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.

BrianDavion wrote:
the Phobos units have more differance between them then SOB Battle sisters retributor squads and celestians I mean LITERALLY the only differance there is what guns they're allowed to take!

Exactly. And that's why we need to give Sisters need models and units, while the Space Marines need to stop getting new releases and consolidation of the current ones.
Also you meant Dominions, not Celestians, lol.

 Jack Flask wrote:
For me, if I was designing them before initial release I would have gotten rid of their bolt carbines and given them Deathwatch-style Astartes shotguns as their alternate loadout.

This is not exclusive, you know. There are RL shotguns that look like that (Saiga 12), you only need competent rule writer to make the change. Which sadly GW lacks. Anyway, since assault intercessors already took the 'massed attacks' niche, I'd echo what others say and give them power weapons since primaris lack 'quality' side unit. S5, AP-2, D1. This plus jet pack rules would do a lot to fix them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I wouldn't have made 3 Phobos Infantry models/profiles in the first place and would have just rolled the Reiver idea into Incursors and Infiltrators.

I can't agree enough. You just can't have so many option and make each one different yet interesting. It's beyond ridiculous.

Wut? This is complete and utter nonsense. Primaris have 3 playstyles - regular, phobos, and gravis. Reivers fill essential niche in phobos theme, that of melee unit. If anything, primaris problem is the fact they have glaring holes in their lineup and someone who wants to make thematic, fluffy army has to hamfistedly throw in something breaking the cohesive look and throwing off playstyle because GW 'forgot' to include whatever role (say, regular primaris completely lacking any melee units for 4 years until bladeguard shown up).

3 units per theme is not bLoAt, it's frakking mere minimum. What you're arguing is as dumb as saying we should delete Leman Russes from the game, because IG already has Baneblades and it's bLoAt. Or why Tyranids need hive tyrants, they have carnifexes. bLoAt! Or 4 kinds of eldar, now that's bLoAt and 3 should be immediately squatted, aspect warriors, harlequins, mandrakes, what's the difference, they should be replaced with 'uppity not-elf' unit to save us from bLoAt

Baneblades and Leman russes both existing is not bloat, but making whatever 9 baneblade variants that all need to have some different reason to exist, or making 9 leman russ turrets that all need to have some reason to exist, is.

In a game as simple as 40k, there just aren't that many roles that exist, and Reivers currently attempt to fill a role that doesn't exist. "Terror Troops" when morale in 40k is just represented by "removing models from the board, but in a different phase than the shooting or fight phase."

The functional difference between, say, a Death Jester whose gun makes 2 more shots and a Death Jester who does what he does right now is...actually not a whole lot, at the end of the day. You can imagine in your head the people from the squad running away screaming instead of falling dead, but you've just taken them off the board either way.

So reivers should have a role, but 40k doesn't have a functional morale system to pin them to, so they don't and won't unless their shtick as 'terror troops' is removed.

You have to consider the intended role for the troop. You dont give them jump packs and power weapons...thats primaris vanguard vets, not what reivers were intended to be.
Reivers are meant to drop behind enemy lines, disrupt, destroy and sow fear.
GW has come close with this but has decided to wrap much of it in Strategems instead of actual abilities.
1. They should have been equipped with carbines, special bolt pistols and combat knives. Not choose between two.
2. Melta bomb strat keyword should have been added, to disrupt the rear supply etc, you have to be able to blow stuff up.
3. Shock grenades should have simply been an ability, not a strat. In addition, all bolt carbines should have had an auxiliary grenade launcher attached. Now you're flinging a shock grenade at range (I probably would have capped this at 12").
4. I like the terror troop strat, it suits them.
5. Finally, I would have added the ability to turn off aura effects for units within 3" with Terror Troops rule. So no rerolls etc for a unit within 3" of a reiver squad, etc.

As it stands, I have 5 for my Deathwatch and just added 5 for my Ravenguard. Going to see if I can make them work.

 Irbis wrote:

 Jack Flask wrote:
For me, if I was designing them before initial release I would have gotten rid of their bolt carbines and given them Deathwatch-style Astartes shotguns as their alternate loadout.

