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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Pretty sure there's more than Black Templars in the Marines Dex too.

Why does that matter. The existence of other Daemon units matters because you justified the power of the melee units in Codex: Daemon with the logic that they didn't have good shooting units. The existence of such shooting units nullifies that argument. I haven't made such an argument, so your statement doesn't actually, as far as I can see, mean anything.

My suggestion above seems to have beeen missed due to me editing it in, so I'll repost it.

How's this for a compromise idea? How about giving Black Templars a version of the old Righteous Zeal rule back where you get to advance if your unit takes losses (once per phase or once per turn, we can discuss the specifics), and then let a unit that loses models to shooting get +2 attacks in the next Fight! phase? It'd stop Dreadnoughts and Characters getting out of hand, it'd not be "on" all the time and it'd mean you could counterplay it through focussing down one unit at a time rather than spreading your fire. Toss out the rerolls to charge distance if it gets too strong, although most melee armies get ways to reroll charges one way or another.

Too complicated for a CT, don't you think?

 skchsan wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Pretty sure there's more than Black Templars in the Marines Dex too.

Why does that matter. The existence of other Daemon units matters because you justified the power of the melee units in Codex: Daemon with the logic that they didn't have good shooting units. The existence of such shooting units nullifies that argument. I haven't made such an argument, so your statement doesn't actually, as far as I can see, mean anything.

My suggestion above seems to have beeen missed due to me editing it in, so I'll repost it.

How's this for a compromise idea? How about giving Black Templars a version of the old Righteous Zeal rule back where you get to advance if your unit takes losses (once per phase or once per turn, we can discuss the specifics), and then let a unit that loses models to shooting get +2 attacks in the next Fight! phase? It'd stop Dreadnoughts and Characters getting out of hand, it'd not be "on" all the time and it'd mean you could counterplay it through focussing down one unit at a time rather than spreading your fire. Toss out the rerolls to charge distance if it gets too strong, although most melee armies get ways to reroll charges one way or another.

Too complicated for a CT, don't you think?

We could handle similar complexity in 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th edition without problem.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Did you just... Did you just say Chaos Daemons DON'T lack shooting prowess?

I run Nurgle daemons. I have the following units with guns:

Great Unclean Ones-Short range. Basically a pistol.
Daemon Princes-Warp Bolter. Basically an AP-1, D2 bolter.
Plague Drones-They have Assault 2 12" bolters, basically.
Soul Grinders-They actually have a decent amount of shooting, but are generally considered overcosted.

I have virtually no shooting.

And again, I have not said and I don't think anyone else have said that BT don't deserve a BUFF. It's just that your suggestion is way too strong.

Pretty sure there's more than just Nurgle in the book. Or does trying to play an army as a purely melee army being a bad idea only apply to Marines?

I disagree with how Walrus is approaching fixing Black Templars but they are absolutely correct on this post.

Give them "units can't disengage" on top of rerolling charges. Done.

Unconditionally locking people in combat would never be accepted. It'd work as a strong-enough Chapter Tactic, but people would be angry.

So? Let them be angry. IG make me angry.

Martel732 wrote:
Give them "units can't disengage" on top of rerolling charges. Done.

Maybe have it go off on a 4+. Otherwise it would be incredibly potent. Not broken, but most other Chapters would need a boost or two to catch up. That might bring Non-UM Space Marines to a level closer to UM power level. Not remotely on IG level though.

Salamanders, Iron Hands and Ultramarines certainly wouldn't need boosts, and White Scars need help regardless. That leaves Imperial Fists, who arguably also need help anyway.

Honestly the whole codex needs help. Even the best Chapter Tactic, Ultramarines, falls flat unless you throw Rowboat in every list. Couple that with mostly bland Strategems compared to the Blood Angels and Dark Angels.

First time I've even been mildly jealous of those armies. Most people wanted them in the vanilla codex to help them out on top of them not needing their own Codex for the most part. Now they're stronger because of it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Salamanders, Iron Hands and Ultramarines certainly wouldn't need boosts, and White Scars need help regardless. That leaves Imperial Fists, who arguably also need help anyway.

Iron Hands aren't in a great place.

Ultramarines without Guilliman are underwhelming, but it's okay. Raven Guard and Sallies are fine.

