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.

Scouts basically do what Rangers do - relatively cheap but with deployment shenanigans. Marginal dakka, but you're paying for the bodies and positioning. Both in armies without cheap troops options.

11ppm is too much for Scouts as a fighting force, but I'm not sure it's substantially too high for Scout utility.

Kdash wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
To the above poster yeah those are some nasty sounding combos.

But to my question, Are Marine Scouts actually worth 11ppm?
I know alot of people take them to make that marine battalion and I know their setup rules are powerful.
However is that because they are worth 11ppm or just the lease bad option?

IMHO they die like flies and bar the odd fun game rarely get any weapons as they are wiped before they have a hope of earning those points back.

So, currently, based on a T4, 4+ save model, I’d say Scouts aren’t worth 11 points each, but, it is incredibly hard to put a price on their deployment option.

Scouts for me are generally just a distraction unit, a screen or an objective sitter. I’m not overly fussed if they die turn 1 or 2, or if they don’t make their 55 points back, but, I’m always happy if they sit on an objective and score points, or pick up points via maelstrom or ITC secondaries.

This for me, is why it is even harder to take standard marines over them. Marines can’t really do any of that without having a Rhino or something.

Sounds much like the issue I had when I was trying to work out if they are over or undercosted.
As a unit in game they do little and die easily.
But much like you I find myself usually playing 1 or 2 bare bones squads for either blocking out RavrnGuard/Alpha Legion or boxing in a T1 charge unit.

 alextroy wrote:

But has anyone said anything to them about it? I'm serious. The number of points changes since 8th Edition has dropped is so small as to be nearly insignificant to most models in the game. Why not start your feedback at the easiest lever to change rather than rewriting half the game and calling that "feedback"?

I honestly think that GW needs to closely consider every point value in the game. It should be evident to them that the biggest problems are from imbalances and I hope they are smart enough to realize that fixing just one or two units that are undercosted just sends the hordes looking for the next best undercosted option. The best thing the community can do is provide such actual feedback rather than running off on a flight of fancy rewriting the Codex to be the one they would write instead of the one that GW actually wrote.

So am I the next Martel? You tell me. I see myself as a voice for collecting actual feedback. I think GW will listen to comments about what they actually produced much more than a list of fantasy rewrites. I want us to give the the feedback.

I more or less want to second this. Marines are priced like an elite army, but they don't play like one and 8th doesn't favor elites. You can fix that by making Marines better until they feel worth the points, or you can fix it by reducing the points. I honestly think a 10% point reduction across the board and an additional 5% off Terminators, Centurions, and the Land Speeder would fix 90% if the problems with vanilla marines. ...exept the Vindicator, that needs Grinding Advance instead.

There are some obvious issues beyond that but trying to be an elite army in an edition that favors hordes is the majority of the problem.

Obvious issues: (just for reference)
- Vehicles not getting Chapter Traits is dumb, no one else has that problem.
- The Grav Cannon and MultiMelta are blatently over costed, they should be no more expensive than the LasCannon and Plasma Cannon respectively. The special weapons are also blatently over costed compared to the heavies and priced out of order besides.
- Datalink Telemetry and the three Strategems that require three of something need replaced.
- Raven Guard have hands-down the best Chapter Train and Strategem. I don't think the others need a huge rewrite to compete, just bumped a little. Bump Iron Hands from a 6+++ to a 5+++. Add Meltas, Heavy Bolters, and Missile Launchers (with "Inferno Shells" as the justification) to the Salamander strategem. Maybe add "ignore move and fire to-hit penalties" to White Scars and "may reroll damage rolls" (note: damage, not to-wound) to Imperial Fists. That sort of thing.
- Relics probably need another look, the Santic Halo is the only one I'd even consider taking over the Banner of the Emperor Ascendant.

Or.. gasp... scouts aren't worth 11, either. Which they aren't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

But has anyone said anything to them about it? I'm serious. The number of points changes since 8th Edition has dropped is so small as to be nearly insignificant to most models in the game. Why not start your feedback at the easiest lever to change rather than rewriting half the game and calling that "feedback"?

I honestly think that GW needs to closely consider every point value in the game. It should be evident to them that the biggest problems are from imbalances and I hope they are smart enough to realize that fixing just one or two units that are undercosted just sends the hordes looking for the next best undercosted option. The best thing the community can do is provide such actual feedback rather than running off on a flight of fancy rewriting the Codex to be the one they would write instead of the one that GW actually wrote.