This is not exclusive, you know. There are RL shotguns that look like that (Saiga 12), you only need competent rule writer to make the change. Which sadly GW lacks. Anyway, since assault intercessors already took the 'massed attacks' niche, I'd echo what others say and give them power weapons since primaris lack 'quality' side unit. S5, AP-2, D1. This plus jet pack rules would do a lot to fix them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I wouldn't have made 3 Phobos Infantry models/profiles in the first place and would have just rolled the Reiver idea into Incursors and Infiltrators.

I can't agree enough. You just can't have so many option and make each one different yet interesting. It's beyond ridiculous.

Wut? This is complete and utter nonsense. Primaris have 3 playstyles - regular, phobos, and gravis. Reivers fill essential niche in phobos theme, that of melee unit. If anything, primaris problem is the fact they have glaring holes in their lineup and someone who wants to make thematic, fluffy army has to hamfistedly throw in something breaking the cohesive look and throwing off playstyle because GW 'forgot' to include whatever role (say, regular primaris completely lacking any melee units for 4 years until bladeguard shown up).

3 units per theme is not bLoAt, it's frakking mere minimum. What you're arguing is as dumb as saying we should delete Leman Russes from the game, because IG already has Baneblades and it's bLoAt. Or why Tyranids need hive tyrants, they have carnifexes. bLoAt! Or 4 kinds of eldar, now that's bLoAt and 3 should be immediately squatted, aspect warriors, harlequins, mandrakes, what's the difference, they should be replaced with 'uppity not-elf' unit to save us from bLoAt

Except they also have Eliminators for Phobos troops and these actually provide something the other ones don't.

The other 3 Phobos units are all sneaky/deepstrikey and are focused around close range fights. One of them doesn't need to exist and could easily have its specific gimmicks rolled into the other two with not very many issues. The funny thing is that Incursors are currently better in actual melee than Reivers are, so again; what are Reivers meant to be doing? Instead of trying to stretch a handful of underwhelming abilities across 3 practically identical units, they could and should have consolidated them.

Like I said before, Incursors should have gotten the Terror Troops rule, maybe grapnel launchers, and you could have swapped the Mine over to Infiltrators. Those units are already viable and work perfectly fine and then they'd get a little extra on top of it.

The two phobos units I would have mixed was the dual box of Interceptors and the other.

I use a unit of 5 reavers with combat blades in my space wolves pretty often.

They can deploy off table edges from reserve and get a heap of attacks, and have a small unit footprint. I typically drop them in turn 2 for Deploy Scramblers, and then rush them in afterwards with the Assault Doctrine to mess stuff up. I don't expect them to kill Magnus, or anything like that, but are a good backfield distraction without a huge points investment.

cheap unit, and doesn't scream a threat compared to anything else, but not bad when running in with 4 attacks each, AP-1 and hits of a 6 are 2 hits.

 jaredb wrote:
I use a unit of 5 reavers with combat blades in my space wolves pretty often.

They can deploy off table edges from reserve and get a heap of attacks, and have a small unit footprint. I typically drop them in turn 2 for Deploy Scramblers, and then rush them in afterwards with the Assault Doctrine to mess stuff up. I don't expect them to kill Magnus, or anything like that, but are a good backfield distraction without a huge points investment.

cheap unit, and doesn't scream a threat compared to anything else, but not bad when running in with 4 attacks each, AP-1 and hits of a 6 are 2 hits.

This is a good point... I think people are still so caught up in 8th and how dmg output was everything... but 9th is about more then just dmg output...
This unit isn't so threatening, can get secondaries done and has some abilities that slightly tilt the opponent to pick different targets.

The role of this unit is secondaries,,, at least thats how I see them being used.

I probably would make Reivers useful buy taking away SM options so that a unit with 21 attacks on the charge isn't considered crappy.

My Slaanesh Daemons would love unit with 21 attacks on the charge, being charged, or heroic intervention, with a 3+ save and 2 wounds that ignored vertical distances and could deep strike natively. (and interfered with leadership to boot)

They're only bad because they're surrounded by better options.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I probably would make Reivers useful buy taking away SM options so that a unit with 21 attacks on the charge isn't considered crappy.

