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.

Something which strikes me as a bit lame, and odd, is that veteran space marines (I'm encompessing terminators, sternguard & vanguard in that categorisation) are not even a mite better at shooting than the "regular" marines. Ok so they have access to better guns and wargear, but they're not even a little bit better at shooting them? I say "odd" considering they are dramatically better in close combat with 1 additional attack. I wonder what the reasoning for this is? I'd sooner they were WS5 BS5. even if it meant losing the additional attack, or had a significant rise in points.

One balance issue I can see is that if they were BS5, it would only be logical to give minimal special weapons to the regulars, and give the maximum amount of meltas and plasmas to the vets. But they were WS5 BS5 in 2nd edition and I dont remember them being broken or anything.

Jeez, just looking at honour guard here, and still the same BS4....what does a rank and file marine have to do to increase his skill? Become company champion it seems...oh no wait, scratch that he's BS4 as well!

Thoughts?

Maybe it's so that Veteran Sergeants in Tac Squads don't have a different BS than his Squad Mates? Idk. I think SM in general are understatted.

Lots of people ask this question, or change it in their house rules. I think it is not the problem you think it is.

The veterans are marines who are the most heroic and experienced. They are not the most skilled.

For players, two attacks mean "good in combat," but it doesn't represent skill. For example, guard sergeants can have two attacks, but they are still the same ws3 as the rest of their unit.

You get more attacks when your actions are more important. A grunt soldier is a piece in a machine, he is part of a huge combined effort and he is told what to do by people who are told what to do by yet more people.

You get more attacks when you are counted on more. The point of a marine "veteran squad" is that marine deployments are already small so they can't afford for any of the parts to be in the wrong place. That's why they have a2 and ld9.

I would actually prefer them to have bs4 than bs5, because if I send them to do a job I want to know how much I can rely on them. That is, if a unit has bs5, then I'm going to have fewer contingencies for them failing and it is a bigger problem when they do let me down.

Why don't you have a bigger complaint? Are you telling me that it makes sense to have 104 marines in a company, and none of them are better at shooting than the captain is?

I think, realistically, that out of all the normal battle brothers in a normal company, 60 - 70 % of the squads would have 1 - 2 members that have bs5 or better, and 1 - 2 that have ws5.

Of course, there is no point in writing rules for this.

The point of saying this is that if a marine chapter wanted, it could gather all the bs5 marines in a company together into one unit, tell them they are elite, and get a unit very like imperial guard veteran squads.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Lots of people ask this question, or change it in their house rules. I think it is not the problem you think it is.

The veterans are marines who are the most heroic and experienced. They are not the most skilled.

I follow most of your logic, but I'd argue that skill is strongly related to experience. Marines are WS4 BS4 compared to neophytes WS3 BS3. What is that improvement of 1 WS/BS down to, if not training and battlefield expereince? Also from what I recall, (its been a while since I read the fluff so correct me if I'm wrong) generally the majority of marines don't survive long enough to become veterans, so those that do would generally have been the members of a squad that were skilled enough to overcome encounters that their battle brothers did not.

I don't find the vet's stats so much a problem, as an inconsistency. Most other armies have elites (and I use "elites" in the broad meanign of the word, not strictly elites in realtion to the FOC) that are better shooters than he rank and file. They used to be +1 WS BS, back in 2nd ed. Ultimately my issue is that I find sm vets statlines boring, compared to the elites of other races, and not reflective of what they should be. I'd gladly shell out more points for a unit that's reflective of its true capabilities, becasue I'd find them more fun to play with.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Maybe it's so that Veteran Sergeants in Tac Squads don't have a different BS than his Squad Mates? Idk. I think SM in general are understatted.

They are indeed. I read a thread on this recently, and the guys reckoned If you were to stat them from what you read in th novels they'd be Toughness 5 save 2+ on a D10 and bolters would insta-kill anythign man-sized that they hit. Of course if they were like that on the tabletop, they'd be about 120 points each and you'd need about thirty orks to fight every marine!

Also from what I recall, (its been a while since I read the fluff so correct me if I'm wrong) generally the majority of marines don't survive long enough to become veterans, so those that do would generally have been the members of a squad that were skilled enough to overcome encounters that their battle brothers did not.
....
I'd gladly shell out more points for a unit that's reflective of its true capabilities, becasue I'd find them more fun to play with.

Not so much, I think. Space Marines almost all survive long enough, it is just that most of them never get chosen to be veterans. See Long Fangs - they are the oldest, most "veteran" space wolves in the company, but they have bs4 and one attack. Even though they are that old, they are not in the Wolf Guard, who have two attacks

The way you describe is how it works for Imperial Guard veterans though.

