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.

Hot Take: I think Ork Boyz should be W2 as well and Nobz get T5 to compensate.

 Castozor wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Marines are more durable than Orks.

Orks are chaff units that waste hundreds if not thousands of lives in every conflict.

Which is why they were T4 3+ to the orks T4 6+ T-shirt save. Giving them double the wounds too makes no sense fluffwise. The real problem is GW made the game way to deadly and started to hand out AP like candy so saves are near useless. They should have addressed the lethality in this game before fiddling with wound profiles. How for example would you make Eldar live up to their fluff now? 2W makes no sense yet they should be on roughly equal footing with marines. Shall we just boost their offence to obscene levels then? I don't think anyone wants to see that.

5+ Invuls across nonvehicles/nonWraith units to represent superhuman reflexes and gracefully dodging stuff? I'd say -1 to hit them but then Alaitoc would need something else. Arguably they already do with the hitmod caps.

I think 2W might be the start of addressing lethality, but it's so hard to say that for sure without the rest of the books.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Hot Take: I think Ork Boyz should be W2 as well and Nobz get T5 to compensate.

I'd go for that. What cost, +2 or +3 PPM, do ya think?

 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%.

Cynista wrote:
Because every other faction in the game has to?

Do they?

 Castozor wrote:
They should have addressed the lethality in this game before fiddling with wound profiles.

I agree. But they didn't.

And W2 Marines seems like a good solution that makes them better reflect just how durable they are in the fluff.

T4 W2 vs a T3 W1 squishy human seems about right to me.

Cynista wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Cynista wrote:
My issue with Marines is they have been made very good offensively and very good defensively. Pick one, GW

Why? Something can be dangerous and tough at the same time. Why would you only get to pick one?

Because every other faction in the game has to? Because your standard Marines list is not the jack of all trades like they should be, but the master of all trades?

umm plenty of other factions are both tough and hit hard (custodes being the obvious example) this is a table top wargame not a MMO, you don't need to choose between tanky and killy.

It's less an issue that SM have 2 wounds.

It's that they aren't paying enough points for it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Hot Take: I think Ork Boyz should be W2 as well and Nobz get T5 to compensate.

Honestly what good even is a 6+ save when ap-1 is so common and you can't fit the unit in cover?

Low/no save but 2 wounds, I'd say that balances out

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Because every other faction in the game has to?

Do they?

Yes. No other faction is as good at both killing and surviving as Marines. And let me be clear so nobody replies with a stupid take: I'm talking army here, not single models or units.

BrianDavion wrote:
umm plenty of other factions are both tough and hit hard (custodes being the obvious example) this is a table top wargame not a MMO, you don't need to choose between tanky and killy.

Because they pay for it. Don't be disingenuous. You know the point being made here is that for their cost they are too tough and hit too hard.

tulun wrote:
It's that they aren't paying enough points for it.

Didn't basic Marines get a price increase at the start of 9th, and then a further one with this Codex?

Realistically, every faction should have something that they specifically are good at. This is how you make asymmetrical balance work. Space Marines used to be the jack-of-all-trades army, that was good at everything, but not great at anything. This has changed over the past few years, and is probably why we're in the position we're in today. With all the bloat to go with it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
They should have addressed the lethality in this game before fiddling with wound profiles.

I agree. But they didn't.

And W2 Marines seems like a good solution that makes them better reflect just how durable they are in the fluff.

T4 W2 vs a T3 W1 squishy human seems about right to me.

When it comes to marines vs humies I'd agree but as I said it leaves a lot of other factions in a weird design space. Orkz going to 2 wounds too is an easy fix but what about the rest?

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.

 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.

 vipoid wrote:
- 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.

I'd much rather these two things be fixed than anything be done to put Marines back to one wound.

That first point especially is the most egregious in my mind (other than 40k's LOS rules). The new changes have certainly made Multi-Meltas a more viable option, but beyond that the 'all-rounder' weapons, as you put it, are the ones you bring to take out tanks as they spit out more mid-range, mid-damage firepower that reduce armour saves enough that their Invul doesn't really matter. Combined with their unwillingness to go above T8 and Sv3+, it means that vehicles exist in this weird place where they are priced for their apparent durability, but that durability isn't what it's cut out to be.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
NOW I take a HB for W2 and I take an assault cannon for hordes. I have a decision to make.

