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.

So, the ages old argument - what's wrong with tactical and assault marines, and how do you fix it? For a long time now (since 3rd), tactical marines have been troops and assault marines have been fast attack. But let's go back to 2nd - tactical, devastator and assault marines were all 'troops'. And being infantry in an 'elite' army, that makes sense. So let's look at the differences - devastator marines focus on long-range shooting. Assault marines focus on melee. And tactical marines focus on being a mix of the two. What are the differences between long range attacks and melee attacks? One can remain stationary and fire at full effect at targets in LOS. The other has a minimal range and requires constant movement to be able to output damage. Okay. The ranged alternative has it easier (assuming LOS), they can 'fire' at full effect with minimal effort.

So, looking at the game as it stands at the moment, what is the problem? (ignoring previous editions, which had their own issues regarding the units in question and their relationship to the core rules). 1 - tactical marines aren't generalists, their dps all revolves around shooting. Barring the sergeant, their upgrades revolve around ranged weapons. Tactical marines are supposed to be the 'middle ground' of devastators and assault marines, yet they lean towards lower-class devastators in what they can do. Given their status as 'troops' the get objective secured (don't get me started) as their incentive to take them. It's generally accepted that a sergeant take a combi-weapon, because that's most in line with their squad specialization (shooting). I propose that tactical marines have the option to take melee weapons instead of special/heavy weapons. Looking back to 2nd edition, tactical marines had a rifle, pistol and close combat weapon. I suggest that this makes a comeback. Suddenly, for their points (and status as troops in an elite army), tactical marines again become the middle ground. A tactical squad can become a self-contained unit, able to compete in all phases of the game with above-average performance, as befits an elite unit.

So where does this leave assault marines? Not in a good place. Given the FOC, they're competing with bikers. Who get better ranged weapons (fair enough, it's a different squad-type) and increased toughness/defence (because reasons), for not that much difference in points. Then, compare them to tactical marines as i suggest, and they have lesser dps options in exchange for greater movement. My first recommendation is that they see a reduction in points (i'd look at revisiting bike squads, but for the purposes of this topic, leaving them out of the equation.....). The original fluff was that designation to an assault squad was considered a suicide mission, but there were no shortage of volunteers as it was considered honourable. Okay, fluff out of the way. So they're cheaper, because their weapons have 1" range and they require on movement (and getting shot) to achieve their dps. The next question is, if they're a 'fast' melee option, why are their options all pistols (and/or rifles, depending on army)? Give their 'special' weapons the option for, you know, melee damage. Power weapons, power fists, lightning claws, th/ss. Then at least they can 'specialize' in melee (for better or for worse), which is apparently the whole point of them.

Finally, because i haven't ranted enough..... Make them all troops. It's an elite army. So you get to decide, will your core forces be ranged, close, or middle-ground? As long as the points are costed correctly, it would make an interesting choice (regardless of marine-codex type). If you want to be elite 'generalists', that should be an option. If you want to be elite 'specialists', that should be an option too. As long as the options available are decent for the relative points, then why not?

More importantly, assault marines still pay for BS and devs still pay for WS. How do you price a stat that exists, yet isn't used?

Martel732 wrote:
More importantly, assault marines still pay for BS and devs still pay for WS. How do you price a stat that exists, yet isn't used?

In an 'elite' army like marines? You give them the chance to use it, or price it so it doesn't make a difference if they don't. Assault marines can still shoot, and devs can still fight in close combat (and if your enemy is doing the 'right' thing, they'll be making you do one at the expense of the other compared to their 'speciality'). The elite part of the army is still in play, but the individual squad designations make one more optimized for one than the other. Assault marines can still fire their pistols (although that's worth less compared to - ) and devastator marines can still fight in melee better than other armies' shooting-only type units.

I don't mind Tac marines. I always got good use out of them. Assault marines are a little different though. I think they lost something when chainswords became just another weapon. The non-vanilla marines have decent enough assault squads, but there is just something missing from the basic marine assault squad.
I'd like to see chaplains provide more to them as well as assault squads getting an extra attack or the ability to attack even after they have been killed.
They need something, but I'm not sure what that something is.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I don't mind Tac marines. I always got good use out of them. Assault marines are a little different though. I think they lost something when chainswords became just another weapon. The non-vanilla marines have decent enough assault squads, but there is just something missing from the basic marine assault squad.
I'd like to see chaplains provide more to them as well as assault squads getting an extra attack or the ability to attack even after they have been killed.
They need something, but I'm not sure what that something is.

