The Power Armoured Troops thread, take 2: possible fixes

[SickSix]

Isn't this all, pointless? GW isn't going to do anything to Marines. Their time is over. GW is not going to spend any meaningful time at all tinkering with them. Primaris is the way forward. Which I still laugh at the people that deny this.

 

The only reason there were even regular marines in the Codex was as background filler (in the model pictures).

 

They are not going to bother with trying to keep TruMarines competitive.

Edited February 22, 2018 by SickSix

[utilityzero]

Isn't this all, pointless? GW isn't going to do anything to Marines. Their time is over. GW is not going to spend any meaningful time at all tinkering with them. Primaris is the way forward. Which I still laugh at the people that deny this.

 

The only reason there were even regular marines in the Codex was as background filler (in the model pictures).

 

They are not going to bother with trying to keep TruMarines competitive.

Until they flesh out the Primaris line I think they know regular marines are a thing and in fact getting rid of marines would mean less primaris sales for many players, since removing the tac squad unit from the codex just means all tacs are now counts as intercessors.

 

And if they weren't concerned with balancing them in at least the short run why did things like grey hunters get points drops in chapter approved?

[SickSix]

I didn't say they were going to stop printing rules (yet). I mean they are not going to spend meaningful time and effort making them competitive. Sure, a small points adjustment here or there. But not the significant changes many are taking about and want. No change in stat lines or gear.

 

They need people buying Primaris. So Tactical squads by necessity need to be worse. Not glaringly so, but enough that people choose Primaris if they care about winning (and not just looks).

 

Sorry. I have nothing to contribute to the subject becuase I think it's fruitless so I will just be quiet.

[solarisqc]

My prediction: in a couple of year, tactical and assault marine will be the best choice and primaris will be overcost for what they do. This way, all new marine player will have to invest in the new normal marine they will produce that will become the new meta.

 

After, primaris will be strong and marine weak, and we will have a new cycle like the infantry/vehicule meta we go since the last 20 year+

[Captain Idaho]

=][= Don't come into a topic and drag it off topic with absolutely nothing to add. Consider this an across the bow shot since normally Mods dish out warnings for such things. =][=

[Lord_Caerolion]

 

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.

 

 

Given we've now got the Custodes with "Objective Super-Secured", perhaps an easier fix would be to change it so that if two or more opposing units are both contesting an Objective, and both have Objective Secured, the one with the higher Power Level "wins"? Custodes would still trump this with their ability, but it could give an advantage to Tactical Squads contesting objectives against other, cheaper, squads?

[The Unseen]

That could sorta work, but then you'd have 6 man tactical squads scoring like 10 man squads.

I'd rather just give armies that need it a multiplier.

So, a tactical marine counts for 3, a custodes counts for 5, a guardsmen counts for 1, and something like a sister of battle counts for 2.

Could be straight up "how many guardsmen can you take for your base points".

So if your 0-6 pts base=1, 7-12=2, 8-14=3, 15-20=4, 21-26=5, etc etc.

 

So troops still outscore non troops, but troops themselves it's entirely numerically points between them.

So elite armies aren't as gimped trying to hold objectives, and it scales naturally.

[Trevak Dal]

I think part of the problem is people want Marines to perform on the table the way they do in the fluff.

 

That is totally unrealistic when you realize that in the fluff a company of 100 Marines will take on armies of thousands and win with relative ease. There is no possible way to reconcile the difference between table top Marines and fluff Marines. None. Not without utterly breakingthe game.

 

Yeah, I'd love it if tabletop Shrike was as much of a badass as novel Shrike. But I completely understand why he isn't. No opponent wants to watch my single model rip through half his army with impunity.

 

Marines simply CAN'T perform on the table the way they do in books. If they did there would be no point to fighting them with anything but other Marines.

 

I think any viable solution needs to temper expectations from what you want them to be versus what is reasonable for them to be.

Hmm. I'd like to see that fight, a tyranid, guard or Ork horde vs 100 super marines, with Primaris stats (Primaris wouldn't get 3 wounds, but terminators would) everything would get 2 in this scenario, so Bolters and plasma would be rapid fire 2, storm Bolters would be rapid fire 4, heavy Bolters would be heavy 6, missile launchers heavy 2, cyclones would still only be heavy 2 (because they should be heavy 1...) Dreds and tanks would triple their fire output.

 

I think that would be a good fight. Swaths of horde would get chopped up, have without number or some such and keep track of how many unit kills before they all go down.

[Trevak Dal]

There is actually a very easy way of making power armour worthwhile.

Just give all units with power armour the following rule.

 

Power Armour: Power Armour does not suffer negative armour modifiers unless the weapon is AP -3 or above.

 

Done and dusted.

Definitely Terminator armor should have that.

[Mileposter]

I would hate to see the points hike associated with that rule addition. Or how the Custodes would be even (better/worse) than they are now with it.

[Karack Blackstone]

What sort of consensus do each of you think we can start to form here?

 

As much as the discussion should continue, I really am starting to see how GW is rather stuck in a proverbial corner in this situation.

 

There's no easy fix, and every single thought has to be taken into objective context of the unified whole; that typed, there needs to be at least a continued discussion, as to how to proceed long term, for the sake of the game.

 

I will bow out for now, and return when I feel I have something constructive and beneficial to add.

[Beta galactosidase]

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.

