Astartes Built: Weapons that attack a unit with this rule decrease their AP Characteristic by 1, to a maximum of 0 (e.g. an AP of -1 becomes 0, an AP of -2 becomes -1.)
No. Marines are supposed to be resistant to small arms fire, their armor shouldn't protect them against the heaviest guns. Getting even a 6+ save against a titan-scale weapon is absurd.
A better option, if you want to improve their durability, would be to give them a +1 save bonus against weapons with STR 4 or less. Now you get a 2+ armor save against the hordes of flashlight-armed cannon fodder, but heavy weapons still kill marines.
Mr Morden wrote: Of course it should effect all Power /Terminator Armour users including Chaos Marines, Inquisitors, Sisters, Sisters of Silence..........
How are Sisters of Battle, Inquisitors or, Sisters of Silence "Astartes-built" exactly?
Mr Morden wrote: Of course it should effect all Power /Terminator Armour users including Chaos Marines, Inquisitors, Sisters, Sisters of Silence..........
How are Sisters of Battle, Inquisitors or, Sisters of Silence "Astartes-built" exactly?
I did not realise the name mattered as much as the rule as it seems to be a boost for power armour/terminator armour - although i guess it also effects Dreadnoughts, Centurions etc as currently not specfiying what this rule is for
Hrm....I think it'd be something to check out in a min play test. but I can get onboard with the concept. Power armor right now just doesn't feel *right*
BaconCatBug wrote: Only Power Armoured and Terminator Armoured ASTARTES (of any flavour) would get the rule.
Non-ASTARTES models wouldn't get the rule.
This isn't meant to be a blanket affect all models rule, it's meant to be a rule found on specific datasheets.
Despite the fact that other power armour users get the same protection from the armour - wierd.
But they don't get the combined protection of Astartes physiology and Power Armour, or the Black Carapace. It's easily fluffed as the whole being more than the sum of its parts.
BaconCatBug wrote: Only Power Armoured and Terminator Armoured ASTARTES (of any flavour) would get the rule.
Non-ASTARTES models wouldn't get the rule.
This isn't meant to be a blanket affect all models rule, it's meant to be a rule found on specific datasheets.
Despite the fact that other power armour users get the same protection from the armour - wierd.
But they don't get the combined protection of Astartes physiology and Power Armour, or the Black Carapace. It's easily fluffed as the whole being more than the sum of its parts.
Thats why Marines have Toughness 4 isn't it? And Custodes - they don't get because?
I don't see why it can't be extended to other power armour users - the rule makes sense - the bias implementation does not.
I'd rather this be a Strategem where they make the armor go overboard or something. I dunno. I do like the Lucius trait as a potential one for a Marine Chapter, but as a regular thing they get...nah. The problem is offense, mostly.
Marines need to get out of the grey area of suck. Ether let them be monsters or turn them into power armor hordes. Bonuses that work vs one thing DO NOT help in this game. Oh half the armies in the game are going to be immune to str 4 weapons? Guess I won't take any of those.
The nature of power armor sucking is a result that paying more points for something that can have all of it's strengths nulified by -ap reduces your durability per point - not increases it. Marines just need to flat out increase their armor save by 1 against any weapon that doesn't double their toughness (all astartes infantry) call the rule - "black carapace".
So plasma will still wreck marines - as it should.
Xenomancers wrote: Marines need to get out of the grey area of suck. Ether let them be monsters or turn them into power armor hordes. Bonuses that work vs one thing DO NOT help in this game. Oh half the armies in the game are going to be immune to str 4 weapons? Guess I won't take any of those.
The nature of power armor sucking is a result that paying more points for something that can have all of it's strengths nulified by -ap reduces your durability per point - not increases it. Marines just need to flat out increase their armor save by 1 against any weapon that doesn't double their toughness (all astartes infantry) call the rule - "black carapace".
So plasma will still wreck marines - as it should.
I've actually got some ideas on how to fix parts of the codex. If I get next to a computer I'll post them. I think there is at least a good base, but a lot needs to be actually fixed, so to speak.
Astartes Built: Weapons that attack a unit with this rule decrease their AP Characteristic by 1, to a maximum of 0 (e.g. an AP of -1 becomes 0, an AP of -2 becomes -1.)
I don't thinking making marines mini-custodes (2+ armor save) really addresses any of their problems. A few models need point rebalancing and the old school boltguns probably need a boost, but there really isn't a reason to give them +1 to their armor save and then get surprised when the lack of invul save gets them killed anyway.
A better option, if you want to improve their durability, would be to give them a +1 save bonus against weapons with STR 4 or less. Now you get a 2+ armor save against the hordes of flashlight-armed cannon fodder, but heavy weapons still kill marines.
Astartes Built: Weapons that attack a unit with this rule decrease their AP Characteristic by 1, to a maximum of 0 (e.g. an AP of -1 becomes 0, an AP of -2 becomes -1.)
.....sure, as long as rubrics also get this ability that way my rubrics get astarties built so I get to ignore rend of one, and it only cauases 1 damage? Cool +1 to my save.
Astartes Built: Weapons that attack a unit with this rule decrease their AP Characteristic by 1, to a maximum of 0 (e.g. an AP of -1 becomes 0, an AP of -2 becomes -1.)
.....sure, as long as rubrics also get this ability that way my rubrics get astarties built so I get to ignore rend of one, and it only cauases 1 damage? Cool +1 to my save.
My rubrics get a 3+ on plasma shots thanks lol.
This would apply to all choas PA as well. I think Rubrics used to have a 4++ save rerolling saves of 1. Pretty much the same. Being a PA unit should not mean that you automatically have to suck.
I realize 3+ power armour is kind of a sacred cow for 40k. But TBH, I kind of like a flat +1 to armour saves for all power armor and Terminator armor (with a 1 not being an auto fail). Gives a counter to hoard spam banking on weight of dice to punch above their weight. It also gives us a nice reason to consider melta vs plasma.
I was thinking something similar to this, but only on Terminators, and limiting it to AP-1 and AP-2 weapons. So your save against AP-1 is 2+, AP-2 is 3+, AP-3 (the original Terminator killer) is 5+.
SonofSlamguinius wrote: I realize 3+ power armour is kind of a sacred cow for 40k. But TBH, I kind of like a flat +1 to armour saves for all power armor and Terminator armor (with a 1 not being an auto fail). Gives a counter to hoard spam banking on weight of dice to punch above their weight. It also gives us a nice reason to consider melta vs plasma.
And completely and utterly screws over anyone without an AP value. This was recommended in another thread, and it (specifically NOT failing on 1s with a 1+ armor save, not anything else) is a horrible idea.
Marines would be unkilable by anything without an AP value in cover.
Terminators would be unkillable to even AP-1 guns while in cover.
A 1+ save is fine (essentially negating the first point of AP), not failing on 1s is NOT.
And completely and utterly screws over anyone without an AP value.
Who does not have an AP value?
**Edit** I mean, which armies do not have AP values? I'm well aware that there are a number of units without AP values.
Nurgle Daemons completely lack AP outside of HQs, which either 1) don't want to be in CC with Terminators, since they'll do a little damage, then get pasted, or 2) are GUOs, which suck and get focus fired down very quickly.
That's the only entire army I can name off-hand that lacks AP if you stay in-theme, but there's probably a good deal of army builds that lack large amounts of AP, making it easy to focus down what DOES have AP and would therefore render the Terminators completely immortal.
Nurgle Daemons completely lack AP outside of HQs, which either 1) don't want to be in CC with Terminators, since they'll do a little damage, then get pasted, or 2) are GUOs, which suck and get focus fired down very quickly.
That's the only entire army I can name off-hand that lacks AP if you stay in-theme, but there's probably a good deal of army builds that lack large amounts of AP, making it easy to focus down what DOES have AP and would therefore render the Terminators completely immortal.
Good catch on the nurlge daemons. I was sure you were wrong. However, I think a 1+ save on terminators would still work, even with that niche army not having very much AP. (I'm not sure anyone playing this game actually brings an entire army without anti tank weaponry).
I didn't write this, originally, but I think having the +1 to save would work best vs shooting attacks only, so they would still be able to be harmed in the fight phase. Despite the current trend of needing everything to be able to harm everything, there were many editions when certain units were invulnerable to other units-- yet the game carried on. I don't think we need to go back to an edition style where we have tiers of useless models taking up space, but I think having single type of unit, an expensive unit, against which you have to marshal your heaviest guns.
I'm glad GW has that in their pocket. I think it's a good tool to keep the meta fresh, but, just my preference, in this instance, I'd prefer a solution that makes Marines feel more like the elite fighting force I imagine them to be.
How about instead of throwing on patches, we just make them cheaper for now. Then when Marines get reviewed in an upcoming update (edition 8.1 if it ever happens) GW can just give them 2 wounds or whatever.
I'm glad GW has that in their pocket. I think it's a good tool to keep the meta fresh, but, just my preference, in this instance, I'd prefer a solution that makes Marines feel more like the elite fighting force I imagine them to be.
This post hits the nail on the head. How do we keep them Elite without making them obscene?
Fixing Bolt weapons is a start, and making sure there isn't a lot of redundancy in choices would be the next part
They are more elite than the most elite still-human (in theory). But are they more elite than elite super samurai space elves? Are they more uber than uber-Soccor Hooligans? Are they a better standing army than the super numerous Emperor's Shield? Are they supposed to be more durable than ancient, slow, and unstoppable robot aliens?
Just what niche are they supposed to have?
The problem with saying "they aren't super enough" in this game, is that you're implying they should be more "super" than other factions. The table top isn't supposed to be reprsentative of the typical fight in the distant future - if it were, it'd be horribly one-sided, with one side just nuking the other from orbit, or overrunning at 10k points.
On the tabletop, you're taking your super elite Marines, who are super at every aspect of war (in theory), and facing factions that are super at one aspect or another. It's hard to feel epic when you go up against other equally-epic things. And what faction isn't epic in at least one way?
Durability isn't the problem, it's offense, but you can fix both of these with some stratagems.
1CP - Battle Brothers Use when an ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY unit has been targeted by a ranged attack. For the duration of this phase, units must subtract 1 from their wound rolls when targeting this unit, and the unit improves its save characteristic by 1.
1CP - For the Emperor Use before an ADEPTUS ASTARTES unit is chosen to fight in the fight phase. Add 2 to this units attacks characteristics for the remainder of this phase.
1CP - Rain of Fire Use during the shooting phase. All ADEPTUS ASTARTES boltguns have their strength improved by 2, and automatically hit their targets.
1CP - Focused Fire Use after an ADEPTUS ASTARTES infantry has targeted a unit with a boltgun. All boltguns targeting this unit improve their rapid fire characteristic by 1.
Also change chapter tactics a bit.
Imperial Fists - Improve the strength of Boltgun weapons by 1. Wound rolls of 6 are resolved at AP-2.
White Scars - Units affected by chapter tactics can advance and fire all weapons with no penalty.
Ultramarines - Ultramarines units affected by chapter tactics can shoot all of their weapons while locked in combat as normal. Units cannot fall back from combat with Ultramarines units. Dreadnoughts gain a 4+ invulnerable save.
etc.
Roboute Guilliman needs to be completely reworked. He should bonus all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and IMPERIUM, and also have a phase-by-phase buff he can grant within 12" that works on any ADEPTUS ASTARTES. For example, "in the fight phase, you may nominate an ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY or WALKER within 12" of Roboute Guilliman, models in this unit improve their attack capability by 4, and their strength & toughness by 1." So he's more targeted buffing and not restricted to blue marines.
Should UM Devs really be able to fire their Grav Cannons in CC, for instance?
Should Imperial Fists get the power of both FIre Warrior guns and Eldar guns, at no price point change?
UM could really use a better tactic. Something like units can shoot when falling back - like Fly, no penalty to hit. Or something to enhance their combined-arms engagements.
White Scars could use the shoot-at-minus1 when falling back coupled with "may charge". Not just the "may charge" (and both would be too powerful).
They seem too far until you realize that fire warriors would still have better guns, and have a way longer range with good stratagems to support them. Marines are already more expensive, anyway.
All in all the marine traits are hot garbage across the board. They need massive redesign. Additionally, marines have maybe 2 semi-useful stratagems, those are also garbage.
And Roboute is only good for Ultramarines... and Ultramarines aren't that good, even with him in there.
How about we give every devastator marine a 3 damage, AP-3, strength 8 missile launcher, their PPM cost should be about 20, give them multiple firing modes on that missile launcher, and give them the ability to always hit on a 3+ regardless of modifiers. Also the sergeant can take a 2d6 mortar for a pittance. Sounds like you'd break the game, right? Right?
Fire Warriors with rifles would have +6" range, but no AP vs the pseudo-rending Marines would have. Debatable which of the two is better, but I'd definitely think it's the Marine weapon. Which would still cost a little more, but still be a much better platform.
The RavenGuard trait is good, and the IH trait is ok would be good if it affected vehicles. The rest aren't good, I'd agree.
I'm not arguing that Reapers aren't OP. Further, you're basically making up FUD that doesn't help (it's only AP-2 and about 30ppm, not 20). But if we give Marines the same (even adjusted for the Marine's upsides), now everything else in the game is even *worse* off. Reapers need to be fixed. One-upping them with Marines is a bad idea.
I'm glad GW has that in their pocket. I think it's a good tool to keep the meta fresh, but, just my preference, in this instance, I'd prefer a solution that makes Marines feel more like the elite fighting force I imagine them to be.
It's never been like that, and so I think it's safe to give up on that.
They are more elite than the most elite still-human (in theory). But are they more elite than elite super samurai space elves? Are they more uber than uber-Soccor Hooligans? Are they a better standing army than the super numerous Emperor's Shield? Are they supposed to be more durable than ancient, slow, and unstoppable robot aliens?
Just what niche are they supposed to have?
The problem with saying "they aren't super enough" in this game, is that you're implying they should be more "super" than other factions. The table top isn't supposed to be reprsentative of the typical fight in the distant future - if it were, it'd be horribly one-sided, with one side just nuking the other from orbit, or overrunning at 10k points.
On the tabletop, you're taking your super elite Marines, who are super at every aspect of war (in theory), and facing factions that are super at one aspect or another. It's hard to feel epic when you go up against other equally-epic things. And what faction isn't epic in at least one way?
No, I get that. But realistically, we can all agree that terminators are not worth the points, yeah? I don't think anyone disputes that. The solution is then, either to 1) make them cheaper. Or 2) make them better. If they were to become cheaper, then there would be a higher ratio of terminator to enemy. And what I am saying is that, while that's a good tool for game balance, it doesn't capture the feel (for me) of terminators.
I'm glad GW has that in their pocket. I think it's a good tool to keep the meta fresh, but, just my preference, in this instance, I'd prefer a solution that makes Marines feel more like the elite fighting force I imagine them to be.
It's never been like that, and so I think it's safe to give up on that.
Well... This is the proposed rules forum is it not? This whole thing is basically a huge thought experiment. I harbor no hope that GW is actually reading this post and taking notes from it, so basically, you could say that about any post here. I'm pretty sure we're all just engaging in a little bit of fantasy, same as when sports fans sit around the bar and talk about who the Giants should pick up.
However, if you want some historical perspective, when 3rd edition came out, terminators had a 2+ save and were getting wiped off tables everywhere. So, GW published a rules addendum in White Dwarf giving them the 5+ invulnerable save that they've had ever since.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'd rather this be a Strategem where they make the armor go overboard or something. I dunno. I do like the Lucius trait as a potential one for a Marine Chapter, but as a regular thing they get...nah. The problem is offense, mostly.
So unscalable boost...Nah not everything should be strategems which are horribly unscalable to begin with.
Marmatag wrote: Durability isn't the problem, it's offense, but you can fix both of these with some stratagems.
1CP - Battle Brothers
Use when an ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY unit has been targeted by a ranged attack. For the duration of this phase, units must subtract 1 from their wound rolls when targeting this unit, and the unit improves its save characteristic by 1.
1CP - For the Emperor
Use before an ADEPTUS ASTARTES unit is chosen to fight in the fight phase. Add 2 to this units attacks characteristics for the remainder of this phase.
1CP - Rain of Fire
Use during the shooting phase. All ADEPTUS ASTARTES boltguns have their strength improved by 2, and automatically hit their targets.
1CP - Focused Fire
Use after an ADEPTUS ASTARTES infantry has targeted a unit with a boltgun. All boltguns targeting this unit improve their rapid fire characteristic by 1.
