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

[Aurica]

Maybe they could just add keywords to specific weapons.  Anti-Tank.  +1 to wound and add -1 AP if target is a vehicle.  Vice versa for Anti-Infantry. 

[Volt]

Radical problems require radical solutions, and I do love thinking outside of the box beyond just increasing toughness/wounds.

 

1) Completely overhaul how anti-tank weapons work. All heavy weapons such as lascannons, plasma cannons, brightlances, etc gain a new rule that gives them 1+ BS when targeting vehicles and monsters but -1 BS when targeting infantry models. Weapons with multiple modes of fire such as Missle Launchers have the statlines for their missiles altered accordingly, with krak missiles becoming +1/-1 while frag remains unchanged. 

 

2) Overhaul tanks and walker guns such as the battlecannon to have two firing modes, HE and AP shells. AP shells are high strength and high AP along with the +1/-1 bonus against vehicles and monsters. HE shells have a large number of hit dice (or we could bring back pieplates) but are low strength and no AP, to simulate a simple high explosive. Unlike AP it also comes with no -1 to hit infantry models. 

 

3) Bring back smoke and make it proper. Smoke grenades are cover in a can that block LOS for either one or two turns and cover something like a 7" diameter bubble. All basic infantry models like guardsmen, tactical marines, guardians, tau, etc get smoke frags. Meanwhile marines and custodes get a universal autosenses rule that allows them to ignore smoke, perhaps same with necrons too. Also allow grenade launchers on Primaris marines to fire smoke grenades, allowing them to smoke things out at a greater distance or cover their advance.

 

4) Overhaul morale phase into a suppression mechanic. When a unit fails a morale check instead of losing more models, it becomes pinned and is incapable of moving until it is able to rally and pass another morale check. 

 

Result of all this should significantly boost the power of space marines to be useful, even tactical marines, possibly without even needing a boost in durability. It also increases the tactical depth of the game while attacking the "math-hammer" aspect of it by adding more mechanics that mathhammer can't really account for. Sure guardsmen are hypothetically more points efficient than marines, but with suppression and smoke in effect they aren't going to be able to perform as consistently. You can also pull some neat tricks, such as using grenade launchers or smoke artillery to smoke up a region, deepstrike some terminators, and assault through the smoke. 

[Panzer]

Radical problems require radical solutions, and I do love thinking outside of the box beyond just increasing toughness/wounds.

 

1) Completely overhaul how anti-tank weapons work. All heavy weapons such as lascannons, plasma cannons, brightlances, etc gain a new rule that gives them 1+ BS when targeting vehicles and monsters but -1 BS when targeting infantry models. Weapons with multiple modes of fire such as Missle Launchers have the statlines for their missiles altered accordingly, with krak missiles becoming +1/-1 while frag remains unchanged. 

 

I don't see how this is supposed to help Marines. They don't have a problem with anti-vehicle weapons since anti-vehicle weapons already are pretty uneffective against infantry with their low amount of shots and high damage (luckily this is not AoS where damage spills over). They have a problem with anti-infantry weapons that either kill them by high RoF, high Strength with good AP (Plasma) or medium ROF with high Strength (Autocannons and similar). Now Plasma is clearly a problem due how common it is but especially the latter was always a strong weapon choice ever since 7e since it has no real downside and can deal with vehicles and with infantry decently.

 

Actually a change as you proposed would hurt Marines a lot since all the vehicles would now die even faster and Marines already don't have as many points for vehicles as AM or AdMech or T'au due how expensive their infantry is. If you really want to make Marines more durable you have to takle their durability against anti-infantry weaponry.

 

I'm kinda the opposite of you here. I despite doing radical solutions if the basic mechanics already provide all the means to adjust things properly.

Just increasing their save to a 2+ would already do a LOT for them since it would leave them still with a 3+ save against most anti-infantry weaponry like autocannons and assault cannons and heavy bolter and such and still with a 5+ save against plasma ... and I think I don't have to mention how strong a 2+ against AP0 is. Similarly you could increase TDA to a 1+ save. No change against AP0 but against AP-1 they'd still have their 2+ and against Plasma they'd still have a 4+.

Multiple wounds used to be a nice attempt to fix things but there are just too many multi-damage weapons out there (hell Helverins even got D3 autocannons because apparently D2 autocannons weren't already strong enough!  ). If we want to go this route it would have to be combined with a special rule that makes them reduce multi-damage by 1. 

Increasing Toughness doesn't really work without re-adjusting the whole range of 40k units I fear since they are clearly not on Custodes level and if we increase Custodes stats they are basically vehicles by now which doesn't feel right either (or maybe it does? Not sure).

