The biggest problem with space marines

[Xisor]

I mean, it's literally why they uncapped the stats. Why they didn't actually do anything with it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

I don't think that's true.

 

Rather: they said: "is this restraint necessary? No, it is not and serves little value. Let's remove it.", or thoughts to that effect.

 

The consequence is that the restriction is removed.

 

In interests of restraint, they've open the can of worms, but are letting them wriggle forth and see where they might go.

 

Rather than making everything out of worms.

 

Poor analogy, but the point is they've opened the door, rather than saying that that door is the gateway to the promised land and everything should go through it immediately.

 

...now it is two poor analogies!

[Kallas]

The game is an abstraction. Or do you really think people only shoot 6 to 12 times in a firefight? That heavy bolter team only shoots 3-18 rounds? That a squad of guardsmen shoots the same amount for an enemy 300m away as guys 10 feet from them? The models attack value represents the damage that individual can do, not a specific characteristic of real action. The guardsmen attack profile is the probability of their ability to wound and kill a target relative to that targets own quality. Real world ability is not accurately represented or something as simple as being shot by an autogun, which is a 7.62 caliber round or a heavy stubber round which is anywhere between a real world .50 cal and the heavier anti-material crew served weapons would devastate the simple flak armor of a guardsmen.

 

Yes, the game is an abstraction, but it doesn't abstract fairly. That Guardsman whose single Lasgun shot at 24" represents their careful five to ten shots that can kill a Space Marine? Yeah, that Space Marine's careful one shot that can kill one Guardsman.

 

The issue is the translation: sure, the Space Marine is probably only firing one shot, maybe two, as the abstraction but on the table they can both kill each other - that Space Marine should be better off (proportionally: by the maths we know that Guardsmen are just better, and that's before Orders) but it just isn't because of their relative costs.

 

Simply, the abstraction aspect is fine, but not if you're going to apply it wildly. That Guardsman is firing five shots that can kill a Space Marine; well that Space Marine should be firing more shots that are killing more Guardsmen, because they're superhuman soldiers firing rocket propelled grenades. If you want abstraction, some of those 'deaths' could be other Guardsmen fleeing as their friends are torn to shreds by deadly accurate fire by a terrifying apparition of death - but that doesn't fit your "abstraction = bad Marines on the table" narrative.

[Marshal Rohr]

You’re still thinking of it from a mathhammer perspective and I can’t help you if you see the game so shallowly. I was never defending the stats of the space marine. I was contesting the idea that guardsmen are the problem.

[Kallas]

You’re still thinking of it from a mathhammer perspective and I can’t help you if you see the game so shallowly. I was never defending the stats of the space marine. I was contesting the idea that guardsmen are the problem.

Mathhammer is a way to analyse and somewhat codify a game of dice, it's not shallow but it isn't the whole picture - it's not worthless, though.

 

Where were Guardsmen stated to be the problem? There was one person saying that Marines should come down to the level of Guardsmen, but you're apparently depending a point that wasn't really made, while using a bad argument (that Guardsmen should get a favourable representation and Marines a disadvantaged representation).

[Marshal Rohr]

I'm not arguing marines should be disadvantaged, I'm speaking to the general idea put out in the thread guard shouldn't be a threat to marines, which is what I was speaking to.

[Aurica]

suggested solutions.

 

1. chapter tactics apply to all units

 

2. give marines units more additional special rules and not just equipment

 

3. lower the price of units so marine players can do more varied brigade lists even at 2k points without having to water down unit choices just to fit.

 

4. improve the boltgun and chainsword for non primaris, for primaris give them access to better melee weapons.

 

i believe this would help tabletop marines become closer to book marines.

 

I agree, would actually liked to see more special rules for them.  Especially CT applying to ALL units and chainswords actually being chainswords.

 

1. Units that used to form the Command Squad could be given a special rule that if taken together to actually generate Command Points per turn.

