Perspectives for a Prompt Improvement of Space Marines

[MeltaRange]

They will release the next round of C:SM because they can make money off the sale of that codex, not because they are worried about people being frustrated with the fact that SM stratagems suck.

 

They will likely time that new codex release with some new models that just happen to have awesome stratagems.

[d36williams]

I can believe what you're saying MeltaRange, however I'd contend they can leave C:SM and simply put a leash on Flyrants and Ynarri and that alone would make C:SM less frustrating. Buff through other's nerf

[PeteySödes]

I guess i don't see it out of the realm of possibilities that SM or CSM could get some broad stroke rebalance. I'd prefer that over dramatic point decreases, I don;t play hoard for a reason.

 

What about PA units and vehicles modifying AP values by +1, terminators +2? Maybe the terminator DS change that d36williams proposed. I dont think those would totally break marine armies but i think it would be a painless enough change to implement.

[MeltaRange]

I can believe what you're saying MeltaRange, however I'd contend they can leave C:SM and simply put a leash on Flyrants and Ynarri and that alone would make C:SM less frustrating. Buff through other's nerf

 

They may do so.  I would be shocked if they did that however, because they are running the risk of reducing the sales of Flyrants and Ynarri for little to no net gain in SM purchases.  I'd expect minor tweaks as a "carrot on a stick" to make people think that they care about balance...like buffing the Stalker slightly alongside some campaign on Warhammer Community "Having problems with flying bugs?  Now Stalkers are S8!" with an accompanying painting video from Duncan.

[Wargamer]

Thinking about this with a business hat on, I suppose I wouldn't change much... with a proposed campaign book in Autumn / Winter, I would use that - new Space Marine units (True and Primaris) and new Stratagems to breathe fresh life into the Marine Codex and encourage people to come back to the faction.

 

Hell, I wouldn't even touch Tactical Squads - I'd release Breacher Squads with shield + bolter and Storm Squads - Tac squads that can take 2 special weapons (4 if 10 man). Both would be Troops.

[d36williams]

I have some FW Breacher models and I love them, always surprised that isn't a thing in 40k. Using the word "mantelet' correctly and rerolling armor saves (back in 7th) was pretty great

[MARK0SIAN]

I don’t think an faq or chapter approved will be enough to fix marines, they definitely need a rewrite of the codex.

 

Whilst I agree their stratagems are next to useless, I don’t believe that is the key to fixing them. For me, if the individual units are not good/effective/worth their points on their own then no amount of stratagems will help.

 

Think about the best five units in the game right now from any faction. Now these will be slightly different for people but I’d bet money that those units are the best/most powerful simply because of their stats or rules, not because of stratagems, they are for me. Now unless Space Marine unit’s can compete with those units based on their rules and stats then they won’t ever be on par with other codexes. To do that they need a full codex rewrite that tries to account for the way the mechanics of 8th have negatively impacted marines.

[Ishagu]

Stratagems can make units work. Imagine if a unit of Termies could charge 3D6 after arriving from reserve?

[MARK0SIAN]

Stratagems can make units work. Imagine if a unit of Termies could charge 3D6 after arriving from reserve?

Yeah but if it can’t work without a stratagem then it’s not right. We shouldn’t be forced to rely on stratagems to make our units work. For a start no one has enough cp if they need to use a stratagem in every unit every turn just to make it do its job.

[Ishagu]

Yes, I do agree on that. A balance is needed :-)

[ERJAK]

The codex has notable issues:

 

1 - Overpriced units (Centurions, Standard Marines, Landraiders, etc)

2 - Lack of effective Strategems (Nothing of note outside of a few, chapter specific examples. Everything is too unit specific)

3 - Lack of unit compatibility across the army (Primaris feel like a separate entity, can't enter a Landraider for some reason, etc)

 

To answer your question; No, I don't think CA or the FAQ can resolve all the issues. The Stratagems will need to wait for a new codex, as will the way the units interact with each-other.

The point costs CAN be fixed however.

 

Landraider and Repulsor drop by 40 each

Centurions base cost 35

Tactical Marines at 11, Primaris base cost at 16, Scouts at 9, Terminators base cost 20 points, etc

 

Also, there is a LOT of dead wood in the Codex that needs rule re-writes or to be scrapped. What's the point of the Hunter, for example?

I agree with with the overall goal, but if scouts go to 9 then Battle Sisters need to be 7.

[Panzer]

I actually think Scouts should be more expensive than Tacticals. The infiltration ability is worth way more than the +1 armor save.

Scouts are in a comparatively good position currently so I also don't see the reason why they should become even cheaper in the first place anyway.

[Ishagu]

Both should be cheaper, in truth.

[Panzer]

But how much cheaper? Around 7-8p is already the territory of the more quality GEQ like Firewarrior and AdMech Ranger. Pathfinder with their Scout move, T3 Sv5+ are 5ppm but come with the mandatory 3p Markerlight upgrade.

