In 8th, Are marines the wrong baseline?

[Panzer]

 

It's just that something "official" is more accepted because otherwise many get the thought "why should we use random person X rules instead of mine".

That’s what’s funny about this: people wouldn’t lower themselves to use “random person X’s rules”, but immediately accept every single thing written in the BRB as gospel because they paid for it, even if the expectation is that at least some of the rules are going to be dreck and are written by “random person Y” at GW that you may never even have heard of.

 

The closest thing to "official fan rules" is tournament house rules like ITC and I don't think it'll get any closer.

But why should we use “Random Person J, K, and L’s Tournament Rules? Seriously, I had my store’s set of tournament rules back in 3rd Edition, what inherently makes ITC’s rules better than ones created by people who actually know the regular players in the tournament scene in their store?

 

 

I think it's more a thing of "I decided to play this game from those guys and paid money for it and not to play the game with rules from random person X" and a combination of what's commonly accepted in the community so you have a common basis for things.

Also people don't immediately accept everything from the BRB. Houserules are a thing. Just in smaller communities and vary from group to group and so aren't really useful in forums. There's just a big difference between small houserules and basically re-writing the core system of a game.

 

I can't really explain it perfectly. It's a psychological thing and I didn't study psychology. That's the best I can offer plus my experience of fanmade rules always remaining very small (if they survive at all) while worse but official rules keep getting used.

Part of the problem probably is that fanbased rules also struggle to get new people to try it since new people go into shops and see people playing with the official rules and they decide to join the hobby based on those, not based on fanmade rules. So those communities struggle to grow while they lose members faster than official rules. Another problem probably is that fanmade rules often result in wishlisting without restrictions for some factions instead of trying to make a better game overall ... coupled with the fear of such thing happening even if it's not the case so people are hesistant to even try it in the first place.

[Bryan Blaire]

It’s definitely a psychology and a perceived value thing as well. You expect to get some amount of value from the purchase of a product from a company. Even if Random Person Y wrote the 40K Rules, you expect that because they got paid for it, they put a commensurate effort into making the best quality rules possible so that the company gets your money.

 

There is inherent distrust in the fan-made concept, because what do you use up-front to evaluate if it is worth your time investment to use those rules?

 

We can hash theory on this stuff all day long, but in the end, people are going to play with what they paid for because they have reasonable certainty that everyone else that paid for it is playing with the same rules and there is implicit value to the rules for them.

[Panzer]

Yeah it's a frustrating topic about something we can't change anyway.

[Ishagu]

Anyone who thinks the game is in a bad state now clearly has no clue what they are talking about.

 

11 months ago the game was literally unplayable without homebrew rules.

[Panzer]

Not literally unplayable but definitely much worse, yeah.

[Ishagu]

Except it's not worse. At all.

 

Maybe some people have not adjusted, maybe some refuse to make changes, or maybe very specific expectations have not been met.

[Panzer]

Except it's not worse. At all.

Maybe some people have not adjusted, maybe some refuse to make changes, or maybe very specific expectations have not been met.

I said the 7th was worse than 8th. Just to clarify.

[Ishagu]

Ah

My apologies.

 

There's so much negativity around the forums these days!

[Mileposter]

The dissatisfied are always more vocal than the satisfied.

[Plaguecaster]

Yeah the community sure can be funny sometimes, you can get players who refuse to even consider house ruling certain rules since it's not "offical" but at the same time blantantly ignore FAQs if it affects their army badly or even refuse to let others use FW models even though they are models with completely official rules.

At our club we actually play narrative or open matched games quite regularly and it actually is very good for marine based lists as it lets you take upgrades for free which can make squads quite a bit better since you arnt paying as much for them with upgrades of course there is still a few players who moan and whinge saying it's unfair for giving people stuff for free or the other feared ideas open (unlimited summoning etc) but when you have a good gaming group it works far better since we know each other and would never abuse it since finding a game would be a lot harder plus none of us want to be a :cuss:

[Skaorn]

I personally don't see a problem with people not wanting to use FW. It used to be by opponents permission and I still honor that. I also still ask if it's okay if I use special characters too.

 

If you're looking at making a fan edition of 40K, I think asking what your baseline is should be several steps down the road. The place to start would be to try to identify all the problems in 8th. Threads like this make it seem like it's people who just want to see marines get boosted. I had to deal with the negative fallout of getting probably the most OP codex GW produced for my army, and it wasn't fun. I don't want to be treated like I'm basically cheating again because someone wants to make Marines the best so CSM have to follow too.

[Deathwalker]

I personally don't see a problem with people not wanting to use FW. It used to be by opponents permission and I still honor that. I also still ask if it's okay if I use special characters too.

 

If you're looking at making a fan edition of 40K, I think asking what your baseline is should be several steps down the road. The place to start would be to try to identify all the problems in 8th. Threads like this make it seem like it's people who just want to see marines get boosted. I had to deal with the negative fallout of getting probably the most OP codex GW produced for my army, and it wasn't fun. I don't want to be treated like I'm basically cheating again because someone wants to make Marines the best so CSM have to follow too.

