Make Power Armour and Bolters Great Again

[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.

[Beams]

Aren't formations just detachments?

 

And my stance on formations is well known. Grey Knights had no real usable formations, and sisters of battle finally got one near the end of 7th and it was a huge disaster; it was undeniably the worst formation and worse than taking a simple CAD.

 

Formations and special detachments lead to power creep and unlevel the playing field. I'd also argue for less special strategems and more generic ones, but that ship has sailed a long time ago.

 

I think that for the most part, there should be a limit on things that don't cost points but have a tangible impact on the game.

[Ishagu]

Dropping the cost to 9 points, and 13 points for Primaris will put Marines back on the table. Let's hope GW does this!

[Beams]

Dropping the cost to 9 points, and 13 points for Primaris will put Marines back on the table. Let's hope GW does this!

We had a whole discussion on why you can't have Marines at 9 pts, without dropping sisters, and then you have veterans, skitarii and a whole section of infantry choices that are invalidated or moved cheaper.

 

Sisters 9pts vs 9 pt marines, Marines are clearly better, even if AoF gives the sisters footlsoggig army a bonus vs Marines footsloggers, it's not enough to make up for marines having +1 Str, +1 ws, +1 toughness and a natural reroll to morale.

[Ishagu]

Drop sisters to 8

[Volt]

 

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 -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.

 

Woah, I'm all for fluff marines but the idea of space marines benching 72 tonne land raiders is BS. Even lifting a Rhino would be trouble for them. I like to go by ADB's 10x10 metric, and thus if we say a strongman can deadlift 400 pounds, a naked marine can deadlift 4,000 pounds, and a marine in power armor can deadlift 40,000 pounds (heh). That's 18 metric tonnes, and while a marine could deadlift a hummer like it was nothing, a rhino would be a bit beyond them. 

 

With that in mind though, and especially with toughness/strength no longer being limited to 10, there's no reason to go beyond the norm, outside of GW obviously wanting marines to be as numerous as possible to make as much money as possible. But either for a fandex (because this is homebrew now after all) or an imaginary world where GW is capable of interesting game design - give all power armor marines a Tyrant Guard statline. T5/S5, 3 wounds, 3 attacks, 3+ and costing a buttload of points while in turn having boltguns with a new number of shots allowing a small and elite army of ~30-40 marines to go toe-to-toe with 150 or so guardsmen with both parties having a respectable chance of winning depending on the context of the engagement. Custodes likewise should go up in stats, cost, and become more of a supplementary force, with the typical custodes army shouldn't be bogged down in melee by chaff blobs, but absolutely terrifying and melting things like conscript blobs in melee and being more of an apocalypse-scale force. 

 

Of course Tyranids especially should receive such a buff, with units such as Carnifexes going up in durability and toughness along with Dreadnoughts and Wraithlords. But many things should be adjusted so they are no longer a little more survivable than a guardsmen when they are supposed to be ELITE forces. The current stats are dumb and would be akin to if Plate-Armored Men at Arms had similar stats to peasant levies with padded armor in Lion Rampant, yet the men at arms retained their high cost. Not only is it unrealistic and SOD breaking, but it would make for poor game balance and army variety.

[UnkyHamHam]

Well now that we are in the house rule section, I will propose some ideas.  I'm very much of the school of thought that I'd rather see marines worth their points than drop in cost.  I DON'T want to play a marine hoard.  I don't know why most people want to take their play style in that direction.  So without further ado, I present to you UnkyHamHam's Astartes Performance Patch.  Critique as you will.  Four changes, no hold barred, big splash.

 

Transhuman Physiology -  (name plucked from Kill Team)  Infantry and Biker models with the Heretic Astartes, Adeptus Astartes, or Adept Custodes have the following special rule.  Roll a dice each time a model with this rule loses a wound to an attack that is strength 4.  That model ignores damage on a 6+.  This is increased to a 5+ for attacks strength 3 or lower.  Iron Hands  gain +1 to this roll.  Models with Disgustingly Resilient or All is Dust do not benefit.

