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.

On topic here with this. Have any of you been looking at the APOC rules? The points are off in 40k for sure on this new ExRepuslor but in Apoc it is wildly overprice. You can basically take 2 regular repulsors for its cost. Or even better 2 regular landraiders.

Seems to be even worse balance than 40k....

Points were already released for 40k I thought? 280ish?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Points were already released for 40k I thought? 280ish?

yeah its in that range. That is pretty bad but the APOC points are way worse is what I am saying. In 40k its about the same price as a repulsor. In Apoc it is nearlly twice the price.

Bharring wrote:I know this won't happen, but I wish they'd drop all the auras (and obviously compensate). Auras make Marines want to play Deathball, whereas they should be one of the least deathball forces.

You are not wrong.

Xenomancers wrote:Want to fix marines - make their auras table wide. Because that is what you are paying for. Other units put out comparable damage without stupid auras. Not GMan level but Gman is 400 points of doing almost not damage for the first 2 turns and quite often not doing damage turn 3 ether.

I wouldn't mind this being how it worked. It makes sense how marines work and fills the Canticles, Orders, Combat Drugs, etc. type rules some other factions get while remaining relatively new player friendly to use (I think a low skill floor is important for Space Marines).

Xenomancers wrote:Yep. Maybe it would be better if we combined the two systems and took what was good about each and take away the bad.
Here is how I would do it. Character can attach to a squad of their choice and confer buffs to that squad. However only 1 character can be attached to any 1 squad. You can apply wounds as you do now in 8th. So A leader can take saves for the unit but he has to keep taking saves once he takes a wound. Also characters would receive no protection if not inside of a unit (all would be targetable). Also in this case we would not allow characters to leave units they have joined until that unit is completely destroyed. Might as well make characters immune to morale too (because they can't leave the unit).

The end result would be better. Only 1 unit would be getting buffs at a time. Characters that are a nuisance could be singled out by destroying their unit first. It would be fun!

In this case we could make the sniper rule go back to what it was - you can pick units within units. Such as a special weapon holder.

I also think that would work. Dust Warfare/Battlefield (which probably copied it from Warhammer) had attached rules for heroes which largely seemed to be the point of them. Outside of some the hero to be or not be part of squad almost at will (which is easy enough by declaring the hero/HQ is part of this squad for the round or can't leave unless the attached squad is destroyed) rules, the system seemed to work fine. And Dust was more Herohammer than 40k has been for the last couple editions. The only issue I could see was in Dust each of the 3 blocs (read: factions) had about a dozen heroes to pick and choose from where in 40k some factions barely have, what like, three. Although, I never felt that compelled to take a hero at any time playing Dust since, in Dust Battlefield, it was rarely cheaper to get a Hero commander + radio than a whole command squad of some sort and command additional actions were key in the game.

 fraser1191 wrote:


Yeah it'd be a crazy amount of powers to manage but let's be honest, how many techmarine or chaplains have you seen?

techmarines are specialist and honestly wouldn't be a bad choice for a vehicle absed castle list. people often talk about a castle list involving gulliman and some tanks, and if so I could really see taking a pair of tech marines as your HQ choices for that list.

Chaplains though? utterly useless. they're a melee buffer unit in a codex without any really good melee options. I mean you could put him in termy armor and move him up with a terminator squad (assault termies preferable but even tactical termies can hit decently hard) or give him a jump pack to deploy with Assault marines or vanguard vets but yeah... proably not worth it

I'm really hoping the dark apostle is a sign that GW reckongizes Chaplains are useless and is moving to address it

BA lists use character chaplains. There's a dread chaplain. That's about it.

BrianDavion wrote:

Chaplains though? utterly useless. they're a melee buffer unit in a codex without any really good melee options. I mean you could put him in termy armor and move him up with a terminator squad (assault termies preferable but even tactical termies can hit decently hard) or give him a jump pack to deploy with Assault marines or vanguard vets but yeah... proably not worth it

I think Reivers have become my favorite 40k model. While they aren't great, I wouldn't mind supporting them with a good Primaris Chaplain (which I also think is an awesome model). All it would take for me to spend the stupid amount of money for said HQ model would be halfway decent rules... and maybe a couple of beers. As much as I want an Overwatch's Reaper Chaplain (two absolver pistols), I don't know if their is enough alcohol to convince me to buy two to convert. Not before needing my stomach pumped anyways.

