Codex Space Marines Amendments

[Ipsen]

Terminators must always have an invulnerable save.

 

They do. It's just their inv save was balanced for last edition and gws design team are mouth breathers.

[autek mor]

sure we could have better strategems but then in turn that would most likely mean more soup lists with AM just so you can use them more often. if we are to see more full marine lists outside of obvious builds and lists purely made for beer and pretzel games then marine units need to be of better value across the board otherwise why bother taking those overcosted units? even adding or changing extra rules to weapons units could in turn just complicate matters further as the other marine books may need to be addressed in turn. the points and rule changes worked before in forcing marine players to change their lists, they just made the wrong changes in certain cases that's all.

[Captain Idaho]

Soup lists need fixing. Likely something like you only get Relics and Stratagems of the faction of the Warlord and don't generate CPs for detachments that aren't the Faction of the Warlord.

 

But again, that shouldn't impact a faction. Otherwise Marines will be impossible to balance.

[Tokugawa]

Soup lists need fixing. Likely something like you only get Relics and Stratagems of the faction of the Warlord and don't generate CPs for detachments that aren't the Faction of the Warlord.

 

But again, that shouldn't impact a faction. Otherwise Marines will be impossible to balance.

Why? "Soup" army is the best thing in 8th. It patched many nature-borned disadvantages(e.g. too few model counts for custodes). Make more armies playable and make more sale. Of course, current "soup army" rules are better for game blalancing, than pre-faq "soup detachenent" rules.

 

If you love to play a "pure" army, then you must accept the army wholelly, advantage and disadvantage. If you suffer the disadvantage, you are paying the tax of your "faith".

[The Unseen]

 

Soup lists need fixing. Likely something like you only get Relics and Stratagems of the faction of the Warlord and don't generate CPs for detachments that aren't the Faction of the Warlord.

 

But again, that shouldn't impact a faction. Otherwise Marines will be impossible to balance.

Why? "Soup" army is the best thing in 8th. It patched many nature-borned disadvantages(e.g. too few model counts for custodes). Make more armies playable and make more sale. Of course, current "soup army" rules are better for game blalancing, than pre-faq "soup detachenent" rules.

 

If you love to play a "pure" army, then you must accept the army wholelly, advantage and disadvantage. If you suffer the disadvantage, you are paying the tax of your "faith".

Those "disadvantages" are also called balancing factors.

 

"Soup" detachments need to die in matched play to ever have a hope of having 40k being even mostly balanced.

Or else you will see a batallion of guard in every Imperial army from now to forever.

Unless they nerf guard so heavily their trash, and then the next best imperial troop will be used.

 

Want your fluffy mixed force army? Play narrative or open.

[Tamiel]

We already know Marines need a hand. That's what is topic is for. Stop dragging it off topic stating the obvious with nothing useful to add.

If you mention a problem over and over again, until everyone hears it enough to hate hearing it, eventually it will reach GW's ears.

 

It may be frustrating to hear people talking about marines being weak all the time, but this repetition is a necessary process of getting GW to hear us. A lot of the changes that GW made through recent beta rules and FAQs were problems that got talked about over and over again, and some of those problems were simpler to fix than the marine problem.

 

Long story short, as counterproductive as it sounds, talking about how weak marines are until everyone's heard it a thousand times is necessary. The more people we can get talking about it the better.

[Tamiel]

And some may say "Well that's not related to what this thread is about", but that's just not true. This thread is about helping Space Marines, because they need it. If there's going to be codex changes, and if this thread is about that, then why wouldn't we look at the statline of your average marine?

 

It's important to get GW to look at marines, power armour, bolters, chainswords. All of the codex changes suggested here (stratagems, for example) are nice, but without the crucially needed marine buff, it's like building a nice house on sand. If the average marine armour keeps acting like cardboard, if the average bolter/chainsword hits about as hard as a wet noodle, strategems will just sweep inconvenient truths under the rug rather than addressing them.

Decreasing the cost on marines isn't the right path either. We're gonna have to accept that. Marines shouldn't be cheaper, they should be better.

[Tokugawa]

Marine rules are subpar and need fix, yeah, we all agree on that.

