Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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 If they just get cheaper, then they no longer represent the unit they are supposed to.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.

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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They aren't accepting it because they're approaching the unit's role from the lore, not the mechanics.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They aren't accepting it because they're approaching the unit's role from the lore, not the mechanics.

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

Thats bad how? So the current useless special rule is good because?

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

4th was all about kiting out your leader to be as effective as possible while your tacticals could take apothecaries in terminator armor in every squad with a +6 invulnerable save. Tacticals were your best option in 4th. 5th introduced sternguard but people only spammed it because they were the shootiest and best choice to take with Kantor which gave them scoring.

Bikes were great and I loved that army because it allowed for variety, not the hellblaster, levithian spam we see currently.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because that felt mobile, it felt like a space marine army.

Vanguard Veterans could be taken as either a fast attack choice or elite choice and you could equip them to be incredibly fun and decisive in fights.

He'stan made all nearby salamanders amazing and everything was character bound. Could do alot of fun things in 4th and 5th based on what chapter you were playing. Or.... you play forgeworld Raptors and make everyone cry with heavy 1 rending bolters.

Which I did.... and I adored it. It punished players for trying to charge my marine tactical and made them absolutely terrifying.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They aren't accepting it because they're approaching the unit's role from the lore, not the mechanics.

Even with the mechanics, Intercessors are quite weak because of points cost, and just in general few options to make them viable (also they can't take anything but a 300pts vehicle for transport, not even drop pods, or land raiders for crying out loud.)

Oh I'm not arguing that they're good. I have a pure Primaris army and D2 spam basically wrecks my army. I'm saying that the reason people don't agree with what roles each unit should be filling are based on them using different metrics to determine those roles.

Martel732 wrote:
Using the lore for anything other than toilet paper sailed a long time ago.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Oh I'm not arguing that they're good. I have a pure Primaris army and D2 spam basically wrecks my army. I'm saying that the reason people don't agree with what roles each unit should be filling are based on them using different metrics to determine those roles.

Intercessors role seems to be defensive (according to the lore at least) but they should take the tactical role of being flexible which they really don't have that option currently from taking chainswords to taking special weapons or heavy weapons they do not have the option to be an extremely flexible unit. As current they are just more bolters with ap-1

Martel732 wrote:
If by "inform", you mean get completely ignored, I agree.

Martel732 wrote:
Using the lore for anything other than toilet paper sailed a long time ago.

It seems like they intentionally don't fit the same role as tacticals so that tacticals are still the way to fit a wide array of extra heavy and special weapons into your army to allow for more flexibility while Intercessors are more focused solely on being an anti-infantry troop unit.

Martel732 wrote:
"Quite honestly if you don't have something on topic to post regarding the weaknesses of the codex, how to fix them or about proposed fixes I'd honestly rather you didn't waste everyone's time by posting. You're not contributing anything to the topic by being such a negative Nurgling."

Actually, it's a pet peeve that people can simultaneously bitch about "movie marines", and then want to use the lore for justifications.

Martel732 wrote:
The solution is to acknowledge that the game is full of -AP weapon that more adversely effect marine units than pretty much any other units AND marine throw weight is pathetic without Bobby G and adjust costs accordingly. This fixes offense and defense simultaneously without putting in a bunch of wonky crap.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Martel732 wrote:
Here comes the "we don't want power armor horde" people. THIS is why I don't think the lore should be used for the game at all. 8th ed makes quantity better than quality. It just does. GW already screwed up any chance of non-horde marines by not making primaris 3 wounds and custodes 5 wounds. A custodes should have more wounds than a fething grotesque. But here we are. I for one, welcome my power armor horde overlords.

Martel732 wrote:
"Spamming extra wounds" has important implications. 2W models are just victims of ravagers and Tau this editions. 3W is the cutoff, without putting in a bunch of other crazy rules.

Martel732 wrote:
I say leave tacs behind. Make primaris 3, leave old marines at 1 and stuck in the past. Custodes need 5 W because they should be better than a goddamn grotesque.

Martel732 wrote:
Sorry, the dissy cannon has already hit the presses; non-wound solutions don't work anymore. Your armor means nothing, you can't get away, and your AT is highly inefficient vs Drukhari. They point and remove marines from 36", no questions asked.

Make old marines 10 pts and just accept that they are gonna die like grots. Because GW said so.

Martel732 wrote:
Sorry, the dissy cannon has already hit the presses; non-wound solutions don't work anymore. Your armor means nothing, you can't get away, and your AT is highly inefficient vs Drukhari. They point and remove marines from 36", no questions asked.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't care about terminators? So I'm not mentioning that? And dissy cannons are wiping up EVERY 2 W model, not just terminators.

Martel732 wrote:
Why just terminators?

"Useless"? Take a number; that's most of the codex. That's why point drops are the most feasible thing here instead of changing 30+ entries.

Martel732 wrote:
Pretty sure a 10 point marine with an 8 pt meltagun would be a good use of points.

We didn't need the rule of 3 or for DS to get nerfed. We needed flyrants appropriately costed. And if that was 400 pts, so be it.

Martel732 wrote:
You're not getting that in 8th. Sorry if that's unpopular. They are fixing with points. Not rules. Except clumsy rules like rule of 3 and DS nerf. Those kinds of changes can't help marines, imo.