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.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 mew28 wrote:
- snip -
I mean making them a competitively priced unit is not a bandaid fix since they would be worth taking on their own merits rather then that free Rhino or Gmans buff Aura.

A point reduction is a literal bandaid fix. I agree with the goal of making marines competitive - but I do not agree with reducing their point costs as a means to make it happen.

A band aid fix implies it is a temporary solution. It fixes literally every problem a unit has since it brings up both durability and damage output something marines are both lacking.

Do you really want Space Marines to be Horde Marines ^TM forever? Otherwise it's a bandaid fix.

I wouldn't have a problem with "horde marines". But they'll have to fix their fluff from the hilarious 1000 marines to 100 Million marines per chapter.

Actually i think the main problem is that Tac marines are supposed to be a jack of all trades, just like regular CSM.
However they are both restricted by their loadouts to fullfill their "all purpose" role.
Why not lower their cost to 12ppm and add the option to buy additional Boltpistols and Chainswords for 1 point per model?
That way they would remain the same but actually would be a unit that really allows for tactical options and versatility?

Help needed. Wrapping up a list need cost of the assault cannon and bolter/bolt gun please. Oops also dreadnought power fist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can I have some help. Cost of bolt gun, assault cannon and dreadnought power fist.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually i think the main problem is that Tac marines are supposed to be a jack of all trades, just like regular CSM.
However they are both restricted by their loadouts to fullfill their "all purpose" role.
Why not lower their cost to 12ppm and add the option to buy additional Boltpistols and Chainswords for 1 point per model?
That way they would remain the same but actually would be a unit that really allows for tactical options and versatility?

Why not make every space marine a space wolf?

Hey...

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually i think the main problem is that Tac marines are supposed to be a jack of all trades, just like regular CSM.
However they are both restricted by their loadouts to fullfill their "all purpose" role.
Why not lower their cost to 12ppm and add the option to buy additional Boltpistols and Chainswords for 1 point per model?
That way they would remain the same but actually would be a unit that really allows for tactical options and versatility?

Why not make every space marine a space wolf?

Actually that was an option and the case some eds back. You didn't have to even pay for it.
Also why should space wolves keep it if the rest of non special marines can go and take a hike of a cliff right?

 mew28 wrote:


You mean pay 1 more point to lose cheap Plazma guns, being able to take all plasma, and deep strike.

PG are the same cost for Scions and SM. Who needs army-wide deepstrike?

And now you're going to need to adjust the cost of Primaris down and every thing else by quite a bit giving quite a few ways to get multiple PGs per squad.

 Insectum7 wrote:
If marines were 10 points I'd field 120+ if them.

Meh? I'd just run them for CP and screening like now but actually get to play with another 45-90 points in the list. 50 point tac squads still wouldn't be worth spamming, they just wouldn't feel like such a tax like they do now.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually i think the main problem is that Tac marines are supposed to be a jack of all trades, just like regular CSM.
However they are both restricted by their loadouts to fullfill their "all purpose" role.
Why not lower their cost to 12ppm and add the option to buy additional Boltpistols and Chainswords for 1 point per model?
That way they would remain the same but actually would be a unit that really allows for tactical options and versatility?

Why not make every space marine a space wolf?

We should give them the same options - there is no real reason for the difference and plenty of Chapters would use a similar laod out.

Its one of the many problems with marines at the moment that becuase of the Snowflake chapters basic marines have to be a weaker so they can self justify their super special codexes when in reality it would be better to have almost all of the options avaiable to all marines and just have actual special rules for the actual unusual units not just everything with the word Dark, Blood or Wulf in front of it.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually i think the main problem is that Tac marines are supposed to be a jack of all trades, just like regular CSM.
However they are both restricted by their loadouts to fullfill their "all purpose" role.
Why not lower their cost to 12ppm and add the option to buy additional Boltpistols and Chainswords for 1 point per model?
That way they would remain the same but actually would be a unit that really allows for tactical options and versatility?

