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.
2018/09/01 22:08:51
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Independent of the Leman Russ, which can be un-made a heavy vehicles or re-costed if it wants to stay a heavy vehicle...
Does:
Rhino/Razorback [11/11/10] at T7
Predator/Vindicator [13/11/10] at T8
Land Raider [14/14/14] at T9
Sound like to would be a positive move in bring definition and purpose that was generally lost to the options in the Space Marine motor pool? I think it does, and that's the point.
The Leman Russ can be revisited later in an Imperial Guard thread, or something, because I think it has a bunch of problems and needs re-works anyway too.
Right now, I think the fact that the Predator has the same toughness as the Razorback is a factor that should be addressed with rules, because it feels wrong. Once you get the units to fell right, you re-point them.
To me, I don't mind if they are the same toughness as long as there is some overall difference in their durability. And there currently is a slight difference in wounds, but I think we'd agree that it's not enough.
When you look at durability, there are three default ways of making a unit harder to kill: toughness, armor saves, and wounds. Then you can also add special rules like FNP, invuls, or something else.
I'd say that the jump from T7 to T8 is too powerful, and the jump from T8 to T9 definitely is. I've already laid out the math for this.
The easiest fix is to add wounds. The nice things about giving tanks more wounds is that it generally increases their durability against everything . Right now you need 9 Las cannons to kill a predator. Each wound you add requires a bit less than one more Las cannon to kill it, so 12 or 13 wounds would be a decent increase in durability (9 to 18% against all targets).
Another buff could be to the armor save. A 2+ save reduces Las cannon damage by 20%, missile damage by 25%, and melta damage by 16%. It also reduces the damage from AP 1 by 33% and AP0 by 50%. This seems pretty reasonable to me.
I also think a special rule could also work. Since we're also taking about giving Marines ignore 1AP, let's give it to their tanks too. This ups their durability against anything but AP0, which seems okay to me. Then I'd give them 1 more wound to be at 12 and see how the felt. The number of Las needed to kill a predator would then go from there current 9 to 12, meaning we increased their durability against Las cannons by 33%. Weapons with lower AP would see larger reductions in damage, which feels okay. I think that would be a good place to start.
I don't like Marines ignoring 1 AP. Like they don't need to be tougher at 13ppm, they need to keep their current performance at like 11 ppm.
I also don't like the idea of adding wounds. The tanks shouldn't get tougher against Railcannons and Storm Eagle Rockets and Dreadnought CCW's, but they should be harder to kill with missile launchers. Razorbacks should go down to the weapons infantry can carry. Predators might be somewhat threatened, but mostly concerned about larger weapons meant for cracking open tanks. Land Raiders should shrug off anything less than a tank-mount "big gun".
I think the math seems fairly fine with 7/8/9 to that respect. Re-point afterwords.
Like, a S10+ "big gun" like a Railcannon would kind of overkill against a light tank or a medium tank, but you want it to make holes in a heavy tank, where a missile launcher would just outright fail you and a lascannon would be kind of struggling.
Agree to disagree, I guess. I prefer tanks that take damage more slowly, but still reliably get hurt by S8+. Honestly I just find T9 units fun to play with or against. To me, once your weapon only gets 1 shot, is should have a pretty good chance of hurting most anything. Missile launchers are already much worse than last cannons with one less AP and S. Having T9 around would make them really terrible.
2018/09/01 23:01:53
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
Agree to disagree, I guess. I prefer tanks that take damage more slowly, but still reliably get hurt by S8+. Honestly I just find T9 units fun to play with or against. To me, once your weapon only gets 1 shot, is should have a pretty good chance of hurting most anything. Missile launchers are already much worse than last cannons with one less AP and S. Having T9 around would make them really terrible.
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
That said, let's see if I can't convince you:
I don't like the idea of tanks taking damage slowly and be reliably hurt in small chunks by most weapons of a large category. I'd rather they take damage quickly from weapons in a small category, and generally not take damage from weapons below that category. This gives a greater general resolution to both the motor pool, and to the weapon facing them. If we were to weigh a pair of Razorbacks versus a wound-buffed Predator, then there's not really a difference. It's just a matter of efficiency to us, one will always win.
Second, having the right tool for the right is something the Space Marines can do, and generally should be encouraged to be doing to win. I don't like systems that use hitpoints/wounds to add toughness, because it reduces overall definition between the options, and you'll end up with a lot of redundant or obsolete options.
Also, the hitpoints model isn't particularly effective at modelling tank combat. Tanks are generally pretty impervious to weapons too weak to hurt them, but die very quickly [and frequently violently] to those that are designed to kill them.
Anyway, I think it's better to have specific optimal answers, other than "bring more X".
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/01 23:10:42
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2018/09/02 00:17:16
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
Agree to disagree, I guess. I prefer tanks that take damage more slowly, but still reliably get hurt by S8+. Honestly I just find T9 units fun to play with or against. To me, once your weapon only gets 1 shot, is should have a pretty good chance of hurting most anything. Missile launchers are already much worse than last cannons with one less AP and S. Having T9 around would make them really terrible.
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
That said, let's see if I can't convince you:
I don't like the idea of tanks taking damage slowly and be reliably hurt in small chunks by most weapons of a large category. I'd rather they take damage quickly from weapons in a small category, and generally not take damage from weapons below that category. This gives a greater general resolution to both the motor pool, and to the weapon facing them. If we were to weigh a pair of Razorbacks versus a wound-buffed Predator, then there's not really a difference. It's just a matter of efficiency to us, one will always win.
Second, having the right tool for the right is something the Space Marines can do, and generally should be encouraged to be doing to win. I don't like systems that use hitpoints/wounds to add toughness, because it reduces overall definition between the options, and you'll end up with a lot of redundant or obsolete options.
Also, the hitpoints model isn't particularly effective at modelling tank combat. Tanks are generally pretty impervious to weapons too weak to hurt them, but die very quickly [and frequently violently] to those that are designed to kill them.
Anyway, I think it's better to have specific optimal answers, other than "bring more X".
I think what would happen in that case would be you'd just never see things like missile launchers, because there weapons that can kill T9 will alo be able to kill T7-8 with ease. So you'd just build to handle T9 schew and horde schew and everything in the middle would suffer. This is already happening with T8 knights and I don't think your idea helps.
2018/09/02 02:37:11
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just wanted to say I've been reading this religiously and have been collating things I feel do work as I touch on those topics (such as the double S for melta at half range or the 2+ save for the Siege Shield). I'll be updating the notes I'd posted this morning in the first post with an update to make it easier to find what I currently have so people are generally on the same page and can help deconstruct what I've written to make it more well rounded and less likely to be broken.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/02 02:56:57
2018/09/02 03:02:33
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2018/09/02 03:04:45
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
I don't think points changes are enough. Marines fundamentally don't work in the 8th edition ruleset. Their conversion to the new rules was done poorly, and needs to be corrected with rules changes and special rules.
