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

[Mileposter]

Since the double variance is really what kills anti-horde weaponry at present, a simpler fix might be to drop into a d-side they've already used before to reduce the variance (and therefore up the norm) without also raising the damage ceiling.

 

Consider a moment: Weapons previously blast templates (such as grenades, some missiles, and Russ Battle Cannons) represent damage entirely as d3's instead of d6's. For example, a grenade that previously did d6 shots does 2d3 instead. 2d6 shots becomes 4d3 shots, etc.

 

It's another very unlikely solution that they'll implement (GW focuses d6 as much as possible), but considering it - the results are very interesting.

[Deschenus Maximus]

You do realize 2 5 Man with Double Heavy and Cherub is functionally as Efficient as 1 6 Man with 4 Heavy and Cherub? Sense you are paying 26 Points for one additional Lascannon shot once per game and another +1 of hit. Which will equate to 1 additional Lascannon over 4-6 turns.

 

1 6-strong Dev squad with 4 las and a cherub is 183 pts. 2 5-man squads with 2 Las and cherubs is 240 pts. I like a bit of padding but this is too costly for my blood. Pass.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Since the double variance is really what kills anti-horde weaponry at present, a simpler fix might be to drop into a d-side they've already used before to reduce the variance (and therefore up the norm) without also raising the damage ceiling.

 

Consider a moment: Weapons previously blast templates (such as grenades, some missiles, and Russ Battle Cannons) represent damage entirely as d3's instead of d6's. For example, a grenade that previously did d6 shots does 2d3 instead. 2d6 shots becomes 4d3 shots, etc.

 

It's another very unlikely solution that they'll implement (GW focuses d6 as much as possible), but considering it - the results are very interesting.

 

Could also simply do away with the random completely... After all, the yield of an explosive warhead is no more random than the rate of fire of a machinegun. Would cut down on a lot of superfluous dicerolling altogether...

[Claws and Effect]

The reason I'm wary of leaving game balance in the hands of the competitive players is because, thanks to them, if a Flyer is the only thing you have on the table you automatically lose the game, right then and there. Even if you still had units in reserve that would have come on next turn. 

 

Competitive players abused the hell out of the Stormraven being so good by running 5 or 6 of them at a time, and GW responded by issuing a rule that says you can no longer have nothing but Flyers on the board. 

 

That hurts casual players who maybe ran a single Stormraven or Stormtalon. Their opponents can afford to ignore their Flyer in favor of taking out the rest of their army instead, effectively tabling them without ever targeting the Flyer. It especially hurts someone who does something like bring a 350 point Fire Raptor to a 1500 point game. It's a great model and a solid unit, but if you take it in a lower point game it opens you up even more to being tabled with a unit still alive. 

 

And random number of shots reflects where the weapon's shell landed. A shell landing square in the middle of a squad is going to hit more guys than one that landed off to one side. 

[Deschenus Maximus]

The flyer "fix" was perfectly reasonable, imo. I'm glad GW went it. I think the casual player who ran a single Flyer is really not going to be too bother by this, since if all he has left on the board is his Raven, he's lost the game anyways, really.

 

And what you are saying about blasts is already represented by the to-hit rolls i.e. how well-aimed the shot into the group of dudes was. The extra layer of randomness just doesn't really make sense.

[Mileposter]

The "extra" layer is really needed else crowd control blasts become super effective at taking out single models simply by sheer weight of hits.

 

Variance is not the weakness, but the variance being so vast is.

 

Part of the issue is that the variance used to be in the hands of the players by placing the template. Taking that out of players hands and putting it to die roll definitely causes some of the salty feel. I understand the simplicity GW is shooting for here... But it clearly came at a cost.

 

That simplicity intent is also why I'm fairly confident that a scaling damage table is incredibly unlikely. Possible to get it into a single line ruling - but it's not the simplicity of the rule that they seem to be focusing on, but simplicity of gameplay. It doesn't fit with other stylistic points they've adopted.

 

A static damage or firing rule change is far more likely.

[Deschenus Maximus]

The problem you mention is easily remedied by making blast weapons Heavy 1 and stating in their rules that this becomes Heavy 3 if the target contains more than 1 model, Heavy 6 if more than 5 models and Heavy 12 if more than 10 (just example numbers pulled out of my ass).

