So, the ages old argument - what's wrong with tactical and assault marines, and how do you fix it? For a long time now (since 3rd), tactical marines have been troops and assault marines have been fast attack. But let's go back to 2nd - tactical, devastator and assault marines were all 'troops'. And being infantry in an 'elite' army, that makes sense. So let's look at the differences - devastator marines focus on long-range shooting. Assault marines focus on melee. And tactical marines focus on being a mix of the two. What are the differences between long range attacks and melee attacks? One can remain stationary and fire at full effect at targets in LOS. The other has a minimal range and requires constant movement to be able to output damage. Okay. The ranged alternative has it easier (assuming LOS), they can 'fire' at full effect with minimal effort.
So, looking at the game as it stands at the moment, what is the problem? (ignoring previous editions, which had their own issues regarding the units in question and their relationship to the core rules). 1 - tactical marines aren't generalists, their dps all revolves around shooting. Barring the sergeant, their upgrades revolve around ranged weapons. Tactical marines are supposed to be the 'middle ground' of devastators and assault marines, yet they lean towards lower-class devastators in what they can do. Given their status as 'troops' the get objective secured (don't get me started) as their incentive to take them. It's generally accepted that a sergeant take a combi-weapon, because that's most in line with their squad specialization (shooting). I propose that tactical marines have the option to take melee weapons instead of special/heavy weapons. Looking back to 2nd edition, tactical marines had a rifle, pistol and close combat weapon. I suggest that this makes a comeback. Suddenly, for their points (and status as troops in an elite army), tactical marines again become the middle ground. A tactical squad can become a self-contained unit, able to compete in all phases of the game with above-average performance, as befits an elite unit.
So where does this leave assault marines? Not in a good place. Given the FOC, they're competing with bikers. Who get better ranged weapons (fair enough, it's a different squad-type) and increased toughness/defence (because reasons), for not that much difference in points. Then, compare them to tactical marines as i suggest, and they have lesser dps options in exchange for greater movement. My first recommendation is that they see a reduction in points (i'd look at revisiting bike squads, but for the purposes of this topic, leaving them out of the equation.....). The original fluff was that designation to an assault squad was considered a suicide mission, but there were no shortage of volunteers as it was considered honourable. Okay, fluff out of the way. So they're cheaper, because their weapons have 1" range and they require on movement (and getting shot) to achieve their dps. The next question is, if they're a 'fast' melee option, why are their options all pistols (and/or rifles, depending on army)? Give their 'special' weapons the option for, you know, melee damage. Power weapons, power fists, lightning claws, th/ss. Then at least they can 'specialize' in melee (for better or for worse), which is apparently the whole point of them.
Finally, because i haven't ranted enough..... Make them all troops. It's an elite army. So you get to decide, will your core forces be ranged, close, or middle-ground? As long as the points are costed correctly, it would make an interesting choice (regardless of marine-codex type). If you want to be elite 'generalists', that should be an option. If you want to be elite 'specialists', that should be an option too. As long as the options available are decent for the relative points, then why not?
Martel732 wrote: More importantly, assault marines still pay for BS and devs still pay for WS. How do you price a stat that exists, yet isn't used?
In an 'elite' army like marines? You give them the chance to use it, or price it so it doesn't make a difference if they don't. Assault marines can still shoot, and devs can still fight in close combat (and if your enemy is doing the 'right' thing, they'll be making you do one at the expense of the other compared to their 'speciality'). The elite part of the army is still in play, but the individual squad designations make one more optimized for one than the other. Assault marines can still fire their pistols (although that's worth less compared to - ) and devastator marines can still fight in melee better than other armies' shooting-only type units.
I don't mind Tac marines. I always got good use out of them. Assault marines are a little different though. I think they lost something when chainswords became just another weapon. The non-vanilla marines have decent enough assault squads, but there is just something missing from the basic marine assault squad.
I'd like to see chaplains provide more to them as well as assault squads getting an extra attack or the ability to attack even after they have been killed.
They need something, but I'm not sure what that something is.
SideshowLucifer wrote: I don't mind Tac marines. I always got good use out of them. Assault marines are a little different though. I think they lost something when chainswords became just another weapon. The non-vanilla marines have decent enough assault squads, but there is just something missing from the basic marine assault squad.
I'd like to see chaplains provide more to them as well as assault squads getting an extra attack or the ability to attack even after they have been killed.
They need something, but I'm not sure what that something is.
I don't mind multipliers, but i'd rather assault marines be self-contained without them (in this case, chaplains). The problem with assault marines is a) they're not specialized for their role, and b) they pay too many points on top of that. If fast moving, melee-based units caused a proportional amount of damage relative to their cost and performance, there wouldn't be a problem. Right now, assault marines are too expensive compared to their alternatives, and they don't cause enough damage in their role (melee). Letting them actually specialize in melee would change that (as would relative price changes).
The notion that 1 unit gets 2 3+/S4/AP0 attacks per model from 1” away and the other gets the same from 12” away for the same points seems pretty dumb. Yes, they get to potentially attack in both players turns but they also get hit back in both players turns...assault marines are broken and I don’t know how to tape them back together. I wouldn’t waste money buying them at this point though.
Martel732 wrote: More importantly, assault marines still pay for BS and devs still pay for WS. How do you price a stat that exists, yet isn't used?
In an 'elite' army like marines? You give them the chance to use it, or price it so it doesn't make a difference if they don't. Assault marines can still shoot, and devs can still fight in close combat (and if your enemy is doing the 'right' thing, they'll be making you do one at the expense of the other compared to their 'speciality'). The elite part of the army is still in play, but the individual squad designations make one more optimized for one than the other. Assault marines can still fire their pistols (although that's worth less compared to - ) and devastator marines can still fight in melee better than other armies' shooting-only type units.
No one bothers trying to assault devs. They just shoot them off the table before the other marines because they are squishy.
Martel732 wrote: More importantly, assault marines still pay for BS and devs still pay for WS. How do you price a stat that exists, yet isn't used?
In an 'elite' army like marines? You give them the chance to use it, or price it so it doesn't make a difference if they don't. Assault marines can still shoot, and devs can still fight in close combat (and if your enemy is doing the 'right' thing, they'll be making you do one at the expense of the other compared to their 'speciality'). The elite part of the army is still in play, but the individual squad designations make one more optimized for one than the other. Assault marines can still fire their pistols (although that's worth less compared to - ) and devastator marines can still fight in melee better than other armies' shooting-only type units.
No one bothers trying to assault devs. They just shoot them off the table before the other marines because they are squishy.
Well, i was trying to compare the 2 units in a vacuum of other marine units. But you're right, they're no tougher for points compared to other marines, they just have a higher dps ratio (which is what makes them priority targets). But keep in mind what i've said - they should be troops, not heavy support. Which makes a difference.Why? Because of what they can achieve in comparison to what they cost. If they filled the 'tax' requirement and were still threats that made them a priority, they would have have better utility. If we're playing the shooting game, then it makes sense that a 'basic' unit would be a target. And left unchecked, a threat to the enemy disposition. The grand scheme of the game is that you can't guarantee whether your threat will be shooting, melee or a mix of the two. Optimizing against one target should leave you vulnerable to the other. As a side not, the next issue, is that we use the 'slots' system instead of percentages (like we used to). So it makes sense that you use the minimum amount of points in minimum-dps 'slots' to load up on the good stuff. The good stuff should be good, without question, but the inherent nature of the FOC makes it a points/slot ratio. If it were a percentage system, then people wouldn't be able to load up on units that can wipe 'basic' troops off the table as efficiently as they can. The problem is that (barring specific units like khorne beserkers), shooting is more powerful than melee in this edition.
But going back to the vacuum - if things were pointed right, devs would be
edit: above average in points, but still capable of performing 'decent' dps in their field (ranged attacks) while being above average (compared to what?) in melee dps. You pay more for a unit that can perform in every phase, as long as it's not too great a relative price compared to other armies. The problem is, outside devastators, tactical and assault marines don't perform according to their price.
I think just giving Assault Squads 2 attacks would go a long way to fixing them. As is, there's literally no point in running them. Even if you give them 2 flamers, they have to drop out of range, and I don't think 2 flamers is enough firepower to warrant giving them a transport. Of course, if you were going to take a Razorback anyway...still no, because you don't want the Razorback close enough to get those guys in the enemy's face.
Assault Marines, especially now in 8th, lack the punch to do well in the assault for the points being paid. Currently Assault Marines have 2 attacks and can use their pistols but really in the realm of melee combatants only having 2 melee attacks (S4, AP-) is not really all that threatening except against units that suck in melee (which generally are good at shooting your face off at range).
Now look at Skyclaws for the Wolves and you get to see something closer to what an Assault Marine needs to be. They have more attacks while they take a hit to their shooting ability which is not really a concern when its either shooting a pistol, tossing a grenade, or if your feeling like making them having some ranged ability then they are using flamers (which auto hit). Skyclaws use to be better back in 7th with the whole being cheaper and having something like 4 attacks on the charge.
Tac Marines (which i never use) are lacking imo because they don't do anything particularly well. Their base guns are not all that impressive, they basically suck at close combat, and your paying a lot of points per special weapon/heavy weapon your bringing because you need 5 guys per 1 special weapon which is generally the workhorse of the squad.
Sternguard is what i like to use instead as they have formidable shooting power, decent close combat with their 2 base attacks, and their points cost while higher is also more worthwhile when you take into consideration the damage output they have and aren't reliant on special weapons (although they can take them if so desired).
A fix would honestly just need to be a slight points drop or some rule that makes them better at their particular role (similar to how devs can boost the hit chance of a model in the unit).
The best fix for Tactical Marines is to give them the Crusader style of a special/heavy at 5 men, but give access to an extra of either at 10. This allows specialization to an extent.
Assault Marines got the part buff with pistols in melee, but they need access to the flamer and Melta pistols as well. I Also wish they had the ability to be troops if you had a Jump HQ, but seeing as too many whiners whined about Bikers as troops...
It seems based on the assumption that tactical squads are a mix of the two.
I think the most accurate translation into rules would for all units in the game were to get shooting in the opponent's turn, but only for personal weapons / small arms like the bolter etc and not for squad weapons like plasma gun, lascannon etc.
That is what tactical squads would be for in relation to assault and devastator squads.
With tacticals, they have a role: sitting on objectives and occasionally shorting something with the single heavy weapon they get. Problem is they are overcosted.
I actually think even devastators are overcosted. Seriously, why would I pay 65 points to buy a squad if devastators to load up with heavy weapons, when I can grab a predator for 90 points and load it up with my long range heavy firepower. For less than the cost of two marines I'm getting 3 higher toughness and twice as many wounds, oh and no degrading efficiency till it lose half those wounds, as opposed to after two for the devastators. There is no chapter tactic in the world that would make me choose devastators. It's a no brainer. They need a discount. The basic 13 ppm price tag isn't good even on specialized units like devastators, for tacticals its deal breaking.
I think this would help tacticals and devastators, particularly with CT factored in, but even at a discount assault marines are... not amazing. I'd personally allow SM to take assault marines in the troop slot sans jump pack. Then you have two, slightly cheaper, alternatives for objectives. Tacticals for sitting on objectives further from the front, adding an occasional lascannon shot, or assault marines for taking objectives enemies are sitting on, with double flamer/plasma pistol and the chain swords. It's still not amazing, but it's something.
The fact is, space marines have a thousand infinitely more deadly and versatile options to cover deepstriking assault and basic shooting. All assault marines and tacticals can bring to the table is cheap (relative to the army) bodies for holding objectives and fill troop slots in detachments.
Or, for assault marines, you could let them have more reliability. Let them deepstrike 7" or more away. Then they can use flamer s and have a decent chance at a charge. They are still just tacticals so... not really much of a threat, but now they are at least annoying. I think they'd actually be worth their current price with that.
Oh yeah, trying to make these utterly worthless units viable is such an awful task.
Seriously, I play CSM, CSM squads are like tactical squads but a little bit better atm. You know how often we use them? Never. Literally never. Between cultists and cult troops every chaos player will find a way to avoid them. Same as normal SM, with scouts. They are a useless unit.
Seriously, some people will never admit anything in a SM codex could ever be bad, so attached are they to the idea of SM as an OP army.
Oh yeah, trying to make these utterly worthless units viable is such an awful task.
Seriously, I play CSM, CSM squads are like tactical squads but a little bit better atm. You know how often we use them? Never. Literally never. Between cultists and cult troops every chaos player will find a way to avoid them. Same as normal SM, with scouts. They are a useless unit.
Seriously, some people will never admit anything in a SM codex could ever be bad, so attached are they to the idea of SM as an OP army.
Or there are worse things I'd fix in the game than SM.
Whether fixing SM units is supposed to be the lowest priority for GW or not is irrelevant. All of the arguments in the OP are reasonable. If you don't care about SM balance, there's no need to join the discussion.
I've been using Tac Squads in every Marine list since 8th and I don't think they need fixing tbh.
I usually run them in two variants:
a) Basic Squad with a Lascannon, sits in the back holding objectives and sniping at big stuff. If I have points left these guys get a Power Lance/Maul.
b) Squad with a Combimelta and a Melta inside of a Razorback with either a TAC or a THF (i prefer the later, but the former is the better choice)
Both do pretty well, I'll usually have Characters (Generic and/or Vulkan He'stan) around for buffing, and I play Salamanders.
Another problem with tacticals is range.
Sitting on an objective with just a 24" range is often da "well i cant shoot anything that bolters are somewhat effective against".
Now I'm not proposing to buff the boltgun, but that is an issue I have with them.
A points drop does not make them inherently useful. Cultists and Conscripts are useful because you get many wounds for your investment.
Tacticals cannot get that cheap without being broken... and lowering their price does not make them fulfill their role better.
They need to be either more durable or more shooty/fighty.
Getting them to be more durable is tricky since the D6 system does not allow for such a thing without stepping on other units' feet. More wounds? Intercessors. Higher toughness? Downright to powerful for their cost.
The standard tac marine always feels like a tax. Increasing the availability of heavy/special weapons? No, that is Devastator country, cannot stop there.
So they need more options that actually make them.. tactical.
Info Skulls, special limited use ammo, auspexes for example and other special wargear could help fill out a tactical niche, skitarii style.
The option to take a CCW for 1 pt would make them not as good as the mobile Assault marines, but round them out.
Devastators feel overpriced.. The weapons are expensive and you need Devastator chaff units to absorb some wounds which makes them even more expensive and inefficient. Reducing the cost of heavy weapons (giving tacs a slight buff) could make this more bearable. However, Devastators without special gear would need something to give them a role other than being chaff. A "Spot the target!" rule maybe? Allowing the reroll of a single hit of 1 per extra marine, increasing range, reroll a damage dice etc.
Assault Squads suffer the same. They do not reward you enough when you get them into combat.
Flamers are all but useless for DSing assaults.
You cannot make them easier to get into assault (beside the speed), but once they get there, they need to put out more than which they do now. Increasing their A to 2 helps for once and compensates the lack of a bolter.
Maybe giving the Jump Pack an extra rule that helps them out in this regard like the old Hammer of Wrath. If you get into combat, the opponent has -1 to hit for that turn as they are shocked by the meteoric descent of the Squad crashing down? That helps greatly against chaff, but does not do THAT much against tougher units. Or, if an enemy unit falls back, they are counted as being in cover as they lift of, preparing their next charge to counter all that "Fall back and shoot them to bits" that is going on.
Devs and tacticals should stay at 13 ppm, assaults might need a slight increase for the extra A. 3 PPM for a jump pack feels right though,
Assuming Tacticals are fairly priced at 13ppm (they probably aren't, but let's say they are for the sake of argument) I'm not even sure a Jump Pack Assault Marine is worth as much as a Tac marine. You get extra mobility and an extra attack, but half the range on your shooting and no heavy weapon. Is that an even trade? I'm not convinced. It definitely doesn't warrant a price increase IMO.
Part of the problem is that Fall Back makes close combat a tricky proposition in 8th. Close combat units either need to kill what they charge in one round or tie up an enemy unit so it can't shoot when it falls back. The problem with Assault Marines is their attacks are too weak to kill much and they're too expensive to be used to tie up enemy units. For example, 10 Assault Marines kill about 6-7 Guardsmen in one round of combat, which might be enough to force your opponent to re-roll the Morale check but that's about the best you can hope for. That doesn't seem right to me when each Marine is 3x the cost of a Guardsman and this is what they're supposedly specialised for.
I'm not sure if i agree... You cannot take a heavy, but you have access to flamers (as useless as they are) and plasma pistols as a trade off. So that is fairly even.
The cut in range and the loss of rapid fire should be compensated for the extra A given (Assaults could outdamage shooting tacticals now, 3 attacks vs 2 shots in rapid fire range):
Maybe the Jump Packs are a bit too expensive?
I'll say that raptors cost a single point more than assault marines, but can have up to two plasma rifles+combi plasma, and are way more useful than normal assault marines. Not a must take (at least I haven't felt so, but I don't play larger tournaments) but still a useful tool.
Honestly, assault just isn't that rewarding right now for most units, even with deepstrike it's less reliable then just deepstriking in special weapons and it no longer provides a safety net while in combat thanks to fallback. So you either see hyper efficient melee units that maximize that first turn, or tough ones that can take a hit.
