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

[Beams]

All the references to Conscripts is funny.

 

They cost 4ppm or the same as a standard Guardsmen squad, receive orders only on a 4+ (guardsman auto pass), and have a 5+ to hit as opposed to a 4+, have a leadership of 4 instead of 7. Sure you can take a commisar, but he kills someone on a failed morale roll, and then let's you reroll it, so that could actually increase morale losses. There is no auto passing, unless your playing Valhallans, and then only one squad can auto pass, but still loses one guy, at the cost of a relic, and a specialized strategem, since Valhallans strategem only works in open play.

 

Anyone who still complains about Conscripts hasn't actually been paying attention. They don't exist on the table top anymore, outside of some real fringe cases. GW might as well handed everyone some whiteout.

 

And if Ork Boys were such a big problem, wouldn't they be winning tournaments?

 

That said, I do expect tyranids to start winning now that their codex has dropped. gaunt storms are nasty, although still beatable.

[Daigo Cannon]

IG being able to bring a brigade at 600 pts is insane vs a marine army who needs a 1700++ to bring the same. The other problem is even when you shoot and cripple a unit, the guy with an AC/LC is still there, you need to kill the whole squad in order to remove the thread.

 

Marine are overpriced when compared to other factions, paying for CP and pts on units. Mechanicus has the auxpex stratagem for 1 CP when marines is 2 CP. All other faction have "chapter tactics" for their vehicles, marines has none.

 

I really believe the "Elite" status of the marines comes from the weapon choices we have access and a lot of the super soldier is not present in the table.

+1W/+1A seems good to start, improved movement for marines will be great
+1T on TDA
 

these small changes will improve the presence of the marine and its thread level.

[Schlitzaf]

Different armies play differently, as I said before Marines elite factor is highlight in that they take up only a small amount of board space while those IG units cannot fit reasonably on one corner of the table.

 

However Elite does not mean MSU, too many players are taking 3 MSU Squads for Battlelion and loading on hyper elite and small unit counts whom just evaporate. You need bodies on board, in some fashion.

[Zodd1888]

Some of you are being very constructive (ie. raising CP, morale, PPM/PPW, field mechanics, etc.). Others are simply quoting "meta" anecdotally.

 

The type of chaff doesn't matter (gaunt, conscript, infantry unit, boyz, horrors, etc.) for what we're discussing, IMO, as the stats vary slightly between models but the core issues remain the same (ie. Board control, deep strike denial, offensive nature towards targets, detatchment requirements, etc.). The statistics in 3++ are simply on conscripts so people are quoting that unit, we could do the math on any other, but the fact of the matter is hordes/chaff do nearly everything tacticals can better.

 

It's like calling a handyman vs. a carpenter. One can get the job done, but may not have the tools or all the skill sets mastered, and the other has all the tools and skills. The issue is an army of handymen ran by a contractor, or even without, will have the tools needed shared between them, especially if they contract out a cabinet maker (ie. Psyker, Commissar, etc.). The carpenter has all the tools and skills but has to compete with 3 other guys for the job, they're quoting at rates he can't compete at, can be wherever the client needs, and if someone calls in for a mental health day the carpenter is less impactful.

 

The above analogy is part of the reasons why unions have changed so drastically in North America over the past few decades. Specialty trades are only effective if they are doing a job that no one else can fulfill at a lower rate. Whether or not they bring in better skills, or more tools, if the job is done good enough costs are all that matter.

 

I'm not going to talk about cover, LOS blocking terrain, or anything like that yet because it only supports tactical squads as an option in one limited case. By that rationale the entire board would require cover for the sake of that argument. The rule itself forces entire squads to stand in cover, so even if you had 10-12 buildings set that way you'd still have over 70% of the board not applying. Further, LOS blocking building help chaff just as much as tacticals.

[Schlitzaf]

Except you know they take up 3x the table space. I showed the math earlier but even if 3 Gaurd > 1 Marine. Once you get to an army level engagement. 30 Marines can Deploy in a compact manner and able to bring all their guns to bear on a single target.

