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

[Subtleknife]

My dream would be GW declog the statline. I.e guard s/t 3, eldar s/t 4, orks s/t 5, marines 6, nurgle t 7, custodes 7 or 8 and so on. I really hope they do this for 9th.

 

Did GW ever say why they came up with this new system for s v t yet never really capatilised on it.

[duz_]

My dream would be GW declog the statline. I.e guard s/t 3, eldar s/t 4, orks s/t 5, marines 6, nurgle t 7, custodes 7 or 8 and so on. I really hope they do this for 9th.

 

Did GW ever say why they came up with this new system for s v t yet never really capatilised on it.

 

Although I disagree with guard being weaker than eldar, I do like the concept

 

Spreading out the S/T curve, given how damage works now is not a bad idea.

It would allow marines to become tougher against a variety of weapons.

However that might be easier said that done, all the weapons would have to be readdressed too.

 

For example a T6 marine means that a heavy bolter would need 5's to wound them, which seems somewhat excessive?

 

Definitely a missed opportunity but would likely need a whole edition change again to address. 

[MARK0SIAN]

The current wound system already means that several weapon strength increments are utterly meaningless and this would just exacerbate this. There’s also already a problem with some weapons in that the shared wounding system between vehicles and infantry means you can’t make them really good at the intended role without making them too good against everything.

 

Altering the T value like that would not only mean the weapons would need to be readdressed it would mean you’d need a new wounding system.

[Subtleknife]

 

 

My dream would be GW declog the statline. I.e guard s/t 3, eldar s/t 4, orks s/t 5, marines 6, nurgle t 7, custodes 7 or 8 and so on. I really hope they do this for 9th.

 

Did GW ever say why they came up with this new system for s v t yet never really capatilised on it.

Although I disagree with guard being weaker than eldar, I do like the concept

 

Spreading out the S/T curve, given how damage works now is not a bad idea.

It would allow marines to become tougher against a variety of weapons.

However that might be easier said that done, all the weapons would have to be readdressed too.

 

For example a T6 marine means that a heavy bolter would need 5's to wound them, which seems somewhat excessive?

 

Definitely a missed opportunity but would likely need a whole edition change again to address.

Yes agree, but it would allow GW to put those differences in if they felt like x should be stronger than y etc. I would also think weapons would be rebalanced etc.

 

The current wound system already means that several weapon strength increments are utterly meaningless and this would just exacerbate this. There’s also already a problem with some weapons in that the shared wounding system between vehicles and infantry means you can’t make them really good at the intended role without making them too good against everything.

 

Altering the T value like that would not only mean the weapons would need to be readdressed it would mean you’d need a new wounding system.

Not necessarily, all it means is vehs would need an increased toughness to bring them in line with the rest.

 

Although personally I would prefer veh were no longer just tougher inf. But I do not have a solution to that problem.

[Lemondish]

Doesn't take long for the "rebuild the codex" crowd to change their message to "rebuild the entire game". Seems a bit of a leap, no? 

[Subtleknife]

Doesn't take long for the "rebuild the codex" crowd to change their message to "rebuild the entire game". Seems a bit of a leap, no?

Last time I checked it was still answering the original question so it doesnt seem to me that any leap has been taken. Or are we not allowed to speculate on what could make the game better in our opinion?

 

And my proposed suggestion would noy change any of the fundamental structure of the game, just declog it

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

My dream would be GW declog the statline. I.e guard s/t 3, eldar s/t 4, orks s/t 5, marines 6, nurgle t 7, custodes 7 or 8 and so on. I really hope they do this for 9th.

 

Did GW ever say why they came up with this new system for s v t yet never really capatilised on it.

Although I disagree with guard being weaker than eldar, I do like the concept

 

Spreading out the S/T curve, given how damage works now is not a bad idea.

It would allow marines to become tougher against a variety of weapons.

However that might be easier said that done, all the weapons would have to be readdressed too.

 

For example a T6 marine means that a heavy bolter would need 5's to wound them, which seems somewhat excessive?

 

Definitely a missed opportunity but would likely need a whole edition change again to address.

Yes agree, but it would allow GW to put those differences in if they felt like x should be stronger than y etc. I would also think weapons would be rebalanced etc.

 

The current wound system already means that several weapon strength increments are utterly meaningless and this would just exacerbate this. There’s also already a problem with some weapons in that the shared wounding system between vehicles and infantry means you can’t make them really good at the intended role without making them too good against everything.

