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.

Reading over the comments, it seems most of the issue's are with marines being too killable and slow while guardsmen are too killy and fast becuase of orders. While this could be solved by cutting marine's cost by 2 points and raising guardsmen cost by 1, that wouldn't feel very 40k. Space marines are worth more than 2.2 guardsmen. They're worth more than 3.3 or 4.3 guardsmen too but some concession have to be made for the game.

I think a better solution is to give all marines, loyal and traitor, a "transhuman physiology" rule like in kill team that will include:

The better bolters rule as is.

Units can re-roll advance rolls of 1.

Whenever a model is reduced to 0 wounds or less by a single attack (but before it is slain for the purpose of rules like death grip,) roll a d6 and on a 6 it is not slain and has 1 wound remaining.

Whenever a model flees, roll a d6 and on a 6 it does not flee.

The purpose of this rule is to represent a marine's (and other transhuman super soldier's) superior strength, dexterity, and reflexes in handling high powered weaponry, faster running speed, greater endurance against physical trauma, as well as greater willpower against psychic attacks and his own mental fragility.

I do not think this rules should apply to scouts, since they should be differentiated from tactical marines more than they are and are not full astartes yet. I do think this rule should apply to custodes, since they are just as or more post human that space marines. But I don't think this will change custodes much in any way. +.2 wounds and rerolling 1 on advances are the only real buffs they will get from it and those are very small.

If you want to nerf guard, change MMM to making an advance roll and moving that distance instead of that plus 6" and make FRFSRF give a -1 to hit penalty. This will make FRFSRF useless on conscripts and might mean they can be 3 points now. However, Forwards for the Emperor should remove the penalty for shooting assault weapons.

Space marines are not worth more than 2.2 ig. Not the way 8th plays.

Eipi10 wrote:

Whenever a model is reduced to 0 wounds or less by a single attack (but before it is slain for the purpose of rules like death grip,) roll a d6 and on a 6 it is not slain and has 1 wound remaining.

Unfortunately, a 6+ pseudo FNP really would not come anywhere close to rectifying SM's survivability gap. If it were, Iron Hands would be much more prevalent than they are.

I have been going over my previous "The Emperors Finest" suggestion to see how it would affect SM survivability against a few benchmark weapons and it tends to do exactly what most people SAY[i] they want a SM buff to do (increase survivability to small arms fire without significantly impacting high AP weapons ability.)

The Emperors Fines:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors.

Overcharged Plasma (2 damage) Vs.
2.16 shots:Tactical
2.7 shots:Terminator
6.75 shots:Custodes guard
6.75 shots:Allarus Custodian
2.59 shots:Tactical Emperor's Finest
3.24 shots: Terminator Emperor's Finest

Heavy Bolter Vs.
4.50 shots:Tactical
13.50 shots:Terminator
27.00 shots:Custodes guard
36.00 shots:Allarus Custodian
6.77 shots:Tactical Emperor's Finest
20.26 shots: Terminator Emperor's Finest

Boltgun Vs.
9.00 shots:Tactical
36.03 shots:Terminator
81.08 shots:Custodes guard
108.10 shots:Allarus Custodian
18.05 shots:Tactical Emperor's Finest
72.20 shots: Terminator Emperor's Finest

Lasgun Vs.
18 shots:Tactical
72 shots:Terminator
108 shots:Custodes guard
144 shots:Allarus Custodian
54 shots:Tactical Emperor's Finest
216 shots: Terminator Emperor's Finest

As an aside, with the upcoming release of the new Sisters of Battle, another + army, a change like "The Emperor's Finest" would also go a long way in helping to differentiate SM from them in a meaningful way.

Djangomatic82 wrote:

Eipi10 wrote:

Whenever a model is reduced to 0 wounds or less by a single attack (but before it is slain for the purpose of rules like death grip,) roll a d6 and on a 6 it is not slain and has 1 wound remaining.

I have been going over my previous "The Emperors Finest" suggestion to see how it would affect SM survivability against a few benchmark weapons and it tends to do exactly what most people SAY[i] they want a SM buff to do (increase survivability to small arms fire without significantly impacting high AP weapons ability.)

The Emperors Fines:Enemy units must re-roll successful Wounds rolls made against ADEPTUS ASTARTES units, other than Servitors.

