The Power Armoured Troops thread, take 2: possible fixes

[Lord_Caerolion]

They do definitely seem to have a purely beer-and-pretzels mentality among the actual Design Team. I still remember the havoc that was caused by the winged Slaaneshi Daemon Prince when the 4th ed Chaos Codex came out, Lashing everything, and GW's response was basically "well, we never considered that people would take more than one". In their minds, a Daemon Prince is the only leader of a warband, so why would you ever have two? Daemon Princes don't share power. 

[The Unseen]

@Saxxon, I didn't say 40k was a solved game, I just said it was closer to being a solved game compared to something like eve.

Eve's systems are several orders or magnitude more complicated than 40k is.

 

And Blizzard being bad at balancing their games is an established fact, so bringing them into this isn't really helping you.

Go check out hearthstones balance issues for that.

 

And you wanna know something else? When most companies releases a patch for their game, most don't charge you money for it.

Chapter Approved balance changes not being freely available online (not the new stuff like missions and the like, just the points changes) was a slap to the entire customer base' face.

 

And again, I'm not saying actually perfect balance is even achievable, after all, someone has to go first in a turn based game, hence "white OP" in chess.

 

Are they getting better than they used to be? Absolutely, and I've applauded them for it. But holding GW accountable to write a ruleset we pay a hefty chunk of change for isnt unreasonable.

[Claws and Effect]

@Saxxon, I didn't say 40k was a solved game, I just said it was closer to being a solved game compared to something like eve.

Eve's systems are several orders or magnitude more complicated than 40k is.

 

And Blizzard being bad at balancing their games is an established fact, so bringing them into this isn't really helping you.

Go check out hearthstones balance issues for that.

 

And you wanna know something else? When most companies releases a patch for their game, most don't charge you money for it.

Chapter Approved balance changes not being freely available online (not the new stuff like missions and the like, just the points changes) was a slap to the entire customer base' face.

 

And again, I'm not saying actually perfect balance is even achievable, after all, someone has to go first in a turn based game, hence "white OP" in chess.

 

Are they getting better than they used to be? Absolutely, and I've applauded them for it. But holding GW accountable to write a ruleset we pay a hefty chunk of change for isnt unreasonable.

If you're expecting GW to write a rule set that can't be broken to gain an advantage, you are going to be disappointed.

 

It doesn't matter how much playtesting you do. You could playtest for a decade if you like. But when you give the rules to a few hundred thousand people they WILL find things none of the playtesters thought of.

 

Tactical Marines are actually fairly well balanced. The problem doesn't lie with their rules. It lies in the fact that every single player builds their lists to be able to kill them as efficiently as possible. Every faction has access to a hard counter for the basic Marine statline, and it usually doesn't hinder them to take an abundance of it. Anything S8 with a -3 AP is going to make a mockery of a Marine statline. S5 or better will still wound on 3+, and often comes on weapons with a lot of shots. Even lower strength weapons in large numbers is effective simply because you will eventually fail a save and have a Marine die to a lasgun.

 

Even if you "fix" Marines, they will still have a hard counter. It will just be a different one. When you have the single most commonly encountered Troop choice, it isn't much of a stretch to assume your opponent has put some significant thought into how to kill them.

[chapter master 454]

@Saxxon, I didn't say 40k was a solved game, I just said it was closer to being a solved game compared to something like eve.

Eve's systems are several orders or magnitude more complicated than 40k is.

 

And Blizzard being bad at balancing their games is an established fact, so bringing them into this isn't really helping you.

Go check out hearthstones balance issues for that.

 

And you wanna know something else? When most companies releases a patch for their game, most don't charge you money for it.

Chapter Approved balance changes not being freely available online (not the new stuff like missions and the like, just the points changes) was a slap to the entire customer base' face.

 

And again, I'm not saying actually perfect balance is even achievable, after all, someone has to go first in a turn based game, hence "white OP" in chess.

