The Power Armoured Troops thread, take 2: possible fixes

[Claws and Effect]

The problem with making them more elite at a higher points cost is then you will get fewer of them for the same points. You'll never see a 10 man squad again because they're just too expensive.

 

So you'll end up with 5 man squads with 10 wounds still getting shot down by armies with good shooting. And they'd have less shooting themselves. 40 lasgun shots can chew through 10 wounds pretty quick, and you'd only have 10 bolter shots going back.

 

Adding wounds and attacks for more points is the wrong approach.

[The Unseen]

The problem with making them more elite at a higher points cost is then you will get fewer of them for the same points. You'll never see a 10 man squad again because they're just too expensive.

 

So you'll end up with 5 man squads with 10 wounds still getting shot down by armies with good shooting. And they'd have less shooting themselves. 40 lasgun shots can chew through 10 wounds pretty quick, and you'd only have 10 bolter shots going back.

 

Adding wounds and attacks for more points is the wrong approach.

You'd kinda have to fix bolters, as has been stated several times in this thread alone.

Intercessors have I think an even worse damage/points ratio than baseline tacticals, because -1 ap doesn't make up for having 2/3rds of the shots.

 

If say, you took the Intercessor statline, and gave them a rapid fire 2 str4 -1AP bolter and a combat knife, for around 20 points a model, you'd be getting somewhere close to an effective elite infantry unit.

 

As is, intercessors get 1 of out of the 3 main attributes for mathematical effeciency, resilience. (3 big ones being damage output, mobility, and resilience) as their fairly durable against small arms (though they are crazy weak vs overcharged plasma, autocannons, etc) which makes them better than tacticals at least, since their at least good at something, rather than being mediocre everywhere; that being dying slowly on an objective when the opponents big guns are otherwise occupied, or you have enough 2 wound models they don't have enough shots to easily clear them.

[Gentlemanloser]

Like a Grey Knight Strike Squad?

 

21 points, Rapid Fire 2 Bolter, and a Force Weapon over a Combat Knife.

 

Just without the second wound and -1AP...

[Wargamer]

Alright, let's go off on a tangent for a moment to address what I think is a problem here; we need to talk about "Elite" Marines.

 

To me, it's clear that Marines are not Elite anymore. Custodes killed that idea dead. However, the fact is that Space Marines have been losing this elite status steadily, year on year, since their peak at early 3rd Edition.

 

So why was that their peak? Well, because the newly implemented systems of fixed AP and removal of hit modifiers, coupled with the fact that 3rd basically wiped away a ton of clutter and overly complex rules (sound familiar?) meant that Space Marines were solid troops right out of the gate.

• Toughness 4 meant that they were reasonably durable against small arms, especially against Guard or Dark Eldar.
• 3+ Save meant very few weapons ignored their armour, and most of those were dedicated anti-tank weapons that needed to be aimed at Rhinos, Predators or Dreadnoughts instead.
• 3+ Save was less common overall, making it more special. 2+ was restricted to a total of four units - Termies, Chaos Termies, Zoanthropes and Dark Eldar Shadowfields- and Zoanthropes lost that 2+ armour when their Codex dropped!
• Invulnerable Saves were much more limited in availability and effectiveness, meaning our heavy hitters could reliably knock targets out of the fight.
• AP 5 weapons meant a lot of weaker troops melted before us. And by "weaker" I mean anything with a 5+ / 6+ save... which included the Carnifex. Mass Bolter fire could clear tables with shocking efficiency and force Guard, Eldar, Ork and Tyranid players to cower in cover. Space Marines, meanwhile, walked tall in open ground without fear.
• "Marine Killer" guns did not exist. There were no weapons that combined high shots and high AP unlike later editions. Dark Reapers came closest, but you were never going to get a situation where a player could announce a single gun was firing 4-6 AP 3 shots into your face.
• Anti-Marine units were simply harder to obtain - the plastic Tac Squad came with 10 Marines, 10 Bolters, a flamer, a missile launcher, and a bp + chainsword for the sergeant. Assault Marine boxes likewise gave you parts for five bp + chainsword models, plus optional plasma pistols. If you wanted power weapons / fists or more specialised guns, you either had to buy a metal blister of special / heavy weapons, hack apart a character model or hope you had some stuff left over from 2nd edition. All of this assumes that the unit in question even had an official model at all... many of which didn't.

