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.

Hi all,

I personally would like space Marines to stay the same price. Would +1w and +1a to most space Marines profiles justify their cost?

Apply this to power armor and terminator so PA has 2w and 2a and terminator has 3w and 3a. Primaris goes to 3w as well. Would they be worth their current cost?

Also, the standard bolter has a .75 caliber round. Should that come up in strength as well?

2W would be way too good for their current cost.

 Smotejob wrote:
Hi all,

I personally would like space Marines to stay the same price. Would +1w and +1a to most space Marines profiles justify their cost?

Apply this to power armor and terminator so PA has 2w and 2a and terminator has 3w and 3a. Primaris goes to 3w as well. Would they be worth their current cost?

Also, the standard bolter has a .75 caliber round. Should that come up in strength as well?

Too much, they would become 13 point intercessors.

The "fixes" to marines have been widely proposed, but i guess that now that you have opened this thread we are going to hear them all over again.

SM don't have profiles or points costs issues, they just don't have effective synergies that don't involve a gunline. Strategems are also very bland.

Give the basic marine statline +1A, also let Marines fire Bolt weapons twice. The biggest problem with SM is their lack of anti-horde offensive output, and this solves that.

EDIT: “anti-horde”, not “anti-horse”

 Blackie wrote:
SM don't have profiles or points costs issues, they just don't have effective synergies that don't involve a gunline. Strategems are also very bland.

If marines did not have a points cost issue people might play on the top tables them however as you can see MEC are pretty much all trash since they are paying out the ass for their 3+ save and S4 shooting in an edition where quantity is key Tacs are worth like 11 points ATM they do extremely low damage for their cost and get hit hard by all types of guns.

I don't want cheaper marines, I want them to be more effective. A very good start would be to allow 2 special weapons plus the champs weapon in a squad of 5. Like scions or sisters etc.
Considering marines are supposed to be the pinnacle of the universe's warriors I find it ridiculous that 3 in 5 of them are only capable of picking up a humble bolter...

Bolters are not supposed to be humble, that's the main problem.

Cheaper all the way. All the "fixes" are non-functional.

Abaddon303 wrote:
I don't want cheaper marines, I want them to be more effective. A very good start would be to allow 2 special weapons plus the champs weapon in a squad of 5. Like scions or sisters etc.
Considering marines are supposed to be the pinnacle of the universe's warriors I find it ridiculous that 3 in 5 of them are only capable of picking up a humble bolter...

It's exactly this. They don't need to be cheaper or more resilient. They just need to have more punch, especially in combat. And more effective strategems: when I read the codex SM I haven't seen a single one that appealed to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Bolters are not supposed to be humble, that's the main problem.

Why not? They are supposed to be the standard S4 anti infantry weapon that every army has, or an equivalent to it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
2W would be way too good for their current cost.

While I think 2 wounds is absolutely silly (especially when Primaris exist for that role), you're like the last person that should be saying Marines are fine in any way. In your casual "do whatever you want" area, you'll literally never see a problem ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
SM don't have profiles or points costs issues, they just don't have effective synergies that don't involve a gunline. Strategems are also very bland.

Their own troops lose to firefights against most other troops, are out-fought by several troops, and can't specialize in an effective manner. Are you SURE your post is correct?

Basic marines need to come with bolter, bolt pistol and combat knife, as per their in universe load out.

.
I'd like to see one profile for marines of all sorts.
They should all be shooty nobz.
Guardsmen are your boyz.
Scripts are your grots...

 Blackie wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
I don't want cheaper marines, I want them to be more effective. A very good start would be to allow 2 special weapons plus the champs weapon in a squad of 5. Like scions or sisters etc.
Considering marines are supposed to be the pinnacle of the universe's warriors I find it ridiculous that 3 in 5 of them are only capable of picking up a humble bolter...

It's exactly this. They don't need to be cheaper or more resilient. They just need to have more punch, especially in combat. And more effective strategems: when I read the codex SM I haven't seen a single one that appealed to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Bolters are not supposed to be humble, that's the main problem.

Why not? They are supposed to be the standard S4 anti infantry weapon that every army has, or an equivalent to it.

Right now they are not equivalent to anything, they are bad weapons. They are worse than gauss, shurikens, pulse rifles, volkite and many many other basic weapons. The bolter is currently not correctly represented in game, or at the least it is not correctly represented when in the hands of a marine. I can understand a guard sergeant getting mild effects with one, but marines should defintely get some bonuses when using bolters. Even something like giving all marines with a bolter a full reroll to wound wouldn't be so out of it. Then you increase to cost of the bolter to 3 points and lower the cost of the marines by 3. This way you made all speacial weapons cheaper by 3 points without impacting the balance between them.

Same with stormbolters at 5 or 6 points.

I don't want to delve into bolter porn but right now the bolters are clearly performing way under what is expected from those weapons in the narrative, and that's the biggest issue of the marine faction.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2W would be way too good for their current cost.

While I think 2 wounds is absolutely silly (especially when Primaris exist for that role), you're like the last person that should be saying Marines are fine in any way. In your casual "do whatever you want" area, you'll literally never see a problem ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
SM don't have profiles or points costs issues, they just don't have effective synergies that don't involve a gunline. Strategems are also very bland.

Their own troops lose to firefights against most other troops, are out-fought by several troops, and can't specialize in an effective manner. Are you SURE your post is correct?

That's why they need synergies, better bonuses or more effective auras and better stratagems. I'm not a SM player but never considered my SW troops that bad, even fighting against competitive lists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
I don't want cheaper marines, I want them to be more effective. A very good start would be to allow 2 special weapons plus the champs weapon in a squad of 5. Like scions or sisters etc.
Considering marines are supposed to be the pinnacle of the universe's warriors I find it ridiculous that 3 in 5 of them are only capable of picking up a humble bolter...

It's exactly this. They don't need to be cheaper or more resilient. They just need to have more punch, especially in combat. And more effective strategems: when I read the codex SM I haven't seen a single one that appealed to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Bolters are not supposed to be humble, that's the main problem.

Why not? They are supposed to be the standard S4 anti infantry weapon that every army has, or an equivalent to it.

Right now they are not equivalent to anything, they are bad weapons. They are worse than gauss, shurikens, pulse rifles, volkite and many many other basic weapons. The bolter is currently not correctly represented in game, or at the least it is not correctly represented when in the hands of a marine. I can understand a guard sergeant getting mild effects with one, but marines should defintely get some bonuses when using bolters. Even something like giving all marines with a bolter a full reroll to wound wouldn't be so out of it. Then you increase to cost of the bolter to 3 points and lower the cost of the marines by 3. This way you made all speacial weapons cheaper by 3 points without impacting the balance between them.

Same with stormbolters at 5 or 6 points.

I don't want to delve into bolter porn but right now the bolters are clearly performing way under what is expected from those weapons in the narrative, and that's the biggest issue of the marine faction.

There are already intercessors' bolters, heavy bolters, 2pts storm bolters and assault cannons, most of those can be spammed quite easily.... compare bolters to shootas or poisoned drukhari rifles. They're not that bad, in fact they're even better than those examples. SM already have more effective anti infantry weapons, bolters just need to be the cheapest and less effective weapon.

 Blackie wrote:
There are already intercessors' bolters, heavy bolters, 2pts storm bolters and assault cannons, most of those can be spammed quite easily.... compare bolters to shootas or poisoned drukhari rifles. They're not that bad, in fact they're even better than those examples. SM already have more effective anti infantry weapons, bolters just need to be the cheapest and less effective weapon.

A single S4 shot would be good/acceptable at 6-7 points. At 13 points its bad.

As I see it a unit's value is in its ability to do damage, resist damage and claim objectives (which is usually but not entirely about movement).
A unit which is exceptional in one of these areas can be (indeed, for balance should be) worse than the others.
List building is largely about finding those units which have a disproportionate advantage in these areas for their points and as a result are better than other options.

Basic 13 point MEQ are not unusually tough or capable of claiming objectives for their points. They are average at best but come with crap shooting and assault potential.
As a result they are a bad unit.
Intercessors are in the same boat.

You need to redo the main codex, get rid of the pretend difference between the majority of the Chapters and the Snowflake ones.

Give All Tac Marines the extra options for Grey Hunters etc. get rid of those units for the snowflake chapters - rinse and repeat with all the similar fake difference nonsense.

Better and more options for all - FLUFF stays the same - players just choose which fits their codex.

In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

2+ PA without any point cost change would be totally OP. I can see Termies at 1+ without big changes, but a tactical with a 2+ would have to cost at least 18 points, and you would still have the same problems with a basic troop which costs a lot for a really bad offensive output.

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

2+ PA without any point cost change would be totally OP. I can see Termies at 1+ without big changes, but a tactical with a 2+ would have to cost at least 18 points, and you would still have the same problems with a basic troop which costs a lot for a really bad offensive output.

18 points for a 2+ armour Tactical Marine is absolute madness.

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Maybe it's the setting the real issue. Each faction should be equal in the lore or at similar levels to have an interesting and complex universe. All I see is Imperium heroes and super heroes that are the best in the galaxy and eventually some Chaos villains that can be a sparring partner for a while. That's why I consider 40k books so boring. I'd like to read about orks, necrons, drukhari, tyranids deleting legions of humans as the real heroes and protagonists of the novels since the game encourages xenos to compete with Imperium and chaos factions. And that's a good thing, otherwise all games would be imperium vs imperium, sometimes imperium vs chaos. Super boring and anti-fluff, I refuse myself to play against imperium armies if I bring my SW on the table.

Marines' lore should be toned down significantly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

2+ PA without any point cost change would be totally OP. I can see Termies at 1+ without big changes, but a tactical with a 2+ would have to cost at least 18 points, and you would still have the same problems with a basic troop which costs a lot for a really bad offensive output.

18 points for a 2+ armour Tactical Marine is absolute madness.

Probably yes, but i'm giving the benefit of the doubt because they would have an atrocious offensive at that cost.

I've never thought tactical marines in cover are a problem and they are 13 points now.

Spoletta wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

2+ PA without any point cost change would be totally OP. I can see Termies at 1+ without big changes, but a tactical with a 2+ would have to cost at least 18 points, and you would still have the same problems with a basic troop which costs a lot for a really bad offensive output.

18 points for a 2+ armour Tactical Marine is absolute madness.

Probably yes, but i'm giving the benefit of the doubt because they would have an atrocious offensive at that cost.

The big problem here is that a 2+ save makes them significantly harder to take down with small arms (which they're already decently durable against) and doesn't really help much at all against the real marine killers like Plasma.

I believe the main issue is that high AP, especially on plasma weapons, is generally undercosted.

Assuming we're moving to Primaris as a standard anyway, if there was a game wide revaluation of high AP, multidamage weaponry that increased mid level options a reasonable amount, that would fix a lot of for the issues with marines.

Add to that some better strats and chapter tactics that affect all models and I think we'd be good.

So I see people saying damage output sucks and resilience sucks. What about if they had some rule like "The Emperor's Finest"- Marines add 1 to the number of shots fired by a bolt weapon (bolt pistol, bolter, storm bolter, etc.) In addition any close combat with AP - becomes -1.

So you increase the strength of the bolter and weapons like the chainsaw, but not touch the higher end ones.

To increase resilience you could say that any AP 1 or 2 is treated as one lower to represent power armor being that tough. You have increased the resilience except against weapons designed to cut their gear (plasma, lascannon, etc.) Can still do their job against Marines which is to turn them into a pile of goop.

Again. People want more resilient marines with better bolters and more punch in the melee. These already exist, they're called Intercessors. No need to reinvent them. Sure, they're overcosted, but what people basically want is Intercessors at cost of a tactical marine (and possibly called tactical marines so they can continue to pretend primaris do not exist.) Drop Primaris point costs about 20% that's marines fixed.

As has been pointed out before, giving bolters a -1 can wind up hurting marines more than helping, as often marines are fighting marines, and you just devalue 3+ armor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2W would be way too good for their current cost.

While I think 2 wounds is absolutely silly (especially when Primaris exist for that role), you're like the last person that should be saying Marines are fine in any way. In your casual "do whatever you want" area, you'll literally never see a problem ever.

So you agree with me. Thanks! Otherwise you seem downright pathological.

On a shot per shot basis, against S5 or less attacks, Space Marines are somewhere between 2 and 3 times as resilient as a Guardsman.

Armed with S4 or less weapons, Space Marines are twice a deadly as a Guardsman, except against T3 models where they are slightly less than twice as deadly.

This make a very good case that Space Marines should be somewhere between 2 and 3 times as expensive as a Guardsmen. With means bumping Guardsman up to 5 points and Space Marines to 12 points goes a long way to fixing the imbalance. That couldn't possibly work could it (glance at Kill Team)?

 alextroy wrote:
On a shot per shot basis, against S5 or less attacks, Space Marines are somewhere between 2 and 3 times as resilient as a Guardsman.

Armed with S4 or less weapons, Space Marines are twice a deadly as a Guardsman, except against T3 models where they are slightly less than twice as deadly.

This make a very good case that Space Marines should be somewhere between 2 and 3 times as expensive as a Guardsmen. With means bumping Guardsman up to 5 points and Space Marines to 12 points goes a long way to fixing the imbalance. That couldn't possibly work could it (glance at Kill Team)?

The problem with this as a method of analysis is that S5 and lower attacks aren't the problem in normal-scale 40k, things like battle cannons one-shot wiping Marine squads from the other side of the field are the problem.