Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BrianDavion wrote:
Whose argued Marines should be immune to anti-tank weapons? I've not seen a single person say that

You find it implied whenever someone is saying something like "Marines don't feel like marines" on the tabletop.

Examples:

 Tyran wrote:
Ten marines is nothing on the tabletop but a significant force on the lore.

 Wyzilla wrote:
. . .
Frankly it could be, and it wouldn't even be that hard to do so, the issue is that 40k is, even when completely throwing out the baby with the bathwater, still dragged down by insisting on certain traditional stats for units instead of embracing a total rescaling of everything. Best point of this being properly done is probably Epic, where Marines actually feel like Marines and Terminators trudge through macro weapon fire with greater reliability than most vehicles.

40k is a game where a bunch of vehicles get deployed in a combined arms force where a common weapon type is an anti-tank/anti-elite weapon. These are weapons which, even in lore, should kill a Marine. Knight armies are deployed with the expectation that they can be effectively countered. Marines just die quickly in an environment like that. People would like their Marines to feel like they can survive battles better, but 40k by it's very nature pits them against weapons designed to kill them, in terrain that doesn't help them too much.

For a game of 40k "They don't feel like Marines", not because the Marines aren't tough enough, but because the very deployment phase represents a catastrophic or desperate event.

Besides, Marines are arguably too tough already. It takes 9 Marines, Rapid Firing, to take a Marine out of action. Hell, it takes the same number of Marines (9) to take a single Marine down in close combat. That doesn't seem fluff accurate in the slightest.

To make Marines feel tough in the context of 40K you really have to reduce the amount of high AP weapons around.

If it was 1v1 sure, in a squad combat 9 marines would'nt be conceivably all fighting 1 marine anyway. I don't see how that description is not loreful. Same with shooting as 9 marines would be firing at a group of opposing Marines instead of one single marine, some shots missed, others were blocked by armour, and finally a few rounds managed to kill a already toughended-up marine that's supposedly able to survive grievious wounds a normal human cannot.

Anyways I will always say this -- the two wounds things wouldn't be here if Primaris wasn't a lore construct made specifically for GW to sell both truescale marines and older heroic stockpiles simultaneously. They had to differentiate the two in stats back in 8th/9th with an extra wound, instead if they just introduced new armour & weapons variants instead they'd all still be 1W now. They had already been producing up-scaled vanilla marines with their "Space Marine Heroes" mystery box anyways, so scale wasn't even an issue that they could have just slowly replaced older stocks.

Bah -- I haven't been paying attention post 8E anyways, but I am generally for restricting access to AP in the game in general; but then, you run into the problem of too many high SV units that would take forever to kill. What you gonna do.

 lcmiracle wrote:
If it was 1v1 sure, in a squad combat 9 marines would'nt be conceivably all fighting 1 marine anyway. I don't see how that description is not loreful. Same with shooting as 9 marines would be firing at a group of opposing Marines instead of one single marine, some shots missed, others were blocked by armour, and finally a few rounds managed to kill a already toughended-up marine that's supposedly able to survive grievious wounds a normal human cannot.

Anyways I will always say this -- the two wounds things wouldn't be here if Primaris wasn't a lore construct made specifically for GW to sell both truescale marines and older heroic stockpiles simultaneously. They had to differentiate the two in stats back in 8th/9th with an extra wound, instead if they just introduced new armour & weapons variants instead they'd all still be 1W now. They had already been producing up-scaled vanilla marines with their "Space Marine Heroes" mystery box anyways, so scale wasn't even an issue that they could have just slowly replaced older stocks.

Bah -- I haven't been paying attention post 8E anyways, but I am generally for restricting access to AP in the game in general; but then, you run into the problem of too many high SV units that would take forever to kill. What you gonna do.

It's a bold assumption they wouldn't arbitrarily increase them to 2w anyway without a fluff reason or range change. Same way terminators gained wounds over the editions.

