8th Ed.: PA Points and Stats Adjustment Questions

[Karack Blackstone]

*Sigh...*

 

Well, this sure as hell fell flat of where I intended it to go.

 

If the Mods so wish, please, lock this thread. It appears full context was not provided on my part, and for the foreseeable future, this thread is proving to have been a serious mistake.

[9x19 Parabellum]

Well, I don't know if that's necessary Karack, I, for one, support the letter.  I'd keep it simple, simply because for me, more fun = putting more infantry on the table. Anything that lets me put down more infantry makes me happy. So for me, the answer is a pt. reduction on Tacs and Assault Squads.

 

I think the litmus test is this:  Competitively, nobody takes Tacs or ASM for any reason except to fulfill Force Org requirements.  Scouts are pretty much always considered to be better at doing what Troops do this edition, and most people will take them over Tacs, except where they don't have enough Scouts (for example, me).  ASM have been getting squat-on since 8th Index dropped.  You can dress this up any way you like, the bottom line is that they are not worth the points for what you get, and everyone knows it.

Since those 2 unit types are the most "stripped down" versions of what it means to be a basic space marine, it think a conclusion/argument can be made that the basic SM profile in and of itself is not worth it.

 

The same cannot be said, off the top of my head, of Necron Warriors, Tau Fire Warriors, Ork Boys, Guardsman, and I'm sure many other armies that I'm less familiar with (but, I would hasten to add, not all armies).  People take them because they must, sure, for force org, but also because they are good at what they do.

Edited December 14, 2017 by 9x19 Parabellum

[Wargamer]

I have 30 Tac Marines and 10 Assault Marines in my go-to list... maybe that's why I do so well. Everyone's written the units off and so can't cope with them!

 

I still don't think the units themselves are the problem, but the more I talk with friends and flick through the IG Codex (and the SM Codex for that matter) it does feel like other units have more... bling.

 

Okay, so Guard aren't that special. They're massed cannon fodder. But you can do some cool stuff with them, like Orders. Tyranids are a great big horde of "we ignore morale", which is more than good enough on its own. Primaris units either get fun special rules (Reivers) or buckets of dice (Inceptors, Aggressors). 

 

It's not that there's anything wrong with the core Marine units per se, it's just there's nothing that pops about them - there's no gimmick to them that makes you pick them over something else. Just tweaking the points a little isn't really a fix. Nor, frankly, is giving them more wounds / attacks. Why bring a tougher gunline if you can have an even tougher, better AP gunline? Why bring a tougher gunline if you can bring a gunline that can snipe enemy characters? Why bring an assault squad when you can bring a combat squad who inflicts morale penalties to enemy troops?

Vanilla units are just that - and making vanilla icecream cheaper doesn't make me pick it over chocolate chip.

[Karack Blackstone]

Alright, I see the merits of this further debate.

 

So, in keeping to the spirit of the thread, what fixes are there, besides just upping stats, that would make Tactical and equivalent squads throughout the Space Marine range worth their FOC slot? Also, what would aid Assault Marines? I happen to like Vanilla, however, I can taste the subtle nuances of the specific mix at times, and I personally love French Vanilla the most.

 

How do we flavor Tactical and Assault Marine units, without overdoing it?

 

I think this is a better course of discussion than just raw stat increases. Said stat increases might not hurt, if the SM player is willing to pay for it; the better question is indeed what new bling do the two most core of the SM squad structure need to give them a benefit closer to Devastator and equivalent squads?

[Race Bannon]

I'm wondering if bling is the path to take, but it's an easy point of view to consider.  Don't get me wrong, making things cheaper helps in my mind (it may be vanilla ice cream, but it IS cheaper than chocolate chip :lol: .. which makes me a cheap date )

 

I've always thought the structure of the Tactical Squad, although logical, was also restrictive.  Of ten men, make two specialists that can use Heavy or Special weapons.  So if I wanted a 10-man squad with two Flamers, then let me.

 

As for Assault Squads, why am I limited to two Flamers?  Why not allow me to have two ... Plasma Guns?

 

I'm wish-listing at this point, but you know what I mean?

[9x19 Parabellum]

I have 30 Tac Marines and 10 Assault Marines in my go-to list... maybe that's why I do so well. Everyone's written the units off and so can't cope with them!

 

I still don't think the units themselves are the problem, but the more I talk with friends and flick through the IG Codex (and the SM Codex for that matter) it does feel like other units have more... bling.

