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.

Bharring wrote:
"Inferior Upgrade Options": 2 Lascannons vs 1 Brightlance?

Fire Prisms have Grinding Advance, and I haven't run the numbers for them. Hence why I said Falcon.

The Tri-Las Pred has 4 Lascannons to the Serpent's 2 Brightlances. I should hope the Serpent has *some* advantages (like the shield). Twice the guns, while the gun itself is superior?

Anyways, this is more about the Boltgun, I was just shocked by the claim.

If all you want are fillers, there are much better fillers out there. If you buff the Marine such that it's as good a filler, those who use it for more than that will be OP.

Falcon is still bad even with it's price drop. Compare quad las pred to crimson hunter exarch with 2 bright lance. Firepower is better on the exarch because reroll 1's - nearly unlimitted mobility compared to a preditor - more wounds in exachange for -1 toughness - can take 6+++ upgrade - -1 to hit. costs 25 points less. Don't compare bad options to bad options. Compare the best anti tank option to the best anti tank option. That is how you figure cross codex balance.

Best anti tank in space marines is quad las pred - compared to the best anti tank in eldar which is the crimson hunter exarch.
Eldar wins in mobility
Eldar win in firepower
Eldar wins in survability
Eldar wins in durability.
Eldar wins in cost by 25
Eldar wins in having additional stats via army trait.

In a perfect world the Quad las pred and the Flacon would both be buffed. The quad las pred would be dropped about 40 points. (A rhino Chassis plus 4 las cannons would be 165) so it makes sense. Plus the Falcon would be given the ability to move and shoot with no penalty. It's a real shame that GW doesn't put me in charge of game balance. I'd have the game fixed in approx 3 days.

"Anyways, this is more about the Boltgun, I was just shocked by the claim. "

You can't disentangle the boltgun from the other issues of marines, though.

CHE has 12" less range.

CHE has 1 less S on each shot.

T7 11 W vs T6 12 W, I'd prefer the T7.

Fairly sure it can't take Spirit Stones.

It's a flyer (must move, reserves, different slot, etc).

If we're talking best anti tank in each Dex, that's neither the Falcon nor the Quad-Las Pred. Even so, you're looking at marginally better to-hits for a little worse S at shorter range and less durable. But it's a little cheaper.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm just sad that the bolter relegates the marine to "expensive filler unit". It's more of a purpose than they have had before, but cheaper units are almost always better in practice. Because they give up fewer points when hit by the exocrine or dark reapers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Not disagreeing with the way this game functions but that effectively makes elite infantry worthless. Why have a game where you most popular armies most popular unit - is absolutely worthless in your game?

They did it in 2nd, fixed it in 3rd, and then slowly let the tac marine slide into worthlessness again. We are basically back in 2nd with the AP modifiers.

It seems to me since I started playing in 4th. They have kept the marines basically the same...dropping it in points by 1 per eddition. In 5th you at least could get a free rocket for taking a 10 man. however - it seems to me that GW has been ignoring this problem for what is now 4 editions of me playing the game.

As I said, I guess we just wait for chapter approved at this point.

Enjoy your easy matches vs marines with CWE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm just sad that the bolter relegates the marine to "expensive filler unit". It's more of a purpose than they have had before, but cheaper units are almost always better in practice. Because they give up fewer points when hit by the exocrine or dark reapers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Not disagreeing with the way this game functions but that effectively makes elite infantry worthless. Why have a game where you most popular armies most popular unit - is absolutely worthless in your game?

They did it in 2nd, fixed it in 3rd, and then slowly let the tac marine slide into worthlessness again. We are basically back in 2nd with the AP modifiers.

It seems to me since I started playing in 4th. They have kept the marines basically the same...dropping it in points by 1 per eddition. In 5th you at least could get a free rocket for taking a 10 man. however - it seems to me that GW has been ignoring this problem for what is now 4 editions of me playing the game.

5th was the real beginning of the end as the firepower IG could throw out made marines pointless. Cheap models with big guns wins the day.

Bharring wrote:
CHE has 12" less range.

CHE has 1 less S on each shot.

T7 11 W vs T6 12 W, I'd prefer the T7.

Fairly sure it can't take Spirit Stones.

It's a flyer (must move, reserves, different slot, etc).

