Make Power Armour and Bolters Great Again

[Ishagu]

Currently Sisters get 1 Act of Faith, but HQs unlock more so you can't say it can't be factored in.

 

Its like Guard with orders. The average 4 point Guardsmen can reliably move 18" across the board in one turn, or shoot twice, never fails morale, etc etc

[Beams]

 

Acts of Faith effects one unit on the board, the 6++ only procs if you hit them with a melta gun.

 

Marines have combat squads and as they shall know fear, so that's about at least even.

Combat Squads is more worthless than Shield of Faith. It might only work vs AP-4, but it's something; and it might be a crap deny, but it's a roll one wouldn't otherwise get to make. ATSKNF is barely useful, because big squads are 99% of the time a bad idea, which in turn makes Combat Squads irrelevant.

 

And then they have +1ws, +1 Str, +1 toughness. They can't be 9 pts if sisters are 9 pts.

Acts of Faith are incredibly potent, and I think you give far too little credit to them. For starters, it's an incredibly flexible rule, letting one choose between any of their units and either mobility, additional firepower or some healing.

 

The mobility act is excellent, as it can make an enormous difference to game where your ObSec units are, as well as for Deep Strike denial, etc. It also gives more teeth to the close ranged guns like Meltas and Flamers by getting them into range much more quickly. It further synergises with transports and already fast units.

 

For the additional firepower, that bonus cannot be understated. Sisters shoot just as well as Marines, with the same guns (albeit with different options). They're not as potent in melee, but Marines already hit like a deflated balloon - Anything less than a Captain is probably either a melee specialist unit (Vanguard. DC, etc) or a potato when it comes to melee (Tacticals, Assault Marines, etc). Even so, Sisters can double up their attacks if they so choose (it might finish the unit engaging them, allowing them to move and fire later in the turn) - again, flexibility, which isn't paid through the nose for.

 

The additional WS/S is certainly good but I genuinely think it's overpriced for a lot of the Marine line: Tacticals and Devastators don't want to be in melee, and while they can outfit a wet paper bag, if a dry one comes along they're screwed. Assault Marines are supposed to be our standard melee unit: they are unbelievably terrible, and are afraid of every kind of bag, even wet ones. Point being that Marines pay a lot for their general purpose statlines but aren't able to realistically leverage it as they're simply not potent enough: 1 WS3+/S4 attack is utterly laughable. 2 is barely any better for the melee only units like Assaults and Vanguard.

 

So +1 Toughness is actually fine, hurray! There's an insane amount of cheap Marine-killing weapons in the game, but that's because bloat and because Marines are numerous.

 

Honestly, considering the state of Codex: SM and basic Marines in general, they definitely could be 9pts the same as Sisters.

One unit can double up their firepower, across the whole board. Acta of faith is good, but costs 40pts for a 4+ chance to get a second one, so it's not a game breaker.

 

The chance to deny the witch is <2%, since the opponent needs to roll exactly a five, and you need to roll exactly a six. Combat squads allow You to take up to 6 min sized squads instead of only up to 3 max sized squads. Not saying it's a huge bonus, but certantly not bad, since no other amry gets to navigate thru the tule of 3.

 

And if Marines need to be cheaper since there are marine killers? They effect sisters just as badly. Sisters are way squishier, since they are t3 and even lasguns wound then on a 4.

 

On top of that, their melee is significantly worse than Marines, since they hit 16% less often per attack, and wound 16% less often per attack. So if Marines melee feels anemic, try getting charged as a sisters player and having your fight-back phase and not killing a single Guardsmen.

 

That said, sisters feel fine at 9. Marines invading their space just means people will take 1-2 squads of Retibutors/Dominons to AoF and then a :cusstons of marines for basic troops

 

And since plastic sisters is happening, the space between the two has to be curated. Dropping Marines to 9 pts will step on them a lot.

 

 

Edit: oh, and sisters do have an iconic melee squad equivalent to assault Marines: Celestians. They are 11 pts a model, have Str 3, WS 3+, a 6" mov3 and 2 attacks. So GW must value a WS increase and a A increase at 1 pt each.

 

To be fair, they do make assault marines look better, at least.

[Kallas]

One unit can double up their firepower, across the whole board. Acta of faith is good, but costs 40pts for a 4+ chance to get a second one, so it's not a game breaker.

Yeah, it's not an insane power rule, but it's got a huge impact. A refused flank can much more rapidly redeploy; one unit can suddenly dominate a local firefight, etc.

