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.

What defines "trash" in terms of how good a troop is? It seems the running definition is always "worse than a Marine". A buff to [random troop] is an inherent nerf to all other troops, as that is what they're measurable against. So if there are more than one troops worse than Marines, a buff to Marines hurts more weaker units than it helps.

I'm not arguing for a buff to Dire Avengers (in fact, as I've said many times, I think they should be paying 10 points for the Exarch). I'm arguing that Tac Marines are in a good spot, relative to a lot of other troops. Buffing Tac Marines nerfs all the other troops at about the same level and worse. And that's a lot of troops.

You could go through and buff every one of those troops. Inflationary spirals tend to happen that way. But maybe it would be better to just not buff them all?

Also, Xeno, are you saying PAGK are better than Tac Marines? Guardian Defenders too? Carbine-armed Fire Warriors? I don't think Storm Guardians are the *only* troop worse than Marines (although that list seems shorter than it used to be).

Bharring wrote:
Do you even remember 7th beyond WK and Spiders destroying everything?

The 2+ to hit was *only* for a formation, so *could* not apply to any DAs taken as Troops. So it's even less true than saying every Tac squad gets a Razorback.

Tacs were great at taking objectives. When 7th hit, before new codexes, one of the top builds was actually Obsec Spam With Tacs and Pods. It wouldn't table the opponent, but it would claim objectives.

DAs put *slightly* more wounds on the big stuff. A 10-man DA squad might do one more wound to a Riptide than a Tac squad. Useful, but like Marines, the CWE lists needed to rely on other tools to remove the big guns. The big difference was that CWE *had* the other tools.

I'm *not* saying CWE wasn't OP. I'm just saying DAs weren't better than Marines. Or rather was saying. Now they're slightly better than Marines.

No one took troops in 7th eddition - Objective secured has always been kind of a non rule to situational at best. Bonuses from formations were always better than objective secured. Plus eldar had the best objective grabber in the game that also doubled as the best shooting unit in the game (jetbikes).

Avengers wernt needed really in armies - better things to go into an aspect host - reapers and firedragons where much better then if you could afford them. Avengers were in jetbikes shadow in a CAD. I had a friend however who would take the dire avenger shrine formation with 3 units of avengers. They got a few bonuses that were okay but the triple shot ability they had when properly utilized could down some nasty things. 3 shot bladestorm is nothing to sneeze at.

Bharring wrote:
What defines "trash" in terms of how good a troop is? It seems the running definition is always "worse than a Marine". A buff to [random troop] is an inherent nerf to all other troops, as that is what they're measurable against. So if there are more than one troops worse than Marines, a buff to Marines hurts more weaker units than it helps.

I'm not arguing for a buff to Dire Avengers (in fact, as I've said many times, I think they should be paying 10 points for the Exarch). I'm arguing that Tac Marines are in a good spot, relative to a lot of other troops. Buffing Tac Marines nerfs all the other troops at about the same level and worse. And that's a lot of troops.

You could go through and buff every one of those troops. Inflationary spirals tend to happen that way. But maybe it would be better to just not buff them all?

Also, Xeno, are you saying PAGK are better than Tac Marines? Guardian Defenders too? Carbine-armed Fire Warriors? I don't think Storm Guardians are the *only* troop worse than Marines (although that list seems shorter than it used to be).

I disagree with the argument that buffing a unit in 1 army nerfs all the units in other armies that are currently worse off than Tacs, for a number of reasons.

1. Increasing the cost effectiveness of a unit doesn't decrease cost effectiveness of other units. It isn't a zero sum game. Buffing Tacs, for instance, won't nerf scouts, since scouts will remain in the exact same position they started in.

2. Buffs aren't a finite resource. By saying "Buff Tacs" we aren't saying "Only Buff Tacs." We're saying "Buff Tacs" because this is a thread about Space Marine FAQ changes. If I was in a thread about Eldar FAQ Changes, I'd probably be saying "Buff Guardians." You can Buff Tacs, Nerf Guardsmen, and Buff Guardians all at the same time.

Bharring wrote:
They were a full 0 ppm less than CSMs at the time... (although the CSM Sarge cost +10 pts)

The Assault profile was important to Marines, but not Dire Avengers. Or do you imagine Storm Troopers to be excellent CC units?