 

Are they getting better than they used to be? Absolutely, and I've applauded them for it. But holding GW accountable to write a ruleset we pay a hefty chunk of change for isnt unreasonable.

 

Balance is best achieved when there are Highs and Lows. In games like street fighter 4, we saw several characters considered trash but then several pros went on to use those characters body even top tier characters, even seeing top tier characters not picked often.

 

Balance is best when there are "Underdogs" and "Top Dogs" because then we have a measure of what is good and bad in the game. If every race was to be perfectly balanced then no-one would play. There is actually something of several player archetypes that exist within any game that relate PURELY to the games balance.

There are players who actively seek the underdogs and play them, using them exclusively to see where they can get with them, pushing their limits of building and strategies to the limit. Effectively, these people are the ones who could be thought of as wearing "Weighted Gear" all the time, even during actual live fire events that matter and often perform incredibly well despite the handicap but ironically may not ever be as strong if they take the weights off, ether because they aren't used to the experience of now being powerful or just never really learned a key aspect yet.

There are those who seek the 2nd best, the middle ground. The balanced aspects. These players battle on level battlefields as their preferred option, and often see facing ether higher or lower power opponents as a nice change of pace, getting to see how well they adjust to when they are on top and on the bottom. They thrive to see how well they can break something or even see how fair it may actually be and enjoy seeing it do well despite odds. These players are what could be consider "Pure Players" as they have no desire really to further themselves nor seek to achieve the greatest heights as their choice of their respective game denotes their preference for something that does well but nothing over the top.

The 3rd group is the "power gamer", these guys want the most powerful, broken and utterly unfair thing possible in the game. They are not by defined by their choice but more in their attitude really, these players gravitate to tournaments and many can be pleasant and even revel in their armies absurd power and stupid rules while others may just see it as the company not paying attention, possibly also they just want the best odds of winning, feeling that giving an inch to the opponent is ether not fair, just or possibly just a silly move. These players could be considered overkill power freaks, however they vary largely depending on their upbringing and personality in how they may be perceived and sadly is a group with a bad stigma relating to them due to vocal minorities.

 

Within these groups, I fall largely into an odd mix as there is no black and white of this. You will always be a mix of those groups unless you can be quite sure of your place and honest with yourself (which can be hard to do). I fall into a mix of the 1st and 3rd. I seek to play to win, I want to find the most powerful thing possible but while at it not taking the easy route though I will humour those options many times. My experience in card games like Yugioh shows this, my staple deck (what could be considered an army list I constantly used and only tweaked with no major overhauls to the core) was something I prided myself on and was based on a mix of my personal interest and use of a top tier deck of the time (known for it's speed, power and flex while having some amount of thought required behind it). This deck I took to my LGS and regularly got in the top 3 out of about 8-10 players, not impressive I know, for well over 2-3 years which also meant I faced more varied decks every time, each one a unique challenge that I could face and then with proper application overcome with my crown jewel deck. This deck had many rivals over it's life, some were lamented when some went off to the "dark side" and went to meta while others rejoiced. Funny enough, I believe one topic I posted here years ago talks about a similar thing I had in YGO but that is something else entirely.

That one deck, a product of a format years old was still beating decks several formats forward. It would be like using a 5th edition army, built for that time, and beating 8th edition lists.

 

Balance is product of good design but balance is difficult as it can be in the eyes of the beholder. It may just be the balance does not favour you right now and you have a hard time because of this. Maybe you think it's great because you are having close games or possibly you are playing and just bulldozing armies left right and centre. But it takes one sudden change, one discovery to blow balance out the water and this is the best thing to be in place. Balance should be just that, balance. If it swings one way, it should at some point swing back with ether input from the developer or possibly players finding an answer no-one thought of before. I would hate any game that declare absolute balance but even chess is a fantastic game that shows how imbalance causes balance through the use of other forces within the game such as mind gaming your opponent and other such methods. Games can go far beyond the normal level of intricate layers of rules you see and speak. One of my friends and I played YuGioh so much with the same decks, we could TELL what the other had played and had in their hands by how they did it, what order they did it in and what it all meant while at the same time preying on that exact information we all knew...saying that though the humour of that is if we switched decks we were fish out of water despite our knowledge of the decks XD

