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.

 skchsan wrote:

 0XFallen wrote:
I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.

To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7

My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.

The underlying problem is that IG and knights are used as the baselines for "balance". Things that can shoot well and endure shots well defines what is "good" in 8th edition. Melee is dead, the tertiary element that balanced the binary system of [shooting] and [getting shot at].


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

 WisdomLS wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.

This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.

I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.

If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.

Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt

Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts

Guardians/Defenders +1pts

Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts

Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts

Vanguard/Rangers +1pts

Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts

Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts

Tzangors +1pts

Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.

Cultists at 6? even tough they aren't taken anymore at 5?
Scuse me but that is ridicoulous.

Troops should never be taken for the virtue of being "cheap". This too, is the fundamental flaw in 8th edition.

That i can agree on but harping on and on on a unit that got nerfed OUT of the Meta, is idiotical.,

Not Online!!! wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 0XFallen wrote:
I like how everyone always compares infantry to guardsmen, guardsmen are just flat out the best infantry right now, not only for ds denial, output and CP, but because they get VPs with their Move move move order, which shouldnt really exist.

To add:
Skitarii vanguards went from AP5 to AP0 and nerfed special rule
Skitarii rangers went from AP4 to AP0, lost their special rule and now have -1ap on a 6 to wound, both losing their fnp and going from LD 10 to LD 6/7

My point is: Marines are fine, especially now with the bolter rule. IMO they should do less damage gunning in comparison to others, but be good at holding objectives.
The problems are CP generation, soup, and guardsmen orders.

The underlying problem is that IG and knights are used as the baselines for "balance". Things that can shoot well and endure shots well defines what is "good" in 8th edition. Melee is dead, the tertiary element that balanced the binary system of [shooting] and [getting shot at].


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

 WisdomLS wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Hordes are badly costed. Revamp all the costs of horde units and TAC won’t be in the bad spot they are now.

This is very true, there is an over abundance of cheap bodies appearing in all armies that can take them. The inexpensive cost added to the new Str/T chart and the new AP system have made them super good in a game where board control is paramount.
Add in the fact that many of the larger horde units have the ability to mitigate moral which was designed to keep them in check results in them being very undercosted.

I suspect GW realise this but it could be by design to get people to buy more models, that would certainly seem to be the case with the general lowiering of points across the board.

If GW do decide they want to do something about it then in chapter approved next year a simple 1-2 pt increase in the cost of most cheap infantry would solve the issue.

Infantry squad +2pts
veteran +2pts
Conscript +1pt

Kabalits/Wracks/Wyches +1 pts

Guardians/Defenders +1pts

Firewarriors/Breachers +1pts

Cultists +1pts
All lesser Daemons +1pts

Vanguard/Rangers +1pts

Gretchin +1pts
Boys +1pts

Broodbrothers/Neophyte +2pts
Acolyte +1 pts

Tzangors +1pts

Obviously some of these might need to be +/- a point or so but I think this would have a far greater effect on the meta than reducing marine pts by 1.

Cultists at 6? even tough they aren't taken anymore at 5?
Scuse me but that is ridicoulous.

Troops should never be taken for the virtue of being "cheap". This too, is the fundamental flaw in 8th edition.

That i can agree on but harping on and on on a unit that got nerfed OUT of the Meta, is idiotical.,

True, but to be fair, cultists are still a fairly competitive choice when properly buffed via appropriate HQ's - they're simply no longer auto-take.

YAY, you know what, i love that i can field RC now. Or that any CSM is now suddendly RC, that has surely and decisively solved all issues for AL, BL, WB, etc.
Slowclap.

Not Online!!! wrote:
YAY, you know what, i love that i can field RC now. Or that any CSM is now suddendly RC, that has surely and decisively solved all issues for AL, BL, WB, etc.
Slowclap.

So I take it that you dislike the fact CSM's other troop choice got whole lot more viable with their T5?

Yeah, it still dies all the same against plasmas, but that's what plasmas are supposed to do, so... Which then bring us back to plasmas being handed out like PB&J sandwiches at booking being the issue.

Look at it this way - single use model-wargear (cherubs, watcher in the dark, etc) cost 5 pts, and they do one thing and they're removed. You're telling me it's justifiable in any way a model-model should cost less than that?

 Fan67 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
What if...All the space marine auras were no long auras and just affected the whole army automatically. Since you are paying a cost like they are buffed like the aura anyways. It would for sure make the army more competitive. You know...being able to move tactically and stuff instead of a dead/death ball....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:
Maybe instead of Drop Pods getting to hit on turn 1, they get to land no closer than 6" to enemy units or something.

Wouldnt really help marines specifically- it would be great for lots of armies but vanila marines dont want to get that close mostly. Flamers aren't even worth it even when they are in range. 70 more points of firepower is better. It would be amazing and busted for Blood angels though.

For the first part - drop pod is ok to drop further than 9", but disembarking within 3" but farther than 6" from enemy would help. Now dropping in pod gives no additional benefit to regular deepstrike.
I feel that pod should be non-scoring dirt cheap unit or cost the same but allow turn 1 deepstrike shinanigans.

For the second part - I find auras appaling to start with, but what you propose is close to OP.
Command squads with vox marine, along with vox upgrades on squads, should give aura increase, but plain buff seems unnecessary.