 

But even with the exactly same rules power level, other armies may still performance better.Beacuse these problems cannot be fixed by GW:

 

Marines have the most players.

Marines have the most new players.

Marines have the most casual players.

Marines have the most "bad" players. We all seen some imperium players,who know little about their opponent's units function and weapon properties. But when you ask a experienced xenos player, "What is a lascannon?""What is a powerfist?", they have the knowledge.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Scroll scroll

[SickSix]

Lets not take the advice of 'serious tournament' players too serious please. Tournament lists are an abomination of how 40k should be played.

[autek mor]

And some may say "Well that's not related to what this thread is about", but that's just not true. This thread is about helping Space Marines, because they need it. If there's going to be codex changes, and if this thread is about that, then why wouldn't we look at the statline of your average marine?

 

It's important to get GW to look at marines, power armour, bolters, chainswords. All of the codex changes suggested here (stratagems, for example) are nice, but without the crucially needed marine buff, it's like building a nice house on sand. If the average marine armour keeps acting like cardboard, if the average bolter/chainsword hits about as hard as a wet noodle, strategems will just sweep inconvenient truths under the rug rather than addressing them.

 

Decreasing the cost on marines isn't the right path either. We're gonna have to accept that. Marines shouldn't be cheaper, they should be better.

 

vanilla marines are just bad value at the moment and became worse value due to points hike(robbie G, razorbacks, stormraven, fire raptor, twin assault cannon). the plagueburst crawler is only around 30pts cheaper than a all lascan predator and around the same points more expensive than a twin las razorback. the razorback was already nerfed with a points hike, if it was allowed to shoot its turret weapon twice if it doesn't move, would it be viewed as broken or would the points get hiked up again? they still don't seem to know how much a fire raptor should cost after three changes.

[Panzer]

Terminators must always have an invulnerable save.

 

Maybe but the 5++ is extremely pointless unless you face something like melta guns or Hellblaster since AP-3 on a 2+ armor results in a 5+ save anyway ... 4+ if you're in cover even.

[Tokugawa]

 

 

Terminators must always have an invulnerable save.

Maybe but the 5++ is extremely pointless unless you face something like melta guns or Hellblaster since AP-3 on a 2+ armor results in a 5+ save anyway ... 4+ if you're in cover even.

But when GW designing the codex, the unit may still "pay" points for an ability they would never use.

[Panzer]

 

 

Terminators must always have an invulnerable save.

Maybe but the 5++ is extremely pointless unless you face something like melta guns or Hellblaster since AP-3 on a 2+ armor results in a 5+ save anyway ... 4+ if you're in cover even.

But when GW designing the codex, the unit may still "pay" points for an ability they would never use.

 

 

Exactly. Hence why I'm one of the people who thinks regular Terminators would be better off without any Invul save at all. It wouldn't make them less durable 99% of the time but reduce their points which they are badly in need for. ^^

[Closet Skeleton]

If GW buff a marine unit, their Chaos equivalent would receive the same buff. And the Nurgle ones receive the same buff, along with higher toughness and FNP. And the Slaanesh ones receive the same buff, along with double fire...

 

 

Chaos aren't exactly good codex wise, they just have a few good builds and synergies.

 

 

What makes you think others need changes? Chaos have a lot of utility, superior stratagems and psychic powers. They don't need the same base unit adjustment.

 

Yes they do, internal chaos balance is awful and the deepstrike/warptime nerf made their terminators even worse than loyalist ones.

 

Terminators must always have an invulnerable save.

 

Why? AP-4 isn't that common (and helblasters have enough shots to tear through terminators without it), its 2 damage weapons that make terminators too easy to kill. There are a lot of buffs to terminators that i would gladly swap the (barely fluff justified) invulnerable save for.

 

-1 to wound (harlequins have it so why not)

halve incoming damage (abaddon has it)

feel no pain (blightlords already have it and are T5  4++ which pushes them into only okay)

T5 (centurions already have it and aren't that survivable)

 

The only really good thing about the 5++ is that its the only way librarians and sorcerers can get an invun.

 

 

They do. It's just their inv save was balanced for last edition and gws design team are mouth breathers.

