Jump to content

What’s missing from the Primaris line?


Recommended Posts

Yeh the problem is challenges or whatever the 8th edition equivalent is. It should just be a beatstick unit with veterans with a standard and apothecary.

What do you mean by challenges?  Do you mean like the 7th edition challenge in close combat game mechanic ?  I am completely glad forced challenges like that gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the usefulness of shields for a breacher unit:

 

It seems like a lot of people are forgetting the "Space" part of the term Space Marine. It's not represented much on the tabletop unless you're playing zone mortalis, but a big part of a Space Marines job is boarding actions on starships, just like a real world marine used to be essentially a foot soldier that happened to be on a boat.

 

When you're trying to board a starship and the occupants don't want you there they are going to be throwing a LOT of firepower at you down hallways with little or no cover. If you look at the Heresy breacher models, those shields are as big as they are so they can essentially take their cover with them.

 

In that vein, I'd like to see breacher shields with a rule to the effect of: "If this unit did not move in its prior movement phase it counts as being in cover." And it could grant a 4+ or 5+ invuln save as well.

 

That would represent the Marines planting that massive shield on the ground and crouching behind it, literally carrying their cover with them. It could be really useful on a battlefield with little cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the usefulness of shields for a breacher unit:

 

It seems like a lot of people are forgetting the "Space" part of the term Space Marine. It's not represented much on the tabletop unless you're playing zone mortalis, but a big part of a Space Marines job is boarding actions on starships, just like a real world marine used to be essentially a foot soldier that happened to be on a boat.

 

When you're trying to board a starship and the occupants don't want you there they are going to be throwing a LOT of firepower at you down hallways with little or no cover. If you look at the Heresy breacher models, those shields are as big as they are so they can essentially take their cover with them.

 

In that vein, I'd like to see breacher shields with a rule to the effect of: "If this unit did not move in its prior movement phase it counts as being in cover." And it could grant a 4+ or 5+ invuln save as well.

 

That would represent the Marines planting that massive shield on the ground and crouching behind it, literally carrying their cover with them. It could be really useful on a battlefield with little cover.

 

I'm kinda against that. Breacher units shouldn't be designed around being stationary. Except for heavy weapon squads a Marine unit should stay mobile and push the fight close to the enemy imo. Where mortals would dig themselves in to try to weather the incoming fire a Marine should push forward relying on their superior aim, gear and durability. A big shield would help with that as well. No need to plant it on the ground and wait for things to come.

Edited by sfPanzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the usefulness of shields for a breacher unit:

 

It seems like a lot of people are forgetting the "Space" part of the term Space Marine. It's not represented much on the tabletop unless you're playing zone mortalis, but a big part of a Space Marines job is boarding actions on starships, just like a real world marine used to be essentially a foot soldier that happened to be on a boat.

 

When you're trying to board a starship and the occupants don't want you there they are going to be throwing a LOT of firepower at you down hallways with little or no cover. If you look at the Heresy breacher models, those shields are as big as they are so they can essentially take their cover with them.

 

In that vein, I'd like to see breacher shields with a rule to the effect of: "If this unit did not move in its prior movement phase it counts as being in cover." And it could grant a 4+ or 5+ invuln save as well.

 

That would represent the Marines planting that massive shield on the ground and crouching behind it, literally carrying their cover with them. It could be really useful on a battlefield with little cover.

Full disclosure, I really don’t like marines getting bonuses for not moving as it seems to run counter to what a marine army should be in my view. However, in this case I don’t think it makes sense for the bonus to be for remaining stationary even from an objective viewpoint.

 

You said it yourself, the shields are for allowing the marines to advance towards the enemy and take their cover with them, to press home an assault. They don’t board the enemy ship then castle up around the breach and wait for the enemy to come to them. If they want a static defence just use an aegis line and then they’d have both hands free for defence.

 

The whole point of breaching shields is to advance into the teeth of some nasty resistance and any bonus/rules they get should reflect this.

 

EDIT - Ninja’d by SfPanzer so my post says essentially the same thing :)

Edited by MARK0SIAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of our ideas here seem to be replicating old Marine or Heresy rules. I think we should shed as much of the former thinking as possible and try to borrow from but not replicate the latter. It’s hard. I still keep thinking Primaris just need a light (read cheap) preferably fast transport. So far I think I’m just whistling up a tree. I’m hoping now just for a Repulsor minus the turret and a rule that makes it a true transport instead of a hybrid. They stepped toward MBT with the Executioner so hopes survive they swing back the other direction also.

 

I’m at a point I don’t feel safe buying anything until a new Codex is realized. It’d be nice if they released a “Here’s What is Coming in 2019” article.

