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.

 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.

Hecaton wrote:

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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

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.

Hecaton wrote:

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.

Crazy idea...

The game is made well-balanced, and EVERYONE can have fun!

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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

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.

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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?

What are you even on about.

 Insectum7 wrote:
What are you even on about.

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

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
What are you even on about.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you care about other people having a good time?

Not when I'm bringing a fluffy DA list that just happens to possibly be good.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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

 JNAProductions wrote:
It's fluffy, so therefore your opponent's fun doesn't matter, right? After all...

If you'll notice I added a note to my post that explains that I would of course tone down my list. If I didn't how many games could I expect?

Canadian 5th wrote:

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.

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?

 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.

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.

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.