That's why the current assault meta leans towards exceptionally durable chaff units escorting glass cannon special characters. You've got your tough meat shield charging in alongside the ones actually doing most of the damage, so even when they enemy falls back all they get to shoot at are the expendable grunts. It's really the only way to make assault really viable right now.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The best fix for Tactical Marines is to give them the Crusader style of a special/heavy at 5 men, but give access to an extra of either at 10. This allows specialization to an extent.
Assault Marines got the part buff with pistols in melee, but they need access to the flamer and Melta pistols as well. I Also wish they had the ability to be troops if you had a Jump HQ, but seeing as too many whiners whined about Bikers as troops...
I don't think opening up the option to spend even MORE points is the right answer. Tac marines need to be worthwhile with no upgrades like conscripts, boyz, or firewarriors.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The best fix for Tactical Marines is to give them the Crusader style of a special/heavy at 5 men, but give access to an extra of either at 10. This allows specialization to an extent.
Assault Marines got the part buff with pistols in melee, but they need access to the flamer and Melta pistols as well. I Also wish they had the ability to be troops if you had a Jump HQ, but seeing as too many whiners whined about Bikers as troops...
I don't think opening up the option to spend even MORE points is the right answer. Tac marines need to be worthwhile with no upgrades like conscripts, boyz, or firewarriors.
That requires making the Bolter better.
The Tactical Marine itself has the statline of a 13 point model, but none of the wargear options and loadouts that make a 13 point model any good.
So mostly that involves a buff on the Bolt weapon category. For how this edition works, I'd say that a 6 to wound forces a reroll on successful saves or something to that effect. Nothing broken and gives them a little punch, small as it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverAlien wrote: I'll say that raptors cost a single point more than assault marines, but can have up to two plasma rifles+combi plasma, and are way more useful than normal assault marines. Not a must take (at least I haven't felt so, but I don't play larger tournaments) but still a useful tool.
Honestly, assault just isn't that rewarding right now for most units, even with deepstrike it's less reliable then just deepstriking in special weapons and it no longer provides a safety net while in combat thanks to fallback. So you either see hyper efficient melee units that maximize that first turn, or tough ones that can take a hit.
That's why the current assault meta leans towards exceptionally durable chaff units escorting glass cannon special characters. You've got your tough meat shield charging in alongside the ones actually doing most of the damage, so even when they enemy falls back all they get to shoot at are the expendable grunts. It's really the only way to make assault really viable right now.
They also have LD shenanigans for that extra point I think. I haven't honestly looked at the entry recently.
You're one of the ONLY people defending the unit entry. Ever. This isn't you going against the grain, it's you being wrong. Unless you start going to tournaments and start using those tactics we clearly haven't learned 2 play, your post here was useless.
Every squad of space marines (in any codex, or any chapter, so BA, SW, GK, DA, and all SM get this) can select from the following specializations for a squad of marines.
1. Ranged Specialization Marines suffer a -1 penalty to weapon skill. Marines gain a +1 to ballistic skill.
2. Melee Specialization Marines suffer a -1 penalty to ballistic skill. Marines gain +1 weapon skill.
3. Tactical Specialization Marines can take an additional special or heavy weapon in a squad of 5, and two additional special or heavy weapons in a squad of 10.
Additionally, I would change their wargear as follows: 1. All marines in a unit can throw grenades. They all have them on their belt. 2. Boltgun profile updated to str 5, ap-1, Bolt Rifle updated to str6 ap-2, storm bolter updated to str 5 ap-1. 3. Chainswords updated to Str 5, ap-1
And fundamental changes to profiles as follows: 1. Assault marines gain +1 base attack. This also includes melee specialists like death company, strike squads, etc. 2. Devastator squads armor cherub is changed so that it can activate to allow the squad to move and fire without penalty to ballistic skill. 3. All marines base movement increased by 2", including terminators. Power armor marines always run the full 6".
Every squad of space marines (in any codex, or any chapter, so BA, SW, GK, DA, and all SM get this) can select from the following specializations for a squad of marines.
1. Ranged Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to weapon skill.
Marines gain a +1 to ballistic skill.
2. Melee Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to ballistic skill.
Marines gain +1 weapon skill.
3. Tactical Specialization
Marines can take an additional special or heavy weapon in a squad of 5, and two additional special or heavy weapons in a squad of 10.
Additionally, I would change their wargear as follows:
1. All marines in a unit can throw grenades. They all have them on their belt.
2. Boltgun profile updated to str 5, ap-1, Bolt Rifle updated to str6 ap-2, storm bolter updated to str 5 ap-1.
3. Chainswords updated to Str 5, ap-1
And fundamental changes to profiles as follows:
1. Assault marines gain +1 base attack. This also includes melee specialists like death company, strike squads, etc.
2. Devastator squads armor cherub is changed so that it can activate to allow the squad to move and fire without penalty to ballistic skill.
3. All marines base movement increased by 2", including terminators. Power armor marines always run the full 6".
That'd certainly buff them, but I'd definitely say it buffs them to the point they need a points increase.
They have guns that are better than Tau (same strength, -6" range, but better AP) at BS 2+ instead of BS 4+.
Every squad of space marines (in any codex, or any chapter, so BA, SW, GK, DA, and all SM get this) can select from the following specializations for a squad of marines.
1. Ranged Specialization Marines suffer a -1 penalty to weapon skill. Marines gain a +1 to ballistic skill.
2. Melee Specialization Marines suffer a -1 penalty to ballistic skill. Marines gain +1 weapon skill.
3. Tactical Specialization Marines can take an additional special or heavy weapon in a squad of 5, and two additional special or heavy weapons in a squad of 10.
Additionally, I would change their wargear as follows: 1. All marines in a unit can throw grenades. They all have them on their belt. 2. Boltgun profile updated to str 5, ap-1, Bolt Rifle updated to str6 ap-2, storm bolter updated to str 5 ap-1. 3. Chainswords updated to Str 5, ap-1
And fundamental changes to profiles as follows: 1. Assault marines gain +1 base attack. This also includes melee specialists like death company, strike squads, etc. 2. Devastator squads armor cherub is changed so that it can activate to allow the squad to move and fire without penalty to ballistic skill. 3. All marines base movement increased by 2", including terminators. Power armor marines always run the full 6".
That'd certainly buff them, but I'd definitely say it buffs them to the point they need a points increase.
They have guns that are better than Tau (same strength, -6" range, but better AP) at BS 2+ instead of BS 4+.
Tau, outside of commanders, drones, crisis suits, y'vhara, and a couple other things, need a buff. And with those buffs, commanders should be toned down a tiny bit.
Clutching at straws based on the above ideas, but how's about them getting 2 shots even at 24". Slightly more firepower for the much maligned bolter whilst sitting on objectives, I'm not sure it would incentivise them to move forward as much though.
Marmatag wrote: Tau, outside of commanders, drones, crisis suits, y'vhara, and a couple other things, need a buff. And with those buffs, commanders should be toned down a tiny bit.
Not gonna argue with that, because I know it to be true.
THAT BEING SAID! Would you suggest giving these upgrades to Marines without any increased cost? Also, what would you do for the rest of their weapons?
Marmatag wrote: Tau, outside of commanders, drones, crisis suits, y'vhara, and a couple other things, need a buff. And with those buffs, commanders should be toned down a tiny bit.
Not gonna argue with that, because I know it to be true.
THAT BEING SAID! Would you suggest giving these upgrades to Marines without any increased cost? Also, what would you do for the rest of their weapons?
No increased cost. Power armored marines are straight up TERRIBLE right now.
I'm more interested in the base kit right now.
As far as guns go, i'd probably change as follows:
Heavy Bolter - 6 shots, strength 6, Ap-2; 1 damage.
Grav cannon & Grav amp - 6 shots, strength *, AP-3, wounds vehicles & MCs on a 4+, wounds everything else on a 6+. 2 damage.
the special weapons are in a sorry state. I'm not sure how exactly to make them not suck awful.
Marmatag wrote: Tau, outside of commanders, drones, crisis suits, y'vhara, and a couple other things, need a buff. And with those buffs, commanders should be toned down a tiny bit.
Not gonna argue with that, because I know it to be true.
THAT BEING SAID! Would you suggest giving these upgrades to Marines without any increased cost? Also, what would you do for the rest of their weapons?
No increased cost. Power armored marines are straight up TERRIBLE right now.
I'm more interested in the base kit right now.
As far as guns go, i'd probably change as follows:
Heavy Bolter - 6 shots, strength 6, Ap-2; 1 damage.
Grav cannon & Grav amp - 6 shots, strength *, AP-3, wounds vehicles & MCs on a 4+, wounds everything else on a 6+. 2 damage.
the special weapons are in a sorry state. I'm not sure how exactly to make them not suck awful.
And with a 6 shot S 6 AP -2, what do you propose for the Assault Cannon?
Just ignore the mathematically-challenged troll. Every person who thinks marines are "fine" I've cornered into posting a list posts a giant pile of fail.
Just for the benefit of the mathematically-challenged, S6 -2 AP is being picked because that's the theoretical weapon threshold for removing hordes efficiently and not auto-losing to them.
I would look at weapon costings, special weapons aren't so much bad as they are bad for what they cost. And then there's the relative costs compared to each other.
As for base kit, i think what needs to happen is to incentivize the boltgun family of weapons, which will buff marine infantry in general. I'd go the route of special issue ammo like it was in 6th/7th. So all standard infantry space marines (assault, tactical, devastator - specifically excluding scouts here as they're the 'cheap' alternative) with bolt weapons can choose which ammo type they're shooting with. With options like increased range, increased damage, increased ap, increased rate of fire, etc.
I think the special weapons are very much overcosted, especially given how much the final model ends up costing and how easy they are to delete in 8th.
Every squad of space marines (in any codex, or any chapter, so BA, SW, GK, DA, and all SM get this) can select from the following specializations for a squad of marines.
1. Ranged Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to weapon skill.
Marines gain a +1 to ballistic skill.
2. Melee Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to ballistic skill.
Marines gain +1 weapon skill.
3. Tactical Specialization
Marines can take an additional special or heavy weapon in a squad of 5, and two additional special or heavy weapons in a squad of 10.
Additionally, I would change their wargear as follows:
1. All marines in a unit can throw grenades. They all have them on their belt.
2. Boltgun profile updated to str 5, ap-1, Bolt Rifle updated to str6 ap-2, storm bolter updated to str 5 ap-1.
3. Chainswords updated to Str 5, ap-1
And fundamental changes to profiles as follows:
1. Assault marines gain +1 base attack. This also includes melee specialists like death company, strike squads, etc.
2. Devastator squads armor cherub is changed so that it can activate to allow the squad to move and fire without penalty to ballistic skill.
3. All marines base movement increased by 2", including terminators. Power armor marines always run the full 6".
Martel732 wrote: Just ignore the mathematically-challenged troll. Every person who thinks marines are "fine" I've cornered into posting a list posts a giant pile of fail.
Just for the benefit of the mathematically-challenged, S6 -2 AP is being picked because that's the theoretical weapon threshold for removing hordes efficiently and not auto-losing to them.
And what change do you propose for marines when our IG bretheren field two dozen of these dreamlike heavy bolters? Like, how far is this thought through?
I'm not proposing that fix. I admit I don't know how to fix the marines. But I'm not pretending there isn't a problem with generalists in 40K a a rule.
And what you point is a good reason not to do this. I freely admit that as well. It's a hard problem. But many pretend that there is no problem. The Girlyman castle lists are a huge red flag that there is a problem, though.
What we're dealing with here is a granularity problem again. There is not enough mathematical space for conscripts, guardsmen, Orks, grots, etc to be differentiated from each other accurately by the system. So we end up with 3 pt conscripts.
It's very underwhelming when a giant pile of powerful special rules doesn't make a difference. Seventh edition bowling banshees, for example, could move 18" a turn, were immune to overwatch, had ASF, and still didn't make an impact.
Here's a proposed fix that would prooobably require a lot of rewriting in other areas, but is worth mentioning:
Don't change Tactical Marines exactly, change Captains and Lieutenants. (And the Land Raider Excelsior, I suppose.)
Change their buffs so that it's re-rolls on 1s... Unless the unit is a Tactical Marine squad, in which case you re-roll all failed to hits.
Waaaghpower wrote: Here's a proposed fix that would prooobably require a lot of rewriting in other areas, but is worth mentioning:
Don't change Tactical Marines exactly, change Captains and Lieutenants. (And the Land Raider Excelsior, I suppose.)
Change their buffs so that it's re-rolls on 1s... Unless the unit is a Tactical Marine squad, in which case you re-roll all failed to hits.
Thoughts?
Except that doesn't make sense that makes them better shots than Sternguard.
Assault marines and tac marines should be same cost.
Bolter should be a better gun than a pistol.
But with the jump pack movement added to pistol range, ass marines should have the same effective range as the bolter.
Ass marines should have an extra attack in cc.
Tac marines should have better overwatch or a stand your ground special rule, something like that, as they should be the best objective holders in the game.
Ass marines should have some bonus to charge strength when jumping into combat.
Tacs should have more access to special and heavy guns.
Ass marines should have more access to cc weapons.
All Marines should have two wounds.
A base marine should cost about four base orks.
EFF primaris with a dry knobby stick.
Martel732 wrote:What we're dealing with here is a granularity problem again. There is not enough mathematical space for conscripts, guardsmen, Orks, grots, etc to be differentiated from each other accurately by the system. So we end up with 3 pt conscripts.
It's not just a granularity problem, its the end result of decades of power creep. Marines *should* have a weakness to being overwhelmed by firepower, the question is how much of a weakness before they themselves become overpowered. Conscripts are just flat out broken, although in fairness it's their interaction with the commissar that makes them so powerful. Subject them to morale, and they get hit a lot harder. The morale system is pretty punishing when it's actually in play, the problem comes when low-leadership armies get to ignore it. I wouldn't base the power level of marines on what is hopefully an outlier unit.
jeff white wrote:Assault marines and tac marines should be same cost.
I disagree, because it's much easier to dps at range without moving than it is to get into 12" range of the enemy to be able to do damage. In olden days, there were benefits to melee. Now, not so much. Not to say there's nothing, just nothing worth spending the time and effort for.
jeff white wrote:Bolter should be a better gun than a pistol.
But with the jump pack movement added to pistol range, ass marines should have the same effective range as the bolter.
The thing is, you don't just want to be shooting them with your pistol, you want to be hitting them with your chainsword at the same time. Which has a 1" range. At the same time they get an out of sequence chance to do return damage.
jeff white wrote:Ass marines should have an extra attack in cc.
Possibly.
jeff white wrote:Tac marines should have better overwatch or a stand your ground special rule, something like that, as they should be the best objective holders in the game.
This is where i disagree, i think tactical squads should be considered the backbone of your army, just like they are in the fluff. But in order to get them to the level of that consideration, they need more going for them.
jeff white wrote:Tacs should have more access to special and heavy guns.
I would like to see the default mooks be worth taking, without needing specials/heavies to dps. That's why i'd go with chainswords and special ammo.
jeff white wrote:All Marines should have two wounds.
Possibly. I'm going to suggest though that survivability isn't their biggest problem so much as doing meaningful dps while they are alive.
jeff white wrote:EFF primaris with a dry knobby stick.
Yeah well, i felt the same way about centurions as a 'fix' for terminators. GW has a habit of releasing new models with better rules instead of fixing the rules of the old models. It is what it is, and they exist now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: more: Lets compare conscripts to my 'buffed' tactical marines.
65 points will buy you 5 marines and 21 conscripts.
in shooting, at 30" range:
5 marines put out 5 s4 ap0 shots
conscripts do nothing
in shooting, at 24" range:
5 marines put out 5 s4 ap-1 shots or 10 s4 ap0 shots
21 conscripts put out 21 s3 ap0 shots
in shooting, at 12" range:
5 marines put out 10 s4 ap-1 shots or 15 s4 ap0 shots
21 conscripts put out 42 s3 ap0 shots
in melee, at 1" range:
5 marines put out 10 s4 ap0 chainsword attacks, and either 5 s4 ap-1 bolt pistol shots or 10 s4 ap0 bolt pistol shots
21 conscripts put out 21 s3 ap0 melee attacks
-----
Okay, so doesn't look so good in the shooting matchups (outside 30" range that is), but starts looking better in melee. Special ammo can only go so far, given its a new edition maybe the humble boltgun itself requires revisiting? Will chew on this for a bit.
Okay, since my thoughts are scattered all over, here's the best way to go about it:
1. Bolt Weapons force rerolls of successful saves on a 6+ to wound.
2. Tactical Marines have LD8 (they're basically veterans) and get the Special and Heavy Weapon at 5 men, and an extra of either at 10.
3. Assault Marines are a point cheaper?
The best fix for Assault Marines was the Troop treatment if you had a Jump HQ, but we lost that with Bikers too so...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Okay, since my thoughts are scattered all over, here's the best way to go about it:
1. Bolt Weapons force rerolls of successful saves on a 6+ to wound.
2. Tactical Marines have LD8 (they're basically veterans) and get the Special and Heavy Weapon at 5 men, and an extra of either at 10.
3. Assault Marines are a point cheaper?
The best fix for Assault Marines was the Troop treatment if you had a Jump HQ, but we lost that with Bikers too so...
It's a beer and pretzels game. If you're not scattered, you're not doing it right. Here's my thoughts:
1. My example 5 marines vs 21 conscripts? Statistically, you're not likely to get that force reroll (5/6). DPS is largely unchanged.
2. I could go with LD8. They are 'elite' and outside the reroll they're still subject to morale. I could get behind the special/heavy too, although at the same time i'd look at point reductions for them.