[Wargamer]

See, this is why soups should be banned. If you make it so that Space Marines can't include anything outside of their own Codex, you could balance independently - why are Space Marines and Sisters practically the same cost when one is weaker than the other? Internal balance, that's why!

[Halandaar]

But how much cheaper? Around 7-8p is already the territory of the more quality GEQ like Firewarrior and AdMech Ranger. Pathfinder with their Scout move, T3 Sv5+ are 5ppm but come with the mandatory 3p Markerlight upgrade.

 

Yeah; even at 9ppm it's the same cost as a Tempestus Scion, but the Marine is better in almost every respect. So the bare minimum cost is 10ppm, and even then, what impact does that actually have? 30 points cheaper across a whole Squad? That's not significant enough to justify taking them over Scouts, IMO. Just making stuff cheaper isn't always the answer.

 

The problem really is that they keep devaluing Space Marines by making other stuff better than them, forcing them to get cheaper and cheaper to remain even remotely competitive. If they'd just implemented the Primaris statline across the existing Astartes range, that would have been a huge boost to both their goodness and their lore-compatibility, without having to constantly make them cheaper.

[Ishagu]

The Marine price drop will need to be accompanied by additional stratagems to make them function better, as well as additional cost rises in other units.

 

EG: Marine 11 points, Guardsman 6 points (their current costs ignores their utility through orders), Sororitas, Scouts - 10, Intercessor EQ - 16, Firewarrior/Scions - 8/7 points?

 

Example of a stratagem:

Fury of the Chapter: 1 CP - (Double the shots of bolt weapons in the shooting phase)

[Panzer]

Would you really pay CP in a rather elite army to get 5(10)-10(20) more Bolter shots tho? I mean it doesn't sound bad on a 10 man unit within Rapid fire range but otherwise that's a bit underwhelming compared to what the stronger Codexes have. ^^

[Dark_Jober]

Would you really pay CP in a rather elite army to get 5(10)-10(20) more Bolter shots tho? I mean it doesn't sound bad on a 10 man unit within Rapid fire range but otherwise that's a bit underwhelming compared to what the stronger Codexes have. ^^

 

Well if that imaginary Stratagem affects to "bolter weapons" there are some interesting targets:

• ATM an Inceptor Squad with 3 or 6 members is a nightmare for GEQ units when Deep Striking, and they can even destroy a MEQ MSU unit with 18-36 shots d<=18" FP5 AP-1. (135p-270p)
• Scout Bikes Squad, 2 Scouts with Shotgun and Sargeant with Stormbolter (77p) and they have some shots:
  • 12"<d<=24" -> 8x F4 AP- (No shotgun) (3x Twin Bolters + Stormbolter)
  • <=12" -> 16x F4 AP- (Twin Bolters + Stormbolter) + 4x F4 AP- (F5 if <=6")
  • So for comparing with 3x Incerptors we should buy 2-3 more bikers, suppose 4 Scouts + Sargeant Stormbolter (127p)
    • 12"<d<=24" -> 12x F4 AP-
    • <=12" ->  24x F4 AP- +8x F4 AP- (F5 if <=6")

I think that is much fire for cheap units (135p 3xInceptors and 77p-127p 3-5 man Scout Bikes Squad), of course it is anti-horde fire, but it could do some pain to heavy infantry or even some light vehicles...

Now... imagine a Stratagem... 1CP... doubling the bolter weapons shots... yeah... atm imagining is free ;)

[Panzer]

 

Would you really pay CP in a rather elite army to get 5(10)-10(20) more Bolter shots tho? I mean it doesn't sound bad on a 10 man unit within Rapid fire range but otherwise that's a bit underwhelming compared to what the stronger Codexes have. ^^

 

Well if that imaginary Stratagem affects to "bolter weapons" there are some interesting targets:

• ATM an Inceptor Squad with 3 or 6 members is a nightmare for GEQ units when Deep Striking, and they can even destroy a MEQ MSU unit with 18-36 shots d<=18" FP5 AP-1. (135p-270p)
• Scout Bikes Squad, 2 Scouts with Shotgun and Sargeant with Stormbolter (77p) and they have some shots:
  • 12"<d<=24" -> 8x F4 AP- (No shotgun) (3x Twin Bolters + Stormbolter)
  • <=12" -> 16x F4 AP- (Twin Bolters + Stormbolter) + 4x F4 AP- (F5 if <=6")
  • So for comparing with 3x Incerptors we should buy 2-3 more bikers, suppose 4 Scouts + Sargeant Stormbolter (127p)
    • 12"<d<=24" -> 12x F4 AP-
    • <=12" ->  24x F4 AP- +8x F4 AP- (F5 if <=6")

I think that is much fire for cheap units (135p 3xInceptors and 77p-127p 3-5 man Scout Bikes Squad), of course it is anti-horde fire, but it could do some pain to heavy infantry or even some light vehicles...

