The Power Armoured Troops thread, take 2: possible fixes

[Wargamer]

Well, let's stick with what I found.

 

Primaris are much more resilient to damage from single-wound sources, meaning they remain effective longer than vanilla Marines.

 

Vanilla are slightly better against weaker enemies (T3 5+, T3 4+ and T4 6+) but Primaris are slightly better against tougher foes (other Marines, Custodes, Terminators and Monsters).

 

The other thing I forgot to factor in was melee - Primaris are objectively better because they get 2 attacks, while Marines get 1 attack and a bolt pistol.

 

So on paper, there's no reason to use a basic Marine if you can use a Primaris instead. That's a good place to start.

[Beams]

 

 

 

Now, let's focus on solutions.

 

Did you miss mine? It is after all the solution FW used to make legion era squads of bolter-dudes work...

You'd need a massive price hike.

 

A sister of battle with a stormbolter is 11/12 pts, and does a lot of work for me. It's become a staple of sisters lists in general. However a 13 pt marine firing the same amount renders it pointless, and a 15 pt squad leader/special weapons marine firing rapid fire 4/8 is absolutely absurd and wrecks balance between the two. Likewise, giving a sister of battle (at 12 pts) rapid fire 4/8 is also way too strong, that's 4 basic Marines worth of shooting.

 

The only way it would work is if you were comparing a 12 pt rapid fire 2/4 to a 19+ pt rapid fire 4/8, and then youve already passed the glass cannon territory

Edited January 16, 2018 by Beams

[Wargamer]

From my personal tinkering, I think the core issues can be summarised as follows:

• Marines are too niche an alternative to Primaris - suitable only for engaging enemies who dump multiple wounds per hit (overcharged Hellblasters, Master Crafted weapons, etc).
• Even then, the Marines may not have the tools to deal with these enemies (Tac squads lacking raw firepower, Assault squads lacking combat punch, etc).
• Marines are too reliant on upgrades to bring value to the unit, relegating the rank and file to ablative wounds rather than true damage dealers

However, and this is an important thing to emphasise:

• Marines are weaker than Primaris in mathhammer, but not massively so.

So if we're focused on internal balance (which we shouldn't be, but some people don't like to admit the Emperor's Cannon Fodder is a better choice than the Emperor's Finest...), the main concern is what Tactical, Assault and Devastator squads are meant to bring to the table that Intercessors, Inceptors, Aggressors, Reivers and Hellblasters cannot.

 

There is also one thing that is really important to hammer home, given what's been revealed about the Custodes:

 

Quantity beats quality!

 

More shots is more cost-efficient than better shots, especially with the ever growing number of Invulnerable Saves (yes, we're back to that...).

Edited January 16, 2018 by Wargamer

[Claws and Effect]

I made a suggestion in the last thread that I think may have been overlooked.

 

Make Marine bolters Assault 2. That way they get 2 shots at full range. It also lets them fire after advancing, which is useful if you want an objective grabbing unit. Only Marine bolters though. It is logical that their enhanced strength let's them fire with reasonable accuracy on the move. Other factions don't have that benefit.

 

Storm bolters I would let double tap at full range if the unit didn't move. You're going to want to stand still going full auto with what is essentially a double barreled submachine gun.

 

Second, let any Marine replace their bolt pistol with a combat knife for 1 point. Why they don't have them already is a mystery to me, since they're supposed to keep the knife they got as a Scout for life. It gives players the option to effectively give their Marines an extra attack at the cost of making the squad 5-10 points more expensive. I would make it like jump packs and camo cloaks, the whole squad gets it or none do.

 

Last, make them S5. If a normal human is S3 and a Scout (no power armor) is S4, then it would be logical for them to be S5 since their armor enhances their strength further. And carry it across all Marines, regardless of faction. Make Orks S5 while you're at it. I've always seen the average Boy and the rank and file Marine as roughly even everywhere but shooting.

 

T4 is fine for power armor. T4 and a 4+ save vs T4 and a 3+ save is sufficient to display differences between Scout and power armor. And T3 and a 3+save shows that while a Sister's armor is just as strong the body inside it is less tough. I would consider making Terminators T5 though.

 

Out of all of those, the increased strength is the only thing I'm wary about. Vanguard with S5 lightning claws sound mean.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Claws and Effect

[Wargamer]

Replacing all Bolters with Assault Bolters might actually be the most straightforward fix.

[The Unseen]

Changing the basic marine stats won't happen, so I don't see a durability increase being doable. Likewise, you can't drop their points anymore than GW already has, because the relative cost of infantry models are already to scrunched up.