 

The equivalent 90 Gaurdsman? At best half of them could deploy to a single half of the board to engage. Marines pay for being a precision instrument and should be used as then deployed as such. Once you account for engagement zone and spacing 30 Gaurdsman actually lose to a 10 Man Tactical Squad. Because a single tactical volley kills 5-6 Gaurdsman with battle shock taking another 2-3. The Gaurdsman in contrast only remove 2-3 Marines which comes up to being far less damaging despite both cases being a third damage exchange. Sense the Tacticals will proceed to Rapid the second Gaurds Squad Kill it in melee with battleshock. Leaving it about 5-6 Marines vs 10 Gaurdsman.

 

You can not compare 3 Gaurd to 1 Marine it’s why I said 3++ Math is wrong. It’s deliberately misleading and pretends both sets are standing in fire lanes.

[Captain Idaho]

I certainly think GW needs to address Codex Space Marines because it is rather inconsistent compared to the rest of the factions and rather boring when considering Stratagems.

 

Chapter Tactics only affecting infantry and not vehicles is just unfair whilst also being fairly underwhelming compared to some Chapter Tactics of other books. +1 to wound and rerolling 1s is amazing and the BA and DA books get much better Stratagems for cheap too.

 

Space Marines Stratagems only work for niche units and army builds; a hang over from previous editions and the Detachment fiasco. I need 3 Predators to use one Stratagem, Or need to pay 3 CPs to get a random radius 50% chance of D3 wounds attack etc.

 

Then you look at Tyranids or Eldar or BA and DA Stratagems...

 

Whilst we're on the subject, why are Vindicators rubbish and Predators 150pts+ when other races get Leman Russ tanks and Fire Prisms that are more survivable, can fire twice and have more guns etc?

[BitsHammer]

Whilst we're on the subject, why are Vindicators rubbish and Predators 150pts+ when other races get Leman Russ tanks and Fire Prisms that are more survivable, can fire twice and have more guns etc?

Sadly that is a side-effect of being first in an edition: as they get more comfortable with what they can do with the system in a given edition the way a book ages doesn't go well.

 

That said, it's not like it's impossible for the Marines to get better, but it'll likely not be until after all the armies have a core codex. From there (if the living edition rumors were true) we should see a new update for Marines with points changes, new options and the like.

[Bryan Blaire]

we should see a new update for Marines with points changes, new options and the like.

Very true, for the low, low price of yet another Chapter Approved or Campaign book!

[chapter master 454]

 

we should see a new update for Marines with points changes, new options and the like.

Very true, for the low, low price of yet another Chapter Approved or Campaign book!

 

 

Better than the none none cost of nothing for an entire edition and being trash until the next codex.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I tend to think that marines are fine, but that the horde units and some of the cheap brigade enablers need to be addressed. I think hordes will be fixed via point increases and nerfs (see conscripts), and I think putting a point threshold you need to cross with a brigades (maybe 1501) would help out a lot on the cp front.

 

Its kinda crazy to think that the edition is six months old and we already have ten codex with another coming soon. Fifth edition had nine total, third had eight for its first year​, and had to revise a couple. So I'm pretty optimistic because they have responded to some of the early issues and I don't know what the lead time on chapter approved was.

 

IMO on the marine tank front I think the vindicator and plague crawler both could use the Russ turret rule. Preds I think are more of a point adjustment they don't have a main turret like the other tanks that have gotten one, and being able to take 4 lascannon shots is a big deal.  

[CaptainMarsh]

The 3++ mathhammer isn't wrong. The issue with mathhammer is that it neglects actual tabletop experience. As Schlitzaf has pointed out, it is much easier for a PA army in general to bring its weapons on target en masse. I have seen more than a few infantry heavy Guard armies get obliterated at my FLGS because of this very reason. This doesn't mean that the math is wrong. It just means that the math in question is...just math. No tactics, no terrain, ideal conditions for each. And yes, in ideal situations if the two armies have decided by gentleman's agreement to stand in the open and exchange fire like they're fighting a revolutionary war era battle, the conscripts will win more often than not. But playing an elite army gives you more movement options by nature of more open table space to play with, and any decent PA player will take advantage of this.


