marines. It used to be that there would be a bad king, so common people would revolt and overthrow the king, and then appoint someone else king and hope they were nicer. It’s as stupid an idea as wanting to buff marines and hoping GW will do it.

GW and their release schedule are set up to put out a new edition every few years with new codexes and models. They aren’t set up to make a super satisfying playing experience, or even a painting one really.

The problem is that GW has a lot of stuff that is crowded into the lower point bands and the granularity is sucking.

I think GW would do better if they doubled the cost on everything and make the game 4K as standard, and then when back and rexamined the cost on some of the now 10 point Guard options. When you can have a 10 point guard and a 9 point Conscript, and a 11 point Slightly better guard, it opens up some guanlarity in the game that it is missing right now, as a pair of 5 point models might not be the same point cost, but might be the out of line with one being better than the other.

Kvelduff I wish you’d edit the thread title.

A.T. wrote:
You need to get people looking purely to make a balanced game, with no investment in winning with 'their' factions. Which is not so easy when you consider that they need to be competitive enough to know/playtest the system competently and invested enough to do the work and do the factions justice without playing favourites.

The last hundred threads about turning marines into game breaking supermen should tell you that crowdsourcing the job to dakka isn't going to fix 8th.

What?

The general consensus has been that non-Primaris space marines are not worth the points 40k currently prices them at. Few argue with that. Where argument largely comes from is the fact that many players don't want to see space marines just be less points per model despite this most likely being the most efficient way to go about it. And players can just wait for the Primaris Equivalent (PEQ) Model line is expanded if they want real super soldiers. I believe the reason why many players don't want to just make space marines less ppm is they already feel very underpowered compared to how have they are written in the background. I am not talking about movie marines either. Tactical Marines/Chaos Space Marines only feel a little more than twice as powerful as guardsmen model vs. model. While good, that is no where near the super-human warriors they are made out to be.

Many space marine buffs include actually increasing the points a little (I have seen mostly going back to 15ppm floated around) to go along with some of the increased buffs (often -1 AP to bolters and/or +1 wounds). Again, the point of contention with many detractors is that many of those buffs bring space marines too close to Primaris to be considered. Not that the ideas themselves are just there to make space marines the bestest ever for the points spent. There is much merit to that argument, especially when you consider GW should want Primaris to be the new hotness.

I personally would rather see space marines (and their Chaos counterparts) get some sort of buff rather than just decrease points cost and/or wait for some unknown future where the PEQ actually exists because there are more than half dozen units with a little more than a dozen wargear options and these PEQ exist is all Astartes factions (read: Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines). My biggest issue is that I play Chaos Space Marines and don't have access to PEQ units to bypass weak space marines. I don't know if and when that change either.

So, the argument has been less, 'No way! That's too powerful.' and more 'You are basically describing Primaris. Just use them instead.'

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

A.T. wrote:
The last hundred threads about turning marines into game breaking supermen should tell you that crowdsourcing the job to dakka isn't going to fix 8th.

What?

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but in the last 'buff marines' thread when I pointed out that 3 wound, 2 attack marine with AP -2 weapons might be a bit cheap at 17 points the response I got was "Guardsmen are still better screening units and better at generating CP"

Then the thread started discussing things like 6" jump pack deepstrike ranges (with rerolls to charge), chapter tactics like toughness +1 or half price weapons, and stratagems giving game-long attack roll debuffs and simply disabling all weapons on an enemy vehicle.

A.T. wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

A.T. wrote:
The last hundred threads about turning marines into game breaking supermen should tell you that crowdsourcing the job to dakka isn't going to fix 8th.

What?

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but in the last 'buff marines' thread when I pointed out that 3 wound, 2 attack marine with AP -2 weapons might be a bit cheap at 17 points the response I got was "Guardsmen are still better screening units and better at generating CP"

Then the thread started discussing things like 6" jump pack deepstrike ranges (with rerolls to charge), chapter tactics like toughness +1 or half price weapons, and stratagems giving game-long attack roll debuffs and simply disabling all weapons on an enemy vehicle.

I notice that happens a lot.

I think that's because the community hasn't come to terms that Primaris are the future and who plays top tables at ITC mean jack.

Seriously, every single one of these threads begins with essentially arguing marines should be 2W, 2A, with -1 AP on their bolters. They want Primaris but not Primaris.

