In 8th, Are marines the wrong baseline?

[Panzer]

Baseline for me means it's the unit the game is designed around. Everyone getting good weapons to kill Marines easily on multiple units and so on while Marines should be harder to kill ideally.

[Deathwalker]

Baseline for me means it's the unit the game is designed around. Everyone getting good weapons to kill Marines easily on multiple units and so on while Marines should be harder to kill ideally.

Way too many S4 weapons in the hands of basic troops that defeat the purpose of T4 on marines.

[Wargamer]

 

Baseline for me means it's the unit the game is designed around. Everyone getting good weapons to kill Marines easily on multiple units and so on while Marines should be harder to kill ideally.

Way too many S4 weapons in the hands of basic troops that defeat the purpose of T4 on marines.

 

Agreed. It seems ridiculous that Marines are wounded on a 3+ by small arms like mortal infantry... oh, wait, T4 does have a purpose and does make Marines superior to normal soldiers, even those with their own S4 gun.

[Panzer]

Yeah it wasn't S4 weaponry I was talking about lol

[Irbis]

Eh, I don't think it's just proliferation of excessive weapon profiles, especially xeno ones. Remember 3+ to hit SM had used to be a very good thing? With even most of the Eldar having 4+, and only their elites being as good as Astartes? Not current almost-average? If all the broken gun armies actually had some difficulty hitting, the impact woudln't be as bad, but now everyone and their grandma has ways to ensure virtually guaranteed shots, worsening the issue...

 

 

The current rules makes no distinction of who is getting the weapons, so a Devastator Sergeant with a power power fist pays the same points for his weapon as a Captain with jump pack or a Terminator.

GW won't look to address this directly since that requires a lot of micro management which arguably boys the game down at the army creation stage.

Incidentally the fixes would be like a weapons list for units rather than army wide, points increases incrementally as you take more of a certain unit/weapon (1 weapon or unit is usually not game breaking. 5 of those things might be) and points costs designed for specific missions or stylised of army build.

Too much of course since all of that would increase page count if nothing else.

 

You know what is funny? Yes, pricing weapon same on scout and chapter master is stupid. But we actually had edition that got it right, and had individual prices (and weapon options) for most of the units, without noticeable page increase. The 5th edition. It was one of the best balanced in 40K history, with awesomely easy to use books (why oh why GW went back to inane zillion page flipping armoury system!?) during the list creation and in-game. Alas, you can make best rules ever, with last Codex of edition being able to fight first equally, with little power creep, but Emperor forbid if you put three pieces of fluff from earlier editions into your books upending wrong headcanons as they will be then endlessly cherrypicked by 4chan crowd emitting WAAAGH level of noise until you quit the company.

 

And that's why we can't have nice things

[Charlo]

So controversially, I think marines should be the baseline.

 

But this is only if we are strictly keeping them at S4 T4 3+ etc and talking about the current edition.

 

Most factions are Astartes, so while Guard would make more sense as a baseline (being a basic human and us, also being basic humans) that doesn't quite fit the game. The marine stat-line is easy to remember and most basic troopers weapons wound on a 4+, whereas Bolters wound non-marines on a 3+. This is important and i'll get back to why later...

 

The issue however is that the marines biggest and baddest stat from 3rd ed (where the game is inherently rooted), the 3+ save, is now near useless against most weapons in the game. Previously all manner of anti-personnel weapons just bounced off the Battle-tank-thick warplate of our super humans, it took some real big guns to hurt them. Now though? A Heavy Bolter can easily have a field day. Units with worse saves don't care about this, as their (universally cheaper) models weren't getting saves anyway and now it takes a -2 modifier to even get rid of their 5+!

 

Not only this, but there is a real discrepancy between a marines toughness, bolter strength, enemy toughness and their weapon's strength. Look at something like the Eldar Guardian. They're cheaper than marines, faster and hit harder. Admittedly, they are more fragile, but in a turn based game I don't think this matters. Offense is key and their speed helps them get the first shot in, not to mention that 10 Shuriken catapults will probably deal more damage than 7 Bolters, a Heavy and a Combi for a lot let cost. This is then before you add in the likes of Psychic buffs, Stratagems or Orders for things like IG (or AM is it were).

 

TL;DR:

Marines should be the baseline, but were are well overdue a big shakeup for all the profiles (which won't happen) so we need a points adjust. Marines pay for stats that are irrelevant or never going to be used.