This isn't to say that Tacticals are fine as they are. They need a buff or a cost decrease. Personally I'd like to see a buff. Giving them a superior armor save against 1 damage weapons may be a little much in any direct comparison and while it would make them more survivable it doesn't increase their lethality. I think the Bolter needs to change. Having a AP-1 (and then change the Bolt Rifle and Intercessor line to make up for it) or making a Bolter be RF 2 and doing what one can for the SB to make it cool,would be an instant upgrade across the board for all PA troops across the board. Another option may be to increase the amount of special and heavy weapons a squad may take. 1/1 at 5, 2/2 or 3/1 at 10.

[Bryan Blaire]

Better than the none none cost of nothing for an entire edition and being trash until the next codex.

Or, ya know, they could accept that balancing issues shouldn’t be monetized.

 

Last I checked, I bought the required game book to play my Marines, and the main rule book to play the game - I did not sign up for a subscription MMO.

 

I would have no problem with them taking an extra couple of years to actually work out the game correctly and sell the rule book for $120-150 bucks and a Codex for $50-60, instead of a $60 rulebook, a $40 Codex, and then year after year expect to shell out $35 year after year (that’s a subscription fee) for less than stellar content and the latest round of beta-test points values.

[Schlitzaf]

Marsh as I have said in other threads a buff like that doesn’t fix the problem and you have put that in context with Crusader and Grey Hunter Squads. Both of whom are many ways Tactical+ (see my Tactical Variant analysis thread for larger explanation) and as units that is their armies core identity.

 

Changing Tacticals requires a buff to Crusader, and Grey Hunters. The best way is see them get their weapons for cheaper at 10 Men. (Free Missile Launchers and Flamers like in 5th or have the free weapons differ between C:DA, C:BA and C:SM). This buff will have result in the skewing back to Tacticals vs Hunters and Crusaders. Sense Specials and Heavies are a lot more expensive then they used to be. But is likely one of the better buffs that could be done.

 

Ultimately; any fix to Tactical Squads must remember that said fix will be applied to Crusader, Grey Hunters and Chaos Marines. Unlocking more weapon slots at 10 for Crusaders (which mechanically instead unlock all weapon requirements at 5) could end poorly or not at all. Any additional attack buff either render Crusader and Grey Hunters pointless, or break them.

 

I think back to the overall point. A nice buff could simply be Tacticals can choose to reroll the results random shot weapons. Emphasising Missile Launches and Flamers, where are the classic armaments. Or may at start of movement combat Squad with no penalty or strategem to emphasis squad level flexibility.

[chapter master 454]

Marsh as I have said in other threads a buff like that doesn’t fix the problem and you have put that in context with Crusader and Grey Hunter Squads. Both of whom are many ways Tactical+ (see my Tactical Variant analysis thread for larger explanation) and as units that is their armies core identity.

 

Changing Tacticals requires a buff to Crusader, and Grey Hunters. The best way is see them get their weapons for cheaper at 10 Men. (Free Missile Launchers and Flamers like in 5th or have the free weapons differ between C:DA, C:BA and C:SM). This buff will have result in the skewing back to Tacticals vs Hunters and Crusaders. Sense Specials and Heavies are a lot more expensive then they used to be. But is likely one of the better buffs that could be done.

 

Ultimately; any fix to Tactical Squads must remember that said fix will be applied to Crusader, Grey Hunters and Chaos Marines. Unlocking more weapon slots at 10 for Crusaders (which mechanically instead unlock all weapon requirements at 5) could end poorly or not at all. Any additional attack buff either render Crusader and Grey Hunters pointless, or break them.