 

 

The invun was barely balanced for 3rd edition. The only time terminators have been good pre early 8th ed was when 5th ed introduced 3+ storm shields.

[autek mor]

would three wounds and a 4+ invul save be considered fair?

[Wargamer]

I don't think the invuns of Terminators need to change - simply adjusting their pricing will be enough. Cats use their invuns far more often than regular / Tartaros termies, as AP -3 is far more common than AP -4.

[Ishagu]

Termies need a point drop and an extra wound.

Tactical Termies need BS2+

Assault Termies need WS2+

Tartaros and Cata are veterans who should have BS/WS 2+

 

Termies also need a rule that negates modifiers of -1 when making normal saves

The invuls can stay the same.

 

Gravis armour needs a 2+ save and a 5+ invul also, but remains at 2 wounds.

[Captain Idaho]

Personally I think Terminators need BOTH 2+ WS and BS regardless of type.

 

With 3 wounds they are very much survivable against small arms and doubles survivability against D2 weapons that are their bane.

[Closet Skeleton]

I don't like how cataphracti get a 4++, relying on an invulnerable save just makes the 2+ even more of a joke. Harlequins are harder to kill.

 

I don't think terminators should get any extra wounds or weapon skill buff that power armoured veterans don't get.

 

Just reducing all damage by -1 would help a lot and justify the cost of terminator characters. Some special rule that actually says "toughest infantry in the galaxy" as opposed to having a basic common invun. Eldar show that special rules are generally better than higher stats.

[autek mor]

 

 

I don't like how cataphracti get a 4++, relying on an invulnerable save just makes the 2+ even more of a joke. Harlequins are harder to kill.

 

I don't think terminators should get any extra wounds or weapon skill buff that power armoured veterans don't get.

 

Just reducing all damage by -1 would help a lot and justify the cost of terminator characters. Some special rule that actually says "toughest infantry in the galaxy" as opposed to having a basic common invun. Eldar show that special rules are generally better than higher stats.

 

i agree. stats can only do so much when your enemy can tank your high stat coolness or drown you in attacks or shots even if they survive you hitting them first.

[Ishagu]

3 wounds is a massively different prospect from 2.

 

That would be a huge boost to Termies.

[Captain Idaho]

3 wounds is a massively different prospect from 2.

That would be a huge boost to Termies.

Yes and together with WS and BS changes Terminators might become dangerous again.

 

It's these sorts of changes, small and subtle, that GW are more likely to accept and the spirit of the changes I am working on.

[Charlo]

 

3 wounds is a massively different prospect from 2.

That would be a huge boost to Termies.

Yes and together with WS and BS changes Terminators might become dangerous again.

 

It's these sorts of changes, small and subtle, that GW are more likely to accept and the spirit of the changes I am working on.

 

 

3W 2+WS/BS Terminators to me, does not feel like a Subtle Change... That is reaching for Custodes level of power.

 

I almost feel like reducing damage rolls by 1 to a minimum of 1 is better, as that makes D2 & Dd3 weapons a lot less reliable and feels like their armour making a difference. Then I'd say give all Terminators some kind of special rule upon deep strike - maybe re-roll shooting hits for Tactical ones and re-roll charge/ deny overwatch for Assault ones?

[Ishagu]

 

 

 

3 wounds is a massively different prospect from 2.

That would be a huge boost to Termies.

Yes and together with WS and BS changes Terminators might become dangerous again.

 

It's these sorts of changes, small and subtle, that GW are more likely to accept and the spirit of the changes I am working on.

3W 2+WS/BS Terminators to me, does not feel like a Subtle Change... That is reaching for Custodes level of power.

 

I almost feel like reducing damage rolls by 1 to a minimum of 1 is better, as that makes D2 & Dd3 weapons a lot less reliable and feels like their armour making a difference. Then I'd say give all Terminators some kind of special rule upon deep strike - maybe re-roll shooting hits for Tactical ones and re-roll charge/ deny overwatch for Assault ones?

Terminators SHOULD be almost at Custodes level. They are elites amongst elites.

 

The custodes are still superior with better Invul. Too many modifiers like that grind the game down.

 

Also, dont compare like that. Loads of models have 3 wounds that aren't on the level of Custodes.