Table wide rules means I could at least deep strike my Reivers and make use of the Primaris Chaplain. Which might be just enough to warrant adding the model to my collection.

Reivers with carbines buffed by the primaris libby aren't the worst thing. But this setup is over 300 points. And the only AP is on the libby's sword.

Martel732 wrote:
Reivers with carbines buffed by the primaris libby aren't the worst thing. But this setup is over 300 points. And the only AP is on the libby's sword.

wow did Martel just say something remotely positive about space marines?!

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Chaplains though? utterly useless. they're a melee buffer unit in a codex without any really good melee options. I mean you could put him in termy armor and move him up with a terminator squad (assault termies preferable but even tactical termies can hit decently hard) or give him a jump pack to deploy with Assault marines or vanguard vets but yeah... proably not worth it

I think Reivers have become my favorite 40k model. While they aren't great, I wouldn't mind supporting them with a good Primaris Chaplain (which I also think is an awesome model). All it would take for me to spend the stupid amount of money for said HQ model would be halfway decent rules... and maybe a couple of beers. As much as I want an Overwatch's Reaper Chaplain (two absolver pistols), I don't know if their is enough alcohol to convince me to buy two to convert. Not before needing my stomach pumped anyways.

Table wide rules means I could at least deep strike my Reivers and make use of the Primaris Chaplain. Which might be just enough to warrant adding the model to my collection.

Well that kinda stuff scares people. Because it just sounds OP. In practice with how bad marines actually play I can tell you I'd still be at a disadvantage most the time. -1 to hit is literally everywhere and it turns reroll all hits into hitting on 3's without rerolls. It is totally fine.

Breton wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/07/40k-new-primaris-lieutenant-other-models.html

Snipers are getting Anti-tank....the new Repulsor may be the new Whirlwind....and the new Dreadnaught is, I'm guessing, a new Primaris LT.

.

Isn’t the translation of fusil - gun? So las fusils are lasguns? The snipers are getting s3 rapid fire flashlights? Haven’t the primaris stolen enough stubbers from the Guard, now they’re taking their lasguns?!

Fusils were a specific kind of flintlock musket the French Fusiliers used to defend their artillery positions since the matchlocks could potentially set the powder for artillery off.

Highly suggest the wikipedia entry for Fusiliers, it's actually kind of interesting.

Anyways, BoLS is as usual seeming to just grab onto everyone else's info and pretending it is theirs.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Chaplains though? utterly useless. they're a melee buffer unit in a codex without any really good melee options. I mean you could put him in termy armor and move him up with a terminator squad (assault termies preferable but even tactical termies can hit decently hard) or give him a jump pack to deploy with Assault marines or vanguard vets but yeah... proably not worth it

I think Reivers have become my favorite 40k model. While they aren't great, I wouldn't mind supporting them with a good Primaris Chaplain (which I also think is an awesome model). All it would take for me to spend the stupid amount of money for said HQ model would be halfway decent rules... and maybe a couple of beers. As much as I want an Overwatch's Reaper Chaplain (two absolver pistols), I don't know if their is enough alcohol to convince me to buy two to convert. Not before needing my stomach pumped anyways.

Table wide rules means I could at least deep strike my Reivers and make use of the Primaris Chaplain. Which might be just enough to warrant adding the model to my collection.

Well that kinda stuff scares people. Because it just sounds OP. In practice with how bad marines actually play I can tell you I'd still be at a disadvantage most the time. -1 to hit is literally everywhere and it turns reroll all hits into hitting on 3's without rerolls. It is totally fine.

