Back when I started playing 40k (*shakes cane), Astartes/Space Marines were head and shoulders better than most factions' other troops, but things like Bloodletters actually posed a challenge for them 1 on 1, and when Necrons were introduced they were actually tough for Astartes to take on. Thematically, this made the Astartes good antiheroes - sure, they were fascists, but the things they were up against were actually terrifying. Now that they've been power creeped to the moon, it's hard to take them as seriously - they're just this legion of super-powered fascists that are running around beating the crap out of everyone, they're not even sympathetic since they win all the time.
Your thoughts on this? If you were in charge of things, where would you put the Astartes profile with respect to things like demons and Necrons, which in other editions have either been their match or slightly their better?
IMO, if the stat line for a normal human became S2 T2 a lot of relative unit strengths would make sense. There are a lot of thematic misalignments that happen but that is one of the more prevalent.
To bring this around to the topic at hand, if a regular human was S2 T2 then things like Necron Warriors, Bloodletters, and Ork Boyz get to be way stronger than a human but still weaker than an astartes. And astartes get to be crazy potent compared to a human, which in the fluff they are.
I kind of like the fact, that humans are the meanest aliens in the galaxy.
I also like that they used the profile to differentiate more between the models. If you only use T3 or T4, Sv3+ or Sv4+ and W1 as all allowable profiles for infantry, then it is really hard to convey the impression of a space marine (or any other elite) being leagues better than a simply guardsman or gaunt. That in turn allows for necron warriors to be better than those two, but less strong than a space marine. Overall, it was a good change and I don´t mind it.
Now they just have to cost them appropriately.....
From a thematic standpoint, I think the current marine profiles are actually about right. Lore-wise, a certain amount of plot armor is kind of marines' "thing." You want orks to feel numerous, eldar to feel fast, necrons to feel durable, and you want marines hit hard and last longer than a "realistic" reading of their fluff probably calls for.
So comparing a marine to a necron warrior, I like that the marine has an extra wound. I want the marine to feel like he can take a hit and keep going, and I want the warriors to be fielded in large groups and go down easily so that they can show off their spooky reanimation mechanics.
For multiple editions, marines really felt like they were basically just guard veterans with slightly better armor. They hit on a 3+. They could die to a single lucky lasgun shot. The marines just didn't feel quite right. 2 wound marines (especially 2 Attack marines like intercessors) basically have the statline I wanted firstborn to have for years. As savemelmac says, now they just have to balance them for their cost.
That said, inflating marine statlines has left a few units feeling a bit awkward. Eldar and dark eldar having an inch or two of extra movement really doesn't make up for all the speed-related rules they've lost over the years. Comparing the number of Attacks a striking scorpion has to an assault marine or a banshee to a vanguard vet is kind of disheartening. Tyranid warriors used to feel properly beefy when they had thrice the wounds of a marine, but now a heavy intercessor has the same number of wounds along with a much crunchier shell. Drukhari splinter weapons used to be a bit worse versus guardsmen than their bolter equivalents but better versus monsters and bikes and such. Now, the increased number of wounds on bikers and MCs combined with the various boosts to bolter AP (doctrines, primaris guns, etc.) has caused splinters to go from comparable/specialized to simply worse.
tldr; I like where marines are at because it fits their fluff/playstyle/"feel". However, the fluff/feel of many other units have kind of withered in comparison.
One of the cool things when Necrons were first introduced was how terrifying they were because they were better than SM - better armour, Tougher, better gun and with better special rules too. That really made them feel like an ancient, highly advanced threat (with a points cost to match, of course). I think with SM now pushing the basic statline to breaking point and piling loads of special rules on top we've lost that possibility, IMO. It'll be interesting to see what GW does with Aspect Warriors because they've usually been portrayed as being the equal of, or superior to, a SM in their area of specialisation. With the stat inflation of a SM I'm not sure how easy that will be to achieve with an Aspect Warrior.
Lesser daemons are probably fine being worse than a SM as that's usually been the case in the past. Some of them are a bit tougher, or slightly better in close combat, but overall daemons were usually outclassed by SM.
The big problem with pushing the stats and special rules as far as they have is with how the spread of stats now works. In order for units like Custodes to work, or just any slightly more elite unit than SM, we need to go to S/T5 and 2+ saves and loads of Attacks and Wounds and even better equipment etc. I'd have probably removed the Shock Assault bonus from SM at the very minimum when designing them for 9th. It would have been interesting to see a complete reworking of stats to put humans at S/T2 as another poster mentioned. That might have allowed the necessary room to represent the various unit types across all the races.
I think they pretty much nailed Necron design in this regard. Relentless. Tough. Knock it down and it will keep coming.
Daemons have never quite felt right. I can't put my finger on it. It isn't about the statistical values alone but the invulnerable save just never felt... enough.
Further i feel like daemons in general shouldn't have less than a 4++ (also not more but yeah), they are otherwordly horrors, just as likely to shrugg off massive damage as they are to be felled.
Another factor is that their corrupting lore never really has been represented well enough.
DG are a step in the right direction, except, dg well, aren't daemons...
Umbros wrote: I think they pretty much nailed Necron design in this regard. Relentless. Tough. Knock it down and it will keep coming.
They felt that way when they were individually tougher than Marines, too.
A marine shouldn't have more or equal W to a nob and better SV then the ancient horror skelleton metal thingy that is constructed out of living metal...
Yet here we are, marines have nobs level W, better SV and on top of it better weapons and a whole boatload of paragrpahs of free rules.
To really bring everything back into line there would need to be a complete overhaul, and that would mean raising the stats of all units across the board.
For example currently everything is kept down to a range between 2-5 for strength and toughness for troops which is just too restrictive. Why not go as high as 7 or 8 for strength and toughness of marines, then use this as a yardstick for restatting everything else. Would it hurt the game if we started using bigger numbers?
I'm of the opinion that any troop out there should only have a higher stat than a Marine to show off that they're exceptional in that area, and should only have a lower stat than a Guardsmen to show off that they're unusually poor in that area.
I can't say I'm a fan of Marines getting power-boost after power-boost, so that even the elite units of other armies have been left in the dirt.
I also think it undermines many of the themes in 40k. Why does the Imperium need to fear anything when its soldiers can mow down enemy ranged units from afar, and club elite, alien-warriors to death in melee?
NinthMusketeer wrote: IMO, if the stat line for a normal human became S2 T2 a lot of relative unit strengths would make sense. There are a lot of thematic misalignments that happen but that is one of the more prevalent.
To bring this around to the topic at hand, if a regular human was S2 T2 then things like Necron Warriors, Bloodletters, and Ork Boyz get to be way stronger than a human but still weaker than an astartes. And astartes get to be crazy potent compared to a human, which in the fluff they are.
Honestly, I don't think this would have the desired effect. Because of the way the factions have been designed, Marines are the default comparison - not guard (i.e. 'regular' humans). Hell, the ubiquity of Marines already gives the impression that the Imperium consists of about 90% super-soldiers.
Hecaton 795854 11045604 wrote:Your thoughts on this? If you were in charge of things, where would you put the Astartes profile with respect to things like demons and Necrons, which in other editions have either been their match or slightly their better?
Yes. Demons melt from even looking or being around my dudes. They should die in droves again a Grey Knight army.
Hecaton wrote: Back when I started playing 40k (*shakes cane), Astartes/Space Marines were head and shoulders better than most factions' other troops, but things like Bloodletters actually posed a challenge for them 1 on 1, and when Necrons were introduced they were actually tough for Astartes to take on. Thematically, this made the Astartes good antiheroes - sure, they were fascists, but the things they were up against were actually terrifying. Now that they've been power creeped to the moon, it's hard to take them as seriously - they're just this legion of super-powered fascists that are running around beating the crap out of everyone, they're not even sympathetic since they win all the time.
Your thoughts on this? If you were in charge of things, where would you put the Astartes profile with respect to things like demons and Necrons, which in other editions have either been their match or slightly their better?
Thematically, lesser daemons and Necron warriors are still terrifying. Remember that according to the fluff there are about 1 million Space Marines in the galaxy. The amount of Necron warriors in the galaxy is... billions? trillions? Maybe even more. And that's not even starting to talk about how many daemons might exist within the Warp (maybe even an infinite amount given that the Warp is so different from realspace). So the fact that 1 Marine might maybe be able to take on 10 Necron warriors or 10 Bloodletters at the same time and win fluffwise doesn't mean much. Those billions of Necrons or infinite amount of Bloodletters WILL overrun a chapter planet if enough resources are allocated to the assault.
It hardly matters since it's never really depicted in stories and most certainly not on tabletop. As it stands, if you take BL stories and tabletop experience, it's a miracle any xenos are left in the galaxy at all.
I also think it undermines many of the themes in 40k. Why does the Imperium need to fear anything when its soldiers can mow down enemy ranged units from afar, and club elite, alien-warriors to death in melee?
...
Honestly, I don't think this would have the desired effect. Because of the way the factions have been designed, Marines are the default comparison - not guard (i.e. 'regular' humans). Hell, the ubiquity of Marines already gives the impression that the Imperium consists of about 90% super-soldiers.
The only thing I can say to this, while Marines are over-represented on the table top [as you mention 90% super soldiers lol], in the fluff there is only about 1 million space marines in the entire galaxy. Some Imperial Guard 'Regiments' contain more troops than this.
Hecaton wrote: Back when I started playing 40k (*shakes cane), Astartes/Space Marines were head and shoulders better than most factions' other troops, but things like Bloodletters actually posed a challenge for them 1 on 1, and when Necrons were introduced they were actually tough for Astartes to take on. Thematically, this made the Astartes good antiheroes - sure, they were fascists, but the things they were up against were actually terrifying. Now that they've been power creeped to the moon, it's hard to take them as seriously - they're just this legion of super-powered fascists that are running around beating the crap out of everyone, they're not even sympathetic since they win all the time.
Your thoughts on this? If you were in charge of things, where would you put the Astartes profile with respect to things like demons and Necrons, which in other editions have either been their match or slightly their better?
SM are not fascists. They are warrior monks bordering on becoming religious nuts which the Black Templars already accomplished.
Thus they have more in common with the Spanish inquisition hunting down perceived threats. Targets would be the xenos, the traitor and the witch.
The Imperium would need a dictator in order to be recognized as a fascist state. Such a figure was in the past the Emperor but he obviously doesn't rule the IoM anymore. The true rulers are the High Lords of Terra and so the Imperium has become after the Horus Heresy an oligarchy.
Marines are right at the moment, good stats, weaponry etc. T4 1W, 1A was a terrible statline for them.
Guardsmen are right in comparison.
Now we work on what's left.
Necrons should be tough but I like the mechanic of them just repairing and getting back up. It feels right, rather than just being harder to put down (would make them more expensive).
IMHO, I always liked that the old marine stat line wasn't "that" much better than a regular human. It was all a bit tongue in cheek that marines were "so amazingly more powerful" and yet on the battlefield, they really weren't - it was all internal-game lore propaganda and part of what supported broader ironies of the entire universe. The imperium wasn't really as great as it claimed to be. And it reinforced humanity really being on the brink of collapse. Now that they literally are super-powered by relative comparison it's done a disservice to the game's setting, IMHO.
Most of the game's basic units are in a pretty sad state atm. A space marine in relation to a guardsman, cultist, GSC neophyte, whatever is fairly OK.
But the classic comparison of:
Ork: As good at punching as a space marine, as tough as a space marine, but cannot aim and doesn't wear any armor at all.
^nope, now 1/2 as tough as a space marine
Necron: As tough as a space marine and as good at shooting, but slower and worse at melee
^Nope, now easier to kill than marines.
Tau: Better than a marine at shooting, but way worse at melee and just a guardsman wearing fancy armor on defense.
^nope, now worse than marines shooting pound-for-pound
Eldar: Equally skilled as marines and equipped with better technological weaponry, physically weaker but faster allowing them to win with lightning strikes but lose longer sustained melee fights, good armor but less tough
^nope, now just straight-up lose in melee basically no matter what, crappier weaponry comparative to marine equipment, and their "faster speed' amounts to literally +1" of movement most of the time.
Tyranids: Genestealers would get totally carved up by shooting but the second they got to grips with even terminator-armored marines in Space Hulk you were praying as the marine player.
^now just lose in melee pound-for-pound vs basic marine troops, even if they get the charge.
A Harlequin currently feels about like what an eldar elite specialist vs a space marine should feel like. A Banshee, Scorpion, Wych, Dire Avenger, whatever...all a bad joke.
Luckily, if the new statline for Incubi is anything to go off of, the drukhari book and hopefully the craftworld book will bring back that parity through increased offense. A3 S5 Ap-2 D2 for a marine-killing melee-only specialist is about where you should be.
the_scotsman wrote: Luckily, if the new statline for Incubi is anything to go off of, the drukhari book and hopefully the craftworld book will bring back that parity through increased offense. A3 S5 Ap-2 D2 for a marine-killing melee-only specialist is about where you should be.
You say that but I'm not sure it will actually work out that way, at least as far as Incubi are concerned.
Incubi's damage has kept up with Marines getting 2 wounds. Okay.
However, there has been no corresponding increase for Incubi letting them keep up with the ever-increasing firepower of Marines.
In other words, Marines have stepped forward 2 paces, Incubi have stepped forward just 1. And they weren't exactly an outstanding unit to begin with.
Also, to be clear, I get that Incubi are a glass cannon and so shouldn't necessarily be getting massive improvements to their toughness/save. The problem is that haven't gained any improvement to their killing power (or even their speed) instead. All they've done is achieve parity with Marines in one aspect, whilst falling behind them in all others.
To me it seems like a worrying trend for non-Marine elites.
the_scotsman wrote: Luckily, if the new statline for Incubi is anything to go off of, the drukhari book and hopefully the craftworld book will bring back that parity through increased offense. A3 S5 Ap-2 D2 for a marine-killing melee-only specialist is about where you should be.
You say that but I'm not sure it will actually work out that way, at least as far as Incubi are concerned.
Incubi's damage has kept up with Marines getting 2 wounds. Okay.
However, there has been no corresponding increase for Incubi letting them keep up with the ever-increasing firepower of Marines.
In other words, Marines have stepped forward 2 paces, Incubi have stepped forward just 1. And they weren't exactly an outstanding unit to begin with.
Also, to be clear, I get that Incubi are a glass cannon and so shouldn't necessarily be getting massive improvements to their toughness/save. The problem is that haven't gained any improvement to their killing power (or even their speed) instead. All they've done is achieve parity with Marines in one aspect, whilst falling behind them in all others.
To me it seems like a worrying trend for non-Marine elites.
Assuming that the points costs from the recent MFM are the final points costs for the new Incubi statline I'm in no way concerned. Incubi are 16ppm for A3 WS2+ S5 AP-3 D2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they also got +1W on the Klaivex, +1S on all klaive weapons, and Ws2+ always as opposed to Ws2+ turn 3+.
We don't know how SFD is going to be shaking out but, for 16pts per model Incubi get a 138% points return rolling into even basic tactical marines even totally ignoring SFD.
I like that statline at that point cost. To me, it bodes well. Just my opinion, obviously the whole rest of the book could be a clusterfeth.
SM are not fascists. They are warrior monks bordering on becoming religious nuts which the Black Templars already accomplished.
T-thank you for coming to the defense of fascist space marines, but they remain fascist scum upholding the worst, least effective regime humanity has ever seen.
Anyway, let's talk about why GW thinks shuriken catapults, actual railguns, would have short range
Hecaton wrote: Back when I started playing 40k (*shakes cane), Astartes/Space Marines were head and shoulders better than most factions' other troops, but things like Bloodletters actually posed a challenge for them 1 on 1, and when Necrons were introduced they were actually tough for Astartes to take on. Thematically, this made the Astartes good antiheroes - sure, they were fascists, but the things they were up against were actually terrifying. Now that they've been power creeped to the moon, it's hard to take them as seriously - they're just this legion of super-powered fascists that are running around beating the crap out of everyone, they're not even sympathetic since they win all the time.
Your thoughts on this? If you were in charge of things, where would you put the Astartes profile with respect to things like demons and Necrons, which in other editions have either been their match or slightly their better?
Necron warriors should be close (durability), but not on par or flexible. Their condition makes them limited.
Daemons should be nowhere as feeble as they are. They're supposed to be creatures of other world horror, not bad jokes.
Orks should be closer than they currently are.
Eldar Guardians and tau are about right. (Points not withstanding). Aspect warriors are definitely not right, including Incubi. And wyches are just sad.
NinthMusketeer wrote: IMO, if the stat line for a normal human became S2 T2 a lot of relative unit strengths would make sense. There are a lot of thematic misalignments that happen but that is one of the more prevalent.
To bring this around to the topic at hand, if a regular human was S2 T2 then things like Necron Warriors, Bloodletters, and Ork Boyz get to be way stronger than a human but still weaker than an astartes. And astartes get to be crazy potent compared to a human, which in the fluff they are.
I'd rather bump Humans to S4/T4, and Marines to S6/T6. Adjust everything else as needed-GW opened up the statlines, but then didn't use them at all.
To the OP, though, it depends.
An ordinary Eldar Guardian? Joe-Schmoe militia of an ancient race? Weaker than a Marine.
An Aspect Warrior, though, should be a match for a Marine. Maybe less durable, but vastly better in their specialty.
Which relates to...
the_scotsman wrote: Assuming that the points costs from the recent MFM are the final points costs for the new Incubi statline I'm in no way concerned. Incubi are 16ppm for A3 WS2+ S5 AP-3 D2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they also got +1W on the Klaivex, +1S on all klaive weapons, and Ws2+ always as opposed to Ws2+ turn 3+.
We don't know how SFD is going to be shaking out but, for 16pts per model Incubi get a 138% points return rolling into even basic tactical marines even totally ignoring SFD.
I like that statline at that point cost. To me, it bodes well. Just my opinion, obviously the whole rest of the book could be a clusterfeth.
16 PPM for an Incubi might be a relatively balanced price point for their abilities and stats.
But when a Marine costs 18+ points, it's not THEMATICALLY appropriate. Incubi should be a similar cost and similar power to Marines.
They shouldn't be particularly numerous, but they should shred things on contact. Perhaps returning to one of their sources of inspiration, Tolkien's Noldor for inspiration. Eldar should be an army which is almost frustrating to fight. I say this as a primarily Tyranid and Ork player btw.
But Eldar infantry seriously need a buff, for a start increasing the range on their basic weaponry to match that of everyone else. 12 inch weapons on a fragile unit that can't be taken in the disposable masses my Termagants can be taken is is ridiculous.
But either Astartes need to be toned down or everyone else brought to a comparable level. Honestly outside of tyranids I don't know of any army which has the sheer variety of troops choices that Space Marines get. Giving the Xenos faction some of that customization tools would help roll some of this back. Such as rolling back Ork Ardboyz being turned into an awful stratagem into a proper unit for one. Say make a dual kit for Skarboyz and Ard boyz, both more elite than ork boyz, but with smaller unit sizes, have Ard Boyz just be boyz with 4+ saves and Skarboyz having 5+ saves but more melee punch than ork boyz, say something like having their attacks either be higher in strength or some AP boost to make them better against space marines.
But given my experiences with Necron Warriors in 9th, they feel durable, I've had times when I've dumped loads of shooting into a squad only for many of them to get right back up, and a Ghost Ark to help the remainder do so next turn. They feel like a horde that without massive force being applied will not die. I personally think that reanimation should be tweaked so that it also works on the bigger guys, for instance instead of not working unless you get the full wound count, allowing partial reanimations, for instance allowing a Skorpekh destroyer to return with a single wound remaining. Further reanimation applying those successes to models until all models are at max wound count then the remainder reanimate the fallen.
In terms of Imperial guard, well to be honest, the individual Guardsman shouldn't be murdering Astartes unless he has a melta gun or some heavy weapon. But Guard tanks should massacre Astartes in the open. Heavy infantry should get ripped apart by walkers in melee (if equipped for melee) or tanks in shooting. GW also needs to be less afraid of expanding the toughness of models and modifying the wound table so that I am not cutting his tanks apart with ork choppas.
Dark Eldar need some more work because yes they're a small faction compared to others but even base kabalite warriors should be decent infantry, not just guardsmen with poison weaponry. Enhancing their splinter weapons, or giving them rules to represent their ability to use these very effectively is where I personally think the direction should be. Giving them something that lets them tailor their poisons to their expected foe. Almost akin to the Deathwatches special ammo but chosen prebattle like the Necron's protocols. Give them like 6 choices that they can pay to upgrade those weapons with various exotic poisons or alchemical weapons. Paralyzers to slow the enemy down, fear toxins that reduce the effectiveness of enemy troops. That sort of deal. Plus give them a Trueborn kit for Kabalite elite infantry. Eldar as a whole should be amazing on a 1 on 1 basis, and they should be based around buffing or debuffing the enemy to make the little engagements very one sided and have things set to a careful plan. Give it room for the other player to put kinks that plan and I believe this would some depth to the plan.
Marines (Not Primaris) were balanced about right just before the 8.5 book, iirc. Tough as an Ork with the armor of an Eldar, with a Strength and Ld./discipline better than both.
savemelmac wrote: I kind of like the fact, that humans are the meanest aliens in the galaxy.
I also like that they used the profile to differentiate more between the models. If you only use T3 or T4, Sv3+ or Sv4+ and W1 as all allowable profiles for infantry, then it is really hard to convey the impression of a space marine (or any other elite) being leagues better than a simply guardsman or gaunt. That in turn allows for necron warriors to be better than those two, but less strong than a space marine. Overall, it was a good change and I don´t mind it.
Now they just have to cost them appropriately.....
Marines aren't humans. Marines are Chimera.
But yes. I agree with this point. The issue is humans are too strong.
Insectum7 wrote: Marines (Not Primaris) were balanced about right just before the 8.5 book, iirc. Tough as an Ork with the armor of an Eldar, with a Strength and Ld./discipline better than both.
But were they seeing any play at those stats and, of equal importance, were the people playing them having fun? The flipside of Marines being so much of the meta that you hate playing every second game against them is that if they're not happy it means a large number of your customers aren't happy.
Strg Alt wrote: SM are not fascists. They are warrior monks bordering on becoming religious nuts which the Black Templars already accomplished.
Thus they have more in common with the Spanish inquisition hunting down perceived threats. Targets would be the xenos, the traitor and the witch.
I really disagree, and being religious doesn't preclude fascism. But that's probably beyond the scope of this thread. The important thing is that they have no respect for human rights or morality as we understand it today.
Insectum7 wrote: Marines (Not Primaris) were balanced about right just before the 8.5 book, iirc. Tough as an Ork with the armor of an Eldar, with a Strength and Ld./discipline better than both.
But were they seeing any play at those stats and, of equal importance, were the people playing them having fun? The flipside of Marines being so much of the meta that you hate playing every second game against them is that if they're not happy it means a large number of your customers aren't happy.
You're barking up the wrong tree, lol. I was playing them and I was having fun. Post 8.5 it was less fun because they were eeeeaaassyy.
Hecaton wrote: Back when I started playing 40k (*shakes cane), Astartes/Space Marines were head and shoulders better than most factions' other troops, but things like Bloodletters actually posed a challenge for them 1 on 1, and when Necrons were introduced they were actually tough for Astartes to take on. Thematically, this made the Astartes good antiheroes - sure, they were fascists, but the things they were up against were actually terrifying. Now that they've been power creeped to the moon, it's hard to take them as seriously - they're just this legion of super-powered fascists that are running around beating the crap out of everyone, they're not even sympathetic since they win all the time.
Your thoughts on this? If you were in charge of things, where would you put the Astartes profile with respect to things like demons and Necrons, which in other editions have either been their match or slightly their better?
Necron warriors should be close (durability), but not on par or flexible. Their condition makes them limited.
Daemons should be nowhere as feeble as they are. They're supposed to be creatures of other world horror, not bad jokes.
Orks should be closer than they currently are.
Eldar Guardians and tau are about right. (Points not withstanding). Aspect warriors are definitely not right, including Incubi. And wyches are just sad.
I disagree that an eldar guardian should be a guard vet with very slightly better offense and +1" of movement while the guard vet can be ordered to give him better offense or better movement.
That seems, in a word, dumb as feth. Exchanging..what was it, FOUR points of initiative and translating that stat into one single inch of movement in 8th edition was a joke.
Huron black heart wrote: To really bring everything back into line there would need to be a complete overhaul, and that would mean raising the stats of all units across the board.
For example currently everything is kept down to a range between 2-5 for strength and toughness for troops which is just too restrictive. Why not go as high as 7 or 8 for strength and toughness of marines, then use this as a yardstick for restatting everything else. Would it hurt the game if we started using bigger numbers?
You wouldn't even need to go that far, just start using d10s instead of d6s. Would allow for stuff to truly be impervious to low S firepower and other higher S stuff to be less effective against hordes.
Eldar guardians are shopkeepers and artists given a gun and sent out to 'hold the line' (die). There's a lot of things GW could do with them to make them better (like guns that don't put them in charge range), but the basic statline is not the major hurdle. They simply aren't a unit that I'd toss into the 'stat inflation' bucket.
Eldar guardians are shopkeepers of a race of space ninjas that have lived longer than most marine special characters, and have been sent out to "hold the line" over, and over and over again in the course of their thousands of years of life. An eldar guardian (let alone one from Ulthwe) would have more combat experience than Guiliman. People seem to forget that part.
They obviously can't take as much punishment as a marine, which is designed to get hit...a lot, but they should be able to dish it and not get hit cause again, race of space ninjas.
But that'd take away spotlight from the Marines, so it's not going to happen. Marines are the ultimate power fantasy for nerds, so they *can't* be overshadowed by anything. The space ninja race? They'll trip over their own shoelaces.
The cut-through-adamanitum, sneak-up-on-anything alien horrors that are genestealers? Well, they'll get mowed down by the hundreds as they blindly charge across the field.
The terror-tactics, speedy pain-freak space ninjas? A dozen marines will stomp into their city, do what they want and scare them to their pointy ears.
GW made sure to nerf every threat to the marines both in game and in lore and they will not change it, cause it'd offend the fans.
Cronch wrote: Eldar guardians are shopkeepers of a race of space ninjas that have lived longer than most marine special characters, and have been sent out to "hold the line" over, and over and over again in the course of their thousands of years of life. An eldar guardian (let alone one from Ulthwe) would have more combat experience than Guiliman. People seem to forget that part.
They obviously can't take as much punishment as a marine, which is designed to get hit...a lot, but they should be able to dish it and not get hit cause again, race of space ninjas.
Well i never found the idea of Space Marines as plot armored Mary Sues in the Lore/Novels very appealing to begin with, but to make that part of the in-game was really a ridiculous idea(and specifically several Xenos faction statlines/buffs,weapons feel just wrong in comparison). Marines need to go back to proficient in all but Masters of None(or at least almost none) theme, instead of their new Masters of All theme.
Insectum7 wrote: You're barking up the wrong tree, lol. I was playing them and I was having fun. Post 8.5 it was less fun because they were eeeeaaassyy.
So where are all your tournament trophies if the game is just that simple?
Insectum7 wrote: You're barking up the wrong tree, lol. I was playing them and I was having fun. Post 8.5 it was less fun because they were eeeeaaassyy.
So where are all your tournament trophies if the game is just that simple?
Because casual games don't exist, of course. Only Tournament players matter.
JNAProductions wrote: Because casual games don't exist, of course. Only Tournament players matter.
In casual games, you're always free to do whatever you like to make a good game between unbalanced armies or unbalanced player skill. If you claim that some unit makes the game 'too easy' and it isn't crushing the tournament scene it just means you aren't finding appropriate levels of challenge for yourself.
So where are all your tournament trophies if the game is just that simple?
Just because someone doesn't want to engage with 40k's toxic tournament community doesn't mean they lack the intellectual capacity to understand the game.
Huron black heart wrote: To really bring everything back into line there would need to be a complete overhaul, and that would mean raising the stats of all units across the board.
For example currently everything is kept down to a range between 2-5 for strength and toughness for troops which is just too restrictive. Why not go as high as 7 or 8 for strength and toughness of marines, then use this as a yardstick for restatting everything else. Would it hurt the game if we started using bigger numbers?
Dices would be more capped at 3+ and 5+ rolls. 2+ and 6+ would be hyper rare. Yes stats would look different. Dice rolls would be more samey though.
JNAProductions wrote: Because casual games don't exist, of course. Only Tournament players matter.
In casual games, you're always free to do whatever you like to make a good game between unbalanced armies or unbalanced player skill. If you claim that some unit makes the game 'too easy' and it isn't crushing the tournament scene it just means you aren't finding appropriate levels of challenge for yourself.
Okay. But considering the premium GW charges for rules, we shouldn't really have to.
It's one thing to say "You're a new player, so I'll take a softer list." Nothing GW can do about new players needing time to learn the game.
It's quite another thing to say "Oh, you're bringing GSC against my Marines? Take an extra 30% points." GW should VERY MUCH not need that to be the case for a fair game.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. But considering the premium GW charges for rules, we shouldn't really have to.