 

Imagifers aren't bad, consider they're not too much - I'd trade my Apothecaries/Ancients for a 50/50 (and one at 75/25) shot to have my units shoot twice!

 

The chance to deny the witch is <2%, since the opponent needs to roll exactly a five, and you need to roll exactly a six.

Yeah, it's a very low chance, but it is literally better than nothing. Considering the low chances involved it likely costs very little if anything. The Invulnerable is in basically the same place as the Terminator invulnerable: basically worthless, except Sisters are actually reasonably priced.

 

Combat squads allow You to take up to 6 min sized squads instead of only up to 3 max sized squads. Not saying it's a huge bonus, but certantly not bad, since no other amry gets to navigate thru the tule of 3.

Oh yeah sure, except Marines are way too expensive to run in that kind of volume, unless they're also barebones. A unit of Vanguard, for example, cost way too much to run with 30 of them with even a smattering of upgrades, and they need those upgrades to be worth half a damn.

 

It is better than nothing, but its a list building choice (ie, you need to bring an actual full sized squad, so restricted to pregame, or valuable CP expenditure for very little)

 

And if Marines need to be cheaper since there are marine killers? They effect sisters just as badly. Sisters are way squishier, since they are t3 and even lasguns wound then on a 4.

I didn't say they need to be cheaper because of that, simply that the proliferation of them devalues the Marine statline significantly. Plasma and plasma-like weapons are a dime a dozen and they cut through Marines as fast as Sisters. And yeah, Sisters are squishier, and maybe they'd either need to be slightly cheaper, or Marines at 10ppm, but Marines definitely need something - substantial rules changes are unlikely, I definitely agree with Ishagu on that, so points are likely to be the path of least resistance; and for Marines to become decent it needs to be a pretty hefty change, at least 2pts at an absolute minimum.

 

On top of that, their melee is significantly worse than Marines, since they hit 16% less often per attack, and wound 16% less often per attack. So if Marines melee feels anemic, try getting charged as a sisters player and having your fight-back phase and not killing a single Guardsmen.

Sisters are like Guard and Marines both: none of them really want to be in melee. Considering an equivalent costed squad (so 7 Marines = 10 Sisters), the Marines kill 2.58 GEQs, Sisters kill 1.82 GEQs. That actually works out better, proportionally for their cost, for the Sisters (Marines kill 79% of their cost; Sisters kill 80% of their cost).

 

Sisters are worse in melee yes; Marines aren't good, not even decent, in melee either. But you're righr, Sisters and Marines probably shouldn't cost the same but the difference should be very small.

 

That said, sisters feel fine at 9. Marines invading their space just means people will take 1-2 squads of Retibutors/Dominons to AoF and then a :cusstons of marines for basic troops

I think you're probably right that they shouldn't occupy the same cost, so Marines would probably need to drop to 10ppm to keep some relative stat/cost difference.

 

And since plastic sisters is happening, the space between the two has to be curated. Dropping Marines to 9 pts will step on them a lot.

Honestly, if they do Sisters well then their Codex will give them some additional, currently missing, rules such as Chapter Tactics-equivalents, which would make a significant difference in capabilities. Hell, if they have only one, and it turned out to be something like the Guard Steel Legion or Tallarn then they'd be solid. Chapter Tactics, on the other hand, are 9/11 crap with Salamanders and Raven Guard being actually solid.

 

Personally, that would be my preference for improving Marines: a revised Codex. Better Chapter Tactics, resesigned vehicles that aren't crap/overcosted, cheaper/better basic units that aren't crap (and Primaris have better statlines but they aren't, currently, replacing Tacticals, so I need my Tacticals to be not utter trash), etc. That would be better than simple points costs because those don't address the actual issues, but I believe that to be incredibly unlikely at this time.

[Beams]

My point isn't that sisters or bad, or that tacticals are good, it's just that they occupy a lot of the same space.

 

Tactical and Assault Marines need something, I'm just not sure how to go about it without either stepping on Sisters or Primaris.

 

On a side note: I've seen the salamanders chapter tactic in minsized tac squads with Lascannons, and it is pretty brutal.

Raven guard is also good, but Imperial Fists is good but situational, and the rest are mediocre. I think Space Marines got shafted being the first codex released.

[Kallas]

I'd agree with pretty much all of that Beams. I think one of the issues with 8th is that the initial intention of uncapping the stats was a good one, but they could have done so much more with it; instead they maintained a lot at the lowest end possible which really limits their scope. If they'd had Guardsmen be T5 and scaled from there, there'd be much more room for showcasing differences between units.