So this is the low-point, right? I mean, 8th has thoroughly thrown all of this out of the window. We've got armies now with S5 small arms, or S5 base strength! Weapons with AP modifiers were everywhere so we can't reliably get a 3+ save anymore, and weapons that combine mass fire with AP are easy to get a hold of. Moreover, weapons that are really good at killing Marines are now packaged as standard into the plastic kits, and even if they weren't online stores, eBay and third parties ensure it is no effort at all to get precisely the model you need (trust me, when I started it was impossible to buy an Assault Marine sergeant with a power fist like the model shown in the Codex...). Our enemies are tougher, our Bolters aren't special anymore, and GW even made a new kind of Space Marine that seems specially designed to kill us! This has to be the low point of Marines, right?

 

Oh my sweat, bald-chinned youngling. Come sit by the fire and sip your little kiddy drink while I tell you of Ye Olden Dayes, when Space Marines really had something to cry about!

 

I am of course referring to Rogue Trader. This was the absolute low point of the Space Marines. Now you can argue all you like that this was only the low point because 40K was brand new and GW hadn't worked out what they wanted to do yet, but I will refute that idea right away. Lorewise, Space Marines were no less elite then than they are now. In fact, they were more elite then than they are now because Primaris weren't a thing and Custodes were too busy stripping for the Emperor to fight anyone!

 

So in Lore terms, while certainly not behaving like modern Marines, they were of equivalent Eliteness.

 

What about on the tabletop? How bad was it? Bad. Really, really bad.

• Space Marines were basically just better humans - typically one rank higher than a mortal. A Space Marine had the statline of a Human Champion (ie: Sergeant). Space Marine Champions were midway between a Human Champion and Human Minor Hero, and Space Marine Minor / Major Heroes had slightly better stats than their Human counterparts. However, this probably means absolutely nothing to you if you don't know the stats of the day... so let's go into that.
• A typical Human had the same stats as they do now. Ws and Bs worked differently to 8th, but it's essential the same - without modifiers, you expect a human to hit on a 4+. A Champion (or Space Marine) gets +1 Ws, +1 Bs, +1 Strength and +1 Initiative (Initiative deciding who fights first in close combat). Some of you might notice there's a stat missing there... Toughness. Marines were not Toughness 4 in Rogue Trader. From here, the Minor / Major Heroes essentially just keep piling on more Ws, Bs, Wounds, Initiative and Attacks. Oh, and Heroes were Toughness 4. Leaderships stats go up as well, but that's not important for this rant. Point is, while the lore made them out to be godlike, the rules just made them an army of Champions - and Champions weren't all that better than the rank and file.
• Next, Power Armour. If you remember the original Horus Heresy mythos, you'll recall that early suits of Power Armour were inferior to modern Aquila Plate. Rogue Trader is the reason for that. In Rogue Trader, Power Armour gave you a 4+ save. I'll give you a moment to mop up the milk you just sprayed everywhere, because it gets even worse. Yes, you could get a 3+ Save on your Marines if you wore flak armour under your Power Armour, but this gave you a movement penalty. Out of the gate, you were no more protected than a soldier in Carapace - it's just that your armour didn't penalise you at all, whereas his was slowing him down so much that a Cataphractii would outrun him!
• Let's talk guns. In Rogue Trader, the Bolter was a solid firearm. In fact, it was more like a Primaris Boltrifle than the modern Boltgun. So why am I saying this was the low point of Space Marines if their guns were meatier than today? Because everyone else's guns were meatier too. You know how I said Space Marines got 4+ armour? I lied - you got 5+. Against Guard. Yeah, the Lasgun had a save modifier. But it gets even worse than that, because what would quickly become the default weapon of the Eldar, the Shuriken Catapult, was far and away the deadliest small arm in the history of 40K. It was so deadly I am going to give it a bullet point all on its own!
• If ever a Space Marine player in Rogue Trader needed to unclog their bowels, they need only find an Eldar player who brought a horde of Guardians. Shuriken Catapults had the same range, strength and hit penalties as a Bolter, but with a better save modifier. That alone is unpleasant for reasons mentioned above, but it becomes a living Hell when you remember that most guns in Rogue Trader only fired once per turn. Shuriken Catapults did not. They were "F Type" weapons, meaning they used the Following Fire rule. This meant that if a Shuriken Catapult wounded a target (even if the target passed their saving throw), you could fire again. You could shoot the same target, or shoot a new target within 4" of them. Remember that Space Marines were Toughness 3, so Shuriken Catapults wounded on 3+. To make matters worse, shots generated by Following Fire could themselves generate more shots. So, while a 10-man squad of Space Marines would fire 10 shots into their foe, a 10-man Eldar squad with Shuricats were potentially bringing a whole bucket of dice to bear on you in return! And as I keep pointing out, you were only getting a 5+ Saving Throw, which meant that any Space Marine player with an ounce of sense would be cowering behind every wall, tree or blade of tall grass that might offer any kind of hit modifier to the Eldar's unrelenting storm of fire.

