The Power Armoured Troops thread, take 2: possible fixes

[Mileposter]

I'm of the opinion that all proposed 'fixes' should come with a minimum 3-game testing writeup, but hey, I'm a data-driven analyst so I could be crazy.

[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.

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.

Because I don’t mind? It’s a balancing factor, the Black Templar Chapter Tactic sense we got rolled has always been “Crusader Squad access and some other mediocre rule”. It was annoying in 7th with Battle Company but not in 8th. And well WT issue only affects those who only SC and thus must choose that WT. I am fine losing access to Librarians because it’s part of my chapter identity (and it is a balancing factor for having Crusader Squad access). And well I lose access to a Strategem and Relic, Okay? Great. I have other relics and strategems to use.

 

If you want Crusader Squads play BT.

 

I learned to deal with this. But the fact is the Black Templar Chapter does give up things for access to the Crusader Squad

Edited January 25, 2018 by Schlitzaf

[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!

Would Crusaders and Hunters get this?

Or just Chaos Marines and Tacticals?

I think it'd be for anything tactical-esque. It'd work well for BT and the like as you could use it, assault, and be locked in for a turn. A decent boost to BT overall.

 

I don't think a strat is a fix for tacticals as CP would typically be of better use elsewhere. Once a game would provide a boost, but I do like the movement effect as a mitigating factor in exchange for multiple uses. I also think that if it was a single use ability, with a potential chance to do it again on a 5+, then a 6+ could be cool. You could even add a chance for failure on the additional tries where if you roll a 1 you lose the turn of shooting.

 

Many options with this type of thing.

[Guest]

 

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.

Well this whole topic is generic "power armor" so it does mean we not only have to balance power armored vs others but also balance off each other. If we were to say invalidate a certain power armor unit to validate another we simply go in circles.

[UnkyHamHam]

There is a LOT of bias in this thread.  Which can be a good thing sometimes, and a bad thing at others.  There are some seriously underrated posts by a few voices of reason as well.  I have already contributed my thoughts on the matter and reposted it here http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/343528-alternative-tactical-squad/ with proposed fixes: SPOILER ALERT, I like a few wargear options and gimmicks.  I don't like statline or point cost changes.  So I'll save you the click if you don't care.

 

I need to put a few issues to rest that keep resurfacing, mainly regarding Crusaders and Grey Hunters.  

 

Some of the "gimmicks" being defended for these units are actually hold overs from when ANY Space Marine Chapter could use them in the 4th ed Codex.  Chapter traits allowed for using 2x Specials, swapping Bolters for Chainswords, and getting a Special and Heavy at 5 men dates back to the 3rd ed Codex.  I can see how newer or "more attached" players wouldn't know this, or might forget this.  The absolute two things I would consider unique to Crusaders is having options for Power Weapons in place of Specials/Heavies and taking the Neophytes.  That to me is what defines the squad.  The other things are just things that we all used to have and were taken away.  Space Wolves should have FAR less debate with any crossover in wargear options and rules.  They have an entire Codex of special options and snowflake units and gear.  Templars I feel for more.

 

Chaos have even more versatility IMO, and as its been mentioned, no one thinks it helps.  They have options for more bodies and chainswords like Crusaders.  Options for double Specials like Grey Hunters.  AND, even get their own gimmicks with Marks and Icons.

 

All that being said, NOBODY has suggested taking away these things away from you or your faction.  Despite what certain Frater have put forth or are up in arms about.  Passing out certain COMMON wargear like Combat Blades/Chainswords and/or extra Specials/Heavies is both founded in the history of the codexes and, not your unique thing. In my humble opinion, anyways.  I mean the mere fact that Crusaders, Chaos Marines, Grey Hunters, and Carcaradons (in past editions) get close combat weapons, WHILE STILL having access to Assault Marines/Raptors... means its not your thing to hoard.  I apologize if that is strongly worded or toned, but I really want the information out there for people to dissolve.

 

Now that that is out of the way, moving on.  Strategems, Wargear, and unique rules are in my opinion the way to go.   They require little to no major rewriting or balancing.  GW could easily implement these things.  I imagine after all factions get their Codexes that we will see 8th updated Angels of Death and Traitor Legion supplements.  Three reasons.  One, they made all those great rules and everyone loved them, they shouldn't waste them.  Two, power armor factions are their biggest customer.  Three, its a golden opportunity to update those specific factions and sell us more stuff.  Because, as you all know, its heavily been hinted that there is more Primaris stuff to come.  That will need injected into factions through some sort of supplement.