Turn 1 Deep strike would help the drop pod but like you said they should really just be dirt cheap non scoring and cost CP or like 10-20 points each. So many armies can deep strike for command points...Marines should be no different.

I disagree about the auras though. With the cost of the HQ's themselves / their inability to take good shooting weapons like tau or DE or CWE and general lack of mobility basically all these characters do is buff. You still pay a high cohse for them. No doubt the buffs are good. However, the units they buff are not good. In durability per point space marines are terrible - near the bottom of the barrel. In firepower they basically break even with the best units in the game IF they are buffed by Guilliman. Obviously gman is good beyond his buff - but it's pretty difficult to utilize both his buffs and his CC ability. Anyways - when I play Gman - my whole army is in that buff or at least 80% of it and it's not even close to OP. The amount of damage you can do - your opponent can give you right back with much better efficiency units. I don't think extending or making all space marine buffs unlimited range is OP. It sounds OP for sure. But that is just because marines are in that bad of a place right now. Something drastic like a 20% reduction in price across the board OR unlimited range buffs is necessary.

 Xenomancers wrote:
[HQs] ... their inability to take good shooting weapons like tau or DE or CWE

So Marines only get things like Storm Bolters, Combi-Meltas/PGs/Flamers, Fusion/Plas Pistols (sometimes), Conversion Beamers, etc - DE get awesome things like Splinter Rifles and Blast Pistols! What DE HQs take guns that outshine SM HQ guns?

A CWE Autarch can take an Index option of a Reaper Launcher. That's better than most SM HQ guns in most ways (but not better than all in all ways). Beyond that, you've got comparisons like Shuriken Pistols, Shuriken Catapaults, Avenger Shuriken Catapaults, and the Fusion Gun - which is strictly inferior to the CombiMelta. SM HQs get much better guns than CWE HQs.

Sure, two T'au HQs get better guns; T'au Commander Crisis Suits get amazing dakka. But the other two factions you list have *worse* dakka for their HQs.

and general lack of mobility

The worst Marine HQs miss out on what, 2" of M compared to the best DE HQs? Aside from that, SM HQs downright dominate DE HQs for mobility. Jumppack and Bikes - DE HQs get nothing. SM are much better off.

CWE have it better - by 1-2 inches plus Battle Focus. I wouldn't call that a general lack of mobility; foot SM HQs are only a little slower than CWE equivelents, and have many Jumppack variants with Fly that CWE don't get - which outpace the CWE foot variants. CWE has flying bikes with an extra 2" movement so CWE does win there.

T'au have two HQs that move faster than foot Marines - again, the Crisis Commanders. All their other HQs are foot HQs like the slowest of the SM HQs. SM have Jumppack and Bike HQs, though. I'd give this one to Marines, but it's debateable.

In summary, Marines are much faster than DE, arguably faster than T'au, although clearly slower than CWE. SM HQs are notably mobile in this game - not notably slow/static.

 skchsan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
YAY, you know what, i love that i can field RC now. Or that any CSM is now suddendly RC, that has surely and decisively solved all issues for AL, BL, WB, etc.
Slowclap.

So I take it that you dislike the fact CSM's other troop choice got whole lot more viable with their T5?

Yeah, it still dies all the same against plasmas, but that's what plasmas are supposed to do, so... Which then bring us back to plasmas being handed out like PB&J sandwiches at booking being the issue.

Look at it this way - single use model-wargear (cherubs, watcher in the dark, etc) cost 5 pts, and they do one thing and they're removed. You're telling me it's justifiable in any way a model-model should cost less than that?

Wtf are you talking about?
Csm are T4. ONLY havocs got boosted to T5 to represent their new buffer clawed form. And by consequence loosing the ablative wound option btw.
And yes i am.

Insectum's dream-marine list:

1: Give all marines fall-back-and-shoot/charge, inc. Vehicles. UM with no modifier.
2: Drop Pods may arrive turn 1
3: Bolter Discipline becomes nx2 at long range, nx3 at short, no move penalty
4: All heavy weapons have Targeters for +1 to hit.
5: kill Aura mechanic, make bonus table-wide but one re-roll per unit. All the rerolls are tiring.
6: Krak +Melta grenades may be used in combat vs. Monsters and vehicles. 1A per model.
7. Chainsword AP-1
8. Terminators ignore penalty for Heavy weapons, shooting and Assault (like Pfists)
9. Point appropriately


Edit:
10: Improve anti-infantry capability of Flamers and Castellan Whirlwinds. (Ignore cover, add 3 to each D6 of shots)
11: Armorium Cherub no longer counts as a model in the unit.
12: Predator either becomes T8 or gets a few more wounds

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

1) AP changes reduced the effectiveness of 3+ armor. Bolters used to ignore horde infantry's armor due to old Ap5, but now don't. Other old ap5 weapons often became ap-1 or got a special rule, but bolters got screwed.
2) Changes to templates/blasts and special weapons in general hurt marines as they often relied on a couple powerful weapons in a squad do a lot of work. Flamers used to be able to get 5-10 hits on hordes, now they get 1d6 and don't ignore armor.
3) Marines used to rely on high damage, low shot anti armor weapons like meltas and powerfists to kill vehicles. This no longer works due to AV system changes, and the 8th edition version of all these weapons being crappy.
4) Marines are hit really hard by transport and rapid fire changes. Moving, then disembarking and rapidfiring was a standard tactic (and it used to actually kill things due to old ap5).
5) Instant death changes destroyed the ability of a sergeant with a powerfist to be an effective counter to characters.
6) The new morale mechanics were supposed to be a check on the power of hordes, but actually just end up punishing large squads of marines most, forcing us into 5 man MSU all the time. Re-rolling morale doesn't help.

