The Power Armoured Troops thread, take 2: possible fixes

[DuskRaider]

Make them base toughness 12 with 16 wounds 22 attacks and a strength of 50.

 

Marines are fine. If you really want to fix them, make their toughness and wounds increased by 1 scaleable through the line (Loyalists and Traitors). Give them a base attack of 1, but give them an extra attack for each weapon they're armed with and give weapons an increase to their strength and do more AP debuffs and damage. Make them immune to morale and have a Leadership of 9. The end.

Edited January 19, 2018 by DuskRaider

[ERJAK]

Eh, I wouldn't spend too much time working on tacticals. You've got maybe 1-2 codexes cycles left with them anyway.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

They aren't going to move away from tacticals till they stop selling. I mean just look at the berserker kit its so dated and GW won't touch and Khorne is one of the pet fractions. So i'm willing to bet that with how new the tactical boxes are for marines, and blood angels they will be around for a long time.

 

I really think that stratagems are the answer for them. I think the vanilla book suffers because of how they split stratagems, they are one of the books that gave the strongest ones to certain subfractions, instead of acknowledging that multiple chapters are good at sneak attacks. The base ones are also disappointing, but fleshing that out for marine players would go along ways. Either by adding a few extra generic ones or adding 2-3 for each chapter.

[Captain Idaho]

Some need discounts also. 3 CPs to strike again? That's half an army's total.

[chapter master 454]

Some need discounts also. 3 CPs to strike again? That's half an army's total.

 

MEanwhile eldar low key have TWO versions of the same style of stratagem. One for dumping a transport out of deep strike onto the enemy or you can set-up 1 OR 2 units in the webway to just appear for ether 1 or 3 CP (with the first one also being just 1 CP).

 

Marine Stratagems need buffed I will not argue that. The fact is they are in reality just hold overs from formations in 7th and need to be updated to account for how expensive they are to use.

[Toxichobbit]

Some need discounts also. 3 CPs to strike again? That's half an army's total.

 

Better than 3 CPs to sometimes, maybe, occasionally do D3 mortal wounds :p. Orbital Bombardment has to be one of the worst Stratagems in existence. It's about as threatening as a pidgeon with diarrhoea.

[Karack Blackstone]

If I need to bow out of the thread for it to continue, please, by all means, let me know.

 

Otherwise, there are multiple ways to approach this fix, and, to type it, the workarounds available are only as limited as our collective thinking, as we brainstorm in this thread.

[Saxxon the Dragoon]

If I need to bow out of the thread for it to continue, please, by all means, let me know.

 

Otherwise, there are multiple ways to approach this fix, and, to type it, the workarounds available are only as limited as our collective thinking, as we brainstorm in this thread.

The problem is that the solution is already available, we just dont like it (or at least some dont like it because it pretty much invalidates astartes). Primaris intercessors are everything standard tactical marines should be, but arent. They have 2 wounds, 2 attacks base, they can take assault bolt rifles to give them 2 shots, or can take long range bolt rifles (and even grenade launchers to shoot grenades out to 30") for longer range fire support.

 

We want standard marines to be like intercessors, but by doing so it breaks so much of the game. I say in 2 edition's time (or at least within 10 years), Astartes are going to go the way of Bretonians.

 

Everything is already looking pretty rough for marines. We just got custodes which have 3 wounds a piece, and are super-super space marines who hate space marines. We have the Grey Knights, which are super space marines. And even with the likes of Deathwatch and 4 special codex's for the Astartes (Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Ultramarines) normal marines are already becoming a hard sell to all but the most ingrained. The only thing that the Primaris lack and the Astartes are superior is the fact that Astartes have weapon options. Primaris dont have an answer for lascannon devastators, they dont have an answer to the rhino or drop pod for cheap transport options. They do have the Repulsor, which is equivalent to a land raider, but outside of the Astreus, Primaris dont have any other tanks or vehicles. There aren't even any Primaris aircraft (which we know are going to happen because Cawl cant let his superior marines use anything as pedestrian as STC aircraft).

 

The problem with tacticals are solved, the solution invalidates decades of models and thousands of dollars spent and hundreds of hours spent with the armies you have already accumulated.

[Karack Blackstone]

 

If I need to bow out of the thread for it to continue, please, by all means, let me know.

 

Otherwise, there are multiple ways to approach this fix, and, to type it, the workarounds available are only as limited as our collective thinking, as we brainstorm in this thread.

The problem is that the solution is already available, we just dont like it (or at least some dont like it because it pretty much invalidates astartes). Primaris intercessors are everything standard tactical marines should be, but arent. They have 2 wounds, 2 attacks base, they can take assault bolt rifles to give them 2 shots, or can take long range bolt rifles (and even grenade launchers to shoot grenades out to 30") for longer range fire support.

