Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army.

"How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

"My chapter does not have special snowflake rules" is not the same as "my army is discontinued". You can still use your army with the standard space marine rules even if you don't have a special snowflake codex.

 Bobthehero wrote:
The last thing we need is extra space marines

I would say we're looking at a further two new CSM codexes this edition (Emperor's Children and World Eaters, to go alongside 1k Sons and Death Guard).

Whether we see any more other than those (and the Space Wolves) on either side of the loyalty divide? Tough to say.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army.

"How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

"My chapter does not have special snowflake rules" is not the same as "my army is discontinued". You can still use your army with the standard space marine rules even if you don't have a special snowflake codex.

"Effectively discontinuing" because it'd just be a worse version of another army that I had no interest in playing in the first place.

Didn't you have to fight tooth and nail to get Forge World books accepted in your community so you could play your army, or am I thinking of someone else?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army.

"How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

"My chapter does not have special snowflake rules" is not the same as "my army is discontinued". You can still use your army with the standard space marine rules even if you don't have a special snowflake codex.

"Effectively discontinuing" because it'd just be a worse version of another army that I had no interest in playing in the first place.

Didn't you have to fight tooth and nail to get Forge World books accepted in your community so you could play your army, or am I thinking of someone else?

As said you also get every one of the future Primaris models - also what exactly is missing from the Black Templar's model range that can not be done with the present range?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army.

"How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

"My chapter does not have special snowflake rules" is not the same as "my army is discontinued". You can still use your army with the standard space marine rules even if you don't have a special snowflake codex.

"Effectively discontinuing" because it'd just be a worse version of another army that I had no interest in playing in the first place.

Didn't you have to fight tooth and nail to get Forge World books accepted in your community so you could play your army, or am I thinking of someone else?

As said you also get every one of the future Primaris models - also what exactly is missing from the Black Templar's model range that can not be done with the present range?

It's not about the model range, it's the fact that rolling a book entails taking a bunch of special rules and a playstyle and ham-fisting it into a Codex that isn't supposed to play anything like the rolled army. Black Templars are stuck being a melee army in a Codex of shooting armies, going from a distinct playstyle supported by rules and differences in options to "reroll charge distances". Roll Blood Angels in and you'd once again have a Chapter of melee specialists in an army of shooting specialists. Make the C:SM melee units good and you get people whining that Space Marines get everything.

You could, of course, make Chapter Tactics a bigger deal to make different Chapters play differently from each other, but then you run into the problem where you have one Chapter Tactic that's just plain superior to everyone else, or where the same people that complained about there being too many Marine Codices now complain that Chapter Tactics are needlessly complex or "too good". It's a no-win situation.

EDIT: Plus, considering Space Marines are by far the most popular faction having multiple Codices actually makes sense. You get more diversity if you can split the biggest army into several smaller ones that are similar but not the same. Having multiple Marine Codices thus theoretically increases the variety in the game, rather than reducing it.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I'm opposed to the idea of making meq cheaper and/or more like guard. Otherwise they start becoming more of a horde army when they're supposed to be 'elite'. I'd rather see them get buffed appropriately and become 'worth' their points.

I also agree with the idea that fluff should drive rules. The problem isn't the fluff, as always its the shoddy implementation of the rules.

All these things can be fixed. They just won't, because at the end of the day, the gw business model revolves around selling miniatures to customers who are grateful to buy them.

Who's fluff? There is fluff to make marines super human able to tear apart tanks with a single glance and then there is fluff that makes them fall dead just by having a stiff wind blow by. The problem with the fluff argument is that GW has never maintained a tight reign on its writers. If they had like Lucas controlled everything Star Wars then at least you'd have levels of canon to start you arguments from.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The problem with this "roll them!" zeal is that it inevitably comes down to "I don't think your army should be getting any more development devoted to it, but would rather that effort was spent on army X instead" at which point the counterpoint is "OK, can I have my money back then since you're effectively discontinuing my army?". Rolling an army, as it currently stands, might as well be a death sentence for that army. It's not about Marine players wanting to be a "special snowflake" (seriously, feth off with that), it's about the fact that the army I once started playing essentially no longer exists other than as a "oh, and these guys are here too" glue-on to another army.

"How hard can it be?" is the battle-cry of the ignorant.

"My chapter does not have special snowflake rules" is not the same as "my army is discontinued". You can still use your army with the standard space marine rules even if you don't have a special snowflake codex.

"Effectively discontinuing" because it'd just be a worse version of another army that I had no interest in playing in the first place.

