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

[Lemondish]

Well that's not very nice. You don't have to click into the thread if you don't like it.

 

From my experiences with the new chapter approved missions, I think one way to help "fix" marines would be to make acceptable casualties a rule in all missions, and to make it so only troops can hold objectives.

 

Right now the main reason to take troops in 8th edition is generate CP, they aren't necessary for anything else. As long as this is the case why wouldn't someone take the cheapest battalion, then use the other two detachments on the best units (knights and smash captains)?

 

If troops also have to accomplish something in the game, then those builds are going to need to make some sacrifices. 30 guardsman aren't going to last long, and if your up on objectives when the list tables you they may lose (instead of a max point victory).

Fantastic point, Black Star, especially with regards to only troops securing objectives.

[brother_b]

My gripe is how much better IG are for the points. We've all seen the 3++ article. That decision boggles the mind; orders are free, bodies are cheap, weapons are cheap.

 

Making marines 10-11 ppm would be a good start. Add a -1 to the bolter for good measure.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Is obvious GW has no intention to cost SM ppm at 10 points. If you really feel that way maybe Guard is the army for you bruh .

[Ishagu]

The solution to fixing Marines is patience. A new codex will come along at some point in the near future...

 

I don't believe they should be given a Primaris statline - you already have Primaris for that.

[Subtleknife]

The solution to fixing Marines is patience. A new codex will come along at some point in the near future...

 

I don't believe they should be given a Primaris statline - you already have Primaris for that.

Yep this. The changes that are needed will only come in a codex/new edition depending on what route they want to take.

[brother_b]

Did you just bruh me? Ugh

 

Maybe you're right a redesign but what would that take? 9th edition?

[Acebaur]

Space Marines are cheap enough, they do not need to be cheaper. Making them cheaper throws horde armies out of balance. What they need is to be more durable. I don't think anyone is expecting fluff levels of that or "movie marines" as some call them because that's simply not possible in a D6 system. But making them more durable and possibly even increasing their points because of it, would make them feel more like they are in the fluff. 

[Dracos]

I don't think anyone is expecting fluff levels of that or "movie marines" as some call them because that's simply not possible in a D6 system.

Sure it is, it’s called Custodes, who should never have seen the table top to begin with. That ship has sailed however and now we’re stuck with this mess. I don’t think a point bump for Guard Infantry is out of bounds ... certainly not by the math, and a point decrease for Tacticals might make something other than the Chewed to the Bone 32 or Scouts the default for a competitive build.

 

Totally unrelated to the above:

One thing I don’t understand is why those who prefer Narrative or Open games bother to choosing a side when it comes to issues of Match Play? PL is all one really needs for those games and the “minor” point adjustments shouldn’t mean a thing to those players. What I can get onboard with is their desire to see the rules for the pieces reflect the fluff. Hard as that is given the subjective nature of the fluff, Acebaur hits nail on the head, the D6 system makes it almost impossible to differentiate to a discernible degree without some serious outside the box thinking.

 

It’s why I hope Ishagu’s correct in GW having the cahones to really put some bite back in the Space Marines this year, either through WD Index Astartes or a Primaris and or Space Marines redux.

[Quixus]

From my experiences with the new chapter approved missions, I think one way to help "fix" marines would be to make acceptable casualties a rule in all missions, and to make it so only troops can hold objectives.

 

Right now the main reason to take troops in 8th edition is generate CP, they aren't necessary for anything else. As long as this is the case why wouldn't someone take the cheapest battalion, then use the other two detachments on the best units (knights and smash captains)?

 

If troops also have to accomplish something in the game, then those builds are going to need to make some sacrifices. 30 guardsman aren't going to last long, and if your up on objectives when the list tables you they may lose (instead of a max point victory).  

Unfortunately that does not help PA or TDA marines. Scouts are already the better troops option. making only troops scoring does not change that.

[Marshal Reinhard]

Space Marines must be completely redesigned from the ground up. GW really fd up this edition.

 

Not a popular opinion around here, but I believe Primaris are the 'from ground up redesigned space marines'. At least I believe that is their intent.

 

We'll see wether wave 2 will let them stand on their own or not....

[Sete]

Just add transhuman resilience to SM. (And custodes lol).

Price accordingly.

[Kallas]

Not a popular opinion around here, but I believe Primaris are the 'from ground up redesigned space marines'. At least I believe that is their intent.

 

We'll see wether wave 2 will let them stand on their own or not....

Even if they are intended to be such, that still leaves OldMarines in the dirt. Which is the problem: we don't want our OldMarines left in the dirt!

 

Absolutely, release new Primaris for those who enjoy them, but don't build them up to the detriment of OldMarines (which it is looking more and more like what GW is doing, unfortunately).

