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 wasn't just the Bolter not ignoring even the 6+ save. It's also that those units for the most part got cheaper.

GW basically kept the prices of everything the same when completely changing the mechanics and didn't think that out. Same thing with the wounding system.

 catbarf wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
and make tactical choices actually more tactical.

I'm not sure how they can really do that, without reintroducing the leadership-based mechanics (target priority tests, meaningful morale, etc) that have been systematically stripped out of the game over the years. In a system where everything comes down to mobility, offense, and defense, there's nothing fundamentally different between an Ork Nob and a Space Marine.

If the game had more of a C&C element to it, like unit activation mechanics a la Epic, then that would be the logical thing for Marines to excel at. But not having that dimension to play in puts them in a rough spot.

My first idea would actually be reintroducing leadership mechanics. Yes, whether GW will do that is doubtful, but we're just talking theoretical.

If nothing else, closing the melee/range balance gap would help

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This has become one of the most cringe-worthy threads on this forum right now.

It's pretty clear what Scotsman is trying to illustrate with his examples at the start of this thread.

Does anyone actually believe that Marines and in particular Intercessors are balanced right now? If the answer is 'no' then why are people picking bizarre, minor faults with the OP and using extreme, outlier examples to prove it wrong?

I get this is dakka, the place where we argue for the sake of it sometimes, but I'm still amazed at how contentious this thread has become.

That marines are not balanced doesn't mean intercessors are OP. Intercessors were 17 points in CA 2018. Beta Bolters came a month later. Shock Assault was a few weeks before supplements. Is it 5 extra S4 AP0 attacks that really tipped the boat for people?

It is kind of just soap boxing without a real desire to address the root issue.

Yes intercessors are OP as a troops choice now more than ever with traits and doctrines.

Absolutely no chance... There was a reason for this change. Apparently people wanted "more accessible" "simpler" "quicker" etc... and reading rules was apparently beyond the target markets ability (LOL).

I guess it worked for the shareholders as the profits have bene going up and up...So here we are with this husk of a game rerolling buckets of dice...The only real "tactical mechanic" is how many rerolls can you apply to your killiest unit. But I guess its fine as the killiest guys are now movie marines.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This has become one of the most cringe-worthy threads on this forum right now.

It's pretty clear what Scotsman is trying to illustrate with his examples at the start of this thread.

Does anyone actually believe that Marines and in particular Intercessors are balanced right now? If the answer is 'no' then why are people picking bizarre, minor faults with the OP and using extreme, outlier examples to prove it wrong?

I get this is dakka, the place where we argue for the sake of it sometimes, but I'm still amazed at how contentious this thread has become.

That marines are not balanced doesn't mean intercessors are OP. Intercessors were 17 points in CA 2018. Beta Bolters came a month later. Shock Assault was a few weeks before supplements. Is it 5 extra S4 AP0 attacks that really tipped the boat for people?

It is kind of just soap boxing without a real desire to address the root issue.

Seems to me the package deal is the issue. The additional shots, attacks and AP from doctrines pushes Intercessors into an uncomfortable space in relation to numerous other units.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Seems to me the package deal is the issue. The additional shots, attacks and AP from doctrines pushes Intercessors into an uncomfortable space in relation to numerous other units.

Yes, but the Intercessor's we're talking about don't really benefit in that manner.

WS see no benefit until turn 3.
BT see no benefit until turn 3.
RG see no benefit in melee.
UM Intercessors wouldn't be until round 2.
SBRs aren't moving up to melee very often and suffer greatly against hordes.
Salamanders get a reroll and some AP shade.
IF don't care to be in melee and would never want Bolt Rifles.
IH would never want Bolt Rifles.

Popular successors are +3" and MA - both of which give no real gaks about stock Intercessors.

The worst of the worst an an IH SBR. Pit that against a WS ABR and demonstrate that Intercessors as a whole are problematic.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Seems to me the package deal is the issue. The additional shots, attacks and AP from doctrines pushes Intercessors into an uncomfortable space in relation to numerous other units.

Yes, but the Intercessor's we're talking about don't really benefit in that manner.

