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

[Mileposter]

Lore is not balance. Please do not attempt to put something into numbers solely based on lore. It makes us developers cry. Use lore as justification rather than inspiration. Meaning apply lore after balancing the gameplay. (Note: Balancing the gameplay, not balancing the numbers. These are very different.)

 

Buffing Bolters is a bad idea not because of the Marine-vs-Marine dynamic, but because of the rather abrupt and huge shift it demands on Marine-vs-Anything-Else. There is no level of Mathhammer that can predict that upset.

[Schlitzaf]

Also we already have Liutanents for rerolling wounds

[BitsHammer]

The rerolls of 1s are used by several armies already, and currently exist as aura abilities, so I'm sure we can safely predict something here.  Infact, a quick search on Google helped me find a calculator to do just that. So let's keep it simple and look at 10 Marines shooting Guardsmen as an example with and without the rerolling 1s. For the sake of pure comparison I'm going to compare 10 models shooting at full range and then half range when everyone has bolters. Just as an example I'm leaving cover out of the equation as well. This is just a pure comparison of what giving out mass rerolls could do for Tacticals for an example of how we can predict these things:

 

Full Range (no re-rolls):

10 Shots

5 Hits

3.333 Wounds

2.222 Unsaved Wounds

2.222 Damage

2 dead Guardsmen

 

Full Range (with re-rolls):

10 Shots

5.883 Hits

4.537 Wounds

3.025 Unsaved Wounds

2.025 Damage

3 dead Guardsmen

 

Rapid-Fire (no re-rolls):

20 Shots

10 Hits

6.677 Wounds

4.444 Unsaved Wounds

4.444 Damage

4 dead Guardsmen

 

Rapid-Fire (with re-rolls):

20 Shots

11.667 Hits

9.074 Wounds

6.049 Unsaved Wounds

6.049 Damage

6 dead Guardsmen

 

So yeah, the increase is actually not game breaking here. 1-2 extra dead bodies on average when considered in the best possible scenario for the Marines. So yeah, rerolls can totally be a thing without ruining balance because they'd be dragging the horde style armies into line more against elite armies.

 

Heck, you can even take some time and build an excel spreadsheet to let you plug just about anything you want into it and see how it effects every common statline in the game.

 

And in a game like 40k where the universe is the very thing you're selling, a designer should DEFINITELY be considering the lore when they work out how something plays on the table. If you sell me an army based on their lore, then you should be writing rules that reflect that lore.

[Schlitzaf]

....why in the world are your marines hitting on 4’s?!

[BitsHammer]

I'd mentioned that the idea that by making rerolling 1s standard that the auras could be changed to full rerolls (or perhaps rerolling 1s and 2s for wounds, so that high toughness models still have some protection against wound rolls from bolter rounds).

[BitsHammer]

....why in the world are your marines hitting on 4’s?!

Because the caffine hasn't fully kicked in yet and I was thinking of the old BS4 instead of BS3+ this morning.

 

So let me fix that real quick:

Full Range (no re-rolls):

10 Shots

6.667 Hits

4.444 Wounds

2.963 Unsaved Wounds

2.963 Damage

2 dead Guardsmen

 

Full Range (with re-rolls):

10 Shots

7.778 Hits

6.049 Wounds

4.033 Unsaved Wounds

4.033 Damage

4 dead Guardsmen

 

Rapid-Fire (no re-rolls):

20 Shots

13.333 Hits

8.889 Wounds

5.926 Unsaved Wounds

5.926 Damage

5 dead Guardsmen

 

Rapid-Fire (with re-rolls):

20 Shots

15.556 Hits

12.099 Wounds

8.066 Unsaved Wounds

8.066 Damage

8 dead Guardsmen

 

So the re-rolls actually let Marines kill 2-3 more models. Considering the points cost differences currently present in the game, this is still fair.

[Schlitzaf]

You should be rounding up with the finally tally that is 6 Dead Gaurdsman without rerolls. And battle shock kills rest of the Squad. And you need to include charging and otherwise. The game is more than just shooting

[Mileposter]

And in a game like 40k where the universe is the very thing you're selling, a designer should DEFINITELY be considering the lore when they work out how something plays on the table. If you sell me an army based on their lore, then you should be writing rules that reflect that lore.

While this statement is true, there are about 10 ways to make the statement accurate, and the how of it is a huge deal. Most posts made in this thread are not made with game design experience. Every change should be treated with care - and that includes examining how you think about it.

[BitsHammer]

I was using a calculator and just presented the numbers as is, and if we're going to start splitting hairs about these sorts of things then I need to point out that a tactical squad isn't 10 models with bolters, but a mix of weapons and the Guard should be in cover and the Marines would likely not be firing at full strength, ect, ect.

