Hi all,

I personally would like space Marines to stay the same price. Would +1w and +1a to most space Marines profiles justify their cost?

Apply this to power armor and terminator so PA has 2w and 2a and terminator has 3w and 3a. Primaris goes to 3w as well. Would they be worth their current cost?

Also, the standard bolter has a .75 caliber round. Should that come up in strength as well?

2W would be way too good for their current cost.

 Smotejob wrote:
Hi all,

I personally would like space Marines to stay the same price. Would +1w and +1a to most space Marines profiles justify their cost?

Apply this to power armor and terminator so PA has 2w and 2a and terminator has 3w and 3a. Primaris goes to 3w as well. Would they be worth their current cost?

Also, the standard bolter has a .75 caliber round. Should that come up in strength as well?

Too much, they would become 13 point intercessors.

The "fixes" to marines have been widely proposed, but i guess that now that you have opened this thread we are going to hear them all over again.

SM don't have profiles or points costs issues, they just don't have effective synergies that don't involve a gunline. Strategems are also very bland.

Give the basic marine statline +1A, also let Marines fire Bolt weapons twice. The biggest problem with SM is their lack of anti-horde offensive output, and this solves that.

EDIT: “anti-horde”, not “anti-horse”

 Blackie wrote:
SM don't have profiles or points costs issues, they just don't have effective synergies that don't involve a gunline. Strategems are also very bland.

If marines did not have a points cost issue people might play on the top tables them however as you can see MEC are pretty much all trash since they are paying out the ass for their 3+ save and S4 shooting in an edition where quantity is key Tacs are worth like 11 points ATM they do extremely low damage for their cost and get hit hard by all types of guns.

I don't want cheaper marines, I want them to be more effective. A very good start would be to allow 2 special weapons plus the champs weapon in a squad of 5. Like scions or sisters etc.
Considering marines are supposed to be the pinnacle of the universe's warriors I find it ridiculous that 3 in 5 of them are only capable of picking up a humble bolter...

Bolters are not supposed to be humble, that's the main problem.

Cheaper all the way. All the "fixes" are non-functional.

Abaddon303 wrote:
I don't want cheaper marines, I want them to be more effective. A very good start would be to allow 2 special weapons plus the champs weapon in a squad of 5. Like scions or sisters etc.
Considering marines are supposed to be the pinnacle of the universe's warriors I find it ridiculous that 3 in 5 of them are only capable of picking up a humble bolter...

It's exactly this. They don't need to be cheaper or more resilient. They just need to have more punch, especially in combat. And more effective strategems: when I read the codex SM I haven't seen a single one that appealed to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Bolters are not supposed to be humble, that's the main problem.

Why not? They are supposed to be the standard S4 anti infantry weapon that every army has, or an equivalent to it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
2W would be way too good for their current cost.

While I think 2 wounds is absolutely silly (especially when Primaris exist for that role), you're like the last person that should be saying Marines are fine in any way. In your casual "do whatever you want" area, you'll literally never see a problem ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
SM don't have profiles or points costs issues, they just don't have effective synergies that don't involve a gunline. Strategems are also very bland.

Their own troops lose to firefights against most other troops, are out-fought by several troops, and can't specialize in an effective manner. Are you SURE your post is correct?

Basic marines need to come with bolter, bolt pistol and combat knife, as per their in universe load out.

.
I'd like to see one profile for marines of all sorts.
They should all be shooty nobz.
Guardsmen are your boyz.
Scripts are your grots...

 Blackie wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
I don't want cheaper marines, I want them to be more effective. A very good start would be to allow 2 special weapons plus the champs weapon in a squad of 5. Like scions or sisters etc.
Considering marines are supposed to be the pinnacle of the universe's warriors I find it ridiculous that 3 in 5 of them are only capable of picking up a humble bolter...

It's exactly this. They don't need to be cheaper or more resilient. They just need to have more punch, especially in combat. And more effective strategems: when I read the codex SM I haven't seen a single one that appealed to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Bolters are not supposed to be humble, that's the main problem.

Why not? They are supposed to be the standard S4 anti infantry weapon that every army has, or an equivalent to it.

Right now they are not equivalent to anything, they are bad weapons. They are worse than gauss, shurikens, pulse rifles, volkite and many many other basic weapons. The bolter is currently not correctly represented in game, or at the least it is not correctly represented when in the hands of a marine. I can understand a guard sergeant getting mild effects with one, but marines should defintely get some bonuses when using bolters. Even something like giving all marines with a bolter a full reroll to wound wouldn't be so out of it. Then you increase to cost of the bolter to 3 points and lower the cost of the marines by 3. This way you made all speacial weapons cheaper by 3 points without impacting the balance between them.

Same with stormbolters at 5 or 6 points.

I don't want to delve into bolter porn but right now the bolters are clearly performing way under what is expected from those weapons in the narrative, and that's the biggest issue of the marine faction.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2W would be way too good for their current cost.

While I think 2 wounds is absolutely silly (especially when Primaris exist for that role), you're like the last person that should be saying Marines are fine in any way. In your casual "do whatever you want" area, you'll literally never see a problem ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
SM don't have profiles or points costs issues, they just don't have effective synergies that don't involve a gunline. Strategems are also very bland.

Their own troops lose to firefights against most other troops, are out-fought by several troops, and can't specialize in an effective manner. Are you SURE your post is correct?

That's why they need synergies, better bonuses or more effective auras and better stratagems. I'm not a SM player but never considered my SW troops that bad, even fighting against competitive lists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
I don't want cheaper marines, I want them to be more effective. A very good start would be to allow 2 special weapons plus the champs weapon in a squad of 5. Like scions or sisters etc.
Considering marines are supposed to be the pinnacle of the universe's warriors I find it ridiculous that 3 in 5 of them are only capable of picking up a humble bolter...

It's exactly this. They don't need to be cheaper or more resilient. They just need to have more punch, especially in combat. And more effective strategems: when I read the codex SM I haven't seen a single one that appealed to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Bolters are not supposed to be humble, that's the main problem.

Why not? They are supposed to be the standard S4 anti infantry weapon that every army has, or an equivalent to it.

Right now they are not equivalent to anything, they are bad weapons. They are worse than gauss, shurikens, pulse rifles, volkite and many many other basic weapons. The bolter is currently not correctly represented in game, or at the least it is not correctly represented when in the hands of a marine. I can understand a guard sergeant getting mild effects with one, but marines should defintely get some bonuses when using bolters. Even something like giving all marines with a bolter a full reroll to wound wouldn't be so out of it. Then you increase to cost of the bolter to 3 points and lower the cost of the marines by 3. This way you made all speacial weapons cheaper by 3 points without impacting the balance between them.

Same with stormbolters at 5 or 6 points.

