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.
If we could re-design marines from the ground up, I'd give them something more like the primaris statline, and tweak a bunch of their weapon stats, etc.
But if we wanted to slap on a quick custom rule that could apply to all marines and mostly fix the situation for the time being, then it should be something like this:
Superhuman Astartes are demi-gods. Their bodies and equipment are larger and stronger than those of mere mortals.
Armor saves of 5+ or higher cannot be taken against attacks made by units with this rule, regardless of the weapon they are using. Armor saves of 4+ or higher cannot be taken against attacks made by models with this rule if the attacking weapon has AP-1.
Models with this rule add +1 to their armor save unless the attack has higher strength than their toughness, or ap-3 or better.
Units with this rule can only lose 1 model to morale at a time, unless they are suffering a leadership penalty, in which case they can lose additional models equal to the lost leadership.
The first part restores 5th ed style AP rules for marines, which would fix their ability to kill hordes with small arms and in close combat. This would give a ~33% increase in effectiveness of bolters vs guard, for example. And 16% vs boyz. The line for AP-1 weapons is necessary to have stuff like heavy bolters and autocannons not be worse vs these targets than regular bolters.
The defensive part makes them more durable vs small arms fire, which is currently too efficient. But it doesn't help them vs high strength, high AP weapons that are meant to kill them effectively. This is also a move back towards 5th ed style defensive efficiency.
And lastly, this fixes the problem of 10 man marine units being basically the only thing in the game that actually suffers morale loses, but lets morale killer mechanics still matter.
This rule isn't perfect, but it is simple and would put regular Marines in a much better situation. I'm not claiming it would fix marine armies. It doesn't touch a lot of problems like anti-tank from marine squads. But it would make marines feel more like marines again, and maybe people would need to ask themselves "What if my opponent brings a ton of marines?" when making their lists.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/03/20 03:21:23
Wait what th- Okay, can we please have a conversation about this?
It seems like there's some kind of running gag where every few months or so the cost of what guardsmen "should" be keeps going up by a point, and I'd really like to know if I should be laughing or losing faith in the SM players of the board if by December people are trying to argue that Guardsmen should be 12 points.
I might say Space Marine weapons and wargear need to be cheaper, and I honestly think we suck in the vehicle department and could use a little help there... but I'd say Space Marines need a minor adjustment, at best- somewhere, be it points or wargear. And as it stands, IG infantry are a bit pricier than they're worth IMHO- at least for the trouble of painting all those dudes and being so limited in their appearance... so my infantry are Tempestus Scions in a Battalion Detachment with a separate spearhead detachment for tanks. I think DKoK are cool, and they might be worth the trouble for their 'cool factor' alone, but... something rather interesting... brief story below, click spoiler tag to read if you're interested...
Spoiler:
Apparently, there was quite the gimmick locally with DKoK- and I don't remember what it was, but apparently there was some combination of things that someone figured out and it made them outright nasty (more so than usual). All of the local power-gamers went balls-out trying to get DKoK... and I can tell you that all of them made some barefoot Chinese recaster's day that month. And then it died off, or got fixed, or the meme got too common, or someone found a counter, or they had the rule wrong, people stopped playing against that list.. I have no idea, but they fell out of favor as quickly as they were hyped up around here.
Punchline: Now every one of these guys except the 2 that had legitimate Forge World DKoK armies are trying to sell them off as 'authentic', despite them actually bragging openly in our shop about them being recasts and the resin being noticeably different- not that we really care, as long as they're buying other stuff and it's our policy that any kind of 'proxy', not matter how close to the real thing, has to be agreed upon by both players...
So FYI, if you see DKoK armies for sale in on eBay, "Fully assembled, only grey primer- brand new"- at the price you'd expect for the real deal? Let's just say the store where I work part-time is debating a ban, because we thought they were joking about blasting them with grey primer and flipping them as 'authentic' for more than they paid, making jokes about "brand new, only used for a couple of months, must sell to pay medical bills"... then they bought out every can of Army Painter Grey in 3 different shops in one day and didn't show up that night to any of the local shops to game.
If you run into this, hit me up. Don't like to discuss where I live and all, won't say "that's them"- but it'd get some of our usual migraines booted, and being honest- I've been looking for an excuse.
Mob Rule is not a rule.
