trying to keep in line with the lore and how table wise marines just don't do enough damage I think the bolter should do 2 damage and have -1 ap as standard as they are said to be armour piercing and how does a armour piercing bolter have the same ap as a bloody flashlight- sorry the glorious lasgun and bolter rounds explode causing more damage that what a normal round would do. I think this would solve the damage issue but then you still have to toughness issue.

I think a way to solve this isn't to make them tougher its to give them a 7 or 8 inch move I say this because lore wise they are said to move around 100mph unlike a regular human (guardsmen) who when bogged down with gear will probably run at a max of 10mph. also the fastest speed a human has every run was 29.5pmh( Usain bolt) but even he in Olympic conditions could only keep that speed for 2 seconds before slowing a little.


my reasoning behind this isn't just lore based as I saw a poll of the best units in 8th with over 200 people voting and everyone could vote for 3options, out of the top 12 10 had a movement speed of 12 or more and that was where the similarities stopped. the two that weren't were assault centurions and the leman russ with a move of 4 and 10 inches. the others varied from a wraithknight to bikerscouts to waveserpents I'm just saying that speed is a very useful factor and one that gw hasn't really taken into account that much. also the whole point of the marines was to be a blitzkrieg type army but they have lost that now with primaris so im saying that with these the marines might just be competitive again

I would like to hear what people think about that.

Assault Centurions were in the top units of 8th!?!? I wouldn't trust that pole then!

2 damage is too much too. If Bolters were 2 damage then Primaris would be a joke.

yeah that poll when I looked at all of the % votes there did seem to be a few trollers but everyone seemed to put in at least one good vote and if you just look at stats of those centurions they seem good then you use them and realise they are garbage as you can't really transport them and all they can do is melee and they are slow bbut every thing else was legit on the leaerboard also keep in mind it was before any knew major unit introduction save primaris

The level of SIA Stormbolter bitching would be able to power several large cities.

Also you really, really dont want to tie table performance to the levels of lunacy that things get up to in fluff.

Everyone wins every battle without trying in their own Codex. Read anyone else's fluff and Space Marines are chunky, incompetent, inflexible, and easily outmaneuvered.

Its really cool that you looked at a pool of good stuff and took something from that. I like that extra movement that’s really interesting. Especially primaris marines, given they’re taller and stronger.

I wonder if there’s a way they could go even faster than that. Like they could have a fire after running ability. Like everything counts as an assault weapon and assault weapons get no penalty. That would get them to 9”, or 10” if they have M7”. I don’t think moving just 7” gets them up to have the same fast quality as those other units in the poll.They’d have even paltrier shooting when they ran though.

Not the other stuff that obviously isn’t new at all.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Everyone wins every battle without trying in their own Codex. Read anyone else's fluff and Space Marines are chunky, incompetent, inflexible, and easily outmaneuvered.

I know they are unmanoverable but they are still fast like bolts faster than a gymnast but they can move all directions marine can run fast in all codexes just eldar sidestep and the marine can't turn quickly enough


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:
The level of SIA Stormbolter bitching would be able to power several large cities.

Also you really, really dont want to tie table performance to the levels of lunacy that things get up to in fluff.

I know about the lore table top thing I would just like to see the marine table top to behave some what like lore aka not gunline like the guard and also except for terminators and pintle mounts where can you find storm bolters plus most things only have 1 wound so it wouldn't be too much of a game changer just a little in to help

Yeah, they used to have I4 before. Giving them a better movement would go a long way to help them, including assault units, without reducing points or altering the profile. And that would be totally ok with their superhuman profil.

Then Eldar got 8" move, Harlequins get 9" base.

im just looking and most people say they don't do enough damage and aren't tough enough but more toughness = less speed in gw mind and it works as shown by the eldar so if you give them more speed they can capture points better

deotrims 16th wrote:
I think the bolter should do 2 damage

This just defeats the whole point of having 2 wound models.

*Bolters to AP -1
*ATSKNF changed to roll 2 dice, pick best result
*Terminators to T5 2W 1+ / 4++ / 6+++ and BS/WS 2+ with an extra attack
*Chapter tactics apply to all models
*Tactical squads and Intercessors get 'super objective secured'
*Drop Pod Assault on turn 1
*Company Support (but say half price rhino/pods) ie bring back battle company (that single handedly made marines good in 7th)

Yeah, broken. Adjust points accordingly.
Fix grav weaponry.
Fix the Vindicator.
Points drops across most vehicles and dreadnoughts.

A.T. wrote:

deotrims 16th wrote:
I think the bolter should do 2 damage

This just defeats the whole point of having 2 wound models.

Yeah, this is a bad idea.

I'd rather give Bolters S5 and Heavy Bolters S6. Heavy Bolters would be much better horde clear!

I'm assuming they already have -1 AP, because Primaris are the future

S5 Bolters does tread on Tau toes though...

Improved bolters/bolter ammo.

Make tact marines the same as vets... they're basically the same points value now... and just lets vets keep the extra rules like defending hqs and stuff.

Probably S 5 bolter and add the Primaris buff across the board. +1 W +1 A.

Issue seems to be marines as it stands don't do enough damage for what they cost, while being too easy to kill for what they cost.

wonder if the following would help, while making marines what they should be - an army of elite, but effective troops.

- +1 attack on tactical, assault, intersissor and similar basic troop types (so base troops have 2, sergeants 3)
- give bolt side arms +1 shot (so bolt gun becomes Rapid Fire 1 + 1, bolt pistol becomes Pistol 2) etc

the robustness is something that really needs changes to the core game mechanics, but the above means marines get more damage output

Just make them cheaper.

Martel732 wrote:
Just make them cheaper.

If you want cheap-ish models that are basically just special weapons with 3+ saves, there is a (beta) codex for that.
Ally them in to your next few lists and see if the grass really is greener.

A.T. wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Just make them cheaper.

If you want cheap-ish models that are basically just special weapons with 3+ saves, there is a (beta) codex for that.
Ally them in to your next few lists and see if the grass really is greener.

It is. Come to the XX side, we have cookies Dominions. That said, we have a lot more weaknesses due to general neglect, but our infantry is theoretically better. If we could take lascannons, it would be out of character, but it would be neat.

That said, I don't think Tactical Marines need anything special, just a cost reduction.

Actually you know what really hurts marines is the basic bolter sucks hugely in 8th edition.

It's marginally better than a lasgun against T3, but you can get 2 or 4(orders) lasguns for the cost of a bolter in PA and thats not even on a marine. And simply a bolter in PA is not twice as good as a lasgun.

PA doesn't make that body twice as durable either.

The basic bolter needs a special rule to function in 8th, it either needs to have +1 to hit against infantry, all model's killed by bolt weapon generate an additional hit against that unit roll wounds and saves normally.
Primaris actually sort of work they might not be the super soldiers GW planned, but they're getting close to viable.

But every unit thats stuck with mostly bolters in PA still isn't good regardless of codex.

Aside from orks, CSM, SM, necrons, amd few others, the value of T3 needs to be revisited.

Rather than trying to fix boltguns, I think its worthwhile to look at reducing staying powers of units that should be dyig to boltguns rather reliably.

 skchsan wrote:
Aside from orks, CSM, SM, necrons, amd few others, the value of T3 needs to be revisited.

Rather than trying to fix boltguns, I think its worthwhile to look at reducing staying powers of units that should be dyig to boltguns rather reliably.

Your basically asking for a new to wound chart though
GW likes its flat wound chart as it's simple and everything can hurt everything. It's good for the game according to the designers.

Make humans s2 t2 with s2 guns.

Ice_can wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Aside from orks, CSM, SM, necrons, amd few others, the value of T3 needs to be revisited.

Rather than trying to fix boltguns, I think its worthwhile to look at reducing staying powers of units that should be dyig to boltguns rather reliably.

Your basically asking for a new to wound chart though
GW likes its flat wound chart as it's simple and everything can hurt everything. It's good for the game according to the designers.

but everything can wound everything. units with power armored marine stats shouldn't cost 20pts or even more. Now am not saying a new wound chart should be made, doubt GW would do such a change, but GW really has to rethink how they cost stuff. A dark reaper should not cost less then a termintor, and that is considering or not considering overlaping buffs or Inari rules.

Try some math with 4ppm T2 guardsmen. The results are surprisingly balanced.

Special bolter ammo. Either +1s, +1ap or +1D. Each squad gets to choose one.

 skchsan wrote:
Try some math with 4ppm T2 guardsmen. The results are surprisingly balanced.

We'll then have people complaining that Guardsmen aren't hurt any harder by S5 or S6 guns, then.

 skchsan wrote:
Try some math with 4ppm T2 guardsmen. The results are surprisingly balanced.

How do they compare to 3pnt Gretchin?

 Blndmage wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Try some math with 4ppm T2 guardsmen. The results are surprisingly balanced.

How do they compare to 3pnt Gretchin?

I mean the guard is 1pt more than a gretchin but has better, ld, armour sv, weapon, range, cc, Str, T, access to orders and special weapons. So how do you think?

I honestly think gretchin should have become 2pts to balance out the 1pts increase with boyz.

Just make guardsmen 7ppm or 4ppm with T2 6+ save. Marines could be 11-12ppm maybe, not less, and saving 15-30 points in a 2000 points list doesn't make any real difference.

Making T3 5+ as squishy as they were, or with an appropriate cost, balanced to the new AP and CPs generation systems, is a different matter though. Would it fix marines issue? Not completely but it would increase the balance between the current broken ultra cheap troops and the more expensive but also lackluster ones.

Gretchins are T2 no save, no chapter bonus, only one specific stratagem allowed on them, and they can't fire 4 shots for free. They definitely worth half the cost of a guardsmen instead of being just -1ppm. But at 2ppm any ork player would spam 100+ gretchins making them broken, at 3ppm they are fairly balanced, it's boyz that are probably a bit overcosted as 7ppm. I'd even advocate for 4ppm gretchins if guardsmen were 7ppm, which is where they should be.

If you make guard 4.5 to 5 points, you can leave marines alone. 4.5 feels more right to me personally, and GW has done half points before.

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you make guard 4.5 to 5 points, you can leave marines alone. 4.5 feels more right to me personally, and GW has done half points before.

Yeah, but then they'd still be playable.

Can't be having that.