Neither are you obligated to purchase said rules.
It's one thing to say "You're a new player, so I'll take a softer list." Nothing GW can do about new players needing time to learn the game.
It's quite another thing to say "Oh, you're bringing GSC against my Marines? Take an extra 30% points." GW should VERY MUCH not need that to be the case for a fair game.
Even GSC can pull off some wins if they take their best units. Even if the other player doesn't have said units allow them room to proxy and you'll have closer games.
So where are all your tournament trophies if the game is just that simple?
Just because someone doesn't want to engage with 40k's toxic tournament community doesn't mean they lack the intellectual capacity to understand the game.
I responded to this is a post to JNAP but as I know most people don't read any post not quoted to them here it is again:
In casual games, you're always free to do whatever you like to make a good game between unbalanced armies or unbalanced player skill levels. If you claim that some unit makes the game 'too easy' and it isn't crushing the tournament scene it just means you aren't finding appropriate levels of challenge for yourself.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. But considering the premium GW charges for rules, we shouldn't really have to.
Neither are you obligated to purchase said rules.
This defence doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. The logic of "Don't Like. Don't Buy" to dismiss criticism is the same as dismissing film criticism with "Don't Like. Don't Watch" and I get the feeling you already knew this before you commented.
Darsath wrote: [This defence doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. The logic of "Don't Like. Don't Buy" to dismiss criticism is the same as dismissing film criticism with "Don't Like. Don't Watch" and I get the feeling you already knew this before you commented.
I said don't pay not don't play. There's a world of difference between the two and you don't need to be a pirate to do it. Ask other players if you can read their codex, take notes (or better yet pictures with your phone) and you suddenly have the rules you need for free!
The background of the game as it stands only exists to provide a power fantasy for Marine players. You have plenty of people here basically saying that Marines should be the best at everything and that other specialists should only really be their equal. I have seen people arguing that 5 marines can take a planet, or that it should take hundreds of guardsmen to kill even one Marine, and if he has cover they basically cannot do it.
The power fantasy fiction sells really well. People love power fantasies. The other factions only exist as sidekicks or NPC punching bags for Marines in the background of this fiction.
The success of this fiction has lead to the game background distorting to make this the standard, and now the game rules have twisted too. So now not just the novels but the entire background of the game AND the mechanics of the game exist only to confirm and validate the power fantasy of marine players.
Do I think this is good? Uh, no? It's obviously terrible. I don't mind power fantasy fiction, but it should be recognised for what it is rather than taken at face value as gospel canon. Making this be the baseline of the game to pander to power fantasy fans is really terrible for the game and the themes the background is supposed to represent.
I mean, if Cawl can make a bajillion Primaris, and each Primaris is so powerful, and we have Primarchs back again, then...shouldn't the Imperium just be winning? Where's the theme any more?
However, it seems there are enough marine players who enjoy the power fantasy to sustain the game at a very high level of success for GW, so hey, what the hell do I know.
Insectum7 wrote: You're barking up the wrong tree, lol. I was playing them and I was having fun. Post 8.5 it was less fun because they were eeeeaaassyy.
So where are all your tournament trophies if the game is just that simple?
Irrelevant, Marine armies were taking trophies left and right post 8.5. Playing my firstborn after 8.5 felt like cheating against any non-marine army. It was gross.
Insectum7 wrote: Irrelevant, Marine armies were taking trophies left and right post 8.5. Playing my firstborn after 8.5 felt like cheating against any non-marine army. It was gross.
How about now? Have you played in 9th or are the hurt feelings chasing you from an edition that has been dead for close to a year now?
Insectum7 wrote: Irrelevant, Marine armies were taking trophies left and right post 8.5. Playing my firstborn after 8.5 felt like cheating against any non-marine army. It was gross.
How about now? Have you played in 9th or are the hurt feelings chasing you from an edition that has been dead for close to a year now?
That's rather rich, considering that you haven't played 9th yourself.
And pray tell, how have Marines gotten weaker? I can think of minor nerfs they've received, but overall, they're as strong as ever.
Thematically with Necrons I think their warriors should be glorified tripods for a gun. They can take on a human, but any aspect warrior, tyranid warrior, marine should suplex them into the ground(I'm also talking about melee, not shooting). But anything higher on the food chain like an immortal should be on par with a marine. They don't deploy those in droves like warriors.
As for demons I think they should stress that they don't die traditionally. Other than that I have no idea how demons function in the lore beyond them choosing to bring knives to a gun fight.
JNAProductions wrote: And pray tell, how have Marines gotten weaker? I can think of minor nerfs they've received, but overall, they're as strong as ever.
You mean aside from the nerfs which you just mentioned which make them at least slightly weaker than they have been? For one they're up against the new Necrons and Deathguard now with Dark Eldar on the way. Secondly, the changes to 9th have clearly been kind to other factions boosting them by proxy. In this case, the rising tide has risen some boats far higher than others, this doesn't hurt marines but it does mean that they aren't these massive outliers like they used to be.
Just look at the tournament scene in 9th and you'll see just how many different armies can easily take top places.
JNAProductions wrote: That's rather rich, considering that you haven't played 9th yourself.
I'm also not using claimed play experience to lend weight to my opinion. If you're going to do that you'd best make it clear when that experience happened and in what sort of setting.
JNAProductions wrote: And pray tell, how have Marines gotten weaker? I can think of minor nerfs they've received, but overall, they're as strong as ever.
You mean aside from the nerfs which you just mentioned which make them at least slightly weaker than they have been? For one they're up against the new Necrons and Deathguard now with Dark Eldar on the way. Secondly, the changes to 9th have clearly been kind to other factions boosting them by proxy. In this case, the rising tide has risen some boats far higher than others, this doesn't hurt marines but it does mean that they aren't these massive outliers like they used to be.
Just look at the tournament scene in 9th and you'll see just how many different armies can easily take top places.
So Necrons and Death Guard are (assumed to be) on par with Marines.
What if you play GSC?
Or Daemons? (Especially, say, Khorne.)
Or ordinary CSM?
Or Dark Eldar?
Or regular Eldar?
I'm not saying they cannot compete-but I will damn well say that their competitive builds are much, MUCH narrower in scope than Loyalist Marines' builds are.
If you take two players who are more interested in the fluff than the rules (not that they ignore rules, mind you-they're just more focused on bringing what's thematic than what's good), one playing Loyalists and the other CSM, the CSM player is going to get wrecked.
Hell, just look at the basic troop. For 4 points, Tactical Marines get +1 wound, better chapter tactics, Doctrines, Super Doctrines, and better buff access. For 6 points you get an Intercessor, who's rocking all that, plus an additional attack, +6" range, and -1 AP on their basic gun.
You can say "Tournaments are varied!" all you want, and I'll tell you that that doesn't matter for casual games. I'd also hazard a guess that Marine lists are far more varied in top tables than lists from other factions.
Canadian 5th wrote: In casual games, you're always free to do whatever you like to make a good game between unbalanced armies or unbalanced player skill levels. If you claim that some unit makes the game 'too easy' and it isn't crushing the tournament scene it just means you aren't finding appropriate levels of challenge for yourself.
Yeah, I can follow the conversation. My point still stands.
JNAProductions wrote: So Necrons and Death Guard are (assumed to be) on par with Marines.
Necron results in competitive events suggest that they are.
Death Guard were solid before their update so I doubt they're worse now.
What if you play GSC?
GSC are one of the worst armies at the moment. My suggestion is to look at how winning tournament lists operate and try running them that way. If you lack the models see if people will agree to let you proxy stuff as required.
Or Daemons? (Especially, say, Khorne.)
You mean one of the best armies in the game... As for pure mono-faction lists, I've always said the book isn't designed for it and that you should either mix gods or mix Daemons with Chaos Marines.
Or ordinary CSM?
Are doing rather well if they take some in faction support.
Or Dark Eldar?
Spam the new 10 point hotness until your new codex drops. Proxy the models if required.
Or regular Eldar?
Hmm. Soup with Harlies?
I'm not saying they cannot compete-but I will damn well say that their competitive builds are much, MUCH narrower in scope than Loyalist Marines' builds are.
If you take two players who are more interested in the fluff than the rules (not that they ignore rules, mind you-they're just more focused on bringing what's thematic than what's good), one playing Loyalists and the other CSM, the CSM player is going to get wrecked.
Hell, just look at the basic troop. For 4 points, Tactical Marines get +1 wound, better chapter tactics, Doctrines, Super Doctrines, and better buff access. For 6 points you get an Intercessor, who's rocking all that, plus an additional attack, +6" range, and -1 AP on their basic gun.
This is always the case when some armies have new rules and others are still waiting. Aside from the start of 3rd and 8th when have we ever had a time in 40k where every army is at the same point in the codex cycle at once?
You can say "Tournaments are varied!" all you want, and I'll tell you that that doesn't matter for casual games. I'd also hazard a guess that Marine lists are far more varied in top tables than lists from other factions.
You don't need to guess. The data is out there so please look at it before making these terrible arguments.
fraser1191 wrote: Thematically with Necrons I think their warriors should be glorified tripods for a gun. They can take on a human, but any aspect warrior, tyranid warrior, marine should suplex them into the ground(I'm also talking about melee, not shooting). But anything higher on the food chain like an immortal should be on par with a marine. They don't deploy those in droves like warriors.
See I disagree, because when Necrons were first presented at the end of 2e they had the edge on the marine in terms of durability - and that was on a basic Necron warrior. Since then Necron durability has decreased while Marines have increased.
Necrons had crazy tech which made the Imperium's look like crap, basically; their basic soldiers were a match for an Astartes, maybe a bit better until close combat came into play.
fraser1191 wrote: As for demons I think they should stress that they don't die traditionally. Other than that I have no idea how demons function in the lore beyond them choosing to bring knives to a gun fight.
Historically? By being a foe that even Astartes were unprepared for and who were spooky enough to make Astartes freak out. Also proto-invulnerable saves and a lot of immunities. In 3e Bloodletters shredded GK Termies, even.
The thing is, just because a Codex is new, does NOT mean it should be more powerful. If models get buffed when they're already good, they should increases in points.
The GSC Codex is perfectly usable in 9th edition-there's no reason it should be significantly worse than the Marine Dex.
You really seem to be making excuses for GW to be crap at game design, because the players can "Git gud".
Karol wrote: Yes. Demons melt from even looking or being around my dudes. They should die in droves again a Grey Knight army.
Again, I disagree - they should be "worthy foes" in that context, not chaff.
Also, bonuses against one specific faction are, in general, bad game design. If GK are a 10/10 army, with a 20% bonus against Daemons, then if every Codex is a perfect 10/10, GK are 12/10 versus Daemons.
Ideally, GK would be good against Daemons because they're good against the typical Daemon playstyle, and less because they just have "Suck it, Daemons!" rules.
Karol wrote: Yes. Demons melt from even looking or being around my dudes. They should die in droves again a Grey Knight army.
Again, I disagree - they should be "worthy foes" in that context, not chaff.
Also, bonuses against one specific faction are, in general, bad game design. If GK are a 10/10 army, with a 20% bonus against Daemons, then if every Codex is a perfect 10/10, GK are 12/10 versus Daemons.
Ideally, GK would be good against Daemons because they're good against the typical Daemon playstyle, and less because they just have "Suck it, Daemons!" rules.
Exactly. In fluff we can present them as having a hate boner for Daemons, but we shouldn't let that cripple the gameplay of either army, whether it be against each other or not.
Karol wrote: Yes. Demons melt from even looking or being around my dudes. They should die in droves again a Grey Knight army.
Again, I disagree - they should be "worthy foes" in that context, not chaff.
In the GK codex, demons litteraly start to melt when GK are around, because where ever they are they cut off the supply of warp engergy that makes demons work in the real world. That is before any special anti demon weapons, ammo, grenades that make anything non GK and linked to the warp in anyway mind melt, the use of demons real names, or wargear that can actualy kill the essence of demons, so they don't get to go back after 999 years.
Also, bonuses against one specific faction are, in general, bad game design. If GK are a 10/10 army, with a 20% bonus against Daemons, then if every Codex is a perfect 10/10, GK are 12/10 versus Daemons.
Ideally, GK would be good against Daemons because they're good against the typical Daemon playstyle, and less because they just have "Suck it, Daemons!" rules.
But GW does not know how to do it, or they do it in a way where it makes GK bad vs every army which is not demons. So I am more willing to settle to be 10/10 vs other armies and 12/10 vs demons. They had their fun with free units in 8th when playing GK, maybe it is time for the other side to have fun now.
Karol wrote: They had their fun with free units in 8th when playing GK, maybe it is time for the other side to have fun now.
and now summoning/splitting is basically unuseable because it got nerfed. the demons vs gk special rules are atrocious game design and have no place in the game. Doesnt matter if either side is OP/sucks , its bad rule writing.
And whats written in the fluff blurb of the codex dont need to be added in the game.
Karol wrote: In the GK codex, demons litteraly start to melt when GK are around
Almost certainly an exaggeration.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just give GK's things like bonuses vs. Invulnerable saves, that are nice because they work against other things like Harlequins too.
Karol wrote: They had their fun with free units in 8th when playing GK, maybe it is time for the other side to have fun now.
and now summoning/splitting is basically unuseable because it got nerfed. the demons vs gk special rules are atrocious game design and have no place in the game. Doesnt matter if either side is OP/sucks , its bad rule writing.
And whats written in the fluff blurb of the codex dont need to be added in the game.
IMO it's actually best to keep faction vs faction rules contained, rather than be part of the core mechanics.
It's impossible to balance, or they become so generic that there's no point.
But if in the Daemon codex it has 'special rules you get against grey knights' and in the grey knight codex it has 'special rules you get against daemons' then the mechanics are completely self contained and don't influence the rest of the game at all.
This is true for any faction vs faction special mechanics, eldar vs slannesh, squats vs orks ( >_> ), space wolves vs Thousand Sons. If you create a unique mechanic for a specialised scenario then the easiest way to balance it is to have a counter rule for the other side and package it up so they are both boosted for those encounters, but it does nothing to any other games.
fraser1191 wrote: Thematically with Necrons I think their warriors should be glorified tripods for a gun. They can take on a human, but any aspect warrior, tyranid warrior, marine should suplex them into the ground(I'm also talking about melee, not shooting). But anything higher on the food chain like an immortal should be on par with a marine. They don't deploy those in droves like warriors.
See I disagree, because when Necrons were first presented at the end of 2e they had the edge on the marine in terms of durability - and that was on a basic Necron warrior. Since then Necron durability has decreased while Marines have increased.
Necrons had crazy tech which made the Imperium's look like crap, basically; their basic soldiers were a match for an Astartes, maybe a bit better until close combat came into play.
fraser1191 wrote: As for demons I think they should stress that they don't die traditionally. Other than that I have no idea how demons function in the lore beyond them choosing to bring knives to a gun fight.
Historically? By being a foe that even Astartes were unprepared for and who were spooky enough to make Astartes freak out. Also proto-invulnerable saves and a lot of immunities. In 3e Bloodletters shredded GK Termies, even.
For reference I started in 7th and Necrons (warriors) seemed like expensive chaff. See I'm fine with things being on par with a marine, but I'm not fine with marine lvl infantry being deployed in innumerable amounts. On the tabletop if a warrior is going to be on par with a marine I'm okay with that, but the predictable response will be "they better be comparable in points".
As for demons yeah how do you prepare for something you can't even fathom? Demons break all our known rules of the universe it should terrify every mortal.
One of the things that attracted me to 40k was the notion that the universe was so inimicable to human life that they had to build monsters of their own to fight monsters.
The point being - marines were created to MATCH the universe's horrors because humanity was so out of its depth.
Ergo, every non human faction in 40k should be at marine level in some form (not literally stats necessarily) to show the reason marines were created.
Instead we get such a ridiculous fap-sesh over marines that they are now a parody of a parody, taking power fantasy to absurd levels.
Your heroes heroics are only as impressive as the enemy they face.
I said the same thing when GW started Worfing the Avatar, because it seems less impressive when everyone is doing it.
Insectum7 wrote: Irrelevant, Marine armies were taking trophies left and right post 8.5. Playing my firstborn after 8.5 felt like cheating against any non-marine army. It was gross.
How about now? Have you played in 9th or are the hurt feelings chasing you from an edition that has been dead for close to a year now?
You've said that playing your marines after 8.5 felt like cheating. So does it still feel like cheating? Have you actually played to know if they're still too good or are you just guessing based on past experience?
Yep, they should be more impressive than the basic units of any other faction barring Custodes and knights who should be superior, and csm who should be about equal.
There are more Necron warriors on one tomb world than there are marines in the entire Imperium. It's incredibly stupid to expect them to be comparable.
Some factions getting tougher units as troops that could compare like nobz or immortals is fine, but their basic troop? No.
And daemons are literally a fething horde army at the troop level. Hordes of chaff led by big dudes.
Daemons used to be scary. Bloodletters in 5th ed were S4 T4 or 3 with 2 attacks with power weapons I believe. That let them pretty much kill power armoured marines or terminators with ease. They were never too tough but they hit hard. They were daemons.
Since maybe 7th or 8th daemons have become extremely bare bones and underwhelming. Marines have a stat line that finally does them justice (it matches with their fluff) but everything else got thrown out of balance. This would never have been a problem with GW used guardsmen as the basic statline. Not Space Marines.
Hell, even the scale of marines is so weird now. On one hand they are how they always should have been, but now they simply tower over things like ork nobs which should not be the case
You've said that playing your marines after 8.5 felt like cheating. So does it still feel like cheating? Have you actually played to know if they're still too good or are you just guessing based on past experience?
That's kinda also irrelevant, because army power/success in-game isn't the same thing as the unit-to-unit comparability. But I haven't played 9th due to covid. But I don't have to have done so to dislike the current disparity between the base marine and common troops of other factions.
There are more Necron warriors on one tomb world than there are marines in the entire Imperium. It's incredibly stupid to expect them to be comparable.
That really doesn't matter. Armies dont line up abreast and just pummel each other man-by-man. To reduce enemy numbers you just use bigger weapons.
Insectum7 wrote: That's kinda also irrelevant, because army power/success in-game isn't the same thing as the unit-to-unit comparability. But I haven't played 9th due to covid. But I don't have to have done so to dislike the current disparity between the base marine and common troops of other factions.
So you don't have experience at the table, don't play competitive style games so can't use the data from tournaments, and only wish to compare basic troops to basic troops because of reasons...
That really doesn't matter. Armies dont line up abreast and just pummel each other man-by-man. To reduce enemy numbers you just use bigger weapons.
I'd love to see that in 40k. You show up with a 500 point patrol of SM and I get to bring out 8k of Necrons because that's how it should be. Real fun game there.
Insectum7 wrote: That's kinda also irrelevant, because army power/success in-game isn't the same thing as the unit-to-unit comparability. But I haven't played 9th due to covid. But I don't have to have done so to dislike the current disparity between the base marine and common troops of other factions.
So you don't have experience at the table, don't play competitive style games so can't use the data from tournaments, and only wish to compare basic troops to basic troops because of reasons...
That really doesn't matter. Armies dont line up abreast and just pummel each other man-by-man. To reduce enemy numbers you just use bigger weapons.
I'd love to see that in 40k. You show up with a 500 point patrol of SM and I get to bring out 8k of Necrons because that's how it should be. Real fun game there.
It's fluffy, so therefore your opponent's fun doesn't matter, right? After all...
Insectum7 wrote: That's kinda also irrelevant, because army power/success in-game isn't the same thing as the unit-to-unit comparability. But I haven't played 9th due to covid. But I don't have to have done so to dislike the current disparity between the base marine and common troops of other factions.
So you don't have experience at the table, don't play competitive style games so can't use the data from tournaments, and only wish to compare basic troops to basic troops because of reasons...
That really doesn't matter. Armies dont line up abreast and just pummel each other man-by-man. To reduce enemy numbers you just use bigger weapons.
I'd love to see that in 40k. You show up with a 500 point patrol of SM and I get to bring out 8k of Necrons because that's how it should be. Real fun game there.
The movie marine stats upgraded to primaris it would be a "fairer" fight. And interesting as hell
I'd love to see that in 40k. You show up with a 500 point patrol of SM and I get to bring out 8k of Necrons because that's how it should be. Real fun game there.
If your Mission design and victory conditions are built well, you can run a game like this in a very fun and thematic way. Virtually no one fights a symmetrical war and there are few instances in 40k stories where these happen either, especially when the marines are the protagonists and they perform surgical strikes which are asymmetrical in nature.
There are innumerable ways to build VP conditions around vastly different army sizes that makes an enjoyable game for both players.
Hellebore wrote: If your Mission design and victory conditions are built well, you can run a game like this in a very fun and thematic way. Virtually no one fights a symmetrical war and there are few instances in 40k stories where these happen either, especially when the marines are the protagonists and they perform surgical strikes which are asymmetrical in nature.
There are innumerable ways to build VP conditions around vastly different army sizes that makes an enjoyable game for both players.
Indeed, but unless such a scenario is well crafted and the system it uses fits tactical asymmetrical gameplay it'll tend towards a hot mess. See the narrative missions of 40k editions past for proof of that.
Void__Dragon wrote: Yep, they should be less impressive than the basic units of any other faction barring Custodes and knights who should be superior, and csm who should be about equal.
There are more Necron warriors on one tomb world than there are marines in the entire Imperium. It's incredibly stupid to expect them to be comparable.
Some factions getting tougher units as troops that could compare like nobz or immortals is fine, but their basic troop? No.
And daemons are literally a fething horde army at the troop level. Hordes of chaff led by big dudes.
Why shouldn't the basic troop of an empire that spanned the galaxy and had much higher technology level than the Imperium be stronger and present in larger numbers?
Da Boss wrote: The argument in general in this thread seems to be that every army but marines should be a horde army, is that right?
So Marine players can feel like badasses mowing down their enemies?
Well we are at the stage were tournament top lists are lists designed to feast upon marines. whilest we have an extremely high marine attendance that works as agatekeeping force torwards those factions that don't have the tools to feast upon marines.
And going after the newer BL fluff, ... well you now have csm marines running arround for 10'000 + years doing what they do best beeing outperformed and outsmarted by a bunch of "teens" comparatively...
So yea in essence to facilitate the BL fluff power trip, all othere enemies that once were known to be SUPERIOR to astartes are now relegated to horde type chaff or don't work at all,...
Yeah, but it is basically impossible to argue with, because if you do, someone will quote you chapter and verse from some official novel that a space marine can catch shuriken in their teeth and spit them back with fifteen times the velocity and an extra coating of acid.
And in the argument about an imaginary world controlled by a company, your only response can really be "Yeah well I don't like that!", because all of that stuff is apparently true now. Not really any point in discussion on those points any more, from what I have experienced.
Da Boss wrote: The argument in general in this thread seems to be that every army but marines should be a horde army, is that right?
Not really. I think most of us are saying some variation on, "Marine statlines feel appropriate to their fluff, but their recent buffs mean that some non-marine units that previously felt about right now seem too weak in comparison."
As some of us have mentioned, eldar "specialists" feel kind of wimpy next to marines. Tyranid warriors feel a lot less beefy than they used to now that they have the same wounds as a marine troop choice (heavy intercessors) while also having a worse save. Chaos marines (other than DG) straight up don't have the second wound that was given to loyalist firstborn. That sort of thing.
It's okay for marines to feel more powerful than a lot of units in the game (so long as they're pointed appropriately). The rules should just give as much credit/acknowledgement to the fluff of other armies as they do marines. I'm glad that marines finally feel appropriately durable. Now I Just wish my aspect warriors felt appropriately fast and killy.
It's okay for marines to feel more powerful than a lot of units in the game (so long as they're pointed appropriately). The rules should just give as much credit/acknowledgement to the fluff of other armies as they do marines. I'm glad that marines finally feel appropriately durable. Now I Just wish my aspect warriors felt appropriately fast and killy.
Yeah, that. The Marines I used to play and fondly remember had no major weaknesses, sure, but weren't the best at everything. They couldn't outfight Orks, outshoot the Guard, outmanuever the Eldar or outlast the Necrons, but they could easily outmaneuver the Necrons, outshoot the Orks, outfight the Guard or outlast the Eldar.
Now, it seems there's very little in the game that can't be done best by some flavor of Marine.
To me, the move to 2W for basic infantry is really silly and a ridiculous amount of book keeping for an army level game. If 40K was a skirmish game with like 10-20 models a side, it would be appropriate, but in the large game sizes upping more units to have 2W and an increased damage output to chew through the 2W just seems like power creep for the sake of it. Scale back both killing power and durability and simplify the game would be my preference, but I suspect I am in the minority.
Not really. I think most of us are saying some variation on, "Marine statlines feel appropriate to their fluff, but their recent buffs mean that some non-marine units that previously felt about right now seem too weak in comparison."
As some of us have mentioned, eldar "specialists" feel kind of wimpy next to marines. Tyranid warriors feel a lot less beefy than they used to now that they have the same wounds as a marine troop choice (heavy intercessors) while also having a worse save. Chaos marines (other than DG) straight up don't have the second wound that was given to loyalist firstborn. That sort of thing.
This sounds reasonable . . . right up until you realise that 40k can't just expand upwards indefinitely.
e.g. How much toucher can Tyranid Warriors get before they become indistinguishable from Monstrous Creatures? And then what happens to the Monstros Creatures after that?
What's more, as soon as you start making Eldar specialists and such stronger, you'll immediately get Marine players saying that Marines aren't touch enough anymore and so the cycle will continue.
Wyldhunt wrote: It's okay for marines to feel more powerful than a lot of units in the game (so long as they're pointed appropriately). The rules should just give as much credit/acknowledgement to the fluff of other armies as they do marines. I'm glad that marines finally feel appropriately durable. Now I Just wish my aspect warriors felt appropriately fast and killy.
Because what you want can't exist.
The game cannot possibly show equal respect/acknowledgement to all factions whilst also existing as a power-fantasy for Marine players. These are mutually exclusive.
Insectum7 wrote: That's kinda also irrelevant, because army power/success in-game isn't the same thing as the unit-to-unit comparability. But I haven't played 9th due to covid. But I don't have to have done so to dislike the current disparity between the base marine and common troops of other factions.
So you don't have experience at the table, don't play competitive style games so can't use the data from tournaments, and only wish to compare basic troops to basic troops because of reasons...
Basically completely wrong, but you continue to do you, dude.
Da Boss wrote: To me, the move to 2W for basic infantry is really silly and a ridiculous amount of book keeping for an army level game. If 40K was a skirmish game with like 10-20 models a side, it would be appropriate, but in the large game sizes upping more units to have 2W and an increased damage output to chew through the 2W just seems like power creep for the sake of it. Scale back both killing power and durability and simplify the game would be my preference, but I suspect I am in the minority.
I'm curious - how is it adding "ridiculous" book-keeping? At worst, you need something to indicate if a unit has one wounded model in it.
Yeah, I think that is ridiculous book keeping for a game with the model count of 40K. You can disagree of course, and I am sure you do by your use of quotation marks for what I said.
That's why I said "to me" and have acknowledged that others like 9e 40K and all it entails by acknowledging I am in the minority.
Rather than adding an additional wound, just reduce the lethality. Everyone is using weapons that do D3 or D6 wounds anyway, so it is just extra steps and extra book keeping for a minor difference in durability. You might like the "feel" it gives, in the narrative of the game, but I feel it is excessive for this game scale and more suited to a much smaller game size. I felt the same when they upped the game size in Warmachine and Hordes, that game also has multi-damage infantry and it only worked well up to about 20-25 models a side max, and it was clunky even then.
So, if you were curious you answered your own question straight away. Having to use extra markers is ridiculous for this scale of game when it is only to compensate for increasing the damage the weapons are going to do anyway.
You've said that playing your marines after 8.5 felt like cheating. So does it still feel like cheating? Have you actually played to know if they're still too good or are you just guessing based on past experience?
I mean literally the only 'dexes that have significantly changed since then are other marine subfactions, Harlequins, DG, and Necrons. Daemons and Orks got some buffs but only on a couple of units if they spend CP on them.
GW just hasn't really done fething anything but marines for the past year in 40k. We've seen like five different new armies premiere in age of sigmar in the time it's taken them to get...what, 3/4 through the marine update? We're still waiting on CSM, Tsons, and GK.
Like yeah things have really become different in the time since 2.5. Used to be, my marines against my buddy's chaos marines got free -1AP on a bunch of gak, free superdoctrines, tons more relics, strats, powers, traits, I could powergame my chapter tactics and he didn't even have custom tactics.....oh but in the time since then the situation has gotten way better, now my loyalists get +1W on everything in the fething army and all his gak doesn't.
Guess I can't really judge since it's covid and I haven't played many games. Heck, maybe his whole army being W1 vs mine being W2 makes up for all the advantages I had before! And maybe in the time since covid pigs have sprouted wings and fly out my donkey-cave!
I don't know whether it's a huge amount of extra bookkeeping, but it will make a difference.