2019/03/20 03:49:18
Subject: Re:Shadow Spear / New Chaos Space Marines
Honestly, marines are not in the worst place atm. They have decent armour, good S and T, a reasonable basic weapon, etc. However, I just don't understand that if a Guardsman has 1 wound, how the heck can a marine also have just 1 wound? Leave everything as is and give the basic marine 2W as a starting point.
Baiscally, in a perfect world, you'd forget Primaris and just give the points and stats of them to basic marines with the normal options to upgrade their weapons to las, plas etc. So your basic tactical marine is 17pts, has 2W and 2A, and a 30" AP-1 bolter. Now have your usual allotment of upgrades in heavy and special weapons. They at least would feel like marines should.
Bobthehero wrote: AP weapons of -2 meant Marines had no saves in previous editions
There were no AP-2 weapons in previous editions. AP2 is completely different to AP -2. Apples to oranges.
The closest are the save mods from 2nd Ed, and Marines had the same problem back then as well, except they were 30 points each and never got to take their 3+ saves because almost everything (even Lasguns) had a -1 save mod.
bullyboy wrote: Baiscally, in a perfect world, you'd forget Primaris and just give the points and stats of them to basic marines with the normal options to upgrade their weapons to las, plas etc. So your basic tactical marine is 17pts, has 2W and 2A, and a 30" AP-1 bolter. Now have your usual allotment of upgrades in heavy and special weapons. They at least would feel like marines should.
I feel like they'd keep Intercessors, Inceptors, Suppressors, Molessters, etc. as they are- they sort of have their own battlefield role that functions differently from the standard marines.
Intercessors aren't tacticals, they're best for standing off on an objective and hammering anything that comes within 30 inches.
Reivers aren't Assault Marines, Assault Marines... well, they actually are useful. Reivers just kinda look cool.
Inceptors aren't Assault Marines, I've never had to drill a butthole into an Assault Marine, and then shove a brass rod up that butthole.
Eliminators aren't Scouts, they're your 'assassins' for characters.
Also, have playtested with 'every Marine 2 wounds, 2 attacks base' and the end result isn't as broken as you'd think. Even my friends who played against it said "that is what I would expect from Space Marines, it was far less disappointing and a good challenge" overall.
drbored wrote: Then people might take Devastators, because they can sit back on an objective and hold it with their troops priority, but it really wouldn't change a whole lot and wouldn't fix the power armor problem.
So, you think the problem is that they're too 'master of naught and jack of all trades', am I understanding? While they're 'pretty decent' at a given skill, when it comes time to fight certain armies- those armies are much better at that given skill and mop the floor with them... am I wrong?
If that's the case, what do you think a solution would be that wouldn't rework Astartes from the ground up?
Cheaper models? Cheaper gear? More fancy tricks/rules?
I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested and would probably be willing to test things out with friends.
Marines NEED to be reworked from the ground up, because the entire edition changed around them and they didn't change. They need a totally different statline.
At the VERY LEAST, Marines need +1 attack across the board. Every single power armor, t4 unit needs this boost, from Tactical Marines to Vanguard Vets, and even to Rubric Marines. That is the bare minimum to help them produce the offensive power they need to be viable on the tabletop. Sure, some of those units will also get a points increase, but that would be ok with me because it's the simple stat that matters. A tactical marine or chaos marine getting 1 measly attack while an Ork Boy can get 4 attacks at the same strength and weapon skill is just atrocious.
Next, the big thing they need to do is to rework the entire AP system. In 7th edition, an AP of 5 meant that any enemy that has an armor value of 5 or less doesn't get an armor save against you. Now, an AP of -2 means that an enemy with an armor save of 5+ doesn't get it... but it also means that those with 3+ armor saves now have 5+ armor saves. I'd rather go back to the old system so that Power Armor means something again. The amount of high-AP weapons in the game is just ridiculous and makes it so that it's BETTER to have cheap troops with no armor save at all, rather than to have power armor, because it's likely those high AP weapons don't have a high number of shots to chew through your light infantry, at the very least.
Finally, mortal wounds need to just go away. They're the replacement for the old Instant Death rules. Mortal Wounds are far too numerous and too easy for many factions to get in abundance. What do mortal wounds do? They ignore armor, which means power armor is, once again, useless and gets people to pick cultists over chaos marines, because cultists don't care as much about mortal wounds because they have the bodies to soak them.
