Seriously, I don't see why this would be a big issue, IMO it would give us more accurate feel of fluff marine, and make tactical marines actually GOOD.
Hell, even if they made them 1-2pts more expensive for it, I feel like it would be worth it. What do you guys think?

FOR TACTICAL SQUADS, AND POTENTIALLY A PURCHASABLE UPGRADE FOR OTHERS.

Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

That would be crazy overpowered, IMO, especially for only 1-2 points. For one thing it would all but double the number of shot's you're firing, for all of 25-50 points difference across your whole army, since it would mean everybody is going to rapid fire at least one additional time, before charging. It would also remove all impetus to strategically place heavy weapons units. I'm just sitting here imagining the amount of devastation my Long Fangs could do if they were able to just chase vehicle around the field to keep them in range, shooting lascannons at full BS. I wouldn't object to the idea of being able to somehow purchase relentless for models, but it should be something like 10 points per model, and certainly not available for things like most chapters' neophyte scouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I don't know. I see lot's of Sisters players constantly pointing out that in the fluff they don't suck donkey hole, and the rules should reflect that.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
I wouldn't object to the idea of being able to somehow purchase relentless for models, but it should be something like 10 points per model, and certainly not available for things like most chapters' neophyte scouts.

I think that's an excellent idea - restrict it to perhaps Veterans as one of several options that could be purchased to reflect their "elite" status. Making it one of several options that could be chosen (only one allowed) would be a step towards allowing you to represent different veterans of different chapters (or even companies).

Regular SM are not huge enough to be relentless.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
That would be crazy overpowered, IMO, especially for only 1-2 points. For one thing it would all but double the number of shot's you're firing, for all of 25-50 points difference across your whole army, since it would mean everybody is going to rapid fire at least one additional time, before charging. It would also remove all impetus to strategically place heavy weapons units. I'm just sitting here imagining the amount of devastation my Long Fangs could do if they were able to just chase vehicle around the field to keep them in range, shooting lascannons at full BS. I wouldn't object to the idea of being able to somehow purchase relentless for models, but it should be something like 10 points per model, and certainly not available for things like most chapters' neophyte scouts.

4e-book-style Veteran Skills? +3ppm and available only to Sternguard, Devastators if you're playing Imperial Fists?

Stormonu wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
I wouldn't object to the idea of being able to somehow purchase relentless for models, but it should be something like 10 points per model, and certainly not available for things like most chapters' neophyte scouts.

I think that's an excellent idea - restrict it to perhaps Veterans as one of several options that could be purchased to reflect their "elite" status. Making it one of several options that could be chosen (only one allowed) would be a step towards allowing you to represent different veterans of different chapters (or even companies).

Yeah, at present, there's nothing, beyond weaponry, that really distinguishes a veteran from an initiate or neophyte. When you compare it to the drastic difference in toughness and strength between, say, different Orks, Space Marines don't seem to actually improve with experience.

OP? since when where tactical OP? way I figure it, it would give bolters some more punch, and make tacticals, well, tactical, shoot then charge. I don't see how it changes it enough to come close to warrent a 10pt cost per model. hell, a +1 attack doesn't seem to come to that much. Ofc I wouldn't give it to scouts. (oh no, 10 extra str4 ap5 bolter shots coming at you....)

I here plenty of orks, deamons, eldar(not so much this edition), and others arguing with the fluff-stat thing. I am not saying it just because, I simply said it would fit better, I proposed this because I feel it would be a good boost with little real impact other then bringing tactical marines back up to having a place in top tier marine lists.

and makes devastators much more worthwhile, as is, save longfangs, or MAYBE imperial fists, I rarely see devs these days. while I could see it costing more on devs, it still wouldn't warrant 10pts in my mind. maybe 5-7 since you can stack some decent firepower in a dev squad.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

Because marine players like that want marines to be as tough as the marines in the books...but they don't want to give up being able to field ~80 marines at 1500 points should they choose.

I'd be all for rule changes like this (I play marines), but only with a significant points cost increase. At which point marine players would complain about not being able to field many models on the table, to which the simple answer would be that in the fluff, they're rarely running 1-2 companies worth of kit and manpower against what the equivalent of 1500 pts of orcs would be. Marines are the elite; you either design the models so that you can field very few of them, but with fluff-based rules, or you make them less awesome than the fluff would indicate and make it possible to take enough models that players can feel like they're running an army, rather than a tiny 30 model strike force.

Honestly, it would be awesome to design a game variant where you take IG and SM forces, but buff up the SM units and cost them so that they are points appropriate with the new rules-basically make them the elite saviours of the IG, as they are in the fluff, to take out threats the regular IG aren't designed for.

^ this. I am just trying to give an idea to make marines a bit more fluffy, with a bit more oopmh, and a bit more versatile.

 raiden wrote:
^ this. I am just trying to give an idea to make marines a bit more fluffy, with a bit more oopmh, and a bit more versatile.

Why Marines? Why nobody else? If we're going to go by lore why don't the Eldar get to pick every single random pregame die roll (for an extreme)?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:
^ this. I am just trying to give an idea to make marines a bit more fluffy, with a bit more oopmh, and a bit more versatile.

Why Marines? Why nobody else? If we're going to go by lore why don't the Eldar get to pick every single random pregame die roll (for an extreme)?

eldar have rending weapons on almost all of their infantry (representing the lore of the monofiliment ammo used), they can run AND shoot. (representing their agility and swiftness).

tau have str5 guns, ap4, 30" range. representing their advanced technology. why do marines get nothing?

 raiden wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:
^ this. I am just trying to give an idea to make marines a bit more fluffy, with a bit more oopmh, and a bit more versatile.

Why Marines? Why nobody else? If we're going to go by lore why don't the Eldar get to pick every single random pregame die roll (for an extreme)?

eldar have rending weapons on almost all of their infantry (representing the lore of the monofiliment ammo used), they can run AND shoot. (representing there agility and swiftness).

tau have str5 guns, ap4, 30" range. representing their advanced technology. why do marines get nothing?

T4? The best infantry armour in the game? Storm Shields? Multirole squads? 24" range small arms? Sternguard? AV14? A broad selection of weapons with ranges longer than 36"? Grav weapons? Drop Pods? Sicarians? Nothing?

This is really starting to sound like a case of the grass being greener in the next guy's Codex.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:
^ this. I am just trying to give an idea to make marines a bit more fluffy, with a bit more oopmh, and a bit more versatile.

Why Marines? Why nobody else? If we're going to go by lore why don't the Eldar get to pick every single random pregame die roll (for an extreme)?

eldar have rending weapons on almost all of their infantry (representing the lore of the monofiliment ammo used), they can run AND shoot. (representing there agility and swiftness).

tau have str5 guns, ap4, 30" range. representing their advanced technology. why do marines get nothing?

T4? The best infantry armour in the game? Storm Shields? Multirole squads? Sternguard? AV14? A broad selection of weapons with ranges longer than 36"? Drop Pods? Sicarians? Nothing?

This is really starting to sound like a case of the grass being greener in the next guy's Codex.

I was discussing basic infantry, not the entire codex, our codex in a whole is a solid mid-topmid tier, I am discussing infantry and basic troops, as represented in the weaponry I described.

T4. best armour in the game- lol. 3+ is indeed nice, but half the things in tau/eldar codex get that as well, with better weapons and options, not to mention over half the stuff fielded in even semi-competitive games today is ap3 or rending.

sternguard- yes, I admit these are probably the best unit in the SM codex bar none, they are good, but compared to the "best" of the other codices....


now moving on, tactical squads, ASM, Sternguad... none of these can take Storm shields, AV14- 250 points base, comes with 2 TLLC and a TLHB, or TL AC and 2 Hurricane bolters..

eldar- wave serpents. all I am saying.
nid-flyrant
etc.

multirole squads? please enlighten me on this multirole squad, tacticals are indeed slightly more versatile then some other infantry, but you give tau firewarriors emp grenades and watch them wreck vehicles all day, even walkers, with ease.

I will be honest, when I proposed this, I intended it to be a tactical squad only special rule, I realize I didn't state that in the original post which is my bad and I shall rectify this. However you cannot say tactical squads are extremely lackluster compared to other troops. I simply wanted to make them a little more versatile in that they could fire rapid fire/heavy (which they will have, at most, 1 of each at 150pts+) then charge, and be FLEXIBLE like they are supposed to be.

we have 2 weapons that most of our infantry models can take with range above 36, thats the ML and the LC, 15 and 20 points respectively. and both are heavy.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:
^ this. I am just trying to give an idea to make marines a bit more fluffy, with a bit more oopmh, and a bit more versatile.

Why Marines? Why nobody else? If we're going to go by lore why don't the Eldar get to pick every single random pregame die roll (for an extreme)?

eldar have rending weapons on almost all of their infantry (representing the lore of the monofiliment ammo used), they can run AND shoot. (representing there agility and swiftness).

tau have str5 guns, ap4, 30" range. representing their advanced technology. why do marines get nothing?

T4? The best infantry armour in the game? Storm Shields? Multirole squads? 24" range small arms? Sternguard? AV14? A broad selection of weapons with ranges longer than 36"? Grav weapons? Drop Pods? Sicarians? Nothing?

This is really starting to sound like a case of the grass being greener in the next guy's Codex.

Seconded. Are there some issues with fluff-to-rules translation? Sure. I get a little enraged every time I open my codex and see that Logan Grimnar, Great Wolf of the Space Wolves, High King of Fenris, a warrior who has led his chapted for nearly 5 centuries has the same strength and toughness as a lowly Blood Claw. There is definitely room for certain units to get some upgrades to reflect their skill and experience. But to say that space marines get "nothing" is just ridiculous. A 3+ armor save may not seem like much when you only play other Marines, but play against Orks and their 6+ t-shirt saves and it looks a lot better. Watch 15 IG get annihilated by a single bad Initiative role, and tell me that being immune to Sweeping Advances isn't a hell of a perk. Watch a squad of grots fail morale check after morale check right off the board, and tell me that an auto regroup is "nothing". There's a reason 60 models in a 2500 list is a large SM army. A single basic, bolt pistol and chainsword SM model is easily worth 3 of just about any other army's basic infantry.

ATSKNF- great rule, I won't argue against that. I didn't mean marines get NOTHING, I simply used a wrong word to attempt to express my thoughts on a matter. I was simply making a point that, compared to other basic infantry, especially those of the stronger armies, marines are lacking. And that giving tactical marines relentless, and possibly other marines relentless, would help make them more versatile and flexible and focus on the "good all arounder" point of there purpose. The fluff translation was a bonus that I am sorry I even damn well mentioned.

however, I greatly disagree on that single marine being worth 3 shoota boys, or 3 slugga boys, or 3 fire warriors, or 3 dire avengers, or even 3 guardsmen.

Pulse Rifles are AP5.

The fluff is too ridiculous to base a game on it. Should tone down the fluff so that Marines player don't expect their lil' dudes to be able to pull the crap they pull in the fluff.

I sure as hell don't expect my Scions to beat the crap out of Orks like they do in their codex.

 raiden wrote:
ATSKNF- great rule, I won't argue against that. I didn't mean marines get NOTHING, I simply used a wrong word to attempt to express my thoughts on a matter. I was simply making a point that, compared to other basic infantry, especially those of the stronger armies, marines are lacking. And that giving tactical marines relentless, and possibly other marines relentless, would help make them more versatile and flexible and focus on the "good all arounder" point of there purpose. The fluff translation was a bonus that I am sorry I even damn well mentioned.

however, I greatly disagree on that single marine being worth 3 shoota boys, or 3 slugga boys, or 3 fire warriors, or 3 dire avengers, or even 3 guardsmen.

I don't know that I'd even disagree all that much with the idea of letting tac squads with bolguns, meltas, and plasmas double tap and still charge. I guess my main issue is with giving them relentless. I'd rather see a separate rule, that let them rapid fire normal size weapons and still charge, but still forbade them from firing heavy weapons (at full BS, to whit) and charging. The former seems fairly fair, the latter seems overpowered, especially because it would remove a lot (but not all) of the incentive to take terminators. Plus, if you gave tac squads the ability to rapid fire and charge, but not Relentless, it would create a nice upward ability curve from neophytes and assault squads, to tac squads and veterans, to termis.

 raiden wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
<LONG>

I was discussing basic infantry, not the entire codex, our codex in a whole is a solid mid-topmid tier, I am discussing infantry and basic troops, as represented in the weaponry I described.

T4. best armour in the game- lol. 3+ is indeed nice, but half the things in tau/eldar codex get that as well, with better weapons and options, not to mention over half the stuff fielded in even semi-competitive games today is ap3 or rending.

sternguard- yes, I admit these are probably the best unit in the SM codex bar none, they are good, but compared to the "best" of the other codices....


now moving on, tactical squads, ASM, Sternguad... none of these can take Storm shields, AV14- 250 points base, comes with 2 TLLC and a TLHB, or TL AC and 2 Hurricane bolters..

eldar- wave serpents. all I am saying.
nid-flyrant
etc.

multirole squads? please enlighten me on this multirole squad, tacticals are indeed slightly more versatile then some other infantry, but you give tau firewarriors emp grenades and watch them wreck vehicles all day, even walkers, with ease.

I will be honest, when I proposed this, I intended it to be a tactical squad only special rule, I realize I didn't state that in the original post which is my bad and I shall rectify this. However you cannot say tactical squads are extremely lackluster compared to other troops. I simply wanted to make them a little more versatile in that they could fire rapid fire/heavy (which they will have, at most, 1 of each at 150pts+) then charge, and be FLEXIBLE like they are supposed to be.

we have 2 weapons that most of our infantry models can take with range above 36, thats the ML and the LC, 15 and 20 points respectively. and both are heavy.

Very well. Basic line troops. You've got T4/3+, available to...let's see...two non-Space-Marine Codexes. You're functionally immune to Ld. You can credibly engage every target in the game. You've got access to Drop Pods (a top three Dedicated Transport, don't let anyone tell you otherwise). Your small arms are solidly mid-tier, they don't have the short-range punch of shuriken catapults or the all-round power of pulse rifles but you've got BS4 native (which the Fire Warrior doesn't), 24" range (which the Guardian doesn't), and, again, T4/3+ (which neither have). You've got straight-up the best upgrade guns out there.

Space Marines in general, and Tactical Marines in particular, are not here to outperform specialists like Guardians and Fire Warriors at their own game. 'Jack of all trades' does not mean 'better than everyone at everything'. Space Marines figure out what the other guy's not well-equipped to counter and do that. You may think Guardians are vastly cooler than your Marines could ever be; what are they going to do if you Drop Pod next to them and flamer their butts off? Wave Serpents are hard-countered by assault, you've got krak grenades. Use your transports, box them in. Don't get into a sustained firefight with Fire Warriors, block their Pathfinders' line of sight to you and then run through their bullets and charge the bastards.

Tactical Marines are not a straightforward point-and-click unit. They are also not a lackluster unit; they are reliable, effective, versatile, and depending on their equipment and transport can fight pretty much anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Pulse Rifles are AP5.

The fluff is too ridiculous to base a game on it. Should tone down the fluff so that Marines player don't expect their lil' dudes to be able to pull the crap they pull in the fluff.

I sure as hell don't expect my Scions to beat the crap out of Orks like they do in their codex.

I just want Striking Scorpions that you can't draw line of sight to. They're supposed to be ninjas.