1) Tell me about all the AP5 weapons that became AP-1? They don't exist outside Necrons AFAIK, Gauss Flayers also lost the Gauss rule which was a huge loss. AP5 became AP- in almost all cases and that is much worse against Marines because of the changes to cover. Bolters got bolter discipline. What Marines really suffer from is competition with Scouts and Infantry Squads, almost all units receiving a 1pt decrease means that Marines got comparatively more expensive. The changes to cover totally changed how lightly armoured and heavily armoured models are supposed to be used.
2) Flamers is just one UP option, the truth is Marines relied entirely on the OP nature of their Detachments and Grav weaponry to carry the day, without those Marines were as bad as they are currently.
3) Grav was a huge crutch for Marines, PFs weren't good, melta hasn't become much worse than it was.
4) And now you can RF from 24" away if you don't move. Rhinos are also 5-15 pts too expensive and they were FREE in the previous edition.
5) In a challenge your Sergeant with a PF is going to get smoked anyway and if you don't accept you have to go sulk in a corner with the Sergeant. PFs are now relatively better against T5+ targets, not to mention actually worth something against HQs since the Sergeant can't get singled out or get shot for being the closest enemy model.
6) How is Morale worse for a 10-man Tac Squad with a plasma gun and a lascannon compared to a 30-man squad of Boyz? With Boyz you kill 19 and the rest disappear most likely, with Marines you kill 8 and the rest disappear most likely. With a Nob in the Boyz you are losing about an equivalent number of pts from Morale compared to Shooting as you are with Marines. But as you said, no reason not just to spam 5-man Squads since you aren't being shoe-horned into taking big blobs from Reanimation Protocols like Necrons or buffs to your units from taking big units like Orks or Nids. 10-man Squads are a noob trap, but there are tonnes of those in list building, you yourself mentioned Flamers which are supposed to be an option, but are actually just a waste of ink/bits. It's also worth noting that 5-man Marine squads used to actually still have to take Morale, now they are pretty much immune, yes the price of failing Morale was small, but 5-man Squads got better in terms of suffering from Morale.

Lastly, I'll say that S4 is relatively weak. AP- weapons can be pretty good against Knights, but S4 wounds on 6s and gets relatively fewer shots compared to S3 so your non-special weapons are useless against Knights.

"Marines used to rely on high damage, low shot anti armor weapons like meltas and powerfists to kill vehicles. This no longer works due to AV system changes, and the 8th edition version of all these weapons being crappy."
I think this is one of my biggest complaints this edition, not just for Marines: they fubar'ed the low-RoF weapons.

In previous editions, a single MG, PG, or even Flamer was a serious threat to the appropriate target. So having a squad with decent BS that can carry one, a Combi, and maybe a Heavy meant you could do serious damage to the appropriate target.

There were some units (Fire Dragons, Vet/Sternie squads, etc) that could spam the weapon. But it would cost a ton. And would do nothing vs the wrong target.

If a single MG were a real threat to Leman Russes, an MG/CombiMG Tac squad would be nearly as scary to a tank as a 5-man Fire Dragon squad - while (ideally) costing a lot less, and certainly being more durable, better at fending off chaff, and overall more versatile.

If each Flamer were scary for a 10-man Guard squad, then a Flamer/CombiFlamer Tac squad would wreck Guardsmen.

There are problems in making these happen:
-How do you make "Melta" scary for Tanks, without making all the "Melta+10"s OP? They've scaled up killiness so far, and with the dogma of "This is a Melta Gun, but simply better" (wtf do Fire Dragons need Assured Destruction, for instance?), that they've designed themselves into a corner.
-Plasma Guns are simply better Melta Guns now. That's silly. And the *volume* of Plasma shots that things get (Hellblasters, Disintigration Cannons, etc) is crazy.
-Making Flamers a good anti-GEQ option for a unit that can take 2 makes units that can give everybody one silly good vs GEQ.
-Despite some of the most complained about OP units being GEQ (Guardsmen, primarily), there are tons of GEQ that don't need this "nerf" (Gaunts, Guardians, Kroot, etc).

Melta has been killed by dead by T8 with invulns. And cheap invulns. And short range. It's just bad. The melta can't even get to russ in 8th. There is a wall of 4 pt dum dums physically preventing you from moving.

Marines (and many other elite units that don't have some OP special snowflake gak) also need the "Win combat" mechanic back, in some way. In previous editions, Marines had an edge in that they didn't need to kill a ton of models to win combat - this means you didn't need many Marines to wipe entire hordes.

If a small Tac squad charges a horde of Guardsmen/Orks/Guardians/Necrons, and kill 4, but then only lose 1 Tac Marine - the Guardsmen then test on Ld-3, or "run away" (likely overrun and removed, but at least out of action for a round). This meant smaller, more tactical units could be used to great effect. If you could control the flow of battle, you could do amazing things (like wiping out 40 Guardsmen with a 5-man ASM squad in one round).

