UPDATE: Due to my own madness I've expanded this to include ALL Astartes codexes (that includes the Traitors too) and not just the vanilla one. First off because the vanilla armies basically share a mass of units between each other, and because the basic issues that the armies have roll over into the CSM book as well (like Cultists being mathematically better than CSM on basically all fronts when you take the same number of points).
So if you're starting from here: if the codex has the keyword Adeptus Astartes it's fair game: what needs help?
At the time of this post I'm tracking all Astartes models have issues with their saves lacking value, their melee and shooting lacking sufficient quality/quantity to combat their lower model count, vehicles needing to benefit from CT and LT as well as issues with morale protection being mostly non-existent, so what else needs to be looked at?
Spoiler:
We've basically well established that the vanilla codex is rather...weak at best. And in the interest of giving GW detailed feedback in hopes that their eventual update to the army comes around I had to ask myself "what would it take to bring this army from being balanced against the index to being balanced against the other armies in the game?"
Let's leave point changes off the table since those are likely coming in Chapter Approved. No, let's talk rules.
First off, Chapter Tactics should apply to every model with the <Chapter> rule save for Servitors. Just because someone is piloting or gunning in a tank doesn't mean he doesn't forget how to fight like a member of his chapter. This is basically an automatic change for most people, but let's go past that and look at all the chapter tactics as well.
The adjustments I feel could help here is making the chapter tactic two parts. The first benefiting the army as a whole, the second which encourages specific builds for the army to both encourage different flavors of Marines to approach the codex differently and bring out a flavor that fits the lore of the army.
The first draft of rules:
[spoiler]Ultramarines: +1 Leadership; Infantry, Biker and Dreadnoughts may still fire after falling back at -1.
Not much I could really see to change this one. The army is well balanced in terms of benefits and allows players to be a bit more aggressive with less penalty. Honestly this is one I'd leave alone since it works, even if it's not the automatic best option in the book (not counting Guilliman as a bonus to this of course).
White Scars: +2" Advance and Charge (this still means a +8" Turbo Boost); Units can charge in a turn they fell back
Increased charge range lets these guys be more likely to hit and run more often and promotes these guys to the hit and run army.
Imperial Fists: Enemy units don't benefit from cover; Bolt weapons generate additional shots on a hit roll of 6+ (these additional hits don't generate futher hits).
The bolter masters are back basically. This basically makes Imperial Fists the best choice for shooting armies, but pushes them towards being more heavily focused on bolters. Naturally this means the Fortification bonus would be a stratagem instead since it's less likely to even show up in most games but flavorful so shouldn't go away completely.
Black Templars: Reroll failed charges; Infantry, Biker and Dreadnought models gain +1 Attack on a turn they charge, were charged or perform a Heroic Intervention.
With other melee based armies getting bonuses to their actual combat, it only felt right that the OG Power Armoured Horde gets one of their own, and making it so that a Crusader Squad can swing up to 61 times if they're running around at full size (20 models with chainswords = 40 attacks, +20 for a first turn of combat = 60 attacks, +1 for Sword Brother = 61 total). Basically if you want to Black Tide this would be the ultimate bonus for doing so: a bucket of dice.
Salamanders: Re-roll single hit and wound roll per unit each time it shoots and fights; flamer weapons roll two dice and take the highest to determine the number of shots they fire
We all know Salamanders as the masters of having well crafted wargear and burning people alive. This would make flamers more effective for them without getting too silly about it.
Raven Guard: Ignore charge penalties; Infantry models who haven't moved this turn count as being in cover, Infantry models already in cover who haven't moved this turn gain an additional +1 to their cover save.
More reliable charging through terrain to give them a feeling of being ambush specialists (since you usually ambush out of terrain you were hidden in) while changes would need to be made to the CT if the entire army can benefit from the rule to keep the Raven Guard from turning into the best option for running tanks in the codex.
Iron Hands: 6+ to ignore lost wounds; Never lose more than 1 model due to a failed morale check
Basically their hard to remove nature only becomes even harder. With even their vehicles getting a chance to shrug off wounds an Iron Hands army would be the sturdiest choice in the codex by far.
Now naturally the changes wouldn't be limited to just that, so let's keep going.
First, to adjust the Imperial Fists strategem:
Siege Specialists: 2 CP, Use this Stratagem before an Imperial Fists unit attacks in the shooting or fight phase. Until the end of the phase the unit may reroll all to hit, to wound rolls and damage rolls against models with the Building keyword.
Simple, clean and makes the army really good at cracking a building, but at a cost (2 CP due to it rerolling everything against buildings and making it more likely to turn fortifications into rubble with some good rolls).
Now let's make some fixes on the Warlord Traits:
The Imperium's Sword: Re-roll failed charges for your Warlord; +1 attack if you charged or made a Heroic Intervention
If we're giving out bonuses for being aggressive with your warlord, we might as well go full in and make it work on Heroic Interventions too.
Iron Resolve: +1 wound; ignore lost wounds on a roll of a 6, Iron Hands ignore wounds on a roll of a 5 or a 6 instead.
Biggest fix here is making it so Iron Hands don't just ignore it because they already have half the bonus.
Adept of the Codex (Ultramarines): Once per game, if your warlord is alive you may roll a die for each Command Point spent on a Stratagem, on a 5+ you regain that Command Point.
Infinite command point regeneration is a cancer in the game right now and if we're making adjustments we might as well include the few nerfs the army needs too.
I can't comment on Psychic Powers as much as I'd like as I'm not as well versed in using them this editon so I'll let someone else fill in on this and give some ideas how we can adjust what we have to be less "pick X and Y and ignore the rest".
Now I can comment on wargear a bit though, and will:
Stalker bolt rifle: Either Heavy 2 OR allow it to target models like a sniper rifle. If given both benefits it'd need a points bump and I'd rather see it be the army's way of having powered armour snipers or be a weapon for pumping out higher quality of shots from a static position.
Flamestorm gauntlets (shooting): 18" range. Basically it'd have torrent levels of range and make it an actual threat instead of something that can never quite waddle into range.
Heavy Plasma incinerator: Heavy 2. Not a big change, but it'd actually be worth dropping extra points on using this way.
Bolt pistols (on Primaris Models): just make these all Heavy Bolt Pistols. There is no point in giving the faction a unique bolt pistol that matches the bolt rifle if almost no one uses it (especially since we can see the bolt pistol on Primaris models is different than regular bolt pistols).
Terminator armour (all types): Reduce damage from weapons by 1 (to a minimum of 1). D2 weapons keeping these guys on the shelf? Being able to treat those as D1 weapons would go a long way to making Terminators likely to stick around a lot longer.
Second draft:
Spoiler:
Alright, so I started this thing so I might as well go through everything then to get some discussion going about the codex in whole. I'm going to avoid anything that essentially could just get cheaper (from my viewpoint at least) as a fix. The ultimate goal of this will always remain a submission to GW on why the community is neglecting so much of the book's options, what could change about them to make them a viable option for most players, and generally the point is to get away from just making the army cheaper and cheaper until we start looking like a Guard army with better wargear.
There are two main goals I have for this whole submission:
1. Present a method in which an elite army like Space Marines may be reasonably balanced against other armies, particularly horde armies, while keeping in mind that many changes made here will apply to other armies here when taking into considering wargear or the base mechanics of Marines. Many buffs could end up buffing other armies and it could easilly defeat the purpose of the buff if it leaves the army unable to reach a balanced state within the game.
2. Give each chapter in the codex a faction bonus that provides benefits that every unit can enjoy without imbalancing the game while also giving each a specialization bonus that rewards the choosing of certain wargear or unit types creating distinct types of armies within the framework of the greater codex.
To kick things off, let's go back over those Chapter Tactics again, shall we? Don't worry, this isn't a rehash but rather an update.
Now I've gotten some feedback about these already which has helped me refine the rules a bit more. Each will be a two part bonus to the faction, the first something any unit can enjoy, the second a more focused bonus for specific models or weapons to create an army specialization that will allow each chapter to have a disctinct playstyle from each other if a player builds towards it. I want to start with these first because it creates a picture in your mind on how each change might affect one chapter more than another.
Chapter Tactics: If your army is Battle-forged models with the <Chapter> keyword in a Space Marines detachement gain a Chapter Tactic as long as every unit in that detachment is drawn from the same Chapter.
It's a small change to the way the chapter tactics work, but it's a change every Space Marine player can say should apply. It opens the army up to a lot more flexibility and makes vehicles worth taking knowing that you can kit them to work like the rest of your army.
Ultramarines: Codex Discipline: Ultramarines units never lose more than a single model due to a failed morale test. Models with the Character, Dreadnought, or Vehicle keywords instead gain +1 Leadership. Ultramarines units may shoot in the same turn in which they Fall Back.
The change here is to encourage Ultramarine units to form larger units due to a lower fear of morale as well as giving single model units greater protection against effects that target leadership. The penalty for falling back and shooting was removed to coinicide with the previous change to encourage Ultramarine armies to be aggressive in their approach as they can get stuck in with less fear of morale and then step back and open fire with all barrels.
White Scars: Lightning Assault: Whenever a White Scars unit Advances, Charges or Turbo-boosts it moves an additional 2" in addition to the distance rolled (turbo-boosting models move the full 6" plus the additional 2" for a full 8" instead of rolling). Models with the Biker, Infantry or Dreadnought rule may charge on a turn they Fall Back at no penalty. Models with the Vehicle keyword (to include Vehicle models with the Dreadnought keyword) treat their weapons as assault weapons during a turn in which they advanced (ex. Rapid Fire 1 becomes Assault 1, Heavy 3 becomes Heavy 3).
The biggest change here is making the army faster overall. The White Scars are known for modifying even their tanks to go faster and it didn't make any sense that they should be going slower. Additionally, as a chapter that basically hits the enemy as they drive through them the chapter isn't known for slowing down, making the bonus to their charges something that just fits naturally. Generally speaking this is the army that moves the fastest, and can slam into the enemy multiple times to kill it making it so they can keep something tied up on your opponent's turn before breaking free, shooting with your army's suport elements and then hitting that unit again.
Imperial Fists: Siege Masters: Enemy units do not recieve benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by Imperial Fists models, furthermore Imperial Fists re-roll all to-wound and damage rolls against enemy models with the Building keyword. In addition models making a shooting attack with a bolt weapon (any weapon with "bolt" in it's name and Dorn's Arrow are all bolt weapons as is the boltgun half of a combi-weapon) may make an additional to-hit roll for every roll of a 6. These to-hit rolls do not generate additional shots. The non-bolt weapon portion of a combi-weapon additionally does not benefit from this rule.
While I feel the rule towards buildings to be incredibly fluffy, it's not enough to build an army around as it's more situational than something you can build an army around. As such I didn't take it away but rolled it into the first effect as it fits well with their removal of an enemy's army protection mechanic. Making them the army that benefits the most from taking bolter weapons was more to make a nod to their special rule in their previous supplement material. This creates an army with a focus on shooting, but with a key focus on using bolt weapons as the basis of that shooting.
Black Templars: Righteous Zeal: You can re-roll either or both dice when a Black Templar unit fails a charge roll. On a turn a model with this rule charges, was charged or makes a Heroic Intervention add 1 to its Attacks characteristic until the end of the Fight Phase .
The Black Templars are quite clearly the melee focused army in the codex and it needs to show. Making their charges more reliable through rerolls ensures these zealots will make it to combat more often while the extra attack seperates them from their fellow Astartes as being the army that throws the most dice in combat. Basically the intent is to make them feel like an army that benefits from being stuck in, and gets stuck in more often.
Salamanders: Master Artisans: Salamander units with this rule may re-roll a single to-hit and to-wound roll each time they shoot or fight. Additionally when using a weapon that rolls to determine the number of shots or attacks you may roll two dice and take the highest result.
The biggest benefit for this rule is undoubtably to vehicle with lower numbers of shots such as lascannon predators, but also helps weapons that swing the other way by making weapons that roll random number of shots more reliable for the army. Ultimately this makes Salamanders a strong contender for certain heavy weapon options as well as weapons such as the flamer which are less than reliable at times.
Raven Guard: Shadow Masters: Raven Guard units that have not advanced or charged this turn gain the benefits for cover. Models that are already in cover and have not moved instead gain an additional +1 to their cover save bonus. Additionally, when targeting Infantry models with this special rule, your opponent must subtract 1 from their to-hit rolls if they are more than 12" away.
There were two changes here: the first was to make it so the army still has a benefit for their ability to hide themselves and their use of camoflauge, allowing them to feel like the ambush masters they should be, while giving Infantry models the existing bonus as a means of encouraging lists that aren't just a mass of tanks that get a cover bonus in the open.
Iron Hands: The Flesh is Weak: Roll a die each time an Iron Hands model loses a wound. On a unmodified roll of a 6 the damage is ignored and the model does not lose a wound. Models with the Character, Terminator or Dreadnought keywords instead ignore the lost wound on an unmodified roll of 5 or 6. Additionally Iron Hand models with the Vehicle keyword ignore penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Not only are the more heavilly augmented of the chapter more likely to ignore wounds like they do in the lore, though with future proofing so that the mechanic can't be boosted or reduced by any other rules. Of course, the augmented nature of the Iron Hands become the army that benefits from bringing the most heavy weapons, though due to the way the rules work, they'll be different than the ones seen in a Salamanders army due to the benefits being different. This allows two different kind of armies to come out of the codex that both favor heavier weapons, but favor different ones due to the nature of how the rules interact with the weapons.
With how each chapter operates laid out and given a bonus that makes them feel more in line with their lore now it's time to look at the Warlord Traits. Not all of these need to be looked at as most are pretty solid as is and frankly work as viable options for the army that can take them. So in the interest of not making this longer than it already is going to be, let's keep to the ones that actually need addressing:
Angel of Death: Subtract 1 from the Leadership characteristic of enemy units that are within 6" of your Warlord. If your Warlord has slain an enemy Character during the game instead Subtract 2 from the Leadership characterisitic of enemy units within 12" of your Warlord.
Not a big change here, but it encourages you to use your warlord more aggressively to take out enemy characters during the game.
The Imperium's Sword: Re-roll failed charge rolls for your Warlord. Models with the Black Templars keyword instead roll 3 dice and pick the two highest when making charge rolls. In addition in a turn that your Warlord has charged or makes an Heroic Intervention add 1 to their Attacks characteristic until the end of the fight phase.
Biggest changes here were to make it less redundant to Black Templars while also giving a bonus for Heroic Interventions to make it more likely to see the table for armies who need a defensive melee character escorting their deathball on the table.
Iron Resolve: Add 1 to the Wounds characteristic of your warlord. In addition, roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound. On an unmodified roll of a 5 or 6, your Warlord shrugs off the damage and does not lose the wound. Models with the Iron Hands keyword instead ignore a lost wound on an unmodified roll of a 4, 5, or 6.
Due to the proposed changes in the Iron Hands tactic it was basically a necessity to make this work on a 4+ for an Iron Hands warlord. That said, if you want a tank of a character, they're the ones who'll most likely allow you to be one. That's the perks of replacing most of your body with robotic parts I suppose.
Rites of War: Friendly <Chapter> units within 6" of your Warlord automatically pass Morale tests. Additionally units within 6" of your Warlord count as hitting on a 5 or 6 when firing Overwatch.
Biggest change here is to give player better benefit out of the trait for huddling models up on the board. A bonus to overwatch makes this a viable choice for gunline or deathball style armies even when paired with units that don't tend to run full sized squads (Primaris or Devastators for example who don't worry about morale as much).
Champion of Humanity: You can add 1 to all hit and wound rolls made for your Warlord in the Fight phase when targeting an enemy Character or Monster.
Change here is that some of the things you want to throw a beatstick warlord at aren't characters and really any hero of the Imperium should be able to fight either of these things on equal measure.
Adept of the Codex (Ultramarines): While your Warlord is alive and on the table once per phase you may reuse a previously used Stratagem. Stratagems that target friendly units this way may not target the same unit twice, and can not be used to exceed any limitations within the stratagem that limit when they can be used or how many times a game they can be used. Additionally, once per game you may attempt to regain Command Points spent on a stratagem. If you choose to do this, roll a die for each Command Point, on a 2+ that CP is immediately refunded.
Obviously I'm not a fan of the current Adepts of the Codex as unlimited CP regeneration is a broken mechanic in the game when given for free so the change was to make the Ultramarines the more tactically flexible army instead by allowing them to use stratagems more often. This also allows them to partially negate the effects of Agents of Vect by allowing them to reuse a critical statagem that they were denied in that phase.
Oathkeeper (Black Templars): At the beginning of the first Battle Round, but before the first turn begins, your Warlord swears a Vow against the enemy forces. Choose a Vow from the following list and apply it's effects immediately:
Abhor the Witch: Your Warlord can attempt to deny one psychic power per turn as if they were a psyker. If they have the Armour of Contempt special rule they may instead attempt to deny one additional psychic power per turn.
Purge the Heretic: Your Warlord may perform a Heroic Interventions if the enemy are within 6" (instead of 3" and move up to 6" while doing so. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord may roll an extra die and choose the highest when making charge rolls.
Suffer not the Unclean to Live: Your Warlord gains +1 to hit and wound rolls made against models with the Character keywords. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord roll an extra die and choose the highest while Advancing.
This is a long one but generally the idea is to give the Black Templars their vows back. Each has an obvious bonus against a specific enemy in combat, but comes with an additional use that may cause the vows to be taken against other opponents instead. Honestly these likely need work and have been through several versions before I posted these. Ideas and suggestions especialyl welcome here.
With Warlord traits covered, let's talk Wargear. As before I'm only talking about changes here, but the point of these changes is as always going to be with the mind that other armies may see the changes just as well. As such there won't be as much changed her because any bonus to bolters (for example) would equally apply to an army like Sisters of Battle who typically greatly outnumber Space Marines and would negate any bonus that weapon would have against the cheaper bodies. Ideally I'd love to say that every bolter is Rapid Fire 2 and -1 AP to make Marines have the shooting output of a horde army on a smaller body count (and making every casualty take more out of the army in return) but realistically it doesn't work when you consider that the bolter is spread across a number of other armies and a higher body count army with bolters like Sisters or Scouts would become a broken mess in terms of balance.
Ranged Weapons Bolt pistol (on Primaris models): Replace with Heavy Bolt Pistol. The Primaris are a more elite form of the regular Space Marine army and as such require more quality damage output to make up for their smaller numbers. The additional AP doesn't break balance for the army while giving the units a bit more punch when locked in combat, which is important for a group that lacks a number of melee options.
Demolisher Cannon: When targetting a unit of 5 or more models change this weapon's Type to Heavy 2D3. Generally speaking feedback I've seen time and time again is players prefer to have 2D3 shots over D6 as the average number of shots is higher for the 2D3 (4 versus 3) and it means firing at least 2 shots instead of 1. Basically it just does so much more to make the gun more likely to see the table with this change even without a points change.
Flamestorm gauntlets (shooting): 12" range Generally speaking no one takes these guys due to the range of their weapon being so short and with the loss of templates the fixation of 8" being the range for flame weapons can go away now. The weapon was left unchanged as the Auto Boltstorm Gauntlet pattern comes with the Fragstorm Launchers standard and fires 6+D6 shots meaning the minimum number of shots for the boltstorm variant is higher, but the Flamestorm varient trades that for automatically hitting.
Grav (all varients): If the target has a Save characterisitc of 3+ or better, this weapon's Strength caracteristic is doubled and the Damage characteristic is increased to D3.
Grav-Cannon and grav-amp: Heavy 2
The heavier something is the harder this is supposed to hit, so the way it hits should reflect that. As such increasing it to S10 makes it more likely to hurt those bigger models. However, keeping the Grav-cannon at Heavy 4 wasn't a balanced choice as that would give a Devastator Squad 16 S10 shots against anything with a 3+ or better which would be outright mad.
Heavy Flamer: 12" range, Heavy 2D3. Honestly I don't get the original change from Assault to Heavy, but regardless, we've given up the flamer template and as such it's a good way to make the Heavy Flamer a different weapon from the regular Flamer. An increased range makes it possible for it to reach out and touch the things easier while the 2D3 shots gives it a better average on it's number of hits over a standard flamer. Basically it's moving the weapon beyond just being a slight S and AP boost over the base flamer and makes it feel like a proper heavy weapon on the table.
Heavy Plasma Incinerator: Heavy 2. A slight points increase on the gun might be needed but honestly the reason this version of the Hellblaster's gun is left off the table beyond proxy is because the increased strength isn't enough to counterbalance the loss of mobility from making it a Heavy weapon as well as decreasing the number of shots. Giving it extra shots makes it more into the Primaris answer for more heavilly armoured models (such as vehicles, Custodes and Monsters) while still retaining the same limitations the current gun has: slower movement with decreased efficiency when you need to move.
Master-crafted Stalker bolt rifle/Stalker bolt rifle: Heavy 2 OR the ability to target characters. Either of these options would fix the Stalker bolt rifle so that it would see the table more often. As it currently is the Stalker has the same basic problems the Heavy Plasma Incinerator does: the loss of mobility AND number of shots with no bonus to targetting isn't enough to justify taking this weapon for just about anyone. Being able to target Characters like a Sniper Rifle or giving it Heavy 2 to allow it to offset it's lowered movement would put these into people's lists, even if it brought a slight points increase.
Melta (all types): Double weapon strength at half range instead of the bonus to damage rolls. Additionally change the damage characteristic to D3+3. These are weapons meant to slag even the heaviest of armour at close range and even from further away it could still do a severe amount of damage if it punches through the armour. For obvious reasons this means the Melta bomb should always be S16 as well.
Plasma weapons (all types): Change the bearer being slain to the bearer taking a mortal wound. While having your guys have their faces melt off is a long standing featur of the lore, the introduction of Mortal Wounds really fits this mechanic better and would allow for better synergy with armies that have mechanics to allow them to ignore Mortal Wounds, such as Iron Hands or Death Guard. This would also cut down how much the mechanic punishes multi-wound models such as Primaris or HQ choices for using plasma.
Melee Weapons Chainsword/Combat Knife: -1 AP. This may require a small (1-2 point) bump as it'd still give an extra attack, but considering the lower number of attacks that can be put out by a Marine army compared to larger armies like Orks or even Guard there needs to be a quality bump to offset the lowered quantity of attacks.
Power Sword: Abilities: Parry: Increase the bearer's save by 1 during the Fight Phase. Generally the Power Sword is seen as a lot less of a choice. It doesn't make wounding models easier like the other options, and while it's better at ignoring armour there is a diminishing return on this against most targets. Increasing the defensive ability of the bearer at least gives it a utility beyond strictly trying to more effectively stab the other guy.
Vehicle Wargear Dozer Blades: Double the bearer's Attacks characteristic until the end of the Fight Phase on a turn it has completed a successful charge. Basically let's bring these back and then let players use them to ram people.
Siege Shield: The bearer's Save characteristic is increased by 1 against shooting attacks. Giving a Vindicator tank an increased save against shooting for a points cost doesn't break the army as much as it gives a tank with rather limited firepower more staying power so it might actually weather more than a unit's shooting before it's reduced to a smoking puddle of slag on the table.
Misc Equipment Terminator Armour: Models with the Terminator keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Additionally increase their save to 1+. Since a 1 always fails this means that the save only negates the first AP of a weapon and reduces how effective multidamage weapons are. Essentially it means they won't go down quite as fast to anything less than dedicated heavy weapon fire or weight of dice.
Power Armour: Has +1 to it's save Characteristic against weapons with an AP profile of -1 or greater (-2,-3,ect). This was a hard one to puzzle over as Power Armour is on so many different armies. Increasing the save like All is Dust could just lead to us having Sisters running around with effective 2+ saves all the time, and a FnP effect wasn't really going to work either. In the end negating 1 of the weapon's AP seemed like the cleanest solution, though it does mean that you need to hit Thousand Sons Rubric models with -2 AP just to get them to a 3+. Magnus would be proud I guess?
Centurion Armour: Models with the Centurion keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by 1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. Yes, even the waddlebots are getting a look here, because honestly all that extra armour should be doing something more than it is.
Gravis Armour: Models with the Gravis keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by +1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. With how durable Gravis is supposed to be it needed something to feel like it was going to stay on the table longer. As lazy as it is to just reuse All Is Dust, here and on the Centurion armour, the extra armour being stronger against weaker weapons makes sense in terms of the lore. Reducing the weapon damage fits equally well and gives them more staying power. With these additions the need to push points down on the models becomes rather moot as they become the durable weapon platfoms they're shown as in the lore.
So what changes do you feel the codex needs to fix the balance with the rest of the game?[/spoiler]
Terminator armour (all types): Reduce damage from weapons by 1 (to a minimum of 1). D2 weapons keeping these guys on the shelf? Being able to treat those as D1 weapons would go a long way to making Terminators likely to stick around a lot longer.
I like this very much, and I would add that this rule should replace the 5++. Also give them 1+ armour (1s still fail, of course) and you have a very durable unit that might actually stick around long enough to do something.
Terminator armour (all types): Reduce damage from weapons by 1 (to a minimum of 1). D2 weapons keeping these guys on the shelf? Being able to treat those as D1 weapons would go a long way to making Terminators likely to stick around a lot longer.
I like this very much, and I would add that this rule should replace the 5++. Also give them 1+ armour (1s still fail, of course) and you have a very durable unit that might actually stick around long enough to do something.
-
I don't think we should drop the 5++ if only for the fact that the save historically came from the Crux Terminatus which contains a microscopic sliver of the Emperor's own armour and not the Terminator armour itself, but the 1+ idea sounds good.
Wow do you hate Ultramarines with some passion.
You've given them no improvement and massively nerfed their unique warlord trait, which is rarely used outside of named charictors as marine strategums are so hot garbage.
While I get you dont want to turn Raven guard into the next Alitoc Eldar OPBS. Marine vehicals are made of paper for their points and need some serious survivability improvements to be worth fielding.
That is the reason everone when straight to flyers then FW dreadnaughts with invulnerable saves.
18 inch flamestorm guantlets are broken as feth, especially when you add double shooting(aggressors built in bonus rule)
Heavy Plasma doesn't need 2 shots. It is where it should be the problem is GW decieded to +1 to plasma's strength in the change to 8th edition presumably as primaris marines rely on plasma for their anti tank. When they undo that mistake the problem goes away.
Ice_can wrote: Wow do you hate Ultramarines with some passion.
You've given them no improvement and massively nerfed their unique warlord trait, which is rarely used outside of named charictors as marine strategums are so hot garbage.
I couldn't think of any improvement to give the most vanilla army choice. If you have one I'm up for hearing it. CP regeneration needs to be nerfed though.
Ice_can wrote: While I get you dont want to turn Raven guard into the next Alitoc Eldar OPBS. Marine vehicals are made of paper for their points and need some serious survivability improvements to be worth fielding.
Which arguably is more the Iron Hand's forte, not the Raven Guard's. That said, counting as being in cover if you don't move isn't broken, even on tanks, but then we risk Raven Guard turning into the mech gunline army due to having the better saves over even the Iron Hands' stuff.
Ice_can wrote: 18 inch flamestorm guantlets are broken as feth, especially when you add double shooting(aggressors built in bonus rule)
8" is far too short though. Maybe split the difference and put it at 12"?
Ice_can wrote: Heavy Plasma doesn't need 2 shots. It is where it should be the problem is GW decieded to +1 to plasma's strength in the change to 8th edition presumably as primaris marines rely on plasma for their anti tank. When they undo that mistake the problem goes away.
Go read the Primaris tactics thread. Even with that S9 overcharge you don't see people relying on it for anti-tank for Primaris. The volume of fire is too low to justify its points cost even with the bonus to strength.
I like a lot of your proposed changes, and while I agree that a -1 to hit trait applied to an entire army would be very bad for the game, I definitely feel that your Raven Guard chapter tactic is extremely lackluster. Maybe something like <INFANTRY> are -1 to hit at more than 12" and other units, such as vehicles or bikes get the benefit of cover even out in the open. Also, the Adept of the Codex warlord trait looks very useless as you have it written. It would have to do something else for sure to make it worth taking. Love Iron Resolve change.
The thing discussing rules changes to solves problems reminds me of is something Mark Rosewater, one of the designers for magic the gathering said. I can't find the exact quote ATM but it was essentially "players are excellent at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions". Not really aimed at anything in particular but some people get very adamant about how their suggestions are exactly what the game needs then refuse to analyse or elaborate.
One of the problems I feel is people often have short posts that say "just do this it's simple". For threads like this to be productive people need to put depth into their responses. They need to first point out the problem. Then suggest a solution. After that elaborate on how that impacts the unit in question and the game as a whole. Solutions need to be elegant, for example points based solutions are elegant, They don't add any new rules or interactions or need players to memorise anything new. A solution like "missile launchers suck, give them 2 extra ammo types, one for flyers and one for heavy infantry" is not an elegant solution. It means that the new ammo types would need to be tested against all possible targets, the points value of the weapons with the new profiles would need to be re-examined, players need to memorise the new profiles, etc. A similar thing happens when people suggest giving a unit three new special rules to "fix" it. Changes need to be made one at a time and analysed properly, then each combination of potential rules need to be tested together to see what fits best with the goal for those changes while being as friendly on the players and changing as little of the system as possible.
I feel like if people put more thought into their posts a thread like this could be very productive and come with some elegant solutions to problems. But this is the internet so most replies will likely be offhanded comments that the poster just feels seems like the right fix. Everyone thinks these sorts of thoughts at times but rules changes need to be elegant, well reasoned and tested.
TL;DR: When making suggestions say the unit, the problem, the proposed fix, the impact of the fix on the unit and the game as a whole.
CommunistNapkin wrote: I like a lot of your proposed changes, and while I agree that a -1 to hit trait applied to an entire army would be very bad for the game, I definitely feel that your Raven Guard chapter tactic is extremely lackluster. Maybe something like <INFANTRY> are -1 to hit at more than 12" and other units, such as vehicles or bikes get the benefit of cover even out in the open. Also, the Adept of the Codex warlord trait looks very useless as you have it written. It would have to do something else for sure to make it worth taking. Love Iron Resolve change.
That could work for Raven Guard honestly. It'd still be strong, but it wouldn't turn the army into the nonsense we see from the Eldar, nor would it throw Iron Hands under the bus as being the better mechanized army.
About the only buff I could see for Adept of the Codex is perhaps you pay 1 less CP (to a minimum of 1) for stratagems, but if we're charging less for CP then we might as well drop the CP regeneration instead.
I like the flavor, and appreciate that your suggestions are within reason.
I think a lot more iterating would be needed. However, realize that the other PA books generally suffer the same problems - so fixing Tacs by buffing Vanilla may not be ideal.
That said, yes, please change CTs. For instance, UM clearly need *something*, even if it's just +1LD atop what they currently get. I
t's hard to argue with CTs-affect-vehicles (mostly). I'd rather it be a tactic-by-tactic thing. I'd imagine the upthread Sally and RG tactics would only affect Infantry, but Iron Hands would affect everything.
On the topic of the RG trait, I'd love all the relevant factions (Alpha Legion and Alaitoc) to get such a change. If it needs toning down, look at the +1-cover-saves bit. Further, with that not impacting vehicles, I think you'd see RG played the way we think of them.
A true fix for the SM codex may need to actually *nerf* some options so that there's room to buff others. Nerf Big G further, and there'll be less problems buffing UltraMarines or Marines in general. Same with Agressors and double shooting. But I'm sure that's beyond the scope of what you're looking to do here.
I like your changes. I'd love to see them. I'd love for them to go further.
About the only buff I could see for Adept of the Codex is perhaps you pay 1 less CP (to a minimum of 1) for stratagems, but if we're charging less for CP then we might as well drop the CP regeneration instead.
The problem with that solution in 90% of the marine strategums are already only 1 CP so it doesn't work on them. Regeneration from a single source without paying 40 points per CP isn't half as broken as what people think.
Marines pay more points per CP in the first place and have poor strategums. They also lack the equivalent of Kurov's Aquila to generate the broken regenerate, steal, regenerate combos.
The other option is to give them the hard counter to agents of vect
Adepts of the Codex. Your ultramarine warlord is so well versed in the strategic teachings of thier primarch they can play one strategum for 0 Comand points once per turn, even if that strategum has already been played this phase.
CommunistNapkin wrote: I like a lot of your proposed changes, and while I agree that a -1 to hit trait applied to an entire army would be very bad for the game, I definitely feel that your Raven Guard chapter tactic is extremely lackluster. Maybe something like <INFANTRY> are -1 to hit at more than 12" and other units, such as vehicles or bikes get the benefit of cover even out in the open. Also, the Adept of the Codex warlord trait looks very useless as you have it written. It would have to do something else for sure to make it worth taking. Love Iron Resolve change.
That could work for Raven Guard honestly. It'd still be strong, but it wouldn't turn the army into the nonsense we see from the Eldar, nor would it throw Iron Hands under the bus as being the better mechanized army.
About the only buff I could see for Adept of the Codex is perhaps you pay 1 less CP (to a minimum of 1) for stratagems, but if we're charging less for CP then we might as well drop the CP regeneration instead.
In regards to the Aspect of the Codex, I would give it something else unrelated to CP's. Honestly I'm not sure the best thing to do with it, but I think the way you have written it can safely be filed in the "never take" category. No offense intended.
Bharring wrote: I like the flavor, and appreciate that your suggestions are within reason.
I think a lot more iterating would be needed. However, realize that the other PA books generally suffer the same problems - so fixing Tacs by buffing Vanilla may not be ideal.
That said, yes, please change CTs. For instance, UM clearly need *something*, even if it's just +1LD atop what they currently get. I
t's hard to argue with CTs-affect-vehicles (mostly). I'd rather it be a tactic-by-tactic thing. I'd imagine the upthread Sally and RG tactics would only affect Infantry, but Iron Hands would affect everything.
On the topic of the RG trait, I'd love all the relevant factions (Alpha Legion and Alaitoc) to get such a change. If it needs toning down, look at the +1-cover-saves bit. Further, with that not impacting vehicles, I think you'd see RG played the way we think of them.
A true fix for the SM codex may need to actually *nerf* some options so that there's room to buff others. Nerf Big G further, and there'll be less problems buffing UltraMarines or Marines in general. Same with Agressors and double shooting. But I'm sure that's beyond the scope of what you're looking to do here.
I like your changes. I'd love to see them. I'd love for them to go further.
I'm not against making changes that would have to be applied to other armies (see my wargear suggestions for examples because those would work for every army with that wargear), but I disagree that the CT shouldn't work on vehicles. Someone with a century of training shouldn't forget that his chapter really loves to use bolters (using the IF as an example here) when hes the gunner on a Rhino for example. The trick, I suppose, it finding a way to balance giving the bonus to everyone while at the same time not breaking the game.
The UM CT definitely needs something to balance nerfing the regeneration CP but I don't think it's more LD. I feel like a discount on spent CP might be the method (allowing them to do things like Orbital Bombardment for cheaper) but still charges them for 1 CP stuff at the same rate as everyone else.
Guilliman could be nerfed to only affect Ultramarines, but honestly I only feel it doesn't fit the lore to do so. Primarchs are supposed to be a really big deal and keeping him a really big deal fits quite well. Honestly he might keep the points from dipping too much in the book more than affect the wargear or rules options too much.
About the only buff I could see for Adept of the Codex is perhaps you pay 1 less CP (to a minimum of 1) for stratagems, but if we're charging less for CP then we might as well drop the CP regeneration instead.
The problem with that solution in 90% of the marine strategums are already only 1 CP so it doesn't work on them. Regeneration from a single source without paying 40 points per CP isn't half as broken as what people think.
Marines pay more points per CP in the first place and have poor strategums. They also lack the equivalent of Kurov's Aquila to generate the broken regenerate, steal, regenerate combos.
The other option is to give them the hard counter to agents of vect
Adepts of the Codex. Your ultramarine warlord is so well versed in the strategic teachings of thier primarch they can play one strategum for 0 Comand points once per turn, even if that strategum has already been played this phase.
Actually, I really like your Adepts of the Codex idea here. One free strat per turn is better than regaining points, and it'd give the army some late game options if they burned through their CP. Plus it'd let the army get two rerolls a phase which could be a rather unique mechanic for them.
Adepts of the Codex. Your ultramarine warlord is so well versed in the strategic teachings of thier primarch they can play one strategum for 0 Comand points once per turn, even if that strategum has already been played this phase.
Oh, I like that line of thinking, but think that would be a bit too powerful. Maybe instead it could be something like...
Adept of the Codex: Once per turn, as long as your warlord is on the table, you may use a single stratagem that you have already used this turn a second time in the same phase, at the cost of +1 CP.
I'm not sure the best way to word that to prevent random mechanics abuse that I haven't considered, but I feel this could be interesting. A second reroll for 2 CP, or even something like a second Hellfire Rounds or Flakk Missile for 2 CP. I think it gives a very interested play-style option without being blatantly too powerful and a must-take, or too mediocre and a never-take.
Or maybe going in the opposite direction with a: Once per game while your Warlord is alive and on the table, you may use any stratagem available to your army without paying its CP cost.
In regards to the Aspect of the Codex, I would give it something else unrelated to CP's. Honestly I'm not sure the best thing to do with it, but I think the way you have written it can safely be filed in the "never take" category. No offense intended.
None taken! The whole point of opening this up was to try and ensure I'm not falling down the rabbit hole of changes that don't fix things, and hearing other people's ideas helps me more carefully address things when I get the final submission put together.
About the only buff I could see for Adept of the Codex is perhaps you pay 1 less CP (to a minimum of 1) for stratagems, but if we're charging less for CP then we might as well drop the CP regeneration instead.
The problem with that solution in 90% of the marine strategums are already only 1 CP so it doesn't work on them. Regeneration from a single source without paying 40 points per CP isn't half as broken as what people think.
Marines pay more points per CP in the first place and have poor strategums. They also lack the equivalent of Kurov's Aquila to generate the broken regenerate, steal, regenerate combos.
The other option is to give them the hard counter to agents of vect
Adepts of the Codex. Your ultramarine warlord is so well versed in the strategic teachings of thier primarch they can play one strategum for 0 Comand points once per turn, even if that strategum has already been played this phase.
So to stop agents of vect you want to give space marines a free second orbital bombardment, the ability to make a unit fight 3 times in the fight phase or have 2 units fight twice for 3 cp, the ability to have a second command reroll for free in the turn and phase they use one, shoot any deepstriking enemy unit twice when they're placed on the board, or let a character fight or shoot twice on death?
Adepts of the Codex. Your ultramarine warlord is so well versed in the strategic teachings of thier primarch they can play one strategum for 0 Comand points once per turn, even if that strategum has already been played this phase.
Oh, I like that line of thinking, but think that would be a bit too powerful. Maybe instead it could be something like...
Adept of the Codex: Once per turn, as long as your warlord is on the table, you may use a single stratagem that you have already used this turn a second time in the same phase, at the cost of +1 CP.
I'm not sure the best way to word that to prevent random mechanics abuse that I haven't considered, but I feel this could be interesting. A second reroll for 2 CP, or even something like a second Hellfire Rounds or Flakk Missile for 2 CP. I think it gives a very interested play-style option without being blatantly too powerful and a must-take, or too mediocre and a never-take.
Or maybe going in the opposite direction with a: Once per game while your Warlord is alive and on the table, you may use any stratagem available to your army without paying its CP cost.
And this sort of thing is why I started a thread instead of working on this in silence, in a candle lit room while I write on vellum with a quill pen.
The plus one CP one would be fairly strong but is tempered by costing more, but as was pointed out, it could cause problems with strats that were supposed to only trigger once. As such I think the one time free use of a strat would be a better choice.
Adepts of the Codex. Your ultramarine warlord is so well versed in the strategic teachings of thier primarch they can play one strategum for 0 Comand points once per turn, even if that strategum has already been played this phase.
Oh, I like that line of thinking, but think that would be a bit too powerful. Maybe instead it could be something like...
Adept of the Codex: As long as your warlord is on the table, you may use a single stratagem that you have already used this turn a second time in the same phase, at the cost of +1 CP.
I'm not sure the best way to word that to prevent random mechanics abuse that I haven't considered, but I feel this could be interesting. A second reroll for 2 CP, or even something like a second Hellfire Rounds or Flakk Missile for 2 CP. I think it gives a very interested play-style option without being blatantly too powerful and a must-take, or too mediocre and a never-take.
The issue is marine CP's aren't cheap and are super limited, strategum wise, people don't pay 1CP for them now they arn't going to pay 2 CP for a second use. It's mandatory for all named charictors so it has to be something worthwhile.
Maybe make it so Joe Smoe Ultramarine gets a free Adaptes Astartes Strategum and Bobby G and Calgar get any Stratageum.
Good changes except Ultras have undoubtedly the worst chapter tactic. If anyone's tactic needs to improve it is the Ultras.
Just remove the -1 to hit criteria.
Like let me explain how bad this trait is. If I have a redemptor dread - fall back and shoot. It is hitting on 5+ - you realize that is the BS of an ork? Yeah...no. Remove the -1 penalty.
Basically - all ultras should have fly keyword without ignoring terrain and intervening models.+1 LD I don't give a crap about - I really don't think Ultras are any braver than their brothers anyways. Since all these traits seem to be semi 2 parters the LD can even stay.
I'd also remove requirements on auspex scan for 12" - change it to 18" and also remove the -1.
Remove requirement on orbital bombardment to stay still (WTF is this?) Have to stay still to call down an orbital?
Change the multiple levels of random on this crap. Roll D6 range - Every unit within the random range automatically takes d3 mortal wounds (no rolling 4+ to see if the unit hit by the bombarment cannon gets hurt).
Change ancient banners wording to "Unit" from "Model" .
Change wording on all plasma weapons to deal 1 mortal wound and not freaking SLAY you.
give Landraiders the natural ability to fall back and act as normal + have it deal d3 mortal wound on 4+ when it charges.
About the only buff I could see for Adept of the Codex is perhaps you pay 1 less CP (to a minimum of 1) for stratagems, but if we're charging less for CP then we might as well drop the CP regeneration instead.
The problem with that solution in 90% of the marine strategums are already only 1 CP so it doesn't work on them. Regeneration from a single source without paying 40 points per CP isn't half as broken as what people think.
Marines pay more points per CP in the first place and have poor strategums. They also lack the equivalent of Kurov's Aquila to generate the broken regenerate, steal, regenerate combos.
The other option is to give them the hard counter to agents of vect
Adepts of the Codex. Your ultramarine warlord is so well versed in the strategic teachings of thier primarch they can play one strategum for 0 Comand points once per turn, even if that strategum has already been played this phase.
So to stop agents of vect you want to give space marines a free second orbital bombardment, the ability to make a unit fight 3 times in the fight phase or have 2 units fight twice for 3 cp, the ability to have a second command reroll for free in the turn and phase they use one, shoot any deepstriking enemy unit twice when they're placed on the board, or let a character fight or shoot twice on death?
Given orbital bombardment is 1 use per game battle can they use their warlord trait on that? They can't
You could potentially use honour the chapter on 2 units but not the same unit.
Only in death could potentially be used twice but not on the same charictor so no I don't see either as game breaking.
About the only buff I could see for Adept of the Codex is perhaps you pay 1 less CP (to a minimum of 1) for stratagems, but if we're charging less for CP then we might as well drop the CP regeneration instead.
The problem with that solution in 90% of the marine strategums are already only 1 CP so it doesn't work on them. Regeneration from a single source without paying 40 points per CP isn't half as broken as what people think.
Marines pay more points per CP in the first place and have poor strategums. They also lack the equivalent of Kurov's Aquila to generate the broken regenerate, steal, regenerate combos.
The other option is to give them the hard counter to agents of vect
Adepts of the Codex. Your ultramarine warlord is so well versed in the strategic teachings of thier primarch they can play one strategum for 0 Comand points once per turn, even if that strategum has already been played this phase.
So to stop agents of vect you want to give space marines a free second orbital bombardment, the ability to make a unit fight 3 times in the fight phase or have 2 units fight twice for 3 cp, the ability to have a second command reroll for free in the turn and phase they use one, shoot any deepstriking enemy unit twice when they're placed on the board, or let a character fight or shoot twice on death?
Given orbital bombardment is 1 use per game battle can they use their warlord trait on that? They can't
You could potentially use honour the chapter on 2 units but not the same unit.
Only in death could potentially be used twice but not on the same charictor so no I don't see either as game breaking.
There's not in honour the chapter which could be read as preventing you from making the same unit fight 3 times with your suggested ruling and only in death is open to interpretation if you'd get a chance to activate it multiple times for the same character.
When suggesting a rules change you really need to elaborate why that change, how it should work and how it works with what exists. Just throwing something out without much thought doesn't help and can get potentially good ideas just dismissed outright. I feel like the idea has potential but not in the form you presented it.
About the only buff I could see for Adept of the Codex is perhaps you pay 1 less CP (to a minimum of 1) for stratagems, but if we're charging less for CP then we might as well drop the CP regeneration instead.
The problem with that solution in 90% of the marine strategums are already only 1 CP so it doesn't work on them. Regeneration from a single source without paying 40 points per CP isn't half as broken as what people think.
Marines pay more points per CP in the first place and have poor strategums. They also lack the equivalent of Kurov's Aquila to generate the broken regenerate, steal, regenerate combos.
The other option is to give them the hard counter to agents of vect
Adepts of the Codex. Your ultramarine warlord is so well versed in the strategic teachings of thier primarch they can play one strategum for 0 Comand points once per turn, even if that strategum has already been played this phase.
So to stop agents of vect you want to give space marines a free second orbital bombardment, the ability to make a unit fight 3 times in the fight phase or have 2 units fight twice for 3 cp, the ability to have a second command reroll for free in the turn and phase they use one, shoot any deepstriking enemy unit twice when they're placed on the board, or let a character fight or shoot twice on death?
Given orbital bombardment is 1 use per game battle can they use their warlord trait on that? They can't
You could potentially use honour the chapter on 2 units but not the same unit.
Only in death could potentially be used twice but not on the same charictor so no I don't see either as game breaking.
There's not in honour the chapter which could be read as preventing you from making the same unit fight 3 times with your suggested ruling and only in death is open to interpretation if you'd get a chance to activate it multiple times for the same character.