I said earlier the real solution to making a marine a jack of all trades is to cost them at 15-16 points with 2 wounds, 2 attacks and make bolters assault 3. This makes them durable, better than average in close combat, and good at shooting vs horde units, and have the option of good mobility on shooting or staying out of 12" rapid fire.

This change to the base statline also helps units like assault marines who with a chainsword now have 3 attacks each.

I'd rather see marines be more costly and durable than cheap. IT adds flavor to the army. You could also if you want leave scouts as is making it a choice for a worse statline and infiltrate, or a better statline

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
If marines were 10 points I'd field 120+ if them.

Meh? I'd just run them for CP and screening like now but actually get to play with another 45-90 points in the list. 50 point tac squads still wouldn't be worth spamming, they just wouldn't feel like such a tax like they do now.

The problem here is you still see them as a tax (as in something you're forced to do) at that price when they would be way more powerful.

Breng77 wrote:


I said earlier the real solution to making a marine a jack of all trades is to cost them at 15-16 points with 2 wounds, 2 attacks and make bolters assault 3. This makes them durable, better than average in close combat, and good at shooting vs horde units, and have the option of good mobility on shooting or staying out of 12" rapid fire.

This change to the base statline also helps units like assault marines who with a chainsword now have 3 attacks each.

I'd rather see marines be more costly and durable than cheap. IT adds flavor to the army. You could also if you want leave scouts as is making it a choice for a worse statline and infiltrate, or a better statline

If you want to get a rough idea of what that looks like on the Table, play a couple games with Emperor's Children and use Noise Marines as your basic troops. They are still slightly over costed but for 19 points you get 1 wound, 2 attacks, and an assault 3 bolter that ignores cover.

24 inch assault 3 weapons is actually quite a lot of firepower, especially in large numbers. You might find that making Marines that heavily shooting oriented is a mistake- especially at 15-16 points per model. Its something worth considering, especially since I have actually felt for a while that Noise Marines are the closest to what all Marines should be. The extra Attack Built in, the access to superior small arms fire. etc.

The difficulty with marines is that they are elite human soldiers- but not so elite that they are immune to weapons of war.

While the Primaris may play more like movie marines- they break the game in that you have a basic soldier from a human army with more than one wound.

This is poison to a battle game, not progress- and is more suited to skirmish level play (kill team/deathwatch overkill). A failed save should result in a removed model in an engagement the size of a 40k 1500+ points battle- barring medics and so forth.

I would even advocate T5 marines before +1 wound marines- with the new toughness system its not such a leap. In this edition, delivery systems like the rhino which used to be a cheap addition adding lots of survivability have become relatively expensive compared to the troops it is supposed to protect.

I don't agree with the concept of a failed save = removed model. There is not a large enough differentiation in saves for that to represent more elite forces. T5 is another way to go, but is much more susceptible to hot/cold dice. I would rather see marines as the army with fewer multi-wound models than high T, especially when the T curve is so narrow for what actually gets used. Raising T for regular marines means making Bikes, Gravis models, Plague marines T6. I Rhino is only T7, which has very little upside over T6, So do we bump its T as well? What about T8 models? DO they go to T9 making heavy weapons less effective?

You are talking about a basic soldier from a super human army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 akaean wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


I said earlier the real solution to making a marine a jack of all trades is to cost them at 15-16 points with 2 wounds, 2 attacks and make bolters assault 3. This makes them durable, better than average in close combat, and good at shooting vs horde units, and have the option of good mobility on shooting or staying out of 12" rapid fire.

This change to the base statline also helps units like assault marines who with a chainsword now have 3 attacks each.

I'd rather see marines be more costly and durable than cheap. IT adds flavor to the army. You could also if you want leave scouts as is making it a choice for a worse statline and infiltrate, or a better statline

If you want to get a rough idea of what that looks like on the Table, play a couple games with Emperor's Children and use Noise Marines as your basic troops. They are still slightly over costed but for 19 points you get 1 wound, 2 attacks, and an assault 3 bolter that ignores cover.

24 inch assault 3 weapons is actually quite a lot of firepower, especially in large numbers. You might find that making Marines that heavily shooting oriented is a mistake- especially at 15-16 points per model. Its something worth considering, especially since I have actually felt for a while that Noise Marines are the closest to what all Marines should be. The extra Attack Built in, the access to superior small arms fire. etc.

