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.

 Daba wrote:
Nothing is as badly represented as the Eldar Exarchs, that no one, not even GW remember what they are anymore.

They were pretty great last edition. Pretty poor right now agreed. Then again - you do pay 0 points for them compared to a regular aspect warrior right?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Nothing is as badly represented as the Eldar Exarchs, that no one, not even GW remember what they are anymore.

They were pretty great last edition. Pretty poor right now agreed. Then again - you do pay 0 points for them compared to a regular aspect warrior right?

Exarchs as sergeants was a mistake.

They should never have been a squad option, but the design mistake that was 3rd edition had to shoehorn them in. They then failed to correct that mistake in 8th, unlike with Warlocks.

Martel732 wrote:
But it's not a beginners army at all in practice. It IS hard to use for the wrong reasons.

idk if i would say they are not a beginners army. marines are still one of the easiest armies to play and share many stats across the board. I have run several beginner games this edition for people to try the game and marines are the easiest to teach and usually win new player vs new player. the problem somes in that they whiel easy to use are underwhelming once you do get to know all of the rules/strategems.

I also think an issue with marines is that so many people play them that many take all comers lists are built around the idea of facing space marines. This will of course vary from region to region, but I have never seen a gaming group (i travel frequently and find games vs locals for funsies) that does not have marines well represented in factions people are playing. heck in most there are still more marines than anything else in my experience.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But it's not a beginners army at all in practice. It IS hard to use for the wrong reasons.

idk if i would say they are not a beginners army. marines are still one of the easiest armies to play and share many stats across the board. I have run several beginner games this edition for people to try the game and marines are the easiest to teach and usually win new player vs new player. the problem somes in that they whiel easy to use are underwhelming once you do get to know all of the rules/strategems.

I also think an issue with marines is that so many people play them that many take all comers lists are built around the idea of facing space marines. This will of course vary from region to region, but I have never seen a gaming group (i travel frequently and find games vs locals for funsies) that does not have marines well represented in factions people are playing. heck in most there are still more marines than anything else in my experience.

Yeah, I agree. Beginner =/= easily mode in 40K. Marines are a good beginner army because they are straight forward to learn and are more forgiving against lists SPECIFICALLY TAILORED to not be ideal against Marines.

Marines are indeed "hard mode" if you are trying to be competitive, but learning how to compete against top-tier lists should NEVER be the goal when introducing new players

-

I can assure you that is no longer an issue. At least, no one in my play group is planning for marines because they are so rare now in said play group. Even if marine were more common, you don't need to plan for them at all. Most weapons kill them efficiently. That's kind of the problem .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But it's not a beginners army at all in practice. It IS hard to use for the wrong reasons.

idk if i would say they are not a beginners army. marines are still one of the easiest armies to play and share many stats across the board. I have run several beginner games this edition for people to try the game and marines are the easiest to teach and usually win new player vs new player. the problem somes in that they whiel easy to use are underwhelming once you do get to know all of the rules/strategems.

I also think an issue with marines is that so many people play them that many take all comers lists are built around the idea of facing space marines. This will of course vary from region to region, but I have never seen a gaming group (i travel frequently and find games vs locals for funsies) that does not have marines well represented in factions people are playing. heck in most there are still more marines than anything else in my experience.

Yeah, I agree. Beginner =/= easily mode in 40K. Marines are a good beginner army because they are straight forward to learn and are more forgiving against lists SPECIFICALLY TAILORED to not be ideal against Marines.