I don't want to delve into bolter porn but right now the bolters are clearly performing way under what is expected from those weapons in the narrative, and that's the biggest issue of the marine faction.

There are already intercessors' bolters, heavy bolters, 2pts storm bolters and assault cannons, most of those can be spammed quite easily.... compare bolters to shootas or poisoned drukhari rifles. They're not that bad, in fact they're even better than those examples. SM already have more effective anti infantry weapons, bolters just need to be the cheapest and less effective weapon.

 Blackie wrote:
There are already intercessors' bolters, heavy bolters, 2pts storm bolters and assault cannons, most of those can be spammed quite easily.... compare bolters to shootas or poisoned drukhari rifles. They're not that bad, in fact they're even better than those examples. SM already have more effective anti infantry weapons, bolters just need to be the cheapest and less effective weapon.

A single S4 shot would be good/acceptable at 6-7 points. At 13 points its bad.

As I see it a unit's value is in its ability to do damage, resist damage and claim objectives (which is usually but not entirely about movement).
A unit which is exceptional in one of these areas can be (indeed, for balance should be) worse than the others.
List building is largely about finding those units which have a disproportionate advantage in these areas for their points and as a result are better than other options.

Basic 13 point MEQ are not unusually tough or capable of claiming objectives for their points. They are average at best but come with crap shooting and assault potential.
As a result they are a bad unit.
Intercessors are in the same boat.

You need to redo the main codex, get rid of the pretend difference between the majority of the Chapters and the Snowflake ones.

Give All Tac Marines the extra options for Grey Hunters etc. get rid of those units for the snowflake chapters - rinse and repeat with all the similar fake difference nonsense.

Better and more options for all - FLUFF stays the same - players just choose which fits their codex.

In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

2+ PA without any point cost change would be totally OP. I can see Termies at 1+ without big changes, but a tactical with a 2+ would have to cost at least 18 points, and you would still have the same problems with a basic troop which costs a lot for a really bad offensive output.

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

2+ PA without any point cost change would be totally OP. I can see Termies at 1+ without big changes, but a tactical with a 2+ would have to cost at least 18 points, and you would still have the same problems with a basic troop which costs a lot for a really bad offensive output.

18 points for a 2+ armour Tactical Marine is absolute madness.

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Maybe it's the setting the real issue. Each faction should be equal in the lore or at similar levels to have an interesting and complex universe. All I see is Imperium heroes and super heroes that are the best in the galaxy and eventually some Chaos villains that can be a sparring partner for a while. That's why I consider 40k books so boring. I'd like to read about orks, necrons, drukhari, tyranids deleting legions of humans as the real heroes and protagonists of the novels since the game encourages xenos to compete with Imperium and chaos factions. And that's a good thing, otherwise all games would be imperium vs imperium, sometimes imperium vs chaos. Super boring and anti-fluff, I refuse myself to play against imperium armies if I bring my SW on the table.

Marines' lore should be toned down significantly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

2+ PA without any point cost change would be totally OP. I can see Termies at 1+ without big changes, but a tactical with a 2+ would have to cost at least 18 points, and you would still have the same problems with a basic troop which costs a lot for a really bad offensive output.

18 points for a 2+ armour Tactical Marine is absolute madness.

Probably yes, but i'm giving the benefit of the doubt because they would have an atrocious offensive at that cost.

I've never thought tactical marines in cover are a problem and they are 13 points now.

Spoletta wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

2+ PA without any point cost change would be totally OP. I can see Termies at 1+ without big changes, but a tactical with a 2+ would have to cost at least 18 points, and you would still have the same problems with a basic troop which costs a lot for a really bad offensive output.

18 points for a 2+ armour Tactical Marine is absolute madness.

Probably yes, but i'm giving the benefit of the doubt because they would have an atrocious offensive at that cost.

The big problem here is that a 2+ save makes them significantly harder to take down with small arms (which they're already decently durable against) and doesn't really help much at all against the real marine killers like Plasma.

I believe the main issue is that high AP, especially on plasma weapons, is generally undercosted.

Assuming we're moving to Primaris as a standard anyway, if there was a game wide revaluation of high AP, multidamage weaponry that increased mid level options a reasonable amount, that would fix a lot of for the issues with marines.

Add to that some better strats and chapter tactics that affect all models and I think we'd be good.

So I see people saying damage output sucks and resilience sucks. What about if they had some rule like "The Emperor's Finest"- Marines add 1 to the number of shots fired by a bolt weapon (bolt pistol, bolter, storm bolter, etc.) In addition any close combat with AP - becomes -1.

So you increase the strength of the bolter and weapons like the chainsaw, but not touch the higher end ones.

To increase resilience you could say that any AP 1 or 2 is treated as one lower to represent power armor being that tough. You have increased the resilience except against weapons designed to cut their gear (plasma, lascannon, etc.) Can still do their job against Marines which is to turn them into a pile of goop.

Again. People want more resilient marines with better bolters and more punch in the melee. These already exist, they're called Intercessors. No need to reinvent them. Sure, they're overcosted, but what people basically want is Intercessors at cost of a tactical marine (and possibly called tactical marines so they can continue to pretend primaris do not exist.) Drop Primaris point costs about 20% that's marines fixed.

As has been pointed out before, giving bolters a -1 can wind up hurting marines more than helping, as often marines are fighting marines, and you just devalue 3+ armor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2W would be way too good for their current cost.

While I think 2 wounds is absolutely silly (especially when Primaris exist for that role), you're like the last person that should be saying Marines are fine in any way. In your casual "do whatever you want" area, you'll literally never see a problem ever.

So you agree with me. Thanks! Otherwise you seem downright pathological.

On a shot per shot basis, against S5 or less attacks, Space Marines are somewhere between 2 and 3 times as resilient as a Guardsman.

Armed with S4 or less weapons, Space Marines are twice a deadly as a Guardsman, except against T3 models where they are slightly less than twice as deadly.

This make a very good case that Space Marines should be somewhere between 2 and 3 times as expensive as a Guardsmen. With means bumping Guardsman up to 5 points and Space Marines to 12 points goes a long way to fixing the imbalance. That couldn't possibly work could it (glance at Kill Team)?

 alextroy wrote:
On a shot per shot basis, against S5 or less attacks, Space Marines are somewhere between 2 and 3 times as resilient as a Guardsman.

Armed with S4 or less weapons, Space Marines are twice a deadly as a Guardsman, except against T3 models where they are slightly less than twice as deadly.

This make a very good case that Space Marines should be somewhere between 2 and 3 times as expensive as a Guardsmen. With means bumping Guardsman up to 5 points and Space Marines to 12 points goes a long way to fixing the imbalance. That couldn't possibly work could it (glance at Kill Team)?

The problem with this as a method of analysis is that S5 and lower attacks aren't the problem in normal-scale 40k, things like battle cannons one-shot wiping Marine squads from the other side of the field are the problem.

