The Power Armoured Troops thread, take 2: possible fixes

[totgeboren]

 

Tactical Marines will almost certainly be restricted from getting Special Rules.

 

How so? For basically every edition of the game they have had special rules like ATSKNF, Rapid Fire (in 2ed) and Chapter/Combat tactics. Ok, Devastators have shared the same rules, but I don't think this is as set in stone as you seem to regard it.

 

Since Tacticals are supposed to have been both Devastators and Assault marines previously, I think some sort of battle tactics would be enough to make them pop.

(My favorite currently is Fury of the Legion, since it increases firepower of the bolter-bros without affecting their special weapons, and the drawback increases mobility, giving a sort of nod both to their Devastator role and Assault marine role. It has also been tried in thousands of games and works fine.)

[Wargamer]

ATSKNF hardly counts as a special rule. It's a re-roll. I'm talking about the ideas people keep throwing out to give them unique abilities or the equivalent of Orders.

[Ishagu]

Why do people think Orders are the answer? They are unique to Guard and a cool mechanic for that particular army - although the effects are perhaps too good.

 

Eldar aspect warriors typically have even greater discipline and training to Marines and they don't have them. Neither do fire warriors.

[Captain Idaho]

Well there is similarity in operational dynamic and training for all human troops, but yes I'd prefer Space Marines to be squad based simulation in their expertise, to emphasise how they fight as a unit, compared to Guard who fight as an army with their coordination.

 

Fury of the Legion style of rules are good, but again I'd just prefer decent Stratagems and more access to them over a game.

 

That way there is more tactical elements to the game and the base level is less complicated (with every unit having dozens of extra rules).

 

Say 2 for Assault Marines/Vanguard, 2 for Devastators/Centurions (who need a points drop) and 3 for Tactical Marines/Sternguard.

 

The only additional rule on top of this is an extra 1 CP for each full Tactical squad in the army.

 

It's actually not that unbalanced since our Stratagems are expensive and many lacklustre anyway, and 10 man squads is a healthy tax/trade off for additional CPs.

[totgeboren]

I get what you are saying. It just feels a bit disheartening to keep Tacticals as a tax for getting CP. Sure, 3x10 squads would give you 6 CP (3 from the formation and 3 from the squads), but 5x6 marines would also get you 6 CP, but give you more special weapons and better table coverage.

 

So it's not all that much of a fix tbh, just one other path to using Tacticals for CP generation (that you will likely use on other units anyway)...

[Captain Idaho]

It wouldn't really be a tax since you'd have 3 Tasty new Stratagems to boost them with.

 

Say?

 

- Rapid Fire: Tactical Marines. Each Marine fires twice if the unit remained stationary that turn. = 1CP

 

(All of a sudden all those Bolters are fearsome and the heavy and special weapons have real bite. The cheap Stratagem cost is for balance and because the unit has to remain stationary)

 

- Bolter Drill: Tactical Marines only. All Bolt weapons get an additional -1AP that turn. = 1CP

 

- Fury of the Chapter: Tactical squads only. Each model gets +1 Attack that turn. = 1CP

 

Stuff like that. These things make Tactical Marines powerful and there being 2 shooting means 2 squads can benefit a turn.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Captain Idaho

[Claws and Effect]

The sad fact is, I'm reasonably certain that regular Marines are going to be left spinning in the wind.

 

Why would GW improve them when it benefits them more to encourage people to buy their new model line instead?

 

They're banking on people getting fed up with their Marines feeling lackluster and buying a bunch of their shiny new Primaris. It just doesn't make much business sense to actively discourage people from buying the new guys by improving the old guys they already have tons of.

 

We can talk about it until we're Macragge Blue in the face, but a slight point reduction is the most we can realistically hope for. Especially when the Primaris line is fleshed out more.

 

I doubt they'll ever say regular Marines aren't legal to use any more, but they are effectively invalidating them by pushing a better option on us. Once the Primaris have a full line, we can still use the old guys, but they will underperform in most ways.

 

I'll continue to use the old guys, but my inner cynic has seen the writing on the wall.

[Karack Blackstone]

It wouldn't really be a tax since you'd have 3 Tasty new Stratagems to boost them with.

 

Say?

 

- Rapid Fire: Tactical Marines. Each Marine fires twice if the unit remained stationary that turn. = 1CP

 

(All of a sudden all those Bolters are fearsome and the heavy and special weapons have real bite. The cheap Stratagem cost is for balance and because the unit has to remain stationary)

 

- Bolter Drill: Tactical Marines only. All Bolt weapons get an additional -1AP that turn. = 1CP

 

- Fury of the Chapter: Tactical squads only. Each model gets +1 Attack that turn. = 1CP

 

Stuff like that. These things make Tactical Marines powerful and there being 2 shooting means 2 squads can benefit a turn.

