I don’t think marines should have two wounds

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.

**JNAProductions**

Slayer6 wrote:
When a basic Intercessor costs 1 point less than a Scion packing a Plasmagun, that can oneshot two of them on the drop very reliably... You know they aren't doing so well... I would have given Marines 1W and a built-in base 6++ that could be enhanced by other additions - such as Terminator Armor, or Storm Shields. Hell, change the rules around to:

The Black Carapace:
Models with this rule have a 6++. This can be modified.

Terminator Armor:
2+ save and also improves Invulnerable Saves by 1.

Combat Shield:
Improves Invulnerable Saves by 1.

Storm Shield:
Improves both Armor and Invulnerable saves by 1.

Combine them all, and your current Storm Shield Terminators come into play. 2+/4++

Combat Shield on a model results in a 5++

Basic Space Marine units have a 6++.

Hell, if needed add a clause where Invulnerable saves cannot be improved past a 3++.

Now. I'm going to go back to trying to envisage just how an Imperial Guard Shotgun can kill a Warlord Titan... I haven't had much luck so far...

If by "One-shot two of them very reliably" you mean "Has a slightly better than 20% chance" then sure, that's accurate.

Now, we can bump our odds up by making them AP-4 with the right Regiment, but Intercessors can have cover for +1 Armor, which would end up a wash. Even with AP-4 and no cover, you're still only getting about 30% odds of killing two in one shooting phase.

Adding on some basic buffs, like, say, Father of the Future (which is now, apparently, baked into what Apothecaries can do) and your odds of killing two drop to less than 15% (even WITH AP-4 and no cover). If we add cover/drop AP to -3, odds further drop to just about 10%.

**JNAProductions**

vipoid wrote:
To be honest, I just think that both 8th and 9th have been a bit of a mess with regard to this sort of thing.

For example:

- The new wounding system, combined with an unwillingness to give 1+ or 2+ saves to most vehicles but also a overabundance of invulnerable saves on many vehicles, means that 'all-rounder' weapons tend to make for better anti-tank guns than the actual anti-tank guns. But instead of addressing the actual issues, GW instead opted to just make Marine anti-tank weapons much more effective.

- The AP system combined with an overabundance of invulnerable saves means that the first pip or two of AP are the most valuable, with subsequent pips getting increasingly less relevant. However, GW seems to price weapons as if the opposite were true.

- Extra wounds for Marines might not be bad in theory... except that Marines are so prevalent (and this is even before we get to Chaos, who will no doubt be getting the same when their codex arrives). This means that 2-wounds has effectively become the most common value for basic troops. Hence, unless they get a bazillion shots, 1-damage weapons are basically obsolete now. Someone mentioned earlier that this would make Heavy Bolter vs. Assault Cannon a more meaningful choice, but it actually does the opposite. Because one extra shot is laughable when it's vastly less effective against even many basic troops, let alone any and all harder targets.

Shockingly for a GW product, the whole thing just feels poorly thought out.

Assault Cannons actually have twice as many shots as Heavy Bolters.

I agree with the thrust of your argument, but that specific example might not be the best one.

**JNAProductions**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Unless the small arms you are talking about are specifically lasguns, it's easier to kill a marine than a necron immortal.

Shhhhhhhhh don't let math get in the way of irrational fear.

Is it?

Bolter, S4 AP0 D1
2 unsaved wounds
6 successful wound rolls
12 hits

1 unsaved wound
3 successful wound rolls
9 hits

Immortals are more vulnerable to Bolters.

Pulse Rifle, S5 AP0 D1
2 unsaved wounds
6 successful wound rolls
9 hits

1 unsaved wound
3 successful wound rolls
6 hits

Immortals are more vulnerable to Pulse Rifles.

Running the math in general...

AP is irrelevant-it affects them equally.
Hit rolls are irrelevant-it affects them equally.
The only two things that affect them are Strength and Damage.

If Damage is 1, as is the case with the majority of small arms fire, then Immortals would have to be wounded at half the rate of Marines to have the same durability. Which isn't true for any Strength value.

At Damage 2, Marines are less durable (barring FNP) than Immortals against S4, S5, S8, and S9. At all other Strength values, they're equal.

At Damage d3, Marines have 50% more durability per unsaved wound, due to basically allowing them an extra 5+ save. Though a second unsaved wound is guaranteed to kill a Marine (again barring FNP) so we'll call it 33% more durable.
That'd mean that they're equally durable against S5, and Marines are less durable against S4. S8 and 9 the Marines are more durable, though.

