Any marines. It seems really unbalanced and I am a marine player. Intercessors should be one wound and they’re still under costed for what they do.
Ork boys don’t get two wounds for being superhuman brutes and Sisters of Battle don’t get an extra wound for wearing power armour. So I don’t really get the reasoning. An extra foot shouldn’t double your wounds and they aren’t even using Primaris as an excuse anymore. They got toughness 4 for the superhuman physiology and a 3 up save for the armour. That was in line with every other faction and perfectly reasonable.
Doubling the survivability of your unit should cost more than one or two points. That means marines are even more undercosted.
It will render a lot of one damage weapons like massed bolters or shooters worthless against marines. You’re only going to kill half as many marines as you were before.
It puts “elite” armies like Eldar or Sisters of Battle in a weird place with the chafe wound profile. Making 2 wound a standard across most armies will hurt the game. Any boost to weapon profiles to kill marines means you’ll just mow down these lesser factions.
Damage 2 weapons aren't actually good for killing massed Marines right now. If you've played against Iron Hands, or the new Apothecary combo build doing the rounds you'll know how Feel No Pain is fantastic for dulling 2 Damage weapons on 2 wound models.
Darsath wrote: Damage 2 weapons aren't actually good for killing massed Marines right now. If you've played against Iron Hands, or the new Apothecary combo build doing the rounds you'll know how Feel No Pain is fantastic for dulling 2 Damage weapons on 2 wound models.
Well. I usually only play friendlies with my mate against his Chaos. So we house rule it that he can summon as much extra stuff as he has. Yet I still win with marines. So I am guessing there’s some imbalance here.
I agree it puts factions like eldar in a weird spot. They are supposed to be expert warriors on a roughly equal footing with marines but I honestly see no way to do that now with their T3 W1 profile without just buffing their offensive output to ridiculous levels. Same with a plethora of D1 weapons which always used to be kinda mediocre but when massed enough could take out a marine or 2 per squad a turn now they just don´t do anything. When there is only one super elite army like custodes, fine. But with SM being over represented, CSM of different flavours also being widely played suddenly, say half the armies in the game are suddenly next to invulnerable to bolters, lasguns, whatever the xenos versions are called. Bad design indeed. Edit: Although I should add, since the ship has sailed already with Primaris it only feels fair my Plague Marines get it too, as well as the other cult troops and chosen. Unfortunately this hoses a bunch of other factions, but we will have to wait and see how GW aims to rectify this imbalance in basic statlines.
Darsath wrote: Damage 2 weapons aren't actually good for killing massed Marines right now. If you've played against Iron Hands, or the new Apothecary combo build doing the rounds you'll know how Feel No Pain is fantastic for dulling 2 Damage weapons on 2 wound models.
Well. I usually only play friendlies with my mate against his Chaos. So we house rule it that he can summon as much extra stuff as he has. Yet I still win with marines. So I am guessing there’s some imbalance here.
The Space Marine book is by far the strongest book in the game. The new codex hasn't had an opportunity to be tested yet, so the extent of how powerful it is has yet to be proven. But, from what we were seeing before, and some of the buffs in the new codex, it's safe to call them overpowered at the moment.
Well, many people think guardsmen should be minimum 6ppm but that's not happening apparently.
As long as hordes can outnumber marines by factor greater than 3 points-wise, marines need the 2nd wound. The net wound disparity between horde lists and 'elite' list is simply staggering.
skchsan wrote: Well, many people think guardsmen should be minimum 6ppm but that's not happening apparently.
As long as hordes can outnumber marines by factor greater than 3 points-wise, marines need the 2nd wound. The net wound disparity between horde lists and 'elite' list is simply staggering.
I’ve heard that said but Iam not sure how tbh. You’ve got lower BS, worse weapons and the casualties you take should mean losing troops to battleshock. Plus, it’s harder to bring your 100 lasguns to bear if you have LOS blocking terrain and such. So a lot of your excess troops are just going to clog the back line or end up stacking out of combat. So your paper damage output won’t be the same as a smaller armies. Who can throw an ungodly number of bolter shots back at you.
Totalwar1402 wrote: Any marines. It seems really unbalanced and I am a marine player. Intercessors should be one wound and they’re still under costed for what they do.
.
People have wanted marines to 'take a hit' since before I started in third ed. They're constantly shown in the lore tanking hits that would kill most other things and just shrugging it off and getting back up. Two wounds was something they should arguably have always had.
Ork boys don’t get two wounds for being superhuman brutes and Sisters of Battle don’t get an extra wound for wearing power armour. So I don’t really get the reasoning. An extra foot shouldn’t double your wounds and they aren’t even using Primaris as an excuse anymore. They got toughness 4 for the superhuman physiology and a 3 up save for the armour. That was in line with every other faction and perfectly reasonable.
Reasoning: regular Ork Boyz are not as resilirnt as space marines. Likewise, sisters are not as resilient as space marines.
It's not about the extra foot. It's all the other stuff in the geneseed along with the emperor's own space magic that makes marines as hard as anything.
They're now toughness 4 and two wounds for physiology because toughness four and one would didn't reflect correctly on their lore.
It will render a lot of one damage weapons like massed bolters or shooters worthless against marines. You’re only going to kill half as many marines as you were before.
Bolters were never the things that killed lots of stuff - they were always kind of worthless. 40k is a game where historically power weapons power fists and special/heavy weapons did the heavy lifting and everything else carrying a bolter was a wound counter.
And let's be fair. I'll turn d2+ weapons on marines now.
It puts “elite” armies like Eldar or Sisters of Battle in a weird place with the chafe wound profile. Making 2 wound a standard across most armies will hurt the game. Any boost to weapon profiles to kill marines means you’ll just mow down these lesser factions.
The game will evolve and settle into a new meta. As it has always done before. Armies will.adapt, mark my words.
Such large scale changes to the game, units, weapons, etc should have meant a general update to ALL factions.
It does seem perverse to spend the most time and effort on Supplement Marines - which were just updated "to 9th standard" - a lie and are going to be updated again in a month or so.
The races that will have to wait the longest should have had the big faq updates.
Totalwar1402 wrote: Any marines. It seems really unbalanced and I am a marine player. Intercessors should be one wound and they’re still under costed for what they do.
.
People have wanted marines to 'take a hit' since before I started in third ed. They're constantly shown in the lore tanking hits that would kill most other things and just shrugging it off and getting back up. Two wounds was something they should arguably have always had.
Ork boys don’t get two wounds for being superhuman brutes and Sisters of Battle don’t get an extra wound for wearing power armour. So I don’t really get the reasoning. An extra foot shouldn’t double your wounds and they aren’t even using Primaris as an excuse anymore. They got toughness 4 for the superhuman physiology and a 3 up save for the armour. That was in line with every other faction and perfectly reasonable.
Reasoning: regular Ork Boyz are not as resilirnt as space marines. Likewise, sisters are not as resilient as space marines.
It's not about the extra foot. It's all the other stuff in the geneseed along with the emperor's own space magic that makes marines as hard as anything.
They're now toughness 4 and two wounds for physiology because toughness four and one would didn't reflect correctly on their lore.
It will render a lot of one damage weapons like massed bolters or shooters worthless against marines. You’re only going to kill half as many marines as you were before.
Bolters were never the things that killed lots of stuff - they were always kind of worthless. 40k is a game where historically power weapons power fists and special/heavy weapons did the heavy lifting and everything else carrying a bolter was a wound counter.
And let's be fair. I'll turn d2+ weapons on marines now.
It puts “elite” armies like Eldar or Sisters of Battle in a weird place with the chafe wound profile. Making 2 wound a standard across most armies will hurt the game. Any boost to weapon profiles to kill marines means you’ll just mow down these lesser factions.
The game will evolve and settle into a new meta. As it has always done before. Armies will.adapt, mark my words.
Actually most marines in the lore that get shot by a bolt gun tend to explode. They’re actually tougher in game.
Orks can survive being decapitated. The sort of upgrades marines get from the various organs isn’t about raw toughness (which is already reflected in T4) but more specialist functions that aren’t nearly replicated in game. Also, making them twice as tough as an Ork makes no sense. If you shot an unarmoured marine in the head, he ain’t getting back up. An Ork would keep fighting. In terms of raw toughness Orks actually should win out over space marines.
Well Scouts randomly have one wound despite the genetic engineering reasoning. So, if the reasoning for the extra wound is the power armour then wouldn’t every 3 plus save have 2 wounds? Given that Gravis and Terminator has additional wounds marines are the only faction to get extra wounds for their armour like this. So it’s not just the superhuman aspect. Again, why shouldn’t Sisters of Battle have two wounds if they’re wearing power armour?
It’s a huge factor. A squad is twice as difficult to shift and every weapon in the game is half as effective to kill what is functionally still the same points of marines. That means less losses and more time shooting; which increases the armies long term damage output.
So we make them even less effective by doubling wounds? Also, double wounds doesn’t just reduce bolters effectiveness. If effects all flamers, blast weapons, any variable damage weapon like power fists and mortal wounds. All instantly halved in effectiveness.
The marine statline was terrible for a whole edition. Marines are supposed to be durable. This made them more durable. They didn't get a 2nd wound for just a few points. They were overpriced for their durability before (but couldn't be made any cheaper without causing other problems.)
If you want marines to stay at 1W, then we need to get rid of 8th edition's AP changes. If we keep the new system, Marines need to be 2W.
Comparing to stuff like Boyz isn't valid because you aren't comparing cost per wound. Boyz are still cheaper per wound than marines.
Such large scale changes to the game, units, weapons, etc should have meant a general update to ALL factions.
It does seem perverse to spend the most time and effort on Supplement Marines - which were just updated "to 9th standard" - a lie and are going to be updated again in a month or so.
The races that will have to wait the longest should have had the big faq updates.
This right here.
By itself, I have no issue with Marines being two wounds now, because it is okay to change what a wound means and what the value of a wound is. Marines should not have had two wounds in 3rd, but a wound is a much different thing now, and this is an adaptation to it. What the value of a wound should be is a debate for another thread.
But if the game is going to change the value of a wound, it should be done to everyone all at once rather than this, because by applying this to Marines only for the time benig, the game as it stands can be best described as a Marine helmet covered in afterbirth half-extruded into the hands of a horrified obstetrician.
I agree marines should never have gone up to 2 wounds. At best, they should have received a toughness bonus, but "one wound = one kill" should have remained the standard for all troops. D2+ weapons should have also been limited to those that are truly anti-tank/anti-vehicle.
I think over the next few years, we're going to see more and more troops moving to becoming base 2 W. Then someone's troops will go to to 3, etc.
For me it has nothing to do with fluff and everything to do with creating space for weapons and units.
A W1 model is tackled differently then W2 and W2 is tackled differently than W3. I think there is some sour grapes, because marines get more of that puzzle than others right now.
Case in point - before the changes -
If I could take heavy bolters and assault cannons in equal measure why would I ever take a heavy bolter? The assault cannon does better vs GEQ, MEQ, and some vehicles. The HB only exists, because that's the only option for the platform.
NOW I take a HB for W2 and I take an assault cannon for hordes. I have a decision to make.
I think it's an okay move, but should have happened at the beginning of 8th when those indexes came out (though of course they were pushing Primaris difference then). Since it's happened, the only thing I can hope for is that across more factions we see a new category of multiwound infantry emerge. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but it should be a broader category now that these faction changes are going to hit the meta.
The question of points balance is another issue, but that's a different category of change IMHO.
Cynista wrote: My issue with Marines is they have been made very good offensively and very good defensively. Pick one, GW
Why? Something can be dangerous and tough at the same time. Why would you only get to pick one?
Because every other faction in the game has to? Because your standard Marines list is not the jack of all trades like they should be, but the master of all trades?
Cynista wrote: My issue with Marines is they have been made very good offensively and very good defensively. Pick one, GW
Why? Something can be dangerous and tough at the same time. Why would you only get to pick one?
Because every other faction in the game has to? Because your standard Marines list is not the jack of all trades like they should be, but the master of all trades?
Yeah, Jack of all trades was how I like them and one of the reasons I've been iffy on Primaris. In 3rd/4th ed, Marines used to derive power from just having a good statline and very few special rules, as opposed to now, where they have a ton of both. On that principle, though, I like the 2w change, because it's a simple powerup without a torrent of bizarre junk.
How much that statline should cost and whether theirs costs too little given the underbaked state of the game... Thaaaat's a different matter.
Darsath wrote: Damage 2 weapons aren't actually good for killing massed Marines right now. If you've played against Iron Hands, or the new Apothecary combo build doing the rounds you'll know how Feel No Pain is fantastic for dulling 2 Damage weapons on 2 wound models.
Well. I usually only play friendlies with my mate against his Chaos. So we house rule it that he can summon as much extra stuff as he has. Yet I still win with marines. So I am guessing there’s some imbalance here.
Why don't you just house rule his CSM to two wounds?
Cynista wrote: My issue with Marines is they have been made very good offensively and very good defensively. Pick one, GW
Why? Something can be dangerous and tough at the same time. Why would you only get to pick one?
Because every other faction in the game has to? Because your standard Marines list is not the jack of all trades like they should be, but the master of all trades?
Yeah, Jack of all trades was how I like them and one of the reasons I've been iffy on Primaris. In 3rd/4th ed, Marines used to derive power from just having a good statline and very few special rules, as opposed to now, where they have a ton of both. On that principle, though, I like the 2w change, because it's a simple powerup without a torrent of bizarre junk.
How much that statline should cost and whether theirs costs too little given the underbaked state of the game... Thaaaat's a different matter.
Generally agree, I don't really have a problem with Marines being 2 wounds in isolation, it's fine. But they don't appear to pay the premium for that, which they should do. And they are too good offensively to have such a good crutch to fall back on.
Any Marine player who doesn't like that truth should read the other codex that came out at exactly the same time. The difference in power between the books is enormous
Darsath wrote: Damage 2 weapons aren't actually good for killing massed Marines right now. If you've played against Iron Hands, or the new Apothecary combo build doing the rounds you'll know how Feel No Pain is fantastic for dulling 2 Damage weapons on 2 wound models.
Well. I usually only play friendlies with my mate against his Chaos. So we house rule it that he can summon as much extra stuff as he has. Yet I still win with marines. So I am guessing there’s some imbalance here.
Why don't you just house rule his CSM to two wounds?
The houserule stopgaps while people wait for codexes has been on my mind for a while. I might just create a Rules Proposal thread over this.
When a basic Intercessor costs 1 point less than a Scion packing a Plasmagun, that can oneshot two of them on the drop very reliably... You know they aren't doing so well... I would have given Marines 1W and a built-in base 6++ that could be enhanced by other additions - such as Terminator Armor, or Storm Shields. Hell, change the rules around to:
The Black Carapace:
Models with this rule have a 6++. This can be modified.
Terminator Armor:
2+ save and also improves Invulnerable Saves by 1.
Combat Shield:
Improves Invulnerable Saves by 1.
Storm Shield:
Improves both Armor and Invulnerable saves by 1.
Combine them all, and your current Storm Shield Terminators come into play. 2+/4++
Combat Shield on a model results in a 5++
Basic Space Marine units have a 6++.
Hell, if needed add a clause where Invulnerable saves cannot be improved past a 3++.
Now. I'm going to go back to trying to envisage just how an Imperial Guard Shotgun can kill a Warlord Titan... I haven't had much luck so far...
Orks are chaff units that waste hundreds if not thousands of lives in every conflict.
Which is why they were T4 3+ to the orks T4 6+ T-shirt save. Giving them double the wounds too makes no sense fluffwise. The real problem is GW made the game way to deadly and started to hand out AP like candy so saves are near useless. They should have addressed the lethality in this game before fiddling with wound profiles. How for example would you make Eldar live up to their fluff now? 2W makes no sense yet they should be on roughly equal footing with marines. Shall we just boost their offence to obscene levels then? I don't think anyone wants to see that.
Orks are chaff units that waste hundreds if not thousands of lives in every conflict.
Which is why they were T4 3+ to the orks T4 6+ T-shirt save. Giving them double the wounds too makes no sense fluffwise. The real problem is GW made the game way to deadly and started to hand out AP like candy so saves are near useless. They should have addressed the lethality in this game before fiddling with wound profiles. How for example would you make Eldar live up to their fluff now? 2W makes no sense yet they should be on roughly equal footing with marines. Shall we just boost their offence to obscene levels then? I don't think anyone wants to see that.
5+ Invuls across nonvehicles/nonWraith units to represent superhuman reflexes and gracefully dodging stuff? I'd say -1 to hit them but then Alaitoc would need something else. Arguably they already do with the hitmod caps.
I think 2W might be the start of addressing lethality, but it's so hard to say that for sure without the rest of the books.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Hot Take: I think Ork Boyz should be W2 as well and Nobz get T5 to compensate.
I'd go for that. What cost, +2 or +3 PPM, do ya think?
Slayer6 wrote: When a basic Intercessor costs 1 point less than a Scion packing a Plasmagun, that can oneshot two of them on the drop very reliably... You know they aren't doing so well... I would have given Marines 1W and a built-in base 6++ that could be enhanced by other additions - such as Terminator Armor, or Storm Shields. Hell, change the rules around to:
The Black Carapace:
Models with this rule have a 6++. This can be modified.
Terminator Armor:
2+ save and also improves Invulnerable Saves by 1.
Combat Shield:
Improves Invulnerable Saves by 1.
Storm Shield:
Improves both Armor and Invulnerable saves by 1.
Combine them all, and your current Storm Shield Terminators come into play. 2+/4++
Combat Shield on a model results in a 5++
Basic Space Marine units have a 6++.
Hell, if needed add a clause where Invulnerable saves cannot be improved past a 3++.
Now. I'm going to go back to trying to envisage just how an Imperial Guard Shotgun can kill a Warlord Titan... I haven't had much luck so far...
If by "One-shot two of them very reliably" you mean "Has a slightly better than 20% chance" then sure, that's accurate.
Now, we can bump our odds up by making them AP-4 with the right Regiment, but Intercessors can have cover for +1 Armor, which would end up a wash. Even with AP-4 and no cover, you're still only getting about 30% odds of killing two in one shooting phase.
Adding on some basic buffs, like, say, Father of the Future (which is now, apparently, baked into what Apothecaries can do) and your odds of killing two drop to less than 15% (even WITH AP-4 and no cover). If we add cover/drop AP to -3, odds further drop to just about 10%.
Cynista wrote: My issue with Marines is they have been made very good offensively and very good defensively. Pick one, GW
Why? Something can be dangerous and tough at the same time. Why would you only get to pick one?
Because every other faction in the game has to? Because your standard Marines list is not the jack of all trades like they should be, but the master of all trades?
umm plenty of other factions are both tough and hit hard (custodes being the obvious example) this is a table top wargame not a MMO, you don't need to choose between tanky and killy.
Cynista wrote: Because every other faction in the game has to?
Do they?
Yes. No other faction is as good at both killing and surviving as Marines. And let me be clear so nobody replies with a stupid take: I'm talking army here, not single models or units.
BrianDavion wrote:
umm plenty of other factions are both tough and hit hard (custodes being the obvious example) this is a table top wargame not a MMO, you don't need to choose between tanky and killy.
Because they pay for it. Don't be disingenuous. You know the point being made here is that for their cost they are too tough and hit too hard.
Realistically, every faction should have something that they specifically are good at. This is how you make asymmetrical balance work. Space Marines used to be the jack-of-all-trades army, that was good at everything, but not great at anything. This has changed over the past few years, and is probably why we're in the position we're in today. With all the bloat to go with it.
Castozor wrote: They should have addressed the lethality in this game before fiddling with wound profiles.
I agree. But they didn't.
And W2 Marines seems like a good solution that makes them better reflect just how durable they are in the fluff.
T4 W2 vs a T3 W1 squishy human seems about right to me.
When it comes to marines vs humies I'd agree but as I said it leaves a lot of other factions in a weird design space. Orkz going to 2 wounds too is an easy fix but what about the rest?
To be honest, I just think that both 8th and 9th have been a bit of a mess with regard to this sort of thing.
For example:
- The new wounding system, combined with an unwillingness to give 1+ or 2+ saves to most vehicles but also a overabundance of invulnerable saves on many vehicles, means that 'all-rounder' weapons tend to make for better anti-tank guns than the actual anti-tank guns. But instead of addressing the actual issues, GW instead opted to just make Marine anti-tank weapons much more effective.
- The AP system combined with an overabundance of invulnerable saves means that the first pip or two of AP are the most valuable, with subsequent pips getting increasingly less relevant. However, GW seems to price weapons as if the opposite were true.
- Extra wounds for Marines might not be bad in theory... except that Marines are so prevalent (and this is even before we get to Chaos, who will no doubt be getting the same when their codex arrives). This means that 2-wounds has effectively become the most common value for basic troops. Hence, unless they get a bazillion shots, 1-damage weapons are basically obsolete now. Someone mentioned earlier that this would make Heavy Bolter vs. Assault Cannon a more meaningful choice, but it actually does the opposite. Because one extra shot is laughable when it's vastly less effective against even many basic troops, let alone any and all harder targets.
Shockingly for a GW product, the whole thing just feels poorly thought out.
vipoid wrote: To be honest, I just think that both 8th and 9th have been a bit of a mess with regard to this sort of thing.
For example:
- The new wounding system, combined with an unwillingness to give 1+ or 2+ saves to most vehicles but also a overabundance of invulnerable saves on many vehicles, means that 'all-rounder' weapons tend to make for better anti-tank guns than the actual anti-tank guns. But instead of addressing the actual issues, GW instead opted to just make Marine anti-tank weapons much more effective.
- The AP system combined with an overabundance of invulnerable saves means that the first pip or two of AP are the most valuable, with subsequent pips getting increasingly less relevant. However, GW seems to price weapons as if the opposite were true.
- Extra wounds for Marines might not be bad in theory... except that Marines are so prevalent (and this is even before we get to Chaos, who will no doubt be getting the same when their codex arrives). This means that 2-wounds has effectively become the most common value for basic troops. Hence, unless they get a bazillion shots, 1-damage weapons are basically obsolete now. Someone mentioned earlier that this would make Heavy Bolter vs. Assault Cannon a more meaningful choice, but it actually does the opposite. Because one extra shot is laughable when it's vastly less effective against even many basic troops, let alone any and all harder targets.
Shockingly for a GW product, the whole thing just feels poorly thought out.
Assault Cannons actually have twice as many shots as Heavy Bolters.
I agree with the thrust of your argument, but that specific example might not be the best one.
vipoid wrote: - The new wounding system, combined with an unwillingness to give 1+ or 2+ saves to most vehicles but also a overabundance of invulnerable saves on many vehicles, means that 'all-rounder' weapons tend to make for better anti-tank guns than the actual anti-tank guns. But instead of addressing the actual issues, GW instead opted to just make Marine anti-tank weapons much more effective.
- The AP system combined with an overabundance of invulnerable saves means that the first pip or two of AP are the most valuable, with subsequent pips getting increasingly less relevant. However, GW seems to price weapons as if the opposite were true.
I'd much rather these two things be fixed than anything be done to put Marines back to one wound.
That first point especially is the most egregious in my mind (other than 40k's LOS rules). The new changes have certainly made Multi-Meltas a more viable option, but beyond that the 'all-rounder' weapons, as you put it, are the ones you bring to take out tanks as they spit out more mid-range, mid-damage firepower that reduce armour saves enough that their Invul doesn't really matter. Combined with their unwillingness to go above T8 and Sv3+, it means that vehicles exist in this weird place where they are priced for their apparent durability, but that durability isn't what it's cut out to be.
Orks are chaff units that waste hundreds if not thousands of lives in every conflict.
Which is why they were T4 3+ to the orks T4 6+ T-shirt save. Giving them double the wounds too makes no sense fluffwise. The real problem is GW made the game way to deadly and started to hand out AP like candy so saves are near useless. They should have addressed the lethality in this game before fiddling with wound profiles. How for example would you make Eldar live up to their fluff now? 2W makes no sense yet they should be on roughly equal footing with marines. Shall we just boost their offence to obscene levels then? I don't think anyone wants to see that.
5+ Invuls across nonvehicles/nonWraith units to represent superhuman reflexes and gracefully dodging stuff? I'd say -1 to hit them but then Alaitoc would need something else. Arguably they already do with the hitmod caps.
I think 2W might be the start of addressing lethality, but it's so hard to say that for sure without the rest of the books.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Hot Take: I think Ork Boyz should be W2 as well and Nobz get T5 to compensate.