So that was the low point. Stats that were marginally better than a Guardsman, weapons that were at best slightly above average, and a saving throw that was more an abstract concept than a form of protection. This was where we started, and we could only go up from there.

 

This, I think, is where we are returning to. Sure, it's nowhere near as bad as the Bad Old Days of Rogue Trader. Hell, even Rogue Trader didn't keep kicking us for too long, with WD articles giving us our +1 Toughness and making our Power Armour 3+, but everything I said above should hopefully paint a picture of the world where Space Marines came from - a world where being the Emperor's Finest wasn't an indication you were an unrelenting God of War, but that your chances of survival were bumped from "Certain Death" to "Highly Unlikely." 40K was not kind to us in its infancy, and it's not kind to us now. I think people need to accept this.

 

Space Marines aren't special. They aren't amazing. They aren't God of War on the tabletop. Nor are they meant to be. We are far closer to RT than 3rd on the power scale, and too many people are trying to bring us back to, or beyond the apex of old. It's not going to happen - the very existence of Primaris is proof of that. Space Marines are never returning to the golden age of yore. Instead, you need to accept that your Space Marines are meant to be mediocre. Not cannon fodder, but not curb-stomping elite troops either.

 

This is why I keep hammering home that the problem with Space Marines is the gun, not the Space Marine. If Bolters were better, then it doesn't matter how weak the Marine is. After all, Eldar Guardians of Rogue Trader were feeble creatures with at best a 6+ save against Bolters, but the simple fact that their weapons were so powerful meant that they didn't have to be tough - the mere threat of them and their potential to put 15-20 shots of armour-shredding death into your unit made them worth bringing.

 

If Bolters were able to blow holes in even the toughest troops, nobody would begrudge having to fill their roster with Tac Marines. If you could replace the Bolters with bigger, meaner guns, nobody would begrudge having to bring Tac Marines. Hell, I'm pretty sure a lot of players would squeal with joy at the idea of having 2-4 flamers in a Tac Squad just to squat them on an objective, or rush them forward in a Rhino with an urge to purge.

 

But all these bad ideas - from upping their stats to adding an entire book's worth of special rules to make the Tac Squad something it's not meant to be - are all examples of people who really need to accept where the Space Marine is in the grand scheme of things. After all, if what I'm hearing is true, the Orks now share our base stats. We may still be the Emperor's Finest in lore, but on the table we're just an army of Imperial Guard Sergeants again.

[Claws and Effect]

Still think making bolters Assault 2 would alleviate a lot of our problems.

 

Sure, Guardsmen would still fire more shots inside 12" with orders, but our bolter guys would be firing 2 shots each out to full range and be able to fire after advancing, making them more mobile.

[chapter master 454]

Regarding Wargamer, just because it once was doesn't mean it ever will again. Also your point of making boltguns better only furthers another problem in this game that needs addressed: Alpha Strikes. I have said this in the past and will say so now and as you even stated in a loose form: doesn't matter if you are T1, no save and have a rule that makes all shots auto-hit and wound you if there is no shots coming your way. The best armour is to never have to use it and this is what makes just upping the boltgun not exactly a good idea.