Also change chapter tactics a bit.
Imperial Fists - Improve the strength of Boltgun weapons by 1. Wound rolls of 6 are resolved at AP-2.
White Scars - Units affected by chapter tactics can advance and fire all weapons with no penalty.
Ultramarines - Ultramarines units affected by chapter tactics can shoot all of their weapons while locked in combat as normal. Units cannot fall back from combat with Ultramarines units. Dreadnoughts gain a 4+ invulnerable save.
etc.
Roboute Guilliman needs to be completely reworked. He should bonus all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and IMPERIUM, and also have a phase-by-phase buff he can grant within 12" that works on any ADEPTUS ASTARTES. For example, "in the fight phase, you may nominate an ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY or WALKER within 12" of Roboute Guilliman, models in this unit improve their attack capability by 4, and their strength & toughness by 1." So he's more targeted buffing and not restricted to blue marines.
Yes let's get some eldar level cheese
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or I dunno maybe it's not cheesy. I'm just not used to having more than ATSKNF(which I never use) and falling back at -1 to hit so I don't know what it's like to be broken
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'd rather this be a Strategem where they make the armor go overboard or something. I dunno. I do like the Lucius trait as a potential one for a Marine Chapter, but as a regular thing they get...nah. The problem is offense, mostly.
So unscalable boost...Nah not everything should be strategems which are horribly unscalable to begin with.
Max unit size is 10 most of the time, so basically you either really want to save that MSU or it scales like the Sternguard Strategem does (granted nobody uses it, really). What's the problem here?
Honestly primaris marines are what regular marines should be. Tactical marines with a bolt rifle, 2 wounds, 2 attacks base, and a chain sword standard, with more flexible special/heavy weapon options puts them in a good spot to be both decent in shooting, melee (3 attacks per model hitting on 3+) and more resistant to small arms/high volume of fire weapons. A 3+ armor is fine as is, they just really need another wound. (if you want to keep primaris around give them a 3rd wound and slight buffs to weapons.)
Martel732 wrote: Or just make primaris marines 13 ppm and call it a day.
Now that's a bit absurd. I can see arguments for 17 points, but anything below that is kinda too cheap.
Is it though? They are thoroughly ignorable for half the game, have no transports, no drop pods, no heavy weapons. IG would still stomp 13 ppm primaris into the dirt, because everything they're throwing is multi wound. Or at least, everything they pay more than 4 ppm for is.
If a guardsmen with a lasgun is worth 4 points and a marine with a bolter is worth 13, guardsmen are:
82% better per point at killing T3 5+ in melee and shooting than marines.
62% better per point at killing T4 3+ in melee and shooting than marines.
44% more durable per point vs S2 AP0 than marines
62% more durable per point vs S4 AP0 than marines
95% more durable per point vs S4 AP1 than marines
95% more durable per point vs S5 AP1 than marines
56% more durable per point vs S6 AP1 than marines
The only thing a marine would be more durable per point against would be a S2 AP0 weapon, and i'm not sure any of those even exist.
This shows that the most important stat a infantry unit can have in this edition is a wound. Toughness and saves are currently over-costed, and with the way things are costed, it's better to have them as low as possible.
As weapons get better the durability of higher T or better saves gets lower.
For example:
--AP1 increases the number of failed saves taken by a marine by 50%, but only by 25% for a guardsmen.
--AP3 increases the number of failed saves taken by a marine by 150%, but only by 50% for a guardsmen.
--Going from T3 to T4 reduces your damage from S3 by 33%, S4 by 25%, S5 by 0, S6/7 by 20%, and S8/9/10 by 0.
Having 2 wounds is also not very useful at the current costs. It is priced because it is twice as good as having 1 wound vs 1 damage weapons, but there is a large enough number of high rate of fire 2D guns in the game that this durability is frequently bypassed. 3 or 4 wounds is better, since it triples/quadruple the number of 1D and doubles the number of 2D needed. 3W is the beginning a true durability from wounds, as you need to use heavy weapons or a large numbers of shots to take them down. A las cannon or missile launcher averages 3.5 damage per wound, so anything with more than 5 wounds is likely to require two heavy weapon shots, and D6 damage guns frequently have a very low rate of fire, so this is true one model durability.
Invul saves are also good, because they bypass the AP issue.
This is why almost anything in the game right that is supposed to be durable but doesn't have a 3 or 4+ invul and/or 4+ wounds just isn't in a great place right now. They pay a lot for wounds, high toughness, and good saves, but those all tend to have fairly high diminishing returns.
If a guardsmen with a lasgun is worth 4 points and a marine with a bolter is worth 13, guardsmen are:
82% better per point at killing T3 5+ in melee and shooting than marines.
62% better per point at killing T4 3+ in melee and shooting than marines.
44% more durable per point vs S2 AP0 than marines
62% more durable per point vs S4 AP0 than marines
95% more durable per point vs S4 AP1 than marines
95% more durable per point vs S5 AP1 than marines
56% more durable per point vs S6 AP1 than marines
The only thing a marine would be more durable per point against would be a S2 AP0 weapon, and i'm not sure any of those even exist.
This shows that the most important stat a infantry unit can have in this edition is a wound. Toughness and saves are currently over-costed, and with the way things are costed, it's better to have them as low as possible.
As weapons get better the durability of higher T or better saves gets lower.
For example:
--AP1 increases the number of failed saves taken by a marine by 50%, but only by 25% for a guardsmen.
--AP3 increases the number of failed saves taken by a marine by 150%, but only by 50% for a guardsmen.
--Going from T3 to T4 reduces your damage from S3 by 33%, S4 by 25%, S5 by 0, S6/7 by 20%, and S8/9/10 by 0.
Having 2 wounds is also not very useful at the current costs. It is priced because it is twice as good as having 1 wound vs 1 damage weapons, but there is a large enough number of high rate of fire 2D guns in the game that this durability is frequently bypassed. 3 or 4 wounds is better, since it triples/quadruple the number of 1D and doubles the number of 2D needed. 3W is the beginning a true durability from wounds, as you need to use heavy weapons or a large numbers of shots to take them down. A las cannon or missile launcher averages 3.5 damage per wound, so anything with more than 5 wounds is likely to require two heavy weapon shots, and D6 damage guns frequently have a very low rate of fire, so this is true one model durability.
Invul saves are also good, because they bypass the AP issue.
This is why almost anything in the game right that is supposed to be durable but doesn't have a 3 or 4+ invul and/or 4+ wounds just isn't in a great place right now. They pay a lot for wounds, high toughness, and good saves, but those all tend to have fairly high diminishing returns.
Have you considered sending away your math to that email GW uses for rule suggestions?
Should come up with armor classes. Space marines would have plate armor and terminators would have heavy plate. And each weapon would be able to defeat certain classes of armor with an unmodified roll. Or modified roll if it has a very small chance of penetration. I was gonna create a realistic weapon vs armor system. Because the game is optimized to play fast. But some people would use house rules for added realism
jcd386 wrote: This shows that the most important stat a infantry unit can have in this edition is a wound.
This is precisely why every non-AM players say AM is top tier (admittedly no longer OP tier) because they have access to cheapest wounds that actually do stuff.
Also, to add, having 3 individual 1W model is more durable than a single 3W model due to how damages don't spill over.
Was looking at DKoK, in particular the "Augmented Mount" rule. This would be such an easy implementation to give marines across the board some decent durability buff as well as equalizing the number of dice rolled for 'elite' armies. The rule could be something like:
Astartes Built - roll a d6 everytime this model suffers a wound from attacks with strength 4 or less. On a 5+, it ignores the injury and the wound is not lost.
Peregrine wrote: No. Marines are supposed to be resistant to small arms fire, their armor shouldn't protect them against the heaviest guns. Getting even a 6+ save against a titan-scale weapon is absurd.
A better option, if you want to improve their durability, would be to give them a +1 save bonus against weapons with STR 4 or less. Now you get a 2+ armor save against the hordes of flashlight-armed cannon fodder, but heavy weapons still kill marines.
Dude - the whole game is absurd. You have 8 point wracks with 4++ saves blocking volcano cannons but a marine gets no save. Both should die true but if a wrack is getting a 4++ - what should a marine get?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: I apologize in advance for this pseudo-necro.
Was looking at DKoK, in particular the "Augmented Mount" rule. This would be such an easy implementation to give marines across the board some decent durability buff as well as equalizing the number of dice rolled for 'elite' armies. The rule could be something like:
Astartes Built - roll a d6 everytime this model suffers a wound from attacks with ztrength 4 or less. On a 5+, it ignores the injury and the wound is not lost.
Just give them 5+++ all the time. Vs str 4 is meaningless. Marines can already get a 2+ save from most str 4 weapons anyways - it's special weapons that remove them far too easily. Consdiering about half the guns in your opponents army are special weapons.
I gotta agree with Xeno, I'm not losing many Marines to mass splinter fire, I'm losing them to disintegrater shots or blasters, Lance's and such.
Over in one of the GK threads someone said Robin Cruddance said they were gonna look at changing the earlier codexes in this chapter approved. I hope it's true and I hope they talk about it long before they release it, A: because I can't wait and B: if it sucks we could say something lol
Martel732 wrote: Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about.
With a 2+ save in cover 40 bolter shots is about equivalent to 6 plasma shots (the plasma is better) if it's primaris marines with 2 wounds - now we are in the realm of 80 bolter shots to 6 plasma shots.
40 marines with bolters do the damage of 3 sterngaurd with plasma shooting into cover against primaris marines. Str 4 is not the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Only if you consider the cheaper GEQs, per point, and no cover.
Take an average GEQ or go per model or allow cover, and it's very different.
Once again, DAs give up nearly *twice* the points per hit from S4AP0.
It's just horde GEQs who's schtick is being points-efficient wounds who don't.
Please don't start talking about DA. They suck too - they and most aspect warriors can join the we suck crew - they should all get a real buff. Dire avengers should probably all have 4++ saves with 3 shot avenger cat at 12 points.
If only Marines could ignore cover? Maybe they could do some homebrew chapter with some tactics? Maybe call them Imperial Fists? Maybe a different name, as that's too close to Iron Hands.
At any rate, a 6ppm Kab at t3 5+ no FnP still gives up more points than a 13ppm Tac marine at t3 3+. Without considering cover. With considering cover, Tac Marines are scary good at tanking S4AP0. The no-FnP thing is kinda a stretch, though - which is why I listed them last.
There are a lot of GEQ that aren't Guardsmen. All the other GEQ on that list will typically give up more points per hit of S4 than Marines.
Because ignoring cover against drukhari is so useful.
Only marines have to cower in cover to pretend to be cost effective. Imperials have all kinds of stuff good at hosing other imperials, but largely suck vs xenos. See: melta.
There is one geq: guardsmen. The others have signficant divergences. But now this is semantics. But t3 != geq.
When the point is "they're more points-efficient then all these GEQ outside cover", claiming they have to cower in cover isn't a solid path to refute the claim.
They're still not more efficient because they have fewer shots of their own. And they suffer disproportionately from any amount of ap. Any given opponent doesn't care how fast your marines die if they can be ignored in the first place.
Bharring wrote: If only Marines could ignore cover? Maybe they could do some homebrew chapter with some tactics? Maybe call them Imperial Fists? Maybe a different name, as that's too close to Iron Hands.
At any rate, a 6ppm Kab at t3 5+ no FnP still gives up more points than a 13ppm Tac marine at t3 3+. Without considering cover. With considering cover, Tac Marines are scary good at tanking S4AP0. The no-FnP thing is kinda a stretch, though - which is why I listed them last.
There are a lot of GEQ that aren't Guardsmen. All the other GEQ on that list will typically give up more points per hit of S4 than Marines.
I have long argued that the imperial fist have one of the best chapter tactics in the codex - the message got lost somewhere inbetween people arguing that cover is useless when it is in fact more effective now than it has ever been.. Unfortunately - space marines don't get 3 in one chapter tactics like flayed skull...reroll 1's/ ignore cover/ plus bonus move speed. Like holy gak man. Why do I have to explain to people that getting 3 army traits (really 4 because power from pain is army wide too *don't even mention ATSKNF*) is better than getting 1. lol. Plus it applies to all their units! Like come on man.
Have you seen Urien Rakarths buff? The dude costs like 80 points and gives out a +1s +1t +1a bubble and his army trait is +1 to invo save...WHAT THE ACTUAL GAK? That's better than guillimans aura at that price.
Martel732 wrote: Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about.
This. The point of the buff isn't to make MEQ's more resilient to anti-MEQ weapons. Anti-MEQs SHOULD be doing decent damage aginst MEQs - afterall, that's the point of those weapons.
Specifically:
"Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about."
is what I was refuting. I was not claiming that Tacs are the best troops. I was correcting an inaccurate statement. Tacs take less damage from S4 AP0 than many GEQs. Even outside of cover. I've even listed a bunch of them.
This is why these threads always go so sideways. A claim gets made. It gets refuted. The refutation is assumed to claim any given person's favorite strawman, and that rebuttle supposedly reinforces the original claim.
Martel732 wrote: Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about.
This. The point of the buff isn't to make MEQ's more resilient to anti-MEQ weapons. Anti-MEQs SHOULD be doing decent damage aginst MEQs - afterall, that's the point of those weapons.
currently anything with -1 ap or more or ignore cover is an anti meq weapon.
Bharring wrote: Does that count as moving goalposts or strawmen?
Specifically:
"Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about."
is what I was refuting. I was not claiming that Tacs are the best troops. I was correcting an inaccurate statement. Tacs take less damage from S4 AP0 than many GEQs. Even outside of cover. I've even listed a bunch of them.
This is why these threads always go so sideways. A claim gets made. It gets refuted. The refutation is assumed to claim any given person's favorite strawman, and that rebuttle supposedly reinforces the original claim.
So you are technically correct, but its such a moot point i moved past it. Sorry. I would also argue those aren't geqs. But semantics.
Bharring wrote: Does that count as moving goalposts or strawmen?
Specifically:
"Meqs take more damage from str 4 ap 0 than geqs. So i don't know what people are talking about."
is what I was refuting. I was not claiming that Tacs are the best troops. I was correcting an inaccurate statement. Tacs take less damage from S4 AP0 than many GEQs. Even outside of cover. I've even listed a bunch of them.
This is why these threads always go so sideways. A claim gets made. It gets refuted. The refutation is assumed to claim any given person's favorite strawman, and that rebuttle supposedly reinforces the original claim.
I agree with you. Marines do pretty well against other troops - primaris do great against other troops. The probelms is they don't ever get a chance to fight other troops because everything special kills them TOO EASY - lots of weapons treat a marine like a GEQ - THAT is the problem. I'm not suggesting that only tacticals get this fix ether - any 3+ or 4+ save model that is over 12 points needs to have something like this astrates built rule. It is a fundamental problem of point costs / and the d6 system being unable to really differentiate between 4 point models and 13 point ones - we have to cover the gaps with special rules.
Oh, yeah, escalation of firepower is probably the root of all evil in the game.
My "ideal" balance level would revolve around Marines and Boltguns. I feel like their stats and killiness are correct when compared against "basic humans" and "basic Eldar" and "basic Orkz". But you're never facing those - you're always facing "thing +1".
It's part of why I'm so resistant to "solving" the problem by just upping Marines' killiness.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you were to nerf all those "anti-Meq" too-good weapons, wouldn't that inherently buff Tacs?
Bharring wrote: Oh, yeah, escalation of firepower is probably the root of all evil in the game.
My "ideal" balance level would revolve around Marines and Boltguns. I feel like their stats and killiness are correct when compared against "basic humans" and "basic Eldar" and "basic Orkz". But you're never facing those - you're always facing "thing +1".
It's part of why I'm so resistant to "solving" the problem by just upping Marines' killiness.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you were to nerf all those "anti-Meq" too-good weapons, wouldn't that inherently buff Tacs?
It would solve their defense problem - which is the main problem I have with marines - they still have a mobility problem too though.
Bharring wrote: Oh, yeah, escalation of firepower is probably the root of all evil in the game.
My "ideal" balance level would revolve around Marines and Boltguns. I feel like their stats and killiness are correct when compared against "basic humans" and "basic Eldar" and "basic Orkz". But you're never facing those - you're always facing "thing +1".
It's part of why I'm so resistant to "solving" the problem by just upping Marines' killiness.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you were to nerf all those "anti-Meq" too-good weapons, wouldn't that inherently buff Tacs?