 

Mass Reactive Munitions - Any weapon with the word "bolt", "bolter", or "boltgun" anywhere in its name receives the following rule.  On the wound roll of 6+, the weapon causes 1 additional damage than it would have.  This will usually cause 2 damage, but can sometimes cause 3 or more, or maybe d3+1 on rarer or larger bolt weapons.  (would count for bolters across the game. Sisters, Guard, Chaos, Custodes, Inquisition, all Marines) Does NOT apply if a model is using Special Issue Ammo since that implies different ammunition variance.

 

Mangle - Any melee weapon with the word "chain" in it receives the following rule. (Eviscerators count too).  On the roll of 6+ to wound against a non Vehicles, the damage cause are instead Mortal Wounds. (counts for all models across the game.  Sisters, Guard, Chaos, Marines... and so on)

 

Inviolate Adamantium - Models with the Terminator, Dreadnought, or Hellbrute keywords have the following rule.  Models with this rule have a -1 to damage inflicted upon them to a minimum of 1.

 

 

Ok, no knee jerk reactions.  Honestly think about it before posting.  Is any of this really OP?  Is it useful?  Does it wildly break the game?  Or does it just accomplish what we want, to bring use and play to the lower echelons of power armor, and make unique and decent their basic gear?  

 

That is all.  Thanks for reading.

 

EDIT:  Special ammo adendum and better wording

[chapter master 454]

Aren't formations just detachments?

 

And my stance on formations is well known. Grey Knights had no real usable formations, and sisters of battle finally got one near the end of 7th and it was a huge disaster; it was undeniably the worst formation and worse than taking a simple CAD.

 

Formations and special detachments lead to power creep and unlevel the playing field. I'd also argue for less special strategems and more generic ones, but that ship has sailed a long time ago.

 

I think that for the most part, there should be a limit on things that don't cost points but have a tangible impact on the game.

 

Formations could be considered a more restricted detachment version. Formations tell you what to bring, in some cases allowing some variance in what that is (possibly letting you chose unit numbers or possibly a choice between 2 units for one of the choices) and with that will grant you a benefit to those units. In the case of marines, our formations were ok but nothing like the earthbreaker stupidity that was the tau.

Also, I will point out that at their inception formations did have a points cost value however GW never actually used it when they should have to help tax powerful abilities. Some formations were ok being free as the unit combination was only really good because of the special rule imposed by the formation while others were so powerful you could of put some seriously hefty points on it.

 

Detachments are the step before formations. They do allow for more free-hand building of armies now like formations did (you literally just took whichever formations you wanted for your purposes...if they were good...otherwise back the CAD for you). As it stands however, detachments do not encourage variance. Sadly what we try to combat is literally min-maxing but...I mean...isn't that the point of the game mechanically? Leverage maximum advantage from units you can bring. I am not saying the point is to win but the point MECHANICALLY of the game is to bring the units that allow you to do your strategy most effectively. And in the case of 40k in most cases: that's kill things really well. There is little importance on being anything other than guns, transports can barely get a pass for it and is why drop pods dropped out of use (their points + being just as restricted as all other deep strikers + bad weapons). Heck, Eldar again show us how it is done with the Wave Serpent, I would literally not be surprised if someone asked if that was the Eldar's main battle tank with what it has on the surface...but not, that's our Transport units (our main battle tank is technically the Falcon...but really most would rightly say the fire prism because...who takes falcons?).

 

You know, just made a good thought in there, it seems tangental but let me say it: Why would an Eldar player EVER use a Falcon? The inbetween unit of the fire prism and Wave Serpent. It has half the transport of the serpent, you could argue that it only matches the serpent in terms of fire power (since the serpent could mount heavier guns than shuricannons) and the fire prism does a far better job at taking things out thanks not only to the double tap rule but also a stratagem they get. The falcon has no special rules and for all purposes is the "all-rounder" tank of eldar that sounds awesome but in reality tries to sell itself being good at everything but falls flat at being just average at all of it with better choices in all categories.