They shot infantry about as well as Plasma/CombiPlasma tacs per point (the old 7DAs vs 5Tacs we've discussed adnausium). Better in some ways, worse than others. It was the big MCs with good armor but poor invlun saves that they did better against per point shooting-wise.

As for holding objectives, they died twice as fast as Marines to small arms, for just 1ppm less. Space Marine Scouts did it for cheaper while more surviable, naked Space Marine Tacs did it more durably per point, and HW SM Tacs or Sniper Scouts did it better while also putting potshots downrange. DAs were expensive for just objective grabbing, having the defensive statline of a Storm Trooper or Fire Warrior for the pricetag of a Marine.

DAs were only marginally worse than Tacs. Now, they're marginally better (mostly it's the free Exarch that makes them better).

Yeah and look at how unamazing those Heretic Marines were! They weren't good at all. They still aren't either but at least they could specialize slightly more than the Loyalist Scum counterparts still. Any bit saying Dire Avengers were worse than the core troop choice for Marines last two editions is pure revisionism on your end.

http://bloodofkittens.com/7th-edition-army-list-compendium/

Look at the 2014 SM lists, for example, early 7th ed.

Of the top 10 at BAO, *5* were SM.

Of those 5, all took much more than minimum troops.

Of those 5, 3 were Tac spam.

That's just the first 7th tourny I looked up. "No one took troops in 7th" is hard to square with 5 of 5 "top" lists I look at spamming troops.

CWE *did* have the best objective grabbers in 7th. Those were not Dire Avengers, though.

Yeah, the Dire Avengers needed neither the Aspect Shrine nor the Avenger Shrine. When using those, DAs were really good - much like using Gladius (or, now, Gilliman) made Tacs really good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Any bit saying Dire Avengers were worse than the core troop choice for Marines last two editions is pure revisionism on your end."

A common claim, but the only evidence ever given is 'Buuut DAVU' or 'When used in a formation, compared to non-Formation Marines...'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@SputNik,
But I think it *is* a zero-sum game.

If you give Rock a 5% chance to beat Paper, Paper has now been nerfed, hasn't it? And now Scisors is a skew list.

Bharring wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@SputNik,
But I think it *is* a zero-sum game.

If you give Rock a 5% chance to beat Paper, Paper has now been nerfed, hasn't it? And now Scisors is a skew list.

I really don't see it that way. Nerfs and buffs aren't the same as moving up and down tier lists. The logic is just backwards to me. Nerfing Flyrants won't buff Captains. Nerfing Dark Reapers won't buff Heavy Weapons Teams. Nerfing Infantry Squads won't buff Tacs. It'll simply bring certain units more in line with their counterparts.

Look at it this way - absurdity intended to show the secondary effects, I know nobody is suggesting this.

Lets give every Marine an Assault Cannon. That buffs Marines. Same points.

Marines now outshoot everything.

If I want to take Fire Warriors, they will now get mowed down easily by Marines. Every game I play will be against Marines or things skewed to kill Marines.

Now Fire Warriors are suddenly garbage, when previously they weren't garbage.

So by buffing Marines, we nerfed Fire Warriors.

The suggestions here aren't as extreme as the above, but I'm trying to express why it's a concern.

Quit comparing them to other troops. The marine statline has to do it all; and it's grossly inefficient at it.

I shouldn't want a sister of battle or a guardsmen every time over a marine, but I do in this system.

I'm just gonna say it and bathe in the flames. Intercessors are significantly better than tacs and I have accepted this and moved on. Primaries is what's going to be supported and pushed, so that's what's going to get painted.

Yes they suffer from being "more valunerable" to multi wound damage but 1 wound weapons don't take them out of the fight instantly.

Even if intercessors were good (which seems debatable, though that's a different conversation) that's no reason why tacs shouldn't also be good. They serve an entirely different purpose than intercessors (the delivery of special weapons) and arent in any way replaced by them.

Bharring wrote:
What defines "trash" in terms of how good a troop is? It seems the running definition is always "worse than a Marine". A buff to [random troop] is an inherent nerf to all other troops, as that is what they're measurable against. So if there are more than one troops worse than Marines, a buff to Marines hurts more weaker units than it helps.