True, I forgot how many marine players insist on butchering everything in their opponent's army, despite running face first in to hundreds of enemies, with just five guys.

One thing about units and costs. Units don't exist as elements in a vacuum. They are part of an army. As such their effectiveness cannot just be based on their raw stars but must be partially based on what they can do as part of an army.

For example, necron immortals. If carrying Tesla weapons then as written their hits explode on a 6. Put a lord near them and their hits explode twice as often. The possibility of them getting exploding hits more than just 1 time in 6 needs to be considered in their cost.

So, I donct run an ork army, have no real desire to. But you have to look at this cost of grots as more than their basic abilities but how they work in an army. Do they buff if they have an ork nearby? Do they screen units? Part of their value.

A lot of things need to be considered in points cost. Not just raw stars and basic numbers.

As for fixing Marines, honestly we hear about their awesome geneseed implants, their awesome power armor, their awesome conditioning, etc. They do seem... underwhelming wen one looks at them in modern terms. Maybe all marines should have a version of FNP to reflect their armor and biological modifications and conditioning. Sure it would be a major change but in my opinion it would just set the feel of marines right in relation to their back story. I don't expect it...

 vipoid wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you make guard 4.5 to 5 points, you can leave marines alone. 4.5 feels more right to me personally, and GW has done half points before.

Yeah, but then they'd still be playable.

Can't be having that.

At this point, it is getting to where i don't want to see ig again for a long time.

Martel732 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you make guard 4.5 to 5 points, you can leave marines alone. 4.5 feels more right to me personally, and GW has done half points before.

Yeah, but then they'd still be playable.

Can't be having that.

At this point, it is getting to where i don't want to see ig again for a long time.

We all want something....

At this point I'm settling, because I don't think GW is ever making my list good again. I'm just wishing for some variety in my losses.

Martel732 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you make guard 4.5 to 5 points, you can leave marines alone. 4.5 feels more right to me personally, and GW has done half points before.

Yeah, but then they'd still be playable.

Can't be having that.

At this point, it is getting to where i don't want to see ig again for a long time.

If someone has an army that you don't like, it's on you to say no, not them.

Lol what? Tourney format doesnt work that way.

Martel732 wrote:
Lol what? Tourney format doesnt work that way.

Given your obvious and rather extreme hatred of IG, maybe tournaments aren't for you then?

Why would you say that? Turning down games because I'm tired of a faction is lame.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
One thing about units and costs. Units don't exist as elements in a vacuum. They are part of an army. As such their effectiveness cannot just be based on their raw stars but must be partially based on what they can do as part of an army.

Whilst I partially agree, I should point out that this can also cause problems.

For example, let's take Eldar, which have access to some of the best Psychic powers in the game.

Do you cost Eldar units based on the idea that they'll have those buffs? If so, then you're making the buff units mandatory just to make Eldar units worth their cost. If not, then Eldar units will be OP once you add in those buffs.

And then you've got the additional problem of allies. It seems many people assume that DE units will also have access to Doom, and so want their units priced accordingly, even though the buff isn't even in the same codex.

Now, you could instead make the buffing unit pay all costs associated with its buff. But you'll still run into problems. To go back to the above example, how do you calculate the point value of Doom? Especially since it will not only depend on the size and makeup of your own army but also your opponent's army. Casting Doom on an Imperial Knight is going to be a lot more valuable than casting it on a ~70pt infantry squad. Or even just auras. How do you price an aura without knowing which units it will affect and how many of them?

In short, there are a lot of issues associated with trying to price units based on either the buffs they provide or the buffs they potentially have access to.

I think if you were going to do it that way, you'd have to start making buffs *much* more specific.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

For example, necron immortals. If carrying Tesla weapons then as written their hits explode on a 6. Put a lord near them and their hits explode twice as often. The possibility of them getting exploding hits more than just 1 time in 6 needs to be considered in their cost.

Except that, as above, there's no easy way to do this. If you assume the buff, then you make them overcosted if they can't/don't get it.

And bear in mind that there's a good chance many Immortal units in a given army won't have that buff.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

As for fixing Marines, honestly we hear about their awesome geneseed implants, their awesome power armor, their awesome conditioning, etc. They do seem... underwhelming wen one looks at them in modern terms. Maybe all marines should have a version of FNP to reflect their armor and biological modifications and conditioning. Sure it would be a major change but in my opinion it would just set the feel of marines right in relation to their back story. I don't expect it...

I think the real issue is that there are so many different factions and subfactions that Marines are basically cemented in place. There's almost nowhere to go in terms of design space without treading on the toes of other models.

e.g. you suggest giving them FNP, but aren't you treading on the toes of Plague Marines by doing this? Are Plague Marines going to have something else to represent their Nurgle-based toughness?

You could give them 2 wounds but then you're treading on the toes of Primaris Marines (which, IMO, should have either not been made in the first place or else should just have been updated Marine models).

You could give their weapons -1AP, but then you're treading on the toes of Necrons - who got that to replace their lost Gauss rule.

You could make them cheaper, but things are already getting really cramped at that point level. And, more importantly, it's going to make them feel even less like elite soldiers.


Something I will say - and I think this is important for more than just Marines - is that I think the game has a real problem with so many infantry units being forced to take basic weapons that are absolute garbage. I think this is a consequence of the game becoming less about infantry and more about being Mechwarrior. So that the basic troops (and, hell, even many elite troops) end up bringing anti-infantry weapons to a giant-mecha fight, with no option to even swap out more than 1-2 of them.

Martel732 wrote:
Why would you say that? Turning down games because I'm tired of a faction is lame.

Well, you feel worked up about it enough to quit the game. So yeah, turning down games might actually be a good option for you.

If you want 2 damage bolters play sisters. Obviously broken stratagem.

Been speaking with sisters players about the codex and they're laughing at how overpowered their army will be. Not much can handle a giant wave of 4++ bodies occupying the table.

Sisters also get the nice benefit of being S4 in melee now, and getting multiple attacks as well as fight twice. Marines will charge sisters and lose the fight. If anyone played marines.

 Marmatag wrote:
If you want 2 damage bolters play sisters. Obviously broken stratagem.

Been speaking with sisters players about the codex and they're laughing at how overpowered their army will be. Not much can handle a giant wave of 4++ bodies occupying the table.

Sisters also get the nice benefit of being S4 in melee now, and getting multiple attacks as well as fight twice. Marines will charge sisters and lose the fight. If anyone played marines.

I'd warn them not to laugh too obviously, or it risks getting needed into oblivion for the real codex!

 Marmatag wrote:

Not much can handle a giant wave of 4++ bodies occupying the table.

Except Guardsmen in every thread complaining about guardsmen.

I think I'm in the boat for just making marines 1-3 points cheaper. Only because I assume Primaris will be dropped to 15 and a 2 point difference would kill normal marines. I am against marines being cheaper but because that's not why I picked them as my first/favorite army.

I don't see the holy bolter getting any rules or any other normal marine unit for that matter.

But regardless I have 300+ days to continue painting models before I have to worry about a shake up again.

Something I will say - and I think this is important for more than just Marines - is that I think the game has a real problem with so many infantry units being forced to take basic weapons that are absolute garbage. I think this is a consequence of the game becoming less about infantry and more about being Mechwarrior. So that the basic troops (and, hell, even many elite troops) end up bringing anti-infantry weapons to a giant-mecha fight, with no option to even swap out more than 1-2 of them.

Basically this once they introduced matched play allowing super heavies everything went out the window.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Something I will say - and I think this is important for more than just Marines - is that I think the game has a real problem with so many infantry units being forced to take basic weapons that are absolute garbage. I think this is a consequence of the game becoming less about infantry and more about being Mechwarrior. So that the basic troops (and, hell, even many elite troops) end up bringing anti-infantry weapons to a giant-mecha fight, with no option to even swap out more than 1-2 of them.

Basically this once they introduced matched play allowing super heavies everything went out the window.

I was kinda silly and anticipated mass infintry so I designed my entire marines army around anti infintry. They're mostly plasma and heavy bolters... I didn't bring lascannons on my razors or anything. It suited mpthe loremof my anti tyranid army though... However, little did i know that anti infintry was baaaaaad and being pure marines with no soup and one of the worse keywords made it even worse.... i still like my army though.

 Stux wrote:
I'd warn them not to laugh too obviously, or it risks getting needed into oblivion for the real codex!

Actual sisters players have yet to find the humour in the chapter approved codex.

A.T. wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'd warn them not to laugh too obviously, or it risks getting needed into oblivion for the real codex!

Actual sisters players have yet to find the humour in the chapter approved codex.

Sorry, i'm speaking about people who have large collections, and have for some time, not people who are aspiring flavor of the month runners.

 Marmatag wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'd warn them not to laugh too obviously, or it risks getting needed into oblivion for the real codex!

Actual sisters players have yet to find the humour in the chapter approved codex.

Sorry, i'm speaking about people who have large collections, and have for some time, not people who are aspiring flavor of the month runners.

Yeah. They are, from all I've seen, none-too-happy with the beta 'Dex.

It could've been worse, definitely, but it could've been WAY better.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'd warn them not to laugh too obviously, or it risks getting needed into oblivion for the real codex!

Actual sisters players have yet to find the humour in the chapter approved codex.

Sorry, i'm speaking about people who have large collections, and have for some time, not people who are aspiring flavor of the month runners.

Yeah. They are, from all I've seen, none-too-happy with the beta 'Dex.

It could've been worse, definitely, but it could've been WAY better.

People will complain about everything, the current sisters codex is fantastic.

And they haven't even gotten their new models yet... which they will.

 Marmatag wrote:
Sorry, i'm speaking about people who have large collections, and have for some time, not people who are aspiring flavor of the month runners.

So... a couple of hundred? Albeit only 15 stormbolters.

Perhaps wait for this magical horde of sisters to actually win something before proclaiming them overpowered.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why would you say that? Turning down games because I'm tired of a faction is lame.

Well, you feel worked up about it enough to quit the game. So yeah, turning down games might actually be a good option for you.

Regular marines could have a FNP safe vs non mortal wounds. Nurgle marines could have a FNP that applies to mortal wounds.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why would you say that? Turning down games because I'm tired of a faction is lame.

Well, you feel worked up about it enough to quit the game. So yeah, turning down games might actually be a good option for you.

Regular marines could have a FNP safe vs non mortal wounds. Nurgle marines could have a FNP that applies to mortal wounds.

