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.

I think 2W Marines along with diversifying other unit profiles was a good move for the game.

The actual problem are the (new) weapon profiles.

In my opinion, the 2W Marines feel right (T'au player speaking - so... ).

But I also think, that there should be more granularity in general. throw the D6 away - get D10 into the game.

OTOH vehicles don't feel right for me atm.

There is lots of room for improvements, but making the marine boys a bit sturdier wasn't a step into the wrong direction...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Gw: "Don't be afraid of two wound Marines, we'll make heavy bolters do 2 damage to compensate!"

The public: "the advent of 2 wound Marines had no impact on the game's lethality"

EDIT:
as far as my actual opinion on the topic I am largely apathetic. SM still don't feel very super-soldiery (4th edition SM to down to regular lasguns like 9th edition SMs go down to FRFSRF lasguns) and I think super-soldiery is going to be impossible in a game where heavy artillery that can take out tanks with just the concussion of the detonation exists.

Just because GW chose to do a stupid thing after they did a smart thing doesnt mean the stupid thing was caused by the smart thing.

And come on.

lets be realistic.

The reason why the standard imperial weaponry all got buffed was NOT W2 space marines...it was 100% ABSOLUTELY the fact that GW wanted to make new primaris units that used heavy bolters and melta guns and those weapon types were currently underused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I think 2W Marines along with diversifying other unit profiles was a good move for the game.

The actual problem are the (new) weapon profiles.

^^^^^^^^^^^

the only thing that needed to be done was moving a lot of d3d weaponry to 2d weaponry. D3+3 and D6+2 everywhere as well as the massive creep in AP coming on from stupid fething doctrines and infecting every other weapon in the game is the real issue.

I don't really mind Heavy Bolters doing additional damage tbf. I felt it did *kind* of work to make Heavy Bolters feel well, heavy. A Heavy Bolter should imo pose a serious danger to Space Marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
There are other ways to represent marine durability, but I really don't see why 2W is a bad approach. Wounds are HP. Marines have more HP than guardsmen and space elves.

That's the toughness stat.

Are Narines supposed to have more HP than Orks and Necrons? They do now.

There is a bullet economy. You can only kill so many models based on the shots you bring to the table. That gets up ended when your guns don't match the target well.

Add in that old cover valued quantity of wounds over quality and you'd find that weapons now feel way better than they used to. Marines died more readily than orks on a cost basis in older editions with the small consolation that boyz ran away and got overrun in combat really easily.

As I see it the problem is that for every defensive buff handed out, its been matched by about 3 offensive buffs.

"Oh boy, I've got T4, a 3+ armour save and 2 wounds. Lets see those lasguns try to kill me now."
"Lasguns? Good one. Read my S5, AP-3, 2 damage attacks and weep."

And it is GW incompetence, because Dissie Ravagers basically made Primaris unplayable in early 8th. Now similarish attack stats are thrown out like confetti.

 GoldenHorde wrote:
It seriously added nothing positive to the game except power/lethality creep and was nothing but a sales ploy

This feels like a troll post, because:

A) it's stupid (and I'm using the dictionary definition of stupid here, not being rude.)

B) it's factually incorrect

C) it will immediately elicit lots of posts in response

Quasistellar wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:
It seriously added nothing positive to the game except power/lethality creep and was nothing but a sales ploy

This feels like a troll post, because:

A) it's stupid (and I'm using the dictionary definition of stupid here, not being rude.)

B) it's factually incorrect

C) it will immediately elicit lots of posts in response

I get accused of troll posts for taking odd / unpopular positions.

Always unpleasant, really only serves to derail the conversation. The cost of pointing the finger is a lot of 'noise' that is more disruptive than any troll could be. Not sure the point of stating it.

There's an argument for taking Marines back down to 1 wound. I'd be against it because so many other things would need to change to accommodate.

But yes, a lot of guns are now more powerful and it has an outsized impact on other factions. I almost want to say it's time to balance the game for not-Marines.

Tyel wrote:
As I see it the problem is that for every defensive buff handed out, its been matched by about 3 offensive buffs.

"Oh boy, I've got T4, a 3+ armour save and 2 wounds. Lets see those lasguns try to kill me now."
"Lasguns? Good one. Read my S5, AP-3, 2 damage attacks and weep."