Yeah it would be reasonably close, and maybe 15-16 would be too cheap, Noise Marines always fight first in combat as well though do they not? So that is another benefit.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Do you really want Space Marines to be Horde Marines ^TM forever? Otherwise it's a bandaid fix.

Yes, because that's the only real option in 8th. There's way too many xeno weapons that pick up marines like grots for anything else.

I'd like to pop in and mention:

Strength 5 is a heavy weapon.
Strength 4 is a super-powerful small arms.
Strength 3 is small arms.

Marines are plenty durable against small arms - firing Lasguns at a marine in cover works out pretty much the way it ought to in the fluff - something like two entire squads of unbuffed guardsmen (actually, exactly 2 unbuffed squads in rapid fire). That's 20-1. Outside of rapid fire? 40-1.

Marines are not durable against heavy weapons. That's imo, a good thing. As soon as we start using pulse rifles and heavy bolters as our measure of what "small arms" is, you start the lethality creep, where "Str 5 AP-1 is a small arm". In three editions, when autocannons are everywhere, Str 7 AP-1 will become the new small arm against which Space Marines are measured...

And before someone says "REEE FIRE WARRIORS" - the whole 'neato shtick' about the Tau fire warrior is his weapon is as strong as a heavy weapon. It used to be a viable tactic to use it to kill tanks in earlier editions, remember, even when tanks were generally immune to small arms.

No, the profile and the price of marines is and was always ok, the main problem is that a 3rd of the equipment got lost somewhere, especially hurtfull for regular marines.
I am fine with paying for tactical flexibility, which is provided by Tacmarines and CSM, however, when we literally pay now 2 ppm less for losing the BP Chainsword aka a 3rd of the equipment they used to have, then in no way is the reduction in price enough.
When a kabalite literally touts the same profile, without the armor or T4 but is less then half the points, then no, in no way those under equiped tacs are usefull.
Even worse is it when you play CSM
you get 3 1/4 cultists for ONE marine.
If i run 2 10 man squdas in CSM i can run for the same ammount 65 cultists.
Also remember Cultists are not equal to guardsmen.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'd like to pop in and mention:

Strength 5 is a heavy weapon.
Strength 4 is a super-powerful small arms.
Strength 3 is small arms.

Marines are plenty durable against small arms - firing Lasguns at a marine in cover works out pretty much the way it ought to in the fluff - something like two entire squads of unbuffed guardsmen (actually, exactly 2 unbuffed squads in rapid fire). That's 20-1. Outside of rapid fire? 40-1.

Marines are not durable against heavy weapons. That's imo, a good thing. As soon as we start using pulse rifles and heavy bolters as our measure of what "small arms" is, you start the lethality creep, where "Str 5 AP-1 is a small arm". In three editions, when autocannons are everywhere, Str 7 AP-1 will become the new small arm against which Space Marines are measured...

And before someone says "REEE FIRE WARRIORS" - the whole 'neato shtick' about the Tau fire warrior is his weapon is as strong as a heavy weapon. It used to be a viable tactic to use it to kill tanks in earlier editions, remember, even when tanks were generally immune to small arms.

Unfortunately it's just not a durability issue.

Martel732 wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Do you really want Space Marines to be Horde Marines ^TM forever? Otherwise it's a bandaid fix.

Yes, because that's the only real option in 8th. There's way too many xeno weapons that pick up marines like grots for anything else.

Well if standard Marines were bumped up to 2 wounds (and an extra attack) sure a DE disintegrater with kill him easily. But then if primaris are scaled up to 3 wounds even with hot dice it can only kill 1 and wound another.