Otherwise we'll either have bad Marines, or hordes of 9 point Marines and I don't see either of those being great options
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/02 03:05:12
2018/09/02 03:20:42
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
Always 1 on the crazed roll.
2018/09/02 03:22:38
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
So I've got a tweak of the current second draft that is now in the first post for those who don't want to go back to read it:
Spoiler:
Alright, so I started this thing so I might as well go through everything then to get some discussion going about the codex in whole. I'm going to avoid anything that essentially could just get cheaper (from my viewpoint at least) as a fix. The ultimate goal of this will always remain a submission to GW on why the community is neglecting so much of the book's options, what could change about them to make them a viable option for most players, and generally the point is to get away from just making the army cheaper and cheaper until we start looking like a Guard army with better wargear.
Â
There are two main goals I have for this whole submission:
1. Present a method in which an elite army like Space Marines may be reasonably balanced against other armies, particularly horde armies, while keeping in mind that many changes made here will apply to other armies here when taking into considering wargear or the base mechanics of Marines. Many buffs could end up buffing other armies and it could easilly defeat the purpose of the buff if it leaves the army unable to reach a balanced state within the game.
2. Give each chapter in the codex a faction bonus that provides benefits that every unit can enjoy without imbalancing the game while also giving each a specialization bonus that rewards the choosing of certain wargear or unit types creating distinct types of armies within the framework of the greater codex.Â
Â
To kick things off, let's go back over those Chapter Tactics again, shall we? Don't worry, this isn't a rehash but rather an update.
Â
Now I've gotten some feedback about these already which has helped me refine the rules a bit more. Each will be a two part bonus to the faction, the first something any unit can enjoy, the second a more focused bonus for specific models or weapons to create an army specialization that will allow each chapter to have a disctinct playstyle from each other if a player builds towards it. I want to start with these first because it creates a picture in your mind on how each change might affect one chapter more than another.
Â
Chapter Tactics: If your army is Battle-forged models with the <Chapter> keyword in a Space Marines detachement gain a Chapter Tactic as long as every unit in that detachment is drawn from the same Chapter.
Â
It's a small change to the way the chapter tactics work, but it's a change every Space Marine player can say should apply. It opens the army up to a lot more flexibility and makes vehicles worth taking knowing that you can kit them to work like the rest of your army. Â
Ultramarines: Codex Discipline: Ultramarines units never lose more than a single model due to a failed morale test. Models with the Character, Dreadnought, or Vehicle keywords instead gain +1 Leadership. Ultramarines units may shoot in the same turn in which they Fall Back.
Â
The change here is to encourage Ultramarine units to form larger units due to a lower fear of morale as well as giving single model units greater protection against effects that target leadership. The penalty for falling back and shooting was removed to coinicide with the previous change to encourage Ultramarine armies to be aggressive in their approach as they can get stuck in with less fear of morale and then step back and open fire with all barrels. Â
White Scars: Lightning Assault: Whenever a White Scars unit Advances, Charges or Turbo-boosts it moves an additional 2" in addition to the distance rolled (turbo-boosting models move the full 6" plus the additional 2" for a full 8" instead of rolling). Models with the Biker, Infantry or Dreadnought rule may charge on a turn they Fall Back at no penalty. Models with the Vehicle keyword (to include Vehicle models with the Dreadnought keyword) treat their weapons as assault weapons during a turn in which they advanced (ex. Rapid Fire 1 becomes Assault 1, Heavy 3 becomes Heavy 3).
Â
The biggest change here is making the army faster overall. The White Scars are known for modifying even their tanks to go faster and it didn't make any sense that they should be going slower. Additionally, as a chapter that basically hits the enemy as they drive through them the chapter isn't known for slowing down, making the bonus to their charges something that just fits naturally. Generally speaking this is the army that moves the fastest, and can slam into the enemy multiple times to kill it making it so they can keep something tied up on your opponent's turn before breaking free, shooting with your army's suport elements and then hitting that unit again. Â
Imperial Fists: Siege Masters: Enemy units do not recieve benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by Imperial Fists models, furthermore Imperial Fists re-roll all to-wound and damage rolls against enemy models with the Building keyword. In addition models making a shooting attack with a bolt weapon (any weapon with "bolt" in it's name and Dorn's Arrow are all bolt weapons as is the boltgun half of a combi-weapon) may make an additional to-hit roll for every roll of a 6. These to-hit rolls do not generate additional shots. The non-bolt weapon portion of a combi-weapon additionally does not benefit from this rule.
Â
While I feel the rule towards buildings to be incredibly fluffy, it's not enough to build an army around as it's more situational than something you can build an army around. As such I didn't take it away but rolled it into the first effect as it fits well with their removal of an enemy's army protection mechanic. Making them the army that benefits the most from taking bolter weapons was more to make a nod to their special rule in their previous supplement material. This creates an army with a focus on shooting, but with a key focus on using bolt weapons as the basis of that shooting. Â
Black Templars: Righteous Zeal: You can re-roll either or both dice when a Black Templar unit fails a charge roll. On a turn a model with this rule charges, was charged or makes a Heroic Intervention add 1 to its Attacks characteristic until the end of the Fight Phase .
Â
The Black Templars are quite clearly the melee focused army in the codex and it needs to show. Making their charges more reliable through rerolls ensures these zealots will make it to combat more often while the extra attack seperates them from their fellow Astartes as being the army that throws the most dice in combat. Basically the intent is to make them feel like an army that benefits from being stuck in, and gets stuck in more often. Â
Salamanders: Master Artisans: Salamander units with this rule may re-roll a single to-hit and to-wound roll each time they shoot or fight. Additionally when using a weapon that rolls to determine the number of shots or attacks you may roll two dice and take the highest result.
Â
The biggest benefit for this rule is undoubtably to vehicle with lower numbers of shots such as lascannon predators, but also helps weapons that swing the other way by making weapons that roll random number of shots more reliable for the army. Ultimately this makes Salamanders a strong contender for certain heavy weapon options as well as weapons such as the flamer which are less than reliable at times. Â
Raven Guard: Shadow Masters: Raven Guard units that have not advanced or charged this turn gain the benefits for cover. Models that are already in cover and have not moved instead gain an additional +1 to their cover save bonus. Additionally, when targeting Infantry models with this special rule, your opponent must subtract 1 from their to-hit rolls if they are more than 12" away.
