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.

Given we've gone back to the 1st/2nd ed approach to armour, why not take Terminators back to their 2nd ed save?

It's a little finicky to use in play (unless users of Terminators bring pairs of coloured dice), but 3+-on-2d6 (I think you'd remove the invul at this point, and have a roll of 2 as an auto-fail) gives a resilience against any weapon in the game that would be unmatched in this edition.

BrianDavion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I think the pods should cost points, but probably not more than about 50.

Spending points on pods is strictly worse than having the option to deepstrike things for CP, since you are sort of locked into doing it during list building, except that you can put more than one unit inside of them, and the enemy does have to deal with the pod if you put it on an objective or something. These are such small advantages that their points cost should be much lower than they are currently, or they need powerful special rules to reflect their cost, such as dropping outside of 6" instead of 9", dropping on the first turn, etc.

granted it DOES mean saving on CPs so having a points option for deepstrike.. not ALL bad. One thing we saw droppods being misused last edition for was to cheekily contest objectives with them and IMHO dropods should be unable to contest objectives (as with anything else that is basicly an empy piece of metal)

Save CP? For what Stratagems?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Given we've gone back to the 1st/2nd ed approach to armour, why not take Terminators back to their 2nd ed save?

It's a little finicky to use in play (unless users of Terminators bring pairs of coloured dice), but 3+-on-2d6 (I think you'd remove the invul at this point, and have a roll of 2 as an auto-fail) gives a resilience against any weapon in the game that would be unmatched in this edition.

Great idea!

Oh by the way, you were just hit by a group of Tzeentch Flamers more than 10 times. Have fun!

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
It seems like there are a lot of comments on here about wanting special bonuses to improve where Marines are at by allowing them to “break” the rules: things like drop pods forcing your opponent’s models to move, deep striking out of deployment turn 1, or ignoring all AP. I think this is a bad line of thought. It looks over the core questions of costs and adjustments to stats in favor of very heavy-handed and very potentially abusable special redesign.

In additon to being poor balance-wise, these suggestions, in short, are examples why people complain about SM players being entitled or wanting special treatment.

Edit: ESPECIALLY in the context of the recent Nova Open, where boring old SM outscored Tau, Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, Death Guard, and CWE on average.

We have statistics that show that Space Marines have a win rate around 40-someodd% as the primary faction in a list. The average should be in the 50-55% range to be balanced with other armies. So yeah, no. Marines aren't balanced.

That said, I'm keeping wishlisting on the final submission down. With drop pods we have trouble defining the problem beyond "nothing worth putting in them" so the submission is likely going to be restricted to "more unit options allowed to embark into a Drop Pod".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
It seems like there are a lot of comments on here about wanting special bonuses to improve where Marines are at by allowing them to “break” the rules: things like drop pods forcing your opponent’s models to move, deep striking out of deployment turn 1, or ignoring all AP. I think this is a bad line of thought. It looks over the core questions of costs and adjustments to stats in favor of very heavy-handed and very potentially abusable special redesign.

In additon to being poor balance-wise, these suggestions, in short, are examples why people complain about SM players being entitled or wanting special treatment.

Edit: ESPECIALLY in the context of the recent Nova Open, where boring old SM outscored Tau, Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, Death Guard, and CWE on average.

We have statistics that show that Space Marines have a win rate around 40-someodd% as the primary faction in a list. The average should be in the 50-55% range to be balanced with other armies. So yeah, no. Marines aren't balanced.

That said, I'm keeping wishlisting on the final submission down. With drop pods we have trouble defining the problem beyond "nothing worth putting in them" so the submission is likely going to be restricted to "more unit options allowed to embark into a Drop Pod".

I like the idea of drop pods as a stratigum,

Personally, the one main change I’d make to Drop Pods is to bring back the Drop Pod Assault rule from 7th, where 50% of the Pods can deepstrike turn 1.

Clarification,
Marines - and every other faction - should be 45%-55%, not 50%-55%. Losing just a few more than you win is "mid tier" too.

