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.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Adding Ap won't help marines the only way to make them semi competative is I hate to say it points cost drops.

Well it would up their kills by 25% verses guard. E.g. 6 wounding hits would kill 5 not 4 guardsmen and it makes it more or an AP weapon it is in the fluff.

The issue is it does weirder things like a bolter is as effect as an assualt cannon against vehicals, also it doesn't really help the issue that each dead marine gives up way too many points and they don't have any Close combat ability

 Galef wrote:
I'd like to see bolters get AP -1 on a 5+ to wound (HBs and Bolter Rifles therefore being AP -2 on a 5+ to wound)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I've before suggested to give Bolt weapons a unique mechanic where a 6+ to wound forces rerolls of successful saves. It's less samey which is why I suggest it all the time.

Honestly just keep it simple - if it is needed make it all the time...

Ice_can wrote:
]What would give them a very unique mechanic would be each failed save generates an additional hit, as it's very fluffy a bolt round turning a poorly armoured opponent into additional shrapnel when it detonates.
The issue is it slows the game down a lot.

Is this not just making it a 2 wound weapon? Or you mean roll for wound and armour again? I suppose another hit on the unit would be interesting as the shrapnel travels. Still a bit of a dice fest.

Also the other thing to consider is an changes made to the bolter will carry across to Sisiters of battle, one of if not the best index power armour faction.
Power armour appears to work at that points cost just not at marine points.

Change should be the larger astartes bolters only.

Process wrote:
Astartes- "-1 to all wound roles" - this doesn't break the game, but gives all marines a survivability buff that fits with the fluff.

It is quite a big jump. Strength 1 and 2 weapons can no longer wound you, str 3 is on a 6, str 4 on a 5+, str 7 on a 4+ and above that always 3+. Why would they be tough verses hell-hammer or volcano cannons?

Terminator- "all AP is reduced by 1" - pair this with the above and terminators survive like terminators- lascannons are no longer wounding on 2's and you still have a 4+ save against it.

Just make the armour save 1+? I still prefer the -1 damage to a minimum of 1 though as their bane is 2 wound weapons.

I still don't feel the issue with Terminators is their durability, as this is the most durable they've been in years. If you want durability, Centurions SHOULD be that wall (though how they perform is bad).

Process wrote:
A 6 is always a hit, a 1 is always a fail, that has literally always been the case, i dont know why people struggle to grasp that one.

And how is a hellhammer wounding a marine on a 3 any more of a jump than a las pistol being able to wound a hellhammer AT ALL?

The thing is, the -1 to ap value works against a whole host of other weaponry, whereas tailoring a rule to save against 2 damage weapons only works against 2 damage weapons

Natural 6's are not always a hit and never have been.

"Nerfing weapons doesn't work. You would have to nerf every weapon in the game. Plus it goes against the concept of the eddition. Faster games is what they are going for. Problem is marines are dying too fast - it really is a unique problem with power armor."
Because screw:
AdMech
GK
Necrons
Tau

Only our Boys in Blue (or green/red/etc) should be getting a buff!

If the problem is T4 or a 3+ armor save just isn't worth what people pay for it, then shouldn't that be fixed?

Yes, but charging less for it. Not going on an AP crusade.

Marines are also paying for CC stats that don't help, and for BS but are armed with a peashooter.

The most effective fix is cheaper marines, because nothing about them lives up to the the points or the hype.

Bharring wrote:
"Nerfing weapons doesn't work. You would have to nerf every weapon in the game. Plus it goes against the concept of the eddition. Faster games is what they are going for. Problem is marines are dying too fast - it really is a unique problem with power armor."
Because screw:
AdMech
GK
Necrons
Tau

Only our Boys in Blue (or green/red/etc) should be getting a buff!

If the problem is T4 or a 3+ armor save just isn't worth what people pay for it, then shouldn't that be fixed?

AdMech and Tau aren't bad in durability for the points on top of their superior offense. That's what happens when your models are half the cost but only lose a small amount of durability.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't feel the issue with Terminators is their durability, as this is the most durable they've been in years. If you want durability, Centurions SHOULD be that wall (though how they perform is bad).

Here is the way I think of it.
Lets just say you played the same guy every game.

Hes killing your tacticals without effort with plasma guns. It's like - okay - let me take a more durable unit and see if I can survive the firepower better. So you take some Terminators. Turns out you were better off with tacs. Still wounds on 2's - you get a 5+ instead of a 6+but lose twice the points per failed save.

Obviosuly this isn't the most fair example because plasma has always been good against both these targets. Should terminators really be worse off against plasma compared to tacticals? No - they shouldn't. Terminators should have a better chance to survive damage per point against everything short of a melta gun. That seems to be their roll for me. Yeah - they are called "terminators" but I feel their "ney indestructibility" is really what defines them.