 

People would just like there to be a compelling reason why a genestealer, who can move faster than a marine, hits in combat the same as a marine, is as strong and tough as a marine, has superior leadership to a marine, gets an extra attack (which it has 3 already, so it's 3 times more effective than a marine "in range" and is also AP-1, -4 if you get a 6) if their are more than 10 of them, can move, advance and charge in the same round and get a across the board 5+ invulnerable save.............

COST LESS THAN A MARINE.

Sorry, don't mean to yell at you Skaorn, I ask about named characters and such as well in casual games, it's the polite thing to do, and I generally really like your posts.

In this case though, having that profile, without any need for characters for buffs being cheaper than a marine who's only advantage is a single, or 2 shot advantage with the same strength but less AP for less points is a clear cut example of just how broken the points system is, and power is even worse.

[Commander Dawnstar]

 

People would just like there to be a compelling reason why a genestealer, who can move faster than a marine, hits in combat the same as a marine, is as strong and tough as a marine, has superior leadership to a marine, gets an extra attack (which it has 3 already, so it's 3 times more effective than a marine "in range" and is also AP-1, -4 if you get a 6) if their are more than 10 of them, can move, advance and charge in the same round and get a across the board 5+ invulnerable save.............

COST LESS THAN A MARINE.

 

Isn't it exactly the same reason you suggested that Strength should only cost half a point in your thought experiment back on page two ?

 

Their Attacks, quality of attacks and ability to Advance and charge are meaningless if they don't reach close combat and a 5+ Involnerable Save is only meaningful relative to the Pen of weapons you throw at them, so they're essentially slightly faster Space Marines with no shooting and 5+ armour saves when being denied the opportunity to play to their strengths. Also the Leadership difference means very little in most circumstances when a Space Marine Sergeant drops the gap down to one point and Marines have ATSKNF to push things in their favor.

 

Genestealers are vaguely comparable to fast Orks with better saves until they reach close combat (for twice the points).

[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"?

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

 

That's my point.

[Deathwalker]

 

 

People would just like there to be a compelling reason why a genestealer, who can move faster than a marine, hits in combat the same as a marine, is as strong and tough as a marine, has superior leadership to a marine, gets an extra attack (which it has 3 already, so it's 3 times more effective than a marine "in range" and is also AP-1, -4 if you get a 6) if their are more than 10 of them, can move, advance and charge in the same round and get a across the board 5+ invulnerable save.............

COST LESS THAN A MARINE.

 

Isn't it exactly the same reason you suggested that Strength should only cost half a point in your thought experiment back on page two ?

 

Their Attacks, quality of attacks and ability to Advance and charge are meaningless if they don't reach close combat and a 5+ Involnerable Save is only meaningful relative to the Pen of weapons you throw at them, so they're essentially slightly faster Space Marines with no shooting and 5+ armour saves when being denied the opportunity to play to their strengths. Also the Leadership difference means very little in most circumstances when a Space Marine Sergeant drops the gap down to one point and Marines have ATSKNF to push things in their favor.

 

Genestealers are vaguely comparable to fast Orks with better saves until they reach close combat (for twice the points).

 

Strength sure, Attacks, no. As for the. opportunity cost" of melee Vs shooting, can I not argue that my 25pnt lascannon is useless in melee?

[chapter master 454]

 

 

 

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.

 

That's my point.

 

 

But would you rather there be silence?

 

The big thing here is that was touched on in another topic I made in regards to the almighty eldar and how they seem to always be up there if not the best.

The consensus? Specialists rock, generalist blow.

 

Look at Genestealers. They have a clear goal: Melee Choppy Choppy Ridley Scot your dumb imperial weyland power armoured undies in a pool of digestive enzymes made of your own kin! They have a clear goal and and design for it. They have decent strength and enough attacks with the WS to match...but hold on...isn't WS supposed to reflect the units melee ability? Hmmm...anyway, I'll return to that later but onwards here. Now look to our adorable marine, he's a cutie ain't he ladies and gentleinquisitors. He's good decent stats across the board and good save, so what do you think?

-from the back-

"What does he do?"

What doesn't he do?

"So he has no intended role?"

He can fill whatever role you like

"Except he ain't good at melee with 1 attack"

but he has str 4 and WS3+

"But only 1 attack and toughness 4" (oh look, that again...funny that)

 

Notice how marines apparently are supposed to be good at melee because they are "Jack of all trades" yet aren't. Notice how much was solved in ALL of a marines problems when we got primaris? The extra attack made them decent in melee (to the standards we expected) and made them as tough as a marine (as we know it).

 

Yes. Marines are the wrong statline because 4 is the magic number in 40k for some reason (oh...look it's in the name).

 

I think there needs to be some rescaling in mind here with stats made more clear. First off, genestealers are famed not for their strength but their vicious claws that can tear armour apart but not strength (in fact, their body type doesn't even reflect strong really). Heck, you can get humans to strength 4 with Catachans...so apparently Catachans are super-human in strength guys.