I'm not arguing for a buff to Dire Avengers (in fact, as I've said many times, I think they should be paying 10 points for the Exarch). I'm arguing that Tac Marines are in a good spot, relative to a lot of other troops. Buffing Tac Marines nerfs all the other troops at about the same level and worse. And that's a lot of troops.

You could go through and buff every one of those troops. Inflationary spirals tend to happen that way. But maybe it would be better to just not buff them all?

Also, Xeno, are you saying PAGK are better than Tac Marines? Guardian Defenders too? Carbine-armed Fire Warriors? I don't think Storm Guardians are the *only* troop worse than Marines (although that list seems shorter than it used to be).

My phone crapped out to this post so I'll try again.

1. PA Grey Knights are absolutely better. For only a modest point increase, you get innate Deep Strike, twice the shots, and two attacks at AP-2. They're one of the winners of the overall garbage Grey Knights codex for a reason!
2. Then don't use Carbine Fire Warriors? I don't know what the stats are for it, but Fire Warriors got a further point decrease in the codex.
3. Regular Guardians are on the same level of bad that Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum counterparts are at, but yeah sure Storm Guardians are worse. In fact I'm all for deleting the unit entry as it serves no purpose crunch wise and honestly fluff wise it's pretty lame.
4. Conscripts were gutted after Chapter Approved, sure.

So basically we have a couple of troops on the same level and a few worse. So yeah it's all bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Look at it this way - absurdity intended to show the secondary effects, I know nobody is suggesting this.

Lets give every Marine an Assault Cannon. That buffs Marines. Same points.

Marines now outshoot everything.

If I want to take Fire Warriors, they will now get mowed down easily by Marines. Every game I play will be against Marines or things skewed to kill Marines.

Now Fire Warriors are suddenly garbage, when previously they weren't garbage.

So by buffing Marines, we nerfed Fire Warriors.

The suggestions here aren't as extreme as the above, but I'm trying to express why it's a concern.

Except you didn't make Fire Warriors bad. I don't know where you got this idea.
Fire Warriors are still on the same scale. What you did is make a unit broken. For example, Scatterbikes being nerfed didn't suddenly make Tactical Marines or Guardians good, did it? At the same time, them being broken isn't what made them not be taken.

I can't make him understand that the tac marine being miscosted trickles down to every corner of the codex, basically. At the end of the day, GW needs to understand the problem, not him. I'm sure GW has noticed that their precious primaris are doing NOTHING in tournaments as well. Forget movie marines. I just don't want the cheaper troop options in the game to always be better all the time.

Bharring wrote:
http://bloodofkittens.com/7th-edition-army-list-compendium/

Look at the 2014 SM lists, for example, early 7th ed.

Of the top 10 at BAO, *5* were SM.

Of those 5, all took much more than minimum troops.

Of those 5, 3 were Tac spam.

That's just the first 7th tourny I looked up. "No one took troops in 7th" is hard to square with 5 of 5 "top" lists I look at spamming troops.

CWE *did* have the best objective grabbers in 7th. Those were not Dire Avengers, though.

Yeah, the Dire Avengers needed neither the Aspect Shrine nor the Avenger Shrine. When using those, DAs were really good - much like using Gladius (or, now, Gilliman) made Tacs really good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Any bit saying Dire Avengers were worse than the core troop choice for Marines last two editions is pure revisionism on your end."

A common claim, but the only evidence ever given is 'Buuut DAVU' or 'When used in a formation, compared to non-Formation Marines...'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@SputNik,
But I think it *is* a zero-sum game.

If you give Rock a 5% chance to beat Paper, Paper has now been nerfed, hasn't it? And now Scisors is a skew list.

In early 7th before 7.5 codex came out - Ultra marines had a tactical spam list that was good because of calgar. Among giving all of his tacs 2 turns of complete twinlinked firepower - he also gave marines the ability to chose to pass/fail morale tests. So basically that army was good because it let you fall out of close combat willingly (this was very powerful) Plus with the games typically not going longer than 3 turns in a tournament and everything going in a 35 point drop pod. Yeah - that list could win a tournament. it wasn't because a tactical marine was good though - it was because they got a lot of free rules that tactical marines don't come with. I actually ran that list - when I first came back to the game after skipping 6th. It was fun - but it was only strong because of calgar. The same list without calgar did way less damage and would just be fodder for your opponent. Close combat units would just lock you up and you aren't getting out of it with your crappy close combat stats. The list felt a lot like marines feel now though - only 1 way to play them and it's spam ultra marines units around a special character. Also - just like now - it's time of glory was short lived.