Marines are indeed "hard mode" if you are trying to be competitive, but learning how to compete against top-tier lists should NEVER be the goal when introducing new players

-

Again, you don't need to tailor against marines to smack them around. This might have been true before 8th, but marines are one of the least forgiving list archetypes in the whole game

 Galef wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Terminator Armour should be 2+ on a D12

Alternatively we give them +1W and allow their armour to reroll 1s.
As much as a d12 system would give us more options, they aren't as cheap as d6s, especially in the quantities we'd need them in 40K

And extra wounds would absolutely go a long way towards making Marines as a whole more viable/play like superhuman walking tanks.
IMO, just about all non-Primaris, non-Character Marine (and Chaos Marine) Infantry and Bikes should be +1W across the board. There's enough D2+ weapons out there that this would hardly affect the meta, aside from making them more resilient to small arms fire.
Primaris units (and Terminators) can get a rule that allows them to reroll 1s for Armour saves to represent their superior armour.

No d12s needed.

-

Happy with the +1 Wound but much better and easier (IMO) to have Terminators as 1+ armour save than re-rolling 1's.

Knowing GW, they will probably try and return oldmarines to their roots and make them T3 with a 4+ save like they originally were, and lower points costs.

Ironically, they will probably lower costs enough that they become more competitive than they ever have been in doing this.

Martel732 wrote:
Again, you don't need to tailor against marines to smack them around. This might have been true before 8th, but marines are one of the least forgiving list archetypes in the whole game

You missed my point. I was suggesting tailor the enemy list so that it CAN'T smack them around. Or at least gives the new Marine player the opportunity to learn the rules as they play rather then learn how to best put their models back in the case

I do this all the time with my Eldar. I don't use Flyers, Spears, Reapers etc and focus on unit like Dire Avengers, Falcons, etc. Things that are "good" but far from optimized against Marines

-

Oh. I see. The fact that thats necessary is nuts.

 Daba wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Nothing is as badly represented as the Eldar Exarchs, that no one, not even GW remember what they are anymore.

They were pretty great last edition. Pretty poor right now agreed. Then again - you do pay 0 points for them compared to a regular aspect warrior right?

Exarchs as sergeants was a mistake.

They should never have been a squad option, but the design mistake that was 3rd edition had to shoehorn them in. They then failed to correct that mistake in 8th, unlike with Warlocks.

They sorta made Autarchs their functional (not fictional) replacements for a while. Then they clamped down on the options available in their no-model-no-rules frenzy, which is a shame.

Martel732 wrote:
I can assure you that is no longer an issue. At least, no one in my play group is planning for marines because they are so rare now in said play group. Even if marine were more common, you don't need to plan for them at all. Most weapons kill them efficiently. That's kind of the problem .

Which is why people take Venoms with their Splinter Cannons instead of Raiders with Dissintegrators?
And why people take Scatter Lasers instead of Star Cannons?
And Flamers/Meltas instead of Plasma?

Martel732 wrote:
Oh. I see. The fact that thats necessary is nuts.

To be fair, though, if you are trying to introduce a new player, this kind of list building should 100% be standard, regardless of whether that new player is using Marines.
But I agree that, with Marines, you have to tone down disproportionately compared to other factions

-

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daba wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Nothing is as badly represented as the Eldar Exarchs, that no one, not even GW remember what they are anymore.

They were pretty great last edition. Pretty poor right now agreed. Then again - you do pay 0 points for them compared to a regular aspect warrior right?

Exarchs as sergeants was a mistake.

They should never have been a squad option, but the design mistake that was 3rd edition had to shoehorn them in. They then failed to correct that mistake in 8th, unlike with Warlocks.

They sorta made Autarchs their functional (not fictional) replacements for a while. Then they clamped down on the options available in their no-model-no-rules frenzy, which is a shame.

Exarchs being free squad upgrades makes it very hard to fix. Even at just +1W and a special rule, a price point of 0 makes it silly not to take them.

People take both venoms and ravagers. Splinter is amazing vs gravis dummies.

Ive seen a lot of scatterlasers lately because orks and demons are so much more legit. Marine players have a nasty habit of bringing scouts, which scatterlasers kill just fine.

Flamers and melta suck independenly of marines.

No one plans for marines because they don't need to. Any old weapon is probably going to have a good return vs marines.