 

For the record, I would greatly favour a D3-based system over the current D6, but I just think the whole random aspect could easily be done away with completely.

[Wargamer]

From the Flyer perspective, that's fine; air supremacy is a great way to upset your enemies, but it's no way to hold the field.

 

Blast weapons should absolutely have a fixed scaling rule - maybe give them all a rule called "Blast" and "Large Blast". Along these lines:

"Blast - This weapon causes an additional D3 hits for every ten models in the target unit."
"Large Blast - This weapon causes an additional D3 hits for every five models in the target unit."

[Deschenus Maximus]

@Wargamer: yeah that works but there should be a limit to the number of hits that can be generated. Blasts are not infinite in size after all.

[Mileposter]

"Should". Now there's a dangerous sentiment.

 

That's exactly the rule I reference, but it's still unlikely to see any scaling rule like that implemented. GW will likely opt for something on the simpler side of implementation.

 

That said, I certainly won't complain if it comes to pass.

[Wargamer]

Realistically, what's the largest unit in the game? Any above 30?

[Deschenus Maximus]

@Mileposter: It is a pretty big change, admitedly. It would take a lot of effort on GW's part to implement, so there's a fair chance they won't do it. That said, it's not impossible.

 

@Wargamer: Cultists can hit 40. I think that's the biggest?

[Gentlemanloser]

Pox walkers can reach an unlimited size. Limited only on time and available cp.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

@Claws: Outside of here, the majority of competitive players would largely agree that Tacticals are bad to a greater or lesser extent.

But the majority of competitive players is not the same thing as the majority of players overall.

 

Sure, Johnny Tourneylist may very well think Tactical squads are weak. But it doesn't necessarily mean that Bobby Beer&pretzels thinks so too.

 

The Bobbys out there far outnumber the Johnnys. Balancing a game strictly on the opinions of the hyper competitive fraction of its players is usually not a good idea, unless those players make up the majority. I would wager that in this case, they do not.

 

There are plenty of players who don't understand/care about army list building and scorn troops choices in general as being boring/weak. Usually I obliterate them with fluff focused lists because they take too much elite stuff and can't win on attrition.

 

Its the narrative above competitiveness people that tend to take balanced armies.

[Gentlemanloser]

One of our marine players left 40k because of Tac squads.

 

He loved them. thought that's how amarine army should be represented. And ran as many as he could.

 

He lost every match. But refused to change his lists.

 

In the end he simply stopped playing.

[Ishagu]

I know a stubborn player like that. Wanted to run mostly termies in landraiders and assault squads in 7th edition, kept losing. Ultimately stopped playing.

[totgeboren]

GW's most important asset is its IP, and that almost always portrays SM (their primary product) as teams of Tactical marines doing all kinds of cool stuff. That the rules for the game instead punish players for wanting to represent the imagery from the IP simply has to be a bad thing.

 

Note that this isn't about marines always winning. It is a game after all, and a game is best if it's balanced between both sides.
And you can definitively make two armies, say Black Legion vs Ultramarines, and have a balanced fight. But if only one the players tries to recreate an army from the background, an army dominated by Tacticals/CSM, and the other minimises them, the one one with lots of iconic marines will be at a severe disadvantage.

 

I mean, I know of two players who quit playing because Tacticals simply were not up to the task of forming a backbone of their marine armies. That a heavy Tactical theme is supported by the rules for marine armies is just as important as Ork armies being able to run armies dominated by big ork boyz mobs, because both are at the core of their army's theme.

[Captain Idaho]

It's a totally different argument to say TacticalMarines have value and an army made of just Troops choices isn't competitive in the slightest.

[Claws and Effect]

My current list has 2 Tactical squads and a Scout squad.

 

It also has 2 Devastator squads, a Terminator squad, and 2 Vanguard squads.

 

43 infantry models. No transports because the squads that will be moving a lot have other ways to get around. (and I only have one Razorback anyway).

 

My Tactical squads have a role to play, but killing a bunch of stuff isn't a big part of that role. One has a heavy bolter for Hellfire, and the other has a missile launcher for Flakk.