Also - I used to respect tournaments too much I think. Time limits allow crappy armies to win games they would be tabled on if the actual rules of the game were followed. When time runs out though the game is over - to me this makes tournament data terrible as a power level metric. A real way to assess power level would be to let armies fight each other until only one army has models left. What tournament data is really telling us is - what army can score the most objective points in 3 turns. Pretty worthless data IMO.

Bharring wrote:
This whole "But Marines have always been terrible" meme is kinda sidetracking the thread.

The core point is that Marines are not currently the worst troop in the game. With Genestealers and DAs and Rangers now being better than Tacs, Tacs have certainly dropped some. But what about PAGK? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And will Wyches and Kalabites be better?

In other words, of this list, are Tacs really near the bottom?

They're not, and in fact that "meme" is 100% false.

SM always had a considerable amount of lists that won tournaments and were top tiers, even in this edition. Even with tac marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - I used to respect tournaments too much I think. Time limits allow crappy armies to win games they would be tabled on if the actual rules of the game were followed. When time runs out though the game is over - to me this makes tournament data terrible as a power level metric. A real way to assess power level would be to let armies fight each other until only one army has models left. What tournament data is really telling us is - what army can score the most objective points in 3 turns. Pretty worthless data IMO.

I agree, but this doesn't apply to SM usually but to orks. We had 2 top tiers lists in a tournament a few weeks ago but both lists were far from being optimized and overpowered, in a regular game they'd struggle a lot to avoid getting tabled. 3 turns games favor armies like orks, which are all about survivability.

 Blackie wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This whole "But Marines have always been terrible" meme is kinda sidetracking the thread.

The core point is that Marines are not currently the worst troop in the game. With Genestealers and DAs and Rangers now being better than Tacs, Tacs have certainly dropped some. But what about PAGK? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And will Wyches and Kalabites be better?

In other words, of this list, are Tacs really near the bottom?

They're not, and in fact that "meme" is 100% false.

I'm guessing you haven't seen the updated Xenos armies? Tactical Marines and Chaos Marines were garbage before, and this honestly solidifies the point.

I also can't think of anything that matters less than how good something was in a previous edition.

Regardless of what army you play, Marines being bad in this edition is a problem for the game as a whole, and the 13ppm marine stat line seems to be the most obvious offender.

 Blackie wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This whole "But Marines have always been terrible" meme is kinda sidetracking the thread.

The core point is that Marines are not currently the worst troop in the game. With Genestealers and DAs and Rangers now being better than Tacs, Tacs have certainly dropped some. But what about PAGK? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And will Wyches and Kalabites be better?

In other words, of this list, are Tacs really near the bottom?

They're not, and in fact that "meme" is 100% false.

SM always had a considerable amount of lists that won tournaments and were top tiers, even in this edition. Even with tac marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - I used to respect tournaments too much I think. Time limits allow crappy armies to win games they would be tabled on if the actual rules of the game were followed. When time runs out though the game is over - to me this makes tournament data terrible as a power level metric. A real way to assess power level would be to let armies fight each other until only one army has models left. What tournament data is really telling us is - what army can score the most objective points in 3 turns. Pretty worthless data IMO.

I agree, but this doesn't apply to SM usually but to orks. We had 2 top tiers lists in a tournament a few weeks ago but both lists were far from being optimized and overpowered, in a regular game they'd struggle a lot to avoid getting tabled. 3 turns games favor armies like orks, which are all about survivability.

Well the time limit affects everyone and it changes the way the game is played. I think the army it favors the least is AM - they have the firepower the table armies in every game - they even have the indirect fire with unlimmited range to kill depleted units that people hide to prevent from getting tabled. In a 3 turn game though - they can't fully table armies - which just makes it a coin flip about who had the easier time scoring objectives - hence the lack of AM domination in tournaments.

Bharring wrote:
Look at it this way - absurdity intended to show the secondary effects, I know nobody is suggesting this.