Â
There were two changes here: the first was to make it so the army still has a benefit for their ability to hide themselves and their use of camoflauge, allowing them to feel like the ambush masters they should be, while giving Infantry models the existing bonus as a means of encouraging lists that aren't just a mass of tanks that get a cover bonus in the open. Â
Iron Hands: The Flesh is Weak: Roll a die each time an Iron Hands model loses a wound. On a unmodified roll of a 6 the damage is ignored and the model does not lose a wound. Models with the Character, Terminator or Dreadnought keywords instead ignore the lost wound on an unmodified roll of 5 or 6. Additionally Iron Hand models with the Vehicle keyword ignore penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Â
Not only are the more heavilly augmented of the chapter more likely to ignore wounds like they do in the lore, though with future proofing so that the mechanic can't be boosted or reduced by any other rules. Of course, the augmented nature of the Iron Hands become the army that benefits from bringing the most heavy weapons, though due to the way the rules work, they'll be different than the ones seen in a Salamanders army due to the benefits being different. This allows two different kind of armies to come out of the codex that both favor heavier weapons, but favor different ones due to the nature of how the rules interact with the weapons. Â
With how each chapter operates laid out and given a bonus that makes them feel more in line with their lore now it's time to look at the Warlord Traits. Not all of these need to be looked at as most are pretty solid as is and frankly work as viable options for the army that can take them. So in the interest of not making this longer than it already is going to be, let's keep to the ones that actually need addressing:
Â
Angel of Death: Subtract 1 from the Leadership characteristic of enemy units that are within 6" of your Warlord. If your Warlord has slain an enemy Character during the game instead Subtract 2 from the Leadership characterisitic of enemy units within 12" of your Warlord.
Â
Not a big change here, but it encourages you to use your warlord more aggressively to take out enemy characters during the game. Â
The Imperium's Sword: Re-roll failed charge rolls for your Warlord. Models with the Black Templars keyword instead roll 3 dice and pick the two highest when making charge rolls. In addition in a turn that your Warlord has charged or makes an Heroic Intervention add 1 to their Attacks characteristic until the end of the fight phase.
Â
Biggest changes here were to make it less redundant to Black Templars while also giving a bonus for Heroic Interventions to make it more likely to see the table for armies who need a defensive melee character escorting their deathball on the table. Â
Iron Resolve: Add 1 to the Wounds characteristic of your warlord. In addition, roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound. On an unmodified roll of a 5 or 6, your Warlord shrugs off the damage and does not lose the wound. Models with the Iron Hands keyword instead ignore a lost wound on an unmodified roll of a 4, 5, or 6.Â
Â
Due to the proposed changes in the Iron Hands tactic it was basically a necessity to make this work on a 4+ for an Iron Hands warlord. That said, if you want a tank of a character, they're the ones who'll most likely allow you to be one. That's the perks of replacing most of your body with robotic parts I suppose. Â
Rites of War: Friendly <Chapter> units within 6" of your Warlord automatically pass Morale tests. Additionally units within 6" of your Warlord count as hitting on a 5 or 6 when firing Overwatch.
Â
Biggest change here is to give player better benefit out of the trait for huddling models up on the board. A bonus to overwatch makes this a viable choice for gunline or deathball style armies even when paired with units that don't tend to run full sized squads (Primaris or Devastators for example who don't worry about morale as much). Â
Champion of Humanity: You can add 1 to all hit and wound rolls made for your Warlord in the Fight phase when targeting an enemy Character or Monster.
Â
Change here is that some of the things you want to throw a beatstick warlord at aren't characters and really any hero of the Imperium should be able to fight either of these things on equal measure. Â
Adept of the Codex (Ultramarines): While your Warlord is alive and on the table once per phase you may reuse a previously used Stratagem. Stratagems that target friendly units this way may not target the same unit twice, and can not be used to exceed any limitations within the stratagem that limit when they can be used or how many times a game they can be used. Additionally, once per game you may attempt to regain Command Points spent on a stratagem. If you choose to do this, roll a die for each Command Point, on a 2+ that CP is immediately refunded.
Â
Obviously I'm not a fan of the current Adepts of the Codex as unlimited CP regeneration is a broken mechanic in the game when given for free so the change was to make the Ultramarines the more tactically flexible army instead by allowing them to use stratagems more often. This also allows them to partially negate the effects of Agents of Vect by allowing them to reuse a critical statagem that they were denied in that phase. Â
Oathkeeper (Black Templars): At the beginning of the first Battle Round, but before the first turn begins, your Warlord swears a Vow against the enemy forces. Choose a Vow from the following list and apply it's effects immediately:
Abhor the Witch: Your Warlord can attempt to deny one psychic power per turn as if they were a psyker. If they have the Armour of Contempt special rule they may instead attempt to deny one additional psychic power per turn.
Purge the Heretic: Your Warlord may perform a Heroic Interventions if the enemy are within 6" (instead of 3" and move up to 6" while doing so. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord may roll an extra die and choose the highest when making charge rolls.
Suffer not the Unclean to Live: Your Warlord gains +1 to hit and wound rolls made against models with the Character keywords. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord roll an extra die and choose the highest while Advancing.
Â
This is a long one but generally the idea is to give the Black Templars their vows back. Each has an obvious bonus against a specific enemy in combat, but comes with an additional use that may cause the vows to be taken against other opponents instead. Honestly these likely need work and have been through several versions before I posted these. Ideas and suggestions especialyl welcome here. Â
With Warlord traits covered, let's talk Wargear. As before I'm only talking about changes here, but the point of these changes is as always going to be with the mind that other armies may see the changes just as well. As such there won't be as much changed her because any bonus to bolters (for example) would equally apply to an army like Sisters of Battle who typically greatly outnumber Space Marines and would negate any bonus that weapon would have against the cheaper bodies. Ideally I'd love to say that every bolter is Rapid Fire 2 and -1 AP to make Marines have the shooting output of a horde army on a smaller body count (and making every casualty take more out of the army in return) but realistically it doesn't work when you consider that the bolter is spread across a number of other armies and a higher body count army with bolters like Sisters or Scouts would become a broken mess in terms of balance.
Â
Ranged Weapons Bolt pistol (on Primaris models): Replace with Heavy Bolt Pistol. The Primaris are a more elite form of the regular Space Marine army and as such require more quality damage output to make up for their smaller numbers. The additional AP doesn't break balance for the army while giving the units a bit more punch when locked in combat, which is important for a group that lacks a number of melee options. Â
Demolisher Cannon: When targetting a unit of 5 or more models change this weapon's Type to Heavy 2D3. Generally speaking feedback I've seen time and time again is players prefer to have 2D3 shots over D6 as the average number of shots is higher for the 2D3 (4 versus 3) and it means firing at least 2 shots instead of 1. Basically it just does so much more to make the gun more likely to see the table with this change even without a points change. Â
Flamestorm gauntlets (shooting): 12" range Generally speaking no one takes these guys due to the range of their weapon being so short and with the loss of templates the fixation of 8" being the range for flame weapons can go away now. The weapon was left unchanged as the Auto Boltstorm Gauntlet pattern comes with the Fragstorm Launchers standard and fires 6+D6 shots meaning the minimum number of shots for the boltstorm variant is higher, but the Flamestorm varient trades that for automatically hitting. Â
Grav (all varients): If the target has a Save characterisitc of 3+ or better, this weapon's Strength caracteristic is doubled and the Damage characteristic is increased to D3.