Plague marines do have a FNP that applies to Mortal Wounds.

Sure give marines a FNP. Just account for it in their points.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why would you say that? Turning down games because I'm tired of a faction is lame.

Well, you feel worked up about it enough to quit the game. So yeah, turning down games might actually be a good option for you.

Regular marines could have a FNP safe vs non mortal wounds. Nurgle marines could have a FNP that applies to mortal wounds.

Plague marines do have a FNP that applies to Mortal Wounds.

Sure give marines a FNP. Just account for it in their points.

Give regular Marines a limited FNP tbat failes vs mortal wounds. Nurgle and some exceptional Mari es get full FNP. Plus nurgle Mari es already get T5. That's enough advantage for being a walking sh-tbag.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
One thing about units and costs. Units don't exist as elements in a vacuum. They are part of an army. As such their effectiveness cannot just be based on their raw stars but must be partially based on what they can do as part of an army.

A lot of things need to be considered in points cost. Not just raw stars and basic numbers.

This is true but its not as mysterious as is often implied.
In your Necron example the "cost" of the Lords buff should be in his points. Same for say a Farseer's psychic powers. You then generate caps on the ability and can determine in a crude way the power/point ratio. So I think MWBD on Tesla immortals generates a 50% increase in hits rather than 25% on other targets. Whether this is overpowered can be tested. The conclusion would seem to be no. This is not surprising given Overlords are theoretically in the best circumstance acting as 75 points of Immortal shooting and he costs quite a bit more than this.

Its boring going after Guard all the time, but company commanders can arguably provide 80 points worth of (undercosted) shooting for a third of the points. Doom can theoretically buff an entire army. Hence the problem in theory and in practice.

For all that though basic Marines just need a points drop or more shots/attacks for their 13 points. Something like the Crimson Fist Chapter tactic being a baseline ability might help too. Ap-1 doesnt do much. 2 damage is already far too common.

Marines just need to be chee-eeper!

Everyone wants to keep making units tougher, more damaging.

But the escalation spiral needs to stop. In a game where you can drop multiple Knights on the battlefield, infantry isn’t going to be worth squat, no matter what you give them.

If the game ever goes back to it roots - about 2-3 full 10-man squads, maybe one less if you bring a dreadnought, and the most BS unit on the board is ONE tank, the likes of marines will be worth a damn in the game.

It not that marines are bad, it’s that the game has reached a level of ridiculousness that they are irrelevant.

I still think marines need to be more than they are now on the table to match the background, and let's be honest here nkw, 40k is pretty much all background. Rules wise it's never been anything special. There are far betcrer tabletop wargame rules than 40k has ever had.

It's all been a killer background and art, plus minis.

The armies on th tabletop need to match the background as much as possible. I think a lot of armies do this. IG is about masses of weak solders backed up by tanks and buffs.

Orks are about screaming mobs of creatures genetically engineered to live for combat.

Eldar and tau match their background pretty well.

Marines and necrons don't really match tneir background very well.

 Stormonu wrote:
Everyone wants to keep making units tougher, more damaging.

But the escalation spiral needs to stop. In a game where you can drop multiple Knights on the battlefield, infantry isn’t going to be worth squat, no matter what you give them.

If the game ever goes back to it roots - about 2-3 full 10-man squads, maybe one less if you bring a dreadnought, and the most BS unit on the board is ONE tank, the likes of marines will be worth a damn in the game.

It not that marines are bad, it’s that the game has reached a level of ridiculousness that they are irrelevant.

I can say this isn't really true. I have switched over to be a mostly Kill Team player, and I like to play Chaos Space Marines with just enough cultists to have mobile cover on more open boards. I don't think my marines hold up very well just against other factions' troop choices. There are a few kinds of marines that do okay in Kill Team like Plague Marines, Deathwatch Marines, Grey Knights and maybe Thousands Sons (I haven't really seen them in action), but I have been rather unimpressed by the performance of tactical marines and their Chaos counterparts. I find the best Kill Team marines are a strange glass cannon types which is why I think Deathwatch and Grey Knights do okay since they have ways to bring the pain. Still, there are so few of them to make a kill team that a lucky shot reduce the fighting strength by 1/5. Even with Kill Team's wounding system it seems to happen since often times these marines are outnumbered more than 2:1.

As for improving marines, I think marines should have a Move 7", 2 Wounds, Bolters -1 AP and 2 Attacks base standard with a corresponding point increase somewhere in the 16-20 points range. I am of the opinion that marines should be good at everything reflecting their high flexibility with a weakness of a high point cost. I know those changes would cause a huge cascade of rule changes all the other kind of Astartes (and other elite Imperial infantry) and the weapon choice they have.

To combat buffing auras, I would go for a chose a single unit kind of ability instead more akin to a character joining a squad. That would at least have the benefit of somewhat limiting buffs with the added benefit of at least one full strength sqaud. That still wouldn't come close fix all my changes which take far more effort to put everything back in place again. I know it wouldn't without a near complete re-write of several codices, but I would much rather marines have more elite stats rather than just be cheaper units to field.

 Stormonu wrote:
Everyone wants to keep making units tougher, more damaging.

But the escalation spiral needs to stop. In a game where you can drop multiple Knights on the battlefield, infantry isn’t going to be worth squat, no matter what you give them.

If the game ever goes back to it roots - about 2-3 full 10-man squads, maybe one less if you bring a dreadnought, and the most BS unit on the board is ONE tank, the likes of marines will be worth a damn in the game.

It not that marines are bad, it’s that the game has reached a level of ridiculousness that they are irrelevant.

Except realistically speaking heavy armor isn't a hard counter to infantry because infantry can easily hide and pack weapons able to neutralize heavy armor. Due to armor creep, things like Anti-Tank weapons such as lascannons and lances need to become more damaging and accurate versus vehicles. I've posted before about slapping heavy weapons with a -1 to hit vs infantry and a +1 to hit vs monsters/tanks, sorta like how flakk missiles work vs flyers. Just reduce vehicle's ability to mulch infantry while increasing infantry's lethality with heavy weapons. And/or get proper cover mechanics.

I've been thinking for a while, the vehicles and maybe monsters, should be -1 to hit to hit infantry. Vehicles in reality have difficulty seeing infantry, especially up close.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Marines and necrons don't really match tneir background very well.

I guess this is one of those IMO things - but I think they do, they are just overcosted.

A lot of this comes down to what Marines are in the fluff. Are they just enhanced humans - stronger, tougher, better armed - or is it "5-10 Space Marines can conquer a planet !!111!!!111!!!". For the former - they are there because of their statline compared to a guardsman. The problem is they pay too much for it to be effective on the tabletop.

The problem with marines is that their offensive power "for their points" is low, and while they have okay defensive stats vs low strength ap- weapons, they are disproportionately vulnerable to anything with S5, AP1+ or mortal wounds.

If Guardsmen were say 5 points and Marines were 12 points then I wouldn't say Marines would suddenly become super competitive - but they would be significantly better than now. If Guardsmen are locked in at 4 points forever then push Marines down to 11 points.

You can go the other way and say Marines should have Custodes stat lines - in order to conquer that planet - but that hasn't ever been the case in 40k before.

 Marmatag wrote:
If you want 2 damage bolters play sisters. Obviously broken stratagem.

Been speaking with sisters players about the codex and they're laughing at how overpowered their army will be. Not much can handle a giant wave of 4++ bodies occupying the table.

Sisters also get the nice benefit of being S4 in melee now, and getting multiple attacks as well as fight twice. Marines will charge sisters and lose the fight. If anyone played marines.

oh, please. You know what's an """OBVOUISLY BORKEN STARTAGEM""" by that logic? The 3 CP chapter masters stratagem space marines get. It's absolute BULLGAK that that stratagem exists when the bonus it gives is INSANE compared to Vessels of the Emperors Will+ Divine guidance. For the same cost, Marine players get REROLL ALL HITS instead of +1 and it lasts the WHOLE GAME and it goes off AUTOMATICALLY. Marine players get all the OP stuff and obvious favoritism and yadda, yadda, yadda, whining about armies you don't play.

Also, you should probably do math before you make it clear that you honestly have no idea what you're talking about. SoB are T3 and hit on 4s, even with +1 attack and +1S, 7 SoB STILL lose to 5 marines. Especially considering that that bonus only lasts ONE combat phase. 7 Sisters of battle do 1.2 damage on the charge to a unit of marines, 5 marines do .888 back. After that turn,the remaining 6 SoB do .38 damage per turn and marines would do .74. Even WITH the bonus from Bloody rose, 7 sisters still loses a fight to 5 marines. By A LOT. (Oh but the Passion! Yeah, you tried to use it, it failed 4 times and your unit died).

This cannot be healthy dude. Sisters got the most mediocre Codex update since grey knights and you're whining about THEM being OP? At least you still have your Girlyman cheese to fall back on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'd warn them not to laugh too obviously, or it risks getting needed into oblivion for the real codex!

Actual sisters players have yet to find the humour in the chapter approved codex.

Sorry, i'm speaking about people who have large collections, and have for some time, not people who are aspiring flavor of the month runners.

High, large collection for some time, and I can tell you with absolute surety that wrong about SoB basically everyone knows they're mediocre and mostly meant for an okay allies pick at the moment.

Marines with Scouts+Azrael can do the exact same setup for almost the same cost with better offense(reroll to hit and 1s to wound>>>>Vessels+DG and access to better special weapons), better defense(T4 4++ better than T3 4++), better mobility(only 1 character Aura to manage), better flexibility(massively more support options), and even a cheaper per model cost to boot.

But you wouldn't do that because it's not very good AND it sucks to play. It wins against armies that can't handle that many relatively cheap 4++ bodies but anyone with a enough anti-infantry to deal with a typical horde army will shred it quickly and uncontested due to it's low mobility and low damage output.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Everyone wants to keep making units tougher, more damaging.

But the escalation spiral needs to stop. In a game where you can drop multiple Knights on the battlefield, infantry isn’t going to be worth squat, no matter what you give them.

If the game ever goes back to it roots - about 2-3 full 10-man squads, maybe one less if you bring a dreadnought, and the most BS unit on the board is ONE tank, the likes of marines will be worth a damn in the game.

It not that marines are bad, it’s that the game has reached a level of ridiculousness that they are irrelevant.