White Scars need more of a speed/assault buff - by and large, they're similar to Ultras (minus Guilliman). The Fists trait is worthless.

Fists easily have the worst trait in the book - even worse than the Templars one (which, whilst underwhelming, isn't THAT bad - it certainly makes DS assaults more likely to happen).

Realistically, Codex Space Marines without Guilliman is poor in general. Not the worst, but not in a great place beyond spamming the few things that actually work (which aren't even affected by CT anyway).

Honestly Ignoring Cover isn't so bad, but it's kinda lame they don't get a secondary bonus that actually matters.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Give them "units can't disengage" on top of rerolling charges. Done.

Maybe have it go off on a 4+. Otherwise it would be incredibly potent. Not broken, but most other Chapters would need a boost or two to catch up. That might bring Non-UM Space Marines to a level closer to UM power level. Not remotely on IG level though.

No. No rolls. Screw gunlines. They need a counter.

Regarding Iron Hands, I think a cool secondary mechanic with the 6+++ would be ignoring penalties with their heavy weapons from moving.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Salamanders, Iron Hands and Ultramarines certainly wouldn't need boosts, and White Scars need help regardless. That leaves Imperial Fists, who arguably also need help anyway.

Ignore cover comes up enough that that part is good.

Its the second part that is so flippin situational that makes it garbage.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly Ignoring Cover isn't so bad, but it's kinda lame they don't get a secondary bonus that actually matters.

It's a bit underwhelming for me purely because once your opponent knows you're playing IF, they won't even restrict themselves on cover beyond LOS. Normally, cover would limit your movement or positioning, but when it has no actual effect, they just deploy out of it anyway.

If it was something like +1 to wound in cover, that would be good, perhaps, maybe too good.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly Ignoring Cover isn't so bad, but it's kinda lame they don't get a secondary bonus that actually matters.

It's a bit underwhelming for me purely because once your opponent knows you're playing IF, they won't even restrict themselves on cover beyond LOS. Normally, cover would limit your movement or positioning, but when it has no actual effect, they just deploy out of it anyway.

If it was something like +1 to wound in cover, that would be good, perhaps, maybe too good.

+1 to wound in cover doesnt make that much sense though. its not like shooting some one behind plywood suddenly makes the bullet harder... or something.

i think i would of rather preferred bolter drill to be the standard CT with ignore cover for "urban fighting" to be a strat.

I had a suggestion earlier in the thread but I think it got overlooked. Do you guys mind me reposting it?

Marksman224 wrote:
I would like to suggest another idea for Chapter Tactics:
Any infantry unit or dreadnought can reroll failed charge rolls. Also any model that carries a power sword, power axe or power maul gains +1 to its attacks characteristic.

What do you think guys? It's a sprinkling of extra close combat power that won't be too much for a chapter tactic when added to charge rerolls. I am also thinking of alternative ideas that add a bonus to chainswords instead, though I am not sure what it should be.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Did you just... Did you just say Chaos Daemons DON'T lack shooting prowess?

I run Nurgle daemons. I have the following units with guns:

Great Unclean Ones-Short range. Basically a pistol.
Daemon Princes-Warp Bolter. Basically an AP-1, D2 bolter.
Plague Drones-They have Assault 2 12" bolters, basically.
Soul Grinders-They actually have a decent amount of shooting, but are generally considered overcosted.

I have virtually no shooting.

And again, I have not said and I don't think anyone else have said that BT don't deserve a BUFF. It's just that your suggestion is way too strong.

Pretty sure there's more than just Nurgle in the book. Or does trying to play an army as a purely melee army being a bad idea only apply to Marines?

I disagree with how Walrus is approaching fixing Black Templars but they are absolutely correct on this post.

I want to play Nurgle. Walrus wants to play BT. I don't see much difference in that.

It's sort of like saying "I play Grey Knights, and am struggling with long-range anti-vehicle". A good answer is "Ally in guardsmen", but then that's not GK.

Marksman224 wrote:
I had a suggestion earlier in the thread but I think it got overlooked. Do you guys mind me reposting it?

Marksman224 wrote:
I would like to suggest another idea for Chapter Tactics:
Any infantry unit or dreadnought can reroll failed charge rolls. Also any model that carries a power sword, power axe or power maul gains +1 to its attacks characteristic.