 

About special rules like ignoring AP-1 and similar others have proposed before ... I'm not a big fan. Why can they completely ignore AP-1 and then suffer from the full force of AP-2 weapons? This is the weird and crappy binary thing from 7e AP all over again which we finally got rid of now with 8e.

 

 

 

3) Bring back smoke and make it proper. Smoke grenades are cover in a can that block LOS for either one or two turns and cover something like a 7" diameter bubble. All basic infantry models like guardsmen, tactical marines, guardians, tau, etc get smoke frags. Meanwhile marines and custodes get a universal autosenses rule that allows them to ignore smoke, perhaps same with necrons too. Also allow grenade launchers on Primaris marines to fire smoke grenades, allowing them to smoke things out at a greater distance or cover their advance.

 

 

Not a fan of this either. 8e goes with the philosophy that if you can't see something properly you get a to-hit penalty which makes a lot more sense than block LOS to me. If someone pops smoke and you aren't exactly in the middle of the smoke you can still see where the smoke is and just shoot at it perfectly fine. If you want something like that then it would be better to make it so that it engulfs the enemy unit you hit and then it can't shoot anymore. Make it one-use and mid-ranged so you don't permanently disable your opponents army from your own deployment zone. 

Otherwise the way smoke launchers work now is perfectly fine. Maybe let the vehicle still shoot when using it since it doesn't really make sense to have such a localized puddle of smoke that it only affects that one vehicle but that vehicle not daring to shoot to not reveal its position lol

 

 

 

4) Overhaul morale phase into a suppression mechanic. When a unit fails a morale check instead of losing more models, it becomes pinned and is incapable of moving until it is able to rally and pass another morale check. 

 

 

All the yes. This is really something that needs to happen. LD is way too ignorable again this edition and something like surpressing fire has to come back. However make the pinned unit also unable to shoot or it will only serve as a nerve to melee armies while having gunlines be completely uneffected by it. 

[Volt]

 

Radical problems require radical solutions, and I do love thinking outside of the box beyond just increasing toughness/wounds.

 

1) Completely overhaul how anti-tank weapons work. All heavy weapons such as lascannons, plasma cannons, brightlances, etc gain a new rule that gives them 1+ BS when targeting vehicles and monsters but -1 BS when targeting infantry models. Weapons with multiple modes of fire such as Missle Launchers have the statlines for their missiles altered accordingly, with krak missiles becoming +1/-1 while frag remains unchanged. 

 

I don't see how this is supposed to help Marines. They don't have a problem with anti-vehicle weapons since anti-vehicle weapons already are pretty uneffective against infantry with their low amount of shots and high damage (luckily this is not AoS where damage spills over). They have a problem with anti-infantry weapons that either kill them by high RoF, high Strength with good AP (Plasma) or medium ROF with high Strength (Autocannons and similar). Now Plasma is clearly a problem due how common it is but especially the latter was always a strong weapon choice ever since 7e since it has no real downside and can deal with vehicles and with infantry decently.

 

Actually a change as you proposed would hurt Marines a lot since all the vehicles would now die even faster and Marines already don't have as many points for vehicles as AM or AdMech or T'au due how expensive their infantry is. If you really want to make Marines more durable you have to takle their durability against anti-infantry weaponry.

 

I'm kinda the opposite of you here. I despite doing radical solutions if the basic mechanics already provide all the means to adjust things properly.

Just increasing their save to a 2+ would already do a LOT for them since it would leave them still with a 3+ save against most anti-infantry weaponry like autocannons and assault cannons and heavy bolter and such and still with a 5+ save against plasma ... and I think I don't have to mention how strong a 2+ against AP0 is. Similarly you could increase TDA to a 1+ save. No change against AP0 but against AP-1 they'd still have their 2+ and against Plasma they'd still have a 4+.

Multiple wounds used to be a nice attempt to fix things but there are just too many multi-damage weapons out there (hell Helverins even got D3 autocannons because apparently D2 autocannons weren't already strong enough!  ). If we want to go this route it would have to be combined with a special rule that makes them reduce multi-damage by 1. 

Increasing Toughness doesn't really work without re-adjusting the whole range of 40k units I fear since they are clearly not on Custodes level and if we increase Custodes stats they are basically vehicles by now which doesn't feel right either (or maybe it does? Not sure).

 

About special rules like ignoring AP-1 and similar others have proposed before ... I'm not a big fan. Why can they completely ignore AP-1 and then suffer from the full force of AP-2 weapons? This is the weird and crappy binary thing from 7e AP all over again which we finally got rid of now with 8e.