I'd go for that. What cost, +2 or +3 PPM, do ya think?
2 points max but hell I'm for just 1 point. Keep them SLIGHTLY hordish but double the survival against small arms.
Totalwar1402 wrote: Any marines. It seems really unbalanced and I am a marine player. Intercessors should be one wound and they’re still under costed for what they do.
Ork boys don’t get two wounds for being superhuman brutes and Sisters of Battle don’t get an extra wound for wearing power armour. So I don’t really get the reasoning. An extra foot shouldn’t double your wounds and they aren’t even using Primaris as an excuse anymore. They got toughness 4 for the superhuman physiology and a 3 up save for the armour. That was in line with every other faction and perfectly reasonable.
Doubling the survivability of your unit should cost more than one or two points. That means marines are even more undercosted.
It will render a lot of one damage weapons like massed bolters or shooters worthless against marines. You’re only going to kill half as many marines as you were before.
It puts “elite” armies like Eldar or Sisters of Battle in a weird place with the chafe wound profile. Making 2 wound a standard across most armies will hurt the game. Any boost to weapon profiles to kill marines means you’ll just mow down these lesser factions.
I’ll disagree. Assume every unit in the game is costed as a modification to some base profile. Say it’s a guardsman. S/T 3, 4+ 1W. I think that guardsman prototype profile all others are built on should be 2 W, and all weapons based off of - say a lasgun - should have D2 damage. I.e. 50/50 chance of 1 or 2 damage. I think 1W should be rare, and 2W should be the baseline. The would be a fun game where any model can get wounded but keep fighting...
Totalwar1402 wrote: Any marines. It seems really unbalanced and I am a marine player. Intercessors should be one wound and they’re still under costed for what they do.
Ork boys don’t get two wounds for being superhuman brutes and Sisters of Battle don’t get an extra wound for wearing power armour. So I don’t really get the reasoning. An extra foot shouldn’t double your wounds and they aren’t even using Primaris as an excuse anymore. They got toughness 4 for the superhuman physiology and a 3 up save for the armour. That was in line with every other faction and perfectly reasonable.
Doubling the survivability of your unit should cost more than one or two points. That means marines are even more undercosted.
It will render a lot of one damage weapons like massed bolters or shooters worthless against marines. You’re only going to kill half as many marines as you were before.
It puts “elite” armies like Eldar or Sisters of Battle in a weird place with the chafe wound profile. Making 2 wound a standard across most armies will hurt the game. Any boost to weapon profiles to kill marines means you’ll just mow down these lesser factions.
I’ll disagree. Assume every unit in the game is costed as a modification to some base profile. Say it’s a guardsman. S/T 3, 4+ 1W. I think that guardsman prototype profile all others are built on should be 2 W, and all weapons based off of - say a lasgun - should have D2 damage. I.e. 50/50 chance of 1 or 2 damage. I think 1W should be rare, and 2W should be the baseline. The would be a fun game where any model can get wounded but keep fighting...
I think this could be good.
I think marines having two wounds is fine, But other things need them as well. Marines are tough, but it should be comparable to other things.
Wounds should be a combined portion of surviability and should be comparable to aspect warriors and other things in the game of similar.
It feels that GW keeps updating one thing and then throwing everything off balance again and again and never really able to catch up with themselves. Mostly its just sad they can get away with it >.<
IMHO making Boyz 2 Wounds would be a mistake. I'd honestly rather see Nobz made troops, giving Orks 3 tiers of troops. super cheat gretchens, hoardy boys that are still semi tough. and then you'd have Nobz which would be the "hard to kill Ork troops"
A universe where a marine is more deadly than an eldar warrior and more durable than an ork is not a grimdark universe.
I've got bad news for you then my man, because since at bare minimum fifth edition Space Marines were just plain better than any other faction's line troops pound for pound (figuratively). Probably for longer than that.
tulun wrote: It's that they aren't paying enough points for it.
Didn't basic Marines get a price increase at the start of 9th, and then a further one with this Codex?
Assault intercessors and Intercessors are 19/20 points.
Heavy intercessors 28 points.
I think we will find out quickly how much of a trouble the 28 point version is.
Marines simply are too durable and too killy per point compared to other codexes, given the various stratagems and support characters they can bring to bare.
BrianDavion wrote: IMHO making Boyz 2 Wounds would be a mistake. I'd honestly rather see Nobz made troops, giving Orks 3 tiers of troops. super cheat gretchens, hoardy boys that are still semi tough. and then you'd have Nobz which would be the "hard to kill Ork troops"
Nobz should be made troops, and Meganobz at the least should be T5.
I haven't played much, but I don't actually mind it, however they should increase the points value of them and make some of the other codices a little better to deal with them. Making them more lore-appropriate is ok with me as long as other armies can keep up
1) Orks at T5 standard. Also nid warriors. Orks and Nids should be defined with the Toughness and Wounds statistics, marines, sisters, and eldar by the Sv characteristic.
2) All eldar current armor saves +1. Guardian/Kabalite up to 4+, Aspect up to 3+, heavy aspect/incubi plate up to 2+. It is goofy that Eldar Guardians wearing whatever ancient armor designs have freaking flak armor on.
we've got that, and now we have functional necron Res Prots. I think that puts infantry durability across the board in a better spot, and makes durability DIFFERENT between different factions.
BrianDavion wrote: IMHO making Boyz 2 Wounds would be a mistake. I'd honestly rather see Nobz made troops, giving Orks 3 tiers of troops. super cheat gretchens, hoardy boys that are still semi tough. and then you'd have Nobz which would be the "hard to kill Ork troops"
Nobz should be made troops, and Meganobz at the least should be T5.
I can support that. MANZ should be something thats HARD to put down. sadly right now they lack that. yes they have a 2+ armor save, but they have no native invul save meaning that they're very vunerable to high AP weapons. T5 wouldn't solve that but it'd at least put em on par with gravis
2) All eldar current armor saves +1. Guardian/Kabalite up to 4+, Aspect up to 3+, heavy aspect/incubi plate up to 2+. It is goofy that Eldar Guardians wearing whatever ancient armor designs have freaking flak armor on.
Oh yes pleeeeeeeease! Would probably make them OP, but maybe even give us the Alaitoc -1 to hit outside of 12" as well. Idk really, but playing Eldar feels like I have paper models hahaha
It certainly was not fine. Regular Bolter Marines might as well have not existed in 2nd Ed. Their much vaunted 3+ save didn't mean anything because every man and his dog had at least a -1 Save Mod. Only Terminators could stand up to incoming fire.
It's why I liked the AP system from 3rd-7th, however simplistic it was or how badly it scaled. At least Marines got to take their save in 3rd-7th. Now with all the plussing and minusing it's a miracle whenever they ever get to take a 3+ save.
It certainly was not fine. Regular Bolter Marines might as well have not existed in 2nd Ed. Their much vaunted 3+ save didn't mean anything because every man and his dog had at least a -1 Save Mod. Only Terminators could stand up to incoming fire.
It's why I liked the AP system from 3rd-7th, however simplistic it was or how badly it scaled. At least Marines got to take their save in 3rd-7th. Now with all the plussing and minusing it's a miracle whenever they ever get to take a 3+ save.
Sure, the save mods were higher, but so were the hit mods. When Guardsmen only hit you in a 6+ because you're in heavy cover you wind up living longer anyways. Also, only marines could rapid fire. Morale was harsher on non-marines. Marines were resilient against gas and blinding effects. Marines had targeters on their heavy weapons. Marines had lots of advantages to make them feel elite.
Lots of ways that don't exist anymore. So "two wounds cuz I red it in du BL novel. . ." Is what we have instead.
I would juts like to interject that with Heavy intercessors beign trops arent we really saying its actualy T5 and 3W...
But if we really want to go down the whole paying pts for a privelage..
A 2w Tac marine is 18pts.
An Eldar ranger is 15.. yeah..
And the biggest problem of all is marines not peying for their traits/sub faction snowlfake or doctrines. And its not just marines...
The pooch has really been screwed here... And its not a marine only problem. The new way of doing pts sucks... You point a gun at 5 pts but then that same gun is 2x as effective if the model is Yellow and has rule xyz.. its dumb. Its been bugging me ever since I got back into 40k during 8th.
It certainly was not fine. Regular Bolter Marines might as well have not existed in 2nd Ed. Their much vaunted 3+ save didn't mean anything because every man and his dog had at least a -1 Save Mod. Only Terminators could stand up to incoming fire.
It's why I liked the AP system from 3rd-7th, however simplistic it was or how badly it scaled. At least Marines got to take their save in 3rd-7th. Now with all the plussing and minusing it's a miracle whenever they ever get to take a 3+ save.
Sure, the save mods were higher, but so were the hit mods. When Guardsmen only hit you in a 6+ because you're in heavy cover you wind up living longer anyways. Also, only marines could rapid fire. Morale was harsher on non-marines. Marines were resilient against gas and blinding effects. Marines had targeters on their heavy weapons. Marines had lots of advantages to make them feel elite.
Lots of ways that don't exist anymore. So "two wounds cuz I red it in du BL novel. . ." Is what we have instead.
Uh you just reinforced his point. "hit modifiers were higher!". Well that was related to armour save...how? How did that help marines over lots of 6+ save guys? Hit modifier was bigger impact than power armour.
Marines died very fast since 6th edition at least, that's when I started the game. The different AP system in 8th made their armor at least better against many weapons that would kill them outright before, but it became also worse against others. 8th overall was a pretty killy edition and with the weapon changes it seems like 9th might be, too. They need to tune the defense so that you have models left on the table by turn 3.
Personally I hope it's not just Marines that get more wounds.I'd like to see Aspect warriors get a 2nd wound as well. I would have said Necrons, too, but with their new RP they got a different way to be tough.
tulun wrote: It's that they aren't paying enough points for it.
Didn't basic Marines get a price increase at the start of 9th, and then a further one with this Codex?
Stop being disingenuous, Marine infantry went up 2 points.
Orks, Eldar, Tau, Admech infantry also went up 2 points
If your being generous to marines that's even increases.
If your being more objective
Marines +15% cost to tac marines
Everyone else + 22% cost to their infantry
If you look at it as 18 points 2w vrs 13 points 1w yeah the 38% increase for a second wound is fairer but that if thats the comparison that means admech & xeno infantry is 22% overcosted in 9th.
Yes. And now marines went up again when they got extra wound(which doesn't even double the survivability. As it is immortals got bigger durability boost than marines got with their 2nd wound)
tneva82 wrote: Yes. And now marines went up again when they got extra wound(which doesn't even double the survivability. As it is immortals got bigger durability boost than marines got with their 2nd wound)
A second wound for 38% increase in points sounds about right.
The issue is that means everyone else who got a points increases at the start of 9th is overcosted.
TLDR marines are out of balance with the rest of the game.
Totalwar1402 wrote: Any marines. It seems really unbalanced and I am a marine player. Intercessors should be one wound and they’re still under costed for what they do.
I agree, but then again i don't think 8th or 9th edition should exist either(well mabey 8th because it could have been the template for epic 40K 2.0..or maybe the 8th ed version of apocalypse) formations broke 7th edition, 8th edition turned 40K into a game that isn't 40K and 9th doubled down on it.
It's up to you and your local game group to make it work for you, as others have pointed out how they approach the problem in this topic. i't isn't like some GW arbite is going to come and force you to play a certain way.
They need to tune the defense so that you have models left on the table by turn 3.
They already did with the new scoring system. it makes for a terrible game mechanic. if you score enough points to lock in the win by turn 3 in 9th, what does it matter if you have almost nothing left by the end of turn 3?
Totalwar1402 wrote: Any marines. It seems really unbalanced and I am a marine player. Intercessors should be one wound and they’re still under costed for what they do.
Ork boys don’t get two wounds for being superhuman brutes and Sisters of Battle don’t get an extra wound for wearing power armour. So I don’t really get the reasoning. An extra foot shouldn’t double your wounds and they aren’t even using Primaris as an excuse anymore. They got toughness 4 for the superhuman physiology and a 3 up save for the armour. That was in line with every other faction and perfectly reasonable.
Doubling the survivability of your unit should cost more than one or two points. That means marines are even more undercosted.
It will render a lot of one damage weapons like massed bolters or shooters worthless against marines. You’re only going to kill half as many marines as you were before.
It puts “elite” armies like Eldar or Sisters of Battle in a weird place with the chafe wound profile. Making 2 wound a standard across most armies will hurt the game. Any boost to weapon profiles to kill marines means you’ll just mow down these lesser factions.
I agree about everything you said, 2W marines and the entire primaris line is something that wasn't needed at all. GW always wants to sell marines though, and with 100000+ existing kits at some point they did run out of options, so releasing a new line of models was the only way to keep pushing the poster boys. Makes sense, but it doesn't mean it's also fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Marines died very fast since 6th edition at least, that's when I started the game. The different AP system in 8th made their armor at least better against many weapons that would kill them outright before, but it became also worse against others. 8th overall was a pretty killy edition and with the weapon changes it seems like 9th might be, too. They need to tune the defense so that you have models left on the table by turn 3.
Personally I hope it's not just Marines that get more wounds.I'd like to see Aspect warriors get a 2nd wound as well. I would have said Necrons, too, but with their new RP they got a different way to be tough.
They died too fast because rate of fire became insane in 6-7th edition. They worked well before in 3rd-5th, with the same 6th edition AP system. I'd rather halve all the existing firepower and keep them 1W than releasing units with loads of shots, introducing access to re-rolls and double tap, and upgrading infantries to 2,3 or 4 W. Less dice rolling would be nice.
Oh, something else occurs to me - I think another issue might be how cover saves work at the moment.
I realise that people didn't like Marines getting little benefit from cover against most weapons in the old rules. However, I think the new rules have skewed things far too much in their favour. So we now have this awkward mechanic where a lot of units that *should* want cover actually get little to no benefit from it because their base saves are relatively low. Meanwhile, Marines in cover basically become Terminators.
The issue is that makes AP0 weapons (including most basic weapons) even less effective, and pushes the game even further towards needing AP-1/AP-2 minimum for any weapon to be worth the paper its printed on.
Obviously this isn't a specific issue with Marines getting an extra wound. Rather, it's something that I think really should have been addressed before that happened.
JNAProductions wrote: Assault Cannons actually have twice as many shots as Heavy Bolters.
I agree with the thrust of your argument, but that specific example might not be the best one.
Oh, do they? I must have missed them getting an extra 2 shots.
Though in that case I'm even more puzzled by the OP's comparison, as they're still objectively better than Heavy Bolters in that case.
Insectum7 wrote: Marines and Primaris should have stuck at 1W base, and you could have given Primaris T5.
Marines should not be 2W when Necrons and Orks are 1W.
The problem is you're still thinking in the scope of a game that didn't have a damage stat for weapons.
Not at all, 2nd edition had a damage stat.
In 2nd ed, a Heavy Bolter did D4, a Krak missile D10 and a Multimelta 2D12.
And Marines had 1w and it was fine.
The game has a lot of avenues of durability. The relationship between marines and necrons with a functional res protocols is fine.
A 17ppm (?) Necron immortal at T5 if it gets res protocols is slightly more durable than a W2 tactical against most D1 weapon statlines, except for S2, S3, and S10 (which AFAIK does not exist at D1). And that's with no buffs, which defensively are more common for the necron than the space marine, and with new ATSKNF, the space marine is now more likely to be impacted at least somewhat by morale thanks to base ld8 vs base ld10.
not every durable thing needs to be high toughness AND high wounds AND have a good invuln AND have a good armor, things can be tough in different ways requiring different weapons to target them.
All infantry should be 1W outside of very few 'superheavy' infantry models like Ogryns, Tyranid Warriors, Ork Nobz etc. Wound bookkeeping became too laborous already in the 8th.
Slayer6 wrote: When a basic Intercessor costs 1 point less than a Scion packing a Plasmagun, that can oneshot two of them on the drop very reliably... You know they aren't doing so well... I would have given Marines 1W and a built-in base 6++ that could be enhanced by other additions - such as Terminator Armor, or Storm Shields. Hell, change the rules around to:
The Black Carapace:
Models with this rule have a 6++. This can be modified.
Terminator Armor:
2+ save and also improves Invulnerable Saves by 1.
Combat Shield:
Improves Invulnerable Saves by 1.
Storm Shield:
Improves both Armor and Invulnerable saves by 1.
Combine them all, and your current Storm Shield Terminators come into play. 2+/4++
Combat Shield on a model results in a 5++
Basic Space Marine units have a 6++.
Hell, if needed add a clause where Invulnerable saves cannot be improved past a 3++.
Now. I'm going to go back to trying to envisage just how an Imperial Guard Shotgun can kill a Warlord Titan... I haven't had much luck so far...
An Intercessor can kill two Scions pretty easily too you know.
And he can do it at a greater range, and in melee too. And if he's got some nifty Feel no Pain Rule, which he can often get, the Scions don't kill him nearly so reliably.
Also the Scion might blow himself up, the Intercessor never will.
Backfire wrote: All infantry should be 1W outside of very few 'superheavy' infantry models like Ogryns, Tyranid Warriors, Ork Nobz etc. Wound bookkeeping became too laborous already in the 8th.
Termintors with 1W would be really bad, like really realy bad. They would have to cost like 20pts max.
Backfire wrote: All infantry should be 1W outside of very few 'superheavy' infantry models like Ogryns, Tyranid Warriors, Ork Nobz etc.
Why? And the answer can't just be "bookkeeping".
Backfire wrote: Wound bookkeeping became too laborous already in the 8th.
It's that hard to remember that one model in the unit has a wound less than the rest of them? That hard to put a small dice next to the unit, or something to remind that there's a wound?
Pfft, I think eldar should have T8 and 3+ invuln across all their troops because their armor is ancient and amazing and their reflexes are so keen.
I think Marines should have 1 wound, T4, and a 6+ save because they're just humans who have been pumped up (hense the T4 and 6+ save instead of none at all).
Those arguments are both really, really stupid and smack of sour grapes. I applaud GW for finally exploring design space that has existed for quite some time by at the same time making Marines tougher and more elite.
Now, they need to use that little grey muscle in their head to do the same thing for vehicles across all of 40k. It's silly that they refuse to give things higher toughness, more wounds, or better saves than they do. They can always limit the number of vehicles you can take with detachments or whatever to compensate for making them actually tough and being vulnerable to the CORRECT weapons.
Terminators used to have one wound and they did just fine.
They were okay in 5th. Not sure they did so well in 6th/7th.
i seem to recall every time someone used terminators against me in 5th I was just like "oh, great! someone spent a bunch of points on a glorified drop pod tactical squad that I can just ignore or overwhelm with cheap firepower!"
It certainly was not fine. Regular Bolter Marines might as well have not existed in 2nd Ed. Their much vaunted 3+ save didn't mean anything because every man and his dog had at least a -1 Save Mod. Only Terminators could stand up to incoming fire.
It's why I liked the AP system from 3rd-7th, however simplistic it was or how badly it scaled. At least Marines got to take their save in 3rd-7th. Now with all the plussing and minusing it's a miracle whenever they ever get to take a 3+ save.
Sure, the save mods were higher, but so were the hit mods. When Guardsmen only hit you in a 6+ because you're in heavy cover you wind up living longer anyways. Also, only marines could rapid fire. Morale was harsher on non-marines. Marines were resilient against gas and blinding effects. Marines had targeters on their heavy weapons. Marines had lots of advantages to make them feel elite.
Lots of ways that don't exist anymore. So "two wounds cuz I red it in du BL novel. . ." Is what we have instead.
Uh you just reinforced his point. "hit modifiers were higher!". Well that was related to armour save...how? How did that help marines over lots of 6+ save guys? Hit modifier was bigger impact than power armour.
Because there was more to durability and "eliteness" than the armor. Duh.
With a minus 2 to hit, Space Marines hit twice as often as Guardsmen, 3 Times as often with a heavy weapon, and had waaay better morale rules. So in a sustained fight Marines had a larger advantage.
1) Orks at T5 standard. Also nid warriors. Orks and Nids should be defined with the Toughness and Wounds statistics, marines, sisters, and eldar by the Sv characteristic.
2) All eldar current armor saves +1. Guardian/Kabalite up to 4+, Aspect up to 3+, heavy aspect/incubi plate up to 2+. It is goofy that Eldar Guardians wearing whatever ancient armor designs have freaking flak armor on.
we've got that, and now we have functional necron Res Prots. I think that puts infantry durability across the board in a better spot, and makes durability DIFFERENT between different factions.
Kabalites went up 3pts from their 8th 6pts, not sure if +1 to its Sv value would be enough to warrant the hike. I guess if the basic weapons are better in 9th...
I would like to have a more fluffy way to improve survivability to our Aeldari fellows, native -1 to be hit would be really cool, increasing the maximum cap to -2. Maybe too powerful for some units. But we need a way to keep our dudes alive or to increase our killyness like a lot.
AP is irrelevant-it affects them equally. Hit rolls are irrelevant-it affects them equally. The only two things that affect them are Strength and Damage.
If Damage is 1, as is the case with the majority of small arms fire, then Immortals would have to be wounded at half the rate of Marines to have the same durability. Which isn't true for any Strength value.
At Damage 2, Marines are less durable (barring FNP) than Immortals against S4, S5, S8, and S9. At all other Strength values, they're equal.
At Damage d3, Marines have 50% more durability per unsaved wound, due to basically allowing them an extra 5+ save. Though a second unsaved wound is guaranteed to kill a Marine (again barring FNP) so we'll call it 33% more durable. That'd mean that they're equally durable against S5, and Marines are less durable against S4. S8 and 9 the Marines are more durable, though.
AP is irrelevant-it affects them equally.
Hit rolls are irrelevant-it affects them equally.
The only two things that affect them are Strength and Damage.
If Damage is 1, as is the case with the majority of small arms fire, then Immortals would have to be wounded at half the rate of Marines to have the same durability. Which isn't true for any Strength value.
At Damage 2, Marines are less durable (barring FNP) than Immortals against S4, S5, S8, and S9. At all other Strength values, they're equal.
At Damage d3, Marines have 50% more durability per unsaved wound, due to basically allowing them an extra 5+ save. Though a second unsaved wound is guaranteed to kill a Marine (again barring FNP) so we'll call it 33% more durable.
That'd mean that they're equally durable against S5, and Marines are less durable against S4. S8 and 9 the Marines are more durable, though.
This more or less sums it up. Mind you, Immortals are fantastic troops (one of the best in the game imo), since points come into account, as well as their wargear.
One thing I think a lot people forgot with this update.
We already had 2 wound marines. They're called Primaris. With tournament lists being composed of something like 3-4 impulsors with intercessors in them, these were already problems other factions had to face. Toughness 5, 3w Agressors and inceptors. This struggle hasn't changed.
All this has done is given marine players more license to use their older models and hopefully add some list diversity.
Do I wish my CWE would have some sweet updates? For sure. I'd love to see 2W dire avengers or something. But by building reserving those updates for a new codex instead of FAQ or errata, they build the suspense for buying the "new hotness" and therefore get more dolla dolla bills. If you think GW actually cares about the lore just for the lore's sake. Then you're dreaming. Its about selling more product.
Axxion51 wrote: One thing I think a lot people forgot with this update.
We already had 2 wound marines. They're called Primaris. With tournament lists being composed of something like 3-4 impulsors with intercessors in them, these were already problems other factions had to face. Toughness 5, 3w Agressors and inceptors. This struggle hasn't changed.
All this has done is given marine players more license to use their older models and hopefully add some list diversity.
Do I wish my CWE would have some sweet updates? For sure. I'd love to see 2W dire avengers or something. But by building reserving those updates for a new codex instead of FAQ or errata, they build the suspense for buying the "new hotness" and therefore get more dolla dolla bills. If you think GW actually cares about the lore just for the lore's sake. Then you're dreaming. Its about selling more product.
Yeah this is so true, w1 marines partly stopped existing in actual games.
War hammer needs a firefight skill / dodge save. There’s really only one skill for shooting ATM, which is hitting on 4+/3+/2+. It’s pretty bs in a shooting based game. There should be a dodge save mechanic for all armies and eldar should be the best at it. Like, if your model has more attacks than the model shooting it that means it’s more veteran/elite and it gets a 5++ on top of its normal save. Then eldar can have 2a, or 3a for aspect warriors and wyches, and dodge primaris shooting. They’re still strength 3 it doesn’t exactly make them monsters.
Of course primaris also become good at dodging lasgun and pulse rifle shots, which seems fine for an elite army.
AP is irrelevant-it affects them equally.