 

Okay, so Guard aren't that special. They're massed cannon fodder. But you can do some cool stuff with them, like Orders. Tyranids are a great big horde of "we ignore morale", which is more than good enough on its own. Primaris units either get fun special rules (Reivers) or buckets of dice (Inceptors, Aggressors). 

 

It's not that there's anything wrong with the core Marine units per se, it's just there's nothing that pops about them - there's no gimmick to them that makes you pick them over something else. Just tweaking the points a little isn't really a fix. Nor, frankly, is giving them more wounds / attacks. Why bring a tougher gunline if you can have an even tougher, better AP gunline? Why bring a tougher gunline if you can bring a gunline that can snipe enemy characters? Why bring an assault squad when you can bring a combat squad who inflicts morale penalties to enemy troops?

 

Vanilla units are just that - and making vanilla icecream cheaper doesn't make me pick it over chocolate chip.

 What chapter do you play with 30 tacs and 10 ASM?

 

Also, at least Tacs get objective secured. Poor ASM don't even get that.

[9x19 Parabellum]

...

 

As for Assault Squads, why am I limited to two Flamers?  Why not allow me to have two ... Plasma Guns?

 

I'm wish-listing at this point, but you know what I mean?

Come to the red side and you can have Plasma guns, Race :-D

[Race Bannon]

:lol:  Now way if Donut is there too!

[Marshal Arthur]

I think we need to ask ourselves what the intended role of tac/crusader squads and assault squads are. Then we can decide how to adjust them to serve that role. Tac squads are meant to be durable objective holders and versatile fire bases that can hold their own but will never outright obliterate the enemy. Assault squads are fast moving harassment units designed to shred through chaff and harry your ememy’s flanks and backfield. They too aren’t meant to demolish the enemy in close combat but should be capable of thinking at meat shields and disrupting enemy movement. The problem is scout squads are better at holding objectives, Devastators are better at dealing damage, and assault squads are just too expensive to be used as a harassment force and too weak in melee to cut through screens efficiently. So how do we make them function in their roles?

[Wargamer]

Maybe the answer is some kind of squad synergy? Ie: assault squads get a bonus charging units hit by Devastators - Tac squads get a bonus shooting units after Assault squads withdraw. Something that reflects the idea of Space Marines being masters of syngerised warfare.

[Firepower]

Sounds like stratagems to me.

 

As for Assault Squads, the flamers used to be nice because of guaranteed wound counts through templates, and they could lock dangerous units in melee. Can't do either of those anymore :(

[SyNidus]

The issue is that Tactical squads don't have a specifically designated role. They aren't meant to be the be-all end-all master of warfare. No. They are meant to be all-around fighters with flexibility to engage all enemies at all ranges with efficiency. They are not meant to be the most lethal, the most survivable.
 

They are more survivable than scouts.
They are more mobile than devastators (cheaper too).

They have better firepower than assault marines.

 

This is their role. You're comparing them to units that are specialists in a particular field.

 

As for no one using them competitively, i disagree. The list that won the Heat 1 of the GW GT was comprised almost entirely of tactical squads and Assbacks. And this was not some local rogue trader tourney.

I'm going to break it down for you. Perhaps more than GW changing marines, we need to change our playstyle (play better) and change our mind sets. Marines have the tools to be competitive. Perhaps we're not good enough craftsmen.

[Claws and Effect]

Give Tactical squads a better objective secured. Meaning their ObSec trumps that of other Troops units.

 

And let them reroll Overwatch. Making them incredibly difficult to shift off an objective would make them worth their points without having to change anything else.

 

Give Assault squads the ability to prevent fall back movement on a 5+. I'd use them if they could actually lock units in melee again. Again, would make them useful without changing anything else.

[Captain Idaho]

I actually like Tactical squads. I think dual plasma guns and whatever else you fancy is really strong. My own army has 3 such squads that fills my troops requirement and also blats enemies.

[Wargamer]

I would suggest being conservative when proposing tweaks. Remember, most abilities are just a +1 or -1 to certain areas, such as Overwatch hit rolls or to hit with a specific model.

[Karack Blackstone]

Thank you all for the cogent, and poignant feedback; this is a discussion worth continuing, to say it.

 

Hm...

