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.
Also, putting the drop pod back to a reasonable price would help marines put all their stats to work as well.
Right grav chutes for reivers are 2pts a piece min 10 pts.
So basically the cost for 10 guys to deep strike is more or less 20 pts.
But then you gotta factor in the fact that it's a vehicle so there's some cost there. But the fact that it's stationary and can't attack back should count for something
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/10 21:59:18
35 pts is conservative. Given the way 8th works, their true value is 10 pts or less, imo. The best armies in the game completely turn off deep striking, and a drop pod basically just turns your marines into scouts in terms of deployment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/11 01:46:06
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah that would not be a bad idea had Tesla not existed. In the meantime I think my idea of a wound of 6+ causes the model to need to reroll successful saves would at least be unique.
I'm not denying that, it certainly would be unique. I'm just saying that it wouldn't fix the problem with marine infantry. A 10-man tactical squad would statistically cause 1 rerolled save at 24" range and 3 at 12" range. I'd still be looking at scouts at that point (who would presumably get the rule as well, having bolt weapons).
If you add it to my idea of better weapon saturation, it makes them a better TAC-tical unit (heh) without having to break anything. They have the stats of a 13-14 point model, but none of the wargear options that represent that.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
I mean, how hard would it be to just make all Marine Bolt Wealons just have one more shot?
Just change the Bolt weapon profiles to read:
Marine Bolter 24" S4 AP-0 Assault 2 Within 12" this weapon can fire one more shot
Marine Bolt Pistol 12" S4 AP-0 Pistol 2
Marine Storm Bolter 24" S4 AP-0 Assault 3 Within 12" this weapon can fire 2 additional shots
Marine Heavy Bolter 36" S5 AP-1 Heavy 4
Have it represented in the fluff with something like;
"The holy Bolt weaponry used across the Emperor's armies have proven themselves effective across the many battlefields of the galaxy. While they are sometimes used by members of the Astra Militarum, Bolt weapons truly shine when carried by the Emperor's finest warriors, the Adeptus Astartes, or as they are more commonly known, Space Marines. Larger of frame, and clad is suits of Power Armour, a Space Marine is capable of withstanding the harsh recoil of Bolt Weapons more efficiently than a normal human, allowing them to fire faster and more accurately."
And also give Assault Marines and additional attack on the charge, it would differentiate them from Vanguard Vets who would always have the extra attack, but to further make them different from Vanguard Vets: allow Vanguard Vets able to "deep strike" at 8" instead of 9".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit. Oh I forgot to mention I changed the Bolter and Storm Bolter to Assault as well, that could be represented in the fluff by saying that in their suits of Power Armour, it allows a Marine to better fire their Bolt weapons while on the move.
It could also help Tactical Marines be more flexible by allowing them to Advance towards an objective and still fire their Bolters, or the Bolter half of their Combi weapon. It isn't a huge benefit, but keeps them active in the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/11 05:44:44
Marines should have "stable platform" and ignore the -1 to hit when moving with a heavy weapon as well, ala terminators from the future war scenes in those movies. In fact, if all marine units ignored that penalty that would help tremendously.
Martel732 wrote: Marines should have "stable platform" and ignore the -1 to hit when moving with a heavy weapon as well, ala terminators from the future war scenes in those movies. In fact, if all marine units ignored that penalty that would help tremendously.
Agreed, but than it wouldn't really make sense game wise for Marines on foot to have that, but their vehicles don't.
Martel732 wrote: Marines should have "stable platform" and ignore the -1 to hit when moving with a heavy weapon as well, ala terminators from the future war scenes in those movies. In fact, if all marine units ignored that penalty that would help tremendously.
Agreed, but than it wouldn't really make sense game wise for Marines on foot to have that, but their vehicles don't.
Give it to them as well, so there's a meaningful reason to use marine tanks over guard tanks for soup lists.