If we're talking best anti tank in each Dex, that's neither the Falcon nor the Quad-Las Pred. Even so, you're looking at marginally better to-hits for a little worse S at shorter range and less durable. But it's a little cheaper.

What is better anti tank than the quad las pred? I'm talking about PPD. Obviously a 6 man centurian with 12 las and 6d3 missles is the best but I'm talking about points efficiency.

Also sorry to everyone about being off topic but the reality is - in the discussion about bolt guns - every weapon is tied to the discussion. If you can't balance the heavies - how can you balance the basics?

What I have for my SM would have an easier time in my meta than my CWE, actually. But that's just because of what I have of each faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@xeno: are you kidding? Quadlas Devs, just my first thought. Same firepower (Plus a boltgun, funnily enough) for fewer points.

Okay, given that you have a marine list, what are you doing to mitigate the effects of terrible model count and poor offensive output?

Or do your opponent just not own exocrines?

Take more PA Marines to cover for low model count. Take more toys if I need more offense. Mostly combis/specials/heavies on my Tacs/Devs/ASM. But my meta is very non-competitive. My lists wouldn't place at tournies.

My Harlies and Aspect Warriors fear boltguns. My Marines don't.

Maybe you just aren't being exposed to lists that really highlight the weakness of marines?

In addition to the bolt weapons being surprisingly ho-hum, there's also the issue of elite strike forces taking on ptiched battles as a matter of course - that's really not what Marines are supposed to do.

 Xenomancers wrote:

That is not why an elite infantry like a marine is for. A space marine compared to a guardsmen - the space marine should seem like a heavy support choice. This games scale is so bad. You have a 1000 lb armored suit with a 75mm rapid fire grenade launcher compared to a human being In kevlar weilding a battle rifle and they are effective against the same units and the same units are effective against them. It is a massive joke. They have done marines all wrong. The need increased damage/points/and durability. I'd be perfectly fine with a marine being 50 points each but worth their points.

Something I tried to fix in my old "Advanced Play" rules years ago, but as memory serves it ended up being something like 5 marines per platoon of "IG" and the Marines still having a slight edge.

M.

Bharring wrote:
What I have for my SM would have an easier time in my meta than my CWE, actually. But that's just because of what I have of each faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@xeno: are you kidding? Quadlas Devs, just my first thought. Same firepower (Plus a boltgun, funnily enough) for fewer points.

There is a huge difference in survivability here. Pred has twice the wounds t3 toughness as well. While you do get a little bit better points efficiency - the 35 more points you spend for a pred is worth it. Devs are basically considered terrible. PPD isn't the only mechanic to judge a unit by. Yeah - they have the same damage output for a little less points but it's a wash when you consider how easily it is to remove 5 marines. Plus you only need to take out 2-3 to really hurt the squad.

You were *exceptionally* specific about you wanted an example with better PPD. That's what I did.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
What I have for my SM would have an easier time in my meta than my CWE, actually. But that's just because of what I have of each faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@xeno: are you kidding? Quadlas Devs, just my first thought. Same firepower (Plus a boltgun, funnily enough) for fewer points.

There is a huge difference in survivability here. Pred has twice the wounds t3 toughness as well. While you do get a little bit better points efficiency - the 35 more points you spend for a pred is worth it. Devs are basically considered terrible. PPD isn't the only mechanic to judge a unit by. Yeah - they have the same damage output for a little less points but it's a wash when you consider how easily it is to remove 5 marines. Plus you only need to take out 2-3 to really hurt the squad.

I would argue that the Devs are more survivable in a lot of circumstances in addition to having other advantages. It is easier to get cover for Devs, so they will often be starting at a 2+ save, given their range most things hitting them will be heavy weapons, against those weapons having 5 T4 wounds is actually more durable than having 11 T7 wounds because many heavy weapons cause multiple damage. So in cases where these units are getting hit with say S4 D1 attacks the devs are less durable, but other times that is not the case at all. For instance at 48" range I'd take the devs to kill the pred every time. In the open without cover on either unit. Shooting simultaneously

The pred Does 1.85 damage to the devs
Alternately the devs do 7.13 damage to the pred. (assuming the cherub is used)

Now both are reduced a bit - devs lose 1 lascannon, and the signum, pred down to 4+ to hit

Round 2
Pred does 1.39 damage (1-2 devs left in all likelihood)
Devs do 3.89 damage (Pred dead)

Against any target the devs have a better first round of anti-tank shooting for 20 points less, to be the same points they can take an extra body to allow for 2 wounds before losing a lascannon. The big advantage for preds in durability is against weapons that are not super likely to fire at either unit. The pred is marginally worse in combat, cannot take advantage of vantage points on upper levels of ruins etc.