Finally, they need to lose the silly-good HQ bubble buffs.
Terrible direction for the game. Obviously, they'd then need compensation - but as long as HQ bubble buffs are so cost effective, you need to leverage them. This forces you into a castle/deathblob playstyle. It may not be a "Deathstar" as in a single unit - but it's still a game of stack-them-buffs; only instead of being a single unit supported by other elements, it's now a single blob of most of the army, regardless of number of units.

(Incidentally, this is why I find Sallies so interesting, mechanics-wise; while it's not the strongest CT, it greatly reduces the value of HQ buff bubbles on Tac squads with 1-2 special/heavy weapons.)

Bubble buffs aren't even that good. They are just mandatory to even have a chance.

BTW, marines had a lot of this stuff before, and still weren't good.

Bharring wrote:
"Marines used to rely on high damage, low shot anti armor weapons like meltas and powerfists to kill vehicles. This no longer works due to AV system changes, and the 8th edition version of all these weapons being crappy."
I think this is one of my biggest complaints this edition, not just for Marines: they fubar'ed the low-RoF weapons.

In previous editions, a single MG, PG, or even Flamer was a serious threat to the appropriate target. So having a squad with decent BS that can carry one, a Combi, and maybe a Heavy meant you could do serious damage to the appropriate target.

There were some units (Fire Dragons, Vet/Sternie squads, etc) that could spam the weapon. But it would cost a ton. And would do nothing vs the wrong target.

If a single MG were a real threat to Leman Russes, an MG/CombiMG Tac squad would be nearly as scary to a tank as a 5-man Fire Dragon squad - while (ideally) costing a lot less, and certainly being more durable, better at fending off chaff, and overall more versatile.

If each Flamer were scary for a 10-man Guard squad, then a Flamer/CombiFlamer Tac squad would wreck Guardsmen.

There are problems in making these happen:
-How do you make "Melta" scary for Tanks, without making all the "Melta+10"s OP? They've scaled up killiness so far, and with the dogma of "This is a Melta Gun, but simply better" (wtf do Fire Dragons need Assured Destruction, for instance?), that they've designed themselves into a corner.
-Plasma Guns are simply better Melta Guns now. That's silly. And the *volume* of Plasma shots that things get (Hellblasters, Disintigration Cannons, etc) is crazy.
-Making Flamers a good anti-GEQ option for a unit that can take 2 makes units that can give everybody one silly good vs GEQ.
-Despite some of the most complained about OP units being GEQ (Guardsmen, primarily), there are tons of GEQ that don't need this "nerf" (Gaunts, Guardians, Kroot, etc).

Tac Squads were only worth something because of the Gladius Detachment. Before that it didn't matter what weapons you put in them, a single meltagun just wasn't that scary. Sternguard with combi-meltas in drop pods were pretty scary, but the idea that a single meltagun was ever scary is wrong. Yes, you had a decent chance of instantly blowing up a vehicle, but that vehicle also cost half what it does today or it had Jink or you had -3 to hit it instead of -1. Scouts were just as popular prior to the Gladius Detachment as they are today compared to Tac Squads.

Advocating for more powerful meltaguns and flamers is super silly if you want Tac Squads to be better, the answer is to make these weapon options relatively more expensive so that units like Sternguard have to pay a large amount to replace 5/5 of their bolters rather than just 2/5 like a Tac Squad would. Special weapons were already buffed by you choosing which models are removed rather than being forced to take off the closest enemy, buffing special weapons like GW did in CA2018 was a move in the wrong direction, at least when factored in that it appeared without a cost reduction to the basic Marines.

My 2 cents,
Space marine beta-rules
defensive:
The Emperors Finest:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors.
-I'd make this faction wide rule for SM,DA,SW,BA,GK and DW, not just for tacs, but to help with the overall lack of durability SM units have for their points cost. It also has the advantage of not requiring any datasheet or stat line changes, just a WD entree.

Strategic changes
Combat Squads: When mustering your army before the start of the game, a Tactical Squad containing 10 models may be split into two units, each containing 5 models.
-Reworking of the combat squad ability to take place during mustering so that a full sized(Ex:10 man) squad is split in two and qualifies as 2 units for thier respective battlefield role when building a detachment. This would mainly allow you to take a full squad with 3 weapons and have one 5 man unit be a sort of mini dev squad in a TROOPS slot, without having to pay for a 4th special weapon. just a little tactical flexibility for a currently useless ability.

Flanking: During deployment, you can set up this unit behind enemy lines instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the beginning of any of your Movement phases this unit can join the battle – set it up within 6" of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9" away from any enemy models.
-changing "Flanking" units to differentiate them from deep striking units, instead of just being an inferior version. I'd implement this game wide, not just for SM.

Commanders Vox Network-Allow units that contain a "Sergeant" to benefit from aura abilities of HQ units, even if they are not within range of said unit. Allow snipers to target Sergeants.
-As others have noted, auras are a trash design choice. Make sergeants and snipers usefull, while making sure that other units like banners and RG dont warp the mechanic. Units that dont have a sergeant, like Dreads and tanks, would still need to be withing the aura range.

