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.

 Nazrak wrote:
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.

Imo you could probably grant a full +1 CP per full 10 man tac, assault, dev, bike, or veteran squad in the list and it still wouldn't break the game. It'd only end up being 3-4 CP difference in most lists.

 Nazrak wrote:
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.

Doubling their melee/shooting effectiveness for free (or worse for a cheaper cost) is indeed bad balancing and we're already seen this with Leman Russes

 Nazrak wrote:
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.

1) We already have that. They are called vanguard veterans.

2) Yes there is a cool name you could give this: Rapid fire 2.

3) That is a pretty terrible rule. Essentially you could take a brigade with min-squads of scouts, some termies, some min-squads of scout bikes, three vindicators, and gain 18 CP's without a single Tactical, Assault or Devastator model in your list. It is not at all hard to get lots of CP's with Space Marines. A minimum batallion is what? 350-400 points?

But more importantly, all the suggestions of increasing the AP of bolters, giving marines +1 A, and boosting the durability of tacticals, those suggestions are ALREADY IMPLEMENTED THE GAME. They are called Intercessors. Intercessors are essentially tacticals with +1 A, +1W, and AP -1. And at 18 points they work pretty well. This is what tacticals should be: Intercessors.

pismakron wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
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.

1) We already have that. They are called vanguard veterans.

2) Yes there is a cool name you could give this: Rapid fire 2.

3) That is a pretty terrible rule. Essentially you could take a brigade with min-squads of scouts, some termies, some min-squads of scout bikes, three vindicators, and gain 18 CP's without a single Tactical, Assault or Devastator model in your list. It is not at all hard to get lots of CP's with Space Marines. A minimum batallion is what? 350-400 points?

But more importantly, all the suggestions of increasing the AP of bolters, giving marines +1 A, and boosting the durability of tacticals, those suggestions are ALREADY IMPLEMENTED THE GAME. They are called Intercessors. Intercessors are essentially tacticals with +1 A, +1W, and AP -1. And at 18 points they work pretty well. This is what tacticals should be: Intercessors.

1) VVs would also get +1A. Makes them better than Assault Marines (probably not egregiously overpowered though), but also makes Assault Marines less useless.

2) Not quite; 1 additional shot would give, say, bolters 2 shots at 12-24", 3 in RF range. It's slightly less extreme than full-on doubling the output of everything (which is apparently fine for Guardsmen with lasguns who are currently, point-for-point, marginally more effective than Marines with bolters against pretty much any infantry target, before you even factor in FRFSRF)

3) Sorry, maybe I didn't explain myself very well. You only get this if you actually HAVE the Tac/Dev/Ass squads in the Detachment. Maybe extend it to Scouts too, to avoid single max- squad shenanigans? Then you'd be very hard pressed to get the bonus in a Brigade. A minimum Guard Battalion is what, 180pts? Which gets you a gakload of cheap bodies AND 3CPs, then you can just cherry-pick whatever Marine units you like. I was trying to suggest an incentive to actually use basic Marine units over going the soupy route.

As for your point about Intercessors, I don't necessarily disagree, but it's kind of tangential to this discussion – "use Primaris guys instead" doesn't fix any issues with "Proper" Marines. If you're happy using Primaris stuff, then you don't have a problem, but for people who want to kick it old-school, it's not really a solution, any more than saying "well Tactical Marines aren't so hot, so why not just use Guardsmen instead?"

 Nazrak wrote:

As for your point about Intercessors, I don't necessarily disagree, but it's kind of tangential to this discussion – "use Primaris guys instead" doesn't fix any issues with "Proper" Marines. If you're happy using Primaris stuff, then you don't have a problem, but for people who want to kick it old-school, it's not really a solution, any more than saying "well Tactical Marines aren't so hot, so why not just use Guardsmen instead?"