What do you think guys? It's a sprinkling of extra close combat power that won't be too much for a chapter tactic when added to charge rerolls. I am also thinking of alternative ideas that add a bonus to chainswords instead, though I am not sure what it should be.

It's a nice idea and makes Vanguard cooler. However, what if I buy two Power Weapons? Do you get a bonus for using two fists?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Marksman224 wrote:
I had a suggestion earlier in the thread but I think it got overlooked. Do you guys mind me reposting it?

Marksman224 wrote:
I would like to suggest another idea for Chapter Tactics:
Any infantry unit or dreadnought can reroll failed charge rolls. Also any model that carries a power sword, power axe or power maul gains +1 to its attacks characteristic.

What do you think guys? It's a sprinkling of extra close combat power that won't be too much for a chapter tactic when added to charge rerolls. I am also thinking of alternative ideas that add a bonus to chainswords instead, though I am not sure what it should be.

It's a nice idea and makes Vanguard cooler. However, what if I buy two Power Weapons? Do you get a bonus for using two fists?

You most certainly must should due to Rule of Cool.

As I have written it it wouldn't give a bonus for two close combat weapons. I gues it could be made clearer. I didn't include powerfists at all because I thought it might be too much, and it wouldn't apply to unique weapons either.

I'd also like to point out that the assertion that Black Templars isn't supposed to be a melee army is crazy. The last three Codices have pushed melee units (to a varying degree of success). Our chapter tactic buffs melee (if poorly). We have five special units of which four are geared for close combat and the fifth is Cenobyte Servitors that are meant to buff units for CC but technically works against shooting. Just because all of these that aren't Helbrecht are of questionable value at best doesn't mean BT weren't designed to be a melee army; it just means GW is awful at making rules.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd also like to point out that the assertion that Black Templars isn't supposed to be a melee army is crazy. The last three Codices have pushed melee units (to a varying degree of success). Our chapter tactic buffs melee (if poorly). We have five special units of which four are geared for close combat and the fifth is Cenobyte Servitors that are meant to buff units for CC but technically works against shooting. Just because all of these that aren't Helbrecht are of questionable value at best doesn't mean BT weren't designed to be a melee army; it just means GW is awful at making rules.

The problem with balancing marines, or any imperial army really, is that they can easily ally with other forces. They aren't locked to their codex. You can take a detachment of BT along with another of UM and another IG detachment, if you wish. When considering the most competitive builds GW has made a mess for themselves really because imperial players are granted so much flexibility and this is incredible difficult to balance properly.

Now you can't have the strongest melee units in the game, along with (arguably) the strongest gun line in the game and that to be balanced. The melee units you cite; daemons, Orks, Genestealers etc have no real shooting to speak of. This isn't true of BT units that have BS 3 or 2+ across the board. You're going to pay for that characteristic so you are nerfing yourself if you don't use it. The same can be said of ork Lootas that traditionally are overpriced because you pay for an Orks' close combat potential on a unit that won't use it. If I started a thread that said Orks needed much better shooting (because all other armies have better shooting) and proposed no changes to compensate I don't think you'd find it balanced. That's what you keep doing here.

You're also discussing this like BT are a melee only force, which isn't true from what I've read of the fluff. They're melee centric but they use ranged weapons just like any other marine. They are flexible and use what they need to use to kill the enemy (from my understanding).

Im not saying you're completely wrong by the way. I think BT lack punch in melee and a way to deal with psykers effectively. I think a change in auras for characters and an inherent defence against psychic abilities would be more beneficial, balanced and interesting.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


You're also discussing this like BT are a melee only force, which isn't true from what I've read of the fluff. They're melee centric but they use ranged weapons just like any other marine. They are flexible and use what they need to use to kill the enemy (from my understanding).

There are no melee only forces in the fluff. Even Khorne's followers have copious amounts of guns. Plus, even in-game, Chaos Demons have some spectacular shooting options, Tyranids have good shooting options. Orks don't, which has been a problem for the Codex since 5th edition at least.

Marines also don't have access to the strongest gunline in the game because the strongest gunline in the game is made worse by including Marines, meaning it's no longer the strongest by definition.