Has anyone suggested that maybe GEQ needs a slight points increase? Then yes, assault squads and tac squads need a buff of some kind. I think a huge problem is just horde will do what a tac or assault squad does, except better.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
Pretty much. That seems to be the only way to make Marines better without breaking something else, since it gives them the capabilities to deal with hordes better, and pump more shots/attacks into harder targets to force more save rolls.
The problem isn't just external (eg - fixing marines makes them more powerful than other armies). Nobody wants that, i think that's a given. The problem is internal too. You only have so many points in your army, so you want to maximize your dps. Why take tac marines for dps when you can take razorback asscannons? Which interestingly enough does come close to the S6 AP-2 that martel mentioned before for efficiently removing hordes.
The problem with PA armies is they traditionally contain minimum to no PA units, at least at the competitive level. The only alternative that i can see to buffing tacticals/pa is to drag units like razorbacks down and make them worse. How would people feel about that?
Torga_DW wrote: The problem isn't just external (eg - fixing marines makes them more powerful than other armies). Nobody wants that, i think that's a given. The problem is internal too. You only have so many points in your army, so you want to maximize your dps. Why take tac marines for dps when you can take razorback asscannons? Which interestingly enough does come close to the S6 AP-2 that martel mentioned before for efficiently removing hordes.
The problem with PA armies is they traditionally contain minimum to no PA units, at least at the competitive level. The only alternative that i can see to buffing tacticals/pa is to drag units like razorbacks down and make them worse. How would people feel about that?
The only problem with that is that it would make the army even more weak. Without improving the other options to be closer to being on the level of the Twin Assault Razorback it doesn't solve anything, since making what few good options we have even worse would just encourage us to take even more Guard options instead.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah that would not be a bad idea had Tesla not existed. In the meantime I think my idea of a wound of 6+ causes the model to need to reroll successful saves would at least be unique.
I'm not denying that, it certainly would be unique. I'm just saying that it wouldn't fix the problem with marine infantry. A 10-man tactical squad would statistically cause 1 rerolled save at 24" range and 3 at 12" range. I'd still be looking at scouts at that point (who would presumably get the rule as well, having bolt weapons).
If you add it to my idea of better weapon saturation, it makes them a better TAC-tical unit (heh) without having to break anything. They have the stats of a 13-14 point model, but none of the wargear options that represent that.
Except if you add extra weapon slots, they start encroaching on devastator territory at which point you might as well just allow devastators as troops. Tacticals should be middle of the road - they can shoot, but not with the potential firepower of devvies. They can melee, but lack the speed of assaults. What i'd like is genuine differences between the 3 units so that you'd have incentive to take them based on your strategy and not just because they occupy different FOC slots.
Torga_DW wrote: The problem isn't just external (eg - fixing marines makes them more powerful than other armies). Nobody wants that, i think that's a given. The problem is internal too. You only have so many points in your army, so you want to maximize your dps. Why take tac marines for dps when you can take razorback asscannons? Which interestingly enough does come close to the S6 AP-2 that martel mentioned before for efficiently removing hordes.
The problem with PA armies is they traditionally contain minimum to no PA units, at least at the competitive level. The only alternative that i can see to buffing tacticals/pa is to drag units like razorbacks down and make them worse. How would people feel about that?
The only problem with that is that it would make the army even more weak. Without improving the other options to be closer to being on the level of the Twin Assault Razorback it doesn't solve anything, since making what few good options we have even worse would just encourage us to take even more Guard options instead.
That was my impression too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/11 21:23:54
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah that would not be a bad idea had Tesla not existed. In the meantime I think my idea of a wound of 6+ causes the model to need to reroll successful saves would at least be unique.
I'm not denying that, it certainly would be unique. I'm just saying that it wouldn't fix the problem with marine infantry. A 10-man tactical squad would statistically cause 1 rerolled save at 24" range and 3 at 12" range. I'd still be looking at scouts at that point (who would presumably get the rule as well, having bolt weapons).
If you add it to my idea of better weapon saturation, it makes them a better TAC-tical unit (heh) without having to break anything. They have the stats of a 13-14 point model, but none of the wargear options that represent that.