In other words, the two things that are in abundance in many 'good' lists (high AP weapons and mortal wound generating units) are the two main things that make power armor so worthless. The thing is, I don't want Chaos Marines and Tactical Marines to get any cheaper than they already are, because holy crap they're cheap! They're just not cheap enough to matter. I'd rather they become *better* on their basic stats and then become more expensive as a result, to bring power armor armies more in line with the elite forces that they're portrayed as.
Honestly I'm not for everyone just getting an extra attack because of the design space around it. In my mind, the way to handle it:
1. Space Marines Tacticals with a consolidated Angels have A1
2. Space Wolves Grey Hunters are A1 but have that Chainsword for an extra attack
3. Deathwatch Vets and Grey Knights get A2, with options to increase their attacks (Falchions or Chainswords). Grey Knights will enjoy the extra attack but don't get the extra LD 4. Everyone that is a Chaos Marine has Vet stats at minimum, with Chosen replacing the dumb Chaos Marine entry
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.
It's pretty on topic with the set being all marines and the Vigilus book being a possible bright spot for Traitor Astartes (More likely they stay garbage and Cultists get yet another nerf making them both trash)
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
ok ... in that case, here is what I think. Even though I have been a CSM player for life, my take right now is that CSM are fine. As a CSM player, we can either take a base squad of 5 for 65 points or 10 cultists for 50 points. (Takes a deep breath).
If we are saying cultists are cheap, because you can have 3 squads of 10 for 150 points, vs CSM, who need 195 points for 3 squads of 5. Is that 45 points really going to win the game for you? You can't even buy two extra chaos spawn with that. On the flip side though. I think 3 squads of 5 CSM hunkering down in cover on objectives will last a lot longer against small arms fire than 3 squads of 10 cultists. I will be generous and give you 5 more points, so you can have 4 squads of 10 cultists shall we?
A unit of mortars is just 33 points and fires 3d6str 4 shots. 3 units of mortars don't even break 100 points. IG soup lists run them all the time. 3 units of mortars spending turn after turn shelling your 4 squads of 10 cultists in cover (5+ save )vs shelling 3 squads of CSM in cover (2+ save). Which do you think will last longer? My money is on the CSM.
In fact, let's have a mirror matchup. 4 squads of 10 cultists in cover exchanging shots with 3 squads of CSM in cover. I will even let the cultists go first. Everyone is 24 inches apart. The 40 cultists are shooting out 40 shots per turn (initially) with a 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound against a save of 2+ (cover). You kill ... 1 CSM, maybe 2 if you are lucky. Now the 13 or 14 CSM shoot back with bolter discipline at 3+ to hit, 5+ to wound, against a 5+ save (cover). Anyway, 26 shots will work out to 7.7 cultists dead. Morale would probably finish off the remaining 3 in that squad. CSM of 5 per squad don't need to worry about morale. So, one cultists squad dies per turn.
End of 4 turns, the 4 cultist squads are dead, or almost dead. The CSM suffered 1 casualty per turn. They are not even down a squad after 4 rounds of exchanging fire.
So, if I wanted to keep stuff cheap, would I be willing to spend 45 more points so that I can get 3 squads of 5 CSM instead of 4 squads of cultists? From a durability and ability to hunker down and stand on objectives standpoint, I think I would rather take the 3 squads of CSM. Key thing is ... having cultists with their 6+ save gives the imperium soup lists a very obvious target to use all their mortar teams and infantry lasguns... on your cultists! But if you have CSM squads in cover instead, then all those flashlights and mortars are going to be a lot less useful.
But what if they take plasma guns, heavy flamers, etc etc? Well, that's what the rest of your army is for right? 3 squads of CSM are only 195 points. So you have 1805 more points to spend on other much scarier stuff that will draw the attention of their plasma, heavy flamers, lascannons, etc etc. More importantly, now their lasgun and mortars are a lot less effective. If they want to use their heavier weapons to shoot at your basic CSM troop squads rather than the 1805 worth of other nasties you will have, well, I think I wouldn't mind really!