So am I the next Martel? You tell me. I see myself as a voice for collecting actual feedback. I think GW will listen to comments about what they actually produced much more than a list of fantasy rewrites. I want us to give the the feedback.

I more or less want to second this. Marines are priced like an elite army, but they don't play like one and 8th doesn't favor elites. You can fix that by making Marines better until they feel worth the points, or you can fix it by reducing the points. I honestly think a 10% point reduction across the board and an additional 5% off Terminators, Centurions, and the Land Speeder would fix 90% if the problems with vanilla marines. ...exept the Vindicator, that needs Grinding Advance instead.

There are some obvious issues beyond that but trying to be an elite army in an edition that favors hordes is the majority of the problem.

Obvious issues: (just for reference)
- Vehicles not getting Chapter Traits is dumb, no one else has that problem.
- The Grav Cannon and MultiMelta are blatently over costed, they should be no more expensive than the LasCannon and Plasma Cannon respectively. The special weapons are also blatently over costed compared to the heavies and priced out of order besides.
- Datalink Telemetry and the three Strategems that require three of something need replaced.
- Raven Guard have hands-down the best Chapter Train and Strategem. I don't think the others need a huge rewrite to compete, just bumped a little. Bump Iron Hands from a 6+++ to a 5+++. Add Meltas, Heavy Bolters, and Missile Launchers (with "Inferno Shells" as the justification) to the Salamander strategem. Maybe add "ignore move and fire to-hit penalties" to White Scars and "may reroll damage rolls" (note: damage, not to-wound) to Imperial Fists. That sort of thing.
- Relics probably need another look, the Santic Halo is the only one I'd even consider taking over the Banner of the Emperor Ascendant.

Seconded. BA have special problems, in that their chapter trait only functions after 2/3 the army is already dead.

Kdash wrote:

I like a lot of the ideas, but I have some thoughts and concerns regarding some of them.
So, going over the 2nd draft section –

Ok, so, now the core of my Raven Guard army would be 3 big units of flamer Aggressors using SftSs to then double flame everything within 12” turn 1, whilst having fantastic survivability vs D1 weapons….

If I am honest I don’t like giving a standard SM Warlord the benefit of the Blood Angels and Space Wolves traits when fighting a vehicle or monster. It takes something away from them. “Champion of Humanity” to me should be something like re-rolling everything when targeting a Character in melee. I would take this from the BT “3rd option” and give them something else – maybe an advance and charge for the WL.

I’d also change the White Scars trait. Instead of part 2 only affecting vehicles, I’d change it to include the “biker” keyword as well.

Raven Guard Scouts in cover and using cloaks (just saying…) would have a 1+ save and -1 to hit over 12”s, and a 2+ save without the cloaks. This wouldn’t help you see more Tactical Squads over more Scout squads.

Power swords giving +1 save in combat is a little much imo. Currently a Gravis Captain with Master Crafted Power Sword is 134 points. In combat vs any D1 damage weapon he’d have a 1+ save and reduce damage by 1. I’m all for Marines being harder to kill, but, some of the combinations are just potentially “over the top”. If anything, a power weapons should all get a +1 strength increase.

Clarify the Power Armour rule to only affect armour saves. All is Dust is a neat little spin off which affects invulns, but I don’t think we want 2++ storm shields, or 3+ Iron Halos everywhere.

Salamanders Chapter Tactic , personally I think you can just add 2” to the range of all flamer and melta weapons, instead of the Catachan style rule. It gives them more options, as opposed to somehow trying to force Flamers to work. (plus I don’t think it’s that fluffy to be double rolling for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, nearly forgot – Marines aren’t T’au sept. Noone wants to see another gunline of Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, re-rolling all hits and wounds of 1 whilst over-watching on a 5+. It was also more of a Dark Angels thing previously, not a vanilla concept.

So charge the Raven Guard Scouts?

I liked the first draft more than the second.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Kdash wrote:

I like a lot of the ideas, but I have some thoughts and concerns regarding some of them.
So, going over the 2nd draft section –

Ok, so, now the core of my Raven Guard army would be 3 big units of flamer Aggressors using SftSs to then double flame everything within 12” turn 1, whilst having fantastic survivability vs D1 weapons….

If I am honest I don’t like giving a standard SM Warlord the benefit of the Blood Angels and Space Wolves traits when fighting a vehicle or monster. It takes something away from them. “Champion of Humanity” to me should be something like re-rolling everything when targeting a Character in melee. I would take this from the BT “3rd option” and give them something else – maybe an advance and charge for the WL.

