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.

 fullmetaljacket wrote:
@sgt_smudge
For the unit coherency... None of those other armies were on vraks,
The unit coherency would apply to space marine ( and by default certain Csm) on my siege of vraks campaign that will not include scions, eldar Dark eldar, ect. Yes I agree they should get that rule
But in short , the renegade are majority made up of mutant and a militia army and the Dkok rely on their tight formations for control and unleashing high volumes of volley fire

So why would untrained militia rabble or Ogryns be in close formation? I could see it with DKOK, but militia? They'd break rank and scatter out to avoid large explosions, seeing as they lack the order and rigidity of typical battle formations.

It's certainly NOT exclusive to Astartes.

I'm not scared of battle cannons blowing a space marine off the board, I just don't want any template weapon , to blow half squad off the board, one or. Two okay, that is what the unit coherency is for

I'm just saying, but I can easily spread my Space Marines apart enough to have max three under the template - no half squads getting blown up. If the Large Blast marker is 5" wide, then if the centre of the marker is on a Space Marine, and the squad at maximum coherency - 2" - then only three can be hit if the squad is in a line or diagonal: the centre marine, and two coming off him. It may kill them, and force the to regroup to coherency but that's why you use cover.

For fighting off the waves of attackers , that's what the FNP would be for. To represent the marines continuing to fight shaking off wounds

FNP only makes them a third more durable, and as no-one has corrected me on the fact that FNP is negated by ID, it makes them no more survivable against krak missiles, Battle Cannons (which you seem terrified of) or hotshots/plasma/melta, etc etc.
If you want Marines to survive small arms better, upgrade their Toughness, Wounds, or Armour - or a combination.

I don't want to the game to be super one sided, us that is boring, but it is biased in the fact that if you look at the scenario games in the vraks books they set people up to fail, they have a predetermined outcome. Don't tell me people won't have fun , I don't care about other people. Me and my friend want to play a campaign, this is what we want..

So if you don't care about other people, why bother putting this on here? Talk it over with your friend, and you can get a better idea of what you're actually after.

Even the Vraks books make the game equal, with both sides having decent chances to win. It just seems to me that you want to roll dice and achieve a forgone victory.

This is not so I can walk all over the board and dominate people with a ton of marines, this is so when I play my death korps of krieg army,. ( Never ending waves of infantry) vs
Renegade guard around 300 models of infantry ( never ending / outflanking waves of infantry) I can field 15-20 red scorpions,
Dark angels or a squad of grey knights and. Have them live for 6-10 turns, And not have all of them blown away by one shot from artillery, tanks or anything like that ACD the same goes for when my openent puts a squad of alpha legion in the field

Again, I think you're misunderstanding me. I know full well that you're planning on taking a handful of Space Marines with higher powered rules to make them more like the "fluff standard".

However, if you want to do that, you need to be ready to fundamentally rework the state of them (to show their power above the rest of the army and durability) and to point cost them accurately, so that if artillery and tank shells don't kill them as easily, a Space Marine should cost appropriately higher, to represent the fire they can soak or deal out, or reduce the cost of the artillery and tanks, because they can't kill Space Marines as easily. However, as the artillery can still be used on the infantry, the SM should be the ones having a price hike.

This is purely done for balance, or you and your opponent could end up with massive equivalent points - with you having, say, 3k and him only having 2k, because your Marines are now worth a thousand more points.

The rules do matter or while else would we want to play!? Same reason. People play Napoleonic and play the the battle of water loo, or civil war and play the battle of Gettysburg.
Fmj

Have you played many historical games?

Because, despite these battles having a "canon" ending, people still like to game in that scenario, and as such, expect a somewhat FAIR game. This may be an abstraction, but it is necessary, as otherwise, why would I ever want to play as the Germans in a D-Day battle if I wanted to win? Or the French in Waterloo?

There needs to be an abstraction of canon in order to make a fair game. If you don't want a fair game, by all means take my previous advice and just give all SM 10 for all stats, 2+/2++ rerollable invulnerable, Eternal Warrior, ATSKNF or Fearless, Strength D AP1 Infinite range Assault 10 Bolters and Strength D AP1 Chainswords, and leave them the same points.

Just find the old Movie Marines rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Just find the old Movie Marines rules.

The Movie Marine rules are surprisingly fun! You really should try them out just to see how you like them. They're easy enough to update to make sense in 7th edition. That said, Movie Marines don't quite satisfy my own personal tastes when it comes to marine power levels. The official rules make marines feel like guardsmen in power armor with bolters that are hardly more useful than lasguns. That stinks, but movie marines turn every marine into a miniature MC. At 1500 points, Movie Marines are looking at having around a dozen guys and one or two vehicles and nothing else while the enemy might have dozens of eldar aspect warriors and a handful of tanks of their own, or they might be facing down an entire dark eldar hunting party. Which is great if you want your marines to be that beastly, but I feel they start to step on other factions' toes at that point. Against horde armies, this conservation of ninjutsu might seem fine, but my eldar aspect warriors are theoretically meant to be almost on par with a marine with an exarch probably being quite a bit scarier than a given marine. Having huge swaths of my eldar murdered by 10 dudes doesn't really line up with the marine power levels that I've accepted into my head canon.

I like marines to be tougher and killier than pretty much any comparable unit in the game, but I don't want a single marine to reliably take on an entire enemy unit by himself. I don't want them to die to a single lucky lasgun, but I don't want them to be unkillable either. I don't want bolters to be underwhelming, but I don't want each one to be a portable assault cannon either.

So with all that in mind, my own nascent homebrew rules for marines include things like...


*+1 wound on all non-characters
*+2 wounds on all characters
*Non characters gain 1 Attack. Characters get +2 Attacks (so a tac marine is 2A, but a sergeants is 3A)
*Characters gain +1WS, BS
*Bolters are Assault 2 12" or Heavy1 24" with Strength 5, AP4.
*Heavy Bolters become Salvo 3/5
*Chainswords become AP5 rending but also cost 5 points apiece
*Many of the "big guns" like multi-meltas and krak missiles now inflict two penetrating hits instead of one (making them better at hull pointing out vehicles or crippling them without resorting to *strength D or changing their AP)
*Giving special rules to units that I felt needed more love. Tac marines become relentless so that they can use salvo and heavy weapons on the move as they advance across the battlefield. Assault marines gain jink to help them survive the trip across the table. Devastators basically blind targets they hit (with a Toughness test instead of an Initiative test) to represent the staggering firepower throwing the enemy unit into disarray. That sort of thing.
* I've also cut out a lot of the less "iconic" options for the sake of letting the classic options shine (if you want a centurion heavy list, the current codex does that just fine). It also gives me a more managable number of units to work on in my free time fan project. I've got bikers, and I've got scouts, for instance, but I don't have attack bikers or scout bikers.

The overall goal (I haven't playtested this at all or even finished my first rough draft) is to make the lowly bolter-wielding tac marine feel reasonably threatening against a variety of targets, to make the characters in the army actually feel like terrifying heroes that could warrant their own action movies (rather than being chumps who aren't worth giving a power sword), and to do all this without simply throwing every buff in the book on marines until they're impossible to kill. Plus, I'm trying to keep regular dudes cheap enough (without being undercosted) and powerful enough to let you maintain decent board control.

Literally, if you read the original post, all I wanted to do was brainstorm ideas... But the majority of this thread turned into people telling me how much I can't Do this, I honestly don't care about people who say this can't be done at all, or people not reading the orginal post, and talking about an entirely different subject. I just wanted to hear some cool ideas or other rules/ point cost / something other than the standard movie marine rules that are on 1 D 4chan, I was hoping for suggestions, that's all. IN NO WAY I WANTED TO BE RESPONDING TO A WHOLE LOT OF MESSAGES ABOUT HOW THERE ARE HOLES IN MY WAY OF DOING THINGS, I DON'T HAVE A WAY, THAT'S WHY I POSTED THIS. IT'S FOR SUGGESTIONS! So thank you for some of the input that you provided on here, but please stop trying to put holes into something that isn't even a thing yet unless you have a better way to represent it/ change it. Post what you think can be done,. Changes, point cost to make it so instead of running squads of 10 I run 3 or 5.
I don't care if a sieve marine is blown away by a renegade guardsmen with a Krak missile, that's real, I was hoping the FNP would make them slightly more survivable to massed volleys if auto guns , and close combat attacks
I know if spaced correctly only 3 space can be hit on the battle field, but with increased unit coherency it would make the space Marine force last longer since I'll only have around 10 or 15 on the battlefield instead of 20 -30,
The reason I don't mind if the renegade guard don't get increased coherency is I don't mind when 5-10 renegade guardsmen get blown away by an artillery shell,
I have played historical, I play alot of flames, but i was referring to the end state of the Battle and someone com menting that if the end state is known why play the game.