Although I wouldn't read too into tourny results. Wasn't mono-SM one of the highest-ranking mono lists at NOVA?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd second KDash's suggestion of the pod change. Although I'd like to see it's points go down as well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
It seems like there are a lot of comments on here about wanting special bonuses to improve where Marines are at by allowing them to “break” the rules: things like drop pods forcing your opponent’s models to move, deep striking out of deployment turn 1, or ignoring all AP. I think this is a bad line of thought. It looks over the core questions of costs and adjustments to stats in favor of very heavy-handed and very potentially abusable special redesign.

In additon to being poor balance-wise, these suggestions, in short, are examples why people complain about SM players being entitled or wanting special treatment.

Edit: ESPECIALLY in the context of the recent Nova Open, where boring old SM outscored Tau, Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, Death Guard, and CWE on average.

We have statistics that show that Space Marines have a win rate around 40-someodd% as the primary faction in a list. The average should be in the 50-55% range to be balanced with other armies. So yeah, no. Marines aren't balanced.

That said, I'm keeping wishlisting on the final submission down. With drop pods we have trouble defining the problem beyond "nothing worth putting in them" so the submission is likely going to be restricted to "more unit options allowed to embark into a Drop Pod".

When your definition of balanced is “50-55%,” you’re asking for it to be inherently more powerful than average. So either you’re arguing from a poor understanding of statistics (in which case, we have to throw out all of it), or you’re being a case-in-point for SM players wanting special, entitled treatment that I was referencing above. Neither makes a strong case.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
It seems like there are a lot of comments on here about wanting special bonuses to improve where Marines are at by allowing them to “break” the rules: things like drop pods forcing your opponent’s models to move, deep striking out of deployment turn 1, or ignoring all AP. I think this is a bad line of thought. It looks over the core questions of costs and adjustments to stats in favor of very heavy-handed and very potentially abusable special redesign.

In additon to being poor balance-wise, these suggestions, in short, are examples why people complain about SM players being entitled or wanting special treatment.

Edit: ESPECIALLY in the context of the recent Nova Open, where boring old SM outscored Tau, Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, Death Guard, and CWE on average.

We have statistics that show that Space Marines have a win rate around 40-someodd% as the primary faction in a list. The average should be in the 50-55% range to be balanced with other armies. So yeah, no. Marines aren't balanced.

That said, I'm keeping wishlisting on the final submission down. With drop pods we have trouble defining the problem beyond "nothing worth putting in them" so the submission is likely going to be restricted to "more unit options allowed to embark into a Drop Pod".

When your definition of balanced is “50-55%,” you’re asking for it to be inherently more powerful than average. So either you’re arguing from a poor understanding of statistics (in which case, we have to throw out all of it), or you’re being a case-in-point for SM players wanting special, entitled treatment that I was referencing above. Neither makes a strong case.

I'm arguing based on a data set that shows that Space Marines win less games on average than every other army sans Grey Knights when they're you're primary detachment. Regardless how you want to argue the numbers, that is bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me make a correction: after double checking the information I was referring to, I realized I accidentally inflated the numbers: Space Marines only have a win rate of 35%. Grey Knights have one of 20%. So basically, we're looking at needing serious changes to both armies to make them viable in the overall game.

So I figured it'd be good to give a status update: I'm working on the first draft of the document and honestly it feels like it might be turning into a bit of a tome. Likely because I've ended up lumping in the other 8(?) Marine focused books (Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights and CSM) as they share a lot of the same things and at the heart of it the problems the armies have are the same.

So I've changed the title of the thread and am opening myself up for the deep hurting.

Regardless of when this is all finished the final draft will be sent off after the FAQ drops just to ensure that no feedback contained within is already touched upon there.

So bring it on! What also needs addressing in Grey Knights (besides "everything"), Blood Angels, Death Watch, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, Thousand Sons or Death Guard?

We all know about the issue of durability (for the non Death Guard armies at leasT) and the lack of teeth to shooting and melee due to low model counts, as well as the problems of CT and LT not carrying over to vehicle models. So what else should I be looking at bringing to the table?