3. Still wouldn't take them, even if they fulfilled my troops requirement.
I still think that tacticals, devastators, assaults and scouts should *be* the troops. I want a reason to take units beyond the fact that they're a tax, and this is traditionally where gw falls down.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Okay, since my thoughts are scattered all over, here's the best way to go about it:
1. Bolt Weapons force rerolls of successful saves on a 6+ to wound.
2. Tactical Marines have LD8 (they're basically veterans) and get the Special and Heavy Weapon at 5 men, and an extra of either at 10.
3. Assault Marines are a point cheaper?
The best fix for Assault Marines was the Troop treatment if you had a Jump HQ, but we lost that with Bikers too so...
It's a beer and pretzels game. If you're not scattered, you're not doing it right. Here's my thoughts:
1. My example 5 marines vs 21 conscripts? Statistically, you're not likely to get that force reroll (5/6). DPS is largely unchanged.
2. I could go with LD8. They are 'elite' and outside the reroll they're still subject to morale. I could get behind the special/heavy too, although at the same time i'd look at point reductions for them.
3. Still wouldn't take them, even if they fulfilled my troops requirement.
I still think that tacticals, devastators, assaults and scouts should *be* the troops. I want a reason to take units beyond the fact that they're a tax, and this is traditionally where gw falls down.
1. With the Bolter I'm mostly giving it a unique rule. Gauss Weapons have the extra AP everywhere, Shurikens have the rending rule for all intents and purposes, Orks basically have everything as Assault, Tesla gains extra shots, etc. It's a bonus that I can't find anywhere outside Lugft Hurons claw forcing rerolls on Invul Saves. Plus it makes Lieutenants a little neater for rank-and-file dudes and gives Primaris Marines just a slight boost without being overpowered in any manner.
2. Point reduction isn't necessary. Devastators and Scouts are worth the points, and Vanguard/Sternguard are worth their points without actually being much more expensive. This is the primary reason I've come to the conclusion that the weapon options and loadouts for Tactical Marines is the issue, not the unit profile itself. So we make their weapon spam more unique compared to other armies (So the initial Crusader way of doing things, who really aren't too bad for what you want at 5 dudes while you give the meat shields extra weapons to hold off potential melee units), rather than doing the whole special weapon thing that Sternguard, Veterens, Battle Sisters, Skitarii, Plague Marines, etc. do.
3. Devastators don't need to be troops. Once you do the initial Bolt weapon boost, they do Heavy Weapon spam decently enough (on top of the weapon support with the Cherub and Signum), but I think they need the ability to buy 1-2 more heavy weapons. It looks better table wise and would do better for crunch. All I could really come up with for Assault Marines was the 1 point reduction, because people whined so much about Bikers becoming troops that we don't get the option anymore (and it wasn't even broken to begin with; people just didn't like us not using garbage Tactical Marines as troops). Ergo, the suggestion to let the same happen for Jump dudes isn't realistic anymore.
NOW, if we can convince GW to allow more flexible troop choices again, it would be a decent fix. I think it's unfair that Emperors Children and World Eaters get their special troops back for no discernable reason, yet the cool troop choices for other Legions didn't come back after Traitors Legion (which was pretty good stuff, even if it didn't fix internal balance much), and that Loyalist Scum lost Bikers as troops with the appropriate HQ choice.
Every squad of space marines (in any codex, or any chapter, so BA, SW, GK, DA, and all SM get this) can select from the following specializations for a squad of marines.
1. Ranged Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to weapon skill.
Marines gain a +1 to ballistic skill.
2. Melee Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to ballistic skill.
Marines gain +1 weapon skill.
3. Tactical Specialization
Marines can take an additional special or heavy weapon in a squad of 5, and two additional special or heavy weapons in a squad of 10.
Additionally, I would change their wargear as follows:
1. All marines in a unit can throw grenades. They all have them on their belt.
2. Boltgun profile updated to str 5, ap-1, Bolt Rifle updated to str6 ap-2, storm bolter updated to str 5 ap-1.
3. Chainswords updated to Str 5, ap-1
And fundamental changes to profiles as follows:
1. Assault marines gain +1 base attack. This also includes melee specialists like death company, strike squads, etc.
2. Devastator squads armor cherub is changed so that it can activate to allow the squad to move and fire without penalty to ballistic skill.
3. All marines base movement increased by 2", including terminators. Power armor marines always run the full 6".
I really like the specialization idea, but I would probably only do that, especially at first. Troops that hit stuff on a 2+ would be pretty dang good.
Tac and ass marines need a point reduction, thats all. Their stats are fine. 13 pts. is way to much, 10 would be ok. Three units required for a bataillion are 180 pts. For 200 pts. i can get two razorbacks with twin assault cannons, those are 10 times better than 3 squads of weak, squishy tac marines.
IMO, this is a symptom of the core rules not being tactically deep enough to cover all units types.Without having to add on a truck load of special rules to compensate.
Vankraken wrote: Assault Marines, especially now in 8th, lack the punch to do well in the assault for the points being paid. Currently Assault Marines have 2 attacks and can use their pistols but really in the realm of melee combatants only having 2 melee attacks (S4, AP-) is not really all that threatening except against units that suck in melee (which generally are good at shooting your face off at range).
.
Which is precisely why you have a unit whose role is to close quicky with ranged combatants and engage them in melee. That is, assault marines.
That's ther role. Their role is not "engage dedicated close combat units." It is "neutralize ranged units."
Yes we have had the same problem at our local store...Tactical Squads are over prices when compared to other choices such as sternguard (3pts for 1 extra hand to hand, better bolter, and access to stratagem).
To me "Tactical Squads" "should" make up the "backbone" of most "codex" marine armies. Yet they do not represent much on the table top. We have been testing some ways to bring BALANCE to a forgotten troop choice that is not cheese...remember that is NOT cheese.
Choice 1: If you select a ten man squad all special weapons choices, and heavy weapon choices are 1/2 the points.
Rational: They are the most common type of squad in a SM army...
Balance: If you field all tactical squads it provide about enough points to generate one additional squad (2000pts).
Choice 2: Each FULL tactical squad provides +1 additional command point.
Rational: They are the "most flexible" (fluff) unit in a SM army...
Balance: Hard to break dumping 350+ points into a anemic squad that gets you +3 command points.
Choice 3: <chapter> Tactical squads spread captian, chaplain, and lieutenant buffs to other <chapter> tactical squads within 4".
Rational: They are the "most flexible" (fluff) unit in SM army...if from the same chapter
Balance: Gives cool buffs, helps anemic ability to points, best results in mass, easy to counter.
NOTE - chapter master, special character buffs that are not like the vanilla HQ choices do not count.
Personally I like choice 3 the best. Makes army HQ diversity relevant, rewards having multiple tactical squads, and promotes a very "balanced" army.
Choice 1 - Not great with small number of TS...ok if swarming. Hard to balance points as if you make special/heavies to cheap (free) it creates imbalance as you scale up. Maybe make the first 3 Full tactical squads heavy/special free? After that full price...
Choice 2 - To iffy, not attractive enough, great fluff! I almost think this and choice 3 could be combined.
My solution to this has always been to upgrade the basic bolter to something that doesn't suck so that your ablative wounds don't feel like a complete waste. That is how you fix tacticals - give the bolter the intercessors bolt rifle profile with -1 ap - upgrade the intercessors to ap-2 - upgrade the stalker bolter rifle to ap-3. That is how you fix the troop selections - obviously by upping their damage (it's clear they don't do enough damage). no increased cost.
For Devs - Move and shoot with no penalty. No increased cost.
For Assault marines - Chainswords +1 attack and -2 ap. Make jetpacks give you +1 attack on the charge. no additional cost.
It's stuff like this that will help out marine infantry.
If marine basic infantry and weapon has -1 AP we go back to armours being non existant for Orks, Cultists ,etc...
And personally I think too many basic units have WS and BS of 3+.
Thats should be something only Space Marines and other Elite Armies should have in their troops.
Having Conscripts with a BS of 6+, Eldar Guardians with 4+ in their Stats, the same for Necron Warriors, Tau FireWarriors hitting on 5+, etc...
And that should help to make the game less deadly.
But to be honest, I think Tacticals have been already fixed. They are called Intercessors.
Well, from a competitive standpoint where Hordes rules, I suppose they are terrible units, yeah.
But you can't say that a Lasscanon is a terrible weapon because it sucks agaisn't Hordes. Intercessors defend themselves very whell for what you could expect from a generalistic troop choice.
I think they are pretty well balanced. Of course, balanced in competitive meat means "terrible", yeah.
Bolters need a penetrator round and a spreadshot round. The spreadshot round being rapid fire 2, S 3 AP 0. Or something like that. Marine need more physical shots, not better shots.
Bolters need a penetrator round and a spreadshot round. The spreadshot round being rapid fire 2, S 3 AP 0. Or something like that. Marine need more physical shots, not better shots.
It would have nearly the same effect. Unless thay had just an invo save. I think we can all agree that the bolter is not something an elite infantry should be armed with as a main weapon - this is the problem.
I might just about agree with that. Shuriken catapults, gauss flayers, etc all seem to do the job better. Lasguns are strictly worse, but they're so cheap that it doesn't matter.
Out of curiosity, how do folks think Sternguard (or company vets) with storm bolters stack up?
Bolters need a penetrator round and a spreadshot round. The spreadshot round being rapid fire 2, S 3 AP 0. Or something like that. Marine need more physical shots, not better shots.
It would have nearly the same effect. Unless thay had just an invo save. I think we can all agree that the bolter is not something an elite infantry should be armed with as a main weapon - this is the problem.
Maybe. The math on this makes my head hurt right now.
Martel732 wrote: They are physically barred from doing this job. A lot. And now units leave cc at will. Their job is basically impossible in 8th.
Units leave cc at will, but unless they have a fancy ability, they can't do anything else. Barring overwatch, an assault squad can stop most tanks from firing indefinitely.
Hence the conscript screen. If you could just charge a bunch of manticores itd be an easy game.
It's not just IG, but they're the best at it. It's any list with a disposable cheap screening unit that can beta strike well. Basically, ASM, and really any power armor CC unit, are worthless vs competitive 8th ed lists.
Also, armies with flying vehicles like Eldar don't care if you assault them. And they'll almost certainly survive without degredation because of 13 W and serpent shield. ASM are REALLY bad.
Martel732 wrote: It's not just IG, but they're the best at it. It's any list with a disposable cheap screening unit that can beta strike well. Basically, ASM, and really any power armor CC unit, are worthless vs competitive 8th ed lists.
Also, armies with flying vehicles like Eldar don't care if you assault them. And they'll almost certainly survive without degredation because of 13 W and serpent shield. ASM are REALLY bad.
Oh I get what youre saying, I'm just pointing out that merely contacting certain units can pay off big time. On the one hand its easier because deep striking is precise and automatic, and you can assault in the same turn. On the other hand you cant 'hide' in close combat, and you can't plow reserves into the middle of your opponents armies like you could with Drop Pods pre 8th.
But your opponent can completely dictate your deep strike options in 8th. And they do. Sure, if I can make contact, it's gonna be great. But everyone knows this, and makes sure it never happens. Good lists, anyway.
Martel732 wrote: It's not just IG, but they're the best at it. It's any list with a disposable cheap screening unit that can beta strike well. Basically, ASM, and really any power armor CC unit, are worthless vs competitive 8th ed lists.
Also, armies with flying vehicles like Eldar don't care if you assault them. And they'll almost certainly survive without degredation because of 13 W and serpent shield. ASM are REALLY bad.
Oh I get what youre saying, I'm just pointing out that merely contacting certain units can pay off big time. On the one hand its easier because deep striking is precise and automatic, and you can assault in the same turn. On the other hand you cant 'hide' in close combat, and you can't plow reserves into the middle of your opponents armies like you could with Drop Pods pre 8th.
Of course flying vehicles don't care if you assault them. Assault Marines are an anti-infantry unit, meant to neutralize guardsmen, fire warriors, havocs, dark reapers, hive guard, and so on.
What a weird argument. "It can't engage tanks used by a few armies!"
jade_angel wrote: I might just about agree with that. Shuriken catapults, gauss flayers, etc all seem to do the job better. Lasguns are strictly worse, but they're so cheap that it doesn't matter.
Out of curiosity, how do folks think Sternguard (or company vets) with storm bolters stack up?
\
Sterngard lose their special ammo when they take a combi or a storm bolter....that makes 0 sense. So really I am annoyed by the unit in general. I think you should look at bikers if you are looking for a marine dakka unit.
Scout bikes are cheap and come with a shotgun and basically a storm bolter - they move 16 and can fire 6 shots. for 25 points 4+ save only
Company vets on bikes with storm bolters will have 8 shots each - only 38 points. Move 14 and fire 8 shots have 3+ saves - can take thunder hammers or storm shields if you want in addition to the storm bolter.
Martel732 wrote: But your opponent can completely dictate your deep strike options in 8th. And they do. Sure, if I can make contact, it's gonna be great. But everyone knows this, and makes sure it never happens. Good lists, anyway.
And an opponent can take anti-vehicle weapons as an answer to vehicles, and everyone knows this, and good lists bring anti-vehicle weapons.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. With the Bolter I'm mostly giving it a unique rule. Gauss Weapons have the extra AP everywhere, Shurikens have the rending rule for all intents and purposes, Orks basically have everything as Assault, Tesla gains extra shots, etc. It's a bonus that I can't find anywhere outside Lugft Hurons claw forcing rerolls on Invul Saves. Plus it makes Lieutenants a little neater for rank-and-file dudes and gives Primaris Marines just a slight boost without being overpowered in any manner.
2. Point reduction isn't necessary. Devastators and Scouts are worth the points, and Vanguard/Sternguard are worth their points without actually being much more expensive. This is the primary reason I've come to the conclusion that the weapon options and loadouts for Tactical Marines is the issue, not the unit profile itself. So we make their weapon spam more unique compared to other armies (So the initial Crusader way of doing things, who really aren't too bad for what you want at 5 dudes while you give the meat shields extra weapons to hold off potential melee units), rather than doing the whole special weapon thing that Sternguard, Veterens, Battle Sisters, Skitarii, Plague Marines, etc. do.
3. Devastators don't need to be troops. Once you do the initial Bolt weapon boost, they do Heavy Weapon spam decently enough (on top of the weapon support with the Cherub and Signum), but I think they need the ability to buy 1-2 more heavy weapons. It looks better table wise and would do better for crunch. All I could really come up with for Assault Marines was the 1 point reduction, because people whined so much about Bikers becoming troops that we don't get the option anymore (and it wasn't even broken to begin with; people just didn't like us not using garbage Tactical Marines as troops). Ergo, the suggestion to let the same happen for Jump dudes isn't realistic anymore.
NOW, if we can convince GW to allow more flexible troop choices again, it would be a decent fix. I think it's unfair that Emperors Children and World Eaters get their special troops back for no discernable reason, yet the cool troop choices for other Legions didn't come back after Traitors Legion (which was pretty good stuff, even if it didn't fix internal balance much), and that Loyalist Scum lost Bikers as troops with the appropriate HQ choice.
1. Yeah, but i'm not sure the rule helps that much, especially vs hordes. Ironically though, it would make the boltgun better vs heavy armour.
2. I'm just looking at costs vs other useful units in the marine army. A full tac squad with the most expensive options (ignoring the sergeant) runs 175 points. For 192 points i can get a predator with tlas/las/sb. If i want it to go infantry hunting, it drops to 161 points (auto/hb/sb). That's for a t7 w11 sv3+ unit. Marine infantry are already expensive for what they do, and that's before you add weapons. Anyhow, just my line of thought.
3. Yeah, they'll never be troops. I just think they should be.
p5freak wrote:Tac and ass marines need a point reduction, thats all. Their stats are fine. 13 pts. is way to much, 10 would be ok. Three units required for a bataillion are 180 pts. For 200 pts. i can get two razorbacks with twin assault cannons, those are 10 times better than 3 squads of weak, squishy tac marines.
The problem here is if you keep dropping their points value, they start heading towards horde country. I'd rather keep them pricey but have them worth what they cost.
Lanrak wrote:IMO, this is a symptom of the core rules not being tactically deep enough to cover all units types.Without having to add on a truck load of special rules to compensate.
Shhh, quiet you. Here, grab this shovel and help me pile on more special rules.
Galas wrote:If marine basic infantry and weapon has -1 AP we go back to armours being non existant for Orks, Cultists ,etc...
And personally I think too many basic units have WS and BS of 3+.
Thats should be something only Space Marines and other Elite Armies should have in their troops.
Having Conscripts with a BS of 6+, Eldar Guardians with 4+ in their Stats, the same for Necron Warriors, Tau FireWarriors hitting on 5+, etc...
And that should help to make the game less deadly.
But to be honest, I think Tacticals have been already fixed. They are called Intercessors.
The problem before wasn't marines having ap5 basic weapons, its that *every* army had ap5 basic weapons. Which follows on to what you say next, the proliferation of 'good' rules and or stats. It's okay for solitary armies to have 'good' stuff, it adds to flavour and variation. Its when everyone has it, that's when the problems start.
As for intercessors. Well, they're certainly in line with GW's MO. I don't think they're a fix so much as a blurring of the lines.
