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.

bananathug wrote:
Anyone see the leaked Necron strats...

My god we got hosed by being the first dex out the door and I'm not sure if it is within reason to expect GW to fix it.

The templar tactic is so terrible on vehicles that they can't just "tactics apply to vehicles" fix it so there would need to be an entire re-work of the tactics.

Our strats are the worst in the game for what is supposedly a highly advanced tactical army lead by the greatest general in the galaxy. I'm not sure if this will get fixed and if it doesn't I'm not sure what they can do outside of over-buff our units (or drop op primarchs on us) in order to make us competitive with these super tactical armies.

yeah I'd like to see space marines and chaos marines given a tweek to their CTs to bring them in line with other armies a bit more

bananathug wrote:
Anyone see the leaked Necron strats...

My god we got hosed by being the first dex out the door and I'm not sure if it is within reason to expect GW to fix it.

The templar tactic is so terrible on vehicles that they can't just "tactics apply to vehicles" fix it so there would need to be an entire re-work of the tactics.

Our strats are the worst in the game for what is supposedly a highly advanced tactical army lead by the greatest general in the galaxy. I'm not sure if this will get fixed and if it doesn't I'm not sure what they can do outside of over-buff our units (or drop op primarchs on us) in order to make us competitive with these super tactical armies.

Please....have you seen the Tau dex. Come back after you fix that, then I will listen to how "bad" space marines got it.

 quickfuze wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Anyone see the leaked Necron strats...

My god we got hosed by being the first dex out the door and I'm not sure if it is within reason to expect GW to fix it.

The templar tactic is so terrible on vehicles that they can't just "tactics apply to vehicles" fix it so there would need to be an entire re-work of the tactics.

Our strats are the worst in the game for what is supposedly a highly advanced tactical army lead by the greatest general in the galaxy. I'm not sure if this will get fixed and if it doesn't I'm not sure what they can do outside of over-buff our units (or drop op primarchs on us) in order to make us competitive with these super tactical armies.

Please....have you seen the Tau dex. Come back after you fix that, then I will listen to how "bad" space marines got it.

I found the tau player

 quickfuze wrote:

Please....have you seen the Tau dex. Come back after you fix that, then I will listen to how "bad" space marines got it.

Tau are amazing. Much better than necrons are going to be.

 daedalus wrote:
I think there's going to be a lot of disappointed people at the end of March.

I can hear pitchforks being sharpened already.

On topic, IMO Tactics should apply to whole army for both SM and CSM (including TS and DG) to be brought in line with all the other factions. Makes no sense why they have a silly restriction to infantry and dreads only when no other codex does.

Instead of lowering SM, are the other armies that should be raised in points. Otherwise is the usual power creep going on like we saw in 7ed.

Didn't they confirm that point changes will only happen once a year, in chapter approved?

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Instead of lowering SM, are the other armies that should be raised in points. Otherwise is the usual power creep going on like we saw in 7ed.

Power creep is in full swing this edition, and it isn't going anywhere. Besides a few outliers, the Codexes have been getting better as time goes on. It is unfortunate how hard Marines have been hit this edition by being the first out, and by having their points adjusted in Chapter Approved before the rest of the books have come out.

The Twin Assault Cannon Razorback has been growing far less scary as each new book introduces powerhouses that outperform the Razorback and for a similar point cost.

Things I'd like to see would be the assault bolt rifle having ap -1, which it should be, we pay more for an extra shot but lose the ap?
Another thing I'd like to see is ap-1 on reivers knives. Then for the carbines instead of making them just a copy of the assault bolt rifle I'd make it assault 3 with no ap.

I think people in this thread are underestimating how much better all the units would be with everyone getting chapter tactics.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed to bring it in line with the standard of 8th edition codexes. But I wouldn't expect that change to come with a point decrease for most of the army. Either one or the other, though terminators should probably get a decrease in points no matter what, as a 2+ isn't what it used to be.

 Punisher wrote:
I think people in this thread are underestimating how much better all the units would be with everyone getting chapter tactics.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed to bring it in line with the standard of 8th edition codexes. But I wouldn't expect that change to come with a point decrease for most of the army. Either one or the other, though terminators should probably get a decrease in points no matter what, as a 2+ isn't what it used to be.

It's never been good really, perhaps 2nd ed but the history of terminator armour has never been a stellar one.

3rd. No invun overcosted.
3.5 invun overcosted
4th overcosted
5th storm shield, others over costed
6th as above
7th as above
8th extra wound, overcosted.

Rerolling failed charges sure would make my Razorbacks lethal.

The real issue is GW dropped the ball with how it works on Imperial Guard armies as their vehicles get a different benefit, vs other armies. For AdMech they have not a lot of vehicles so I like the simplicity of just the blanket benefit, but otherwise everyone else should've been designed the same way as Guard. I don't know what I'd pick for every faction, but as it stands they should've tried even at least a little.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Things I'd like to see would be the assault bolt rifle having ap -1, which it should be, we pay more for an extra shot but lose the ap?
Another thing I'd like to see is ap-1 on reivers knives. Then for the carbines instead of making them just a copy of the assault bolt rifle I'd make it assault 3 with no ap.

You pay for the extra damage from its max range to 15.1" and the Assault profile. Whether that profile is actually worth it remains to be seen.

To be honest - the proposed point drops in this post are actaully somewhat low reaching.

Centurions could do with a 35 point drop.
Land raiders with a 80 point drop
You could probably drop every transports cost in the game by 20 points and they still wouldnt be that great.

Message to marine fan boys also - I understand you love marines. You don't have to love their broken rules and stat lines though. Their rules and stats are bad - they need level playing field.