Woah that's nice having to make a decision between similar but different weapons.
I just get to decide if I want bolt, melta or flamer .

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Marines are more durable than Orks.

Orks are chaff units that waste hundreds if not thousands of lives in every conflict.

Which is why they were T4 3+ to the orks T4 6+ T-shirt save. Giving them double the wounds too makes no sense fluffwise. The real problem is GW made the game way to deadly and started to hand out AP like candy so saves are near useless. They should have addressed the lethality in this game before fiddling with wound profiles. How for example would you make Eldar live up to their fluff now? 2W makes no sense yet they should be on roughly equal footing with marines. Shall we just boost their offence to obscene levels then? I don't think anyone wants to see that.

5+ Invuls across nonvehicles/nonWraith units to represent superhuman reflexes and gracefully dodging stuff? I'd say -1 to hit them but then Alaitoc would need something else. Arguably they already do with the hitmod caps.

I think 2W might be the start of addressing lethality, but it's so hard to say that for sure without the rest of the books.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Hot Take: I think Ork Boyz should be W2 as well and Nobz get T5 to compensate.

I'd go for that. What cost, +2 or +3 PPM, do ya think?

2 points max but hell I'm for just 1 point. Keep them SLIGHTLY hordish but double the survival against small arms.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Any marines. It seems really unbalanced and I am a marine player. Intercessors should be one wound and they’re still under costed for what they do.

Ork boys don’t get two wounds for being superhuman brutes and Sisters of Battle don’t get an extra wound for wearing power armour. So I don’t really get the reasoning. An extra foot shouldn’t double your wounds and they aren’t even using Primaris as an excuse anymore. They got toughness 4 for the superhuman physiology and a 3 up save for the armour. That was in line with every other faction and perfectly reasonable.

Doubling the survivability of your unit should cost more than one or two points. That means marines are even more undercosted.

It will render a lot of one damage weapons like massed bolters or shooters worthless against marines. You’re only going to kill half as many marines as you were before.

It puts “elite” armies like Eldar or Sisters of Battle in a weird place with the chafe wound profile. Making 2 wound a standard across most armies will hurt the game. Any boost to weapon profiles to kill marines means you’ll just mow down these lesser factions.

I’ll disagree. Assume every unit in the game is costed as a modification to some base profile. Say it’s a guardsman. S/T 3, 4+ 1W. I think that guardsman prototype profile all others are built on should be 2 W, and all weapons based off of - say a lasgun - should have D2 damage. I.e. 50/50 chance of 1 or 2 damage. I think 1W should be rare, and 2W should be the baseline. The would be a fun game where any model can get wounded but keep fighting...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Hot Take: I think Ork Boyz should be W2 as well and Nobz get T5 to compensate.

I'd go for that. What cost, +2 or +3 PPM, do ya think?

2 points max but hell I'm for just 1 point. Keep them SLIGHTLY hordish but double the survival against small arms.

I'd say 2 for now, and then as D2 proliferates with new codexes (presumably), bring that down by 1 in CA if Orks look like they're having problems.

Breton wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Any marines. It seems really unbalanced and I am a marine player. Intercessors should be one wound and they’re still under costed for what they do.

Ork boys don’t get two wounds for being superhuman brutes and Sisters of Battle don’t get an extra wound for wearing power armour. So I don’t really get the reasoning. An extra foot shouldn’t double your wounds and they aren’t even using Primaris as an excuse anymore. They got toughness 4 for the superhuman physiology and a 3 up save for the armour. That was in line with every other faction and perfectly reasonable.

Doubling the survivability of your unit should cost more than one or two points. That means marines are even more undercosted.

It will render a lot of one damage weapons like massed bolters or shooters worthless against marines. You’re only going to kill half as many marines as you were before.

It puts “elite” armies like Eldar or Sisters of Battle in a weird place with the chafe wound profile. Making 2 wound a standard across most armies will hurt the game. Any boost to weapon profiles to kill marines means you’ll just mow down these lesser factions.

I’ll disagree. Assume every unit in the game is costed as a modification to some base profile. Say it’s a guardsman. S/T 3, 4+ 1W. I think that guardsman prototype profile all others are built on should be 2 W, and all weapons based off of - say a lasgun - should have D2 damage. I.e. 50/50 chance of 1 or 2 damage. I think 1W should be rare, and 2W should be the baseline. The would be a fun game where any model can get wounded but keep fighting...