We already have 10 and 11 pt semi elite infantry models, there is no more design space that direction.

 

Unfortunately with the new primaris marines, I doubt any attempt to make bolters better would work. And I mean all the bolt weapons for marines, save the assault bolters the inceptors carry, hurricane bolters, and maybe storm bolters.

Bolters, the 3 basic ones the intercessors carry, heavy bolters, bolt pistols, they all need some boost to make them attractive again. Because currently they just don't have the shot # to be good, whether old school marines or primaris have the same problem, they don't put out enough shots per model.

 

And it can't be a strategem, marines dont have the CP to burn to make their troop units do a bit more damage. If your spending cp to make your troops better, but you only bring troops to get more cp...

Just bring more elites.

 

I like the "marine bolter weapons get +1 shots within half range" idea.

It buffs the small arms all about the same amount, giving a 50% damage increase within rapid fire range, while giving heavy bolters an aggressive bonus of +1 shot within 18, while hurricane, storm, and assault bolters receive a much smaller increase comparatively.

 

And I think giving marines access to combat blades makes sense from both a fluff and mechanic perspective.

Tactical marines are supposed to be good at both shooting and assaulting, right now their mediocre at one, and actually bad at the other.

+1 attack would go a long way towards making them the flexible unit we want them to be.

That does mean assault marines would need a buff, but I mean, they kinda need it already. I haven't seen an assault marine in 8th yet.

 

+1 wound steps on primaris to much, and warrants to much of a price increase.

 

Giving the tactical squad more specials and heavies just exacerbates the feeling that the bolter dudes do nothing except catch bullets, and also makes dev squads pointless, breaks with fluff that's literally older than a lot of people on this forum, it's a bad idea all around.

Edited January 16, 2018 by The Unseen

[chapter master 454]

So a key thing at least we have managed to settle upon is that something is wrong with tacticals, however what is wrong is what was in the air and being debated. Did enjoy that thread but this one I think has potential to at least give us some insights.

 

So lets look at what we have and assess some items.

First is the popular punching bag and current new guy in the yard: Primaris marines. These boys came in like Cato Sicarius: from nowhere and largely have had nothing 'wrong' with them developed. The largest wrong against them is that the original marines feel like this is tampering with the Emperors, including some traitor marines even commenting such strangely enough. These marines however brought something to the game most have had as a recurring statement as far as I can see: "They feel like real marines". This is a statement regarding their ability to take a hit and keep on truck which in turn does not originate from nothing more than 1 stat change. Their wounds. Nothing else is different that would affect this as even at 1 attack they would still be given this feedback. This rather strong evidence is currently reinforced in the game however it may be there is another factor at work here that is also mentioned enough to be a big point: we are the measuring stick. In fact of all comparisons MEQ is the one that everyone puts as the gold standard of weaponry. If it can't put down an MEQ ether by quantity or quality it is then considered not so great unless there is another factor to the weapon (such as lascannons). So are Primaris feeling like "Real Marines" because Marines in warhammer are, ironically, the "Human Standard". If this is the case then it may just be that because of marines being the standard then we don't really feel like they are any good despite possibly being excellent.

 By all accounts their stat line is strong, having T4 with a 3+ save is pretty good all things considered especially when we talk about other units within marine armies; Vanguard, Sternguard, Captains, Devastators and the like all seem to have much higher regards from players which thus this evidence gives credit that we may be of been attacking the wrong question. So if that is the case and 'old marines' are good then what role do primaris serve if not "just better" marines, well the answer to that is what they doing now: being bulky vanguards who take a licking keep on ticking. While it may seem old marines can't keep up, they can because of their far greater range of options which then now brings me round to my big point for the sore point unit, the tactical squad: Identity.

 

What is a tactical squad? According to lore these are the marines who have finished their duty in the scout company, devastator company then finally the assault company to finally be promoted to a tactical marine within ether one of the 2 tactical reserves or even to a battle company. They are by all accounts veterans of all aspects of war: stealth, ranged and CQC (Close Quarter Combat) and thus are meant to be a unit that no matter their position on a battlefield they will be able to handle themselves without question. However within game this is sadly not the case. Most tactical squads are used ether as bulk frontline troops to take the brunt force of an assault or quickly become relegated to babysitting a lone heavy weapon with boltguns being largely unused for most parts of the game. This could lead to why Primaris have been viewed favourably by many regarding their introduction which is when deployed as these straight up squads meant to advance on a position they are effective at it due to their more durable stat of wounds coming into play. They aren't BETTER than tactical marines but simply better at what tacticals were being deployed as. So now the question would be then what are tacticals meant to do?