I am not suggesting that you should use intercessors, after all we are discussing rule changes here. What I am suggesting is that Tactical Marines should have the statline of Intercessors, and that there are no reason to even make a distinction between Tacticals and Intercessors rules-wise. Veterans, Assault Marines, and Devastators can be given the same treatment: +1A,+1W, +5 ppm, and bolters have 30" range and AP-1. Voila.

pismakron wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

As for your point about Intercessors, I don't necessarily disagree, but it's kind of tangential to this discussion – "use Primaris guys instead" doesn't fix any issues with "Proper" Marines. If you're happy using Primaris stuff, then you don't have a problem, but for people who want to kick it old-school, it's not really a solution, any more than saying "well Tactical Marines aren't so hot, so why not just use Guardsmen instead?"

I am not suggesting that you should use intercessors, after all we are discussing rule changes here. What I am suggesting is that Tactical Marines should have the statline of Intercessors, and that there are no reason to even make a distinction between Tacticals and Intercessors rules-wise. Veterans, Assault Marines, and Devastators can be given the same treatment: +1A,+1W, +5 ppm, and bolters have 30" range and AP-1. Voila.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood the thrust of what you were getting at. Personally, I wouldn't have a huge problem with this, although I can see the desire to distinguish the Primaris lads from the regular ones (and the new Bolt weapons from the basic kind). Definitely in favour of at least +1 attack for the regular dudes though.

Are Intercessors any good though?

The basic problem with 40k - and I know some argue otherwise - is that the generalist position doesnt exist. You are either good at something or not. Intercessors 2 attacks for their points does not make them good in melee. It doesnt even make them adequate.

Yes you can argue niche cases of tying up predators with two marines, but... it doesnt happen. Or at least I can't remember it happening.

In reality your marines are going to end up in assault either with something nasty (blobs of boys, stealers, zerkers etc) that will handilly kill them - or in a pillow fight with something costing a fraction of their points (most bubblewrap/chaff units). Which is probably what your opponent wants.

Primaris should have just been an aesthetic upgrade to astartes models. Id have been fine with GW upping the ante on marines and giving them primaris stat lines. Definately would have felt much like marines. The fact GW chose instead to seperate them entirely and create a completely new army is one big dropped ball.
I hate space marines as much as the next guy whose sick of having them shoved down his throat, but i can sympathise with the marine players on this.

Im genuinely curious to see how the above proposal of +1 A and W at +5ppm would fare. Id probably be convinced to try that against an opponent i know and like. Not so much a stranger but thats probably due to an ingrained attitude of 'gw didnt make it that way so no' mindset.

Tyel wrote:
Are Intercessors any good though?

The basic problem with 40k - and I know some argue otherwise - is that the generalist position doesnt exist. You are either good at something or not. Intercessors 2 attacks for their points does not make them good in melee. It doesnt even make them adequate.

Yes you can argue niche cases of tying up predators with two marines, but... it doesnt happen. Or at least I can't remember it happening.

In reality your marines are going to end up in assault either with something nasty (blobs of boys, stealers, zerkers etc) that will handilly kill them - or in a pillow fight with something costing a fraction of their points (most bubblewrap/chaff units). Which is probably what your opponent wants.

Intercessors are pretty good at 18 ppm. Their biggest flaw is that they fold like wet paper to overcharged plasma. But that is a flaw intercessors share with pretty much all heavy infantry. And this can only be fixed by nerfing plasma.

And Intercessors are definitely better in close combat than most other shooty infantry in the game. They will not hold up against Boyz, Stealers and Bezerkers (if they could they would be broken) but it gives them the option of assaulting deep-striking scions, termagants with fleshborers, many types of shooty infantry in rapid-fire range, etc. It is the same reason that scouts with chainswords and pistols works so well.

But more importantly: Intercessors are the result of people at GW having the very same conversation as we are having here: What can we do to fix the basic space marine.

And they ended up giving them +1A,+1W, and some extra dakka. All very sensible solutions. And then entered some executive type that decreed, that all of GW's biggest selling model-lines should be re-released under more easily trade-markable names. And Primaris Marines were born.

The suggested "Codex Adherent" rule also farts all over Black Templars and any others Chapter that AREN'T Codex adherent. It also doesn't change that much because the Vanilla stratagems are pretty mediocre; you'd take a bunch of sub-optimal choices to get more mediocre abilities. Yawn.