Unit specific fix's
Drop Pod Assaulturing deployment, you can set up this model, along with any units embarked within it, in orbit instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the BEGINNING of any of your Movement phases this model can perform a drop pod assault – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" away from any enemy models. Any models embarked inside must immediately disembark, but they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. Any models that cannot be set up because there is not enough room are slain.

Terminators: Bump them up to T6 and make them 18PPM. with the above defensive fix, they'd be decent.

NOTE: I tend to agree with others points that old marines should just be pumped up to primaris stats, but i really do think that there are bigger issues for SM than just those plaguing old marines. Personally, bumping them up to primaris stats and the defensive buff i sugessted might be too much, but since the buff helps more than just old marines, i'd opt for that if i had to choose.

Djangomatic82 wrote:
My 2 cents,
Space marine beta-rules
defensive:
The Emperors Finest:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors.
-I'd make this faction wide rule for SM,DA,SW,BA,GK and DW, not just for tacs, but to help with the overall lack of durability SM units have for their points cost. It also has the advantage of not requiring any datasheet or stat line changes, just a WD entree.

Strategic changes
Combat Squads: When mustering your army before the start of the game, a Tactical Squad containing 10 models may be split into two units, each containing 5 models.
-Reworking of the combat squad ability to take place during mustering so that a full sized(Ex:10 man) squad is split in two and qualifies as 2 units for thier respective battlefield role when building a detachment. This would mainly allow you to take a full squad with 3 weapons and have one 5 man unit be a sort of mini dev squad in a TROOPS slot, without having to pay for a 4th special weapon. just a little tactical flexibility for a currently useless ability.

Flanking: During deployment, you can set up this unit behind enemy lines instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the beginning of any of your Movement phases this unit can join the battle – set it up within 6" of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9" away from any enemy models.
-changing "Flanking" units to differentiate them from deep striking units, instead of just being an inferior version. I'd implement this game wide, not just for SM.

Commanders Vox Network-Allow units that contain a "Sergeant" to benefit from aura abilities of HQ units, even if they are not within range of said unit. Allow snipers to target Sergeants.
-As others have noted, auras are a trash design choice. Make sergeants and snipers usefull, while making sure that other units like banners and RG dont warp the mechanic. Units that dont have a sergeant, like Dreads and tanks, would still need to be withing the aura range.

Unit specific fix's
Drop Pod Assaulturing deployment, you can set up this model, along with any units embarked within it, in orbit instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the BEGINNING of any of your Movement phases this model can perform a drop pod assault – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" away from any enemy models. Any models embarked inside must immediately disembark, but they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. Any models that cannot be set up because there is not enough room are slain.

Terminators: Bump them up to T6 and make them 18PPM. with the above defensive fix, they'd be decent.

NOTE: I tend to agree with others points that old marines should just be pumped up to primaris stats, but i really do think that there are bigger issues for SM than just those plaguing old marines. Personally, bumping them up to primaris stats and the defensive buff i sugessted might be too much, but since the buff helps more than just old marines, i'd opt for that if i had to choose.

The Emperor's Finest is INSANELY GOOD. Like, crazily so. Also, how does it interact with rerolling FAILED wounds, like Plaguebearers get?

And for reference, a T6 Terminator that forces enemies to reroll successful wounds takes...

864 BS 4+ Lasgun shots
162 BS 3+ Bolter shots
81 BS 3+ Heavy Bolter shots
12.15 BS 3+ Lascannon shots
16.2 WS 2+ Knight stomps

Is it your intention to make Terminators so durable it takes three full Devastator Squads of Lascannons to kill one? Or that a Knight Gallant will, on average, kill less than one Terminator per round of combat when still hitting on a 2+?

Also, for anyone complaining that Guard are too good and then suggesting this...

It takes more than 23 Guard Squads within 12" with FRF,SRF to kill one Terminator. That is (assuming just Infantry Squads and Company Commanders, ignoring the Rule of Three) just shy of 1,300 points. To kill an 18 point Terminator. (Admittedly, the Terminator does have to pay for gear, making them in the realm of 30-40 points. So that's slightly better return on investment... But still only about 3%.)

 JNAProductions wrote:

Djangomatic82 wrote:
My 2 cents,
Space marine beta-rules
defensive:
The Emperors Finest:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors.
-I'd make this faction wide rule for SM,DA,SW,BA,GK and DW, not just for tacs, but to help with the overall lack of durability SM units have for their points cost. It also has the advantage of not requiring any datasheet or stat line changes, just a WD entree.

Strategic changes
Combat Squads: When mustering your army before the start of the game, a Tactical Squad containing 10 models may be split into two units, each containing 5 models.
-Reworking of the combat squad ability to take place during mustering so that a full sized(Ex:10 man) squad is split in two and qualifies as 2 units for thier respective battlefield role when building a detachment. This would mainly allow you to take a full squad with 3 weapons and have one 5 man unit be a sort of mini dev squad in a TROOPS slot, without having to pay for a 4th special weapon. just a little tactical flexibility for a currently useless ability.

Flanking: During deployment, you can set up this unit behind enemy lines instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the beginning of any of your Movement phases this unit can join the battle – set it up within 6" of a battlefield edge of your choice and more than 9" away from any enemy models.
-changing "Flanking" units to differentiate them from deep striking units, instead of just being an inferior version. I'd implement this game wide, not just for SM.