 

Altering the T value like that would not only mean the weapons would need to be readdressed it would mean you’d need a new wounding system.

Not necessarily, all it means is vehs would need an increased toughness to bring them in line with the rest.

 

Although personally I would prefer veh were no longer just tougher inf. But I do not have a solution to that problem.

But increasing the T of vehicles is exactly what I mean by exacerbating the problem. Currently most serious armour (Leman Russ, Land raiders etc) are T8, double a marines toughness. If you made a Marine T6 like in your example that armour would have to become T12. That means you’d need a S13 weapon to wound it on a 3+. Furthermore, any further increase in strength from S13 all the way to S23 would have no bearing on how easily that weapon could wound armour! That’s a ludicrous gulf, that a S14 weapon is actually no different to a S23 weapon when it comes to wounding any target in the game.

 

If you’re increasing toughness across the board you need to return to the old wounding mechanic where you do not require the Strength to be double the toughness to increase the wound roll from 3+ to 2+.

 

Or separate vehicles and infantry in terms of wound mechanics again.

[Subtleknife]

 

 

 

 

My dream would be GW declog the statline. I.e guard s/t 3, eldar s/t 4, orks s/t 5, marines 6, nurgle t 7, custodes 7 or 8 and so on. I really hope they do this for 9th.

 

Did GW ever say why they came up with this new system for s v t yet never really capatilised on it.

Although I disagree with guard being weaker than eldar, I do like the concept

 

Spreading out the S/T curve, given how damage works now is not a bad idea.

It would allow marines to become tougher against a variety of weapons.

However that might be easier said that done, all the weapons would have to be readdressed too.

 

For example a T6 marine means that a heavy bolter would need 5's to wound them, which seems somewhat excessive?

 

Definitely a missed opportunity but would likely need a whole edition change again to address.

Yes agree, but it would allow GW to put those differences in if they felt like x should be stronger than y etc. I would also think weapons would be rebalanced etc.

 

The current wound system already means that several weapon strength increments are utterly meaningless and this would just exacerbate this. There’s also already a problem with some weapons in that the shared wounding system between vehicles and infantry means you can’t make them really good at the intended role without making them too good against everything.

 

Altering the T value like that would not only mean the weapons would need to be readdressed it would mean you’d need a new wounding system.

Not necessarily, all it means is vehs would need an increased toughness to bring them in line with the rest.

 

Although personally I would prefer veh were no longer just tougher inf. But I do not have a solution to that problem.

But increasing the T of vehicles is exactly what I mean by exacerbating the problem. Currently most serious armour (Leman Russ, Land raiders etc) are T8, double a marines toughness. If you made a Marine T6 like in your example that armour would have to become T12. That means you’d need a S13 weapon to wound it on a 3+. Furthermore, any further increase in strength from S13 all the way to S23 would have no bearing on how easily that weapon could wound armour! That’s a ludicrous gulf, that a S14 weapon is actually no different to a S23 weapon when it comes to wounding any target in the game.

 

If you’re increasing toughness across the board you need to return to the old wounding mechanic where you do not require the Strength to be double the toughness to increase the wound roll from 3+ to 2+.

 

Or separate vehicles and infantry in terms of wound mechanics again.

But a weapon that wounds marines on a 3+ now should probably wound marines easily i.e a lascannon but it would give gw the option to add a lot more nuance into the scale.

 

Your second point im not sure applies. You wouldnt need to go up that high as i am only proposing a slight increase.

[duz_]

Can we please keep the excessive quoting to a minimum

[Karack Blackstone]

Spoiler tags have started to be used in other parts of the forums to simplify things, duz.

 

Use the [ and the ] keys around the word following, replacing the asterisks directly, to get the desired result. *spoiler* */spoiler*

 

Test.

 

Also, the Resilience stat I mentioned would be game wide, and yes, Vehicles would have the most. The problem is making it fun, balanced, playable, and above all, not a game breaking new addition to what already exists.

[Canadian_F_H]

Hidden Content

Spoiler tags have started to be used in other parts of the forums to simplify things, duz.

 

Use the [ and the ] keys around the word following, replacing the asterisks directly, to get the desired result. *spoiler* */spoiler*

 

Test.

 

Also, the Resilience stat I mentioned would be game wide, and yes, Vehicles would have the most. The problem is making it fun, balanced, playable, and above all, not a game breaking new addition to what already exists.