Bharring wrote:
You were *exceptionally* specific about you wanted an example with better PPD. That's what I did.

Points per damage and point's efficiency were both mentioned. They aren't exactly the same thing. If you automatically get blown off the table in 1 turn by being sneazed at - you aren't points efficient at 165 points.

When Devs are blown off the table by being sneazed at, but Reapers at T3 are unkillable, something is wrong.

Bharring wrote:
When Devs are blown off the table by being sneazed at, but Reapers at T3 are unkillable, something is wrong.

No one said reapers were unkillable. They can however move and shoot without penalty - ignore opponents negative to hit modifiers - and can deep strike onto the table for 1 command point - then redeploy into a vehicle after they shoot. Or just JSJ out of LOS with fire and fade. This is another situation where the eldar win out. Mobility is a huge factor. I mean look man - you just don't see people spamming dev squads even with ravengaurd. Though it's not terrible - it's just not as good as eldar can be.

"redeploy into a vehicle..." Nothing in CWE lets a unit redeploy into a vehicle the turn it disembarks.

And JSJ is 1CP.

They also can't take Cherubim, don't have Auspexes, have lower T, are hosed if a small ASM squad gets in, don't have grenades, can't take a cheap Rhino, can't take Lascannons, etc.

They have other benefits too, but you really need to look at both sides of each.

Bharring wrote:
You can give Tac Marines 6+++. That helps some.

You can give Tac Marines the ability to fall back and then shoot. That helps a lot in the CC discussion (both units would rather shoot that stab, but Tac Marines destroy DAs in shooting).

You can give Tac Marines Sally tactics, which matters when talking about shooting Termies.

Tac Marines could take RG tactics, but that's likely to only matter in the first round of shooting.

There are many other troops in the game. Kalabites. Wyches. Fire Warriors. Kroot. Storm Guardians. Ork Boyz.

GKs offer different things, but at close to double the cost with close to double the dakka, they suffer from having close to half the durability per point. They actually don't compare favorably on the dakka to survivability side of things.

For if the Marine dex is near the bottom, there's already a huge super long thread in General about that (near or exactly middle of released dexes, way above most indexes).

For if Marines are better or worse than troops in the codexes released?
-Scouts have different options - sidegrade from Marines. Plus, they have Boltguns.
-Guardians are maybe a little worse off than Tacs, but same ballpark. Their weapon is a sidegrade (Marines would rather have the ShuriKats, Guardians would rather have Boltguns).
-Rangers have the same role as Sniper Scouts - so sidegrade
-Dire Avengers are very marginally better than Tacs, but are better
-CSM are basically carbon copies, with minor variation in loadout options
-PAGK have DS and twice the shooting, some CC and Psyker shenanigans, and no extra durability, for about twice the cost. Also without the loadout options. Sidegrade at best. Many roles Tacs can do PAGK cannot.
-Cult Troops might be a point, but are cult troops. Half of them might be better, half of them might be worse.

That just leaves the chaff units. Conscripts, Cultits, etc. Even assuming that they're all better than Tacs, still puts Tacs at or near the top.

The Salamnders added too little mathematically that simply giving the Tactical Marines ignores cover was help find something they'd do better, which is basically when the Marines get cover, as Avengers can't do anything to ignore that unless I missed something glancing over the Eldar codex. Of course Sternguard and Devastators do that better but oh well.
Ultramarines and White Scars does nothing in the scenario because neither is going to be charging the other. Avengers will continue running and the Tactical Marines would literally have to be transported and want to charge. I also ignored the Iron Hands as that added too little to durability. I'd ignore it for Avengers too, even though they gain more due to durability being lesser in the first place.

I've already went over the other Troop choices. To reiterate key points:
1. Scouts are better because they don't stick with Bolters. You either use Shotguns, Sniper Rifles, or CCW's. It's an option that may as well not exist. As well, because they don't need Transports, they can be placed as either your screen or for offense or both.
If Scouts were stuck with Bolters they'd be worse off actually.
2. I already said Guardian variants are garbage. Just because something is less garbage means nothing to me. They're both garbage.
3. I already talked about Chaos Marines. Outside that they don't get Grav Cannons, they are better because more options.