Dudeface wrote:

 lcmiracle wrote:
If it was 1v1 sure, in a squad combat 9 marines would'nt be conceivably all fighting 1 marine anyway. I don't see how that description is not loreful. Same with shooting as 9 marines would be firing at a group of opposing Marines instead of one single marine, some shots missed, others were blocked by armour, and finally a few rounds managed to kill a already toughended-up marine that's supposedly able to survive grievious wounds a normal human cannot.

Anyways I will always say this -- the two wounds things wouldn't be here if Primaris wasn't a lore construct made specifically for GW to sell both truescale marines and older heroic stockpiles simultaneously. They had to differentiate the two in stats back in 8th/9th with an extra wound, instead if they just introduced new armour & weapons variants instead they'd all still be 1W now. They had already been producing up-scaled vanilla marines with their "Space Marine Heroes" mystery box anyways, so scale wasn't even an issue that they could have just slowly replaced older stocks.

Bah -- I haven't been paying attention post 8E anyways, but I am generally for restricting access to AP in the game in general; but then, you run into the problem of too many high SV units that would take forever to kill. What you gonna do.

It's a bold assumption they wouldn't arbitrarily increase them to 2w anyway without a fluff reason or range change. Same way terminators gained wounds over the editions.

I don't see them do this without the example set by the primaris tho. Discussions like W2 SM was there around 5/6E, I recall distinctively, but always shut down over one excuse or another. Primaris were the first non-char SM infantry model to get 2 wounds, and IIRC, death guards SMs followed suit around 9E I think. It was only then GW doubled downe on the W2 after 9E. As far as i am concerned, the Primaris open the can, too many players started asking for it that pushed GW to comply.

On the other hand, my point on Primaris stands that they needed no be a distinct upgraded version of the vanilla marines, both lore-wise and gameplay-wise.

 lcmiracle wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 lcmiracle wrote:
If it was 1v1 sure, in a squad combat 9 marines would'nt be conceivably all fighting 1 marine anyway. I don't see how that description is not loreful. Same with shooting as 9 marines would be firing at a group of opposing Marines instead of one single marine, some shots missed, others were blocked by armour, and finally a few rounds managed to kill a already toughended-up marine that's supposedly able to survive grievious wounds a normal human cannot.

Anyways I will always say this -- the two wounds things wouldn't be here if Primaris wasn't a lore construct made specifically for GW to sell both truescale marines and older heroic stockpiles simultaneously. They had to differentiate the two in stats back in 8th/9th with an extra wound, instead if they just introduced new armour & weapons variants instead they'd all still be 1W now. They had already been producing up-scaled vanilla marines with their "Space Marine Heroes" mystery box anyways, so scale wasn't even an issue that they could have just slowly replaced older stocks.

Bah -- I haven't been paying attention post 8E anyways, but I am generally for restricting access to AP in the game in general; but then, you run into the problem of too many high SV units that would take forever to kill. What you gonna do.

It's a bold assumption they wouldn't arbitrarily increase them to 2w anyway without a fluff reason or range change. Same way terminators gained wounds over the editions.

I don't see them do this without the example set by the primaris tho. Discussions like W2 SM was there around 5/6E, I recall distinctively, but always shut down over one excuse or another. Primaris were the first non-char SM infantry model to get 2 wounds, and IIRC, death guards SMs followed suit around 9E I think. It was only then GW doubled downe on the W2 after 9E. As far as i am concerned, the Primaris open the can, too many players started asking for it that pushed GW to comply.

On the other hand, my point on Primaris stands that they needed no be a distinct upgraded version of the vanilla marines, both lore-wise and gameplay-wise.

Rubrics in 4th (I think?) had 2 wounds, it's happened before.

Dudeface wrote:
Rubrics in 4th (I think?) had 2 wounds, it's happened before.

3.5 codex.
5e edition GK paladins and their wound shenanigans would be another example.

 lcmiracle wrote:
If it was 1v1 sure, in a squad combat 9 marines would'nt be conceivably all fighting 1 marine anyway. I don't see how that description is not loreful.

