Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy Fusillade is unique, but is it something that would apply to units that are above Tactical Marines? Suddenly forgetting training isn't something I'm a fan of. Sternguard suddenly forgetting how to do something like that would be slightly silly. NOW, if you did something where units like Tactical Marines and above could do that OR an extra melee attack, perhaps that would be neat? I dunno.

Regarding Tactical vs Intercessor, their base weapon should just remain deadlier, as most of the damage from Tactical Marines is always going to be their special and heavy weapons. You've seen me be a big pain about giving Astartes Bolt weapons a special rule to increase their damage output, as well as making them gain more than just a single of each Special and Heavy at 10 man, which is easily the most outdated thing in this game.

Different units could still operate differently and veterans may not feed to approach combat the same way as the main troop of the army.

That said, I feel like Sternguard mostly just need full special ammo options back while Vanguard need more work overall to work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly though, I don't think giving out free special or heavies fixes Tacticals. Letting them turn into a unit that can shoot twice if they stand still or have an objective in arm's reach though could help them a lot and lets them get more mileage out of their base weapons.

And you're right, the bolt rifle should probably be better, but if the base profile goes to -2 then the stalker goes to -3 and that just seems a bit insane.

I'm absolutely against free weapons. I was more thinking they get an additional of either Special or Heavy at max size, so 10 Man squads get 2 Specials and 1 Heavy, or 2 Heavy and 1 Special. Something of that nature.

Astartes Bolt Weapons don't need super drastic changes. With everything else being suggested overall improving the army, we simply need them to be slightly better. The extra AP mechanic is overdone, hence why I always suggest forcing successful saves to be rerolled against would rolls of 6+. With the amount of rerolls to hit and wound, it goes a long way I feel without scaling super horribly, like your example with Bolt Rifles going straight to AP-2 (Deathwatch Intercessors will love you of course).

I'm against Sternguard getting special ammo back as this is the main gimmick of Deathwatch, and GW did show that they could keep Sternguard unique, even if they did a bad job at it. My solution is of course Sternguard getting BS2+, which makes them THE premiere shooting unit compared to Command Vets, who do the same thing but with a free Chainsword which makes them better by default. In fact, when you give them Storm Bolters, the only thing Sternguard can get to really gain an edge is Grav Cannons. I don't think that's worth a lost Chainsword, obviously. So while on that topic:
1. Command Vets get bumped down to 15 points like Wolf Guard got.
2. Sternguard get BS2+ and their Special Issue Bolters are 1 point each.
3. Vanguard get WS2+ and perhaps a single point of AP on the special Chainswords?
4. Terminators get both the WS/BS2+ and an extra attack

I'm always trying to find ways to make sure I don't scale horribly, which is ultimately my goal. I feel I achieve that with some decent success.

I like the changes to the primaris heavy weapon variants- up to heavy 2... that is required.

My personal fix for bolt weapons would be;

All standard bolt weapons (storm, hurricane would need a price hike for this maybe) are ap-1.

Primaris bolt weapons bump up to S5- no change to AP value.

ALL bolt weapons get a bonus on a wound roll of a 6- What this is i dont know, could be and extra shot, extra hit, extra AP, extra damage (this would be interesting against vehicles).

Then all you need to do is fix the marine statline and theyre back in business.

Make boltguns great again!

 Asherian Command wrote:


2 wounds +2 save is great but they still die. A single squad of lasguns can make quick work of a single squad of termies.

Squad of lasguns(IG troopers) with FLRSR for 30 shots causes less than 1 wound to T4 2+.

Good luck taking out squad of termies quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Luck /=/ Math
I've lost an entire squad of termies in one turn to lasgun fire or a dark reaper shooting phase.

Aaah so because luck means my castellan can fail to kill even single IG trooper that means castellan is too weak and needs to be buffed!

I think the solution to the deathwatch interaction is to tweak their ammo so that the one that currently gives -1 AP does something else and the one that gives -2 AP only gives -1.

I think S5 on the primaris rapid fire version fixes that weapon. Aggressors are fine and don't need any AP. I'd be fine with sternguard having something different than deathwatch if they were still good.

