In 8th, Are marines the wrong baseline?

[Panzer]

It would fix the issue of them being overcosted, yeah. But not the issue of the feeling they die way too fast for Marines. Hence why I like the feel of Intercessors on the board much better. However if GW would buff Marines so far then Primaris would become real monsters lol

[Morticon]

Bring each marine statline down in points, by 1 or 2 points each, make them standard 12 points each, bring down each other T4/3+ save model 1 point each or 2 points each.  That alone would probably fix the issue.  Or dang close to it. 

 

I thought about this in respect to my last tournament list. 

 

With a 2 point break, I would have had a 64point break (94 with Scouts). Struggling to see the impact of it game wise :/  

 

 

[Deathwalker]

 

Bring each marine statline down in points, by 1 or 2 points each, make them standard 12 points each, bring down each other T4/3+ save model 1 point each or 2 points each.  That alone would probably fix the issue.  Or dang close to it. 

 

I thought about this in respect to my last tournament list. 

 

With a 2 point break, I would have had a 64point break (94 with Scouts). Struggling to see the impact of it game wise :/  

 

 

 

I think you notice it more based on how you build your list.

Do you say "I want a captain with a PF and a combi plasma", Now I want X, then Z etc etc.

OR

Do you say "I want X bodies on the field" pay for that and -then- go "oh hey, I have 64 points left, I can upgrade my Razor to a Lasback or an Assback, and I can sprinkle some PS's around. 

[Dracos]

Urgh please no free stuff and/or morale auto pass. Those were some of the worst things last edition. There have to be better ways to fix Marines.

I’d really like to known what that is? :) ... and I agree on no auto-passes.

 

I was away during 6th/7th but I do know drpping the points isn’t the fix. Knock 1 point off and your in Ork territory. I’d rather not have to hear the backlash from rest of the 40k community for making Marines cheaper. I’m not talking about making upping cost of Marines either. We need something simple that gives the just a nudge toward but not in the land of Custodes.

 

+3 save is not exactly extremely effective in the current meta and there’s a reason no one uses Terminators in competition play. With it seeming like everything else getting a reroll these days armor saves wouldn’t be slowing things down that much.

 

We need something. Something simple but not game changing. Wish I knew what it was.

[PiñaColada]

I think marines should be a point cheaper

Ignore one point of AP to make them more durable

Make them rapid fire 3 shots instead of 2

Increase the range of their bolters to 30"

Give them 2 close combat attacks on the charge

[Panzer]

 

Urgh please no free stuff and/or morale auto pass. Those were some of the worst things last edition. There have to be better ways to fix Marines.

I’d really like to known what that is? ... and I agree on no auto-passes.

 

I was away during 6th/7th but I do know drpping the points isn’t the fix. Knock 1 point off and your in Ork territory. I’d rather not have to hear the backlash from rest of the 40k community for making Marines cheaper. I’m not talking about making upping cost of Marines either. We need something simple that gives the just a nudge toward but not in the land of Custodes.

 

+3 save is not exactly extremely effective in the current meta and there’s a reason no one uses Terminators in competition play. With it seeming like everything else getting a reroll these days armor saves wouldn’t be slowing things down that much.

 

We need something. Something simple but not game changing. Wish I knew what it was.

 

 

I think we all would like to know that. ;)

 

I don't think we'd see a huge backlash from the rest of the community if Marines become 1-2 points cheaper at all. They'd still be 1.5 times as expensive (more actually) as a T'au Fire Warrior or Skitarii Ranger. S3 T3 Sv4+ and one with BS4+ S5 AP0 and the other with BS3+ S4 AP0. Sounds fair to me.

 

I also disagree on the simple part. The most simple thing would've been to turn them into what Primaris are now. W2 A2 and better Bolter would've done plenty. However since that space is already occupied by Primaris now I think there needs to be done something more. Something like PinaColada suggests could work but already goes dangerously into Primaris territory). A complete rework of the Space Marine Codex would be in order imo. It's pretty uninspired and still has lots of design elements of older editions.

There comes my second "however" tho. GW is obviously aiming towards more Primaris in the future so I don't see something like that ever happening. In fact I see the case of old Marines as a lost cause and expect them to be largely ignored for the most part while GW focusses on Primaris and other things. That will take a few years tho so it's not like old Marines are unusable tomorrow like they did with Tomb Kings and Bretonia in AoS (they did say they learned a lot from that time and don't want to do such sudden changes anymore after all).

