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.

Borrow a page from AoS (Stardrake shields) and let power armor troops and terminators ignore -1 AP.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Killermonkey wrote:
I personally think the changes to melee combat really hurt marines. Before you could throw them into a weaker unit (utilizing their generalist toolset) and grind out a win or sweep them. Now you kill a couple, because they don’t kill very much in melee as stock marines, then the enemies just falls back in their turn and their army blasts you. To wipe a unit in melee you have to be super good and specialized to crush them in a single phase, otherwise all you can do is stop something for shooting for a single turn and die in the process.

I agree; there really isn't much purpose to an annoyance assault unit with the fall back rules as they are. The exception is if that unit happens to be extremely durable like Canoptek Wraiths, who will keep tying up your shooting every turn if you don't funnel everything into killing them. Tactical Marines are not durable like Wraiths.

Forcing a unit to not fire next turn by touching it is a powerful thing. "I touched your Predator tank, neener neener."

Because of the morale rules this edition it's still often beneficial to go for those extra couple kills, as they can essentially count double.

I'm guessing you stopped reading my post after the first sentence, because if you had read the whole thing you would know I agree with that assessment. My disagreement is that assault marines just aren't very good at it; it's a trick they will manage to do maybe once if they're lucky and then get blown off the table for minimal investment. On the other hand wraith are HARD to get rid of and will keep tying up more and more shooting every turn if you don't invest seriously high amounts of firepower into taking them down.

I read your whole post, I just think the "forcing units to not shoot" is being undervalued.

As though Tactical Marines will ever do it and Assault Squads are taken instead of Vanguard?

And Vanguard are considered to be only okay!

A) I totally agree with they were ap -1 for bolters and pistols in second ed AP with a heavy bolter as AP -2

Lasguns had an ASM of -1 as well. Basic MEQ are actually better now than they were back in the days when it was Terminator or bust. I think the only power armored Marines I saw back then were Devastators and Khorne Berzerkers (and the latter had a 2+ save). Characters would sometimes wear power armor to use equipment that Terminators couldn't have, but basic Space Marines? Nah.

 Insectum7 wrote:

I read your whole post, I just think the "forcing units to not shoot" is being undervalued.

It's definitely undervalued. It's a pretty huge drawback that largely goes unappreciated due to the large number of things that ignore it with Fly or a similar ability and units that give up a trivial amount of shooting to allow non-trivial amounts of shooting to fire into things that reached melee freely. It's definitely a notable rule (so is the no assault bit) for units that play by the rules; but its also such a huge drawback that the best way to be competitive is to ignore models that play by the rules and only play stuff that can ignore them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 John Prins wrote:
Borrow a page from AoS (Stardrake shields) and let power armor troops and terminators ignore -1 AP.

AP resistance feels like the obvious next step towards improving the AP system. I'd actually like to see it wholesale replace Invulnerable saves.

 Marmatag wrote:
TAC squads should have a generalist rule that gives them the ability to pick between buffs before the game starts.

make them base:

3 toughness, 4+ bs, 4+ ws, 1 attack, 1 wound.

You can increase 2 of these categories by 1.
You can increase 1 of these categories by 2.
You cannot increase the same category twice.

This is done army-wide, regardless of <faction> and <chapter>. So no mix & match.

So you could have 3 toughness, 2+bs, 3wound marines.
Or you could have 3 attack, 3+ws, 4 toughness marines.

It gives them tactical flexibility based on the army they're facing. So they pay for being generalists but in a way that actually works for the controlling player.

Oh god no. Too much book keeping and it would be a mess

There is absolutely no good reason to clutter the rules with band-aid solutions and inelegant one-time fixes like AP-resistance or fall-back resistance. The basic tactical marine needs a point drop to 10-11 points, or they need a stat-buff like getting the statline of intercessors.

pismakron wrote:
There is absolutely no good reason to clutter the rules with band-aid solutions and inelegant one-time fixes like AP-resistance or fall-back resistance. The basic tactical marine needs a point drop to 10-11 points, or they need a stat-buff like getting the statline of intercessors.

The easiest way is to fix the Bolt weapon and how Tactical Marines can buy weapons.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pismakron wrote:
There is absolutely no good reason to clutter the rules with band-aid solutions and inelegant one-time fixes like AP-resistance or fall-back resistance. The basic tactical marine needs a point drop to 10-11 points, or they need a stat-buff like getting the statline of intercessors.

The easiest way is to fix the Bolt weapon and how Tactical Marines can buy weapons.

Explain?

pismakron wrote:
There is absolutely no good reason to clutter the rules with band-aid solutions and inelegant one-time fixes like AP-resistance or fall-back resistance. The basic tactical marine needs a point drop to 10-11 points, or they need a stat-buff like getting the statline of intercessors.