 

It would be easy as pie to add in on top of giving each Chapter/Legion their Relics and Traits back, to add in some generic Codex Space Marine fixes.  Could easily see plot progression written into the supplement as Guilliman is updating the Codex Astartes.  This could provide us with updated datasheets on Tactical/Assault/Devastator marines and equivalents.  Once again... Strategems, Wargear, and rules are perfect for a supplement.  

 

Its doable guys.  These things help Marines "feel" elite by giving them tools and not shattering the fragile point/stat system that has been layed out for 8th.  I agree if marines drop even a single point it encroaches on the trickle down balance of Sister, Scouts, Scions, Vets, and Guard.  

 

TL;DR   Don't change the Tactical Marine's/Squad's point cost or stat line.  Give him the tools to be worth his point cost, and to leverage his stat line.

Edited January 26, 2018 by UnkyHamHam

[totgeboren]

 

All that being said, NOBODY has suggested taking away these things away from you or your faction.  Despite what certain Frater have put forth or are up in arms about.  Passing out certain COMMON wargear like Combat Blades/Chainswords and/or extra Specials/Heavies is both founded in the history of the codexes and, not your unique thing. 

 

I'm still annoyed that basically all my CSM models are technically illegal, since from 5ed to 7ed they had bolter, bolt pistol and ccw (as default in 5ed even, and Chosen has it as default for 3 editions!) Seriously, bolter, bp and ccw was a defining trait of CSM for a decade, and then suddenly it was removed. All the Chosen from the DV box even came with those weapons hard-moulded on them.

 

I assumed that was for balance reasons, that no model could have more weapons than they have hands anymore.

Then I read the GH entry and simply sigh. 'Unfair' is the only word I can think of.

 

Allowing them to take the weapons they have on the models would instantly make them sooo much better and versatile on the table.

Edited January 26, 2018 by totgeboren

[UnkyHamHam]

 

 

 

All that being said, NOBODY has suggested taking away these things away from you or your faction. Despite what certain Frater have put forth or are up in arms about. Passing out certain COMMON wargear like Combat Blades/Chainswords and/or extra Specials/Heavies is both founded in the history of the codexes and, not your unique thing.

I'm still annoyed that basically all my CSM models are technically illegal, since from 5ed to 7ed they had bolter, bolt pistol and ccw (as default in 5ed even, and Chosen has it as default for 3 editions!) Seriously, bolter, bp and ccw was a defining trait of CSM for a decade, and then suddenly it was removed. All the Chosen from the DV box even came with those weapons hard-moulded on them.

 

I assumed that was for balance reasons, that no model could have more weapons than they have hands anymore.

Then I read the GH entry and simply sigh. 'Unfair' is the only word I can think of.

 

Allowing them to take the weapons they have on the models would instantly make them sooo much better and versatile on the table.

That is completely fair. My comments were not really directed at Chaos. As I too feel the pain and lament that change. My 4th edition Space Marine army underwent the same issue as I used the two traits that allowed double special weapons in Tacs and gave them True Grit with Bolter and Chainsword.

 

The blow was softened by the fact that we got free weapons in 5th. Chaos didn't really get anything in 8th to offset that loss.

[Gentlemanloser]

GKT used to have TH/SS options.  That invalidated a lot of GK players termies.

 

Oh for Fearless, The Shrouding and True Grit back.

[Schlitzaf]

That was the trait system and it was a failed experiment. For a variety of reasons. Also the trait system further proves my point. For access to those options you had to give things up. But traits were bad because their were too many traits you could take that had no drawback.

[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.

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.

Assault squads and raptors were the example so there was no comparison with bolters.