As an example, every weapon that deals 1d3 or 1d6 wounds now has to be rolled against even basic Marines, in case they roll a 1 (whereas before, you could skip the damage step because even minimum damage was enough).
Hellebore wrote: One of the things that attracted me to 40k was the notion that the universe was so inimicable to human life that they had to build monsters of their own to fight monsters.
The point being - marines were created to MATCH the universe's horrors because humanity was so out of its depth.
Ergo, every non human faction in 40k should be at marine level in some form (not literally stats necessarily) to show the reason marines were created.
Instead we get such a ridiculous fap-sesh over marines that they are now a parody of a parody, taking power fantasy to absurd levels.
Your heroes heroics are only as impressive as the enemy they face.
I said the same thing when GW started Worfing the Avatar, because it seems less impressive when everyone is doing it.
This, 100%. Marines being the genetically-enhanced power-armored superhumans but only on par with the nasty horrors of the universe was central to the grimdark. From a lore perspective, Space Hulk would not be a better game if it were made '''lore-accurate''' with one Terminator able to take on a dozen Genestealers in hand-to-hand and win.
From a gameplay perspective, they should be individually superior to Gaunts, Guardsmen, Boyz, Fire Warriors, Guardians, Kabalites, and other basic troops. It's when their troops are individually superior to Genestealers, Nobz, Aspect Warriors, and Incubi- the ostensible elites of other factions- that the game's power scale starts to break down and become too asymmetric.
Everyone's a horde except Marines, everyone loads up on D2 weapons because they kill Marines real well. Taking as many bodies as possible is a viable archetype because everyone is geared up to kill high-armor, multi-wound infantry; and Marines perpetually feel weak no matter how wanked-up their stats are because everyone list-tailors to counter the most-played faction. The more 'unique' Marines are stat-wise, the worse it gets.
Based on what we've seen of Necrons and Incubi so far I have a feeling that we're not going to see W2 infantry on xenos factions so much as an increase in multi-damage weapons, making the Marine-killing even more efficient. Guess we'll find out.
Quasistellar wrote: The weekly marine hate threads are entertaining reading, for sure.
Maybe someday we'll get a month or two off from the endless stream of space marines, and people will stop hating on them.
Nothing fuels hate like someone never, ever, ever shutting up and letting you forget about their existence. ...the best real world example I can think of without violating the no politics rule would be Mr. Kanye and Kim, who I hate far more actively than...whatever obnoxious celebrity person doesn't turn up so commonly in the current news, a Paris Hilton or whoever.
I don't know whether it's a huge amount of extra bookkeeping, but it will make a difference.
As an example, every weapon that deals 1d3 or 1d6 wounds now has to be rolled against even basic Marines, in case they roll a 1 (whereas before, you could skip the damage step because even minimum damage was enough).
They really need to make more damage fixed values - like d3 weapons should just be Damage 2, D6 should maybe be Damage 3 (with something like a lascannon getting +1 Damage vs. vehicles to cement its anti-materiel role).
I don't know whether it's a huge amount of extra bookkeeping, but it will make a difference.
As an example, every weapon that deals 1d3 or 1d6 wounds now has to be rolled against even basic Marines, in case they roll a 1 (whereas before, you could skip the damage step because even minimum damage was enough).
They really need to make more damage fixed values - like d3 weapons should just be Damage 2, D6 should maybe be Damage 3 (with something like a lascannon getting +1 Damage vs. vehicles to cement its anti-materiel role).
the_scotsman wrote: Maybe someday we'll get a month or two off from the endless stream of space marines, and people will stop hating on them.
This with the fury of a thousand suns. It was in part the constant release stream leading up to and since 9th that finally turned me hard off on Marines, if not 9th edition altogether. Not only the codexes and the actual model releases, which are infuriating in their own right, but the gradual leak of statlines and details that made sure the attention never let up. Every time I managed to talk myself back into positivity and think things were gonna get better and that this Marine crap would finally die down even a little, they'd release the Exfoliator statline or unveil a new variant of the Regurgitator tank or describe the I Boinked Your Mom rule for the upcoming Primaris Inseminators.
Oh, that and the Indexes they did for 9th edition non-Codex chapters that they ostensibly put some work and playtesting into to make sure the precious Marines were all still up to date and had all-new shiny rules for the between one and four months that those indexes even needed to exist, while Chaos and Xenos couldn't get their one wound update or their weapons fixed, respectively, or any of their structural problems for 9th, and won't for anywhere between 6 months and 2 years. That more than anything what made it clear to me what they care about. All effort is simply sacrificed on the altar of their darling Marines.
I could go on, and have, and very likely will again, but if the symptoms keep showing, then I don't see a reason to stop applying the treatment.
Speaking from a lore perspective, I don't like that Marines have 2 wounds. Their armour and their intrinsic toughness is what makes them durable but they still crumple like wet paper bags and don't get back up when hit by strong enemies, such as eachother. A naked Marine isn't harder to put down than a naked Ork is really - special character super plot armour aside
I do like the suggestion that baseline humans should be S2 T2. It validates the large difference between them and a Marine, as well as giving S3 T3 wiggle room for things like Orks and Eldar
Not really. I think most of us are saying some variation on, "Marine statlines feel appropriate to their fluff, but their recent buffs mean that some non-marine units that previously felt about right now seem too weak in comparison."
As some of us have mentioned, eldar "specialists" feel kind of wimpy next to marines. Tyranid warriors feel a lot less beefy than they used to now that they have the same wounds as a marine troop choice (heavy intercessors) while also having a worse save. Chaos marines (other than DG) straight up don't have the second wound that was given to loyalist firstborn. That sort of thing.
This sounds reasonable . . . right up until you realise that 40k can't just expand upwards indefinitely.
e.g. How much toucher can Tyranid Warriors get before they become indistinguishable from Monstrous Creatures?
I think the answer to that question is, "A bit tougher." We already have things like grotesques that have 4 wounds to the warrior's 3 plus a 4+ invul (Prophets of Flesh) and a 6+ Fell No Pain. Making tyranid warriors similarly durable feels about right. You could give them a couple extra wounds, a rule to reduce damage by 1, an extra point of toughness, or any number of other buffs that would make them feel more durable without giving them the statline of a carnifex.
And then what happens to the Monstros Creatures after that?
There's a pretty big gap between the statline of a tyranid warrior and a carnifex, a necron immortal and a tomb spider, a chaos marine and a daemon prince, etc. I believe we can generally find room to buff those units that look anemic next to modern marines without stepping on those toes of that armys MC and walker units.
What's more, as soon as you start making Eldar specialists and such stronger, you'll immediately get Marine players saying that Marines aren't touch enough anymore and so the cycle will continue.
Regarding eldar specifically, I think there are a lot of ways to improve some of their less impressive units (I'm thinking aspect warriors) without necessarily giving them a big boost to their offense. You could give swooping hawks and spiders some of the mobility that they've lost over time. You could give banshees and dragons rules that make them good at temporarily locking down or debuffing enemy units so that they can win fights without being pure damage machines. I'd love to see avengers gain options for counter-charging enemy units before they can charge your more expensive units. Autarchs could be given support abilities that emphasize mobility rather than just letting you reroll to-hit rolls. "Stronger" doesn't necessarily have to mean, "give them all 2 damage weapons to counter marines." The incubi spoilers are a bit worrying because they seem to be taking the raw damage boost approach.
Making it so that a single laspistol shot can't kill a marine on its own is a good, fluffy change. Other things just need to change to still feel appropriate.
Wyldhunt wrote: It's okay for marines to feel more powerful than a lot of units in the game (so long as they're pointed appropriately). The rules should just give as much credit/acknowledgement to the fluff of other armies as they do marines. I'm glad that marines finally feel appropriately durable. Now I Just wish my aspect warriors felt appropriately fast and killy.
Because what you want can't exist.
The game cannot possibly show equal respect/acknowledgement to all factions whilst also existing as a power-fantasy for Marine players. These are mutually exclusive.
Well, that rather depends on what you mean by, "power-fantasy for Marine players." If you mean that marines should be easily pasting every foe they come across, sure. That's not really doable while respecting other factions. But I don't think most marine players actually want that anyway. I think the vast majority of marine players can go, "Oh man! My opponent's unit is badass enough to kill my marines!" rather than, "Pfft! No way my opponent's elites should be cool enough to kill my marines."
Having a close fight against a dangerous opponent doesn't have to ruin a power fantasy. That's why most of us don't stop playing a video game the first time our character dies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote: Speaking from a lore perspective, I don't like that Marines have 2 wounds. Their armour and their intrinsic toughness is what makes them durable but they still crumple like wet paper bags and don't get back up when hit by strong enemies, such as eachother. A naked Marine isn't harder to put down than a naked Ork is really - special character super plot armour aside
I've seen people make cases for giving ork boyz 2 wounds (and upping the wounds on other orks as appropriate). In the same way that it's weird for a single lastpistol to kill a marine, it's a bit weird for that laspistol to kill an ork. Giving boyz 2 wounds is just a bit tricky to balance because thematically boyz generally show up in large numbers. So if it takes twice as much gun to take down an ork boy as before, you have to imagine that's going to result in a noticeable points increase for boyz. But if you raise the points high enough, suddenly a squad of boyz is eating a up a much larger percentage of your available points.
Basically, 2 wound orks aren't out of the question. It's just a matter of not turning a horde unit into an elite unit in the process.
I do like the suggestion that baseline humans should be S2 T2. It validates the large difference between them and a Marine, as well as giving S3 T3 wiggle room for things like Orks and Eldar
I'd be open to something like that. However, an eldar probably isn't really any more beefy than a human soldier. Lowering the durability of units that are already fragile for their cost would risk exhasperating an existing problem. As would making it even harder for our lacklustre melee units to wound things. S2/T2 could work pretty well on a horde unit like guardsmen or even a shooting unit like scions, but it gets a bit weird for units that aren't meant to die in droves and are meant to actually kill things in melee.
Well, that rather depends on what you mean by, "power-fantasy for Marine players." If you mean that marines should be easily pasting every foe they come across, sure. That's not really doable while respecting other factions. But I don't think most marine players actually want that anyway. I think the vast majority of marine players can go, "Oh man! My opponent's unit is badass enough to kill my marines!" rather than, "Pfft! No way my opponent's elites should be cool enough to kill my marines."
Having a close fight against a dangerous opponent doesn't have to ruin a power fantasy. That's why most of us don't stop playing a video game the first time our character dies.
I think the current market for Astartes players is exactly the people who stop playing a video game the first time their character dies.
Well, that rather depends on what you mean by, "power-fantasy for Marine players." If you mean that marines should be easily pasting every foe they come across, sure. That's not really doable while respecting other factions. But I don't think most marine players actually want that anyway. I think the vast majority of marine players can go, "Oh man! My opponent's unit is badass enough to kill my marines!" rather than, "Pfft! No way my opponent's elites should be cool enough to kill my marines."
Having a close fight against a dangerous opponent doesn't have to ruin a power fantasy. That's why most of us don't stop playing a video game the first time our character dies.
I think the current market for Astartes players is exactly the people who stop playing a video game the first time their character dies.
That doesn't seem a bit disingenuous to you? Feels like you might be projecting some of your frustrations onto your fellow gamers and villainizing them for liking a certain army.
Hecaton wrote: I think the current market for Astartes players is exactly the people who stop playing a video game the first time their character dies.
I own roughly 4k of models for both CSM and DA and have done so since 5th and 7th editions respectively. Primaris was aimed squarely at a player like myself so you can't just say that it's aimed at a certain demographic just because that's what you think you're seeing online.
I own roughly 4k of models for both CSM and DA and have done so since 5th and 7th editions respectively. Primaris was aimed squarely at a player like myself so you can't just say that it's aimed at a certain demographic just because that's what you think you're seeing online.
Out of curiosity, who are "Players like yourself" in this context? I figured the target audience was marine players who already owned marine armies who could possibly be convinced to buy entire additional armies to keep their same armies up to date.
I own roughly 4k of models for both CSM and DA and have done so since 5th and 7th editions respectively. Primaris was aimed squarely at a player like myself so you can't just say that it's aimed at a certain demographic just because that's what you think you're seeing online.
Out of curiosity, who are "Players like yourself" in this context? I figured the target audience was marine players who already owned marine armies who could possibly be convinced to buy entire additional armies to keep their same armies up to date.
I have large armies. I currently don't have Primaris units but when COVID ends I'll look to pick up some BGVs and an Invader ATV to bolster my DW and RW forces.
vipoid wrote: e.g. How much toucher can Tyranid Warriors get before they become indistinguishable from Monstrous Creatures?
I think the answer to that question is, "A bit tougher." We already have things like grotesques that have 4 wounds to the warrior's 3 plus a 4+ invul (Prophets of Flesh) and a 6+ Fell No Pain. Making tyranid warriors similarly durable feels about right. You could give them a couple extra wounds, a rule to reduce damage by 1, an extra point of toughness, or any number of other buffs that would make them feel more durable without giving them the statline of a carnifex.
Pretty much. Fantasy at least had a good template for Monstrous Infantry between Trolls, Minotaurs, etc, but 40K had the TWarriors, Ogryns, and Grotesques, with little outside of those armies to match them. Everything was either normal Infantry, Monsters, or Vehicles, and fit in those veins.
Marines are being made in to a mid-way point of that, and I can't really disagree with that direction, so long as they are pointed appropriately, but that largely means that even fielding a demi-company could be a challenge in traditional tournament point levels, depending on how heavily you equipped them and how much vehicular support one brought in.
On the other side, though, there should be ones that meet them on that same level. Ork Nobs, and Necron Elites could be good, but it would also be good to see Daemons involved in that and some Dark Eldar bestial slaves. Tau Crisis Suits are about as close as one could get, but I think they should be in that Monstrous Infantry category, though the 10 series could be somewhat workable there, but they would need to be expanded beyond just the Stealth Suit models to fit in.
Wyldhunt wrote: Regarding eldar specifically, I think there are a lot of ways to improve some of their less impressive units (I'm thinking aspect warriors) without necessarily giving them a big boost to their offense. You could give swooping hawks and spiders some of the mobility that they've lost over time. You could give banshees and dragons rules that make them good at temporarily locking down or debuffing enemy units so that they can win fights without being pure damage machines. I'd love to see avengers gain options for counter-charging enemy units before they can charge your more expensive units. Autarchs could be given support abilities that emphasize mobility rather than just letting you reroll to-hit rolls. "Stronger" doesn't necessarily have to mean, "give them all 2 damage weapons to counter marines." The incubi spoilers are a bit worrying because they seem to be taking the raw damage boost approach.
Honestly, I think this is one point were losing the Initiative value has really hurt the game. Now, it wouldn't necessarily have to transpose to who attacks first, but be used as a Defensive stat for Skills to be compared against, much like Str is compared against T to for the ability To Wound. With the ceiling actually removed and a simple comparative mechanic in place, it wouldn't be that hard to implement, actually. Further adjustments would have to be made with such a reintroduction, but there's already talk about doing that level of adjustment as is, so I have no qualms about bringing it up as a concept (though full implementation should obviously be put in the Proposed Rules section).
Wyldhunt wrote: Basically, 2 wound orks aren't out of the question. It's just a matter of not turning a horde unit into an elite unit in the process.
Maybe, but a lot depends on the Toughness of the models, too. Boyz being 2W, but as Tough as a Guardsman could work, but as you said, having that being able to horde at 30 models does seem a bit wrong.
vipoid wrote: ...e.g. How much toucher can Tyranid Warriors get before they become indistinguishable from Monstrous Creatures?...
There's a lot of space between T4/3W/4+ (Tyranid Warrior) and T7/8W/3+ (Carnifex), you just need to be able to fit Tyrant Guard (T5/3W/4+) in between. Bump Warriors to T5/3+ and Tyrant Guard to 4W/3+, the brackets are preserved, and I think T5/4W/3+ is plenty far away from a Monstrous Creature (nobody's demanding to know if Custodians, Ogryn, or Centurions are secretly Monstrous Creatures, after all).
If you scale up all those elites the Marine players will want to be scaled up further to compensate surely? I mean that is the point of them having 2W right now, isn't it? They're mini-ogryns nowadays.
Da Boss wrote: If you scale up all those elites the Marine players will want to be scaled up further to compensate surely? I mean that is the point of them having 2W right now, isn't it? They're mini-ogryns nowadays.
Well, when you think about it, aren't all humans technically mini-ogryns?
Da Boss wrote: If you scale up all those elites the Marine players will want to be scaled up further to compensate surely? I mean that is the point of them having 2W right now, isn't it? They're mini-ogryns nowadays.
That's not how I see it. To my mind, the extra wound lets marines hold up better against small arms fire and weight of attacks from randos. At one wound, you ran into those odd moments where a random cultist punch or laspistol shot managed to take out a marine in a single go. One lucky shot killing a marine felt like it went against the fluff. Two lucky shots feel like a decree from the dice gods.
I don't think most space marine players (occassionally including myself) want to tower above every other unit in the game; I think they just want to feel like there's a bit of space between their stats and those of a common guardsman. Getting killed by an immortal or a banshee should feel very different from getting killed by a rando with a lasgun.
Also, as previously mentioned making some units "better" doesn't necessarily mean making them "better at killing marines." I wouldn't be all that bothered if my striking scorpions remain bad at killing marines, but I'd very much like for them to get better at making charges from deepstrike and/or chopping up squishy hordes.
In the fluff, marines kill every other faction in droves without much effort. They slaughter Orks, Eldar, Nids, it doesn't matter. Normal humans may as well be a sort of organic mist for how easily they go through them.
So I dunno, I think maybe the problem is how the fluff is written.
Da Boss wrote: If you scale up all those elites the Marine players will want to be scaled up further to compensate surely? I mean that is the point of them having 2W right now, isn't it? They're mini-ogryns nowadays.
That's not how I see it. To my mind, the extra wound lets marines hold up better against small arms fire and weight of attacks from randos. At one wound, you ran into those odd moments where a random cultist punch or laspistol shot managed to take out a marine in a single go. One lucky shot killing a marine felt like it went against the fluff. Two lucky shots feel like a decree from the dice gods.
And yet there were tougher things in the background with FNP, that got felled by singular bolt shells, background argumentation is fine and dandy if it either applies to ALL COHERENTLY or NOT for balances sake. Atm we are at Background = rules for marines, and ONLY marines.
I don't think most space marine players (occassionally including myself) want to tower above every other unit in the game; I think they just want to feel like there's a bit of space between their stats and those of a common guardsman. Getting killed by an immortal or a banshee should feel very different from getting killed by a rando with a lasgun.
That is true, yet also not. See, mathematically the old armor system and wounding system conveyed well enough that marines are tough especially against lasguns... That we now however are also back at your armor doesn't count for the lasgun carrier in general like the old system BUT DOUBLE the durability against the lasgun carrier is also a fact.Never mind the fact that for some reasons No SM pays for ignoring RF stipulations AND get's bonus attacks for standing in the way.
And you know what, I am one of the wierdos with a CSM horde armies, and it felt ridicoulus during 8th allready playing it against any other infantry centric army beyond SM..
Also, as previously mentioned making some units "better" doesn't necessarily mean making them "better at killing marines."
and here have the other issue, there's so many marine players right now out here atleast, that their target is indeed actually more or less extinct.
I let you decide if that is a healthy casual scene.
Da Boss wrote: If you scale up all those elites the Marine players will want to be scaled up further to compensate surely? I mean that is the point of them having 2W right now, isn't it? They're mini-ogryns nowadays.
Wasn't the main reason for the marine stat line being buffed an increased stat separation from the GEQ profile? Marines were struggling to have a meaningful stat advantage over guardsmen for as long as I remember, the regular 1W MEQ profile simply didn't represent their lore.
This was largely solved over the last 3 years (by giving them more wounds, massively boosting their firepower with bolter drill, and then make them difficult to tarpit with shock assault) and the 9th edition changes finished the previously skipped marine units.
Xenos elites weren't responsible for marine issues. And now they are in the same position as the remaining 1W Firstborn factions, some upscale should be acceptable even by the SM players (...it's not like we need their permission to be playable, or are we at that point already? /s)
I am still bitter that the colossal Tyranid Warriors were left with their ancient 3Ws during the 8th edition wound rework. "You don't get any extra wounds but hey, at least you are no longer automatically dying to S8+ hits, you might survive some of them now..." was a rough idea given to us in the Tyranid preview back then...
The problem as I see it is how the novels have focused so heavily on Space Marines and particularly in providing an over the top space marine power fantasy that now this is the canon of the setting.
I don't think it is particularly compelling personally. It's just badly written fiction. There was a computer game where a single Fire Warrior killed loads of Imperial and Chaos troops including marines. Is it the "lore" for fire warriors that they should be more powerful than Marines now, or was that just a piece of power fantasy fiction for Tau players? Why is one hard canon lore and the other is just bad writing?
Da Boss wrote: If you scale up all those elites the Marine players will want to be scaled up further to compensate surely? I mean that is the point of them having 2W right now, isn't it? They're mini-ogryns nowadays.
That's not how I see it. To my mind, the extra wound lets marines hold up better against small arms fire and weight of attacks from randos. At one wound, you ran into those odd moments where a random cultist punch or laspistol shot managed to take out a marine in a single go. One lucky shot killing a marine felt like it went against the fluff. Two lucky shots feel like a decree from the dice gods.
And yet there were tougher things in the background with FNP, that got felled by singular bolt shells, background argumentation is fine and dandy if it either applies to ALL COHERENTLY or NOT for balances sake. Atm we are at Background = rules for marines, and ONLY marines.
Right. Which is why I'm in favor of also giving a few fluffy boosts to some of the non-marine units out there. Marines getting fluffy, balanceable (though not currently balanced) changes was a good thing. Now I'd like to see other factions get balanced and adjusted to match the marine changes.
That is true, yet also not. See, mathematically the old armor system and wounding system conveyed well enough that marines are tough especially against lasguns... That we now however are also back at your armor doesn't count for the lasgun carrier in general like the old system BUT DOUBLE the durability against the lasgun carrier is also a fact.Never mind the fact that for some reasons No SM pays for ignoring RF stipulations AND get's bonus attacks for standing in the way.
And you know what, I am one of the wierdos with a CSM horde armies, and it felt ridicoulus during 8th allready playing it against any other infantry centric army beyond SM..
Apologies. Maybe it's just because I'm tired, but I'm having trouble following what you're saying here. If you're saying that marines felt appropriately durable in the old AP system, I'll politely disagree with you. Marines didn't die to lasguns fast (without some unlucky rolling), but those crucial moments where one laspistol was enough to finish off your superhuman always felt really off. If you're complaining about the current pricetag for what marines can do or wishing that some of their buffs (like bolter discipline) would go away, I don't necessarily disagree. There's certainly still room for adjustments.
Also, as previously mentioned making some units "better" doesn't necessarily mean making them "better at killing marines."
and here have the other issue, there's so many marine players right now out here atleast, that their target is indeed actually more or less extinct.
I let you decide if that is a healthy casual scene.
Sorry. Still having trouble following what you're saying. I think you're commenting on the high number of marine players in your local meta? The point I was trying to convey was that you can make units more efficient and give them fluffy rules without necessarily boosting their offense or at least not their offense against marines. I'd love for my craftworlders' playstyle to match their fluff a bit more even if that doesn't translate to being better at killing heavily armored infantry (like marines). Being able to coordinate a serious of lockdowns and debuffs or defensive buffs could all be an interesting way to reflect my units' fluff without giving them all anti-marine weapons.
Kitane wrote:
Da Boss wrote: If you scale up all those elites the Marine players will want to be scaled up further to compensate surely? I mean that is the point of them having 2W right now, isn't it? They're mini-ogryns nowadays.
Wasn't the main reason for the marine stat line being buffed an increased stat separation from the GEQ profile? Marines were struggling to have a meaningful stat advantage over guardsmen for as long as I remember, the regular 1W MEQ profile simply didn't represent their lore.
This was largely solved over the last 3 years (by giving them more wounds, massively boosting their firepower with bolter drill, and then make them difficult to tarpit with shock assault) and the 9th edition changes finished the previously skipped marine units.
Pretty much this.
Xenos elites weren't responsible for marine issues. And now they are in the same position as the remaining 1W Firstborn factions, some upscale should be acceptable even by the SM players (...it's not like we need their permission to be playable, or are we at that point already? /s)
Very much this. Intercessors are basically what tacticals should have been for years. Making firstborn a bit more like primaris is a good move. Now the other armies need a similar review.
I am still bitter that the colossal Tyranid Warriors were left with their ancient 3Ws during the 8th edition wound rework. "You don't get any extra wounds but hey, at least you are no longer automatically dying to S8+ hits, you might survive some of them now..." was a rough idea given to us in the Tyranid preview back then...
Yey.
Yeah. But hey, maybe the hypothetical wave of adjustments in response to the marine changes will result in warriors finally getting the sort of tweak they probably should have gotten in 8th.
I own roughly 4k of models for both CSM and DA and have done so since 5th and 7th editions respectively. Primaris was aimed squarely at a player like myself so you can't just say that it's aimed at a certain demographic just because that's what you think you're seeing online.
Out of curiosity, who are "Players like yourself" in this context? I figured the target audience was marine players who already owned marine armies who could possibly be convinced to buy entire additional armies to keep their same armies up to date.
"People who haven't bought any Primaris" it would appear.
Overall, no, they should not be equal to, or on par with astartes, having certain stats better and/or equal to them though is fine and should be encouraged.
The really cheap ork boy having the same toughness without power armour, in past editions aspect warriors or daemonettes having better initiative, necron warriors being on par S, T, and weapon but being slow, both in movement and initiative (again). Khorne bloodletters being the same S, having more attacks and a better AP close combat weapon is all fine.
The game needs diversification, in stats, point costs etc etc, you may as well play chess if you want things to be as good as astartes.
And in the fluff, I think the fluff gets it right fairly often other than obscene bolter porn. Astartes are formidable, but if you can get up close and you are a combat monster they are in trouble, alternatively, they cannot hold ground for prolonged time against huge numbers, they start to fall.
What I personally think is a great representation of the positives and negatives of astartes in the fluff is the siege of vraks. Highs and lowest lows for astartes, including the heretic kind, showing their strengths and weaknesses in operations.
Lastly, and another justification for astartes being better than most of the suggestions is simple, they are made to be ultimate weapons of war, it's not just physical ability and skill, it is in combat tactics and strategy also. A necron warrior should not be as adaptable as an astartes in combat situations, an astarte should almost certainly always out-think an ork. In terms of strategy their peers should be the elite in most other armies, Aspect Warriors, Scions, Tyranid Warriors etc
warmaster21 wrote: Space marine novels are just imperial propaganda and should not be taken seriously
great, then WHERE is the lore we should be taking seriously? If imperial propaganda is the only thing we have (and we do, number of xeno pov novels is...probably like 10, maybe?) in this game.
Yup, I agree Cronch. It is no longer possible to argue against the perspective that marines should be incredibly powerful because of the volume of crap novels that portray them as such, as well as really over the top nonsense in army books.
It's a shame, it really devalues the entire setting for me. I was having some conversations on the background forum about this sort of stuff and realised there is kinda no point, because the marine fans will have so many pages of novels to back their stuff up, it is just the truth of the game now. Well, that's not really interesting to me I gotta say. Not the game I was interested in any more.
The issue really is whether the marines are the ultimate weapons of war as they like to believe, or merely the ultimate human weapons of war, as the other factions usually see them.
Orks are happy marines can give them a proper scrap, Eldar treat them as power-armored gorillas, Tyranids see them as a crude warrior caste bioform. Necrons don't care.
I believe the statline for new tacticals and intercessors is fine. They are just too cheap for what they do.
If you put an intercessor vs a Necron Inmortal I would arguee the Inmortal is superior by rules. The problem is that people would want for an inmortal to completely destroy an space marine, but when you have more inmortals on a tomb world than space (and chaos) space marines in the galaxy , that vision is unsustainable.
The days of necron warriors being mini-terminators were over 10 years ago, guys. Let it go.
In Fantasy statlines like the ones of chaos warriors worked because it was a game centered around meele and the lethality was much lower. In modern 40k (6th onward) the statline of space marines became obsolete to try to portray what GW wanted. And thats the thing.
People just don't want to accept that how marines are now is how GW WANTS marines to be. No marine player has gone to Warhammer HQ and wrote the new rules or the fluff of the past decade and a half. They are the ones that have been writting them forever, the ones that made the fething Horus Heresy setting and game centered around marines with primarchs powerlifting a warlord titan, etc, etc... theres a point in time were one has to accept that it is not that GW is on the wrong: You just want the setting to be something that it isn't.
Wyldhunt wrote: "Pfft! No way my opponent's elites should be cool enough to kill my marines."
Having a close fight against a dangerous opponent doesn't have to ruin a power fantasy. That's why most of us don't stop playing a video game the first time our character dies.
This is 100% the most common reaction you get when something you have kills a large number of space marines.