A Space Marine is 50% more resilient to a Battlecannon (S8 AP -2) than a Guardsman, although only marginally more resilient to overloaded Plasma (S8 AP -3).

This pushes the idea that a Space Marine should really be closer to twice as expensive as a Guardsman. But everyone seems to object to 5 Point Guardmen and 10 Point Space Marines.

 Crimson wrote:
Again. People want more resilient marines with better bolters and more punch in the melee. These already exist, they're called Intercessors. No need to reinvent them. Sure, they're overcosted, but what people basically want is Intercessors at cost of a tactical marine (and possibly called tactical marines so they can continue to pretend primaris do not exist.) Drop Primaris point costs about 20% that's marines fixed.

No, because some people actually want to use their regular marines. Otherwise it's like saying AM Infantry Squads are fixed by tweaking Scions.

 tvih wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Again. People want more resilient marines with better bolters and more punch in the melee. These already exist, they're called Intercessors. No need to reinvent them. Sure, they're overcosted, but what people basically want is Intercessors at cost of a tactical marine (and possibly called tactical marines so they can continue to pretend primaris do not exist.) Drop Primaris point costs about 20% that's marines fixed.

No, because some people actually want to use their regular marines. Otherwise it's like saying AM Infantry Squads are fixed by tweaking Scions.

Okay, but then we need to recognize that tournament Eldar armies aren't exactly running a bunch of Dire Avengers either. The expectation of marines being competetive with top-tier, and the desire to field tactical marines, aren't really the same thing.

Bolter get Ap - 1
Marines ignore 1 point of Ap

Hell make the bolter cost 2 points and a marine cost 11

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2W would be way too good for their current cost.

While I think 2 wounds is absolutely silly (especially when Primaris exist for that role), you're like the last person that should be saying Marines are fine in any way. In your casual "do whatever you want" area, you'll literally never see a problem ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
SM don't have profiles or points costs issues, they just don't have effective synergies that don't involve a gunline. Strategems are also very bland.

Their own troops lose to firefights against most other troops, are out-fought by several troops, and can't specialize in an effective manner. Are you SURE your post is correct?

That's why they need synergies, better bonuses or more effective auras and better stratagems. I'm not a SM player but never considered my SW troops that bad, even fighting against competitive lists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
I don't want cheaper marines, I want them to be more effective. A very good start would be to allow 2 special weapons plus the champs weapon in a squad of 5. Like scions or sisters etc.
Considering marines are supposed to be the pinnacle of the universe's warriors I find it ridiculous that 3 in 5 of them are only capable of picking up a humble bolter...

It's exactly this. They don't need to be cheaper or more resilient. They just need to have more punch, especially in combat. And more effective strategems: when I read the codex SM I haven't seen a single one that appealed to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Bolters are not supposed to be humble, that's the main problem.

Why not? They are supposed to be the standard S4 anti infantry weapon that every army has, or an equivalent to it.

Right now they are not equivalent to anything, they are bad weapons. They are worse than gauss, shurikens, pulse rifles, volkite and many many other basic weapons. The bolter is currently not correctly represented in game, or at the least it is not correctly represented when in the hands of a marine. I can understand a guard sergeant getting mild effects with one, but marines should defintely get some bonuses when using bolters. Even something like giving all marines with a bolter a full reroll to wound wouldn't be so out of it. Then you increase to cost of the bolter to 3 points and lower the cost of the marines by 3. This way you made all speacial weapons cheaper by 3 points without impacting the balance between them.

Same with stormbolters at 5 or 6 points.

I don't want to delve into bolter porn but right now the bolters are clearly performing way under what is expected from those weapons in the narrative, and that's the biggest issue of the marine faction.

There are already intercessors' bolters, heavy bolters, 2pts storm bolters and assault cannons, most of those can be spammed quite easily.... compare bolters to shootas or poisoned drukhari rifles. They're not that bad, in fact they're even better than those examples. SM already have more effective anti infantry weapons, bolters just need to be the cheapest and less effective weapon.

Well that's because Space Wolves have literally always been Space Marines +1. Of COURSE you don't think there's a problem. Grey Hunters cost the same as a Tactical but have an extra attack and can double up on Plasma Guns rather than being forced into a Heavy Weapon when they want to always be on the move.

It's completely bonkers, AND Grey Hunters are just considered okay!

Also Storm Bolters really can't be spammed outside the Elite slot. Heavy Bolters though we are blessed with the Tarantula Sentry Gun (literally my favorite Fast Attack choice). Also you get 2 shots with the poisoned Splinter for every Bolter. 1 shot at S4 or 2 shots just wounding on a 4+? That choice is clear as Kalabites are cheap enough that it doesn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tvih wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Again. People want more resilient marines with better bolters and more punch in the melee. These already exist, they're called Intercessors. No need to reinvent them. Sure, they're overcosted, but what people basically want is Intercessors at cost of a tactical marine (and possibly called tactical marines so they can continue to pretend primaris do not exist.) Drop Primaris point costs about 20% that's marines fixed.

No, because some people actually want to use their regular marines. Otherwise it's like saying AM Infantry Squads are fixed by tweaking Scions.

But turning basic Marines into Intercessors is silly because Intercessors exist. A better equivalent would be suggesting to fix Infantry squads by giving them Deep Strike and more AP on their guns.

Scouts are supposed to be disruptive, Tactical Marines are supposed to have punch, and Intercessors are supposed to be durable. Those are the clear rules. The issue is how they all perform at them, with Scouts being only okay and Intercessors only doing the job vs certain weapons. Then Tactical Marines are left in the cold because anything you want to do with them you can get in another slot, and then the other troop choices can just hold the objectives better.

 Stux wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Groslon wrote:
In the setting marines are supposed to be unstoppable power houses with impenetrable armor and devastating weapons.

In the game they are pretty much the baseline. Everything is balanced around shooting at, or being shot by, marines. So they loose their "badassness" because they are no longer the exception, they are the rule. In a game based entirely around the marine statline it is impossible for those stats to be impressive. At least, not on this scale or level of granularity.

Plus you can;t sell many of them - until recently GW were obessed with selling Marines to the exclusion of all else. If you only need ten or twelve in an army becuase theya re so good you either have to sell them at a premium or sell other stuff as well.

Now we also have Primaris and Custodes with mroe what should be Marine stats

You could def go to making (ALL) power armour 2+ save and ALL Teminators 1+ save which would better reflect the fluff without needing jumps in points.

2+ PA without any point cost change would be totally OP. I can see Termies at 1+ without big changes, but a tactical with a 2+ would have to cost at least 18 points, and you would still have the same problems with a basic troop which costs a lot for a really bad offensive output.

18 points for a 2+ armour Tactical Marine is absolute madness.

Probably yes, but i'm giving the benefit of the doubt because they would have an atrocious offensive at that cost.