WS see no benefit until turn 3.
BT see no benefit until turn 3.
RG see no benefit in melee.
UM Intercessors wouldn't be until round 2.
SBRs aren't moving up to melee very often and suffer greatly against hordes.
Salamanders get a reroll and some AP shade.
IF don't care to be in melee and would never want Bolt Rifles.
IH would never want Bolt Rifles.

Popular successors are +3" and MA - both of which give no real gaks about stock Intercessors.

The worst of the worst an an IH SBR. Pit that against a WS ABR and demonstrate that Intercessors as a whole are problematic.

Speaking only for UM, they can get two units into Tactical on turn 1. Without any supplements, Intercessors are going to see turn 2 anyways, in which case that AP-2 can be in full swing at players discression.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Speaking only for UM, they can get two units into Tactical on turn 1. Without any supplements, Intercessors are going to see turn 2 anyways, in which case that AP-2 can be in full swing at players discression.

Sure, but is that trait and CP spend for an extra point of AP and a bit of movement flexibility wrecking games (it also necessitates two full 10 man units)? Is it somehow more powerful that double shoot from CSM?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Speaking only for UM, they can get two units into Tactical on turn 1. Without any supplements, Intercessors are going to see turn 2 anyways, in which case that AP-2 can be in full swing at players discression.

Sure, but is that trait and CP spend for an extra point of AP and a bit of movement flexibility wrecking games (it also necessitates two full 10 man units)? Is it somehow more powerful that double shoot from CSM?

Ignore the UM part. The more relevant part to the discussion is the second bit. Hilighted.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Speaking only for UM, they can get two units into Tactical on turn 1. Without any supplements, Intercessors are going to see turn 2 anyways, in which case that AP-2 can be in full swing at players discression.

Sure, but is that trait and CP spend for an extra point of AP and a bit of movement flexibility wrecking games (it also necessitates two full 10 man units)? Is it somehow more powerful that double shoot from CSM?

Ignore the UM part. The more relevant part to the discussion is the second bit. Hilighted.

Sure, but is the obscenely powerful? It's certainly good and UM are probably the only one who would care to do it, anyway.

Put another way - which would you rather have?

20 S7 AP3 D2 and 40 S4 AP1

or

20 S7 AP2 D2 and 40 S4 AP2

The latter, of course.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Speaking only for UM, they can get two units into Tactical on turn 1. Without any supplements, Intercessors are going to see turn 2 anyways, in which case that AP-2 can be in full swing at players discression.

Sure, but is that trait and CP spend for an extra point of AP and a bit of movement flexibility wrecking games (it also necessitates two full 10 man units)? Is it somehow more powerful that double shoot from CSM?

Ignore the UM part. The more relevant part to the discussion is the second bit. Hilighted.

Sure, but is the obscenely powerful? It's certainly good and UM are probably the only one who would care to do it, anyway.

Put another way - which would you rather have?

20 S7 AP3 D2 and 40 S4 AP1

or

20 S7 AP2 D2 and 40 S4 AP2

weird equivalency, since the entire army takes advantage of the doctrine and it depends on what Im fightung against anyways. Whats the sourse of the 20 S7 shots anyways?

 JNAProductions wrote:
The latter, of course.

The first is more dead Primaris equivalents.

I missed the strength and damage values-thought it was something else.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The latter, of course.

The first is more dead Primaris equivalents.

But basically equal vs. MEQ (CSM/Necron Immortals). I get 10.6 vs 10.3.

Personally I fight enough hard targets with invulns (Leviathans, Custodes, Knights) to make the Heavy Doctrine often pretty useless in comparison to pumping my bajillion bolters by a point of AP.

I still want to know where those 20 S7 D2 shots are coming from, and why that's equivalent to a single Intercessor squad for the purpose of this scenario.

 Insectum7 wrote:
weird equivalency, since the entire army takes advantage of the doctrine and it depends on what Im fightung against anyways. Whats the sourse of the 20 S7 shots anyways?

A Levi who wants to be in Heavy. It is much harder to build an effective army around Rapid Fire over Heavy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
weird equivalency, since the entire army takes advantage of the doctrine and it depends on what Im fightung against anyways. Whats the sourse of the 20 S7 shots anyways?

