PA Armies in general: How to improve them? Yep, again...

[Karack Blackstone]

Hello all, nice to be with you once again for this edition's, "How the do we fix Marines!?"

 

I'm your host for this session, the mods have the door, the batons, and if need be the melta for the current building.

Please be respectful, we all want our models to last on the table.

 

A basic Marine, no matter the Chapter is pretty well in 8th Edition, a pretty solid stat line on paper.

 

M W  B   S T W A Ld Sv

6" 3+ 3+ 4 4 1 1 7 3+

 

I... won't lie, the only solution I can get to that seems remotely fair to all parties involved in WH40K in general requires two things.

 

14 or 15 ppm

+1 new stat in the line.

 

The Resilience value from the first edition of War of the Ring, maybe even Lord of the Rings.

 

R

2

 

Start playtesting at 15, maybe 14 would work, but it's worth testing likely.

 

I've thought as long and as hard about trying to solve this for multiple editions as the lethality keeps climbing the never ending, "Better! UBER Better!" Codex and weapon power creep.

 

I think this idea might actually be a potentially feasible solution to the problem. Is it? I don't know yet, and as I am never a fan of confirmation bias, I hereby make this thread.

 

---

 

So, two things.

 

Please keep your posts as civil and respectful as possible. The BnC has the best users I've seen online. I am only typing this as a point of request, and I don't think it's needed. Just covering the bases.

 

So, final stat line.

 

14 or 15 pts base, ppm, for each basic Marine, Tactical, Grey Hunter, etc.

M  W  B  S T W A R Ld Sv

6" 3+ 3+ 4 4  2 1 2  7 3+

 

4 Wounds caused to kill a basic Marine.

 

14 or 15 total ppm.

 

Please, constructive criticism, thoughts, feedback? I'm curious; that typed, I do know this is like kicking a dead horse after a while. I think, this may honestly be a test worthy solution. I'd guess start at 15 ppm, and see if 14 might work long term? I don't know, thus this thread...

[Canadian_F_H]

Push all marines except scouts to the primaris stat line and shuffle up from there... Vets having 3attacks... TDA 3 wounds and 3 attacks... Primaris don't change.

 

That's where I would start...

[Sete]

Well Primaris already have 2 wounds.

You won't see secondaris marines with a second wound...

[Marshal Arthur]

New rule for all power armor marine units (including terminator armor)

 

Black Carapace: reroll armor saves of one

 

I think it'll do a lot to improve the survivability of marines. Primaris are here to stay so there's no point in asking for 2 wound old marines, that ship has sailed, but we can at least make marine power armor distinct from other sources of it.

[Quixus]

Well Primaris already have 2 wounds.

You won't see secondaris marines with a second wound...

Just as we won't see GW fixing marines. This was Canadian_F_H's suggestion and I think it has merit.

 

Another option would be to keep the cost as is and give PA marines a 2+ armour save and everything with a 2+ a 1+ or 0+ That way they might even use their armour save.

Ap -1 on regular bolters wouldn't hurt either.

 

I have no idea what the new stat is supposed to do, please elaborate, OP.

[Karack Blackstone]

Both have been discussed, and to my knowledge. There are few agreed upon points across many of these threads.

Do you both have thoughts on each of our individual ideas you might please be kind enough to share?

The single hardest part of a fix to Marines is one that does not overdo the power creep, and cause an avalanche nightmare of one adjustment pulling the entire structure of wh40k down.

 

I do partly agree on the all Marines to the Primaris stat line. Since there'd be a difference in the Attacks Value of 1 versus 2, 1 for Marines, 2 for Primaris, there's a very neat way to make a meaningful difference. Also, with SW's and others going to 3 Attacks base because they are given a Chainsword seems a bit too good, and I play Wolves, at least, when I can.

 

We don't need Secondaris; what we need is a way to try to show GW that profits won't fix a loss in customer loyalty. If I'm only ever going to be in friendly games but I'm explicitly not allowed to use normal Marines and only Primaris, that's... not going to bode well for the long term fluff and force fans of the game. I play for the lore, not only the models. I may not like nor agree with GW on a great deal of it depending, however, it is GW's right as the IP owner to try and please customers as it so chooses, as a company.

