"Fixing" the Space Marine Codex

[Lord Raven 19]

Personally I think the -1 to hit for raven guard is fine but it maybe should only work for infantry bikers and dreadnoughts with everything getting additional +1 to save if in cover

[chapter master 454]

Would like Space Marine powers to be worth something other than a punchline to a joke (our psychic phase). Though to be fair, I made that point in another thread relating to how psychic just feels blands anyway.

 

Primaris get to take along 10 plasma rifles because that is their heavy weapon squad and not their troop choice. Tacticals themselves need to have some serious looking at relating to what their thing is because being a generalist unit isn't good. To be honest, I would agree with the idea that they should be the special weapons teams of space marines. 4 special weapon options instead of 1 special and 1 heavy would make them a super awesome option. Just stipulate that you can only have 2 per 5 marines in the squad (which in all rights would be fine, one squad could be the special weapons team led by the sergeant to help deal with an issue while the others hold the mid-line or some objective).

 

Predators need to ether become a "1-3 per Slot" choice or actually made to mean something, give them good mobility (ignore movement penalty) and even add some bonuses vs. big targets (because they would know where to aim their shots).

[spessmarine]

 

Tacticals themselves need to have some serious looking at relating to what their thing is because being a generalist unit isn't good.

This indeed.

People throw out all sorts of buff suggestions or blanket buff them requests but in order to go anywhere, what is the point of tacticals supposed to be?

Despite being played off as generalist, they really aren't, they do most things poorly. Right off the bat, if they had some sort of flexible tactics rule it would be great from a crunch and fluff perspective

[UnkyHamHam]

 

 

Tacticals themselves need to have some serious looking at relating to what their thing is because being a generalist unit isn't good.

This indeed.

People throw out all sorts of buff suggestions or blanket buff them requests but in order to go anywhere, what is the point of tacticals supposed to be?

Despite being played off as generalist, they really aren't, they do most things poorly. Right off the bat, if they had some sort of flexible tactics rule it would be great from a crunch and fluff perspective

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/343528-alternative-tactical-squad/?do=findComment&comment=4994813

 

I humbly implore you to take a look at some ideas I have made for the Tacticals and give me some feedback. I definitely agree. Tacticals should be the defining unit and one of the shining stars of C:SM. They are after all the majority of all Chapters, and the backbone and work horse of every codex operational force. They should be redesigned to feel this way and play this way.

[Beta galactosidase]

 

 

Right off the bat, if they had some sort of flexible tactics rule it would be great from a crunch and fluff perspective

 

 

I humbly implore you to take a look at some ideas I have made for the Tacticals and give me some feedback. I definitely agree. Tacticals should be the defining unit and one of the shining stars of C:SM. They are after all the majority of all Chapters, and the backbone and work horse of every codex operational force. They should be redesigned to feel this way and play this way.

 

 

 

Seems strange to simultaneously say they are a bread and butter unit that does generalist tasks and also write them elaborate rules.

 

I mean I tell you right now I mostly build terrain and put on games for people more than I work on an army, and I'd never take that kind of tactical rules to the rest of the players.

[Lemondish]

I see you put an awesome amount of work into that suggestion, Unky, but I fear that people forget that this is still a simple game. The solution to tacticals being weak and uninteresting, like the solution to every other problem presented, will be achieved in a subtle way that doesn't upend the current status quo too heavily.

 

We all like to dream about big, impactful changes. But that's because dreaming doesn't require weighing the impact and consequences of a dozen substantial changes. Tacticals, like everything in the marine codex, just need a nudge more than they need a full rework. The reason a rework is so desperately desired is because of a combination of lackluster performance on the table and relatively boring, vanilla mechanics. The performance can be balanced, but it's clear that the mechanics are what concern people the most.

 

Well, whether we like it or not, marines are the entry point into this game and they should probably not make the marquee troop choice carry more complexity than a DW kill team. I'm sorry, Unky, but I don't think your tactical marine suggestion is the best way to go.

 

I think the solution should be subtle. They need to be priced lower in recognition that the T4, 1W, 3+ platform, absent additional special defensive rules, is too weak to compete at its current price point. The obvious solution is a point drop to scout levels. That will fix their competitive position. Making them a unique option can come from the expansion of special weapon slots as 454 suggested without ever adding new, unit specific special rules.