 

It isn't about returning marines back to 'Days of Yore' because as it stands, our main complaint is that marines don't have any sort of presence. They just get laughed under the rug while imperial guard are feared...wait...the imperial guard are scary but the adeptus astartes aren't? What crazy land is this.

 

We want to be able to play a game and not "feels bad man". We want to play and feel like we have an army of elite units, not as you describe "better guard" which is what we have now.

[Beams]

So the issue I see, is that when you purchase a squad of marines, you are paying for a bunch of things that a lot of people aren't using, but are necessary to cost points.

 

ATSKNFear: it's worthless on a squad of five, but on a squad of ten, becomes a huge boon.

 

Strength 4: this is huge increase from Guard/sisters and lets you wound infantry easily, and even let's you wound tanks on a 5 without modifiers.

 

Toughness 4: a literal godsend, this makes Bolters only.wpund you half the time, lasguns wound you 33% of the time, and only things over Str 7 wound on 2's. If you don't think this is a big deal, try playing an at.that gets wounded on 4's from a lasguns.

 

WS3+: you have this across the board, and it gives you a consistency to your melee.

 

Now, I see a lot of people suggesting that Marines should be 10-11 pts, which is ridiculously low. It's basically saying, hey, tactical Marines should cost 1-2 more points than Scions or sisters, despite their better stats. Now, I'm not saying that Marines perform as well as guard or basic battle sisters when thinking shooting efficiency, but they also out perform them in melee, morale mitigation and individual model durability, particularly on a model to model basis.

 

The only problem is no one uses Marines for melee.

 

My solution is to give Marines a melee boost. Sisters used to have sarissas that would allow them to reroll failed wounds for 1 pt a model, and honestly, giving Marines a "tactical knife" that gave them the same for free would mean that Marines could engage in close combat and be effective at it, without having to deal with a invalidation of other armies troops by being nearly the same cost but way better, like reducing g their point cost to 10-11 would cause.

[Wargamer]

Well I'm afraid you're playing the wrong army, or the wrong units, or the wrong Edition. Possibly all three. Want to feel Elite? Custodes and Primaris are your armies now. Want to feel Elite with Basic Marines? Go play 3rd.

 

You're never going to feel Elite again with basic Smurfs. That ship has sailed and hit a mine on the way out the harbour. Best you can hope for is to drag the hulk back to the sandbanks of mediocrity. That or hope that in a few years 9th Edition rolls around and makes Marines great again.

[Ishagu]

I think the Marine range was both very bloated and very stagnant. This is one of the reasons for Primaris.

 

Look how Eldar have infantry units with different stat-lines and completely different looks from banshees to wraithguard, look how Guard have ratlings and Ogryns, look how Necrons have wraiths and destroyers.

Marines have an interchangeable army of basic guys with the exact same stats but a few different weapon selections, with the exception of a Terminator suit that only affects the save. Centurions were added but it was perhaps too late as most hated the departure from the norm of Power or Terminator armour.

 

I feel the Primaris are addressing this with units that have very different appearances and roles, dedicated to their purpose. Reivers aren't just Intercessors with parachutes, Inceptors aren't just Intercessors with jump packs, etc

[Zodd1888]

Primaris was the GW long-term solution. We're wanting a mid-short solution. Primaris works.

[deathspectersgt7]

I think the Marine range was both very bloated and very stagnant. This is one of the reasons for Primaris.

 

Look how Eldar have infantry units with different stat-lines and completely different looks from banshees to wraithguard, look how Guard have ratlings and Ogryns, look how Necrons have wraiths and destroyers.

Marines have an interchangeable army of basic guys with the exact same stats but a few different weapon selections, with the exception of a Terminator suit that only affects the save. Centurions were added but it was perhaps too late as most hated the departure from the norm of Power or Terminator armour.

 

I feel the Primaris are addressing this with units that have very different appearances and roles, dedicated to their purpose. Reivers aren't just Intercessors with parachutes, Inceptors aren't just Intercessors with jump packs, etc

Heard this before  a copy paste?