When suggesting a rules change you really need to elaborate why that change, how it should work and how it works with what exists. Just throwing something out without much thought doesn't help and can get potentially good ideas just dismissed outright. I feel like the idea has potential but not in the form you presented it.
Only in death when a "charictor is slain", unless their is some way that I haven't seen where a model can die twice, I read it as that qualifier can never being satisfied twice by the same model.
Honour the chapter is at the end of the fight phase, it can't be played sequentially as that would require it to be the end of the fight phase twice, But it could potentially be played twice simultaneously, on seperate unit's.
Give Vanilla marines access to all astartes strats. Honestly should roll the angels into the main dex and have them share all strats (outside of 1 chapter specific like death visions).
Guilliman allows mixed chapters to retain their chapter tactics. Re-roll 1s for hit/wound w/in 12" for all astartes. Reduce his price back to pre-nerf levels.
Increase saves for loyalist. 1+ for termies, 2+ for tacs.
Change bolt guns to assault 3, 24" just for power armor folks (sorry scouts/sisters). Actually put in some anti-horde work.
+1 attacks across the board
Chainswords -1 ap
Land-raiders and drop pods get auspex (+1 to hit to one unit w/in 9"). Land raiders get assault ramps back. Can disembark after transport has moved but count as moving. Price cut for both units. LR strat to fire overwatch that hits on 5s (4s if we are feeling crazy). Allow them to do something like for the greater good "If a <chapter> unit is charged w/in 6" LR can fire overwatch at charging unit" (maybe with all of this they don't need a price cut). Give the stupid flying primaris boat the same rules.
Dreads get PoTMS + price cut + stomp attack (attacks x2, s6, -2 ap) Ironclads need more movement (or advance and charge).
BT characters need re-work (they pay way too much for options which are much more limited than other armies/factions).
New chapter tactics that apply to vehicles (I don't want my storm ravens re-rolling charge distances.)
Price cuts on most weapons. Missile launchers to 18-20. Meltas down, grav way down, flamers way down, pistols down, autocannons down.
Rhinos/razors cheaper. Rhinos get 2-3 firing ports.
Reivers get ap on their knives and stun grenades are once per game but 9" range.
More primarchs.
New/better strats. Terminators re-deploy strat. Fire twice strat. -1 to hit strat (would need to remove ravens -1 to hit but that's a good thing). +1 armor strat, extra -1 ap strat. deny deepstrike strat. kill shot only 2 preds. SM should be master tacticians not the worst warriors ever.
Significant price cuts on dev cents, stalkers, vindies, drop pods, land raiders, flyers, non-fw dreads, some characters, bikes, land speeders...
All of this would be a good start. After watching/chatting on nova last night I don't think any of it will happen and GW/play testers seem to think marines are in a good spot...
I'm ignoring points costs at this point in time because if they're coming in CA it might negate any suggestions made here by virtue of arguments being made for a points cost to fix the issues over actually addressing the problem itself.
I don't think making PA a 2+ really fixes it and it just steps on the toes of the Custodes. And Custodes don't need to be the 1+ save army.
And Sisters wear power armour, so that'd give them Assault 3 bolters as well.
+1 attack sounds good but then Custodes would need to go up another attack as well, plus does a squad of 10 Primaris really need to be doing 32 attacks?
If Chainswords give AP then they shouldn't give bonus attacks. At least not if they stay free.
I disagree about the auspex, but I like the assault ramps idea. It'd give Land Raiders a niche in the army. No boosted overwatch standard though.
Power of the Machine Spirit doesn't need to be a thing for Dreads, nor do they need "stomp attacks". Maybe a weapon option for extra attacks (like a chain flail or something) but not stomp attacks. Boosted movement for Ironclads would be good though.
You're going to need to be more specific about what you mean by a "rework" for BT. Remember, this is going into a detailed document that is going to discuss the perceived issues and pair those with recommended changes with details on why.
My only guess on why fire points were removed was to prevent Marines from continuing to be the METAL BOXES army.
I could see AP on the knives, but if the extra attack is left on there then the knives will need to cost points. I don't think stun grenades need to be once per game, but the range does need to be longer (9" would still not work the turn you grav chute in anyways since you need to be outside of 9" and we measure base to base taking in elevation into account when shooting now, not in a straight line).
I'm going to spend some time muddling over strats this evening to kind of see what works, what needs to go and what we might look at adding in to replace it.
And playtesters look for whats the most abusable in a codex, we're looking at what's the most worthless in a codex and approach it to see how it can be salvaged. And seeing as playtesters let CP regeneration be a thing somehow (despite it being despised for game balance) I'd argue that they're not omnipotent.
I just wanna tackle Chapter Tactics for now, as you know I've made my thoughts known in the proposed rules subforum.
Iron Hands should obviously have the 6+++ apply to everything, but giving them part of Grim Resolve doesn't say Iron Hands. Have them ignore the penalties for advancing with Assault weapons and/or moving with Heavy Weapons. A more relentless advance feels better.
Ultramarines can be changed by changing a core rule. I already feel that units with Fly should suffer a -1 while shooting after falling back. Ultramarines stay the same that way, and then their Fly units instead don't suffer any penalty. The LD bonus is lame, but I don't know what to do with that outside keeping it and then getting a bonus in some manner in addition ala Catachans and Mordians.
Black Templars I want to keep the rerolling of charges, and I like the extra attack idea. However I feel that's more appropriate for World Eaters. How about straight up ignoring Mortal Wounds on a 4+? On top of them getting their Strategem that would make them pretty darn anti-psyker AND mortal wound shenanigans.
I guess I'm fine with your White Scars fixes. I don't know what to do with them.
I don't like the generic bonus to Bolters for Imperial Fists. I'd rather they gain another bonus to cover like their Warlord Trait.
Raven Guard I want to keep the -1 to hit. Marines can't really stack the bonus and it punishes people going for pure gunline. I don't know what I would add as a second part though.
Salamanders I wanted to take a new route, as their trait is way too redundant with our HQ units. I'd suggest they get the AdMech Lucius trait (ignore -1 AP weapons basically), and then they can reroll the dice for random shots and random damage. That might be too strong though.
We also already know how I feel about the Angels being rolled into the main codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just feel free to message me actually. You seem as passionate about making changes to to the codex as I am.
Bharring wrote: I like all those except the LR change and the 18" range on Auspex. Could even see Auspex going to 1CP.
Space wolf version has unlimited range and -1 eldar version is unlimmited with needs to be 6" from farseer. Figured 18" no -1 no requirements except being infantry was a decent middle ground.
IronBrand wrote: There's not in honour the chapter which could be read as preventing you from making the same unit fight 3 times with your suggested ruling and only in death is open to interpretation if you'd get a chance to activate it multiple times for the same character.
When suggesting a rules change you really need to elaborate why that change, how it should work and how it works with what exists. Just throwing something out without much thought doesn't help and can get potentially good ideas just dismissed outright. I feel like the idea has potential but not in the form you presented it.
Only in death when a "charictor is slain", unless their is some way that I haven't seen where a model can die twice, I read it as that qualifier can never being satisfied twice by the same model.
Honour the chapter is at the end of the fight phase, it can't be played sequentially as that would require it to be the end of the fight phase twice, But it could potentially be played twice simultaneously, on seperate unit's.
I don't believe the game rules have anything robust about timing like a game like magic the gathering does. If you could activate honour the chapter twice for separate units at the "end of the fight phase" then there is nothing preventing you from selecting the same unit twice or activating only in death twice for the one death. It all OFC depends on rulings on if you can use multiple stratagems at the same time, e.g. two different stratagems both at the end of the same fight phase, or if the game stays at the "end of the fight phase" until players decide they're done. If it doesn't stay at the "end of the fight phase" until players are done then when two marine players are fighting whoever declares honour the chapter first after the last roll of the fight phase gets to fight again while denying their opponent the opportunity to also do so.
Deads need something to keep from from getting tied up by chaff units. Stomp or flail call it what you want.
Who cares about custodes. They have 4++s. We should be more like them because they are actually used in competitive settings. I don't know why people are so hung up on "we can't be like this unit." That unit is good for a reason.
Sisters wear bootleg PA. Without that extra organ they can't handle the kick from SM bolters. Sisters are cheap enough they don't need the extra shots but marines offensive output just isn't good enough. Best way to easily increase SM bolters vs chaff without crazy rules (exploding on sixes) and SM need more dakka (especially with green tides on the way).
AP + extra attack makes marines viable in CC. If we are dealing with points in CA sure. Maybe they cost 1 point then. Or give assault marines +1 attack on charge to give them a reason for existing.
Yeah, 32 attacks, 21 hits, 14 wounds, 9 unsaved = one guard squad dead in melee or 180 points to kill 40. Guard squads can get 30 s4 4+ attacks for 40 points. Not as unbalanced as you think.
Again why do custodes need more attacks if marines get them? They have spears, an invuln, more wounds, better strats and gold...
Boosted overwatch would be a strat but I really like the idea of for the greater good for land raiders. They need to be so close to combat it would be a cool rule (like a moving defensive bunker)
bananathug wrote: Deads need something to keep from from getting tied up by chaff units. Stomp or flail call it what you want.
Who cares about custodes. They have 4++s. We should be more like them because they are actually used in competitive settings. I don't know why people are so hung up on "we can't be like this unit." That unit is good for a reason.
Sisters wear bootleg PA. Without that extra organ they can't handle the kick from SM bolters. Sisters are cheap enough they don't need the extra shots but marines offensive output just isn't good enough. Best way to easily increase SM bolters vs chaff without crazy rules (exploding on sixes) and SM need more dakka (especially with green tides on the way).
AP + extra attack makes marines viable in CC. If we are dealing with points in CA sure. Maybe they cost 1 point then. Or give assault marines +1 attack on charge to give them a reason for existing.
Yeah, 32 attacks, 21 hits, 14 wounds, 9 unsaved = one guard squad dead in melee or 180 points to kill 40. Guard squads can get 30 s4 4+ attacks for 40 points. Not as unbalanced as you think.
Again why do custodes need more attacks if marines get them? They have spears, an invuln, more wounds, better strats and gold...
Boosted overwatch would be a strat but I really like the idea of for the greater good for land raiders. They need to be so close to combat it would be a cool rule (like a moving defensive bunker)
I'd rather give dreads a new weapon option over giving them an alternate attack. Call it a preference but the angry washing machine shouldn't be stomping things.
And you have to care about Custodes because they're balanced relative to Marines. If you do something to change the durability of Marines, then the armies who have PA (or PA+1 like Custodes) are going to need to be changed to stay in line with them. We don't balance in a vacuum so any change that is shared needs to be adjusted with that in mind.
Sisters wear power armour minus the black carapace which means it's less sensory responsive but just as protective. Again, you need to consider other armies when proposing changes because we're not making changes in a vacuum.
Consider the change I'm proposing to Black Templars and that'd push a full sized Crusader squad to 82 attacks with chainswords on the first round of combat. That is Ork levels of dice on power armoured bodies.
Boosted overwatch is definitely a strat thing. If anything, I'd argue that the Land Raider should be able to overwatch for nearby units instead. Go ahead and charge that Terminator squad that's next to a Crusader.
I don't think special rules is the solution for most of the SM line. More precisely, I think that Terminators shouldn't receive special rules buffs, just cost reductions. A cost reduction would improve both their toughness and firepower density simultaneously. The same goes for tacticals. I think special rules should be reserved for something that really doesn't work the way it should, and needs help beyond what a points change could fix. Terminators and Tacticals are working as intended, but kind of expensive.
Chapter Tactics All units with [Chapter] benefit from Chapter Tactics. If there's no problem with a Leviathan falling back, I don't see why a Predator can't.
Land Raiders Power of the Machine Spirit: The Land Raider ignores the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, and can fire it's weapons in the shooting phase even if it fell back in the movement phase.
Vindicators Demolisher Cannon: change profile to: Heavy 2d6, S10, AP-3, D2, R24" This should make the Demolisher cannon fairly decent against vehicles, fortification, and medium/heavy infantry, which it should be. Armor save to 2+ with siege blade.
Whirlwind I have no idea, honestly. More shots, so it kills infantry better? Maybe Heavy 4d6, S6, AP-, D1, like an increased strength Wyvern?
All Vehicles Light tracked vehicles to [Rhino, Chimera] T7.
Medium tracked vehicles to [Predator, Vindicator] T8.
Heavy tracked vehicles [Land Raider, Leman Russ, Baneblade, Battlewagon] to T9.
This measure should make vehicles better, and differentiate between light, medium, and heavy vehicles and antitank weapons. Right now, there's heavy vehicles, and all other vehicles, and for the most part antitank weapons don't really see them all that differently
Meltaguns Double S within half range [wound tanks on 2's], instead of re-roll damage. This is roughly akin to getting the extra D6 armor penetration they used to, and makes them exceptionally good against vehicles up close but fairly okay at a distance.
Stratagems Killshot: Use in the shooting phase when a friendly Predator is selected to shoot. This Predator's Lascannons and Twin Lascannons add 1 to all damage rolls.
Linebreaker Bombardment: Use in the shooting phase when a friendly Vindicator is selected to shoot. This Vindicator does not attack with it's Demolisher Cannon. Instead, select a target unit. That unit takes D3 mortal wounds. Roll a die for each unit within 6" of the targeted unit, on a 4+, they also take D3 mortal wounds.
Datalink Telemetry: Use in the shooting phase when a friendly Whirlwind is selected to shoot. This Whirlwind re-rolls all failed to-hit rolls during this shooting phase.
It seems like I posted the same thing twice about a day apart. And the posts are nearly identical. Sorry about that.
These changes would certainly help, but they aren't really going to address the core issue. Marine traits are bad, but the bigger problem is that marine statline and weapons overall are bad. It's not just Codex SM marines that are having trouble, it's all marine units (note that some marine codices can field some good lists, but they are using HQs and special, non-marine units for the most part.)
An example to show you that marines stats themselves are the issue would be to look at plague marines. Even with t5, 5++, incredible faction trait, and tons of good strats and powers, we're still not seeing these guys used much. Why? Because they can't kill anything with s4 ap 0. Or consider tactical and assault marines. How many points would they need to cost to be worth fielding? The answer is probably below 10, which is ridiculous.
The problems marines face are due to the changes in 8th edition destroying their offensive and defensive power. I have written about this in detail before here and here, so i'll just summarize:
- Changes to the AP system greatly reduced space marine firepower, while also reducing the value of their armor save. Bolters used to be Str4 AP5, which ignored guard armor. They are now Str4 ap 0, meaning guard have a 33% save rate vs them. This was a huge buff to horde infantry overall. Bolters need to be AP -1 to have similar offensive power again. And marine armor no longer provides full protection against many weapons it used to, such as heavy bolters, and other weapons that were AP4 in the past. To make matters worse, other factions that formerly had S4 AP5 weapons often did have them become AP -1 (gauss), or gained special rules that help their offensive power (shuriken).
- Marines used to rely on being very difficult to kill to grind opponents down. They often had proportionally less firepower than equivalent units from other armies, but made up for it in defense. Without that level of defense, it just doesn't work anymore. MeQs are some of the least survivable models for their points cost.
- Changes to close combat mean that CC units aren't that great in general, and hybrid ranged/CC units that didn't have a ton of melee power but could still tie units up or sweeping advance them off the board are really hosed. The loss of +1 attack on the charge, the ability to lock ranged squads with little firerpower into CC, and the loss of sweeping advance has made SM melee pointless. The old strategy of shoot the choppa and chop the shoota doesn't work anymore.
- Changes to vehicles and the damage system invalided low shot high strength weapons like meltas, so you can no longer have a few special weapons in squads provide useful anti tank. You need to spam anti tank now, and marines don't spam that well. This also goes for being able to stun vehicles with cheaper weapons like autocannons. Marines relied on silencing vehicles while advancing and then killing them in melee. You used to be able to reliably wreck armor with a tac squad with melta and powerfist. Now that squad could spend an entire game attacking a transport that costs a third of their points every turn and still fail to kill it.
- Changes to templates and blasts killed the ability of a few special weapons (flamers, frag missiles) in squads to do meaningful anti horde. You used to be able to get 5-10 models under a flamer template, depending on how packed the squad was, and similar for small blasts. Now you're gonna average like 3, the weapons cost way more, and it no longer ignores the armor of horde units. And your bolters are less effective too. So marines lost the ability to deal with hordes other than spamming heavy bolters or asscans, but those don't work that well either it turns out. A tac squad with melta, missile, and power fist used to be a flexible unit that could threaten everything except dedicated melee specialists with power weapons and plasma spam. Now it threatens nothing, and dies more easily than its equivalent point of pretty much any other troop.
- Transport changes also hit marines hard. Loss of move -> disembark -> shoot hurt tacs hard (not that you'd ever want to now that bolters do basically nothing.) Loss of assault ramps on land raiders destroyed land raider + terminator lists. And let's not even get into what the cost and deep strike changes did to drop pods!
There's more issues and more details on this stuff in the posts I linked. I know these issues hurt other armies too to some extent, and I know that marines did gain some stuff that helps. But the net balance overall is bad for them. Their specific play style was invalidated.
To fix this, they need a stat overhaul. Or they need traits and special rules that are so powerful as to make up for how horribly inefficient they are now. But that'd be a LOT of rules to write. A simple place to start would probably be to improve the armor save of all marines by 1 (terminator 1+, tacs 2+), and drop the ap of bolt weapons by 1. Flamers and meltas also need fixes, but they need that on all armies, not just marines. And then also give them some badass traits. And even that may not be enough.
Overall, I am amazed that GW managed to make a rules edition that gutted their best selling, core armies on the lowest level of mechanics. Its stunning. And 8th is still selling well, which I'm happy for. But imagine how much better it'd be doing if marines were actually good?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I don't think special rules is the solution for most of the SM line. More precisely, I think that Terminators shouldn't receive special rules buffs, just cost reductions. A cost reduction would improve both their toughness and firepower density simultaneously. The same goes for tacticals. I think special rules should be reserved for something that really doesn't work the way it should, and needs help beyond what a points change could fix. Terminators and Tacticals are working as intended, but kind of expensive.
Chapter Tactics All units with [Chapter] benefit from Chapter Tactics. If there's no problem with a Leviathan falling back, I don't see why a Predator can't.
Land Raiders Power of the Machine Spirit: The Land Raider ignores the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, and can fire it's weapons in the shooting phase even if it fell back in the movement phase.
Vindicators Demolisher Cannon: change profile to: Heavy 2d6, S10, AP-3, D2, R24" This should make the Demolisher cannon fairly decent against vehicles, fortification, and medium/heavy infantry, which it should be. Armor save to 2+ with siege blade.
Whirlwind I have no idea, honestly. More shots, so it kills infantry better? Maybe Heavy 4d6, S6, AP-, D1, like an increased strength Wyvern?
All Vehicles Light tracked vehicles to [Rhino, Chimera] T7.
Medium tracked vehicles to [Predator, Vindicator] T8.
Heavy tracked vehicles [Land Raider, Leman Russ, Baneblade, Battlewagon] to T9.
This measure should make vehicles better, and differentiate between light, medium, and heavy vehicles and antitank weapons. Right now, there's heavy vehicles, and all other vehicles, and for the most part antitank weapons don't really see them all that differently
Meltaguns Double S within half range [wound tanks on 2's], instead of re-roll damage. This is roughly akin to getting the extra D6 armor penetration they used to, and makes them exceptionally good against vehicles up close but fairly okay at a distance.
Stratagems Killshot: Use in the shooting phase when a friendly Predator is selected to shoot. This Predator's Lascannons and Twin Lascannons add 1 to all damage rolls.
Linebreaker Bombardment: Use in the shooting phase when a friendly Vindicator is selected to shoot. This Vindicator does not attack with it's Demolisher Cannon. Instead, select a target unit. That unit takes D3 mortal wounds. Roll a die for each unit within 6" of the targeted unit, on a 4+, they also take D3 mortal wounds.
Datalink Telemetry: Use in the shooting phase when a friendly Whirlwind is selected to shoot. This Whirlwind re-rolls all failed to-hit rolls during this shooting phase.
I like what we've got here. Especially the change to melta. That'd take it back off the shelf for a lot of armies as a whole.
I feel like point drops shouldn't be the first answer because eventually you just get to a point were you have to argue that a Terminator should just be 5 more points than a regular Marine base (and seeing as people want Marines to apparently be around 10pts base that'd put Terminators at around 15 each which is kind of nuts when you think about it. 150 before wargear for 10 guys with 2+/5++?) due to just having an improved save and an invul and nothing else. Considering the lore of the Terminator armour being reinforced suits that were designed to be used inside of plasma reactors you'd expect them to take a lot of punishment, but they haven't been able to for some time now. At the points costs they have now I feel like the 1+ save (which would be fine on Custodes Terminators as well since it basically just exists to negate the first -1) and reducing damage by 1 would hit the right note without going into the realm of needing to drop points.
Chapter Tactics All units with [Chapter] benefit from Chapter Tactics. If there's no problem with a Leviathan falling back, I don't see why a Predator can't.
Stratagems Killshot: Use in the shooting phase when a friendly Predator is selected to shoot. This Predator's Lascannons and Twin Lascannons add 1 to all damage rolls.
Linebreaker Bombardment: Use in the shooting phase when a friendly Vindicator is selected to shoot. This Vindicator does not attack with it's Demolisher Cannon. Instead, select a target unit. That unit takes D3 mortal wounds. Roll a die for each unit within 6" of the targeted unit, on a 4+, they also take D3 mortal wounds.
I like most of your ideas quite a bit, as most of them are relatively simple to enact and look like they would have the desired change. The ones I've left quoted above are the ones I would take issue with.
1) In regards to giving all units in the codex access to Chapter Tactics, I think most people are in agreement that this should happen. Where I might disagree with you (you didn't really go into it) is certain tactics. Raven Guard tactics should not apply codex-wide. It would automatically make them by far the best Chapter because -1 to hit army-wide is dumb. On the opposite end, rerolling failed charge distances for most Black Templar vehicles is so mediocre that nobody would ever take it; clearly there needs to be more to this fix than only extending the tactics to all units.
2) I don't hate your Killshot idea, but not all Predators take Lascannons. Only applying this to Lascannons is very strange and limiting. Also, I would recommend that Killshot instead just affects one Predator and all other Predators that either, A) are within 6" of the selected Predator, or B) fire at the same target this phase.
3) I don't think Linebreaker Bombardment just doing an automatic D3 Mortal Wounds is a good idea. Like other stratagems, I feel like there needs to be a chance of failure. You could make it similar to Hellfire Rounds or Flakk Missiles, so that you just roll one die to hit, but if you do the unit takes X number of Mortal Wounds (D3? D6? something else?)
4) I agree that Terminators probably don't just need extra rules, as I like keeping things simple and adding special rules doesn't do that. I think a stat change would be a better fix, such as going to 3 wounds and/or a 1+ armor save.
Slight tangent but to make land raiders usable give them the steel behemoth rule and the crushing tracks melee weapon. Suddenly they can't be tied up and want to be close to the enemy as before the supposedly preeminent transport.
buddha wrote: Slight tangent but to make land raiders usable give them the steel behemoth rule and the crushing tracks melee weapon. Suddenly they can't be tied up and want to be close to the enemy as before the supposedly preeminent transport.
The main thing that the Guard codex did correctly was making Tanks and Infantry gain different benefits. However, the question is what would the Marine tanks do differently.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main thing that the Guard codex did correctly was making Tanks and Infantry gain different benefits. However, the question is what would the Marine tanks do differently.
That could be one approach, though I almost feel like it should be Army and then Specialization Bonus for Marines. Give them a trait everything can enjoy and then give them something that rewards playing a certain way over others.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The main thing that the Guard codex did correctly was making Tanks and Infantry gain different benefits. However, the question is what would the Marine tanks do differently.
I really feel that some of them can be the same thing. For example, Imperial Fists vehicles ignoring cover or Iron Hands gaining a 6+ to ignore wounds seems pretty reasonable. Even Ultramarines being able to fall out of combat and still shoot at a -1 penalty seems okay. I would either change the Chapter Tactic entirely, or split the tactic for the following:
1. Salamanders: Could be the same thing as currently, but it's so easy to get that same benefit from Captain/Chapter Master + Lieutenant. I feel like something different would be better, but it wouldn't be terrible as is.
2. Black Templars: Rerolling charge rolls on most vehicles is fairly limiting. I definitely feel that Black Templars should have an Infantry/Biker/Dreadnaught tactic, then a Vehicle tactic.
3. White Scars: Similar to Black Templars, being able to fall out of combat and charge with vehicles is going to see pretty limited usage. Maybe something like +2 to movement for tanks would be better; this would allow for quicker Rhino drops to the front, as well as better repositioning of Vindicators or Predators or similar in the event of approaching enemies or to duck from cover to cover.
4. Raven Guard: This really is the problem child, in my opinion. GW should avoid -1 to hit army-wide traits at all costs. I mentioned earlier keeping the -1 to hit for Infantry and maybe Bikers, and have other units gain the benefit of being in cover at all times instead.
The strategems are bunk, the relics are poorly thought out, about half the units are overcosted and half of THOSE don't have any meaningful role on the battlefield. Chapter tactics are lopsided out with only Ravenguard being good and Ultramarines being serviceable at best.
The biggest problem though, is too many rerolls. The codex has so many different source of rerolls that units HAVE to be expensive to reflect the fact that, so long as your HQs are alive, you basically can't miss.
Every unit has to be costed and designed around the fact that it has easy access to full reroll hits and at LEAST reroll 1s to wound. Get rid of some of the rerolls(especially on chapter masters) and you give yourself a lot more design space to work in.
After that, ground up redesigns of Tacticals, Assault marines, HUnters, stalkers, etc.
Marine vehicles are also a mess of problems. Mainly, what is their role even supposed to be? What should they be good at?
Compare the Predator to the Russ. The predator is less durable, has less firepower, has less options, doesn't get traits, and then the russ gets to move and shoot without penalty, can get orders, and shoots its turret twice! But seeing as the predator is categorically worse, at least it costs a lot less...oh wait no it costs the same or more for most equivalent loadouts :(
In the fluff, the Predator's edge on the Russ is speed and superior marine pilot. It does have the marines BS 3+, but that doesn't help much (and you can take tank commander russes.) Speed doesn't really mean much on the tabletop as maneuvering around to avoid (or cause) LoS issues isn't much of a thing this edition. They are both going to be mostly immobile pill boxes most of the time. If predators aren't supposed to have as much durability as a russ, and not as much raw firepower, what else is there for them to have? They do get killshot, which is a cool strat overall, and especially good to let Dakka preds kill much tougher targets than they normally can. But you're stuck with 3, your opponent can shut the strat down too easily, and dakka preds aren't very good anyway.
In the lore, marine vehicles serve mainly a support role to the infantry, whereas for Guard the infantry play a support and screen role for the tanks. But with the current rules, can this really be represented on the tabletop? In previous editions, predators were worse than Russes, but they still had some use because they were a solid way for marines to get heavy weapons and still maintain armor saturation. They were inferior to Russes, but still a good option for marines. But now that we have detachment soup, there's no reason the marines can't just run a detachment of Guard with Russes instead. So where do marine vehicles even fit?
The Predator, Vindicator, and Whirlwind all have basically no role compared to equivalent allied units. I don't really see how this can be fixed beyond drastic point drops, which would be unfluffy and probably cause spam problems. The other option might be more stragems that help these units, and marines getting more command points to use. That way the unit could be worse by default, but potentially better when used well with strats. Or if we got big rewards for pure armies that don't soup?
Fast units like Landspeeders have completely lost their role because being a fast vehicle doesn't matter anymore. It used to be great to have the speed to get a melta into a tank's rear armor, or to deny cover by flanking a unit. But now facing doesn't matter for vehicles, and cover is based on being in terrain, so angle doens't matter there either. Since you can't get cover for being obscured, we've lost the whole element of maneuvering to deny it. Even just blocking LoS is so difficult unless you're using big boxes as terrain. So there's no reason to use weaker, faster vehicles rather than just immobile pillboxes that maximize firepower.
And of course, multi meltas can't kill anything anyway!
Upon further thought, predators would be okay if they ignored hit penalties from moving, could fall back and shoot, and perhaps hit on 5's with overwatch or something else to discourage meleeing them. That way they could have the freedom of movement to get up front and get in the way, block objectives, etc. Also kill shot shouldn't require multiple predators. It should work on up to 3 within 2" of each other.
speed definatly needs a look at, IMHO it should factor into to hit somehow, the diea it's as easy to hit a landspeeder staying still as it is one that's moving full speed is IMHO silly
ClockworkZion wrote: As much as people hate it...fast vehicles going flat out likely should have a -1 to hit.
I know back in battletech you had speed brackets where if you moved 0-3 no modifiers, 4-6 a -1 modifer, 7-11 a -2 modifer (this was a hex based game so a speed of 9 was FAST), etc. at the same time you also took a small penalty to your to hits based on the form of movement you choose. it worked really nice in giving quick and light things some added survivability,
So with 40k you could go 0-9 inches, no modifers, 10-12 inches -1 to hit you and to hit enemies. so on and so forth. yeah it means if your quick units are moving super fast they'll have trouble hitting, but at the samne time you'll have added protection, it'll make how fast you move etc be extremely important tactical decisions.
you can also have the to hit, and to be hit charts be differant etc so as not to unduely punish fast units.
ClockworkZion wrote: As much as people hate it...fast vehicles going flat out likely should have a -1 to hit.
I know back in battletech you had speed brackets where if you moved 0-3 no modifiers, 4-6 a -1 modifer, 7-11 a -2 modifer (this was a hex based game so a speed of 9 was FAST), etc. at the same time you also took a small penalty to your to hits based on the form of movement you choose. it worked really nice in giving quick and light things some added survivability,
So with 40k you could go 0-9 inches, no modifers, 10-12 inches -1 to hit you and to hit enemies. so on and so forth. yeah it means if your quick units are moving super fast they'll have trouble hitting, but at the samne time you'll have added protection, it'll make how fast you move etc be extremely important tactical decisions.
you can also have the to hit, and to be hit charts be differant etc so as not to unduely punish fast units.
While I like the idea, I feel like we should be looking at KISS. Keep the game simple to learn in how everything works but with room for mastery in how it all fits together and you use it.
bananathug wrote: Yeah, 32 attacks, 21 hits, 14 wounds, 9 unsaved = one guard squad dead in melee or 180 points to kill 40. Guard squads can get 30 s4 4+ attacks for 40 points. Not as unbalanced as you think.
For 40 points? What FAQ dropped Straken and Priests to 0 points?
I think we need to start almost from scratch when it comes to Marines and marine vehicles. The core units have to work before you can add in things like chapter tactics.
All vehicles in the game should be able to move and fire heavy weapons with no penalty.
All vehicles in the game should be able to fall back and still shoot, but at -1. The fly keyword is too arbitrarily strong right now because only it allows this, when fly already also gives amazing movement and mobility abilities.
Right now Marines die too easily to AP. So, all Marines units need the following special rule: This model may always take it's unmodified armor save against weapons with an AP value of 1.
Terminators, bikes, and primaris should all reduce incoming damage by 1 to a min of 1. This effectively gives them 3 wounds without making them more resistant to damage 1 weapons. Everything else is fine at either 1 or more than 2 wounds.
Marines also need to do more damage. I'd give them all +1 attack, and make all bolters and chainswords AP1. Keep in mind other Marines would still get 3+ saves against these.
All marines need the tactical flexibility of being able to back out of combat and still function. They used to have this as a part of ATSKNF so I'd give it back to them: all Marines can fall back out of combat and still shoot, but at -1. Ultramarines can have some other trait.
Marine transports need to be useful. Give the rhino 2 fire points again, and allow units to disembark and shoot but not charge after a transport moves. Allow units in a land raider to also charge. Make drop pods either much cheaper, or allow them to break deepstrike rules like the 9" rule or the beta deepstrike rules.
Melta, Las, and missiles need their minimum damage set to 3. This only raises their average damage to 4.5 from 3.5 but makes it way less swingy. It also removes the possibility of most 2 wound models surviving a wound from these weapons. I'd also consider forcing enemies to reroll invul saves against melta to reward it for getting so close.
Flamers need to kill more models. I think the 2d6 hits capped at the number of models in the unit is the best fix for this.
I really feel like something like these changes are needed to fix Marines / the game. It would let vehicles move with more freedom, not be as afraid of a few infantry dudes shooting them down, and remove some of the need for so much bubble wrap in the game. It would also boost the basic durability, damage, and effective operating resilience of Marines by making them harder to kill or tie up, giving their transports the ability to get them where they need to go, and letting them do reasonable damage.
Ice_can wrote: also your not paying landraider points for your open topped vehicals.
And?
It comes as petty when, being from the only faction that still has rules to shoot from vehicles and has some of the best transports in the game, you ask for a buff to a terrible unit that nobody uses, to be applied also to your amazing vehicles with special rules that nobody has.
I like a lot of these buffs, but if we're giving honest feedback I think Strike From The Shadows needs fixing. This goes for Forward Operatives too, not just loyalists.
I think it needs to have a limit on how many units can be deployed this way. Perhaps 1cp for one, 3cp for two.
Alright, so I started this thing so I might as well go through everything then to get some discussion going about the codex in whole. I'm going to avoid anything that essentially could just get cheaper (from my viewpoint at least) as a fix. The ultimate goal of this will always remain a submission to GW on why the community is neglecting so much of the book's options, what could change about them to make them a viable option for most players, and generally the point is to get away from just making the army cheaper and cheaper until we start looking like a Guard army with better wargear.
There are two main goals I have for this whole submission:
1. Present a method in which an elite army like Space Marines may be reasonably balanced against other armies, particularly horde armies, while keeping in mind that many changes made here will apply to other armies here when taking into considering wargear or the base mechanics of Marines. Many buffs could end up buffing other armies and it could easilly defeat the purpose of the buff if it leaves the army unable to reach a balanced state within the game.
2. Give each chapter in the codex a faction bonus that provides benefits that every unit can enjoy without imbalancing the game while also giving each a specialization bonus that rewards the choosing of certain wargear or unit types creating distinct types of armies within the framework of the greater codex.
To kick things off, let's go back over those Chapter Tactics again, shall we? Don't worry, this isn't a rehash but rather an update.
Now I've gotten some feedback about these already which has helped me refine the rules a bit more. Each will be a two part bonus to the faction, the first something any unit can enjoy, the second a more focused bonus for specific models or weapons to create an army specialization that will allow each chapter to have a disctinct playstyle from each other if a player builds towards it. I want to start with these first because it creates a picture in your mind on how each change might affect one chapter more than another.
Chapter Tactics: If your army is Battle-forged models with the <Chapter> keyword in a Space Marines detachement gain a Chapter Tactic as long as every unit in that detachment is drawn from the same Chapter.
It's a small change to the way the chapter tactics work, but it's a change every Space Marine player can say should apply. It opens the army up to a lot more flexibility and makes vehicles worth taking knowing that you can kit them to work like the rest of your army.
Ultramarines: Codex Discipline: Ultramarines units never lose more than a single model due to a failed morale test. Models with the Character, Dreadnought, or Vehicle keywords instead gain +1 Leadership. Ultramarine units may shoot in the same turn in which they Fall Back.
The change here is to encourage Ultramarine units to form larger units due to a lower fear of morale as well as giving single model units greater protection against effects that target leadership. The penalty for falling back and shooting was removed to coinicide with the previous change to encourage Ultramarine armies to be aggressive in their approach as they can get stuck in with less fear of morale and then step back and open fire with all barrels.
White Scars: Lightning Assault: Whenever a White Scars unit Advances, Charges or Turbo-boosts it moves an additional 2" in addition to the distance rolled (turbo-boosting models move the full 6" plus the additional 2" for a full 8" instead of rolling). Models with the Biker, Infantry or Dreadnought rule may charge on a turn they Fall Back at no penalty.
The biggest change here is making the army faster overall. The White Scars are known for modifying even their tanks to go faster and it didn't make any sense that they should be going slower. Additionally, as a chapter that basically hits the enemy as they drive through them the chapter isn't known for slowing down, making the bonus to their charges something that just fits naturally. Generally speaking this is the army that moves the fastest, and can slam into the enemy multiple times to kill it making it so they can keep something tied up on your opponent's turn before breaking free, shooting with your army's suport elements and then hitting that unit again.
Imperial Fists: Siege Masters: Enemy units do not recieve benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by Imperial Fists, futhermore Imperail Fists re-roll all to-wound and damage rolls against enemy models with the Building keyword. In addition models making a shooting attack with a bolt weapon (and weapon with "bolt" in it's name and Dorn's Arrow are all bolt weapons) may make an additional to-hit roll for every roll of a 6. These to-hit rolls do not generate additional shots. The non-bolt weapon portion of a combi-weapon additionally does not benefit from this rule.
While I feel the rule towards buildings to be incredibly fluffy, it's not enough to build an army around as it's more situational than something you can build an army around. As such I didn't take it away but rolled it into the first effect as it fits well with their removal of an enemy's army protection mechanic. Making them the army that benefits the most from taking bolter weapons was more to make a nod to their special rule in their previous supplement material. This creates an army with a focus on shooting, but with a key focus on using bolt weapons as the basis of that shooting.
Black Templars: Righteous Zeal: You can re-roll either or both dice when a Black Templar unit fails a charge roll. On a turn a model with this rule charges, was charged or makes a Heroic Intervention add 1 to its Attacks characteristic until the end of the Fight Phase .
The Black Templars are quite clearly the melee focused army in the codex and it needs to show. Making their charges more reliable through rerolls ensures these zealots will make it to combat more often while the extra attack seperates them from their fellow Astartes as being the army that throws the most dice in combat. Basically the intent is to make them feel like an army that benefits from being stuck in, and gets stuck in more often.
Salamanders: Master Artisans: Salamander units with this rule may re-roll a single to-hit and to-wound roll each time they shoot or fight. Additionally when using a weapon that rolls to determine the number of shots or attacks you may roll two dice and take the highest result.
The biggest benefit for this rule is undoubtably to vehicle with lower numbers of shots such as lascannon predators, but also helps weapons that swing the other way by making weapons that roll random number of shots more reliable for the army. Ultimately this makes Salamanders a strong contender for certain heavy weapon options as well as weapons such as the flamer which are less than reliable at times.
Raven Guard: Shadow Masters: Raven Guard units that have not advanced or charged this turn gain the benefits for cover. Models that are already in cover and have not moved instead gain an additional +1 to their cover save bonus. Additionally, when targetting Infantry models with this special rule, your opponent must subtract 1 from their to-hit rolls if they are more than 12" away.
There were two changes here: the first was to make it so the army still has a benefit for their ability to hide themselves and their use of camoflauge, allowing them to feel like the ambush masters they should be, while giving Infantry models the existing bonus as a means of encouraging lists that aren't just a mass of tanks that get a cover bonus in the open.
Iron Hands: The Flesh is Weak: Roll a die each time an Iron Hands model loses a wound. On a unmodified roll of a 6 the damage is ignored and the model does not lose a wound. Models with the Character, Terminator or Dreadnought keywords instead ignore the lost wound on an unmodified roll of 5 or 6. Additionally Iron Hand models ignore penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Not only are the more heavilly augmented of the chapter more likely to ignore wounds like they do in the lore, though with future proofing so that the mechanic can't be boosted or reduced by any other rules. Of course, the augmented nature of the Iron Hands become the army that benefits from bringing the most heavy weapons, though due to the way the rules work, they'll be different than the ones seen in a Salamanders army due to the benefits being different. This allows two different kind of armies to come out of the codex that both favor heavier weapons, but favor different ones due to the nature of how the rules interact with the weapons.
With how each chapter operates laid out and given a bonus that makes them feel more in line with their lore now it's time to look at the Warlord Traits. Not all of these need to be looked at as most are pretty solid as is and frankly work as viable options for the army that can take them. So in the interest of not making this longer than it already is going to be, let's keep to the ones that actually need addressing:
Angel of Death: Subtract 1 from the Leadership characteristic of enemy units that are within 6" of your Warlord. If your Warlord has slain an enemy Character during the game instead Subtract 2 from the Leadership characterisitic of enemy units within 12" of your Warlord.
Not a big change here, but it encourages you to use your warlord more aggressively to take out enemy characters during the game.
The Imperium's Sword: Re-roll failed charge rolls for your Warlord. Models with the Black Templars keyword instead roll 3 dice and pick the two highest when making charge rolls. In addition in a turn that your Warlord has charged or makes an Heroic Intervention add 1 to their Attacks characteristic until the end of the fight phase.
Biggest changes here were to make it less redundant to Black Templars while also giving a bonus for Heroic Interventions to make it more likely to see the table for armies who need a defensive melee character escorting their deathball on the table.
Iron Resolve: Add 1 to the Wounds characteristic of your warlord. In addition, roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound. On an unmodified roll of a 5 or 6, your Warlord shrugs off the damage and does not lose the wound. Models with the Iron Hands keyword instead ignore a lost wound on an unmodified roll of a 4, 5, or 6.
Due to the proposed changes in the Iron Hands tactic it was basically a necessity to make this work on a 4+ for an Iron Hands warlord. That said, if you want a tank of a character, they're the ones who'll most likely allow you to be one. That's the perks of replacing most of your body with robotic parts I suppose.
Rites of War: Friendly <Chapter> units within 6" of your Warlord automatically pass Morale tests. Additionally units within 6" of your Warlord count as hitting on a 5 or 6 when firing Overwatch.
Biggest change here is to give player better benefit out of the trait for huddling models up on the board. A bonus to overwatch makes this a viable choice for gunline or deathball style armies even when paired with units that don't tend to run full sized squads (Primaris or Devastators for example who don't worry about morale as much).
Champion of Humanity: You can add 1 to all hit and wound rolls made for your Warlord in the Fight phase when targetting an enemy Character or Monster.
Change here is that some of the things you want to throw a beatstick warlord at aren't characters and really any hero of the Imperium should be able to fight either of these things on equal measure.
Adept of the Codex (Ultramarines): While your Warlord is alive and on the table once per phase you may reuse a previously used Stratagem. Stratagems that target friendly units this way may not target the same unit twice, and can not be used to exceed any limitations within the stratagem on how often it may be used. Additionally, once per game you may attempt to regain Command Points spent on a stratagem. If you choose to do this, roll a die for each Command Point, on a 2+ that CP is immediately refunded.
Oathkeeper (Black Templars): At the beginning of the first Battle Round, but before the first turn begins, your Warlord swears a Vow against the enemy forces. Choose a Vow from the following list and apply it's effects immediately:
Abhor the Witch: Your Warlord can attempt to deny one psychic power per turn as if they were a psyker. If they have the Armour of Contempt special rule they may instead attempt to deny one additional psychic power per turn.
Purge the Heretic: Your Warlord may perform a Heroic Interventions if the enemy are within 6" (instead of 3") and move up to 6" while doing so. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord may roll an extra die and choose the highest when making charge rolls.
Suffer not the Unclean to Live: Your Warlord gains +1 to hit and wound rolls made against models with the Character keywords. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord roll an extra die and choose the highest while Advancing.
This is a long one but generally the idea is to give the Black Templars their vows back. Each has an obvious bonus against a specific enemy in combat, but comes with an additional use that may cause the vows to be taken against other opponents instead.
With Warlord traits covered, let's talk Wargear. As before I'm only talking about changes here, but the point of these changes is as always going to be with the mind that other armies may see the changes just as well. As such there won't be as much changed her because any bonus to bolters (for example) would equally apply to an army like Sisters of Battle who typically greatly outnumber Space Marines and would negate any bonus that weapon would have against the cheaper bodies. Ideally I'd love to say that every bolter is Rapid Fire 2 and -1 AP to make Marines have the shooting output of a horde army on a smaller body count (and making every casualty take more out of the army in return) but realistically it doesn't work when you consider that the bolter is spread across a number of other armies and a higher body count army with bolters like Sisters or Scouts would become a broken mess in terms of balance.
Ranged Weapons
Bolt pistol (on Primaris models): Replace with Heavy Bolt Pistol. The Primaris are a more elite form of the regular Space Marine army and as such require more quality damage output to make up for their smaller numbers. The additional AP doesn't break balance for the army while giving the units a bit more punch when locked in combat, which is important for a group that lacks a number of melee options.
Demolisher Cannon: When targetting a unit of 5 or more models change this weapon's Type to Heavy 2D3. Generally speaking feedback I've seen time and time again is players prefer to have 2D3 shots over D6 as the average number of shots is higher for the 2D3 (4 versus 3) and it means firing at least 2 shots instead of 1. Basically it just does so much more to make the gun more likely to see the table with this change even without a points change.
Flamestorm gauntlets (shooting): 12" range, Assault 2D6 Generally speaking no one takes these guys due to the range of their weapon being so short and with the loss of templates the fixation of 8" being the range for flame weapons can go away now. The weapon was left unchanged as the Auto Boltstorm Gauntlet pattern comes with the Fragstorm Launchers standard and fires 6+D6 shots meaning the minimum number of shots for the boltstorm variant is higher, but the Flamestorm varient trades that for automatically hitting.
Grav (all varients): If the target has a Save characterisitc of 3+ or better, this weapon's Strength caracteristic is doubled and the Damage characteristic is increased to D3.
Grav-Cannon and grav-amp: Heavy 2
The heavier something is the harder this is supposed to hit, so the way it hits should reflect that. As such increasing it to S10 makes it more likely to hurt those bigger models. However, keeping the Grav-cannon at Heavy 4 wasn't a balanced choice as that would give a Devastator Squad 16 S10 shots against anything with a 3+ or better which would be outright mad.
Heavy Flamer: 12" range, Heavy 2D3. Honestly I don't get the original change from Assault to Heavy, but regardless, we've given up the flamer template and as such it's a good way to make the Heavy Flamer a different weapon from the regular Flamer. An increased range makes it possible for it to reach out and touch the things easier while the 2D3 shots gives it a better average on it's number of hits over a standard flamer. Basically it's moving the weapon beyond just being a slight S and AP boost over the base flamer and makes it feel like a proper heavy weapon on the table.