And it is GW incompetence, because Dissie Ravagers basically made Primaris unplayable in early 8th. Now similarish attack stats are thrown out like confetti.

That is the period where you had Doom that could be cast and used by ravagers as well as rerolls and there was not the same fill out of other armies to their different damage profiles.

Ravagers are only 5 points more today, but are a way more difficult choice, because if you run into Death Guard, Thousand Sons, DA termies, etc they're a wet noodle. So the act of taking more than one could be foolish and the weight of other threats makes marines relatively safe from dissie ravagers at present. Squigbuggies are a similar unit, but still get spammed, because of the ability to hit non-visible targets.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:
It seriously added nothing positive to the game except power/lethality creep and was nothing but a sales ploy

This feels like a troll post, because:

A) it's stupid (and I'm using the dictionary definition of stupid here, not being rude.)

B) it's factually incorrect

C) it will immediately elicit lots of posts in response

I get accused of troll posts for taking odd / unpopular positions.

Always unpleasant, really only serves to derail the conversation. The cost of pointing the finger is a lot of 'noise' that is more disruptive than any troll could be. Not sure the point of stating it.

There's an argument for taking Marines back down to 1 wound. I'd be against it because so many other things would need to change to accommodate.

But yes, a lot of guns are now more powerful and it has an outsized impact on other factions. I almost want to say it's time to balance the game for not-Marines.

Nah, I disagree. And I am incredibly, incredibly sick of marines...as anyone on here will probably happily point out.

Moving the core marine statline from a 1W to a 2W paradigm at least IN THEORY frees up a ton more design space for other factions precisely because of GW's extreme reluctance to ever give another faction a thing that's stronger/better/whatever than a space marine. It stops the stat squish towards the "Guardsman Equivalent" with units like fire warriors, tempestus, aspect warriors, sisters, guardians, kabalites, etc by raising the ceiling and also further differentiating anti-MEQ vs anti-light infantry weapons beyond just 'has better AP'...because good AP also works on 1w light infantry just as well.

the problem currently is just that GW seems really reluctant and slow to expand into that new design space, except with Moar Damage.if they want light infantry units like guardsmen and cultists and such to lose in a straight up fight versus elite units, that's fine, but then we need to start talking about AOS-style resurrection mechanics...which honestly would be a great thing as well with the common issue of light infantry army players having to purchase 5x as many minis.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
There are other ways to represent marine durability, but I really don't see why 2W is a bad approach. Wounds are HP. Marines have more HP than guardsmen and space elves.

That's the toughness stat.

Are Narines supposed to have more HP than Orks and Necrons? They do now.

There is a bullet economy. You can only kill so many models based on the shots you bring to the table. That gets up ended when your guns don't match the target well.

Add in that old cover valued quantity of wounds over quality and you'd find that weapons now feel way better than they used to. Marines died more readily than orks on a cost basis in older editions with the small consolation that boyz ran away and got overrun in combat really easily.

You'll have to be specific about which older editions and weapons you're referring to. For example, Flamers torched Orks and other non-MEQs plenty well in older editions. Bolters felt great when they ignored Guard armor, and still felt reasonable when GEQ had a 5++ in cover, and then started taking Ld. checks after taking 25% casualties. Whirlwinds using ammunition that ignored cover save, landed big templates on light troops, and caused Pinning checks felt very satisfying. In 3rd edition and most of 4th ed Ork Boyz cost 9ppm to a Marine 15, making ppm-killed different than you suggest.

 Insectum7 wrote:
In 3rd edition and most of 4th ed Ork Boyz cost 9ppm to a Marine 15, making ppm-killed different than you suggest.

Yea I can't recall everything, but I think 4th was the edition where fleeing Orks auto mobbed up with a mob behind them? There's a whole lot of layers for sure.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I get accused of troll posts for taking odd / unpopular positions.

Always unpleasant, really only serves to derail the conversation. The cost of pointing the finger is a lot of 'noise' that is more disruptive than any troll could be. Not sure the point of stating it.

There's an argument for taking Marines back down to 1 wound. I'd be against it because so many other things would need to change to accommodate.

But yes, a lot of guns are now more powerful and it has an outsized impact on other factions. I almost want to say it's time to balance the game for not-Marines.

Nah, I disagree. And I am incredibly, incredibly sick of marines...as anyone on here will probably happily point out.