**JNAProductions**

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm having a tough time doing the math the way you are here.

Boltgun: Assume 1 hit.

1/3 wound, 1/3 save, 2/3 res protocol save = 0.074 dead per shot.

1/2 wound, 1/3 save, 1/2 2 wounds = 0.083 dead per shot.

Are you just not doing res protocols? I'm not even taking into account the 1ppm cheaper they are.

I did not factor in Resurrection Protocols, no, since they can be bypassed by eliminating the squad in one swoop. And also because I forgot.

But that increases durability by 50%, if treated as the same as a 5+ FNP, which would make them slightly more durable to S4 and equally durable to S5.

**JNAProductions**

the_scotsman wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I'm having a tough time doing the math the way you are here.

Boltgun: Assume 1 hit.

1/3 wound, 1/3 save, 2/3 res protocol save = 0.074 dead per shot.

1/2 wound, 1/3 save, 1/2 2 wounds = 0.083 dead per shot.

Are you just not doing res protocols? I'm not even taking into account the 1ppm cheaper they are.
I did not factor in Resurrection Protocols, no, since they can be bypassed by eliminating the squad in one swoop. And also because I forgot.

But that increases durability by 50%, if treated as the same as a 5+ FNP, which would make them slightly more durable to S4 and equally durable to S5.

I think it's gonna be fairly unusual to have enough small arms out of a single weapon to deny immortals RP.

5 Man Squad is 5 T5 3+ wounds.

To kill that with Bolt Rifles (no Doctrine) or normal Bolters (Tac Doctrine), you need...

5 Unsaved Wounds
10 Successful Wounds
30 Hits
45 Shots

Add in some rerolls, and we can probably drop that to less than 40.

40 shots
280/9 hits
1,960/162 or 980/81 wounds
490/81 damage, or 6 wounds

So a 10-Man Intercessor squad, with the doubletap Strat, a Captain, and Lieutenant can wipe a 5 Man squad of Immortals with room to spare.

Of course, I'd imagine 10-man squads of Immortals aren't going to be that uncommon, which means that RP is only a slightly less effective FNP (since the last shots to kill them deny it), so yeah. My math was sound, my assumptions were not.

**JNAProductions**

I would not consider anything that requires you to roll above average to be "Very reliable."

And the odds of killing ONE Intercessor without Cover or FNP would be very reliable, at just shy of 90%. But the odds of killing two are less than 50%.

Moreover, since they're not getting Deepstruck, if you don't get Turn 1, there's a very good chance that they're footslogging it. And shortly dead.

**JNAProductions**

Argive wrote:
How would people feel about rolling 2d6 and discarding the lowest if moved for armor saves?
Obviously not for all units.. But some of the "quick and dodge" units

Nope nope nope nope!

Do me a favor, see how long it takes to roll, say, 25 4+ saves.
Now do it again, only each save has to be rolled individually with two dice, dropping the lower one.

Completely disregarding any balance, it just takes too damn long.

**JNAProductions**

Karol wrote:
Maybe stuff like termagants isn't suppose to kill whole units of marines in one go. Maybe killing 2-3 with 30 is what should happen.

So, 30 Termagants put out 90 shots at 18".
45 hits.
26.25 wounds
8.75 unsaved

270 points of Gants kills 72 points of Tactical Marines at 18". What does 270 points of Tactical Marines do to Gants?

30 shots
20 hits
13.33 wounds
11.11 unsaved

They kill 100 points of Gants. Without buffs. Without being in Tactical Doctrine. At 24" instead of 18".

Boy, sure seems fair, don't it?

**JNAProductions**

Not to mention, it could be 260 points of Necron Warriors with buffs to kill five three-four Terminators, and therefore just over 350 to kill a squad. A squad that, mind you, costs only 190 points, as compared to 260+buffs.

Or it could be as hard as over 1,000 points (over 80 Warriors) to kill a five-man TEQ squad, if they have Storm Shields and Cover.

**JNAProductions**

Galas wrote:
I mean 350 points to kill 190 should be how probably things should be with "optimized" units shooting at their targets.

Yeah, but that's unfortunately not the reality.

**JNAProductions**

Canadian 5th wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Not to mention, it could be 260 points of Necron Warriors with buffs to kill five three-four Terminators, and therefore just over 350 to kill a squad. A squad that, mind you, costs only 190 points, as compared to 260+buffs.