 Currently this can't be answered completely without having some other unit fill the position better. Primaris give us a much better objective holding unit due to be hard to shift being their main benefit (even with AP1 on their guns, their offensive power still doesn't get much higher than tacticals). Scouts are strong disruption with being able to show up wherever needed without a transport and thus form a good flanking/dagger unit that while not as durable gains ground by forcing firepower onto them or suffer huge losses to being hamstrung from being struck in a vulnerable flank. Tacticals simply aren't tactical enough. Their war gear choice is the flattest of all units and makes them appear more or less like a less good devastator squad or the like. A unit that brings 3 points of options with each point of option being a unique choice thus leads to a squad without coherent focus but this wouldn't be an issue if you could add more to them.

 

Tacticals are the marines swis army knife, a tool for everything but while not perfect for it can be pushed to that role and be effective. Why are they limited to one heavy weapon? Why one special weapon? Why no Chainswords? These were tools they are all acustomed to and know how to use (except special weapons, where does that training occur in their service?) These tactical marines aren't tactical and are more or less still stock tacticals even with their current options added.

 

My thoughts still stand as it is:

Squads at set to 10, no choice.

2 special weapon options

2 heavy weapon options

Sergeant gets 2 options of wargear on top of having Boltgun, Bolt Pistol and Chainsword by default

5 chainsword options (replacing their boltgun with a chainsword).

[Saxxon the Dragoon]

I think one thing that would fix a majority of marine problems is giving them different bolter options in the way Primaris have 3 different bolt options in addition to having bolt pistols.

 

Stalker pattern bolters as standard issue for +1 point each.

Standard bolter at current state.

Assault bolter, 18" range but with assault 2 profile. +1 point each.

 

Sergeant weapon list as is, and the squad can take a special weapon (melta,plasma or flamer) in squads of 5, and at squads of 10 you can take either 2 special or 2 heavy weapons.

 

Compared to Primaris, the intercessors are just better costed and more versatile with their bolt rifles, 2 attack standard and 2 wounds a pop, not to mention the grenade launchers. Give marines a similar option for tactical marines and things become more reasonable for the current price point. Though this would have an effect on sternguard, what you could do is give stenguard the option to field the whole squad with special weapons (sergeant an 4 sternguard all with plasma guns or melta guns and such) AND give them the stalker bolter as standard issue with the option to use special ammo (similar to deathwatch now have) so that way sternguard arent completely moved into irrelevance.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Saxxon the Dragoon

[totgeboren]

 

 

Now, let's focus on solutions.

Did you miss mine? It is after all the solution FW used to make legion era squads of bolter-dudes work...

You'd need a massive price hike.

 

A sister of battle with a stormbolter is 11/12 pts, and does a lot of work for me. It's become a staple of sisters lists in general. However a 13 pt marine firing the same amount renders it pointless, and a 15 pt squad leader/special weapons marine firing rapid fire 4/8 is absolutely absurd and wrecks balance between the two. Likewise, giving a sister of battle (at 12 pts) rapid fire 4/8 is also way too strong, that's 4 basic Marines worth of shooting.

 

The only way it would work is if you were comparing a 12 pt rapid fire 2/4 to a 19+ pt rapid fire 4/8, and then youve already passed the glass cannon territory

 

 

I did develop the idea slightly. Or, I simply copied the whole FW rule, instead of only the good parts.

Fire twice (only with bolter weapons!), but if you do, you can't fire for a whole turn. So over two turns they have the same firepower as now. It also would not affect special/heavy weapons, which is the primary reason anyone takes Tacticals in the first place anyway. The idea was to give Tacticals something that makes you have some use of the bolter dudes, and not just see them as tax.

It works great in 30k, (with many thousands of games of playtesting!) but I suspect it could be a bit too potent in 40k. We have issues enough with alpha strikes, so perhaps something else would be better.

Edited January 16, 2018 by totgeboren

[Schlitzaf]

If Marines can get Bolter/Chain, I want my Crusaders to get Bolter/Chain or atleast have the option for Bolter/Chain. Furthermore any change on the Marine basic loadout is honestly a non-starter for me.