Except if you add extra weapon slots, they start encroaching on devastator territory at which point you might as well just allow devastators as troops. Tacticals should be middle of the road - they can shoot, but not with the potential firepower of devvies. They can melee, but lack the speed of assaults. What i'd like is genuine differences between the 3 units so that you'd have incentive to take them based on your strategy and not just because they occupy different FOC slots.
Torga_DW wrote: The problem isn't just external (eg - fixing marines makes them more powerful than other armies). Nobody wants that, i think that's a given. The problem is internal too. You only have so many points in your army, so you want to maximize your dps. Why take tac marines for dps when you can take razorback asscannons? Which interestingly enough does come close to the S6 AP-2 that martel mentioned before for efficiently removing hordes.
The problem with PA armies is they traditionally contain minimum to no PA units, at least at the competitive level. The only alternative that i can see to buffing tacticals/pa is to drag units like razorbacks down and make them worse. How would people feel about that?
The only problem with that is that it would make the army even more weak. Without improving the other options to be closer to being on the level of the Twin Assault Razorback it doesn't solve anything, since making what few good options we have even worse would just encourage us to take even more Guard options instead.
That was my impression too.
Yeah, it really is a tough predicament that those two units are in nowadays. So many things have gotten better in other armies while they stayed the same. The adjustment of a lot of core Space Marine elements also seems hampered by the fact that Roboutte exists, and any potential changes to those units will have to consider how they will interact with Bobby G.
Yeah, it really is a tough predicament that those two units are in nowadays. So many things have gotten better in other armies while they stayed the same. The adjustment of a lot of core Space Marine elements also seems hampered by the fact that Roboutte exists, and any potential changes to those units will have to consider how they will interact with Bobby G.
Yeah, bobby g is a problem. But i'd say rather than balance a 'fluffy' army around the broken units, i'd look at fundamentals and then nerf bobby g down a bit. Even before bobby g hit the scene, the lack of pa units in pa armies was still a thing. The last time i remember serious pa representation was the 6 man las/plas tacs of 4th. Razorbacks aren't necessarily broken, they're just obviously better than a lot of the alternatives.
The problem is that marines have an elite pricing (13 ppm) but their stats are overpriced, now more than ever. I was looking at the various troop choices yesterday. The next 'elite' unit is the necron warrior at 12 ppm. They have a worse save but a better gun. They're not considered good by any stretch of the imagination, necrons have problems atm. Then it drops down to 9ppm for a dark eldar kabalite, or 8 for an eldar guardian/tau firewarrior. This is the next 'bracket' of troops, basically 2/3 or less the price of a tactical. Then it drops to about 4ppm for the next bracket. The thing is, the majority of these troops have a S4 gun *and* special rules to go with it. Marines, the 'elite' army, get an s4 gun and that's it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah that would not be a bad idea had Tesla not existed. In the meantime I think my idea of a wound of 6+ causes the model to need to reroll successful saves would at least be unique.
I'm not denying that, it certainly would be unique. I'm just saying that it wouldn't fix the problem with marine infantry. A 10-man tactical squad would statistically cause 1 rerolled save at 24" range and 3 at 12" range. I'd still be looking at scouts at that point (who would presumably get the rule as well, having bolt weapons).
If you add it to my idea of better weapon saturation, it makes them a better TAC-tical unit (heh) without having to break anything. They have the stats of a 13-14 point model, but none of the wargear options that represent that.
Except if you add extra weapon slots, they start encroaching on devastator territory at which point you might as well just allow devastators as troops. Tacticals should be middle of the road - they can shoot, but not with the potential firepower of devvies. They can melee, but lack the speed of assaults. What i'd like is genuine differences between the 3 units so that you'd have incentive to take them based on your strategy and not just because they occupy different FOC slots.
