In 8th, Are marines the wrong baseline?

[Slan Drakkos]

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.

this is what should happen. If normal humans have a single wound, Marines and their super durable armor and redundant organs should have at least two wounds per model.

[Deathwalker]

 

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.

this is what should happen. If normal humans have a single wound, Marines and their super durable armor and redundant organs should have at least two wounds per model.

 

I strongly disagree with this.

Super durable armour is a function of the save stat.

Redundant organs etc is a function of toughness.

Wounds is the ability to remain effective despite the failure of the previous 2 "saves", and it's the previous 2 saves that marines generally fail at, which is actually the problem.

A S5 -4 AP weapon is just as effective against a marine as it is on guardsman, it wounds both on 3+ and denies armour save, A S 8 -4 AP weapon just makes them both be wounded on 2+ 

[Panzer]

 

 

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.

this is what should happen. If normal humans have a single wound, Marines and their super durable armor and redundant organs should have at least two wounds per model.

 

I strongly disagree with this.

Super durable armour is a function of the save stat.

Redundant organs etc is a function of toughness.

Wounds is the ability to remain effective despite the failure of the previous 2 "saves", and it's the previous 2 saves that marines generally fail at, which is actually the problem.

A S5 -4 AP weapon is just as effective against a marine as it is on guardsman, it wounds both on 3+ and denies armour save, A S 8 -4 AP weapon just makes them both be wounded on 2+ 

 

 

I'd argue that the physical durability of ones body is the combination of T and W and not just a single one of those. It's an extremely abstract system anyway and not 1:1 applicable to the real world.

[Chaplain Killmer]

Well sf I agree with you. The result is the primaris marine. The normal marine is now the one that you take if the enemies would vaporize even the 2 hit guys with ease. To me its interesting when to field the primaris and when to field the regular marines. It gives a lvl of unit selection that we didnt have before. 

[chapter master 454]

Well sf I agree with you. The result is the primaris marine. The normal marine is now the one that you take if the enemies would vaporize even the 2 hit guys with ease. To me its interesting when to field the primaris and when to field the regular marines. It gives a lvl of unit selection that we didnt have before. 

 

Yea, a selection of good troops!

 

The jest aside, Marines are not super-human in the game. I mean, look at what strength 4 represents apparently which is peak human strength as evidenced by catachans trait giving their infantry strength 4 meaning a catachan is as strong as a space marine and there is one even stronger than a space marine (Harker whose Heavy Boltgun is given assault to represent how easy he wields it). So sorry, what? Guardsman can become stronger than marines with some deathworld training? hmm...no. That doesn't add up, Marines are given EXTENSIVE muscle building organs and treatments along with the harshest training in the Imperium bar extreme organisations such as Officio Assassinorum and yet they are only JUST as strong as Catachans? No...that is where lines are drawn, no, I do not accept such "abstraction" as even IF a marine was that level that is not accounting for the fact their power armour furthers their strength as well so yea there is some serious considerations here.

 

The same for toughness. Orks are the same toughness as marines? Hmm...something about enhanced physiology with instant clotting blood, training to be able to bear grievous pain along with their armour's stimulants and drugs within seems to make them tougher than orks but no, Orks achieve same toughness as marines through being fungus muscle jocks...something still isn't adding up here.

 

One attack and One Wound also don't add up really. Like mentioned, their clotting blood means normal wounds that would make you bleed out to a point of passing out ("Dying" in game) means they wouldn't, their semi-circular canals are bolstered to the point they can't be disoriented easily and is very likely repeated shockwaves would not make them uneasy thus their balance is always on point and their resistance to impact is insane (Ala, drop pod assaults being the norm). One attack also seems off as marines are supposed to be highly trained in both range and melee so why only one attack? They are considered faster than humans yet move the same rate, so what gives?

 

As it stands, marine stat line within normal marines is the statline of a peak human which isn't Super-Human as they are suppose to be. Only thing Super-Human about them is their points cost.

Primaris have been good for marines on the table to give us a decent troop choice that actually takes a hit and keeps on trucking but in terms of lore and actual representing the icons of marines, they just show how pathetic base marines are really and even themselves could be considered lacking in some regards.

[Mileposter]

Sounds too much like trying to be too exact and detailed about a fiction that doesn't concern itself with playability.

 

Trying force the game to match the lore will always cause problems.

[chapter master 454]

Sounds too much like trying to be too exact and detailed about a fiction that doesn't concern itself with playability.

 

Trying force the game to match the lore will always cause problems.