 

The model and the profile holding the gun doesn't matter as much as the gun in 40k, and this is the problem. The profile of a raptor doesn't do anything relative to what kind of gun it has. Talking about bolters vs other weapons exemplifies that. The important thing is the relative value of a marine profile compared to the value of a weapon. 80% of the value of a marine model is determined by its plasma gun vs having a bolter.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

 

 

All that being said, NOBODY has suggested taking away these things away from you or your faction.  Despite what certain Frater have put forth or are up in arms about.  Passing out certain COMMON wargear like Combat Blades/Chainswords and/or extra Specials/Heavies is both founded in the history of the codexes and, not your unique thing. 

 

I'm still annoyed that basically all my CSM models are technically illegal, since from 5ed to 7ed they had bolter, bolt pistol and ccw (as default in 5ed even, and Chosen has it as default for 3 editions!) Seriously, bolter, bp and ccw was a defining trait of CSM for a decade, and then suddenly it was removed. All the Chosen from the DV box even came with those weapons hard-moulded on them.

 

I assumed that was for balance reasons, that no model could have more weapons than they have hands anymore.

Then I read the GH entry and simply sigh. 'Unfair' is the only word I can think of.

 

Allowing them to take the weapons they have on the models would instantly make them sooo much better and versatile on the table.

 

 

Pretty much all my models have chainswords or CCWs on them. If anyone complains about their legality I'll reach into my pants pocket and pull out a fistful of oldmarine chainswords, Reiver knife arms and BA Primaris upgrade chainswords I've been hoarding and start gluing extra melee weapons to the models right there on the spot while laughing maniacally.

[utilityzero]

The problem with tacticals is that they are the troop choice in the game that weighs most heavily around the necks of their players. Too many points for so little return. We have to take them to gey CP which we rely on so much because our codexes lack special rules or abilities beyond a 3 plus save.

 

A chainsword or combat knife doesn't fix this. It would be nice but it's not enough. Upgraded stats don't help because all marines would have to get them and points cost would go up and you're still left with a body that will rarely make it's points back just because it lacks the damage potential it needs. So you'd rather have anything in your codex but a tactical marine really but you need them for CP.

 

I think only 'fix' that might help and be something GW would actually consider is a points reduction. GW isn't going to do anything else to make them lethal enough to be anything but an anchor and anything that requires larger squads or putting more points into a squad just makes them more so in my opinion.

 

That or give them a way to do mortal wounds. But then they would outshine to many other marine options by a long shot and GW isn't going to give us that.

[Kallas]

I've been mulling over an idea for some time now, and reading this thread has given me a few ideas, so here goes:

 

Tactical Squads gain a new rule, "Tactical Versatility", with the intention of giving Tactical Squads an option to give their shooting, fighting and survivability a boost without (hopefully) going overboard:

 

 

"Tactical Versatility"

At the beginning of your turn choose one of the following options for this unit that applies until the start of your next turn:

 

 -[shooting] Models in this unit may fire their Boltguns as Assault 2 type weapons

[As someone suggested earlier in the thread, I really like this idea for increasing Tactical Squad output. It helps out with volume of fire at range as well as giving them mobility options, without actually increasing their (current) maximum firepower.]

 

 -[Fighting] The unit may immediately fight as if it were the Fight Phase

[Gives Tacticals a little bit of extra bite, and the possibility of digging themselves out of combat before they move. Not ideal, but I'm not exactly sure of another 'Fight' option.]

 

 -[survivability] If this unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models’ Toughness characteristic against shooting attacks.

[Again, not entirely sure about this. Might be too much along with the cover bonus and it's particularly inspired! But it does increase their resilience against S4, 5, 8 and 9.]

 

 

Honestly not sure about them, but I think this is the kind of thing that could really help improve Tactical Squads without sweeping changes across unit/weapon profiles. Any thoughts? Completely unworkable? Possible with some tweaks?

[Schlitzaf]

I like one and two. But this made me think of something else. Let’s build on this more.

1) Tacticals at 10 Man grant an extra CP

2) Tacticals begin the game in Tactical Stance or how Tacticals how normally. They may spend a CP at start of any phase to switch to different stance for the reminder of that player turn.

A) Firefight, All Weaponry with AP of 0 Shoot/Attack an additional time. (So Bolters in Rapid are 3, while Pistols shoot 2, and Chainswords are an additonal shot. Flamers D6 +1).

B) Advance, all Weaponry with AP of 0 gain an AP of -1. The Unit May advanced and treat Rapid Weaponry as Assault X.