Sound familiar?

[Kallas]

 

And how are they well represented, lore-wise? Conservatively, a Space Marine can lift a Rhino up on a pretty -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.

Woah, I'm all for fluff marines but the idea of space marines benching 72 tonne land raiders is BS. Even lifting a Rhino would be trouble for them. I like to go by ADB's 10x10 metric, and thus if we say a strongman can deadlift 400 pounds, a naked marine can deadlift 4,000 pounds, and a marine in power armor can deadlift 40,000 pounds (heh). That's 18 metric tonnes, and while a marine could deadlift a hummer like it was nothing, a rhino would be a bit beyond them.

 

I will say, straight up, that I may have been a little overzealous in my initial estimation/exaggeration!

 

Using FFG's Deathwatch RPG (which isn't perfect, but it's pretty solid) a pretty standard Astartes can lift two and a half metric tonnes comfortably. By comparison, a standard human can lift around 70kg (a quick Google search estimates around a 130lb bench press for an average, untrained male, which is about 60kg); so 70kg is about right for a basic Conscript, and for a veteran Guardsmen would probably be around 80kg. Even from just this estimation, an Astartes can carry 1.3 metric tonnes without issue (obviously, bulk would be the biggest factor) which means the strength difference here is truly staggering. Astartes are simply not on the same level as humans.

 

With some further delving into the system (which at the "normal human" end is pretty reasonably grounded): an Astartes (and an average one at that) can do a load more. Even an average Astartes can push five tonnes without difficulty (compared to the human's 144kg!).

 

Here's a more in depth explanation of the rules in a spoiler, so people can skip it if they don't want to read it happy.png

So, a starting Astartes character has 2d10+30 in all characteristics, so we'll work from the average of 2d10 (5.5x2=11) +30 for a basic, average Astartes character having a 41 in all characteristics. For reference, a relatively basic human in Dark Heresy (essentially the Inquisitiorial Retinue game) has an average of 36 (2d10+25, I believe).

 

A characteristic has an associated bonus, which is the 'tens' digit of the characteristic: the Astartes has a Strength Bonus (SB, and Toughness, TB) of 4. Astartes have Unnatural Strength and Toughness (x2), which doubles their bonus for those characteristics, meaning they are SB 8 and TB 8. In addition, having an Unnatural modifier (in this case, x2) increases the amount by which a test for that characteristic succeeds, as well as provides a bonus to the check (I'll cover that later).

 

Additionally, Power Armour adds an additional +20 Strength to the user, not doubled for the Unnatural bonus, but that does bring their SB up to 10.

 

For carrying/lifting/pushing capabilities, we sum their SB and TB; 18.

 

Here's the table for weight (in kg):

SB/TB - Max Carry/Lift/Push

0 - 0.9/2.25/4.5

1 - 2.25/4.5/9

2 - 4.5/9/18

3 - 9/18/36

4 - 18/36/72

5 - 27/54/108

6 - 36/72/144

7 - 45/90/180

8 - 56/112/224

9 - 67/134/268

10- 78/156/312

11- 90/180/360

12- 112/224/448

13- 225/450/900

14- 337/674/1,348

15- 450/900/1,800

16- 675/1,350/2,700

17- 900/1,800/3,600

18- 1,350/2,700/5,400

19- 1,800/3,600/7,200

20- 2,250/4,500/9,000

 

Extrapolated:

21- 2,475/4,950/9,900

22- 2,725/5,450/10,900

23- 3,000/6,000/12,000

24- 3,300/6,600/13,200

25- 3,650/7,300/14,600

 

30- 5,900/11,800/23,600

 

The table progresses fine for the most part, a few little glitches but it straightens out at the end. The progression from 17->18, etc is a multiplier of 1.5->1.33->1.25, so we could reasonably assume beyond the table is no more than 1.1 (which is where I have added 21-25 and 30, as they may have some relevance for the extreme upper-end).

