As most people have probably noticed by now, space marines aren't doing so hot these days, and I keep bringing it up everywhere. Specifically, space marine infantry is bad. Marines are supposed to use a lot of elite infantry, but it's just not very good in 8th edition. This is mostly due to overall changes from 8th edition. I wrote about these in detail some time ago so I won't go into it all as that's its own whole big post. You can read it here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751394.page
I'll just do a short summary:
1) AP changes reduced the effectiveness of 3+ armor. Bolters used to ignore horde infantry's armor due to old Ap5, but now don't. Other old ap5 weapons often became ap-1 or got a special rule, but bolters got screwed.
2) Changes to templates/blasts and special weapons in general hurt marines as they often relied on a couple powerful weapons in a squad do a lot of work. Flamers used to be able to get 5-10 hits on hordes, now they get 1d6 and don't ignore armor.
3) Marines used to rely on high damage, low shot anti armor weapons like meltas and powerfists to kill vehicles. This no longer works due to AV system changes, and the 8th edition version of all these weapons being crappy.
4) Marines are hit really hard by transport and rapid fire changes. Moving, then disembarking and rapidfiring was a standard tactic (and it used to actually kill things due to old ap5).
5) Instant death changes destroyed the ability of a sergeant with a powerfist to be an effective counter to characters.
6) The new morale mechanics were supposed to be a check on the power of hordes, but actually just end up punishing large squads of marines most, forcing us into 5 man MSU all the time. Re-rolling morale doesn't help.
...and much more that you can read in that link. The best example of all this is probably the humble tactical squad. A unit that was once a reliable all-rounder, but hardly overpowered by any standards. But it was durable, provided anti-character and anti-vehicle in the form of a powerfist, provided decent anti-horde with bolters, and then covered a bit of another role with its special/heavy weapon. And it could get around well and stay alive with a cheap rhino. In close combat it was hardly an offensive powerhouse, but it was durable enough that against non-melee specialists, it could often lose less models and thus pull off a sweeping advance, wiping out a whole unit. This was a good system because it meant tacs could destroy squishy shooting units like guard or firewarriors effectively, but weren't going to do much to a real melee unit. If they'd just had enough attacks to kill that many guard or firewarriors, then they'd also kill a lot of boyz or banshees, which they shouldn't have. That's all lost now in 8th.
The culmination of all this stuff is that marine infantry just doesn't do much for its points cost. It is less effective per point both offensively and defensively than lots of cheaper troops. A tactical marine would have to cost like 10 points to be mechanically efficient, but it would be boring and 1 dimensional compared to what they used to be, and wouldn't feel much like a space marine. Rather than just dropping their points, it would be nice to see marines get some buffs to warrant their current cost. Ideally, we'd get a new codex that totally reworks their statline, weapons, traits, etc. but that's not likely to happen until a whole new edition comes. And we got primaris who sort of do this already, but they actually suffer from pretty much all the same issues. If intercessors were 13pts a model like tacs they would be mechanically efficient, but also boring and 1 dimensional and not feel like space marines. And most other primaris are just trash for their cost, or have weird split roles that they can't perform either of well enough to warrant using.
So a full re-work is out. But as we've seen from Bolter Discipline beta rule, the designers are aware that there are problems, and it may be possible to address them with further beta rules so that we can get the most popular faction and one of the largest sections of the model range back onto the playing field. So let's share some ideas, and see if we can inspire the designers, or at least let them see that this is something people care about. For the sake of keeping this thread on track, I hope you all will mostly just grant me the premise here and talk about what you think would be fun and what you think would be viable, not argue endlessly about how marines are actually fine because of Gman lists, or how marines don't deserve to be good because they were in past editions, or about how GW is planning to squat the whole range in favor of primaris so this doesn't matter (they might, but in the meantime we still want to play, and primaris need help too.) If you think there is no problem, you haven't been paying attention for the last 2 years.
I'm of the opinion that marines need an offensive buff, especially in melee, and a defensive buff. To keep it easy to implement as a beta rule, it shouldn't change any points or stats and shouldn't be too difficult to keep track of, or add a laborious amount of rolling. And if it's a couple smaller rules, then they could be implementing 1 at a time to avoid breaking the game. Marines should regain some of their ability to kill horde infantry with small arms and in melee, but shouldn't really be getting stronger versus elite units (we already have enough options for special and power weapons, especially on elite marine units.) They also need to get more durable against small arms, but not really against high str and ap weapons, as those are supposed to be very effective against marines. In light of that, here's some rules I think would help and why.
Superhuman: Astartes are demi-gods with superhuman strength, training and experience. And of course, superhuman sized equipment far more effective than standard human versions. Armor saves of 5+ or higher cannot be taken against attacks made by units with this rule, regardless of the weapon they are using. Armor saves of 4+ or higher cannot be taken against attacks made by models with this rule if the attacking weapon has AP-1.
Models with this rule add +1 to their armor save unless the attack has higher strength than their toughness, or ap-3 or better.
Units with this rule can only lose 1 model to morale at a time, unless they are suffering a leadership penalty, in which case they can lose additional models equal to the lost leadership.
The first part restores 5th ed style AP rules for marines, which would fix their ability to kill hordes with small arms and in close combat. This would give a ~33% increase in effectiveness of bolters vs guard, for example. And 16% vs boyz. The line for AP-1 weapons is necessary to have stuff like heavy bolters and autocannons not be worse vs these targets than regular bolters.
The defensive part makes them more durable vs small arms fire, which is currently too efficient. But it doesn't help them vs high strength, high AP weapons that are meant to kill them effectively. This is also a move back towards 5th ed style defensive efficiency.
And lastly, this fixes the problem of 10 man marine units being basically the only thing in the game that actually suffers meaningful morale loses, but lets morale killer mechanics still matter.
This rule isn't perfect, but it is relatively simple and would put regular Marines in a much better situation. I'm not claiming it would fix marine armies. It doesn't touch a lot of problems like anti-tank from marine squads. But it would make marines feel more like marines again, and maybe people would need to ask themselves "What if my opponent brings a ton of marines?" when making their lists.
Would you want to play with rules like this? How would you like to see marines be fixed?
My biggest beef with marines vs. Hordes is flamers and whirlwinds, both of which used to be excellent for horde clearing duty. Flamers were amazing at killing GEQs, and the Whirlwind packed flamer artillery.
2nd is the Drop Pod. I'd like it to be able to strike on turn 1.
3rd is Land Raiders being shut down by CC engagement. For a tank that has long had an assault ramp, with versions sporting Frag Launchers and main weapons like Flamers, having a single model within 1" preventing it from firing is a big problem.
I think the beta bolters went a long way to helping marines vs. GEQ already, so just those three things are my top picks atm.
I am sorry if you felt as if I were dismissing most of your suggestions, but I doubt GW will "improve" marine infantry by putting even more rules in the datasheet.
I think most of the Space Marine units, not just infantry, are not cost-effective simply because of Guilliman.
The Space Marine codex seems to be designed on the premise that the player always takes Guilliman, the force-multiplier that significantly improves performance of any Space Marine units.
This unfortunately led to terrible internal balance, as anything other than Ultramarines Guilliman list is simply not worth taking in competitive and "casual"(although I seriously doubt and hate this term) games.
It also forces Space Marines players to rely on rather static gunline as the sole effective tactic, which is mitigated should there be plenty of of objective and decent number of terrain pieces on the board.
I would rather see Guilliman's aura let only wound rolls of 1 to be re-rolled, have his points cost dropped, and have almost all of the options in Space Marines codex(models, stratagems, points cost) revised to a reasonable level.
Unfortunately, that would require a revamp of the entire codex which will take a long time.
Beta rules are simply not enough to improve the current status of the codex.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: I am sorry if you felt as if I were dismissing most of your suggestions, but I doubt GW will "improve" marine infantry by putting even more rules in the datasheet.
I think most of the Space Marine units, not just infantry, are not cost-effective simply because of Guilliman.
The Space Marine codex seems to be designed on the premise that the player always takes Guilliman, the force-multiplier that significantly improves performance of any Space Marine units.
This unfortunately led to terrible internal balance, as anything other than Ultramarines Guilliman list is simply not worth taking in competitive and "casual"(although I seriously doubt and hate this term) games.
It also forces Space Marines players to rely on rather static gunline as the sole effective tactic, which is mitigated should there be plenty of of objective and decent number of terrain pieces on the board.
I would rather see Guilliman's aura let only wound rolls of 1 to be re-rolled, have his points cost dropped, and have almost all of the options in Space Marines codex(models, stratagems, points cost) revised to a reasonable level.
Unfortunately, that would require a revamp of the entire codex which will take a long time.
Beta rules are simply not enough to improve the current status of the codex.
I get what you mean, and it is a good concern. Guillman is certainly a complicating factor. But these problems exist across lots of factions that can't take him, and even Chaos marines too (who don't have the same sorts of problems with their daemon primarchs as they don't provide as many buffs.) If we did gets rules helping out marines, Gman may need some changes. But that is viable because he's just one unit, so its possible to keep tweaking him as they have before.
That said, I'm not sure he'd actually be a problem with the sorts of changes I'm suggesting. He used to be one with razorback spam, but that's because razorbacks were nasty. He does a lot, but he's still expensive, and there's a lot more options to kill stuff like him than there was in the early days of 8th.
Yeah definitely not a fan of making heavybolter effectively AP-3 and Bolter AP-2, that's way too much, You're basically saying get a 3+ or die.
Marines have more issues than most due to GW refusing to recost them, like they have taken 5 or 6 points out of primaris models from codex to now to make them meh to ok. But tacs are still the same points.
Also if your fighting guardsmen it's not that marines suck at killing then, they are just stupidly durable for their 4 points, basically only guard kill guard efficiently.
Ice_can wrote: Yeah definitely not a fan of making heavybolter effectively AP-3 and Bolter AP-2, that's way too much, You're basically saying get a 3+ or die.
Marines have more issues than most due to GW refusing to recost them, like they have taken 5 or 6 points out of primaris models from codex to now to make them meh to ok. But tacs are still the same points.
Also if your fighting guardsmen it's not that marines suck at killing then, they are just stupidly durable for their 4 points, basically only guard kill guard efficiently.
It makes bolters ap-2 vs guard and ap-1 vs orks, and heavy bolters ap-2 vs 4+ armor. This means the same effectiveness of these weapons as in previous editions, which was decent but not incredible. Of course now we have offensive auras and all, but so does most everyone. These weapons should be effective vs lightly armored infantry, and weren't broken vs them for the entire previous history of the game.
The problem isn't just guardsmen. Marines are also inefficient at killing Boyz, Guardians, Gaunts, etc. I'm not too hot on 4pt guardsmen either, but this issue is not only them by any means.
How GW should have done it at the start of 8th - make all marines primaris statline, make template weapons more effective against large units (or infantry in general) and reset armour values for the new system rather than copy/pasting from earlier editions with guard/cultists having 7+ among others.
Though it's a constant struggle against the scale of the game as it moves further from its skirmish roots.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: As most people have probably noticed by now, space marines aren't doing so hot these days, and I keep bringing it up everywhere. Specifically, space marine infantry is bad. Marines are supposed to use a lot of elite infantry, but it's just not very good in 8th edition. This is mostly due to overall changes from 8th edition. I wrote about these in detail some time ago so I won't go into it all as that's its own whole big post. You can read it here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751394.page
I'll just do a short summary:
1) AP changes reduced the effectiveness of 3+ armor. Bolters used to ignore horde infantry's armor due to old Ap5, but now don't. Other old ap5 weapons often became ap-1 or got a special rule, but bolters got screwed.
Hrm, I don't think this is a complete picture. Yeah Bolters don't ignore flak armor anymore, but at the same time, Marines get a save in the open against weapons like battlecannons, power axes, krak missiles, and plasma, instead of nothing. Likewise, standing in cover actually means something for Marines against small arms fire, unlike in the 3E-7E Paradigm era, while Guardsmen with a toe in cover no longer get a 4+ cover save against literally everything. They lose out in some areas, win out in others, but on balance don't seem to come out too bad here.
Most AP5 weapons didn't get AP-1, mainly just Necrons (who used to have the Gauss ability). AP-1 is the equivalent of old AP4. Tau didn't get AP-1 on Pulse weapons for instance, nor did Dark Eldar.
2) Changes to templates/blasts and special weapons in general hurt marines as they often relied on a couple powerful weapons in a squad do a lot of work. Flamers used to be able to get 5-10 hits on hordes, now they get 1d6 and don't ignore armor.
3) Marines used to rely on high damage, low shot anti armor weapons like meltas and powerfists to kill vehicles. This no longer works due to AV system changes, and the 8th edition version of all these weapons being crappy.
I think this is a matter of specific weapons being poorly balanced than anything inherently wrong with the system. Flamers are just bad in general, this is a problem with Flamers, not just Marines. Plasma being cheaper than Meltas is bonkers, and they need to have an easier time wounding, but that's not a fault of the AV or Armor changes, that's just piss poor implementation, much like the Vanquisher cannon. Fixing these weapons would fix issues across a number of armies.
4) Marines are hit really hard by transport and rapid fire changes. Moving, then disembarking and rapidfiring was a standard tactic (and it used to actually kill things due to old ap5).
Marines can however rapid fire and charge now, something they haven't been able to do...ever. The transport rules are a bit awkward, but this hits other armies at least as hard. The fact that you can once again assault out of a transport at all is a big plus over the previous editions, much less being able to disembark, rapid fire, then charge, even if it means having to do so at the start of a turn and get into position the turn before.
5) Instant death changes destroyed the ability of a sergeant with a powerfist to be an effective counter to characters.
Powerfists however do multiple wounds now by default, and Marines were just as vulnerable to ID as anyone else, moreso for major HQ characters particularly than say, Orks, Necrons, Tyranids, Daemons, etc.
6) The new morale mechanics were supposed to be a check on the power of hordes, but actually just end up punishing large squads of marines most, forcing us into 5 man MSU all the time. Re-rolling morale doesn't help.
This is a fair point, but I think the bigger issue is the assault phase. Marines just don't have enough attacks to kill stuff without the old Sweeping Advance mechanic. Units didn't use to need to kill every model, just a couple and then they could break. I think increasing Marine attacks would help here.
Superhuman:
Astartes are demi-gods with superhuman strength, training and experience. And of course, superhuman sized equipment far more effective than standard human versions.
Armor saves of 5+ or higher cannot be taken against attacks made by units with this rule, regardless of the weapon they are using. Armor saves of 4+ or higher cannot be taken against attacks made by models with this rule if the attacking weapon has AP-1.
Models with this rule add +1 to their armor save unless the attack has higher strength than their toughness, or ap-3 or better.
Units with this rule can only lose 1 model to morale at a time, unless they are suffering a leadership penalty, in which case they can lose additional models equal to the lost leadership.