 

A makes Shooting more Generic. While B doesn’t eclipse Black Legion Trait. Because while universal Assault 2 be nice, it’s not something gonna happen given that the actual chapter traits basically convert Rapid X to Assault X. The big thing it means not only good for advancing or just turns Bolters into glorified Assault 2.

 

It also removes memory issues, which is something in general GW trying to keep to a minimum in 8th Edition

[utilityzero]

Whatever the fix to tacticals and marines in general is or should be, it can't be tied to CP. That's the whole problem. Everything 'special' about marines except their armor save is tied to CP at the moment or chapter tactics and we are so limited.

 

I think the problem with marines isn't just tacticals but they are the worst offenders. The entire codex is basically like 75% just marines with different load outs. Rather than just giving them different weapons sets they should have thought to actually give each unique unit some sort of special rule that show how they specialize in their field, like at least on par with what Long Fangs got, then I would give tacticals a watered down version of each of those rules and let them switch from turn to turn.  Special rules for a lot of armies are woefully under priced. The orders rule a IG officer gets would probably cost 30 points alone if it were added to SM captain. Could you image marines with reanimation protocols? Now imagine what they would cost? Even though their basic stat line only had two or three differences from the necron one.

 

The points on most single wound infantry models are now so low there isn't room for much variation between different units and the way they chose to make most basic weapons free, but include them in the cost of the unit was an odd choice and just adds to the problem. A bolter is better than a lasgun and a gauss flayer or whatever a necron warrior has is better still, but they're all the same cost ostensibly.

 

And again, any fix that requires a 10 man tactical squad is terrible since you need to be able to take a lot of little 5 man units to fill out a pair of battalion.

[Beams]

Whatever the fix to tacticals and marines in general is or should be, it can't be tied to CP. That's the whole problem. Everything 'special' about marines except their armor save is tied to CP at the moment or chapter tactics and we are so limited.

 

I think the problem with marines isn't just tacticals but they are the worst offenders. The entire codex is basically like 75% just marines with different load outs. Rather than just giving them different weapons sets they should have thought to actually give each unique unit some sort of special rule that show how they specialize in their field, like at least on par with what Long Fangs got, then I would give tacticals a watered down version of each of those rules and let them switch from turn to turn. Special rules for a lot of armies are woefully under priced. The orders rule a IG officer gets would probably cost 30 points alone if it were added to SM captain. Could you image marines with reanimation protocols? Now imagine what they would cost? Even though their basic stat line only had two or three differences from the necron one.

 

The points on most single wound infantry models are now so low there isn't room for much variation between different units and the way they chose to make most basic weapons free, but include them in the cost of the unit was an odd choice and just adds to the problem. A bolter is better than a lasgun and a gauss flayer or whatever a necron warrior has is better still, but they're all the same cost ostensibly.

 

And again, any fix that requires a 10 man tactical squad is terrible since you need to be able to take a lot of little 5 man units to fill out a pair of battalion.

I'm pretty orders are 20 pts of a company commanders 30 points.

[Karack Blackstone]

There is a LOT of bias in this thread.  Which can be a good thing sometimes, and a bad thing at others.  There are some seriously underrated posts by a few voices of reason as well.  I have already contributed my thoughts on the matter and reposted it here http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/343528-alternative-tactical-squad/ with proposed fixes: SPOILER ALERT, I like a few wargear options and gimmicks.  I don't like statline or point cost changes.  So I'll save you the click if you don't care.

 

I need to put a few issues to rest that keep resurfacing, mainly regarding Crusaders and Grey Hunters.  

 

Some of the "gimmicks" being defended for these units are actually hold overs from when ANY Space Marine Chapter could use them in the 4th ed Codex.  Chapter traits allowed for using 2x Specials, swapping Bolters for Chainswords, and getting a Special and Heavy at 5 men dates back to the 3rd ed Codex.  I can see how newer or "more attached" players wouldn't know this, or might forget this.  The absolute two things I would consider unique to Crusaders is having options for Power Weapons in place of Specials/Heavies and taking the Neophytes.  That to me is what defines the squad.  The other things are just things that we all used to have and were taken away.  Space Wolves should have FAR less debate with any crossover in wargear options and rules.  They have an entire Codex of special options and snowflake units and gear.  Templars I feel for more.

