The Power Armoured Troops thread, take 2: possible fixes

[chapter master 454]

So what is the goal of fixes here? Because it is a rather broad thing to discuss but also we must ask how radical or simple must the fixes be?

 

Regarding something I still hate is disparity of wargear options between chapters let alone imperial forces which is just ascine and I was happy to see the Crusader come to general marine use with the Templars getting told off for it by such a move. This needs to be done to all chapters bar space wolfs really, they are the only ones truly saying "screw you gulliman and your book" where as the rest fell in line. Why did the blood angels horde the Baal predator? I know we have the Infernus but that's just a knock-off baal with more steps needed and even a flagrant flying in the face of lore as it literally showed the mechanicus making a better tank than the Baal that I believe is equally easy to build (only benefit to the Baal is being an original STC). Blood Angels deserved to get hammered for literally holding onto it for NO REASON. "Oh hey, this could benefit EVERYONE if they had. na, lets be pompous borderline treason boys and NOT SHARE VALUABLE RESOURCES".

Don't mind them having unique hand versions of flamers and meltaguns, that was a thing for them and is neat but to horde a variant of the predator all space marines could of benefited from is plain treason against the Emperor really.

Ahem...salty rant regarding the Baal predator done. Onwards and back on topic.

 

Wargear options is possibly the smallest alteration we can make to units and I agree with the idea of Assault Marines changing role depending on if they have Jump packs or not. Gives marines a troop choice that can get up in the opponents face and not be a joke (like current tacticals are). From there, I would say some wargear alterations would benefit greatly for marines. Tacticals and assault should have access to all special weapons and in decent numbers. Assaults only get 2 special weapons where as tacticals get 4 (but no heavy weapons). From there the options should be varied, I would love to see the options being:
Flamer

Meltagun

Plasmagun

Grav-gun

Astartes Grenade Launcher

 

Yes, the grenade launcher in my opinion is a special weapon that marines could do with as it has a very unique role. Look at the special weapons and tell me, which does what? Flamer is close range anti-infantry. Meltagun is close range tank hunting. Plasma is heavy infantry/light armour answer. Grav handily kicks heavy infantry in the butt quite nicely (plasma having to overcharge does mean grav can deal with these targets safer). There is no Anti-infantry weapon at range and the grenade launcher would allow tacticals to be effective anti-infantry unit plus having the option of the krak grenades for harder targets (due to versatility, costs possibly the most). Why marines don't have more common use of this weapon is beyond me.

 

From there, Assaults who don't take jump packs are allowed the first 3 in my list but with jump packs only flamer and meltagun (lore and game balance, don't want them just becoming jumping plasma snipers). This would give assaults nice choices and you can even still let them have unique weapon choices (like the big chainsword for every 5 marines).

 

Of the changes, these are the least radical to the game on the whole as we are not changing stats or points but only subtle things. This could even see horde armies being less of an issue as now marines would have a much more common answer to such tactics (rapid firing grenade launchers!)

[Schlitzaf]

An anecdote is an argument because it provides evidence in defenses of X. But frankly? If you think Scouts are so much better than Assault Marines (and half of these posts simply want to turn Tacticals into Assault Marines), or trying to steal other Units gimmicks (which I harp on because they are what make those armies unique). And why talk Assault Marines? First of all they are cheaper. Two Points might seem small but that at 8 man that is 9th dude. And Vangaurd are generally loaded up on power weapons and more. And Scouts? Scouts are bully not a line unit.

 

Assault Marines are line units while Vangaurd are Hammers and Scouts are Bully. You take Assault Marines in mass and even if they are same squad size. Let us say 8 man for simplicity sake. That 16 Points is 2 PlasmaPistols (or 1 PlasmaGun in Rapid) and half way to a PowSword. You take 4-5 Assault Marine Squads and drop them in mass on the enemy. 616 Points for 32 Power Armor Models and 12 PlasmaGun. For context an MSU Double Special Sword Tactical, 97 Points comes out to 388 if throw in a 5th we get 495 or essentially paying a Tactical Squad worth of guys different for

 

12 PlasPistols vs 20 PlasmaGun Shots in Rapid

A delivery system enabling you start on field

7 More Wounds

20 Pistol Pistols + 56 STR 4 Melee Attacks vs 30 Bolter Shots + 16 STR 4 Melee Attacks

Same number of PowSword Attacks

All of the low cost of a Tactical Squad

You lose 8 Plasma but gain 30 more Shots. 1 Plasma squares to 3 Attacks (4 if overcharged). So raw damage potential you lose is very little. Except you can keep shooting in Melee combat. But even without the packs your only paying 70 more points for extra wounds. And it’s not like losing too much cause same effective range. Yell math all you want. Just as with the Gaurdsman example, there is not simply one variable.