 

I was using this as an example of what the most ideal circumstance for bolter tacticals shooting Guardsmen would look like on average for this sort of rule. In other words, not that impressive since the Marine squad is at minimum three times as expensive as the squad they kill during the turn.

 

If we used three times the points of anything to kill something in this game we'd call it a waste of points, so why are we pretending that a squad of Marines killing a squad of Guard in a single turn isn't more balanced than it is now, where they can't even do that?

[Schlitzaf]

.....because the game is 5 turns? And if you charge you kill another 3-4 Gaurdsman. Wiping a Squad in a half. You do have like 5 turns to make your points back

[Beams]

The Marines should also be in cover. Cover for Marines is arguably way more important than cover for Guardsmen. I know it is way more important for sisters and grey knights. That 2+ save helps mitigate incoming anti infantry.

 

Also, why give the Bolter a reroll at all? Space Marines can easily already get it. All it would do is invalidate liuetenants and captains.

 

Quick thousand points:

Capt, Lt

6x 8 bolters, heavy Bolter, sarg with Stormbolters.

 

Each squad is killing 4 guardsman a turn at full range, without the heavy Bolters. Figure you fire two squads at a squad of Guardsmen, they auto fail morale and lose 2-7 guys, destroying that squad completely. So that's 3 squads of Guardsmen off the board. Fire the heavy Bolters at any other squad. If it's Guardsmen, it'll prolly be hurt pretty bad. It wouldn't be hard to say that's at least 35 Guardsmen a turn? With special weapons, heavy weapons teams, command sqauds and/or veterans, that could get expensive fast, and will double once you get into rapid fire range. Add in Salamanders tactics or Ravenguard and your a pretty mean fighting machine. Does it put out as much dakka as the guard or sisters gunlines? No, but it survives a hell of a lot more.

[BitsHammer]

 

And in a game like 40k where the universe is the very thing you're selling, a designer should DEFINITELY be considering the lore when they work out how something plays on the table. If you sell me an army based on their lore, then you should be writing rules that reflect that lore.

While this statement is true, there are about 10 ways to make the statement accurate, and the how of it is a huge deal. Most posts made in this thread are not made with game design experience. Every change should be treated with care - and that includes examining how you think about it.

 

Games designers are not infallible and throwing away ideas just because they come from a non-professional source is frankly ignorant. The problem we're discussing was caused by professional game designers. So less sitting on a pedestal and more actually discussing the suggestions made without resorting to hyperbole about how it's "impossible" to determine things based on math when the entire game used a fixed D6 system making the sort of odds required to do anything easy to work out without needing a degree in probability mathematics.

 

 

 

.....because the game is 5 turns? And if you charge you kill another 3-4 Gaurdsman. Wiping a Squad in a half. You do have like 5 turns to make your points back

And that has nothing to do with the idea that taking more significantly more points to kill something that costs WAY less is seen as bad tactics. If I use 360 (equiv of 3 10 man Tact Squads with no options) points to kill 120 points of models (3 10 man Guard squads with no options, or 30 Conscripts), then I'm not using my army effectively. And yet you have to commit even more than that to kill Guardsmen as a Marine player which is just a sign of how far off the balance between hordes and Marines is.

 

It's actually telling of how bad this points to efficiency problem is when the most effective horde killer in the game is Morty at nearly 500 points.

 

If this was about recouping points over the course of a game, then a barebones tactical squad should be killing three barebones Guard squads over the course of a game, not struggling to kill one.

 

Also, why give the Bolter a reroll at all? Space Marines can easily already get it. All it would do is invalidate liuetenants and captains.

Already mentioned this, but if they were given a low reroll standard then the HQ rerolls would be either pushed to rerolling 1s and 2s or full re-rolls when dealing with bolters.

 

The point of the rerolls was a way to increase consistency of the Marines by making them feel how their lore describes: effective despite their smaller numbers and capable of taking on numbers more than three times as great as what they bring to the table. This was a way to bring the bolter (a weapon that is currently only slightly better than a lasgun) up so that it provide more hits and wounds against softer targets but without buffing it in a way that'd make it automatically better against higher toughness/wound models.

 

My first choice (I've actually posted several ideas in this thread after all but everyone seems to think that re-rolls is the only one I've presented) is still to have a massed points update for horde armies where the points go up by at least half (4 point Guardsmen become 6 points) if not just doubling horde infantry points costs (8 point Guardsmen) to reduce the number of bodies in a horde army to make the losses a horde take have more impact, but failing that buffing the basic weapon of Marines would at least make Marines hurt hordes more effectively without just making them Primaris Marines and then making Primaris Marines a super version of that (especially since the Primaris Marines still suffer against Hordes despite having the statline increases I've seen mentioned).