 

Tactical options I am starting to brainstorm on (pick one or more, to apply in total):

1 - +1 BS (2+) Overwatch when within 3 or 6 inches of an Objective

2 - Improved Objective Secured: a single Tac Squad counts all enemy models contesting an Objective as one unit, and wins ObSec if it is equal to or outnumbers the total number of enemy models, regardless of total enemy units

3 - I like the idea of 2 Special OR 2 Heavy at a 10 strong Tac unit, or, the normal 1 and 1 of each, whichever is preferred

4 - Should Combat Knives be added as a Squad wide option for Tactical Marines?

 

Assault:

(One or both, feedback welcome)

1 - Flanking Assault: any enemy unit that declares Forced Retreat within 2d6 (3?) in inches Charge range of an Assault Squad must:

     A - Face Overwatch from each Assault Squad that makes its Charge range roll to range in the enemy unit

     B - On a 5+, the Assault Squad may charge the unit that is using Forced Retreat, with Overwatch from the retreating unit being tested as normal

     - An Assault Squad may only target one enemy unit per turn per the above (choices of the above subject to discussion)

2 - Harry and Harass:

     A - Assault Squads that move 6 inches and still have their Jump Move of 12 inches in reserve, may delay their charge until the enemy's next turn. If this is done, the Assault Squad  may Charge, and roll 3d6 inches for range, as if it were still the controlling Player's turn, and proceed normally as such.

     B - Assault Squads that have moved 12 inches may roll 2d6 inches Charge range, instead, and proceed otherwise the same as above, in point A

 

So, anyone else have any ideas thus far? I'd love to see where this goes, thanks for the continued discussion, as always.

[Marshal Arthur]

I think improved obsec for tacs (and all equivalent units so crusader squads and chaos marines) would do it a lot. Fluff wise even a single marine could compromise an objective held by a full guard squad. The scout squads don’t need it because their job is really more to hold the objective until the tac squads can reach them so it would give each troop choice a distinct role. At that point I think we could justify not increasing their damage output (although I think giving them the option to take two special or two heavy instead of one of each would be fine). As for assault squads I think an ability to prevent falling back is the best way to go, clarifying their role as harassing units and a mobile anvil to the hammer of veterans.

 

Other than those stratagems can fill in any holes. Someone mentioned rules that promote synergies between tac, assault, and dev squads and a stratagem for that would be perfect. Maybe for 1 CP a tac squad can fire into an enemy unit in battle with an allied assault squad?

[Wargamer]

Overwatch isn't affected by Bs, so I'm unsure what you mean by the first idea. Do you mean +1 to hit with Overwatch (ie: hit on 5+)?

[Karack Blackstone]

Overwatch isn't affected by Bs, so I'm unsure what you mean by the first idea. Do you mean +1 to hit with Overwatch (ie: hit on 5+)?

Yes.

 

5+ on Overwatch near an objective; sorry for the confusion on my part.

[The Unseen]

Combat units having either a chance to hold enemy units in combat or a strategem to do so should be available to everyone is something I feel the game needs, marines or not. Right now, the only units that want to be in combat are either trash mobs that just want to deny people shooting with what they can charge, or so killy nothing is alive to fall back. Adding in a 1-2 cp strategem that either lets a unit stick to something, or cause a bunch of damage to a fleeing unit would help a lot of mediocre damage harassment units out.

And assault marines specifically, but I think all marines across the board need +1 attack. Suddenly they can actually kill stuff in melee, instead of giving half-hearted noogies and hugs.

 

 

For tacticals, they have several problems.

They aren't durable for their points, they don't do any real damage except their special weapons and that still doesn't make them points effecient, and their also outnumbered by almost ever other troop choice rendering their obsec pretty pointless.

 

Making them more durable won't work, as it doesn't make much sense and the design space is currently held by primaris marines anyway, and making them cheaper yet further removes them from feeling elite, and you can only press down so far at this point, since scouts are right under tacticals, and right under scouts are vet guardsmen and SoB, their isn't much design space left that direction.

 

So we're left with damage output, and objective holding.

The +1 base attack helps significantly, as suddenly the base marine is again equally good at shooting and combat, where most other infantry is one or the other.

The bolter still needs something to make it worth it, as it currently has the stats of an en masse weapon, but costs way to much to actually be fielded in said quantity.

Last edition I had several ideas in mind, but between primaris marines and lieutenants, that design space is taken.

Something like "+1 shots for all bolt weapons within half range" Perhaps?

Would certainly help even the score between the humble tactical marine and other more effecient and numerous cheap infantry.