Or Plague Marines but not Plague Marines. Rubrics but not Rubrics. You eventually reach a point where everyone decides that's not good enough so they come up with the craziest gak.

Lemondish wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

A.T. wrote:
The last hundred threads about turning marines into game breaking supermen should tell you that crowdsourcing the job to dakka isn't going to fix 8th.

What?

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but in the last 'buff marines' thread when I pointed out that 3 wound, 2 attack marine with AP -2 weapons might be a bit cheap at 17 points the response I got was "Guardsmen are still better screening units and better at generating CP"

Then the thread started discussing things like 6" jump pack deepstrike ranges (with rerolls to charge), chapter tactics like toughness +1 or half price weapons, and stratagems giving game-long attack roll debuffs and simply disabling all weapons on an enemy vehicle.

I notice that happens a lot.

I think that's because the community hasn't come to terms that Primaris are the future and who plays top tables at ITC mean jack.

Seriously, every single one of these threads begins with essentially arguing marines should be 2W, 2A, with -1 AP on their bolters. They want Primaris but not Primaris.

Or Plague Marines but not Plague Marines. Rubrics but not Rubrics. You eventually reach a point where everyone decides that's not good enough so they come up with the craziest gak.

...I mean, I know a chunk of my position on the subject is that GW should have done the models as a resculpt of normal Marines instead of cutting the Space Marine book in half and leaving half of it with the right statline and half of it with useful wargear, with a convoluted lore explanation that was roundly ridiculed and promptly forgotten about.

The premise of the thread is that you’re wrong, GW did exactly what they should have done for GW because they’re a profit making company, and so players should abandon the rule book and codexes and set up their local groups and major tournaments with completely separate rules with like AA and different ally rules.

I agree it seems unlikely that GW is going to invest much design time in improving the OldMarine rules at this stage in the game. Which isn't to say that I think they shouldn't spend any time making OldMarines viable, because not doing so would be a horrendous PR error. That said, I think points drops on OldMarine units is about the best we can expect.

I don't think the Primaris fluff is quite as hamfisted as detractors think either. I think there was more going on than just justifying the new, bigger minis. I think GW is also using it as an excuse to redesign how SM armies work. I've been playing since 3rd edition, and one of the most common complaints about Marines in all that time has been that their units are generalist units that have to function in a game that punishes generalists and rewards specialists. All the Primaris units we've seen thus far are specialist units - Intercessors specialize in holding objectives, Hellblasters specialize in high power shooting, Aggressors specialize in horde-clearing shooting, Inceptors specialize in alpha strike shooting, and Reivers specialize in...I dunno, collecting dust at this point I guess. The point is, that's more than just an excuse to revamp the model range. It's a complete re-envisioning of how the army works.

Lemondish wrote:

I notice that happens a lot.

I think that's because the community hasn't come to terms that Primaris are the future and who plays top tables at ITC mean jack.

Seriously, every single one of these threads begins with essentially arguing marines should be 2W, 2A, with -1 AP on their bolters. They want Primaris but not Primaris.

Or Plague Marines but not Plague Marines. Rubrics but not Rubrics. You eventually reach a point where everyone decides that's not good enough so they come up with the craziest gak.

What page are any of those options as a troop choice for Black Legion in the Heretic Astartes book? I must of missed that page.

give them better primarchs

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I agree it seems unlikely that GW is going to invest much design time in improving the OldMarine rules at this stage in the game. Which isn't to say that I think they shouldn't spend any time making OldMarines viable, because not doing so would be a horrendous PR error. That said, I think points drops on OldMarine units is about the best we can expect.

With the CA 2018 points drop I got another 5 TAC marines for my 800 point army. Then the Bolter Discipline beta rule came in and in my army that buffs 4 storm bolters and 12 bolters. I've played 2 games since (against Tyranids and Necrons) and the difference to competitiveness is obvious. Those games seemed much more balanced than before.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I agree it seems unlikely that GW is going to invest much design time in improving the OldMarine rules at this stage in the game. Which isn't to say that I think they shouldn't spend any time making OldMarines viable, because not doing so would be a horrendous PR error. That said, I think points drops on OldMarine units is about the best we can expect.

With the CA 2018 points drop I got another 5 TAC marines for my 800 point army. Then the Bolter Discipline beta rule came in and in my army that buffs 4 storm bolters and 12 bolters. I've played 2 games since (against Tyranids and Necrons) and the difference to competitiveness is obvious. Those games seemed much more balanced than before.