Xenomancers wrote: My solution to this has always been to upgrade the basic bolter to something that doesn't suck so that your ablative wounds don't feel like a complete waste. That is how you fix tacticals - give the bolter the intercessors bolt rifle profile with -1 ap - upgrade the intercessors to ap-2 - upgrade the stalker bolter rifle to ap-3. That is how you fix the troop selections - obviously by upping their damage (it's clear they don't do enough damage). no increased cost.
For Devs - Move and shoot with no penalty. No increased cost.
For Assault marines - Chainswords +1 attack and -2 ap. Make jetpacks give you +1 attack on the charge. no additional cost.
It's stuff like this that will help out marine infantry.
I'm not a fan of this because you're trying to make Necrons worse at what they do. Give Bolters a special rule instead.
Here's a Hot Take - What if you could fite both pistols and regular guns at the same time? (Possibly with a restriction on Heavy Weapons.)
Just as a thought experiment. What non-Power Armor armies generally have a Pistol/Gun loadout? Who would be buffed by this, and would it make anyone OP?
Generally, I find that Pistols - Now that there's no restriction on charging after shooting, and since they aren't 'Assault' weapons anymore - are only useful if a unit wants to be in Close Combat, but is so bad at it that they get stuck in for several rounds. If I have a choice between a pistol and anything else, I go with anything else. (Especially if the model already has another gun, like Bikers - I woud never even think of taking a Pistol on them over a Chainsword, MUCH LESS a Plasma Pistol.)
Letting pistols fire alongside boltguns would give marines 50% more shots at rapid fire, give more incentive to take Plasma Pistols, and I can't think of any non-Marine armies who would become 'cheesy' with this mechanic.
Waaaghpower wrote: Here's a Hot Take - What if you could fite both pistols and regular guns at the same time? (Possibly with a restriction on Heavy Weapons.)
Just as a thought experiment. What non-Power Armor armies generally have a Pistol/Gun loadout? Who would be buffed by this, and would it make anyone OP?
Generally, I find that Pistols - Now that there's no restriction on charging after shooting, and since they aren't 'Assault' weapons anymore - are only useful if a unit wants to be in Close Combat, but is so bad at it that they get stuck in for several rounds. If I have a choice between a pistol and anything else, I go with anything else. (Especially if the model already has another gun, like Bikers - I woud never even think of taking a Pistol on them over a Chainsword, MUCH LESS a Plasma Pistol.)
Letting pistols fire alongside boltguns would give marines 50% more shots at rapid fire, give more incentive to take Plasma Pistols, and I can't think of any non-Marine armies who would become 'cheesy' with this mechanic.
Haha, fun idea. The visual is wierd though. That said, I do recall a time when only marines could rapid fire. . .
I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.
With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.
Waaaghpower wrote:Here's a Hot Take - What if you could fite both pistols and regular guns at the same time? (Possibly with a restriction on Heavy Weapons.)
Just as a thought experiment. What non-Power Armor armies generally have a Pistol/Gun loadout? Who would be buffed by this, and would it make anyone OP?
Generally, I find that Pistols - Now that there's no restriction on charging after shooting, and since they aren't 'Assault' weapons anymore - are only useful if a unit wants to be in Close Combat, but is so bad at it that they get stuck in for several rounds. If I have a choice between a pistol and anything else, I go with anything else. (Especially if the model already has another gun, like Bikers - I woud never even think of taking a Pistol on them over a Chainsword, MUCH LESS a Plasma Pistol.)
Letting pistols fire alongside boltguns would give marines 50% more shots at rapid fire, give more incentive to take Plasma Pistols, and I can't think of any non-Marine armies who would become 'cheesy' with this mechanic.
That would buff tacticals when they were firing and charging, but wouldn't help much if they were just doing one or the other. The problem with tacticals right now is they're a shooting unit with bad shooting dps for their cost. They need either need to multitask, and/or get better at shooting.
JNAProductions wrote:
Insectum7 wrote: I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.
With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.
True, and balance should be a consideration. The problem is it's an illogical arbitrary restriction, that harks back to the old "you can either fire your lascannon or you can fire your bolters". If everyone's carrying grenades, they should be able to throw them all at once if that's what they want to do.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.
With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.
Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.
Just like they used to be I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.
Waaaghpower wrote:Here's a Hot Take - What if you could fite both pistols and regular guns at the same time? (Possibly with a restriction on Heavy Weapons.)
Just as a thought experiment. What non-Power Armor armies generally have a Pistol/Gun loadout? Who would be buffed by this, and would it make anyone OP?
Generally, I find that Pistols - Now that there's no restriction on charging after shooting, and since they aren't 'Assault' weapons anymore - are only useful if a unit wants to be in Close Combat, but is so bad at it that they get stuck in for several rounds. If I have a choice between a pistol and anything else, I go with anything else. (Especially if the model already has another gun, like Bikers - I woud never even think of taking a Pistol on them over a Chainsword, MUCH LESS a Plasma Pistol.)
Letting pistols fire alongside boltguns would give marines 50% more shots at rapid fire, give more incentive to take Plasma Pistols, and I can't think of any non-Marine armies who would become 'cheesy' with this mechanic.
That would buff tacticals when they were firing and charging, but wouldn't help much if they were just doing one or the other. The problem with tacticals right now is they're a shooting unit with bad shooting dps for their cost. They need either need to multitask, and/or get better at shooting.
I have two reasons behind suggesting the buff in this way:
One, it sticks to the fluff behind unit composition. Tactical Marines have effectively always been '1 Special, 1 Heavy, 1 Sergeant/Veteran Sergeant.' I'd rather not change that, if possible.
Two, it fixes pistols for a lot of units as well.
I thought about suggesting giving access to Storm Bolters for every model. That would double their shots, but increase points cost to 15ppm. That seemed both like too much of a points bump, and too much volume of fire, but it seemed like a happy medium could be decent. Giving the pistol shot is a 50% increase in firepower at short range, which is too minor on its own, but a step in the right direction.
The big problem with close combat is just that they absolutely suck in close combat. A full ten-marine squad is only killing slightly-less-than three Guardsmen or Ork Boyz in close combat, which is an abysmally low amount. If they all get Chainswords, that helps considerably, but makes Assault Marines kind of sucky.
You could give Assault Marines +1 Attack, but then you get a new problem - Now, Vanguard Veterans suck, because VVs and Assault Marines would have the same base loadout and attacks. (Also, you just took the ONE thing that Grey Hunters have going for them that's actually a helpful edge.)
But, as perhaps a baseline:
Allow pistols and bolters to be fired simultaneously.
Give all Tactical Marines a Chainsword.
Give Assault Marines +1 attack on the charge.
Give Space Wolves their own codex already, or at least a little love in Chapter Approved so that all of our units aren't just 'Space Marines, but worse'.
Waaaghpower wrote: I thought about suggesting giving access to Storm Bolters for every model. That would double their shots, but increase points cost to 15ppm. That seemed both like too much of a points bump, and too much volume of fire, but it seemed like a happy medium could be decent. Giving the pistol shot is a 50% increase in firepower at short range, which is too minor on its own, but a step in the right direction.
Well, i don't know about the justification, but for the price i could live with that. Would you call them storm bolters, or call them bolt guns and then buff storm bolters from there? Because termies could certainly use a boost in their offensive power.
Waaaghpower wrote: The big problem with close combat is just that they absolutely suck in close combat. A full ten-marine squad is only killing slightly-less-than three Guardsmen or Ork Boyz in close combat, which is an abysmally low amount. If they all get Chainswords, that helps considerably, but makes Assault Marines kind of sucky.
You could give Assault Marines +1 Attack, but then you get a new problem - Now, Vanguard Veterans suck, because VVs and Assault Marines would have the same base loadout and attacks. (Also, you just took the ONE thing that Grey Hunters have going for them that's actually a helpful edge.)
My approach is to 'fix' one unit at a time. Giving tacticals chainswords makes assault marines look crap. Why? because they are crap. That's not a reason not to fix tactical marines. Step 2 is fix assault marines. That makes vv look crap? Okay, go from there and fix vv. As for grey hunters? I don't believe they should be marines +1 (to make a version of marines that are not-crap). If space wolves want a special snowflake unit that's fine, but not a reason that the vanilla version should be crap. Up until now, space wolves didn't just have bp/cs, they also had counter-attack. With all that, and the synergy from having 2 specials instead of 1 special 1 heavy, they were considered 'decent'. They can still be special in comparison, without relying on the default option to be bad. And if they end up looking a lot more like the default option - maybe they shouldn't be special. I'm all for variation if it's genuine, but if it's just making something look bad so that something else can look better, i'm opposed.
Waaaghpower wrote: But, as perhaps a baseline:
Allow pistols and bolters to be fired simultaneously.
Give all Tactical Marines a Chainsword.
Give Assault Marines +1 attack on the charge.
Give Space Wolves their own codex already, or at least a little love in Chapter Approved so that all of our units aren't just 'Space Marines, but worse'.
Base army +/-1 isn't good. The question you need to look at is - are space wolves justified in being different? Same goes with all marine variants. As i get older, i find the reasons for the differences (and the differences themselves) to be lesser and lesser.
Space Wolves and Grey Knights need to stay separate. Dark and Blood Angels cam be rolled in and nothing of value is lost for the most part.
You can make an argument for Deathwatch being in or out. I prefer out for them.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.
With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.
Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.
Just like they used to be I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.
Is your opponent brain dead? How did Tactical Marines ever get near a Wave Serpent and live to charge it and do damage?
Waaaghpower wrote:Here's a Hot Take - What if you could fite both pistols and regular guns at the same time? (Possibly with a restriction on Heavy Weapons.)
Just as a thought experiment. What non-Power Armor armies generally have a Pistol/Gun loadout? Who would be buffed by this, and would it make anyone OP?
Generally, I find that Pistols - Now that there's no restriction on charging after shooting, and since they aren't 'Assault' weapons anymore - are only useful if a unit wants to be in Close Combat, but is so bad at it that they get stuck in for several rounds. If I have a choice between a pistol and anything else, I go with anything else. (Especially if the model already has another gun, like Bikers - I woud never even think of taking a Pistol on them over a Chainsword, MUCH LESS a Plasma Pistol.)
Letting pistols fire alongside boltguns would give marines 50% more shots at rapid fire, give more incentive to take Plasma Pistols, and I can't think of any non-Marine armies who would become 'cheesy' with this mechanic.
That would buff tacticals when they were firing and charging, but wouldn't help much if they were just doing one or the other. The problem with tacticals right now is they're a shooting unit with bad shooting dps for their cost. They need either need to multitask, and/or get better at shooting.
I have two reasons behind suggesting the buff in this way:
One, it sticks to the fluff behind unit composition. Tactical Marines have effectively always been '1 Special, 1 Heavy, 1 Sergeant/Veteran Sergeant.' I'd rather not change that, if possible.
Two, it fixes pistols for a lot of units as well.
I thought about suggesting giving access to Storm Bolters for every model. That would double their shots, but increase points cost to 15ppm. That seemed both like too much of a points bump, and too much volume of fire, but it seemed like a happy medium could be decent. Giving the pistol shot is a 50% increase in firepower at short range, which is too minor on its own, but a step in the right direction.
The big problem with close combat is just that they absolutely suck in close combat. A full ten-marine squad is only killing slightly-less-than three Guardsmen or Ork Boyz in close combat, which is an abysmally low amount. If they all get Chainswords, that helps considerably, but makes Assault Marines kind of sucky.
You could give Assault Marines +1 Attack, but then you get a new problem - Now, Vanguard Veterans suck, because VVs and Assault Marines would have the same base loadout and attacks. (Also, you just took the ONE thing that Grey Hunters have going for them that's actually a helpful edge.)
But, as perhaps a baseline:
Allow pistols and bolters to be fired simultaneously.
Give all Tactical Marines a Chainsword.
Give Assault Marines +1 attack on the charge.
Give Space Wolves their own codex already, or at least a little love in Chapter Approved so that all of our units aren't just 'Space Marines, but worse'.
1. I disagree with Pistols bring fired with everything else.
2. Then you're making them Grey Hunters.
3. Why only Assault Marines? You can try and debate crunch but if the fluff doesn't make sense it can't work.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.
With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.
Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.
Just like they used to be I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.
Is your opponent brain dead? How did Tactical Marines ever get near a Wave Serpent and live to charge it and do damage?
Drop Pods. You drop enough marines and they can't kill them all. Besides, why engage the poor Tacticals when there are Lascannon weilding Devastators on the horizon? Or Sternguard that just killed your Wraithknight? More threats than can be easily dealt with, the Tac squads are low priority, and the table space is finite making it hard to get somewhere safe.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.
With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.
Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.
Just like they used to be I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.
Is your opponent brain dead? How did Tactical Marines ever get near a Wave Serpent and live to charge it and do damage?
Drop Pods. You drop enough marines and they can't kill them all. Besides, why engage the poor Tacticals when there are Lascannon weilding Devastators on the horizon? Or Sternguard that just killed your Wraithknight? More threats than can be easily dealt with, the Tac squads are low priority, and the table space is finite making it hard to get somewhere safe.
Because they're free Kill Points and therefore I can just camp my home objectives and win? That shouldn't have been an issue, as 6th edition Eldar was as point-and-click as 7th edition Eldar were.
1. I disagree with Pistols bring fired with everything else.
2. Then you're making them Grey Hunters.
3. Why only Assault Marines? You can try and debate crunch but if the fluff doesn't make sense it can't work.
1. Why? In what way? Your disagreement isn't helpful if you don't explain why.
2. I acknowledge this as an issue that would need fixed, but honestly... Grey Hunters having Chainswords never seemed like the most important thing about them to me. Taking squads up to 11, bringing two Specials, not having sergeants unless you add them, that's what's important.
3. Because it narrows the gap between them and Vanguard Vets and makes them better at CC without creating a scaling problem. If you want a fluff reason, it's because they're strong and ferocious enough to hit hard, but don't have the discipline of Veterans to keep that assault going indefinitely.
Yeah, as much as i love blood angels, their actual differences (besides arbitrary weapon allowances) haven't diverged enough to justifiy them being their own codex. But having said that, that's currently the space wolves' thing. Grey hunters are just a tactical squad with a few weapon changes, notably in this case that they still carry a ccw when for some reason the other chapters no longer do. I don't think that's a good enough justification for not allowing tacticals to carry a ccw.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.
With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.
Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.
Just like they used to be I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.
Is your opponent brain dead? How did Tactical Marines ever get near a Wave Serpent and live to charge it and do damage?
Drop Pods. You drop enough marines and they can't kill them all. Besides, why engage the poor Tacticals when there are Lascannon weilding Devastators on the horizon? Or Sternguard that just killed your Wraithknight? More threats than can be easily dealt with, the Tac squads are low priority, and the table space is finite making it hard to get somewhere safe.
Because they're free Kill Points and therefore I can just camp my home objectives and win? That shouldn't have been an issue, as 6th edition Eldar was as point-and-click as 7th edition Eldar were.
If you'll open up your 6th edition rulebook you'll find drop pods only count for Kill points in one mission. Likewise for primary objectives in your deployment zone.
If youre talking ITC missions, it might be true for you. But it doesnt jibe with my experience against tourney types in 6th, because a well coordinated alpha strike was usually worth it.
Regardless, are you really going to continue on about how you think a unit thats not the subject of the thread was bad two editions ago?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Torga_DW wrote: Yeah, as much as i love blood angels, their actual differences (besides arbitrary weapon allowances) haven't diverged enough to justifiy them being their own codex. But having said that, that's currently the space wolves' thing. Grey hunters are just a tactical squad with a few weapon changes, notably in this case that they still carry a ccw when for some reason the other chapters no longer do. I don't think that's a good enough justification for not allowing tacticals to carry a ccw.
Imo the fact that Chaos can get cc weapons is a good reason for Tacticals not to get them. It's a poignant difference in army flavor.
1. I disagree with Pistols bring fired with everything else.
2. Then you're making them Grey Hunters.
3. Why only Assault Marines? You can try and debate crunch but if the fluff doesn't make sense it can't work.
1. Why? In what way? Your disagreement isn't helpful if you don't explain why.
2. I acknowledge this as an issue that would need fixed, but honestly... Grey Hunters having Chainswords never seemed like the most important thing about them to me. Taking squads up to 11, bringing two Specials, not having sergeants unless you add them, that's what's important.
3. Because it narrows the gap between them and Vanguard Vets and makes them better at CC without creating a scaling problem. If you want a fluff reason, it's because they're strong and ferocious enough to hit hard, but don't have the discipline of Veterans to keep that assault going indefinitely.
1. It's one of the few balance points I agree with. In the same manner I would say a model can fire as many weapons as it wants of the same type. That's just me. Fire anything but pistols or just pistols works for now. Pistols already got enough of a buff being able to be fired in melee.
2. I'd say it's one of their defining features. Chaos Marines can have either the Bolter or Chainsword (And last edition both, but they overpayed by a point, and I can argue that they should be had it built into their profile). Tactical Marines have the pistol as a sidearm but nothing else. Sisters and Skitarii just don't have pistols outside the sergeant models and such. Grey Hunters are armed to the teeth and over the top, and one of the biggest mistakes of 7th was making it optional for 2 frickin points. You know, when it was already too expensive on the CSM. FW had it right with making Carcharodons paying only 1 point last edition, but remember how bad the rest of the Tactics were...anyway that's mildly off topic. So to me, in my perfect game, it would be laid out as:
A. Tactical Marines get a Special and Heavy at 5 dudes, and an extra of either at 10
B. Chaos Marines have the option to buy the Chainsword, and get the Special and Heavy Weapon of their choice for every 5 dudes (Which is much better encouragement for large squads)
C. Grey Hunters get the Chainsword standard and continue doing their thing, so you can try and create Grey Hunters with Chaos Marines but you pay for it
3. Honestly, there's a couple of fixes for Assault Marines really that I can think up. These would be:
A. Cut off a point
B. The special pistols don't interfere with buying Eviscerstors (So you can theoretically get 2 of each at the minimum squad) and an extra of either at 10.
