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.

Firstly, I have said numerous times now that I am proposing altering BOTH durability and offence. Please understand this as I am not sure how I can make it clearer.

I am basing these assumptions on both fluff and balance. Not just fluff alone...another point you dont address. I am not saying the game should be done on fluff alone and in fact this should not be the driving force but it is a factor.

If you dont take fluff into account then why not just drop points and dont bother altering any stats?. Problem solved. Again you did not address this. The reason is the fluff informs certain broad ideas on how a particular army should play. Marines by and large are an elite army not horde. The fluff gives an abstract. Please address my points rather than going off on tangent and stating points I am not even making.

Fightingfirst wrote:
Firstly, I have said numerous times now that I am proposing altering BOTH durability and offence. Please understand this as I am not sure how I can make it clearer.

Again. I don't agree. Their durability does not need a buff. Defend the durability increase with math, not fluff.

I am basing these assumptions on both fluff and balance. Not just fluff alone...another point you dont address. I am not saying the game should be done on fluff alone and in fact this should not be the driving force but it is a factor.

No. Wrong. It's not a factor. You have an army that you want to have a unique and interesting play style. You build the rules to give it that. Not to fit a bunch of wildly inconsistent stories that don't give any clear direction on what should and should not happen. It's just balance and fun. Those are the only things that matter. You want to defend your proposals or put forth some solid arguments then do the math and provide proof for your proposals. Right now what you are suggesting is nonsense.

If you dont take fluff into account then why not just drop points and dont bother altering any stats?. Problem solved.

Because having 2 armies of imperial guard is not interesting or fun. Again, address the actual issue. Fix the actual issue. Marines staying power is not an issue. Marines impact on the field is. Marines slight over cost because GW overvalues durability is. Stop arguing fluff. It's a dumb argument that has no value. Start arguing math.

Again you did not address this. The reason is the fluff informs certain broad ideas on how a particular army should play. Marines by and large are an elite army not horde. The fluff gives an abstract. Please address my points rather than going off on tangent and stating points I am not even making.

No gak they are not a horde army. You are the only one who suggested to drop their points to a level where they would be a horde army. Fluff gives an abstract you say? Sure. Marines are supposed to be durable. So they have the second highest armor save in the game on their basic infantry. Yup. Fluff accurate. Nothing to change.