Or it could be as hard as over 1,000 points (over 80 Warriors) to kill a five-man TEQ squad, if they have Storm Shields and Cover.

Is a 50% point efficiency in shooting not good enough? Should we even be answering terminators with basic troops rather than other elite or heavy support choices?

This isn't to mention that those 20 warriors may still have the option to charge something with +1 to the roll which could raise their single turn efficiency by even more.

In a good game? 50% return should be pretty damn good.

In current 40k, though, it's not.

**JNAProductions**

Canadian 5th wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
In a good game? 50% return should be pretty damn good.

In current 40k, though, it's not.

So every faction should get eradicators and the like?

No, I'd prefer every faction get toned down in lethality considerably.

I admit, I got a bit caught up in the arguing-never good, always bad.

My personal desire is for every Codex to be released in short order, with good internal and external balance, with tabling someone being a pretty difficult endeavor because lethality was dropped by a ton.

**JNAProductions**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

They aren't better though. They are better against boys. They aren't better against geensteelers. Choopas boys do a lot more total damage than priamris do. That is my point. The way I see it you are complaining that a unit loses to a unit it should lose to. Orks will beat geensteelers - geensteelers beat marines. True marines aren't dedicated melee unit. They are also a shooting unit and they pay extra for that. Now you start to deal with the too many eggs in 1 basket problem. Where that plasma gun starts getting better and better the more points go onto that 2 wound primaris that is going to have almost all of its "really good stats" completely ignored. It's a tricky business.

...To summarize what you just said. You think its fine that your TAC UNIT when fighting against ork boyz can outperform them in shooting, durability and when they finally get into CC they actually match them point for point? That to you is "TAC" and fine because those Ork boyz can beat up Genestealers in CC where as intercessors lose to genestealers in CC.

4 GS are 60pts. In CC they get 12 attacks, hitting on 3s wounding on 4s at -1AP, wound rolls of 6 are -4AP. So 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds with 1 likely being -4 AP (no save allowed). Against the 3 others 1.5 goes through. So 4 GS kill 1 intercessor.

3 Intercessors are 60pts. In CC get 9 attacks, 6 hits 3 wounds, against a 5+ 2 dead Genestealers.

intercessors lost 1 model, maybe 1 extra wound 20, possibly 30 on the top end.
GS lost 2 models or 30pts.

Wow Xeno...

Your argument is flawed from the start, claiming a TAC unit should be as good as a CC unit in CC is just ridiculous (Point for point comparison) And your next argument is just as wrong.

Wow it's almost as though Genestealers are bad vs multiwound models, big think time

Why should a powerful CC unit, one that doesn't have much durability and has no shooting, perform the same in melee as a unit that's shooty, durable, and punchy?

**JNAProductions**

So why do only Marines get to live up to the badass fluff?

They can shoot better than an Ork Boy or a Genestealer-that's fine. But they also fight better them, while being more durable.

**JNAProductions**

BrianDavion wrote:
catbarf wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
So why do only Marines get to live up to the badass fluff?

They can shoot better than an Ork Boy or a Genestealer-that's fine. But they also fight better them, while being more durable.

Who says they're living up to their fluff? If anything the individual Marine would basically be Custodes level and Custodes beyond even that.
You want to follow lore THAT strictly that's on all y'all.

Man, I forgot how in Space Hulk the Marines don't bother bringing Terminator armor or even ammo because they can just punch through the hordes of Genestealers in their basic power armor. That was some real great lore.

You know Movie Marines was a joke list, right? Like, a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment that the crazy heroic feats in Marine-centric novels aren't really consistent with the lore but are fun to read anyways.

Genestealers need a buff quite independantly of Marines IMHO. the fluff for GS's describes them "Tearing through even terminator armor like it was tissue paper" but... they can't do that, at least not reliably. I'd honestly buff Gene stealer rending claws (I'd proably call them something differant to avoid buffing other units with them) a straight up -4 AP instead of that silly "only on a 6" stuff that would mean basicly they're tearing apart space marine armor like it's not even there, and make terminators reliant on their invul save. that would make GS's TERRIFYING in close combat as they'd outright ignore armor.

Because the game sure needs to be MORE lethal.

**JNAProductions**

Voss wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
That doesn't explain why intercessors as a basic troops choice are better than firewarriors at RANGED COMBAT! lol

This is the problem, SM players are currently running around with a basic troops choice that out performs specialist armies troops choices IN THEIR SPECIALTY!

