"Fixing" the Space Marine Codex

[BrainFireBob]

Typed a long post in word, can't copy-paste.

 

So, summary version:

 

Units have several high-level theoretical characteristics: The ability to absorb wounds, the ability to deal damage, and the ability to resist wounding.

 

It's the change to ASM from AP.

 

Marines were costed around low instantaneous damage (low output at any one time)+survivability- so damage added up over time.

Under the old system, the weapons that killed them en masse were uncommon and on non-standard platforms; this meant Marines supplied focused fire on them.

So, 6-7 units, 40-50 bodies, but you essentially played a form of attrition and smart maneuver/deployment. Marines had low damage, moderate resist wounding, but high ability to absorb wounds (high save frequency). That's also why Marine lists that supplied sudden alpha-strike damage via asymmetric army construction were deleterious to the meta- Marines weren't supposed to do that, so they double-benefited by being tough and doing high volumes of damage.

 

Horde armies were designed, under the AP system, to have the few surviving models do all the heavy lifting and absorb casualties. Relatively high damage, low ability to resist wounding, high ability to absorb wounding.

 

Going to ASM, we don't have enough precision in the system to keep single step sizes from being significant variation in results- or, an ASM of -1 takes a marine from saving 2/3 wounds to 1/2. That's massive.

 

Horde armies are unchanged. They didn't get a save before, and frequently don't get one now. Their unit design and army design is unchanged.

Marines now take too many wounds for their damage output- their already low damage output actually atrophies quickly due to increased casualty accumulation. Against armies that are more numerous, this double counts against them: They do less damage coming in, and have less left at the end to do damage with. Marines were essentially an attrition army, and that's been removed from them.

 

The suggestions for improving Marines that people are supplying are really about increasing Marine damage output or increasing their wound absorption ability again. There's a reason for that.

 

Try a game of 8th using the old AP system. Suddenly, it's all different. The vocal minority that swore ASMs were the best thing since sliced bread are responsible, if they were the impetus, for what happened to Marines, IMO (2nd was a different game at a different scale, which is why it worked in 2nd). It's also, also IMO, the real reason Marines dominated for 3rd-7th: As a friend of mine once said, removing that many models doesn't feel like winning.

 

TL, DR: There's a legacy issue regarding squad design and army design, with the fact that 8th isn't the critical redesign it needed to be to reintroduce ASMs, meaning that Marines are double-impacted and other armies aren't. That's the problem, not Marines themselves. To give Marines back some toughness, either scale back ASMs, or let them ignore up to -X ASM.

[Kallas]

Horde armies are unchanged. They didn't get a save before, and frequently don't get one now.

I'd challenge this, as horde armies actually do get saves more often now, Guard being the best example: vs what used to tear through them with no save allowed (eg, Bolters at AP5), they now get a 33% chance to survive! Even Orks/Tyranids get a chance to save against massed firepower (eg, Lasguns, Bolters, Splinter Rifles, etc) where they wouldn't before.

 

I think you're predominantly right in your post, but I think that the AP changes have not just swung against elite models, but actively favoured hordes. 

[Marshal Arthur]

What if power armored units ignored AP -1? Most Ap -2 weapons were AP 3 in the last edition so would've eliminated a marine's save anyway, but ignoring AP -1 puts us more or less where we were last edition. Then I recommend giving all bolt weapons a rule where they gain a point of AP against toughness 3 targets to represent their effectiveness against lightly armored targets. Marine's become a bit tougher and bolters gain a place as anti-horde weapons. I also feel like increasing the number of shots put out by marine units could help make up for our smaller numbers. Maybe making space marine boltguns rapid fire 2 and storm bolters rapid fire 3, or another rule allowing marine units to shoot twice.

 

Edit: Oh, and as a Templar I'd like marine chainswords to also get the point of AP against soft targets. And I personally think Primaris should have their own chainswords with AP -1 just like the bolt rifle.

[Laughingman]

In terms of damage output a 1cp stratagem that allowed Bolters to fire twice (fury of the legion 2.0) would go a long way. Though I think making power armor ignore -1AP effect of weaponry below strength five might be a good option as well..

[Ishagu]

Marines are no less durable now than they were in 7th.