Yeah, I can see that. Like most on Dakka, I follow the rule of three (more out of the fact I like modeling different stuff) so at most it is 30 Reivers provided the HQ trading this wide area for limited unit types which I would be fine with. I see the ability to deep strike with it being the bigger advantage over being able to apply it all Reivers (or I suppose assault marines too) in an army. As Martel732 pointed out, Carbine Reviers supported by a Librarian in Phobos Armor with Scryer's Gaze is still probably a better use of Reivers (only because Infiltrators really makes an expensive combo even more expensive). As he alluded to, I don't think it is all that great for MEQ since you are basically shooting super accurate Imperial Fist bolters at than point and their armor save will still soak a lot of it up.

The HQ units would have to have a narrow band of units that can or best make use of the table wide buff. But if any faction has enough HQ choices to pull it off, it would be the space marines.

Grapple reivers with carbines have done a lot of interesting things for me. They still just cost too much.

BrianDavion wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:


Yeah it'd be a crazy amount of powers to manage but let's be honest, how many techmarine or chaplains have you seen?

techmarines are specialist and honestly wouldn't be a bad choice for a vehicle absed castle list. people often talk about a castle list involving gulliman and some tanks, and if so I could really see taking a pair of tech marines as your HQ choices for that list.

Chaplains though? utterly useless. they're a melee buffer unit in a codex without any really good melee options. I mean you could put him in termy armor and move him up with a terminator squad (assault termies preferable but even tactical termies can hit decently hard) or give him a jump pack to deploy with Assault marines or vanguard vets but yeah... proably not worth it

I'm really hoping the dark apostle is a sign that GW reckongizes Chaplains are useless and is moving to address it

Oh I agree, notice that the dark Apostle has the "Priest" keyword which seems like a pretty blanket term.

Speaking of techmarines I'm glad Iron hands got a named HQ. Hopefully he does more than repair stuff.

Martel732 wrote:
Grapple reivers with carbines have done a lot of interesting things for me. They still just cost too much.

This is only tangentally related but it reminded me of something I was thinking about earlier, namely the issues with the Intercessor and Hellblaster weapon options not actually being options since one is clearly better than the other two. I promise I'll get back to Reivers eventually.

What I was thinking was that I hope GW looks at all the complaints about the Autobolter and Stalker Rifle (and the Incinerator versions) and goes the Eliminator route with them in codex v2.0. Instead of three different guns to try to balance that are too similar to not have one be best regardless of target, make it just three profiles for one gun. Maybe add the vigilus strats to the base profiles to balance Bolter Drill (auto-hit at half range for Autobolters, sniper rules and MW generation for Stalkers) and let you pick the profile you want for the unit each turn.

The reason mentioning Reivers reminded me of that thought was that it led naturally to the thought that for the points the Reivers should have the heavy pistol, combat knife, and the Bolt Carbine, and that if Autohit at half range works for Autobolters it would be good on Bolt Carbides too. Deepstrike on a unit that can auto-hit in ds range? They're only S4, seems fair and balanced to me.

I think they could solve a lot of problems just by making the autobolt gun the same cost as the standard bolt rifle, and giving the Sniper special rule to the stalker bolt rifle. minimal change, and suddenly makes all options useful. although admittingly the stalker intercessors might end up obseleteing eliminators. I definatly think a good starting point is to make them equal in points cost though

Equal point cost won't fix the auto. Due the bolter discipline it is just utterly useless. It consing more is just adding insult to the injury.

 Crimson wrote:
Equal point cost won't fix the auto. Due the bolter discipline it is just utterly useless. It consing more is just adding insult to the injury.

The higher cost almost made sense before Bolter Drill. Two shots at all ranges meant they could fire and fade better than most Marine options and it combo-ed well with the Raven Guard trait, and GW is annoying about setting point costs based on the best available combo.

Even if they don't go the profile route I still hope Vigilus turned out to be a test-bed for ideas they didn't want to just release without seeing if the player base could break them. Auto-hitting at half range as a base trait on Autobolters might actually be worth the extra points since it makes them really dangerous to charge into. Stalkers with MW generation and Sniper probably would be too close to Eliminators though.