I'm sorry for not being able to catch a skimmer vehicle... or, you know, get into CC with tau with supporting fire.

tac marines are reliably lackluster, this comes from countless games with using them several different ways, and watching them be used several different ways. The best way to use them I have found is infantry killers, and they don't excel at that. I apologize if I pissed you off but I haven't asked for much. Ask any space marine player and they will tell you the same, tactical squads rarely feel like more than anything but a tax. Why do you think so many people go out of there way to take as few as possible? 80% of the time? that drop pod of flamers? oh, guess what, those squishy eldar are in a nigh unkillable (via shooting) wave serpent, who will gleefuly hop out and shurkien me to death.

our transports are 11/11/10. what about that makes you think they can survive shooting from a wave serpent to "box them in"

guardians are the equivalent of our scouts. Dire avengers are the "equivalent" of our marines, please compare the apples to apples.

guess what codex can have a heavy flamer (only flamer to eat armor 4+ other than flamestorm and bale) BA, no other SM tac squad can take heavy flamers. guess what armor dire avengers have? 4+

as someone else has posted here, I would be happy with a special rule allowing tacs + (note this excluded devs and ASM) to fire rapid fire weapons and then charge. They don't get relentless but my main Idea holds. double tap then charge. Thats really all I am asking. Let me make just a little bit better use of my tactical squads.

 raiden wrote:
I'm sorry for not being able to catch a skimmer vehicle... or, you know, get into CC with tau with supporting fire.

You have drop pods, you have table edges. You're not going to catch a Wave Serpent by walking at it waving your arms, you've got to back it into a corner. A physical corner. As in the one on the side of the table that's sharp and hurts if you walk into it suddenly.

It takes thirteen overwatching Fire Warriors to kill one Space Marine. You only have to not be outnumbered four to one once you get there.

Keep in mind while you're complaining about the OPness of Bladestorm that on average about eleven percent of shots will get it. That's two AP2 shots coming out of a full Dire Avenger squad. You can toss two AP2 shots out of a plasma gun if you're so inclined.

Or you could just use their bolt pistols to shoot before the charge, IIRC?

Take bikes as troops and enjoy the next year or so until we get that option removed?

I mean, 7 more points nets you hammer of wrath, 12" movement, a 12" turbo boost, T5, relentless, a twin linked boltgun, and the small opportunity cost of having 2 special weapons.

And no 35pt box with a 'first blood here' sign attached.

I remember when marines were like 18pts, without frag and krak grenades! No bolt pistols either!

The whole "fluff" perspective should take into account that most spess mehreen fluff is supposed to be propaganda.

I don't think more special rules is a solution anyway. The game is bloated enough as it is.

The lack of "superhuman feel" with current marines comes, in my opinion, from small details in the rules design department. In example, everybody moves the same. If a regular guardsman's movement attribute were 4'' while a marine had 5'' or even 6'', the "moves so fast he looks blurry" fluff part would be represented rules wise.

"ATSKNF- great rule,"

Overrated. My marines die, not run. Also, much of the time, I want marines swept so I can shoot the enemy assault unit.

Marine suffer from T4 S4 W1 3+ being a joke in the face of dozens and dozens of STR 6+ shots a turn. They also suffer from having relatively poor offense to fire back with and so they fall further and further behind each turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:
I'm sorry for not being able to catch a skimmer vehicle... or, you know, get into CC with tau with supporting fire.

You have drop pods, you have table edges. You're not going to catch a Wave Serpent by walking at it waving your arms, you've got to back it into a corner. A physical corner. As in the one on the side of the table that's sharp and hurts if you walk into it suddenly.

It takes thirteen overwatching Fire Warriors to kill one Space Marine. You only have to not be outnumbered four to one once you get there.

Keep in mind while you're complaining about the OPness of Bladestorm that on average about eleven percent of shots will get it. That's two AP2 shots coming out of a full Dire Avenger squad. You can toss two AP2 shots out of a plasma gun if you're so inclined.

Not every opponent is Eldar. Drop pods against Orks and Nids is a death sentence. The "drop pod" argument as to why Eldar aren't broken cheese is getting stale.

Martel732 wrote:
"ATSKNF- great rule,"

Overrated. My marines die, not run. Also, much of the time, I want marines swept so I can shoot the enemy assault unit.

Marine suffer from T4 S4 W1 3+ being a joke in the face of dozens and dozens of STR 6+ shots a turn. They also suffer from having relatively poor offense to fire back with and so they fall further and further behind each turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:
I'm sorry for not being able to catch a skimmer vehicle... or, you know, get into CC with tau with supporting fire.

You have drop pods, you have table edges. You're not going to catch a Wave Serpent by walking at it waving your arms, you've got to back it into a corner. A physical corner. As in the one on the side of the table that's sharp and hurts if you walk into it suddenly.

It takes thirteen overwatching Fire Warriors to kill one Space Marine. You only have to not be outnumbered four to one once you get there.

Keep in mind while you're complaining about the OPness of Bladestorm that on average about eleven percent of shots will get it. That's two AP2 shots coming out of a full Dire Avenger squad. You can toss two AP2 shots out of a plasma gun if you're so inclined.

Not every opponent is Eldar. Drop pods against Orks and Nids is a death sentence. The "drop pod" argument as to why Eldar aren't broken cheese is getting stale.

Last I checked I wasn't arguing that Eldar weren't powerful, I was arguing that Tactical Marines aren't useless.

"My generalist line infantry can't beat the specialists from the most powerful army in the game" isn't a good argument for why your troops are a waste and need to be buffed. Believe it or not there are places between "useless" and "broken".

But tac marines, for their price, are basically useless. Their ranged output is a joke, and their HTH capability on a per point basis is worse than a guardsman.

This all goes back to the bolter thread and the 3+ armor thread. As well as the cheapening of S4 T4 due to S6 shooting and the futility of assault. The things that are supposed to be scary about marines are no longer scary. What is scary are the gravstars that come along for the ride with tacs.

Martel732 wrote:
But tac marines, for their price, are basically useless. Their ranged output is a joke, and their HTH capability on a per point basis is worse than a guardsman.

This all goes back to the bolter thread and the 3+ armor thread. As well as the cheapening of S4 T4 due to S6 shooting and the futility of assault. The things that are supposed to be scary about marines are no longer scary. What is scary are the gravstars that come along for the ride with tacs.

I would love to see your math on this.

The most relevant math is S6 wounding T4 and T 3 on the same number.

Martel732 wrote:
The most relevant math is S6 wounding T4 and T 3 on the same number.

And?

What about all the weapons that aren't S6?

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The most relevant math is S6 wounding T4 and T 3 on the same number.

And?

What about all the weapons that aren't S6?

Your opponents have those? Oh maybe you mean grav...

Martel732 wrote:
Your opponents have those? Oh maybe you mean grav...

Well, here's a rough, non-exhaustive list of the weapons I regularly see that aren't S6 or higher:
Bolters
Bolt Pistols
Sluggas
Shootas
Big Shootas
Flamers*
Heavy Flamers*
Scorchers
Storm Bolters
Heavy Bolters*
Splinter weapons*
Lasguns*
Fleshborers
Devourers
Gauss Flayers*
Gauss Blasters*
Haywire Blasters*
Various psychic powers, if they count

Ones marked with a '*' are ones I regularly use as well.

And, of course, that's to say nothing of all the melee units/weapons that aren't S6 or higher.

In addition, most of the S6+ weapons I see aren't shooting infantry anyway - they're shooting vehicles and/or MCs.

I've lost so many marines to scatter lasers, serpent shields, high yield missile pods and nova charged Riptides that I forget other weapons exist. I guess DA guns are S4, but by the time they are shooting me, they only need to cause like two wounds. Oh, and the Tiggystar doesn't care about T4, either.

Martel732 wrote:
The most relevant math is S6 wounding T4 and T 3 on the same number.

If you want to tell me your Tactical Marines are losing melee to an equivalent points value of Guardsmen something's gone wrong. And it's not your Tactical Marines.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The most relevant math is S6 wounding T4 and T 3 on the same number.

If you want to tell me your Tactical Marines are losing melee to an equivalent points value of Guardsmen something's gone wrong. And it's not your Tactical Marines.

A tac marine has W1 T4 S4 WS4 A1

Three guardsmen have W3 T3 S3 WS3 A3

The marine generates about 0.3 wounds per combat phase, while the guardsmen generate 0.17 wounds per combat phase, but have three times as many wounds to give. In general, I will take the huge amounts of dice that guard blobs generate over the pittance of dice that tac marines roll.

Point for point, tac marines can beat practically nothing in the game in HTH. When tac marines win in HTH, it's because you have triple the point value of tac marines in the combat with the enemy unit.

BTW. You get on average 2 ap2 shots with DA but have the option to charge. Marines don't.

 raiden wrote:
BTW. You get on average 2 ap2 shots with DA but have the option to charge. Marines don't.

And can double tap out to 18".

Unless you are talking iron hands i just dont think relentless fits. and i would only give relentless to certain units via hq imo. I personally think all marines should have 6+ fnp and iron hands get Inviolate armour, rigid tactics, and stand and fight in place of the 6+ fnp they get now. But heck, who am I kidding. If it were up to me Iron Hands would have their own codex and look closer to their 30k setup in several areas. ie cyber familiars, iron fathers (would allow on bikes), hq dreads (all types), terminator sergeants (lose access to rhinos, razorbacks, and drop pods in exchange for a banner effect). In effect it would be a mishmash of some of the 30k rules that aren't broken and this guy's work up http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/152367-codex-iron-hands/page-51#entry3439709 with a little of my own thoughts added in.

 koooaei wrote:
Regular SM are not huge enough to be relentless.

Is that Harker I see waving from the corner there?

One guy out trillions, born on a planet known for its huge human. How does that compare to every freaking SM.

 Bobthehero wrote:
One guy out trillions, born on a planet known for its huge human. How does that compare to every freaking SM.

Harker is a normal human, who is smaller than your average space marine

Says who, its entirely possible he's the one human larger or SM sized.

I.. Space marines are 8-9 ft tall. Avg..

Nah, they're 7''

 raiden wrote:
I.. Space marines are 8-9 ft tall. Avg..

According to C: SM, the average marine is 7 1/2 feet tall and about 650lbs

must be thinking of older fluff, swear I read somewhere they were 8-9.

 raiden wrote:
must be thinking of older fluff, swear I read somewhere they were 8-9.

Could be in-armour vs. out.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Regular SM are not huge enough to be relentless.

Is that Harker I see waving from the corner there?

I want relentless lootas.

 koooaei wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Regular SM are not huge enough to be relentless.

Is that Harker I see waving from the corner there?

I want relentless lootas.

I'd be fine with that lol.

 raiden wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Regular SM are not huge enough to be relentless.

Is that Harker I see waving from the corner there?

I want relentless lootas.

I'd be fine with that lol.

Where do we stop? Who doesn't get Relentless if we start handing it out like candy? My Guardians are carrying their gun on an antigravity platform, why do they have to stop moving to fire?

Fine. Marines don't get relentless, but they get a usr to allow them to fire rapid fire weapons then charge.

Or just make the bolter assault.

I'd rather be able to double tap my plasma gun and charge. But bolter assualts would be a start.

The plasma gun at least makes it worth not charging.

Martel732 wrote:
The plasma gun at least makes it worth not charging.

Idk. If I'm close enough to DA I would rather charge I think. Then again j play BA haha.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I been trying to say, "Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should reduce point cost!" For all the times I been a CSM player.

We dont get atsknf? My CSM should cost 2 pts less. We dont get infiltrating Chosen? Chosen should cost less. Cultist dont get IG orders? Cultist should cost less.

 Filch wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I been trying to say, "Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should reduce point cost!" For all the times I been a CSM player.

We dont get atsknf? My CSM should cost 2 pts less. We dont get infiltrating Chosen? Chosen should cost less. Cultist dont get IG orders? Cultist should cost less.

Hey, y'all could have ATSKNF if you hadn't betrayed the emperor


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:
must be thinking of older fluff, swear I read somewhere they were 8-9.

Could be in-armour vs. out.

That would make sense. I'd imagine that bulky armor would add at lease 6 inches, termi armor probably closer to a foot.

 Filch wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I been trying to say, "Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should reduce point cost!" For all the times I been a CSM player.

We dont get atsknf? My CSM should cost 2 pts less. We dont get infiltrating Chosen? Chosen should cost less. Cultist dont get IG orders? Cultist should cost less.

ATSKNF is a non-benefit. It hurts as much as it helps.

 Bobthehero wrote:
One guy out trillions, born on a planet known for its huge human. How does that compare to every freaking SM.

Because Harker is of human strength and resilience, and Space Marines are of superhuman strength and resilience.

It really is not any more complex than that.

Martel732 wrote:

 Filch wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I been trying to say, "Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should reduce point cost!" For all the times I been a CSM player.

We dont get atsknf? My CSM should cost 2 pts less. We dont get infiltrating Chosen? Chosen should cost less. Cultist dont get IG orders? Cultist should cost less.

ATSKNF is a non-benefit. It hurts as much as it helps.

Honestly its never been a non- benefit for me, that said its usually a small benefit.

Martel732 wrote:

 Filch wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I been trying to say, "Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should reduce point cost!" For all the times I been a CSM player.

We dont get atsknf? My CSM should cost 2 pts less. We dont get infiltrating Chosen? Chosen should cost less. Cultist dont get IG orders? Cultist should cost less.

ATSKNF is a non-benefit. It hurts as much as it helps.

Excuse me if, as a DE player, I grind my teeth at this.

That "non-benefit" rule makes you outright immune to several of my weapons.

Not to mention naturally immune to the Fear rule that's so pervasive in my books.

And that's before we get to its main effect.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
One guy out trillions, born on a planet known for its huge human. How does that compare to every freaking SM.

Because Harker is of human strength and resilience, and Space Marines are of superhuman strength and resilience.

It really is not any more complex than that.

Might not be that super.

ATSKNF does not let Marines automatically pass fear tests. You don't auto pass other tests. Marines can be forced to flee by deer effects or be reduced to ws1 just as anything else that isn't fearless.

It makes them ignore the effects of Fear.

Honestly I'm beginning to think that SM players don't understand just how good ATSKNF is...

 raiden wrote:
ATSKNF does not let Marines automatically pass fear tests. You don't auto pass other tests. Marines can be forced to flee by deer effects or be reduced to ws1 just as anything else that isn't fearless.

Page 157:

And They Shall Know No Fear

A unit with that contains at least on model with this special rule automatically passes Fear and Regroup tests. When it regroups, the unit does not make the 3" Regroup move, but can instead move, shoot (or Run), and declare charges normally in that turn. Furthermore, if a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught in a Sweeping Advance, they are not destroyed, but remain locked in combat.

So, yeah, I don't know where you got that Marines aren't immune to fear. And immunity to destruction from Sweeping Advances is no small blessing.

Hm. Been handicapping myself it seems. But sometimes I would rather my tacs or marines get swept so my next turn I could actually shoot the thing that charged them. Usually they live until my turn, die then he charges something else.

 raiden wrote:
Hm. Been handicapping myself it seems. But sometimes I would rather my tacs or marines get swept so my next turn I could actually shoot the thing that charged them. Usually they live until my turn, die then he charges something else.

Oh, I totally get you on that point. But after playing against orks, and watching the 12 survivors of a squad of 15 loota boyz get annihilated on a single dice roll, by a single TWC, just because I caused 2 wounds, they caused one, and they have crappy initiative and leadership, I came to appreciate how useful not being destroyed by sweeping advances is.

But yeah, sometimes it's nice to fall back successfully and then shoot.

We all handicap ourselves sometimes, though, just because it's a ton of crap to remember. I played three games with my TWC before I realized they were all rending, just because it's listed under the wargear description, not the unit description.

So much 'make the game reflect the fluff' when it would just cause the game to become more messy. Why don't my Orks have a natural FNP? Why do I need a Dok to do it? The fluff has instances all the time that Orks don't stop fighting until there is basically nothing left of them. Why do I need to waste 50 points on an HQ. Every unit sans Grots should have it built in.

Why are my Nobz a joke when they should be on par in terms of strength as Marines. My squad of Nobz (Not even Mega Nobz) should be able to bulldoze through the ranks of virtually every army. They are sposed to be the Orks bigger, badder, stronger, brutal, etc.