Hit rolls are irrelevant-it affects them equally.
The only two things that affect them are Strength and Damage.
If Damage is 1, as is the case with the majority of small arms fire, then Immortals would have to be wounded at half the rate of Marines to have the same durability. Which isn't true for any Strength value.
At Damage 2, Marines are less durable (barring FNP) than Immortals against S4, S5, S8, and S9. At all other Strength values, they're equal.
At Damage d3, Marines have 50% more durability per unsaved wound, due to basically allowing them an extra 5+ save. Though a second unsaved wound is guaranteed to kill a Marine (again barring FNP) so we'll call it 33% more durable.
That'd mean that they're equally durable against S5, and Marines are less durable against S4. S8 and 9 the Marines are more durable, though.
Me thinks you forgot RP, which is a core base rule Immortals have.
1) Orks at T5 standard. Also nid warriors. Orks and Nids should be defined with the Toughness and Wounds statistics, marines, sisters, and eldar by the Sv characteristic.
2) All eldar current armor saves +1. Guardian/Kabalite up to 4+, Aspect up to 3+, heavy aspect/incubi plate up to 2+. It is goofy that Eldar Guardians wearing whatever ancient armor designs have freaking flak armor on.
we've got that, and now we have functional necron Res Prots. I think that puts infantry durability across the board in a better spot, and makes durability DIFFERENT between different factions.
Kabalites went up 3pts from their 8th 6pts, not sure if +1 to its Sv value would be enough to warrant the hike. I guess if the basic weapons are better in 9th...
I would like to have a more fluffy way to improve survivability to our Aeldari fellows, native -1 to be hit would be really cool, increasing the maximum cap to -2. Maybe too powerful for some units. But we need a way to keep our dudes alive or to increase our killyness like a lot.
Yeah, I'd definitely prefer something like this to just 'increase armour saves', which might work for Eldar is the opposite of what Dark Eldar are supposed to be about.
Another possibility for DE would be to improve their FNP saves. Pretty sure it was 4+ in 5th. Now it's at 6+. I don't think 5+ would be unreasonable.
the_scotsman wrote: I'm having a tough time doing the math the way you are here.
Boltgun: Assume 1 hit.
1/3 wound, 1/3 save, 2/3 res protocol save = 0.074 dead per shot.
1/2 wound, 1/3 save, 1/2 2 wounds = 0.083 dead per shot.
Are you just not doing res protocols? I'm not even taking into account the 1ppm cheaper they are.
I did not factor in Resurrection Protocols, no, since they can be bypassed by eliminating the squad in one swoop. And also because I forgot.
But that increases durability by 50%, if treated as the same as a 5+ FNP, which would make them slightly more durable to S4 and equally durable to S5.
I think it's gonna be fairly unusual to have enough small arms out of a single weapon to deny immortals RP.
It's after each attack though. Unless you're literally going in with old Aggressors double shooting in the Tactical Doctrine, you realistically won't kill them on average. The T5 REALLY helps with the new RP.
Yeah multiwound models are screwed but Immortals aren't.
Add in some rerolls, and we can probably drop that to less than 40.
40 shots
280/9 hits
1,960/162 or 980/81 wounds
490/81 damage, or 6 wounds
So a 10-Man Intercessor squad, with the doubletap Strat, a Captain, and Lieutenant can wipe a 5 Man squad of Immortals with room to spare.
Of course, I'd imagine 10-man squads of Immortals aren't going to be that uncommon, which means that RP is only a slightly less effective FNP (since the last shots to kill them deny it), so yeah. My math was sound, my assumptions were not.
Add in some rerolls, and we can probably drop that to less than 40.
40 shots
280/9 hits
1,960/162 or 980/81 wounds
490/81 damage, or 6 wounds
So a 10-Man Intercessor squad, with the doubletap Strat, a Captain, and Lieutenant can wipe a 5 Man squad of Immortals with room to spare.
Of course, I'd imagine 10-man squads of Immortals aren't going to be that uncommon, which means that RP is only a slightly less effective FNP (since the last shots to kill them deny it), so yeah. My math was sound, my assumptions were not.
So realistically you need to find out how many single attacks from a squad is needed to make Immortals less durable. You just did the Intercessors shooting there but I'm guessing Marines don't fare much better.
Axxion51 wrote: One thing I think a lot people forgot with this update.
We already had 2 wound marines. They're called Primaris. With tournament lists being composed of something like 3-4 impulsors with intercessors in them, these were already problems other factions had to face. Toughness 5, 3w Agressors and inceptors. This struggle hasn't changed.
All this has done is given marine players more license to use their older models and hopefully add some list diversity.
Do I wish my CWE would have some sweet updates? For sure. I'd love to see 2W dire avengers or something. But by building reserving those updates for a new codex instead of FAQ or errata, they build the suspense for buying the "new hotness" and therefore get more dolla dolla bills. If you think GW actually cares about the lore just for the lore's sake. Then you're dreaming. Its about selling more product.
Yeah this is so true, w1 marines partly stopped existing in actual games.
War hammer needs a firefight skill / dodge save. There’s really only one skill for shooting ATM, which is hitting on 4+/3+/2+. It’s pretty bs in a shooting based game. There should be a dodge save mechanic for all armies and eldar should be the best at it. Like, if your model has more attacks than the model shooting it that means it’s more veteran/elite and it gets a 5++ on top of its normal save. Then eldar can have 2a, or 3a for aspect warriors and wyches, and dodge primaris shooting. They’re still strength 3 it doesn’t exactly make them monsters.
Of course primaris also become good at dodging lasgun and pulse rifle shots, which seems fine for an elite army.
This reminds me of the Initiative stat that used to exist. Eldar all had high initiative, which helped them the combat phase. The only issue with this would be when to use dodge rather than armor save. You'd have to include rules like Blast ignores the "Evasion Save" or something. GW is totally trying to simplify their system, and with this big SM codex rolling all of the off-shoots into one, simplify their production line too it seems.
Will they even be making SW, DA, DW specific models anymore? Or jus selling upgrade kits... Who knows. That's another discussion entirely.
Some people finally starting to notice how good Immortals are for 17 points per model. They can take some punishment, and they have good weapons. Just solid.
Darsath wrote: Some people finally starting to notice how good Immortals are for 17 points per model. They can take some punishment, and they have good weapons. Just solid.
What do you mean "finally"? With the reveal of the new statline and RP they were called solid to begin with.
Add in some rerolls, and we can probably drop that to less than 40.
40 shots
280/9 hits
1,960/162 or 980/81 wounds
490/81 damage, or 6 wounds
So a 10-Man Intercessor squad, with the doubletap Strat, a Captain, and Lieutenant can wipe a 5 Man squad of Immortals with room to spare.
Of course, I'd imagine 10-man squads of Immortals aren't going to be that uncommon, which means that RP is only a slightly less effective FNP (since the last shots to kill them deny it), so yeah. My math was sound, my assumptions were not.
Keep in mind that it depends what you mean by the 'double tap strat.' If its two separate attack sequences, they get RP in between.
Axxion51 wrote: One thing I think a lot people forgot with this update.
We already had 2 wound marines. They're called Primaris. With tournament lists being composed of something like 3-4 impulsors with intercessors in them, these were already problems other factions had to face. Toughness 5, 3w Agressors and inceptors. This struggle hasn't changed.
All this has done is given marine players more license to use their older models and hopefully add some list diversity.
Do I wish my CWE would have some sweet updates? For sure. I'd love to see 2W dire avengers or something. But by building reserving those updates for a new codex instead of FAQ or errata, they build the suspense for buying the "new hotness" and therefore get more dolla dolla bills. If you think GW actually cares about the lore just for the lore's sake. Then you're dreaming. Its about selling more product.
Yeah this is so true, w1 marines partly stopped existing in actual games.
War hammer needs a firefight skill / dodge save. There’s really only one skill for shooting ATM, which is hitting on 4+/3+/2+. It’s pretty bs in a shooting based game. There should be a dodge save mechanic for all armies and eldar should be the best at it. Like, if your model has more attacks than the model shooting it that means it’s more veteran/elite and it gets a 5++ on top of its normal save. Then eldar can have 2a, or 3a for aspect warriors and wyches, and dodge primaris shooting. They’re still strength 3 it doesn’t exactly make them monsters.
Of course primaris also become good at dodging lasgun and pulse rifle shots, which seems fine for an elite army.
I'm going to be real honest, I don't see anyone dodging laser fire, no matter how elite they are
More to the point, matrix-dodging gunfire in small arms engagements like this isn't really a thing, you put a putz every day person and a Navy Seal or Olympic gold medal gymnast at the wrong end of a 100 yard rifle range and the number of trigger pulls needed to tag any of em probably isn't any different.
Now, Flames of War had a concept something like what you're talking about, where the better trained/experienced an opponent was, the harder they were to hit. Conscripts are hit on a 2+, Trained troops on a 3+, Veteran troops on a 4+, with various modifiers for range, cover, etc. The shooter's skill doesn't matter as everyone is just setting the range on their sight and pulling the trigger and most of the process is mechanized, it's the ability of the target to know when to move between MG bursts, how to properly utilize cover, recognize incoming shell fire, knowledge of likely fire patterns, etc that determines hit rates. However it's still not a comparative thing, both Veteran Troops and Recruits will hit the same target at the same rate.
I don't think W2 infantry should be a thing period. I don't think wounds should exist period, except maybe to directly represent plot armor for characters. Toughness vs. Strength represents the ability of a shot to generate a casualty. A hit that is not blocked by armor but doesn't wound already represents injuries that don't immediately result in a casualty. Wounds don't represent anything except plot armor [and you can know this from the fact that an IG Major is the exact same body as an IG Private, but has like 4 times the wounds, and the same is true of almost every character], they're just a terrible mechanic in general.
Aeldari (and maybe other races like some kind of daemons) should be in general harder to hit than Armoured Marines. They are smaller and faster so making them -1 to hit would be fluffy and welcomed by us Xenos players
Denegaar wrote: Aeldari (and maybe other races like some kind of daemons) should be in general harder to hit than Armoured Marines. They are smaller and faster so making them -1 to hit would be fluffy and welcomed by us Xenos players
Denegaar wrote: Aeldari (and maybe other races like some kind of daemons) should be in general harder to hit than Armoured Marines. They are smaller and faster so making them -1 to hit would be fluffy and welcomed by us Xenos players
Only if we move the game to D8 or D10
This x1,000,000,000. Raising the arbitrary ceiling GW set themselves under is a way better fix than 2W buff, making board smaller, etc. It will also be better fix than uprooting the whole game for implementing AA system.
Giving 2 wounds to human-sized infantry units was a huge design mistake.
They should have scaled damage back, priced units and weapons according to their stats, and heavily nerf auras/army buffs.
Siegfriedfr wrote: Giving 2 wounds to human-sized infantry units was a huge design mistake.
They should have scaled damage back, priced units and weapons according to their stats, and heavily nerf auras/army buffs.
The simplest fix would've been to make GEQ units/models less point efficient. Expendability is still too strong of an element in the game.
Siegfriedfr wrote: Giving 2 wounds to human-sized infantry units was a huge design mistake.
They should have scaled damage back, priced units and weapons according to their stats, and heavily nerf auras/army buffs.
Aye.
When your game gets to the point that higher toughness and substantially better armor save don't mean enough to differentiate units that have been differentiated that way for a quarter century and through 8 editions, its probably a signal that the firepower available has become a wee bit over the top and is in dire need of scaling down. When you're introducing T5 W3 units as normal infantry to an army that used to be predominantly T4 W1, you know you've borked your scaling and sense of balance.
Siegfriedfr wrote: Giving 2 wounds to human-sized infantry units was a huge design mistake.
They should have scaled damage back, priced units and weapons according to their stats, and heavily nerf auras/army buffs.
Aye.
When your game gets to the point that higher toughness and substantially better armor save don't mean enough to differentiate units that have been differentiated that way for a quarter century and through 8 editions, its probably a signal that the firepower available has become a wee bit over the top and is in dire need of scaling down. When you're introducing T5 W3 units as normal infantry to an army that used to be predominantly T4 W1, you know you've borked your scaling and sense of balance.
Once again this is under the assumption of a game that used to not have a damage stat for weapons. Were we still stuck with the old Instant Death system you might have a point.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I don't think W2 infantry should be a thing period. I don't think wounds should exist period, except maybe to directly represent plot armor for characters. Toughness vs. Strength represents the ability of a shot to generate a casualty. A hit that is not blocked by armor but doesn't wound already represents injuries that don't immediately result in a casualty. Wounds don't represent anything except plot armor [and you can know this from the fact that an IG Major is the exact same body as an IG Private, but has like 4 times the wounds, and the same is true of almost every character], they're just a terrible mechanic in general.
Nothing wrong with plot armour IMO
I like that Marines are more durable - as long as pts reflect that I can't see any issue - esepcially since we have guns that can still kill them in one hit or weight of fire.
Now also IMO ALL Marines and relevant Imperial/Xenos equivalent should have got the boost at the same time not just the ones getting a supplement in a month or so anyway.
Backfire wrote: All infantry should be 1W outside of very few 'superheavy' infantry models like Ogryns, Tyranid Warriors, Ork Nobz etc.
Why? And the answer can't just be "bookkeeping".
Backfire wrote: Wound bookkeeping became too laborous already in the 8th.
It's that hard to remember that one model in the unit has a wound less than the rest of them? That hard to put a small dice next to the unit, or something to remind that there's a wound?
Bookkeeping.
Yes.
Basically, 2 wound Marines and Terminators are a response to vastly increased firepower of the armies. It is extremely easy to see that eventually firepower advantage will be restored, and then we need 3 wound Marines, and so on...
The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".
GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.
Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.
Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
Galas wrote: The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".
GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.
Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.
Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
The expansion of stats is actually a good thing.
But I am highly skeptical that things are appropriately costed. It's also a bit rough for a lot of armies who aren't getting *any* weapon updates or any meaningful buffs until their codex. If you're playing a more obscure xenos army, you're probably going to be relegated to getting your face smashed in (with the odd exception, like Harlequins) until you get your codex updated, which could easily be 12-24 months from now.
They were okay in 5th. Not sure they did so well in 6th/7th.
They didn't, I played Deathwing in 6th/7th and it was awful. It was not so much durability than extremely poor damage output, however. 40 pts model for a Storm bolter is really not all that great. Or in close combat, 2 attacks which hit with 4+. Really, really not great.
I don't necessarily disagree with your overall conclusion, but your rationale behind it is whack. Fluff is meaningless in regards to game mechanics. Space marines are not 2w because they're super humans, they're two wounds because they were not durable enough for the points that they costed (at least in theory). If Orks want 2w they're welcome to go up to 15 points per boy, or whatever.
Galas wrote: The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".
GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.
Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.
Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
The expansion of stats is actually a good thing.
But I am highly skeptical that things are appropriately costed. It's also a bit rough for a lot of armies who aren't getting *any* weapon updates or any meaningful buffs until their codex. If you're playing a more obscure xenos army, you're probably going to be relegated to getting your face smashed in (with the odd exception, like Harlequins) until you get your codex updated, which could easily be 12-24 months from now.
Raising the design space ceiling means more granularity, which then can be translated into 'more room to fairly cost units'.
Galas wrote: The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".
GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.
Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.
Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
So the faults of 7th edition sit squarely on the shoulders of players who wanted "legacy" rules? That's a profoundly ridiculous assessment.
Galas wrote: The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".
GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.
Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.
Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
So the faults of 7th edition sit squarely on the shoulders of players who wanted "legacy" rules? That's a profoundly ridiculous assessment.
No, the fault is that GW thought it would work if they just squeezed in LOW class units above landraider equivalent units. It inflated the value of anti-titanic weapons which made the game lot more lethal than it used to. Then they diminished the effective defensive capabilities of elite units in a form of collateral damage with the new 'everything can wound anything' and wound chart and ap system, which was designed so that even the humble guardsmen have .000000001% chance of blowing up a knight.
the_scotsman wrote: Unless the small arms you are talking about are specifically lasguns, it's easier to kill a marine than a necron immortal.
By how much and with what weapons? And how has that relationship changed over time? Immortal durability is worse off compared to Marines than it has ever been.
3rd Ed
Immortal T5 3+ 4+RP Marine T4 3+
5th Ed
Immortal T4 3+ 5+RP Marine T4 3+
9th Ed
Immortal T5 3+ 5+RP Marine T4 3+ 2W
Immortals have gotten steadily worse in comparison. "But they're still ever so slightly better" doesn't really cut it, imo.
Galas wrote: The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".
GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.
Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.
Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
So the faults of 7th edition sit squarely on the shoulders of players who wanted "legacy" rules? That's a profoundly ridiculous assessment.
No, the fault is that GW thought it would work if they just squeezed in LOW class units above landraider equivalent units. It inflated the value of anti-titanic weapons which made the game lot more lethal than it used to. Then they diminished the effective defensive capabilities of elite units in a form of collateral damage with the new 'everything can wound anything' and wound chart and ap system, which was designed so that even the humble guardsmen have .000000001% chance of blowing up a knight.
Among other things, yeah.
To the point, the faults of 7th had absolutely nothing to do with "legacy" rules.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I don't think W2 infantry should be a thing period. I don't think wounds should exist period, except maybe to directly represent plot armor for characters. Toughness vs. Strength represents the ability of a shot to generate a casualty. A hit that is not blocked by armor but doesn't wound already represents injuries that don't immediately result in a casualty. Wounds don't represent anything except plot armor [and you can know this from the fact that an IG Major is the exact same body as an IG Private, but has like 4 times the wounds, and the same is true of almost every character], they're just a terrible mechanic in general.
Nothing wrong with plot armour IMO
I like that Marines are more durable - as long as pts reflect that I can't see any issue - esepcially since we have guns that can still kill them in one hit or weight of fire.
Now also IMO ALL Marines and relevant Imperial/Xenos equivalent should have got the boost at the same time not just the ones getting a supplement in a month or so anyway.
Then we are at an impasse.
Plot armor isn't something that belongs in a wargame, and it definitely doesn't belong on main line riflemen.
Galas wrote: The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".
GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.
Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.
Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
If we're talking about increasing granularity across the board, that's one thing. I don't think that's at play here, what we're seeing is (so far at least) a single-product line reaction to the lethality of the current game. Instead of using the start of 9th to re-reboot from 8th if this was their plan, they're going to try and do this haphazardly and in-motion without addressing the core problem (lethality).
skchsan wrote: No, the fault is that GW thought it would work if they just squeezed in LOW class units above landraider equivalent units. It inflated the value of anti-titanic weapons which made the game lot more lethal than it used to. Then they diminished the effective defensive capabilities of elite units in a form of collateral damage with the new 'everything can wound anything' and wound chart and ap system, which was designed so that even the humble guardsmen have .000000001% chance of blowing up a knight.
Among other things, yeah.
To the point, the faults of 7th had absolutely nothing to do with "legacy" rules.
That's his point. 7th edition brought forth the greatest power creep amongst all past iterations of the game. It was the right moment to introduce a new S/T/W scaling system which GW failed to do, hence faults of 7th ed failing to come up with a new system and sticking to the 'legacy' ruleset. Instead, they introduced counter-power creep system in forms of formations and 'free' stuff.
Maybe its less about "What do SM players get out of this change?" and more about "What does GW get out of this change?"
They entice new players into a new edition into their flagship line of models with the newest rules, the most wounds, and the newest products. They are also encouraging newer players to look back at older product sitting on shelves and collecting dust in the FLGS. Collecting dust because why would I field Tac marines who have 1 wound when I can field Intercessors who have 2. Then I can just buy the Impulsor, which is better than a rhino.
They can clear out older products on the shelves and make room for their newer line, which I foresee being ONLY primaris at some point.
Edit: To keep it onto OP's point. Do they deserve it? Maybe not, but it is opening the door for other factions to gain from a new rebalancing as well. Chaos marines for instance, who knows if Eldar Wraithguard could see a bump, or windriders.
They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.
BlaxicanX wrote: I don't necessarily disagree with your overall conclusion, but your rationale behind it is whack. Fluff is meaningless in regards to game mechanics. Space marines are not 2w because they're super humans, they're two wounds because they were not durable enough for the points that they costed (at least in theory). If Orks want 2w they're welcome to go up to 15 points per boy, or whatever.
I don't understand this mentality to be perfectly honest. Yes fluff should not DICTATE game balance, especially when the fluff for all factions tend to be way over the top as in 40k. But fluff should certainly GUIDE game balance, why even have this wondrous amount of background material otherwise? Let's not pretend 40k is as popular as it is because it is a stellar wargame on its own merits. Balancing the game should come first but as stated, how are we even going to let Eldar live up to their fluff on the tabletop when every marine has 2W?
Nurglitch wrote: They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.
I played often and competatively during that edition, significantly more so than these days.
They were 100% fine and playable.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't terminators currently _Also_ die to Genestealers in Melee?
What infantry unit in the game doesn't die to Genestealers in melee, exactly?
skchsan wrote: No, the fault is that GW thought it would work if they just squeezed in LOW class units above landraider equivalent units. It inflated the value of anti-titanic weapons which made the game lot more lethal than it used to. Then they diminished the effective defensive capabilities of elite units in a form of collateral damage with the new 'everything can wound anything' and wound chart and ap system, which was designed so that even the humble guardsmen have .000000001% chance of blowing up a knight.
Among other things, yeah.
To the point, the faults of 7th had absolutely nothing to do with "legacy" rules.
That's his point. 7th edition brought forth the greatest power creep amongst all past iterations of the game. It was the right moment to introduce a new S/T/W scaling system which GW failed to do, hence faults of 7th ed failing to come up with a new system and sticking to the 'legacy' ruleset. Instead, they introduced counter-power creep system in forms of formations and 'free' stuff.
Well then I disagree 100%. When you add bigger units to the table you don't just inflate other units. There are a myriad of options available to keep 1w infantry functional in a game that includes big war machines. Hit modifiers for war machines against infantry. Better CC rules for infantry against war machines. Fewer invulnerable saves. Damage values for weapons held by infantry so they could meaningfully damage war machines. It's not rocket science.
Heck, if they DID look at "legacy", Tankbustas would have all been able to use their Meltabombs in CC against Knights, giving Orks (and all sorts of other units) great options against LOWs. Legacy gives a Lascannon 2D6 damage capability. 1W models with weapons that can actually hurt LOWs changes the balance of that paradigm real fast and real easy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.
That was like 4 months into 3rd. The vast majority of that edition they had their 5+. In 4th they got even better because the Assault Cannon got a massive boost.
Nurglitch wrote: They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.
I played often and competatively during that edition, significantly more so than these days.
They were 100% fine and playable.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't terminators currently _Also_ die to Genestealers in Melee?
What infantry unit in the game doesn't die to Genestealers in melee, exactly?
At the moment Terminators are more resilient than they've ever been vs. Genestealers.
BlaxicanX wrote: I don't necessarily disagree with your overall conclusion, but your rationale behind it is whack. Fluff is meaningless in regards to game mechanics. Space marines are not 2w because they're super humans, they're two wounds because they were not durable enough for the points that they costed (at least in theory). If Orks want 2w they're welcome to go up to 15 points per boy, or whatever.
I don't understand this mentality to be perfectly honest. Yes fluff should not DICTATE game balance, especially when the fluff for all factions tend to be way over the top as in 40k. But fluff should certainly GUIDE game balance, why even have this wondrous amount of background material otherwise? Let's not pretend 40k is as popular as it is because it is a stellar wargame on its own merits. Balancing the game should come first but as stated, how are we even going to let Eldar live up to their fluff on the tabletop when every marine has 2W?
I would agree with this. It's fair to say that the gulf between supposedly elite Eldar units and even basic Marines is growing increasingly wide.
Also, the core rules and themes of 8th really don't help in this matter. For example, how would you go about making Eldar units feel appropriately Elite without artificially inflating their statlines to the point where they're all but indistinguishable from marines?
- Movement doesn't mean a whole lot because moving 1" more is simply irrelevant in a game with M12" Jump packs, M14" bikes, and M16" vehicles. The only way in which this could be a relevant stat is if either Eldar infantry zoom across the board faster than bikers, or else they're given the ability to move again after shooting/combat. And since JSJ has been all but removed from the game beyond stratagems, I don't see that happening.
- Initiative doesn't exist any more, and even if you were to give them the Always Strikes First rule, the fact that chargers always go first regardless means it wouldn't be worth a whole lot (incidentally, I quite liked the old WHFB system wherein ASF gave you rerolls to hit if your initiative was already higher than your opponent's).