Heavy Plasma Incinerator: Heavy 2. A slight points increase on the gun might be needed but honestly the reason this version of the Hellblaster's gun is left off the table beyond proxy is because the increased strength isn't enough to counterbalance the loss of mobility from making it a Heavy weapon as well as decreasing the number of shots. Giving it extra shots makes it more into the Primaris answer for more heavilly armoured models (such as vehicles, Custodes and Monsters) while still retaining the same limitations the current gun has: slower movement with decreased efficiency when you need to move.
Master-crafted Stalker bolt rifle/Stalker bolt rifle: Heavy 2 OR the ability to target characters. Either of these options would fix the Stalker bolt rifle so that it would see the table more often. As it currently is the Stalker has the same basic problems the Heavy Plasma Incinerator does: the loss of mobility AND number of shots with no bonus to targetting isn't enough to justify taking this weapon for just about anyone. Being able to target Characters like a Sniper Rifle or giving it Heavy 2 to allow it to offset it's lowered movement would put these into people's lists, even if it brought a slight points increase.
Melta (all types): Double weapon strength at half range instead of the bonus to damage rolls. Additionally change the damage characteristic to D3+3. These are weapons meant to slag even the heaviest of armour at close range and even from further away it could still do a severe amount of damage if it punches through the armour. For obvious reasons this means the Melta bomb should always be S16 as well.
Plasma weapons (all types): Change the bearer being slain to the bearer taking a mortal wound. While having your guys have their faces melt off is a long standing featur of the lore, the introduction of Mortal Wounds really fits this mechanic better and would allow for better synergy with armies that have mechanics to allow them to ignore Mortal Wounds, such as Iron Hands or Death Guard.
Melee Weapons
Chainsword/Combat Knife: -1 AP. This may require a small (1-2 point) bump as it'd still give an extra attack, but considering the lower number of attacks that can be put out by a Marine army compared to larger armies like Orks or even Guard there needs to be a quality bump to offset the lowered quantity of attacks.
Power Sword: Abilities: Parry: Increase the bearer's save by 1 during the Fight Phase. Generally the Power Sword is seen as a lot less of a choice. It doesn't make wounding models easier like the other options, and while it's better at ignoring armour there is a diminishing return on this against most targets. Increasing the defensive ability of the bearer at least gives it a utility beyond strictly trying to more effectively stab the other guy.
Vehicle Wargear
Dozer Blades: Double the bearer's Attacks characteristic until the end of the Fight Phase on a turn it's completed a successful charge. Yes, bring these back and then let use them to ram people.
Siege Shield: The bearer's Save characteristic is increased by 1 against shooting attacks. Giving a Vindicator tank an increased save against shooting for a points cost doesn't break the army as much as it gives a tank with rather limited firepower more staying power so it might actually weather more than a unit's shooting before it's reduced to a smoking puddle of slag on the table.
Misc Equipment
Terminator Armour: Models with the Terminator keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Additionally increase their save to 1+. Since a 1 always fails this means that the save only negates the first AP of a weapon and reduces how effective multidamage weapons are. Essentially it means they won't go down quite as fast to anything less than dedicated heavy weapon fire or weight of dice.
Power Armour: Has +1 to it's save Characteristic against weapons with an AP profile of -1 or greater (-2,-3,ect). This was a hard one to puzzle over as Power Armour is on so many different armies. Increasing the save like All is Dust could just lead to us having Sisters running around with effective 2+ saves all the time, and a FnP effect wasn't really going to work either. In the end negating 1 of the weapon's AP seemed like the cleanest solution, though it does mean that you need to hit Thousand Sons Rubric models with -2 AP just to get them to a 3+. Magnus would be proud I guess?
Centurion Armour: Models with the Centurion keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by 1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. Yes, even the waddlebots are getting a look here, because honestly all that extra armour should be doing something more than it is.
Gravis Armour: Models with the Gravis keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by +1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. With how durable Gravis is supposed to be it needed something to feel like it was going to stay on the table longer. As lazy as it is to just reuse All Is Dust, here and on the Centurion armour, the extra armour being stronger against weaker weapons makes sense in terms of the lore. Reducing the weapon damage fits equally well and gives them more staying power. With these additions the need to push points down on the models becomes rather moot as they become the durable weapon platfoms they're shown as in the lore.
It's still going to take time to go through and look at every unit so I'm stopping here and opening up my ideas (and those I've taken from submissions so far) and asking you to give me some feedback. I've tried to keep these in the realms of reasonable while staying true to the lore that inspires these things when considering how to change things and why those things need to be changed.
Iron hands having the FNP rule is probably enough I don't think they need the ignore penalty for moving and firing, if the 6+ fnp isn't enough make the 5+ army wide.
I think your black Templars vow needs work
Eternal Crusader: Your Warlord may perform a Heroic Interventions if the enemy are within 6" (instead of 3") and move up to 6" while doing so. Additionally one friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord may roll an extra die and choose the highest when making charge rolls.
Purge the Heretic: Your Warlord gains +1 to hit and wound rolls made against models with the Choas keywords. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord gain an extra attack when attacking models with the Choas keyword.
I don't think all primaris need to be waving heavy bolt pistols around, I think they should stick with normal bolt pistols and the heavy bolt pistol be improved otherwise reivers will still be weak.
I would rather have grav stay at Heavy 4 but drop the D3 damage over dropping it to 2 shots. Otherwise it's too much like a lascannon.
I don't like the changes for overcharged plasma as IMHO plasma is OP for its points cost and given how rare it is 1in 36 chance of actually overheating that mechanic doesn't balanced it, if it did mortal wounds to vehicals fine, but it should still slay infantry
While I can appreciate where your going with your terminator changes Deathguard terminators & deathshroud and your new iron hands would be insanely durable.
Ice_can wrote: Iron hands having the FNP rule is probably enough I don't think they need the ignore penalty for moving and firing, if the 6+ fnp isn't enough make the 5+ army wide.
Noted but I'm going to disagree as you need to remember that this applies to vehicles as well, meaning that Iron Hand tanks would be able to move and fire with no penalties. Though I should likely change that to "fire a heavy weapon at no penalty".
Ice_can wrote: I think your black Templars vow needs work
Eternal Crusader: Your Warlord may perform a Heroic Interventions if the enemy are within 6" (instead of 3") and move up to 6" while doing so. Additionally one friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord may roll an extra die and choose the highest when making charge rolls.
Purge the Heretic: Your Warlord gains +1 to hit and wound rolls made against models with the Choas keywords. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord gain an extra attack when attacking models with the Choas keyword.
They probably do! I went through a few different versions honestly and to be honest I'm still not happy with them.
Ice_can wrote: I don't think all primaris need to be waving heavy bolt pistols around, I think they should stick with normal bolt pistols and the heavy bolt pistol be improved otherwise reivers will still be weak.
If it wasn't for the fact that everyone has the same exact bolt pistol bit (and the fact that the army as a whole is going to be outnumbered by almost every other army out there sans all Terminators or Custodes) among the new Primaris I'd agree with you.
Ice_can wrote: I would rather have grav stay at Heavy 4 but drop the D3 damage over dropping it to 2 shots. Otherwise it's too much like a lascannon.
Lascannon is S9 and 1 shot. It's also D6 damage meaning it has a higher damage threshold.
Ice_can wrote: I don't like the changes for overcharged plasma as IMHO plasma is OP for its points cost and given how rare it is 1in 36 chance of actually overheating that mechanic doesn't balanced it, if it did mortal wounds to vehicals fine, but it should still slay infantry
I disagree but that's largely because I don't feel that a multi-wound model should be slagged by a overheated shot like that.
Ice_can wrote: While I can appreciate where your going with your terminator changes Deathguard terminators & deathshroud and your new iron hands would be insanely durable.
Considering the lore they should be. And insanely durable might make them worth 30ppm base. I'm not against points going up to make units less spammable and shrink the overall size of a Marine army away from trying to be more like Guard or Sisters in terms of body count.
Here's my 2c [Edit: Again, I realized I said the same thing yesterday, nearly verbatim. My bad. Considering they're nearly identical, I think I probably intended to edit the first one instead of making a second one]:
First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
With that in mind, I'll start proposing adjustments:
Chapter Tactics:
CT should apply to all units. If there's no problems with a Leviathan getting any of the buffs, then there shouldn't be any problem with a Predator being able to.
Iron Hands and Imperial Fists need a change to theirs. I like the idea of bolter drill giving exploding 6's.
Stratagems:
Killshot: Use when a Predator is selected to shoot, add 1 to the damage rolls of it's Lascannons and Twin Lascannons.
Linebreaker Bombardment: Use when a Vindicator is selected to shoot. Instead of resolving damage as normal, the target unit takes D3 mortal wounds. Roll a D6 for each unit within X" [3?], on a 4+, that unit takes D3 mortal wounds.
Datalink Telementry: Use when a Whirlwind is selected to shoot, re-roll all it's to-hit rolls for this phase.
All the "bring X unit combo" stratagems need to go, especially with the Rule of 3.
There should also be a stratagem to ignore to-hit penalties when shooting. I can think of a few more to add that might be good, too, but that's not relevant to the exercise at hand.
Changes to Vehicles as a whole Light Tracked Vehicles [Rhino, Chimera] should be T7.
Medium Tracked Vehicles [Predator, Vindicator] should be T8.
Heavy Tracked Vehicles [Land Raider, Leman Russ] should be T9.
This should give some definition to the vehicle classes, and make dedicated antitank weapons more distinct from lighter antitank weapons. This would make big guns, like the S10 and S9, guns more valuable, and the S7 weapons with lots of shots less desirable. In addition, the above measure you give a reason to have a real tank [Predator] over an armed APC [Razorback].
I can also be convinced that re-instating fire points would be a good move, since it would give transports a purpose other than carting assault units forward or being cheap tanks.
Now, specific unit adjustments:
Vindicator Sv2 with Siege Shield.
Demolisher Cannon: Heavy 2d6, S10, AP3, D2 [3, maybe?], R24"
Currently, the Demolisher Cannon is kind of anemic, and not worth twice the price of a Battle Cannon in anyway. In addition, with a few high power shots, it's basically similar to the Predator, with greater unreliability. With more shots, it would threaten a greater variety of units, clearing out medium infantry and heavy infantry and still presenting a serious threat to vehicles. The above vehicle toughness overall would also help it, making it's S10 worth more than a Predator's S9 or S7 or a Leman Russ's S8.
Land Raider Power of the Machine Spirit: This vehicles ignore the penalty for firing and moving heavy weapons. In addition, this vehicle may fire its weapons in the shooting phase even if it fell back in the movement phase.
This alone should make the land raider fairly passable with a points adjustment. Why would you chose to comparative un-safety of the Land Raider over Deep Strike? Well, 10"+8" gives a 6" charge, as opposed to a 9" charge out of deep strike. In addition, the tough Land Raider can lead the way with it's own 4" charge, absorbing overwatch to protect your other units, and then falling back next turn to continue shooting and proving close support for it's cargo.
Whirlwind Whirlwind Missile Launcher: Heavy 4d6, S6/5, AP-/1, D1, R60" Indirect.
This should make the whirlwind effective against light and medium infantry of all kinds, and basically a Space Marine Wyvern.
Drop Pod Drop Pod Assault: When this unit enters play from reserve on the first turn, it does not have to arrive within the controlling player's deployment zone.
This should give you a reason to have a drop pod. Right now, they're kind of redundant and cost a lot of points. This would allow them to add a unique feature and ability to their army.
Meltaguns In line with the vehicle changes proposed above, and in the spirit of the old armorbane, the melta rule should be double strength at close range. This would make them as they were in previous editions, effective against light but not heavy vehicles far away, but effective against everything up close.
Moving on to infantry now...
I don't think Terminators or Tactical Marines require a rule change, just points adjustment. The vehicles above were altered because they didn't feel to me to have purpose, and these changes define them or separate them from other options. Tactical Marines and Terminators do have a role, and fill their role as intended. I also feel like this trend of making marineier marines just isn't really the way things should go. We had Tacticals and Terminators. Then there were Centurions, which were even marineier Terminators. Now there's Primaris and there's Gravis, not to mention Custodes and even-more-ridiculous Custodes Terminators. Like somewhere, a line was crossed. I can be convinced to consider Terminators at T5, to make them an upgrade as opposed to a sidegrade to Primaris, but mostly I think they need a cost reduction. I definitely don't think power armor troops need something special like AP for bolters or damage reduction, I think they just need to be cheaper by maybe 2 or 1 point, which will both increase the unit toughness and firepower to probably acceptable margins.
Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IGLoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.
Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.
Ice_can wrote: Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IGLoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.
Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.
Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.
But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.
With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool and thematic, but that's not going to happen. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good. This is a case of trying to progressively add special rules to try to fix things, and why you should figure out why something isn't good and address that from the source.
Predator is medium tank. Leman russ heavy. They are for different purposes.
Also land raider on par with LOW? Since when? Some early space marine game early '90's? 40k 6th and 7th certainly baneblade was tougher than land raider.
Ice_can wrote: Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IGLoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.
Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.
Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.
But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.
With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.
I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.
The wording on the power armor ignoring AP has to be done in such a way so that they aren't still getting a 2+ save in cover vs AP1. But I think the general agreement is that they should not melt to AP1 as much. I think I lean more towards them always getting at least their normal save VS AP1, but not effecting AP2 or better. This let's guns that should kill Marines kill Marines, but ups their durability against things like heavy bolters and assault cannons. It also makes cover helpful against good guns but not as required against AP 1 stuff.
I think all SM models with 2 wounds (terminators, bikes, and primaris) need to reduce damage by 1. Otherwise they die too easily to high rate of fire 2 damage weapons.
Also, all is dust is very different, as it actually improves the save based on the damage of the weapon. It's definitely possible to have all is dust, ignore a point of AP, and reduce all damage taken by 1 be functional rules working together with no overlap on rubric terminators.
Most of the chapter tactics seem like improvements, but not in ways that really matter, and the iron hands one is head and shoulders above the others.
My personal thought on chapter tactics is that they should be fairly minimal buffs that give some flavor and make certain builds more effective. I think the current iron hands, space wolves, blood angels, and salamanders traits are good examples of this. They are decent buffs that tweak marine units sightly in one direction without it being too drastic a change to the base army.
So I'd much rather the traits be weak and the units themselves be powerful. This is why I think that all space Marines should be able to fall back and shoot, because it's such a good ability that most other tactics won't be able to keep up with it, and it fits the ATSKNF of previous editions.
I also think vehicles as a unit type should be fixed as a part of the core rules, not in a chapter tactic. The way I see it the following keywords should give the following bonuses:
Vehicle: this unit can shoot heavy weapons after moving with no penalty. This unit can also fall back from combat and fire it's weapons with -1 to hit.
Fly: this unit can move over terrain and models as if they were not there. They may also fall back from combat and fire their weapons normally.
Transport: this unit can hold x models of x types. Embarked models may disembark during the movement phase as long as the transport has not advanced. If they disembark before the transport has moved at all, they may disembark, move, shoot, and charge normally. If they disembark after the transport has moved, they may only disembark and shoot.
Open topped: models embarked in open topped transports can fire their weapons from inside the vehicle following the normal rules for shooting.
Assault vehicle: units embarked in assault vehicles can disembark, shoot, and charge normally even after the vehicle has moved.
I feel like these changes make all vehicles powerful and useful, while still giving each type of vehicle it's own advantages, unlike now, where the only good vehicles tend to have fly or be knights. Once vehicles are fixed in this manner, then you can tweak them with things like chapter tactics.
For marine weapons, the general issue if that they usually only have 1-2 special weapons, and then a bunch of terrible basic shots and attacks. This would be okay if a weapon like a melta did enough damage to things that it was worth the risk of rolling to hit, wound, save, and roll damage. Boosting the strength of melta is pretty meaningless IMO because invuls still laugh at it, and even if it does go through it only average 4.5 damage at half range. Las has similar issues. To me the best solution is the increase the damage of these weapons. First give the D6 roll a minimum damage value like some other weapons have now (new genestealer guys hammer for one). I think 3 is a good place to start. For melta, I'd go as far as to say at half range let it do 6 damage flat. There should be a real reward for getting that close IMO, and multi meltas should be ultimate go big or go home weapon. Keep in mind that the average damage from a melta shot against a 5++ knight would still only be 1.33, compared to the current 1 damage. It just makes it very rewarding when the damage does go through.
Grav is a weird weapon that doesn't really have much of a place IMO. I think the best thing to do would just be to scrap it, but if we had to keep it, I'd have it be S2 but always wound any model with more than 1 wound on a 4+ to make it more of the anti tough stuff gun than the anti armor gun. I'd leave the heavy profile alone and probably make the gun version assault 2.
I think any weapon that used to be a large template should get extra hits against larger units, and flamer or small blast template weapons should get twice their current value shots, but be be capped by the number of models in the target unit.
I agree with the plasma doing mortal wounds, especially on razorbacks and characters. It gets a little weird for 2 wound units because of the way wound allocation works right now, but doesn't really seem like a big deal to me.
The basic marine damage also needs to go up. I think bolters all need AP1 like the primaris have now, and primaris guns can have S5. Chainswords and knives should also be AP1. Keep in mind that Marines would be ignoring this AP, so it really only effects other armies, which don't typically rely as much on armor (expect for say, necrons, who probably also need to ignore AP). I'd also give all Marines back the +1 attack for charging. Space wolf blood claws have this now and it's not game breaking. Their rule can change to exploding 6s to hit or something.
Ultimately, Marines need to be more durable and do more damage, as the only alternative is to make them a horde army. Their vehicles also need to be useful and worth taking. Only then do things like chapter tactics start to matter.
My thoughts on chapter tactics are things like:
UM: overwatch on 5+
IH: 6+ FNP S: current bonus is fine, since we've already buffed single shot weapons.
IF: 6s to hit with bolter weapons add a additional hit. Their strategem should buff 1-3 terrain peices to give +2 to saves instead of +1.
BT: current is fine, since we've already buffed the innate melee ability of all marines. I do think some kind of vow warlord trait would be cool. Their current strategem is actually excellent.
WS: I'd keep their current advance bonuses, but also let them shoot rapid fire weapons normally after they advance. Id get rid of the fall back and charge ability since it doesn't really fit with how Marines want to play.
RG: I'd reduce their strategem and all the others like it to 1 unit per game. Then I'd give them +1 to their armor saves if they are over 12" away. This is definitely a nerf, but I don't think army wide -1 traits should be a thing, and it's still pretty useful when you stack it with cover.
DA: I'd change their tactic to give +1 to hit if they don't move instead of re-rolls of 1 to hit, since they should have that from characters. The never losing more than 1 guy to morale thing is fine too.
SW: is fine
BA: is fine
GK: is actually pretty good, it's just the rest of their army that sucks. Id still think about changing it to something like the AP of their weapons to effect invul saves, but they really need a new while new codex so it's hard to say.
I think the warlord traits that allow CP regen are okay, but you should never be able to roll more than one dice to get CP back when you use strategems, and either make them all 5+ or 6+. Storm of fire is another really good warlord trait, so I'd try to boost the others to something near it's power, but honestly bad warlord traits isn't a giant issue to me as long as a few of them are okay, as there are really only so many things you can do.
It's also possible Marines would need to cost more after all of these changes, which I'd be fine with if they were actually good, but I suspect that they'd actually be about where they need to be at their current points.
Ice_can wrote: Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IGLoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.
Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.
Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.
But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.
With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.
I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.
Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.
Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP. I have ideas for the Leman Russ, but they don't belong in this thread.
Ice_can wrote: Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IGLoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.
Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.
Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.
But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.
With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.
I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.
Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.
Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP.
Well your at odds with the OP's rules without points changes possition. Also I maybe was a bit over zealous as I always found ways to shoot rear armour so to me a Leman Russ Chassis was no tougher than a predator but a Landraider was a way tougher opponent.
The annoying thing is Battlecannons aren't actually a bad weapon, knights are paying 100 points for a double shooting battlecannon and people take those. Dooble shooting was a garbage "fix" that made it OP.
Also old lore which has probably been retconed to heck as marines arn't allowed to fight wars unsupported, said massed landradiers could take on titans, but IG needed and used Shadowswords instead.
I think T8 should be reserved for only the toughest vehicles like knights and landraiders. Give predator types T7 and a 2+ armor save or just a couple more wounds and call it a day IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually think double shooting is okay, but the guns should also be fixed for other platforms and the double shoot ability then pointed correctly.
jcd386 wrote:I think T8 should be reserved for only the toughest vehicles like knights and landraiders. Give predator types T7 and a 2+ armor save or just a couple more wounds and call it a day IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually think double shooting is okay, but the guns should also be fixed for other platforms and the double shoot ability then pointed correctly.
I'd rather make the tanks tougher, so that there's a difference between a missile launcher, a lascannon, and a railcannon. Tougher tanks, with more variation in their toughness, in turn means you have can more variation in antitank weapons. In addition, T9 is the ticket to actually being tough, T8 isn't really all that resilient, since Battle Cannons and Missile Launchers are S8 and Lascannons are S9, but few weapons are S10.
I mean, the ability isn't an inherently awful ability, but implementing it as a fix for the really bad guns doesn't fix the problem.
Ice_can wrote: Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IGLoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.
Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.
Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.
But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.
With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.
I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.
Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.
Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP.
Well your at odds with the OP's rules without points changes possition. Also I maybe was a bit over zealous as I always found ways to shoot rear armour so to me a Leman Russ Chassis was no tougher than a predator but a Landraider was a way tougher opponent.
The annoying thing is Battlecannons aren't actually a bad weapon, knights are paying 100 points for a double shooting battlecannon and people take those. Dooble shooting was a garbage "fix" that made it OP.
Also old lore which has probably been retconed to heck as marines arn't allowed to fight wars unsupported, said massed landradiers could take on titans, but IG needed and used Shadowswords instead.
He said "Let's leave point changes off the table since those are likely coming in Chapter Approved." I don't think I'm at odds with him. We know these things will need points changes, we're not trying to make rules to make them good at their current cost, we need rules alterations that address deficiencies like the Vindicator not really being good at anything at all and just being sort of half a Predator, or a fancy Razorback with bad range.
jcd386 wrote:I think T8 should be reserved for only the toughest vehicles like knights and landraiders. Give predator types T7 and a 2+ armor save or just a couple more wounds and call it a day IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually think double shooting is okay, but the guns should also be fixed for other platforms and the double shoot ability then pointed correctly.
I'd rather make the tanks tougher, so that there's a difference between a missile launcher, a lascannon, and a railcannon. Tougher tanks, with more variation in their toughness, in turn means you have can more variation in antitank weapons. In addition, T9 is the ticket to actually being tough, T8 isn't really all that resilient, since Battle Cannons and Missile Launchers are S8 and Lascannons are S9, but few weapons are S10.
I mean, the ability isn't an inherently awful ability, but implementing it as a fix for the really bad guns doesn't fix the problem.
Ice_can wrote: Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IGLoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.
Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.
Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.
But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.
With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.
I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.
Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.
Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP.
Well your at odds with the OP's rules without points changes possition. Also I maybe was a bit over zealous as I always found ways to shoot rear armour so to me a Leman Russ Chassis was no tougher than a predator but a Landraider was a way tougher opponent.
The annoying thing is Battlecannons aren't actually a bad weapon, knights are paying 100 points for a double shooting battlecannon and people take those. Dooble shooting was a garbage "fix" that made it OP.
Also old lore which has probably been retconed to heck as marines arn't allowed to fight wars unsupported, said massed landradiers could take on titans, but IG needed and used Shadowswords instead.
He said "Let's leave point changes off the table since those are likely coming in Chapter Approved." I don't think I'm at odds with him. We know these things will need points changes, we're not trying to make rules to make them good at their current cost, we need rules alterations that address deficiencies like the Vindicator not really being good at anything at all and just being sort of half a Predator, or a fancy Razorback with bad range.
T8 is very tough compared to T7. It reduces damage from S4 by 50%, S7 by 33%, and S8 by 25%. S9 is uneffected, but S9 represents some of the most powerful weapons in the game.
Going from 8 to 9 reduces damage from S9 by 25% and S8 by 33% which I feel is too much. I think better armor and more wounds are better options for giving vehicles durability until you get to the truly gigantic units.
jcd386 wrote:I think T8 should be reserved for only the toughest vehicles like knights and landraiders. Give predator types T7 and a 2+ armor save or just a couple more wounds and call it a day IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually think double shooting is okay, but the guns should also be fixed for other platforms and the double shoot ability then pointed correctly.
I'd rather make the tanks tougher, so that there's a difference between a missile launcher, a lascannon, and a railcannon. Tougher tanks, with more variation in their toughness, in turn means you have can more variation in antitank weapons. In addition, T9 is the ticket to actually being tough, T8 isn't really all that resilient, since Battle Cannons and Missile Launchers are S8 and Lascannons are S9, but few weapons are S10.
I mean, the ability isn't an inherently awful ability, but implementing it as a fix for the really bad guns doesn't fix the problem.
Ice_can wrote: Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IGLoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.
Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.
Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.
But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.
With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.
I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.
Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.
Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP.
Well your at odds with the OP's rules without points changes possition. Also I maybe was a bit over zealous as I always found ways to shoot rear armour so to me a Leman Russ Chassis was no tougher than a predator but a Landraider was a way tougher opponent.
The annoying thing is Battlecannons aren't actually a bad weapon, knights are paying 100 points for a double shooting battlecannon and people take those. Dooble shooting was a garbage "fix" that made it OP.
Also old lore which has probably been retconed to heck as marines arn't allowed to fight wars unsupported, said massed landradiers could take on titans, but IG needed and used Shadowswords instead.
He said "Let's leave point changes off the table since those are likely coming in Chapter Approved." I don't think I'm at odds with him. We know these things will need points changes, we're not trying to make rules to make them good at their current cost, we need rules alterations that address deficiencies like the Vindicator not really being good at anything at all and just being sort of half a Predator, or a fancy Razorback with bad range.
T8 is very tough compared to T7. It reduces damage from S4 by 50%, S7 by 33%, and S8 by 25%. S9 is uneffected, but S9 represents some of the most powerful weapons in the game.
Going from 8 to 9 reduces damage from S9 by 25% and S8 by 33% which I feel is too much. I think better armor and more wounds are better options for giving vehicles durability until you get to the truly gigantic units.
The other issue is many armies don't have much S8, 9 and fewer have s10 weapons access.
Not to mention that the points cost of some of these weapons and the units they are mounted on means a tac list is going to top out at being able to take 2 maybe 3 of these tops at 2k.
Thats a problem as most of them are D6 damage so even 2 or 3 of them is not guaranteed to even bracket a leman Russ as its current rediculous 150 points.
Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.
Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.
In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.
JNAProductions wrote: Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.
Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.
In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.
With what BS? And is that at T8 or T9?
That also doesn't adress the issue of being able to take 2 or more Russes for the points cost of of that firepower
JNAProductions wrote: Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.
Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.
In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.
With what BS? And is that at T8 or T9?
I thought you were talking Lascannon WOUNDS. As in, once everything is said and done and it's just time to roll damage.
Because once you factor in hitting, wounding, and saves, of course the odds are gonna drop.
4 shots
8/3 hits
16/9 wounds
40/27 unsaved
140/27 damage, on average, or 5.19
That's a Quad-Las Pred or a Quad-Las Devastator team against a Predator or a (T8) Russ. I can run the odds on various specific things, if you like, such as odds of bracketing or whatnot.
Okay, you might've noticed the math changed. I multiplied a denominator by 3 instead of 6 at one point.
JNAProductions wrote: Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.
Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.
In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.
Considering you have to shoot 8-9 BS3 Las cannons at a T8 Russ to even get 3 unsaved wounds, that seems okay to me.
With an average of 3.5 damage you currently need 10 Las cannons or 15-16 missiles to kill a 3+ armor 12w Russ with average rolls. Making them T9 makes that 13 las or 23 missiles, which is simply too many.
JNAProductions wrote: Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.
Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.
In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.
Considering you have to shoot 8-9 BS3 Las cannons at a T8 Russ to even get 3 unsaved wounds, that seems okay to me.
I was about to say that's dead wrong, then I realized my math was completely wrong. I've edited the post above, to fix it.
JNAProductions wrote: Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.
Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.
In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.
With what BS? And is that at T8 or T9?
I thought you were talking Lascannon WOUNDS. As in, once everything is said and done and it's just time to roll damage.
Because once you factor in hitting, wounding, and saves, of course the odds are gonna drop.
4 shots
8/3 hits
16/9 wounds
40/27 unsaved
140/27 damage, on average, or 5.19
That's a Quad-Las Pred or a Quad-Las Devastator team against a Predator or a (T8) Russ. I can run the odds on various specific things, if you like, such as odds of bracketing or whatnot.
Okay, you might've noticed the math changed. I multiplied a denominator by 3 instead of 6 at one point.
No I'm talking how many lascannons etc would it take to braket a T9 russ. I suspect that number is too high for what Lascannon or similar weapons cost.
With an average of 3.5 damage you currently need 10 Las cannons or 15-16 missiles to kill a 3+ armor 12w Russ with average rolls. Making them T9 makes that 13 las or 23 missiles, which is simply too many.
jcd386 wrote:I think T8 should be reserved for only the toughest vehicles like knights and landraiders. Give predator types T7 and a 2+ armor save or just a couple more wounds and call it a day IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually think double shooting is okay, but the guns should also be fixed for other platforms and the double shoot ability then pointed correctly.
I'd rather make the tanks tougher, so that there's a difference between a missile launcher, a lascannon, and a railcannon. Tougher tanks, with more variation in their toughness, in turn means you have can more variation in antitank weapons. In addition, T9 is the ticket to actually being tough, T8 isn't really all that resilient, since Battle Cannons and Missile Launchers are S8 and Lascannons are S9, but few weapons are S10.
I mean, the ability isn't an inherently awful ability, but implementing it as a fix for the really bad guns doesn't fix the problem.
Ice_can wrote: Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IGLoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.
Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.
Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.
But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.
With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.
I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.
Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.
Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP.
Well your at odds with the OP's rules without points changes possition. Also I maybe was a bit over zealous as I always found ways to shoot rear armour so to me a Leman Russ Chassis was no tougher than a predator but a Landraider was a way tougher opponent.
The annoying thing is Battlecannons aren't actually a bad weapon, knights are paying 100 points for a double shooting battlecannon and people take those. Dooble shooting was a garbage "fix" that made it OP.
Also old lore which has probably been retconed to heck as marines arn't allowed to fight wars unsupported, said massed landradiers could take on titans, but IG needed and used Shadowswords instead.
He said "Let's leave point changes off the table since those are likely coming in Chapter Approved." I don't think I'm at odds with him. We know these things will need points changes, we're not trying to make rules to make them good at their current cost, we need rules alterations that address deficiencies like the Vindicator not really being good at anything at all and just being sort of half a Predator, or a fancy Razorback with bad range.
T8 is very tough compared to T7. It reduces damage from S4 by 50%, S7 by 33%, and S8 by 25%. S9 is uneffected, but S9 represents some of the most powerful weapons in the game.
Going from 8 to 9 reduces damage from S9 by 25% and S8 by 33% which I feel is too much. I think better armor and more wounds are better options for giving vehicles durability until you get to the truly gigantic units.
To be fair, S9 doesn't represent some of the most powerful mortal weapons in the game. Like, there are dreadnought CCW's, Railcannons, Demolishers, etc. which are supposed to be big heavy antitank weapons, but not titan scale weapons. Right now, with heavy tanks at T8, there's no real difference between them and a Lascannon.
Lascannons are kind of the "premier AT weapon" class, Missiles are the sort of "decent AT weapon". A heavy tank, like a Land Raider, should generally bounce missiles without much of a problem, and be built to be hard for lascannons to destroy. That's what Railcannons are for, after all, for making a mockery of vehicles that go above the ordinary in terms of protection.
jcd386 wrote: With an average of 3.5 damage you currently need 10 Las cannons or 15-16 missiles to kill a 3+ armor 12w Russ with average rolls. Making them T9 makes that 13 las or 23 missiles, which is simply too many.
12 missile launchers to bracket it then or 7 lascannons.
Damn thats 300 points of missile launchers alone without anyone to carry them just to braket a T9 russ. Or over 600 points to 1 round a 150 point tank Or 175 points of lascannons to bracket and 325 points of lascannons to one round a 150 point tank. Again you still need to add the cost of the units to carry those weapons.
jcd386 wrote: With an average of 3.5 damage you currently need 10 Las cannons or 15-16 missiles to kill a 3+ armor 12w Russ with average rolls. Making them T9 makes that 13 las or 23 missiles, which is simply too many.
12 missile launchers to bracket it then or 7 lascannons.
Damn thats 300 points of missile launchers alone without anyone to carry them just to braket a T9 russ. Or over 600 points to 1 round a 150 point tank Or 175 points of lascannons to bracket and 325 points of lascannons to one round a 150 point tank. Again you still need to add the cost of the units to carry those weapons.
Missile Launchers should be a bad option for knocking out heavy tanks. Lascannons should be an okay option. Demolisher Cannons and Railcannons should be a good option.
Anyway, though, if we want to change things without also adjusting their points cost, there's nothing really to do.
If anything I think the defensive nature of most SM and IG tanks is fine as is. They have decent wounds, decent armor, and generally require standard anti tank weapons with high S and AP to hurt them.
The main reason they seem weak right now in my opinion is the prevalence and likely undercosting of invul saves and -1 to hit on other faction's vehicles makes them significantly more resistant to typical anti tank weapons, so that the difference between them is night and day.
jcd386 wrote: If anything I think the defensive nature of most SM and IG tanks is fine as is. They have decent wounds, decent armor, and generally require standard anti tank weapons with high S and AP to hurt them.
The main reason they seem weak right now in my opinion is the prevalence and likely undercosting of invul saves and -1 to hit on other faction's vehicles makes them significantly more resistant to typical anti tank weapons, so that the difference between them is night and day.
I disagree. Land raiders and predators which are supposed to be the space marines heavy tanks die from a plasma gun more times than any (With relative ease as well) if they increased the toughness count, decreased the points cost they would be worth taking.
jcd386 wrote: With an average of 3.5 damage you currently need 10 Las cannons or 15-16 missiles to kill a 3+ armor 12w Russ with average rolls. Making them T9 makes that 13 las or 23 missiles, which is simply too many.
12 missile launchers to bracket it then or 7 lascannons.
Damn thats 300 points of missile launchers alone without anyone to carry them just to braket a T9 russ. Or over 600 points to 1 round a 150 point tank Or 175 points of lascannons to bracket and 325 points of lascannons to one round a 150 point tank. Again you still need to add the cost of the units to carry those weapons.
Missile Launchers should be a bad option for knocking out heavy tanks. Lascannons should be an okay option. Demolisher Cannons and Railcannons should be a good option.
Anyway, though, if we want to change things without also adjusting their points cost, there's nothing really to do.
Missile launchers already are a bad option against T8 when you compare them to Las, Melta, and railguns.
jcd386 wrote: If anything I think the defensive nature of most SM and IG tanks is fine as is. They have decent wounds, decent armor, and generally require standard anti tank weapons with high S and AP to hurt them.
The main reason they seem weak right now in my opinion is the prevalence and likely undercosting of invul saves and -1 to hit on other faction's vehicles makes them significantly more resistant to typical anti tank weapons, so that the difference between them is night and day.
I disagree. Land raiders and predators which are supposed to be the space marines heavy tanks die from a plasma gun more times than any (With relative ease as well) if they increased the toughness count, decreased the points cost they would be worth taking.
I understand where you are coming from, but that seems like more of a problem with plasma than with the tanks. I'd argue that overcharged plasma probably doesn't need to be S8 before I'd say russes need to be T9.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also you need 27 BS3 plasma shots to kill a Russ with average rolls. So I actually don't think that happens too often.
Looking at dark angels I would remove a lot of the psychology redundancy in the book, there are about 7 ways to either ignore morale etc. Totally or make it less damaging, that’s too many, 1 is needed at most.
And while I know this isn’t a popular opinion I would also remove chapter tactics from primaris marines for them, as a alternative I would give them the heresy chapter tactic of +1 to hit with sword weapons.
Independent of the Leman Russ, which can be un-made a heavy vehicles or re-costed if it wants to stay a heavy vehicle...
Does:
Rhino/Razorback [11/11/10] at T7
Predator/Vindicator [13/11/10] at T8
Land Raider [14/14/14] at T9
Sound like to would be a positive move in bring definition and purpose that was generally lost to the options in the Space Marine motor pool? I think it does, and that's the point.
The Leman Russ can be revisited later in an Imperial Guard thread, or something, because I think it has a bunch of problems and needs re-works anyway too.
Right now, I think the fact that the Predator has the same toughness as the Razorback is a factor that should be addressed with rules, because it feels wrong. Once you get the units to feel right, you re-point them.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Independent of the Leman Russ, which can be un-made a heavy vehicles or re-costed if it wants to stay a heavy vehicle...
Does:
Rhino/Razorback [11/11/10] at T7
Predator/Vindicator [13/11/10] at T8
Land Raider [14/14/14] at T9
Sound like to would be a positive move in bring definition and purpose that was generally lost to the options in the Space Marine motor pool? I think it does, and that's the point.
The Leman Russ can be revisited later in an Imperial Guard thread, or something, because I think it has a bunch of problems and needs re-works anyway too.
Right now, I think the fact that the Predator has the same toughness as the Razorback is a factor that should be addressed with rules, because it feels wrong. Once you get the units to fell right, you re-point them.
To me, I don't mind if they are the same toughness as long as there is some overall difference in their durability. And there currently is a slight difference in wounds, but I think we'd agree that it's not enough.
When you look at durability, there are three default ways of making a unit harder to kill: toughness, armor saves, and wounds. Then you can also add special rules like FNP, invuls, or something else.
I'd say that the jump from T7 to T8 is too powerful, and the jump from T8 to T9 definitely is. I've already laid out the math for this.
The easiest fix is to add wounds. The nice things about giving tanks more wounds is that it generally increases their durability against everything . Right now you need 9 Las cannons to kill a predator. Each wound you add requires a bit less than one more Las cannon to kill it, so 12 or 13 wounds would be a decent increase in durability (9 to 18% against all targets).
Another buff could be to the armor save. A 2+ save reduces Las cannon damage by 20%, missile damage by 25%, and melta damage by 16%. It also reduces the damage from AP 1 by 33% and AP0 by 50%. This seems pretty reasonable to me.
I also think a special rule could also work. Since we're also taking about giving Marines ignore 1AP, let's give it to their tanks too. This ups their durability against anything but AP0, which seems okay to me. Then I'd give them 1 more wound to be at 12 and see how the felt. The number of Las needed to kill a predator would then go from there current 9 to 12, meaning we increased their durability against Las cannons by 33%. Weapons with lower AP would see larger reductions in damage, which feels okay. I think that would be a good place to start.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Independent of the Leman Russ, which can be un-made a heavy vehicles or re-costed if it wants to stay a heavy vehicle...
Does:
Rhino/Razorback [11/11/10] at T7
Predator/Vindicator [13/11/10] at T8
Land Raider [14/14/14] at T9
Sound like to would be a positive move in bring definition and purpose that was generally lost to the options in the Space Marine motor pool? I think it does, and that's the point.
The Leman Russ can be revisited later in an Imperial Guard thread, or something, because I think it has a bunch of problems and needs re-works anyway too.
Right now, I think the fact that the Predator has the same toughness as the Razorback is a factor that should be addressed with rules, because it feels wrong. Once you get the units to fell right, you re-point them.
To me, I don't mind if they are the same toughness as long as there is some overall difference in their durability. And there currently is a slight difference in wounds, but I think we'd agree that it's not enough.
When you look at durability, there are three default ways of making a unit harder to kill: toughness, armor saves, and wounds. Then you can also add special rules like FNP, invuls, or something else.
I'd say that the jump from T7 to T8 is too powerful, and the jump from T8 to T9 definitely is. I've already laid out the math for this.
The easiest fix is to add wounds. The nice things about giving tanks more wounds is that it generally increases their durability against everything . Right now you need 9 Las cannons to kill a predator. Each wound you add requires a bit less than one more Las cannon to kill it, so 12 or 13 wounds would be a decent increase in durability (9 to 18% against all targets).
Another buff could be to the armor save. A 2+ save reduces Las cannon damage by 20%, missile damage by 25%, and melta damage by 16%. It also reduces the damage from AP 1 by 33% and AP0 by 50%. This seems pretty reasonable to me.
I also think a special rule could also work. Since we're also taking about giving Marines ignore 1AP, let's give it to their tanks too. This ups their durability against anything but AP0, which seems okay to me. Then I'd give them 1 more wound to be at 12 and see how the felt. The number of Las needed to kill a predator would then go from there current 9 to 12, meaning we increased their durability against Las cannons by 33%. Weapons with lower AP would see larger reductions in damage, which feels okay. I think that would be a good place to start.
I don't like Marines ignoring 1 AP. Like they don't need to be tougher at 13ppm, they need to keep their current performance at like 11 ppm.
I also don't like the idea of adding wounds. The tanks shouldn't get tougher against Railcannons and Storm Eagle Rockets and Dreadnought CCW's, but they should be harder to kill with missile launchers. Razorbacks should go down to the weapons infantry can carry. Predators might be somewhat threatened, but mostly concerned about larger weapons meant for cracking open tanks. Land Raiders should shrug off anything less than a tank-mount "big gun".
I think the math seems fairly fine with 7/8/9 to that respect. Re-point afterwords based on the results.
I absolutely don't think things just need "more wounds." The idea isn't to require more hits to destroy, it's to require better hits.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Independent of the Leman Russ, which can be un-made a heavy vehicles or re-costed if it wants to stay a heavy vehicle...
Does:
Rhino/Razorback [11/11/10] at T7
Predator/Vindicator [13/11/10] at T8
Land Raider [14/14/14] at T9
Sound like to would be a positive move in bring definition and purpose that was generally lost to the options in the Space Marine motor pool? I think it does, and that's the point.
The Leman Russ can be revisited later in an Imperial Guard thread, or something, because I think it has a bunch of problems and needs re-works anyway too.
Right now, I think the fact that the Predator has the same toughness as the Razorback is a factor that should be addressed with rules, because it feels wrong. Once you get the units to fell right, you re-point them.
To me, I don't mind if they are the same toughness as long as there is some overall difference in their durability. And there currently is a slight difference in wounds, but I think we'd agree that it's not enough.
When you look at durability, there are three default ways of making a unit harder to kill: toughness, armor saves, and wounds. Then you can also add special rules like FNP, invuls, or something else.
I'd say that the jump from T7 to T8 is too powerful, and the jump from T8 to T9 definitely is. I've already laid out the math for this.
The easiest fix is to add wounds. The nice things about giving tanks more wounds is that it generally increases their durability against everything . Right now you need 9 Las cannons to kill a predator. Each wound you add requires a bit less than one more Las cannon to kill it, so 12 or 13 wounds would be a decent increase in durability (9 to 18% against all targets).
Another buff could be to the armor save. A 2+ save reduces Las cannon damage by 20%, missile damage by 25%, and melta damage by 16%. It also reduces the damage from AP 1 by 33% and AP0 by 50%. This seems pretty reasonable to me.
I also think a special rule could also work. Since we're also taking about giving Marines ignore 1AP, let's give it to their tanks too. This ups their durability against anything but AP0, which seems okay to me. Then I'd give them 1 more wound to be at 12 and see how the felt. The number of Las needed to kill a predator would then go from there current 9 to 12, meaning we increased their durability against Las cannons by 33%. Weapons with lower AP would see larger reductions in damage, which feels okay. I think that would be a good place to start.
I don't like Marines ignoring 1 AP. Like they don't need to be tougher at 13ppm, they need to keep their current performance at like 11 ppm.
I also don't like the idea of adding wounds. The tanks shouldn't get tougher against Railcannons and Storm Eagle Rockets and Dreadnought CCW's, but they should be harder to kill with missile launchers. Razorbacks should go down to the weapons infantry can carry. Predators might be somewhat threatened, but mostly concerned about larger weapons meant for cracking open tanks. Land Raiders should shrug off anything less than a tank-mount "big gun".
I think the math seems fairly fine with 7/8/9 to that respect. Re-point afterwords.
Like, a S10+ "big gun" like a Railcannon would kind of overkill against a light tank or a medium tank, but you want it to make holes in a heavy tank, where a missile launcher would just outright fail you and a lascannon would be kind of struggling.
Agree to disagree, I guess. I prefer tanks that take damage more slowly, but still reliably get hurt by S8+. Honestly I just find T9 units fun to play with or against. To me, once your weapon only gets 1 shot, is should have a pretty good chance of hurting most anything. Missile launchers are already much worse than last cannons with one less AP and S. Having T9 around would make them really terrible.
Agree to disagree, I guess. I prefer tanks that take damage more slowly, but still reliably get hurt by S8+. Honestly I just find T9 units fun to play with or against. To me, once your weapon only gets 1 shot, is should have a pretty good chance of hurting most anything. Missile launchers are already much worse than last cannons with one less AP and S. Having T9 around would make them really terrible.
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
That said, let's see if I can't convince you:
I don't like the idea of tanks taking damage slowly and be reliably hurt in small chunks by most weapons of a large category. I'd rather they take damage quickly from weapons in a small category, and generally not take damage from weapons below that category. This gives a greater general resolution to both the motor pool, and to the weapon facing them. If we were to weigh a pair of Razorbacks versus a wound-buffed Predator, then there's not really a difference. It's just a matter of efficiency to us, one will always win.
Second, having the right tool for the right is something the Space Marines can do, and generally should be encouraged to be doing to win. I don't like systems that use hitpoints/wounds to add toughness, because it reduces overall definition between the options, and you'll end up with a lot of redundant or obsolete options.
Also, the hitpoints model isn't particularly effective at modelling tank combat. Tanks are generally pretty impervious to weapons too weak to hurt them, but die very quickly [and frequently violently] to those that are designed to kill them.
Anyway, I think it's better to have specific optimal answers, other than "bring more X".
Agree to disagree, I guess. I prefer tanks that take damage more slowly, but still reliably get hurt by S8+. Honestly I just find T9 units fun to play with or against. To me, once your weapon only gets 1 shot, is should have a pretty good chance of hurting most anything. Missile launchers are already much worse than last cannons with one less AP and S. Having T9 around would make them really terrible.
