point drops.

[DesuVult]

One problem with looking at CSM is that Creations of Bile causes massive skew.

[Karhedron]

Is Creations of Bile really much worse than Red Thirst? +1 to Wound is more powerful than +1S. Granted Red Thirst only applies in the first round of combat but that is often the most decisive.

[Medjugorje]

fight on death is a broken mechanic.

[Karhedron]

19 minutes ago, Medjugorje said:

fight on death is a broken mechanic.

 

It is good I grant you but Wulfen also have that rule and it only makes them decent. No one is topping league tables but spamming them, even since the points drop.

[DesuVult]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

Is Creations of Bile really much worse than Red Thirst? +1 to Wound is more powerful than +1S. Granted Red Thirst only applies in the first round of combat but that is often the most decisive.

CoB are consistently 7 to 10 percentage points higher than CSM as a whole in winrate.  Armywide fight on death is an absurdly powerful mechanic that hard counters some entire factions.

[WrathOfTheLion]

CSM can be quite good, with Creations of Bile, Black Legion, Word Bearers, Red Corsairs and Emperor's Children all quite nice subfactions, although the others can be good too.

 

The one thing it mainly has over the vanilla SM codex is being interesting and fun. There's a lot of cool things, and it's just more fun to play regardless of direct power as a book. There's really very little in the book that I would completely write off taking, and in a non-competitive game you can basically take anything from that book and it'll work.

[Captain Idaho]

It's important to note that the win rate isn't the be all or end all of balance and performance. Armies from a faction can vary quite significantly, with top performance lists taking very specific or skewed lists.

 

So internal balance doesn't care so much about the overall faction win rate, but said win rate can care about internal balance.

 

It's pretty much a moo point (the position of a cow) until the next edition resets the game or a radical mission pack comes out requiring Troops choices to be taken in xyz fashion and the like, but in the meantime points has to be addressed internally.

 

I think the quality of Marines, regardless of intent or theme, necessitates Marines being a much cheaper force. For balance reasons really.

 

Whilst lascannons are still D6 damage and bolters AP-0 (for most units) etc Marines just aren't as threatening and let's be honest, 2 wounds only gets you so far.

[DesuVult]

I feel there are 4 aspects to the problem at the moment. 

 

First is codex creep, all codices feel this but marines with higher base stats are often in the position of paying more for stats that will not matter.  See how tacticals at times outpace intercessors for no reason except being cheaper or the growth of auto-wounding mechanics invalidating the base T4 and increasing prominence of T5 infantry in the space marine codex.

 

Second plays off the first some.  GW drew back a lot of mechanics related to putting rules on datasheets but has since returned to giving units rules. Space Marines have a lot of vanilla units reliant on stratagems to function. See the differentiation in the troop choices in the upcoming Imperial Guard codex.  Units having inbuilt noteworthy abilities is uncommon in the space marine codex.

 

Third is that with the vast number of options available one chapter can likely find something to work.  These can bring windows but there is often some tool to find if you dig through everything so if you just look at winrates it can appear marines are fine.  See Dark Angel terminator bricks being a noteworthy presence in the meta before more armies were able to push out more mortal wounds or enough armies got point drops to keep DA off objectives and unable to score.

 

Four, lack of coherent design philosophy.  You can see in the rules at this point with buffs and nerfs that GW does not appear to know what marines are supposed to do anymore.  SoBs are a horde power armor army.  Custodes are an elite power armor army.  In theory marines should be some sort of shock assault army with an elite spearhead to break lines but GW has not given any method to actually do that.  The tools we have now like AoC facilitate a non-interactive defensive style of playing where units like infiltrators are placed on objectives to screen deepstrikers, fast units are thrown up the board to die and disrupt enemy movement, and 3 redemptors huddle around HQs to leafblower key enemy units off objectives one at a time so an objective taking unit can walk onto the objective to be killed on your opponent's turn.  These are commonly band-aid mechanics.  This can be seen in the armies that have had or currently have these tools like AoC before they were moved onto the entire space marine faction.

[Karhedron]

5 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

The one thing it mainly has over the vanilla SM codex is being interesting and fun. There's a lot of cool things, and it's just more fun to play regardless of direct power as a book.

 

You are right about that. I started flipping through the CSM codex looking for ideas about balancing loyalists and now I am feeling the lure of the dark gods. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

22 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

You are right about that. I started flipping through the CSM codex looking for ideas about balancing loyalists and now I am feeling the lure of the dark gods. 

Oh yeah, it's a great Codex. One of the best I think they've put out over 8th and 9th editions.