Again thank you sgt_smudge and wyldhunt and others becuase you showed a counter argument but then gave an alternate opinions how to do it.

So if anyone else has input it's much appreciated, just please don't just poke holes in everything, provide insight and further options or ideas
I'm just trying to brain storm
Fmj





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sieve = space*

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


I don't want to the game to be super one sided, us that is boring, but it is biased in the fact that if you look at the scenario games in the vraks books they set people up to fail, they have a predetermined outcome. Don't tell me people won't have fun , I don't care about other people. Me and my friend want to play a campaign, this is what we want..
So if you don't care about other people, why bother putting this on here? Talk it over with your friend, and you can get a better idea of what you're actually after.

It's funny, because I have always thought the people who post on here looking for help in their own private games are the best use of the board, like the . The topics that are arguments about how things should be, or what the right way to do things is seem like the most useless.





FMJ:
There are some good game wide changes you can do that make space marines and everything else a little bit more like the fluff.
You can use the ap rules that a user called haravikk has posted about using. AP that is equal to the save only causes -2 to the save instead of ignoring it, so against a missile or battle cannon marines get a 5+ armor save. Then weapons that are one ap higher than the save cause -1, so against heavy bolters marines get a 4+ save. This can slightly benefit marines because it's somewhat rewarding for armies to take heavy bolters and griffon mortars against marines, instead of focusing on ap3.

You can also say that small models are are good at using cover against large models. For example, a unit in cover can take its cover save after failing its save against a model that is two sizes larger than it is, where the sizes are swarms, infantry, and bulky infantry together, then extra bulky and normal vehicles as a second size, tanks, flyers, and monstrous creatures as another, and super heavies as a fourth. So infantry in a ruin can take fire from a flyer and either get armor save and cover save, or their cover save and then cover save again.

The thing that is least super about marines is that their shooting is just the normal bs roll and then the effect of the gun, is not better than a guard lieutenant with a bolter, even though they have power armor assistance and better initiative and reflexes. You can say that at the end of their shooting phase, any model in power armor that has not fired snap shots can perform a round of shooting redoubled as snap shots. All snap shots fired by models in power armor redone at bs3 instead of bs 1.



The thing with space marines not being bring fluffy is that they are worth more than normal troops partly for long term reasons that don't come up in six turns. When humans and other species get a casualty injury, a bunch of other troops have to come and evacuate them to a facility filled with medical personnel, that all need to be protected by even more troops, and all of those extra troops and medical personnel need a camo to eat and sleep in which also needs protecting by even more troops, and ultimately many of the wounded die. When space marines become casualties they can usually still walk themselves of the field and can be back to fight in a few days, and none of them need very much sleep or down time.

" When space marines become casualties they can usually still walk themselves of the field and can be back to fight in a few days, and none of them need very much sleep or down time."

Pretty sure the marines that eat the ion accelerator to the face aren't walking back anywhere.

Well any instant death weapon is pretty much that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Well, if we go by that logic, on points at least, a single Space Marine would cost about the same a full guard platoon. Maybe more. If we make Marine how they are in fluff, the game needs to reflect that too, and have about five Space Marines versus a "normal" 40k army.

According to Rowboat Girlyman, so I hear, 1 marine = 10 guardsmen.

Hmmm the injured marine idea leaving there battlefield makes sense in a humane aspect but I honestly don't see a space marine getting hit, standing back up and walking off or laying until the end, I would think he would stand back up and keep fighting if he could, 9/10 times unless he got smoke checked by a D weapon or something lol

I would like to think they keep on fighting, that's why I thought a FNP save would be cool, and if an apothecary is present it boosts it to a 4+
And plague marines would be a 4+ FNP always
Fmj

There is no space marine left at all after getting hit with an ion accelerator.