Â
Grav-Cannon and grav-amp: Heavy 2
Â
The heavier something is the harder this is supposed to hit, so the way it hits should reflect that. As such increasing it to S10 makes it more likely to hurt those bigger models. However, keeping the Grav-cannon at Heavy 4 wasn't a balanced choice as that would give a Devastator Squad 16 S10 shots against anything with a 3+ or better which would be outright mad. Â
Heavy Flamer: 12" range, Heavy 2D3. Honestly I don't get the original change from Assault to Heavy, but regardless, we've given up the flamer template and as such it's a good way to make the Heavy Flamer a different weapon from the regular Flamer. An increased range makes it possible for it to reach out and touch the things easier while the 2D3 shots gives it a better average on it's number of hits over a standard flamer. Basically it's moving the weapon beyond just being a slight S and AP boost over the base flamer and makes it feel like a proper heavy weapon on the table. Â
Heavy Plasma Incinerator: Heavy 2. A slight points increase on the gun might be needed but honestly the reason this version of the Hellblaster's gun is left off the table beyond proxy is because the increased strength isn't enough to counterbalance the loss of mobility from making it a Heavy weapon as well as decreasing the number of shots. Giving it extra shots makes it more into the Primaris answer for more heavilly armoured models (such as vehicles, Custodes and Monsters) while still retaining the same limitations the current gun has: slower movement with decreased efficiency when you need to move. Â
Master-crafted Stalker bolt rifle/Stalker bolt rifle: Heavy 2 OR the ability to target characters. Either of these options would fix the Stalker bolt rifle so that it would see the table more often. As it currently is the Stalker has the same basic problems the Heavy Plasma Incinerator does: the loss of mobility AND number of shots with no bonus to targetting isn't enough to justify taking this weapon for just about anyone. Being able to target Characters like a Sniper Rifle or giving it Heavy 2 to allow it to offset it's lowered movement would put these into people's lists, even if it brought a slight points increase. Â
Melta (all types): Double weapon strength at half range instead of the bonus to damage rolls. Additionally change the damage characteristic to D3+3. These are weapons meant to slag even the heaviest of armour at close range and even from further away it could still do a severe amount of damage if it punches through the armour. For obvious reasons this means the Melta bomb should always be S16 as well. Â
Plasma weapons (all types): Change the bearer being slain to the bearer taking a mortal wound. While having your guys have their faces melt off is a long standing featur of the lore, the introduction of Mortal Wounds really fits this mechanic better and would allow for better synergy with armies that have mechanics to allow them to ignore Mortal Wounds, such as Iron Hands or Death Guard. This would also cut down how much the mechanic punishes multi-wound models such as Primaris or HQ choices for using plasma. Â
Melee Weapons Chainsword/Combat Knife: -1 AP. This may require a small (1-2 point) bump as it'd still give an extra attack, but considering the lower number of attacks that can be put out by a Marine army compared to larger armies like Orks or even Guard there needs to be a quality bump to offset the lowered quantity of attacks. Â
Power Sword: Abilities: Parry: Increase the bearer's save by 1 during the Fight Phase. Generally the Power Sword is seen as a lot less of a choice. It doesn't make wounding models easier like the other options, and while it's better at ignoring armour there is a diminishing return on this against most targets. Increasing the defensive ability of the bearer at least gives it a utility beyond strictly trying to more effectively stab the other guy. Â
Vehicle Wargear Dozer Blades: Double the bearer's Attacks characteristic until the end of the Fight Phase on a turn it has completed a successful charge. Basically let's bring these back and then let players use them to ram people. Â
Siege Shield: The bearer's Save characteristic is increased by 1 against shooting attacks. Giving a Vindicator tank an increased save against shooting for a points cost doesn't break the army as much as it gives a tank with rather limited firepower more staying power so it might actually weather more than a unit's shooting before it's reduced to a smoking puddle of slag on the table. Â
Misc Equipment Terminator Armour: Models with the Terminator keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Additionally increase their save to 1+. Since a 1 always fails this means that the save only negates the first AP of a weapon and reduces how effective multidamage weapons are. Essentially it means they won't go down quite as fast to anything less than dedicated heavy weapon fire or weight of dice. Â
Power Armour: Has +1 to it's save Characteristic against weapons with an AP profile of -1 or greater (-2,-3,ect). This was a hard one to puzzle over as Power Armour is on so many different armies. Increasing the save like All is Dust could just lead to us having Sisters running around with effective 2+ saves all the time, and a FnP effect wasn't really going to work either. In the end negating 1 of the weapon's AP seemed like the cleanest solution, though it does mean that you need to hit Thousand Sons Rubric models with -2 AP just to get them to a 3+. Magnus would be proud I guess? Â
Centurion Armour: Models with the Centurion keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by 1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. Yes, even the waddlebots are getting a look here, because honestly all that extra armour should be doing something more than it is. Â
Gravis Armour: Models with the Gravis keyword reduce all weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. Increase their save by +1 against weapons with a Damage characteristic of 1. With how durable Gravis is supposed to be it needed something to feel like it was going to stay on the table longer. As lazy as it is to just reuse All Is Dust, here and on the Centurion armour, the extra armour being stronger against weaker weapons makes sense in terms of the lore. Reducing the weapon damage fits equally well and gives them more staying power. With these additions the need to push points down on the models becomes rather moot as they become the durable weapon platfoms they're shown as in the lore.
Hopefully it's easier to read now that it's been formatted.
I've started to look through the units proper and will have my notes on what I see as where they need help and why I approached the fixes the way I did likely done in the next couple days.
Some ideas are letting Chaplain models deny psychic powers within 12" once per turn (named Chaplains getting to do it twice) via a rule I'm calling Armour of Contempt and giving both Tacticals and Intercessors the ability to fire twice if they didn't move OR if they have ended their movement phase with a model within 3" of an objective.
Crusader Squads I'm considering giving a fight twice mechanic for when they're within 3" of an objective or are engaged with an enemy unit that is within 3" of an objective.
Suggestions are always welcome as I do read them even if I don't agree with the approaches every time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The issue I have with stat changes is that once we open that can of worms we need to restat the entire game from the ground up.
I mean I'm all for it, but we're basically talking forcing 9th edition on the game to do it.,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/02 03:24:11
2018/09/02 03:26:42
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
I'm absolutely correct on what their roles are, seeing as you actually couldn't figure out Intercessors and went on to complain about Primaris. So my question is why would you be correct?
