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.
fraser1191 wrote: If marines have such a hard time filling lists why not make Devs and ASMs troops like they were in whichever previous edition.
Give each one a special rule(devs already have the signum) and filling slots is suddenly easy
Because that doesn't help the problem units. Devastators are already playable and Assault Marines are so unplayable that making them Troops isn't an improvement, so all you'd accomplish is take all the existing Marine lists and delete all the Tactical Marines/Scouts in favour of more Devastators, which pushes the size-creep problem further by making every list all heavy weapons, which makes Space Marines even worse since there are more guns that can kill them too easily on the table.
Just a crazy idea:
Combat Squads: -1 CP Use either during deployment or at the start of the movement phase.
Target Astartes unit with the Combat Squad rule and exactly 10 members may be split into two units of 5 members each. If you choose to do so, they are two independent units.
No unit may be targetted by this stratagem more than once per game.
I totally haven't fully thought this through, but wouldn't that be cool?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/10 16:37:22
Bharring wrote: Just a crazy idea:
Combat Squads: -1 CP Use either during deployment or at the start of the movement phase.
Target Astartes unit with the Combat Squad rule and exactly 10 members may be split into two units of 5 members each. If you choose to do so, they are two independent units.
I totally haven't fully thought this through, but wouldn't that be cool?
It's in the book already and it's completely useless, because it's a legacy rule from an era in which you couldn't just take multiple detachments.
Doesn't look like that and at that point just make it a special rule... Like people are adding in stratagems but why not just add them in as one time abilities or deployment abilities? It really doesn't make sense to give them a stratagem that is one time use and doesn't require any CP To use.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/10 16:47:12
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
It could be just a special rule. But I do wish Combat Squadding were more flexible - allowing you to do it in response to the game, instead of as part of list building.
I like the idea of 10man Tac squads giving +1CP. I was thinking all 10-man Astartes squads, but that might be a bit much.
The stratagem above is one-time-per-squad use. But you could use it once per 10-man squad during deployment.
The cleaner form, I think, is just updating the Combat Squad rules with the following:
-Allow the squad splitting to be done during deployment, when arriving from Reserves, or during any Movement Phase, provided the squad is still eligible (has 10 guys).
-Each squad eligible for Combat Squadding generates +1 CP at the start of the game.
I'm usually not a fan of units providing CP. Especially not en masse like this. But if any unit should, it should be 10-man Tac Marines (and/or Intercessors).
And +1 CP/squad for three ten-man Tactical Squads makes up for the fact that I now can't get +5CP from taking six five-man squads and two extra 50pt Lieutenants, or the fact that I now have three combi-weapon sergeants instead of six, effectively cutting my special weapon load from 12 down to 9 and requiring that three of those be heavy rather than allowing 12 plasma guns?
Hence why I think this is one scenario where +CP is a viable option. I don't say that lightly.
Because of how GW did detatchemnts - by using a system that inherently rewards you for not fleshing out the choices you take - it's really hard to make Marines in squads beyond 5 not a bad idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are some other benefits:
-You can put Heavy, Special, Combi in one squad, and have a 5man Bolter squad, if you need to saturate for some reason
-You can choose to stay in 10mans if you're facing a lot of weakish skirmishers who can pick of 5mans, or you can split up if you're facing a lot of super-deadly weapons that'll overkill more on 5mans
-You can choose to stay in 10mans if you need the ablaitive wounds
And you can make those decisions *after* seeing what you're facing, what the mission is, and what the terrain is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/10 17:04:57
It doesn't do anything. Tell me "You can get +CP for combat squadding 10-man squads!" doesn't make me more likely to take 10-man squads, it makes me shrug, go "meh", and move on.
Lets just make this simpler similar to orks we can have it so that a full squad IN GENERAL for space marines gives :
+1 Attack and +1 LD and counts as two selections for the purpose of a detachment. Some units (Tacticals, Intercessors, Terminator squads) can have up to 3 special weapons / heavy weapons. All Sarges are upgraded to Veteran Sarge and have +1 wound
*encouraging people to have larger squads overall.*
Then we give termies, vanguard vets, sternguard their special rules back...
We give intercessors and tacticals their own unique 'volley' fire ability which allows them to unload all of their weapons in a single turn (shoot twice with bolt weapons) but cannot fire the next turn or we make it so they can't rapid fire the next turn.
