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.

Superiour Ceramite:
Adeptus Astartes Infantry models ignore AP-1 and AP-2. However, they may never benefit from cover.

One of the reasons Marines are doing so poorly lately is their lack of survivability. Beta Bolters has boosted their shooting a bit, but their assault units still need some way to actually get to the fight.
This rule would turn them into the death-dealing battlefield monsters that they should be.

This is similar to something I proposed:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/770704.page.

Personally, rather than ignoring certain AP values, it makes more sense to me that they just get +1 to armour save rolls outside 12" to represent their ability to maximize the usefulness of their armour (tilting their pauldron to oncoming fire, for example).
It doesn't needlessly discriminate against AP-1 or AP-2 weapons, gives them the potential of having a 2+ save roll even out of cover, but also give opponents a way to mitigate it (get close and/or assault)

-

My idea was born after reading a BoLS article that expressed unhappiness with how unfluffy current Marine rules are.
In the fluff, it pointed out, they are godlike powerhouses who rush the enemy and use physical intimidation and brute force to murder smaller enemies and/or break their morale. All this is most effective up close.
However, currently Marines are mid-long range shooty armies. There are some exceptions, of course, like SmashCaptains and Death Company. But the majority of Marines are shooty. Just look at the Primaris releases: Inceptors, Intercessors, Agressors, Repulsors, Redemptors, the new Vanguard. Out of like seven new units, one, Reivers, is close combat. And they're not even that good! (Although they look great.)

+1 save outside 12" would push Marines even more into a sit-back-and-shoot army, which is the opposite of what I would like.

Sit-back-and-shoot is also the opposite of my intent, but I see your point.
The takeaway from my suggestion is the +1 to armour save rolls, not necessarily the distance.

I only added the distance restriction because there really needs to be some interaction/downside to the bonus, otherwise you may as well just give all Astartes 2+ armour (1+ for Termies).

Another option could be to enforce some kind of restriction on it. For example, if a unit is declared as a target of a shooting attack, they may choose to "brace themselves". For the remainder of the shooting phase, the unit receives +1 to saving throw rolls (excluding invulnerables). However, the unit may only Move half distance (rounding down) in their next Movement phase.

Or something like that.

-

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Superiour Ceramite:
Adeptus Astartes Infantry models ignore AP-1 and AP-2. However, they may never benefit from cover.

One of the reasons Marines are doing so poorly lately is their lack of survivability. Beta Bolters has boosted their shooting a bit, but their assault units still need some way to actually get to the fight.
This rule would turn them into the death-dealing battlefield monsters that they should be.

Their survivability is better this edition and you're literally wrong to say otherwise if you bothered to math it out.

They lost all offensive capability against even chaff units, which is the primary issue.

Marine survivability is junk because of the weight of fire that most armies can put out. Not to mention the fact that they are expensive for what they do. "Mathing it out" does not take into acct the sheer killing power of massed horde weapons and easy access to 2 wound or high AP weaponry. Any army that relies on elite, high pt models is suffering now due to the way the rules and armies are set up.

Eh I think the best solution to fixing marines is they reduce the AP of any weapon by 1. So ap 1 becomes 0, 2 becomes 1, 3 becomes 2 etc. This keeps them weak to massed fire out of cover, but reduces the power of say, plasma level weaponry against them. Doesn't punish any weapon type any more than another, but helps nudge their survive-ability a touch.

 LesPaul wrote:
Marine survivability is junk because of the weight of fire that most armies can put out. Not to mention the fact that they are expensive for what they do. "Mathing it out" does not take into acct the sheer killing power of massed horde weapons and easy access to 2 wound or high AP weaponry. Any army that relies on elite, high pt models is suffering now due to the way the rules and armies are set up.

Um...how does mathing it out not take that into account?
It shows the sheer difference of the two different AP systems.

Marines (as in power armor) cant be fixed or made viable with a patch. The game needs to be redesigned ground up as this involves revision of more than 10 codex (SM, BA, DA, SW, CSM, DG, TS, Sisters, admech, GK and more depending on how the balance turns out).

