8th Ed.: PA Points and Stats Adjustment Questions

[Karack Blackstone]

Firepower, if I may, my initial two idea groups above were just for those unit types, Tac’s and Assaults.

 

The Unseen, great point and perspective. The raw math right now is just way too swingy. What variable in math terms would get a badass rule name and effect to bring power armor survivability up and be less of a rollercoaster for the player, and, if we propose a +1 Attack to all Asartes, including all Loyalist and Chaos, do we, as a community know where the game, theorycraft wise, will end up?

 

While +1 Wound as a further change might help Space Marine survivability, that seems more of a bandaid snap decision than an attempt at a true fix. Something to the effect of smoke grenades for the squad doing say a 3+ cover save regardless of enemy AP shooting, just limited to a max of AP -2 for example, might be at least a great start, in theory.

 

The Boltgun used to be such a lethal gun to hordes, now, it’s basically a super soaker.

 

At this point, I wonder if d3 hits per boltgun might help, just, as I type this, that seems too swingy as well. So, unless we special rule boltguns to be AP -2, or even -1, I am also inclined to think that an old style armor save ignore to both 6+ and 5+ armor might be overdoing it. What might help is AP -1 for all boltguns, if they are not already there.

 

So, thoughts take time, and, since I am up late and thinking, are the ideas in this post thought provoking? I hope so, since survivability going from -20% to -200% so fast as The Unseen noticed is also no fun for a Space Marine player.

 

Would all power armor getting a 6++ help, or is that Runic Armor only territory?

 

I am sorry, but, the best I have right now is the group below, referencing the post above, as far as the two summary write ups below go:

 

Proposed changes, all to be considered on their own, please:

1 - Improved Objective Secured, two effects:

A - boltguns, or, all Tactical Squad shooting, gains +1 attack when within 6 inches of an objective

B - as above, Tactical Squads count all enemy models and units as a single enemy unit, made up of the total number of enemy models

Options:

I - roll 2d3/2d6 and add the highest die to the total number of Tactical Marines. If this new total is equal to or greater than the enemy unit in total per the above at point B, then the Tactical Squad holds the objective, as per Objective Secured.

2 - I like my ideas for Assault Marines, however, Flanking Assault might be too easy to forget. What about:

Flanking Attack:

Assault Squads may choose to assault an enemy when that unit declares a Forced Retreat. The Assault Squad cannot use its Jump Packs to move next turn, however immediately resolve a charge against the retreating unit. Limit once per Assault Squad per turn.

3 - +1 Attack to all Astartes, including Loyalist, Chaos, and Primaris, as well as whatever Chaos Primaris equivalent evtually joins the game, seems a better long term fix now.

4 - Is +1 Wound, same to all on 3 above, still a worthy thought?

5 - smoke grenades?

6 - 6++ to all power armor? Make Runic Armor 5++ if not already there?

 

I will think on this and other ideas further.

[Karack Blackstone]

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.

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.

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.

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)

Apologies if this double posts, I wanted to type up that I love the idea exchange of this and have not been properly acknowledging the developer of each proposal. Also, thanks for the continued great discussion, all.

 

So, reroll Overwatch dice or 5+ Overwatch... I do think I like the reroll more.

 

Should a Tactical Squad just take an Objective if they and an enemy unit are both in range? Seems perhaps too strong.

 

The synergy rules may work well, actually. Stratagems might be the better way to go long term, however, synergy being on a perhaps d3 or just 3 max limit might help.

 

Hm...

 

Edit:

 

Yes, someone did great, I am perfectly fine with that fact. Did that person or anyone else write up the how and why of their victory? If not, how do I, and others, get to the same point? Do we have an outlier, or a reasonable victory that others can replicate?

 

I do not mean to sound snide; I just wonder how we can learn, as players, to be better if that alone fixes the issues. Math theory and statistical odds say Astartes across the board could be improved slightly, the problem is doing so fairly for all involved.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Karack Blackstone

[Wargamer]

Allowing Tac Squads to have two special or heavy weapons is a simple addition that would be welcomed. It makes your units slightly better at whatever role you want them to fill.

[9x19 Parabellum]

But it entirely defeats the purpose of Assault Marines, and moderately infringes on the purpose of Devestators.