So as a corollary, a unit of four Marines, assaulting a single Marine defender, takes three rounds of CC on average to get resolved. How does that make any kind of sense, game or lorewise?

1: Outnumbering bonuses should totally be a thing.
2: Marines are just too tough. The fact that it takes a full squad to take one down in CC is crazy. Pit 10 Marines against 10 Marines in CC, and I wonder how long that takes to get resolved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Rubrics in 4th (I think?) had 2 wounds, it's happened before.

I think that's right, but Rubrics are warp-powered automatons without any body in their armor, and I believe they paid through the nose for the privledge in points.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 lcmiracle wrote:
If it was 1v1 sure, in a squad combat 9 marines would'nt be conceivably all fighting 1 marine anyway. I don't see how that description is not loreful.

So as a corollary, a unit of four Marines, assaulting a single Marine defender, takes three rounds of CC on average to get resolved. How does that make any kind of sense, game or lorewise?

1: Outnumbering bonuses should totally be a thing.
2: Marines are just too tough. The fact that it takes a full squad to take one down in CC is crazy. Pit 10 Marines against 10 Marines in CC, and I wonder how long that takes to get resolved.

IMO it should be forever because they are equals

Anyways it's good they are too tough, because the games also has too many weapons seemingly optimized to kill marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Rubrics in 4th (I think?) had 2 wounds, it's happened before.

I think that's right, but Rubrics are warp-powered automatons without any body in their armor, and I believe they paid through the nose for the privledge in points.

There also wasn't such a thing as flat 2 damage weaponry and their save wasn't impacted by low AP. So I'd argue its worth a lot less of a permium now anyway.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...and I believe they paid through the nose for the privledge in points.

A flat 10 points, less the five finger discount on the sorcerer.
Which was fair enough on the power armour (around a 70% hike for double wounds but single attacks), but of course everyone comboed it with the terminator armour and then it cost only 30% more for double wounds, and fearless, and protection from all those S8 AP3 weapons that would instant death them.

The one faction that did run quite heavily with multi-wound models back then were tau in battlesuit/farsight lists. If anyone wanted to play Primaris in oldhammer they were 2 wounds, T4, 3+ saves with excessive numbers of special weapons and hovertanks. They even have the early primaris theme for forgetting to bring any proper close combat weapons and just about all of the expansion rules were for new variants of squad leader models.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Rubrics in 4th (I think?) had 2 wounds, it's happened before.

I think that's right, but Rubrics are warp-powered automatons without any body in their armor, and I believe they paid through the nose for the privledge in points.

There also wasn't such a thing as flat 2 damage weaponry and their save wasn't impacted by low AP. So I'd argue its worth a lot less of a permium now anyway.

Which is funny when you remember that the proliferation of D2 weapons in 9th was entirely due to the stat-inflation of Marines.

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Rubrics in 4th (I think?) had 2 wounds, it's happened before.

I think that's right, but Rubrics are warp-powered automatons without any body in their armor, and I believe they paid through the nose for the privledge in points.

There also wasn't such a thing as flat 2 damage weaponry and their save wasn't impacted by low AP. So I'd argue its worth a lot less of a permium now anyway.

Which is funny when you remember that the proliferation of D2 weapons in 9th was entirely due to the stat-inflation of Marines.

Kinda the point, if you make something 2w then spread the D2 profile everywhere, have you really made them 2w?

Bit of a paradox.

The impact isn't really on the Marines or overall meta, the impact of 2W Marines is that D1 weapons and thus most troops are pretty much worthless.

Which I guess it kinda was the point, as 2W Marines are partly the result of Marine players complaining that guardsmen and gaunts were killing their Marines and that wasn't loreful.

 Tyran wrote:
The impact isn't really on the Marines or overall meta, the impact of 2W Marines is that D1 weapons and thus most troops are pretty much worthless.