Didn't you have to fight tooth and nail to get Forge World books accepted in your community so you could play your army, or am I thinking of someone else?

As said you also get every one of the future Primaris models - also what exactly is missing from the Black Templar's model range that can not be done with the present range?

It's not about the model range, it's the fact that rolling a book entails taking a bunch of special rules and a playstyle and ham-fisting it into a Codex that isn't supposed to play anything like the rolled army. Black Templars are stuck being a melee army in a Codex of shooting armies, going from a distinct playstyle supported by rules and differences in options to "reroll charge distances". Roll Blood Angels in and you'd once again have a Chapter of melee specialists in an army of shooting specialists. Make the C:SM melee units good and you get people whining that Space Marines get everything.

You could, of course, make Chapter Tactics a bigger deal to make different Chapters play differently from each other, but then you run into the problem where you have one Chapter Tactic that's just plain superior to everyone else, or where the same people that complained about there being too many Marine Codices now complain that Chapter Tactics are needlessly complex or "too good". It's a no-win situation.

EDIT: Plus, considering Space Marines are by far the most popular faction having multiple Codices actually makes sense. You get more diversity if you can split the biggest army into several smaller ones that are similar but not the same. Having multiple Marine Codices thus theoretically increases the variety in the game, rather than reducing it.

You are, of course, right, supported by all the hard, and real world evidence that Space Marines make more than half of the armies out there. As you said, more Space Marine Codexs make the game have more variation, not less.

The desire for less space marines is just internet noise, like the people that in World of Warcraft complain that 70% of the players have Elves as avatars. I get it, you love dwarfs, but they make 3% of the player base. Accept it.

Gee wizz, I'd sure love it if Games Workshop made a game that was so full of Marines the whole thing was just a bunch of Marines fighting each other all the time.

 Galas wrote:
The desire for less space marines is just internet noise, like the people that in World of Warcraft complain that 70% of the players have Elves as avatars. I get it, you love dwarfs, but they make 3% of the player base. Accept it.

World of Warcraft also has a problem where Elf players seem to feel they're entitled to all of the content. If I had a dollar for every thread I saw crying about how Blood Elves can't be druids... Meanwhile trolls don't even have a major lore character right now.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Gee wizz, I'd sure love it if Games Workshop made a game that was so full of Marines the whole thing was just a bunch of Marines fighting each other all the time.

I actually don't like 30K because for me, at least, is boring how everything is marines. Thats why I like W40K, for the seer variety of factions, and thats why Tau are my primary army. Thats why I loved fantasy more, because there you had real faction variety. Only Chaos was the one that you could say was specially popular, but not at the level of Space Marines.

But one thing is what I like, other thing is the reality. And the reality is that Space Marines are incredible popular and the only reason why GW hasn't gone bankrupt. So we can cry "LALALA I CAN'T EAR YOU" all much we want, but the reality is that rolling all Space Marines in a single Codex would be horrible for the game and the community and even the business of Games Workshop.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The desire for less space marines is just internet noise, like the people that in World of Warcraft complain that 70% of the players have Elves as avatars. I get it, you love dwarfs, but they make 3% of the player base. Accept it.

World of Warcraft also has a problem where Elf players seem to feel they're entitled to all of the content. If I had a dollar for every thread I saw crying about how Blood Elves can't be druids... Meanwhile trolls don't even have a major lore character right now.

I have always been a strong opponent to the idea of Sin'dorei Druids, but at this point with how Blizzard is shoe horning all clases in nearly all races... whatever. I have my private roleplaying server of WoW, I don't care anymore about the MMORPG
Warcraft is not based in the races/factions. Races have 0 lore and participation in the conflicts. That universe does not work like Warhammer. In warhammer you have dozen of Fantasy novels based in the Empire, but they are based around normal people. Theres a Night Elf Novel that doesn't features Tyrande/Illidan/Malfurion/Maiev as his protagonist? No, theres not, because races don't matter in Warcraft, only Lore Characters.
But yeah, Trols and Gnomes, the slap dogs of the factions.

I'm pretty sure no one's demanding they add yet more sub-Marines (pun absolutely, 100% intended) to the game. All I'm asking for is that people stop demanding my army be gutted just because I have the temerity to like a particular Space Marine Chapter (or, well, other Chapters, mine's already gutted for the past three editions and is probably never coming back).

So a Black Templars Codex - what exactly would it have thats not in the Codex currently? Chaplain Dreadnought? Trying to think of something else and avoiding Flander units

Is there anything in it (or indeed the Wolves or Angels) that some successor would not have?