Except realistically speaking heavy armor isn't a hard counter to infantry because infantry can easily hide and pack weapons able to neutralize heavy armor. Due to armor creep, things like Anti-Tank weapons such as lascannons and lances need to become more damaging and accurate versus vehicles. I've posted before about slapping heavy weapons with a -1 to hit vs infantry and a +1 to hit vs monsters/tanks, sorta like how flakk missiles work vs flyers. Just reduce vehicle's ability to mulch infantry while increasing infantry's lethality with heavy weapons. And/or get proper cover mechanics.

interesting idea, its almost like cover WOULD make it harder to hit something (like in old 2nd ed./necro) and trying to point a missile launcher or Anti tank weapon at a human sized target is difficult at best. I could definately get onboard with this. That and dialing back the power/scale creep of the game. It does seem like GW has just pushed apocalypse into the normal game. But hey they do have to sell models so I understand it.

Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

That's very wrong though, vehicles are way more resilient than they used to be. A land raider could die from a single lascannon or power klaw hit in the past, not to mention light vehicles like trukks that could die in huge numbers in a single turn.

Of course if you design a list with only anti tank in mind you have the feeling that vehicles that aren't superheavies are too squishy. Then the players that bring those lists cries when they face an horde army or can't deal efficiently with T5-6 drukhari stuff.

ERJAK wrote:


This cannot be healthy dude. Sisters got the most mediocre Codex update since grey knights and you're whining about THEM being OP? At least you still have your Girlyman cheese to fall back on.

Marmatag doesn't even play Marines.

If the only reason you can see for someone claiming Marines is bad is that the person in question plays Marines and thus has an intrinsic reason for getting them buffed you need to take a deep breath and remove your arch-cynic goggles.

 Blackie wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

That's very wrong though, vehicles are way more resilient than they used to be. A land raider could die from a single lascannon or power klaw hit in the past, not to mention light vehicles like trukks that could die in huge numbers in a single turn.

Of course if you design a list with only anti tank in mind you have the feeling that vehicles that aren't superheavies are too squishy. Then the players that bring those lists cries when they face an horde army or can't deal efficiently with T5-6 drukhari stuff.

Eh, it's more complicated than that though.

Yeah, a Land Raider is probably more resilient to a Lascannon than it used to be. Will take a minimum of 3 shots now, whereas previously it was possible (though unlikely) to down it in one.

It is however now vulnerable to S7 and below weapons from the front and sides. Against AV 14 it wasn't possible for S7 to do anything at all. Now all these mid tier weapons are pinging wounds off left and right.

Lets be sure to keep things civil people, we all have divergent views but rule #1 is there for a reason. Please keep it in mind.

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

Vehicles issue is that low ap, high volume of fire is just too effective. We need to return to vehicles basically being immune to all small arms fire, but being vulnerable to AT weapons. Albeit not skewing as much as prior editions, which veered fairly anti-vehicle.

Tyel wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Marines and necrons don't really match tneir background very well.

I guess this is one of those IMO things - but I think they do, they are just overcosted.

A lot of this comes down to what Marines are in the fluff. Are they just enhanced humans - stronger, tougher, better armed - or is it "5-10 Space Marines can conquer a planet !!111!!!111!!!".

Reductio ad absurdum. Altho is it interesting to note that the background on iron warriors does say sometimes as few as 10 of them were left to garrison a planet...

They are heavily genetically enhanced humans, now called "transhumans", with the most advanced armor the imperium can mass produce and subjected to a lifetime of training, conditioning, indoctrination and the benefit of hundreds of years of combat experience from their chapters. They are lifetime soldiers raised form childhood to be the best fighters possible.

!0 shouldn't be able to conquer a planet unless it's really weak, but a thousand, backed up by their orbital fleet, yeah, maybe.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum. Altho is it interesting to note that the background on iron warriors does say sometimes as few as 10 of them were left to garrison a planet...

That was the reference I was going for.

Tyel wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum. Altho is it interesting to note that the background on iron warriors does say sometimes as few as 10 of them were left to garrison a planet...

That was the reference I was going for.

Well, yeah, it was a real thing. Part of what may have been Horus' long term scheme to drive the iron warriors away from the imperium. Still, garrisoning a planet with 10 men is just barely possible, if those 10 men have access to WMD that can hit any part of a planet and the populace has no real defense against them. But yeah, 10 marines conquering a planet, not unless it's a stone age low population world.

Here was the actual official quote you were thinking of.

"Quickly recognised as experts in the art of siege warfare, the Iron Warriors were regularly called upon to exercise their skills in cracking open enemy defences. This had an unfortunate effect on the character of their Legion. By their nature, sieges are the most grinding and demoralising type of warfare: long periods of tedium and unspectacular labour, broken by episodes of merciless, close-quarters brutality. The Iron Warriors saw the storming of the breach as an escape from the tedium, and developed into ferocious close quarters fighters. They even came to prefer for enemy strongholds not to surrender, thus justifying the slaughter of everyone within once the fortresses were taken.[1b] It became the Legion's curse (one of many) that these episodes of brutality eclipsed their superb affinity for the application of logic and mathematics to military problems, in the eyes of their fellow Space Marines and the Imperium as a whole.[14d]

Given their expertise at constructing and manning fortresses, the legion also found itself constantly diminishing in active crusading size as units from it were detached to act as garrison troops watching over worlds in the process of compliance. The most famous of these garrisons was that of the Iron Keep on Delgas II, where one 10-man squad of Iron Warriors watched over a disgruntled population of 130 million.[1b] It is unknown why the Iron Warriors were so often selected for such assignments, or why Perturabo always accepted such orders without protest, but it is supposed that it began to inflict serious damage to the legion's morale. Even Space Marines need rest, but the Crusade gave them none.[1c] A particularly brutal battle of the Great Crusade for the Iron Warriors was the thankless Sak'trada Deeps Campaign against the Hrud, which saw heavy casualties on a strategically far-off and worthless system.[25]

Worse, their "typecasting" as siege engineers or garrison troops set them apart from their brother Legions and made them feel increasingly marginalised. In particular they were aggrieved by the Imperial Fists, whose primarch, Rogal Dorn, often boasted about the impregnability of the defences they had constructed around the Imperial Palace on Terra. Perturabo was not the only one of the primarchs who found his brother Dorn braggadocios, but Perturabo was unable to let the insults to himself and his Legion pass, and these continued to fester in his heart.[1c] Likewise, Corax, the primarch of the Raven Guard, made little secret of his contempt for Perturabo and his Legion, dismissing them as stolid attritionists, anathema to Corax's own concept of fluid, hit-and-run warfare.[19]"

It also didn't help when perturabo scouted out a major enemy stronghold, found it's weakness, relayed the information to leman russ and jaghatti khan who used it to defeat the enemy, and for his efforts perturabo was simply referred to as an unnamed "other" who provided them some useful information in the epic written about the battle.

 Stux wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

That's very wrong though, vehicles are way more resilient than they used to be. A land raider could die from a single lascannon or power klaw hit in the past, not to mention light vehicles like trukks that could die in huge numbers in a single turn.

Of course if you design a list with only anti tank in mind you have the feeling that vehicles that aren't superheavies are too squishy. Then the players that bring those lists cries when they face an horde army or can't deal efficiently with T5-6 drukhari stuff.

Eh, it's more complicated than that though.

Yeah, a Land Raider is probably more resilient to a Lascannon than it used to be. Will take a minimum of 3 shots now, whereas previously it was possible (though unlikely) to down it in one.

It is however now vulnerable to S7 and below weapons from the front and sides. Against AV 14 it wasn't possible for S7 to do anything at all. Now all these mid tier weapons are pinging wounds off left and right.

Yeah but just think about how many points of stuff did you need to kill a land raider in previous editions and how many do you need now. In 8th edition vehicles are way more resilient overall.

Consider vehicles like ork trukks, they were 3HPs with AV10-10-10, a single lascannon had really high odds to blow it up and even bolters could glanced it to death quite easily. Haywire, grav and meltas were also super effective against vehicles, now they all reduced their punch against vehicles by a lot. D weapons don't exist anymore. Vehicles were 2-4HP with the chance of being instant killed by a single shot, now multidamage weapons exist but they're not as effective as they used to be as vehicles now have 6-18 wounds typically and also a save. I'm not even considering other bonuses that were expensive upgrades before like 5++ invuln on some drukhari vehicles and now are free or didn't exist at all like the 6++ on deathskulls vehicles or the 6+++ on black heart vehicles.

Killing something like a land raider with a non dedicated anti tank weapon is certainly possible now but extremely more unlikely than 1-shotting the same vehicle with a dedicated anti tank weapon in 7th edition.

A unit like scourges could strip 3HPs on average rolls in 7th edition, which means a dead tank or 75% of its wound taken away. Now the same unit should deal 4 mortal wounds with average rolls, less than 50% of the wounds on a tipycal tank, just 25% on a heavy one like land raiders. Stripping 3 out of 4 HPs was a good deal with average rolls, stripping just 4 out of 16 look extremely underwhelming in comparison.

Oh and the new degrading chart is not even remotely as penalizing as the penetrating hit chart since vehicles that got a single pen used to be immobilized for the rest of the game, not be able to shoot at all, lose a weapon or be instant killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

Vehicles issue is that low ap, high volume of fire is just too effective. We need to return to vehicles basically being immune to all small arms fire, but being vulnerable to AT weapons. Albeit not skewing as much as prior editions, which veered fairly anti-vehicle.

Can you make concrete examples about vehicles suffering that much from light firepower? I play 3 armies that are all vehicles based and they always die from dedicated anti tank, never to S3 or S4 shots, with the exception of some drukhari vehicles maybe which are just T5 4+ though and used to die quite easily against anti infantry weapons also in previous edition, when they were 2-3 HPs AV 10-10-10.

How many bolter, poisoned or lasgun shots do you need to kill an average tank like a rhino/razorback?

IIRC it's around 200 shots to fully kill a rhino chassis model with lasguns, but my concern isn't being fully killed by small arms fire, but weakened. A flurry of las shots or the crazy amount of firepower admech infantry can pump out can wind up degrading the profile of a vehicle and reducing its BS, which depending on the starting BS can effectively cripple it. The one good thing about the old system is that vehicles were flatly immune to most small arms fire and you had to use dedicated AT weapons to inflict any damage or else have your shots uselessly ping off the armor.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
As for improving marines, I think marines should have a Move 7", 2 Wounds, Bolters -1 AP and 2 Attacks base standard with a corresponding point increase somewhere in the 16-20 points range.