 

I play Raven Guard, so 3 or 4 of my 7 CP will be spent on Strike From The Shadows. The rest will be Hellfire or Flakk. Largely because one of the things I do agree about here is that Marine strategems are a little lackluster.

 

I use Tactical squads, but I don't go into a game expecting them to be superstars. If my list works properly they will be largely ignored until late in the game. If they're being shot at by more than a token unit, I probably already lost anyway.

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

There are plenty of players who don't understand/care about army list building and scorn troops choices in general as being boring/weak. Usually I obliterate them with fluff focused lists because they take too much elite stuff and can't win on attrition.

 

Its the narrative above competitiveness people that tend to take balanced armies.

 

 

Huh, no. Competitive players understand that you need SOMETHING to act as screens/add bodies to a list. The issue is that everybody takes Scouts because they do this just so much better than Tacticals.

 

It's a totally different argument to say TacticalMarines have value and an army made of just Troops choices isn't competitive in the slightest.

 

If Tacticals were actually good, having a list with a heavy Tactical presence wouldn't be a problem. Just sayin'

 

My current list has 2 Tactical squads and a Scout squad.

 

It also has 2 Devastator squads, a Terminator squad, and 2 Vanguard squads.

 

43 infantry models. No transports because the squads that will be moving a lot have other ways to get around. (and I only have one Razorback anyway).

 

My Tactical squads have a role to play, but killing a bunch of stuff isn't a big part of that role. One has a heavy bolter for Hellfire, and the other has a missile launcher for Flakk.

 

I play Raven Guard, so 3 or 4 of my 7 CP will be spent on Strike From The Shadows. The rest will be Hellfire or Flakk. Largely because one of the things I do agree about here is that Marine strategems are a little lackluster.

 

I use Tactical squads, but I don't go into a game expecting them to be superstars. If my list works properly they will be largely ignored until late in the game. If they're being shot at by more than a token unit, I probably already lost anyway.

 

I find it kinda funny that dropping your Tacticals for Scouts would still allow you to use Hellfire and Flakk, would be cheaper both in terms of points and CPs used AND would be fluffy as hell for Ravenguard.

[chapter master 454]

Tacticals need something to make them stand out. Something. Assaults get the ability to have jump packs, devastators are allowed up to 4 heavy weapons (and then are never seen at number above 5 because the extra 5 bodies add nothing but wasted points).

 

There is a strong theme of an issue with marines: Why take full strength squads? What advantage is there?

If your answer is ablative wounds then those are some pricey wounds you are paying for there bud. Only unit that could be argued has value above 5 is assault marines and even then they suffer the same fate: why not take 2 5 mans? (and lets be frank, space marine fast attacks SUCK so no need to worry about those FA slots). The big issue is that no squad gets a benefit for bringing a full 10 man which could be argued one of the core issues.

 

Everyone is saying that 2-5 is better than 1-10 which is completely true. You can't dispute it even on your best day. 2-5 has access to 2 sarge options, 2 special/heavy options where as 1-10 only gets 1 sarge option, 1 special option and 1 heavy option. Often on top of that most would only take a heavy option if they aren't going up board with the tacticals and are using them as cheap heavy weapon squads while most will take advantage of being allowed to have effectively 4 plasma/flamer/melta/grav within the same rhino! What is the purpose of a 10 man squad of tacticals, assaults and devastators? Nothing. You just take 5 because it's the cheapest method along with most efficient method. If you are going to have 10 devastators, take 2-5 instead of 1-10 because now you get 2 signums so now you get to buff 2 guns instead of one (so even if you were only going to have 4 guns, this means you have another buff going). I think that is a core of this issue is that taking full 10 man is not worth it and no. Don't make me laugh about combat squads (in fact, we already are using combat squads, we're just building our list as if that is all we really have).

 

I think one solution I could maybe throw into the ring here is a big left field but might work but I want you to read all of what I say before you respond:

First: Marines go to 10-11 points

Second: All marine squads MUST be 10 man. There is no option for 5 man.