Yes, it would, but it's FAR easier to just accept the fragility of marines and cost them accordingly. That, and make them more of a dpr unit. Remember marine troops have to take on heavies and elites from the specialist armies because those armies aren't spending on troops themselves.
Troop vs troop comparisons are largely useless. Guardsmen are just there to die, Kabalites are always in a boat, etc. Lists are designed to minimize troops and maximize offense very frequently.
Bharring wrote: Only if you consider the cheaper GEQs, per point, and no cover.
Take an average GEQ or go per model or allow cover, and it's very different.
Once again, DAs give up nearly *twice* the points per hit from S4AP0.
It's just horde GEQs who's schtick is being points-efficient wounds who don't.
Per point is kinda the issue there, along with the offensive firepower they give as well. The bare bones Tactical Marine squad is 65 points. That's several configurations with an Infantry Squad.
The whole point is, there are plethora of weapons that outright kill marines, both 1W and 2W versions - S4 and below should not be one of them.
DKoK example serves as a precedent for a particular rule that already exists that doesnt necessarilly break the game.
If tacs served as a meat shields against the plasma shots that were meant to be for something else, they would have done FAR MORE than the weight they carry now. Right now, tacs can be dealt with leftover S3/4 shots.
Also, s4 from a necron blob with thy will be done and tbe extra ap trait is terrifying for marines, and just another day for geqs. Not all s4 is the same.
Also note that eldar infantry is currenty awful as well.
Maybe I just don't run into a lot of Necron blobs with S4AP0 after popping the extra AP trait. But I suspect most people don't run into Necron blobs doing S4AP0. As in, that's not the rules.
I wasn't taking about AP 0. I was talking about AP -2. AP0 is becomingly rare, and increasingly a poor measuring stick. But I suppose we covered that, too.
The upgunning is real. Ignore cover is real (the vanilla guys are beginning to rethink Imperial fists after see how nuts Flayed skull is). Imperial lists having a guard battalion EVERY time is real. This makes guardsmen the measuring stick not other T3 dum dums. In this context, even what few "advantages" we are talking here for marines seem to be fading.
The other t3 models just aren't that relevant. I'm not counting kabalites, as they are always in a boat that they can shoot out of, so they are effectively t5.
Kabalites have crushed my hopes that guardsmen will be rebalanced, leaving cheap marines as the last option. When disintegrators are 15 pts, can you blame me?
As for eldar, i've seen many lists now that bring zero troops and roll with 6 cp.
They should’ve kept the AP for weapons and then given rerolls against anything without adequate penetration to show how difficult it is for a lasgun to pierce terminator armor. A 1 out of 6 chance of being wounded by a lasgun in terminator armor is ridiculous. You must use armor piercing ammo type weapons for those kinds of targets
They should’ve kept the AP for weapons and then given rerolls against anything without adequate penetration to show how difficult it is for a lasgun to pierce terminator armor. A 1 out of 6 chance of being wounded by a lasgun in terminator armor is ridiculous. You must use armor piercing ammo type weapons for those kinds of targets
Except it's not 1/6, it's 2.7% (or 1/36) because 99% of Lasguns you'll have fired at you are BS4+. I agree that's still too high. Terminators should get to re-roll failed saves, or use a D12 for their saves.
Insectum7 wrote: Thats 40 guardsmen rapid firing to kill 1 terminator. That sure sounds like a lot.
That's because they're already durable to more weapons compared to last edition. This is why they need the buff to offense. It's like people here want the individual to be as durable as a Land Raider, and that's why most of the people here shouldn't be Rules writers.
Since EVERY time we start talking about marines. We come back to "Guard do it better!" that tells me that Guard need to be rebalanced. Some troops are simply just too damn cheap as GW keeps bloating out how many models you need to field an army. Honestly, I think the best way is making everyone more expensive everywhere for every army.
That, and the MEQ statline needs to rediscover a sense of purpose. Ignoring the first point of AP on any attack is a good step. Doesn't help vs basic infantry, but it helps save them against the horrendeously underpriced special weapons some armies field.
Insectum7 wrote: Thats 40 guardsmen rapid firing to kill 1 terminator. That sure sounds like a lot.
That's because they're already durable to more weapons compared to last edition. This is why they need the buff to offense. It's like people here want the individual to be as durable as a Land Raider, and that's why most of the people here shouldn't be Rules writers.
I generally agree with that assessment. Buffs to marines ought to be in the form of offense, not defense. It's not being killed by guardsmen that feels off, but the killing of them. Guard are tougher than they ever have been, historically speaking. In some respects I think that's ok, since we now see lots of them on the table, which is great. But I would expect them to die a little faster. It wouldn't take much, honestly. Imo there's a sweet spot that's not too far from what we have.
The bolters with -1 AP isn't a good solution for it, since as some have pointed out that makes marines immediately less durable.
You could drop the guardsman save to 6+, although it is nice to see them on the table and I think that might be too heavy a hit for guard players.
Your notion of the Terminators WSBS of 2+ I like. Although it doesn't really help the basic marines.
But we have this category of weapons which used to absolutely murder GEQ, but that feels like an almost complete waste now, which is flamers. If we can get flamers in the right place it would help a lot, imo. No, it wouldn't improve the basic marine, but it would help the ability of the basic marine squad. It's maybe not the fix people are looking for, but it sure seems like low-hanging fruit. I think most people can agree that flamers aren't up to snuff.
I'd also tentatively put Whirlwinds in a similar category. They've felt way more effective vs. GEQ in the past.
Tldr: It seems easier to improve some specialized tools that don't appear to work as intended, rather than make sweeping changes to the most popular unit type in the game.
Insectum7 wrote: Thats 40 guardsmen rapid firing to kill 1 terminator. That sure sounds like a lot.
That's because they're already durable to more weapons compared to last edition. This is why they need the buff to offense. It's like people here want the individual to be as durable as a Land Raider, and that's why most of the people here shouldn't be Rules writers.
I generally agree with that assessment. Buffs to marines ought to be in the form of offense, not defense. It's not being killed by guardsmen that feels off, but the killing of them. Guard are tougher than they ever have been, historically speaking. In some respects I think that's ok, since we now see lots of them on the table, which is great. But I would expect them to die a little faster. It wouldn't take much, honestly. Imo there's a sweet spot that's not too far from what we have.
The bolters with -1 AP isn't a good solution for it, since as some have pointed out that makes marines immediately less durable.
You could drop the guardsman save to 6+, although it is nice to see them on the table and I think that might be too heavy a hit for guard players.
Your notion of the Terminators WSBS of 2+ I like. Although it doesn't really help the basic marines.
But we have this category of weapons which used to absolutely murder GEQ, but that feels like an almost complete waste now, which is flamers. If we can get flamers in the right place it would help a lot, imo. No, it wouldn't improve the basic marine, but it would help the ability of the basic marine squad. It's maybe not the fix people are looking for, but it sure seems like low-hanging fruit. I think most people can agree that flamers aren't up to snuff.
I'd also tentatively put Whirlwinds in a similar category. They've felt way more effective vs. GEQ in the past.
Tldr: It seems easier to improve some specialized tools that don't appear to work as intended, rather than make sweeping changes to the most popular unit type in the game.
Honestly the basic Marine profile is easy to fix, and the issue is most people REALLY overthink it. As you've seen, I'm mostly conservative with my fixes as big as they might be.
1. Anything with a Bolter goes down 1 point
2. Bolters are now 1 point
3. Bolt Weapons gain a special rule (I keep plugging my idea of a 6 to wound forces opponents to reroll successful saves or just successful saves of 6+), and then Storm Bolters can maybe go to 3 points
4. Tactical Marines gain a new weapon at 7 man squads
So the loadout in a 10 man squad is 6 Bolters, either 2 Special/1 Heavy or 1 Special/2 Heavy, and then however you equip the sergeant.
Problem is that Deathwatch Intercessors completely threw off my fixes, and honestly Deathwatch did in general outside a couple of internal issues that really don't need fixing.
I know some people disagreed with my idea of Sternguard getting BS2+ and Vanguard getting WS2+ as well, but I don't think the idea is bad as long as the price is correct. It also gives them a role outside Command Squads doing everything better and more importantly makes the varying loadouts be able to function on some level. Simply put, you don't take Power Fists on Vanguard because 2 attacks at 4+ is just...bad.
Chaos Marines are a different story and as we all know I'm for deleting the Vanilla Marine entry completely and making the standard troop for them, and giving Havocs the Vet statline.
Just throwing this out there:
-Rapid fire drill: Add one to the number of attacks made with boltguns while within half range.
(applies to all marines with boltguns)
The idea being that more shots is preferable to better shots against GEQ since better AP tends to hurt MEQ more.
Dandelion wrote: Just throwing this out there:
-Rapid fire drill: Add one to the number of attacks made with boltguns while within half range.
(applies to all marines with boltguns)
The idea being that more shots is preferable to better shots against GEQ since better AP tends to hurt MEQ more.
I have to say thats a no to that idea from me as your just turning marines into firewarriors and it's not a good way to go.
Marines do need more damage output but turning them into firewarriors takes away thier thing. Another option is to give them the eldar treatment and allow them to always shoot thier pistols in addition to normal weapons. It would also give them a bonus of being able to advance and still shoot pistols.
Dandelion wrote: Just throwing this out there:
-Rapid fire drill: Add one to the number of attacks made with boltguns while within half range.
(applies to all marines with boltguns)
The idea being that more shots is preferable to better shots against GEQ since better AP tends to hurt MEQ more.
I have to say thats a no to that idea from me as your just turning marines into firewarriors and it's not a good way to go.
Marines do need more damage output but turning them into firewarriors takes away thier thing. Another option is to give them the eldar treatment and allow them to always shoot thier pistols in addition to normal weapons. It would also give them a bonus of being able to advance and still shoot pistols.
You can't advance and fire pistols at all.
Though I don't see how this turns marines into firewarriors. Would giving them the eldar treatment just make them eldar? Wasn't "rapid fire" a marine thing way back anyway? So if anything this brings them back to their roots a bit.
Also Tau need fireblades to get the ability whereas this would just be a built in ability for tactical marines so it is functionally different already.
Still, giving marines the ability to fire pistols in addition to their guns would have the same effect (3 bolt shots within 12") so what's the point in making it complicated?
Dandelion wrote: Just throwing this out there:
-Rapid fire drill: Add one to the number of attacks made with boltguns while within half range.
(applies to all marines with boltguns)
The idea being that more shots is preferable to better shots against GEQ since better AP tends to hurt MEQ more.
I have to say thats a no to that idea from me as your just turning marines into firewarriors and it's not a good way to go.
Marines do need more damage output but turning them into firewarriors takes away thier thing. Another option is to give them the eldar treatment and allow them to always shoot thier pistols in addition to normal weapons. It would also give them a bonus of being able to advance and still shoot pistols.
You can't advance and fire pistols at all.
Though I don't see how this turns marines into firewarriors. Would giving them the eldar treatment just make them eldar? Wasn't "rapid fire" a marine thing way back anyway? So if anything this brings them back to their roots a bit.
Also Tau need fireblades to get the ability whereas this would just be a built in ability for tactical marines so it is functionally different already.
Still, giving marines the ability to fire pistols in addition to their guns would have the same effect (3 bolt shots within 12") so what's the point in making it complicated?
I know you normally can't advance and fire pistols thats what I was getting at, you also usually can't shoot another weapon and a pistol at the same time either. I was pointing out it has some additional benifits.
The eldar treatment is a reference to them being able to ignore a core rule of 40k something GW as consistently given eldar rules to do.
Its not functionally different its functionally identical, the only difference is how you acess the bonus. Much like wisdom of the ancients vrs a captain, both grant you reroll 1's to hit.
So how does your rule interact with infernal bolters of rubrics.
Deathguards 18 rapid fire range ability?
Also what counts as a boltgun? Are storm bolter, heavy bolter, stalker bolt rifle, special issue boltgun, bolt carbines, assault bolter, auto boltstorm guantlets, auto bolt rifle, bolt rifle, boltstorm gauntlet, hurricane bolter?
Allowing them to always shot pistols in addition to any other weapon the may fire, keeps the rule very short and sweet, doesn't have to manage odd interactions with other traits and it also means marines upclose and personal, have an advantage over other armies, like being able to shot your pistol even when you fall back from combat makes aggressive tac squads mixing it at sub 12 inchs better they can punch people and shoot them and if they survive the CC with a scary counter charge unit they can fallback and still contribute. Meaning its more likely they get played aggressively, and they are more likely to use the CC stats they are paying for, as your not risking total shooting phase loss for weak CC ability.
I know you normally can't advance and fire pistols thats what I was getting at, you also usually shoot another weapon and a pistol at the same time either. I was pointing out it has some additional benifits.
Its not functionally different its functionally identical, the only difference is how you acess the bonus. Much like wisdom of the ancients vrs a captain, both grant you reroll 1's to hit.
It is a major difference and affects how they play. Not needing to stay close to a character gives marines an edge. There are plenty of abilities that are similar anyway, so I don't see how this one similarity causes marines to suddenly play exactly like FW.
So how does your rule interact with infernal bolters of rubrics.
Deathguards 18 rapid fire range ability?
It doesn't because it's a unit ability, and plague marines/rubrics would not have it in the first place. They could have a similar one, but it would be specific to them.
Also what counts as a boltgun? Are storm bolter, heavy bolter, stalker bolt rifle, special issue boltgun, bolt carbines, assault bolter, auto boltstorm guantlets, auto bolt rifle, bolt rifle, boltstorm gauntlet, hurricane bolter?
Literally just boltguns. I didn't say "bolt weapons".
Allowing them to always shot pistols in addition to any other weapon the may fire, keeps the rule very short and sweet, doesn't have to manage odd interactions with other traits and it also means marines upclose and personal, have and advantage over other armies, like being able to shot your pistol even when you fall back from combat make agress tac squads mixing it at sub 12 inchs can punch people and shoot them and if they survive the CC with a scary thing can fallback and still contribute. Meaning its more likely they get played aggressively, and they are morr likely to use the CC stats they are paying for, as your not risking total shooting phase loss for weak CC ability.
Nope, sorry. I can't get behind the pistol + heavy bolter firing at the same time. Shooting a gun and pistol at the same time doesn't make sense and feels wrong. "let me just shoot this heavy bolter one handed while I pull out my pistol."
Just give boltguns more shots and all of a sudden they are useful and not just paperweights. This whole thread is about fixing boltguns, not plasmaguns or CC. Giving plasma an extra bolt shot, or worse, and extra plasma shot, is unneeded imo. CC can be fixed with free bolt pistols/+1 attack and doesn't require ignoring any rules.
You also can't shoot pistols after falling back. Unless this is yet another exception?
Though I do think most infantry should just come standard with pistols regardless but that's another discussion.
If you're looking to beef up boltguns a bit, there was a thread about that a while ago; for that I suggested that all bolter weapons get the following ability:
For each hit roll of 6, this weapon inflicts two hits instead of one.
This is more general than extra shots at short range, but I think reflect boltguns quite well, as it's intended represent extra hits from the explosive bolts, shrapnel, through and throughs etc.
Of course this would apply to all units with bolter weapons, not just marines.
Haravikk wrote: If you're looking to beef up boltguns a bit, there was a thread about that a while ago; for that I suggested that all bolter weapons get the following ability:
For each hit roll of 6, this weapon inflicts two hits instead of one.
This is more general than extra shots at short range, but I think reflect boltguns quite well, as it's intended represent extra hits from the explosive bolts, shrapnel, through and throughs etc.
Of course this would apply to all units with bolter weapons, not just marines.
The problem is not the boltguns themselves, it's the marines holding them. To a sister or guardsmen the boltgun is actually pretty good.
Shooting Bolt Pistols in addition to the bolter etc. feels terrible from an imagery standpoint, and arguably 40Ks most valuable commodity is imagery.
I like the "Return to Rapid Fire" concept that gets posted now and again. Very traditional, keeps it to Marines. Personally I like a blanket "Extra Shot" if not moving, so 3 at 12" and 2 at 24".
Haravikk wrote: If you're looking to beef up boltguns a bit, there was a thread about that a while ago; for that I suggested that all bolter weapons get the following ability:
For each hit roll of 6, this weapon inflicts two hits instead of one.
This is more general than extra shots at short range, but I think reflect boltguns quite well, as it's intended represent extra hits from the explosive bolts, shrapnel, through and throughs etc.
Of course this would apply to all units with bolter weapons, not just marines.
I figured the rerolling of a save reflected that a bit better to be honest but I'm not opposed to the extra hit. I just don't think it works for fluff as well. Mechanically...eh.
