8th Ed.: PA Points and Stats Adjustment Questions

[Wargamer]

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.

I can tell you don't play objectives.

[Schlitzaf]

Or you know you setup objectives to favor a stack flanked. You only need 2 or 3 of the objectives. No need to contest the entire board at once.

[Wargamer]

Rather depends on the mission though, doesn't it? Say you're playing a mission where you don't know what objectives you're playing for, or new objectives form during play. Stacked yourself for Objectives 1 and 2? Too bad, you need 3 and 6 Oh look, your enemy controls all four of the other objectives. Have fun.

[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.

I can tell you don't play objectives.

 

 

LOL.

 

Ok, I'm done.

[Schlitzaf]

Well of course play to the mission. Marines are best used to Sledghammer specific points. But Maelstorm missions highlight Marines are really bad at point control because they cannot effectively fight for board. They lack the raw damage and numbers to compete there. Every battle is unique in its own aspect. Your job is to try to force the mission into a favorable scenario. Which for Marines is setting up the board to enable a sledgehammer.

 

But when we are comparing purely “Gaurdsman > Tacticals” is far more complicated than raw efficiency of Points. It’s a good baseline. But well you need to think larger picture.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Schlitzaf

[Karack Blackstone]

Opinions and perspective are subject to change, and interpretation.

 

I personally have the thought here that I know all involved mean well, thus, the posts in this thread. The real issue is that yes, Space Marines of all sorts do not have the weight of shots that a Guard force for example, will. Instead, it seems to me that one must use the shots an Astartes list has to be both a scalpel and a sledgehammer. The problem is knowing what to shoot and when.

 

Target priority, as it were. The problem is, if one uses boltguns on a large vehicle or creature, well, if only 6's wound, I think the likelihood of the target going down is vastly reduced.

 

Weapons selection within a force can be at the right time in a fight just as important as unit placement, and further as important as intercepting enemy units that can counter a unit of yours on the table, just by either shooting them or getting into charge range. Devastators are not built for close combat; that said, Tacticals also face a similar situation in a fight.

 

The overall question here is how do C/SM forces of all types, get better shooting and when and where needed, better ability to control the charge, assault, and fight aspects of the game?

[Karack Blackstone]

I meant well, not sure how the last was taken.

 

To my new thoughts and point, having had some time, to think.

 

This should be two, then three, a combined two, ideas.

 

1 - All Warhammer 40,000 units fit roles.

 

A - HQ

B - Elite

C - Troops

D - Fast Attack

E - Heavy Support

F - Flyers

G - Lords of War

H - Fortifications

I - Dedicated Transports

 

So, possibly, in general concept, buffers, generals, and leaders; the best of the best at what they do, usually some form of better troops unit; rank and file; flankers; fire support; air assets; fight changers, that are typically hard to come by; defensive structures/positions; and lastly, rides for most simple units.

 

Each role has at least two different units within them; a Tac Squad, or their equivalent, is not a Scout Squad, and an Intercessor Squad is yet another thing. So, when one uses the factually wrong enough tactics and strategies with one unit, they tend to take more losses. In concept I know the whole charge into oncoming fire thing Space Marines do is cool. The problem is, a Space Marine should not do the same into Plasma fire. So, instead, what options are there? Really, only one: maneuver, and I do not mean run. Sometimes, flanking a unit to create room for an assisting unit to help is the wiser move.

 

That other unit type can and should be something able to help the first, and, it’s FOC type and kit will dictate how. If a Tac and Dev unit are up against a T’au fire team with Crisis Suit support, depending on position, weapons should start to dictate the unit those Dev’s shoot at, right?

 

Tactics, learning, and developing as a player, or general, helps, however, that alone will never fix the raw math. Therein, is point two.

 

Put simply:

 

All C/SM get,

 

+1 Wound

+1 Attack

 

Boltguns add Heavy 3 as an option for +1point

Bolt pistols regain 2 shots if the model did not move, and may assault after, +1 point

Chainswords become AP1, for +1 point

Tac’s add that they can take a Combat Knife, at a +1 point tax, total of 1, currently,

Maybe something cool like all C/SM Boltguns may add an Auxiliary Grenade Launcher for +1 point, or, some other cool thing.

 

New Tac cost, 20 points. Now, we are assuming that 13 points per Tac, or, basic Space Marine, is fairly priced.