[Schlitzaf]

We still in 4th Edition? This game hasn’t been about equivalency of Points trading sense victories points. And furthermore “a unit should regain its point spent in a single turn” is inane concept. Let’s be clear you want 100 Point Unit to worth 600 Points (assuming the 3+ is passed). In one phase of the game?

 

Two 10 Man Tactical Squads should be able to delete my 200 Point Crusader Squad? (In Rapid range for those curious 40 > 26.66 > 13.66 > depending how I take my saved I lost 4-7 models). My nearly 15 Man Crusader Squad worth 200 Points, should in one turn be deleted by 2 Tactical Squads in Rapid? Just because collectively they are worth 260 Points.

 

You realize how fundamentally bad game design that is? Over the course of a Two or Three Turns? You should absolutely delete that Squad. But in one turn of shooting you delete my Squad. Your statement when drawn out means the player go who goes first should functionally delete the enemy army.

 

So yes you have five turns to make your points back. No way should a squad be reasonably able to earn its point back in one phase of the game.

[Mileposter]

 

 

And in a game like 40k where the universe is the very thing you're selling, a designer should DEFINITELY be considering the lore when they work out how something plays on the table. If you sell me an army based on their lore, then you should be writing rules that reflect that lore.

While this statement is true, there are about 10 ways to make the statement accurate, and the how of it is a huge deal. Most posts made in this thread are not made with game design experience. Every change should be treated with care - and that includes examining how you think about it.

 

 

Games designers are not infallible and throwing away ideas just because they come from a non-professional source is frankly ignorant. The problem we're discussing was caused by professional game designers. So less sitting on a pedestal and more actually discussing the suggestions made without resorting to hyperbole about how it's "impossible" to determine things based on math when the entire game used a fixed D6 system making the sort of odds required to do anything easy to work out without needing a degree in probability mathematics.

 

We're typically on the same terms in other topics, but here you seem to have taken my statements to the extreme. Game designers are not infallible, agreed. Neither are electricians. But having some electrical experience and learning is required to tackle large and complex electrical issues regardless of how simple they seem. For some reason, the same is not typically believed about large and complex game systems regardless of how simple they seem.

 

The entire game is not based on math. While it is possible to keep in mind very important things such as movement, positioning, composition, and objectivity, these things cannot be accounted for solely through math - which was the entirety of my point only.

 

It's not a pedestal statement that this can only be solved by professionals, it's a cautionary statement that many of the suggestions do not account for the consideration of game design and only chug forward base on small scope math. Which is why most of them are doomed to fail (or never happen, thankfully).

 

I have contributed on the suggestions made in several posts, and even made some of my own - but those posts seem to regularly be ridden over for one reason or another. perhaps because I'm in the naysayer department on this topic.

[BitsHammer]

We still in 4th Edition? This game hasn’t been about equivalency of Points trading sense victories points. And furthermore “a unit should regain its point spent in a single turn” is inane concept. Let’s be clear you want 100 Point Unit to worth 600 Points (assuming the 3+ is passed). In one phase of the game?

 

Two 10 Man Tactical Squads should be able to delete my 200 Point Crusader Squad? (In Rapid range for those curious 40 > 26.66 > 13.66 > depending how I take my saved I lost 4-7 models). My nearly 15 Man Crusader Squad worth 200 Points, should in one turn be deleted by 2 Tactical Squads in Rapid? Just because collectively they are worth 260 Points.

 

You realize how fundamentally bad game design that is? Over the course of a Two or Three Turns? You should absolutely delete that Squad. But in one turn of shooting you delete my Squad. Your statement when drawn out means the player go who goes first should functionally delete the enemy army.

 

So yes you have five turns to make your points back. No way should a squad be reasonably able to earn its point back in one phase of the game.

 

Not 4th edition as this is something that could make or break your means at winning games all the way through 7th and can still be relevant in 8th. Needing more than three times in points as something to kill something in a turn is excessive. If you used three times in points in basically any other army to kill something it'd basically be dead, but for Marines it barely trades punches. Why is this seen as balanced? I'm just saying that if something costs significantly more than its target it should at least punch like it does.

 

10 Neophytes and 10 Initiates in a squad is not outpointed by three times by two units of tacticals, so that doesn't even come close to matching what I was saying here. I'm only saying that when you're using something that is significantly higher in cost to kill something that is much, much cheaper in comparison, then it should be able to represent it. Tacticals (or really any Marine unit) don't do this. And let's not even get into Marines being shot at by an equivalent number of Guard in points as that what started this whole thread. Marines aren't more durable, more damaging or more of anything than the equivalent points cost in a horde.

