Simple things to help fix Space Marines

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Minimum squad size should always be five.

 

All sergeants should have access to power weapons (and preferably combi-weapons as well).

 

Those are I can think of right off the top of my head.

[Viridovix]

You mean, aside of Infantry?

 

Because most if not all Infantry Sergeants can have a powersword, correct me if I'm wrong.

Or you meant no points at all for the small upgrades?

[Djangomatic82]

Minimum squad size should always be five.

 

All sergeants should have access to power weapons (and preferably combi-weapons as well).

 

Those are I can think of right off the top of my head.

Unless they change the sprues, I think those might not be possible because of the whole "rules according to whats in the box" because of the Chapter house ruling.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Most Primaris sergeants don’t have any access to power weapons. They can easily make a sprue and put it in a blister. Edited May 1, 2022 by Black Blow Fly

[Djangomatic82]

Most Primaris sergeants don’t have any access to power weapons. They can easily make a sprue and put it in a blister.

I agree, but by that logic, they could also add the existing 5 piece jump pack sprue to the Company Command box or Assault Intercessor box.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Not really.

[Djangomatic82]

Not really.

whats the difference?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Let’s keep the discussion on topic. Thanks.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Let’s keep the discussion on topic. Thanks.

that seems like a cop out but it might make space marines better in a simple way so seems on topic to me

[UnkyHamHam]

Phobos upgrade sprue to give Reivers/Infiltrators/Incursors some intetesting gear like the AoR specialist wargear. Plus sarges some simple upgrades like power swords, plasma pistols, and maybe combi-carbines.

 

On the subject of simplification, combine those three units into a single unit please. Make some of the specialist gear an either/or if you have to. Like anti deep strike bubble OR grapnels/grav shoots.

 

Also, just combine all 3 terminator squads into 1. It's not even remotely op to put 2x heavy weapons with shields. I mean they still won't be wolves, dangels, or deathwatch.

 

That's all I can think of for now.

 

Edit: thought of another: combine Intercessors and Assault Intercessors into as well. Also, just allow mix and matching bolt rifle variants. Most people won't care, but I find it so arbitrary and annoying.

Edited May 2, 2022 by UnkyHamHam

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

As far as I’m aware only BA has or had access to jump pack command squad. Do we even have all the Primaris equivalents now with the Chapter Chsmpion added? This has to be very low priority for the development team (if ever). So this just seems very wishlisty to me, which is not the intent of the thread.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Personally I'd like to see how big of an impact AoC has before suggesting other fixes. My wolves do feel tougher which durability has been my biggest complaint but I haven't played enough to really get a handle on how much better they got.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

No marines in top 10 at Dallas GT this past weekend… there was one sisters army though.

[Emperor Ming]

Basic bolters used by sisters, death guard, firstborn marines etc need an improvement, there just a joke atm 

[Lautrec the Embraced]

Minimum squad size should always be five.

 

All sergeants should have access to power weapons (and preferably combi-weapons as well).

 

Those are I can think of right off the top of my head.

I agree on the power weapons, combis etc, it's ridiculous that most Primaris units don't even have such little customization (or that even if they do, somehow Primaris are not allowed to pick anything other than a sword...). Makes me reluctant to buy or use such clown 'melee' units like reivers or incursors. And love how their unique melee weapons make so much sense (Reiver got a large knife so he gets an extra attack, Incursor got a pair of lil' ones so gets no extra A but an Ap-1, wait what!?).

 

How about we just let 'em take chainswords or buff those poking sticks of theirs? Don't get me even started on a Captain or Lieutnant armed with nothing but a tiny knife that Crocodile Dundee would laugh at. Might as well start modelling them with spoons instead as their melee is of purely comedic value anyway.

 

In general while I understand the appeal of some Primaris units, for me they feel unnecessarily rigid, only the sole Intercessors look like a real marine unit with optional wargear and sarge weapons. It's okay to have a rigid loadout on stuff like Inceptors given their purpose but this should be an exception, not a rule.

[Guest Triszin]

Make "machine spirit" in vehicles a 6+ fnp

 

 

Reivers:

- move to troops

 

 

Remove transport limitations.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

For machine spirit I’d like to see non degrading BS.

[Djangomatic82]

Vehicles need a rework. Considering the only vanilla vehicle that see's consistent play is the Redemptor, it could be useful to use that as a guidpost in trying to determine what it takes to make a vehicle something people want to bring to their games.

To be specific, If a vehicle is supposed to be tough, we can math out how tough the Redemptor is versus "X" unit/weapon and then write rules from there.

Same goes for how shooty something is, how mobile, how tricksy, how tactical, etc...

 

Additionally, I think the Degradation chart is something that doesn't necessarily have to be kept. I understand that with the switch to 8th, it was thought to be a way to imitate armour facing and damage chart, but it is an idea that really has outlived its usefulness.

As an example, how much of a difference would the Redemptor see if it no longer had a degradation chart. Yes, it would be a buff, but would it double its usefulness? increase it by 50%? 10%? I personally don't think it would even reach that level of upgrade.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Djangomatic82

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Vehicles really need a lot of help and I’ve heard a rumor they’ll be a lot better in SM codex 2.0.