I would say leave Grey Knights and CSM out of your initial document. I have ideas for CSM myself if you're interested though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I would say leave Grey Knights and CSM out of your initial document. I have ideas for CSM myself if you're interested though.

I agree. Once you have a solution for basic marines, then you can better come up with solutions for marines+1. And GK should be part of Codex: Inquisition anyway, which dramatically changes the balancing options.

There are a lot of questionable unit costs, but there are a handful of really glaring issues that ought to be included in the first draft.

For example:
A Centurion Devastator cost as much as a Dreadnaught.
Flamegauntlet Aggressors cost more than Boltstorm Gauntlet Aggressors.
Multimeltas cost more than Lascannons.

I think it's worth trying to capture the stuff that had no business getting past the proof-reading stage. Your the one doing the compiling so obviously it's your call how blatent something needs to be to belong on that list.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I figured it'd be good to give a status update: I'm working on the first draft of the document and honestly it feels like it might be turning into a bit of a tome. Likely because I've ended up lumping in the other 8(?) Marine focused books (Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights and CSM) as they share a lot of the same things and at the heart of it the problems the armies have are the same.

So I've changed the title of the thread and am opening myself up for the deep hurting.

Regardless of when this is all finished the final draft will be sent off after the FAQ drops just to ensure that no feedback contained within is already touched upon there.

So bring it on! What also needs addressing in Grey Knights (besides "everything"), Blood Angels, Death Watch, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, Thousand Sons or Death Guard?

We all know about the issue of durability (for the non Death Guard armies at leasT) and the lack of teeth to shooting and melee due to low model counts, as well as the problems of CT and LT not carrying over to vehicle models. So what else should I be looking at bringing to the table?

The only thing I dislike about the Death Guard Codex is the missing of T5 and DR for possessed, lords and sorcerors. I'd pay points for that of course.
Other than that, Lord of Contagion is overshadowed by other options as his aura is not that great and his options are very limited.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I would say leave Grey Knights and CSM out of your initial document. I have ideas for CSM myself if you're interested though.

greyknight12 wrote:I agree. Once you have a solution for basic marines, then you can better come up with solutions for marines+1. And GK should be part of Codex: Inquisition anyway, which dramatically changes the balancing options.

I was looking at breaking it down to the general change all Astartes need, followed by the vanilla book plus the shared units, followed by anything not already covered by the other stuff for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Deathwatch in their own sections and then a separate thing to cover the Grey Knights stuff that isn't covered by the general stuff and the same for the CSM. Basically three packets of information in a box that's likely to have too much candy in it.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:The only thing I dislike about the Death Guard Codex is the missing of T5 and DR for possessed, lords and sorcerors. I'd pay points for that of course.
Other than that, Lord of Contagion is overshadowed by other options as his aura is not that great and his options are very limited.

The LoC's options are likely lacking due to lacking a proper kit, but all good points.

I suggest space marines having 2 attacks while scouts only have 1. All basic marines go down by 1 point while bolter becomes 1 point. Now tacs have an advantage over scouts and assault marines have become cheaper than tacs. Fix the primaris apothecary's attacks so it is in line with other primaris models.
I'm undecided about whether the extra attack should flow on to other models. Probably not. That way there is one less incentive to take MSU because sergeants would not have better stats than basic marines for the same price.

Meanwhile, Guardsman should be 5 points. Flamers should hit all models in the target unit within 8" up to a maximum number and ignore cover, plasma should go down by one strength across the board. Dark Eldar weapons should be recosted. Melta should be 2d6 damage at half range, not best of 2 dice. And so on. This is not a complete list.

I think marine durability needs fixing by fixing the rest of the game as shown above. I don't like the idea of giving them 2 wounds or ignoring AP. Nor do I like the idea of a race to the bottom in terms of points per model.
Likewise, I feel bolters need improvement via corrections to other armies. Guardsman went from 6+ save in an AP -1 world (2nd edition), to 5+ in the AP 5 world (3rd-7th Ed), and now to 5+ in an AP 0 world. They should have been 6+ again and still been 5 points per model. With a 5+ save they should probably be 6 points per model.