 

Now that isn't to say Marines are worthless, but when hordes are given all the bonuses and none of the drawbacks that should be balancing them then something needs to be done to bring the elite armies (which are mainly Marines armies) up to being able to at least punch at an equal weight class.

[Schlitzaf]

1) That is a 15 Man Crusader I was using

2) Math, 20 Rapid Firing Marines will Kill 4-7 models. Some Neo/Init combination. If I take all saves on Init. 4-5 or 65 Points. If I take all saved on Neo’s 66-77 Points. Rapid Marines are worth 260 Points

3) In that scenerio you are killing just under a third of your points (...didn’t we kill just under a third of our points in Gaurdsman?)

 

The effective points lost from my Crusader Squad are functionally same amount of lost from the Gaurdsman (actually 20-3 points less depending on who I take my saves on)

[BitsHammer]

Crusader Squads are definitely in an odd place in terms of saves, and highlight some of the issues Marines have. The Neophytes are priced the same as regular Scouts despite not having the special rules Scouts do.
 
Let's flip it around and look at 3 times the points in Guardsmen (90 guardsmen by the way) shooting at a unit of 10 tacticals. I'm not even going to consider Orders for this, likewise, no cover either:
Long Range:
Total Shots: 90
Total Hits: 45
Wounds Caused: 15
Unsaved Wounds: 5
Total Damage: 5
Dead Models: 5
 
Rapid Fire:
Total Shots: 180
Total Hits: 90
Wounds Caused: 30
Unsaved Wounds: 10
Total Damage: 10
Dead Models: 10

 

Well look at that. 3 times the points of Guard can wipe a squad of Marines, but in reverse Marines can't do the same.

 

Like I've said, there is definitely a problem with Marines not being able to kill off Guard. Yes, it is ridiculous to think someone would use 90 Guardsmen to shoot a single squad of Marines instead of shooting multiple squads, but I wanted to illustrate point: the idea that 3x the points shouldn't be able to kill something a third its cost isn't something outlandish, it's something that makes Marines less points efficient than Guardsmen. It's the exact reason why Marines aren't able to take on Hordes as well as they should be.

 

It's also why the game is unbalanced as it is. When you replicate the same conditions that Marines have against Guard (being 3x as dense in points versus their target) the Marines lose and yet they barely kill a couple of squishy mortals when doing it themselves.

[Schlitzaf]

.....

You realize there is literally no way all 90 Gaurdsman be able to shoot right? And so we are clear here. The 90 Gaurd Squads (360) killed the equivalent of 1/3 it’s Point Cost or 130 Points of Tactical Squads. You are proving my point a Squad killing 1/3 of its Point in one turn in one phase of the game is literally ‘standard’. Because a Marine Squad will wipe out 10 Gaurdsman in a single turn. 3 Marine Squads will do it three times.

[BitsHammer]

.....

You realize there is literally no way all 90 Gaurdsman be able to shoot right? And so we are clear here. The 90 Gaurd Squads (360) killed the equivalent of 1/3 it’s Point Cost or 130 Points of Tactical Squads. You are proving my point a Squad killing 1/3 of its Point in one turn in one phase of the game is literally ‘standard’. Because a Marine Squad will wipe out 10 Gaurdsman in a single turn. 3 Marine Squads will do it three times.

90 Guardsmen killed half to all of the Marines, which is more than 1/3. That out preforms Marines.

[Schlitzaf]

By 10 Points woot?

[BitsHammer]

By 10 Points woot?

It doesn't change my point: Marines can't punch at the level they should when they hit a target that costs 1/3 of theirs. They should be killing on average from half to all of a unit of Guardsmen in a round of shooting, not less than that. The fact that they don't is because they're not able to punch at their weight class.

[Schlitzaf]

....they functionally do? They kill 6 Gaurdsman on average in rapid, battle shock average 3. That is Gaurd Squad reduce to 2 Man and for all practically purposes functionally useless. Charging they kill do another 3-4 wounds and battle shocks claims another Gaurdsman.

[BitsHammer]

....they functionally do? They kill 6 Gaurdsman on average in rapid, battle shock average 3. That is Gaurd Squad reduce to 2 Man and for all practically purposes functionally useless. Charging they kill do another 3-4 wounds and battle shocks claims another Gaurdsman.

In a perfect world, yes. The problem is we need a perfect world for that to work for the Marines but the Guard can easily rail well above and beyond that thanks to things like Orders.

[Schlitzaf]

And we have aura’s? Also our Sgts have Bolters (the Gaurd example you should -9 attacks). And we are flexible and reasonably can be full mechanized. “Armies have special rules and gimmicks”. I mean yes?

[Mileposter]

This is all also assuming that shooting is the only measure of units worth.

 

Going back and forth into a debacle pretty quick.