[spessmarine]

 

 

Tacticals themselves need to have some serious looking at relating to what their thing is because being a generalist unit isn't good.

This indeed.

People throw out all sorts of buff suggestions or blanket buff them requests but in order to go anywhere, what is the point of tacticals supposed to be?

Despite being played off as generalist, they really aren't, they do most things poorly. Right off the bat, if they had some sort of flexible tactics rule it would be great from a crunch and fluff perspective

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/343528-alternative-tactical-squad/?do=findComment&comment=4994813

 

I humbly implore you to take a look at some ideas I have made for the Tacticals and give me some feedback. I definitely agree. Tacticals should be the defining unit and one of the shining stars of C:SM. They are after all the majority of all Chapters, and the backbone and work horse of every codex operational force. They should be redesigned to feel this way and play this way.

 

A little bit complicated.

But giving flavour and buffing tacticals through chapter tactics seems like a good idea. Less bookkeeping and updating in so many places.

 

Breachers shouldn't be rolled into tacticals.

 

Edit:

IF/Sals/IH tacticals could get fire twice if stationary.

BA/WS no advance penalty to encourage speed

[UnkyHamHam]

These are definitely fair points. And I totally get it, and see that people prefer simplicity. This is probably why 8th is more widely accepted than 7th was. I for one loved all the flavor in terms of detachments, formations, and relics and traits every chapter had in 7th. I also love the beautiful complexity that is 30k.

 

So definitely call me inspired by those design choices to inject some actual fun technical play into what is the most boring and mundane army in the game. My favorite army, and my favorite unit, and with so much potential considering their lore.

 

It's honestly a shame. I know you guys are absolutely right that GW will continue to keep marines basic, simple, and samey to help recruit new players. But that really does depress me. Now having experienced 7th and 30k and what could be.

 

I appreciate all of your feedback.

[Panzer]

It's honestly a misconception that 8th edition as a whole is simpler than 7th edition. The core rules are simpler, mainly because it's less bloated, however once you take a look into the Codexes with all the Stratagems and unit specific special rules (not exactly with Marines since they are pretty plain, but other armies) and so on it's not that much simpler than 7th anymore. The real difference is that it plays smoother due the core rules being less bloated.

[UnkyHamHam]

It's honestly a misconception that 8th edition as a whole is simpler than 7th edition. The core rules are simpler, mainly because it's less bloated, however once you take a look into the Codexes with all the Stratagems and unit specific special rules (not exactly with Marines since they are pretty plain, but other armies) and so on it's not that much simpler than 7th anymore. The real difference is that it plays smoother due the core rules being less bloated.

I should have specified better. Because I do agree with you for the most part.

 

8th cut down on the unique stuff marines had tremendously. Cut every chapters relics and traits to 1 each. And took away all the flavorful formations and detachments. Took away all our psychic powers. Took away versatility out of units like Sternguard, Thunderfires, and Whirlwinds because apparently multiple ammunitions and choice was to complicated for us.

 

Then it just started copy pasting our chapter tactics out to other codexes and so on and so on. I hope you see what I mean here.

 

I do love 8th. But it sterilized the flavor in the marine dex very hard. And it's just a slap in the face that every other army continues to get handfuls of flavorful strategems and snowflake rules for each weapon, unit, and so on. But we must remain the bastion of mediocrity to ensure new players aren't scared off by too many rules.

 

And I do get it. I just don't have to like it haha.

 

Edit: I do want to edit this before someone calls me out for being a whiny marine fan boy lol. I do love that other armies are getting their time in the sun. It's good for the game. And I play more than just marines. The slap in the face comment is more directed at our snowflake marine brethren. They get all of our toys and strats now, PLUS gobs of unique ones just for them. At least in 7th there was still an illusion of balance between the different marine dexes. Now it's just bland vanilla at its finest compared to the other Marine books.

[Lemondish]

I can't really relate here (guilty of being a snowflake chapter lover), but I can understand.