Moving the core marine statline from a 1W to a 2W paradigm at least IN THEORY frees up a ton more design space for other factions precisely because of GW's extreme reluctance to ever give another faction a thing that's stronger/better/whatever than a space marine. It stops the stat squish towards the "Guardsman Equivalent" with units like fire warriors, tempestus, aspect warriors, sisters, guardians, kabalites, etc by raising the ceiling and also further differentiating anti-MEQ vs anti-light infantry weapons beyond just 'has better AP'...because good AP also works on 1w light infantry just as well.

the problem currently is just that GW seems really reluctant and slow to expand into that new design space, except with Moar Damage.if they want light infantry units like guardsmen and cultists and such to lose in a straight up fight versus elite units, that's fine, but then we need to start talking about AOS-style resurrection mechanics...which honestly would be a great thing as well with the common issue of light infantry army players having to purchase 5x as many minis.

Oh, I'm against taking Marines back down to 1 wound. Anything that differentiates Marines from Guard is a good choice.

That's different from saying there's an argument to take them back down to 1 wound. While I don't think it's the best decision, I acknowledge some people would like to see it that way.

You make a good point about the "rate of expansion," it does seem like tinkering with damage / ap has made it harder for infantry and low model count armies. GW doesn't seem to give this aspect a lot of consideration. I'd also say vehicles seem to take a little too much damage.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's never gonna happen, the marine power increase train has only ever been in one direction since rogue trader. 40K background material is by and large marine power fantasy stuff, and the game tries to represent that (not that well or consistently) by increasing their durability.

Marine durability was already well represented by T4 and a 3+ save, and the idea that they should be immune to small arms fire is really silly in my view. An old Lasgun shot had 1/3x1/2/x1/3 = 1/18 chance of killing a marine. 18 lasgun shots per dead marine seems to perfectly represent a space marine. By comparison to a guardsman 1/2x1/2x2/3 = 1/6 chance, or 6 shots per dead guardsman. 3 times as durable seems fine to me, but apparently people wanted 6 times as durable, 36 shots to kill a space marine.

And of course, then GW just upped the number of shots or number of wounds caused by each individual shot.
Whatever.

I mean... Your math proves the opposite of your point.
Old marines were ONLY three times as durable as a guardsmen against the most basic anti light infantry gun in the game while being normally much more than thricce the price because equipement (a veteran was as durable as a táctical marine ir a devastator with a heavy weapon)
Point anything heavier than a lasgun against marines VS guardsmen and the math shows even better how squishy marines were.

And lets not Talk about 40-50 point 1W terminators...

Is the two wound thing really about differentiating from guardsmen? They already had better stats for all stats except W and A, as well as better saves, better guns and special morale rules. How is that not different enough? I feel the change was to make them feel more like the novel writing that emphasises the power fantasy aspect of marines, and maybe to differentiate the new primaris from the old marines?
Galas: Only a factor of 3? That's a matter of perspective on how tough you feel a marine should be. I think 3x is really significant. Especially considering the all or nothing ap system meant bolters shredded guardsmen in return. I certainly don't think my numbers prove the opposite of my point, just that you have a very different view on how tough a marine should be.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There is a bullet economy. You can only kill so many models based on the shots you bring to the table. That gets up ended when your guns don't match the target well.

Add in that old cover valued quantity of wounds over quality and you'd find that weapons now feel way better than they used to. Marines died more readily than orks on a cost basis in older editions with the small consolation that boyz ran away and got overrun in combat really easily.

It's unfair to talk about how vulnerable Marines were for the points compared to other factions and then gloss over their significant morale advantage, which was both a contributor to their cost and in practice made them often more tenacious than ostensibly point-for-point tougher counterparts. An army that is largely immune to a significant game mechanic cannot be expected to be point-for-point just as shooty, tough, and fast as everyone else; something's gotta offset that advantage.

Plus in 3rd/4th Ed, a single bolter hit killed 2.5pts of Marine or 3pts of Slugga Boy (2.67 of Shoota) in 5+ cover, so I find the claim that Marines ended up being point-for-point easy to kill suspect to begin with. That really wasn't the case for anything AP4 or higher, and template weapons in particular punished 'quantity of wounds over quality' heavily.