C. Cut the crap about hand flamers and inferno pistols being Blood Angels exclusive. Give Assault Marines (And vanguard) access to them. That's more an issue with Blood Angels (And Dark Angels) needing to be rolled into the Vanilla codex though.
Torga_DW wrote: Yeah, as much as i love blood angels, their actual differences (besides arbitrary weapon allowances) haven't diverged enough to justifiy them being their own codex. But having said that, that's currently the space wolves' thing. Grey hunters are just a tactical squad with a few weapon changes, notably in this case that they still carry a ccw when for some reason the other chapters no longer do. I don't think that's a good enough justification for not allowing tacticals to carry a ccw.
Imo the fact that Chaos can get cc weapons is a good reason for Tacticals not to get them. It's a poignant difference in army flavor.
Well, i disagree here. I don't see it as a poignant difference but an arbitrary one to add a level of distinction to what is basically the same unit across 2 different armies. To me the poignant difference is they can operate at legion sizes (20 men), not that i'd suggest doing that. But outside of that and marks, the units are so similar (for a reason) that fixing tacticals would go a long way towards fixing chaos marines as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:2. I'd say it's one of their defining features. Chaos Marines can have either the Bolter or Chainsword (And last edition both, but they overpayed by a point, and I can argue that they should be had it built into their profile). Tactical Marines have the pistol as a sidearm but nothing else. Sisters and Skitarii just don't have pistols outside the sergeant models and such. Grey Hunters are armed to the teeth and over the top, and one of the biggest mistakes of 7th was making it optional for 2 frickin points. You know, when it was already too expensive on the CSM. FW had it right with making Carcharodons paying only 1 point last edition, but remember how bad the rest of the Tactics were...anyway that's mildly off topic. So to me, in my perfect game, it would be laid out as:
A. Tactical Marines get a Special and Heavy at 5 dudes, and an extra of either at 10
B. Chaos Marines have the option to buy the Chainsword, and get the Special and Heavy Weapon of their choice for every 5 dudes (Which is much better encouragement for large squads)
C. Grey Hunters get the Chainsword standard and continue doing their thing, so you can try and create Grey Hunters with Chaos Marines but you pay for it
You say it's grey hunters defining feature, but i see it as just a random arbitrary weapon restriction for an otherwise similar unit. The defining feature i saw in space wolves was that they were marines +1 to the point that they were just about viable.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:3. Honestly, there's a couple of fixes for Assault Marines really that I can think up. These would be:
A. Cut off a point
B. The special pistols don't interfere with buying Eviscerstors (So you can theoretically get 2 of each at the minimum squad) and an extra of either at 10.
C. Cut the crap about hand flamers and inferno pistols being Blood Angels exclusive. Give Assault Marines (And vanguard) access to them. That's more an issue with Blood Angels (And Dark Angels) needing to be rolled into the Vanilla codex though.
C. I agree, it makes no sense. But at the same time, as you say in the point above, it's their 'defining feature'. I think if they're going to be divergent, then they need a better reason than arbitrary weapon restrictions. It works both ways.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.
With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.
Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.
Just like they used to be I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.
Is your opponent brain dead? How did Tactical Marines ever get near a Wave Serpent and live to charge it and do damage?
Drop Pods. You drop enough marines and they can't kill them all. Besides, why engage the poor Tacticals when there are Lascannon weilding Devastators on the horizon? Or Sternguard that just killed your Wraithknight? More threats than can be easily dealt with, the Tac squads are low priority, and the table space is finite making it hard to get somewhere safe.
Because they're free Kill Points and therefore I can just camp my home objectives and win? That shouldn't have been an issue, as 6th edition Eldar was as point-and-click as 7th edition Eldar were.
If you'll open up your 6th edition rulebook you'll find drop pods only count for Kill points in one mission. Likewise for primary objectives in your deployment zone.
If youre talking ITC missions, it might be true for you. But it doesnt jibe with my experience against tourney types in 6th, because a well coordinated alpha strike was usually worth it.
Regardless, are you really going to continue on about how you think a unit thats not the subject of the thread was bad two editions ago?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Torga_DW wrote: Yeah, as much as i love blood angels, their actual differences (besides arbitrary weapon allowances) haven't diverged enough to justifiy them being their own codex. But having said that, that's currently the space wolves' thing. Grey hunters are just a tactical squad with a few weapon changes, notably in this case that they still carry a ccw when for some reason the other chapters no longer do. I don't think that's a good enough justification for not allowing tacticals to carry a ccw.
Imo the fact that Chaos can get cc weapons is a good reason for Tacticals not to get them. It's a poignant difference in army flavor.
And Tactical Marines don't have an ability to Alpha Strike.
Please stop posting on this thread. We clearly understand there's an issue with Tactical Marines (And SEVERAL people do) and you're one of the ONLY people defending them to the death.
Torga_DW wrote: Yeah, as much as i love blood angels, their actual differences (besides arbitrary weapon allowances) haven't diverged enough to justifiy them being their own codex. But having said that, that's currently the space wolves' thing. Grey hunters are just a tactical squad with a few weapon changes, notably in this case that they still carry a ccw when for some reason the other chapters no longer do. I don't think that's a good enough justification for not allowing tacticals to carry a ccw.
Imo the fact that Chaos can get cc weapons is a good reason for Tacticals not to get them. It's a poignant difference in army flavor.
Well, i disagree here. I don't see it as a poignant difference but an arbitrary one to add a level of distinction to what is basically the same unit across 2 different armies. To me the poignant difference is they can operate at legion sizes (20 men), not that i'd suggest doing that. But outside of that and marks, the units are so similar (for a reason) that fixing tacticals would go a long way towards fixing chaos marines as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:2. I'd say it's one of their defining features. Chaos Marines can have either the Bolter or Chainsword (And last edition both, but they overpayed by a point, and I can argue that they should be had it built into their profile). Tactical Marines have the pistol as a sidearm but nothing else. Sisters and Skitarii just don't have pistols outside the sergeant models and such. Grey Hunters are armed to the teeth and over the top, and one of the biggest mistakes of 7th was making it optional for 2 frickin points. You know, when it was already too expensive on the CSM. FW had it right with making Carcharodons paying only 1 point last edition, but remember how bad the rest of the Tactics were...anyway that's mildly off topic. So to me, in my perfect game, it would be laid out as:
A. Tactical Marines get a Special and Heavy at 5 dudes, and an extra of either at 10
B. Chaos Marines have the option to buy the Chainsword, and get the Special and Heavy Weapon of their choice for every 5 dudes (Which is much better encouragement for large squads)
C. Grey Hunters get the Chainsword standard and continue doing their thing, so you can try and create Grey Hunters with Chaos Marines but you pay for it
You say it's grey hunters defining feature, but i see it as just a random arbitrary weapon restriction for an otherwise similar unit. The defining feature i saw in space wolves was that they were marines +1 to the point that they were just about viable.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:3. Honestly, there's a couple of fixes for Assault Marines really that I can think up. These would be:
A. Cut off a point
B. The special pistols don't interfere with buying Eviscerstors (So you can theoretically get 2 of each at the minimum squad) and an extra of either at 10.
C. Cut the crap about hand flamers and inferno pistols being Blood Angels exclusive. Give Assault Marines (And vanguard) access to them. That's more an issue with Blood Angels (And Dark Angels) needing to be rolled into the Vanilla codex though.
C. I agree, it makes no sense. But at the same time, as you say in the point above, it's their 'defining feature'. I think if they're going to be divergent, then they need a better reason than arbitrary weapon restrictions. It works both ways.
It's what separates units from being shooty or choppy.
1. It's one of the few balance points I agree with. In the same manner I would say a model can fire as many weapons as it wants of the same type. That's just me. Fire anything but pistols or just pistols works for now. Pistols already got enough of a buff being able to be fired in melee.
I'm not sure you understand what 'Buff' means. Because that's not what most pistols got - Pistols, as a concept, were heavily nerfed.
Yes, they can now be fired into Melee, but in exchange for that, they no longer count as a Close Combat weapon. (Of course, since the '+1 attack for 2 Close Combat Weapons' thing is gone, what I should really say is 'They no longer have the option to give models an extra attack.')
Chainswords got a buff which allows them to do what two close combat weapons used to do, in a limited way. (Or to provide multiple bonus attacks, if you have permission to take multiple Chainswords.)
High-strength pistols, like Plasma or Inferno pistols, got a buff since they hit harder than the average Close Combat weapon.
Pistols in general, though, took a nerf - They no longer act as Assault Weapons, since every weapon can be fired before charging and they don't get the new 'Assault' rule (That is, they can't be fired after Advancing.) Additionally, firing them in Close Combat is a rare thing to have happen on dedicated melee units - If I have a unit of, say, Assault Marines, I have to charge, fight, my opponent has to choose not to fall back, I have to survive their pistols, and then fight again. THEN, if they are still alive, and I'm still alive, and I don't want to fall back, I can fire my pistols. It's such a delayed reaction that it almost never really comes up, unless you were the person charged and you've got a unit who is bad in close combat but has good pistols. That's an *incredibly* rare set of circumstances. I've seen 'Firing pistols in a Melee' actually influence the outcome of the game... Once, maybe? Not more than once. Even then, 'Influence' might be a strong word.
2. I'd say it's one of their defining features. Chaos Marines can have either the Bolter or Chainsword (And last edition both, but they overpayed by a point, and I can argue that they should be had it built into their profile). Tactical Marines have the pistol as a sidearm but nothing else. Sisters and Skitarii just don't have pistols outside the sergeant models and such. Grey Hunters are armed to the teeth and over the top, and one of the biggest mistakes of 7th was making it optional for 2 frickin points. You know, when it was already too expensive on the CSM. FW had it right with making Carcharodons paying only 1 point last edition, but remember how bad the rest of the Tactics were...anyway that's mildly off topic. So to me, in my perfect game, it would be laid out as:
A. Tactical Marines get a Special and Heavy at 5 dudes, and an extra of either at 10
B. Chaos Marines have the option to buy the Chainsword, and get the Special and Heavy Weapon of their choice for every 5 dudes (Which is much better encouragement for large squads)
C. Grey Hunters get the Chainsword standard and continue doing their thing, so you can try and create Grey Hunters with Chaos Marines but you pay for it
As pointed out, this is incredibly arbitrary. Having access to a close combat weapon is one of the more vague, nebulous features of Grey Hunters - It was only ever required for a single codex that came out in 5th edition, (It is now optional, but 'free', (I'm aware that Grey Hunters cost 14ppm as opposed to 13ppm, but that is not technically the cost of the chainsword itself,)) and it's one of the least unique things about them.
Also: Sisters of Battle DO have pistols. They always have, for as long as they've been around. (Or at least since 5th edition, that's as far back as my personal collection of codices goes. I'm sure someone could check the Witch Hunters book to confirm this, though.)
3. Honestly, there's a couple of fixes for Assault Marines really that I can think up. These would be:
A. Cut off a point
B. The special pistols don't interfere with buying Eviscerstors (So you can theoretically get 2 of each at the minimum squad) and an extra of either at 10.
C. Cut the crap about hand flamers and inferno pistols being Blood Angels exclusive. Give Assault Marines (And vanguard) access to them. That's more an issue with Blood Angels (And Dark Angels) needing to be rolled into the Vanilla codex though.
None of these would actually make Assault Marines good though, (Eviscerators are a horrible, horrible weapon on 1A models, no matter how many you can take, same with Hand Flamers except that they're horrible on everyone, and Inferno Pistols aren't explicitly bad, but they're far too expensive - They should cost like 12pts, not 20,) and the 'A' option is just going to cause more power creep, which should be avoided at all costs. I want Assault Marines that are worth 13ppm, not cheaper Assault Marines.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It's what separates units from being shooty or choppy.
It's an 'elite' unit, being choppy and shooty is acceptable. Especially considering there are pure choppy and pure shooty versions of this unit available. For the points cost and what it can take - it's neither shooty or choppy atm, just horribly overpriced for what it can actually do.
Waaaghpower wrote:
As pointed out, this is incredibly arbitrary. Having access to a close combat weapon is one of the more vague, nebulous features of Grey Hunters - It was only ever required for a single codex that came out in 5th edition, (It is now optional, but 'free', (I'm aware that Grey Hunters cost 14ppm as opposed to 13ppm, but that is not technically the cost of the chainsword itself,)) and it's one of the least unique things about them.
Also: Sisters of Battle DO have pistols. They always have, for as long as they've been around. (Or at least since 5th edition, that's as far back as my personal collection of codices goes. I'm sure someone could check the Witch Hunters book to confirm this, though.)
From memory (i used to have the witch hunters codex), sisters/witch hunters had flamer/melta pistols as far back as 3rd (can't speak for 2nd). The range is really old, and they haven't really changed much since they were released. I guess it depends when you really started playing as to what you associate with a particular unit. As i've said before, in 2nd tactical marines came with a bolt rifle, bolt pistol and ccw and these were represented on the starter models. In 3rd, when everything was utterly gutted, they only got a bolt rifle. But then the pistol part of their equipment made it's way back (4th dark angels iirc). The precedent is there, and it's not like tactical marines with essentially 2 attacks in melee would be overpowered in melee.
Waaaghpower wrote:
None of these would actually make Assault Marines good though, (Eviscerators are a horrible, horrible weapon on 1A models, no matter how many you can take, same with Hand Flamers except that they're horrible on everyone, and Inferno Pistols aren't explicitly bad, but they're far too expensive - They should cost like 12pts, not 20,) and the 'A' option is just going to cause more power creep, which should be avoided at all costs. I want Assault Marines that are worth 13ppm, not cheaper Assault Marines.
The problem is, it's still a shooting-focused edition. The core rule interactions don't really incentivize melee. Short of fixing that, a price drop (amongst other things) really is the easiest way to fix them. But i agree, i'd rather have assault marines that are worth 13 points.
1. It's one of the few balance points I agree with. In the same manner I would say a model can fire as many weapons as it wants of the same type. That's just me. Fire anything but pistols or just pistols works for now. Pistols already got enough of a buff being able to be fired in melee.
I'm not sure you understand what 'Buff' means. Because that's not what most pistols got - Pistols, as a concept, were heavily nerfed.
Yes, they can now be fired into Melee, but in exchange for that, they no longer count as a Close Combat weapon. (Of course, since the '+1 attack for 2 Close Combat Weapons' thing is gone, what I should really say is 'They no longer have the option to give models an extra attack.')
Chainswords got a buff which allows them to do what two close combat weapons used to do, in a limited way. (Or to provide multiple bonus attacks, if you have permission to take multiple Chainswords.)
High-strength pistols, like Plasma or Inferno pistols, got a buff since they hit harder than the average Close Combat weapon.
Pistols in general, though, took a nerf - They no longer act as Assault Weapons, since every weapon can be fired before charging and they don't get the new 'Assault' rule (That is, they can't be fired after Advancing.) Additionally, firing them in Close Combat is a rare thing to have happen on dedicated melee units - If I have a unit of, say, Assault Marines, I have to charge, fight, my opponent has to choose not to fall back, I have to survive their pistols, and then fight again. THEN, if they are still alive, and I'm still alive, and I don't want to fall back, I can fire my pistols. It's such a delayed reaction that it almost never really comes up, unless you were the person charged and you've got a unit who is bad in close combat but has good pistols. That's an *incredibly* rare set of circumstances. I've seen 'Firing pistols in a Melee' actually influence the outcome of the game... Once, maybe? Not more than once. Even then, 'Influence' might be a strong word.
2. I'd say it's one of their defining features. Chaos Marines can have either the Bolter or Chainsword (And last edition both, but they overpayed by a point, and I can argue that they should be had it built into their profile). Tactical Marines have the pistol as a sidearm but nothing else. Sisters and Skitarii just don't have pistols outside the sergeant models and such. Grey Hunters are armed to the teeth and over the top, and one of the biggest mistakes of 7th was making it optional for 2 frickin points. You know, when it was already too expensive on the CSM. FW had it right with making Carcharodons paying only 1 point last edition, but remember how bad the rest of the Tactics were...anyway that's mildly off topic. So to me, in my perfect game, it would be laid out as:
A. Tactical Marines get a Special and Heavy at 5 dudes, and an extra of either at 10
B. Chaos Marines have the option to buy the Chainsword, and get the Special and Heavy Weapon of their choice for every 5 dudes (Which is much better encouragement for large squads)
C. Grey Hunters get the Chainsword standard and continue doing their thing, so you can try and create Grey Hunters with Chaos Marines but you pay for it
As pointed out, this is incredibly arbitrary. Having access to a close combat weapon is one of the more vague, nebulous features of Grey Hunters - It was only ever required for a single codex that came out in 5th edition, (It is now optional, but 'free', (I'm aware that Grey Hunters cost 14ppm as opposed to 13ppm, but that is not technically the cost of the chainsword itself,)) and it's one of the least unique things about them.
Also: Sisters of Battle DO have pistols. They always have, for as long as they've been around. (Or at least since 5th edition, that's as far back as my personal collection of codices goes. I'm sure someone could check the Witch Hunters book to confirm this, though.)