Now, you did make mention of stat changes, which I only agree with for Terminators, Vanguard, and Sternguard. Vanguard get WS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, and Terminators get both.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2018/09/02 03:38:20
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
I think the problem with Marines centers around two things:
1. Unimpressive Stratagems - Compare the Stratagems in Codex Space Marines to those in Codex Blood Angels and Codex Space Wolves. They may share some Stratagems, but the Space Wolves exclusive are head and shoulders above the Space Marine ones.
2. Bad Points Values - Space Marine Infantry Units are overcosted. A Tactical Marine is not a 13 point Model. It is about twice a resilient and twice as deadly as an Imperial Guardsman, who is 4 points. He does have a few additional advantages, such as a Pistol, Krak Grenades, and better Leadership (including ATSKNF), but that doesn't make him over 3 times as good as a Guardsman. If Guardsmen were 5 points, I can see Tactical Marines being 11 or 12 points due to these additional advantages. Funnily, Kill Team agrees (5 point Guardsman, 11 Point Scouts, 12 Point Tacticals).
As much fun as it may be to think up various special rules to "Make Marines Great Again", Marines have never really been that great. There Statline hasn't substantially changed since 3rd Edition and they have never lived up to the lore. That was the entire point of the old Movie Marine White Dwarf Article. The best thing that can be done is to fix the points so and improve their Stratagems so that they get to compete.
2018/09/02 03:47:08
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
alextroy wrote: I think the problem with Marines centers around two things:
1. Unimpressive Stratagems - Compare the Stratagems in Codex Space Marines to those in Codex Blood Angels and Codex Space Wolves. They may share some Stratagems, but the Space Wolves exclusive are head and shoulders above the Space Marine ones.
2. Bad Points Values - Space Marine Infantry Units are overcosted. A Tactical Marine is not a 13 point Model. It is about twice a resilient and twice as deadly as an Imperial Guardsman, who is 4 points. He does have a few additional advantages, such as a Pistol, Krak Grenades, and better Leadership (including ATSKNF), but that doesn't make him over 3 times as good as a Guardsman. If Guardsmen were 5 points, I can see Tactical Marines being 11 or 12 points due to these additional advantages. Funnily, Kill Team agrees (5 point Guardsman, 11 Point Scouts, 12 Point Tacticals).
As much fun as it may be to think up various special rules to "Make Marines Great Again", Marines have never really been that great. There Statline hasn't substantially changed since 3rd Edition and they have never lived up to the lore. That was the entire point of the old Movie Marine White Dwarf Article. The best thing that can be done is to fix the points so and improve their Stratagems so that they get to compete.
Stratagems will be what I'll be tackling after units There are some major problems with Marines whole that need to be addressed becuase honestly there is only so low we can keep pushing points values. Especially since we'd keep seeing Scouts over Tacticals due to Scouts being cheaper for the same basic offensive power.
Basically the issue we have is the Tacticals need something more than paying for flexibility at the cost of offensive and defensive power.
And honestly I don't want to push the army too far up, but rather make the army feel like it has options. After I submit this one I'll likely start on the Grey Knights, and then do one for every codex to address the things people don't take and why, and then offering ideas on what might fix those lagging options.
I want to do these things publicly though as taking in as much information in as possible and having ideas bandied about helps address the things I don't see and don't know as well. Maybe this will change the game in the long run, maybe it won't. But not trying is worse than trying.
2018/09/02 03:56:09
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
I'm absolutely correct on what their roles are, seeing as you actually couldn't figure out Intercessors and went on to complain about Primaris. So my question is why would you be correct?
Now, you did make mention of stat changes, which I only agree with for Terminators, Vanguard, and Sternguard. Vanguard get WS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, and Terminators get both.
When you make claims of how absolutely correct you are, it's normal custom to back them up with at least an explanation, if not a citation. Please explain to us all why you think tacticals are supposed to be offensive, while intercessors are defensive? Prior game rules? Stated intentions somewhere? Fluff? Anything?
I'm not against upping the WS and BS on elite units. But how are you going to address these units lack of durability?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/02 03:56:59
Always 1 on the crazed roll.
2018/09/02 04:06:26
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
I think it's possible you could leave Marines durability as is and only increase their offensive power and have them be decent. I think you'd also have to fix their mobility issues though. Transports took a massive kick in the teeth in 8th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for their roles, I think it's pretty clear scouts are there for board control, primaris for durability, and tacticals for damage. They might not be great at those roles, but they certainly don't do anything else.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/02 04:09:54
2018/09/02 04:29:27
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
jcd386 wrote: I think it's possible you could leave Marines durability as is and only increase their offensive power and have them be decent. I think you'd also have to fix their mobility issues though. Transports took a massive kick in the teeth in 8th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for their roles, I think it's pretty clear scouts are there for board control, primaris for durability, and tacticals for damage. They might not be great at those roles, but they certainly don't do anything else.
Anything helps, but I keep harping on about durability for a reason. That is that marines need to be more durable than hordes, and by a lot.
Right now, guardsmen are more durable point per point. In the past, marines were more durable.
Consider that currently, it takes 6 bolter hits on average to kill a marine, and 2.25 to kill a guardsmen. But the marine costs ~3x as much or more. Adjusting for price, it takes 6.75 bolter shots to kill an equivalent points amount of guardsmen. Stronger weapons are even more in favor of the guardsmen. Weaker weapons more in favor of the marine, but not by much.
Under the old AP system where the guardsmen's armor would have been ignored, they took an average of 1.5 bolter shots per kill, or ~4.5 to kill the same points amount as a marine. 6.75 vs 4.5 is a huge change in the guardsmen's favor! A 50% improvement. Marines took exactly the same amount to kill under the old system as now. But they are weaker as soon as AP is involved, unless it was old ap 3 or better. And lasguns are just as effective vs marines as in the past.
Most troops in the game gained in durability relative to marines, and lost no offensive power. Marines lost offensive power, stayed the same vs non-ap weapons, and got worse vs middle tier ap weapons (old ap4 or worse). When you account for auras, marine's make up the edge they lost in the ap change, but everyone else also goes up in firepower too.
Marines worked in the past because it took a lot to take them off the board, and that meant they suffered less from attrition and could keep firing at full power longer. Now they do not. If they are going to return to what they once were, then they need to get tougher, not just stronger. And if they do not return to what they once were, then they are not space marines anymore.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/02 04:31:13
Always 1 on the crazed roll.
2018/09/02 04:33:36
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
I'm absolutely correct on what their roles are, seeing as you actually couldn't figure out Intercessors and went on to complain about Primaris. So my question is why would you be correct?
Now, you did make mention of stat changes, which I only agree with for Terminators, Vanguard, and Sternguard. Vanguard get WS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, and Terminators get both.