 

I did want to pump the brakes on what I said regarding simplicity. I meant that specifically and exclusively in the context of the tactical marine. A line as wide as the Marine one can absolutely include complexity. Maybe now with Primaris in play we can explore more options here and let them take the mantle of simple yet effective.

 

This was always going to be the first codex release, we know that, and we've seen each subsequent release get better and better for the most part. Not just on the table, but with neat, sometimes complicated, internal synergies and flavourful rules. I think going first has been the biggest harm to the vanilla marines, and while I believe point balancing can make things more competitive (and will trickle down to every marine codex), it won't do much to give you that sense of flavour and complexity you feel is missing.

[Kallas]

Edit: I do want to edit this before someone calls me out for being a whiny marine fan boy lol. I do love that other armies are getting their time in the sun. It's good for the game. And I play more than just marines. The slap in the face comment is more directed at our snowflake marine brethren. They get all of our toys and strats now, PLUS gobs of unique ones just for them. At least in 7th there was still an illusion of balance between the different marine dexes. Now it's just bland vanilla at its finest compared to the other Marine books.

I've bounced between Vanilla, BA and SW and to be fair, those two don't have much in the way of flavour or "gobs of unique" stuff.

 

BA have a few different units, but they're essentially still Marine bodies. Sanguinary Guard are essentially Jump Pack Terminators; Death Company are slightly modified Vanguard Veterans; with a few unique characters. Similar for the Space Wolves: they have a different Chapter structure, so their similar units function differently, but at their core they're the same principles - Grey Hunters - Tacticals; Blood/Sky Claws - Assault Marines; Long Fangs - Devastators.

 

As far as stratagems are concerned, both have a lot of overlap with the Vanilla book (which is fair enough), and while there are some solid unique stratagems it generally boils down to about two to four good unique ones: BA get Upon Wings of Fire, Descent of Angels, Forlorn Fury and Death Visions; SW get Cloaked by the Storm, Wolf's Eye, Seeking A Sage, Keen Senses and maybe Chooser of the Slain.

 

Functionally, they're Marines, with slightly different options and either Bloody Blood Claws of Bloodness or Wolfy Wolf Claws of Wolfiness.

 

That said, I'm not saying that the Vanilla Codex doesn't need help, it absolutely does (way too many boring/crap stratagems, especially when compared to similar ones: prime example, Masterful Marksmanship vs Veterans of the Long War), just that all Marine Codexes need help in some way - just that the Vanilla Codex needs more help.

[Schlitzaf]

The issue with Tacticals, which I have said elsewhere is the fixes exist;

MSU Squads

Bolter or Chain/Heavy Or Special

AllSpecial/BolterChain

2w/2a

 

But that other marine armies, have coopted them. And those tactical ‘fixes’ have come to define the different armies flavor variance from the Codex. To better explain

 

1) MSU (Crusader Squad), the MSU Fix alongside the ability to take Scouts, and PowWeapon instead of Heavy. Is the cornerstone of Templar flavor on tabletop. Black Templars (alongside Space Wolves) divergence is their complete disregard for pre-establish structures and norms. But how is this different from Wolves? Wolves have their Packs, these are bonds of brotherhood formed based on time of initiation. Then the squads are further divided by age and more. Black Templar’s just do not have any formal kind of unit structure.

 

There isn’t a “Devastator” Squad instead it’s a hodgepodge of comrades. So the ability to MSU Crusaders is representative of a Templar’s Devastator style squad configuration. But by extension by lacking double Heavy in that squad it represents that the chapter doesn’t have true dedicated devastator setups (yes I know Templars can take Devi’s). The Neophytes are simply gameplay-story integration showcasing that the chapter doesn’t do the traditional scout/separating the chapter recruits from their future brothers.

 

The Power Sword And Bolter to Chain Option highlights Templar preference for close combat.

 

2) Bolter or Chain/Heavy or Special: The Chaos Marine setup, Chaos Marines are somewhat better off then Tacticals but not by much. The importance here is that like the Crusader the variance highlights that the Chaos never adopted the Codex. And the flexibility of engagement and doctrine.

 

However unlike the Crusader it lacks MSU, this is because Chaos Forces have more regimented organization then Templars. But ability to double heavy or special, showcase alongside Chain or Bolter the sheer variance between the various chaos armies. While the option to take a single plasma pistol instead of a heavy or special, signs how the chaos marines came from an era where certain tech was more ubigitious. The Icon rule also showcases godly allegiance.