I had similar experience with my Dark Angels gunline list. Being able to double tap at full range (I'm standing still most of the time any way because of their chapter trait) definitely feels like more punch in the list - but not enough to make it tourney viable though.

They still suffer the same issue marines have had all 8th edition

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
What?

The general consensus has been that non-Primaris space marines are not worth the points 40k currently prices them at. Few argue with that. Where argument largely comes from is the fact that many players don't want to see space marines just be less points per model despite this most likely being the most efficient way to go about it. And players can just wait for the Primaris Equivalent (PEQ) Model line is expanded if they want real super soldiers. I believe the reason why many players don't want to just make space marines less ppm is they already feel very underpowered compared to how have they are written in the background. I am not talking about movie marines either. Tactical Marines/Chaos Space Marines only feel a little more than twice as powerful as guardsmen model vs. model. While good, that is no where near the super-human warriors they are made out to be.

Many space marine buffs include actually increasing the points a little (I have seen mostly going back to 15ppm floated around) to go along with some of the increased buffs (often -1 AP to bolters and/or +1 wounds). Again, the point of contention with many detractors is that many of those buffs bring space marines too close to Primaris to be considered. Not that the ideas themselves are just there to make space marines the bestest ever for the points spent. There is much merit to that argument, especially when you consider GW should want Primaris to be the new hotness.

I personally would rather see space marines (and their Chaos counterparts) get some sort of buff rather than just decrease points cost and/or wait for some unknown future where the PEQ actually exists because there are more than half dozen units with a little more than a dozen wargear options and these PEQ exist is all Astartes factions (read: Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines). My biggest issue is that I play Chaos Space Marines and don't have access to PEQ units to bypass weak space marines. I don't know if and when that change either.

So, the argument has been less, 'No way! That's too powerful.' and more 'You are basically describing Primaris. Just use them instead.'

So bottom line is GW has boxed itself in and are out of design space for traditional MEQs. Can't increase wounds because then the redesign needs to be extended to Primaris Marines, and for some unexplained reason the points are not decreased. Reece, who playtests 8th edition for GW, mentioned in podcast 'they do not want marines to become horde army' so that's about the most official take we have on state of MEQs currently and explains the lack of point reductions. Apparently GW is quite happy with how things are currently, meaning you and we all should be just happy with how things are.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I agree it seems unlikely that GW is going to invest much design time in improving the OldMarine rules at this stage in the game. Which isn't to say that I think they shouldn't spend any time making OldMarines viable, because not doing so would be a horrendous PR error. That said, I think points drops on OldMarine units is about the best we can expect.

With the CA 2018 points drop I got another 5 TAC marines for my 800 point army. Then the Bolter Discipline beta rule came in and in my army that buffs 4 storm bolters and 12 bolters. I've played 2 games since (against Tyranids and Necrons) and the difference to competitiveness is obvious. Those games seemed much more balanced than before.

My games with my tyranids against marines I've noticed they're chewing through my Gaunt hordes much quicker, leaving enough to be easily weathered by their T4 and 3+ in CC, I can no longer really rely on 20 hormagaunts to take out a Tactical squad, enough of them will be whittled down on the approach now.

It's a good buff, and better to start small then take baby steps then give marines an insane buff, all marine players are happy but if GW then decide later 'oh wait... Gak we overdid it!' and reign it in, the tears of "omg they nerfed marines?!" will be legendary.

I just think people compare too much to 'competitiveness' and try to impose changes on the game as a whole to suit that side, when it's always meant to be a beer and pretzels game, where in my opinion 8th ed shines! It's never been easier to change things in the game and with new stat blocks creating custom units/rules or buildings is extremely streamlined.

 mew28 wrote:
You know it is very easy to make any unit good. Just keep lowering the cost until it is.

Until you hit into bottom and there's no more room to manouver with points so either there's overpriced/underpriced junk or stats are samish.

40k could do with doubling or tripling all points including game size and then adjust.

Ghorgul wrote:
Apparently GW is quite happy with how things are currently, meaning you and we all should be just happy with how things are.

Is this a stolen bike meme reference?

pelicaniforce wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
So if things are actually going to improve (for all armies), there needs to be a movement for the community - and popularize a new set of rules without GWs perspective.

You need to get people looking purely to make a balanced game, with no investment in winning with 'their' factions. Which is not so easy when you consider that they need to be competitive enough to know/playtest the system competently and invested enough to do the work and do the factions justice without playing favourites.