When you make claims of how absolutely correct you are, it's normal custom to back them up with at least an explanation, if not a citation. Please explain to us all why you think tacticals are supposed to be offensive, while intercessors are defensive? Prior game rules? Stated intentions somewhere? Fluff? Anything?
I'm not against upping the WS and BS on elite units. But how are you going to address these units lack of durability?
Uh it's pretty easy. Watch:
1. Scouts have the most deployment options and their default weapons options make sense for this
2. Tactical Marines have the most weapon options for actual deadly stuff
3. Intercessors have like no options but are currently 9 points per each T4 3+ wound
So you buff the latter two as I demonstrated and fix Chapter Tactics, each troop option has an actual defined role.
Also I'm not for fixing durability on the Elite units. Marines aren't weak in durability for the cost, BUT their offensive output makes them fall behind the curve, hence why they lose shootouts and melee fights. The only unit I'm for truly fixing durability is Centurions, which is why I'm for them getting an extra wound (making them better against anything but D2 weapons basically, but D2 weapons are their own issue altogether) and making them cheaper. Then I actually want Elite units to actually feel elite.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2018/09/02 04:37:43
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
jcd386 wrote: I think it's possible you could leave Marines durability as is and only increase their offensive power and have them be decent. I think you'd also have to fix their mobility issues though. Transports took a massive kick in the teeth in 8th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for their roles, I think it's pretty clear scouts are there for board control, primaris for durability, and tacticals for damage. They might not be great at those roles, but they certainly don't do anything else.
Anything helps, but I keep harping on about durability for a reason. That is that marines need to be more durable than hordes, and by a lot.
Right now, guardsmen are more durable point per point. In the past, marines were more durable.
Consider that currently, it takes 6 bolter hits on average to kill a marine, and 2.25 to kill a guardsmen. But the marine costs ~3x as much or more. Adjusting for price, it takes 6.75 bolter shots to kill an equivalent points amount of guardsmen. Stronger weapons are even more in favor of the guardsmen. Weaker weapons more in favor of the marine, but not by much.
Under the old AP system where the guardsmen's armor would have been ignored, they took an average of 1.5 bolter shots per kill, or ~4.5 to kill the same points amount as a marine. 6.75 vs 4.5 is a huge change in the guardsmen's favor! A 50% improvement. Marines took exactly the same amount to kill under the old system as now. But they are weaker as soon as AP is involved, unless it was old ap 3 or better. And lasguns are just as effective vs marines as in the past.
Most troops in the game gained in durability relative to marines, and lost no offensive power. Marines lost offensive power, stayed the same vs non-ap weapons, and got worse vs middle tier ap weapons (old ap4 or worse). When you account for auras, marine's make up the edge they lost in the ap change, but everyone else also goes up in firepower too.
Marines worked in the past because it took a lot to take them off the board, and that meant they suffered less from attrition and could keep firing at full power longer. Now they do not. If they are going to return to what they once were, then they need to get tougher, not just stronger. And if they do not return to what they once were, then they are not space marines anymore.
This all day. It's actually a large part of why I worked on a rule for power armour to make it ignore the first -1 it faces (-1 becomes 0, -2 becomes -1, ect). This makes the armour degrade against AP at a reduced rate meaning they'll weather heavier firepower better.
Honestly I'm looking at bolters some more and while I want to give the boltgun -1, that pushes heavy bolters and the bolt rifle to -2, and stalker pattern to -3.
2018/09/02 07:49:01
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
Losing the 2nd edition Marine special rule of Rapid Fire hurt Marines, this edition would be perfect for its return. Marines that don't move can fire Boltguns, and Bolt Pistols twice.
It would help the Boltgun without having to alter the stats. Altering stats, means that we then have to alter the stats of Custodies, and all the Chaos codex etc.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/02 07:50:44
The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused.
2018/09/02 08:25:56
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
stonehorse wrote: Losing the 2nd edition Marine special rule of Rapid Fire hurt Marines, this edition would be perfect for its return. Marines that don't move can fire Boltguns, and Bolt Pistols twice.
It would help the Boltgun without having to alter the stats. Altering stats, means that we then have to alter the stats of Custodies, and all the Chaos codex etc.
We really wouldn't need to alter prices of the chaos stuff to be honest. I'm for a full rework of CSM too though.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2018/09/02 09:11:08
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
Simple points change: Roughly 20-25% on pretty much everything from units to wargear should be enough.
Tactical Marine: May replace bolt pistol with a combat knife (+1 attack)
2 Special weapons in 5 man squad
Assault Marine: +1 attack base, Can take melta guns and plasma guns. All models can take combat shields
Hit rolls of 6 on Chainsword, Combat knife, Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter do -1ap
Hunter/Stalker/Predator/Vindicator/Whirlwind: May be taken in squads of 3
Hunter/Stalker: If the unit doesn't move in the movement phase, ignore all to hit penalties when targeting a unit that can FLY
Land Raider: Transported unit may disembark after or before the land raider has moved in it's movement phase. Reduce AP of weapons targeting by 1 (to 0 max)
Terminators: WS/BS 2+, Ignore to hit penalties when firing heavy weapons
Stratagems
Holy Promethium: Increase the range of any flamer or melta weapon by 3" during this shooting phase.
For Dark Angels specifically they need some king of chapter tactic specific to Deathwing and Ravenwing individually as ours currently (Grim Resolve: Re-rolls 1 to hit when not moving) doesn't really benefit either for obvious reasons. DW and RW need some better synergy between the two as well like a teleport homer stratagem. Let deep striking units come down within 3" of a friendly RW unit or something.
2018/09/02 09:28:18
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: First, I don't think that special rules should be considered when points changes would accomplish the job better. Rules alterations are for when units aren't functioning as intended, points changes are when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're too expensive for it.
The problem I have with this approach is that how low do you go to fix Tacticals? Should Scouts be 11, and Tacticals 12 before wargear? Should they be even cheaper? Even if they are we don't fix the fact that Scouts will ALWAYS be cheaper due to their worse save while having most of the same wargear. To fix certain units we need to look at increasing their potential utility beyond their current roles. Especially troops units which are supposed to be flexible fighting forces.
Exactly. The roles are theoretically defined:
1. Scouts are interference and/or campers
2. Intercessors are supposed to be durable
3. Tacticals are supposed be more offensive
However, the latter two fail at that and Scouts are mediocre. To fix that:
1. Scouts getting improved Chapter Tactics basically negates any issues they might already have
2. Intercessors need to get Heavy Bolt Pistols instead of their dinky Bolt Pistols and be 16 points a model.
3. Tactical Marines need to be able to carry more special/heavy weapons, and everyone knows Bolt weapons need a fix, which in turn, with improved Chapter Tactics, means Tactical Marines might even be able to remain at their current price point.