Commanders Vox Network-Allow units that contain a "Sergeant" to benefit from aura abilities of HQ units, even if they are not within range of said unit. Allow snipers to target Sergeants.
-As others have noted, auras are a trash design choice. Make sergeants and snipers usefull, while making sure that other units like banners and RG dont warp the mechanic. Units that dont have a sergeant, like Dreads and tanks, would still need to be withing the aura range.

Unit specific fix's
Drop Pod Assaulturing deployment, you can set up this model, along with any units embarked within it, in orbit instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the BEGINNING of any of your Movement phases this model can perform a drop pod assault – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" away from any enemy models. Any models embarked inside must immediately disembark, but they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. Any models that cannot be set up because there is not enough room are slain.

Terminators: Bump them up to T6 and make them 18PPM. with the above defensive fix, they'd be decent.

NOTE: I tend to agree with others points that old marines should just be pumped up to primaris stats, but i really do think that there are bigger issues for SM than just those plaguing old marines. Personally, bumping them up to primaris stats and the defensive buff i sugessted might be too much, but since the buff helps more than just old marines, i'd opt for that if i had to choose.

The Emperor's Finest is INSANELY GOOD. Like, crazily so. Also, how does it interact with rerolling FAILED wounds, like Plaguebearers get?

And for reference, a T6 Terminator that forces enemies to reroll successful wounds takes...

864 BS 4+ Lasgun shots
162 BS 3+ Bolter shots
81 BS 3+ Heavy Bolter shots
12.15 BS 3+ Lascannon shots
16.2 WS 2+ Knight stomps

Is it your intention to make Terminators so durable it takes three full Devastator Squads of Lascannons to kill one? Or that a Knight Gallant will, on average, kill less than one Terminator per round of combat when still hitting on a 2+?

Also, for anyone complaining that Guard are too good and then suggesting this...

It takes more than 23 Guard Squads within 12" with FRF,SRF to kill one Terminator. That is (assuming just Infantry Squads and Company Commanders, ignoring the Rule of Three) just shy of 1,300 points. To kill an 18 point Terminator. (Admittedly, the Terminator does have to pay for gear, making them in the realm of 30-40 points. So that's slightly better return on investment... But still only about 3%.)

lol, I'm ok with it, as it makes termies on the table live up to their fluff
In all seriousness, It probably wouldn't be necessary to up the termies to T6 in that case, but i am pretty firm on the 18PPM. As to the interaction with re-rolling failed wound rolls, it shouldn't conflict at all as you cannot re-roll a re-roll. In the example you gave, the Plaguebearers would re-roll their failed wound rolls and successful wound rolls, whatever those results are would be the final result, as you cannot re-roll a re-roll.
EDIT: just went over the math and keeping them at T4 doubles the guards chance to kill them, so should be fine to leave them at T4 with reroll successful wounds.
EDIT2: on second thought, even with termies being T6, it still only takes a single guardsman to kill a terminator. kinda weird that a 5PPM model should be so good against a 30+PPM one.
EDIT3: I also love the mental picture of 23 guard squads shooting at a single terminator. though in all honesty, as a group, they would still win against the terminator squad as the terminiators have almost no hope of clearing even half of the squads against them before the end of the game. In a case like that, guardsmen and similar armies would just be better off tar pitting the terminators, essentially invalidating a 200+ point unit with a 50 point one. not a bad trade off really.

lol, you crazy.

May be an unpopular opinion, But I don't think that marines need more beta rules (At the moment, more rules for marines is the last thing needed when there are other areas that need a touch up first *Looks at cover rules*), I just think the scope of the current one needs adjusting.

IMO, The bolter discipline rule was supposed to make marines viable again against Primaris by making weight of fire a valid choice, I feel this wasn't achieved because Primaris were also given these rules as well with bolt rifles which just made them more prevalent.

By removing it from Bolt rifles, you now have a choice Dynamic between space marines and Primaris marines, You can choose either weight of fire with a space marine, or you choose longer range and the -AP of a Primaris marine, giving both a viable position in the meta.

Yup. Pretty unpopular. Intercessors are still mediocre even with two shots at 30".

Ok, i'll join in and offer another unpopular opinion.
-Space Marine damage output is fine where it is.- (minus the RG deathball, but different problem for a different time.)
The issue is they are not durable enough and because they are removed from play before they can accrue an equitable points exchange, they only look like they don't do enough damage overall. The solution is to extend the amount of time in which they have to deal damage, not to increase the amount of damage in the amount of time in which they stay in play currently.
Additionally, I'd say, in regards to their design space in comparison to Custodes, it would probably be fine if they were just butting up to the Custodes level of durability, somewhere in the neighborhood of 85-90% of a Custodes durability, with heavier SM units being more so than a basic Custodes trooper, while still under their heavier units, like the Allarus terminator.
Even if basic SM Tactical reached durability parity to a Custodes Guard, they would still only have 1w to the Custodes 3w and lack their native 5++.
Imo, there is a lot of design room to bump up SM durability., as long as their damage output remains mediocre over the short term, but adequate over the long. The challenge is keeping the changes simple, which rerolling successfull wounds would be.