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
That said, let's see if I can't convince you:
I don't like the idea of tanks taking damage slowly and be reliably hurt in small chunks by most weapons of a large category. I'd rather they take damage quickly from weapons in a small category, and generally not take damage from weapons below that category. This gives a greater general resolution to both the motor pool, and to the weapon facing them. If we were to weigh a pair of Razorbacks versus a wound-buffed Predator, then there's not really a difference. It's just a matter of efficiency to us, one will always win.
Second, having the right tool for the right is something the Space Marines can do, and generally should be encouraged to be doing to win. I don't like systems that use hitpoints/wounds to add toughness, because it reduces overall definition between the options, and you'll end up with a lot of redundant or obsolete options.
Also, the hitpoints model isn't particularly effective at modelling tank combat. Tanks are generally pretty impervious to weapons too weak to hurt them, but die very quickly [and frequently violently] to those that are designed to kill them.
Anyway, I think it's better to have specific optimal answers, other than "bring more X".
I think what would happen in that case would be you'd just never see things like missile launchers, because there weapons that can kill T9 will alo be able to kill T7-8 with ease. So you'd just build to handle T9 schew and horde schew and everything in the middle would suffer. This is already happening with T8 knights and I don't think your idea helps.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just wanted to say I've been reading this religiously and have been collating things I feel do work as I touch on those topics (such as the double S for melta at half range or the 2+ save for the Siege Shield). I'll be updating the notes I'd posted this morning in the first post with an update to make it easier to find what I currently have so people are generally on the same page and can help deconstruct what I've written to make it more well rounded and less likely to be broken.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I don't think points changes are enough. Marines fundamentally don't work in the 8th edition ruleset. Their conversion to the new rules was done poorly, and needs to be corrected with rules changes and special rules.
Otherwise we'll either have bad Marines, or hordes of 9 point Marines and I don't see either of those being great options
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
So I've got a tweak of the current second draft that is now in the first post for those who don't want to go back to read it:
Spoiler:
Alright, so I started this thing so I might as well go through everything then to get some discussion going about the codex in whole. I'm going to avoid anything that essentially could just get cheaper (from my viewpoint at least) as a fix. The ultimate goal of this will always remain a submission to GW on why the community is neglecting so much of the book's options, what could change about them to make them a viable option for most players, and generally the point is to get away from just making the army cheaper and cheaper until we start looking like a Guard army with better wargear.
There are two main goals I have for this whole submission:
1. Present a method in which an elite army like Space Marines may be reasonably balanced against other armies, particularly horde armies, while keeping in mind that many changes made here will apply to other armies here when taking into considering wargear or the base mechanics of Marines. Many buffs could end up buffing other armies and it could easilly defeat the purpose of the buff if it leaves the army unable to reach a balanced state within the game.
2. Give each chapter in the codex a faction bonus that provides benefits that every unit can enjoy without imbalancing the game while also giving each a specialization bonus that rewards the choosing of certain wargear or unit types creating distinct types of armies within the framework of the greater codex.
To kick things off, let's go back over those Chapter Tactics again, shall we? Don't worry, this isn't a rehash but rather an update.
Now I've gotten some feedback about these already which has helped me refine the rules a bit more. Each will be a two part bonus to the faction, the first something any unit can enjoy, the second a more focused bonus for specific models or weapons to create an army specialization that will allow each chapter to have a disctinct playstyle from each other if a player builds towards it. I want to start with these first because it creates a picture in your mind on how each change might affect one chapter more than another.
Chapter Tactics: If your army is Battle-forged models with the <Chapter> keyword in a Space Marines detachement gain a Chapter Tactic as long as every unit in that detachment is drawn from the same Chapter.
It's a small change to the way the chapter tactics work, but it's a change every Space Marine player can say should apply. It opens the army up to a lot more flexibility and makes vehicles worth taking knowing that you can kit them to work like the rest of your army.
Ultramarines: Codex Discipline: Ultramarines units never lose more than a single model due to a failed morale test. Models with the Character, Dreadnought, or Vehicle keywords instead gain +1 Leadership. Ultramarines units may shoot in the same turn in which they Fall Back.
The change here is to encourage Ultramarine units to form larger units due to a lower fear of morale as well as giving single model units greater protection against effects that target leadership. The penalty for falling back and shooting was removed to coinicide with the previous change to encourage Ultramarine armies to be aggressive in their approach as they can get stuck in with less fear of morale and then step back and open fire with all barrels.
White Scars: Lightning Assault: Whenever a White Scars unit Advances, Charges or Turbo-boosts it moves an additional 2" in addition to the distance rolled (turbo-boosting models move the full 6" plus the additional 2" for a full 8" instead of rolling). Models with the Biker, Infantry or Dreadnought rule may charge on a turn they Fall Back at no penalty. Models with the Vehicle keyword (to include Vehicle models with the Dreadnought keyword) treat their weapons as assault weapons during a turn in which they advanced (ex. Rapid Fire 1 becomes Assault 1, Heavy 3 becomes Heavy 3).
The biggest change here is making the army faster overall. The White Scars are known for modifying even their tanks to go faster and it didn't make any sense that they should be going slower. Additionally, as a chapter that basically hits the enemy as they drive through them the chapter isn't known for slowing down, making the bonus to their charges something that just fits naturally. Generally speaking this is the army that moves the fastest, and can slam into the enemy multiple times to kill it making it so they can keep something tied up on your opponent's turn before breaking free, shooting with your army's suport elements and then hitting that unit again.
Imperial Fists: Siege Masters: Enemy units do not recieve benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by Imperial Fists models, furthermore Imperial Fists re-roll all to-wound and damage rolls against enemy models with the Building keyword. In addition models making a shooting attack with a bolt weapon (any weapon with "bolt" in it's name and Dorn's Arrow are all bolt weapons as is the boltgun half of a combi-weapon) may make an additional to-hit roll for every roll of a 6. These to-hit rolls do not generate additional shots. The non-bolt weapon portion of a combi-weapon additionally does not benefit from this rule.
While I feel the rule towards buildings to be incredibly fluffy, it's not enough to build an army around as it's more situational than something you can build an army around. As such I didn't take it away but rolled it into the first effect as it fits well with their removal of an enemy's army protection mechanic. Making them the army that benefits the most from taking bolter weapons was more to make a nod to their special rule in their previous supplement material. This creates an army with a focus on shooting, but with a key focus on using bolt weapons as the basis of that shooting.
Black Templars: Righteous Zeal: You can re-roll either or both dice when a Black Templar unit fails a charge roll. On a turn a model with this rule charges, was charged or makes a Heroic Intervention add 1 to its Attacks characteristic until the end of the Fight Phase .
The Black Templars are quite clearly the melee focused army in the codex and it needs to show. Making their charges more reliable through rerolls ensures these zealots will make it to combat more often while the extra attack seperates them from their fellow Astartes as being the army that throws the most dice in combat. Basically the intent is to make them feel like an army that benefits from being stuck in, and gets stuck in more often.
Salamanders: Master Artisans: Salamander units with this rule may re-roll a single to-hit and to-wound roll each time they shoot or fight. Additionally when using a weapon that rolls to determine the number of shots or attacks you may roll two dice and take the highest result.
The biggest benefit for this rule is undoubtably to vehicle with lower numbers of shots such as lascannon predators, but also helps weapons that swing the other way by making weapons that roll random number of shots more reliable for the army. Ultimately this makes Salamanders a strong contender for certain heavy weapon options as well as weapons such as the flamer which are less than reliable at times.
Raven Guard: Shadow Masters: Raven Guard units that have not advanced or charged this turn gain the benefits for cover. Models that are already in cover and have not moved instead gain an additional +1 to their cover save bonus. Additionally, when targeting Infantry models with this special rule, your opponent must subtract 1 from their to-hit rolls if they are more than 12" away.
There were two changes here: the first was to make it so the army still has a benefit for their ability to hide themselves and their use of camoflauge, allowing them to feel like the ambush masters they should be, while giving Infantry models the existing bonus as a means of encouraging lists that aren't just a mass of tanks that get a cover bonus in the open.
Iron Hands: The Flesh is Weak: Roll a die each time an Iron Hands model loses a wound. On a unmodified roll of a 6 the damage is ignored and the model does not lose a wound. Models with the Character, Terminator or Dreadnought keywords instead ignore the lost wound on an unmodified roll of 5 or 6. Additionally Iron Hand models with the Vehicle keyword ignore penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Not only are the more heavilly augmented of the chapter more likely to ignore wounds like they do in the lore, though with future proofing so that the mechanic can't be boosted or reduced by any other rules. Of course, the augmented nature of the Iron Hands become the army that benefits from bringing the most heavy weapons, though due to the way the rules work, they'll be different than the ones seen in a Salamanders army due to the benefits being different. This allows two different kind of armies to come out of the codex that both favor heavier weapons, but favor different ones due to the nature of how the rules interact with the weapons.
With how each chapter operates laid out and given a bonus that makes them feel more in line with their lore now it's time to look at the Warlord Traits. Not all of these need to be looked at as most are pretty solid as is and frankly work as viable options for the army that can take them. So in the interest of not making this longer than it already is going to be, let's keep to the ones that actually need addressing:
Angel of Death: Subtract 1 from the Leadership characteristic of enemy units that are within 6" of your Warlord. If your Warlord has slain an enemy Character during the game instead Subtract 2 from the Leadership characterisitic of enemy units within 12" of your Warlord.
Not a big change here, but it encourages you to use your warlord more aggressively to take out enemy characters during the game.
The Imperium's Sword: Re-roll failed charge rolls for your Warlord. Models with the Black Templars keyword instead roll 3 dice and pick the two highest when making charge rolls. In addition in a turn that your Warlord has charged or makes an Heroic Intervention add 1 to their Attacks characteristic until the end of the fight phase.
Biggest changes here were to make it less redundant to Black Templars while also giving a bonus for Heroic Interventions to make it more likely to see the table for armies who need a defensive melee character escorting their deathball on the table.
Iron Resolve: Add 1 to the Wounds characteristic of your warlord. In addition, roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound. On an unmodified roll of a 5 or 6, your Warlord shrugs off the damage and does not lose the wound. Models with the Iron Hands keyword instead ignore a lost wound on an unmodified roll of a 4, 5, or 6.
Due to the proposed changes in the Iron Hands tactic it was basically a necessity to make this work on a 4+ for an Iron Hands warlord. That said, if you want a tank of a character, they're the ones who'll most likely allow you to be one. That's the perks of replacing most of your body with robotic parts I suppose.
Rites of War: Friendly <Chapter> units within 6" of your Warlord automatically pass Morale tests. Additionally units within 6" of your Warlord count as hitting on a 5 or 6 when firing Overwatch.
Biggest change here is to give player better benefit out of the trait for huddling models up on the board. A bonus to overwatch makes this a viable choice for gunline or deathball style armies even when paired with units that don't tend to run full sized squads (Primaris or Devastators for example who don't worry about morale as much).
Champion of Humanity: You can add 1 to all hit and wound rolls made for your Warlord in the Fight phase when targeting an enemy Character or Monster.
Change here is that some of the things you want to throw a beatstick warlord at aren't characters and really any hero of the Imperium should be able to fight either of these things on equal measure.
Adept of the Codex (Ultramarines): While your Warlord is alive and on the table once per phase you may reuse a previously used Stratagem. Stratagems that target friendly units this way may not target the same unit twice, and can not be used to exceed any limitations within the stratagem that limit when they can be used or how many times a game they can be used. Additionally, once per game you may attempt to regain Command Points spent on a stratagem. If you choose to do this, roll a die for each Command Point, on a 2+ that CP is immediately refunded.
Obviously I'm not a fan of the current Adepts of the Codex as unlimited CP regeneration is a broken mechanic in the game when given for free so the change was to make the Ultramarines the more tactically flexible army instead by allowing them to use stratagems more often. This also allows them to partially negate the effects of Agents of Vect by allowing them to reuse a critical statagem that they were denied in that phase.
Oathkeeper (Black Templars): At the beginning of the first Battle Round, but before the first turn begins, your Warlord swears a Vow against the enemy forces. Choose a Vow from the following list and apply it's effects immediately:
Abhor the Witch: Your Warlord can attempt to deny one psychic power per turn as if they were a psyker. If they have the Armour of Contempt special rule they may instead attempt to deny one additional psychic power per turn.
Purge the Heretic: Your Warlord may perform a Heroic Interventions if the enemy are within 6" (instead of 3" and move up to 6" while doing so. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord may roll an extra die and choose the highest when making charge rolls.
Suffer not the Unclean to Live: Your Warlord gains +1 to hit and wound rolls made against models with the Character keywords. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord roll an extra die and choose the highest while Advancing.
This is a long one but generally the idea is to give the Black Templars their vows back. Each has an obvious bonus against a specific enemy in combat, but comes with an additional use that may cause the vows to be taken against other opponents instead. Honestly these likely need work and have been through several versions before I posted these. Ideas and suggestions especialyl welcome here.
With Warlord traits covered, let's talk Wargear. As before I'm only talking about changes here, but the point of these changes is as always going to be with the mind that other armies may see the changes just as well. As such there won't be as much changed her because any bonus to bolters (for example) would equally apply to an army like Sisters of Battle who typically greatly outnumber Space Marines and would negate any bonus that weapon would have against the cheaper bodies. Ideally I'd love to say that every bolter is Rapid Fire 2 and -1 AP to make Marines have the shooting output of a horde army on a smaller body count (and making every casualty take more out of the army in return) but realistically it doesn't work when you consider that the bolter is spread across a number of other armies and a higher body count army with bolters like Sisters or Scouts would become a broken mess in terms of balance.
Ranged Weapons Bolt pistol (on Primaris models): Replace with Heavy Bolt Pistol. The Primaris are a more elite form of the regular Space Marine army and as such require more quality damage output to make up for their smaller numbers. The additional AP doesn't break balance for the army while giving the units a bit more punch when locked in combat, which is important for a group that lacks a number of melee options.
Demolisher Cannon: When targetting a unit of 5 or more models change this weapon's Type to Heavy 2D3. Generally speaking feedback I've seen time and time again is players prefer to have 2D3 shots over D6 as the average number of shots is higher for the 2D3 (4 versus 3) and it means firing at least 2 shots instead of 1. Basically it just does so much more to make the gun more likely to see the table with this change even without a points change.
Flamestorm gauntlets (shooting): 12" range Generally speaking no one takes these guys due to the range of their weapon being so short and with the loss of templates the fixation of 8" being the range for flame weapons can go away now. The weapon was left unchanged as the Auto Boltstorm Gauntlet pattern comes with the Fragstorm Launchers standard and fires 6+D6 shots meaning the minimum number of shots for the boltstorm variant is higher, but the Flamestorm varient trades that for automatically hitting.
Grav (all varients): If the target has a Save characterisitc of 3+ or better, this weapon's Strength caracteristic is doubled and the Damage characteristic is increased to D3.
Grav-Cannon and grav-amp: Heavy 2
The heavier something is the harder this is supposed to hit, so the way it hits should reflect that. As such increasing it to S10 makes it more likely to hurt those bigger models. However, keeping the Grav-cannon at Heavy 4 wasn't a balanced choice as that would give a Devastator Squad 16 S10 shots against anything with a 3+ or better which would be outright mad.
Heavy Flamer: 12" range, Heavy 2D3. Honestly I don't get the original change from Assault to Heavy, but regardless, we've given up the flamer template and as such it's a good way to make the Heavy Flamer a different weapon from the regular Flamer. An increased range makes it possible for it to reach out and touch the things easier while the 2D3 shots gives it a better average on it's number of hits over a standard flamer. Basically it's moving the weapon beyond just being a slight S and AP boost over the base flamer and makes it feel like a proper heavy weapon on the table.
Heavy Plasma Incinerator: Heavy 2. A slight points increase on the gun might be needed but honestly the reason this version of the Hellblaster's gun is left off the table beyond proxy is because the increased strength isn't enough to counterbalance the loss of mobility from making it a Heavy weapon as well as decreasing the number of shots. Giving it extra shots makes it more into the Primaris answer for more heavilly armoured models (such as vehicles, Custodes and Monsters) while still retaining the same limitations the current gun has: slower movement with decreased efficiency when you need to move.
Master-crafted Stalker bolt rifle/Stalker bolt rifle: Heavy 2 OR the ability to target characters. Either of these options would fix the Stalker bolt rifle so that it would see the table more often. As it currently is the Stalker has the same basic problems the Heavy Plasma Incinerator does: the loss of mobility AND number of shots with no bonus to targetting isn't enough to justify taking this weapon for just about anyone. Being able to target Characters like a Sniper Rifle or giving it Heavy 2 to allow it to offset it's lowered movement would put these into people's lists, even if it brought a slight points increase.
Melta (all types): Double weapon strength at half range instead of the bonus to damage rolls. Additionally change the damage characteristic to D3+3. These are weapons meant to slag even the heaviest of armour at close range and even from further away it could still do a severe amount of damage if it punches through the armour. For obvious reasons this means the Melta bomb should always be S16 as well.
Plasma weapons (all types): Change the bearer being slain to the bearer taking a mortal wound. While having your guys have their faces melt off is a long standing featur of the lore, the introduction of Mortal Wounds really fits this mechanic better and would allow for better synergy with armies that have mechanics to allow them to ignore Mortal Wounds, such as Iron Hands or Death Guard. This would also cut down how much the mechanic punishes multi-wound models such as Primaris or HQ choices for using plasma.
Melee Weapons Chainsword/Combat Knife: -1 AP. This may require a small (1-2 point) bump as it'd still give an extra attack, but considering the lower number of attacks that can be put out by a Marine army compared to larger armies like Orks or even Guard there needs to be a quality bump to offset the lowered quantity of attacks.
Power Sword: Abilities: Parry: Increase the bearer's save by 1 during the Fight Phase. Generally the Power Sword is seen as a lot less of a choice. It doesn't make wounding models easier like the other options, and while it's better at ignoring armour there is a diminishing return on this against most targets. Increasing the defensive ability of the bearer at least gives it a utility beyond strictly trying to more effectively stab the other guy.
Vehicle Wargear Dozer Blades: Double the bearer's Attacks characteristic until the end of the Fight Phase on a turn it has completed a successful charge. Basically let's bring these back and then let players use them to ram people.
Siege Shield: The bearer's Save characteristic is increased by 1 against shooting attacks. Giving a Vindicator tank an increased save against shooting for a points cost doesn't break the army as much as it gives a tank with rather limited firepower more staying power so it might actually weather more than a unit's shooting before it's reduced to a smoking puddle of slag on the table.
Misc Equipment Terminator Armour: Models with the Terminator keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Additionally increase their save to 1+. Since a 1 always fails this means that the save only negates the first AP of a weapon and reduces how effective multidamage weapons are. Essentially it means they won't go down quite as fast to anything less than dedicated heavy weapon fire or weight of dice.
Power Armour: Has +1 to it's save Characteristic against weapons with an AP profile of -1 or greater (-2,-3,ect). This was a hard one to puzzle over as Power Armour is on so many different armies. Increasing the save like All is Dust could just lead to us having Sisters running around with effective 2+ saves all the time, and a FnP effect wasn't really going to work either. In the end negating 1 of the weapon's AP seemed like the cleanest solution, though it does mean that you need to hit Thousand Sons Rubric models with -2 AP just to get them to a 3+. Magnus would be proud I guess?
Centurion Armour: Models with the Centurion keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by 1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. Yes, even the waddlebots are getting a look here, because honestly all that extra armour should be doing something more than it is.
Gravis Armour: Models with the Gravis keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by +1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. With how durable Gravis is supposed to be it needed something to feel like it was going to stay on the table longer. As lazy as it is to just reuse All Is Dust, here and on the Centurion armour, the extra armour being stronger against weaker weapons makes sense in terms of the lore. Reducing the weapon damage fits equally well and gives them more staying power. With these additions the need to push points down on the models becomes rather moot as they become the durable weapon platfoms they're shown as in the lore.
Hopefully it's easier to read now that it's been formatted.
I've started to look through the units proper and will have my notes on what I see as where they need help and why I approached the fixes the way I did likely done in the next couple days.
Some ideas are letting Chaplain models deny psychic powers within 12" once per turn (named Chaplains getting to do it twice) via a rule I'm calling Armour of Contempt and giving both Tacticals and Intercessors the ability to fire twice if they didn't move OR if they have ended their movement phase with a model within 3" of an objective.
Crusader Squads I'm considering giving a fight twice mechanic for when they're within 3" of an objective or are engaged with an enemy unit that is within 3" of an objective.
Suggestions are always welcome as I do read them even if I don't agree with the approaches every time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The issue I have with stat changes is that once we open that can of worms we need to restat the entire game from the ground up.
I mean I'm all for it, but we're basically talking forcing 9th edition on the game to do it.,
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
I'm absolutely correct on what their roles are, seeing as you actually couldn't figure out Intercessors and went on to complain about Primaris. So my question is why would you be correct?
Now, you did make mention of stat changes, which I only agree with for Terminators, Vanguard, and Sternguard. Vanguard get WS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, and Terminators get both.
I think the problem with Marines centers around two things:
1. Unimpressive Stratagems - Compare the Stratagems in Codex Space Marines to those in Codex Blood Angels and Codex Space Wolves. They may share some Stratagems, but the Space Wolves exclusive are head and shoulders above the Space Marine ones.
2. Bad Points Values - Space Marine Infantry Units are overcosted. A Tactical Marine is not a 13 point Model. It is about twice a resilient and twice as deadly as an Imperial Guardsman, who is 4 points. He does have a few additional advantages, such as a Pistol, Krak Grenades, and better Leadership (including ATSKNF), but that doesn't make him over 3 times as good as a Guardsman. If Guardsmen were 5 points, I can see Tactical Marines being 11 or 12 points due to these additional advantages. Funnily, Kill Team agrees (5 point Guardsman, 11 Point Scouts, 12 Point Tacticals).
As much fun as it may be to think up various special rules to "Make Marines Great Again", Marines have never really been that great. There Statline hasn't substantially changed since 3rd Edition and they have never lived up to the lore. That was the entire point of the old Movie Marine White Dwarf Article. The best thing that can be done is to fix the points so and improve their Stratagems so that they get to compete.
alextroy wrote: I think the problem with Marines centers around two things:
1. Unimpressive Stratagems - Compare the Stratagems in Codex Space Marines to those in Codex Blood Angels and Codex Space Wolves. They may share some Stratagems, but the Space Wolves exclusive are head and shoulders above the Space Marine ones.
2. Bad Points Values - Space Marine Infantry Units are overcosted. A Tactical Marine is not a 13 point Model. It is about twice a resilient and twice as deadly as an Imperial Guardsman, who is 4 points. He does have a few additional advantages, such as a Pistol, Krak Grenades, and better Leadership (including ATSKNF), but that doesn't make him over 3 times as good as a Guardsman. If Guardsmen were 5 points, I can see Tactical Marines being 11 or 12 points due to these additional advantages. Funnily, Kill Team agrees (5 point Guardsman, 11 Point Scouts, 12 Point Tacticals).
As much fun as it may be to think up various special rules to "Make Marines Great Again", Marines have never really been that great. There Statline hasn't substantially changed since 3rd Edition and they have never lived up to the lore. That was the entire point of the old Movie Marine White Dwarf Article. The best thing that can be done is to fix the points so and improve their Stratagems so that they get to compete.
Stratagems will be what I'll be tackling after units There are some major problems with Marines whole that need to be addressed becuase honestly there is only so low we can keep pushing points values. Especially since we'd keep seeing Scouts over Tacticals due to Scouts being cheaper for the same basic offensive power.
Basically the issue we have is the Tacticals need something more than paying for flexibility at the cost of offensive and defensive power.
And honestly I don't want to push the army too far up, but rather make the army feel like it has options. After I submit this one I'll likely start on the Grey Knights, and then do one for every codex to address the things people don't take and why, and then offering ideas on what might fix those lagging options.
I want to do these things publicly though as taking in as much information in as possible and having ideas bandied about helps address the things I don't see and don't know as well. Maybe this will change the game in the long run, maybe it won't. But not trying is worse than trying.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
I'm absolutely correct on what their roles are, seeing as you actually couldn't figure out Intercessors and went on to complain about Primaris. So my question is why would you be correct?
Now, you did make mention of stat changes, which I only agree with for Terminators, Vanguard, and Sternguard. Vanguard get WS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, and Terminators get both.
When you make claims of how absolutely correct you are, it's normal custom to back them up with at least an explanation, if not a citation. Please explain to us all why you think tacticals are supposed to be offensive, while intercessors are defensive? Prior game rules? Stated intentions somewhere? Fluff? Anything?
I'm not against upping the WS and BS on elite units. But how are you going to address these units lack of durability?
I think it's possible you could leave Marines durability as is and only increase their offensive power and have them be decent. I think you'd also have to fix their mobility issues though. Transports took a massive kick in the teeth in 8th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for their roles, I think it's pretty clear scouts are there for board control, primaris for durability, and tacticals for damage. They might not be great at those roles, but they certainly don't do anything else.
jcd386 wrote: I think it's possible you could leave Marines durability as is and only increase their offensive power and have them be decent. I think you'd also have to fix their mobility issues though. Transports took a massive kick in the teeth in 8th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for their roles, I think it's pretty clear scouts are there for board control, primaris for durability, and tacticals for damage. They might not be great at those roles, but they certainly don't do anything else.
Anything helps, but I keep harping on about durability for a reason. That is that marines need to be more durable than hordes, and by a lot.
Right now, guardsmen are more durable point per point. In the past, marines were more durable.
Consider that currently, it takes 6 bolter hits on average to kill a marine, and 2.25 to kill a guardsmen. But the marine costs ~3x as much or more. Adjusting for price, it takes 6.75 bolter shots to kill an equivalent points amount of guardsmen. Stronger weapons are even more in favor of the guardsmen. Weaker weapons more in favor of the marine, but not by much.
Under the old AP system where the guardsmen's armor would have been ignored, they took an average of 1.5 bolter shots per kill, or ~4.5 to kill the same points amount as a marine. 6.75 vs 4.5 is a huge change in the guardsmen's favor! A 50% improvement. Marines took exactly the same amount to kill under the old system as now. But they are weaker as soon as AP is involved, unless it was old ap 3 or better. And lasguns are just as effective vs marines as in the past.
Most troops in the game gained in durability relative to marines, and lost no offensive power. Marines lost offensive power, stayed the same vs non-ap weapons, and got worse vs middle tier ap weapons (old ap4 or worse). When you account for auras, marine's make up the edge they lost in the ap change, but everyone else also goes up in firepower too.
Marines worked in the past because it took a lot to take them off the board, and that meant they suffered less from attrition and could keep firing at full power longer. Now they do not. If they are going to return to what they once were, then they need to get tougher, not just stronger. And if they do not return to what they once were, then they are not space marines anymore.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
I'm absolutely correct on what their roles are, seeing as you actually couldn't figure out Intercessors and went on to complain about Primaris. So my question is why would you be correct?
Now, you did make mention of stat changes, which I only agree with for Terminators, Vanguard, and Sternguard. Vanguard get WS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, and Terminators get both.
When you make claims of how absolutely correct you are, it's normal custom to back them up with at least an explanation, if not a citation. Please explain to us all why you think tacticals are supposed to be offensive, while intercessors are defensive? Prior game rules? Stated intentions somewhere? Fluff? Anything?
I'm not against upping the WS and BS on elite units. But how are you going to address these units lack of durability?
Uh it's pretty easy. Watch:
1. Scouts have the most deployment options and their default weapons options make sense for this
2. Tactical Marines have the most weapon options for actual deadly stuff
3. Intercessors have like no options but are currently 9 points per each T4 3+ wound
So you buff the latter two as I demonstrated and fix Chapter Tactics, each troop option has an actual defined role.
Also I'm not for fixing durability on the Elite units. Marines aren't weak in durability for the cost, BUT their offensive output makes them fall behind the curve, hence why they lose shootouts and melee fights. The only unit I'm for truly fixing durability is Centurions, which is why I'm for them getting an extra wound (making them better against anything but D2 weapons basically, but D2 weapons are their own issue altogether) and making them cheaper. Then I actually want Elite units to actually feel elite.
jcd386 wrote: I think it's possible you could leave Marines durability as is and only increase their offensive power and have them be decent. I think you'd also have to fix their mobility issues though. Transports took a massive kick in the teeth in 8th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for their roles, I think it's pretty clear scouts are there for board control, primaris for durability, and tacticals for damage. They might not be great at those roles, but they certainly don't do anything else.
Anything helps, but I keep harping on about durability for a reason. That is that marines need to be more durable than hordes, and by a lot.
Right now, guardsmen are more durable point per point. In the past, marines were more durable.
Consider that currently, it takes 6 bolter hits on average to kill a marine, and 2.25 to kill a guardsmen. But the marine costs ~3x as much or more. Adjusting for price, it takes 6.75 bolter shots to kill an equivalent points amount of guardsmen. Stronger weapons are even more in favor of the guardsmen. Weaker weapons more in favor of the marine, but not by much.
Under the old AP system where the guardsmen's armor would have been ignored, they took an average of 1.5 bolter shots per kill, or ~4.5 to kill the same points amount as a marine. 6.75 vs 4.5 is a huge change in the guardsmen's favor! A 50% improvement. Marines took exactly the same amount to kill under the old system as now. But they are weaker as soon as AP is involved, unless it was old ap 3 or better. And lasguns are just as effective vs marines as in the past.
Most troops in the game gained in durability relative to marines, and lost no offensive power. Marines lost offensive power, stayed the same vs non-ap weapons, and got worse vs middle tier ap weapons (old ap4 or worse). When you account for auras, marine's make up the edge they lost in the ap change, but everyone else also goes up in firepower too.
Marines worked in the past because it took a lot to take them off the board, and that meant they suffered less from attrition and could keep firing at full power longer. Now they do not. If they are going to return to what they once were, then they need to get tougher, not just stronger. And if they do not return to what they once were, then they are not space marines anymore.
This all day. It's actually a large part of why I worked on a rule for power armour to make it ignore the first -1 it faces (-1 becomes 0, -2 becomes -1, ect). This makes the armour degrade against AP at a reduced rate meaning they'll weather heavier firepower better.
Honestly I'm looking at bolters some more and while I want to give the boltgun -1, that pushes heavy bolters and the bolt rifle to -2, and stalker pattern to -3.
Losing the 2nd edition Marine special rule of Rapid Fire hurt Marines, this edition would be perfect for its return. Marines that don't move can fire Boltguns, and Bolt Pistols twice.
It would help the Boltgun without having to alter the stats. Altering stats, means that we then have to alter the stats of Custodies, and all the Chaos codex etc.
stonehorse wrote: Losing the 2nd edition Marine special rule of Rapid Fire hurt Marines, this edition would be perfect for its return. Marines that don't move can fire Boltguns, and Bolt Pistols twice.
It would help the Boltgun without having to alter the stats. Altering stats, means that we then have to alter the stats of Custodies, and all the Chaos codex etc.
We really wouldn't need to alter prices of the chaos stuff to be honest. I'm for a full rework of CSM too though.
Simple points change: Roughly 20-25% on pretty much everything from units to wargear should be enough.
Tactical Marine: May replace bolt pistol with a combat knife (+1 attack)
2 Special weapons in 5 man squad
Assault Marine: +1 attack base, Can take melta guns and plasma guns. All models can take combat shields
Hit rolls of 6 on Chainsword, Combat knife, Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter do -1ap
Hunter/Stalker/Predator/Vindicator/Whirlwind: May be taken in squads of 3
Hunter/Stalker: If the unit doesn't move in the movement phase, ignore all to hit penalties when targeting a unit that can FLY
Land Raider: Transported unit may disembark after or before the land raider has moved in it's movement phase. Reduce AP of weapons targeting by 1 (to 0 max)
Terminators: WS/BS 2+, Ignore to hit penalties when firing heavy weapons
Stratagems
Holy Promethium: Increase the range of any flamer or melta weapon by 3" during this shooting phase.
For Dark Angels specifically they need some king of chapter tactic specific to Deathwing and Ravenwing individually as ours currently (Grim Resolve: Re-rolls 1 to hit when not moving) doesn't really benefit either for obvious reasons. DW and RW need some better synergy between the two as well like a teleport homer stratagem. Let deep striking units come down within 3" of a friendly RW unit or something.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
I'm absolutely correct on what their roles are, seeing as you actually couldn't figure out Intercessors and went on to complain about Primaris. So my question is why would you be correct?
Now, you did make mention of stat changes, which I only agree with for Terminators, Vanguard, and Sternguard. Vanguard get WS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, and Terminators get both.
When you make claims of how absolutely correct you are, it's normal custom to back them up with at least an explanation, if not a citation. Please explain to us all why you think tacticals are supposed to be offensive, while intercessors are defensive? Prior game rules? Stated intentions somewhere? Fluff? Anything?
I'm not against upping the WS and BS on elite units. But how are you going to address these units lack of durability?
Uh it's pretty easy. Watch:
1. Scouts have the most deployment options and their default weapons options make sense for this
2. Tactical Marines have the most weapon options for actual deadly stuff
3. Intercessors have like no options but are currently 9 points per each T4 3+ wound
So you buff the latter two as I demonstrated and fix Chapter Tactics, each troop option has an actual defined role.
Also I'm not for fixing durability on the Elite units. Marines aren't weak in durability for the cost, BUT their offensive output makes them fall behind the curve, hence why they lose shootouts and melee fights. The only unit I'm for truly fixing durability is Centurions, which is why I'm for them getting an extra wound (making them better against anything but D2 weapons basically, but D2 weapons are their own issue altogether) and making them cheaper. Then I actually want Elite units to actually feel elite.
So your argument is that these are meant to be their roles, because that's what their stats and gear are currently more biased towards? (I have no disagreements on scouts, btw). Intercessors have more offensive firepower than tacs against other infantry due to ap -1, so the argument that tacs are an offensive unit due to having more weapons kind of falls apart right away. But that's kind of splitting hairs. The real reason you are wrong is because we have 7 previous editions and hundreds of books already establishing the battlefield role and purpose of tactical marines. We know exactly what they are supposed to be, which is the durable generalist that I described above. The only question worth asking is if the rules reflect what the unit is supposed to be. You seem to think that the rules changing means that what the unit is intended to be has changed. This is wrong. You are wrong.
Intercessors are not a defense specialist. They just have an updated stat line. They are also an all around generalist unit, they just manifest it differently than tacs. Tacs have a few power models (special weapons and sarge) and a bunch of weaker ablatives. Intercessors are all slightly more powerful, but don't have specials. Intercessors and tacs are supposed to do about the same thing, just differently. My comment earlier was referring to them, and other Primaris units, being redundant with existing marine units. Primaris have a role because regular marines are so bad. But Primaris aren't much better, so still don't really get fielded anyway.
The best big fix overall may just be to give all marines the primaris statline and weapons. If tacs had 2w, 2A, -1 ap bolters, and if meltas and flamers got some fixes, then they'd be about back where they were proportionally to other units in previous editions. GW could just release a new special weapon sprue sized for Primaris and discontinue the old model line, which is what many people have speculated they planned to do originally.
And lastly, yes marines are weak in durability for their cost. The only stuff weaker is like eldar elites, and those are a) supposed to be glass cannons and b) also not worth fielding.
Simple points change: Roughly 20-25% on pretty much everything from units to wargear should be enough.
Tactical Marine: May replace bolt pistol with a combat knife (+1 attack)
2 Special weapons in 5 man squad
Assault Marine: +1 attack base, Can take melta guns and plasma guns. All models can take combat shields
Hit rolls of 6 on Chainsword, Combat knife, Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter do -1ap
Hunter/Stalker/Predator/Vindicator/Whirlwind: May be taken in squads of 3
Hunter/Stalker: If the unit doesn't move in the movement phase, ignore all to hit penalties when targeting a unit that can FLY
Land Raider: Transported unit may disembark after or before the land raider has moved in it's movement phase. Reduce AP of weapons targeting by 1 (to 0 max)
Terminators: WS/BS 2+, Ignore to hit penalties when firing heavy weapons
Stratagems
Holy Promethium: Increase the range of any flamer or melta weapon by 3" during this shooting phase.
For Dark Angels specifically they need some king of chapter tactic specific to Deathwing and Ravenwing individually as ours currently (Grim Resolve: Re-rolls 1 to hit when not moving) doesn't really benefit either for obvious reasons. DW and RW need some better synergy between the two as well like a teleport homer stratagem. Let deep striking units come down within 3" of a friendly RW unit or something.
Marines don't need to get cheaper (especially not by 20-25% which would bring them to 10pts) but rather they need to be better balanced against negative modifiers to their armour and the ability to punch above their numbers.
The most elegant method would be a complete ground up rework of the game and moving to a D10 system but failing that, and working with what we have, then we need to look at special rules for things and making small adjustments to wargear to fix the issue.
That said and done, I'm definitely on the same page as you for the squads of vehicles. Considering the defensive buffs I've mentioned for Terminators (1+ save, reduce weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1) I worry that we're not leaving enough room for HQs by making them all 2+ WS/BS, unless we're now pushing into the 1+ territory to make it so HQ's ignore the first -1 to hit thing.
Marines don't need to get cheaper (especially not by 20-25% which would bring them to 10pts) but rather they need to be better balanced against negative modifiers to their armour and the ability to punch above their numbers.
The most elegant method would be a complete ground up rework of the game and moving to a D10 system but failing that, and working with what we have, then we need to look at special rules for things and making small adjustments to wargear to fix the issue.
That said and done, I'm definitely on the same page as you for the squads of vehicles. Considering the defensive buffs I've mentioned for Terminators (1+ save, reduce weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1) I worry that we're not leaving enough room for HQs by making them all 2+ WS/BS, unless we're now pushing into the 1+ territory to make it so HQ's ignore the first -1 to hit thing.
Really that wouldn't be the worst idea I've heard as it would also make all the -1 to hit BS in CC much more of a non issue against things like chaptor masters and Primarchs.
Marines don't need to get cheaper (especially not by 20-25% which would bring them to 10pts) but rather they need to be better balanced against negative modifiers to their armour and the ability to punch above their numbers.
The most elegant method would be a complete ground up rework of the game and moving to a D10 system but failing that, and working with what we have, then we need to look at special rules for things and making small adjustments to wargear to fix the issue.
That said and done, I'm definitely on the same page as you for the squads of vehicles. Considering the defensive buffs I've mentioned for Terminators (1+ save, reduce weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1) I worry that we're not leaving enough room for HQs by making them all 2+ WS/BS, unless we're now pushing into the 1+ territory to make it so HQ's ignore the first -1 to hit thing.
Really that wouldn't be the worst idea I've heard as it would also make all the -1 to hit BS in CC much more of a non issue against things like chaptor masters and Primarchs.
Now taking Marines out of a vacuum, should we be looking at making every 2+ to hit HQ choice hit on a 1+ instead then?
Marines don't need to get cheaper (especially not by 20-25% which would bring them to 10pts) but rather they need to be better balanced against negative modifiers to their armour and the ability to punch above their numbers.
The most elegant method would be a complete ground up rework of the game and moving to a D10 system but failing that, and working with what we have, then we need to look at special rules for things and making small adjustments to wargear to fix the issue.
That said and done, I'm definitely on the same page as you for the squads of vehicles. Considering the defensive buffs I've mentioned for Terminators (1+ save, reduce weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1) I worry that we're not leaving enough room for HQs by making them all 2+ WS/BS, unless we're now pushing into the 1+ territory to make it so HQ's ignore the first -1 to hit thing.
Really that wouldn't be the worst idea I've heard as it would also make all the -1 to hit BS in CC much more of a non issue against things like chaptor masters and Primarchs.
Now taking Marines out of a vacuum, should we be looking at making every 2+ to hit HQ choice hit on a 1+ instead then?
Marines don't need to get cheaper (especially not by 20-25% which would bring them to 10pts) but rather they need to be better balanced against negative modifiers to their armour and the ability to punch above their numbers.
The most elegant method would be a complete ground up rework of the game and moving to a D10 system but failing that, and working with what we have, then we need to look at special rules for things and making small adjustments to wargear to fix the issue.
That said and done, I'm definitely on the same page as you for the squads of vehicles. Considering the defensive buffs I've mentioned for Terminators (1+ save, reduce weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1) I worry that we're not leaving enough room for HQs by making them all 2+ WS/BS, unless we're now pushing into the 1+ territory to make it so HQ's ignore the first -1 to hit thing.
Really that wouldn't be the worst idea I've heard as it would also make all the -1 to hit BS in CC much more of a non issue against things like chaptor masters and Primarchs.
Now taking Marines out of a vacuum, should we be looking at making every 2+ to hit HQ choice hit on a 1+ instead then?
I've proposed something similar before.
So Space Wolf HQs in the first round of combat should have a 0+ then?
Something to add, a great part of what made 4th and fifth edition so good was that special character space marines allowed for varied lists or themes. The current codex throws that all away and rewards you for taking the spammiest cheesiest unit. (Force organization charts prevented you from taking anything but 6 troops, 3 fast attack, 3 heavy support, 3 elites, and 2 hqs.)
Tactical squads also were given free equipment or reduced costs for specified special weapons and heavy weapons.
ATSNF allowed space marines to fall back whenever they chose to and immedately regroup. We don't really have that mechanic now its changed too much for it to be a good special rule.
Also helped that Space Marines in 4th could take tank hunters, preferred enemy, at the cost of restrictions.
The special characters right now across the board all have -1 to their wound compared to a regular captain.
Captains need the option to upgrade to artificer armor. Currently you only tank 1 per army, (terminator armor is far too expensive and decreasing their flexibility).
Tacticals, Scouts, and Intercessors are supposed to be the core of an army, they are supposed to be 'the best' the imperium has to offer, but scouts somehow beat their powered armored compatriots by cost and special rules alone. (Its far more worth it to spam scout squads than a fully suited power armor badass don't believe me look at tournament lists)
Asherian Command wrote: Something to add, a great part of what made 4th and fifth edition so good was that special character space marines allowed for varied lists or themes. The current codex throws that all away and rewards you for taking the spammiest cheesiest unit. (Force organization charts prevented you from taking anything but 6 troops, 3 fast attack, 3 heavy support, 3 elites, and 2 hqs.)
Tactical squads also were given free equipment or reduced costs for specified special weapons and heavy weapons.
ATSNF allowed space marines to fall back whenever they chose to and immedately regroup. We don't really have that mechanic now its changed too much for it to be a good special rule.
Also helped that Space Marines in 4th could take tank hunters, preferred enemy, at the cost of restrictions.
ATSKNF was broken as it existing in the design space as it allowed half the armies in the game to ignore the morale mechanic with no penalties.
And even in 4th and 5th there was a reward for taking the cheesiest stuff in the book: you won more games. Bike Troops paired with Sternguard in Drop Pods based lists were pretty strong for a while because you could lock your opponent in their deployment zone turn one for example.
And if you need to give free equipment to a unit all the time, there is an issue with the unit and you're only bandaging the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Scouts beat Tacticals because they're cheaper with the same offensive output. With how fast things die in 8th people currently see more value in units with weaker saves over units with the same offensive output but a better save.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
I'm absolutely correct on what their roles are, seeing as you actually couldn't figure out Intercessors and went on to complain about Primaris. So my question is why would you be correct?
Now, you did make mention of stat changes, which I only agree with for Terminators, Vanguard, and Sternguard. Vanguard get WS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, and Terminators get both.
When you make claims of how absolutely correct you are, it's normal custom to back them up with at least an explanation, if not a citation. Please explain to us all why you think tacticals are supposed to be offensive, while intercessors are defensive? Prior game rules? Stated intentions somewhere? Fluff? Anything?
I'm not against upping the WS and BS on elite units. But how are you going to address these units lack of durability?
Uh it's pretty easy. Watch:
1. Scouts have the most deployment options and their default weapons options make sense for this
2. Tactical Marines have the most weapon options for actual deadly stuff
3. Intercessors have like no options but are currently 9 points per each T4 3+ wound
So you buff the latter two as I demonstrated and fix Chapter Tactics, each troop option has an actual defined role.
Also I'm not for fixing durability on the Elite units. Marines aren't weak in durability for the cost, BUT their offensive output makes them fall behind the curve, hence why they lose shootouts and melee fights. The only unit I'm for truly fixing durability is Centurions, which is why I'm for them getting an extra wound (making them better against anything but D2 weapons basically, but D2 weapons are their own issue altogether) and making them cheaper. Then I actually want Elite units to actually feel elite.
So your argument is that these are meant to be their roles, because that's what their stats and gear are currently more biased towards? (I have no disagreements on scouts, btw). Intercessors have more offensive firepower than tacs against other infantry due to ap -1, so the argument that tacs are an offensive unit due to having more weapons kind of falls apart right away. But that's kind of splitting hairs. The real reason you are wrong is because we have 7 previous editions and hundreds of books already establishing the battlefield role and purpose of tactical marines. We know exactly what they are supposed to be, which is the durable generalist that I described above. The only question worth asking is if the rules reflect what the unit is supposed to be. You seem to think that the rules changing means that what the unit is intended to be has changed. This is wrong. You are wrong.
Intercessors are not a defense specialist. They just have an updated stat line. They are also an all around generalist unit, they just manifest it differently than tacs. Tacs have a few power models (special weapons and sarge) and a bunch of weaker ablatives. Intercessors are all slightly more powerful, but don't have specials. Intercessors and tacs are supposed to do about the same thing, just differently. My comment earlier was referring to them, and other Primaris units, being redundant with existing marine units. Primaris have a role because regular marines are so bad. But Primaris aren't much better, so still don't really get fielded anyway.
The best big fix overall may just be to give all marines the primaris statline and weapons. If tacs had 2w, 2A, -1 ap bolters, and if meltas and flamers got some fixes, then they'd be about back where they were proportionally to other units in previous editions. GW could just release a new special weapon sprue sized for Primaris and discontinue the old model line, which is what many people have speculated they planned to do originally.
And lastly, yes marines are weak in durability for their cost. The only stuff weaker is like eldar elites, and those are a) supposed to be glass cannons and b) also not worth fielding.
Intercessors are 18 points for only a slightly better gun, and they don't have any of the deadly weapon options. Hence they're more focused on the durability with their 9 points per T4 3+ wound.