Apart the move, that's exactly how they already are.

thought id copy this over here as it seems pertinent to this discussion..


Boop!

true balance is one of those utopian ideals that can only be strived for but will never be achieved and should never be forced, what we have in this thread are people trying to force it, people trying to strive for it and people blindly believing we already have it (those people are insufferable).

While you are not convinced that the more units you have the more variation you need so the more tactical depth is required to differentiate them, well... your belief is not required, a well designed system knows that in order to show the difference in multi faction games you need to have a sufficient depth of rules otherwise you get heavy overlap in rules and everything ends up feeling "vanilla" and "bland" this has been the death nell for several good games, on the flip side you get games that have variation of units rather than factions, battletech has a vast vast array of units all different from each other, but this makes for a nightmare for new players, thats too much depth.

then we have 40k, its trying to have its cake and eat it, its trying to show multi factions but the main rules simply do not allow for the complexity and depth needed to show the differences in each faction, this is mainly down to the D6 system they have chosen in my mind, they have severely limited their own scope for expansion, they have tried to address the 1-10 scale for stats but its still limited by the D6, in order to see that I am right about this you need only look at the codexs and see the massive amount of crossover in rules and themes.

Sadly this limit hits low armour save units in this ed (and pretty much every ed after 3rd) the hardest, in a marine was to have a 3+ save on a D10. and then apply modifiers, power armour would be worth something, the D10 system could easily show the differences in power armour too, astartes 3+, soriatus 4+, hell you could even throw in the marks, but thats a bit far, imagine if terminator armour had a 1+ save on a d10, then you would be forced to use massively powerful weapons to actually dent them, as it should be.

anyway, waffling over.

 Blackie wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

Vehicles issue is that low ap, high volume of fire is just too effective. We need to return to vehicles basically being immune to all small arms fire, but being vulnerable to AT weapons. Albeit not skewing as much as prior editions, which veered fairly anti-vehicle.

Can you make concrete examples about vehicles suffering that much from light firepower? I play 3 armies that are all vehicles based and they always die from dedicated anti tank, never to S3 or S4 shots, with the exception of some drukhari vehicles maybe which are just T5 4+ though and used to die quite easily against anti infantry weapons also in previous edition, when they were 2-3 HPs AV 10-10-10.

How many bolter, poisoned or lasgun shots do you need to kill an average tank like a rhino/razorback?

Absolutely agree with you here.

You need an average of 54 bolter shots to take ONE wound off a Land Raider. Resilience against small arms just simply isn't an issue in 8e, tanks are not vulnerable to them in any meaningful way whatsoever.

The issue is that armies can bring so much decent strength, high AP, multi damage weaponry. And it's not just good against vehicles, it's good against elite infantry too. So people do bring a lot of it.

This is what I say about Orks.... I once threw 60 orks into a single rhino and it took 2 turns to finally beat it down... I shot 60 shots from my orks into one before and it only took 1 wound. With ork players all you need is a line of cheap rhinos and you've won. XD

 Wyzilla wrote:
IIRC it's around 200 shots to fully kill a rhino chassis model with lasguns, but my concern isn't being fully killed by small arms fire, but weakened. A flurry of las shots or the crazy amount of firepower admech infantry can pump out can wind up degrading the profile of a vehicle and reducing its BS, which depending on the starting BS can effectively cripple it. The one good thing about the old system is that vehicles were flatly immune to most small arms fire and you had to use dedicated AT weapons to inflict any damage or else have your shots uselessly ping off the armor.

This is just theoryhammer though. In practise S3 and S4 do absolutely nothing against tanks. In 7th edition 10 orks could melt a rhino in combat just with the nobz attacks, now the full 30 man mob with the same nob will deal way less damage on average rolls.

To be way more resilient against weapons that used to damage them a lot and finally vulnerable but still extremely resilient against low S low AP weapons is definitely a win-win for vehicles. The concept around the old system maybe was better but in practise vehicles have now some purpose, in 7th they were just dead weight. The only ork competitive lists that played with vehicles were full dread mobs or had 8+ trukks or 5 battlewagons, and none of them was even remotely comparable to the real top tiers. SM basically just spammed drop pods.

there is some big problems with tank resiliance in melee. A tank in melee should be a dead tank. I get that lasguns shouldn't be blowing up land raiders, without some god tier level of rolls. But 5 termintors being stuck on a rhino for 3 turns, should really not happen.

Karol wrote:
there is some big problems with tank resiliance in melee. A tank in melee should be a dead tank. I get that lasguns shouldn't be blowing up land raiders, without some god tier level of rolls. But 5 termintors being stuck on a rhino for 3 turns, should really not happen.

Why would you be stuck on a Rhino for 3 turns though? Fall back and let your heavy guns deal with it.

There are plenty of units that are great at taking down vehicles in melee though. Terminators just aren't very good at anything for their points.

Yep, I find that my Knight Errant is pretty decent at taking down vehicles in melee...

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, I find that my Knight Errant is pretty decent at taking down vehicles in melee...

Hah! I had Smash Captains and Old One Eye in mind

 Stux wrote:

Karol wrote:
there is some big problems with tank resiliance in melee. A tank in melee should be a dead tank. I get that lasguns shouldn't be blowing up land raiders, without some god tier level of rolls. But 5 termintors being stuck on a rhino for 3 turns, should really not happen.

Why would you be stuck on a Rhino for 3 turns though? Fall back and let your heavy guns deal with it.

There are plenty of units that are great at taking down vehicles in melee though. Terminators just aren't very good at anything for their points.

have you tried to kill a tank with stormbolters, or have you seen what happens to termintors if they are not in melee protected from plasma ? Because I'll tell you it ain't .
funny. Also as far as good vs tanks and GK, if good can ever be said about them, melee is more efficient then trying to finish vehicles, other then the DE ones, with shoting.

Terminator should be S5 T5... I mean... come on! Since when did rowboatface have the ability to mass produce big marines who are basically just as durable as an invulnerable walking tank that are extremely rare because they're so good? To the point that entire wars will be fought to obtain a single suit....

If Terminators had T5 S and T they would damage most vechiles on a 3 and be pretty tough against all none elite weapons while staying the same vs S3 weapons.

If I had my way they would be a 3+ save but you roll 2 dice and pick the highest.

 lolman1c wrote:
Terminator should be S5 T5... I mean... come on! Since when did rowboatface have the ability to mass produce big marines who are basically just as durable as an invulnerable walking tank that are extremely rare because they're so good? To the point that entire wars will be fought to obtain a single suit....

If Terminators had T5 S and T they would damage most vechiles on a 3 and be pretty tough against all none elite weapons while staying the same vs S3 weapons.

If I had my way they would be a 3+ save but you roll 2 dice and pick the highest.

A lot of people want Termis to be 3+ on 2d6, but that'd be a MASSIVE hassle to roll out.

Against AP0 it's the same as a 2+ rerollable, but what about against AP-1? Let's say a Helverin or two shoot at your Termis. We'll say 16 shots, 10-11 hit, 7-8 wound, and you now need to roll 2d6 7 or 8 times. Annoying as hell.

I make no claims as to whether it'd be balanced or not, just that it'd be time-consuming.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Terminator should be S5 T5... I mean... come on! Since when did rowboatface have the ability to mass produce big marines who are basically just as durable as an invulnerable walking tank that are extremely rare because they're so good? To the point that entire wars will be fought to obtain a single suit....

If Terminators had T5 S and T they would damage most vechiles on a 3 and be pretty tough against all none elite weapons while staying the same vs S3 weapons.

If I had my way they would be a 3+ save but you roll 2 dice and pick the highest.

A lot of people want Termis to be 3+ on 2d6, but that'd be a MASSIVE hassle to roll out.

Against AP0 it's the same as a 2+ rerollable, but what about against AP-1? Let's say a Helverin or two shoot at your Termis. We'll say 16 shots, 10-11 hit, 7-8 wound, and you now need to roll 2d6 7 or 8 times. Annoying as hell.

I make no claims as to whether it'd be balanced or not, just that it'd be time-consuming.

Agreed. Imagine throwing termies into CC and having to roll in...di...vi...du...al saves for every single wound when fighting orks or something with high attack/wounds. This will never happen buuuuut D10 ? it would solve more than just marine woes.

Karol wrote:
there is some big problems with tank resiliance in melee. A tank in melee should be a dead tank. I get that lasguns shouldn't be blowing up land raiders, without some god tier level of rolls. But 5 termintors being stuck on a rhino for 3 turns, should really not happen.

There are some easy solutions to this: Bring back multi-bombing and allow it to be used as single melee attack to replace all other attacks the model has: -3 to hit general; -2 to hit against vehicles; -1 to hit against Titanic units. These limitations would hinder Marine HQs from Instagibbing other characters with single Meltabomb attack. And for Damage melee meltabomb should have: '3D6 (or even 4D6?) discard the lowest' and single use per game, obviously. Those are heavy modifiers and damages, but this would make Marine Assault Squads actually scary against Knights and Vehicles, and of course the meltabombs can still be point costed to oblivion. With GW's general hate towards Melta and Love of Knights I could foresee GW slapping Meltabombs hefty 20 points per grenade price.

I don't understand why they did away with Meltabombs anyway, and other grenades have really really artificial limitation of 1 attack per unit. Even basic marines could be far more scary if they could multibomb with frag and krak grenades. For example multi-bombing marines gain +20% firepower against GEQs if they all could throw frag grenades at the guardsmen. Very easy buff to marines would be to allow multi-bombing only for them, and then bring back the meltabombs. If cheese like krak grenade cultists become problem one could just restrict cultists not getting frag or krak grenades.

But cold hard reality is starting to look like that normal marines are being phased out in favour of primaris, and this is happening very aggressively on rule writing level.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Terminator should be S5 T5... I mean... come on! Since when did rowboatface have the ability to mass produce big marines who are basically just as durable as an invulnerable walking tank that are extremely rare because they're so good? To the point that entire wars will be fought to obtain a single suit....

If Terminators had T5 S and T they would damage most vechiles on a 3 and be pretty tough against all none elite weapons while staying the same vs S3 weapons.

