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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
...They don't need to be unique entries. I'm saying squat regular marines. Get rid of them as is. As far as I see the Primaris statline feels far more like marines. Primaris Codex 2.0 with the ability to let you run your normal marines as primaris!

Further: Declare Primaris infantry a resculpt of normal infantry rather than a distinct unit and allow your "Primaris Tacticals" to take special/heavy weapons.

Bingo. This man has got the answer. /thread.

This.

Well guess what? They already exist as two distinct types of Marines. Get over it. Therefore the real fix is to figure out how they can coexist in the same codex.

Or to condense them in the next SM codex. At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree. Both options are possible.

The issue to remember is design space. GW did not take any chances with the new stats of units whatsoever. Does something else fall into the old category MEQ used to be?
Then we have to remember other units that are supposed to be just as tough, like Orks for example. We can certainly make the argument they're just as tough as Marines but without the armor. Then we need to scale. It means Terminators get W3, which is stupid silly for reasons I've already outlined in previous threads. Then Paladins get W4, which means Custodes need to be bumped up too. It's a mess unless you're willing to take the time to recalculate all those values.

Or, hear me out. They don't. There's a large separation from fluff and gameplay, and I can't honestly believe the difference between Primaris and normal marines is large enough to be 1 wound. Normal marines become two wounds, nothing else changes. Terminators/Bikes don't need to go to W3 at all, no need for this. Paladins? Keep em at W3. Custodes? Fine as is.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
...They don't need to be unique entries. I'm saying squat regular marines. Get rid of them as is. As far as I see the Primaris statline feels far more like marines. Primaris Codex 2.0 with the ability to let you run your normal marines as primaris!

Further: Declare Primaris infantry a resculpt of normal infantry rather than a distinct unit and allow your "Primaris Tacticals" to take special/heavy weapons.

Bingo. This man has got the answer. /thread.

This.

Well guess what? They already exist as two distinct types of Marines. Get over it. Therefore the real fix is to figure out how they can coexist in the same codex.

Or to condense them in the next SM codex. At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree. Both options are possible.

The issue to remember is design space. GW did not take any chances with the new stats of units whatsoever. Does something else fall into the old category MEQ used to be?
Then we have to remember other units that are supposed to be just as tough, like Orks for example. We can certainly make the argument they're just as tough as Marines but without the armor. Then we need to scale. It means Terminators get W3, which is stupid silly for reasons I've already outlined in previous threads. Then Paladins get W4, which means Custodes need to be bumped up too. It's a mess unless you're willing to take the time to recalculate all those values.

Or, hear me out. They don't. There's a large separation from fluff and gameplay, and I can't honestly believe the difference between Primaris and normal marines is large enough to be 1 wound. Normal marines become two wounds, nothing else changes. Terminators/Bikes don't need to go to W3 at all, no need for this. Paladins? Keep em at W3. Custodes? Fine as is.

The difference is W2, A2, and the more deadly Bolter they hold. I'm also willing to guarantee they would've even had I5 if we still had that stat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
...They don't need to be unique entries. I'm saying squat regular marines. Get rid of them as is. As far as I see the Primaris statline feels far more like marines. Primaris Codex 2.0 with the ability to let you run your normal marines as primaris!

Further: Declare Primaris infantry a resculpt of normal infantry rather than a distinct unit and allow your "Primaris Tacticals" to take special/heavy weapons.

Bingo. This man has got the answer. /thread.

This.

Well guess what? They already exist as two distinct types of Marines. Get over it. Therefore the real fix is to figure out how they can coexist in the same codex.

Or to condense them in the next SM codex. At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree. Both options are possible.

The issue to remember is design space. GW did not take any chances with the new stats of units whatsoever. Does something else fall into the old category MEQ used to be?
Then we have to remember other units that are supposed to be just as tough, like Orks for example. We can certainly make the argument they're just as tough as Marines but without the armor. Then we need to scale. It means Terminators get W3, which is stupid silly for reasons I've already outlined in previous threads. Then Paladins get W4, which means Custodes need to be bumped up too. It's a mess unless you're willing to take the time to recalculate all those values.

Or, hear me out. They don't. There's a large separation from fluff and gameplay, and I can't honestly believe the difference between Primaris and normal marines is large enough to be 1 wound. Normal marines become two wounds, nothing else changes. Terminators/Bikes don't need to go to W3 at all, no need for this. Paladins? Keep em at W3. Custodes? Fine as is.

The difference is W2, A2, and the more deadly Bolter they hold. I'm also willing to guarantee they would've even had I5 if we still had that stat.