Lets give every Marine an Assault Cannon. That buffs Marines. Same points.

Marines now outshoot everything.

If I want to take Fire Warriors, they will now get mowed down easily by Marines. Every game I play will be against Marines or things skewed to kill Marines.

Now Fire Warriors are suddenly garbage, when previously they weren't garbage.

So by buffing Marines, we nerfed Fire Warriors.

The suggestions here aren't as extreme as the above, but I'm trying to express why it's a concern.

I think I figured out how to explain why Buffs != Nerfs. It took me an overnight but I got it.

If I buff Tacs, you say it nerfs Guardians.

What if you're playing Eldar vs Orks. Are Guardians still nerfed?
Now do you see the distinction between Buffs vs Nerfs? Buffs makes 1 army stronger against everything they face. Nerfs makes 1 army weaker against everything they face. Yes it's a scale, so if one army gets buffed the armies they face that didn't get buffed will be at a disadvantage, but it won't effect how their army plays at all.

Guardians were already made a joke by guardsmen.

gardians are overpointed but they have great strategems.
They can deepstrike - get +1 to hit - and get 4++saves that can be buffed to 3++ saves. Making them one of the most durable units in the game when supported with command points.

There is a reason competitive eldar lists run a squad. It's a powerful unit they can drop anywhere that can hurt or slow down anything.

Well I just played against Tau with the new codex. Marines need a buff of some sort. The game was over after turn 1

At least GW was honest when they said games would go faster

 fraser1191 wrote:
Well I just played against Tau with the new codex. Marines need a buff of some sort. The game was over after turn 1

At least GW was honest when they said games would go faster

What were the 2 lists out of curiosity? Not faced down the new T'au yet and i'm trying to think outside of the box!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Expecting/hoping for the FAQ to drop today btw - as it's been hinted it'll be dropping this week.

Kdash wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Well I just played against Tau with the new codex. Marines need a buff of some sort. The game was over after turn 1

At least GW was honest when they said games would go faster

What were the 2 lists out of curiosity? Not faced down the new T'au yet and i'm trying to think outside of the box!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Expecting/hoping for the FAQ to drop today btw - as it's been hinted it'll be dropping this week.

Niether list tornament level by any means but he didn't even try.


Basically we've been able to keep things relatively long lived but this game was not fun at all. First turn (he went first) I lost all my assault hellblasters, my repulser, most of the other hellblasters squad and a couple other intercessors.
Branched Nova charge only costing 1 Cp is a joke. So I didn't even get to shoot anything at his riptide but he just boosted it to a 3+ invuln then boosted his gun to 18(?) Shots
Immediatly he advanced his cold stars into my Frontline blasting my repulser to bits ghostkeels we're right up there too. All high toughness units were right in my face. On my first turn I had guilliman who managed to kill a ghostkeel and 3 hellblasters. Everything else was wounding on 5s
2nd turn he killed my dreadnought with just his broadsides then killed guilliman with his riptide very easily. With that I just conceded

With this codex I'd say Marines just got left in the dirt. Things used to be relatively balanced between us but not anymore.

I started using mainly primaris since I wasn't too fond of how he had a lot of high S, 1 dmg weapons before so extra wounds were needed. After the game though we talked for a bit and we both agreed that Marines have basically no stratagems to use, boltguns are worthless and all my units are too expensive.

If Marines don't get a decent buff for this faq I'll be shelving my Marines and playing ad-mech.

Bharring wrote:
This whole "But Marines have always been terrible" meme is kinda sidetracking the thread.

The core point is that Marines are not currently the worst troop in the game. With Genestealers and DAs and Rangers now being better than Tacs, Tacs have certainly dropped some. But what about PAGK? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And will Wyches and Kalabites be better?

In other words, of this list, are Tacs really near the bottom?

Conscripts
Guardsmen
Genestealers
Dire Avengers
SM Scouts
Rangers
Ork Boyz
Tac Marines
Necron Warriors
Immortals
Guardian Defenders
Storm Guardians
Hormigaunts
Termigaunts
Crusader Squads
Fire Warriors
Tau Breachers
Kroot
Kalabites
Wyches
Wracks
Harlequin Troopers

Actually, it is at the bottom. Each of those troop choices each offer at least 1 way they can be useful.