 

2.  Reintroduce Tactical/Assault/Devastator Doctrines from 7th Edition as strategems but rework them to give Marines with more punch

 

3.  Make marines slightly more resilient.  At current form, there are simply so much weapons that have high -AP.  No idea how this will be achieved.  Additional wound or 6+ FNP?

[Ishagu]

 

 

You’re still thinking of it from a mathhammer perspective and I can’t help you if you see the game so shallowly. I was never defending the stats of the space marine. I was contesting the idea that guardsmen are the problem.

Mathhammer is a way to analyse and somewhat codify a game of dice, it's not shallow but it isn't the whole picture - it's not worthless, though.

 

Where were Guardsmen stated to be the problem? There was one person saying that Marines should come down to the level of Guardsmen, but you're apparently depending a point that wasn't really made, while using a bad argument (that Guardsmen should get a favourable representation and Marines a disadvantaged representation).

Mathhammer is not the only way to value a unit.

 

Some are utterly useless at killing but have valuable abilities or mobility.

[HighMarshalAmp]

In terms of sheer durability, Marines certainly aren't as tough as in the fluff.

 

But compare a single Guard - his statline, his weapon - to a Marine. I got to know the game with Marines and the first time I saw a Guard statline, I was like WTbloodyH? Someone actually plays that? Someone actually sits down to paint 60odd darn models just so they can rip something on the table with THAT?

 

In the horde-friendly days of 8th, that thought has certainly come back to bite me in the rear 

Well, that's Karma for you, you know what they say about her 

 

But a single Marine model is quite far away from a single Guard without either being completely OP or so darn useless they'll never kill anything - BUT the Guard is absolutely ridiculously outmatched 1 on 1 unless he gets really bloody lucky.

And since that one guard represents what in the fluff would be a Squad of malnourished 20 year olds charging towards a Demigod whilst armed with nothing but 2 ton balls, I think it's not too far off...

 

It's still a game first, and like a pawn can decide a game of Chess while it's not the big thing at first glance, so do Guard and Marines and whatever make for a nice asset of rules you can draw on.

Of course, if the points would agree with all that, we'd all be a tad happier, but it could be worse.

[antique_nova]

 

 

You’re still thinking of it from a mathhammer perspective and I can’t help you if you see the game so shallowly. I was never defending the stats of the space marine. I was contesting the idea that guardsmen are the problem.

Mathhammer is a way to analyse and somewhat codify a game of dice, it's not shallow but it isn't the whole picture - it's not worthless, though.

 

Where were Guardsmen stated to be the problem? There was one person saying that Marines should come down to the level of Guardsmen, but you're apparently depending a point that wasn't really made, while using a bad argument (that Guardsmen should get a favourable representation and Marines a disadvantaged representation).

Mathhammer is not the only way to value a unit.

 

Some are utterly useless at killing but have valuable abilities or mobility.

 

Math hammer or no. I'd like to see bolters better represented. For example, I'd like to see the bolters double in the number of shots when targeting infantry to simulate the explosive shells they use. I mean space marines are meant to be able to take on droves of enemy infantry and yet they can barely do that. This will make them extremely good against infantry, but that's the point. Yes they'd be more reliable than flamers, but isn't that the point? They're freaking grenades that are being shot and in some cases, rapid fired!

 

Plus flamers still have the advantage of auto-hitting, especially in assaults. So, they're not really replacing flamers in that sense, because nothing can.

 

However, if this is the case, the cost of bolters should either stay as one point or be free. (not sure what they currently are)

[Tamiel]

8th edition makes Toughness 4 feel just like Toughness 3 with two slices of beef taped on. It also makes 3+ armour feel like slightly-thicker cardboard. GW decided to change the wounding system and the save system while keeping stats the same, and to this day it blows my mind. Don't even get me started on boltguns being lasguns with +1 str.

We're pretty much guardsmen who go to the gym, wearing two layers of cardboard instead of one. Our guns are basically lasguns using duracell-pro batteries instead of the regular kind with forgettable brand names you see at the convenience store. It's like 8th edition isn't an official 40k edition, but rather a homebrew system made by someone who really hates marines. Fluff marines and tabletop marines never matched up one to one, but the case we have now is like "Are they even from the same universe? You sure I'm not playing as stormtroopers from Star Wars or something? Did I pick up the wrong book?"