- You could give them rerolls, but those are already common across virtually all armies - nowhere moreso than Marines.
- You can give them good weapons, but historically GW has been leery of giving Eldar meaningful strength values, and (as Banshees have proved for decades) AP only counts for so much.
It just seems like they're writing themselves into a corner, as there's going to be no way to represent Eldar elites without adding a dump-truck of special rules.
IMO, 8" move + advance and charge or advance and shoot assault weapons (and equip them predominantly with assault weapons obviously) is plenty to make eldar infantry feel mobile.
I think one of the corners GW is in with eldar in general right now is, really, the best way to model a "mobile" force would be - to hit rules...and they did just go ahead and nerf those TO THE GROUND with 9th ed.
If they decide "ok, the eldar equivalent to the new W2 marines is, all eldar are -1 to hit all the time" then the problem becomes suddenly having that ability on your whole army grants your opponent the following rules:
1) Ignore Dense Cover
2) infantry move and fire heavy
3) Advance and fire assault
4) Vehicles fire into melee without penalty
because gak's capped yo! Might as well advance, move with your heavy weapons, ignore that dense cover, etc.
-1 to hit REALLY REALLY should be capped at -1 from rules applying to the FIRER, and -1 from rules applying to the TARGET.
that way, if I have a -1 to hit rule or strat on myself, and you've moved and shot a heavy, or you're firing through dense cover, or you're advancing and firing assault, you're at -2. And then obviously keep the "6s always hit" rule to avoid Ork Feelbads.
I would vastly vastly prefer a game where you've got:
-Some tough units who are tough because they have lots of wounds
-Some tough units who are tough because they have high saves
-Some tough units who are tough because they have Ignore Wounds/Invulns
-Some tough units who are tough because they put you at - to hit
That in my eyes is much much much better than "everything that is tough gains Sv, T, and W at approximately the same rate" because it means you can effectively spcialize your army against EVERYTHING that exists.
I'd totally be down for Aeldari 'elite and mobile' infantry to get an Invuln/Dodge save that's based upon how far they moved that turn.
So if say Banshees, Swooping Hawks, Hellions, Harlequins moved half their value? They get a +1 to whatever Invuln they have. Move their full value? +1 to Invuln, -1 to be hit.
There's, as they said in prior streams, a few levers they can pull.
Kanluwen wrote: I'd totally be down for Aeldari 'elite and mobile' infantry to get an Invuln/Dodge save that's based upon how far they moved that turn.
So if say Banshees, Swooping Hawks, Hellions, Harlequins moved half their value? They get a +1 to whatever Invuln they have. Move their full value? +1 to Invuln, -1 to be hit.
There's, as they said in prior streams, a few levers they can pull.
Def an interesting way to go and makes them different to the Imperial style
Nurglitch wrote: They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.
I played often and competatively during that edition, significantly more so than these days.
They were 100% fine and playable.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't terminators currently _Also_ die to Genestealers in Melee?
What infantry unit in the game doesn't die to Genestealers in melee, exactly?
If you actually played competitively that edition then you wouldn't be making that statement LOL
Nurglitch wrote: They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.
I played often and competatively during that edition, significantly more so than these days.
They were 100% fine and playable.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't terminators currently _Also_ die to Genestealers in Melee?
What infantry unit in the game doesn't die to Genestealers in melee, exactly?
If you actually played competitively that edition then you wouldn't be making that statement LOL
The terminator was good for 1 eddition. I think it was 4th.
Nurglitch wrote: They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.
I played often and competatively during that edition, significantly more so than these days.
They were 100% fine and playable.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't terminators currently _Also_ die to Genestealers in Melee?
What infantry unit in the game doesn't die to Genestealers in melee, exactly?
If you actually played competitively that edition then you wouldn't be making that statement LOL
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I don't think W2 infantry should be a thing period. I don't think wounds should exist period, except maybe to directly represent plot armor for characters. Toughness vs. Strength represents the ability of a shot to generate a casualty. A hit that is not blocked by armor but doesn't wound already represents injuries that don't immediately result in a casualty. Wounds don't represent anything except plot armor [and you can know this from the fact that an IG Major is the exact same body as an IG Private, but has like 4 times the wounds, and the same is true of almost every character], they're just a terrible mechanic in general.
Nothing wrong with plot armour IMO
I like that Marines are more durable - as long as pts reflect that I can't see any issue - esepcially since we have guns that can still kill them in one hit or weight of fire.
Now also IMO ALL Marines and relevant Imperial/Xenos equivalent should have got the boost at the same time not just the ones getting a supplement in a month or so anyway.
Then we are at an impasse.
Plot armor isn't something that belongs in a wargame, and it definitely doesn't belong on main line riflemen.
This is interesting, you are correct but the limitation of being tied to a d6 is the issue, why have a lasgun as capable of killing a warlord titan, land raider, carnifex, trukk w/e
Galas wrote: The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".
GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.
Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.
Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
The expansion of stats is actually a good thing.
But I am highly skeptical that things are appropriately costed. It's also a bit rough for a lot of armies who aren't getting *any* weapon updates or any meaningful buffs until their codex. If you're playing a more obscure xenos army, you're probably going to be relegated to getting your face smashed in (with the odd exception, like Harlequins) until you get your codex updated, which could easily be 12-24 months from now.
Completely agreed, this is where I'm at. I always thought that if a basic human is S3/T3/W1 a basic marine should be S5/T5/W2. Given where things are nowadays I'd be more for reducing the base statline for humans to S2/T2 which would give a tabletop effect much more representative of the fluff. The issue comes in practicality of dealing with the 100+ count swarm armies which would result in appropriately balancing such, but IMO such a change should come with armies like guard, orks, and nids getting a 'free respawn' mechanic on their base infantry to allow them to deal with less models IRL while still maintaining the effect of a swarm.
GK Paladin's didn't exist until midway through 5th edition, that was when the 3.5E Daemonhunters codex got replaced. They were stupid good in that era for sure, but didn't exist in 4th, and their strength was being able to play gimmicks with wound allocation thanks to their 2nd wound by making each model different, so that nobody would die until you'd already blown through half the wounds, FNP was the cherry on top.
That said, W1 TH/SS termi's were very powerful in 5E and saw lots of playtime. The normal Termi's saw a whole lot less because SS were made substantially better and they limited heavy weapons to 2 per 10 instead of 2 per squad (allowing 5 man units to take 2).
Vaktathi wrote: GK Paladin's didn't exist until midway through 5th edition, that was when the 3.5E Daemonhunters codex got replaced. They were stupid good in that era for sure, but didn't exist in 4th, and their strength was being able to play gimmicks with wound allocation thanks to their 2nd wound by making each model different, so that nobody would die until you'd already blown through half the wounds, FNP was the cherry on top.
That said, W1 TH/SS termi's were very powerful in 5E and saw lots of playtime. The normal Termi's saw a whole lot less because SS were made substantially better and they limited heavy weapons to 2 per 10 instead of 2 per squad (allowing 5 man units to take 2).
Galas wrote: The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".
GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.
Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.
Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
So the faults of 7th edition sit squarely on the shoulders of players who wanted "legacy" rules? That's a profoundly ridiculous assessment.
No, the fault is that GW thought it would work if they just squeezed in LOW class units above landraider equivalent units. It inflated the value of anti-titanic weapons which made the game lot more lethal than it used to. Then they diminished the effective defensive capabilities of elite units in a form of collateral damage with the new 'everything can wound anything' and wound chart and ap system, which was designed so that even the humble guardsmen have .000000001% chance of blowing up a knight.
7th was ruined by formations. LOWs existed long before 7th. You hate knights, we get it, and I agree they never should have been a stand alone army, but that isn't what killed 7th.
Kanluwen wrote:I'd totally be down for Aeldari 'elite and mobile' infantry to get an Invuln/Dodge save that's based upon how far they moved that turn.
So if say Banshees, Swooping Hawks, Hellions, Harlequins moved half their value? They get a +1 to whatever Invuln they have. Move their full value? +1 to Invuln, -1 to be hit.
There's, as they said in prior streams, a few levers they can pull.
Agreed. Eldar infantry should all have defensive abilities that work like Distort Fields. So nothing if they stand still, 6++ for half move, 5++ for a full move, and 4++ for advancing. Make them annoying little buggers that are hard to kill because they're constantly bouncing around everywhere, but if they ever hold still for anything, they pay for it.
Slayer6 wrote: When a basic Intercessor costs 1 point less than a Scion packing a Plasmagun, that can oneshot two of them on the drop very reliably... You know they aren't doing so well... I would have given Marines 1W and a built-in base 6++ that could be enhanced by other additions - such as Terminator Armor, or Storm Shields. Hell, change the rules around to:
The Black Carapace:
Models with this rule have a 6++. This can be modified.
Terminator Armor:
2+ save and also improves Invulnerable Saves by 1.
Combat Shield:
Improves Invulnerable Saves by 1.
Storm Shield:
Improves both Armor and Invulnerable saves by 1.
Combine them all, and your current Storm Shield Terminators come into play. 2+/4++
Combat Shield on a model results in a 5++
Basic Space Marine units have a 6++.
Hell, if needed add a clause where Invulnerable saves cannot be improved past a 3++.
Now. I'm going to go back to trying to envisage just how an Imperial Guard Shotgun can kill a Warlord Titan... I haven't had much luck so far...
If by "One-shot two of them very reliably" you mean "Has a slightly better than 20% chance" then sure, that's accurate.
Now, we can bump our odds up by making them AP-4 with the right Regiment, but Intercessors can have cover for +1 Armor, which would end up a wash. Even with AP-4 and no cover, you're still only getting about 30% odds of killing two in one shooting phase.
Adding on some basic buffs, like, say, Father of the Future (which is now, apparently, baked into what Apothecaries can do) and your odds of killing two drop to less than 15% (even WITH AP-4 and no cover). If we add cover/drop AP to -3, odds further drop to just about 10%.
I should have specified Kappic Eagles, that's my own fault... So, I usually run Kappic Eagles with the PoC WL trait Prime inside another Valkyrie with Master-Vox, Command Rod and Tactical Auto Reliquary for another order on a 2+, along with the Inspired Orders Stratagem (3 orders, or 4 on a 2+). Usually I am ordering the Plasma Squads to have Take Aim and the other squads to have FRFSRF upon the disembark.
97.8% hit (after RR)
83.33% chance to wound (overcharged)
83.33% chance to kill (effective 6+ save)
Overall percentage: 67.9% which can "oneshot two of them reliably".
Obviously I would not go for enemies in cover, or under a FnP bubble - that's what my other stuff can waste time shooting instead, eg; Catachan Manticore with Full Payload.
But back on topic, I think the Marine changes aren't really that helpful especially considering that one of the most plentiful weapons arrayed against them has also been buffed to match them. In fact, I'd say the 2W change would have been a fantastic addition to the Crusade system, but not here.
I would not consider anything that requires you to roll above average to be "Very reliable."
And the odds of killing ONE Intercessor without Cover or FNP would be very reliable, at just shy of 90%. But the odds of killing two are less than 50%.
Moreover, since they're not getting Deepstruck, if you don't get Turn 1, there's a very good chance that they're footslogging it. And shortly dead.
Xenomancers wrote: 2 wound primaris was fine. 2 wound migdet marines is an insult to the primaris.
Good.
I hope every person who exclusively plays primaris has their feelings hurt.
Sorry to tell you this, but as a person that has an exclusively primaris army; my feelings were not hurt by this at all. In fact, quite the opposite. I think it makes a lot of sense for all space marines to have two wounds. I have a hard time believing the Belisarian Furnace doubles the health of a primaris space marine. I take the view that primaris are more resilient than firstborn but not so much that it can really be demonstrating in the tabletop game. Kinda like how Phobos pattern armor is lighter than Tacticus pattern armor but not enough to not get a 3+ save.
Xenomancers wrote: 2 wound primaris was fine. 2 wound migdet marines is an insult to the primaris.
Good.
I hope every person who exclusively plays primaris has their feelings hurt.
Sorry to tell you this, but as a person that has an exclusively primaris army; my feelings were not hurt by this at all. In fact, quite the opposite. I think it makes a lot of sense for all space marines to have two wounds. I have a hard time believing the Belisarian Furnace doubles the health of a primaris space marine. I take the view that primaris are more resilient than firstborn but not so much that it can really be demonstrating in the tabletop game. Kinda like how Phobos pattern armor is lighter than Tacticus pattern armor but not enough to not get a 3+ save.
I don't understand this mentality to be perfectly hojnesjt. Yes fluff should not DICTATE game balance, especially when the fluff for all factions tend to be way over the top as in 40k. But fluff should certainly GUIDE game balance, itwhy even have this wondrous amount of background material otherwise? Let's not pretend 40k is as popular as it is because it is a stellar wargame on its own merits. Balancing the game should come first but as stated, how are we even going to let Eldar live up to their fluff on the tabletop when every marine has 2W?
eldar have not lived up to their fluff on the tabletop for like 15 years. Marines having two wounds is the least of their problems.
Agreed. Eldar infantry should all have defensive abilities that work like Distort Fields. So nothing if they stand still, 6++ for half move, 5++ for a full move, and 4++ for advancing. Make them annoying little buggers that are hard to kill because they're constantly bouncing around everywhere, but if they ever hold still for anything, they pay for it.
I like the concept, but I think you could nix a lot of the bookkeeping and some of the complexity. Just make it a 5+ invul if they moved or fell back and a 4+ if they advanced. If you took away Battle Focus (the rule that lets them ignore the to-hit penalty with assault weapons), you could maybe even go a step a further and make it a 3+ invul if they're in light cover. Maybe. The idea being that advancing would lower your offense but improve your survivability, thus lowering the overall lethality of the game and making the rule more of a tradeoff for eldar rather than a raw power boost. I also feel it's important to make "good" invulns pretty easy to obtain. My striking scorpions don't care all that much about a 5+ invul save if they're spending most of their time in light cover (functionally giving them a 2+ armor save).
Other random ideas:
* Same as the above, but make the values a step lower (5+ instead of 4+), and make it an FNP instead of an invul. That way, it would still benefit units with good armor saves against attacks with bad AP. A scorpion would still benefit against lasguns, for instance. The weird thing there is that a lascannon would suddenly become better at overwhelming the save than D1 weapons. So maybe make it a "ward save" (an invul that you take after armor saves) instead of an FNP?
* Bring back "jink" for various types of eldar. As in, when targeted by an attack, the unit can gain a 4+ invulnerable save until the start of its next turn at the cost of suffering a to-hit penalty until the end of its next turn. Again, a defense-for-offense trade, but one that can be used reactively. You're not defenseless because your opponent got first turn.
* Bring back some jump-shoot-jump. I think it would be cool if an autarch could tell a unit to basically Fire & Fade as a guard style order instead of having a generic reroll aura. Let Baharroth do the same thing for a squad of swooping hawks. Maybe change Quicken to allow the same. With the reduced board size, the new strategic reserve rules, and the increased number of mobility gimmicks compared to past editions, I'm not sure JSJ would be the nightmare that it was in the past.
*Introduce an evasion stat. This would be the biggest overhaul and the most work, but I don't think it would be an unreasonable change. Basically, "Evasion" (roughly analogous in value to Initiative) would be a stat that you compare to the attacker's BS or WS to determine whether or not an attack hits. So orks might have pretty decent WS because they know how to fight, but they might have pretty crummy Evasion because they're not all that great at actually avoiding damage. Eldar would obviously have high evasion making them difficult to hit. Marines may or may not have better evasion than a baseline human; they're good at using terrain and parrying melee attacks, sure, but they're also big targets that generally seem to rely on their durability rather than "evasiveness."
Should GW really be duplicating and then reinventing the 4++ Eldar faction, your basically turning craftworlders into Harliquines.
I don't disagree that certain codex's clearly need some help Mainly Eldar, Drukari, Tau and Pure GSC, Knights.
But I'm not sure adding yet more invulnerable saves is healthy.
Does it suck marines got the first power boost of the edition when they were top tier, definataly but I think, people need to try and start to rethink the design changes you want to call for before suggesting to GW that they need to fix their balance with X or Y.
No invulnerable armor if you stand still, 5+ if you move (Half moves don't make sense because you can just move half your move and then move the rest back and remain in the same place, the important bit is moving to not count as stationary) and 4+ if you advance would be fine. Of course, things like wraithguard should not get it. It would be probably something for normal eldar infantry and bikers. I mean if ravenwing can have it theres no reason why Eldar could not. The only thing you'll need is to remove the ease that eldars have to make a 9 man biker unit a 3++ or 2++ like they have in 8th.
Of course as others have noted the problem with Eldar is the limitations of the warhammer system to represents why they are "durable".
Karol wrote: blanket +4 inv with possible buffs on the entire army? considering the ap hight in the game, this would make eldar more resilient then marines.
This might sound crazy, but I kind of feel like most eldar (craftworlders, harlies, some drukhari) actually should be pretty durable. Just not through raw toughness and armor. Craftworlders put a big emphasis on mitigating casualties. They're not marines, but they're also not guardsmen. They're not hulking brutes wrapped in power armor, but they are supposedly fast, coordinated, and psychically buffed enough to keep their casualties pretty low. Short of giving them all JSJ or making them such extreme glass cannons that facing them becomes a coin toss, how would you represent that on the tabletop?
To-hit modifiers were an intuitive (but problematic) answer. A -1 to hit modifier doesn't feel like it's cutting it at the moment.
But I didn't stand still I moved 2 inches that way 2 inches across and 2 inches back see I moved 6 inches despite my unit ending up back in the same cover.
Short of it only applying when you advance which automatically impacts shooting, as I'm guessing this wont apply in CC, it's just way to gameable.
Galas wrote: No invulnerable armor if you stand still, 5+ if you move (Half moves don't make sense because you can just move half your move and then move the rest back and remain in the same place, the important bit is moving to not count as stationary) and 4+ if you advance would be fine. Of course, things like wraithguard should not get it. It would be probably something for normal eldar infantry and bikers. I mean if ravenwing can have it theres no reason why Eldar could not. The only thing you'll need is to remove the ease that eldars have to make a 9 man biker unit a 3++ or 2++ like they have in 8th.
Of course as others have noted the problem with Eldar is the limitations of the warhammer system to represents why they are "durable".
Galas wrote: No invulnerable armor if you stand still, 5+ if you move (Half moves don't make sense because you can just move half your move and then move the rest back and remain in the same place, the important bit is moving to not count as stationary) and 4+ if you advance would be fine. Of course, things like wraithguard should not get it. It would be probably something for normal eldar infantry and bikers. I mean if ravenwing can have it theres no reason why Eldar could not. The only thing you'll need is to remove the ease that eldars have to make a 9 man biker unit a 3++ or 2++ like they have in 8th.
Of course as others have noted the problem with Eldar is the limitations of the warhammer system to represents why they are "durable".
Ah, yes, I meant only infantry and maybe bikes. And it would need to be capped at a 4++ for anything that gets it. Not for Wraithguard and definitely not for vehicles, unless it's something that pays for a Distort Field. Even a fast moving vehicle is a big target.
Ice_can wrote: But I didn't stand still I moved 2 inches that way 2 inches across and 2 inches back see I moved 6 inches despite my unit ending up back in the same cover.
Short of it only applying when you advance which automatically impacts shooting, as I'm guessing this wont apply in CC, it's just way to gameable.
Sounds like you're describing a unit moving constantly and unpredictably. Which could reasonably throw off someone's aim. If a ranger is dancing in circles, he will count as having moved and thus take a penalty to hit with his sniper rifle (heavy weapon). Which was Galas's point, I think. It's not actually important that you physically move the model; it's important that the model counting as "moving" means that they have the downsides that go with it.
Ice_can wrote: But I didn't stand still I moved 2 inches that way 2 inches across and 2 inches back see I moved 6 inches despite my unit ending up back in the same cover.
Short of it only applying when you advance which automatically impacts shooting, as I'm guessing this wont apply in CC, it's just way to gameable.
Sounds like you're describing a unit moving constantly and unpredictably. Which could reasonably throw off someone's aim. If a ranger is dancing in circles, he will count as having moved and thus take a penalty to hit with his sniper rifle (heavy weapon). Which was Galas's point, I think. It's not actually important that you physically move the model; it's important that the model counting as "moving" means that they have the downsides that go with it.
One unit, how many eldar foot units have heavy weapons and how many have assulat or pistol?
As far as I can tell it's only Rangers and Dark Reapers that have heavy weapons. And only Rangers would care about the penelty for moving. That's not a trade off that's a frankly too good buff.
Having to advance would be a lot fairer IMHO.
Ice_can wrote: Should GW really be duplicating and then reinventing the 4++ Eldar faction, your basically turning craftworlders into Harliquines.
It's an issue of there not being a ton of obvious design space to represent the concept of, "Durable because quick and tricky." I actually don't feel like harlequins are terribly true to their fluff at the moment. A 1 wound model with a 4+ invul is a coin flip away from death every time the enemy succesfully wounds his Toughness 3 self. Currently, you can mitigate how many times the enemy gets a chance to shoot at you (pretty fluffy), but a handful of lasguns is a pretty major threat to a troupe of harlequins once they step out of their boats.
I always felt that a 1 wound marine being nervous about a single laspistol shot was a source of fluff/crunch dissonance. Making them 2 wounds does a pretty good job of addressing that. Dying to a single lasgun shot felt "wrong." But if you lose 2 wounds to lasguns, well clearly it's the result of weight of fire and was just fated to be. Harlequins kind of have the same issue. Their fluff says they're too good at being anime ninja tricksters - too "elite" - to start sweating around a couple lasguns. But just giving them more wounds (and a higher points cost) wouldn't work as well for harlequins because their form of durability probably shouldn't be countered by higher damage weapons. A lascannon should be good at bypassing the benefits of marine organs and power armor; it shouldn't be good at killing the guy who's to fast and sparkly to aim at.
That is definitely true the game is really starting to hurt from the insistent that it be a D6 system and removing stat comparison.
But while it's certainly not fluffy right now Xeno infantry in general just need to go back to 8th edition points untill their codex's as bumping them all up leaving guard at 5 and giving marines 2w with better stats for twice their points isn't helping the game balance.
Ice_can wrote: But I didn't stand still I moved 2 inches that way 2 inches across and 2 inches back see I moved 6 inches despite my unit ending up back in the same cover.
Short of it only applying when you advance which automatically impacts shooting, as I'm guessing this wont apply in CC, it's just way to gameable.
Sounds like you're describing a unit moving constantly and unpredictably. Which could reasonably throw off someone's aim. If a ranger is dancing in circles, he will count as having moved and thus take a penalty to hit with his sniper rifle (heavy weapon). Which was Galas's point, I think. It's not actually important that you physically move the model; it's important that the model counting as "moving" means that they have the downsides that go with it.
One unit, how many eldar foot units have heavy weapons and how many have assulat or pistol?
As far as I can tell it's only Rangers and Dark Reapers that have heavy weapons. And only Rangers would care about the penelty for moving. That's not a trade off that's a frankly too good buff.
Having to advance would be a lot fairer IMHO.
I see what you're saying. On the other hand, a 5+ invul is only so useful for a lot of guns/targets. Warp spiders would already have a 5+ save against AP-2 and a better save against AP -1 or AP0. So unless you're shooting plasma at the warp spider, the 5+ invul doesn't actually matter. Heck, he'd still have a 5+ armor save against the plasma if he were in light cover. The 5+ invul gets a lot better on models with a 4+ or 5+ save like avengers and guardians, but then your opponent is shooting weaponry with decent AP at your light infantry.
Against an intercessor's bolt rifle without doctrines, an avenger has a 5+ save anyway (a 4+ if he's in cover), and the guardian has a 6+ save (5+ in cover). If the intercessor is in the tactical doctrine, the guardian cares a lot more and the avenger cares a little. I'm rambling. What I"m trying to say is that a 5+ invul on craftworlders is good, but maybe not actually that good. A 4+ invul save is a different story and absolutely should require advancing.
But while it's certainly not fluffy right now Xeno infantry in general just need to go back to 8th edition points untill their codex's as bumping them all up leaving guard at 5 and giving marines 2w with better stats for twice their points isn't helping the game balance.
Absolutely. The 50% price increase to kabalite warriors kind of chafes right now.
I've often felt that 40k simply lacks the rules to really let eldar work as they should. Eldar should be hard to hit if they're on the move, but if they ARE hit, go down hard. to use a mechwarrior analogy, they should operate like light mechs (or fast mediums) they can often hit hard, and manuver quite well and are thus difficult to hit, but they can't take many hits that actually connect
Any marines. It seems really unbalanced and I am a marine player. Intercessors should be one wound and they’re still under costed for what they do.