Insectum7 wrote: Thats 40 guardsmen rapid firing to kill 1 terminator. That sure sounds like a lot.
That same 40 gaurdsmen kills almost 5 marines. And realistically each one of those squads is going to be shooting twice....
It takes 80 shots to get the kill. Or are you saying everybody is FRFSRFing? Because I'm not so sure that's realistic.
The situation as it currently stands is it takes 18-19 lasgun shots to average a kill on a normal marine not in cover. The idea that it takes about 10 normal guardsmen to bring a marine down at close range seems perfectly reasonable. Like I could read that in a 40k story and it would be fine. The issue is the feeling that the return fire isn't as threatening as it should be.
Better stratagems could improve offensive capability, but risk creating a band-aid approach to solving the problem. However, they can be easier to implement than stat changes or special rules.
For instance, the Bolter Dill stratagem could be updated to be usable by all chapters, but changed so that it adds 1 to the number of shots on bolt weapons.
Here's one that I was thinking could replace the poor tactical flexibility stratagem;
Tactical Flexibility 1CP
When using this stratagem, a Tactical Squad or Intercessor Squad may choose one of the following during the phase or turn specified;
--In your Shooting phase, up to 2 models may shoot twice this turn, but must fire at the same target (can be a separate target for each model). May not use with bolter drill.
--In your Shooting phase, all models in the unit may throw a grenade this turn.
--In the opponent's Charge phase, this units' overwatch hits on 5+ until the end of the opponent's turn.
--In your Movement phase, this unit may fall back and still shoot, but subtract 1 from hit rolls this turn (ultramarines ignore hit penalty).
--At the end of your turn, if this unit secures an objective marker (defend or secure objectives) roll a D6, on a 3+ score an extra VP.
Dandelion wrote: The problem is not the boltguns themselves, it's the marines holding them. To a sister or guardsmen the boltgun is actually pretty good.
It's good for the marines too, the problem is that the marines need more than just for boltguns to be improved in line with similar weapons. I definitely do think they need more durability as well; my personal preference is to make 2 wounds and 2 attacks the basic statline, and aim for 16 points or so basic. I've always favoured marines being more expensive, and hate that they're gradually getting cheaper. With two wounds you don't gain any firepower, but you lose it at a slower rate against most weapons, while two attacks emphasises that they're not a gun-line army and shouldn't worry so much about engaging things in combat.
So yeah, I'm not saying boltguns are the only fix, just pointing out an alternative fix to boltguns being a touch too weak. I don't think any fix to marines should focus on their weapons or armour, as it will only raise questions of why other units with the same equipment don't get it.
One other possibility is to make marines a little more mobile; I had hoped that with the return of movement values we'd actually see regular humans get a bit slower, but that didn't happen. Marines however are tall, and their power armour with black carapace specifically enables them to move almost completely unencumbered while wearing it, so being a tiny big faster could make sense on that basis, but I think we've probably missed the opportunity to do it this edition as really it should have been done by making basic human movement 5".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I figured the rerolling of a save reflected that a bit better to be honest but I'm not opposed to the extra hit. I just don't think it works for fluff as well. Mechanically...eh.
Well part of the problem people were arguing on that thread is that boltguns (or perhaps generally units equipped with them) aren't great at dealing with big hordes, so the extra hit is partly to offset that. I do think it works fluff-wise though; the idea here is that you're hitting targets other than those you were specifically aiming at, so more hits is a more direct way to do it. Changes that affect saves suggest more that the bolts are armour piercing but blasts are really about splash damage so IMO the hits make a bit more sense, but I'm obviously very biased
Dandelion wrote: The problem is not the boltguns themselves, it's the marines holding them. To a sister or guardsmen the boltgun is actually pretty good.
Sisters units are based around their special weapons - bolters were only relevant in the 3e book. Guardsmen are based around being cheap, numerous, and getting lots and lots of shots.
It's good for the marines too, the problem is that the marines need more than just for boltguns to be improved in line with similar weapons. I definitely do think they need more durability as well; my personal preference is to make 2 wounds and 2 attacks the basic statline, and aim for 16 points or so basic. I've always favoured marines being more expensive, and hate that they're gradually getting cheaper. With two wounds you don't gain any firepower, but you lose it at a slower rate against most weapons, while two attacks emphasises that they're not a gun-line army and shouldn't worry so much about engaging things in combat.
This is partially due to the set-back of making the primaris marine separate from standard marines. Instead of updating the old model and the statline to 8th, they've left it to linger and die. More and more I'm starting to realize, the primaris profile is what marines should have in this edition. Of course, there are problems with primaris, but those would be easier to fix than fixing both them and standard marines.
Dandelion wrote: How about instead of throwing on patches, we just make them cheaper for now. Then when Marines get reviewed in an upcoming update (edition 8.1 if it ever happens) GW can just give them 2 wounds or whatever.
That is our long-time aspiration as SM players. In 8th we first got screwed by the new AP system, then Primaris just straight up replaced classic Marines on GW's game design plans for the future. We will never have our beloved MkVII armor to be as it should. I have discussed this with friends many times, and we are considering to just play Marines as Primaris, but using the regular units. So we could have Tacticals with 2W, -1AP bolter and combi weapons. Also let them ride in Rhinos. This is quite a fair solution IMO, as you have quite a capable Elite army, lore-friendly and very costly in points.
jcd386 wrote: Yeah any comparison between sisters and Marines only shows even clearer how terrible Marines are.
Before or after you give marines plasma guns? The sisters are pretty limited in gear.
It doesn't matter, because a marine with a plasma gun is still less cost effective than a sister of battle. 26 pt models with one wound and only a 3+ save are not good. Oh, and they can kill themselves, too. If plasma guns were free, you'd have a point.
Dandelion wrote: The problem is not the boltguns themselves, it's the marines holding them. To a sister or guardsmen the boltgun is actually pretty good.
Sisters units are based around their special weapons - bolters were only relevant in the 3e book. Guardsmen are based around being cheap, numerous, and getting lots and lots of shots.
The problem I am referring to is that making boltguns better would also make guard and sisters better, even though they are fine currently. A sister would still have the same damage output of a marine for only 9 pts.
So giving marines more shots due to skills/training would bring their output in line with their points.
Dandelion wrote: The problem is not the boltguns themselves, it's the marines holding them. To a sister or guardsmen the boltgun is actually pretty good.
It's good for the marines too, the problem is that the marines need more than just for boltguns to be improved in line with similar weapons. I definitely do think they need more durability as well; my personal preference is to make 2 wounds and 2 attacks the basic statline, and aim for 16 points or so basic. I've always favoured marines being more expensive, and hate that they're gradually getting cheaper. With two wounds you don't gain any firepower, but you lose it at a slower rate against most weapons, while two attacks emphasises that they're not a gun-line army and shouldn't worry so much about engaging things in combat.
So yeah, I'm not saying boltguns are the only fix, just pointing out an alternative fix to boltguns being a touch too weak. I don't think any fix to marines should focus on their weapons or armour, as it will only raise questions of why other units with the same equipment don't get it.
One other possibility is to make marines a little more mobile; I had hoped that with the return of movement values we'd actually see regular humans get a bit slower, but that didn't happen. Marines however are tall, and their power armour with black carapace specifically enables them to move almost completely unencumbered while wearing it, so being a tiny big faster could make sense on that basis, but I think we've probably missed the opportunity to do it this edition as really it should have been done by making basic human movement 5".
My take on marines would be:
7" move 2W 2A, +extra attack at half range for boltguns for 15 pts or so. Also 2 special weapons per 5 marines and optional bolt pistols for everyone.
At long range they struggle to take things down due to their small numbers, but they have enough durability and speed to reach rapid fire range. In rapid fire range they can also leverage their CC stats if need be.
So while they are very tough against small arms, they are still vulnerable to plasma, autocannons and such which is a good thing.
jcd386 wrote: Yeah any comparison between sisters and Marines only shows even clearer how terrible Marines are.
Before or after you give marines plasma guns? The sisters are pretty limited in gear.
It doesn't matter, because a marine with a plasma gun is still less cost effective than a sister of battle. 26 pt models with one wound and only a 3+ save are not good. Oh, and they can kill themselves, too. If plasma guns were free, you'd have a point.
Also not a very useful answer. C'mon guys, back this up with something more thorough. How many sisters is a marine with a plasma gun? How do they function in similarly pointed squads? Do they deploy and behave the same way? How do other buffs compare?
"C'mon guys, back this up with something more thorough."
I'm tired of talking about how gakky marines are. The people who understand statistics and math understand the problems, and then there are others who will never get it.
I shouldn't have to explain why a 26 pt model with 1 W 3+ armor sucks in 8th ed.
We're going around in circles.
Let Power Armor ignore the first point of AP, and let Astartes Bolters reroll ones to wound. These things, for 1 point increase in price.
Makes your basic trooper tougher, and a good deal more killy for a weapon that is utterly iconic to the franchise, and meant to be deadly.
iGuy91 wrote: We're going around in circles.
Let Power Armor ignore the first point of AP, and let Astartes Bolters reroll ones to wound. These things, for 1 point increase in price.
Makes your basic trooper tougher, and a good deal more killy for a weapon that is utterly iconic to the franchise, and meant to be deadly.
You mean one point cheaper. Because those changes aren't worth putting fewer models on the table.
iGuy91 wrote: We're going around in circles.
Let Power Armor ignore the first point of AP, and let Astartes Bolters reroll ones to wound. These things, for 1 point increase in price.
Makes your basic trooper tougher, and a good deal more killy for a weapon that is utterly iconic to the franchise, and meant to be deadly.
Eh... that would actually make marines worse per point. Guns with no AP actually become more point efficient and reroll ones is redundant with lieutenants. If you're struggling with Tau now, for example, it'll only get worse with those changes.
I still stand by more shots is better. +1 shot at half range is a 50% increase in lethality while reroll 1s is only a 10(ish)% increase. It doesn't even require changing the bolter since that would require adjusting a lot of codexes.
Hypothetically, if we had 2W marines with triple tap at 15 points vs 5 pt guard:
After morale the Guard lost a full 10 man squad (50pts) while the marines only lost 1-2 guys. That is an extremely favorable exchange. It might seem a bit much, but plasma/autocannons even the field very quickly: 3 plasma guns would reliably kill 2 marines each turn.
Martel732 wrote: "C'mon guys, back this up with something more thorough."
I'm tired of talking about how gakky marines are. The people who understand statistics and math understand the problems, and then there are others who will never get it.
I shouldn't have to explain why a 26 pt model with 1 W 3+ armor sucks in 8th ed.
Context matters in comparisons, that's why your limited statistical models are poor.
Also, he can kill 40 point models, and wound 400 point models with reasonable reliability. That's why they don't suck.
Martel732 wrote: I shouldn't have to explain why a 26 pt model with 1 W 3+ armor sucks in 8th ed.
Of course not, because you can't run a single model with plasma-gun; you're very keen to highlight that a single model is bad value, but it's not a single model, it's a squad upgrade in an edition where you almost always get to choose which models from a squad get killed. So it's not a 1 wound model; if it's in a squad of five it may as well be a 5-wound model if it's the one you care most about.
I'm a sisters player and I'm not at all convinced by the idea that they're an index army that outperforms a codex one; basic sisters are only very slightly cheaper than marines, so you're not exactly bringing huge volumes of them compared to a marine army. Sisters as a mono army are also enormously outmatched on heavy weaponry, and have no anti-air at all. Taking allies to overcome these issues means sacrificing CPs you need in order to guarantee that acts of faith work when you need them to (because GW has an unhealthy fetish for randomising everything).
In terms of basic squads, sisters have only three special weapon choices (flamer, meltagun or storm bolter), and three heavy weapon choices (heavy bolter, heavy flamer, multi-melta). Flame weapons are more expensive this edition, and arguably less effective, melta-guns aren't exactly cheap either, so sisters units built around either of those get expensive quickly, while plasma weapons are generally good value (too good really).
The main good thing sisters have are the acts of faith, which can offset the value of weapons by firing twice, but as I mentioned you can't always rely on them, and farming CPs may not be an option without leaving big gaps in your army. Of course that's assuming you can farm them at all with an army so expensive you're lucky if you can field the smallest detachments
I'll grant that the 8th edition index is by far the best army list sisters have had in years, and they have some neat elements that I really like, but they still have a lot of disadvantages, and at the end of the day toughness 3 means that in a straight fight with marines they can drop pretty quickly, especially if those marines close the distance.
The actual battle-brother marines are badly designed. They have low wound-count in an edition where wound-count is your best defense, they come standard with a gun that wants to be a volume-of-fire weapon with crap str/ap, but the marines can't bring the volume of them needed because the bodies holding them cost too much, their melee is the same statline, again wanting to be a volume attack, but only come in at one per body, ATSKNF does jack-all, saving a guy maybe once every five games, and also making you lose an extra one about as often, and many of the special weapons are prohibitively expensive, and tend to relegate the other four squad members to bullet-shield duty instead of actively doing things. All this for one of the more expensive troop models in the game.
There are a bunch of ways to fix them based on which thematic direction you want to take them. Giving them some kind of "stand and shoot: bolters become rapid fire 2 when the unit hasn't moved in preceding blah blah blah" to increase their ranged offense and make them not as ignorable to the enemy would help. Bumping their base attacks in melee would also help. Making them cheaper would obviously help, although I agree that the "feel" of marines doesn't jive well with that solution. Other off-the-beaten-path solutions like "pseudo-all-is-dust," extra wounds, cheaper weapons, etc etc all would help. Since they are a generalist unit, there are lots of ways to improve them.
My personal take is to give them rapid fire 2 when they don't move and +1 attack in cc, and make atsknf something actually useful like a 4+ save against running away, and see how that rolls around a bit. This edition is all about dat offense, as dead enemies don't hit you back, and if there's one thing that the baseline marines are hilariously bad at, it's offense.
iGuy91 wrote: We're going around in circles.
Let Power Armor ignore the first point of AP, and let Astartes Bolters reroll ones to wound. These things, for 1 point increase in price.
Makes your basic trooper tougher, and a good deal more killy for a weapon that is utterly iconic to the franchise, and meant to be deadly.
No - these things and - 1 point in price. When units suck you don't increase their price. You make them better and remain the same price. Or you slash their price. Then adjust.
That unneccesarily limits the range of fixes you can do. It means you must only touch points - and so must find the exact point level their current rules are worth (11?) - or, you only touch rules - and so must fiind the exact right rules that are worth their current points level.
Ideally, you'd figure out what the unit shoudl be, then point it appropriately. If you wound up with a much stronger unit, it should then be repointed.
I'm always opposed to making marines cheaper, they're not supposed to be a 'horde' unit. Although, that's ironically the easiest way to fix them is by dropping points which has the added benefit for gw of increasing model sales. They're supposed to be the 'premier' special forces of the imperium, more elite than even the 'regular' special forces. Jack of all trades, master of all trades not master of none. Likewise, the 'humble' line trooper should be more than just an inefficient ablative wound for the 'good' weapon.
And i don't think its an impossible task either, nor particularly hard, it just requires work and care which i don't think are in particular abundance at gw. Without going into my specific ideas on the subject atm, just think for a minute - what if the humble 13 ppm tactical marine had all the stats/profiles/etc of a grey knight? Storm bolters, force weapons, baby smite, all that jazz. He'd be worth his points then, would you agree? To the point that he'd probably be overpowered. Throw in a special rule like 'objective really secured, each model in this unit counts as 5 models for contesting objectives', and suddenly the marine/guard comparison doesn't look so bad.
Tacs already have a proto-ObSec, in that they out-CC most non-CC troops - so if they're on an objecetive with Guardsmen, Guardians, etc, they're winning CC.
I'd love for Tacs to be what you say, Torga, but I'd rather see that happen by dialing back the firepower. I think so much of the game is actually already reasonable compared to Marines, it's just that good firepower is so free that it can't be seen. And if it went back to a single Melta being a threat again, or a single flamer having a notable impact, Tac squads become better. And if it's a lot harder to remove lots of guys, boltguns start to be comparable. And Tac durability means even more.
Bharring wrote: Tacs already have a proto-ObSec, in that they out-CC most non-CC troops - so if they're on an objecetive with Guardsmen, Guardians, etc, they're winning CC.