They aren't more durable ether. In what eddition can a lasgun shoot twice? In what eddition was a ap3 rocket a threat to terminators? They are better vs some things - worse vs other. This has already been discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"Nerfing weapons doesn't work. You would have to nerf every weapon in the game. Plus it goes against the concept of the eddition. Faster games is what they are going for. Problem is marines are dying too fast - it really is a unique problem with power armor."
Because screw:
AdMech
GK
Necrons
Tau

Only our Boys in Blue (or green/red/etc) should be getting a buff!

If the problem is T4 or a 3+ armor save just isn't worth what people pay for it, then shouldn't that be fixed?

None of those armies are remotely as bad as an army that consists of power armor. By all means - all bad units need to be buffed.

Plas should be a really good option vs Termies. Just not nearly as good as it is now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So you're saying SM are worse off than Admech, GK, Necrons, and Tau?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't feel the issue with Terminators is their durability, as this is the most durable they've been in years. If you want durability, Centurions SHOULD be that wall (though how they perform is bad).

Here is the way I think of it.
Lets just say you played the same guy every game.

Hes killing your tacticals without effort with plasma guns. It's like - okay - let me take a more durable unit and see if I can survive the firepower better. So you take some Terminators. Turns out you were better off with tacs. Still wounds on 2's - you get a 5+ instead of a 6+but lose twice the points per failed save.

Obviosuly this isn't the most fair example because plasma has always been good against both these targets. Should terminators really be worse off against plasma compared to tacticals? No - they shouldn't. Terminators should have a better chance to survive damage per point against everything short of a melta gun. That seems to be their roll for me. Yeah - they are called "terminators" but I feel their "ney indestructibility" is really what defines them.

They aren't more durable ether. In what eddition can a lasgun shoot twice? In what eddition was a ap3 rocket a threat to terminators? They are better vs some things - worse vs other. This has already been discussed.

And to add to this, if a unit is made durable enough to survive to future turns, their offensive capabilities increase as well.
Terminators shooting or assaulting for 1 turn does X damage. Doing it for another turn increases that to 2X and so on.
1 more turn's worth of damage could really make the difference

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't feel the issue with Terminators is their durability, as this is the most durable they've been in years. If you want durability, Centurions SHOULD be that wall (though how they perform is bad).

Here is the way I think of it.
Lets just say you played the same guy every game.

Hes killing your tacticals without effort with plasma guns. It's like - okay - let me take a more durable unit and see if I can survive the firepower better. So you take some Terminators. Turns out you were better off with tacs. Still wounds on 2's - you get a 5+ instead of a 6+but lose twice the points per failed save.

Obviosuly this isn't the most fair example because plasma has always been good against both these targets. Should terminators really be worse off against plasma compared to tacticals? No - they shouldn't. Terminators should have a better chance to survive damage per point against everything short of a melta gun. That seems to be their roll for me. Yeah - they are called "terminators" but I feel their "ney indestructibility" is really what defines them.

They aren't more durable ether. In what eddition can a lasgun shoot twice? In what eddition was a ap3 rocket a threat to terminators? They are better vs some things - worse vs other. This has already been discussed.

And to add to this, if a unit is made durable enough to survive to future turns, their offensive capabilities increase as well.
Terminators shooting or assaulting for 1 turn does X damage. Doing if for another turn increases that to 2X and so on.
1 more turn's worth of damage could really make the difference

-

Yeah excellent point.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't feel the issue with Terminators is their durability, as this is the most durable they've been in years. If you want durability, Centurions SHOULD be that wall (though how they perform is bad).

Here is the way I think of it.
Lets just say you played the same guy every game.

Hes killing your tacticals without effort with plasma guns. It's like - okay - let me take a more durable unit and see if I can survive the firepower better. So you take some Terminators. Turns out you were better off with tacs. Still wounds on 2's - you get a 5+ instead of a 6+but lose twice the points per failed save.

Obviosuly this isn't the most fair example because plasma has always been good against both these targets. Should terminators really be worse off against plasma compared to tacticals? No - they shouldn't. Terminators should have a better chance to survive damage per point against everything short of a melta gun. That seems to be their roll for me. Yeah - they are called "terminators" but I feel their "ney indestructibility" is really what defines them.

They aren't more durable ether. In what eddition can a lasgun shoot twice? In what eddition was a ap3 rocket a threat to terminators? They are better vs some things - worse vs other. This has already been discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"Nerfing weapons doesn't work. You would have to nerf every weapon in the game. Plus it goes against the concept of the eddition. Faster games is what they are going for. Problem is marines are dying too fast - it really is a unique problem with power armor."
Because screw:
AdMech
GK
Necrons
Tau

Only our Boys in Blue (or green/red/etc) should be getting a buff!