 

Espacially for me, is some of these changes be better served by running ‘Veterans’ as Troops. Want Marines with Two Attack and Cool Bolter? You have Sterngaurd. Replacing Cool Bolter Bolter with another weapon no longer results in ‘Bolter Tax’ in this addition. Sense the Sterngaurd without Cool Bolter is 16 Points like every other SM veteran in game. Given how often I see folks lamenting “I have too few models I lose my objective to conscripts/gaunts/etc” is losing ObSec that big of a deal?

 

The biggest loss is the 2 CP from Battlelion over Vangaurd. Which I admit is a rather big trade off. But for Scouts exist for avoiding Tactical ‘Tax’. Words. All I am trying to say a lot these suggested buffs are trying to make Tactical Marines into SM Elite Units offensively. Or trying to up defensive abilit of Marines to make them immune to practical small arms.

 

1) Won’t Help. Strike Squads are SM Elites (Vangaurd with StormBolter) already. A Vangaurd with PowSword and Jump is 22 Point and Company Vet with PowSword and StormBolter is 22. A Strike with Falchion and StormBolter is 21, Deep Strike Naturally.

2) There is someone sitting across the table is the biggest issue. Imagining how infuriating it would be to sit across from that army? Primaris Units lack any non-character with more than 2 wounds. Folks response to the Custodians I think will be telling.

 

Well that’s my piece. “Shrug”. On people returning to wound and chainsword. I think turning Bolter to Assault 2 is honestly a solid suggestion in addition to everything else. (Bolter Stances honestly could be something cool)

 

——

I think will bow out of this discussion because I feel like my thoughts and topic are unreconcilable

Edited January 16, 2018 by Schlitzaf

[Saxxon the Dragoon]

If Marines can get Bolter/Chain, I want my Crusaders to get Bolter/Chain or atleast have the option for Bolter/Chain. Furthermore any change on the Marine basic loadout is honestly a non-starter for me.

 

Espacially for me, is some of these changes be better served by running ‘Veterans’ as Troops. Want Marines with Two Attack and Cool Bolter? You have Sterngaurd. Replacing Cool Bolter Bolter with another weapon no longer results in ‘Bolter Tax’ in this addition. Sense the Sterngaurd without Cool Bolter is 16 Points like every other SM veteran in game. Given how often I see folks lamenting “I have too few models I lose my objective to conscripts/gaunts/etc” is losing ObSec that big of a deal?

 

The biggest loss is the 2 CP from Battlelion over Vangaurd. Which I admit is a rather big trade off. But for Scouts exist for avoiding Tactical ‘Tax’. Words. All I am trying to say a lot these suggested buffs are trying to make Tactical Marines into SM Elite Units offensively. Or trying to up defensive abilit of Marines to make them immune to practical small arms.

 

1) Won’t Help. Strike Squads are SM Elites (Vangaurd with StormBolter) already. A Vangaurd with PowSword and Jump is 22 Point and Company Vet with PowSword and StormBolter is 22. A Strike with Falchion and StormBolter is 21, Deep Strike Naturally.

2) There is someone sitting across the table is the biggest issue. Imagining how infuriating it would be to sit across from that army? Primaris Units lack any non-character with more than 2 wounds. Folks response to the Custodians I think will be telling.

 

Well that’s my piece. “Shrug”. On people returning to wound and chainsword. I think turning Bolter to Assault 2 is honestly a solid suggestion in addition to everything else. (Bolter Stances honestly could be something cool)

 

——

I think will bow out of this discussion because I feel like my thoughts and topic are unreconcilable

I would absolutely love to have Trust Your Battle Brothers back. Getting True Grit and being able to take Bolters and Chainswords was amazing for tactic squads. Being able to go toe to toe with banshees at their own game was wonderful. I think thats one way to make space marines shine as being well versed in both CQC and heavy weapons. Unfortunately when 5th edition came out they pushed that entirely to the Grey Knights, who are already superior space marines. And now that we have Primaris, which are superior superior space marines, it seems like the effects of TYBB is effectively built into their stat line with +1 wound.

 

If they were to introduce a chapter tactic like Trust Your Battle Brothers that allowed your whole chapter to field tacticals with Bolters and Chainswords would do a lot to make tactical squads actually useful.

[Wargamer]

So here's an idea:

 

Tactical Squads receive Assault Bolters instead of Bolters. No changes in cost.

Devastator Squads either a) receive Stalker Bolters or b) have the option of buying Stalker Bolters.

Assault / Crusader Squads either a) receive heavy bolt pistols or b) have the option of buying heavy bolt pistols.

 

So, what impact would this have?

1) Tac Squads are more mobile and have more dakka at "long" range.

2) Dev squads have more long-range firepower.