My Warboss shouldn't get slaughtered in challenges so easily. He is sposed to be THE Biggest, 'ardest, etc. That Warboss alone should be laughing in the face of all but my opponents strongest units and even then, giving those a run for their money.

The reason we can't have fluff translate to game is because everyone's book claims their army is the best. Which makes no lick of sense.

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Filch wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I been trying to say, "Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should reduce point cost!" For all the times I been a CSM player.

We dont get atsknf? My CSM should cost 2 pts less. We dont get infiltrating Chosen? Chosen should cost less. Cultist dont get IG orders? Cultist should cost less.

ATSKNF is a non-benefit. It hurts as much as it helps.

Excuse me if, as a DE player, I grind my teeth at this.

That "non-benefit" rule makes you outright immune to several of my weapons.

Not to mention naturally immune to the Fear rule that's so pervasive in my books.

And that's before we get to its main effect.

They're meqs. You just kill them and not worry about fear and all that other crap. ATSKNF doesn't help a dead marine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It makes them ignore the effects of Fear.

Honestly I'm beginning to think that SM players don't understand just how good ATSKNF is...

I don't think Xeno players understand how useless it is when you just shoot the marines dead where they stand. ATSKNF is worthless against raw firepower. I've voluntarily turned this ability off before, and I didn't miss it at all.

Again. Drop the fluff part. I could Care less. I was trying to buff a lackluster unit. Not match fluf .

Tac marines are a dumpster fire. The more tac marines a list has, the easier it is to route off the table. It's because tac marines have terrible offense for their price.

A Tactical Squad of 5 marines with no upgrades is 70 points. They have T4, 3+ Save, ATSKNF plus chapter tactics.

Comparatively, 5 IG stormtroopers with no upgrades are 82 points. They have T3 and 4+ Save (also deep strike and move through cover, useful abilities but they don't do anything towards survivability).

Another comparison, Chaos Space Marines: 75 points for five guys, including a unit champion "blessed" with one of the most stupid special rules ever. No ATSKNF, no chapter tactics.

I honestly fail to see how the SM Tactical Squads are that bad. Although I guess they'll look terrible if you're willing to swallow the we're the spess mehreens and we're da best all hail the emprah fluff, of course.

 Korinov wrote:
A Tactical Squad of 5 marines with no upgrades is 70 points. They have T4, 3+ Save, ATSKNF plus chapter tactics.

Comparatively, 5 IG stormtroopers with no upgrades are 82 points. They have T3 and 4+ Save (also deep strike and move through cover, useful abilities but they don't do anything towards survivability).

Another comparison, Chaos Space Marines: 75 points for five guys, including a unit champion "blessed" with one of the most stupid special rules ever. No ATSKNF, no chapter tactics.

I honestly fail to see how the SM Tactical Squads are that bad. Although I guess they'll look terrible if you're willing to swallow the we're the spess mehreens and we're da best all hail the emprah fluff, of course.

those storm troopers will, without a doubt in my mind, wreck that tac squad. every wound they cause is 1 dead marine. Marines on the other hand, cannot penetrate there armour.

I don't use CSM I use cultists (which are much better than CSM, which I also have qualms with, but don't play near as much so Don't offer suggestions on) and T-sons. at least you can make that chaos space marine squad doubly effective in CC over our SM for a mere 5pts. (or was it 10?)

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I don't see how your statement discredits the OP's.

 raiden wrote:
those storm troopers will, without a doubt in my mind, wreck that tac squad. every wound they cause is 1 dead marine. Marines on the other hand, cannot penetrate there armour.

I don't use CSM I use cultists (which are much better than CSM, which I also have qualms with, but don't play near as much so Don't offer suggestions on) and T-sons. at least you can make that chaos space marine squad doubly effective in CC over our SM for a mere 5pts. (or was it 10?)

Not so sure about who will "wreck" who. Five storm troopers shooting at close range, hitting at 3+ and wounding at 5+ with no saves will kill 3 marines or so per turn in average. In return the marines hitting at 3+ wounding at 3+ and with a 4+ save will kill 2 stormtroopers. All that said, without taking into account chapter tactics. The stormtrooper squad is still 12 points more expensive than the marine tactical squad.

Regarding CSMs, it's two points per mini so 8 points actually (the champion comes already with both boltgun, pistol and ccw). Still no chapter tactics and no ATSKNF. And of course I expect chaos space marines being more effective than loyalists in CC, they're supossed to be specialist on the matter.

But didn't you just hit the nail on the head? No one likes Tac, Chaos Marines, or Stormtroopers; you only take them if you can't help it. They all suck, so now we're just comparing who sucks the most.

 Pyeatt wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I don't see how your statement discredits the OP's.

...I made a tangential observation. You have to look a little further down to find me discrediting the OP.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I don't see how your statement discredits the OP's.

...I made a tangential observation. You have to look a little further down to find me discrediting the OP.

still don't really see it.

I am against All space marines having relentless because it DOESN'T fit the fluff. Sure they are hulking super strong guys, but their weapons are supposedly built for large super strong guys in mind. Bigger, heavier weapons are more cumbersome, hence no relentless. I could see some iron hands having it due to bionics augmenting their already formidable strength, but even I don't think it would be army wide. I think certain hqs might give it to certain units or maybe certain infantry choices having it. But certainly not an army wide thing. 6+ FNP is far more believable and not game breaking or anywhere near as good as necrons' ability. Which would be appropriate. And I am pretty certain 5+ FNP army wide would be too much.

 NorseSig wrote:
I am against All space marines having relentless because it DOESN'T fit the fluff. Sure they are hulking super strong guys, but their weapons are supposedly built for large super strong guys in mind. Bigger, heavier weapons are more cumbersome, hence no relentless. I could see some iron hands having it due to bionics augmenting their already formidable strength, but even I don't think it would be army wide. I think certain hqs might give it to certain units or maybe certain infantry choices having it. But certainly not an army wide thing. 6+ FNP is far more believable and not game breaking or anywhere near as good as necrons' ability. Which would be appropriate. And I am pretty certain 5+ FNP army wide would be too much.

Would this mean my Blood Claws with a Wolf Priest could have 5+ FNP?

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
I am against All space marines having relentless because it DOESN'T fit the fluff. Sure they are hulking super strong guys, but their weapons are supposedly built for large super strong guys in mind. Bigger, heavier weapons are more cumbersome, hence no relentless. I could see some iron hands having it due to bionics augmenting their already formidable strength, but even I don't think it would be army wide. I think certain hqs might give it to certain units or maybe certain infantry choices having it. But certainly not an army wide thing. 6+ FNP is far more believable and not game breaking or anywhere near as good as necrons' ability. Which would be appropriate. And I am pretty certain 5+ FNP army wide would be too much.

Would this mean my Blood Claws with a Wolf Priest could have 5+ FNP?

Sure. It is one unit. Not the whole army. Even if you take 2 wolf priests (since if memory serves correct wolf priests are a hq choice, I have some familiarity with space wolves but not a lot) I dont think it would "break the game".

 Quickjager wrote:
But didn't you just hit the nail on the head? No one likes Tac, Chaos Marines, or Stormtroopers; you only take them if you can't help it. They all suck, so now we're just comparing who sucks the most.

I take Chaos Marines and I don't think they're that bad. Not a great unit of course, but useful as long as you field them with a specific task in mind. Don't expect them to save the day, of course, but then they're just troops. Expensive troops yeah, and a sort of expensive jack of all trades troop in a game that currently favours specialists over anything else. But still they have a place in my lists.

 Korinov wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
But didn't you just hit the nail on the head? No one likes Tac, Chaos Marines, or Stormtroopers; you only take them if you can't help it. They all suck, so now we're just comparing who sucks the most.

I take Chaos Marines and I don't think they're that bad. Not a great unit of course, but useful as long as you field them with a specific task in mind. Don't expect them to save the day, of course, but then they're just troops. Expensive troops yeah, and a sort of expensive jack of all trades troop in a game that currently favours specialists over anything else. But still they have a place in my lists.

the charge fodder

Quick side note, Death Company marines get it standard, and since they are some crazed super-spesh marines and if all space marines would get that would not make sense.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Because Harker is of human strength and resilience, and Space Marines are of superhuman strength and resilience.
.

Because Harker is of human strength and resilience with superhuman point cost. Would you like 25 ppm relentless space marines or something?

On the sidenote, Harker is above regular human resilience. And he has FNP. Or at least used to have. And that's telling something.

 raiden wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
But didn't you just hit the nail on the head? No one likes Tac, Chaos Marines, or Stormtroopers; you only take them if you can't help it. They all suck, so now we're just comparing who sucks the most.

I take Chaos Marines and I don't think they're that bad. Not a great unit of course, but useful as long as you field them with a specific task in mind. Don't expect them to save the day, of course, but then they're just troops. Expensive troops yeah, and a sort of expensive jack of all trades troop in a game that currently favours specialists over anything else. But still they have a place in my lists.

the charge fodder

Yep

When they manage to reach the enemy line without sustaining casualties (something unlikely but heh) a 10 man squad with a pair of flamers delivers 29 WS4 F4 attacks (after some flaming in the shooting phase) that - while not amazing - will still do something against most opponents.

Specially if said opponents are SM tactical marines and you've invested some points in Veterans of the Long War

 raiden wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:
^ this. I am just trying to give an idea to make marines a bit more fluffy, with a bit more oopmh, and a bit more versatile.

Why Marines? Why nobody else? If we're going to go by lore why don't the Eldar get to pick every single random pregame die roll (for an extreme)?

eldar have rending weapons on almost all of their infantry (representing the lore of the monofiliment ammo used), they can run AND shoot. (representing there agility and swiftness).

tau have str5 guns, ap4, 30" range. representing their advanced technology. why do marines get nothing?

T4? The best infantry armour in the game? Storm Shields? Multirole squads? Sternguard? AV14? A broad selection of weapons with ranges longer than 36"? Drop Pods? Sicarians? Nothing?

This is really starting to sound like a case of the grass being greener in the next guy's Codex.

I was discussing basic infantry, not the entire codex, our codex in a whole is a solid mid-topmid tier, I am discussing infantry and basic troops, as represented in the weaponry I described.

T4. best armour in the game- lol. 3+ is indeed nice, but half the things in tau/eldar codex get that as well, with better weapons and options, not to mention over half the stuff fielded in even semi-competitive games today is ap3 or rending.

sternguard- yes, I admit these are probably the best unit in the SM codex bar none, they are good, but compared to the "best" of the other codices....


now moving on, tactical squads, ASM, Sternguad... none of these can take Storm shields, AV14- 250 points base, comes with 2 TLLC and a TLHB, or TL AC and 2 Hurricane bolters..

eldar- wave serpents. all I am saying.
nid-flyrant
etc.

multirole squads? please enlighten me on this multirole squad, tacticals are indeed slightly more versatile then some other infantry, but you give tau firewarriors emp grenades and watch them wreck vehicles all day, even walkers, with ease.

I will be honest, when I proposed this, I intended it to be a tactical squad only special rule, I realize I didn't state that in the original post which is my bad and I shall rectify this. However you cannot say tactical squads are extremely lackluster compared to other troops. I simply wanted to make them a little more versatile in that they could fire rapid fire/heavy (which they will have, at most, 1 of each at 150pts+) then charge, and be FLEXIBLE like they are supposed to be.

we have 2 weapons that most of our infantry models can take with range above 36, thats the ML and the LC, 15 and 20 points respectively. and both are heavy.

You can't give it to tacticals and not all power armor marines. I can attest - no point cost increase is needed. With the current iteration of the bolter, relentless marines would be fairly priced at 14 points and are currently over priced. Up the costs of the heavy weapons by 5-10 points depending. Then reduce the cost of a razorback upgrades by 10-15 points. This would in my mind come close to fully balancing the codex, only 1 more fix would be needed - terminators. Maybe just allowing rhinos to transport them would fix them. Maybe they need more help not sure but they are currently super overpriced.

 koooaei wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Because Harker is of human strength and resilience, and Space Marines are of superhuman strength and resilience.
.

Because Harker is of human strength and resilience with superhuman point cost. Would you like 25 ppm relentless space marines or something?

On the sidenote, Harker is above regular human resilience. And he has FNP. Or at least used to have. And that's telling something.

FTR, Harker costs 55 points.

While a cool idea wouldn't it just be easier to make the bolter have the assault special rule then give ALL Marines relentless? That would be op in my opinion.

Ok i'm cool with that, but then my CSM all Gets Eternal Warrior for 3ppm..., why?, Because Chaos thats why!

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
While a cool idea wouldn't it just be easier to make the bolter have the assault special rule then give ALL Marines relentless? That would be op in my opinion.

This is something of an aside, but I've been wondering whether it would make more sense to ditch the Assault, Rapid Fire, heavy and Salvo rules and just give weapons a separate profile for when the firer moved. Keep 'Assault' as a special rule (which allows the firer to still charge in the assault phase).

Seems like it would be simpler than messing around with weapon types that have lost a lot of meaning anyway, and would also allow more flexibility in weapons.

Right... because Space Marines already ignore moral... they should also ignore the weapon-type restrictions that go with their relatively cheap melta, plasma, flamer, and grav weapons.

Remember, movement prior to the shooting phase is on a per model basis already. You can have your plasma gunner stay still and fire at full BS even though the entire unit has moved around him.

Long and short, Space Marines don't need any help. They are, and will always be one of the strongest armies of any edition. Just because rumors of Necron detachment giving all troops relentless shouldn't make any space marine jealous.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Right... because Space Marines already ignore moral... they should also ignore the weapon-type restrictions that go with their relatively cheap melta, plasma, flamer, and grav weapons.

Remember, movement prior to the shooting phase is on a per model basis already. You can have your plasma gunner stay still and fire at full BS even though the entire unit has moved around him.

Long and short, Space Marines don't need any help. They are, and will always be one of the strongest armies of any edition.

Don't ignore moral. Don't ignore pinning. In game terms the only real benifit of TSKNF is not being swept to death - more often than not this hurts you more than it helps you - unless you have calgar as a warlord - then it can be a little more helpful. Marines are an aggressive unit, they don't hide on the board edge so immunity to falling off the board is basically an afterthought. Gardians get relentless platforms at bs 4...it's really not breaking the game as they aren't even used. Also it's undeniable that looking at a marine statline that we pay a premium for they are intended to be used in assault with WS4 and STR4. Then you give them a rapid fire weapon? Just doesn't make sense and it doesn't work. Lots of ideas are suggested all the time to fix PA marines. So much hostility about these units actually being viable. It disgusts me.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Right... because Space Marines already ignore moral... they should also ignore the weapon-type restrictions that go with their relatively cheap melta, plasma, flamer, and grav weapons.

Remember, movement prior to the shooting phase is on a per model basis already. You can have your plasma gunner stay still and fire at full BS even though the entire unit has moved around him.

Long and short, Space Marines don't need any help. They are, and will always be one of the strongest armies of any edition.

If you're referring to my post, that wasn't the suggestion I was making.

Right... now you are complaining that being immune to 'fear' isn't good enough because it used to be better when you could choose to fail, regroup, shoot, and then charge in again all on the next turn.
Get this... most Xenos codecs have Fear as one of their Warlord traits... and you are immune. All deamons have fear as one of their special rules... a rule that the units pay for as part of their cost... and you are immune. As already pointed out, Dark Eldar also have fear as part of their army rules... and you are immune.

Chaos Space Marines, who live in what amounts to hell aren't immune from fear. If you want to argue from fluff, they are the ones who should have ATSKNF.