Everything being mediocre is fine, even necessary in a game where list building is as free as 8th.

Honestly, the amount of people here that don't even understand thier own suggestions is staggering.

Yes, lets make all bolters -1 AP, or rapid fire 2. simple change to 1 gun.
Oh, wait. now we make SoB broken, all primarisrubric, sternguard and other "elite marine gun" are pointless and overpriced-unless they get an equal change and then they are broken as hell, the entire SM armory is overpriced compared to the bolter so you'll never take special/heavy weapons any more, etc.

You CANT change the most basic gun in the game without breaking half of it. the more things an item is connected to, the greater the ripple that any change to it creates-and the bolter is connected to a LOT of things.

Oh, so lets change the tactical marine statline to have +1 <stat> whatever.
Yea, now you gotta compare all other marine units in the game. like zerkers, or rubrics, or sternguard, terminators, GK, etc. you can bet your ass SOME of these will break the game, no matter what edit you did to basic marine stats.


If you want to change the marine STATS, or base weapons, you need to redesign half the units in the game, because they are all connected.

Your only option to have an "easy fix", is with points. and honestly its not that hard. marines units are already mostly viable, even if not top tier. most marine units can get a 1-2 point drop and that's ENOUGH. any more than this and you'll end up in the reverse scenario where marines are being horded and overly dominant, just like we have with base guard today.

You could also change it with special rules. Objective Secured for troops is an example, but you could also have some other rule added (since Objective Secured is a bit derp), such as:

"Chapter Core: A Chapter's tactical squads are made up from Marines that have completed the Chapter's training wholesale, and represent the real meat of a Chapter's philosophy regarding combat. Tactical Squads and models in them have the following effects:" and then just list the chapter tactics with double effect, so Raven Guard Tactical Marines (and only Tactical Marines) are -2 to hit, Iron Hands Tactical Marines (and only Tactical Marines) are 5+ FNP, Imperial Fists Tactical Squads and only Tactical Squads get to apply their anti-building bonus to vehicles, Ultramarines Tactical Squads and only Tactical Squads can fall back and shoot without the -1 BS.

The "special marines" like Black Templars could instead apply the bonus to their respective squads (e.g. BA Tactical Marines and only Tactical Marines add +2 to their To Wound rolls, while Black Templars Crusader Squads could add an extra D6 to their charge-roll and pick the two highest while still allowing re-rolls, or whatever).

I dunno. Something like that, if that makes sense. It would take a bit of balancing, and you'd essentially have to write a separate, more powerful Chapter Tactic that applied to Tactical Squads alone.

Another example might be "Chapter Synergy: For each Tactical Squad on the board, you may apply Chapter Tactics to a unit that would not nomally benefit (such as a Predator tank, etc)."

That one's a bit naff, because units should probably have it any ways (and my name for it is stupid) but *shrug* IDEAS!

That makes little sense when looking at the Elites though. Why are Crusader Squads better than Sword Brethren (Vanguard and Sternguard) at charging stuff?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That makes little sense when looking at the Elites though. Why are Crusader Squads better than Sword Brethren (Vanguard and Sternguard) at charging stuff?

Wait are we trying to make tactical marines usable or not?

The problem with Tactical Marines is that units like Vanguard and Sternguard exist. They're literally Tactical Marines +1. If you want to make Tacts better, you can't subsequently improve Vanguard or Sternguard to match, because then tacts are back to being worse than both of them.

Tactical marines need a niche or a role to play. If that niche is "I want to use my chapter tactics more" then you can't just dole it out everywhere now.

They are generslists. Tbat's the opposite of a niche.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Honestly, the amount of people here that don't even understand thier own suggestions is staggering.

Yes, lets make all bolters -1 AP, or rapid fire 2. simple change to 1 gun.
Oh, wait. now we make SoB broken, all primarisrubric, sternguard and other "elite marine gun" are pointless and overpriced-unless they get an equal change and then they are broken as hell, the entire SM armory is overpriced compared to the bolter so you'll never take special/heavy weapons any more, etc.

That is simply not true. We already have tactical marines with +1A, +1W, AP -1, and 30" range. They are called intercessors. Has intercessors broken anything? If every space marine player tomorrow decided to proxy their tacticals as intercessors, would the game be broken? I think not.

I agree with your other claim, that tacticals can be easily fixed by simply reducing their points to 11 ppm or thereabouts. That would be fine by me, but a lot of people wants their space marines to be tough-as-hell super soldiers.

Martel732 wrote:
They are generslists. Tbat's the opposite of a niche.

I disagree. Generalists can still have niches. I would hardly argue the Guard Squad, for example, is a specialist. They're awful at shooting (yes, barring orders) and awful at combat. They have the same WS and BS, the same strength on their gun and strength on their melee - they're really just Tactical Marines -1.

The difference is that they're cheap and therefore their niche is being cheap. You just have to give tactical marines a reason to exist, like my Chapter Core rule, that gives them a flexible niche (depending on your chapter tactic) that can range from durable (Iron Hands on a 5+) to tank-destroyers (Imperial Fists) to sneakier (Raven Guard) etc. etc.

Or just make them cheaper. Because 8th ed.

Martel732 wrote:
Or just make them cheaper. Because 8th ed.

Yes, you could do this, though I'm still not sure it's the right answer. If you make tactical marines in the same points range as scouts, people would still bitch because scouts still are better. The Tactical Marines get +1 armour save, but the scouts get greater weapon choices (close-combat/shotguns/boltguns), greater mobility / maneuverability (access to Storms), the better deployment rules (scout infiltrate) and are better screens (scout infiltrate again).

You could literally make tactical marines identical (statwise & pointswise) to scouts but with +1 save and I'm fairly certain the deployment options for scouts would make them the better choice.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I disagree. Generalists can still have niches. I would hardly argue the Guard Squad, for example, is a specialist. They're awful at shooting (yes, barring orders) and awful at combat. They have the same WS and BS, the same strength on their gun and strength on their melee - they're really just Tactical Marines -1.

The difference is that they're cheap and therefore their niche is being cheap. You just have to give tactical marines a reason to exist, like my Chapter Core rule, that gives them a flexible niche (depending on your chapter tactic) that can range from durable (Iron Hands on a 5+) to tank-destroyers (Imperial Fists) to sneakier (Raven Guard) etc. etc.

This isn't a very good way to think about specialization. You should always be thinking about everything relative to its cost. Infantry Squads are almost generalists if given heavy/special weapons, but naked they do two things very well -- they shoot infantry and they take hits. They have good anti-infantry shooting for their cost -- exceptional anti-infantry shooting with orders -- and are very hard to remove efficiently. They're almost entirely a shooting unit, getting twice as many shots as CC attacks and with FRFSRF giving them a huge reason to stay at range.

A better example of a really powerful generalist unit would be Shining Spears. They do everything pretty well. They're reasonably durable -- they don't benefit from cover but a 3-man squad is about as durable as equal points in tactical Marines against most shooting. They're reasonably good at shooting infantry -- they're only slightly worse than bolter Marines at killing GEQs at 12", and better at 6". They're pretty good at shooting tanks -- better than bolter Marines at 12" and much better at 6". And then on top of that they have very respectable CC on the charge and so-so CC otherwise, although they're nowhere near specialists like Genestealers. They have rules that let them leverage all of their advantages in every phase of every turn -- they move really, really fast to make up for their short range and have Fly to avoid getting locked into CC. You can't really point at a 3-man Spear squad and say "that's a shooting unit" or "that's a CC unit" or "that's an anti-tank unit" or "that's for killing screens" or "that's an objective holder". They can and often do do it all. They're probably a little cheap for what they offer, but they're overall a pretty well put-together unit and show how you can have generalists that are good and useful but don't necessarily outshine specialists.

As-is, Tactical Squads are okay for holding objectives in cover, and that's about it. Aside from Salamanders or Guilliman-buffed ones, which do have reasonable anti-tank firepower while they're camping in cover. Unfortunately this is not that valuable of a role -- unless your army is all CC you probably don't have that hard of a time keeping stuff back to hold objectives, and the Marines don't have a good way to get to the other objectives you'd like to hold.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I disagree. Generalists can still have niches. I would hardly argue the Guard Squad, for example, is a specialist. They're awful at shooting (yes, barring orders) and awful at combat. They have the same WS and BS, the same strength on their gun and strength on their melee - they're really just Tactical Marines -1.

