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

[Finkmilkana]

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.

But they don’t. They are better for the same price, but not individually. A marine has two S4 shots that hit 2/3 of the time, while the guardsmen only has two S3 shots that hit 1/2 of the time. And that is without taking meele into account.

Sure, FRFSRF can double the damage of a guardsmen, but that is not a problem with guardsmen per se, but with officers being cheap and giving a very big buff.

If you want to take buffs into account, you also need to take re-roll hit, re-roll wound auras etc for Marines into account.

An at that point you might as well compare full armies, where the math of individual units only plays a small role.

 

 

Giving out CPs per tactical is not a good solution I think, mainly because at that point people wouldn’t use them for their combat capabilities anymore but as CP batteries. And a gulliman gunline with another 6 -9 CP sounds like a terrible idea.

[Trevak Dal]

 

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!

If you look at their schedule, it is almost like DLC/Expansions for a game. I'm expecting some "We're listening" noise.

 

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.

Yeah too many people think msu is marines...and it's not really. It CAN be but isn't.

[Claws and Effect]

Guardsmen are absolutely not better than Marines 1 to 1 in a vacuum.

 

Inside 12" the Marine hits on 3, wounds on 3, and the Guardsman gets a 5+ save.

 

In the same scenario, the Guardsman hits on 4, wounds on 5, and the Marine gets a 3+ save.

 

The only scenario that sees a Guard squad as better than a Tactical Squad is when the Guard squad has an officer nearby.

 

If you counter that with a captain the Marines will come out on top most of the time.

 

Sure, the Guard can fire twice, but they hit on 4s with no reroll. The Marines, in contrast, will be retooling half their missed shots.

 

So, on average, Guardsmen with FRFSRF will hit with 20 shots, and wound on a third of them, so figure 6 wounds. On average, the Marines will save 2/3rds of the resulting wounds. So, 2 dead Marines out of 10.

 

On the other side, the Marines will fire 20 shots, and will hit with 2/3rds of them, so 13 or so. Then with their reroll, they'll get another hit or 2, so ballpark it to 15. Then will wound on 2/3rds of those, so 10. The Guardsmen will only save a third of those wounds, so they take 6 or 7 casualties out of a 10 man squad.

 

Then when it comes to Morale, the Marines will probably be fine, while the Guardsman stand a really good chance of buggering off. End result, the Marines took 2 losses and held firm while the Guard squad probably got wiped.

 

Yes, the Tactical squad costs 3 times as much, but it is far more resilient than the Guard squad. It is not unlikely that the Tactical squad could take out an equivalent number of points in Infantry squads before going down.

[Mileposter]

 

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!

Or, if you bought the enhanced digital edition (same price as the codex), no extra money at all.

[Trevak Dal]

Mileposter, if that's true that's a great selling point.

 

Yeah totgeboren I think for the detachment to count (and I said this in 7th when loyalists had free transports and all that noise) it should only count if you have a 10 man tac squad/equilivent.

 

One of my resolutions is to get out more and play, and I don't think I'm going to have my cultists make use of legion tactics, just a personal gimping, because...they aren't space marines, but it would be cool narratively to have a "path of glory"/Armor type story where you mark out a cultist and try to keep him alive for 3 games and then make him a chaos marine. I digress.

 

I LOVE the idea of combat squads being something you can do at whim, mid match. Just straight divide your squad by two as evenly as possible would be tactiCool to me, even if it didn't actually do much for you that would be baller. That more than anything else was what I wanted from loyalist marines, because you could she have effectively 2 units in a transport. Of course, now you can have two units in a transport and that too is pretty baller.

[totgeboren]

The only scenario that sees a Guard squad as better than a Tactical Squad is when the Guard squad has an officer nearby.

To be fair, seeing officers support guard infantry has happened in my games quite a bit more often than seeing a SM player use a Captain to buff a squad of tacticals (instead of buffing something more elite).

 

Is it common that a squad of Tacticals will need to function on their own? Yes.

Is it common that squads of Guardsmen have a Officer nearby? Yes.

 

1 guardsman firing 4 shots on an enemy guardsman gives about 0.67 wounds.

1 marine firing 2 shots on an enemy guardsman gives about 0.59 wounds. With reroll hits of 1 the marine will do 0.69 wounds to the enemy Guardsman.

 

Yes, marines are more resilient on an individual basis, about 3 times as resilient to small arms fire, but actually less resilient on a points basis since they cost more than 3x times as much as guardsmen.