 

The single biggest issue right now is how to figure out the resolution and play balance of the mentioned addition of Resilience that I made in the OP.

 

I do wonder what each of you and others willing to please chime in think of my overall concept, however, I must also acknowledge a total lack of awareness towards what a Land Raider might need. And, with how wildly variable games are in terms of length on average, whatever that may truly be, the final version of wh40k requires some thoughts and critical thinking first.

 

Well Primaris already have 2 wounds.
You won't see secondaris marines with a second wound...

Just as we won't see GW fixing marines. This was Canadian_F_H's suggestion and I think it has merit.

Another option would be to keep the cost as is and give PA marines a 2+ armour save and everything with a 2+ a 1+ or 0+ That way they might even use their armour save.
Ap -1 on regular bolters wouldn't hurt either.


I have no idea what the new stat is supposed to do, please elaborate, OP.

 

 

Resilience:

 

Simply put, 2 Wounds must be caused to count as a single Wounding die roll, thus going to an Armor Save test if the Wound roll succeeds. All spare 1 Wound hits get dropped.

 

Might be too good.

 

I'm curious, thus this thread.

[Panzer]

Do we really need to have this discussion yet again? The last one isn't even 2 months old. 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/349999-fixing-the-space-marine-codex/

 

Reducing points would improve them obviously, but that's not what Marine players want and improving their stats would improve them, but that's not what GW is ready to do apparently. Alas we're stuck with what we have.

[Dracos]

Not to dash your hopes but there is no precedent for a faction to have a unique characteristic. Even vehicles and Knights run off basic stats in 8th edition.

 

Keep in mind any change that effects Space Marine power armor or bolters will equally effect Grey Knights, Chaos, and maybe Custodes (and no one wants to seem them get harder to kill).

 

I think the unique rule that Space Marines have that could be played off is ATSKNF. Any rule change would effect only Astartes. It could be an improved or reroll of an armor save. It could be something else, but to make Space Marines special again it has to only effect Space Marines.

[Kinstryfe]

My ideas on what I think they could benefit on in no particular order.

 

Astartes Power Armour: Halve AP for all models wearing Astartes Power Armour, or possibly ignore any AP modifier of -1.

 

Superhuman Organs and Stuff: Ignore any wounds on a 6+.

 

The Holy Bolter: Make the standard Bolter have the profile of a Bolt Rifle. Add something to the rifle to compensate.

 

Imperium's Elite: A tactical Marine has experienced decades or centuries of warfare and is trained in all aspects of being an Astartes. Tactical Squads may take Chainswords in addition to their Bolters for +1pt. May reroll 1s to hit in the shooting phase if the unit did not move in the prior movement phase. Basically, give them just enough oomph to be at least useful in most circumstances.

 

Changes like these would increase survivability a little bit, especially against small arms fire, make the Bolter a little bit more of a threat, and make them a little more flexible without needing to completely redo everything about them. Don't know if they're good ideas, but I think those are the best I've got.

[Acebaur]

Space marines need more durability not cheap ppm. This is accomplished in one of two ways. Either more wounds or a better save of some kind. A big problem is that mortal wounds are way too common. GW needs to allow invulnerable saves against them(after all isn't that the point of them?) then either give marines another wound across the board or do something like Nighthaunts in AoS where they have an unmodifiable save of some kind.

[Aurica]

At the current form marines don't feel like elite or shock troops with so much -AP floating around.   They really lack durability and the punch to make any differences.

 

I would like the basic marine (not scouts) to get 2 wounds but that feels like it takes away the uniqueness of Primaris. 

So as another poster suggested allow marines a reroll of armor save on of 1.

 

Would also like to see basic bolter/chainsword have at least a -1 to AP.   Or at least grant -1 to AP on a to wound roll of 6.

 

Other than that, better strategems for ALL marines regardless of Chapter or whether they are Basic/Primaris Marines. 

[Dracos]

Given how sad Marines are in melee, Chaplains should allow armor reroll saves .... just saying. They might see the table that way.

[Quixus]

How many weapons are AP -?