Wyldhunt wrote: "Pfft! No way my opponent's elites should be cool enough to kill my marines."
Having a close fight against a dangerous opponent doesn't have to ruin a power fantasy. That's why most of us don't stop playing a video game the first time our character dies.
This is 100% the most common reaction you get when something you have kills a large number of space marines.
"no way should that have happened, that's bs!"
I remember arguing with a friend 2 days ago. He said that Bullgryns should be worse and have no invul at all because it was not proper for imperial guard to have a durable/elite unit that could go toe to toe with bladeguard and marines after a couple of games with another friend were he used the 9-man bullgryn blob.
Wyldhunt wrote: "Pfft! No way my opponent's elites should be cool enough to kill my marines."
Having a close fight against a dangerous opponent doesn't have to ruin a power fantasy. That's why most of us don't stop playing a video game the first time our character dies.
This is 100% the most common reaction you get when something you have kills a large number of space marines.
"no way should that have happened, that's bs!"
I remember arguing with a friend 2 days ago. He said that Bullgryns should be worse and have no invul at all because it was not proper for imperial guard to have a durable/elite unit that could go toe to toe with bladeguard and marines after a couple of games with another friend were he used the 9-man bullgryn blob.
Thats why I made for him this low quality meme
Spoiler:
I have no issue with that as a marine player, it isn't point, click and delete, marines are great all rounders, but you still need to use tactics. If you are letting the bullgryn mob near you, or worse, going towards them expecting to take them out easily, then you are an idiot.
Da Boss wrote: The problem as I see it is how the novels have focused so heavily on Space Marines and particularly in providing an over the top space marine power fantasy that now this is the canon of the setting.
I don't think it is particularly compelling personally. It's just badly written fiction. There was a computer game where a single Fire Warrior killed loads of Imperial and Chaos troops including marines. Is it the "lore" for fire warriors that they should be more powerful than Marines now, or was that just a piece of power fantasy fiction for Tau players? Why is one hard canon lore and the other is just bad writing?
I think both are bad writing.
It's always been that way; the depiction of Marine protagonists as one-man armies is nothing new. And yes, in the Tau-focused novels it's the lone Fire Warrior who cleaves his way through armies of Imperials, up to and including killing Marines. In Gaunt's Ghosts, a unit of hardened Guard veterans can ambush and kill squads of overconfident CSM. In Ciaphas Cain, the titular hero goes toe-to-toe with a Berserker champion and holds him off long enough for a meltagun to one-shot him.
Plot armor and protagonist bias are part and parcel of over-the-top heroic fantasy, and there is no better label than 'over-the-top heroic fantasy' to describe 40K.
The only thing that's really substantially changed is the sheer avalanche of Marine-centric Marine-spank Marine novels, thanks to the Horus Heresy series, which spends a lot of time jerking itself off to how amazing Marines are before they fight one another. So you get a lot of people who have only read those novels and can't separate protagonist bias from ground truth to the setting, because they have no external reference.
Just look at how many people in any 'Inquisitor vs Marine?' thread knee-jerk straight to 'the Marine would win in 0.002 seconds no question it's not even a contest'. Anyone who's read the Eisenhorn trilogy knows at least one counter-example.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: .........marines are great all rounders, but you still need to use tactics.
If that is all they were, there would be plenty of design space for non-marines. The problem is that there are specialist marines too, with powerful rules to reflect how different the colour of their power armour makes them; the shootiest faction are not Tau, the fastest are not Drukhari, the sneakiest aren't GSC. The best at all of these things are some flavour of space marine.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: .........marines are great all rounders, but you still need to use tactics.
If that is all they were, there would be plenty of design space for non-marines. The problem is that there are specialist marines too, with powerful rules to reflect how different the colour of the power armour makes them; the shootiest faction are not Tau, the fastest are not Drukhari, the sneakiest aren't GSC. The best at all of these things are some flavour of space marine.
I think a big part of the problem is that even the generalist marines set a ridiculous benchmark.
It used to be that marines could outshoot Orks and outfight Tau, but struggled to beat either in their favoured role.
The only thing that's really substantially changed is the sheer avalanche of Marine-centric Marine-spank Marine novels, thanks to the Horus Heresy series, which spends a lot of time jerking itself off to how amazing Marines are before they fight one another. So you get a lot of people who have only read those novels and can't separate protagonist bias from ground truth to the setting, because they have no external reference.
Show us where the Horus Heresy novel touched you. It's okay, this is a safe space.
I think I should pop some popcorn before I read where this thread keeps going. Nothing more entertaining than nerd rage.
More seriously, I think you haven't actually read those novels.
I suspect we'll continue to see xenos being updated to better reflect their stats/fluff/gameplay feel relative to SM (See: Necrons). I think COVID has drawn out the SM stuff and delayed all the xenos (other than Necrons) so badly that it exacerbates the issue. I'm a marine (and necron, admech, DG) player and I'm really bored with the amount of releases myself--I'd love to see the other xenos get some love.
I personally feel Necron Warriors and Immortals are perfectly represented right now, and lesser daemons still need a little work. On the other hand maybe not? When compared to SM, sure, the LESSER daemons are chaff-ish, but compared to things like Firewarriors, Guard, and Guardians, they can really murder in CC. I think that's pretty appropriate. Could maybe tweak some things, but I don't play daemons, so I don't know how daemon PLAYERS would want them to feel.
I think a big part of the problem is that even the generalist marines set a ridiculous benchmark.
It used to be that marines could outshoot Orks and outfight Tau, but struggled to beat either in their favoured role.
Now they outfight Orks and outshoot Tau.
This. At some point, I blinked, and when I opened my eyes, every marine had become Leandros from the Space Marine game. In looking at the specifically called out things in the thread title - A marine SHOULD be more impressive than A lesser demon and A Necron Warrior. What makes those two dangerous is when they appear in vast hordes. Necron Warriors swathed in clouds of Scarabs, and constantly reanimating, demons using weight of numbers and various demonic abilities to put the marines onn the back foot. At some point, Marines just went from "able to do everything to some dedree, but can't do your "special thing" as well as you can to "Everything you can do, we can do better".
The only thing that's really substantially changed is the sheer avalanche of Marine-centric Marine-spank Marine novels, thanks to the Horus Heresy series, which spends a lot of time jerking itself off to how amazing Marines are before they fight one another. So you get a lot of people who have only read those novels and can't separate protagonist bias from ground truth to the setting, because they have no external reference.
Show us where the Horus Heresy novel touched you. It's okay, this is a safe space.
I think I should pop some popcorn before I read where this thread keeps going. Nothing more entertaining than nerd rage.
More seriously, I think you haven't actually read those novels.
I suspect we'll continue to see xenos being updated to better reflect their stats/fluff/gameplay feel relative to SM (See: Necrons).
See: Necrons, where Space Marines are still identically durable to the buffed Necrons? An Immortal is exactly as easy to bring down as a W2 3+ marine. The necron support HQs that resurrect stuff are all worse than Space marine Apothecaries at resurrecting stuff.
The only thing that's really substantially changed is the sheer avalanche of Marine-centric Marine-spank Marine novels, thanks to the Horus Heresy series, which spends a lot of time jerking itself off to how amazing Marines are before they fight one another. So you get a lot of people who have only read those novels and can't separate protagonist bias from ground truth to the setting, because they have no external reference.
Show us where the Horus Heresy novel touched you. It's okay, this is a safe space.
I think I should pop some popcorn before I read where this thread keeps going. Nothing more entertaining than nerd rage.
More seriously, I think you haven't actually read those novels.
I suspect we'll continue to see xenos being updated to better reflect their stats/fluff/gameplay feel relative to SM (See: Necrons).
See: Necrons, where Space Marines are still identically durable to the buffed Necrons? An Immortal is exactly as easy to bring down as a W2 3+ marine. The necron support HQs that resurrect stuff are all worse than Space marine Apothecaries at resurrecting stuff.
Whilst not as effective as an apothacary, there is also a hard cap on what an apothecary can bring back, whilst skewed anecdotal evidence by dice rolls, RP can bring back a hell of a lot more, and due to the nature of how it is enacted, it can be used to gain serious advantages in movement if you are bringing a lot of one squad back.
Where it doesn't work as well as apothacarys is in it's efficacy to bring tough multi wound units back, but I'd also argue the lethality of some necron units, especially the multi wound ones outstrip marines in certain areas. Swings and roundabouts, like I said above, if everything was on parr, with the same units effectively existing in each army list, then the game would be called chess.
See: Necrons, where Space Marines are still identically durable to the buffed Necrons? An Immortal is exactly as easy to bring down as a W2 3+ marine. The necron support HQs that resurrect stuff are all worse than Space marine Apothecaries at resurrecting stuff.
Quasistellar wrote: More seriously, I think you haven't actually read those novels.
Tell me what gives you that impression. I'll admit it's been a while, but I distinctly remember the Horus Heresy novels giving us 'transhuman dread' (twenty foot tall bug alien: I sleep, big man run fast: real gak?), Marines running at some 90kph (Night Lords) and doing things like cross a room and kill someone in the blink of an eye, and Auxilia/Guard/humans not posing any sort of credible threat in any of the stories I read.
And that's fine for what it is. The series is about the Heresy, it's the big Marine-on-Marine showdown, of course they're going to be built up as the biggest badasses before they fight each other. You don't show pro wrestlers losing to randoms in the audience before they have their bout.
But that doesn't mean the tabletop game needs to conform to that depiction. One's a series of action novels and the other is a presumably 'objective' wargame. I like Die Hard, but if you're making a wargame it shouldn't be your primary reference for the combat prowess of an NYPD cop.
The only thing that's really substantially changed is the sheer avalanche of Marine-centric Marine-spank Marine novels, thanks to the Horus Heresy series, which spends a lot of time jerking itself off to how amazing Marines are before they fight one another. So you get a lot of people who have only read those novels and can't separate protagonist bias from ground truth to the setting, because they have no external reference.
Show us where the Horus Heresy novel touched you. It's okay, this is a safe space.
I think I should pop some popcorn before I read where this thread keeps going. Nothing more entertaining than nerd rage.
More seriously, I think you haven't actually read those novels.
I suspect we'll continue to see xenos being updated to better reflect their stats/fluff/gameplay feel relative to SM (See: Necrons).
See: Necrons, where Space Marines are still identically durable to the buffed Necrons? An Immortal is exactly as easy to bring down as a W2 3+ marine. The necron support HQs that resurrect stuff are all worse than Space marine Apothecaries at resurrecting stuff.
Whilst not as effective as an apothacary, there is also a hard cap on what an apothecary can bring back, whilst skewed anecdotal evidence by dice rolls, RP can bring back a hell of a lot more, and due to the nature of how it is enacted, it can be used to gain serious advantages in movement if you are bringing a lot of one squad back.
Where it doesn't work as well as apothacarys is in it's efficacy to bring tough multi wound units back, but I'd also argue the lethality of some necron units, especially the multi wound ones outstrip marines in certain areas. Swings and roundabouts, like I said above, if everything was on parr, with the same units effectively existing in each army list, then the game would be called chess.
I'm not comparing RP to the apothecary's res. I'm comparing the two resurrection-based support characters in the codex, the standard Cryptek (Technomancer) and the Apothecary. The Apothecary can res any infantry or biker unit in the codex, and grants a 6+FNP. The Technomancer can res the 5 CORE units in the codex, and no FNP. Also incidentally the Cryptek is STILL a 100pt character with one. Single. Melee attack. fething Tau Cadre Fireblades and Ethereals have 3 melee attacks.
Necron weaponry in general is fething trash compared to marine gear as well. Space marines STOLEN NECRON EQUIPMENT is better than the original necron thing that was stolen - when a Deathwatch Sergeant steals one of the Necrons' power swords, it suddenly becomes a power sword that ignores invulnerable saves.
The necron heavy melee weapon is still only S7. The weapon called a "Death Ray" is one single shot of a slightly improved lascannon. The weapon called a "Heat Ray" is just one multi-melta, mounted on a vehicle that's more expensive than and vastly worse at melee than a regular dreadnought that can have a multi-melta. Space Marine sniper units have ammo that can deal D3 damage, ammo that can ignore line of sight, and ammo that can ignore cover, Necron snipers have an extra AP on their otherwise totally regular sniper rifles.
We're like 7 layers deep into special snowflake rules at this point and it's like everyone's forgotten that every single new marine gun needs to have some funky special thing that makes it bonkers compard to everything in everyone else's codex. Space marines have a unit that all have guns that deal 5+D6 damage at half range
Galas: I absolutely accept that this is the game as GW want it, and that those depictions have been around so long and are so common that they are now the canon. I literally said that in my post, you know?
I just think that sucks and is not very interesting.
The only thing that's really substantially changed is the sheer avalanche of Marine-centric Marine-spank Marine novels, thanks to the Horus Heresy series, which spends a lot of time jerking itself off to how amazing Marines are before they fight one another. So you get a lot of people who have only read those novels and can't separate protagonist bias from ground truth to the setting, because they have no external reference.
Show us where the Horus Heresy novel touched you. It's okay, this is a safe space.
I think I should pop some popcorn before I read where this thread keeps going. Nothing more entertaining than nerd rage.
More seriously, I think you haven't actually read those novels.
I suspect we'll continue to see xenos being updated to better reflect their stats/fluff/gameplay feel relative to SM (See: Necrons).
See: Necrons, where Space Marines are still identically durable to the buffed Necrons? An Immortal is exactly as easy to bring down as a W2 3+ marine. The necron support HQs that resurrect stuff are all worse than Space marine Apothecaries at resurrecting stuff.
Regarding Immortals: I feel they are currently represented appropriately. Immortals are T5 and can reanimate.
The necron support HQs that resurrect stuff are just as good or better when reanimating CORE units, and you can buy the 20 point upgrade to reanimate DESTROYER CULT or TRIARCH PRAETORIAN units (IMO this is a little overpriced compared to what Chief Apothecary pays, but on the other hand you don't have to use a warlord trait for Selfless Healer). Necron resurrection isn't tied to a stratagem. This means you can use Rites of Reanimation on multiple units if you have multiple technomancers. Pretty much every necron with more than 1 wound has living metal baked in, so no need for apothecary healing. Even Nobles and Crypteks can be resurrected with Resurrection Protocols stratagem on a 4+. Last I checked an Apothecary can't resurrect himself.
Saying Apothecaries are better at resurrecting than any Necron equivalents is. . . a stretch.
I think some of the disconnect is that people have their own opinion on what the power level of some units SHOULD be, and that's fine. Some think Immortals should be more like terminators that reanimate. Sure, but then they'd get proportionally more expensive. Same with Warriors. You'd gain the durability, but they'd have to be more expensive so you lose the numbers. I don't think there's really any fluff justification in the last 10-15 years that I'm aware of that would make me believe Warriors should be any better than they currently are relative to other army base troops.
Remember, I own Necrons as well. I don't want them to suck.
The only thing that's really substantially changed is the sheer avalanche of Marine-centric Marine-spank Marine novels, thanks to the Horus Heresy series, which spends a lot of time jerking itself off to how amazing Marines are before they fight one another. So you get a lot of people who have only read those novels and can't separate protagonist bias from ground truth to the setting, because they have no external reference.
Show us where the Horus Heresy novel touched you. It's okay, this is a safe space.
I think I should pop some popcorn before I read where this thread keeps going. Nothing more entertaining than nerd rage.
More seriously, I think you haven't actually read those novels.
I suspect we'll continue to see xenos being updated to better reflect their stats/fluff/gameplay feel relative to SM (See: Necrons).
See: Necrons, where Space Marines are still identically durable to the buffed Necrons? An Immortal is exactly as easy to bring down as a W2 3+ marine. The necron support HQs that resurrect stuff are all worse than Space marine Apothecaries at resurrecting stuff.
Regarding Immortals: I feel they are currently represented appropriately. Immortals are T5 and can reanimate.
The necron support HQs that resurrect stuff are just as good or better when reanimating CORE units, and you can buy the 20 point upgrade to reanimate DESTROYER CULT or TRIARCH PRAETORIAN units (IMO this is a little overpriced compared to what Chief Apothecary pays, but on the other hand you don't have to use a warlord trait for Selfless Healer). Necron resurrection isn't tied to a stratagem. This means you can use Rites of Reanimation on multiple units if you have multiple technomancers. Pretty much every necron with more than 1 wound has living metal baked in, so no need for apothecary healing. Even Nobles and Crypteks can be resurrected with Resurrection Protocols stratagem on a 4+. Last I checked an Apothecary can't resurrect himself.
Saying Apothecaries are better at resurrecting than any Necron equivalents is. . . a stretch.
I think some of the disconnect is that people have their own opinion on what the power level of some units SHOULD be, and that's fine. Some think Immortals should be more like terminators that reanimate. Sure, but then they'd get proportionally more expensive. Same with Warriors. You'd gain the durability, but they'd have to be more expensive so you lose the numbers. I don't think there's really any fluff justification in the last 10-15 years that I'm aware of that would make me believe Warriors should be any better than they currently are relative to other army base troops.
Remember, I own Necrons as well. I don't want them to suck.
Agreed there-especially on the "Different people have different views on how strong units should be." Not that any unit should be unbalanced, too powerful or too weak. Just that some people think Immortals should be 40 points if Marines are 20, and kick as much butt as that entails, and others think they should be 20 to 20, or 16 to 20.
I, personally, feel that Immortals, Aspect Warriors, Nid Warriors, and other such beefy boys should be at least a little more expensive than a baseline Marine, and kick butt appropriate to that. Other people feel differently, and that's fine.
But I don't think anyone reasonable thinks that a unit should suck for its points cost-there shouldn't be a unit where you say "It's just bad."
The necron support HQs that resurrect stuff are just as good or better when reanimating CORE units, and you can buy the 20 point upgrade to reanimate DESTROYER CULT or TRIARCH PRAETORIAN units
The necron support HQs that resurrect stuff are just as good or better when reanimating CORE units, and you can buy the 20 point upgrade to reanimate DESTROYER CULT or TRIARCH PRAETORIAN units
Which you can do precisely once per battle.
True--I also left off the CANOPTEK part. Canoptek Spyders are T6 6W models.
Oh, and multiple Technomancers can take the upgrade.
In a 5 round game, reanimating a key wraith, destroyer, or spyder just once can really turn the tide. And let's not forget that destroyers already have reanimation protocols, and canoptek units already have living metal, and that reanimation protocols can be buffed to a 4+. Space marines don't reanimate or heal themselves on their own.
It's hard to have diversity when the game is about how well a model can remove other models, and resist itself being removed. It would probably help if there was something to do in 40k besides attack the enemy, like push them back, interdict their fire, prevent them from moving, or basically anything.
Nurglitch wrote: It's hard to have diversity when the game is about how well a model can remove other models, and resist itself being removed. It would probably help if there was something to do in 40k besides attack the enemy, like push them back, interdict their fire, prevent them from moving, or basically anything.
They are adding more of that to the game. Gotta be careful with some of that stuff as it can be more game-breaking and feels-bad than simple defensive or offensive stats. For example, in 9th edition, locking down an enemy's abilty to move can be an auto-win without needing to fire a shot.
The fundamental core of this problem is that, previously, if you played a non-marine army and you had elite units, you were allowed basically one category of thing that you did better than space marines, and in exchange you were worse than space marines in the other categories, be that durability, firepower, mobility, or melee.
You now do not get that category. Even if your units are properly priced, and still skewed towards what previously was 'your thing' marines are still either equally as good or better at 'your thing' and get a whole bunch of other capabilities seemingly for free.
I hope this is because the other codexes, and consequently their elite units, are not yet released, but Codex Necrons does not fill me with confidence on that front.
Because an immortal, yes, is T5, and yes, I would agree is properly priced for what he does. But he's still basically identically as durable as a T4 W2 3+ tactical at T5 W1 3+ with Res Protocols.You basically have to get into "overcharged plasma gun" territory to find a situation where the immortal is, pound for pound, more durable than a baseline tactical space marine.
And the marine elite units - Gravis, Terminator Armor, etc - put Necrons' elite units like Lychguard to absolute shame in terms of durability because of their lower woundcount and the drop off in effectiveness of RP for more elite stuff.
So rather than durability getting to be the necrons' 'one signature thing' they now have to settle for being equally or slightly less durable than marines, and still worse at firepower worse at melee worse at mobility...and just cost fewer points.
Yippee....
The character of every army that opposes marines now has to be "overwhelming them with superior numbers." if you didn't want that to be your army's steez, then tough gak. Even armies like Harlequins who are "the elite of the elite" Eldar are at like...14ppm base to tactical marines 18ppm.Genestealers are 15ppm. Nobz are 14ppm. Incubi are 16ppm.
I'm sure a lot of that's just business. If GW wants to sell not-marines, then to make it worthwhile they'll have to require people who want to play not-marines to buy more kits.
Yup. Every army that is not marines has to be a horde army in comparison to sustain the marine power fantasy. That is the game marine players want, you can see it in this thread.
I mean, if everything becomes more expensive and powerfull and we play with less models I don't see that as a bad thing.
When marines armies are using units that cost 20-40 points per marine instead of the old 13-18 point costs, and other armies are playing with similar statlines and costs or a little bit better and higher than before, is less they becoming an horde army and marines becoming a more elite one.
The problem is that marines are mostly still too cheap for what they do.
Galas wrote: I mean, if everything becomes more expensive and powerfull and we play with less models I don't see that as a bad thing.
When marines armies are using units that cost 20-40 points per marine instead of the old 13-18 point costs, and other armies are playing with similar statlines and costs or a little bit better and higher than before, is less they becoming an horde army and marines becoming a more elite one.
The problem is that marines are mostly still too cheap for what they do.
But they aren't. Instead, there's been a contraction as 9th edition tried to up the cost of many units and is now just in the process of scrunching them all back down again, because the game is so deadly that the distinction between a Guardsman and a Guardian is essentially meaningless, so you're just going to be spending extra points for no reason because it'll just get instantly blown off the board.
Almost every troop unit that was more elite than guardsmen and not marines has scrunched down towards the point cost and quality of a guardsman.
Fire warriors
Necron Warriors
Dire Avengers
Guardians
Kabalites
Wyches
Sisters
Stormtroopers
Genestealers
The fundamental core of this problem is that, previously, if you played a non-marine army and you had elite units, you were allowed basically one category of thing that you did better than space marines, and in exchange you were worse than space marines in the other categories, be that durability, firepower, mobility, or melee.
You now do not get that category. Even if your units are properly priced, and still skewed towards what previously was 'your thing' marines are still either equally as good or better at 'your thing' and get a whole bunch of other capabilities seemingly for free.
I hope this is because the other codexes, and consequently their elite units, are not yet released, but Codex Necrons does not fill me with confidence on that front.
Because an immortal, yes, is T5, and yes, I would agree is properly priced for what he does. But he's still basically identically as durable as a T4 W2 3+ tactical at T5 W1 3+ with Res Protocols.You basically have to get into "overcharged plasma gun" territory to find a situation where the immortal is, pound for pound, more durable than a baseline tactical space marine.
And the marine elite units - Gravis, Terminator Armor, etc - put Necrons' elite units like Lychguard to absolute shame in terms of durability because of their lower woundcount and the drop off in effectiveness of RP for more elite stuff.
So rather than durability getting to be the necrons' 'one signature thing' they now have to settle for being equally or slightly less durable than marines, and still worse at firepower worse at melee worse at mobility...and just cost fewer points.
Yippee....
The character of every army that opposes marines now has to be "overwhelming them with superior numbers." if you didn't want that to be your army's steez, then tough gak. Even armies like Harlequins who are "the elite of the elite" Eldar are at like...14ppm base to tactical marines 18ppm.Genestealers are 15ppm. Nobz are 14ppm. Incubi are 16ppm.
I'm sure a lot of that's just business. If GW wants to sell not-marines, then to make it worthwhile they'll have to require people who want to play not-marines to buy more kits.
Eldar, Orks, and Tau definitely need updates--no argument there. I personally think every aspect warrior should be statted in a way that brings them up to elite space marines points levels (and pointed accordingly) because they're supposed to be incredibly elite and specialized warriors.
Regarding Necrons: You have to consider an army as a whole, with everything that can interact.
Sounds like there's literally no stat line for an Immortal that would make you happy unless it was strictly better than a Tactical/Intercessor in every aspect, before taking resurrection protocols into account. This an opinion which is fine, so long as you would also be happy with the accompanying points increase and army size decrease.
Personally I just don't agree with that opinion. Necron Warriors are just peasants given metal bodies and guns, and Immortals seem to be pretty equal to basic SM, and I feel their current stats reflect that, with the differences adding nice alternative flavor to the faction. I don't want every faction to be the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Yup. Every army that is not marines has to be a horde army in comparison to sustain the marine power fantasy. That is the game marine players want, you can see it in this thread.
Not true, but you just keep projecting your insecurities if it makes you feel better.
In my opinion:
Necrons are perfectly capable of fielding elite armies.
Tau should be able to go all suits (but Tau have other issues and just are straight up terrible now no matter what you take, so that's another problem altogether).
Orks should be able to go at least partially mechanized so players can field awesome kitbashed vehicles.
Nids should be able to monster mash.
Guard should be able to go mechanized.
AdMech already can go very elite.
Custodes . . .
Knights. . .
Eldar have never been a horde army and shouldn't be.
Sisters should be somewhere between guard and marines with general force composition.
Genestealer cults. . . hmmmm if we're not including broodbrothers or allying in nids, it's hard to argue they should be anything other than horde-ish but with tricks.
The fundamental core of this problem is that, previously, if you played a non-marine army and you had elite units, you were allowed basically one category of thing that you did better than space marines, and in exchange you were worse than space marines in the other categories, be that durability, firepower, mobility, or melee.
You now do not get that category. Even if your units are properly priced, and still skewed towards what previously was 'your thing' marines are still either equally as good or better at 'your thing' and get a whole bunch of other capabilities seemingly for free.
I hope this is because the other codexes, and consequently their elite units, are not yet released, but Codex Necrons does not fill me with confidence on that front.
Because an immortal, yes, is T5, and yes, I would agree is properly priced for what he does. But he's still basically identically as durable as a T4 W2 3+ tactical at T5 W1 3+ with Res Protocols.You basically have to get into "overcharged plasma gun" territory to find a situation where the immortal is, pound for pound, more durable than a baseline tactical space marine.
And the marine elite units - Gravis, Terminator Armor, etc - put Necrons' elite units like Lychguard to absolute shame in terms of durability because of their lower woundcount and the drop off in effectiveness of RP for more elite stuff.
So rather than durability getting to be the necrons' 'one signature thing' they now have to settle for being equally or slightly less durable than marines, and still worse at firepower worse at melee worse at mobility...and just cost fewer points.
Yippee....
The character of every army that opposes marines now has to be "overwhelming them with superior numbers." if you didn't want that to be your army's steez, then tough gak. Even armies like Harlequins who are "the elite of the elite" Eldar are at like...14ppm base to tactical marines 18ppm.Genestealers are 15ppm. Nobz are 14ppm. Incubi are 16ppm.
I'm sure a lot of that's just business. If GW wants to sell not-marines, then to make it worthwhile they'll have to require people who want to play not-marines to buy more kits.
Eldar, Orks, and Tau definitely need updates--no argument there. I personally think every aspect warrior should be statted in a way that brings them up to elite space marines points levels (and pointed accordingly) because they're supposed to be incredibly elite and specialized warriors.
Regarding Necrons: You have to consider an army as a whole, with everything that can interact.
Sounds like there's literally no stat line for an Immortal that would make you happy unless it was strictly better than a Tactical/Intercessor in every aspect, before taking resurrection protocols into account. This an opinion which is fine, so long as you would also be happy with the accompanying points increase and army size decrease.
Personally I just don't agree with that opinion. Necron Warriors are just peasants given metal bodies and guns, and Immortals seem to be pretty equal to basic SM, and I feel their current stats reflect that, with the differences adding nice alternative flavor to the faction. I don't want every faction to be the same.
I think it's very clear what Immortal statline would make me happy: I would like a squad of immortals to be more durable than a squad of space marines, slower, worse in melee, and with equal or slightly greater firepower offset by it being harder to bring them into range.
You're accusing me of wanting every faction to be the same...because I want immortals to be different from space marines?
I don't want the game to turn into chess either. What I do want is for each faction to have their distinction that makes them unique again, rather than one faction being the best at everything and more points, and everyone else being distinct from eachother based on their defining features but worse than space marines.
I think it's very clear what Immortal statline would make me happy: I would like a squad of immortals to be more durable than a squad of space marines, slower, worse in melee, and with equal or slightly greater firepower offset by it being harder to bring them into range.
You're accusing me of wanting every faction to be the same...because I want immortals to be different from space marines?
I don't want the game to turn into chess either. What I do want is for each faction to have their distinction that makes them unique again, rather than one faction being the best at everything and more points, and everyone else being distinct from eachother based on their defining features but worse than space marines.
