Space Marines need help…

[CCE1981]

Now I understand we aren’t at the bottom of the totem pole just yet. A few more Codices need help before we get a comeback, Guard for one. We do get tons of attention, but it is kinda telling when the Space Marine forums start drying up. The upcoming rebirth of Squats….Legions of Voltann, has me of two minds. On one hand, “Squats are back”, on the other, “yet another Codex”.

 

Likely the best place to rebalance most of Marines is in the Codex itself not the Supplements. I think we will get SOME indication of the direction the changes we will see in the Chaos Marine Codex.

 

Starting with the broadest stroke, Vehicles. - Good god they need a points drop, when an opposing vehicle of half your points is more than likely going to remove you in a single volley there is an issue. I think Vehicles except Dreadnoughts need a dramatic points drop, like 20-30%, and Dreadnoughts about 10%. I like having varied forces on the table. I want to see and play varied lists as opposed yo almost always taking Vanguard Vets.

 

Chapter Command, in general these are solid. -

-Librarians are horribly out classed against psycher armies, and not too relevant against low psycher armies. Only really good against other Marine builds. I just find them needing Psychic Mastery or a Relic sometimes both to be relevant in their role. It’s hard because their points seem justified, but I keep asking “do I really need this guy?” It seems your in on him or your out.

 

-Techmarine needs to be either in the Command Squad or Elites or the first doesn’t take a Force org Slot. I almost never consider them as anything, even if I try to make a Dreadnought heavy list I end up dropping them.

 

-Chapter Master, early on he was great. Now I keep dropping them from lists. What do they really give you? A second Captain, access to a really good but not auto include relic, re-roll hits to one Core or Character unit….it use to be good, now I find it’s hard to justify their cost. I believe they should give Command Point and maybe get a free Warlord trait. A CP would also mean you are not hosed for not taking certain named Characters.

 

General points drops across most infantry. The game is MASSIVELY more lethal. Two wounds on paper 3+ save is almost meaningless. I can’t really see more than 15-16 pts for an Intercessor/Tactical Marine. Yeah, I know another 25% drop.

 

I am venting a bit, but it’s frustrating being effectively tabled turn 2. Victory Points being meaningless if everything you have to score points is gone, or you need everyone of your trans-super-human soldier shooting to kill enough of you opponents models to survive another salvo from your opponent.

 

Would love to hear other peoples thoughts. Thanks all!

[Deafbok]

Absolutely with you on this - though I think if I had to distill my frustration with marines down to a single point which I feel is the root of all their issues, it's a total lack of durability that was present in previous editions. 

The lethality really is the biggest problem. 2 wounds helped a bit, but the sheer proliferation of S5+ D2 weaponry with any kind of AP and high rate of fire just makes marines melt. 

Close combat also feels a lot less gritty, as whoever gets the charge tends to straight up melt their opponent. 

Even being hit by Genestealers with Rending Claws in 4th didn't feel this lethal. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Personally I think marine vehicles need a drop in points.

 

After that I think most of Marines issues stem from power creep. I'd rather see those armies take some nerfs.

 

I would like to see the amount of buffs you can give units addressed at some point as well. I just think it makes balancing the game a nightmare.

[Orange Knight]

We are now past the point where some point adjustments and a few new strats can resolve the issues.

 

Marines are near the bottom of the barrel, and some chapters are comically weak even when standing next to other Marine armies.

 

We need a full re-work of many weapons, all of the vehicles, and various units up and down the codex.

[MegaVolt87]

It's too late, a new edition is needed to fix all this with a new 10th ed codex.

[Azaiel]

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if we didn't get hints or a release of a new SM codex by the end of the year. Just shy half a year from a new edition of the game so you have to buy two armybooks in one year.

[TheNewman]

It does strike me that for all the complaints about the game being too lethal I personally seem to have a problem with everything else being unreasonably durable.

 

Then again, my bad luck with dice is worthy of a gypsy curse.

 

I'm also in the camp that says you can make Marines competitive with points adjustments, but they wouldn't feel like Marines if GW did that.