Indeed, this goes too far.
Intercessors should have one wound and Aggressors as well as others should have two wounds.
This could also leave Termies with two wounds.
What we see now is a massive shift of the meta.
GW tried to counteract by making heavy bolters D2.
But Xenos? Eldar armies gather starcannons which were out of date since ed. 3 where they were D3.
All in all, disappointing.
Karol wrote: blanket +4 inv with possible buffs on the entire army? considering the ap hight in the game, this would make eldar more resilient then marines.
This might sound crazy, but I kind of feel like most eldar (craftworlders, harlies, some drukhari) actually should be pretty durable. Just not through raw toughness and armor. Craftworlders put a big emphasis on mitigating casualties. They're not marines, but they're also not guardsmen. They're not hulking brutes wrapped in power armor, but they are supposedly fast, coordinated, and psychically buffed enough to keep their casualties pretty low. Short of giving them all JSJ or making them such extreme glass cannons that facing them becomes a coin toss, how would you represent that on the tabletop?
To-hit modifiers were an intuitive (but problematic) answer. A -1 to hit modifier doesn't feel like it's cutting it at the moment.
okey, but with the way GW designs them. they would be faster, more resilient and more killy then marines. This would either have to be balanced by them being very elite and low model count, which GW won't do because they want to sell more models, or would leave them in a strange place where eldar balance would have to come from marines becoming a horde army, but then what would GW suppose to do with real horde armies like Tyranids or Orks, or worse what would they do with armies that are stuck in the middle between horde and normal like IG or tau? it would be a total just a ton of points where something could, and IMO would, go wrong. now eldar players would be happy. But I don't how a custodes player should feel about eldar being faster, stronger, more killy and more resilient. Or having eldar tanks and walkers run around with +4inv practicaly doubling their resiliance, and what is worse making one or two shot anti tank weapons really bad. We would again arrive at a point where a 4 shot weapon with str 5-6 is better then a lascanon at blowing up tanks.
Karol wrote: blanket +4 inv with possible buffs on the entire army? considering the ap hight in the game, this would make eldar more resilient then marines.
I don't know about that, but a whole bunch of 5++ 40+ ppm Custodes will be pissed.
I really, really agree with the idea of Eldar infantry & bikes getting a 5++ if they move, a 4++ if they advance. Yeah this would basically be handing most of them a 5++ all the time, but that seems like a good thing to me by making the army more elite.
How about "dodge" invulns for especially dodgy guys being represented by ability to reroll invulns? This way you'd have a 1W harlequin dodging a hail of lasgun fire, but up to a point.
As for orks, the fluff states that orks can survive freaking decapitation. T4 does not , however 2W ork boys would require too much. I think that ork boys would be nicely represented by a 6+++ FNP, and painboy improving it to 5+++. Also bring back proper 'ard boys for pts instead of CP. And while we are at it, screw orky BS5+. Represent the ammount of dakka or snazzy bits on models by giving a flat +1BS to units instead of giving rerolls to 1, or something minor like that. Giving a reroll 1's + Dakkadakka is almost the same as giving a BS4+, but is really tideous to resolve.
As for horde vs elite armies, I think that 2W marines are "right" from fluff perspective. However they should be costed appropriately, and price should account for all the special rules they've been getting. Horde units need a respawn mechanic free of CP tax to be able to field large ammount of troops - they simply some in waves. This way you put less strain on the player to paint ridiculous ammount of models, as well as giving hordes a way to overwhelm elite forces in a way appropriate for their fluff, as well as giving marines more targets to shoot at. Win-win?
the_scotsman wrote: Also, ork nobz (14ppm?) being OK at 2w but marines (traditionally 15ppm) not being OK at 2w is a fun hot take.
"thing was like this way before! So I'm not mad at thing! NEW thing different! Different bad!"
Well, except that Nobs have worse stats in general and their equipment is overpriced, less effective or both? Also they don't have all the snazzy special rules with doctrines and bolter drill. Most importantly Nobs do not have a 3+ save.
Denegaar wrote: Here I am hoping that GW had an idea as good as the posters here. The more you move the best your save would be great for Aeldari troops and bikes.
and i disagree, especially in conjection of it beeing a Invul which aeldari don't deserve. Invuls should be restricted to field generators, daemonic entities and stuff like that and not handed out like candy for moving slightly faster, especally considering that AA weapons and other weapons which didn't care for cover saves which once did a similar enough thing to represent that existed.
But then again GW decided it would also be a smart idea to remove cover saves so it's about the only other mechanic left to atleast get approximately close to such a mechanic...
I'm no fan of invulnerable saves for all is healthy for the game but right now with the systems we have what else do we do?
I'd also suggest that some things like forcefields etc wmshould actually be negative modifiers of the wound roll, but that tends to fall into issues with the 6's always succeed rule.
But if say flare shields Ionshields were a -1 to wound it would make them effectively as close to imune as GW will allow against the S5-7 spam combine it with a -1d rule for vehicals and it's going to take Heavy weapons against heavy armour.
Basically, 2 wound Marines and Terminators are a response to vastly increased firepower of the armies. It is extremely easy to see that eventually firepower advantage will be restored, and then we need 3 wound Marines, and so on...
I'm fine with them having two wounds, but I also don't think it's going to matter that much for most of your average marines. I said this in the CSM thread and people lost it, but giving Chaos Marines two wounds is likely to actually make them WORSE. They're already over-costed to begin with, and when a CSM unit is killed, it is typically SIGNIFICANTLY, over-killed (being one of the few players left who actually uses real Marines in his Chaos army - I've seen this first hand). So now, CSM will be 20% more expensive, but will be just-killed, rather than over-killed.
In a meta where everyone was already geared up to kill 2W Intercessors, getting a second wound doesn't mean much unless you have something to leverage it. Plague Marines have DR, Primaris have a few ways to do damage reduction, etc. But regular CSM and Firstborn - they really don't. So that second would is not likely to make them THAT much more survivable, but it IS going to make them more expensive. Plus, marines get 2 wounds just in time for Heavy Intercessors to be a thing. A 3W unit in the troops slot with D2 guns ...
I just don't think this change is going to be the "thing" so many people think it's going to be.
Ice_can wrote: I'm no fan of invulnerable saves for all is healthy for the game but right now with the systems we have what else do we do?
I'd also suggest that some things like forcefields etc wmshould actually be negative modifiers of the wound roll, but that tends to fall into issues with the 6's always succeed rule.
But if say flare shields Ionshields were a -1 to wound it would make them effectively as close to imune as GW will allow against the S5-7 spam combine it with a -1d rule for vehicals and it's going to take Heavy weapons against heavy armour.
2 things,
A: Gw should finally fething fix the bloody wound table a S3 weapon has nothing to do wounding anything with T6 full stop. Just as a S4 weapon has nothing lost wounding anything with S4+. Same for stuff like transhuman and votwl,they shouldn't exist, so long GW thinks only having one system for vehicles AND infantry via a T value so long this needs to happen regardless.
B: Reintroduce a propper cover mechanic, reintroduce jinking against ALL aircraft (real ones not just floaty tanks) , finally fill AA gaps for all factions, no seriously...
Denegaar wrote: Here I am hoping that GW had an idea as good as the posters here. The more you move the best your save would be great for Aeldari troops and bikes.
and i disagree, especially in conjection of it beeing a Invul which aeldari don't deserve. Invuls should be restricted to field generators, daemonic entities and stuff like that and not handed out like candy for moving slightly faster, especally considering that AA weapons and other weapons which didn't care for cover saves which once did a similar enough thing to represent that existed.
But then again GW decided it would also be a smart idea to remove cover saves so it's about the only other mechanic left to atleast get approximately close to such a mechanic...
It doesn't represent them shrugging off the hit, it represents them being hard to hit because of their speed. That's why it's keyed off of movement, like a Ravenwing Black Knight's jink save, so it shouldn't work in cc (like Marv catching Kevin in Sin City. "Let's see you jump around now, you little..."). The only other way to represent that is with minuses to hit, and even if gw hadn't capped those, I'm pretty sure everyone would rather deal with an invul than that again.
Tycho wrote: I'm fine with them having two wounds, but I also don't think it's going to matter that much for most of your average marines. I said this in the CSM thread and people lost it, but giving Chaos Marines two wounds is likely to actually make them WORSE. They're already over-costed to begin with, and when a CSM unit is killed, it is typically SIGNIFICANTLY, over-killed (being one of the few players left who actually uses real Marines in his Chaos army - I've seen this first hand). So now, CSM will be 20% more expensive, but will be just-killed, rather than over-killed.
In a meta where everyone was already geared up to kill 2W Intercessors, getting a second wound doesn't mean much unless you have something to leverage it. Plague Marines have DR, Primaris have a few ways to do damage reduction, etc. But regular CSM and Firstborn - they really don't. So that second would is not likely to make them THAT much more survivable, but it IS going to make them more expensive. Plus, marines get 2 wounds just in time for Heavy Intercessors to be a thing. A 3W unit in the troops slot with D2 guns ...
I just don't think this change is going to be the "thing" so many people think it's going to be.
I found that immensly funny, allbeit i am a bit and was more optimistic in regards to the additional W then you were, but you fundamentally have a point a CSM isn't just not worth it because he only has one W but also because neither the offensive output is there, nor the morale durability, nor the Traits available to it.
GW thinks it's fine therefore if CSM are only 1 ppm cheaper then Tacs, but even then that wasn't a trade you'd be willing to make realistically, exception if you intended to run a RC spam list, cultists might be bad and comparatively terrible to similar low ppm models but they are still the better alternative then CSM
I found that immensly funny, allbeit i am a bit and was more optimistic in regards to the additional W then you were, but you fundamentally have a point a CSM isn't just not worth it because he only has one W but also because neither the offensive output is there, nor the morale durability, nor the Traits available to it.
GW thinks it's fine therefore if CSM are only 1 ppm cheaper then Tacs, but even then that wasn't a trade you'd be willing to make realistically, exception if you intended to run a RC spam list, cultists might be bad and comparatively terrible to similar low ppm models but they are still the better alternative then CSM
I think where CSM leg up on 2 wounds is in melee and terminators. As it stands they need a new book. If GW can't stomach finally giving CSM the treatment of most other armies on traits, well...
Xenomancers wrote: The terminator was good for 1 eddition. I think it was 4th.
False. GK paladin lists DOMINATED 4th AND 5th edition. And they didn't have special stats. They had special rules.
A paladin isn't really a terminator. They have always had more wounds than a standard terminator not to mention psychic powers. Their domination was more tied to wound allocation shenanigans in one of those edditions. The other was being part of an extremely power codex which literally every build type dominated.
Xenomancers wrote: 2 wound primaris was fine. 2 wound migdet marines is an insult to the primaris.
Good.
I hope every person who exclusively plays primaris has their feelings hurt.
Sorry to tell you this, but as a person that has an exclusively primaris army; my feelings were not hurt by this at all. In fact, quite the opposite. I think it makes a lot of sense for all space marines to have two wounds. I have a hard time believing the Belisarian Furnace doubles the health of a primaris space marine. I take the view that primaris are more resilient than firstborn but not so much that it can really be demonstrating in the tabletop game. Kinda like how Phobos pattern armor is lighter than Tacticus pattern armor but not enough to not get a 3+ save.
They are noticably larger. By a scale comparions - likely have double the mass of a midget marine. Going just by the models anyways. There are several diagrams I have seen showing size difference and it is pretty apparent one is MUCH bigger. I don't however see any reason why the bigger and larger version would have more melee attacks. I would expect them to be stronger and tougher. Ether represented by +Str or +W or both. 2 wound mini marines is literally just a ploy to get rid of stocks of models they aren't going to produce anymore. Since GW has learned pretty well by now - rules sell models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: blanket +4 inv with possible buffs on the entire army? considering the ap hight in the game, this would make eldar more resilient then marines.
Eldar should all be faster / have better invune saves/ and deal more damage/ for less cost than marines. I've heard this one before.
2W might not be a big game changer for basic csm, but it will be for cult marines, Chosen, warp talons, etc.. And 3W terminators will be nice.
Maybe? They're still going to be costed through the roof for that extra wound with not a lot of ways to leverage it. I think GW is really over-valuing that wound in a lot of cases.
2W might not be a big game changer for basic csm, but it will be for cult marines, Chosen, warp talons, etc.. And 3W terminators will be nice.
Maybe? They're still going to be costed through the roof for that extra wound with not a lot of ways to leverage it. I think GW is really over-valuing that wound in a lot of cases.
Possibly, but as Daedalus said, we need a new codex more than anything. The old one is being held together with duct tape at this point.
2W might not be a big game changer for basic csm, but it will be for cult marines, Chosen, warp talons, etc.. And 3W terminators will be nice.
Maybe? They're still going to be costed through the roof for that extra wound with not a lot of ways to leverage it. I think GW is really over-valuing that wound in a lot of cases.
Possibly, but as Daedalus said, we need a new codex more than anything. The old one is being held together with duct tape at this point.
Without a doubt, I believe that a Chaos Space Marine codex has to be released before the end of year. They're one of the biggest players and most popular factions.
Xenomancers wrote: 2 wound mini marines is literally just a ploy to get rid of stocks of models they aren't going to produce anymore. Since GW has learned pretty well by now - rules sell models.
Damn, and I thought GW tries to sell me the army I already own again by making Primaris better than Oldmarines.
And the second statement is - again and again - proven wrong by looking at the recent releases.
Possibly, but as Daedalus said, we need a new codex more than anything. The old one is being held together with duct tape at this point.
You guys aren't wrong in that, but I'm just going on history here. It's never happened before, so I'm not looking for it to happen now. Fingers crossed I suppose! lol
2W might not be a big game changer for basic csm, but it will be for cult marines, Chosen, warp talons, etc.. And 3W terminators will be nice.
Maybe? They're still going to be costed through the roof for that extra wound with not a lot of ways to leverage it. I think GW is really over-valuing that wound in a lot of cases.
Possibly, but as Daedalus said, we need a new codex more than anything. The old one is being held together with duct tape at this point.
Without a doubt, I believe that a Chaos Space Marine codex has to be released before the end of year. They're one of the biggest players and most popular factions.
Well it isn't happening this year, unless you count Death Guard.
Tycho wrote:
Possibly, but as Daedalus said, we need a new codex more than anything. The old one is being held together with duct tape at this point.
You guys aren't wrong in that, but I'm just going on history here. It's never happened before, so I'm not looking for it to happen now. Fingers crossed I suppose! lol
What never happened? Csm being good? You not around for 3.5?
With regards to Eldar and speed/evasions, the problem with this is that basically every edition that has had a mechanic like this, it ends up breaking something, and usually introducing some huge "have/not have" gap. Skimmers vs Non-skimmers in many editions, the awful Jink of 6th and 7th, etc.
Likewise, while I can buy Eldar reflexes making them hard to hit in a fist fight, I dont see Eldar actively dodging laser blasts, supersonic shrapnel, automatic gunfire, artillery blasts, flame throwers, etc with anything near the same success. Eldar have been plenty powerful and capable without such.
For CSM's, given how much of an afterthought they seem to be, I wouldnt make any bets on when CSM's get an update. We've got what, 11 weeks left in the year? Possible, but seeing a new CSM codex before 2021 would be unexpected, to me anyway.
BrianDavion wrote: I think 4++ if they just move's a bad idea. go with 6++ 5++ if they move 4++ if they advance
That was my original proposal. Same as a Distort Field.
I'd suggest just to limit rules text and odd ball situation like artillary having a hard time hitting a stationary squad.
If the moved 5++, If they advance this is improved to a 4++.
It also avoids rangers having to pay points for a 6++ that will never benifit them.
Which shouldn't happen unless the game moves to D8 or D10. As is you're just trying to make Eldar more durable than Death Guard if they get a plethora of Invul.
Xenomancers wrote: 2 wound mini marines is literally just a ploy to get rid of stocks of models they aren't going to produce anymore. Since GW has learned pretty well by now - rules sell models.
Damn, and I thought GW tries to sell me the army I already own again by making Primaris better than Oldmarines.
And the second statement is - again and again - proven wrong by looking at the recent releases.
Nearly everyone has an army of little marines. You'll get no sympathy from anyone about having to buy models for this game. It's actually the most enjoyable part of the hobby for most of us. We like getting new toys and playing with them. Using the same models over and over can get boring.
On rules selling models. Some units have to be bad for other units to be good. They can always change their rules later and create a rush to deplete stocks. Much like other stores will use sales move inventory and clear up shelf space for new products. Who knows - it could just be an experiment to see if they have enough of a following to sustain a mini marine product list along side a primaris one and still be able to do everything else they want to do. I think it is a mistake though. I think most would agree MOAR MARINES is bad for the game. We don't need yet another option to play marines like a "mini marine codex" and a "primaris codex". Every marine kit they make is a xenos kit that isn't getting developed.
2W might not be a big game changer for basic csm, but it will be for cult marines, Chosen, warp talons, etc.. And 3W terminators will be nice.
Maybe? They're still going to be costed through the roof for that extra wound with not a lot of ways to leverage it. I think GW is really over-valuing that wound in a lot of cases.
Possibly, but as Daedalus said, we need a new codex more than anything. The old one is being held together with duct tape at this point.
is there a codex that isn't being held together by duct tape minus Crons and Space marines at this point? Every army needs their 9th ed codex.
Really wish GW would just release all the codex at once. That way with all rules available at the start of the edition we could maybe have a balanced game.
BrianDavion wrote: I think 4++ if they just move's a bad idea. go with 6++ 5++ if they move 4++ if they advance
That was my original proposal. Same as a Distort Field.
I'd suggest just to limit rules text and odd ball situation like artillary having a hard time hitting a stationary squad.
If the moved 5++, If they advance this is improved to a 4++.
It also avoids rangers having to pay points for a 6++ that will never benifit them.
Which shouldn't happen unless the game moves to D8 or D10. As is you're just trying to make Eldar more durable than Death Guard if they get a plethora of Invul.
GW won't go away from the D6 system
I'm not sure 1W T3 models with a 5++, are actually more durable than 2W, T5, 5+++ deathguard.
Karol wrote: blanket +4 inv with possible buffs on the entire army? considering the ap hight in the game, this would make eldar more resilient then marines.
Not really, a marine has a 2-3+ save against bolters (depending if theyre in cover or not). A harlequin always can't get lower than 4++ without using stratagems. Harlequins also have less thoughness so more of these bolter shots will wound them. Harlequin vehicles also have the same toughness as a marine in gravis, with a worse save.
Without a doubt, I believe that a Chaos Space Marine codex has to be released before the end of year. They're one of the biggest players and most popular factions.
Probably a very small window for this year. We still have all the other Necron / Marine kits, which will we bee a week or two. The other codexes will probably splash down together and then probably Sons of Behemat. December is usually barren for new stuff.
I imagine the book will come with yet more new kits.
BrianDavion wrote: I think 4++ if they just move's a bad idea. go with 6++ 5++ if they move 4++ if they advance
That was my original proposal. Same as a Distort Field.
I'd suggest just to limit rules text and odd ball situation like artillary having a hard time hitting a stationary squad.
If the moved 5++, If they advance this is improved to a 4++.
It also avoids rangers having to pay points for a 6++ that will never benifit them.
Which shouldn't happen unless the game moves to D8 or D10. As is you're just trying to make Eldar more durable than Death Guard if they get a plethora of Invul.
GW won't go away from the D6 system
I'm not sure 1W T3 models with a 5++, are actually more durable than 2W, T5, 5+++ deathguard.
theyre not, its just eldar hate with no real thought behind it.
Personally i feel like they should have :
Invuln based on movement.
OR
More damage.
either keep their low damage (shuriken) but up their survivability OR up their damage but keep their fragility.
Obviously i'm talking about aspect warriors mostly here.
BrianDavion wrote: I think 4++ if they just move's a bad idea. go with 6++ 5++ if they move 4++ if they advance
That was my original proposal. Same as a Distort Field.
I'd suggest just to limit rules text and odd ball situation like artillary having a hard time hitting a stationary squad.
If the moved 5++, If they advance this is improved to a 4++.
It also avoids rangers having to pay points for a 6++ that will never benifit them.
Which shouldn't happen unless the game moves to D8 or D10. As is you're just trying to make Eldar more durable than Death Guard if they get a plethora of Invul.
GW won't go away from the D6 system
I'm not sure 1W T3 models with a 5++, are actually more durable than 2W, T5, 5+++ deathguard.
It always depends on cost, but imagine you gave Gaunts a 5++ for free just because they moved super quick.
I'm not sure 1W T3 models with a 5++, are actually more durable than 2W, T5, 5+++ deathguard.
It always depends on cost, but imagine you gave Gaunts a 5++ for free just because they moved super quick.
It does depend on cost. A tyranid priced like an eldar that has a 5++ because they move super quick is called a genestealer, and I don't believe they're generally considered overly durable. Despite also being T4.
EDIT: And a fast T3 model with a 5+ invul save is called a daemonette. Although I don't think anyone is strongly advocating for the increase in eldar durability being free. Marines paid a couple of points for their durability boost. Eldar prices would need to be adjusted too.
BrianDavion wrote: I think 4++ if they just move's a bad idea. go with 6++ 5++ if they move 4++ if they advance
That was my original proposal. Same as a Distort Field.
I'd suggest just to limit rules text and odd ball situation like artillary having a hard time hitting a stationary squad.
If the moved 5++, If they advance this is improved to a 4++.
It also avoids rangers having to pay points for a 6++ that will never benifit them.
Which shouldn't happen unless the game moves to D8 or D10. As is you're just trying to make Eldar more durable than Death Guard if they get a plethora of Invul.
GW won't go away from the D6 system
I'm not sure 1W T3 models with a 5++, are actually more durable than 2W, T5, 5+++ deathguard.
It always depends on cost, but imagine you gave Gaunts a 5++ for free just because they moved super quick.
Who said it would be free? Obviously unit prices would have to be adjusted.
Without a doubt, I believe that a Chaos Space Marine codex has to be released before the end of year. They're one of the biggest players and most popular factions.
Probably a very small window for this year. We still have all the other Necron / Marine kits, which will we bee a week or two. The other codexes will probably splash down together and then probably Sons of Behemat. December is usually barren for new stuff.
I imagine the book will come with yet more new kits.
They've already told us what books are coming out this year, as well as the first two for next year (although one of those we only know will be Xenos, no specific faction), and the non-cult legions, along with Emperors Children and World Eaters presumably, aren't any of them. No csm besides Death Guard for this year.
I'm not sure 1W T3 models with a 5++, are actually more durable than 2W, T5, 5+++ deathguard.
It always depends on cost, but imagine you gave Gaunts a 5++ for free just because they moved super quick.
It does depend on cost. A tyranid priced like an eldar that has a 5++ because they move super quick is called a genestealer, and I don't believe they're generally considered overly durable. Despite also being T4.
EDIT: And a fast T3 model with a 5+ invul save is called a daemonette. Although I don't think anyone is strongly advocating for the increase in eldar durability being free. Marines paid a couple of points for their durability boost. Eldar prices would need to be adjusted too.
Well, in general Aeldari Troops already payed for something. Wyches went up 3 points (from 8 to 11) and I'm not sure they are much better than your example, a 7 (iirc) point Daemonette.
pelicaniforce wrote: There’s really only one skill for shooting ATM, which is hitting on 4+/3+/2+. It’s pretty bs in a shooting based game. There should be a dodge save mechanic for all armies and eldar should be the best at it. Like, if your model has more attacks than the model shooting it that means it’s more veteran/elite and it gets a 5++ on top of its normal save. Then eldar can have 2a, or 3a for aspect warriors and wyches, and dodge primaris shooting. They’re still strength 3 it doesn’t exactly make them monsters.
Of course primaris also become good at dodging lasgun and pulse rifle shots, which seems fine for an elite army.
I'm going to be real honest, I don't see anyone dodging laser fire, no matter how elite they are
More to the point, matrix-dodging gunfire in small arms engagements like this isn't really a thing, you put a putz every day person and a Navy Seal or Olympic gold medal gymnast at the wrong end of a 100 yard rifle range and the number of trigger pulls needed to tag any of em probably isn't any different.