[PiñaColada]

Well some, if not most, of those improvements would have to affect primaris as well. My thought process was that primaris wouldn't get better range or more attacks on the charge but would get the other stuff but maybe that would just push people even more toward those? Not that GW would mind that really, but people with thousand of points of classic marines most likely would.

[Captain Idaho]

The boat has sailed on classic Marines having increased stats since they've introduced Primaris, so there isn't much point discussing it even if it IS a good idea.

 

Regarding the things Marines need to make them work etc is arguably best off in another thread.

[Xenith]

I'm just going to throw this into the mix buy I feel like there shouldnt be a baseline.

 

GW said at the birth of the edition that stats weren't limited to 10, so really there's no excuse why the revamp didn't see Marines at Strength and Toughness 6, Orks at Strength and Toughness 5, Guardsmen at Strength and Toughness 3, lasguns at Strength 4, Dreadnoughts at toughness 10 etc.

 

Holding onto "baselines" has created a system that resists change. A broader stat based system would have meant (even if we don't change the wounding system at all) that Marines could be made elites without making their stats higher than most weapons in the game.

 

While I 100% agree, you seen the furore caused by GW releasing more accurate sized marines, imagine the forum outcry if they released a more accurate statline and tampered with the sacred "fours across the board"?

[Mileposter]

 

I'm just going to throw this into the mix buy I feel like there shouldnt be a baseline.

 

GW said at the birth of the edition that stats weren't limited to 10, so really there's no excuse why the revamp didn't see Marines at Strength and Toughness 6, Orks at Strength and Toughness 5, Guardsmen at Strength and Toughness 3, lasguns at Strength 4, Dreadnoughts at toughness 10 etc.

 

Holding onto "baselines" has created a system that resists change. A broader stat based system would have meant (even if we don't change the wounding system at all) that Marines could be made elites without making their stats higher than most weapons in the game.

 

While I 100% agree, you seen the furore caused by GW releasing more accurate sized marines, imagine the forum outcry if they released a more accurate statline and tampered with the sacred "fours across the board"?

 

That outcry happens about any change, to anything, for any reason.

[Deathwalker]

When you make lists -designed- to break games LEGALLY, you should take more pride in having that being addressed by the games designers, rather than spill salt.

Congratulations, you just made it to play tester. You might not get paid, you might not get recognition, (though, in the age of net-listing, that is a distinct possibility) but what you HAVE done is make the game better.

[Bryan Blaire]

We’ve already seen the Marine correction - it just wasn’t exactly what a lot of the “old school” players wanted. Primaris Marines are “corrected” Marines in probably the best compromise to all business and player needs they could get, and in a few years, there will probably even be a dropping of the “Primaris” from the title, and they will just be back to Marines.

 

Just give it a bit, we’ll have “Marines” with the Primaris stat-line who function exactly how Marines function now in squads, or similarly, with updated vehicles and everything else.

[Deathwalker]

We’ve already seen the Marine correction - it just wasn’t exactly what a lot of the “old school” players wanted. Primaris Marines are “corrected” Marines in probably the best compromise to all business and player needs they could get, and in a few years, there will probably even be a dropping of the “Primaris” from the title, and they will just be back to Marines.

 

Just give it a bit, we’ll have “Marines” with the Primaris stat-line who function exactly how Marines function now in squads, or similarly, with updated vehicles and everything else.

Again, I don't want to go back to 30 point marines per man when I can get 7 guardsman for a similar price and be more effective than that 1 marine.

 

Additionally, I don't think primaris marines fixed a damn thing, all they did was push people into the mindset that 200 points plus for a squad of 10 marines with basic weapons was somehow "worth it" and 5 man squads with diverse loadouts should be penalized by paying the same cost.

[Wargamer]

 

I'm just going to throw this into the mix buy I feel like there shouldnt be a baseline.

 

GW said at the birth of the edition that stats weren't limited to 10, so really there's no excuse why the revamp didn't see Marines at Strength and Toughness 6, Orks at Strength and Toughness 5, Guardsmen at Strength and Toughness 3, lasguns at Strength 4, Dreadnoughts at toughness 10 etc.

