Why Power Armour troops are mediocre and what can be done?

[Ishagu]

Just played a game last night, and it re-enforced my opinion on regular Marines vs Primaris.

 

People are unsatisfied because Marines lack punch and staying power. Those issues are resolved with Primaris. The two wounds is massive, as is the longer range and AP modifier on the standard gun.

 

Ignore the value and competitive aspect for a moment and simply look at how the unit plays. The Primaris FEEL like Astartes when engaging weaker units.

I don't get that same feel from regular Marines leading to the unsatisfaction players have at the moment.

 

Going back the competitive argument, Marines have special and heavy weapons going for them. This is certainly a bonus but it's something you are paying for. I see Marines as primarily units to engage infantry and hold objectives. Dedicated units will deal better with tougher or faster foes. Having that special weapon isn't as beneficial when an objective you have to grab leads the unit away from a situation where you can use it, or having to hide for a turn prevents you from ever firing.

 

I'm in favour of units with dedicated roles. Intercessors are hands down better at guarding an objective and engaging light infantry than any regular Marine variant. Hellblasters are superior in value and performance to veteran style ranged units with special weapons. Primaris do lack long ranged, high impact weapons so there's still a place for Predators etc.

 

Going full circle, the complaint about Marines feeling weak doesn't stand when a squad of 5 guys has 10 wounds, can engagemost other infantry outside of 24"max/12"optimum ranges and has 11 attacks in combat if a fight is required.

 

GW isn't going to buff existing Marines when that stronger/tougher variant already exists.

 

 

Edit:

Typo

[DuskRaider]

Actually, I agree with Ishagu... perhaps Astartes should be given Primaris stats (while keeping Marine cost) and scale it from there with Terminators, etc. 

[Claws and Effect]

Actually, I agree with Ishagu... perhaps Astartes should be given Primaris stats (while keeping Marine cost) and scale it from there with Terminators, etc.

The only thing that would accomplish would be to invalidate Primaris.

 

If you could get the same stats as Primaris for fewer points, no one would use Primaris. 5 Intercessors is 90 points, regular Marines are 65 for 5 of them. Who wouldn't want the same stats for 25 less points?

 

Hypothetical scenario:

 

10 man Tactical squad and 10 man Guard Infantry squad are contesting an objective.

 

Assuming neither squad has help from an officer nearby or backup from support units, who wins the objective? And why?

[Ishagu]

The Marines would win that, but they cost the same as 30 Guardsmen. It's why I'd rather take 5 Primaris - they perform on the level of 10 Marines in terms of resilience and damage output once you factor in cc against other infantry units.

[Chaplain Killmer]

Well if you look at that it's even giving the old marines a situation where they are superior to the primaris - similar to the situation the scouts were sitting when orcs reduced our PA guys to 4+ as max save. The more likely it is that the enemy brings weapons that will do 2 pts of damage or more in one hit - the better it is to save the points and bring the classics on the field. So our toolkit just got wider.

[DuskRaider]

 

The only thing that would accomplish would be to invalidate Primaris.

 

 

Yeah, and? 

 

But seriously, I did say scale up from Marines... so perhaps Primaris would have an extra wound or a natural 2+ and only they would have their weaponry.

[Claws and Effect]

Sure, they cost the same as 30 Guardsmen. But they're also just as durable as 30 Guardsmen.

 

My hypothetical objective contesting scenario? It would be resolved in a single turn, regardless of whose turn it is.

 

The Guard will fire 19 shots (Sgt has a laspistol, not a lasgun) and will hit with roughly half due to BS4+. Wounding on 5s will see about a third of the hits cause wounds. On average, only one of the three Marines thus wounded will fail his jsave. So, 19 S3 lasweapon shots will kill maybe 1 Marine. With only 1 casualty, morale will autopass.

 

Now the Marines return fire.

 

They've lost a guy, so they now have 18 bolter shots. Two thirds willf hit thanks to BS3+, so 12 hits. Two thirds will wound, so 8 wounds. Only about a third will make their save, so you have 5 or 6 dead Guardsmen. When morale kicks in, the Guardsmen are rolling 5 or 6 losses against LD7. Anything over a 2 will result in more losses. If they took 6 losses a 5 will wipe the squad.

 

Even if they pass morale and don't lose any more, you are now looking at 4 or 5 Guardsmen against 9 Marines. I don't think I need to explain how round 2 will turn out.

