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.

Martel732 wrote:

Tygre wrote:
My go to example is:
If a bolter shell explodes in a guardsmans shoulder, well he's dead and is out of the combat.
If a bolter shell explodes in a marines shoulder, well he loses his arm and is out of the combat.
If a bolter shell explodes in a orks shoulder, well he pick it up with his other arm and beat you to death with it.

From what we have been told of SM physiology; they have strong bones and scab wounds quickly. Does that warrant extra Toughness and another wound from human standard?

Yes, it does. Orks should probably have 2W and FNP on top. The game needs to stretch the stats so we can differentiate units properly.

Last time I suggested 2W Orks I got shouted down. I was told the Orks durability is shown by his T alone. I am glad that I am not alone in my thinking that Orks need more wounds.

In the old world T4 was probably enough to show "is as tough as a marine" and a 6+ save was for its shirt.

I'd love to see something like "Orks have a 4++ feel no pain, still count any 'wounds' saved by this rule as a causality for purposes of morale".

Tygre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Tygre wrote:
My go to example is:
If a bolter shell explodes in a guardsmans shoulder, well he's dead and is out of the combat.
If a bolter shell explodes in a marines shoulder, well he loses his arm and is out of the combat.
If a bolter shell explodes in a orks shoulder, well he pick it up with his other arm and beat you to death with it.

From what we have been told of SM physiology; they have strong bones and scab wounds quickly. Does that warrant extra Toughness and another wound from human standard?

Yes, it does. Orks should probably have 2W and FNP on top. The game needs to stretch the stats so we can differentiate units properly.

Last time I suggested 2W Orks I got shouted down. I was told the Orks durability is shown by his T alone. I am glad that I am not alone in my thinking that Orks need more wounds.

I think given the lethality of the current game a 6+ save is negligible. At least a second wound would have some weight to it.

Tygre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Tygre wrote:
My go to example is:
If a bolter shell explodes in a guardsmans shoulder, well he's dead and is out of the combat.
If a bolter shell explodes in a marines shoulder, well he loses his arm and is out of the combat.
If a bolter shell explodes in a orks shoulder, well he pick it up with his other arm and beat you to death with it.

From what we have been told of SM physiology; they have strong bones and scab wounds quickly. Does that warrant extra Toughness and another wound from human standard?

Yes, it does. Orks should probably have 2W and FNP on top. The game needs to stretch the stats so we can differentiate units properly.

Last time I suggested 2W Orks I got shouted down. I was told the Orks durability is shown by his T alone. I am glad that I am not alone in my thinking that Orks need more wounds.

to be fair, think custodes should have 5. More differentiation.

I like the idea of the one-man turrets, but I don't like the execution. I plan on making a tracked rapier-carrier like contraption, with twin autocannons on top (I'm thinking the ones from the Taurox would work great), put it on a 60mm base with a Primaris marine following behind with a remote control unit. Would anyone here have a problem with that?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I like the idea of the one-man turrets, but I don't like the execution. I plan on making a tracked rapier-carrier like contraption, with twin autocannons on top (I'm thinking the ones from the Taurox would work great), put it on a 60mm base with a Primaris marine following behind with a remote control unit. Would anyone here have a problem with that?

I should hope not, conversions should be encouraged in general.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I like the idea of the one-man turrets, but I don't like the execution. I plan on making a tracked rapier-carrier like contraption, with twin autocannons on top (I'm thinking the ones from the Taurox would work great), put it on a 60mm base with a Primaris marine following behind with a remote control unit. Would anyone here have a problem with that?

Wouldnt it be a lot smaller then the gun turret though?

Orks with T5 or 2W or 4+++ are all awful ideas. All these suggestions, especially the 2W and 4+++ would increase the dice rolling which is the current biggest problem of 40k. SM aside.

The solution to decrease lethality is to decrease powerful offensive combos and rate of fire, not to make everything tougher.

I'm not even against SM troops being 2W, it's their 2W, multiple buffs and cheap points values combo that is absurd. I'm all in favor of a super elite army, but then give SM points costs like custodes units. Army still viable, less dice rolling, background respected and problem solved.

I'm not sure the 2 wounds are the problem; as others have said, it's the cumulative bonuses to damage for marines that is the problem.

Primaris bodies are not underpriced compared to the rest of the game, its their army rules are overpowered compared to all other armies.

Since codexes 8.5 have recently released, this put GW in a terrible position where they'll only have one solution : overpower all other armies (compared to their current state) to catch up with marines.

I do hope they do for 10th what they did for 8th : a hard reset for all datasheets, army rules, and points values with lower damage, rerolls, and shooting distance. one can hope.