3. Honestly, there's a couple of fixes for Assault Marines really that I can think up. These would be:
A. Cut off a point
B. The special pistols don't interfere with buying Eviscerstors (So you can theoretically get 2 of each at the minimum squad) and an extra of either at 10.
C. Cut the crap about hand flamers and inferno pistols being Blood Angels exclusive. Give Assault Marines (And vanguard) access to them. That's more an issue with Blood Angels (And Dark Angels) needing to be rolled into the Vanilla codex though.
None of these would actually make Assault Marines good though, (Eviscerators are a horrible, horrible weapon on 1A models, no matter how many you can take, same with Hand Flamers except that they're horrible on everyone, and Inferno Pistols aren't explicitly bad, but they're far too expensive - They should cost like 12pts, not 20,) and the 'A' option is just going to cause more power creep, which should be avoided at all costs. I want Assault Marines that are worth 13ppm, not cheaper Assault Marines.
1. They no longer count as a melee weapon doesn't really matter, because everywhere you really used it they gave the companion weapon that bonus attack (so basically any Chainsword equivalent). So shooting in melee with it is as comparable to getting that extra attack, if not better in most situations (a potential shot at killing people during the shooting phase is pretty good, even with crummy Bolt Pistols), and the only real "nerf" that happened was with Power Weapon Vanguard that were holding Bolt Pistols. I dont see this really being an issue. After all, when you equipping old school characters, you sprang for the Plasma Pistol with your Power Weapon/Fist.
2. I didn't think Battle Sisters had Bolt Pistols my bad. They're always ran as 5 gal squads so I've never seen them survive in melee to use them, nor have I seen them actually being fired because they basically never charged in any previous edition.
That said, I know it's arbitrary almost, but we are keeping options unique. If you want your Tactical Marines to be better at melee, maybe CSM or SW is the proper choice. If you're preferring shooty, do the Tactical Marine or CSM without the CCW. If you give the Tactical Marine an extra weapon though, why would we ever care about Assault Marines? It's about differing roles. Assault Marines in a Rhino or Tactical Marines in a Rhino? You give the latter an extra weapon on top of their range choices in this edition and that choice is made FOR you. Space Wolves don't have an Assault Marine equivalent. They have a Jump unit or two, but not an Assault Marine, if that makes sense. I can elaborate further if needed. I'm trying to make them feel like separate armies.
3. Are Assault Marines without Jump Packs worth 13 a model though? Consider the CCW Scout. For 2 less points, you lose a point in your Save but get better deployment options, filling your obligatory troop choice, getting a Combi-Weapon on the Sergeant and a Heavy Weapon choice (though to be fair you're probably never gonna do that on a CCW Scout squad so I'm not sure why I brought it up). Nobody would say Scouts are broken, and are easily our best Troop choice.
I agree the Eviscerator is too expensive though by maybe 5-10 points for sure, but I disagree on Hand Flamers being bad on everyone, and I do agree Infenro Pistols are a little too expensive. That's more pricing on weapons being an issue, but opening them up at least gives them a unique role.
Please stop posting on this thread. We clearly understand there's an issue with Tactical Marines (And SEVERAL people do) and you're one of the ONLY people defending them to the death.
Oh yeah, telling me to leave will certainly work.
The people who want tactical squad improvement range from 'minor buff' to 'fantasy land', and I'm sure you'll agree that not all of that is legitimate.
Deciding on buffs for Tacticals is tricky because so many of the other marine units are simple deviations from them. Make them shootier and you step on the toes of Devs, Sternguard and Command Squads. Make them Assaultier and they step on the toes of Assault Squads, Vanguard plus units of other books like Grey Hunters and CSMs. So do you want to buff just Tacticals, or buff PA space Marines in general?
And if you look back through my postings, you'll find that I'm not completely against an improvement. I'm just going to be picky about it. For example, I wouldn't change their gear at all. But they do come with lots of it when compared to many other troops, Primary weapon, secondary weapon, and two grenade types. This gives a lot of opportunity to improve the unit without changing their legacy loadout.
Allowing ALL Space Marines to use more grenades, thrown or CC, is an improvement. Just giving them all an extra shot with their bolter (harking back to their 2nd edition days) would be pretty sweet too. Those are the sorts of things I would advocate, if anything.
1. They no longer count as a melee weapon doesn't really matter, because everywhere you really used it they gave the companion weapon that bonus attack (so basically any Chainsword equivalent). So shooting in melee with it is as comparable to getting that extra attack, if not better in most situations (a potential shot at killing people during the shooting phase is pretty good, even with crummy Bolt Pistols), and the only real "nerf" that happened was with Power Weapon Vanguard that were holding Bolt Pistols. I dont see this really being an issue. After all, when you equipping old school characters, you sprang for the Plasma Pistol with your Power Weapon/Fist.
A - Nobody in any sort of competitive, or even slightly optimized but still fluffy, scene took Plasma Pistols.
B - No, firing that pistol is not better in most situations. This is for two reasons:
One, especially on characters, getting an extra attack with the Close Combat Weapon is generally better than getting an extra attack with a pistol. (Assault units generally have buffs in assault, but not in shooting. Buffed Strength, re-rolls to hit in CC, etc, will only apply to the CCW. This isn't even including the many, many models that get a better-than-bolt-pistol CCW, like a Power Maul or Sword.)
Two, you only get to fire that pistol half as often as you get to fight in close combat, and if you're an assault unit who charged, you have to make it through two rounds of the Fight Phase before you get to fire your pistols ONCE. You literally halve the benefit. That is, obviously, a nerf.
2. I didn't think Battle Sisters had Bolt Pistols my bad. They're always ran as 5 gal squads so I've never seen them survive in melee to use them, nor have I seen them actually being fired because they basically never charged in any previous edition.
That said, I know it's arbitrary almost, but we are keeping options unique. If you want your Tactical Marines to be better at melee, maybe CSM or SW is the proper choice. If you're preferring shooty, do the Tactical Marine or CSM without the CCW. If you give the Tactical Marine an extra weapon though, why would we ever care about Assault Marines? It's about differing roles. Assault Marines in a Rhino or Tactical Marines in a Rhino? You give the latter an extra weapon on top of their range choices in this edition and that choice is made FOR you. Space Wolves don't have an Assault Marine equivalent. They have a Jump unit or two, but not an Assault Marine, if that makes sense. I can elaborate further if needed. I'm trying to make them feel like separate armies.
Hahahahahahaha.
Space Wolves do have an Assault option. They're called 'Blood Claws'.
You know what they get to distinguish them from Grey Hunters and make them better in close combat? +1 Attack on the turn that they charge. Because that's what makes sense if you want an Assault unit to work as a middle-ground between standard Marines who have a CCW and Veterans. (Blood Claws are actually reasonably good this edition, too, at least internally - Space Wolves are sucky because they cost as much as Marines but don't get any Chapter Tactics buffs, but as far as an internal choice for an assault unit, Blood Claws are not bad at all.)
(Also: CSM can't take a CCW/Boltgun/Bolt Pistol combo anymore. That was removed in 8th edition. They can either take a 'Tactical Marine' loadout with Boltgun/Bolt Pistol, or they can take an 'Assault' loadout, with a Chainsword/Pistol. Their version of Tactical Marines aren't better at melee.)
You are repeatedly citing armies that you do not understand or know the options of in order to defend your points, and it's making me think that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
3. Are Assault Marines without Jump Packs worth 13 a model though? Consider the CCW Scout. For 2 less points, you lose a point in your Save but get better deployment options, filling your obligatory troop choice, getting a Combi-Weapon on the Sergeant and a Heavy Weapon choice (though to be fair you're probably never gonna do that on a CCW Scout squad so I'm not sure why I brought it up). Nobody would say Scouts are broken, and are easily our best Troop choice.
I agree the Eviscerator is too expensive though by maybe 5-10 points for sure, but I disagree on Hand Flamers being bad on everyone, and I do agree Infenro Pistols are a little too expensive. That's more pricing on weapons being an issue, but opening them up at least gives them a unique role.
No, Assault Marines without Jump Packs are not worth 13 a model.
That is why we are talking in a thread determining the best way to buff Assault Marines.
Hand Flamers have an abysmally short range, and incredibly low damage. If you do manage to actually get into range with your Hand Flamer, you're going to get .66 wounds against a Guardsmen equivalent, compared to the .3 that you'll get with a Bolt Pistol - You're spending a bunch of points to halve your range and barely increase your damage.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:2. I didn't think Battle Sisters had Bolt Pistols my bad.
I may have misinterpreted the question. I meant that thing like flame pistols and inferno pistols existed for them (as evidenced by seraphim), not that they necessarily got bolt pistols as sidearms.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:2. I didn't think Battle Sisters had Bolt Pistols my bad.
I may have misinterpreted the question. I meant that thing like flame pistols and inferno pistols existed for them (as evidenced by seraphim), not that they necessarily got bolt pistols as sidearms.
Marmatag wrote: Tau, outside of commanders, drones, crisis suits, y'vhara, and a couple other things, need a buff. And with those buffs, commanders should be toned down a tiny bit.
Not gonna argue with that, because I know it to be true.
THAT BEING SAID! Would you suggest giving these upgrades to Marines without any increased cost? Also, what would you do for the rest of their weapons?
No increased cost. Power armored marines are straight up TERRIBLE right now.
I'm more interested in the base kit right now.
As far as guns go, i'd probably change as follows:
Heavy Bolter - 6 shots, strength 6, Ap-2; 1 damage.
Grav cannon & Grav amp - 6 shots, strength *, AP-3, wounds vehicles & MCs on a 4+, wounds everything else on a 6+. 2 damage.
the special weapons are in a sorry state. I'm not sure how exactly to make them not suck awful.
And with a 6 shot S 6 AP -2, what do you propose for the Assault Cannon?
*snicker snicker*
Lol right?
Just make the heavy bolter rapid fire 3 like grand papa Smurf
Automatically Appended Next Post: Am I the only one that thinks wizards of the coast should be the ones writing the rules for this game?
After all, when you equipping old school characters, you sprang for the Plasma Pistol with your Power Weapon/Fist.
A - Nobody in any sort of competitive, or even slightly optimized but still fluffy, scene took Plasma Pistols.
B - No, firing that pistol is not better in most situations. This is for two reasons
You are repeatedly citing armies that you do not understand or know the options of in order to defend your points, and it's making me think that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Insectum7 wrote:Allowing ALL Space Marines to use more grenades, thrown or CC, is an improvement. Just giving them all an extra shot with their bolter (harking back to their 2nd edition days) would be pretty sweet too. Those are the sorts of things I would advocate, if anything.
This is really nice because you could try to make a marine army that is centered around marines in power armor with bolters, instead of thunder wolves, centurion suits, or ICs.
While it does have a bit of pop against hordes, it might not be enough to get the point across. What do you think about getting a whole second round of shooting at bs4+?
I feel like one of the big issues in their costing is that GW VASTLY overestimated the value of ATSKNF. I've seen it save like A marine since the edition started.
1. They no longer count as a melee weapon doesn't really matter, because everywhere you really used it they gave the companion weapon that bonus attack (so basically any Chainsword equivalent). So shooting in melee with it is as comparable to getting that extra attack, if not better in most situations (a potential shot at killing people during the shooting phase is pretty good, even with crummy Bolt Pistols), and the only real "nerf" that happened was with Power Weapon Vanguard that were holding Bolt Pistols. I dont see this really being an issue. After all, when you equipping old school characters, you sprang for the Plasma Pistol with your Power Weapon/Fist.
A - Nobody in any sort of competitive, or even slightly optimized but still fluffy, scene took Plasma Pistols.
B - No, firing that pistol is not better in most situations. This is for two reasons:
One, especially on characters, getting an extra attack with the Close Combat Weapon is generally better than getting an extra attack with a pistol. (Assault units generally have buffs in assault, but not in shooting. Buffed Strength, re-rolls to hit in CC, etc, will only apply to the CCW. This isn't even including the many, many models that get a better-than-bolt-pistol CCW, like a Power Maul or Sword.)
Two, you only get to fire that pistol half as often as you get to fight in close combat, and if you're an assault unit who charged, you have to make it through two rounds of the Fight Phase before you get to fire your pistols ONCE. You literally halve the benefit. That is, obviously, a nerf.
2. I didn't think Battle Sisters had Bolt Pistols my bad. They're always ran as 5 gal squads so I've never seen them survive in melee to use them, nor have I seen them actually being fired because they basically never charged in any previous edition.
That said, I know it's arbitrary almost, but we are keeping options unique. If you want your Tactical Marines to be better at melee, maybe CSM or SW is the proper choice. If you're preferring shooty, do the Tactical Marine or CSM without the CCW. If you give the Tactical Marine an extra weapon though, why would we ever care about Assault Marines? It's about differing roles. Assault Marines in a Rhino or Tactical Marines in a Rhino? You give the latter an extra weapon on top of their range choices in this edition and that choice is made FOR you. Space Wolves don't have an Assault Marine equivalent. They have a Jump unit or two, but not an Assault Marine, if that makes sense. I can elaborate further if needed. I'm trying to make them feel like separate armies.
Hahahahahahaha.
Space Wolves do have an Assault option. They're called 'Blood Claws'.
You know what they get to distinguish them from Grey Hunters and make them better in close combat? +1 Attack on the turn that they charge. Because that's what makes sense if you want an Assault unit to work as a middle-ground between standard Marines who have a CCW and Veterans. (Blood Claws are actually reasonably good this edition, too, at least internally - Space Wolves are sucky because they cost as much as Marines but don't get any Chapter Tactics buffs, but as far as an internal choice for an assault unit, Blood Claws are not bad at all.)
(Also: CSM can't take a CCW/Boltgun/Bolt Pistol combo anymore. That was removed in 8th edition. They can either take a 'Tactical Marine' loadout with Boltgun/Bolt Pistol, or they can take an 'Assault' loadout, with a Chainsword/Pistol. Their version of Tactical Marines aren't better at melee.)
You are repeatedly citing armies that you do not understand or know the options of in order to defend your points, and it's making me think that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
3. Are Assault Marines without Jump Packs worth 13 a model though? Consider the CCW Scout. For 2 less points, you lose a point in your Save but get better deployment options, filling your obligatory troop choice, getting a Combi-Weapon on the Sergeant and a Heavy Weapon choice (though to be fair you're probably never gonna do that on a CCW Scout squad so I'm not sure why I brought it up). Nobody would say Scouts are broken, and are easily our best Troop choice.
I agree the Eviscerator is too expensive though by maybe 5-10 points for sure, but I disagree on Hand Flamers being bad on everyone, and I do agree Infenro Pistols are a little too expensive. That's more pricing on weapons being an issue, but opening them up at least gives them a unique role.
No, Assault Marines without Jump Packs are not worth 13 a model.
That is why we are talking in a thread determining the best way to buff Assault Marines.
Hand Flamers have an abysmally short range, and incredibly low damage. If you do manage to actually get into range with your Hand Flamer, you're going to get .66 wounds against a Guardsmen equivalent, compared to the .3 that you'll get with a Bolt Pistol - You're spending a bunch of points to halve your range and barely increase your damage.
1. Nobody was taking Bolt Pistols either. With your Captain you had either the Power Weapon for quick clearing or the Power Fist for larger targets. The Pistol + Weapon didn't happen. If you were a modeler though, you were taking the Plasma Pistol simply because it looked better. The whole Specialist Weapon threw everything out the window with that when introduced though.
You're also ALWAYS assuming buffs for the Assault unit. Your Chaplain isn't going to be near the squad the whole time and it is silly to think that. So if you have dozens of Characters near the unit, sure the Bolt Pistol isn't as good. You're assuming a lot though. I'm saying for the regular unit, the Pistol buff is better in a vacuum thanks to shooting in melee. If you want to assume buffs, you're going to need to add that cost to the unit for fair MathHammer. You can't just magically add points to the unit to try and prove yourself right.
You're also make two assumptions with Point 2 that are opposite in nature:
A. If you're wanting to wipe a unit, you're charging with the unit with the best mathematical chance anyway. You would've shot it a good amount and then charged.
B. You want to be stuck in combat so that they're either forced to fall back so other units can shoot at them, or they get mopped up because the initial charge already does enough.
You can't have it both ways at once with your assumption. It's going to be either Scenario A or B.
Plus in all honesty a Pistol counting as a melee weapon was stupid and never made sense crunch-wise. The new system is better.
2. I said they had a Jump Unit, not an Assault Marine equivalent. If you look at fluff and crunch, you'd probably had gotten the point immediately instead of going straight for Skyclaws = Assault Marines. The Claw units are reckless and not well trained and aggressive, hence the special rules and stats they have. Assault Marines are more disciplined hence why they're at a 3+ to hit and don't get the bonus attack when charging. Plus, for the record, until the 7th edition codex came out, Grey Hunters were still better than Claw units at melee for the price. Giving a Tactical Marine a CCW still makes them better than an Assault Marine getting an extra attack on the charge, because Special and Heavy Weapons + Bolters for hitting a unit before charging and Overwatch (as little as a difference it makes) is simply flatout better. You're not understanding the balance here. At that point, you could give an Assault Marine TWO attacks on the charge, and the Assault Marine would still only be MAYBE equal to a Tactical Marine with a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, and CCW. Remember: no restrictions on firing and charging now with any weapon.