 

There is a balance yes to be achieved here however I believe the game must in some way meet the lore otherwise what is the point of the lore in the game and vice versa. One lives with the other.

 

Orks feel like orks, numerous and cobbled together, brutal in combat and their shooting is massively inaccurate but yet volume of fire still allows for effective units. Their vehicles all feel like ramshackle hulks that bearly hold together and somehow ether through madness, luck or a finely blended cocktail of both put through a hurricane in a food processor set to max.

 

Imperial guard feel like the lumbering organisation it is. When numbers are brought to bear, it feels overwhelming with each guardsman dying meaning little. Their infantry while not the best hold their own. Their vehicles feel heavy, inelegant but yet brutally effective for all the mobility they lack, they return fire to any who stand before them.

 

The Tyranids feel like a devouring force, unrelenting and with many weapons that seem impossible for them to have yet do and work with terrifying effect beyond our own imagination of what is possible with the organic form in a Lovecraftian way. Their monsters are still to this day within 40k the most iconic among all, carnifex taking tank fire yet not caring and Mawlocs swallowing entire squads.

 

Those three armies all feel like their lore when you play them. They may not be the lore word by word in gameplay but it matches up well but in marines it doesn't, not in the slightest. 10 man tactical squad is supposed to be among the best of the chapter, forming the core only surpassed by what could only be called inhuman skill of those within the 1st company. However none of that is reflected in game. Not an inch of it. A scout, not even a complete marine, is only different by their armour save. I remember when they used to have WS and BS 3 (as in the old version, so in effect WS and BS 4+) and felt like marines in training with that. Now there is no difference. Look at the statline, the only difference is the save and that is because of power armour, some of the finest protection the imperium can offer which should add at the very least 1 more wound AT LEAST because of several lore reasons regarding marine physiology.

1. Their enhance healing factor

2. Training to endure tremendous pain PLUS point 3 here

3. STIMULANTS the armour will inject into the marine when needed

 

Yet, all the armour adds is 1 more to the armour save.

 

We must tread carefully with lore yes, but it goes both ways brother: an army so unfaithful to it's lore it hurts its presentation on the board.

[Wargamer]

But the counterargument to that is the Imperial Guard does not feel like the Imperial Guard. Where is my long-range artillery support? Why are my Navy assets flying so close to the ground they can be hit by small arms fire? Why am I penalised for having forces drawn from a dozen different regiments when it's made clear there is nothing resembling standardisation in the Guard?

Guard does not play like Guard. Guard plays like a PDF on stupid pills.

 

The same is true of practically every race - they don't play like their lore equivalents. At best, they have a passing resemblance; the all-consuming swarm of a billion hungering maws reflects this trait by... having melee units and a disposition towards horde armies. Does that sound like a race who typically fields more Termagants than their enemies field bullets? No. No it does not.

 

So on the surface, from a distance and in bad light, do TableMarines look like LoreMarines? Yes they do. They're tough guys in power armour. Box ticked.

[chapter master 454]

In retort, games played on the table are now what lore depicts battles as. Most battles in 40k are fought with one side with vastly more resources than the other. In the tabletop we have battles of armies that are equalised by points. Yes, you could have that close range support and artillery of the guardsman if you had the points (resources) for it. You could field numberless termagaunts that your opponent would have no chance of rolling enough dice for but it comes down to points. All games played won tables are all likely impossible to occur by all merits as no military ever meets with equal resources nor equal commanders nor with terrain positioned in a manner both sides agree to.

 

Visually they look impressive yes, but mechanically they feel like a bag of wet farts and I would argue that mechanics must be able to live up to visuals for ether to survive. I am not asking for marines to become the meme of "movie marines" where a lascannon from them can end a titan or their boltguns leaving entire bunkers in tatters but for marines to have durability to at least FEEL like they are supposed to be in lore. They aren't Peak humans in basic armour plate, they are super humans in the finest power armour with a suite of functions to aid them. Is it a crime to ask for 2 wounds and 2 attacks on them? Is it so bad that Primaris marines aren't actually "Super Marines" but are just what marines should of been all along?

[Mileposter]

"Should". That dangerous concept again.

 

Unfortunately, the concept doesn't go both ways. The writers have been given great amounts of leeway in how they write the way a Marine 'feels', from only 3 Marines alone holding off a Waaagh! that engulfed an entire planet, to backflipping terminators, to Marine armor being little more than wet tissue paper and their tactics being dictated to them from a book with no variation. The lore is all over the place and contradictory. To make the argument that the game should adjust to lore, there is a required tight reign that must be levied on said lore. Without that control, the game becomes the whim of imagination and cannot stand any tests of balance. The current situation has lore too far removed from the game to have it followed.