Edited April 6, 2022 by TheNewman

[Orange Knight]

You could drop an Intercessor to 6 points if you want to tangle with Tau and Eldar I suppose...

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

Drop Custodes from the game and give Marines the stats Custodes currently have.

 

Simple.

[TheNewman]

Drop Custodes from the game and give Marines the stats Custodes currently have.

 

Simple.

Or just play your Marines as Custodes. Oh wait, Harlies are making a mockery of even Tau and Custodes. Edited April 6, 2022 by TheNewman

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

We’re like 15 months or les from a new edition being announced so we’ll get new stuff soon enough Edited April 7, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

You could drop an Intercessor to 6 points if you want to tangle with Tau and Eldar I suppose...

I get your argument but in alot ways the problem with the game is that the top units are super undercosted.

 

The answer shouldn't always be boosting the weaker fractions. That enables power creep because we say we need a re-write and if our fraction is popular enough we skip ahead in line to get one (and get charged for the privilege).

 

Voidweavers shouldn't cost under a hundred points. That weapon is crazy and if it was costed correctly marines probably wouldn't feel so crappy. The same is true for alot of the top units in the top tier armies.

[CrystalSeer]

Things start undercosted to sell kits. They made voidweavers stupid good for under 100 points. Does this make sense for balance? If so, I can't see how.

 

But what happened: tons of tournament players ran out and bought 9 voidweavers. Then meta chasers bought a ton of voidweavers. Following that, GW started rolling back the rules. Over time, they will likely be recosted.

 

They've done this with every faction in 9th.

 

It's not about balance at first. The release phase is about selling kits. Balancing comes later to maintain a playable system. If you want to play balanced games, just avoid stuff that came out in the last 3 months.

[mel_danes]

Question First?
How many of you have memories of playing RT or Second Edition?

I recall when a shuriken catapult was -2 to save, and marines just died in droves to them.
The moment they brought back AP as a negative modifier on a single dice save I knew marines were doomed.

The design cycle has brought us back to the beginning, its was dumb then, and made armor a joke, and is dumb now.
The previous AP system, IE 3rd edition, which either got through or bounced off was far superior. Easy to run, no questions and worked well.
It could totally work again, even with the new wound system, for infantry. Vehicles needs a ground up rebuild.

[CCE1981]

Talking AP, I am ok with it as an idea. The current implementation is the flaw I see. Some weapons, such as sniper weapons and power weapons should have an AP value. After that AP should be compared to toughness.

 

If strength of the weapon is higher you gain an additional point of AP per pt over toughness. If toughness is higher than Strength you lose a point of AP for every point above, and can actually improve Armor saves. For example Plasma guns I would completely remove AP entirely. You fire a Plasmagun against a marine without over heating its Str 7 is 3 better than the Marines toughness, the Marine has to make a Save at -3. If you fire a Str 3 lasgun at a T4 Marine the Marine gets a Save at +1.

[Malakithe]

 

You could drop an Intercessor to 6 points if you want to tangle with Tau and Eldar I suppose...

I get your argument but in alot ways the problem with the game is that the top units are super undercosted.

 

Whats considered 'undercosted'? How does someone judge that? Is there a gold standard or baseline of what infantry should cost or what vehicles should cost? 

 

People want points cuts and points increases but how do you figure out which is which? 

[Marshal Reinhard]

Marines are paying extra points for durability they're not getting. Sure a factions weaker guns (like lasguns) has reasonbly tough time against them but the prevalence of stronger guns make the suppossed durability not worth the premium payed. The extra cost of marines is not worth it just to gain insinularity against lasguns (et al).

 

The possible answers to this are to either buff marines durability further, decrease lethality of the environment (aka everyone else), decrease marine cost or increase cost of most everyone else.