I'd love for Tacs to be what you say, Torga, but I'd rather see that happen by dialing back the firepower. I think so much of the game is actually already reasonable compared to Marines, it's just that good firepower is so free that it can't be seen. And if it went back to a single Melta being a threat again, or a single flamer having a notable impact, Tac squads become better. And if it's a lot harder to remove lots of guys, boltguns start to be comparable. And Tac durability means even more.
A dialing back of the firepower is not going to happen. GW wants a faster game. Most everyone wants a faster game. What needs to happen is balance.
I do feel like the big failure with 8th's AP system is not fully taking advantage of it. A more granular system lets you use the 2+ save a lot more liberally. I would have started by putting that on Marines and giving Bolters -1 AP. If you really run into problems with lasguns and such being completely ineffective, give them a -1 on rolls that roll a 6+ to wound or something. Or I suppose they could just gives marines an extra wound and attack and maybe give their boltguns that -1 AP and 6" of range.
LunarSol wrote: I do feel like the big failure with 8th's AP system is not fully taking advantage of it. A more granular system lets you use the 2+ save a lot more liberally. I would have started by putting that on Marines and giving Bolters -1 AP. If you really run into problems with lasguns and such being completely ineffective, give them a -1 on rolls that roll a 6+ to wound or something. Or I suppose they could just gives marines an extra wound and attack and maybe give their boltguns that -1 AP and 6" of range.
Large blasts got nerfed to oblivion; grav situational; flamer weird. Barring these, literally ALL OTHER RANGED WEAPONS were boosted in varying degrees in their offensive capabilities EXCEPT boltguns and heavy bolters.
Martel732 wrote: You are talking about almost a complete rewrite to accomodate tacs and aspect warriors. That seem kind of crazy.
When marines are dying like guardsmen, they should be priced accordingly.
Depends on your line of thought i guess. GW does complete rewrites all the time, the problem is they rarely fix things or make improvements. Just randumb changes.
Like i said, marines aren't supposed to be a horde army, they're supposed to be elite and few in numbers. There are two ways to solve the problem: price them on their performance as you suggest, and its certainly an option. Or change their performance so they actually are worth their price. I prefer the latter.
"literally ALL OTHER RANGED WEAPONS were boosted in varying degrees in their offensive capabilities EXCEPT boltguns and heavy bolters. "
Heavy Bolters went from S5AP4 to S5AP-1
Scatter Lasers went from S6AP6 to S6AP0
Assault Cannon went from H4 S6AP4 Rending to H6 S6AP-1 - so traded Rending(or AP4) for half again the shot
Shuriken Cannon went from S6AP5 Bladestorm to S6AP0 Bladestorm
Lascannon went from S9AP2 to S9AP-3
Bright/DarkLances went from S8AP2 Lance to S8AP-4 no-Lance
Boltguns went from S4AP5 to S4AP0
Pulse went from S5AP5 to S5AP0
Shuriken went from S4AP5 Bladestorm to S4AP0 Bladestorm
Poison went from S*AP5 Poison to S* AP0 Poison
Lasguns? Autoguns? Shootas?
One exception is Plas. Xeno Plas mostly stayed the same (StarCannon changed, but for the worse). IoMPlas lost Gets Hot. Then had a new Gets Even Hotter profile added with S:8 and D:2. They made out like a bandit there.
Melta Gun got nerfed by both the removal of "vehicles" on one end, and the overbuff of IoMPlas on the other.
Flamers got nerfed by the standard conversion from Template to D6 auto-hits that most Template weapons got.
SM didn't fare particularly badly on the conversion of weapons. Most of the treatment they got is in line with the treatment other factions got, in terms of these weapons. The two standouts are the awesome ROF on AssualtCannons (which were later nerfed by points), and Plas.
HB ignored 4+ armor saves. AP-1 now makes that 4+ Sv to 5+ Sv. It now does better against higher Sv's - TECHNICALLY BUFF
Scatter Lasers went from S6AP6 to S6AP0
S6 was buffed. AP0 is direct translation of AP6. Most things that have 6+Sv have T3 - BUFF
Assault Cannon went from H4 S6AP4 Rending to H6 S6AP-1 - so traded Rending(or AP4) for half again the shot
Volume of fire is better than rending esp. with removal of AV system - BUFF
Shuriken Cannon went from S6AP5 Bladestorm to S6AP0 Bladestorm
S6 was buffed. AP0 is mistranslated from AP5. Most things that have 6+Sv have T3. - MINOR BUFF
Lascannon went from S9AP2 to S9AP-3
only 'nerf' it took is that it no longer ignores 2+Sv. Removal of AV system exponentially buffed this weapons against lot more things. - BUFF
Bright/DarkLances went from S8AP2 Lance to S8AP-4 no-Lance
AP-4 is improvement to AP2. - MINOR BUFF
Boltguns went from S4AP5 to S4AP0
S4 remains unchanged. AP0 mistranslated from AP5 - NERF
Pulse went from S5AP5 to S5AP0
S5 was buffed against higher T. AP0 mistranslated from AP5 - MINOR BUFF
Shuriken went from S4AP5 Bladestorm to S4AP0 Bladestorm
Touche. NERF
Poison went from S*AP5 Poison to S* AP0 Poison
AP value was of non-issue for poison weapons as it dealt W @ fixed value. Now more reliable against non-vehicles. - BUFF
Lasguns? Autoguns? Shootas?
S3 can damage anything on a roll of 6.- MAJOR BUFF
S4 deals wounds against T8 (highest T barring certain exceptions) on a roll of 6 only.
S5 and above never have to roll above 5 to wound.
S3 which dealt no damage now can damage EVERYTHING on a roll of 6.
Oh, you're mostly talking about the T v W calculation. I misunderstood.
I agree that it made s3 less bad by a decent amount. And that S5 seems to have done well by it. But also note that S4 can now wound most vehicles on a 5+ now (as they're T7). Not huge, but an upside. In that regard, I can see what you mean. S4 kinda got the rough end more than some other strengths, sure. But S6 now wounds T4 on 3s instead of 2s, which is a big change.
I really don't think AP5 -> AP0 was a mistranslation. Just think through what it would have meant if they did AP5 -> Ap-1. Nearly everything would be reducing Marines to a 4+. As nearly everything had AP5. And then what do you do with AP4? It was moved to AP-1, would you bump that to AP-2? Doesn't that seem too powerful?
iGuy91 wrote: We're going around in circles.
Let Power Armor ignore the first point of AP, and let Astartes Bolters reroll ones to wound. These things, for 1 point increase in price.
Makes your basic trooper tougher, and a good deal more killy for a weapon that is utterly iconic to the franchise, and meant to be deadly.
Eh... that would actually make marines worse per point. Guns with no AP actually become more point efficient and reroll ones is redundant with lieutenants. If you're struggling with Tau now, for example, it'll only get worse with those changes.
I still stand by more shots is better. +1 shot at half range is a 50% increase in lethality while reroll 1s is only a 10(ish)% increase. It doesn't even require changing the bolter since that would require adjusting a lot of codexes.
Hypothetically, if we had 2W marines with triple tap at 15 points vs 5 pt guard:
After morale the Guard lost a full 10 man squad (50pts) while the marines only lost 1-2 guys. That is an extremely favorable exchange. It might seem a bit much, but plasma/autocannons even the field very quickly: 3 plasma guns would reliably kill 2 marines each turn.
I like this simple change.
But would you only give the extra shot at 12"(?) only to the boltgun or to every gun? Such as a HB, or grav cannon. I think it would be fine if it was an extra shot with any special weapon, mainly because I want the melta to be good again and this would help.
And would this be a rule across the board for Assault marines, Devs, Intercessors?
Looking at other armories, I don't think bolter weapons are the problem at all. It's the base cost of the marine and the cost of much of their advanced equipment.
Grav at 28 pts is insane now that disintegrator is in the game.
Missile launcher at 25 pts has been insane since dark reapers existed.
Melta at 17 pts and 28 pts is completely nuts since melta has been garbage all edition.
Martel732 wrote: Looking at other armories, I don't think bolter weapons are the problem at all. It's the base cost of the marine and the cost of much of their advanced equipment.
Grav at 28 pts is insane now that disintegrator is in the game.
Missile launcher at 25 pts has been insane since dark reapers existed.
Melta at 17 pts and 28 pts is completely nuts since melta has been garbage all edition.
I hear you, but I think his post is more for tacking on a rule/stat change as a fix than recosting them because apparently people think reducing xost of marine will break the game.
There are plethora of rule change (+1W, ignoring 1 AP, FnP against S# and below, etc) that literally does nothing to prevent hem from dying just as fast as they do now but at least the cost start to make sense.
Currently, anti-horde weapon makes quicker work of marines than they do against true horde blob point-for-point.
Well - there are some rules changes that could make marines worth 13 points. People just can't handle marines actually being good though. They are so used to them being "mediocre" also known as bad.
The arguments will come through ... "oh if you make that change you have to change every unit in the imperium"
"Marines shouldn't be able to survive plasma"
"Marines are not actually super soldiers"
ect...ect...
The argument hasn't been "Marines are not actually super soldiers". It's "Marines are super soldiers who face super-soccer-hooligans, super-alien-xenomorphs, super-ninja/samurais, super-robot-aliens, and super-numerous basic humans". Which is a very different argument.
I don't care if they are vulnerable, but giving up 13 pts a pop minimum is not tenable. Especially is that price point puts a very low ceiling on their firepower.
Bharring wrote: The argument hasn't been "Marines are not actually super soldiers". It's "Marines are super soldiers who face super-soccer-hooligans, super-alien-xenomorphs, super-ninja/samurais, super-robot-aliens, and super-numerous basic humans". Which is a very different argument.
Relative scale has always been 40k's biggest enemy. Space Marines are as big as an Ork! Is really hard to discern from Orks about human size when there's no humans for reference. One of my favorite things about having a Guard battalion in every Imperium army is just the addition of scale peppers all over the table that make everything feel properly large and intimidating.
Bharring wrote: The argument hasn't been "Marines are not actually super soldiers". It's "Marines are super soldiers who face super-soccer-hooligans, super-alien-xenomorphs, super-ninja/samurais, super-robot-aliens, and super-numerous basic humans". Which is a very different argument.
Humm - the issue is scale. A human runs a 6" in this game. A space marine should be at least 50% faster but hes not.
I could go on and on about this but it's a waste. Space marines don't have an special capabilities that guardsmen don't have - they use the same guns - the move just as fast - there is 0 reason to take them.
If the super-soldier moved 50%, wouldn't super-ninja/samurais run 100% faster? And xenomorphs 150% faster? So say they pegged humans at 6". Now Marines can move 9", ok. Now the Eldar move 12"? on a 4x6 board? Maybe not as ok. And xenomorphs move 15"? And that's just base move before considering Advancing, flying, jetpacks, jumppacks, etc?
It gets real crazy real fast. And then there is 0 reason to play the game.
If the super-soldier moved 50%, wouldn't super-ninja/samurais run 100% faster? And xenomorphs 150% faster? So say they pegged humans at 6". Now Marines can move 9", ok. Now the Eldar move 12"? on a 4x6 board? Maybe not as ok. And xenomorphs move 15"? And that's just base move before considering Advancing, flying, jetpacks, jumppacks, etc?
It gets real crazy real fast. And then there is 0 reason to play the game.
Space marines are as fast as eldar....
Geenstealers incredible speed is represented - they move 8 and can advance and charge. Same with hormagants - they get 8 inch move and 6 inch pile in.
Eldar get some representation because they can advanace and shoot with no penalty but should probably have even faster footsoldiers - at least their vehicals get the stats they deserve
A space marine is not just a human in a suit of armor - thats how they treat it. Same guns I mean they can wield the same guns.
Martel732 wrote: I'm increasingly convinced that there is no such rule/stat change.
I don't think this thread is necessarily about making marines worth taking but rather justifying the cost.
Just as you say, no matter what you do, tacs wont be worth taking ever unless it goes down to somewhere around 11 points per model.
Okay I mentioned this before.
Most marine players are probably still going to use scouts to get the alternate deployment.
But this is probably the better choice as it's now do I want alternate deployment or a better save
Exactly. The durability difference needs to be much more stark than it is now - +1Sv really means squat.
Scouts v. Marines discussion SHOULD be that of deployment flexibility vs staying power, not deployment flexibility vs 'omg-why-would-I-ever-take-them-over-scouts'.
So I was just running the numbers in my head and if Terminators lost their 5++ and instead ignored 2 points of Ap they would be significantly more durable. A 5++ is incredibly unreliable but getting shot by that DE disintegrator cannon, and ending up with a 3+ Armour save would be pretty powerful, oh but then you're in cover so it's back to a 2+.
I don't know how game breaking this would be but I know I'd have a unit of terminators in my army. Plus GK might not be the worst codex with that buff.
I was also thinking standard marines would ignore 1 Ap, I know it's been said a lot but I think it would help
fraser1191 wrote: So I was just running the numbers in my head and if Terminators lost their 5++ and instead ignored 2 points of Ap they would be significantly more durable. A 5++ is incredibly unreliable but getting shot by that DE disintegrator cannon, and ending up with a 3+ Armour save would be pretty powerful, oh but then you're in cover so it's back to a 2+.
I don't know how game breaking this would be but I know I'd have a unit of terminators in my army. Plus GK might not be the worst codex with that buff.
I was also thinking standard marines would ignore 1 Ap, I know it's been said a lot but I think it would help
You do know how ridiculous Blightlord Terminators and Scarab Occult Terminators would be right? You guys don't think of the consequences.
It. Isn't. What. Terminators. Need. Because. They're. Already. The. Most. Durable. They. Have. Been. In. Years.
One of the things they need is a decrease in the prevelance of D:2 weapons. Reaper Frag-equivelents, Plas, etc.
Beyond that, certain units having a 1+ I think would be an ideal way to go for the game. But it should be very, very rare (and remember, a 1 always fails). Termies might possibly warrant that, but a 0+ would probably be going too far.
But would you only give the extra shot at 12"(?) only to the boltgun or to every gun? Such as a HB, or grav cannon. I think it would be fine if it was an extra shot with any special weapon, mainly because I want the melta to be good again and this would help.
And would this be a rule across the board for Assault marines, Devs, Intercessors?
Only for boltguns so far. This would just be an ability like Volley Fire, or FRFSRF. The reason being that boltguns have too few shots for the marine platform. Up the number of shots and you get a very good anti-horde weapon, that is also decent against most other targets, a jack of all trades if you will. Basically, I'm trying to make boltguns a useful gun and not just a tax to get other stuff.
Melta and such are easier to fix since they aren't "standard" guns so there's room for tweaking. And for the most part, melta is just too expensive, cut it down to 10 or so points and people will start using them more.
fraser1191 wrote: So I was just running the numbers in my head and if Terminators lost their 5++ and instead ignored 2 points of Ap they would be significantly more durable. A 5++ is incredibly unreliable but getting shot by that DE disintegrator cannon, and ending up with a 3+ Armour save would be pretty powerful, oh but then you're in cover so it's back to a 2+.
I don't know how game breaking this would be but I know I'd have a unit of terminators in my army. Plus GK might not be the worst codex with that buff.
I was also thinking standard marines would ignore 1 Ap, I know it's been said a lot but I think it would help
You do know how ridiculous Blightlord Terminators and Scarab Occult Terminators would be right? You guys don't think of the consequences.
It. Isn't. What. Terminators. Need. Because. They're. Already. The. Most. Durable. They. Have. Been. In. Years.
They need the offense increase.
Riiiight. No. Shinning spears are the most durable they have been in years - terminators are about the same - which per point is at the pathetic level. For their points and granted they are really slow - they need durability and offensive buffs. They might need a slight point increase with these rules but it's what their unit profiles need to be to be useful.
A straight up 4++ for terms to go along with an army wide -1 ap for all weapons shooting at an adept astartes infantry/dreadnought/biker (and choas marines) would be a great place to start. Then probably remove their -1 to hits with powerfists and give them the old relentless rule and special ammo on their storm bolters. Then they are worth their points.
Things like Scarab Occults should gain a rule that they reduce the damage of a weapon by 1 and combined with all is dust they would have a 3++ save against any weapon not doing 3 or more damage.
There are entire armies sporting 4++ saves on every unit. For a terminator not to have one themselves is straight nonsense.
In what way is a 3+/4++ vs shooting 3+/- vs CC on the same level as a 2+/5++ vs everything or a 2+/3++ vs everything?
They're only about the same if you're saying Marines are super durable to small arms. The 3+ that makes Shining Spears so immortal vs small arms somehow makes the much cheaper Tac so fragile vs the same small arms.