Another problem is that bs5 is not worth that much more. It means your bolters hit 25% more often, but they are still bolters. By comparison, hellfire rounds give you 50% more wounds, and s4 -> s5 gives you 33% more wounds against t4 and allows wounds on t8 creatures, which s4 does not.


Eh.

Codex veterans can have a special rule though:

Oaths of Moment: In the shooting phase, this unit may nominate one of its models to reroll all failed rolls to hit, wound, and penetrate for the rest of the turn.




-----

They used to be +1 WS BS, back in 2nd ed. Ultimately my issue is that I find sm vets statlines boring, compared to the elites of other races, and not reflective of what they should be.
....
I read a thread on this recently, and the guys reckoned If you were to stat them from what you read in th novels they'd be Toughness 5 save 2+ on a D10 and bolters would insta-kill anythign man-sized that they hit. Of course if they were like that on the tabletop, they'd be about 120 points each and you'd need about thirty orks to fight every marine!

They don't have to be expensive to be powerful.

Tau fire warriors go to ws1, shas'ui and up remain ws 2, 3, etc

Guardsmen go to ws2, veterans and storm troopers remain ws3 officers remain ws4.

Ork Boyz go to ws3, Nobs remain ws4.

Guardians go to ws3, aspects remain ws4.

Hormagaunts, termagants ws3, genestealers ws4.

Space Marines remain ws4, non-sergeant characters ws5.

Orks lose 6+ armor.

Orks gain fnp 6+, Space Marines gain fnp 5+. Dark Eldar are fnp 6+ without pain tokens. Chain blades ignore fnp.

Power Armor goes to 4+, with a +1 to all rolls to save.

Artificer armor goes to 3+, chaos armor 3+/6++

Power Armor, TDA, artificer armor give +1 shots to all weapons s4 and less except blast and template.

heavy aspect armor, crisis suits, etc unaffected.

Basic Space Marine trooper at 18 points. Sternguard with no special ammo at 23, + access to cc armory and have Oaths of moment.

ATSKNF is "always rally," no other rules.

pelicaniforce wrote:

Another problem is that bs5 is not worth that much more. It means your bolters hit 25% more often, but they are still bolters. By comparison, hellfire rounds give you 50% more wounds, and s4 -> s5 gives you 33% more wounds against t4 and allows wounds on t8 creatures, which s4 does not.

Oaths of Moment: In the shooting phase, this unit may nominate one of its models to reroll all failed rolls to hit, wound, and penetrate for the rest of the turn.

Fair point about the hellfire rounds.

Admittedly I didn't know about the codex veterans rule, as i play wolves. That's actually a pretty good rule.

Some interesting rule suggestions on that list, though tbh I've long since accepted that as an overall army, tabletop marines will always (by neccessity) be toned down versions of what we see in the novels.

oh. long fangs are old. wolf guard are elite and not always old.

ofc, some wolf guard are ws5. Some wolf guard are wolf guard battle leaders. You could infer that there are some codex veterans that have the same profiles as logan's kingsguard and as wolf guard battle leaders.

*I made that rule up.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

I don't find the vet's stats so much a problem, as an inconsistency. Most other armies have elites (and I use "elites" in the broad meanign of the word, not strictly elites in realtion to the FOC) that are better shooters than he rank and file. They used to be +1 WS BS, back in 2nd ed. Ultimately my issue is that I find sm vets statlines boring, compared to the elites of other races, and not reflective of what they should be. I'd gladly shell out more points for a unit that's reflective of its true capabilities, becasue I'd find them more fun to play with.

CSM Chosen compared to a CSM, +1 attack and +1 Ld
CSM terminators compared to CSM, +1 attack and +1 Ld
Purifiers over GKSS, +1 attack and +1Ld
DE Trueborn over Warriors, +1 attack and +1 Ld
DE Bloodbrides over Wyches, +1 attack and +1 Ld

yes they are boring, but the thing all these units have in common is that the base unit is already a rather elite soldier. it is difficult to become more elite.

Eldar Guardians and IG Infantry are not elite soliders, they guardians are not even professional. They are just called up in times of war, kind of like militia. The IG foot soliders are professionals, but they have only a few years of service at best.

A space marine has already had decades of training. That is why there are scouts. They are already elite. it is hard to get much more elite.

 Exergy wrote:


yes they are boring, but the thing all these units have in common is that the base unit is already a rather elite soldier. it is difficult to become more elite.

Eldar Guardians and IG Infantry are not elite soliders, they guardians are not even professional. They are just called up in times of war, kind of like militia. The IG foot soliders are professionals, but they have only a few years of service at best.

A space marine has already had decades of training. That is why there are scouts. They are already elite. it is hard to get much more elite.

Fair point