 

And for objective holding, I think it's pretty easy, make marines count as 2 or even 3 models for the purposes of objective holding.

Let marines at least be able to try and take objectives vs hordes, even if it still isn't easy.

But when you can take more guardsmen/gaunt/cultist/ork troops in 300 points than an average marine army has in models total in a 2k list, it isn't very balanced on objective side of things, even if they were perfectly balanced in all other respects (which they aren't at all, but still)

[Firepower]

As handy as it would be, I don't think increasing Tactical melee attacks to 2 would be a wise idea.  It's something that would have to extend to a whole lot of other squads, and would really screw up quite a lot of balance.  For instance, if you make Tacticals 2 attacks, you would logically have to do the same for Crusader Squads.  Since they can take chainswords, you have a Troop choice with 3 attacks and quite a lot of durability for a relatively low price.  As much as I would like that, to make sense that +1 attack buff would have to extend to all basic Marines (i.e. Assaults would have to have +1, which would raise Vanguard another +1), and giving the whole Marine codex an extra attack would be quite a dramatic change, one which would have to be echoed elsewhere to keep things on an even keel, like the Chaos dex.

 

To me, Tacticals have always been the decent shooting, hard to move unit, and an extra attack doesn't confer that so much as encourage a different style of play (aggressive rather than defensive).  A bonus to ObSec would certainly be welcome and sensible, and wouldn't screw up the game-wide balance so much as it would help bring Marines level with hordes and the like. 

 

I think a very minor buff to the bolter and an ObSec buff would be the best approach, though even buffing the bolter would have unintended consequences when it, like the +1 attack, would echo not only through the whole of C:SM (i.e. Hurricanes) but also into the Chaos dex and other Marine books.  If you made Hurricanes better, they'd have to cost more points, and that would raise the price of the LRC, which already costs too much so that would need a bit of a decrease in cost, and so on and so forth.

 

Really, the only change that can be made without causing a major ripple effect would be along the lines of buffing or modifying ObSec., or else you're changing the whole dex or more, not simply 'fixing' one unit.

 

Looking at the Crusader Squad rather than Tacticals...whew.  There's a lot to say there.  For shooting purposes they're basically Tacticals+1, and yet the impetus is put on stabbing rather than shooting (as it should be and has more or less always been, in my opinion).  But the changes to how assault works have been a major smack across the nose.  They really relied on +1 attack for the charge, going first, and keeping a squad tied up, because they only hit as hard as a typical Assault squad thanks to a lack of built in buffs to melee ability beyond the bog standard stat line. 

 

Of all those problems, it's the penalty-free withdrawal from melee that totally screws the stabby approach.  They can't pour out enough attacks to wipe a typical Guard squad anymore, and when that one horde unit just takes a step back the Crusaders get lit up by the 4 other blobs hanging out nearby. 

 

C:SM could really use a stratagem that either prevents, gives a chance to prevent (on a +3 the withdrawal fails), or severely punishes withdrawing from a melee (1 free attack for every model in your unit).  As a stratagem it could only be used once per phase, so it's not changing the whole of the game, and it would give back a bit of the harassment use to Assault Squads as well, not just buff Crusaders (although I'd happily take a Chapter Tactic instead that does the same thing, if I'm being greedy). 

 

So far this edition, I've had one game where a melee lasted past my first assault, and that's because my opponent was gambling that his unit of Ogryns would wipe out the plucky Crusaders that charged them.  Right now the only things you can effectively tie up with a charge are tanks, and if you can't kill what you charge on the first assault, then you have to be able to keep it in combat, or else you've just sacrificed a squad that would've been better off staying back and shooting.

 

tl;dr buff ObSec for Tacticals and only ObSec, give C:SM a stratagem that can prevent, gives a chance to prevent (prevent on a roll of 3+), or severely punishes (1 free attack for each model in your squad) a unit attempting to withdraw from combat.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Firepower

[9x19 Parabellum]

Some great ideas in here.  The more I look at your guys' ideas, the less I like a simple point reduction for Tacs and Assault, and the more I like Objective Secured buff for Tacs and Fallback debuff for Assault Squads.