 Crimson wrote:
Equal point cost won't fix the auto. Due the bolter discipline it is just utterly useless. It consing more is just adding insult to the injury.

it won't make em that desirable no but it mioght make em situationaly useful to someone who really wants to do a run and gun build.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Chaplains though? utterly useless. they're a melee buffer unit in a codex without any really good melee options. I mean you could put him in termy armor and move him up with a terminator squad (assault termies preferable but even tactical termies can hit decently hard) or give him a jump pack to deploy with Assault marines or vanguard vets but yeah... proably not worth it

I think Reivers have become my favorite 40k model. While they aren't great, I wouldn't mind supporting them with a good Primaris Chaplain (which I also think is an awesome model). All it would take for me to spend the stupid amount of money for said HQ model would be halfway decent rules... and maybe a couple of beers. As much as I want an Overwatch's Reaper Chaplain (two absolver pistols), I don't know if their is enough alcohol to convince me to buy two to convert. Not before needing my stomach pumped anyways.

Table wide rules means I could at least deep strike my Reivers and make use of the Primaris Chaplain. Which might be just enough to warrant adding the model to my collection.

Well that kinda stuff scares people. Because it just sounds OP. In practice with how bad marines actually play I can tell you I'd still be at a disadvantage most the time. -1 to hit is literally everywhere and it turns reroll all hits into hitting on 3's without rerolls. It is totally fine.

-1 to hit isn't literally everywhere as it wasn't included in every codex, also -1 to hit isn't as punishing to a hit on 3+ as it is to a hit or 4+or 5+ unit.

I'm also not sure adding more rerolls upon rerolls is a good solution to the problem with marines. Table wide aura's would make much more sense as they should have some of the best communication gear the imperium can produce and are able to act on their own initiative.

The Newman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Equal point cost won't fix the auto. Due the bolter discipline it is just utterly useless. It consing more is just adding insult to the injury.

The higher cost almost made sense before Bolter Drill. Two shots at all ranges meant they could fire and fade better than most Marine options and it combo-ed well with the Raven Guard trait, and GW is annoying about setting point costs based on the best available combo.

Even if they don't go the profile route I still hope Vigilus turned out to be a test-bed for ideas they didn't want to just release without seeing if the player base could break them. Auto-hitting at half range as a base trait on Autobolters might actually be worth the extra points since it makes them really dangerous to charge into. Stalkers with MW generation and Sniper probably would be too close to Eliminators though.

Middle ground would be making the Vigilus Stratagems available for Intercessors by default. Not having to pay 2 CP (before the stratagem) to have a unit able to shoot twice/autohit at close range/snipe would make them rather viable.

I can't see the multiple profile idea working. There are models for the three kinds of bolt rifle. How are they supposed to mean nothing overnight?

DanielFM wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Equal point cost won't fix the auto. Due the bolter discipline it is just utterly useless. It consing more is just adding insult to the injury.

The higher cost almost made sense before Bolter Drill. Two shots at all ranges meant they could fire and fade better than most Marine options and it combo-ed well with the Raven Guard trait, and GW is annoying about setting point costs based on the best available combo.

Even if they don't go the profile route I still hope Vigilus turned out to be a test-bed for ideas they didn't want to just release without seeing if the player base could break them. Auto-hitting at half range as a base trait on Autobolters might actually be worth the extra points since it makes them really dangerous to charge into. Stalkers with MW generation and Sniper probably would be too close to Eliminators though.

Middle ground would be making the Vigilus Stratagems available for Intercessors by default. Not having to pay 2 CP (before the stratagem) to have a unit able to shoot twice/autohit at close range/snipe would make them rather viable.

I can't see the multiple profile idea working. There are models for the three kinds of bolt rifle. How are they supposed to mean nothing overnight?

How many versions of the Bolt Pistol model exist that look radically different from each other? Honestly the various Bolt Rifle versions are hard to tell apart at table-top distance when they're not facing away from you, as it is I had to model my stalker sergeants with different weapons to tell the units apart at a glance. The rapid fire and assault Incinerators are hard to tell apart even up close and so are the Bolt Rifle and Stalker. The only one that really stands out is the heavy Incinerator.

Just making the Vigilus strats available by default isn't a bad idea though, the CPs to unlock them are entirely unreasonable. That would imply Veteran Intercessors as a more expensive unit like Company Veterans or Sternguard, not sure how I feel about that.