It's plain obvious. I don't know why you aren't accepting it.
ATSKNF was broken as it existing in the design space as it allowed half the armies in the game to ignore the morale mechanic with no penalties.
Thats bad how? So the current useless special rule is good because?
And even in 4th and 5th there was a reward for taking the cheesiest stuff in the book: you won more games. Bike Troops paired with Sternguard in Drop Pods based lists were pretty strong for a while because you could lock your opponent in their deployment zone turn one for example.
4th was all about kiting out your leader to be as effective as possible while your tacticals could take apothecaries in terminator armor in every squad with a +6 invulnerable save. Tacticals were your best option in 4th. 5th introduced sternguard but people only spammed it because they were the shootiest and best choice to take with Kantor which gave them scoring.
Bikes were great and I loved that army because it allowed for variety, not the hellblaster, levithian spam we see currently.
Because that felt mobile, it felt like a space marine army.
Vanguard Veterans could be taken as either a fast attack choice or elite choice and you could equip them to be incredibly fun and decisive in fights.
He'stan made all nearby salamanders amazing and everything was character bound. Could do alot of fun things in 4th and 5th based on what chapter you were playing. Or.... you play forgeworld Raptors and make everyone cry with heavy 1 rending bolters.
Which I did.... and I adored it. It punished players for trying to charge my marine tactical and made them absolutely terrifying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: They aren't accepting it because they're approaching the unit's role from the lore, not the mechanics.
Even with the mechanics, Intercessors are quite weak because of points cost, and just in general few options to make them viable (also they can't take anything but a 300pts vehicle for transport, not even drop pods, or land raiders for crying out loud.)
ATSKNF was broken as it existing in the design space as it allowed half the armies in the game to ignore the morale mechanic with no penalties.
Thats bad how? So the current useless special rule is good because?
You couldn't be swept when breaking from combat, and I recall a version of it also allowed you to choose to stay in combat if you wished also with no penalty (which was better than being Fearless as you took extra hits for not breaking as a Fearless unit. Also Fearless unit couldn't go to ground).
Basically it was unbalanced for the way morale worked and had too many good things. Every edition seemed to add more and more bonuses to it but never gave it any penalties.
And even in 4th and 5th there was a reward for taking the cheesiest stuff in the book: you won more games. Bike Troops paired with Sternguard in Drop Pods based lists were pretty strong for a while because you could lock your opponent in their deployment zone turn one for example.
4th was all about kiting out your leader to be as effective as possible while your tacticals could take apothecaries in terminator armor in every squad with a +6 invulnerable save. Tacticals were your best option in 4th. 5th introduced sternguard but people only spammed it because they were the shootiest and best choice to take with Kantor which gave them scoring.
Bikes were great and I loved that army because it allowed for variety, not the hellblaster, levithian spam we see currently.
Your nostalgia blindness amuses me. Draigostar, Death Company Death Stars, ect, ect. 5th was the edition of death stars, more cheese than the Tillamook cheese company and generally it was a mess of each codex on upping the one before it.,
Vanguard Veterans could be taken as either a fast attack choice or elite choice and you could equip them to be incredibly fun and decisive in fights.
He'stan made all nearby salamanders amazing and everything was character bound. Could do alot of fun things in 4th and 5th based on what chapter you were playing. Or.... you play forgeworld Raptors and make everyone cry with heavy 1 rending bolters.
Which I did.... and I adored it. It punished players for trying to charge my marine tactical and made them absolutely terrifying.
We have plenty of character bound things, mainly in the name of auras instead. And you can still do things like bike armies or all terminator armies, but you pay for that specialization by getting less CP.
ClockworkZion wrote: They aren't accepting it because they're approaching the unit's role from the lore, not the mechanics.
Even with the mechanics, Intercessors are quite weak because of points cost, and just in general few options to make them viable (also they can't take anything but a 300pts vehicle for transport, not even drop pods, or land raiders for crying out loud.)
Oh I'm not arguing that they're good. I have a pure Primaris army and D2 spam basically wrecks my army. I'm saying that the reason people don't agree with what roles each unit should be filling are based on them using different metrics to determine those roles.
Oh I'm not arguing that they're good. I have a pure Primaris army and D2 spam basically wrecks my army. I'm saying that the reason people don't agree with what roles each unit should be filling are based on them using different metrics to determine those roles.
Intercessors role seems to be defensive (according to the lore at least) but they should take the tactical role of being flexible which they really don't have that option currently from taking chainswords to taking special weapons or heavy weapons they do not have the option to be an extremely flexible unit. As current they are just more bolters with ap-1
Martel732 wrote: Using the lore for anything other than toilet paper sailed a long time ago.
Lore should inform the basis of rules or else we might as well just start doing stuff like giving every Marine Custodes Halberds that fire Autocannon rounds because we need them to be the BEST!!!1one!!1
Lore determines what roles units are intended for and what wargear they use.
Oh I'm not arguing that they're good. I have a pure Primaris army and D2 spam basically wrecks my army. I'm saying that the reason people don't agree with what roles each unit should be filling are based on them using different metrics to determine those roles.
Intercessors role seems to be defensive (according to the lore at least) but they should take the tactical role of being flexible which they really don't have that option currently from taking chainswords to taking special weapons or heavy weapons they do not have the option to be an extremely flexible unit. As current they are just more bolters with ap-1
It seems like they intentionally don't fit the same role as tacticals so that tacticals are still the way to fit a wide array of extra heavy and special weapons into your army to allow for more flexibility while Intercessors are more focused solely on being an anti-infantry troop unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: If by "inform", you mean get completely ignored, I agree.
Quite honestly if you don't have something on topic to post regarding the weaknesses of the codex, how to fix them or about proposed fixes I'd honestly rather you didn't waste everyone's time by posting. You're not contributing anything to the topic by being such a negative Nurgling.
Martel732 wrote: Using the lore for anything other than toilet paper sailed a long time ago.
that argument also fell apart because primarchs and the legions used to only exist in the lore, they didn't have any equalivents in 40k. It was only after people showed interest in the book series did the horus heresy tabletop even get started.
Hell some things that were only merely hinted out were turned into full factions, (Ynnari, and the Harlquens, deathguard, thousand sons, skarbrand, cato scarius, The freaking custodes, genestealer cults...)
Many characters / models / factions were started in the lore or because of an art piece or lore that were then turned into a model.
It seems like they intentionally don't fit the same role as tacticals so that tacticals are still the way to fit a wide array of extra heavy and special weapons into your army to allow for more flexibility while Intercessors are more focused solely on being an anti-infantry troop unit.
Or you take the cheaper option of just taking veteran squads and filling them up with special weapons.
"Quite honestly if you don't have something on topic to post regarding the weaknesses of the codex, how to fix them or about proposed fixes I'd honestly rather you didn't waste everyone's time by posting. You're not contributing anything to the topic by being such a negative Nurgling."
Actually, it's a pet peeve that people can simultaneously bitch about "movie marines", and then want to use the lore for justifications.
The solution is to acknowledge that the game is full of -AP weapon that more adversely effect marine units than pretty much any other units AND marine throw weight is pathetic without Bobby G and adjust costs accordingly. This fixes offense and defense simultaneously without putting in a bunch of wonky crap.
Here comes the "we don't want power armor horde" people. THIS is why I don't think the lore should be used for the game at all. 8th ed makes quantity better than quality. It just does. GW already screwed up any chance of non-horde marines by not making primaris 3 wounds and custodes 5 wounds. A custodes shoudl have more wounds than a fething grotesque. But here we are. I for one, welcome my power armor horde overlords.
The devil is always in the details. Sister are great, marines are terrible. Sisters are 9 pts vs 13 pts, and have access to more stormbolters, one of few cost-effective Imperial weapons. Oh, and extra activations.
Martel732 wrote: "Quite honestly if you don't have something on topic to post regarding the weaknesses of the codex, how to fix them or about proposed fixes I'd honestly rather you didn't waste everyone's time by posting. You're not contributing anything to the topic by being such a negative Nurgling."
Actually, it's a pet peeve that people can simultaneously bitch about "movie marines", and then want to use the lore for justifications.
Have you actually looked at the things I've proposed and my reasoning behind them? Have you looked at the this thread at all or did you just jump in with a fist full of assumptions and a keyboard to smash them on? One of the changes I've mentioned is a nerf to CP regeneration. Honestly there would be more nerfs, but the codex doesn't have a lot of stuff that needs to be nerfed to fix it. It mostly needs stuff adjusted so that we don't keep going cheaper and cheaper while not addressing the internal imbalances that make Scouts more viable than tactical marines. Or the problem with assault units (Reivers and Assault Marines namely) not being good at their actual job (namely fighting in melee).
Martel732 wrote: The solution is to acknowledge that the game is full of -AP weapon that more adversely effect marine units than pretty much any other units AND marine throw weight is pathetic without Bobby G and adjust costs accordingly. This fixes offense and defense simultaneously without putting in a bunch of wonky crap.
That's something I'm trying to address. To quote myself, here as some things I'm looking at suggesting to GW regarding the saves that the army has access to:
Terminator Armour: Models with the Terminator keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Additionally increase their save to 1+. Since a 1 always fails this means that the save only negates the first AP of a weapon and reduces how effective multidamage weapons are. Essentially it means they won't go down quite as fast to anything less than dedicated heavy weapon fire or weight of dice.
Power Armour: Has +1 to it's save Characteristic against weapons with an AP profile of -1 or greater (-2,-3,ect). This was a hard one to puzzle over as Power Armour is on so many different armies. Increasing the save like All is Dust could just lead to us having Sisters running around with effective 2+ saves all the time, and a FnP effect wasn't really going to work either. In the end negating 1 of the weapon's AP seemed like the cleanest solution, though it does mean that you need to hit Thousand Sons Rubric models with -2 AP just to get them to a 3+. Magnus would be proud I guess?
Centurion Armour: Models with the Centurion keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by 1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. Yes, even the waddlebots are getting a look here, because honestly all that extra armour should be doing something more than it is.
Gravis Armour: Models with the Gravis keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by +1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. With how durable Gravis is supposed to be it needed something to feel like it was going to stay on the table longer. As lazy as it is to just reuse All Is Dust, here and on the Centurion armour, the extra armour being stronger against weaker weapons makes sense in terms of the lore. Reducing the weapon damage fits equally well and gives them more staying power. With these additions the need to push points down on the models becomes rather moot as they become the durable weapon platfoms they're shown as in the lore.
Each of these changes is intended to increase durability specifically against the things that are hurting them for durability without just spamming extra wounds onto everything.
Martel732 wrote: Here comes the "we don't want power armor horde" people. THIS is why I don't think the lore should be used for the game at all. 8th ed makes quantity better than quality. It just does. GW already screwed up any chance of non-horde marines by not making primaris 3 wounds and custodes 5 wounds. A custodes should have more wounds than a fething grotesque. But here we are. I for one, welcome my power armor horde overlords.
Actually, considering Marines are supposed to be outnumbered several to one against most forces, not wanting them to fall down into being a horde army shouldn't be unreasonable. No one here is trying to bring back the Movie Marine rules so you can beat an entire army with a single squad, but we are looking at addressing the core problems of the army and correcting internal balance so that there are more valid ways to play an army instead of just running the newest version of the Guilliman list.
"Spamming extra wounds" has important implications. 2W models are just victims of ravagers and Tau this editions. 3W is the cutoff, without putting in a bunch of other crazy rules.
Martel732 wrote: "Spamming extra wounds" has important implications. 2W models are just victims of ravagers and Tau this editions. 3W is the cutoff, without putting in a bunch of other crazy rules.
Increasing Tacts to 2 wounds only makes them just as vulnerable as they are for no pay off to the D2 spam. Primaris and Terminators would get better, but to keep Custodes as Marines +1 we'd be seeing 4 wound Custodes base.
That's what I mean about spamming extra wounds. We need to be aware of what these changes do to the game overall as we're not correcting something like Tau who can basically be treated as being in a vacuum relative to most other armies in terms of the wargear they have.
I say leave tacs behind. Make primaris 3, leave old marines at 1 and stuck in the past. Custodes need 5 W because they should be better than a goddamn grotesque.
Martel732 wrote: I say leave tacs behind. Make primaris 3, leave old marines at 1 and stuck in the past. Custodes need 5 W because they should be better than a goddamn grotesque.
I disagree all around. Being less likely to take wounds is what would fix the AP problem more than extra wounds do.
Sorry, the dissy cannon has already hit the presses; non-wound solutions don't work anymore. Your armor means nothing, you can't get away, and your AT is highly inefficient vs Drukhari. They point and remove marines from 36", no questions asked.
Make old marines 10 pts and just accept that they are gonna die like grots. Because GW said so.
Martel732 wrote: Sorry, the dissy cannon has already hit the presses; non-wound solutions don't work anymore. Your armor means nothing, you can't get away, and your AT is highly inefficient vs Drukhari. They point and remove marines from 36", no questions asked.
Make old marines 10 pts and just accept that they are gonna die like grots. Because GW said so.
So dropping damage by 1 (to a minimum of 1) does... What, exactly? I agree it does nothing to help regular Marines, but Terminators?
Martel732 wrote: Sorry, the dissy cannon has already hit the presses; non-wound solutions don't work anymore. Your armor means nothing, you can't get away, and your AT is highly inefficient vs Drukhari. They point and remove marines from 36", no questions asked.
You really aren't paying attention to anything but your own posts are you? I've mentioned a proprosed change for Terminators that reduces damage by weapons by 1 and giving them a 1+ save (effectively a 2+ since 1s always failr but it ignores the first -1). THAT is a non wounds solution that works just fine.
Besides, with a points hike I could see those being less common anyways.
A thought I've had relates to the prevelance of D2 weapons. Personally I'd like to tie most of the mechanics to the wargear in terms of damage reduction, but if I were to tie it to the Astartes I'd likely look at something like:
Transhuman Physiology: Models with this special rule reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1.
The thing is that basically does nothing for basic Marines (still requiring their power armour to need to negate the first -1 they experience), but multi-wound models would benefit from it greatly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I don't care about terminators? So I'm not mentioning that? And dissy cannons are wiping up EVERY 2 W model, not just terminators.
And we've talked about having Terminators take less damage from multi-damage weapons as a fix. You REALLY need to read the thread before you start a whine fest that doesn't actually prove to be relevant to what we're trying to do here: find the problems with the "useless" things in the army and fix them (while nerfing anything that honestly deserves it). Basically it's a detailed community feedback and playtesting notes about the codex being compiled for submission to GW.
"Useless"? Take a number; that's most of the codex. That's why point drops are the most feasible thing here instead of changing 30+ entries.
Hahahaha no. As it has been explained several times, a points drop does NOTHING to correct Scouts being a more efficient use of points as troops, or that Terminators would still die like 1W models to D2 weapons.
At some point the points can't go any lower without breaking the game and even then Marines would still be seen as a poor use of points.
Martel732 wrote: Pretty sure a 10 point marine with an 8 pt meltagun would be a good use of points.
We didn't need the rule of 3 or for DS to get nerfed. We needed flyrants appropriately costed. And if that was 400 pts, so be it.
I disagree, mostly because even the meltagun needs to be fixed. Seriously, you like posting this and that, but how are you contribuiting if you're not bothering to actually read the thread? You just ignore any possible fix for the sake of being right and refuse to believe that there is more than one way to fix the game. Not to mention you've already ignored that most of us don't want 10 point Marines, we just want to feel like what we pay for our models is worth the points.
You're not getting that in 8th. Sorry if that's unpopular. They are fixing with points. Not rules. Except clumsy rules like rule of 3 and DS nerf. Those kinds of changes can't help marines, imo.
Martel732 wrote: You're not getting that in 8th. Sorry if that's unpopular. They are fixing with points. Not rules. Except clumsy rules like rule of 3 and DS nerf. Those kinds of changes can't help marines, imo.
It's only a year into 8th. It's too soon to say how they'll update armies going forward, and even if they don't update the army's rules before 9th, at least the feedback will be worth it for the next edition then.
Seriously, get off your high horse and participate or leave. You're barely on topic at the best of times and blatantly trying to drag this topic into a massive bitch fest over armies you don't like the rest of the time.
I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
Pray tell how the fixes we've been proposing don't fix Marines.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
Pray tell how the fixes we've been proposing don't fix Marines.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
Pray tell how the fixes we've been proposing don't fix Marines.
Not that I don't think your suggestions are "cool" - giving terminators bs 2+ does nothing to fix the core problems with the unit. Something like -1d would help terminaotrs but they would still be getting wrecked by small arms too. They need more wounds.
"What about Custodes then?" is not a helpful question. Every Custode should be stronger than a SM captain because they are primarch level troopers. GW messed that up too.
What about deathwatch??? They would be OP with 3 wound primaris...Maybe - but lets also consider a deathwatch marine is just a chapter marine that got sent to the deathwatch - it is abolsutely insane that they are strengard + primaris + 1 - Their rules are too good but they pay overpriced marine prices for their base stats. Maybe - paying +4 points for super bolters is what it would take to make deathwatch fair. I honestly don't care. They are a gimick army - marines shouldn't have to suck because one of the smallest forces in the imperium exist.
Not that I don't think your suggestions are "cool" - giving terminators bs 2+ does nothing to fix the core problems with the unit. Something like -1d would help terminaotrs but they would still be getting wrecked by small arms too. They need more wounds. "What about Custodes then?" is not a helpful question. Every Custode should be stronger than a SM captain because they are primarch level troopers. GW messed that up too.
Terminators in general need to be reduced in cost by 13.3%, then given an additional benefit such as Relentless (Move and shoot) and something to represent their unnerving ability to shoot always hits on +3 (similar to the dark reapers)
Not only would that make them the best elite choice in the space marine roster (Which they freaking should be) but from my play tests I've done against my friends... That seems to be the best option for them.
To make tactical viable tacticals really don't need a massive cost reduction.... maybe 1 - 2 points, and can take 1 special weapon or heavy weapon for free or half the costs of those weapons. (sarges can take cheaper weapons as well)
Decrease costs of combi-weapons across the board for certain units (commanders / libys / chaplain)
Allow Vanguard veterans to be a fast attack option if given jump packs (decrease costs of most veteran units by 2 - 3 points).
Also decreasing costs of land raider by 50 - 80 points.
Vindicator decreased in cost and given special rule : Linebreaker ignores all Cover, when ramming into buildings or terrain roll a dice on 5+ remove the terrain.
Predator - two different Variants The Prey Awaits - ignores all - to hit. The Tank Hunter (with lascannon) if a six is rolled automatically deal an additional wound.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
Pray tell how the fixes we've been proposing don't fix Marines.
Not that I don't think your suggestions are "cool" - giving terminators bs 2+ does nothing to fix the core problems with the unit. Something like -1d would help terminaotrs but they would still be getting wrecked by small arms too. They need more wounds.
"What about Custodes then?" is not a helpful question. Every Custode should be stronger than a SM captain because they are primarch level troopers. GW messed that up too.
What about deathwatch??? They would be OP with 3 wound primaris...Maybe - but lets also consider a deathwatch marine is just a chapter marine that got sent to the deathwatch - it is abolsutely insane that they are strengard + primaris + 1 - Their rules are too good but they pay overpriced marine prices for their base stats. Maybe - paying +4 points for super bolters is what it would take to make deathwatch fair. I honestly don't care. They are a gimick army - marines shouldn't have to suck because one of the smallest forces in the imperium exist.
You're...not serious are you?
Small arms don't kill Terminators anymore. They're literally twice as durable to them. I even told you that they're more durable to more weapons, and I SPECIFICALLY told you to make a list of weapons they're less durable to, and I'll provide a list of everything they're more durable to. You'll see a size discrepancy if you've bothered to do it.
BS2+ also fixes the issues they have with the few shots they get with the Storm Bolters, confers Relentless-in-all-but-name while on the move but they then get better sitting still.
Now tell me exactly what I didn't fix, based on the argument I PROVED they're more durable than ever and they just need an offensive boost.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines) Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP. Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
Pray tell how the fixes we've been proposing don't fix Marines.
Not that I don't think your suggestions are "cool" - giving terminators bs 2+ does nothing to fix the core problems with the unit. Something like -1d would help terminaotrs but they would still be getting wrecked by small arms too. They need more wounds. "What about Custodes then?" is not a helpful question. Every Custode should be stronger than a SM captain because they are primarch level troopers. GW messed that up too.
What about deathwatch??? They would be OP with 3 wound primaris...Maybe - but lets also consider a deathwatch marine is just a chapter marine that got sent to the deathwatch - it is abolsutely insane that they are strengard + primaris + 1 - Their rules are too good but they pay overpriced marine prices for their base stats. Maybe - paying +4 points for super bolters is what it would take to make deathwatch fair. I honestly don't care. They are a gimick army - marines shouldn't have to suck because one of the smallest forces in the imperium exist.
You're...not serious are you? Small arms don't kill Terminators anymore. They're literally twice as durable to them. I even told you that they're more durable to more weapons, and I SPECIFICALLY told you to make a list of weapons they're less durable to, and I'll provide a list of everything they're more durable to. You'll see a size discrepancy if you've bothered to do it.
BS2+ also fixes the issues they have with the few shots they get with the Storm Bolters, confers Relentless-in-all-but-name while on the move but they then get better sitting still.
Now tell me exactly what I didn't fix, based on the argument I PROVED they're more durable than ever and they just need an offensive boost.
Yes small arms do indeed kill termies its why no one runs them
2 wounds +2 save is great but they still die. A single squad of lasguns can make quick work of a single squad of termies.
128 shots from a single aggressor squad will devastate them. /sarcasm (making a joke please don't take this too seriously)
A single squad of Lasguns is, at most, 37 shots, assuming there's an officer nearby.
That's 37/2 hits.
37/6 wounds.
37/36 unsaved.
Or, in other words, by "short work" you mean "takes a wound off a turn, on average, with an order and Rapid Fire".
And that's how many Aggressors? Because they get an average of 19 shots apiece if standing still and within 18" range. In a max of six, that's 114 on average.
JNAProductions wrote: A single squad of Lasguns is, at most, 37 shots, assuming there's an officer nearby.
That's 37/2 hits.
37/6 wounds.
37/36 unsaved.
Or, in other words, by "short work" you mean "takes a wound off a turn, on average, with an order and Rapid Fire".
And that's how many Aggressors? Because they get an average of 19 shots apiece if standing still and within 18" range. In a max of six, that's 114 on average.
JNAProductions wrote: A single squad of Lasguns is, at most, 37 shots, assuming there's an officer nearby.
That's 37/2 hits.
37/6 wounds.
37/36 unsaved.
Or, in other words, by "short work" you mean "takes a wound off a turn, on average, with an order and Rapid Fire".
And that's how many Aggressors? Because they get an average of 19 shots apiece if standing still and within 18" range. In a max of six, that's 114 on average.
Now that's a lotta damage! And it only took how many points again?
Luck /=/ Math
I've lost an entire squad of termies in one turn to lasgun fire or a dark reaper shooting phase.
So we should balance units around the most extreme probabilities? That's absurd lol. Terminators do fine against small arms fire 99% of the time. They're just too vulnerable to medium arms fire, but that's because plasma/dis cannons are OP.
JNAProductions wrote: A single squad of Lasguns is, at most, 37 shots, assuming there's an officer nearby.
That's 37/2 hits.
37/6 wounds.
37/36 unsaved.
Or, in other words, by "short work" you mean "takes a wound off a turn, on average, with an order and Rapid Fire".
And that's how many Aggressors? Because they get an average of 19 shots apiece if standing still and within 18" range. In a max of six, that's 114 on average.
Now that's a lotta damage! And it only took how many points again?
Luck /=/ Math
I've lost an entire squad of termies in one turn to lasgun fire or a dark reaper shooting phase.
So we should base balancing on anecdotes? Isn't that what GW already does, and it's lead to this mess?
No. The odds of losing a 5-strong Termie squad to 37 BS 4+ Lasgun shots is...
So small as to be negligible. According to Anydice, there is a .01% chance of doing 7 wounds, out of their 10. Again-one percent of one percent, or 1/10,000 of doing 7 wounds.
I'm not saying you're lying-I certainly believe it CAN happen. I just don't believe it's worth balancing around, when it's a astonishingly rare occurrence.
So we should balance units around the most extreme probabilities? That's absurd lol. Terminators do fine against small arms fire 99% of the time. They're just too vulnerable to medium arms fire, but that's because plasma/dis cannons are OP.
No mostly making a joke. But yes termies die more from plasma than anything else.
PLasma and ap -2 and d2 weapons are really common surprisingly.
Lost a whole game because of three squads of hellblasters and a knight titan.
(Though thats a whole different beast)
Them getting a FNP or something similar might be good but whether or not that is effective is subject to play test.
But as I argued.... Its a point cost reduction and relentless which is what they really need... Which is what they used to have.
JNAProductions wrote: A single squad of Lasguns is, at most, 37 shots, assuming there's an officer nearby.
That's 37/2 hits.
37/6 wounds.
37/36 unsaved.
Or, in other words, by "short work" you mean "takes a wound off a turn, on average, with an order and Rapid Fire".
And that's how many Aggressors? Because they get an average of 19 shots apiece if standing still and within 18" range. In a max of six, that's 114 on average.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Martel just shut up. I know Marines suck but you're not helping at this point.
No. Your approach is wrong. Dead wrong. It's not going to fly in 8th. You need to tell ME why point drops don't fix it. Die like grots, pay like grots. Period.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
Pray tell how the fixes we've been proposing don't fix Marines.
Martel732 wrote: You're not getting that in 8th. Sorry if that's unpopular. They are fixing with points. Not rules. Except clumsy rules like rule of 3 and DS nerf. Those kinds of changes can't help marines, imo.
It's only a year into 8th. It's too soon to say how they'll update armies going forward, and even if they don't update the army's rules before 9th, at least the feedback will be worth it for the next edition then.
Seriously, get off your high horse and participate or leave. You're barely on topic at the best of times and blatantly trying to drag this topic into a massive bitch fest over armies you don't like the rest of the time.
How is a points drop off topic? Just because the movie marine crowd doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's not the best solution for 8th edition.
GW isn't going to listen. They didn't listen until their crew went to a tournament and got erased by flyrants. Then they paid attention.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
You aren't reading things either it seems. Changes include negating the first AP of all weapons (meaning -1 is 0, -2 is -1, ect), allowing Terminators to reduce weapon damage by 1 (so D2 is D1, D3 is D2, ect) AND giving Terminators a 1+ save (effectively a 2+ but it ignores the first -1 like the power armour adjustment), among other changes like giving CT to vehicles.
I mean I did update the first post with a rather comprehensive attempt at adjusting CTs, Warlord Traits and Wargear. Does no one actually look at this stuff or do they just assume the only changes proposed are the ones that Martel says won't work?
Additionally, points aren't being considered. No change in points fixes the issue of Scouts being more points efficient than Tacticals, nor does it make Tacticals have a role other than their wargear selection. Correcting this army takes more than just slapping points down in a vacuum and telling the rest of the game to deal with the fact you can take 100 marines for 1,000 points.
Marine toughness is fine. I don't get the idea that tacticals with two wounds, Primaris/Termies with resistance to ap guns etc would help.
Tacticals have the defensive stats of a 12-13 point unit but the damage output of a 6-7 point unit. This is why they are rubbish unless you can cheaply buff them - but RG has been repeatedly nerfed.
Terminators have the same issue. They don't get mown down by lasguns unless you are really unlucky. The problem is that they shoot even worse than tactical marines and their assault is poor too. They shoot like a 14 point unit and cost 3 times as much. How does relentless help this? Bs 2+ barely helps.
This issue continues through most of the crap options in the Marine codex.
The easiest way to buff damage output/points is to lower points. Or you need to give everyone more shots/attacks.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
Pray tell how the fixes we've been proposing don't fix Marines.
Not that I don't think your suggestions are "cool" - giving terminators bs 2+ does nothing to fix the core problems with the unit. Something like -1d would help terminaotrs but they would still be getting wrecked by small arms too. They need more wounds.
"What about Custodes then?" is not a helpful question. Every Custode should be stronger than a SM captain because they are primarch level troopers. GW messed that up too.
What about deathwatch??? They would be OP with 3 wound primaris...Maybe - but lets also consider a deathwatch marine is just a chapter marine that got sent to the deathwatch - it is abolsutely insane that they are strengard + primaris + 1 - Their rules are too good but they pay overpriced marine prices for their base stats. Maybe - paying +4 points for super bolters is what it would take to make deathwatch fair. I honestly don't care. They are a gimick army - marines shouldn't have to suck because one of the smallest forces in the imperium exist.
A Custodian is NOT a "Primarch level trooper". They're more powerful than a Marine, sure, but they are no Primarch.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
Pray tell how the fixes we've been proposing don't fix Marines.
Not that I don't think your suggestions are "cool" - giving terminators bs 2+ does nothing to fix the core problems with the unit. Something like -1d would help terminaotrs but they would still be getting wrecked by small arms too. They need more wounds.
"What about Custodes then?" is not a helpful question. Every Custode should be stronger than a SM captain because they are primarch level troopers. GW messed that up too.
What about deathwatch??? They would be OP with 3 wound primaris...Maybe - but lets also consider a deathwatch marine is just a chapter marine that got sent to the deathwatch - it is abolsutely insane that they are strengard + primaris + 1 - Their rules are too good but they pay overpriced marine prices for their base stats. Maybe - paying +4 points for super bolters is what it would take to make deathwatch fair. I honestly don't care. They are a gimick army - marines shouldn't have to suck because one of the smallest forces in the imperium exist.
You're...not serious are you?
Small arms don't kill Terminators anymore. They're literally twice as durable to them. I even told you that they're more durable to more weapons, and I SPECIFICALLY told you to make a list of weapons they're less durable to, and I'll provide a list of everything they're more durable to. You'll see a size discrepancy if you've bothered to do it.
BS2+ also fixes the issues they have with the few shots they get with the Storm Bolters, confers Relentless-in-all-but-name while on the move but they then get better sitting still.
Now tell me exactly what I didn't fix, based on the argument I PROVED they're more durable than ever and they just need an offensive boost.
Yes small arms do indeed kill termies its why no one runs them
2 wounds +2 save is great but they still die. A single squad of lasguns can make quick work of a single squad of termies.
128 shots from a single aggressor squad will devastate them. /sarcasm (making a joke please don't take this too seriously)
D2 weapons are a bigger reason why no one runs Terminators. That and the fact their save drops to a 3+ or 4+ against a lot of shooting. Buffing their defense against AP so they drop as low as fast (-2 would only get them to a 3+ for example) and making D2 weapons effectively D1 against them would make them a lot tougher overall.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
You aren't reading things either it seems. Changes include negating the first AP of all weapons (meaning -1 is 0, -2 is -1, ect), allowing Terminators to reduce weapon damage by 1 (so D2 is D1, D3 is D2, ect) AND giving Terminators a 1+ save (effectively a 2+ but it ignores the first -1 like the power armour adjustment), among other changes like giving CT to vehicles.
I mean I did update the first post with a rather comprehensive attempt at adjusting CTs, Warlord Traits and Wargear. Does no one actually look at this stuff or do they just assume the only changes proposed are the ones that Martel says won't work?
Additionally, points aren't being considered. No change in points fixes the issue of Scouts being more points efficient than Tacticals, nor does it make Tacticals have a role other than their wargear selection. Correcting this army takes more than just slapping points down in a vacuum and telling the rest of the game to deal with the fact you can take 100 marines for 1,000 points.
Things like chapter tactics and warlord traits are only about 5% of the problem so I personally don't really care about them. The current tactics and warlords would work okay if the points costs weren't terrible, or Marines had actual damage or mobility.
Martel732 wrote: How is a points drop off topic? Just because the movie marine crowd doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's not the best solution for 8th edition.
Because you didn't read the VERY FIRST POST where I said that I was excluding ALL points changes.
And just because you're a pessimist it doesn't mean I can't choose to collate information about why certain things aren't being run (or are being run too much), offer changes that would make those things better in the eyes of a large number of player's eyes and post it to GW. Maybe they'll take it into consideration, maybe they won't but at the end of the day who the hell are you to tell anyone they're wasting their time doing something they choose to do because of a passionate drive to see the game end up in a better place?
Get off your high horse and honestly go do something more productive. Wasting everyone's time slamming any attempts at finding a way to balance the army isn't productive, it's disruptive and outright offensive. Basically you're being a troll mate.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
You aren't reading things either it seems. Changes include negating the first AP of all weapons (meaning -1 is 0, -2 is -1, ect), allowing Terminators to reduce weapon damage by 1 (so D2 is D1, D3 is D2, ect) AND giving Terminators a 1+ save (effectively a 2+ but it ignores the first -1 like the power armour adjustment), among other changes like giving CT to vehicles.
I mean I did update the first post with a rather comprehensive attempt at adjusting CTs, Warlord Traits and Wargear. Does no one actually look at this stuff or do they just assume the only changes proposed are the ones that Martel says won't work?
Additionally, points aren't being considered. No change in points fixes the issue of Scouts being more points efficient than Tacticals, nor does it make Tacticals have a role other than their wargear selection. Correcting this army takes more than just slapping points down in a vacuum and telling the rest of the game to deal with the fact you can take 100 marines for 1,000 points.
Things like chapter tactics and warlord traits are only about 5% of the problem so I personally don't really care about them. The current tactics and warlords would work okay if the points costs weren't terrible, or Marines had actual damage or mobility.
Without changing Adept of the Codex to not allow for infinite CP regeneration we're never going to see other armies as viable choices. And some army traits are currently just half there (why are Black Templars the only melee loyalist marine army that doesn't get a benefit for the first round of combat for example).
Basically, even if you feel points solves everything, it doesn't address some of the internal imbalances that make once choice the "only" choice to most players.
As for damage I've been looking at options for the bolter (I've got an identical thread on B&C to get stuff from multiple different sources so I don't fall into an echo chamber of one mindset over another), and things like the melta have been looked at already. I'm currently going over unit by unit and trying to find ways to look at the less viable choices in the army without just turning every Marine army into the power armoured horde army (that's really more of a Sisters thing, with the Black Tide being a close second).
Martel732 wrote: How is a points drop off topic? Just because the movie marine crowd doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's not the best solution for 8th edition.
Because you didn't read the VERY FIRST POST where I said that I was excluding ALL points changes.
And just because you're a pessimist it doesn't mean I can't choose to collate information about why certain things aren't being run (or are being run too much), offer changes that would make those things better in the eyes of a large number of player's eyes and post it to GW. Maybe they'll take it into consideration, maybe they won't but at the end of the day who the hell are you to tell anyone they're wasting their time doing something they choose to do because of a passionate drive to see the game end up in a better place?
Get off your high horse and honestly go do something more productive. Wasting everyone's time slamming any attempts at finding a way to balance the army isn't productive, it's disruptive and outright offensive. Basically you're being a troll mate.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Martels irritated because the rules that you guys aren't suggesting don't make marines viable. I too am tired of hearing suggestions that don't fix the issues. Marines are 3 points over primaris are 4 points over. You ether give them each a wound at their current cost OR you drop them points. Adjust the rest of the codex around these base costs.
Give marine vehicles access to capter tactics. (remove -1 to hit criteria for ultramarines)
Fix stratagems by buffing them to equally costed strat in other codex for equal CP.
Remove reroll stratagems and exchange them for something not redundant.
Then reduce cost of most weapons. By roughly 20%
That would make marines competitive. Those are the kinds of changes they need.
You aren't reading things either it seems. Changes include negating the first AP of all weapons (meaning -1 is 0, -2 is -1, ect), allowing Terminators to reduce weapon damage by 1 (so D2 is D1, D3 is D2, ect) AND giving Terminators a 1+ save (effectively a 2+ but it ignores the first -1 like the power armour adjustment), among other changes like giving CT to vehicles.
I mean I did update the first post with a rather comprehensive attempt at adjusting CTs, Warlord Traits and Wargear. Does no one actually look at this stuff or do they just assume the only changes proposed are the ones that Martel says won't work?
Additionally, points aren't being considered. No change in points fixes the issue of Scouts being more points efficient than Tacticals, nor does it make Tacticals have a role other than their wargear selection. Correcting this army takes more than just slapping points down in a vacuum and telling the rest of the game to deal with the fact you can take 100 marines for 1,000 points.
Things like chapter tactics and warlord traits are only about 5% of the problem so I personally don't really care about them. The current tactics and warlords would work okay if the points costs weren't terrible, or Marines had actual damage or mobility.
Without changing Adept of the Codex to not allow for infinite CP regeneration we're never going to see other armies as viable choices. And some army traits are currently just half there (why are Black Templars the only melee loyalist marine army that doesn't get a benefit for the first round of combat for example).
Basically, even if you feel points solves everything, it doesn't address some of the internal imbalances that make once choice the "only" choice to most players.
As for damage I've been looking at options for the bolter (I've got an identical thread on B&C to get stuff from multiple different sources so I don't fall into an echo chamber of one mindset over another), and things like the melta have been looked at already. I'm currently going over unit by unit and trying to find ways to look at the less viable choices in the army without just turning every Marine army into the power armoured horde army (that's really more of a Sisters thing, with the Black Tide being a close second).
There isn't anything inherently wrong with adept of the codex IMO. It's certainly not the reason anyone plays ultramarines. Roboute is. In fact, I think you probably only even see it in UM lists because you don't want to give up the 3 CP for having Roboute be the warlord. Storm of fire would be better in most situations.
It's only when you start stacking regen abilities that it becomes an issue, but that's a different issue apart from SM balance.
The core reason why space marine armies do not work (i believe) is that their core troops, and core weapon (Tacticals, Intercessors and bolters) jsut are not good for their point costs. They are terrible and not a good weapon in general they aren't cost effective for their points cost.
Space Marines are too expensive of an army to play, their vechiles are overcosted or perform underwhelmingly. If you want cheap and easy CP generation that will gather points quickly guardsmen spam is far better and easier to get cheap CP
Asherian Command wrote: The core reason why space marine armies do not work (i believe) is that their core troops, and core weapon (Tacticals, Intercessors and bolters) jsut are not good for their point costs. They are terrible and not a good weapon in general they aren't cost effective for their points cost.
Space Marines are too expensive of an army to play, their vechiles are overcosted or perform underwhelmingly. If you want cheap and easy CP generation that will gather points quickly guardsmen spam is far better and easier to get cheap CP
That's what I mean. The foundation of the problem is the base unit profiles and basic rules. 3+armor is terrible. Non fly vehicles are terrible. Bolters are terrible. Heavy weapons in vehicles are terrible. All the special and heavy weapons except for plasma and heavy bolters are terrible. Vehicles without invul saves are terrible.
No amount of chapter tactics or warlord traits will matter at all until the core units are fixed to actually mesh with 8th edition rules.
Asherian Command wrote: The core reason why space marine armies do not work (i believe) is that their core troops, and core weapon (Tacticals, Intercessors and bolters) jsut are not good for their point costs. They are terrible and not a good weapon in general they aren't cost effective for their points cost.
Space Marines are too expensive of an army to play, their vechiles are overcosted or perform underwhelmingly. If you want cheap and easy CP generation that will gather points quickly guardsmen spam is far better and easier to get cheap CP
That's what I mean. The foundation of the problem is the base unit profiles and basic rules. 3+armor is terrible. Non fly vehicles are terrible. Bolters are terrible. Heavy weapons in vehicles are terrible. All the special and heavy weapons except for plasma and heavy bolters are terrible. Vehicles without invul saves are terrible.
No amount of chapter tactics or warlord traits will matter at all until the core units are fixed to actually mesh with 8th edition rules.
You say that like I haven't been saying I'm approaching that problem already. Heck, I've got specific possible fixes for the durability of Marines already posted (not that people are looking at anything to do with actual rules it seems).
Just want to jump in here and let you all know that +1 attack on the charge for BT will not make them any better. The reason why SW and BA are good at CC is because they have specialist CC units like DC, Wulfen, and SG. The BA tactic is excellent, the SW tactic is mediocre at best for anything besides a Thunder Hammer wielding character with a 2+ WS.
This is what makes them good at CC. +1 attack will not make Black Templars good at close combat. The Space Marine codex does not have a close combat specialist unit.
Assault Marines: laughably bad, always will be.
Vanguard Veterans: Even with 3 attacks on the charge, everything they try do to will bounce. They have no reliable way of getting into combat before they die like flies, and power weapon hits will not actually do any damage. 5 attacks with double chain sword would actually be decent if they have a good stratagem to improve the wounding power of the unit or give them some AP.
Assault Terminators: Good luck getting there. Transports will be cracked, deep strike you're having the same problem as everything else. Sure you could even you might make into combat. Guess what, they won't make their points back.
Assault Centurions: Maybe they would be good if everything worth hitting them with didn't have an invuln save. Oh yeah lets not forget that you're opponent will crack that transport and they will die after disembarking because your army is smaller than your opponents, and your opponent will have more guns to point at you.
The problem with marines is fundamental to their concept. Making any more than one or two units out of the codex viable is beyond possible at this point. Look at the meta. Imperium takes the best units from each codex and soups them. The game has to change before you will ever see marine armys on the table again.
Going back to my original point, +1 attack isn't enough to make the BT have a decent punch in CC. What they need is +1 attack and mortal wounds in addition to normal damage on a 6 to wound.
Reason being, BT have no way of generating mortal wounds because they have no psykers. Without mortal wounds, the army will be dead in the water for the entire edition. 8th ed is designed around this mechanic.
They should also get a stratagem that gives them +1 damage in CC, this will help them when you pop it to actually give things like assault terminators a chance to kill something worthwhile reliably.
Ice_can wrote: Wow do you hate Ultramarines with some passion.
You've given them no improvement and massively nerfed their unique warlord trait, which is rarely used outside of named charictors as marine strategums are so hot garbage.
While I get you dont want to turn Raven guard into the next Alitoc Eldar OPBS. Marine vehicals are made of paper for their points and need some serious survivability improvements to be worth fielding.
That is the reason everone when straight to flyers then FW dreadnaughts with invulnerable saves.
18 inch flamestorm guantlets are broken as feth, especially when you add double shooting(aggressors built in bonus rule)
Heavy Plasma doesn't need 2 shots. It is where it should be the problem is GW decieded to +1 to plasma's strength in the change to 8th edition presumably as primaris marines rely on plasma for their anti tank. When they undo that mistake the problem goes away.
Ultramarine need the least amount of help and with buffs elsewhere in the units they can take, this can't be for real
ultimentra wrote: Just want to jump in here and let you all know that +1 attack on the charge for BT will not make them any better. The reason why SW and BA are good at CC is because they have specialist CC units like DC, Wulfen, and SG. The BA tactic is excellent, the SW tactic is mediocre at best for anything besides a Thunder Hammer wielding character with a 2+ WS.
This is what makes them good at CC. +1 attack will not make Black Templars good at close combat. The Space Marine codex does not have a close combat specialist unit.
Assault Marines: laughably bad, always will be.
Vanguard Veterans: Even with 3 attacks on the charge, everything they try do to will bounce. They have no reliable way of getting into combat before they die like flies, and power weapon hits will not actually do any damage. 5 attacks with double chain sword would actually be decent if they have a good stratagem to improve the wounding power of the unit or give them some AP.
Assault Terminators: Good luck getting there. Transports will be cracked, deep strike you're having the same problem as everything else. Sure you could even you might make into combat. Guess what, they won't make their points back.
Assault Centurions: Maybe they would be good if everything worth hitting them with didn't have an invuln save. Oh yeah lets not forget that you're opponent will crack that transport and they will die after disembarking because your army is smaller than your opponents, and your opponent will have more guns to point at you.
The problem with marines is fundamental to their concept. Making any more than one or two units out of the codex viable is beyond possible at this point. Look at the meta. Imperium takes the best units from each codex and soups them. The game has to change before you will ever see marine armys on the table again.
Going back to my original point, +1 attack isn't enough to make the BT have a decent punch in CC. What they need is +1 attack and mortal wounds in addition to normal damage on a 6 to wound.
Reason being, BT have no way of generating mortal wounds because they have no psykers. Without mortal wounds, the army will be dead in the water for the entire edition. 8th ed is designed around this mechanic.
They should also get a stratagem that gives them +1 damage in CC, this will help them when you pop it to actually give things like assault terminators a chance to kill something worthwhile reliably.
Mortal wound generation should not be a CT, it should be baked into a unit or piece of wargear and cost points.
I mean you raise some valid points but I feel like you missed some things too.
Assault Terminators for example are more likely to make a 9" charge when the reroll is either or both dice. Deep Strike and charge is more viable with BT than most chapters. It's not the only thing I'm looking at in the army, but it's definitely something better than they currently got already.
-1 AP for chainswords was also brought up which means a full unit of Crusaders would be swinging with 60 attacks (61 with a Sword Brethren) at -1 AP. Considering I'm looking at giving them a fight twice rule if they're holding an objective or attacking a unit that's on an objective and that's 120 attacks a fight phase.
Let's crack out some numbers and assume that the unit is hitting a T4 MEQ unit:
60 attacks > 40 Hits > 20 Wounds > 10 dead MEQ (under current MEQ rules)
Against Orks:
60 attacks > 40 hits > 20 wounds > 20 dead Orks
Against TEQ:
60 attacks > 40 hits > 20 wounds > 3.333 dead TEQ (again using current rules as a baseline)
Take away the bonus for charging and the -1 AP and we go from killing a full sized unit of Marines in a turn to:
40 attacks > 26.667 hits > 13.333 wounds > 1.11 dead MEQ
Look, I get that we're going to see some good stuff out of Blood Angels and Space Wolves, but let's not pretend that there is a very clear difference between what this unit can do now and how much it'd help them do.
Asherian Command wrote: The core reason why space marine armies do not work (i believe) is that their core troops, and core weapon (Tacticals, Intercessors and bolters) jsut are not good for their point costs. They are terrible and not a good weapon in general they aren't cost effective for their points cost.
Space Marines are too expensive of an army to play, their vechiles are overcosted or perform underwhelmingly. If you want cheap and easy CP generation that will gather points quickly guardsmen spam is far better and easier to get cheap CP
That's what I mean. The foundation of the problem is the base unit profiles and basic rules. 3+armor is terrible. Non fly vehicles are terrible. Bolters are terrible. Heavy weapons in vehicles are terrible. All the special and heavy weapons except for plasma and heavy bolters are terrible. Vehicles without invul saves are terrible.