[The Unseen]

My responses are in Green just for my sanity

 

As handy as it would be, I don't think increasing Tactical melee attacks to 2 would be a wise idea.  It's something that would have to extend to a whole lot of other squads, and would really screw up quite a lot of balance.  For instance, if you make Tacticals 2 attacks, you would logically have to do the same for Crusader Squads.  Since they can take chainswords, you have a Troop choice with 3 attacks and quite a lot of durability for a relatively low price.  As much as I would like that, to make sense that +1 attack buff would have to extend to all basic Marines (i.e. Assaults would have to have +1, which would raise Vanguard another +1), and giving the whole Marine codex an extra attack would be quite a dramatic change, one which would have to be echoed elsewhere to keep things on an even keel, like the Chaos dex.

 

I absolutely meant +1 attack to every marine unit, from every codex. So Chaos Space Marine units, Crusader squads, Vets etc. Maybe don't give it to Scouts or Devastator Marines due to them being the newbies? And fluffwise they pick up the 2nd attack during their rotation as an assault marine? I don't see giving Black Templars, the chapter who's  tactic is "you don't have to spend CP on charges" a troop choice with no in-built mobility an extra attack as being out of  whack, you are trading your Str4 bolter shot for an additional Str4 melee attack after all, which is in most respects absolutely a downgrade, until you throw in different buff characters. Marine units across the board are really and truly that over-costed when compared to other books already, and the divide is probably going to widen. 3++ had 2 articles recently where they go over the math for tactical marines, and it is really bad for the marines. They lose out in both damage (shooting and melee) and durability when compared to a guardsmen infantry squad, even factoring in morale, and not counting orders. +1 attack across the board that the tactical squad, and by extension other marine units, will actually be able to chop the shooty and shoot the choppy. Right now, its basically just shoot, because marines are just absolutely terrible in melee, bar a couple of exceptions that are very expensive and less points efficient than similarly powerful units full of plasma that don't have to brave overwatch and make a charge to do lots and lots of damage, they can stand 12" away and still do more damage on a point for point basis. (Crisis Suits in an otherwise terrible book, Scions, etc)

 

To me, Tacticals have always been the decent shooting, hard to move unit, and an extra attack doesn't confer that so much as encourage a different style of play (aggressive rather than defensive).  A bonus to ObSec would certainly be welcome and sensible, and wouldn't screw up the game-wide balance so much as it would help bring Marines level with hordes and the like. 

 

I think a very minor buff to the bolter and an ObSec buff would be the best approach, though even buffing the bolter would have unintended consequences when it, like the +1 attack, would echo not only through the whole of C:SM (i.e. Hurricanes) but also into the Chaos dex and other Marine books.  If you made Hurricanes better, they'd have to cost more points, and that would raise the price of the LRC, which already costs too much so that would need a bit of a decrease in cost, and so on and so forth.

Raising the points cost of Hurricane Bolters, even doubling them, has a very small impact on the LRC's total price. Adding 20 pts to a 300+ pt model is not a very big change realistically. And Hurricanes are already a bit overcosted when compared to Stormbolters, since they cost 10, but 3 Stormbolters bolted together should cost 6. But for example, my idea of +1 shot within half range would give the Hurricane Bolter 13 rather than 12 (or 26 rather than 24 for both of them on the LRC) shots within 12", a very small buff (around 8% better per gun). But would give a 10 man Tactical Squad at 12" +10 shots, from 20 to 30. (a 50% buff)

 

I can't think of a single unit offhand that would be OP with a few more bolter shots, even Inceptors would be fine, since you couldn't get the extra shots the turn you deep strike, Aggressors would get +1 shot with their 6+D6 within 9", going to 7+D6 doesn't change much. Even Guard tanks wouldn't be making to much use of it, since you'd have to get them within 18" for the heavy bolters to trigger, and they don't want to move more than 5" a turn, just as an example. And while people will say "But bolters are the baseline gun in the game, and therefore shouldn't be unique" I retort, just because the most popular faction has a ubiquitous weapon doesn't mean that weapon needs to be BAD. And currently it is pretty terrible when you factor in how expensive the guys who carry it around are. Math doesn't lie.

 

Really, the only change that can be made without causing a major ripple effect would be along the lines of buffing or modifying ObSec., or else you're changing the whole dex or more, not simply 'fixing' one unit.

 

Looking at the Crusader Squad rather than Tacticals...whew.  There's a lot to say there.  For shooting purposes they're basically Tacticals+1, and yet the impetus is put on stabbing rather than shooting (as it should be and has more or less always been, in my opinion).  But the changes to how assault works have been a major smack across the nose.  They really relied on +1 attack for the charge, going first, and keeping a squad tied up, because they only hit as hard as a typical Assault squad thanks to a lack of built in buffs to melee ability beyond the bog standard stat line. 