But marine armies that don't have access to the cumulative bonuses end up just being bad. They cost too much to be really resilient, can't deal with horde, can't deal with stuff like eldar flyers or specific super fast melee units. And when marines are bad, then most of players in w40k are having a bad time, because most players are marines. And GW would be really stupid if they tried to make their core players and buyers unhappy for a longer time.

Insectum7 wrote: Imagine for a moment, that Marines had better armor than all of those examples. . .
Oh. . . They do!

Imagine if that armour actually made Marines significantly durable.

And Necron Warriors should be as durable as Marines, and have RP on top of that, but that's another discussion.

Disagree, but that's another discussion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In nearly every prior edition I've played, my basic Marines did not feel elite.

Now also, imagine, for a moment, that instead of playing marines, you were playing Dire Avengers, Striking Scorpions etc, against Primaris under the current paradigm. How elite do your elite units feel?

Where did I say that I didn't want Aspect Warriors to also be at that level?

You're confusing my point with someone else's - I want more things to be at the Primaris level, because, in my opinion, the gap between Guardsmen and Space Marine is too small.

yukishiro1 wrote:I don't think it's even right to say space marines are stronger or tougher than orks. Space marines are more durable because they have much better armor, but that's really it. Orks are extremely durable on a physical level. They were literally created by far, far, far more powerful genetic scientists than Cawl could ever dream to be, specifically for their strength and toughness.

I think you're vastly underselling the durability of an unarmoured Space Marine there.

Orks are, as you said, extremely durable, but so are Space Marines, and I would see the extra Wound as a combination of their durability, armour, and "elite"-ness. I wouldn't give Scouts the extra Wound.

The people talking about space marine skill, strength, toughness etc tend to conveniently forget that according to 40k lore, every major race was created by beings vastly better at manipulating genes than the Imperium could hope to be in a million years.

And yet nearly every race fears the Space Marines. The way I see it, sure, the baseline of most factions is stronger than normal humans, and that's where their "superhumanness" comes in. But a Marine is on par with the the elite forces of those factions, skipping straight over their baseline.

So, if Guardsmen are C Tier, other faction baselines are B Tier, baseline Marines and enemy elites are A Tier.

And yes, before you say anything, that's absolutely just my opinion - but it's got just as much weight as anyone elses.

Karol wrote:
But marine armies that don't have access to the cumulative bonuses end up just being bad. They cost too much to be really resilient, can't deal with horde, can't deal with stuff like eldar flyers or specific super fast melee units. And when marines are bad, then most of players in w40k are having a bad time, because most players are marines. And GW would be really stupid if they tried to make their core players and buyers unhappy for a longer time.

No, they probaly wouldn't auto win games but marines always have been solid. Even without 300+ points of free units or thousands of cumulative bonuses. And I could argue that many of those marines players that had bad times are players too used to auto win or kids that don't know how to play properly and just need some experience. Taking bad losses helps becoming good players.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And yet nearly every race fears the Space Marines.

Basically Tau and Guardians fear Space Marines. Orks don't. Chaos don't. Tyranids don't. Necrons don't. Dark Eldar don't.
Which is sort of why Reiver skull masks were so stupid.

Good at scaring "Guard". Probably not doing much to anyone else.

 Blackie wrote:


No, they probaly wouldn't auto win games but marines always have been solid. Even without 300+ points of free units or thousands of cumulative bonuses. And I could argue that many of those marines players that had bad times are players too used to auto win or kids that don't know how to play properly and just need some experience. Taking bad losses helps becoming good players.

Comparing to what bad armies? no one cares about match ups that you already are favoured to win. People care about match ups they can't win or have to struggle to win. And it doesn't matter in the end if the struggle is training more or buying and playing with models you don't like.

The kid comment I find personaly offensive, I don't know how to play all armies, but I know how my army played in 8th, and at best it was a big disadvantage. There were no auto win options, and all the learning from over 2 plus years of playing in 8th tought me only one thing, that GW wrote my army for one way of playing, then removed that way of playing from the game and followed it by nerfs ment for other armies, which hit my army anyway. And by the time they got to fixing my army rules, the edition ended and my store closed. So I got to play 3 games with the new improved rules.

Also people seem to talk a lot about not carrying to win, playing with what they like and hobby being more important then gaming. If that is true, why they care if marines are better. Everytime there is going to be much better then others with the way GW writes their stuff. And if they do care about winning then I have two things to say. First, why lie to new players about the whole play what you want thing and second, I will return the advice given to me, just play a different army, marines are good maybe try those.

Tyel wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And yet nearly every race fears the Space Marines.