If I had my way they would be a 3+ save but you roll 2 dice and pick the highest.

A lot of people want Termis to be 3+ on 2d6, but that'd be a MASSIVE hassle to roll out.

Against AP0 it's the same as a 2+ rerollable, but what about against AP-1? Let's say a Helverin or two shoot at your Termis. We'll say 16 shots, 10-11 hit, 7-8 wound, and you now need to roll 2d6 7 or 8 times. Annoying as hell.

I make no claims as to whether it'd be balanced or not, just that it'd be time-consuming.

Go the battletech rout and buy different colored dice and roll them in pairs all at once.

 lolman1c wrote:
Terminator should be S5 T5... I mean... come on! Since when did rowboatface have the ability to mass produce big marines who are basically just as durable as an invulnerable walking tank that are extremely rare because they're so good? To the point that entire wars will be fought to obtain a single suit....

If Terminators had T5 S and T they would damage most vechiles on a 3 and be pretty tough against all none elite weapons while staying the same vs S3 weapons.

If I had my way they would be a 3+ save but you roll 2 dice and pick the highest.

Agree about the S5 but if they are T5 also other armored elites need to gain that buff. Meganobz are the first example, they should definitely have the same T of terminators.

I would play Kill Team where Marines are Marines.

 Blackie wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Terminator should be S5 T5... I mean... come on! Since when did rowboatface have the ability to mass produce big marines who are basically just as durable as an invulnerable walking tank that are extremely rare because they're so good? To the point that entire wars will be fought to obtain a single suit....

If Terminators had T5 S and T they would damage most vechiles on a 3 and be pretty tough against all none elite weapons while staying the same vs S3 weapons.

If I had my way they would be a 3+ save but you roll 2 dice and pick the highest.

Agree about the S5 but if they are T5 also other armored elites need to gain that buff. Meganobz are the first example, they should definitely have the same T of terminators.

Meganobz are proof Terminators can work. Simply decrease their points to usable and make them S5 with good weapon choice and good shooting. Hell, meganobz arn't even OP but they're not something to scoff at... imagine a Meganobz if it also had a auto 5+ invulnerable, better movement and a free DS ability. That's what terminators should be. They're price right now would be about right if they had S5.

I’d go with +1 wound across the board including vehicles and an additional -1 ap on all standard Bolt weapons and justify it by calling them Astartes bolters.

Then for Terminators including the above I’d allow mixing of the units, so assault and tactical combined, and -1 damage to a minimum of one on all weapons firing at them.

No point changes. This may be over the top for some, but I think they need it all to bring them up to standard.

 lolman1c wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Terminator should be S5 T5... I mean... come on! Since when did rowboatface have the ability to mass produce big marines who are basically just as durable as an invulnerable walking tank that are extremely rare because they're so good? To the point that entire wars will be fought to obtain a single suit....

If Terminators had T5 S and T they would damage most vechiles on a 3 and be pretty tough against all none elite weapons while staying the same vs S3 weapons.

If I had my way they would be a 3+ save but you roll 2 dice and pick the highest.

Agree about the S5 but if they are T5 also other armored elites need to gain that buff. Meganobz are the first example, they should definitely have the same T of terminators.

Meganobz are proof Terminators can work. Simply decrease their points to usable and make them S5 with good weapon choice and good shooting. Hell, meganobz arn't even OP but they're not something to scoff at... imagine a Meganobz if it also had a auto 5+ invulnerable, better movement and a free DS ability. That's what terminators should be. They're price right now would be about right if they had S5.

Imagine meganobz with 3++ with no additional points costs, they'd just need to switch their kustom shoota (-2pts +2pts) with a shield

 Blackie wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Terminator should be S5 T5... I mean... come on! Since when did rowboatface have the ability to mass produce big marines who are basically just as durable as an invulnerable walking tank that are extremely rare because they're so good? To the point that entire wars will be fought to obtain a single suit....

If Terminators had T5 S and T they would damage most vechiles on a 3 and be pretty tough against all none elite weapons while staying the same vs S3 weapons.

If I had my way they would be a 3+ save but you roll 2 dice and pick the highest.

Agree about the S5 but if they are T5 also other armored elites need to gain that buff. Meganobz are the first example, they should definitely have the same T of terminators.

Meganobz are proof Terminators can work. Simply decrease their points to usable and make them S5 with good weapon choice and good shooting. Hell, meganobz arn't even OP but they're not something to scoff at... imagine a Meganobz if it also had a auto 5+ invulnerable, better movement and a free DS ability. That's what terminators should be. They're price right now would be about right if they had S5.

Imagine meganobz with 3++ with no additional points costs, they'd just need to switch their kustom shoota (-2pts +2pts) with a shield

They'd hit hard and survive most assualts. 3 wounds really helps vs plasma attacks and 3++ would also deal a lot with that. Meganobz and terminators should be on par with each other with terminators costing more for a bit of survival and ds.

3++ is not something that should be available unit wide.

I'm not convinced it's something that should ever be available to be honest, but that ship has sailed!

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I’d go with +1 wound across the board including vehicles and an additional -1 ap on all standard Bolt weapons and justify it by calling them Astartes bolters.

Then for Terminators including the above I’d allow mixing of the units, so assault and tactical combined, and -1 damage to a minimum of one on all weapons firing at them.

No point changes. This may be over the top for some, but I think they need it all to bring them up to standard.

So any change in points for inquisitors and sisters with the new bolter rules than?

 Mmmpi wrote:
So any change in points for inquisitors and sisters with the new bolter rules than?

The sisters benefit most from retaining the old guns and their low price point. They are just bodies to protect the special weapons anyway and would benefit far more from melta and flamer weapons not being so underwhelming.
Inquisitors have bigger problems.

As for marines, all the suggestions seem to just loop back around to 'make them primaris' in all but name. Though I suspect if GW did it would just spawn a dozen more threads about why the extra cost that comes with it have made marines terrible.

A.T. wrote:

As for marines, all the suggestions seem to just loop back around to 'make them primaris' in all but name. Though I suspect if GW did it would just spawn a dozen more threads about why the extra cost that comes with it have made marines terrible.

Indeed which is why these 'Improve marines' threads are so fething pointless. Most of the posters are in denial about the Primaris and try their utmost to pretend they do not exist and then go on reinventing them. "Guys, I have an novel idea how to fix marines, what if they had two attacks and two wounds and AP on their bolters!" It is utterly comical. GW is improving marines, these improvements are called Primaris. Like it or not, that's how it is and wishing for any other path is utterly unrealistic.

A.T. wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So any change in points for inquisitors and sisters with the new bolter rules than?

The sisters benefit most from retaining the old guns and their low price point. They are just bodies to protect the special weapons anyway and would benefit far more from melta and flamer weapons not being so underwhelming.
Inquisitors have bigger problems.
.

If you're going to use fluff to justify a decision, then the fluff needs to be applied all around.

My suggestions above would apply to primaris also, so most wold be 3W. They would also then apply to grey knights, chaos etc also (deathguard must become more expensive though).

I'd then be inclined to increase custodes by at least the wound and ap on the bolt weapons as well, however points would adjust and they would be more expensive, which in turn would make them even more elite and in smaller numbers which they should be.

I did forget one thing, I'd allow terminators to deep strike closer than any other unit in the game, up to 6" away but they'd have to roll a danger close roll. I see this as working by roll a dice for each terminator in the unit, on a roll of one they would then have to roll a D3 for mortal wounds with no way a FNP roll could work to save them, so you could potnetially lose models, or even the whole squad if you are super unlucky.

At that point, you re-balance the rest of the armies by way of point changes. No sisters would not get the better bolter as they are not astartes, however they could potentially become cheaper (if they need to become cheaper).

Whilst the above may seem super overboard, it is with the intention for marines to live up to their fluff justification more. A rebalance of the game point wise for all other armies would then be absolutely fine. I personally want to have a game where a squad of 10 tactical marines (or intercessors) can potentially go toe to toe with a whole guard platoon for example across a game and if that's the case, they should be around the same points.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
My suggestions above would apply to primaris also, so most wold be 3W.

Thing is, soon enough the Primaris will just be the standard baseline for marines, so you cannot make them too tough. Sure, you could nerf them later, but that would annoy people a lot.

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you're going to use fluff to justify a decision, then the fluff needs to be applied all around.

Human/astartes scale weapons.

Anyway - proposed 'new' marines :
6" move, WS/BS 3+, S4, T4, W2, A2, Ld7, Sv 3+ (sergeant has Ld8)
Each model carries an astartes scale boltgun - let's call it a 'bolt rifle' - 30" range, Rapid fire 1, S4, AP -1, Damage 1
Troops choice, squad of 5-10 models, 17pts per model.

Seems to tick all the boxes?

 Crimson wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
My suggestions above would apply to primaris also, so most wold be 3W.

Thing is, soon enough the Primaris will just be the standard baseline for marines, so you cannot make them too tough. Sure, you could nerf them later, but that would annoy people a lot.

They wouldn't be too tough though, yeah a 5 man squad would be hard work for 10 guardsmen but they bloody should be, you just get cheaper guardsmen and throw the hordes at them.

A.T. wrote:

Anyway - proposed 'new' marines :
6" move, WS/BS 3+, S4, T4, W2, A2, Ld7, Sv 3+ (sergeant has Ld8)
Each model carries an astartes scale boltgun - let's call it a 'bolt rifle' - 30" range, Rapid fire 1, S4, AP -1, Damage 1
Troops choice, squad of 5-10 models, 17pts per model.

Seems to tick all the boxes?

A.T. wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you're going to use fluff to justify a decision, then the fluff needs to be applied all around.

Human/astartes scale weapons.

Anyway - proposed 'new Intercessor' marines :
6" move, WS/BS 3+, S4, T4, W3, A2, Ld7, Sv 3+ (sergeant has Ld8)
Each model carries an astartes scale boltgun - let's call it a 'bolt rifle' - 30" range, Rapid fire 1, S4, AP -2, Damage 1
Troops choice, squad of 5-10 models, 17pts per model.

Seems to tick all the boxes?

Fixed that

What about intercessors at 15ppm and tacs/devs at 9 ppm but BS4+ and 4+ save?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Fixed that

Seems like you've just made them arbitrarily tougher and shootier for no points change.
Lets call that the 6e eldar 'fix'

A.T. wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Fixed that

Seems like you've just made them arbitrarily tougher and shootier for no points change.
Lets call that the 6e eldar 'fix'

We call that a "buff". It's what you do when something is underperforming.