Fixing the balance in the game should not involve the creation of new special rules. It should be done through a holistic review of all armies and how they compare to each other. Lots of small changes across the board, not big changes to an individual army. Looking at a single army at a time is how the balance goes wrong in the first place.

When a rule proves to be too powerful, it should be changed or removed. Examples being -1 to hit army tactics, reroll all failed wounds, deploy 9" from the enemy after knowing you're going first.

Now that the thread has been opened up to other marine books, please reassess the warp charge cost of Dark angels powers. Several of them take multiple rolls to do anything and thus have a less than 25% chance of actually affecting the game.

a lot of your suggestions Zus would translate to a nerf of Primaris Marines.

For what I can see, the main problem of SM is their durability. Give something to Power Armour to make it a special, unique, 3+save.

Maybe: reroll failed saves vs weapon with strenght 7 or less, or reroll failed saves vs weapons with AP 2 or worst.
These are only ideas.

This way you make an Astartes wearing a power Armour worth its cost, and not the same as a Necron or a Guardsman with a 3+ save.

BrianDavion wrote:
a lot of your suggestions Zus would translate to a nerf of Primaris Marines.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I can see the argument that basic marines having 2 attacks is a nerf to primaris, but the things I suggested should help with their durability at the same time as helping basic marine durability. As I said, it's not a complete list. I'm also not against the idea of primaris marines having 3 attacks. I'm just not sure they need it.

Zustiur wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
a lot of your suggestions Zus would translate to a nerf of Primaris Marines.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I can see the argument that basic marines having 2 attacks is a nerf to primaris, but the things I suggested should help with their durability at the same time as helping basic marine durability. As I said, it's not a complete list. I'm also not against the idea of primaris marines having 3 attacks. I'm just not sure they need it.

reducing the strength of Plasma across the board would also put a hurt on Primaris lists as anyone trying to run a all Primaris List (which isn't super effective no but it's fluffy) would struggle as Primaris are very plasma dependant.

However, a nerf to Plas across the board - especially if not just IoM Plas - gives Primaris a large durability buff. So it cuts both ways. But it's silly that Primaris have so few options.

Bharring wrote:
However, a nerf to Plas across the board - especially if not just IoM Plas - gives Primaris a large durability buff. So it cuts both ways. But it's silly that Primaris have so few options.

Plasma is hardly the issue compared to other D2 weapons.

Plas actually needs to be buffed to not kill your own guys because almost no other weapons in any army do that except in the case of tau. And with tau - you are talking about Ion Cannons and CIB which are both superior to any shooting weapon in the entire space marine arsenal. Plus they don't slay models when they overheat - they just do 1 wound.

It's not like a plas is too cheap for what it does. Plasma is practically non existent on the competitive scene. The only plasma weapon I see is on a Castellan. Internally it is the best option because all the other options are god awful for their points.

The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.

Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.

The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.

Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.

And Ravagers, they take plasma over lances all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Oddly, it's also somewhat implied that the Reaper S5 profile is Plas - because it's a variant of "Star Swarm", which is a Plasma missile. Wouldn't mind that getting impacted by the same effect.)

abyrn wrote:
The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.

Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.

The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.

Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.

Humm. Azreal gives you reroll all hits...so you are never choosing between his buff or hitting better. Here is a tip - you are always better off rerolling a 4+ to hit with a heavy than just rolling a 3+ to hit - with reroll 1's standing still you are about equal odds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
And Ravagers, they take plasma over lances all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Oddly, it's also somewhat implied that the Reaper S5 profile is Plas - because it's a variant of "Star Swarm", which is a Plasma missile. Wouldn't mind that getting impacted by the same effect.)

They don't even overheat and cost about the same with as a plasma gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
However, a nerf to Plas across the board - especially if not just IoM Plas - gives Primaris a large durability buff. So it cuts both ways. But it's silly that Primaris have so few options.

Primaris would do better with a rule like - they take -1 damage from all damage results. Terms too. Plasma is not very good except at killing 2 wound models in 1 shot. It doesn't need a nerf - most 2 wound units need a buff. Certain weapons like the dessie need a nerf. three 2 damage shots for 15 points is literally insane. ESP with 36" range. lol. It out damages the freaking darklance against t8 tanks...