Between ATSKNF, Chapter Tactics, cheap heavy and special weapons, easy to get 2+ and good invuln saves... Marines don't need any help to be good and easy to play. So what if your troops aren't as awesome as the fluff... they are still way better than most of the troop choices in the game.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Right... now you are complaining that being immune to 'fear' isn't good enough because it used to be better when you could choose to fail, regroup, shoot, and then charge in again all on the next turn.
Get this... most Xenos codecs have Fear as one of their Warlord traits... and you are immune. All deamons have fear as one of their special rules... a rule that the units pay for as part of their cost... and you are immune. As already pointed out, Dark Eldar also have fear as part of their army rules... and you are immune.

Chaos Space Marines, who live in what amounts to hell aren't immune from fear. If you want to argue from fluff, they are the ones who should have ATSKNF.

Between ATSKNF, Chapter Tactics, cheap heavy and special weapons, easy to get 2+ and good invuln saves... Marines don't need any help to be good and easy to play. So what if your troops aren't as awesome as the fluff... they are still way better than most of the troop choices in the game.

You are correct - CSM should have TSKNF - can't imagine a marine player would ever disagree with this. Be warned though - paying an extra point for a mostly worthless ability wont end well. I agree with you 100% though. A chaos marine should probably be fearless. I think the reasoning behind the ruling was to suggest that chaos marines are broken men. A broken mans will is weaker than a a loyalist who is willing and determined to die for his cause if the need arise. Perhaps a chaos marine who has chosen and lusts for personal gain might know true fear whilst being torn apart by an all powerful force when a loyalist embraces the fear an prepares for a glorious death.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Right... because Space Marines already ignore moral... they should also ignore the weapon-type restrictions that go with their relatively cheap melta, plasma, flamer, and grav weapons.

Remember, movement prior to the shooting phase is on a per model basis already. You can have your plasma gunner stay still and fire at full BS even though the entire unit has moved around him.

Long and short, Space Marines don't need any help. They are, and will always be one of the strongest armies of any edition.

Don't ignore moral. Don't ignore pinning. In game terms the only real benifit of TSKNF is not being swept to death - more often than not this hurts you more than it helps you - unless you have calgar as a warlord - then it can be a little more helpful. Marines are an aggressive unit, they don't hide on the board edge so immunity to falling off the board is basically an afterthought. Gardians get relentless platforms at bs 4...it's really not breaking the game as they aren't even used. Also it's undeniable that looking at a marine statline that we pay a premium for they are intended to be used in assault with WS4 and STR4. Then you give them a rapid fire weapon? Just doesn't make sense and it doesn't work. Lots of ideas are suggested all the time to fix PA marines. So much hostility about these units actually being viable. It disgusts me.

You know that all marines have bolt pistols right?

Yay. I gave my tac squad a plasma gun, I can't use it if I need to charge. Worth

 raiden wrote:
Yay. I gave my tac squad a plasma gun, I can't use it if I need to charge. Worth

Just don't shoot and charge - what's the big deal? You want all the benefits and no drawbacks. Man, it's not codex: Eldar.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
While a cool idea wouldn't it just be easier to make the bolter have the assault special rule then give ALL Marines relentless? That would be op in my opinion.

I think you might have the perfect solution there.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
That would be crazy overpowered, IMO, especially for only 1-2 points. For one thing it would all but double the number of shot's you're firing, for all of 25-50 points difference across your whole army, since it would mean everybody is going to rapid fire at least one additional time, before charging. It would also remove all impetus to strategically place heavy weapons units. I'm just sitting here imagining the amount of devastation my Long Fangs could do if they were able to just chase vehicle around the field to keep them in range, shooting lascannons at full BS. I wouldn't object to the idea of being able to somehow purchase relentless for models, but it should be something like 10 points per model, and certainly not available for things like most chapters' neophyte scouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I don't know. I see lot's of Sisters players constantly pointing out that in the fluff they don't suck donkey hole, and the rules should reflect that.

Wow, you are really on fire against marine players wanting a buff (remembering from other threads). I know you have a crusade against them, but to be honest, I get the sense you have an ulterior motive? Like you secretly hate the bell bottoms SM's have....

You do realize that space marines play a bigger part in the universe than aspect warriors, and going from lore, are probably 'better' than most xenos elite units. Heck, even countering with 'well these other dudes should have a buff too, because they once dude this in lore...' well, most likely you are referring to an exception, not a generality - like with SM's.

Lore wise, look at it from a numbers point of view.......

You have a branch of the Imperium (Adeptus Astartes) that requires a lot of resources, affects theatres where billions of combatants may be involved, and the replenshiment rate ratio is probably in the realm of 1000000:1 (compared to the militarum). Think about it, in table top perspective, how do the rules even come close to lore?
Im not insinuating that 1 marine should be able to take on 1000000 or something daft like that, but rather, they should be able to hold their own very well against one or two squads easily.

Marine armies should be 3-12 man armies in a 500 - 2000 pt game. The problem with this is that GW would lose in sales, hence is why more consistent SM rules will never happen.

 TheSilo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Right... because Space Marines already ignore moral... they should also ignore the weapon-type restrictions that go with their relatively cheap melta, plasma, flamer, and grav weapons.

Remember, movement prior to the shooting phase is on a per model basis already. You can have your plasma gunner stay still and fire at full BS even though the entire unit has moved around him.

Long and short, Space Marines don't need any help. They are, and will always be one of the strongest armies of any edition.

Don't ignore moral. Don't ignore pinning. In game terms the only real benifit of TSKNF is not being swept to death - more often than not this hurts you more than it helps you - unless you have calgar as a warlord - then it can be a little more helpful. Marines are an aggressive unit, they don't hide on the board edge so immunity to falling off the board is basically an afterthought. Gardians get relentless platforms at bs 4...it's really not breaking the game as they aren't even used. Also it's undeniable that looking at a marine statline that we pay a premium for they are intended to be used in assault with WS4 and STR4. Then you give them a rapid fire weapon? Just doesn't make sense and it doesn't work. Lots of ideas are suggested all the time to fix PA marines. So much hostility about these units actually being viable. It disgusts me.

You know that all marines have bolt pistols right?

I guess this makes marines multirole right? because they can gimp their firepower to charge an enemy? ofc I know they have bolt pistols.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kveldulf wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
That would be crazy overpowered, IMO, especially for only 1-2 points. For one thing it would all but double the number of shot's you're firing, for all of 25-50 points difference across your whole army, since it would mean everybody is going to rapid fire at least one additional time, before charging. It would also remove all impetus to strategically place heavy weapons units. I'm just sitting here imagining the amount of devastation my Long Fangs could do if they were able to just chase vehicle around the field to keep them in range, shooting lascannons at full BS. I wouldn't object to the idea of being able to somehow purchase relentless for models, but it should be something like 10 points per model, and certainly not available for things like most chapters' neophyte scouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I don't know. I see lot's of Sisters players constantly pointing out that in the fluff they don't suck donkey hole, and the rules should reflect that.

Wow, you are really on fire against marine players wanting a buff (remembering from other threads). I know you have a crusade against them, but to be honest, I get the sense you have an ulterior motive? Like you secretly hate the bell bottoms SM's have....

You do realize that space marines play a bigger part in the universe than aspect warriors, and going from lore, are probably 'better' than most xenos elite units. Heck, even countering with 'well these other dudes should have a buff too, because they once dude this in lore...' well, most likely you are referring to an exception, not a generality - like with SM's.

Lore wise, look at it from a numbers point of view.......

You have a branch of the Imperium (Adeptus Astartes) that requires a lot of resources, affects theatres where billions of combatants may be involved, and the replenshiment rate ratio is probably in the realm of 1000000:1 (compared to the militarum). Think about it, in table top perspective, how do the rules even come close to lore?
Im not insinuating that 1 marine should be able to take on 1000000 or something daft like that, but rather, they should be able to hold their own very well against one or two squads easily.

Marine armies should be 3-12 man armies in a 500 - 2000 pt game. The problem with this is that GW would lose in sales, hence is why more consistent SM rules will never happen.

Ehh...not sure they would lose money. All they would have to do is release an 80 dollar box set with new and better looking marines in them - (currently no one buys tacticals execpt the bare minimum required.) People would buy that. Then make marines cost 30-35 points but actually be bad asses. 2 base attacks, 5++ saves, and rending chainswords - with special ammo on all their bolters and relentless. Sterngards and vets would just become more BA. 3 base attacks WS 5 BS 5 and have some other special rules but cost like 40-50 poitns. Terms should cost what a centurian costs but be as effective in a multi purpose roll as opposed to just being shooters. It would require so much escalation of all their units that it could never happen. It's fun for house rules though.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Right... because Space Marines already ignore moral... they should also ignore the weapon-type restrictions that go with their relatively cheap melta, plasma, flamer, and grav weapons.

Remember, movement prior to the shooting phase is on a per model basis already. You can have your plasma gunner stay still and fire at full BS even though the entire unit has moved around him.

Long and short, Space Marines don't need any help. They are, and will always be one of the strongest armies of any edition.

Don't ignore moral. Don't ignore pinning. In game terms the only real benifit of TSKNF is not being swept to death - more often than not this hurts you more than it helps you - unless you have calgar as a warlord - then it can be a little more helpful. Marines are an aggressive unit, they don't hide on the board edge so immunity to falling off the board is basically an afterthought. Gardians get relentless platforms at bs 4...it's really not breaking the game as they aren't even used. Also it's undeniable that looking at a marine statline that we pay a premium for they are intended to be used in assault with WS4 and STR4. Then you give them a rapid fire weapon? Just doesn't make sense and it doesn't work. Lots of ideas are suggested all the time to fix PA marines. So much hostility about these units actually being viable. It disgusts me.

You know that all marines have bolt pistols right?

I guess this makes marines multirole right? because they can gimp their firepower to charge an enemy? ofc I know they have bolt pistols.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kveldulf wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
That would be crazy overpowered, IMO, especially for only 1-2 points. For one thing it would all but double the number of shot's you're firing, for all of 25-50 points difference across your whole army, since it would mean everybody is going to rapid fire at least one additional time, before charging. It would also remove all impetus to strategically place heavy weapons units. I'm just sitting here imagining the amount of devastation my Long Fangs could do if they were able to just chase vehicle around the field to keep them in range, shooting lascannons at full BS. I wouldn't object to the idea of being able to somehow purchase relentless for models, but it should be something like 10 points per model, and certainly not available for things like most chapters' neophyte scouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I don't know. I see lot's of Sisters players constantly pointing out that in the fluff they don't suck donkey hole, and the rules should reflect that.

Wow, you are really on fire against marine players wanting a buff (remembering from other threads). I know you have a crusade against them, but to be honest, I get the sense you have an ulterior motive? Like you secretly hate the bell bottoms SM's have....

You do realize that space marines play a bigger part in the universe than aspect warriors, and going from lore, are probably 'better' than most xenos elite units. Heck, even countering with 'well these other dudes should have a buff too, because they once dude this in lore...' well, most likely you are referring to an exception, not a generality - like with SM's.

Lore wise, look at it from a numbers point of view.......

You have a branch of the Imperium (Adeptus Astartes) that requires a lot of resources, affects theatres where billions of combatants may be involved, and the replenshiment rate ratio is probably in the realm of 1000000:1 (compared to the militarum). Think about it, in table top perspective, how do the rules even come close to lore?
Im not insinuating that 1 marine should be able to take on 1000000 or something daft like that, but rather, they should be able to hold their own very well against one or two squads easily.

Marine armies should be 3-12 man armies in a 500 - 2000 pt game. The problem with this is that GW would lose in sales, hence is why more consistent SM rules will never happen.

Ehh...not sure they would lose money. All they would have to do is release an 80 dollar box set with new and better looking marines in them - (currently no one buys tacticals execpt the bare minimum required.) People would buy that. Then make marines cost 30-35 points but actually be bad asses. 2 base attacks, 5++ saves, and rending chainswords - with special ammo on all their bolters and relentless. Sterngards and vets would just become more BA. 3 base attacks WS 5 BS 5 and have some other special rules but cost like 40-50 poitns. Terms should cost what a centurian costs but be as effective in a multi purpose roll as opposed to just being shooters. It would require so much escalation of all their units that it could never happen. It's fun for house rules though.

While this isn't particularly relevant to the discussion, quite a few of us buy more tacticals than the minimum. They might not finish as tacticals, but for the $, the box gives you a good number of bodies and options which can be kitbashed into just about any other unit in the codex with leftover parts. I've almost tripled my Sternguard vets with a tactical squad box and some easy greenstuffing.

kveldulf wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
That would be crazy overpowered, IMO, especially for only 1-2 points. For one thing it would all but double the number of shot's you're firing, for all of 25-50 points difference across your whole army, since it would mean everybody is going to rapid fire at least one additional time, before charging. It would also remove all impetus to strategically place heavy weapons units. I'm just sitting here imagining the amount of devastation my Long Fangs could do if they were able to just chase vehicle around the field to keep them in range, shooting lascannons at full BS. I wouldn't object to the idea of being able to somehow purchase relentless for models, but it should be something like 10 points per model, and certainly not available for things like most chapters' neophyte scouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I don't know. I see lot's of Sisters players constantly pointing out that in the fluff they don't suck donkey hole, and the rules should reflect that.

Wow, you are really on fire against marine players wanting a buff (remembering from other threads). I know you have a crusade against them, but to be honest, I get the sense you have an ulterior motive? Like you secretly hate the bell bottoms SM's have....

You do realize that space marines play a bigger part in the universe than aspect warriors, and going from lore, are probably 'better' than most xenos elite units. Heck, even countering with 'well these other dudes should have a buff too, because they once dude this in lore...' well, most likely you are referring to an exception, not a generality - like with SM's.

Lore wise, look at it from a numbers point of view.......

You have a branch of the Imperium (Adeptus Astartes) that requires a lot of resources, affects theatres where billions of combatants may be involved, and the replenshiment rate ratio is probably in the realm of 1000000:1 (compared to the militarum). Think about it, in table top perspective, how do the rules even come close to lore?
Im not insinuating that 1 marine should be able to take on 1000000 or something daft like that, but rather, they should be able to hold their own very well against one or two squads easily.

Marine armies should be 3-12 man armies in a 500 - 2000 pt game. The problem with this is that GW would lose in sales, hence is why more consistent SM rules will never happen.

Not just that, but it would hurt the variety of the game. If it only cost about $80 to put together a space marine army, who's ever gonna play Orks or Nids, at $600-$800 for a 2500 point army? (Obviously this is overly-simplistic, but it would have some impact)

^ This is the very reason marines are 14 ppm instead of 140 ppm.

kveldulf wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
That would be crazy overpowered, IMO, especially for only 1-2 points. For one thing it would all but double the number of shot's you're firing, for all of 25-50 points difference across your whole army, since it would mean everybody is going to rapid fire at least one additional time, before charging. It would also remove all impetus to strategically place heavy weapons units. I'm just sitting here imagining the amount of devastation my Long Fangs could do if they were able to just chase vehicle around the field to keep them in range, shooting lascannons at full BS. I wouldn't object to the idea of being able to somehow purchase relentless for models, but it should be something like 10 points per model, and certainly not available for things like most chapters' neophyte scouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why is it that whenever we get "X doesn't reflect the fluff, we should buff it!" it's always a Marine player?

I don't know. I see lot's of Sisters players constantly pointing out that in the fluff they don't suck donkey hole, and the rules should reflect that.

Wow, you are really on fire against marine players wanting a buff (remembering from other threads). I know you have a crusade against them, but to be honest, I get the sense you have an ulterior motive? Like you secretly hate the bell bottoms SM's have....

You do realize that space marines play a bigger part in the universe than aspect warriors, and going from lore, are probably 'better' than most xenos elite units. Heck, even countering with 'well these other dudes should have a buff too, because they once dude this in lore...' well, most likely you are referring to an exception, not a generality - like with SM's.

Lore wise, look at it from a numbers point of view.......