 

Of all those problems, it's the penalty-free withdrawal from melee that totally screws the stabby approach.  They can't pour out enough attacks to wipe a typical Guard squad anymore, and when that one horde unit just takes a step back the Crusaders get lit up by the 4 other blobs hanging out nearby. 

 

C:SM could really use a stratagem that either prevents, gives a chance to prevent (on a +3 the withdrawal fails), or severely punishes withdrawing from a melee (1 free attack for every model in your unit).  As a stratagem it could only be used once per phase, so it's not changing the whole of the game, and it would give back a bit of the harassment use to Assault Squads as well, not just buff Crusaders (although I'd happily take a Chapter Tactic instead that does the same thing, if I'm being greedy). 

 

So far this edition, I've had one game where a melee lasted past my first assault, and that's because my opponent was gambling that his unit of Ogryns would wipe out the plucky Crusaders that charged them.  Right now the only things you can effectively tie up with a charge are tanks, and if you can't kill what you charge on the first assault, then you have to be able to keep it in combat, or else you've just sacrificed a squad that would've been better off staying back and shooting.

 

I would say making it a generic strategem available to anyone like the re-roll, combat interrupt, and the auto-pass morale would be a lot better for the game, but I won't deny that marines would be one of the armies making best use of it.

 

tl;dr buff ObSec for Tacticals and only ObSec, give C:SM a stratagem that can prevent, gives a chance to prevent (prevent on a roll of 3+), or severely punishes (1 free attack for each model in your squad) a unit attempting to withdraw from combat.

 

I would say a 1 pt stratagem that causes d3 mortal wounds to a retreating unit would be better than 1 free attack per model in the squad. Avoids buffing the super killy units or the tarpit hordes more than the harassment units. That also seems to follow GW's general theme, 1 CP expenditure seems to be worth d3 mortal wounds dealt to something. (Hellfire Shells) That or a 1 CP that gives a chance, or one that costs 2 CP that guarantees a unit can't leave combat. Or maybe spend a CP to let a unit immediately make a charge attempt in the opponents movement phase if the unit they were in combat with fell back? And so you have a chance to make it back into combat with either the same unit or some other nearby unit as a response?

 

TL;DR for me, I would buff Bolters significantly, Marine attack values across the board, and marines probably a 1 or 2 point price increase on affected units, and add in a generic Stratagem that either heavily punishes a unit that flees, or prevents them from doing so at all, etc.

[Firepower]

Typing this on my cell so I'll have to be succinct. If we're talking about suggestions to be made to GW then such a huge change as an extra attack for every marine in the game is way over the top.

 

1 attack for every model in your unit against a fleeing enemy could be exploited badly by hordes, but 1d3 mortal wounds won't do anything to retreating hordes either. Perhaps roll a die for each model you have, hit on a 6. A bit like reverse overwatch. Whether to make that a universal stratagem or marine specific is up,in the air, but I feel anything of that nature would be easily exploited by hordes of Guard, Orks, etc.

 

If Marines are so weak that they need 1 extra attack across the board, I'd like to know if that's an accurate assessment. How are Marines doing in tournaments? Aside from Guilliman and Celestine armies, I mean. What units, chapters and such are they using?

 

I know pure templar stabby armies aren't tournie quality, but there are tons of factors involved there.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Firepower

[The Unseen]

Typing this on my cell so I'll have to be succinct. If we're talking about suggestions to be made to GW then such a huge change as an extra attack for every marine in the game is way over the top.

 

1 attack for every model in your unit against a fleeing enemy could be exploited badly by hordes, but 1d3 mortal wounds won't do anything to retreating hordes either. Perhaps roll a die for each model you have, hit on a 6. A bit like reverse overwatch. Whether to make that a universal stratagem or marine specific is up,in the air, but I feel anything of that nature would be easily exploited by hordes of Guard, Orks, etc.

 

If Marines are so weak that they need 1 extra attack across the board, I'd like to know if that's an accurate assessment. How are Marines doing in tournaments? Aside from Guilliman and Celestine armies, I mean. What units, chapters and such are they using?

 

I know pure templar stabby armies aren't tournie quality, but there are tons of factors involved there.