[Karack Blackstone]

 

 

Flamer

Meltagun

Plasmagun

Grav-gun

Astartes Grenade Launcher

 

These options, when limited to 2 for Assault and 4 for Tactical, seems sound. The overall point however is that, yes, there are quick fixes, and long term fixes; the balance of the two is the single hardest part of all this, isn't it?

I personally love the idea of more wounds for non-Primaris; the true issue is, of course, that, given that change, what else changes within the full range of the game?

 

Personally, instead of just Astartes Grenade Launchers, I'd go with Astartes Auxiliary Grenade Launchers on as many boltguns as possible. That would, however, become expensive, points wise, and is, to type it, an idealized unit concept on my part.

 

On the Assault Marine performance when compared to Vanguard Veteran, the issue is, Vanguards are not an option across the board. That said, there is the issue that, basic Assault Marines are cheaper, and able to perform, as well, just, not as well as Vanguards when they are able to deal with their proper Rock-Paper-Scissor unit that they best counter.

 

There are indeed options; the Heavy and Special weapons ideas seem the fastest to provide short term fixes. The long term one however, is how to get Space Marines overall into a better place, and what to give other armies, to achieve that new point of balance. I do like the idea of getting normal Marines turned into mini-Primaris; that said, is that fair, without every other Codex out there not getting at least a points revisit?

[kombatwombat]

This needs to be done to all chapters bar space wolfs really, they are the only ones truly saying "screw you gulliman and your book" where as the rest fell in line.

Those are some fighting words there buddy. I can think of a sizeable faction of people on this board who would like to discuss that view with you over a nice, tall glass of chainsword :P

 

(Seriously though, half of the Black Templars’ identity is their refusal to follow Guilliman’s dishrag, the other half being ZEAL. GW’s deplorable decision to yank their Codex out from under them and square-peg-round-hole them into the vanilla Codex doesn’t change that lore.)

 

To those saying if Space Marines get a boost to the Primaris profile then you’d have to hand a boost to other races, why exactly? If Power Armoured infantry are under performing relative to other infantry, you don’t close the gap by powering up both the PA and other infantry.

 

If it’s a case of ‘why are Space Marines special enough to get 2 wounds/attacks on their basic infantry?’, well the lore kind of backs that up. I can’t think of any race - Custodes aside - that could out-muscle and out-toughen up a Power Armoured Astartes physically. Small Tyranid bugs certainly can’t, Genestealers are fast and have sharp claws but can’t take a hit like an Astartes can, Tau aren’t any tougher or better armoured than well-equipped humans, Eldar are quick but rely on not getting hit at all rather than shrugging off damage, Necrons aren’t ripping hatches off tank hulls with their bare hands and their durability comes from hard armour and being able to repair themselves rather than walking off grievous injury. The only other race that might justify a 2 wound profile is an Ork, but even then, cut off an Ork’s arm and it’s just as debilitated as a human. Cut off an Astartes’ arm and he’ll just keep hitting you with the other one. The bigger, tougher Orks are a different story, but then again Ork Nobs already have 2 wounds so that kinda works.

 

Provided you balance points accordingly - which has been shown to be doable with Primaris Marines - bumping Marines to 2W / 2A doesn’t necessitate changes to other races.

[chapter master 454]

The main question regarding marines is to do with the fact that they aren't just ONE army. When we talk space marines we refer to what amounts to 3, 4 possibly even 5 codexes that all fall under the same umbrella. You talk tyranids, 1 codex. You talk imperial guard, 1 codex. You talk Daemons, 1 codex. The moment you then talk power armour the amount of codexes that exist suddenly jump to an unwieldy number which then comes around to what most of us are having an issue grappling with. The least invasive is the wargear path but is considered a band-aid for the symptom and not the cause however when you alter the marines, you now have 5 different books that all take ramifications from it.