You have a branch of the Imperium (Adeptus Astartes) that requires a lot of resources, affects theatres where billions of combatants may be involved, and the replenshiment rate ratio is probably in the realm of 1000000:1 (compared to the militarum). Think about it, in table top perspective, how do the rules even come close to lore?
Im not insinuating that 1 marine should be able to take on 1000000 or something daft like that, but rather, they should be able to hold their own very well against one or two squads easily.

Marine armies should be 3-12 man armies in a 500 - 2000 pt game. The problem with this is that GW would lose in sales, hence is why more consistent SM rules will never happen.

Interests of full disclosure: One of my largest armies is Dark Angels, I am a Marine player. I don't have an ulterior anti-Marine crusade going on. The issue I have is Marine players deciding that their exaggerated lore is obviously the most accurate exaggeration and Space Marines are so much better than everyone else that five guys should be able to fight an army. 'Small, elite army' does not, cannot, and should not mean 'I get to buy one box and play the game while everyone else has to spend hundreds of dollars on cannon fodder that exists only for my special, special dudes to remove it from play'. This is a two-player game at the end of the day. If it was a single-player video game or a movie you might see a dozen Space Marines fighting thousands of enemies and winning (hey, you could go watch Ultramarines or play DoW2 if you want that experience!), but there's a real, live person on the other side of the table who's just as emotionally invested in his army as you are in yours and didn't come to be massacred to make you feel better about yourself.

I don't even care about the lore when it comes to this issue; it's the callous disregard for the limitations of the format and for non-Marine players that gets me grumpy about this problem.

As to your more specific lorewise points I suggest you pick up a Xeno Codex sometime and tell me how many Incubi or Crisis suits it ought to take to fight an army. As to the numerical argument the primary advantage of Space Marines is force concentration, they don't exist to pit a thousand Marines against hundreds of thousands of traitors in open field battles, they exist to pick a precise target and kill it very, very dead. Consider the difference between five Drop Pods full of Space Marines and five Drop Pods full of Guardsmen on the tabletop.

I do not think lore-accurate Marines are viable for tabletop play for the reasons you mention.

However, they are still lore-accurate.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do not think lore-accurate Marines are viable for tabletop play for the reasons you mention.

However, they are still lore-accurate.

Can you point me at an example where Space Marines are not the protagonists and yet are still fighting hundreds of guys alone and winning?

Then the space marines win! six devs with lascannons they move and shoot on full BS and its "ok"

I think they should have assault weapons. Like the bolter should be assault 2.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do not think lore-accurate Marines are viable for tabletop play for the reasons you mention.

However, they are still lore-accurate.

Can you point me at an example where Space Marines are not the protagonists and yet are still fighting hundreds of guys alone and winning?

Death of Antagonis. The Chaos Space Marines are antagonists but still wipe out a Guard company + armoured support with only 6 guys, and they don't really do their worst either (doing things like whipping the IG to pieces with treads ripped from their tanks).

Done.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do not think lore-accurate Marines are viable for tabletop play for the reasons you mention.

However, they are still lore-accurate.

Can you point me at an example where Space Marines are not the protagonists and yet are still fighting hundreds of guys alone and winning?

Death of Antagonis. The Chaos Space Marines are antagonists but still wipe out a Guard company + armoured support with only 6 guys, and they don't really do their worst either (doing things like whipping the IG to pieces with treads ripped from their tanks).

Done.

The Space Marines aren't the protagonists of a "Space Marine Battles" novel?

Note how I said Chaos Space Marines.

The Chaos Space Marines in that novel are not protagonists, but they are fighting hundreds and winning easily.

Indeed, they directly oppose the protagonists and still pull off just as sick gak.

Seems like a safe sign that no worfing is present.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Note how I said Chaos Space Marines.

The Chaos Space Marines in that novel are not protagonists, but they are fighting hundreds and winning easily.

Indeed, they directly oppose the protagonists and still pull off just as sick gak.

Seems like a safe sign that no worfing is present.

You're telling me a "Space Marine Battles" novel isn't exaggerating how awesome the Space Marines are?

I damn right am.

People usually complain on how worfed their opponents are, yes?

Well, have CSM fight SM and both pull of impressive feats.

Would you expect CSM to fight SM in a Tau novel? The only way you could possibly get more objective, but it's never going to happen.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I damn right am.

People usually complain on how worfed their opponents are, yes?

Well, have CSM fight SM and both pull of impressive feats.

Would you expect CSM to fight SM in a Tau novel? The only way you could possibly get more objective, but it's never going to happen.

I'm expecting you to show me an individual Space Marine slaughtering hundreds of enemies in a source that's not set up to exaggerate their prowess if you're planning on justifying Movie Marines as the true lore representation of the faction...

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I damn right am.

People usually complain on how worfed their opponents are, yes?

Well, have CSM fight SM and both pull of impressive feats.

Would you expect CSM to fight SM in a Tau novel? The only way you could possibly get more objective, but it's never going to happen.

I'm expecting you to show me an individual Space Marine slaughtering hundreds of enemies in a source that's not set up to exaggerate their prowess if you're planning on justifying Movie Marines as the true lore representation of the faction...

Guess we can go back to having legions then because marines aren't actually that bad ass according to you.

Have you ever seen Terminator 2? When arnold walks out of cyberdyne systems building and easily waxes 10-15 dudes because they are shooting 9mm rounds into his full metal skeleton? This is how space marines work. They walk right into the enemy and shoot them ignoring small arms fire like it doesn't even exist. Now imagine arnold is 9 feet tall in full power armor with a .75 mm gernade launcher as his primary weapon...how easy do you think he would have wrecked 15 humans with small arms considering he did is pretty easy without armor and using a 1911 pistol?

Except marine armor fails utterly 33% of the time. The T-800 is much better

Martel732 wrote:
Except marine armor fails utterly 33% of the time. The T-800 is much better

We're talking lore now, Martel.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I damn right am.

People usually complain on how worfed their opponents are, yes?

Well, have CSM fight SM and both pull of impressive feats.

Would you expect CSM to fight SM in a Tau novel? The only way you could possibly get more objective, but it's never going to happen.

I'm expecting you to show me an individual Space Marine slaughtering hundreds of enemies in a source that's not set up to exaggerate their prowess if you're planning on justifying Movie Marines as the true lore representation of the faction...

Even with the commonly used movie marine stats (S6 T6 W2, S6 bolters) they're still going to struggle killing hundreds of enemies of pretty much all troops units in the game.

The problem with lore is that each race's lore makes them out to be the badass. As it turns out, 16% of shots from some guardian chumpo kills your mythical supermen dead as a doornail.

Martel732 wrote:
The problem with lore is that each race's lore makes them out to be the badass. As it turns out, 16% of shots from some guardian chumpo kills your mythical supermen dead as a doornail.

Do we really have to do this dance again?

Go back to your naked IG majors who reliably eat 3 times as many Warboss punches to the face as a naked regular Guardsman would.

I guess we do as long as anyone considers GW's "lore" to be any basis for a mathematically based game. I think the Astartes are losers with antiquated tech and outmoded battle doctrines. The game sorta reflects this.

It does. Fortunately, the game is only one example, and easily dismissed when debating the lore from a greater perspective.

Given that I spend way more time playing the game than reading their terrible fiction, it's not so easy for me to dismiss.

Then you should perhaps consider not saying that every time someone tries to debate fluff? We know your opinion already, and 'I dismiss it' is not really helpful.

Would welcome your input once it comes to balancing, though.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Note how I said Chaos Space Marines.

The Chaos Space Marines in that novel are not protagonists, but they are fighting hundreds and winning easily.

Indeed, they directly oppose the protagonists and still pull off just as sick gak.

Seems like a safe sign that no worfing is present.

You're telling me a "Space Marine Battles" novel isn't exaggerating how awesome the Space Marines are?

How about the machrius crusade books? Those are built around guard and the lord generals. However it has space marines (space wolves) pulling off gak with one company (usually only 10-15 around) that an entire regiment would be hard pressed to do.

That aside, I'm not asking for 5-10 models to play, I dont want 5-10, models to play, not only does it seem a bit boring but it would cause the hero's to be less heroric. All I wanted to do Here was buff on of the least used basic troops in game

Eldar DA- loved and used
Tau firewarriors- loved and used
IG platoons/vets- save full armor list loved and used.
DE warriors- freaking spammed in those raiders man
Necrons(god forbid)- I never see a cron list w/out one 20 man warrior blob with 4++ WBB and wrecking any vehicles with 6s,- loved and used

Space Marines? If we play 'competitively' 9/10 times you see 2 minimal tac squads taken as a tax. Why? Because they are sub-par.

The only other army I really feel has a right to complain about basic troops is orks. But that's for different reasons not purely at the ork boys fault.


I'm not trying to balance to fluff, only balance to other troops. I'd appreciate you not bash be as a 'oh I want my fluff marines hur hur' when I propose something. If you wish to present actual reasons as to why my thoughts are wrong, or if you think something a little less is needed (as others have suggested) that's fine.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Then you should perhaps consider not saying that every time someone tries to debate fluff? We know your opinion already, and 'I dismiss it' is not really helpful.

Would welcome your input once it comes to balancing, though.

I think it's helpful to keep pointing out that a game can't be balanced around nonsense fiction written by a horde of authors.

I would submit that as long as we are on the D6 system, tac marines are stuck with being terrible.

Nah.

We can buff them a bit. We don't have to make everything exactly as fluff as it'd make the game unplayable. But we can make it a little bit closer, and plug a balance hole at the same time.

*Insert 12 Gaunts Ghost killing 5 SM with the help of a bunch of civilians here*

Or the 10 Kasrkins taking out Plague Marines with a few losses.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Nah.

We can buff them a bit. We don't have to make everything exactly as fluff as it'd make the game unplayable. But we can make it a little bit closer, and plug a balance hole at the same time.

Within the D6 system, there is no room left.

 Bobthehero wrote:
*Insert 12 Gaunts Ghost killing 5 SM with the help of a bunch of civilians here*

Or the 10 Kasrkins taking out Plague Marines with a few losses.

I thought we were dismissing the feats made by the protagonists of novels as plot armour?

If not, the IG are going to have to do far worse than that to beat the Mach 180 Marines.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Nah.

We can buff them a bit. We don't have to make everything exactly as fluff as it'd make the game unplayable. But we can make it a little bit closer, and plug a balance hole at the same time.

Within the D6 system, there is no room left.

Make their weapons Shred? Pretty small thing but everything helps?

Maybe shred. It effectively doubles their wounds against T6 MCs. Players from other lists are going to freak out, though. Like all the people that think tacticals are already good. I don't know how many tactical based lists I have to table before the word gets out. Oh well.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Interests of full disclosure: One of my largest armies is Dark Angels, I am a Marine player. I don't have an ulterior anti-Marine crusade going on. The issue I have is Marine players deciding that their exaggerated lore is obviously the most accurate exaggeration and Space Marines are so much better than everyone else that five guys should be able to fight an army. 'Small, elite army' does not, cannot, and should not mean 'I get to buy one box and play the game while everyone else has to spend hundreds of dollars on cannon fodder that exists only for my special, special dudes to remove it from play'. This is a two-player game at the end of the day. If it was a single-player video game or a movie you might see a dozen Space Marines fighting thousands of enemies and winning (hey, you could go watch Ultramarines or play DoW2 if you want that experience!), but there's a real, live person on the other side of the table who's just as emotionally invested in his army as you are in yours and didn't come to be massacred to make you feel better about yourself.

I don't even care about the lore when it comes to this issue; it's the callous disregard for the limitations of the format and for non-Marine players that gets me grumpy about this problem.

As to your more specific lorewise points I suggest you pick up a Xeno Codex sometime and tell me how many Incubi or Crisis suits it ought to take to fight an army. As to the numerical argument the primary advantage of Space Marines is force concentration, they don't exist to pit a thousand Marines against hundreds of thousands of traitors in open field battles, they exist to pick a precise target and kill it very, very dead. Consider the difference between five Drop Pods full of Space Marines and five Drop Pods full of Guardsmen on the tabletop.

Well, its one thing to have an army, and its another to have a favorite I have 6 WFB armies, and I like one over the rest.
At least now you are elaborating your real feelings though, that its more about not screwing over the experience of the other person, which is, very noble, and.... good. Not very many people I wager consider the 'person' in the hobby. However, as a counter about the equal financial investment for both parties: it seems a bit shallow to assert that some sort of balance is needed in actual cost ($) - among the armies. I really don't see a problem with having an army that is cheap to field. If anything, it may just get more players interested in the game.

As far as your later thoughts regarding the numbers and xenos issue I mentioned earlier:
1. xenos have their prized units that are somewhat comparable to astartes, but its not as though buffing astartes will take away their thunder. Plus, I simply don't think there is as much issue with very many xenos elites as there are SM's.
2. You are correct in essentially stating that SM's are used for surgical strikes than frontline... typically. However, their 'performance statistics' do not even come close to the comparable methods of mass guardsman who could accomplish the same thing via Valkyries (and probably at a fraction of the price tag - in Thrones ). Oh and don't forget about the replenishment rate..... I don't think any chapter would survive for very long under the casualty rate of 40k rules. Oh and stating that most marine fluff as just exaggeration is ignoring most of every book and rulebook ever written about space marines.... that's a lot of exaggeration; that argument seems weak.

I just don't think you are really thinking about the arithmetic holes SM's have to fill in such a grand scale Imperium.

There is a fundamental issue regarding your view and mine: it sounds like you care about more the mechanics than the lore, right? If mechanics matter more in a game, then what kind of wargame are you really trying to play? I would wager, its inline with more a board game than a wargame. Mechanical balance in a wargame is meant to be somewhat loose in translation to fit the lore its depicting. If a game loses that perspective. , and it involves dice (like warhammer) then it can become marginalized to the point where it's a fancy (and clumsy) way of playing rock paper scissors - More of a sport than a story.

But if all their weapons have shred then I have reason to use lightning claws ( which is a shame because space marine wolverines look awesome.) What about just giving all space marines t5? Bolters and such can still harm them as well s7 +spam . With bikes bringing up the toughness another +1 you could possibly have t6 space marines with relentless, grav guns, and twin-linked bolters. Problem solved: the marines are awesome again.

I meant only giving Bolters Shred.

Their melee attacks could also gain Shred. Price drop Lightning Claws (Or adjust them another way, like +1S), and remember they still give AP3.

+1T is also viable.

Or let them reroll their armour save? (Maybe let the reroll be only at a lower chance if people feel it's too OP?)

Give them a little invul?

6+ FNP? (5+ for IH, 4+ with Apothecary)

 Ashiraya wrote:
I meant only giving Bolters Shred.

Their melee attacks could also gain Shred. Price drop Lightning Claws (Or adjust them another way, like +1S), and remember they still give AP3.

+1T is also viable.

Or let them reroll their armour save? (Maybe let the reroll be only at a lower chance if people feel it's too OP?)

Give them a little invul?

6+ FNP? (5+ for IH, 4+ with Apothecary)

Shred is an insanely overpowered USR. You're talking about making marines more than 50% better at shooting. S5 bolters would be less OP and still be insanely OP.

You can have T5 if you pay the price for Nurgle marines.

Reroll 3+ armor save? No. Are you kidding? That'd go from 1/3 to 1/9. They have those from forge world, at 50 points per squad.

If you want an invul then play Sisters.

Want FNP then buy apothecaries. Don't Iron Hands already have FNP?

Or just give them relentless...

Relentless would work, but every space marine would have to get it ( it makes no sense why tactical marines have it and not devastators). It would certainly make them a much faster army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still there are people who want space marines to stay at the level where they are and not get buffed up more

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Relentless would work, but every space marine would have to get it ( it makes no sense why tactical marines have it and not devastators). It would certainly make them a much faster army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still there are people who want space marines to stay at the level where they are and not get buffed up more

I agree - all power armor should get it. This would also be the easiest buff the could give marines because it would only effect marine codex (as opposed to buffing bolters).