 

In regards to GW and their model. You seem to discard their FAQs they made and do so after the launch of every codex. I agree, certain changes should be public however...doesn't it become public soon after the book is launched? I mean, we all knew about the marine point changes before the approved came out because of leaks but whats to stop someone in the store just buying one copy and then just letting everyone else use it and making notes in their own codex about it? Even just taking a quick look at the book for the points changes, noting them and then just appplying them as needed. In the theory world this is considered not to happen and frowned upon but in the real world of greys, you have people that accept it and consider it an ok thing to do. I wouldn't consider you cheap for wanting to see the points changes in my chapter approved, I bought it and I enjoy the book and the content as a whole and considered the purchase to not only give me point changes but also the new missions. I think GW understood people would circulate the point changes themselves anyway, they had no doubt people would do it one way or another so why dump resources into putting it online? Sure it minimal but why make it a hassle and distract from the real articles that matter. Possibly I agree maybe there should be a master document of point changes somewhere but this leads to other questions that may arise in the future such as what if all units in one army had a points change? Then people would clamour for a new codex release and so on. The wishlisting and thing people want is an endless list that even a Djinn wouldn't be able to shorten.

 

As it stands, GW have done MONUMENTAL strides towards a better game. They literally tore up their own game to lay new works in place for a more fluid experience that can be alter far more freely and their embrace of digital is a great boon to this. This edition was likely a major risk that could of sunk the company into complete disrepair and we wouldn't even be talking 40k right now because of it and thus our voices would fall nowhere but the sorrow of this games passing. It didn't, we are grateful for that and now we talk about far more trivial matters such as these. However to outright state GW should release product for this game the same way blizzard or riot update their game is a silly idea, the two products are vastly different. GW need money and they could of just sold a piddly little book of just the point changes but they went the extra mile and gave us a book that gave all aspects of the game changes.

 

As for power armour...have we run this into the ground yet? I feel we go any further we may find the other squats GW is hiding?

[Lord_Caerolion]

I would argue that while that is partially true, you can hardly call something balanced when some factions are objectively worse than others. Harder or easier to use effectively? Sure, that's good. It's not good to have factions that objectively cost more points for less benefits compared to others, and dismissing them as an "Underdog" doesn't solve that they're worse off.

 

I mean, is your argument really "we need terrible factions so that people can show off, and OP factions so the WAAC crowd have something to play"? That's not balance. I would argue that the Grey Knight players, currently a very under-powered faction, won't exactly take much comfort out of being told it's ok, they're just an underdog.

[The Unseen]

@ClawsandEffect (To avoid reply chains)

 

If marines have a "hard counter" that doesn't make your list worse vs other targets, that's a failure of game design.

 

And tacticals, as I've said over and over and over again, are not fine.

They are terribly points ineffecient on both the durability and damage output fronts.

 

Overloading a specific weapon type to counter a specific unit/archetype shouldn't be a no-brainer option, but plasma is too cheap and too effective vs everything to make that true.

If flamers actually killed light infantry well, and melta killed big stuff hyper effeciently; as well as plasma kills everything, it wouldn't be such a problem.

 

I love how plasma pays apparently nothing beyond the overheat rules to be effective vs everything, but missile launchers are absolute garbage because they pay through the nose for versatility, and end up worse than just buying 1 anti infantry and 1 anti tank weapon seperately.

[Claws and Effect]

@ClawsandEffect (To avoid reply chains)

 

If marines have a "hard counter" that doesn't make your list worse vs other targets, that's a failure of game design.

 

And tacticals, as I've said over and over and over again, are not fine.

They are terribly points ineffecient on both the durability and damage output fronts.