TBH I've always assumed the vatern intercessors strart is a stop gap until GW gives us a vetern primaris unit of some sort

I just want to buy the upgrade sprue for the repulsor as I have a whole repulsor still in the box ready to build! Doubt I can get one though looks like I'll be buying the whole tank!

The Newman wrote:


So your response to a suggested fix to the auras is to spell out how they are currently? Why exactly?
(Thanks for pointing out Chapter Masters though, I meant to add them to my list as rerolling failed to-hit and failed to-wound rolls at range for the generic ones, and having more variety for the named characters.)

To the people saying Marines shouldn't be aura-dependent in the first place, I whole-heartedly agree. I just think GW adjusting the auras is a lot more likely than GW adjusting Marine stats to where they'd need to be to function without rerolls. They've been remarkably reluctant to adjust the legacy stat-lines. I'm trying to work within the boundries of what's likely without defaulting to just lowering the point costs again.

My solution to auras is to make sure they synergize but don't overlap. I'm OK with a limited range, though 6" may be too limited. I'd prefer to see to hit and to wound be available as All Miss, and All non-wound, and 1s to hit and 1s to wound. So Chapter Master all miss, Chaplain All Non-wound, Captain 1's to hit, Lieutenant 1's to wound. Then you can pay for a chapter master, or scrimp on a Captain. You may even have a Chapter Master with your main force, and a jump captain with a splinter force. Of course first and foremost you need a reason and flexibility to have that splinter force in the first place.

So my solution is three step:

1) Fix Close Combat
2) change CP Generation so non Battalion lists, Battalion lists, and differently priced Horde/Elite armies generate at similar rates i.e the ~160 point Intercessor/Tac Squad provides 4 CP, the 40 point Guard Squad provides 1. Obviously those numbers are way off - you' could end up with lists containing 40 or better CP and you can't even REALLY use that many in a game. - by the same token some schlub making a Full and Fluffy Deathwing list using Vanguard Detachments is going to be hovering around 3CP total - which makes you wonder just how elite the best of the best of the First Legion really is if they can't get their stuff together better than that.
3) Rework the auras so you have two levels to the two rerolls - OR so all four are different and interact with each other in different ways.

Rogerio134134 wrote:
I just want to buy the upgrade sprue for the repulsor as I have a whole repulsor still in the box ready to build! Doubt I can get one though looks like I'll be buying the whole tank!

I was looking carefully at a picture of the repulsor executioner and it's not the same tank, it's close but there's some differances beyond the turrent.







the side mounted stormbolters/frag assault launchers are on the executioner placed higher and towards the rear. this would necessitate a differant top hull plate. so yeah they're NOT the same model kit with varied weapons loadouts, not quite. One could certainly convert a repulsor to an executioner but... yeah it's not as simple as buying another sprue

The Newman wrote:


This I specifically have to disagree with. Castling makes it hard to take advantage cover, hard to take objectives, and easy to get chain-pillaged by a good melee army that manages to reach you.

"If assault marines were viable you'd see more jump captains and more split lists" - this is still castling, it's just that you have one castle that doesn't move and one castle that flies. Both groups are still dependent on the buffing characters as-is, and if they got better you'd still want the buffs.

CP generation isn't mandating castling either. It's mandating taking HQ choices, needing the buffs is mandating castling. If you want proof, here's a thought experiment: take away the rerolls without changing anything else. Do you even look at a Captain or Lieutenant? I don't, I start looking at Librarians and Techmarines instead, Libbys because having no otions in the psychic phase kind of stinks and Techmarines because they're the cheapest HQ to pay the Battalion tax with.

Arguing the "best" playstyle for marines is a bad playstyle doesn't mean they aren't pushed into that playstyle.

One Captain running around with one assault/VV squad does not a castle make.

A good melee army that manages to reach you is still going to chain pillage you. It comes from being a good melee army - few and rare that those are this edition.