 

They were literally an MSU horde army in 7th and were only competitive in two builds:

 

-Free transport spam

-Multi codex Invincible Death Star

[spessmarine]

Realistically, SM will never match lore depiction.

They are, adding in CSM too, by far the most common army and basically the baseline. It will be impossible to make the most common faction feel elite since you need some sort of well entrenched baseline to make something feel elite against.

 

Custodes are easy in this case since they are much rarer than MEQs, not fielded as commonly, and so you can set them as the elite body relative to the most common body (MEQs)

[Lemondish]

Typed a long post in word, can't copy-paste.

 

So, summary version:

 

Units have several high-level theoretical characteristics: The ability to absorb wounds, the ability to deal damage, and the ability to resist wounding.

 

It's the change to ASM from AP.

 

Marines were costed around low instantaneous damage (low output at any one time)+survivability- so damage added up over time.

Under the old system, the weapons that killed them en masse were uncommon and on non-standard platforms; this meant Marines supplied focused fire on them.

So, 6-7 units, 40-50 bodies, but you essentially played a form of attrition and smart maneuver/deployment. Marines had low damage, moderate resist wounding, but high ability to absorb wounds (high save frequency). That's also why Marine lists that supplied sudden alpha-strike damage via asymmetric army construction were deleterious to the meta- Marines weren't supposed to do that, so they double-benefited by being tough and doing high volumes of damage.

 

Horde armies were designed, under the AP system, to have the few surviving models do all the heavy lifting and absorb casualties. Relatively high damage, low ability to resist wounding, high ability to absorb wounding.

 

Going to ASM, we don't have enough precision in the system to keep single step sizes from being significant variation in results- or, an ASM of -1 takes a marine from saving 2/3 wounds to 1/2. That's massive.

 

Horde armies are unchanged. They didn't get a save before, and frequently don't get one now. Their unit design and army design is unchanged.

Marines now take too many wounds for their damage output- their already low damage output actually atrophies quickly due to increased casualty accumulation. Against armies that are more numerous, this double counts against them: They do less damage coming in, and have less left at the end to do damage with. Marines were essentially an attrition army, and that's been removed from them.

 

The suggestions for improving Marines that people are supplying are really about increasing Marine damage output or increasing their wound absorption ability again. There's a reason for that.

 

Try a game of 8th using the old AP system. Suddenly, it's all different. The vocal minority that swore ASMs were the best thing since sliced bread are responsible, if they were the impetus, for what happened to Marines, IMO (2nd was a different game at a different scale, which is why it worked in 2nd). It's also, also IMO, the real reason Marines dominated for 3rd-7th: As a friend of mine once said, removing that many models doesn't feel like winning.

 

TL, DR: There's a legacy issue regarding squad design and army design, with the fact that 8th isn't the critical redesign it needed to be to reintroduce ASMs, meaning that Marines are double-impacted and other armies aren't. That's the problem, not Marines themselves. To give Marines back some toughness, either scale back ASMs, or let them ignore up to -X ASM.

Bob, I feel dumb asking this...but what is ASM? Assault Marines is what I've always heard that acronym used for, but it doesn't seem to track here.

[Beta galactosidase]

What if power armored units ignored AP -1? Most Ap -2 weapons were AP 3 in the last edition so would've eliminated a marine's save anyway, but ignoring AP -1 puts us more or less where we were last edition. Then I recommend giving all bolt weapons a rule where they gain a point of AP against toughness 3 targets to represent their effectiveness against lightly armored targets. Marine's become a bit tougher and bolters gain a place as anti-horde weapons. I also feel like increasing the number of shots put out by marine units could help make up for our smaller numbers. Maybe making space marine boltguns rapid fire 2 and storm bolters rapid fire 3, or another rule allowing marine units to shoot twice.

 

Edit: Oh, and as a Templar I'd like marine chainswords to also get the point of AP against soft targets. And I personally think Primaris should have their own chainswords with AP -1 just like the bolt rifle.

This kind of power makes lots of sense. Except, maybe these things should be written into the core rules. Since they’re the starter faction for lots of people, marines should have really clean rules without lots of exceptions.

[Rogue]

Lemondish - Armour Save Modifier, I think.