Jesus Christ. Pure SM just finished in the top 8 of LVO without beta bolters. Why do you want to add another buff before you've seen the reaction of the meta from the first and when SM are performing well?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus Christ. Pure SM just finished in the top 8 of LVO without beta bolters. Why do you want to add another buff before you've seen the reaction of the meta from the first and when SM are performing well?

6th edition Tyranids did well too!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus Christ. Pure SM just finished in the top 8 of LVO without beta bolters. Why do you want to add another buff before you've seen the reaction of the meta from the first and when SM are performing well?

What happens when you remove Bobby G?

 LesPaul wrote:
Marine survivability is junk because of the weight of fire that most armies can put out. Not to mention the fact that they are expensive for what they do. "Mathing it out" does not take into acct the sheer killing power of massed horde weapons and easy access to 2 wound or high AP weaponry. Any army that relies on elite, high pt models is suffering now due to the way the rules and armies are set up.

Did you read what you wrote? Their survivability becomes junk only when severally outnumbered? That is what it should be. Also keep reading what you wrote. They are expensive for what they do. Marines need more impact on the field not more survivability. Marines survive appropriately when stacked against every other unit in the game. It's not durability thats the issue. It's impact.

Oh yeah, make Marine ignore weapon that completely ignored their armor before, because that's a not a feth you to those units

I'm in the Marines need to be more killy, camp.

They're survivability is fine. But at the moment they're an army of pillow-fisted shock troops who should excel at close range fire fights but more often than not fail to kill half a squad of Guard even in rapid fire range.

What they need is Fury of the Emperor cut and pasted from 30k. Double shots with bolt weapons but have to reload next turn.

Up the melee power of almost everything somehow (always fights twice comes to mind...) and/or provide a stratagem that lets a unit charge 3d6 while you're at it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus Christ. Pure SM just finished in the top 8 of LVO without beta bolters. Why do you want to add another buff before you've seen the reaction of the meta from the first and when SM are performing well?

What happens when you remove Bobby G?

What happens to an Ork list when you remove Lootas? What happens to a TS list without Ahriman?

Every faction has its more competitive options. That said SM can, as it happens, function without Bobby G in the list.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus Christ. Pure SM just finished in the top 8 of LVO without beta bolters. Why do you want to add another buff before you've seen the reaction of the meta from the first and when SM are performing well?

What happens when you remove Bobby G?

What happens to an Ork list when you remove Lootas? What happens to a TS list without Ahriman?

Every faction has its more competitive options. That said SM can, as it happens, function without Bobby G in the list.

Sometimes a rules proposal isn't meant to fix a competitive issue, but rather an issue with how an army "feels" vs its fluff. To me, 15ppm Marines with 2W/2A would be ideal. A Marine isn't supposed to die as fast as a Guardsmen to D1 weapons, but they often do.
Making them harder to kill would solve the issue of them playing like expandable grunts, when they should be playing like linebreaking shock troops.

Their competitive issue would need to be address with both a durability boost and, more importantly, an offense boost (which the Bolter Discipline rule is a step int he right direction)

-

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus Christ. Pure SM just finished in the top 8 of LVO without beta bolters. Why do you want to add another buff before you've seen the reaction of the meta from the first and when SM are performing well?

What happens when you remove Bobby G?

What happens to an Ork list when you remove Lootas? What happens to a TS list without Ahriman?

Every faction has its more competitive options. That said SM can, as it happens, function without Bobby G in the list.

The difference is that Ahriman is a powerful single model with moderate buffs for his friends.

Bobby G completely warps SM, giving out truly massive buffs to nearby Ultramarines.

If Marines are made competitive WITHOUT him, they will be overpowered with him.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus Christ. Pure SM just finished in the top 8 of LVO without beta bolters. Why do you want to add another buff before you've seen the reaction of the meta from the first and when SM are performing well?

What happens when you remove Bobby G?

What happens to an Ork list when you remove Lootas? What happens to a TS list without Ahriman?

Every faction has its more competitive options. That said SM can, as it happens, function without Bobby G in the list.

