The Power Armoured Troops thread, take 2: possible fixes

[Wargamer]

No way. There's no point having them when you would just take Assault Marines or Devastators.

 

If people want units dedicated to one singular, then collect Eldar. Imperials, Orks and Chaos always had units with upgrade weapons within them. It's 40K.

 

Primaris are notably NOT like that but that's because GW has simplified them to be easily playable with a new customer.

You mean like when Guard squads HAD to include a Lascannon? Or when a Devastator squad HAD to be ten men strong with two heavy bolters / heavy plasma guns / conversion beamers and two missile launchers / multi-meltas / Lascannons?

 

Also, since when does "good at one thing" mean losing all options? Hell, having more options might actually be what makes them better!

[Karack Blackstone]

To weigh back in after some time away, having given all this some thought, I hereby present the following thoughts:

 

- Guard SHOULD be the baseline Imperial line trooper; that said, Astartes are the current standard. How is this going to be changed from a gamer perspective? Sure, the change to Guard being the baseline is easy, in theory; the problem is that how this is done and how it is conveyed could literally make or break the game for everyone not Imperial, as GW has had SM's the benchmark for so long that any drastic change, of which, the baseline trooper changing to Guard would be massive.

 

How does GW then make this change, and minimize the losses that will occur as the SM being the standard against which all other armies are measured, in a meaningful yet fair way?

 

- Tactical Squads are, to retype it, the equivalent to a modern day Navy SEAL team; they should have options, and the ability to become specialized. This should also lead to the choice of specialization, not the loss of options just to make Tac's easier to manage.

 

- The Primaris stat line could work, however, getting C/SM's there would require an equivalency pass, and, a points recalculation, if that is the only way forward. An excellent point is raised, in that, maybe just changing C/SM's to 9 or 10 ppm could do the same, without the stat increase to Wounds and Attacks, that the mini-Primaris concept would potentially unleash.

- The final solution to this is the point of the thread. To reiterate, if C/SM's were to go to 2 W, 2 A, what would the other Codex armies that are considered comparable get, to compensate? The points drop to, as a guess, 10 ppm, might be a much better medium term solution, with, the short remaining a better set of weapon options, and, if viable, the long term being the 2 W, 2 A solution as mentioned, for the mini-Primaris, if that ever proves possible.

 

To type it again, Guard are more of the Line Infantry; Astartes are the Special Forces teams, and, are not the same as a conventional army.

[Mileposter]

The trouble with trying to 'make' something the baseline is that whatever is the most common or most popular is the baseline whether you want it to be or not.

 

Mean average cannot be theoretical.

[The Unseen]

The trouble with trying to 'make' something the baseline is that whatever is the most common or most popular is the baseline whether you want it to be or not.

 

Mean average cannot be theoretical.

There's a difference between using a baseline unit for balancing purposes, and a baseline as in the most common units chosen.

In fact, most of the time, in highly competitive games, those 2 are very different.

 

For example, hearthstones basic card sets and neutral minions set the overall power curve for mana spent.

They are the "average" and every card is based off of them for balancing.

But most of those baseline cards don't show up in most top tier decks, as top tier decks are crammed full of cards that are above the power curve, or offer some other niche utility.

Chillwind Yeti sets the power curve for minions at 4 mana gives you 4/5 stats, and no special abilities.

But Yeti basically never gets played, because you don't want "average" in your deck, you want better than average.

 

Making baseline guard the measuring stick works a lot better than marines, as marines should feel "above average" on an individual level, and should be balanced by high points cost for that above average statline.

 

Instead, the MeQ statline is considered average, which leads to things that are worse than MeQ individually being vastly under pointed for their actual utility, and leaves marines not acting like an elite army.

 

It doesn't help that plasma is both the only special worth taking, is dirt cheap, and spammable.

 

If plasma guns were twice as expensive, and flamers were as effective at burning light infantry as they were in 7th, the game state would be pretty different.

 

But plasma is only slightly less effecient at killing horde infantry than a flamer, and isnt much worse than a melta vs tanks/monsters than a melta, and is vastly better at killing anything in between, so plasma is king, and plasma loves shooting heavy infantry.