I’d also change the White Scars trait. Instead of part 2 only affecting vehicles, I’d change it to include the “biker” keyword as well.

Raven Guard Scouts in cover and using cloaks (just saying…) would have a 1+ save and -1 to hit over 12”s, and a 2+ save without the cloaks. This wouldn’t help you see more Tactical Squads over more Scout squads.

Power swords giving +1 save in combat is a little much imo. Currently a Gravis Captain with Master Crafted Power Sword is 134 points. In combat vs any D1 damage weapon he’d have a 1+ save and reduce damage by 1. I’m all for Marines being harder to kill, but, some of the combinations are just potentially “over the top”. If anything, a power weapons should all get a +1 strength increase.

Clarify the Power Armour rule to only affect armour saves. All is Dust is a neat little spin off which affects invulns, but I don’t think we want 2++ storm shields, or 3+ Iron Halos everywhere.

Salamanders Chapter Tactic , personally I think you can just add 2” to the range of all flamer and melta weapons, instead of the Catachan style rule. It gives them more options, as opposed to somehow trying to force Flamers to work. (plus I don’t think it’s that fluffy to be double rolling for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, nearly forgot – Marines aren’t T’au sept. Noone wants to see another gunline of Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, re-rolling all hits and wounds of 1 whilst over-watching on a 5+. It was also more of a Dark Angels thing previously, not a vanilla concept.

So charge the Raven Guard Scouts?

The thing is, if it was changed in that way, i'd just have my scouts back field 90% of the time, and have the aggressors SftSs. I still gain reasonable board control that way and, if needed i can always use 1 squad of scouts for setup a drop zone. It just means that i'd never need to use Intercessors or Tac Marines for backfield objectives ever again, as there would be no point. Sure, you can deep strike in turn 2 and prob charge the scouts then or in turn 3, but, by that point i probably won't be that bothered as i'd have picked up the points i want and likely still have something else backfield to help support them.

Kdash wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Kdash wrote:

I like a lot of the ideas, but I have some thoughts and concerns regarding some of them.
So, going over the 2nd draft section –

Ok, so, now the core of my Raven Guard army would be 3 big units of flamer Aggressors using SftSs to then double flame everything within 12” turn 1, whilst having fantastic survivability vs D1 weapons….

If I am honest I don’t like giving a standard SM Warlord the benefit of the Blood Angels and Space Wolves traits when fighting a vehicle or monster. It takes something away from them. “Champion of Humanity” to me should be something like re-rolling everything when targeting a Character in melee. I would take this from the BT “3rd option” and give them something else – maybe an advance and charge for the WL.

I’d also change the White Scars trait. Instead of part 2 only affecting vehicles, I’d change it to include the “biker” keyword as well.

Raven Guard Scouts in cover and using cloaks (just saying…) would have a 1+ save and -1 to hit over 12”s, and a 2+ save without the cloaks. This wouldn’t help you see more Tactical Squads over more Scout squads.

Power swords giving +1 save in combat is a little much imo. Currently a Gravis Captain with Master Crafted Power Sword is 134 points. In combat vs any D1 damage weapon he’d have a 1+ save and reduce damage by 1. I’m all for Marines being harder to kill, but, some of the combinations are just potentially “over the top”. If anything, a power weapons should all get a +1 strength increase.

Clarify the Power Armour rule to only affect armour saves. All is Dust is a neat little spin off which affects invulns, but I don’t think we want 2++ storm shields, or 3+ Iron Halos everywhere.

Salamanders Chapter Tactic , personally I think you can just add 2” to the range of all flamer and melta weapons, instead of the Catachan style rule. It gives them more options, as opposed to somehow trying to force Flamers to work. (plus I don’t think it’s that fluffy to be double rolling for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, nearly forgot – Marines aren’t T’au sept. Noone wants to see another gunline of Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, re-rolling all hits and wounds of 1 whilst over-watching on a 5+. It was also more of a Dark Angels thing previously, not a vanilla concept.

So charge the Raven Guard Scouts?

The thing is, if it was changed in that way, i'd just have my scouts back field 90% of the time, and have the aggressors SftSs. I still gain reasonable board control that way and, if needed i can always use 1 squad of scouts for setup a drop zone. It just means that i'd never need to use Intercessors or Tac Marines for backfield objectives ever again, as there would be no point. Sure, you can deep strike in turn 2 and prob charge the scouts then or in turn 3, but, by that point i probably won't be that bothered as i'd have picked up the points i want and likely still have something else backfield to help support them.

So it's as if Raven Guard would be operating like they should! Crazy.