[Redtoof]

I think most of the work can be achieved with some points adjustments to various units (and this will probably happen anyway), but I would like to see some kind of small bonus for having larger units. Perhaps reroll wound rolls of 1 for units of tactical/chaos/whatever marines that number 6+?

 

I think any big changes to the marine stat line wound be a mistake, in terms of their stats they are pretty well established on their position amongst the units of 40k. I'd feel pretty disappointed if they suddenly were better in melee than Genestealers or were shootier than fire warriors.

[Karack Blackstone]

Hm.

 

This has been a great overall exchange, everyone; thanks for the continued civil discussion.

 

As far as my line of thinking, right now, I just wanted to type up that, I had a thought last night, and, I am requesting some feedback towards this concept, considering it might help. To say it, it also might hinder, however, without other opinions, internal confirmation bias cannot be eliminated, or at the least, accounted for.

 

Guard are 4 points. Astartes are currently 13.

 

WS, BS, S, T, Ld, and Save are each better, with the Save being two total roll face values better. We pay 4 total points just for our 3+ save in comparison to Guard's base 5+.

 

Primaris pay five points to get +1 W, and +1 A over regular Marines.

 

The end goal of all this, is, fun, balanced, and playable Astartes across the unit entry board. Well, my thinking is, currently, if both upgraded Marines, or, mini-Primaris, and Primaris, were to each cost 16 points total, with two items of wargear changing, one costing +1 point, then, maybe, just maybe, this can be a target worthwhile to at least play-test.

 

So, here goes.

 

Astartes, both Primaris and normal, Primaris not moving in stat's, normal Astartes going to the Primaris stat-line.

 

Edit: the stat changes listed and the reasoning behind them is that, Cawl, or, someone working with him, figures out how to make miniature Primaris-ising implants, that can safely be added to a normal Marine and result in the below improvements listed. I am sorry for not specifying this sooner.

 

16 points gets one:

 

WS 3+

BS 3+

S 4

T 4

W 2

A 2

Ld 7

Save 3+

 

Boltguns retain their current profile, and add the option to be fired as Heavy 3. I'm not sure on the point cost of this idea. All Tactical and equivalent units unable to take Combat Knives or Chainswords gain the option to add one or the other. Chainswords go up +1 point, and become AP -1; thus, a Chainsword is 1 point.

 

This, is the math: 4 points base for a Guardsman statline. +1 point for increasing each of the following by one: WS, BS, S, T, Ld, Save to 4+. +2 points for each of the following: +1 W, +1 A, 3+ Save.

 

If the Marine has a Combat Knife, their total points is 16; if they are given a Chainsword, their total points is 17. Wargear and options will likely need to be rebalanced as far as cost, however, the base of where they are now, seems about right, at least without further testing, on the table.

 

So, any thoughts? If you don't like this idea, please, I don't normally read minds. Your logic and line of thinking will only aid the thread long term, even if this idea goes nowhere.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Karack Blackstone

[Wargamer]

Marines and Primaris won't get the same stats. Abandon that dream now. You won't see any shift in Space Marine statlines whatsoever.

 

Basic Marines are only going to have four avenues for change: Points, Wargear, Wargear Options and Special Rules. Tactical Marines will almost certainly be restricted from getting Special Rules.

[Beta galactosidase]

I have feedback, Karack. It is that you had input from for example Wargamer and haven't addressed that in the idea. Custodes and Primaris are in background better than marines, and orks are often equal in size and strength if not training and equipment. What about marines merits their improvement beyond their natural position, which is about where their stats are now?

 

AP 5 weapons meant a lot of weaker troops melted before us. And by "weaker" I mean anything with a 5+ / 6+ save... which included the Carnifex.

AP is an example of how some fixes can or should come from the main rule book and not the tactical squad entry or war gear rules.

 

This is another part of the proper position for marines. What save should a carnifex have? It's hard to say, really, but they are definitely difficult to kill for marines, so relative to a carnifex, marines should not be overly strong.

 

 

Out of the gate [in power armor], you were no more protected than a soldier in Carapace - it's just that your armour didn't penalise you at all, whereas his was slowing him down so much that a Cataphractii would outrun him!