I don't mind multipliers, but i'd rather assault marines be self-contained without them (in this case, chaplains). The problem with assault marines is a) they're not specialized for their role, and b) they pay too many points on top of that. If fast moving, melee-based units caused a proportional amount of damage relative to their cost and performance, there wouldn't be a problem. Right now, assault marines are too expensive compared to their alternatives, and they don't cause enough damage in their role (melee). Letting them actually specialize in melee would change that (as would relative price changes).

The notion that 1 unit gets 2 3+/S4/AP0 attacks per model from 1” away and the other gets the same from 12” away for the same points seems pretty dumb. Yes, they get to potentially attack in both players turns but they also get hit back in both players turns...assault marines are broken and I don’t know how to tape them back together. I wouldn’t waste money buying them at this point though.

 Torga_DW wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
More importantly, assault marines still pay for BS and devs still pay for WS. How do you price a stat that exists, yet isn't used?

In an 'elite' army like marines? You give them the chance to use it, or price it so it doesn't make a difference if they don't. Assault marines can still shoot, and devs can still fight in close combat (and if your enemy is doing the 'right' thing, they'll be making you do one at the expense of the other compared to their 'speciality'). The elite part of the army is still in play, but the individual squad designations make one more optimized for one than the other. Assault marines can still fire their pistols (although that's worth less compared to - ) and devastator marines can still fight in melee better than other armies' shooting-only type units.

No one bothers trying to assault devs. They just shoot them off the table before the other marines because they are squishy.

Martel732 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
More importantly, assault marines still pay for BS and devs still pay for WS. How do you price a stat that exists, yet isn't used?

In an 'elite' army like marines? You give them the chance to use it, or price it so it doesn't make a difference if they don't. Assault marines can still shoot, and devs can still fight in close combat (and if your enemy is doing the 'right' thing, they'll be making you do one at the expense of the other compared to their 'speciality'). The elite part of the army is still in play, but the individual squad designations make one more optimized for one than the other. Assault marines can still fire their pistols (although that's worth less compared to - ) and devastator marines can still fight in melee better than other armies' shooting-only type units.

No one bothers trying to assault devs. They just shoot them off the table before the other marines because they are squishy.

Well, i was trying to compare the 2 units in a vacuum of other marine units. But you're right, they're no tougher for points compared to other marines, they just have a higher dps ratio (which is what makes them priority targets). But keep in mind what i've said - they should be troops, not heavy support. Which makes a difference.Why? Because of what they can achieve in comparison to what they cost. If they filled the 'tax' requirement and were still threats that made them a priority, they would have have better utility. If we're playing the shooting game, then it makes sense that a 'basic' unit would be a target. And left unchecked, a threat to the enemy disposition. The grand scheme of the game is that you can't guarantee whether your threat will be shooting, melee or a mix of the two. Optimizing against one target should leave you vulnerable to the other. As a side not, the next issue, is that we use the 'slots' system instead of percentages (like we used to). So it makes sense that you use the minimum amount of points in minimum-dps 'slots' to load up on the good stuff. The good stuff should be good, without question, but the inherent nature of the FOC makes it a points/slot ratio. If it were a percentage system, then people wouldn't be able to load up on units that can wipe 'basic' troops off the table as efficiently as they can. The problem is that (barring specific units like khorne beserkers), shooting is more powerful than melee in this edition.

But going back to the vacuum - if things were pointed right, devs would be

edit: above average in points, but still capable of performing 'decent' dps in their field (ranged attacks) while being above average (compared to what?) in melee dps. You pay more for a unit that can perform in every phase, as long as it's not too great a relative price compared to other armies. The problem is, outside devastators, tactical and assault marines don't perform according to their price.

I think just giving Assault Squads 2 attacks would go a long way to fixing them. As is, there's literally no point in running them. Even if you give them 2 flamers, they have to drop out of range, and I don't think 2 flamers is enough firepower to warrant giving them a transport. Of course, if you were going to take a Razorback anyway...still no, because you don't want the Razorback close enough to get those guys in the enemy's face.