Also if someone really wants to spend that many points to camp a Scout squad to do nothing but hold an objective, that's their prerogative.

Martel732 wrote:
Or.. gasp... scouts aren't worth 11, either. Which they aren't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

But has anyone said anything to them about it? I'm serious. The number of points changes since 8th Edition has dropped is so small as to be nearly insignificant to most models in the game. Why not start your feedback at the easiest lever to change rather than rewriting half the game and calling that "feedback"?

I honestly think that GW needs to closely consider every point value in the game. It should be evident to them that the biggest problems are from imbalances and I hope they are smart enough to realize that fixing just one or two units that are undercosted just sends the hordes looking for the next best undercosted option. The best thing the community can do is provide such actual feedback rather than running off on a flight of fancy rewriting the Codex to be the one they would write instead of the one that GW actually wrote.

So am I the next Martel? You tell me. I see myself as a voice for collecting actual feedback. I think GW will listen to comments about what they actually produced much more than a list of fantasy rewrites. I want us to give the the feedback.

I more or less want to second this. Marines are priced like an elite army, but they don't play like one and 8th doesn't favor elites. You can fix that by making Marines better until they feel worth the points, or you can fix it by reducing the points. I honestly think a 10% point reduction across the board and an additional 5% off Terminators, Centurions, and the Land Speeder would fix 90% if the problems with vanilla marines. ...exept the Vindicator, that needs Grinding Advance instead.

There are some obvious issues beyond that but trying to be an elite army in an edition that favors hordes is the majority of the problem.

Obvious issues: (just for reference)
- Vehicles not getting Chapter Traits is dumb, no one else has that problem.
- The Grav Cannon and MultiMelta are blatently over costed, they should be no more expensive than the LasCannon and Plasma Cannon respectively. The special weapons are also blatently over costed compared to the heavies and priced out of order besides.
- Datalink Telemetry and the three Strategems that require three of something need replaced.
- Raven Guard have hands-down the best Chapter Train and Strategem. I don't think the others need a huge rewrite to compete, just bumped a little. Bump Iron Hands from a 6+++ to a 5+++. Add Meltas, Heavy Bolters, and Missile Launchers (with "Inferno Shells" as the justification) to the Salamander strategem. Maybe add "ignore move and fire to-hit penalties" to White Scars and "may reroll damage rolls" (note: damage, not to-wound) to Imperial Fists. That sort of thing.
- Relics probably need another look, the Santic Halo is the only one I'd even consider taking over the Banner of the Emperor Ascendant.

Seconded. BA have special problems, in that their chapter trait only functions after 2/3 the army is already dead.

I have to take a moment to acknowledge that the Predator being 30ish points more than a Dreadnaught and about the same as as a Venerable with equivalent weapon layouts doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Sorry for the lack of responses. Being told over and over that I'm basically wasting my time combined with work has burnt me out a little bit so I'm stepping back from the internet for a day or so to recharge my batteries. I appreciate the responses you guys have had. It's honestly been great and it's good to know that there are other people who as passionately about the game as I do (even if their passion is directed towards telling me that I'm doing it all wrong and that we should be running Space Marines priced slightly more than Scions).

Look, I get it, there are a lot of ways to skin a gyrinx after all, and some people have taken some issue with my approach, and I get it. My intent wasn't to shut down the idea that points changes may be needed (heck some changes could even push the points of units up instead), but rather to try and get people to look past the idea of "this is too expensive" and say why it's too expensive. What is the unit lacking? What makes it feel like a bad deal? We need to get into the grit of the problem if we have any chance of addressing this with sufficient detail for the devs to see why we feel there is a problem with parts of the codex.

For what it's worth, I get the distinct impression that the Predator, Vindicator, Whirlwind, and Land Speeder were all priced with their Strategems in mind.

For the Predator and Vindicator I'd be ok-ish with the strategem doing 1/3 of what it currently does but only requiring one tank on the table to use it. The speed boost for having three Speeders on the table falls into the same category.

Datalink Telemetry is a whole different problem since it requires putting a fragile Speeder much closer to the enemy than it wants to be. If it required (just for example) a Fast Attack unit instead of specifically a Land Speeder that wouldn't be so bad.

While this is more wishlisting, FA might not be ideal because it doesn't seem like the role ASM should take. On the other hand, Scouts make perfect sense.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Sorry for the lack of responses. Being told over and over that I'm basically wasting my time combined with work has burnt me out a little bit so I'm stepping back from the internet for a day or so to recharge my batteries. I appreciate the responses you guys have had. It's honestly been great and it's good to know that there are other people who as passionately about the game as I do (even if their passion is directed towards telling me that I'm doing it all wrong and that we should be running Space Marines priced slightly more than Scions).