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

From my experiences with the new chapter approved missions, I think one way to help "fix" marines would be to make acceptable casualties a rule in all missions, and to make it so only troops can hold objectives.

 

Right now the main reason to take troops in 8th edition is generate CP, they aren't necessary for anything else. As long as this is the case why wouldn't someone take the cheapest battalion, then use the other two detachments on the best units (knights and smash captains)?

 

If troops also have to accomplish something in the game, then those builds are going to need to make some sacrifices. 30 guardsman aren't going to last long, and if your up on objectives when the list tables you they may lose (instead of a max point victory).  

Unfortunately that does not help PA or TDA marines. Scouts are already the better troops option. making only troops scoring does not change that.

 

 

It helps them by changing army composition in general. A lot of the cheap CP batteries would no longer be very effective, you would see more troops which would help PA in general. Like I stated above its a way to "help" fix marines, not some cure all but until troops matter for something more than generating CP space marines will struggle. 

 

Right now the competitive builds make almost no sacrifices, because they can get the CP they need as cheap as possible then spam a few broken units. A generalist army like marines will never be good against that. So making troops a requirement to score, and being able to beat them on objectives even if your tabled will force those lists to invest in troops. That powers down their list and makes armies like marines stronger because our base troops are fairly durable.

[Quixus]

I think you misunderstand how CP batteries work. While a CP recovery method is part of it, the other part is to have cheap battalions to get the initial CP count up. Now not only do the cheap battalions give a lot of CP the troops in them are also the only scoring units. This makes it even harder for PA armies. PA is not only on tactical marines. All the other marines (Vanguard etc.) die just as easily as before but can't even contest objectives.

[Panzer]

 

Totally unrelated to the above:

One thing I don’t understand is why those who prefer Narrative or Open games bother to choosing a side when it comes to issues of Match Play? PL is all one really needs for those games and the “minor” point adjustments shouldn’t mean a thing to those players.

 

Minor thing but Narrative Play isn't necessarily PL. You can use points in Narrative Play just fine. PL is just an alternative to points you are not allowed to use in Matched Play.

I'd hate to see a return of only Troops being able to score objectives. It never made sense before and doesn't now.

[Quixus]

Boots on the ground doesn't make sense either, at least for flyers with hover/without minimum speed.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think you misunderstand how CP batteries work. While a CP recovery method is part of it, the other part is to have cheap battalions to get the initial CP count up. Now not only do the cheap battalions give a lot of CP the troops in them are also the only scoring units. This makes it even harder for PA armies. PA is not only on tactical marines. All the other marines (Vanguard etc.) die just as easily as before but can't even contest objectives.

 

I understand it the last beta rules took care of the regen aspect sorry I used the old slang for it, but look 30 guardsman aren't hard to kill. They will need to invest more points in troops in order to hold objectives in a progressive scoring mission. Every point they need to spend on something halfway durable to hold an objective is taking away points that would go smash captains/knights etc. That's how it helps marines.

 

Heck units like Vanguard Vets would be better at contesting objectives, they would just do it by killing guardsman/cultists etc.

[Panzer]

 

I think you misunderstand how CP batteries work. While a CP recovery method is part of it, the other part is to have cheap battalions to get the initial CP count up. Now not only do the cheap battalions give a lot of CP the troops in them are also the only scoring units. This makes it even harder for PA armies. PA is not only on tactical marines. All the other marines (Vanguard etc.) die just as easily as before but can't even contest objectives.

 

I understand it the last beta rules took care of the regen aspect sorry I used the old slang for it, but look 30 guardsman aren't hard to kill. They will need to invest more points in troops in order to hold objectives in a progressive scoring mission. Every point they need to spend on something halfway durable to hold an objective is taking away points that would go smash captains/knights etc. That's how it helps marines.

 

Heck units like Vanguard Vets would be better at contesting objectives, they would just do it by killing guardsman/cultists etc.

 

 

30 aren't hard to kill but they also cost pretty much nothing. If you increase their value by re-introducing such a rule then people have more reason to just take more. Maybe even just a second such a detachment for a total of 60 such bodies and +10CP for ~400p.

It doesn't matter whether they are hard to kill or not. Such a rule increases their value so people have even more reason to take them than they already had before. Period.

[MARK0SIAN]

Boots on the ground doesn't make sense either, at least for flyers with hover/without minimum speed.

Even hovering aircraft can’t hold ground though, it’s true in the real world just as it’s true in 40k. An aircraft simply can’t stay in one place for long enough to hold ground. They’d be a sitting duck and even if they didn’t get shot they’d have to leave to refuel quite quickly compared to infantry and tanks. Since aircraft were invented, they’ve never been able to take ground without infantry support. I think this rule is absolutely fine.