The big problem here is that a 2+ save makes them significantly harder to take down with small arms (which they're already decently durable against) and doesn't really help much at all against the real marine killers like Plasma.

I believe the main issue is that high AP, especially on plasma weapons, is generally undercosted.

Assuming we're moving to Primaris as a standard anyway, if there was a game wide revaluation of high AP, multidamage weaponry that increased mid level options a reasonable amount, that would fix a lot of for the issues with marines.

Add to that some better strats and chapter tactics that affect all models and I think we'd be good.

Plasma has nothing to do with marine mortality rates, and if your enemy is shooting plasma guns at your basic troops to take them out they've already lost when there's likely an Imperial Knight stomping across the field or some other big bad unit. The issue that marines do have is with small arms fire because a 3+ save is ultimately garbage statistically. It just doesn't save enough to justify its value against the buckets of dice that other armies can put out. 66.68% chance to save is worthless when the enemy's infantry units pump out so many shots to be rolling 30 dice or even more in the shooting phase that can swiftly wipe a marine squad off the board. A 2+ save however would make marines actually valuable, as a 2+ save gives them a 83.35% chance on each roll to come out alive and worth their cost. The issue is the attack-creep of other factions making 3+ saves completely worthless by volume of fire. 4+ and 5+ are likewise worthless saves, but at least the troops with them are so damn cheap that you can field mass hordes of them. Which also increases the volume of fire being put out.

Just so you know, from a person with an army with termintors as based troop. The +2 sv is too good vs small arms is a lie. If the game was one termintors vs 1 IG trooper, then yeah termintor would be busted. But the fact is that my 5 dudes, buy an IG player almost 32 dudes with HQs.

Karol wrote:
Just so you know, from a person with an army with termintors as based troop. The +2 sv is too good vs small arms is a lie. If the game was one termintors vs 1 IG trooper, then yeah termintor would be busted. But the fact is that my 5 dudes, buy an IG player almost 32 dudes with HQs.

Which is why Terminators also need their durability cranked the hell up to justify their absurd cost. 2+ save however should be enough to make tactical marines slightly viable as a troop at their current cost, although toughness 5 certainly couldn't hurt. The critical failure of 8th edition is the stupid, needless tradition of toughness and strength stats. With the toughness and strength caps removed, there's no reason why orks can't be toughness 5, marines 6, or carnifexes 12.

And that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is and everything to do with the comparable points value Terminators to Imperial Guard Troops and HQ. I'm sure you won't be complaining if you could by 10 Terminators for the cost of the Loyal 32.

 alextroy wrote:
And that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is and everything to do with the comparable points value Terminators to Imperial Guard Troops and HQ. I'm sure you won't be complaining if you could by 10 Terminators for the cost of the Loyal 32.

No, I would because turning an elite army is utterly moronic and merely continuing the 8th edition trend of boiling away all remaining tactical depth from the game. There's not even a point to space marines if all they are turned into is power armored guardsmen that are fielded en masse when they are supposed to be ridiculously rare and horribly outnumbered. Elite armies need to be elite, not a mass of models pushed across the table with a broom.

Karol wrote:
Just so you know, from a person with an army with termintors as based troop. The +2 sv is too good vs small arms is a lie. If the game was one termintors vs 1 IG trooper, then yeah termintor would be busted. But the fact is that my 5 dudes, buy an IG player almost 32 dudes with HQs.

Do you realise it takes an average of 72 shots from a Guardsman to down ONE terminator?

That's 36 guardsman shooting normally in rapid fire range, 18 with FRFSRF.

At best case that's 72pts in Guardsman, not including the commander to buff it.

The loyal 32 costs 180 pts and when shooting terminators will on average, with maximum possible shots, fail to kill a second terminator.

And that's the best block of infantry in the game.

Terminators are FINE against small arms.

 Stux wrote:

Karol wrote:
Just so you know, from a person with an army with termintors as based troop. The +2 sv is too good vs small arms is a lie. If the game was one termintors vs 1 IG trooper, then yeah termintor would be busted. But the fact is that my 5 dudes, buy an IG player almost 32 dudes with HQs.

Do you realise it takes an average of 72 shots from a Guardsman to down ONE terminator?

That's 36 guardsman shooting normally in rapid fire range, 18 with FRFSRF.

At best case that's 72pts in Guardsman, not including the commander to buff it.

The loyal 32 costs 180 pts and when shooting terminators will on average, with maximum possible shots, fail to kill a second terminator.

And that's the best block of infantry in the game.

Terminators are FINE against small arms.

Exactly what I've been saying. Everyone forgets how much their durability improved vs a significant number of weapons, with only losing durability in super specific situations (like Battlecannons and Autocannons and against Gauss Immortals). They need their damage output fixed. Simple as that.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
And that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is and everything to do with the comparable points value Terminators to Imperial Guard Troops and HQ. I'm sure you won't be complaining if you could by 10 Terminators for the cost of the Loyal 32.

No, I would because turning an elite army is utterly moronic and merely continuing the 8th edition trend of boiling away all remaining tactical depth from the game. There's not even a point to space marines if all they are turned into is power armored guardsmen that are fielded en masse when they are supposed to be ridiculously rare and horribly outnumbered. Elite armies need to be elite, not a mass of models pushed across the table with a broom.

But that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is. That is a thematic issue. Space Marines of any sort have not been that sort of "Elite" since Third edition dropped. You are arguing that they should be something they simply have not been in the memory of most players.

Simply put, Warhammer 40,000 tabletop miniature game Space Marines are not Black Library Space Marines. And they never will be because GW doesn't want your Space Marine army to be a tenth the size of your opponents Imperial Guard army.

 alextroy wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
And that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is and everything to do with the comparable points value Terminators to Imperial Guard Troops and HQ. I'm sure you won't be complaining if you could by 10 Terminators for the cost of the Loyal 32.

No, I would because turning an elite army is utterly moronic and merely continuing the 8th edition trend of boiling away all remaining tactical depth from the game. There's not even a point to space marines if all they are turned into is power armored guardsmen that are fielded en masse when they are supposed to be ridiculously rare and horribly outnumbered. Elite armies need to be elite, not a mass of models pushed across the table with a broom.

But that has nothing to do with how good a 2+ Save is. That is a thematic issue. Space Marines of any sort have not been that sort of "Elite" since Third edition dropped. You are arguing that they should be something they simply have not been in the memory of most players.

Simply put, Warhammer 40,000 tabletop miniature game Space Marines are not Black Library Space Marines. And they never will be because GW doesn't want your Space Marine army to be a tenth the size of your opponents Imperial Guard army.

Which isn't an argument beyond showing that the game has been in a fairly state for a long while, and is in need of an overhaul. And it has everything to do with how good a 2+ save is, as it's the 2+ save that is actually worth something, and marines are well overdue for a stats overhaul. Reducing the points cost does nothing but make the game objectively worse by watering down one faction to be nothing more than a gakky copy of another.