The most diverse fighting force in the Imperium is the Guard and they get how many Codexes?

and we are back to the circular argument - if most of your effort is spent on rules, books, adverts, models for one faction and its subfactions then wierdly yeah it sells more - which means that you should just focus on them and so on and so on.

You're assuming that the only reason people buy Marines is because GW is pushing them and that they'd come around to liking something else if GW pushed that instead. There's a lot of unfortunate implications in that.

I’d love to see BT get a codex again. They are my favorite successor chapter.

 Mr Morden wrote:
So a Black Templars Codex - what exactly would it have thats not in the Codex currently? Chaplain Dreadnought? Trying to think of something else and avoiding Flander units

Is there anything in it (or indeed the Wolves or Angels) that some successor would not have?

The most diverse fighting force in the Imperium is the Guard and they get how many Codexes?

and we are back to the circular argument - if most of your effort is spent on rules, books, adverts, models for one faction and its subfactions then wierdly yeah it sells more - which means that you should just focus on them and so on and so on.

Adding variety to the universe actually gets you money. Like Tau, yeah, maybe they don't catter to all four player base, but having more options in your range helps attract other tipes of new customers.
But at the same time you need a strong core, a shield, something you know, whatever you are doing for it, it is gonna sell. So thats why even if most of the effort is put into Space Marines, GW never stops creating new content for factions as we saw in 7th with Harlequins, Genestealer Cults, etc...

Space Marines are not a circular argument. They where made because Chaos Warriors where the most popular thing in Fantasy. People love powerfull warriors clad in armour. They where made to sell from the beginning. In the early days Space Marines didnt had more content than Eldar, Imperial Guard or even Squats, but they have always been the most popular thing in the universe. Some tropes are just more popular than others, thats how this works.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're assuming that the only reason people buy Marines is because GW is pushing them and that they'd come around to liking something else if GW pushed that instead. There's a lot of unfortunate implications in that.

I can assure you that there are plenty of people who are wholly uninterested in Warhammer because they associate it exclusively with marines. God knows I would have never given this game a chance if I had just seen Ultrasmurfs on a game shop shelf rather than being specifically introduced to Necrons by a friend who knew I'd be into this faction.

 Primark G wrote:
I’d love to see BT get a codex again. They are my favorite successor chapter.

Giving a successor chapter its own codex really feels like scraping the bottom of the barrel to me. They could just fix Black Templars by being more aggressive with the Chapter Tactic design (knowing it would need to be more powerful in order to encourage a shooty army to be assault oriented) and making the assault-based marine units actually good (if they can make Tyranids good at both shooting and assault they can do it for marines).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're assuming that the only reason people buy Marines is because GW is pushing them and that they'd come around to liking something else if GW pushed that instead. There's a lot of unfortunate implications in that.

No that was actually more in response to the person comparing it to Elves - I got the quoting thing wrong.

But seriously - A Black Templars Codex - what would it contain thats not there now - could it not be done in Chapter Approved or White Dwarf with rules/pts changes and maybe a single unit. More fluff would be great but thats less and less present in the dexes.

When you look at actual First Founding Chapters such as Raven Guard, Salamanders, Scars and Iron Hands - they are diverse as Angels or Templars but get less than the BT and so much less than Angels.

The distinction between First and Second founding Chapters are moot anyway; the Black Templars and Crimson Fists are as much part of the history of the Heresy as the Imperial Fists. Neither of the three Chapters existed at the time. It's not until the Third Founding that you get Chapters made up of members that weren't part of the Heresy. The idea that Iron Hands or Salamanders somehow deserve rules for having the names of two of the Legions of which they were part but Second Founding Chapters don't is just bafflingly inconsistent.*

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're assuming that the only reason people buy Marines is because GW is pushing them and that they'd come around to liking something else if GW pushed that instead. There's a lot of unfortunate implications in that.

I can assure you that there are plenty of people who are wholly uninterested in Warhammer because they associate it exclusively with marines. God knows I would have never given this game a chance if I had just seen Ultrasmurfs on a game shop shelf rather than being specifically introduced to Necrons by a friend who knew I'd be into this faction.

That's... not an answer to what I said at all. I'm sure there are people who don't care about Space Marines. What does that have to do with my argument that there are factors making people buy Space Marines beyond GWs marketing?

 Mr Morden wrote:


But seriously - A Black Templars Codex - what would it contain thats not there now - could it not be done in Chapter Approved or White Dwarf with rules/pts changes and maybe a single unit. More fluff would be great but thats less and less present in the dexes.