Immortals are basically exactly what you said, with just being slightly not as durable as you'd like. So how would you change their durability? More toughness? More wounds? Reroll 1's on reanimation? Personally I wouldn't mind them having at least equal reanimation to warriors, as it doesn't make sense that by default they reanimate worse.
Personally I'm fine with not everything in the crunch matching fluff EXACTLY the way my own personal head-canon says it should. Concessions have to be made for gameplay and design space.
I also didn't accuse you of wanting everything to be the same. I said I don't want them to be the same--meaning I like that things can have similar effective durability using different game mechanics.
I think it's very clear what Immortal statline would make me happy: I would like a squad of immortals to be more durable than a squad of space marines, slower, worse in melee, and with equal or slightly greater firepower offset by it being harder to bring them into range.
You're accusing me of wanting every faction to be the same...because I want immortals to be different from space marines?
I don't want the game to turn into chess either. What I do want is for each faction to have their distinction that makes them unique again, rather than one faction being the best at everything and more points, and everyone else being distinct from eachother based on their defining features but worse than space marines.
Immortals are basically exactly what you said, with just being slightly not as durable as you'd like. So how would you change their durability? More toughness? More wounds? Reroll 1's on reanimation? Personally I wouldn't mind them having at least equal reanimation to warriors, as it doesn't make sense that by default they reanimate worse.
Personally I'm fine with not everything in the crunch matching fluff EXACTLY the way my own personal head-canon says it should. Concessions have to be made for gameplay and design space.
I also didn't accuse you of wanting everything to be the same. I said I don't want them to be the same--meaning I like that things can have similar effective durability using different game mechanics.
Imo Immortals should be straight up tougher than Space Marines. In an ideal world SM would only be 1W, and Immortals would then be fine at T5 1W, but that's not the world we live in. In a 2W Space Marine world, I'd want Immortals to be 2W, regen better than they currently do, and have firepower that's much better than a Space Marine.
Which would basically be a return to their original incarnation respective to SM in their 3rd Ed codex.
Insectum7 wrote: Imo Immortals should be straight up tougher than Space Marines. In an ideal world SM would only be 1W, and Immortals would then be fine at T5 1W, but that's not the world we live in. In a 2W Space Marine world, I'd want Immortals to be 2W, regen better than they currently do, and have firepower that's much better than a Space Marine.
Which would basically be a return to their original incarnation respective to SM in their 3rd Ed codex.
How much would you expect these Immortals to cost at that point and would that even leave enough room for proper support units?
Insectum7 wrote: Imo Immortals should be straight up tougher than Space Marines. In an ideal world SM would only be 1W, and Immortals would then be fine at T5 1W, but that's not the world we live in. In a 2W Space Marine world, I'd want Immortals to be 2W, regen better than they currently do, and have firepower that's much better than a Space Marine.
Which would basically be a return to their original incarnation respective to SM in their 3rd Ed codex.
How much would you expect these Immortals to cost at that point and would that even leave enough room for proper support units?
More than a Marine, obviously.
And if Immortals were worth 30 points, three max squads is still less than half your army-that's plenty of room for support.
Insectum7 wrote: Imo Immortals should be straight up tougher than Space Marines. In an ideal world SM would only be 1W, and Immortals would then be fine at T5 1W, but that's not the world we live in. In a 2W Space Marine world, I'd want Immortals to be 2W, regen better than they currently do, and have firepower that's much better than a Space Marine.
Which would basically be a return to their original incarnation respective to SM in their 3rd Ed codex.
How much would you expect these Immortals to cost at that point and would that even leave enough room for proper support units?
More than a Marine, obviously.
And if Immortals were worth 30 points, three max squads is still less than half your army-that's plenty of room for support.
^This guy gets it. It's not rocket science. If they're worth more they should cost more.
How much to Heavy Intercessors cost? Do they interfere with Marines having "Support Units?"
For context, in 3rd ed. Marines were 15 points and Immortals were 28 points.
Insectum7 wrote: Imo Immortals should be straight up tougher than Space Marines. In an ideal world SM would only be 1W, and Immortals would then be fine at T5 1W, but that's not the world we live in. In a 2W Space Marine world, I'd want Immortals to be 2W, regen better than they currently do, and have firepower that's much better than a Space Marine.
Which would basically be a return to their original incarnation respective to SM in their 3rd Ed codex.
How much would you expect these Immortals to cost at that point and would that even leave enough room for proper support units?
More than a Marine, obviously.
And if Immortals were worth 30 points, three max squads is still less than half your army-that's plenty of room for support.
^This guy gets it. It's not rocket science. If they're worth more they should cost more.
How much to Heavy Intercessors cost? Do they interfere with Marines having "Support Units?"
28 PPM, with one or two 10 point upgrades if you want the Heavy Heavy Bolt Rifles.
Insectum7 wrote: Imo Immortals should be straight up tougher than Space Marines. In an ideal world SM would only be 1W, and Immortals would then be fine at T5 1W, but that's not the world we live in. In a 2W Space Marine world, I'd want Immortals to be 2W, regen better than they currently do, and have firepower that's much better than a Space Marine.
Which would basically be a return to their original incarnation respective to SM in their 3rd Ed codex.
How much would you expect these Immortals to cost at that point and would that even leave enough room for proper support units?
More than a Marine, obviously.
And if Immortals were worth 30 points, three max squads is still less than half your army-that's plenty of room for support.
^This guy gets it. It's not rocket science. If they're worth more they should cost more.
How much to Heavy Intercessors cost? Do they interfere with Marines having "Support Units?"
28 PPM, with one or two 10 point upgrades if you want the Heavy Heavy Bolt Rifles.
Plenty of space for an expensive troop then. Or move them back to Elites if need be.
Imo Immortals should be straight up tougher than Space Marines. In MY ideal world SM would only be 1W, and Immortals would then be fine at T5 1W, but that's not the world we live in. In a 2W Space Marine world, I'd want Immortals to be 2W, regen better than they currently do, and have firepower that's much better than a Space Marine.
Which would basically be a return to their original incarnation respective to SM in their 3rd Ed codex.
Fixed that for you, and you're correct: We don't live in your ideal world.
With both having 9th books before getting into points costs do their respective free faction and power from paint (subfaction) rules seem on par with each other?
Imo Immortals should be straight up tougher than Space Marines. In MY ideal world SM would only be 1W, and Immortals would then be fine at T5 1W, but that's not the world we live in. In a 2W Space Marine world, I'd want Immortals to be 2W, regen better than they currently do, and have firepower that's much better than a Space Marine.
Which would basically be a return to their original incarnation respective to SM in their 3rd Ed codex.
Fixed that for you, and you're correct: We don't live in your ideal world.
"just keep projecting your insecurities if it makes you feel better."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: With both having 9th books before getting into points costs do their respective free faction and power from paint (subfaction) rules seem on par with each other?
I want a "Power From Paint" rule for my army. Is this in addition to the +10 VPs?
Quasistellar wrote: Personally I'm fine with not everything in the crunch matching fluff EXACTLY the way my own personal head-canon says it should. Concessions have to be made for gameplay and design space.
Insectum is a Marine player, and that's almost word-for-word exactly why he argued strongly for Marines to stay at W1.
I've heard again and again from Marine players that they like the W2 switch because it makes the crunch match their particular interpretation of the fluff, not because it improves the gameplay or design space of the game as a whole. The entire impetus behind Marines being W2 is 'it fits the fluff better'.
Is it really too much for some Necron players to want Immortals to get the same treatment? Especially when the game already has plenty of other infantry at a similar 'eliteness' point?
I think it's very clear what Immortal statline would make me happy: I would like a squad of immortals to be more durable than a squad of space marines, slower, worse in melee, and with equal or slightly greater firepower offset by it being harder to bring them into range.
You're accusing me of wanting every faction to be the same...because I want immortals to be different from space marines?
I don't want the game to turn into chess either. What I do want is for each faction to have their distinction that makes them unique again, rather than one faction being the best at everything and more points, and everyone else being distinct from eachother based on their defining features but worse than space marines.
Immortals are basically exactly what you said, with just being slightly not as durable as you'd like. So how would you change their durability? More toughness? More wounds? Reroll 1's on reanimation? Personally I wouldn't mind them having at least equal reanimation to warriors, as it doesn't make sense that by default they reanimate worse.
Personally I'm fine with not everything in the crunch matching fluff EXACTLY the way my own personal head-canon says it should. Concessions have to be made for gameplay and design space.
I also didn't accuse you of wanting everything to be the same. I said I don't want them to be the same--meaning I like that things can have similar effective durability using different game mechanics.
And if GW actually applied the crunch fluff concept evenly and fairly across all factions it would be fine, but they haven't, they favouritised 'realism' for marines.
And this is all that's been asked for and yet generally marine players sitting in their GW privilege of favoured sons can't seem to understand why a xenos player might want the same treatment as them. The game is not marines vs everyone else, it's warhammer 40,000 and every faction is equal (or tournaments would be very different).
All we want is equal representation and equal treatment for our equal investment in the same game. It's not even an ask.
Eldarain wrote: With both having 9th books before getting into points costs do their respective free faction and power from paint (subfaction) rules seem on par with each other?
No, lol. Necrons "+1" movement lul" rule is a bad joke compared to marines doctrines and superdoctrines.
Necron warriors should be a bit better than marine troops in some ways, and their guns should have some special rules like hit rolls of 6 having higher AP.
Come on, thematically the necrons took down the most advanced and powerful race in history, the old ones, and went into stasis because they were not up to anothe rmajor war against their offspring, the eldar and their brothers the krork. Thematically they are the most advanced race in the galaxy.
Yes, warriors should be more powerful in some ways than a stock marine, even a stock ultramarine (I know somewhere matt ward just screamed ) but maybe be more dependent on command to reflect their robotic natures and difficulty dealing with surprises.
Canadian, you might want to take a chill pill my man. My idea of proposing some units (mainly Lychguard and Praetorians in my mind) should have a 2+ save doesn't seem to warrant such a hostile response.
Canadian 5th wrote: If we want to go back to 2e for Necron stats we're also taking the old fluff and the fact that they phase-out. You don't get it both ways.
That's not a sticking point for me. I liked the Phase Out rule, personally. I thought it was a very clever design route to protect against spamming certain things. The Monolith was allowed to be somewhat OP because taking more than one of them started to become a liability for the rest of your army because of Phase Out. Imo that was some good and ballsy design.
I think it's very clear what Immortal statline would make me happy: I would like a squad of immortals to be more durable than a squad of space marines, slower, worse in melee, and with equal or slightly greater firepower offset by it being harder to bring them into range.
You're accusing me of wanting every faction to be the same...because I want immortals to be different from space marines?
I don't want the game to turn into chess either. What I do want is for each faction to have their distinction that makes them unique again, rather than one faction being the best at everything and more points, and everyone else being distinct from eachother based on their defining features but worse than space marines.
Immortals are basically exactly what you said, with just being slightly not as durable as you'd like. So how would you change their durability? More toughness? More wounds? Reroll 1's on reanimation? Personally I wouldn't mind them having at least equal reanimation to warriors, as it doesn't make sense that by default they reanimate worse.
Personally I'm fine with not everything in the crunch matching fluff EXACTLY the way my own personal head-canon says it should. Concessions have to be made for gameplay and design space.
I also didn't accuse you of wanting everything to be the same. I said I don't want them to be the same--meaning I like that things can have similar effective durability using different game mechanics.
And if GW actually applied the crunch fluff concept evenly and fairly across all factions it would be fine, but they haven't, they favouritised 'realism' for marines.
And this is all that's been asked for and yet generally marine players sitting in their GW privilege of favoured sons can't seem to understand why a xenos player might want the same treatment as them. The game is not marines vs everyone else, it's warhammer 40,000 and every faction is equal (or tournaments would be very different).
All we want is equal representation and equal treatment for our equal investment in the same game. It's not even an ask.
The influence of Black Library has been really bad for the health of non-marine factions in the game. It's really a shame.
Canadian 5th wrote: If we want to go back to 2e for Necron stats we're also taking the old fluff and the fact that they phase-out. You don't get it both ways.
That's not a sticking point for me. I liked the Phase Out rule, personally. I thought it was a very clever design route to protect against spamming certain things. The Monolith was allowed to be somewhat OP because taking more than one of them started to become a liability for the rest of your army because of Phase Out. Imo that was some good and ballsy design.
I'm the same. I don't actually have an issue with some sort of phase out rule being reintroduced in the future.
Insectum7 wrote: That's not a sticking point for me. I liked the Phase Out rule, personally. I thought it was a very clever design route to protect against spamming certain things. The Monolith was allowed to be somewhat OP because taking more than one of them started to become a liability for the rest of your army because of Phase Out. Imo that was some good and ballsy design.
It was one of the most hated rules in 40k history but if you'd be happy with it coming back and Necron's being a one-note Terminator joke I guess I have to be happy that you're at least honest about it.
Insectum7 wrote: That's not a sticking point for me. I liked the Phase Out rule, personally. I thought it was a very clever design route to protect against spamming certain things. The Monolith was allowed to be somewhat OP because taking more than one of them started to become a liability for the rest of your army because of Phase Out. Imo that was some good and ballsy design.
It was one of the most hated rules in 40k history but if you'd be happy with it coming back and Necron's being a one-note Terminator joke I guess I have to be happy that you're at least honest about it.
I haven't played my 'crons since the new book came out, but on paper, immortals seem about right to me. They have the same save as a marine, higher toughness than a marine, RP (similar to a 5+ FNP), and a gun with the same AP as a tactical doctrine intercessor's rifle and a higher Strength stat.
There's definitely room to give them an extra wound if they really don't seem durable enough, but they seem like they're in a decent spot to me. Also, giving t hem an extra wound is weirdly a two steps forward one step back given that it would make their RP less reliable.
Wyldhunt wrote: I haven't played my 'crons since the new book came out, but on paper, immortals seem about right to me. They have the same save as a marine, higher toughness than a marine, RP (similar to a 5+ FNP), and a gun with the same AP as a tactical doctrine intercessor's rifle and a higher Strength stat.
There's definitely room to give them an extra wound if they really don't seem durable enough, but they seem like they're in a decent spot to me. Also, giving t hem an extra wound is weirdly a two steps forward one step back given that it would make their RP less reliable.
While I would love Immortals to be T5 1W with a 2+ save, priority for me is reverting the points hike on Tesla Carbines.
The current incarnation of Warriors is probably the first time GW have managed to get the concept right.
They've always occupied this weird spot, since GW wants to have Necrons as this vast legion of undead robots marching steadily across the board in a silver tide, and yet for basically every edition except recently Warriors have been better and more expensive than Tac Marines.
Personally I got into Necrons because of that visual, because "Their Number is Legion, Their Name is Death" so I'm fine with basic Warriors taking a hit individually. While you could definitely make an argument lorewise that some of the more elite troops of the army should be on par individually with their Marine counterparts they're still able to go toe to toe with them on the whole and it fits in with the concept of the army being a semi-horde.
Warriors should absolutely be rank and file. Nothing special about them, and they feel mostly fine as is. My issue is more on the elite infantry section to be honest.
Da Boss wrote: I never saw Necrons as a semi-horde. Always seen them as an elite army, one step above space marines but fewer in number.
Obviously, the game has changed.
I feel like both should be valid, playable versions of the army. The silver tide theme is definitely most a warriors and scarabs thing. When I started playing in 5th (before the 5e 'cron 'dex), the phase out rule tended to give 'crons a pretty horde-y feel. Sure, you had your destroyers and your monoliths, but every army had a fair few warrior bodies to avoid phasing out right away. And the unending sea of skeletons that just repair themselves even after you break them is absolutely an iconic 'cron visual.
But the smaller force that wields tech so advanced it's magical is also a big part of 'cron identity. I feel immortals, destroyeres, deathmarks, etc. do a pretty good job of representing that right now. (Again, at least on paper as I haven't gotten any 'cron games in lately.)
I actually agree on this one. Feth space tomb kings bring back the unknowable horror of killer robots who operate only on their own corrupted logic.
Well, there you go then.
Phase Out worked just fine IMO until 5th edition. In 5th Edition the rules for morale in CC changed in a way that really hurt the Crons. Modifiers to Ld in close combat in 4th Ed were based on the numbers of models in CC. Being outnumbered, being outnumbered 2:1, etc. brought different modifiers to Ld.
In 5th Ed, the Ld modifier was based purely on number of casualties. What this meant is that a good Space Marine Character could come in and kill three Warriors, and all of a sudden the Warriors were testing on Ld 7 instead of 10. This was a nightmare for Crons, because having a unit annihilated through Sweeping Advance meant you couldn't bring them back. I once won a game by charging (between other units) at a unit of 20 Warriors with Kharne the Betrayer, killing 4-5 and then wiping the entire squad out. This dropped the Crons to below Phase Out, and that was that.
Prior to 5th, big Necron Squads could just absorb CC by taking casualties and then WBB (We'll Be Back) them in the following turn, or pulling them out of CC with a Monolith. 5th Ed Morale made CC much harder for Crons to survive, and therefore made Phase Out much, much harsher as a result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bosskelot wrote: The current incarnation of Warriors is probably the first time GW have managed to get the concept right.
They've always occupied this weird spot, since GW wants to have Necrons as this vast legion of undead robots marching steadily across the board in a silver tide, and yet for basically every edition except recently Warriors have been better and more expensive than Tac Marines.
Personally I got into Necrons because of that visual, because "Their Number is Legion, Their Name is Death" so I'm fine with basic Warriors taking a hit individually. While you could definitely make an argument lorewise that some of the more elite troops of the army should be on par individually with their Marine counterparts they're still able to go toe to toe with them on the whole and it fits in with the concept of the army being a semi-horde.
The reason I disagree with this is that even when Warriors were more expensive than Marines, it was still easy to make armies that outnumbered most Marine armies. And even in 8th, I made Tyranid Warrior armies (at 25ppm) that outnumbered most of the Marine armies I saw.
Plus, with a higher resurrection rate, opposing armies could wind up being vastly outnumbered in the end as their numbers dwindled while the Warriors kept coming back.
Bosskelot wrote: The current incarnation of Warriors is probably the first time GW have managed to get the concept right.
They've always occupied this weird spot, since GW wants to have Necrons as this vast legion of undead robots marching steadily across the board in a silver tide, and yet for basically every edition except recently Warriors have been better and more expensive than Tac Marines.
Personally I got into Necrons because of that visual, because "Their Number is Legion, Their Name is Death" so I'm fine with basic Warriors taking a hit individually. While you could definitely make an argument lorewise that some of the more elite troops of the army should be on par individually with their Marine counterparts they're still able to go toe to toe with them on the whole and it fits in with the concept of the army being a semi-horde.
Ok, but the true threat of the Necron has always been that they are incredibly numerous WHILE being elite to the new, less developed races of the galaxy. They took on the Old Ones ffs, they shouldn't have any particular issues matching the "elite" soldiers of some smoothbrain apes with 1/100th the tech.
Regarding Phase Out, the one thing I disliked about it was that it meant Necrons could never have a last stand, with maybe a character and a few elites or squad-remnants facing off against a much larger force.
Yeah, the game has almost certainly been decided by this point, but it can still be fun to fight to the proverbial last man (okay, the last machine).
Cronch wrote: Ok, but the true threat of the Necron has always been that they are incredibly numerous WHILE being elite to the new, less developed races of the galaxy.
Back in 3rd they had their cake and ate it too. The army didn't have a whole lot in the way of vehicles or elite units, so even though Warriors were better and more expensive than even Marines, they also generally outnumbered Marines on the table. The Phase Out mechanic, while often swingy, was also an attempt to make them extremely powerful but provide an escape clause for the enemy.
Obviously that's gone with lots of vehicles to soak up points and draw away from the endless horde mechanic; but I for one would like if Necrons had the option to still go toe-to-toe with Marines. Let the basic Warriors be the Tomb-Kings-in-space chaff, and let the Immortals and other elites be on par with Marines.
Instead, like most factions in the game at this point, they get to pick between 'worse than Marines' and 'significantly worse than Marines', which is at least IMO much less interesting.
Anyone remember Battlefleet Gothic? Necrons were proper scary in that game, with their battleships able to run circles around their plodding Imperial counterparts, armor that let them shrug off most hits, and incredibly dangerous weapons. They gave a real sense of 'so advanced they don't play by the same rules as you'. Since their 40K reboot they've never really recaptured that feeling.
Insectum7 wrote:That's not a sticking point for me. I liked the Phase Out rule, personally. I thought it was a very clever design route to protect against spamming certain things. The Monolith was allowed to be somewhat OP because taking more than one of them started to become a liability for the rest of your army because of Phase Out. Imo that was some good and ballsy design.
Very true. However, that left them pretty much only spamming Warriors, since the more interesting things, aside from Destroyers and Lords, tended to make Phase Out worse. However, there are other ways to limit things these days, as the current slot of the Monolith demonstrates. Even if it were as relatively tough as it was in 3e and no Phase Out to consider, the Monolith is still nerfed by being in the Lord of War role instead of Heavy Support.
Still, all in all. It's not like you can't play Phase Out with your Necrons today, or even set up scenarios around accomplishing that. The only thing is to have a willing opponent. However, they do have a lot of new toys that would greatly affect that, and Wraiths would no longer count as Necrons for Phase Out.
Darsath wrote:While I would love Immortals to be T5 1W with a 2+ save, priority for me is reverting the points hike on Tesla Carbines.
I don't think anyone could advocate Immortals having a 2+ Save with a straight face. Lychguard on the other hand would attract more attention with it, though.
Insectum7 wrote:Phase Out worked just fine IMO until 5th edition. In 5th Edition the rules for morale in CC changed in a way that really hurt the Crons. Modifiers to Ld in close combat in 4th Ed were based on the numbers of models in CC. Being outnumbered, being outnumbered 2:1, etc. brought different modifiers to Ld.
In 5th Ed, the Ld modifier was based purely on number of casualties. What this meant is that a good Space Marine Character could come in and kill three Warriors, and all of a sudden the Warriors were testing on Ld 7 instead of 10. This was a nightmare for Crons, because having a unit annihilated through Sweeping Advance meant you couldn't bring them back. I once won a game by charging (between other units) at a unit of 20 Warriors with Kharne the Betrayer, killing 4-5 and then wiping the entire squad out. This dropped the Crons to below Phase Out, and that was that.
Prior to 5th, big Necron Squads could just absorb CC by taking casualties and then WBB (We'll Be Back) them in the following turn, or pulling them out of CC with a Monolith. 5th Ed Morale made CC much harder for Crons to survive, and therefore made Phase Out much, much harsher as a result.
Heh, it depends on which part of 5th Edition you're talking about
But I get you. There was still a lot of strategy in getting in to melee and just wiping the unit out before they had any Leadership rolls, as almost anything aside from Fire Warriors, Boyz, and Power Fists were hitting them first. It was commonly discussed at the time, as I remember (but I did start in 5th, so...). Being 2+ design schemes behind also didn't help for most of 5th Edition as more and more codices came out and almost every army could bring far more to the table than what they would have normally faced in mid-3rd by the time they got their next codex.
Insectum7 wrote:The reason I disagree with this is that even when Warriors were more expensive than Marines, it was still easy to make armies that outnumbered most Marine armies. And even in 8th, I made Tyranid Warrior armies (at 25ppm) that outnumbered most of the Marine armies I saw.
Plus, with a higher resurrection rate, opposing armies could wind up being vastly outnumbered in the end as their numbers dwindled while the Warriors kept coming back.
Well, to be fair, the only real support in the army that didn't affect Phase Out were the Lords and Destroyers. You were already taking at least one Lord to bounce units around the table, and Destroyers were used to either bring the Lascannon or the Assault Cannon equivalents. That left a LOT of room to be fitting Warriors in, even with a Monolith.
vipoid wrote:Regarding Phase Out, the one thing I disliked about it was that it meant Necrons could never have a last stand, with maybe a character and a few elites or squad-remnants facing off against a much larger force.
Yeah, the game has almost certainly been decided by this point, but it can still be fun to fight to the proverbial last man (okay, the last machine).
While not in a normal game, you could have set one up with an opponent who was willing to have such a narrative event. You could even describe it as your opponent has busted in to the inner sanctum of the Tomb World, so Phase Out is meaningless.
catbarf wrote:Back in 3rd they had their cake and ate it too. The army didn't have a whole lot in the way of vehicles or elite units, so even though Warriors were better and more expensive than even Marines, they also generally outnumbered Marines on the table. The Phase Out mechanic, while often swingy, was also an attempt to make them extremely powerful but provide an escape clause for the enemy.
Obviously that's gone with lots of vehicles to soak up points and draw away from the endless horde mechanic; but I for one would like if Necrons had the option to still go toe-to-toe with Marines. Let the basic Warriors be the Tomb-Kings-in-space chaff, and let the Immortals and other elites be on par with Marines.
Instead, like most factions in the game at this point, they get to pick between 'worse than Marines' and 'significantly worse than Marines', which is at least IMO much less interesting.
Anyone remember Battlefleet Gothic? Necrons were proper scary in that game, with their battleships able to run circles around their plodding Imperial counterparts, armor that let them shrug off most hits, and incredibly dangerous weapons. They gave a real sense of 'so advanced they don't play by the same rules as you'. Since their 40K reboot they've never really recaptured that feeling.
Your assessment is accurate. It has gotten even worse with the Primaris who have become the answer to every Marine problem.
Bosskelot wrote: The current incarnation of Warriors is probably the first time GW have managed to get the concept right.
They've always occupied this weird spot, since GW wants to have Necrons as this vast legion of undead robots marching steadily across the board in a silver tide, and yet for basically every edition except recently Warriors have been better and more expensive than Tac Marines.
Personally I got into Necrons because of that visual, because "Their Number is Legion, Their Name is Death" so I'm fine with basic Warriors taking a hit individually. While you could definitely make an argument lorewise that some of the more elite troops of the army should be on par individually with their Marine counterparts they're still able to go toe to toe with them on the whole and it fits in with the concept of the army being a semi-horde.
yeah, you just need roughly 3 lychguard for every Bladeguard you want to fight, lol, they're totally on par and able to go toe to toe.
Bosskelot wrote: The current incarnation of Warriors is probably the first time GW have managed to get the concept right.
They've always occupied this weird spot, since GW wants to have Necrons as this vast legion of undead robots marching steadily across the board in a silver tide, and yet for basically every edition except recently Warriors have been better and more expensive than Tac Marines.
Personally I got into Necrons because of that visual, because "Their Number is Legion, Their Name is Death" so I'm fine with basic Warriors taking a hit individually. While you could definitely make an argument lorewise that some of the more elite troops of the army should be on par individually with their Marine counterparts they're still able to go toe to toe with them on the whole and it fits in with the concept of the army being a semi-horde.
yeah, you just need roughly 3 lychguard for every Bladeguard you want to fight, lol, they're totally on par and able to go toe to toe.
Yeah on a unit by unit basis they are. Isn't that kind of the point of 40k? Novokh Lychguard with all the bells and whistles charging into BGV kill 5 of them on average which usually means a complete wipe.
BA BGV with all the bells and whistles are the only ones that come close to wiping the Lychguard in return (and that is a problem because they cost 0 extra points than regular ones)
Ok, but the true threat of the Necron has always been that they are incredibly numerous WHILE being elite to the new, less developed races of the galaxy. They took on the Old Ones ffs, they shouldn't have any particular issues matching the "elite" soldiers of some smoothbrain apes with 1/100th the tech.
Oh, I agree. But at the same time game balance and design does have to come into it somewhere. Like, I'm not going to defend GW and their Marine fetish and certainly they'd mishandled the design space of that faction, but it would not be good for anyone if Necrons had better statlines than Marines, while also being more numerous, while also having RP, while also being equal or less points. Like of course that would be a terrible idea.
Not to mention in actual game scenarios Necrons are perfectly able to go toe to toe with various Marine units and actually come out on top, usually because of bigger units or certain stats and rules like RP making up any shortfall in other stats. Reaper Warriors will delete anything that comes into range and if they're Novokh as well that's a melee fight Intercessors won't actually want to be engaging in. Immortals win shooting contests with Intercessors too and Lychguard can easily slap any elite Marine unit (with the possible exception of DWK, but DWK themselves are not incredibly lethal in CC so the fight just becomes two slabs of meat awkwardly slamming into each other repeatedly).
Things like Plasceptors or certain subfaction units like SG are what skew things and only because their lethality is too high for the points you pay. In terms of resilience against Necron attacks they melt pretty quickly.
Wyldhunt wrote: That doesn't seem a bit disingenuous to you? Feels like you might be projecting some of your frustrations onto your fellow gamers and villainizing them for liking a certain army.
No. GW has steered away from the cynicism, grimdark, and what level of sophistication the 40k setting has and straight towards power fantasy.
This. At some point, I blinked, and when I opened my eyes, every marine had become Leandros from the Space Marine game. In looking at the specifically called out things in the thread title - A marine SHOULD be more impressive than A lesser demon and A Necron Warrior. What makes those two dangerous is when they appear in vast hordes. Necron Warriors swathed in clouds of Scarabs, and constantly reanimating, demons using weight of numbers and various demonic abilities to put the marines onn the back foot. At some point, Marines just went from "able to do everything to some dedree, but can't do your "special thing" as well as you can to "Everything you can do, we can do better".