Alternatively, instead of giving bolters AP, you could have hit rolls of 6+ cause an automatic free hit. This is a similar increase in damage and is a more unique ability that doesn't muck with other
AP interactions. I like it more than forced save re-rolls not because that isn't good, but because I think the game has enough re-rolls as is, and it also hurts units with good saves a lot more than ones with bad saves, and enough weapons in the game already do that (ie the entire the AP system), so I wouldn't want it on as abundant a weapon as the bolter.

I like the holy fusilier idea, though it seems more like something that should have been a strategem this whole time. I like it requiring an objective a lot more than requiring the unit to stand still, as I feel like Marines rarely do that (I guess we could ask dark angels players?). I'd be fine if it was only on tacticals and sternguard, since they are the units with a focus on bolters.I think all other squads could use a comparable ability though (such as assault Marines forcing a roll off to fall back from them, or being able to advance and charge, etc).

So a thought that came up this morning as I was waking up was swapping out the "+1 attack" for Black Templar models thing and instead giving Black Templar Infantry, Bikers and Dreadnoughts a special rule. "All Infantry, Biker and Dreadnought models gain the Righteous Zeal special rule (found on [INSERT PAGE NUMBER FOR CRUSADER SQUAD HERE])"

'Righteous Zeal: At the start of the Fight Phase if this unit has suffered an unsaved wound caused by an enemy model this turn, double the attacks characteristic of all models in this unit (apply all other bonuses to the attacks characteristic after doubling it).'

Basically it turns every bit of Overwatch into a game of Chicken and makes it so if they're shot then charged they're pretty scary too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And like the idea of the Primaris bolters being S5 instead. It'd give them a bit more punch without stacking AP all day.

Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.

The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).

Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.

The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).

Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).

I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.

Considering the reactions when I argued for "fights twice and rerolls failed charges" as CT for BT a while back you're about to get told that you don't have a clue how to balance things.

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.

The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).

Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).

I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.

I don't think that charge re-rolls should get dropped honestly. They're too necessary for a faction that needs to get into combat.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.

The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).

Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).

I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.

I don't think that charge re-rolls should get dropped honestly. They're too necessary for a faction that needs to get into combat.

Agreed. In that case though I'd make that ability a strategem rather than something they just get.

Speaking of them needing to get into combat, though, I think Grimaldus should give reroll wounds in the fight phase so there is a point in taking him and halbrect together.

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.

The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).

Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).

I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.

I don't think that charge re-rolls should get dropped honestly. They're too necessary for a faction that needs to get into combat.

Agreed. In that case though I'd make that ability a strategem rather than something they just get.

Speaking of them needing to get into combat, though, I think Grimaldus should give reroll wounds in the fight phase so there is a point in taking him and halbrect together.

Turning that into a Strategem would literally kill Black templars. They NEED the reliability.

Speaking of Templars (sort of), here was the thing I was looking at adding to Chaplains:

Chaplain Cassius: Add "Armour of Contempt: Chaplain Cassius may attempt to deny two psychic powers in each enemy Psychic phase as long as the enemy Psyker attempting to manifest the powers is within 12 inches"

Chaplain Grimaldus: Add "Armour of Contempt: Chaplain Grimaldus may attempt to deny two psychic powers in each enemy Psychic phase as long as the enemy Psyker attempting to manifest the powers is within 12 inches"

Chaplain in Terminator armour: Add "Armour of Contempt: This model may attempt to deny one psychic powers in each enemy Psychic phase as long as the enemy Psyker attempting to manifest the powers is within 12 inches"

Chaplain: Add "Armour of Contempt: This model may attempt to deny one psychic powers in each enemy Psychic phase as long as the enemy Psyker attempting to manifest the powers is within 12 inches"

Primaris Chaplain: Add "Armour of Contempt: This model may attempt to deny one psychic powers in each enemy Psychic phase as long as the enemy Psyker attempting to manifest the powers is within 12 inches"

And as for Assault Marines, perhaps a rule where you roll for every model that completes a successful charge and on a 6+ they inflict a mortal wound (5+ for Vanguard Vets)?

Assault Marines need to be 14 points with their Jump Packs, and they need access to all the Special Pistols along with a Pistol rule revamp.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Wow do you hate Ultramarines with some passion.
You've given them no improvement and massively nerfed their unique warlord trait, which is rarely used outside of named charictors as marine strategums are so hot garbage.

While I get you dont want to turn Raven guard into the next Alitoc Eldar OP BS. Marine vehicals are made of paper for their points and need some serious survivability improvements to be worth fielding.

That is the reason everone when straight to flyers then FW dreadnaughts with invulnerable saves.

18 inch flamestorm guantlets are broken as feth, especially when you add double shooting(aggressors built in bonus rule)

Heavy Plasma doesn't need 2 shots. It is where it should be the problem is GW decieded to +1 to plasma's strength in the change to 8th edition presumably as primaris marines rely on plasma for their anti tank. When they undo that mistake the problem goes away.

Ultramarine need the least amount of help and with buffs elsewhere in the units they can take, this can't be for real

The guy he was responding to suggested that the ultra marine regen command points WLT become a vanilla trait. Plus buffed everyone's chapter tactic and said the ultramarine tactic was fine. Ultras trait is hands down the worst. It's really the only trait that deserves to be buffed when you compare to other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


2 wounds +2 save is great but they still die. A single squad of lasguns can make quick work of a single squad of termies.

Squad of lasguns(IG troopers) with FLRSR for 30 shots causes less than 1 wound to T4 2+.

Good luck taking out squad of termies quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Luck /=/ Math
I've lost an entire squad of termies in one turn to lasgun fire or a dark reaper shooting phase.

Aaah so because luck means my castellan can fail to kill even single IG trooper that means castellan is too weak and needs to be buffed!

You guys...I've already done this.
A 5 man term squad is 200 points
For 200 points in gaurdsman you get 3 10 mans and 2 CC. 180 points. does 3.5 wounds. If you add in the remaining 20 points is gaurdsmen this number got to over 4 wounds. Or in other words - 80 points of damage - to a unit that is supposedly good against an equal points cost of the lightest firepower in the game. Terms are trash - vs whatever you shoot them with. equal points of agressors is an even bigger joke. They need - more wounds. The solution is so simple.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Wow do you hate Ultramarines with some passion.
You've given them no improvement and massively nerfed their unique warlord trait, which is rarely used outside of named charictors as marine strategums are so hot garbage.

While I get you dont want to turn Raven guard into the next Alitoc Eldar OP BS. Marine vehicals are made of paper for their points and need some serious survivability improvements to be worth fielding.

That is the reason everone when straight to flyers then FW dreadnaughts with invulnerable saves.

18 inch flamestorm guantlets are broken as feth, especially when you add double shooting(aggressors built in bonus rule)

Heavy Plasma doesn't need 2 shots. It is where it should be the problem is GW decieded to +1 to plasma's strength in the change to 8th edition presumably as primaris marines rely on plasma for their anti tank. When they undo that mistake the problem goes away.

Ultramarine need the least amount of help and with buffs elsewhere in the units they can take, this can't be for real

The guy he was responding to suggested that the ultra marine regen command points WLT become a vanilla trait. Plus buffed everyone's chapter tactic and said the ultramarine tactic was fine. Ultras trait is hands down the worst. It's really the only trait that deserves to be buffed when you compare to other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


2 wounds +2 save is great but they still die. A single squad of lasguns can make quick work of a single squad of termies.

Squad of lasguns(IG troopers) with FLRSR for 30 shots causes less than 1 wound to T4 2+.

Good luck taking out squad of termies quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Luck /=/ Math
I've lost an entire squad of termies in one turn to lasgun fire or a dark reaper shooting phase.

Aaah so because luck means my castellan can fail to kill even single IG trooper that means castellan is too weak and needs to be buffed!

You guys...I've already done this.
A 5 man term squad is 200 points
For 200 points in gaurdsman you get 3 10 mans and 2 CC. 180 points. does 3.5 wounds. If you add in the remaining 20 points is gaurdsmen this number got to over 4 wounds. Or in other words - 80 points of damage - to a unit that is supposedly good against an equal points cost of the lightest firepower in the game. Terms are trash - vs whatever you shoot them with. equal points of agressors is an even bigger joke. They need - more wounds. The solution is so simple.

Riiiiiight...
Did you try shooting with the Terminators first or shooting first with the proposed BS2+? In an exchange of fire when Terminators go first they're okay.

The more I read this thread, the more it looks like it belongs in 40K Proposed Rules. This is not s response to GW that there are areas of imbalance in Codex Space Marines that if fixed will lead to a better game experience. This is a wide scale rewrite of not only Codex Space Marines, but any unit or wargear entry that if found wanting by the OP and collaborators view of how space marines should work in 40K.

Anyone can tell that given the wide-ranging rewrite of the rules that presenting these to GW will result in a quick trip the round file.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.

The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).

Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).

I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.

I don't think that charge re-rolls should get dropped honestly. They're too necessary for a faction that needs to get into combat.

Agreed. In that case though I'd make that ability a strategem rather than something they just get.

Speaking of them needing to get into combat, though, I think Grimaldus should give reroll wounds in the fight phase so there is a point in taking him and halbrect together.

Turning that into a Strategem would literally kill Black templars. They NEED the reliability.

They need the reliability of getting extra attacks if they happen to lose wounds to overwatch? That seems pretty far fetched. If Marines are fixed to be decent at close combat, then black Templars would be pretty good at it with additional charge re-rolls, characters giving them full re-rolls, exploding 6s, and +1S.

But then I think chapter tactics should be fairly minimal bonuses on top of fully functional factions, and think strategems and characters should add in the really crazy stuff. I understand if other people might have a different point of view, though.

jcd386 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Black Templars had something similar last edition. It made more sense when we got an extra attack on the charge though.

The biggest bonus would be for Templar characters (Overwatch against scratched his armour? 6 attacks now! Helbrecht would have 8+D3 attacks in melee on a turn he got wounded) and models like Terminators (unit took a wound? 4 attacks each base!).

Like I said, I literally got the idea as I woke up this morning so it's more of an idea (that I'm also pitching on B&C to see the Templar player reactions).

I think it would work alongside codex wide +1 attack on the charge. I'm not sure that it's "better" than charge re-rolls, though.

I don't think that charge re-rolls should get dropped honestly. They're too necessary for a faction that needs to get into combat.

Agreed. In that case though I'd make that ability a strategem rather than something they just get.

Speaking of them needing to get into combat, though, I think Grimaldus should give reroll wounds in the fight phase so there is a point in taking him and halbrect together.

Turning that into a Strategem would literally kill Black templars. They NEED the reliability.

They need the reliability of getting extra attacks if they happen to lose wounds to overwatch? That seems pretty far fetched. If Marines are fixed to be decent at close combat, then black Templars would be pretty good at it with additional charge re-rolls, characters giving them full re-rolls, exploding 6s, and +1S.

But then I think chapter tactics should be fairly minimal bonuses on top of fully functional factions, and think strategems and characters should add in the really crazy stuff. I understand if other people might have a different point of view, though.

I misunderstood your post and thought you said that rerolling charges should be the Strategem.

 alextroy wrote:
The more I read this thread, the more it looks like it belongs in 40K Proposed Rules. This is not s response to GW that there are areas of imbalance in Codex Space Marines that if fixed will lead to a better game experience. This is a wide scale rewrite of not only Codex Space Marines, but any unit or wargear entry that if found wanting by the OP and collaborators view of how space marines should work in 40K.

Anyone can tell that given the wide-ranging rewrite of the rules that presenting these to GW will result in a quick trip the round file.

Yeah I agree with that.

 alextroy wrote:
The more I read this thread, the more it looks like it belongs in 40K Proposed Rules. This is not s response to GW that there are areas of imbalance in Codex Space Marines that if fixed will lead to a better game experience. This is a wide scale rewrite of not only Codex Space Marines, but any unit or wargear entry that if found wanting by the OP and collaborators view of how space marines should work in 40K.

Anyone can tell that given the wide-ranging rewrite of the rules that presenting these to GW will result in a quick trip the round file.

As the person who started this thread, it's really not a proposed rules section as much as it is an attempt to find the units that no one takes, figure out why they don't take them, figure out what they would need to be taken (excluding points because that is the lazy answer that doesn't fix things) and once I've got ALL of that put together into a mass document it's going in the mail to GW as a mass community feedback (plus a box of candy to bribe them for their time).

It's not an attempt to get GW to just print rules as much as it is "we're looking for something like X to make Y worth taking (and buying) again".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The more I read this thread, the more it looks like it belongs in 40K Proposed Rules. This is not s response to GW that there are areas of imbalance in Codex Space Marines that if fixed will lead to a better game experience. This is a wide scale rewrite of not only Codex Space Marines, but any unit or wargear entry that if found wanting by the OP and collaborators view of how space marines should work in 40K.

Anyone can tell that given the wide-ranging rewrite of the rules that presenting these to GW will result in a quick trip the round file.

As the person who started this thread, it's really not a proposed rules section as much as it is an attempt to find the units that no one takes, figure out why they don't take them, figure out what they would need to be taken (excluding points because that is the lazy answer that doesn't fix things) and once I've got ALL of that put together into a mass document it's going in the mail to GW as a mass community feedback (plus a box of candy to bribe them for their time).

It's not an attempt to get GW to just print rules as much as it is "we're looking for something like X to make Y worth taking (and buying) again".

The reason this belongs in proposed rules is because you've specifically focused and limited your suggestions to rules based solutions. This weird aversion to points balancing discussion, despite being a very valid solution for several units, creates a thread that's sole purpose is to propose rules changes exclusively. That seems pretty clear

Lemondish wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The more I read this thread, the more it looks like it belongs in 40K Proposed Rules. This is not s response to GW that there are areas of imbalance in Codex Space Marines that if fixed will lead to a better game experience. This is a wide scale rewrite of not only Codex Space Marines, but any unit or wargear entry that if found wanting by the OP and collaborators view of how space marines should work in 40K.

Anyone can tell that given the wide-ranging rewrite of the rules that presenting these to GW will result in a quick trip the round file.

As the person who started this thread, it's really not a proposed rules section as much as it is an attempt to find the units that no one takes, figure out why they don't take them, figure out what they would need to be taken (excluding points because that is the lazy answer that doesn't fix things) and once I've got ALL of that put together into a mass document it's going in the mail to GW as a mass community feedback (plus a box of candy to bribe them for their time).

It's not an attempt to get GW to just print rules as much as it is "we're looking for something like X to make Y worth taking (and buying) again".

The reason this belongs in proposed rules is because you've specifically focused and limited your suggestions to rules based solutions. This weird aversion to points balancing discussion, despite being a very valid solution for several units, creates a thread that's sole purpose is to propose rules changes exclusively. That seems pretty clear

Points drops are always everyone's first solution to fix units but it doesn't actually fix units like Tacticals (scouts would still be cheaper) and pushing the points costs of Assault Marines down to effective ranges puts them at near Scion levels which is laughable.

I'm not against point changes, but at the end of the day, if you say "points drop" and fail to actually address the specific issues that plague the codex, how can you then point out the specific issues as why no one uses things? Even if people don't want to submit ideas, at least submitting why they don't use units still helps because it helps paint a more detailed image on what's wrong with parts of the codex.

So even if you don't have proposed rule changes, you can still go "X is useless because of A, B, C and D" and we can work with that as a basis for addressing everything as a whole.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Points drops are always everyone's first solution to fix units but it doesn't actually fix units like Tacticals (scouts would still be cheaper) and pushing the points costs of Assault Marines down to effective ranges puts them at near Scion levels which is laughable.

I'm not against point changes, but at the end of the day, if you say "points drop" and fail to actually address the specific issues that plague the codex, how can you then point out the specific issues as why no one uses things? Even if people don't want to submit ideas, at least submitting why they don't use units still helps because it helps paint a more detailed image on what's wrong with parts of the codex.

So even if you don't have proposed rule changes, you can still go "X is useless because of A, B, C and D" and we can work with that as a basis for addressing everything as a whole.

Really? I see assumptions on your side.

Why do Scouts have to be cheaper than Tactical Marines? If you put a basic Scout next to a basic Tactical Marine, what are the differences? 4+ Armor and Concealed Positions versus 3+ Armor Save. Given the way the game is played, it can easily be argued that Scouts Concealed Positions rule means they should be worth more points than Tactical Marines? Wouldn't that be better feedback to give GW then deciding to give them new rules for Power Armor, Terminator Armor, and Custodes Armor?

Any why is points value not a valid reason to not use a unit? People don't use Tactical Marines because they are not worth the points. Scouts are cheaper and are still only used in a minimal capacity (3 5-Model Scout Units as the required Troops to build a Battalion with Smash Captains).

As for dropping the cost of Marines to nearly Scion level, while it may sound silly, it just might be the right points level. A Tactical Marine is slightly more than twice as destructive then a Guardsman and bit less than twice a resilient as a Guardsman, model for model. Doesn't that mean they should be around twice as expensive? Isn't that easier and better feedback than rewriting half of the Imperium so that you can give Tactical Marines better bolters and power armor? Do you really think you would not see more Tactical Marines if Guardsmen were 5 points and both Scouts and Tacticals were 11?

 alextroy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Points drops are always everyone's first solution to fix units but it doesn't actually fix units like Tacticals (scouts would still be cheaper) and pushing the points costs of Assault Marines down to effective ranges puts them at near Scion levels which is laughable.

I'm not against point changes, but at the end of the day, if you say "points drop" and fail to actually address the specific issues that plague the codex, how can you then point out the specific issues as why no one uses things? Even if people don't want to submit ideas, at least submitting why they don't use units still helps because it helps paint a more detailed image on what's wrong with parts of the codex.

So even if you don't have proposed rule changes, you can still go "X is useless because of A, B, C and D" and we can work with that as a basis for addressing everything as a whole.

Really? I see assumptions on your side.

Why do Scouts have to be cheaper than Tactical Marines? If you put a basic Scout next to a basic Tactical Marine, what are the differences? 4+ Armor and Concealed Positions versus 3+ Armor Save. Given the way the game is played, it can easily be argued that Scouts Concealed Positions rule means they should be worth more points than Tactical Marines? Wouldn't that be better feedback to give GW then deciding to give them new rules for Power Armor, Terminator Armor, and Custodes Armor?

Any why is points value not a valid reason to not use a unit? People don't use Tactical Marines because they are not worth the points. Scouts are cheaper and are still only used in a minimal capacity (3 5-Model Scout Units as the required Troops to build a Battalion with Smash Captains).

As for dropping the cost of Marines to nearly Scion level, while it may sound silly, it just might be the right points level. A Tactical Marine is slightly more than twice as destructive then a Guardsman and bit less than twice a resilient as a Guardsman, model for model. Doesn't that mean they should be around twice as expensive? Isn't that easier and better feedback than rewriting half of the Imperium so that you can give Tactical Marines better bolters and power armor? Do you really think you would not see more Tactical Marines if Guardsmen were 5 points and both Scouts and Tacticals were 11?

Points values can certainly be a valid reason, but if that's all you contribute you're not digging deeper into the issues of the codex. Saying tacticals should be cheaper because of the decreased value of their armour save, loss of AP and decreased access to good mobility options is a lot better than saying "they're too expensive" as has come up several times in this thread.

And perhaps I do have assumptions, but considering that GW has done nothing so far to increase the value of Scouts to being equal to or above Tacticals it seems the studio doesn't agree that Concealed Positions is worth more than then Tacticals are. Maybe they're considering that you can use Raven Guard to deploy Tacticals in the same manner and basically crossing it off as being balanced.

Honestly the belief that the only solution is to make the army so cheap that they're almost Scion levels points wise is just as big (if not bigger) of an assumption as my belief that the army would be better served not by being pushed towards being another Imperial horde army but by fixing the things that make people not take most of the book.

Now do you have something topical to post here, or are you here to become the next Martel and try and derail the thread with how everything is pointless and even trying to talk to the devs about the army isn't worth the time or that the only fix is by making Marines so cheap that they feel like slightly up armoured Guardsmen?

I like a lot of the ideas, but I have some thoughts and concerns regarding some of them.
So, going over the 2nd draft section –

Ok, so, now the core of my Raven Guard army would be 3 big units of flamer Aggressors using SftSs to then double flame everything within 12” turn 1, whilst having fantastic survivability vs D1 weapons….

If I am honest I don’t like giving a standard SM Warlord the benefit of the Blood Angels and Space Wolves traits when fighting a vehicle or monster. It takes something away from them. “Champion of Humanity” to me should be something like re-rolling everything when targeting a Character in melee. I would take this from the BT “3rd option” and give them something else – maybe an advance and charge for the WL.

I’d also change the White Scars trait. Instead of part 2 only affecting vehicles, I’d change it to include the “biker” keyword as well.

Raven Guard Scouts in cover and using cloaks (just saying…) would have a 1+ save and -1 to hit over 12”s, and a 2+ save without the cloaks. This wouldn’t help you see more Tactical Squads over more Scout squads.

Power swords giving +1 save in combat is a little much imo. Currently a Gravis Captain with Master Crafted Power Sword is 134 points. In combat vs any D1 damage weapon he’d have a 1+ save and reduce damage by 1. I’m all for Marines being harder to kill, but, some of the combinations are just potentially “over the top”. If anything, a power weapons should all get a +1 strength increase.

Clarify the Power Armour rule to only affect armour saves. All is Dust is a neat little spin off which affects invulns, but I don’t think we want 2++ storm shields, or 3+ Iron Halos everywhere.

Salamanders Chapter Tactic , personally I think you can just add 2” to the range of all flamer and melta weapons, instead of the Catachan style rule. It gives them more options, as opposed to somehow trying to force Flamers to work. (plus I don’t think it’s that fluffy to be double rolling for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, nearly forgot – Marines aren’t T’au sept. Noone wants to see another gunline of Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, re-rolling all hits and wounds of 1 whilst over-watching on a 5+. It was also more of a Dark Angels thing previously, not a vanilla concept.

I don't see any reason to hold sacred the current statline, abilities, and special rules of Space Marines, when 8th edition has already drastically changed them from what they were before. The main issues with Marines are pretty clearly the result of 1) the intentional gutting of rules and abilities (Rhino fire points, ATSKNF), 2) being on the losing side of nearly every 7th to 8th rules change (AP system, no attack on the charge, vehicles no longer moving and firing heavy weapons without penalty, the fall back system, the "everything has wounds" system, the new wound table, removal of "counts as troops" abilities, etc), and 3), and a very conservatively written codex with a few problem units (Roboute, the ravenguard trait and strat).

I agree that points changes are more likely to be the first change we see, and although it will help the power of the codex, no realistic price change is going to make units like assault Marines, attack bikes, land speeders, or bikes worth taking because the basic Maine statline and larger tactical situation is fundamentally flawed for an 8th edition ruleset. Marines are actually cheaper per model them they've ever been. It's their rules that changed to make them so terrible, so I don't think it's unreasonable to want the rules to change them again for the better.

To the above poster yeah those are some nasty sounding combos.

But to my question, Are Marine Scouts actually worth 11ppm?
I know alot of people take them to make that marine battalion and I know their setup rules are powerful.
However is that because they are worth 11ppm or just the lease bad option?

IMHO they die like flies and bar the odd fun game rarely get any weapons as they are wiped before they have a hope of earning those points back.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 alextroy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Points drops are always everyone's first solution to fix units but it doesn't actually fix units like Tacticals (scouts would still be cheaper) and pushing the points costs of Assault Marines down to effective ranges puts them at near Scion levels which is laughable.

I'm not against point changes, but at the end of the day, if you say "points drop" and fail to actually address the specific issues that plague the codex, how can you then point out the specific issues as why no one uses things? Even if people don't want to submit ideas, at least submitting why they don't use units still helps because it helps paint a more detailed image on what's wrong with parts of the codex.

