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.

Just painted up a Hammerfall bunker for our group's campaign, and just laughable at how bad it's current stats are for 175pts.

Got me thinking, if GW released the marine codex right now, in today's power creep meta, what would the stats be...

Probably something like

Superkrak 2D3, S10, AP-3, D3+3 damage, with a strat to allow it to ignore invulns.
Heavy Bolter arrays would be Heavy 6 at least.
BS4? nah, got buff that crap, those are rookie numbers. BS3 plus an inbuilt reroll for some reason.
Superfrag would probably be 4D3 S6 AP-2 1D, no LOS required.

Crazy how far we have come in 2 short years. What's sad is that my inflated guess would probably be close to the truth.

What else would be buffed, firestorm turrets? Take your pick.

AP-4 on all gauss weapons.

 vict0988 wrote:
AP-4 on all gauss weapons.

*looks at thread title*

Tell me, vict, how many Gauss weapons do you see in the Space Marine 'dex?

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
AP-4 on all gauss weapons.

*looks at thread title*

Tell me, vict, how many Gauss weapons do you see in the Space Marine 'dex?

Oh gak, I wasn't supposed to let anyone know about the new gauss bolter

Deathwatch hyperphase swords xenophase blades are already better than the puny alien version anyway...

AP -1 on stormbolters would be nice.

Karol wrote:
AP -1 on stormbolters would be nice.

only if you get rid of doctrines.

My dudes don't get doctrines.

Karol wrote:
My dudes don't get doctrines.

still, get rid of regular doctrines and make them ap-1 for everything is better than being ap-2

I’d like to see a buff for the assault cannon, or a massive points reduction, but since it is not primaris I guess it will stay as is now

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
AP -1 on stormbolters would be nice.

only if you get rid of doctrines.

As a Death Guard player: yes.

Doctrines implementation is a joke anyway, why should it improve AP? Much better to change it to be similar to current chapter traits and then allow specific chapters to spend extra turn in that doctrine.
Devastator...+1 to hit if stationary
Tactical...fall back and shoot at -1 to hit, 6s to hit with bolt weapons add extra hit.
Assault... No neg for advance and shoot assault weapons, +1 to charge rolls.

I think most marine weapons are fine other than lascannons and the like that suffer from swingy d6 damage. It's the same with the necron codex.

It's particularly bad on Doomsday cannons, demolishers, etc that are d6 shots, d6 damage.

IMO variable damage weapons should not exist. it just adds yet another dice roll to a game that already has too much dice rolling

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


still, get rid of regular doctrines and make them ap-1 for everything is better than being ap-2

SoB stormbolters do 2D and have synergies. GW can leave the marine stuff there way it is . Name the GK ones extra blessed stormbolters and make them both -2AP and D2. Wouldn't be worse then anything being used by other armies right now, and would maybe make termintors less bad.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
IMO variable damage weapons should not exist. it just adds yet another dice roll to a game that already has too much dice rolling

I complained in 7th that it seems GW rules writers idea of fun is to roll as many dice as humanly possible to resolve each little thing. What warlord trait does my centuries-old commander have today? Let's roll a dice for it! What powers did all my psykers learn when they woke up today? More dice rolling! Yes, this is so much fun! I haven't even deployed and I got to roll a bunch of dice for totally random effects that may or may not even help me in this game. Truly the peak of game design... I like random shots/damage weapons even less than I liked random warlord traits and psychic powers.

Well it is the illusion of good game based on some skew roll winning you game. Which can work if someone plays 1-2 games per month. the a player with a few lucky rolls can have fun for a year. Problems start when you are playing 5-6 games per week, plus potential training games. Then the rolls avarge out and you see what is efficient and what is not.

Toofast wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
IMO variable damage weapons should not exist. it just adds yet another dice roll to a game that already has too much dice rolling

I complained in 7th that it seems GW rules writers idea of fun is to roll as many dice as humanly possible to resolve each little thing. What warlord trait does my centuries-old commander have today? Let's roll a dice for it! What powers did all my psykers learn when they woke up today? More dice rolling! Yes, this is so much fun! I haven't even deployed and I got to roll a bunch of dice for totally random effects that may or may not even help me in this game. Truly the peak of game design... I like random shots/damage weapons even less than I liked random warlord traits and psychic powers.

The horror of playing a game of chance with ways to resolve interactions between plastic army men.

Like the presence of dice (to represent chance) have been almost as static as the presence of physical models throughout the history of the game. Otherwise, it is just people moving around and pointing at the other player's models saying "I got you!" which is followed by "nuh uh, my shield stops your bullets!"

I don't get the mentality that seems to be divorcing chance from outcomes. Kinda moving outside the boundaries of what the game is supposed to be (some days that unit is super hot... other days... not so much... as told to you by dice rolls).