Now, Flames of War had a concept something like what you're talking about, where the better trained/experienced an opponent was, the harder they were to hit. Conscripts are hit on a 2+, Trained troops on a 3+, Veteran troops on a 4+, with various modifiers for range, cover, etc. The shooter's skill doesn't matter as everyone is just setting the range on their sight and pulling the trigger and most of the process is mechanized, it's the ability of the target to know when to move between MG bursts, how to properly utilize cover, recognize incoming shell fire, knowledge of likely fire patterns, etc that determines hit rates. However it's still not a comparative thing, both Veteran Troops and Recruits will hit the same target at the same rate.
Flames of war is the inspiration. It’s like do you know when to stick your head out of cover to shoot, or is an elite trooper so much better than you that he’s got his sights on top of before you can even get your bearing
It’s a universal way to make something harder to kill other than W, and unlike other invulnerable saves the other player can defeat it, eg choose to direct high attacks units against it.
theyre not, its just eldar hate with no real thought behind it.
I can't say what people that played editions pre 8th think or feel, but I can garente you that people that got o play vs eldar in 8th have many thoughts and feelings regarding to what could be done with them , and why is it warrented to give them a blanket +4 inv if they move. And as harlequins are already showing in 9th, a blanket inv all around the army coupled with fast movment gives an army that is very powerful.
But if it is based on lore, then lets go lore. One of the tyranid brainy things soloed a whole eldar craftworld, same with single DG. now GK killed the brainy thing with a squad of strikes, and banish GD on a daily basis. I then require my dudes to have the rules they have in the lore too. Chaos and psykers litteraly melting when GK enter the battlefield, paladins being able to kill multiple demons in the nude, so in armour with weapons they probably should have stats closer to those of custodes. Psy reactive rounds from GK stormbolters make wraithbone wither, so they should get some anti demon anti eldar vehicle extra rule. Just to be true to true to the lore and make GK more like specilised Custodes, then high cost marines.
Ah in one old codex I read that they also have some sort of a mist around them which make hiting them from range and melee practicaly impossible. I will accept it being represented by a +4inv too. We have a rule that doesn't let our invs go lower then that anyway.
theyre not, its just eldar hate with no real thought behind it.
I can't say what people that played editions pre 8th think or feel, but I can garente you that people that got o play vs eldar in 8th have many thoughts and feelings regarding to what could be done with them , and why is it warrented to give them a blanket +4 inv if they move. And as harlequins are already showing in 9th, a blanket inv all around the army coupled with fast movment gives an army that is very powerful.
But if it is based on lore, then lets go lore. One of the tyranid brainy things soloed a whole eldar craftworld, same with single DG. now GK killed the brainy thing with a squad of strikes, and banish GD on a daily basis. I then require my dudes to have the rules they have in the lore too. Chaos and psykers litteraly melting when GK enter the battlefield, paladins being able to kill multiple demons in the nude, so in armour with weapons they probably should have stats closer to those of custodes. Psy reactive rounds from GK stormbolters make wraithbone wither, so they should get some anti demon anti eldar vehicle extra rule. Just to be true to true to the lore and make GK more like specilised Custodes, then high cost marines.
Ah in one old codex I read that they also have some sort of a mist around them which make hiting them from range and melee practicaly impossible. I will accept it being represented by a +4inv too. We have a rule that doesn't let our invs go lower then that anyway.
its about both a fluff and a gameplay persective that the suggestion is being made.
Eldars are supposed to be a dying race, with ultra strict behaviour to prevent them from being exterminated on the battlefield or to slaanesh. They're quick and agile in the fluff, with some of being too fast for a basic human (guardsmen) to see properly as they move.
On the tabletop, this doesn't translate well. Theyre easy to kill because they get bad saves, so you end up with unfluffy lists. Keep in mind that i'm not talking about the good units of the codex, which are good because theyre resilient (wave serpent, shining spears, wraith units), i'm talking about aspect warriors, windriders, phoenix lords.
One solution to that is to merge the fluff and tabletop and make them "dodge" attacks in the shape of either -1 to hits or invulnerable saves (cant wound me if you never actually hit me).
The reason harlequins are doing well right now is that theyre a marine counter. Especially the marines that spam their heavy weapons. When i play my clowns, seeing my opponent's intercessors kitted out with the 4 -2 2 guns makes me so happy because i know they wont be able to go through all my guys.
the 4++ isn't OP either, GK can get a 4+ save against -2AP weapons too, and i think that my vehicles having a 4++ to compensate for their T5 (the same as a dude in gravis armor) is fair.
If you want to kill harlequins, spam bolters on them , yes, even the vehicles.
Oh , and GK vs Demons is already a shitmatchup and i feel like mechanics that "counter" specific armies should not be in the game (3DMG smite, the demon strat that brings back demons that were killed by GK, death to the false emperor, the reroll against xenos for deathwatch, etc), they all make these matchups too swingy to be enjoyable and balanced.
How would people feel about rolling 2d6 and discarding the lowest if moved for armor saves? Obviously not for all units.. But some of the "quick and dodge" units
In lieu of modifiers being uncapped.. re-roll to saves or something similar is the only other way to get more durability IMO.
However, a workaround would also be to around the modifier cap by reducing BS (you can reduce BS and also modify hit roll on top of each other) or having a 5+ to hit transhuman rule.
However, this all has inherent problems with affecting different armies disproportionately.
Personly I would like the cap to be moved to -2 and keep 6 always hit. I think that would be the fairest way to tackle hit modifier shenanigans (which I think they should have done in the first place)
I really dislike how currently if you disadvantage yourself (shooting after advancing, moving and shooting heavy weapon etc.) you take no actual penalty for opponents' modifiers or terrain. I think this is a really stupid design and needs to be changed asap...
Argive wrote: How would people feel about rolling 2d6 and discarding the lowest if moved for armor saves?
Obviously not for all units.. But some of the "quick and dodge" units
Nope nope nope nope!
Do me a favor, see how long it takes to roll, say, 25 4+ saves.
Now do it again, only each save has to be rolled individually with two dice, dropping the lower one.
Completely disregarding any balance, it just takes too damn long.
Argive wrote: How would people feel about rolling 2d6 and discarding the lowest if moved for armor saves?
Obviously not for all units.. But some of the "quick and dodge" units
Nope nope nope nope!
Do me a favor, see how long it takes to roll, say, 25 4+ saves.
Now do it again, only each save has to be rolled individually with two dice, dropping the lower one.
Completely disregarding any balance, it just takes too damn long.
Argive wrote: How would people feel about rolling 2d6 and discarding the lowest if moved for armor saves?
Obviously not for all units.. But some of the "quick and dodge" units
Nope nope nope nope!
Do me a favor, see how long it takes to roll, say, 25 4+ saves.
Now do it again, only each save has to be rolled individually with two dice, dropping the lower one.
Completely disregarding any balance, it just takes too damn long.
Fully agree. Double nope.
Perhaps if the game system wasn't constantly trying to add more, and more dice to every turn...
Aside from the issues of it slowing everything down, it means that Dark Eldar are still being punished for being true to their fluff and not having good armour saves.
'Oh good, I get to roll 2d6 and discard the lowest. That will definitely help me make this 7+ armour save.'
Argive wrote: How would people feel about rolling 2d6 and discarding the lowest if moved for armor saves?
Obviously not for all units.. But some of the "quick and dodge" units
Nope nope nope nope!
Do me a favor, see how long it takes to roll, say, 25 4+ saves.
Now do it again, only each save has to be rolled individually with two dice, dropping the lower one.
Completely disregarding any balance, it just takes too damn long.
Fully agree. Double nope.
Perhaps if the game system wasn't constantly trying to add more, and more dice to every turn...
d6 system runs out of ways to add depth. More dice is often the easiest way.
However, a workaround would also be to around the modifier cap by reducing BS (you can reduce BS and also modify hit roll on top of each other) or having a 5+ to hit transhuman rule.
I really dislike how currently if you disadvantage yourself (shooting after advancing, moving and shooting heavy weapon etc.) you take no actual penalty for opponents' modifiers or terrain. I think this is a really stupid design and needs to be changed asap...
Noooooo to fething modifiers on a D6 system with 5 valid values and half of them being reserved for superhumans even -2 modifiers take 66% of an armies firepower away.
It would be less egregious if we didn't have to pay more points for higher BS skill but you know it is how it is and loosing 66% of your armies damage output just doesn't work.
pelicaniforce wrote: There’s really only one skill for shooting ATM, which is hitting on 4+/3+/2+. It’s pretty bs in a shooting based game. There should be a dodge save mechanic for all armies and eldar should be the best at it. Like, if your model has more attacks than the model shooting it that means it’s more veteran/elite and it gets a 5++ on top of its normal save. Then eldar can have 2a, or 3a for aspect warriors and wyches, and dodge primaris shooting. They’re still strength 3 it doesn’t exactly make them monsters.
Of course primaris also become good at dodging lasgun and pulse rifle shots, which seems fine for an elite army.
I'm going to be real honest, I don't see anyone dodging laser fire, no matter how elite they are
More to the point, matrix-dodging gunfire in small arms engagements like this isn't really a thing, you put a putz every day person and a Navy Seal or Olympic gold medal gymnast at the wrong end of a 100 yard rifle range and the number of trigger pulls needed to tag any of em probably isn't any different.
Now, Flames of War had a concept something like what you're talking about, where the better trained/experienced an opponent was, the harder they were to hit. Conscripts are hit on a 2+, Trained troops on a 3+, Veteran troops on a 4+, with various modifiers for range, cover, etc. The shooter's skill doesn't matter as everyone is just setting the range on their sight and pulling the trigger and most of the process is mechanized, it's the ability of the target to know when to move between MG bursts, how to properly utilize cover, recognize incoming shell fire, knowledge of likely fire patterns, etc that determines hit rates. However it's still not a comparative thing, both Veteran Troops and Recruits will hit the same target at the same rate.
Flames of war is the inspiration. It’s like do you know when to stick your head out of cover to shoot, or is an elite trooper so much better than you that he’s got his sights on top of before you can even get your bearing
It’s a universal way to make something harder to kill other than W, and unlike other invulnerable saves the other player can defeat it, eg choose to direct high attacks units against it.
I kind of like the thought of a dodge. It doesn't invalidate AP, but a problem I see is that it shifts your choice to higher shot platforms since missing a single shot to a dodge on an expensive gun wouldn't be very tolerable.
pelicaniforce wrote: It’s bad for special save to be exclusive to eldar. Exceptions on top of exceptions proliferate too much.
Real-talk since I threw the concept out there:
It's not "exclusive to Eldar". It would be specific to their assault-themed units, which tend to have issues with survival given they're waving swords around like maniacs and in many cases even don't have pistols. It opens up a specific rule for several similar units for both of the 'core' Eldar factions(Drukhari and Craftworlds) while also adding some 'oomph' to their 'elite' faction in the form of Harlequins.
Obviously a rule like this wouldn't apply to, say, Dark Reapers or Guardians or Kabalites. But it would be on Wyches, Banshees, Swooping Hawks, Scourges, Troupes, Hellions, and maybe all forms of jetbikes and Vypers/Venoms but not heavier vehicles.
A similar rule could easily be added to other armies where applicable. The idea of 'speedy units that are hard to hit' should not be exclusive to one faction. I'd definitely say that the Sicarian Ruststalkers would be a good spot to throw this rule into a Skitarii army, Genestealers for GSC+Tyranids, Lictors for Tyranids, and any Atalan units that don't take a Wolfquad for GSC as well.
"What about Warp Spiders and Shadow Spectres?! They should be fast too!", I can hear Eldar players thinking...
You're right! But their speed comes from a different kind of setup. Warp Spiders do mini-'hops' through the Warp. Shadow Spectres can seemingly phase through material. Warp Spiders should be able to, [i]with a potential of Perils of the Warp-esque downsides, move forward their normal amount(no Advancing!) then attempt to 'reset' back to their starting point after shooting or when charged.
Shadow Spectres are a bit more difficult to nail down for a concept. A big one I keep coming to is that if declared as a target for shooting, they should be able to take a Leadership test. If they pass? They move a distance directly away from the firing unit. Make it only work once per phase, yadda yadda yadda.
Sorry Drukhari and Harlequin, I don't have more thoughts on you guys at the moment. I'd definitely pass the Shadow Spectre idea over to Harlequins too though. It feels very appropriate.
I kind of like the thought of a dodge. It doesn't invalidate AP, but a problem I see is that it shifts your choice to higher shot platforms since missing a single shot to a dodge on an expensive gun wouldn't be very tolerable.
Truthfully, that's kinda the point. Someone shouldn't be throwing lascannon shots at Howling Banshees anyways.
Exceptions could be made, obviously, for Blast or Indirect Fire weapons. Can't really dodge something if you didn't know it was coming after all.
Xenomancers wrote: d6 system runs out of ways to add depth. More dice is often the easiest way.
Don't blame the D6 for the game's narrow design space. There's nothing wrong with D6s; the problem is trying to retrofit new game concepts via bespoke mechanics onto a system that was never designed with them in mind.
This idea of a dodge save for certain units is a clunky means of representing the concept that some units are harder to hit than others. That could easily be baked into the core mechanics as a defense stat, turning the to-hit value into an opposed comparison as it is with strength vs toughness. Then that could facilitate concealment, evasion, range modifiers, target size, and obscuration (eg smoke) as a core mechanic, rather than needing clunky modifier caps or bespoke dodge saves.
The game currently says that a skyscraper-sized Titan standing stationary three feet in front of you is just as hard to hit as an Eldar warrior a mile away dodging through the terrain at full speed. That's not the D6's fault. Trying to add a new dodge system in now is not going to work; if the designers want units to be able to dodge fire in a system that has no mechanics to represent that, the best we can get is an invuln save, or an extra wound, or something else that mechanically represents physical toughness but is being shoehorned into the role.
Xenomancers wrote: 2 wound mini marines is literally just a ploy to get rid of stocks of models they aren't going to produce anymore. Since GW has learned pretty well by now - rules sell models.
Damn, and I thought GW tries to sell me the army I already own again by making Primaris better than Oldmarines.
And the second statement is - again and again - proven wrong by looking at the recent releases.
No, the statement is right, sorta. I mean, models with rules to play them in the tabletop sell better than model without rules to play them on the battletop. So Xenomancer is technically correct. The best kind of correct.
Castozor wrote: how are we even going to let Eldar live up to their fluff on the tabletop when every marine has 2W?
Up all eldars weapons to D2. Also double their attacks/shots.
no. no no no. marines are sold as being a tough army that can take a hit. then GW handed out tha bility to kill marines like candy to everyone else. GW has finally given mariens the durability they need. give out 2d weapons like candy and Marines are reduced once more to "expensive guard paying for gak that's useless"
BrianDavion wrote: no. no no no. marines are sold as being a tough army that can take a hit. then GW handed out tha bility to kill marines like candy to everyone else.
Marines were, for a long time, described as being as tough as Orks, as well-armored as the heaviest Aspect Warriors, and universally armed with the best weapons available to the Imperium. They could take a hit- they were T4 where most factions were T3, and had 3+ saves where most factions were around 5+.
Blame bolter porn novels for elevating their 'true' power level beyond that.
Its useful to remember this isn't the first marine upgrade.
They started life with T3 and a 4+ save, and were happily slaughtered by shuriken catapults and orks with mass bolter fire (This also dating back before ork shooting was nerfed and before their Strength and WS buff).
Heck, they were even honest about the rationalization for the upgrade.
A couple of years ago, when the game first came out, Space Marines were easily able to take on the likes of Orks, Eldar and whatever else the WH40K player cared to throw at them. However, over the ensuing years new models and new rules for their enemies have gradually shifted the balance of power, so that the once might Space Marines are now looking a little less heroic. Of course this is hardly appropriate!
Yeah. That was it. It just wasn't appropriate that space marines weren't top dog.
So came the +1 T, +1 to hit in close combat (because space marine power armor was more special than other power armor) and special morale rules.
This was in WD first, and reprinted in the WH40K Compilation in 1991. Same as the first craftworlds fluff and rules, as well as the genestealer invasion force and cults.
Its useful to remember this isn't the first marine upgrade.
They started life with T3 and a 4+ save, and were happily slaughtered by shuriken catapults and orks with mass bolter fire (This also dating back before ork shooting was nerfed and before their Strength and WS buff).
Heck, they were even honest about the rationalization for the upgrade.
A couple of years ago, when the game first came out, Space Marines were easily able to take on the likes of Orks, Eldar and whatever else the WH40K player cared to throw at them. However, over the ensuing years new models and new rules for their enemies have gradually shifted the balance of power, so that the once might Space Marines are now looking a little less heroic. Of course this is hardly appropriate!
Yeah. That was it. It just wasn't appropriate that space marines weren't top dog.
So came the +1 T, +1 to hit in close combat (because space marine power armor was more special than other power armor) and special morale rules.
This was in WD first, and reprinted in the WH40K Compilation in 1991. Same as the first craftworlds fluff and rules, as well as the genestealer invasion force and cults.
Somehow it's always justified for Marines but no one else.
GW have actively nerfed the eldar since 2nd ed while still pedalling the 'speed as defence' fluff and the power of exarchs.
GW makes excuses to buff marines but not only doesn't do that for other factions, they basically punish them for daring to have things that rival marines.
It's 'hardly appropriate' that exarchs aren't death machines that stride the battlefield as reborn heroes of old, or that the avatar is crap, or that warlocks aren't master Jedi psyker warriors who fill their psychic power with training of khaine.
It's hardly appropriate that a race described as dying who try to avoid casualties give their units pistols and tell them to run into the teeth of the enemy in order to fight - it doesn't take a farseer to tell you this is at odds with their desire to keep their people alive.
Yet all this is done to the Eldar without any remorse or justification.
Apparently only marines get to invoke the 'hardly appropriate' card whenever they get buffed...
pelicaniforce wrote: It’s bad for special save to be exclusive to eldar. Exceptions on top of exceptions proliferate too much.
Real-talk since I threw the concept out there:
It's not "exclusive to Eldar". It would be specific to their assault-themed units, which tend to have issues with survival given they're waving swords around like maniacs and in many cases even don't have pistols. It opens up a specific rule for several similar units for both of the 'core' Eldar factions(Drukhari and Craftworlds) while also adding some 'oomph' to their 'elite' faction in the form of Harlequins.
Obviously a rule like this wouldn't apply to, say, Dark Reapers or Guardians or Kabalites. But it would be on Wyches, Banshees, Swooping Hawks, Scourges, Troupes, Hellions, and maybe all forms of jetbikes and Vypers/Venoms but not heavier vehicles.
A similar rule could easily be added to other armies where applicable. The idea of 'speedy units that are hard to hit' should not be exclusive to one faction. I'd definitely say that the Sicarian Ruststalkers would be a good spot to throw this rule into a Skitarii army, Genestealers for GSC+Tyranids, Lictors for Tyranids, and any Atalan units that don't take a Wolfquad for GSC as well.
"What about Warp Spiders and Shadow Spectres?! They should be fast too!", I can hear Eldar players thinking...
You're right! But their speed comes from a different kind of setup. Warp Spiders do mini-'hops' through the Warp. Shadow Spectres can seemingly phase through material. Warp Spiders should be able to, [i]with a potential of Perils of the Warp-esque downsides, move forward their normal amount(no Advancing!) then attempt to 'reset' back to their starting point after shooting or when charged.
Shadow Spectres are a bit more difficult to nail down for a concept. A big one I keep coming to is that if declared as a target for shooting, they should be able to take a Leadership test. If they pass? They move a distance directly away from the firing unit. Make it only work once per phase, yadda yadda yadda.
Sorry Drukhari and Harlequin, I don't have more thoughts on you guys at the moment. I'd definitely pass the Shadow Spectre idea over to Harlequins too though. It feels very appropriate.
I'd be fine with giving it to basically all craftworld bikes/infantry (other than wraiths). Not just the melee units. A fire dragon has to run danger close to the enemy to use his gun. Ditto guardians. Reapers and rangers will inherently benefit from it less becauseadvancing advancing prevents them from shooting and the rangers would suffer a to-hit penalty for moving at all. Avengers and guardians and dragons are still superhumanly fast and agile despite not being as interested in getting into stabbing range.
Maybe spiders and spectres and so forth would still deserve special gimmicks of their own as they lean into being hard to hit even more than most, but simply changing Battle Focus into an 5+ invul (4+ after advancing) would be a pretty decent one size fits all buff. Make it a 6+/5+ instead if you go the ward save route. And if battle focus no longer lets you ignore the penalty to to-hit rolls with assault weapons, there's a baked in trade-off for the extra defense.
The reason harlequins are doing well right now is that theyre a marine counter.
They have a winning to neutral match-up against every army in the game with data against them except Grey Knights.
This myth that it's only Space Marines that are top-tier and everything else doing well is just specifically a Marine counter is bs. Harlequins are one of the strongest factions in the game and consistently perform very well in every GT, and they seem to be becoming more and more common as tournament goers realize how incredibly powerful they are.
GW have actively nerfed the eldar since 2nd ed while still pedalling the 'speed as defence' fluff and the power of exarchs.
To be fair, "speed as defense" was generally a thing for eldar until recently. I started in playing in 5th when moving a skimmer far enough in the movement phase meant that it could only be hit on 6+ in melee and got a 4+ save against shooting (back when vehicles generally didn't have saves at all). Until 8th edition, our jetbikes could move after shooting meaning we could generally pop around corners and hide from retaliation after shooting. In 6th(?) and 7th, Jink was a genuinely useful form of defense, and Battle Focus used to let us do a smaller version of JSJ.
Of course, people got sick of the JSJ, so they took it away. Instead of using positioning or moving fast to get our defensive benefits, we just stacked to-hit modifiers to represent how hard we are to hit. It was hard to put better than a -1 on most of your army (unless you were spamming flyers), and it largely lacked the mobility aspect, but it got the job done. Of course, people (rightly) got sick of the to-hit mods, so 9th edition gave us the -1 to hit cap. Which is fine except they don't seem to have really given us anything to replace it.
So while we still have the speed, it doesn't really translate into "defense" outside of vectored engines and Lighting Fast Reactions.
Apparently only marines get to invoke the 'hardly appropriate' card whenever they get buffed...
I wouldn't get too salty about that line They said something similar when they gave drukhari a quality of life buff between their 3rd edition and 5th edition books. Seems pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek, and they assume a similar tone whenever they're announcing buffs to any given army.
The reason harlequins are doing well right now is that theyre a marine counter.
They have a winning to neutral match-up against every army in the game with data against them except Grey Knights.
This myth that it's only Space Marines that are top-tier and everything else doing well is just specifically a Marine counter is bs. Harlequins are one of the strongest factions in the game and consistently perform very well in every GT, and they seem to be becoming more and more common as tournament goers realize how incredibly powerful they are.
Harlequins are not ubiquitous, so the complaints against marines come from *not just* tournaments
GW have actively nerfed the eldar since 2nd ed while still pedalling the 'speed as defence' fluff and the power of exarchs.
To be fair, "speed as defense" was generally a thing for eldar until recently. I started in playing in 5th when moving a skimmer far enough in the movement phase meant that it could only be hit on 6+ in melee and got a 4+ save against shooting (back when vehicles generally didn't have saves at all). Until 8th edition, our jetbikes could move after shooting meaning we could generally pop around corners and hide from retaliation after shooting. In 6th(?) and 7th, Jink was a genuinely useful form of defense, and Battle Focus used to let us do a smaller version of JSJ.
Of course, people got sick of the JSJ, so they took it away. Instead of using positioning or moving fast to get our defensive benefits, we just stacked to-hit modifiers to represent how hard we are to hit. It was hard to put better than a -1 on most of your army (unless you were spamming flyers), and it largely lacked the mobility aspect, but it got the job done. Of course, people (rightly) got sick of the to-hit mods, so 9th edition gave us the -1 to hit cap. Which is fine except they don't seem to have really given us anything to replace it.
So while we still have the speed, it doesn't really translate into "defense" outside of vectored engines and Lighting Fast Reactions.
Apparently only marines get to invoke the 'hardly appropriate' card whenever they get buffed...
I wouldn't get too salty about that line They said something similar when they gave drukhari a quality of life buff between their 3rd edition and 5th edition books. Seems pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek, and they assume a similar tone whenever they're announcing buffs to any given army.
GW generally has a vision for what each army is SUPPOSED to be like. the vision for Marines is "small in number but highly effective"
I do think GW's spent the latter half of 8th edition thus trying to make Marines "fit the vision" and I think have more or less made a solid go at it. Eldar could proably stand a revisit themselves I actually think GW was planning on doiung that with Ynnari but for whatever reason decided to change course and move away from that.