 

Unseen; I like the cut of your jib, but +1 wound or attacks for all mini Marines, I think, is the wrong approach.

[Schlitzaf]

Guys I’ll read the rest when I am not recovering from a fever, but to echo Firepower, buffing Tacticals included buffing Tactical+ Units (Crusader Squads, Chaos Marines and Grey Hunters). Then buffing the ‘special’ Tacticals (Deathwatch Kill Teams, Strike Squads, and the four Cult Units) if its done on profile not on equipment or special rule level.

 

And Firepower point for point a BT Crusader (Tide Squad) has give or take Double the Wound Count and same raw attack as Jump Pack Vangaurd (1 attack per 6 Points the same a Vang w/ BP/Chain. If we include pistols it’s 4pts an attack to Vang 4.25 Points per an attack (if you include their pistols or go double chain)).

 

Second, for those complaining about Tacticals in particular durability or issue vs horde. Are you running only 3 5 Man MSU and then throwing the Squads into Razors? Then loading up on your your ‘speciality’ Units and buying a billion characters?

 

I see this over and over again on the forum Army List Section. I see being taking 3 Tactical Equivalent of 5 Man MSU with special/special Three Razors and like 10 Vanguard with full upgrades or 1 Terminator Squad, Raven, LRC, Chapter Master, Liutanent and Auxillary HQ. Then two Dreadnoughts.

 

That list has no durability and no way to push outside of a single fragile unit. It has no feet on ground and lacks any ground prescence. I have personally faced several armies like that and trounced them with my TAC list.

 

Why? I prep for Alpha. Then bring in my counter strike. I turn my guns on either Raven or LRC and swamp the push unit in raw bodies. Using my counter strike units to play bumper cars with the Razors.

 

As a marine player your core should be 40 Wounds. Atleast two of the following: 2 five man Intercessors, 2 ten man Tactical, 3 MSU Tactical Equivalents, 2 ten man Scout Squad, or 3 5 Man MSU Scout Squads, 3 Two Weapon 5 Man Devies, 2 10 ten Assault Squads, 3 five man MSU Assault Squad, and one of your two choices should include a Squad with 10 wounds.

 

And Karack I have a hard time taking you seriously given you haven’t played a game of 8th Edition. Marines have two advantages over other armies in the game.

 

1) Massive Variety in Deployment Options

-Massive amount of innate deep strike options

-For price of a MSU Double Special Tactical Squad (Or 85 Points) we can forward deploy any unit.

-Our babysitters buff are passive not active damage buffs. Allowing flexibility in engagement not reliant on one super buff (Captain and Liutanents (and equivalents) vs Orders, ‘Our Will be Done’)). (This trait is shared with other armies in fairness)

2) We can better focus our efforts due to low model count. An IG or Tyranid Horde has to deploy across the entire deployment zone. Thus meaning only 50% of their forces can be brought to bear only any single point.

 

Marine force as such is better focus on a Sledgehammer strategy or trying to hit a single point hard and fast vs trying to play Point Control. However we are WEAK to point control because point control forces us to spread out instead of bringing to bear our innate advantage of choosing the point of engagement.

 

Point Control lists are weak to surgical strike lists like Eldar and Tau. As Point Control actually Units tend be lackluster and reliant on buffs or specific units to carry the day. And surgical strike lists like Eldar and Tau have high alpha strike and able to rapidly redeploy. Which a Sledgehammer List like Marines once it gets stuck in has difficulty redeploying.

 

Why do I mention this? Because those marine lists I see used are often time thought or used as Point Control. Not Sledgehammer. As the Characters are with the push unit while the RazorSquads are in the flanks running interference.

 

Not to say Marines cannot do point control that Gulliman-Assback List with 6 RazorSquads can act as Point Control instead of Hammer. So where was I going with all this. Another Sledgehammer is the Green Tide. Which mechanically in 8th perfectly showcases how a Sledgehammer plays with the new mob rule. Once you seperate the Boyz the army falls apart at the hinges.

 

Which is how mathhammer falls apart, yes 3 gaurd > Marine. A marine also only uses a third of the board space. Better enabling a focused flank. And at the end of the day, the issue I am consistently seeing in Marine army’s is that they have no bodies. At all.