Not to mention being much more susceptible to heavy weapons. A plasmagun taking out a marine is pretty nice, but taking out a guardsman is just a waste of points.

 

One more suggestion for what could perhaps be tried out is for blasts/templates to roll one extra die against units 11+, and 2 extra die for units 21+ and so on. Combined with 10-man squads of marines giving a CP might be enough to level the playing field?

 

A big problem with hordes is that anti-horde weapons don't work well against hordes. I think marines only need a slight buff, if any. What is needed is to make it a bit easier for elite armies to deal with hordes.

[chapter master 454]

 

The only scenario that sees a Guard squad as better than a Tactical Squad is when the Guard squad has an officer nearby.

To be fair, seeing officers support guard infantry has happened in my games quite a bit more often than seeing a SM player use a Captain to buff a squad of tacticals (instead of buffing something more elite).

 

Is it common that a squad of Tacticals will need to function on their own? Yes.

Is it common that squads of Guardsmen have a Officer nearby? Yes.

 

1 guardsman firing 4 shots on an enemy guardsman gives about 0.67 wounds.

1 marine firing 2 shots on an enemy guardsman gives about 0.59 wounds. With reroll hits of 1 the marine will do 0.69 wounds to the enemy Guardsman.

 

Yes, marines are more resilient on an individual basis, about 3 times as resilient to small arms fire, but actually less resilient on a points basis since they cost more than 3x times as much as guardsmen.

Not to mention being much more susceptible to heavy weapons. A plasmagun taking out a marine is pretty nice, but taking out a guardsman is just a waste of points.

 

One more suggestion for what could perhaps be tried out is for blasts/templates to roll one extra die against units 11+, and 2 extra die for units 21+ and so on. Combined with 10-man squads of marines giving a CP might be enough to level the playing field?

 

A big problem with hordes is that anti-horde weapons don't work well against hordes. I think marines only need a slight buff, if any. What is needed is to make it a bit easier for elite armies to deal with hordes.

 

 

Funny enough I had at one point attempted to make some homebrew with that idea. The concept was that depending on unit size you got more shots. The increments were 1, 5 and 10 models in the unit. I went with that if it was small blast (frag grenades and missiles and the like) it would get 1/3/5 shots and large had 2/5/7. There were other rules attached to them based on the idea it's hard to miss with them (such as default re-rolls of 1 to hit) but on the whole it was designed mainly to remove random rolls for determining hits which is a massive factor in 'anti-horde' weapons being crap. The main ones we used to use are not largely ineffective. Now it may of had elements of spacing units out to 2" for max power gaming but blast templates were a good method as if terrain was dense enough then the units needing to bunch up to fit would actually suffer from that unlike the percieved inability to bring to bear weapons.

[Nova_Dew]

 

 

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!

Or, if you bought the enhanced digital edition (same price as the codex), no extra money at all.

 

+ the price of an Apple product so that free is really the price of 20+ codex's at some point, because not everyone has an Apple product to use the enhanced edition

 

 

kinda surprised GW haven't tried selling GW branded Apple products or a buy 20 codex's get free rules updates (that you need in order to play tournaments) bundle (only applies to the current edition, expect new edition after the 6th update)  

[Claws and Effect]

 

The only scenario that sees a Guard squad as better than a Tactical Squad is when the Guard squad has an officer nearby.

 

Yes, marines are more resilient on an individual basis, about 3 times as resilient to small arms fire, but actually less resilient on a points basis since they cost more than 3x times as much as a guardsman

Drop Marines to 12 points per model then.

 

If they are 3x as resilient and cost exactly 3x as much, we have a balance point.

[Captain Idaho]

I enjoy my Tactical Marines and don't think they're the problem.

 

It's an unbalanced approach to Faction rules and Stratagems that hurts Space Marines, combined with outraged unit rules like the Predator, Vindicator, Hunter and Stalker tanks.

[totgeboren]

 

 

The only scenario that sees a Guard squad as better than a Tactical Squad is when the Guard squad has an officer nearby.

 

Yes, marines are more resilient on an individual basis, about 3 times as resilient to small arms fire, but actually less resilient on a points basis since they cost more than 3x times as much as a guardsman

 

Drop Marines to 12 points per model then.

 

If they are 3x as resilient and cost exactly 3x as much, we have a balance point.

 

Only if they also have 3x the firepower per model.

I mean, a unit of marines with 3 wounds each should be pretty well balanced with a marine unit that can fire 3 times per turn. But now we have two units that are about as resilient on a points basis, but one has 3x the firepower for the same points, which isn't really optimal game balance.