Idgaf about being harder to kill.

Normal shooting if you run

Double shooting if you don’t run (except heavies)

Double shooting everything if you don’t move.

Not for scouts.

+1 attack.

Definitive no to better armor or more wounds unless they get even more offensive boosts on top.

No. It supports castling

What, getting to move 6+d6” and then unload a plasma gun and bolsters supports castling?

No, double shooting heavies when stationary supports castling. It also doesn't solve the melee deficiency of the Codex; +1 attack isn't going to be enough to make a difference.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, double shooting heavies when stationary supports castling. It also doesn't solve the melee deficiency of the Codex; +1 attack isn't going to be enough to make a difference.

And what's the problem with castling?
For chapters like Iron Fists it makes absolute sense no?
Additionally the "decent" meleestats are what makes marines too expensive.

Well that's because Space Wolves have literally always been Space Marines +1. Of COURSE you don't think there's a problem. Grey Hunters cost the same as a Tactical but have an extra attack and can double up on Plasma Guns rather than being forced into a Heavy Weapon when they want to always be on the move.

It's completely bonkers, AND Grey Hunters are just considered okay!

Also Storm Bolters really can't be spammed outside the Elite slot. Heavy Bolters though we are blessed with the Tarantula Sentry Gun (literally my favorite Fast Attack choice). Also you get 2 shots with the poisoned Splinter for every Bolter. 1 shot at S4 or 2 shots just wounding on a 4+? That choice is clear as Kalabites are cheap enough that it doesn't matter.

Csm also can do that and we don't, simply put the availability of the PG is literally a non consideration to take a troop choice. Infact so long the basic CSM squad will not generate better CP then we will not switch away from the wannabee guardsmen, which are worse then IG, to generate CP. Not to mention that the cultists stratagem are fine whilest the stratagems for CSM are, let's just say, toned down....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Well that's because Space Wolves have literally always been Space Marines +1. Of COURSE you don't think there's a problem. Grey Hunters cost the same as a Tactical but have an extra attack and can double up on Plasma Guns rather than being forced into a Heavy Weapon when they want to always be on the move.

It's completely bonkers, AND Grey Hunters are just considered okay!

Well it's not that common to bring 2 plasmas in a unit of GH. They usually are played in 3 packs of 5 dudes just to field a Battallion. Plasma gun in each squad but since they are just screens for the tanks/long fangs I always missed the heavy weapon option, and plasma gun it's also the only real choice available since they can have just plasma guns, flamers and melta guns, no other weapons. Plasmas also need babysitters which you may want near the fight, not in the back field. I'm forced to bring two Wolf Lords to get plasmas re-rolls most of the times.

I agree that GH are better than regular marines, but that's only because SW are better than SM so they have more synergy with the rest of the army. The profile is basically the same, and 5 dudes are not that killy in combat even with +1A and +1WS, but they could add some support since SW have efficient choppy units. SM are mostly played as a boring gunline with no tactics involved after deployment.

SM need a codex that makes units like terminators or assault marines good units in doing their job, adding variety and more synergies: characters' auras, chapter bonuses and stratagems that buff melee mostly but not only. Otherwirse they'll always be AM -1 and that's not because of tactical marines.

SM need a codex that makes units like terminators or assault marines good units in doing their job, adding variety and more synergies: characters' auras, chapter bonuses and stratagems that buff melee mostly but not only. Otherwirse they'll always be AM -1 and that's not because of tactical marines.

Not gonna lie, but all Terminators, need to be better at their job, Hard hitting tough Shocktroops, which they are atm not really, mainly due to their pricetag which is abbhorrently high for laughable output / movement speed.

Yes, castling is bad. Marines have bring up their ratio of offense to defense way way more before even thinking of extra survival boosts like 2+ armor. At 13ppm their offense is paltry and staying at those points they first need more attack power as a base. If they then get survival boosts that needs to be accompanied by yet more offense to keep that ratio on offense. Marines are underpowered in both and I just want to address the imbalance in offense before raising their overall power.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, double shooting heavies when stationary supports castling.

It sounds like the existence of heavy weapons promotes castling.

Not Online!!! wrote:

SM need a codex that makes units like terminators or assault marines good units in doing their job, adding variety and more synergies: characters' auras, chapter bonuses and stratagems that buff melee mostly but not only. Otherwirse they'll always be AM -1 and that's not because of tactical marines.

Not gonna lie, but all Terminators, need to be better at their job, Hard hitting tough Shocktroops, which they are atm not really, mainly due to their pricetag which is abbhorrently high for laughable output / movement speed.

All Terminators (in all factions) get 1+ armour and do not suffer penalties to hit with melee weapons - its not hard.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

SM need a codex that makes units like terminators or assault marines good units in doing their job, adding variety and more synergies: characters' auras, chapter bonuses and stratagems that buff melee mostly but not only. Otherwirse they'll always be AM -1 and that's not because of tactical marines.

Not gonna lie, but all Terminators, need to be better at their job, Hard hitting tough Shocktroops, which they are atm not really, mainly due to their pricetag which is abbhorrently high for laughable output / movement speed.

All Terminators (in all factions) get 1+ armour and do not suffer penalties to hit with melee weapons - its not hard.

And that does nothing to fix the LC ones and anyone carrying Power Weapons.

Terminators are all about being put in situations like ship to ship boarding where they can survive a lot more than a regular marine and dish out enough damage to overwealm what is in front of them. Not open battlefield as minature tanks. Though of course that is what they are used as.

I would be quite happy with:

Uiversal rule - Astartes bolters, bolt pistols and storm bolters are -1 to armour saves due to their larger caliber rounds and superior targetting of enemy weak points using their armours auto senses.

Terminator armour - 1+ save, 5+ invulnerable, all incoming damage is reduced by one to a minimum of one (same as tough creatures like Hyrid abominations). This is the toughest armour known to man and the civilian versions are used for astroid mining and working inside plasma reactors after all...

Astartes power armour - 2+ save. The superor way it meshes with an astartes body grants incredible agility and range of motion compared to conventional powered armour and this combined with training and the black carapace means it grants a higher save than a mere human can have in it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, double shooting heavies when stationary supports castling. It also doesn't solve the melee deficiency of the Codex; +1 attack isn't going to be enough to make a difference.

And what's the problem with castling?
For chapters like Iron Fists it makes absolute sense no?
Additionally the "decent" meleestats are what makes marines too expensive.

Well that's because Space Wolves have literally always been Space Marines +1. Of COURSE you don't think there's a problem. Grey Hunters cost the same as a Tactical but have an extra attack and can double up on Plasma Guns rather than being forced into a Heavy Weapon when they want to always be on the move.