GW generally has a vision for what each army is SUPPOSED to be like. the vision for Marines is "small in number but highly effective"
Traditionally "small in number but highly effective" is also the vision of Aspect Warriors. Except now all their weapons ar D1 and Marines are 2W.
The thing is, there are more potential ways to be "elite effective" than just toughness, and older editions did this better. Marine "eliteness" has gotten very dumbed-down.
Maybe all Aeldari should feel more like Harlequins. The clowns are the only subfaction that seems "glass-cannony". The rest aren't killy or tough enough to compete vs the field (SM) outside of tailored lists.
BrianDavion wrote: marines are sold as being a tough army that can take a hit.
Yes, but Eldars of all stripes are a glass cannon army that can pack a punch, enough to kill marines. Don't worry, getting D2 and double attacks/shoots won't come without a point increase. Eldar will feel elite too, as they should.
Imperial guard or genestealer cult will still find marines are tough.
BrianDavion wrote: marines are sold as being a tough army that can take a hit.
Yes, but Eldars of all stripes are a glass cannon army that can pack a punch, enough to kill marines. Don't worry, getting D2 and double attacks/shoots won't come without a point increase. Eldar will feel elite too, as they should.
Imperial guard or genestealer cult will still find marines are tough.
Yeah, there's always the hope that this new Marine identity allows design space where glass cannons have a better defined role.
Though that still doesn't solve a lingering problem IMHO that force fields and dodging (defensive reflexes) have both been rolled into the same type of defense, while reflexes in the offensive sense have been rather awkwardly moved into movement in a shooting meta and just messes around with the ever-problematic alpha strike.
Its useful to remember this isn't the first marine upgrade.
They started life with T3 and a 4+ save, and were happily slaughtered by shuriken catapults and orks with mass bolter fire (This also dating back before ork shooting was nerfed and before their Strength and WS buff).
Heck, they were even honest about the rationalization for the upgrade.
A couple of years ago, when the game first came out, Space Marines were easily able to take on the likes of Orks, Eldar and whatever else the WH40K player cared to throw at them. However, over the ensuing years new models and new rules for their enemies have gradually shifted the balance of power, so that the once might Space Marines are now looking a little less heroic. Of course this is hardly appropriate!
Yeah. That was it. It just wasn't appropriate that space marines weren't top dog.
So came the +1 T, +1 to hit in close combat (because space marine power armor was more special than other power armor) and special morale rules.
This was in WD first, and reprinted in the WH40K Compilation in 1991. Same as the first craftworlds fluff and rules, as well as the genestealer invasion force and cults.
Somehow it's always justified for Marines but no one else.
Yes. That's literally the point. Welcome to 30 years of GW design philosophy. If it doesn't 'feel' right, they make no apologies about changing the rules.
For all the complaining about marines, its the same at year 31 of the game as it was in year 2.
Its way past time for people to stop being surprised by this.
Its useful to remember this isn't the first marine upgrade.
They started life with T3 and a 4+ save, and were happily slaughtered by shuriken catapults and orks with mass bolter fire (This also dating back before ork shooting was nerfed and before their Strength and WS buff).
Heck, they were even honest about the rationalization for the upgrade.
A couple of years ago, when the game first came out, Space Marines were easily able to take on the likes of Orks, Eldar and whatever else the WH40K player cared to throw at them. However, over the ensuing years new models and new rules for their enemies have gradually shifted the balance of power, so that the once might Space Marines are now looking a little less heroic. Of course this is hardly appropriate!
Yeah. That was it. It just wasn't appropriate that space marines weren't top dog.
So came the +1 T, +1 to hit in close combat (because space marine power armor was more special than other power armor) and special morale rules.
This was in WD first, and reprinted in the WH40K Compilation in 1991. Same as the first craftworlds fluff and rules, as well as the genestealer invasion force and cults.
Somehow it's always justified for Marines but no one else.
Yes. That's literally the point. Welcome to 30 years of GW design philosophy. If it doesn't 'feel' right, they make no apologies about changing the rules.
For all the complaining about marines, its the same at year 31 of the game as it was in year 2.
Its way past time for people to stop being surprised by this.
right????
if this was 1993 maybe some complaints about how shocking this is would be ok.
BrianDavion wrote: marines are sold as being a tough army that can take a hit.
Yes, but Eldars of all stripes are a glass cannon army that can pack a punch, enough to kill marines. Don't worry, getting D2 and double attacks/shoots won't come without a point increase. Eldar will feel elite too, as they should.
Imperial guard or genestealer cult will still find marines are tough.
You'd have a point if Eldar weren't just regular cannons because saying Eldar aren't durable has been really inaccurate for several editions.
BrianDavion wrote: marines are sold as being a tough army that can take a hit.
Yes, but Eldars of all stripes are a glass cannon army that can pack a punch, enough to kill marines. Don't worry, getting D2 and double attacks/shoots won't come without a point increase. Eldar will feel elite too, as they should.
Imperial guard or genestealer cult will still find marines are tough.
You'd have a point if Eldar weren't just regular cannons because saying Eldar aren't durable has been really inaccurate for several editions.
When people asked for more durable marines they weren't talking about Leviathans. When people ask for more durable Eldar they're not talking about their flyers.
GW have actively nerfed the eldar since 2nd ed while still pedalling the 'speed as defence' fluff and the power of exarchs.
To be fair, "speed as defense" was generally a thing for eldar until recently. I started in playing in 5th when moving a skimmer far enough in the movement phase meant that it could only be hit on 6+ in melee and got a 4+ save against shooting (back when vehicles generally didn't have saves at all). Until 8th edition, our jetbikes could move after shooting meaning we could generally pop around corners and hide from retaliation after shooting. In 6th(?) and 7th, Jink was a genuinely useful form of defense, and Battle Focus used to let us do a smaller version of JSJ.
Of course, people got sick of the JSJ, so they took it away. Instead of using positioning or moving fast to get our defensive benefits, we just stacked to-hit modifiers to represent how hard we are to hit. It was hard to put better than a -1 on most of your army (unless you were spamming flyers), and it largely lacked the mobility aspect, but it got the job done. Of course, people (rightly) got sick of the to-hit mods, so 9th edition gave us the -1 to hit cap. Which is fine except they don't seem to have really given us anything to replace it.
So while we still have the speed, it doesn't really translate into "defense" outside of vectored engines and Lighting Fast Reactions.
Apparently only marines get to invoke the 'hardly appropriate' card whenever they get buffed...
I wouldn't get too salty about that line They said something similar when they gave drukhari a quality of life buff between their 3rd edition and 5th edition books. Seems pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek, and they assume a similar tone whenever they're announcing buffs to any given army.
GW generally has a vision for what each army is SUPPOSED to be like. the vision for Marines is "small in number but highly effective"
I do think GW's spent the latter half of 8th edition thus trying to make Marines "fit the vision" and I think have more or less made a solid go at it. Eldar could proably stand a revisit themselves I actually think GW was planning on doiung that with Ynnari but for whatever reason decided to change course and move away from that.
the problem with Space Marines being that they went about re-imagining that by giving them just about every toy imagineable and ramping their stats through the roof without much respect to other factions, resulting in one of the smallest factions in-universe (and one largely noted for being hidebound and tied to traditions and roles) having by far the widest and most diverse selection of units, weapons, and abilities of any army in the game, and a power level to match. That's not a sustainable option I suspect. I'm not sure how GW would handle Eldar in such a vein, typically they just try to make Eldar "fit the vision" by making a couple things unreasonably difficult to kill and pairing it with a couple absurdly overtuned firepower units and relying heavily on a must-take Farseer and ignoring the rest of the book
Power armour should grant +1 str and re- roll all saves if they wanted to make marines fluffy. Giving them two wounds doesn't seem correct to me but no matter I do not fear any marine army
BrianDavion wrote: marines are sold as being a tough army that can take a hit.
Yes, but Eldars of all stripes are a glass cannon army that can pack a punch, enough to kill marines. Don't worry, getting D2 and double attacks/shoots won't come without a point increase. Eldar will feel elite too, as they should.
Imperial guard or genestealer cult will still find marines are tough.
You'd have a point if Eldar weren't just regular cannons because saying Eldar aren't durable has been really inaccurate for several editions.
When people asked for more durable marines they weren't talking about Leviathans. When people ask for more durable Eldar they're not talking about their flyers.
Yeah just all the Wave Serpents and the units based on that hull and eventually the Biker units and stuff that could just hide behind cover after shooting and eventually just the multiple -1s to hit.
Eldar were basically always a durable army and the people that disagree are the ones mad that their army was called out on being actually low skill level to use.
Yes. That's literally the point. Welcome to 30 years of GW design philosophy. If it doesn't 'feel' right, they make no apologies about changing the rules.
For all the complaining about marines, its the same at year 31 of the game as it was in year 2.
Its way past time for people to stop being surprised by this.
Well it doesn't "feel right" that Genestealers and Howling Banshees are struggling to kill marines in melee.
BrianDavion wrote: marines are sold as being a tough army that can take a hit.
Yes, but Eldars of all stripes are a glass cannon army that can pack a punch, enough to kill marines. Don't worry, getting D2 and double attacks/shoots won't come without a point increase. Eldar will feel elite too, as they should.
Imperial guard or genestealer cult will still find marines are tough.
You'd have a point if Eldar weren't just regular cannons because saying Eldar aren't durable has been really inaccurate for several editions.
When people asked for more durable marines they weren't talking about Leviathans. When people ask for more durable Eldar they're not talking about their flyers.
Yeah just all the Wave Serpents and the units based on that hull and eventually the Biker units and stuff that could just hide behind cover after shooting and eventually just the multiple -1s to hit.
Eldar were basically always a durable army and the people that disagree are the ones mad that their army was called out on being actually low skill level to use.
Elfric wrote:Power armour should grant +1 str and re- roll all saves if they wanted to make marines fluffy. Giving them two wounds doesn't seem correct to me but no matter I do not fear any marine army
Armor value represents how good is the armor a unit is using. Tougthness value represents how difficult is to damage the unit reliably, because it is compared to strenght.
Wounds represents how much punishement a unit can take before going out of action.
So why shouldnt space marines have two wounds? They are harder to wound, thats why they have toughtness 4. They have good armor, thats why they have a 3+. And a space marine can fight without half of his body , and can take much more punishement than a lowly ork boy, an eldar, or a normal human.
Thats why Sicarians all have 2 wounds with a normal human toughtness of 3 because they are more cibernetic than biological and can take a ton of punishement. Theres no reason for Space Marines to not have 2 wounds. The problem it has taken so long and that not many more units have a higher variance of wounds.
Yeah, I also believe , maybe not warriors (Because they have been fluff degraded to Vampire Counts like skeletons) but inmortals should have two wounds. Normal orks have two wounds in AoS so it would not be so extrange for them to have two in 40k. It would actually make them proper resilient like in the fluff, like, ok they have 6+ saves but they are T4 and 2wounds base, with nobz and 3 and meganobz at 4.
Using the full range of stat variance the system offers would make easier to have units be actually different, and balance them with proper point costs.
2W boyz makes sense, they can take just as much, if not more, physical punishment as marines. They just aren't as heavily armoured, hence the 6+. But T4 2W sounds right.
Galas wrote: Tougthness value represents how difficult is to damage the unit reliably, because it is compared to strenght.
Wounds represents how much punishement a unit can take before going out of action.
Historically, what you just described is why Marines were T4 instead of T3. For infantry, being harder to kill usually translated into a higher T value; you had to be either a character or substantially larger than a human to get multiple wounds.
With the multi-damage system in 8th/9th, there no longer is any clear structure for how physical toughness translates into T and W. Just play it by ear.
Outside fluff the game design logic here is that theres three values to represent how hard to kill is something: Tougthness, wounds and save (Or aftersaves but lets put those in saves)
So theres really no reason to arbitrarly not use one of those, wounds, in most of the infantry of your game.
Gadzilla666 wrote: 2W boyz makes sense, they can take just as much, if not more, physical punishment as marines. They just aren't as heavily armoured, hence the 6+. But T4 2W sounds right.
2W boyz would detract from Orks being able to play hoard. so I'd not support that, rather as a comprimise I'd rather see Nobz moved to troops.
Lance845 wrote: Nids have no or redundant vital organs even on their smallest organisms. Why are hormagaunts and termagants not 2 wounds and warriors 4-5?
gaunts have always been cheap and reasonably easy to kill. do you want 15 point gaunts? and 'nids have 3 wounds. thats pretty beefy
Lance845 wrote: Nids have no or redundant vital organs even on their smallest organisms. Why are hormagaunts and termagants not 2 wounds and warriors 4-5?
While I believe there is fluff out there stating that gaunts have next to no vital organs, there is also plenty of fluff that says gaunts die if you shoot them with lascannons and chop them up with chianswords. Conceptually, gaunts are "smaller bugs that die easy but come in numbers." Being one wound and cheap reflects that pretty well even if some fluff makes you wonder why they die so easily to lasguns. Their rules match their fluff pretty well in regards to durability is what I'm saying.
Personally, I'd be all for warriors gaining a couple of wounds. They had 3 wounds when the Damage stat wasn't a thing, and then they never got more wounds when weapons became capable of killing them in less than three shots without being S8+. Making them W5ish would reflect their ability to keep fighting without gaping wounds blown out of them quite well.
Orks are a bit trickier. Conceptually, I think of an ork boy as being more difficult to take down than something like a lone gaunt, but a horde of boyz has a similar "die easy but come in numbers" feel to gaunts. 2 wounds would make them feel "meaty", but would you have to raise their points to such an extent that they no longer get taken in large numbers? Or alternatively, is a 30 strong mob of W2 models with potential invul and FNP support too chonky to balance well? Maybe. Genuinely not sure. With death company having their squad size reduced and primaris being more about 3 and 6 man units, maybe we could get away with reducing the max size of a boyz mob to 20 models and giving them 2W? They'd still be large enough units to feel more "horde-like" than elite armies, but it would make a given squad a bit more managable.
I like that marines got 2 wounds. I think there's even a world where you could bump their wounds up even more. But you should probably consider giving multiple wounds to some of the other units out there. If we were talking about D&D or Pokemon or whatever, you wouldn't be surprised if I told you that a tactical marine has more hitpoints than a termagaunt. So it's weird to me that people have an issue with some infantry having multiple hitpoints in a wargame.
Lance845 wrote: Nids have no or redundant vital organs even on their smallest organisms. Why are hormagaunts and termagants not 2 wounds and warriors 4-5?
gaunts have always been cheap and reasonably easy to kill. do you want 15 point gaunts? and 'nids have 3 wounds. thats pretty beefy
No, because I think it's dumb that all space marines have 2 wounds. But if they are going to all have 2 wounds then 1 w models more or less needs to be reserved for the weakest of the weak. Minor deamons and snotlings.
Anything the size of a man or bigger is going to be 2w. Hormagaunts and Termagants are bigger then a normal man and while they are very weakly armored (poor save) and easy to wound (low toughness) they can survive extremely severe wounds and keep on going without even noticing any amount of pain due to the hive mind. They have the correct toughness and save but not the correct wounds by any argument being given by people who think it's fine for all SM to be 2w.
If we are going to be talking about fluff justifying rules AND trying to create a balanced game then there it is. Don't like it? Then Old Marines should be dropped back down to 1.
I think after the other 9th edition codex’ drop the weapons of other armies will do more damage or even balance out the wound issue. BUT the big thing GW is doing make marines OP people buy tons of them to stay relevant than rinse wash and repeat for further armies
Necron Immortals definitely should. Warriors no, they're a "silver tide" who are reasonably easy to kill comparatively, just with the ability to repair themselves after taking critical damage.
Orks I get where people are coming from since their physiology is so robust, but for real: in every bit of 40k lore I can remember Boyz get slaughtered en masse and are a threat largely due to their overwhelming numbers. They can crush normal human beings physically and can take a rifle butt to the face with a grin sure, but Marines can slaughter them in melee by the dozen and even a firing nest of guardsmen can gun them down by the dozens. They aren't up to par with even an unarmoured Marine and bluntly haven't been for a long time, at least fifth edition.
Nobz should be troops though, to enable lower model count more elite Ork lists, definitely.
Gadzilla666 wrote: 2W boyz makes sense, they can take just as much, if not more, physical punishment as marines. They just aren't as heavily armoured, hence the 6+. But T4 2W sounds right.
2W boyz would detract from Orks being able to play hoard. so I'd not support that, rather as a comprimise I'd rather see Nobz moved to troops.
That would probably work, though actual Ork players should weigh in on that (I don't play Orks). I'd like to see a lot of units moved to troops in their respective armies to help balance against all of the troops options loyalists have *cough *Chosen *cough*.
I would rather see Ork Boyz have toughness 5 instead of two wounds. Harder to kill with low-strength weapons but still cheap and numerous, plus it makes D2+ weapons less useful against them.
Gadzilla666 wrote: 2W boyz makes sense, they can take just as much, if not more, physical punishment as marines. They just aren't as heavily armoured, hence the 6+. But T4 2W sounds right.
2W boyz would detract from Orks being able to play hoard. so I'd not support that, rather as a comprimise I'd rather see Nobz moved to troops.
Not necessarily. Firstborn marines got their 2nd W for +3 points (and just +2 for some units, like Long Fangs or Wolf Guard), so boyz would be 11ppm. Cheap enough to bring 100ish of them if the ork player desires so, just 50-55% of a 2000 points lists budget. Tournament ork hordes lists have already 90-120 boyz at most as there's currently no point in bringing more. Hordes with 150-200 troops would be dead (aren't they already?), but is that a bad thing?
And horde style is just one built for orks, not the only way to field them.
I'm actually not a fan of things going up in W and damage, I'd rather reduce the dice rolling. Halving weapons' damage output and number of shots or units' attacks for example.
We can all come to agree that Orkz at 2W would make sense, "low armored high T that can take a hit" is fluffy for them.
People was talking about Aeldari (not only Craftworlds) because we are not supposed to be high T, high Sv nor have more than 1W for our basic dudes. I agree than a Marine should destroy an Aelve as soon as he grabs him, but that shouldn't be easy... We are talking 10+ ppm for a TEQ profile.
Aeldari troops should be either way more killy, harder to hit or (the less likely) way cheaper.
Denegaar wrote: We can all come to agree that Orkz at 2W would make sense, "low armored high T that can take a hit" is fluffy for them.
People was talking about Aeldari (not only Craftworlds) because we are not supposed to be high T, high Sv nor have more than 1W for our basic dudes. I agree than a Marine should destroy an Aelve as soon as he grabs him, but that shouldn't be easy... We are talking 10+ ppm for a TEQ profile.
Aeldari troops should be either way more killy, harder to hit or (the less likely) way cheaper.
Of course there are some durable Eldar elements including the Wraithforms and perhaps Aspects like Striking Scorpions?
Lance845 wrote: Nids have no or redundant vital organs even on their smallest organisms. Why are hormagaunts and termagants not 2 wounds and warriors 4-5?
gaunts have always been cheap and reasonably easy to kill. do you want 15 point gaunts? and 'nids have 3 wounds. thats pretty beefy
No, because I think it's dumb that all space marines have 2 wounds. But if they are going to all have 2 wounds then 1 w models more or less needs to be reserved for the weakest of the weak. Minor deamons and snotlings.
Anything the size of a man or bigger is going to be 2w. Hormagaunts and Termagants are bigger then a normal man and while they are very weakly armored (poor save) and easy to wound (low toughness) they can survive extremely severe wounds and keep on going without even noticing any amount of pain due to the hive mind. They have the correct toughness and save but not the correct wounds by any argument being given by people who think it's fine for all SM to be 2w.
If we are going to be talking about fluff justifying rules AND trying to create a balanced game then there it is. Don't like it? Then Old Marines should be dropped back down to 1.
dude, MARINES got a second wound, you'r "size of a man or bigger" argument might fly if GUARD where given one. Marines get an extra wound because they're super human warriors encased in thick powered armor with various life support systems. (notice even marines need to be in power armor to get that second wound?)
If wounds are supposed to represent the difficulty of putting down a given unit, then it would make perfect sense for tenacious units like termagants (which will keep fighting even after sustaining grievous wounds) to have 2 wounds.
I strongly suspect that the only reason people oppose this is because they think it doesn't *feel* right, even though it makes perfect sense fluffwise.
But if you're going by fluff and by what toughness, wounds and saves are supposed to mean, then you can't just disregard relevant fluff when it suits you.
I mean I have not seen fluff tha support that hormagants can keep fighting even when they have suffered great wounds, unlike space marines or orks. They aren't that much harder to kill than a normal human. But I won't say he has no merit in his assertion.
Personally, I would distribute the T and W values something like this:
T2: Gretchin, Nurglings, etc...
T3 W1: Horma/Termagaunts, Normal Tau, Normal Humans, Normal Eldars (And I can totally see a problem with how eldar should be hard to hit to be resilient)
T4 W1: Necron Warriors, Ork Boyz (I can see them both being W1 and W2), Some Admech infantry, Dark Eldar Coven infantry
T4 W2: Marines (Both normal, primaris and scouts), Ork Boyz (Ork boyz at W1 and 8-9ppm or W2 at 11-12pm seem fine to me), Stealth Suits and similar, etc...
T4 W3: Space Marine Terminators, Chaos Possessed, Similar units
T5 W2: Necron Inmortals and similar chassis (Deathmarks, etc...), Plague Marines, etc...
T5 W3: Gravis armored space marines, Plague Terminators, Ork Nobz (And I would make them troops to allow orks to play an elite army if they wish), Lychguard/Praetorians, Tau Crisis suits etc...
T5 W4: (Here I would put the heavier tier of infantry in the game, more than this is entering vehicle/Monster territory) Ogryns/Bullgryns, Custodes Infantry, Tyranid Warriors (And keep them as troops. They are expensive money wise, so they deserve to be worth the points they cost) , Ork Meganobz, Deathshroud terminators, etc...
This way you have a much varied range of infantry in your game with a ton of stat profiles that make having "ultra efficient weapons" or "resolved metas" like spamming damage 2 much more difficult. This is more wishlisting than anything but it looks like GW is trying to make something like this, expanding the range of infantry stats, at least going by the space marine and necron codex.
Galas wrote: I mean I have not seen fluff tha support that hormagants can keep fighting even when they have suffered great wounds, unlike space marines or orks. They aren't that much harder to kill than a normal human. But I won't say he has no merit in his assertion.
Personally, I would distribute the T and W values something like this:
T2: Gretchin, Nurglings, etc...
T3 W1: Horma/Termagaunts, Normal Tau, Normal Humans, Normal Eldars (And I can totally see a problem with how eldar should be hard to hit to be resilient)
T4 W1: Necron Warriors, Ork Boyz (I can see them both being W1 and W2), Some Admech infantry, Dark Eldar Coven infantry
T4 W2: Marines (Both normal, primaris and scouts), Ork Boyz (Ork boyz at W1 and 8-9ppm or W2 at 11-12pm seem fine to me), Stealth Suits and similar, etc...
T4 W3: Space Marine Terminators, Chaos Possessed, Similar units
T5 W2: Necron Inmortals and similar chassis (Deathmarks, etc...), Plague Marines, etc...
T5 W3: Gravis armored space marines, Plague Terminators, Ork Nobz (And I would make them troops to allow orks to play an elite army if they wish), Lychguard/Praetorians
T5 W4: (Here I would put the heavier tier of infantry in the game, more than this is entering vehicle/Monster territory) Ogryns/Bullgryns, Custodes Infantry, Tyranid Warriors (And keep them as troops. They are expensive money wise, so they deserve to be worth the points they cost) , Ork Meganobz, Tau Crisis suits, Deathshroud terminators, etc...
This way you have a much varied range of infantry in your game with a ton of stat profiles that make having "ultra efficient weapons" or "resolved metas" like spamming damage 2 much more difficult. This is more wishlisting than anything but it looks like GW is trying to make something like this, expanding the range of infantry stats, at least going by the space marine and necron codex.
I think that all works.
notice even marines need to be in power armor to get that second wound
Narratively it just feels right for me that Marines get 2W in the same way as characters get multiple wounds.
vipoid wrote: I'm not an expert on SM fluff - is there a reason Terminators should have more wounds than regular Marines?
They are noted as being incredably durable usually worn by skilled veterans so narratively yeah I would say it works - same as it should be for Exarchs or similar....
vipoid wrote: I'm not an expert on SM fluff - is there a reason Terminators should have more wounds than regular Marines?
