Space marines are overpowered because of their 3+ save.

[Bunnahabhain]

No they don't, as they can't. Unless my memory is totally useless today ( codex is hiding) they can't take fists, only normal power weapons... Lord commissars, officers, and sargents in veteran squads only, IIRC.

[loveless]

I still don't understand this nonsense about AP4 being useless.

Play against Tau, Eldar, Guard, Orks, Dark Eldar, etc. - AP4 doesn't matter in regards to Marines (outside of Scouts and Servitors), but it'll rip through other armor.

Then again, maybe I just like the AP system - I always found it simple to use and (in most cases) logical (though Lasguns still confuse me - why bring a laser pointer to a gunfight?)

[Vaktathi]

I still don't understand this nonsense about AP4 being useless.

Play against Tau, Eldar, Guard, Orks, Dark Eldar, etc. - AP4 doesn't matter in regards to Marines (outside of Scouts and Servitors), but it'll rip through other armor.

Primarily because of the prevalence of 4+ cover and the fact that such troops are often quickly killed even by AP- fire given their either lower T or a Sv that's low enough to be negligible in the first place or both. The AP4 either isn't useful due to cover or just isn't necessary much of the time. I can't recall the last time I used a heavy bolter and thought 'wow, that AP4 came in handy'.

[GrogDaTyrant]

I still don't understand this nonsense about AP4 being useless.

Play against Tau, Eldar, Guard, Orks, Dark Eldar, etc. - AP4 doesn't matter in regards to Marines (outside of Scouts and Servitors), but it'll rip through other armor.

Then again, maybe I just like the AP system - I always found it simple to use and (in most cases) logical (though Lasguns still confuse me - why bring a laser pointer to a gunfight?)

The problem with AP 4 being of questionable worth isn't "playing against these other less represented armies". Under normal circumstances, if each army had clear advantages and disadvantages and a wide (very wide) variety in unit types, the AP system *WOULD* work and AP 4 wouldn't be considered useless. However, that would mean every army would need a wider array of possible saves, with lighter infantry options and heavier infantry options. Marines however are an entire army of 3+ saves or better, unless you count the odd (seemingly rare) scout unit. A better setup to the game would give every army some form of 'lighter' infantry (5+ saves), some form of medium (4+), and some form of heavier infantry 3+ with a 2+ for the really heavy duty stuff.

The crux of the problem to the AP system is that it's the over-saturation of a particular army type (marines), and how the army and every one of it's sub-factions is built to completely (and utterly) ignore all AP values that are not at least a 3+. This makes the price hike from AP- to AP4 a total waste of points (even against the scouts, thanks to their cover), and is what drives up the cost of AP3 to crazy amounts. It also has the adverse effect of making the intended "marine-killer" AP3 units like Thousand Sons, Stormtroopers, Dark Reapers, Vespid, and a lesser degree Flash-Gitz, so horrifically priced. Turn those same expensive "marine-Killers" against a non-marine army, and they're worth shrinks dramatically... a fact I liked to hammer home in the days of 3rd/4th when using my Orks against Eldar players who took 3 Dark Reaper units.


On a last note, your confusion about the Lasgun is understandable. It's the AK-47 of the 40k universe. Again, the problem here isn't the weapon itself. It's that unlike the background of the game, the vast majority of it's potential targets will be wearing the heaviest armors in the galaxy. Lasguns, and all those other 'useless small arms', actually do quite a lot when you there are no marines on the table.

[Vaktathi]

The crux of the problem to the AP system is that it's the over-saturation of a particular army type (marines), and how the army and every one of it's sub-factions is built to completely (and utterly) ignore all AP values that are not at least a 3+. This makes the price hike from AP- to AP4 a total waste of points (even against the scouts, thanks to their cover), and is what drives up the cost of AP3 to crazy amounts. It also has the adverse effect of making the intended "marine-killer" AP3 units like Thousand Sons, Stormtroopers, Dark Reapers, Vespid, and a lesser degree Flash-Gitz, so horrifically priced. Turn those same expensive "marine-Killers" against a non-marine army, and they're worth shrinks dramatically... a fact I liked to hammer home in the days of 3rd/4th when using my Orks against Eldar players who took 3 Dark Reaper units.

An excellent point. A majority of the units most people routinely face are 3+ sv units, making the non 3+sv units a relative rarity.

Additionally, even against 3+sv units, most of the AP3 weapon toting units tend to be grossly overcosted. Thousand Sons are 23ppm and otherwise basic marines aside from an invul that's rarely used thanks to cover. Stormtroopers are almost doubled in cost over Vets for a 1pt better save that's ignored generally as easily and AP3. Half a dozen Dark Reapers cost more than a full Tac squad and are going to lose any shooting and combat battle against such a foe except against a tac squad out of cover. Vespids are...well, vespids. etc ad nauseum.