 

So:

 

WS, BS, S, T, I, W, A, M, Save

3+, 3+, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 7, 3+ Base, if I am right, which I might not be,

Is 13 points, with a Boltgun and Bolt Pistol

 

If a Guardsman is 6 points, that is 7 points in better profile numbers.

 

New base:

WS, BS, S, T, I, W, A, M, Save

3+, 3+, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 7, 3+

 

New statline total is 15

 

With 4 points of changes to items, and a 1 point tax to add a Combat Knife, if so; if not, 1 free point to maybe play with.

 

Or option 3, doing both. One is learning, two is a rules change. Both can work, two costs more money, yet one can teach us more too.

 

I personally choose three. What say each of you?

 

Edit: autocorrect, the worst piece code ever, because I try to type...

Edited January 3, 2018 by Karack Blackstone

[UnkyHamHam]

- 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.

This really is the best approach. I personally think a little wargear could go a long way.

 

For Tacticals option for 1 special weapon per five marines and 1 heavy per ten would be cool. So a ten man unit could sport 2 specials, 1 heavy, and 1 combi.

 

For ASM, simply adding meltaguns and the basic power weapons to their flamer/pistol option list would go a long way. And even adding power fist instead as a cheaper option over eviscerator would be great. I know they are just one attack, but power weapons give them some quality. Vanguard will still have hammers, shields, claws, everyone getting all melee options. So they aren't obsolete by a long shot.

 

A Strategem that allows Tacticals to advance and fire rapid fire weapons and grenades would be good too.

[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.

This really is the best approach. I personally think a little wargear could go a long way.

 

For Tacticals option for 1 special weapon per five marines and 1 heavy per ten would be cool. So a ten man unit could sport 2 specials, 1 heavy, and 1 combi.

 

For ASM, simply adding meltaguns and the basic power weapons to their flamer/pistol option list would go a long way. And even adding power fist instead as a cheaper option over eviscerator would be great. I know they are just one attack, but power weapons give them some quality. Vanguard will still have hammers, shields, claws, everyone getting all melee options. So they aren't obsolete by a long shot.

 

A Strategem that allows Tacticals to advance and fire rapid fire weapons and grenades would be good too.

 

 

Sorry, I had forgotten about that post.

 

1 Combi on the Sergeant, and any combo of 2, special and heavy, for each Tactical squad, plus the Tac's count as 2 models when contesting an Objective seems best.

 

For Assault Marines, between the two of you as quoted, one or two Power Fists, and maybe one Eviscerator, and the option for either 2 or the whole squad to use special pistols and taking up to 2 Power Weapons excluding the one Power Fist/Eviscerator on the Sergeant, might also truly help. Gaining access to Meltaguns would also make them a mobile threat to truly need to deal with, as well.

 

Again, sorry.

[Schlitzaf]

Guys any buffs you give remember that Crusader/GreyHunters/Chaos Marines, and how would your buffs work with the former two tactical equivalent?

[Karack Blackstone]

Guys any buffs you give remember that Crusader/GreyHunters/Chaos Marines, and how would your buffs work with the former two tactical equivalent?

True.

 

As always, balance is difficult. Crusader squads might need to be limited to only Initiates being on the counts-as 2 models each. Grey Hunters are the force I play, however, I am unsure as to how this would effect them, because, with the already existing option to take chainswords, the strength of GH's is their all-rounder nature. If Grey Hunters gained some other option besides access to Heavy Weapons, it would need to be something fitting and role assisting or role defining.

 

The real issue with Grey Hunter packs is that in 8th Ed., Plasma weapons are just far better than most any other special or other ranged weapon type.

 

So, hm; I am unsure as to what Grey Hunters might best gain a use of, long term. GH's already get access to one or two special ranged weapons. All Gh's can take a chainsword; the WGPL has options for combi weapons, and special melee wepaons; and the GH Pack Leader can also take a power weapon, as well. I am going to need to think on this concept, because for the Space Wolves, the problem is that Long Fangs carry the Heavy Weapons, so Grey Hunters can fulfill the battlefield role needed, as the situation dictates, at that time.

 

While one additional special ranged basic or pistol weapon sounds great, that seems... uninspired. A return of the free second special ranged weapon rule might work. The only other idea I can seem to think of right now for the GH's is to let the WGPL take a Storm Shield as a third option, thus, allowing a WGPL to have a Combi-Plas, Chainsword or other special melee weapon, and a Storm Shield.