 

These work; glad to see these ideas in this thread.

 

Also, just to point it out, it was mentioned that only a full 10-man Tactical Squad would generate a Command Point; anything short of that is not enough Tac's.

[Beta galactosidase]

Welp, karack, currently  6x minimum troops, that's 30 models, can give you two battalions.  That's six CP.    With that full tactical squads CP bonus, you three full squads, one battalion, that's also 30 models and six CP.  It seems about the same with one fewer HQ required.  However, you have three combi weapons instead of six.

[totgeboren]

It wouldn't really be a tax since you'd have 3 Tasty new Stratagems to boost them with.

 

Say?

 

- Rapid Fire: Tactical Marines. Each Marine fires twice if the unit remained stationary that turn. = 1CP

 

(All of a sudden all those Bolters are fearsome and the heavy and special weapons have real bite. The cheap Stratagem cost is for balance and because the unit has to remain stationary)

 

- Bolter Drill: Tactical Marines only. All Bolt weapons get an additional -1AP that turn. = 1CP

 

- Fury of the Chapter: Tactical squads only. Each model gets +1 Attack that turn. = 1CP

 

Stuff like that. These things make Tactical Marines powerful and there being 2 shooting means 2 squads can benefit a turn.

 

Yeah, I still don't really see how this would be all that useful? The extra +1 CP for full squads is something I like, but the end result is still that you get about as many CP as now, only that you have basically halved your firepower since you have a lot less special weapons (from 12 special weapons to 6 and 3 heavy). This boils down to the issue that bolterbros do almost nothing.

 

So, we have the same CP, but a bit less firepower. Fix? Perhaps not, but it makes it less painful to bring 10-man squads at least, so that nice.

 

But then we have the stratagems. Which can almost bring the heads of the Tacs above the water, but doing so eats up those very points you got in the first place.

 

I dunno, what I'm seeing is that you can run 5-man squads with enough firepower that they can handle themselves. They as a unit don't need stratagems to be 'ok' on the table. They can also grab objectives without it having a big impact on your force. Here you effectively have more CP available for your force, since you don't need to use them on your Tacs.

 

Or you can run full squads, that instead need CP to function, and they are unsuited for objective grabbing since they cost a bit much for that.

 

I have a hard time cutting to the point, but for 10-mans to be even remotely viable over just picking 5-mans, they need to generate their own CP, and they probably need something like:

 

- Rapid Fire: Tactical Marines only. Each Marine fires twice. = 1CP

 

- Fury of the Chapter: Tactical squads only. Each model gets to attack a second time this turn. = 1CP

 

And this is from me, a CSM player who knows just how powerful the Slaanesh statagem of "Shoot again with the unit" for 2 CP is. But I also know that that stratagem is only so powerful because you use it on good units, like a full squad of Terminators (and Lord) with combi-plasmas that deep struck in the enemy back line! You also need to be dedicated to Slaanesh(, which is perhaps only a problem for people who care about the theme of their force).

 

I would not normally waste 2 CP on a 10-man squad of CSM with a special and combi. I could however see a situation where I would spend 1 point to give a big unit of tacticals a bit of teeth.

 

But even this solution still retains the problem that the basic bros do almost nothing compared to their special weapon brothers. And it also gives your army less CP, since the Tacs need to eat up the CP they bring to be on par with other stuff. Just bringing small squads give you the same CP, but you can use them on your heavy hitters instead.

[Captain Idaho]

It's a matter of opinion we probably can't agree on in that case. I personally feel that making a Tactical squad fire twice is amazing and I rate their firepower at a reasonable cost and as a Troops choice.

[Schlitzaf]

FTR 1 Heavy = 2 Special. They have mathematically the same firepower equivalent.

[Karack Blackstone]

It's a matter of opinion we probably can't agree on in that case. I personally feel that making a Tactical squad fire twice is amazing and I rate their firepower at a reasonable cost and as a Troops choice.

 

FTR 1 Heavy = 2 Special. They have mathematically the same firepower equivalent.

 

Captain Idaho, that's more than fair, of an opinion. In my experience, which does not immediately invalidate your opinion, there's now in 8th Ed. just far too much high rate of fire, solid AP shooting weapons now, to really rate Tacticals, and all Bolter Bros, as they once were.

 

Please don't get me wrong, you are probably right overall; the issue is, that, just in how the fix of this situation is approached, if and if so, how, will speak to GW's ability to manage and mediate the game in a fun and fair fashion.