[Reivax26]

Marines aren't overpowered because of their saves. Quit whining people. I've played Marines on and off for the last 10 years. I can assure you that they die quite easily lol

[Ronin no Matsu]

I don't read all the replies, just the first thread but here are my own toughts on the 3+ save :
it's true that an army with a basic troop being 3+ seems incredibly broken but here's my question : knowing that a space marine is an elite soldier, the ultimate warrior of the empire, what could we change about their actual stats? nothing. Here's why : a kroot as no armour on it so it as no armour value, an ork got some chunk of scrap and thick scin he has a 6+ armour value, an imperial guard as some pieces of armor and some army clothes, it give him a 5+, a Fire warrior has a full-face and is generally covert in light armor he has a 4+. So a space marine with a complete power armor covering entirely his body as a 3+ is just fine in my idea. If you want to give him a 4+ instead, you would have to make a -1 on everybody' armour value too, to fit to the fluff, and I don't think everybody would like it.
What I think we should do is make a table instead with the different strenght values and armor values that give you the distance a unit can move during the assault turn, the lighter and stronger you are, the faster you are.
What do you think of that?

[GrogDaTyrant]

What I think we should do is make a table instead with the different strenght values and armor values that give you the distance a unit can move during the assault turn, the lighter and stronger you are, the faster you are.
What do you think of that?

The game would benefit from an expanded set of rules for infantry. There is potential (though not guaranteed) improvement if infantry in general was no longer 'lumped together' and rather gave benefits/perks/disadvantages based on it's type. For example, Light Infantry (like Guardians or Guardsmen) would be more mobile and would be adept at going to ground (not in 40k's "pinned" sense), and using every scrap of cover to the best of it's ability. Heavier Infantry (like Marines) may not be as capable of utilizing cover to the extent that lighter infantry can, and may generally be a bit slower. Medium infantry (like Fire Warriors or Stormtroopers) could be a blend between the two with reduced perks/disadvantages of either. Doing something like this would also help to reduce the current problem of ever-increasingly dirt-cheap "cannon-fodder" infantry (i.e. 5pt Guardsmen, 6pt Ork Boyz, 5pt Gaunts), as well as making up new rules just to penalize them in order to bring their numerical superiority in check (i.e. No Retreat, though admittedly it doesn't effect IG). It could effectively move the game back to power armor MEQ being roughly 14/15 pts a model, medium infantry staying around 10/11, with lighter infantry being brought up to a 'not-quite as hoardy' 7/8, thus narrowing the colossal model-count gap between different armies that we currently see.

The problem of a system overhaul such as this, is that codicies would need to be updated in a much more timely manner to accommodate the drastic changes, and call out the 'unit types'. And we all know how GW loves it's ponderously slow update schedule, not to mention it's love for leaving armies with a codex from the previous edition(s).

[althathir]

Primarily because of the prevalence of 4+ cover and the fact that such troops are often quickly killed even by AP- fire given their either lower T or a Sv that's low enough to be negligible in the first place or both. The AP4 either isn't useful due to cover or just isn't necessary much of the time. I can't recall the last time I used a heavy bolter and thought 'wow, that AP4 came in handy'.

I agree with, but I also want to point out that ap 4 weapons tend to be relatively cheap, and that the 4+ cover tends to benefit other troops more. Part of the issue with weapons like heavy bolters, is how good mech is in this addition where it seems like every special & heavy almost needs to be able to destroy one.

To the OP, I really don't think the ap system is really that broke to be honest though, and I don't see how a 3+ makes marines overpowered. I think the fact that 5th has had 5 marine fractions updated out of 9 has more to do with sentiment that marines are OP right now.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

The problem of a system overhaul such as this, is that codicies would need to be updated in a much more timely manner to accommodate the drastic changes, and call out the 'unit types'.

That could be done in a Errata/FAQ released alongside the new edition. It's what they did for Warhammer.

[Vaktathi]

I agree with, but I also want to point out that ap 4 weapons tend to be relatively cheap

Often, but not always, and the volume of fire often isn't sufficient to deal with huge numbers of hordes or troops in cover anymore.

and that the 4+ cover tends to benefit other troops more.

yup, which further makes the AP4 and worse weapons less effective than they'd seem.

Part of the issue with weapons like heavy bolters, is how good mech is in this addition where it seems like every special & heavy almost needs to be able to destroy one.