The difference is that they're cheap and therefore their niche is being cheap. You just have to give tactical marines a reason to exist, like my Chapter Core rule, that gives them a flexible niche (depending on your chapter tactic) that can range from durable (Iron Hands on a 5+) to tank-destroyers (Imperial Fists) to sneakier (Raven Guard) etc. etc.

This isn't a very good way to think about specialization. You should always be thinking about everything relative to its cost. Infantry Squads are almost generalists if given heavy/special weapons, but naked they do two things very well -- they shoot infantry and they take hits. They have good anti-infantry shooting for their cost -- exceptional anti-infantry shooting with orders -- and are very hard to remove efficiently. They're almost entirely a shooting unit, getting twice as many shots as CC attacks and with FRFSRF giving them a huge reason to stay at range.

A better example of a really powerful generalist unit would be Shining Spears. They do everything pretty well. They're reasonably durable -- they don't benefit from cover but a 3-man squad is about as durable as equal points in tactical Marines against most shooting. They're reasonably good at shooting infantry -- they're only slightly worse than bolter Marines at killing GEQs at 12", and better at 6". They're pretty good at shooting tanks -- better than bolter Marines at 12" and much better at 6". And then on top of that they have very respectable CC on the charge and so-so CC otherwise, although they're nowhere near specialists like Genestealers. They have rules that let them leverage all of their advantages in every phase of every turn -- they move really, really fast to make up for their short range and have Fly to avoid getting locked into CC. You can't really point at a 3-man Spear squad and say "that's a shooting unit" or "that's a CC unit" or "that's an anti-tank unit" or "that's for killing screens" or "that's an objective holder". They can and often do do it all. They're probably a little cheap for what they offer, but they're overall a pretty well put-together unit and show how you can have generalists that are good and useful but don't necessarily outshine specialists.

As-is, Tactical Squads are okay for holding objectives in cover, and that's about it. Aside from Salamanders or Guilliman-buffed ones, which do have reasonable anti-tank firepower while they're camping in cover. Unfortunately this is not that valuable of a role -- unless your army is all CC you probably don't have that hard of a time keeping stuff back to hold objectives, and the Marines don't have a good way to get to the other objectives you'd like to hold.

Shining spears are mobility specialists, because you can point to them and say "this unit is fast". I would not call them 'generalist' in the way that either Imperial Guard Infantry Squads are generalists or Tactical Squads are generalist. A lot of what they do, they do well because they move fast. Would they be good in CC if they moved 6" a turn with no FLY or other deployment options? They're clearly a mobility specialist.

Pointing to a specialist and saying "I want my tactical marines to be like that" while explicitly pointing out that their mobility compensates for things like their short-ranged guns is why people make fun of Marine players. Of course if Tactical Marines moved 14" a turn (and had Fly) they'd be a lot better...

as for Guard, they don't really shoot infantry that well. They might do it "efficiently" because they're so cheap, but they're hardly "specialist anti-infantry" units. I think their niche is being good at screening, and that's about it. Orders do improve their performance, yes, but are not without points or opportunity costs of their own, so while they do contribute to making the Guard generalist into a specialist, they also pay a bit more for it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That makes little sense when looking at the Elites though. Why are Crusader Squads better than Sword Brethren (Vanguard and Sternguard) at charging stuff?

Wait are we trying to make tactical marines usable or not?

The problem with Tactical Marines is that units like Vanguard and Sternguard exist. They're literally Tactical Marines +1. If you want to make Tacts better, you can't subsequently improve Vanguard or Sternguard to match, because then tacts are back to being worse than both of them.

Tactical marines need a niche or a role to play. If that niche is "I want to use my chapter tactics more" then you can't just dole it out everywhere now.