Look, I get it, there are a lot of ways to skin a gyrinx after all, and some people have taken some issue with my approach, and I get it. My intent wasn't to shut down the idea that points changes may be needed (heck some changes could even push the points of units up instead), but rather to try and get people to look past the idea of "this is too expensive" and say why it's too expensive. What is the unit lacking? What makes it feel like a bad deal? We need to get into the grit of the problem if we have any chance of addressing this with sufficient detail for the devs to see why we feel there is a problem with parts of the codex.

CWZ, I think it is a matter of content of feedback, not the idea of feedback in general. I applaud providing feedback, but see what you are compiling as a wishlist of changes. GW needs to know what is not working and why. However, how to fix that, especially if it involves changing lots of rules in lots of unrelated codexes isn't really feedback.

Here's what I see as valid feedback that I would hope GW would take seriously as constructive criticism:

And They Shall Know No Fear: This rule is a lackluster rule in game play. With high Leadership and expensive cost, it has become common for players to only field minimal size units of Space Marines. This means few Leadership test where there is a real danger of losing any models (have to lose 3 models to fail a Leadership 8 Test). Secondly, when large units are taken, it feels wrong to see Space Marines fleeing from battle like cowards. Finally, when rolling Morale after losing 5 or more models, rerolling can be worst than sticking with the initial roll. Can this rule be improved to get a more Heroic Space Marine? Possibilities are already being used elsewhere in the rules like" "Roll 2 Dice and Keep Lowest"; maximum of 1 Model lost to failed Morale Test; Roll Morale on 1d3 instead of 1d6.

Tactical Marines: In the experience of most players, Tactical Marines have all but disappeared from any competitive game play. They have been abandoned in favor of Scouts or allied Imperial Guard detachments. For Tactical Marines, and similar power armor units, players have found that their improved statistics and weapons compared to a Guardsmen do not payoff in play. A Space Marine with a Bolter is twice a deadly and twice a resilient as a Guardsmen with a Lasgun, but cost three times a much! You live longer and kill more taking Guardsman at a point per point level. To bring the mainstay of the Space Marine chapters back to the battlefield, we need either a better balance of points between Tacticals and other line infantry models from other armies or rules that make them actually worth the higher cost.

 alextroy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Sorry for the lack of responses. Being told over and over that I'm basically wasting my time combined with work has burnt me out a little bit so I'm stepping back from the internet for a day or so to recharge my batteries. I appreciate the responses you guys have had. It's honestly been great and it's good to know that there are other people who as passionately about the game as I do (even if their passion is directed towards telling me that I'm doing it all wrong and that we should be running Space Marines priced slightly more than Scions).

Look, I get it, there are a lot of ways to skin a gyrinx after all, and some people have taken some issue with my approach, and I get it. My intent wasn't to shut down the idea that points changes may be needed (heck some changes could even push the points of units up instead), but rather to try and get people to look past the idea of "this is too expensive" and say why it's too expensive. What is the unit lacking? What makes it feel like a bad deal? We need to get into the grit of the problem if we have any chance of addressing this with sufficient detail for the devs to see why we feel there is a problem with parts of the codex.

CWZ, I think it is a matter of content of feedback, not the idea of feedback in general. I applaud providing feedback, but see what you are compiling as a wishlist of changes. GW needs to know what is not working and why. However, how to fix that, especially if it involves changing lots of rules in lots of unrelated codexes isn't really feedback.

Here's what I see as valid feedback that I would hope GW would take seriously as constructive criticism:

And They Shall Know No Fear: This rule is a lackluster rule in game play. With high Leadership and expensive cost, it has become common for players to only field minimal size units of Space Marines. This means few Leadership test where there is a real danger of losing any models (have to lose 3 models to fail a Leadership 8 Test). Secondly, when large units are taken, it feels wrong to see Space Marines fleeing from battle like cowards. Finally, when rolling Morale after losing 5 or more models, rerolling can be worst than sticking with the initial roll. Can this rule be improved to get a more Heroic Space Marine? Possibilities are already being used elsewhere in the rules like" "Roll 2 Dice and Keep Lowest"; maximum of 1 Model lost to failed Morale Test; Roll Morale on 1d3 instead of 1d6.