Which I guess it kinda was the point, as 2W Marines are partly the result of Marine players complaining that guardsmen and gaunts were killing their Marines and that wasn't loreful.

I would argue that requiring 9 Marines, Rapid Firing, in the open, to take down a Marine isn't loreful either. Or 20 Guardsmen, 10 Tau, etc . . .

Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Which I guess it kinda was the point, as 2W Marines are partly the result of Marine players complaining that guardsmen and gaunts were killing their Marines and that wasn't loreful.

I would argue that requiring 9 Marines, Rapid Firing, in the open, to take down a Marine isn't loreful either. Or 20 Guardsmen, 10 Tau, etc . . .

It’s bizarre how ineffectual a marine is against a marine. In the case of bolt guns, and on topic for a sisters thread, you *could* easily say bolt guns are d2 or 3 against infantry. Eg, against guard officers, since they’re used to one-shot execute them.

That’s so annoying. It’s more stat inflation, more “bloat.”

pelicaniforce wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Which I guess it kinda was the point, as 2W Marines are partly the result of Marine players complaining that guardsmen and gaunts were killing their Marines and that wasn't loreful.

I would argue that requiring 9 Marines, Rapid Firing, in the open, to take down a Marine isn't loreful either. Or 20 Guardsmen, 10 Tau, etc . . .

It’s bizarre how ineffectual a marine is against a marine. In the case of bolt guns, and on topic for a sisters thread, you *could* easily say bolt guns are d2 or 3 against infantry. Eg, against guard officers, since they’re used to one-shot execute them.

That’s so annoying. It’s more stat inflation, more “bloat.”

To be fair, in-lore, the Boltgun was never meant to be used against other marines anyway. They were meant for squishy mortals during compliances. When something nasty showed up, or a bit later marines in the heresy, that's when you broke out the Plasma and Volkite.

Though I agree, Marines being 2W was a step too far.

2W marines helped separate the elite infantry from the chaff hordes. Which is something that needed to happen. For many editions marines paid for the 3+ and T which was mostly irrelevant. People were already spamming anti-MEQ weapons, as that’s what you were likely to see across the table. And what killed marines killed guard and gaunt just fine.

By going to 2W GW has opened up more design space to help differentiate units, and the corresponding “best” gun to deal with them. Did they squander this design space by spamming things that are just best in class vs everything? Probably. But this is nothing new. Finding the best option and spamming it hard has been with us for a long time.

You also have the issue where marines are supposed to be rare and special, but make up 80% (not a real stat) of your opponents. If you were more likely to see gaunt/guard spam everytime you headed down to the FLGS you would not default your list to be able to deal with MEQ. But that’s not the world we live in. So we lean hard into plasma, like we’ve been doing forever.

 Nevelon wrote:
2W marines helped separate the elite infantry from the chaff hordes. Which is something that needed to happen. For many editions marines paid for the 3+ and T which was mostly irrelevant. People were already spamming anti-MEQ weapons, as that’s what you were likely to see across the table. And what killed marines killed guard and gaunt just fine.

By going to 2W GW has opened up more design space to help differentiate units, and the corresponding “best” gun to deal with them. Did they squander this design space by spamming things that are just best in class vs everything? Probably. But this is nothing new. Finding the best option and spamming it hard has been with us for a long time.

You also have the issue where marines are supposed to be rare and special, but make up 80% (not a real stat) of your opponents. If you were more likely to see gaunt/guard spam everytime you headed down to the FLGS you would not default your list to be able to deal with MEQ. But that’s not the world we live in. So we lean hard into plasma, like we’ve been doing forever.

Well you've just described the circular thinking that got us here. A common opponent is a Marine, so a common weapon is an anti-MEQ weapon, so in response people complain that Marines aren't tough anymore. So GW buff Marines, then people adjust and spam a slightly different array of anti-MEQ weapons. The main difference now is at this new MEQ level, everybody else's infantry feel like ***t.