 

3) Bolter/Chain/AllSpecial, the Space Wolves are Hunters. And part of that is moving constantly and being on the prowl. That is a direct contrast with having heavy weapons. The variance from the Astartes is the Tactical Squad (And even the other two tactical equivalents) is all about flexibility. Being the armies Swiss Army knife. However, where Crusaders, And Chaos Marine have strategic flexibility (being able to fill whatever role your army needs) to a lesser extent so so Tacticals because heavy and special setups.

 

Grey Hunters will always be a midfield tactical unit that has tactical flexibility able to firefight or engage in Melee but cannot anchor your backfield. In that way they don’t have heavy weapons and to engage at all they need to get within 24 but more like 12” for effectiveness. The variance here is that packs stay together over time and while it has more organization than Templars, it also follows Leman Russ principles. Notably they lack option to reemphasis to take any heavy option. So while they bolter/chain they give up some flexibility at the list building stage to do so.

 

4) Intercessors; Intercessor improves statline to highlight to a new player, how Intercessors are improved over older Astartes. But secondly their organizational setup, is a callback to the legions where everything had a specialized role in contrast to the modern Astartes Swiss army.

 

Intercessors are effective vs light to medium armor but waffle against heavy armor or a horde. Being most effective at taking down the average opponent.

 

Once again Tacticals need to be fixed but half the issue is that the fixes for the have been coopted. Honestly the easiest fix would be giving marines +1W. Major concern would be Deathgaurd.

[Panzer]

Another idea to make Tacticals worth taking would be to let them score an additional VP when fulfilling an objective. That would automatically leading to people prefering having Tacticals sitting on objectives over other units and thus have more of them in lists as it should be. That way they would fulfill their purpose as being the most numerous unit in Marine armies and as the ones focussing on the actual objectives while the rest of the army is there to support them.

 

Of course that wouldn't fix their problem of not being as durable as they should be but that's hard to change without reducing the amount of weapons that can easily devastate a Marine stat line in the game. Two wounds would be preferable (in line with a points increase for Plasma and similar weapons across all Codexes tbh) but that's already Primaris' thing.

[Daigo Cannon]

Something like doctrines will be cool. Let them pick 1 trait from a table per turn at the start of this one, this will reflect their flexibility on adapting to the battle field, this will be only accesible to tacticals and will be their own trade.

 

Example

@Unstopable advance: When this unit advance, treat all its ranged weapons as Assault.

        This helps with mobility, so they can reach the objective they nedd to secure.

@Sharp shooter: Marines are train to look for their enemies weekness, a well placed shoot can be devastating to the enemy. Add -1 AP to shooting

        A way to improve their lethality.

@Close quarter: Either -1 AP, +1 Attack or treat ranged weapons as pistol, maybe with the exception of heavy if the unit is in melee.

        We all know a marine is capable in close combat.

@Hold your ground: -1 to be hit by shooting, maybe add a penalty of -1 to their own shooting to balance.

        This will be the way to make them more resilence, once you get the objective you want to secure the position.

@Aim to the head: Add +1 DMG to all bolters, unit gets a penalty of -1 to hit OR on a roll of 6 add a mortal wound

        A well aim bolter shell can be devastating

  

Emergency orders: 1 CP. Estratagem to change doctrine at any time during the turn 

[Schlitzaf]

Another idea to make Tacticals worth taking would be to let them score an additional VP when fulfilling an objective. That would automatically leading to people prefering having Tacticals sitting on objectives over other units and thus have more of them in lists as it should be. That way they would fulfill their purpose as being the most numerous unit in Marine armies and as the ones focussing on the actual objectives while the rest of the army is there to support them.

 

Of course that wouldn't fix their problem of not being as durable as they should be but that's hard to change without reducing the amount of weapons that can easily devastate a Marine stat line in the game. Two wounds would be preferable (in line with a points increase for Plasma and similar weapons across all Codexes tbh) but that's already Primaris' thing.