It's completely bonkers, AND Grey Hunters are just considered okay!

Also Storm Bolters really can't be spammed outside the Elite slot. Heavy Bolters though we are blessed with the Tarantula Sentry Gun (literally my favorite Fast Attack choice). Also you get 2 shots with the poisoned Splinter for every Bolter. 1 shot at S4 or 2 shots just wounding on a 4+? That choice is clear as Kalabites are cheap enough that it doesn't matter.

Csm also can do that and we don't, simply put the availability of the PG is literally a non consideration to take a troop choice. Infact so long the basic CSM squad will not generate better CP then we will not switch away from the wannabee guardsmen, which are worse then IG, to generate CP. Not to mention that the cultists stratagem are fine whilest the stratagems for CSM are, let's just say, toned down....

CSM don't do that because on top of the Bolter being silly bad, we also have Cultists to fulfill our needs.

I'm also of the opinion the regular CSM entry needs to be scrapped though and Chosen should be the default troop choice to show they're actually Vets. That's just the codex not doing fluff equating crunch as usual though.

Just my $0.02...

The issue is that, thanks to the new AP system, Power Armor is completely worthless.

GW has sadly created this issue because AP modifiers are being handed out like AOL disc's in the 90's.

I'm not sure what the correction is or should be, but to me it seems like the AP problem has now grown into an uncontrollable monster.

Even AP 0 does work on marines outside of cover. A lot of work. Sisters work. Marines don't. Make marines more like sisters.

Martel732 wrote:
Even AP 0 does work on marines outside of cover. A lot of work. Sisters work. Marines don't. Make marines more like sisters.

Then go play Sisters. This thread is more about making those smaller, more elite armies work. Nobody is stopping you from playing Sisters.

Martel732 wrote:
Even AP 0 does work on marines outside of cover. A lot of work. Sisters work. Marines don't. Make marines more like sisters.

To be fair sister's of battle work in small numbers due to AoF etc but full army of sisters tends to suck a bit, really maybe Power armour does need to be a 2+ to be worthwhile in 8th edition.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Even AP 0 does work on marines outside of cover. A lot of work. Sisters work. Marines don't. Make marines more like sisters.

To be fair sister's of battle work in small numbers due to AoF etc but full army of sisters tends to suck a bit, really maybe Power armour does need to be a 2+ to be worthwhile in 8th edition.

This, sisters do work only because they can fire twice with many units for free, without investing CPs. Then they have a very good transport from FW and an effective superhero. Stop.

The difference between SM and sisters is that sisters have good synergies and SM don't. SM codex is so badly written that they're forced to play as AM and of course you need guardsmen as allies then.

SM shouldn't be more tough, they should be more effective, simple. Take the comparison between meganobz and termies: they're not that different but meganobz are considered good and maybe even competitive, while termies are garbage. Why? Because termies don't work with a typical SM list, that's it.

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters work. Marines don't. Make marines more like sisters.

Sisters 'work' in the sense that sisters players expect their units to be wiped out and don't have any expectations of durability. The 3+ save is just there to make the opponent waste more of their resources removing them before the next expendable squad of meltaguns rolls up.

 Blackie wrote:
This, sisters do work only because they can fire twice with many units for free, without investing CPs.

Sisters have three ways of generating additional acts of faith:
1) Spend CP to roll a dice to shoot with a unit after a character has been killed.
2) Spend 40 points on an infantry model. Flip a coin each round to shoot again - typically with 40pts of heavy bolters.
3) Spend 200+ points on celestine

A.T. wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters work. Marines don't. Make marines more like sisters.

Sisters 'work' in the sense that sisters players expect their units to be wiped out and don't have any expectations of durability. The 3+ save is just there to make the opponent waste more of their resources removing them before the next expendable squad of meltaguns rolls up.

 Blackie wrote:
This, sisters do work only because they can fire twice with many units for free, without investing CPs.

Sisters have three ways of generating additional acts of faith:
1) Spend CP to roll a dice to shoot with a unit after a character has been killed.
2) Spend 40 points on an infantry model. Flip a coin each round to shoot again - typically with 40pts of heavy bolters.
3) Spend 200+ points on celestine

1) Effective way to use a CP, remember that sisters can easily field a brigade. With 5+ squishy and cheap characters.
2) 40 points that buff a lot shooty units like retributors and help fielding the brigade? Big deal.
3) Superhero that you may want anyway. Some other factions even take her as allied.

 Blackie wrote:
1) Effective way to use a CP, remember that sisters can easily field a brigade. With 5+ squishy and cheap characters.

The point is that it's neither free nor without the investment of CPs - which was your assertion. I feel that sisters are being over-egged here to downplay marines by comparison.

But by all means take a shot at an event with that. The minimum brigade with celestine (no gemini) will set you back 965 points plus another 1035 for meltaguns, combi-meltas, heavy bolters, and 3 repressors
66 t3 infantry models. 2000pts.

A.T. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
1) Effective way to use a CP, remember that sisters can easily field a brigade. With 5+ squishy and cheap characters.

The point is that it's neither free nor without the investment of CPs - which was your assertion. I feel that sisters are being over-egged here to downplay marines by comparison.

I said that sisters can fire twice without using CPs. This example is a way of firing twice using a CP but Act Of Faith can be triggered in other ways. Imagifiers are not free? Of course but they're very cheap brigade filler you may want anyway even without their special rule about triggering Acts of Faith since CPs are needed and other elites are not worth taking in a competitive game. As a sisters player I really enjoy the army, even without the codex. They're not overpowered but definitely effective in any real meta.

I've always liked the idea of certain tough things like power armour ignoring one or two points of AP modifier. It's like being in cover in the open. It also makes -1 AP on bolters more attractive as an option, since it doesn't have a knock-on effect against power armour or Terminator armour if they ignore that -1.

I wonder what the following changes for Marines would do to the game - these aren't tightly fleshed out, just kinda throwing it out there:

-Tac bodies cost 10ppm, boltguns cost 1ppm (11ppm tacs/devs, 10ppm ASM)
-All Battle Brothers are A2
-Rhinos are 40ppm, Drop Pods are 50ppm

Bharring wrote:
I wonder what the following changes for Marines would do to the game - these aren't tightly fleshed out, just kinda throwing it out there:

-Tac bodies cost 10ppm, boltguns cost 1ppm (11ppm tacs/devs, 10ppm ASM)
-All Battle Brothers are A2
-Rhinos are 40ppm, Drop Pods are 50ppm

40 PPM Rhinos are insane. They're Dedicated Transports, so you can take as many as you want, and that's 11 T7 wounds for 40 points. People complain about 4 PPM Guardsmen, and they're T3 5+.

Rhinos are fine; the contents suck.

The point is, if you could have a (more reasonably costed) Marine that had a lot more mobility options - even if not directly on it's stat line - would that change things?