I'm not sure that space marines are too vulnerable to a certain type of weapon and mostly ok against another. I think your suggestion would shift things too far in one direction anyway. Terminators should not be tougher than Custodians under any circumstance, least of all Custodian Terminators (look at your lasgun numbers). I think a general FNP or toughness increase would be more in line. Unfortunately an across the board toughness increase would mess with weapon profiles. It would mean bolters would need to be T5 too, but does that include ig and sister's bolters? Maybe Better Bolters could increase space marine bolt weapon's strength by 1 instead, but I haven't done the math on that.

That being said, T6 terminators are too much. I have never seen a terminator killed by a lasgun and don't think it is nearly as big of a problem as you make it out to be (but I have seen one killed by a hot-shot lasgun, and they should be able to do that sort of thing). Even +1T Terminators would be too tough against normal bolters. And 18ppm Terminators is too little, in fact I think their cost is appropriate. Terminators should not be cheaper than aggressors.

If you think a 6+ pseudo FNP (it's better than a normal FNP on 1 wound models) is too little, it could easily be made into a 5+ pseudo FNP. I suggest 6+ because I am trying to convince people to make it a house rule, I have a few converts. In fact this would actually stack quite well with the iron hands chapter tactic, so we might see more use from them. Anyone who want survivable marines now takes Raven Guard, a -1 to hit is better than a 6+ FNP.

Eipi10 wrote:

Terminators should not be tougher than Custodians under any circumstance, least of all Custodian Terminators (look at your lasgun numbers). I think a general FNP or toughness increase would be more in line. Unfortunately an across the board toughness increase would mess with weapon profiles. It would mean bolters would need to be T5 too, but does that include ig and sister's bolters? Maybe Better Bolters could increase space marine bolt weapon's strength by 1 instead, but I haven't done the math on that.

I have done the numbers for upping Tacticals and Terminators to T5 and T6, as well as re-rolling failed saves of 1, re-roll failed all failed saves,adding a 6+fnp (a 5+ is defiantly out of the question as it is already the army trait of Death guard), giving them a +1 to save versus Ap-1 attacks and so on and so on... So far they all require far too many changes across data cards to be a realistic change , have very many unintended consequences and are in general just don't meet the need to KEEP IT SIMPLE.
Regarding the Lasgun numbers for Terminators, that was LITERALLY the only instance in which any SM unit surpassed any Custodes unit. Looking at the rest of the values, you can see that every Custodes unit was more durable than any SM permutation. Using the ONE outlier to determine the viability of a proposed change doesn't make sense, especially when the common theme from this thread and every other HAS been that SM are too vulnerable, for their cost, to small arms fire.

Eipi10 wrote:

That being said, T6 terminators are too much. I have never seen a terminator killed by a lasgun and don't think it is nearly as big of a problem as you make it out to be (but I have seen one killed by a hot-shot lasgun, and they should be able to do that sort of thing). Even +1T Terminators would be too tough against normal bolters. And 18ppm Terminators is too little, in fact I think their cost is appropriate. Terminators should not be cheaper than aggressors.

I would only suggest upping terminator toughness if The Emperors Finest rule wasn't implemented, together, they are very strong. but at 18PPM they are only cheaper than Aggressors per model, but remember, you cannot take a unit of 3 terminators like you can Aggressors. with the cheapest weapon load out, terminators are 140 points per squad at 18PPM, while Aggressors are 111 points per squad. Terminators are in no fathomable way in danger of encroaching on Aggressors role in an army, they are outgunned anywhere from 1.5 to3.25X at base and have no weapon options that lessen that gap in any significant way. What terminators can do that Aggressors cannot is take heavier weapons, giving them a better chance against T6, T7 and T8 units, but even that is debatable.

Eipi10 wrote:

If you think a 6+ pseudo FNP (it's better than a normal FNP on 1 wound models) is too little, it could easily be made into a 5+ pseudo FNP. I suggest 6+ because I am trying to convince people to make it a house rule, I have a few converts. In fact this would actually stack quite well with the iron hands chapter tactic, so we might see more use from them. Anyone who want survivable marines now takes Raven Guard, a -1 to hit is better than a 6+ FNP.

You cannot stack FNP's, even psuedo ones. One of the Ad-Mech traits was identical to your proposition and was just FAQ'ed to confirm as much. regarding upping it to 5+, see my comment above.

Djangomatic82 wrote:

You cannot stack FNP's, even psuedo ones. One of the Ad-Mech traits was identical to your proposition and was just FAQ'ed to confirm as much.