Now... imagine a Stratagem... 1CP... doubling the bolter weapons shots... yeah... atm imagining is free

 

 

Yeah but I'd consider that unwanted side-effects since the intent was clearly to buff Tacticals with their Bolter as main weapon. :D

[MARK0SIAN]

The price drop in marines needs to be accompanied by changes that make tactical Marines simply better. Not a stratagem, actual rules/stats changes that make the unit better. Something that makes them either more durable, more lethal or both.

 

I think they’ll do something to address soups in this update too so other units wouldn’t necessarily need to increase in price. Certainly taking Guard to 6pts is too much, yes they’re versatile and a solid unit but a squad with a platoon commander to give orders would then be at 80 points minimum with no special or heavy weapons. That’s too much for them. I know people want to discourage soups but you’ve also got to bear in mind what effect that would have on something like a guard monobuild. Upping the cost of their troops by a third would drastically effect a guard only army.

[Panzer]

I think they’ll do something to address soups in this update too so other units wouldn’t necessarily need to increase in price.

 

One of the rumours about the FAQ I've heard is that soups will be banned from Matched play.

I honestly see the point in that for tournaments since it makes it WAY easier to balance Codexes properly against eachother but I think our group will ignore that for our BnB matches or eventually switch over to Narrative play with points if Matched play becomes more and more a format strictly for tournament lists.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I think they’ll do something to address soups in this update too so other units wouldn’t necessarily need to increase in price.

One of the rumours about the FAQ I've heard is that soups will be banned from Matched play.

I honestly see the point in that for tournaments since it makes it WAY easier to balance Codexes properly against eachother but I think our group will ignore that for our BnB matches or eventually switch over to Narrative play with points if Matched play becomes more and more a format strictly for tournament lists.

That sounds like what I’ll end up doing if they go that way. I like to field allies, for example fielding mechanicum and knights together or sisters of silence and Custodes. My Templars force is designed around Helsreach so they have some guard allies mainly for narrative reasons so if they’re going to stop that in match play then I’ll probably just use the points values and some other rules but ignore that one.

 

It’s going to make it even more imperative to buff and balance the codexes then if they can’t take soups as some of them (Grey Knights, Marines) will be hard pressed to compete as a single codex.

[d36williams]

Scions have Grav Chutes, so just saying a Space Marine needs to cost more than a Scion doesn't account for special rules that the Scion has. Same applies to Sisters, who have Acts of Faith -- a tremendous force multiplier. In contrast the Space Marine has "Know No Fear" which has panned out to be something of an empty gesture. 

 

My opinion is that GW anticipated Morale being way more impactful; in fact they highlighted morale changes as they introduced 8th ed. For that reason I imagine 8th Ed designers thought Know No Fear would be powerful. And to be honest, I can't imagine a good way to balance Morale without resorting to a slide rule and literally a sigmoid function. 

 

I'd be pretty shocked if GW banned Matched Play soup, if only because that would make sliding into new armies more challenging. 

 

One breakdown I found eye opening was that an IG Squad is better at killing GEQ, MEQ and TEQ than a Marine Tactical squad, and suffers few losses per points for suffering the same attacks. Marines are basically the Middle Way between truly "Elite" and "Horde" armies, and generally we're finding due to the fundamental imbalance of the to wound chart and the irrelevance of Morale that the middle way is not a good place to be. 

 

If you really total the number of shots required to accomplish X, it is also eye opening. It takes 9 Str4 AP0 shots to kill a Marine, and 18 Str 3 AP 0 Shots to kill a Marine, but a Marine at 13 points is more than three times the cost of a 4 point IG model. So a Marine is twice as effective, but there are 3 IG Infantry models for each Marine Tactical model. I keep saying this and it's getting repetitive but Know No Fear was supposed to make up the difference between those sums, but it does not. 

To Kill an Infantry Squad member, it takes 9/4 (2.25) bolter shots, or it takes 3 lasgun shots. Points per shot we have 26 points of Marines, or 12 points of IG. :/ 

Perhaps it is the hordes who need significant price hikes, not that Marines should be cheaper

[Panzer]

 

My opinion is that GW anticipated Morale being way more impactful; in fact they highlighted morale changes as they introduced 8th ed. For that reason I imagine 8th Ed designers thought Know No Fear would be powerful. And to be honest, I can't imagine a good way to balance Morale without resorting to a slide rule and literally a sigmoid function. 

 

I'd be pretty shocked if GW banned Matched Play soup, if only because that would make sliding into new armies more challenging. 

 

GW probably didn't expect that people would go min-sized units all the time. Silly GW.

 

Also GW tries to promote Narrative play a lot outside of tournaments so they'd simply direct soup player towards that format. Tournament player aren't the majority (tho not few either) and if Matched play becomes the tournament players format then it just makes sense for GW to go and say that others should go with Narrative play ... even tho the reality looks quite different (at least currently).