So even if you don't have proposed rule changes, you can still go "X is useless because of A, B, C and D" and we can work with that as a basis for addressing everything as a whole.

Really? I see assumptions on your side.

Why do Scouts have to be cheaper than Tactical Marines? If you put a basic Scout next to a basic Tactical Marine, what are the differences? 4+ Armor and Concealed Positions versus 3+ Armor Save. Given the way the game is played, it can easily be argued that Scouts Concealed Positions rule means they should be worth more points than Tactical Marines? Wouldn't that be better feedback to give GW then deciding to give them new rules for Power Armor, Terminator Armor, and Custodes Armor?

Any why is points value not a valid reason to not use a unit? People don't use Tactical Marines because they are not worth the points. Scouts are cheaper and are still only used in a minimal capacity (3 5-Model Scout Units as the required Troops to build a Battalion with Smash Captains).

As for dropping the cost of Marines to nearly Scion level, while it may sound silly, it just might be the right points level. A Tactical Marine is slightly more than twice as destructive then a Guardsman and bit less than twice a resilient as a Guardsman, model for model. Doesn't that mean they should be around twice as expensive? Isn't that easier and better feedback than rewriting half of the Imperium so that you can give Tactical Marines better bolters and power armor? Do you really think you would not see more Tactical Marines if Guardsmen were 5 points and both Scouts and Tacticals were 11?

Points values can certainly be a valid reason, but if that's all you contribute you're not digging deeper into the issues of the codex. Saying tacticals should be cheaper because of the decreased value of their armour save, loss of AP and decreased access to good mobility options is a lot better than saying "they're too expensive" as has come up several times in this thread.

And perhaps I do have assumptions, but considering that GW has done nothing so far to increase the value of Scouts to being equal to or above Tacticals it seems the studio doesn't agree that Concealed Positions is worth more than then Tacticals are. Maybe they're considering that you can use Raven Guard to deploy Tacticals in the same manner and basically crossing it off as being balanced.

Honestly the belief that the only solution is to make the army so cheap that they're almost Scion levels points wise is just as big (if not bigger) of an assumption as my belief that the army would be better served not by being pushed towards being another Imperial horde army but by fixing the things that make people not take most of the book.

Now do you have something topical to post here, or are you here to become the next Martel and try and derail the thread with how everything is pointless and even trying to talk to the devs about the army isn't worth the time or that the only fix is by making Marines so cheap that they feel like slightly up armoured Guardsmen?

But has anyone said anything to them about it? I'm serious. The number of points changes since 8th Edition has dropped is so small as to be nearly insignificant to most models in the game. Why not start your feedback at the easiest lever to change rather than rewriting half the game and calling that "feedback"?

I honestly think that GW needs to closely consider every point value in the game. It should be evident to them that the biggest problems are from imbalances and I hope they are smart enough to realize that fixing just one or two units that are undercosted just sends the hordes looking for the next best undercosted option. The best thing the community can do is provide such actual feedback rather than running off on a flight of fancy rewriting the Codex to be the one they would write instead of the one that GW actually wrote.

So am I the next Martel? You tell me. I see myself as a voice for collecting actual feedback. I think GW will listen to comments about what they actually produced much more than a list of fantasy rewrites. I want us to give the the feedback.

Ice_can wrote:
To the above poster yeah those are some nasty sounding combos.

But to my question, Are Marine Scouts actually worth 11ppm?
I know alot of people take them to make that marine battalion and I know their setup rules are powerful.
However is that because they are worth 11ppm or just the lease bad option?

IMHO they die like flies and bar the odd fun game rarely get any weapons as they are wiped before they have a hope of earning those points back.

So, currently, based on a T4, 4+ save model, I’d say Scouts aren’t worth 11 points each, but, it is incredibly hard to put a price on their deployment option.

Scouts for me are generally just a distraction unit, a screen or an objective sitter. I’m not overly fussed if they die turn 1 or 2, or if they don’t make their 55 points back, but, I’m always happy if they sit on an objective and score points, or pick up points via maelstrom or ITC secondaries.

This for me, is why it is even harder to take standard marines over them. Marines can’t really do any of that without having a Rhino or something.