Third: Tactical weapon choices change from "up to 1 special and 1 heavy" to "up to 2 special and/or heavy"

Fourth: Assaults get the option for jump packs at a 1-2pt tax

Fifth: Devastators signum now designates a target that they get +1 against

[BitsHammer]

Scouts are only slightly cheaper than Tacticals, so I think "do it so much better" is a little bit of hyperbole. There is a literal one point difference and it's only for every twelve models you take that you'd get a thirteenth one free over taking Tacticals before any upgrades are purchased.

 

It's not enough of a difference to claim that they're exceptionally more points efficient.

 

Anyways, dropping Marine points puts the game in a hard spot because then you're dropping down to where Sisters of Battle, Guard, Orks and Nids reside: at 10ppm or less for the smaller stuff. It's better to bring the worst of those up (Guard should be at least 6 for example, Sisters could be 10 instead of 9 and not break the army) than bring Marines down.

 

Plus dropping Marine points costs drops Scouts (making them still look more attractive if you're just looking for bolters and not much else) and the cost of every other Marine varient in the list, making them look just as relatively unattractive as they currently do.

 

I feel like we need a special Tactical rule like the Bolter Fullisade from the HH game: shoot twice this turn for no shooting until after your next shooting phase while the unit reloads. This would give them a chance to punch some hordes a little harder at a cost (especially if they fail a charge after that), and make people feel like they bring something unique without breaking the game. If they need to be buffed relative to the rest of the codex, a unique ability like that would probably be the best method I can think of, and it's based on existing rules.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Scouts are only slightly cheaper than Tacticals, so I think "do it so much better" is a little bit of hyperbole. There is a literal one point difference and it's only for every twelve models you take that you'd get a thirteenth one free over taking Tacticals before any upgrades are purchased.

 

It's not enough of a difference to claim that they're exceptionally more points efficient.

 

Anyways, dropping Marine points puts the game in a hard spot because then you're dropping down to where Sisters of Battle, Guard, Orks and Nids reside: at 10ppm or less for the smaller stuff. It's better to bring the worst of those up (Guard should be at least 6 for example, Sisters could be 10 instead of 9 and not break the army) than bring Marines down.

 

Plus dropping Marine points costs drops Scouts (making them still look more attractive if you're just looking for bolters and not much else) and the cost of every other Marine varient in the list, making them look just as relatively unattractive as they currently do.

 

I feel like we need a special Tactical rule like the Bolter Fullisade from the HH game: shoot twice this turn for no shooting until after your next shooting phase while the unit reloads. This would give them a chance to punch some hordes a little harder at a cost (especially if they fail a charge after that), and make people feel like they bring something unique without breaking the game. If they need to be buffed relative to the rest of the codex, a unique ability like that would probably be the best method I can think of, and it's based on existing rules.

 

In order of the points you brought up:

-It's not a question of cost but of abilities. Being able to deploy ahead of your deployment zone can completely screw with the game plan of certain armies. The fact that Scouts are cheaper (2 pts cheaper per model, btw, not one) just adds insult to injury.

-Be careful there: increasing the costs of Guardsmen and others does not automatically make Tacticals better - it can simply make said units uncompetitive. For example, I would bet a pretty penny that a 6-pts Guardsman means Infantry Squads just get shelved entirely in favor of grabbing more Scions (4 pts more for a 4+ save, Ap -2 gun, BS 3+ and Deep Strike is a no-brainer).

-Why would dropping the cost of Tacticals automatically mean we have to drop the cost of Scouts too? If both were 11 PPM, likely both would get used.

-Bolter Fusillade would be better than nothing, though I'm not crazy aout it, personnaly.

 

[BitsHammer]

Points costs are a pain to balance, which is one of the reasons I'm more in favor of everything being more expensive rather than cheaper. We don't need Hordehammer 40k like what the end of Warhammer Fantasy (prior to AoS reboot) was like. No one should be forced into a position of needing dozens of models just to fill the base minimum requirements of building their armies.

[Wargamer]

I think it was the 5th Edition Dark Eldar Codex that had one of the best examples of option design I ever saw. Multiple choices all had the same (or very close) points costs, yet none of them felt objectively better than the other.

This really isn't an ethos present in the current Codices, certainly not the Space Marine Codex, and so I'm leaning towards agreeing with Desc - Tacs and Scouts should probably be the same points.