Just to illustrate how ridiculously bad the melee units are, 10 double-Chainsword Vanguard Veterans that get the charge on 30 Ork Boyz lose. This is the supposedly "good" melee unit. 5 Lightning Claw Terminators, costing more than the 30 Boyz, lose even while charging. There is not a single unit in the Space Marine Codex that outfights an equivalent cost in Boyz when the Boyz get charged. For reference, 10 World Eaters Khorne Berzerkers, equivalent in points assuming Chainaxes and an Icon, kill the 30 Boyz before the Boyz even swing. This from a Codex with pretty decent shooting options.

Even then, assuming each option is balanced with others, why can't you have the best shooting units and the best melee units in the same Codex? It becomes problematic if you can have both at the same time in one list, but if you take more melee units you're taking less shooting, and vice versa. I'll illustrate with an example:

Let's say we have three armies: The Imperial Boots, the Facemelters, and the Space Pirates. The Facemelters have strong shooting units and weak melee units, the Space Pirates have strong melee units and weak shooting units, and the Imperial Boots have both strong melee units and strong shooting units.

In a Facemelters vs. Space Pirates matchup it becomes a shooting vs. melee contest, where the Facemelters try to shoot enough of the Space Pirates to pieces before their superior melee units can get to grips with them. A straightforward shooting vs. melee matchup.

In a Facemelters vs. Imperial Boots matchup it becomes a shooting vs. melee contest, where the Facemelters try to shoot enough of the Imperial Boots to pieces before their superior melee units can get to grips with them. If this sentence looks almost identical to the above it's because it is. It doesn't matter that the Imperial boots have as good shooting and better melee as long as they don't have all of it at once.

In a Space Pirates vs. Imperial Boots matchup it becomes a shooting vs. melee contest, where the Imperial Boots try to shoot enough of the Space Pirates to pieces before their superior melee units can get to grips with them. Are you seeing the trend yet?

There's also the possibility that the Imperial Boots could go full shooting or full melee, in which case the melee vs. melee matchup is a fair one and the shooting vs. shooting matchup also is balanced, while the shooting vs. melee matchup becomes the same as mentioned above.

This would of course mean that Imperial Boots would be more flexible at an army construction level than Space Pirates or Facemelters, but balance-wise it'd work perfectly fine. As long as all three armies played in an interesting and unique manner it'd hardly be unfair.

The only thing you're accomplishing through refusing to give Space Marines competent melee units is that the melee units in the book aren't seen in competetive play. As long as you don't have a unit that can simultaneously match the best shooting units in the game and fight the best melee units (like Wraithknights in 7th or Riptides in 6th) the book isn't broken, because when you increase your list's melee power you're going to be losing out in shooting to someone that specializes in shooting and vice versa.

Martel732 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Give them "units can't disengage" on top of rerolling charges. Done.

Maybe have it go off on a 4+. Otherwise it would be incredibly potent. Not broken, but most other Chapters would need a boost or two to catch up. That might bring Non-UM Space Marines to a level closer to UM power level. Not remotely on IG level though.

No. No rolls. Screw gunlines. They need a counter.

Eh, even with it being automatic, it still wouldn't be broken because you have to charge into the gunline to even get it to work. I could see that being pretty decent for Black Templars.

My way of fixing Imperial Fists is to give them Grim Resolve instead of Siege Masters. It is much more fitting. The other thing I came up with if they HAD to be different was to have them Ignore ANY penalties to shooting if they remain stationary. Zoanthrope? No problem. Alaitoc? Oh, you have a Flyer? Now you don't!

That would be in addition to Ignore Cover. Basically, Imperial Fists would be the steadiest shooters in the Galaxy.

Listen man, if you're going to reply to a tiny sliver of my point and nothing else I can't be bothered to have this discussion with you. You have clearly made up your mind and unless you get what you want there is no decent solution as far as you're concerned.

why can't you have the best shooting units and the best melee units in the same Codex? It becomes problematic if you can have both at the same time in one list, but if you take more melee units you're taking less shooting, and vice versa. I'll illustrate with an example:

This example is totally bogus. Totally. If one force can take BOTH the most points efficient melee unit in the game AND the most points efficient shooty unit in the game, all things equal, there is massive imbalance and that force will always win. If your shooting units (that are the most efficient in the game) out shoot any other shooting unit and your melee units out melee anything else in the game, how on earth is that balanced? It just means you can take any mix of melee to shooting units and will always win (all things equal). How are you not getting this?