 

Yes, that tied up 10 Marines for a whole turn. But since their assigned task was to secure that objective it's not a waste of points. Because they succeeded in their task while remaining at 90% unit strength.

 

To that end, it is my opinion that people trying to use Tactical Squads offensively are using them wrong. They are a DEFENSIVE unit, and are much better when used as such.

 

You want something to slaughter gobs of infantry? Take some Aggressors along or a thunderfire cannon or two.

 

Stop trying to use a wrench to hammer in a nail and getting frustrated when it doesn't work.

[Ishagu]

That's why you take Intercessors. 25 more points to double the wounds, attacks and increase the range.

[Captain Idaho]

It's a difficult one. I'm happy with the distinction between Primaris and Classic Marines. Sure it would be great for my Tactical Marines to have an extra wound, but I'm sure many armies could make that claim.

 

The line needs to be drawn.

 

Now, Intercessors might FEEL like Marines yet the game isn't won or lost on a few Bolters even with -1 AP. Every other faction tries to fit in as many special and heavy weapons in their squads as possible.

 

On that basis I'd want Primaris Marines to have a couple special weapons options. Not the same as Tactical Marines so we don't have folk complaining they've been made obsolete.

 

So a new weapon system or 2. We got Plasma weapons in abundance so perhaps a melta blast gun to boost Primaris anti tank?

 

A shock style weapon? We have shock grenades so maybe a larger weapon that causes heavier disruption?

[DuskRaider]

I think the loss of templates have also really helped horde armies like IG thrive in 8th too. Where you could have potentially wiped at least half a squad with a blast template before, you're only doing D6 wounds now. In other words: horde management has gotten worse with 8th... or at least that's how I see it.

[Claws and Effect]

I'm okay with horde armies having their day in the sun.

 

Infantry based Guard, Tyranids, and Orks were terrible for how long? I don't begrudge long time players of those armies getting to feel good about sticking with them.

 

And the bandwagon players would be jumping to whichever army performed best anyway.

 

In a sense, nothing changed for Marine players. We've pretty much always been in the "not bad, but not great" category.

[DuskRaider]

I don't know, I played horde Orks from 4th on and I never thought they were horrible at all. In fact, at times they seemed to be too much for a lot of opponents to handle.

[Captain Idaho]

I don't even struggle against Hordes. I have 51 infantry models in my list and I'm a Marines player! Most hordes have about 100.

We hear about some theory hammer of an Ork Army with 160 Ork boyz but I've never seen it in real life and to be honest, a refused flank helps.

 

Besides, 160 Orks outnumbers me a little over 3-1. That's not much really.

 

I think if Marines took more boys and less toys, they'd do well.

 

That's not to say I am going against the need for special weapons, but tanks and characters are expensive.

 

I have 3 vehicles in my list too. Would like 5 but what are you gonna do eh.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Sure, they cost the same as 30 Guardsmen. But they're also just as durable as 30 Guardsmen.

 

*snip*

To that end, it is my opinion that people trying to use Tactical Squads offensively are using them wrong. They are a DEFENSIVE unit, and are much better when used as such.

 

 

They are actually NOT as durable as 30 Guardsmen. They are about as durable against small arms but they are MASSIVELY more vulnerable to weapons with good AP. Ergo, they are overall LESS durable than their equivalent in point's Worth of Guardsmen. And yes, this is accounting for Morale.

 

To the second point: why bother with Tacticals at all? Scouts are better at grabbing midfield objectives, Devastators are better at hold backfield ones (same durability but can provide fire support too), so...

 

I'm okay with horde armies having their day in the sun.

 

I'm not. That's a terrible mentality, coming from a game design perspective.

 

[Mileposter]

 

I'm okay with horde armies having their day in the sun.

 

I'm not. That's a terrible mentality, coming from a game design perspective.

 

From a game design perspective, it's a beneficial mentality. The balance pendulum swings both ways - and being a pvp oriented game it'll hardly ever (if ever) perfectly balanced system. It can't be. So yes, being okay with where the pendulum sits for a period of time is healthy on both the consumer and designer side.

 

That doesn't mean don't try to fix it. That doesn't mean don't keep trying to balance things. That only means being okay with it in the meantime.

 

And I dunno, but I wouldn't be surprised if some data suggests that Marines being on the low end may actually be a reason for some of GW's successes lately.

[Deschenus Maximus]

I respectfully disagree. That mentality breeds lethargy. Never be satisfied.

[chapter master 454]

I feel a similar thing regarding primaris and we cannot debate that this is a huge issue.