Also if primaris had 3 attacks base I could actually see Reivers killing something in CC for once, a 5 man squad with knives would have 21 S4 ap- attacks lol

Not Online!!! wrote:
No, the profile and the price of marines is and was always ok, the main problem is that a 3rd of the equipment got lost somewhere, especially hurtfull for regular marines.
I am fine with paying for tactical flexibility, which is provided by Tacmarines and CSM, however, when we literally pay now 2 ppm less for losing the BP Chainsword aka a 3rd of the equipment they used to have, then in no way is the reduction in price enough.
When a kabalite literally touts the same profile, without the armor or T4 but is less then half the points, then no, in no way those under equiped tacs are usefull.
Even worse is it when you play CSM
you get 3 1/4 cultists for ONE marine.
If i run 2 10 man squdas in CSM i can run for the same ammount 65 cultists.
Also remember Cultists are not equal to guardsmen.

Cultists don't need to be equal to guardsmen. The point of cultists is being able to apply force multipliers to a large degree. The problem with cultists is needing to underpin their morale with more points.

You're a bit off on the kabalite.
A poison weapon doesn't make it equivalent to a marine.
It's still T3/S3/5+

Breng77 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually i think the main problem is that Tac marines are supposed to be a jack of all trades, just like regular CSM.
However they are both restricted by their loadouts to fullfill their "all purpose" role.
Why not lower their cost to 12ppm and add the option to buy additional Boltpistols and Chainswords for 1 point per model?
That way they would remain the same but actually would be a unit that really allows for tactical options and versatility?

I said earlier the real solution to making a marine a jack of all trades is to cost them at 15-16 points with 2 wounds, 2 attacks and make bolters assault 3. This makes them durable, better than average in close combat, and good at shooting vs horde units, and have the option of good mobility on shooting or staying out of 12" rapid fire.

This change to the base statline also helps units like assault marines who with a chainsword now have 3 attacks each.

I'd rather see marines be more costly and durable than cheap. IT adds flavor to the army. You could also if you want leave scouts as is making it a choice for a worse statline and infiltrate, or a better statline

I absolutely agree. More costly, capable, and durable rather than cheap would be my preference as well. Would this extend to Primaris going up 1 wound, 1 attack, and the bolt rifle gaining a different profile as well?

I also liked the idea someone else had of a Fireblade style buff that gave marines an extra shot at half range. I think that might be overall more interesting - instead of staying out of 12'' rapid fire range, marines would plow forward, confident they'll match or surpass the fire of the enemy. Not a huge fan of the idea of marines dancing around outside weapons range - I always imagine them marching INTO the gunfire, not slinking away from it.

Except those Raven Guard blokes.

Lemondish wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually i think the main problem is that Tac marines are supposed to be a jack of all trades, just like regular CSM.
However they are both restricted by their loadouts to fullfill their "all purpose" role.
Why not lower their cost to 12ppm and add the option to buy additional Boltpistols and Chainswords for 1 point per model?
That way they would remain the same but actually would be a unit that really allows for tactical options and versatility?

I said earlier the real solution to making a marine a jack of all trades is to cost them at 15-16 points with 2 wounds, 2 attacks and make bolters assault 3. This makes them durable, better than average in close combat, and good at shooting vs horde units, and have the option of good mobility on shooting or staying out of 12" rapid fire.

This change to the base statline also helps units like assault marines who with a chainsword now have 3 attacks each.

I'd rather see marines be more costly and durable than cheap. IT adds flavor to the army. You could also if you want leave scouts as is making it a choice for a worse statline and infiltrate, or a better statline

I absolutely agree. More costly, capable, and durable rather than cheap would be my preference as well. Would this extend to Primaris going up 1 wound, 1 attack, and the bolt rifle gaining a different profile as well?

Well I'd say so. It seems like GW wanted Primaris Marines to be more upgraded Marines so they would need to be scaled up in points and such. I'm not sure how this would work with the boltgun/ bolt rifle, that's a whole other mess

Lemondish wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually i think the main problem is that Tac marines are supposed to be a jack of all trades, just like regular CSM.
However they are both restricted by their loadouts to fullfill their "all purpose" role.
Why not lower their cost to 12ppm and add the option to buy additional Boltpistols and Chainswords for 1 point per model?
That way they would remain the same but actually would be a unit that really allows for tactical options and versatility?