Basically Tau and Guardians fear Space Marines. Orks don't.

From what I've seen, they very much do. It's not "pants wetting terror", but it's "oh, they've brought out Space Marines??"

Chaos don't.

We're talking about Chaos *Marines*, right? Anything I've said about Marines applies to them as well.

Tyranids don't.

Tyranids regard them as highly dangerous threats.

Necrons don't.

They more than likely regard them as threatening though, more than most races can admit to.

Dark Eldar don't.

Dark Eldar almost certainly regard them in some view of "worthy prey".

Good at scaring "Guard". Probably not doing much to anyone else.

When I say fear, I don't mean literal "fear" - I mean they regard Marines as a very strong, very threatening presence on the battlefield.

The solution is clearly to make all Drukhari poison weapons D2. We'll be your huckleberry.

 harlokin wrote:
The solution is clearly to make all Drukhari poison weapons D2. We'll be your huckleberry.

No, everybody rolls too many dice, and the game is just too lethal. The solution is of course, that marine players should say that GW should double the defenses or double the offenses or double the dice rolling for everybody else, and in the meantime while they wait for GW to do that they'll keep using their superdoctrine in games.

Oh if ONLY there was some way to reduce lethality in 40k! If only! Well hopefully GW puts out new codexes for you to buy that makes your stuff roll twice the dice and have twice the wounds.

the_scotsman wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
The solution is clearly to make all Drukhari poison weapons D2. We'll be your huckleberry.

No, everybody rolls too many dice, and the game is just too lethal. The solution is of course, that marine players should say that GW should double the defenses or double the offenses or double the dice rolling for everybody else, and in the meantime while they wait for GW to do that they'll keep using their superdoctrine in games.

Oh if ONLY there was some way to reduce lethality in 40k! If only! Well hopefully GW puts out new codexes for you to buy that makes your stuff roll twice the dice and have twice the wounds.

Sigh.......ok, if you insist on being sensible.

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


No, they probaly wouldn't auto win games but marines always have been solid. Even without 300+ points of free units or thousands of cumulative bonuses. And I could argue that many of those marines players that had bad times are players too used to auto win or kids that don't know how to play properly and just need some experience. Taking bad losses helps becoming good players.

Comparing to what bad armies? no one cares about match ups that you already are favoured to win. People care about match ups they can't win or have to struggle to win. And it doesn't matter in the end if the struggle is training more or buying and playing with models you don't like.

Comparing to all the armies, not only to the 2-3 flavors of the month: to me if an army has the 5th or 6th best winning rate it's a very competitive army, not something that needs to be pushed. Even in 7th SM were good, actually only 2 factions were clearly superior and only at tournament levels. Some chapters like SW or DA were absolutely competitive, even without free stuff. In 8th edition SM of some kind have been competitive from the beginning to the dawn of 9th. Maybe not always the absolute number 1, but still able to have a chance of defeating anything in any casual and semi-competitive meta in the entire edition and never below the solid mid tiers at competitive levels.

Karol wrote:

The kid comment I find personaly offensive, I don't know how to play all armies, but I know how my army played in 8th, and at best it was a big disadvantage. There were no auto win options, and all the learning from over 2 plus years of playing in 8th tought me only one thing, that GW wrote my army for one way of playing, then removed that way of playing from the game and followed it by nerfs ment for other armies, which hit my army anyway. And by the time they got to fixing my army rules, the edition ended and my store closed. So I got to play 3 games with the new improved rules.

First off, you don't play SM, you play GK so even if my comment was somehow rude it wasn't aimed at you, you can't possible take it personal then. The thing with SM is that they have always been the easiest army to play, due to their actual profile/rules and also the fact that GW always supports them, the typical faction that the majority of people new to 40k chooses, especially those people who are mostly interested in gaming and not the hobby part.

Karol wrote:

Also people seem to talk a lot about not carrying to win, playing with what they like and hobby being more important then gaming. If that is true, why they care if marines are better. Everytime there is going to be much better then others with the way GW writes their stuff. And if they do care about winning then I have two things to say. First, why lie to new players about the whole play what you want thing and second, I will return the advice given to me, just play a different army, marines are good maybe try those.

The problem is that even an average collection of SM become overpowered with the tools they have. Not everyone is into overly-competitive gaming, casual games are still very frequent, probably even more common than competitive ones. I'd accept an army with a single list that is basically impossible to defeat, I don't accept that any average collection of that army is so good that basically autowins. This is why I think many SM players complain with no real reasons if their army doesn't perform like the top tiers, they're too used to being pushed by GW that don't gain that needed experience that players from other factions may develop. I accept that in tournaments 2-3 factions have better winning rates than the other ones, I don't accept extremely high winning rates for a faction in casual games.