Again, when Necron warriors first appeared they were more powerful than individual Astartes, and one of them was enough to cause a lot of trouble. Demons used to be enough of an issue that you have to call in a special dedicated chapter to deal with them or accept that things are going to get messy. (Actually, with the amount of teamkilling the Grey Knights are prone to, it's going to get messy anyway).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: Fixed that for you, and you're correct: We don't live in your ideal world.
And more's the pity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: If we want to go back to 2e for Necron stats we're also taking the old fluff and the fact that they phase-out. You don't get it both ways.
Anyone remember Battlefleet Gothic? Necrons were proper scary in that game, with their battleships able to run circles around their plodding Imperial counterparts, armor that let them shrug off most hits, and incredibly dangerous weapons. They gave a real sense of 'so advanced they don't play by the same rules as you'. Since their 40K reboot they've never really recaptured that feeling.
And they won't, because that would ruin the power fantasy for Astartes players.
TBH we are complaining about the power fantasy of marines at the same time we are claiming back for the power fantasy of X faction to return. The Necron fluff is as much gauss-porn as marine is. And thats fun, each faction is absolutely devastating in their own fluff (With the exception of orks and imperial guard). But marines make the big bucks and keep GW afloat so they have the privilege of having that also reflected in their rules.
Galas wrote: TBH we are complaining about the power fantasy of marines at the same time we are claiming back for the power fantasy of X faction to return.
Well yes.
Because when one faction is allowed to be "true to its fluff", the other factions in the game naturally want the same treatment.
Why is that in any way unreasonable?
Galas wrote: The Necron fluff is as much gauss-porn as marine is. And thats fun, each faction is absolutely devastating in their own fluff (With the exception of orks and imperial guard).
Indeed. Hence why it made sense for Marines not to be the demigods they're portrayed to be in their fluff. Because it used to be that no race lived up to the ludicrously high bar their own fluff set. The closest we got was when a given race was drastically overpowered.
Galas wrote: But marines make the big bucks and keep GW afloat so they have the privilege of having that also reflected in their rules.
Ah yes, once more we circle back to the glorious argument of iTs OkAy WhEn MaRiNeS dO iT.
I mean, I'm sure you're correct. I'm sure Marines do make more money than the other factions.
And as always I'm sure you'll deny that this has anything to do with Marines being the poster-boys for the game, getting vastly more marketing and advertising than any other faction, dominating previews even when a non-Marine release is upcoming, getting vastly more rule attention than any other faction, getting vastly more codices/supplements/support than any other faction, getting an unrelenting tidal-wave of new models whilst other factions are cut to the bone etc.
Ah yes, once more we circle back to the glorious argument of iTs OkAy WhEn MaRiNeS dO iT.
I mean, I'm sure you're correct. I'm sure Marines do make more money than the other factions.
And as always I'm sure you'll deny that this has anything to do with Marines being the poster-boys for the game, getting vastly more marketing and advertising than any other faction, dominating previews even when a non-Marine release is upcoming, getting vastly more rule attention than any other faction, getting vastly more codices/supplements/support than any other faction, getting an unrelenting tidal-wave of new models whilst other factions are cut to the bone etc.
Why don't the xeno races out sell marines when they get their new models. When eldar got their plastic models and the undercosted big robot, they had both new models, an army based around a plastic model line, and rules superior to anything other armies could have. yet they weren't selling as well as marines.
Or should eldar back then have goten even more rules on top of the ones they had ? Wouldn't this turn in to it is okey, if eldar are the army making it unfun for others to play? With the difference being that eldar are and always were the minority player choice, while marines are and were the majority players choice. So keeping marine players happy with different rule sets and different ways to play, actually does make the majority of players happy. While making lets say eldar have the best rules, and all the fun, is good only for a minority of players, and what is even worse, it makes it really unfun for the majority of marine players.
I think technologically. The Crons should be the top of the top. The should have the best AP / ways to get around invune saves / and Be basically fearless.
I think they have right right for the most part. Though invune saves are probably still too effective against the crons. Deathrays and lightning bolt weapons should be pretty much indefensible. The way to balance it is crons should be slow with few numbers of attacks. They also have that about right at this time. Also I feel like an immortal and a marine are about on par atm - which is also about right. A warrior however...a warrior is legit a common necron citizen turned robot. It is probably too powerful BUT I am not complaining. I love the way the unit plays on the table.
I think the issue with invulnerable saves and being able to ignore them is an issue as that cost is inherently baked into certain armies/characters and isn't a wargear option that can be removed.
That's to say they shouldn't have a way to make them less effective, maybe -1 to invulnerable saves (I'd personally like to get away from re-rolls for re-rolls sake in the game so whilst it is effective, I don't like the re-roll successful save mechanic some weapons have).
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I think the issue with invulnerable saves and being able to ignore them is an issue as that cost is inherently baked into certain armies/characters and isn't a wargear option that can be removed.
That's to say they shouldn't have a way to make them less effective, maybe -1 to invulnerable saves (I'd personally like to get away from re-rolls for re-rolls sake in the game so whilst it is effective, I don't like the re-roll successful save mechanic some weapons have).
Well an ap-5 weapon is paying a lot for AP. Maybe something like you suggest - a -1 to invune special rule for certain weapons could be better than a flat ignore. Something just doesn't feel right that the most powerful lazers are the least reliable way to kill heavy armored targets.
Galas wrote: TBH we are complaining about the power fantasy of marines at the same time we are claiming back for the power fantasy of X faction to return. The Necron fluff is as much gauss-porn as marine is. And thats fun, each faction is absolutely devastating in their own fluff (With the exception of orks and imperial guard). But marines make the big bucks and keep GW afloat so they have the privilege of having that also reflected in their rules.
See, that'd be true, except new codexes have Marines straight up beating the factions whose codex they're in more often than not. Xenos are allowed to be competent in their own book as long as it's not against marines.
Nothing wrong with power fantasy, as long as it's spread around equally.
but it would not be good for anyone if Necrons had better statlines than Marines, while also being more numerous, while also having RP, while also being equal or less points. Like of course that would be a terrible idea.
If the game had real scenarios, it'd be feasible. But it doesn't, it has two armies lined up to see who can squat on the centerpoints the best.
If you want to give the high-end Necron's something around defeating invulnerable saves I'd say give them +1 damage whenever an opponent rolls a 1 on a save of any type. This could represent their weapons being so deadly that any gap in your armor is a fatal flaw.
Galas wrote: TBH we are complaining about the power fantasy of marines at the same time we are claiming back for the power fantasy of X faction to return. The Necron fluff is as much gauss-porn as marine is. And thats fun, each faction is absolutely devastating in their own fluff (With the exception of orks and imperial guard). But marines make the big bucks and keep GW afloat so they have the privilege of having that also reflected in their rules.
See, that'd be true, except new codexes have Marines straight up beating the factions whose codex they're in more often than not. Xenos are allowed to be competent in their own book as long as it's not against marines.
Nothing wrong with power fantasy, as long as it's spread around equally.
but it would not be good for anyone if Necrons had better statlines than Marines, while also being more numerous, while also having RP, while also being equal or less points. Like of course that would be a terrible idea.
If the game had real scenarios, it'd be feasible. But it doesn't, it has two armies lined up to see who can squat on the centerpoints the best.
Go ahead and math out intercessors vs Immortals...I think you will be surprised. LOL.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: If you want to give the high-end Necron's something around defeating invulnerable saves I'd say give them +1 damage whenever an opponent rolls a 1 on a save of any type. This could represent their weapons being so deadly that any gap in your armor is a fatal flaw.
That really does nothing if you are only takin a few shots to begin with. Really after hitting and wounding I think powerful 1-2 shots weapons should be getting through. Plus when you have a nice roll - both hit both wound...to have 2 4++ saves made right after is pretty anti climatic for a weapon that is paying to give no save at all.
Xenomancers wrote: That really does nothing if you are only takin a few shots to begin with. Really after hitting and wounding I think powerful 1-2 shots weapons should be getting through. Plus when you have a nice roll - both hit both wound...to have 2 4++ saves made right after is pretty anti climatic for a weapon that is paying to give no save at all.
True, but that's the same for every faction currently and I'm not sure it makes sense to fix it for just one of them. This change could be accompanied by a strategy that increases the effect to proc on 2's as well, but you'd likely have to restrict it to keep Warriors and Immortals from being way over the top.
.... Necrons were proper scary in that game, ....They gave a real sense of 'so advanced they don't play by the same rules as you'. Since their 40K reboot they've never really recaptured that feeling.
"so advanced they don't play by the same rules..." has been taken over by the marines thank you very much.
Seriously though, Necrons are a tough one. They've made them so powerful in the fluff that I don't think there is a good way to accurately reflect that on the table. I say this as a Necron player, but I think it would make them too good.
Although I wouldn't mind bringing some of the second ed rules back for them.
Canadian 5th wrote:
If we want to go back to 2e for Necron stats we're also taking the old fluff and the fact that they phase-out. You don't get it both ways.
Why? That doesn't make any sense at all. We see other armies get old stats and rules back all the time without the need for ALL the old rules and fluff ...
TBF - I'm not sure we NEED to get the old statline - but there are some things from 2nd they could benefit from w/out becoming OP.
-1 to w against ranged would be an appropriate representation. Daemons need to be less hordey and more horror from another plane of existence. Bump the price of troops a Lil to compensate and now they feel...daemony.
Again, when Necron warriors first appeared they were more powerful than individual Astartes, and one of them was enough to cause a lot of trouble.
Necrons? When they were first introduced? No. They weren't over-all better. They were just tougher. That's literally it. Still slower, and less flexible. The original "zombie horde" as it were. They were definitely way more scary (in most but not all circumstances) under 2nd ed rules where the edition's targeting rules and their natural toughness made even one or two squads a real bear, but 1-on-1 I can't recall a time when a single Warrior was over-all better than a single marine.
Demons used to be enough of an issue that you have to call in a special dedicated chapter to deal with them or accept that things are going to get messy. (Actually, with the amount of teamkilling the Grey Knights are prone to, it's going to get messy anyway).
And they still are. But again, in-game - the lesser Demons were never, in 1-on-1 situations a real threat to a single Astartes. This is why I said "A" Necron and "A" demon.
I agree Astartes are now at a silly level where the other threats appear too weak, but let's not pretend there was ever a time when the lesser demons were so good, you could rely on one to be a credible threat to a marine.
That was the whole point of my original post. What made Warriors tough was that they were, in fact REALLY tough and came in great numbers. What made Demons tough was the ability to spawn from the warp and also, similar to Necrons, what happens when they were able to spawn in great numbers. But the have never been a 1-on-1 threat to a marine. The real problem is, we now see a situation where even in great numbers, they're no longer a threat to marines ...
Tycho wrote: Seriously though, Necrons are a tough one. They've made them so powerful in the fluff that I don't think there is a good way to accurately reflect that on the table. I say this as a Necron player, but I think it would make them too good.
While it had problems, I thought the Phase Out mechanic was a neat idea pointing in that direction. Make an army that's hideously powerful and terrifying to go up against, where every battle has you outmatched and on the back foot, but if you can just do enough damage they'll mysteriously disappear.
GW could do a lot, as far as making crunch match fluff, if they were willing to bend the normal setup of the game like that. Like, it could be fun to have Tyranids be slaughtered in droves, but have an army-wide ability to continuously respawn as wave after wave keeps coming. Or have Deathwatch be under-strength, but win if they can assassinate their VIP target. Or have Marines get favorable deployment (shock-and-awe against an unprepared foe), but they have to win quickly before reinforcements arrive, or minimize their casualties.
Requiring symmetry in army power is constraining; allowing asymmetry balanced by objectives or secondary rules opens a lot of possibilities. And it wouldn't even have to be baked into the rules, it could just be a scenario option. Like, you could do a scenario where Necrons start with 50% more points, and the objective of the enemy is to survive as long as possible, or maybe to escape the awakening tomb. It might not be suitable for tournament play, but generally people don't go seeking fluff-crunch convergence at tournaments, so not a big deal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote: but 1-on-1 I can't recall a time when a single Warrior was over-all better than a single marine.
3rd Ed? Lower Initiative, but a better gun and We'll Be Back. They were more expensive than Marines, at the very least.
Matched Play requires symmetry in army power, but Narrative Play doesn't. It's a little sad that Narrative boils down to "here are a few example scenarios" but gives little further guidance on how to create your own scenarios.
Again, when Necron warriors first appeared they were more powerful than individual Astartes, and one of them was enough to cause a lot of trouble.
Necrons? When they were first introduced? No. They weren't over-all better. They were just tougher. That's literally it. Still slower, and less flexible. The original "zombie horde" as it were. They were definitely way more scary (in most but not all circumstances) under 2nd ed rules where the edition's targeting rules and their natural toughness made even one or two squads a real bear, but 1-on-1 I can't recall a time when a single Warrior was over-all better than a single marine.
Demons used to be enough of an issue that you have to call in a special dedicated chapter to deal with them or accept that things are going to get messy. (Actually, with the amount of teamkilling the Grey Knights are prone to, it's going to get messy anyway).
And they still are. But again, in-game - the lesser Demons were never, in 1-on-1 situations a real threat to a single Astartes. This is why I said "A" Necron and "A" demon.
I agree Astartes are now at a silly level where the other threats appear too weak, but let's not pretend there was ever a time when the lesser demons were so good, you could rely on one to be a credible threat to a marine.
That was the whole point of my original post. What made Warriors tough was that they were, in fact REALLY tough and came in great numbers. What made Demons tough was the ability to spawn from the warp and also, similar to Necrons, what happens when they were able to spawn in great numbers. But the have never been a 1-on-1 threat to a marine. The real problem is, we now see a situation where even in great numbers, they're no longer a threat to marines ...
Tycho with respect I think you are wrong on both points. In 2e, Necrons when introduced had a better save, higher toughness, were immune to leadership, had we'll be back that let them get up outside of squad coherency, and had a disruptor zone that gave a cumulative -1 to hit for each necron within 6 inches, disabled vehicles on a 4+ and disabled all special melee weapons in melee. They cost 44 points per model, I think being the most expensive troop model in the game. A marine cost 30 back then. The only thing they had worse than Marines was Initiative. They were not slower in movement though, they moved 4" a turn too. Their basic gun was also mental good. So they didn't come in great numbers, they would have been outnumbered by any Marine army, they were just incredibly tough and disrupted your technology.
Daemons are a bit more arguable, but for example Bloodletters used to have a better statline than a marine for Melee, deepstrike and assault when nobody else could do that, and each one was carrying a power weapon that ignored their saves. Marines were terrified of Bloodletters back then and each one was more than a match for a Marine in melee.
Same was true of Genestealers, if they got in melee they just made mincemeat of Marines.
Edit to add: And I am not saying (and clearly have not said) before anyone brings it up that Necrons should have all those rules back. I am just pushing back on the idea that they have always been a horde army who would outnumber Marines. That is just not true. And in 3e they were also more expensive than Marines per model.
catbarf wrote: 3rd Ed? Lower Initiative, but a better gun and We'll Be Back. They were more expensive than Marines, at the very least.
Always striking last, except for fists and the like, was a pretty massive downside at least IIRC. In 3rd you could Rhino rush their brick of warriors and dive into melee with it before they had much chance to do anything too frightening.
Rihgu wrote: Matched Play requires symmetry in army power
Why? That's the way it is now, but there's no reason you need both armies to have the exact same points level and mirror-match scenario setups and just in general this total symmetry we have in 9th. You can make asymmetry work- even just scenarios with a clear attacker and defender- within the framework provided by Matched Play.
At the bare minimum, something like Necrons having the option to take an extra 20% points, but automatically losing if they're reduced to 40% of starting strength, could slot right into the existing scenarios. Label it 'optional, not intended for tournament play' if competitive players will get in a twist over it.
The low rank and file demons weren't that impressive even in fantasy. They felt elite agaisnt normal humans but agaisnt elves or chaos warriors not so much.
And look at the TW3 cinematic. The problem with them is more about what surrounds a demon invasion than what the individual demon can do. (Talking about the lesser ones)
Again, when Necron warriors first appeared they were more powerful than individual Astartes, and one of them was enough to cause a lot of trouble.
Necrons? When they were first introduced? No. They weren't over-all better. They were just tougher. That's literally it. Still slower, and less flexible. The original "zombie horde" as it were. They were definitely way more scary (in most but not all circumstances) under 2nd ed rules where the edition's targeting rules and their natural toughness made even one or two squads a real bear, but 1-on-1 I can't recall a time when a single Warrior was over-all better than a single marine.
Demons used to be enough of an issue that you have to call in a special dedicated chapter to deal with them or accept that things are going to get messy. (Actually, with the amount of teamkilling the Grey Knights are prone to, it's going to get messy anyway).
And they still are. But again, in-game - the lesser Demons were never, in 1-on-1 situations a real threat to a single Astartes. This is why I said "A" Necron and "A" demon.
I agree Astartes are now at a silly level where the other threats appear too weak, but let's not pretend there was ever a time when the lesser demons were so good, you could rely on one to be a credible threat to a marine.
That was the whole point of my original post. What made Warriors tough was that they were, in fact REALLY tough and came in great numbers. What made Demons tough was the ability to spawn from the warp and also, similar to Necrons, what happens when they were able to spawn in great numbers. But the have never been a 1-on-1 threat to a marine. The real problem is, we now see a situation where even in great numbers, they're no longer a threat to marines ...
Tycho with respect I think you are wrong on both points. In 2e, Necrons when introduced had a better save, higher toughness, were immune to leadership, had we'll be back that let them get up outside of squad coherency, and had a disruptor zone that gave a cumulative -1 to hit for each necron within 6 inches, disabled vehicles on a 4+ and disabled all special melee weapons in melee. They cost 44 points per model, I think being the most expensive troop model in the game. A marine cost 30 back then. The only thing they had worse than Marines was Initiative. They were not slower in movement though, they moved 4" a turn too. Their basic gun was also mental good. So they didn't come in great numbers, they would have been outnumbered by any Marine army, they were just incredibly tough and disrupted your technology.
^Yeah, this. They were individually WAY better than Marines in 2nd ed.
In 3rd they were tougher in the sense that they got back up after sharing the same defensive stats. The Gauss Flayer was definitely better than a Bolter too. Auto-wounding and auto-glancing on 6s. The only stat the Necron Warrior had that was lower than a Marine was Initiative.
catbarf wrote: 3rd Ed? Lower Initiative, but a better gun and We'll Be Back. They were more expensive than Marines, at the very least.
Always striking last, except for fists and the like, was a pretty massive downside at least IIRC. In 3rd you could Rhino rush their brick of warriors and dive into melee with it before they had much chance to do anything too frightening.
Sure, but then you could teleport them out, resurrect with a 75% chance, and exit the Monolith like nothing happened.
Rihgu wrote: Matched Play requires symmetry in army power
Why? That's the way it is now, but there's no reason you need both armies to have the exact same points level and mirror-match scenario setups and just in general this total symmetry we have in 9th. You can make asymmetry work- even just scenarios with a clear attacker and defender- within the framework provided by Matched Play.
At the bare minimum, something like Necrons having the option to take an extra 20% points, but automatically losing if they're reduced to 40% of starting strength, could slot right into the existing scenarios. Label it 'optional, not intended for tournament play' if competitive players will get in a twist over it.
I mean, sure, you could tack on more Narrative rules to Matched Play but I feel like that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the framework and the reasoning behind having 3 modes of play in the first place.
I agree Astartes are now at a silly level where the other threats appear too weak, but let's not pretend there was ever a time when the lesser demons were so good, you could rely on one to be a credible threat to a marine.
Bloodletters in 3rd had 2 attacks at S5 vs a Marines 1 at S4.
In Chaos 3.5 Bloodletters had Hellblades which ignored armor, a 3+ save in addition to their 5+ invuln, and 2 attacks at S5. They cost 26 points to the Marines 15.
In both books the other daemons were equal points or more than Marines, indicating they were valued higher.
In 2nd Ed most lesser daemons were over 30 points to the Marine base cost of 30. A Bloodletter in 2nd would generally wreck a marine in CC, and the other daemons brought their own dangerous abilities.
Effing ORKS were a credible threat to Marines in a 1v1 fight in 3rd. Their Choppas reduced armor to 4+ and they had three attacks.
I think the math for the Ork would be .5 x .5 x .5 x3 = .375 for a kill.
The Marine with higher initiative had a .5 x .5 x .85 = .2 fighting first. So a Marine had a 1-5 chance of defending himself, then the Ork had better than a 1 in 3 to kill the Marine.
Edit: That's not even including the charge bonus. Orks had base 2 attacks, Choppa boys had a +1 for two CC weapons, and then a +1 for Charging. So each Choppa boy had 4 attacks giving a (.5 x .5 x .5 x 4 = .5) 1 in 2 chance of killing Marine in CC.
Racerguy180 wrote: -1 to w against ranged would be an appropriate representation. Daemons need to be less hordey and more horror from another plane of existence. Bump the price of troops a Lil to compensate and now they feel...daemony.
catbarf wrote:3rd Ed? Lower Initiative, but a better gun and We'll Be Back. They were more expensive than Marines, at the very least.
1 on 1 a 3rd Ed Necron Warrior didn't have access to We'll Be Back, the Lords could, however (but the Lords could ignore all Saves with their Warscythes).
As a unit, though, sure, but then the Marine Troop would have access to things other than their Bolters that could negate WBB like Meltaguns or Power Weapons.
Rihgu wrote: Matched Play requires symmetry in army power
Why? That's the way it is now, but there's no reason you need both armies to have the exact same points level and mirror-match scenario setups and just in general this total symmetry we have in 9th. You can make asymmetry work- even just scenarios with a clear attacker and defender- within the framework provided by Matched Play.
At the bare minimum, something like Necrons having the option to take an extra 20% points, but automatically losing if they're reduced to 40% of starting strength, could slot right into the existing scenarios. Label it 'optional, not intended for tournament play' if competitive players will get in a twist over it.
I mean, sure, you could tack on more Narrative rules to Matched Play but I feel like that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the framework and the reasoning behind having 3 modes of play in the first place.
What about the three modes of play suggests to you that Matched Play is only ever intended to be used with identical army strengths and identical objectives?
I see Matched Play as defining:
-Army structure, since it dictates the use of detachments and subfactions
-Points as a balancing factor
-How Command Points are accrued and spent
-Game balance limitations on outflanking, deep strike, and similar mechanics
In summary, establishing basic gameplay limitations for the sake of balance and codifying force composition. Matched Play seeks to establish balance; there's no reason you can't have balance with asymmetric army setups or asymmetric objectives. These things have existed in 40K's past and even been used in competitive tournaments- scenarios with defined attackers and defenders, or Tyranids having access to 'Without Number' as an upgrade. It's really not that unusual.
Rihgu wrote: Matched Play requires symmetry in army power
Why? That's the way it is now, but there's no reason you need both armies to have the exact same points level and mirror-match scenario setups and just in general this total symmetry we have in 9th. You can make asymmetry work- even just scenarios with a clear attacker and defender- within the framework provided by Matched Play.
At the bare minimum, something like Necrons having the option to take an extra 20% points, but automatically losing if they're reduced to 40% of starting strength, could slot right into the existing scenarios. Label it 'optional, not intended for tournament play' if competitive players will get in a twist over it.
I mean, sure, you could tack on more Narrative rules to Matched Play but I feel like that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the framework and the reasoning behind having 3 modes of play in the first place.
You're correct, matched play has always been holding the game back in terms of balance, scenarios and theme.
catbarf wrote:3rd Ed? Lower Initiative, but a better gun and We'll Be Back. They were more expensive than Marines, at the very least.
1 on 1 a 3rd Ed Necron Warrior didn't have access to We'll Be Back, the Lords could, however (but the Lords could ignore all Saves with their Warscythes).
As a unit, though, sure, but then the Marine Troop would have access to things other than their Bolters that could negate WBB like Meltaguns or Power Weapons.
Certainly, functionally speaking units fight units. A 10-man Marine unit was about the cost of the 10 man Necron unit. Individually the Necrons in that unit were better, but that could be offset by gear brought by the Marines.
Which brings up another one of my favorite design choices in the 3rd ed book. The Resurrection Orb, which was the aura buff before the modern aura buff. The Resurrection Orb allowed Necrons (in units within 6" of the Lord) to still get back up after being hit by Instant Death or AP2 weapons, etc. This encouraged units of Warriors to deploy in a big phalanx, just like the fluff described.
@Catbarf:
I love your suggestions for fluffy scenarios that touch on the weaknesses and modus operandi of various armies. I do, however, feel like we're overlooking something about matched play. Specifically that matched play kind of comes in (at least) two major varieties.
Matched play is pulling a double-shift by serving as both the "competitive" way to play and as the not-necessarily-competitive-but-still-relatively-balanced way to play. In theory, your proposed scenarios could be balanced enough to satisfy the latter, but they'd be *difficult enough* to balance that they're not ideal for the former.
tldr; If we distinguish between competitive and non-competitive matched play, your scenarios could probably work in the latter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: If you want to give the high-end Necron's something around defeating invulnerable saves I'd say give them +1 damage whenever an opponent rolls a 1 on a save of any type. This could represent their weapons being so deadly that any gap in your armor is a fatal flaw.
Bonus damage depending on save results gets kind of wonky though, doesn't it? Wouldn't you have to roll your saves one at a time to see whether you completely wipe out a 2W model versus only removing a single wound? I suppose that's similar to how damage rolls work already, but most armies don't have variable damage basic guns, and I assume you're talking about about giving this rule to gauss weapons.
Galas wrote: But marines make the big bucks and keep GW afloat so they have the privilege of having that also reflected in their rules.
Marines make the big bucks because GW is in a disinvestment cycle with basically all the other factions.
For my part, I might have bought more Ork and Harlequin stuff from GW if they didn't use all their production capabilities for MOAR PRIMARIS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nightlord1987 wrote: Daemons should only be killed by melee weapons in fluff, but they always forget that too.
What? No.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote: Necrons? When they were first introduced? No. They weren't over-all better. They were just tougher. That's literally it. Still slower, and less flexible. The original "zombie horde" as it were. They were definitely way more scary (in most but not all circumstances) under 2nd ed rules where the edition's targeting rules and their natural toughness made even one or two squads a real bear, but 1-on-1 I can't recall a time when a single Warrior was over-all better than a single marine.
I mean, back in 2e they had a statline overall superior to Marines (T5 and 2+ save, lower I tho) and had WBB and a scarier gun, plus the Disruptor Zone ability.
Tycho wrote: And they still are. But again, in-game - the lesser Demons were never, in 1-on-1 situations a real threat to a single Astartes. This is why I said "A" Necron and "A" demon.
Yes they were. In 3e and before, Bloodletters would mulch Astartes in CC and could basically be summoned right on top of them. Hell, they beat GK Termies in CC (though part of that is because Terminators were underpowered in that edition).
Wyldhunt wrote: @Catbarf:
I love your suggestions for fluffy scenarios that touch on the weaknesses and modus operandi of various armies. I do, however, feel like we're overlooking something about matched play. Specifically that matched play kind of comes in (at least) two major varieties.
Matched play is pulling a double-shift by serving as both the "competitive" way to play and as the not-necessarily-competitive-but-still-relatively-balanced way to play. In theory, your proposed scenarios could be balanced enough to satisfy the latter, but they'd be *difficult enough* to balance that they're not ideal for the former.
tldr; If we distinguish between competitive and non-competitive matched play, your scenarios could probably work in the latter.
Yeah, I'm onboard with that; if you read my subsequent posts I did specify that it's the sort of thing I could see tournament players balking at, and I agree with your assessment of Matched Play as serving an awkward double duty as both the ruleset for LVO and the ruleset for my buddies and I to play with points.
I don't see having some optional Matched Play rules that aren't perfectly suited to competitive play as a bad thing. Tournament players probably don't care if Necrons are as tough on the table as they are in the fluff. If these rules are based on altering points levels and/or scenario conditions, like the ideas I spitballed earlier, they don't have to mess with the core stats and thus don't have to impact tournament play at all.
Galas wrote: TBH we are complaining about the power fantasy of marines at the same time we are claiming back for the power fantasy of X faction to return. The Necron fluff is as much gauss-porn as marine is. And thats fun, each faction is absolutely devastating in their own fluff (With the exception of orks and imperial guard). But marines make the big bucks and keep GW afloat so they have the privilege of having that also reflected in their rules.
That surely sounds like an amazing idea to design the game around, Space Marines have the privilege to get portrayed as absurd Mary Sues and feth all the oher races who should be logically on par if not superior(at least in certain in aspects), cause hey Marines priviege. I have an even better idea, why don't just give each Marines unit a 2+ privilege roll, every hit against Marines fails if they don't roll a 1 with their privilege roll(that would even better portray a few of the dumbest Bolter Porn novels that exist).