3) Assault squads get a close range shooting / cc buff.

 

4) None of this requires modifying existing statlines of anything.

[Schlitzaf]

Before I bow completely; why can’t Crusaders and Hunters get AssaultBolters?

[Wargamer]

Before I bow completely; why can’t Crusaders and Hunters get AssaultBolters?

Because I haven't looked at these guys at all, that's all. Don't really want to suggest changes to a unit without at least a cursory investigation.

[Beta galactosidase]

I would like to see bolter-marines being a bit more powerful/useful, and it would be interesting to see what would happen if Marines of all flavours were allowed to fire bolters, the bolter-part of combi-weapons/bolters, storm bolters and bolt pistols twice every shooting phase?

 

At first it sounds like it would be way to powerful, but when you think about it, few use those weapons for anything other than pot shots. They don't even really work as anti-infantry weapons due to there being so few shots. The core marine squads (Tacs,Assault/Devastator) are all about the special/heavy weapons, and sometimes Sgts/Champions with special close combat weapons. The base dudes should really contribute more than just being ablative wounds.

I really like the direction, I think marines with current armament and better rules for it is important vs. adding chainswords etc., or even imaginary equipment like special bolt rounds. The rules for the PA squads as they are, with all current models and options, just need to get better. So deschenus, that applies to several of the options in the OP.

 

I do also worry that having better bolter shooting is only so helpful when so many important units in the game are not good targets for bolters.

 

 

I made a suggestion in the last thread that I think may have been overlooked.

 

Make Marine bolters Assault 2. That way they get 2 shots at full range. It also lets them fire after advancing, which is useful if you want an objective grabbing unit. Only Marine bolters though. It is logical that their enhanced strength let's them fire with reasonable accuracy on the move. Other factions don't have that benefit.

Yeah, the effect is really good and I appreciate that. I say that instead of it being a "marine only bolter" the effect should come from power armor. E.g. " a model wearing power armor may fire it's bolter as assault 2." I think that helps to avoid being outcompeted by scout spam. Given the position of sisters of battle, it is not a problem that they could get it.

[Wargamer]

Or you can avoid all that confusion and give them one of the two assault 2 bolters already in their Codex...

[Deschenus Maximus]

You mean the auto bolt rifle, I think. The assault bolter is the gun the Inceptors have.

 

I kinda like that idea, though it unfortunately means using Plasmaguns will prevent them from capitalising on their assault weapons.

[Captain Idaho]

We seem to have a few schools of thought regarding fixes:

 

- Some folk want wargear amendments.

 

- Some folk want stat changes.

 

- Some folk (myself championing it so take that as objective as you like ;) ) want Stratagems amended and changes linked to that (CP generation etc).

 

Let me know if there's an element/faction amongst us I've missed.

 

Now, here's why I believe the 1st two are not workable (and therefore my subjective position is right!):

 

- Wargear amendments - multi book changes potentially. Whilst we can say that this is Space Marines specific element, Imperial Space Marines are linked across at least 4 books; Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves in addition to Codex Space Marines. This is impractical as it required balance between additional internal elements - Assault Marines, Blood Claws, Primaris, Scouts...

 

- Stat Changes - this is massive. Just in Codex Space Marines it's got a problem of all those other units. Centurions, Sternguard, Terminators, Primaris of all stripes. Let alone all those other books such as Death Guard, Chaos Marines, Thousand Sons, Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves. Sheesh!

 

Now why would GW even entertain such changes? Are we going to write an email? We can do so individually but I'll tell you now that if your email suggests we change 6 or more books then you'll be lucky if they finish reading it.

 

Stratagems is a simple fix to an army as it only affects that army. CP generation is a single amended rule.

 

That's why I came to favour this fix.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Well, stratagems can be looked at when the SM Codex gets redone, but it seems unlikely to happen for some time.

 

Truly, the only thing we can reasonably expect to change in a short-ish timeframe is point costs, given that GW has already committed to looking at those at least once annually. It may not be anyone's preferred solution but its better than nothing.

[micahwc]

Give them a bolter drill rule, where regular bolters and the bolter part of a combi-weapon are treated as assault 2. Make it a rule on the marines to represent their increased training and ability over say a battle sister with a similar bolter, or an inquisitional acolyte with a bolter.

[Trevak Dal]

Sisters of Battle aren't genehanced super soldiers, they are women in bootleg power armor.

 

I know this will be...unpopular, but sisters should get "battle sister power armor" which would be 4+, and keep the standard Bolter profile, with all marines becoming Primaris statline.