No amount of chapter tactics or warlord traits will matter at all until the core units are fixed to actually mesh with 8th edition rules.
You say that like I haven't been saying I'm approaching that problem already. Heck, I've got specific possible fixes for the durability of Marines already posted (not that people are looking at anything to do with actual rules it seems).
I know you have. I just think you're getting ahead of yourself by starting with the extra special rules like tactics and traits. Until the units themselves are decent, we can't really even know if the traits need changing. Almost every tactic except IF and probably WS is actually really good, or would be if it effected vehicles and Marines didn't suck at everything.
I think it's better to try and change as few things as possible to make the game better, not just rewrite things for the sake of it.
I think I can fix 90% of Marine issues with 5 general changes
1. All vehicles can fall back and shoot at negative 1, and fire heavy weapons after moving with no penalty.
2. Everything in the marine codex ignores 1 point of AP, and terminator, primaris, and bike units (not characters) reduce damage by 1.
3. All marine units gain +1 attack. Bolters and chainswords have AP1, and the special/ heavy weapons get more shots/damage.
4. All marine units can fall back and shoot at -1.
5. Rhinos have fire points and their contents can disembark and shoot after moving. Land raiders can have stuff also assault afterwards.
This would make them much stronger than they are now. They'd still die but not quite as quickly, and they'd have a lot more flexibility and mobility. You could probably pick 2 or 3 out of the 5 and be in a pretty good place as well. If they get #4 I'd have ultramarines overwatch on 5+ on their tactic instead. I don't think you can really think about chapter tactics or even know if they need fixing until these things are finalized.
The reason I started where I did was to allow people to start from the frame work of "how will this effect my army" or "how would this work with X army". I was trying to create more context for future changes to be based against.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Alright, let's roll some things up to get an idea of where the proposed changes to Tacticals currently stand:
+Treat weapons as 1 AP worse for purposes of taking saves (to a minimum of 0)
+Add Holy Fusillade: If this unit did not move in it's preceeding movement phase or has ended its movement phase with at least one model within 3" of an objective this unit may be selected to make a second shooting attack during the shooting phase. This second shooting attack may be at a different target from the first.
+Transhuman Physiology: Treats all damage as 1 less (to a minimum of 1) against weapons that have a strength profile of 7 or less (this only affects FnP effects for 1 wound models but I felt it was worth including as a standard rule).
Something else that has been mentioned on B&C is making the humble bolter Rapid Fire 2 as the way to fix the unit. I'm not sold on this as it means bolters would be Rapid Fire 2 base, Rapid Fire 4 for a Storm Bolter, and Rapid Fire 12 for a Hurricane Bolter.
I know some folks would be okay with that, but remember that buffs the shooting for ALL bolters since a boltgun is a boltgun is a boltgun regardless who gets to hold it. Sisters tend to number 1.5 to 1 versus Marines and that would bring devastating amounts of shooting against Marines in comparison.
Due to the low amount of shooting a Tactical unit gets I don't think a +1 shot on 6s or -1 AP on 6s would do the job either. Standard -1 AP seems like the only fix for Bolters, especially since power armour would still treat that as AP 0.
Intercessors would basically get the same buffs as Tacticals, though I feel the bolt rifle would stay -1 for it's standard profile as the biggest difference should be range it and the regular bolter.
So with that in mind, does anyone feel there is an issue with Tacticals or Intercessors with these changes? Should something be adjusted?
Holy Fusillade is unique, but is it something that would apply to units that are above Tactical Marines? Suddenly forgetting training isn't something I'm a fan of. Sternguard suddenly forgetting how to do something like that would be slightly silly. NOW, if you did something where units like Tactical Marines and above could do that OR an extra melee attack, perhaps that would be neat? I dunno.
Regarding Tactical vs Intercessor, their base weapon should just remain deadlier, as most of the damage from Tactical Marines is always going to be their special and heavy weapons. You've seen me be a big pain about giving Astartes Bolt weapons a special rule to increase their damage output, as well as making them gain more than just a single of each Special and Heavy at 10 man, which is easily the most outdated thing in this game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Holy Fusillade is unique, but is it something that would apply to units that are above Tactical Marines? Suddenly forgetting training isn't something I'm a fan of. Sternguard suddenly forgetting how to do something like that would be slightly silly. NOW, if you did something where units like Tactical Marines and above could do that OR an extra melee attack, perhaps that would be neat? I dunno.
Regarding Tactical vs Intercessor, their base weapon should just remain deadlier, as most of the damage from Tactical Marines is always going to be their special and heavy weapons. You've seen me be a big pain about giving Astartes Bolt weapons a special rule to increase their damage output, as well as making them gain more than just a single of each Special and Heavy at 10 man, which is easily the most outdated thing in this game.
Different units could still operate differently and veterans may not feed to approach combat the same way as the main troop of the army.
That said, I feel like Sternguard mostly just need full special ammo options back while Vanguard need more work overall to work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly though, I don't think giving out free special or heavies fixes Tacticals. Letting them turn into a unit that can shoot twice if they stand still or have an objective in arm's reach though could help them a lot and lets them get more mileage out of their base weapons.
And you're right, the bolt rifle should probably be better, but if the base profile goes to -2 then the stalker goes to -3 and that just seems a bit insane.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Holy Fusillade is unique, but is it something that would apply to units that are above Tactical Marines? Suddenly forgetting training isn't something I'm a fan of. Sternguard suddenly forgetting how to do something like that would be slightly silly. NOW, if you did something where units like Tactical Marines and above could do that OR an extra melee attack, perhaps that would be neat? I dunno.
Regarding Tactical vs Intercessor, their base weapon should just remain deadlier, as most of the damage from Tactical Marines is always going to be their special and heavy weapons. You've seen me be a big pain about giving Astartes Bolt weapons a special rule to increase their damage output, as well as making them gain more than just a single of each Special and Heavy at 10 man, which is easily the most outdated thing in this game.
Different units could still operate differently and veterans may not feed to approach combat the same way as the main troop of the army.
That said, I feel like Sternguard mostly just need full special ammo options back while Vanguard need more work overall to work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly though, I don't think giving out free special or heavies fixes Tacticals. Letting them turn into a unit that can shoot twice if they stand still or have an objective in arm's reach though could help them a lot and lets them get more mileage out of their base weapons.
And you're right, the bolt rifle should probably be better, but if the base profile goes to -2 then the stalker goes to -3 and that just seems a bit insane.
I'm absolutely against free weapons. I was more thinking they get an additional of either Special or Heavy at max size, so 10 Man squads get 2 Specials and 1 Heavy, or 2 Heavy and 1 Special. Something of that nature.
Astartes Bolt Weapons don't need super drastic changes. With everything else being suggested overall improving the army, we simply need them to be slightly better. The extra AP mechanic is overdone, hence why I always suggest forcing successful saves to be rerolled against would rolls of 6+. With the amount of rerolls to hit and wound, it goes a long way I feel without scaling super horribly, like your example with Bolt Rifles going straight to AP-2 (Deathwatch Intercessors will love you of course).
I'm against Sternguard getting special ammo back as this is the main gimmick of Deathwatch, and GW did show that they could keep Sternguard unique, even if they did a bad job at it. My solution is of course Sternguard getting BS2+, which makes them THE premiere shooting unit compared to Command Vets, who do the same thing but with a free Chainsword which makes them better by default. In fact, when you give them Storm Bolters, the only thing Sternguard can get to really gain an edge is Grav Cannons. I don't think that's worth a lost Chainsword, obviously. So while on that topic:
1. Command Vets get bumped down to 15 points like Wolf Guard got.
2. Sternguard get BS2+ and their Special Issue Bolters are 1 point each.
3. Vanguard get WS2+ and perhaps a single point of AP on the special Chainswords?
4. Terminators get both the WS/BS2+ and an extra attack
I'm always trying to find ways to make sure I don't scale horribly, which is ultimately my goal. I feel I achieve that with some decent success.
I like the changes to the primaris heavy weapon variants- up to heavy 2... that is required.
My personal fix for bolt weapons would be;
All standard bolt weapons (storm, hurricane would need a price hike for this maybe) are ap-1.
Primaris bolt weapons bump up to S5- no change to AP value.
ALL bolt weapons get a bonus on a wound roll of a 6- What this is i dont know, could be and extra shot, extra hit, extra AP, extra damage (this would be interesting against vehicles).
Then all you need to do is fix the marine statline and theyre back in business.
I think the solution to the deathwatch interaction is to tweak their ammo so that the one that currently gives -1 AP does something else and the one that gives -2 AP only gives -1.
I think S5 on the primaris rapid fire version fixes that weapon. Aggressors are fine and don't need any AP. I'd be fine with sternguard having something different than deathwatch if they were still good.
Alternatively, instead of giving bolters AP, you could have hit rolls of 6+ cause an automatic free hit. This is a similar increase in damage and is a more unique ability that doesn't muck with other
AP interactions. I like it more than forced save re-rolls not because that isn't good, but because I think the game has enough re-rolls as is, and it also hurts units with good saves a lot more than ones with bad saves, and enough weapons in the game already do that (ie the entire the AP system), so I wouldn't want it on as abundant a weapon as the bolter.
I like the holy fusilier idea, though it seems more like something that should have been a strategem this whole time. I like it requiring an objective a lot more than requiring the unit to stand still, as I feel like Marines rarely do that (I guess we could ask dark angels players?). I'd be fine if it was only on tacticals and sternguard, since they are the units with a focus on bolters.I think all other squads could use a comparable ability though (such as assault Marines forcing a roll off to fall back from them, or being able to advance and charge, etc).
So a thought that came up this morning as I was waking up was swapping out the "+1 attack" for Black Templar models thing and instead giving Black Templar Infantry, Bikers and Dreadnoughts a special rule. "All Infantry, Biker and Dreadnought models gain the Righteous Zeal special rule (found on [INSERT PAGE NUMBER FOR CRUSADER SQUAD HERE])"
'Righteous Zeal: At the start of the Fight Phase if this unit has suffered an unsaved wound caused by an enemy model this turn, double the attacks characteristic of all models in this unit (apply all other bonuses to the attacks characteristic after doubling it).'
Basically it turns every bit of Overwatch into a game of Chicken and makes it so if they're shot then charged they're pretty scary too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And like the idea of the Primaris bolters being S5 instead. It'd give them a bit more punch without stacking AP all day.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.
The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).
Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.
The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).
Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).
I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.
Considering the reactions when I argued for "fights twice and rerolls failed charges" as CT for BT a while back you're about to get told that you don't have a clue how to balance things.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.
The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).
Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).
I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.
I don't think that charge re-rolls should get dropped honestly. They're too necessary for a faction that needs to get into combat.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.
The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).
Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).
I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.
I don't think that charge re-rolls should get dropped honestly. They're too necessary for a faction that needs to get into combat.
Agreed. In that case though I'd make that ability a strategem rather than something they just get.
Speaking of them needing to get into combat, though, I think Grimaldus should give reroll wounds in the fight phase so there is a point in taking him and halbrect together.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.
The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).
Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).
I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.
I don't think that charge re-rolls should get dropped honestly. They're too necessary for a faction that needs to get into combat.
Agreed. In that case though I'd make that ability a strategem rather than something they just get.
Speaking of them needing to get into combat, though, I think Grimaldus should give reroll wounds in the fight phase so there is a point in taking him and halbrect together.
Turning that into a Strategem would literally kill Black templars. They NEED the reliability.
Speaking of Templars (sort of), here was the thing I was looking at adding to Chaplains:
Chaplain Cassius: Add "Armour of Contempt: Chaplain Cassius may attempt to deny two psychic powers in each enemy Psychic phase as long as the enemy Psyker attempting to manifest the powers is within 12 inches"
Chaplain Grimaldus: Add "Armour of Contempt: Chaplain Grimaldus may attempt to deny two psychic powers in each enemy Psychic phase as long as the enemy Psyker attempting to manifest the powers is within 12 inches"
Chaplain in Terminator armour: Add "Armour of Contempt: This model may attempt to deny one psychic powers in each enemy Psychic phase as long as the enemy Psyker attempting to manifest the powers is within 12 inches"
Chaplain: Add "Armour of Contempt: This model may attempt to deny one psychic powers in each enemy Psychic phase as long as the enemy Psyker attempting to manifest the powers is within 12 inches"
Primaris Chaplain: Add "Armour of Contempt: This model may attempt to deny one psychic powers in each enemy Psychic phase as long as the enemy Psyker attempting to manifest the powers is within 12 inches"
And as for Assault Marines, perhaps a rule where you roll for every model that completes a successful charge and on a 6+ they inflict a mortal wound (5+ for Vanguard Vets)?
Ice_can wrote: Wow do you hate Ultramarines with some passion.
You've given them no improvement and massively nerfed their unique warlord trait, which is rarely used outside of named charictors as marine strategums are so hot garbage.
While I get you dont want to turn Raven guard into the next Alitoc Eldar OPBS. Marine vehicals are made of paper for their points and need some serious survivability improvements to be worth fielding.
That is the reason everone when straight to flyers then FW dreadnaughts with invulnerable saves.
18 inch flamestorm guantlets are broken as feth, especially when you add double shooting(aggressors built in bonus rule)
Heavy Plasma doesn't need 2 shots. It is where it should be the problem is GW decieded to +1 to plasma's strength in the change to 8th edition presumably as primaris marines rely on plasma for their anti tank. When they undo that mistake the problem goes away.
Ultramarine need the least amount of help and with buffs elsewhere in the units they can take, this can't be for real
The guy he was responding to suggested that the ultra marine regen command points WLT become a vanilla trait. Plus buffed everyone's chapter tactic and said the ultramarine tactic was fine. Ultras trait is hands down the worst. It's really the only trait that deserves to be buffed when you compare to other armies.
Luck /=/ Math
I've lost an entire squad of termies in one turn to lasgun fire or a dark reaper shooting phase.
Aaah so because luck means my castellan can fail to kill even single IG trooper that means castellan is too weak and needs to be buffed!
You guys...I've already done this.
A 5 man term squad is 200 points
For 200 points in gaurdsman you get 3 10 mans and 2 CC. 180 points. does 3.5 wounds. If you add in the remaining 20 points is gaurdsmen this number got to over 4 wounds. Or in other words - 80 points of damage - to a unit that is supposedly good against an equal points cost of the lightest firepower in the game. Terms are trash - vs whatever you shoot them with. equal points of agressors is an even bigger joke. They need - more wounds. The solution is so simple.
Ice_can wrote: Wow do you hate Ultramarines with some passion.
You've given them no improvement and massively nerfed their unique warlord trait, which is rarely used outside of named charictors as marine strategums are so hot garbage.
While I get you dont want to turn Raven guard into the next Alitoc Eldar OPBS. Marine vehicals are made of paper for their points and need some serious survivability improvements to be worth fielding.
That is the reason everone when straight to flyers then FW dreadnaughts with invulnerable saves.
18 inch flamestorm guantlets are broken as feth, especially when you add double shooting(aggressors built in bonus rule)
Heavy Plasma doesn't need 2 shots. It is where it should be the problem is GW decieded to +1 to plasma's strength in the change to 8th edition presumably as primaris marines rely on plasma for their anti tank. When they undo that mistake the problem goes away.
Ultramarine need the least amount of help and with buffs elsewhere in the units they can take, this can't be for real
The guy he was responding to suggested that the ultra marine regen command points WLT become a vanilla trait. Plus buffed everyone's chapter tactic and said the ultramarine tactic was fine. Ultras trait is hands down the worst. It's really the only trait that deserves to be buffed when you compare to other armies.
Luck /=/ Math
I've lost an entire squad of termies in one turn to lasgun fire or a dark reaper shooting phase.
Aaah so because luck means my castellan can fail to kill even single IG trooper that means castellan is too weak and needs to be buffed!
You guys...I've already done this.
A 5 man term squad is 200 points
For 200 points in gaurdsman you get 3 10 mans and 2 CC. 180 points. does 3.5 wounds. If you add in the remaining 20 points is gaurdsmen this number got to over 4 wounds. Or in other words - 80 points of damage - to a unit that is supposedly good against an equal points cost of the lightest firepower in the game. Terms are trash - vs whatever you shoot them with. equal points of agressors is an even bigger joke. They need - more wounds. The solution is so simple.
Riiiiiight...
Did you try shooting with the Terminators first or shooting first with the proposed BS2+? In an exchange of fire when Terminators go first they're okay.
The more I read this thread, the more it looks like it belongs in 40K Proposed Rules. This is not s response to GW that there are areas of imbalance in Codex Space Marines that if fixed will lead to a better game experience. This is a wide scale rewrite of not only Codex Space Marines, but any unit or wargear entry that if found wanting by the OP and collaborators view of how space marines should work in 40K.
Anyone can tell that given the wide-ranging rewrite of the rules that presenting these to GW will result in a quick trip the round file.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.
The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).
Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).
I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.
I don't think that charge re-rolls should get dropped honestly. They're too necessary for a faction that needs to get into combat.
Agreed. In that case though I'd make that ability a strategem rather than something they just get.
Speaking of them needing to get into combat, though, I think Grimaldus should give reroll wounds in the fight phase so there is a point in taking him and halbrect together.
Turning that into a Strategem would literally kill Black templars. They NEED the reliability.
They need the reliability of getting extra attacks if they happen to lose wounds to overwatch? That seems pretty far fetched. If Marines are fixed to be decent at close combat, then black Templars would be pretty good at it with additional charge re-rolls, characters giving them full re-rolls, exploding 6s, and +1S.
But then I think chapter tactics should be fairly minimal bonuses on top of fully functional factions, and think strategems and characters should add in the really crazy stuff. I understand if other people might have a different point of view, though.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.
The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).
Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).
I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.
I don't think that charge re-rolls should get dropped honestly. They're too necessary for a faction that needs to get into combat.
Agreed. In that case though I'd make that ability a strategem rather than something they just get.
Speaking of them needing to get into combat, though, I think Grimaldus should give reroll wounds in the fight phase so there is a point in taking him and halbrect together.
Turning that into a Strategem would literally kill Black templars. They NEED the reliability.
They need the reliability of getting extra attacks if they happen to lose wounds to overwatch? That seems pretty far fetched. If Marines are fixed to be decent at close combat, then black Templars would be pretty good at it with additional charge re-rolls, characters giving them full re-rolls, exploding 6s, and +1S.
But then I think chapter tactics should be fairly minimal bonuses on top of fully functional factions, and think strategems and characters should add in the really crazy stuff. I understand if other people might have a different point of view, though.
I misunderstood your post and thought you said that rerolling charges should be the Strategem.
alextroy wrote: The more I read this thread, the more it looks like it belongs in 40K Proposed Rules. This is not s response to GW that there are areas of imbalance in Codex Space Marines that if fixed will lead to a better game experience. This is a wide scale rewrite of not only Codex Space Marines, but any unit or wargear entry that if found wanting by the OP and collaborators view of how space marines should work in 40K.
Anyone can tell that given the wide-ranging rewrite of the rules that presenting these to GW will result in a quick trip the round file.
alextroy wrote: The more I read this thread, the more it looks like it belongs in 40K Proposed Rules. This is not s response to GW that there are areas of imbalance in Codex Space Marines that if fixed will lead to a better game experience. This is a wide scale rewrite of not only Codex Space Marines, but any unit or wargear entry that if found wanting by the OP and collaborators view of how space marines should work in 40K.
Anyone can tell that given the wide-ranging rewrite of the rules that presenting these to GW will result in a quick trip the round file.
As the person who started this thread, it's really not a proposed rules section as much as it is an attempt to find the units that no one takes, figure out why they don't take them, figure out what they would need to be taken (excluding points because that is the lazy answer that doesn't fix things) and once I've got ALL of that put together into a mass document it's going in the mail to GW as a mass community feedback (plus a box of candy to bribe them for their time).
It's not an attempt to get GW to just print rules as much as it is "we're looking for something like X to make Y worth taking (and buying) again".
alextroy wrote: The more I read this thread, the more it looks like it belongs in 40K Proposed Rules. This is not s response to GW that there are areas of imbalance in Codex Space Marines that if fixed will lead to a better game experience. This is a wide scale rewrite of not only Codex Space Marines, but any unit or wargear entry that if found wanting by the OP and collaborators view of how space marines should work in 40K.
Anyone can tell that given the wide-ranging rewrite of the rules that presenting these to GW will result in a quick trip the round file.
As the person who started this thread, it's really not a proposed rules section as much as it is an attempt to find the units that no one takes, figure out why they don't take them, figure out what they would need to be taken (excluding points because that is the lazy answer that doesn't fix things) and once I've got ALL of that put together into a mass document it's going in the mail to GW as a mass community feedback (plus a box of candy to bribe them for their time).
It's not an attempt to get GW to just print rules as much as it is "we're looking for something like X to make Y worth taking (and buying) again".
The reason this belongs in proposed rules is because you've specifically focused and limited your suggestions to rules based solutions. This weird aversion to points balancing discussion, despite being a very valid solution for several units, creates a thread that's sole purpose is to propose rules changes exclusively. That seems pretty clear
alextroy wrote: The more I read this thread, the more it looks like it belongs in 40K Proposed Rules. This is not s response to GW that there are areas of imbalance in Codex Space Marines that if fixed will lead to a better game experience. This is a wide scale rewrite of not only Codex Space Marines, but any unit or wargear entry that if found wanting by the OP and collaborators view of how space marines should work in 40K.
Anyone can tell that given the wide-ranging rewrite of the rules that presenting these to GW will result in a quick trip the round file.
As the person who started this thread, it's really not a proposed rules section as much as it is an attempt to find the units that no one takes, figure out why they don't take them, figure out what they would need to be taken (excluding points because that is the lazy answer that doesn't fix things) and once I've got ALL of that put together into a mass document it's going in the mail to GW as a mass community feedback (plus a box of candy to bribe them for their time).
It's not an attempt to get GW to just print rules as much as it is "we're looking for something like X to make Y worth taking (and buying) again".
The reason this belongs in proposed rules is because you've specifically focused and limited your suggestions to rules based solutions. This weird aversion to points balancing discussion, despite being a very valid solution for several units, creates a thread that's sole purpose is to propose rules changes exclusively. That seems pretty clear
Points drops are always everyone's first solution to fix units but it doesn't actually fix units like Tacticals (scouts would still be cheaper) and pushing the points costs of Assault Marines down to effective ranges puts them at near Scion levels which is laughable.
I'm not against point changes, but at the end of the day, if you say "points drop" and fail to actually address the specific issues that plague the codex, how can you then point out the specific issues as why no one uses things? Even if people don't want to submit ideas, at least submitting why they don't use units still helps because it helps paint a more detailed image on what's wrong with parts of the codex.
So even if you don't have proposed rule changes, you can still go "X is useless because of A, B, C and D" and we can work with that as a basis for addressing everything as a whole.
ClockworkZion wrote: Points drops are always everyone's first solution to fix units but it doesn't actually fix units like Tacticals (scouts would still be cheaper) and pushing the points costs of Assault Marines down to effective ranges puts them at near Scion levels which is laughable.
I'm not against point changes, but at the end of the day, if you say "points drop" and fail to actually address the specific issues that plague the codex, how can you then point out the specific issues as why no one uses things? Even if people don't want to submit ideas, at least submitting why they don't use units still helps because it helps paint a more detailed image on what's wrong with parts of the codex.
So even if you don't have proposed rule changes, you can still go "X is useless because of A, B, C and D" and we can work with that as a basis for addressing everything as a whole.
Really? I see assumptions on your side.
Why do Scouts have to be cheaper than Tactical Marines? If you put a basic Scout next to a basic Tactical Marine, what are the differences? 4+ Armor and Concealed Positions versus 3+ Armor Save. Given the way the game is played, it can easily be argued that Scouts Concealed Positions rule means they should be worth more points than Tactical Marines? Wouldn't that be better feedback to give GW then deciding to give them new rules for Power Armor, Terminator Armor, and Custodes Armor?
Any why is points value not a valid reason to not use a unit? People don't use Tactical Marines because they are not worth the points. Scouts are cheaper and are still only used in a minimal capacity (3 5-Model Scout Units as the required Troops to build a Battalion with Smash Captains).
As for dropping the cost of Marines to nearly Scion level, while it may sound silly, it just might be the right points level. A Tactical Marine is slightly more than twice as destructive then a Guardsman and bit less than twice a resilient as a Guardsman, model for model. Doesn't that mean they should be around twice as expensive? Isn't that easier and better feedback than rewriting half of the Imperium so that you can give Tactical Marines better bolters and power armor? Do you really think you would not see more Tactical Marines if Guardsmen were 5 points and both Scouts and Tacticals were 11?
ClockworkZion wrote: Points drops are always everyone's first solution to fix units but it doesn't actually fix units like Tacticals (scouts would still be cheaper) and pushing the points costs of Assault Marines down to effective ranges puts them at near Scion levels which is laughable.
I'm not against point changes, but at the end of the day, if you say "points drop" and fail to actually address the specific issues that plague the codex, how can you then point out the specific issues as why no one uses things? Even if people don't want to submit ideas, at least submitting why they don't use units still helps because it helps paint a more detailed image on what's wrong with parts of the codex.
So even if you don't have proposed rule changes, you can still go "X is useless because of A, B, C and D" and we can work with that as a basis for addressing everything as a whole.
Really? I see assumptions on your side.
Why do Scouts have to be cheaper than Tactical Marines? If you put a basic Scout next to a basic Tactical Marine, what are the differences? 4+ Armor and Concealed Positions versus 3+ Armor Save. Given the way the game is played, it can easily be argued that Scouts Concealed Positions rule means they should be worth more points than Tactical Marines? Wouldn't that be better feedback to give GW then deciding to give them new rules for Power Armor, Terminator Armor, and Custodes Armor?
Any why is points value not a valid reason to not use a unit? People don't use Tactical Marines because they are not worth the points. Scouts are cheaper and are still only used in a minimal capacity (3 5-Model Scout Units as the required Troops to build a Battalion with Smash Captains).
As for dropping the cost of Marines to nearly Scion level, while it may sound silly, it just might be the right points level. A Tactical Marine is slightly more than twice as destructive then a Guardsman and bit less than twice a resilient as a Guardsman, model for model. Doesn't that mean they should be around twice as expensive? Isn't that easier and better feedback than rewriting half of the Imperium so that you can give Tactical Marines better bolters and power armor? Do you really think you would not see more Tactical Marines if Guardsmen were 5 points and both Scouts and Tacticals were 11?
Points values can certainly be a valid reason, but if that's all you contribute you're not digging deeper into the issues of the codex. Saying tacticals should be cheaper because of the decreased value of their armour save, loss of AP and decreased access to good mobility options is a lot better than saying "they're too expensive" as has come up several times in this thread.
And perhaps I do have assumptions, but considering that GW has done nothing so far to increase the value of Scouts to being equal to or above Tacticals it seems the studio doesn't agree that Concealed Positions is worth more than then Tacticals are. Maybe they're considering that you can use Raven Guard to deploy Tacticals in the same manner and basically crossing it off as being balanced.
Honestly the belief that the only solution is to make the army so cheap that they're almost Scion levels points wise is just as big (if not bigger) of an assumption as my belief that the army would be better served not by being pushed towards being another Imperial horde army but by fixing the things that make people not take most of the book.
Now do you have something topical to post here, or are you here to become the next Martel and try and derail the thread with how everything is pointless and even trying to talk to the devs about the army isn't worth the time or that the only fix is by making Marines so cheap that they feel like slightly up armoured Guardsmen?
I like a lot of the ideas, but I have some thoughts and concerns regarding some of them.
So, going over the 2nd draft section –
Ok, so, now the core of my Raven Guard army would be 3 big units of flamer Aggressors using SftSs to then double flame everything within 12” turn 1, whilst having fantastic survivability vs D1 weapons….
If I am honest I don’t like giving a standard SM Warlord the benefit of the Blood Angels and Space Wolves traits when fighting a vehicle or monster. It takes something away from them. “Champion of Humanity” to me should be something like re-rolling everything when targeting a Character in melee. I would take this from the BT “3rd option” and give them something else – maybe an advance and charge for the WL.
I’d also change the White Scars trait. Instead of part 2 only affecting vehicles, I’d change it to include the “biker” keyword as well.
Raven Guard Scouts in cover and using cloaks (just saying…) would have a 1+ save and -1 to hit over 12”s, and a 2+ save without the cloaks. This wouldn’t help you see more Tactical Squads over more Scout squads.
Power swords giving +1 save in combat is a little much imo. Currently a Gravis Captain with Master Crafted Power Sword is 134 points. In combat vs any D1 damage weapon he’d have a 1+ save and reduce damage by 1. I’m all for Marines being harder to kill, but, some of the combinations are just potentially “over the top”. If anything, a power weapons should all get a +1 strength increase.
Clarify the Power Armour rule to only affect armour saves. All is Dust is a neat little spin off which affects invulns, but I don’t think we want 2++ storm shields, or 3+ Iron Halos everywhere.
Salamanders Chapter Tactic , personally I think you can just add 2” to the range of all flamer and melta weapons, instead of the Catachan style rule. It gives them more options, as opposed to somehow trying to force Flamers to work. (plus I don’t think it’s that fluffy to be double rolling for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, nearly forgot – Marines aren’t T’au sept. Noone wants to see another gunline of Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, re-rolling all hits and wounds of 1 whilst over-watching on a 5+. It was also more of a Dark Angels thing previously, not a vanilla concept.
ClockworkZion wrote: Points drops are always everyone's first solution to fix units but it doesn't actually fix units like Tacticals (scouts would still be cheaper) and pushing the points costs of Assault Marines down to effective ranges puts them at near Scion levels which is laughable.
I'm not against point changes, but at the end of the day, if you say "points drop" and fail to actually address the specific issues that plague the codex, how can you then point out the specific issues as why no one uses things? Even if people don't want to submit ideas, at least submitting why they don't use units still helps because it helps paint a more detailed image on what's wrong with parts of the codex.
So even if you don't have proposed rule changes, you can still go "X is useless because of A, B, C and D" and we can work with that as a basis for addressing everything as a whole.
Really? I see assumptions on your side.
Why do Scouts have to be cheaper than Tactical Marines? If you put a basic Scout next to a basic Tactical Marine, what are the differences? 4+ Armor and Concealed Positions versus 3+ Armor Save. Given the way the game is played, it can easily be argued that Scouts Concealed Positions rule means they should be worth more points than Tactical Marines? Wouldn't that be better feedback to give GW then deciding to give them new rules for Power Armor, Terminator Armor, and Custodes Armor?
Any why is points value not a valid reason to not use a unit? People don't use Tactical Marines because they are not worth the points. Scouts are cheaper and are still only used in a minimal capacity (3 5-Model Scout Units as the required Troops to build a Battalion with Smash Captains).
As for dropping the cost of Marines to nearly Scion level, while it may sound silly, it just might be the right points level. A Tactical Marine is slightly more than twice as destructive then a Guardsman and bit less than twice a resilient as a Guardsman, model for model. Doesn't that mean they should be around twice as expensive? Isn't that easier and better feedback than rewriting half of the Imperium so that you can give Tactical Marines better bolters and power armor? Do you really think you would not see more Tactical Marines if Guardsmen were 5 points and both Scouts and Tacticals were 11?
I don't see any reason to hold sacred the current statline, abilities, and special rules of Space Marines, when 8th edition has already drastically changed them from what they were before. The main issues with Marines are pretty clearly the result of 1) the intentional gutting of rules and abilities (Rhino fire points, ATSKNF), 2) being on the losing side of nearly every 7th to 8th rules change (AP system, no attack on the charge, vehicles no longer moving and firing heavy weapons without penalty, the fall back system, the "everything has wounds" system, the new wound table, removal of "counts as troops" abilities, etc), and 3), and a very conservatively written codex with a few problem units (Roboute, the ravenguard trait and strat).
I agree that points changes are more likely to be the first change we see, and although it will help the power of the codex, no realistic price change is going to make units like assault Marines, attack bikes, land speeders, or bikes worth taking because the basic Maine statline and larger tactical situation is fundamentally flawed for an 8th edition ruleset. Marines are actually cheaper per model them they've ever been. It's their rules that changed to make them so terrible, so I don't think it's unreasonable to want the rules to change them again for the better.
To the above poster yeah those are some nasty sounding combos.
But to my question, Are Marine Scouts actually worth 11ppm?
I know alot of people take them to make that marine battalion and I know their setup rules are powerful.
However is that because they are worth 11ppm or just the lease bad option?
IMHO they die like flies and bar the odd fun game rarely get any weapons as they are wiped before they have a hope of earning those points back.
ClockworkZion wrote: Points drops are always everyone's first solution to fix units but it doesn't actually fix units like Tacticals (scouts would still be cheaper) and pushing the points costs of Assault Marines down to effective ranges puts them at near Scion levels which is laughable.
I'm not against point changes, but at the end of the day, if you say "points drop" and fail to actually address the specific issues that plague the codex, how can you then point out the specific issues as why no one uses things? Even if people don't want to submit ideas, at least submitting why they don't use units still helps because it helps paint a more detailed image on what's wrong with parts of the codex.
So even if you don't have proposed rule changes, you can still go "X is useless because of A, B, C and D" and we can work with that as a basis for addressing everything as a whole.
Really? I see assumptions on your side.
Why do Scouts have to be cheaper than Tactical Marines? If you put a basic Scout next to a basic Tactical Marine, what are the differences? 4+ Armor and Concealed Positions versus 3+ Armor Save. Given the way the game is played, it can easily be argued that Scouts Concealed Positions rule means they should be worth more points than Tactical Marines? Wouldn't that be better feedback to give GW then deciding to give them new rules for Power Armor, Terminator Armor, and Custodes Armor?
Any why is points value not a valid reason to not use a unit? People don't use Tactical Marines because they are not worth the points. Scouts are cheaper and are still only used in a minimal capacity (3 5-Model Scout Units as the required Troops to build a Battalion with Smash Captains).
As for dropping the cost of Marines to nearly Scion level, while it may sound silly, it just might be the right points level. A Tactical Marine is slightly more than twice as destructive then a Guardsman and bit less than twice a resilient as a Guardsman, model for model. Doesn't that mean they should be around twice as expensive? Isn't that easier and better feedback than rewriting half of the Imperium so that you can give Tactical Marines better bolters and power armor? Do you really think you would not see more Tactical Marines if Guardsmen were 5 points and both Scouts and Tacticals were 11?
Points values can certainly be a valid reason, but if that's all you contribute you're not digging deeper into the issues of the codex. Saying tacticals should be cheaper because of the decreased value of their armour save, loss of AP and decreased access to good mobility options is a lot better than saying "they're too expensive" as has come up several times in this thread.
And perhaps I do have assumptions, but considering that GW has done nothing so far to increase the value of Scouts to being equal to or above Tacticals it seems the studio doesn't agree that Concealed Positions is worth more than then Tacticals are. Maybe they're considering that you can use Raven Guard to deploy Tacticals in the same manner and basically crossing it off as being balanced.
Honestly the belief that the only solution is to make the army so cheap that they're almost Scion levels points wise is just as big (if not bigger) of an assumption as my belief that the army would be better served not by being pushed towards being another Imperial horde army but by fixing the things that make people not take most of the book.
Now do you have something topical to post here, or are you here to become the next Martel and try and derail the thread with how everything is pointless and even trying to talk to the devs about the army isn't worth the time or that the only fix is by making Marines so cheap that they feel like slightly up armoured Guardsmen?
But has anyone said anything to them about it? I'm serious. The number of points changes since 8th Edition has dropped is so small as to be nearly insignificant to most models in the game. Why not start your feedback at the easiest lever to change rather than rewriting half the game and calling that "feedback"?
I honestly think that GW needs to closely consider every point value in the game. It should be evident to them that the biggest problems are from imbalances and I hope they are smart enough to realize that fixing just one or two units that are undercosted just sends the hordes looking for the next best undercosted option. The best thing the community can do is provide such actual feedback rather than running off on a flight of fancy rewriting the Codex to be the one they would write instead of the one that GW actually wrote.
So am I the next Martel? You tell me. I see myself as a voice for collecting actual feedback. I think GW will listen to comments about what they actually produced much more than a list of fantasy rewrites. I want us to give the the feedback.
Ice_can wrote: To the above poster yeah those are some nasty sounding combos.
But to my question, Are Marine Scouts actually worth 11ppm?
I know alot of people take them to make that marine battalion and I know their setup rules are powerful.
However is that because they are worth 11ppm or just the lease bad option?
IMHO they die like flies and bar the odd fun game rarely get any weapons as they are wiped before they have a hope of earning those points back.
So, currently, based on a T4, 4+ save model, I’d say Scouts aren’t worth 11 points each, but, it is incredibly hard to put a price on their deployment option.
Scouts for me are generally just a distraction unit, a screen or an objective sitter. I’m not overly fussed if they die turn 1 or 2, or if they don’t make their 55 points back, but, I’m always happy if they sit on an objective and score points, or pick up points via maelstrom or ITC secondaries.
This for me, is why it is even harder to take standard marines over them. Marines can’t really do any of that without having a Rhino or something.
Scouts basically do what Rangers do - relatively cheap but with deployment shenanigans. Marginal dakka, but you're paying for the bodies and positioning. Both in armies without cheap troops options.
11ppm is too much for Scouts as a fighting force, but I'm not sure it's substantially too high for Scout utility.
Ice_can wrote: To the above poster yeah those are some nasty sounding combos.
But to my question, Are Marine Scouts actually worth 11ppm?
I know alot of people take them to make that marine battalion and I know their setup rules are powerful.
However is that because they are worth 11ppm or just the lease bad option?
IMHO they die like flies and bar the odd fun game rarely get any weapons as they are wiped before they have a hope of earning those points back.
So, currently, based on a T4, 4+ save model, I’d say Scouts aren’t worth 11 points each, but, it is incredibly hard to put a price on their deployment option.
Scouts for me are generally just a distraction unit, a screen or an objective sitter. I’m not overly fussed if they die turn 1 or 2, or if they don’t make their 55 points back, but, I’m always happy if they sit on an objective and score points, or pick up points via maelstrom or ITC secondaries.
This for me, is why it is even harder to take standard marines over them. Marines can’t really do any of that without having a Rhino or something.
Sounds much like the issue I had when I was trying to work out if they are over or undercosted.
As a unit in game they do little and die easily.
But much like you I find myself usually playing 1 or 2 bare bones squads for either blocking out RavrnGuard/Alpha Legion or boxing in a T1 charge unit.
But has anyone said anything to them about it? I'm serious. The number of points changes since 8th Edition has dropped is so small as to be nearly insignificant to most models in the game. Why not start your feedback at the easiest lever to change rather than rewriting half the game and calling that "feedback"?
I honestly think that GW needs to closely consider every point value in the game. It should be evident to them that the biggest problems are from imbalances and I hope they are smart enough to realize that fixing just one or two units that are undercosted just sends the hordes looking for the next best undercosted option. The best thing the community can do is provide such actual feedback rather than running off on a flight of fancy rewriting the Codex to be the one they would write instead of the one that GW actually wrote.
So am I the next Martel? You tell me. I see myself as a voice for collecting actual feedback. I think GW will listen to comments about what they actually produced much more than a list of fantasy rewrites. I want us to give the the feedback.
I more or less want to second this. Marines are priced like an elite army, but they don't play like one and 8th doesn't favor elites. You can fix that by making Marines better until they feel worth the points, or you can fix it by reducing the points. I honestly think a 10% point reduction across the board and an additional 5% off Terminators, Centurions, and the Land Speeder would fix 90% if the problems with vanilla marines. ...exept the Vindicator, that needs Grinding Advance instead.
There are some obvious issues beyond that but trying to be an elite army in an edition that favors hordes is the majority of the problem.
Obvious issues: (just for reference)
- Vehicles not getting Chapter Traits is dumb, no one else has that problem.
- The Grav Cannon and MultiMelta are blatently over costed, they should be no more expensive than the LasCannon and Plasma Cannon respectively. The special weapons are also blatently over costed compared to the heavies and priced out of order besides.
- Datalink Telemetry and the three Strategems that require three of something need replaced.
- Raven Guard have hands-down the best Chapter Train and Strategem. I don't think the others need a huge rewrite to compete, just bumped a little. Bump Iron Hands from a 6+++ to a 5+++. Add Meltas, Heavy Bolters, and Missile Launchers (with "Inferno Shells" as the justification) to the Salamander strategem. Maybe add "ignore move and fire to-hit penalties" to White Scars and "may reroll damage rolls" (note: damage, not to-wound) to Imperial Fists. That sort of thing.
- Relics probably need another look, the Santic Halo is the only one I'd even consider taking over the Banner of the Emperor Ascendant.
But has anyone said anything to them about it? I'm serious. The number of points changes since 8th Edition has dropped is so small as to be nearly insignificant to most models in the game. Why not start your feedback at the easiest lever to change rather than rewriting half the game and calling that "feedback"?
I honestly think that GW needs to closely consider every point value in the game. It should be evident to them that the biggest problems are from imbalances and I hope they are smart enough to realize that fixing just one or two units that are undercosted just sends the hordes looking for the next best undercosted option. The best thing the community can do is provide such actual feedback rather than running off on a flight of fancy rewriting the Codex to be the one they would write instead of the one that GW actually wrote.
So am I the next Martel? You tell me. I see myself as a voice for collecting actual feedback. I think GW will listen to comments about what they actually produced much more than a list of fantasy rewrites. I want us to give the the feedback.
I more or less want to second this. Marines are priced like an elite army, but they don't play like one and 8th doesn't favor elites. You can fix that by making Marines better until they feel worth the points, or you can fix it by reducing the points. I honestly think a 10% point reduction across the board and an additional 5% off Terminators, Centurions, and the Land Speeder would fix 90% if the problems with vanilla marines. ...exept the Vindicator, that needs Grinding Advance instead.
There are some obvious issues beyond that but trying to be an elite army in an edition that favors hordes is the majority of the problem.
Obvious issues: (just for reference)
- Vehicles not getting Chapter Traits is dumb, no one else has that problem.
- The Grav Cannon and MultiMelta are blatently over costed, they should be no more expensive than the LasCannon and Plasma Cannon respectively. The special weapons are also blatently over costed compared to the heavies and priced out of order besides.
- Datalink Telemetry and the three Strategems that require three of something need replaced.
- Raven Guard have hands-down the best Chapter Train and Strategem. I don't think the others need a huge rewrite to compete, just bumped a little. Bump Iron Hands from a 6+++ to a 5+++. Add Meltas, Heavy Bolters, and Missile Launchers (with "Inferno Shells" as the justification) to the Salamander strategem. Maybe add "ignore move and fire to-hit penalties" to White Scars and "may reroll damage rolls" (note: damage, not to-wound) to Imperial Fists. That sort of thing.
- Relics probably need another look, the Santic Halo is the only one I'd even consider taking over the Banner of the Emperor Ascendant.
Seconded. BA have special problems, in that their chapter trait only functions after 2/3 the army is already dead.
I like a lot of the ideas, but I have some thoughts and concerns regarding some of them.
So, going over the 2nd draft section –
Ok, so, now the core of my Raven Guard army would be 3 big units of flamer Aggressors using SftSs to then double flame everything within 12” turn 1, whilst having fantastic survivability vs D1 weapons….
If I am honest I don’t like giving a standard SM Warlord the benefit of the Blood Angels and Space Wolves traits when fighting a vehicle or monster. It takes something away from them. “Champion of Humanity” to me should be something like re-rolling everything when targeting a Character in melee. I would take this from the BT “3rd option” and give them something else – maybe an advance and charge for the WL.
I’d also change the White Scars trait. Instead of part 2 only affecting vehicles, I’d change it to include the “biker” keyword as well.
Raven Guard Scouts in cover and using cloaks (just saying…) would have a 1+ save and -1 to hit over 12”s, and a 2+ save without the cloaks. This wouldn’t help you see more Tactical Squads over more Scout squads.
Power swords giving +1 save in combat is a little much imo. Currently a Gravis Captain with Master Crafted Power Sword is 134 points. In combat vs any D1 damage weapon he’d have a 1+ save and reduce damage by 1. I’m all for Marines being harder to kill, but, some of the combinations are just potentially “over the top”. If anything, a power weapons should all get a +1 strength increase.
Clarify the Power Armour rule to only affect armour saves. All is Dust is a neat little spin off which affects invulns, but I don’t think we want 2++ storm shields, or 3+ Iron Halos everywhere.
Salamanders Chapter Tactic , personally I think you can just add 2” to the range of all flamer and melta weapons, instead of the Catachan style rule. It gives them more options, as opposed to somehow trying to force Flamers to work. (plus I don’t think it’s that fluffy to be double rolling for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, nearly forgot – Marines aren’t T’au sept. Noone wants to see another gunline of Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, re-rolling all hits and wounds of 1 whilst over-watching on a 5+. It was also more of a Dark Angels thing previously, not a vanilla concept.
I like a lot of the ideas, but I have some thoughts and concerns regarding some of them.
So, going over the 2nd draft section –
Ok, so, now the core of my Raven Guard army would be 3 big units of flamer Aggressors using SftSs to then double flame everything within 12” turn 1, whilst having fantastic survivability vs D1 weapons….
If I am honest I don’t like giving a standard SM Warlord the benefit of the Blood Angels and Space Wolves traits when fighting a vehicle or monster. It takes something away from them. “Champion of Humanity” to me should be something like re-rolling everything when targeting a Character in melee. I would take this from the BT “3rd option” and give them something else – maybe an advance and charge for the WL.
I’d also change the White Scars trait. Instead of part 2 only affecting vehicles, I’d change it to include the “biker” keyword as well.
Raven Guard Scouts in cover and using cloaks (just saying…) would have a 1+ save and -1 to hit over 12”s, and a 2+ save without the cloaks. This wouldn’t help you see more Tactical Squads over more Scout squads.
Power swords giving +1 save in combat is a little much imo. Currently a Gravis Captain with Master Crafted Power Sword is 134 points. In combat vs any D1 damage weapon he’d have a 1+ save and reduce damage by 1. I’m all for Marines being harder to kill, but, some of the combinations are just potentially “over the top”. If anything, a power weapons should all get a +1 strength increase.