You also wrote that anti-MEQ weapons had the same effect against Marines back when they were one wound. . . so maybe the culprit is just the cheap availability of anti MEQ weapons. . . right? So one could reduce the Marines toughness while also reducing the availability of anti-MEQ weapons, and you'd have infantry interactions that start to make more sense. Not only that but you'd have a more lore-appropriate starting point during the deployment phase. I don't think I've read the story where the DE show up simply spamming Disintegrator Cannons etc. and send hordes of Marines into their graves.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
2W marines helped separate the elite infantry from the chaff hordes. Which is something that needed to happen. For many editions marines paid for the 3+ and T which was mostly irrelevant. People were already spamming anti-MEQ weapons, as that’s what you were likely to see across the table. And what killed marines killed guard and gaunt just fine.

By going to 2W GW has opened up more design space to help differentiate units, and the corresponding “best” gun to deal with them. Did they squander this design space by spamming things that are just best in class vs everything? Probably. But this is nothing new. Finding the best option and spamming it hard has been with us for a long time.

You also have the issue where marines are supposed to be rare and special, but make up 80% (not a real stat) of your opponents. If you were more likely to see gaunt/guard spam everytime you headed down to the FLGS you would not default your list to be able to deal with MEQ. But that’s not the world we live in. So we lean hard into plasma, like we’ve been doing forever.

Well you've just described the circular thinking that got us here. A common opponent is a Marine, so a common weapon is an anti-MEQ weapon, so in response people complain that Marines aren't tough anymore. So GW buff Marines, then people adjust and spam a slightly different array of anti-MEQ weapons. The main difference now is at this new MEQ level, everybody else's infantry feel like ***t.

You also wrote that anti-MEQ weapons had the same effect against Marines back when they were one wound. . . so maybe the culprit is just the cheap availability of anti MEQ weapons. . . right? So one could reduce the Marines toughness while also reducing the availability of anti-MEQ weapons, and you'd have infantry interactions that start to make more sense. Not only that but you'd have a more lore-appropriate starting point during the deployment phase. I don't think I've read the story where the DE show up simply spamming Disintegrator Cannons etc. and send hordes of Marines into their graves.

It's also funny because if morale would've been a relevant factor, like in another GW game, 1W marines are perfectly servicable...
oh well.

There isn’t really a good answer here. And a lot of things feed into it, including inertia and tradition. I understand why we are here, and the problems, but there is no magic bullet to fix things. Just a bunch of flawed solutions. And a bunch of the “better” fixes in game will not happen due to out of game (sales/marketing/popularity) reasons.

Some of it is the D6 system. There is just not a lot of design space to work with. And proliferation. Lethality has climbed year after year. Armories used to be a single partial page in the codex, now they are bloated messes filled with hyper lethal stuff.

Marines are popular. It’s 40k. They are the reason a lot of us are here. So they will always be the primary foe across the table. So we need to gear to be able to face them.

There are so many barriers to the horde army. Cost of models and time to paint them. Just getting them to the game store. Time to play (more relevant in timed tournaments, but also a factor in local games). And that before even looking at if the rules for the edition are even good. I’d love to see them be more viable. Where a green tide, gaunt swarm, or ranks of gaurdsmen was a common sight.

At that point we might see people pass over the plasma in the armory and grab a flamer.