 

Overloading a specific weapon type to counter a specific unit/archetype shouldn't be a no-brainer option, but plasma is too cheap and too effective vs everything to make that true.

If flamers actually killed light infantry well, and melta killed big stuff hyper effeciently; as well as plasma kills everything, it wouldn't be such a problem.

 

I love how plasma pays apparently nothing beyond the overheat rules to be effective vs everything, but missile launchers are absolute garbage because they pay through the nose for versatility, and end up worse than just buying 1 anti infantry and 1 anti tank weapon seperately.

That's the thing though. Countering Marines DOES make your list worse against other things. But not as much as building for horde killing and being faced with a parking lot.

 

Marines of various types make up nearly half of all the available factions if you include Grey Knights and Chaos. If you build to kill them you will still do decently against armor heavy lists, but will suffer against hordes unless your tactic is just sheer volume of fire. And plasma does cost points, it's not like there are a bunch of units that get it for free. Personally, I think plasma should be more expensive than melta.

 

As far as points efficiency goes, I seriously doubt a basic Marine will ever drop below 10 points. That would price Scouts at the same point as a Termagant with a devourer. A point or two less is about all we can hope for.

 

But, as I've already mentioned, it goes against GWs best interests to improve basic Marines. Because that removes incentive to buy their new model line instead. They want to sell more Primaris, so leaving Marines how they currently are will encourage people to either buy them, switch to a different faction, or ragequit. In the first two instances they make more money, and the third probably wasn't a long term customer to begin with so they won't care about losing them.

 

I'm not being an apologist here, just realistic. If GW ever concludes they are losing significant money by not improving Marines they will fix them. If they don't see a change, they will stay how they are. With Primaris still being new, it's going to be quite a while until they start seeing that data.

 

We can talk about what GW should do all we want. But they aren't going to do it unless there is a tangible benefit to do so. The introduction of Primaris means regular Marines will languish in purgatory.

 

Bottom line: Will improving Marines lead to increased sales of them?

 

Probably not. Mostly because the people doing the most complaining about them already have tons and don't need to buy any more.

 

If you were running a business and someone said "You should improve this thing I already have so I don't have to give you money.", what would YOUR reaction be?

Edited February 8, 2018 by Claws and Effect

[chapter master 454]

I would argue that while that is partially true, you can hardly call something balanced when some factions are objectively worse than others. Harder or easier to use effectively? Sure, that's good. It's not good to have factions that objectively cost more points for less benefits compared to others, and dismissing them as an "Underdog" doesn't solve that they're worse off.

 

I mean, is your argument really "we need terrible factions so that people can show off, and OP factions so the WAAC crowd have something to play"? That's not balance. I would argue that the Grey Knight players, currently a very under-powered faction, won't exactly take much comfort out of being told it's ok, they're just an underdog.

 

I like your reply however to some extent you took some things a little to extremes however to put it lightly, there will always be C rank armies while others will be S class. You can't avoid it and while it does suck it just happens. Over time it can be shifted by as with anything in game design one dial being shifted doesn't just affect one army, it affects a whole eco-system of armies. When one list becomes stronger, it's prey become weaker in turn and they get pushed down as now these newly buffed units just overwhelm them while this then knocks on to various other aspects such as that armies predators that work well against them now not being so great and while still at advantage lose some traction while in turn the armies the army buffed preys on now drop in number and the armies those predated on now see a rise because their predator isn't so common anymore and so we now have new trash tier and god tiers rise just from ONE army being changed.

This doesn't even get to the point of talking what happens when you alter everything! Everytime you alter armies, they will need time to settle and adjust to their new climate which can be extremely volatile and unpredictable so one "badly needed buff" could turn out to not even be relevant in the context of the new armies as now what they actually needed was something else.