If I'm shooting plasma guns or disentegrators at shinning spears and terms. I am going to kill more termiators than shinning spears with these weapons.
The spears are also 3x faster - have better shooting and about equal close combat. Plus they cost less.
"The spears are also 3x faster - have better shooting and about equal close combat. Plus they cost less. "
Don't disagree. Well, Termies are a lot better in CC. By a LOT. But the rest is true, and I agree with your implication.
"Terminators need big buffs. As do all Astartes. "
Also don't disagree.
"If I'm shooting plasma guns or disentegrators at shinning spears and terms. I am going to kill more termiators than shinning spears with these weapons. "
True, many terminators (but not TH/SS termies).
But what of Boltguns? Assault Cannons? Shuriken? Shootas? Poison? Gauss? Pulse? Las? Any CC?
You're cherypicking. Against most attacks, Termies are more durable.
The weapons ideal for removing elite infantry are so common and so good at their job, there's no reason to consider firing the weapons you listed at them.
Bharring wrote: "The spears are also 3x faster - have better shooting and about equal close combat. Plus they cost less. "
Don't disagree. Well, Termies are a lot better in CC. By a LOT. But the rest is true, and I agree with your implication.
"Terminators need big buffs. As do all Astartes. "
Also don't disagree.
"If I'm shooting plasma guns or disentegrators at shinning spears and terms. I am going to kill more termiators than shinning spears with these weapons. "
True, many terminators (but not TH/SS termies).
But what of Boltguns? Assault Cannons? Shuriken? Shootas? Poison? Gauss? Pulse? Las? Any CC?
You're cherypicking. Against most attacks, Termies are more durable.
Not really cherry picking - these are the go to multiple damage weapons and they both have 2 wounds each. Star Cannons / Riptide burst cannons with ATS / Ion Cannons / battle cannons. They all kill more terms than spears.
Terminators quite simply should be at least as durable to any kind of attack (unless it is a weapon that specifically damages more powerful units better than weaker ones - like the old grav cannon) The bonus durability they get against anti infantry weapons is more or less a trade off for their lack of maneuverability. Durability in CC is an afterthought most of the time for elite CC units - though the terms do win here - unless we start getting into support.
Bharring wrote: I'm extremely confident that most people run into more Poison, Bolt and Las than Disintigrators and Plas.
A posion raider with kabs and a splinter cannon averages 2 kills on spears and 1 termintor kill. When you factor in the radier dessie though - it's close to even in points damage.
The changes I suggest don't improve their survivability vs light arms ether - only against weapons with minus AP.
fraser1191 wrote: So I was just running the numbers in my head and if Terminators lost their 5++ and instead ignored 2 points of Ap they would be significantly more durable. A 5++ is incredibly unreliable but getting shot by that DE disintegrator cannon, and ending up with a 3+ Armour save would be pretty powerful, oh but then you're in cover so it's back to a 2+.
I don't know how game breaking this would be but I know I'd have a unit of terminators in my army. Plus GK might not be the worst codex with that buff.
I was also thinking standard marines would ignore 1 Ap, I know it's been said a lot but I think it would help
You do know how ridiculous Blightlord Terminators and Scarab Occult Terminators would be right? You guys don't think of the consequences.
It. Isn't. What. Terminators. Need. Because. They're. Already. The. Most. Durable. They. Have. Been. In. Years.
They need the offense increase.
Riiiight. No. Shinning spears are the most durable they have been in years - terminators are about the same - which per point is at the pathetic level. For their points and granted they are really slow - they need durability and offensive buffs. They might need a slight point increase with these rules but it's what their unit profiles need to be to be useful.
A straight up 4++ for terms to go along with an army wide -1 ap for all weapons shooting at an adept astartes infantry/dreadnought/biker (and choas marines) would be a great place to start. Then probably remove their -1 to hits with powerfists and give them the old relentless rule and special ammo on their storm bolters. Then they are worth their points.
Things like Scarab Occults should gain a rule that they reduce the damage of a weapon by 1 and combined with all is dust they would have a 3++ save against any weapon not doing 3 or more damage.
There are entire armies sporting 4++ saves on every unit. For a terminator not to have one themselves is straight nonsense.
That's just Harlequins (Where most people were just fine with the 5++, so I'll concede on that one) and Custodes (who should have better armor anyway, so there isn't a reason to complain).
Mostly the suggestions I've seen are nuts. Simple as that.
That's why I'm for actually showing their real Vet status on Paladins, Blightlord and Deathshroud, Scarab Occult, Tactical and Assault Terminators, Chaos Terminators, and Deathwing/Deathwing Knights by giving them ALL WS/BS2+, instead of the asinine and frankly obscenely scaling suggestions I keep seeing from you people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I'm extremely confident that most people run into more Poison, Bolt and Las than Disintigrators and Plas.
You clearly haven't played against Dark Eldar at all then. Xeno is insane with their changes but this post is playing straight up ignorance. If something is allowed to do that, it NEEDS to be fixed.
Remember a while back someone created a build-a-vehicle, and Pergrine broke it so that you could get something for NEGATIVE points, and the creator shrugged it off because "nobody would do that"?
fraser1191 wrote: So I was just running the numbers in my head and if Terminators lost their 5++ and instead ignored 2 points of Ap they would be significantly more durable. A 5++ is incredibly unreliable but getting shot by that DE disintegrator cannon, and ending up with a 3+ Armour save would be pretty powerful, oh but then you're in cover so it's back to a 2+.
I don't know how game breaking this would be but I know I'd have a unit of terminators in my army. Plus GK might not be the worst codex with that buff.
I was also thinking standard marines would ignore 1 Ap, I know it's been said a lot but I think it would help
You do know how ridiculous Blightlord Terminators and Scarab Occult Terminators would be right? You guys don't think of the consequences.
It. Isn't. What. Terminators. Need. Because. They're. Already. The. Most. Durable. They. Have. Been. In. Years.
They need the offense increase.
Riiiight. No. Shinning spears are the most durable they have been in years - terminators are about the same - which per point is at the pathetic level. For their points and granted they are really slow - they need durability and offensive buffs. They might need a slight point increase with these rules but it's what their unit profiles need to be to be useful.
A straight up 4++ for terms to go along with an army wide -1 ap for all weapons shooting at an adept astartes infantry/dreadnought/biker (and choas marines) would be a great place to start. Then probably remove their -1 to hits with powerfists and give them the old relentless rule and special ammo on their storm bolters. Then they are worth their points.
Things like Scarab Occults should gain a rule that they reduce the damage of a weapon by 1 and combined with all is dust they would have a 3++ save against any weapon not doing 3 or more damage.
There are entire armies sporting 4++ saves on every unit. For a terminator not to have one themselves is straight nonsense.
That's just Harlequins (Where most people were just fine with the 5++, so I'll concede on that one) and Custodes (who should have better armor anyway, so there isn't a reason to complain).
Mostly the suggestions I've seen are nuts. Simple as that.
That's why I'm for actually showing their real Vet status on Paladins, Blightlord and Deathshroud, Scarab Occult, Tactical and Assault Terminators, Chaos Terminators, and Deathwing/Deathwing Knights by giving them ALL WS/BS2+, instead of the asinine and frankly obscenely scaling suggestions I keep seeing from you people.
They aren't nuts. The suggestions I made - A custode would still be quite superior to a tactical terminator while not costing much more than him. He would still have +1T and +1 W as well as having the same invo save - superior close combat - superior movement. They can even take a freaking storm sheild if they want to tank like bosses.
I think people have just gotten so used to these profiles that they think they are some kind of gold standard - they aren't.
What good is bs2+ ws2+ gonna do for terms? They will hit a little harder in CC (but they'll never get there) and they'll hit with a few more bolter shots and assault cannons...this is an incredibly minor buff for a unit that is paying the majority of it's points for having a 2+ save and 2 wounds - both of which are easily ignored by very common and spamable weapons all through out the game. People use those weapons too because they are also great at killing jetbikes (and they offer reliable damage to EVERYTHING in the game except wave serpents).
You made the statement that terminators are tougher than they have ever been. Currently they only get a 4+ save against a battle cannon and 2 out of 3 damage rolls kill him - even a 1 wound terminator had better survivability against a battle cannon in 7th - because he got a 2 + save against it.
With my suggested changes of -1 ap to all astartes - they would get a 3+ save against a battle cannon. This would be similar to their 7th edition surivability against them.
Currently an autocannon kills terms better than it did in 7th. Giving only a 3+ save instead of a 2+.
Plasma is exactly the same against it.
Las cannons are only slightly worse than because you can roll a 1 for damage against them.
Disses are now dedicated terminator kills where before I think they only had ap3 and sucked against them. They had a ap2 blast I think - but blast sucked and you know it.
The only thing terms got a real buff against is small arms...who cares? If I can kill a 200 point unit with special weapons - why would I use my chaff fire against it if i didn't have to?
fraser1191 wrote: So I was just running the numbers in my head and if Terminators lost their 5++ and instead ignored 2 points of Ap they would be significantly more durable. A 5++ is incredibly unreliable but getting shot by that DE disintegrator cannon, and ending up with a 3+ Armour save would be pretty powerful, oh but then you're in cover so it's back to a 2+.
I don't know how game breaking this would be but I know I'd have a unit of terminators in my army. Plus GK might not be the worst codex with that buff.
I was also thinking standard marines would ignore 1 Ap, I know it's been said a lot but I think it would help
You do know how ridiculous Blightlord Terminators and Scarab Occult Terminators would be right? You guys don't think of the consequences.
It. Isn't. What. Terminators. Need. Because. They're. Already. The. Most. Durable. They. Have. Been. In. Years.
They need the offense increase.
Riiiight. No. Shinning spears are the most durable they have been in years - terminators are about the same - which per point is at the pathetic level. For their points and granted they are really slow - they need durability and offensive buffs. They might need a slight point increase with these rules but it's what their unit profiles need to be to be useful.
A straight up 4++ for terms to go along with an army wide -1 ap for all weapons shooting at an adept astartes infantry/dreadnought/biker (and choas marines) would be a great place to start. Then probably remove their -1 to hits with powerfists and give them the old relentless rule and special ammo on their storm bolters. Then they are worth their points.
Things like Scarab Occults should gain a rule that they reduce the damage of a weapon by 1 and combined with all is dust they would have a 3++ save against any weapon not doing 3 or more damage.
There are entire armies sporting 4++ saves on every unit. For a terminator not to have one themselves is straight nonsense.
That's just Harlequins (Where most people were just fine with the 5++, so I'll concede on that one) and Custodes (who should have better armor anyway, so there isn't a reason to complain).
Mostly the suggestions I've seen are nuts. Simple as that.
That's why I'm for actually showing their real Vet status on Paladins, Blightlord and Deathshroud, Scarab Occult, Tactical and Assault Terminators, Chaos Terminators, and Deathwing/Deathwing Knights by giving them ALL WS/BS2+, instead of the asinine and frankly obscenely scaling suggestions I keep seeing from you people.
They aren't nuts. The suggestions I made - A custode would still be quite superior to a tactical terminator while not costing much more than him. He would still have +1T and +1 W as well as having the same invo save - superior close combat - superior movement. They can even take a freaking storm sheild if they want to tank like bosses.
I think people have just gotten so used to these profiles that they think they are some kind of gold standard - they aren't.
What good is bs2+ ws2+ gonna do for terms? They will hit a little harder in CC (but they'll never get there) and they'll hit with a few more bolter shots and assault cannons...this is an incredibly minor buff for a unit that is paying the majority of it's points for having a 2+ save and 2 wounds - both of which are easily ignored by very common and spamable weapons all through out the game. People use those weapons too because they are also great at killing jetbikes (and they offer reliable damage to EVERYTHING in the game except wave serpents).
You're not serious are you? A straight up ignoring the first AP and the 4++ makes them much better (and Custodes only get the 4++ in a pure detachment, which is sorta downside and not).
The WS/BS2+ makes them more independent and less reliant on rerolls, effectively gives them Relentless while helping all the other range weapons (and those Heavy Weapons if standing still), while giving help to those Power Fists and Thunder Hammers you guys love while not ignoring literally every other melee weapon and making them non-choices.
Any issue with spamming of weapons is the issue of that unit's profile, not the durability of the Terminator, which is finally the most durable it's been in years.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're also complaining about just a few weapons. They're more durable to SEVERAL weapons barring those very few instances.
LunarSol wrote: I do feel like the big failure with 8th's AP system is not fully taking advantage of it. A more granular system lets you use the 2+ save a lot more liberally. I would have started by putting that on Marines and giving Bolters -1 AP. If you really run into problems with lasguns and such being completely ineffective, give them a -1 on rolls that roll a 6+ to wound or something. Or I suppose they could just gives marines an extra wound and attack and maybe give their boltguns that -1 AP and 6" of range.
Primaris were the "solution" but really is a covered screw-you-buy-more-models for classic SM players. To add to your point, yes, you're right. In previous editions power armor felt like that, armor; you could tank low ap shots in open terrain, but if a plasma got a wound on you, that's it.
Martel732 wrote: I'm increasingly convinced that there is no such rule/stat change.
I don't think this thread is necessarily about making marines worth taking but rather justifying the cost.
Just as you say, no matter what you do, tacs wont be worth taking ever unless it goes down to somewhere around 11 points per model.
Okay I mentioned this before.
Most marine players are probably still going to use scouts to get the alternate deployment.
But this is probably the better choice as it's now do I want alternate deployment or a better save
Firstly, this comment is not targeted at you, but everyone from this topic. I don't hold anything against you, it's just that a particular comment on your reply triggered this short "rant" from me.
Honestly, I "don't care" about what other players would take despite some changes to SM. With this argument, you are focusing too much on pure competitive play. Many players don't play or care about competitive, regular matched play (and also narrative) should be the main focus for changes. Yes, "marine players" could pick this and that exact unit count and do this all the time to win. Reality is people usually play with what they like and have painted so the argument that scouts will be better than marines is very poor for me. I play SM because they are cool, I really like them and enjoy painting them. Now, proper balancing on a standard game is what's missing for marines, not super-competitive.
Anyway that's my take on this, and generally any proposed rules and changes for 40k. People could chill about competitive sometimes.
Xenomancers wrote: "Custodes only get the 4++ in a pure detachment"
Come on dude - the 4++ is just what they have - you would never not take them in a pure detachment.
Yeah - but you are saying they are more durable than ever now. They really aren't. They have Crap durability now - and they had crap durability then.
Except they DO have more durability compared to previous editions. For example:
1. Literally ALL basic arms they are twice as durable barring the Necron ones as there is two more wounds
2. Lascannons having a 1/6 chance to flounder
3. Melta Guns have a 1/6 chance to flounder
4. Plasma, actually, until you decide to overcharge
5. Tau Plasma wounds less
6. Starcannons wound less AND have a 1/3 chance to flounder
7. Grav fires less, wounds less, and has a 1/3 chance to flounder
The list goes on, and that's just for the Terminators with nothing special for durability. Iron Hands Terminators, Scarab Occult, and Deathshroud/Blightlord do a lot better vs all those things AND more.
Any weapon that was previously ap 3 or 4 is now AP -1/ -2 destroys terminators where it didn't before - esp if it has multi damage.
Rocket launchers / battle cannons/ ion cannons/ rocket pods/ special ammo bolters/ breacher guns.
It's almost like for every advantage they got - they became weaker to something else. This does not qualify as being tougher than they were were. They are just as crap as ever. The big difference here is they got 2 wounds - but then they gave all the weapons they were weak against flat 2 damage...
You're not serious are you? A straight up ignoring the first AP and the 4++ makes them much better (and Custodes only get the 4++ in a pure detachment, which is sorta downside and not).
Well, since the Battle Brothers rule, you can't take custodes outside of a custodes detachment now anyway so...
I'm no expert at math, but I'm fairly sure anything AP-1 with D:1 is no more deadlier to Termies than it was. Stuff beyond that (AP-2 that was AP3 or worse, or AP-1 with D:more than 1) kills Termies faster.
And even that's assuming it's in the open. A TH/SS Termie unit in cover is actually quite hard to shift. Not hard enough for the points, but much harder than in 7th.
Just ask yourself this question. Why don't people complain about Custodes but complain about terms? Custodes are worth their points - terminators are not. How you chose to make terms worth those points is up for debate. However - just making them bs2+ ws2+ is not going to be enough.
IMO durability is their main problem - their damage is also low but upping their durability increases their damage. They are also the most elite veterans in the army - they should have special ammo in those storm bolters.