 

To this end I would put it that assuming that marines are the benchmark is the issue. Setting guardsman as the benchmark is a much better analogue than setting a super human to it. Among races the humanoid races all seem to share a similar stat line across the board, notice that the standard Tau, Eldar, Kroot and even orks closely resemble the Human stat line of Strength 3, Toughness 3 and wound 1. This indicates that this is the baseline that we should be working from not marines because they themselves are an altered baseline. We should measure from those baselines, not "augmented". This would help in curing the issue as now instead of measuring against marines we measure against a normal man.

 

So by that token we could assess proper margins as we now have baselines across each race.

 

Human: M6", S3, T3, W1

Eldar: M7", S3, T3, W1

Ork: M6", S3, T4, W1

 

We now have the average, the nimble and the bruiser. These are the standards of the universe. From there we can chart what everything should measure up to and how it should measure. This does mean that to an extent people are correct. A marine should possible look like this:

 

Marine: M6", S4, T4, W2

 

As this represents a human heightened to super human levels (which we can see is straight up +1 across the board except for movement).

So what would a Primaris look like then? These are meant to be stronger, Tougher marines who just keep on trucking however I feel the alteration is as such

 

Primaris: M6", S5, T5, W2

 

This may surprise some as many might consider primaris up for W3 treatment but I contend that in lore this represents their new organs nicely. They are still beyond a marine but yet still show signs of where it came from. However many might say these guys are making plague marines look bad but in that case plague marines are just short on the Strength stat as in that case they would look like thus

 

Plague marine: M6", S4, T5, W2

 

Which fits with their lore.

From there the question of Custodes could be answered in 2 ways however due to where they come from and who they are, I would consider them thus:

 

Custodes: M6", S4, T4, W3

 

That statline is from the idea of them being made from much more powerful stock giving them greater staying power that equals that of heroes who can take hits and keep rolling onwards.

My omission of the other stats (leadership, attacks and the skill stats) is because those are more tied to the training of the warrior, not their physical being. You can't train the ability to take a hit, however you can gain a fortitude of pushing through them (as if you are ignoring it) and thus we would arrive at more accurate statlines.

However it could be argued that this may not fix things but I believe it may be one of those fundamentals that needs visited, questioned and fixed and thus I believe that is the fix people are seeking. It isn't about changing stats at the core, it's changing the measuring stick because marines are a poor measuring stick to begin with as they are augmented and thus are beyond the normal where as human stats are the base, the lowest level of physical warrior you can find within the universe in the greatest number (look to Tau and Eldar, Kroot and so on) and we see that the base line should of been the most common thing in the universe.

 

I wonder if that may help others see solutions. Maybe I talked a load of drivle but I hope something made sense.

[Guest]

I think it was Jarl who typed it up first.

 

As a thought, 3 W and 3 A base Prmaris, still at S 4, T 4, would become Lite Custodes. If the orginal idea is kept, then Primaris remain the same.

 

Cawl again somehow makes a mini-Primaris set of implants that get normal Marines up to Primaris stats, and the points change in cost. Suddenly, Tac’s, Intercessors, Scouts, and what not just allow different model sizes, and close to similar wargear options. As the original idea seemed to go for, roll Tac’s and Intercessors into a single unit, allowing Tac’s the more specialized boltgun types, and Intercessor to get any combination of up to 2 Heavy or 2 Special Ranged guns, or, 1 and 1 as right now.

 

If this change is fluffed out correctly, this makes pretty solid play and fluff sense, depending on the final result. If C/SM can take either a combat Knife or Chainsword, then they suddenly becaome a much greater force on the tabletop. The only concern I have is the points costing for Primaris seems high, but, I am not GW.

 

Edit:

 

I will add, that I am debating making a post on the Facebook Warhammer 40,000 page, with the following idea as one of the two I will type up:

 

"Hello GW,

 

Please consider the following as food for thought: Cawl invents a mini-Primaris set of implants that improve the normal Space Marines, granting them the same Attacks and Wounds characteristics as Primaris. Through this, no models will ever be invalidated, points can adjust as needed, be the final cost 16 or 18 points per model, and, when the likely event of Primaris and other Space Marines fall to Chaos, or, Fabius Bile figures this one out too, Chaos gets the same treatment, too."

 

Or, something to that effect; I really like this idea, and if I may, the concept of keeping the Primaris where they are, and boosting normal Marines to become just miniature model-wise Primaris, seems the best long term solution, as far as the options go thus far. Wargear can be handwaved; rifling can very easily increase range when done right, let alone making the miniature specialized boltgun types for the new mini-Primaris would be relatively simple down that path.