 Xenomancers wrote:

abyrn wrote:
The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.

Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.

The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.

Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.

Humm. Azreal gives you reroll all hits...so you are never choosing between his buff or hitting better. Here is a tip - you are always better off rerolling a 4+ to hit with a heavy than just rolling a 3+ to hit - with reroll 1's standing still you are about equal odds.

That is sort of what I mean, Azrael completely overrides the chapter tactic, as does a Company Master.

FYI:

BS3+ rerolling all hits at -1 is actually exactly the same mathematically as BS3+ with no re-rolls or modifiers, since you can't reroll the 3 to hit.

Reroll 1s with no penalty is 16% better.

Reroll hits with no penalty is 33% better.

abyrn wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

abyrn wrote:
The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.

Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.

The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.

Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.

Humm. Azreal gives you reroll all hits...so you are never choosing between his buff or hitting better. Here is a tip - you are always better off rerolling a 4+ to hit with a heavy than just rolling a 3+ to hit - with reroll 1's standing still you are about equal odds.

That is sort of what I mean, Azrael completely overrides the chapter tactic, as does a Company Master.

It's pretty nice for Ven dreads hiding on the edges of the map - it would be pretty great if it affected vehicals (I have a feeling it will soon). This is pretty consistent within vanila space marine codex too though - we have stratagems that do stupid things like give dreads a reroll 1's aura - or 1 cp to give a unit reroll 1's...Chaplains give all units reroll hits in CC (chapter master does the same thing and he gives you shooting) It just seems...they want marines to suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Xenomancers wrote:

abyrn wrote:
The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.

Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.

The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.

Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.

Humm. Azreal gives you reroll all hits...so you are never choosing between his buff or hitting better. Here is a tip - you are always better off rerolling a 4+ to hit with a heavy than just rolling a 3+ to hit - with reroll 1's standing still you are about equal odds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
And Ravagers, they take plasma over lances all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Oddly, it's also somewhat implied that the Reaper S5 profile is Plas - because it's a variant of "Star Swarm", which is a Plasma missile. Wouldn't mind that getting impacted by the same effect.)

They don't even overheat and cost about the same with as a plasma gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
However, a nerf to Plas across the board - especially if not just IoM Plas - gives Primaris a large durability buff. So it cuts both ways. But it's silly that Primaris have so few options.

Primaris would do better with a rule like - they take -1 damage from all damage results. Terms too. Plasma is not very good except at killing 2 wound models in 1 shot. It doesn't need a nerf - most 2 wound units need a buff. Certain weapons like the dessie need a nerf. three 2 damage shots for 15 points is literally insane. ESP with 36" range. lol. It out damages the freaking darklance against t8 tanks...

FYI:

BS3+ rerolling all hits at -1 is actually exactly the same mathematically as BS3+ with no re-rolls or modifiers, since you can't reroll the 3 to hit.

Reroll 1s with no penalty is 16% better.

Reroll hits with no penalty is 33% better.

Wow - you are right. My mental math on that has been wrong all 8th edition. So a DA is better off standing still than moving to get into a reroll aura with a heavy weapon. That is interesting.

"They don't even overheat and cost about the same with as a plasma gun. " At 3 less strength. Not arguing it's *worse* than the PG. Just pointing out that Plas is OP in more forms than *just* the PG.

"Plasma is not very good except at killing 2 wound models in 1 shot."
It's preferred over Melta for hunting tanks at close range. It's preferred over Dark/Brightlances for hunting vehicles. It's preferred over Scatter/Flamer/etc for hunting light doods. I'd call that good at things other than 2W models.

abyrn wrote:
The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.

Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.

The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.

Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.

I dunno the re-roll 1s for standing still means that DA can move their HQ forward up with their advance assault elements and leave their hellblaster gunline behind to handle itself. ... thats actually kinda nice.

as for the Ravenwing bonus, honestly... sounds to me like RW has a choice of shooting or additional defences, I'd rather see GW do more of that then get rid of it. I like it when decisions have a real choice to them.