Tacs have no usefulness in the game.

Conscripts - screen
Guardsmen - screen
Genestealers - DS assault
Dire Avengers - shuriken rule
SM Scouts - concealed position
Rangers - redeploy, sniper
Ork Boyz - screen, board control
Tac Marines - boltguns?
Necron Warriors - board control, RP, -1 AP
Immortals - RP, -2 AP
Guardian Defenders - shuriken rule
Storm Guardians - shuriken rule
Hormigaunts - screen, tarpit
Termigaunts - screen
Crusader Squads - just as bad as tacs, but cheaper if taking initiates
Fire Warriors - range, S5
Tau Breachers - screen
Kroot - screen, board control
Kalabites - splinter rule
Wyches - fast, assault
Wracks - fast, interesting flamer
Harlequin Troopers - jump pack as troops

Do you really see Storm Guardians as useful because of their Shuriken Pistols?

Don't Plas-toting Tacs outperform them per point? By a lot?

 fraser1191 wrote:
Well I just played against Tau with the new codex. Marines need a buff of some sort. The game was over after turn 1

At least GW was honest when they said games would go faster

Marines need massive buffs across the board on practically every unit - a complete rewrite of almost every stratagem as well - and army traits apply to ALL UNITS.

I'll make a list on the most grievous things.
#1 Repulsor/land raider - base cost down 70 points. LR gains special rule that allows it to fire after falling back from CC - or to shoot from CC. Both units gain a 5+ FNP. Lose dedicated trasnport and gain Heavy support.
#2 Redemptor - gains 4++ save and T8.
#3 Rhinos - 30 points
#4 Drop pod becomes stratagem - "Drop Pod Assault" (one use only) 1-3 command points select up to 3 units from your army of up to 10 infantry models(based on transport capacity) Each can deep strike in a drop pod armed with a storm bolter/ or missle. The drop pod can not take damage - if enemy units come within 1" of the drop pod it is considered activated for the rest of the game.
#5 Every power armor unit drops 3 points (includes primaris), all aggressor armor types gain t6 2+ save (always hit on their WS in CC regardless of penalties), All terminator armor types -5 points and invo is traded for 5+FNP (always hit on their WS in CC regardless of penalties), All biker units -5 points (scout bikes -3 points but gain infiltrate ability).
#6 Vindicators fire twice if they stay still and ignore penalties for moving and shooting, Whirlwinds fire twice if they stay still and ignore penalties for moving and shooting
#7 Preditors gain +1 W T8 and ignore penalties for moving and shooting.
#8 Land speeders -15 points and a standard rule - if they move more than 12 " in the proceeding movement phase - they gain -1 to hit from all attacks in the opponents next turn.
#9 Dreadnoughts gain 5++ save and close combat weapon is doped in points by 15.
#10 Storm talon - 15 points
#11 Remove trash stratagems - replace with 3-4 good stratagems (you could start just by making the ones that are just worse versions of the craftworld ones - as good as the eldar ones)
#12 Grav cannons - 10 points - rockets -5 points - melta -5 points - grav guns -6 points (including all combis), Sniper rifles become free
#13 Centurions - gain +1 W +1T and -20 points base.
#14 Primaris HQ's gain customization and the ability to take relics (or at least the ability to take relics)
#15 Librarius discipline buffed - Might of heros affects (UNITS) cast value goes up to 7. Stupid line shot POS spell does 2 mortals per units hit - instead of 1, Nullzone cast = 6 not 8 and becomes 12" targeted spell "all units within 6 inches of target have -1 to all saving throws and are unable to cast psychic powers."
#16 For the sake of the games health -1 to hit army trait for RG is removed - a new trait is created. "All RG <chapter> units always count as being in cover, if they are in cover their cover save bonus can not be ignored."

Off the top of my head without even looking at the codex these are my honest ideas about how to improve the army to a competitive level. Some of these might be over the top but not by much. OFC these changes should be applied to every chapter/csm/ect provided the unit affected isn't already hideously OP (bezerkers).





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Do you really see Storm Guardians as useful because of their Shuriken Pistols?

Don't Plas-toting Tacs outperform them per point? By a lot?

I've already pointed out that SG are actually the worst troop in the game - tacs are next.