 

I think back to the overall point. A nice buff could simply be Tacticals can choose to reroll the results random shot weapons. Emphasising Missile Launches and Flamers, where are the classic armaments. Or may at start of movement combat Squad with no penalty or strategem to emphasis squad level flexibility.

 

I feel that tacticals don't get what make them what they are. People see Assault Marines and Devastators as better tacticals yet...tacticals are supposed to be the final stage in becoming a full marine. A true marine and not a marine in training. Yet Tacticals cannot take whatever they like, they can't take jump packs or heavy weapons as they need.

 

It would be awesome to see Jump Pack tactical marines. They are meant to be able to cover whatever they need, you need melee these guys know it, you need ranged firepower these guys know it, you need special weapons these guys know it. Tacticals are supposed to be the height of their training so why can't we have them be able to take whatever they like? Devastators and Assaults existing because they are a means to get ether fire support or additional close support for your tacticals. As it stands tacticals are just worse devs and assault marines really and their only real strength is their special weapons.

[BitsHammer]

 

Better than the none none cost of nothing for an entire edition and being trash until the next codex.

Or, ya know, they could accept that balancing issues shouldn’t be monetized.

 

Last I checked, I bought the required game book to play my Marines, and the main rule book to play the game - I did not sign up for a subscription MMO.

 

I would have no problem with them taking an extra couple of years to actually work out the game correctly and sell the rule book for $120-150 bucks and a Codex for $50-60, instead of a $60 rulebook, a $40 Codex, and then year after year expect to shell out $35 year after year (that’s a subscription fee) for less than stellar content and the latest round of beta-test points values.

 

Let's be pretty clear about something up front: getting new codexes regularly this way isn't different than new editions requiring us to get new codexes and going through the cycle all over again.

 

Here's the thing: GW doesn't run a subscription based game. Balancing the game isn't something that they can have people working on basically all the time for free. Plus there are rules in boxes so if you want new stuff but don't want a new book then you can just buy the model and have the rules to play with.

[Bryan Blaire]

Better than the none none cost of nothing for an entire edition and being trash until the next codex.

You know the crazy part about your comment, right? Chapter Approved had next to minimal material that would be a Codex, yet it cost only $15 less than Codex Space Marines, and only $5 less than than Codex: Blood Angels or Codex: Dark Angels.

 

So for the price of three years of Chapter Approved, you could actually get two new Codex Space Marines, and have $5 left over... I.e. You could actually have a brand new Codex in just a year and a half, and the content it had would be more meaningful than what you'd get in those Chapter Approveds regarding your playing Marines.

 

Let's be pretty clear about something up front: GW is now running a subscription based game.

Fixed that for ya, just in case you had already imbibed the overly sugared, overly colored powdered mixed drink.

 

Balancing the game isn't something that they can have people working on basically all the time for free.

Let's be really honest, they don't seem to have all that many people actively "working on" balancing things. GW has said that it plans on re-balancing based on tourney results, feedback from players, and some internal play-testing, as well as play-testing by tournament runners. They aren't doing everything in house - that much information gathering and adjusting based on feedback is the equivalent of running a massive beta - except the last time I did that much beta-testing for a company, where it included me submitting my bug testing, etc., it also involved me getting a full copy of the game free upon full release. That isn't happening, GW is actually expecting me to pay for results of my own, and the other public testers, test results.

 

You're right, that's actually worse than being a subscription service...

 

Let's be realistic, Marines are not truly balanced, or closely balanced, against all other armies - there are numerous small things that could be fixed amongst the different armies to balance things out, and things like "Morale for large units" are actually large enough issues that they should have been uncovered prior to release, not still pending additional correction.

[BitsHammer]

So you clearly don't like the way the game is going. Fine. That doesn't mean that everyone is automatically chugging kool-aid just because they see some positives.

 

Chapter Approved coming back and bringing with it new stuff for the game (build-your-own Land Raiders, Planetstrike, Apoc, new missions) which they bundled with points changes. Do you NEED it? No. But using it to update stuff is pretty good.