More the point is that each of these squads specialises in something. Generalist is crap and has been crap for a long time. You need to make them better at generalizing. Not much you can do for the melee end on them, because that basically involves more attacks, and they're a shooting unit anyway that can barely bully Fire Warriors, a totally shooty unit. And while there are differing threads on how you fix the Tactical Marine, one thing we agree on is the issue with the Bolter Marine itself, which then leads to when you're taking Bolters ever. You don't pay for them on Guard, you don't want multiple Bolter Sisters...so that leads credence to the matter there is something wrong with the Bolter itself. That's why I'm proposing this as a universal fix, rather than JUST for the Tactical Marine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"Inferior Upgrade Options": 2 Lascannons vs 1 Brightlance?

Fire Prisms have Grinding Advance, and I haven't run the numbers for them. Hence why I said Falcon.

The Tri-Las Pred has 4 Lascannons to the Serpent's 2 Brightlances. I should hope the Serpent has *some* advantages (like the shield). Twice the guns, while the gun itself is superior?

Anyways, this is more about the Boltgun, I was just shocked by the claim.

If all you want are fillers, there are much better fillers out there. If you buff the Marine such that it's as good a filler, those who use it for more than that will be OP.

You should probably compare the Serpent to the Razorback instead. They're both transports with a bunch of guns.

Actually, IH and Uthwe both add the same exact factor to the survivability. It's a flat multiplier that maths out the same across point values and survivability. A .16% increase in survivability for both sides. Makes it easier to compare by using the same Tactic on both sides.

For the RG/Alaitoc, it gets worse for the DAs. The Marines might eat the -1 when they get the alpha against the DAs. Otherwise, any turn in which DAs shoot at Marines, Marines can move within 12". Conversely, however, if DAs ever move within 12", Marines get a 6" charge if they want it (then destroy DAs in CC after shooting). Otherwise, Marines get the RG buff every round. Skewing the comparision in Marines' favor in the head-to-head comparison.

The problem with adding specialization to Tac Marines (or generalizsts in general), is that they're still better than the other specialists at everything else. So now you want Marines to beat the other troops even harder in one category, while beating most troops at most other categories anyways?

Tac Marines actually can bully Fire Warriors even harder than Dire Avengers. If you have some Tacs in charge range of FW, and you have over half their number, you would kick their butts. Why on earth would you think they couldn't?

Many people don't think Tac Marines need a fix. And others think changing the Boltgun wouldn't be the way to do it.

I could get into Serpent vs Razorback, but we're well off topic.

Better than specialists at things that don't matter.

All this discussion makes me glad I didn't dust off my old Marines when I came back to the game.

M.

Well, i know no-one wants to mention my earlier post. But what i took from it is that marines lose more points per engagement (while doing significantly less dps).

My fix is the same as before: special ammunition.
Marines may add +/-1 (as relevant) to their weapon stat when shooting, or +6" range. Suddenly marines have a relatively decent dps, despite their low model count / points lost per shooting phase. 2 shots at 24", or 3 shots at 12", or -1 ap, etc etc.

Hm, there's an idea - Marines getting extra bolter range to represent one component of their enhanced training. Not only do they hit more often (BS) but they can do so from further...

As for the bolter, Special Ammo is cool from one approach but it appears as if the culture is against more rules / extra dice at the moment.

Would it really be so bad to give it -1 AP? Even if that would not fix it, it would be a start. Then again, that's a lot of Codices to change.

 Infantryman wrote:
Hm, there's an idea - Marines getting extra bolter range to represent one component of their enhanced training. Not only do they hit more often (BS) but they can do so from further...

As for the bolter, Special Ammo is cool from one approach but it appears as if the culture is against more rules / extra dice at the moment.

Would it really be so bad to give it -1 AP? Even if that would not fix it, it would be a start. Then again, that's a lot of Codices to change.

Yeah, more rules / extra dice is a problem, i won't deny it. But the problem with -1 AP is it doesn't affect relative weight of fire. 30 guardsmen with good rolls can potentially kill 30 targets. For the same price (more), 10 marines can only potentially kill 10 targets, and that includes good rolls. -1 AP works against average/heavy infantry, but does nothing against hordes. The problem is creating an 'elite' infantry unit that is effective against both.