 

 

 

3) Bring back smoke and make it proper. Smoke grenades are cover in a can that block LOS for either one or two turns and cover something like a 7" diameter bubble. All basic infantry models like guardsmen, tactical marines, guardians, tau, etc get smoke frags. Meanwhile marines and custodes get a universal autosenses rule that allows them to ignore smoke, perhaps same with necrons too. Also allow grenade launchers on Primaris marines to fire smoke grenades, allowing them to smoke things out at a greater distance or cover their advance.

 

 

Not a fan of this either. 8e goes with the philosophy that if you can't see something properly you get a to-hit penalty which makes a lot more sense than block LOS to me. If someone pops smoke and you aren't exactly in the middle of the smoke you can still see where the smoke is and just shoot at it perfectly fine. If you want something like that then it would be better to make it so that it engulfs the enemy unit you hit and then it can't shoot anymore. Make it one-use and mid-ranged so you don't permanently disable your opponents army from your own deployment zone. 

Otherwise the way smoke launchers work now is perfectly fine. Maybe let the vehicle still shoot when using it since it doesn't really make sense to have such a localized puddle of smoke that it only affects that one vehicle but that vehicle not daring to shoot to not reveal its position lol

 

 

 

4) Overhaul morale phase into a suppression mechanic. When a unit fails a morale check instead of losing more models, it becomes pinned and is incapable of moving until it is able to rally and pass another morale check. 

 

 

All the yes. This is really something that needs to happen. LD is way too ignorable again this edition and something like surpressing fire has to come back. However make the pinned unit also unable to shoot or it will only serve as a nerve to melee armies while having gunlines be completely uneffected by it. 

 

It wouldn't hurt marines at all. Marine vehicles are crap anyway and the infantry are what are supposed to be the main backbone of the army, not IFV's with delusions of being MBT's. These AT rebalances primarily hurt knights which are one of the main things hurting marines (and everybody else, really), by making it incredibly easy to land shots on superheavies and thus increase the amount of wounds inflicted upon them. And seriously, go get a decent smoke bomb, find a private gun range, and then try to hit a stationary target while blind firing. At minimum a smoke grenade should confer a -6 BS debuff to anything trying to shoot through it. Smoke is LOS blocking, pure and simple; you aren't hitting squat when trying to shoot through it at a moving target. More importantly changing how infantry and movement works completely while offering marines boons in this new environment. 

 

Also why the hell should we care about whatever "precedent" 8th edition has? 8th edition is crap. Just like 6th and 7th were garbage too. The only "precedent" is the one for crappy, unimaginative rules that boil away all strategy and list diversity in the game.

[Panzer]

 

 

Radical problems require radical solutions, and I do love thinking outside of the box beyond just increasing toughness/wounds.

 

1) Completely overhaul how anti-tank weapons work. All heavy weapons such as lascannons, plasma cannons, brightlances, etc gain a new rule that gives them 1+ BS when targeting vehicles and monsters but -1 BS when targeting infantry models. Weapons with multiple modes of fire such as Missle Launchers have the statlines for their missiles altered accordingly, with krak missiles becoming +1/-1 while frag remains unchanged. 

 

I don't see how this is supposed to help Marines. They don't have a problem with anti-vehicle weapons since anti-vehicle weapons already are pretty uneffective against infantry with their low amount of shots and high damage (luckily this is not AoS where damage spills over). They have a problem with anti-infantry weapons that either kill them by high RoF, high Strength with good AP (Plasma) or medium ROF with high Strength (Autocannons and similar). Now Plasma is clearly a problem due how common it is but especially the latter was always a strong weapon choice ever since 7e since it has no real downside and can deal with vehicles and with infantry decently.

 

Actually a change as you proposed would hurt Marines a lot since all the vehicles would now die even faster and Marines already don't have as many points for vehicles as AM or AdMech or T'au due how expensive their infantry is. If you really want to make Marines more durable you have to takle their durability against anti-infantry weaponry.

 

I'm kinda the opposite of you here. I despite doing radical solutions if the basic mechanics already provide all the means to adjust things properly.

Just increasing their save to a 2+ would already do a LOT for them since it would leave them still with a 3+ save against most anti-infantry weaponry like autocannons and assault cannons and heavy bolter and such and still with a 5+ save against plasma ... and I think I don't have to mention how strong a 2+ against AP0 is. Similarly you could increase TDA to a 1+ save. No change against AP0 but against AP-1 they'd still have their 2+ and against Plasma they'd still have a 4+.

Multiple wounds used to be a nice attempt to fix things but there are just too many multi-damage weapons out there (hell Helverins even got D3 autocannons because apparently D2 autocannons weren't already strong enough!  ). If we want to go this route it would have to be combined with a special rule that makes them reduce multi-damage by 1. 