Assault Marines, especially now in 8th, lack the punch to do well in the assault for the points being paid. Currently Assault Marines have 2 attacks and can use their pistols but really in the realm of melee combatants only having 2 melee attacks (S4, AP-) is not really all that threatening except against units that suck in melee (which generally are good at shooting your face off at range).

Now look at Skyclaws for the Wolves and you get to see something closer to what an Assault Marine needs to be. They have more attacks while they take a hit to their shooting ability which is not really a concern when its either shooting a pistol, tossing a grenade, or if your feeling like making them having some ranged ability then they are using flamers (which auto hit). Skyclaws use to be better back in 7th with the whole being cheaper and having something like 4 attacks on the charge.

Tac Marines (which i never use) are lacking imo because they don't do anything particularly well. Their base guns are not all that impressive, they basically suck at close combat, and your paying a lot of points per special weapon/heavy weapon your bringing because you need 5 guys per 1 special weapon which is generally the workhorse of the squad.

Sternguard is what i like to use instead as they have formidable shooting power, decent close combat with their 2 base attacks, and their points cost while higher is also more worthwhile when you take into consideration the damage output they have and aren't reliant on special weapons (although they can take them if so desired).

A fix would honestly just need to be a slight points drop or some rule that makes them better at their particular role (similar to how devs can boost the hit chance of a model in the unit).

The best fix for Tactical Marines is to give them the Crusader style of a special/heavy at 5 men, but give access to an extra of either at 10. This allows specialization to an extent.
Assault Marines got the part buff with pistols in melee, but they need access to the flamer and Melta pistols as well. I Also wish they had the ability to be troops if you had a Jump HQ, but seeing as too many whiners whined about Bikers as troops...

It seems based on the assumption that tactical squads are a mix of the two.


I think the most accurate translation into rules would for all units in the game were to get shooting in the opponent's turn, but only for personal weapons / small arms like the bolter etc and not for squad weapons like plasma gun, lascannon etc.


That is what tactical squads would be for in relation to assault and devastator squads.

With tacticals, they have a role: sitting on objectives and occasionally shorting something with the single heavy weapon they get. Problem is they are overcosted.

I actually think even devastators are overcosted. Seriously, why would I pay 65 points to buy a squad if devastators to load up with heavy weapons, when I can grab a predator for 90 points and load it up with my long range heavy firepower. For less than the cost of two marines I'm getting 3 higher toughness and twice as many wounds, oh and no degrading efficiency till it lose half those wounds, as opposed to after two for the devastators. There is no chapter tactic in the world that would make me choose devastators. It's a no brainer. They need a discount. The basic 13 ppm price tag isn't good even on specialized units like devastators, for tacticals its deal breaking.

I think this would help tacticals and devastators, particularly with CT factored in, but even at a discount assault marines are... not amazing. I'd personally allow SM to take assault marines in the troop slot sans jump pack. Then you have two, slightly cheaper, alternatives for objectives. Tacticals for sitting on objectives further from the front, adding an occasional lascannon shot, or assault marines for taking objectives enemies are sitting on, with double flamer/plasma pistol and the chain swords. It's still not amazing, but it's something.

The fact is, space marines have a thousand infinitely more deadly and versatile options to cover deepstriking assault and basic shooting. All assault marines and tacticals can bring to the table is cheap (relative to the army) bodies for holding objectives and fill troop slots in detachments.

Or, for assault marines, you could let them have more reliability. Let them deepstrike 7" or more away. Then they can use flamer s and have a decent chance at a charge. They are still just tacticals so... not really much of a threat, but now they are at least annoying. I think they'd actually be worth their current price with that.

This thread. . . *shakes head and walks away"

 Insectum7 wrote:
This thread. . . *shakes head and walks away"

Oh yeah, trying to make these utterly worthless units viable is such an awful task.

Seriously, I play CSM, CSM squads are like tactical squads but a little bit better atm. You know how often we use them? Never. Literally never. Between cultists and cult troops every chaos player will find a way to avoid them. Same as normal SM, with scouts. They are a useless unit.