Then we give land raiders an ability to shoot into melee combat, and give them a higher toughness and wound count. give them an ability to shrug off glancing shots, and all their equipment options are much cheaper. (decrease their cost to 250pts, 225 for crusader, 230 for redeemer)
Venerable Dreadnought gain : Ancient Wisdom and can be taken as a HQ choice. Ancient Wisdom allows them to give a squad nearby their BS Skill (must be a space marine from the same chapter)
Make all chapter rules work for all space marine units...
Give marines a benefit for when they fight in monoarmies (check a few pages back about the rules suggestions I had)
These aren't OP these are just normal rules brought back that were gotten rid for no reason.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/10 17:24:09
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
the main issue with marines is 1 wound for the point cost this edition.
They should be a lot cheaper point wise or have a better stat line period, 2 wounds and 2 attacks for a normal marine at like a 10-12 points per marine is where a normal tactical marine needs to be this edition to be useful due to the lethality.
3 Imperial guard infantry is 12 points for 3 wounds, more shots, and in general just superior to a marine in every way. There is absolutely no reason to play a marine for 13 points this edition and CA 18 was stupid because it did nothing to fix this issue.
Basically its either cheap infantry increase in point cost a chunk- probably not going to happen or the power armor/terminator armor marines all improve basic statlines to make them playable for the point cost GW seems to want to keep.
Combat Squads should be able to be done at any time, and you're simply eligible after you reached the 10 man goal. It's silly you would need to spend CP to do it, let alone GAINING CP out of it (which also makes little sense).
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
The point was that you gained a CP for taking a unit that could Combat Squad, whether or not you actually *did* Combat Squad.
The idea being that a full Tac Squad (or other squad) increases the tactical depth and options that the force has, beyond what a 5-man would. In much the same way that taking more Guardsmen squads and Officiers provides CP, but via a more fitting mechanism.
You would need Strategems you want to use in the first place though.
It also proves that we need a system working backwards with CP, not forwards. It doesn't make sense that they provide more "tactical depth" than actual experienced Vets from a fluff standpoint, which therefore makes it odd mechanically to implement.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Yeah, I think 3 shots is needed there. Otherwise the regular bolt rifle has it beat. There’s precedent too. I think Skitarrii Vanguards radium jezzils are assault 3 aren’t they?
The problem is that then it beats the regular one even at rapid fire range (3 shot auto would be better against guard and equal against marines in such a situation.) I have actually thought about these weapons quite a bit and done math with various fix attempts, and pretty much always one of them just ends up better. They have such a similar role that it is nigh impossible for this not to happen. Perhaps they should just accept this, and make one of the loadouts some sort of Primaris Sternguard that just have flat out better, but more expensive weapons. Visually the auto rifle would communicate that well, I think.
I'd say you've hit the nail on the head on the Intercessor/Hellblaster weapons. The issue is that they're just too similar, and it allows direct comparisons. Nobody directly compares a Heavy Bolter to a Lascannon because they're obviously intended for different targets.
Suppose the Bolt Rifle stayed as-is, the Autobolter were Assault 4, 18", S3 Ap -, Storm of Fire, and the Stalker were Heavy 1, 36" S6, Ap 2. Whether the Autobolter or Stalker were worth the points would still be a question, but which one was "best" would not be. They're too different for that now. The same is true of the Hellblasters.
Yeah, I think 3 shots is needed there. Otherwise the regular bolt rifle has it beat. There’s precedent too. I think Skitarrii Vanguards radium jezzils are assault 3 aren’t they?
The problem is that then it beats the regular one even at rapid fire range (3 shot auto would be better against guard and equal against marines in such a situation.) I have actually thought about these weapons quite a bit and done math with various fix attempts, and pretty much always one of them just ends up better. They have such a similar role that it is nigh impossible for this not to happen. Perhaps they should just accept this, and make one of the loadouts some sort of Primaris Sternguard that just have flat out better, but more expensive weapons. Visually the auto rifle would communicate that well, I think.
I'd say you've hit the nail on the head on the Intercessor/Hellblaster weapons. The issue is that they're just too similar, and it allows direct comparisons. Nobody directly compares a Heavy Bolter to a Lascannon because they're obviously intended for different targets.