[duz_]

All marines need

+1 A & W

 

All bolters should be AP -1 unless better already

 

Power Armour / TDA should ignore AP -1

Although I like the PA re-rolls 1s idea wont work fir TDA though

 

Pts should be the same ish

 

A 6+++ on final wound could be another thought

[Dracos]

Why wouldn’t rerolls on a 1 work on TDA? -AP would still be in effect. I think it’s much less convoluted than ignoring -1 AP weapons but having no effect on -2+ AP.

[ERJAK]

All marines need

+1 A & W

 

All bolters should be AP -1 unless better already

 

Power Armour / TDA should ignore AP -1

Although I like the PA re-rolls 1s idea wont work fir TDA though

 

Pts should be the same ish

 

A 6+++ on final wound could be another thought

If marines got all that for the same points, Sisters would end up somewhere around 6ppm, even with their new ignore AP-1 and AP-1 bolters.

[Subtleknife]

I think give them a 2+ armour save and make the humble bolter rapid fire 2. Anything that was 2+ before can either stay as is if GW feel that it should be at PA level or if they think it is better drop it to 1+ (1 always fails). They need both a durability and offence buff. This way you dont need any fancy new rules and it is super simple.

[Quixus]

Where does that leave the storm/combi bolters? rapid fire 3? Assault 2/Assault 4 (<12")

[Ghorgul]

Considering CA introduced no changes, and at another significant forum a vocal group of posters keep arguing that PA are fine currently, it is starting to look like PA is in perfectly balanced place, atleast in GW's view.

 

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance at 13 points per model looks like, atleast according to GW.

[Acebaur]

Considering CA introduced no changes, and at another significant forum a vocal group of posters keep arguing that PA are fine currently, it is starting to look like PA is in perfectly balanced place, atleast in GW's view.

 

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance at 13 points per model looks like, atleast according to GW.

CA isn't going introduce changes like that. It's not what the book is for. It is for points adjustment and new missions. These kind of changes can only come from a codex

[Subtleknife]

Where does that leave the storm/combi bolters? rapid fire 3? Assault 2/Assault 4 (<12")

Either rapid 3 or assault 4. I prefer assault 4.

[Lemondish]

Every single one of these threads basically end up with the solution being Primaris of a different name.

 

I think that's pretty interesting.

[Dracos]

Considering CA introduced no changes, and at another significant forum a vocal group of posters keep arguing that PA are fine currently, it is starting to look like PA is in perfectly balanced place, atleast in GW's view.

 

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance at 13 points per model looks like, atleast according to GW.

With all due respect, vocal doesn’t mean well informed. You’re seeing GW game designers at more and more tournaments because they are beginning to understand that environment is the crucible in which army balance is best tested.

 

All we’re doing here is theorizing and wishlisting, which in itself isn’t bad if we stay civil. We bunch is similar discussions took place three or four years ago when the Primaris line was conceived of. I also imagine it will take another three or four years to solidify the new game mechanics of the army that is being revolutionized and also happens to be the baseline all of 40k is born from

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

From my experiences with the new chapter approved missions, I think one way to help "fix" marines would be to make acceptable casualties a rule in all missions, and to make it so only troops can hold objectives.

 

Right now the main reason to take troops in 8th edition is generate CP, they aren't necessary for anything else. As long as this is the case why wouldn't someone take the cheapest battalion, then use the other two detachments on the best units (knights and smash captains)?

 

If troops also have to accomplish something in the game, then those builds are going to need to make some sacrifices. 30 guardsman aren't going to last long, and if your up on objectives when the list tables you they may lose (instead of a max point victory).  

[Lemondish]

Well that's not very nice. You don't have to click into the thread if you don't like it.

 

From my experiences with the new chapter approved missions, I think one way to help "fix" marines would be to make acceptable casualties a rule in all missions, and to make it so only troops can hold objectives.

 

Right now the main reason to take troops in 8th edition is generate CP, they aren't necessary for anything else. As long as this is the case why wouldn't someone take the cheapest battalion, then use the other two detachments on the best units (knights and smash captains)?

 

If troops also have to accomplish something in the game, then those builds are going to need to make some sacrifices. 30 guardsman aren't going to last long, and if your up on objectives when the list tables you they may lose (instead of a max point victory).

Fantastic point, Black Star, especially with regards to only troops securing objectives.