 

Chaos have even more versatility IMO, and as its been mentioned, no one thinks it helps.  They have options for more bodies and chainswords like Crusaders.  Options for double Specials like Grey Hunters.  AND, even get their own gimmicks with Marks and Icons.

 

All that being said, NOBODY has suggested taking away these things away from you or your faction.  Despite what certain Frater have put forth or are up in arms about.  Passing out certain COMMON wargear like Combat Blades/Chainswords and/or extra Specials/Heavies is both founded in the history of the codexes and, not your unique thing. In my humble opinion, anyways.  I mean the mere fact that Crusaders, Chaos Marines, Grey Hunters, and Carcaradons (in past editions) get close combat weapons, WHILE STILL having access to Assault Marines/Raptors... means its not your thing to hoard.  I apologize if that is strongly worded or toned, but I really want the information out there for people to dissolve.

 

Now that that is out of the way, moving on.  Strategems, Wargear, and unique rules are in my opinion the way to go.   They require little to no major rewriting or balancing.  GW could easily implement these things.  I imagine after all factions get their Codexes that we will see 8th updated Angels of Death and Traitor Legion supplements.  Three reasons.  One, they made all those great rules and everyone loved them, they shouldn't waste them.  Two, power armor factions are their biggest customer.  Three, its a golden opportunity to update those specific factions and sell us more stuff.  Because, as you all know, its heavily been hinted that there is more Primaris stuff to come.  That will need injected into factions through some sort of supplement.

 

It would be easy as pie to add in on top of giving each Chapter/Legion their Relics and Traits back, to add in some generic Codex Space Marine fixes.  Could easily see plot progression written into the supplement as Guilliman is updating the Codex Astartes.  This could provide us with updated datasheets on Tactical/Assault/Devastator marines and equivalents.  Once again... Strategems, Wargear, and rules are perfect for a supplement.  

 

Its doable guys.  These things help Marines "feel" elite by giving them tools and not shattering the fragile point/stat system that has been layed out for 8th.  I agree if marines drop even a single point it encroaches on the trickle down balance of Sister, Scouts, Scions, Vets, and Guard.  

 

TL;DR   Don't change the Tactical Marine's/Squad's point cost or stat line.  Give him the tools to be worth his point cost, and to leverage his stat line.

 

The more I think about this, the more I am wondering, both how to eliminate any and all bias, as well as, to verify that bias exists within this thread.

 

Space Marines, both Loyal and Chaos, do not perform according to even a median understanding of how C/SM infantry should, even through the lens of game play on the table. There is a solid need for something to be done, and the question, seems to be, what, exactly, can, and then, should, be done? A points drop of basic SM's if they keep the current stat line is sound thinking, as is the adding of more options, and the removal of the restriction on only some Chapters getting to use the full range of weapon configurations, because of the Codex Astartes.

 

GW has rewritten the Codex Astartes, already; what is to stop them from changing it further?

 

The single biggest issue seems to me to be that no PA SM model has ever had the points weight and table presence of what is even supposed to be, including the toned down nature of what is acceptable in a game, and needs to be said acceptable standard. There is no reason whatsoever for there to be underperforming Astartes; that said, there also cannot be any reason for there to be God-SM's on the table either.

 

Again, to try and further eliminate any and all bias in the thread:

 

1 - Short Term: Tac's, and the equivalents, Grey Hunters, Crusader Squads, etc., all need more weapon options, to increase their customization accessibility

2 - Medium Term: drop the standard C/SM points value to 10, maybe 11 or 12 points per model

3 - Long Term: if possible, a base 15 ppm C/SM with the Primaris stat line, and likely, Primaris staying the same as they are now, could greatly aid the game the best

 

There's a very important discussion going on here; the bias that is being claimed appears to be something that the thread posters are attempting to account for. If the consensus of the thread is that, C/SM's of all sorts are to go to 2 W, 2 A, and be worth at least 15 points per model, we, as players, literally must be ready to conceive of at the very least a points revisit for all other armies, if not a full rebalance of options, stat lines, et. al., to compensate for the improvement to Marines.

 

There's no easy fix; if there were, I'm pretty sure that GW would have already done exactly that said fix.