 

A guard plasma gun can earn more than double it's points back in a single shooting phase when firing at the cheapest marine equivalent in the game, which is just absolutely absurd, and can make something like 3x it's investments when firing at a terminator.

[Captain Idaho]

You mean like when Guard squads HAD to include a Lascannon? Or when a Devastator squad HAD to be ten men strong with two heavy bolters / heavy plasma guns / conversion beamers and two missile launchers / multi-meltas / Lascannons?

Also, since when does "good at one thing" mean losing all options? Hell, having more options might actually be what makes them better!

I'm not getting your point. So you're saying because a Guardsman squad doesn't have to take a Lascannon that means it isn't utility but for some reason a Tactical squad is utility when they got the same options?

[Karack Blackstone]

 

You mean like when Guard squads HAD to include a Lascannon? Or when a Devastator squad HAD to be ten men strong with two heavy bolters / heavy plasma guns / conversion beamers and two missile launchers / multi-meltas / Lascannons?

Also, since when does "good at one thing" mean losing all options? Hell, having more options might actually be what makes them better!

I'm not getting your point. So you're saying because a Guardsman squad doesn't have to take a Lascannon that means it isn't utility but for some reason a Tactical squad is utility when they got the same options?

 

 

I think this may have to do with mandatory upgrades, which eventually have turned into options. Tac's and the equivalents are better for having options, including the option to specialize, whereas, Guard once HAD to take a Lascannon, whether or not one wants to.

 

Utility is utility; the unit taking said utility still gains it, no matter what. The problem appears to be closer to the above; that the option to specialize is not the same as a specialized unit.

 

Edit:

 

 

The trouble with trying to 'make' something the baseline is that whatever is the most common or most popular is the baseline whether you want it to be or not.

 

Mean average cannot be theoretical.

There's a difference between using a baseline unit for balancing purposes, and a baseline as in the most common units chosen.

In fact, most of the time, in highly competitive games, those 2 are very different.

 

For example, hearthstones basic card sets and neutral minions set the overall power curve for mana spent.

They are the "average" and every card is based off of them for balancing.

But most of those baseline cards don't show up in most top tier decks, as top tier decks are crammed full of cards that are above the power curve, or offer some other niche utility.

Chillwind Yeti sets the power curve for minions at 4 mana gives you 4/5 stats, and no special abilities.

But Yeti basically never gets played, because you don't want "average" in your deck, you want better than average.

 

Making baseline guard the measuring stick works a lot better than marines, as marines should feel "above average" on an individual level, and should be balanced by high points cost for that above average statline.

 

Instead, the MeQ statline is considered average, which leads to things that are worse than MeQ individually being vastly under pointed for their actual utility, and leaves marines not acting like an elite army.

 

It doesn't help that plasma is both the only special worth taking, is dirt cheap, and spammable.

 

If plasma guns were twice as expensive, and flamers were as effective at burning light infantry as they were in 7th, the game state would be pretty different.

 

But plasma is only slightly less effecient at killing horde infantry than a flamer, and isnt much worse than a melta vs tanks/monsters than a melta, and is vastly better at killing anything in between, so plasma is king, and plasma loves shooting heavy infantry.

 

A guard plasma gun can earn more than double it's points back in a single shooting phase when firing at the cheapest marine equivalent in the game, which is just absolutely absurd, and can make something like 3x it's investments when firing at a terminator.

 

 

Plasma is just way too good. There is however no easy, fast and simple way to fix this issue, in 8th Ed.

 

The same problem, in a way, is that Marines are the baseline unit profile, whereas, I personally think Guard should be, instead. There is never an easy solution when attempting to fix an issue as complex as an entire game's balance, especially when the benchmark is held aloft on a dream, perpetuated by the game's designers. That Marines are currently so lackluster even at 10 men, is the problem. The return on points invested is not really there, unless one knows every conceivable counter and how to tactically do so, with every potential fight, both on a squad per squad, force per force, and army per army fight.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Karack Blackstone

[Stormxlr]

This whole discussion is pointless, GW only makes rules for whats in the box. The only thing that will happen is point cost reduction. Tactical Marine at 10 points sounds alright. Guardsmen at 45 points for 10 (5 point tax) and 4 thereafter.