The first part restores 5th ed style AP rules for marines, which would fix their ability to kill hordes with small arms and in close combat. This would give a ~33% increase in effectiveness of bolters vs guard, for example. And 16% vs boyz. The line for AP-1 weapons is necessary to have stuff like heavy bolters and autocannons not be worse vs these targets than regular bolters.
The defensive part makes them more durable vs small arms fire, which is currently too efficient. But it doesn't help them vs high strength, high AP weapons that are meant to kill them effectively. This is also a move back towards 5th ed style defensive efficiency.
And lastly, this fixes the problem of 10 man marine units being basically the only thing in the game that actually suffers meaningful morale loses, but lets morale killer mechanics still matter.
This rule isn't perfect, but it is relatively simple and would put regular Marines in a much better situation. I'm not claiming it would fix marine armies. It doesn't touch a lot of problems like anti-tank from marine squads. But it would make marines feel more like marines again, and maybe people would need to ask themselves "What if my opponent brings a ton of marines?" when making their lists.
Would you want to play with rules like this? How would you like to see marines be fixed?
Unfortunately, I think recosting downward on a bunch of units by 10-25% (depending on the unit), fixing a few weapons that need fixing across many armies (e.g. flamers, meltas) and increasing the base number CC attacks across the board is a lot easier and substantially cleaner. With these, you'd really ramp up Tacs, but leave a whole lot of other units still hopelessly unusable.
I think Marines have much more a general overcosting problem than specific issues with armor mechanics or particular weapons, they have a lot of stuff that just straight up costs too much. Scale issues are another, related issue. When we have things like Knights and Custodes, it's hard for Marines to feel particularly elite or special. More to the point, they break the game scaling. Balancing Space Marine costs versus Guarsdmen and Dire Avengers is one thing, in that context it makes sense that a Marine costs many times what an Ork or Guardsman does, but then having to do so next to super units that don't really care about any of the differences between these infantry units, where they might as well all be Grots, then we have issues. Likewise, a lot of the detail that Marine squads are built around goes out the window, who cares what kind of power weapon a Sergeant has when facing a lance of Knights or a full on tank company? Who cares how much battle prowess a Marine combat character has when they're stuck facing down a Castellan or a Jetbike Custodes Captain? The game is trying to make too many different game scales and unit types work within the same ruleset and it has funky effects.
Ice_can wrote: Yeah definitely not a fan of making heavybolter effectively AP-3 and Bolter AP-2, that's way too much, You're basically saying get a 3+ or die.
Marines have more issues than most due to GW refusing to recost them, like they have taken 5 or 6 points out of primaris models from codex to now to make them meh to ok. But tacs are still the same points.
Also if your fighting guardsmen it's not that marines suck at killing then, they are just stupidly durable for their 4 points, basically only guard kill guard efficiently.
It makes bolters ap-2 vs guard and ap-1 vs orks, and heavy bolters ap-2 vs 4+ armor. This means the same effectiveness of these weapons as in previous editions, which was decent but not incredible. Of course now we have offensive auras and all, but so does most everyone. These weapons should be effective vs lightly armored infantry, and weren't broken vs them for the entire previous history of the game.
The problem isn't just guardsmen. Marines are also inefficient at killing Boyz, Guardians, Gaunts, etc. I'm not too hot on 4pt guardsmen either, but this issue is not only them by any means.
No going from a 4+ with -1 vrs a heavy bolter to not allowed to take a save is effectively making them Ap-3 not AP-2 as a 4+ save still saves on 6+ vrs Ap-2, it also means no cover, as you can't modify a save you can't take.
Also Primaris is a thing and just flat out autohitting 2 shot boltrifles with Ap-3 to anything but power armour or better is not a balance improvement and I play marines.
They need help but not that sort of game breaking change.
Vaktathi wrote: Unfortunately, I think recosting downward on a bunch of units by 10-25% (depending on the unit), fixing a few weapons that need fixing across many armies (e.g. flamers, meltas) and increasing the base number CC attacks across the board is a lot easier and substantially cleaner
You can play that army today with the beta sisters. Well, kind of.
I think you make alot of good points but are being a little unrealistic in how it could be fixed.
Looking at the new CSM codex tells us they they aren't really interested in rewriting things, they will however alter points and issue simple to implement Beta rules. They are not going to alter weapon or unit profiles.
Looking at these two ways of fixing stuff I think something along the lines of the following could fix alot of marine issues:
Reduce points on the flamer down to about 3pts, its still more expensive than a storm bolter and only really better in overwatch and alot worse most of the time. Reduce points on melta down to around 9pts, needs to be less than a plasmagun due to the str8 making it unreliable at doing its primary job. Reduce the cost of a rhino by 10pts.
Beta rules:
Droppod Assault: Droppods may arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round - only way to make them worth while, they cost to much otherwise and there is little room to place them from round 2 onwards due to the model being so damn big.
Assault Vehicle: Landraiders can fire their weapons after falling back from combat but at a -1 penalty. - They are designed to drive up to the enemy, this makes them able to do so.
Black carapace - Attacks made against space marine that have an AP value of -1 are resolved as if they have an AP value of 0 and if they have an AP value of -2 they are resolved as if they have an AP value of -1.
I think the Bolter Disciple rule help marine fire power a little but they still need a bit of a bump in durability. In cover they have a 2+ so improving their save or giving them a reroll is out, this makes them better against weapons that aren't designed to kill them and has the knock on effect of also working well on terminators.
I think these few rules would really help marines feel more like the super soldiers they are supposed to be, at the moment their units have very few unique special rules compared to other armies and these upgrades will help them operate more like they should do.
One other thing to bring up, I think there needs to be a reason to bring larger squads of marines, the combat squads rule is never used as taking two squads of 5 separately is better in every way as you get two srg's, more special weapons and most importantly more CP for filling more slots.
I don't know what form this rule could take but it would need to tack onto the existing combat squad rule as a simple errata, perhaps something like this:
Combat Squads: Before any models are deployed at the start of the game, a Squad containing 10 models may be split into two units, each containing 5 models. Also Squads that contained 10 models before deployment lose 1 less model when they fail a moral test.
Not a big change but it mitigates the moral issues facing larger squads of space marines.
I’d like to see more marines on the tabletop and your ideas are interesting but don’t seem the kind of changes GW is likely to make.
I doubt they will ever give drop pods a turn one deep strike this edition, just seems not to be the direction they are taking the game. And the effectiveness of flamers and template weapons in general is a problem for all armies, not just marines, so I won’t address that here. There are other threads discussing this specifically.
The bolter discipline rule does a lot for improving the efficacy of marines when shooting so I don’t think we need to do anything else to improve marine bolters right now.
Survivability versus small arms fire, effectiveness in close combat, and morale should each be improved though.
In the interest of keeping with the OPs premise- simple bets rules, easy to implement, similar to bolter discipline and not actually changing points or stat lines, here are my suggestions:
To improve protection against small arms fire:
Black carapace beta rule:
Space marines wearing Power Armour have an additional layer of protection provided by the black carapace - ignore AP -1
Close combat effectiveness:
Space Marines are living weapons and their bare hands are deadly weapons - on the turn that they charge Space Marines can make an additional close combat attack with their bare hands. Resolve this attack with the same characteristics as a melee weapon.
Morale:
Change ATSKNF to: when taking morale tests this unit rolls 2 dice and picks the lower.
I know these rules aren’t perfect, but I think they would certainly be simple and easy to implement, and would at least slightly improve marines in these 3 areas. I think these rules could easily be applied to all types of space marines ( except ATSKNF for Chaos, obviously) without being game breaking or too complicated.
Aash wrote: Space marines wearing Power Armour have an additional layer of protection provided by the black carapace - ignore AP -1
on the turn that they charge Space Marines can make an additional close combat attack with their bare hands. Resolve this attack with the same characteristics as a melee weapon.
As always, these discussions slowly revolve back around to making marines primaris marines.
(as an aside, black carapace is a flexible fibrous subdermal layer used to anchor neural interface plugs - like tendons, not armour plating)
Aash wrote: Space marines wearing Power Armour have an additional layer of protection provided by the black carapace - ignore AP -1
on the turn that they charge Space Marines can make an additional close combat attack with their bare hands. Resolve this attack with the same characteristics as a melee weapon.
As always, these discussions slowly revolve back around to making marines primaris marines.
(as an aside, black carapace is a flexible fibrous subdermal layer used to anchor neural interface plugs - like tendons, not armour plating)
My bad regarding black carapace, regardless of the fluff, ignoring AP-1 ( resolving AP -1 as AP 0 if that wording is better) seems to me the most straightforward way of improving survivability against small arms fire without changing how the armour responds to more powerful weapons.
And yeah, the additional attack is borderline primaris, but if the additional attack is only on the charge, and is resolved with a basic melee stat line then it is a little different as it wouldn’t give any extra powerfist, power sword etc attack the way increasing the attack characteristic on the stat line would. I’d see the rule being applied across the whole marine range (infantry anyway) so primaris would also get the rule, keeping a difference between regular marines and primaris marines.
I don’t think a full and proper fix can be implemented without re-writing marines from the ground up, so I was trying to keep it simple and easy to implement.
Aash wrote: I don’t think a full and proper fix can be implemented without re-writing marines from the ground up, so I was trying to keep it simple and easy to implement.
Circumstantial rules are always awkward. The primaris changes (wound, attack, super boltgun) really do address the most commonly raised issues in the most straightforward way.
The problem will eventually resolve itself as GW phase out oldmarines, it's just a shame they were so stuck to the old pre 8e statlines that they didn't make a clean break with 8th.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: I am sorry if you felt as if I were dismissing most of your suggestions, but I doubt GW will "improve" marine infantry by putting even more rules in the datasheet.
I think most of the Space Marine units, not just infantry, are not cost-effective simply because of Guilliman.
The Space Marine codex seems to be designed on the premise that the player always takes Guilliman, the force-multiplier that significantly improves performance of any Space Marine units.
This unfortunately led to terrible internal balance, as anything other than Ultramarines Guilliman list is simply not worth taking in competitive and "casual"(although I seriously doubt and hate this term) games.
It also forces Space Marines players to rely on rather static gunline as the sole effective tactic, which is mitigated should there be plenty of of objective and decent number of terrain pieces on the board.
I would rather see Guilliman's aura let only wound rolls of 1 to be re-rolled, have his points cost dropped, and have almost all of the options in Space Marines codex(models, stratagems, points cost) revised to a reasonable level.
Unfortunately, that would require a revamp of the entire codex which will take a long time.
Beta rules are simply not enough to improve the current status of the codex.
I get what you mean, and it is a good concern. Guillman is certainly a complicating factor. But these problems exist across lots of factions that can't take him, and even Chaos marines too (who don't have the same sorts of problems with their daemon primarchs as they don't provide as many buffs.) If we did gets rules helping out marines, Gman may need some changes. But that is viable because he's just one unit, so its possible to keep tweaking him as they have before.
That said, I'm not sure he'd actually be a problem with the sorts of changes I'm suggesting. He used to be one with razorback spam, but that's because razorbacks were nasty. He does a lot, but he's still expensive, and there's a lot more options to kill stuff like him than there was in the early days of 8th.
Chaos has abbadon and kharn, both apply full rerolls.
Thanks for keeping it clean so far folks. A few points to respond to:
Most AP5 weapons didn't get AP-1, mainly just Necrons (who used to have the Gauss ability). AP-1 is the equivalent of old AP4. Tau didn't get AP-1 on Pulse weapons for instance, nor did Dark Eldar.
Eldar and Orks got special rules (suriken ap boost on 6, dakka dakka.) Tau didn't, but firewarriors got a reasonable points cost and have access to a good deal of shooting buffs (and need them). Dark Eldar didn't get anything, but also suffer from warriors not doing much, similar to marines. So I guess i'll amend my claim to this: Some ap5 weapons became ap -1 or got a special rule and those are okay. Those that didn't are now bad.
You are right though that ap-1 ignoring 4+ would be too much. I was thinking mostly of heavy bolters, but I didn't consider what it would mean for intercessors.
The bolter discipline rule does a lot for improving the efficacy of marines when shooting so I don’t think we need to do anything else to improve marine bolters right now.
Bolter Discipline doesn't really help marine shooting. It just improves the range at which they get their full firepower. They still just don't do a whole lot with it (for their points.) They should be getting stronger at close range, but don't. It's not enough. If they got a 3rd shot at close range, or if it really had doubled their shooting like some people initially thought, then they'd have some decent firepower.
Space marines wearing Power Armour have an additional layer of protection provided by the black carapace - ignore AP -1
While this would help, it's not really going to solve the problem because a lot of the weapons they need to get tougher against are Ap0. It's too easy for marines to get gunned down by guard or shootas or even firewarriors right now. That's why I suggested a +1 save instead of just ignoring AP.
Change ATSKNF to: when taking morale tests this unit rolls 2 dice and picks the lower.
This is actually about the same mathematically and doesn't address the main problem: If you take a bunch of losses, the morale penalty is so big that you will fail the roll no matter how many re-rolls you have. It needs to be something that reduces casualties, or reduces the amount of penalty they can take from losses.
Chaos has abbadon and kharn, both apply full rerolls
No they do not.
Abaddon gives re-roll hit rolls.
Kharn gives reroll hit rolls to WE, but only within 1"
Guilliman gives reroll hits AND wounds for ultramarines, and re-roll hit rolls of 1 to imperium.
Bharring wrote: -Primaris Intercessors may use any standard Marine transport
-Primaris may select any upgrade available to Tactical Marines
As you probably already know, I just can't get on that train. I'm not cool with loyalists being that much beefier than CSMs/Eldar/Crons etc. I'm fine with Primaris existing, but overwriting the design space of the OGMs is too much.
Most AP5 weapons didn't get AP-1, mainly just Necrons (who used to have the Gauss ability). AP-1 is the equivalent of old AP4. Tau didn't get AP-1 on Pulse weapons for instance, nor did Dark Eldar.
Eldar and Orks got special rules (suriken ap boost on 6, dakka dakka.) Tau didn't, but firewarriors got a reasonable points cost and have access to a good deal of shooting buffs (and need them). Dark Eldar didn't get anything, but also suffer from warriors not doing much, similar to marines. So I guess i'll amend my claim to this: Some ap5 weapons became ap -1 or got a special rule and those are okay. Those that didn't are now bad.
Bladestorm on Shuriken isn't a replacement for AP5 - it's a replacement for how the game changed between 5E and 6E. Eldar have had that and AP5 since the 6E codex. It's the rule that says "Shuriken Catapaults aren't just weaker Boltgun", on a unit that pays a premium to have a better weapon than a Boltgun. Shuriken AP5 *did* go to AP0, just like Boltgun.
DakkaDakka is arguable. The weapons went from AP5 to AP0 with no special rule, then (much later), when the Ork codex came out, they also got a new rule.