[Lautrec the Embraced]

I would say that Machine Spirit should be quite something, it needs more oomph than a simple FnP 6+. In general I am puzzled by the state of marine tanks (at least the original, non-primaris, I don't use primaris ones), it seems to my out-of-touch self that they are incredibly fragile for the price.

 

How come leman russ has both better T, W and Sv over a predator as well as some fun rules and stratagems, all for the same price? I believe it used to be (pre 8th ed) slower and had better armour while retaining the same amount of hull points but it was also much more expensive than Pred. Why is the 'mighty' Land Raider twice as expensive as a Leman but gets the same defences with only 4 wounds more?

 

Also, the difference between Rhino and Pred is 1, single wound and that's it. It used to be (pre 8th) a jump from 11 to 13 Armour value, a huge difference.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Lautrec the Embraced

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I think we’d more or less be fine if all of the random damage weapons were changed to flat damage or D2+3/6d

Same for random number of shots.

 

No more of this BS where dedicated AT weapons are only doing 1 damage to light vehicles.

[Lautrec the Embraced]

I think we’d more or less be fine if all of the random damage weapons were changed to flat damage or D2+3/6d

Same for random number of shots.

 

No more of this BS where dedicated AT weapons are only doing 1 damage to light vehicles.

For me it makes a bit more sense for the high explosive, blast weapons to be random damage, like a Demolisher cannon - if you roll a '6' for damage clearly the shell landed on some poor dude whereas a '1' would suggest some other guy was only hit with a shrapnel or something like this.  Though it makes them hardly reliable weapons when have to roll for both number of shots and then damage.

 

But for lascannons/krak missiles I see no reason why it shouldn't have a fixed base damage above 1. To make it less powerful then melta it could be 'd6 damage but a minimum of 3'. It allows for a guaranteed minimum damage that you will get 50% of the time but also won't lead to some extremes like 8 damage the way '2 damage + d6 extra' would

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

I think we’d more or less be fine if all of the random damage weapons were changed to flat damage or D2+3/6d

Same for random number of shots.

 

No more of this BS where dedicated AT weapons are only doing 1 damage to light vehicles.

For me it makes a bit more sense for the high explosive, blast weapons to be random damage, like a Demolisher cannon - if you roll a '6' for damage clearly the shell landed on some poor dude whereas a '1' would suggest some other guy was only hit with a shrapnel or something like this. Though it makes them hardly reliable weapons when have to roll for both number of shots and then damage.

 

But for lascannons/krak missiles I see no reason why it shouldn't have a fixed base damage above 1. To make it less powerful then melta it could be 'd6 damage but a minimum of 3'. It allows for a guaranteed minimum damage that you will get 50% of the time but also won't lead to some extremes like 8 damage the way '2 damage + d6 extra' would

in that case D3+d3 damage I don’t think a minimum of 4 damage for a dedicated anti-tank weapon is too ridiculous, but maxes out at 6 which is strong, but not over strong.

[Lautrec the Embraced]

could be as well but I think it should be reserved for the most powerful, tank mounted AT weapons in the codex like the Laser destroyer, it already has such damage.

 

I don't think man-portable lascannons or launchers need such a boost,  '3+d3' results in average and median of 5 damage and while it maxes out at only 6 damage, whole 1/3rd of rolls would result in the maximum damage. It seems a bit over the top for me, it's a huge jump from the current average of 3.5 D.

 

'd6 but min of 3' would keep it lower at average of 4 but median of 3.5 damage. Still maxes out at 6 but only on 1/6th of the rolls. So the theoretical damage output increases only a bit, nevertheless it makes it now reliable, you can shoot tanks, terminators, gravis etc without wasting a lot of damage.

 

For me at least that'd be enough and it would make all AT weapons discernible: Meltas get +X damage in close range, lascannons and other portable AT guns get 'd6 but min of 3' and finally the most powerfull stuff always gets X+d3/d6 damage.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

could be as well but I think it should be reserved for the most powerful, tank mounted AT weapons in the codex like the Laser destroyer, it already has such damage.

 

I don't think man-portable lascannons or launchers need such a boost, '3+d3' results in average and median of 5 damage and while it maxes out at only 6 damage, whole 1/3rd of rolls would result in the maximum damage. It seems a bit over the top for me, it's a huge jump from the current average of 3.5 D.

 

'd6 but min of 3' would keep it lower at average of 4 but median of 3.5 damage. Still maxes out at 6 but only on 1/6th of the rolls. So the theoretical damage output increases only a bit, nevertheless it makes it now reliable, you can shoot tanks, terminators, gravis etc without wasting a lot of damage.

 

For me at least that'd be enough and it would make all AT weapons discernible: Meltas get +X damage in close range, lascannons and other portable AT guns get 'd6 but min of 3' and finally the most powerfull stuff always gets X+d3/d6 damage.

while I am not a super competitive tournament type, I think things like the laser destroyer could use a bit of a boost to be a bit more comparable to other similar weapons, like a flat 8-10 damage.

 

Also while I know applying realism to the game is a bit of an exercise in futility, I think we can look at the Ukrainian. Conflict to see how effect man portable AT weapons are and can be against vehicles, showing that things like krak missiles should probably have some higher damage output against vehicles than they do. An RPG may not flat out destroy a modern MBT, but it will cripple it.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven