8th Ed.: PA Points and Stats Adjustment Questions

[Karack Blackstone]

Hello reader,

 

Here is a currently considered post I am thinking of putting up on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page:

 

 

Hello Warhammer 40,000, I have a question, that requires a caveat: if the following is not fair for all forces involved, it should not happen until if and hopefully it is fair to all that play this game.

 

What do you think, currently, of the thought that perhaps, again, only if fairly considered, that all Power Armor Astartes, and possibly Sisters as well, pay too many points for their current stat lines?

 

I must again repeat the caveat that this revisit to points and upgrade costs cannot and should not occur if it breaks the balance of the game.

 

It does however seem that PA units might pay too much for their save; the math involved is not known outside of your hallowed halls, and I am guessing that there is a reason for that calculation being the way it is, currently.

 

While I know 8th is great, it's amazing, and I wonder if a revisit to all armies, if need be, might aid the game. If not, that's fine; it just seems like at the current points costs Astartes of all types might be overcosted at 1 Wound. The tabletop performance is not quite one to one, however, PA units are in setting expensive to logistically support.

 

What say you, if I may please, to the thought that, perhaps, +1 Wound and +1 Attack for all Basic Astartes might help, and perhaps the same, +1 Wound and +1 Attack for Primaris, would aid the game? If 14 or 15 points each Astartes is too few, then, by all means, please, keep fairness in mind.

 

TDA Astartes gaining either +1 or +2 Wounds when wearing it, to include characters, might make sense. Again, points will likely be adjusted, and that's fair.

 

If all other armies should also be revisited points wise that's fine, again; there's every reason to make sure this game is as close to evenly balanced as possible.

 

What do you think of this thought?

 

Do all Space Marines need a recalculation in terms of points, and, if that were to include a +1 A and +1 W to both Astartes and P

 

In other words, the following options exist, as i am currently thinking as I type this up.

 

Current Astartes:

 - 11 or 12 points instead?

 

OR

 

Proposed Astartes:

 - +1 Wound (2 total)

 - +1 Attack (2 total)
 - 15 or 16 points, maybe more?

 

TDA Astartes:

 - +1 or +2 Wounds (which do you prefer?)

 - Cost? What sounds fair? If current TDA is about 25 points, would 30 be fair? If not, 33, or 35?

 

Proposed Primaris:

 - +1 Wound (3 total)

 - +1 Attack (3 total)

 - Cost? Same questions as TDA Astartes

 

Please be constructive; I know we have had this discussion type before. I'm asking specifically about 8th Ed. and considering Attacks do not start going up as fast as they used to might keep this more sensible. So, what makes sense, of the two options above? Reduced points costs, or, a reasonable points increase, and the above +'s to both Astartes and Primaris? Basically, Astartes become current Primaris, and Primaris go up one Wound and Attack.

 

Thoughts, feedback, etc.?

[Race Bannon]

I think I've missed a memo. What is happening in the game that a marine-centric suggestion is desired?

[Wargamer]

On what grounds do you base this? Seriously? The fact you built your army to kill Tank/Flyer/Termie spam and you get eaten by hordes?

[Captain Idaho]

Constructively speaking, if you're talking business or formally, define your abbreviations. It makes it easier for the reader to follow.

 

Also, I'd recommend writing directly to the studio on this as that's a lot for a poor internet lackey to deal with.

[Khornate individual]

Ok, so we had indexes when 8th came out.  Then codexes came out (I missed the boat hearing that there would be codexes, so bought the index, then bought codex).  Now chapter approved comes out.

So are you looking for a index month two month later codex type of thing with chapter approved?  It was just released with point changes and now your asking for more point changes.  I actually could see GW doing that though, hey buy the new chapter approved with new points, next month hey buy the newest chapter approved with more adjusted points!

[Ishagu]

I think it's too early to request a big re-think from GW.

Conscript spam has been nerfed, and there are changes to Smite coming. I expect Brimstone horrors will lose their 4+ invul.

Perhaps the pricing won't be in dispute once these changes take place?

 

Do you feel Marines are currently weak?

An argument could certainly be made for Scouts - they should be 10 points each imo.

[Kallas]

and there are changes to Smite coming.

Oh, what's the rumoured Smite nerf, out of interest?

 

Do you feel Marines are currently weak?

An argument could certainly be made for Scouts - they should be 10 points each imo.

Personally, I do think Tacticals, Assaults and Terminators are overpriced/underwhelming, as are our vehicles. I don't think there's a huge discrepancy in cost/power, but in my honest opinion Marines do feel a little behind the curve.

 

A couple of small points drops for the infantry (-1/2 for Tacticals, Assault; maybe -5 for Terminators) and some minor rethinking for Marine vehicles (we don't get Chapter Tactics, nor do they have particularly good rules, considering things like Leman Russ/Fire Prisms, for example) - maybe just Chapter Tactics would unlock them a little, or giving Predators, Whirlwinds, etc PotMS or something would help. Predators definitely feel way too static for their cost.

 

Also, rethink some of the Stratagems please! 3CP for awful Orbital Bombardment? Yuck!

 

*Shrug*

 

I don't think Marines are awful, but trimming the fat/making some of our weaker stuff more appealing would be great.

[Captain Idaho]

If we want to talk about Space Marines changes then there's a whole bunch more to bring them into line with the rest of the Codex releases.

 

Vindicators... their main gun is just underwhelming. If it had a +2 modifier to shots or automatically hit models without the Fly Key Word, for example, it might be worthwhile.

 

Predators... not bad but why does every other vehicle fire twice if remaining stationary? Don't want to copy? Then give it BS2+ or Power of the Machine Spirit or something. Reroll 1s to wound would be cool.

 

Stratagems...

 

Massive changes I covered elsewhere.

 

Otherwise I'm actually cool with our Tactical squad points costs. Assault Marines need points decreases of course but then that would impact Tactical Marines...

Edited December 13, 2017 by Captain Idaho

[CCE1981]

Chapter Approved is intended to what you are attempting to do. FAQs work great in between an intended yearly release of Chapter Approved. This is so that you don’t have to keep buying codex after codex each time GW re-enginers the game. Also GW has mentioned, in the Facebook Warhammer Community, that they are working on a forum specifically to talk to the rules guys to get rules questions answered, give me them direct feedback and help the community to be part of the process.

 

If you want to continue this a few pointers:

- If you use acronyms or abbreviations spell it out first and put the abbreviation in parenthesis after it. I.E. Power Armor(PA), this tells the reader what you mean, I hate reading forums because I have to deduce which of the over 200+ meanings of “RAM” the poster is trying to use.

 

- Stop repeating yourself, the first paragraph explains that everything should be fairly considered, you don’t need to remind the reader every paragraph. Open with it, close with it, be done with it.

 

- “The math is not known outside your hallowed halls” drop everything to this effect, as soon as it is spotted whatever you wrote will be thrown in the trash.

 

- “Citation needed” - you mention your opinion that you believe Power Armor is overcosted but offer no proof, no examples nothing to back your opinion. Opinions without justification mean nothing, cite examples.

-and/or-

- How do your proposed changes bring Marines into line with other armies or become more flavorfull? I tend to agree that that Space Marine should be more than just 33% better I am slowly starting to enjoy playing Primaris Marines because they feel like how I believe Space Marines should feel on the table.

 

- End in good cheer, thank GAmes Workshop (GW) for the edition that, in my case, brought you back. Thank them for becoming so much more communicative with their audience, basically show them that you are writting to help GW make a better product, but do it sideways. Do NOT say that outright, it just comes across as condescending.

 

 

Cheers and good luck!

[Wargamer]

You know what this reminds me of? Rogue Trader.

 

I played a Rogue Trader game years back against Eldar, and at the time 4th / 5th was the current edition... so I played like 4th / 5th. That lasted right up until the first Eldar shooting phase when their shuricats began firing and my Marines were getting a 5+ saving throw!

 

Needless to say, most of my army spent the rest of the game cowering in cover.

 

But this was an eye-opener to me, and I suspect there are a fair few people who have the same problem. They're used to having their infantry waltz through anti-infantry fire as if it were nought but a bout of light hail. Now, anti-infantry means anti-infantry! Heavy Bolters are going to rake your lines and drop half the people they wound, Autocannons will punch holes through your neon-green armour like it's not there. You now live in a world where the 3+ save exists solely against small arms fire, not weapons meant to be mounted on tanks or handled by two-man weapon teams.
 

If you're wondering what that sound in the background is, it's the sound of every Ork, Guard, Tyranid and Eldar player basking in the schadenfreude of your suffering.

 

8th Edition is basically Rogue Trader 2.0, and I for one couldn't be happier.

[autek mor]

You know what this reminds me of? Rogue Trader.

 

I played a Rogue Trader game years back against Eldar, and at the time 4th / 5th was the current edition... so I played like 4th / 5th. That lasted right up until the first Eldar shooting phase when their shuricats began firing and my Marines were getting a 5+ saving throw!

 

Needless to say, most of my army spent the rest of the game cowering in cover.

 

But this was an eye-opener to me, and I suspect there are a fair few people who have the same problem. They're used to having their infantry waltz through anti-infantry fire as if it were nought but a bout of light hail. Now, anti-infantry means anti-infantry! Heavy Bolters are going to rake your lines and drop half the people they wound, Autocannons will punch holes through your neon-green armour like it's not there. You now live in a world where the 3+ save exists solely against small arms fire, not weapons meant to be mounted on tanks or handled by two-man weapon teams.

 

If you're wondering what that sound in the background is, it's the sound of every Ork, Guard, Tyranid and Eldar player basking in the schadenfreude of your suffering.

 

8th Edition is basically Rogue Trader 2.0, and I for one couldn't be happier.

 

that's a perfectly fine concept until they made some of the gun platforms(stormravens, razorbacks) for the marines more expensive just recently.

Edited December 13, 2017 by autek mor

[Karack Blackstone]

Thanks for all the great replies.

 

Back to the drawing board, as it were.

 

So, to start anew, the best approach seems to be not treating this is a hammer on one subject, but, instead, a well thought out and properly edited idea turned into text that makes sense, and is easy to both read and follow. I was literally putting the idea together as I typed it up in Facebook, and then, upon apparently starting to notice that it did not feel right, I instead brought it here for some much needed peer review.

 

Well, to put it simply, I was of the opinion that while a great deal of the old threads to this effect were important, now, it's most likely that the changes needed are minor, compared to what they once were. I think the problem is that some, including myself, are used to the all or nothing Armor Saves of 6th and 7th Ed.'s, and to say it, here it goes on its own line.

 

I have not yet had the joy of playing a game of 8th Ed. I know that will only help the attempt at communication I am trying for here, and, will provide me with much needed context.

 

If that is a leave-thread level of text to read, so be it. I was of the impression that despite things, the old issue of number of Wounds on Space Marine (SM) and Power Armor (PA) models, of all sorts, Chaos (C/SM) included, the problem just seems that the variable armor saves makes perfect sense to me. I just have yet to see this played out yet, and I hope to, to better learn and grasp where the game is coming from, right now.

 

I guess the long term thought was occurring to me here; Power Armor models of all sorts seem to be between 1 and maybe 3 or 4 points overcosted on their save of 3+ that they gain. I know that is not necessarily fair, so, that is likely why I felt like not posting the quoted text in the Original Post just yet.

 

So, to both help myself and to attempt to remove confirmation bias on my part, the idea here looking forward was simply that the perhaps minor to the point of no near-term changes to points values in the 1 to 3 range for PA models, aiming for lowering the cost in that range, or, increasing total Wounds, and perhaps Attacks as well, by +1 W, and if need be, +1 A, might be a long term benefit on the table. If all PA models were adjusted down, that makes sense. If instead the points of C/SM forces in PA or better were to increase to include the possible +1 to either Wounds or both of Wounds and Attacks, well, also, so be it.

 

The much greater issue that is starting to become clear to me is the why. If all Chaos Space Marines get the same treatment that is fair; the issue is, with the 2 Wounds for TDA models and the +1 W for characters is any indicator, change, though possible, must be balanced against the full range of opponents. That, was where I wanted this to go; that I was not being very clear is the short term issue. Long term, I wonder what the conversation will be.

 

So, for those still inclined to post, and I apologize if I have offended you with all this, what say you, with this further information?

 

The OP theorycrafting of stat changes seems sound, at least in text; the problem, as always, is the crunch. I sadly am starting to finally see that now...

 

*Sigh*...

[Wargamer]

 

 

that's a perfectly fine concept until they made some of the gun platforms(stormravens, razorbacks) for the marines more expensive just recently.

 

You mean units I've been getting on without just fine since 5th Edition? I hadn't noticed...

[Marshal Arthur]

What if all marines (loyal and traitor alike) got a black carapace rule that lets them reroll armor saves of 1? Fluff wise it represents how they’re connected to their armor and can better react to incoming fire. Crunch wise in AoS Stormcast with shields have the same rule so it’s not overpowered and would make terminators virtually impervious to small arms.

[Wargamer]

Why don't we just make a game system where the only faction is Space Marines? That would solve your problem, right?

 

Terminators being impervious to small arms is not fun for your opponent! I've played against Terminator spam armies and it's infuriating to throw buckets of dice at them and see them all bounce off those 2+ saves (or 3+ invuns). To say that Marines need even more protection tells me you've never given a second thought to anyone else's gaming experience.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Wargamer

[Brother Christopher]

The trick is that the OP doesn't have to give second thoughts about other's gaming experience. None of us have to, in fact - that is what GW should be doing, but isn't really succeeding. Karack presented his thoughts on the matter and I infer that his gaming experience isn't great when 'regular' Space Marines get shredded by Smite or flooded by cheap units (to which we don't have any decent counter, with bland bolters and unreliable flamers) and obliterated due to sheer weight of dice. That is why I am inclined to agree with Karack: there is something fundamentally wrong with Space Marines' stats and/or point costs (I prefer this vista and not claim that the entire system is flawed), much of which is a remnant of past traditions and systems. This is felt even more now, since Marines lost much of their staying power due to the AP and wounding mechanics, as well as their gutted/lacklustre standard bolters. I don't think that change will happen soon, but it's nice to note that GW at least tried to do something and managed to break with Terminatrs' single wound profile.

[Wargamer]

Really? The OP doesn't have to consider balance? Okay, I think Tac Marines should have a Primarch statline and cost 2pts each. Let's see how well that discussion goes...

 

If you're not going to consider the impact on the other side of the table, why are you engaging in a balance discussion in the first place?

 

Frankly, I think the problem isn't "Power Armour is too weak / overpriced", I think it's probably elsewhere... my guess is still "why doesn't spamming lasplas beat horde armies!?"

[Ishagu]

Are Marines weak or are some of the horde units too cheap?

 

Conscripts have really been hit hard, I don't think they'll be an issue.

Brimstones are next, expect a reduction to their invul and an increase in price.

 

Will marines still be "weak" when the hordes they struggle against are nerfed?

[autek mor]

making marine infantry cheaper does help but only marginally if those same troops are not getting better guns and cheaper transports. its not like we are asking for a gladius formation.

[Marshal Arthur]

Why don't we just make a game system where the only faction is Space Marines? That would solve your problem, right?

 

Terminators being impervious to small arms is not fun for your opponent! I've played against Terminator spam armies and it's infuriating to throw buckets of dice at them and see them all bounce off those 2+ saves (or 3+ invuns). To say that Marines need even more protection tells me you've never given a second thought to anyone else's gaming experience.

While I agree everyone’s experience needs to be taken into account terminators are supposed to be hard to kill, more akin to walking tanks than typical infantry. You shouldn’t be able to drop them with massed small arms fire. High AP weapons, on the other hand, will still be effective and every army has access to them. Last edition vehicles were impervious to small arms and it didn’t make vehicles OP so I’m not certain this would break the game. That said it obviously needs to be tested and I don’t want it to break balance. It’s just weird watching your superhuman warriors in advanced power armor collapsing to las fire.

 

On a related note I think you make a great point about the problem lying in horde removal. Elite armies are vulnerable to mass fire and AP weapons while hordes don’t seem to have an easily affordable counter so perhaps damage rules need to be re-examined.

[Claws and Effect]

Part of the whole point of 8th edition is that everything can hurt everything else. Make Terminators virtually unkillable by small arms and you'll undo that.

 

What happens when one person is playing a Deathwing list and their opponent loses all their heavy weapons in the first turn?

 

You've just created a situation where the other player has basically zero chance of winning.

 

Balance means balance for EVERYONE. Not a couple factions that are overpowered and a bunch more that might as well stay in the box. So far, they've done a good job of balancing things.

 

The answer isn't "buff Marines so they have no weaknesses". The answer is to understand their weaknesses and build your list to minimize them.

[Tamiel]

Giving all marines a 6+ FnP (Iron hands get a 5+ one) would be pretty cool.
And it wouldn't slow down the game too much. Just wait until your opponent has dealt all his wounds, and then roll as many dice, count the 6s. Given that SMs are small squads and usually field less guys than the enemy, it shouldn't slow the game down at all.

Something to buff 10man squads would be cool, too. Like +1 to leadership if the squad started as a 10man (and did not combat squad at any point). Or a detatchment where if you take three 10man squads, you get a bonus CP.

Honestly, I really miss the Demi-Company from the previous edition. Would something like this really be OP or hard to implement? Just give us CP instead of special rules for some fluffy formations. Something like "+5 CP" for "1 captain, 1 asm, 3tac, 1dev (all squads 10man)" would be pretty cool. It's just two more CP than a battalion detachment, and rewards you for somethings we never see: 10man squads, assault squads, ect.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Tamiel

[Schlitzaf]

No. Unless my Crusader Squads are not left out to dry again

[Marshal Arthur]

Part of the whole point of 8th edition is that everything can hurt everything else. Make Terminators virtually unkillable by small arms and you'll undo that.

 

What happens when one person is playing a Deathwing list and their opponent loses all their heavy weapons in the first turn?

 

You've just created a situation where the other player has basically zero chance of winning.

 

Balance means balance for EVERYONE. Not a couple factions that are overpowered and a bunch more that might as well stay in the box. So far, they've done a good job of balancing things.

 

The answer isn't "buff Marines so they have no weaknesses". The answer is to understand their weaknesses and build your list to minimize them.

While I agree in spirit I feel like AP weapons are common enough to mitigate this. That said I don’t think anything should be completely immune to any weapons, and even with a reroll terminators could still be affected by weight of dice and mortal wounds. As someone who plays Seraphon in AoS a rerollable 2+ save isn’t as devastating as it seems when mortal wounds and rend exist, not to mention Terminators aren’t known for speed. All that said I understand your hesitation in overbuffing marines and put my idea out there to get this sort of feedback.

[Firepower]

Just a general thought: how much of this is a result of First Dex Syndrome (FDS)?  Practically every edition of 40k leaves the first dex in an underwhelming state very quickly, as everything else builds on top of it with bigger and better things, once the new rules become familiar enough to actually quantify what does and doesn't qualify as "bigger and better"- typically seen in the progression of Marine dexes per edition.  Dark Angels got the short end of that stick I think 2 or 3 editions in a row?

 

Aside from that, Marines have always been something of a base-line average for rules, by which I mean they become the standard when designing other units.  "Good in melee/shooting/speed" means "better at it than a Marine."  I can't recall ever being shootier than Tau or stabbier than Genestealers or more brain-bullet oriented than Eldar.  I'm not implying that people here are saying that we should be just as good at all those things, rather there should be less of a gulf between their books and ours, but there has always been quite a gulf all the same. 

 

What bothers me most (as a Templar, naturally) is how despite being the jack of all trades book, C:SM still leans heavily towards shooting and eschews any specialized assault lists, which is especially unfortunate with how dumbing down the assault phase hamstrings what few aces we used to count on- extra attacks for pistols, charging, going first on the charge, etc.  Even being able to simply run away from melee without any real penalty is ruthlessly crippling if you don't have units strong enough to wipe out or even significantly dent units in the first phase of combat.  Charge one unit of Guard, kill 5 out of the billion models in the unit, get shot in the face by another squillion guardsmen when they just take a few steps back in the next assault phase.  It seems you just can't have a powerful assault army if you don't have Genestealer-level melee power, regardless of whether you're trying to assault a Genestealer-level or Guardsman-level unit.

 

...sorry, bit of a tangent there.

 

Anyway, there are plenty of changes to 8th which have undercut or altered previous marine specialties and rules unpleasantly, but both of those problems (before the tangent) are separate, long standing norms which certainly don't help.  The exception to the former is Chapter Approved, but (from what I can gather) that seemed generally focused on balancing the Primaris more favorably within C:SM itself than balancing C:SM against other armies.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Firepower