Bharring wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daba wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Nothing is as badly represented as the Eldar Exarchs, that no one, not even GW remember what they are anymore.

They were pretty great last edition. Pretty poor right now agreed. Then again - you do pay 0 points for them compared to a regular aspect warrior right?

Exarchs as sergeants was a mistake.

They should never have been a squad option, but the design mistake that was 3rd edition had to shoehorn them in. They then failed to correct that mistake in 8th, unlike with Warlocks.

They sorta made Autarchs their functional (not fictional) replacements for a while. Then they clamped down on the options available in their no-model-no-rules frenzy, which is a shame.

Exarchs being free squad upgrades makes it very hard to fix. Even at just +1W and a special rule, a price point of 0 makes it silly not to take them.

Well, no. . . you could just split off Exarchs again and call the "sergeant" a "champion" or whatever, put up a menu of Exarch options to choose from for the new character, an we can all be on our merry way. Imagine an Exarch box that was similar to the SM Captain box. One kit with a ton of gear options to you could build the loadout of your choice. Done deal!

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh. I see. The fact that thats necessary is nuts.

To be fair, though, if you are trying to introduce a new player, this kind of list building should 100% be standard, regardless of whether that new player is using Marines.
But I agree that, with Marines, you have to tone down disproportionately compared to other factions

-

Two of the last three new marine players i saw got skunked; one by demons one by drukhari. Both times the gw store guy said marines can handle it and blamed it on die rolls. He told them not to tone down bc primaris is so amazing.

Martel732 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh. I see. The fact that thats necessary is nuts.

To be fair, though, if you are trying to introduce a new player, this kind of list building should 100% be standard, regardless of whether that new player is using Marines.
But I agree that, with Marines, you have to tone down disproportionately compared to other factions

-

Two of the last three new marine players i saw got skunked; one by demons one by drukhari. Both times the gw store guy said marines can handle it and blamed it on die rolls.

Being new players won't help.

Just pointing out that gw stores have no idea whats really going on. I told the guy im not buying an executioner bc you guys put so many invulns in the game. Its got no targets except other marines and ig.

One sure does not speak for all stores.

Sorry, but that's not at all been my experience. You need a better group, a better local game store, and a better meta.

Players are not really at fault for the printing of plaguebearers, smite, and disintegrator cannons. Its an old debate that marines find themselves on the wrong end of. Again.

Martel732 wrote:
Players are not really at fault for the printing of plaguebearers, smite, and disintegrator cannons. Its an old debate that marines find themselves on the wrong end of. Again.

Players are at fault for not gettin' gud.

I feel like they won't squat Terminators specifically. Too much in the fluff/iconic. Deathwing and multiple Terminator specific chapter kits (wolves and DA)

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think you justify the fluff through the stats. Guard are statistically inferior to Space Marines.

The issue is the D6 system. It inherently throws the fluff out the window by making the guardman way more powerful than he should be.

So why not just charge the appropriate points while acknowledging this problem?

Ideally that is what should happen. Guardsman need to go up a point and space marines need to go down several. When will GW do this though/will they... idk. Personally i would liek to see 11 point marines to start with and adjust down if they are still performing poorly.

OK, but, Guardsman cost isn't the issue. They are not at all intrinsically related. Guardsmen are appropriately costed, and Space marines are too high. Guard don't get access to all the golly gee whiz cool kid stuff that SMs do. Then again, who cares, the NuMarines are replacing Oldboys anyway.

 Stevefamine wrote:
I feel like they won't squat Terminators specifically. Too much in the fluff/iconic. Deathwing and multiple Terminator specific chapter kits (wolves and DA)

I don't think they will "squat" anything.

They have already made pretty much every one of the truly vast number of Marine combinations in plastic - they just won't do (many) new ones for the older Marine range.

They will keep selling them as long as they are bought.

Its better that they focuss on one range of marines rather than having the resouce guzzling drain of 2 (Old Marines and Primaris) (Not even counting a thrird huge rang in 30k) taking away from all the other factions when theyhave already completed (and more) the base Marine range that call all still be purchased.