I'm... talking fluff wise. Either way, it's the fix Marines need. Since we both obviously disagree, I see no point in going back and forth like this.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
...They don't need to be unique entries. I'm saying squat regular marines. Get rid of them as is. As far as I see the Primaris statline feels far more like marines. Primaris Codex 2.0 with the ability to let you run your normal marines as primaris!

Further: Declare Primaris infantry a resculpt of normal infantry rather than a distinct unit and allow your "Primaris Tacticals" to take special/heavy weapons.

Bingo. This man has got the answer. /thread.

This.

Well guess what? They already exist as two distinct types of Marines. Get over it. Therefore the real fix is to figure out how they can coexist in the same codex.

Or to condense them in the next SM codex. At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree. Both options are possible.

The issue to remember is design space. GW did not take any chances with the new stats of units whatsoever. Does something else fall into the old category MEQ used to be?
Then we have to remember other units that are supposed to be just as tough, like Orks for example. We can certainly make the argument they're just as tough as Marines but without the armor. Then we need to scale. It means Terminators get W3, which is stupid silly for reasons I've already outlined in previous threads. Then Paladins get W4, which means Custodes need to be bumped up too. It's a mess unless you're willing to take the time to recalculate all those values.

Well its quite obvious the new points/statline weren't very well calculated in the first place (as evidenced by index to codex point creep). I don't think grounds up recalculation is a bad idea at all...

 0XFallen wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Ugh. This topic seems to pop up every week.

Make Tacticals cost 11 points, make the beta Bolter rule official... Let it ride for half a year to a year and see what happens.

Good job, make marines another gunline army.

At this point, we can't realistically ask for them to have another attack, since that would have them stepping on the toes of the Primaris Marines. GW is essentially trying to make them into a gunline army with rules like Dark Angels, Ultramarines and Raven Guard Chapter Tactics, plus the Beta Bolter Rule.

Most Marines have always been shooty units. That's just how it is. They're priced like they have two attacks though, or as if their guns ignore 5+ and 6+ saves entirely.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Most Marines have always been shooty units. That's just how it is. They're priced like they have two attacks though, or as if their guns ignore 5+ and 6+ saves entirely.

They are over priced. If only there was a way to make it so they weren’t overpriced. Like, if somehow they were less expensive. Not so costly. If you had to invest fewer points to bring them. If only they were chee-eeper!

 greatbigtree wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Most Marines have always been shooty units. That's just how it is. They're priced like they have two attacks though, or as if their guns ignore 5+ and 6+ saves entirely.

They are over priced. If only there was a way to make it so they weren’t overpriced. Like, if somehow they were less expensive. Not so costly. If you had to invest fewer points to bring them. If only they were chee-eeper!

And I've already explained how just making them cheaper doesn't fix the core issue. You keep ignoring that though.

Not to mention when you have units that cost the same (skitarii vanguard and fire warriors) there's not much room for adjustments without arguments being made about X

 fraser1191 wrote:
Not to mention when you have units that cost the same (skitarii vanguard and fire warriors) there's not much room for adjustments without arguments being made about X

Design space was exactly one of my arguments.

@ Slayer: And I've explained how making them cheaper makes sense, and makes them playable. Tac Marines have a role to fill as space filler. Nobody likes it, but that's the role that's needed in the SM dex.

And since you've agreed that they're overpriced... the solution by your own admission would be to make them cheaper.

Sorry... Chee-eeper. I get tired of repeating the truth, yet here we are. The core issue is that high powered weaponry neutralizes the difference between MEQ and GEQ statlines. Since the plethora of high-powered weapons isn't going away, the solution is to same-ify to some degree the base troops. Make them all cheap and disposable.

Yes, it sucks from a fluff perspective but that's the way it is.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Slayer: And I've explained how making them cheaper makes sense, and makes them playable. Tac Marines have a role to fill as space filler. Nobody likes it, but that's the role that's needed in the SM dex.

And since you've agreed that they're overpriced... the solution by your own admission would be to make them cheaper.

Sorry... Chee-eeper. I get tired of repeating the truth, yet here we are. The core issue is that high powered weaponry neutralizes the difference between MEQ and GEQ statlines. Since the plethora of high-powered weapons isn't going away, the solution is to same-ify to some degree the base troops. Make them all cheap and disposable.

Yes, it sucks from a fluff perspective but that's the way it is.

Space filler is for Scouts, so that renders your point invalid.

Also they're pointed correctly for defense but not offense. Core weapons need to be buffed. How much cheaper can you make a unit before stepping on the toes of another? How much cheaper do you make them so you can take what is actually a sizable amount more?