Cover also makes a huge difference, It's almost impossible not to get a cover save from any decent distance in 5E, or units can create their own cover saves from stuff like KFF's, and FNP in general being significantly more prevalent does not help, trying to fight Blood Angels using volume of fire for instance just isn't viable for many armies where it may work against others. (FNP is another thing they need to reign in and never should have made FNP bubbles available and not for a mere 50pts, but that's another topic)

[althathir]

Often, but not always, and the volume of fire often isn't sufficient to deal with huge numbers of hordes or troops in cover anymore.

yup, which further makes the AP4 and worse weapons less effective than they'd seem.

Cover also makes a huge difference, It's almost impossible not to get a cover save from any decent distance in 5E, or units can create their own cover saves from stuff like KFF's, and FNP in general being significantly more prevalent does not help, trying to fight Blood Angels using volume of fire for instance just isn't viable for many armies where it may work against others. (FNP is another thing they need to reign in and never should have made FNP bubbles available and not for a mere 50pts, but that's another topic)

The only armies I could see having a decent volume of fire at ap 4 are nids and guard. Nids aren't very good, and to be honest guard can spam much better weapons (autocannons are much more useful).

How many weapons are we even talking about here though? For marines all I think off the top of my head are h. bolters, autocannons, assault cannons, heavy flamers, and if IIRC one of the whirlwind missiles. Whirlwinds have never been an allcomers unit, flamers aren't affected by cover, autocannons are really popular, assault cannons were nerfed for this edition, and bolters tend to lose out to autocannons or multi-meltas because those can take out vehicles. Nids are the only force I think of with a lot of ap 4, and to be honest their codex is kinda of trainwreck. Crons have a decent amount of ap 4 as well if someone is running immortals but their shooting is fine IMO.

FNP bubbles are rough, most of the fifth edition books are flexible enough to have some answers for it, the older books are the ones that are suffering, and there problem tends be because their troops don't stack up.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

The crux of the problem to the AP system is that it's the over-saturation of a particular army type (marines), and how the army and every one of it's sub-factions is built to completely (and utterly) ignore all AP values that are not at least a 3+. This makes the price hike from AP- to AP4 a total waste of points (even against the scouts, thanks to their cover), and is what drives up the cost of AP3 to crazy amounts. It also has the adverse effect of making the intended "marine-killer" AP3 units like Thousand Sons, Stormtroopers, Dark Reapers, Vespid, and a lesser degree Flash-Gitz, so horrifically priced. Turn those same expensive "marine-Killers" against a non-marine army, and they're worth shrinks dramatically... a fact I liked to hammer home in the days of 3rd/4th when using my Orks against Eldar players who took 3 Dark Reaper units.

Nail on head.

I don't think that 3+ saves make MEQs overpowered. It just makes the game more difficult to balance and in particular leads to poor internal balance. Eldar were very popular in 3rd/4th edition because they appeared to have all the tools to defeat marines. Many people accused the Eldar codex of being overpowered and they may have had a point with regards to certain units but the codex had poor internal balance and many units you wouldn't consider taking. The 'overpowered' units/choices were considered so because they were better at killing marines than most other things.

I hate to bang on about 2nd edition (and the reason I do so isn't because I want to go back to that system) but I can’t help but feel that from the perspective of a game mechanic (let’s forget all those stupid arguments about realism) it worked a lot better when armour and cover effectively stacked.

Armour saves offer less protection due to ASMs but this can be mitigated by using cover which makes your units harder to hit. This means that Marines and Ork Boyz alike can benefit from cover. Marines utilising cover? Perish the thought. Please note that I’m talking from the perspective of a game design concept, not how things worked in practice in 2nd edition (I just know that someone will chime in at some point with “OMGz fool!!! lol – in 2nd every weapon had a -4 save modifier and everyone had targetters so they always hit on 2s!!!1!”).

It's not a perfect system but I think it provides scope for more graduated unit balancing than currently exists.

What has happened for 3rd ed onwards is that we had a long period when 3+ saves dominated the meta, then at the beginning of 5th armies like Orks were doing really well because 4+ cover saves were easy to come by and provided a huge improvement in survivability. Now everyone is running around in Transports so the issue has moved out of focus somewhat but I have a feeling it will come back into view when 6th is released.

[Ronin no Matsu]

The game would benefit from an expanded set of rules for infantry. There is potential (though not guaranteed) improvement if infantry in general was no longer 'lumped together' and rather gave benefits/perks/disadvantages based on it's type. For example, Light Infantry (like Guardians or Guardsmen) would be more mobile and would be adept at going to ground (not in 40k's "pinned" sense), and using every scrap of cover to the best of it's ability. Heavier Infantry (like Marines) may not be as capable of utilizing cover to the extent that lighter infantry can, and may generally be a bit slower. Medium infantry (like Fire Warriors or Stormtroopers) could be a blend between the two with reduced perks/disadvantages of either. Doing something like this would also help to reduce the current problem of ever-increasingly dirt-cheap "cannon-fodder" infantry (i.e. 5pt Guardsmen, 6pt Ork Boyz, 5pt Gaunts), as well as making up new rules just to penalize them in order to bring their numerical superiority in check (i.e. No Retreat, though admittedly it doesn't effect IG). It could effectively move the game back to power armor MEQ being roughly 14/15 pts a model, medium infantry staying around 10/11, with lighter infantry being brought up to a 'not-quite as hoardy' 7/8, thus narrowing the colossal model-count gap between different armies that we currently see.