Martel732 wrote: Ap -1 clears double the wounds of ap 0 vs 2+ armor.
Termies have two wounds now, so overall durability is not worse against D1.
It is against things that used to be ap4 and ap 3. Those because ap-1 and ap -2 repectfully. Things that used to be AP 3 are now great weapons for killing terminators.
Any weapon that was previously ap 3 or 4 is now AP -1/ -2 destroys terminators where it didn't before - esp if it has multi damage.
Rocket launchers / battle cannons/ ion cannons/ rocket pods/ special ammo bolters/ breacher guns.
It's almost like for every advantage they got - they became weaker to something else. This does not qualify as being tougher than they were were. They are just as crap as ever. The big difference here is they got 2 wounds - but then they gave all the weapons they were weak against flat 2 damage...
So they're equally durable vs several weapons or more durable. Don't care. Storm Shields fix that immediate issue if you care so much.
Bolt Rifles are also a new weapon, but the closest comparison would be Krak Rounds for Deathwatch, which, would you look at that, they're at the same durability because of that second wound! Cool beans. Next.
Krak grenades wound less and have a 1/3 chance to flounder. In 7th, a Krak thrown by a Marine is 0.09 wounds. For 8th, you get 0.14 until you apply that random damage. Look at that! Sounds REALLY similar doesn't it?
You're only listing a couple weapons compared to my much larger list, and they're not any less durable to any special ammo outside the Vengeance rounds (Where they were equally durable to Krak Rounds and are actually more durable to Helfire. Nobody cares about the Cover rounds so...).
Sorry but the durability argument is super weak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Ap -1 clears double the wounds of ap 0 vs 2+ armor.
Unless you have cover, in which case they're twice as durable again.
Bharring wrote: I'm no expert at math, but I'm fairly sure anything AP-1 with D:1 is no more deadlier to Termies than it was. Stuff beyond that (AP-2 that was AP3 or worse, or AP-1 with D:more than 1) kills Termies faster.
And even that's assuming it's in the open. A TH/SS Termie unit in cover is actually quite hard to shift. Not hard enough for the points, but much harder than in 7th.
Well, the thing is, termies are supposed to be out there, tanking small arms and heavy weapon shots in the enemy's face, to then charge like a beast and destroy or greatly damage most things. I'd say the only viable termies for the points atm are blood angel termies with claws. Against anything below T8, using the terminator specific strategem, you can get 16 attacks, hitting on 3+ re-roling, and wounding on 4+, re-roling. If you add a character that boosts their strenght +1, you can really do quite okay against medium targets or hordes. The only issue with this boys is the DMG1, and still, the points cost. But that strategem is very, very good
Bharring wrote: I'm no expert at math, but I'm fairly sure anything AP-1 with D:1 is no more deadlier to Termies than it was. Stuff beyond that (AP-2 that was AP3 or worse, or AP-1 with D:more than 1) kills Termies faster.
And even that's assuming it's in the open. A TH/SS Termie unit in cover is actually quite hard to shift. Not hard enough for the points, but much harder than in 7th.
Well, the thing is, termies are supposed to be out there, tanking small arms and heavy weapon shots in the enemy's face, to then charge like a beast and destroy or greatly damage most things. I'd say the only viable termies for the points atm are blood angel termies with claws. Against anything below T8, using the terminator specific strategem, you can get 16 attacks, hitting on 3+ re-roling, and wounding on 4+, re-roling. If you add a character that boosts their strenght +1, you can really do quite okay against medium targets or hordes. The only issue with this boys is the DMG1, and still, the points cost. But that strategem is very, very good
They're not supposed to be taking missiles and Lascannons to the face, sorry. The fluff never implied as such, just that they're durable.
Martel732 wrote: Ap -1 clears double the wounds of ap 0 vs 2+ armor.
Termies have two wounds now, so overall durability is not worse against D1.
It is against things that used to be ap4 and ap 3. Those because ap-1 and ap -2 repectfully. Things that used to be AP 3 are now great weapons for killing terminators.
Just some quick math for fun:
How many wounds to kill a terminator?
So it's not so much the AP, as it is the damage. I think 3W termies would solve their durability issue (custodes kinda prove that). No more autocannon/plasma one shots.
Bharring wrote: I'm no expert at math, but I'm fairly sure anything AP-1 with D:1 is no more deadlier to Termies than it was. Stuff beyond that (AP-2 that was AP3 or worse, or AP-1 with D:more than 1) kills Termies faster.
And even that's assuming it's in the open. A TH/SS Termie unit in cover is actually quite hard to shift. Not hard enough for the points, but much harder than in 7th.
Well, the thing is, termies are supposed to be out there, tanking small arms and heavy weapon shots in the enemy's face, to then charge like a beast and destroy or greatly damage most things. I'd say the only viable termies for the points atm are blood angel termies with claws. Against anything below T8, using the terminator specific strategem, you can get 16 attacks, hitting on 3+ re-roling, and wounding on 4+, re-roling. If you add a character that boosts their strenght +1, you can really do quite okay against medium targets or hordes. The only issue with this boys is the DMG1, and still, the points cost. But that strategem is very, very good
They're not supposed to be taking missiles and Lascannons to the face, sorry. The fluff never implied as such, just that they're durable.
But I think they could take an auto cannons or OC plasma shot. Which is why although I think WS/BS2+ is the perfect boost to their offence, they need more defence as well.
At the risk if sounding like a broken record, making them take 1 less damage to a min of 1 would fix this better than any other suggestion imo.
At the risk if sounding like a broken record, making them take 1 less damage to a min of 1 would fix this better than any other suggestion imo.
As others have said, WS2+/BS2+ is the most reasonable short-term solution for termies. We can't really expect any more major changes this edition. We'll have to wait for 9th to see GW re-think the whole SM profiles. All because of this Primaris bois...
Bharring wrote: I'm no expert at math, but I'm fairly sure anything AP-1 with D:1 is no more deadlier to Termies than it was. Stuff beyond that (AP-2 that was AP3 or worse, or AP-1 with D:more than 1) kills Termies faster.
And even that's assuming it's in the open. A TH/SS Termie unit in cover is actually quite hard to shift. Not hard enough for the points, but much harder than in 7th.
Well, the thing is, termies are supposed to be out there, tanking small arms and heavy weapon shots in the enemy's face, to then charge like a beast and destroy or greatly damage most things. I'd say the only viable termies for the points atm are blood angel termies with claws. Against anything below T8, using the terminator specific strategem, you can get 16 attacks, hitting on 3+ re-roling, and wounding on 4+, re-roling. If you add a character that boosts their strenght +1, you can really do quite okay against medium targets or hordes. The only issue with this boys is the DMG1, and still, the points cost. But that strategem is very, very good
They're not supposed to be taking missiles and Lascannons to the face, sorry. The fluff never implied as such, just that they're durable.
But I think they could take an auto cannons or OC plasma shot. Which is why although I think WS/BS2+ is the perfect boost to their offence, they need more defence as well.
At the risk if sounding like a broken record, making them take 1 less damage to a min of 1 would fix this better than any other suggestion imo.
Which doesn't scale well because of Blightlord, Deathshroud, and Scarab Occult Terminators.
Bharring wrote: I'm no expert at math, but I'm fairly sure anything AP-1 with D:1 is no more deadlier to Termies than it was. Stuff beyond that (AP-2 that was AP3 or worse, or AP-1 with D:more than 1) kills Termies faster.
And even that's assuming it's in the open. A TH/SS Termie unit in cover is actually quite hard to shift. Not hard enough for the points, but much harder than in 7th.
Well, the thing is, termies are supposed to be out there, tanking small arms and heavy weapon shots in the enemy's face, to then charge like a beast and destroy or greatly damage most things. I'd say the only viable termies for the points atm are blood angel termies with claws. Against anything below T8, using the terminator specific strategem, you can get 16 attacks, hitting on 3+ re-roling, and wounding on 4+, re-roling. If you add a character that boosts their strenght +1, you can really do quite okay against medium targets or hordes. The only issue with this boys is the DMG1, and still, the points cost. But that strategem is very, very good
They're not supposed to be taking missiles and Lascannons to the face, sorry. The fluff never implied as such, just that they're durable.
But I think they could take an auto cannons or OC plasma shot. Which is why although I think WS/BS2+ is the perfect boost to their offence, they need more defence as well.
At the risk if sounding like a broken record, making them take 1 less damage to a min of 1 would fix this better than any other suggestion imo.
Which doesn't scale well because of Blightlord, Deathshroud, and Scarab Occult Terminators.
I don't see why not. If they were suddenly too durable (seems unlikely) then points could be adjusted as needed.
Lots of things used to insta kill terminators prior to 8th ed. Simple fix is to tone down plasmaguns amd plasma pustols to only deal 1D at all profiles.
Everything that insta kills termies in 8th ed also used to insta kill termies in the past EXCEPT for over charged plasma.
skchsan wrote: Lots of things used to insta kill terminators prior to 8th ed. Simple fix is to tone down plasmaguns amd plasma pustols to only deal 1D at all profiles.
Everything that insta kills termies in 8th ed also used to insta kill termies in the past EXCEPT for over charged plasma.
This would help them survive, which the desperately need to stand any chance of being worth their points.
I get what some people are saying but your getting very close to making the same mistakes GW did when the produced the first 8th edition codex's. Your introducing too many changes at once to have a chance of predicting the outcome of all of the changes combined with each other.
As much as it sucks seeing a unit you'd love to be able to play be unplayable, going to knee jerk reactionary overreaction won't help find a balanced solution.
Marines will need a few things fixed before an appropriate points cost can be allocated.
1 undercosted overcharge plasma needs to die. S6 S7 Flat 1 damage is a fairer representation of its points cost.
2 bolt weapons need to be worth taking and better at anti hord
3 vets and terminators need better damage output for their points.
4 All armies need to be less dependent upon castleing for aura buffs( this is the thing I hate most about 8th edition it may work in AoS but it feels terrible in 40k)
5 points need to be updated. The issue is it isn't reasonable to do all of the above in one book as it would be based on guess work. But with the current release cycle your talking about a year with what ever rules or non they include in CA2018 of being unplayable or OP filth.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Speaking of upgrading bolters, I had the following thought while reading some fluff pages.
Give Non Deathwatch Astartes Bolt Weapons the following rule
MASS REACTIVE
When a unit hit with this weapons fails ita saving throw this generates and additional hit. Role to wound and save as per this weapons profile. These wounds can not generate additional hits.
It's a little more involved that I think GW would have liked at the start of 8th edition.
However it feels like it should make the bolter better against hoards while not buffing it significantly against heavier targets.
If you wanna make Plasma S6->7 with Overcharge, sure, but you're not going to make it do just 1 damage. You make it from Anti-Elite to basically bad. Needing Lascannons to kill Custodes after all that is a no-no.
BaconCatBug wrote: Plasma just needs to turn overcharging into picking one of +1S, -1AP or +1D, not +1S AND +1D, and to cause a mortal wound instead of slaying.
This is what my group is currently play-testing for space marines. Some of it is about where it should be, some of it isn't quite right yet. There's more that needs to be done beyond a simple 'fix marine armor save' or 'improve boltguns.' The codex is in bad shape in many areas.
Spoiler:
. SPACE MARINES UPDATE
- Non-vehicle marine models that have 1 attack increase to 2.
- Terminator models that have 2 attacks increase to 3. Terminator models with 2 wounds increase to 3.
- All Centurion models have 5 wounds, 3 attacks. Centurion Devastators 65 points
- Non-unique Captains may add Chapter Master upgrade, 28 points, re-roll any failed hits for Chapter units within 6” and +1 wound.
- Tactical Squads and Intercessor Squads with 10 models generate 1 CP.
- Company Veterans 15 points per model.
- Sternguard Squads 14 points per model, remove special issue boltgun, add boltgun, add special issue ammunition 3 points per model
- Assault Squads with Jump Packs add Death From Above: After completing a charge move, add +1 to hit in their next Fight phase.
- Thunderfire Cannon, add stratagem Tremor Shells ability to base weapon profile.
- Missile Launcher: 20 points
- Plasma Cannon: Heavy 3
- Sniper rifle: 0 points
- Chainfist/Eviscerator: 14 points
- Chainswords add -1 AP - Drop Pods add Drop Pod Assault: Remove minimum distance on disembarking units from enemy. Units that disembark from a Drop Pod halve charge rolls that turn (rounding down).
- Rhino add rear hatch, two models may shoot from, same as open-topped rule.
- Predator/Razorback 65 points
- Whirlwind 65 points, add Missile Barrage: If this model remained stationary in its previous Movement phase, add 1 shot for every 5 models in the target unit.
- Vindicator 135 points, Demolisher cannon: Heavy 3, when attacking units with 5 or more models add D6 to the number of shots.
VEHICLE models without the DREADNOUGHT keyword may move up to half their Move Characteristic (rounding up) and still fire Heavy weapons without penalty.
VEHICLE models without the FLY keyword can Fall Back and shoot, but suffer -1 to hit in their next shooting phase and may only target the nearest enemy unit.
DREADNOUGHT models may move and fire 1 Heavy weapon without penalty or may advance and fire one assault weapon without penalty.
Chapter Tactics
White Scars: Whenever a WHITE SCARS unit with this tactic Advances it moves an extra 2" in addition to the distance rolled (BIKER units with the Turbo-boost ability therefore move an additional 8" when Advancing). Also, when advancing a WHITE SCARS unit treats Rapid Fire weapons as Assault.
Stratagems
Remove: Chapter Master and Tremor Shells.
Linebreaker Bombardment 1-3CP
Use this Stratagem in your shooting phase before attacking with 1-3 Vindicators [the amount of CP used is equal to the number of Vindicators chosen]. When using this Stratagem on multiple Vindicators, each must be within 6” of another friendly <CHAPTER> Vindicator. Each Vindicator(s) chosen cannot fire their demolisher cannon(s) this phase – instead, select a visible point on the battlefield within 24" of each vehicle. Roll a dice for each unit (friend or foe) within 3" of that point. Add 1 to the result if the unit being rolled for has 5 or more models, but subtract 1 if the unit being rolled for is a CHARACTER. On a 4+ that unit suffers D3 mortal wounds for each attacking Vindicator, on a 6+ that unit instead suffers 3 mortal wounds for each attacking Vindicator.
Killshot 1CP
Use this Stratagem in your Shooting phase if a Predator is within 6" of 1 other friendly <CHAPTER> Predators. If you do so, you can add 1 to the wound rolls for all of the Predators’ attacks that target MONSTERS or VEHICLES this phase. If a Predator is within 6” of 2 other friendly <CHAPTER> Predators, instead add 1 to the wound and damage rolls for attacks that target MONSTERS or VEHICLES this phase.
Empyric Channeling 1CP
Use this Stratagem at the start of a Psychic phase if an ADEPTUS ASTARTES PSYKER is within 6" of at least 1 other friendly <CHAPTER> PSYKERS. The psyker can immediately attempt to manifest one additional psychic power this turn and, when attempting to manifest this power, you can add 2 to the Psychic test.
Scions of Guilliman 1CP
Use this Stratagem when an ULTRAMARINES INFANTRY or ULTRAMARINES BIKER unit is selected to attack in
a Shooting or Fight phase. All models must target the same unit, but add -1 AP to their attacks (to a max of -4).
Orbital Bombardment 2CP
This Stratagem can be used once per battle, in the Shooting phase, if you have an ADEPTUS ASTARTES Warlord that did not move during your Movement phase. Instead of shooting with your Warlord’s weapons, select a visible point on the battlefield and roll a D6 for every unit within 5" of that point. Subtract 1 from the result if the unit being rolled for is a CHARACTER. On a 4+, the unit being rolled for suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Cluster Mines 1CP
Use this Stratagem after a Scout Bike Squad has moved. Place a 1” Cluster Mine token within 3” of the Scout Bike Squad and more than 3” from enemy units. An enemy unit that completes its move within 3" of a Cluster Mine token immediately suffers D3+1 mortal wounds, then the token is removed. Cluster Mine tokens can not be targeted or assaulted and do not block movement or line of sight.
Bolter Drill 2CP (for all chapters)
Use this Stratagem in any phase before an INFANTRY unit shoots. That unit adds 1 to the number of shots on bolt weapons until the end of that phase. For example: rapid fire 1 becomes rapid fire 2 on a boltgun. For the purposes of this Stratagem, a bolt weapon is any weapon profile whose name includes the word ‘bolt’ (e.g. boltgun, bolt rifle, heavy bolter, boltstorm gauntlet). Pedro Kantor’s Dorn’s Arrow is also a bolt weapon. Bolter Drill cannot be used with special issue ammunition.