 

Holding onto "baselines" has created a system that resists change. A broader stat based system would have meant (even if we don't change the wounding system at all) that Marines could be made elites without making their stats higher than most weapons in the game.

 

While I 100% agree, you seen the furore caused by GW releasing more accurate sized marines, imagine the forum outcry if they released a more accurate statline and tampered with the sacred "fours across the board"?

 

They didn't release truescale Marines, but a different kind of Space Marine.

 

If they HAD released Truescale Marines, which retain all the same options as the old Marine models, I don't think there would be anything like the backlash Primaris suffered.

 

This would also mean that if they had made a new statline, it would apply to all Marines, not just the Primaris Marines, and that would also be better received because of it.

[Panzer]

 

We’ve already seen the Marine correction - it just wasn’t exactly what a lot of the “old school” players wanted. Primaris Marines are “corrected” Marines in probably the best compromise to all business and player needs they could get, and in a few years, there will probably even be a dropping of the “Primaris” from the title, and they will just be back to Marines.

 

Just give it a bit, we’ll have “Marines” with the Primaris stat-line who function exactly how Marines function now in squads, or similarly, with updated vehicles and everything else.

Again, I don't want to go back to 30 point marines per man when I can get 7 guardsman for a similar price and be more effective than that 1 marine.

 

Additionally, I don't think primaris marines fixed a damn thing, all they did was push people into the mindset that 200 points plus for a squad of 10 marines with basic weapons was somehow "worth it" and 5 man squads with diverse loadouts should be penalized by paying the same cost.

 

 

Well guess we can be lucky then that they aren't 30ppm. They're 18ppm. And a squad of 10 doesn't cost 200+ points it costs 180 points which is not too terrible for such a unit (could be slightly cheaper tho). ^^

[Deathwalker]

 

 

We’ve already seen the Marine correction - it just wasn’t exactly what a lot of the “old school” players wanted. Primaris Marines are “corrected” Marines in probably the best compromise to all business and player needs they could get, and in a few years, there will probably even be a dropping of the “Primaris” from the title, and they will just be back to Marines.

 

Just give it a bit, we’ll have “Marines” with the Primaris stat-line who function exactly how Marines function now in squads, or similarly, with updated vehicles and everything else.

Again, I don't want to go back to 30 point marines per man when I can get 7 guardsman for a similar price and be more effective than that 1 marine.

 

Additionally, I don't think primaris marines fixed a damn thing, all they did was push people into the mindset that 200 points plus for a squad of 10 marines with basic weapons was somehow "worth it" and 5 man squads with diverse loadouts should be penalized by paying the same cost.

 

 

Well guess we can be lucky then that they aren't 30ppm. They're 18ppm. And a squad of 10 doesn't cost 200+ points it costs 180 points which is not too terrible for such a unit (could be slightly cheaper tho). ^^

 

back when 30 PPM marines were a thing, the average game size was 3000 points, not 2000. So, are you lucky that they cost 18, or that points have been reduced, or that your 180 point intercessor squad costs what it does with no access to heavy or special weapons that cost more can't have those weapons at all?

 

Remember when we were talking earlier about changing the dice used from D6 to D10 as is allowed greater flexibility in rules?

Changing the points cap does a similar, but different thing.as long as you maintain the lower points cost. 

[Captain Idaho]

Saying that people dislike change and Primaris as Tru-scale therefore we can't change the statline is bogus and inaccurate.

 

The reason people didn't like Primaris was because (largely) because they are designed as a replacement to our existing miniatures that we spent time and money on. They weren't NEEDED so people felt like GW were just moving to make their collection obsolete (like Squats) to force us to buy new models.

 

It was too cynical. We buy plenty of Space Marines and if you wanted to get us to buy more then release new stuff for our army and ways to play it. Give us an incentive. Don't just kill our army and expect us to fork out for it.

 

Bringing it back on topic neatly - statlines are a game mechanic no one is invested in except for performance.

[Mileposter]

Changing 40k away from a D6 system is like changing Dungeons and Dragons away from a D20 system. You would be removing a very large portion of its identity. You would be creating a new game. You would be something other than 40k.