The moving with heavy equipment bonus of power armor is under represented now. Obviously there are no movement penalty 3+ options to compare to anymore.

 

 

It's very important that 4+ armor used to have a movement penalty, and power armor was just 4+ with no penalty.

 

 

In sixth edition I played games with 4+ save marines who got a +2 to their save roll. They could be hurt by autocannons, which are anti aircraft and anti light vehicle weapons, and what is power armor if not aircraft grade armor, plasma missiles which shoot actual plasma, and power mauls, which are carried by perhaps the marine character with perhaps the most anti-marine job, the chaplain. However they also had a 2+ against lasguns. I found that unsuitable and it should really go down to a +1 bonus.

 

The purpose is that marines can be made to be a better unit by reducing some of their stats.

 

 

 

Edit:

Tactical Marines will almost certainly be restricted from getting Special Rules.

This is really important. I have no interest in special rules only for the most basic unit in the army. If there is any place for the unit to work purely off the general rules of the game and the codex, it's tactical squads.

Edited January 31, 2018 by curvacious

[Karack Blackstone]

Marines and Primaris won't get the same stats. Abandon that dream now. You won't see any shift in Space Marine statlines whatsoever.

 

Basic Marines are only going to have four avenues for change: Points, Wargear, Wargear Options and Special Rules. Tactical Marines will almost certainly be restricted from getting Special Rules.

 

I have feedback, Karack. It is that you had input from for example Wargamer and haven't addressed that in the idea. Custodes and Primaris are in background better than marines, and orks are often equal in size and strength if not training and equipment. What about marines merits their improvement beyond their natural position, which is about where their stats are now?

 

AP 5 weapons meant a lot of weaker troops melted before us. And by "weaker" I mean anything with a 5+ / 6+ save... which included the Carnifex.

AP is an example of how some fixes can or should come from the main rule book and not the tactical squad entry or war gear rules.

 

This is another part of the proper position for marines. What save should a carnifex have? It's hard to say, really, but they are definitely difficult to kill for marines, so relative to a carnifex, marines should not be overly strong.

 

 

Out of the gate [in power armor], you were no more protected than a soldier in Carapace - it's just that your armour didn't penalise you at all, whereas his was slowing him down so much that a Cataphractii would outrun him!

The moving with heavy equipment bonus of power armor is under represented now. Obviously there are no movement penalty 3+ options to compare to anymore.

 

 

It's very important that 4+ armor used to have a movement penalty, and power armor was just 4+ with no penalty.

 

 

In sixth edition I played games with 4+ save marines who got a +2 to their save roll. They could be hurt by autocannons, which are anti aircraft and anti light vehicle weapons, and what is power armor if not aircraft grade armor, plasma missiles which shoot actual plasma, and power mauls, which are carried by perhaps the marine character with perhaps the most anti-marine job, the chaplain. However they also had a 2+ against lasguns. I found that unsuitable and it should really go down to a +1 bonus.

 

The purpose is that marines can be made to be a better unit by reducing some of their stats.

 

 

I guess it would help if I added that, in order to get the normal Marines to the Primaris stat-line, there needs to be miniature versions of the Primaris implants that boost them to the 2 W, 2 A, stats that they have, before my idea can bear any weight on its own. Sorry; thanks for the question, and I apologize for not specifying the preceding sooner.

 

As far as how the game has progressed, GW has shown a willingness to change the rules and the nature of the game as they feel is warranted. The problem is, per my above, is a current Marine, at 13 points, doing three and one-quarter Guardsmen worth of table work? I expect the answer is currently no. If at 16 points, or, four Guardsmen, would the above post I made have any merit, or, if not, why?

 

Reducing Marine stats seems like going in the wrong direction; sure, it could work, however, without knowing the logic, points calculations, and methods, of how GW determines points values, this is all really just a thread of ideas that may never get anywhere. Still, I am debating internally what to do to help the game, as a whole.

[Wargamer]

What do you mean "mini" Primaris implants? Primaris are Primaris sized because of their implants. If you put Primaris implants in a regular aspirant, they become a Primaris.