Seems kinda wrong to be hip-shooting Plasma Cannons and Lascannons.

Perhaps instead of buffing foot Marines, we should instead fix Bikes (and other things).

Like I said earlier, if think want the ability to move, rapid fire, and charge in one turn but NOT fire a heavy weapon then just make bolters assault weapons. Giving them relentless seems reasonable if there was a slight point cost ( especially since bikes already get it) but I could see how it could be frowned upon.They both achieve the effect of making the space marines a whole lot faster and versatile, because it lets them use all of their skills at once instead of making them pick between being OK at shooting and OK at CC.

Bharring wrote:
Seems kinda wrong to be hip-shooting Plasma Cannons and Lascannons.

Perhaps instead of buffing foot Marines, we should instead fix Bikes (and other things).

Bikes don't require a fix at all...my raven wing gets spanked...Vanilla marines do a little better with bikes cause grav guns are such a nice weapon but there is nothing wrong with the way a bike is priced. Perhaps giving bikes skilled rider for free in white scars is a little over powered but that has nothing to do with bikes price for every other chapter. Just nerf the white scars tactics - not bikes in general. A marine is really strong - it's not hip firing anything - as you can see they easily wield a laz cannon with their arms and are able to aim it accurately. Is it really much of a step for them to do that while walking forward?

I value krak grenades more than I value ATSKNF, and they're both extremely awesome.

That said, I agree that tacticals don't feel very "special" and aren't as powerful as they SHOULD be, given how central they are to the fluff. We read that most of the heavy-lifting of a chapter is done by heroic individual marines who win out more because of their superior training than their wargear, but that's not really reflected at all by our best units.

Thunderfire cannons are extremely effective, but they don't feel space marine-y at all. It even says in their fluff that their use is generally an exception to the rapid-engagement, infantry-heavy rule of space marine warfare. The same thing could be said for Centurion Warsuits.

I'm not saying "give my marines free stuff," I'm just saying I wish the codex was built around tac squads.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Relentless would work, but every space marine would have to get it ( it makes no sense why tactical marines have it and not devastators). It would certainly make them a much faster army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still there are people who want space marines to stay at the level where they are and not get buffed up more

it does make since IIRC tactical marines are only 1 step away from Veterans.

assault-dev-tac, it can be wrote off as tac marines have learned even better how to use there gear/armor.

Bharring wrote:
Seems kinda wrong to be hip-shooting Plasma Cannons and Lascannons.

Perhaps instead of buffing foot Marines, we should instead fix Bikes (and other things).

Nerfing bikes won't make tacs good. It will just make bikes bad again.

Giving marines relentless to boost the effectiveness of bolters is not that much of a boost, I think. Marines suffer from having feeble offense for their point cost and the current available weapons make a mockery of T4 3+ save. Marines struggle to get into a position to fire bolters and then assault. There's drop pods, but the casualty rate on drop troops is insanely high, and few survive to assault the next turn.

Someone is on a derp crusade.

 TheSilo wrote:

Shred is an insanely overpowered USR. You're talking about making marines more than 50% better at shooting. S5 bolters would be less OP and still be insanely OP.

Would it now? Let's see if Martel agrees.

 TheSilo wrote:

You can have T5 if you pay the price for Nurgle marines.

Yes, because MoN CSM are great units. Oh wait lol.

 TheSilo wrote:

Reroll 3+ armor save? No. Are you kidding? That'd go from 1/3 to 1/9. They have those from forge world, at 50 points per squad.

You may or may not have noticed that little extra bit I added 'Maybe make the reroll a lower chance' to prevent people QQing on a rerollable 3+ being too good.

 TheSilo wrote:

If you want an invul then play Sisters.

BS. They don't have a monopoly on soldier-level invulns, not any more than MoT cultists/Marines do.

 TheSilo wrote:

Want FNP then buy apothecaries. Don't Iron Hands already have FNP?

Yes, both do, hence why I specifically accounted for them in the brackets.

It's not more than 50% better, because of the to-hit rolls. It nearly doubles wounds against T6, but is less useful against T3. Of course, I'm rarely getting to shoot T3, so there is that argument.

Shred is an interesting proposal. I personally have troubles with marines getting crushed with 36" + guns, however. Marines just have to invest in expensive models with rapid fire 24" guns. That's just fundamentally bad in 7th ed.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Someone is on a derp crusade.

 TheSilo wrote:

Shred is an insanely overpowered USR. You're talking about making marines more than 50% better at shooting. S5 bolters would be less OP and still be insanely OP.

Would it now? Let's see if Martel agrees.

 TheSilo wrote:

You can have T5 if you pay the price for Nurgle marines.

Yes, because MoN CSM are great units. Oh wait lol.

 TheSilo wrote:

Reroll 3+ armor save? No. Are you kidding? That'd go from 1/3 to 1/9. They have those from forge world, at 50 points per squad.

You may or may not have noticed that little extra bit I added 'Maybe make the reroll a lower chance' to prevent people QQing on a rerollable 3+ being too good.

 TheSilo wrote:

If you want an invul then play Sisters.

BS. They don't have a monopoly on soldier-level invulns, not any more than MoT cultists/Marines do.

 TheSilo wrote:

Want FNP then buy apothecaries. Don't Iron Hands already have FNP?

Yes, both do, hence why I specifically accounted for them in the brackets.

And yet players are here advocating getting these buffs for free or for a pittance. Marines and other armies have access to many of these buffs through options or psychic powers, which cost way more than the 1 or 2 points that people are suggesting. You can get biomancy and go for endurance, or telepathy and go for telekine dome, or divination and go for prescience, but whichever way, you need to spend the points. The Forge World 3+ re-roll marines are at +5 points per model. You can take apothecaries or choose the Iron Hands chapter tactics, you don't just get buffs and buffs for free. These options all exist, you just want them for nothing.

Your concerns are why I don't think tac marines can be fixed in the D6 system. We need a D10 system for greater dynamic spread of units. Give marines a 4+ save on a D10, and Tau suits a 3+ and terminators a 2+, and dire avengers a 5+.

I don't want everything for nothing.

It's a fact that Tactical Marine Squads currently are on the low end of points efficiency. Doesn't it make sense to make them better to adjust this?

We should seek to nerf/buff every unit until they become average.

Hell, take this as an example:

Give Marines an armour save reroll, but make the reroll 6+ instead of 3+.

A tiny change that's a tiny buff to survivability, but it is a step in the right direction.

Maybe even 5+, though that would take some testing and mathhammering.

The D6 system is non-ideal and limited, but it's not so limited as to make Tacticals either bad or OP no matter what you do.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't want everything for nothing.

It's a fact that Tactical Marine Squads currently are on the low end of points efficiency. Doesn't it make sense to make them better to adjust this?

We should seek to nerf/buff every unit until they become average.

Hell, take this as an example:

Give Marines an armour save reroll, but make the reroll 6+ instead of 3+.

A tiny change that's a tiny buff to survivability, but it is a step in the right direction.

Maybe even 5+, though that would take some testing and mathhammering.

The D6 system is non-ideal and limited, but it's not so limited as to make Tacticals either bad or OP no matter what you do.

Tactical squads are only bad if you ignore the Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, or Iron Hands chapter tactics in which case you've deliberately chosen a chapter that doesn't focus on tactical marines.

Librarians are available for 65 points, you can stick him in with a squad and confer any of the biomancy, telekinesis, or telepathy bonuses. Or you can pull primaris psykers from IG for 50 points.

We don't need more re-rolls to slow down the game, especially not on every troops choice in half the armies.

Tacs are terrible even for those chapters, don't kid yourself.

The answer to whether Tactical Marines are good or not should not be Librarians.

Martel732 wrote:
Tacs are terrible even for those chapters, don't kid yourself.

ehhhh. a Ultra list with calgar can give drop pod tacticals pretty decent firepower.... not great but the best out there far as SM tacticals go.

 TheSilo wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't want everything for nothing.

It's a fact that Tactical Marine Squads currently are on the low end of points efficiency. Doesn't it make sense to make them better to adjust this?

We should seek to nerf/buff every unit until they become average.

Hell, take this as an example:

Give Marines an armour save reroll, but make the reroll 6+ instead of 3+.

A tiny change that's a tiny buff to survivability, but it is a step in the right direction.

Maybe even 5+, though that would take some testing and mathhammering.

The D6 system is non-ideal and limited, but it's not so limited as to make Tacticals either bad or OP no matter what you do.

Tactical squads are only bad if you ignore the Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, or Iron Hands chapter tactics in which case you've deliberately chosen a chapter that doesn't focus on tactical marines.

Librarians are available for 65 points, you can stick him in with a squad and confer any of the biomancy, telekinesis, or telepathy bonuses. Or you can pull primaris psykers from IG for 50 points.

We don't need more re-rolls to slow down the game, especially not on every troops choice in half the armies.

I play Iron Hands the 6+ FNP isn't very good. Especially on Tacticals. It takes at least a 5+ fnp for it to become a decent ability. And putting a hq or some other independent character with a tactical squad to make it decent is really a poor and usually not that bright idea. Tacticals shouldn't just be decent in two armies. I think the way to go to fix tacticals with the current rules set without too many changes would be a points drop combined with allowing up to two heavy weapons or special weapons and access to chainswords for 2pts per model. Another option would be to do this idea and move all bikes except attack bike units (the up to 3 bikes), assault marines and devastators into the troops section The stormraven would move into fast attack spot. When I envision tacticals I see a fairly mobile unit that can shoot and do melee but dont really excel at any of those, a jack of all trades with maybe some slight customization/role tailoring. I think assault marines should get up to 4 specials and be able to take grav pistols and get hit and run. Devastators should get split fire imo.

Unlike in role-playing games, you do not normally grow exponentially stronger or more bullet-proof as you become more experienced in real life, and there is no reason whatsoever for Lorgan Grimnar to be stronger or more resistent to trauma than a Blood Claw.

If anything, his age should make him weaker.

 raiden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tacs are terrible even for those chapters, don't kid yourself.

ehhhh. a Ultra list with calgar can give drop pod tacticals pretty decent firepower.... not great but the best out there far as SM tacticals go.

That means terrible.

Alcibiades wrote:
Unlike in role-playing games, you do not normally grow exponentially stronger or more bullet-proof as you become more experienced in real life, and there is no reason whatsoever for Lorgan Grimnar to be stronger or more resistent to trauma than a Blood Claw.

If anything, his age should make him weaker.

Actually, with Space Wolves, there's every reason for the Great Wolf to be stronger and more resilient than a Blood Claw. He's had 600+ years for the unstable Canis Helix in his gene-seed to mature, turning his hair white, causing his fangs to grow long and sharp, strengthening his muscles, reinforcing his bones, fully bringing out the lupine heritage of Leman Egad.

Also, I don't believe Space Marines really suffer the depredations of old age, being functionally immortal. Even with SW, the reason the hair goes gray is because of a mutation in their gene-seed, not old age.

In all seriousness, though, I think increases in things like strength and toughness can be representative of greater skill in using natural abilities just as easily as an increase in natural ability (eg a model has a higher toughness because they've seen more combat and learned to shrug off wounds younger warriors might not be able to, things like that)

I do like the idea of increasing options as a way to add value. For Tac squads, giving them the option to take up to 2 special weapons or 2 heavy weapons makes sense.

I would also support reducing the cost of the vet sgt to 5 points or 0. It's silly that an IG sgt has 2 attacks but a marine sgt has 1.

I still disagree with the fundamental assertion that Tac squads are only decent in two armies. Each of the prime chapters has crazy good usrs: furious charge, counter attack, and stubborn. IFists basically have BS 5 with their bolters.

The way I see things , Long Fangs, devastators,havocs should be the general infantry not tactical squads.

I have always felt that a pair of special or heavy was never enough. Combat squad? I am paying 75 pts for 4 ablative wounds per special/ heavygun that already cost 10-20pts.

Combine long fangs split fire and combat squad, now you can shoot 4 different targets with the 2x5 man team. Now that is flexibility!

Chaos Chosen are garbage compared to Havoc. Havoc can take 4 special or heavy and cost 5 pts less! And they can buy ccw!

There won't be any need for sternguard, blood claws, chosen, assault/raptor ( if given jump pack options) and all sorts of silly marines.

 TheSilo wrote:
You can take apothecaries or choose the Iron Hands chapter tactics, you don't just get buffs and buffs for free. These options all exist, you just want them for nothing.

Wait, there's an Apothecary option for Tactical Marines? What'd I miss?

Its's just for the sake of the game. It would be overpowered to have a storm of heavy/rapid fire/salvo weapons firing upon you and then having a group of marines, who are probably better in CC than you, charging at your face. Another thing that would reflect the fluff better would be to give plague marines and nurgle daemons immunity to poison. Although this reflects the fluff, I could just run a nurgle daemon army allied with nurgle CSM and my friend's Dark Eldar would be good as dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
You can take apothecaries or choose the Iron Hands chapter tactics, you don't just get buffs and buffs for free. These options all exist, you just want them for nothing.

Wait, there's an Apothecary option for Tactical Marines? What'd I miss?

Well, they have to be using Red Scorpions chapter tactics. Tactical Marines can swap their sergeant for an apothecary for free and everyone else has to upgrade to a veteran sergeant before doing it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 raiden wrote:
^ this. I am just trying to give an idea to make marines a bit more fluffy, with a bit more oopmh, and a bit more versatile.

Why Marines? Why nobody else? If we're going to go by lore why don't the Eldar get to pick every single random pregame die roll (for an extreme)?

eldar have rending weapons on almost all of their infantry (representing the lore of the monofiliment ammo used), they can run AND shoot. (representing there agility and swiftness).

tau have str5 guns, ap4, 30" range. representing their advanced technology. why do marines get nothing?

T4? The best infantry armour in the game? Storm Shields? Multirole squads? 24" range small arms? Sternguard? AV14? A broad selection of weapons with ranges longer than 36"? Grav weapons? Drop Pods? Sicarians? Nothing?

This is really starting to sound like a case of the grass being greener in the next guy's Codex.

Im assuming you are talking about the Ork codex, cause were green and our codex is soo great.

 TheSilo wrote:
I do like the idea of increasing options as a way to add value. For Tac squads, giving them the option to take up to 2 special weapons or 2 heavy weapons makes sense.

I would also support reducing the cost of the vet sgt to 5 points or 0. It's silly that an IG sgt has 2 attacks but a marine sgt has 1.

I still disagree with the fundamental assertion that Tac squads are only decent in two armies. Each of the prime chapters has crazy good usrs: furious charge, counter attack, and stubborn. IFists basically have BS 5 with their bolters.

I disagree as well; I say they are decent in zero armies.

 TheSilo wrote:
I do like the idea of increasing options as a way to add value. For Tac squads, giving them the option to take up to 2 special weapons or 2 heavy weapons makes sense.

I would also support reducing the cost of the vet sgt to 5 points or 0. It's silly that an IG sgt has 2 attacks but a marine sgt has 1.

I still disagree with the fundamental assertion that Tac squads are only decent in two armies. Each of the prime chapters has crazy good usrs: furious charge, counter attack, and stubborn. IFists basically have BS 5 with their bolters.

I think the problem with the sergeants isn't that they are over priced per say (they are about 1 pt to expensive imo along with the rest of the unit, ie 13ppm feels like where they should be), but that most of the codex space marine upgrade options are. 10pts for a one shot weapon that isn't a hunter killer missle? try 5 points. Power weapons should be 10points imo, power fists 20, thunder hammer 25, lightning claws are good at 15. Pistols should be 10 pts except for plasma that should be 5 pts. Heavy bolters should be 5 pts (and have pinning imo). plasma gun and plasma cannon should be 10pts. storm bolters are the right price but should be salvo 2/3 or 2/4. relic blades should be 20pts. Plasma would be ok at it's current prices if they instead added a second profile to them making them a str6 ap3 without gets hot or the usual str7 ap2 gets hot! chosen before the weapon is fired. I think most everything else is about right. I think with those changes and allowing chainswords for 2ppm and up to 2 heavy weapons or special weapons or a heavy and special weapon would about fix tacticals as well the majority of codex space marines as far as unit price goes. From there a person could make some tweaks to some hq, vehicle, specific unit, and independent character options/costs and I think space marines would be fixed and be far more balanced.