 

You need bodies to win. Yes SC are awesome and provide awesome of awesome buffs. That Chapter Master Unless your Seth is worth Equivalent of Captain-Liutanent of Points. Which lets take another 5 Marines.

[Karack Blackstone]

Schlitzaf, thank you for the perspective.

 

No, I have not yet played 8th, and, when I do play 40k, I take ten strong Grey Hunter packs. I also put my packs in Rhinos, and, to say it, I do need to get better overall as well.

 

If Astartes players are primarily taking five man MSU, without having as you typed, at least 30 Marines by table time, I would feel safe typing that their lack of Tac’s is why they are getting shot to pieces.

 

That 30 being just the Tac units, 45 total, or, a ten strong Assault Squad and at least five man Dev Squad, that makes far more sense to me to be the table minimum Space Marine line infantry section.

 

The way I see it, a Space Marine Demi-Company is, for lack of a better term, the Imperium’s Navy SEAL force. I personally wonder if 12 man seating Rhinos for the 12 Marine Squad inside might greatly aid the game, overall. The problem then becomes to me, the best 12 man Tac Squad is equivalent to two 6 man Tac Squads riding in the same Rhino, just able to be a single squad, or combat squad, or three four man fire teams. If anyone wants my Tac breakdown of weapons, or their equivalents, go, I can type that up.

 

I am not great at 40k, and I hope to change that.

 

However, it does seem that all armies have their own crutch to deal with, as it were. For Space Marines in the non-Wolves cases, on Loyalist side, lack of a squad wide CCW does appear to hurt them greatly. Maybe giving Tac squads the option to take Combat Knives would work better here than fundamentally changing what amounts to a core part of the game.

 

I think the option the thread faces is:

1 - +1 Attack to all Astartes

OR

2 - Add Combat Knives as an option for Tactical squads

 

The second appears to me to be the vastly easier game change from GW’s perspective, and, at least in 8th, it does the same thing, and should work into the game far easier from a balance perspective. Something for Chainswords might need to be done, such as AP -1, perhaps.

 

There are many other options still; the question then becomes is the second option above enough of a fix to stop discussion of the other points raised thus far, or, more likely, how, does option two above change the current discussion of getting both Tac and Assault squads to work on the table, according to the fluff?

 

I do like the stratagem approach, just with a caveat of either d3 or 3 uses of the stratagem for three Tac squads, maybe double both, as in, 2d3 or 6 uses total of the stratagem for Tac’s, and 2 for both Dev and Assault squads. In other words, might be best at One to one in the categories of Tac, Assault, and Dev.

[Ipsen]

My 2 cents.

 

Something like 10 man tacs getting the option of special, special or heavy, heavy seems the most appropriate change of anything here. Incentivise marine armies taking more boots on the ground. Across the board buffs for marine models like +I attacks/wounds would imo be very heavy handed. Also adding complex rules with situational prerequisites seems like it wouldn't be in the spirit of 8th edition.

 

As for assault squads why can't they just be more like tacs or blood angels assault squads. Instead of just flamers two marines picking from the special weapons list or one for every five. And the sergeant getting a pick from combi weapons. Easy from a model perspective and differentiates them from vanguards who don't get to take ranged weapons. I could've sworn I have a jet pack marine with a plasmagun somewhere. Did they not used to be able take them?

 

A 1 cp strategem similar to hell fire rounds or cluster bombs for doing d3 mortal wounds to a unit within 1 inch of an assault squad also seems very appropriate. Maybe have it have something to do with how they use melta bombs or something. A reference to how melta bombs used to used in the assault phase. Having it activate when an enemy unit withdraws however doesn't seem like a good idea. The innari out of sequence moves were removed for a reason.

[Claws and Effect]

- Count each Tactical Marine as 2 for the purpose of ObSec.

 

- Let them fire their bolters twice if they are holding an objective and did not move this turn. Including Overwatch. Effectively turning them into Rapid Fire 2 weapons in that situation.

 

- Assault Marines can deny fall back move on a 5+, 4+ if they outnumber the unit they are locked in with.

 

- Let 2 members of the unit take any special weapon with the Pistol or Assault profile.

[Karack Blackstone]

- Count each Tactical Marine as 2 for the purpose of ObSec.