Tactical Marines: In the experience of most players, Tactical Marines have all but disappeared from any competitive game play. They have been abandoned in favor of Scouts or allied Imperial Guard detachments. For Tactical Marines, and similar power armor units, players have found that their improved statistics and weapons compared to a Guardsmen do not payoff in play. A Space Marine with a Bolter is twice a deadly and twice a resilient as a Guardsmen with a Lasgun, but cost three times a much! You live longer and kill more taking Guardsman at a point per point level. To bring the mainstay of the Space Marine chapters back to the battlefield, we need either a better balance of points between Tacticals and other line infantry models from other armies or rules that make them actually worth the higher cost.

Correct - Right now they play like 10 point models. So make them 10 point models. Or double their durability and make them cost 14. I know the idea of "space marine spam" scares people but is it really any worse than infantry squad spam? Cultist spam? Firewarrior spam? No. In fact - it's hard to disagree that this would just look awesome to see space marines on the field again.

Primaris could do with a rule like -1 damage and give them more weapon options at their current price. Stalker bolters gain Sniper rule.
Hero Weapons like Master crafter bolters should be more powerful - the should basically be as powerful as relic storm bolters are now. (I mean they are competing with commanders that can take specials - archons that can take blasters - autarchs that can take fusion and reeper launchers) Come on man.

All vehicals should gain access to CT. Most of them should drop by 15-20% in price too. Landraiders and repulsors get 5++ saves and drop up to 25%

Heavy weapons drop in price Grav cannon = 20 - rocket =20 lascannon = 20 plasma cannon =15 MM=15

Orbital bombardment basically get the stats of infernal gateway.

All PA marines get an equal base drop to tacticals or get +1 wound

Agressors ge 2+ armor

Terminators get 3 wounds and reduce damage by 1 and ignore negative modifers.

These are the kinds of changes marines need. It's like playing with a 300 point handicap playing marines these days.

Why should termies ignore all negatives?

I can only assume he means from moving and shooting, and using hammers/fists.

jcd386 wrote:
I can only assume he means from moving and shooting, and using hammers/fists.

Moving and shooting is basically a rule they had before, so I'm guessing that. Though it's a pretty minor buff given you're only having one Heavy weapon per 5 Termies.

Stux wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I can only assume he means from moving and shooting, and using hammers/fists.

Moving and shooting is basically a rule they had before, so I'm guessing that. Though it's a pretty minor buff given you're only having one Heavy weapon per 5 Termies.

I don't think that's what was meant. If it was, then all's well there.

If not... Why?

Just give marines ye 'olde Rapid Fire (shot twice with bolt-weapons when standing still), and then count Terminators as always standing still.

The last thing Landraiders need is to be paying for a 5++ when is functionally redundant for 90% of weapons with its 2+.
A Landraider would benefit more from a FNP type rule over a redundant invulnerable.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Just give marines ye 'olde Rapid Fire (shot twice with bolt-weapons when standing still), and then count Terminators as always standing still.

Mmmmmm, 24 + 2d6 shot Aggressors [/Homer]

That's not a bad idea overall though. Kinda messes with the point values of dakka-heavy stuff like the Redeptor that have a lot of shots but nothing with the bolt-weapon keyword.

It wasn't a bad idea for Marines. But then they gave it to everybody. And now everyone's clamoring for what to give Marines...

I'm more just curious, but why don't Terminators hit on a 2+?

It doesn't really make sense to me why Thunderhammers and Powerfists hit on 4+ due to the -1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Just give marines ye 'olde Rapid Fire (shot twice with bolt-weapons when standing still), and then count Terminators as always standing still.

Actually, why did marines suddenly forget how to fury of the legion? I think that would be a great rule for tactical marines to have!

 JNAProductions wrote:

Stux wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I can only assume he means from moving and shooting, and using hammers/fists.

Moving and shooting is basically a rule they had before, so I'm guessing that. Though it's a pretty minor buff given you're only having one Heavy weapon per 5 Termies.

I don't think that's what was meant. If it was, then all's well there.

If not... Why?

Would it be cool if terms had a rule like dark reapers? With their malicious shooting attacks with storm bolters?!?! Sure it would - I was referring to moving and with power firsts though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
It wasn't a bad idea for Marines. But then they gave it to everybody. And now everyone's clamoring for what to give Marines...

Ehh most people think marines are just fine. They also think shinning spears are just fine too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
The last thing Landraiders need is to be paying for a 5++ when is functionally redundant for 90% of weapons with its 2+.
A Landraider would benefit more from a FNP type rule over a redundant invulnerable.