The last hundred threads about turning marines into game breaking supermen should tell you that crowdsourcing the job to dakka isn't going to fix 8th.

There’s something called a mass line. In this case it means listening to the popular complaint - chaos marine armies don’t have any actual marines in them - and then fixing the underlying problem instead of just going buff marines. It used to be that there would be a bad king, so common people would revolt and overthrow the king, and then appoint someone else king and hope they were nicer. It’s as stupid an idea as wanting to buff marines and hoping GW will do it.

GW and their release schedule are set up to put out a new edition every few years with new codexes and models. They aren’t set up to make a super satisfying playing experience, or even a painting one really.

This. It's sad to think major upheaval is the only way for for change to happens, but this is the way a lot of systems work.

It's not in GW's interests for Marines to be good, otherwise they would be. My belief is that milquetoast Marines are what sell models, if they were actually elite that's all anyone would play.

Think about the last time Tacticals had a meaningful role on the battlefield - 5th edition. Since then, GW has made big changes to the game - significant alterations to the mechanics, introduced flyers and Lord of War, introduced new factions (like Mechanicum), broken up some factions (like Death Guard and Ynnari), brought back Primarchs, introduced Primaris, etc. Plenty of opportunities to make Marines better, but it never happens.

Why is that? GW is worth over $1.25 bil, it's not like they don't know what they are doing. If I had to guess at the root issue, Marines are more just more easily identifiable and appealing to players, so adjusting the rules to make other factions more powerful is their only option to ensure there's an ecosystem of other factions to play against. We see the opposite situation Horus Heresy, players lose interest when all they do is fight other Marines. Another reason could be the sales cycle, GW seems to prefer giving the best rules to newer releases. Space Marines have been around forever, hence they suffer relative to new models coming on the table.

There's a few interviews with and about Robin Cruddace that speak to the game design process. Anyone interested in why Marines are bad should seek them out, there's one where they speak abstractly about the math that goes into balancing armies. It's worth a listen, because he's talking about how systems favor certain types of units and the implicit decisions made by the design team for 8th edition. When I read it, I felt they missed their own mark a little, my experiences playing the game differed from some of the goals that were laid out.

So, how does one make Space Marines better? Sure, you could overthrow the cruel corporate overlords at GW, but that seems like a lot of work. You could write up some homebrew rules that will be enjoyed by your and your collaborators but ignored by the rest of the community. You could houserule everything to make them more interesting, but if you were that into band-aids you would have become a nurse.

My impression is it's necessary to reframe the question. It's not "how do we fix Marines" it's "how does the system change to benefit of Marines?" Stratagems and detachments are certainly a step in the right direction, they change the way we build lists / construct forces in a non-deterministic way (where the performance of an army does not as heavily on the units selected before a game.) Power Levels are certain a step in the right direction, instead of min / maxing everything we build relative to the theme of the army. Custom mission types are certainly a step in the right direction, where victory conditions are determined based on factors other than kill points.

Like someone else said, anything can be better by making it cheap enough, which is exactly what's wrong with 40k - there's a tyranny to a points system that cannot account for all the permutations of what will happen in a game. This isn't even controlled Chaos, it's best guesses about balance and relative strength that gets constantly upset by the external demands of market forces.

We're seeing changes that offer an alternative and, so long as Cruddace is at the wheel. These changes don't line up as neatly as I'd like, but I have a feeling they will in future editions. That's how I think Marines get fixed.

 kveldulf wrote:
it sounds like marines in 8th edition have issues being terrible? I have yet to play 8th, and am not really that motivated to do so.

I stopped reading here. How can you offer suggestions on how to fix marines when you haven't even played the game?

 kveldulf wrote:
it sounds like marines in 8th edition have issues being terrible? I have yet to play 8th, and am not really that motivated to do so. Yet I doubt their balancing issue is a particular one unique to an edition, more like a very fundamental one.

GW is more concerned about selling more marines than less. Consider how interesting a space marine list might be with dramatically lower model count? That's the crux of the issue. They could care less about delivering an enjoyable/unique game, just a game that is enjoyable enough - relative to improving sales. In other words, the customer base should not trust them to make rules. Models yes, rules no.

So if things are actually going to improve (for all armies), there needs to be a movement for the community - and popularize a new set of rules without GWs perspective.

You want less SM? Just play 2nd. But beware you might enjoy it.