 

So, a standard Astartes can readily carry 1,350kg, lift 2,700kg and push 5,400kg.

 

A human can carry 36kg, lift 72kg and push 144kg.

 

That's 37.5 times the weight capacity. Definitely not the Land Raider I suggested, so that was definitely misremembering/overexaggeration, but it's still an incredible difference between human and Astartes.

 

Now, this is a pretty standard Astartes, and I'm not going to account for the different Chapter bonuses FFG Deathwatch gives, as all Chapters could reasonably have those bonuses, but let's look at some of the more extreme feats of Astartes physiology.

 

Humans in Dark Heresy can only gain (I believe) +15 in their stats, so a max starting strength human (S45) plus their 15 from advances maxes out at Strength 60. Astartes can gain +20 in their stats (due to being metahuman) and can start at a max of 50, for a total possible maximum of Strength 70. With Terminator Armour (+30 Strength instead of Power Armour's +20; so Strength 100) and Unnatural Strength they can reach SB17; with a maximum Toughness as well, they'll have TB 14, for a total combined bonus of 31. That is already over my revised table's top end, which hits almost six tonnes carried and almost twelve tonnes lifted.

 

Now, there are some additional things that characters can do. The most basic of which is simply trying harder. The table shows what someone can do without effort. To do more, they make a 1d100 check at a Challenging difficulty (no bonus or negative to the roll).

 

So a Challenging check at S100 means that they are definitely going to be lifting a buttload more: each degree of success (every 10 beyond the success mark, which is your characteristic stat for the roll) adds an additional +1 to your S/TB total (which is already at 31). As I mentioned earlier Unnatural Strength means that it straight up gains an extra success as well as adding +10 to your check. So if this Astartes rolls maximum possible (rolling a 01 vs the target check of 110; which equates to 10 degrees of success [ie, 10 whole '10s'], plus an additional 1 degree for Unnatural Strength) then it will gain an additional 11 S/TB, for a new total of 42.

 

But wait, there's more!

 

Astartes can also perform truly superhuman feats of strength, resilience, agility, etc. A feat of strength increases that Astartes' Unnatural Strength level, based on what Rank they are. Considering we're going for max theoretical, let's say max for this! So that's increased from Unnatural Strength x2 up to Unnatural Strength x4, as well as adding a further +10 to the check. So we now have +2 degrees of success from the USx4 (+2 from the base x2), as well as another +1 from the extra bonus from the check, so +3 more to the total S/TB for 45.

 

Continuing the weight table from 30, with a low-balled x1.1, that gives us:

Carrying: 24.6 tonnes

Lifting: 49.2 tonnes

Pushing: 98.4 tonnes

 

At the theoretical top end, a perfect specimen Astartes could, trying their hardest, carry almost 25 tonnes. Lexicanum lists Rhinos as 30 tonnes; which this Astartes can lift; this Astartes can currently, for a short period of time (about a minute, probably) shove a Land Raider. While it does fall short of my original estimate of lifting a Land Raider, it's still an insane feat of strength.

 

So, uh yeah. If you're still with me: Astartes are ing nuts!

 

TL;DR - S4 on the tabletop is woefully pathetic, considering how much weight Astartes can throw around teehee.gif

[Trevak Dal]

Give every space marine loyalist and traitor alike, +1 wound and attack at no point increase (yes even Primaris).

[MARK0SIAN]

I think that might be going a bit far for Primaris, 3 wounds and 3 attacks (at T5 for Aggressors) is getting close to Custodes level, albeit without the increase in BS/WS and the invulnerable save, for a fraction of the price.

 

I think it works for standard marines but I wouldn’t apply it to Primaris.

[Ishagu]

I think that might be going a bit far for Primaris, 3 wounds and 3 attacks (at T5 for Aggressors) is getting close to Custodes level, albeit without the increase in BS/WS and the invulnerable save, for a fraction of the price.

 

I think it works for standard marines but I wouldn’t apply it to Primaris.

I think that would be absolutely fine for Aggressors. They still have inferior BS, WS and saves so they would be inferior.