Agreed. I surrender on true "fixes". Just admit they are failures and cost them accordingly.

I assume he's going to say give them the ap on the boltgun and let them take any combination of heavy/special weapons at 5 men


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

pismakron wrote:
There is absolutely no good reason to clutter the rules with band-aid solutions and inelegant one-time fixes like AP-resistance or fall-back resistance. The basic tactical marine needs a point drop to 10-11 points, or they need a stat-buff like getting the statline of intercessors.

Agreed. I surrender on true "fixes". Just admit they are failures and cost them accordingly.

Okay I generally try to run 3 tac squads, (which always fails but it's a marine army so I take marines) no devs cause they are prime targets, be it tau guns or eldar. So that frees up 30 pts? I can take 3 more marines if they are at 10 points.

No. Unless they are actually fixed I'll just play my 2nd army

3 tacs squads with lascannons isn't terrible. But it's not great, either. Intercessors fail because everyone ignores them. Scouts are okay, too but are often the only thing within 24" or so 1st turn, and get wailed on if they can be seen.

kurhanik wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
A big part of the issue is just that the game's combat engine is clearly built around MEQ being the baseline for everything. Everything else is defined as "weaker and cheaper than MEQ or better ranged but less melee" or something similar. The main reason MEQ flounders is because it doesn't have an identity, where everything else is a min-maxed specialist.

I am curious if tables need to be designed around the cover rules a bit better though. I haven't seen a lot of games where it seems to be a major feature of the game, but its always impactful when I use it.

Probably the closest comparison to MEQ would be Battle Sisters - before upgrades both are power armored units with bolters.

Battle Sister - 9 points
Tactical Space Marine - 13 points

Marine gets 1 better WS, +1 Str, +1 T, ATSKNF, Chapter Tactics (of varying use for a Tac Marine depending on Chapter)

Sisters get Shield of Faith (6+ invulnerable save, a weak method of denying psykers), Acts of Faith (usable by only 1 unit per turn, need to make a check [albeit an easy one] to use), Order (no rules yet, but once the codex drops there probably will be some)

Basically it comes down to whether you think +1 WS, Str, and T, and a reroll on morale (and losing a 6+ invulnerable save) is worth 4 points. On a dedicated Melee unit it might be, but on a generalist like the Tactical Marine Squad, probably not.

So the ability to strike opponents better, take fire better, and survive the morale phase is not worth 4 points?

Honestly this thread is a joke, if you can't figure out a way to use tac marines don't use them yeesh.

At best they need to start making weapons like plasma more expensive for better units like they did for IG elite units. (Then the generic units are better to select in your army.)

"So the ability to strike opponents better, take fire better, and survive the morale phase is not worth 4 points?"

Not in 8th, it isn't.

Marines also get better access to weapons over sisters, which helps. No Lascannons, Grav Cannons or Plasma for sisters.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines also get better access to weapons over sisters, which helps. No Lascannons, Grav Cannons or Plasma for sisters.

And your point is? GKs don't get access to Lascannons, Grav cannons or, Plasma either. Should the base GK model be price around the same as an SoB?

pismakron wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pismakron wrote:
There is absolutely no good reason to clutter the rules with band-aid solutions and inelegant one-time fixes like AP-resistance or fall-back resistance. The basic tactical marine needs a point drop to 10-11 points, or they need a stat-buff like getting the statline of intercessors.

The easiest way is to fix the Bolt weapon and how Tactical Marines can buy weapons.

Explain?

I'm for making the Marine worth the points rather than JUST continuously lowering the price. They're supposed to be Elite, not swarming.

How would *I* fix the Tactical Marine itself?
Bolt Weapons get a special rule (I've been a fan of making it so that a 6+ to wound forces a reroll of any successful save), and make it so that they have the initial way you load them out, where you get either a Special or Heavy Weapon at 5 dudes, and with a total of seven dudes you get the opposite (just like now) and then at 10 dudes you get your choice. You aren't punished for MSU and 10 dudes isn't as bad. Then they actually have, surprisingly, a Tactical role and then Scouts already function well as is, outside that cloaks and snipers are too expensive for what they are (and with that proposed fix to Bolt Weapons, Shotguns vs Bolters would actually be a hard choice).

Also, Tactical Marines need LD8, as they're more of Veterens than Assault, Biker, Devastator, and Scout Marines.

Once you transition that, I'm a fan of making the Vanguard and Sternguard 1-2 more points expensive, but giving them WS2+ and BS2+ respectively, and lastly Terminators have WS/BS2+.

However this really shows the issue of being limited to D6 huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines also get better access to weapons over sisters, which helps. No Lascannons, Grav Cannons or Plasma for sisters.