 

Whether that's good or bad or welcome or repulsed is less important than the fact that it's not relevant.

[Bryan Blaire]

Again, I don't want to go back to 30 point marines per man when I can get 7 guardsman for a similar price and be more effective than that 1 marine.

Did I say anything about Marines being raised to 30 points or the weight of fire from seven Guardsmen results compared to a single Marine’s weight of fire?

 

Additionally, I don't think primaris marines fixed a damn thing, all they did was push people into the mindset that 200 points plus for a squad of 10 marines with basic weapons was somehow "worth it" and 5 man squads with diverse loadouts should be penalized by paying the same cost.

Primaris are “corrected” Marines solely from the view of model scale and stat line - they are more in line on the table top with the depiction of Marines - physically and visually - which is what folks asked for for a while. Are they representative of them weaponry-wise, not really, definitely not regarding the Gravis or Reiver armors, but those are brand new. The standard Primaris armor is really just beefy PA.

 

As far as the points.... ooooookay. :confused:

 

Do Primaris “fix” all the problems inherent in the game for Marines? Of course not. Does that mean they aren’t a “correction”? Not in the slightest. Sometimes it takes a LOT of small corrections to get a very large ship back on course.

 

Changing 40k away from a D6 system is like changing Dungeons and Dragons away from a D20 system. You would be removing a very large portion of its identity. You would be creating a new game. You would be something other than 40k.

 

Whether that's good or bad or welcome or repulsed is less important than the fact that it's not relevant.

Not true, because you are implying that 40K’s identity is solely determined by the dice system used for play, that this is a “large” part of its identity. The identity of 40K is so much larger than the game system used to play it that it would easily survive a system transition, as long as you took the recognizable parts of the game that really define its identity with it - case in point: FFG’s 40K RPGs. Totally different system, but no one would sit there and say that you weren’t “playing 40K”.

 

Even Dungeons and Dragons would survive changing away from multiple polyhedral dice system (since its not just a d20 game, regardless of what marketing gimmick they might slap on the books).

[Kite Senet]

I would definitely say that someone isn't playing Warhammer 40k if they're playing an RPG spinoff rather than actual 40k.

 

The argument that 40k's identity is tied into d6 is reasonable, but I find the larger issue is the convenience and accessability of d6 relative to all other dice types. Frankly, I was a Mantic Games player until they announced that Warpath would use specialized d10's rather than the hundreds of d6 dice that I already own and carry with me often for other gaming systems. I still like Kings of War, but I jumped to 40k for sci-fi wargaming *specifically* because Mantic asked for silly dice.

 

Back on topic: One concern I have for a meatier Space Marine baseline is paired with previous concerns about specialized weapons constantly targeting the Space Marine statline. The unfortunate reality is that Space Marines don't generally have a "non-elite" option; so to balance an army against Space Marines, you're kinda forced to permit that other army the armaments necessary to actually damage the Space Marines--any weapon that is ineffective is essentially dead weight.

 

In other words, the issue may be less the Space Marines unit and more the Space Marines *army*, because the army's uniformly elite nature ensures that everyone else has to take a build that counters Space Marines (the unit) to effectively fight the army. So one (long term, 9th edition fix) for this may actually be to encourage Space Marine armies to take lighter troops--an attached Imperial Guard force--so that an army's normal weapons have more to chew on, so special weapons can be costed higher, so that Space Marines can be effectively made more durable.

[Bryan Blaire]

I would definitely say that someone isn't playing Warhammer 40k if they're playing an RPG spinoff rather than actual 40k.

Then what are they playing?

 

Sure the book may be titled “Dark Heresy”, so the system they are playing with is the FFG Darin heresy rules set, but it’s set in the Warhammer 40K setting. You are literally RPing in the Warhammer 40K universe. That’s the breadth of 40K - it’s a setting, a specific rule set, etc. It’s all of those things. About the only thing it wasn’t supposed to be was the Horus Heresy, but GW seems to be bringing that around for around 2: Fight as well!

 

And if the title of the rules system is the critical component for a game, then if Warhammer 40K were to move to using d8s, d10s, d12s or even d32s, but it was still titled “Warhammer 40K”, then anyone playing that specific rules system is playing actual Warhammer 40K.

 

You can’t have it both ways, it’s either also the flavor, setting, etc., regardless of the system used, or it’s exclusively the name.