It's not redundant. Anything AP - 4 brings you to a 6+. Eldar have 17 ap-4 weapons in their codex I believe. Knights have access to a lot of Ap-4 and even ap-5. It is a small benefit that it actually shouldn't have to pay for. Expensive 16 wound models should have invo saves. Dark eldar have lots of AP -4. I mean...those are the 3 most powerful armies right now and they have lots of AP-4 - so it's not at all redundant.

 alextroy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Sorry for the lack of responses. Being told over and over that I'm basically wasting my time combined with work has burnt me out a little bit so I'm stepping back from the internet for a day or so to recharge my batteries. I appreciate the responses you guys have had. It's honestly been great and it's good to know that there are other people who as passionately about the game as I do (even if their passion is directed towards telling me that I'm doing it all wrong and that we should be running Space Marines priced slightly more than Scions).

Look, I get it, there are a lot of ways to skin a gyrinx after all, and some people have taken some issue with my approach, and I get it. My intent wasn't to shut down the idea that points changes may be needed (heck some changes could even push the points of units up instead), but rather to try and get people to look past the idea of "this is too expensive" and say why it's too expensive. What is the unit lacking? What makes it feel like a bad deal? We need to get into the grit of the problem if we have any chance of addressing this with sufficient detail for the devs to see why we feel there is a problem with parts of the codex.

CWZ, I think it is a matter of content of feedback, not the idea of feedback in general. I applaud providing feedback, but see what you are compiling as a wishlist of changes. GW needs to know what is not working and why. However, how to fix that, especially if it involves changing lots of rules in lots of unrelated codexes isn't really feedback.

Here's what I see as valid feedback that I would hope GW would take seriously as constructive criticism:

And They Shall Know No Fear: This rule is a lackluster rule in game play. With high Leadership and expensive cost, it has become common for players to only field minimal size units of Space Marines. This means few Leadership test where there is a real danger of losing any models (have to lose 3 models to fail a Leadership 8 Test). Secondly, when large units are taken, it feels wrong to see Space Marines fleeing from battle like cowards. Finally, when rolling Morale after losing 5 or more models, rerolling can be worst than sticking with the initial roll. Can this rule be improved to get a more Heroic Space Marine? Possibilities are already being used elsewhere in the rules like" "Roll 2 Dice and Keep Lowest"; maximum of 1 Model lost to failed Morale Test; Roll Morale on 1d3 instead of 1d6.

Tactical Marines: In the experience of most players, Tactical Marines have all but disappeared from any competitive game play. They have been abandoned in favor of Scouts or allied Imperial Guard detachments. For Tactical Marines, and similar power armor units, players have found that their improved statistics and weapons compared to a Guardsmen do not payoff in play. A Space Marine with a Bolter is twice a deadly and twice a resilient as a Guardsmen with a Lasgun, but cost three times a much! You live longer and kill more taking Guardsman at a point per point level. To bring the mainstay of the Space Marine chapters back to the battlefield, we need either a better balance of points between Tacticals and other line infantry models from other armies or rules that make them actually worth the higher cost.

I strongly feel like you're trying to put words in my mouth on what I'm exactly trying to present and how when I haven't even posted a rough draft of what that will look like yet.

I get you mean well but criticize my presentation when you actually see what it is. This is basically data collection right now and you're looking at an end product that hasn't even been written yet.

So in the interest of trying to consolidate which units are the perceived "stinkers" I'm going to list all the ones I know and people should add on if I'm missing anything:

EVERYTHING: Saves aren't as valuable with massed amounts of AP and no mitigation, multiple wounds aren't as valuable as many players rely on D2 weapons for anti-tank/-monster, ATSKNF doesn't mitigate the way a larger squad falls apart if you actually run 10 man units. Additionally everything has trouble killing enough enemy models per turn due to low numbers of shots/attacks when compared to a lot of other armies (due to lower number of models on the table when compared to other armies). If a unit isn't mentioned by name below, it probably has this problem anyways.

All Chaplains: "Everything" +Only buffs melee and LD, but it's aura is easily outdone by a chapter master for re-rolls and Ld isn't important in an edition that punishes 10 man Marine squads

Tacticals: Everything + and a lack of reliable transport options,

Intercessors: Everything +stalker pattern bolt rifle pays for a loss in firepower with no mitigation by allowing for targetting of characters or being heavy 2 to make up for lossed mobility

Scouts: Having access to bolters makes them cheap troops that overlap too much with Tacticals and Intercessors. Perhaps changing them to an "assualt bolter" like the Assault Bolt Rifle (lower AP, 2 shots at 18", assault weapon profile) might mitigate this by making the unit feel more like a harrassment force

Crusaders: Everything +lack of dedicated melee buffs to ensure that when the unit gets into combat it hits harder than a sleeping Tau.