Increasing Toughness doesn't really work without re-adjusting the whole range of 40k units I fear since they are clearly not on Custodes level and if we increase Custodes stats they are basically vehicles by now which doesn't feel right either (or maybe it does? Not sure).

 

About special rules like ignoring AP-1 and similar others have proposed before ... I'm not a big fan. Why can they completely ignore AP-1 and then suffer from the full force of AP-2 weapons? This is the weird and crappy binary thing from 7e AP all over again which we finally got rid of now with 8e.

 

 

 

3) Bring back smoke and make it proper. Smoke grenades are cover in a can that block LOS for either one or two turns and cover something like a 7" diameter bubble. All basic infantry models like guardsmen, tactical marines, guardians, tau, etc get smoke frags. Meanwhile marines and custodes get a universal autosenses rule that allows them to ignore smoke, perhaps same with necrons too. Also allow grenade launchers on Primaris marines to fire smoke grenades, allowing them to smoke things out at a greater distance or cover their advance.

 

 

Not a fan of this either. 8e goes with the philosophy that if you can't see something properly you get a to-hit penalty which makes a lot more sense than block LOS to me. If someone pops smoke and you aren't exactly in the middle of the smoke you can still see where the smoke is and just shoot at it perfectly fine. If you want something like that then it would be better to make it so that it engulfs the enemy unit you hit and then it can't shoot anymore. Make it one-use and mid-ranged so you don't permanently disable your opponents army from your own deployment zone. 

Otherwise the way smoke launchers work now is perfectly fine. Maybe let the vehicle still shoot when using it since it doesn't really make sense to have such a localized puddle of smoke that it only affects that one vehicle but that vehicle not daring to shoot to not reveal its position lol

 

 

 

4) Overhaul morale phase into a suppression mechanic. When a unit fails a morale check instead of losing more models, it becomes pinned and is incapable of moving until it is able to rally and pass another morale check. 

 

 

All the yes. This is really something that needs to happen. LD is way too ignorable again this edition and something like surpressing fire has to come back. However make the pinned unit also unable to shoot or it will only serve as a nerve to melee armies while having gunlines be completely uneffected by it. 

 

It wouldn't hurt marines at all. Marine vehicles are crap anyway and the infantry are what are supposed to be the main backbone of the army, not IFV's with delusions of being MBT's. These AT rebalances primarily hurt knights which are one of the main things hurting marines (and everybody else, really), by making it incredibly easy to land shots on superheavies and thus increase the amount of wounds inflicted upon them. And seriously, go get a decent smoke bomb, find a private gun range, and then try to hit a stationary target while blind firing. At minimum a smoke grenade should confer a -6 BS debuff to anything trying to shoot through it. Smoke is LOS blocking, pure and simple; you aren't hitting squat when trying to shoot through it at a moving target. More importantly changing how infantry and movement works completely while offering marines boons in this new environment. 

 

Also why the hell should we care about whatever "precedent" 8th edition has? 8th edition is crap. Just like 6th and 7th were garbage too. The only "precedent" is the one for crappy, unimaginative rules that boil away all strategy and list diversity in the game.

 

 

Just because it would hurt others more it doesn't mean it wouldn't hurt Marines as well.

Also literally invisible and undectable units like Stealth Suits and Ghostkeels give a -1 and at most a -2 to-hit penalty. The difference between Guardsmen and Marines shooting ability is supposed to be incredibly huge and it's just a difference between BS4 and BS3. A -6 and similar is just unreasonable. LoS blocking in 40k isn't just "you can't see the target" but also "you can't hit your target because it's behind something solid". Don't get confused by the term.

 

8th edition being crap is just your opinion. I for one think it's about the best 40k has ever been and I know for a fact that I'm not alone with it just as you aren't alone with your opinion. So lets just leave this crap out of here.

[Quixus]

The difference between smoke grenades and other mweans of obscuring your unit is that smoke also hinders your shooting. Just from a balance perspective an ability with drawbacks should be either better than an ability without or cheaper. however making marines cheaper, makes the table top representation even less like the fluff represntation than before.

 

Invisibility is a problem because if modelled with any bit of verisimilitude is an "I win" button and warfare is all about not being in a fair fight, i.e. everyone that could would have it. This however makes a very bad game. So either you need to tone down the effects of inivisibility or allow hard counters.

 

While hiding in smoke does not fit with the space marine fluff (well maybe with Raven Guard), I can totally see marines smoking the battle field and finally using their helmets to not be hindered by the smoke. Especially if they directly smoke the enemies and then go on to kill them in CC.

[duz_]

=][= Its been said before don't let it be said again.

Avoid the excessive quoting. =][=

[bolvar]

Asking for massive rework of almost every army + core rules isn't going to work, that's the work of a new edition (such as 7th to current 8th edition).

 

 

What we need is something like the bolter discipline beta rule - a brief change that target a specific issue, with none to minimal changes to the rest.

 

I'll talk exclusively about oldmarines from now on. The main issue of the primaris is their low options, issue that will be met with further releases of the primaris range. So let's stick to oldmarines:

 

 

Since the bolter discipline rule release, we're not THAT bad (we can say that the lack of punch for the average marine is fixed, not perfectly, but with a nice aftermarth), but there are still one issue that irks me the most: oldmarines (from tactical to veterans, basically excluding HQs and named characters) have the same wounds than a gretchin (i won't even talk about guardsmen, for the sake of diversity). Yes, they cost about 4 times less points, but a failed save, with the amount of dices that can be thrown, with the current AP system, and specially with the amount of plasma/anti MEQ special weapons that all armies have, and both die to the same damage. They have the same casualties against mortal wounds.

 

There are far more differences between a space marine and the previous example (gretchins), almost all eldar, other humans (guardsmen, skiitari), t'au, basically, everything that isn't MEQ, than between oldmarines and primaris. Yet that alone accounts for an extra wound and base attack.

 

And that's where's my opinion lies. I can understand that primaris have an extra attack because they are daft-punker (harder, better, faster, stronger). But an oldmarine is almost (we could say even equal, regarding mental toughness) tough as a primaris, yet we have such a critical difference in the base statline.

 

 

Why I bring the wound stat, and not the armor one? Let me explain why:

 

-First, with the inclusion of damage stat into the statline of weapons. That means that we work about the final toughness of a model following this line: strength vs toughness (something that have been met with the new rules in 8th edition), wounds stat, armor vs AP. We could say that it should be damage vs wounds stat. Another option would be resilience stat, such as LotR game, as some users said before. But that means that we have to add another stat to all the model range. Too much rework, so we shall stick around the damage vs wounds stats.

 

-Second, if we go along with the point that I have stated, oldmarines should have 2 wounds. Same as primaris. BUT, primaris still have better statline (one extra attack) and have better base gear (new bolters, grapples/grav-chutes for reivers, squads with all plasma guns, gravis terminator armor...), plus anything that the 2nd primaris release wave bring to the primaris range.

 

-Third (related to the first point in truth), a rule as some users said before, that allows power armour to ignore the first -1 AP of the weapon used against an oldmarine, or reroll 1s in saving throws. That one would include also primaris, but don't address the issue that I stated: one single point of damage still keeps killing an oldmarine, the same way it kills a gretchin, an eldar, a standard guardsmen and everything that still have one wound stat. Harder to wound? yes, but that doesn't resolves the issue. We could ask that power armour grants +1 to toughness stat, and we'll be in the place. So in summary, we're not resolving the issue, that is one point of damage kill an oldmarine, the same way it kills a gretchin.

 

 

I know that this backfires into the following: adding one extra wound to oldmarines means that we have to rebalance the entirety of 1 wound MEQ (or at least, oldmarine range) point cost. Not a small feat, and that would have to be met in something such as big as a Chapter Approved.

Then, the only options remaining are: keep this issue unresolved (lack of toughness on MEQ with 1 wound), rebalance the entirety of armies and their access to special weapons such as a plasma or their cost (even more work), or wait until a new edition arrives, and that's basically the same as the first option. Sadly, the last CA have been released not long ago, so, unless a special CA is released, this issue would have to be in standby at least almost a year.

 

Still, I'd be in that boat. But I don't think that this issue will be fixed in 8th :(.

[Kallas]

@sfPanzer - Very well said!

[Volt]

 

 

Just because it would hurt others more it doesn't mean it wouldn't hurt Marines as well.

Also literally invisible and undectable units like Stealth Suits and Ghostkeels give a -1 and at most a -2 to-hit penalty. The difference between Guardsmen and Marines shooting ability is supposed to be incredibly huge and it's just a difference between BS4 and BS3. A -6 and similar is just unreasonable. LoS blocking in 40k isn't just "you can't see the target" but also "you can't hit your target because it's behind something solid". Don't get confused by the term.

 

8th edition being crap is just your opinion. I for one think it's about the best 40k has ever been and I know for a fact that I'm not alone with it just as you aren't alone with your opinion. So lets just leave this crap out of here.

 

8th edition is objectively crap because several armies (including some marine ones) have sub-40% win rates. Any game that has sub 40% win rates for a faction is one that is suffering from crippling imbalance and is quite clearly, objectively awful in design. A good game doesn't have these problems, which have only become more apparent in 8th edition courtesy of changes to AP which hurts marines far more than any other faction (such as loss of AP5). As Ishagu pointed out the only thing keeping marines afloat at all in 7e was bollocks formation mechanics which was just slapping a band-aid on a profusely bleeding wound. 

 

Marines sucking is a thing because the game itself sucks when it comes to strategic depth in regards to infantry, where the only thing that matters is point efficiency because there is no depth to how infantry work, meaning the cheapest platform with the most effective volume of fire comes out on top, universally. Buffing marines to higher toughness and higher strength does nothing and will still result in space marines sucking for the same reason that everything beyond custodes jetbike spam sucks, they become too low volume to deal with hordes and get overrun. Not to mention a 2+ armor save still isn't that useful against volume of fire spam, which is put out by both infantry and vehicles in spaces in 8e. 

 

If you actually want to make marines good (along with elites in general), you need to actually provide 40k with strategic depth beyond the amorphous blob of infantry with aura min-maxing by reintroducing suppression mechanics, more morale functions, and hitting all vehicles with a nerfbat so things like Knights, Riptides, Dreadnought spam, Razorback spam, etc doesn't just walk over everything. Precedent means squat. Invisibility being a -1 to hit in 8e means nothing because we shouldn't care at all what GW thinks about game design because they are bad at their jobs. Smoke is temporary LOS blocking terrain because not only does that make logical sense, it also provides infantry the necessary tools to survive when giant mecha are stomping around. 

 

You need to throw out the baby with the bathwater ultimately because the baby's been possessed by a daemon. If you just jack up the toughness, armor save, wounds, or in some other combination you will eventually make marines good - but at the cost of making something else suck as marines now become the points efficient infantry. The issue isn't that guard are better than marines, but that guard are objectively the best infantry because 40k mechanics favors you just getting a bunch of blobs and pushing up the table with little other thought put into it. There's no suppression-and-move where infantry squads pin one unit while another unit moves up into cover, or infantry (or vehicles) popping smoke to conceal their movement and protect them from enemy fire. Marines easily become good by simply introducing them into an environment while they retain their current durability, but gain utility allowing them to circumvent the enemy's tactics in clever ways. A tactical squad becomes a lot more useful if the sergeant can pop a smoke grenade to protect them from front facing fire while allowing their lascannon model to take shots at the enemy's Castellan Knight and the Castellan can't even shoot back because it has no idea where the enemy infantry even is.

[Lemondish]

8th edition is objectively crap because several armies (including some marine ones) have sub-40% win rates.

I would say that's actually a sign of massive improvement given how more than half of the possible factions in 7th were sub-20% competitively.

 

That proves nothing objectively.

 

But it sounds like you don't like this game. That's fine - take a step back and come back when the next edition comes. Until then it's probably better to focus the discussion on how to fix power armour rather than sharing your dear diary wishlist for a new edition. You're derailing the discussion by suggesting the only way to improve marines is a wholesale rebuild of the entire game, which is downright absurd.

[Ishagu]

I think the Beta Bolter rule is something pulled out of the next codex. Marines will be coming this year, no doubt about it. For once I'm actually not in a good position to just buy everything as and when it's released due to some substantial financial commitments I have coming up this year.

 

As for people claiming 8th edition is rubbish - I'm sorry but you're wrong. This is the most fun and most popular 40k has ever been. It might not be to your personal liking, but that's a subjective opinion.

 

Volt, You mentioned some factions only win 40% of the time. Are you new to the hobby? That's a huge improvement over what came before. The top factions only win 60% of the time meaning the margin isn't something which can't be fixed over time.

[PeteySödes]

I do miss pinning and a lot of those other rules though. A lot of that stuff always very tactical in how you applied them. Maybe rose colored glasses though.

 

You guys think that Custodes are a bigger culprit than is generally talked about? It struck me when I was perusing their expanded data sheets with the bucklers that ignore some AP.

 

It seems like they keep adding stuff that would make it really hard to get marines where we want without complicating other armies. All the while stuff like pinning and some other mechanics like ATSKNF get left out or nerfed making it a tall order to get is where we want.

 

Just spitballing really.

[Lemondish]

I do miss pinning and a lot of those other rules though. A lot of that stuff always very tactical in how you applied them. Maybe rose colored glasses though.

 

You guys think that Custodes are a bigger culprit than is generally talked about? It struck me when I was perusing their expanded data sheets with the bucklers that ignore some AP.

 

It seems like they keep adding stuff that would make it really hard to get marines where we want without complicating other armies. All the while stuff like pinning and some other mechanics like ATSKNF get left out or nerfed making it a tall order to get is where we want.

 

Just spitballing really.

I also think the biggest issue is that fans want huge changes, but small tweaks can have a huge effect in this game even if they aren't as sexy.