[Beams]

The only thing I can really think of to make Tacticals better is to lower their cost slightly, and give them a couple deployment options, such as Dominions' vanguard move and the option to outflank. That would give them a tactical feel, I think.

[Kallas]

The only thing I can really think of to make Tacticals better is to lower their cost slightly, and give them a couple deployment options, such as Dominions' vanguard move and the option to outflank. That would give them a tactical feel, I think.

10/11pts, +1A and some kind of Bolter-use buff maybe? There was some suggestion in one of the myriad threads about giving them some kind of double fire ability, possibly linked to holding/contesting an objective?

[Beams]

 

The only thing I can really think of to make Tacticals better is to lower their cost slightly, and give them a couple deployment options, such as Dominions' vanguard move and the option to outflank. That would give them a tactical feel, I think.

10/11pts, +1A and some kind of Bolter-use buff maybe? There was some suggestion in one of the myriad threads about giving them some kind of double fire ability, possibly linked to holding/contesting an objective?

That could be interesting, give Tacticals a last stand type thing, where if they are holding an objective at the start of the turn, they fire twice? Once per objective, which would incentivize l10 man squads.

[Kallas]

 

 

The only thing I can really think of to make Tacticals better is to lower their cost slightly, and give them a couple deployment options, such as Dominions' vanguard move and the option to outflank. That would give them a tactical feel, I think.

10/11pts, +1A and some kind of Bolter-use buff maybe? There was some suggestion in one of the myriad threads about giving them some kind of double fire ability, possibly linked to holding/contesting an objective?

That could be interesting, give Tacticals a last stand type thing, where if they are holding an objective at the start of the turn, they fire twice? Once per objective, which would incentivize l10 man squads.

 

Yeah, something like that would make them desireable (along with a points reduction), as that would mean they're more capable of actually taking/holding objectives, which they're kind of supposed to do. If improved output wouldn't be on the cards, then an improved ObSec (such as counting as two models each for ObSec purposes)?

 

If they did get an objective-based double fire, I wouldn't necessarily say only if they start the turn there, as that would promote/imply a static style, which I think Marines in general wouldn't be ideal for (they're generally written about as utilising rapid strikes). Something like, "While within 3" of an objective marker, models in this unit may fire their Boltguns (and assorted variants, like Stalkers, Primaris ones, etc; maybe Storm Bolters?) twice during the shooting phase (and Overwatch?)"

[BlackTriton]

We understand that if tac marine where to be given any ability that allow them to do something more/twice/better it would be a stratagem right?

 

And if that is the case, a stratagem that underline the "tactical flexibility" of the unit would be prefered.

 

As such, 1CP treat bolters as RF2 / get an extra attack if (insert condition) is both more likely and flavorfull.

[Kallas]

We understand that if tac marine where to be given any ability that allow them to do something more/twice/better it would be a stratagem right?

 

Why? I mean, sure, stratagems can give them greater flexbility for the introduction of new things, but there are a myriad of unit abilities already in the game. Further, making it a stratagem requires CP use - that kind of makes it harder to actually use for Tacticals, where CPs for Marines are generally fairly light (and kind of circles back around to Tacticals being too expensive: makes it harder to fill detachments and still include good units).

 

So yeah, it could be a stratagem, but I don't think that would be the best way to do it. Is it more likely? Maybe, probably...

[MARK0SIAN]

In every game I play as space marines I always use a couple of squads of company veterans armed with stormbolters and chainswords. It’s not an exotic loadout for the veterans but I use it because it allows me to play with a couple of squads of marines who actually feel like marines in terms of a reasonable amount of damage output.

 

I feel like the amount of damage this squad can output is a reasonable level for normal tactical marines. It gives them 2 bolter shots (4 in rapid fire range) and their base of 2 attacks (3 with the chainswords) means it’s actually worth charging with them. It means they can effectively fight numerically superior numbers but they’re not overpowered against tougher targets. They become good infantry killers which is what I want from normal tactical marines.

 

It doesn’t address issues such as cost or survivability but in terms of the marines actually being a threat, 2 attacks and a rapid fire 2 weapon would be a good start.

[Beams]

 

 

 

 

The only thing I can really think of to make Tacticals better is to lower their cost slightly, and give them a couple deployment options, such as Dominions' vanguard move and the option to outflank. That would give them a tactical feel, I think.