As for marine weapons? I think the traditional bolter line should be rolled into the nu-bolter line with the Primaris. Like the extra range and AP of the primaris weapon line should be ported into those old profiles to "modernize" them and maybe breathe some life into the firstborn line. I also don't like the shifting doctrine thing and how certain points in the game bring different ebbs and flows to that weaponry, but I'm not a SM player... so feel free to disregard ALL of my commentary. I dunno, a foundational thing like -1AP on an entire line of weaponry for a turn or two? It is pretty big, but can make the game feel clunky if you like... I dunno... don't diversify your list enough and lost all combat doctrine benefits for the entire game after Devastator doctrine? The more I think on it, I kind of like the spoiled Chaos ones a little more. Extra hits across the course of the game may be more what SMs need since volume seems to be their weakness. May help them hang with Harlequins more than that extra point of AP on turn 1.

As another aside, I think the SM fortifications got hit really hard with how GW decided to treat terrain at organized events. I thought some of those units would be really annoying if they could drop near an objective, or close to a couple of objectives to give you a little fire support over a valuable section of the battlefield. Instead what you got was restrictions that relegated it to the deepest, darkest corner of the battlefield and given no chance of even attempting to make its name. Kind of hard to balance it when you can't even reliably place the thing to see how good/bad/meh it is on the table in a meaningful way.

I think the only truly "bad" weapon right now is the lascannon, and I'd argue that plasma needs a change (but I know i'd be in the majority saying 1s do a mortal wound instead of outright slaying infantry, plus wound allocation rules would be a problem sometimes).

Marines have an overpricing problem right now on almost all of their platforms, though. Almost everything is over-pointed significantly.

Quasistellar wrote:
Marines have an overpricing problem right now on almost all of their platforms, though. Almost everything is over-pointed significantly.

I rather like to think other armies are under pointed, really.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


still, get rid of regular doctrines and make them ap-1 for everything is better than being ap-2

SoB stormbolters do 2D and have synergies. GW can leave the marine stuff there way it is . Name the GK ones extra blessed stormbolters and make them both -2AP and D2. Wouldn't be worse then anything being used by other armies right now, and would maybe make termintors less bad.

no, stormbolters should still be high rate of fire, low damage weapons. if you want your GK to deal more than 1 damage, you can smite/melee or use your heavy weapons.

and how do sisters get damage 2 stormbolters? i'm guessing from a strat?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:
I think the only truly "bad" weapon right now is the lascannon, and I'd argue that plasma needs a change (but I know i'd be in the majority saying 1s do a mortal wound instead of outright slaying infantry, plus wound allocation rules would be a problem sometimes).

Marines have an overpricing problem right now on almost all of their platforms, though. Almost everything is over-pointed significantly.

I'm begging GW to make all plasma just do a number of mortal wounds. Shooting with a squad of plasma terminators is the most time consuming, annoying thing (well, technically the jumpack primaris dudes with 2d3 plasma shots is even worse)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
Marines have an overpricing problem right now on almost all of their platforms, though. Almost everything is over-pointed significantly.

I rather like to think other armies are under pointed, really.

I honestly feel that if every codex was the same powerlevel as marines, the game would be much better

Quasistellar wrote:
I think the only truly "bad" weapon right now is the lascannon, and I'd argue that plasma needs a change (but I know i'd be in the majority saying 1s do a mortal wound instead of outright slaying infantry, plus wound allocation rules would be a problem sometimes).

Question - why would wound allocation be a problem? Nothing wrong with the concept that someone else picks up the smoking plasma weapon after it has had a bit of time to cool down and be functional again...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
IMO variable damage weapons should not exist. it just adds yet another dice roll to a game that already has too much dice rolling

Still better than variable shot weapons . . .

 vipoid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
IMO variable damage weapons should not exist. it just adds yet another dice roll to a game that already has too much dice rolling

Still better than variable shot weapons . . .

both are bad

 Dysartes wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
I think the only truly "bad" weapon right now is the lascannon, and I'd argue that plasma needs a change (but I know i'd be in the majority saying 1s do a mortal wound instead of outright slaying infantry, plus wound allocation rules would be a problem sometimes).

Question - why would wound allocation be a problem? Nothing wrong with the concept that someone else picks up the smoking plasma weapon after it has had a bit of time to cool down and be functional again...

I think rules as written currently it would be a problem where more than one marine model could take a wound, but it's easily corrected when you change the rule to just "the unit takes a mortal wound" instead.

Plasma is soooo swingy on infantry and hard to balance right now -- it's either so strong that it's the best weapon, or it's trash. Part of that is that it kills whatever holds it, and some of those models are expensive (plasma inceptors are 60 points per model).

Daed is probably right though in that other new codexes are really undercosted, but there's still some really bad internal balance in the marine codex that's been there from the beginning.