1. LR falling back and shooting - engaging that thing in CC is the only way most things have of trying to shut it down. Some sort of "I'm not useless" after being in CC would be nice, but full shooting might be too much.

3. Cheaper Rhinos? Yeah! 30 pt Rhinos? Not unless they drop a ton in survivability (which they shouldn't).

4. So WWP. But better. Fewer CP. Additional unit. Oh, and free gun! Decent concept, not properly tuned.

5. I'm starting to see 11pt Tacs. I like the idea of Termies not getting -1 to hit with PF/TH. Could use more consideration.

6. I'm not seeing how the Rhino chasis is more stable on the move than a Devilfish or Falcon chasis. Vindis getting a carbon copy of Fire Prism's rule might work, but this rule as written not a fan on SM vehicles.

7. Again, why are Preds better at firing on the move than anyone but DE?

8. Why to Land Speeders get this but not Vypers?

9. Why a ++ to Dreads? I'd say just buff it to 10W T8 and give it a degrading statline.

11. Some stratagems certainly need improvement - like the interceptor one should either be 1cp or not have a -1 to hit. I do like the other differences between it and the CWE one, though.

12. Grav Cannons should go down, but 10 seems too cheap. Sniper Rifles should be 1ppm, but camo cloaks should be 1ppm.

14. Most HQs - not just SM - should have the level of options the SM Captain has. I loved the SM Commander kit.

15. Null Zone as you write it is too powerful. Perhaps a penalty to Psychic Powers. However, for style reasons, I like Null Zone being centered on the Librarian - must commit to really use it.

16. All army traits like that should get that treatment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tacs are closer to worst than I began this discussion thinking. Still think they're better than you give them credit for, though.

Well Conscripts are worse now...but yeah that's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I'm not a fan of most of those fixes, Xeno.

I agree Marines need massive buffs across the board on practically every unit - a complete rewrite of almost every stratagem as well - and army traits apply to ALL UNITS, but you went a bit far.

#1 Would rather just give landraiders a points drop and the ability to ignore infantry for preventing movement and a FNP
Repulsor make it 2+Sv
#2 T8 and maybe more wounds or a 2+Sv a 4++ would be overpowered
#3 making them 50 points is probably a fair amount of points for their durability.
#4 Not a fan of this, also GW sells drop pods its not going to happen, best you could hope for would be something to allow maybe a smaller deployment clearence.
#5 Every power armor unit drops 3 points (includes primaris) OK, all aggressor armor types gain T6 (dont suffer - hit modifiers for weapons), All terminator armor types -5 points and invo is traded for 5+FNP (WS2+ BS2+), All biker units -5 points (scout bikes -3 points but gain scout move).
#6 Vindicators fire twice if they stay still 2+Sv
Whirlwinds fire twice if they stay still and a points drop
#7 Preditors gain 2+Sv
#8 Land speeders I'm not sure how to fix but making them a hard to hit flyers won't help in a less than causal meta.
#9 Dreadnoughts gain 6+ FNP and close combat weapon is doped in points by 15.
#10 Storm talon - 15 points
#11 Remove trash stratagems - replace with 3-4 good stratagems (you could start just by making the ones that are just worse versions of the craftworld ones - as good as the eldar ones)
#12 Grav cannons - 10 points - rockets -5 points - melta -5 points - grav guns -6 points (including all combis), Sniper rifles become 1point
#13 Centurions - gain +1 W +1T and -20 points base.
#14 Primaris HQ's gain customization and the ability to take relics (or at least the ability to take relics)
#15 Librarius discipline buffed - Might of heros affects (UNITS) cast value goes up to 7. Stupid line shot POS spell does 2 mortals per units hit - instead of 1, Nullzone cast = 6 not 8
#16 For the sake of the games health -1 to hit army trait for RG is removed - a new trait is created. "All RG <chapter> units always count as being in cover, if they are in cover their cover save bonus can not be ignored."

You have to remember that their is units outside of the codex which you just turned some of the codex units into more OP versions of.
Marine vehicals being T7 2+ save baring rhino, razor, whirlwind,hunter, stalker is a more thematic solution than just handing out T8 army wide Marine tanks should be lighter but better armoured compaired to guard.