 

Marines are not broken, the game is broken. 8th edition didnt fix or change anything it just shaved off 20 years off fat from 7th. The only way to fix marines is to completely design a new system from scratch, bottom up with every faction in mind and the system to be flexible enough to allow new factions to be added without disturbing balance. I think The Emperor will stand up from The Golden Throne before this happens.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Stormxlr

[Captain Idaho]

I don't have the same experience as everyone seems to here. I've had numerous games now where firing overcharged plasma at one target and the Bolters at some infantry or even plunked away at something larger - and I've been winning.

[kombatwombat]

That could be a meta effect - that your local area is less competitive.

 

Mine’s like that - I have a very good win/loss ratio with fluffy Black Templars of all things.

 

Either that, or you and I are just better at this game than common lesser folk :P

[Captain Idaho]

Or maybe Tactical Marines aren't poor choices?

[Beta galactosidase]

 

 

What is better? 1 Deep striking Raptor with a plasmagun, or 2 deep striking Raptors with chainswords?

 

I think it fundamentally solves the problems in this thread if these two things get closer to being equal than they are. 

[MrZakalwe]

Personally I'd come at the problem from another direction - the issue is that the humble bolter marine has crap damage output while being relatively tough (T4 and a 3+ save is actually pretty resilient to normal small arms only really failing against special/heavy weapons which is supposed to happen).

 

So how would you go about fixing the damage output on bolter marines? (not the output on heavy/special weapon dudes as that's just fine).

 

Ideas;

 

1) some sort of 'fury of the legion' equivalent where once per game each tactical squad can fire it's bolters (not heavy/combi/pisol) twice? Would give them a nasty spike in damage.

 

2) tacs reroll 1s to hit with the bolters increasing to reroll all misses if given reroll 1s from another source.

 

3) allow them to always fire an extra shot? at 2 (or 3 within rapid fire range) shots bolter marines start to represent a pretty massive ongoing threat to more or less anything. Think this last one may go to far.

 

The tricky bit as I se it is to find a way to make the bolter marines more useful without improving the heavy/special dudes.

[Ishagu]

Fury of the Legion, renamed Fury of the Chapter, is actually a great idea.

[Wargamer]

 

What is better? 1 Deep striking Raptor with a plasmagun, or 2 deep striking Raptors with chainswords?

 

I think it fundamentally solves the problems in this thread if these two things get closer to being equal than they are. 

 

Well part of this problem is that everything can kill everything else now, but we expect certain weapons to be better than others at certain roles.

 

The problem is that the numbers run away from us in directions that don't feel right.

 

For those who don't care about Mathhammer, I'll hide it below.

Case in point: what do you think is better vs Guard? Bolters, Plasmaguns or Heavy Bolters? The answer is that it depends on range - at the 25-36" range the heavy bolter is obviously superior, but it's also superior at 13-24". In fact, at this range, 5 heavy bolters (115 points) is twice as effective as 5 plasma guns (130 points), with 10 bolters (130 points) being slightly better than the plasma. At 2-12", Rapid Fire brings the bolter into first place, with heavy bolters and plasmaguns equally good.

 

This sounds reasonable, right? And best of all, it hints that we may actually have an explanation for the "Tactical squads suck!" narrative we're seeing; if you sacrifice bolters for high power guns, and aren't spending as much time as possible in rapid fire range, then the bulk of your squad are operating way below optimal efficiency.

 

But what if we switch to shooting at Space Marines? What's better now?

 

The answer is probably not what you think. Again, the HB wins at 25-36" for obvious reasons, but it also wins by a considerable margin at the 13-24" range, being three times as effective as the bolter squad and nearly twice as good as the plasmaguns and even better than overcharged plasmaguns.

Moving into rapid fire range, overcharged plasma is by far the best, followed by normal plasma, with heavy bolters very close behind, and bolters trailing at dead last.

 

Now I know some people don't like mathhammer, but let's just take an example from the tabletop you might run into. Let's say.... Primaris Hellblasters with Heavy Incinerators. They are sat at the back of the board, 36" away, hurling high-strength plasma death at you. How should you kill those guys with regular Marines? Sit back and shoot? Close in and rapid fire?