 

I fully understand points are more than just mathhammer, I haven been playing since 2ed. But currently we have guards who, with normal army design, often have better firepower on a per-model basis than a marine, while we at the same having rules for CP that reward tons of small squads (the thing guards do best), and also having the base rule making anti-horde weapons rather weak against hordes. Or at the very least, anti-horde weapons are just as good vs single models as they are against hordes.

 

The game is currently in a bad spot when it comes to elites vs hordes. If elites instead got some tools to deal with hordes, and also got more CP than hordes to represent their more efficient troops, balance might be a bit better.

[Mileposter]

 

 

 

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!

 

Or, if you bought the enhanced digital edition (same price as the codex), no extra money at all.

 

+ the price of an Apple product so that free is really the price of 20+ codex's at some point, because not everyone has an Apple product to use the enhanced edition

 

 

kinda surprised GW haven't tried selling GW branded Apple products or a buy 20 codex's get free rules updates (that you need in order to play tournaments) bundle (only applies to the current edition, expect new edition after the 6th update)  

 

It's the concept. That they're offering the ability at all is a big deal for a product and playerbase that is entirely dependent currently on paper materials. It's a step in the right direction to move the playerbase into a more constantly available medium.

 

The players who prefer a paper medium (read: anyone who prefers to use the books over Battlescribe, digital editions, or other aids) inherently have no room to complain about how many books they have to carry or the money to buy an addition - because that's the only way they're going to get the content. Paper is expensive, and a book cannot be updated. Even if Codex: Space Marines was updated to 2.0 with the Chapter Approved adjustments and whatnot, you would then need to repurchase the book.

 

And those updates do need to keep coming. No game (or edition) this large with this many options with this many players is ever even remotely close to perfectly balanced when launched - the MMO comparison is real, here. Even if you tested things for a decade and tweaked and got everything as close to perfect as you could think so... You'd launch the game and still find you were wrong about something that affects the balance when you get players involved.

 

A subscription service might actually be the best way to provide the best of both worlds - a website service or something that you can subscribe to to have a digital version of your codex or rules that is consistently maintained? Might be where things go. We'll see. But with the playerbase so book-centric, I'm not surprised things like the Enhanced Editions are what we have right now, because that transition - if it happens - is going to need to be slow to not scare the consumers away. And there'll still be paper products somewhere.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Space Marines being unbalanced does not equal the game being unbalanced. If you're arguing whether a -1 to hit is fair on Space Marine vehicles, you've already moved passed "8th Edition Balance" and into "Faction Balance - which is different! - because there's 900 other parts of the game that have to balance before you even get the chance to start worrying about faction bonuses. Building such a system is not exactly easy. Maintaining it is harder.

 

I agree on the Elite vs Hordes problem, but I disagree with the intent and the balance of the CP majority siding with the Elites. The balance should work stronger is the Elite are better units, with more firepower or better armor, or whatever for specific things, and the hordes have the CP to combat that with stratagems. That falls more in line with what evidence we have of their intent so far, but our view on where that balance should be could be entirely skewed.

 

And getting there isn't always a simple thing. Could reduce the price of Marines, certainly, but it's sometimes not so obvious. Raise the toughness on a Marine by one point and suddenly see an upsurge in Tau Drones because of how well they interact with the majority of players spamming Marines. Or drop the points on Marines to try and get more Tactical Squads out there and suddenly see everyone's running Scout swarms. It's not always possible to see the 6th degree of separation the effects a single rules change might have. Especially not when you have to make 14 rules changes all at once.

 

This is why i'm not surprised we haven't seen a Marine update yet. I'm willing to be the feedback and information from the Dark Angels and Blood Angels releases is helping to inform the changes Codex: Space Marines will see.

[Captain Idaho]

Thing is, the CP and Stratagem issue is completely separate to the Codex balance in practice. The faction rules for some armies are massively empowered compared to others which is part balance and part an oversight due to evolution.

 

The Stratagems part should be an equaliser but again that is also unbalanced.

 

Two small unbalances, such as Stratagem and unit rules, compound and create a wider gulf.

 

Not that I think 8th is too bad, but if you was to cherry pick your faction rules and Stratagems the Codex Marines versions would get left behind...

[micahwc]

I play Astra Militarum, Renegades/Heretics, and Chaos. I think the easiest solution is to add shots to the old blast template weapons against targets with a high number of models. Some weapons already have the "D3 shots, D6 shots if target has 10 or more models" rule. Add that to things like flamers, frag missiles, etc.