A Levi who wants to be in Heavy. It is much harder to build an effective army around Rapid Fire over Heavy.

Ah right, brain fart I thought they were S8. I was thinking about the Scorpius for some reason.

So A: You're comparing a 160 point unit to a (whatever Leviathan costs these days)

And B: Against a Leviathan the extra AP doesn't matter for most heavy weapons.

Bonus: playing UM I just keep the Leviathan in Heavy doctrine.

Bonus bonus: with UM I Oath against it, and use the extra AP on the bolters to pitter patter away at it more effectively.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
weird equivalency, since the entire army takes advantage of the doctrine and it depends on what Im fightung against anyways. Whats the sourse of the 20 S7 shots anyways?

A Levi who wants to be in Heavy. It is much harder to build an effective army around Rapid Fire over Heavy.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that a leviathan isn't a greater threat than four squads of intercessors. But that leviathan is a heavy support choice. Intercessors are troops. They can be used to fill troops slots that provide cp while offering a significant threat in both shooting and melee, while still having objective secured, all while being moderately survivable. And that cp they help provide only makes that leviathan more effective.

Most factions don't have troops capable of that much heavy lifting, and are forced to spend points on those less effective troops to fill slots in order to fill out detachments to acquire cp that could have been spent on superior units instead. The availability of intercessors means sm players points are used more effectively just because of their greater utility.

I don't think this is a problem with intercessors but more a problem caused by the current system of strategems and cp production, combined with the poor troops choices many factions are saddled with. But it's still another factor in space marine's current superiority.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Ah right, brain fart I thought they were S8. I was thinking about the Scorpius for some reason.

So A: You're comparing a 160 point unit to a (whatever Leviathan costs these days)

And B: Against a Leviathan the extra AP doesn't matter for most heavy weapons.

Bonus: playing UM I just keep the Leviathan in Heavy doctrine.

Bonus bonus: with UM I Oath against it, and use the extra AP on the bolters to pitter patter away at it more effectively.

It'd be 340 plus the Warlord, Trait, and CP to do that, which is knight level points while also reducing CP generation to get the best force multiplier.

I mean, intecessors are basically 2W 30" Rubric Marines that are better in close combat. iirc Intercessors are also cheaper than Rubrics and can recieve more buffs than them

I think that kinda highlights how good they are

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Ah right, brain fart I thought they were S8. I was thinking about the Scorpius for some reason.

So A: You're comparing a 160 point unit to a (whatever Leviathan costs these days)

And B: Against a Leviathan the extra AP doesn't matter for most heavy weapons.

Bonus: playing UM I just keep the Leviathan in Heavy doctrine.

Bonus bonus: with UM I Oath against it, and use the extra AP on the bolters to pitter patter away at it more effectively.

It'd be 340 plus the Warlord, Trait, and CP to do that, which is knight level points while also reducing CP generation to get the best force multiplier.

I'm not sure the ultimate point of what you're saying, but a Leviathan is 340 points then? If so your scenario is a 170 point unit against a 340 point unit.

I mean if intercessors aren't all that great Ill happily trade them foe some eldar Guardians yeah ? doctrines rules starts n' all yeah?? I'm sure SM players wont mind seeing as intercessors aren't all that OP or even good apparently.

 Argive wrote:
I mean if intercessors aren't all that great Ill happily trade them foe some eldar Guardians yeah ? doctrines rules starts n' all yeah?? I'm sure SM players wont mind seeing as intercessors aren't all that OP or even good apparently.

I dunno man, those 12" range guns are pretty OP.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

I don't think anyone is going to argue that a leviathan isn't a greater threat than four squads of intercessors. But that leviathan is a heavy support choice. Intercessors are troops. They can be used to fill troops slots that provide cp while offering a significant threat in both shooting and melee, while still having objective secured, all while being moderately survivable. And that cp they help provide only makes that leviathan more effective.

Most factions don't have troops capable of that much heavy lifting, and are forced to spend points on those less effective troops to fill slots in order to fill out detachments to acquire cp that could have been spent on superior units instead. The availability of intercessors means sm players points are used more effectively just because of their greater utility.