 

Sadly there must always be trash tier, there must always be A tier and while it blows it must be. If us humans didn't categorise then maybe it wouldn't be an issue but we do. Grey Knights might be "under-powered" however what contributes to it is a number of factors that any alteration to would lead to various and unpredictable results. Is it their weapons suck? Altering that might boost them slightly but ultimately any major adjustment that would be received as "meaningful" would only lead to other armies clamouring for their own buffs to help compete with these new contenders.

 

Are grey knights still cool as ? Yes, I think grey knights look awesome as all get-out, that sleek knight armour and their terminators are just downright one of the most awesome models I have ever seen. If I hadn't got marines as my first army (as in standard marines) I might of one day went and played grey knights regardless of their perceived power level. However as it stands they are indeed the "underdog" and thus need to accept it is as it is for now. I would believe those that complain are the ones of previous editions that fall into the 3rd group I mentioned wanting to still be top dog. You can still play good games with grey knights, just takes adjusting and it may require unorthadox tactics or unit use.

I know it is a terrible answer to just lump it, but if one can accept that their army is underpowered when list building rather than stubbornly saying "if only I had X and Y" then you begin to make better lists and find the strong points in your army. Instead of wishing for a strat to work, instead look if that strat could work with certain loadouts and methods. Get creative, after all that's where those rogue lists catch people off guard. The beauty of those lists however it takes one person to flip an entire meta just because no-one noticed ONE detail that could make them great. Not to mention in a tournament setting you can tailor to it, so maybe one day the Grey Knights will get their chance to shine when someone notices "hold on, Grey Knights would murder that outright".

 

Adapt. however to ask for some armies to not be pushed aside so readily is the right thing but it is also the fact that GW cannot make a "hot fix" as readily as other games can, information can be subjective and not accurate unlike in various online games. So it can be a bit awkward to publish a new FAQ or Errata to fix those issues and ensure it is the right answer and warranted. After all, Vocal Minorities can misrepresent drastically.

[Karack Blackstone]

Chapter Master 454, one quick thing, because you are partially right.

 

Lump sum answers are bad because in my experience, from the meta view, one objectively loses sight of the indivual view.

 

In light of the new lines of perspective, how would everyone feel about a 1, 2, or 3 points drop for the Marine stat line?

 

If buffing is not a viable answer within the game meta, and therefore more points for better stats is not an answer, the only clear option is to keep the current stat line, and just charge less for it per Marine.

 

Marine cost is now one of the following:

12

11

10

 

Why? As agreed here, 13 points per Marine is too much. By how much? That is why there have been many threads over time on this very issue.

 

Still to Chapter Master 454, when a meta has an over costed, yet underperforming army, a single minor tweak given the meta view you presented, might be enough given the range of armies this one change effects directly, as well as the other armies in the game.

 

12 points, per the list above, is where I would start, and consider stopping, for quite some time.

 

Thoughts?

[Wargamer]

With regard to GW's attitudes - their "beer and pizza" approach to army balance - this is precisely why limits used to exist on units. It was why the most powerful units / wargear were 0-1 per army, why you didn't have allies and why special characters need a 2K+ points game and opponent's permission. You didn't have to balance these things as carefully because if they were included everyone knew ahead of time.

 

GW dropped that, and they need to bring it back.

 

I get that the detachments are meant to encourage this by giving more command points to "proper" armies (ie: ones with lots of troops), but there's no distinction between the guy who brings three fully-tooled ten-man Tactical squads and the guy who brings 3x5 naked scouts. Again, there should be.

 

The fixes needed for this are beyond our scope though - it'd essentially require a complete do-over of every current army list to either smack penalties onto tiny units, or pile rewards onto big ones.

[Karack Blackstone]

In 8th Ed. they made sure indivual things like weapons are able to be changed on their own.

 

An FAQ with lists of how many units of what type per FOC slot should more than easily address this.

[chapter master 454]

Chapter Master 454, one quick thing, because you are partially right.

 

Lump sum answers are bad because in my experience, from the meta view, one objectively loses sight of the indivual view.