And your point is? GKs don't get access to Lascannons, Grav cannons or, Plasma either. Should the base GK model be price around the same as an SoB?

Grey Knights have SEVERAL issues outside that, but to be fair they can get Lascannons on a few of their vehicles.

I know it isn't really a defense but just saying.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines also get better access to weapons over sisters, which helps. No Lascannons, Grav Cannons or Plasma for sisters.

And your point is? GKs don't get access to Lascannons, Grav cannons or, Plasma either. Should the base GK model be price around the same as an SoB?

What sort of bizzare reasoning spawned this post? I'm just pointing out other advantages marines have over sisters.

Nevermind; Didn't fully like what I posted here.

I feel like with primaris coming out we just need to accept our beloved little marines are no longer l33t space knights.

Reduce their price to 11 (scouts to 9) and watch the tac spam (Templars would need 7 point initiates).

No more las cannons/MLs (hell no more heavy weapons at all if you have to, I don't think grav and heavy bolters are a problem though, range on grav and bolters aren't that good).

Bring primaris down to 16 points and I think the meta will welcome marines back (Roll Black Tide!!!).

Either that or tacs need special rules based on their chapter ravenguard get infiltrate,
templars get +1 attack,
ultras get nothing because I hate them,
salamanders get 12" flamers,
IF get to hit w/ bolters in Overwatch on 5+,
scars get assault bolters,
IH something something terminators

Best way to fix marines is to proxy them as battle sisters.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Best way to fix marines is to proxy them as battle sisters.

I think you meant "Best way to fix marines (snip, snip), play them as sisters". Sorry I just couldn't resist the joke.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Best way to fix marines is to proxy them as battle sisters.

I think you meant "Best way to fix marines (snip, snip), play them as sisters". Sorry I just couldn't resist the joke.

Best way to fix marines is to proxy them as Dark Reapers

Point of view from a non-space marine player. I think what hurts MEQ is just how inexpensive units in general are points wise Most armies can take basic size squad with special/heavy weapons a few times over for the cost of a single tactical squad. Just economy of scale, 800 points of guardsmen will out plasmagun 800pts of tactical squads. That many special weapons floating around will eat up MEQ. Lowering the cost of MEQ further will eventually cause point reductions in other factions. The more expensive point wise models limits the number of models on the table. This hinders the horde armies like Orks, Tyranids, Imperial Guard, a lot more than elite MEQ armies.

I think Marines just need to get a little stat boost.
Bringing down their cost would also be possible, but it would go against the spirit of the army. Marines are not supposed to be able to bring a lot of bodies to the table.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
...I could go on, but I think the point is made, a spotty memory and some rose colored glasses are a horrible yard stick for balance.

I find most complaints with 8th are usually because of this. Awesome post and I couldn't have worded it better myself.

Yes, sums up my response to this as well. I can't remember an edition when people weren't claiming tac marines needed a buff.

Probably because Tac Marines have been rubbish since forever.

Bringing back the old veteran rules where you could purchase (or just pick) a buff from a list based on what you want them to focus on could be a welcome start.

Otherwise yeah, they are just glorified objective campers which scouts do better for cheaper and act as deployment denial.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
...I could go on, but I think the point is made, a spotty memory and some rose colored glasses are a horrible yard stick for balance.

I find most complaints with 8th are usually because of this. Awesome post and I couldn't have worded it better myself.

Yes, sums up my response to this as well. I can't remember an edition when people weren't claiming tac marines needed a buff.

Tac Marines themselves have always been a problem. They are the worst example of the issues faced by basic MeQ units now, but we're talking about a lot more than Tac marines.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Tac Marines themselves have always been a problem. They are the worst example of the issues faced by basic MeQ units now, but we're talking about a lot more than Tac marines.

There are definitely worse MEQs than Tac Marines sadly.

Here are some things I've been mulling over:

1) Give all regular marines +1 A. Solves some of the issues with assault squads and generally makes them all a bit more able to handle themselves in CC.

2) Representing the Space Marines' superhuman levels of training with bolt weapons, any SM model with some kind of bolt weapon gets to make one additional attack with it when shooting. Improves their effectiveness against swarmy enemies (as does the attack boost). I'm sure there's a cool name you could give this.

3) Codex Adherant: any Space Marine detachment in which all Tactical, Assault and Devastator Squads are at full (10-man) strength may double the CP bonus for that detachment. This seems a lot, but given how difficult it is for SMs to gain CPs normally, I don't think it would be too mad. Solves the problem of it almost always being more efficient to gain CPs by just piling Guard units into your list, and stops Combat Squads being a completely useless rule.

Come on then, tell me why all these are bad nonsense and how I've overlooked the ways in which these are horrid broken.