You're literally not thinking about design space.

Yes. S4 AP0 is a marginal upgrade over the humble lasgun.

The offensive capabilities of marines went up against high T targets by the virtue of 'anything can hurt anything' but went down against infantries with weak saves with the loss of AP.

We're beginnin to see the individual gimmicks these nu marines are being released with - perhaps its time boltguns became S4AP-1 and other grades of boltgun differentiated via special rules and ranges and rate of fire. (assualt X, +X" range, specialty rounds, auto wound on 6, etc)

Would it work to give marines "specialist rounds" for their bolters which function like grenades, in that "one model per unit may instead fire a specialist round", or if the unit comprises of 6 or more models, 2 may use the special rounds.

Then give the veterans who have special bolter rounds (I want to say sternguard?) the ability for all of the unit to use the rounds, instead of just one model.

In my eyes, marines are supposed to be a "take all comers" kinda unit with an answer for everything, and this could improve that aspect of them, and would not scale down as they take casualties either.

Then we just need to make the special rounds the right level of powerful against the main target groups - hordes, elites, and tanks/monsters - without one outshining the rest.

I'll leave those finer detail for people who know marines better than I, if this idea takes off.

 some bloke wrote:
Would it work to give marines "specialist rounds" for their bolters which function like grenades, in that "one model per unit may instead fire a specialist round", or if the unit comprises of 6 or more models, 2 may use the special rounds.

Then give the veterans who have special bolter rounds (I want to say sternguard?) the ability for all of the unit to use the rounds, instead of just one model.

In my eyes, marines are supposed to be a "take all comers" kinda unit with an answer for everything, and this could improve that aspect of them, and would not scale down as they take casualties either.

Then we just need to make the special rounds the right level of powerful against the main target groups - hordes, elites, and tanks/monsters - without one outshining the rest.

I'll leave those finer detail for people who know marines better than I, if this idea takes off.

This has been discussed - the overall conclusion was that there are not enough design space to make this happen.

If bolt-weaponry in general gets this upgrade, then we need to think about all the other generic bolt weapons we have - storm bolter, combi bolter, sisters bolter, etc.

The offense upgrade needs to be something so generic that tacs wouldn't step on others' toes.

Which you can’t do.

Scouts are not space filler. They have a mobility option (Infiltrate) baked into their cost. Marines, without this valuable mobility option can be cheaper space filler / speed bumps.

5 Tac marines can speed bump just as well as a unit of Guardsmen, except against high power weaponry... which isn’t being shot at the valuable target they’re protecting. Which is still a win.

Tacs at 11 points each (55pts) able to carry 2x Special Weapons if desired (via combo-Sarge) vs Guard at 5 points each (50 points) with a special and heavy.

The units fulfil similar blocking, deep strike denying, special weapon carrying... but slightly different. They’re both troops, expendable, but also with OBSEC to give them multiple purposes.

Otherwise, you can’t buff their offence without buffing Vanguard. They need a purpose besides DPS. (Damage per round, to be more accurate). Cheaper is the solution to making them have a useful role on the battlefield.

 skchsan wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Would it work to give marines "specialist rounds" for their bolters which function like grenades, in that "one model per unit may instead fire a specialist round", or if the unit comprises of 6 or more models, 2 may use the special rounds.

Then give the veterans who have special bolter rounds (I want to say sternguard?) the ability for all of the unit to use the rounds, instead of just one model.

In my eyes, marines are supposed to be a "take all comers" kinda unit with an answer for everything, and this could improve that aspect of them, and would not scale down as they take casualties either.

Then we just need to make the special rounds the right level of powerful against the main target groups - hordes, elites, and tanks/monsters - without one outshining the rest.

I'll leave those finer detail for people who know marines better than I, if this idea takes off.

This has been discussed - the overall conclusion was that there are not enough design space to make this happen.

If bolt-weaponry in general gets this upgrade, then we need to think about all the other generic bolt weapons we have - storm bolter, combi bolter, sisters bolter, etc.

The offense upgrade needs to be something so generic that tacs wouldn't step on others' toes.

so the issue is that if we give tacs special rounds, then they will be infringing of other units in the codex with special rounds. fair enough.

So the aim is to increase the damage output of marines, whilst leaving their defensive capabilities and points the same?

The simple answer, to me, would be to give them more access to special weaponry. Whilst bolters probably do need an overhaul, as you say, it would need an overhaul of a lot of weapons, in a lot of codices, and that means a lot of balancing to be done.

If you were to give tacticals the option of 4 special weapons instead of 2, would that make them a more favourable unit? perhaps increase the variety of special weapons available to them, to include some of the weapons available to other units?