Wait, when did firewarriors become 'specialists?' They're guardsmen with better guns.
Marines have always (since tau were introduced) been better ranged combatants than firewarriors, tau just had a higher strength, longer range gun.

Now, if you want to complain about the sudden advance of Imperium rifle technology, carry on.
But don't pretend firewarriors are or have ever been high tier experts.

What do you call a unit with crap CC abilities, but a gun that's better than a basic Marine weapon?

**JNAProductions**

Tau Fire Warriors are, what? 9 points each?

So compare them to 9 Intercessors. 20 Fire Warriors.

If they stand still, giving FW first turn...

Spoiler:

Two turns in, and two Intercessors are dead. But half the Fire Warriors are.

If the Fire Warriors move closer to try to get Rapid Fire, that'll put them in charge range of Intercessors, meaning they'll get hosed harder. Intercessors are also more durable and have access to a lot more buffs.

Intercessors shoot better than a Fire Warrior, point for point. I can check the math against other targets, but outside of T8 models and T4 or T5 models that use Invulns instead of Armor, I don't think the Fire Warriors will come out ahead. And it's not a contest who fights better or is more durable.

**JNAProductions**

No, I gave them Bolter Discipline and Doctrines. Otherwise, they'd have half (T1) or less than that (T2) of the damage they're actually doing.

**JNAProductions**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
And if Fire Dragons were point-for-point as destructive and durable as Eradicators, you'd be crying for them to be nerfed. This isn't rocket science.

No, I'll be laughing because they're still Finecast and a stiff breeze just amputated 3 of your guys. The least I can do is let you blow up a tank or something. Damn, get the unpainted one and drop it on the floor if you want after that.

Destructive AND durable.

So, not T3 W1 3+.

**JNAProductions**

Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?

Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?

**JNAProductions**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Except you're being two-faced about this. You're saying Eradicators are fine, but then saying people deserve to have bad game balance. It honestly sounds like you're one of those players who wants bad game balance so they can meta-chase to secure easy wins, and is unremittingly angry at people who want a balanced game.

No. I'll keep it simple. This is what I'm saying:

1- Wait for your Codex.

2- If your Codex sucks, stop buying stuff. Stop playing. Stop supporting

3- If your Codex sucks and you keep throwing money at GW, it will not change. You deserve the bad game balance because you are enabling it.

Just to be clear, 8th edition Codecs are compatible with 9th edition.

Why should one Codex be released that is wildly more powerful than other Codecs, when all available Codecs are usable? If they really intend to make the power level so much higher, they should NOT be slow-walking Codex releases. Otherwise, you're waiting anywhere from a few months to potentially years to be brought up to par.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?

Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?

I don't know, do you think if I yank a pizza out of the oven 2 minutes after I put the damned thing in there, it'll be good?

Wait for your Codex.

Great! I already have it-sure, it's from 8th edition, but it's fully compatible with 9th!

Why does it suck so hard compared to Space Marines?

**JNAProductions**

Galas wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?

Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?

I don't really think in a casual scene is good because marines are just too easy to be extremely strong and a casual marine list will stomp nearly all casual lists of other armies.

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-october-2020-40k-meta-review/

By competitive and tournamend data, if we find reasonable armies between a 55% and 45% winrate we have more than half the codex of the game between those brackets. So competitive, is relatively fine? But when you look at normal feeling of gameplay, things could not be more different. Thats why personally I don't just take tournament data for this kind of judgement of an edition or the power of a faction.

That's a very reasonable stance-one I agree with, as a matter of fact.

I do think that tournament data is the best data available, since there is not (to my knowledge) any good data on casual games, but yeah. In the same way that -4 to-hit Lord Discordants might've been able to rock the tournament scene, but weren't a problem casually (because you could just take different relics or powers or whatever, even if the models were exactly the same) Space Marines could be manageable on the tourney scene, but overwhelming in a more casual scene.

Admittedly, I do like how the Marine Dex can take many different viable builds, and has relatively good internal balance. It's the external balance that's shot to hell, and a few stand outs of imbalance internally.

**JNAProductions**

They did damage just fine to dreads before they got Duty Eternal.

But yes, they’re now only half as good against Dreads.

**JNAProductions**

Karol wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."