TOTALLY CRAZY IDEA INCOMMING!!!!

Guys, what about.....

50k???????

40k becomes the legacy models, like AoS or 30k. 50k is all primaris, 9th ed....etc.

Then nothing really gets "squatted" and no one becomes invalid? Also, we could FINALLLLLY advance the lore.

BIG E: DED
ELDUR: DED

Vigilus goes wide open, and Chaos becomes new TOP DOG in the Universe. Maybe Bobby G goes on the Golden Throne? Maybe Draigo?

One thing weird is they made primaris bigger, when really they should have looked at making the regular marine more compact.

Marines are already big, strong and tougher than just about anything short of an actual monster, and primaris does nothing to fix that.

Also, the size helps more in close combat which primaris have actually moved away from compared to normal marines.

The extra size means they are easier to hit, and need even more special measures when going to places designed for smaller humanoids. In fact, it's a liability when doing actual... Marine things like boarding a spaceship. For things like that, a normal Space Marine in a smaller humansized package would be much more useful, and it's a situation where CQC prowess actually is more relevant too.

All in all, we must conclude that hugeness leads to heresy.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

ELDUR: DED

You just made all the wrong people all too happy.

 Daba wrote:
One thing weird is they made primaris bigger, when really they should have looked at making the regular marine more compact.

Marines are already big, strong and tougher than just about anything short of an actual monster, and primaris does nothing to fix that.

Also, the size helps more in close combat which primaris have actually moved away from compared to normal marines.

The extra size means they are easier to hit, and need even more special measures when going to places designed for smaller humanoids. In fact, it's a liability when doing actual... Marine things like boarding a spaceship. For things like that, a normal Space Marine in a smaller humansized package would be much more useful, and it's a situation where CQC prowess actually is more relevant too.

All in all, we must conclude that hugeness leads to heresy.

"And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!"

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think you justify the fluff through the stats. Guard are statistically inferior to Space Marines.

The issue is the D6 system. It inherently throws the fluff out the window by making the guardman way more powerful than he should be.

So why not just charge the appropriate points while acknowledging this problem?

Ideally that is what should happen. Guardsman need to go up a point and space marines need to go down several. When will GW do this though/will they... idk. Personally i would liek to see 11 point marines to start with and adjust down if they are still performing poorly.

OK, but, Guardsman cost isn't the issue. They are not at all intrinsically related. Guardsmen are appropriately costed, and Space marines are too high. Guard don't get access to all the golly gee whiz cool kid stuff that SMs do. Then again, who cares, the NuMarines are replacing Oldboys anyway.

It is pretty clear to everyone but Reeice that gaurdsmen are OP. They are closer to 6 points in value than 4 points. The whole scale of cheap troops is messed up. The cheaper the better. They aren't there to kill things. They are there to get you objective holding and cheap command points and get in the way. With guardsmen you just end up getting the best of the best - the cheapest...with the most damage and mobility potential. You really must understand that guardsmen are OP. The more points you put into a single wound model the less return you get on your investment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daba wrote:
One thing weird is they made primaris bigger, when really they should have looked at making the regular marine more compact.

Marines are already big, strong and tougher than just about anything short of an actual monster, and primaris does nothing to fix that.

Also, the size helps more in close combat which primaris have actually moved away from compared to normal marines.

The extra size means they are easier to hit, and need even more special measures when going to places designed for smaller humanoids. In fact, it's a liability when doing actual... Marine things like boarding a spaceship. For things like that, a normal Space Marine in a smaller humansized package would be much more useful, and it's a situation where CQC prowess actually is more relevant too.

All in all, we must conclude that hugeness leads to heresy.

Actually...Catachan guardsmen are as strong as a primaris marine.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Actually...Catachan guardsmen are as strong as a primaris marine.

Game stats do not make it so.