 

Or add a similar rule, "D3 shots per 5 models in the target unit, rounding up".

[Captain Idaho]

I'd have an elite of humanity rule and add +1 to all Space Marines blast markers.

 

But then that's just one of many fixes eh.

[Schlitzaf]

I’d rather those blast weapons instead of model count go off wound count personally. Less than 10/10/15 have it be D3/D6/D6+2. Idaho on topic of Predators, others have done the math but it’s because we shoot just as as well as a double shooting Leman Russ. (Dakka Pred and Leman Russ Battle Cannon showcase this well actually, a base Russ kills just as many Marines as a Dakka Pred give or take).

 

I’d prefer instead of flat double shooting, if we stand still we add +1 to our BS and if we move we ignore Heavy Penalties. To help showcase our more elite in we have better quantity vs Leman Russ quantity. But strategem are where Marines hurt the most.

[Captain Idaho]

Oh I don't want double shooting, too over used. Something fluffy. Like Predators getting +1 to wound if they don't move on the turret.

 

If there were still armour facings I'd say +1 to wound if hitting the side or rear but we have to think outside that vox now.

[Deschenus Maximus]

As the author of the aforementionned 3++ article(s), I can say PA Troops are indeed mediocre - give me Scouts over Tacticals any day of the week.

 

A couple of things could be done to help, however:

-The "easy fix/temporary bandaid" solution is to allow Tacticals to have a special and heavy even at 5-strong. This significantly boosts their damage output and is in keeping with almost every other Marine squad gets acces to specials/heavies.

-Over the long term, bolters really need to be looked at. Being essentially a lasgun with +1 Str just isn't cutting it. My preferred solution would be to allow them to reroll wounds as this is both powerful and fluffly (if the .75 caliber hole in your body doesn't kill you, the internal explosion likely will...).

-Giving Tacticals free Combat Blades would also help improve their ability to carry out the "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" act which is supposed to be their gig.

EDIT: Also, decrease the cost of Drop Pods some more. 85 pts a pop is still absurdly expensive when Tempestus Scions get to Deep Strike for free...

[Ishagu]

Intercessors perform like I expect Marines to.

 

Primaris marines are much more in line with the lore on the tabletop.

[Captain Idaho]

I don't agree at all. Tacticals are fine and we certainly don't need min maxing as the cure to problems.

[Deschenus Maximus]

By what metric are Tacticals "fine"?

[Captain Idaho]

Intercessors perform like I expect Marines to.

Primaris marines are much more in line with the lore on the tabletop.

Primaris Marines are worse than Tactical Marines. The specials and heavy weapons are amazing to help against other armies.

 

Attritional warfare with Tacticals is more favourable to Marines since they still put out decent firepower right to the end whereas Intercessors at one or two models are almost negligible.

[Captain Idaho]

Tactical Marines can kill lessor troops with their Bolters easy enough, whilst packing serious punch with combi weapons and specials, plus heavy weapons where appropriate.

 

The game isn't just a stand up and fight affair with no moving. You SHOULD have terrain that blocks line of sight, so armies with less numbers can navigate to that boring Astra Millitarum gunline.

 

If you expect a Space Marine army to outshoot an Astra Millitarum gun line or Tau then you will find our models inefficient.

 

I said it previously that you should move about the table and objectives and have a combined arms approach to play as a Space Marines player. We might not be able to outshoot an Astra Millitarum gun line or but we can still shoot well to hurt them in some areas and assault the others.

 

The problem is people literally can't pull away from building gun lines in this game for EVERY army. It's the easiest build they can do but really it's the most at risk to paper rock scissors match ups.

[deathspectersgt7]

Intercessors perform like I expect Marines to.

 

Primaris marines are much more in line with the lore on the tabletop.

Your  opinion Mate. I have no problem running my Tacs they do quite well and against Primaris to boot. But giving Combat squads a special and Heavy is to my liking . And Blades also

[Ishagu]

Strictly worse in terms of special weapons, but far better point for point generally.

 

They have better range, better general weapons, better resilience and more attacks in close combat. 65 points for 5 Tacticals or 90 for 5 Intercessors.

 

A lot of the complaints with Tacticals are basically resolved by taking Primaris. Better value line troops with greater resilience and cc capability. The hellblasters are a much better way to deploy special weapons too.

 

And now the Inceptors are the best fast attack infantry choice. No transport requires, value units with fantastic anti horde or anti elite firepower.