The route I'm taking is basically that tactical marines would be a not-as-good-but-cheaper-and-troops version of the more specialist units, allowing you to take one sternguard bolter in a unit of tacticals, and so increase their flexibility.

To differentiate from devastators, tacticals would still only be able to take a single heavy weapon.

obviously this will mean you can put too many points into the unit, and that's up to you to balance. but tactical marines will have more tactics if they can be specialised more, wouldn't they?

Why not modify the Detachments:
Basically, if you fiell all taxtroopslots with Marines instead of Cultists, scouts, etc. they generate the double ammount of CP?

Whilest not necessarily fixing Regular tacticals, BA f.e. or CSM would then begin to consider them as slot fillers over their cheaper equivalent.

Yes, giving them 4 specials would be good because that’s the point of taking Vanguard. Every model can have a special or combi-special.

Again, at that point you might as well mathammer which 5 man unit is the better special weapon platform... which will always be Tacticals. You don’t need to pay the platform price of a Vet with special ammo.

Seriously, Tacticals need to be cheaper. Their purpose is to (tactically) intervene to protect more valuable units, or to hold position after more valuable units have cleared resistance. Again, a tactical use of the unit, rather than just another damage dealer. A unique, non damage-maximizing unit. One that can chump block for another unit, the way Guard squads do (and are taken for) in soup.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Which you can’t do.

Scouts are not space filler. They have a mobility option (Infiltrate) baked into their cost. Marines, without this valuable mobility option can be cheaper space filler / speed bumps.

5 Tac marines can speed bump just as well as a unit of Guardsmen, except against high power weaponry... which isn’t being shot at the valuable target they’re protecting. Which is still a win.

Tacs at 11 points each (55pts) able to carry 2x Special Weapons if desired (via combo-Sarge) vs Guard at 5 points each (50 points) with a special and heavy.

The units fulfil similar blocking, deep strike denying, special weapon carrying... but slightly different. They’re both troops, expendable, but also with OBSEC to give them multiple purposes.

Otherwise, you can’t buff their offence without buffing Vanguard. They need a purpose besides DPS. (Damage per round, to be more accurate). Cheaper is the solution to making them have a useful role on the battlefield.

Scouts would still be taken over them at 11 points because the Infiltrate is more valuable than the 3+. Intercessors are more durable to anything D1 and they honestly don't give up a lot of points to anything multi-damage. So no, you're wrong.

Also what do Vanguard have to do with anything (it is almost as though you don't play Marines)? If you're talking about Sternguard, they're already more viable at 16 points a model, with either double the shots or just a better Bolter. That's why I outlined my basic fixes in the second or so post.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Which you can’t do.

Scouts are not space filler. They have a mobility option (Infiltrate) baked into their cost. Marines, without this valuable mobility option can be cheaper space filler / speed bumps.

5 Tac marines can speed bump just as well as a unit of Guardsmen, except against high power weaponry... which isn’t being shot at the valuable target they’re protecting. Which is still a win.

Tacs at 11 points each (55pts) able to carry 2x Special Weapons if desired (via combo-Sarge) vs Guard at 5 points each (50 points) with a special and heavy.

The units fulfil similar blocking, deep strike denying, special weapon carrying... but slightly different. They’re both troops, expendable, but also with OBSEC to give them multiple purposes.

Otherwise, you can’t buff their offence without buffing Vanguard. They need a purpose besides DPS. (Damage per round, to be more accurate). Cheaper is the solution to making them have a useful role on the battlefield.

Scouts would still be taken over them at 11 points because the Infiltrate is more valuable than the 3+. Intercessors are more durable to anything D1 and they honestly don't give up a lot of points to anything multi-damage. So no, you're wrong.

Also what do Vanguard have to do with anything (it is almost as though you don't play Marines)? If you're talking about Sternguard, they're already more viable at 16 points a model, with either double the shots or just a better Bolter. That's why I outlined my basic fixes in the second or so post.

Adding on, most SM players would agree that they'd take scouts for their infiltrate even if they become more expensive than Tac's.

Tac's are jack of no trades despite how much GW or others would like to argue.

The role of a Tactical Marine Squad is durability outside of cover, with the ability to bring 2 specials to the party.

Much the way that Guard squads need to advance with their tanks if the tanks hope to survive, Marines benefit from having *cheap* units advance with their valuable units. Tac, were they cheaper, can fill the role of mobile wall. A wall that can carry a pair of Plasmaguns, for example. 70 points for a speed bump that can crack off a few Plasma rounds in support... that can then reach out and touch someone if they survive to reach their destination.