 

In light of the new lines of perspective, how would everyone feel about a 1, 2, or 3 points drop for the Marine stat line?

 

If buffing is not a viable answer within the game meta, and therefore more points for better stats is not an answer, the only clear option is to keep the current stat line, and just charge less for it per Marine.

 

Marine cost is now one of the following:

12

11

10

 

Why? As agreed here, 13 points per Marine is too much. By how much? That is why there have been many threads over time on this very issue.

 

Still to Chapter Master 454, when a meta has an over costed, yet underperforming army, a single minor tweak given the meta view you presented, might be enough given the range of armies this one change effects directly, as well as the other armies in the game.

 

12 points, per the list above, is where I would start, and consider stopping, for quite some time.

 

Thoughts?

 

I do agree marines need a points reduction. Pushing down to 12 is not outside the realm of reasonable. The odd thing is understanding that when it makes certain options open up. Across 15 marines, it would save 15 points. Across 30, 30 points and while these are small numbers those are the values that let you get another weapon option in. It is a question of the right approach to the matter as there are several points of improvement however as noted these avenues are possibly more problematic over a longer term but could be approached as the hard but correct method.

 

I would firmly agree with a sentiment shared by some and opposed by others I would think: Primaris feel like marines were meant to be. By that I mean they can take a hit and keep on trucking, they could take a lasgun round to the chest, puncture their primary heart and because of their second heart keep going and barrel into their ranks while their improved body repairs damage. The one extra wound just gives that feeling so well. I would also argue that Primaris maybe should of become less of a 'better' marine and more of a marine more suited for going into close range engagements, their enhanced strength beyond even a standard astartes reinforcing this. These marines could of been considered a more frontline bruiser, deployed to get in close with modified chainswords and bolt weapons that go with that theme, their purpose to give marines an excellent close range unit while those deployed to the back carry modified, heavier, prototype weapons that no standard astartes could carry but at a risk of malfunctions (however in game might not be represented).

I Digress.

There is I feel no simple fix. To sound like someone trying to sell you on me as the go to fixer, I would rebuild marines from the ground up. Using guardsman as the measuring stick, I would build marines from there, from there add in the primaris benefits (which is largely strength and possibly 1 extra attack because of their "Overdrive" organ). Custodes would then be made as true monsters of elite elite armies. I am talking Custode armies possibly being the smallest model count army you could field but each model a walking hurricane of destruction. That is my pitch really on this, just the thoughts of someone who fancy themselves as a person who thinks they know game design :P

[Frater Cornelius]

Tactical Squad

Tactical Advance:

Once per game, this unit can choose to make a tactical advance. This unit ignores all negative movement and hit modifiers and treats all weapons as in rapid fire range. However, the unit can neither advance, nor charge this turn.

 

Hold position:

If the Tactical Squad is holding an objective and does not move this turn, add one to all save rolls. In addition, add one to hit rolls during Overwatch.

 

Taunt (temporary name; alternative name: Draw their fire):

Once per game, choose a unit within 6” of the Tactical Squad. Enemies can not target the chosen unit with shooting attacks, if the Tactical Squad is closer to the shooting unit. This effect lasts until the start of your next turn.

Alternatively: Choose an enemy unit within 12”. That unit must shoot the Tactical Squad during its next shooting phase.

 

I believe special rules are the way out. Tweaking the profile in a D6 game is not really an option, given how big the jump would be. Special rules like these can be introduced via errata or Chapter Approved. You can also tweak them to work every turn, not once per game.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Frater Cornelius

[Stormxlr]

 

 

Chapter Master 454, one quick thing, because you are partially right.

 

Lump sum answers are bad because in my experience, from the meta view, one objectively loses sight of the indivual view.

 

In light of the new lines of perspective, how would everyone feel about a 1, 2, or 3 points drop for the Marine stat line?

 

If buffing is not a viable answer within the game meta, and therefore more points for better stats is not an answer, the only clear option is to keep the current stat line, and just charge less for it per Marine.