 

Boltguns have come up from multiple perspectives as being the issue with Tactical shooting; there's also the issue that granting all Marines the chance to take a Combat Knife, and, if so inclined, however changed, a Chainsword instead. The real issue is that, point for point, as I and others are having issue articulating into typed words is that, Marines almost never really earn their points back in regards to the cost versus return of each and every single Marine model one puts on the table.

 

So, with that in mind, here's a possible thought: why limit ourselves to just the Strategems? What about the option of my idea, and the Captain's Strategems, together?

 

Having every single Boltgun become either Rapid Fire 1 or Heavy 3, and have full Marine squads grant an extra CP along with the mentioned Strategems might just work out, or even be broken, which in this case, is far better than the current one, as no one really is threatened these days by just a Tactical Squad with a Sergeant, a Heavy, a Special, and seven Bros with bolters.

 

Another thing, for the thread's consideration: if it needs to be typed, at double rate of fire for Heavy 3, that's six shots hitting on 4+'s, on the move, or six shots hitting on 3+'s stationary, at the cost of one CP to do so. If need be, maybe allow the Strategem to be used up to the number of Tactical or equivalent Squads taken in the overall force, costing 1 CP each time, or, cost 3 CP and allow all Tactical and equivalent Squads to fire as mentioned above in the same turn.

 

The single biggest issue with this thread, and its concept,is that, no one's opinion is wrong; the really big issue is that, all opinions and experiences are valid, it's the consolidation and resolution of a fix that's the juggling part of all this discussion.

[Wargamer]

I think the Marine range was both very bloated and very stagnant. This is one of the reasons for Primaris.

 

Look how Eldar have infantry units with different stat-lines and completely different looks from banshees to wraithguard, look how Guard have ratlings and Ogryns, look how Necrons have wraiths and destroyers.

Marines have an interchangeable army of basic guys with the exact same stats but a few different weapon selections, with the exception of a Terminator suit that only affects the save. Centurions were added but it was perhaps too late as most hated the departure from the norm of Power or Terminator armour.

 

I feel the Primaris are addressing this with units that have very different appearances and roles, dedicated to their purpose. Reivers aren't just Intercessors with parachutes, Inceptors aren't just Intercessors with jump packs, etc

I see where you're coming from here, but this issue could have been avoided if GW had been less concerned with bludgeoning content nobody wanted into the list and instead taken a few pages from Forgeworld.

 

Need an uber-tough Marine unit? Catephractii could fill that role. Instead of just being slow Termies with a better Invun, they could actually get S + T boosts instead.

Alternatively, why not use Boarding Marines? Their shields could have a -1 To Wound modifier to enemy attacks, making them incredibly durable infantry.

Want a Centurion style unit people won't hate? Saturnine Terminators. Make the technology for them a recent rediscovery, or brought back by Guilliman. They could even have the exact same rules as Centurions, but they'd probably be better received.

 

There are ways to vary the statlines of the Astartes, but it has to be done right - and doing things right hasn't really GW's strong point over the years.

 

The single biggest issue with this thread, and its concept,is that, no one's opinion is wrong; the really big issue is that, all opinions and experiences are valid, it's the consolidation and resolution of a fix that's the juggling part of all this discussion.

 

After seeing you suggest that Tac Marines should get 6 shots a turn, I think we can dismiss the "no-one's opinion is wrong" idea. You're off in the wilderness where GW is never going to even consider following you.

[Karack Blackstone]

 

I think the Marine range was both very bloated and very stagnant. This is one of the reasons for Primaris.

 

Look how Eldar have infantry units with different stat-lines and completely different looks from banshees to wraithguard, look how Guard have ratlings and Ogryns, look how Necrons have wraiths and destroyers.

Marines have an interchangeable army of basic guys with the exact same stats but a few different weapon selections, with the exception of a Terminator suit that only affects the save. Centurions were added but it was perhaps too late as most hated the departure from the norm of Power or Terminator armour.

 

I feel the Primaris are addressing this with units that have very different appearances and roles, dedicated to their purpose. Reivers aren't just Intercessors with parachutes, Inceptors aren't just Intercessors with jump packs, etc

I see where you're coming from here, but this issue could have been avoided if GW had been less concerned with bludgeoning content nobody wanted into the list and instead taken a few pages from Forgeworld.

 

Need an uber-tough Marine unit? Catephractii could fill that role. Instead of just being slow Termies with a better Invun, they could actually get S + T boosts instead.

Alternatively, why not use Boarding Marines? Their shields could have a -1 To Wound modifier to enemy attacks, making them incredibly durable infantry.