Seriously, some people will never admit anything in a SM codex could ever be bad, so attached are they to the idea of SM as an OP army.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This thread. . . *shakes head and walks away"

Oh yeah, trying to make these utterly worthless units viable is such an awful task.

Seriously, I play CSM, CSM squads are like tactical squads but a little bit better atm. You know how often we use them? Never. Literally never. Between cultists and cult troops every chaos player will find a way to avoid them. Same as normal SM, with scouts. They are a useless unit.

Seriously, some people will never admit anything in a SM codex could ever be bad, so attached are they to the idea of SM as an OP army.

Or there are worse things I'd fix in the game than SM.

Whether fixing SM units is supposed to be the lowest priority for GW or not is irrelevant. All of the arguments in the OP are reasonable. If you don't care about SM balance, there's no need to join the discussion.

I've been using Tac Squads in every Marine list since 8th and I don't think they need fixing tbh.

I usually run them in two variants:

a) Basic Squad with a Lascannon, sits in the back holding objectives and sniping at big stuff. If I have points left these guys get a Power Lance/Maul.

b) Squad with a Combimelta and a Melta inside of a Razorback with either a TAC or a THF (i prefer the later, but the former is the better choice)

Both do pretty well, I'll usually have Characters (Generic and/or Vulkan He'stan) around for buffing, and I play Salamanders.

Another problem with tacticals is range.
Sitting on an objective with just a 24" range is often da "well i cant shoot anything that bolters are somewhat effective against".
Now I'm not proposing to buff the boltgun, but that is an issue I have with them.

A points drop does not make them inherently useful. Cultists and Conscripts are useful because you get many wounds for your investment.
Tacticals cannot get that cheap without being broken... and lowering their price does not make them fulfill their role better.

They need to be either more durable or more shooty/fighty.
Getting them to be more durable is tricky since the D6 system does not allow for such a thing without stepping on other units' feet. More wounds? Intercessors. Higher toughness? Downright to powerful for their cost.

The standard tac marine always feels like a tax. Increasing the availability of heavy/special weapons? No, that is Devastator country, cannot stop there.
So they need more options that actually make them.. tactical.
Info Skulls, special limited use ammo, auspexes for example and other special wargear could help fill out a tactical niche, skitarii style.
The option to take a CCW for 1 pt would make them not as good as the mobile Assault marines, but round them out.

Devastators feel overpriced.. The weapons are expensive and you need Devastator chaff units to absorb some wounds which makes them even more expensive and inefficient. Reducing the cost of heavy weapons (giving tacs a slight buff) could make this more bearable. However, Devastators without special gear would need something to give them a role other than being chaff. A "Spot the target!" rule maybe? Allowing the reroll of a single hit of 1 per extra marine, increasing range, reroll a damage dice etc.

Assault Squads suffer the same. They do not reward you enough when you get them into combat.
Flamers are all but useless for DSing assaults.
You cannot make them easier to get into assault (beside the speed), but once they get there, they need to put out more than which they do now. Increasing their A to 2 helps for once and compensates the lack of a bolter.
Maybe giving the Jump Pack an extra rule that helps them out in this regard like the old Hammer of Wrath. If you get into combat, the opponent has -1 to hit for that turn as they are shocked by the meteoric descent of the Squad crashing down? That helps greatly against chaff, but does not do THAT much against tougher units. Or, if an enemy unit falls back, they are counted as being in cover as they lift of, preparing their next charge to counter all that "Fall back and shoot them to bits" that is going on.

Devs and tacticals should stay at 13 ppm, assaults might need a slight increase for the extra A. 3 PPM for a jump pack feels right though,

Assuming Tacticals are fairly priced at 13ppm (they probably aren't, but let's say they are for the sake of argument) I'm not even sure a Jump Pack Assault Marine is worth as much as a Tac marine. You get extra mobility and an extra attack, but half the range on your shooting and no heavy weapon. Is that an even trade? I'm not convinced. It definitely doesn't warrant a price increase IMO.