 

Plus the reason it was introduced was because everybody was just spamming flyers at the start of 8th and GW actually reacted quite quickly and sensibly to a problem for once :)

[Quixus]

 

 

I think you misunderstand how CP batteries work. While a CP recovery method is part of it, the other part is to have cheap battalions to get the initial CP count up. Now not only do the cheap battalions give a lot of CP the troops in them are also the only scoring units. This makes it even harder for PA armies. PA is not only on tactical marines. All the other marines (Vanguard etc.) die just as easily as before but can't even contest objectives.

 

I understand it the last beta rules took care of the regen aspect sorry I used the old slang for it, but look 30 guardsman aren't hard to kill. They will need to invest more points in troops in order to hold objectives in a progressive scoring mission. Every point they need to spend on something halfway durable to hold an objective is taking away points that would go smash captains/knights etc. That's how it helps marines.

 

Heck units like Vanguard Vets would be better at contesting objectives, they would just do it by killing guardsman/cultists etc.

 

 

30 aren't hard to kill but they also cost pretty much nothing. If you increase their value by re-introducing such a rule then people have more reason to just take more. Maybe even just a second such a detachment for a total of 60 such bodies and +10CP for ~400p.

It doesn't matter whether they are hard to kill or not. Such a rule increases their value so people have even more reason to take them than they already had before. Period.

On top of that 15 tactical marines aren't ,much harder to kill than 30 guardsman.

 

 

Boots on the ground doesn't make sense either, at least for flyers with hover/without minimum speed.

Even hovering aircraft can’t hold ground though, it’s true in the real world just as it’s true in 40k. An aircraft simply can’t stay in one place for long enough to hold ground. They’d be a sitting duck and even if they didn’t get shot they’d have to leave to refuel quite quickly compared to infantry and tanks. Since aircraft were invented, they’ve never been able to take ground without infantry support. I think this rule is absolutely fine.

 

Plus the reason it was introduced was because everybody was just spamming flyers at the start of 8th and GW actually reacted quite quickly and sensibly to a problem for once

While this is true in actual history, Warhammer 40k has many other aspects that do not conform to real life, so I see no problem with that. From a gaming perspective it makes little sense why one box with hurricane bolters and twin assault cannons (LRC) can secure an objective but another (Stormraven) cannot.

[Ishagu]

Whilst it's true that in a vacuum 30 Guardsmen aren't hard to kill, in practice they'll be hidden out of line of sight or you won't be able to prioritise them because other, significant threats need to be dealt with.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

 

Considering CA introduced no changes, and at another significant forum a vocal group of posters keep arguing that PA are fine currently, it is starting to look like PA is in perfectly balanced place, atleast in GW's view.

 

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance at 13 points per model looks like, atleast according to GW.

CA isn't going introduce changes like that. It's not what the book is for. It is for points adjustment and new missions. These kind of changes can only come from a codex

 

Fiends.. Bloodcrushers?  Sorry but what was actually in CA contradicts your theorizing about what should or should not be inside of it.  

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

I think you misunderstand how CP batteries work. While a CP recovery method is part of it, the other part is to have cheap battalions to get the initial CP count up. Now not only do the cheap battalions give a lot of CP the troops in them are also the only scoring units. This makes it even harder for PA armies. PA is not only on tactical marines. All the other marines (Vanguard etc.) die just as easily as before but can't even contest objectives.

 

I understand it the last beta rules took care of the regen aspect sorry I used the old slang for it, but look 30 guardsman aren't hard to kill. They will need to invest more points in troops in order to hold objectives in a progressive scoring mission. Every point they need to spend on something halfway durable to hold an objective is taking away points that would go smash captains/knights etc. That's how it helps marines.

 

Heck units like Vanguard Vets would be better at contesting objectives, they would just do it by killing guardsman/cultists etc.

 

 

30 aren't hard to kill but they also cost pretty much nothing. If you increase their value by re-introducing such a rule then people have more reason to just take more. Maybe even just a second such a detachment for a total of 60 such bodies and +10CP for ~400p.

It doesn't matter whether they are hard to kill or not. Such a rule increases their value so people have even more reason to take them than they already had before. Period.

 

 

If they take a second detachment then they are giving up smash captains or knights (so smash captains). I'm not saying that this is the only fix far from it, but as long as the main reason to take troops is solely to generate CP Marines will never be good. Even if they are just as point efficient as these other choices. There just isn't a rational reason to take a more expensive troop choice in 8th because you can take the cheapest one and compensate with the best units.

 

Whilst it's true that in a vacuum 30 Guardsmen aren't hard to kill, in practice they'll be hidden out of line of sight or you won't be able to prioritise them because other, significant threats need to be dealt with.

 

If they're out of sight they aren't scoring objectives hopefully. Acceptable Casualties helps because in practice a lot of these top lists don't win on objectives they table their opponent.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

I think you misunderstand how CP batteries work. While a CP recovery method is part of it, the other part is to have cheap battalions to get the initial CP count up. Now not only do the cheap battalions give a lot of CP the troops in them are also the only scoring units. This makes it even harder for PA armies. PA is not only on tactical marines. All the other marines (Vanguard etc.) die just as easily as before but can't even contest objectives.

 

I understand it the last beta rules took care of the regen aspect sorry I used the old slang for it, but look 30 guardsman aren't hard to kill. They will need to invest more points in troops in order to hold objectives in a progressive scoring mission. Every point they need to spend on something halfway durable to hold an objective is taking away points that would go smash captains/knights etc. That's how it helps marines.

 

Heck units like Vanguard Vets would be better at contesting objectives, they would just do it by killing guardsman/cultists etc.

 

 

30 aren't hard to kill but they also cost pretty much nothing. If you increase their value by re-introducing such a rule then people have more reason to just take more. Maybe even just a second such a detachment for a total of 60 such bodies and +10CP for ~400p.

It doesn't matter whether they are hard to kill or not. Such a rule increases their value so people have even more reason to take them than they already had before. Period.

 

 

If they take a second detachment then they are giving up smash captains or knights (so smash captains). I'm not saying that this is the only fix far from it, but as long as the main reason to take troops is solely to generate CP Marines will never be good. Even if they are just as point efficient as these other choices. There just isn't a rational reason to take a more expensive troop choice in 8th because you can take the cheapest one and compensate with the best units.

 

 

 

Making all Troops, Guardsmen included, better doesn't make Marines good either tho. That's some seriously flawed logic here. Not to mention that this topic is about all Marines, not just Troops.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you misunderstand how CP batteries work. While a CP recovery method is part of it, the other part is to have cheap battalions to get the initial CP count up. Now not only do the cheap battalions give a lot of CP the troops in them are also the only scoring units. This makes it even harder for PA armies. PA is not only on tactical marines. All the other marines (Vanguard etc.) die just as easily as before but can't even contest objectives.

I understand it the last beta rules took care of the regen aspect sorry I used the old slang for it, but look 30 guardsman aren't hard to kill. They will need to invest more points in troops in order to hold objectives in a progressive scoring mission. Every point they need to spend on something halfway durable to hold an objective is taking away points that would go smash captains/knights etc. That's how it helps marines.

 

Heck units like Vanguard Vets would be better at contesting objectives, they would just do it by killing guardsman/cultists etc.

30 aren't hard to kill but they also cost pretty much nothing. If you increase their value by re-introducing such a rule then people have more reason to just take more. Maybe even just a second such a detachment for a total of 60 such bodies and +10CP for ~400p.

It doesn't matter whether they are hard to kill or not. Such a rule increases their value so people have even more reason to take them than they already had before. Period.

On top of that 15 tactical marines aren't ,much harder to kill than 30 guardsman.

 

Boots on the ground doesn't make sense either, at least for flyers with hover/without minimum speed.

Even hovering aircraft can’t hold ground though, it’s true in the real world just as it’s true in 40k. An aircraft simply can’t stay in one place for long enough to hold ground. They’d be a sitting duck and even if they didn’t get shot they’d have to leave to refuel quite quickly compared to infantry and tanks. Since aircraft were invented, they’ve never been able to take ground without infantry support. I think this rule is absolutely fine.

 

Plus the reason it was introduced was because everybody was just spamming flyers at the start of 8th and GW actually reacted quite quickly and sensibly to a problem for once

While this is true in actual history, Warhammer 40k has many other aspects that do not conform to real life, so I see no problem with that. From a gaming perspective it makes little sense why one box with hurricane bolters and twin assault cannons (LRC) can secure an objective but another (Stormraven) cannot.

Well then from a gaming perspective the stormraven is given some bonuses compared to the landraider such as a higher movement speed, -1 to hit and the ability to transport dreads. It pays for that by not being able to hold objectives.

 

But on the other aspect, although a lot of stuff doesn’t conform to real life, they always have to be aware of how far they can push that willing suspension of disbelief. Things still have to make sense at a certain practical level. It’s fine to have genetically modified supersoldiers that spit acid and can kill dozens of regular men without breaking a sweat, but that superhuman still has to obey certain practicalities for it to be accepted by the fans.

 

If they are going to ignore practical considerations they have to come up with a reason/ability that lets the audience square it in their heads and I’m afraid the stormraven, cool though it is, is not sufficiently far removed from 20th century combat aircraft for it to be plausible that it could hold ground where they can’t. The designers even cited immersion breaking as the reason they changed the beta reserve rules so it’s definitely an important consideration