Also I've already made mention that Chaos Marines lost that option and I'm saying they need it back like a post or two back, and for this post I was making the hypothetical scenario that my proposed idea went through, and you know that's what it was. SO that's dishonest of you for purposely forgetting the dialogue we had going.
And for the record I've been playing since 4th edition. I know a little bit of what I'm talking about.
3. There's nothing you CAN do to the Assault Marine because open up more weapons options and cut the price a little. The only thing that would be a saving grace would be a way to turn them into troops on top of those fixes (but that's a lost cause now because whiners about Biker troops got their way). Otherwise, you have NO reason to take them over Vanguard.
Also you can easily decrease the Hand Flamers price. They're worth maybe 3-4 points and regular Flamers 5. They also need to go back to ignoring cover out of principle but that's a different topic.
Of course, right away, guy. I don't like reading people having to talk back to and around the stuff you say.
They're one of the lone people that thinks Tactical Marines are worth anything, and I told them to go away because they weren't being helpful on top of their VERY first post in this thread.
Martel732 wrote: I can agree that fixes would be tricky indeed. The game needs to make generalists better across the board. Specialists are crushing them even harder.
It's not just the specialist vs generalist that's the problem though, it's also the points. Everyone (barring certain exceptions) seems to agree that tactical and assault marines need to be improved, but then you get camps of people who want them to be better but don't want to actually improve them. My favourite justification so far is that you can't improve a unit because it makes the other units in the army look bad in comparison. There's a reason they look bad - they are. That's not a valid reason to avoid fixing a unit, though. Fix one and then daisy chain through the rest till they're all worth their points.
I said it beforet, and i'll say it again:
For their points, tactical marines get a chainsword sidearm as standard, all marines get special issue ammo for all bolt weapons in the list (add +/- 1 to a weapon stat or +6" range when shooting), look at melee options as well as ranged for the 'specials', and look at price drops for their 'specials' (say 5 point reduction for special weapons, 10 for heavies (also look at balancing comparative weapon costs)).
Ignoring the rest of the marine army and just looking at tacticals - with this improvement, would you consider them worth taking as troops? Would you consider taking more than a minimum number of them? And then, would you consider taking them compared to the other troop choice, scouts?
I played a couple games against DE recent and I could barely kill anything cause I was in the mind set that my Tacticals could topple the kabalites. Nope it was a pretty boring exchange
niv-mizzet wrote: I feel like one of the big issues in their costing is that GW VASTLY overestimated the value of ATSKNF. I've seen it save like A marine since the edition started.
For that a marine cost an extra 9 points. I don't think marines can really get much cheaper than what they are, they have too many upgrades over the lower units below them. What if all marines just got chainswords standard? That screws over assault marines, but would make tacticals more likely to use their +1 S and +1 WS in normal games. Assault Marines would just need some other buffs, maybe permit inclusion of two power weapons per 5 marines.
I also think upgrading boltguns across the board with an additional -1 AP to whatever they have would be a good idea that wouldn't break the game. But that's just my opinion.
And don't say Reanimation Protocols. As-is, those SUCK right now.
Yep. As i understand it, necrons need fixing as well. Badly. Still not a reason not to fix marines, though.
edit: necrons unlike marines, have as an elite army traditionally focusing on pure shooting (with some exceptions) and durability. The problem as i understand it is that necrons pay a lot for durability with low firepower. Without wanting to get too off topic here (this is about marines, specifically tactical and assault), but spitballing an idea what if necron gauss weaponry (on top of as it is now) on a 6 to wound caused a mortal wound? That buffs firepower *and* fits the fluff of their weapons. Again, fixing units shouldn't come down to: other units are worse, so we won't attempt to balance them all. Other units are better too (and guard here are the shining example). Drag them all up or down to approximately the same level. Right now, PA units are bad (and necrons are essentially PA units).
Insectum7 wrote:Allowing ALL Space Marines to use more grenades, thrown or CC, is an improvement. Just giving them all an extra shot with their bolter (harking back to their 2nd edition days) would be pretty sweet too. Those are the sorts of things I would advocate, if anything.
This is really nice because you could try to make a marine army that is centered around marines in power armor with bolters, instead of thunder wolves, centurion suits, or ICs.
While it does have a bit of pop against hordes, it might not be enough to get the point across. What do you think about getting a whole second round of shooting at bs4+?
Maybe, but then you're rolling two sets of dice and taking more time, while an extra shot you just roll everything together. A second round of shooting at a -1 would be slightly worse than an extra shot at 12+", but better than the extra shot at under 12". Its close enough that I'd just go for the one thats quicker to resolve.
A problem with either solution is that it leaves no reason to ever throw a frag grenade, as 3 or 4 bolter shots is better than (I think) anything but a 6 on the frag. Right now a frag is statistically better against GEQ than a bolter, so its worth something. If you could fire an extra shot with the bolter AND toss a frag or two though, your numbers start to go up much faster.
I think a more appropriate thing to do against hordes specifically is to improve the flamer, honestly. Of all weapons in the edition change, flame weapons got hit the hardest. It feels very unsatisfying to use atm. I want to want to take them, but i dont. I dont think it would take much. Adding +1 or 2 to the roll for number of hits would help.
A second round of shooting at a -1 would be slightly worse than an extra shot at 12+", but better than the extra shot at under 12". Its close enough that I'd just go for the one thats quicker to resolve.
Right now a frag is statistically better against GEQ than a bolter, so its worth something. If you could fire an extra shot with the bolter AND toss a frag or two though, your numbers start to go up much faster.
Anything to make it faster and simpler is good yes.
Do you think it is more important to buff the unupgraded bolter marine or the squad? For example in 5th edition I thought that +1 bolter shot was a good way to make a marine better, but it was a vehicle dominated edition and it wasn't impressive. I meant a whole new round of shooting, so bolters yes, but also plasma gun and then plasma gun -1, as well as grenade + bolter -1.
+1 for only bolters, whatever the details, benefits intercessors etc. more than tacticals, on the assumption this is a power armor rule and not a tactical squad rule.
Xenomancers wrote: My solution to this has always been to upgrade the basic bolter to something that doesn't suck so that your ablative wounds don't feel like a complete waste. That is how you fix tacticals - give the bolter the intercessors bolt rifle profile with -1 ap - upgrade the intercessors to ap-2 - upgrade the stalker bolter rifle to ap-3. That is how you fix the troop selections - obviously by upping their damage (it's clear they don't do enough damage). no increased cost.
For Devs - Move and shoot with no penalty. No increased cost.
For Assault marines - Chainswords +1 attack and -2 ap. Make jetpacks give you +1 attack on the charge. no additional cost.
It's stuff like this that will help out marine infantry.
I'm not a fan of this because you're trying to make Necrons worse at what they do. Give Bolters a special rule instead.
Ehh - they should have gone for any 6 to hit procs 2 more auto hits for Gauss weapons. It would have been more fun. I always liked the idea of bolters having shred - but that is too strong I guess.
Xenomancers wrote: My solution to this has always been to upgrade the basic bolter to something that doesn't suck so that your ablative wounds don't feel like a complete waste. That is how you fix tacticals - give the bolter the intercessors bolt rifle profile with -1 ap - upgrade the intercessors to ap-2 - upgrade the stalker bolter rifle to ap-3. That is how you fix the troop selections - obviously by upping their damage (it's clear they don't do enough damage). no increased cost.
For Devs - Move and shoot with no penalty. No increased cost.
For Assault marines - Chainswords +1 attack and -2 ap. Make jetpacks give you +1 attack on the charge. no additional cost.
It's stuff like this that will help out marine infantry.
I'm not a fan of this because you're trying to make Necrons worse at what they do. Give Bolters a special rule instead.
Ehh - they should have gone for any 6 to hit procs 2 more auto hits for Gauss weapons. It would have been more fun. I always liked the idea of bolters having shred - but that is too strong I guess.
Yeah that would not be a bad idea had Tesla not existed. In the meantime I think my idea of a wound of 6+ causes the model to need to reroll successful saves would at least be unique.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah that would not be a bad idea had Tesla not existed. In the meantime I think my idea of a wound of 6+ causes the model to need to reroll successful saves would at least be unique.
I'm not denying that, it certainly would be unique. I'm just saying that it wouldn't fix the problem with marine infantry. A 10-man tactical squad would statistically cause 1 rerolled save at 24" range and 3 at 12" range. I'd still be looking at scouts at that point (who would presumably get the rule as well, having bolt weapons).
Could change give them a special rule that boltguns used by tac marines get ap -2 for any target with 5+ armor (or worse). I know its not particularly fluffy but it makes them more effective versus GEQs then intercessors.
Also, putting the drop pod back to a reasonable price would help marines put all their stats to work as well.
Right grav chutes for reivers are 2pts a piece min 10 pts.
So basically the cost for 10 guys to deep strike is more or less 20 pts.
But then you gotta factor in the fact that it's a vehicle so there's some cost there. But the fact that it's stationary and can't attack back should count for something
35 pts is conservative. Given the way 8th works, their true value is 10 pts or less, imo. The best armies in the game completely turn off deep striking, and a drop pod basically just turns your marines into scouts in terms of deployment.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah that would not be a bad idea had Tesla not existed. In the meantime I think my idea of a wound of 6+ causes the model to need to reroll successful saves would at least be unique.
I'm not denying that, it certainly would be unique. I'm just saying that it wouldn't fix the problem with marine infantry. A 10-man tactical squad would statistically cause 1 rerolled save at 24" range and 3 at 12" range. I'd still be looking at scouts at that point (who would presumably get the rule as well, having bolt weapons).
If you add it to my idea of better weapon saturation, it makes them a better TAC-tical unit (heh) without having to break anything. They have the stats of a 13-14 point model, but none of the wargear options that represent that.
I mean, how hard would it be to just make all Marine Bolt Wealons just have one more shot?
Just change the Bolt weapon profiles to read:
Marine Bolter 24" S4 AP-0 Assault 2 Within 12" this weapon can fire one more shot
Marine Bolt Pistol 12" S4 AP-0 Pistol 2
Marine Storm Bolter 24" S4 AP-0 Assault 3 Within 12" this weapon can fire 2 additional shots
Marine Heavy Bolter 36" S5 AP-1 Heavy 4
Have it represented in the fluff with something like;
"The holy Bolt weaponry used across the Emperor's armies have proven themselves effective across the many battlefields of the galaxy. While they are sometimes used by members of the Astra Militarum, Bolt weapons truly shine when carried by the Emperor's finest warriors, the Adeptus Astartes, or as they are more commonly known, Space Marines. Larger of frame, and clad is suits of Power Armour, a Space Marine is capable of withstanding the harsh recoil of Bolt Weapons more efficiently than a normal human, allowing them to fire faster and more accurately."
And also give Assault Marines and additional attack on the charge, it would differentiate them from Vanguard Vets who would always have the extra attack, but to further make them different from Vanguard Vets: allow Vanguard Vets able to "deep strike" at 8" instead of 9".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit. Oh I forgot to mention I changed the Bolter and Storm Bolter to Assault as well, that could be represented in the fluff by saying that in their suits of Power Armour, it allows a Marine to better fire their Bolt weapons while on the move.
It could also help Tactical Marines be more flexible by allowing them to Advance towards an objective and still fire their Bolters, or the Bolter half of their Combi weapon. It isn't a huge benefit, but keeps them active in the game.
Marines should have "stable platform" and ignore the -1 to hit when moving with a heavy weapon as well, ala terminators from the future war scenes in those movies. In fact, if all marine units ignored that penalty that would help tremendously.
Martel732 wrote: Marines should have "stable platform" and ignore the -1 to hit when moving with a heavy weapon as well, ala terminators from the future war scenes in those movies. In fact, if all marine units ignored that penalty that would help tremendously.
Agreed, but than it wouldn't really make sense game wise for Marines on foot to have that, but their vehicles don't.
Martel732 wrote: Marines should have "stable platform" and ignore the -1 to hit when moving with a heavy weapon as well, ala terminators from the future war scenes in those movies. In fact, if all marine units ignored that penalty that would help tremendously.
Agreed, but than it wouldn't really make sense game wise for Marines on foot to have that, but their vehicles don't.
Give it to them as well, so there's a meaningful reason to use marine tanks over guard tanks for soup lists.
Has anyone suggested that maybe GEQ needs a slight points increase? Then yes, assault squads and tac squads need a buff of some kind. I think a huge problem is just horde will do what a tac or assault squad does, except better.
Pretty much. That seems to be the only way to make Marines better without breaking something else, since it gives them the capabilities to deal with hordes better, and pump more shots/attacks into harder targets to force more save rolls.
The problem isn't just external (eg - fixing marines makes them more powerful than other armies). Nobody wants that, i think that's a given. The problem is internal too. You only have so many points in your army, so you want to maximize your dps. Why take tac marines for dps when you can take razorback asscannons? Which interestingly enough does come close to the S6 AP-2 that martel mentioned before for efficiently removing hordes.
The problem with PA armies is they traditionally contain minimum to no PA units, at least at the competitive level. The only alternative that i can see to buffing tacticals/pa is to drag units like razorbacks down and make them worse. How would people feel about that?
Torga_DW wrote: The problem isn't just external (eg - fixing marines makes them more powerful than other armies). Nobody wants that, i think that's a given. The problem is internal too. You only have so many points in your army, so you want to maximize your dps. Why take tac marines for dps when you can take razorback asscannons? Which interestingly enough does come close to the S6 AP-2 that martel mentioned before for efficiently removing hordes.
The problem with PA armies is they traditionally contain minimum to no PA units, at least at the competitive level. The only alternative that i can see to buffing tacticals/pa is to drag units like razorbacks down and make them worse. How would people feel about that?
The only problem with that is that it would make the army even more weak. Without improving the other options to be closer to being on the level of the Twin Assault Razorback it doesn't solve anything, since making what few good options we have even worse would just encourage us to take even more Guard options instead.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah that would not be a bad idea had Tesla not existed. In the meantime I think my idea of a wound of 6+ causes the model to need to reroll successful saves would at least be unique.
I'm not denying that, it certainly would be unique. I'm just saying that it wouldn't fix the problem with marine infantry. A 10-man tactical squad would statistically cause 1 rerolled save at 24" range and 3 at 12" range. I'd still be looking at scouts at that point (who would presumably get the rule as well, having bolt weapons).
If you add it to my idea of better weapon saturation, it makes them a better TAC-tical unit (heh) without having to break anything. They have the stats of a 13-14 point model, but none of the wargear options that represent that.
Except if you add extra weapon slots, they start encroaching on devastator territory at which point you might as well just allow devastators as troops. Tacticals should be middle of the road - they can shoot, but not with the potential firepower of devvies. They can melee, but lack the speed of assaults. What i'd like is genuine differences between the 3 units so that you'd have incentive to take them based on your strategy and not just because they occupy different FOC slots.
Torga_DW wrote: The problem isn't just external (eg - fixing marines makes them more powerful than other armies). Nobody wants that, i think that's a given. The problem is internal too. You only have so many points in your army, so you want to maximize your dps. Why take tac marines for dps when you can take razorback asscannons? Which interestingly enough does come close to the S6 AP-2 that martel mentioned before for efficiently removing hordes.
The problem with PA armies is they traditionally contain minimum to no PA units, at least at the competitive level. The only alternative that i can see to buffing tacticals/pa is to drag units like razorbacks down and make them worse. How would people feel about that?
The only problem with that is that it would make the army even more weak. Without improving the other options to be closer to being on the level of the Twin Assault Razorback it doesn't solve anything, since making what few good options we have even worse would just encourage us to take even more Guard options instead.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah that would not be a bad idea had Tesla not existed. In the meantime I think my idea of a wound of 6+ causes the model to need to reroll successful saves would at least be unique.
I'm not denying that, it certainly would be unique. I'm just saying that it wouldn't fix the problem with marine infantry. A 10-man tactical squad would statistically cause 1 rerolled save at 24" range and 3 at 12" range. I'd still be looking at scouts at that point (who would presumably get the rule as well, having bolt weapons).
If you add it to my idea of better weapon saturation, it makes them a better TAC-tical unit (heh) without having to break anything. They have the stats of a 13-14 point model, but none of the wargear options that represent that.
Except if you add extra weapon slots, they start encroaching on devastator territory at which point you might as well just allow devastators as troops. Tacticals should be middle of the road - they can shoot, but not with the potential firepower of devvies. They can melee, but lack the speed of assaults. What i'd like is genuine differences between the 3 units so that you'd have incentive to take them based on your strategy and not just because they occupy different FOC slots.
Torga_DW wrote: The problem isn't just external (eg - fixing marines makes them more powerful than other armies). Nobody wants that, i think that's a given. The problem is internal too. You only have so many points in your army, so you want to maximize your dps. Why take tac marines for dps when you can take razorback asscannons? Which interestingly enough does come close to the S6 AP-2 that martel mentioned before for efficiently removing hordes.
The problem with PA armies is they traditionally contain minimum to no PA units, at least at the competitive level. The only alternative that i can see to buffing tacticals/pa is to drag units like razorbacks down and make them worse. How would people feel about that?
The only problem with that is that it would make the army even more weak. Without improving the other options to be closer to being on the level of the Twin Assault Razorback it doesn't solve anything, since making what few good options we have even worse would just encourage us to take even more Guard options instead.
That was my impression too.
Yeah, it really is a tough predicament that those two units are in nowadays. So many things have gotten better in other armies while they stayed the same. The adjustment of a lot of core Space Marine elements also seems hampered by the fact that Roboutte exists, and any potential changes to those units will have to consider how they will interact with Bobby G.
