In 8th, Are marines the wrong baseline?

[Volt]

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...

How the hell are fictitious war movies and a videogame supposed to be indicative of how armored warfare works at all? Things "kill" (read, mission kill) tanks by virtue of penetrating the things they can actually penetrate, as tanks are not a brick of steel of uniform durability, but a machine with many points of failure with the easiest means being detracking. This however is not a valid excuse as to why not only low-strength models are somehow supposed to pose a threat to any vehicle in melee, but the fact that a blob of infantry can somehow "tarpit" a vehicle or a monstrous creature when both should literally annihilate the mob in one round of melee. Tarpitting should not even be a valid mechanic, yet this edition is boiling down to tarpits and bubblewrap nonsense.

 

Simply put, when a 100 ton object with a high powered engine/metabolism encounters a group of 160 pound objects, the 160 pound objects are getting bulldozed, every single time.

[Ishagu]

You can make that argument about any aspect of the game. Why can't that massive Baneblade just role through that tiny ruin?

 

There are limitations. We have to remember it's an abstract game - It' not like other games are free of artificial restrictions.

[Captain Idaho]

Things are going round in circles. Instead of arguing the semantics of S4 and its meaning, why don't people make suggestions of what they think is a viable alternative to the current status quo.

 

I've suggested 2 alternatives; a greater range of stats used in the game and a possible added rule of power armour.

 

Neither was liked by people here which is fine, but instead of just coming in and throwing scorn on people's ideas, it would be more constructive to suggest your own fix.

 

It's very tiring to read the same old people naysaying everything without replying something meaningful themselves.

[Volt]

You can make that argument about any aspect of the game. Why can't that massive Baneblade just role through that tiny ruin?

 

There are limitations. We have to remember it's an abstract game - It' not like other games are free of artificial restrictions.

Except it didn't used to be. While the old editions were downright awful at times, they at least had a rudimentary armor value function and bulldozing infantry that gets in the way of large critters. Rules-wise any large armored vehicle or monstrous creature should just outright kill any T3 or lower infantry models in its movement path.

[Ishagu]

Streamlining is a trade off. The benefits greatly outweigh the cons.

[Volt]

Streamlining is a trade off. The benefits greatly outweigh the cons.

No they don't. This current edition, while better than 7th, is still a complete mess and indicative of GW's hilarious inability to put out proper rules due to their entire methodology of writing rules. You don't see this problem in other wargames, especially historicals, yet it's always 40k always circling around utterly asinine problems that could be easily solved with a centralized team of rules writers. The current rules aren't even that streamlined anymore, with the codices adding tons of bloat to the minimalist indices.

[Panzer]

Streamlining is a trade off. The benefits can greatly outweigh the cons if done right.

 

I fixed that for you.

[Ishagu]

Except it's not a mess. There is more viable variation on the tabetop in all levels of play, and most "issues" are only a problem in specific scenarios or at the very highest level.

 

Edit:

I was referring to the streamlining of 8th coming from 7th. In this case, it was a net gain.

[Captain Idaho]

Let's be clear - 8th is possibly the best edition so far. Exceptions possibly being the 3.5/4th edition rules though many of the Codex books of that era weren't interesting.

 

Regardless, it's certainly a golden age right now.

[Wargamer]

Agreed. Prior to 8th, I'd say the best edition was out of the box 3rd, because it was quick and easy to learn, straightforward to play, and the lists in the core book were, while not perfect, balanced quite well against each other.

[Panzer]

Aye, I'm on with that. It still needs some tweaking and some areas are completely lacking (terrain/cover rules for example) but it's still a great time to be a 40k player.

[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. 

 

 

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.

 

I don't have any "attitude" towards it, it's just a rule I abide by when I play.

[Deathwalker]

Things are going round in circles. Instead of arguing the semantics of S4 and its meaning, why don't people make suggestions of what they think is a viable alternative to the current status quo.

 

I've suggested 2 alternatives; a greater range of stats used in the game and a possible added rule of power armour.