[Othniel's Blade]

Probably missed this while scrolling too fast, but Neophytes ought to be at least 1 pt less than standard scouts. They lose weapon options and Concealed Positions. If they could all take Chainswords, maybe it could stay the same.

[Captain Idaho]

A Chapter Approved 1 pager could help with old style fixes:

 

"It has come to our attention that Space Marines suck etc... so add these rules to your games:

 

Astartes Weapons - All models with the Adeptus Astartes or Heretic Astartes Keywords add +1 Strength and -1AP to their rapid fire Bolt weapons when shooting at a target with a model within rapid fire (half) range of them.

 

Transhuman Physiology - All models with the Adeptus Astartes or Heretic Astartes Keywords ignore the first point of Armour Penetration for all weapons. (This could just be "receive an additional wound)

 

In addition, when fighting opponents with 1 wound and without the Adeptus Astartes or Heretic Astartes Keywords, Space Marines models receive an additional attack in the fight phase."

 

Band aid fix? Obviously it wouldn't change the need for cheaper transports and models, as well as new and interesting Strategums etc.

[GreyCrow]

BrainFireBob excellent analysis on the maths of the system.

It’s abundantly clear!

 

Idaho, good points about the competitive lists in 7th. It shows that they were only competitive when they were getting scores of free stuff or not play Monodex at all :P

 

___

 

Statistically speaking, to keep up in the current meta, basic MEQ should be able to :

- Grind down EVERY enemy down over time, meaning consistent damage output against : Hordes (higher ROF on the basic weapons), T8 véhicules (higher base strength on the basic weapons, wound on 5+)

- More consistent survivability accros the board versus all types of weapons, meaning more armor buffs and probably 2W base

 

Basically, to fit the original heavy infantry idea, the basic nuMEQ should be a Primaris with a Heavy Bolter.

 

It’s no surprise that the original 8th Ed Marines compétitive lists focused on TwinAss Razorbacks as the basis of the list.

It’s got everything : toughness, mobility, rate of fire and higher strength.

 

___

 

Btw guys, trying running 5 men devas with 4 heavy Bolters as your basic squad for a few games.

Alternatively Sternguards with Stormbolters.

 

It’s a much welcome improvement over the basic Tacticals.

Even if more expensive, it pays for itself with just better damage projection.

[Closet Skeleton]

The problem comes with armies whose very identity breaks this mold. Eldar are a dying race without the manpower to give anyone a "basic" weapon--everyone has to be a specialist with the maximum effectiveness they can get. This is a necessary way to keep Eldar from bring Skinny Space Marines or just another horde. But of one faction has to take basic weapons and another doesn't, why would you take the basic weapons?

 

Shuriken catapults are basic weapons. Aspect Warriors aren't any different to what company vets or devastators can do. Its only in recent editions that shuriken weapons have even had special rules (which in my opinion they don't need).

 

40k's weapon stats kind of force specialized weapons to be 'better weapons' and the removal of templates has not helped. A unit of pure plasma guns shouldn't be better than a unit of pure bolters, it should be specialized. If bolters had their own niche they'd be worth using. Melta, flamer and grav are actually okay designed right now in that they have specific areas of use, plasma is just too straight up 'bolter but better' now that it has a safe profile but if you changed plasma to always be dangerous it would probably just move grav into the 'bolter but better' role.

 

Giving bolters extra shots would really help, but would also make them outright better than flamers.

 

 

 

It's also, also IMO, the real reason Marines dominated for 3rd-7th: As a friend of mine once said, removing that many models doesn't feel like winning.

Marines didn't dominate any edition, 8th ed marines are bad but they're not exceptionally if you take the history of 40k's army balance as a whole. People complained about 3+ saves being worthless under the old AP system all the time. The only reason why AP3 weapons weren't that common is because there were more AP2 weapons.

 

My main 5th edition marine army had just under 50 models in it at 1500 points and shocked most players by having a lot of models for a marine army. Most marine players only had 20-30 models because they wasted points on vehicles and characters. The vast majority of armies out there had enough AP2-3 to deal with 20-30 marine models and those weapons were often S6+ so would wound on 2s.

 

 

Horde armies are unchanged. They didn't get a save before, and frequently don't get one now.