 

 

For GW I don't think there is such a thing as a quality body. There is no way to make a good shooting unit other than improving its gun - a custode with a bolter is just a slightly more accurate marine. No stat on a model affects armor save, wound roll, or number of shots. Nothing about a model makes it a good shooting unit, except perhaps 12" of movement, or T > 6, neither of which can happen for an infantry unit. In many other games, there is a natural way that a quality model can shoot into cover better, snipe specific models, shoot in more phases of a turn if there is an exotic turn structure, or perhaps shoot back, for example if a basic level sniper targets a high quality sniper, the high quality sniper has a chance to shoot it dead before the first model's shot goes off. But no, for GW there is no such thing as a quality body for shooting, just quality guns - and they don't all have plasma guns.

 

I think if you change the game rules to involve more stats in shooting, then marines shooting bolters could be quality shooting. For example, in the shooting rules you can on this: when resolving shooting wounds, compare the attacks characteristic of the shooting and saving models.  If the shooting model's attacks are greater, the saving roll is taken at -1.  If the saving model's attacks are greater, and it is in cover, it may take a 5+ invulnerable save if it fails its normal save.

 

Then, potentially, you could bump up attacks on basic and veteran marines, possibly without increasing points, or only by one or two, just the same way as one day marines were bumped from t3 to t4.

 

You would do this as an extra ap1 ibecause its resolved when taking saves, so its easier to use for mixed units, e.g. with characters in them, and an extra save instead of a save mod to account for models already with 2+ saves.

 

Or the rules could be changed so that under some conditions, models can take a Ld test, which would have to be reintroduced, and that would allow them to snipe specific models and inflict +1D.

 

Or you could say that at the beginning of the shooting phase, all of the opponent's infantry can make shooting attacks, but instead of removing models, you only calculate battle shock and remove models for that, something that marines are mostly immune to.

[The Unseen]

@Beta

 

That's...

Significantly more complicated than just, as you say, giving them a better gun, and is moving in the opposite direction GW is.

The game has been heavily pushed towards there being far fewer special rules overall, and the removal of almost all comparison charts (the only remaining one is the Strength vs Toughness chart, and it's been vastly simplified)

 

 

Adding that kinda stuff back in will put us right back in the mess of 7th before long.

 

GW has kinda put their toe into the water of buffing some of the more basic guns with the "primaris" versions, and the storm bolter being an actually decent bolter weapon. My theory is before too long (less than 10 years, probably closer to 5) the distinction between primaris marines and "legacy" marines will cease to exist, all the rules will be "Primaris" and the older marine models will be just that.

Older marine models.

And they'll probably do some more serious fiddling with marine weapons then.

[Mileposter]

I still reject the idea that the value of a Tactical Squad is measured by their shooting and shooting alone. Won't argue that their shooting is definitely better than their melee, but that doesn't justify their other qualities being ignored.

 

They are average in melee - and can still shoot when locked in CC! - while still average in mobility and defenses. They are priced for people to take advantage of that... So players who pay for them should be taking advantage of that. If players are having that hard of a time finding ways to do that... Perhaps an adjustment (via Stratagem, unit ability, what have you) that highlights their versatility by boosting their multi-tasking. We've fairly universally said that Marine support (stratagems in specific) need an improvement - it would not be too left field for something of this sort to be involved.

[Beta galactosidase]

yes, wouldn't you like to get rid of complex special rules?

 

A sergeant in a Tau fire warrior squad or an Imperial Guard squad has +1 attack. Why, what's the point? In fluff the point is they have more grit, a stronger sense of responsibility, but it doesn't do much in game.

 

 

A chapter master with just a bolter, maybe you just want to make a basic shooting character, has barely any advantage over tactical squad model, besides wounds and a slightly better hit rate, he can't kill truly faster than a sergeant could, especially since a sergeant can get multi-damage weapons.

 

 

And all that works really well with primaris and their convergence with space marines. On one hand, it makes primaris-profiles fairly elite at shooting and at being shot at, which atm they sort of aren't, a primaris with a regular boltgun isn't impressive, and like people have pointed out even with their rifles they don't completely make up offensively for their price. On the other hand, in the interim while they are still different, it allows you to make actual primaris somewhat dramatic. I think you could put all marines and primaris marines at a2 and one wound, but primaris could have something like move 7" and strength 5. That's a very agressive unit, even with just intercessor options.

 

 

There's no chart or complication, if you have a better stat than your target, you get a bonus. When Lysander breaks out of an iron warriors' prison and steals a guard's bolter, he should be able to massacre some more guards with it. If you have a tactical marine in a shootout with a veteran sergeant, the veteran sergeant should have an advantage no matter who gets first turn.

 

So that's why these are for everything.

 

An ork nob with a shoota should be dangerous, even with bad bs, because he's got three attacks and he's more wily and powerful than a basic marine.

 

A squad with a strong leader should be able to have better directed shooting.

 

I still reject the idea that the value of a Tactical Squad is measured by their shooting and shooting alone. Won't argue that their shooting is definitely better than their melee, but that doesn't justify their other qualities being ignored.

I reject the idea that shooting and melee are the important distinctions. Tactical squads are for midfield board control, not melee or shooting. Assault squads are not for melee, they are for fast attack, which often comes from shooting especially when they were meltagun caddies in Blood Angels' Descent of Angels lists, or in the form of bike squads or land speeders, which are their competition in lists and also their alternate roles in fluff.

 

That is fine with what you're saying, because melee is as good as shooting for holding ground, and you're talking about using both to their best effect. It's all the more reason that marines should have two attacks and that should also give them a better ability to use cover.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Beta galactosidase