 

You have effectively described one acceptable method of compliance with what moderator duz_ was asking everyone to do in this thread going forward. ;)

[Panzer]

Doesn't take long for the "rebuild the codex" crowd to change their message to "rebuild the entire game". Seems a bit of a leap, no?

 

You're right, it doesn't take long. That's because we've had this discussion plenty times not too long ago and are basically just slowly repeating here what we found out there.

It doesn't take long because we don't have to go through the same pages long argumentations to reach those conclusions anymore.

So it's only a leap for someone who either didn't read the other discussions or if he deliberately wants to see it as leap. Not that it matters tho. It answers this topics question and yes it just highlights how deep the problems with the stats go.

Alternatively GW could drastically remove the damage output in the game by either artificially reducing the amount of special weapons people can take or by increasing the costs for special weapons but both are just as unlikely to happen as it is for GW to properly utilize the stats system so whatever. Nothing we figure out here will change anything anyway and in a few weeks or months we will see the next thread talking about the same stuff all over again.

[MARK0SIAN]

But a weapon that wounds marines on a 3+ now should probably wound marines easily i.e a lascannon but it would give gw the option to add a lot more nuance into the scale.

 

Your second point im not sure applies. You wouldnt need to go up that high as i am only proposing a slight increase.

I’m confused why you think it wouldn’t apply? To wound a T12 target on 2+ you have to go to S24. That’s the way it works. You may only be proposing slight increases at the bottom of the scale but those get magnified as you move up the T scale. If you’re moving a Marine to T6 like you said, the tanks have to move up to T12 if you’re going to maintain the current double difference in Toughness.

 

Or are you saying you wouldn’t keep the double difference between a marine and a land raider for example? So Vehicle Toughness would be much closer to a marines Toughness? That will just add to the fragility of vehicles as even more weapons will be able to wound them easily.

 

To be clear, I’m not against adding more nuance to the Toughness of the various factions, in fact I think it’s a good idea. I’m just saying you can’t do that and keep the current wound mechanic. You would have to change both.

[Deafbok]

I, for one, am convinced, after a bit of thought, that the problem with marines lies with the AP system and their armour saves.

 

In prior editions, it was the 3+ save that really set us apart - it took anti-tank or plasma weaponry to really hurt us, with weight of fire allowing some success as well to sort of even things out. Now, most weapons out there seem to shred armour like wet tissue paper, and we simply don't have the durability power armour used to give us.

 

This has led me to want to try a concept with company veterans equipped with storm shields, for a largely unmodifiable 3++ save, to see whether the difference in durability feels better. Sure, weight of fire still kills them, but they'll have a more consistent, better save.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I play Deathwatch and the stormshields make them feel like real SM again.

[Captain Idaho]

Said it before but all I think Marines of all flavours need to be more fluffy and effective without breaking game balanced is the following:

 

1) Transhuman Physiology: The superhuman resilience of Space Marines is a marvel of technological engineering and only multiplied by the addition of power armour. Any model with the Adeptus Astartes or Heretic Astartes Keywords ignores the first point of Armour Penetration.

 

In addition, these models also gain an additional attack in close combat when directing attacks solely at models with a single wound and without the Adeptus Astartes or Heretic Astartes Keywords.

 

2) Astartes class weapons: Space Marines often use weapons of the same type as other forces but on a larger scale and as such a Space Marine bolter is more powerful than a bolter utilised by a Commissar of the Astra Millitarum or even the Chambers Militant of the Eccesleiarcy themselves.

 

When any model with the Adeptus Astartes or Heretic Astartes Keywords fires a bolter or bolt rifle, those weapons receive an additional +1 Strength and point of Armour Penetration when firing at targets within half range. In addition, these models also receive an additional +1 Strength in close combat when using a Chainsword.

[Subtleknife]

@MARK0SIAN. Most AP weapons are wounding on the 3+ range for veh. There are not that many str 16 weapons on game. There are a lot of ways around it too if GW wanted to keep the Strn lower i.e this weapon always wounds veh on a 2 unless target has a higher toughness if they dont want it wounding on a 3+. Or they could just have a str 24 wpn. If it was completely up to me i would prefer veh go back to a completely different class rather than tougher infantry.

[Charlo]

Said it before but all I think Marines of all flavours need to be more fluffy and effective without breaking game balanced is the following:

 

1) Transhuman Physiology: The superhuman resilience of Space Marines is a marvel of technological engineering and only multiplied by the addition of power armour. Any model with the Adeptus Astartes or Heretic Astartes Keywords ignores the first point of Armour Penetration.