I'd challenge this, as horde armies actually do get saves more often now, Guard being the best example: vs what used to tear through them with no save allowed (eg, Bolters at AP5), they now get a 33% chance to survive! Even Orks/Tyranids get a chance to save against massed firepower (eg, Lasguns, Bolters, Splinter Rifles, etc) where they wouldn't before.

 

 

Orks/Tyranids have had their save boosted, Guard in my experience have a worse save in 8th because they never left cover in previous editions.

[Panzer]

 

The problem comes with armies whose very identity breaks this mold. Eldar are a dying race without the manpower to give anyone a "basic" weapon--everyone has to be a specialist with the maximum effectiveness they can get. This is a necessary way to keep Eldar from bring Skinny Space Marines or just another horde. But of one faction has to take basic weapons and another doesn't, why would you take the basic weapons?

 

Shuriken catapults are basic weapons. Aspect Warriors aren't any different to what company vets or devastators can do. Its only in recent editions that shuriken weapons have even had special rules (which in my opinion they don't need).

 

40k's weapon stats kind of force specialized weapons to be 'better weapons' and the removal of templates has not helped. A unit of pure plasma guns shouldn't be better than a unit of pure bolters, it should be specialized. If bolters had their own niche they'd be worth using. Melta, flamer and grav are actually okay designed right now in that they have specific areas of use, plasma is just too straight up 'bolter but better' now that it has a safe profile but if you changed plasma to always be dangerous it would probably just move grav into the 'bolter but better' role.

 

Giving bolters extra shots would really help, but would also make them outright better than flamers.

 

 

 

To the Plasma vs Bolter ... eh Plasma were always the better weapon in theory but they usually came at a risk to kill your own models and at a higher cost as well. Now that they have a save mode option AND we got tons of re-roll abilities their risk became almost zero so their only drawback got removed and they're left only with being a bit more expensive for a LOT more damage output while Bolter didn't get anything.

 

Also to answer Ratherdashing's question of "why would you take the basic weapons" ... because of points efficiency. AdMech have their Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy grav-cannons, Phosphor blaster, plasma and flamer in their Troop section but people still take mainly Skitarii for their Troops. Eldar are simply not costed correctly compared to other armies. It has nothing to do with not having basic weapons even if it were true.

[Closet Skeleton]

To the Plasma vs Bolter ... eh Plasma were always the better weapon in theory but they usually came at a risk to kill your own models and at a higher cost as well. Now that they have a save mode option AND we got tons of re-roll abilities their risk became almost zero so their only drawback got removed and they're left only with being a bit more expensive for a LOT more damage output while Bolter didn't get anything.

 

You used to get armour saves against get's hot and I see models die on overcharge even with rerolls so not that much has changed.

[Panzer]

They do die but unless it's mass of plasma like with Plasma Inceptors it's really not that much of a risk compared to the damage output anymore. Especially not if you can just decide not to supercharge it.

[BrainFireBob]

Personally, I only like ASM for close combat weapons.

[Beta galactosidase]

A unit of pure plasma guns shouldn't be better than a unit of pure bolters, it should be specialized. If bolters had their own niche they'd be worth using.

 

 

Giving bolters extra shots would really help, but would also make them outright better than flamers.

 

Supposedly the niche that basic weapons have is that they put up token resistance in one part of the board while captain and hellblasters do the real work somewhere to the side of them. That’s rather what sfPanzer said about Kataphron destroyers.

 

ATM they do that just by being cheap. If basic weapons were going to have rules it would be having overwatch against movement and shooting, and that’s a pretty different game from editions 3-8 of 40k.

[Kallas]

Supposedly the niche that basic weapons have is that they put up token resistance in one part of the board while captain and hellblasters do the real work somewhere to the side of them. That’s rather what sfPanzer said about Kataphron destroyers.

ATM they do that just by being cheap. If basic weapons were going to have rules it would be having overwatch against movement and shooting, and that’s a pretty different game from editions 3-8 of 40k.

They do do that by being the cheapest option available/because Troops = CP, but they aren't good at that job. And again, we can look at pretty much any other basic unit and see that they either outlast Marines, outshoot Marines, or both. So even if they're the only unit that we have to do that job (well, if we're ignoring Scouts) they're still subpar.