[Kallas]

I also think the biggest issue is that fans want huge changes, but small tweaks can have a huge effect in this game even if they aren't as sexy.

Small tweaks only work if they're actually relevant. Bolter Discipline...isn't, really.

[Quixus]

Exactly, they need to address the issue not just make a change nilly willy. Look at the change to the Fly keyword. The silliness comes from ignoring terrain, not from ignoring terrain in the charge phase. While the impact is lessened through the rules change, it is still silly that jump packs can tunnel through terrain but cannot teleport on top of terrain.

 

Also mortal wounds are an issue, not mortal wounds caused by smite. Nerfing smite has done little to address the problem.

[Lemondish]

 

 

I also think the biggest issue is that fans want huge changes, but small tweaks can have a huge effect in this game even if they aren't as sexy.

Small tweaks only work if they're actually relevant. Bolter Discipline...isn't, really.

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous to say. We've barely had a week to assess the value of this. Maybe I'm just the other extreme because I will not ever trust the community's ability to instantly pinpoint the efficacy of rule changes given the long history of failure here. The hyperbole just makes everything so bloody extreme - something is either totally worthless or OP. We're very bad at identifying our own preconceptions let alone challenging them.

 

I'd rather wait and see what the effect is combined with CA18 and Vigilus Defiant before coming to any kind of conclusion this early for any of those things.

 

Here's a good example:

 

Exactly, they need to address the issue not just make a change nilly willy. Look at the change to the Fly keyword. The silliness comes from ignoring terrain, not from ignoring terrain in the charge phase. While the impact is lessened through the rules change, it is still silly that jump packs can tunnel through terrain but cannot teleport on top of terrain.

 

Also mortal wounds are an issue, not mortal wounds caused by smite. Nerfing smite has done little to address the problem.

This is the first I'm hearing that mortal wounds are "an issue". Are they really? Or are they just a rock to your scissors...

[Panzer]

Exactly, they need to address the issue not just make a change nilly willy. Look at the change to the Fly keyword. The silliness comes from ignoring terrain, not from ignoring terrain in the charge phase. While the impact is lessened through the rules change, it is still silly that jump packs can tunnel through terrain but cannot teleport on top of terrain.

 

Also mortal wounds are an issue, not mortal wounds caused by smite. Nerfing smite has done little to address the problem.

 

That's actually not true. The changes to FLY got made exactly because of the fact it ignored terrain in the charge phase. Maybe you forgot already the 0" charges from top of ruins and such?

[duz_]

=][= I fail to see how Mortal Wound and Fly mechanics relate to improving Power Armour.

Please stay on topic. =][=

[Captain Idaho]

I've said it before but I'll say it again:

 

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 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 or Reiver combat blades.

 

***

 

Sorry to be boring repeating this but these are examples of small changes that make large impacts to games. They enable Marines to behave as they are supposed to (Rhino rushing Tacticals might actually be a thing again etc) and a charge from Intercessors after shooting their Bolters would actually be something potent and worth getting across the board again.

 

Likewise, Assault Marines and Reivers would have a decent role again with their Chainswords against infantry whilst the heavier assaults would be covered by Vanguard and Terminators.

[Panzer]

I've said it before but I'll say it again:

 

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 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 or Reiver combat blades.

 

***

 

Sorry to be boring repeating this but these are examples of small changes that make large impacts to games. They enable Marines to behave as they are supposed to (Rhino rushing Tacticals might actually be a thing again etc) and a charge from Intercessors after shooting their Bolters would actually be something potent and worth getting across the board again.

 

Likewise, Assault Marines and Reivers would have a decent role again with their Chainswords against infantry whilst the heavier assaults would be covered by Vanguard and Terminators.

 

Totally on board with both of it, however I find 1) extremely unnecessary as you could basically just increase the Sv stat on the Datasheet by 1 without adding yet another special rule and get the same effect. Okay not completely the same since it would make PA Marines better against AP0 as well but to be fair mass AP0 just shreds them currently as well.

[Quixus]

Totally on board with both of it, however I find 1) extremely unnecessary as you could basically just increase the Sv stat on the Datasheet by 1 without adding yet another special rule and get the same effect. Okay not completely the same since it would make PA Marines better against AP0 as well but to be fair mass AP0 just shreds them currently as well.

This however would require TDA to be 1+ or 0+

[Panzer]

 

Totally on board with both of it, however I find 1) extremely unnecessary as you could basically just increase the Sv stat on the Datasheet by 1 without adding yet another special rule and get the same effect. Okay not completely the same since it would make PA Marines better against AP0 as well but to be fair mass AP0 just shreds them currently as well.