Masterful Marksmanship 1CP
Use this Stratagem when a Sternguard Veteran Squad is selected to attack in the Shooting phase. When shooting a boltgun, to hit rolls of 5+ count as damage 2 instead of 1.
Fortified Position 1CP
Use this Stratagem after setting up an IMPERIAL FISTS INFANTRY unit (excluding Scout Squads) during deployment. Mark a single terrain feature that unit is on or that is within 1”. That terrain feature adds an additional 1 to saving throws. An army composed of units of IMPERIAL FISTS and other IMPERIUM units that are not IMPERIAL FISTS may only use this Stratagem once.
Machine Empathy 1CP
Use this Stratagem just before an IRON HANDS VEHICLE attacks in the Shooting phase. Until the end of the phase, that vehicle ignores negative modifiers to-hit caused by moving, advancing, or falling back and uses the top row of the model's damage table (if it has one), regardless of how many wounds it has left. This ends immediately if the model is reduced to 0 wounds.
Implacable Fury (replaces Born in the Saddle) 1CP
Use this Stratagem when a WHITE SCARS BIKER or WHITE SCARS INFANTRY unit Advances. That unit does not suffer the penalty for advancing and firing Assault weapons this turn. In addition, if that unit is a BIKER unit it may charge this turn, if it is an INFANTRY unit, Rapid Fire weapons counting as Assault may shoot twice if the target is within half range.
Tactical Flexibility 1CP
When using this stratagem, a Tactical Squad or Intercessor Squad may choose one of the following during the phase or turn specified;
-In your Shooting phase, up to 2 models may shoot twice this turn but must fire at the same target (can be a separate target for each model). May not use with bolter drill.
-In your Shooting phase, all models in the unit may throw a grenade this turn.
-In the opponent's Charge phase, this units' overwatch hits on 5+ until the end of the opponent's turn.
-In your Movement phase, this unit may fall back and still shoot, but subtract 1 from hit rolls this turn (Ultramarines ignore hit penalty).
-At the end of your turn, if this unit secures an objective marker (defend or secure objectives) roll a D6, on a 3+ score an extra VP.
Armor of Contempt 1CP
Use this Stratagem at the start of any phase. Select an ADEPTUS ASTARTES VEHICLE; until the end of the phase, that unit adds 1 to its save characteristic. This is not cumulative with the increased saving throw from cover.
Devastation Protocol 2CP
Use this Stratagem before a Devastator Squad attacks in the Shooting phase. Choose one of the following when that unit attacks that phase;
Each attacking model equipped with a Heavy weapon must target a separate unit but can shoot twice. Each model must target the same unit both times.
Each attacking model equipped with a Heavy weapon must target the closest enemy unit, but all models with Heavy weapons have +1 to hit and re-roll failed wound rolls. (Note: the closest unit is measured from each model in the attacking unit).
Warlord Traits
Iron Resolve: Add 1 to the Wounds characteristic of your Warlord. In addition, the first time this model is reduced to 0 wounds roll a D6, on a 4+ your warlord is not slain and instead has 1 wound remaining.
WHITE SCARS–Feigned Flight: Friendly WHITE SCARS units within 6" of your Warlord may Fall Back and Charge.
IMPERIAL FISTS–Counter Volley: Once per turn, immediately after an enemy unit has attacked in the Shooting phase, choose an Imperial Fists INFANTRY unit that is within 6" of your Warlord. That unit may shoot but subtract 2 from hit rolls. This does not prevent that unit from shooting in their next turn.
IRON HANDS–Enhanced Bionics: Your warlord ignores wounds on a 5+ instead of on a 6.
Librarius Discipline
---Remove Psychic Scourge, replace with; Warp Barrier WC6 If manifested, until the start of your next psychic phase no units (friend or foe) may be placed from reserve or placed via a psychic power w/in 12" of the psyker.
--Fury of the Ancients has a warp charge value of 7. If manifested, roll 3D6 and select a visible enemy model within that many inches of the psyker (if no enemy models are within this range, this power has no further effect). Draw an imaginary straight line between the psyker and that model; each enemy unit that this line passes over or through suffers D3 mortal wounds.
--Psychic Fortress WC7, If manifested, select a friendly ADEPTUS ASTARTES unit within 6” of the bearer. Until the start of you next psychic phase, that unit automatically passes morale and ignores wounds on a 5+.
--Veil of Time WC7 If manifested, select a friendly ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY unit within 12" of the psyker. Until the start of your next psychic phase that unit may re-roll failed saving throws.
BaconCatBug wrote: Plasma just needs to turn overcharging into picking one of +1S, -1AP or +1D, not +1S AND +1D, and to cause a mortal wound instead of slaying.
So make it useless?
Nobody is gonna use Plasma like that.
The neww plasma currently stands at where grav weaponry was in 6/7th ed. It was so undercosted for what it does that it didn't make sense not to take it. Plasmas needs to be toned down so that it's not auto include. Plasmas out perform any other weapons point for point than any other weapons by a large margin except for stratagemed ML and HB and grav cannon.
BaconCatBug wrote: Plasma just needs to turn overcharging into picking one of +1S, -1AP or +1D, not +1S AND +1D, and to cause a mortal wound instead of slaying.
So make it useless?
Nobody is gonna use Plasma like that.
The neww plasma currently stands at where grav weaponry was in 6/7th ed. It was so undercosted for what it does that it didn't make sense not to take it. Plasmas needs to be toned down so that it's not auto include. Plasmas out perform any other weapons point for point than any other weapons by a large margin except for stratagemed ML and HB and grav cannon.
The problem you forget is that nerfing plasma won't make Melta or Flamer weapons actually good at their jobs. You'd still take Plasma; you'd just be angry about it. There's a huge difference between doing what Plasma does now and what Grav did back then (and even then, the problem was the Cannon getting Shred basically).
Mchagen wrote: This is what my group is currently play-testing for space marines. Some of it is about where it should be, some of it isn't quite right yet. There's more that needs to be done beyond a simple 'fix marine armor save' or 'improve boltguns.' The codex is in bad shape in many areas.
Spoiler:
. SPACE MARINES UPDATE
- Non-vehicle marine models that have 1 attack increase to 2.
- Terminator models that have 2 attacks increase to 3. Terminator models with 2 wounds increase to 3.
- All Centurion models have 5 wounds, 3 attacks. Centurion Devastators 65 points
- Non-unique Captains may add Chapter Master upgrade, 28 points, re-roll any failed hits for Chapter units within 6” and +1 wound.
- Tactical Squads and Intercessor Squads with 10 models generate 1 CP.
- Company Veterans 15 points per model.
- Sternguard Squads 14 points per model, remove special issue boltgun, add boltgun, add special issue ammunition 3 points per model
- Assault Squads with Jump Packs add Death From Above: After completing a charge move, add +1 to hit in their next Fight phase.
- Thunderfire Cannon, add stratagem Tremor Shells ability to base weapon profile.
- Missile Launcher: 20 points
- Plasma Cannon: Heavy 3
- Sniper rifle: 0 points
- Chainfist/Eviscerator: 14 points
- Chainswords add -1 AP - Drop Pods add Drop Pod Assault: Remove minimum distance on disembarking units from enemy. Units that disembark from a Drop Pod halve charge rolls that turn (rounding down).
- Rhino add rear hatch, two models may shoot from, same as open-topped rule.
- Predator/Razorback 65 points
- Whirlwind 65 points, add Missile Barrage: If this model remained stationary in its previous Movement phase, add 1 shot for every 5 models in the target unit.
- Vindicator 135 points, Demolisher cannon: Heavy 3, when attacking units with 5 or more models add D6 to the number of shots.
VEHICLE models without the DREADNOUGHT keyword may move up to half their Move Characteristic (rounding up) and still fire Heavy weapons without penalty.
VEHICLE models without the FLY keyword can Fall Back and shoot, but suffer -1 to hit in their next shooting phase and may only target the nearest enemy unit.
DREADNOUGHT models may move and fire 1 Heavy weapon without penalty or may advance and fire one assault weapon without penalty.
Chapter Tactics
White Scars: Whenever a WHITE SCARS unit with this tactic Advances it moves an extra 2" in addition to the distance rolled (BIKER units with the Turbo-boost ability therefore move an additional 8" when Advancing). Also, when advancing a WHITE SCARS unit treats Rapid Fire weapons as Assault.
Stratagems
Remove: Chapter Master and Tremor Shells.
Linebreaker Bombardment 1-3CP
Use this Stratagem in your shooting phase before attacking with 1-3 Vindicators [the amount of CP used is equal to the number of Vindicators chosen]. When using this Stratagem on multiple Vindicators, each must be within 6” of another friendly <CHAPTER> Vindicator. Each Vindicator(s) chosen cannot fire their demolisher cannon(s) this phase – instead, select a visible point on the battlefield within 24" of each vehicle. Roll a dice for each unit (friend or foe) within 3" of that point. Add 1 to the result if the unit being rolled for has 5 or more models, but subtract 1 if the unit being rolled for is a CHARACTER. On a 4+ that unit suffers D3 mortal wounds for each attacking Vindicator, on a 6+ that unit instead suffers 3 mortal wounds for each attacking Vindicator.
Killshot 1CP
Use this Stratagem in your Shooting phase if a Predator is within 6" of 1 other friendly <CHAPTER> Predators. If you do so, you can add 1 to the wound rolls for all of the Predators’ attacks that target MONSTERS or VEHICLES this phase. If a Predator is within 6” of 2 other friendly <CHAPTER> Predators, instead add 1 to the wound and damage rolls for attacks that target MONSTERS or VEHICLES this phase.
Empyric Channeling 1CP
Use this Stratagem at the start of a Psychic phase if an ADEPTUS ASTARTES PSYKER is within 6" of at least 1 other friendly <CHAPTER> PSYKERS. The psyker can immediately attempt to manifest one additional psychic power this turn and, when attempting to manifest this power, you can add 2 to the Psychic test.
Scions of Guilliman 1CP
Use this Stratagem when an ULTRAMARINES INFANTRY or ULTRAMARINES BIKER unit is selected to attack in
a Shooting or Fight phase. All models must target the same unit, but add -1 AP to their attacks (to a max of -4).
Orbital Bombardment 2CP
This Stratagem can be used once per battle, in the Shooting phase, if you have an ADEPTUS ASTARTES Warlord that did not move during your Movement phase. Instead of shooting with your Warlord’s weapons, select a visible point on the battlefield and roll a D6 for every unit within 5" of that point. Subtract 1 from the result if the unit being rolled for is a CHARACTER. On a 4+, the unit being rolled for suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Cluster Mines 1CP
Use this Stratagem after a Scout Bike Squad has moved. Place a 1” Cluster Mine token within 3” of the Scout Bike Squad and more than 3” from enemy units. An enemy unit that completes its move within 3" of a Cluster Mine token immediately suffers D3+1 mortal wounds, then the token is removed. Cluster Mine tokens can not be targeted or assaulted and do not block movement or line of sight.
Bolter Drill 2CP (for all chapters)
Use this Stratagem in any phase before an INFANTRY unit shoots. That unit adds 1 to the number of shots on bolt weapons until the end of that phase. For example: rapid fire 1 becomes rapid fire 2 on a boltgun. For the purposes of this Stratagem, a bolt weapon is any weapon profile whose name includes the word ‘bolt’ (e.g. boltgun, bolt rifle, heavy bolter, boltstorm gauntlet). Pedro Kantor’s Dorn’s Arrow is also a bolt weapon. Bolter Drill cannot be used with special issue ammunition.
Masterful Marksmanship 1CP
Use this Stratagem when a Sternguard Veteran Squad is selected to attack in the Shooting phase. When shooting a boltgun, to hit rolls of 5+ count as damage 2 instead of 1.
Fortified Position 1CP
Use this Stratagem after setting up an IMPERIAL FISTS INFANTRY unit (excluding Scout Squads) during deployment. Mark a single terrain feature that unit is on or that is within 1”. That terrain feature adds an additional 1 to saving throws. An army composed of units of IMPERIAL FISTS and other IMPERIUM units that are not IMPERIAL FISTS may only use this Stratagem once.
Machine Empathy 1CP
Use this Stratagem just before an IRON HANDS VEHICLE attacks in the Shooting phase. Until the end of the phase, that vehicle ignores negative modifiers to-hit caused by moving, advancing, or falling back and uses the top row of the model's damage table (if it has one), regardless of how many wounds it has left. This ends immediately if the model is reduced to 0 wounds.
Implacable Fury (replaces Born in the Saddle) 1CP
Use this Stratagem when a WHITE SCARS BIKER or WHITE SCARS INFANTRY unit Advances. That unit does not suffer the penalty for advancing and firing Assault weapons this turn. In addition, if that unit is a BIKER unit it may charge this turn, if it is an INFANTRY unit, Rapid Fire weapons counting as Assault may shoot twice if the target is within half range.
Tactical Flexibility 1CP
When using this stratagem, a Tactical Squad or Intercessor Squad may choose one of the following during the phase or turn specified;
-In your Shooting phase, up to 2 models may shoot twice this turn but must fire at the same target (can be a separate target for each model). May not use with bolter drill.
-In your Shooting phase, all models in the unit may throw a grenade this turn.
-In the opponent's Charge phase, this units' overwatch hits on 5+ until the end of the opponent's turn.
-In your Movement phase, this unit may fall back and still shoot, but subtract 1 from hit rolls this turn (Ultramarines ignore hit penalty).
-At the end of your turn, if this unit secures an objective marker (defend or secure objectives) roll a D6, on a 3+ score an extra VP.
Armor of Contempt 1CP
Use this Stratagem at the start of any phase. Select an ADEPTUS ASTARTES VEHICLE; until the end of the phase, that unit adds 1 to its save characteristic. This is not cumulative with the increased saving throw from cover.
Devastation Protocol 2CP
Use this Stratagem before a Devastator Squad attacks in the Shooting phase. Choose one of the following when that unit attacks that phase;
Each attacking model equipped with a Heavy weapon must target a separate unit but can shoot twice. Each model must target the same unit both times.
Each attacking model equipped with a Heavy weapon must target the closest enemy unit, but all models with Heavy weapons have +1 to hit and re-roll failed wound rolls. (Note: the closest unit is measured from each model in the attacking unit).
Warlord Traits
Iron Resolve: Add 1 to the Wounds characteristic of your Warlord. In addition, the first time this model is reduced to 0 wounds roll a D6, on a 4+ your warlord is not slain and instead has 1 wound remaining.
WHITE SCARS–Feigned Flight: Friendly WHITE SCARS units within 6" of your Warlord may Fall Back and Charge.
IMPERIAL FISTS–Counter Volley: Once per turn, immediately after an enemy unit has attacked in the Shooting phase, choose an Imperial Fists INFANTRY unit that is within 6" of your Warlord. That unit may shoot but subtract 2 from hit rolls. This does not prevent that unit from shooting in their next turn.
IRON HANDS–Enhanced Bionics: Your warlord ignores wounds on a 5+ instead of on a 6.
Librarius Discipline
---Remove Psychic Scourge, replace with; Warp Barrier WC6 If manifested, until the start of your next psychic phase no units (friend or foe) may be placed from reserve or placed via a psychic power w/in 12" of the psyker.
--Fury of the Ancients has a warp charge value of 7. If manifested, roll 3D6 and select a visible enemy model within that many inches of the psyker (if no enemy models are within this range, this power has no further effect). Draw an imaginary straight line between the psyker and that model; each enemy unit that this line passes over or through suffers D3 mortal wounds.
--Psychic Fortress WC7, If manifested, select a friendly ADEPTUS ASTARTES unit within 6” of the bearer. Until the start of you next psychic phase, that unit automatically passes morale and ignores wounds on a 5+.
--Veil of Time WC7 If manifested, select a friendly ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY unit within 12" of the psyker. Until the start of your next psychic phase that unit may re-roll failed saving throws.
As it was interesting to read a full change on general SM rules, I don't think it would fix most of the issues. Also, this rules add too much instead of changing things, and some are quite good and many unnecessary. I would rethink the unit rules mainly, the strategems are quite acceptable, but 28pts for full re-rol to hit is too much. Keep thinking and testing, and if you come up with a better version of this changes, go ahead and post it!
Cheers
However, I think a 1+ save on terminators would still work, even with that niche army not having very much 