Terminators (all flavors): Everything +Loss of ignoring penalties for moving and shooting (which was part of why they're slower in the first place), Possibly could use a 2+ on BS/WS as well to mitigate combat penalties a bit, but honestly that's likely wishlisting once defensive buffs are applied

Sternguard Vets: Everything +loss of true specialist ammo has hampered what was once a well balanced and flexible unit

Vanguard Vets: Everything +no real bonuses towards melee to mitigate their points costs beyond the veterans +1 attack

Servitors: Suffer too heavily if you have to re-position them during a game for better shooting, loss of repair bonuses for Techmarines

Reivers: Everything +lack of quality attacks in melee means this unit can't hit anything tougher than Gretchin without losing a number of models, the grenade it too short range to hit enemy units when the unit drops in making it almost never used since clever deployment and charge moves are what the unit should be best at but 6" means it never gets used properly.

Aggressor Squad: Everything +flamer variant is too short ranged to ever benefit from the firestorm rule due to needing to constantly advance to get into range (and due to Relentless Assault they pay for that too despite auto-hitting with flamers).

Dreadnoughts (all types): Everything +lack of mitigation for moving and shooting; lack of some built in protection against anti-tank weapons (arguably since every Dreadnought is a former hero they should be Characters at least), lack of ability to take in squads of three, and the fact that this venerable hero of the chapter can't effectively fight hordes with melee variants makes this one often left at home by most people

Centurion Assault Squad: Everything +slow moving melee unit with a lack of strong deployment options and a lack of good melee bonuses

Bike Squad: Everything +taking an all bike army is punished by lowered amounts of CP.

Assault Squad: Everything +lack of melee bonuses for a melee focused unit, lack of ranged options for a unit that seems to be a dedicated harassment unit,

Land Speeders: Everything +loss of fast vehicle bonuses (moving and shooting at reduced or no penalty)

Attack Bike Squad: Everything +loss of "relentless" rules that made it possible to effectively move and fire heavy weapons

Devastators: Everything +loss of reliable extra wounds by taking large squads with bolter marines due to morale issues

Centurions: Everything +slow with a lack of reliable options to get them near their proper targets

Hellblasters: Everything +Heavy Weapon option lacks volume of fire to make it effective against vehicles or to make up for the lowered effectiveness while moving

Tanks (all): Everything +loss of the ability to move and shoot forces tanks to form parking lots instead of using good mobility to move around the board for better positioning, and all variants (save maybe the Land Raiders and Rhinos) should be able to be taken in squads of three (that then split up into separate units). Additionally, the lack of chapter tactics is just silly. The lack of options for dozer blades (which could be melee weapons used on the charge) is also rather odd considering it's a part in almost every vehicle kit. Almost every vehicle has a base points cost that is too high as well.

Predator: Everything +Kill shot is too restrictive to use

Vindicator: Everything +Linebreaker Bombardment is too restrictive to see use

Rhino: Everything +too expensive in its current form, especially since it can't ignore terrain types like flying vehicles and Chimeras can, also lacks fire ports which it had for some time.

Guilliman: Honestly costs too much for what is effectively a Chapter Master reroll buff. If it's really a problem change the reroll to not affect vehicles without the Dreadnought keyword.

Now, did I miss anything, or do I basically have the right idea for the units?

Not sure if you're considering special characters yet, but dear lord Grimaldus needs help. All the problems of a Chaplain at twice the cost.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not sure if you're considering special characters yet, but dear lord Grimaldus needs help. All the problems of a Chaplain at twice the cost.

I lumped him under "Chaplains" for this list.

I feel like the thing Chaplains need is to buff hits and wounds in melee and likely a second kind of support option, like the anti-psyker one I've mentioned (which Templars REALLY need).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not sure if you're considering special characters yet, but dear lord Grimaldus needs help. All the problems of a Chaplain at twice the cost.

There's definitely a lot wrong with the Special Characters. Compare Calgar, who was already just an okay choice, to Abigail. It's silly how much more Abigail does at the cost of not really being much more expensive. Sicarius only buffs one type of unit in his special aura. Until Marine melee gets better, Khan is bad.

Quite frankly, and this is silly, the only Special character that works outside Calgar in the codex is Tigger and Shrike. Of course one of those is Raven Guard too.

"Special character that works outside Calgar in the codex is Tigger and Shrike"
Bobby G?