Bharring wrote:
Actually, IH and Uthwe both add the same exact factor to the survivability. It's a flat multiplier that maths out the same across point values and survivability. A .16% increase in survivability for both sides. Makes it easier to compare by using the same Tactic on both sides.

For the RG/Alaitoc, it gets worse for the DAs. The Marines might eat the -1 when they get the alpha against the DAs. Otherwise, any turn in which DAs shoot at Marines, Marines can move within 12". Conversely, however, if DAs ever move within 12", Marines get a 6" charge if they want it (then destroy DAs in CC after shooting). Otherwise, Marines get the RG buff every round. Skewing the comparision in Marines' favor in the head-to-head comparison.

The problem with adding specialization to Tac Marines (or generalizsts in general), is that they're still better than the other specialists at everything else. So now you want Marines to beat the other troops even harder in one category, while beating most troops at most other categories anyways?

Tac Marines actually can bully Fire Warriors even harder than Dire Avengers. If you have some Tacs in charge range of FW, and you have over half their number, you would kick their butts. Why on earth would you think they couldn't?

Many people don't think Tac Marines need a fix. And others think changing the Boltgun wouldn't be the way to do it.

I could get into Serpent vs Razorback, but we're well off topic.

I know it adds flat survivability. What I'm saying is it's the worst overall for each army. At least Eldar get it on everything instead of just their Dread equivalents. That's an entirely different topic though.

And yeah of course if you have more points of ANYTHING going into melee vs Fire Warriors those units will win. The question is on efficiency though. For an equivalent of points, how much better are the Tactical Marines than anyone else?
With an equal amount of attacks, Dire Avengers kill .83 Fire Warriors, Guard Infantry kill .63, and Tactical Marines kill...1.1.
So basically any shooty unit can bully Fire Warriors. The numbers then become 1.1, .83, and 1.5 for Guard Infantry. Tactical Marines are better bullies, but clearly not by much. So when people say to bully shooty units with them...well you can bully any shooty unit with anybody! These are also with an equal amount of attacks.

The point being they're honestly not outshooting outmeleeing anything like you think they are for the price. They're barely killing Orks and Gaunts (one of which has a Codex entry now) at shooting for the price and it isn't like they're running away and shooting at all. You say buffing the generalist is a terrible idea because they're beating other troops in other categories, but the truth is that they really aren't. Not on paper and certainly not in practice.

Also the people that don't think Tactical Marines need a fix are the people not playing tournaments or people that are forever angry that Marines get all the attention product-wise. That's why we don't listen to these people. Anything works in the most casual setting. Otherwise this Subforum and the Tactics Subforum might as well not exist.

Also we don't need to get into the whole Razorback thing because I'm pretty sure everyone and their mother knows it's undercosted at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Infantryman wrote:
Hm, there's an idea - Marines getting extra bolter range to represent one component of their enhanced training. Not only do they hit more often (BS) but they can do so from further...

As for the bolter, Special Ammo is cool from one approach but it appears as if the culture is against more rules / extra dice at the moment.

Would it really be so bad to give it -1 AP? Even if that would not fix it, it would be a start. Then again, that's a lot of Codices to change.

I'm against AP-1 because straight up better AP is the gimmick of Necrons. My line of thought is that Shuriken Weapons use precision to go through armor and effectively ignore it with a well placed shot, whereas a well placed Bolter round is basically like hitting a guy in armor with a blunt weapon where it can just not make the armor effective for protecting the guy inside. Then you have Gauss which is fancy green lightning bolts that just hit things better overall without any real training needed by the main grunts, and then you got Immortals at 17 a piece (which really is fair, but they don't have transports. That's a different topic though as a Necron player as well).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Well, i know no-one wants to mention my earlier post. But what i took from it is that marines lose more points per engagement (while doing significantly less dps).

My fix is the same as before: special ammunition.
Marines may add +/-1 (as relevant) to their weapon stat when shooting, or +6" range. Suddenly marines have a relatively decent dps, despite their low model count / points lost per shooting phase. 2 shots at 24", or 3 shots at 12", or -1 ap, etc etc.