My Slaanesh Daemons would love unit with 21 attacks on the charge, being charged, or heroic intervention, with a 3+ save and 2 wounds that ignored vertical distances and could deep strike natively. (and interfered with leadership to boot)

They're only bad because they're surrounded by better options.

Oh ya, this is also a really good point... Rievers are useful, there are just, perceivably, more useful choices.

Like others have said, the problem is terror troops are useless. Giving them a super obsec or the ability to disable obsec could be interesting. Vox Scream is both powerful and fluffy and there's no reason it cannot be expanded into a variety of ways to show fear. Watering down "these guys are so terrifying that things in the 40k universe are scared of them" into "a few more guys decided to leg it after combat." Where's people freezing to act and getting killed? Whether it's lack of movement, preventing melee, preventing ranged attacks, denying rerolls.... There are a lot of options without modifying or using the LD stat..

Reivers should have an 9" aura where when a enemy unit tries to move starting their movement inside that aura they need to pass a LD test (do those things even exist anymore) or they become suppressed and move half their movement or whatever. That way you don't need paint them as literally scaring tyranids but just using other kind of means to create chaos and impede nearly enemy units, be it terrorize them if they are vulnerable for that, using their special grenades or other stuff agaisnt enemys that dont, etc...

Make them a disruption unit, not just... worse intercessors with batpistols.

 Galas wrote:
Reivers should have an 9" aura where when a enemy unit tries to move starting their movement inside that aura they need to pass a LD test (do those things even exist anymore) or they become suppressed and move half their movement or whatever. That way you don't need paint them as literally scaring tyranids but just using other kind of means to create chaos and impede nearly enemy units, be it terrorize them if they are vulnerable for that, using their special grenades or other stuff agaisnt enemys that dont, etc...

Make them a disruption unit, not just... worse intercessors with batpistols.

In essence, there is no good mechanic to represent units that induce fear in their opponents.

Nope, theres not. Leadership as is right now in warhammer 40k and AoS should just be removed. It doesnt bring anything to the table but trick noobies in making builds built around it that never work. And even if they worked, it would be boring, just another way of killing stuff.

Make leadership a complete phase with decisiong making and relevant outcomes or just remove it.

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Jack Flask wrote:
For me, if I was designing them before initial release I would have gotten rid of their bolt carbines and given them Deathwatch-style Astartes shotguns as their alternate loadout.

This is not exclusive, you know. There are RL shotguns that look like that (Saiga 12), you only need competent rule writer to make the change. Which sadly GW lacks. Anyway, since assault intercessors already took the 'massed attacks' niche, I'd echo what others say and give them power weapons since primaris lack 'quality' side unit. S5, AP-2, D1. This plus jet pack rules would do a lot to fix them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I wouldn't have made 3 Phobos Infantry models/profiles in the first place and would have just rolled the Reiver idea into Incursors and Infiltrators.

I can't agree enough. You just can't have so many option and make each one different yet interesting. It's beyond ridiculous.

Wut? This is complete and utter nonsense. Primaris have 3 playstyles - regular, phobos, and gravis. Reivers fill essential niche in phobos theme, that of melee unit. If anything, primaris problem is the fact they have glaring holes in their lineup and someone who wants to make thematic, fluffy army has to hamfistedly throw in something breaking the cohesive look and throwing off playstyle because GW 'forgot' to include whatever role (say, regular primaris completely lacking any melee units for 4 years until bladeguard shown up).

3 units per theme is not bLoAt, it's frakking mere minimum. What you're arguing is as dumb as saying we should delete Leman Russes from the game, because IG already has Baneblades and it's bLoAt. Or why Tyranids need hive tyrants, they have carnifexes. bLoAt! Or 4 kinds of eldar, now that's bLoAt and 3 should be immediately squatted, aspect warriors, harlequins, mandrakes, what's the difference, they should be replaced with 'uppity not-elf' unit to save us from bLoAt

Except they also have Eliminators for Phobos troops and these actually provide something the other ones don't.