I think this could be good.

I think marines having two wounds is fine, But other things need them as well. Marines are tough, but it should be comparable to other things.
Wounds should be a combined portion of surviability and should be comparable to aspect warriors and other things in the game of similar.

It feels that GW keeps updating one thing and then throwing everything off balance again and again and never really able to catch up with themselves. Mostly its just sad they can get away with it >.<

IMHO making Boyz 2 Wounds would be a mistake. I'd honestly rather see Nobz made troops, giving Orks 3 tiers of troops. super cheat gretchens, hoardy boys that are still semi tough. and then you'd have Nobz which would be the "hard to kill Ork troops"

pothocboots wrote:

A universe where a marine is more deadly than an eldar warrior and more durable than an ork is not a grimdark universe.

I've got bad news for you then my man, because since at bare minimum fifth edition Space Marines were just plain better than any other faction's line troops pound for pound (figuratively). Probably for longer than that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tulun wrote:
It's that they aren't paying enough points for it.

Didn't basic Marines get a price increase at the start of 9th, and then a further one with this Codex?

Assault intercessors and Intercessors are 19/20 points.

Heavy intercessors 28 points.

I think we will find out quickly how much of a trouble the 28 point version is.

Marines simply are too durable and too killy per point compared to other codexes, given the various stratagems and support characters they can bring to bare.

BrianDavion wrote:
IMHO making Boyz 2 Wounds would be a mistake. I'd honestly rather see Nobz made troops, giving Orks 3 tiers of troops. super cheat gretchens, hoardy boys that are still semi tough. and then you'd have Nobz which would be the "hard to kill Ork troops"

Nobz should be made troops, and Meganobz at the least should be T5.

I haven't played much, but I don't actually mind it, however they should increase the points value of them and make some of the other codices a little better to deal with them. Making them more lore-appropriate is ok with me as long as other armies can keep up

Nah, honestly I like marines at W2.

personally, I'd go for this:

1) Orks at T5 standard. Also nid warriors. Orks and Nids should be defined with the Toughness and Wounds statistics, marines, sisters, and eldar by the Sv characteristic.

2) All eldar current armor saves +1. Guardian/Kabalite up to 4+, Aspect up to 3+, heavy aspect/incubi plate up to 2+. It is goofy that Eldar Guardians wearing whatever ancient armor designs have freaking flak armor on.

we've got that, and now we have functional necron Res Prots. I think that puts infantry durability across the board in a better spot, and makes durability DIFFERENT between different factions.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
IMHO making Boyz 2 Wounds would be a mistake. I'd honestly rather see Nobz made troops, giving Orks 3 tiers of troops. super cheat gretchens, hoardy boys that are still semi tough. and then you'd have Nobz which would be the "hard to kill Ork troops"

Nobz should be made troops, and Meganobz at the least should be T5.

I can support that. MANZ should be something thats HARD to put down. sadly right now they lack that. yes they have a 2+ armor save, but they have no native invul save meaning that they're very vunerable to high AP weapons. T5 wouldn't solve that but it'd at least put em on par with gravis

the_scotsman wrote:


2) All eldar current armor saves +1. Guardian/Kabalite up to 4+, Aspect up to 3+, heavy aspect/incubi plate up to 2+. It is goofy that Eldar Guardians wearing whatever ancient armor designs have freaking flak armor on.

Oh yes pleeeeeeeease! Would probably make them OP, but maybe even give us the Alaitoc -1 to hit outside of 12" as well. Idk really, but playing Eldar feels like I have paper models hahaha

Marines and Primaris should have stuck at 1W base, and you could have given Primaris T5.

Marines should not be 2W when Necrons and Orks are 1W.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Nobz should be made troops, and Meganobz at the least should be T5.

I can support that. MANZ should be something thats HARD to put down.

Completely agree that the tougher Orks should actually be tougher. MANZ especially, and I like the idea of Nobz as troops.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines and Primaris should have stuck at 1W base, and you could have given Primaris T5.

Marines should not be 2W when Necrons and Orks are 1W.

The problem is you're still thinking in the scope of a game that didn't have a damage stat for weapons.