All tactical squad equivalents should come with 2 bolters in each hand and be able to shoot both. should Also come with 2 Pistols to shoot in assault and given 2 ccw weapons in combat. Then they be worth the 13pts

 Filch wrote:
All tactical squad equivalents should come with 2 bolters in each hand and be able to shoot both. should Also come with 2 Pistols to shoot in assault and given 2 ccw weapons in combat. Then they be worth the 13pts

I can't tell if your actually serious or if that's sarcasm.


What if we made a rule that grants slow and purposeful to the unit when they take a heavy weapon?

How about a change to ATSKNF:

"At the beginning of the game, the SM player may pick up to 5 rules in the main rulebook or any codex/supplement being used in the game. All units with ATSKNF ignore those rules for the duration of the game."

 Xenomancers wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Relentless would work, but every space marine would have to get it ( it makes no sense why tactical marines have it and not devastators). It would certainly make them a much faster army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still there are people who want space marines to stay at the level where they are and not get buffed up more

I agree - all power armor should get it. This would also be the easiest buff the could give marines because it would only effect marine codex (as opposed to buffing bolters).

The Mechanicum (in particular Engineseers), Inquisiton and Sororitas say hi and thanks

 vipoid wrote:
How about a change to ATSKNF:

"At the beginning of the game, the SM player may pick up to 5 rules in the main rulebook or any codex/supplement being used in the game. All units with ATSKNF ignore those rules for the duration of the game."

I'm not sure that you could find 5 rules that Space Marines don't already ignore.

 vipoid wrote:
How about a change to ATSKNF:

"At the beginning of the game, the SM player may pick up to 5 rules in the main rulebook or any codex/supplement being used in the game. All units with ATSKNF ignore those rules for the duration of the game."

I'll ignore rolling to hit and to wound (so I hit and wound automatically).
I'll ignore movement (so I can move 60" per turn).
I'll ignore the points limit (so I can have 4000 points compared to my opponent's 2000).
I'll ignore the force organisation chart (oh wait...)

Alcibiades wrote:
Unlike in role-playing games, you do not normally grow exponentially stronger or more bullet-proof as you become more experienced in real life, and there is no reason whatsoever for Lorgan Grimnar to be stronger or more resistent to trauma than a Blood Claw.

If anything, his age should make him weaker.

On the other hand, he's survived for so long and got so far due to him being better than others around. So, he might have been a 3-wound blood claw in the first place. Than he power-lifted a santa sleigh and went to 4 wounds.

 vipoid wrote:
How about a change to ATSKNF:

"At the beginning of the game, the SM player may pick up to 5 rules in the main rulebook or any codex/supplement being used in the game. All units with ATSKNF ignore those rules for the duration of the game."

What about csm? They're still marines, not about already buffing one of the best codex's, need to balance the weaker ones before more imperial shanagins are introduced

 total0 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
How about a change to ATSKNF:

"At the beginning of the game, the SM player may pick up to 5 rules in the main rulebook or any codex/supplement being used in the game. All units with ATSKNF ignore those rules for the duration of the game."

What about csm? They're still marines, not about already buffing one of the best codex's, need to balance the weaker ones before more imperial shanagins are introduced

...so that loyalists would be able to counter your buffs with even more shenanigans on release.

Ok to confirm, the idea is that this new (and free?) rule that Power Armour (and presumably Artificer Armour?) provides Relentless is being applied to:

Space Marines
Adepta Sororitas
Inquisition forces with Power armour
Adeptus Mechanicus forces with Power armour
Chaos Space Marines

That's quite a lot of units?

Or is it only Space marines that somehow "deserve" it?

I thought the fact that SoB justify the wacky notion that their tiny armour is somehow providing equal protection by saying that their armour lacks a lot of other things? Like, less fibro-muscles?

If so they are obviously excluded.

Depending on how much of this rule would be given due to the wearer and how much due to the armour, Mechanicus PA may or may not be included.

CSM and SM should be obvious.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I thought the fact that SoB justify the wacky notion that their tiny armour is somehow providing equal protection by saying that their armour lacks a lot of other things? Like, less fibro-muscles?

If so they are obviously excluded.

Depending on how much of this rule would be given due to the wearer and how much due to the armour, Mechanicus PA may or may not be included.

CSM and SM should be obvious.

Is that the wacky notion that all information provided by the writers of the game actually states?

We have provided numerous examples of this - if you want to ignore it in favour of your own version on 40k =- that's fine and good and not unusual tbh but its counter to the actual information we have.......

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I thought the fact that SoB justify the wacky notion that their tiny armour is somehow providing equal protection by saying that their armour lacks a lot of other things? Like, less fibro-muscles?

If so they are obviously excluded.

Depending on how much of this rule would be given due to the wearer and how much due to the armour, Mechanicus PA may or may not be included.

CSM and SM should be obvious.

Is that the wacky notion that all information provided by the writers of the game actually states?

We have provided numerous examples of this - if you want to ignore it in favour of your own version on 40k =- that's fine and good and not unusual tbh but its counter to the actual information we have.......

I was not questioning that it provides equal protection - I think it's weird, but it's not what my post was adressing.

But rather, since it has equal protection while being much smaller, it must sacrifice other functionalities (like much of its strength) unless SoB have warp-portals in their armour that store bits of it.

For all its quality, SoB armour is not able to create something out of nothing.

Well you did call it wacky hence my reply?

The Current Codex says:

Power armour: Constructed from thick ceramite plates, the power armour worn by the Adepta Sororitas is based upon the same archaic systems as that worn by the brethren of the Adeptus Astartes. It provides the same degree of armoured protection, yet must forego the more advanced support systems and strength enhancing abilities, for the Sisters of Battle do not possess a Space Marine’s ability to interface directly with their own armour. Despite this, the Sisters of Battle are one of the few forces outside of the Adeptus Astartes to be granted the right to wear such formidable armour, and they are trained to use its abilities to deadly effect

So its clear that its not quite as effective in some areas and you could def argue that if you were granting Relentless than perhaps AS don't normally get that........

But then I also feel that Astartes should get more stuff and different stats but ti would mean playing with very few of them....... But also all Power Armour (or Xenos equivalents) should really get Night Vision?

But then Chaos Marines should also have "Legion or renegade Chapter Tactics" - but then arguably so should - Necron Dynasties, Eldar Craftworlds, Sororitas Orders, Guard Regiments etc etc

 Mr Morden wrote:
Well you did call it wacky hence my reply?

The Current Codex says:

Power armour: Constructed from thick ceramite plates, the power armour worn by the Adepta Sororitas is based upon the same archaic systems as that worn by the brethren of the Adeptus Astartes. It provides the same degree of armoured protection, yet must forego the more advanced support systems and strength enhancing abilities, for the Sisters of Battle do not possess a Space Marine’s ability to interface directly with their own armour. Despite this, the Sisters of Battle are one of the few forces outside of the Adeptus Astartes to be granted the right to wear such formidable armour, and they are trained to use its abilities to deadly effect

So its clear that its not quite as effective in some areas and you could def argue that if you were granting Relentless than perhaps AS don't normally get that........

But then I also feel that Astartes should get more stuff and different stats but ti would mean playing with very few of them....... But also all Power Armour (or Xenos equivalents) should really get Night Vision?

But then Chaos Marines should also have "Legion or renegade Chapter Tactics" - but then arguably so should - Necron Dynasties, Eldar Craftworlds, Sororitas Orders, Guard Regiments etc etc

It's wacky because their armour is tiny. If people said that Space Marines were as strong as Warbosses it would cause an outrage because Marines are smaller. Same principle.

I agree with the rest of what you said, though.

Martel732 wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
I do like the idea of increasing options as a way to add value. For Tac squads, giving them the option to take up to 2 special weapons or 2 heavy weapons makes sense.

I would also support reducing the cost of the vet sgt to 5 points or 0. It's silly that an IG sgt has 2 attacks but a marine sgt has 1.

I still disagree with the fundamental assertion that Tac squads are only decent in two armies. Each of the prime chapters has crazy good usrs: furious charge, counter attack, and stubborn. IFists basically have BS 5 with their bolters.

I disagree as well; I say they are decent in zero armies.

Ultra marines tacticals are twin linked everything for 2 turns with calgar...that is good. Outside of that all tacts are point sinks.

A big part is the meta. Most of the time, I hear that Bolters are irrelevant. This is because so many people field IKs, or pure mech, or every threat has t5+ and often a 2+ save. But when facing anything t3, boltguns shine.

When do we face T3 again?

You'll never face T3 against my DE.

All my T3 models are safely ensconced in impregnable AV10 transports.

Bharring wrote:
A big part is the meta. Most of the time, I hear that Bolters are irrelevant. This is because so many people field IKs, or pure mech, or every threat has t5+ and often a 2+ save. But when facing anything t3, boltguns shine.

When does that happen, again? And even then, most T3 armies are shooting back three times as many shots, so they still outgun you by a large amount

Ya know thinking about it.

Sergeant Harker is technically no more stronger than a SM with no addition power armor boost and he can relentlessly run around with a heavy bolter.

FWs with rifles can outshoot Marines on a per-point basis.

DE Warriors only 'win' with concentration. (2/3)(1/2)(1/3) isn't great, compared to (2/3)(2/3)(1). They aren't that much cheaper than Marines.

Guardsmen might do OK in shooting against Marines.

Guardians die horribly to Marines at any range. Even if they get within 12", Marines still win

DAs can beat naked Tacs at 12-18, but lose horribly at 19+, 12-, and melee. For the same cost.

Harlequins will die fast to boltguns, too.

The current meta puts the ones marines eat easily in transports, for protection. But those listed above aren't really a threat in the current meta. IKs, Tides, WK, DK, Serpents, Necron boats, etc are more of the current meta. And boltguns aren't really a threat to them. So the boltguns aren't seen as a threat. If the meta were to change, and the sorts of things Boltguns were good against were common, instead of treated as dead weight, Marines would look a lot better.

TLR version: its the meta that makes us not see foot t3, and thus makes Boltguns worse. A meta shift could reverse it.

 raiden wrote:
When do we face T3 again?

Most non marine armies?

Bharring wrote:
FWs with rifles can outshoot Marines on a per-point basis.

DE Warriors only 'win' with concentration. (2/3)(1/2)(1/3) isn't great, compared to (2/3)(2/3)(1). They aren't that much cheaper than Marines.

Guardsmen might do OK in shooting against Marines.

Guardians die horribly to Marines at any range. Even if they get within 12", Marines still win

DAs can beat naked Tacs at 12-18, but lose horribly at 19+, 12-, and melee. For the same cost.

Harlequins will die fast to boltguns, too.

The current meta puts the ones marines eat easily in transports, for protection. But those listed above aren't really a threat in the current meta. IKs, Tides, WK, DK, Serpents, Necron boats, etc are more of the current meta. And boltguns aren't really a threat to them. So the boltguns aren't seen as a threat. If the meta were to change, and the sorts of things Boltguns were good against were common, instead of treated as dead weight, Marines would look a lot better.

TLR version: its the meta that makes us not see foot t3, and thus makes Boltguns worse. A meta shift could reverse it.

I would absolutely hope that FW out shoot marines point for point, considering their sole focus is shooting. If they didn't that'd be rather horrible design.

Bharring wrote:
FWs with rifles can outshoot Marines on a per-point basis.

DE Warriors only 'win' with concentration. (2/3)(1/2)(1/3) isn't great, compared to (2/3)(2/3)(1). They aren't that much cheaper than Marines.

Guardsmen might do OK in shooting against Marines.

Guardians die horribly to Marines at any range. Even if they get within 12", Marines still win

DAs can beat naked Tacs at 12-18, but lose horribly at 19+, 12-, and melee. For the same cost.

Harlequins will die fast to boltguns, too.

The current meta puts the ones marines eat easily in transports, for protection. But those listed above aren't really a threat in the current meta. IKs, Tides, WK, DK, Serpents, Necron boats, etc are more of the current meta. And boltguns aren't really a threat to them. So the boltguns aren't seen as a threat. If the meta were to change, and the sorts of things Boltguns were good against were common, instead of treated as dead weight, Marines would look a lot better.

TLR version: its the meta that makes us not see foot t3, and thus makes Boltguns worse. A meta shift could reverse it.

I've been ignoring them since 2nd ed, and my win rate vs marines is pretty good. I haven't seen a meta yet where boltguns are good.

Well, if only one of those can beat Marines at shooting, and only one can beat Marines at melee, meaning all the rest lose either way, is it really the Marines that need fixing?

Bharring wrote:
Well, if only one of those can beat Marines at shooting, and only one can beat Marines at melee, meaning all the rest lose either way, is it really the Marines that need fixing?

Marines suffer from putting lots of points into infantry that are provided with inferior support. The support for the opposing troops is what wipes standard marines off the table. I think DA also outshoot marines for the points.

DAs only marginally outshoot Marines 12-18", and cost CSM points (13ppm).

Unless Marines get good cover.
Or have a heavy weapon.
Or have a specialist weapon.

And CSM are widely regarded as crap.

So, the problem is support? Then why fix Tacs?

Remember guys, lots of transports and light vehicles have AV10 on the side, Chimeras included. I have had lots of times where a squad of 10 marines with bolters have glanced them gits to death.

Bharring wrote:
DAs only marginally outshoot Marines 12-18", and cost CSM points (13ppm).

Unless Marines get good cover.
Or have a heavy weapon.
Or have a specialist weapon.

And CSM are widely regarded as crap.

So, the problem is support? Then why fix Tacs?

They out shoot them tremendously at 13-18". They have twice the firepower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
DAs only marginally outshoot Marines 12-18", and cost CSM points (13ppm).

Unless Marines get good cover.
Or have a heavy weapon.
Or have a specialist weapon.

And CSM are widely regarded as crap.

So, the problem is support? Then why fix Tacs?

Because when I pay points for something, I expect it to do something.

They are still pretty good at LOS blocking and obsec objective grabbing with their rhinos. I agree bolters are trash, but there are SOME reasons to take tacticals. Just don't footslog them

Twice the firepower, half the survivability.

A boltgun round kills twice as many DAs as Marines.

So little more than twice the firepower, but half the survivability puts Marines only slightly behind of DAs 13-18". Much further ahead at 12"-. Absurdly ahead at 18"-24". Absurdly ahead in melee.

And all this for the same cost. Naked CSM aren't even considered that great.

Compared to a lot of units, Marines get a lot for their points.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
They are still pretty good at LOS blocking and obsec objective grabbing with their rhinos. I agree bolters are trash, but there are SOME reasons to take tacticals. Just don't footslog them

Cheaper obj sec troops are better for those jobs, because they are less of a tax.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Twice the firepower, half the survivability.

A boltgun round kills twice as many DAs as Marines.

So little more than twice the firepower, but half the survivability puts Marines only slightly behind of DAs 13-18". Much further ahead at 12"-. Absurdly ahead at 18"-24". Absurdly ahead in melee.

And all this for the same cost. Naked CSM aren't even considered that great.

Compared to a lot of units, Marines get a lot for their points.

Well, the DA can keep the marines at 13-18" forever because of battle focus. That's huge.

Hence why DAs aren't completely useless.

But footslog vs footslog no terrain, naked Marines easily get first salvo. A and force DAs to BF forward to shoot with most of them. Allowing Marines to move into rapid fire range for the second round of shooting.