 

This discussion is an attempt to get the game to be fun to play for everyone, and, if it need be typed, to not have that said fun be at the expense of either side involved in the game.

[chapter master 454]

Biggest challenge is trying to get through the bias and find the right answer most of the time. I suppose a big question could come round to another question on the whole: Role of Troops. As far as I see, you bring 3 troop choices with 2 HQs, fill up that battalion and rake in those CPs for your stratagems to do some serious work. Maybe you feel fruity and bring 6 troops or some other variant of it but it seems in general troops are abused more than used and that goes for almost all armies. The only time you see them applied is if they fall into line with what is intended and even then they could be considered chaff, worth largely nothing in the grand scheme of the battle and thus amount to not much more than ablative wounds that achieved at their height of tactical worth by absorbing possible 1 or 3 bolt rounds.

 

The question is: is that ok and what troops are for? In some armies, this isn't an issue and considered part of their core theme (imperial guard, tyranids, orks) where they throw more troops that you have bullets. However we then have to ask is there more identities for troops other than 'CP tax' or 'throw more at 'em'. For marines, I feel they are meant to be a 'shock troop' that has purpose and meaning that when let loose does something rather than just 'yo, be a little harder to kill objective/character buffer people'. Just as it stands, wasn't the top list at the LVO just a bunch of intercessors acting as objective babysitters/ablative wounds for the character?

 

Feels Guard Man

 

But seriously there is a question to be asked here, what is the role of troops? What is their identity? I think for marines is muddied while for guard and tyranids it just falls in place as theirs just thematically work with the whole 'throw away' feel while for marines, telling us that 13 points is disposable? What are they to you? Deluxe triple ply lavender scented toilet paper? It just feels bad that we pay a premium for what amounts to something that's role is the same as a guardsman in the grand scheme of things with no grander ambitions being made for them but then again should there be?

Is there maybe an oddity in marines that hasn't been mentioned in the form of how Common elite units are for our deployment along with various other units. I mean, come on we throw terminators, vanguard, sternguard, devastators, assaults, captains and dreadnoughts around like their are candy while tanks are deployed so readily that seeing a predator is often considered passe and not exactly special while seeing a leman russ will inspire a sense of 'oh crap' in most. On top of that, most will look at a tactical and dismiss them as fast as they dismiss guardsman. Why? Why isn't it that when I slam marines you don't think 'oh boy...' like when you see eldar or guard, tyranids or even maybe orks. Lets face it, marines are considered largely ok with only some select methods getting through (I am proud of the LVO 1st place but that was with Blood Angels and just spamming intercessors to act as an army of wounds for his smashmaster to get to work).

Shouldn't our captains be monsters in combat by default, unremitting juggernauts of tactical and martial skill beyond belief. Tacticals dismissing xenos with each shot, one more to their kill count. Devastators being terrifying batteries of pin-point heavy weapons fire while assaults barrel through all but the sternest units. These units along are in lore incredible units that pack incredible punch but yet in game could carry as much power as a wet grot fart. Then comes the elites. As it stands right now it could be argued that the elite section handles more like what base marines are in lore to the game but these units are supposed to be the 'oh lord of mercy' units in our toolbelt. You see a terminator squad and you are meant to be scared but as it stands, if they don't deep strike in or have some wheels they are a joke and even deep struck they are can be considered meh.

 

My point with that is to ask the question of what is our identity and what should people think when they see marines. When I see Eldar and look at their units, Dark Reapers are terrifying, Howling Banshees just barrel through things while warp spiders show an incredible ability to chew through units. I see those units and get worried. Equally, I look at marine units and think "Wow, you brought THAT to the table?" or "huh...so filling some points then?" for a lot of them. At no point have I ever looked at marines and thought "this is going to be tough" meanwhile all other armies at some point have had that, looking across at orks, eldar, guardsman and even Dark Eldar. I even look across the board at my friends Tau army and think "Those guys are barely not getting me with a new player at the helm. When their codex hits they are going to trash me".

 

Us marines just want to be what lore says as every other army seems to add up on the majority. Meanwhile in camp marine, we apparently spend the best part of 20 years training a new marine only to "and into the grinder it went".