 

We want standard marines to be like intercessors, but by doing so it breaks so much of the game. I say in 2 edition's time (or at least within 10 years), Astartes are going to go the way of Bretonians.

 

Everything is already looking pretty rough for marines. We just got custodes which have 3 wounds a piece, and are super-super space marines who hate space marines. We have the Grey Knights, which are super space marines. And even with the likes of Deathwatch and 4 special codex's for the Astartes (Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Ultramarines) normal marines are already becoming a hard sell to all but the most ingrained. The only thing that the Primaris lack and the Astartes are superior is the fact that Astartes have weapon options. Primaris dont have an answer for lascannon devastators, they dont have an answer to the rhino or drop pod for cheap transport options. They do have the Repulsor, which is equivalent to a land raider, but outside of the Astreus, Primaris dont have any other tanks or vehicles. There aren't even any Primaris aircraft (which we know are going to happen because Cawl cant let his superior marines use anything as pedestrian as STC aircraft).

 

The problem with tacticals are solved, the solution invalidates decades of models and thousands of dollars spent and hundreds of hours spent with the armies you have already accumulated.

 

 

That's just the rub though: without Astartes, there wouldn't be any Primaris to begin with, in the game. I know I don't personally want all my already owned models invalidated, however, it does seem likely that, long term, that is how the game is going to proceed.

 

The issue is that GW has inadvertently produced a stinky egg, and has polished it gold, and calls it as such. To me, Primaris are what Space Marines should have been bumped up to; that typed, there is the why, what it would do to the game, and many other questions. Unless GW wants the justifiable hatred of many C/SM players around the world, there needs to at least be some consideration as to how this idea is going to be approached. My idea of changing unit sizes in 8th to a 12 man squad with the above-mentioned options and rules might be workable, however, the Rhino is a vastly easier vehicle to shoe-horn rule into somehow fitting 12 C/SM rather than the normal 10. Drop pods, no so much.

 

I really would like to keep my models relevant, and not be going the way of the dinosaur on models I had to buy, pay to have painted, and, continue to enjoy playing with, despite bad die rolls most of the time. I guess, in the end, I just have one question: why, of all things, must Astartes always be the proverbial Poster Child of GW, but, never have the table top performance to back it up? GW seems so hell bent on keeping Marines from being too strong that they are overcompensating and keeping them needlessly weak.

 

I really just don't know right now; reading minds is not exactly on my things I normally do list.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

 

The suggestions were:

-Allow Tactical Marines to purchase a close combat weapon.

 

This doesn't really do anything. Don't get me wrong, this is one of my favorite abilities and my army already has it modeled from previous editions, but if you weren't already using jump-pack-less Assault Marines, you're not going to use chainsword Tacticals.

[Beams]

Let 2 per 5 use stormbolters? 5/5 is a serious sisters build...

[The Unseen]

 

 

 

The suggestions were:

-Allow Tactical Marines to purchase a close combat weapon.

This doesn't really do anything. Don't get me wrong, this is one of my favorite abilities and my army already has it modeled from previous editions, but if you weren't already using jump-pack-less Assault Marines, you're not going to use chainsword Tacticals.

It would at least bring tacticals back to actually being more or less equally good at either shooting or cc.

At least, the bolter equipped ones anyway.

With 2 attacks a model, suddenly tactical marines still lose a straight up fire fight vs most things, but would pull closer if they got stuck in. Rather than being mediocre at shooting and piss at close combat, they'd be mediocre at both?

Least a step in the right direction.

 

If you combined that with buffs to bolters, and made marines equipped with just bolters a shooting threat, along with not being complete pushovers in melee, you might be getting somewhere.

 

For everyone saying primaris already do this, they actually don't. Same reasons a tactical marine is anemic at 13 pts/model makes base intercessors have similar problems at 18 pts/model.

Their gun is marginally better, for a non marginal base price increase.

So they both have rather poor damage output for the points.

Intercessors do pick up a hefty durability bonus vs small arms effecient wise, but they need a damage buff to compete with actual elite units or hordes.

[Jarl Caldersson]

Here is an idea, and don't cut my throat before you think about it. Throw the fluff to the wind and think about only the stats

 

Primaris are the new Marines, you can still use your old models but Primaris have taken over. They are now allowed to use any equipment as their predecessors. A "Tactical Primaris Squad" can take their heavy weapon, "Black Templar Primaris Neophyte" can be 15 squad strong, "SW Wolf Guard" Can take melee weapons and shields, "DA Primaris Deathwing" take Terminators. Etc etc. The cost goes up for Space Marines, but we are getting an additional attack and an additional wound. This makes SM more survivable and more offensive. 