 

So, if it needs to be typed up, my second point in the planned WH40K FB post is, Chaos needs some new model loving, to say it. I play Space Wolves, and have no plans to ever play Chaos. That said, Chaos really needs to get some new model sculpts, especially with the overall improvements the Loyalist range of Marines has gotten over the past few editions, starting with 5th Ed.

 

Thoughts please? More on number one, the stuff in quotes.

 

I am going to hope you were talking to me, otherwise I am about to make a fool of myself. Jarl is a title, so a few people have it in their names.

 

I originally called out for 2W/2A, the 3W/3A came about when talking about Primaris Terminators. I imagine a SM Terminator would be much closer to a non-termie custodes in power. 

 

SM already have a huge range of units, massive in fact. We can consolidate this by removing tactical and intercessors and simply making them Primaris Tacticals. Now Primaris Tactical can take either the new Cawl-patterened rifles (just like intercessors) or they can take bolters+heavy weapons (just like tacticals). We could also simply remove bolters from the table and just have cawl-patterned rifles+2 Heavies. Tacticals benefit by getting the 2W/2A and thus much tougher and can stay in the fight. Intercessors could get more flexible if we allow them to take heavy weapons. Unique Tacticals such as SW's Grey Hunters and BT's Crusaders (not sure if I got this right) but they will be similiar. Grey Hunters will get Cawl-patterned+2 special weapons+chainswords,BT will get Cawl-patterned(or Chainswords)+Heavy+Special or Cawl-patterened(or Chainswords)+PowWeapon+Special. The GH/BT would be pricier due to their specialties but that will be added into the price of weapons, not the units. If the units are the same stats and they should cost the same. Now if they have unique traits then yes the unit will go up in points. Weapons differ and therefore will be the balancing factor.

 

This also makes scouts weaker. Scouts remain at 1W/1A and thus empowers the Tactical Marines and making it a choice. Take scouts which are cheaper but have inferior weapons and stats but are cheaper, or take Primaris Tacticals that have superior weapons and stats but cost more. I realize that SW scouts are an elite choice and thus will need more tweaking, but they need to be seperated from SM scouts.

 

Hellblaster get merged with Devastators. Reivers are really unique though, maybe assault squads? no longer use jump packs but use their grav-chutes.

 

(Centurions are replaced by Agressors, just sayin')

 

Edit: Correct BT loadouts. Also wanted to comment that I really think Primaris are GW way to begin and "upgrade" SMs into stronger units but for more points. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Jarl Caldersson

[toaae]

Ork: M6", S3, T4, W1

 

This is no longer the base Boy stat line. They are now S4, and M5".

[Schlitzaf]

Crusaders are Heavy/Special or PowWeapon/Special

[Guest]

Crusaders are Heavy/Special or PowWeapon/Special

 

Thank you, updated my post.

[Schlitzaf]

Of Jarl there was a misunderstanding, a Crusader Squad can taken a (Heavy or PowWeapon), and Special.

 

Also because I don’t want to mistake/double post. Crusaders can do Chainsword or Bolter, so that should remain an option with Primaris Crusaders (with them maybe having Reivars Heavy Pistols)

Edited January 24, 2018 by Schlitzaf

[Guest]

Of Jarl there was a misunderstanding, a Crusader Squad can taken a (Heavy or PowWeapon), and Special.

 

Also because I don’t want to mistake/double post. Crusaders can do Chainsword or Bolter, so that should remain an option with Primaris Crusaders (with them maybe having Reivars Heavy Pistols)

 

Nah I understood just on a post-workout boost and eating lunch, so typing in a rush. Fingers working faster than i can think.

[Karack Blackstone]

Jarl Caldersson, yes, I did mean you. Sorry, I was not in a great place to reliably put in the effort to look up your name. I apologize, however, I am really liking the idea that you quoted me typing up an opinion about, on the original idea you had, which is, to mini-Primaris all 1 Wound non SM Scout Astartes.

 

I mean, yes, boltguns, for a low cost, effective weapon is an option, however, if instead, one were to take the approach that Jarl Caldersson invented, just Primaris'ing all Astartes save the Space Marine Scouts, and, starting to roll the options of the various Astartes unit types together, things start to become a bit more viable, and recognizable.