 

If it’s only the name, then anyone reading Black Library texts aren’t reading about “actual 40K” or “actual Horus Heresy” because the text didn’t come out of those rules systems’ books.

 

—-—-—

 

Kite, while I understand what you are saying regarding “encouraged to take lighter troops”, it gets back to my earlier comment - if I want to play the elite of Mankind, why should I saddle myself with the uncool cannon fodder that I expect to die? That would truthfully be about the worst forced tax situation GW could create: “to play Space Marines, you must take three squads of basic IG troopers. Yes, we know that’s not the army you want to play, but we don’t care, it’s the corner we wrote ourselves into decades ago.” - also, in 2nd Edition, I never had to include non-Marines in my Marine army, why should i be forced to now?

 

Now, as I said pre-8th Edition - if GW would come up with some awesome new upgrades for IG, start building them up as something that rivals the star power of the Marines, make an actual story of humans capable of fighting and winning for humanity instead of relying on Marines to help them out to win, then maybe you could shift the narrative enough where basic Marines didn’t need to feel like “standard human troopers”. Until there is some way to shift the focus off the Marines being the cool elite almost everyone wants to be (and let’s face it, almost everyone has had some version of a Marine Force since RT or 2nd Edition) and use, you aren’t going to change the idea that basic Marines really do need to be the baseline things are accounted against.

[Skaorn]

I think systems change negatively impacting the setting is a valid concern. I remember my gaming group falling in love with Eberron when it came out for DnD, then 4th ed came out and all interest and development into it died as the game stopped supporting anything beyond "here is your dungeon, you will fight its monsters". I mean, GW has had 8 editions at this and still can't manage to solve the same old problems. You still want to go first, you always equip anti-MEQ, Eldar will have some super units but the rest will be crap, etc. Changing systems will just lead to even more headaches as GW aren't very good at system design and don't really play test. As they like to say, they are a model company after all.

 

I personally don't have a problem with changing the system myself. I've got plenty of d10s White Wolf and L5R games. Just don't be surprised if it turns out even worse than 8th.

[Bryan Blaire]

Changing the system for the sake of changing the system would be meaningless - it would still require balancing and design to make it an enjoyable game that doesn't suffer from issues such as you highlighted, Skaorn. That's something that really hasn't been fully addressed in this whole thread - regardless of the baseline, what do you do to deal with weight of fire building up to levels that can't be overcome by armor (one example), or any of the other things that can favor one army type in a game over another.

[Kite Senet]

Out of respect for other commenters and recognizing my reply is long and this dice discussion is off topic, here it is, hidden:

Hidden Content

Well, yes, but it's one thing to be playing Warhammer 40k and another to play a game set in the Warhammer 40k universe. Obviously I'm not going to be upset that Citadel Combat Cards isn't using D6's, because it isn't Warhammer 40k, it's Citadel Combat Cards. And I wouldn't expect D6's in my Black Library books. You seem to be arguing that D6's are not an intrinsic component of the 40k tabletop game's design because other games and narratives, none of which are the tabletop game Warhammer 40k, exist within the same intellectual property set that don't use it. To suggest "Warhammer 40k" is either "just a name" or "just the setting" neglects the importance of the game system itself as a recognizable key aspect of the Warhammer 40k tabletop game.

 

Yes, technically, anyone who played this speculative version of 40k with D12's would still be playing "Warhammer 40k". If we resolved all combat by revealing pairs of cards from a standard 52 card deck, and called that Warhammer 40k, we'd still be playing 40k. And if we called poker "Warhammer 40k" anyone playing Texas Hold'Em would technically be playing Warhammer 40k. But this line of argumentation neglects to consider that certain attributes are expected to establish a certain rules and thematic continuity for the game--just as much as one would expect the next version of Warhammer 40k to thematically be about Space Marines, we would also expect it to...

• be a wargame;
• involve miniatures to represent game objects; and, in particular,
• utilize the action of rolling many D6 through multiple stages of "dice flow" as a primary mechanic for resolving combat.