Serious question; would the other three MeQ Tactical Equivalents get this rule alongside Intercessors? (Not saying they should just asking if you wrote intending they will). Another fix I would do is give Tacticals +1 CP when taken in 10 men.*

 

This is just a tangential aside but I would also change Combat Squading to a) when the unit is deployed or b) the first time the unit is moves or placed on the table after turn 1.

 

*Saving you about 60 points assuming you were doing battlelion + speciality. An average Marine army would have +2-3 CP.

[Panzer]

 

Another idea to make Tacticals worth taking would be to let them score an additional VP when fulfilling an objective. That would automatically leading to people prefering having Tacticals sitting on objectives over other units and thus have more of them in lists as it should be. That way they would fulfill their purpose as being the most numerous unit in Marine armies and as the ones focussing on the actual objectives while the rest of the army is there to support them.

 

Of course that wouldn't fix their problem of not being as durable as they should be but that's hard to change without reducing the amount of weapons that can easily devastate a Marine stat line in the game. Two wounds would be preferable (in line with a points increase for Plasma and similar weapons across all Codexes tbh) but that's already Primaris' thing.

Serious question; would the other three MeQ Tactical Equivalents get this rule alongside Intercessors? (Not saying they should just asking if you wrote intending they will). Another fix I would do is give Tacticals +1 CP when taken in 10 men.*

 

 

 

Yeah I'd give SW "Tacticals" and Crusader Squads the same thing I think. They are better than Tacticals but they are still not good so they too need something. Intercessors ... I don't know. They should but I don't want them to be the obviously better choice over Tacticals. Scouts definitely shouldn't get it tho. They have their infiltration which is already worth a LOT.

 

More CP is always great, however the questions are: does it outweight the cheaper and better Scouts and, apart from Blood Angels, what do we need more CP for? (most Marine Stratagems are pretty meh if we're honest)

[Schlitzaf]

Additional proc of honor/counter/auspex or making CM Strategem affordable. The other idea was making it taking 10 men means mid game combat squading affordable.

 

Through as aside Grey Hunters/Crusaders are actually mathematically very similar to Intercessors. The main difference is Grey Hunters have a larger damage output (3 Special, 1 Plasma Pistol, 4 PowerWeapon attacks. And when taking efficient ratios 6 or 10 half the squad has a cool weapon of some kind), to Intercessor durability while Crusaders durability is functionally equivalents (14-16 vs 20 wounds but high damage weapons are less effective) and similar damage output. But there output is heavy skewed to Melee or Range while Intercessors having 50/50 output to shooting/Melee.

 

But yeah I agree with that comment of Hunters and Crusaders getting it.

[Lemondish]

Of course that wouldn't fix their problem of not being as durable as they should be but that's hard to change without reducing the amount of weapons that can easily devastate a Marine stat line in the game. Two wounds would be preferable (in line with a points increase for Plasma and similar weapons across all Codexes tbh) but that's already Primaris' thing.

 

I don't think we should worry about Primaris - their 'thing' can be shifted since it's heavily based on these components:

• They're more durable than other marines (right now that's because they have 2 wounds)
• They emulate a legion style with specific roles, only they do it with slightly better baseline gear than their counterparts and have far more limited options

You can still maintain those distinctions in a world where tacticals (and their equivalents) gain 2 wounds. In fact, the only impact here is hurting the durability gap, which we can keep by giving Primaris a passive rule that reduces the damage taken from attacks by 1 to a minimum of 1 (extend this to Terminators, too). Both units are then equally as efficient against mass attrition fire, but Primaris gain durability against the things that kill marines real well at the cost of tactical flexibility. I think that would create three capable and viable troops options whereas today we have 1 and a half:

• Cheaper, 1 wound, 4+ save scouts with powerful deployment options
• Tactical squad with 2 w, T4, 3+ save 1A carrying boltguns, a couple specials, and a heavy weapon espousing tactical flexibility and a generalist role, only now with the durability against attrition fire it needs to make an impact on the board
• An Intercessor squad that does one job only, carries better baseline rifles, can hit more often in melee, and is more resilient against the weapons that gib marines at the cost of that tactical flexibility and a rigid role

 

I would even go so far as to say their current price points wouldn't even need to be addressed to make them amazingly solid baseline options moving forward. 