 

I don't think regular Astartes will have great stat alterations this edition.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

I think that might be going a bit far for Primaris, 3 wounds and 3 attacks (at T5 for Aggressors) is getting close to Custodes level, albeit without the increase in BS/WS and the invulnerable save, for a fraction of the price.

 

I think it works for standard marines but I wouldn’t apply it to Primaris.

I think that would be absolutely fine for Aggressors. They still have inferior BS, WS and saves so they would be inferior.

 

I don't think regular Astartes will have great stat alterations this edition.

I agree I don’t think they’ll get a stat change but one can wish :)

 

I still think that’s taking it too far for Aggressors, they’re less than half the points of a single Custodes and I could get three for 63 points instead of one Custodes for 52. They do have inferior WS/BS but they have easier/cheaper access to rerolls to hit and wound and can be buffed by Psychic powers.

 

Custodes do have a better save but if they had 3 wounds each I’d have to inflict 9 wounds on those Aggressors as opposed to just three on the Custodes to eliminate the same amount of points. 3 attacks I could perhaps get on board with but 3 wounds is just too many.

[Ishagu]

Less than half the points but they are weaker in many crucial stats, and they aren't troops.

[MARK0SIAN]

If they got that upgrade they’d only be weaker than a Custodes in melee by having 1 less WS and armour save and no invulnerable. They’d have the same number of attacks, at a higher strength with the same AP and the same damage. They’d also have the same toughness and could afford more guys for more wounds. They’d also have their chapter tactics, can get a reroll to wound from an LT (the only source the Custodes have for this is Valoris) and can be buffed further by a librarian.

 

And as for shooting they’d run rings around Custodes, even with 1 less BS and no AP on the shots. 3 wounds is just too much of a bonus for those abilities at their current cost.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

Maybe GW will re-tune MEQ when the new SoB come out. There should be a lot of interest in SoB both from a competitive standpoint and from a modeling standpoint which will result in a large influx of test data to show precisely how undertuned MEQ currently are, since SoB are a supposedly "inferior" but closely related option (closer to MEQ than they are to GEQ/TEQ) but are much more successful as a baseline unit in the current edition.

[Jings]

Give all marines a +1 to attack, let them add +1 to their Bolter shot profile if they remain stationary. Let power armour ignore AP-1 and add a free "second in command" for basic PA squads (tacs, assault, devs) that can swap its Bolter for an item sergeant gear if the squads are at full strength (combi weapons, pistols, power weapons.

 

You get tacs with up to four dudes having specials/combis and a heavy, six dudes to hold ground, almost double melee punch. They'll become less vulnerable to small arms fire will still being wiped by heavy weapons, encouragement to not go MSU by having an extra combi slot, and it makes a nice middle ground between gameplay and lore.

 

This is what I'd do if I was given a codex rewrite. Tacs are basically useless which is a shame because a basic demi company is how I like to play them.

 

Adding to this outside the codex, I'd give all non-astartes 5" movement rather than the default 6" (with some exceptions, e.g. Skitarii Rangers) , as Marines are meant to be faster than base humans, but not Eldar fast (7"). I also think that the limited movement of Guardsmen compared to Marines would help with the points disparity between Marine infantry and guardsmen.

[WLBjork]

Space Marines are priced correctly. Consider that a Space Marine has a better than even chance (about 56%) to survive 10 Lasgun shots. The Guardsmen on the other hand have a lesser chance (approx. 49%) of surviving 2 Boltgun shots.

 

Guardsmen are woefully underpriced - now they get a save against small arms (and some heavier weapons) they should go back up to at least 5 and almost certainly 6 points per model.

 

Plasma spam is a potential issue. Partially, the melta-gun just isn't attractive enough - it needs boosting to S14, and the 2D6 choose highest damage ability needs to loose the range limitation. Plasma may also need a small points increase and I think the S may need to drop one point.

 

There are no doubt other tweaks that need to be made, but let's start with those two and see where things go from there.