 

Because marines are super soldiers and I'd like them to feel more like it. One of the Miniwargaming guys (Steve, the "gaming mountain") had a game where he and his buddy played a "storm eagle down" scenario where all marines used captain or chaos Lord stats. The chaos player had lots of...forge world chaos guard/cultists/whatever and few chaos marines (he did have like 20 in a kharibdis)

 

Now they obviously did some tweeking so they weren't "well you can't shoot at this guy because he is a character " noise that would bog the game down, but it was cool.

 

I don't want it THAT extreme, but if all MEQs got a Primaris statline (+1 wound and +1 attack) with Primaris also gaining +1 wound and attack, I'd be cool with it.

 

Now, I'm biased because I want 2 wound 3 attack base khorne Berserkers (who can attack twice, with chainswords hitting with potentially 8 attacks each at strength 5) and Grey Knight Strike squads swinging with 2 attacks base with 2 wounds.

 

That said Idaho's idea of strategem specific changes would be better and more balanced for all.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Trevak Dal

[Beams]

Sisters of Battle aren't genehanced super soldiers, they are women in bootleg power armor.

 

I know this will be...unpopular, but sisters should get "battle sister power armor" which would be 4+, and keep the standard Bolter profile, with all marines becoming Primaris statline.

 

Because marines are super soldiers and I'd like them to feel more like it. One of the Miniwargaming guys (Steve, the "gaming mountain") had a game where he and his buddy played a "storm eagle down" scenario where all marines used captain or chaos Lord stats. The chaos player had lots of...forge world chaos guard/cultists/whatever and few chaos marines (he did have like 20 in a kharibdis)

 

Now they obviously did some tweeking so they weren't "well you can't shoot at this guy because he is a character " noise that would bog the game down, but it was cool.

 

I don't want it THAT extreme, but if all MEQs got a Primaris statline (+1 wound and +1 attack) with Primaris also gaining +1 wound and attack, I'd be cool with it.

 

Now, I'm biased because I want 2 wound 3 attack base khorne Berserkers (who can attack twice, with chainswords hitting with potentially 8 attacks each at strength 5) and Grey Knight Strike squads swinging with 2 attacks base with 2 wounds.

 

That said Idaho's idea of strategem specific changes would be better and more balanced for all.

It's not bootleg power armor, it's fully functional admech and order pronatus approved power armor, and it deserves the 3+.

 

If you want to give the Marines a second wound, fine that works, but don't equate sisters armor with carapace because you don't know the lore. If anything, sisters gear is better than the mass produced space marine gear, just take a look at their jetpacks: small and elegant but capable of lifting a power armored woman as opposed to the bulky and inefficient "we strapped two hey engines to their back" space Marines jet packs.

[totgeboren]

Stratagems is a simple fix to an army as it only affects that army. CP generation is a single amended rule.

 

That's why I came to favour this fix.

 

I too like the idea (I also think I was the first one to voice the '+1 CP for a full 10-man Tac' in the previous thread), especially since it is so easy for GW to implement, but though it might make SM armies that contain Tacs a bit better, it doesn't make Tacs better. They are still outclassed in combat against almost everything, both defensively and offensively. It's not really a satisfactory fix, in the same way that a big points drop is not really a satisfactory fix. Dropping the points is simply accepting that marines are not that elite after all. I think many want marines to feel kinda elite, and +1 CP in no way fixes that.

[Beta galactosidase]

We seem to have a few schools of thought regarding fixes:

 

- Some folk want wargear amendments.

 

- Some folk want stat changes.

 

- Some folk (myself championing it so take that as objective as you like ) want Stratagems amended and changes linked to that (CP generation etc).

 

Let me know if there's an element/faction amongst us I've missed.

Yes there is one. I'd like main rulebook changes to boost all infantry. That includes PA squads and PA squads' best targets, which they don't see enough of.

 

Now why would GW even entertain such changes? Are we going to write an email?

There was a good post about this in a different thread. GW would entertain changes if you said "I want to use more tactical squads in armies and still have a powerful army" "I want to play against armies that have more tactical squads and still have a hard time." That's much more important than making a suggestion and hoping we have guessed correctly what they would and wouldn't want to do.

[Captain Idaho]

Well yes we can't dictate to GW but feedback and casual suggestions won't break the bank.

 

Regarding Tactical Marines not feeling Mariney enough; there is game balance to consider. I'm happy with how the game works generally. 8th is mostly balanced. It's the little things that need boosting to taste the flavour of the army.