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

T4 is way better than T3... S6 & S7 wounding on 3+ not 2+. Jebus

[Volt]

T4 is way better than T3... S6 & S7 wounding on 3+ not 2+. Jebus

Not when you're paying a premium for that T4 that makes it inferior to T3 on a PPM basis. 100 Points of guard is completely superior to 100 points of marines. 

[novembermike]

Primaris are mostly a step in the right direction. Marines aren't supposed to be that tough, they're super humans in a universe full of super humans. Eldar, Orks, Tyranids and Necrons can all field warriors in the lore that can compete with a Space Marine in a fight, and every army including guard has weapons that will cleanly kill a Space Marine. Primaris keep the idea that a marine is tougher than your average Ork and that they're all equipped with real, effective weapons without turning them into movie style heroes like the Custodes. The balance isn't perfect yet but the idea is there.

[Subtleknife]

Still think all marines should now have a 2+ save with termies and Custodes getting a 1+. Also all marines that have 2 wounds or more should ignore 1 damage to a min of 1. The lowly bolter should change to rapid 2 and -1 ap bolt rifle would switch to rapid 2 and have superior range. That would be a stop gap for marines until 9th in which GW really ought to decompress the stats. For instance guard stay at s/t3, eldar s/t4, orks s/t 5, marines s/t6 on so on etc. With the new wounding system they missed a trick not creating greater range in s/t. Also, they need to bring WS back to what it was like previously.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

 

T4 is way better than T3... S6 & S7 wounding on 3+ not 2+. Jebus

Not when you're paying a premium for that T4 that makes it inferior to T3 on a PPM basis. 100 Points of guard is completely superior to 100 points of marines.

Hogwash. In a straight shoot out on Planet Bowling Ball where the Guard have infinite space in which to fall back, sure. But Marines are more than the statline of their bolter.

[Volt]

 

 

T4 is way better than T3... S6 & S7 wounding on 3+ not 2+. Jebus

Not when you're paying a premium for that T4 that makes it inferior to T3 on a PPM basis. 100 Points of guard is completely superior to 100 points of marines.

Hogwash. In a straight shoot out on Planet Bowling Ball where the Guard have infinite space in which to fall back, sure. But Marines are more than the statline of their bolter.

 

Charging into melee with tactical marines is a terrible use of them, seeing as they'll most likely lose in melee to equal points of guardsmen who can fight twice cause of orders.

[Race Bannon]

Tactics to another thread please ^_^

[Basteala]

 

 

T4 is way better than T3... S6 & S7 wounding on 3+ not 2+. Jebus

Not when you're paying a premium for that T4 that makes it inferior to T3 on a PPM basis. 100 Points of guard is completely superior to 100 points of marines.

Hogwash. In a straight shoot out on Planet Bowling Ball where the Guard have infinite space in which to fall back, sure. But Marines are more than the statline of their bolter.

 

 

No, this has been mathhammered out. A Guard is what--5 ppm? A marine is 13. So in a fight you have 20 guard vs 7 marines. 

 

Let's do the math.

 

Hitting on 4s, so 10 hits. Wounding on 5s, so 3 wounds (if we round down). One marine dies.

 

7 marines. 5 hits (rounding up), and 3-4 wounds. I'll even give you 4 wounds, doesn't mater. They fail 3 saves, because again, I'm being generous. That's 3 guard dead. Sounds good right?

 

Except...marines lost 20% of their squad and 13 points, Guard lost 15% of their squad, and 9 points. And mind you, this was rounding against guard and in favor of marines. The reality would probably be closer to 2 guard dying, so 13 vs 6--over twice the loss. Add in addition that Guard crush marines on objectives since both have ob sec.

 

The only hogwash here is your insistence that stats are in a vacuum. A Chaos Terminator is superior to a Cultist statistically---but far worse in terms of points efficiency.