Suppose the Bolt Rifle stayed as-is, the Autobolter were Assault 4, 18", S3 Ap -, Storm of Fire, and the Stalker were Heavy 1, 36" S6, Ap 2. Whether the Autobolter or Stalker were worth the points would still be a question, but which one was "best" would not be. They're too different for that now. The same is true of the Hellblasters.
Uh I don't think those profiles would be even whatsoever.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Yeah, I think 3 shots is needed there. Otherwise the regular bolt rifle has it beat. There’s precedent too. I think Skitarrii Vanguards radium jezzils are assault 3 aren’t they?
The problem is that then it beats the regular one even at rapid fire range (3 shot auto would be better against guard and equal against marines in such a situation.) I have actually thought about these weapons quite a bit and done math with various fix attempts, and pretty much always one of them just ends up better. They have such a similar role that it is nigh impossible for this not to happen. Perhaps they should just accept this, and make one of the loadouts some sort of Primaris Sternguard that just have flat out better, but more expensive weapons. Visually the auto rifle would communicate that well, I think.
I'd say you've hit the nail on the head on the Intercessor/Hellblaster weapons. The issue is that they're just too similar, and it allows direct comparisons. Nobody directly compares a Heavy Bolter to a Lascannon because they're obviously intended for different targets.
Suppose the Bolt Rifle stayed as-is, the Autobolter were Assault 4, 18", S3 Ap -, Storm of Fire, and the Stalker were Heavy 1, 36" S6, Ap 2. Whether the Autobolter or Stalker were worth the points would still be a question, but which one was "best" would not be. They're too different for that now. The same is true of the Hellblasters.
Uh I don't think those profiles would be even whatsoever.
They're not intended to be. That Stalker is clearly worth 2 or 3 points per model, the intention is that it be so different that you ask "is this worth the points for the very different job it does" rather than "is this worth more than the Bolt Rifle for the job that they both do".
Edit: Those aren't even suggestions with a lot of thought behind them, just an attempt to illustrate the point.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/10 19:29:41
I still think they should have been called Primaris Incinerators with Hellblaster Plasma Rifles...sorry, got distracted there.
But the more I think about it, the more I realise that the problems of the game comes down to the detachment system and superheavies, and trying to tweak the rules for marine squads is just pissing in the wind so long as those issues remain unresolved.
I’ve suggested before that the current detachment system should be ‘put into reverse’. I’d go further but that’s a whole different discussion.
Future War Cultist wrote: I still think they should have been called Primaris Incinerators with Hellblaster Plasma Rifles...sorry, got distracted there.
But the more I think about it, the more I realise that the problems of the game comes down to the detachment system and superheavies, and trying to tweak the rules for marine squads is just pissing in the wind so long as those issues remain unresolved.
I’ve suggested before that the current detachment system should be ‘put into reverse’. I’d go further but that’s a whole different discussion.
Agreed, you can make a new thread with that premise, I was afraid to say it cause last time i did people gave me a lot of grief for suggesting that the detachment system does not work.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Future War Cultist wrote: I still think they should have been called Primaris Incinerators with Hellblaster Plasma Rifles...sorry, got distracted there.
But the more I think about it, the more I realise that the problems of the game comes down to the detachment system and superheavies, and trying to tweak the rules for marine squads is just pissing in the wind so long as those issues remain unresolved.
I’ve suggested before that the current detachment system should be ‘put into reverse’. I’d go further but that’s a whole different discussion.
Agreed, you can make a new thread with that premise, I was afraid to say it cause last time i did people gave me a lot of grief for suggesting that the detachment system does not work.
Donno why anyone would do that, the detachment system is easily the worst thing in 8e.
Future War Cultist wrote: I still think they should have been called Primaris Incinerators with Hellblaster Plasma Rifles...sorry, got distracted there.
But the more I think about it, the more I realise that the problems of the game comes down to the detachment system and superheavies, and trying to tweak the rules for marine squads is just pissing in the wind so long as those issues remain unresolved.
I’ve suggested before that the current detachment system should be ‘put into reverse’. I’d go further but that’s a whole different discussion.