If the problem is T4 or a 3+ armor save just isn't worth what people pay for it, then shouldn't that be fixed?

None of those armies are remotely as bad as an army that consists of power armor. By all means - all bad units need to be buffed.

Of COURSE Terminators should be worse off against Plasma. They're more expensive models and the counters to those expensive models is Plasma and Melta. When you're carrying Power Fists and more expensive Bolters, that's how it works.

They've never been durable, but this IS the most durable they've been in years outside a few niche weapons. Don't even try to argue it. Give me a list of things they're less durable against and I'll provide a list of double to what they're most durable to.

So honestly their survival being their trait was only ever made up in your mind. The only thing they've been consistent as is being Vets and being supposedly shock troops. They've failed that role too, but that's what their equipment tells us. So we make them better at that. So that's why, for all Terminators bar the Grey Knight troops, I propose the following:
1. You make them WS/BS2+. Rather than making them Relentless with their weapons, we instead actually help ALL loadouts and variations instead of being shortsighted like most people throwing that fix blindly.
2. Add an extra attack

This now scales appropriately, and makes Terminators less dependent on the rerolls of Captains and Chapter Masters, as appropriate for such Vets being given the honor of using those suits. If we want walls, GW clearly intended for Centurions to be that, except they fail at that this edition compared to the last one. I'd give them 4 wounds and a point decrease, which makes them better vs anything but D2 weapons.

I'd like to add that if we go the WS/BS2+ route for Termies, I'd like to see WS2+ for Assault Termies only. Regular Termies should still be WS3+, but can be BS2+. That would better define their different roles

 Galef wrote:
I'd like to add that if we go the WS/BS2+ route for Termies, I'd like to see WS2+ for Assault Termies only. Regular Termies should still be WS3+, but can be BS2+. That would better define their different roles

This is with no price increase and it's gotta be consistent. Assault Terminators would still have their role hitting more often with an extra attack too, whereas Tactical Terminators would be more TAC like they ought to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also an firmly a fan of consolidating the Angels into the main codex too, so we COULD always allow the Deathwing way of things to make it just one unit entry.

Bharring wrote:

So you're saying SM are worse off than Admech, GK, Necrons, and Tau?

I find I generally have more fun playing Ad-mech, and for what it's worth I personally would say marines are worse off than Ad-mech. But, I play in a more casual/"semi-competitive" environment so I probably get more wiggle room.

AdMech troops, thanks to Drills, are just straight up better than Marines. I love my Vanguard and Rangers.

Tau better than SM too.

In addition to being both bad offensively and defensively they are immobile as feth. With the nerf to deepstriking they are even worse.

Upon wings of fire for termies needs to be a thing or you can change them as much as you want they will rarely threaten/engage more than one target and that will never be a good unit.

Fold the angels back into the codex and let all marines have their strats. Weapons from the dark ages and the BA strats (outside of death visions because fluff) would really help marines be competitive.

bananathug wrote:
Tau better than SM too.

In addition to being both bad offensively and defensively they are immobile as feth. With the nerf to deepstriking they are even worse.

Upon wings of fire for termies needs to be a thing or you can change them as much as you want they will rarely threaten/engage more than one target and that will never be a good unit.

Fold the angels back into the codex and let all marines have their strats. Weapons from the dark ages and the BA strats (outside of death visions because fluff) would really help marines be competitive.

Having them be able to "teleport" like in Dawn Of War would be pretty good actually. I made a similar suggestion last edition.

bananathug wrote:
Tau better than SM too.

Mono Tau like they have a choice are better than mono vanilla marines, not better than Astra Copywriten + Slamguinius + Scouts +flavour of the month.

So much metallic or fish soup in the meta

Allies are a big aspect I suspect as to part of marines problems.
They can't generate CP or shots as cheep as guard infantry, arn't as durable or damaging as custodes, and lack the synergies of admech. For such a large faction with so many options it's surprising just how little the bring to the table that does something different or better than anything else in the "imperium keyword faction".

Ice_can wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Tau better than SM too.

Mono Tau like they have a choice are better than mono vanilla marines, not better than Astra Copywriten + Slamguinius + Scouts +flavour of the month.

So much metallic or fish soup in the meta

Allies are a big aspect I suspect as to part of marines problems.
They can't generate CP or shots as cheep as guard infantry, arn't as durable or damaging as custodes, and lack the synergies of admech. For such a large faction with so many options it's surprising just how little the bring to the table that does something different or better than anything else in the "imperium keyword faction".

Actually there would be a solution for CP generation.
Allow 3 man marine squads and drop the price for marines to 12 ppm whilest giving them at 3 man the options they now get at 5.