Clarify the Power Armour rule to only affect armour saves. All is Dust is a neat little spin off which affects invulns, but I don’t think we want 2++ storm shields, or 3+ Iron Halos everywhere.
Salamanders Chapter Tactic , personally I think you can just add 2” to the range of all flamer and melta weapons, instead of the Catachan style rule. It gives them more options, as opposed to somehow trying to force Flamers to work. (plus I don’t think it’s that fluffy to be double rolling for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, nearly forgot – Marines aren’t T’au sept. Noone wants to see another gunline of Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, re-rolling all hits and wounds of 1 whilst over-watching on a 5+. It was also more of a Dark Angels thing previously, not a vanilla concept.
So charge the Raven Guard Scouts?
The thing is, if it was changed in that way, i'd just have my scouts back field 90% of the time, and have the aggressors SftSs. I still gain reasonable board control that way and, if needed i can always use 1 squad of scouts for setup a drop zone. It just means that i'd never need to use Intercessors or Tac Marines for backfield objectives ever again, as there would be no point. Sure, you can deep strike in turn 2 and prob charge the scouts then or in turn 3, but, by that point i probably won't be that bothered as i'd have picked up the points i want and likely still have something else backfield to help support them.
I like a lot of the ideas, but I have some thoughts and concerns regarding some of them.
So, going over the 2nd draft section –
Ok, so, now the core of my Raven Guard army would be 3 big units of flamer Aggressors using SftSs to then double flame everything within 12” turn 1, whilst having fantastic survivability vs D1 weapons….
If I am honest I don’t like giving a standard SM Warlord the benefit of the Blood Angels and Space Wolves traits when fighting a vehicle or monster. It takes something away from them. “Champion of Humanity” to me should be something like re-rolling everything when targeting a Character in melee. I would take this from the BT “3rd option” and give them something else – maybe an advance and charge for the WL.
I’d also change the White Scars trait. Instead of part 2 only affecting vehicles, I’d change it to include the “biker” keyword as well.
Raven Guard Scouts in cover and using cloaks (just saying…) would have a 1+ save and -1 to hit over 12”s, and a 2+ save without the cloaks. This wouldn’t help you see more Tactical Squads over more Scout squads.
Power swords giving +1 save in combat is a little much imo. Currently a Gravis Captain with Master Crafted Power Sword is 134 points. In combat vs any D1 damage weapon he’d have a 1+ save and reduce damage by 1. I’m all for Marines being harder to kill, but, some of the combinations are just potentially “over the top”. If anything, a power weapons should all get a +1 strength increase.
Clarify the Power Armour rule to only affect armour saves. All is Dust is a neat little spin off which affects invulns, but I don’t think we want 2++ storm shields, or 3+ Iron Halos everywhere.
Salamanders Chapter Tactic , personally I think you can just add 2” to the range of all flamer and melta weapons, instead of the Catachan style rule. It gives them more options, as opposed to somehow trying to force Flamers to work. (plus I don’t think it’s that fluffy to be double rolling for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, nearly forgot – Marines aren’t T’au sept. Noone wants to see another gunline of Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, re-rolling all hits and wounds of 1 whilst over-watching on a 5+. It was also more of a Dark Angels thing previously, not a vanilla concept.
So charge the Raven Guard Scouts?
The thing is, if it was changed in that way, i'd just have my scouts back field 90% of the time, and have the aggressors SftSs. I still gain reasonable board control that way and, if needed i can always use 1 squad of scouts for setup a drop zone. It just means that i'd never need to use Intercessors or Tac Marines for backfield objectives ever again, as there would be no point. Sure, you can deep strike in turn 2 and prob charge the scouts then or in turn 3, but, by that point i probably won't be that bothered as i'd have picked up the points i want and likely still have something else backfield to help support them.
So it's as if Raven Guard would be operating like they should! Crazy.
Also if someone really wants to spend that many points to camp a Scout squad to do nothing but hold an objective, that's their prerogative.
But has anyone said anything to them about it? I'm serious. The number of points changes since 8th Edition has dropped is so small as to be nearly insignificant to most models in the game. Why not start your feedback at the easiest lever to change rather than rewriting half the game and calling that "feedback"?
I honestly think that GW needs to closely consider every point value in the game. It should be evident to them that the biggest problems are from imbalances and I hope they are smart enough to realize that fixing just one or two units that are undercosted just sends the hordes looking for the next best undercosted option. The best thing the community can do is provide such actual feedback rather than running off on a flight of fancy rewriting the Codex to be the one they would write instead of the one that GW actually wrote.
So am I the next Martel? You tell me. I see myself as a voice for collecting actual feedback. I think GW will listen to comments about what they actually produced much more than a list of fantasy rewrites. I want us to give the the feedback.
I more or less want to second this. Marines are priced like an elite army, but they don't play like one and 8th doesn't favor elites. You can fix that by making Marines better until they feel worth the points, or you can fix it by reducing the points. I honestly think a 10% point reduction across the board and an additional 5% off Terminators, Centurions, and the Land Speeder would fix 90% if the problems with vanilla marines. ...exept the Vindicator, that needs Grinding Advance instead.
There are some obvious issues beyond that but trying to be an elite army in an edition that favors hordes is the majority of the problem.
Obvious issues: (just for reference)
- Vehicles not getting Chapter Traits is dumb, no one else has that problem.
- The Grav Cannon and MultiMelta are blatently over costed, they should be no more expensive than the LasCannon and Plasma Cannon respectively. The special weapons are also blatently over costed compared to the heavies and priced out of order besides.
- Datalink Telemetry and the three Strategems that require three of something need replaced.
- Raven Guard have hands-down the best Chapter Train and Strategem. I don't think the others need a huge rewrite to compete, just bumped a little. Bump Iron Hands from a 6+++ to a 5+++. Add Meltas, Heavy Bolters, and Missile Launchers (with "Inferno Shells" as the justification) to the Salamander strategem. Maybe add "ignore move and fire to-hit penalties" to White Scars and "may reroll damage rolls" (note: damage, not to-wound) to Imperial Fists. That sort of thing.
- Relics probably need another look, the Santic Halo is the only one I'd even consider taking over the Banner of the Emperor Ascendant.
Seconded. BA have special problems, in that their chapter trait only functions after 2/3 the army is already dead.
I have to take a moment to acknowledge that the Predator being 30ish points more than a Dreadnaught and about the same as as a Venerable with equivalent weapon layouts doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Sorry for the lack of responses. Being told over and over that I'm basically wasting my time combined with work has burnt me out a little bit so I'm stepping back from the internet for a day or so to recharge my batteries. I appreciate the responses you guys have had. It's honestly been great and it's good to know that there are other people who as passionately about the game as I do (even if their passion is directed towards telling me that I'm doing it all wrong and that we should be running Space Marines priced slightly more than Scions).
Look, I get it, there are a lot of ways to skin a gyrinx after all, and some people have taken some issue with my approach, and I get it. My intent wasn't to shut down the idea that points changes may be needed (heck some changes could even push the points of units up instead), but rather to try and get people to look past the idea of "this is too expensive" and say why it's too expensive. What is the unit lacking? What makes it feel like a bad deal? We need to get into the grit of the problem if we have any chance of addressing this with sufficient detail for the devs to see why we feel there is a problem with parts of the codex.
For what it's worth, I get the distinct impression that the Predator, Vindicator, Whirlwind, and Land Speeder were all priced with their Strategems in mind.
For the Predator and Vindicator I'd be ok-ish with the strategem doing 1/3 of what it currently does but only requiring one tank on the table to use it. The speed boost for having three Speeders on the table falls into the same category.
Datalink Telemetry is a whole different problem since it requires putting a fragile Speeder much closer to the enemy than it wants to be. If it required (just for example) a Fast Attack unit instead of specifically a Land Speeder that wouldn't be so bad.
While this is more wishlisting, FA might not be ideal because it doesn't seem like the role ASM should take. On the other hand, Scouts make perfect sense.
ClockworkZion wrote: Sorry for the lack of responses. Being told over and over that I'm basically wasting my time combined with work has burnt me out a little bit so I'm stepping back from the internet for a day or so to recharge my batteries. I appreciate the responses you guys have had. It's honestly been great and it's good to know that there are other people who as passionately about the game as I do (even if their passion is directed towards telling me that I'm doing it all wrong and that we should be running Space Marines priced slightly more than Scions).
Look, I get it, there are a lot of ways to skin a gyrinx after all, and some people have taken some issue with my approach, and I get it. My intent wasn't to shut down the idea that points changes may be needed (heck some changes could even push the points of units up instead), but rather to try and get people to look past the idea of "this is too expensive" and say why it's too expensive. What is the unit lacking? What makes it feel like a bad deal? We need to get into the grit of the problem if we have any chance of addressing this with sufficient detail for the devs to see why we feel there is a problem with parts of the codex.
CWZ, I think it is a matter of content of feedback, not the idea of feedback in general. I applaud providing feedback, but see what you are compiling as a wishlist of changes. GW needs to know what is not working and why. However, how to fix that, especially if it involves changing lots of rules in lots of unrelated codexes isn't really feedback.
Here's what I see as valid feedback that I would hope GW would take seriously as constructive criticism:
And They Shall Know No Fear: This rule is a lackluster rule in game play. With high Leadership and expensive cost, it has become common for players to only field minimal size units of Space Marines. This means few Leadership test where there is a real danger of losing any models (have to lose 3 models to fail a Leadership 8 Test). Secondly, when large units are taken, it feels wrong to see Space Marines fleeing from battle like cowards. Finally, when rolling Morale after losing 5 or more models, rerolling can be worst than sticking with the initial roll. Can this rule be improved to get a more Heroic Space Marine? Possibilities are already being used elsewhere in the rules like" "Roll 2 Dice and Keep Lowest"; maximum of 1 Model lost to failed Morale Test; Roll Morale on 1d3 instead of 1d6.
Tactical Marines: In the experience of most players, Tactical Marines have all but disappeared from any competitive game play. They have been abandoned in favor of Scouts or allied Imperial Guard detachments. For Tactical Marines, and similar power armor units, players have found that their improved statistics and weapons compared to a Guardsmen do not payoff in play. A Space Marine with a Bolter is twice a deadly and twice a resilient as a Guardsmen with a Lasgun, but cost three times a much! You live longer and kill more taking Guardsman at a point per point level. To bring the mainstay of the Space Marine chapters back to the battlefield, we need either a better balance of points between Tacticals and other line infantry models from other armies or rules that make them actually worth the higher cost.
ClockworkZion wrote: Sorry for the lack of responses. Being told over and over that I'm basically wasting my time combined with work has burnt me out a little bit so I'm stepping back from the internet for a day or so to recharge my batteries. I appreciate the responses you guys have had. It's honestly been great and it's good to know that there are other people who as passionately about the game as I do (even if their passion is directed towards telling me that I'm doing it all wrong and that we should be running Space Marines priced slightly more than Scions).
Look, I get it, there are a lot of ways to skin a gyrinx after all, and some people have taken some issue with my approach, and I get it. My intent wasn't to shut down the idea that points changes may be needed (heck some changes could even push the points of units up instead), but rather to try and get people to look past the idea of "this is too expensive" and say why it's too expensive. What is the unit lacking? What makes it feel like a bad deal? We need to get into the grit of the problem if we have any chance of addressing this with sufficient detail for the devs to see why we feel there is a problem with parts of the codex.
CWZ, I think it is a matter of content of feedback, not the idea of feedback in general. I applaud providing feedback, but see what you are compiling as a wishlist of changes. GW needs to know what is not working and why. However, how to fix that, especially if it involves changing lots of rules in lots of unrelated codexes isn't really feedback.
Here's what I see as valid feedback that I would hope GW would take seriously as constructive criticism:
And They Shall Know No Fear: This rule is a lackluster rule in game play. With high Leadership and expensive cost, it has become common for players to only field minimal size units of Space Marines. This means few Leadership test where there is a real danger of losing any models (have to lose 3 models to fail a Leadership 8 Test). Secondly, when large units are taken, it feels wrong to see Space Marines fleeing from battle like cowards. Finally, when rolling Morale after losing 5 or more models, rerolling can be worst than sticking with the initial roll. Can this rule be improved to get a more Heroic Space Marine? Possibilities are already being used elsewhere in the rules like" "Roll 2 Dice and Keep Lowest"; maximum of 1 Model lost to failed Morale Test; Roll Morale on 1d3 instead of 1d6.
Tactical Marines: In the experience of most players, Tactical Marines have all but disappeared from any competitive game play. They have been abandoned in favor of Scouts or allied Imperial Guard detachments. For Tactical Marines, and similar power armor units, players have found that their improved statistics and weapons compared to a Guardsmen do not payoff in play. A Space Marine with a Bolter is twice a deadly and twice a resilient as a Guardsmen with a Lasgun, but cost three times a much! You live longer and kill more taking Guardsman at a point per point level. To bring the mainstay of the Space Marine chapters back to the battlefield, we need either a better balance of points between Tacticals and other line infantry models from other armies or rules that make them actually worth the higher cost.
Correct - Right now they play like 10 point models. So make them 10 point models. Or double their durability and make them cost 14. I know the idea of "space marine spam" scares people but is it really any worse than infantry squad spam? Cultist spam? Firewarrior spam? No. In fact - it's hard to disagree that this would just look awesome to see space marines on the field again.
Primaris could do with a rule like -1 damage and give them more weapon options at their current price. Stalker bolters gain Sniper rule.
Hero Weapons like Master crafter bolters should be more powerful - the should basically be as powerful as relic storm bolters are now. (I mean they are competing with commanders that can take specials - archons that can take blasters - autarchs that can take fusion and reeper launchers) Come on man.
All vehicals should gain access to CT. Most of them should drop by 15-20% in price too. Landraiders and repulsors get 5++ saves and drop up to 25%
Heavy weapons drop in price Grav cannon = 20 - rocket =20 lascannon = 20 plasma cannon =15 MM=15
Orbital bombardment basically get the stats of infernal gateway.
All PA marines get an equal base drop to tacticals or get +1 wound
Agressors ge 2+ armor
Terminators get 3 wounds and reduce damage by 1 and ignore negative modifers.
These are the kinds of changes marines need. It's like playing with a 300 point handicap playing marines these days.
jcd386 wrote: I can only assume he means from moving and shooting, and using hammers/fists.
Moving and shooting is basically a rule they had before, so I'm guessing that. Though it's a pretty minor buff given you're only having one Heavy weapon per 5 Termies.
jcd386 wrote: I can only assume he means from moving and shooting, and using hammers/fists.
Moving and shooting is basically a rule they had before, so I'm guessing that. Though it's a pretty minor buff given you're only having one Heavy weapon per 5 Termies.
I don't think that's what was meant. If it was, then all's well there.
The last thing Landraiders need is to be paying for a 5++ when is functionally redundant for 90% of weapons with its 2+.
A Landraider would benefit more from a FNP type rule over a redundant invulnerable.
Insectum7 wrote: Just give marines ye 'olde Rapid Fire (shot twice with bolt-weapons when standing still), and then count Terminators as always standing still.
Mmmmmm, 24 + 2d6 shot Aggressors [/Homer]
That's not a bad idea overall though. Kinda messes with the point values of dakka-heavy stuff like the Redeptor that have a lot of shots but nothing with the bolt-weapon keyword.
I'm more just curious, but why don't Terminators hit on a 2+?
It doesn't really make sense to me why Thunderhammers and Powerfists hit on 4+ due to the -1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Just give marines ye 'olde Rapid Fire (shot twice with bolt-weapons when standing still), and then count Terminators as always standing still.
Actually, why did marines suddenly forget how to fury of the legion? I think that would be a great rule for tactical marines to have!
jcd386 wrote: I can only assume he means from moving and shooting, and using hammers/fists.
Moving and shooting is basically a rule they had before, so I'm guessing that. Though it's a pretty minor buff given you're only having one Heavy weapon per 5 Termies.
I don't think that's what was meant. If it was, then all's well there.
If not... Why?
Would it be cool if terms had a rule like dark reapers? With their malicious shooting attacks with storm bolters?!?! Sure it would - I was referring to moving and with power firsts though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It wasn't a bad idea for Marines. But then they gave it to everybody. And now everyone's clamoring for what to give Marines...
Ehh most people think marines are just fine. They also think shinning spears are just fine too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: The last thing Landraiders need is to be paying for a 5++ when is functionally redundant for 90% of weapons with its 2+.
A Landraider would benefit more from a FNP type rule over a redundant invulnerable.
It's not redundant. Anything AP - 4 brings you to a 6+. Eldar have 17 ap-4 weapons in their codex I believe. Knights have access to a lot of Ap-4 and even ap-5. It is a small benefit that it actually shouldn't have to pay for. Expensive 16 wound models should have invo saves. Dark eldar have lots of AP -4. I mean...those are the 3 most powerful armies right now and they have lots of AP-4 - so it's not at all redundant.
ClockworkZion wrote: Sorry for the lack of responses. Being told over and over that I'm basically wasting my time combined with work has burnt me out a little bit so I'm stepping back from the internet for a day or so to recharge my batteries. I appreciate the responses you guys have had. It's honestly been great and it's good to know that there are other people who as passionately about the game as I do (even if their passion is directed towards telling me that I'm doing it all wrong and that we should be running Space Marines priced slightly more than Scions).
Look, I get it, there are a lot of ways to skin a gyrinx after all, and some people have taken some issue with my approach, and I get it. My intent wasn't to shut down the idea that points changes may be needed (heck some changes could even push the points of units up instead), but rather to try and get people to look past the idea of "this is too expensive" and say why it's too expensive. What is the unit lacking? What makes it feel like a bad deal? We need to get into the grit of the problem if we have any chance of addressing this with sufficient detail for the devs to see why we feel there is a problem with parts of the codex.
CWZ, I think it is a matter of content of feedback, not the idea of feedback in general. I applaud providing feedback, but see what you are compiling as a wishlist of changes. GW needs to know what is not working and why. However, how to fix that, especially if it involves changing lots of rules in lots of unrelated codexes isn't really feedback.
Here's what I see as valid feedback that I would hope GW would take seriously as constructive criticism:
And They Shall Know No Fear: This rule is a lackluster rule in game play. With high Leadership and expensive cost, it has become common for players to only field minimal size units of Space Marines. This means few Leadership test where there is a real danger of losing any models (have to lose 3 models to fail a Leadership 8 Test). Secondly, when large units are taken, it feels wrong to see Space Marines fleeing from battle like cowards. Finally, when rolling Morale after losing 5 or more models, rerolling can be worst than sticking with the initial roll. Can this rule be improved to get a more Heroic Space Marine? Possibilities are already being used elsewhere in the rules like" "Roll 2 Dice and Keep Lowest"; maximum of 1 Model lost to failed Morale Test; Roll Morale on 1d3 instead of 1d6.
Tactical Marines: In the experience of most players, Tactical Marines have all but disappeared from any competitive game play. They have been abandoned in favor of Scouts or allied Imperial Guard detachments. For Tactical Marines, and similar power armor units, players have found that their improved statistics and weapons compared to a Guardsmen do not payoff in play. A Space Marine with a Bolter is twice a deadly and twice a resilient as a Guardsmen with a Lasgun, but cost three times a much! You live longer and kill more taking Guardsman at a point per point level. To bring the mainstay of the Space Marine chapters back to the battlefield, we need either a better balance of points between Tacticals and other line infantry models from other armies or rules that make them actually worth the higher cost.
I strongly feel like you're trying to put words in my mouth on what I'm exactly trying to present and how when I haven't even posted a rough draft of what that will look like yet.
I get you mean well but criticize my presentation when you actually see what it is. This is basically data collection right now and you're looking at an end product that hasn't even been written yet.
So in the interest of trying to consolidate which units are the perceived "stinkers" I'm going to list all the ones I know and people should add on if I'm missing anything:
EVERYTHING: Saves aren't as valuable with massed amounts of AP and no mitigation, multiple wounds aren't as valuable as many players rely on D2 weapons for anti-tank/-monster, ATSKNF doesn't mitigate the way a larger squad falls apart if you actually run 10 man units. Additionally everything has trouble killing enough enemy models per turn due to low numbers of shots/attacks when compared to a lot of other armies (due to lower number of models on the table when compared to other armies). If a unit isn't mentioned by name below, it probably has this problem anyways.
All Chaplains: "Everything" +Only buffs melee and LD, but it's aura is easily outdone by a chapter master for re-rolls and Ld isn't important in an edition that punishes 10 man Marine squads
Tacticals: Everything + and a lack of reliable transport options,
Intercessors: Everything +stalker pattern bolt rifle pays for a loss in firepower with no mitigation by allowing for targetting of characters or being heavy 2 to make up for lossed mobility
Scouts: Having access to bolters makes them cheap troops that overlap too much with Tacticals and Intercessors. Perhaps changing them to an "assualt bolter" like the Assault Bolt Rifle (lower AP, 2 shots at 18", assault weapon profile) might mitigate this by making the unit feel more like a harrassment force
Crusaders: Everything +lack of dedicated melee buffs to ensure that when the unit gets into combat it hits harder than a sleeping Tau.
Terminators (all flavors): Everything +Loss of ignoring penalties for moving and shooting (which was part of why they're slower in the first place), Possibly could use a 2+ on BS/WS as well to mitigate combat penalties a bit, but honestly that's likely wishlisting once defensive buffs are applied
Sternguard Vets: Everything +loss of true specialist ammo has hampered what was once a well balanced and flexible unit
Vanguard Vets: Everything +no real bonuses towards melee to mitigate their points costs beyond the veterans +1 attack
Servitors: Suffer too heavily if you have to re-position them during a game for better shooting, loss of repair bonuses for Techmarines
Reivers: Everything +lack of quality attacks in melee means this unit can't hit anything tougher than Gretchin without losing a number of models, the grenade it too short range to hit enemy units when the unit drops in making it almost never used since clever deployment and charge moves are what the unit should be best at but 6" means it never gets used properly.
Aggressor Squad: Everything +flamer variant is too short ranged to ever benefit from the firestorm rule due to needing to constantly advance to get into range (and due to Relentless Assault they pay for that too despite auto-hitting with flamers).
Dreadnoughts (all types): Everything +lack of mitigation for moving and shooting; lack of some built in protection against anti-tank weapons (arguably since every Dreadnought is a former hero they should be Characters at least), lack of ability to take in squads of three, and the fact that this venerable hero of the chapter can't effectively fight hordes with melee variants makes this one often left at home by most people
Centurion Assault Squad: Everything +slow moving melee unit with a lack of strong deployment options and a lack of good melee bonuses
Bike Squad: Everything +taking an all bike army is punished by lowered amounts of CP.
Assault Squad: Everything +lack of melee bonuses for a melee focused unit, lack of ranged options for a unit that seems to be a dedicated harassment unit,
Land Speeders: Everything +loss of fast vehicle bonuses (moving and shooting at reduced or no penalty)
Attack Bike Squad: Everything +loss of "relentless" rules that made it possible to effectively move and fire heavy weapons
Devastators: Everything +loss of reliable extra wounds by taking large squads with bolter marines due to morale issues
Centurions: Everything +slow with a lack of reliable options to get them near their proper targets
Hellblasters: Everything +Heavy Weapon option lacks volume of fire to make it effective against vehicles or to make up for the lowered effectiveness while moving
Tanks (all): Everything +loss of the ability to move and shoot forces tanks to form parking lots instead of using good mobility to move around the board for better positioning, and all variants (save maybe the Land Raiders and Rhinos) should be able to be taken in squads of three (that then split up into separate units). Additionally, the lack of chapter tactics is just silly. The lack of options for dozer blades (which could be melee weapons used on the charge) is also rather odd considering it's a part in almost every vehicle kit. Almost every vehicle has a base points cost that is too high as well.
Predator: Everything +Kill shot is too restrictive to use
Vindicator: Everything +Linebreaker Bombardment is too restrictive to see use
Rhino: Everything +too expensive in its current form, especially since it can't ignore terrain types like flying vehicles and Chimeras can, also lacks fire ports which it had for some time.
Guilliman: Honestly costs too much for what is effectively a Chapter Master reroll buff. If it's really a problem change the reroll to not affect vehicles without the Dreadnought keyword.
Now, did I miss anything, or do I basically have the right idea for the units?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Not sure if you're considering special characters yet, but dear lord Grimaldus needs help. All the problems of a Chaplain at twice the cost.
I lumped him under "Chaplains" for this list.
I feel like the thing Chaplains need is to buff hits and wounds in melee and likely a second kind of support option, like the anti-psyker one I've mentioned (which Templars REALLY need).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Not sure if you're considering special characters yet, but dear lord Grimaldus needs help. All the problems of a Chaplain at twice the cost.
There's definitely a lot wrong with the Special Characters. Compare Calgar, who was already just an okay choice, to Abigail. It's silly how much more Abigail does at the cost of not really being much more expensive. Sicarius only buffs one type of unit in his special aura. Until Marine melee gets better, Khan is bad.
Quite frankly, and this is silly, the only Special character that works outside Calgar in the codex is Tigger and Shrike. Of course one of those is Raven Guard too.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Not sure if you're considering special characters yet, but dear lord Grimaldus needs help. All the problems of a Chaplain at twice the cost.
There's definitely a lot wrong with the Special Characters. Compare Calgar, who was already just an okay choice, to Abigail. It's silly how much more Abigail does at the cost of not really being much more expensive. Sicarius only buffs one type of unit in his special aura. Until Marine melee gets better, Khan is bad.
Quite frankly, and this is silly, the only Special character that works outside Calgar in the codex is Tigger and Shrike. Of course one of those is Raven Guard too.
Less nicknames would let us old folks who don't keep up on "the memes" to know who you're talking about a bit easier.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Not sure if you're considering special characters yet, but dear lord Grimaldus needs help. All the problems of a Chaplain at twice the cost.
There's definitely a lot wrong with the Special Characters. Compare Calgar, who was already just an okay choice, to Abigail. It's silly how much more Abigail does at the cost of not really being much more expensive. Sicarius only buffs one type of unit in his special aura. Until Marine melee gets better, Khan is bad.
Quite frankly, and this is silly, the only Special character that works outside Calgar in the codex is Tigger and Shrike. Of course one of those is Raven Guard too.
Less nicknames would let us old folks who don't keep up on "the memes" to know who you're talking about a bit easier.
Tigurius was a bad autocorrect, but I always refer to Abaddon as Abigail because it's fun.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Not sure if you're considering special characters yet, but dear lord Grimaldus needs help. All the problems of a Chaplain at twice the cost.
There's definitely a lot wrong with the Special Characters. Compare Calgar, who was already just an okay choice, to Abigail. It's silly how much more Abigail does at the cost of not really being much more expensive. Sicarius only buffs one type of unit in his special aura. Until Marine melee gets better, Khan is bad.
Quite frankly, and this is silly, the only Special character that works outside Calgar in the codex is Tigger and Shrike. Of course one of those is Raven Guard too.
Less nicknames would let us old folks who don't keep up on "the memes" to know who you're talking about a bit easier.
Tigurius was a bad autocorrect, but I always refer to Abaddon as Abigail because it's fun.
FW characters are a bit out of my depth here mostly because the main studio might be throwing heavy points costs on FW's stuff, they aren't doing anything to the rules.
Centurion Devastator's big problem isn't getting their guns in range of their proper targets. The big problem with Centurion Devastators is that a base grunt costs more than a Dreadnaught.
I'd also argue that "Everything" should include designing every entry in the army list around being in range of a Captain, Lieutenant, and Ancient at all times and then giving those characters tiny little 6" auras.
The Newman wrote: Centurion Devastator's big problem isn't getting to their proper targets. The big problem with Centurion Devastators is that a base grunt costs more than a Dreadnaught.
Since I keep having to explain why I'm discussing homebrewed solutions, let me show an example of what I'm generally looking at doing starting right off from the backbone of most people's armies, Tactical Marines:
Tactical Marines As the backbone of most player's Marine collections the Tactical Marine has been sitting on a shelf for sometime now. Broadly speaking this has come down to a few things, most of which are tied to how 8th edition's mechanics have shaped the way players see the game. Without getting into some of the hyperbole I've collected, the feeback can be summarized thusly:
1. The unit suffers heavily from AP values as they basically don't get the full mileage out of the points they pay for having a good save2
2. Due to the unit's higher points cost the model count is lower but the volume of fire capable for the unit isn't higher to compensate for the lower number of models
3. The loss of morale protection and the introduction of CP have pushed the army into what is called "MSU" builds: minimum sized units in order to protect from morale losses (because the unit is generally destroyed before the first Astartes retreats) and ensure they can get as many command points as possible
4. Scouts are generally seen as being able to do the same job of Tactical Marines (namely holding objectives and picking off a few enemy models through bolter fire) at a decreased cost which allows for easier access to higher amounts of CP even without the use of allied detachments.
This had lead to a lot of discussion how these problems could be addressed, and while making the base price of the unit members could allow for more Astartes to be taken (some people claiming that they should cost less than 8 points each with basic wargear putting 100 Marines at less than 800 points) it must be noted that it doesn't fix the last problem: there is another unit who can basically do the same job as a Tactical Marine squad, but even cheaper. As such I dug a little deeper to try and get a feel for the sort of things people feel the unit needs to be worth taking instead as a troop choice in more lists:
1. While being a change that basically fits all the Astartes in the army, people want to feel the extra points they pay for armour are worth something, leading to one example of a rule that could be added being presented as an example of the sort of mechanic they hope to see in lieu of something like a significant points cut: "Transhuman Physiology: Astartes are capable of weathering the most deadly firepower seen and fight on through the most grevious of wounds that would fell even the stoutest of humans. Against attacks with a Strength characteristic of 8 or less treat all AP values as being 1 worse than they are to a minimum of 0, and all Damage characteristics as being 1 worse to a minimum of 1. If these values are determined randomly first determine their value then decrease the result by 1."
A mechanic that works in a manner similar to this basically creates a feeling to most players that the armour save is actually worth the points paid for it while also allowing for some difference between units like Sisters of Battle or Inquisition in power armour from needing to pay as many points for the same benefit since they could effectively be cheaper in terms of points. And while it could stuff benefit units like Scouts, the real benefit is for models with 3+ or 2+ Save characteristics as they'd be able to use their full save more often.
2. A lot of ways of "fixing" the potential damage output of a Tactical Squad have been bandied about ranging from Rapid Fire 2 bolters being standard to more detailed ones, but there were two that really stood out: giving bolters -1AP and giving the Tactical Marines a mechanic that allows them to have a greater amount of firepower.
The first portion is undoubtedly one of the stronger changes for the army, and could even present the need for a small point increase on bolt weapons that lack an AP value other than 0 (likely about a point each) depending on, but essentially is presented as a way to add "quality" to offset enemy army "quantity". Naturally this would mean the bolt gun and bolt rifle would have very similar roles, and one proposed method of handling this was to give the bolt rife an additional point of strength so that it is better against T4 and T5 models than the regular bolter is.
The second change that stood out was a way for increasing the unit's firepower, akin to the Horus Heresy legion's Fury of the Legion rule. The general idea for such a mechanic is that the unit has to trade something for the ability to shoot twice and could work something like: "Fury of the Chapter: If this unit has not moved in its preceding movement phase or ends its movement within 3" of an objective marker it may make a second shooting attack immediately following resolution of the first during the shooting phase. This shooting attack may be made against different targets than the first shooting attack."
The first possible change of course benefits units like Scouts just as much as it does other Astartes, but the second possible change ensures that the roles of Scouts and Marines become a lot more varied on the table. Tactical Marines become supporting fire units who specialize in holding objectives whole Scouts can remain cheaper and focused on harassing back line units or protecting other units by forming defensive lines against assaulting units or units that specialize in attacking after coming from reserve.
3. Generally speaking in this edition the game has had a large increase of allies used in armies less for the purposes of thematic combination or to provide much needed support in an area the army is normally weak in (such as providing a melee focused ally for T'au), but almost entirely for providing enough Command Points to fund the use of stratagems. Without a change in how those work the only real way to change this for smaller model count armies would be to include a bonus for only taking <Chapter> detachments, much like how the Dark Eldar gain a bonus for running armies of only Patrol detachments but instead tied to a keyword like Astartes.
Morale, of course, is a different aspect that is shrinking units down to their smallest size and assuming the goal isn't to limit these for armies that have smaller model counts (by, say, limiting them to a single model lost to morale per turn) the possibility of something like ignoring the first model lost each turn for the purposes of morale might work.
In short the changes people have said to be looking for aren't many but are focused on making the durability and damage output of a squad that costs around as much as three Imperial Guard Infantry Squads feel like it's a true threat to most things instead of a speed bump that it better replaced with the cheaper Scout unit.
Is this a little clearer? Do we get that I'm looking to use these to illustrate an idea not as a submission for them to use a homebrewed codex as their own work?
The Newman wrote: Centurion Devastator's big problem isn't getting to their proper targets. The big problem with Centurion Devastators is that a base grunt costs more than a Dreadnaught.
I'd say both are definite problems.
All three of mine are carrying the Cyclone/Heavy Bolter combo, so I might be biased on the range issue.
On the other hand, a base Centurion costing more than a base Dreadnaught is insane regardless of it's weapon load. Resolving any issues with getting it into range isn't going to help with that hanging over the unit.
Edit: That might have come across as overly dismissive. All I'm saying is that I think one of those two problems is a lot bigger than the other.
The Newman wrote: Centurion Devastator's big problem isn't getting to their proper targets. The big problem with Centurion Devastators is that a base grunt costs more than a Dreadnaught.
I'd say both are definite problems.
All three of mine are carrying the Cyclone/Heavy Bolter combo, so I might be biased on the range issue.
On the other hand, a base Centurion costing more than a base Dreadnaught is insane regardless of it's weapon load. Resolving any issues with getting it into range isn't going to help with that hanging over the unit.
Edit: That might have come across as overly dismissive. All I'm saying is that I think one of those two problems is a lot bigger than the other.
Oh I'm not disagreeing that one is likely worse than the other, I'm just saying we shouldn't leave the waddlebot's speed off the table since some weapon loadout choices aren't that long ranged.
ClockworkZion wrote: So in the interest of trying to consolidate which units are the perceived "stinkers" I'm going to list all the ones I know and people should add on if I'm missing anything:
EVERYTHING: Saves aren't as valuable with massed amounts of AP and no mitigation, multiple wounds aren't as valuable as many players rely on D2 weapons for anti-tank/-monster, ATSKNF doesn't mitigate the way a larger squad falls apart if you actually run 10 man units. Additionally everything has trouble killing enough enemy models per turn due to low numbers of shots/attacks when compared to a lot of other armies (due to lower number of models on the table when compared to other armies). If a unit isn't mentioned by name below, it probably has this problem anyways.
All Chaplains: "Everything" +Only buffs melee and LD, but it's aura is easily outdone by a chapter master for re-rolls and Ld isn't important in an edition that punishes 10 man Marine squads
Tacticals: Everything + and a lack of reliable transport options,
Intercessors: Everything +stalker pattern bolt rifle pays for a loss in firepower with no mitigation by allowing for targetting of characters or being heavy 2 to make up for lossed mobility
Scouts: Having access to bolters makes them cheap troops that overlap too much with Tacticals and Intercessors. Perhaps changing them to an "assualt bolter" like the Assault Bolt Rifle (lower AP, 2 shots at 18", assault weapon profile) might mitigate this by making the unit feel more like a harrassment force
Crusaders: Everything +lack of dedicated melee buffs to ensure that when the unit gets into combat it hits harder than a sleeping Tau.
Terminators (all flavors): Everything +Loss of ignoring penalties for moving and shooting (which was part of why they're slower in the first place), Possibly could use a 2+ on BS/WS as well to mitigate combat penalties a bit, but honestly that's likely wishlisting once defensive buffs are applied
Sternguard Vets: Everything +loss of true specialist ammo has hampered what was once a well balanced and flexible unit
Vanguard Vets: Everything +no real bonuses towards melee to mitigate their points costs beyond the veterans +1 attack
Servitors: Suffer too heavily if you have to re-position them during a game for better shooting, loss of repair bonuses for Techmarines
Reivers: Everything +lack of quality attacks in melee means this unit can't hit anything tougher than Gretchin without losing a number of models, the grenade it too short range to hit enemy units when the unit drops in making it almost never used since clever deployment and charge moves are what the unit should be best at but 6" means it never gets used properly.
Aggressor Squad: Everything +flamer variant is too short ranged to ever benefit from the firestorm rule due to needing to constantly advance to get into range (and due to Relentless Assault they pay for that too despite auto-hitting with flamers).
Dreadnoughts (all types): Everything +lack of mitigation for moving and shooting; lack of some built in protection against anti-tank weapons (arguably since every Dreadnought is a former hero they should be Characters at least), lack of ability to take in squads of three, and the fact that this venerable hero of the chapter can't effectively fight hordes with melee variants makes this one often left at home by most people
Centurion Assault Squad: Everything +slow moving melee unit with a lack of strong deployment options and a lack of good melee bonuses
Bike Squad: Everything +taking an all bike army is punished by lowered amounts of CP.
Assault Squad: Everything +lack of melee bonuses for a melee focused unit, lack of ranged options for a unit that seems to be a dedicated harassment unit,
Land Speeders: Everything +loss of fast vehicle bonuses (moving and shooting at reduced or no penalty)
Attack Bike Squad: Everything +loss of "relentless" rules that made it possible to effectively move and fire heavy weapons
Devastators: Everything +loss of reliable extra wounds by taking large squads with bolter marines due to morale issues
Centurions: Everything +slow with a lack of reliable options to get them near their proper targets
Hellblasters: Everything +Heavy Weapon option lacks volume of fire to make it effective against vehicles or to make up for the lowered effectiveness while moving
Tanks (all): Everything +loss of the ability to move and shoot forces tanks to form parking lots instead of using good mobility to move around the board for better positioning, and all variants (save maybe the Land Raiders and Rhinos) should be able to be taken in squads of three (that then split up into separate units). Additionally, the lack of chapter tactics is just silly. The lack of options for dozer blades (which could be melee weapons used on the charge) is also rather odd considering it's a part in almost every vehicle kit. Almost every vehicle has a base points cost that is too high as well.
Predator: Everything +Kill shot is too restrictive to use
Vindicator: Everything +Linebreaker Bombardment is too restrictive to see use
Rhino: Everything +too expensive in its current form, especially since it can't ignore terrain types like flying vehicles and Chimeras can, also lacks fire ports which it had for some time.
Guilliman: Honestly costs too much for what is effectively a Chapter Master reroll buff. If it's really a problem change the reroll to not affect vehicles without the Dreadnought keyword.
Now, did I miss anything, or do I basically have the right idea for the units?
It's a very good summary.
A few comments:
1. I don't think scouts having bolters is an issue at all. Scouts don't really need any changes other than perhaps a 1 point drop and whatever is fine to fix "everything." This seems like a non issue.
2. Guilliman is broken solely because reroll wounds is too difficult to balance. The way it buffs mid strength weapons against high toughness weapons is too strong for an aura buff. He costs so much because with the right units around, the damage buff is immense. He seems lackluster when you bring the wrong guns, though. So if reroll wounds is removed her can cost much less.
3. Cents just need to be more durable. I know this is under everything but it's worth restating.
4. I think librarians need a mention. They are just too pricey for what they do, and most of their spells are lack luster.
5. Not being able to disembark from a rhino anymore after it moves hurts them quite a bit.
6. Special and heavy weapons other than Plasmaguns need more punch.
7. One of the things vanguard are lacking are special rules to seperate their role from that of assault Marines.
ClockworkZion wrote: We've basically well established that the vanilla codex is rather...weak at best. And in the interest of giving GW detailed feedback in hopes that their eventual update to the army comes around I had to ask myself "what would it take to bring this army from being balanced against the index to being balanced against the other armies in the game?"
Let's leave point changes off the table since those are likely coming in Chapter Approved. No, let's talk rules.
First off, Chapter Tactics should apply to every model with the <Chapter> rule save for Servitors. Just because someone is piloting or gunning in a tank doesn't mean he doesn't forget how to fight like a member of his chapter. This is basically an automatic change for most people, but let's go past that and look at all the chapter tactics as well.
The adjustments I feel could help here is making the chapter tactic two parts. The first benefiting the army as a whole, the second which encourages specific builds for the army to both encourage different flavors of Marines to approach the codex differently and bring out a flavor that fits the lore of the army.
The first draft of rules:
Spoiler:
Ultramarines: +1 Leadership; Infantry, Biker and Dreadnoughts may still fire after falling back at -1.
Not much I could really see to change this one. The army is well balanced in terms of benefits and allows players to be a bit more aggressive with less penalty. Honestly this is one I'd leave alone since it works, even if it's not the automatic best option in the book (not counting Guilliman as a bonus to this of course).
White Scars: +2" Advance and Charge (this still means a +8" Turbo Boost); Units can charge in a turn they fell back
Increased charge range lets these guys be more likely to hit and run more often and promotes these guys to the hit and run army.
Imperial Fists: Enemy units don't benefit from cover; Bolt weapons generate additional shots on a hit roll of 6+ (these additional hits don't generate futher hits).
The bolter masters are back basically. This basically makes Imperial Fists the best choice for shooting armies, but pushes them towards being more heavily focused on bolters. Naturally this means the Fortification bonus would be a stratagem instead since it's less likely to even show up in most games but flavorful so shouldn't go away completely.
Black Templars: Reroll failed charges; Infantry, Biker and Dreadnought models gain +1 Attack on a turn they charge, were charged or perform a Heroic Intervention.
With other melee based armies getting bonuses to their actual combat, it only felt right that the OG Power Armoured Horde gets one of their own, and making it so that a Crusader Squad can swing up to 61 times if they're running around at full size (20 models with chainswords = 40 attacks, +20 for a first turn of combat = 60 attacks, +1 for Sword Brother = 61 total). Basically if you want to Black Tide this would be the ultimate bonus for doing so: a bucket of dice.
Salamanders: Re-roll single hit and wound roll per unit each time it shoots and fights; flamer weapons roll two dice and take the highest to determine the number of shots they fire
We all know Salamanders as the masters of having well crafted wargear and burning people alive. This would make flamers more effective for them without getting too silly about it.
Raven Guard: Ignore charge penalties; Infantry models who haven't moved this turn count as being in cover, Infantry models already in cover who haven't moved this turn gain an additional +1 to their cover save.
More reliable charging through terrain to give them a feeling of being ambush specialists (since you usually ambush out of terrain you were hidden in) while changes would need to be made to the CT if the entire army can benefit from the rule to keep the Raven Guard from turning into the best option for running tanks in the codex.
Iron Hands: 6+ to ignore lost wounds; Never lose more than 1 model due to a failed morale check
Basically their hard to remove nature only becomes even harder. With even their vehicles getting a chance to shrug off wounds an Iron Hands army would be the sturdiest choice in the codex by far.
Now naturally the changes wouldn't be limited to just that, so let's keep going.
First, to adjust the Imperial Fists strategem:
Siege Specialists: 2 CP, Use this Stratagem before an Imperial Fists unit attacks in the shooting or fight phase. Until the end of the phase the unit may reroll all to hit, to wound rolls and damage rolls against models with the Building keyword.
Simple, clean and makes the army really good at cracking a building, but at a cost (2 CP due to it rerolling everything against buildings and making it more likely to turn fortifications into rubble with some good rolls).
Now let's make some fixes on the Warlord Traits:
The Imperium's Sword: Re-roll failed charges for your Warlord; +1 attack if you charged or made a Heroic Intervention
If we're giving out bonuses for being aggressive with your warlord, we might as well go full in and make it work on Heroic Interventions too.
Iron Resolve: +1 wound; ignore lost wounds on a roll of a 6, Iron Hands ignore wounds on a roll of a 5 or a 6 instead.
Biggest fix here is making it so Iron Hands don't just ignore it because they already have half the bonus.
Adept of the Codex (Ultramarines): Once per game, if your warlord is alive you may roll a die for each Command Point spent on a Stratagem, on a 5+ you regain that Command Point.
Infinite command point regeneration is a cancer in the game right now and if we're making adjustments we might as well include the few nerfs the army needs too.
I can't comment on Psychic Powers as much as I'd like as I'm not as well versed in using them this editon so I'll let someone else fill in on this and give some ideas how we can adjust what we have to be less "pick X and Y and ignore the rest".
Now I can comment on wargear a bit though, and will:
Stalker bolt rifle: Either Heavy 2 OR allow it to target models like a sniper rifle. If given both benefits it'd need a points bump and I'd rather see it be the army's way of having powered armour snipers or be a weapon for pumping out higher quality of shots from a static position.
Flamestorm gauntlets (shooting): 18" range. Basically it'd have torrent levels of range and make it an actual threat instead of something that can never quite waddle into range.
Heavy Plasma incinerator: Heavy 2. Not a big change, but it'd actually be worth dropping extra points on using this way.
Bolt pistols (on Primaris Models): just make these all Heavy Bolt Pistols. There is no point in giving the faction a unique bolt pistol that matches the bolt rifle if almost no one uses it (especially since we can see the bolt pistol on Primaris models is different than regular bolt pistols).
Terminator armour (all types): Reduce damage from weapons by 1 (to a minimum of 1). D2 weapons keeping these guys on the shelf? Being able to treat those as D1 weapons would go a long way to making Terminators likely to stick around a lot longer.
Second draft:
Spoiler:
Alright, so I started this thing so I might as well go through everything then to get some discussion going about the codex in whole. I'm going to avoid anything that essentially could just get cheaper (from my viewpoint at least) as a fix. The ultimate goal of this will always remain a submission to GW on why the community is neglecting so much of the book's options, what could change about them to make them a viable option for most players, and generally the point is to get away from just making the army cheaper and cheaper until we start looking like a Guard army with better wargear.
There are two main goals I have for this whole submission:
1. Present a method in which an elite army like Space Marines may be reasonably balanced against other armies, particularly horde armies, while keeping in mind that many changes made here will apply to other armies here when taking into considering wargear or the base mechanics of Marines. Many buffs could end up buffing other armies and it could easilly defeat the purpose of the buff if it leaves the army unable to reach a balanced state within the game.