The other 3 Phobos units are all sneaky/deepstrikey and are focused around close range fights. One of them doesn't need to exist and could easily have its specific gimmicks rolled into the other two with not very many issues. The funny thing is that Incursors are currently better in actual melee than Reivers are, so again; what are Reivers meant to be doing? Instead of trying to stretch a handful of underwhelming abilities across 3 practically identical units, they could and should have consolidated them.

Like I said before, Incursors should have gotten the Terror Troops rule, maybe grapnel launchers, and you could have swapped the Mine over to Infiltrators. Those units are already viable and work perfectly fine and then they'd get a little extra on top of it.

Quite honestly screw Incursors and Infiltrators and Reivers and Eliminators being separate units. Consolidate them into one CoD Marine profile with various options. Thats what I'm doing for my homebrew. It simply makes no sense as it is done now.

 Jidmah wrote:

In essence, there is no good mechanic to represent units that induce fear in their opponents.

Amusingly, the Shock Grenades represented it better than anything else. The inability to Overwatch.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Jack Flask wrote:
For me, if I was designing them before initial release I would have gotten rid of their bolt carbines and given them Deathwatch-style Astartes shotguns as their alternate loadout.

This is not exclusive, you know. There are RL shotguns that look like that (Saiga 12), you only need competent rule writer to make the change. Which sadly GW lacks. Anyway, since assault intercessors already took the 'massed attacks' niche, I'd echo what others say and give them power weapons since primaris lack 'quality' side unit. S5, AP-2, D1. This plus jet pack rules would do a lot to fix them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I wouldn't have made 3 Phobos Infantry models/profiles in the first place and would have just rolled the Reiver idea into Incursors and Infiltrators.

I can't agree enough. You just can't have so many option and make each one different yet interesting. It's beyond ridiculous.

Wut? This is complete and utter nonsense. Primaris have 3 playstyles - regular, phobos, and gravis. Reivers fill essential niche in phobos theme, that of melee unit. If anything, primaris problem is the fact they have glaring holes in their lineup and someone who wants to make thematic, fluffy army has to hamfistedly throw in something breaking the cohesive look and throwing off playstyle because GW 'forgot' to include whatever role (say, regular primaris completely lacking any melee units for 4 years until bladeguard shown up).

3 units per theme is not bLoAt, it's frakking mere minimum. What you're arguing is as dumb as saying we should delete Leman Russes from the game, because IG already has Baneblades and it's bLoAt. Or why Tyranids need hive tyrants, they have carnifexes. bLoAt! Or 4 kinds of eldar, now that's bLoAt and 3 should be immediately squatted, aspect warriors, harlequins, mandrakes, what's the difference, they should be replaced with 'uppity not-elf' unit to save us from bLoAt

Except they also have Eliminators for Phobos troops and these actually provide something the other ones don't.

The other 3 Phobos units are all sneaky/deepstrikey and are focused around close range fights. One of them doesn't need to exist and could easily have its specific gimmicks rolled into the other two with not very many issues. The funny thing is that Incursors are currently better in actual melee than Reivers are, so again; what are Reivers meant to be doing? Instead of trying to stretch a handful of underwhelming abilities across 3 practically identical units, they could and should have consolidated them.

Like I said before, Incursors should have gotten the Terror Troops rule, maybe grapnel launchers, and you could have swapped the Mine over to Infiltrators. Those units are already viable and work perfectly fine and then they'd get a little extra on top of it.

Quite honestly screw Incursors and Infiltrators and Reivers and Eliminators being separate units. Consolidate them into one CoD Marine profile with various options. Thats what I'm doing for my homebrew. It simply makes no sense as it is done now.

I agree with Incursors and Infiltrators but why reivers or eliminators? Is like tacticals, assaults and devastators, different units with clearly different uses. You can say that those three should also be unified but then what kind of troop option you would have that can do everything?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Jack Flask wrote:
For me, if I was designing them before initial release I would have gotten rid of their bolt carbines and given them Deathwatch-style Astartes shotguns as their alternate loadout.