[CaptainMarsh]

I would change Tactical Squad Bolters to Assault 2, with a special rule for Tactical Squads that they re-roll failed To-Hit rolls of 1 within 12''. If they would re-roll 1s otherwise, they re-roll all failed To Hit bolter rolls.  You double the firepower of basic dudes at ranges 13-24 and in 1-12 you give them a good little ability. You can also use them in a more mobile fashi9on, which fits the lore of a hard-hitting, fast-moving elite force. It will also help ground-pounders reach those important objectives by making Advancing more common for them.

[Wargamer]

Remember guys, Space Marines are meant to be average. They're not special, they're not superheroes, they're the baseline by which everyone else is judged. You can't make their troops too special because special rules are not the norm anymore.

[Karack Blackstone]

Chapter Master 454, thanks for the great writeup of your perspective.

 

C/SM's have the issue that, for being such a supposed elite army, every single Marine is just another 1 W, 13 point body. By comparison, Guard are what, 5 or 6 points each? One Marine being about twice the cost of a Guard is fine, however, the problem is, the points per tabletop performance is just not ever there for PA units.

 

Yes, Marines are great, in the fluff, and, I am personally fine with the fact that Marines can never be on par with the fluff on the table.

 

The problem is, even when a Marine player puts down models, there is, per your post, absolutely no wow factor. How can the thread help fix that?

[The Unseen]

Remember guys, Space Marines are meant to be average. They're not special, they're not superheroes, they're the baseline by which everyone else is judged. You can't make their troops too special because special rules are not the norm anymore.

Umm...

Why is that?

Because that's the most popular army?

I'm sorry, but the MeQ statline shouldn't be "average" from gameplay perspective.

Are there more marine armies being played? Of course, so they'll be average as far as what you might play against most often. But from a balance perspective, they shouldn't be anywhere close to "average"

Marines fighting guardsmen or other "average" units should make the marines feel powerful on an individual basis, balanced around the fact that they should be heavily outnumbered. Marines fighting marines should feel like the clash of dangerous foes, not a slap fight that takes more than half the game to resolve.

 

So I don't know why you don't want your super soldiers to feel super, but I'm tired of watching marines hit like wet pool noodles and die like guardsmen.

 

There is in fact a middle ground between "overpriced guardsmen" and "movie marines", and asking for the game to be closer to the middle point is a reasonable thing.

[Karack Blackstone]

 

Remember guys, Space Marines are meant to be average. They're not special, they're not superheroes, they're the baseline by which everyone else is judged. You can't make their troops too special because special rules are not the norm anymore.

Umm...

Why is that?

Because that's the most popular army?

I'm sorry, but the MeQ statline shouldn't be "average" from gameplay perspective.

Are there more marine armies being played? Of course, so they'll be average as far as what you might play against most often. But from a balance perspective, they shouldn't be anywhere close to "average"

Marines fighting guardsmen or other "average" units should make the marines feel powerful on an individual basis, balanced around the fact that they should be heavily outnumbered. Marines fighting marines should feel like the clash of dangerous foes, not a slap fight that takes more than half the game to resolve.

 

So I don't know why you don't want your super soldiers to feel super, but I'm tired of watching marines hit like wet pool noodles and die like guardsmen.

 

There is in fact a middle ground between "overpriced guardsmen" and "movie marines", and asking for the game to be closer to the middle point is a reasonable thing.

 

 

Spot on observation here, The Unseen.

 

The problem is, median is what Marines have been referred to by the FLGS in my area, not exactly average. There is some difference, however, as has been brought up before, if Marines of all flavors go to say, 15 points and get +1 A and +1 W, there is the need to make sure that the explanation as to why is supported by fluff, as well as, if the other armies want a rework, we need to be ready to address that idea as well.

 

This is no easy fix; there is the issue that currently, Marines are not Marines in the slightest. Marines are improved Guard, and nothing like they should be, to us. The real problem there is, what should Marines be not only to us, but, to all of the other players out there, playing WH40K today, or, at least, recently?

 

8th Ed. is a great system, for the most part. The only real issues I hear about are how LOS blocking terrain is not accounted for during charges, as well as shooting, if I recall correctly. I may be wrong on that latter point, though.

 

Guard are 4 points in 8th Edition, Astartes are 13.