Well Crusader squads don't encroach on the role of Devastators, so how would give Tactical Marines the option for 1 Special 1 Heavy at 5 men and an additional of either at 10 men do that? You would have Devastators for better heavy weapon saturation and rules to help with that (cherub + Signum) and Veterans + Sternguard who have stats for their Special Weapon spam instead (LD8 and 2 attacks). As a Troop choice, it would actually be a surprising compromise.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Tacticals should be middle of the road - they can shoot, but not with the potential firepower of devvies. They can melee, but lack the speed of assaults. What i'd like is genuine differences between the 3 units
They are not middle of the road at all, they cannot be a balance between shooting and melee. There is not a straight line between shooting and melee that they are sitting on.
There are situations, there are supposed to be situations, where having smaller defensive guns is better than having biggger support guns. There are reasons the a marine, that Roboute Guilliman and company would want most troops to be several bolters protecting a heavy gun, and not just all plasma guns and heavy bolters.
You are right, they are three different things, and they are not just two things and a hybrid.
Tacticals should be middle of the road - they can shoot, but not with the potential firepower of devvies. They can melee, but lack the speed of assaults. What i'd like is genuine differences between the 3 units
They are not middle of the road at all, they cannot be a balance between shooting and melee. There is not a straight line between shooting and melee that they are sitting on.
Well, i can only judge their intended purpose by what i've seen from the fluff and the crunch. The fluff is they're the backbone of the standard marine army, but since 3rd onwards the crunch is they're a lesser devastator squad occupying the troops slot, and about 4th a new mechanic was introduced into the game (objective secured) to try and encourage the use of troops in general. The end result is they're to be avoided at all costs unless you can find a specific use for them (like a cheap salamanders squad with a lascannon sitting on a backfield objective). Or you play in a meta where using them to alpha strike an enemy is a viable tactic. Why exactly cannot they be the balance between shooting and melee? What else is there that they could do that is unique? Other than the artificially contrived 'objective secured'?
pelicaniforce wrote: There are situations, there are supposed to be situations, where having smaller defensive guns is better than having biggger support guns. There are reasons the a marine, that Roboute Guilliman and company would want most troops to be several bolters protecting a heavy gun, and not just all plasma guns and heavy bolters.
I'm all a fan of 'supposed to' - that's why i started this thread. But at the same time, i'd like 'naked' tacticals to be viable without specials, otherwise they just turn into what they are now - overly expensive ablative wounds for the special/heavy. I don't think bobby g intended that when he wrote the codex. This is where they fall down, they're too expensive for that to compete with other armies versions of the same unit. As i said, looking at other armies, S4 is pretty much the average in shooting. It gets 'bad' in the 4 point bracket, but at 8 points its S4 + special rule (in this case tau's 'special rule' would be +1S and +6" range).
pelicaniforce wrote: You are right, they are three different things, and they are not just two things and a hybrid.
Fair enough, how would you go about representing that?
edit: the quotes are angry
edit2: typos
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/13 01:07:40
Assault marines are first and foremost harassment units. Moving fast and picking off the weak, they also are great diversions for the tac marines who need more time to get onto position. Tac marines are not weak devs, they are objective holders who get increasingly stronger the closer the enemy gets. Your units are only strong when used the correct way, but because marines have no extreme weaknesses they are quite forgiving of some tactical errors.
There has to be a reason that not every marine has a rocket launcher, or heavy bolter, or plasma rifle. It's really bothersome why it's not 80% devastators. So I'm going to give you one.
Say a squad is supposed to go into a building or a wood and take up a firing position. If they all have rocket launchers, they will have a harder time going in and clearing the enemies out than if several of them have bolters. Even if the rooms aren't so small that they risk bowing themselves up shooting at someone five feet away, the weapons are too long compared to their bodies to wheel around a corner or a doorway and snap shoot at someone. A small arm or personal weapon is almost 100% good enough to shoot one or two enemy troopers. They are not good enough for fighting a whole enemy squad or piece of armor. That's why they are called personal weapons, versus squad level weapons.
Then say they are securely in the ruin, and there is an enemy squad in a complex across the street, shooting from the windows and dashing across alleys. When an enemy trooper pops out to shoot, the squad can't make snap shots at it with special or heavy weapons. The nature of a snap shot means it may be a wasted shot, but with a rapid firing gun or a rocket, it's proportionally worse than a few bolter shots. Then it will be hard to re-aim for another snap shot because an automatic burst may spend longer shooting at a single target or a single shot may need a long reload.