 

Alternatively, the lore has the leeway to be walked back into the feasibility of the game. Whether they will or not is a different question.

 

An applicable statement we used to toss around my old game studio: Appeal is marketing's problem, not design. Game design isn't based on whether someone likes it or not.

[Panzer]

Unfortunately, the concept doesn't go both ways. The writers have been given great amounts of leeway in how they write the way a Marine 'feels', from only 3 Marines alone holding off a Waaagh! that engulfed an entire planet, to backflipping terminators, to Marine armor being little more than wet tissue paper and their tactics being dictated to them from a book with no variation. The lore is all over the place and contradictory. 

 

That's true, however those pieces of lore are considered bad for a reason and shouldn't ever be used as example for anything aside from bad writing. ^^

[Bryan Blaire]

An applicable statement we used to toss around my old game studio: Appeal is marketing's problem, not design. Game design isn't based on whether someone likes it or not.

So are you of the opinion that the game represents a Marine perfectly, and they are absolutely balanced in the game, and likewise since they have been stated to be the perfect baseline from which to design, the remainder of the game is balanced as well?

 

Pithy statements are all well and good (even though that one smells of blame deflection more than accuracy), but until rubber actually meets the road and someone states what “design” changes can be made, they don’t mean much.

[Mileposter]

I am of the opinion that the game is not responsible for 'representing' at all. The game simply is. I stated before that I don't believe they are perfectly balanced, but that my experience leads me to believe that is not a fault of their stats. I have also stated that they are required to be the baseline by virtue of being both the mean and the median value. Besides the first part, I've given all of this earlier.

 

The statement was less about blame and more about mentality - marketing's job was to make you want to play it, designs job was to make it fair.

 

I haven't brought a lot of design change suggestions because I haven't seen an actual question yet that design can even address - much less solve. Even without involving the lore notes, it's all been about 'feel' and opinion. To get at the design of it you have to be more scientific. Factual. There has to be a numerical problem to overcome with a numerical proposal to solve it. We've tossed numbers around in the thread - but to the tune of "better points investment" and "feels right".

 

"We want Marines to perform better" is completely valid, but a poor question to apply design to. How? Better melee? Better shots? Getting into the meat of that is where results lie.

 

I recognize that I have the ability to contribute to that constructiveness and thus it is my responsibility to do so. I will poke some ideas in after I ruminate on that for the evening.

[Bryan Blaire]

Come on Mile, you know as well as I do (or you should, if you are a veteran of any game industry) that it isn't just marketing's job to make you want to play a game - that lift is carried across all teams involved in a game's development. If the underlying design isn't something that a wide enough audience of people want to play, then no amount of fantastic art assets and animation, writing, QA, marketing, or engine work is going to save it.

 

Fairness is a completely relativistic construct, because it very much depends on what type of game you are even looking at. The method of fairness development/creation in a two person war game is different from that found in a SPRPG which is different from something like Candyland, and it is different to a PnP RPG or even fantasy football (not the Bloodbowl kind).

 

And this game, with its tie to narrative and the design concept of "model first, rules second", whether you like it or not, is absolutely about representation of the lore, at the bare minimum it must be dedicated to the lore found within the texts of the rule books. There is no "chuck it, make it 1000% about the game only", even GW doesn't do that. It also isn't like every game is actually designed with a dedicated following of optimization theory or statistical math, so to say that it's all math is bunk. I've been directly involved in concepting through rule design, as well as art asset direction and creation, and there is a lot of refining that does occur, it isn't like design does some kind of football hand-off and is never involved again. And design definitely gets involved in the "feel" of a game - when you are working on a Conan RPG in any form and a warrior swings a massive double-bit axe, if everything's visually in line, blood splatter, physics of heft and strike, etc., but the damage component shows less damage done than a dagger, you can bet that there is going to be a meeting with design and gameplay.

 

I totally agree that aside from the question of "Are Marines the wrong baseline?" there haven't been a lot of questions to be answered, and even that may not be the right question, but you can get into an analysis of "Are Marines the baseline?" to begin to drive the discussion to a place where the "wrong baseline" question can then be discussed. But to say there have been no numerical proposals is incorrect, there have been, and there have even been mechanics variants proposed, but those have been practically dismissed with snide or short comments and little discussion.