 

PS. You can say mathhamer isn't everything--that some units have niche options like better range or mobility. Tacs have none of that, so let's not even bother with hat argument.

[Lemondish]

Honestly, the biggest problem with space marines is that the units people want to use and the units that are viable don't overlap very often.

[Basteala]

Honestly, the biggest problem with space marines is that the units people want to use and the units that are viable don't overlap very often.

 

Competitive (non Forgeworld) units in a nutshell. Vanilla marines, mind.

 

Aggressors

Scouts

Devastators

Scout Bikes

 

One's nice for anti horde, one's good for obsec, one's good for anti armor. None of those are particularly sticky, though. Most of them are slow, too.

[Lemondish]

 

 

Honestly, the biggest problem with space marines is that the units people want to use and the units that are viable don't overlap very often.

Competitive (non Forgeworld) units in a nutshell. Vanilla marines, mind.

 

Aggressors

Scouts

Devastators

Scout Bikes

 

One's nice for anti horde, one's good for obsec, one's good for anti armor. None of those are particularly sticky, though. Most of them are slow, too.

I wouldn't add Aggressors into that, but they're probably good to go. It's mostly just Guilliman, Scouts, Scout Bikes, Devastators and sometimes Sternguard and Librarians.

[Basteala]

 

 

Honestly, the biggest problem with space marines is that the units people want to use and the units that are viable don't overlap very often.

Competitive (non Forgeworld) units in a nutshell. Vanilla marines, mind.

 

Aggressors

Scouts

Devastators

Scout Bikes

 

One's nice for anti horde, one's good for obsec, one's good for anti armor. None of those are particularly sticky, though. Most of them are slow, too.

I wouldn't add Aggressors into that, but they're probably good to go. It's mostly just Guilliman, Scouts, Scout Bikes, Devastators and sometimes Sternguard and Librarians.

 

 

Eh they have their uses in matchups against orks or whatever. Possibly inflated by the Azzy invuln, but if you're codex SM, you're not exactly swimming in chaff removal. 

 

Also--it occurred to me--do we add Space Marine bikes to the list? I'm pretty sure they cost the same as Scout Bikes now.

 

....Or did 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

 

 

T4 is way better than T3... S6 & S7 wounding on 3+ not 2+. Jebus

 

Not when you're paying a premium for that T4 that makes it inferior to T3 on a PPM basis. 100 Points of guard is completely superior to 100 points of marines.

Hogwash. In a straight shoot out on Planet Bowling Ball where the Guard have infinite space in which to fall back, sure. But Marines are more than the statline of their bolter.

Charging into melee with tactical marines is a terrible use of them, seeing as they'll most likely lose in melee to equal points of guardsmen who can fight twice cause of orders.

That’s a horrid example to support your case.

[Nova_Dew]

And the old fart that is me would like to point out you all got it wrong...

Marines in 1st edition were Guardsmen in special armour, not super soldiers, the current rules mostly still follow that, well they did get bumped to BS 4 ect with 2nd edition or maybe it was 3rd it's hard to remember it was 28-ish years ago  ,  it's the newer fluff and novels that has made them otherwise. the question should be why does the novels and fluff not match the game?... simply to help you part with your money, 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Basteala, you're missing the point. I'm not arguing the math, I'm saying that math isn't the end all, be all of the game. The reason why I have always and will always argue against mathematicians on this game is because the game is so much more than just dice rolls. Terrain, line of sight, objectives and objective placement, maneuver, and each player's tactical skills play as much or more of a role than just who can throw more dice. I've never cared for the concepts of "points efficiency" or "models earning their points back" because the game is won far more often by objectives and VPs than it is by who blasted who off the table.

 

My last game against triple-Riptide Tau with my Iron Hands saw me with all of six models on the table...but I won by VPs by a crazy margin, like 17-5 or something and took second in the tournament.

 

A good player with a mediocre army will beat a bad player with a net-list nine times out of ten.