3 or 4 squads of 10 cultists is basically a free gift of points to most armies out there. Anything that even looks at a squad of 10 cultists would probably kill it fairly easily. a bunch of CSM in cover are going to be a lot harder to shift. I just don't see how gifting the opponent 150 worth of cultists to kill is going to be worth the saving of 45 points so that I can buy 2 chaos spawn? I might as well spend 45 more points and make it a lot harder for my opponent to get first strike, and make him take a lot longer to kill those 3 CSM squads.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's even more on topic when Chaos are about to get a new Codex that seems to be little more than Version 1.1 - now with the errata!
in fairness if GW had released a brand new codex we HAD to buy there woulda been complainining about that too. I'm trying to remain optimistic, chaos marines are getting a new mini so GW could suprise us and throw a much needed tweek onto the basic troops. give them a chainsword IN ADDITION to the bolt gun and the codex works a LOT better IMHO
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
People are always going to complain. But a revamped codex that fixed many of the issues with the 2017 book would have shut up those complaints pretty quickly. It's a missed opportunity to fix a few under-performing units and freshen up some under-used Legion rules.
I am actually really looking forward to the polish they try and put on the turd that is the Word Bearers rules.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
I can absolutely guarantee you that no matter what was in the new book, people would complain. Even a complete revamp would get either "this sucks, GW still doesn't want Chaos to be good" if the initial impression is that the codex is bad or you'd get people saying "GW is just trying to sell the new models" if the initial codex is that the codex is good.
Eldarain wrote: I am actually really looking forward to the polish they try and put on the turd that is the Word Bearers rules.
Somewhere a GW community staff just cracked his knuckles in anticipation of your challenge. This is what they said last time:
Re-rolling failed Morale tests is great for Chaos Space Marines – the army favours large squads of elite troops, and this ability means that valuable multi-Wound models like Possessed and Chaos Terminators are unlikely to flee at an inopportune moment. This synergizes well with the Dark Apostle, who – thanks to Demagogue – gives nearby units a massive 9 Leadership.
Let's see what they dish out this time!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/20 07:47:57
Eldenfirefly wrote: ok ... in that case, here is what I think. Even though I have been a CSM player for life, my take right now is that CSM are fine. As a CSM player, we can either take a base squad of 5 for 65 points or 10 cultists for 50 points. (Takes a deep breath).
If we are saying cultists are cheap, because you can have 3 squads of 10 for 150 points, vs CSM, who need 195 points for 3 squads of 5. Is that 45 points really going to win the game for you? You can't even buy two extra chaos spawn with that. On the flip side though. I think 3 squads of 5 CSM hunkering down in cover on objectives will last a lot longer against small arms fire than 3 squads of 10 cultists. I will be generous and give you 5 more points, so you can have 4 squads of 10 cultists shall we?
A unit of mortars is just 33 points and fires 3d6str 4 shots. 3 units of mortars don't even break 100 points. IG soup lists run them all the time. 3 units of mortars spending turn after turn shelling your 4 squads of 10 cultists in cover (5+ save )vs shelling 3 squads of CSM in cover (2+ save). Which do you think will last longer? My money is on the CSM.
In fact, let's have a mirror matchup. 4 squads of 10 cultists in cover exchanging shots with 3 squads of CSM in cover. I will even let the cultists go first. Everyone is 24 inches apart. The 40 cultists are shooting out 40 shots per turn (initially) with a 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound against a save of 2+ (cover). You kill ... 1 CSM, maybe 2 if you are lucky. Now the 13 or 14 CSM shoot back with bolter discipline at 3+ to hit, 5+ to wound, against a 5+ save (cover). Anyway, 26 shots will work out to 7.7 cultists dead. Morale would probably finish off the remaining 3 in that squad. CSM of 5 per squad don't need to worry about morale. So, one cultists squad dies per turn.
End of 4 turns, the 4 cultist squads are dead, or almost dead. The CSM suffered 1 casualty per turn. They are not even down a squad after 4 rounds of exchanging fire.
So, if I wanted to keep stuff cheap, would I be willing to spend 45 more points so that I can get 3 squads of 5 CSM instead of 4 squads of cultists? From a durability and ability to hunker down and stand on objectives standpoint, I think I would rather take the 3 squads of CSM. Key thing is ... having cultists with their 6+ save gives the imperium soup lists a very obvious target to use all their mortar teams and infantry lasguns... on your cultists! But if you have CSM squads in cover instead, then all those flashlights and mortars are going to be a lot less useful.