Yeah, it really is a tough predicament that those two units are in nowadays. So many things have gotten better in other armies while they stayed the same. The adjustment of a lot of core Space Marine elements also seems hampered by the fact that Roboutte exists, and any potential changes to those units will have to consider how they will interact with Bobby G.
Yeah, bobby g is a problem. But i'd say rather than balance a 'fluffy' army around the broken units, i'd look at fundamentals and then nerf bobby g down a bit. Even before bobby g hit the scene, the lack of pa units in pa armies was still a thing. The last time i remember serious pa representation was the 6 man las/plas tacs of 4th. Razorbacks aren't necessarily broken, they're just obviously better than a lot of the alternatives.
The problem is that marines have an elite pricing (13 ppm) but their stats are overpriced, now more than ever. I was looking at the various troop choices yesterday. The next 'elite' unit is the necron warrior at 12 ppm. They have a worse save but a better gun. They're not considered good by any stretch of the imagination, necrons have problems atm. Then it drops down to 9ppm for a dark eldar kabalite, or 8 for an eldar guardian/tau firewarrior. This is the next 'bracket' of troops, basically 2/3 or less the price of a tactical. Then it drops to about 4ppm for the next bracket. The thing is, the majority of these troops have a S4 gun *and* special rules to go with it. Marines, the 'elite' army, get an s4 gun and that's it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah that would not be a bad idea had Tesla not existed. In the meantime I think my idea of a wound of 6+ causes the model to need to reroll successful saves would at least be unique.
I'm not denying that, it certainly would be unique. I'm just saying that it wouldn't fix the problem with marine infantry. A 10-man tactical squad would statistically cause 1 rerolled save at 24" range and 3 at 12" range. I'd still be looking at scouts at that point (who would presumably get the rule as well, having bolt weapons).
If you add it to my idea of better weapon saturation, it makes them a better TAC-tical unit (heh) without having to break anything. They have the stats of a 13-14 point model, but none of the wargear options that represent that.
Except if you add extra weapon slots, they start encroaching on devastator territory at which point you might as well just allow devastators as troops. Tacticals should be middle of the road - they can shoot, but not with the potential firepower of devvies. They can melee, but lack the speed of assaults. What i'd like is genuine differences between the 3 units so that you'd have incentive to take them based on your strategy and not just because they occupy different FOC slots.
Well Crusader squads don't encroach on the role of Devastators, so how would give Tactical Marines the option for 1 Special 1 Heavy at 5 men and an additional of either at 10 men do that? You would have Devastators for better heavy weapon saturation and rules to help with that (cherub + Signum) and Veterans + Sternguard who have stats for their Special Weapon spam instead (LD8 and 2 attacks). As a Troop choice, it would actually be a surprising compromise.
Tacticals should be middle of the road - they can shoot, but not with the potential firepower of devvies. They can melee, but lack the speed of assaults. What i'd like is genuine differences between the 3 units
They are not middle of the road at all, they cannot be a balance between shooting and melee. There is not a straight line between shooting and melee that they are sitting on.
There are situations, there are supposed to be situations, where having smaller defensive guns is better than having biggger support guns. There are reasons the a marine, that Roboute Guilliman and company would want most troops to be several bolters protecting a heavy gun, and not just all plasma guns and heavy bolters.
You are right, they are three different things, and they are not just two things and a hybrid.
Tacticals should be middle of the road - they can shoot, but not with the potential firepower of devvies. They can melee, but lack the speed of assaults. What i'd like is genuine differences between the 3 units
They are not middle of the road at all, they cannot be a balance between shooting and melee. There is not a straight line between shooting and melee that they are sitting on.
Well, i can only judge their intended purpose by what i've seen from the fluff and the crunch. The fluff is they're the backbone of the standard marine army, but since 3rd onwards the crunch is they're a lesser devastator squad occupying the troops slot, and about 4th a new mechanic was introduced into the game (objective secured) to try and encourage the use of troops in general. The end result is they're to be avoided at all costs unless you can find a specific use for them (like a cheap salamanders squad with a lascannon sitting on a backfield objective). Or you play in a meta where using them to alpha strike an enemy is a viable tactic. Why exactly cannot they be the balance between shooting and melee? What else is there that they could do that is unique? Other than the artificially contrived 'objective secured'?
pelicaniforce wrote: There are situations, there are supposed to be situations, where having smaller defensive guns is better than having biggger support guns. There are reasons the a marine, that Roboute Guilliman and company would want most troops to be several bolters protecting a heavy gun, and not just all plasma guns and heavy bolters.
I'm all a fan of 'supposed to' - that's why i started this thread. But at the same time, i'd like 'naked' tacticals to be viable without specials, otherwise they just turn into what they are now - overly expensive ablative wounds for the special/heavy. I don't think bobby g intended that when he wrote the codex. This is where they fall down, they're too expensive for that to compete with other armies versions of the same unit. As i said, looking at other armies, S4 is pretty much the average in shooting. It gets 'bad' in the 4 point bracket, but at 8 points its S4 + special rule (in this case tau's 'special rule' would be +1S and +6" range).
pelicaniforce wrote: You are right, they are three different things, and they are not just two things and a hybrid.
Fair enough, how would you go about representing that?
Assault marines are first and foremost harassment units. Moving fast and picking off the weak, they also are great diversions for the tac marines who need more time to get onto position. Tac marines are not weak devs, they are objective holders who get increasingly stronger the closer the enemy gets. Your units are only strong when used the correct way, but because marines have no extreme weaknesses they are quite forgiving of some tactical errors.
There has to be a reason that not every marine has a rocket launcher, or heavy bolter, or plasma rifle. It's really bothersome why it's not 80% devastators. So I'm going to give you one.
Say a squad is supposed to go into a building or a wood and take up a firing position. If they all have rocket launchers, they will have a harder time going in and clearing the enemies out than if several of them have bolters. Even if the rooms aren't so small that they risk bowing themselves up shooting at someone five feet away, the weapons are too long compared to their bodies to wheel around a corner or a doorway and snap shoot at someone. A small arm or personal weapon is almost 100% good enough to shoot one or two enemy troopers. They are not good enough for fighting a whole enemy squad or piece of armor. That's why they are called personal weapons, versus squad level weapons.
Then say they are securely in the ruin, and there is an enemy squad in a complex across the street, shooting from the windows and dashing across alleys. When an enemy trooper pops out to shoot, the squad can't make snap shots at it with special or heavy weapons. The nature of a snap shot means it may be a wasted shot, but with a rapid firing gun or a rocket, it's proportionally worse than a few bolter shots. Then it will be hard to re-aim for another snap shot because an automatic burst may spend longer shooting at a single target or a single shot may need a long reload.
Then this squad was actually supposed to be shooting it's squad weapons at a totally different unit, a horde or piece of armor coming down the street. If instead they are clumsily defending themselves against the squad across the street, they are failing to protect the rest of the company.
Many modern militaries use a fire team of four troopers. One has a light machine gun, one is a team leader who commands the light machine gun, one is a rifleman who protects the team, and one is a gunner's assistant with more machine gun ammunition. The team leader may have an underslung grenade launcher or shotgun for some spot suppression. Two or three of these together make a squad, and in some units one member of the combined squad has an anti tank launcher.
The fire team is a bit like a tank that is missing the actual tank part. The team has a single gun for accomplishing tasks, and all the other members function as drive systems or protection for the gun and the crew. It also looks like a pair of marine combat squads.
Make no mistake, when a captain tells the squad to go over there and kill this specific thing, he does mean go over there and use the heavy/special to kill the thing. As far as the killing part, they really are like a weak devastator squad. However, the "go over there" part is controlled by the bolters. The bolters are the personal defense weapons that create a bubble the marines can use to walk safely to where they are going and then use the main guns to kill the thing they were ordered to. If there isn't a high enough ratio of bolters to specials, the squad will not make progress, it will have to stop and annihilate whatever minor target is threatening it, and expend too much ammunition before it ever does get to its actual target.
So shooting and melee are not two ends of a continuum because they aren't real categories. A heavy flamer and a lascannon are both "heavy" options in lots of lists, but surely a heavy flaked has more in common with a thunder hammer than with any heavy weapon. The tactical squad is supposed to be more mobile, not because of weight, but because a high ratio of bolter marines allows it to move, while being less suppressed than a devastator squad would.
The rules should be universal that having enough small arms makes a unit better. if an enemy infantry squad is near your unit, and you don't have high enough quality of defensive fire, you should have trouble moving and shooting, or suffer a morale check and lose models. If your unit has bs4 bolters, a 3+ save, and lots of basic models, it should be able to run straight through enemy fire and keeping firing themselves, specifically because they have so many bolters.
Ecclesiarch 616 wrote: Assault marines are first and foremost harassment units. Moving fast and picking off the weak, they also are great diversions for the tac marines who need more time to get onto position. Tac marines are not weak devs, they are objective holders who get increasingly stronger the closer the enemy gets. Your units are only strong when used the correct way, but because marines have no extreme weaknesses they are quite forgiving of some tactical errors.
The inverse is true. Marines are extremely UNFORGIVING to play in 8th, as well as 7th, 6th, and 5th. They haven't been forgiving since 4th I think. The low model count makes for very slim margins of error.
Assault marines are too expensive to just be a diversion. Tac marines are too expensive to just be objective holders. Almost every marine unit is too expensive for what it actually does on the table top.
One issue is that the 'super human' space marines aren't really all that super. Primaris marines were basically a ret-con of what space marines are supposed to be. Big, harder to kill, more attacks. Primaris are much closer to marines by the fluff of the game. But to avoid invalidating existing marine armies they had to make Primaris units different by making them super specialized. Imagine an assault marine squad with 2A base, 3 on the sgt, and 2W each. As long as the cost wasn't crazy that would be much more appealing than the existing one. At 20 ppm base the Intercessors aren't a bad unit in their intended role, what if they could also carry a special/heavy weapon? They would fulfill the TAC marine role much better. You'd have some AP -1 bolters, a melta/combi or something, 2W, 2A for light melee work, and maybe a pfist or axe on the sgt.
Someone at my lgs said he wouldn't be surprised if GW slowly transitions to all Primaris marines over the years, it might not be a bad thing but it will be a bad transition with tons of people fielding regular marine models. It will start with Primaris units getting weapon options like regular marines in the future. You'll still be able to take more bodies with regular marines, but you could fulfill basically every role/option with a primaris model for more points.
That's why a 5 man dev unit with 4 lascannons is very squishy and you lose a lot of points really fast. The idea of bolter marines supporting the heavy weapons is abstracted into 40k by them being ablative wounds(now that the defender gets to pick wounds again). If you've got 8 devestators then they have to kill 4 marines before they reduce the shooting power of the unit. Then the Sgt is dead so no BS 2 shots, another kill to get a heavy weapon. Even a couple extra marines in the squad in cover protects them from casual shooting or a couple bad rolls from killing a heavy gun.
Generally, I am in favor of *all* Tactical Marines (and variants) being "Bolter, Pistol, Chainsword" for 15 points and basing all other costs around that. Make them actually jack-of-trades rather than a Razorback Tax. Maybe modify Combat Squads so they act benefit as "the same unit" when within 6" of each other. Meaning they can activate the same stratagem, benefit from the same psychic power, ignore the other squad for purposes of movement/LOS/etc (think ala Tactician or Ranked Attacks in Warmachine). Basically a tiny qualitative bonus that represents better intra-unit coordination.
Besides this, the big question is how to actually make Assault Marines distinct from Tacticals. As they're written, they've always been up against Bikers, and Bikes have always had the advantage of toughness and meaningful guns (and Jink/Relentless) all offsetting the loss of one attack. There "technically" was an option to run them with no Jump Packs so they could take a Transport (this was better in 5e, when Rhinos were such a pain to kill), but then this just made them a "Two Specials" Tactical Squad. I've been trying to brainstorm ways to make them more valid, including:
-Letting them take Breacher Shields instead of Jump Packs.
-Letting them drop grenades akin to a Swooping Hawk run.
-Hell, more grenade types period. They would be a far better candidate for Stun Grenades than Reivers (whom show up, going "boogaboogabooga"...but are out of Grenade range anyway).
-Letting them swap out Bolt Pistol&Chainsword for Astartes Shotguns.
What's sad is they aren't even a razorback tax. You can take a transport for each unit. You bring a captain, a librarian, 2 bike squads, 3 dev squads, a storm raven, and you can have 8 razorbacks.
Taking them without a jump pack would be ideal for a drop pod, if they could do more damage and drop pods weren't 70 points too expensive.
Maybe a little off topic but Intercessors perform really good for me. A 10 man unit could use about a 20 point cost drop. Obviously they are a lot better because I use Gulliman but compared to a tactical marine or a scout they are auto include IMO. Like others have said Intersessors are what tactical marines should have been all along. I have no idea why they don't have more weapon options (ESP for the sargent) but that will probably come at some point.
The princible reason that they do well apart from their defense is their AP -1 attacks. It makes them so much more effective against everything! If Tactical marines had ap-1 bolters I would use them. You'd then ofc have to bump Intersessors abilities a little more to compenstate but I'd be open to a 2 PPM drop and just buffing their special weapon options - Aux grenade launcher becomes rapid fire with it's gernade attack and can still shoot it's bolter - stalker bolt rifle goes to str 5 ap-2 heavy 1. Assault bolter goes to assault 3 18" range.
Martel732 wrote: The -1 AP makes them better against all the things I don't need to be better against. I still think intercessors are bad, as are all things primaris.
Compared to Gaurd - everything is bad. Even Guilliman.
Regular marines and scouts. And Stormravens, predators, and Dante. With a few VV mixed in for storm shield goodness. It's all terrible, though, so I don't think it matters. I am undefeated when playing against Primaris. They are REALLY bad.
Interesting - my primaris typically table any space marine I play b the end of turn 3. Again - it's Guilliman doing 50% of the work but if were are talking about what works. Primaris are more survivable and being able to survive means I can continue to buff them. I run 20 hellblasters and 30 intersessors and an ancient plus some HQ and sometimes an apoth. Between the ancient and Guilliman it's damage output is really good.
No one is running Rowboat with primaris where I'm at to get MOAR shots.
I'm actually looking at a list with 16 lascannons to combat this kind of thing. Take away Girlyman's toys, and he's useless. Shooting lascannons at hellblasters is actually really efficient. Turns out, lascannons take away IG toys, too.
My list with 10 lascannons and Dante crippled two Repulsors on my first turn and turned the whole match into a turkey shoot. Primaris marines are REALLY slow. And I've given up on assault.
The problem as always isn't just survivability, but also dps, which is a problem termies have had for a long time now. For 65 points you get 5 ap0 shots or 3 ap-1 shots. At this point you can invest a further 13 points to make one of those ap0 shots plasma, or 15 points to get another ap -1 shot. AP -1 helps make the shot count, but in raw firepower you can potentially kill more with 5 shots than you can with 3.
edit: i forgot the grenade launcher. okay a more useful comparison
for 100 points you get 4 ap-1 shots and 1 grenade shot
or for 93 points you get 4 ap0 shots and 2 plasma shots
And mass lasgun fire still forces their 2+ save. And on top of that, heavy weapon aside they're still only putting out the firepower of a 10 man tactical squad with bolters.
That's why a 5 man dev unit with 4 lascannons is very squishy and you lose a lot of points really fast. The idea of bolter marines supporting the heavy weapons is abstracted into 40k by them being ablative wounds(now that the defender gets to pick wounds again). If you've got 8 devestators then they have to kill 4 marines before they reduce the shooting power of the unit. Then the Sgt is dead so no BS 2 shots, another kill to get a heavy weapon. Even a couple extra marines in the squad in cover protects them from casual shooting or a couple bad rolls from killing a heavy gun.
Yeah, always been a bit true, and as the OP has mentioned it's always been terrible.
If you are a high quality veteran trooper and win an intense close quarters fire fight, you should be able to move more freely. Units should be able to "win" the shooting phase like they win the close combat phase and get a consolidation move.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ablatives can be just about anyone. If you have a good BS, a veteran profile that gives extra attacks in cc, a high-initiative type gun like a pistol, lasgun, catapult, or bolter, strong armor that lets you ignore shrapnel, autosenses from powe armor, and high leadership, you should be better at giving covering fire to your brother on the heavy weapon so he can get a clear shot than any old goof with t4 and a 3+ save, and your shooting should allow you to break cover and charge straight at the enemy because you have made him duck so effectively.
I'd say give the base marine another wound and attack. Adjust for primaris marines too. Then to fix the combat squad part make stratagems affect both parts of the squad and maybe buffs too, sorta like the sarge giving orders to his men even if they are out of range.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the basic bolt gun give it ap -1.
Leave the bolt rifle.
Increase the stalker range to 42"
Special issue as is
Auto bolt rifle assault 3, 24"
Bolt carbine rapid fire 2, 30" ap-1
Bolt storm gauntlet ap-1
Storm bolter with ap-1
Automatically Appended Next Post: I believe this here would make you:
A: consider combat squads over min squads
B: increase their damage output
C: make you reconsider weapon loadouts
This is just swimming in my head cause I'm sick of everything coming from a marine being S4 ap 0 for the most part
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also for a chaplin make anyone with 6" auto pass morale then rerolls hits of 1 in melee within 12" just to give him something over other hqs.
Then for the tech marine strictly reroll hits for vehicles. (It really irks me tech marines don't have a buff)
Here's my thoughts:
I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.