 

 

Above everything give a melee unit that it the flip side of Aggressors are for shooting and it would make a lot of players happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of our ideas here seem to be replicating old Marine or Heresy rules. I think we should shed as much of the former thinking as possible and try to borrow from but not replicate the latter. It’s hard. I still keep thinking Primaris just need a light (read cheap) preferably fast transport. So far I think I’m just whistling up a tree. I’m hoping now just for a Repulsor minus the turret and a rule that makes it a true transport instead of a hybrid. They stepped toward MBT with the Executioner so hopes survive they swing back the other direction also.

 

I’m at a point I don’t feel safe buying anything until a new Codex is realized. It’d be nice if they released a “Here’s What is Coming in 2019” article.

 

 

Above everything give a melee unit that it the flip side of Aggressors are for shooting and it would make a lot of players happy.

 

True, however I really want a Marine unit with shields and there are only so many things you can do with shield carrying Marines. It's either a 30k Breacher unti or a 40k Veteran/Terminator unit. ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can’t argue with that :)

 

But lets think a little outside the box. I want to default to Storm Shield rules because they’re cheap and improve durability. Something Marines have a issue with considering the cost of an average model. Also as iconic as it is the chainsword doesn’t feel like a proper Primaris weapon and the combat blade rule is exactly the same (I think both just add +1 A?)

 

Both that is old thinking though. How about something sleeker emphasizing speed over brute force. A buckler and blade combo?

 

Buckler could provide a T5, or -2” charge for opponents giving them the better odds of getting a charge off, or maybe just another +1 A as a shield bash technique. I’m not really suggesting any of those just trying to step outside old thinking and find something that improves Primaris in ways we haven’t looked at yet.

 

Melee and Maneuver those are the two areas Primaris have issues. IMO

Edited by Dracos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stormshields as they are would be great. They offer much greater value for Primaris than for regular Marines since Primaris are much better targets for multi-damage weapons who usually have good AP as well while regular Marines with Stormshields die pretty quickly against AP0 shooting even with Stormshields. Pretty much only Autocannons would still be a problem since those offer the best combination of everything in sacrifice of high AP (decent rate of fire, good strength, good range and multi-damage).

 

I agree on the chainswords. Kinda. I want them to have chainswords but they should give more than just +1A like the combat blades. Even just AP-1 would do alot to make them feel more fitting their devastating look. Problem is that Intercessor Sergeants already have regular Chainswords so I don't see that changing.

I'm not sure I want sleek on my Marines. At least not in general. Reivers with Combat blades are already sleek enough for my needs but the design language of the Marine line should still mainly be "brutal" imo. Sleek is more something you'd associate Eldar and T'au with in 40k. Maybe as a chapter specific melee unit like for Blood Angels or something (I'd also say Emperor's Children but those are obviously not part of any Primaris considerations).

For a buckler melee weapon combo I'd do something like -1A to a minimum of 1 for enemy models in melee as they basically push an attack to the side making it useless and setting up their own strike.

 

Generally I feel like the bases are almost all covered by now and GW would do best by focussing on chapter specific units soon. I don't think it's likely they are going to do that though since chapter specific units don't sell nearly as well as general units and it doesn't seem like they plan to make the subfactions of a Codex this diverse model/unit wise.

Edited by sfPanzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some damn meltaguns.

Got a few flamers here and there, not many though.

Plenty of plasma and hard round options, but no meltaguns to be found.

And those are my favorite.

Suppressors should have a (non-crap) multimelta equivalent of some kind, and I'd love hellblasters be able to bring some kind of medium range thermal weapon like a fusion gun, rather than literally just 3 different kinds of plasma, 2 of which suck terribly.

 

And some kind of jump pack equipped tacticus armor, as the interceptors/suppressors suits do not look suitable for melee combat units at all.

 

Ohh, and a breacher squad.

Because those are awesome, and also fit the new direction of primaris models to a tee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some damn meltaguns.

Got a few flamers here and there, not many though.

Plenty of plasma and hard round options, but no meltaguns to be found.

And those are my favorite.

Suppressors should have a (non-crap) multimelta equivalent of some kind, and I'd love hellblasters be able to bring some kind of medium range thermal weapon like a fusion gun, rather than literally just 3 different kinds of plasma, 2 of which suck terribly.

 

And some kind of jump pack equipped tacticus armor, as the interceptors/suppressors suits do not look suitable for melee combat units at all.

 

Ohh, and a breacher squad.

Because those are awesome, and also fit the new direction of primaris models to a tee.