[Beta galactosidase]

Basic weapons generally, I mean. Skitarii Vanguard, e.g.

[GreyCrow]

Troops bringing token resistance is actually a relic from the game design of WHFB. Space Marines are basically Chaos Warriors.

 

Difference is, in WHFB, you had an enforced base unit % of your points. Range was not as killy. And Chaos Warriors are actually able to hold their own in infantry versus infantry.

 

Marines are worse points for points than other basic Troops given the range oriented gameplay.

Marines can hold a choke point like 300 Spartans versus other mooks.

But in a range game, chokepoints are death traps rather than physical advantage.

 

Currently, I’d rather have a 30 GEQ all shooting at 10 Marines holding a choke point.

That’s more than +40% MEQ killing firepower, +200% wounds needed to be dealt, 3% more economical resilience to boltguns versus Marines, more bodies for objective secured, more meat shields to prevent melee, more weight of dice for closer to average statistical distribution.

 

It’s not a better use of the points. It’s far superior. And it’s saddening. For 10 points less.

 

Marines get crushed by the rule set and the economics.

Due to small numbers, they can’t reliably produce the statistical average needed.

They would need rerolls to hit, rerolls to wound and rerolls on save to mitigate for wide variance due to lack of individual bodies and shooting.

[Panzer]

Please what? At least in 7e of WHFB troops were everything but not just token resistance. ESPECIALLY not with the Warriors of Chaos.

[Marshal Arthur]

What about using alternating activation like in kill team? It would allow more explosive alpha strike capabilities without breaking the game since the enemy has a chance to react.

[GreyCrow]

Please what? At least in 7e of WHFB troops were everything but not just token resistance. ESPECIALLY not with the Warriors of Chaos.

 

Figure of speech on my side. Troops were crucial in that army design. Most of the decisive work (like in all antique/medieval games) is done by the support units. That's what I was trying to get at.

And yeah, WOC should be the basic definition of the Marines in that stage. They did work. Your assessment is clearer than mine. :)

 

Below, graphs for the distribution of casualties inflicted on MEQs from 30 Guardsmen (120 points) or 10 Marines (130 points).

Should be close to reality, model has simulated 10.000 throws of 30 dices from the GEQ and 10 dices from the MEQ.

 

Takeaway here : volume of dice ensures more casualties and less variance.

GEQ have a 50% chance to kill 0 or 1 Marines. 49% to kill 2 to 4 Marines.

MEQ have a 70% chance to kill 0 or 1 Marines. 30% to kill 2 to 4 Marines.

We're talking +40% chance to do minimal damage. It's massive.

 

http://screenshots.wargaming.net/uploads/3/2/3/323d54940d86a7aa380d1efc115689b8.png

 

http://screenshots.wargaming.net/uploads/f/8/8/f88a628742f9be4f3d2f79a75a712ec8.png

 

To keep odds similar, GEQ BS should have to become 5+. Here are the results simulated.

 

http://screenshots.wargaming.net/uploads/a/5/5/a55dd249772bdd53de24394eb3723cf5.png

 

 

What about using alternating activation like in kill team? It would allow more explosive alpha strike capabilities without breaking the game since the enemy has a chance to react.

 

I'm working on rules for a skirmish tactical game (simple ruleset, not the complicated mess found in most other skirmish games), and alternating activation is really a difference maker.

 

Comes with its own set of problems too.

If it's single activation per turn, armies with a greater number of units have the edge because they can delay getting shot at until the enemy has no more activation.

If there is no turn (like Chess), you lose on combined tactics potential.

 

At the end of the day, it matters what behavior you want to incentivize with the players. Alternating activation limit the synergy potential between the units. But it makes positioning and moving much more rewarded.

It depends if you want to incentivize army building and combos (which is where GW makes its money) or playing well (which increases the retention of players in your game). Different strategies, really. 

[Panzer]

What about using alternating activation like in kill team? It would allow more explosive alpha strike capabilities without breaking the game since the enemy has a chance to react.

 

I'd love to try it but our group doesn't play regularly enough and thus isn't too fond of experimenting. I believe it can work and would probably better for the game overall. I don't see how it would fix marines tho. ^^