 

Well, here's a few morsels for you. I'm not using rules legal squads here, but I just want to make a point about what you could do if you did have access to infinite upgrades as a guide on where the problems with certain units might lie.

 

So here's the question: if you have exactly 175 points to spend and you desperately want to up your Marine-killing game, what should you bring? I have tested Bolters, Plasmaguns, Heavy Bolters, Primaris Incinerators, Primaris Heavy Incinerators, Lascannons and Missile Launchers by taking 175 points of these weapons (or close as possible) and run the numbers. Here's the results:

 

The clear winner in "most dead Marines" is 5 Overcharged Plasma Cannons with godly dice rolls (ie: 3 shots each). This hypothetical squad would floor seven Primaris in a single volley. But of course, you're not likely to get that many shots, so let's move on.

 

The best REALISTIC weapon for killing Marines is a three way tie between 5 Plasma Cannons with godly rolls (3 shots each), 6 rapid-firing overcharged plasmaguns, and 5 rapid firing overcharged Primaris Incinerators. Again, the Plasma Cannon is discounted because that relies on a fair bit of luck.

So, at 12" and 15" respectively, these weapons will table a demi-squad, be they regular Marines or Primaris. This is the absolute king of Marine Killing. However, outside of Rapid Fire range these weapons, even on overcharge are somewhat lacking compared to your other options.

 

In second place for best Marine Killer is the Heavy Bolter. Averaging 4.6 kills at any range vs Marines (or 2.3 Primaris Kills), this is only one kill behind the overcharged plasma weapons above against Marines, although it is only about half as effective vs Primaris for raw kill count. Close behind this is the Overcharged Plasma Cannon with average shots (2 each), which is slightly worse vs Marines and, obviously, much better vs Primaris.

 

From here we get regular Plasma / Incinerator rapid fire, then average Plasma Cannon, then rapid fire bolters, Heavy Incinerators (with Overcharged being much better vs Primaris again), Overcharged Plasma Cannons with bad rolls, Plasma Cannons with bad rolls (although this is second worst vs Primaris), and we finally limp home to the Lascannon and Missile Launchers, who deserve special mention for being so spectacularly terrible.

 

Lascannons are easily one of the worst weapon to invest in for killing Marines, to the point where you're almost better off spamming bolters. Their only saving grace is that they'll probably kill a Primaris in one hit, but point for point you'd be much better served investing in almost any other special or heavy weapon. I really can't emphasise how absolutely useless this weapon is at dropping Space Marines, and I would be inclined to award it a special badge of shame where it not for the last weapon on my list... the Missile Launcher.

 

Where do we begin? Shall we cover the fact that four Krak Missiles performed only marginally better than long-range bolters? Or should we focus on the fact that you're actually better off firing frag missiles against ordinary Marines if you can manage at least an average number of shots? Either way, you're not going to be killing much with these weapons.

 

The single, tiny saving grace for these guns is that they are technically better than long-range bolters, but given that the point of this discussion revolves around Tac Squads being lacking and why, I think the worthlessness of the default bolter was a given.

 

So what conclusion did I draw from my overlong tangent into recreational mathematics?

 

Well, it's that most of our obvious anti-Marine firepower needs to be up close and personal. If you intend to stand off and murder people at long range, you're actually better off picking the weapon you probably assumed was either meant to kill hordes, or meant to trick the n00bs - the Heavy Bolter. This is one of your best Marine killers! It has superior range so you can potentially snipe at your enemy's plasma weapons for a turn or two without retaliation, and as long as you are outside of rapid fire range these guns are the most points-efficient way to kill Marines without having to resort to randomised attacks. Against Primaris they are somewhat lacking, but every weapon that's better at killing Primaris either relies on Overcharging (which might kill the user), needs to be within rapid fire range, relies on a random number of attacks to outperform the Heavy Bolter, or a combination of the above.

 

So in conclusion, there are two issues to address here; the first is that the default Bolter is simply not worth it in a game environment dominated by power armour (or anywhere else, frankly), and the "specialised" weapon options we have are either only good at their presumed role in specific conditions, or are just outright terrible choices compared to other weapons in the armoury.

 

Not only do basic Marines need better guns or better options, but people need to be made aware of just what each option is supposed to do and how it's supposed to do it.