2. Give each chapter in the codex a faction bonus that provides benefits that every unit can enjoy without imbalancing the game while also giving each a specialization bonus that rewards the choosing of certain wargear or unit types creating distinct types of armies within the framework of the greater codex.
To kick things off, let's go back over those Chapter Tactics again, shall we? Don't worry, this isn't a rehash but rather an update.
Now I've gotten some feedback about these already which has helped me refine the rules a bit more. Each will be a two part bonus to the faction, the first something any unit can enjoy, the second a more focused bonus for specific models or weapons to create an army specialization that will allow each chapter to have a disctinct playstyle from each other if a player builds towards it. I want to start with these first because it creates a picture in your mind on how each change might affect one chapter more than another.
Chapter Tactics: If your army is Battle-forged models with the <Chapter> keyword in a Space Marines detachement gain a Chapter Tactic as long as every unit in that detachment is drawn from the same Chapter.
It's a small change to the way the chapter tactics work, but it's a change every Space Marine player can say should apply. It opens the army up to a lot more flexibility and makes vehicles worth taking knowing that you can kit them to work like the rest of your army.
Ultramarines: Codex Discipline: Ultramarines units never lose more than a single model due to a failed morale test. Models with the Character, Dreadnought, or Vehicle keywords instead gain +1 Leadership. Ultramarines units may shoot in the same turn in which they Fall Back.
The change here is to encourage Ultramarine units to form larger units due to a lower fear of morale as well as giving single model units greater protection against effects that target leadership. The penalty for falling back and shooting was removed to coinicide with the previous change to encourage Ultramarine armies to be aggressive in their approach as they can get stuck in with less fear of morale and then step back and open fire with all barrels.
White Scars: Lightning Assault: Whenever a White Scars unit Advances, Charges or Turbo-boosts it moves an additional 2" in addition to the distance rolled (turbo-boosting models move the full 6" plus the additional 2" for a full 8" instead of rolling). Models with the Biker, Infantry or Dreadnought rule may charge on a turn they Fall Back at no penalty. Models with the Vehicle keyword (to include Vehicle models with the Dreadnought keyword) treat their weapons as assault weapons during a turn in which they advanced (ex. Rapid Fire 1 becomes Assault 1, Heavy 3 becomes Heavy 3).
The biggest change here is making the army faster overall. The White Scars are known for modifying even their tanks to go faster and it didn't make any sense that they should be going slower. Additionally, as a chapter that basically hits the enemy as they drive through them the chapter isn't known for slowing down, making the bonus to their charges something that just fits naturally. Generally speaking this is the army that moves the fastest, and can slam into the enemy multiple times to kill it making it so they can keep something tied up on your opponent's turn before breaking free, shooting with your army's suport elements and then hitting that unit again.
Imperial Fists: Siege Masters: Enemy units do not recieve benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by Imperial Fists models, furthermore Imperial Fists re-roll all to-wound and damage rolls against enemy models with the Building keyword. In addition models making a shooting attack with a bolt weapon (any weapon with "bolt" in it's name and Dorn's Arrow are all bolt weapons as is the boltgun half of a combi-weapon) may make an additional to-hit roll for every roll of a 6. These to-hit rolls do not generate additional shots. The non-bolt weapon portion of a combi-weapon additionally does not benefit from this rule.
While I feel the rule towards buildings to be incredibly fluffy, it's not enough to build an army around as it's more situational than something you can build an army around. As such I didn't take it away but rolled it into the first effect as it fits well with their removal of an enemy's army protection mechanic. Making them the army that benefits the most from taking bolter weapons was more to make a nod to their special rule in their previous supplement material. This creates an army with a focus on shooting, but with a key focus on using bolt weapons as the basis of that shooting.
Black Templars: Righteous Zeal: You can re-roll either or both dice when a Black Templar unit fails a charge roll. On a turn a model with this rule charges, was charged or makes a Heroic Intervention add 1 to its Attacks characteristic until the end of the Fight Phase .
The Black Templars are quite clearly the melee focused army in the codex and it needs to show. Making their charges more reliable through rerolls ensures these zealots will make it to combat more often while the extra attack seperates them from their fellow Astartes as being the army that throws the most dice in combat. Basically the intent is to make them feel like an army that benefits from being stuck in, and gets stuck in more often.
Salamanders: Master Artisans: Salamander units with this rule may re-roll a single to-hit and to-wound roll each time they shoot or fight. Additionally when using a weapon that rolls to determine the number of shots or attacks you may roll two dice and take the highest result.
The biggest benefit for this rule is undoubtably to vehicle with lower numbers of shots such as lascannon predators, but also helps weapons that swing the other way by making weapons that roll random number of shots more reliable for the army. Ultimately this makes Salamanders a strong contender for certain heavy weapon options as well as weapons such as the flamer which are less than reliable at times.
Raven Guard: Shadow Masters: Raven Guard units that have not advanced or charged this turn gain the benefits for cover. Models that are already in cover and have not moved instead gain an additional +1 to their cover save bonus. Additionally, when targeting Infantry models with this special rule, your opponent must subtract 1 from their to-hit rolls if they are more than 12" away.
There were two changes here: the first was to make it so the army still has a benefit for their ability to hide themselves and their use of camoflauge, allowing them to feel like the ambush masters they should be, while giving Infantry models the existing bonus as a means of encouraging lists that aren't just a mass of tanks that get a cover bonus in the open.
Iron Hands: The Flesh is Weak: Roll a die each time an Iron Hands model loses a wound. On a unmodified roll of a 6 the damage is ignored and the model does not lose a wound. Models with the Character, Terminator or Dreadnought keywords instead ignore the lost wound on an unmodified roll of 5 or 6. Additionally Iron Hand models with the Vehicle keyword ignore penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Not only are the more heavilly augmented of the chapter more likely to ignore wounds like they do in the lore, though with future proofing so that the mechanic can't be boosted or reduced by any other rules. Of course, the augmented nature of the Iron Hands become the army that benefits from bringing the most heavy weapons, though due to the way the rules work, they'll be different than the ones seen in a Salamanders army due to the benefits being different. This allows two different kind of armies to come out of the codex that both favor heavier weapons, but favor different ones due to the nature of how the rules interact with the weapons.
With how each chapter operates laid out and given a bonus that makes them feel more in line with their lore now it's time to look at the Warlord Traits. Not all of these need to be looked at as most are pretty solid as is and frankly work as viable options for the army that can take them. So in the interest of not making this longer than it already is going to be, let's keep to the ones that actually need addressing:
Angel of Death: Subtract 1 from the Leadership characteristic of enemy units that are within 6" of your Warlord. If your Warlord has slain an enemy Character during the game instead Subtract 2 from the Leadership characterisitic of enemy units within 12" of your Warlord.
Not a big change here, but it encourages you to use your warlord more aggressively to take out enemy characters during the game.
The Imperium's Sword: Re-roll failed charge rolls for your Warlord. Models with the Black Templars keyword instead roll 3 dice and pick the two highest when making charge rolls. In addition in a turn that your Warlord has charged or makes an Heroic Intervention add 1 to their Attacks characteristic until the end of the fight phase.
Biggest changes here were to make it less redundant to Black Templars while also giving a bonus for Heroic Interventions to make it more likely to see the table for armies who need a defensive melee character escorting their deathball on the table.
Iron Resolve: Add 1 to the Wounds characteristic of your warlord. In addition, roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound. On an unmodified roll of a 5 or 6, your Warlord shrugs off the damage and does not lose the wound. Models with the Iron Hands keyword instead ignore a lost wound on an unmodified roll of a 4, 5, or 6.
Due to the proposed changes in the Iron Hands tactic it was basically a necessity to make this work on a 4+ for an Iron Hands warlord. That said, if you want a tank of a character, they're the ones who'll most likely allow you to be one. That's the perks of replacing most of your body with robotic parts I suppose.
Rites of War: Friendly <Chapter> units within 6" of your Warlord automatically pass Morale tests. Additionally units within 6" of your Warlord count as hitting on a 5 or 6 when firing Overwatch.
Biggest change here is to give player better benefit out of the trait for huddling models up on the board. A bonus to overwatch makes this a viable choice for gunline or deathball style armies even when paired with units that don't tend to run full sized squads (Primaris or Devastators for example who don't worry about morale as much).
Champion of Humanity: You can add 1 to all hit and wound rolls made for your Warlord in the Fight phase when targeting an enemy Character or Monster.
Change here is that some of the things you want to throw a beatstick warlord at aren't characters and really any hero of the Imperium should be able to fight either of these things on equal measure.
Adept of the Codex (Ultramarines): While your Warlord is alive and on the table once per phase you may reuse a previously used Stratagem. Stratagems that target friendly units this way may not target the same unit twice, and can not be used to exceed any limitations within the stratagem that limit when they can be used or how many times a game they can be used. Additionally, once per game you may attempt to regain Command Points spent on a stratagem. If you choose to do this, roll a die for each Command Point, on a 2+ that CP is immediately refunded.
Obviously I'm not a fan of the current Adepts of the Codex as unlimited CP regeneration is a broken mechanic in the game when given for free so the change was to make the Ultramarines the more tactically flexible army instead by allowing them to use stratagems more often. This also allows them to partially negate the effects of Agents of Vect by allowing them to reuse a critical statagem that they were denied in that phase.
Oathkeeper (Black Templars): At the beginning of the first Battle Round, but before the first turn begins, your Warlord swears a Vow against the enemy forces. Choose a Vow from the following list and apply it's effects immediately:
Abhor the Witch: Your Warlord can attempt to deny one psychic power per turn as if they were a psyker. If they have the Armour of Contempt special rule they may instead attempt to deny one additional psychic power per turn.
Purge the Heretic: Your Warlord may perform a Heroic Interventions if the enemy are within 6" (instead of 3" and move up to 6" while doing so. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord may roll an extra die and choose the highest when making charge rolls.
Suffer not the Unclean to Live: Your Warlord gains +1 to hit and wound rolls made against models with the Character keywords. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord roll an extra die and choose the highest while Advancing.
This is a long one but generally the idea is to give the Black Templars their vows back. Each has an obvious bonus against a specific enemy in combat, but comes with an additional use that may cause the vows to be taken against other opponents instead. Honestly these likely need work and have been through several versions before I posted these. Ideas and suggestions especialyl welcome here.
With Warlord traits covered, let's talk Wargear. As before I'm only talking about changes here, but the point of these changes is as always going to be with the mind that other armies may see the changes just as well. As such there won't be as much changed her because any bonus to bolters (for example) would equally apply to an army like Sisters of Battle who typically greatly outnumber Space Marines and would negate any bonus that weapon would have against the cheaper bodies. Ideally I'd love to say that every bolter is Rapid Fire 2 and -1 AP to make Marines have the shooting output of a horde army on a smaller body count (and making every casualty take more out of the army in return) but realistically it doesn't work when you consider that the bolter is spread across a number of other armies and a higher body count army with bolters like Sisters or Scouts would become a broken mess in terms of balance.
Ranged Weapons Bolt pistol (on Primaris models): Replace with Heavy Bolt Pistol. The Primaris are a more elite form of the regular Space Marine army and as such require more quality damage output to make up for their smaller numbers. The additional AP doesn't break balance for the army while giving the units a bit more punch when locked in combat, which is important for a group that lacks a number of melee options.
Demolisher Cannon: When targetting a unit of 5 or more models change this weapon's Type to Heavy 2D3. Generally speaking feedback I've seen time and time again is players prefer to have 2D3 shots over D6 as the average number of shots is higher for the 2D3 (4 versus 3) and it means firing at least 2 shots instead of 1. Basically it just does so much more to make the gun more likely to see the table with this change even without a points change.
Flamestorm gauntlets (shooting): 12" range Generally speaking no one takes these guys due to the range of their weapon being so short and with the loss of templates the fixation of 8" being the range for flame weapons can go away now. The weapon was left unchanged as the Auto Boltstorm Gauntlet pattern comes with the Fragstorm Launchers standard and fires 6+D6 shots meaning the minimum number of shots for the boltstorm variant is higher, but the Flamestorm varient trades that for automatically hitting.
Grav (all varients): If the target has a Save characterisitc of 3+ or better, this weapon's Strength caracteristic is doubled and the Damage characteristic is increased to D3.
Grav-Cannon and grav-amp: Heavy 2
The heavier something is the harder this is supposed to hit, so the way it hits should reflect that. As such increasing it to S10 makes it more likely to hurt those bigger models. However, keeping the Grav-cannon at Heavy 4 wasn't a balanced choice as that would give a Devastator Squad 16 S10 shots against anything with a 3+ or better which would be outright mad.
Heavy Flamer: 12" range, Heavy 2D3. Honestly I don't get the original change from Assault to Heavy, but regardless, we've given up the flamer template and as such it's a good way to make the Heavy Flamer a different weapon from the regular Flamer. An increased range makes it possible for it to reach out and touch the things easier while the 2D3 shots gives it a better average on it's number of hits over a standard flamer. Basically it's moving the weapon beyond just being a slight S and AP boost over the base flamer and makes it feel like a proper heavy weapon on the table.
Heavy Plasma Incinerator: Heavy 2. A slight points increase on the gun might be needed but honestly the reason this version of the Hellblaster's gun is left off the table beyond proxy is because the increased strength isn't enough to counterbalance the loss of mobility from making it a Heavy weapon as well as decreasing the number of shots. Giving it extra shots makes it more into the Primaris answer for more heavilly armoured models (such as vehicles, Custodes and Monsters) while still retaining the same limitations the current gun has: slower movement with decreased efficiency when you need to move.
Master-crafted Stalker bolt rifle/Stalker bolt rifle: Heavy 2 OR the ability to target characters. Either of these options would fix the Stalker bolt rifle so that it would see the table more often. As it currently is the Stalker has the same basic problems the Heavy Plasma Incinerator does: the loss of mobility AND number of shots with no bonus to targetting isn't enough to justify taking this weapon for just about anyone. Being able to target Characters like a Sniper Rifle or giving it Heavy 2 to allow it to offset it's lowered movement would put these into people's lists, even if it brought a slight points increase.
Melta (all types): Double weapon strength at half range instead of the bonus to damage rolls. Additionally change the damage characteristic to D3+3. These are weapons meant to slag even the heaviest of armour at close range and even from further away it could still do a severe amount of damage if it punches through the armour. For obvious reasons this means the Melta bomb should always be S16 as well.
Plasma weapons (all types): Change the bearer being slain to the bearer taking a mortal wound. While having your guys have their faces melt off is a long standing featur of the lore, the introduction of Mortal Wounds really fits this mechanic better and would allow for better synergy with armies that have mechanics to allow them to ignore Mortal Wounds, such as Iron Hands or Death Guard. This would also cut down how much the mechanic punishes multi-wound models such as Primaris or HQ choices for using plasma.
Melee Weapons Chainsword/Combat Knife: -1 AP. This may require a small (1-2 point) bump as it'd still give an extra attack, but considering the lower number of attacks that can be put out by a Marine army compared to larger armies like Orks or even Guard there needs to be a quality bump to offset the lowered quantity of attacks.
Power Sword: Abilities: Parry: Increase the bearer's save by 1 during the Fight Phase. Generally the Power Sword is seen as a lot less of a choice. It doesn't make wounding models easier like the other options, and while it's better at ignoring armour there is a diminishing return on this against most targets. Increasing the defensive ability of the bearer at least gives it a utility beyond strictly trying to more effectively stab the other guy.
Vehicle Wargear Dozer Blades: Double the bearer's Attacks characteristic until the end of the Fight Phase on a turn it has completed a successful charge. Basically let's bring these back and then let players use them to ram people.
Siege Shield: The bearer's Save characteristic is increased by 1 against shooting attacks. Giving a Vindicator tank an increased save against shooting for a points cost doesn't break the army as much as it gives a tank with rather limited firepower more staying power so it might actually weather more than a unit's shooting before it's reduced to a smoking puddle of slag on the table.
Misc Equipment Terminator Armour: Models with the Terminator keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Additionally increase their save to 1+. Since a 1 always fails this means that the save only negates the first AP of a weapon and reduces how effective multidamage weapons are. Essentially it means they won't go down quite as fast to anything less than dedicated heavy weapon fire or weight of dice.
Power Armour: Has +1 to it's save Characteristic against weapons with an AP profile of -1 or greater (-2,-3,ect). This was a hard one to puzzle over as Power Armour is on so many different armies. Increasing the save like All is Dust could just lead to us having Sisters running around with effective 2+ saves all the time, and a FnP effect wasn't really going to work either. In the end negating 1 of the weapon's AP seemed like the cleanest solution, though it does mean that you need to hit Thousand Sons Rubric models with -2 AP just to get them to a 3+. Magnus would be proud I guess?
Centurion Armour: Models with the Centurion keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by 1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. Yes, even the waddlebots are getting a look here, because honestly all that extra armour should be doing something more than it is.
Gravis Armour: Models with the Gravis keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by +1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. With how durable Gravis is supposed to be it needed something to feel like it was going to stay on the table longer. As lazy as it is to just reuse All Is Dust, here and on the Centurion armour, the extra armour being stronger against weaker weapons makes sense in terms of the lore. Reducing the weapon damage fits equally well and gives them more staying power. With these additions the need to push points down on the models becomes rather moot as they become the durable weapon platfoms they're shown as in the lore.
So what changes do you feel the codex needs to fix the balance with the rest of the game?
BASE 2 ATTACKS for all marines, if we have that, that's all we need plus some units need to be cheaper. Primaris is ridiculously over cost. Gravis need 3 wounds as do aggressors, three man units with 2 wounds doesn't do it, if GW want to release 3 man units then they need to be buffed.
Another thing that I can't remember having been brought up is the major loss in melee power that the change to pistols brought. Anything with a Power Weapon lost an attack from that, and another from not getting attacks from charges. Take Honour Guard as an example; in 7th they had 5 attacks each on the charge, in 8th they have 2. A Sergeant went from having 4 attacks on the charge with a PW to having 2.
Are the removal of initiative as well as the stuff already mentioned and it's no wonder that Khorne Berzerkers are the only decent MEQ melee unit.
A good fix for Veterans (Vanguard and Terminators etc) is to make them WS2. Sure, they have an additional attack already, but I think they need something more to mark them out as better than the “normal” guys. That said, I still don’t think it’d solve the problems with the units by a long stretch.
One thing that needs a drastic price reduction is drop pods, A Drop pod is ESSENTIALY just buying deep strike for a unit,
but when you look at the points cost it's utterly useless, a drop pod is 85 points,
So a 5 man tac squad with bolt guns and a dropod comes in at 150 points, in comparison, a 5 man terminator squad with 4 power fists and a power sword runs for 192 points. giving better melee capability and approximatly double the firepower for only 42 more points. And no one considers tac terminators a partiuclarly good deal.
I'm all for reducing the price on pods but that's not a great example. Loaded with Devs or high concentration of special weapons, etc. Pods were pretty decent prior to the deep strike nerf.
The Newman wrote: Centurion Devastator's big problem isn't getting to their proper targets. The big problem with Centurion Devastators is that a base grunt costs more than a Dreadnaught.
I'd say both are definite problems.
All three of mine are carrying the Cyclone/Heavy Bolter combo, so I might be biased on the range issue.
On the other hand, a base Centurion costing more than a base Dreadnaught is insane regardless of it's weapon load. Resolving any issues with getting it into range isn't going to help with that hanging over the unit.
Edit: That might have come across as overly dismissive. All I'm saying is that I think one of those two problems is a lot bigger than the other.
Their main issue is their base cost. I think it's 85 or 80. It should be 40 or less. I did post on it comparing them to similar models. Anything over 40 is just paltry punishment for being a good unit last eddition. But this almost beyond that. Overcosted model with overcosted options...you end up with a 155 point 3 wound model with no invo save. LOLOLOL.
Could change adept of the codex (and rules similar to it) to reduce the cost of Adeptus Astartes and Ultramarines Stratrgrms by 1, to a minimum of 1, so long as he is alive and on the table.
Personally I'd be interested in drop pods being changed to a stratagem. Perhaps 2 CP to deep strike a unit turn 1 and you then get the model as well to pew pew things with the storm bolter.
The Newman wrote: Centurion Devastator's big problem isn't getting to their proper targets. The big problem with Centurion Devastators is that a base grunt costs more than a Dreadnaught.
I'd say both are definite problems.
All three of mine are carrying the Cyclone/Heavy Bolter combo, so I might be biased on the range issue.
On the other hand, a base Centurion costing more than a base Dreadnaught is insane regardless of it's weapon load. Resolving any issues with getting it into range isn't going to help with that hanging over the unit.
Edit: That might have come across as overly dismissive. All I'm saying is that I think one of those two problems is a lot bigger than the other.
Their main issue is their base cost. I think it's 85 or 80. It should be 40 or less. I did post on it comparing them to similar models. Anything over 40 is just paltry punishment for being a good unit last eddition. But this almost beyond that. Overcosted model with overcosted options...you end up with a 155 point 3 wound model with no invo save. LOLOLOL.
Centurions definitely need to be around 50-55 base and get an extra wound. This makes them the wall they're supposed to be and increases durability to anything not D2.
The main thing they need to fix IMO is to make 3+ armour and no invul. be worth a damn in the game (whether it's infantry or tanks).
Not a wholesale fix, but something along those lines is something I'd love to see.
As army rule:
"The Emperor Protects"
All attacks that target a unit of Adeptus Astartes with this rule at a range of more than 12" count as AP -.
(probably broken in combination with Raven Guard, but finetuning would obviously be necessary).
Or as a strat.
"The Emperor Protects" (2 CP maybe?)
Use this stratagem at the beginning your opponent's shooting or fight phase. Until the end of the phase, one unit of Adeptus Astartes ignores all modifications to the armour save (positive or negative) and take their unmodified armour save against all attacks (except mortal wounds) in this phase.
Sunny Side Up wrote: The main thing they need to fix IMO is to make 3+ armour and no invul. be worth a damn in the game (whether it's infantry or tanks).
Not a wholesale fix, but something along those lines is something I'd love to see.
As army rule:
"The Emperor Protects"
All attacks that target a unit of Adeptus Astartes with this rule at a range of more than 12" count as AP -.
(probably broken in combination with Raven Guard, but finetuning would obviously be necessary).
Or as a strat.
"The Emperor Protects" (2 CP maybe?)
Use this stratagem at the beginning your opponent's shooting or fight phase. Until the end of the phase, one unit of Adeptus Astartes ignores all modifications to the armour save (positive or negative) and take their unmodified armour save against all attacks (except mortal wounds) in this phase.
Then we're basically just using the G_d awful 4th edition AP rules, only worse because no one else has a gun with an AP better than 4.
Probably better to just admit a 3+ save isn't that good this edition and bump basic marines and termies to 2+ and 1+ respectively.
Another thing that I personally find annoying is that I can't build a beat stick out of a LT as an LT can't take a stormshield but a Captain with a iron halo can as can Vanguard Vets (Like the entire squad can. It's frustrating having to take a model with a 4++ to be able to take a 3++
Ice_can wrote: Another thing that I personally find annoying is that I can't build a beat stick out of a LT as an LT can't take a stormshield but a Captain with a iron halo can as can Vanguard Vets (Like the entire squad can. It's frustrating having to take a model with a 4++ to be able to take a 3++
o
That bothers me too. And even though I know I can't do it, the first thing to cross my mind when I have a few points left over is inevitably "Hey, I should put a Storm Shield on that lieutenant. ...oh wait..."
Tibs Ironblood wrote: Personally I'd be interested in drop pods being changed to a stratagem. Perhaps 2 CP to deep strike a unit turn 1 and you then get the model as well to pew pew things with the storm bolter.
Yeah considering deep strike has become a stratagem for other armies. The really is no excuse for paying points for it to get a hunk of metal with a strombolter.
The Newman wrote: Centurion Devastator's big problem isn't getting to their proper targets. The big problem with Centurion Devastators is that a base grunt costs more than a Dreadnaught.
I'd say both are definite problems.
All three of mine are carrying the Cyclone/Heavy Bolter combo, so I might be biased on the range issue.
On the other hand, a base Centurion costing more than a base Dreadnaught is insane regardless of it's weapon load. Resolving any issues with getting it into range isn't going to help with that hanging over the unit.
Edit: That might have come across as overly dismissive. All I'm saying is that I think one of those two problems is a lot bigger than the other.
Their main issue is their base cost. I think it's 85 or 80. It should be 40 or less. I did post on it comparing them to similar models. Anything over 40 is just paltry punishment for being a good unit last eddition. But this almost beyond that. Overcosted model with overcosted options...you end up with a 155 point 3 wound model with no invo save. LOLOLOL.
Centurions definitely need to be around 50-55 base and get an extra wound. This makes them the wall they're supposed to be and increases durability to anything not D2.
I think the pods should cost points, but probably not more than about 50.
Spending points on pods is strictly worse than having the option to deepstrike things for CP, since you are sort of locked into doing it during list building, except that you can put more than one unit inside of them, and the enemy does have to deal with the pod if you put it on an objective or something. These are such small advantages that their points cost should be much lower than they are currently, or they need powerful special rules to reflect their cost, such as dropping outside of 6" instead of 9", dropping on the first turn, etc.
jcd386 wrote: I think the pods should cost points, but probably not more than about 50.
Spending points on pods is strictly worse than having the option to deepstrike things for CP, since you are sort of locked into doing it during list building, except that you can put more than one unit inside of them, and the enemy does have to deal with the pod if you put it on an objective or something. These are such small advantages that their points cost should be much lower than they are currently, or they need powerful special rules to reflect their cost, such as dropping outside of 6" instead of 9", dropping on the first turn, etc.
granted it DOES mean saving on CPs so having a points option for deepstrike.. not ALL bad. One thing we saw droppods being misused last edition for was to cheekily contest objectives with them and IMHO dropods should be unable to contest objectives (as with anything else that is basicly an empy piece of metal)
It seems like there are a lot of comments on here about wanting special bonuses to improve where Marines are at by allowing them to “break” the rules: things like drop pods forcing your opponent’s models to move, deep striking out of deployment turn 1, or ignoring all AP. I think this is a bad line of thought. It looks over the core questions of costs and adjustments to stats in favor of very heavy-handed and very potentially abusable special redesign.
In additon to being poor balance-wise, these suggestions, in short, are examples why people complain about SM players being entitled or wanting special treatment.
Edit: ESPECIALLY in the context of the recent Nova Open, where boring old SM outscored Tau, Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, Death Guard, and CWE on average.
Given we've gone back to the 1st/2nd ed approach to armour, why not take Terminators back to their 2nd ed save?
It's a little finicky to use in play (unless users of Terminators bring pairs of coloured dice), but 3+-on-2d6 (I think you'd remove the invul at this point, and have a roll of 2 as an auto-fail) gives a resilience against any weapon in the game that would be unmatched in this edition.
jcd386 wrote: I think the pods should cost points, but probably not more than about 50.
Spending points on pods is strictly worse than having the option to deepstrike things for CP, since you are sort of locked into doing it during list building, except that you can put more than one unit inside of them, and the enemy does have to deal with the pod if you put it on an objective or something. These are such small advantages that their points cost should be much lower than they are currently, or they need powerful special rules to reflect their cost, such as dropping outside of 6" instead of 9", dropping on the first turn, etc.
granted it DOES mean saving on CPs so having a points option for deepstrike.. not ALL bad. One thing we saw droppods being misused last edition for was to cheekily contest objectives with them and IMHO dropods should be unable to contest objectives (as with anything else that is basicly an empy piece of metal)
Save CP? For what Stratagems?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Given we've gone back to the 1st/2nd ed approach to armour, why not take Terminators back to their 2nd ed save?
It's a little finicky to use in play (unless users of Terminators bring pairs of coloured dice), but 3+-on-2d6 (I think you'd remove the invul at this point, and have a roll of 2 as an auto-fail) gives a resilience against any weapon in the game that would be unmatched in this edition.
Great idea!
Oh by the way, you were just hit by a group of Tzeentch Flamers more than 10 times. Have fun!
HuskyWarhammer wrote: It seems like there are a lot of comments on here about wanting special bonuses to improve where Marines are at by allowing them to “break” the rules: things like drop pods forcing your opponent’s models to move, deep striking out of deployment turn 1, or ignoring all AP. I think this is a bad line of thought. It looks over the core questions of costs and adjustments to stats in favor of very heavy-handed and very potentially abusable special redesign.
In additon to being poor balance-wise, these suggestions, in short, are examples why people complain about SM players being entitled or wanting special treatment.
Edit: ESPECIALLY in the context of the recent Nova Open, where boring old SM outscored Tau, Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, Death Guard, and CWE on average.
We have statistics that show that Space Marines have a win rate around 40-someodd% as the primary faction in a list. The average should be in the 50-55% range to be balanced with other armies. So yeah, no. Marines aren't balanced.
That said, I'm keeping wishlisting on the final submission down. With drop pods we have trouble defining the problem beyond "nothing worth putting in them" so the submission is likely going to be restricted to "more unit options allowed to embark into a Drop Pod".
HuskyWarhammer wrote: It seems like there are a lot of comments on here about wanting special bonuses to improve where Marines are at by allowing them to “break” the rules: things like drop pods forcing your opponent’s models to move, deep striking out of deployment turn 1, or ignoring all AP. I think this is a bad line of thought. It looks over the core questions of costs and adjustments to stats in favor of very heavy-handed and very potentially abusable special redesign.
In additon to being poor balance-wise, these suggestions, in short, are examples why people complain about SM players being entitled or wanting special treatment.
Edit: ESPECIALLY in the context of the recent Nova Open, where boring old SM outscored Tau, Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, Death Guard, and CWE on average.
We have statistics that show that Space Marines have a win rate around 40-someodd% as the primary faction in a list. The average should be in the 50-55% range to be balanced with other armies. So yeah, no. Marines aren't balanced.
That said, I'm keeping wishlisting on the final submission down. With drop pods we have trouble defining the problem beyond "nothing worth putting in them" so the submission is likely going to be restricted to "more unit options allowed to embark into a Drop Pod".
Personally, the one main change I’d make to Drop Pods is to bring back the Drop Pod Assault rule from 7th, where 50% of the Pods can deepstrike turn 1.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: It seems like there are a lot of comments on here about wanting special bonuses to improve where Marines are at by allowing them to “break” the rules: things like drop pods forcing your opponent’s models to move, deep striking out of deployment turn 1, or ignoring all AP. I think this is a bad line of thought. It looks over the core questions of costs and adjustments to stats in favor of very heavy-handed and very potentially abusable special redesign.
In additon to being poor balance-wise, these suggestions, in short, are examples why people complain about SM players being entitled or wanting special treatment.
Edit: ESPECIALLY in the context of the recent Nova Open, where boring old SM outscored Tau, Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, Death Guard, and CWE on average.
We have statistics that show that Space Marines have a win rate around 40-someodd% as the primary faction in a list. The average should be in the 50-55% range to be balanced with other armies. So yeah, no. Marines aren't balanced.
That said, I'm keeping wishlisting on the final submission down. With drop pods we have trouble defining the problem beyond "nothing worth putting in them" so the submission is likely going to be restricted to "more unit options allowed to embark into a Drop Pod".
When your definition of balanced is “50-55%,” you’re asking for it to be inherently more powerful than average. So either you’re arguing from a poor understanding of statistics (in which case, we have to throw out all of it), or you’re being a case-in-point for SM players wanting special, entitled treatment that I was referencing above. Neither makes a strong case.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: It seems like there are a lot of comments on here about wanting special bonuses to improve where Marines are at by allowing them to “break” the rules: things like drop pods forcing your opponent’s models to move, deep striking out of deployment turn 1, or ignoring all AP. I think this is a bad line of thought. It looks over the core questions of costs and adjustments to stats in favor of very heavy-handed and very potentially abusable special redesign.
In additon to being poor balance-wise, these suggestions, in short, are examples why people complain about SM players being entitled or wanting special treatment.
Edit: ESPECIALLY in the context of the recent Nova Open, where boring old SM outscored Tau, Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, Death Guard, and CWE on average.
We have statistics that show that Space Marines have a win rate around 40-someodd% as the primary faction in a list. The average should be in the 50-55% range to be balanced with other armies. So yeah, no. Marines aren't balanced.
That said, I'm keeping wishlisting on the final submission down. With drop pods we have trouble defining the problem beyond "nothing worth putting in them" so the submission is likely going to be restricted to "more unit options allowed to embark into a Drop Pod".
When your definition of balanced is “50-55%,” you’re asking for it to be inherently more powerful than average. So either you’re arguing from a poor understanding of statistics (in which case, we have to throw out all of it), or you’re being a case-in-point for SM players wanting special, entitled treatment that I was referencing above. Neither makes a strong case.
I'm arguing based on a data set that shows that Space Marines win less games on average than every other army sans Grey Knights when they're you're primary detachment. Regardless how you want to argue the numbers, that is bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me make a correction: after double checking the information I was referring to, I realized I accidentally inflated the numbers: Space Marines only have a win rate of 35%. Grey Knights have one of 20%. So basically, we're looking at needing serious changes to both armies to make them viable in the overall game.
So I figured it'd be good to give a status update: I'm working on the first draft of the document and honestly it feels like it might be turning into a bit of a tome. Likely because I've ended up lumping in the other 8(?) Marine focused books (Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights and CSM) as they share a lot of the same things and at the heart of it the problems the armies have are the same.
So I've changed the title of the thread and am opening myself up for the deep hurting.
Regardless of when this is all finished the final draft will be sent off after the FAQ drops just to ensure that no feedback contained within is already touched upon there.
So bring it on! What also needs addressing in Grey Knights (besides "everything"), Blood Angels, Death Watch, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, Thousand Sons or Death Guard?
We all know about the issue of durability (for the non Death Guard armies at leasT) and the lack of teeth to shooting and melee due to low model counts, as well as the problems of CT and LT not carrying over to vehicle models. So what else should I be looking at bringing to the table?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I would say leave Grey Knights and CSM out of your initial document. I have ideas for CSM myself if you're interested though.
I agree. Once you have a solution for basic marines, then you can better come up with solutions for marines+1. And GK should be part of Codex: Inquisition anyway, which dramatically changes the balancing options.
There are a lot of questionable unit costs, but there are a handful of really glaring issues that ought to be included in the first draft.
For example:
A Centurion Devastator cost as much as a Dreadnaught.
Flamegauntlet Aggressors cost more than Boltstorm Gauntlet Aggressors.
Multimeltas cost more than Lascannons.
I think it's worth trying to capture the stuff that had no business getting past the proof-reading stage. Your the one doing the compiling so obviously it's your call how blatent something needs to be to belong on that list.
ClockworkZion wrote: So I figured it'd be good to give a status update: I'm working on the first draft of the document and honestly it feels like it might be turning into a bit of a tome. Likely because I've ended up lumping in the other 8(?) Marine focused books (Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights and CSM) as they share a lot of the same things and at the heart of it the problems the armies have are the same.
So I've changed the title of the thread and am opening myself up for the deep hurting.
Regardless of when this is all finished the final draft will be sent off after the FAQ drops just to ensure that no feedback contained within is already touched upon there.
So bring it on! What also needs addressing in Grey Knights (besides "everything"), Blood Angels, Death Watch, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, Thousand Sons or Death Guard?
We all know about the issue of durability (for the non Death Guard armies at leasT) and the lack of teeth to shooting and melee due to low model counts, as well as the problems of CT and LT not carrying over to vehicle models. So what else should I be looking at bringing to the table?
The only thing I dislike about the Death Guard Codex is the missing of T5 and DR for possessed, lords and sorcerors. I'd pay points for that of course.
Other than that, Lord of Contagion is overshadowed by other options as his aura is not that great and his options are very limited.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I would say leave Grey Knights and CSM out of your initial document. I have ideas for CSM myself if you're interested though.
greyknight12 wrote:I agree. Once you have a solution for basic marines, then you can better come up with solutions for marines+1. And GK should be part of Codex: Inquisition anyway, which dramatically changes the balancing options.
I was looking at breaking it down to the general change all Astartes need, followed by the vanilla book plus the shared units, followed by anything not already covered by the other stuff for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Deathwatch in their own sections and then a separate thing to cover the Grey Knights stuff that isn't covered by the general stuff and the same for the CSM. Basically three packets of information in a box that's likely to have too much candy in it.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:The only thing I dislike about the Death Guard Codex is the missing of T5 and DR for possessed, lords and sorcerors. I'd pay points for that of course.
Other than that, Lord of Contagion is overshadowed by other options as his aura is not that great and his options are very limited.
The LoC's options are likely lacking due to lacking a proper kit, but all good points.
I suggest space marines having 2 attacks while scouts only have 1. All basic marines go down by 1 point while bolter becomes 1 point. Now tacs have an advantage over scouts and assault marines have become cheaper than tacs. Fix the primaris apothecary's attacks so it is in line with other primaris models.
I'm undecided about whether the extra attack should flow on to other models. Probably not. That way there is one less incentive to take MSU because sergeants would not have better stats than basic marines for the same price.
Meanwhile, Guardsman should be 5 points. Flamers should hit all models in the target unit within 8" up to a maximum number and ignore cover, plasma should go down by one strength across the board. Dark Eldar weapons should be recosted. Melta should be 2d6 damage at half range, not best of 2 dice. And so on. This is not a complete list.
I think marine durability needs fixing by fixing the rest of the game as shown above. I don't like the idea of giving them 2 wounds or ignoring AP. Nor do I like the idea of a race to the bottom in terms of points per model.
Likewise, I feel bolters need improvement via corrections to other armies. Guardsman went from 6+ save in an AP -1 world (2nd edition), to 5+ in the AP 5 world (3rd-7th Ed), and now to 5+ in an AP 0 world. They should have been 6+ again and still been 5 points per model. With a 5+ save they should probably be 6 points per model.
Fixing the balance in the game should not involve the creation of new special rules. It should be done through a holistic review of all armies and how they compare to each other. Lots of small changes across the board, not big changes to an individual army. Looking at a single army at a time is how the balance goes wrong in the first place.
When a rule proves to be too powerful, it should be changed or removed. Examples being -1 to hit army tactics, reroll all failed wounds, deploy 9" from the enemy after knowing you're going first.
Now that the thread has been opened up to other marine books, please reassess the warp charge cost of Dark angels powers. Several of them take multiple rolls to do anything and thus have a less than 25% chance of actually affecting the game.
BrianDavion wrote: a lot of your suggestions Zus would translate to a nerf of Primaris Marines.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I can see the argument that basic marines having 2 attacks is a nerf to primaris, but the things I suggested should help with their durability at the same time as helping basic marine durability. As I said, it's not a complete list. I'm also not against the idea of primaris marines having 3 attacks. I'm just not sure they need it.
BrianDavion wrote: a lot of your suggestions Zus would translate to a nerf of Primaris Marines.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I can see the argument that basic marines having 2 attacks is a nerf to primaris, but the things I suggested should help with their durability at the same time as helping basic marine durability. As I said, it's not a complete list. I'm also not against the idea of primaris marines having 3 attacks. I'm just not sure they need it.
reducing the strength of Plasma across the board would also put a hurt on Primaris lists as anyone trying to run a all Primaris List (which isn't super effective no but it's fluffy) would struggle as Primaris are very plasma dependant.
However, a nerf to Plas across the board - especially if not just IoMPlas - gives Primaris a large durability buff. So it cuts both ways. But it's silly that Primaris have so few options.
Bharring wrote: However, a nerf to Plas across the board - especially if not just IoMPlas - gives Primaris a large durability buff. So it cuts both ways. But it's silly that Primaris have so few options.
Plasma is hardly the issue compared to other D2 weapons.
Plas actually needs to be buffed to not kill your own guys because almost no other weapons in any army do that except in the case of tau. And with tau - you are talking about Ion Cannons and CIB which are both superior to any shooting weapon in the entire space marine arsenal. Plus they don't slay models when they overheat - they just do 1 wound.
It's not like a plas is too cheap for what it does. Plasma is practically non existent on the competitive scene. The only plasma weapon I see is on a Castellan. Internally it is the best option because all the other options are god awful for their points.
The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.
Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.
The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.
Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.
And Ravagers, they take plasma over lances all the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Oddly, it's also somewhat implied that the Reaper S5 profile is Plas - because it's a variant of "Star Swarm", which is a Plasma missile. Wouldn't mind that getting impacted by the same effect.)
abyrn wrote: The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.
Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.
The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.
Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.
Humm. Azreal gives you reroll all hits...so you are never choosing between his buff or hitting better. Here is a tip - you are always better off rerolling a 4+ to hit with a heavy than just rolling a 3+ to hit - with reroll 1's standing still you are about equal odds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: And Ravagers, they take plasma over lances all the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Oddly, it's also somewhat implied that the Reaper S5 profile is Plas - because it's a variant of "Star Swarm", which is a Plasma missile. Wouldn't mind that getting impacted by the same effect.)
They don't even overheat and cost about the same with as a plasma gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: However, a nerf to Plas across the board - especially if not just IoMPlas - gives Primaris a large durability buff. So it cuts both ways. But it's silly that Primaris have so few options.
Primaris would do better with a rule like - they take -1 damage from all damage results. Terms too. Plasma is not very good except at killing 2 wound models in 1 shot. It doesn't need a nerf - most 2 wound units need a buff. Certain weapons like the dessie need a nerf. three 2 damage shots for 15 points is literally insane. ESP with 36" range. lol. It out damages the freaking darklance against t8 tanks...
abyrn wrote: The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.
Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.
The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.
Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.
Humm. Azreal gives you reroll all hits...so you are never choosing between his buff or hitting better. Here is a tip - you are always better off rerolling a 4+ to hit with a heavy than just rolling a 3+ to hit - with reroll 1's standing still you are about equal odds.
That is sort of what I mean, Azrael completely overrides the chapter tactic, as does a Company Master.
abyrn wrote: The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.
Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.
The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.
Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.
Humm. Azreal gives you reroll all hits...so you are never choosing between his buff or hitting better. Here is a tip - you are always better off rerolling a 4+ to hit with a heavy than just rolling a 3+ to hit - with reroll 1's standing still you are about equal odds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: And Ravagers, they take plasma over lances all the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Oddly, it's also somewhat implied that the Reaper S5 profile is Plas - because it's a variant of "Star Swarm", which is a Plasma missile. Wouldn't mind that getting impacted by the same effect.)
They don't even overheat and cost about the same with as a plasma gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: However, a nerf to Plas across the board - especially if not just IoMPlas - gives Primaris a large durability buff. So it cuts both ways. But it's silly that Primaris have so few options.
Primaris would do better with a rule like - they take -1 damage from all damage results. Terms too. Plasma is not very good except at killing 2 wound models in 1 shot. It doesn't need a nerf - most 2 wound units need a buff. Certain weapons like the dessie need a nerf. three 2 damage shots for 15 points is literally insane. ESP with 36" range. lol. It out damages the freaking darklance against t8 tanks...
FYI:
BS3+ rerolling all hits at -1 is actually exactly the same mathematically as BS3+ with no re-rolls or modifiers, since you can't reroll the 3 to hit.
abyrn wrote: The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.
Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.
The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.
Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.
Humm. Azreal gives you reroll all hits...so you are never choosing between his buff or hitting better. Here is a tip - you are always better off rerolling a 4+ to hit with a heavy than just rolling a 3+ to hit - with reroll 1's standing still you are about equal odds.
That is sort of what I mean, Azrael completely overrides the chapter tactic, as does a Company Master.
It's pretty nice for Ven dreads hiding on the edges of the map - it would be pretty great if it affected vehicals (I have a feeling it will soon). This is pretty consistent within vanila space marine codex too though - we have stratagems that do stupid things like give dreads a reroll 1's aura - or 1 cp to give a unit reroll 1's...Chaplains give all units reroll hits in CC (chapter master does the same thing and he gives you shooting) It just seems...they want marines to suck.
abyrn wrote: The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.
Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.
The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.
Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.
Humm. Azreal gives you reroll all hits...so you are never choosing between his buff or hitting better. Here is a tip - you are always better off rerolling a 4+ to hit with a heavy than just rolling a 3+ to hit - with reroll 1's standing still you are about equal odds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: And Ravagers, they take plasma over lances all the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Oddly, it's also somewhat implied that the Reaper S5 profile is Plas - because it's a variant of "Star Swarm", which is a Plasma missile. Wouldn't mind that getting impacted by the same effect.)
They don't even overheat and cost about the same with as a plasma gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: However, a nerf to Plas across the board - especially if not just IoMPlas - gives Primaris a large durability buff. So it cuts both ways. But it's silly that Primaris have so few options.
Primaris would do better with a rule like - they take -1 damage from all damage results. Terms too. Plasma is not very good except at killing 2 wound models in 1 shot. It doesn't need a nerf - most 2 wound units need a buff. Certain weapons like the dessie need a nerf. three 2 damage shots for 15 points is literally insane. ESP with 36" range. lol. It out damages the freaking darklance against t8 tanks...
FYI:
BS3+ rerolling all hits at -1 is actually exactly the same mathematically as BS3+ with no re-rolls or modifiers, since you can't reroll the 3 to hit.
Reroll 1s with no penalty is 16% better.
Reroll hits with no penalty is 33% better.
Wow - you are right. My mental math on that has been wrong all 8th edition. So a DA is better off standing still than moving to get into a reroll aura with a heavy weapon. That is interesting.
"They don't even overheat and cost about the same with as a plasma gun. " At 3 less strength. Not arguing it's *worse* than the PG. Just pointing out that Plas is OP in more forms than *just* the PG.
"Plasma is not very good except at killing 2 wound models in 1 shot."
It's preferred over Melta for hunting tanks at close range. It's preferred over Dark/Brightlances for hunting vehicles. It's preferred over Scatter/Flamer/etc for hunting light doods. I'd call that good at things other than 2W models.
abyrn wrote: The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.
Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.
The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.
Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.
I dunno the re-roll 1s for standing still means that DA can move their HQ forward up with their advance assault elements and leave their hellblaster gunline behind to handle itself. ... thats actually kinda nice.
as for the Ravenwing bonus, honestly... sounds to me like RW has a choice of shooting or additional defences, I'd rather see GW do more of that then get rid of it. I like it when decisions have a real choice to them.
and move up to 6" while doing so. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord may roll an extra die and choose the highest when making charge rolls.