I disagree with several things in this quote stack:
Special rules and points changes aren't the only options. Stat changes can also be done. And that is what is needed, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier posts in this thread. Marine stats do not mean what they meant in earlier editions because rules changed. So their stats need to be changed. If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to. They have already gotten cheaper compared to earlier editions. Now they need to get stronger.
11pt tacs still aren't worth using. And even if they were, it doesn't help more elite marine units. How do you cost a veteran compared to a tac? 12 pts? The advantages the vet gains aren't enough, because the real problem is a lack of good weapons and survivability.
The roles Slayer-Fan123 are proposing are also incorrect (although he is correct that they fail at those roles, and all others!)
Tactical marines are supposed to be a durable unit with the ability to take on all comers through the use of different weapon options, but never having a ton of firepower. It is the opposite of being more offensive. This is how they work in the fluff, and how they've worked in every prior edition. A flexible all comer unit, but not a crazy killing machine.
Intercessors are a whole other problem. Because honestly, we have no clue what role they, or any other primaris are really supposed to fulfil. The Marine line had things well covered before they showed up. GW could have just made them marines but better, but their lack of options means they can't really do anything except general anti infantry. But they cost too much to do so efficiently. If they got cheaper they'd be slightly better, but still they wouldn't have much of a role. They're also hard countered by plasma that it doesn't really matter if they get cheaper, they'll still just die without accomplishing much. I don't really know what should be done with them. They suffer from many of the same problems that tacs do: not enough ranged firepower to really matter, not enough melee power to really matter due to 8th ed changes, and not durable enough to really matter. Making them a couple points cheaper helps, but again doesn't address the real problem: that their stats are bad.
I'm absolutely correct on what their roles are, seeing as you actually couldn't figure out Intercessors and went on to complain about Primaris. So my question is why would you be correct?
Now, you did make mention of stat changes, which I only agree with for Terminators, Vanguard, and Sternguard. Vanguard get WS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, and Terminators get both.
When you make claims of how absolutely correct you are, it's normal custom to back them up with at least an explanation, if not a citation. Please explain to us all why you think tacticals are supposed to be offensive, while intercessors are defensive? Prior game rules? Stated intentions somewhere? Fluff? Anything?
I'm not against upping the WS and BS on elite units. But how are you going to address these units lack of durability?
Uh it's pretty easy. Watch:
1. Scouts have the most deployment options and their default weapons options make sense for this
2. Tactical Marines have the most weapon options for actual deadly stuff
3. Intercessors have like no options but are currently 9 points per each T4 3+ wound
So you buff the latter two as I demonstrated and fix Chapter Tactics, each troop option has an actual defined role.
Also I'm not for fixing durability on the Elite units. Marines aren't weak in durability for the cost, BUT their offensive output makes them fall behind the curve, hence why they lose shootouts and melee fights. The only unit I'm for truly fixing durability is Centurions, which is why I'm for them getting an extra wound (making them better against anything but D2 weapons basically, but D2 weapons are their own issue altogether) and making them cheaper. Then I actually want Elite units to actually feel elite.
So your argument is that these are meant to be their roles, because that's what their stats and gear are currently more biased towards? (I have no disagreements on scouts, btw). Intercessors have more offensive firepower than tacs against other infantry due to ap -1, so the argument that tacs are an offensive unit due to having more weapons kind of falls apart right away. But that's kind of splitting hairs. The real reason you are wrong is because we have 7 previous editions and hundreds of books already establishing the battlefield role and purpose of tactical marines. We know exactly what they are supposed to be, which is the durable generalist that I described above. The only question worth asking is if the rules reflect what the unit is supposed to be. You seem to think that the rules changing means that what the unit is intended to be has changed. This is wrong. You are wrong.
Intercessors are not a defense specialist. They just have an updated stat line. They are also an all around generalist unit, they just manifest it differently than tacs. Tacs have a few power models (special weapons and sarge) and a bunch of weaker ablatives. Intercessors are all slightly more powerful, but don't have specials. Intercessors and tacs are supposed to do about the same thing, just differently. My comment earlier was referring to them, and other Primaris units, being redundant with existing marine units. Primaris have a role because regular marines are so bad. But Primaris aren't much better, so still don't really get fielded anyway.
The best big fix overall may just be to give all marines the primaris statline and weapons. If tacs had 2w, 2A, -1 ap bolters, and if meltas and flamers got some fixes, then they'd be about back where they were proportionally to other units in previous editions. GW could just release a new special weapon sprue sized for Primaris and discontinue the old model line, which is what many people have speculated they planned to do originally.
And lastly, yes marines are weak in durability for their cost. The only stuff weaker is like eldar elites, and those are a) supposed to be glass cannons and b) also not worth fielding.
Always 1 on the crazed roll.
2018/09/02 09:48:23
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
Simple points change: Roughly 20-25% on pretty much everything from units to wargear should be enough.
Tactical Marine: May replace bolt pistol with a combat knife (+1 attack)
2 Special weapons in 5 man squad
Assault Marine: +1 attack base, Can take melta guns and plasma guns. All models can take combat shields
Hit rolls of 6 on Chainsword, Combat knife, Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter do -1ap
Hunter/Stalker/Predator/Vindicator/Whirlwind: May be taken in squads of 3
Hunter/Stalker: If the unit doesn't move in the movement phase, ignore all to hit penalties when targeting a unit that can FLY
Land Raider: Transported unit may disembark after or before the land raider has moved in it's movement phase. Reduce AP of weapons targeting by 1 (to 0 max)
Terminators: WS/BS 2+, Ignore to hit penalties when firing heavy weapons
Stratagems
Holy Promethium: Increase the range of any flamer or melta weapon by 3" during this shooting phase.
For Dark Angels specifically they need some king of chapter tactic specific to Deathwing and Ravenwing individually as ours currently (Grim Resolve: Re-rolls 1 to hit when not moving) doesn't really benefit either for obvious reasons. DW and RW need some better synergy between the two as well like a teleport homer stratagem. Let deep striking units come down within 3" of a friendly RW unit or something.
Marines don't need to get cheaper (especially not by 20-25% which would bring them to 10pts) but rather they need to be better balanced against negative modifiers to their armour and the ability to punch above their numbers.
The most elegant method would be a complete ground up rework of the game and moving to a D10 system but failing that, and working with what we have, then we need to look at special rules for things and making small adjustments to wargear to fix the issue.
That said and done, I'm definitely on the same page as you for the squads of vehicles. Considering the defensive buffs I've mentioned for Terminators (1+ save, reduce weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1) I worry that we're not leaving enough room for HQs by making them all 2+ WS/BS, unless we're now pushing into the 1+ territory to make it so HQ's ignore the first -1 to hit thing.