 

As much as I am willing to accept primaris, they are a bad fix if that was their intention. Marines right now don't feel like marines. What do they feel like? Slightly better armoured guardsmen. Ok sure T4 seems like a big deal but in the grand scheme of things the big issue is AP, not strength. Boosting 4+ to wound to 3+ is the biggest factor and it also works in reverse where if you knock 3+ to 4+ then it is a massive issue. This is all about shifts and how they affect the game. While it may only be a 16.67% shift each time, there are breakpoints where these become a problem. Think about it, a marine getting knocked to 4+ feels WAY WAY worse than knocking a guardsman's 5+ to a 6+ or even ignoring an orks 6+. They literally don't care for armour because their defense is massed infantry and thus each one doesn't matter. Meanwhile each marine is a big deal when we lose one.

 

It is a thing where marines struggle. There are more things that hurt marines than that hurt hordes. Even just AP1 weapons now are a huge deal vs. marines. The shift from 3+ to 4+ is massive and why people say cover is important: So we can have our 3+ vs. ap1 weapons THAT OTHERS GET EASILY. Boltguns are now a joke equal to lasguns, we may as well call them Nerf Guns and Flashlights all day now, only difference is the imperial guard get to bring enough to do damage.

 

Marines ether need to be bulked up or points reduced. Marines are not worth 13 points a pop.

[Claws and Effect]

Why shouldn't some things be better than others for a little while?

 

If nothing was ever better than anything else, you might as well give everything the exact same stats and points cost and call it a day.

 

Horde armies were awful for years, and now that they're actually good we have Marine players calling for nerfs to them or buffs to their own stuff because they can't just blast them off the table at will amymore.

 

That strikes me as being a little selfish. The game isn't unbalanced because a traditionally well performing faction isn't the top dog anymore.

 

It will shift back toward elite armies being good at some point. And because of that I'm perfectly okay with players that have been on the bottom for years getting to feel good about being on top for a change.

 

I'm going to keep playing my Raven Guard, and getting munched by my wife's Nids. When she first picked her faction to play, all she heard was how mediocre they were and that she needed to run a specific list to even stand a chance. Now that Nids are actually a good army, I'm enjoying seeing her excited about playing. If that means my boys in black underperform for a while, so be it.

[Mileposter]

At the risk of branching to general philosophy rather than game design philosophy... Never being satisfied seems a rather unhappy existence.

 

I'm speaking more about duality. Acceptance. If a game designer is never okay with where the game is as it stands, they're not going to be in a good headspace to adjust it and swing that pendulum back to center. Being okay with it doesn't mean that they lack the energy to improve things.

 

One of the game development companies I used to work for actually kept a psychologist/therapist on staff just to help keep employees in healthy head space during long development sprints. That they also helped folks deal with how absolutely toxic the video game industry is and how crappy consumers treat developers was an immense side benefit.

 

More specifically on topic - I think that there being this much back and forth in the argument showcases how closely the Marines are performing to expected standard. They're performing below par (unless you're Ultramarines) if you go entirely by tournament winners statistics - but tournament environment will always skew to whatever is 0.02% better than everything else anyway. Statistics on other metas are unreliable at best, but we do know that they make up the majority of players... So if the majority of Tournament players aren't playing Marines, but the majority of players are Marines, we must therefore infer that the majority of Marines are played in casual.

 

Perhaps it's beneficial to ask: Do Marines perform better when measured by PL than Points?

 

I posit it's not the Marine that's performing below par so much as the Codex that is failing. unless my memory fails me, Space Marines were doing fine when no one had a Codex - not great but not poor, as expected. Obviously points get shuffled around a bit (some really do need it) but a rework of the support a Marine gets might be all the difference it needs. The Stratagems are universally heralded as lackluster, so that would seem to be a decent place for an overhaul. Haven't heard a unified voice on Warlord Traits; good or bad? Relics?

[Ishagu]

Why shouldn't some things be better than others for a little while?

 

If nothing was ever better than anything else, you might as well give everything the exact same stats and points cost and call it a day.

 

Horde armies were awful for years, and now that they're actually good we have Marine players calling for nerfs to them or buffs to their own stuff because they can't just blast them off the table at will amymore.

 

That strikes me as being a little selfish. The game isn't unbalanced because a traditionally well performing faction isn't the top dog anymore.

 

It will shift back toward elite armies being good at some point. And because of that I'm perfectly okay with players that have been on the bottom for years getting to feel good about being on top for a change.