I don't think this is a problem with intercessors but more a problem caused by the current system of strategems and cp production, combined with the poor troops choices many factions are saddled with. But it's still another factor in space marine's current superiority.

I mean, I guess? Intercessors have never been a "problem" in my games. My opponent is usually out of CP by turn 2 and it isn't being spent on them.

So you've got durable troops giving CP and kicking off decent chaff clearing. The determination to where other armies can't compete past this line gets muddy real quick.

It was't that long ago that IS were considered by many to be the ultra-mega-best troops in the game. You could probably find a post from me doing math hammer on beta bolter Primaris fighting them and arguing for people to use them more.

I guess my point is - gak's complicated.

I think you're over complicating it. The thread isn't about the win rates of marines overall, it's about how "elite" (nu)marines as combatants feel in comparison to other main-line infantry. This bit about the Leviathan is a sideshow.

I think that rule simplifications have a lot to do with the current imbalances.

It seems that progressively the game has been dumbed down. This comes with someone who jumped from 2n / 3rd to 8th.

For example, initiative and skill comparisons are gone from melee combat. It appears now that “skilled” melee combat has to do with 1) getting the charge, 2) cheesing movement to tag units, sling and so on, which are just pure gamey mechanics.

Same with target choosing and the various leadership checks.

When you take so many strategic elements out and it becomes a game of just “jumping” your opponent, it is hard to differentiate units. Elite, in war, often has to do with better strategic coordination.

Then I hear one tournament player after another using jump pack charge units with thunderfists saying they have a finesse army. I don’t doubt they are smart people, but the tactics seem very elementary to me. I guess hats the game in 8th?

Marines are obviously to good as of now. This will be corrected in the coming years but for now we have to deal with it. Ive been dealing with being marines -1 as a chaos player for years and years.

GW will let the current FOTM ride for a while, because money. But in the end, it will correct and well go back to having Eldar/Tau tournaments.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think you're over complicating it. The thread isn't about the win rates of marines overall, it's about how "elite" (nu)marines as combatants feel in comparison to other main-line infantry. This bit about the Leviathan is a sideshow.

Right. Which is the point I'm trying to make, possibly not clearly enough.

Intercessors should be stronger one on one with most other troops, but not point for point. Troops are supposed to be the backbone of an army. But right now sm have a much stronger backbone than most. Intercessors don't feel like a waste of points like csm, or cultists. Many factions need to throw elite, fast attack, or heavy support options at them to have a good shot at winning a fight. I'm not arguing that intercessors are too good, it's that other factions troops are too bad.

And yeah, gaks complicated.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think you're over complicating it. The thread isn't about the win rates of marines overall, it's about how "elite" (nu)marines as combatants feel in comparison to other main-line infantry. This bit about the Leviathan is a sideshow.

Right. Which is the point I'm trying to make, possibly not clearly enough.

Intercessors should be stronger one on one with most other troops, but not point for point. Troops are supposed to be the backbone of an army. But right now sm have a much stronger backbone than most. Intercessors don't feel like a waste of points like csm, or cultists. Many factions need to throw elite, fast attack, or heavy support options at them to have a good shot at winning a fight. I'm not arguing that intercessors are too good, it's that other factions troops are too bad.

And yeah, gaks complicated.

I agree with the first half, but your conclusion is weird to me. Other troops are too bad is obviously a relative statement. If you make other troops better, marines obviously won’t be as elite.

IMHO the problem is that there are so few variables left in the game that to make them elite they need to award them massive amounts of raw power. They cannot be simply better coordinated, because that means very little in game right now.

Lethality can be too high, specially with those rerolls. I guess you got jumped by a 30-40 attacks with rerolled super hammer time unit (ignores most armor and toughness isn’t a defense), game over avatar of khaine.

Why did banshees and scorpions do better, as I recall, in my editions? Because they got good initiative and were skilled fighters. Now, they just don’t have the raw stats to compete.

Banshees didn't do better. You're looking through rose tinted glasses there. Scorpions had the deployment shenanigans at least, but weren't exactly making any waves.