 

In addition, these models also gain an additional attack in close combat when directing attacks solely at models with a single wound and without the Adeptus Astartes or Heretic Astartes Keywords.

 

2) Astartes class weapons: Space Marines often use weapons of the same type as other forces but on a larger scale and as such a Space Marine bolter is more powerful than a bolter utilised by a Commissar of the Astra Millitarum or even the Chambers Militant of the Eccesleiarcy themselves.

 

When any model with the Adeptus Astartes or Heretic Astartes Keywords fires a bolter or bolt rifle, those weapons receive an additional +1 Strength and point of Armour Penetration when firing at targets within half range. In addition, these models also receive an additional +1 Strength in close combat when using a Chainsword.

 

HMMMMMMMMM...

 

I quite like these, the armour one should be a given - though maybe it would be better just to copy the Rubrics "All is Dust" rule and give +1Sv against any D1 weapons. Rubrics could then get their old invulnerable back or something to adjust for it. Though LUCIUS Ad Mech have an AP reduction rule too. I'd even say you could expand this rule to Tanks/ Dreads in the marine faction to represent their no doubt higher standard of construction.

 

For the weapons I think it would need to be either +1S or -1AP to be a bit more balanced (AP sits better in my head as the fluff always shows massed bolters being used in tandem to get through tougher armour), chainswords should just be -1AP too methinks, instead of adding strength.

 

Speaking of massed bolters, maybe there could be a stratagem that increases the AP of bolt weapons per every X fired at the target unit? So any shots after the first ten are at -1AP, -2AP after 20 etc.

[Captain Idaho]

To be honest I went with the +1 S and AP because it makes the unit like Heavy Bolters up close and the only units that really benefit are Tactical Marines and Intercessors, both of which are units that NEED the boost up close.

 

There is an argument that Sternguard Bolters and Storm Bolters should benefit also, in which case I think it should be a case of +1 Strength over additional AP.

[Ishagu]

Doesn't that only really improve their wounding against other Marines?

[Charlo]

Doesn't that only really improve their wounding against other Marines?

 

Great point. AP still my bet then!

[duz_]

If you make all bolters at least AP-1 but have PA ignore AP-1 then you don't make bolters any better vs marines

Which also fits the lore :D

[The Unseen]

Bolters at Str4 is fine, it's the lack of AP and the lack of volume that really hurts.

When your seeing stuff that used to just die to massed bolter fire still get a 5+ armor now, its just saddening.

Rather than +1 Str, make marine bolters (boltguns, stormbolters, bolt rifles, heavy bolters, everything) get an additional shot at half range.

And suddenly marines are coming close to killing horde troops semi-effeciently with the weapon they should be doing so with.

 

And I do love the idea of marine power armor ignoring the first point of AP.

I'd even argue that terminator armor should get the same rule and go to a 1+ save. (1s still fail of course)

It is supposed to be the best defensive armor since the dark age of technology after all.

 

Add it together, and a 3 wound, 1+ save ignoring first point of AP with a 5 shot stormbolter and 3 powerfist swings, and they might just be worth 30 or 40 pts a pop.

 

Even fluffy, as it's shown repeatedly that it takes multiple bolter rounds to drop a marine unless you get lucky. So they ignore the AP from standard bolters.

 

And to keep it simple Idaho, I'd just go -1 Ap period, and just +1 attack always.

No reason to restrict it to just against basic infantry or within half range. Boltguns should be scary, and a marine swinging a combat "knife" longer than your forearm should be scary, not just to guardsmen.

The boltgun really is that bad.

 

Basically, give intercessors an extra shot per body at half range, and a -1 on their melee attacks or +1 attack, and some weapon options, and they are suddenly a solid troop choice.

And just make that the "standard" marine.

Won't happen though, least not till primaris completely take over the range.

[Quixus]

Go all out, give bolters AP-2 and the "ze bolters do nussing" (AP+2 against targets with the heretic/adeptus astartes) rule. I am still debating if inferno bolters should still get the rule. At the very least they should start at better AP.

[Ghorgul]

To increase durability:

Power Armor:
"Every unit ignores first one single damage non-mortal wound each phase".

 

Terminators:
"Every unit ignores first two single damage non-mortal wounds each phase".

 

These rules would give Marine armies increased durability against dice bucket armies while keeping them the same against more high power weapons. Also this could be extended to primaris marines without huge outcries?

 

Of course simultaneously normal marines damage output should still be increased in reasonable manner.