10/11pts, +1A and some kind of Bolter-use buff maybe? There was some suggestion in one of the myriad threads about giving them some kind of double fire ability, possibly linked to holding/contesting an objective?

That could be interesting, give Tacticals a last stand type thing, where if they are holding an objective at the start of the turn, they fire twice? Once per objective, which would incentivize l10 man squads.

Yeah, something like that would make them desireable (along with a points reduction), as that would mean they're more capable of actually taking/holding objectives, which they're kind of supposed to do. If improved output wouldn't be on the cards, then an improved ObSec (such as counting as two models each for ObSec purposes)?

 

If they did get an objective-based double fire, I wouldn't necessarily say only if they start the turn there, as that would promote/imply a static style, which I think Marines in general wouldn't be ideal for (they're generally written about as utilising rapid strikes). Something like, "While within 3" of an objective marker, models in this unit may fire their Boltguns (and assorted variants, like Stalkers, Primaris ones, etc; maybe Storm Bolters?) twice during the shooting phase (and Overwatch?)"

I like a limit on it, because without a one per objective, it's objectively better offensively than sould burst/aofaith, since you could Daisy chain a huge amount of units on it. Throw in Guilliman for rerolls, and Ultramarines are the only army in the competitive scene.

 

I also think if you start there, since a lot of the artwork I've seen of marines is them surrounded on all sides holding a position. But if it was if all models are within 3" it wouldn't be bad either, though that would allow for cheesy I run up to your objective fire twice and 5he charge you for 40 Bolter shots plus 11 melee attacks per squad that is rushing. It should also be strictly a tactical marine ability; not for primaris or sternguard.

 

Assault Marines could get a similar ability, but more like: on a turn you charge a unit within 3" of a objective, you may be picked to activate twice in the fight phase.

 

Which would combo well with their strong 12" move, and would allow an assault group to bounce from objective to objective, clearing the way for Tacticals.

[chapter master 454]

Marines just lack anything really going for them. I mean, in regards to the trinity of units (Tactical, Assault and Devastators) they really don't bring much to the table. My big annoyance is there really isn't any encouragement to bring full squads. The only time you want full squads is fringe cases where you use stratagem combos (like T'au Vior'la with hot blooded double tap, sternguard bolter drill + master marksmen) and that shouldn't be the sole encouragement.

 

While we are talking about power armour, in general I feel there should be benefits to full squads. Not some "If this squad has 10 guys, it has X ability" but something to do with the army in general. While people will whine at me for this, I know you lot out there are watching: Bring back Formations.

 

NOW BEFORE you go and tell me I am a terrible person, let me explain. Formations were a cool mechanic as their brief in terms of design were to give players the power to take units they normally wouldn't and make them worth something in an interesting way. In other words, let those units have their cool lore power but keeping it limited to a special formation so you can't splash and mash with whatever you want freely. However, rules like "you get free drop pods/rhinos" for everyone or "your big guys get to double tap" are not good rules because it doesn't add anything to the army except free points (double tapping is in effect like having a second unit OR getting to take 2 turns worth of shooting within a shorter timeframe) and isn't a fun way of doing things.

Formations could be interesting and vibrate with what they could add, the "Demi-Companies" would come with unique bonuses when the units interact, possibly add that assault squads get to charge without taking overwatch if the target of the charge was also the target of "heavy" weapons from ether tactical or devastators while devastators get bonuses to their shooting if they target units that tacticals have shot at prior. This makes the tacticals act like the mid-fielders, supporting their brothers.

 

Give us unit interaction is what I ask. I mean, Aeldari do it with their phoenix lords and psykers (I mean...I am seriously going to be testing supreme distain combo on some scorps + karandras with empower. Why yes, 3 bonus attacks for my exarch for every 5+ to hit!) so why don't marines just naturally flow together. Why don't tacticals, assaults and devastators interact as they are supposed to. 

[BlackTriton]

We do have a system that encourages people to take units they might not otherwise consider, its called detachment and the benefit is Command point to use your special rules.

this is at the core of 8ed.

I will go back to an idea we agreed on CM454, we should have faction specific detachment.

In this case, a demi company might be a detachment as follow:

 

2-6 HQ 

1- master equivalent + your choice of 

Chaplain / lieutenant / librarian equivalent

 

4-8 Troops

2 must be TAC

 

2-6 fast attack

1 must be assault

 

2-6 heavy support

1 must be devastator

 

+10 CP

+ access to demi-company stratagem

(insert stratagems that make the compulsory unit work better together)

 

I made this based on a smaller, more restrictive, brigade detachment. While your idea of what it should be might differ, you see the idea: more restriction, more CP and more stratagem.