I don't really care if it's done through a separate Codex or a White Dwarf, but the perks of having armies with diverging playstyles under their own ruleset is that you can let them go wild with the stuff they're meant to be good at and rein them in by making them worse in other areas. It's not about the models so much as the rules really. For example, in the 4th edition Codex Black Templars had a penalty to target priority tests, making them worse at building gunlines than other Marine Chapters. Similarly, an army of melee specialists could get price breaks on melee options, options that don't exist for more shooting-oriented armies (dedicated transport Land Raider Crusaders being such an example from the past) or worse shooting options to drive home the point that you're not playing a shooting army.

Where the rules are printed don't really bother me, but Codex: Space Marines would get cluttered awfully fast with different points costs for different Chapters, or with extensive Chapter Tactics to make the Chapters more than "you're just worse Ultramarines, have fun!".


*That is not to say that I would particularly mind if they got rules, but the argument makes no sense from a fluff perspective.

Anyone remember that Dreadnoughts and BT codex wishing have nothing to do with MEQ stat lines?

Anyhow, the MEQ is an elite stat line for a chaff unit. If priced accordingly, you don't need hordes of them, but 30 dudes at 300 pts would let you have 6x5-man space filler units, that you could spread out to gain board control. Make 2 or 3 of those units 10-man squads to move forwards with other units as screens / objective campers, you'd have 40 or 45 Tactical marines on the board, with say 180 points of upgrades spread around in them. You'd be spending about 600 and change points on Tacticals.

Fluffy army? Yes. A bunch of tactical marines, supported by specialist troops, because Tacticals have a purpose to fulfill that no other unit does better. Creating opportunities to initiate piece trades, controlling territory, and dealing with other chaff units.

It's been pointed out adnausium how Tacticals aren't efficient anti-horde. Making them cheaper means they "trade" better with chaff like Guardsmen.

That's how you save them. Let go of the fluff idea and make them work in the game.

What if tactical marines cost 10ppm as long as all detachments in the army shared the Space Marine keyword?

Then we inevitably get the comparison to Sisters of Battle and have to ask ourselves why they're paying the same for a worse stat line.

Because you're -
A) Paying Less
B) Sister's arn't restricted to no soup.
C) Getting AoF.

I picked a number mostly randomly. Sisters "grunts" could be repointed. Maybe Tacs should be 11 points and Sisters 9? I'm really just throwing numbers around as examples. And to be honest, I give 0 fornications about Sisters as I never play against them.

If it fixed 1/2 of the armies in the game and made Sisters wonky? What are Sisters and why do I care?

The distinction between First and Second founding Chapters are moot anyway; the Black Templars and Crimson Fists are as much part of the history of the Heresy as the Imperial Fists. Neither of the three Chapters existed at the time. It's not until the Third Founding that you get Chapters made up of members that weren't part of the Heresy. The idea that Iron Hands or Salamanders somehow deserve rules for having the names of two of the Legions of which they were part but Second Founding Chapters don't is just bafflingly inconsistent.*

Thats not my point - why do Black templars need their own Dex when those Chapters - as I have said - as diverse as any other don't - where do you stop?

I don't really care if it's done through a separate Codex or a White Dwarf, but the perks of having armies with diverging playstyles under their own ruleset is that you can let them go wild with the stuff they're meant to be good at and rein them in by making them worse in other areas. It's not about the models so much as the rules really. For example, in the 4th edition Codex Black Templars had a penalty to target priority tests, making them worse at building gunlines than other Marine Chapters. Similarly, an army of melee specialists could get price breaks on melee options, options that don't exist for more shooting-oriented armies (dedicated transport Land Raider Crusaders being such an example from the past) or worse shooting options to drive home the point that you're not playing a shooting army.

Where the rules are printed don't really bother me, but Codex: Space Marines would get cluttered awfully fast with different points costs for different Chapters, or with extensive Chapter Tactics to make the Chapters more than "you're just worse Ultramarines, have fun!".

So what exactly is going to be in a BLT Dex thats not already covered or could not be by a page or two in Chapter Approved / FAQs? And given a few rule chnages and a few options - then you feel thats enough?

Back on topic

And to be honest, I give 0 fornications about Sisters as I never play against them. If it fixed 1/2 of the armies in the game and made Sisters wonky? What are Sisters and why do I care?

Sad Statrement for someone apparently concerned with "balance"

Yeah, dropping them to 10 points would be too much. Currently Sisters get a slightly better deal for the price, but cutting marines that much would swing things way to far in the other direction. Drop them to 12ppm, give them the option to take more than 1 special (or 2 at 10), and they might be a bit better. Maybe even give Tactical Squads specifically a small special rule stating they get a small discount on special weapons, to lean hard into the generalist nature of the unit. If a 10 man Tac Squad can take 4 plasma guns and get a 2-3 point discount on each one, they have a bigger place in the game, considering that in their current form you'd need to take what, 20 Tactical Marines to get that many special weapons?