But what if they take plasma guns, heavy flamers, etc etc? Well, that's what the rest of your army is for right? 3 squads of CSM are only 195 points. So you have 1805 more points to spend on other much scarier stuff that will draw the attention of their plasma, heavy flamers, lascannons, etc etc. More importantly, now their lasgun and mortars are a lot less effective. If they want to use their heavier weapons to shoot at your basic CSM troop squads rather than the 1805 worth of other nasties you will have, well, I think I wouldn't mind really!
3 or 4 squads of 10 cultists is basically a free gift of points to most armies out there. Anything that even looks at a squad of 10 cultists would probably kill it fairly easily. a bunch of CSM in cover are going to be a lot harder to shift. I just don't see how gifting the opponent 150 worth of cultists to kill is going to be worth the saving of 45 points so that I can buy 2 chaos spawn? I might as well spend 45 more points and make it a lot harder for my opponent to get first strike, and make him take a lot longer to kill those 3 CSM squads.
Obviously all top table csm players are therefore stupid in not fielding csm over Cultists.....
/Sarcasm
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Eldarain wrote: I am actually really looking forward to the polish they try and put on the turd that is the Word Bearers rules.
Somewhere a GW community staff just cracked his knuckles in anticipation of your challenge. This is what they said last time:
Re-rolling failed Morale tests is great for Chaos Space Marines – the army favours large squads of elite troops, and this ability means that valuable multi-Wound models like Possessed and Chaos Terminators are unlikely to flee at an inopportune moment. This synergizes well with the Dark Apostle, who – thanks to Demagogue – gives nearby units a massive 9 Leadership.
Let's see what they dish out this time!
That was seriously stated?
Because last time i checked the moment morale becomes an issue for these units is the moment you know that you fielded to many of them in one squad.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Arachnofiend wrote: Don't be too rough on the community writers, they don't get a say in what the rules are, they're just in charge of making them sound cool.
If you wanna critique their work, try the recent Iron Warriors preview that didn't actually preview anything special for the Iron Warriors. >.>
I've read it, thank you, but the best thing about it was that we will get havocs but they were not previewed with the legion that uses them the most.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
What really blew me away was how they wasted text space showing off the Warsmith, an ancient metal model that's going to look horrible next to all of the new stuff. Maybe if they had a cool conversion to show off indicating how to build a Warsmith out of bits from newer kits, sure, but I don't think anything is gained by anyone from those paragraphs.
Arachnofiend wrote: What really blew me away was how they wasted text space showing off the Warsmith, an ancient metal model that's going to look horrible next to all of the new stuff. Maybe if they had a cool conversion to show off indicating how to build a Warsmith out of bits from newer kits, sure, but I don't think anything is gained by anyone from those paragraphs.
it did remind me that mini's still a thing. which isn't bad from a "ohh yeah those old Mini's still exist!" POV
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
It'll be even more frustrating when the Chaos Marine book has different rules for Berzerkers than the inevitable new kit they'll get when WE get a book.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It'll be even more frustrating when the Chaos Marine book has different rules for Berzerkers than the inevitable new kit they'll get when WE get a book.
assuming we GET a WE book this edition. that said I imagine GW'll likely errata the rules in and likely tell CSM players to snag the new WE codex and use the rules from it, much like they told BA, DA and SW players to do with primaris marines
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Bobthehero wrote: AP weapons of -2 meant Marines had no saves in previous editions
There were no AP-2 weapons in previous editions. AP2 is completely different to AP -2. Apples to oranges.
The closest are the save mods from 2nd Ed, and Marines had the same problem back then as well, except they were 30 points each and never got to take their 3+ saves because almost everything (even Lasguns) had a -1 save mod.
What they are saying is the weapons that are currently -2 AP used to be ap3, which meant marines got no armor saves against them (think krack missiles) so any Marine being shot by those weapons has a 1/3 better chance to survive compared to the last edition, and if in hard cover now has a 1/6 better chance. (Same if in soft cover)
Arachnofiend wrote: What really blew me away was how they wasted text space showing off the Warsmith, an ancient metal model that's going to look horrible next to all of the new stuff. Maybe if they had a cool conversion to show off indicating how to build a Warsmith out of bits from newer kits, sure, but I don't think anything is gained by anyone from those paragraphs.
That was actually the best bit of the entire article. Certainly the most informative.
But I don't think you understand what those articles are for. All those links to things in the webstore? That's the point, they're sales vehicles, not significant sources of rules.