 Formosa wrote:

 Punisher wrote:
I think people in this thread are underestimating how much better all the units would be with everyone getting chapter tactics.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed to bring it in line with the standard of 8th edition codexes. But I wouldn't expect that change to come with a point decrease for most of the army. Either one or the other, though terminators should probably get a decrease in points no matter what, as a 2+ isn't what it used to be.

It's never been good really, perhaps 2nd ed but the history of terminator armour has never been a stellar one.

3rd. No invun overcosted.
3.5 invun overcosted
4th overcosted
5th storm shield, others over costed
6th as above
7th as above
8th extra wound, overcosted.

I think i know a fix for terminators.

Terminator armor should give +1 T and S and + 1 to BS. This way cost could remain same and terminators would make more sense.

If you really think it why does terminator strike with power sword at same strength as normal space marine???

Another point is that terminator armor is designed to stabilize and help on shooting so why does terminator fire at same ballistic skill as normal space marine???

Last point why does bike grant +1 toughnes for space marine and Terminator armor that is well ARMOR wont???

These should fix terminators allso terminator charge range should probably be lowered as it makes no sense that space marine has same charge range as terminator...

Didn't they just take all these "lets fix SM" suggestions, roll them into one unit type, and call them Primaris?

Not really. Primaris are not really functional atm, imo.

... Because the point cost given to units with all those buffs looks to be too high, PPM.

On the other hand, if you reduce SM capabilities and point appropriately, they did that before I even started playing - they call them Guardsmen.

Guardsmen are far too cheap, atm. But I'm sure you know my position on that.

JorpA wrote:
I think i know a fix for terminators.

Terminator armor should give +1 T and S and + 1 to BS. This way cost could remain same and terminators would make more sense.

If you really think it why does terminator strike with power sword at same strength as normal space marine???

Another point is that terminator armor is designed to stabilize and help on shooting so why does terminator fire at same ballistic skill as normal space marine???

Last point why does bike grant +1 toughnes for space marine and Terminator armor that is well ARMOR wont???

These should fix terminators allso terminator charge range should probably be lowered as it makes no sense that space marine has same charge range as terminator...

Yeah, i don't like the bike thing either. But as far as terminators go, their problems have always been survivability and damage. +1 T won't do much, hell that's gravis right there and its always seemed very underwhelming to me in the current meta. +1S? Might help with lightning claws, but otherwise with a pf or a th they still hit pretty hard without it. There's a lot of things that could be done, but just picking one of each category (instead of giving them a points drop):

1 - hard to kill. Terminators may reroll their 2+ and their 5++. For quite a while now, the best way to kill terminators was make them fail their 2+ through numbers. Likewise their 5++ didn't really do much against anti-tank, hence the popular th/ss combo. This makes it harder to kill them with without making it impossible. Terminators *should* be able to shrug off basic ap0 shots, this puts their chances of failing from 1/6 wounds to 1/36.

2 - special issue stormbolters. My preferred option for all bolter weapons is to allow them to make +/-1 or +6" to their profile whenever they shoot. But just looking at terminators in isolation, give them the sternguard 'special issue' version of storm bolters. Suddenly they're doing decent damage.

There's a lot more stuff i'd advocate, like stable platform (ignore the first -1 to hit penalty from weapons when attacking) but it doesn't really fit given that terminators are tactical dreadnought armour and dreadnoughts (or any vehicle really, for that matter) don't get that bonus either. Having said that, i'd look at adding 'stable platform' to vehicles in general. And while i'm at it i'd solve world peace, end world hunger, etc etc. But that's just my take on it. The alternative is to drop point costs, but i'd rather keep the elite 'feel' of marines.

Give Terminators BS/WS2+ and we adjust price afterwards.

Of course I'm for giving Vanguard WS2+ and Sternguard BS2+ and then adjusting prices as necessary.

There would be no adjustment. They are overcosted as is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Give Terminators BS/WS2+ and we adjust price afterwards.

Of course I'm for giving Vanguard WS2+ and Sternguard BS2+ and then adjusting prices as necessary.

That sounds good, make tgem like a true elite professional fightung personnel.

I think Terminator worth being given 3A instead of 2A, the low number of attack is actually one big problem for these big expensive units.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Give Terminators BS/WS2+ and we adjust price afterwards.

Of course I'm for giving Vanguard WS2+ and Sternguard BS2+ and then adjusting prices as necessary.

That sounds good, make tgem like a true elite professional fightung personnel.

I think Terminator worth being given 3A instead of 2A, the low number of attack is actually one big problem for these big expensive units.

The nice part is that you don't really need to adjust the Terminator variants for any of the HQ units as well. I'm against an additional attack though unless we give all HQ units an additional attack in general. That ends up being a chain reaction.

The main issue with terminators as I see it is they pay a lot to be resistant to small arms with 2+ 2W, but still die very easily to anything that can bypass the 2+ and cause 2+ wounds such as plasma.

Like it or not, you aren't heavy infantry until you have 3W, or at the very least some kind of FNP to shrug off some of a 2D weapon. This actual durability, more than anything else, is what makes paladins and custodes better than terminators even though they are more expensive.

So to me, the only real options are to reduce their points, give them another wound, or make them somehow more durable.

They don't need more durability. Marines aren't supposed to be THE durable army. Only certain ones are.

What they need are more offense. That's what my proposal is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They don't need more durability. Marines aren't supposed to be THE durable army. Only certain ones are.

What they need are more offense. That's what my proposal is.

I agree, SM are already quite durable.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They don't need more durability. Marines aren't supposed to be THE durable army. Only certain ones are.

What they need are more offense. That's what my proposal is.

I agree, SM are already quite durable.

I wouldn't say quite durable, just durable enough.

Their only reason for existing seems to be durability. Otherwise other units do they job better, which is the situation we're in now.

For durable I mean the entire army, not only the tacticals.