Agreed, you can make a new thread with that premise, I was afraid to say it cause last time i did people gave me a lot of grief for suggesting that the detachment system does not work.
Donno why anyone would do that, the detachment system is easily the worst thing in 8e.
It punishes mono army players, and rewards people with spammy armies.
Its not hard to believe that this was their intention. As they have been pushing knights for a while. but super heavy detachments currently are stupidly expensive for space marines, knights are some of the cheapest super heavies in the game.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
On a totally unrelated note, I think there's something to tbe accusation that GW is just "soft squatting" marines.
After CA I find myself ignoring Tacs altogether in favor of Intercessors and Scouts, to the point that I'm considering re-badging half my Tacs as Sternguard and scratch building storm shields and storm bolters to convert the other half to Company Veterans just to get some use out of them.
The Newman wrote: On a totally unrelated note, I think there's something to tbe accusation that GW is just "soft squatting" marines.
After CA I find myself ignoring Tacs altogether in favor of Intercessors and Scouts, to the point that I'm considering re-badging half my Tacs as Sternguard and scratch building storm shields and storm bolters to convert the other half to Company Veterans just to get some use out of them.
I hate all the bling with the Sternguard and Vanguard models, so I repurpose my regular Marines for that purpose already.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
chaos45 wrote: the main issue with marines is 1 wound for the point cost this edition.
They should be a lot cheaper point wise or have a better stat line period, 2 wounds and 2 attacks for a normal marine at like a 10-12 points per marine is where a normal tactical marine needs to be this edition to be useful due to the lethality.
3 Imperial guard infantry is 12 points for 3 wounds, more shots, and in general just superior to a marine in every way. There is absolutely no reason to play a marine for 13 points this edition and CA 18 was stupid because it did nothing to fix this issue.
Basically its either cheap infantry increase in point cost a chunk- probably not going to happen or the power armor/terminator armor marines all improve basic statlines to make them playable for the point cost GW seems to want to keep.
No question about it. A marine isn't worth 13 points. Special rules that aren't over the top wont fix this. What would you pay for a marine at it's current stat line? This is the only place this discussion should be going. What is the value of a tactical marine? IMO they are worth roughly 10 points and even still would not be great at that cost because they don't do anything useful. At least they might be used to fill out detachments or something.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Crimson wrote: The problem is that then it beats the regular one even at rapid fire range (3 shot auto would be better against guard and equal against marines in such a situation.) I have actually thought about these weapons quite a bit and done math with various fix attempts, and pretty much always one of them just ends up better. They have such a similar role that it is nigh impossible for this not to happen. Perhaps they should just accept this, and make one of the loadouts some sort of Primaris Sternguard that just have flat out better, but more expensive weapons. Visually the auto rifle would communicate that well, I think.
Yep, very true. It's like I said earlier, there will always be one option that's the best hands down, and people will always gravitate towards it, rendering the others useless and unused, thanks to wysiwyg. It's like you might as well just have the one weapon option to begin with.
The biggest problem is the fact the playerbase loves that and will find it no matter what.
Ya'll are to blame. You fethwits
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/11 03:16:46
chaos45 wrote: the main issue with marines is 1 wound for the point cost this edition.
They should be a lot cheaper point wise or have a better stat line period, 2 wounds and 2 attacks for a normal marine at like a 10-12 points per marine is where a normal tactical marine needs to be this edition to be useful due to the lethality.
3 Imperial guard infantry is 12 points for 3 wounds, more shots, and in general just superior to a marine in every way. There is absolutely no reason to play a marine for 13 points this edition and CA 18 was stupid because it did nothing to fix this issue.
Basically its either cheap infantry increase in point cost a chunk- probably not going to happen or the power armor/terminator armor marines all improve basic statlines to make them playable for the point cost GW seems to want to keep.
No question about it. A marine isn't worth 13 points. Special rules that aren't over the top wont fix this. What would you pay for a marine at it's current stat line? This is the only place this discussion should be going. What is the value of a tactical marine? IMO they are worth roughly 10 points and even still would not be great at that cost because they don't do anything useful. At least they might be used to fill out detachments or something.
From my last Poll on my old thread Cost of a space marine witch had over 400 votes 23% said space marines should cost 10 26% said 11 but then 13% of people said they need a nerf and should cost 14+.