So do you concede 6th Edition Tyranids being good because they had access to Flyrants?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Up the melee power of almost everything somehow (always fights twice comes to mind...) and/or provide a stratagem that lets a unit charge 3d6 while you're at it.

I agree with upping the damage potential of melee.

Shooting, while being powerful, should only serve as a stop-gap from getting things into melee. Melee should be a gory bloody hot mess.

Pistols should also go back to giving attacks in melee which I think could give SM to have a bit more of an edge in combat as they're one of the few units that come stock with pistol and additional ranged weapon.

I would like to make a serious statement, I do think it is relevant.

I personally feel that Custodians play the way I expect marines to play, although the major difference is that Custodians are geared for melee combat, where as Marines field all combat roles.

Custodes rules represent the way Marines are portrayed in the fluff, nearly impossible to take down, small elite units working together across a variety of roles to deliver damage to the enemy.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

In the fluff, it pointed out, they are godlike powerhouses who rush the enemy and use physical intimidation and brute force to murder smaller enemies and/or break their morale. All this is most effective up close.
However, currently Marines are mid-long range shooty armies. . . .

That's because a typical game of 40K doesn't feature marines fighting smaller enemies, instead they're often fighting hyper-elites and tanks. So, cover and firepower is a natural response.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus Christ. Pure SM just finished in the top 8 of LVO without beta bolters. Why do you want to add another buff before you've seen the reaction of the meta from the first and when SM are performing well?

What happens when you remove Bobby G?

What happens to an Ork list when you remove Lootas? What happens to a TS list without Ahriman?

Every faction has its more competitive options. That said SM can, as it happens, function without Bobby G in the list.

So do you concede 6th Edition Tyranids being good because they had access to Flyrants?

Nope, I simply ignored the statement because it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Bobby G makes other units perform better; he is a force multiplier. Not a single model beatstick. I’ll reiterate for those who missed it last time though - SM currently have multiple competitive builds that aren’t reliant on Bobby G and they do better mono than other factions that can only go mono. Before the buff that is bolter rules.

Given the eagerness to make SM better, I’m sure there’ll be a similar eagerness to support other factions that aren’t performing well? Weird that I get such a push back when I suggest buffs to my underperforming army.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus Christ. Pure SM just finished in the top 8 of LVO without beta bolters. Why do you want to add another buff before you've seen the reaction of the meta from the first and when SM are performing well?

What happens when you remove Bobby G?

What happens to an Ork list when you remove Lootas? What happens to a TS list without Ahriman?

Every faction has its more competitive options. That said SM can, as it happens, function without Bobby G in the list.

So do you concede 6th Edition Tyranids being good because they had access to Flyrants?

Nope, I simply ignored the statement because it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Bobby G makes other units perform better; he is a force multiplier. Not a single model beatstick. I’ll reiterate for those who missed it last time though - SM currently have multiple competitive builds that aren’t reliant on Bobby G and they do better mono than other factions that can only go mono. Before the buff that is bolter rules.

Given the eagerness to make SM better, I’m sure there’ll be a similar eagerness to support other factions that aren’t performing well? Weird that I get such a push back when I suggest buffs to my underperforming army.

Orks have a 47% win rate according to 40kstats, Space Marines have a 41% win rate, rising only to a 42% win rate when their soup potential gets taken into account. You get a pushback because you have a martyr complex that just doesn't pan out in the end. The only loyalist Marine Codices that manages a better win rate than Orks is Blood Angels souped (and we all know that's because of Slamguinius) and Deathwatch. Orks even do better than Chaos Space Marines (which is probably because people ally in TSons instead, but still). As far as I can see there's one list listed as "Adeptus Astartes" in the Top 100 of the LVO, compared to 4 Ork lists. You're staring yourself blind on the Top 8 results ignoring the fact that Nick Navati lost by a very slim margin.

What are the competetive builds that don't rely on Guilliman?

On a side note, is there anywhere I can get my hands on the final results of the LVO that doesn't involve using an app (my phone is oooooold....) and that isn't just a list of people's names and a faction that I don't know how it was decided?