 

Extra food for thought:

Primaris were a step in the right direction, but their profile seems to be made with 7th ed in mind, where 2W was a lot more powerful. In 8th they just make for easy target selection for 2D weapons.

[Captain Idaho]

Seriously guys. There should be NO baselines. That means you hinge the whole game around how it compares to one unit. That means you can't change that single unit without rebalancing the entire game.

 

No no no. Each unit should be balanced based upon its performance in its own list first then compared against all other types of opponents and situations to see how said unit squares up.

 

This is how units used to be priced though GW have had trouble in the past with their actual testing - they didn't do it.

[Leif Bearclaw]

You know what is funny? Yes, pricing weapon same on scout and chapter master is stupid. But we actually had edition that got it right, and had individual prices (and weapon options) for most of the units, without noticeable page increase. The 5th edition. It was one of the best balanced in 40K history, with awesomely easy to use books (why oh why GW went back to inane zillion page flipping armoury system!?) during the list creation and in-game. Alas, you can make best rules ever, with last Codex of edition being able to fight first equally, with little power creep, but Emperor forbid if you put three pieces of fluff from earlier editions into your books upending wrong headcanons as they will be then endlessly cherrypicked by 4chan crowd emitting WAAAGH level of noise until you quit the company.

 

And that's why we can't have nice things

Have to both agree and disagree here.

 

Yes, 5th was the best core system by far (with the biggest issue being the casualty removal shenanigans), and the 'all options, with points in the unit entry' was sound product design I'm also flabbergasted they dropped. Although wasn't Alessio Cavatore the primary driving force behind the 5th ed rulebook, not Ward?

 

However, 5th had terrible power creep (only somewhat eclipsed because things got a lot worse later), and while it wasn't unique to Ward dexes (this is the era of leafblower Guard, after all), he did produce some of the exemplars of the issue (such as GK and BA), and clearly favoured some factions over others (such as adding another 3 Ultramarine Special Characters to the SM dex, while the Iron Hands got nothing). Also, you really underplay just how awful his fluff was, some of it wasn't new, but should've stayed buried (like the GKs killing/mindwiping everyone who sees them, up to and including the entire Sanguinary Guard of the BAs, still one of the stupidest bits of fluff that should've stayed buried), but a bunch was new, and incredibly stupid (like Astorath the Grim, at the very least each BA successor should have their own executioner, or the infamous 'GKs kill the Sisters to use their blood as protective armour paint', or Kaldor Draigo). He also ruined the balance of 7th ed Fantasy (his Daemon book was that overpowered), then was heavily involved the worst edition of that game, so bad it killed the setting. Blaming his reputation, and leaving the company, on 'the 4chan crowd unfairly not liking his fluff' is both underestimating how bad some of his stuff was, and how influential 4chan is/was (I came across distaste for Ward long before I ever came across 4chan). Granted, given what we've seen since, he may have unfairly attracted some flakk for merely implementing Studio policy, it's impossible to know. But he wasn't some Cassandra, who's attempts to bring balance to the game were unfairly ignored by the hateful fandom, either.

[Captain Idaho]

Hmm. Somewhat undermined your own argument about 5th edition there.

 

Anyway, moving back onto topic.

 

It's clear Space Marines are suffering in this edition. If nothing else, they're boring on the table. Primaris in particular are so mono pose (they look it even when they're not!) and uninspiring on the table. Lack of customisation is a big problem, both on the table and in the kits. Oh look, the same Gravis Commander as everybody else?

 

The Primaris has been the focus of the Codex which appears fine in principle (woo hoo new units) but when those units are just Bolter Marines, Plasma Marines and Scout Marines, with no wargear options...

 

Added to that the lack of Strategums available and the Codex is possibly one of the worst we've had for some time.

 

A redo is essential.

 

Now, the problems with average Tactical/Intercessor Marines etc can be addressed not just with points drops but some decent Strategums for cheap. That would make those units interesting again.

 

Alas I don't think we can expect more than that. A new Codex won't see anything new in it except what have models currently and Primaris. Shame since weapon options like Boarding Shields or Destroyer weapons would allow for customised Tactical, Intercessor, Assault Marines etc.

 

Who here wouldn't buy 2+ lots of sprues if they came with Boarding Shields for our line infantry, Destroyer grenade launchers for our Assault Marines and Reivers, combi weapons for our Terminators so we can finally be brought to a level expected of well supplied loyalists...?