Special Ammo is such a Deathwatch thing though. That's part of their whole gimmick, as useless as some of the options are (there is maybe ONE situation to use the +1 Hit against units in Cover round...maybe?).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Well, i know no-one wants to mention my earlier post. But what i took from it is that marines lose more points per engagement (while doing significantly less dps).

My fix is the same as before: special ammunition.
Marines may add +/-1 (as relevant) to their weapon stat when shooting, or +6" range. Suddenly marines have a relatively decent dps, despite their low model count / points lost per shooting phase. 2 shots at 24", or 3 shots at 12", or -1 ap, etc etc.

Special Ammo is such a Deathwatch thing though. That's part of their whole gimmick, as useless as some of the options are (there is maybe ONE situation to use the +1 Hit against units in Cover round...maybe?).

Well, far be it from *me* to question their game design. But adding rules just to sell 1c models? Yeah, i'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. And i'm happy to godwin a thread, or make uncomfortable comparisons. Deathwatch have problems as a stand-alone army? I won't say i'm shocked, i'll just politely infer it and move on.

 Torga_DW wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Well, i know no-one wants to mention my earlier post. But what i took from it is that marines lose more points per engagement (while doing significantly less dps).

My fix is the same as before: special ammunition.
Marines may add +/-1 (as relevant) to their weapon stat when shooting, or +6" range. Suddenly marines have a relatively decent dps, despite their low model count / points lost per shooting phase. 2 shots at 24", or 3 shots at 12", or -1 ap, etc etc.

Special Ammo is such a Deathwatch thing though. That's part of their whole gimmick, as useless as some of the options are (there is maybe ONE situation to use the +1 Hit against units in Cover round...maybe?).

Well, far be it from *me* to question their game design. But adding rules just to sell 1c models? Yeah, i'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. And i'm happy to godwin a thread, or make uncomfortable comparisons. Deathwatch have problems as a stand-alone army? I won't say i'm shocked, i'll just politely infer it and move on.

I'm actually not sure how Deathwatch are doing. Nobody talks about them here but the Index didn't really get my hopes up on them. I certainly haven't seen any interesting lists in tournaments using an allied detachment of them once. Not saying it didn't happen, but that's the kinda stuff that gets brought up here.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Well, i know no-one wants to mention my earlier post. But what i took from it is that marines lose more points per engagement (while doing significantly less dps).

My fix is the same as before: special ammunition.
Marines may add +/-1 (as relevant) to their weapon stat when shooting, or +6" range. Suddenly marines have a relatively decent dps, despite their low model count / points lost per shooting phase. 2 shots at 24", or 3 shots at 12", or -1 ap, etc etc.

Special Ammo is such a Deathwatch thing though. That's part of their whole gimmick, as useless as some of the options are (there is maybe ONE situation to use the +1 Hit against units in Cover round...maybe?).

Well, far be it from *me* to question their game design. But adding rules just to sell 1c models? Yeah, i'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. And i'm happy to godwin a thread, or make uncomfortable comparisons. Deathwatch have problems as a stand-alone army? I won't say i'm shocked, i'll just politely infer it and move on.

I'm actually not sure how Deathwatch are doing. Nobody talks about them here but the Index didn't really get my hopes up on them. I certainly haven't seen any interesting lists in tournaments using an allied detachment of them once. Not saying it didn't happen, but that's the kinda stuff that gets brought up here.

Well, me personally i'd approach it from a fluff perspective..... what are deathwatch? To me (and this will vary on interpretation), they're marines with special weapon options. They're designed to kill xenos more efficiently than other imperial forces - what does that mean? They're cheaper? They hit 'harder'? I appreciate gw's 3rd edition approach which was - we don't know what they're about, so we won't do it. They're basically marines. How do you specialize in killing xenos (as opposed to say demons?). They seem more in line with "we've made a kit, now buy it!". But this is all a tangent, and yet strangely relevant. My opinion is: if fixing something treads on the toes of something else, than maybe something else needs fixing too. But i'm just a random mook, and i seriously doubt gw will read/pay attention to this.

 Infantryman wrote:

Would it really be so bad to give it -1 AP? Even if that would not fix it, it would be a start. Then again, that's a lot of Codices to change.

Easy just give the marines a special rule where they have a bonus point of ap when using a bolter. They have a codex they know the weaknesses of the other races


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This should help marines across the board too