But marine cost nails their output and lasting ability simultaneously. Throw weight is poor. Staying power poor.

Martel732 wrote:
But marine cost nails their output and lasting ability simultaneously. Throw weight is poor. Staying power poor.

I'm not sure what your saying. are they too cheap for what they do or too expensive?

Too expensive. And as a result, they lack firepower AND staying power.

Djangomatic82 wrote:
Ok, i'll join in and offer another unpopular opinion.
-Space Marine damage output is fine where it is.- (minus the RG deathball, but different problem for a different time.)
The issue is they are not durable enough and because they are removed from play before they can accrue an equitable points exchange, they only look like they don't do enough damage overall. The solution is to extend the amount of time in which they have to deal damage, not to increase the amount of damage in the amount of time in which they stay in play currently.

- Their damage output is horrendous compared to that of Infantry Squads, at best you are getting a 300% increase in firepower (vs T6-7 and with bolter discipline but outside usual RF range) for 225% increase in points/model but at worst you are getting nothing, your average is probably around 60% more firepower. Even compared to Cultists they will usually be bad with a 160% increase in points/model. You'd need to be playing against Drukhari Covens literally all the time before it makes sense to take bolters over lasguns.
- Their durability is their main selling point (albeit a weak one), being at best 450% more durable (in cover vs S3), but at worst they are 0% more durable. The actual number is probably somewhere around 250% more durable, making them perhaps slightly more durable on average compared to the same amount of pts spent on Infantry Squads. You'd need to play in a meta with a comically low amount of high-AP weaponry and a stupidly large amount of non-LOS breaking pieces of terrain that grant cover to skew the numbers far enough in the direction of Tactical Squads compared to Infantry Squads before it starts to make sense to take the former.

I don't think they need more durability to stay on the board all game, bolters and chainswords need to kill more stuff or Marines need to go down in pts, it's unrealistic that you'll get to kill your opponent's force with bolters, they are too ineffective for the pts Marines currently cost. Marines also desperately need better Chaplains if anything but their Elite and HQ options are to be taken into melee. Running Tactical Squads into melee is suicide, running Assault Squads into melee is suicide (running them at all is suicide). Marines should not be a force where you can't kill your opponent but you are so tough that your opponent never removes you from the table so you can contest and control enough objectives to win the game. Marines should be able to tear things to pieces at range and in melee. A casualty isn't necessarily a dead soldier, it could easily just be a guy who lost the ability to fight because he lost a limb or has undergone too much mental or physical stress to continue the immediate battle.

List to fix marines straight up.
Astartes bolter rule change
You can advance and shoot a rapid fire weapon at -1 to hit as if it were an assault weapon but use the rapid fire profile. (but what about black legion? Lets just say they ignore the penalty at this point)
Furthermore -If you do not advance-
If you stay still you can shoot you get the rapid fire bonus
If you are in within half range you get rapid fire plus 1
If you stay still and are at half range you get the rapid fire bonus plus 2.

So basically heres how it would work with a basic bolt gun
Advance into rapid fire range you get 2 shots
Advance and shoot 1 shot at -1 at 24 inches
Move into rapid fire range get 3 shots
Stay still get 2 shots at max range
Stay still in rapid fire range get 4 shots.

In addition bolt pistols would be eligible to be shot in the first round of any assault phase during the fight phase as an additional attack.

Basically the big changes here are 4 shots when in rapid fire range and you stay still. Moving into rapid fire range is better than staying still in shooting now (every marines rule should encourage you to move closer to the enemy. It would also go back to affecting all units it used to. Basically every astartes bolter - the same stipulation between choosing SIA or astartes bolter rule would still apply. SIA and bolt pistol first round will indeed stack.

I admit this is a pretty lame way to fix the army. Because custodes also use bolters and it's anticlimactic that they can't use them as well as the Astartes...However they clearly don't need it. This is a lame consequence of writing terrible rules to begin with.

Anyways - that change there helps lots of units.

Then I'd make some changes to points and stratagems. First...Stratagems.

#1 Orbital bombardment which currently costs 3 CP and once per game. For 3 CP and once per game It can get rid of most of it's random dice roles.
You pick a point and every unit within 6 inches of that point takes d3 mortal wounds. Yeah - it would be strong. I guess when playing against marines you will have to think twice about stacking 12 units into a -1 to hit bubble or a 5++ save bubble. That is the price you have to pay when space marines show up with a MF battle barge.

# Tactical flexibility (replace the garbage one with this) Tactical squad or Intercessor squad 2CP.
Pick a Tac or intercessor squad at the end of the movement phase. It can move again or shoot again but it can not charge.

Then a much need defensive stratagem. Added.

Lower the Pauldron 1CP
Any Astartes infantry or biker unit when they are selected as a target for an attack. It can at +1 to their armor save until your next turn (DOES NOT AFFECT INVUNE SAVES).

New Stratagem - Drop pod assault- 2 CP
Before the battle begins. Pick any Drop pod in your army. That unit will be able to enter the battlefeild on turn 1. However - if it does so - the embarked units can ethier attempt a charge move OR make a shooting attack - they can not do both.



Then I'd probably reduce the cost of all space marine infantry by 2 points - give the marine bolter a cost of 2 points and storm bolter 4 points. For you bright ones that figured it out. That means every infantry that isn't using a bolter just got 2 points cheaper.