[Leif Bearclaw]

Hmm. Somewhat undermined your own argument about 5th edition there.

 

How so?

 

Imo, the core rules (so the brb) were at their best in 5th. What made 5th increasingly unbalanced as it went on was the blatant power creep of certain dexes (with a couple of Ward's being the exemplars for the issue), not core components of the ruleset (and even then, it never reached the BS levels we later saw in 6th and especially 7th). Which is not what we're seeing with 8th, with things like character targeting, ally shenanigans, flyers, the imbalance of CP generation between elite and horde armies, the devaluation of Toughness due to the 'simplified' to wound chart (which especially hurts more elite units like Marines), all of which are errors with the core ruleset. Plus, we still have massive imbalances in Codex power, with SMs and GKs being pretty close to the bottom of the pile by most reckoning.

 

Really, the biggest error with so much of 8th really seems to go back to GW bottling the 'complete reset' nature of it. They had a blank canvas to rework the game, and (for example) stop this 10-15 point elite infantry race to the bottom. But instead they introduced super Space Marines (which totally aren't an intended replacement, honest guys) leaving the 'classic' Marines in the same 'overcosted, but no space to lower prices before hitting other unit's price range' issue they've been stuck in for the last couple of editions. Yes, 8th is a new game, but often feels all too familiar in the worst ways.

[Ishagu]

8th edition is supposed to be a new chapter in the Galactic war, as brutal and bloody as the Horus Heresy.

 

Marines dying in droves, huge casualties on all sides, conflicts which mirror the Heresy where multi-chapter forces battle in numbers that resemble the Legions. This is reflected on the tabletop in how devastating the game is for units, both in shooting and close combat.

 

The stats of units are generally fine. The issue is with points. Marines aren't worth 13.

[Panzer]

8th edition is supposed to be a new chapter in the Galactic war, as brutal and bloody as the Horus Heresy.

 

Marines dying in droves, huge casualties on all sides, conflicts which mirror the Heresy where multi-chapter forces battle in numbers that resemble the Legions. This is reflected on the tabletop in how devastating the game is for units, both in shooting and close combat.

 

The stats of units are generally fine. The issue is with points. Marines aren't worth 13.

 

Nice theory but that's not how fluff and crunch interact and I'd say with all the Plasma and Grav around 7th was just as deadly on a competetive level for Marines anyway. Actually GW just introduced a beta rule to reduce the casualties early in the game by restricting deep strike heavily even.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah it's not just points. Strategums are lacklustre and geared towards 7th Edition Detachment rules i.e. Killshot, Linebreaker Bombardment, Empyric Channelling, Datalink Telemetry etc.

 

Then there are the Psychic powers and Chapter Tactics.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I don't think 8th really has a baseline. List building has never been this flexible, and not just as far as allies are concerned but with the battle field roles as well. The faq is helping with this, but it still is the most flexible by far that the game has ever been.

 

In past editions I could see the argument that tactical marines were the baseline, they were the troop choice in the codex that was updated most often. Troops were a requirement, and you were limited in detachments.

 

Even with better stratagems, and psychic powers tactical marines won't become relevant because of the freedom in list building. I think in order for them to become a factor again you'd need more restrictions in army construction, and probably a special rule that added some extra cp (maybe +1 cp for each tactical squad in your warlords detachment).   

 

 

[Captain Idaho]

I dunno. Battalions giving 5 CPs is a start. Imagine a limit on how detachments you can have would do.

 

Decrease points for Tactical squads or give them a discounted Rhino or my favourite idea, a free Rhino at 10 men but only they can travel in it, then things will look better.

[Ishagu]

To follow up on what I said, I 100% agree that Marines need better stratagems (and also psychic support for that matter) on top of a points drop.

 

I was merely saying that I don't feel the core stats are wrong in particular. It's a vastly more dangerous universe than the one depicted in 7th edition.

[Kite Senet]

Seriously guys. There should be NO baselines. That means you hinge the whole game around how it compares to one unit. That means you can't change that single unit without rebalancing the entire game.

 

No no no. Each unit should be balanced based upon its performance in its own list first then compared against all other types of opponents and situations to see how said unit squares up.

 

This is how units used to be priced though GW have had trouble in the past with their actual testing - they didn't do it.

(Emphasis added)

 

This may be because it's nigh impossible to actually test a game with that design philosophy. Baselines are necessary in particular to simplify that same testing process.