[utilityzero]

I don't want tactical marines to be super elite in game. I just want them to stop being a useless tax. Guard, Orks and Eldar the like are so cheap they are barely felt. Taking the minimum isn't nearly as big of a drag on your army as wasting the points on tacticals. An entire Guard battalion costs less than three minimum, naked tactical squads and is probably better at most of the things you want troops to do. And some troops choices like Necron Warriors are actually useful for their points.

 

I think there is a total lack of special rules across the codex that makes the whole codex underwhelming and uninteresting to play. I could live with tactical marines having less in the way of rules if they interacted in an interesting way with other units or could somehow have their damage potential boosted by characters or anything really but there is nothing but re-roll 1's. That's just lame when compared with what every other army has going on for it.

 

I do agree better shooting would be the biggest necessity for upgrading them. Assault 2 bolters doesn't really give them that much of a jump in shooting either. Maybe assault 3? Rapid Fire 2? Something so that 130 points of marines can actually deal enough damage in a game to kill the same points value of guardsmen because currently those 10 marines have very little chance of killing 3 Guardsmen each.

Edited January 31, 2018 by utilityzero

[Wargamer]

One of the problems Marines face is that not all of their stats are necessarily valuable. High strength and a good Ws are useless if you're not in combat, and against most opponents a Tac Squad wants to be shooting - ideally from Rapid Fire.

 

The other thing to keep in mind is Power Points. I know that most people here deal in points, not PP, but it should be kept in mind. Adjusting points only benefits one style of play - adjusting wargear and options benefits everyone.

[Beams]

One of the problems Marines face is that not all of their stats are necessarily valuable. High strength and a good Ws are useless if you're not in combat, and against most opponents a Tac Squad wants to be shooting - ideally from Rapid Fire.

 

The other thing to keep in mind is Power Points. I know that most people here deal in points, not PP, but it should be kept in mind. Adjusting points only benefits one style of play - adjusting wargear and options benefits everyone.

This is the big problem, though, that even their nonvaluable stat increases must be costed for, otherwise they vastly out perform equivalent options. We know Guardsmen and Sisters perform well for their points, so 9 pts is a good starting point for power armor and Bolter, but you can't go too close.

[Karack Blackstone]

What do you mean "mini" Primaris implants? Primaris are Primaris sized because of their implants. If you put Primaris implants in a regular aspirant, they become a Primaris.

 

I am meaning that, if possible, a Primaris implant Mark II, that then results in the same stat line for both Marine sizes in the model range, appears to me to be the best long term fix to deciding what models one wants in a Marine army. Put another way, Primaris not invalidating all regular Marines by their mere existence is ideal to me.

 

I do like the note that both Points and Power Level/Points needs to be taken into account here, as well. That raises a very important question to me, then, and I do not currently have an answer at the moment, so I will think on this idea and see what I can come up with, long term. Off the top of my head, I'd say treat the proposed baseline changes that I suggested above as having all Marines be Primaris Power Level in terms of value. The real issue is how the wargear options will affect that rating.

 

Wargamer, you do raise excellent points for debate in this; I know I differ from you on the logic above, however, as I am only providing the context in the first paragraph of this post, I hope that said context aids you, and others.

[MARK0SIAN]

One of the problems Marines face is that not all of their stats are necessarily valuable. High strength and a good Ws are useless if you're not in combat, and against most opponents a Tac Squad wants to be shooting - ideally from Rapid Fire.

This hits the nail on the head for me. Marines pay a lot of points for stats that they can’t rely on or don’t use very much.

 

T4 and BS3+ are the only stats that marines get to use reliably and frequently. As you said, good strength and weapon skill are irrelevant outside combat which most tactical squads are better off avoiding anyway. But that 3+ armour save is also only available against the weakest of weapons/attacks and most of those can put out such a volume of shots that you’ll inevitably fail your armour save against at least one of them.

 

In short, marines cost needs to better reflect the usefulness of their stat line.

 

Overall I believe 8th edition in general needs a more consistent approach across units with regard to their damage output. In some cases a lot of weight is given to the potential damage output of a unit when deciding its cost and other times it seems like no weight has been given to that consideration.