 

Tactical/Intercessor just becomes Tactical. Roll the options together, and, the squad gets to choose:

- The Tactical Squad must select a single pattern of boltgun they each are armed with, from the following:

     - Boltgun

     - Bolt Rifle

     - Auto Bolt Rifle

     - (etc., I think this illustrates my point)

- The Tactical Squad may choose, either:

     - 1 Heavy or Special Ranged Weapon per 5 models in the Squad

     - 2 Heavy, per 5 models in the Squad

     - 2 Special, per 5 models in the Squad

- The Tactical Squad may select a Rhino, Razorback, Drop Pod, or Repulsor, as a Dedicated Transport; the Rhino, Razorback, and Drop Pod only fit the smaller Space Marine models. Only the larger, or, Primaris, Astartes, may take the Repulsor as a Dedicated Transport.

 

Assault and Inceptor squads combine.

Reiver and Veteran Scout squads also combine.

And regular Scouts remain untouched.

 

Devastators and Hellblasters become two option sets within the same unit entry, such as, arm your regular Space Marines with kitbashed Plasmaguns, or, make a dedicated weapon to fulfill the role, and allow:

- The Devastator/Hellblaster unit must choose one of the following weapons profiles:

     - 4 Heavy Weapons, the rest of the squad is armed with Boltguns

     - 10 (Hellblaster) Ranged Weapons, of which, every model in the squad must take one, and only one, of the list available to Primaris Hellblasters.

 

It's actually rather nice, with the way this idea sequence seems to be flowing.

 

Crusader and Grey Hunter squads just need some options differences, maybe something like the Deathwatch Heavy Weapon Harness that allows said DW to take a Heavy weapon and run around with it, and still fire. This is a points based solution, but, since when wouldn't it be?

[kombatwombat]

Primaris: M6", S5, T5, W2

 

Custodes: M6", S4, T4, W3

Is that a typo for Custodes, or do you actually argue they should be S4/T4 rather than S5/T5? If you do think they should be, remember that while older sources were ambiguous on Custodes - ranging from just taller Astartes right up to almost-Primarchs - the current GW stance is very much ‘Custodes is to Astartes as Astartes is to human’. Which actually fits really nicely with:

 

Human: M6” S3 T3 W1 Sv5+

Astartes: M6” S4 T4 W2 Sv3+

Custodes: M6” S5 T5 W3 Sv2+/5++

 

On Primaris, what’s your justification for T5? They have 3 unique things over normal Astartes: the steel tendons, which gives you Strength 5, the deathbed surge of adrenaline which doesn’t really factor into their statline, and the Primarch hormone which makes them taller and ‘sends their other organ implants into overdrive’, whatever that means. Considering their other implants are things like the Betcher’s Gland/Lyman’s Ear and backup organs, I don’t see how any of this would give them T5. Definitely on board with the S5 though, which is actually very significant since it allows them to Wound other Astartes on 3s (or even 2s with certain powers!).

 

Overall though I really like where you’re going with this.

[Beta galactosidase]

That statline is from the idea of them being made from much more powerful stock giving them greater staying power that equals that of heroes who can take hits and keep rolling onwards.

My omission of the other stats (leadership, attacks and the skill stats) is because those are more tied to the training of the warrior, not their physical being. You can't train the ability to take a hit, however you can gain a fortitude of pushing through them (as if you are ignoring it) and thus we would arrive at more accurate statlines.

The toughness star has to do with physical qualities, but I think that if you took a captain and demoted him to bolter-brother, he'd keep all his high BS and WS but he'd go down to one wound. It seemed that way with Telion when he showed up in 5th edition. It's always seemed to me that wounds, when it's not a crisis suit or wraithlord, have to do with the job the model has.

 

There is this weird puzzle of guard heavy weapon teams. It's two guardsmen on one base, they count as one model and have two wounds. There are two guardsmen, they should obviously have two wounds. But, it used to be that you could shoot them with a single krak missile and instability the whole team, even though back then there was no way for a single missile to kill two separate guardsmen. People were driven crazy by this, it bothered them.

 

A basic guardsman can't carry a heavy weapon with all the ammo and then fire it by himself. That's why there are two troopers on the base. But you don't really need 200% as many guardsmen to carry the gun. You need like 140% of a guardsman. Also, if you need them both, they each have one wound and taking off one wound kills one of them, how is the one that's left able to carry around the gun and shoot it when we know that he isn't able to do it by himself. Say the team is the only model left, it's just the half-wounds weapon team carting around the gun by itself and this is not supposed to be possible.