I think GW rules writers are having a REALLY hard time figuring out what's "good" -- I mean look at the voidweaver. That thing is BUSTED. GW logic : "it's t5 6 wounds 4+ save so it's definitely not worth over 10 points more than a marine ATV, no sir".

9th edition is absolutely obliterating their slow codex release model where your faction's "balance patch" is released years after the start of the edition, but in the meantime the original codexes you would have been balanced against have been nerfed into oblivion.

Digital simultaneous release OR real -- PAID -- play testing really has to happen, like, yesterday.

 bullyboy wrote:
Superkrak 2D3, S10, AP-3, D3+3 damage, with a strat to allow it to ignore invulns

Seeing this thing is 50% more expensive than a HH, it should do something like 2D6 dam + 6 mortal wounds to keep up - of course then all xeno players who now smugly prattle how railgun is "tOtEs BaLaNcEd BrO GiT gUd" or "we have far bigger cheese in our book so it's totally weak LOL" would howl how broken this gak is. I'd buy a ticket and a bucket of popcorn to see it

The Black Adder wrote:
I think most marine weapons are fine

Try comparing them to xeno gak. It usually costs half of comparable SM weapon and does more damage (looking at you, assault cannon). Then there is the fact that xeno HQs break it even more by being able to combine 2+ BS with high speed/high power weapon spam, option that simply does not exist for SM characters. Tau dude can take 4 melta/plasma (then up it to that 3 dam no saves possible plasma rifle or a lot of other broken gak), eldar autarchs can now take some really broken wombo combos combined with jet pack or bike - on SM side, enjoy walking with your plasma pistol or at best combi-plasma (bolter if you like primaris). Really, the idea SM character can't take plasma gun (or whatever primaris equivalent is) to fully use their statline is just stupid, and the fact that your expensive storm shields do nothing in the face of cheap xeno guns allowing no saves is A+++ game design

Daedalus81 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
Marines have an overpricing problem right now on almost all of their platforms, though. Almost everything is over-pointed significantly.

I rather like to think other armies are under pointed, really.

I could agree with that. But there's still some internal balance issues in the loyalist codex, especially where their tanks are concerned. There's probably a middle point where the older codexes like loyalists and the newer ones need to meet.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
IMO variable damage weapons should not exist. it just adds yet another dice roll to a game that already has too much dice rolling

Still better than variable shot weapons . . .

both are bad

Especially when it's both on the same weapon. Doomsday Cannons and Demolisher Cannons say "hello".

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

and how do sisters get damage 2 stormbolters? i'm guessing from a strat?

It’s a special weapon. Costs 5 points.

Purifying Tempest wrote:


The horror of playing a game of chance with ways to resolve interactions between plastic army men.

Like the presence of dice (to represent chance) have been almost as static as the presence of physical models throughout the history of the game. Otherwise, it is just people moving around and pointing at the other player's models saying "I got you!" which is followed by "nuh uh, my shield stops your bullets!"

I don't get the mentality that seems to be divorcing chance from outcomes. Kinda moving outside the boundaries of what the game is supposed to be (some days that unit is super hot... other days... not so much... as told to you by dice rolls).

I have no problem with chance dictating outcomes of effectiveness, the issue was always that a random dice chance would completely alter a unit's role on the battlefield. Not knowing whether your Librarian would randomly end up as a beatstick or if he'd instead be a support unit or if it'd be something else entirely.

There was also the issue of Warlord traits being useless depending on circumstances - Many, many choices were utterly pointless and if you rolled them, you were effectively debuffed for the entire game with no way to plan around it or fix it. Your Warboss with a Power Klaw got +1 Strength? Well... he's already S10, which is capped, so you don't actually get *any* buff.

It's not just a matter of getting a poor roll and not doing as much damage as you'd want to, or failing a save, or what-have-you. It's that the results were *incredibly* swingy and could turn a unit from gold to trash (or visa-versa), it made listbuilding around particular roles difficult, and ultimately it just incentivized players to either spam units so that you're guaranteed to get the power you need, or to only take the reliable choices. (IE 'Prescience Spam', which dominated every psychic army by virtue of being pretty good and also being guaranteed.)

Quasistellar wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
I think the only truly "bad" weapon right now is the lascannon, and I'd argue that plasma needs a change (but I know i'd be in the majority saying 1s do a mortal wound instead of outright slaying infantry, plus wound allocation rules would be a problem sometimes).

Question - why would wound allocation be a problem? Nothing wrong with the concept that someone else picks up the smoking plasma weapon after it has had a bit of time to cool down and be functional again...

I think rules as written currently it would be a problem where more than one marine model could take a wound, but it's easily corrected when you change the rule to just "the unit takes a mortal wound" instead.

It wouldn't create a problem. It's simple. You just put a wound marker on the plasma gunner. Further wounds/MW done in general get allocated to a wounded model as normal. Doesn't matter wich wounded model. Further MW generated by future plasma gun failures get applied to the plasma gunner.