A.T. wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Fixed that

Seems like you've just made them arbitrarily tougher and shootier for no points change.
Lets call that the 6e eldar 'fix'

At which point, all other units across all other armies can be adjusted in point cost to balance, as I explained above.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We call that a "buff". It's what you do when something is underperforming.

At this point the 'buffed' unit has twice the firepower, twice the close combat ability, and three times the toughness of a vanilla marine for a 30% points increase (when the two units are compared directly to one another), and will win by some margin a head on firefight with units such as the undercosted 4pt guardsmen even without having to use their superior range or assault capabilities.

Yeah, I think people often completely lose the plot with their buffs. I think Intercessors as they currently are are pretty close at being OK. If they were 16 points and guardsmen were the five points (like they by all reason should!) then it would be fine. And of course no extensive rewriting of marine statlines is going to happen, so suggesting such is pointless anyway. Small point tweaks however happen annually.

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, I think people often completely lose the plot with their buffs. I think Intercessors as they currently are are pretty close at being OK. If they were 16 points and guardsmen were the five points (like they by all reason should!) then it would be fine. And of course no extensive rewriting of marine statlines is going to happen, so suggesting such is pointless anyway. Small point tweaks however happen annually.

Agreed. Intercessors ARE the Marine fix. They aren't quite there, but it's pretty close.

Terminators are crap still though, that's where some attention is needed. Points are fine, they're supposed to be super elite, they need more durability to mid tier weapons (plasma etc).

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, I think people often completely lose the plot with their buffs. I think Intercessors as they currently are are pretty close at being OK. If they were 16 points and guardsmen were the five points (like they by all reason should!) then it would be fine. And of course no extensive rewriting of marine statlines is going to happen, so suggesting such is pointless anyway. Small point tweaks however happen annually.

Agreed. Intercessors ARE the Marine fix. They aren't quite there, but it's pretty close.

Terminators are crap still though, that's where some attention is needed. Points are fine, they're supposed to be super elite, they need more durability to mid tier weapons (plasma etc).

The problem with fiddling around with Terminators is when you start to step on the toes of things that are supposed to be slightly bigger than Terminators; bump them to S/T 5 with 3W and a 4++ and you've made them underarmed Custodes.

 Crimson wrote:

A.T. wrote:

As for marines, all the suggestions seem to just loop back around to 'make them primaris' in all but name. Though I suspect if GW did it would just spawn a dozen more threads about why the extra cost that comes with it have made marines terrible.

Indeed which is why these 'Improve marines' threads are so fething pointless. Most of the posters are in denial about the Primaris and try their utmost to pretend they do not exist and then go on reinventing them. "Guys, I have an novel idea how to fix marines, what if they had two attacks and two wounds and AP on their bolters!" It is utterly comical. GW is improving marines, these improvements are called Primaris. Like it or not, that's how it is and wishing for any other path is utterly unrealistic.

Overpriced thought. Intercessors would have to drop to 15ppm before I'd be willing to seriously consider using them.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

A.T. wrote:

As for marines, all the suggestions seem to just loop back around to 'make them primaris' in all but name. Though I suspect if GW did it would just spawn a dozen more threads about why the extra cost that comes with it have made marines terrible.

Indeed which is why these 'Improve marines' threads are so fething pointless. Most of the posters are in denial about the Primaris and try their utmost to pretend they do not exist and then go on reinventing them. "Guys, I have an novel idea how to fix marines, what if they had two attacks and two wounds and AP on their bolters!" It is utterly comical. GW is improving marines, these improvements are called Primaris. Like it or not, that's how it is and wishing for any other path is utterly unrealistic.

Overpriced thought. Intercessors would have to drop to 15ppm before I'd be willing to seriously consider using them.

And that's cool. Without Tacticals that would look even worse next to them I think that's fine.

 Crimson wrote:

A.T. wrote:

As for marines, all the suggestions seem to just loop back around to 'make them primaris' in all but name. Though I suspect if GW did it would just spawn a dozen more threads about why the extra cost that comes with it have made marines terrible.

Indeed which is why these 'Improve marines' threads are so fething pointless. Most of the posters are in denial about the Primaris and try their utmost to pretend they do not exist and then go on reinventing them. "Guys, I have an novel idea how to fix marines, what if they had two attacks and two wounds and AP on their bolters!" It is utterly comical. GW is improving marines, these improvements are called Primaris. Like it or not, that's how it is and wishing for any other path is utterly unrealistic.

Follow-up thought: The basic issue with Marines is that they've been chopped in half and given two separate Codexes, one of which has the right statline, the other of which has all the wargear and all the playable vehicles. The likely 'fix' to Marines is smooshing the Primaris half and the normal half back together into one book.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

Overpriced thought. Intercessors would have to drop to 15ppm before I'd be willing to seriously consider using them.

And that happening is about seven thousand times more likely than any of these harebrained suggestions in this other similar threads.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

A.T. wrote:

As for marines, all the suggestions seem to just loop back around to 'make them primaris' in all but name. Though I suspect if GW did it would just spawn a dozen more threads about why the extra cost that comes with it have made marines terrible.

Indeed which is why these 'Improve marines' threads are so fething pointless. Most of the posters are in denial about the Primaris and try their utmost to pretend they do not exist and then go on reinventing them. "Guys, I have an novel idea how to fix marines, what if they had two attacks and two wounds and AP on their bolters!" It is utterly comical. GW is improving marines, these improvements are called Primaris. Like it or not, that's how it is and wishing for any other path is utterly unrealistic.

Follow-up thought: The basic issue with Marines is that they've been chopped in half and given two separate Codexes, one of which has the right statline, the other of which has all the wargear and all the playable vehicles. The likely 'fix' to Marines is smooshing the Primaris half and the normal half back together into one book.

That's why this is super annoying. If GW just brought out new marines and didn't give them a whole different data sheet then marines would be fine... Honestly, they could have new marines and have all their problems solved with transport shortage and lack of models... then slowly replaced all the models over time... However, they wanted extra money so made it more complicated for everyone.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:


Marines and necrons don't really match tneir background very well.

Perhaps uniquely among the posters here, I don't have any mechanical suggestions, but I think Marines would work well as the anti-horde factions of the game--after all, in the fiction, they massacre basic infantry even in overwhelming numbers, but start to struggle against bigger stuff.

A.T. wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We call that a "buff". It's what you do when something is underperforming.

At this point the 'buffed' unit has twice the firepower, twice the close combat ability, and three times the toughness of a vanilla marine for a 30% points increase (when the two units are compared directly to one another), and will win by some margin a head on firefight with units such as the undercosted 4pt guardsmen even without having to use their superior range or assault capabilities.

So? Guardsmen are still better screening units and better at generating CP.

A.T. wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you're going to use fluff to justify a decision, then the fluff needs to be applied all around.

Human/astartes scale weapons.

The fluff says sisters bolters are better, and as for scale...power armor.

 Mmmpi wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you're going to use fluff to justify a decision, then the fluff needs to be applied all around.

Human/astartes scale weapons.

The fluff says sisters bolters are better, and as for scale...power armor.

Show in the fluff where it says that.

Also I avoided this thread for 5 pages. Which fixes were repeated and which of the same posters are in denial and saying Marines are fine?

Also if there were new ideas I'd like to see them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you're going to use fluff to justify a decision, then the fluff needs to be applied all around.

Human/astartes scale weapons.

The fluff says sisters bolters are better, and as for scale...power armor.

Show in the fluff where it says that.

Also I avoided this thread for 5 pages. Which fixes were repeated and which of the same posters are in denial and saying Marines are fine?

Also if there were new ideas I'd like to see them.

My idea is just give them the vets stat lines and abilities to take any weapon they like or upgrade their bolters to master craft. Drop their points by 2 and the master craft bolters basically become free. Although dev squads woukd vanish but i honestly forgot they even existed untill 10 seconds ago.

Witchhunters Codex, section on the Gowden-Diaz bolter.

Not sure if the rest is addressed at me as I haven't otherwise commented on marine fixes.

 lolman1c wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you're going to use fluff to justify a decision, then the fluff needs to be applied all around.

Human/astartes scale weapons.

The fluff says sisters bolters are better, and as for scale...power armor.

Show in the fluff where it says that.

Also I avoided this thread for 5 pages. Which fixes were repeated and which of the same posters are in denial and saying Marines are fine?

Also if there were new ideas I'd like to see them.

My idea is just give them the vets stat lines and abilities to take any weapon they like or upgrade their bolters to master craft. Drop their points by 2 and the master craft bolters basically become free. Although dev squads woukd vanish but i honestly forgot they even existed untill 10 seconds ago.

Honestly I'm not a fan of just making everyone Vets, because it leaves little granularity. I want it for Chaos Marines (effectively just make Chosen Troops and get rid of the regular profile) as they're, well. VETS OF THE LONG WAR.

Slayer I'm a little confused about your take on the chosen thing.

Basically asking for that is saying that 0 marines turn traitor and no chaos marines die in battle right?

 fraser1191 wrote:
Slayer I'm a little confused about your take on the chosen thing.

Basically asking for that is saying that 0 marines turn traitor and no chaos marines die in battle right?

I know it's a different thread, but basically I think Renegades should've been in the main codex, and it's done by choosing a Chapter Tactic and all that fun stuff, you lose the special characters, and you switch out a bunch of keywords. Then you get a few special units rather than the Chapter's regular special units (I would choose Warp Talons, Possessed, and Spawn).

Does that make sense?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Slayer I'm a little confused about your take on the chosen thing.

Basically asking for that is saying that 0 marines turn traitor and no chaos marines die in battle right?

I know it's a different thread, but basically I think Renegades should've been in the main codex, and it's done by choosing a Chapter Tactic and all that fun stuff, you lose the special characters, and you switch out a bunch of keywords. Then you get a few special units rather than the Chapter's regular special units (I would choose Warp Talons, Possessed, and Spawn).

Does that make sense?

Okay I think I understand where you're coming from.

Delete Primaris. feth 'em. Dumbest fluff I've ever seen in my life.

All marines have +1 wound and attack. All Marines are armed with a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Grenades and a Chainsword. Adjust costs accordingly.