 

Marine cost is now one of the following:

12

11

10

 

Why? As agreed here, 13 points per Marine is too much. By how much? That is why there have been many threads over time on this very issue.

 

Still to Chapter Master 454, when a meta has an over costed, yet underperforming army, a single minor tweak given the meta view you presented, might be enough given the range of armies this one change effects directly, as well as the other armies in the game.

 

12 points, per the list above, is where I would start, and consider stopping, for quite some time.

 

Thoughts?

I do agree marines need a points reduction. Pushing down to 12 is not outside the realm of reasonable. The odd thing is understanding that when it makes certain options open up. Across 15 marines, it would save 15 points. Across 30, 30 points and while these are small numbers those are the values that let you get another weapon option in. It is a question of the right approach to the matter as there are several points of improvement however as noted these avenues are possibly more problematic over a longer term but could be approached as the hard but correct method.

 

I would firmly agree with a sentiment shared by some and opposed by others I would think: Primaris feel like marines were meant to be. By that I mean they can take a hit and keep on trucking, they could take a lasgun round to the chest, puncture their primary heart and because of their second heart keep going and barrel into their ranks while their improved body repairs damage. The one extra wound just gives that feeling so well. I would also argue that Primaris maybe should of become less of a 'better' marine and more of a marine more suited for going into close range engagements, their enhanced strength beyond even a standard astartes reinforcing this. These marines could of been considered a more frontline bruiser, deployed to get in close with modified chainswords and bolt weapons that go with that theme, their purpose to give marines an excellent close range unit while those deployed to the back carry modified, heavier, prototype weapons that no standard astartes could carry but at a risk of malfunctions (however in game might not be represented).

I Digress.

There is I feel no simple fix. To sound like someone trying to sell you on me as the go to fixer, I would rebuild marines from the ground up. Using guardsman as the measuring stick, I would build marines from there, from there add in the primaris benefits (which is largely strength and possibly 1 extra attack because of their "Overdrive" organ). Custodes would then be made as true monsters of elite elite armies. I am talking Custode armies possibly being the smallest model count army you could field but each model a walking hurricane of destruction. That is my pitch really on this, just the thoughts of someone who fancy themselves as a person who thinks they know game design :P

This is the whole point, people keep on wanting to pile on rules to "improve" things. THATS THE WHOLE REASON 7TH WAS A MESS. We don't need more rules to fix things, we need a rebuild of the whole system. I said it before and I will say it again. 8th is just 7th with most of the fat shaved off. It did not fix or change anything to a considerable degree. We dont need more special rules to make Marines special because then what about Guardians?Necrons Warriors?Tyranid Warriors? Everyone would need to be re balanced because everyone would feel like they are not powerful enough and that's exactly the point we got to in 7th and that's already happening with 8th. What we need is completely new system designed from ground up with no left overs from previous editions or nostalgia rules. Completely NEW system. 8th is just 7th edition Frankenstein with fat shaved off and things stiched together.

Marines are not the problem and you can't fix them becaus they it's the system that is an old pile of crap that's been given a plastic surgery and had a liposuction.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Stormxlr

[Captain Idaho]

I totally agree we shouldn't rules creep and make a mess of the system.

 

I do want superior Stratagems though. That helps a lot and also makes things interesting, whilst having the added benefit of not requiring a massive points adjustment to the whole game as each army receives big adjustments etc. It's essentially easier to implement minor fixes to Stratagems than the army.

[Karack Blackstone]

Question:

 

Has this thread been largely dropped in favor of the balancing 40K one instead? If so, that's fine; if not, how might the discussion be spared the long, languished descent into thread death?