 

Neither was liked by people here which is fine, but instead of just coming in and throwing scorn on people's ideas, it would be more constructive to suggest your own fix.

 

It's very tiring to read the same old people naysaying everything without replying something meaningful themselves.

Personally, I'd be happy with increasing the stat range to create better gradients between numbers. Power armour, if you are referring to the "small arms fire" being less effective, I said something about in the weapons thread I made.

I'm open to most suggestions TBH.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Now that GW have announced that the stats are opened up from having a "ceiling" of 10, I think the best thing to have done was to absolutely increase the range of stats. They had a perfect chance in the Indexes to keep Guardsmen at S3, make Orks (and maybe Eldar) S4, and Marines be S5. Instead, things are operating exactly as before, with the exceptions of a few LoW weapon profiles, Wound characteristics, and the toughness of some tanks.

 

Unfortunately, now that we've started the codexes, that ship has sailed, at least until next edition.

[Captain Idaho]

I mentioned this myself.

[Withershadow]

Yes.

 

Delete all regular marine stats, replace them with Primaris stats. Use regular marine point costs. Boom, faction fixed.

 

All Marines should be baseline 2 wounds and 2 attacks, anything less makes no sense at all. Specialists should be better still.

[Captain Idaho]

I've come round to the idea that 2 wound Marines would be better. GW won't do it though.

 

Though I prefer power armour and Terminator armour etc having something like ignoring the 1st AP. 2 wounds doesn't help much with the multitude of multi damage weapons.

[Mileposter]

"Should". Such a dangerous and harmful concept.

 

I'm the minority. I like Marines (the models) right where they are. The faction needs some help, certainly, but I don't feel the models do. Not from a stat line point of.view, anyway.

 

I rather like the jack of all trades style of Marines. I'm of the opinion that giving them more opportunity to capitalize on that is more important than trying to make more gunlines. The "Marines have melee stats they'll never use" is a failing of the player - they will never use.it.if you don't put them there.

 

That being said, it is the responsibility of game design to make that reward worthwhile. Lackluster Stratagems and Traits and relics leave Marines in a bind. Support for styles of play must exist for that feeling of worth to be nurtured.

 

Similarly, I don't believe this debate would be happening if Marines were a top tier army. I believe people would be satisfied with the performance of the most prolific army in the game (assuming briefly that the centos weren't too far behind), thus feeling that the baseline was appropriate.

[Schlitzaf]

I think the issue with Marines, and the proposal of the threat. Is not that “Marines” are the Baseline, it is that “Tactical” Marines are the Baseline. To beat a poor dead horse, of the 6 Marine Non-Elite or Primaris Line Squads; Assault, Raptors, Grey Hunters, Crusaders, Chaos Marines and Tactical Marines, only two debatably three and half (Raptors and maybe BA Assault) of them are ‘viable’.

 

The reason Grey Hunters and Crusaders are viable is that those squads solve the core Marine issue of “Jack of All Trades Master of None”. Grey Hunters solve that by being viable mid field and melee combatants with every model having Bolter/Chain, and are decent ‘line’ melee viable with 4 Power Weapon attack’s, while excel at firefighting with 3.5 special weapons. Crusader Squads utilizing Neo’s or MSU’ing, are “12” point Marines, have 3 Power Weapon Attacks and 2 Specials or if MSU’ing double Special/Heavy, puts at long range and costs about the equivalent firepower to 2 Heavy Devi Squad (while in rapid put out equivalent to 3 Heavy Devi).

 

Tacticals which are more similar to Grey Hunters, in that they are more on Jack of All Trades, but only two power weapon attacks makes them unreliable melee combatants. And lacking chainswords meaning they cannot win combats in an timely fashion. While their primary weapon wants them to be in 12” (I.e In charge range. Move 6. Charge 5-8).