Bolters: Strength 5 and -1 AP.
Bolt Pistols: Pistol 2 and -1 AP
Storm Bolters: strength 5 Assault 3, -1 AP
Heavy Bolter: Strength 6, Heavy 3, -2 AP, *Each hit generates 2 hits against Infantry
Chainswords: +1 Strength, +1 attack, -1 AP


Combat Squads:

At any point in the game, this unit containing a maximum number of models can split into two units each containing an equal number of models. They then have the following abilities. Note, only one of these abilities may be used per turn.

-Fire Support: One Combat Squad may fire overwatch at normal ballistic skill at an enemy unit charging the other Combat squad during the assault phase.

-Firing Coordination: One Combat Squad may forgo its shooting phase to coordinate a strike against an enemy target using their auspex. If it does this, the other Combat Squad adds +1 to their BS for the remainder of the shooting phase.

-Suppressing Fire: One Combat Squad may choose to shoot an enemy unit using suppressing fire, if they do this they cannot charge in the assault phase. The other Combat Squad may not shoot in the shooting phase, but may assault after advancing and the enemy target may not fire overwatch. Both Combat Squads must declare a single unit for the purposes of Suppressing Fire.

-Coordinated Advance: One Combat Squad may forego its shooting phase and advance 6 inches instead of rolling, all units targeting this unit in the shooting phase suffer -1 to hit. The other Combat Squad is attempting to provide this unit with cover fire and suffer -1 to their BS for the remainder of the phase.

Drop Pod now deploys on first turn and can carry Centurions and Dreadnoughts again.

New Strategems:

-Teleport Shunt Redeployment: 1CP A unit wearing terminator armour may be removed and redeploy anywhere on the battlefield outside of 9" from any enemy unit. This can't be used if the unit is engaged in combat or within 1" of an enemy unit.

-Tactical Coordination: 1CP A unit may use 2 abilities from its Combat Squad rule for remainder of the turn.

-Death From Above: 3CP A Jump Infantry unit may deploy on the table from reserves within 6" of any enemy unit and may re-roll charge rolls.

-Shock And Awe: 2 CP All units within 12" of a drop pod that has been deployed on this turn suffer -1 to their BS when firing on a unit that deployed from that drop pod. Furthermore, those units also suffer -1 Leadership until the beginning of your next turn.

goddamn do we really need this thread AGAIN?

The older one isn't even dead yet.

Still waiting for the replacement for "NUUUURF THE GURDZ" to pop up.

 SHUPPET wrote:
goddamn do we really need this thread AGAIN?

Yeah I know. Personally that's why I skipped the last 5 pages and just asked if there were any new ideas.

Honestly, I think marines just need a buff to tacticals. I've been reading some comments and the best one I found was to reward marine players for taking an entire tactical squad like they do with boys. (+1 Attack +1 LD)

Heres some ideas:

Decrease special weapon costs for melta and flamer.

Give space marines back their bolter drill ability as a stratagem that works on all space marine units with 'bolt' in their profile.

Unload - Space marines fire two times in a turn but cannot fire the next turn and this ability cannot be used again.

Land Raider- Can disengage from combat and fire into combatants they are engaged with.

Vindicator - Just Remove it.

Hellblasters - 2pts less, 10pts less for all the hellblaster equipment, give them an anti-infantry 'gattling gun' variant. Name changed to Support Unit

Reivers moved to troop choice 3pts less.

Scouts Decrease to 10pts ppm. (Might not be good)

Tactical Squad - Decrease to 12ppm, if you have a full squad of tactical space marines they count as two troop choices when fufilling the requirements of a detachment position, they do not take up an additional troop slot. In addition they gain +1 attack and +1LD. And may use combat squads as normal.

Terminators ignore 1 ap on anything that has less strength than terminator's current toughness.

Apothecaries can take combi-weapons/storm bolters.

Librarians - give them back their gates of infinity, vortex of doom, force dome, and avenger.

Avenger - Assault D6 - Strength 5 Ap -3 D1 - this weapon automatically hits.

Can manifest on a 7

Force Dome

All units nearby within 8" gain a +5 invulnerable save.

Warp charge 7

Vortex of Doom

S 10 Ap -6 Heavy 2 D6 D - ignores all - to hit

Warp Charge of 5

Gates of Infinity
-5th Edition Codex-
Can either travel by himself or take a single unit into the warp into deep strike then deploy 24". But if he travels with a unit increases the chance of an issue, if a double is rolled one member of the unit is automatically removed.

Warp Charge of 8


Centurion / Devastator / Predators / Land Raider / Falchion / Repulsor - Titan Hunters (Strategem 1CP)

When Equipped with a lascannon or lascannon destroyer for every 6 rolled on to hit deals 2 hits instead of the normal 1 hit when the targeting unit is firing upon TITAN and SUPER HEAVY Units.

Tactical Squad / Devastator / Stern Guard / Terminators - Bolter Training (1CP)
May fire an additional time when equipped with any bolt weapons. If this unit excluding Terminators moves this turn they cannot use this strategem and may not fire twice with a bolt weapon.

Vanguard Veterans - Gain Heroic Intervention - If a jump pack is equipped vanguard vets can elect to perform a heroic intervention, they cannot shoot the turn they arrive from deep strike but can assault (provided they are close enough) and gain +1 attack if they make a successful charge.

Sternguard Veterans - Special Ammunition - Check 5th edition codex.....

Terminators - Relentless - Ignores all - to hit on heavy weapons...

Terminators - Ceramite Shell - Ignore 1 ap.

Honor Guard - May equip storm shields....

Chapter Champion - May equip stormshield.... or a powe axe, or a relic blade....

Drop Pod reduced in cost to 40pts.

Techmarine - Forgemaster for an additional 20pts gain +2 BS and 6Ws may equip a conversion beamer in addition to a servo arm and servo harness. may use bolster defenses.

Bolster Defense (Imperial Fists Only Chapter Tactic),

For imperial fists, place three shielded walls or cover improve the save of that terrain by +1.
Select one shield wall to improve the save of that terrain by +1

Raven Guard (Chapter Tactic)
Infiltrate.... (Why wasn't this a thing already?!) All infantry, special characters, and DREADNOUGHTS can infiltrate. In additional all jump pack armed units can immunity to overwatch, they may ignore overwatched units entirely.

Stratagem
Sabatoge - Select an enemy unit that is deployed this game, that unit suffers -1 to hit for the rest of the game. (2cp) (can only be used once!)

Iron Hands (Chapter Tactic)
Iron within - All Infantry models gain +1 to their toughness.

Stratagem -

Binary Diversion - Select a friendly iron hands character and then one of your opponent's vehicle or titan unit that is within 6" that unit cannot fire or make attacks this turn. (2CP)

White Scars (Chapter Tactic)
Swordstorm - On charge, if an infantry, jump pack, or bike unit is within 1" for every model in the squad roll a d6, on a 6+ that unit suffers a mortal wound. All characters hit on 5+.

Stratagem
Masters of the Wind- Select a unit of infantry or bike unit, this unit gains an additional 2" to their movement and their assault and charge for one turn only. (1cp)

Ultramarines (Chapter Tactic)
Progressive Assault - Units that fire at the same unit can call out or mark a single unit (Can only be done once per a turn from all ultramarines for that turn). Any Ultramarines that fire at that marked unit gain +1 to hit with all ULTRAMARINE units and ignore all penalties to hit. 1s will always fail. (Does not work on scouts or servitors)

Stratagem
Tactical Retreat - When an Ultramarine unit is charged, this unit may elect to retreat during your opponent's charge (2cp)

Salamanders (Chapter Tactic)
Masters of the Forge - All flame, thunder hammers, and melta weapons are half cost. Any weapons that are decimal are rounded up.

Stratagem
Holy Flame of Nocturne - Roll an additional D6 when firing with flame weapons from a single unit this turn (2cp)

Black Templar (Chapter Tactic)
SUFFER NOT THE UNCLEAN TO LIVE - On rolls of 6 when on charge or attacking in close combat, gain an additional hit. If this unit has charged this turn gain an additional attack if a charge was successful made by the unit possessing this ability in addition to the attacks generated from Suffer, not the unclean to live!

Stratagem
Sword Brethren - select a unit of veterans they gain +1 attack and +1 to their leadership to their profile to a max of 3(1/2/3 CP)

Notes :
Yes, I know they are OP. Some of them are broken beyond belief, but these would go a long way in making marines more valuable based on chapter, Each has its own unique flavor and it should be shown not hidden. We could fiddle around with each of these and make them less broken... These are only suggestions. I don't think to make marine bolters -1 ap in general will make marines better, they just need better stratagems.

Bolters: Strength 5 and -1 AP.
Bolt Pistols: Pistol 2 and -1 AP
Storm Bolters: strength 5 Assault 3, -1 AP
Heavy Bolter: Strength 6, Heavy 3, -2 AP, *Each hit generates 2 hits against Infantry
Chainswords: +1 Strength, +1 attack, -1 AP

No these are a bit too powerful. I would keep bolters at the original strength, even giving them a better AP might be dubious

Bolt pistol 2? No

Storm bolters becoming assault again? I sorta agree, but Assault 3 Range 24" S4 sounds a bit more right.
Heavy Bolters S5 36" AP -1
Chainsword is fine as is. Maybe certain versions like the grinder version has a chance to rend? But normal ones shouldn't.

Perhaps uniquely among the posters here, I don't have any mechanical suggestions, but I think Marines would work well as the anti-horde factions of the game--after all, in the fiction, they massacre basic infantry even in overwhelming numbers, but start to struggle against bigger stuff.

Ehhh not really. Marines have always had good anti-horde clear, until this edition. Marines also had some good titan killing equipment the problem is that it is too expensive now. Or marines have no adequate way to increase their firepower like guard can. Each unit they lose is a tremendous lose. A single full tactical squad is around 150 - 160. Devastators are your main backline as predators are anti-vehicle is all but useless now.

Follow-up thought: The basic issue with Marines is that they've been chopped in half and given two separate Codexes, one of which has the right statline, the other of which has all the wargear and all the playable vehicles. The likely 'fix' to Marines is smooshing the Primaris half and the normal half back together into one book.

Ample Suggestion, honestly. Primaris are bad because they have no options, regular marines are bad because they just die and are overly expensive or lack abilities to make them more versatile