This is not exclusive, you know. There are RL shotguns that look like that (Saiga 12), you only need competent rule writer to make the change. Which sadly GW lacks. Anyway, since assault intercessors already took the 'massed attacks' niche, I'd echo what others say and give them power weapons since primaris lack 'quality' side unit. S5, AP-2, D1. This plus jet pack rules would do a lot to fix them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I wouldn't have made 3 Phobos Infantry models/profiles in the first place and would have just rolled the Reiver idea into Incursors and Infiltrators.

I can't agree enough. You just can't have so many option and make each one different yet interesting. It's beyond ridiculous.

Wut? This is complete and utter nonsense. Primaris have 3 playstyles - regular, phobos, and gravis. Reivers fill essential niche in phobos theme, that of melee unit. If anything, primaris problem is the fact they have glaring holes in their lineup and someone who wants to make thematic, fluffy army has to hamfistedly throw in something breaking the cohesive look and throwing off playstyle because GW 'forgot' to include whatever role (say, regular primaris completely lacking any melee units for 4 years until bladeguard shown up).

3 units per theme is not bLoAt, it's frakking mere minimum. What you're arguing is as dumb as saying we should delete Leman Russes from the game, because IG already has Baneblades and it's bLoAt. Or why Tyranids need hive tyrants, they have carnifexes. bLoAt! Or 4 kinds of eldar, now that's bLoAt and 3 should be immediately squatted, aspect warriors, harlequins, mandrakes, what's the difference, they should be replaced with 'uppity not-elf' unit to save us from bLoAt

Except they also have Eliminators for Phobos troops and these actually provide something the other ones don't.

The other 3 Phobos units are all sneaky/deepstrikey and are focused around close range fights. One of them doesn't need to exist and could easily have its specific gimmicks rolled into the other two with not very many issues. The funny thing is that Incursors are currently better in actual melee than Reivers are, so again; what are Reivers meant to be doing? Instead of trying to stretch a handful of underwhelming abilities across 3 practically identical units, they could and should have consolidated them.

Like I said before, Incursors should have gotten the Terror Troops rule, maybe grapnel launchers, and you could have swapped the Mine over to Infiltrators. Those units are already viable and work perfectly fine and then they'd get a little extra on top of it.

Quite honestly screw Incursors and Infiltrators and Reivers and Eliminators being separate units. Consolidate them into one CoD Marine profile with various options. Thats what I'm doing for my homebrew. It simply makes no sense as it is done now.

So you're basically making a spectrus kill team

Why not do the same thing to intercessors and hellblasters. Lets say 1 to 5 ratio in squad. Aggressors and Erdictors could be mixed too in a 1 to 1 ratio .The blade guard guys mixed with the heavy intercessors also in a 1 to 5 ratio.

Would make primaris flexible and better to deal with all aspects of the game.

Also I think it would be cool if either HQs could be perma joined to specific units. Like a Gravis captin in a gravis armoured unit, or a scout primaris Librarian or Captin in a unit of phobos armored marines. The units and the HQ could even get extra rules if they join specific units. A reaver assault Lt could get a lot more powerful himself and buff reavers he joined with a lot more then those that are just within his aura.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

In essence, there is no good mechanic to represent units that induce fear in their opponents.

Amusingly, the Shock Grenades represented it better than anything else. The inability to Overwatch.

Preventing someone to spend CP on a stratagem that might not have made sense to use in the first place is not a good mechanic in my book.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Quite honestly screw Incursors and Infiltrators and Reivers and Eliminators being separate units. Consolidate them into one CoD Marine profile with various options. Thats what I'm doing for my homebrew. It simply makes no sense as it is done now.

100% agree with Incursors/Infiltrators. Also give them back the ability to deploy the damn mine!

Reivers need something substantial to be put onto them. I disagree with them as Elite choices only and feel like they could have been Elite or FA depending upon the upgrade.
Eliminators(the snipers) need to stay as their own unit in HS. I'm assuming you're still irked about the unit sizes but damnit, that's one of the first non-character 'sniper units' I've felt is the appropriate size! The only thing they could have done more right for my taste is letting them 'combat squad' off into 3 one model units.

 Galas wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Jack Flask wrote:
For me, if I was designing them before initial release I would have gotten rid of their bolt carbines and given them Deathwatch-style Astartes shotguns as their alternate loadout.

This is not exclusive, you know. There are RL shotguns that look like that (Saiga 12), you only need competent rule writer to make the change. Which sadly GW lacks. Anyway, since assault intercessors already took the 'massed attacks' niche, I'd echo what others say and give them power weapons since primaris lack 'quality' side unit. S5, AP-2, D1. This plus jet pack rules would do a lot to fix them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I wouldn't have made 3 Phobos Infantry models/profiles in the first place and would have just rolled the Reiver idea into Incursors and Infiltrators.

I can't agree enough. You just can't have so many option and make each one different yet interesting. It's beyond ridiculous.

Wut? This is complete and utter nonsense. Primaris have 3 playstyles - regular, phobos, and gravis. Reivers fill essential niche in phobos theme, that of melee unit. If anything, primaris problem is the fact they have glaring holes in their lineup and someone who wants to make thematic, fluffy army has to hamfistedly throw in something breaking the cohesive look and throwing off playstyle because GW 'forgot' to include whatever role (say, regular primaris completely lacking any melee units for 4 years until bladeguard shown up).

3 units per theme is not bLoAt, it's frakking mere minimum. What you're arguing is as dumb as saying we should delete Leman Russes from the game, because IG already has Baneblades and it's bLoAt. Or why Tyranids need hive tyrants, they have carnifexes. bLoAt! Or 4 kinds of eldar, now that's bLoAt and 3 should be immediately squatted, aspect warriors, harlequins, mandrakes, what's the difference, they should be replaced with 'uppity not-elf' unit to save us from bLoAt

Except they also have Eliminators for Phobos troops and these actually provide something the other ones don't.

The other 3 Phobos units are all sneaky/deepstrikey and are focused around close range fights. One of them doesn't need to exist and could easily have its specific gimmicks rolled into the other two with not very many issues. The funny thing is that Incursors are currently better in actual melee than Reivers are, so again; what are Reivers meant to be doing? Instead of trying to stretch a handful of underwhelming abilities across 3 practically identical units, they could and should have consolidated them.

Like I said before, Incursors should have gotten the Terror Troops rule, maybe grapnel launchers, and you could have swapped the Mine over to Infiltrators. Those units are already viable and work perfectly fine and then they'd get a little extra on top of it.

Quite honestly screw Incursors and Infiltrators and Reivers and Eliminators being separate units. Consolidate them into one CoD Marine profile with various options. Thats what I'm doing for my homebrew. It simply makes no sense as it is done now.

I agree with Incursors and Infiltrators but why reivers or eliminators? Is like tacticals, assaults and devastators, different units with clearly different uses. You can say that those three should also be unified but then what kind of troop option you would have that can do everything?

For basically the same reason Scouts can either have Shotguns, Bolters, Pistol + Knife, or a Sniper Rifle even though those are all significantly different roles.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

In essence, there is no good mechanic to represent units that induce fear in their opponents.

Amusingly, the Shock Grenades represented it better than anything else. The inability to Overwatch.

Preventing someone to spend CP on a stratagem that might not have made sense to use in the first place is not a good mechanic in my book.

Overwatch wasn't a stratagem when Shock Grenades were a Ballistic Weapon that dealt no damage and let you lock out units from Overwatching.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I wouldn't have made 3 Phobos Infantry models/profiles in the first place and would have just rolled the Reiver idea into Incursors and Infiltrators.

I can't agree enough. You just can't have so many option and make each one different yet interesting. It's beyond ridiculous.

the Phobos units have more differance between them then SOB Battle sisters retributor squads and celestians I mean LITERALLY the only differance there is what guns they're allowed to take!

In practical terms those SoB units are more divergent from each other than the 3 Phobos units. Giving units meaningfully different weapon options is a much bigger difference than what we see between Incursors, Infiltrators and Reivers. What's important when looking at differences is role, rather than doing some rote "spot the difference" exercise. A Retributor squad is very different in terms of its role than a regular Battle Sisters squad.