I'm also in the "Make Marines more Killy" camp. A flat +1 Attack across the board for all units (except maybe characters) would make their choppy capabilities more viable, letting them play as a true jack-of-all-trades army. Give them some more mobility options to boot and buff some of the weaker Chapter Tactics to be in line with more recent ones, and I think we'd be viable.

+1 attack isn't big enough. You can double the attacks of every unit in the book and the only ones that might need toning down would be Ironclad Dreadnoughts. Berzerkers would be better than everything in melee except stuff like TH/SS Terminators since they're supposed to fight different targets, and how many Berzerkers have you seen competetively since the Alpha Legion nerf?

+1 attack and a stratagem to charge 3d6, on the other hand, would both increase the oomph a bit and allow a bunch of the really immobile stuff to actually get stuck in before the game ends. I guess this'd arguably fall under "mobility options".

For me, the easiest way to fix units like Tactical Marines is to either:

A. Lower their points cost. People don't mind units that are not that good when you can have more of them
B: Give them something to be "tactical" about. Look at the latest Stormcast release for example and allow the unit to pick a benefit for that turn - either re-roll 1's to hit or re-roll failed saves of a 1

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus Christ. Pure SM just finished in the top 8 of LVO without beta bolters. Why do you want to add another buff before you've seen the reaction of the meta from the first and when SM are performing well?

What happens when you remove Bobby G?

What happens to an Ork list when you remove Lootas? What happens to a TS list without Ahriman?

Every faction has its more competitive options. That said SM can, as it happens, function without Bobby G in the list.

So do you concede 6th Edition Tyranids being good because they had access to Flyrants?

Nope, I simply ignored the statement because it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Bobby G makes other units perform better; he is a force multiplier. Not a single model beatstick. I’ll reiterate for those who missed it last time though - SM currently have multiple competitive builds that aren’t reliant on Bobby G and they do better mono than other factions that can only go mono. Before the buff that is bolter rules.

Given the eagerness to make SM better, I’m sure there’ll be a similar eagerness to support other factions that aren’t performing well? Weird that I get such a push back when I suggest buffs to my underperforming army.

Orks have a 47% win rate according to 40kstats, Space Marines have a 41% win rate, rising only to a 42% win rate when their soup potential gets taken into account. You get a pushback because you have a martyr complex that just doesn't pan out in the end. The only loyalist Marine Codices that manages a better win rate than Orks is Blood Angels souped (and we all know that's because of Slamguinius) and Deathwatch. Orks even do better than Chaos Space Marines (which is probably because people ally in TSons instead, but still). As far as I can see there's one list listed as "Adeptus Astartes" in the Top 100 of the LVO, compared to 4 Ork lists. You're staring yourself blind on the Top 8 results ignoring the fact that Nick Navati lost by a very slim margin.

Lol at those misrepresented stats. Also I don't think you know what 'martyr' means.

SM win rate at LVO - 46%.
Ork win rate at LVO - 47%.

Top SM list placement at LVO - in top 8, 6th I believe?
Top Ork list placement at LVO - 16th.

Ork vs SM win rate - 30 odd percent.
SM vs Orks win rate - 60 odd perecent.

You're stats are false, which is why your conclusions are wrong. Blood Angels are actually one of the worst performing primary factions. Of course they do much better in soup armies.

What are the competetive builds that don't rely on Guilliman?

I can't be bothered to look them up and tell you but if you had access to the stats you'd realise that there are multiple sub factions in the Adeptus Astarte's codex that had a greater win percentage than Ultramarines. Reece also runs a list without Girlyman and he does very well.

Stop leaning on the tried and tested excuses. I know Black Templar's are awful and only get worse when played in a fluffy way as they're supposed to. My fluffy army is the same. Sometimes thems the breaks. You should ask GW to fix your sub faction, rather than 'fixing' SM who are performing much, much better than dakka would have you believe.

I propose a +6 fnp roll if the enemy weapon is str 4 or less. Maybe str 3 or less to specifically represent resilience to small arms fire. Str 4 would mean that marine armor is good at blocking bolters which they are not. Bolters were made to kill marines or so they say in the fluff...