OK, I’m getting a bit generalist rambling (sorry, working on the first cup of coffee for the day)

Sisters underwent a big paradigm shift from 2nd to 3rd. Between stats and points they went from “Space Marines, but ladies” to “Guardsmen with better gear” Their fluff, like all 40k, has always been over the top and loaded with plot armor. I do think their current stat line is a little shy of where they should be. They are top tier elite human troops, basically as far and you can go without crossing the line into posthuman a/o cyborg. You basic battle sister should be on par with scions, karskin and other human elites. The issues is a very tight design space imposed by the d6. T3 and 1W is human. You need to be an hero with plot armor or some major enhancements to transcend that. Step away from that and you are no longer a human with faith, but something else. Sisters always shot like marines, and they still have the BS. I do think their melee stats could use a buff to bring them up to other eiltes. The point less S is a big hit, that prevents the basic troop from being truly viable in both shooting/CC.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
2W marines helped separate the elite infantry from the chaff hordes. Which is something that needed to happen. For many editions marines paid for the 3+ and T which was mostly irrelevant. People were already spamming anti-MEQ weapons, as that’s what you were likely to see across the table. And what killed marines killed guard and gaunt just fine.

By going to 2W GW has opened up more design space to help differentiate units, and the corresponding “best” gun to deal with them. Did they squander this design space by spamming things that are just best in class vs everything? Probably. But this is nothing new. Finding the best option and spamming it hard has been with us for a long time.

You also have the issue where marines are supposed to be rare and special, but make up 80% (not a real stat) of your opponents. If you were more likely to see gaunt/guard spam everytime you headed down to the FLGS you would not default your list to be able to deal with MEQ. But that’s not the world we live in. So we lean hard into plasma, like we’ve been doing forever.

Well you've just described the circular thinking that got us here. A common opponent is a Marine, so a common weapon is an anti-MEQ weapon, so in response people complain that Marines aren't tough anymore. So GW buff Marines, then people adjust and spam a slightly different array of anti-MEQ weapons. The main difference now is at this new MEQ level, everybody else's infantry feel like ***t.

This.

I think a big part of the problem was that SMs became twice as hard to kill with D1 weapons but their cost only went up slightly.

It would have been far better to price them in the 25-30pt range (even if it meant also upping their damage output). That way, they can still feel tough, but D1 weapons won't be stupidly inefficient against them.

Moreover, you wouldn't have needed the massive proliferation of D2 weapons to deal with undercosted 2W Marines. Thus helping Marines to feel more durable overall.

 vipoid wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
2W marines helped separate the elite infantry from the chaff hordes. Which is something that needed to happen. For many editions marines paid for the 3+ and T which was mostly irrelevant. People were already spamming anti-MEQ weapons, as that’s what you were likely to see across the table. And what killed marines killed guard and gaunt just fine.

By going to 2W GW has opened up more design space to help differentiate units, and the corresponding “best” gun to deal with them. Did they squander this design space by spamming things that are just best in class vs everything? Probably. But this is nothing new. Finding the best option and spamming it hard has been with us for a long time.

You also have the issue where marines are supposed to be rare and special, but make up 80% (not a real stat) of your opponents. If you were more likely to see gaunt/guard spam everytime you headed down to the FLGS you would not default your list to be able to deal with MEQ. But that’s not the world we live in. So we lean hard into plasma, like we’ve been doing forever.

Well you've just described the circular thinking that got us here. A common opponent is a Marine, so a common weapon is an anti-MEQ weapon, so in response people complain that Marines aren't tough anymore. So GW buff Marines, then people adjust and spam a slightly different array of anti-MEQ weapons. The main difference now is at this new MEQ level, everybody else's infantry feel like ***t.

This.

I think a big part of the problem was that SMs became twice as hard to kill with D1 weapons but their cost only went up slightly.

It would have been far better to price them in the 25-30pt range (even if it meant also upping their damage output). That way, they can still feel tough, but D1 weapons won't be stupidly inefficient against them.

Moreover, you wouldn't have needed the massive proliferation of D2 weapons to deal with undercosted 2W Marines. Thus helping Marines to feel more durable overall.

Sort of, the more expensive the marine the more efficient the d2 weapon as well, so it doesn't help unless the d2 weaposn cost more or are less available, which is what the root cause needed to be.

Dudeface wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
2W marines helped separate the elite infantry from the chaff hordes. Which is something that needed to happen. For many editions marines paid for the 3+ and T which was mostly irrelevant. People were already spamming anti-MEQ weapons, as that’s what you were likely to see across the table. And what killed marines killed guard and gaunt just fine.