With that atleast some marines Chapters could generate cheap enough CP to be played mono.
It would also remove the weapons saturation problem, since you can take multiple 3 man squads with a Heavy / special weapon.

Other than that, drop the price of Rhinos down to 35 pts again, that alone would give marines the mobility boost they need and make them more durable.

Both solution seem a bit raw though.

What are the Marines going to spend the CP on though? Most of the stratagems are trash.

I tried out a game the other night where I swapped out the Iron Hands chapter tactic and replaced it with the Inviolate Armor rule from Horus Heresy.

All shooting attacks against Iron Hands infantry suffers a -1 penalty to strength.

This made them feel like real heavy infantry as the Ad Mech Vanguard were wounding on 6's instead of 5's but a lot of the higher strength weapons weren't affected.

Keeping the dreadnaughts with the originally 40k chapter tactic isn't bad. Giving them Inviolate Armor seems OP.

Harlequins get a -1 to wound aura....-1 strength isn't nearly as bad as that.

Wenrun wrote:
I tried out a game the other night where I swapped out the Iron Hands chapter tactic and replaced it with the Inviolate Armor rule from Horus Heresy.

All shooting attacks against Iron Hands infantry suffers a -1 penalty to strength.

This made them feel like real heavy infantry as the Ad Mech Vanguard were wounding on 6's instead of 5's but a lot of the higher strength weapons weren't affected.

Keeping the dreadnaughts with the originally 40k chapter tactic isn't bad. Giving them Inviolate Armor seems OP.

Dreads would hardly be a problem with that rule.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wenrun wrote:
I tried out a game the other night where I swapped out the Iron Hands chapter tactic and replaced it with the Inviolate Armor rule from Horus Heresy.

All shooting attacks against Iron Hands infantry suffers a -1 penalty to strength.

This made them feel like real heavy infantry as the Ad Mech Vanguard were wounding on 6's instead of 5's but a lot of the higher strength weapons weren't affected.

Keeping the dreadnaughts with the originally 40k chapter tactic isn't bad. Giving them Inviolate Armor seems OP.

Dreads would hardly be a problem with that rule.

Unless you give that rule also to leviathans and other fw dreads. Then will you have a problem.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Harlequins get a -1 to wound aura....-1 strength isn't nearly as bad as that.

That's from an HQ right?

I looked at them before they seem on par with Deathwatch. But with more special rules then eldar and DE combined.

Personally I'd rather do away with 1 rule chapter tactics like the marine ones and have primary and secondary almost like the freeblade chart but they cost points. Then you could have "custom" chapters more or less. But if you wanted say the Ultramarines warlord trait you'd need to use both their primary and secondary traits

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Harlequins get a -1 to wound aura....-1 strength isn't nearly as bad as that.

That's from an HQ right?

I looked at them before they seem on par with Deathwatch. But with more special rules then eldar and DE combined.

Personally I'd rather do away with 1 rule chapter tactics like the marine ones and have primary and secondary almost like the freeblade chart but they cost points. Then you could have "custom" chapters more or less. But if you wanted say the Ultramarines warlord trait you'd need to use both their primary and secondary traits

Shadowseer.

And that'd be a bugger to balance. However, if you can do it, more power to you!

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wenrun wrote:
I tried out a game the other night where I swapped out the Iron Hands chapter tactic and replaced it with the Inviolate Armor rule from Horus Heresy.

All shooting attacks against Iron Hands infantry suffers a -1 penalty to strength.

This made them feel like real heavy infantry as the Ad Mech Vanguard were wounding on 6's instead of 5's but a lot of the higher strength weapons weren't affected.

Keeping the dreadnaughts with the originally 40k chapter tactic isn't bad. Giving them Inviolate Armor seems OP.

Dreads would hardly be a problem with that rule.

Unless you give that rule also to leviathans and other fw dreads. Then will you have a problem.

You mean those models above 200 points? No it isn't a problem.

Because 200pt vehicles should be wounded on 5+s by heavy, expensive, anti-tank weapons?

Bharring wrote:
Because 200pt vehicles should be wounded on 5+s by heavy, expensive, anti-tank weapons?

Those vehicles are expensive in the first place and never reach something like T8 overall. It encourages thingies like Lances and Lascannons though. Which isn't bad.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Because 200pt vehicles should be wounded on 5+s by heavy, expensive, anti-tank weapons?

Those vehicles are expensive in the first place and never reach something like T8 overall. It encourages thingies like Lances and Lascannons though. Which isn't bad.

It is, i should not need a lascannon to destroy any overgrown dreadnaught. Additionally those dreads allready have an invulnerability save, which makes them vastly superior to regular dreads.
The problem here is called scalling and mind you leviathans are allready playable.