 

We are almost certain to see something similar to this in the lifespan on 8ed.

[MARK0SIAN]

Although I like the idea of faction specific detachments, in general I don’t like fixes that only make certain units good if the right conditions are met.

 

If a unit isn’t worth taking without a specific stratagem or a specific detachment then it needs a more basic fix and I’m afraid a lot of marine units (you could even argue marines as a faction) fall into that category. Marines as a whole need some fundamental fixes to their rules and/or stat line, not stratagems to patch the weak points.

[BlackTriton]

Completly disagree

Units should not all be good in a vacuum

Neither should they be without weakness.

A troop unit should not be as interesting/good/efficien than its specialist counterpart.

 

There is a number of overlaping dimentions that make a unit a choice or not and stratagem and detachment is as valid as point cost or individual stat line.

 

Troop unit should be basic, but they should all be comparable to each other. If tac get an additional rule, and the point increase that goes with it, they are in no better place as the tax unit they are.

If they get a new stratagem that makes them a contender to scout, then its an interesting choice.

 

Castellan imperial knight are only interesting because they have such awsome stratagem, they are not worth much without them and its allright, stratagem are part of the unit!

[Beams]

Troop units goal is holding objectives right? That's what's supposed to distinguish them from everything else?

 

Give underperforming troop units abilities that synergize with that role, and they will suddenly be worth their points. Whether it's count higher for obsec, an increased save mechanics, an increased rate of fire, etc.

[MARK0SIAN]

Completly disagree

Units should not all be good in a vacuum

Neither should they be without weakness.

A troop unit should not be as interesting/good/efficien than its specialist counterpart.

 

There is a number of overlaping dimentions that make a unit a choice or not and stratagem and detachment is as valid as point cost or individual stat line.

 

Troop unit should be basic, but they should all be comparable to each other. If tac get an additional rule, and the point increase that goes with it, they are in no better place as the tax unit they are.

If they get a new stratagem that makes them a contender to scout, then its an interesting choice.

 

Castellan imperial knight are only interesting because they have such awsome stratagem, they are not worth much without them and its allright, stratagem are part of the unit!

I’m not arguing they should all be good in a vacuum at all. But they should all be good at their role, in a standard game with just their main rules and stat line. They shouldn’t need stratagems or detachments to make them good at their role.

 

A standard game without stratagems is not a vacuum by any stretch of the imagination. If I bring nothing but tanks, those tanks might be great at their job but I’m still going to lose. Note that I didn’t say troops/units should be good at everything, or they should be without weakness.

 

I simply think that if they are not good at their role with their normal rules and stats then you need to fix those rules and stats, not rely on a stratagem or specific detachment to do it for you.

 

I totally disagree that stratagems are part of a unit, they are a bonus that you can use in certain situations, if you have the CP.

 

If it were the case that a stratagem should be considered part of a unit then why do we have lots of units in the game that are absolutely amazing at their job without any stratagem support. Berserkers are terrifying to face in melee, not because of their stratagems but because their normal rules make them terrifying. Either every unit in the game should need stratagems to make it good at its role or non of them should. Otherwise we get a horrible imbalance.

[BlackTriton]

But... tac's are good at their job.

They stay on objective as well as any other troop, take small arm's fire (s3-4) as well as you would expect from space marine.

Bolters deal consistent damage to small target (T3-4)

 

In a game of only troop they would perform very well.

What else do you want from them?

 

Berzerker would never be played in any competitive capacity without stratagem.

Cultists would not be the center of lists without tide of traitor or the ability to ignore moral.

 

A game played without stratagem, whitout detachment is not a game of warhammer 40K 8ed.

 

Note that I am speaking from a place of competition. I beleive they reflect their lore well enough. What I want from these proposed change is a reason to get the model on a competitive table, as I beleive more variety would be good for the game.

[MARK0SIAN]

Oh I’m with you 100% that more variety on the table is a good thing. I just think everything should be a competitive choice because of its main rules and stats, not because it can be good when used with a stratagem and isn’t very good for the rest of the time.

 

Sadly, I think what we are seeing is the result of moving all the special rules from the models to the stratagems. I think they need to backpeddle on that a bit more and give some of the special abilities back to the units and keep statatagems for special bonuses.