 

- Let them fire their bolters twice if they are holding an objective and did not move this turn. Including Overwatch. Effectively turning them into Rapid Fire 2 weapons in that situation.

 

- Assault Marines can deny fall back move on a 5+, 4+ if they outnumber the unit they are locked in with.

 

- Let 2 members of the unit take any special weapon with the Pistol or Assault profile.

 

Beautiful.

 

Simple, easy to keep track of, and they all work.

 

Thanks! I think these are worthy of consideration!

[Deschenus Maximus]

As the other of the 3++ article linked earlier, I think its going to take a lot more than a couple of small tweaks to get Tacticals anywhere near where they need to be in terms of effectiveness. A hefty price cut for starters, but also a buff to bolters (my preference would be for a reroll to-wound rolls - if the shot doesn't kill you, the internal explosion likely will).

[Wargamer]

We're starting to get into the lands of Adeptus Suestartes again. If Bolters re-roll to wound because they explode, then I don't need to set up my Guard at all - I'm 26,000" away hitting you with eighty Basilisks.

[Deschenus Maximus]

We're starting to get into the lands of Adeptus Suestartes again. If Bolters re-roll to wound because they explode, then I don't need to set up my Guard at all - I'm 26,000" away hitting you with eighty Basilisks.

 

*shrugs* I'm perfectly fine with just a massive cost cut, but then that may ruffle the feathers of those who feel Marines shouldn't have a lot of bodies on the field.

[Schlitzaf]

I take issue with 3++ Analysis because while mathematically correct it ignores some facets which is table space. A Tactical Squad is better able to use its table space while less durable per point they are more ‘durable’ your opponent being forced delegate more units to blasting them apart. Gaurd Unit drop faster than an equivalent Tactical squad on the board.

 

Okay I know math does not line up but I know from experience a stiff breeze murders gaurd Squads while 10 man strong marines take an entire army to murder

[Kallas]

10 man strong marines take an entire army to murder

I believe this is what the kids call hyperbole

[Schlitzaf]

I mean it’s by my experience, that a 10 Man Marine Squad (Okay 13-15 Man, 7 Marines 6-7 Scouts) take an army worth of shooting to murder or reduce to inconsquential size. Where Gaurd Squads are just killed effortlessly when the opponent has some units open

[The Unseen]

I mean it’s by my experience, that a 10 Man Marine Squad (Okay 13-15 Man, 7 Marines 6-7 Scouts) take an army worth of shooting to murder or reduce to inconsquential size. Where Gaurd Squads are just killed effortlessly when the opponent has some units open

So, an anecdote vs math.

I know which one I actually trust.

Yeah, 10 guardsmen die pretty fast.

So do the equivalent points of 3 tactical marines.

Because you aren't killing 10 guardsmen compared to killing 10 marines, it's 30 to 10, and the guardsmen win out.

 

And you'll notice in the second article, he does bring up the tacticals slight advantages, such as fitting into cover easier.

It doesn't do nearly enough.

[Schlitzaf]

Well yes you need 90 Bolters Shots to kill Marines

99 Bolters Shots to kill 30 Gaurdsman (66 > 44 29.99). That a difference of a Tactical Squad. But that said. Deploy you Tactical squad in left flank. All three gaurd squads need to deploy directly in front and move in that direction. (Start 24” apart). Turn 1 all three squads start near each other. Assuming 2” Deep. Front squad moves forward 6” So Second front squad can to. Back Squad will either be out of out range. They shot 18 > 9 > 3 > 1. The Marines can move move forward 6”. 18 > 12 > 8 > 5. Another 2-3 dead from morale.

 

Next turn two squads in rapid and one long. 29 > 15 > 5 > 1. Squad moves up. 16 > 11 > 7. 5 dead. Charge either 5 man or 2 man. 10 > 6.66 > 4.44 > another dead. Killing the squad (overwatch would do nothing). 12 Shots back. 22 > 11 > 4 > 1 Marine maybe two. 6. 12 > 8 > 4. Killing two man. Charging 10 man. (If a Marine didn’t die earlier they’d die on overwatch). 8 > 5 > 3 > 2 more dead. 10 > 5 > 1.66. Next turn. One marine dies over the course of turn. 7 > 5 > 3. Two more dead Gaurdsman. 5 > 3 > 2. One more dead Gaurdsman. 7 > 4 > 2.66. 1.76 another dead Gaurdsman. 6 > 3 > 1. Not enough to kill Marine > 7 > 5 > 3. 2 more dead Gaurdsman. So same as previous turn. Gaurd Squad dead.