 

Chaos Marines are similar Crusaders, in that they are able to strategically hyper specialized in battlefield roles. Unlike Crusaders, to unlock the second non-Sgt even if it can be a heavy, requires 5 BolterBro tax (NB only Squads that want to firefight or melee (i.e get within 12”) benefit from large squad sizes. Both to better absorb casualties, and because more efficiently able to engage before being reduce to ‘insignificant’ engagement size). And unlike Crusaders, who relative point efficiency aside, take cheap power weapons to increase hitting power for cheap, Chaos Marines spend atleast 7 points (PlasmPistol) or take a special that is worth another Marine or take, a single shot unreliable anti-tank or anti-charge auto hit. The first case (Plasma Weaponry) must be stressed as ChainBro Squads until in charge range want to advance every turn. Meaning the best specials and lesser extent the pistol is useless when you are using those squads properly. (Also why I advocate Flamers on Chainbro Squads). But for reference in a standard tide squad the net additional points you spend on upgrades per model is 2. So your price per a marine is 14 points. A rough Chaos Marine similar setup is around 15-17 points (depending if you take a banner or not). Which brings me up to issue with Chaos Marines. A banner/icon which is good on Grey Hunters (Grey Hunters FTR are about 18 points a model). But that is because you are taking an upgrade for a Squad that you are paying a premium for higher upgrade to model count at large squads sizes (7ish cool weapons/gear in a 10 man to a Non-Assault Marine Line Squads 4). Almost double cool to non-weapon count.

 

Raptors are nice because special access and fast mobility allows rapid deployment to optimal range and the debuff modifier is roughly akin to having 4 Marines worth of additional attacks. Allowing and enabling efficient victory in melee engagements. And natural speed means they don’t need to advance, so don’t have the special conundrum faced by Chaos Marines. Basically being another line on the Jack of All Trades spectrum shared with Grey Hunters.

 

Assault Marines fail because what is unqiue is their eviscerators. But paltry attack combined with raw cost (a 4 point power weapon even if is slightly less point efficient is still worthwhile on a Crusader Squad because it’s cheap and it allows reliably getting -3 AP wounds to land). And role confusion, Assault Marines are best acting as fire support with pistols then bullying backfield. Eviscerators want to fight big scary targets. So have the tacticals jack of all trade problem.

 

And reason I mention this is every single troop, and line styled unit is derived from the “Tactical” Squad. Chaos Marines, Crusaders and Grey Hunters, are the most salient of that each shifting the needle on the middle of the road spectrum that is represented by tacticals to either hyper strategic (list building) specialization to hyper tactical (Bolter/Chain combo) specialization. And as others have noted, squads are good when hyper specialized. Tacticals issue is that despite being ‘jack of All Trades’ just aren’t. They are a fire support Bolter Bro Squad, that can neither stay back and backfield anchor (if you do it’s a 90 point Lascannon Squad) but cannot effectively engage midfield as they Bolter but lack the needed follow up that is chainswords.

 

And every Line Squad in the game espacially power Armored, is derived by how they are “not Tacticals” and how they change the tactical formula of 10 men, 1 Heavy, 1 Special, 1 Sgt And 7 BolterBros. Tacticals end up being ‘bad’ or more specifically not good to more ‘specialized’ cousins whom embrace one or more varying aspects be it “Jack of All Trades” or “Strategic Role Specialization”. Or in the short and sweet version the issue is the marine Baseline. Is that it’s not the marine baseline, it’s the tactical marine baseline. And that Tactical Marines have no real backfield role.

[Deathwalker]

Marines have no role -period-

They are supreme generalists without the gear to let you tailor them to what you may either want or need in any given situation, and then they get shoe-horned into the FA/HS role (which is now limited), or into the elite category which still gets nerfed by the rule of three, or forces you to pay troop tax for troops that are essentially meh.

 

Quite frankly, the rules support three playstyle's across all codex's, stand and shoot, use assault weapons for range and still shoot, or horde mob with enough attacks for your half strength unit to do damage and still be cheap enough to be viable.