Gauss weapons went from "Always wound vehicles on a 6" to "AP-1" - it's hard to frame that as AP5 being translated into AP-1.
As noted, DE, Marines, and Tau - among others - also went from AP5 to AP0.
So in almost every case, AP5 became AP0. In a single case, AP5 and a special rule translated to AP-1 with no special rule.
Most AP5 weapons didn't get AP-1, mainly just Necrons (who used to have the Gauss ability). AP-1 is the equivalent of old AP4. Tau didn't get AP-1 on Pulse weapons for instance, nor did Dark Eldar.
Eldar and Orks got special rules (suriken ap boost on 6, dakka dakka.) Tau didn't, but firewarriors got a reasonable points cost and have access to a good deal of shooting buffs (and need them). Dark Eldar didn't get anything, but also suffer from warriors not doing much, similar to marines. So I guess i'll amend my claim to this: Some ap5 weapons became ap -1 or got a special rule and those are okay. Those that didn't are now bad.
Bladestorm on Shuriken isn't a replacement for AP5 - it's a replacement for how the game changed between 5E and 6E. Eldar have had that and AP5 since the 6E codex. It's the rule that says "Shuriken Catapaults aren't just weaker Boltgun", on a unit that pays a premium to have a better weapon than a Boltgun. Shuriken AP5 *did* go to AP0, just like Boltgun.
DakkaDakka is arguable. The weapons went from AP5 to AP0 with no special rule, then (much later), when the Ork codex came out, they also got a new rule.
Gauss weapons went from "Always wound vehicles on a 6" to "AP-1" - it's hard to frame that as AP5 being translated into AP-1.
As noted, DE, Marines, and Tau - among others - also went from AP5 to AP0.
So in almost every case, AP5 became AP0. In a single case, AP5 and a special rule translated to AP-1 with no special rule.
I'll concede the original point, but the wider point of these factions being efficient for their cost when shooting these weapons due to various factors (rules, buffs, cost), and marines not being efficient with them, still stands.
Certainly. Although I'd add that many of the factions pay a a premium (at least in theory) to have a better weapon. The Boltgun should be better per-model than the Lasgun, but not the Shuriken Catapault or Pulse Rifle.
Bharring wrote: Certainly. Although I'd add that many of the factions pay a a premium (at least in theory) to have a better weapon. The Boltgun should be better per-model than the Lasgun, but not the Shuriken Catapault or Pulse Rifle.
I'd agree with that. It does kind of raise the question of what exactly each of these models/units should be capable of doing.
If you pit tacs against Guardsmen, should their firepower and durability per point be the same vs each other? What about tacs vs guardians and warriors? How do we account for difficult to quantify factors like the advantage of being a horde unit that can screen things?
Perhaps Tacs should outshoot guardsmen without orders, but lose with orders. And then also outfight them in melee with and without orders?
Personally, I think that marine infantry should outperform other non-specialist infantry per point in most all ways, but in return have weaker support vehicles and more vulnerability to hard counter weapons like plasma and power weapons. This is essentially how it always worked in the past, and that was fine. Soup might screw it up, but if we got incentives to do mono-faction armies, that could help (soup is its own issue.)
Ex. Tac marines vs guard infantry could have the same firepower, but then tacs could have 50% more durability per point compared to the guardsmen. This would be fine because while those tacs would stomp the guardsmen, they'll get absolutely mulched by guard tanks and heavy weapons with good AP, which will be in abundant supply. We should have the situation we had in the past where there was an appreciable differences in the effectiveness of weapons vs GeQs, MeQs, and TeQs. Right now there is not because a lot of low ap weapons are efficient enough to kill MeQs and TeQs just fine, and a lot of high ap weapons kill horde units efficiently enough too. We no longer have the phenomena of bringing too much anti-horde and not being able to efficiently kill marines, or bringing to much anti heavy infantry that is wasted on hordes. That's a lot of depth we've lost.
Bharring wrote: Certainly. Although I'd add that many of the factions pay a a premium (at least in theory) to have a better weapon. The Boltgun should be better per-model than the Lasgun, but not the Shuriken Catapault or Pulse Rifle.
I'd agree with that. It does kind of raise the question of what exactly each of these models/units should be capable of doing.
If you pit tacs against Guardsmen, should their firepower and durability per point be the same vs each other? What about tacs vs guardians and warriors? How do we account for difficult to quantify factors like the advantage of being a horde unit that can screen things?
Perhaps Tacs should outshoot guardsmen without orders, but lose with orders. And then also outfight them in melee with and without orders?
Personally, I think that marine infantry should outperform other non-specialist infantry per point in most all ways, but in return have weaker support vehicles and more vulnerability to hard counter weapons like plasma and power weapons. This is essentially how it always worked in the past, and that was fine. Soup might screw it up, but if we got incentives to do mono-faction armies, that could help (soup is its own issue.)
Ex. Tac marines vs guard infantry could have the same firepower, but then tacs could have 50% more durability per point compared to the guardsmen. This would be fine because while those tacs would stomp the guardsmen, they'll get absolutely mulched by guard tanks and heavy weapons with good AP, which will be in abundant supply. We should have the situation we had in the past where there was an appreciable differences in the effectiveness of weapons vs GeQs, MeQs, and TeQs. Right now there is not because a lot of low ap weapons are efficient enough to kill MeQs and TeQs just fine, and a lot of high ap weapons kill horde units efficiently enough too. We no longer have the phenomena of bringing too much anti-horde and not being able to efficiently kill marines, or bringing to much anti heavy infantry that is wasted on hordes. That's a lot of depth we've lost.
So in low point games - limited heavy support like in kill team - Guard get mulched. So for the same points they will have equal firepower but have less durability. Should guard heavy weapons get cheaper so they have 50% more firepower per point (bespoke points?).
Is small arms really mowing down Space Marines? 9 Lasguns - AKA a full squad - in rapid fire range and with FRF,SRF do on average TWO (2) wounds to T4 3+save. The maths is (9 lasguns x 4 shots = 36 total shots)x(3/6 to hit)*(2/6 to wound)x(2/6 fail save)=TWO. The above shooting T3 5+save does 6 wounds by the way.
Bharring wrote: Certainly. Although I'd add that many of the factions pay a a premium (at least in theory) to have a better weapon. The Boltgun should be better per-model than the Lasgun, but not the Shuriken Catapault or Pulse Rifle.
I'd agree with that. It does kind of raise the question of what exactly each of these models/units should be capable of doing.
If you pit tacs against Guardsmen, should their firepower and durability per point be the same vs each other? What about tacs vs guardians and warriors? How do we account for difficult to quantify factors like the advantage of being a horde unit that can screen things?
Perhaps Tacs should outshoot guardsmen without orders, but lose with orders. And then also outfight them in melee with and without orders?
Personally, I think that marine infantry should outperform other non-specialist infantry per point in most all ways, but in return have weaker support vehicles and more vulnerability to hard counter weapons like plasma and power weapons. This is essentially how it always worked in the past, and that was fine. Soup might screw it up, but if we got incentives to do mono-faction armies, that could help (soup is its own issue.)
Ex. Tac marines vs guard infantry could have the same firepower, but then tacs could have 50% more durability per point compared to the guardsmen. This would be fine because while those tacs would stomp the guardsmen, they'll get absolutely mulched by guard tanks and heavy weapons with good AP, which will be in abundant supply. We should have the situation we had in the past where there was an appreciable differences in the effectiveness of weapons vs GeQs, MeQs, and TeQs. Right now there is not because a lot of low ap weapons are efficient enough to kill MeQs and TeQs just fine, and a lot of high ap weapons kill horde units efficiently enough too. We no longer have the phenomena of bringing too much anti-horde and not being able to efficiently kill marines, or bringing to much anti heavy infantry that is wasted on hordes. That's a lot of depth we've lost.
So in low point games - limited heavy support like in kill team - Guard get mulched. So for the same points they will have equal firepower but have less durability. Should guard heavy weapons get cheaper so they have 50% more firepower per point (bespoke points?).
Is small arms really mowing down Space Marines? 9 Lasguns - AKA a full squad - in rapid fire range and with FRF,SRF do on average TWO (2) wounds to T4 3+save. The maths is (9 lasguns x 4 shots = 36 total shots)x(3/6 to hit)*(2/6 to wound)x(2/6 fail save)=TWO. The above shooting T3 5+save does 6 wounds by the way.
Guards kill exactly 2 marines, which is 26pts
Marines kill 3 guardsmen, which is 12 points.
So even if they are at 24inch range and the guard lose half their shots, they're still about even in raw killing power.
Marines won't take morale losses from that. Guardsmen could take up to 2. So that would be 12-20pts lost total. If you were dealing with a larger size or number of units, like 2 guard squads vs 10 marines, then the marines could take losses.
Do you see the problem? Marines are more efficient shooting other marines than shooting guard, which is just silly. Guardsmen specifically can move down space marines at nearly double the points efficiency. They aren't that often because people aren't fielding lots of infantry vs lots of tacs for other reasons. But the reason we don't see lots of marines fielded is because small arms weapons like guardsmen are too good at killing marines. Guard can put out a lot of str3, str4, and str5ap-1 shots from various units. These are supposed to be anti horde weapons, and they used to not be very efficient at killing MeQs. But now in 8th, they are.
Bharring wrote: Certainly. Although I'd add that many of the factions pay a a premium (at least in theory) to have a better weapon. The Boltgun should be better per-model than the Lasgun, but not the Shuriken Catapault or Pulse Rifle.
I'd agree with that. It does kind of raise the question of what exactly each of these models/units should be capable of doing.
If you pit tacs against Guardsmen, should their firepower and durability per point be the same vs each other? What about tacs vs guardians and warriors? How do we account for difficult to quantify factors like the advantage of being a horde unit that can screen things?
Perhaps Tacs should outshoot guardsmen without orders, but lose with orders. And then also outfight them in melee with and without orders?
Personally, I think that marine infantry should outperform other non-specialist infantry per point in most all ways, but in return have weaker support vehicles and more vulnerability to hard counter weapons like plasma and power weapons. This is essentially how it always worked in the past, and that was fine. Soup might screw it up, but if we got incentives to do mono-faction armies, that could help (soup is its own issue.)
Ex. Tac marines vs guard infantry could have the same firepower, but then tacs could have 50% more durability per point compared to the guardsmen. This would be fine because while those tacs would stomp the guardsmen, they'll get absolutely mulched by guard tanks and heavy weapons with good AP, which will be in abundant supply. We should have the situation we had in the past where there was an appreciable differences in the effectiveness of weapons vs GeQs, MeQs, and TeQs. Right now there is not because a lot of low ap weapons are efficient enough to kill MeQs and TeQs just fine, and a lot of high ap weapons kill horde units efficiently enough too. We no longer have the phenomena of bringing too much anti-horde and not being able to efficiently kill marines, or bringing to much anti heavy infantry that is wasted on hordes. That's a lot of depth we've lost.
So in low point games - limited heavy support like in kill team - Guard get mulched. So for the same points they will have equal firepower but have less durability. Should guard heavy weapons get cheaper so they have 50% more firepower per point (bespoke points?).
Is small arms really mowing down Space Marines? 9 Lasguns - AKA a full squad - in rapid fire range and with FRF,SRF do on average TWO (2) wounds to T4 3+save. The maths is (9 lasguns x 4 shots = 36 total shots)x(3/6 to hit)*(2/6 to wound)x(2/6 fail save)=TWO. The above shooting T3 5+save does 6 wounds by the way.
The problem is those 2 marines cost 6.5 guardsmen.
Also unfortunately what drudge is describing as much as no-one wants to admit it is exactly what primaris marines do currently, the issue they have is slightly different and is more of a short term fixable issue, 1W powerarmour marines at this point kinda need an edition change to be competatively viable IMHO, and arr probably not likely to be the same after said edition change.
Heck look at the amount of rules that have to be pumped onto and doubel digit point cost troops custodes are the other extreme and aren't realy that great. 8th edition is a buckets of dice edition, marines just can't be that kind of army due to fluff.
I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.
To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7
My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.
0XFallen wrote: I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.
To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7
My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.
There's plenty of other units that have gotten shafted. But Guardsmen aren't the whole problem. Marine infantry fails to hold up against plenty of other cheaper troops in the 5-8pts ranges too. Guard are just the most egregious case, which is why the argument starts with them.
Also, why should marines do less damage in comparison to others? They should do more because they have the downsides of heavy infantry, and don't have the upsides of hordes (board control, screening, etc.)
0XFallen wrote: I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.
To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7
My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.
There's plenty of other units that have gotten shafted. But Guardsmen aren't the whole problem. Marine infantry fails to hold up against plenty of other cheaper troops in the 5-8pts ranges too. Guard are just the most egregious case, which is why the argument starts with them.
Also, why should marines do less damage in comparison to others? They should do more because they have the downsides of heavy infantry, and don't have the upsides of hordes (board control, screening, etc.)
Only wanted to say that they should be more resilient than deal damage in comparison to themselves.
As a side note. One advantage they have is that cover is really good for marines, going from 3+ to 2+ is no joke.
They also pay for the versatility of having good melee with WS 3+, S4. Grenades helping in charges and pistols in melee.
What do you think about scouts? I think they are one of the main reasons we dont see tacticals very often. Their movement straight onto objectives and cover is just really good.
0XFallen wrote: I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.
To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7
My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.
There's plenty of other units that have gotten shafted. But Guardsmen aren't the whole problem. Marine infantry fails to hold up against plenty of other cheaper troops in the 5-8pts ranges too. Guard are just the most egregious case, which is why the argument starts with them.
Also, why should marines do less damage in comparison to others? They should do more because they have the downsides of heavy infantry, and don't have the upsides of hordes (board control, screening, etc.)
Only wanted to say that they should be more resilient than deal damage in comparison to themselves.
As a side note. One advantage they have is that cover is really good for marines, going from 3+ to 2+ is no joke.
They also pay for the versatility of having good melee with WS 3+, S4. Grenades helping in charges and pistols in melee.
What do you think about scouts? I think they are one of the main reasons we dont see tacticals very often. Their movement straight onto objectives and cover is just really good.
Ah, yeah I agree that they should be focused more on resilience than offense (for the troop versions, then for elites you pay to up the offense.)
Is cover actually more beneficial to better armor saves? Each +1 to save is ~16% more durability. If are getting hit by high ap weapons, then cover could contribute nothing (eg ap-3 vs 5+ save, cover makes you 4+, but you're still totally penned.) But overall, i don't think marines are benefiting more from cover than anyone else. They are however easier to fit into it since there's less models (one of the few advantages of elite/heavy infantry.)
They are paying for better melee stats, but their melee performance is still worse per point in most cases, even compared to non-melee cheaper infantry.
For example, let's compare 1 tac marine (13pts) vs 2 DE warriors (12pts). Warriors are hardly considered to be a good melee unit, and are not particularly competitive.