I'm not super against the current W2 paradigm, but I'm not certain that it was necessary. I agree that it had a hand in the current escalation in lethality, as more weapons now get more damage to appropriately buff them up against expanding defensive statlines. Lots of things that 'should' kill Marines become D2, and lots of things that should be better AT than those Marine-killers get higher damage to compensate. I don't think you can pick any of these things out and pretend they occur in a vacuum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Old marines were ONLY three times as durable as a guardsmen against the most basic anti light infantry gun in the game while being normally much more than thricce the price because equipement (a veteran was as durable as a táctical marine ir a devastator with a heavy weapon)

In practice, in a game dominated by bolters and bolter-like statlines, Tac Marines were 4x as durable as Guardsmen against small arms. In 3rd Ed, a Marine cost less than double what a Guardsman did. In 4th Ed, it was 2.5x.

Marines were also considerably less vulnerable to flamers, grenade launchers, and other common template-based weapons. Reminder: flamers were S4/AP5, so they ignored Guardsman armor too and regularly killed 5-6 in a single shot. The remainder of the squad then had a good chance of fleeing, and unless an officer was nearby could not rally, so they were done. Marines with ATSKNF didn't have to worry about morale much at all, and there were generally a lot more template-based AP5 weapons floating around than there were multi-shot AP3 weapons.

Sure, Devastators were no tougher despite their heavier weapons- and Guardsmen with plasma guns were no tougher than regular Guardsmen despite being triple the cost. So what? Apples-to-apples, please.

If Marines felt vulnerable pre-8th, it was because they constituted roughly 50% of the armies in the game and a higher percentage of that among the playerbase, so any TAC list was geared up with as much AP3 as possible specifically to kill Marines. Of course they'd feel vulnerable when everyone is list-tailoring to kill them; that doesn't mean they were inherently weak for their cost.

Now, granted, many of the changes from 7th to 8th hurt Marine comparative durability. Everything that used to be AP4 could now degrade Marine armor. Guardsmen now got their 5+ save against most weapons that target them. Morale no longer was a make-or-break factor. Early 8th was a rough time for Marines, I'll absolutely grant that. But- the cover system allows you to get a 2+ save against small arms, and that's huge. You can take a save against plasma guns and lascannons now. Blast has been reintroduced. Chaff have gone up in points. Bolter discipline has magnified your firepower. Lots of balancing levers have been pulled that didn't outright require W2 Marines in order for them to be made effective. Again, as long as you are the army that people tailor to beat (even for casual play), you're going to feel vulnerable. That's not going to change as long as the gameplay demographics are what they are.

 catbarf wrote:
In 3rd Ed, a Marine cost less than double what a Guardsman did. In 4th Ed, it was 2.5x.

minor correction, but I have 3rd ed Guardsmen at 50 points a squad for 10 men (in the BRB) for 5ppm, and Marines at 15 ppm. so 3x. The 3.5 codex has Guardsmen at 60 per squad. I don't think I have an early 3rd ed dex for them though.


Edit: I have Codex Catachan and those bad boys were 9ppm. . . holy cow.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Cheex wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No I like W2 Marines. Separates them from the chaff of other factions. Shows that they are super-soldiers.

Imo use better mechanics to make them feel like super soldiers.

Wounds and Toughness are literally the base mechanics designed to represent a soldier's ability to take damage. If not Wounds, then what other mechanics should one use? FNP? Transhuman?

Why focus on damage? Better morale mechanics and better Grenade mechanics have done plenty for Marines in the past. Initiative has also played its part. Go even further back and you have better equipment and immunity/protection from poison and radiation effects, as well as better ability to see in the dark and through obscuring smoke. At times Leadership has been used for freedom of target selection too even.

Everything has been reduced to damage input and output. It's sad.

I have been playing this game since 5th edition, and with the sole exception of ATSKNF existing in a world where sweeping advances were a thing, none of these mechanics ever mattered beyond being edge cases in-game.

I have to disagree Cartbarf. Even HH a Game were everyone has a bolter IS not dominanted by bolters.

I wont Talk about 4th or previos editions but 5th and onwards your damage was always the special and heavier weapons not basic guns pf basic infantry.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Cheex wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No I like W2 Marines. Separates them from the chaff of other factions. Shows that they are super-soldiers.

Imo use better mechanics to make them feel like super soldiers.