Galas wrote: TBH we are complaining about the power fantasy of marines at the same time we are claiming back for the power fantasy of X faction to return. The Necron fluff is as much gauss-porn as marine is. And thats fun, each faction is absolutely devastating in their own fluff (With the exception of orks and imperial guard). But marines make the big bucks and keep GW afloat so they have the privilege of having that also reflected in their rules.
That surely sounds like an amazing idea to design the game around, Space Marines have the privilege to get portrayed as absurd Mary Sues and feth all the oher races who should be logically on par if not superior(at least in certain in aspects), cause hey Marines priviege. I have an even better idea, why don't just give each Marines unit a 2+ privilege roll, every hit against Marines fails if they don't roll a 1 with their privilege roll(that would even better portray a few of the dumbest Bolter Porn novels that exist).
It is a good idea for GW. Their sales and stock value has never been higher and more and more people are learning about 40k., which in turn is getting them more and more money.
Why do you think every unit has at least one special rule? To make eveything seem super special in a system that has a very low level of variance due to the d6.
Current design philosophy for 40k revolves all around special rules, and rules interations for and between units of an army.
This is partially to mitigate the limiting factor of the d6, but is more due to GW wanting the player to consistantly think about HOW UNITS WORK rather than HOW TO USE THEM on the battlefield. That kind of emphesis makes you think about how to collect and buy armies more than analysing how to play the game.
gunchar 795854 11050183 wrote:
That surely sounds like an amazing idea to design the game around, Space Marines have the privilege to get portrayed as absurd Mary Sues and feth all the oher races who should be logically on par if not superior(at least in certain in aspects), cause hey Marines priviege. I have an even better idea, why don't just give each Marines unit a 2+ privilege roll, every hit against Marines fails if they don't roll a 1 with their privilege roll(that would even better portray a few of the dumbest Bolter Porn novels that exist).
You do know that someone has to be the suprior and stronger one. Being better then others doesn't make you a mary sue.
Just because I can't do a pole vault jump over 4m high, doesn't mean that the guy that does a 6m one is Mary Sue.
Marines are better in fluff, the superior beings to practicaly everything that exists. Created by an actual Mangod. They are also the most popular army, which makes making people that play them happy a good thing to do for a company. Specially when w40k is the core of GW income. It makes marine buyers, both present and future ones kind of a important.
Marines are better in fluff, the superior beings to practicaly everything that exists
Except for when they aren't. Remember, a lot of fluff that gets written to 'big up' the faction it's being written for - the bloat of Space Marine products does mean that there's more opportunity for 'bigging up' SM in fluff, but there's still bits of fluff where SM get absolutely dumpstered by somebody (cf. the 3rd Ed Necron Codex vignette about the Black Templars). Also, while I don't mind that SM get fluff-based rules, they shouldn't be the only ones who get to live up to their fluff. Tyranids are constantly referenced as having endless swarms. Does that mean that they should get a special rule that allows them to respawn every single fallen model?
They are also the most popular army, which makes making people that play them happy a good thing to do for a company. Specially when w40k is the core of GW income. It makes marine buyers, both present and future ones kind of a important.
Yes, but that need not come at the expense of non-SM players. That seems to be the core of a lot of current gripes - GW isn't just giving SM lots of toys, they're giving SM lots of toys while most other factions get nothing.
30k got Daemons right compared to Marines. I didn't read the rest of the thread to see if it'd come up yet, so I won't rehash the reasons why here (in case a lengthy post has already been written on the topic), but I'd be happy to if anyone has questions.
Suffice to say, Daemons are different from Marines in just the right way to feel otherwordly and lovecraftian - they're neither more powerful nor less powerful overall (in certain situations they're more powerful and in other situations less powerful). Very different though.
That was the whole point of my original post. What made Warriors tough was that they were, in fact REALLY tough and came in great numbers.
Really tough? Yes, T5 and a 2+ save*.
Great #s? Well, they cost 44pts/model and come in squads of 3-10*. I guess you could arrive at "great #s" by dint of not having much else to spend pts on.... (initially just Lords, warriors, scarabs, & destroyers as of WD#218. Another year would pass before we'd get more options)
*: See WD#s 217/218, and bare in mind this is for 2e.
Tycho wrote: The real problem is, we now see a situation where even in great numbers, they're no longer a threat to marines ...
I assure you, even though they're now only T4/sv4+, here in 2021 I can do more than just threaten marines with great numbers of humble Necron Warriors. And for the pts I can bring 2x - to nearly 2.5x as many of them to the battle as I could back then. They also re-animate easier.
And strats. Don't forget about strats.
Marines are better in fluff, the superior beings to practicaly everything that exists. Created by an actual Mangod. They are also the most popular army, which makes making people that play them happy a good thing to do for a company. Specially when w40k is the core of GW income. It makes marine buyers, both present and future ones kind of a important.
Depends on the fluff, dude. They were not superior to the average Necron warrior until their fluff got way out of control.
If Astartes players are as you say, they are childish and selfish to the extreme and shouldn't be pandered to.
gunchar 795854 11050183 wrote:
That surely sounds like an amazing idea to design the game around, Space Marines have the privilege to get portrayed as absurd Mary Sues and feth all the oher races who should be logically on par if not superior(at least in certain in aspects), cause hey Marines priviege. I have an even better idea, why don't just give each Marines unit a 2+ privilege roll, every hit against Marines fails if they don't roll a 1 with their privilege roll(that would even better portray a few of the dumbest Bolter Porn novels that exist).
You do know that someone has to be the suprior and stronger one. Being better then others doesn't make you a mary sue.
Just because I can't do a pole vault jump over 4m high, doesn't mean that the guy that does a 6m one is Mary Sue.
Marines are better in fluff, the superior beings to practicaly everything that exists. Created by an actual Mangod. They are also the most popular army, which makes making people that play them happy a good thing to do for a company. Specially when w40k is the core of GW income. It makes marine buyers, both present and future ones kind of a important.
Talking about the fluff: I really do enjoy the stories where the marines get asswhiped and in the end steal a "tactical sneaky win" (like the beast arises). But some stories from horus heresy/siege of terra are more like a steven seagal movie. They're marines. the others too. But the ones with the right color just win. hard. The first ones are more enjoyable and have alot more tension and interest to me than the "steven seagal marine" novels. Space wolfs in HH feel more like steven's . Steven wolfs.
So for some players/readers it's better to not make them "superior to all", but inferior/mediocore, and let them win through great difficulty and good decision making
From a storytelling point of view, their power level is cool and appealling.
From a gaming point of view, not so much. I agree, it was more exciting when Genestealers and Bloodletters were more dangerous to them.
In particular I think bumping up their wounds was a bad thing for the game. Lighter infantry are now weaker than ever before by comparison. Eldar Aspect warriors used to have parity with them, (rightly so) now they're just coming across as flimsy and overpriced. The imparity between eradicators and fire dragons being perhaps the most blatant example.
I also thought it was better when Guard had tougher tanks, and Eldar had better grav tech. Since the 8ed renaissance, it seems marines have access to everything now. I find that really boring
thegreatchimp wrote: From a storytelling point of view, their power level is cool and appealling.
From a gaming point of view, not so much. I agree, it was more exciting when Genestealers and Bloodletters were more dangerous to them.
In particular I think bumping up their wounds was a bad thing for the game. Lighter infantry are now weaker than ever before by comparison. Eldar Aspect warriors used to have parity with them, (rightly so) now they're just coming across as flimsy and overpriced. The imparity between eradicators and fire dragons being perhaps the most blatant example.
I also thought it was better when Guard had tougher tanks, and Eldar had better grav tech. Since the 8ed renaissance, it seems marines have access to everything now. I find that really boring
This. I remember when genestealers fully ignored armor saves. A unit of 10 charging 5 terminators would be a total bloodbath; these alien horrors would rend them limb from limb. That same scenario occurred recently against the new dark angel terminators. I now see genestealers as very fast, expensive chaff. Even my warriors felt useless. It's pretty disheartening, really.
Nurglitch wrote: The thing is that it's really hard to make units interestingly different from each other when they all do the same things better or worse to some degree.
That's a much more compelling argument for dropping individual Space Marine chapter support and cutting Primaris.
Hecaton wrote: Back when I started playing 40k (*shakes cane), Astartes/Space Marines were head and shoulders better than most factions' other troops, but things like Bloodletters actually posed a challenge for them 1 on 1, and when Necrons were introduced they were actually tough for Astartes to take on. Thematically, this made the Astartes good antiheroes - sure, they were fascists, but the things they were up against were actually terrifying. Now that they've been power creeped to the moon, it's hard to take them as seriously - they're just this legion of super-powered fascists that are running around beating the crap out of everyone, they're not even sympathetic since they win all the time.
Your thoughts on this? If you were in charge of things, where would you put the Astartes profile with respect to things like demons and Necrons, which in other editions have either been their match or slightly their better?
SM are not fascists. They are warrior monks bordering on becoming religious nuts which the Black Templars already accomplished.
Thus they have more in common with the Spanish inquisition hunting down perceived threats. Targets would be the xenos, the traitor and the witch.
The Imperium would need a dictator in order to be recognized as a fascist state. Such a figure was in the past the Emperor but he obviously doesn't rule the IoM anymore. The true rulers are the High Lords of Terra and so the Imperium has become after the Horus Heresy an oligarchy.
Actually, you don't need to be a dictatorship to be fascist. If you actually read Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, the Imperium fits pretty much every single feature to a tee. It's definitely a more religious variant of fascism, but that's not surprising given religion has been proven to be real in the 40k universe.
Anyhow, as to the post topic, the space marines are absolutely overpowered compared to things like daemons and Necron warriors. Ancient soldiers with undying wills, made from living metal and with incredible technology going into their weaponry should easily fight a Space Marine toe-to-toe, let alone a "living" incarnation of rage and war. It'd be decent to see the space marines dropped to be more in line with their actual strength.
It's always amusing to see the delusion that mass-produced robots and an individual member of a limitless horde of daemons should be on par with a highly elite soldier numbering only a million at a time.
You'll never get what you want and this is a good thing.
Genetically engineered super soldiers from mankind who barely have a grasp on warp technology and the very basics of teleportation Vs. Engineered super soldiers from the Necrons who were built to wage the greatest war of all time, whose technology could capture and kill literal gods and stars alike. Yep, totally see how "mass produced" matters in this sense.
Regardless, Marines need a good rework. Like a SERIOUS rework. at the moment they are basically every single play style except for horde. Every faction's shtick has basically been co-opted by the Marines at this point.
Void__Dragon wrote:It's always amusing to see the delusion that mass-produced robots and an individual member of a limitless horde of daemons should be on par with a highly elite soldier numbering only a million at a time.
You'll never get what you want and this is a good thing.
That's the thing-one million Marines is so pathetically small, they shouldn't have any real impact on ANYTHING. I really wish GW had, instead of saying "1,000,000 Marines" had said "Marines make up only a small fraction of the bodies of the Imperium's war machine, but carry outsize influence due to their skill, equipment, and power."
Because 1,000,000 Marines is a really small amount. Way too small to impact much of anything on the galactic scale.
SemperMortis wrote:Genetically engineered super soldiers from mankind who barely have a grasp on warp technology and the very basics of teleportation Vs. Engineered super soldiers from the Necrons who were built to wage the greatest war of all time, whose technology could capture and kill literal gods and stars alike. Yep, totally see how "mass produced" matters in this sense.
Regardless, Marines need a good rework. Like a SERIOUS rework. at the moment they are basically every single play style except for horde. Every faction's shtick has basically been co-opted by the Marines at this point.
Void__Dragon wrote: It's always amusing to see the delusion that mass-produced robots and an individual member of a limitless horde of daemons should be on par with a highly elite soldier numbering only a million at a time.
You'll never get what you want and this is a good thing.
1) Quantity vs quality is not inherently a zero-sum game. Modern assault rifles are "mass produced" in a way the arquebus wasn't (and never could have been). Does this mean that an AK variant is therefore inferior to an arquebus?
2) "highly elite" for humans. Last I checked, Necrons weren't "human" in any meaningful sense, and daemons aren't even material entities to begin with.
3) As Semper pointed out, Necrons have tech that make the Imperium's finest machines look like the early creations of a not-particularly-bright mekboy.
4) That there are only a million SM at a given time is due in part to the gross inefficiency of their creation process. If I make swords, and my forging process has a 90% failure rate, that doesn't make the surviving 10% superior to the swords of others. That just makes me a garbage swordsmith.
5) We've already had what we want (you have read the rest of this thread, right?). That we no longer have it is a mistake we seek to correct.
Void__Dragon wrote: It's always amusing to see the delusion that mass-produced robots and an individual member of a limitless horde of daemons should be on par with a highly elite soldier numbering only a million at a time.
You'll never get what you want and this is a good thing.
Wars aren't fought by just lining up dudes across from each other and duking it out, and "eliteness" doesn't have to mean individually stronger/tougher etc.
A small number of Marines can prevail over a huge number of stronger-tougher enemies simply be being more operationally capable. Striking fast and hard, retaining the operational initiative, and efficiently coordinating with support, can win conflicts without each individual marine being required to be "more-betterer" than individuals on the opposing side.
Like, with the mindset of your statement, how do you think Marines have been able to fight Tyranids in the past? There are like, BILLIONS of Tyranid Warriors for every Hive Fleet. Each Tyranid Warrior is superior to a Marine. So how have Marines been able to prevail against such a force? Do you think each Marine personally kills thousands of Warriors by meeting it on the field and shooting it or defeating it in 1v1 combat?
JNAProductions wrote:That's the thing-one million Marines is so pathetically small, they shouldn't have any real impact on ANYTHING. I really wish GW had, instead of saying "1,000,000 Marines" had said "Marines make up only a small fraction of the bodies of the Imperium's war machine, but carry outsize influence due to their skill, equipment, and power."
Because 1,000,000 Marines is a really small amount. Way too small to impact much of anything on the galactic scale.
I know they have said that the average Marine Chapter is limited to 1,000 Battle Brothers, and that there are only 1,000 Chapters, but I don't think that 1,000,000 Marines has ever been actually stated, just math used by the players.
The Battle Brothers comprise the bulk of a Chapter, but don't include the leadership, Librarium, Apostolary, or Techs, nor does it consider those Chapters who are incredibly over the restriction (ex Space Wolves and Black Templars). Admittedly, there are more than a few Chapters who are UNDER their expected size due to a variety of different reasons, and that could bring the balance back down.
Still, the point about their limit in numbers is poignant, especially when there isn't enough Marines for one for each planet of the Imperium. At the minimum, one should expect a Chapter per Sector, if not a Chapter per subsector, and then left that number to be undetermined, even with the base expectation of 1,000 Battle Brothers per Chapter.
SemperMortis wrote:Genetically engineered super soldiers from mankind who barely have a grasp on warp technology and the very basics of teleportation Vs. Engineered super soldiers from the Necrons who were built to wage the greatest war of all time, whose technology could capture and kill literal gods and stars alike. Yep, totally see how "mass produced" matters in this sense.
Regardless, Marines need a good rework. Like a SERIOUS rework. at the moment they are basically every single play style except for horde. Every faction's shtick has basically been co-opted by the Marines at this point.
Well, Marines were designed by someone who was better at such things than the sum of Mankind, and Mankind's tech has seen 10,000 years of stagnation, if not outright degradation.
Still, in game terms, you are correct. If they want Marines to be Movie Marines, they should just get on with it, but that would take over what Custodes are supposed to be.
To be fair, Necron Warriors are the militia of the Necrons, at best, and shouldn't be compared to Marines. The closest Imperium analogue would be Conscripts. Immortals would be Imperial Guard and Scions, and the Lychguard and Praetorians would be the Marine analogues. The Necrontyr were also more fragile then Man to begin with as well, and their upgrades to Necrons were probably designed with facing off against the normal forces of the Old Ones that they had lost to.
Daemons are a lot harder to quantify. They have the basic troops, the monsters, and then some things in between. Most of those in-between options tend to be more Monstrous than the Marines are, such as the Flamers and Fiends. And it is quite possible that the Astartes were designed to EVENTUALLY face them when the Emperor had conquered the galaxy, but Chaos kind of interrupted that path.
Should they be as good as they currently are? I'm on the fence, mostly because I have no data on it. I would be fine if the points reflected those changes, but that would mean a lot of players would be trimming down their armies instead of expanding them, which is not a path I see GW encouraging. Which probably means that it shouldn't be changed so drastically without more ramifications.
To be fair, Necron Warriors are the militia of the Necrons, at best, and shouldn't be compared to Marines. The closest Imperium analogue would be Conscripts. Immortals would be Imperial Guard and Scions, and the Lychguard and Praetorians would be the Marine analogues. The Necrontyr were also more fragile then Man to begin with as well, and their upgrades to Necrons were probably designed with facing off against the normal forces of the Old Ones that they had lost to.
See. . . even if the Necrons are the "militia" of the Necrons, isn't it more ominous having a foe where even the slave militia are individually equal to or superior to Marines? That's on of the reasons I was drawn to the Necrons back in 3rd. Something which seems to be lost on many people is the fact that different factions/races don't have to be operating on the same scale of humans at all. There's no reason why another race couldn't just be operating on a whole other level, rather than being framed as equal-ish to humanity through some sort of galactic balance.
This is one of the great aspects about the original Grimdark. Humans suck compared to the alien threats out there. The best humanity could do was Marines, and even they were A: Few in number B: Still not on par with many of the external threats, and C: Humanity's own worst enemy by way of having them turn traitor all the time.
To be fair, Necron Warriors are the militia of the Necrons, at best, and shouldn't be compared to Marines. The closest Imperium analogue would be Conscripts.
Conscripts who don't need to sleep or eat, who can't suffocate or drown or get sick or outrun their supply lines, who don't feel fear or despair or fatigue, who are made of living metal that can repair serious injuries in seconds, who can teleport away for recovery if they sustain damage that would almost certainly kill a Space Marine (but which only incapacitates the Warrior), and whose basic weapon disassembles the target on the atomic level. No, a Warrior isn't as aware or intelligent or as quick to react as a Space Marine. I'm still not going to bet on the Space Marine winning a 1v1 unless there's some other advantage in play (to be fair, I wouldn't bet on the Space Marine automatically losing, either).
I know they have said that the average Marine Chapter is limited to 1,000 Battle Brothers, and that there are only 1,000 Chapters, but I don't think that 1,000,000 Marines has ever been actually stated, just math used by the players.
The Battle Brothers comprise the bulk of a Chapter, but don't include the leadership, Librarium, Apostolary, or Techs, nor does it consider those Chapters who are incredibly over the restriction (ex Space Wolves and Black Templars). Admittedly, there are more than a few Chapters who are UNDER their expected size due to a variety of different reasons, and that could bring the balance back down.
Still, the point about their limit in numbers is poignant, especially when there isn't enough Marines for one for each planet of the Imperium. At the minimum, one should expect a Chapter per Sector, if not a Chapter per subsector, and then left that number to be undetermined, even with the base expectation of 1,000 Battle Brothers per Chapter.
One has to take note of the incredible incompetence of the adminstration of the Imperium. For every Official Space Marine chapter there's likely multiple chapters that
1) The report indicating their creation was never filed
2) The report indicating their creation was filed but to the wrong department, so the Astral Warriors are 1000 genetically engineered super... chefs? Well, that's what the paperwork says at least.
3) filed erroneously as destroyed, lost, or otherwise MIA
4) filed erroneously as Renegade or Heretic but nobody has the resources to do anything about it and nobody told the chapter they're technically the bad guys.
5) Chapter has the same name as an existing one so somebody threw out the new record thinking it was a duplicate
It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to say there's 10x or more the amount of space marines officially listed in the records of the Imperium.
SemperMortis wrote: Regardless, Marines need a good rework. Like a SERIOUS rework. at the moment they are basically every single play style except for horde. Every faction's shtick has basically been co-opted by the Marines at this point.
I don't even know what gimmick each army has anymore. As far as I can tell it's "horde" and "not horde".
What gimmicks can marines do that orks can't? Or eldar might be a better example. Who owns the bike army gimmick?
Or do you mean successfully in an edition where only a handful of factions have books?
Insectum7 wrote:See. . . even if the Necrons are the "militia" of the Necrons, isn't it more ominous having a foe where even the slave militia are individually equal to or superior to Marines? That's on of the reasons I was drawn to the Necrons back in 3rd. Something which seems to be lost on many people is the fact that different factions/races don't have to be operating on the same scale of humans at all. There's no reason why another race couldn't just be operating on a whole other level, rather than being framed as equal-ish to humanity through some sort of galactic balance.
This is one of the great aspects about the original Grimdark. Humans suck compared to the alien threats out there. The best humanity could do was Marines, and even they were A: Few in number B: Still not on par with many of the external threats, and C: Humanity's own worst enemy by way of having them turn traitor all the time.
I'm not disagreeing. To be honest, I thought the balance was about right near the beginning of 6th Edition between a Tactical, Immortal, and Warrior. 7th Edition wasn't too bad either, aside from the Detachment shenanigans that camped in Crazy Town. I can't really say much about 3rd, 4th, or 5th, though, as I started collecting in 5th, but from what I read of the codices, the Necron's biggest problem was being left behind till the end of 5th Ed. Heck, it was the limitation of options which kept them from being my first army (that and wanting to be able to jump and shoot, so Tau).
The problem is that there hasn't much of a difference between any of the three Guardsmen lines, much less them and the Marines before now. While I can see improving Marines in relation to the Guardsmen (and even Eldar, really), it is a bad thing when everything else that is to be scary isn't being changed with the same differences in mind.
To be fair, Necron Warriors are the militia of the Necrons, at best, and shouldn't be compared to Marines. The closest Imperium analogue would be Conscripts.
Conscripts who don't need to sleep or eat, who can't suffocate or drown or get sick or outrun their supply lines, who don't feel fear or despair or fatigue, who are made of living metal that can repair serious injuries in seconds, who can teleport away for recovery if they sustain damage that would almost certainly kill a Space Marine (but which only incapacitates the Warrior), and whose basic weapon disassembles the target on the atomic level. No, a Warrior isn't as aware or intelligent or as quick to react as a Space Marine. I'm still not going to bet on the Space Marine winning a 1v1 unless there's some other advantage in play (to be fair, I wouldn't bet on the Space Marine automatically losing, either).
Indeed. But having that difference between a Conscript and a Necron Warrior should be defining the upgrade difference between a Lychguard/Praetorian and a Tactical.
I'd still put the odds on the Tactical against a Warrior simply due to imagination and speed, with only the Warrior's weapon making up the difference as they closed.
Hecaton wrote: The whole initial point of the Necrons was that their basic trooper (you can call them a "conscript" if you like) is on par with an Astartes.
That was also in 2nd Eition, they were "new" to the Imperium, and had poor information on them. Marines also had to buy their Grenades back in 3rd, too.
The whole argument about necrons being "conscripts" vs "elite soldiers" hinges on the nonsense idea that the tech level of imperium and necrons was the same.
Better comparison would be the M4 Sherman for Necrons and a trebuchet for Marines. One represents mass-produced product, the other is the finest feat of engineering that the civilization could produce.
Obviously a trebuchet was much superior, elite weapon to the M4.
Hecaton wrote: The whole initial point of the Necrons was that their basic trooper (you can call them a "conscript" if you like) is on par with an Astartes.
That was also in 2nd Eition, they were "new" to the Imperium, and had poor information on them. Marines also had to buy their Grenades back in 3rd, too.
Well, in 2nd they were flatly superior (and 50% ppm more). They were brought down for 3rd ed, then further down in 5th ed, and then Marines have been amped up for 9th ed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote: The whole argument about necrons being "conscripts" vs "elite soldiers" hinges on the nonsense idea that the tech level of imperium and necrons was the same.
Better comparison would be the M4 Sherman for Necrons and a trebuchet for Marines. One represents mass-produced product, the other is the finest feat of engineering that the civilization could produce.
Obviously a trebuchet was much superior, elite weapon to the M4.
The 3rd Ed codex was my introduction to 40k I finally got a physical copy 15 yrs after loaning mine to another player who vanished with it.
I want these Necrons, phase out and all.
Blndmage wrote: The 3rd Ed codex was my introduction to 40k I finally got a physical copy 15 yrs after loaning mine to another player who vanished with it.
I want these Necrons, phase out and all.
+1 I feel the same way. I'm happy to trade away all the newer options in favor of the 3rd ed Crons.
Blndmage wrote: The 3rd Ed codex was my introduction to 40k I finally got a physical copy 15 yrs after loaning mine to another player who vanished with it.
I want these Necrons, phase out and all.
+1 I feel the same way. I'm happy to trade away all the newer options in favor of the 3rd ed Crons.
I'm almost tempted to hunt for a codex, or supplement, I'm only looking for a small number of units, that function like oldcrons, and just use my 3rd Ed Necrons instead of that army.
Blndmage wrote: The 3rd Ed codex was my introduction to 40k I finally got a physical copy 15 yrs after loaning mine to another player who vanished with it.
I want these Necrons, phase out and all.
+1 I feel the same way. I'm happy to trade away all the newer options in favor of the 3rd ed Crons.
I'm almost tempted to hunt for a codex, or supplement, I'm only looking for a small number of units, that function like oldcrons, and just use my 3rd Ed Necrons instead of that army.
It's hard to do without WBB. for a while I thought I'd just run Warrior models but use the Immortal statline, which would work pretty well with the exception that Immortals only go up to a unit size of 10. But it ought to get a pretty mean silver-tide army. The real bugger for me is how bad the Monolith appears to be now. What it was capable of in 3rd was totally unique. And none of the new Destroyers seem to work well for opting in a Flayed Ones or Immortals or anything, and the traditional Destroyers have come down in value since 3rd as well. It's all kinda meh.
Blndmage wrote: The 3rd Ed codex was my introduction to 40k I finally got a physical copy 15 yrs after loaning mine to another player who vanished with it.
I want these Necrons, phase out and all.
+1 I feel the same way. I'm happy to trade away all the newer options in favor of the 3rd ed Crons.
I'm almost tempted to hunt for a codex, or supplement, I'm only looking for a small number of units, that function like oldcrons, and just use my 3rd Ed Necrons instead of that army.
It's hard to do without WBB. for a while I thought I'd just run Warrior models but use the Immortal statline, which would work pretty well with the exception that Immortals only go up to a unit size of 10. But it ought to get a pretty mean silver-tide army. The real bugger for me is how bad the Monolith appears to be now. What it was capable of in 3rd was totally unique. And none of the new Destroyers seem to work well for opting in a Flayed Ones or Immortals or anything, and the traditional Destroyers have come down in value since 3rd as well. It's all kinda meh.
This year the stars aligned and I was gifted with two old Monoliths. Both proper bricks, one printed, one real one missing all the green bits and a few others. It's been the iconic Necron model, huge, imposing, a slow, methodical, living brick that lays waste to anything that approaches it, while simultaneously teleporting blocks of Warriors all over the battlefield.
If I could get one more, I'd be able to play the most iconic Necron army, adjusted for edition scale creep: 3 Monoliths, 2 Lord's, warlord has a veil, the other is plain and 60 flayer Warriors, is exactly 2,000pnts and starts with 6CP. I rarely play games that big, so that would be my go to.
Blndmage wrote: The 3rd Ed codex was my introduction to 40k I finally got a physical copy 15 yrs after loaning mine to another player who vanished with it.
I want these Necrons, phase out and all.
+1 I feel the same way. I'm happy to trade away all the newer options in favor of the 3rd ed Crons.
I'm almost tempted to hunt for a codex, or supplement, I'm only looking for a small number of units, that function like oldcrons, and just use my 3rd Ed Necrons instead of that army.
It's hard to do without WBB. for a while I thought I'd just run Warrior models but use the Immortal statline, which would work pretty well with the exception that Immortals only go up to a unit size of 10. But it ought to get a pretty mean silver-tide army. The real bugger for me is how bad the Monolith appears to be now. What it was capable of in 3rd was totally unique. And none of the new Destroyers seem to work well for opting in a Flayed Ones or Immortals or anything, and the traditional Destroyers have come down in value since 3rd as well. It's all kinda meh.
This year the stars aligned and I was gifted with two old Monoliths. Both proper bricks, one printed, one real one missing all the green bits and a few others. It's been the iconic Necron model, huge, imposing, a slow, methodical, living brick that lays waste to anything that approaches it, while simultaneously teleporting blocks of Warriors all over the battlefield.
If I could get one more, I'd be able to play the most iconic Necron army, adjusted for edition scale creep: 3 Monoliths, 2 Lord's, warlord has a veil, the other is plain and 60 flayer Warriors, is exactly 2,000pnts and starts with 6CP. I rarely play games that big, so that would be my go to.