Martel732 wrote:
Rhinos are fine; the contents suck.

Rhinos are bad since they don't have fire points.

Bharring wrote:
The point is, if you could have a (more reasonably costed) Marine that had a lot more mobility options - even if not directly on it's stat line - would that change things?

No. Not really. You are still transporting pure trash. With no fire points to boot. People will just bring more empty rhinos to screen cc characters.

And with no actually changes to rules and/or stat, there is no "reasonable" cost for Marines. At 13ppm they are just overcosted. At 11ppm they are a bit better, but still not great. At 9ppm, they are probably worth their cost, but now you have a unit that is cheaper than other options that they are SUPPOSED to be better than.

The only "fix" that will make MEQs appropriate is a 1-2 punch of points decrease AND some kind of rule change/special ability.

Personally, I'd like to see Marines (and Chaos Marines) go down to 11ppm and have "Exploding Rounds", where Bolter weapons cause 2 wounds per each 6 to Wound. Not Damage 2, but 2 separate D1 wounds.

Although, if I had a time machine and could directly influence GW, I would have given all MEQs the Primaris Statline from the start of 8th and make the Primaris line just improved armour with T5 and different equipment (Bolt Rifles, etc) but NOT all new Marines.

Points changes won't help them because they're not just an abstract cost to effectiveness ratio, they're Space Marines, and that means a lot to people. The same goes for many things in 40k (other games aside); Carnifexes being 5ppm would make them overpowered but it wouldn't make them play the way people want them to. I'd much rather pay for an overcosted unit that performs the way it should.

But at what point does it impact whether "the other guy" can play his army the way he *it* should?

So Marines should beat Guardsmen in a firefight. 1-to-1 definitely. What Guard does well is bringing a bucket of doods to the firefight, and drowning their enemy in numbers. So if Marines go up against a bucket of Guardsmen, do Marines remove a bucket of Guardsmen, or do Guardsmen drown Marines in bodies?

Marines are super elite. Aspect Warriors are super elite. If you want Marines to be elite, the thought is that lowly things like Aspect Warriors shouldn't be able to stand up to them. So to make marines feel the way they should, Aspect Warriors need to be less elite than Marines. To make Aspect Warriors feel the way they should, Marines need to not be more elite than Aspect Warriors. So how do you make both play how they should?

Trying to make multiple armies play how they "should" is difficult. Marines are Super Soldiers. But they're going up against Super-numerous armies, Super-durable armies, Super-spaceelfninjasamurai armies, and Super-soccer hooligan armies. If you lose the context of the other side's Super, you either don't feel like Super Soldiers or you destroy the other side's concept.

Theres nothing super about being mowed down by dissy cannons like chaff. Marines are so far from being even effective that I don't think this is a real worry.

Also, deep strike rules stop marines from physically getting to back lines. So the big guns are immortal too.

I think I'd Rather a T8 rhino that was more expensive

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Rhinos are fine; the contents suck.

Rhinos are bad since they don't have fire points.

Don't they work fine with some chaos assault oriented units? Just give some punch in combat to marines as well.

Last time I faced rhino berserkers, it was not impressive. Turns out if you deal 5 W to each rhino, they are back to moving 6".

Martel732 wrote:
Last time I faced rhino berserkers, it was not impressive. Turns out if you deal 5 W to each rhino, they are back to moving 6".

Best berserker Rhino tactic I have heard of - charge up the table, fire combi plasma at the hardest to hit target getting between -1 and -3 to hit. Re-roll if necessary. Get a 1, explode, release berserkers who charge

Yes. They weren't doing that, though.

Rhinos aren't unique in this regard. They are crap. Just like devilfish/chimeras/ ect are crap. They aren't worth half their points. Then comes the problem if you make them that cheap. They becomes too cheap for the amount of disruption they cause.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Last time I faced rhino berserkers, it was not impressive. Turns out if you deal 5 W to each rhino, they are back to moving 6".

Best berserker Rhino tactic I have heard of - charge up the table, fire combi plasma at the hardest to hit target getting between -1 and -3 to hit. Re-roll if necessary. Get a 1, explode, release berserkers who charge

I think you'll be surprised how much that doesn't work.

Illegal or just sucks?

Martel732 wrote:
Illegal or just sucks?

It's perfectly legal - just taking advantage of the dumbest rule in the game. Overcharge plasma slaying a 10 wound vehical on a single 1. Shooting at a flyer with double tap puts you at about a 50% chance to blow yourself up.

Why Overcharging plasma slays the bearer outright on a 1, rather than just doing 1MW, I'll never understand.

 Galef wrote:
Why Overcharging plasma slays the bearer outright on a 1, rather than just doing 1MW, I'll never understand.

You and me both.

And for a vehicle?

Alex_85 wrote:
And for a vehicle?

Are you referring to Plasma guns? Yes 1MW would make much more sense. Plasma Cannons already just do d3MWs to a vehicle instead of slaying it outright

-

 Galef wrote:
Why Overcharging plasma slays the bearer outright on a 1, rather than just doing 1MW, I'll never understand.

Vain attempt at mking them less broken?

I personally think that plasma should cause only 1mw also. However I think you should not be able to fire it again for the rest of the battle also if you survive.

Bharring wrote:
But at what point does it impact whether "the other guy" can play his army the way he *it* should?

So Marines should beat Guardsmen in a firefight. 1-to-1 definitely. What Guard does well is bringing a bucket of doods to the firefight, and drowning their enemy in numbers. So if Marines go up against a bucket of Guardsmen, do Marines remove a bucket of Guardsmen, or do Guardsmen drown Marines in bodies?

Marines are super elite. Aspect Warriors are super elite. If you want Marines to be elite, the thought is that lowly things like Aspect Warriors shouldn't be able to stand up to them. So to make marines feel the way they should, Aspect Warriors need to be less elite than Marines. To make Aspect Warriors feel the way they should, Marines need to not be more elite than Aspect Warriors. So how do you make both play how they should?

Trying to make multiple armies play how they "should" is difficult. Marines are Super Soldiers. But they're going up against Super-numerous armies, Super-durable armies, Super-spaceelfninjasamurai armies, and Super-soccer hooligan armies. If you lose the context of the other side's Super, you either don't feel like Super Soldiers or you destroy the other side's concept.

Because there isn't a raw "elite-ness" statistic that one can have over the other. I mean, sure, you'll have those people who'd argue that Marines are better than everyone else at everything (Black Library syndrome of them being faster than Eldar and whatever), but those people are dumb. There are plenty of changes that can be made to fix their current state that don't invalidate other parts of the game. In the same sense that Hormagaunts, Termangants, Cultists, Guardsmen and Ork Boyz are all very similar concepts fundamentally (~5ppm and you have lots) but also all play differently. Aspect Warriors are a bad example because while Marines and Aspect Warriors are both types of elite unit, they have very different ideal qualities.