We'll do both attacking t4 3+ armor, which is in the tacs favor.
The tac's single s4 attack kills .11 space marines, or .0084 per point
The warrior's 2 s3 attacks kill .15 space marines, or .0125 per point.
The warrior's are about 50% more effective in melee per point than the space marines, even in a matchup they are supposed to be bad at. And they do it while having similar survivability vs ap0 (the marine's save is better once some ap comes in, but 2w also had advantages of its own, like can't be killed by a single attack, etc.) The warriors fall behind a bit due to t3 of course, but then power from pain 6+++ compensates for it.
So marines are just not good at melee, despite appearing to be due to their nice stats. They'll beat maybe firewarriors and guardians due to their worse BS and cost, but they still lose to most others 5-8pt shooty troops, even though marines are meant to be a more balanced unit.
Scouts are in a better place because they are more efficient due to their points, despite being worse in some stats. If we didn't have scouts we would see more tacs, but only for lack of any other options. Or more likely, we'll see even less use of marines, and more soup troops instead. Tacs aren't underused because scouts are good. Scouts still barely compete with other troops, and even then only because those other troops are often lackluster (warriors again.)
[...]
Is cover actually more beneficial to better armor saves? Each +1 to save is ~16% more durability.
Common mistake.
Lets say the unit is wounded 6 times.
Guardsmen without cover lose 4 guys
Guardsmen with cover lose 3 guys
Marines without cover lose 2 guys
Marines with cover lose 1 guy
Looking at it the other way around, how many wounds does it take to kill 1 guy?
Guardsman without cover? 1.5 wounds to kill
Guardsman with cover? 2 wounds
Marines without cover? 3 wounds
Marines with cover? 6 wounds
Cover reduced Guardsmen casualties by 25%, but reduced Marine casualties by 50%. Alternately, it requires 33% more firepower to kill each Guardsman in cover, but 100% more firepower to kill each Marine in cover.
Either way, it's much bigger for Marines.
The problem comes from the fact that Cover only matters for 1/6th of all Wounds - which sounds like it applies equally. But you don't care how many wounds didn't go through because of cover - you care about how many wounds did go through, total. To further show this, imagine what the numbers would be if you went from a 2+ to a 1+ (and ignored that 1s always failed)? The change still only applies in 1/6th of all Wounds, but the Marine is clearly better than Guardsman (who would then save on a 3+) - because he's unkillable.
Cover means *half* of all AP0 wounds that would otherwise kill a Marine now don't. It's quite a swing.
If are getting hit by high ap weapons, then cover could contribute nothing (eg ap-3 vs 5+ save, cover makes you 4+, but you're still totally penned.)
It requires AP-5 for Marines to not care about cover. There aren't a lot of weapons with that kind of AP...
But overall, i don't think marines are benefiting more from cover than anyone else. They are however easier to fit into it since there's less models (one of the few advantages of elite/heavy infantry.)
The problem is there's far too much AP-1/-2 in the game, combined with 13ppm being a little too high for what you get, even with cover factored in. But, in cover, Marines each require 12 S4 AP- hits to kill on average. GEQ require 3.
For starters, all marines should be primaris. 2 wounds and attacks each. Thr beta bolter rule helped but it really wierd. Bolter weapons should have something like re-rollable 1s to wound. Its not too powerful but helps them be more reliable without needing an LT. who could be baby sitting somethin else like devs. Really, I dont know what else. I would ad those two to start because they make marines more slightly more powerful and its fluffy. GW usually buffs a unit when they get a bigger model like the oblits and greater daenons for example, yet csm got new marines but were untouched. Does a space marine really look like it has only one wound? Why do primaris marines get a whole wound and attack more than an old marine, but old marine have the same wounda and attacks as a guardsmen. A normal every day human.
Its too bad though. GWs incompetence can really leave me dumbfounded.
Let Marines fight twice in combat baseline. Adjust anything that'd get silly (i.e. Guilliman) to compensate. Boosts to shooting are all well and good, but Marines are supposed to be generalists, not gunline castle-huggers.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Let Marines fight twice in combat baseline. Adjust anything that'd get silly (i.e. Guilliman) to compensate. Boosts to shooting are all well and good, but Marines are supposed to be generalists, not gunline castle-huggers.
I think that's a bit extreme. Either a 3cp stratagem free into their baseline without paying, or buff up their price accordingly cause I have to pay through the NOSE for my Khorne Berserkers to do the same thing. (admittedly KB tend to murderize anything they touch, but do have a price point to match considering they are still no more durable than a TAC)
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Let Marines fight twice in combat baseline. Adjust anything that'd get silly (i.e. Guilliman) to compensate. Boosts to shooting are all well and good, but Marines are supposed to be generalists, not gunline castle-huggers.
I think that's a bit extreme. Either a 3cp stratagem free into their baseline without paying, or buff up their price accordingly cause I have to pay through the NOSE for my Khorne Berserkers to do the same thing. (admittedly KB tend to murderize anything they touch, but do have a price point to match considering they are still no more durable than a TAC)
I play Khorne Marines as well. Khorne Berzerkers would still outfight any melee unit from Codex: Space Marines point for point (with the exception of Ironclad Dreadnoughts and TH/SS Terminators against high-toughness targets, but that doesn't really sound unfair to me), the innate S5 of the Berzerkers and the cheapness of the Chainaxe makes them come out almost equivalent to a Vanguard Veteran. A fights twice Vanguard Veteran with a Chainsword and a Power Sword would do on average 1.333... wounds to an MEQ opponent, whereas the Berzerker would do 1.185... wounds. That's Berzerkers almost equalling Vanguard Veterans against a target that the Vanguard Veteran is specialized to fight, and the Berzerkers can get an Icon to get into combat more reliably as well. The Berzerkers are 17 PPM with an extra 10 for the icon, while the Vanguard Veterans would be 18 PPM without Jump Packs. The Berzerkers are better against Guardsmen, Orks and other more lightly armoured infantry or things like Daemons where the better AP of the Power Sword is less valuable.
In other words, this would bring Marine melee units up to par with Khorne Berzerkers for their cost, but would not power-creep the Berzerkers out of existence. If that's "a bit extreme" then just consider what that means for the current state of Marine melee units.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Let Marines fight twice in combat baseline. Adjust anything that'd get silly (i.e. Guilliman) to compensate. Boosts to shooting are all well and good, but Marines are supposed to be generalists, not gunline castle-huggers.
I think that's a bit extreme. Either a 3cp stratagem free into their baseline without paying, or buff up their price accordingly cause I have to pay through the NOSE for my Khorne Berserkers to do the same thing. (admittedly KB tend to murderize anything they touch, but do have a price point to match considering they are still no more durable than a TAC)
I play Khorne Marines as well. Khorne Berzerkers would still outfight any melee unit from Codex: Space Marines point for point (with the exception of Ironclad Dreadnoughts and TH/SS Terminators against high-toughness targets, but that doesn't really sound unfair to me), the innate S5 of the Berzerkers and the cheapness of the Chainaxe makes them come out almost equivalent to a Vanguard Veteran. A fights twice Vanguard Veteran with a Chainsword and a Power Sword would do on average 1.333... wounds to an MEQ opponent, whereas the Berzerker would do 1.185... wounds. That's Berzerkers almost equalling Vanguard Veterans against a target that the Vanguard Veteran is specialized to fight, and the Berzerkers can get an Icon to get into combat more reliably as well. The Berzerkers are 17 PPM with an extra 10 for the icon, while the Vanguard Veterans would be 18 PPM without Jump Packs. The Berzerkers are better against Guardsmen, Orks and other more lightly armoured infantry or things like Daemons where the better AP of the Power Sword is less valuable.
In other words, this would bring Marine melee units up to par with Khorne Berzerkers for their cost, but would not power-creep the Berzerkers out of existence. If that's "a bit extreme" then just consider what that means for the current state of Marine melee units.
True, loyalist marine units lack a good close combat MEQ unit, but just taking the ability of a khorne berserker and slapping it onto a unit which has access to a lot more toys seems a bit too much. Lets not forget, in your example vanguards also get access to;
- super cheap stormshield for 3++ (2 pts a model!!!)
- any model in the unit can take a crazy array of weapons, including power axes, thunderhammers, lightning claws and so on, vs the Khorne Berserker unit champion who has less access to such an array of weapons)
- much better choices of vehicles to carry them into battle, I'd love a Stormraven for my Chaos codex!
- options for jet packs, every Khorne Berserker player has wanted to strap rockets onto these bad boys!
vanguard vets get pricy, but they can take such a huge array of weapons and be kitted out for any situation, you don't even need to invest a transport for them in you just strap a jet pack, hell even your choice of transports aren't exactly bad compared to Chaos.
Marines need something else to set them apart, but I don't agree with taking a core identity of another unit and slapping it baseline for all marines is a fair thing either. Yes marines should be generalists and def need some help in that regard, but you don't stick an ability which is a hallmark of a super heavy close combat unit across the board and expect it to be fair balance. does your proposed buff affect all Chaos Meq's aswell? If so Khorne Berserkers have lost a lot of identity when Chosen with Power Mauls can do the same job but with more customization, ability to not have to take MoK whilst occupying the same Elites slot. also works out to maybe 1 point more on the chosen side.
Vanguard Veterans pay for their upgrades, and if you take a Storm Shield you lose two attacks from the Chainsword that you're no longer taking, meaning that the Khorne Berzerkers have better offense again. Same for variations on Power Weapons, they're not free. Khorne Berzerkers can grab a Mark of Khorne to get rerolls to charges, which is huge for a melee unit.
I'd happily trade Storm Ravens for Warptime and charge after running. Khorne Berzerkers are much easier to deliver without costing a quarter of your list in transportation than anything Vanilla Marines have. If you take Jump Packs you've now got a more expensive unit, which should be better than Berzerkers by virtue of costing more points, no?
Berzerkers would still have a niche over Chosen, they just wouldn't be flat-out superior melee units 100% of the time. How is this bad? How is it a drawback that Khorne Berzerkers would stop being the only viable melee unit for CSM that isn't a Daemon Prince or a vehicle? You could still take Khorne Berzerkers as Troops with WE, for example, which Chosen can't. Chosen also don't get a Chainsword to go with the Power Maul, as both of those require replacing the Bolter, so Berzerkers would still have 6 attacks to a Chosen's 4 Maul attacks.
To hell with the flavour of Khorne Berzerkers (and, again, I play them too!) if it means making a whole host of other units viable. Bringing other units up to the level of Berzerkers doesn't mean Berzerkers cannot be played.
The best fix is to reduce the effectiveness of cheap units and weapons that cost appropriately for its role. There's not enough granularity and design space to make SM into demi-gods
BS4 7 pt plasmagun has 16% less accuracy at 63% of cost of BS3 11 pt plasma. Seriously, GTFO.
"OH BUT PLASMAS AREN'T THE REAL ISSUE BECAUSE [REASONS]. YOU'RE JUST SOUR BECAUSE YOUR ARMY'S NOT AS GOOD! DON'T DRAG DOWN IG WITH YOUR SUCKINESS!"
The fact of the matter is the game balance is based on two things: guardsmen & knights.
Why are DE so good right now in the meta? Because it's good at dealing with both hordes and knights.
Give BS5 to GEQ and 6 pt plasma makes sense. BS4 plasma should cost no less than 8 points, preferably 9.
BS4 S3 T3 Sv5+ 4ppm model serving as the baseline for the definition of "durability" in 8th ed is spiraling balance to death by doom vortex.
@ Bharring - but how many points are lost per wound?
[...]
@ Bharring - but how many points are lost per wound?
The same number of points are lost per wound regardless of the save.
50% fewer wounds are lost by going from a 3+ to a 2+. Whether those are 13 points or 50 points per wound, it's still 50%.
Now, if side A is twice as good as side B, and you reduce casualties on side A by 25% and side B by 50%, then side A is still clearly better off. That post was *NOT* arguing that Marines are better than Guardsmen; it was only showing that Marines gain more from cover than Guardsmen.
Fix Drop Pods.
Jack up the cost to 80ppm and change their reserves rule to drop them in BEFORE the movement phase and you’ll fix Drop Pods, Marines, Flamers and Melta weapons at the same time.
There might be another way to improve marines without changing the stats/rules. I think that if GW is to have rules upgrades published they need to be dead simple, like the beta bolter rules and designing such rules are hard, I understand that the purpose of this thread is to aid GW with that. But I think that marines should have better stratagems. The current once are lacking and I think that there is a lot of design space for improving the stratagems. I sometimes look at the Stratagems that are available to me during a game and think; these really don't do much. I would like to be able to: have a unit fire twice, charge reliability after deep strike, have a devastating charge with assault units, fire the guns of my landrider even if a snottling is within 1". I think that stratagems can actually play a big part in addressing the short comming of marines, what do you think?
Insectum7 wrote: My biggest beef with marines vs. Hordes is flamers and whirlwinds, both of which used to be excellent for horde clearing duty. Flamers were amazing at killing GEQs, and the Whirlwind packed flamer artillery.
2nd is the Drop Pod. I'd like it to be able to strike on turn 1.
3rd is Land Raiders being shut down by CC engagement. For a tank that has long had an assault ramp, with versions sporting Frag Launchers and main weapons like Flamers, having a single model within 1" preventing it from firing is a big problem.
I think the beta bolters went a long way to helping marines vs. GEQ already, so just those three things are my top picks atm.
All tanks should be able to shoot even when locked in CC. A bunch of guys crawling on you while you shoot is pointless. They can't do anything to the tank to keep it from firing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rackapulsare wrote: There might be another way to improve marines without changing the stats/rules. I think that if GW is to have rules upgrades published they need to be dead simple, like the beta bolter rules and designing such rules are hard, I understand that the purpose of this thread is to aid GW with that. But I think that marines should have better stratagems. The current once are lacking and I think that there is a lot of design space for improving the stratagems. I sometimes look at the Stratagems that are available to me during a game and think; these really don't do much. I would like to be able to: have a unit fire twice, charge reliability after deep strike, have a devastating charge with assault units, fire the guns of my landrider even if a snottling is within 1". I think that stratagems can actually play a big part in addressing the short comming of marines, what do you think?
This is a great point. When compared to their Hertical cousins, the basic Marine strats are pure garbage.
The Deer Hunter wrote: Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.
This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.
I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.
If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.
Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt
Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts
Guardians/Defenders +1pts
Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts
Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts
Vanguard/Rangers +1pts
Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts
Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts
Tzangors +1pts
Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.
The Deer Hunter wrote: Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.
This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.
I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.
If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.
Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt
Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts
Guardians/Defenders +1pts
Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts
Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts
Vanguard/Rangers +1pts
Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts
Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts
Tzangors +1pts
Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.
Really cultists 6 points? Conscripts are already ok at 4 points, guard should be 5 points and have their move move move removed or nerfed.
I only agree with skitarii becoming more expensive again if Gw decides to give them their good shid back again like the Fnp and LD which hurts them a lot and is why nobody takes special weapons with them except for snipers. No competetiv admech list has more then 2 units of them anyway.
New 8th edition changes also means that Cover a lot of the time means nothing for horde as it will be mitigated by ap anyway and is really good for marines doubling their survivability against ap0 weapons.
The Deer Hunter wrote: Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.
This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.
I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.
If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.
Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt
Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts
Guardians/Defenders +1pts
Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts
Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts
Vanguard/Rangers +1pts
Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts
Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts
Tzangors +1pts
Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.
Cultists at 6? even tough they aren't taken anymore at 5?
Scuse me but that is ridicoulous.
0XFallen wrote: I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.
To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7
My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.
The underlying problem is that IG and knights are used as the baselines for "balance". Things that can shoot well and endure shots well defines what is "good" in 8th edition. Melee is dead, the tertiary element that balanced the binary system of [shooting] and [getting shot at].
The Deer Hunter wrote: Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.
This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.
I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.
If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.
Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt
Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts
Guardians/Defenders +1pts
Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts
Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts
Vanguard/Rangers +1pts
Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts
Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts
Tzangors +1pts
Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.
Cultists at 6? even tough they aren't taken anymore at 5?
Scuse me but that is ridicoulous.
Troops should never be taken for the virtue of being "cheap". This too, is the fundamental flaw in 8th edition.
1. Drop pods: You can deepstrike on turn 1 & disembark after deepstrike, but can either charge or shoot, not both. Also units inside Drop Pods are not counted towards reserves limit.
2. Bolter should be AP-1 weapon
3. Rhinos should be dirt cheap, I would even suggest that dedicated transport battlefield role units should be unable to hold objectives to compensate for ridiculously low point cost.
4. Rules similiar to "All is Dust" or Rusted Claw chapter of Genecult, so your marines effectively ignore AP-1 and are buffed against AP 0 weapons.
5. They shall know no fear should be changed, that in addition to the re-roll only 1 model flees in case of failure.
Another approach is to increase the wound count.
2W for tactical, 3W for primaris, even more for centurion.
But if this happens Custodes must be buffed as well.
This will give only marginal suvivability increase against d3 or d6 damage weapons, but significantly increase survivability against the buckets of dice.
The bane of marines since third edition is that single failed save roll against any attack means dead tactical marine.
I have never played space marines myself: started as a necrons player, then moved to Chaos and for the last year I've been playing orks.
But I see how severely SM count dropped on tournaments and in my community. Two of my close friends have left the hobby (one completely and another stopped playing), because they had excessive SM collections lasting from 4th edition, which suddenly became irrelevant.
There are competitive SM lists around there, but they don't feel like SM army and it hurts to see 90% of your collection just gathering dust.
What if...All the space marine auras were no long auras and just affected the whole army automatically. Since you are paying a cost like they are buffed like the aura anyways. It would for sure make the army more competitive. You know...being able to move tactically and stuff instead of a dead/death ball....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Maybe instead of Drop Pods getting to hit on turn 1, they get to land no closer than 6" to enemy units or something.
Wouldnt really help marines specifically- it would be great for lots of armies but vanila marines dont want to get that close mostly. Flamers aren't even worth it even when they are in range. 70 more points of firepower is better. It would be amazing and busted for Blood angels though.
Xenomancers wrote: What if...All the space marine auras were no long auras and just affected the whole army automatically. Since you are paying a cost like they are buffed like the aura anyways. It would for sure make the army more competitive. You know...being able to move tactically and stuff instead of a dead/death ball....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Maybe instead of Drop Pods getting to hit on turn 1, they get to land no closer than 6" to enemy units or something.
Wouldnt really help marines specifically- it would be great for lots of armies but vanila marines dont want to get that close mostly. Flamers aren't even worth it even when they are in range. 70 more points of firepower is better. It would be amazing and busted for Blood angels though.
For the first part - drop pod is ok to drop further than 9", but disembarking within 3" but farther than 6" from enemy would help. Now dropping in pod gives no additional benefit to regular deepstrike.
I feel that pod should be non-scoring dirt cheap unit or cost the same but allow turn 1 deepstrike shinanigans.
For the second part - I find auras appaling to start with, but what you propose is close to OP.
Command squads with vox marine, along with vox upgrades on squads, should give aura increase, but plain buff seems unnecessary.
0XFallen wrote: I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.
To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7
My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.
The underlying problem is that IG and knights are used as the baselines for "balance". Things that can shoot well and endure shots well defines what is "good" in 8th edition. Melee is dead, the tertiary element that balanced the binary system of [shooting] and [getting shot at].
The Deer Hunter wrote: Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.
This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.
I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.
If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.
Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt
Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts
Guardians/Defenders +1pts
Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts
Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts
Vanguard/Rangers +1pts
Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts
Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts
Tzangors +1pts
Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.
Cultists at 6? even tough they aren't taken anymore at 5?
Scuse me but that is ridicoulous.
Troops should never be taken for the virtue of being "cheap". This too, is the fundamental flaw in 8th edition.
That i can agree on but harping on and on on a unit that got nerfed OUT of the Meta, is idiotical.,
0XFallen wrote: I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.
To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7
My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.
The underlying problem is that IG and knights are used as the baselines for "balance". Things that can shoot well and endure shots well defines what is "good" in 8th edition. Melee is dead, the tertiary element that balanced the binary system of [shooting] and [getting shot at].
The Deer Hunter wrote: Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.
This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.
I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.
If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.
Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt
Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts
Guardians/Defenders +1pts
Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts
Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts
Vanguard/Rangers +1pts
Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts
Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts
Tzangors +1pts
Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.
Cultists at 6? even tough they aren't taken anymore at 5?
Scuse me but that is ridicoulous.
Troops should never be taken for the virtue of being "cheap". This too, is the fundamental flaw in 8th edition.
That i can agree on but harping on and on on a unit that got nerfed OUT of the Meta, is idiotical.,
True, but to be fair, cultists are still a fairly competitive choice when properly buffed via appropriate HQ's - they're simply no longer auto-take.
0XFallen wrote: I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.
To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7
My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.
The underlying problem is that IG and knights are used as the baselines for "balance". Things that can shoot well and endure shots well defines what is "good" in 8th edition. Melee is dead, the tertiary element that balanced the binary system of [shooting] and [getting shot at].
The Deer Hunter wrote: Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.
This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.
I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.
If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.
Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt
Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts
Guardians/Defenders +1pts
Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts
Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts
Vanguard/Rangers +1pts
Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts
Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts
Tzangors +1pts
Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.
Cultists at 6? even tough they aren't taken anymore at 5?
Scuse me but that is ridicoulous.
Troops should never be taken for the virtue of being "cheap". This too, is the fundamental flaw in 8th edition.
That i can agree on but harping on and on on a unit that got nerfed OUT of the Meta, is idiotical.,
True, but to be fair, cultists are still a fairly competitive choice when properly buffed via appropriate HQ's - they're simply no longer auto-take.
YAY, you know what, i love that i can field RC now. Or that any CSM is now suddendly RC, that has surely and decisively solved all issues for AL, BL, WB, etc.
Slowclap.
Not Online!!! wrote: YAY, you know what, i love that i can field RC now. Or that any CSM is now suddendly RC, that has surely and decisively solved all issues for AL, BL, WB, etc.
Slowclap.
So I take it that you dislike the fact CSM's other troop choice got whole lot more viable with their T5?
Yeah, it still dies all the same against plasmas, but that's what plasmas are supposed to do, so... Which then bring us back to plasmas being handed out like PB&J sandwiches at booking being the issue.
Look at it this way - single use model-wargear (cherubs, watcher in the dark, etc) cost 5 pts, and they do one thing and they're removed. You're telling me it's justifiable in any way a model-model should cost less than that?
Xenomancers wrote: What if...All the space marine auras were no long auras and just affected the whole army automatically. Since you are paying a cost like they are buffed like the aura anyways. It would for sure make the army more competitive. You know...being able to move tactically and stuff instead of a dead/death ball....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Maybe instead of Drop Pods getting to hit on turn 1, they get to land no closer than 6" to enemy units or something.
Wouldnt really help marines specifically- it would be great for lots of armies but vanila marines dont want to get that close mostly. Flamers aren't even worth it even when they are in range. 70 more points of firepower is better. It would be amazing and busted for Blood angels though.
For the first part - drop pod is ok to drop further than 9", but disembarking within 3" but farther than 6" from enemy would help. Now dropping in pod gives no additional benefit to regular deepstrike.
I feel that pod should be non-scoring dirt cheap unit or cost the same but allow turn 1 deepstrike shinanigans.
For the second part - I find auras appaling to start with, but what you propose is close to OP.
Command squads with vox marine, along with vox upgrades on squads, should give aura increase, but plain buff seems unnecessary.
Turn 1 Deep strike would help the drop pod but like you said they should really just be dirt cheap non scoring and cost CP or like 10-20 points each. So many armies can deep strike for command points...Marines should be no different.
I disagree about the auras though. With the cost of the HQ's themselves / their inability to take good shooting weapons like tau or DE or CWE and general lack of mobility basically all these characters do is buff. You still pay a high cohse for them. No doubt the buffs are good. However, the units they buff are not good. In durability per point space marines are terrible - near the bottom of the barrel. In firepower they basically break even with the best units in the game IF they are buffed by Guilliman. Obviously gman is good beyond his buff - but it's pretty difficult to utilize both his buffs and his CC ability. Anyways - when I play Gman - my whole army is in that buff or at least 80% of it and it's not even close to OP. The amount of damage you can do - your opponent can give you right back with much better efficiency units. I don't think extending or making all space marine buffs unlimited range is OP. It sounds OP for sure. But that is just because marines are in that bad of a place right now. Something drastic like a 20% reduction in price across the board OR unlimited range buffs is necessary.
Xenomancers wrote: [HQs] ... their inability to take good shooting weapons like tau or DE or CWE
So Marines only get things like Storm Bolters, Combi-Meltas/PGs/Flamers, Fusion/Plas Pistols (sometimes), Conversion Beamers, etc - DE get awesome things like Splinter Rifles and Blast Pistols! What DEHQs take guns that outshine SMHQ guns?
A CWE Autarch can take an Index option of a Reaper Launcher. That's better than most SMHQ guns in most ways (but not better than all in all ways). Beyond that, you've got comparisons like Shuriken Pistols, Shuriken Catapaults, Avenger Shuriken Catapaults, and the Fusion Gun - which is strictly inferior to the CombiMelta. SMHQs get much better guns than CWEHQs.
Sure, two T'au HQs get better guns; T'au Commander Crisis Suits get amazing dakka. But the other two factions you list have *worse* dakka for their HQs.
and general lack of mobility
The worst Marine HQs miss out on what, 2" of M compared to the best DEHQs? Aside from that, SMHQs downright dominate DEHQs for mobility. Jumppack and Bikes - DEHQs get nothing. SM are much better off.
CWE have it better - by 1-2 inches plus Battle Focus. I wouldn't call that a general lack of mobility; foot SMHQs are only a little slower than CWE equivelents, and have many Jumppack variants with Fly that CWE don't get - which outpace the CWE foot variants. CWE has flying bikes with an extra 2" movement so CWE does win there.
T'au have two HQs that move faster than foot Marines - again, the Crisis Commanders. All their other HQs are foot HQs like the slowest of the SMHQs. SM have Jumppack and Bike HQs, though. I'd give this one to Marines, but it's debateable.
In summary, Marines are much faster than DE, arguably faster than T'au, although clearly slower than CWE. SMHQs are notably mobile in this game - not notably slow/static.
Not Online!!! wrote: YAY, you know what, i love that i can field RC now. Or that any CSM is now suddendly RC, that has surely and decisively solved all issues for AL, BL, WB, etc.
Slowclap.
So I take it that you dislike the fact CSM's other troop choice got whole lot more viable with their T5?
Yeah, it still dies all the same against plasmas, but that's what plasmas are supposed to do, so... Which then bring us back to plasmas being handed out like PB&J sandwiches at booking being the issue.
Look at it this way - single use model-wargear (cherubs, watcher in the dark, etc) cost 5 pts, and they do one thing and they're removed. You're telling me it's justifiable in any way a model-model should cost less than that?
Wtf are you talking about?
Csm are T4. ONLY havocs got boosted to T5 to represent their new buffer clawed form. And by consequence loosing the ablative wound option btw.
And yes i am.
1: Give all marines fall-back-and-shoot/charge, inc. Vehicles. UM with no modifier.
2: Drop Pods may arrive turn 1
3: Bolter Discipline becomes nx2 at long range, nx3 at short, no move penalty
4: All heavy weapons have Targeters for +1 to hit.
5: kill Aura mechanic, make bonus table-wide but one re-roll per unit. All the rerolls are tiring.
6: Krak +Melta grenades may be used in combat vs. Monsters and vehicles. 1A per model.
7. Chainsword AP-1
8. Terminators ignore penalty for Heavy weapons, shooting and Assault (like Pfists)
9. Point appropriately
Edit:
10: Improve anti-infantry capability of Flamers and Castellan Whirlwinds. (Ignore cover, add 3 to each D6 of shots)
11: Armorium Cherub no longer counts as a model in the unit.
12: Predator either becomes T8 or gets a few more wounds
1) AP changes reduced the effectiveness of 3+ armor. Bolters used to ignore horde infantry's armor due to old Ap5, but now don't. Other old ap5 weapons often became ap-1 or got a special rule, but bolters got screwed.
2) Changes to templates/blasts and special weapons in general hurt marines as they often relied on a couple powerful weapons in a squad do a lot of work. Flamers used to be able to get 5-10 hits on hordes, now they get 1d6 and don't ignore armor.
3) Marines used to rely on high damage, low shot anti armor weapons like meltas and powerfists to kill vehicles. This no longer works due to AV system changes, and the 8th edition version of all these weapons being crappy.
4) Marines are hit really hard by transport and rapid fire changes. Moving, then disembarking and rapidfiring was a standard tactic (and it used to actually kill things due to old ap5).
5) Instant death changes destroyed the ability of a sergeant with a powerfist to be an effective counter to characters.
6) The new morale mechanics were supposed to be a check on the power of hordes, but actually just end up punishing large squads of marines most, forcing us into 5 man MSU all the time. Re-rolling morale doesn't help.
1) Tell me about all the AP5 weapons that became AP-1? They don't exist outside Necrons AFAIK, Gauss Flayers also lost the Gauss rule which was a huge loss. AP5 became AP- in almost all cases and that is much worse against Marines because of the changes to cover. Bolters got bolter discipline. What Marines really suffer from is competition with Scouts and Infantry Squads, almost all units receiving a 1pt decrease means that Marines got comparatively more expensive. The changes to cover totally changed how lightly armoured and heavily armoured models are supposed to be used.
2) Flamers is just one UP option, the truth is Marines relied entirely on the OP nature of their Detachments and Grav weaponry to carry the day, without those Marines were as bad as they are currently.