I ramble because I am a little...cheery right now...so let me just paraphrase what i think would help marines in general:

Baseline number for Strength and Toughness is 3. 4 is PEAK human strength, as in what a bodybuilder could achieve (so catachans could achieve this due to having to wrestle Space Super-Saiyan Australia) and 5 is SUPER-Human. This would give a reasonable measure then for other units to have strength 4 but not make marines seem mundane.

To be fair, toughness 5 for marines isn't even that unreasonable with the lore and in gameplay (and I would also tack on a second attack and wound btw). In lore their armour is akinned to tank armour and their healing factor, pain tolerances and fair more intense body allows them to seriously take damage. It would also allow us to make scouts actually scouts, you know, marines who are still receiving their implants. Scouts would easily be S and T 4 with maybe two wounds.

I ramble but I think I made my point with much chaff inbetween...up to mods if they want to trim it.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Well, S4 now means something slightly different between 7th and 8th. In 8th, S4 seems to be "peak human strength", roughly. S4 in 7th was "this guy can punch the back of a tank with his bare fists and damage it".

[Deathwalker]

Well, S4 now means something slightly different between 7th and 8th. In 8th, S4 seems to be "peak human strength", roughly. S4 in 7th was "this guy can punch the back of a tank with his bare fists and damage it".

A guy with S1 can punch through a tank and damage it. 

[Lord_Caerolion]

Now they can, yeah. Under 7th? No, unless they had an anti-tank weapon like a chainfist, and even then they'd have to be lucky. Which is what I said. There are different indications of what different Strength values mean in this edition compared to the last.

[Deathwalker]

Now they can, yeah. Under 7th? No, unless they had an anti-tank weapon like a chainfist, and even then they'd have to be lucky. Which is what I said. There are different indications of what different Strength values mean in this edition compared to the last.

Str just modifies how far you can move the needle, sure, agreed.

[Ishagu]

 

Well, S4 now means something slightly different between 7th and 8th. In 8th, S4 seems to be "peak human strength", roughly. S4 in 7th was "this guy can punch the back of a tank with his bare fists and damage it".

A guy with S1 can punch through a tank and damage it. 

 

 

Your negative attitude to this is your own doing. Its an abstract game - Imagine a guy ripping out components from a damaged panel. It doesn't have to literally be a man punching through armour.

[Wargamer]

Yeah, that's the problem - a unit that doesn't exist in the game could theoretically punch a Titan to death.

 

The fact that an unaugmented human can catch an anti-tank missile in the face and survive isn't a problem though. That's not worth ranting about. Nor is it worth mentioning that units who intend to charge periodically decide to stand in the open picking their noses instead of advancing closer to the foe. Nor is the complete lack of suppression worth mentioning. No, the real issue is that a unit that doesn't exist can successfully damage something that is meant to be hard, but not impossible to damage.

 

I feel like someone needs to watch more war movies, or play Battlefield 1's campaign. Plenty have tanks have been taken out of action by weapons that cannot pierce their armour...

[Ishagu]

Lol true, true.

A missile launcher might fail to wound a Grot after hitting successfully - This has always been the case yet people never made a fuss.

[chapter master 454]

Lol true, true.

A missile launcher might fail to wound a Grot after hitting successfully - This has always been the case yet people never made a fuss.

 

I like to think the grot might of been hit but instead managed to jump on top, pop a stick 360 and stick a landing before letting the missile sail of like a long lost love XD

 

Theoretically, yes anyone could kill a titan given enough attacks but we are talking some stupid numbers here that it isn't going to happen. The required number of attacks (assuming 4+ to hit) would be 857 attacks or there abouts (this is against a 24 wound knight just for the sake of it so it would take more than that again for  larger targets). May as well be no real reason to try and from there we can assume the 6+ is they found something they could get their hands on to rip out like a loose panel or something with wires behind it.

 

and no, strength 4 has for a long time not reflected a marines super human state as many other races have managed to attain their stat line with half the effort (almost feels vegeta to goku man) because apparently you give a human strength  unit a special chainsword and they now hit with super human strength? (Scorpion Chainswords).

 

I suppose I just can't suspend disbelief marines are "Super Human" when the game doesn't let them act it. They feel upper middle man, not elite of elite.

[Wargamer]

 

I suppose I just can't suspend disbelief marines are "Super Human" when the game doesn't let them act it. They feel upper middle man, not elite of elite.

 

What exactly are you playing as? Because my current army are a force of super human warriors themselves, so it rather makes sense that I can crush fellow super-humans. My next big army project are a bunch of crazy women who believe so hard in the God Emperor they can literally pray away mortal injuries. That itself is super-human...

 

Really, the only factions that break the suspension of disbelief are the Guard and maybe some Chaos / Genestealer Cult units. But even then, these armies tend to have something spectacularly overpowered in their midst.

 

Really, it's not that Space Marines are too weak in 40K - it's that mortals are far stronger than they should be!