That is inspiring! I actually have three of the bricks, two of them I bought last year on ebay just after they went out of stock at GW. Paid what felt a pretty penny at the time but what turned out to be the price of ONE of the new ones once they came out, but they are New In Box. I have a third that is the only thing I had left after I sold my original Necron army years back. I'm just finishing putting all the Indomitus Warriors I got. I could field the army you propose if I got my act together and actually finished the things. The fact that the iconic horde can make a 2K army on the nose is basically a sign that I should find the time to make that happen.
To be fair, Necron Warriors are the militia of the Necrons, at best, and shouldn't be compared to Marines. The closest Imperium analogue would be Conscripts. Immortals would be Imperial Guard and Scions, and the Lychguard and Praetorians would be the Marine analogues. The Necrontyr were also more fragile then Man to begin with as well, and their upgrades to Necrons were probably designed with facing off against the normal forces of the Old Ones that they had lost to.
Time machine time. I'm going to take a random militia from Virginia or some other random US State back in time a mere 200 years. I will bet you $1,000,000 that those random VA Militia men beat the entire British army with little effort. Why? Because that Militia is now armed with AR-15s, scoped long rifles and body armor, not to mention optics, night vision, better grasp of battlefield medicine etc.
Brown Bess Musket, used by the British army in 1776 was accurate at about 50 yards and could maybe hit a target if they were lucky at 100 yards. About 3 rounds a minute was the average.
AR-15, used by millions of Americans, accurate at 400 to 600 yards depending on who made it, Rate of fire, depending on skill again is between 60 and 100 rounds a minute.
So a militia of 100 Virginians with AR-15s could outperform 3,000 british regulars easily and likely would kill most of them before they closed to within range of their own weapons.
So saying that Necron Warriors are the "militia" is irrelevant when you are talking about a race that is literally 100s of millennia older.
SemperMortis wrote: Regardless, Marines need a good rework. Like a SERIOUS rework. at the moment they are basically every single play style except for horde. Every faction's shtick has basically been co-opted by the Marines at this point.
I don't even know what gimmick each army has anymore. As far as I can tell it's "horde" and "not horde".
What gimmicks can marines do that orks can't? Or eldar might be a better example. Who owns the bike army gimmick?
Or do you mean successfully in an edition where only a handful of factions have books?
The question is what can Space Marines NOT do. and the only thing I can think of is horde. if you want to go back to 8th edition once everyone had their codex that is fine. SM had some of the best and in some cases THE BEST flyer lists, armored lists, elite infantry lists, Walker lists, biker lists, fast attack lists, etc etc etc.
Think of a faction and their main "theme" and then look at the recent SM releases and see that SMs are now better at that theme than the faction that it was designed for. This applies almost across the board.
Hecaton wrote: The whole initial point of the Necrons was that their basic trooper (you can call them a "conscript" if you like) is on par with an Astartes.
That was also in 2nd Eition, they were "new" to the Imperium, and had poor information on them. Marines also had to buy their Grenades back in 3rd, too.
Well, in 2nd they were flatly superior (and 50% ppm more). They were brought down for 3rd ed, then further down in 5th ed, and then Marines have been amped up for 9th ed.
I'm more saying that the reason for a reduction in power comes from more being revealed about the Necrons. From a business sense, this is because more models have been released, but from a lore POV, it is because they Dynasties have been waking up, more Necron encounters have begun happening, so more information is gathered. As more information is gathered, they become less scary and "weaker".
Still, I hold to the variety of Necrons is about right, but with the change to the Astartes, similar considerations need to be changed across the board to match that. Stat-wise, Immortals probably wouldn't be changed, as I said, they were the "Guardsmen" or "Scions" of the Necron army. It's the elite types like the Lychguard, Praetorians, and maybe the Destroyers (I haven't really reviewed the new stats), that need to be addressed and upgraded akin to how the Astartes have been, and how the Chaos Astartes should be.
SemperMortis wrote:
Charistoph wrote: To be fair, Necron Warriors are the militia of the Necrons, at best, and shouldn't be compared to Marines. The closest Imperium analogue would be Conscripts. Immortals would be Imperial Guard and Scions, and the Lychguard and Praetorians would be the Marine analogues. The Necrontyr were also more fragile then Man to begin with as well, and their upgrades to Necrons were probably designed with facing off against the normal forces of the Old Ones that they had lost to.
Time machine time. I'm going to take a random militia from Virginia or some other random US State back in time a mere 200 years. I will bet you $1,000,000 that those random VA Militia men beat the entire British army with little effort. Why? Because that Militia is now armed with AR-15s, scoped long rifles and body armor, not to mention optics, night vision, better grasp of battlefield medicine etc.
Brown Bess Musket, used by the British army in 1776 was accurate at about 50 yards and could maybe hit a target if they were lucky at 100 yards. About 3 rounds a minute was the average.
AR-15, used by millions of Americans, accurate at 400 to 600 yards depending on who made it, Rate of fire, depending on skill again is between 60 and 100 rounds a minute.
So a militia of 100 Virginians with AR-15s could outperform 3,000 british regulars easily and likely would kill most of them before they closed to within range of their own weapons.
So saying that Necron Warriors are the "militia" is irrelevant when you are talking about a race that is literally 100s of millennia older.
Most of that millennia is meaningless when they have been in stasis for the vast majority of it, and pretty much all known innovative spirit (if any) is locked in to a relative few before that happened.
But my comparison still holds in the fact that the Warriors are the conscripts, and they still hold and hit almost as well as a Chaos Astartes (at present). That should be a scary consideration on its own. The rest of the Necrons should have seen a similiar variance between them when compared to the Astartes as well, if we're going to use those sets as baselines.
Most of that millennia is meaningless when they have been in stasis for the vast majority of it, and pretty much all known innovative spirit (if any) is locked in to a relative few before that happened...
Why would the lack of innovation matter? Necrons were orders of magnitude more advanced than the current Imperium when they went into stasis, the fact they haven't done much work in the interim is meaningless. A modern rifle wouldn't magically become equivalent to whatever western lowlands gorillas are fighting each other with 2500 years from now just because no one's bothered to upgrade it to a railgun in the meantime.
Hecaton wrote: The whole initial point of the Necrons was that their basic trooper (you can call them a "conscript" if you like) is on par with an Astartes.
That was also in 2nd Eition, they were "new" to the Imperium, and had poor information on them. Marines also had to buy their Grenades back in 3rd, too.
Well, in 2nd they were flatly superior (and 50% ppm more). They were brought down for 3rd ed, then further down in 5th ed, and then Marines have been amped up for 9th ed.
I'm more saying that the reason for a reduction in power comes from more being revealed about the Necrons. From a business sense, this is because more models have been released, but from a lore POV, it is because they Dynasties have been waking up, more Necron encounters have begun happening, so more information is gathered. As more information is gathered, they become less scary and "weaker".
Laaaaaaaaame.
Yeah, yeah. . . the more Dynasties wake up the weaker Necrons become. . . . makes perfect sense.
Most of that millennia is meaningless when they have been in stasis for the vast majority of it, and pretty much all known innovative spirit (if any) is locked in to a relative few before that happened...
Why would the lack of innovation matter? Necrons were orders of magnitude more advanced than the current Imperium when they went into stasis, the fact they haven't done much work in the interim is meaningless. A modern rifle wouldn't magically become equivalent to whatever western lowlands gorillas are fighting each other with 2500 years from now just because no one's bothered to upgrade it to a railgun in the meantime.
Innovation matters if one is actively pursuing it across the millennia. From what we've seen the Necrons stopped at a certain point. It was a very powerful point, but they are still stopped.
Hecaton wrote: The whole initial point of the Necrons was that their basic trooper (you can call them a "conscript" if you like) is on par with an Astartes.
That was also in 2nd Eition, they were "new" to the Imperium, and had poor information on them. Marines also had to buy their Grenades back in 3rd, too.
Well, in 2nd they were flatly superior (and 50% ppm more). They were brought down for 3rd ed, then further down in 5th ed, and then Marines have been amped up for 9th ed.
I'm more saying that the reason for a reduction in power comes from more being revealed about the Necrons. From a business sense, this is because more models have been released, but from a lore POV, it is because they Dynasties have been waking up, more Necron encounters have begun happening, so more information is gathered. As more information is gathered, they become less scary and "weaker".
Laaaaaaaaame.
Yeah, yeah. . . the more Dynasties wake up the weaker Necrons become. . . . makes perfect sense.
Way to skip steps to make it seem lame. Look through the steps again.
The 3rd and 4th Ed codices were written from the perspective of the Imperium. So they were having limited contact with Necrons because relatively few of their worlds were awake and active. The 5th Edition codices were written from the races' perspectives.
Dynasties reached the point they were to awaken, so more and more worlds come online and start sending out forces for resources, dominance, whatever.
As more Dynasties awake, more interactions are had.
With more interactions come more information.
With more information, more effective means of countering them become available, or at least, it is put in to proper perspective.
However, this concept falls apart when suddenly Marines start getting protagonist stamina and equipment, which I have agreed is a problem with the Marine upgrade situation that this thread is covering as a problem and the Necrons who came out at the same time (for all intents and purposes), did not receive an equivalent change to match that perspective change the new Marines bring.
^No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
Hecaton wrote: The whole initial point of the Necrons was that their basic trooper (you can call them a "conscript" if you like) is on par with an Astartes.
That was also in 2nd Eition, they were "new" to the Imperium, and had poor information on them. Marines also had to buy their Grenades back in 3rd, too.
Well, in 2nd they were flatly superior (and 50% ppm more). They were brought down for 3rd ed, then further down in 5th ed, and then Marines have been amped up for 9th ed.
I'm more saying that the reason for a reduction in power comes from more being revealed about the Necrons. From a business sense, this is because more models have been released, but from a lore POV, it is because they Dynasties have been waking up, more Necron encounters have begun happening, so more information is gathered. As more information is gathered, they become less scary and "weaker".
Laaaaaaaaame.
Yeah, yeah. . . the more Dynasties wake up the weaker Necrons become. . . . makes perfect sense.
Apparently even Necrons are bound by the conservation of Ninjitsu.
Racerguy180 wrote: The Me-262 was scary right up until the first P51 turned quicker to the right.
Weren't they scarier, because the ally air forces had like a 7 to 1 numerical superiority, on top of not having fuel restrictions put on how long they can remain operational?
No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
This comes dangerously close to a claim against the superiority of the human race in w40k.
No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
This comes dangerously close to a claim against the superiority of the human race in w40k.
One of the things I like about the core of 40K, is that humans are among the worst. A basic human is worse than an Ork, worse than an Eldar, and worse than a Tau. Humans are better than Gretchin. . . roughly on par with a Termagant. Necrons, at one point, were the best "lowly trooper". Superior, undying, unfathomable technology and led by actual, physical gods. Not so much anymore.
No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
This comes dangerously close to a claim against the superiority of the human race in w40k.
One of the things I like about the core of 40K, is that humans are among the worst. A basic human is worse than an Ork, worse than an Eldar, and worse than a Tau. Humans are better than Gretchin. . . roughly on par with a Termagant. Necrons, at one point, were the best "lowly trooper". Superior, undying, unfathomable technology and led by actual, physical gods. Not so much anymore.
They aren't? Necron Warriors definitely look better than any other "lowly trooper", at least on paper, and Immortals are better than a typical Astartes. Reanimation Protocols and Living Metal give you the "undying" element, and C'tan are about as close to "actual physical gods" as I think the game needs. As for superior technology, 4++ abounds, and most vehicles have both "permanent Transhuman" and 5++, and Necrons have some pretty nasty weapons. Just how much better than everyone else do you want Necrons to be? They need to be balanced against everyone else (which I think they are if you stick with everyone else with a 9th edition codex). If you push them much farther how do you do that?
Honestly? They should be a bigger threat than Chaos. That's the problem with bringing in Unfathomably Ancient Evil to a game where you need balance, it nerfs the Unfathomable Evil into "the same as basic troops of everyone else, but got regeneration".
No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
This comes dangerously close to a claim against the superiority of the human race in w40k.
One of the things I like about the core of 40K, is that humans are among the worst. A basic human is worse than an Ork, worse than an Eldar, and worse than a Tau. Humans are better than Gretchin. . . roughly on par with a Termagant. Necrons, at one point, were the best "lowly trooper". Superior, undying, unfathomable technology and led by actual, physical gods. Not so much anymore.
They aren't? Necron Warriors definitely look better than any other "lowly trooper", at least on paper, and Immortals are better than a typical Astartes. Reanimation Protocols and Living Metal give you the "undying" element, and C'tan are about as close to "actual physical gods" as I think the game needs. As for superior technology, 4++ abounds, and most vehicles have both "permanent Transhuman" and 5++, and Necrons have some pretty nasty weapons. Just how much better than everyone else do you want Necrons to be? They need to be balanced against everyone else (which I think they are if you stick with everyone else with a 9th edition codex). If you push them much farther how do you do that?
Yeah I'm struggling to see Insectum7's issue. The basic Warrior is superior to a LOT of core troop choices, and the Immortals moreso. What's the problem besides the obviously projected "Change bad"?
Well, Hecaton's original point was that it changes the story of 40K as it was and makes it something different. I think the different thing is worse, far less compelling and so on.
You might disagree, but you can do it without disparaging other posters opinions because you disagree with them.
After playing with necron warriors I can say they even being the "cheap" troops of the Necrons feel much better and stronger (In rules and game use) than basically all other troops of the game barring marines, tyranid warriors , custodes and harlequins.
But thats not the problem here, of course. The problem is that necrons have worse stats than marines and that cannot be. Even if with S5 AP-2 guns they eat marines for breakfast.
Insectum7 wrote:^No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
Except to the Eldar they are the myth of ancient nightmares as opposed to the unknown, and have been going by the premise of dealing with new species and Orks for the last 60+million years.
No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
This comes dangerously close to a claim against the superiority of the human race in w40k.
One of the things I like about the core of 40K, is that humans are among the worst. A basic human is worse than an Ork, worse than an Eldar, and worse than a Tau. Humans are better than Gretchin. . . roughly on par with a Termagant. Necrons, at one point, were the best "lowly trooper". Superior, undying, unfathomable technology and led by actual, physical gods. Not so much anymore.
Actually a Human and Tau are as close together as a Human and a Termagant, probably even closer. What makes the biggest differences is the gear they use.
Now, for comparison, the Necron Warrior still isn't supposed to be compared to the Tactical, and hasn't been since the end of 5th Edition and the order of how the Necrontyr were encased in to Necrons. It might be for the game, but the Astartes aren't a lowly trooper army to begin with any more than the Custodes are, and the lowest Astartes trooper is the Scout, not the Tactical.
Gadzilla666 wrote:They aren't? Necron Warriors definitely look better than any other "lowly trooper", at least on paper, and Immortals are better than a typical Astartes. Reanimation Protocols and Living Metal give you the "undying" element, and C'tan are about as close to "actual physical gods" as I think the game needs. As for superior technology, 4++ abounds, and most vehicles have both "permanent Transhuman" and 5++, and Necrons have some pretty nasty weapons. Just how much better than everyone else do you want Necrons to be? They need to be balanced against everyone else (which I think they are if you stick with everyone else with a 9th edition codex). If you push them much farther how do you do that?
Pretty much my point.
The only reason we're even having this conversation is due to the changes that have happened withe the Loyal Astartes, so the once mighty Necrons seem to be falling behind as a result. Which I tend to agree with it being a problem. As the base Astartes stats increased, we should have seen a similar increase in certain aspects of the Necrons as well, with other armies seeing increases in specific units as their new codices come in.
Galas wrote: After playing with necron warriors I can say they even being the "cheap" troops of the Necrons feel much better and stronger (In rules and game use) than basically all other troops of the game barring marines, tyranid warriors , custodes and harlequins.
But thats not the problem here, of course. The problem is that necrons have worse stats than marines and that cannot be. Even if with S5 AP-2 guns they eat marines for breakfast.
Why should they have lower stats than low-tech army like marines? The basic assumption seems to be that Marines MUST be stronger than everyone else...
No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
This comes dangerously close to a claim against the superiority of the human race in w40k.
One of the things I like about the core of 40K, is that humans are among the worst. A basic human is worse than an Ork, worse than an Eldar, and worse than a Tau. Humans are better than Gretchin. . . roughly on par with a Termagant. Necrons, at one point, were the best "lowly trooper". Superior, undying, unfathomable technology and led by actual, physical gods. Not so much anymore.
They aren't? Necron Warriors definitely look better than any other "lowly trooper", at least on paper, and Immortals are better than a typical Astartes. Reanimation Protocols and Living Metal give you the "undying" element, and C'tan are about as close to "actual physical gods" as I think the game needs. As for superior technology, 4++ abounds, and most vehicles have both "permanent Transhuman" and 5++, and Necrons have some pretty nasty weapons. Just how much better than everyone else do you want Necrons to be? They need to be balanced against everyone else (which I think they are if you stick with everyone else with a 9th edition codex). If you push them much farther how do you do that?
Very simple, better than an Astartes. Just as they used to be. And of course you could balance around that, as they were balanced around that before.
Insectum7 wrote:^No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
Except to the Eldar they are the myth of ancient nightmares as opposed to the unknown, and have been going by the premise of dealing with new species and Orks for the last 60+million years.
It's still a piss poor reason to lower the relative stats of a faction no matter how you cut it.
No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
This comes dangerously close to a claim against the superiority of the human race in w40k.
One of the things I like about the core of 40K, is that humans are among the worst. A basic human is worse than an Ork, worse than an Eldar, and worse than a Tau. Humans are better than Gretchin. . . roughly on par with a Termagant. Necrons, at one point, were the best "lowly trooper". Superior, undying, unfathomable technology and led by actual, physical gods. Not so much anymore.
They aren't? Necron Warriors definitely look better than any other "lowly trooper", at least on paper, and Immortals are better than a typical Astartes. Reanimation Protocols and Living Metal give you the "undying" element, and C'tan are about as close to "actual physical gods" as I think the game needs. As for superior technology, 4++ abounds, and most vehicles have both "permanent Transhuman" and 5++, and Necrons have some pretty nasty weapons. Just how much better than everyone else do you want Necrons to be? They need to be balanced against everyone else (which I think they are if you stick with everyone else with a 9th edition codex). If you push them much farther how do you do that?
Very simple, better than an Astartes. Just as they used to be. And of course you could balance around that, as they were balanced around that before.
So, basically give Warriors a 3+, and make Immortals 2W with some way to get RP to kick in easier. Because that's how I remember Necrons in 3rd. Warriors were no better than my guys except they got back up after they were knocked down, and Immortals were T5, and elites instead of troops. You'd also have to make them worse in a fistfight, because Initiative 2 was definitely a hindrance for them there.
Oh, and if I kill 75% of your army I automatically win.
One of the things I like about the core of 40K, is that humans are among the worst. A basic human is worse than an Ork, worse than an Eldar, and worse than a Tau. Humans are better than Gretchin. . . roughly on par with a Termagant. Necrons, at one point, were the best "lowly trooper". Superior, undying, unfathomable technology and led by actual, physical gods. Not so much anymore.
Actually a Human and Tau are as close together as a Human and a Termagant, probably even closer. What makes the biggest differences is the gear they use.
No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
This comes dangerously close to a claim against the superiority of the human race in w40k.
One of the things I like about the core of 40K, is that humans are among the worst. A basic human is worse than an Ork, worse than an Eldar, and worse than a Tau. Humans are better than Gretchin. . . roughly on par with a Termagant. Necrons, at one point, were the best "lowly trooper". Superior, undying, unfathomable technology and led by actual, physical gods. Not so much anymore.
They aren't? Necron Warriors definitely look better than any other "lowly trooper", at least on paper, and Immortals are better than a typical Astartes. Reanimation Protocols and Living Metal give you the "undying" element, and C'tan are about as close to "actual physical gods" as I think the game needs. As for superior technology, 4++ abounds, and most vehicles have both "permanent Transhuman" and 5++, and Necrons have some pretty nasty weapons. Just how much better than everyone else do you want Necrons to be? They need to be balanced against everyone else (which I think they are if you stick with everyone else with a 9th edition codex). If you push them much farther how do you do that?
Very simple, better than an Astartes. Just as they used to be. And of course you could balance around that, as they were balanced around that before.
So, basically give Warriors a 3+, and make Immortals 2W with some way to get RP to kick in easier. Because that's how I remember Necrons in 3rd. Warriors were no better than my guys except they got back up after they were knocked down, and Immortals were T5, and elites instead of troops. You'd also have to make them worse in a fistfight, because Initiative 2 was definitely a hindrance for them there.
Oh, and if I kill 75% of your army I automatically win.
I've said before I'm fine with the Phase Out rule. I loved it, honestly. But yeah, Immortals then were nearly twice the ppm of a marine, and worth every point of it.
And if Marines have 2W, Warriors ahould have two. Adjust the RP to compensate. (And improve it for the other multiwound nodels, too)
No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
This comes dangerously close to a claim against the superiority of the human race in w40k.
One of the things I like about the core of 40K, is that humans are among the worst. A basic human is worse than an Ork, worse than an Eldar, and worse than a Tau. Humans are better than Gretchin. . . roughly on par with a Termagant. Necrons, at one point, were the best "lowly trooper". Superior, undying, unfathomable technology and led by actual, physical gods. Not so much anymore.
They aren't? Necron Warriors definitely look better than any other "lowly trooper", at least on paper, and Immortals are better than a typical Astartes. Reanimation Protocols and Living Metal give you the "undying" element, and C'tan are about as close to "actual physical gods" as I think the game needs. As for superior technology, 4++ abounds, and most vehicles have both "permanent Transhuman" and 5++, and Necrons have some pretty nasty weapons. Just how much better than everyone else do you want Necrons to be? They need to be balanced against everyone else (which I think they are if you stick with everyone else with a 9th edition codex). If you push them much farther how do you do that?
Very simple, better than an Astartes. Just as they used to be. And of course you could balance around that, as they were balanced around that before.
So, basically give Warriors a 3+, and make Immortals 2W with some way to get RP to kick in easier. Because that's how I remember Necrons in 3rd. Warriors were no better than my guys except they got back up after they were knocked down, and Immortals were T5, and elites instead of troops. You'd also have to make them worse in a fistfight, because Initiative 2 was definitely a hindrance for them there.
Oh, and if I kill 75% of your army I automatically win.
I've said before I'm fine with the Phase Out rule. I loved it, honestly. But yeah, Immortals then were nearly twice the ppm of a marine, and worth every point of it.
And if Marines have 2W, Warriors ahould have two. Adjust the RP to compensate. (And improve it for the other multiwound nodels, too)
Yeah, you're right, 2W Warriors too. I forgot since my guys are still running around with just 1W.
^yeah. . . Sadness. At least you'll get your 2 though.
Related, and I think we've talked about this before too, I think CSM troops should have the options to run the gamut from worse-than-Astartes to better-than-Astartes by way of Marks and Veterancy options. Theres a gravitas inherent in a CSM army that is entirely beyond your typical Tactical/Intercessor (*spits*). Again, just as they could be, historically.
Insectum7 wrote: ^yeah. . . Sadness. At least you'll get your 2 though.
Related, and I think we've talked about this before too, I think CSM troops should have the options to run the gamut from worse-than-Astartes to better-than-Astartes by way of Marks and Veterancy options. Theres a gravitas inherent in a CSM army that is entirely beyond your typical Tactical/Intercessor (*spits*). Again, just as they could be, historically.
Aye, and don't forget about the superior leadership all CSM had compared to loyalists, and the rules that meant that actually mattered. But I doubt we'll get any of that back, same as Necrons getting a second wound. That just isn't how gw views either army anymore.
Insectum7 wrote: ^yeah. . . Sadness. At least you'll get your 2 though.
Related, and I think we've talked about this before too, I think CSM troops should have the options to run the gamut from worse-than-Astartes to better-than-Astartes by way of Marks and Veterancy options. Theres a gravitas inherent in a CSM army that is entirely beyond your typical Tactical/Intercessor (*spits*). Again, just as they could be, historically.
Aye, and don't forget about the superior leadership all CSM had compared to loyalists, and the rules that meant that actually mattered. But I doubt we'll get any of that back, same as Necrons getting a second wound. That just isn't how gw views either army anymore.
You can represent durability in more forms than W2. You're not going to seriously argue Immortals are less durable than Tactical Marines are you?
Insectum7 wrote: ^yeah. . . Sadness. At least you'll get your 2 though.
Related, and I think we've talked about this before too, I think CSM troops should have the options to run the gamut from worse-than-Astartes to better-than-Astartes by way of Marks and Veterancy options. Theres a gravitas inherent in a CSM army that is entirely beyond your typical Tactical/Intercessor (*spits*). Again, just as they could be, historically.
Aye, and don't forget about the superior leadership all CSM had compared to loyalists, and the rules that meant that actually mattered. But I doubt we'll get any of that back, same as Necrons getting a second wound. That just isn't how gw views either army anymore.
You can represent durability in more forms than W2. You're not going to seriously argue Immortals are less durable than Tactical Marines are you?
Against small arms/D1, Tacs are tougher. . . Which is not how it should be.
Insectum7 wrote: ^yeah. . . Sadness. At least you'll get your 2 though.
Related, and I think we've talked about this before too, I think CSM troops should have the options to run the gamut from worse-than-Astartes to better-than-Astartes by way of Marks and Veterancy options. Theres a gravitas inherent in a CSM army that is entirely beyond your typical Tactical/Intercessor (*spits*). Again, just as they could be, historically.
Aye, and don't forget about the superior leadership all CSM had compared to loyalists, and the rules that meant that actually mattered. But I doubt we'll get any of that back, same as Necrons getting a second wound. That just isn't how gw views either army anymore.
You can represent durability in more forms than W2. You're not going to seriously argue Immortals are less durable than Tactical Marines are you?
No, but most of the people complaining about Necron's current rules want them to be considerably more durable than marines, like they were in 3rd, when they were T5, 3+, 1W vs a Tactical Marine at T4, 3+, 1W, and the Immortal could get back up on a 4+, while if you killed a marine he stayed dead.
I've already said that I consider Immortals better than TACS/Intercessors, but many want both them and Warriors to be even better, and are willing to pay the points for it, even up to accepting the return of the Phase Out rule. If that's their opinion, there entitled to have it.
Insectum7 wrote:^No, that's still dumb. The "Imperial perspective" should not be altering the stats of models. Especially when those stats are also altering their capability relative to Eldar.
Except to the Eldar they are the myth of ancient nightmares as opposed to the unknown, and have been going by the premise of dealing with new species and Orks for the last 60+million years.
It's still a piss poor reason to lower the relative stats of a faction no matter how you cut it.
As I said, game conversion came first to help the Immortals stand out a little more against Warriors as Troops, and it also allowed the Warriors to be a bit cheaper and more spammable.
And in the lore case I view it it's more realizing that the Warriors weren't just as tough as they thought they were, it is more that experience made them easier to face, their armor wasn't as effective as you thought it was once you learn their weak points, and so on.
At this point, it is irrelevant as there have been more Necron iterations with Warriors having 4+ Save than with 3+. From a game perspective, I think this is a fine standard for the Warriors as they are supposed to be the models you put out the most on to the field. That being said, anything that makes them stand back up or get back on the table helps add to that "How do you kill this thing" vibe that the entire Necron force should be. In this, the Save difference doesn't mean as much when compared to WBB or RP.
One of the things I like about the core of 40K, is that humans are among the worst. A basic human is worse than an Ork, worse than an Eldar, and worse than a Tau. Humans are better than Gretchin. . . roughly on par with a Termagant. Necrons, at one point, were the best "lowly trooper". Superior, undying, unfathomable technology and led by actual, physical gods. Not so much anymore.
Actually a Human and Tau are as close together as a Human and a Termagant, probably even closer. What makes the biggest differences is the gear they use.
I am counting the gear as part of it.
Well aside from the Save, gear doesn't affect the base stats. It does in firepower, but Humanity has a reached a point where they can spam bodies in their base army, and so poor guns come along with that. Tau have barely established a Sector's worth a of strength, so need that quality that their lack of quantity cannot provide nor have they spent millennia in stagnation.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So, basically give Warriors a 3+, and make Immortals 2W with some way to get RP to kick in easier. Because that's how I remember Necrons in 3rd. Warriors were no better than my guys except they got back up after they were knocked down, and Immortals were T5, and elites instead of troops. You'd also have to make them worse in a fistfight, because Initiative 2 was definitely a hindrance for them there.
Well, Immortals still had 1W back in 3rd. T5 would be good, though, and the Elite Necrons should have the extra Wound, which if Battlescribe is accurate, is what is already in place.
Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I won't argue about WBB/RP, though, I've already stated it should be what makes the army scary on the defensive side.
Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I really don't care about this reletavistic worming as an excuse to justfy the deflation of Xenos units.
Charistoph wrote: Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I really don't care about this reletavistic worming as an excuse to justfy the deflation of Xenos units.
But that is what you're complaining about, and if you're complaining, then you do care. It's not like this relativstic standard for Necrons hasn't been around for quite some time now.
And the funny thing is that this is coming about due to the inflation of an Imperium group that is indicated in your avatar, is it not?