 

I don't know how easy it would be to take ideas from for C:SM, however. It has a lot too it, but at the same time it's quite stripped back in places, such as no custom subfactions and all. I originally postulated that might be how they plan on going forward with subfaction design, although Votann had custom subfactions. They did mention that the book was written back with Eldar though, so perhaps the CSM/Chaos Daemons books were written after Votann and that still might be a design change.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Is obvious the development team does not like space marines for whatever reason.

[The Emperors Champion22]

13 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I suppose there are two separate issues here. The first is the external balance: how well the codex stands up against other armies. The second is internal balance: how different units within the Marine codex stack up against each other.

 

GW have shown in the past that they are willing to use points to try and address internal balance (e.g. Assault squad getting a significant discount). Dropping points across the range would help external balance but would not affect internal balance. Marines probably need a combination of rules changes and points changes to bring them back into contention and a (presumed) new codex would provide an opportunity for both. Internal balance is good but Marines have so many units to choose from that this is always going to be a struggle so I would settle for good external balance and long as there is a decent variety of viable units and builds.

 

Interestingly, Chaos Marines currently have a 51% win rate which is probably exactly where GW would like them. A basic Chaos Marine has the same stats as an Intercessor and costs 18 points (10% less). Granted they have a standard bolt gun rather than the improved bolt rifle of an Intercessor. If they have a chainsword, their loadout is very close to that of an Assault Intercessor, albeit 1 point cheaper. Is the AI's improved bolt pistol worth 1 point? Maybe. Is the Bolt Rifle worth 2 points more than a bolt gun? Probably not. This suggests there is room to trim 1 point of regular Intercessors and 2-3 off Tactical Marines.

 

To be fair, if we are looking at changing Troops units by 1-3 points per model, that is not really going to make a significant difference so I think we need to look for other reasons which CSM are performing so much better than their loyalist counterparts. A Hellbrute has pretty much the same stats as a Dreanought but a Hellbrute with MM costs 110 points whereas a Dread with MM costs 125 points, not to mention that Hellbrutes get to reroll 1s to Hit as soon as they start losing wounds. This highlights the sort of differences that need to be made to Marines. 10-15% off the competitive units and some rules buffs to bring them back up to where they need to be.

 

We also need to look at support units. A Primaris Captain costs 90 points which is the same cost and abilities as a Chaos Lord. Now the problem is Chaos Lords are hardly ever seen in competitive lists. Daemon Princes and Lord Discordants are the primary choices for beatstick HQs with Masters of Possession and Dark Apostles making up the normal roster of support HQs. Marines have nothing that can compete in Beatstick terms with that. The only choice that comes even close is a Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf and that requires fully tooling up with wargear, relics and WLTs to come even close to matching what Chaos can do out of the box.

 

Now maybe the monsters are part of the unique appeal of Chaos and the Imperium should not get direct analogues. But they do need something to even the balance. Whether that is something like buffing unique units like Land Speeders or providing better synergies between units, I don't know. But Chaos Marines are currently a great example of a codex with lots of interesting builds and a variety of competitive units with a win rate that is pretty much exactly where it should be. I really hope GW playtests any new Marine codex thoroughly against the Chaos codex as that is where the balance needs to be.

marines just need cheaper units that have better stats and better rules. theyre too old and need buffs across the board.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I disagree we have many good units but our points don’t make any sense.

[Lord_Ikka]

There are problems with points, that is very true. Transports are clearly overcosted, as well as a lot of minor points adjustments that could bring some units in to a more competitive way.

 

Also a major problem is multiple units having very similar roles in the army, beyond even what the Firstborn/Primaris split is. Do we need to have Incursors/Infiltrators/Reivers all trying to be the sneaking flanking/forward deploying guys? 

 

Quite a few datasheets could be consolidated- a bunch of HQs could be condensed to eliminate excess (don't need tons of Captain sheets, just a couple with the various options), and you could even condense stuff like Intercessors/Assault Intercessors, Storm Speeders, or Gladiators into a single sheet as there are pretty much no difference between them aside from weapon options. Do what the previous couple of codices did and consolidate stuff like the Predator, we don't need two sheets for a turret weapon difference. 

[DesuVult]

GW uses the number of datasheets and size of the codex in marketing.  They like bigger books.

Edited November 26, 2022 by DesuVult

[Medjugorje]

I think its both. Our codex needs better rules and updates but in case, most of the current options/units are overcosted. There is not too much what need to be changed but surely our current book would be in a good spot if they would adjust the points. 

 

But as I stated in the other threads we need updates to have a right feeling about our faction.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

On 11/25/2022 at 3:21 PM, Captain Idaho said:

It's important to note that the win rate isn't the be all or end all of balance and performance. Armies from a faction can vary quite significantly, with top performance lists taking very specific or skewed lists.

 

So internal balance doesn't care so much about the overall faction win rate, but said win rate can care about internal balance.