2018/09/02 14:30:31
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
Marines don't need to get cheaper (especially not by 20-25% which would bring them to 10pts) but rather they need to be better balanced against negative modifiers to their armour and the ability to punch above their numbers.
The most elegant method would be a complete ground up rework of the game and moving to a D10 system but failing that, and working with what we have, then we need to look at special rules for things and making small adjustments to wargear to fix the issue.
That said and done, I'm definitely on the same page as you for the squads of vehicles. Considering the defensive buffs I've mentioned for Terminators (1+ save, reduce weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1) I worry that we're not leaving enough room for HQs by making them all 2+ WS/BS, unless we're now pushing into the 1+ territory to make it so HQ's ignore the first -1 to hit thing.
Really that wouldn't be the worst idea I've heard as it would also make all the -1 to hit BS in CC much more of a non issue against things like chaptor masters and Primarchs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/02 14:31:22
2018/09/02 14:50:17
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
Marines don't need to get cheaper (especially not by 20-25% which would bring them to 10pts) but rather they need to be better balanced against negative modifiers to their armour and the ability to punch above their numbers.
The most elegant method would be a complete ground up rework of the game and moving to a D10 system but failing that, and working with what we have, then we need to look at special rules for things and making small adjustments to wargear to fix the issue.
That said and done, I'm definitely on the same page as you for the squads of vehicles. Considering the defensive buffs I've mentioned for Terminators (1+ save, reduce weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1) I worry that we're not leaving enough room for HQs by making them all 2+ WS/BS, unless we're now pushing into the 1+ territory to make it so HQ's ignore the first -1 to hit thing.
Really that wouldn't be the worst idea I've heard as it would also make all the -1 to hit BS in CC much more of a non issue against things like chaptor masters and Primarchs.
Now taking Marines out of a vacuum, should we be looking at making every 2+ to hit HQ choice hit on a 1+ instead then?
2018/09/02 14:53:46
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
Marines don't need to get cheaper (especially not by 20-25% which would bring them to 10pts) but rather they need to be better balanced against negative modifiers to their armour and the ability to punch above their numbers.
The most elegant method would be a complete ground up rework of the game and moving to a D10 system but failing that, and working with what we have, then we need to look at special rules for things and making small adjustments to wargear to fix the issue.
That said and done, I'm definitely on the same page as you for the squads of vehicles. Considering the defensive buffs I've mentioned for Terminators (1+ save, reduce weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1) I worry that we're not leaving enough room for HQs by making them all 2+ WS/BS, unless we're now pushing into the 1+ territory to make it so HQ's ignore the first -1 to hit thing.
Really that wouldn't be the worst idea I've heard as it would also make all the -1 to hit BS in CC much more of a non issue against things like chaptor masters and Primarchs.
Now taking Marines out of a vacuum, should we be looking at making every 2+ to hit HQ choice hit on a 1+ instead then?
I've proposed something similar before.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2018/09/02 15:03:14
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
Marines don't need to get cheaper (especially not by 20-25% which would bring them to 10pts) but rather they need to be better balanced against negative modifiers to their armour and the ability to punch above their numbers.
The most elegant method would be a complete ground up rework of the game and moving to a D10 system but failing that, and working with what we have, then we need to look at special rules for things and making small adjustments to wargear to fix the issue.
That said and done, I'm definitely on the same page as you for the squads of vehicles. Considering the defensive buffs I've mentioned for Terminators (1+ save, reduce weapon damage by 1 to a minimum of 1) I worry that we're not leaving enough room for HQs by making them all 2+ WS/BS, unless we're now pushing into the 1+ territory to make it so HQ's ignore the first -1 to hit thing.
Really that wouldn't be the worst idea I've heard as it would also make all the -1 to hit BS in CC much more of a non issue against things like chaptor masters and Primarchs.
Now taking Marines out of a vacuum, should we be looking at making every 2+ to hit HQ choice hit on a 1+ instead then?
I've proposed something similar before.
So Space Wolf HQs in the first round of combat should have a 0+ then?
2018/09/02 15:28:46
Subject: Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
Something to add, a great part of what made 4th and fifth edition so good was that special character space marines allowed for varied lists or themes. The current codex throws that all away and rewards you for taking the spammiest cheesiest unit. (Force organization charts prevented you from taking anything but 6 troops, 3 fast attack, 3 heavy support, 3 elites, and 2 hqs.)
Tactical squads also were given free equipment or reduced costs for specified special weapons and heavy weapons.
ATSNF allowed space marines to fall back whenever they chose to and immedately regroup. We don't really have that mechanic now its changed too much for it to be a good special rule.
Also helped that Space Marines in 4th could take tank hunters, preferred enemy, at the cost of restrictions.
The special characters right now across the board all have -1 to their wound compared to a regular captain.
Captains need the option to upgrade to artificer armor. Currently you only tank 1 per army, (terminator armor is far too expensive and decreasing their flexibility).
Tacticals, Scouts, and Intercessors are supposed to be the core of an army, they are supposed to be 'the best' the imperium has to offer, but scouts somehow beat their powered armored compatriots by cost and special rules alone. (Its far more worth it to spam scout squads than a fully suited power armor badass don't believe me look at tournament lists)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/02 15:51:09
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2018/09/02 15:53:52
Subject: Re:Putting together feedback on Codex: Space Marines (First Post Updated: 1 Sep)
Asherian Command wrote: Something to add, a great part of what made 4th and fifth edition so good was that special character space marines allowed for varied lists or themes. The current codex throws that all away and rewards you for taking the spammiest cheesiest unit. (Force organization charts prevented you from taking anything but 6 troops, 3 fast attack, 3 heavy support, 3 elites, and 2 hqs.)
Tactical squads also were given free equipment or reduced costs for specified special weapons and heavy weapons.
ATSNF allowed space marines to fall back whenever they chose to and immedately regroup. We don't really have that mechanic now its changed too much for it to be a good special rule.
Also helped that Space Marines in 4th could take tank hunters, preferred enemy, at the cost of restrictions.
ATSKNF was broken as it existing in the design space as it allowed half the armies in the game to ignore the morale mechanic with no penalties.
And even in 4th and 5th there was a reward for taking the cheesiest stuff in the book: you won more games. Bike Troops paired with Sternguard in Drop Pods based lists were pretty strong for a while because you could lock your opponent in their deployment zone turn one for example.
And if you need to give free equipment to a unit all the time, there is an issue with the unit and you're only bandaging the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Scouts beat Tacticals because they're cheaper with the same offensive output. With how fast things die in 8th people currently see more value in units with weaker saves over units with the same offensive output but a better save.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/02 15:56:05
and move up to 6" while doing so. Additionally all friendly Black Templar units within 6" of your Warlord may roll an extra die and choose the highest when making charge rolls.
[1,800] Chaos Knights | 
[1,250] Thousand Sons | 
[1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | 