Then this squad was actually supposed to be shooting it's squad weapons at a totally different unit, a horde or piece of armor coming down the street. If instead they are clumsily defending themselves against the squad across the street, they are failing to protect the rest of the company.
Many modern militaries use a fire team of four troopers. One has a light machine gun, one is a team leader who commands the light machine gun, one is a rifleman who protects the team, and one is a gunner's assistant with more machine gun ammunition. The team leader may have an underslung grenade launcher or shotgun for some spot suppression. Two or three of these together make a squad, and in some units one member of the combined squad has an anti tank launcher.
The fire team is a bit like a tank that is missing the actual tank part. The team has a single gun for accomplishing tasks, and all the other members function as drive systems or protection for the gun and the crew. It also looks like a pair of marine combat squads.
Make no mistake, when a captain tells the squad to go over there and kill this specific thing, he does mean go over there and use the heavy/special to kill the thing. As far as the killing part, they really are like a weak devastator squad. However, the "go over there" part is controlled by the bolters. The bolters are the personal defense weapons that create a bubble the marines can use to walk safely to where they are going and then use the main guns to kill the thing they were ordered to. If there isn't a high enough ratio of bolters to specials, the squad will not make progress, it will have to stop and annihilate whatever minor target is threatening it, and expend too much ammunition before it ever does get to its actual target.
So shooting and melee are not two ends of a continuum because they aren't real categories. A heavy flamer and a lascannon are both "heavy" options in lots of lists, but surely a heavy flaked has more in common with a thunder hammer than with any heavy weapon. The tactical squad is supposed to be more mobile, not because of weight, but because a high ratio of bolter marines allows it to move, while being less suppressed than a devastator squad would.
The rules should be universal that having enough small arms makes a unit better. if an enemy infantry squad is near your unit, and you don't have high enough quality of defensive fire, you should have trouble moving and shooting, or suffer a morale check and lose models. If your unit has bs4 bolters, a 3+ save, and lots of basic models, it should be able to run straight through enemy fire and keeping firing themselves, specifically because they have so many bolters.
Ecclesiarch 616 wrote: Assault marines are first and foremost harassment units. Moving fast and picking off the weak, they also are great diversions for the tac marines who need more time to get onto position. Tac marines are not weak devs, they are objective holders who get increasingly stronger the closer the enemy gets. Your units are only strong when used the correct way, but because marines have no extreme weaknesses they are quite forgiving of some tactical errors.
The inverse is true. Marines are extremely UNFORGIVING to play in 8th, as well as 7th, 6th, and 5th. They haven't been forgiving since 4th I think. The low model count makes for very slim margins of error.
Assault marines are too expensive to just be a diversion. Tac marines are too expensive to just be objective holders. Almost every marine unit is too expensive for what it actually does on the table top.
One issue is that the 'super human' space marines aren't really all that super. Primaris marines were basically a ret-con of what space marines are supposed to be. Big, harder to kill, more attacks. Primaris are much closer to marines by the fluff of the game. But to avoid invalidating existing marine armies they had to make Primaris units different by making them super specialized. Imagine an assault marine squad with 2A base, 3 on the sgt, and 2W each. As long as the cost wasn't crazy that would be much more appealing than the existing one. At 20 ppm base the Intercessors aren't a bad unit in their intended role, what if they could also carry a special/heavy weapon? They would fulfill the TAC marine role much better. You'd have some AP -1 bolters, a melta/combi or something, 2W, 2A for light melee work, and maybe a pfist or axe on the sgt.
Someone at my lgs said he wouldn't be surprised if GW slowly transitions to all Primaris marines over the years, it might not be a bad thing but it will be a bad transition with tons of people fielding regular marine models. It will start with Primaris units getting weapon options like regular marines in the future. You'll still be able to take more bodies with regular marines, but you could fulfill basically every role/option with a primaris model for more points.