CP Generation doesn't mandate HQ's. CP Generation mandates Troops units. You need 2HQ and three troops per 5CP. All Marine troops are shooty, or bad, or both. The Loyal 32 is about 12% of a 1500 point Guard army. 88% is a lot of flexibility. A Space Marine "Loyal 32" with a barebones Cap, LT, 2 10 man Intercessors, and a 10 man sniper squad is ~674 points - or about 45% of a 1500 point army. You could make them the Loyal 17, but we're already throwing things like objective securing - and thus the Objective Secured troop ability - into the "good play style" requirements.

The barebones Primaris Cap/LT are 156 - less than 25% of the Battalion cost. If you're like me and more inclined to go barebones Gravis Cap (30 points for a BIG +1T, Boltstorm and Powersword is fairly cheap on a Warlord) over Barebones Primaris Cap - its 192 (27%) out of 710 (48%)

Even without the rerolls, marines would be shooty. Close Combat is bad in general this edition, Assault Squads are worse. Shooty armies will often castle for mutual support, and to influence your deployment/movement.

Its usually far more important to totally delete one squad than it is to reduce two squads to half. A squad with one model left can still score. I'm far more likely to shoot your one squad I want to delete with two squads in my castle than this squad here, and that squad over there. If I do delete your Sqaud A with one unit on some lucky rolls, and still have my second unit of fire, I'm likely to have another target to start working on because you're likely coming for my castle to either kill it, or contest it. If my tactical squad is part of my castle, I'm more likely to have one target for my bolters, and one target for the lascannon- because you have to deal with my castle. A Space Marine Loyal 32 for 5CP makes half of your army Shooty before you even begin adding the optional goodies and role based choices. The Loyal 17 (Cap, LT, 5 Intercessors, 5 Intercessors, 5 Bolter Scouts, no cloaks) is just over 25% of your points, and still shooty. A tricked out 10 man VV squad with ~5 TH/SS 5 LC/LC is over 300 points. A barebones Assault Squad is about half that, and 20 points less than your 10 man Intercessors, AND will lose to those Intercessors in close combat according to the math.

Primaris have.. last I checked two, maybe three transport options. A Forgeworld model that costs ~1750 points. A bigger Forgeworld model (that doesn't say it can't transport Primaris so maybe) for something closer to 2,000 points, and a tank that costs 300. Two of them for your two Intercessor squads will cost you 600. Plus the 674 for your loyal 32 is 1274 out of your 1500. You now have 226 points to spend on every other role you need in your army, you have 5CP assuming you don't spend any in list generation for something like an Assassin, a relic, or a Specialist Detachment like the Grey Shields, etc... Which means you can use one per turn if you're lucky enough to skip the first one or the last one because the game fizzled out or started slow Taking two techmarines instead of a Cap/LT combo isn't going to save you enough or make Repulsors cheap enough to mechanize your force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I use techmarines as cheap HQs. And fixing FW dreads can be nifty.

I have a "fun" as in non-competitive list with Chronus, two techmarines, one LR, one LRC, 2 Predators, 4 Razorbacks, a Landspeeder Squadron and a Whirlwind or some such. Fixing anything can be nifty.

BrianDavion wrote:

Rogerio134134 wrote:
I just want to buy the upgrade sprue for the repulsor as I have a whole repulsor still in the box ready to build! Doubt I can get one though looks like I'll be buying the whole tank!

I was looking carefully at a picture of the repulsor executioner and it's not the same tank, it's close but there's some differances beyond the turrent.







the side mounted stormbolters/frag assault launchers are on the executioner placed higher and towards the rear. this would necessitate a differant top hull plate. so yeah they're NOT the same model kit with varied weapons loadouts, not quite. One could certainly convert a repulsor to an executioner but... yeah it's not as simple as buying another sprue

Ah nice one thanks for that, I have been googling to see if anyone on eBay was selling a sprue as I have a repulsor still in the box as I've said lol.

Looks like I'll be getting an executioner to complete a nice trio of beefy tanks then!

BrianDavion wrote:


the side mounted stormbolters/frag assault launchers are on the executioner placed higher and towards the rear. this would necessitate a differant top hull plate. so yeah they're NOT the same model kit with varied weapons loadouts, not quite. One could certainly convert a repulsor to an executioner but... yeah it's not as simple as buying another sprue

The question becomes where you put the two mini-turrets, and what you use to hide/coverup the two holes.