It's almost like you don't need dozens of special rules and unique pieces of equipment to make units interesting and varied.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Overwatch wasn't a stratagem when Shock Grenades were a Ballistic Weapon that dealt no damage and let you lock out units from Overwatching.

Who cares about the past?
And yes, that's still a bad rule because
1) overwatch is not inherently valuable
2) there is no way to base an army around denying overwatch, while many armies and units are based around inducing fear

 Irbis wrote:
If anything, primaris problem is the fact they have glaring holes in their lineup

Pretending that marines have holes in their lineup is just out of touch with reality. You want more units for primaris marines (a specific part of a faction) than you want for CWE + DE (two entirely different factions) and that makes zero sense.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Overwatch wasn't a stratagem when Shock Grenades were a Ballistic Weapon that dealt no damage and let you lock out units from Overwatching.

Who cares about the past?

Given that you didn't ask for a specific, present idea and how I used the past tense of "represent" it should have been extremely obvious from the word go that I was referring to the previous incarnation of Shock Grenades(which only just got superceded when the new book dropped).

And bluntly, preventing actions from being taken is not a terrible way to represent 'terror'.

And yes, that's still a bad rule because
1) overwatch is not inherently valuable
2) there is no way to base an army around denying overwatch, while many armies and units are based around inducing fear

Overwatch is absolutely valuable, or at least that's what melee-centric players will scream at you repeatedly. Being able to shut down a unit(or units if you have the capability to trigger multiple Overwatches in one go) from Overwatching is a relatively big deal if they have no countermelee ability.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Give them all power weapons stock

Giggling slightly at the idea of a power knife.

Spoiler:

It's just crazy enough that it might work, though...! S4, AP-2, but still D1 - that'd give them a little synergy with their AP-2 pistols...

Power Knives are a thing in the lore, used by Space Marines. Also a Misericordia is a type of power knife, albeit a super fancy golden one.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Overwatch wasn't a stratagem when Shock Grenades were a Ballistic Weapon that dealt no damage and let you lock out units from Overwatching.

Who cares about the past?

Given that you didn't ask for a specific, present idea and how I used the past tense of "represent" it should have been extremely obvious from the word go that I was referring to the previous incarnation of Shock Grenades(which only just got superceded when the new book dropped).

And bluntly, preventing actions from being taken is not a terrible way to represent 'terror'.

And yes, that's still a bad rule because
1) overwatch is not inherently valuable
2) there is no way to base an army around denying overwatch, while many armies and units are based around inducing fear

Overwatch is absolutely valuable, or at least that's what melee-centric players will scream at you repeatedly. Being able to shut down a unit(or units if you have the capability to trigger multiple Overwatches in one go) from Overwatching is a relatively big deal if they have no countermelee ability.

The main reason melee players didn't like Overwatch was because it was even more shooting on top of a shooting game rather than the value in of itself math wise. Seriously if you did thr math you'd see that not even that many Gaunts or Orks die to Overwatch outside VERY specific circumstances (like everyone and their mother having a Flamer and you make a charge within 8"). Honestly I'm for bringing it back since as a Strat it's overall useless outside those, well, extreme special circumstances.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
the Phobos units have more differance between them then SOB Battle sisters retributor squads and celestians I mean LITERALLY the only differance there is what guns they're allowed to take!

Exactly. And that's why we need to give Sisters need models and units, while the Space Marines need to stop getting new releases and consolidation of the current ones.
Also you meant Dominions, not Celestians, lol.

I can't speak to how different Phobos units are, but I agree with Hybrid that yes, Sisters need more.

But Brian, you are LITERALLY wrong.
- Celestians have higher LD, higher Attacks, the Bodyguard rule and Sworn Protectors to reroll attacks while within 6 inches of a Canoness + a sweet bespoke strat and a max unit size of 10.
- Retributors move and fire heavy weapons, have + 4" to flamers, and their Cherubs work differently + access to the most versatile strat in the dex and a max unit size of 10.
- BSS have NO special rules, and NO bespoke strats, but their max squad size is 15.

Differences between various flavours of Phobos may be greater than these differences, so your overall point may still be correct. But differences between Sisters units are 100% not just load out.