I said earlier the real solution to making a marine a jack of all trades is to cost them at 15-16 points with 2 wounds, 2 attacks and make bolters assault 3. This makes them durable, better than average in close combat, and good at shooting vs horde units, and have the option of good mobility on shooting or staying out of 12" rapid fire.

This change to the base statline also helps units like assault marines who with a chainsword now have 3 attacks each.

I'd rather see marines be more costly and durable than cheap. IT adds flavor to the army. You could also if you want leave scouts as is making it a choice for a worse statline and infiltrate, or a better statline

I absolutely agree. More costly, capable, and durable rather than cheap would be my preference as well. Would this extend to Primaris going up 1 wound, 1 attack, and the bolt rifle gaining a different profile as well?

I also liked the idea someone else had of a Fireblade style buff that gave marines an extra shot at half range. I think that might be overall more interesting - instead of staying out of 12'' rapid fire range, marines would plow forward, confident they'll match or surpass the fire of the enemy. Not a huge fan of the idea of marines dancing around outside weapons range - I always imagine them marching INTO the gunfire, not slinking away from it.

Except those Raven Guard blokes.

I would apply said changes to all marine models +1 W and attack (except maybe Guiliman as doing so would actually make him worse)

SO Bikes, Termies and Primaris 3 wounds. Primaris, Termies, Vets 3 attacks etc. Then have a corresponding cost increase where needed. Multi-damage weapons would still mow down marines but they should, they are designed to take out elite infantry, monsters, and tanks.

As for guns, you could also leave them as is and allow pistols to be shot in addition to any other gun. It makes 0 sense that a marine can shoot a storm bolter, bolter, and shot gun simultaneously but not bolter and bolt pistol. Essentially this would give them 3 shots at 12".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
No, the profile and the price of marines is and was always ok, the main problem is that a 3rd of the equipment got lost somewhere, especially hurtfull for regular marines.
I am fine with paying for tactical flexibility, which is provided by Tacmarines and CSM, however, when we literally pay now 2 ppm less for losing the BP Chainsword aka a 3rd of the equipment they used to have, then in no way is the reduction in price enough.
When a kabalite literally touts the same profile, without the armor or T4 but is less then half the points, then no, in no way those under equiped tacs are usefull.
Even worse is it when you play CSM
you get 3 1/4 cultists for ONE marine.
If i run 2 10 man squdas in CSM i can run for the same ammount 65 cultists.
Also remember Cultists are not equal to guardsmen.

Cultists don't need to be equal to guardsmen. The point of cultists is being able to apply force multipliers to a large degree. The problem with cultists is needing to underpin their morale with more points.

You're a bit off on the kabalite.
A poison weapon doesn't make it equivalent to a marine.
It's still T3/S3/5+

First off, i just mentioned that cultists were worse.
Secondly they are easily underpinned with no points, don't forget that Cold and Bitter exists and Word Bearers also have better morale without additional points.
Thirdly my point was , that the Tac Marines and CSM lost to much in equipment and that cheaper alternatives have taken over. Also in regards to kabalites, i know that their weaponry is diffrent, however my point stands that their profile is to good, when compared to a regular marine.
I again would be fine with paying additional ppm if i would get the tactical flexibility with the bolter and cqc loadout, as it stands tho i don't get that, even though it was allready the case some eds back. The main problem is, there is no advantage for normal CSM over an equal ammount in points in Cultists.
Shooting for my exemple above is on average 32.5 hits with s3 against t3 targets i will wound on 4s so again half of those wounds. 16.25 wounds
the 20 marines will shoot 20 times 2/3rds are hits and against a t3 target 2/3rds will wound= 8,88888.... wounds.
So to conclude cultists allow you more firepower, and are way better at area denial.

3 wound primaris are just bonkers. 2 wound Primaris Marines already require borderline anti-tank weapons like Autocannons to harm.

3 wound Primaris is an order of magnitude worse in some ways. Autocannons? Useless. Plasma guns? Useless. Small arms? Useless. d3 damage weapons? Useless.

At the point where you need literal anti-tank weapons (d6 damage) or superheavy weapons (3 damage) to kill a single model that's a basic troops choice in an army, you've jumped the shark. Custodes were already ridiculous, and they're 56 points per model or something like that.