 

Going forward, thanks to rules-in-box you don't even need to buy new codexes to play new units in the future. It's gotten easier for the game to bring us new stuff and you don't even have to buy new books if you don't want too.

 

Heck, even if you don't want chapter approved for the points changes, it didn't change power levels so unless you play matched play it's not really going to effect you, but in my experience the more competitive you are when you play the more money you're spending on this game anyways.

 

But that's not really a topical point I guess so let's get back on topic a bit more: Marines don't need to be changed. Marines have always been the standard by which the rest of the game is balanced and compared to. They are the yardstick for literally everything else in the game. So when they're looking too weak compared to something (especially in repeated games and not just in a vacuum where no one bothers to employ tactics and just shoot blindly) the issue isn't Marines, it's everything else.

 

Now I will completely agree that there is a bit of an issue regarding Tactical Marines in terms of fluff versus crunch. Grey Hunters fit this bill too: they're fluffed up as veterans, but lack the sort of things they give to veterans (extra attack, wargear options). I don't really want to see the yardstick change just to fit the fluff, but to I do feel like there should at least be more wargear options available. Then again I pretty much feel that every army should have more varied options.

[Bryan Blaire]

Marines have always been the standard by which the rest of the game is balanced and compared to. They are the yardstick for literally everything else in the game.

Um, sure. There was a point in time where the game was statistically balanced to the S3 T3 W1 average human - like 2nd and the beginning of 3rd Edition - and Marines actually seemed to be Marines, and when there were more wargear options for units (Assault Squads armed all with power weapons!? Shocking! Too bad that went away for 3rd).

 

As the points levels went up, so that Marine players needed even more Marines to play (hence GW could make even more money off their most popular faction), the yardstick slowly became S4 T4 W1 3+ Sv. It didn't start that way. When something is the yardstick, it ceases to be the elite group, it has become the norm.

 

Marines were never intended to be the "norm", but because they were the best selling faction and got the most love, GW had to start coming up with ways to keep us Marine players buying.

 

I actually wrote a pretty long explanation of this back before 8th came out - it still holds true.

 

Sure, there are some positives now - the models are a metric ton better than they were - but that doesn't excuse the fact that what was, and is intended to be per GW's own fluff text - even if it is just propaganda, the elite is now the norm that everything else, including basic humans, are measured to...

[Schlitzaf]

Well go back to 2nd or 3rd edition. MEQ Statline is the norm now for better or worse. And you know what? That is not a bad thing. A marine should feel elite not because he is elite, because he isn’t a normal bro. The way I see Gaurdsman die like chaff. And their needing to have two men to carry a heavy weapon, so on and so forth, they feel elite to me.

 

If you are rose tinted for time you thought Marines were better go play 2nd or 3rd. Because Marines are the most common army and common statline in the game. They have because the basis everything else is measured.

[Bryan Blaire]

Well go back to 2nd or 3rd edition. MEQ Statline is the norm now for better or worse. And you know what? That is not a bad thing. A marine should feel elite not because he is elite, because he isn’t a normal bro. The way I see Gaurdsman die like chaff. And their needing to have two men to carry a heavy weapon, so on and so forth, they feel elite to me.

 

If you are rose tinted for time you thought Marines were better go play 2nd or 3rd. Because Marines are the most common army and common statline in the game. They have because the basis everything else is measured.

I do still have my 2nd and 3rd Edition stuff and so I could, but sadly, no thanks - I think Marines should be improved some in this Edition.

 

It's great that you like Marines as they are and they feel elite to you, but that doesn't mean that there can't be adjustments to the overall game that allow Marines to actually be and feel elite, as well as adjustments that make Morale more meaningful to factions - these don't have to be drastic, but they can be meaningful all the same.

 

The suggestion that Ld be capped seems like a great idea, and units within X" could also be required to make modified Ld checks based on witnessing overwhelming losses to nearby units, but keep them from completely wiping out nearby units (maybe loses would be halved, just a few people slink off, get trampled during the shuffles of their fearful compatriots, etc. or some other modifier, maybe it simply can't reduce a unit by more than half).