[Schlitzaf]

I think it’s the issue of the various Marine PA Line Squads (Tacticals and Cousins, Specialists, Primaris, JumpSquads), is that Tactical/Chaos/Assault Marines (BA ones are acceptable) are just mediocre to bad compared to the other options. Every other line Squad, has their own strengths and advantages, Grey Hunters and Crusaders have better equipment and/or ways to make Squad cheap. Intercessors are durable, can firefight and melee. Specialist (Ordos Militant, and Cult) are elite units in troop slot, so are functionally avoiding troop tax. Raptors and BA Assaults are solid special deployment and come with handy rules (LD Mods and Thirst). And BloodClaws have last editon charge bonus so lack firefight but have strong ‘alpha/first strike’.

 

Tacticals and Chaos Marines Squads are the basic. All 3 squads need something unique, be it +1 CP at Ten. At end of the day the thread is talking about Assault/Tactical/Chaos Marine Squads. Trying to fix these squads without basically breaking another Marine Line or stealing that Line’s Gimmick is basically impossible.

[Zodd1888]

I would say that could be interesting for PA troops. +1 CP per squad to a max of +3 CP.

[Mileposter]

Adding CP for taking troops in a detachment that already rewards taking troops... That's not doubling down or anything at all. Nor does it actually add any value to the Tac Squad et al - you'll see more of them, sure, but not as much more than a speed bump in a normal game.

 

I subscribe to an idea that was suggested earlier - a minor but useful passive ability added to Tac Squads (et al) reflective of their faction would do better to add value to the body.

 

Stratagem overhaul that allows a few Stratagems to focus on the Tac squad (et al) would also allow them to have some carryover, but they'd need to fill specific purposes to avoid the potential backlash of "I feel the Tac Squad is overpriced already, now I have to pay more to do a thing with them?".

 

Alternatively, allowing the Tac Squad (et al) to put more stock into their versatility (though some of this is players trying to only use half of the unit versatility to begin with) would also downpoint the negatives.

[The Unseen]

Tactical squads won't be good until the bolter isn't statted as a quantity weapon, carried by a quality body.

 

Same goes for intercessors really, their shooting damage output is worse effeciency wise, (while their melee damage is slightly improved) despite the addition of -1 ap. Because -1ap isn't worth losing 1/3 the # of shots.

 

If you want an even better example, go check out the custodes. A base model that costs 40 pts with 2 whole bolt rifle shots.

That being a thing tells me GW has no idea how to make elite infantry work in a game where people can bring upwards of 120 or more models in a game.

[Skaorn]

Do Tac Squads still have the ability to split into fire teams?

[The Unseen]

Do Tac Squads still have the ability to split into fire teams?

Yeah, if you start with 10 models, just like most other marine infantry units

[utilityzero]

Yes. But it's horrible. They either take up one slot in a detachment but count as 2 drops or they can split after the game starts for 1 cp. Total waste.

 

What about a tac rule where ten man squads take up two troop slots? It just sucks that 120 points of guard fills a battalion but it takes 195 points of marines and has half the bodies. In 7th that was fine but in 8th with CP it's like we are being penalized on top of paying more points.

[Skaorn]

Thanks, didn't know if they'd gone back on that again. I'm Chaos, so I don't pay attention to loyalist. The restrictions to split should go. Guess there goes my thoughts on a way to buff SM a bit without adding brand new rules.

[Rinion]

Adding CP for taking troops in a detachment that already rewards taking troops... That's not doubling down or anything at all. Nor does it actually add any value to the Tac Squad et al - you'll see more of them, sure, but not as much more than a speed bump in a normal game.

 

I think its fine for units in "Elite Armies" which is what i thought Objective Secured was, reward and compensation for having expensive basic troops for armies like marines and Grey Knights etc. 

Things like ObSec are pointless when even 4pt models get it just as much as 13pt ones.

 

The +1 CP per Troops (Certain troops) could be an easy fix? For example theres almost no reason to take regular Custodian Guard squads, the CPs arent usually worth the points since the other options in the dex are better, getting CP for certain armies' 'Elite Troops' would encourage this a lot. Problem then is not giving the bonus to someone who doesn't need it.