 

Not saying this is perfect but it does resolve some of the "lacking of attack" and "lack survivability" that SM run into. Just an idea, and I am curious what more experience players think about it. 

[Karack Blackstone]

Combat Knives make sense, as, if I recall correctly, doesn't the 8th Ed. fluff in C:SM mention that Tactical Squads have them?

 

Also, for perhaps 1 point per Chainsword, they would likely make far more sense to have AP -1 instead of AP 0; this change, while it might cost 0 or 1 point, would truly go a long way to at least differentiate the Combat Knife and the Chainsword. At the moment, they both do the same thing, really.

 

Another part of my above list, that I just remembered to type up:

 

Boltgun:

- Assault 1

OR

- Rapid Fire 1

OR

- Heavy 3

 

This might address some of the many issues all variants of C/SM units face: they are supposed to be elite combat troops, the best of the best of the Imperium, and, they never seem to perform up to that par, that GW themselves set with their own lore.

 

Edit:

 

 

Here is an idea, and don't cut my throat before you think about it. Throw the fluff to the wind and think about only the stats

 

Primaris are the new Marines, you can still use your old models but Primaris have taken over. They are now allowed to use any equipment as their predecessors. A "Tactical Primaris Squad" can take their heavy weapon, "Black Templar Primaris Neophyte" can be 15 squad strong, "SW Wolf Guard" Can take melee weapons and shields, "DA Primaris Deathwing" take Terminators. Etc etc. The cost goes up for Space Marines, but we are getting an additional attack and an additional wound. This makes SM more survivable and more offensive. 

 

Not saying this is perfect but it does resolve some of the "lacking of attack" and "lack survivability" that SM run into. Just an idea, and I am curious what more experience players think about it. 

 

While I like the idea, that would push Primaris into the 3 Attacks and 3 Wounds area, wouldn't it? I do realize that this idea, in theory, sounds great; the problem is, that, by fundamentally changing the benchmark unit basic profile, the standard Space Marine, be they Loyal or Chaos, the entire rest of the infantry troop range might, and likely at that, start screaming for their own buffs. It's a delicate matter, to say the least.

 

Still, while sound, the idea does open the proverbial Pandora's Box type of situation: do Eldar get better too? Orks? Necrons? I don't know about you, but, 2 Wound Necron Warriors is not something I'd want to face any time soon! Thus, my attempt at the above point: C/SM's of all types having a second wound are in the same boat, really.

 

As a result, this discussion usually goes circular; there is reason, merit, and sound logical thinking behind every single point of view as to how to proceed. The final choice of how to actually get C/SM's playable as the elite force they are in the fluff onto the tabletop, that's why GW tries to write balanced rules, and get the game fun and rewarding, to play.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Karack Blackstone

[kombatwombat]

To me, Primaris are what Space Marines should have been bumped up to; that typed, there is the why, what it would do to the game, and many other questions.

Exactly what questions though?

 

I’ll preface this by saying two things: first, I fully accept that this change would necessitate a new edition, which effectively relegates 8th Ed Tacticals to ‘screwed’. Second, that I have a horse in this race - I don’t want my 12,000 points of non-Primaris Black Templars to be invalidated.

 

That being understood, exactly what is wrong with just Primaris-ising everything? What issues exist that would kill that idea?

 

I think GW shot itself (and all of us) in the foot by not trusting that the stunning new Primaris models would sell purely on their own merits, and instead contriving an artificial power gap between them and normal Astartes. The models are good enough and the units fill enough of a niche in the Marine lineup (specialist units, a hole the jack-of-all-trades Marines can’t fill) to have sold well even without being stronger/faster/betterer than normal Marines.

 

If GW simply said ‘this is the new basic Space Marine statline for all persuasions of Astartes, 2 wounds and attacks for everyone’, adjusted characters, elites and Terminators accordingly, and got rid of the no-Primaris-allowed restriction on transports, you’d end up with a much more cohesive army. Once the points balancing had been shaken out, you’d end up with:

 

- Scouts (potentially without the 2 wounds to represent their lack of Power Armour) as cheap, sneaky infantry

- Tacticals as a core choice with slightly weaker basic guns but more flexibility and weapon options

- Intercessors as a choice with slightly more firepower at the loss of flexibility

- Reivers as specialist disruption infantry

- Assault Marines doing what it says on the tin

- Inceptors as mobile medium ranged gun platforms

- Hellblasters as powerfully armed but inflexible shock troops

- Devastators as flexible heavy weapon units

 

It actually nicely fits the narrative of the new Primaris Marines being very well equipped but relatively green and trained to fulfil a role, and the grizzled old veteran regular Marines being adaptable and flexible.