Part of the problem is that Fall Back makes close combat a tricky proposition in 8th. Close combat units either need to kill what they charge in one round or tie up an enemy unit so it can't shoot when it falls back. The problem with Assault Marines is their attacks are too weak to kill much and they're too expensive to be used to tie up enemy units. For example, 10 Assault Marines kill about 6-7 Guardsmen in one round of combat, which might be enough to force your opponent to re-roll the Morale check but that's about the best you can hope for. That doesn't seem right to me when each Marine is 3x the cost of a Guardsman and this is what they're supposedly specialised for.

The solution is to play space wolves.

I'm not sure if i agree... You cannot take a heavy, but you have access to flamers (as useless as they are) and plasma pistols as a trade off. So that is fairly even.
The cut in range and the loss of rapid fire should be compensated for the extra A given (Assaults could outdamage shooting tacticals now, 3 attacks vs 2 shots in rapid fire range):
Maybe the Jump Packs are a bit too expensive?

I'll say that raptors cost a single point more than assault marines, but can have up to two plasma rifles+combi plasma, and are way more useful than normal assault marines. Not a must take (at least I haven't felt so, but I don't play larger tournaments) but still a useful tool.

Honestly, assault just isn't that rewarding right now for most units, even with deepstrike it's less reliable then just deepstriking in special weapons and it no longer provides a safety net while in combat thanks to fallback. So you either see hyper efficient melee units that maximize that first turn, or tough ones that can take a hit.

That's why the current assault meta leans towards exceptionally durable chaff units escorting glass cannon special characters. You've got your tough meat shield charging in alongside the ones actually doing most of the damage, so even when they enemy falls back all they get to shoot at are the expendable grunts. It's really the only way to make assault really viable right now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The best fix for Tactical Marines is to give them the Crusader style of a special/heavy at 5 men, but give access to an extra of either at 10. This allows specialization to an extent.
Assault Marines got the part buff with pistols in melee, but they need access to the flamer and Melta pistols as well. I Also wish they had the ability to be troops if you had a Jump HQ, but seeing as too many whiners whined about Bikers as troops...

I don't think opening up the option to spend even MORE points is the right answer. Tac marines need to be worthwhile with no upgrades like conscripts, boyz, or firewarriors.

Martel732 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The best fix for Tactical Marines is to give them the Crusader style of a special/heavy at 5 men, but give access to an extra of either at 10. This allows specialization to an extent.
Assault Marines got the part buff with pistols in melee, but they need access to the flamer and Melta pistols as well. I Also wish they had the ability to be troops if you had a Jump HQ, but seeing as too many whiners whined about Bikers as troops...

I don't think opening up the option to spend even MORE points is the right answer. Tac marines need to be worthwhile with no upgrades like conscripts, boyz, or firewarriors.

That requires making the Bolter better.
The Tactical Marine itself has the statline of a 13 point model, but none of the wargear options and loadouts that make a 13 point model any good.
So mostly that involves a buff on the Bolt weapon category. For how this edition works, I'd say that a 6 to wound forces a reroll on successful saves or something to that effect. Nothing broken and gives them a little punch, small as it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverAlien wrote:
I'll say that raptors cost a single point more than assault marines, but can have up to two plasma rifles+combi plasma, and are way more useful than normal assault marines. Not a must take (at least I haven't felt so, but I don't play larger tournaments) but still a useful tool.

Honestly, assault just isn't that rewarding right now for most units, even with deepstrike it's less reliable then just deepstriking in special weapons and it no longer provides a safety net while in combat thanks to fallback. So you either see hyper efficient melee units that maximize that first turn, or tough ones that can take a hit.

That's why the current assault meta leans towards exceptionally durable chaff units escorting glass cannon special characters. You've got your tough meat shield charging in alongside the ones actually doing most of the damage, so even when they enemy falls back all they get to shoot at are the expendable grunts. It's really the only way to make assault really viable right now.

They also have LD shenanigans for that extra point I think. I haven't honestly looked at the entry recently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This thread. . . *shakes head and walks away"

You're one of the ONLY people defending the unit entry. Ever. This isn't you going against the grain, it's you being wrong. Unless you start going to tournaments and start using those tactics we clearly haven't learned 2 play, your post here was useless.

My proposed change would be:

Every squad of space marines (in any codex, or any chapter, so BA, SW, GK, DA, and all SM get this) can select from the following specializations for a squad of marines.