This edition as a whole has not worked out how GW expected I don’t think; Gravis Armour giving +1T accomplishes very little but was expected to be good.

There isn’t solely one issue with marines, Tac marines especially. The changes to hitting/wounding charts, the way AP works, etc. Basically things that used to absolutely obliterate cheap troops (even the lowly heavy bolter killing little nids on a 2+), heavy flamers, flamestorm cannons, etc. have lost killing power. Every piece of crap troop in the game became more resilient against small arms fire with the change of the edition, while plasma being abundant means there are myriad cheap ways to kill elite troops. It’s a depressing state of affairs. I remember when my Guardians getting hit by a bolter meant death with a successful wound. I’m not sure what the solution is but I can say I miss the way AP used to work, and modified saves like WHFB don’t make much sense with high powered rifles instead of getting smacked by greatswords.

If rules stay the same then a points break for marines is the only solution. 11 ppm Tacs sounds reasonable in my mind. 3W Primaris is too ridiculous. 3W terminators would be alright. The distinction between mini marines and Primaris should never have been made imo; they should have made all marines 2W base, and intercessors should have been a new better sculpt of Tacs.

Bremon wrote:
This edition as a whole has not worked out how GW expected I don’t think; Gravis Armour giving +1T accomplishes very little but was expected to be good.

There isn’t solely one issue with marines, Tac marines especially. The changes to hitting/wounding charts, the way AP works, etc. Basically things that used to absolutely obliterate cheap troops (even the lowly heavy bolter killing little nids on a 2+), heavy flamers, flamestorm cannons, etc. have lost killing power. Every piece of crap troop in the game became more resilient against small arms fire with the change of the edition, while plasma being abundant means there are myriad cheap ways to kill elite troops. It’s a depressing state of affairs. I remember when my Guardians getting hit by a bolter meant death with a successful wound. I’m not sure what the solution is but I can say I miss the way AP used to work, and modified saves like WHFB don’t make much sense with high powered rifles instead of getting smacked by greatswords.

If rules stay the same then a points break for marines is the only solution. 11 ppm Tacs sounds reasonable in my mind.

I think this was part of the point of this edition, actually - part of the complaints about earlier editions was "troops don't matter" and "basic armies that look like actual armies are bad" and "deathstars are too op". The only way to address this problem is make basic line infantry actually good, and the only way to make them "actually good" without making them 'elite' is to have them die slowly enough that they provide a function for the army. I think GW accomplished that, for sure, and it can't be denied that some armies are actually taking troopers now, even above and beyond the minimum requirements.

The problem is Marines don't really have a 'basic trooper'. Their basic trooper is considerably better than AM Scions, stat wise (and arguably armament wise though that's target dependent). And scions are the "elite troopers" for AM.

Bremon wrote:
3W Primaris is too ridiculous. 3W terminators would be alright. The distinction between mini marines and Primaris should never have been made imo; they should have made all marines 2W base, and intercessors should have been a new better sculpt of Tacs.

Agreed on these points, which I missed in my first quote.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
3 wound primaris are just bonkers. 2 wound Primaris Marines already require borderline anti-tank weapons like Autocannons to harm.

3 wound Primaris is an order of magnitude worse in some ways. Autocannons? Useless. Plasma guns? Useless. Small arms? Useless. d3 damage weapons? Useless.

At the point where you need literal anti-tank weapons (d6 damage) or superheavy weapons (3 damage) to kill a single model that's a basic troops choice in an army, you've jumped the shark. Custodes were already ridiculous, and they're 56 points per model or something like that.

Pretty much this.

As I said back on page 1, the distinction between Primaris and non-Primaris is hurting both by shackling non-Primaris with bad rules and preventing Primaris using Transports.

Kill the distinction. Make all Marines have the Primaris +1W/A, and AP-1 on all infantry Bolters/Bolt Pistols/Storm Bolters/Chainswords/Combat Knives. Say ‘it’s the year 40,300 now. Every old marine who isn’t dead has had the Primaris implants.’ Bump your basic Marine to 15-16 points and adjust elites from there.