I think a lot of issues could be fixed with better stratagems and chapter tactics. Maybe even giving them the ability to use their own Order system like AM. The AM by themselves aren't all that impressive but their army synergizes so well with stratagems and internal buffs they become a major PITA. Further, the SM need some new gear to deal with hordes. I understand you can take a AM Detachment to fill the holes but some people prefer mono armies. Simple solution, Whirlys can shoot twice if they didnt move, basically a Wyvern.

Oh, and a better Librarius.

I feel that most complaints against marines are pretty unfounded. A lot of people here just seem to be consistently whining. That being said there are some legitimate complaints, and one that I've been thinking over is the role of space marines in the general meta. One of the consistent complaints about marines in this thread is that marines aren't elite, and to fix this people have kept proposing straight numerical upgrades. This seems to be the wrong way to move in an already crowded design space, so instead I'd propose a horizontal change. Marines are generally sent in as strike forces. They must be surgical to deal with larger forces piece by piece, and they must be generalists as they don't have the numbers to support true specialists.

So lets focus on making them that - Surgical Generalists - dissect enemy forces and match their weakness with your strength.

Focusing on Surgical:
Surgical really comes down to having the maximum effective firepower where they have the minimum. Which is essentially dictated by positioning and range.
I don't really like the idea of increasing range because IMO it leads to more boring gameplay. So lets focus on positioning, both bettering your own and worsening the enemies.

Positioning Changes:
Drop Pods:
Units disembarking from drop pods ignore the 9" restriction (but must be fully within 3" of the Drop pod instead of partially). With the advent of orks getting excellent deepstrike charges, I'd say this is hardly unbalanced especially since its capped at a 10 man capacity (as opposed to 30 ork boys).

Teleport homers:
Scouts, scout bikes, and land speeder storms can activate a teleport homer strategem for 1 cp. If they do so at the end of the movement phase any unit with the TERMINATOR key word may immediately be removed from the board and placed entirely within 6" of the scout unit and outside of 9" of any enemy units.

Land Raiders:
Assault ramp, if the land raider has made a charge this turn and has units embarked then at the end of the charge phase the units may disembark and MUST be within both 3" of the landraider and 1" of one of the landraiders chosen charge targets. For purposes of fighting the embarked unit counts as having declared a charge against all units that the landraider declared a charge against but may not be overwatched. Possibly give the LR a bonus to hit on charge.

Dreadnoughts:
Get rid of the difference between Dreadnought drop pods and standard drop pods. Increase movement to 8" for all dreadnoughts.

Marines: Not much I'd change for them in terms of positioning, MAYBE give them 7" movement.

Teleport Jammers:
Either a one use equipment or possibly a strategem for land speeders. Extends the deep strike denial range from 9" to 12"

Predators: Turret weapons ignore the heavy weapon movement penalty
Vindicators: Ignore the HW movement penalty

Focusing on Generalists Changes:
Marines: +1 attack. Shoot the choppy. Chop the shooty. Possibly a point decrease for special weapons.

Rhinos: Please give fireports back, if not let us swap the SB for flamers (advance and fire + overwatch protection)

Razors: Don't use em, cant speak about their effectiveness or how to change them.

Whirlwinds: Go back to previous editions and give it both profiles and choose when it fires.

Synopsis:
Basically, marines should have trouble taking blow-for-blow style engagements but should excel in dissecting parts of the opposing force and cracking flanks. Most of the positioning changes help them concentrate force to hit the enemy hard. While the generalists changes help marines when they get stuck into that flank. Still needs to be thought out more obviously, but I feel these changes would end up giving marines a proper fighting style.

Fireports to all vehicles that can carry models and aren't open topped is a good suggestion that would improve the quality of 40k IMHO. Not only rhinos but all tanks with a transport capacity. Of course just 1-2 models should be able to fire from the inside.

Rhino's price is fair, the drop pods are utterly overcosted. They should realistically be priced at 50-60 points at most since the best combos they had in 7th (flamers and meltas) aren't effective in 8th. Drop pods should be the cheapest SM transport, and able to carry dreads: it's basically the only real change that I'd like to see with SM other than adding more punch in melee.

"Land Raiders:
Assault ramp, if the land raider has made a charge this turn and has units embarked then at the end of the charge phase the units may disembark and MUST be within both 3" of the landraider and 1" of one of the landraiders chosen charge targets. For purposes of fighting the embarked unit counts as having declared a charge against all units that the landraider declared a charge against but may not be overwatched. Possibly give the LR a bonus to hit on charge. "
That's the first Assault Ramp suggestion this edition that I *didn't* hate.

Fireports:
Rhinos getting 2 Fireports back would be excellent. Not all transport tanks should have fireports (Serpents certainly shouldn't have them), but Rhinos certainly should.

"I feel that most complaints against marines are pretty unfounded."

Tournament data suggests otherwise. Based off the CA leaks, GW disagrees as well. I guess they want to see some units other than scouts and Capt Smash, too.

Vilehydra wrote:
to fix this people have kept proposing straight numerical upgrades. This seems to be the wrong way to move in an already crowded design space, so instead I'd propose a horizontal change. Marines are generally sent in as strike forces. They must be surgical to deal with larger forces piece by piece, and they must be generalists as they don't have the numbers to support true specialists.

yes very happy with that.
.

Positioning Changes:

Teleport homers:
Scouts, scout bikes, and land speeder storms can activate a teleport homer strategem for 1 cp. If they do so at the end of the movement phase any unit with the TERMINATOR key word may immediately be removed from the board and placed entirely within 6" of the scout unit and outside of 9" of any enemy units.

You could say all the battle line squads can use the stratagem. Tactical sergeants have had access to them before, it seems like that makes it less niches. Scouts certainly aren’t underused atm, and they’re still the better platform since they infiltrate.

Land Raiders:
Assault ramp, if the land raider has made a charge this turn and has units embarked then at the end of the charge phase the units may disembark and MUST be within both 3" of the landraider and 1" of one of the landraiders chosen charge targets. For purposes of fighting the embarked unit counts as having declared a charge against all units that the landraider declared a charge against but may not be overwatched. Possibly give the LR a bonus to hit on charge.

Yeah great, and it gives land raiders a use for power armored models. It’d be nice for this to be generalized to open topped units, but that seems very out of control.

Marines: Not much I'd change for them in terms of positioning, MAYBE give them 7" movement.

I’d like to shoot rapid fire and pistol weapons after a run move, at -1 to hit or not. Preserving the bolt carbine doesn’t seem very important. I’d especially don’t want them to have a higher top speed than eldar or hormagaunts.

Predators: Turret weapons ignore the heavy weapon movement penalty
Vindicators: Ignore the HW movement penalty

The potential has always been there.