 

For example, say it takes 20 games to figure out whether or not a matchup between two armies is balanced.

 

If you hope to balance every single army with every single build against every other army's every build, and you have, say, N different armies, you end up with 10*N*(N-1) matches that must be played in order to determine balance. This becomes prohibitively expensive in terms of time: with just 10 armies, you have 900 games that need to be played. With 20, that raises to 3800.  I count 34 factions in 40k currently, amounting to 11,220 games to play for balance. If you account for the fact that each army should probably be represented by three or more different builds, and use these for N in this calculation instead, we obtain an estimated 103,020 games that must be played to balance the game. (If we let two-faction armies into the picture, then this complexity grows beyond what I care to compute--but it will be order O(N^4), a ridiculously fast growth rate.)

 

Now, at this point you likely recognize something obvious -- "Kite, you don't REALLY need to test all of those matchups -- many of those are going to be very similar!" -- and this is, exactly, the fact that baseline balancing exploits. See, if instead of making each individual army ostensibly with its own special bespoke rules, you start with a single baseline B and modify this to construct your new army, then you have a good general idea that, if A is balanced against B which is balanced against and reasonably similar to C, then A should be balanced against C as well (in theory). This means you only need to play 20*(N-1) games to ensure balance. AND, even if you do want to test in particular whether A and C are balanced, you only actually need to test the parts of A and C which were actually *changed* from B; so you may be able to squeeze that information out of just trying to break *that* particular trait in 3 matches rather than 20. The net result is a massive decrease in testing load, for example down to 2020 games required total to implement these tests for 102 army builds instead of 103,020.

 

All in all, my point is, baselines are primarily a game design technique, not a post facto game balancing technique. It is necessitated by the rapid complexity growth of balancing a game with a ton of different factions yielding even more different matchups. Bespoke rules design requires order O(N^2) games or even higher polynomial order to test, whereas baseline-based rules design requires only order O(N) matches, a tremendous improvement in terms of ease of testing balance.

[Captain Idaho]

Or maybe it was just because they didn't do it? The developers at GW never used the community for anything before and only a handful of playtesters ever existed, with much of the "narrative ethos" trumping revision and feedback.

[Deathwalker]

Yeah it wasn't S4 weaponry I was talking about lol

What were you talking about then?

[Deathwalker]

 

Seriously guys. There should be NO baselines. That means you hinge the whole game around how it compares to one unit. That means you can't change that single unit without rebalancing the entire game.

 

No no no. Each unit should be balanced based upon its performance in its own list first then compared against all other types of opponents and situations to see how said unit squares up.

 

This is how units used to be priced though GW have had trouble in the past with their actual testing - they didn't do it.

(Emphasis added)

 

 

All in all, my point is, baselines are primarily a game design technique, not a post facto game balancing technique. It is necessitated by the rapid complexity growth of balancing a game with a ton of different factions yielding even more different matchups. Bespoke rules design requires order O(N^2) games or even higher polynomial order to test, whereas baseline-based rules design requires only order O(N) matches, a tremendous improvement in terms of ease of testing balance.

 

A world of this.

[Dracos]

Adeptus Astartes with ATSKNF reroll all armor/invul saves auto pass morale checks = fixed :)

[Deathwalker]

Adeptus Astartes with ATSKNF reroll all armor/invul saves auto pass morale checks = fixed

Oh god no, I don't want my marines going back to 30 points per model.

[Morticon]

I dunno. Battalions giving 5 CPs is a start. Imagine a limit on how detachments you can have would do.

 

Decrease points for Tactical squads or give them a discounted Rhino or my favourite idea, a free Rhino at 10 men but only they can travel in it, then things will look better.

 

This would have been my suggestion too. A return to "dedicated" transports - and a good buff. I would say same with the Pod. But that's going into "fixing marines" territory now. 

[Deathwalker]

 

I dunno. Battalions giving 5 CPs is a start. Imagine a limit on how detachments you can have would do.

 

Decrease points for Tactical squads or give them a discounted Rhino or my favourite idea, a free Rhino at 10 men but only they can travel in it, then things will look better.

 

This would have been my suggestion too. A return to "dedicated" transports - and a good buff. I would say same with the Pod. But that's going into "fixing marines" territory now. 

 

Do you think having a Rhino "fixes" marines?

I think it is just another bad-aid.

[Panzer]

Urgh please no free stuff and/or morale auto pass. Those were some of the worst things last edition. There have to be better ways to fix Marines.