 

Well, here is why the wound stat comes from rank, and it's not character shields or heroism. When you shoot one of the two guardsmen with a bolter, lasgun, or other d1 weapon, it doesn't vaporize him into a cloud of blood and flesh chunks. It brings him down to like 55% function. He's got concussion, and a broken hand. Now, the thing is, you don't need four hands to run a heavy weapons team. You just need more than two.

 

What actually happened there is that /both/ guardsmen have two wounds. If one of them got hit by a d2 weapon, he'd be obliterated and he wouldn't be able to help even with one hand. That would be it, the other team member can still be alive at 100%, but he can't work the weapon by himself and you lose the whole model.

 

A rifleman who went down to 55% would be out of action. The squad needs him to cover the 9 o'clock angle with nobody helping, to use bounding cover, and to duck in and out of cover and shoot by himself. The heavy weapon crew, on the other hand have a different job. Their job has different requirements, so their threshold for being a casualty is different.

 

So officers that have more wounds get this affect too. A techmarine or a captain has different performance thresholds. They can do their job, at some level, even when a basic marine with the exact same injuries and exact same physical qualities counts as a casualty. Also, there are probably only one or two techmarines in the army, so it's not possible to weigh their level of impaired reliability against the availability of someone to make up for their absence.

[Morticon]

 

Ok, starting over fresh from the other thread. As I was saying, we have a consensus that Tactical Squads are a bit lackluster, though we do not necessarily agree to the extent to which this is true, or the causes of this state of affairs. In an attempt to be positive, I've listed some of the suggestions that could help give our most iconic squad a bit of a hand up. I propose folks list these in the order of which they would like to see them implemented. That way, we can see if we can agree on some sort of way forward,

 

The suggestions were:

-Allow Tactical Marines to purchase a close combat weapon.

-Points decrease.

-Stats boost (+1 wound, primarily)

-Improve bolters

-Give +1 CP for every 10-strong Tactical Squad.

-Allow Tactical Squads to use Stratagem at a reduced CP cost.

-Have special Tactical-specific Stratagems

-Allow Tacticals to get a special and a heavy even at 5-strong (Crusaders get to pick a heavy AND a power weapong/fist, Grey Hunters get 2 specials at 5-strong).

 

 

I believe that marines have been costed based on their previous incarnations and their relevant points cost related to other units* in previous editions - in fact i'm pretty sure the standard of 15 points (from 3rd ed on) was used as the baseline from which the OTHER armies were worked. 

 

That being said, I no longer believe that points cost adequately reflect the way combat (attacking/number of attacks and falling back) and shooting have changed. 

 

Regular marines (just the humble Tac, Dev and Assault marine) require a substantial points drop.  (eg: 9ppm).  Even this isn't enough to balance marines though, as I think the intra-dex balance is wonky, and inter-dex balance is abysmal.  

 

The issue with balancing regular marines is that the models are part in parcel of combinations of units.  

 

Rhinos and Pods need serious reworking for example.  Jump marines (unless you have bonuses like the BA) aren't getting to where they need to be, and when they get there are wholly ineffectual. 

 

1st port of call - cheaper regular marines. 

2nd port of call - some sort of "tactical" bonus for "tactical" marines.  

(3rd port of call - better combinations with those marines - eg: discounted Rhinos/Pods for 10man squads).  

 

Tactical marines are supposed to be the "jack of all trades", master of none - currently they aren't even a jack of any trade.  We all know this.  

 

my changes would be:

 

Either to make tactical marines more appealing (though not necessarily more powerful) or to make them more powerful. 

I dont think that (despite what the fluff says) our core Troop type needs to be "powerful". Its not really how the game should be working.  Because of this id gravitate to the former option.

ie: 

 

1: 10ppm per tactical marine. (9ppm for scout - I see their worse save offset points wise by their ability to deploy as they do). 

2:  10 Tactical marine with a heavy and special weapon may purchase a Rhino or a Drop Pod for 40points cheaper - though they must deploy in it. 

or

3: Every tactical squad chosen generates a CP.  

 

While people may think that's broken, considering what they can do with the CP, i'm not convinced its even enough.  

 

Alternatively, keep them as is, and intro this fluffy rule...that speaks to their tactical nature:

 

"One Tactical Squad may generate one victory point at the end of the game turn if they are in control of an objective outside of their deployment zone". 