3) Grav was a huge crutch for Marines, PFs weren't good, melta hasn't become much worse than it was.
4) And now you can RF from 24" away if you don't move. Rhinos are also 5-15 pts too expensive and they were FREE in the previous edition.
5) In a challenge your Sergeant with a PF is going to get smoked anyway and if you don't accept you have to go sulk in a corner with the Sergeant. PFs are now relatively better against T5+ targets, not to mention actually worth something against HQs since the Sergeant can't get singled out or get shot for being the closest enemy model.
6) How is Morale worse for a 10-man Tac Squad with a plasma gun and a lascannon compared to a 30-man squad of Boyz? With Boyz you kill 19 and the rest disappear most likely, with Marines you kill 8 and the rest disappear most likely. With a Nob in the Boyz you are losing about an equivalent number of pts from Morale compared to Shooting as you are with Marines. But as you said, no reason not just to spam 5-man Squads since you aren't being shoe-horned into taking big blobs from Reanimation Protocols like Necrons or buffs to your units from taking big units like Orks or Nids. 10-man Squads are a noob trap, but there are tonnes of those in list building, you yourself mentioned Flamers which are supposed to be an option, but are actually just a waste of ink/bits. It's also worth noting that 5-man Marine squads used to actually still have to take Morale, now they are pretty much immune, yes the price of failing Morale was small, but 5-man Squads got better in terms of suffering from Morale.
Lastly, I'll say that S4 is relatively weak. AP- weapons can be pretty good against Knights, but S4 wounds on 6s and gets relatively fewer shots compared to S3 so your non-special weapons are useless against Knights.
"Marines used to rely on high damage, low shot anti armor weapons like meltas and powerfists to kill vehicles. This no longer works due to AV system changes, and the 8th edition version of all these weapons being crappy."
I think this is one of my biggest complaints this edition, not just for Marines: they fubar'ed the low-RoF weapons.
In previous editions, a single MG, PG, or even Flamer was a serious threat to the appropriate target. So having a squad with decent BS that can carry one, a Combi, and maybe a Heavy meant you could do serious damage to the appropriate target.
There were some units (Fire Dragons, Vet/Sternie squads, etc) that could spam the weapon. But it would cost a ton. And would do nothing vs the wrong target.
If a single MG were a real threat to Leman Russes, an MG/CombiMG Tac squad would be nearly as scary to a tank as a 5-man Fire Dragon squad - while (ideally) costing a lot less, and certainly being more durable, better at fending off chaff, and overall more versatile.
If each Flamer were scary for a 10-man Guard squad, then a Flamer/CombiFlamer Tac squad would wreck Guardsmen.
There are problems in making these happen:
-How do you make "Melta" scary for Tanks, without making all the "Melta+10"s OP? They've scaled up killiness so far, and with the dogma of "This is a Melta Gun, but simply better" (wtf do Fire Dragons need Assured Destruction, for instance?), that they've designed themselves into a corner.
-Plasma Guns are simply better Melta Guns now. That's silly. And the *volume* of Plasma shots that things get (Hellblasters, Disintigration Cannons, etc) is crazy.
-Making Flamers a good anti-GEQ option for a unit that can take 2 makes units that can give everybody one silly good vs GEQ.
-Despite some of the most complained about OP units being GEQ (Guardsmen, primarily), there are tons of GEQ that don't need this "nerf" (Gaunts, Guardians, Kroot, etc).
Melta has been killed by dead by T8 with invulns. And cheap invulns. And short range. It's just bad. The melta can't even get to russ in 8th. There is a wall of 4 pt dum dums physically preventing you from moving.
Marines (and many other elite units that don't have some OP special snowflake gak) also need the "Win combat" mechanic back, in some way. In previous editions, Marines had an edge in that they didn't need to kill a ton of models to win combat - this means you didn't need many Marines to wipe entire hordes.
If a small Tac squad charges a horde of Guardsmen/Orks/Guardians/Necrons, and kill 4, but then only lose 1 Tac Marine - the Guardsmen then test on Ld-3, or "run away" (likely overrun and removed, but at least out of action for a round). This meant smaller, more tactical units could be used to great effect. If you could control the flow of battle, you could do amazing things (like wiping out 40 Guardsmen with a 5-man ASM squad in one round).
Finally, they need to lose the silly-good HQ bubble buffs.
Terrible direction for the game. Obviously, they'd then need compensation - but as long as HQ bubble buffs are so cost effective, you need to leverage them. This forces you into a castle/deathblob playstyle. It may not be a "Deathstar" as in a single unit - but it's still a game of stack-them-buffs; only instead of being a single unit supported by other elements, it's now a single blob of most of the army, regardless of number of units.
(Incidentally, this is why I find Sallies so interesting, mechanics-wise; while it's not the strongest CT, it greatly reduces the value of HQ buff bubbles on Tac squads with 1-2 special/heavy weapons.)
Bharring wrote: "Marines used to rely on high damage, low shot anti armor weapons like meltas and powerfists to kill vehicles. This no longer works due to AV system changes, and the 8th edition version of all these weapons being crappy."
I think this is one of my biggest complaints this edition, not just for Marines: they fubar'ed the low-RoF weapons.
In previous editions, a single MG, PG, or even Flamer was a serious threat to the appropriate target. So having a squad with decent BS that can carry one, a Combi, and maybe a Heavy meant you could do serious damage to the appropriate target.
There were some units (Fire Dragons, Vet/Sternie squads, etc) that could spam the weapon. But it would cost a ton. And would do nothing vs the wrong target.
If a single MG were a real threat to Leman Russes, an MG/CombiMG Tac squad would be nearly as scary to a tank as a 5-man Fire Dragon squad - while (ideally) costing a lot less, and certainly being more durable, better at fending off chaff, and overall more versatile.
If each Flamer were scary for a 10-man Guard squad, then a Flamer/CombiFlamer Tac squad would wreck Guardsmen.
There are problems in making these happen:
-How do you make "Melta" scary for Tanks, without making all the "Melta+10"s OP? They've scaled up killiness so far, and with the dogma of "This is a Melta Gun, but simply better" (wtf do Fire Dragons need Assured Destruction, for instance?), that they've designed themselves into a corner.
-Plasma Guns are simply better Melta Guns now. That's silly. And the *volume* of Plasma shots that things get (Hellblasters, Disintigration Cannons, etc) is crazy.
-Making Flamers a good anti-GEQ option for a unit that can take 2 makes units that can give everybody one silly good vs GEQ.
-Despite some of the most complained about OP units being GEQ (Guardsmen, primarily), there are tons of GEQ that don't need this "nerf" (Gaunts, Guardians, Kroot, etc).
Tac Squads were only worth something because of the Gladius Detachment. Before that it didn't matter what weapons you put in them, a single meltagun just wasn't that scary. Sternguard with combi-meltas in drop pods were pretty scary, but the idea that a single meltagun was ever scary is wrong. Yes, you had a decent chance of instantly blowing up a vehicle, but that vehicle also cost half what it does today or it had Jink or you had -3 to hit it instead of -1. Scouts were just as popular prior to the Gladius Detachment as they are today compared to Tac Squads.
Advocating for more powerful meltaguns and flamers is super silly if you want Tac Squads to be better, the answer is to make these weapon options relatively more expensive so that units like Sternguard have to pay a large amount to replace 5/5 of their bolters rather than just 2/5 like a Tac Squad would. Special weapons were already buffed by you choosing which models are removed rather than being forced to take off the closest enemy, buffing special weapons like GW did in CA2018 was a move in the wrong direction, at least when factored in that it appeared without a cost reduction to the basic Marines.
My 2 cents,
Space marine beta-rules
defensive:
The Emperors Finest:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors.
-I'd make this faction wide rule for SM,DA,SW,BA,GK and DW, not just for tacs, but to help with the overall lack of durability SM units have for their points cost. It also has the advantage of not requiring any datasheet or stat line changes, just a WD entree.
Strategic changes
Combat Squads: When mustering your army before the start of the game, a Tactical Squad containing 10 models may be split into two units, each containing 5 models.
-Reworking of the combat squad ability to take place during mustering so that a full sized(Ex:10 man) squad is split in two and qualifies as 2 units for thier respective battlefield role when building a detachment. This would mainly allow you to take a full squad with 3 weapons and have one 5 man unit be a sort of mini dev squad in a TROOPS slot, without having to pay for a 4th special weapon. just a little tactical flexibility for a currently useless ability.
Flanking: During deployment, you can set up this unit behind enemy lines instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the beginning of any of your Movement phases this unit can join the battle – set it up within 6" of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9" away from any enemy models.
-changing "Flanking" units to differentiate them from deep striking units, instead of just being an inferior version. I'd implement this game wide, not just for SM.
Commanders Vox Network-Allow units that contain a "Sergeant" to benefit from aura abilities of HQ units, even if they are not within range of said unit. Allow snipers to target Sergeants.
-As others have noted, auras are a trash design choice. Make sergeants and snipers usefull, while making sure that other units like banners and RG dont warp the mechanic. Units that dont have a sergeant, like Dreads and tanks, would still need to be withing the aura range.
Unit specific fix's
Drop Pod Assaulturing deployment, you can set up this model, along with any units embarked within it, in orbit instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the BEGINNING of any of your Movement phases this model can perform a drop pod assault – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" away from any enemy models. Any models embarked inside must immediately disembark, but they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. Any models that cannot be set up because there is not enough room are slain.
Terminators: Bump them up to T6 and make them 18PPM. with the above defensive fix, they'd be decent.
NOTE: I tend to agree with others points that old marines should just be pumped up to primaris stats, but i really do think that there are bigger issues for SM than just those plaguing old marines. Personally, bumping them up to primaris stats and the defensive buff i sugessted might be too much, but since the buff helps more than just old marines, i'd opt for that if i had to choose.
Djangomatic82 wrote: My 2 cents, Space marine beta-rules defensive: The Emperors Finest:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors. -I'd make this faction wide rule for SM,DA,SW,BA,GK and DW, not just for tacs, but to help with the overall lack of durability SM units have for their points cost. It also has the advantage of not requiring any datasheet or stat line changes, just a WD entree.
Strategic changes Combat Squads: When mustering your army before the start of the game, a Tactical Squad containing 10 models may be split into two units, each containing 5 models. -Reworking of the combat squad ability to take place during mustering so that a full sized(Ex:10 man) squad is split in two and qualifies as 2 units for thier respective battlefield role when building a detachment. This would mainly allow you to take a full squad with 3 weapons and have one 5 man unit be a sort of mini dev squad in a TROOPS slot, without having to pay for a 4th special weapon. just a little tactical flexibility for a currently useless ability.
Flanking: During deployment, you can set up this unit behind enemy lines instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the beginning of any of your Movement phases this unit can join the battle – set it up within 6" of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9" away from any enemy models. -changing "Flanking" units to differentiate them from deep striking units, instead of just being an inferior version. I'd implement this game wide, not just for SM.
Commanders Vox Network-Allow units that contain a "Sergeant" to benefit from aura abilities of HQ units, even if they are not within range of said unit. Allow snipers to target Sergeants. -As others have noted, auras are a trash design choice. Make sergeants and snipers usefull, while making sure that other units like banners and RG dont warp the mechanic. Units that dont have a sergeant, like Dreads and tanks, would still need to be withing the aura range.
Unit specific fix's Drop Pod Assaulturing deployment, you can set up this model, along with any units embarked within it, in orbit instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the BEGINNING of any of your Movement phases this model can perform a drop pod assault – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" away from any enemy models. Any models embarked inside must immediately disembark, but they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. Any models that cannot be set up because there is not enough room are slain.
Terminators: Bump them up to T6 and make them 18PPM. with the above defensive fix, they'd be decent.
NOTE: I tend to agree with others points that old marines should just be pumped up to primaris stats, but i really do think that there are bigger issues for SM than just those plaguing old marines. Personally, bumping them up to primaris stats and the defensive buff i sugessted might be too much, but since the buff helps more than just old marines, i'd opt for that if i had to choose.
The Emperor's Finest is INSANELY GOOD. Like, crazily so. Also, how does it interact with rerolling FAILED wounds, like Plaguebearers get?
And for reference, a T6 Terminator that forces enemies to reroll successful wounds takes...
Is it your intention to make Terminators so durable it takes three full Devastator Squads of Lascannons to kill one? Or that a Knight Gallant will, on average, kill less than one Terminator per round of combat when still hitting on a 2+?
Also, for anyone complaining that Guard are too good and then suggesting this...
It takes more than 23 Guard Squads within 12" with FRF,SRF to kill one Terminator. That is (assuming just Infantry Squads and Company Commanders, ignoring the Rule of Three) just shy of 1,300 points. To kill an 18 point Terminator. (Admittedly, the Terminator does have to pay for gear, making them in the realm of 30-40 points. So that's slightly better return on investment... But still only about 3%.)
Djangomatic82 wrote: My 2 cents,
Space marine beta-rules
defensive:
The Emperors Finest:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors.
-I'd make this faction wide rule for SM,DA,SW,BA,GK and DW, not just for tacs, but to help with the overall lack of durability SM units have for their points cost. It also has the advantage of not requiring any datasheet or stat line changes, just a WD entree.
Strategic changes
Combat Squads: When mustering your army before the start of the game, a Tactical Squad containing 10 models may be split into two units, each containing 5 models.
-Reworking of the combat squad ability to take place during mustering so that a full sized(Ex:10 man) squad is split in two and qualifies as 2 units for thier respective battlefield role when building a detachment. This would mainly allow you to take a full squad with 3 weapons and have one 5 man unit be a sort of mini dev squad in a TROOPS slot, without having to pay for a 4th special weapon. just a little tactical flexibility for a currently useless ability.
Flanking: During deployment, you can set up this unit behind enemy lines instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the beginning of any of your Movement phases this unit can join the battle – set it up within 6" of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9" away from any enemy models.
-changing "Flanking" units to differentiate them from deep striking units, instead of just being an inferior version. I'd implement this game wide, not just for SM.
Commanders Vox Network-Allow units that contain a "Sergeant" to benefit from aura abilities of HQ units, even if they are not within range of said unit. Allow snipers to target Sergeants.
-As others have noted, auras are a trash design choice. Make sergeants and snipers usefull, while making sure that other units like banners and RG dont warp the mechanic. Units that dont have a sergeant, like Dreads and tanks, would still need to be withing the aura range.
Unit specific fix's
Drop Pod Assaulturing deployment, you can set up this model, along with any units embarked within it, in orbit instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the BEGINNING of any of your Movement phases this model can perform a drop pod assault – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" away from any enemy models. Any models embarked inside must immediately disembark, but they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. Any models that cannot be set up because there is not enough room are slain.
Terminators: Bump them up to T6 and make them 18PPM. with the above defensive fix, they'd be decent.