I already play SW, and even without primaris, they are definitely pretty solid. I don't need the tools that vanilla SM have to compete with the other top tiers, in fact I think DA, SW and BA are exactly how SM should be in terms of competitiveness.

I guess someone missed 5th ed and 6th ed. And 2nd ed.

" but marines always have been solid."

This is an absolute lie. It's also irrelevant to the current dilemma.

Considering that people build whole arguments on this or that faction being weak or powerful now, because it was the reverse in prior editions, it is hard to ignor though.

Even GW kind of a agrees with this, they just use corpo talk to do it with those , we weren't full happy with this, that in some army wasn't emphasized enough etc. Which all boil down to, we droped the ball. They only don't comment stuff they droped the ball so hard on, that it can't be turned in to a joke.

There's a wonderful passage in one of John Mortimer's novels (Titmuss Regained) where a character muses that music gets uglier as you get older so you won't miss it when you're dead. I'm starting to feel that way about Space Marines. I have ~3 Companies worth or so, and my lingering hopes that there will be Primaris beakies have dwindled to nigh-zilch. On the bright side, all the money I'm not spending on SM has gone to other things.

For years I'd hoped for updates to the Tyranids, and now I'm very very happy they remain as they are.

It's so funny.

"Everyone should just get Primarised!"

Let's talk about what that means for a daemonette, since they're supposed to be able to beat assault marines in melee.

The primaris'd assault marines have 2 18" shots and 4 attacks on the charge/being charged.

Daemonettes have no guns, so we'll bump their strength to 4 or 5 so they're killier in melee (either that or we can bump their attacks to 6/7 each, since the marines already have 6 if you include their guns). They'll need to have at least as many attacks (old 'nettes had the same number as old Assault Marines). They're also famous for being able to kill Marines in a single caress, so 2 damage on their melee weapons flat.

We can leave them T3 with 1 wound, if really necessary, but a 5++ doesn't cut it imho - not with the price they'll be paying for their buffed offense. Maybe a 4++, or perhaps an extra wound. T3 with an extra wound and a 5++ is still small compared to a Primaris durability...

this is getting absurd.

Lookin' sharp in Deathwing Bone.

Nurglitch wrote:
There's a wonderful passage in one of John Mortimer's novels (Titmuss Regained) where a character muses that music gets uglier as you get older so you won't miss it when you're dead. I'm starting to feel that way about Space Marines. I have ~3 Companies worth or so, and my lingering hopes that there will be Primaris beakies have dwindled to nigh-zilch. On the bright side, all the money I'm not spending on SM has gone to other things.

There are primaris beakies. There is a primaris beakie helmet in the Raven Guard sprue and of course old beakie helmets fit them too. They go particularly well with the phobos armour.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote: Imagine for a moment, that Marines had better armor than all of those examples. . .
Oh. . . They do!

Imagine if that armour actually made Marines significantly durable.

4 times as likely to survive a 0AP shot over an Ork, and a chance to save against a Lascannon ourside of cover. It takes an entire GEQ squad to down a Space Marine, taking 18-19 Lasgun shots to average a kill outside of cover, and twice that amount if the marine is in cover. Imo, Space Marine durability is fine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's so funny.

"Everyone should just get Primarised!"

Let's talk about what that means for a daemonette, since they're supposed to be able to beat assault marines in melee. . . .
. . .
this is getting absurd.

Exactly.

Darmonettes could have a bonus to their save or a modifier to be hit for all I care.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Darmonettes could have a bonus to their save or a modifier to be hit for all I care.

You don't care about the potential for a 30-girl unit to have 6 or 7 attacks per model?

And hit modifiers are capped, so we can't use that do change durability (if Terrain gives a -1, then having an additional -1 doesn't do anything). We'll have to adjust their save, it's already a 5++.

I guess an armywide 4++, buffable with warp-surge or Tzeench to a 3++, is totally fine and not broken at all.

Having an additional -1 absolutely does do something. It negates any potential +1s that a unit has.

If you have a -2 and I have a +1, you still get a -1. If you have a -1 and I have a +1, you have no bonus nor do I.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Having an additional -1 absolutely does do something. It negates any potential +1s that a unit has.

If you have a -2 and I have a +1, you still get a -1. If you have a -1 and I have a +1, you have no bonus nor do I.

Ah, yes, all those +1s to hit from one (possibly two, I can't remember) place(s) in the Imperial Guard codex and nowhere else. Definitely would be a useful thing to have.