 

The real advantage of this though is that it adds to people’s existing armies and works with them, rather than forcing a divide and telling people ‘you should just buy Primaris, they’re better than your dusty old models’. I feel like it’s by far and away the most comprehensive solution; nobody’s models are invalidated, Marines start feeling like Marines, and the new boys on the block have a place.

 

Again, I accept that this would require a new edition.

[Claws and Effect]

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.

[kombatwombat]

Claws, I think you may be conflating people saying ‘I want my Marines to feel elite’ with ‘I want Movie Marines’. There is a middle ground; I don’t think anybody’s asking for what you’re saying they are.

[Jarl Caldersson]

 

 

 

Here is an idea, and don't cut my throat before you think about it. Throw the fluff to the wind and think about only the stats

 

Primaris are the new Marines, you can still use your old models but Primaris have taken over. They are now allowed to use any equipment as their predecessors. A "Tactical Primaris Squad" can take their heavy weapon, "Black Templar Primaris Neophyte" can be 15 squad strong, "SW Wolf Guard" Can take melee weapons and shields, "DA Primaris Deathwing" take Terminators. Etc etc. The cost goes up for Space Marines, but we are getting an additional attack and an additional wound. This makes SM more survivable and more offensive. 

 

Not saying this is perfect but it does resolve some of the "lacking of attack" and "lack survivability" that SM run into. Just an idea, and I am curious what more experience players think about it. 

 

While I like the idea, that would push Primaris into the 3 Attacks and 3 Wounds area, wouldn't it? I do realize that this idea, in theory, sounds great; the problem is, that, by fundamentally changing the benchmark unit basic profile, the standard Space Marine, be they Loyal or Chaos, the entire rest of the infantry troop range might, and likely at that, start screaming for their own buffs. It's a delicate matter, to say the least.

 

Still, while sound, the idea does open the proverbial Pandora's Box type of situation: do Eldar get better too? Orks? Necrons? I don't know about you, but, 2 Wound Necron Warriors is not something I'd want to face any time soon! Thus, my attempt at the above point: C/SM's of all types having a second wound are in the same boat, really.

 

As a result, this discussion usually goes circular; there is reason, merit, and sound logical thinking behind every single point of view as to how to proceed. The final choice of how to actually get C/SM's playable as the elite force they are in the fluff onto the tabletop, that's why GW tries to write balanced rules, and get the game fun and rewarding, to play.

 

Aye, I have heard that boosting SM's would cause "the benchmark" unit to become too powerful and everything would then want a boost. Thing is that people need to realize cost to power ratios. A SM that costs twice as much as a guardsman should be twice as effective (in theory). Putting SM as "the benchmak" is rather stupid, as they are supposed to be these super powerful beings that slaughter humans, eldar, orks. The benchmark is put much to high to begin with, it causes everyone to want and achieve their standard troop as good as "the benchmark" as that is standard. We should be taking something like the simple guardsman as the benchmark to be honest.

 

The idea of SM as the benchmark is flawed is all.

[M@verik115]

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. 

[Beams]

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.

That tile is worth five points. As it stands, it basically cuts out the reason for heavy Bolters and Autocannons.

 

If this was easy, GW would have done it. This is a hard and contentious topic, which honestly matters how you play PA troops and how you feel you should play PA troops and the possible discrepancy between them.

[M@verik115]

 

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.

That tile is worth five points. As it stands, it basically cuts out the reason for heavy Bolters and Autocannons.

 

If this was easy, GW would have done it. This is a hard and contentious topic, which honestly matters how you play PA troops and how you feel you should play PA troops and the possible discrepancy between them.

 

But you see, HB's and AC's were never meant to take out power armour anyway. 

[Mileposter]

 

 

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.

That tile is worth five points. As it stands, it basically cuts out the reason for heavy Bolters and Autocannons.

 

If this was easy, GW would have done it. This is a hard and contentious topic, which honestly matters how you play PA troops and how you feel you should play PA troops and the possible discrepancy between them.

 

But you see, HB's and AC's were never meant to take out power armour anyway.

 

Source?

[M@verik115]

 

 

 

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.

That tile is worth five points. As it stands, it basically cuts out the reason for heavy Bolters and Autocannons.

 

If this was easy, GW would have done it. This is a hard and contentious topic, which honestly matters how you play PA troops and how you feel you should play PA troops and the possible discrepancy between them.

 

But you see, HB's and AC's were never meant to take out power armour anyway.

 

Source?

 

40K Editions 3-7

[Mileposter]

 

 

But you see, HB's and AC's were never meant to take out power armour anyway.

Source?

 

40K Editions 3-7

 

That is not a valid source.

[Deschenus Maximus]

It doesn't really make sense, anyways.