Bharring wrote:
1. LR falling back and shooting - engaging that thing in CC is the only way most things have of trying to shut it down. Some sort of "I'm not useless" after being in CC would be nice, but full shooting might be too much.
The Repulsor can already do this - it should be trading overall denfensive power for a lighter hull hence 3+ save instead of 2+. This leave the LR screwed though - being a transport which means it gets close to the enemy - should not mean I don't get to use 280-300 points of firepower because you get attacked by a gretchen. LR should be hard to kill - just like a riptide is - just like a wave serpent is.

3. Cheaper Rhinos? Yeah! 30 pt Rhinos? Not unless they drop a ton in survivability (which they shouldn't).
I'd say 50 points is a fair price for a unit that does relatively nothing but get in the way of things and protect units from being shot at on turn 1 and when it blows up kills an average of 2 men in a 10 man. I'm thinking a lot of transports need this treatment - not just SM ones.

4. So WWP. But better. Fewer CP. Additional unit. Oh, and free gun! Decent concept, not properly tuned.
WW portal does not have transport restrictions - can be used on 20 man squads - it's better in some ways but worse than others. A storm bolter is 2 points - how would you go about prcing the strategem? limit to 1-2 for 3 CP just like the eldar one? So they can get twice the number of boddies out there for the same points? IDK - this could be my personal bias here but I think this should be something that marines should be good at - this is how they are supposed to fight - it is a shock army. Kind of like Navy seals or something.
5. I'm starting to see 11pt Tacs. I like the idea of Termies not getting -1 to hit with PF/TH. Could use more consideration.
I think -3 is the sufficient fix for power armor - I'd be happy with -2 over nothing.
6. I'm not seeing how the Rhino chasis is more stable on the move than a Devilfish or Falcon chasis. Vindis getting a carbon copy of Fire Prism's rule might work, but this rule as written not a fan on SM vehicles.
Not having fly keyword comes with a host of disadvantages which are exaggerated when you can't move or suffer offensive penalties - on the whole - space marines need increases in maneuverability. Fluff wise I could come up with reasons but I don't care about fluff in this sense. The Marine vehical should be able to move and shot without penalty because it doesn't have options for assault weapons/It doesn't have an army wide rule like markerlights that can ignore movement penalties and the tank is moving pretty dang slow on top of that. If you have a better solution to these problems - please share your ideas.

7. Again, why are Preds better at firing on the move than anyone but DE?
See above same responce ^
8. Why to Land Speeders get this but not Vypers?
Vipers aren't a particularly great unit - it could use some adjustments itself.

9. Why a ++ to Dreads? I'd say just buff it to 10W T8 and give it a degrading statline.
A decent suggestion on it's own - I would be happish with this. Main reason I think it needs ++ save is because terms have a 5++ save - I think terms should have FNP but that would be too strong on dreads.
11. Some stratagems certainly need improvement - like the interceptor one should either be 1cp or not have a -1 to hit. I do like the other differences between it and the CWE one, though.
Yep - not strictly a space marine problem ether. It's okay for stratagems to be different in a way but strats that do the same thing should have similar performance.

12. Grav Cannons should go down, but 10 seems too cheap. Sniper Rifles should be 1ppm, but camo cloaks should be 1ppm.
maybe -8 - 20 points seems about right.
14. Most HQs - not just SM - should have the level of options the SM Captain has. I loved the SM Commander kit.
Agreed
15. Null Zone as you write it is too powerful. Perhaps a penalty to Psychic Powers. However, for style reasons, I like Null Zone being centered on the Librarian - must commit to really use it.
Having to much fun with nullzone maybe - I don't think you should have to risk sacrificing a libby to and not even know if you have the power off yet. 12" range is risky enough IMO.
16. All army traits like that should get that treatment.
Agreed - remove all -1 to hit army buffs - give them another defensive benefit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tacs are closer to worst than I began this discussion thinking. Still think they're better than you give them credit for, though.

You know where I stand on that - the truth is always somewhere in the middle on these things. Power armor sucking makes me want to vomit so there is that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well Conscripts are worse now...but yeah that's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I'm not a fan of most of those fixes, Xeno.

Dude - these are pretty obvious fixes. Some of the point suggestions might be off but these are things these units need to be taken - otherwise they will never be taken. What suggestions do you like/ not like?