Space marine weapons point cost reductions as follow.
Heavy bolter - 6 points
Rocket launcher 15 points
Las cannon 20 points
MM 15 points
Melta gun 12 points
Grav Cannon 20 points
Grav gun 8 points
Heavy Flamer 6 points
Flamer - 4 points (this will affect aggressor flamers getting this same reduction 2x)
CML 30 points
Lastalon 35

Special point drop consideration
Centurians Get an additional 3 point drop (for a total of 5 because they are infantry)

(if you have a combi the decrease compared to what the price is now will be equal)

TL AC 30 points
Hurricane bolter 12 points

Space marine vehicle cost reductions
Rhino goes to 40 points
Drop pod goes to 20 points (*unmanned* can not hold objectives)
Razorback 50 points
Predator 50 points (this will include all tank hulls with the t7 profile that can take a gun)
Landspeeder 40 points (Gains a native -1 to hit ability if it move it's full distance)
Land raiders an additional -40 points
Respulsors an additional -30 points
Storm Ravens - 20
Storm hawks - 15
Storm Talon - 25

(If I am missing anything - give it the appropriate buff to make it stop sucking effing butt

General rules considerations.

Plasma weapons only overheat on a natural roll of a 1 AND a roll of a 1 causes only 1 mortal wound and does not slay they bearer(DUH).

All space marine units get access to their chapter tactics. Including monsters and tanks. Additionally - the -1 to hit stipulation is removed from the ultramarines chapter tactic.
(For those of you who would accuse me of being an UM fanboy - consider how good this would make Raven Guard tanks...Consider how good it would make Crimson fist tanks - no my friends this is GREAT for everyone and much better balanced this way)

For my black templar friends and White Scars friends I think we need special tactics for your vehicles.

White scars added vehicle stipulation. Auto Advance 6" AND can fire all weapons with the standard -1 to hit for advancing and firing assault weapons clause.

For black Templar added vehicle stipulation - if a black templar unit makes a charge move within 6 inches of a friendly BT vehicle they receive a +1 to their charge move. (think BT drop pods - giving +1 to charge move - seems cool)

So, most of us think that 4 Points Per Wound is too cheap, right?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, most of us think that 4 Points Per Wound is too cheap, right?

4 points per wound is fine. 4 point for a 5+ save with a 4 shot las gun buffed by 30 point HQ's that have a 5++ save for no apparent reason. That is too much. Plus elite 1 wound infantry models need some sort of discount based on the fact that as their points go up efficiency of all weapons becomes better against them per shot. You have to counter that in some way to give you are reason to take anything but a 4 point infantry model. Also with my above changes I'd like to include my proposed changes to command points. Which basically makes all armies start with the same number of CP if they are battle forged. I think I chose 15 CP. Basically adding attachments costs you CP. So if you want slots - you have to take more detachments - meaning battalions and brigade will still be the prefered detachments.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, most of us think that 4 Points Per Wound is too cheap, right?

When Infantry Squads are 40 pts it just leaves no room for Conscripts to be very good and not be gakky at 3 ppm. My biggest problem with Astra Militarum are their Orders, they are so insane it hurts. I know that you are buffing weak units with individual orders rather than giving blobs of elite units bonuses like Astartes, but the FRFSRF and MMM orders make no sense in how good they are. The other orders are an order of magnitude weaker.

One option is to give similar busted orders through a specialist detachment to regular down to earth Marines instead of giving everything to Intercessors. Move twice and Advance Strat for 1CP but it only works for Assault Squads, Devastator Squads and Tactical Squads, RF2 bolters RF4 stormbolters for 1 CP but it only works for Devastator Squads and Tactical Squads, fight in the Shooting phase for 1CP but it only works for Assault Squads and Tactical Squads. 1CP per Detachment as usual. Suddenly there is also a reason to take squads of more than 5 guys, that opens the opportunity for the split into combat squads Stratagem being used once in the history of 8th.

 vict0988 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, most of us think that 4 Points Per Wound is too cheap, right?

When Infantry Squads are 40 pts it just leaves no room for Conscripts to be very good and not be gakky at 3 ppm. My biggest problem with Astra Militarum are their Orders, they are so insane it hurts. I know that you are buffing weak units with individual orders rather than giving blobs of elite units bonuses like Astartes, but the FRFSRF and MMM orders make no sense in how good they are. The other orders are an order of magnitude weaker.

One option is to give similar busted orders through a specialist detachment to regular down to earth Marines instead of giving everything to Intercessors. Move twice and Advance Strat for 1CP but it only works for Assault Squads, Devastator Squads and Tactical Squads, RF2 bolters RF4 stormbolters for 1 CP but it only works for Devastator Squads and Tactical Squads, fight in the Shooting phase for 1CP but it only works for Assault Squads and Tactical Squads. 1CP per Detachment as usual. Suddenly there is also a reason to take squads of more than 5 guys, that opens the opportunity for the split into combat squads Stratagem being used once in the history of 8th.

You are thinking in the wrong mind set here. Primaris are the future. To not include them in a rule doesn't make sense. I am all for giving access to both options but if you are going to propose a rule for tactical squads - it should also affect intercessors. If it affects Dev squads it should also affect hellblasters.