By going to 2W GW has opened up more design space to help differentiate units, and the corresponding “best” gun to deal with them. Did they squander this design space by spamming things that are just best in class vs everything? Probably. But this is nothing new. Finding the best option and spamming it hard has been with us for a long time.

You also have the issue where marines are supposed to be rare and special, but make up 80% (not a real stat) of your opponents. If you were more likely to see gaunt/guard spam everytime you headed down to the FLGS you would not default your list to be able to deal with MEQ. But that’s not the world we live in. So we lean hard into plasma, like we’ve been doing forever.

Well you've just described the circular thinking that got us here. A common opponent is a Marine, so a common weapon is an anti-MEQ weapon, so in response people complain that Marines aren't tough anymore. So GW buff Marines, then people adjust and spam a slightly different array of anti-MEQ weapons. The main difference now is at this new MEQ level, everybody else's infantry feel like ***t.

This.

I think a big part of the problem was that SMs became twice as hard to kill with D1 weapons but their cost only went up slightly.

It would have been far better to price them in the 25-30pt range (even if it meant also upping their damage output). That way, they can still feel tough, but D1 weapons won't be stupidly inefficient against them.

Moreover, you wouldn't have needed the massive proliferation of D2 weapons to deal with undercosted 2W Marines. Thus helping Marines to feel more durable overall.

Sort of, the more expensive the marine the more efficient the d2 weapon as well, so it doesn't help unless the d2 weaposn cost more or are less available, which is what the root cause needed to be.

That's my point - if Marines hadn't been inflated to 2 wounds apiece at barely any cost, you wouldn't have also needed to upgrade a ton of other weapons (Heavy Bolters, Shuriken Cannons etc.) to D2 to compensate.

The most sensible alternative would have been to stick with 1W Marines and look for another way to make them a little tougher without doubling their resilience against standard weapons. Maybe give them the Armour of Contempt rule, so that they still get a 3+ save against AP-1 weapons?

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Whose argued Marines should be immune to anti-tank weapons? I've not seen a single person say that

You find it implied whenever someone is saying something like "Marines don't feel like marines" on the tabletop.

Examples:

 Tyran wrote:
Ten marines is nothing on the tabletop but a significant force on the lore.

 Wyzilla wrote:
. . .
Frankly it could be, and it wouldn't even be that hard to do so, the issue is that 40k is, even when completely throwing out the baby with the bathwater, still dragged down by insisting on certain traditional stats for units instead of embracing a total rescaling of everything. Best point of this being properly done is probably Epic, where Marines actually feel like Marines and Terminators trudge through macro weapon fire with greater reliability than most vehicles.

40k is a game where a bunch of vehicles get deployed in a combined arms force where a common weapon type is an anti-tank/anti-elite weapon. These are weapons which, even in lore, should kill a Marine. Knight armies are deployed with the expectation that they can be effectively countered. Marines just die quickly in an environment like that. People would like their Marines to feel like they can survive battles better, but 40k by it's very nature pits them against weapons designed to kill them, in terrain that doesn't help them too much.

For a game of 40k "They don't feel like Marines", not because the Marines aren't tough enough, but because the very deployment phase represents a catastrophic or desperate event.

Besides, Marines are arguably too tough already. It takes 9 Marines, Rapid Firing, to take a Marine out of action. Hell, it takes the same number of Marines (9) to take a single Marine down in close combat. That doesn't seem fluff accurate in the slightest.

To make Marines feel tough in the context of 40K you really have to reduce the amount of high AP weapons around.