Now, how much variance one permits to establish this rules continuity will vary, as this is subjective. I don't think many would consider 40k-with-playing-card-combat to still be the same game we play today. And it's reasonable to personally not consider D6's critical a critical part of the dice flow mechanic. But it is also entirely reasonable to set the exclusive use of D6 (or D6-representable dice rolls, i.e. D3, D2, D66, etc) as a personal criterion for continuity, since this is something that (as best I am aware) every previous version of the game has had. Furthermore, I would posit that it is essential for enabling the more general dice flow mechanic of the game, since no other dice type admits convenient access to 20-40+ dice at one time; a change to d12 would demand that far fewer dice be in play at any one time, or it would cost the game a large degree of accessibility simply due to requiring large quantities of rarer dice.

 

If need for precision is necessary in a particular part of the game, I would also note that we *can* utilize D66 and dice flow as a way to implement higher precision probability distributions: If, say, we wish to resolve 20D66 tested against a score of 36 (interpreted as dice rolls, so the next higher value is 41) then we can easily roll 20D6 to represent each die's 10's place, discard all dice showing 1 or 2, and then roll the remaining dice again, and discard any that are less than 6. This allows us to approximate any desired probability of success to within 3%, which should be satisfactory for the purposes of a wargame. If we wish to go wild, this same method applied to D6^n can approximate a set of probabilities which are dense within the collection of all Bernoulli probability distributions. Thus, in that sense, no matter how precise a success probability we might ever wish for, we are never forced to utilize any die except for a D6. But D6^n as a probability concept is of merely mathematical interest; my point is that D66 can efficiently implement probabilities with far more precision than D12 can, and since it only requires two rolls this will be at least as efficient whenever the player does not actually have a large enough collection of D12 dice to roll them all at once, which would (I anticipate) be very common for most players.

 

As for the on-topic matter of including "Astra Militarum"/mortals with Space Marines: I'm not saying you'd have to, per se. But as it is right now, you *can't* have awesome Space Marines--they'll just get nuked, since for anyone to be able to even play a balanced match against Space Marines, their weaponry need to be able to efficiently blast through a full suit of power armor all across the board. Space Marines, with no lesser unit to list to give value to an opponent's lighter weaponry, essentially force an arm's race that hurts Space Marines (the unit) overall. Simply giving Space Marines (the armies) access to a small, bespoke selection of mortal units--for example the Ultramar Auxilia for the Ultramarines, or the Kaerls for the Space Wolves--would enable GW to up the prices of heavy, anti-power-armor weaponry, making Space Marines (the unit) far more potent overall in actual gameplay.

 

The important thing would be, however, to balance the game so that these new Astartes Auxilia forces and the Space Marines themselves both have critical roles in the competitive lists for that army, so that you can play full power armor lists if you wish--it just isn't so optimal as to dominate the meta such that the meta has to contort to deal with 4 toughness and 3+ saves 100% of the time.

[Mileposter]

Clarification.

 

I do not imply that Warhammer 40K is solely anything. By stating "large part", I imply the opposite - that it is one part of a whole. And it is, by and large, one of the defining features.

 

Warhammer 40k is a game. The unfortunate reality that there is an Intellectual Property which carries the same name seems to have confused many to my point. The d6 basing of the system is an integral part of the identity of the game. Enjoyment of the intellectual property is not required to enjoy the game, and enjoyment of the game is not required to enjoy the intellectual property - this is true. However, participating in another product set within the same intellectual property is not playing Warhammer 40k the game.

 

Playing Necromunda is not playing Warhammer 40k, it is playing Necromunda. Playing Three Dragon Ante is not playing Dungeons and Dragons.

 

The amorphous "What is 40k?" question only exists for those who blur the line between the intellectual property and the game or the hobby or other aspect. The intellectual property certainly transcends the game, supporting other games and interests. However the game is what has defined the intellectual property thus far - being the rigid support pole to the umbrella if you will. Changing the identity of the game will alter the shape of that umbrella and how it can support the other items.

 

I believe it is absolutely accurate that the product could survive such a transition. But that speaks to the loyalty of the consumer rather than the flexibility of the concept - and since they already have the loyalty, there is little fiscal or puritan benefit to taking the pains of that transition. The identity is there.

 

Thus, it's not relevant. Its moving the goalposts in the middle of a question that demands the identity already offered. It would be an entirely new item, a new product, a new question. "What if?" only benefits if productivity can be garnered.