Wounds and Toughness are literally the base mechanics designed to represent a soldier's ability to take damage. If not Wounds, then what other mechanics should one use? FNP? Transhuman?

Why focus on damage? Better morale mechanics and better Grenade mechanics have done plenty for Marines in the past. Initiative has also played its part. Go even further back and you have better equipment and immunity/protection from poison and radiation effects, as well as better ability to see in the dark and through obscuring smoke. At times Leadership has been used for freedom of target selection too even.

Everything has been reduced to damage input and output. It's sad.

I have been playing this game since 5th edition, and with the sole exception of ATSKNF existing in a world where sweeping advances were a thing, none of these mechanics ever mattered beyond being edge cases in-game.

Too bad for you I guess, because I used Grenades all the time. My Marines were assaulting and taking out vehicles like absolute bosses.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I have to disagree Cartbarf. Even HH a Game were everyone has a bolter IS not dominanted by bolters.

I wont Talk about 4th or previos editions but 5th and onwards your damage was always the special and heavier weapons not basic guns pf basic infantry.

Did you ever see what Flamers and Whirlwinds did to light infantry in those editions? Mass slaughter, basically.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I get accused of troll posts for taking odd / unpopular positions.

Always unpleasant, really only serves to derail the conversation. The cost of pointing the finger is a lot of 'noise' that is more disruptive than any troll could be. Not sure the point of stating it.

There's an argument for taking Marines back down to 1 wound. I'd be against it because so many other things would need to change to accommodate.

But yes, a lot of guns are now more powerful and it has an outsized impact on other factions. I almost want to say it's time to balance the game for not-Marines.

Nah, I disagree. And I am incredibly, incredibly sick of marines...as anyone on here will probably happily point out.

Moving the core marine statline from a 1W to a 2W paradigm at least IN THEORY frees up a ton more design space for other factions precisely because of GW's extreme reluctance to ever give another faction a thing that's stronger/better/whatever than a space marine. It stops the stat squish towards the "Guardsman Equivalent" with units like fire warriors, tempestus, aspect warriors, sisters, guardians, kabalites, etc by raising the ceiling and also further differentiating anti-MEQ vs anti-light infantry weapons beyond just 'has better AP'...because good AP also works on 1w light infantry just as well.

the problem currently is just that GW seems really reluctant and slow to expand into that new design space, except with Moar Damage.if they want light infantry units like guardsmen and cultists and such to lose in a straight up fight versus elite units, that's fine, but then we need to start talking about AOS-style resurrection mechanics...which honestly would be a great thing as well with the common issue of light infantry army players having to purchase 5x as many minis.

Oh, I'm against taking Marines back down to 1 wound. Anything that differentiates Marines from Guard is a good choice.

That's different from saying there's an argument to take them back down to 1 wound. While I don't think it's the best decision, I acknowledge some people would like to see it that way.

You make a good point about the "rate of expansion," it does seem like tinkering with damage / ap has made it harder for infantry and low model count armies. GW doesn't seem to give this aspect a lot of consideration. I'd also say vehicles seem to take a little too much damage.

Basically, I think there was just a little bit of a weird shenanigan going on with weapon mountings, which could easily have been solved by other means.

Traditionally, you've got imperial weapon mounts that looked like this:

Devastator: Heavy bolter/lascannon/missile launcher/plasma cannon/multi-melta/autocannon for Havocs, limited to 3 of these for Dominions

Leman Russ: Lascannon/multi-melta/heavy bolter/plasma cannon

^All these were, essentially, one gun, swapped out for one different gun.

but then you had the dreadnought list: Twin autocannon, twin lascannon, twin heavy bolter (helbrutes), assault cannon, plasma cannon, multi-melta.

A mixture of 1 gun, and 2 gun mounts. Already, GW created the "Heavy plasma cannon" of the base D2/overcharge D3 plasma cannon to fix the 'why take the plasma' question. The weird thing for me is why they didnt just fake a "heavy multi-melta" for dreads and...I guess, if you really wanted it...Eradicators. Because lets be real, Eradicators having a multi-melta as their "special weapon" is the real reason the whole anti tank damage escalation fiasco started off with the multi-melta in the first place.