I always thought that was separate from a FNP, since it only applied at death like Bobby G and Celestine's ability. It seems like they are intent on adding a fourth phase to attack sequences where FNP's happen instead of leaving it as unique rules.

Does Emperor's Finest require wounds to be re-rolled after they have been successfully re-rolled from a failed roll, wouldn't that be two re-rolls?

As far no unintended consequences go, I would not count your rule among them. For example the Custodians guardian spear and castellan axe are carefully balance weapons. Both are equivalent against tactical marines, the spear is better against terminators (and heavy infantry in general), and the axe is better against dreadnoughts (and vehicles in general). With your change, there is no reason to take a spear against marines. I'm sure the same holds true for other weapons. Since people can get around the worst effects of this rule by taking high strength weapons, I would imagine it will seriously unbalance the game in their favor. It will make 40k more of a rock paper scissors game at the very least.

Terminator heavy weapons are depressing. I might suggest giving them more weapon options first, like CSM terminators, but they still cost more than their loyalist counterparts.

Eipi10 wrote:

Does Emperor's Finest require wounds to be re-rolled after they have been successfully re-rolled from a failed roll, wouldn't that be two re-rolls?

I answered that question in a previous comment. you cannot re-roll a re-roll. nothing in the wording of The emperors finest suggests that it modifies or circumvents any rules, explicitly because I was trying to KEEP IT SIMPLE. you do the same thing with this as you would any other ability, do exactly as the ability says, within the context of the base rules.

Eipi10 wrote:

As far no unintended consequences go, I would not count your rule among them. For example the Custodians guardian spear and castellan axe are carefully balance weapons. Both are equivalent against tactical marines, the spear is better against terminators (and heavy infantry in general), and the axe is better against dreadnoughts (and vehicles in general). With your change, there is no reason to take a spear against marines. I'm sure the same holds true for other weapons. Since people can get around the worst effects of this rule by taking high strength weapons, I would imagine it will seriously unbalance the game in their favor. It will make 40k more of a rock paper scissors game at the very least.

Tactical Marine Vs.
2.161 hits-Guardian Spear
2.163 hits-Castellan Axe
3.249 hits-Guardian Spear Vs. Emperors Finest
2.597 hits-Castellan Axe Vs. Emperors Finest

Terminator Vs.
2.703 hits-Guardian Spear
2.882 hits-Castellan Axe
4.063 hits-Guardian Spear Vs. Emperors Finest
3.460 hits-Castellan Axe Vs. Emperors Finest

Dreadnought Vs.
15.147 hits-Guardian Spear
9.472 hits-Castellan Axe
45.487 hits-Guardian Spear Vs. Emperors Finest
14.223 hits-Castellan Axe Vs. Emperors Finest

looking at the Tactical and Terminator numbers, the difference between the spear and Axe is literally 1 hit in every circumstance, not really a big enough disparity to warrant scrapping a genuinely positive gain overall, especially for this decidedly niche scenario.

Eh, if we want to keep things simple, surely the simplest durability boost is to just give all Marines an extra wound? Standard Marines become 2 wounds (twice as durable vs most small arms, have a chance of surviving a lascannon blast), Primaris and Terminators 3 (allowing them to eat an overcharged plasma hit), etc, give all tanks an extra wound too. Points will need to be rejigged by a bit I should think, but not by much for standard Marines. This makes Marines feel like Marines more than dropping points costs.

I like the idea of giving Marines an extra attack across the board too- the extra durability will help them reach melee too.

I also agree that Bolter Discipline should be reworked to always provide an extra shot regardless of movement- 2 at full range, 3 at half for Rapid fire weapons. Maybe should be extended to include auto bolt rifles, stalker weapons, bolt pistols and heavy bolters too.

These changes would increase durability and damage output.

Other issues, like the reliance on auras, are bigger structural problems that need to be addressed in a codex.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crediting that some other posters in this thread have suggested the same changes I have, but they keep getting drowned out by more esoteric suggestions.

Honestly I think that (I assume SM chaplains will get it in 2.0 codex) SM chaplains and captains should get the dark Apostle treatment.

Chaplin have their faith themed bonuses and captains can have "orders" (I also think that Guardsmen Hqs having access to all orders is part of the problem). The warlord trait to add 1 to hit could have been an order for instance.