 

Ok, starting over fresh from the other thread. As I was saying, we have a consensus that Tactical Squads are a bit lackluster, though we do not necessarily agree to the extent to which this is true, or the causes of this state of affairs. In an attempt to be positive, I've listed some of the suggestions that could help give our most iconic squad a bit of a hand up. I propose folks list these in the order of which they would like to see them implemented. That way, we can see if we can agree on some sort of way forward,

 

The suggestions were:

-Allow Tactical Marines to purchase a close combat weapon.

-Points decrease.

-Stats boost (+1 wound, primarily)

-Improve bolters

-Give +1 CP for every 10-strong Tactical Squad.

-Allow Tactical Squads to use Stratagem at a reduced CP cost.

-Have special Tactical-specific Stratagems

-Allow Tacticals to get a special and a heavy even at 5-strong (Crusaders get to pick a heavy AND a power weapong/fist, Grey Hunters get 2 specials at 5-strong).

 

 

I believe that marines have been costed based on their previous incarnations and their relevant points cost related to other units* in previous editions - in fact i'm pretty sure the standard of 15 points (from 3rd ed on) was used as the baseline from which the OTHER armies were worked. 

 

That being said, I no longer believe that points cost adequately reflect the way combat (attacking/number of attacks and falling back) and shooting have changed. 

 

Regular marines (just the humble Tac, Dev and Assault marine) require a substantial points drop.  (eg: 9ppm).  Even this isn't enough to balance marines though, as I think the intra-dex balance is wonky, and inter-dex balance is abysmal.  

 

The issue with balancing regular marines is that the models are part in parcel of combinations of units.  

 

Rhinos and Pods need serious reworking for example.  Jump marines (unless you have bonuses like the BA) aren't getting to where they need to be, and when they get there are wholly ineffectual. 

 

1st port of call - cheaper regular marines. 

2nd port of call - some sort of "tactical" bonus for "tactical" marines.  

(3rd port of call - better combinations with those marines - eg: discounted Rhinos/Pods for 10man squads).  

 

Tactical marines are supposed to be the "jack of all trades", master of none - currently they aren't even a jack of any trade.  We all know this.  

 

my changes would be:

 

Either to make tactical marines more appealing (though not necessarily more powerful) or to make them more powerful. 

I dont think that (despite what the fluff says) our core Troop type needs to be "powerful". Its not really how the game should be working.  Because of this id gravitate to the former option.

ie: 

 

1: 10ppm per tactical marine. (9ppm for scout - I see their worse save offset points wise by their ability to deploy as they do). 

2:  10 Tactical marine with a heavy and special weapon may purchase a Rhino or a Drop Pod for 40points cheaper - though they must deploy in it. 

or

3: Every tactical squad chosen generates a CP.  

 

While people may think that's broken, considering what they can do with the CP, i'm not convinced its even enough.  

 

Alternatively, keep them as is, and intro this fluffy rule...that speaks to their tactical nature:

 

"One Tactical Squad may generate one victory point at the end of the game turn if they are in control of an objective outside of their deployment zone". 

[Lord_Caerolion]

I definitely think it comes partly down to the fact that the Guard get Orders as well as their Regimental bonus. While it's awesome for making things more fluffy, it doesn't change the fact that Orders were previously supposed to be the Guard way to "make up" for Chapter Tactics. Now they've got both, while the Marines miss out on an "extra" rule, unless for some reason you count ATSKNF.

[totgeboren]

Some honest food for thought; Leave Tacticals as they are, move Assault Marines to Troop Slot. And make them fast attack if they pack up. Half the issues with Tacticals it appears is that they aren’t Assault Marines. This leaves Armies defined by their Tactical+ Units (Wolves and Templars notably) unaffected and thus unneeded to be rebalanced. Assault Marines are about as efficient as Crusader and Hunts lacking either in output (Wolves +1 Bolter Attack per Model and +3 Plasma) or body count (Crusaders have 4-5 more men). Of course this still leaves Chaos Marines and Tacticals in a medicore situation. But it would fix some of the issues at hand.

 

But for all this talk on Tacticals, Chaos Marines aren’t much better how could they be fixed?

 

I don't get this? CSM already have cc marines in troops. They are just as inefficient at being cc troops as CSM with boltguns are inefficient at being line troops. And they even have access to special/heavy weapons, so are by that clearly superior to Assault-Marines-as-Troops.