Also, the decision to shift to "d3+3" and "D6+2" as standard instead of the simple shift from "d6" to, for example, "2d3". Shifting to 2d3 achieves the desired reliability factor, but also doesnt significantly increase damage on average as opposed to D3+3, which shifts expected damage from 3.5 to 5. Melta at D6+2 I dont have much of a particular issue with tbh, only multi-meltas all across the board at 2 shots because it feths with SO many weapon mount platforms where its suddenly in competition with vastly, VASTLY inferior choices (so many single heavy bolters/single heavy flamers/single LASCANNONS etc). Laughably, the multi-melta change actually means a sisters dominion armed with a heavy bolter does identical damage to GEQ...with a multi-melta, lol.

Nobody had problems coming up with enough d2 weapons to handle an army of W2 marines back when that was just primaris. Everyone was just like 'welp, here comes the plasma/dissies/insert D2 damage weapon our faction has access to here' - Heavy Infiltrators and Eradicators singlehandedly created the across the board imperial weapons shift. The ONLY weapon that actually needed and deserved the heavy weapons shift, was flamers, which should have just been 12" range as standard. If you wanted them to not be 12" range, you had to increase the actual reward you got for the risk. A flamer being 8" range 2d6 shots, would not have been out of the question IMO, but I prefer the 12" solution as it doesnt creep lethality further.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Too bad for you I guess, because I used Grenades all the time. My Marines were assaulting and taking out vehicles like absolute bosses.

Good for you, but no one cares about anecdotes.

Marines being too fragile to do their jobs properly has been a consistent complaint for like 15 years, and when you look at the top marine lists of those times, you see that the basic marine was almost always left in the box in favor of some specialist unit that benefitted from absolutely bonkers special rules or wargear. Purifiers, paladins, Death Company, Grey Hunters, Centurions etc. Meme gimmick rules like assault grenades or being able to ignore night fighting never allowed the core marine units like tacticals and assault marines or vanilla terminators to be competitive outside of troop tax.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Too bad for you I guess, because I used Grenades all the time. My Marines were assaulting and taking out vehicles like absolute bosses.

Good for you, but no one cares about anecdotes.

Marines being too fragile to do their jobs properly has been a consistent complaint for like 15 years, and when you look at the top marine lists of those times, you see that the basic marine was almost always left in the box in favor of some specialist unit that benefitted from absolutely bonkers special rules or wargear. Purifiers, paladins, Death Company, Grey Hunters, Centurions etc. Meme gimmick rules like assault grenades or being able to ignore night fighting never allowed the core marine units like tacticals and assault marines to be competitive outside of troop tax.

A: Most people didn't know how to use Tacs, not my fault that I could.
B: You mention Grey Hunters, which happen to be 1W troop choices in Power Armor. Huh, look at that.

Edit C: Calling Grenades a "meme gimmick" sorta shows me the problem you might have been having. When your un-augmented basic troops can trash a Leman Russ tank in CC, that feels pretty "elite" to me.

@Insectium7 I have never said light infantry was too durable , just that marines were frágile.
Flamers were good VS orks and IG . But that was not what people spammed.

Cartbarf IS right about people optimizing VS marines but I would say allowing such optimization against such a popular statline was a mistake on itself.
I mean, by most of his history, lotr a Game of normal humanoids fighting with swords had more meaningfull variety in the defensive profiles of his infantry than 40k.

You have more defensive profiles in Gondor roster with pure humans and with save and toughness in a single stat than in 7th and previous space marine army List infantry.

 Galas wrote:
@Insectium7 I have never said light infantry was too durable , just that marines were frágile.
Flamers were good VS orks and IG . But that was not what people spammed.

They couldn't be spammed, because bolters and other AP5 weapons could totally annihilate them. Imo it basically proves the point.

 Galas wrote:
Cartbarf IS right about people optimizing VS marines but I would say allowing such optimization against such a popular statline was a mistake on itself.

I agree with that sentiment, but that in and of itself is the "lethality is too high" argument. This is something which began to get out of control during 5th edition. All of a sudden a lot more high-AP weapons could be spammed, allowing for greater optimization against marines, etc. In 8th edition I could bring a list that had over 90 S 5/8 AP-3 2D/D3D shots to the table. I agree that THAT is a problem. The thing is, 2W Marines doesn't fix the problem of being able to spam anti-MEQ weapons. But what it really hits hard is the basic rifles of other troops. Instead of addressing the anti-MEQ spam problem, it's hurting the core units of every other faction in a big way.

Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
In 3rd Ed, a Marine cost less than double what a Guardsman did. In 4th Ed, it was 2.5x.

minor correction, but I have 3rd ed Guardsmen at 50 points a squad for 10 men (in the BRB) for 5ppm, and Marines at 15 ppm. so 3x. The 3.5 codex has Guardsmen at 60 per squad. I don't think I have an early 3rd ed dex for them though.


Edit: I have Codex Catachan and those bad boys were 9ppm. . . holy cow.

You are correct, but the early 3rd Ed codex had Guardsmen at 8ppm. 3.5 dropped them to 6ppm as you noted.

Galas wrote:I have to disagree Cartbarf. Even HH a Game were everyone has a bolter IS not dominanted by bolters.

I wont Talk about 4th or previos editions but 5th and onwards your damage was always the special and heavier weapons not basic guns pf basic infantry.

Well, yeah. Because T4/3+ Marines are actually pretty hard to kill with S4/AP5 or S3/AP- small arms, and most armies were Marines so you tailored around that reality. That's my point. Play against Guard, Tyranids, Orks, or Militia/Cults (in HH) and suddenly those basic small arms become pretty relevant.

And I mean, to be clear, we're not just talking about lasguns or bolters here- in 4th Ed, a single Heavy Bolter hit killed 3.33pts of Marine, 6pts of Ork, or 5pts of Guardsman. An Autocannon was more efficient against Guardsmen than against Marines. It's not that Marines were more resilient against small arms and everything heavier splatted them good; they were the toughest point-for-point against everything AP4 or worse.

This is pretty clear when you look at HH and all the popular weapons are either AP3 or mass a ton of high-S shots (or templates). If a weapon doesn't meet either criterion, there's a good chance it isn't worth taking. Rotor Cannons are junk, but massing Volkite (a basic small arm in the 30K era) is actually reasonably effective. Small arms were perceived as useless because they didn't kill Marines effectively; you can't hold that up as evidence that Marines being resilient against small arms was irrelevant to play.

 catbarf wrote:

You are correct, but the early 3rd Ed codex had Guardsmen at 8ppm. 3.5 dropped them to 6ppm as you noted.

How wierd. From 5 to 8 to 6? I wonder what the justification for the 8 is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
It's not that Marines were more resilient against small arms and everything heavier splatted them good; they were the toughest point-for-point against everything AP4 or worse.

^Yeah this! Which is why the "power armor swarm" was a thing.

 Insectum7 wrote:
A: Most people didn't know how to use Tacs, not my fault that I could.

Or, you had weak opponents.

You mention Grey Hunters, which happen to be 1W troop choices in Power Armor.

And had bonkers special rules and wargear options to go with it. Amazingly, as soon as they were nerfed out of those special rules they went from "overpowered" to "okay but not great", with Wulfen and TWC becoming the core of the army's meta.

Edit C: Calling Grenades a "meme gimmick" sorta shows me the problem you might have been having. When your un-augmented basic troops can trash a Leman Russ tank in CC, that feels pretty "elite" to me.

This statement shows me the problem you're having now. That you think Leman Russ weren't considered one of the worst vehicles in the game, in a edition where vehicles were already notoriously weak (6th edition onward), implies that you're probably a casual player. I'm glad tactical marines have always been strong in your fluffy beerhammer garage games, but they were seeing little play in top tables from at least 5th edition to the end of 7th. Now you could argue that damage creep is the chief for why Marine fragility has historically been so prominent, and you may even be right. However it is delusion to try to assert that the basic marine statline was functional pre-8th.

^"filthy casual" is all you got? Mkay.

I was Krak grenading Wave Serpents in the butt during 6th, tossing them into the tailpipes of Hellturkeys, and pinning Wraithknights in CC with ATSKNF.

During 6th and 7th editions Marines didn't feel tough because they were in company sized tank engagements, facing off against ridiculous amounts of anit-elite and antitank weaponry. Which, btw, Marines should die against anti-elite and anti-tank weaponry. That's totally fine with me.

If your attempted point is that the basic Marine statline didn't hold up well against 7th ed Scatbikes, Wraithknights and Warp Spider spam, the problem areas you should be addressing in that scenario are not the Marines. Just a hint.

We've returned to the anecdotal Tactical Marines are great arguments.