 

Most of these come with unwanted side effects (decreasing marine cost means theyre just becomin a glass cannon army) or very drastic (like nerfing everyone) but as it stands marines are paying a premium for the priviledge of knowing their more expensive units are dying just as easily as everyone else in the current lethality environment

[Malakithe]

Marines are paying extra points for durability they're not getting. Sure a factions weaker guns (like lasguns) has reasonbly tough time against them but the prevalence of stronger guns make the suppossed durability not worth the premium payed. The extra cost of marines is not worth it just to gain insinularity against lasguns (et al).

 

The possible answers to this are to either buff marines durability further, decrease lethality of the environment (aka everyone else), decrease marine cost or increase cost of most everyone else.

 

Most of these come with unwanted side effects (decreasing marine cost means theyre just becomin a glass cannon army) or very drastic (like nerfing everyone) but as it stands marines are paying a premium for the priviledge of knowing their more expensive units are dying just as easily as everyone else in the current lethality environment

Since GW isnt going to go back on what they upgraded and nerf everything else its looking like the only real solutions is bring Marines up to where everyone else is plus make points adjustments. Necrons also need a similar solution.

[Son of Sacrifice]

I feel like this is how marines have always been outside of that brief period at the end of 8th!

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

 

You could drop an Intercessor to 6 points if you want to tangle with Tau and Eldar I suppose...

I get your argument but in alot ways the problem with the game is that the top units are super undercosted.

 

Whats considered 'undercosted'? How does someone judge that? Is there a gold standard or baseline of what infantry should cost or what vehicles should cost?

 

People want points cuts and points increases but how do you figure out which is which?

That's a fair point and it is going to be based on personal bais. For me I feel that it's safe to say marines are the most popular army, and there are several equivalents that are also popular. The meta suffers when marines are too good, and when marines stink. I feel that marines should be the baseline because of this. It doesn't hurt that we have a ton of units/wargear.

 

If you compare a landspeeder to the voidweaver the stats are pretty similar (land speeder stats are a bit better). The void weaver does come with 2 shuriken cannons base compared to one heavy bolter. The Land speeder is 60 pts voidweaver at this point should probably be a little cheaper. So let's say 50.

 

Then we get wargear void weaver has a 4++, which an impulsor pays 15 for 5++. The base save is a little worse so i think that's a fair price for it. The base main gun is free to swap for the prismatic cannon which everyone uses judging from goonhammer breakdowns. It's better than lascannons which we would pay 40 pts for a twin linked (it has two shots). So at this point it should cost more than 100 points IMO, and we haven't discussed mirage launchers.

 

Again that is my personal bias but I'm being more transparent than GW lol.

[Schlitzaf]

As a note wheb armies tend to have 1-2 options in a slot. Those options tend to ger “Slot” discounted. To ensure they are viable. “UU” or units witj Unique Roles in an armg tend to grr a similar discount. That why Voidweavers in oart are so cheap.

[Helias_Tancred]

Things start undercosted to sell kits. They made voidweavers stupid good for under 100 points. Does this make sense for balance? If so, I can't see how.

 

But what happened: tons of tournament players ran out and bought 9 voidweavers. Then meta chasers bought a ton of voidweavers. Following that, GW started rolling back the rules. Over time, they will likely be recosted.

 

They've done this with every faction in 9th.

 

It's not about balance at first. The release phase is about selling kits. Balancing comes later to maintain a playable system. If you want to play balanced games, just avoid stuff that came out in the last 3 months.

 

This guy ^

 

100% on target. They pull this crap to enhance sales. 

[Helias_Tancred]

Marine vehicles need a massive points reduction. Marine infantry a modest to slight point reduction. 

 

Overall in the 9th edition rules AP needs reigned in, point costs among other armies need to be brought in line, and I'd rework the stratagems and the rules in how they're used. Make them more special and less of an option for OP combinations. 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

As a note wheb armies tend to have 1-2 options in a slot. Those options tend to ger “Slot” discounted. To ensure they are viable. “UU” or units witj Unique Roles in an armg tend to grr a similar discount. That why Voidweavers in oart are so cheap.

Brother, I almost had a stroke trying to read that.

[Schlitzaf]

If a book has only 1 option or unit capable of doing something, its generally cheaper