 

Guard:

 

WS 4+

BS 4+

S 3

T 3

W 1

A 1

Ld 6

5+ Save

 

Astartes:

 

WS 3+

BS 3+

S 4

T 4

W 1

A 1

Ld 7

3+ Save

 

1 point for each +1 to each stat gives us: WS, BS, S, T, Ld, Save, a total of 7 points.

 

We are currently paying 2 points higher than what the raw math says a Marine might be worth. However, due to the prevalence of so many weapons that just mollywhomp Marines, is a current Astartes truly worth 13 or even 11 points? That is clearly up for debate. Thus, this thread. So, how do you all feel about there being a single point charged for each +1 across the Marine stat line when comparing said Marines to Guard?

 

5+ and 3+ are two different in numbers; 5 - 3 = 2. Well, we're basically paying 2 points per armor save benefit, and, Guard pay about 1.5 for a 4+ armor save.

 

Primaris are 18 points now, I think? Well, 18 - 13 = 5. Somehow, +1 S and +1 T are each worth 2.5 points, and, to put it down, the return is not there, in regards to the investment.

 

I think it can be argued then, that, 15 point Primaris and mini-Primaris, or, elevated normal Marines going to the Primaris stat line, and, Primaris not moving, would be much closer to fair, in my mind. The problem is, clearly, the crunch: there's no way to test this without people getting some games in to find out if this is balanced, or not.

 

So, my point is simple: I think Marines are too expensive for not enough return. How do we address that, as a request to GW? For those that know of it, Grey Knights have their own issues, and, in a way, this discussion might benefit the Sons of Titan, especially since they are Marines.

 

I am curious as to the feedback this post is going to get; yes, I am sadly discussing point values directly. The problem is, it does not seem that Marines of any flavor get the return on the investment needed to field said Marine army list on the table.

 

Edit: Math problem fixed.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Karack Blackstone

[Beams]

Honestly, Marines should play like Custodes, and Custodes shouldn't be a thing, outside of HQ slots.

 

Sure there's more Custodes than Ultramarines, by 10-1, but there's 9 loyalist chapters, and each has a wide array of successors and some (black templars) are more plentiful than the 1000 they are supposed to have.

 

The math on the number of space marines makes seeing a normal space marine list with 40+ Marines seem crazy, with every battle that they are participating in on the table top having to be a fairly large battle lore wise to justify that many Marines.

 

It's not like guard or even sisters where they are super abundant. Heck if a grey knight is showing up it should be a huge deal, but they feel common.

[Beta galactosidase]

 

 

The only time you see them applied is if they fall into line with what is intended and even then they could be considered chaff, worth largely nothing in the grand scheme of the battle and thus amount to not much more than ablative wounds that achieved at their height of tactical worth by absorbing possible 1 or 3 bolt rounds.

 

The question is: is that ok and what troops are for? In some armies, this isn't an issue and considered part of their core theme (imperial guard, tyranids, orks) where they throw more troops that you have bullets. However we then have to ask is there more identities for troops other than 'CP tax' or 'throw more at 'em'. For marines, I feel they are meant to be a 'shock troop' that has purpose and meaning that when let loose does something rather than just 'yo, be a little harder to kill objective/character buffer people'. Just as it stands, wasn't the top list at the LVO just a bunch of intercessors acting as objective babysitters/ablative wounds for the character?

 

It's true, the purpose of troops is, and is supposed to be, to stand ground, to be bubble wrap, even in space marines.  Space marines are different though, because it's hard in this game at current for a few marine units to be effective bubble wrap, and also of course the center of the army is the infantry models, unlike other armies where wave serpents, crisis suits, etc are just as important as the infantry. 

 

The solution should be of course that marines are aggressive, so the game should allow for aggressive bubble wrap.  Instead of being physical impediments, troops should be able to just lock down the things that come near them, and marines should be both the best at it and the best at not pushed back themselves.

 

So I think the game needs to change to make regular infantry more of a thing, instead of the emphasis being what is the biggest gun on the fastest platform, how do I slingshot these thunderwolves, how do I get the most rerolls. Regardless of whether Wargamer is serious or kidding, and marines are not "elite" anymore, they are still supposed to bare-knuckle, brutal even in shooting. For that reason, there needs to be a brawl to fight in during the game.