 

You seem to be approaching this all exclusively from the game mechanics/system design mindset, but that is not the only design aspect of any game (there's also world, content, level, UI/UX, audio and even narrative design). Mechanics are important, but for something like 40K, they cannot be the sole focus of the entirety of design. There are other needs involved, and frankly, as I said, mechanics aren't even the starting point for most units in the game. That may not be the preference of people that are approaching this from exclusively the system component, but it's the truth, per discussion with GW team members directly.

 

In the vein of "What is the baseline", then I would posit (as I did in the bolter thread) that the base line would be where there is an equal chance of success as there is failure. If the discussion is going to be "What is the base line?" and the answer is intended to be "A 50% chance of success on any given roll", then the answer should be that the "base line is anything where the roll for success is 4+ on a single d6".

[Marshal Reinhard]

"Should". That dangerous concept again.

 

 

Yes. Opinions are dangerous 

[Ishagu]

Is there any evidence to suggest there is actually a baseline in this game? I feel that there is a cipher GW use to point things, but they put too much value on certain aspects hence the over/under costed imbalance of certain units.

[Hantheman]

Yeah absolutely.

 

I think they massively overcost armour saves. Hence 3+ troops are expensive and not worth taking.

[Ishagu]

They overcost weapon skill too

[Beams]

Yeah absolutely.

 

I think they massively overcost armour saves. Hence 3+ troops are expensive and not worth taking.

Guardsmen are 4 pts. They have LD 6/7, WS and bs 4+, t 3 s 3, sv 5+

 

Veterans have LD 6/7 and bs 3+, so bs 3+ must be worth at least 1 pt, maybe 2.

 

Marines have LD 7/8, combat squads/reroll morale, bs 3+, WS 3+, t 4, s4, sv 3+, +1 gun strentgh, krak and frag grenades on sqaud.

 

So, if each thing only costs 1 and we assume frag and krak are either .5 or free, that's still +8 pts over a gaurdsmen. And yes, Guardsmen get orders but they can only get 6 without Creed, and each order costs 30+ pts, so that's outside of the base Guardsmen.

 

Now, as far as durability, each increase isn't a flat 16% like a lot of people say. It's 16% per die, which effects mass shooting more than single shots, and the increase from both armor and toughness makes Marines incredibly resilient, especially in cover, against Bolters/stormbolters which are the most effective way to remove light infantry.

 

All of this basically boils down to yeah, Marines could be 1-2 pts cheaper but then you'd infringe upon sisters and Scions design space, but if your worried about clearing hordes of Guardsmen, then the Marine lista that only have 15 Marines aren't going to cut it. You need troops to kill troops, and Marines aren't terrible, their just a jack of all trades medium infantry, in a game where a lot of people only want to play specialized tanks and heroes.

[Ishagu]

Remember Scions can teleport in and Sisters have Acts of Faith and an Invul or whatever.

 

Marines could absolutely be dropped in price to a Scion/Sister or there about.

[Beams]

Remember Scions can teleport in and Sisters have Acts of Faith and an Invul or whatever.

 

Marines could absolutely be dropped in price to a Scion/Sister or there about.

AoF is one per army, and Scions deepstrike is what makes them worth 9. Else they are a guard with +1 save and +1 bs, and with a weird weapon.

 

As for SoF, it's nearly worthless. Very rarely does it come into play, unless a -4 or higher hits a sister.

If a spacemarine cost 10 pts, why would you take more than any BSS instead of a space marine detachment alongside your Rets and Dom's? This matters more, now that sisters are confirmed in plastic.

[Ishagu]

Thing is, I'd chose a Scion over a marine any day.

 

More special weapons per squad, in built delivery, orders. They ARE better than Marines.

[Beams]

Thing is, I'd chose a Scion over a marine any day.

 

More special weapons per squad, in built delivery, orders. They ARE better than Marines.

Only in some situations. Scions are horrid objective holders. They die a lot quicker than Marines, and are harder to put into a list than Marines, since they only get their singular chatter tactic if they have their own detachment

[Ishagu]

Nah, they are ok. Remember you can have more Scions than Marines and hide them out of LoS. They can get around better to take key objectives at the right time.

 

More firepower, More mobility, Cheaper Price. No brainer. I'd argue their basic gun is probably as good as a bolter or better. Wounds less often but when it does it's more deadly.

[Panzer]

It's also not like Marines are particularly durable with all the Plasma and high ROF S5+ weapons floating around. More durable than Scions? Yes. Durable enough to justify their points and to actually matter? No, we've already talked about that quite a few times now.