This however would require TDA to be 1+ or 0+

 

 

Yeah but I don't see a problem with that. It still works perfectly fine within the core rules and does basically exactly what the special rule says ... ignoring the first AP. ^^

[Captain Idaho]

Hey they're not set in stone as ideas but examples how we can fix things without changing swathes of main game rules.

[Kallas]

 

Small tweaks only work if they're actually relevant. Bolter Discipline...isn't, really.

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous to say. We've barely had a week to assess the value of this. Maybe I'm just the other extreme because I will not ever trust the community's ability to instantly pinpoint the efficacy of rule changes given the long history of failure here. The hyperbole just makes everything so bloody extreme - something is either totally worthless or OP. We're very bad at identifying our own preconceptions let alone challenging them.

 

Bolter Drill isn't a particularly significant change. Our damage output equals our Rapid Fire output at max range under a couple of extra conditions, which certainly isn't bad thing, but it's hardly a remarkable amount - our maximum Bolter output isn't anything to write home about. It certainly makes Terminators and Centurions/Vehicles with Hurricane Bolters more attractive, but those already have various issues (Terminators are still a bit meh, unless they're Deathwatch/Wolf Guard; Centurions are still slow and Hurricane/Heavy Bolters don't actually do a huge amount unless they're IF with the detachment and capable of pumping out Mortal Wounds; our Vehicles are pants, particularly wherever Knights are present, as anything that's capable of dealing with them will shred our vehicles handily!)

 

A Tactical Squad is still crap. Doubling its output while it's siting on an objective is nice, but it still doesn't give them anything to do. Scouts still do that better by jumping on objectives/key positions immediately (or hiding just next to them) and pumping out the same firepower for a lower cost - and the additional resilience of Tactical Marines is pretty laughably minimal. Additional Devastators get a little more punch, and that's welcome, but cramming more Bolters into a list isn't going to actually do a whole lot - I can resort to Mathhammer, or I can just say that in my experience it isn't my Bolters that do damage, even when I was in Rapid Fire range, it's my characters and more effective weapons (Assault Cannons, notably).

 

Intercessors get some value, with their extra range and AP, as do Sternguard, but again it's not a complete freebie, it's only when remaining stationary. That's fine for holding a backfield objective, but it doesn't actually help for moving up to take midfield or enemy deployment objectives which is generally needed during a game.

 

So I'd say it's not worthless, but it isn't going to resolve any of the issues Marines have. It's not increasing out maximum output, it's just bringing us up to our maximum a little bit more often; but our maximum (Bolter) output is pretty pathetic.

 

I'd rather wait and see what the effect is combined with CA18 and Vigilus Defiant before coming to any kind of conclusion this early for any of those things.

 

Sure ok. CA18 didn't really do anything for Bolters, except for Devastator Centurions with Hurricanes and a tiny bit for Terminators who can leverage their Storm Bolters more effectively with Bolter Discipline. Vigilus isn't actually that great. I'm glad GW didn't go overboard on the Specialist Detachments, as the potential to slip back into the 7th Ed Formation issues could have been disastrous, but the SpecDets available don't really do a huge amount. Hell, the best one for Intercessors costs 2CP to get access to a good Bolter stratagem for 1CP per turn, so a minimum investment of 3CP for one use of RF2 on Intercessors (but also +1A/Ld), and that's simply a high price to pay for a force that's strapped for CP in the first place!

 

IF Vigilus is ok if, again, you're willing to sink that CP, although theirs is a little cheaper than the Veteran Intercessors and need only spend a single CP to unlock the Mortal Wounds Stratagem while getting, potentially free, access to the Vigilus WT/Relic which makes it quite efficient, at least!

 

This is the first I'm hearing that mortal wounds are "an issue". Are they really? Or are they just a rock to your scissors...

 

Mortal Wounds certainly are an issue, especially for elite armies like Marines, Custodes, etc. We're paying for our T4/Sv3+ which is apparently worth more than three GEQs who are statistically more efficient/effective than Marines while being tougher since bodies are better than a not-that-effective increase in survivability. A Mortal Wound on a Tactical Squad is more impactful to the Marine force than it is to put a Mortal Wound on a Guard Infantry Squad.

 

And the we have things like the IF Vigilus Stratagem and the AdMech Robot Stratagem which allow for high ROF units to pump out numerous Mortal Wounds, which makes a mockery of any defences other than multiple negative to hit modifiers.

 

Smite was certainly one of the most prolific MW dispensers, much like how Plasma is a prolific example of a high S/AP/decent ROF which makes the increased resilience of Marines pretty worthless - but they're far from the only things in those categories, simply the most notorious (and therefore most commented on).