 

The 30 guard squads will lose to 10 Man Tactical Squad. They simply cannot bring to bear all 30 Gaurdsman in a single confrontation. At best they can bring two. Note furthermore how a single rapid Tactical squad effectively murders the 10 man gaurd squad.

 

The reason is basically this. For all three Gaurdsman to engage it needs to be a middle. Deploy a flank, the Gaurdsman cannot bring all their guns to bear. Those guardsman have low LD losing 5-6 men to a single volley is devestating (If Marines went first 10 > 6.66 > 4.44 > 3. 41 > 20.5 > 6.66 > 2.22. 16 > 10.66 > 7.10 > 5.38. Then the math stays the same. One guard dies and larger squad Charge. 14 > 2 > 0.66 > 0.22. 9 > 6 > 4. 2.66 or 3 more Gaurd from smaller squad. 7 > 3.5 > 1.2 > 0.4. One Marine dies. 20 > 10 > 2.66 > one Marine. 8 > 5 > 3 > 2 from larger squad. 5 > 3 > 2.66. 7 > 5 > 3.33 Average is 4. Another 2 or 3 dead from shock. 13 > 6.5 > 2.5. 2 > 1. > 0.33. 2.6. 7 > 3.5 > 1.2. 4 Marine left hitting smaller. 6 > 4 > 2.66. One or Two. 3 > 1.5 > 0.5. Marine 4 > 2.66 > 1.8 > 1.2. Average Gaurd dies (two if only one died prior round.). 6 > 4 > 2.66 another two die (6.4 so 4 Gaurdsman Total). 3 Gaurdsman left 7 > 3.5 > 1.2 > 0.4. One Gaurd dies from shock. 2 > 1. One Marine dies from pistols. 3 > 1.5 > 5. 5 > 3 > 2. One Gaurds dies and other dies next turn).

 

If the Marine gets a chance to rapid. The marine squad wins. Because an entire gaurd Squad Drops like a rock. Removing 2/3 of the Fire Power. At best an exchange of only 1/4. As I said the table size matters.

 

All three gaurd squads cannot be brought to bear at the same time.

[Deschenus Maximus]

A completely fictitious, nonsensical scenario. I'll stick to my math, thanks.

[Schlitzaf]

No? The average board is by 4 by 6. The average deploy is 12” from center. Deploy 12”, and 1-2 two feet from side. Enemy deploys likewise. Their base is 2 by 5”. They can deploy all three in a row. Meaning however that means about 10 Gaurdsman are unable to shoot or be out of range.

 

This is math. You also have LoS blocking terrain. Only 20 Gaurdsman will be in range to shoot T1 if they go first or second be in rapid. Comparing math hammer is good. Comparing math hammer while taking in battlefield positioning and etc is just as important

[Deschenus Maximus]

Just... no.

[Schlitzaf]

Do you have a reason for just no? I have written the math. Shown why. You can provide or try to debate demonstrate where and how the math wrong.

[Wargamer]

I believe this is a case of  "my opinion trumps your facts".

The FACT is that you can never bring your entire army to bear if you are playing hordes - as I have seen myself on both sides of the argument. However, a small elite force can (and will) repeatedly bring its entire army down upon a single target.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Because no one plays like that! You line up my guys and I line up mine and we march forward towards one another?

 

Just... no. Like I said: nonsensical and fictitious.

[Wargamer]

Because no one plays like that! You line up my guys and I line up mine and we march forward towards one another?

 

Just... no. Like I said: nonsensical and fictitious.

Except outside of tournaments that is a very common playstyle! Some people do it because they are quite casual, others because they simply fill the table with models. I've seen it dozens, probably hundreds of times over the years. Hell, I used to do it myself! Back in 3rd I played many games where I had packed my deployment zone tight with tanks and infantry.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Wargamer

[Deschenus Maximus]

Then you lose. You can't completely cede the board by only focusing on a single point of the battlefield - unless your opponent is a complete moron.