Marines shouldn't kill marines in melee fast at all without power weapons. From the statistics of pretty much any historical matter of melee, two peers grinding against each other in melee results usually in a boatload of casualties but without that many dead until one party gets routed from the field. Likewise the principle marine weapons don't penetrate armor in the first place, nor do their smalls arms either, so I don't see why they should be quickly mowing each other down when that's Black Library brain bugs in the first place. The whole reason for Vengeance Rounds existing is that normal bolters are supposed to be awful at killing power armor. Arguably a normal boltgun should be AP 4 but that's pushing it really. 40k in general suffers from being far too deadly as a game with small arms while also chronically ignoring how morale should play out in the first place.

Also as I mentioned prior, part of the problem is that GW is so eager to increase wounds while ignoring toughness and strength in literally all of its games. Rather than hiking wounds for non character units the immediate go-to should just be increasing the toughness of units which suffers less from the problem of throwing the game into chaos. Hike toughness ratings across the board, change weapon strengths to account for it while having more granularity from the inflation, while still having the ability to pump up lascannons or meltaguns to strength 12 or 14 or whatever so infantry gets instead death'd all the same.

Realistic (human) morale is a bit tricky in a game that also contains brain-controlled alien-bugs and emotionless killer robots.
Really none of the factions in the game are a good representation of a typical, sane human...

HMint wrote:
Realistic (human) morale is a bit tricky in a game that also contains brain-controlled alien-bugs and emotionless killer robots.
Really none of the factions in the game are a good representation of a typical, sane human...

this is why 1st edition with four psychology stats worked nicely, Leadership, Intelligence, Cool and Willpower.

suddenly became possible to have well led and trained troops who were easily spooked, or those two stupid to know when they should run, or those remarkably good at resisting mind games but easily broken by brute violence etc

The only thing that the 2W marines teaches us is that we shouldn't use lore as a reason to limit stats or to balance the game beyond a certain point.

Primaris Marines are 2W. In theory, they're 2W for the health of the game, or at least their faction. The lore reason of them having 2W just because they're Just So Damn Cool* doesn't really hold water when you look at the plethora of other models that should be at least as tough if not tougher than a Primaris (like a Necron Warrior) that have 1W or models which should be significantly squishier than a Primaris but have multiple wounds. For the most part, in thirty plus years of gaming, Marines were 1W. Now they're 2. GW let that genie out of the bottle.

So not only should Sisters get a stat bonus, they should get a stat bonus for the health of their faction, regardless of if it can be justified with existing lore (especially to Marine players). In a perfect world, all decisions regarding gameplay should be made for the health of the game but GW is GW and it doesn't always happen.

 Insectum7 wrote:


1: Outnumbering bonuses should totally be a thing.

Funnily enough, there were outnumbering mechanics at one point. Marines got a specific rule that let them ignore it and take the best results.

4th edition outnumbering worked on Marines (or it does in our games and I can't find why it wouldn't)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
4th edition outnumbering worked on Marines (or it does in our games and I can't find why it wouldn't)

Yeah Marines could still fail Morale tests, and the outnumbering bonuses worked on them too, it's just that you couldn't wipe out Marines with a Sweeping Advance.

Why is it that 'marines don't feel like marines' is the most consistent complaint in the history of 40k?

People don't say 'Admech don't feel like Admech' or 'Eldar don't feel Eldar' or 'Tyranids don't feel like Tyranids' ANYWHERE near as often. Usually only when their books are aggressively terrible.

My theory is that it's down to the fundamental nature of why people start playing space marines.

People are drawn to Space Marines because they want completely flat characters with no complexity or room for growth.

They want unstoppable, unflappable badasses that beat all the bad guys forever and it's not even hard; because they want to superimpose themselves over that type of character, explicitly.

Space marine players crave being Mary Sue's. So the only way they can be happy with Space Marine representation on the table is if they're Mary Sue enough.

This is a trap though, because no matter how Mary Sue the marines become, the game still has to be technically interactive. The game still has to have marines that can be killed, this means that the gnawing hole at the center of each Space Marine player can never truly be filled by the game.

Thus, 'Space Marines don't feel like Space Marines.' because they don't make ME, the Space Marine player, feel complete.