If boys were a valid melee or shoting unit, and orks could spam them in number they can use now. No one would be winning against orks, unless they had an army that could spam a comperable number of units with comperable shoting and melee abilities. Or be immune to melee and shoting, while being dishing out large amount of damage of their own.

If Intercessors were a valid shooting and melee unit, and Marines could spam them in the number they can use now, no one would be winning against Marines.

Here's the thing-no one wants Ork Boys to be OP god monsters. (Okay, virtually no one.) What most want is for Ork Boys with Choppas to be a good melee threat, maybe with a PK or Killsaw equipped Nob, or for Ork Boys with Shootas to be a credible threat in melee and able to deal decent damage with shooting. Not stellar damage-even with Shootas, Boys are not a pure shooting unit, given their CC stats-but decent damage.

**JNAProductions**

Karol wrote:
You mean most or all ork players, because I doubt that anyone who doesn't own or plans to play them wants orks to get a tier 1 army.

They are already problematic just sitting on objectives. If they could also move and engage stuff in melee or shoting, they would be horrible to play against. Specialy now with all the nerfs GW does to marines and marine gear.

Are you... Are you reading the same Codex I am?

Have you missed the part where Intercessors outfight Boys and Genestealers, and outshoot Tau Fire Warriors, not just model to model, but point for point?

**JNAProductions**

Rock Paper Scissors is also bad game design for something like this.

Having elements of it is fine-having entire RPS matchups is less so.

**JNAProductions**

SecondTime wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Rock Paper Scissors is also bad game design for something like this.

Having elements of it is fine-having entire RPS matchups is less so.

Like tanks vs anti-tank, yes. But... invulns short circuit that interaction. At least invulns get reigned in a little bit in 9th. I'm still not sure I'd pay for AP -4 or greater though. Well, other than eradicators.

Invulns should definitely be more limited on anything big. I've made a proposal to replace the Ion Shield (5+ Invuln) with an Ion Shield that basically functions as an extra set of wounds at a lower Toughness and Save that have to be beat down first to shoot the main Knight, since yeah-that's an issue.

**JNAProductions**

SecondTime wrote:
Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units.

So you should be complaining about Dark Eldar having crap troops too, right? Or any other faction where the one or maybe two top builds that can compete in tournaments aren't fluffy, right?

**JNAProductions**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
" Warriors have had their fluff changed to be brainless silver tide"

That doesn't preclude their chassis being technologically superior to marines. But this means fewer models, I know. But it feeds into the conception that everyone else is an NPC for marines to punch out.

I don't think their stats should be tied to this arbitrary role if Necrons are truly that much more advanced than the Imperium. But again, fewer models.

I think immortals are far too weak compared to marines atm.

Did you see literally none of the buffs Immortals got? Better weapons, T5, A2 at base, and FNP on steroids? Thats significantly better than whatever Tactical Marines got with the W2 LOL

Their weaker weapon got 6" of range, correct?
And their stronger one now was buffed against hit penalties, but is much weaker with hit bonuses. Before, at -1 to-hit, they got 1/2 hits; at normal shooting, 1/1 hits; and at +1, 3/2 hits. Now it's 5/6, 6/6, and 7/6 respectively.

T5 is good. No arguments there.

A2 is better-but they're still garbage in melee. It takes a squad of seven to bully a ten man Guard squad low enough to claim an objective from them in melee by reducing them to 6 models.

FNP on steroids is only true if you're dealing with weapons that have more than 1 Damage. Against anything 1 Damage, it's FNP... But worse, since you can't take it on the attack that wipes the squad. In a 10 Man squad, that can be tough, but 5 man... Not as much.

Overall, Immortals did get better. But that doesn't make them compare favorably to Intercessors.

**JNAProductions**

Karol wrote:
if you want to feel "overwhelmed" by horde factions than guess what? units like Eradicators/aggressors and intercessors all need HEAVY nerfs. That or you need to make those horde armies significantly cheaper. If you want to get that feeling of being overwhelmed but still keep those units as is than my 110pt buggies need to be closer to 50pts. My Ork boyz need to be back down to 6ppm not 8ppm, and even then they would probably need a durability increase thanks to aggressors even existing.

Orks already have lists that win by camping objectives and running a horde, you want them to have even more models, and at the same time intercessors being worse at shoting then tau and orks at melee, so every skew army would beat them? that is madness.

So what do you propose, Karol? What's your fix for this?

Also, you may have missed the "or" in that quoted post. Not "Nerf the crap out of Marines AND make their competition cheaper," it was or.