[Captain Idaho]

Bolters are fine.

 

Whereas s Rapid Fire rule like in 2nd edition would be cool, a Stratagem that does that cheaply would be just as good.

 

In fact, if Marines had several Stratagems designed to help Tactical Marines then the game would have minimal impact on inter Codex balance, especially with a Stratagem overhaul for us.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Captain Idaho

[Beams]

I do great with Bolters and stormbolters.

 

I feel like people discount heavy Bolters because they used to be terrible. Now they are a pretty good TAC option.

[Schlitzaf]

Bolters are fine.

Whereas s Rapid Fire rule like in 2nd edition would be cool, a Stratagem that does that cheaply would be just as good.

In fact, if Marines had several Stratagems designed to help Tactical Marines then the game would have minimal impact on inter Codex balance, especially with a Stratagem overhaul for us.

Idaho if Ultras Strategem became Generic (and kept working), Tacticals at 10 Man gave a CP, and Combat Squad Strategem changed to start of any phase (also allowed to be used in any squad 8 or greater. And resulting squads are 5 Man + Left Overs). And Ultras got a new stratagem would that fix Tacticals atleast more significantly more generically in your opanion?

[Zodd1888]

I do like the Fury of Legion idea. Maybe something along the lines of if you choose to shoot twice in a turn with bolters you either cannot have shot them in the previous round or cannot fire them in the next.

 

Either version seems pretty cool!

[Schlitzaf]

I do like the Fury of Legion idea. Maybe something along the lines of if you choose to shoot twice in a turn with bolters you either cannot have shot them in the previous round or cannot fire them in the next.

Either version seems pretty cool!

Would Crusaders and Hunters get this?

Or just Chaos Marines and Tacticals?

[Mileposter]

Te Fury if the Legion idea I think is great - but I think it's something that should be a Stratagem as part of an overhaul for Space Marines. It's easy enough to state in the Stratagem that it is only usable for Tacticals.

 

That being said, i don't think that the old Stratagems should be removed. I think new ones should be added. I find zero fault in Space Marines having access to far more Stratagems than other armies - especially with half of them being super situational.

[Schlitzaf]

Just so we are clear most armies Strategems are super situational you have 2-3 generic one, like half of the remaining locked behind wargear or certain units, and then super situational + Unique one’s

[Claws and Effect]

Just flat give Tacticals the ability to turn their bolters into storm bolters once per game. One turn of doubling their firepower for free shouldn't be game breaking.

 

Then let them optionally take combat blades for 1 point each, since they're supposed to have one anyway. Give chainswords -1 AP to differentiate between them and call it a day.

 

I'd be perfectly happy with that.

[chapter master 454]

From another thread since I noticed this. Swap the Crusader squad wargear options with Tacticals. Boom. Problem solved as now tacticals are actually tactical and have options.

 

(go on and look at the crusader squad options and compare to tacticals. It's the same but better as it has more options for some emperor forsaken reason).

[Schlitzaf]

Chapter Master, to be clear you realize BT get a :cussty Chapter Tactic, lose an Auxillary HQ Buffer (through we a mad duelist HQ), :cussty WT, just to unlock the Crusader Squad right? (And we cannot Combat Squad). Like as a Chapter, Black Templars lose quite a bit for access to that Squad. So if your fine losing one of Auxillary HQ, Techmarine or Librarian, getting a lackluster Chapter Tactic, and a meh warlord trait. You can have a Crusader Squad like Unit.

 

Also you lose access to a Relic, and Strategem.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Schlitzaf

[The Unseen]

Chapter Master, to be clear you realize BT get a :cussty Chapter Tactic, lose an Auxillary HQ Buffer (through we a mad duelist HQ), :cussty WT, just to unlock the Crusader Squad right? (And we cannot Combat Squad). Like as a Chapter, Black Templars lose quite a bit for access to that Squad. So if your fine losing one of Auxillary HQ, Techmarine or Librarian, getting a lackluster Chapter Tactic, and a meh warlord trait. You can have a Crusader Squad like Unit.

So maybe go complain to GW that Black Templars got shafted?

Or make a thread about improving the BT CT.

Cause that's what you seem to actually be concerned about.