 

It's pretty much a moo point (the position of a cow) until the next edition resets the game or a radical mission pack comes out requiring Troops choices to be taken in xyz fashion and the like, but in the meantime points has to be addressed internally.

 

I think the quality of Marines, regardless of intent or theme, necessitates Marines being a much cheaper force. For balance reasons really.

 

Whilst lascannons are still D6 damage and bolters AP-0 (for most units) etc Marines just aren't as threatening and let's be honest, 2 wounds only gets you so far.

 

I agree that win rate shouldn't be the end all, but I don't blame GW for using it. Its effectively free data for them, and with the sheer number of fractions and subfractions I think you have to start somewhere. That said it doesn't take a genius to look at the predator data sheet and the point cost and reach the conclusion that it stinks. You're 100% right that better internal balance does move the needle. I wish we didn't have fraction specific secondaries because I do think they have an outsized effect on win rate and doesn't fix a fraction's issues if you play a different mode besides matched at all.

 

I was looking through some of my old 5th edition lists and it surprised how many more marines I used to run. More so because a lot of my lists were designed for 1850. I'd say I'm down about 10-15 marines, and probably run a similar number of vehicles which would have probably been more dramatic if I would've played 2000 in the past. On the xenos side of things my lists feel a lot closer to what I used to run. Some of it is switching to primaris but I do feel that marines have become more elite without backing it up rules wise. That was a great point you brought up. 

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah I remember between 4th and 6th editions when you had to consider how many bodies you had on the table, with less than 30 being a problem.

 

The latest Marine tournament lists have 15 in Troops and the fill on vehicles like Redemptors and Contemptors.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I think on average we need to see 150-200 points become available at 2k.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

50 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Yeah I remember between 4th and 6th editions when you had to consider how many bodies you had on the table, with less than 30 being a problem.

 

The latest Marine tournament lists have 15 in Troops and the fill on vehicles like Redemptors and Contemptors.

 

Yeah for 5th and 6th I was running 30 grey hunters in transports in pretty much every list. Granted grey hunters were probably a top 5 troop choice that entire stretch but it still meant that a third of most of my lists were troops compared to the 15% I run now. It is weird to see how close a lot of the point values are, and IMO that shows how bad marine troops are now.   

 

 

19 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

I think on average we need to see 150-200 points become available at 2k.

 

I don't really have a set number mind, but I really think that they need to make it so that marines have some more playstyles open up. There just is ton of overlap between the good marines lists and with how big the book is there should be a lot more variety. 

[Medjugorje]

I played against Harlekins today. I think I played not bad and my opponent made a lot of mistakes because its his game with this army. 

I lost but it was very close. I had no chance because our army lacks in output.

 

Harlekin players have a 4++ and -1 to hit and lucky dice for 13 points with 3 or 4 attacks all with dmg2. Advance + charge and have access to strong weapons

 

Tacticals have 1 attack and cost 18 points.

Intercessors have 2 attacks and cost 20 points and no access to better weapons.

 

If Marines get only point drops it would be fine for a time but in the next codex Marines really need updates for more input and output.

[The Emperors Champion22]

4 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

I think on average we need to see 150-200 points become available at 2k.

one gladiator valiant, or two 5 man intercessor squads are gonna make the difference?

[The Emperors Champion22]

3 hours ago, Medjugorje said:

I played against Harlekins today. I think I played not bad and my opponent made a lot of mistakes because its his game with this army. 

I lost but it was very close. I had no chance because our army lacks in output.

 

Harlekin players have a 4++ and -1 to hit and lucky dice for 13 points with 3 or 4 attacks all with dmg2. Advance + charge and have access to strong weapons

 

Tacticals have 1 attack and cost 18 points.

Intercessors have 2 attacks and cost 20 points and no access to better weapons.

 

If Marines get only point drops it would be fine for a time but in the next codex Marines really need updates for more input and output.

Most marine datasheets should go down 20-25% in cost, even then our rules just suck.

[DesuVult]

I think all marine units, both loyalist and traitor, should be more like legionnaires.  I am pretty down on the CSM codex but that is because of units like chosen which aren't like legionnaires.  Marks, icons, a tome, and a melee specialist weapon really puts the unit over the top compared to most marine units currently.  

[The Emperors Champion22]

2 hours ago, DesuVult said:

I think all marine units, both loyalist and traitor, should be more like legionnaires.  I am pretty down on the CSM codex but that is because of units like chosen which aren't like legionnaires.  Marks, icons, a tome, and a melee specialist weapon really puts the unit over the top compared to most marine units currently.  

youre right, but theyre pretty set on each marine unit doing one thing, but they dont do it really well most of the time, and theyre overcosted for what theyre doing. they need things like fight twice and shoot twice on assault and regular intercessors to be datasheet abilities, not stratagems.