[Schlitzaf]

My point here if you let Hunters and Crusaders take an additional weapon (Crusaders per their mechanics then wouldn’t need 10 man to unlock second special. Through I prefer instead be unlock an additional PowWeapon tbh). And Grey Hunters well already are exceptional.

 

And Chaos Marines demonstrate not being bound by rigid Astartes, by being able to mix and match. Any change to Tactical Squads should be to highlight on board flexibility. They are only Tactical Equivalant to be able to Combat Squad for sake of example.

 

Tacticals should emphasis their being flexibly compared to how Crusader Squads ultra specialization flexibility in List building, Grey Hunters battlefield flexilbililty in Firefight/Melee Engagements and Chaos Marines being able unconstrained by rigid mechanics (I.e able to double heavy or double special).

 

Tactical Buff is it should enable the role it should ‘fill’ capacity. A Tactical Squad would be able to fill either backfield, firefight or melee. The easiest to do so honestly, is have 10 Man Tacticals get certain weapons cheaper. Weapons that are explicitly more varied in what they are meant to be used against.

 

Plasma/Missile Launchers are good example of that. 5th Edition got the concept right, I think. With free Missiles and Flamers. It gave Tacticals a real advantages over their equivalents. The extension I’d change what is free for different codexes. C:SM might be Missile Launcher and Grav (Grav replaces Flamer), C:BA might be Heavy Flamer and Flamer and C:DA Plasma and Plasma Cannon.

 

Those are just the examples, and require additional refining. I think 5th Concept of Tacticals getting free weapons was the right track.

[Karack Blackstone]

My point here if you let Hunters and Crusaders take an additional weapon (Crusaders per their mechanics then wouldn’t need 10 man to unlock second special. Through I prefer instead be unlock an additional PowWeapon tbh). And Grey Hunters well already are exceptional.

 

And Chaos Marines demonstrate not being bound by rigid Astartes, by being able to mix and match. Any change to Tactical Squads should be to highlight on board flexibility. They are only Tactical Equivalant to be able to Combat Squad for sake of example.

 

Tacticals should emphasis their being flexibly compared to how Crusader Squads ultra specialization flexibility in List building, Grey Hunters battlefield flexilbililty in Firefight/Melee Engagements and Chaos Marines being able unconstrained by rigid mechanics (I.e able to double heavy or double special).

 

Tactical Buff is it should enable the role it should ‘fill’ capacity. A Tactical Squad would be able to fill either backfield, firefight or melee. The easiest to do so honestly, is have 10 Man Tacticals get certain weapons cheaper. Weapons that are explicitly more varied in what they are meant to be used against.

 

Plasma/Missile Launchers are good example of that. 5th Edition got the concept right, I think. With free Missiles and Flamers. It gave Tacticals a real advantages over their equivalents. The extension I’d change what is free for different codexes. C:SM might be Missile Launcher and Grav (Grav replaces Flamer), C:BA might be Heavy Flamer and Flamer and C:DA Plasma and Plasma Cannon.

 

Those are just the examples, and require additional refining. I think 5th Concept of Tacticals getting free weapons was the right track.

 

The idea of a third special or pistol option is one I am not considering, actually. When I typed uninspired, guess I should have added that there is no real reason, nor justification, for said thing to ever occur. If a GH pack gains any option, granting the WGPL the option to pay for a Storm Shield would seem the wisest long term solution.

 

I think the part the continued discussion is somewhat including a bit of talking past each other is that, yes, to me, some free points cost Special Ranged Weapons is likely the best way to go. The free Flamers GH packs could take in 5th were great; that for a bit the second Special, if the same as the first, was always free, really helped out, and promoted battlefield roles, depending upon the specials pair that particular pack happened to be running around with, that game.

 

So, Schlitzaf, yes.

 

The 5th Ed. free specials is great. What I did not type out well, is that, if the GH pack gets anything, I would think allowing the WGPL to buy a Storm Shield (SS) would work.

The only real issue is that, I don't know Crusader squads all that well. Something of a Neophyte Exemplar, or, an equivalent to a GHPL might work, just, as a +1 Attack Neophyte, is that worth it, to include just the option to take one extra special melee weapon, such as a power sword?

 

Hm.