Melee is a poor 3rd cousin, unless your good melee units are dishing out far more damage than a tactical marine, and have some kind of ability to negate the 9" bubble of "it's not fair"

[Iron Father Ferrum]

And once again, we have another example of lethality presented as the only measure of a unit's worth.

 

If a unit filled a detachment and got you some CPs; if it took or held an objective; if it served as a distraction and pulled your opponents attention away from a more important unit; if it contested an objective; if it charged and thus turned off a key enemy unit's shooting; then it served a purpose, filled a role. Lethality is not the full measure of a unit's utility and if your *only* view of an Army in this game is "how quickly can I kill X," then no wonder Codex Marines look terrible to you.

[The Unseen]

And once again, we have another example of lethality presented as the only measure of a unit's worth.

 

If a unit filled a detachment and got you some CPs; if it took or held an objective; if it served as a distraction and pulled your opponents attention away from a more important unit; if it contested an objective; if it charged and thus turned off a key enemy unit's shooting; then it served a purpose, filled a role. Lethality is not the full measure of a unit's utility and if your *only* view of an Army in this game is "how quickly can I kill X," then no wonder Codex Marines look terrible to you.

Ohh boy, here's another one of the "you just aren't using them properly" brigade.

Tiresome.

 

Well, when marines durability is average to poor, their mobility is average, and their points are high, what exactly are they doing that other troops don't get to do while ALSO killing stuff?

 

And we haven't *just* been talking about lethality, maybe try reading the thread.

I bet there's probably more talk about how a 3+ save isn't even close to what it used to be, as the lethality of the game itself has been ramped up tremendously when firing at elite units thanks to AP, Wound Chart, and cover changes (while doing the opposite for chaff infantry) leading to marines primary strength, base durability, to not exist anymore, which was basically all that marines had been running on for 4+ editions.

 

And everything you listed, scouts do it better, cheaper, and faster.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

At no point did I say Tactical Marines, since Deathwalker mentioned Marines as an entire army - notice where he mentioned their FA/HS choices - and thus mentioning how "scouts do it better" doesn't apply.

 

Now earlier in the thread, I did admit that Codex Marines need a little help. I'm not arguing that they are significantly more powerful than everyone else thinks they are. I'm just trying to point out that proper tactics can help overcome statistical shortcomings.

[The Unseen]

At no point did I say Tactical Marines, since Deathwalker mentioned Marines as an entire army - notice where he mentioned their FA/HS choices - and thus mentioning how "scouts do it better" doesn't apply.

 

Now earlier in the thread, I did admit that Codex Marines need a little help. I'm not arguing that they are significantly more powerful than everyone else thinks they are. I'm just trying to point out that proper tactics can help overcome statistical shortcomings.

Ahh.

My apologies.

When "baseline" is used I think tacticals.

 

And of course good play can make up for worse units, but the implication that leaves is that the reverse isn't true.

A better, or even roughly equivalent, tactician to yourself also with better units is going to turn a small advantage into a much larger one.

[Deathwalker]

And once again, we have another example of lethality presented as the only measure of a unit's worth.

 

If a unit filled a detachment and got you some CPs; if it took or held an objective; if it served as a distraction and pulled your opponents attention away from a more important unit; if it contested an objective; if it charged and thus turned off a key enemy unit's shooting; then it served a purpose, filled a role. Lethality is not the full measure of a unit's utility and if your *only* view of an Army in this game is "how quickly can I kill X," then no wonder Codex Marines look terrible to you.

Actually, my argument was about gear options.

If I want a squad to take and hold, marines can do it.

Be a distraction, marines can do it.

Stop a tank shooting, marines can do it.

Marines are great in this regard, but they get points taxed at stupid levels for it, and lack the specialist gear to do something well that other armies get "baked in" at a cheaper cost.

As for the CP's, that's essentially a "pre game" calculation, and as Unseen said, scouts at 11 points each are simply more efficient, and offer something marines don't do naturally, board control.