I'm really struggling with your argument here; "30 [Slugga] Boyz will always beat Vanguard Vets even if they charge!!!!111one". Y'know what the solution is then? Don't charge the fething Boyz! Shoot them. Engage with other units and use your Vanguards for a target that maybe they are better suited to kill? Focus fire the Boyz until they're less than 20 models so now you beat them in combat. You are complaining that an extremely efficient melee specialist unit (in an index that has nothing else to offer in terms of efficiency, has virtually no viable shooting options and is extremely one dimensional) is beating an expensive, more general unit, in a vacuum, not considering any tactics, terrain etc? Yea, it'll do that.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
[spoiler]
Listen man, if you're going to reply to a tiny sliver of my point and nothing else I can't be bothered to have this discussion with you. You have clearly made up your mind and unless you get what you want there is no decent solution as far as you're concerned.

What part of the quoted post did I not adress? Also, considering I've put several suggestions forward (without replies at times, funnily enough) and outright said other people's suggestions would work well enough your last sentence is demonstrably not true.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

why can't you have the best shooting units and the best melee units in the same Codex? It becomes problematic if you can have both at the same time in one list, but if you take more melee units you're taking less shooting, and vice versa. I'll illustrate with an example:

This example is totally bogus. Totally. If one force can take BOTH the most points efficient melee unit in the game AND the most points efficient shooty unit in the game, all things equal, there is massive imbalance and that force will always win. If your shooting units (that are the most efficient in the game) out shoot any other shooting unit and your melee units out melee anything else in the game, how on earth is that balanced? It just means you can take any mix of melee to shooting units and will always win (all things equal). How are you not getting this?

You do what you yourself pointed out you should do: you shoot the melee units with your shooting units that are better at shooting than the melee units are and you melee the shooting units with your melee unit that are better at melee than they are. It only gets broken if the same unit dominates in both melee and shooting at the same time leaving the army with no weakness to exploit.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I'm really struggling with your argument here; "30 [Slugga] Boyz will always beat Vanguard Vets even if they charge!!!!111one". Y'know what the solution is then? Don't charge the fething Boyz! Shoot them. Engage with other units and use your Vanguards for a target that maybe they are better suited to kill? Focus fire the Boyz until they're less than 20 models so now you beat them in combat. You are complaining that an extremely efficient melee specialist unit (in an index that has nothing else to offer in terms of efficiency, has virtually no viable shooting options and is extremely one dimensional) is beating an expensive, more general unit, in a vacuum, not considering any tactics, terrain etc? Yea, it'll do that.

How are double-chainsword Vanguard Veterans (or Vanguard Veterans in general) "more general" than Boyz? One is a melee Troops unit, one's supposed to be an elite CC choice. I'm using Boyz as an example because Orks AREN'T the most powerful melee faction at the moment, and because they're the sort of target high-volume low-S melee attacks is supposed to be good against.

"Just shoot them and then finish them off in melee" inevitably leads to the conclusion that you should just shoot them and not even bother getting close, because the melee options are bad. Which is the entire point; there's really no point in taking the melee units because the shooting ones are better. When your melee units are dead weight against armies with any sort of competent melee units, why would you take them when your shooting units would just be better against both shooting and melee units anyway?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You do what you yourself pointed out you should do: you shoot the melee units with your shooting units that are better at shooting than the melee units are and you melee the shooting units with your melee unit that are better at melee than they are. It only gets broken if the same unit dominates in both melee and shooting at the same time leaving the army with no weakness to exploit.

That is what you should do; however your opponent will do exactly the same as it is the optimum strategy, and since his shooting is better than yours and his melee is better than yours he will do it better.

Marksman224 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You do what you yourself pointed out you should do: you shoot the melee units with your shooting units that are better at shooting than the melee units are and you melee the shooting units with your melee unit that are better at melee than they are. It only gets broken if the same unit dominates in both melee and shooting at the same time leaving the army with no weakness to exploit.

That is what you should do; however your opponent will do exactly the same as it is the optimum strategy, and since his shooting is better than yours and his melee is better than yours he will do it better.

But it he's taking predominantly melee units his shooting won't be better than yours because he's spending on melee units, and if he takes predominantly shooting units his melee won't be better, since he's spending predominantly om shooting units, and if he takes a bit of both you can still leverage the fact that he's not the strongest in any one field.