 

I think there needs to be a reason to bring meltaguns and flamers in the game, regardless of the unit, before those can be seen as options. 

 

Right now the way GW chooses to make elite armoured vehicles and monsters more resilient is by adding an invulnerable save. Sadly, putting invuln saves on elite armoured units was a mistake from the beginning, but it still continues to be the preferred switch to flip to make elite units more durable. What should be happening is that those weapons with high damage and high AP, the meltaguns, lascannons, etc. should be the exact tools you use to fight any vehicle, elite or otherwise. Meltaguns should be the weapons that kill armoured units, but they really aren't - the preferred and efficient weapons gets shifted from the high damage, high AP, low shot count weapons to things like Plasma and autocannons, or even lots of mid-str D1 shooting with re-roll auras. 

 

A better way to make these units more durable while simultaneously improving melta is through a FNP or more wounds instead of an inuln. If you had to eat through 24 T8 wounds instead of 16 with an invuln (pie in the sky never going to happen suggestion just for illustrative purposes) you'd be disinclined to try and chew through it with attrition fire or plasma. You'd want actual high damage weaponry to do the job more efficiently. That change achieves the aim of making a unit last longer on the table without making the concept of the meltagun or the lascannon fundamentally worthless. Some exotic units may still require invulns, but the basic concept of giving a unit an invulnerable to make it more durable is ruining the value of things like melta and lascannons. 

 

I'd love melta options because I think the unique trade off of a short range weapon with higher damage potential is a fun choice, but until the issue of invulns gets resolved they just won't be anything but a fun looking choice. 

 

As for flamers...I think they should be terror weapons of some sort that ignore the benefits of cover and impact a unit a bit like those suppressor autocannons. 

 

But you also brought up the one thing I want the most - viable reasons to choose the current alternative weapon options for Hellblasters and Intercessors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree on that invuls are a mistake. It's just that Meltaguns have multiple problems. They are low rate of fire, low range and don't even have the crucial S9 of Lascannons. All they have is slightly higher damage thab 1d6. They are all around a terribly designed weapon compared to Lascannons this edition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree on that invuls are a mistake. It's just that Meltaguns have multiple problems. They are low rate of fire, low range and don't even have the crucial S9 of Lascannons. All they have is slightly higher damage thab 1d6. They are all around a terribly designed weapon compared to Lascannons this edition.

 

I really can't help but disagree. What I want to point out was how you are actually feeding into this concept. A weapon with low rate of fire but high damage SHOULD be the preferred weapon for killing armoured targets like this. It's just a different flavour of the same thing.  

 

Both weapons are real close to the same average damage against an elite T8 Sv 3+ armoured target when not in melta range and the meltagun definitely does more than a lascannon shot when in melta range. They have better AP and more reliable damage and can be carried by more mobile units that don't have to stay put since they aren't heavy, but are riskier to make use of depending on your unit choices.

 

But once you add a 5+ invuln, a common starting point for elite armoured units, both of those weapons lose out to rapid fire plasma. Why? Because as you pointed out before hand, rate of fire is important and plasma brings that in spades. This is largely why you don't often see lascannons in the competitive tournament meta for marines - instead its plasma or Levi storm cannons. That's not to say that the meta is the arbiter of all truth, only that if the best players in the world are ignoring something we all think is of value, then there's a disconnect. I think the disconnect is that the way the game's strongest units are made more durable removes the inherent value of the weapons that are supposed to be the perfect tools for taking them out. 

Edited by Lemondish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Some damn meltaguns.

 

I think there needs to be a reason to bring meltaguns and flamers in the game, regardless of the unit, before those can be seen as options. 

 

Right now the way GW chooses to make elite armoured vehicles and monsters more resilient is by adding an invulnerable save. Sadly, putting invuln saves on elite armoured units was a mistake from the beginning, but it still continues to be the preferred switch to flip to make elite units more durable. What should be happening is that those weapons with high damage and high AP, the meltaguns, lascannons, etc. should be the exact tools you use to fight any vehicle, elite or otherwise. Meltaguns should be the weapons that kill armoured units, but they really aren't - the preferred and efficient weapons gets shifted from the high damage, high AP, low shot count weapons to things like Plasma and autocannons, or even lots of mid-str D1 shooting with re-roll auras. 

 

A better way to make these units more durable while simultaneously improving melta is through a FNP or more wounds instead of an inuln. If you had to eat through 24 T8 wounds instead of 16 with an invuln (pie in the sky never going to happen suggestion just for illustrative purposes) you'd be disinclined to try and chew through it with attrition fire or plasma. You'd want actual high damage weaponry to do the job more efficiently. That change achieves the aim of making a unit last longer on the table without making the concept of the meltagun or the lascannon fundamentally worthless. Some exotic units may still require invulns, but the basic concept of giving a unit an invulnerable to make it more durable is ruining the value of things like melta and lascannons. 

 

I'd love melta options because I think the unique trade off of a short range weapon with higher damage potential is a fun choice, but until the issue of invulns gets resolved they just won't be anything but a fun looking choice. 

 

 

I think a good fix for Melta Weapons would be for them to do reduced damage (probably half) on a successful save, but still do some damage.

 

Obviously you still have to get in range, hit and then wound to do anything, but they'd be absolutely terrifying to most light vehicles and armoured infantry, exactly as they should be.

 

Rik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't agree on that invuls are a mistake. It's just that Meltaguns have multiple problems. They are low rate of fire, low range and don't even have the crucial S9 of Lascannons. All they have is slightly higher damage thab 1d6. They are all around a terribly designed weapon compared to Lascannons this edition.

 

I really can't help but disagree. What I want to point out was how you are actually feeding into this concept. A weapon with low rate of fire but high damage SHOULD be the preferred weapon for killing armoured targets like this. It's just a different flavour of the same thing.  

 

Both weapons are real close to the same average damage against an elite T8 Sv 3+ armoured target when not in melta range and the meltagun definitely does more than a lascannon shot when in melta range. They have better AP and more reliable damage and can be carried by more mobile units that don't have to stay put since they aren't heavy, but are riskier to make use of depending on your unit choices.

 

But once you add a 5+ invuln, a common starting point for elite armoured units, both of those weapons lose out to rapid fire plasma. Why? Because as you pointed out before hand, rate of fire is important and plasma brings that in spades. This is largely why you don't often see lascannons in the competitive tournament meta for marines - instead its plasma or Levi storm cannons. That's not to say that the meta is the arbiter of all truth, only that if the best players in the world are ignoring something we all think is of value, then there's a disconnect. I think the disconnect is the way the games strongest units are made more durable removes the inherent value in the weapons that are supposed to be the perfect tools for taking them out. 

 

 

You are basically complaining that the thing intended to work against a specific weapon type does its job, so yeah I really can't agree with you there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melta guns just have too many drawbacks for their cost. They either need a points drop or a guaranteed minimum damage before they’ll become feasible I think. D6 is hugely unreliable considering the effort you’ve had to use to get them in range and even 2D6 pick the highest is still not that reliable when set against the investment necessary. Edited by MARK0SIAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I don't agree on that invuls are a mistake. It's just that Meltaguns have multiple problems. They are low rate of fire, low range and don't even have the crucial S9 of Lascannons. All they have is slightly higher damage thab 1d6. They are all around a terribly designed weapon compared to Lascannons this edition.

I really can't help but disagree. What I want to point out was how you are actually feeding into this concept. A weapon with low rate of fire but high damage SHOULD be the preferred weapon for killing armoured targets like this. It's just a different flavour of the same thing.

 

Both weapons are real close to the same average damage against an elite T8 Sv 3+ armoured target when not in melta range and the meltagun definitely does more than a lascannon shot when in melta range. They have better AP and more reliable damage and can be carried by more mobile units that don't have to stay put since they aren't heavy, but are riskier to make use of depending on your unit choices.

 

But once you add a 5+ invuln, a common starting point for elite armoured units, both of those weapons lose out to rapid fire plasma. Why? Because as you pointed out before hand, rate of fire is important and plasma brings that in spades. This is largely why you don't often see lascannons in the competitive tournament meta for marines - instead its plasma or Levi storm cannons. That's not to say that the meta is the arbiter of all truth, only that if the best players in the world are ignoring something we all think is of value, then there's a disconnect. I think the disconnect is the way the games strongest units are made more durable removes the inherent value in the weapons that are supposed to be the perfect tools for taking them out.

You are basically complaining that the thing intended to work against a specific weapon type does its job, so yeah I really can't agree with you there.
I don't know how you got that. Let me try and be clearer. I'm specifically saying the EXACT OPPOSITE.

 

In short, Melta and Las should be good against heavily armoured units. It's their purpose and role.

 

Plasma is an all around weapon that is mostly anti heavy infantry but can contribute at taking on armoured threats.

 

Except when those heavily armoured threats have been given invulnerable saves to make them more durable, the purpose and role of the melta and Las are subsumed in favour of the plasma weapon, which means that the weapons designed to do one job really well are inarguably worse against their preferred targets than the weapon who's main purpose was elite infantry hunting.

 

All because of that invuln.