NOTE: I tend to agree with others points that old marines should just be pumped up to primaris stats, but i really do think that there are bigger issues for SM than just those plaguing old marines. Personally, bumping them up to primaris stats and the defensive buff i sugessted might be too much, but since the buff helps more than just old marines, i'd opt for that if i had to choose.
The Emperor's Finest is INSANELY GOOD. Like, crazily so. Also, how does it interact with rerolling FAILED wounds, like Plaguebearers get?
And for reference, a T6 Terminator that forces enemies to reroll successful wounds takes...
Is it your intention to make Terminators so durable it takes three full Devastator Squads of Lascannons to kill one? Or that a Knight Gallant will, on average, kill less than one Terminator per round of combat when still hitting on a 2+?
Also, for anyone complaining that Guard are too good and then suggesting this...
It takes more than 23 Guard Squads within 12" with FRF,SRF to kill one Terminator. That is (assuming just Infantry Squads and Company Commanders, ignoring the Rule of Three) just shy of 1,300 points. To kill an 18 point Terminator. (Admittedly, the Terminator does have to pay for gear, making them in the realm of 30-40 points. So that's slightly better return on investment... But still only about 3%.)
lol, I'm ok with it, as it makes termies on the table live up to their fluff In all seriousness, It probably wouldn't be necessary to up the termies to T6 in that case, but i am pretty firm on the 18PPM. As to the interaction with re-rolling failed wound rolls, it shouldn't conflict at all as you cannot re-roll a re-roll. In the example you gave, the Plaguebearers would re-roll their failed wound rolls and successful wound rolls, whatever those results are would be the final result, as you cannot re-roll a re-roll.
EDIT: just went over the math and keeping them at T4 doubles the guards chance to kill them, so should be fine to leave them at T4 with reroll successful wounds.
EDIT2: on second thought, even with termies being T6, it still only takes a single guardsman to kill a terminator. kinda weird that a 5PPM model should be so good against a 30+PPM one.
EDIT3: I also love the mental picture of 23 guard squads shooting at a single terminator. though in all honesty, as a group, they would still win against the terminator squad as the terminiators have almost no hope of clearing even half of the squads against them before the end of the game. In a case like that, guardsmen and similar armies would just be better off tar pitting the terminators, essentially invalidating a 200+ point unit with a 50 point one. not a bad trade off really.
Djangomatic82 wrote: My 2 cents,
Space marine beta-rules
defensive:
The Emperors Finest:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors.
-I'd make this faction wide rule for SM,DA,SW,BA,GK and DW, not just for tacs, but to help with the overall lack of durability SM units have for their points cost. It also has the advantage of not requiring any datasheet or stat line changes, just a WD entree.
Strategic changes
Combat Squads: When mustering your army before the start of the game, a Tactical Squad containing 10 models may be split into two units, each containing 5 models.
-Reworking of the combat squad ability to take place during mustering so that a full sized(Ex:10 man) squad is split in two and qualifies as 2 units for thier respective battlefield role when building a detachment. This would mainly allow you to take a full squad with 3 weapons and have one 5 man unit be a sort of mini dev squad in a TROOPS slot, without having to pay for a 4th special weapon. just a little tactical flexibility for a currently useless ability.
Flanking: During deployment, you can set up this unit behind enemy lines instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the beginning of any of your Movement phases this unit can join the battle – set it up within 6" of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9" away from any enemy models.
-changing "Flanking" units to differentiate them from deep striking units, instead of just being an inferior version. I'd implement this game wide, not just for SM.
Commanders Vox Network-Allow units that contain a "Sergeant" to benefit from aura abilities of HQ units, even if they are not within range of said unit. Allow snipers to target Sergeants.
-As others have noted, auras are a trash design choice. Make sergeants and snipers usefull, while making sure that other units like banners and RG dont warp the mechanic. Units that dont have a sergeant, like Dreads and tanks, would still need to be withing the aura range.
Unit specific fix's
Drop Pod Assaulturing deployment, you can set up this model, along with any units embarked within it, in orbit instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the BEGINNING of any of your Movement phases this model can perform a drop pod assault – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" away from any enemy models. Any models embarked inside must immediately disembark, but they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. Any models that cannot be set up because there is not enough room are slain.
Terminators: Bump them up to T6 and make them 18PPM. with the above defensive fix, they'd be decent.
NOTE: I tend to agree with others points that old marines should just be pumped up to primaris stats, but i really do think that there are bigger issues for SM than just those plaguing old marines. Personally, bumping them up to primaris stats and the defensive buff i sugessted might be too much, but since the buff helps more than just old marines, i'd opt for that if i had to choose.
The Emperor's Finest is INSANELY GOOD. Like, crazily so. Also, how does it interact with rerolling FAILED wounds, like Plaguebearers get?
And for reference, a T6 Terminator that forces enemies to reroll successful wounds takes...
Is it your intention to make Terminators so durable it takes three full Devastator Squads of Lascannons to kill one? Or that a Knight Gallant will, on average, kill less than one Terminator per round of combat when still hitting on a 2+?
Also, for anyone complaining that Guard are too good and then suggesting this...
It takes more than 23 Guard Squads within 12" with FRF,SRF to kill one Terminator. That is (assuming just Infantry Squads and Company Commanders, ignoring the Rule of Three) just shy of 1,300 points. To kill an 18 point Terminator. (Admittedly, the Terminator does have to pay for gear, making them in the realm of 30-40 points. So that's slightly better return on investment... But still only about 3%.)
lol, I'm ok with it, as it makes termies on the table live up to their fluff In all seriousness, It probably wouldn't be necessary to up the termies to T6 in that case, but i am pretty firm on the 18PPM. As to the interaction with re-rolling failed wound rolls, it shouldn't conflict at all as you cannot re-roll a re-roll. In the example you gave, the Plaguebearers would re-roll their failed wound rolls and successful wound rolls, whatever those results are would be the final result, as you cannot re-roll a re-roll.
EDIT: just went over the math and keeping them at T4 doubles the guards chance to kill them, so should be fine to leave them at T4 with reroll successful wounds.
EDIT2: on second thought, even with termies being T6, it still only takes a single guardsman to kill a terminator. kinda weird that a 5PPM model should be so good against a 30+PPM one.
EDIT3: I also love the mental picture of 23 guard squads shooting at a single terminator. though in all honesty, as a group, they would still win against the terminator squad as the terminiators have almost no hope of clearing even half of the squads against them before the end of the game. In a case like that, guardsmen and similar armies would just be better off tar pitting the terminators, essentially invalidating a 200+ point unit with a 50 point one. not a bad trade off really.
May be an unpopular opinion, But I don't think that marines need more beta rules (At the moment, more rules for marines is the last thing needed when there are other areas that need a touch up first *Looks at cover rules*), I just think the scope of the current one needs adjusting.
IMO, The bolter discipline rule was supposed to make marines viable again against Primaris by making weight of fire a valid choice, I feel this wasn't achieved because Primaris were also given these rules as well with bolt rifles which just made them more prevalent.
By removing it from Bolt rifles, you now have a choice Dynamic between space marines and Primaris marines, You can choose either weight of fire with a space marine, or you choose longer range and the -AP of a Primaris marine, giving both a viable position in the meta.
Ok, i'll join in and offer another unpopular opinion.
-Space Marine damage output is fine where it is.- (minus the RG deathball, but different problem for a different time.)
The issue is they are not durable enough and because they are removed from play before they can accrue an equitable points exchange, they only look like they don't do enough damage overall. The solution is to extend the amount of time in which they have to deal damage, not to increase the amount of damage in the amount of time in which they stay in play currently.
Additionally, I'd say, in regards to their design space in comparison to Custodes, it would probably be fine if they were just butting up to the Custodes level of durability, somewhere in the neighborhood of 85-90% of a Custodes durability, with heavier SM units being more so than a basic Custodes trooper, while still under their heavier units, like the Allarus terminator.
Even if basic SM Tactical reached durability parity to a Custodes Guard, they would still only have 1w to the Custodes 3w and lack their native 5++.
Imo, there is a lot of design room to bump up SM durability., as long as their damage output remains mediocre over the short term, but adequate over the long. The challenge is keeping the changes simple, which rerolling successfull wounds would be.
Djangomatic82 wrote: Ok, i'll join in and offer another unpopular opinion. -Space Marine damage output is fine where it is.- (minus the RG deathball, but different problem for a different time.) The issue is they are not durable enough and because they are removed from play before they can accrue an equitable points exchange, they only look like they don't do enough damage overall. The solution is to extend the amount of time in which they have to deal damage, not to increase the amount of damage in the amount of time in which they stay in play currently.
- Their damage output is horrendous compared to that of Infantry Squads, at best you are getting a 300% increase in firepower (vs T6-7 and with bolter discipline but outside usual RF range) for 225% increase in points/model but at worst you are getting nothing, your average is probably around 60% more firepower. Even compared to Cultists they will usually be bad with a 160% increase in points/model. You'd need to be playing against Drukhari Covens literally all the time before it makes sense to take bolters over lasguns. - Their durability is their main selling point (albeit a weak one), being at best 450% more durable (in cover vs S3), but at worst they are 0% more durable. The actual number is probably somewhere around 250% more durable, making them perhaps slightly more durable on average compared to the same amount of pts spent on Infantry Squads. You'd need to play in a meta with a comically low amount of high-AP weaponry and a stupidly large amount of non-LOS breaking pieces of terrain that grant cover to skew the numbers far enough in the direction of Tactical Squads compared to Infantry Squads before it starts to make sense to take the former.
I don't think they need more durability to stay on the board all game, bolters and chainswords need to kill more stuff or Marines need to go down in pts, it's unrealistic that you'll get to kill your opponent's force with bolters, they are too ineffective for the pts Marines currently cost. Marines also desperately need better Chaplains if anything but their Elite and HQ options are to be taken into melee. Running Tactical Squads into melee is suicide, running Assault Squads into melee is suicide (running them at all is suicide). Marines should not be a force where you can't kill your opponent but you are so tough that your opponent never removes you from the table so you can contest and control enough objectives to win the game. Marines should be able to tear things to pieces at range and in melee. A casualty isn't necessarily a dead soldier, it could easily just be a guy who lost the ability to fight because he lost a limb or has undergone too much mental or physical stress to continue the immediate battle.
List to fix marines straight up.
Astartes bolter rule change
You can advance and shoot a rapid fire weapon at -1 to hit as if it were an assault weapon but use the rapid fire profile. (but what about black legion? Lets just say they ignore the penalty at this point)
Furthermore -If you do not advance-
If you stay still you can shoot you get the rapid fire bonus
If you are in within half range you get rapid fire plus 1
If you stay still and are at half range you get the rapid fire bonus plus 2.
So basically heres how it would work with a basic bolt gun
Advance into rapid fire range you get 2 shots
Advance and shoot 1 shot at -1 at 24 inches
Move into rapid fire range get 3 shots
Stay still get 2 shots at max range
Stay still in rapid fire range get 4 shots.
In addition bolt pistols would be eligible to be shot in the first round of any assault phase during the fight phase as an additional attack.
Basically the big changes here are 4 shots when in rapid fire range and you stay still. Moving into rapid fire range is better than staying still in shooting now (every marines rule should encourage you to move closer to the enemy. It would also go back to affecting all units it used to. Basically every astartes bolter - the same stipulation between choosing SIA or astartes bolter rule would still apply. SIA and bolt pistol first round will indeed stack.
I admit this is a pretty lame way to fix the army. Because custodes also use bolters and it's anticlimactic that they can't use them as well as the Astartes...However they clearly don't need it. This is a lame consequence of writing terrible rules to begin with.
Anyways - that change there helps lots of units.
Then I'd make some changes to points and stratagems. First...Stratagems.
#1 Orbital bombardment which currently costs 3 CP and once per game. For 3 CP and once per game It can get rid of most of it's random dice roles.
You pick a point and every unit within 6 inches of that point takes d3 mortal wounds. Yeah - it would be strong. I guess when playing against marines you will have to think twice about stacking 12 units into a -1 to hit bubble or a 5++ save bubble. That is the price you have to pay when space marines show up with a MF battle barge.
# Tactical flexibility (replace the garbage one with this) Tactical squad or Intercessor squad 2CP.
Pick a Tac or intercessor squad at the end of the movement phase. It can move again or shoot again but it can not charge.
Then a much need defensive stratagem. Added.
Lower the Pauldron 1CP
Any Astartes infantry or biker unit when they are selected as a target for an attack. It can at +1 to their armor save until your next turn (DOES NOT AFFECT INVUNE SAVES).
New Stratagem - Drop pod assault- 2 CP Before the battle begins. Pick any Drop pod in your army. That unit will be able to enter the battlefeild on turn 1. However - if it does so - the embarked units can ethier attempt a charge move OR make a shooting attack - they can not do both.
Then I'd probably reduce the cost of all space marine infantry by 2 points - give the marine bolter a cost of 2 points and storm bolter 4 points. For you bright ones that figured it out. That means every infantry that isn't using a bolter just got 2 points cheaper.
Space marine weapons point cost reductions as follow.
Heavy bolter - 6 points
Rocket launcher 15 points
Las cannon 20 points
MM 15 points
Melta gun 12 points
Grav Cannon 20 points
Grav gun 8 points
Heavy Flamer 6 points
Flamer - 4 points (this will affect aggressor flamers getting this same reduction 2x)
CML 30 points
Lastalon 35
Special point drop consideration
Centurians Get an additional 3 point drop (for a total of 5 because they are infantry)
(if you have a combi the decrease compared to what the price is now will be equal)
TLAC 30 points
Hurricane bolter 12 points
Space marine vehicle cost reductions
Rhino goes to 40 points
Drop pod goes to 20 points (*unmanned* can not hold objectives)
Razorback 50 points
Predator 50 points (this will include all tank hulls with the t7 profile that can take a gun)
Landspeeder 40 points (Gains a native -1 to hit ability if it move it's full distance)
Land raiders an additional -40 points
Respulsors an additional -30 points
Storm Ravens - 20
Storm hawks - 15
Storm Talon - 25
(If I am missing anything - give it the appropriate buff to make it stop sucking effing butt
General rules considerations.
Plasma weapons only overheat on a natural roll of a 1 AND a roll of a 1 causes only 1 mortal wound and does not slay they bearer(DUH).
All space marine units get access to their chapter tactics. Including monsters and tanks. Additionally - the -1 to hit stipulation is removed from the ultramarines chapter tactic.
(For those of you who would accuse me of being an UM fanboy - consider how good this would make Raven Guard tanks...Consider how good it would make Crimson fist tanks - no my friends this is GREAT for everyone and much better balanced this way)
For my black templar friends and White Scars friends I think we need special tactics for your vehicles.
White scars added vehicle stipulation. Auto Advance 6" AND can fire all weapons with the standard -1 to hit for advancing and firing assault weapons clause.