 

I'm going to keep playing my Raven Guard, and getting munched by my wife's Nids. When she first picked her faction to play, all she heard was how mediocre they were and that she needed to run a specific list to even stand a chance. Now that Nids are actually a good army, I'm enjoying seeing her excited about playing. If that means my boys in black underperform for a while, so be it.

No one is saying Marines should rule the tabletop without competition, people merely want them to perform as the lore would suggest. They DO feel like guardsmen in some situations, they have no bite.

 

But, as I've pointed out, Primaris are the immediate answer. Chapter Approved only came out before Christmas - we'll be seeing an increase in their use as some of the units became a lot more competitive, if that's your main focus.

[Gentlemanloser]

Primaris are the answer?

 

I'd like access to that answer...

 

Where's that dead horse, it needs some more flogging.

[Claws and Effect]

 

Why shouldn't some things be better than others for a little while?

 

If nothing was ever better than anything else, you might as well give everything the exact same stats and points cost and call it a day.

 

Horde armies were awful for years, and now that they're actually good we have Marine players calling for nerfs to them or buffs to their own stuff because they can't just blast them off the table at will amymore.

 

That strikes me as being a little selfish. The game isn't unbalanced because a traditionally well performing faction isn't the top dog anymore.

 

It will shift back toward elite armies being good at some point. And because of that I'm perfectly okay with players that have been on the bottom for years getting to feel good about being on top for a change.

 

I'm going to keep playing my Raven Guard, and getting munched by my wife's Nids. When she first picked her faction to play, all she heard was how mediocre they were and that she needed to run a specific list to even stand a chance. Now that Nids are actually a good army, I'm enjoying seeing her excited about playing. If that means my boys in black underperform for a while, so be it.

No one is saying Marines should rule the tabletop without competition, people merely want them to perform as the lore would suggest. They DO feel like guardsmen in some situations, they have no bite.

 

But, as I've pointed out, Primaris are the immediate answer. Chapter Approved only came out before Christmas - we'll be seeing an increase in their use as some of the units became a lot more competitive, if that's your main focus.

The lore would suggest that a single Company of Marines can fight an entire Ork WAAAGH for 2 years without losing effectiveness.

 

It also suggests that Calgar can take one on by himself....

 

That level of overpowered should NEVER be reflected on the tabletop.

[BitsHammer]

Either they are out of range (12” pistols) or the numbers are inconquenstial. (180 > 30 > 10 > 3 wounds on Rhino). If Marine player component or he loses 5 Marines. Which is only insignificant ‘because’ the Orks start 60 Points ahead already. If they have a Warboss and can advance and charge we are talking 15” turn 1 charge and now the difference becomes +100 in addition to anything else

Orks have Sluggas/Heavy Sluggas as options too, and where the Iridescent Emperor did a Rhino come into the equation? If the Marines are mass shooting they can't be in a Rhino.

 

So we've been going back and forth for a while now and with no one agreeing if Tactical marines themselves need a buff to fight hordes I decided to crunch numbers and compare them to some common horde style units in the game. I'll admit upfront that this isn't a loot at every single unit in existance and thus not as complete as it could be, but taking a larger swath like this should at least give us a more definite feeling for where Tacticals exist in the game.

 

So to do this I'm using 10 Tacticals (aka 9 + 1 SGT) with no upgrades as the baseline. I then crunched numbers for both their long range (outside of charge) range distance shooting, and their shooting inside of the charge range using only their bolters, followed by the charge and their first set of attacks.

 

Following this I crunched a set of numbers for the targets versus Tactical Marines to see how they shake out against each other  under the same outside charge range shooting and shoot + charge and then finally I summarized the whole thing at the end with a kind of tl;dr for people that basically says if Marines are better or worse than a given unit in a straight fight with no auras, Command Points, ect to worry about.

 

You will find the second section has more bodies on most units, this is to balance the number of points being commited. I always rounded down models when dividing the Marine's cost of 130, leading to smaller numbers. If there any partial units that would normally be illegal (Guard), consider them understrength units due to casualties or just being taken that way for the sake of a fair punch up.