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Killermonkey wrote:
I personally think the changes to melee combat really hurt marines. Before you could throw them into a weaker unit (utilizing their generalist toolset) and grind out a win or sweep them. Now you kill a couple, because they don’t kill very much in melee as stock marines, then the enemies just falls back in their turn and their army blasts you. To wipe a unit in melee you have to be super good and specialized to crush them in a single phase, otherwise all you can do is stop something for shooting for a single turn and die in the process.

I agree; there really isn't much purpose to an annoyance assault unit with the fall back rules as they are. The exception is if that unit happens to be extremely durable like Canoptek Wraiths, who will keep tying up your shooting every turn if you don't funnel everything into killing them. Tactical Marines are not durable like Wraiths.

Sweeping advance needs to come back, or at the very least some equivalent where generalists and others can catch and counteract meta's that are common to gunline layers and bubbles.

The ability to just exit close combat with no risk to the unit (with the exception of losing a round of shooting - unless you can fly) is absurd. Dedicated assault units usually suffer some form of physical risk (typically overwatch) when charging, it shouldn't be any different for units that decide to disengage.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Effectively discontinuing" because it'd just be a worse version of another army that I had no interest in playing in the first place.

How is it worse? You have the exact same rules as every other space marine army, the only difference is your paint scheme and fluff. And those things have zero effect on gameplay.

Didn't you have to fight tooth and nail to get Forge World books accepted in your community so you could play your army, or am I thinking of someone else?

Yes, because there are lots of FW models that have no codex rules. I can't use a Thunderbolt model without FW rules being included. On the other hand, if GW/FW got rid of all of the regiment/chapter/etc rules and DKoK were just an alternate IG model (just like Catachans, Tallarn, etc, used to be) with no special rules then that would be fine. My DKoK infantry squads don't need special snowflake rules, they can just be regular guardsmen.

Tacticals can already have 4 plasma guns per 10 models by simply taking two squads.

I really don't understand the desire for 2 Specials in a 10 man squad when the heavies only have a -1 hit mod when moving, and can be more effective than the specials anyways. The Grav Cannon is a fantastic weapon, even on the move, and a Plasma Cannon is largely just a Plasma Gun with much better range.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Effectively discontinuing" because it'd just be a worse version of another army that I had no interest in playing in the first place.

How is it worse? You have the exact same rules as every other space marine army, the only difference is your paint scheme and fluff. And those things have zero effect on gameplay.

Didn't you have to fight tooth and nail to get Forge World books accepted in your community so you could play your army, or am I thinking of someone else?

Yes, because there are lots of FW models that have no codex rules. I can't use a Thunderbolt model without FW rules being included. On the other hand, if GW/FW got rid of all of the regiment/chapter/etc rules and DKoK were just an alternate IG model (just like Catachans, Tallarn, etc, used to be) with no special rules then that would be fine. My DKoK infantry squads don't need special snowflake rules, they can just be regular guardsmen.

The problem with Black Templars, really, is that they are a meele sub-faction in a shooting Codex. Thats why they suffer so much for being rolled back in the Vanilla Marines Codex. They could be in much better possition fi they get mixed with Space Wolves as "Meele oriented Codex Deviant Chapters"

The point I'm trying to make is not that Tacs need to do more damage, or have better equipment options, because that removes them from the "chaff" designation. Their unique role in the codex should be analogous to pawns in chess. Marines of all flavours need to have access to a board control unit.

Infantry Squads are good because they take up space, and are cheap enough to be expendable. Tacs could, and should, be able to perform a similar role. If they were fewer points, you could march them up the field as a screen for other advancing units. They could sit back with a heavy and plink away with it, while the more threatening Dev squad beside them draws fire. Or they spread out to protect a tank's flank from deep strikers.

Tacticals don't need damage output. That makes them expensive to the point that they are compared to "elite" unit damage output and they look like crap when you do that. Keep damage output as it is, and make them cheaper until they're the "best" expendable troop.

PS: The Sisters quip was just for giggles. I would want balance for all armies. Pragmatically speaking, though, fixing the purpose of the core troop choice for half (or more, in practice) of the armies people play would be preferable to my concerns for the Sisters players. Fix the basic marine, then adjust things around that would be my priority. Like I said, maybe Sisters need to be repointed as well.