For black Templar added vehicle stipulation - if a black templar unit makes a charge move within 6 inches of a friendly BT vehicle they receive a +1 to their charge move. (think BT drop pods - giving +1 to charge move - seems cool)
JNAProductions wrote: So, most of us think that 4 Points Per Wound is too cheap, right?
4 points per wound is fine. 4 point for a 5+ save with a 4 shot las gun buffed by 30 point HQ's that have a 5++ save for no apparent reason. That is too much. Plus elite 1 wound infantry models need some sort of discount based on the fact that as their points go up efficiency of all weapons becomes better against them per shot. You have to counter that in some way to give you are reason to take anything but a 4 point infantry model. Also with my above changes I'd like to include my proposed changes to command points. Which basically makes all armies start with the same number of CP if they are battle forged. I think I chose 15 CP. Basically adding attachments costs you CP. So if you want slots - you have to take more detachments - meaning battalions and brigade will still be the prefered detachments.
JNAProductions wrote: So, most of us think that 4 Points Per Wound is too cheap, right?
When Infantry Squads are 40 pts it just leaves no room for Conscripts to be very good and not be gakky at 3 ppm. My biggest problem with Astra Militarum are their Orders, they are so insane it hurts. I know that you are buffing weak units with individual orders rather than giving blobs of elite units bonuses like Astartes, but the FRFSRF and MMM orders make no sense in how good they are. The other orders are an order of magnitude weaker.
One option is to give similar busted orders through a specialist detachment to regular down to earth Marines instead of giving everything to Intercessors. Move twice and Advance Strat for 1CP but it only works for Assault Squads, Devastator Squads and Tactical Squads, RF2 bolters RF4 stormbolters for 1 CP but it only works for Devastator Squads and Tactical Squads, fight in the Shooting phase for 1CP but it only works for Assault Squads and Tactical Squads. 1CP per Detachment as usual. Suddenly there is also a reason to take squads of more than 5 guys, that opens the opportunity for the split into combat squads Stratagem being used once in the history of 8th.
JNAProductions wrote: So, most of us think that 4 Points Per Wound is too cheap, right?
When Infantry Squads are 40 pts it just leaves no room for Conscripts to be very good and not be gakky at 3 ppm. My biggest problem with Astra Militarum are their Orders, they are so insane it hurts. I know that you are buffing weak units with individual orders rather than giving blobs of elite units bonuses like Astartes, but the FRFSRF and MMM orders make no sense in how good they are. The other orders are an order of magnitude weaker.
One option is to give similar busted orders through a specialist detachment to regular down to earth Marines instead of giving everything to Intercessors. Move twice and Advance Strat for 1CP but it only works for Assault Squads, Devastator Squads and Tactical Squads, RF2 bolters RF4 stormbolters for 1 CP but it only works for Devastator Squads and Tactical Squads, fight in the Shooting phase for 1CP but it only works for Assault Squads and Tactical Squads. 1CP per Detachment as usual. Suddenly there is also a reason to take squads of more than 5 guys, that opens the opportunity for the split into combat squads Stratagem being used once in the history of 8th.
You are thinking in the wrong mind set here. Primaris are the future. To not include them in a rule doesn't make sense. I am all for giving access to both options but if you are going to propose a rule for tactical squads - it should also affect intercessors. If it affects Dev squads it should also affect hellblasters.
Reading over the comments, it seems most of the issue's are with marines being too killable and slow while guardsmen are too killy and fast becuase of orders. While this could be solved by cutting marine's cost by 2 points and raising guardsmen cost by 1, that wouldn't feel very 40k. Space marines are worth more than 2.2 guardsmen. They're worth more than 3.3 or 4.3 guardsmen too but some concession have to be made for the game.
I think a better solution is to give all marines, loyal and traitor, a "transhuman physiology" rule like in kill team that will include:
The better bolters rule as is.
Units can re-roll advance rolls of 1.
Whenever a model is reduced to 0 wounds or less by a single attack (but before it is slain for the purpose of rules like death grip,) roll a d6 and on a 6 it is not slain and has 1 wound remaining.
Whenever a model flees, roll a d6 and on a 6 it does not flee.
The purpose of this rule is to represent a marine's (and other transhuman super soldier's) superior strength, dexterity, and reflexes in handling high powered weaponry, faster running speed, greater endurance against physical trauma, as well as greater willpower against psychic attacks and his own mental fragility.
I do not think this rules should apply to scouts, since they should be differentiated from tactical marines more than they are and are not full astartes yet. I do think this rule should apply to custodes, since they are just as or more post human that space marines. But I don't think this will change custodes much in any way. +.2 wounds and rerolling 1 on advances are the only real buffs they will get from it and those are very small.
If you want to nerf guard, change MMM to making an advance roll and moving that distance instead of that plus 6" and make FRFSRF give a -1 to hit penalty. This will make FRFSRF useless on conscripts and might mean they can be 3 points now. However, Forwards for the Emperor should remove the penalty for shooting assault weapons.
Whenever a model is reduced to 0 wounds or less by a single attack (but before it is slain for the purpose of rules like death grip,) roll a d6 and on a 6 it is not slain and has 1 wound remaining.
Unfortunately, a 6+ pseudo FNP really would not come anywhere close to rectifying SM's survivability gap. If it were, Iron Hands would be much more prevalent than they are.
I have been going over my previous "The Emperors Finest" suggestion to see how it would affect SM survivability against a few benchmark weapons and it tends to do exactly what most people SAY[i] they want a SM buff to do (increase survivability to small arms fire without significantly impacting high AP weapons ability.)
The Emperors Fines:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors.
As an aside, with the upcoming release of the new Sisters of Battle, another + army, a change like "The Emperor's Finest" would also go a long way in helping to differentiate SM from them in a meaningful way.
Whenever a model is reduced to 0 wounds or less by a single attack (but before it is slain for the purpose of rules like death grip,) roll a d6 and on a 6 it is not slain and has 1 wound remaining.
I have been going over my previous "The Emperors Finest" suggestion to see how it would affect SM survivability against a few benchmark weapons and it tends to do exactly what most people SAY[i] they want a SM buff to do (increase survivability to small arms fire without significantly impacting high AP weapons ability.)
The Emperors Fines:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors.
I'm not sure that space marines are too vulnerable to a certain type of weapon and mostly ok against another. I think your suggestion would shift things too far in one direction anyway. Terminators should not be tougher than Custodians under any circumstance, least of all Custodian Terminators (look at your lasgun numbers). I think a general FNP or toughness increase would be more in line. Unfortunately an across the board toughness increase would mess with weapon profiles. It would mean bolters would need to be T5 too, but does that include ig and sister's bolters? Maybe Better Bolters could increase space marine bolt weapon's strength by 1 instead, but I haven't done the math on that.
That being said, T6 terminators are too much. I have never seen a terminator killed by a lasgun and don't think it is nearly as big of a problem as you make it out to be (but I have seen one killed by a hot-shot lasgun, and they should be able to do that sort of thing). Even +1T Terminators would be too tough against normal bolters. And 18ppm Terminators is too little, in fact I think their cost is appropriate. Terminators should not be cheaper than aggressors.
If you think a 6+ pseudo FNP (it's better than a normal FNP on 1 wound models) is too little, it could easily be made into a 5+ pseudo FNP. I suggest 6+ because I am trying to convince people to make it a house rule, I have a few converts. In fact this would actually stack quite well with the iron hands chapter tactic, so we might see more use from them. Anyone who want survivable marines now takes Raven Guard, a -1 to hit is better than a 6+ FNP.
Terminators should not be tougher than Custodians under any circumstance, least of all Custodian Terminators (look at your lasgun numbers). I think a general FNP or toughness increase would be more in line. Unfortunately an across the board toughness increase would mess with weapon profiles. It would mean bolters would need to be T5 too, but does that include ig and sister's bolters? Maybe Better Bolters could increase space marine bolt weapon's strength by 1 instead, but I haven't done the math on that.
I have done the numbers for upping Tacticals and Terminators to T5 and T6, as well as re-rolling failed saves of 1, re-roll failed all failed saves,adding a 6+fnp (a 5+ is defiantly out of the question as it is already the army trait of Death guard), giving them a +1 to save versus Ap-1 attacks and so on and so on... So far they all require far too many changes across data cards to be a realistic change , have very many unintended consequences and are in general just don't meet the need to KEEP IT SIMPLE.
Regarding the Lasgun numbers for Terminators, that was LITERALLY the only instance in which any SM unit surpassed any Custodes unit. Looking at the rest of the values, you can see that every Custodes unit was more durable than any SM permutation. Using the ONE outlier to determine the viability of a proposed change doesn't make sense, especially when the common theme from this thread and every other HAS been that SM are too vulnerable, for their cost, to small arms fire.
That being said, T6 terminators are too much. I have never seen a terminator killed by a lasgun and don't think it is nearly as big of a problem as you make it out to be (but I have seen one killed by a hot-shot lasgun, and they should be able to do that sort of thing). Even +1T Terminators would be too tough against normal bolters. And 18ppm Terminators is too little, in fact I think their cost is appropriate. Terminators should not be cheaper than aggressors.
I would only suggest upping terminator toughness if The Emperors Finest rule wasn't implemented, together, they are very strong. but at 18PPM they are only cheaper than Aggressors per model, but remember, you cannot take a unit of 3 terminators like you can Aggressors. with the cheapest weapon load out, terminators are 140 points per squad at 18PPM, while Aggressors are 111 points per squad. Terminators are in no fathomable way in danger of encroaching on Aggressors role in an army, they are outgunned anywhere from 1.5 to3.25X at base and have no weapon options that lessen that gap in any significant way. What terminators can do that Aggressors cannot is take heavier weapons, giving them a better chance against T6, T7 and T8 units, but even that is debatable.
If you think a 6+ pseudo FNP (it's better than a normal FNP on 1 wound models) is too little, it could easily be made into a 5+ pseudo FNP. I suggest 6+ because I am trying to convince people to make it a house rule, I have a few converts. In fact this would actually stack quite well with the iron hands chapter tactic, so we might see more use from them. Anyone who want survivable marines now takes Raven Guard, a -1 to hit is better than a 6+ FNP.
You cannot stack FNP's, even psuedo ones. One of the Ad-Mech traits was identical to your proposition and was just FAQ'ed to confirm as much. regarding upping it to 5+, see my comment above.
You cannot stack FNP's, even psuedo ones. One of the Ad-Mech traits was identical to your proposition and was just FAQ'ed to confirm as much.
I always thought that was separate from a FNP, since it only applied at death like Bobby G and Celestine's ability. It seems like they are intent on adding a fourth phase to attack sequences where FNP's happen instead of leaving it as unique rules.
Does Emperor's Finest require wounds to be re-rolled after they have been successfully re-rolled from a failed roll, wouldn't that be two re-rolls?
As far no unintended consequences go, I would not count your rule among them. For example the Custodians guardian spear and castellan axe are carefully balance weapons. Both are equivalent against tactical marines, the spear is better against terminators (and heavy infantry in general), and the axe is better against dreadnoughts (and vehicles in general). With your change, there is no reason to take a spear against marines. I'm sure the same holds true for other weapons. Since people can get around the worst effects of this rule by taking high strength weapons, I would imagine it will seriously unbalance the game in their favor. It will make 40k more of a rock paper scissors game at the very least.
Terminator heavy weapons are depressing. I might suggest giving them more weapon options first, like CSM terminators, but they still cost more than their loyalist counterparts.
Does Emperor's Finest require wounds to be re-rolled after they have been successfully re-rolled from a failed roll, wouldn't that be two re-rolls?
I answered that question in a previous comment. you cannot re-roll a re-roll. nothing in the wording of The emperors finest suggests that it modifies or circumvents any rules, explicitly because I was trying to KEEP IT SIMPLE. you do the same thing with this as you would any other ability, do exactly as the ability says, within the context of the base rules.
As far no unintended consequences go, I would not count your rule among them. For example the Custodians guardian spear and castellan axe are carefully balance weapons. Both are equivalent against tactical marines, the spear is better against terminators (and heavy infantry in general), and the axe is better against dreadnoughts (and vehicles in general). With your change, there is no reason to take a spear against marines. I'm sure the same holds true for other weapons. Since people can get around the worst effects of this rule by taking high strength weapons, I would imagine it will seriously unbalance the game in their favor. It will make 40k more of a rock paper scissors game at the very least.
Tactical Marine Vs.
2.161 hits-Guardian Spear
2.163 hits-Castellan Axe
3.249 hits-Guardian Spear Vs. Emperors Finest
2.597 hits-Castellan Axe Vs. Emperors Finest
Terminator Vs.
2.703 hits-Guardian Spear
2.882 hits-Castellan Axe
4.063 hits-Guardian Spear Vs. Emperors Finest
3.460 hits-Castellan Axe Vs. Emperors Finest
Dreadnought Vs.
15.147 hits-Guardian Spear
9.472 hits-Castellan Axe
45.487 hits-Guardian Spear Vs. Emperors Finest
14.223 hits-Castellan Axe Vs. Emperors Finest
looking at the Tactical and Terminator numbers, the difference between the spear and Axe is literally 1 hit in every circumstance, not really a big enough disparity to warrant scrapping a genuinely positive gain overall, especially for this decidedly niche scenario.
Eh, if we want to keep things simple, surely the simplest durability boost is to just give all Marines an extra wound? Standard Marines become 2 wounds (twice as durable vs most small arms, have a chance of surviving a lascannon blast), Primaris and Terminators 3 (allowing them to eat an overcharged plasma hit), etc, give all tanks an extra wound too. Points will need to be rejigged by a bit I should think, but not by much for standard Marines. This makes Marines feel like Marines more than dropping points costs.
I like the idea of giving Marines an extra attack across the board too- the extra durability will help them reach melee too.
I also agree that Bolter Discipline should be reworked to always provide an extra shot regardless of movement- 2 at full range, 3 at half for Rapid fire weapons. Maybe should be extended to include auto bolt rifles, stalker weapons, bolt pistols and heavy bolters too.
These changes would increase durability and damage output.
Other issues, like the reliance on auras, are bigger structural problems that need to be addressed in a codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Crediting that some other posters in this thread have suggested the same changes I have, but they keep getting drowned out by more esoteric suggestions.
Honestly I think that (I assume SM chaplains will get it in 2.0 codex) SM chaplains and captains should get the dark Apostle treatment.
Chaplin have their faith themed bonuses and captains can have "orders" (I also think that Guardsmen Hqs having access to all orders is part of the problem). The warlord trait to add 1 to hit could have been an order for instance.
uring deployment, you can set up this model, along with any units embarked within it, in orbit instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the BEGINNING of any of your Movement phases this model can perform a drop pod assault – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" away from any enemy models. Any models embarked inside must immediately disembark, but they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. Any models that cannot be set up because there is not enough room are slain.