 

Heavily armoured targets should not have invulns to make them more durable because by doing so they wipe out the value of the weapons that were specifically meant to counter them.

Edited by Lemondish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, I don't see all that many units that have an invuln save, and often those that do have a 5++, which while it does take the bite out of the AP, it's still an unreliable save.

And units with a 2+ armor and 5++, like contemptor dreads, against lascannons, it basically doesn't have an invuln.

 

And when your shooting at Russes, Eldar skimmers/flyers, and repulsors, that -4 AP is hilariously good.

The only time you really don't want melta/lascannons is against stuff with 4++ or even 3++ saves, which aren't common. (At least my local meta)

Leviathan dreads, imperial knights with either warlord trait or strat, which is functionally all of them, and what, smash captains?

 

And good luck killing knights with autocannon spam, or even plasma.

The 4++ is painful, but you need to be doing more than 2 damage a shot to quickly put them down, which means using D6 or flat 3 damage weapons and hoping they don't roll well.

Which is why knights are so good.

 

And I personally don't bring any plasma, at all.

Because it hates me, and has since I started playing 40k late 3rd edition.

And normally I'm the guy to run the math and follow statistics, except here.

 

For example, first game of 8th.

5 company vets deep strike with plasmaguns targetting a leman russ, with a captain support.

10 plasma shots, 4 1s.

Alright, reroll those, leave the 2s.

3 1s.

More than half the squad dies, I cause a grand total of 2 wounds to the russ.

 

Same thing happened when I (proxied) took a unit of plasma inceptors out.

Miss a bunch, reroll the 1s into more 1s.

And you don't want to see me roll to hit with overcharged plasma without a reroll aura, I'm liable to just pick my unit up.

But melta?, love it.

Need a 6 to hit that eldar flyer with your attack bikes that moved to get into range? No problem sir, 2 6s to hit, 2 wounds, no armor save, take 11 damage, goodbye plane.

 

But, I play BA, so I can substitute a fair amount of what would be plasma in another marine army with power fists and hammers, along with a healthy smattering of melta pistols, and lascannons.

 

But melta should probably have a better minimum damage.

Maybe 2d3 and if your within half roll 3 drop the low result?

And they DEFINETELY need to cost less than plasmaguns. That's one of the things that made me realize GW is bad at math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Invuls were a big problem when a Castellan and other Knights could be boosted to a 3++ but this isn't as much of an issue following the big FAQ. Most units with an invul have a 5++ and a few select and expensive options have a 4++

I believe Magnus can still obtain a 3++ but I could be mistaken. In any case low volume of fire weapons with high damage are still worthwhile as long as you take them in sufficient number and prepare with some redundancy in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with invuls is absolutely that they exist. The issue is really the snowball of dice that has happened since second edition where even the humble guardsmen is able to gak out so much fire that it invalidates even 3+ saves' effectiveness unless coupled with high toughness. Invul's don't actually increase durability where it's needed (massed volume of fire by low AP weapons), but instead punishes high AP weapons and reduces their effectiveness and shifts the balance even further in favor of volume of fire. The answer is to strip away all invuls and use differential targeting (which apocalypse wised up to and has reintroduced) so that anti-infantry and anti-vehicular weapons have different performances depending on what they're pointed at instead of the flat BS of the user. Ergo a meltagun should absolutely obliterate infantry targets but come at the cost of being wildly inaccurate unless pointed at a large object like a tank or a knight. Although another way of going about it would be making invulnerable saves directional such as the front armor on some vehicles or storm shields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't feel that it's an issue to the extent some are chosing to illustrate.

 

If you're only taking a few high powered weapons and someone rolls well, saving both hits from a melta gun, it's not really an issue. At the moment the game doesn't favour expensive units, and yet some are suggesting that they are made to be more easily destroyed?

 

Is a 5+ invul really that much of an issue? That's the most common invul found across vehicles - Knights have a 4++ granted, but they aren't hard to deal with.

 

Which vehicle is giving people trouble?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't feel that it's an issue to the extent some are chosing to illustrate.

 

If you're only taking a few high powered weapons and someone rolls well, saving both hits from a melta gun, it's not really an issue. At the moment the game doesn't favour expensive units, and yet some are suggesting that they are made to be more easily destroyed?

 

Is a 5+ invul really that much of an issue? That's the most common invul found across vehicles - Knights have a 4++ granted, but they aren't hard to deal with.

 

Which vehicle is giving people trouble?

Anything when using a single shot weapon. Having an added 33% chance to outright negate all damage can seriously put a damper on fielding single shot AT compared to trying to chip it away with volume of fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.