 

First the Marines vs section (Wounds inflicted):

 

More than 12" Away (no charge):

Gaunts (T3, 6+): 3.70

GEQ (T3, 5+): 2.96

Firewarriors (T3, 4+): 2.22

Sisters (T3, 3+): 1.48

Orks (T4, 6+): 2.78

Scouts (T4, 4+): 1.67

MEQ (T4, 3+): 1.11

 

Less than 12" Away (Shooting + Charge = Total Wounds Inflicted):

Gaunts (T3, 6+): 7.41 + 3.70 = 11.11

GEQ (T3, 5+): 5.93 + 2.96 = 8.89

Sisters (T3, 3+): 2.96 + 1.48 = 4.44

Orks (T4, 6+): 5.56 + 2.78 = 8.33

Scouts (T4, 4+): 3.33 + 1.67 = 5.00

MEQ (T4, 3+): 2.22 + 1.22 = 4.59

 

You'll note I've included MEQ up above. Basically this is so there is an additional baseline of how effective Tactical Marines are at killing Marines when compared to different armies as well. Some of the addition may look off in the second half, but that's due to rounding to two decimal places. Also Scouts are here as part of that comparison against MEQ since it's common to see them brought up vs Tacticals.

 

Now the everyone versus Marines section. NOTE: Any odd numbers that don't fit into a unit are to be considered part of an under strength unit if they won't fit into multiple smaller units (looking at you Guardsmen) for the sake of completeness. Once again, the numbers are total wounds

 

No Rapid Fire (no charge):

32 Termagaunts (128pts): 0

32 Conscripts (128 pts): 1.19

32 Guardsmen (128 pts): 1.5

14 Sisters (126 pts): 1.56

21 Ork Boyz (126 pts): 0

11 Scouts (121 pts): 1.22

 

Less than 12" Range (Shooting + Charge = Total Wounds)

32 Termagaunts (128pts): 1.78 + 1.78 = 5.33

32 Conscripts (128 pts): 2.37 + 1.19 = 5.33

32 Guardsmen (128 pts): 3.17 + 2.11 = 5.28

14 Sisters (126 pts): 3.11 + .078 = 5.31

21 Ork Boyz (126 pts): 1.17 + 4.67 = 7.78

11 Scouts (121 pts): 2.44 + 1.33 = 3.41

 

So where does this put Marines when facing opponents of equal strength?

At ranges outside of charge/rapid fire they are weaker than:

Sisters

 

But stronger than:

Guard

Conscripts

Gaunts

Orks

Scouts

 

At close range they are weaker than:

Sisters

 

But stronger than:

Guard

Conscripts

Gaunts

Scouts

Orks

 

So what's this mean? Looking at a wider array of numbers, I can agree that the base problem isn't the Marines. It's definitely the way Hordes work since the numbers tip one way or another but never really get out of control when looking at equal amounts in points. What's this mean? The mitigation of battleshock needs to be readdressed and there should be a look at toning down the supporting elements of the armies (Command Points, the number of units we're seeing in games (Guard), points cost for upgrades/wargear and basically everything beyond the basic units). So, I have to admit that Marines don't look so bad by themselves in a vacuum when no other elements are mixed in, so the crux of the issue is more on the opposing armies.

[totgeboren]

I would be happy if they were about 3 times as offensively and defensively powerful compared to guardsmen.
I think their cost feels fine. It produces armies that have about the right amount of marines to vehicles, and marines to hordes.
Problem is now that they are a bit less than 3 times as powerful defensively, and only marginally better offensively (in some circumstances) than a guardsman.

 

*edit*

The analysis of the post above makes little sense imo. So marines vs marines causes 1.11 wounds over 12" away, while GEQ vs marines causes 1.5 wounds. This means marines are stronger?
Within 12", rapid fire and assault, marines causes 4.59 wounds to their marine foe, while the GEQ causes 5.28 wounds. This means Marines are stronger?

 

Also, are you sure the numbers are correct? For example

Less than 12" Range (Shooting + Charge = Total Wounds)

32 Termagaunts (128pts): 1.78 + 1.78 = 5.33

32 Conscripts (128 pts): 2.37 + 1.19 = 5.33

32 Guardsmen (128 pts): 3.17 + 2.11 = 5.28

 

The last row makes sense, but the Conscripts and Termagants look... odd.

[fisheyedbunny]

Really interesting debate so far on what can be done to fix the issue and also if people even think there is an issue. Awesome read.

 

Is the real problem not with the stats currently but rather the base game? D6 vs D10 or another die type? D10 allows for a larger variance. Say guardsmen are 6+ save and marines 4+ save to throw numbers out off the top of my head.

 

It would involve a fundamental rethink of stats across the board but would allow for a wider variation overall.