 

A change to how much weight was given to potential damage output when deciding points would definitely help marine troops.

[Wargamer]

I think your assessment of armour is unfair; even if modified, a 3+ save is still of value. After all, you can be hit by a -2 modifier and still save around 1/3rd of the time, where a 5+ save is lost entirely.

[MARK0SIAN]

I don’t think it’s of no value, I just don’t think it’s of as much value as it appears and what you pay for it. My main issue with it is that my marines just don’t feel durable when playing. Especially when you’re playing against a force that relies on invulnerable saves instead of armour saves. I feel like they have easy access to ways around my durability but I don’t really have any answer for them.

 

The other problem is that although you’re right, a -1 or -2 ap weapon still gives me an ok chance at surviving that shot, I’ve never got to survive just that shot, I’ve got to survive the others too because it’s quite easy to pump out high volumes of ap modifying shots.

Edited January 31, 2018 by MARK0SIAN

[Beta galactosidase]

 

One of the problems Marines face is that not all of their stats are necessarily valuable. High strength and a good Ws are useless if you're not in combat, and against most opponents a Tac Squad wants to be shooting - ideally from Rapid Fire.

This hits the nail on the head for me. Marines pay a lot of points for stats that they can’t rely on or don’t use very much.

 

T4 and BS3+ are the only stats that marines get to use reliably and frequently. As you said, good strength and weapon skill are irrelevant outside combat which most tactical squads are better off avoiding anyway. But that 3+ armour save is also only available against the weakest of weapons/attacks and most of those can put out such a volume of shots that you’ll inevitably fail your armour save against at least one of them.

 

In short, marines cost needs to better reflect the usefulness of their stat line.

 

Overall I believe 8th edition in general needs a more consistent approach across units with regard to their damage output. In some cases a lot of weight is given to the potential damage output of a unit when deciding its cost and other times it seems like no weight has been given to that consideration.

 

A change to how much weight was given to potential damage output when deciding points would definitely help marine troops.

 

It seems bad for lots of units that the only stat that matters for shooting is BS.  The core of the game kind of neglects the ability to be a good shot.  Surely in a game about advanced armies in the future, there should be a way for the models' native stats to boost its hit roll, boost its wound roll, get more shots, or get precision shots, without having to have special rules. 

 

It's true that the initial name for BS was bow skill, because that is what it was in fantasy.  A champion had better cc ability but it would never be a shot caller in a fire team, like Telion's voice of experience. It would have been strange to have a gunslinger or a sniper, but those are normal parts of the game so they should have normal native rules.

 

I think if you have a sergeant with high leadership, in any army, he should be able to place shots better and give one of his troopers precision shots.

 

I think if you have a champion or a hero model, it should be able to shoot down a trooper model more easily than if it were shooting at a model closer to its level.

 

does everyone get the champion/hero taxonomy?  Most units have a basic trooper profile, and a unit champion/sergeant with +1 attack and Ld, but also units of champions e.g. chosen, celestians, sternguard, then a hero/minor hero level like chaplains and librarians, then a hero/major hero like captains.  It's a pretty useful shorthand.

 

 

One of the problems Marines face is that not all of their stats are necessarily valuable. High strength and a good Ws are useless if you're not in combat, and against most opponents a Tac Squad wants to be shooting - ideally from Rapid Fire.

 

The other thing to keep in mind is Power Points. I know that most people here deal in points, not PP, but it should be kept in mind. Adjusting points only benefits one style of play - adjusting wargear and options benefits everyone.

This is the big problem, though, that even their nonvaluable stat increases must be costed for, otherwise they vastly out perform equivalent options. We know Guardsmen and Sisters perform well for their points, so 9 pts is a good starting point for power armor and Bolter, but you can't go too close.

 

 

This is a very important way of looking at it.  Effectively, a marine is a battle sister with some occasionally useful perks.  In most cases, a marine and a sister are almost interchangeable.  They have gotten a little bit further apart in eighth edition, since previously strength 6 and 7 wounded both of them on 2+, but it is now less common to wound a marine on 2+ because it needs strength eight.