 

(Also, CSM have the double-wammy of having access to Cultists, who are both clearly superior, cheaper, and Cultists also gain nothing whatsoever from fielding larger than min-sized squads.)

 

Both Tactical and Assault/Raptor squads have the basic dudes just being ablative wounds to the special weapons. I mean, a squad of 10 Raptors with 2 plasmaguns costs about 2x what a squad of 5 Raptors with 2 plasmaguns cost, yet are about as useful on the table. The base dudes die really quick, even at 10, so it's most often a much better idea to just run small 5-man squads and deep strike.

 

Or, you could think of it like this.

What is better? 1 Deep striking Raptor with a plasmagun, or 2 deep striking Raptors with chainswords?

It's not even a proper question, which means something is very wrong with the points/abilities of the models in question. Why have points if they do not come close to reflecting the abilities of the models?

 

The problem is the base dudes, both for close combat and for ranged combat. They need to justify their points cost. Having a 10-man squad of Tacticals/Assault/Devastator/CSM/Raptor/Havocs should to be a reasonable option.

 

And it would if the base marine was more able on the tabletop (or noticeably cheaper I guess).

[chapter master 454]

 

Ork: M6", S3, T4, W1

 

This is no longer the base Boy stat line. They are now S4, and M5".

 

 

My Bad. Didn't check up on orks much but wow.

 

However my main point stands, Guardsman should be the measuring stick, not marines, for stats.

[Captain Idaho]

2 wounds are not needed at all. 2 attacks are not needed at all. We don't need Primaris stats increases. We don't need dramatic points changes.

 

What's the problem? 130pts of Tactical Marines vs 130pts of Imperial Guardsman and the Tactical Marines don't win hands down?

 

That's hyperbole of a situation. Games don't go like that. If there's line of sight blocking terrain, you have several elite squads smashing opponents whilst your fire support chews through armour... yes those 3 Guardsmen squads vs your Tactical squad becomes irrelevant.

 

What is needed to give Tactical squads some teeth is simply a Stratagem or 2.

 

As an example, Scions of Guilliman works brilliantly for the Ultramarines. Having your Hellfire shell reroll misses, overcharging plasma rerolled and hitting with 13 out of 14 bolter shots is actually powerful.

 

That's just a single Stratagem. Now imagine there's a couple more to help other squads where needed? Masterful Marksmanship working on more than just Sternguard? A new one that grants Bolters rapid fire 2 like in 2nd edition?

 

Seriously everyone is making a massive deal out this issue as if the game is so broken it's unplayable.

 

The game is great and works. My Tactical Marines are doing fine because of my aforementioned reasons.

 

All that's needed is more Stratagems and an overhaul of existing ones, whilst a higher number of CPs so we can use them. (2 for being Codex Astartes or 1 per fun Tactical squad)

 

It's that easy.

[Guest]

I do like how people are more accepting of the Primaris if they are just give the same flexibility of their counterparts. If GW would just take the hint and do it now.

 

I also like that more people are saying Guardsman should be the standard bit SM. I can see GW think "well most people play SM so the SM should be the standard". The issue is that when you put the standard at the top, everyone is racing to meet that standard otherwise they are "sub-standard". If the standard is lower people can then say they are "superior" and feel better about their army. A IG player will simply say "sure you are superior, but I have 40 guys to your 10".

Edited January 24, 2018 by Jarl Caldersson

[Ishagu]

So who actually wants flexibility from Tactical Marines? I don't. I'd rather have units dedicated to a singular purpose.

[Guest]

So who actually wants flexibility from Tactical Marines? I don't. I'd rather have units dedicated to a singular purpose.

 

how about you read the people above, seems like you disregard everything you don't in the forum.

[Wargamer]

I would rather Tactical Squads excell at one thing than be mediocre at everything.

[Captain Idaho]

No way. There's no point having them when you would just take Assault Marines or Devastators.

 

If people want units dedicated to one singular, then collect Eldar. Imperials, Orks and Chaos always had units with upgrade weapons within them. It's 40K.

 

Primaris are notably NOT like that but that's because GW has simplified them to be easily playable with a new customer.

[Guest]

I would rather Tactical Squads excell at one thing than be mediocre at everything.

 

The point of combining the Intercessors with the Tacticals is you could choose to use all of the intercessor gear, or use heavies with it. So you could have your specialty or a multi-task squad.