[BitsHammer]

My point is more than when the game is unbalanced we shouldn't be looking to change the metric we measure by but fix the problem causing the unbalance. Getting the game into an arms race of buffing just benefits the richest of those of us who play and ruins the game for everyone else.

 

We've seen some corrections already (orders don't autopass on Conscripts and they went up in points). As things progress I can see us seeing more changes like that.

 

That said, power levels don't seem to change, so even if points do change for matched play, they seem to be fairly static when you use open play. Maybe power levels are easier to dial in, or the free wargear is enough to level the playing field a little more. I don't know, I don't have enough games in to tell for sure. I do know power levels have caught on more locally and maybe that's why I haven't seen as many complaints locally regarding this.

 

This said, I do want to point out something: Guard are in a weird place were they're basically a horde army but they don't really build blobs like they used to. Outside of conscripts the basic infantry squads being separate creates a problem where the lack of morale rolling over from the wounds that one squad takes don't roll over to another. This means that a Marine squad can kill a squad, or kill some and having the rest break, but there will be several squads left on the table untouched from that.

 

Basically Guard have managed to be horde without following normal horde convention.

[Bulwyf]

To go back to my earlier post about how the fluff/lore for Space Marines translates so poorly to the game...look at the Iron Snakes novel by Dan Abnett. One single Space Marine literally kills hundreds of Dark Eldar warriors by himself and walks away from it. I realize that is an extreme example but it shows the complete disconnect in how Space Marines are depicted in the fluff/lore versus how badly they do on the tabletop. Either they should be buffed or have severe point cost reduction to help justify taking them. Look at how easy it is for example to stuff cultists in a CSM list to get more CP while you can't do anything like that if you take actual CSM. Or play Loyal Astartes for that matter.

[BitsHammer]

Loyal Astartes have two methods of doing that actually: 1) take an "Imperium" detachment and fill up that way, 2) use multiple detachments.

 

Yeah, they don't have a way to do it inside their own codex but it's not off limits to the Marines, and argueably it could be considered fluffy seeing as Marines usually work in tandem with the Guard more than they do as a chapter alone.

[Claws and Effect]

Let me see if I got this right.

 

- Marines don't feel elite so they need to be improved.

 

- At the same time, the basic Marine statline has become the standard by which everything else is measured.

 

So, the end result you desire is improvements to the standard by which everything else is measured?

 

No, that doesn't have the potential to blow up spectacularly or anything......

[totgeboren]

Please, the argument about being able to bring more firepower to bear in a tight spot totally falls apart when we have the situation of a single Guardsman with a lasgun being able to deal out more damage than a single marine with a bolter. :/

 

 

When it comes to the CP discrepancy between especially guards and others, I would like it if each tactical/CSM squad of 10 models gave one CP (a squad of 20 SM/CSM should get 2, or perhaps even 3 because running 20 CSM in a squad is just dumb with the current morale rules).

 

This would lead to some inflation in the CP area, but the idea is that an army with lots of 'tactically flexible' units (like Tacticals are supposed to be) should be more dynamic on the field, being able to utilize their forces in a more efficient manner (which stratagems are supposed to represent).

 

I generally have some issues with the way the detachments are designed. They all reward minimum sized squads, which already get the benefit of being less affected by morale. They don't need further buffing.

 

Also, the Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider and Supreme Commander detachemnts all reward spamming. Why should players be rewarded for spamming? Spammy army lists are already a thing because they are 'optimized', they should not be further rewarded with CP.

 

Keep the detachments to enable themed armies, but don't give extra CP for for example spamming Malefic Lords. :/

 

 

This would not fix Tactials and the like, but especially for me as a CSM player, it's really annoying that I get a much better army, with more CP, if I use the obviously strategically brilliant Cultists over the confused and apathetic Chaos Space Marines, so-called 'Veterans of the Long War'?