Want a Centurion style unit people won't hate? Saturnine Terminators. Make the technology for them a recent rediscovery, or brought back by Guilliman. They could even have the exact same rules as Centurions, but they'd probably be better received.

 

There are ways to vary the statlines of the Astartes, but it has to be done right - and doing things right hasn't really GW's strong point over the years.

 

The single biggest issue with this thread, and its concept,is that, no one's opinion is wrong; the really big issue is that, all opinions and experiences are valid, it's the consolidation and resolution of a fix that's the juggling part of all this discussion.

 

After seeing you suggest that Tac Marines should get 6 shots a turn, I think we can dismiss the "no-one's opinion is wrong" idea. You're off in the wilderness where GW is never going to even consider following you.

 

 

Wargamer, I do feel the need to point out that doing so costs as least one CP and, there might need to be added that the next turn they cannot fire their boltguns as a result of this form of shooting attack.

 

I'm pretty sure that ideas that do not withstand actual considered logic, debate and thinking can be safely discarded; I am guessing I just need to take a break for a bit, because, there seems to be no debate here, as far as my ideas go. I am curious as to why; sure, they're powerful, however, isn't that what we want, and then can work our way back to a fair point of balance? Thinking outside the box is a thing; staying inside it and not going for new and possibly beneficial perspectives is a perfectly valid way to approach a discussion. Creative and Critical Thinking demand exactly what I am trying to get at here.

[Wargamer]

Because if GW wanted to drastically change Tactical Squads, they'd have done it already. The only update we can ever expect is a minor nudge - and this is why I say ad nauseum that people's suggestions should keep the changes as minimal as possible - a slight tweak to a weapon, or a minor adjustment of stats. Those are the kind of changes we can reasonably expect. The more radical the change, the less likely it is to ever happen.

 

Ultimately, it seems the intent here is that we find reasonable ways to improve the Tac Squad, and Marines in general, and submit them for testing and GW's consideration.

[Beta galactosidase]

It most cases, tactical squads will be used for objective taking, because any army requires objective takers, and any CP they generate will be diverted to powerful units, and any army capable of it will partition its units into safer, less offense oriented objective grabbers in one part and targeted offense oriented units on the other. 

 

 

 

But even this solution still retains the problem that the basic bros do almost nothing compared to their special weapon brothers.

 

How far can you go to make basic bros good?  You have already talked about fury of the legion, which makes the basic models more valuable and moves them closer to the eldar and fire warriors in character, which is not a bad thing, a single space marine is pretty  marvelous and should count more within the squad.

 

That's ok I guess, but it doesn't have that much to do with the basic marine.  I liked your plasma gun vs raptor example, because in that example its explicitly the raptor, who doesn't have a bolter, doing the work. However, the rules don't let him do much work.  In a raptor vs. guardsmen scenario, whether model vs model or equal points, its fairly likely that the outcome won't be that the raptor shows its superior training, equipment, and physicality, it is that actually nothing will happen, and both sides will whiff and fail to do anything, even though the raptor has a better profile across the board.

 

You'd say that if this were Lord of the Rings game, it wouldn't be a problem.  In that game, the two sides roll off and there is always a winner in close combat, whether it is the stronger or weaker model.  This removes the inconclusive results that are possible in 40k which make a raptor less impressive because in 40k the chances of the raptor winning are still in the minority compared to the possible loss or inconclusive results.

 

This shouldn't mean that the combat system needs to become LotR, it just means that having 3+ to hit, s4, and a chainsword can count for more in a different environment, without having to boost stats so a marine has, e.g. s5 over a guardsman's s3.

[Tamiel]

Is there any way we can get enough people to ask GW during a twitch stream or something? Getting them to share their views about the current state of Power Armour would be important.

[Khornestar]

Maybe, but I don't think the people doing live streams have anything to do with rules/game design. Mailing the rules feedback email may be more effective.

[Karack Blackstone]

How can we not have this thread languish? This is a valuable discussion, if only to teach us how hard it is to balance this game points wise, long term.

[Beams]

How can we not have this thread languish? This is a valuable discussion, if only to teach us how hard it is to balance this game points wise, long term.

Because Space Marine troops, by virtue of their Mario status, are nearly impossible to balance without incroaching into another imperium factions troops.

 

It's also why the increase to 5 ppm Guardsmen is likely going to see an increase in space marine scouts in the meta.

[The Unseen]

How can we not have this thread languish? This is a valuable discussion, if only to teach us how hard it is to balance this game points wise, long term.

This game isn't that hard to balance.

A suitably dedicated team of 1 rule-writer and 6-10 playtesters could get the game pretty close to balanced in a few weeks at most. But they would all need to fundementally understand the game, and be able to do, like, math. A lot of math.

And they would have to enter into an actual "playtester" mentality, as in try and break the system as hard as you can, not throw together a fun looking list with what you have painted with your buddies and have a good time.

GWs teams seem averse to doing either of those things.

 

Edit: When the internet can read a codex and find the broken/op comboes or things that just outright don't work (like say, the daemon flamer chariot that couldn't move and fire when its rules were released) in a few days, sometimes even in hours, it tells me that the people writing it aren't doing a very good job of finding those things themselves.

Edited February 7, 2018 by The Unseen

[Saxxon the Dragoon]

 

Edit: When the internet can read a codex and find the broken/op comboes or things that just outright don't work (like say, the daemon flamer chariot that couldn't move and fire when its rules were released) in a few days, sometimes even in hours, it tells me that the people writing it aren't doing a very good job of finding those things themselves.

 

This game Is hard to balance, not just with basic unit profiles, but also weapon characteristics, special traits, rules and aura's. The thing you need to know is that even play-testers have blind spots. When you see that people online can deduce broken combo's in a matter of hours or even days, you got to remember its thousands of people with different idea's and rules interpretations pecking at the codex. Thousands of different mental computers will out-compute the most optimal solution that half a dozen dedicated mental computers couldn't predict. Its not that the tester's arent trying to figure out broken combo's, its just that people think differently and interpret things differently.

 

You see this stuff happen ALL the time in all kinds of games. Take a look at EVE online, the game has been around for over a decade and has received many updates and corrections because people looked at a problem and came to a MUCH different conclusion than what the developers had intended. From hitting people with so many target painters and being able to snipe ships from beyond known ranges because of the way intertia and mass were calculated. People are constantly figuring out new ways to game the system that eventually get nerfed because they see or interpret something the developer never intended.

 

Thats just a consequence of such an open game. Solved games like Chess and Checkers offer little challenge once you have 'solved' the game because its such a closed game. But with a large and open game like WH40K , it becomes nearly impossible to 'solve, but you can figure out 'optimal' lists for armies to take advantage of the special rules and bonuses and hope that RNGesus doesn't decide to rain on your parade.

[The Unseen]

40k has a lot more in common with chess than it does Eve.

 

And I would normally agree, that yeah a whole bunch of people all trying to pick apart something in their spare time beat a few dedicated people under normal circumstances.

 

But it doesn't take an army of Internet armchair-generals to do basic statistical analysis, but GW fails to do that most of the time.

[Saxxon the Dragoon]

40k has a lot more in common with chess than it does Eve.

 

And I would normally agree, that yeah a whole bunch of people all trying to pick apart something in their spare time beat a few dedicated people under normal circumstances.

 

But it doesn't take an army of Internet armchair-generals to do basic statistical analysis, but GW fails to do that most of the time.

No, Chess is a solved game, every single move that you could possibly ever make can be calculated and an endgame can predicted incredibly easy. 40k (as well as other tabletop games) are much harder to solve. The reason why I bring up EVE is that players can look at the systems that were designed, and figure out ways to break the game in ways a developer couldn't have imagined. Way back when in the early days of the game, you could have target painters that could paint a target, or increase weapon tracking to the point that it would break the system, back then the target painters would increase the ships signature and break the tracking of weapons to the point that you could kill players from damn near another system. https://www.engadget.com/2010/09/17/new-eve-exploit-gives-wormhole-corp-incredible-advantage/ They used the mechanics that were in the game and use it against itself to exploit the game in ways developers couldn't expect.

 

They are not the same TYPE of game, but a game (or any system really) can be exploited if you put enough math against it. Same thing happened with 4th edition that gave us DEATHSTAR's. People used the system to find the most optimal builds possible and roll that onto the field. They took what was in the game and used it against itself.

 

And it doesnt matter how many armchair generals you bring, someone will always find a new way to break the system if you give them enough time. Take a look at any 'math-hammer' heavy applications in the real life. Take for example economists who try to predict and measure the economy. You know how much money is in the system, you know how certain laws and certain circumstances are supposed to work and you put it in your formulas and systems. And you can still get all kinds of different results because of things you couldnt account for or things you did account for but things didnt go as expected. You can have multiple economist take the same numbers and same rules and come out with many different results. 40K is not an easy game to balance. Take a look at Starcraft, it only has 3 factions (as compared to 40k having well over a dozen) and yet the balance was utterly broken until many updates, an expansion and more updates after that. Balance in ANY game system is difficult, sometimes you get things right and other times you get things wrong (like eldar in 7th ed).