[Kallas]

But... tac's are good at their job.

They stay on objective as well as any other troop, take small arm's fire (s3-4) as well as you would expect from space marine.

Bolters deal consistent damage to small target (T3-4)

 

In a game of only troop they would perform very well.

What else do you want from them?

No, they don't! That's the problem!

 

Tacticals are not as good as their equivalents. It's not that they're not better, it's that they're worse.

 

Berzerker would never be played in any competitive capacity without stratagem.

Cultists would not be the center of lists without tide of traitor or the ability to ignore moral.

Berserkers are just fine without additional stratagems. They carve through things easily; stratagems are the icing on the cake.

 

Cultists are dirt cheap chaff: that is an incredibly important role, even without morale mitigation (because, y'know, 10-man squads compartmentalise morale to being effectively irrelevant). Chaff screens important shooting units; denies deep strike areas; controls objectives; etc - Tacticals do that job, far worse and have worse stratagem support.

 

A game played without stratagem, whitout detachment is not a game of warhammer 40K 8ed.

Correct, however Command Points are a limited resource (without a stupid Guard CP battery) and, generally speaking, making a good unit great is far more effective than making a crap unit less crap.

 

Note that I am speaking from a place of competition. I beleive they reflect their lore well enough. What I want from these proposed change is a reason to get the model on a competitive table, as I beleive more variety would be good for the game

How are they doing what they do well, when an equivalent points cost in Guardsmen/Cultists/basically every other troop unit does it better? Not equally well, better.

 

And how are they well represented, lore-wise? Conservatively, a Space Marine can lift a Rhino up on a pretty :cuss -y day; less conservatively, they can comfortably lift a Land Raider (72 tonnes) - yet that translates to S4 and 1A? Lore-to-table, Marines get shafted.

 

Rereading your post, you want them to be put on competitive tables, but you seem to be against making them better (aka, getting them on competitive tables). I'm pretty confused by that last part of your post.

[BlackTriton]

To dispel some confusion:

Stats wise, they do well.

They do not do as well as other troop, but you are disregarding WHY that is. More on that later.

 

I am not against them getting better, I do not agree with how y'all proposing to go about it.

A big part of them underperforming is that they are overpriced. Cut them 2 point and maybe they compete with scout as the tax unit.

But that is not enough to compete with cultist / guardmen.

Reason is easy: moral mechanic sucks, and they are under pointed.

They have an hidden ability : buffer and board control. they do not pay for that, just the stat line.

If you look at the game as a whole, the only good troops are hordes and infiltrators, preferably with a stratagem or 2.

 

So my conclusion is simple: a point change here and there, a stratagem for flavor and we should get more diversity in our choices of tax unit.

 

Making them cost more by giving them special ability seems to me counter intuitive. If we want better tac for more point we have the intercessor already.

[Kallas]

Making them cost more by giving them special ability seems to me counter intuitive. If we want better tac for more point we have the intercessor already.

 

I, at least personally, wasn't suggesting making them more expensive in exchange for a better ability. 11/12pts and an objective based offence and/or defence based buff.

 

Definitely agree that morale has been implemented poorly, as it really doesn't punish massed bodies, only large individual units (and even then, so many of those have ways to just completely negate the effects, such as Synapse, Mob Rule, even just the standard stratagem). Ironically, large units of Marines are quite heavily impacted by morale, which is just...wut?!

[chapter master 454]

Detachments do not encourage using different units. Detachments encourage taking the minimum needed to back what you really want. Ala, I present to you sir the finest is battalion detachment CP battery technology: Astra Militarum Pattern Rechargable. This piece of technology only requires us to take 2 company commanders and 30 guardsman for only 180 points and not only does it gives us command points on the cheap but can also break the laws of physics and gives us more command points than we started with due to the unique treatment we put one of the commander elements through coupled with state of the art mass manufactured aquilas.

 

Mhmm...and also, let me just heap a little more on that: Does outrider encourage you to take land speeders over bikes? Assault marines, or anything really? No, because it is pathetic. Eldar even have this. If you were to take an Outrider detachment there, guess what most would likely take: 3 squads of shining spears with whatever HQ they want. Never Warp Spiders, never swooping hawks. Because detachments don't encourage variety, it discourages it. We don't use detachments for anything but furthering our own command benefits.

 

I have advocated faction special detachments to begin with however I still stand by the idea of formations being interesting. I don't know why people think they aren't. I suppose people aren't willing to look past the sins of the past I suppose.