I’d do it.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The role of a Tactical Marine Squad is durability outside of cover, with the ability to bring 2 specials to the party.

Much the way that Guard squads need to advance with their tanks if the tanks hope to survive, Marines benefit from having *cheap* units advance with their valuable units. Tac, were they cheaper, can fill the role of mobile wall. A wall that can carry a pair of Plasmaguns, for example. 70 points for a speed bump that can crack off a few Plasma rounds in support... that can then reach out and touch someone if they survive to reach their destination.

I’d do it.

Um no, because Intercessors already have that covered. This was literally just explained to you.

Also Scouts would be able to deliver even a single Combi-Plasma a lot quicker. Hell, for special weapons, Wolf Scouts do that. You can't price a Tactical Marine to do what you're explaining it to do.

Sure you can. 11 points. Done.

PS: Explaining something doesn’t make it correct. For example, I could explain to you why I’m correct, but it wouldn’t matter, would it? I’m presenting an argument to an audience.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Sure you can. 11 points. Done.

PS: Explaining something doesn’t make it correct. For example, I could explain to you why I’m correct, but it wouldn’t matter, would it? I’m presenting an argument to an audience.

I LITERALLY showed that both the other units do walling better via stats and abilities, and you can't Tactical Marines cheap enough to buy more weapons without stepping on the toes of other units and codices.
They need a redesign for core weapons and weapon saturation.

No, you didn’t (successfully) prove your point. You made a claim. An inaccurate claim. Repeatedly.

I am making an accurate claim. That I can prove with this useful thing the kids are doing these days, “Math”. And in-game experience, but that’s harder to qualify.

Making Tac Marines (and by extension, all 1 W marines) 2 points cheaper puts them right in the ballpark of cost to durability to offence that 5 point Guardsmen would have. With slightly more efficient access to Special weapons, while suffering inefficient losses against anti-elite weapons like Plasmaguns.

They’re efficient at clearing hordes while being vulnerable to massed Plasma. Exactly what they should be.

But by all means, continue your claims that there isn’t design space or whatever to fix them. I’ll just accurately point out that a 2 point drop, combined with raising Guardsmen to 5 points each (which they should be, relative to the rest of the game) would result in balanced troops for most armies.

They dont need a rule design of weapons or stats, they are in the right place and, in comparison to cultists for example they do well against them.

However what I would suggest is that as they are tactical and marines arent holding lines on their own(except for primaris maybe) lorewise,
Either emphasize the Assault variant of marines, like +1 attack only on charge

Or

Emphasize that they are bolstering the lines by for example giving surrounding lower points infantry rerolling leader ship, giving them they know no fear, or they can do this only once as it might be too strong

Get out of the pool, OXFallen. You're drunk.

( )

 greatbigtree wrote:
Get out of the pool, OXFallen. You're drunk.

( )

That might seem the case if everyone else talks gibberish, which they do. Go play your gunline/horde spacemarine army if you want to which is not how space marines should be like.

 greatbigtree wrote:
No, you didn’t (successfully) prove your point. You made a claim. An inaccurate claim. Repeatedly.

I am making an accurate claim. That I can prove with this useful thing the kids are doing these days, “Math”. And in-game experience, but that’s harder to qualify.

Making Tac Marines (and by extension, all 1 W marines) 2 points cheaper puts them right in the ballpark of cost to durability to offence that 5 point Guardsmen would have. With slightly more efficient access to Special weapons, while suffering inefficient losses against anti-elite weapons like Plasmaguns.

They’re efficient at clearing hordes while being vulnerable to massed Plasma. Exactly what they should be.

But by all means, continue your claims that there isn’t design space or whatever to fix them. I’ll just accurately point out that a 2 point drop, combined with raising Guardsmen to 5 points each (which they should be, relative to the rest of the game) would result in balanced troops for most armies.

That's assuming Infantry should be 5 points. They're more of a 4.5 model. If you make them 5 points, that's the exact same as the Genestealer Cult dudes but they have way less rules, 2 points away from Rangers, which would be absolutely silly as Rangers are already strong but at least not broken, and that's not even getting into fixing Eldar Guardians, which wouldn't be far away either.

You also haven't shown that it's more efficient access to weapons compared to just letting them buy more. That's the cost of opportunity. You still have the minimum buy-in of those 5 Tactical Marines before you buy any weapons, which means they need to be absurdly cheap to do what you're speaking of. Stuff like Company Vets will still be picked over them because they get more density for the points.

Also anything over 10 points is really going to be fodder for Plasma Guns. There's nothing you can do about that outside playing Raven Guard or Iron Hands.