They are noted as being incredably durable usually worn by skilled veterans so narratively yeah I would say it works - same as it should be for Exarchs or similar....
No it doesn't. A veteran marine can survive exactly the same amount of damage as a fresh one with mature organs and whatever.
There is no reason that skill should mean they can take extra exploding rockets to their body. The armor itself increases their save. The fact that they are marines makes the w2 and t4.
And this here is the problem with people using fluff to justify anything. Termagants and Hormagaunts who have no vital organs and could be split in half and keep crawling forward like some kind of zombie (and the same for necron warriors) are w1 because that "feels right" but placing a guy into a different suit of armor suddenly makes them able to survive as much damage as a 10ft tall tyranid warrior?
vipoid wrote: I'm not an expert on SM fluff - is there a reason Terminators should have more wounds than regular Marines?
They are noted as being incredably durable usually worn by skilled veterans so narratively yeah I would say it works - same as it should be for Exarchs or similar....
No it doesn't. A veteran marine can survive exactly the same amount of damage as a fresh one with mature organs and whatever.
There is no reason that skill should mean they can take extra exploding rockets to their body. The armor itself increases their save. The fact that they are marines makes the w2 and t4.
And this here is the problem with people using fluff to justify anything. Termagants and Hormagaunts who have no vital organs and could be split in half and keep crawling forward like some kind of zombie (and the same for necron warriors) are w1 because that "feels right" but placing a guy into a different suit of armor suddenly makes them able to survive as much damage as a 10ft tall tyranid warrior?
The hell is going on here?
First, I believe you have come here a little too abrasive.
Second of all, yeah, Necron Warriors and even Hormagaunts could be argued to be 2 wounds, but TBH normal zombies in fantasy weren't two wounds, basically because theres two ways to interpret that kind of "resilience", the mindless horde of low-quality stuff that dies in droves and keeps fighting: They are extremely durable and resilient or they are dispached with ease but they are just too many.
In this case, just as I said, is not only fluff but also balance and game design that should be taken into account with those profiles. For example, for Inmortals, going right now from W1 to W2 would be a nerf with how RP work, but I find much more themathically aproppiate for an Inmortal to be a harder space marine with better weapons (And probably less lethal in meele). But if , and is clear GW wants, Necron Warriors to feel like a silver tide that doesn't die because they get back up, then at W1 they fit both from a balance and design space and a fluff one. The same goes for Hormagaunts/Termagaunts. Yeah those bugs can keep fighting (Probably not in a specially lethal state by WH standards) with half of their body cut off, but they are lowly tier crocroaches , and they probably should be buffed in the sense of the replenishement mechanics with the big tyranid HQ that spawns new termagaunts, etc...
Theres just so much you can make with the "generalisation" of stats, like a Catachan Infantryman is S4 just like a Space Marine. We all know we can't have a unit being 3,5F or 3,8F so the different brackets of an stat have space for variance.
And thats become even a bigger problem when you keep a TON of stuff in the same brackets. When 80% of the infantry if your game is T3-T4 and W1 then you end up without that much design space to make them different. And I don't really care how Warhammer was 20 years ago outside his historical value. The number of profiles, units, and weapons has probably tripled since then, and the range, specially in the top row of profiles (The bigger stuff) has keep becoming higher and higher.
vipoid wrote: I'm not an expert on SM fluff - is there a reason Terminators should have more wounds than regular Marines?
They are noted as being incredably durable usually worn by skilled veterans so narratively yeah I would say it works - same as it should be for Exarchs or similar....
No it doesn't. A veteran marine can survive exactly the same amount of damage as a fresh one with mature organs and whatever.
There is no reason that skill should mean they can take extra exploding rockets to their body. The armor itself increases their save. The fact that they are marines makes the w2 and t4.
And this here is the problem with people using fluff to justify anything. Termagants and Hormagaunts who have no vital organs and could be split in half and keep crawling forward like some kind of zombie (and the same for necron warriors) are w1 because that "feels right" but placing a guy into a different suit of armor suddenly makes them able to survive as much damage as a 10ft tall tyranid warrior?
The hell is going on here?
And a Character (whatever the race) has more wounds due to narrative theme - same here and now as its been since day 1 of the game.
Gaunts are often killed in droves and in fact used to deplete the preys ammo - IF they are in synapse range they are ubreakable but they die - FNP for being in synapse range is (for me) the right thing for gaunts etc, same as invulns for Genestealers - noted incredable reflexes works for me. Necrons get back up - thats their thing.
vipoid wrote: I'm not an expert on SM fluff - is there a reason Terminators should have more wounds than regular Marines?
They are noted as being incredably durable usually worn by skilled veterans so narratively yeah I would say it works - same as it should be for Exarchs or similar....
No it doesn't. A veteran marine can survive exactly the same amount of damage as a fresh one with mature organs and whatever.
There is no reason that skill should mean they can take extra exploding rockets to their body. The armor itself increases their save. The fact that they are marines makes the w2 and t4.
And this here is the problem with people using fluff to justify anything. Termagants and Hormagaunts who have no vital organs and could be split in half and keep crawling forward like some kind of zombie (and the same for necron warriors) are w1 because that "feels right" but placing a guy into a different suit of armor suddenly makes them able to survive as much damage as a 10ft tall tyranid warrior?
The hell is going on here?
Look at it this way, of you out guardsmen/hormagaunts on 2 wounds, you're facilitating a 3 wound marine, as they're tougher than a standard humanoid.
Likewise of you don't hand wave the extra wound here and there based on bad-assery, then yes, enjoy your 1/2 wound legendary fighters/hq's who can die to a singe lasgun shot.
vipoid wrote: I'm not an expert on SM fluff - is there a reason Terminators should have more wounds than regular Marines?
They are noted as being incredably durable usually worn by skilled veterans so narratively yeah I would say it works - same as it should be for Exarchs or similar....
No it doesn't. A veteran marine can survive exactly the same amount of damage as a fresh one with mature organs and whatever.
There is no reason that skill should mean they can take extra exploding rockets to their body. The armor itself increases their save. The fact that they are marines makes the w2 and t4.
And this here is the problem with people using fluff to justify anything. Termagants and Hormagaunts who have no vital organs and could be split in half and keep crawling forward like some kind of zombie (and the same for necron warriors) are w1 because that "feels right" but placing a guy into a different suit of armor suddenly makes them able to survive as much damage as a 10ft tall tyranid warrior?
The hell is going on here?
Look at it this way, of you out guardsmen/hormagaunts on 2 wounds, you're facilitating a 3 wound marine, as they're tougher than a standard humanoid.
Likewise of you don't hand wave the extra wound here and there based on bad-assery, then yes, enjoy your 1/2 wound legendary fighters/hq's who can die to a singe lasgun shot.
They are tougher. Thats why guard and gaunts are t3 vs a marines t4.
They ALREADY are tougher with the attribute toughness. Wounds has nothing to do with that.
My point is that everyone in this thread who is using fluff to justify anything is wrong. The fluff is both wildly inconsistent and a bad basis for a balanced and fun game. GW made bad rules like GW always makes bad rules. It's not a basis for anything because they didn't base it on anything but getting people to buy plastic.
But if you want to argue fluff then it's easy to start arguing fluff for anyone because everyones codex talks about how their army is the best and destroys worlds.
vipoid wrote: I'm not an expert on SM fluff - is there a reason Terminators should have more wounds than regular Marines?
They are noted as being incredably durable usually worn by skilled veterans so narratively yeah I would say it works - same as it should be for Exarchs or similar....
No it doesn't. A veteran marine can survive exactly the same amount of damage as a fresh one with mature organs and whatever.
There is no reason that skill should mean they can take extra exploding rockets to their body. The armor itself increases their save. The fact that they are marines makes the w2 and t4.
And this here is the problem with people using fluff to justify anything. Termagants and Hormagaunts who have no vital organs and could be split in half and keep crawling forward like some kind of zombie (and the same for necron warriors) are w1 because that "feels right" but placing a guy into a different suit of armor suddenly makes them able to survive as much damage as a 10ft tall tyranid warrior?
The hell is going on here?
Terminator armour is for a reason called a tactical dreadnought armour. You practicaly face something with enough armour and shield generators for them to be vehicles. Now that doesn't mean GW can't give them some really good rule like the inner circle DA one, or limitation how worse their save can become.
vipoid wrote: I'm not an expert on SM fluff - is there a reason Terminators should have more wounds than regular Marines?
They are noted as being incredably durable usually worn by skilled veterans so narratively yeah I would say it works - same as it should be for Exarchs or similar....
No it doesn't. A veteran marine can survive exactly the same amount of damage as a fresh one with mature organs and whatever.
There is no reason that skill should mean they can take extra exploding rockets to their body. The armor itself increases their save. The fact that they are marines makes the w2 and t4.
And this here is the problem with people using fluff to justify anything. Termagants and Hormagaunts who have no vital organs and could be split in half and keep crawling forward like some kind of zombie (and the same for necron warriors) are w1 because that "feels right" but placing a guy into a different suit of armor suddenly makes them able to survive as much damage as a 10ft tall tyranid warrior?
The hell is going on here?
Terminator armour is for a reason called a tactical dreadnought armour. You practicaly face something with enough armour and shield generators for them to be vehicles. Now that doesn't mean GW can't give them some really good rule like the inner circle DA one, or limitation how worse their save can become.
Yup. Thats why they have an invul save and a armor save better then most vehicles including actual dreads. There is a very real limitation on how bad their save can become. It's the invul save.
vipoid wrote: I'm not an expert on SM fluff - is there a reason Terminators should have more wounds than regular Marines?
They are noted as being incredably durable usually worn by skilled veterans so narratively yeah I would say it works - same as it should be for Exarchs or similar....
No it doesn't. A veteran marine can survive exactly the same amount of damage as a fresh one with mature organs and whatever.
There is no reason that skill should mean they can take extra exploding rockets to their body. The armor itself increases their save. The fact that they are marines makes the w2 and t4.
And this here is the problem with people using fluff to justify anything. Termagants and Hormagaunts who have no vital organs and could be split in half and keep crawling forward like some kind of zombie (and the same for necron warriors) are w1 because that "feels right" but placing a guy into a different suit of armor suddenly makes them able to survive as much damage as a 10ft tall tyranid warrior?
The hell is going on here?
It's not the marine that makes a terminator 3W it's the armour.
Also you want to quote a source book for your Gaunts deserve 2W indea as Marine, Tau even Eldar fluff says they die fairly easily with a shot or two like guardsmen, they are quick and viscous and come in swarms which is scary to infantry but put terminators, Crisis suits etc infront of them with assualt cannons, flamers, burstcannons they die quick enough.
It is not that strange for an armor to give a model more wounds, for example Tau armor give +1W if is a stealth suit and +2W if its an Crisis suit.
Basically, in this case is less about fluff (why terminator armor has more wounds than a normal marine in power armor) and more about balance and design space (it is worth it to give terminators an extra wound to make them different enough to normal marines to be able to balance them properly). Personally I believe terminators can work both with 2W and 3W but with gravits at 3W if GW wants heavier marine armor to give +1W (Terminator for normals and Gravis for primaris) is not something so outrageous. I mean, you gain +1W for being on a bike, and the last time I was on a bike I didn't become some kind of superhuman with double the resilience to damage.
vipoid wrote: I'm not an expert on SM fluff - is there a reason Terminators should have more wounds than regular Marines?
They are noted as being incredably durable usually worn by skilled veterans so narratively yeah I would say it works - same as it should be for Exarchs or similar....
No it doesn't. A veteran marine can survive exactly the same amount of damage as a fresh one with mature organs and whatever.
There is no reason that skill should mean they can take extra exploding rockets to their body. The armor itself increases their save. The fact that they are marines makes the w2 and t4.
And this here is the problem with people using fluff to justify anything. Termagants and Hormagaunts who have no vital organs and could be split in half and keep crawling forward like some kind of zombie (and the same for necron warriors) are w1 because that "feels right" but placing a guy into a different suit of armor suddenly makes them able to survive as much damage as a 10ft tall tyranid warrior?
The hell is going on here?
It's not the marine that makes a terminator 3W it's the armour.
Also you want to quote a source book for your Gaunts deserve 2W indea as Marine, Tau even Eldar fluff says they die fairly easily with a shot or two like guardsmen, they are quick and viscous and come in swarms which is scary to infantry but put terminators, Crisis suits etc infront of them with assualt cannons, flamers, burstcannons they die quick enough.
No. The armor gives them a 2+ 5++ save.
They DO die quickly enough because they are not as tough and don't have as good armor. But they are capable of sustaining wounds that would kill others by virtue of having no or redundant vital organs. Shooting them in the middle of the chest is the same as shooting them in the foot.
They DO die quickly enough because they are not as tough and don't have as good armor. But they are capable of sustaining wounds that would kill others by virtue of having no or redundant vital organs. Shooting them in the middle of the chest is the same as shooting them in the foot
Is there a source for this specifically - they are still biologcal entities and the very disposable ones - also aren't guants one of the few species that can live and reproduce outside the Hive Mind so have to be able to do that as well?
If the pts are actually balanced (and not saying they are now) what the problem with having disposable swams with 1 W each?
They DO die quickly enough because they are not as tough and don't have as good armor. But they are capable of sustaining wounds that would kill others by virtue of having no or redundant vital organs. Shooting them in the middle of the chest is the same as shooting them in the foot
Is there a source for this specifically - they are still biologcal entities and the very disposable ones - also aren't guants one of the few species that can live and reproduce outside the Hive Mind so have to be able to do that as well?
If the pts are actually balanced (and not saying they are now) what the problem with having disposable swams with 1 W each?
I am searching for a solid source atm to quote to you. Currently looking for my copy of anphelion project.
That being said it has always been the case that nids are built to serve their purpose. Most of them don't have digestive tracts because they are not meant to last long enough to do any of that. Feeder organisms don't even have digestive tracts. They have sacks to hold biomater that get dragged into digestion pools. Hormagaunts, termagants, warriors, and other organisms have sacks of nutrient rich fuel to drive them for their brief existence. In Anphelion the gaunts and gants don't reproduce. They go into a hybernation state and then mutate into different forms or combine their biomass to mutate into new forms. Regular gaunts and gants became gargoyles. Warriors became shrikes.
There is nothing wrong with having disposable swarms with 1w each. Just like there was nothing wrong with marines being 1w each. Again, the point is everyone in every army can quote fluff for the absurd crap that happens in the fluff to justify how the rules don't reflect their preferred source of fluff. It's dumb to argue that crap for this, but if thats what you are going to do then everyone else is capable of doing it too. None of it makes for a particularly good game.
If old marines are 2w, and primaris and even tougher then that then they should be 3 wounds, and if terminator and gravis armor isn't just a better save but more wounds then tyranid warriors should be reach 6 wounds each now? Which means a tyrant should be nearing 16-18 probably right? So the swarmlord should be 20-22ish? Is this the game you want to play?
Tau fluff Guardsmen easy to kill, Marines much harder and able to fight with holes in them & missing limbs.
Guants are inline with Guardsmen.
No Primaris arn't tougher than marines that wqs GW marketing BS to coverup that they where artificially holding oldmarine stats back to sell the new models.
TBH though Primarachad fluff is retcon after retcon as it's been a complete joke from it's inception with their look a wizard did it here's millions of marines no-one noticed BS.
They DO die quickly enough because they are not as tough and don't have as good armor. But they are capable of sustaining wounds that would kill others by virtue of having no or redundant vital organs. Shooting them in the middle of the chest is the same as shooting them in the foot
Is there a source for this specifically - they are still biologcal entities and the very disposable ones - also aren't guants one of the few species that can live and reproduce outside the Hive Mind so have to be able to do that as well?
If the pts are actually balanced (and not saying they are now) what the problem with having disposable swams with 1 W each?
I am searching for a solid source atm to quote to you. Currently looking for my copy of anphelion project.
That being said it has always been the case that nids are built to serve their purpose. Most of them don't have digestive tracts because they are not meant to last long enough to do any of that. Feeder organisms don't even have digestive tracts. They have sacks to hold biomater that get dragged into digestion pools. Hormagaunts, termagants, warriors, and other organisms have sacks of nutrient rich fuel to drive them for their brief existence. In Anphelion the gaunts and gants don't reproduce. They go into a hybernation state and then mutate into different forms or combine their biomass to mutate into new forms. Regular gaunts and gants became gargoyles. Warriors became shrikes.
There is nothing wrong with having disposable swarms with 1w each. Just like there was nothing wrong with marines being 1w each. Again, the point is everyone in every army can quote fluff for the absurd crap that happens in the fluff to justify how the rules don't reflect their preferred source of fluff. It's dumb to argue that crap for this, but if thats what you are going to do then everyone else is capable of doing it too. None of it makes for a particularly good game.
If old marines are 2w, and primaris and even tougher then that then they should be 3 wounds, and if terminator and gravis armor isn't just a better save but more wounds then tyranid warriors should be reach 6 wounds each now? Which means a tyrant should be nearing 16-18 probably right? So the swarmlord should be 20-22ish? Is this the game you want to play?
I have all but the 8th Ed Codexes and also have the A Project.
Glancing through 2nd and 5th Ed dex both talk about gaunts laying eggs, will need to check the later ones.
I just think there is nothing wrong with 2W Marines (all of them) to contrast with "normal" humans - the rest is narrative and for the game to make units different - no reason that getting on a bike gives you +1W - A Tau Crisis suit should by the same reasoning just be T3 W1 as the armour does not make the pilot less likely to die?
They DO die quickly enough because they are not as tough and don't have as good armor. But they are capable of sustaining wounds that would kill others by virtue of having no or redundant vital organs. Shooting them in the middle of the chest is the same as shooting them in the foot
Is there a source for this specifically - they are still biologcal entities and the very disposable ones - also aren't guants one of the few species that can live and reproduce outside the Hive Mind so have to be able to do that as well?
If the pts are actually balanced (and not saying they are now) what the problem with having disposable swams with 1 W each?
I am searching for a solid source atm to quote to you. Currently looking for my copy of anphelion project.
That being said it has always been the case that nids are built to serve their purpose. Most of them don't have digestive tracts because they are not meant to last long enough to do any of that. Feeder organisms don't even have digestive tracts. They have sacks to hold biomater that get dragged into digestion pools. Hormagaunts, termagants, warriors, and other organisms have sacks of nutrient rich fuel to drive them for their brief existence. In Anphelion the gaunts and gants don't reproduce. They go into a hybernation state and then mutate into different forms or combine their biomass to mutate into new forms. Regular gaunts and gants became gargoyles. Warriors became shrikes.
There is nothing wrong with having disposable swarms with 1w each. Just like there was nothing wrong with marines being 1w each. Again, the point is everyone in every army can quote fluff for the absurd crap that happens in the fluff to justify how the rules don't reflect their preferred source of fluff. It's dumb to argue that crap for this, but if thats what you are going to do then everyone else is capable of doing it too. None of it makes for a particularly good game.
If old marines are 2w, and primaris and even tougher then that then they should be 3 wounds, and if terminator and gravis armor isn't just a better save but more wounds then tyranid warriors should be reach 6 wounds each now? Which means a tyrant should be nearing 16-18 probably right? So the swarmlord should be 20-22ish? Is this the game you want to play?
I have all but the 8th Ed Codexes and also have the A Project.
Glancing through 2nd and 5th Ed dex both talk about gaunts laying eggs, will need to check the later ones.
I just think there is nothing wrong with 2W Marines (all of them) to contrast with "normal" humans - the rest is narrative and for the game to make units different - no reason that getting on a bike gives you +1W - A Tau Crisis suit should by the same reasoning just be T3 W1 as the armour does not make the pilot less likely to die?
The fact that marines are t4 instead of t3 contrasts them with normal humans. It's literally harder for a lasgun to hurt a marine then it is a gaurdsman before armor ever comes into play. You roll to hit. Then you roll to wound. A wound being a hit that was good enough to cause real damage. A marine can take hits from guns and shrug off the damage more than anything t3. Any weapon that is str4 wounds a normal human on a 3+ and a marine on 4+ Any weapon str 6 wounds a normal human on a 2+ and a marine on 3+. You need a str 8 weapon to get a 2+ to wound a marine.
The bike itself or the tau suit is capable of suffering damage when they make up more than half the model. Hence the additional wounds.
Whats the problem with a Tyrant and a Swarmlord with 20-25 wounds?
I have always said that wound values and toughtness values should increase across the board to have more design space. T10 for Baneblades, Stompas and Imperial Knights, T9 for Leman Russ and heavy but not super heavy vehicles, T8 for normal vehicles, T7 for light ones, for example.
You are discussing the "fluff" perspective Lance but have not say anything about other reasons for why having more varied statlines across the game would be benefical without entering in changing the core gameplay of warhammer 40k , because I know thats what you would propose.
Galas wrote: Whats the problem with a Tyrant and a Swarmlord with 20-25 wounds?
I have always said that wound values and toughtness values should increase across the board to have more design space. T10 for Baneblades, Stompas and Imperial Knights, T9 for Leman Russ and heavy but not super heavy vehicles, T8 for normal vehicles, T7 for light ones, for example.
You are discussing the "fluff" perspective Lance but have not say anything about other reasons for why having more varied statlines across the game would be benefical without entering in changing the core gameplay of warhammer 40k , because I know thats what you would propose.
Can't argue with that - why is GW so terrified of units having more than T8?
Galas wrote: Whats the problem with a Tyrant and a Swarmlord with 20-25 wounds?
I have always said that wound values and toughtness values should increase across the board to have more design space. T10 for Baneblades, Stompas and Imperial Knights, T9 for Leman Russ and heavy but not super heavy vehicles, T8 for normal vehicles, T7 for light ones, for example.
You are discussing the "fluff" perspective Lance but have not say anything about other reasons for why having more varied statlines across the game would be benefical without entering in changing the core gameplay of warhammer 40k , because I know thats what you would propose.
Mechanically it would require a massive shift in all aspect of the game (something I am not opposed to but that is not what is being discussed here). By simply increasing toughness and wound values but not adjusting everything else to suit you will have a game that has you rolling the massive piles of dice we do today but for even less effect. Much like how overwatch is basically a waste of everyones time every attack would be a waste of everyones time.
Consider that a termagants devourer (a gun that doubles the cost of the model in previous editions) is str 3 with 3 shots. A unit of 30 rolls 90 dice. Even supported by a tervigon and getting the unit bonus to reroll 1s to hit and wound. 45 hit/reroll 1s (15 dice average) for 2ish more hits. Against a t4 marine 15 woulds. rerolling 1s 1 more wound. 3+ save, 5ish damage. Against 2 wound marines thats 2.5 dead marines for 90 shots. That degree of return on dice is atrocious. It's a static game where buckets of dice are rolled and time is spent counting out successes for no real effect. It's bad for the game.
In order for the things players actually do to have any actual meaningful effect the whole game has to shift to accommodate the new normal of higher wounds and toughnesses. Which again, I am for. But again, GW isn't going to do.
This last round of argument perfectly illustrates why some infantry getting an extra wound makes it impossible to understand what the different stats represent.
I'm wearing super tough armor that makes me harder to kill. Does that give me an extra wound? Higher toughness? Better save? Some combination of the above? If I have an extra wound, is that because of the armor, or because I'm very important and deserve plot armor? Does being humanoid in stature but immune to pain make me T4, or W2, or both? Does anything that doesn't stop fighting when injured (read: everything except Guardsmen) deserve W2 to reflect that?
Once upon a time it was a given that all non-character humanoids were W1. Your Toughness reflected how hard you were to kill, and your Save represented the durability of your armor. Easy. Straightforward. Simple. Interacted with weapons in predictable and logical ways.
Now we get to argue over exactly which mechanic properly represents how vaguely difficult fungus-hooligans are to kill versus bioengineered killing machines versus transhumans in big suits of armor, and it's all just arbitrary stats that don't represent anything. Don't forget to throw FNP saves in there too; after all, it's literally 'feel no pain' so obviously Orks and Tyranids should get them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Maybe stuff like termagants isn't suppose to kill whole units of marines in one go. Maybe killing 2-3 with 30 is what should happen.
So you agree that Marines should be W1, because 30 Termagants average 2.5 wounds (2.92 with Living Ammunition) against MEQ...?
Edit: Lance, your math's a bit off; Devourers are S4. A unit of 30 Termagants with Devourers averages 8.75 wounds on MEQ. I should point out to non-Tyranid players that that's also a 270pt unit with a grand total of 30 T3/6+ wounds and 18" range; it's the glassiest of glass hammers.
.
balance with X or Y.