This is even simpler than a table! I think it could be perfectly feasible and reasonable.

[Panzeh]

If light infantry on foot had increased survivability, it would really change the viability of a lot of units. I could imagine it working like Flames of War, where light infantry are just less dependent on the way of the board to get cover and concealment, and can get it just about anywhere whereas something like a Space Marine would need a lot of help from the terrain to benefit the same way. This would, of course, require a stricter cover ruleset, something more akin to Warmahordes with respect to cover, rather than getting cover from just about anything on the board.

I don't expect GW to make a change like that, but a man can dream, huh?

[Gop]

Stop crying OP. The SM generally costs more than the average troop. There are much better things to complain about

[Mikial]

I've owned, played and fought pretty much every army there is in 40k over the years. They all have their pluses and minuses, although some are more aggravating than others (such as Necrons who just keep coming back!) but they all fit into the background and fluff pretty well except Marines. If you read the stories and the BG, Marines can soak up insane amounts of firepower and take what should be death wounds (such as having one heart destroyed or a limb ripped off) and just keep on fighting, but that is certainly not the case in the game.

If you based the survival of the Imperium on how often the elite super human Marines win battles in games, humanity would all be Nid food or slaves to some other race in no time. A 3+ save is about the least SMs should have to even come close to the BG lit. If you were going to make SM what they are "supposed" to be, they would all have at least 2 wounds and a 2+. Terminators would sure have better than a 5+ invul (they used to roll their saves on 2d6). I mainly play IG these days, and massed lasgun fire has brought down a lot of Tac Sqds and Hive Tyrants alike, not to mention AP- Multi-lasers.

My vote is that it's fine for SMs to have a 3+.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

If you read the stories and the BG, Marines can soak up insane amounts of firepower and take what should be death wounds (such as having one heart destroyed or a limb ripped off) and just keep on fighting, but that is certainly not the case in the game.

This is represented by T4, no? Perhaps it's because SMs are so prevalent that we don't realise just how tough something has to be to be given T4. Given that Orks are the only other organic race with widespread T4 (and they are similarly able to shrug off seemingly mortal wounds) I'd say that the stat represents pretty much what you have described.

The toughest, meanest and most gnarled mortal human would still 'only' have T3.

[TheDoctor]

People don't realize what a big deal the jump from T3 to T4 is. Play Eldar, where the only "regular" models that have T4 is the guy made out of crystal and the demigods of war. Have your basic guys plink away with wounding on 5+'s in close combat. The problem is with the fact that marines are so prevalent. My "take all comers" list is always designed to kill marines. The sad part is that works.

[R Man]

Terrain itself is fairly wacky too. It barely helps Marines, unless the enemy spams anti-tank weapons.

While I do get the logic behind the AP system, I feel that it has too many blind spots. Like why does a wall protect a Marine against a battle cannon, but not las-fire?
I mean, take a bunker. It provides, say, Guard with moderately more protection against las-fire, but a great deal more (comparatively) against a huge cannon (say a Vindicators demolisher cannon), which should specialise in this kind of thing. Surely a huge bunker busting cannon should be be more effective (relatively) against cover than other weapons right?

I think that the solution would be to re-work the terrain and AP system together, as both don't seem to work or make sense. What we would want is a system where cover benefits everyone, or most troops at least, and weapons are more easily comparable, for balance reasons. It would also make the differences in Armour more standardised.

Now, I didn't play 2nd edition, but as I understand the problem with ASM was that they were thrown around excessively. Therefore ASM are probably an option, as long as its not tied to strength. Eg: Lasguns and Shooters ASM: -, Bolters ASM: -1, Plasma Gun ASM: - 5. Or something like that.

Terrain on the other hand, should provide bonuses to Armour save (remember a roll of 1 always fails anyway). Light cover a +1, heavy Cover a +2, and Bunkers a +3. This means that most troops would benefit from cover, and cover still protects from all but the most powerful of attacks, but it still scales with the power of the attack. Some units would ignore cover (flamers) but not armour, other would ignore armour (meltas?) but not cover, and so on.


Of course, such a rules change would have to come in the context of a major points restructuring and additional rule changes.