Or we just implement the changes I propose and make them worth the points you pay instead of rules that don't make any sense (because the Iron Hands Tactical Marine should be more durable?) or making them cheaper (Marines aren't supposed to be a Horde army...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Honestly, the amount of people here that don't even understand thier own suggestions is staggering.

Yes, lets make all bolters -1 AP, or rapid fire 2. simple change to 1 gun.
Oh, wait. now we make SoB broken, all primarisrubric, sternguard and other "elite marine gun" are pointless and overpriced-unless they get an equal change and then they are broken as hell, the entire SM armory is overpriced compared to the bolter so you'll never take special/heavy weapons any more, etc.

You CANT change the most basic gun in the game without breaking half of it. the more things an item is connected to, the greater the ripple that any change to it creates-and the bolter is connected to a LOT of things.

Oh, so lets change the tactical marine statline to have +1 <stat> whatever.
Yea, now you gotta compare all other marine units in the game. like zerkers, or rubrics, or sternguard, terminators, GK, etc. you can bet your ass SOME of these will break the game, no matter what edit you did to basic marine stats.


If you want to change the marine STATS, or base weapons, you need to redesign half the units in the game, because they are all connected.

Your only option to have an "easy fix", is with points. and honestly its not that hard. marines units are already mostly viable, even if not top tier. most marine units can get a 1-2 point drop and that's ENOUGH. any more than this and you'll end up in the reverse scenario where marines are being horded and overly dominant, just like we have with base guard today.

Giving Bolt Weapons a special rule at minimum doesn't break the game whatsoever given Infantry already spam Lasguns at a rate that makes Bolters terrible, Shootas get the Assault rule and therefore have a niche, Shuriken Weapons have a decent proc, and Gauss gets just better penetration overall.

@Slayer-Fan

Your idea affects the whole game and doesn't really make Tactical Marines any better than scouts or Sororitas (since both of those can get Bolt Weapons for cheaper). Changing the boltgun changes the basic weapons for damn near every Imperial faction except Guard and Mechanicus, meaning that you're hardly making Tactical Marines better, you're just upping everything by that amount. If the problem is Tactical Marines, then buff Tactical Marines, don't buff Dominion squads and Inquisitorial Acolytes. I mean heck, your proposed rule would buff Chaos and I'm not really sure why that's desirable.

Re-organizing the tactical squad's weapon options, your other idea, makes sense and I would not be averse to trying it. I wouldn't even be averse to giving Tactical squads 2 specials in a 5-man like Scions.

Still leaves Crusader Squads gak outta luck though.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Still leaves Crusader Squads gak outta luck though.

Yeah. I went out of my way to include them in the Chapter Core idea.

I think the issue is just that Tactical Marines are supposed to be the core of the Space Marine chapter, while also being ultra elite badasses. I think it's impossible to reconcile the role of "line infantry" with the role of "elite badasses." People say Custodes do a good job of that, but really, I'm unimpressed. They simply don't have any line infantry at all, haha. They have good bikes, but their basic "troops" squad is kinda naff.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or just make them cheaper. Because 8th ed.

Yes, you could do this, though I'm still not sure it's the right answer. If you make tactical marines in the same points range as scouts, people would still bitch because scouts still are better. The Tactical Marines get +1 armour save, but the scouts get greater weapon choices (close-combat/shotguns/boltguns), greater mobility / maneuverability (access to Storms), the better deployment rules (scout infiltrate) and are better screens (scout infiltrate again).

You could literally make tactical marines identical (statwise & pointswise) to scouts but with +1 save and I'm fairly certain the deployment options for scouts would make them the better choice.

This.

You can literally make scouts and tac marines the same price and it STILL wouldn't break the game. Scouts are by far superior tactical choice than the actual "tactical" marines.

That's how bad tac marines are right now.

Step one at a minimum is make tac marines at least as survivable per point as guardsmen vs small arms.

Martel732 wrote:
Step one at a minimum is make tac marines at least as survivable per point as guardsmen vs small arms.

Weakest in-game guns need to be S2.

The designers failed to realize how lopsided the new wound system is whose chance at wounding is a logarithmic curve.

Well, they aren't.