 

This is of course a massively impactful change that would probably skyrocket marines into the stratosphere competitively and would probably require a new codex to actually roll out. Therefore, the more likely outcome is that marines drop 2 to 3 ppm. 

[Ishagu]

If Marines have two wounds what happens to Terminators?

 

How about Plague Marines and Thousand Sons? Wouldn't they become TOO strong? What about Custodes? Shouldn't the gap be bigger?

 

This is why Marines can't and won't be adjusted beyond points. Too many units with the same starting profile across too many books.

[Schlitzaf]

If Marines have two wounds what happens to Terminators?

 

How about Plague Marines and Thousand Sons? Wouldn't they become TOO strong? What about Custodes? Shouldn't the gap be bigger?

 

This is why Marines can't and won't be adjusted beyond points. Too many units with the same starting profile across too many books.

That is why my fixes would focus on making Tacticals (And their equivalents) via rule additions to them personally. I think Panzer has right idea having them score twice for objectives.

[Lemondish]

If Marines have two wounds what happens to Terminators?

 

How about Plague Marines and Thousand Sons? Wouldn't they become TOO strong? What about Custodes? Shouldn't the gap be bigger?

 

This is why Marines can't and won't be adjusted beyond points. Too many units with the same starting profile across too many books.

 

If Tactical Marines have 2 wounds, then Terminators can either gain the same Primaris benefit mentioned or jump to 3. Not a problem there. Same with bikes. 3 wound bikes make them a much more attractive option alongside their scout bike brethren (which are currently a competitive darling). 

 

Plague Marines can stay at their current price with 1 Wound, T5 (like they are currently) and Disgustingly Resilient.

 

Rubric Marines can also stay at their current price with 1 Wound, All is Dust, and their 5+ invuln they have.

 

Why would Custodes be affected at all? 

 

The important part you seem to miss in every single one of these discussions is that the gap is too wide right now. It isn't right where it should be. The gap between a Custodian Guard and Tactical Marine is much wider than that of a Catachan and a Space Marine. That's bonkers. To imply that by adding a single wound we encroach on their schtick even though they are still superior in every single conceivable way is unnecessarily limiting. Thankfully, there's no power armour keyword that gets affected when a marine's stats are changed a small bit. After all, there is no standard power armour statline in the game currently. 

 

What happens to tacticals doesn't have to impact anything external to the Space Marine, though one would imagine it would directly impact all internal units like Veterans, Devastators, and Assault Marines. Boosting each of those would make sense (and would make some of them more viable than they currently are). 

 

I honestly have no idea why this question keeps getting asked. Those comparisons are completely different units. Seriously, there's really nothing in common with tactical marines and plague marines except that they wear power armour. Thankfully, power armour isn't a keyword that links everything together. Right now they have different points costs, different abilities, different wargear, different stats, and different unit upgrades. The gap between tacticals and the others is too wide. Moving it forward does not necessitate any change outside of the Imperial family. 

 

Its maddening. It's like saying you can't adjust the Land Speeder because then how would you change Eldar jetbikes? Data sheets can, and currently are different across every power armour force that isn't Imperial. Since the Imperial ones all use the same codex marine backbone, a change there improves them as well - and they need it just as much as the codex brethren do. 

[Ishagu]

Plague Marines are Marines with added abilities. They are 100% related and any change to the base stats will be reflected in Plague Marines as well.

[Beta galactosidase]

 

The important part you seem to miss in every single one of these discussions is that the gap is too wide right now. It isn't right where it should be.

 

Even if you get the gap in power small enough from custodes and large enough from guard, it is besides the point.  Theoretically you could have everything have identical power per point: identical shooting damage, identical survival per point.  The thing is that the purpose of troops units like tactical squads is board control, and with the rules as they are that relies on model count, so it doesn't matter if they have identical damage and survival per point because elite models will always have less board control per point.  The relative eliteness regarding wounds is secondary  to that problem.

[9x19 Parabellum]

I'm loving the idea of scoring extra VPs on objectives, but I wonder if that might actually make Tacticals TOO good.  Maybe it should just be limited to Seize and Hold style objectives (ie, the numbered ones?)