Covrr-save terrain lessens the DAs strength, and make moving into range a little less reliably.

LOS blocking terrain offers too many opportunities for shenanigans for both sides, but probably favors DAs.


Alternately, force their hand? Control the engagement? Take a special/heavy weapon?

And what about the other guys on the list above?

I get the point about the list, but tac marines still have the problem of being the most expensive on the list, making them the biggest tax, making them the biggest drag on their respective lists. Tac marines are largely only good against things on that list, whereas DA can engage MCs and FW can glance out vehicles.

By 5 pts/unit vs DAs.
Lose by 20 pts/unit to Guardians.
Assuming you're taking the Loyalist variant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tac Marines can take PGs or Grav for MCs, and MGs for vehicles, plus a heavy weapon.
Plus Krak grenades.

DAs can't hurt AV11 in any way. Can only glance AV10.

Naked Marines can deny territory to anything AV10 rear, and can even threaten AV12.

Bharring wrote:
By 5 pts/unit vs DAs.
Lose by 20 pts/unit to Guardians.
Assuming you're taking the Loyalist variant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tac Marines can take PGs or Grav for MCs, and MGs for vehicles, plus a heavy weapon.
Plus Krak grenades.

DAs can't hurt AV11 in any way. Can only glance AV10.

Naked Marines can deny territory to anything AV10 rear, and can even threaten AV12.

These things you point out never seem to come up, though. They just end up being wasted points.

So, its a Meta thing then?

Bharring wrote:
So, its a Meta thing then?

Maybe? I consider it more of a fire power thing. Most of the advantages you listed require marines to get very close to the target without being shot off the table. Getting shot off the table trivially is an issue. I don't find myself in a position to shoot at AV 10 much with bolters. I don't find myself in a position to use krak grenades. I don't use the frag grenades, because assault with tacs is usually suicide.

I'm kinda feeling Tacticals might've been better if melee wasn't such a joke. Most of the time it doesn't matter that Tactical Marines are better than Guardians or Guardsmen in melee, because they will never get there. It's half of what you're paying for down the drain in a majority of the games played.

I do wish my Tacs' melee was better. I get more use out of threatening it than doing it...

Bharring wrote:
I do wish my Tacs' melee was better. I get more use out of threatening it than doing it...

Tacs have a bad habit of running into meqs that didn't forget to bring a knife, or end up dead in ditch before they can assault. That's why their melee stats and gear seem like complete wastes.

A lot of that is because the things they would beat so readily in melee - DAs, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, Kalabites, etc - must avoid melee with them, just like Marines need to avoid melee with Wraithlords.

The things that beat Marines in melee tend to have worse shooting, and most cost more.

Just being there is a threat. If my Falcon, Devilfish, Fire Warriors, or even the OP Serpent ends the round within 12" of Tac Marines, they're probably dead. Were as Marines are really only threatened by CQC specialist (and Riptide, WTF).

The problem with tac marines is they are far too generalist, and don't really fill their intended role. If tacs could take up to 2 specials or heavies it would make a big improvement on them. Or maybe the answer would be to treat them like bike troops allow two specials and a heavy. It would make them cost a bit more overall from the added special but would give them a bit more focus and punch. Do this and drop the cost of tacticals to 12 or 13 ppm, and allow them to take chainswords for 2ppm like in 30k and tacs might become useful. Would they be as good as bikes? No, but I don't expect them to be. As the rules are now I will take 5 bikes (sergeant + 2 specials + attack bike + 1 biker) over a squad of 10 tacs in a rhino with a special and/or heavy weapon any day. The bikers will live much longer and bring much more hurt, and the bikes are worth every point. I don't worry much about objectives placed out of reach of my bikes. My artillery takes care of that most of the time. Right now as things are i find bikes and scouts (with landspeeder) preferable to tacticals.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm kinda feeling Tacticals might've been better if melee wasn't such a joke.

...have you played in 7-th? Orks, SW, Dark Eldar, Newcrons - all have super solid mellee.

 koooaei wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm kinda feeling Tacticals might've been better if melee wasn't such a joke.

...have you played in 7-th? Orks, SW, Dark Eldar, Newcrons - all have super solid mellee.

Fine, let me rephrase that:

I'm kinda feeling Tacticals might've been better if melee wasn't such a joke outside of a few units with the speed and durability to get into combat.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm kinda feeling Tacticals might've been better if melee wasn't such a joke.

...have you played in 7-th? Orks, SW, Dark Eldar, Newcrons - all have super solid mellee.

Fine, let me rephrase that:

I'm kinda feeling Tacticals might've been better if melee wasn't such a joke outside of a few units with the speed and durability to get into combat.

Not to mention special rules to help them be good at melee despite the joke that melee is. Fixing the way assaults worked would go a long way to fix melee, ie make the charge 3or 4+d6 inches and maybe 6+d6 for models that move 12inches.

This would be terrible to add, don't need marines running around and firing lascannons/missles/heavy bolters. I would expect a heavy points increase to give them the ability to move and fire these weapons.

I swear people forget space marines even have bolt pistols. All this would do for assault is add 1 shot per marine on the charge.


All this complaining about marines are ridiculous, you have an incredibly durable unit with 3+ saves, thats the save other armies elite units have. You have ATSKNF which ignores a huge number of rules. You have decent leadership with decent weapons with the ability to give them any weapon to deal with any weakness in your army. You have a drop pod which is amazing, you have rhino's which are a literal steal for their points, you get a fething objective secured vehicle for 35pts.

The biggest problem with marines is the abundance of cover which mitigates their greatest upside(being their great save). The solution should be rather to decrease the effectiveness of cover, 3+ cover saves shouldn't be a thing(going to ground in ruins is too strong). It's why tau are considered so strong, because they can remove cover which a lot of the codex's use as a crutch so they get their saves.

 NorseSig wrote:
The problem with tac marines is they are far too generalist, and don't really fill their intended role. If tacs could take up to 2 specials or heavies it would make a big improvement on them.

If my DE warriors could take 2 specials, it would be a huge improvement for them, too. Especially since their only anti-tank weapon has to be taken en masse to be even remotely effective.

"You have ATSKNF which ignores a huge number of rules"

Too bad none of those rules are "laser lock", "nova charge", or "ignores cover". Or the wounding chart for S6 hits. ATSKNF ignores a bunch of crap mechanics that don't even come up much. Not to mention I WANT my tac squads swept in HTH.

Well, it does ignore Eldar Ignores Cover.

The 3+ armor ignores whatever cover is present when shot with Serpent Shield or having an airburst dropped on them.

And S6 might ping my CM or Captain for a wound, but it'll ID my Farseer. Which has worse saves, too.

No one said CM and Captains were bad. What were saying is tacticals are bad for what they do.

My argument is it depends on what you compare them to.

I'm comparing them to the crazy firepower I'm taking out at 25"-36" from Tau/Eldar. I can't get close enough to use frag grenades, krak greandes, or double tap with bolters. It's crazy.

I understand that many Eldar units are IDed with S6. But Imperial access to high STR is usually expensive and/or inefficient. Marines in particular have crap firepower for whatever point level they play out without a grav star.

So you're comparing SM troops to xeno tanks?

Well all the firepower they are taking is coming from various sources. The point is that they cost quite a bit still, and have atrocious offensive capabilities for those points.

I'm all for making astartes more accurate to the lore, but their points costs would have to reflect the changes. Relentless for 1-2 points is just crazy.

All in all though, I'd love to see Marines cost more and kinda act as the Ogre Kingdoms army for 40k (not many units, but can take and deliver a pounding).

The more I think about it, the more it seems like we would need a sizeable change to core rules to allow Marines to be the kind of standard-elite they should be.

(And I'd like to apologize for being an ass over the last few days. I still have those points of view, but I didn't always comment with the civility that I should have.)

Eliteness aside, I think infantry in general could do with a buff.

Recent editions have, rather sadly, been making infantry less and less useful - instead heaping buffs on fliers, MCs and such.

Martel732 wrote:
"You have ATSKNF which ignores a huge number of rules"

Too bad none of those rules are "laser lock", "nova charge", or "ignores cover". Or the wounding chart for S6 hits. ATSKNF ignores a bunch of crap mechanics that don't even come up much. Not to mention I WANT my tac squads swept in HTH.

The only reason those mechanics don't come up is because the vast majority of players are marine players, so making an army that is reliant on a mechanic that doesn't work a large portion of the time is not done making those abilities seem useless. Trust me if marines weren't immune to fear test and didn't regroup automatically you would see a lot more armies utilizing fear and morale breaking units, because those units do exist but are considered trash because it doesn't work against a third of the armies.

Tacticals aren't your problem, it's your strategy of trying to do what other armies do well and use it against them. You are using tactical marines who are decent at everything do what your opponent is gak at. Oh your opponent has amazing shooting, drop pod in 5 squads of tacs next to them and assault the next turn. If you stop viewing tacs as tax you'll start to see they are a pretty damn good unit with tremendous flexibility.

Plus your complaining about other armies elite units doing good damage to your troop choices...

Basically the argument here is this: "Oh my gosh tactical Marines suck all armies every where kill them!"
And the other side says " Tacticals don't suck if they did then why would I have to spam s 6+ ap3 weapons to win.?"
I would say 90% of players are marines and so the other armies have adapted to beating THOSE types of armies. Tacticals are not bad per say, but everyone else has gotten REALLY good at killing them. I say a better solution is to fix it so that ap3 and higher weapons can't harm vehicles that way people can't just spam the same weapon to take out my meqs and vehicles at the same time. That way players have to bring things that are actually dedicated anti-vehicle and can not focus as much on your tacticals.

Punisher wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"You have ATSKNF which ignores a huge number of rules"

Too bad none of those rules are "laser lock", "nova charge", or "ignores cover". Or the wounding chart for S6 hits. ATSKNF ignores a bunch of crap mechanics that don't even come up much. Not to mention I WANT my tac squads swept in HTH.

The only reason those mechanics don't come up is because the vast majority of players are marine players, so making an army that is reliant on a mechanic that doesn't work a large portion of the time is not done making those abilities seem useless. Trust me if marines weren't immune to fear test and didn't regroup automatically you would see a lot more armies utilizing fear and morale breaking units, because those units do exist but are considered trash because it doesn't work against a third of the armies.

Tacticals aren't your problem, it's your strategy of trying to do what other armies do well and use it against them. You are using tactical marines who are decent at everything do what your opponent is gak at. Oh your opponent has amazing shooting, drop pod in 5 squads of tacs next to them and assault the next turn. If you stop viewing tacs as tax you'll start to see they are a pretty damn good unit with tremendous flexibility.

Plus your complaining about other armies elite units doing good damage to your troop choices...

Put anything in a drop pod and it becomes much more effective. It says nothing of the tactical squad. Many other troops could utilize a drop pod better - namely fire warriors, eldar gardians, IG vets and special weapons teams.

Martel732 wrote:
"You have ATSKNF which ignores a huge number of rules"

Too bad none of those rules are "laser lock", "nova charge", or "ignores cover". Or the wounding chart for S6 hits. ATSKNF ignores a bunch of crap mechanics that don't even come up much. Not to mention I WANT my tac squads swept in HTH.

Correction: you only want them swept in hand to hand IF it's going to be your turn next so you can shoot them. This is such a bogus complaint, it would only be useful during your opponents turn. Or else you're advocating for TAC marines to be worse at tarpitting assault units in your turn, which would let assault units easily sweep your marines and move on to do more damage. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 TheSilo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"You have ATSKNF which ignores a huge number of rules"

Too bad none of those rules are "laser lock", "nova charge", or "ignores cover". Or the wounding chart for S6 hits. ATSKNF ignores a bunch of crap mechanics that don't even come up much. Not to mention I WANT my tac squads swept in HTH.

Correction: you only want them swept in hand to hand IF it's going to be your turn next so you can shoot them. This is such a bogus complaint, it would only be useful during your opponents turn. Or else you're advocating for TAC marines to be worse at tarpitting assault units in your turn, which would let assault units easily sweep your marines and move on to do more damage. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah, on the turns where the TACs get assaulted and get their asses handed to them. As I've said before, I've played without ATSKNF several times before voluntarily and I've never missed it. However, maybe it is because opponents have adapted to just murderize marines and forget about any other effects.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Punisher wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"You have ATSKNF which ignores a huge number of rules"

Too bad none of those rules are "laser lock", "nova charge", or "ignores cover". Or the wounding chart for S6 hits. ATSKNF ignores a bunch of crap mechanics that don't even come up much. Not to mention I WANT my tac squads swept in HTH.

The only reason those mechanics don't come up is because the vast majority of players are marine players, so making an army that is reliant on a mechanic that doesn't work a large portion of the time is not done making those abilities seem useless. Trust me if marines weren't immune to fear test and didn't regroup automatically you would see a lot more armies utilizing fear and morale breaking units, because those units do exist but are considered trash because it doesn't work against a third of the armies.

Tacticals aren't your problem, it's your strategy of trying to do what other armies do well and use it against them. You are using tactical marines who are decent at everything do what your opponent is gak at. Oh your opponent has amazing shooting, drop pod in 5 squads of tacs next to them and assault the next turn. If you stop viewing tacs as tax you'll start to see they are a pretty damn good unit with tremendous flexibility.

Plus your complaining about other armies elite units doing good damage to your troop choices...

Put anything in a drop pod and it becomes much more effective. It says nothing of the tactical squad. Many other troops could utilize a drop pod better - namely fire warriors, eldar gardians, IG vets and special weapons teams.

I'm not 100% convinced of this, especially with the BA. Drop pods force you to commit your forces very early and you give up the protection of your transport immediately. There are also still lists I don't want to be close to right off the bat.

"And the other side says " Tacticals don't suck if they did then why would I have to spam s 6+ ap3 weapons to win.?" "

Those weapons are to kill meq units that can actually accomplish something. You can grind out tactical on a per point basis with lasguns, because their return is too low on a per point basis. Their maximum damage output per point is capped at a very low level. They are a defensive unit in a game where defense is overwhelmed unless you are an MC or have 2++ rerollable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
The more I think about it, the more it seems like we would need a sizeable change to core rules to allow Marines to be the kind of standard-elite they should be.

(And I'd like to apologize for being an ass over the last few days. I still have those points of view, but I didn't always comment with the civility that I should have.)

Dude, it's all good. It's a frustrating subject. I myself admit that I don't know how to "fix" TACs without going to a D10 system and spreading out all the stats to cover a larger mathematical range.

So, not only is GW passing out Fear left and right, and Space Marine players ignore it. But now, you want Space marines to ignore Rapid fire/Heavy weapon rules. Might as well not have them, then.

 krodarklorr wrote:
So, not only is GW passing out Fear left and right, and Space Marine players ignore it. But now, you want Space marines to ignore Rapid fire/Heavy weapon rules. Might as well not have them, then.

I don't propose that "fix" at all. It is stupid that bolters are rapid fire given all the marine assault gear, but handing out relentless is not the answer. I know my BA would rather have Ork shoota than boltguns. That's sad.

The tac marine is fairly priced, maybe even a bit undercosted if you sum up all the parts. But the reality is that the tac marine is actually far LESS than the sum of its parts in practice. They can't accomplish any one mission with really any efficacy at all. This game punishes generalists heavily, and that's what makes them less than the sum of their parts.

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
So, not only is GW passing out Fear left and right, and Space Marine players ignore it. But now, you want Space marines to ignore Rapid fire/Heavy weapon rules. Might as well not have them, then.

I don't propose that "fix" at all. It is stupid that bolters are rapid fire given all the marine assault gear, but handing out relentless is not the answer. I know my BA would rather have Ork shoota than boltguns. That's sad.

Then that comes down to the issue of, if most things in the game are just gonna have assault weapons and/or Relentless, why have rapid-fire at all?