1. Ranged Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to weapon skill.
Marines gain a +1 to ballistic skill.

2. Melee Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to ballistic skill.
Marines gain +1 weapon skill.

3. Tactical Specialization
Marines can take an additional special or heavy weapon in a squad of 5, and two additional special or heavy weapons in a squad of 10.

Additionally, I would change their wargear as follows:
1. All marines in a unit can throw grenades. They all have them on their belt.
2. Boltgun profile updated to str 5, ap-1, Bolt Rifle updated to str6 ap-2, storm bolter updated to str 5 ap-1.
3. Chainswords updated to Str 5, ap-1

And fundamental changes to profiles as follows:
1. Assault marines gain +1 base attack. This also includes melee specialists like death company, strike squads, etc.
2. Devastator squads armor cherub is changed so that it can activate to allow the squad to move and fire without penalty to ballistic skill.
3. All marines base movement increased by 2", including terminators. Power armor marines always run the full 6".

 Marmatag wrote:
My proposed change would be:

Every squad of space marines (in any codex, or any chapter, so BA, SW, GK, DA, and all SM get this) can select from the following specializations for a squad of marines.

1. Ranged Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to weapon skill.
Marines gain a +1 to ballistic skill.

2. Melee Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to ballistic skill.
Marines gain +1 weapon skill.

3. Tactical Specialization
Marines can take an additional special or heavy weapon in a squad of 5, and two additional special or heavy weapons in a squad of 10.

Additionally, I would change their wargear as follows:
1. All marines in a unit can throw grenades. They all have them on their belt.
2. Boltgun profile updated to str 5, ap-1, Bolt Rifle updated to str6 ap-2, storm bolter updated to str 5 ap-1.
3. Chainswords updated to Str 5, ap-1

And fundamental changes to profiles as follows:
1. Assault marines gain +1 base attack. This also includes melee specialists like death company, strike squads, etc.
2. Devastator squads armor cherub is changed so that it can activate to allow the squad to move and fire without penalty to ballistic skill.
3. All marines base movement increased by 2", including terminators. Power armor marines always run the full 6".

That'd certainly buff them, but I'd definitely say it buffs them to the point they need a points increase.

They have guns that are better than Tau (same strength, -6" range, but better AP) at BS 2+ instead of BS 4+.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My proposed change would be:

Every squad of space marines (in any codex, or any chapter, so BA, SW, GK, DA, and all SM get this) can select from the following specializations for a squad of marines.

1. Ranged Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to weapon skill.
Marines gain a +1 to ballistic skill.

2. Melee Specialization
Marines suffer a -1 penalty to ballistic skill.
Marines gain +1 weapon skill.

3. Tactical Specialization
Marines can take an additional special or heavy weapon in a squad of 5, and two additional special or heavy weapons in a squad of 10.

Additionally, I would change their wargear as follows:
1. All marines in a unit can throw grenades. They all have them on their belt.
2. Boltgun profile updated to str 5, ap-1, Bolt Rifle updated to str6 ap-2, storm bolter updated to str 5 ap-1.
3. Chainswords updated to Str 5, ap-1

And fundamental changes to profiles as follows:
1. Assault marines gain +1 base attack. This also includes melee specialists like death company, strike squads, etc.
2. Devastator squads armor cherub is changed so that it can activate to allow the squad to move and fire without penalty to ballistic skill.
3. All marines base movement increased by 2", including terminators. Power armor marines always run the full 6".

That'd certainly buff them, but I'd definitely say it buffs them to the point they need a points increase.

They have guns that are better than Tau (same strength, -6" range, but better AP) at BS 2+ instead of BS 4+.

Tau, outside of commanders, drones, crisis suits, y'vhara, and a couple other things, need a buff. And with those buffs, commanders should be toned down a tiny bit.

Clutching at straws based on the above ideas, but how's about them getting 2 shots even at 24". Slightly more firepower for the much maligned bolter whilst sitting on objectives, I'm not sure it would incentivise them to move forward as much though.

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau, outside of commanders, drones, crisis suits, y'vhara, and a couple other things, need a buff. And with those buffs, commanders should be toned down a tiny bit.

Not gonna argue with that, because I know it to be true.

THAT BEING SAID! Would you suggest giving these upgrades to Marines without any increased cost? Also, what would you do for the rest of their weapons?