 

I totally get that man, Cell Phone autocorrect on my phone really hates 40k terms. And I'm not trying to hijack thread, I just love game theory and math bit too much and have to much time on my hands at my pretty mind-numbing job. And dammit I want Tactical Marines and other similar units to be good for the first time in forever, cause their so damn cool.

 

Reverse Overwatch would probably make it way to weak then, an assault squad would get 2-3 hits at most, not actually much of a deterrent. Maybe just another fight phase? Then elite models with more attacks, or more powerful ones, are still scarier than the guardsmen str3 spam. Idk. Critiquing something unbalanced is easy, coming up with solutions is much harder. Hence the supposed reason we give GW money to tell us how to play with our awesome toy soldiers.

 

And I don't think marines, even with the Celestine/Gman cheese, have won anything big recently. Their doing very average, and while I obviously don't and can't know every list that people are taking, I think we all know Tactical Marines, or any melee unit besides Gman, are not the workhorses in high placing lists. Marines were hit a lot harder than other armies by the changes to assault overall, charge bonuses, not being able to hide in combat versus a gunline, and bolters can't kill light infantry at all anymore thanks to the AP changes. It's just really left the basic marine statline with a bolter way behind.

 

For a more anecdotal argument than what follows below, Primaris intercessor marines are twice as durable to D1 weapons as tacticals (while being significantly weaker to mutli-damage attacks), their bolters have increased range and ap, and they have a second attack, for roughly a 40% price increase thanks to Chapter Approved. And their still somehow mediocre. If they could fit in rhinos/razorbacks/land raiders, they'd probably get a bit more attention, but they were considered almost unplayable at 20 pts.

 

Also, while marines did see a small points drop, other units (especially cheaper units, where each point per model has a larger effect overall since you buy way more of them) got even cheaper proportionally. Just compare it to 7th, where guardsmen were 5 and tacticals were 14. You could almost buy 3 guardsmen for each marine, but not quite. Now you can get 3 guardsmen for each marine, and have a point left over too. So you buy 13 tacticals for 13 less points than last edition, giving you 13 for the price of 12 last edition. But those 13 tacticals still cost 169 pts right now before upgrades, and that means that last edition you could get 34 guardsmen, but now you can get 42!

 

http://www.3plusplus.net/2017/12/necromunda-good-bad-ugly/

 

For some mathematical explanations, he does a pretty decent job. If its TL;DR, the summary is that by damage output, the marine performs between 20-80% WORSE on a point for point basis in damage vs a T7 3+ save vehicle, a MeQ, and then a GeQ; and for durability, Tactical marines are about 8% more vulnerable to lasgun fire than guardsmen, about 20% more vulnerable to bolter fire, and over 200% more vulnerable to (non-overcharged even) plasma. You don't even want to see the numbers for how badly smite/mortal wounds screws over the marines compared to the guard.

 

And if you think to  jump into combat with said guardsmen, you only slow down how fast you lose, since both units just halve their effective fire rates, from 2 shots in rapid fire to 1 melee hit with the same profile. Since BS4+ units also get reduced price special weapons, adding those into the mix actually makes the numbers worse for the tacticals. Guard plasma guns cost 45% what they do for marines, but only take a 17% drop in accuracy.

And while morale isn't accounted for in those numbers, that isn't nearly enough to make up for being worse at literally everything else.

 

While Mathahmmer isn't the be-all end-all for these kinds of discussions, it's a simplification of the actual game, and their are a lot of intangibles that can change those values around a fair bit, I think for example if the marines are in cover and the guardsmen aren't, they end up winning the shooting gallery war, and if their both in cover the marines still perform closer to the guardsmen, but then you have the fact that marines have the intangible of HQ's that provide similar benefits to Guard Orders, while also being able to solo entire squads but while costing more, and the benefit ratio of board control with more bodies compared to ease of maneuvering and getting into cover for smaller squads, etc etc. But over all the games of 40k being played, Tacticals are just straight up worse than Guardsmen at literally everything except morale and rule of cool.

For assault marines, with how easy it is to take whatever detachments you like, Vanguard do everything they do, but much better. They cost 2 pts more per model, for +1 leadership, +1 attack, and access to power weapons and storm shields squad wide, rather than on just the sarge. Anytime you would take Assault Squads, take Vanguard instead. Unless your just trying to fill a Brigade up and need FA slots, but then I'd say grab bikers/scout bikers instead.

 

At least scouts have a role they're really good at, blocking your enemies alternate deployment methods far away from your important stuff, and acting as a speedbump for enemies advancement.