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.

**Slayer-Fan123**

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.

**Denegaar**

the_scotsman wrote:
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.

Kabalites went up 3pts from their 8th 6pts, not sure if +1 to its Sv value would be enough to warrant the hike. I guess if the basic weapons are better in 9th...

I would like to have a more fluffy way to improve survivability to our Aeldari fellows, native -1 to be hit would be really cool, increasing the maximum cap to -2. Maybe too powerful for some units. But we need a way to keep our dudes alive or to increase our killyness like a lot.

**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.

**Darsath**

JNAProductions wrote:
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.

This more or less sums it up. Mind you, Immortals are fantastic troops (one of the best in the game imo), since points come into account, as well as their wargear.

**Axxion51**

One thing I think a lot people forgot with this update.

We already had 2 wound marines. They're called Primaris. With tournament lists being composed of something like 3-4 impulsors with intercessors in them, these were already problems other factions had to face. Toughness 5, 3w Agressors and inceptors. This struggle hasn't changed.

All this has done is given marine players more license to use their older models and hopefully add some list diversity.

Do I wish my CWE would have some sweet updates? For sure. I'd love to see 2W dire avengers or something. But by building reserving those updates for a new codex instead of FAQ or errata, they build the suspense for buying the "new hotness" and therefore get more dolla dolla bills. If you think GW actually cares about the lore just for the lore's sake. Then you're dreaming. Its about selling more product.

**the_scotsman**

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.

**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.

**pelicaniforce**

Axxion51 wrote:
One thing I think a lot people forgot with this update.

We already had 2 wound marines. They're called Primaris. With tournament lists being composed of something like 3-4 impulsors with intercessors in them, these were already problems other factions had to face. Toughness 5, 3w Agressors and inceptors. This struggle hasn't changed.

All this has done is given marine players more license to use their older models and hopefully add some list diversity.

Do I wish my CWE would have some sweet updates? For sure. I'd love to see 2W dire avengers or something. But by building reserving those updates for a new codex instead of FAQ or errata, they build the suspense for buying the "new hotness" and therefore get more dolla dolla bills. If you think GW actually cares about the lore just for the lore's sake. Then you're dreaming. Its about selling more product.

Yeah this is so true, w1 marines partly stopped existing in actual games.

War hammer needs a firefight skill / dodge save. There’s really only one skill for shooting ATM, which is hitting on 4+/3+/2+. It’s pretty bs in a shooting based game. There should be a dodge save mechanic for all armies and eldar should be the best at it. Like, if your model has more attacks than the model shooting it that means it’s more veteran/elite and it gets a 5++ on top of its normal save. Then eldar can have 2a, or 3a for aspect warriors and wyches, and dodge primaris shooting. They’re still strength 3 it doesn’t exactly make them monsters.

Of course primaris also become good at dodging lasgun and pulse rifle shots, which seems fine for an elite army.

**Slayer-Fan123**

JNAProductions wrote:
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.

Me thinks you forgot RP, which is a core base rule Immortals have.

**vipoid**

Denegaar wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
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.

Kabalites went up 3pts from their 8th 6pts, not sure if +1 to its Sv value would be enough to warrant the hike. I guess if the basic weapons are better in 9th...

I would like to have a more fluffy way to improve survivability to our Aeldari fellows, native -1 to be hit would be really cool, increasing the maximum cap to -2. Maybe too powerful for some units. But we need a way to keep our dudes alive or to increase our killyness like a lot.

Yeah, I'd definitely prefer something like this to just 'increase armour saves', which might work for Eldar is the opposite of what Dark Eldar are supposed to be about.

Another possibility for DE would be to improve their FNP saves. Pretty sure it was 4+ in 5th. Now it's at 6+. I don't think 5+ would be unreasonable.

**the_scotsman**

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.

**Slayer-Fan123**

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.

It's after each attack though. Unless you're literally going in with old Aggressors double shooting in the Tactical Doctrine, you realistically won't kill them on average. The T5 REALLY helps with the new RP.

Yeah multiwound models are screwed but Immortals aren't.

**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.

**Slayer-Fan123**

JNAProductions wrote:
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.

So realistically you need to find out how many single attacks from a squad is needed to make Immortals less durable. You just did the Intercessors shooting there but I'm guessing Marines don't fare much better.

**Axxion51**

pelicaniforce wrote:
Axxion51 wrote:
One thing I think a lot people forgot with this update.

We already had 2 wound marines. They're called Primaris. With tournament lists being composed of something like 3-4 impulsors with intercessors in them, these were already problems other factions had to face. Toughness 5, 3w Agressors and inceptors. This struggle hasn't changed.

All this has done is given marine players more license to use their older models and hopefully add some list diversity.

Do I wish my CWE would have some sweet updates? For sure. I'd love to see 2W dire avengers or something. But by building reserving those updates for a new codex instead of FAQ or errata, they build the suspense for buying the "new hotness" and therefore get more dolla dolla bills. If you think GW actually cares about the lore just for the lore's sake. Then you're dreaming. Its about selling more product.

Yeah this is so true, w1 marines partly stopped existing in actual games.

War hammer needs a firefight skill / dodge save. There’s really only one skill for shooting ATM, which is hitting on 4+/3+/2+. It’s pretty bs in a shooting based game. There should be a dodge save mechanic for all armies and eldar should be the best at it. Like, if your model has more attacks than the model shooting it that means it’s more veteran/elite and it gets a 5++ on top of its normal save. Then eldar can have 2a, or 3a for aspect warriors and wyches, and dodge primaris shooting. They’re still strength 3 it doesn’t exactly make them monsters.

Of course primaris also become good at dodging lasgun and pulse rifle shots, which seems fine for an elite army.

This reminds me of the Initiative stat that used to exist. Eldar all had high initiative, which helped them the combat phase. The only issue with this would be when to use dodge rather than armor save. You'd have to include rules like Blast ignores the "Evasion Save" or something. GW is totally trying to simplify their system, and with this big SM codex rolling all of the off-shoots into one, simplify their production line too it seems.

Will they even be making SW, DA, DW specific models anymore? Or jus selling upgrade kits... Who knows. That's another discussion entirely.

**Darsath**

Some people finally starting to notice how good Immortals are for 17 points per model. They can take some punishment, and they have good weapons. Just solid.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Darsath wrote:
Some people finally starting to notice how good Immortals are for 17 points per model. They can take some punishment, and they have good weapons. Just solid.

What do you mean "finally"? With the reveal of the new statline and RP they were called solid to begin with.

**Voss**

JNAProductions wrote:
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.

Keep in mind that it depends what you mean by the 'double tap strat.' If its two separate attack sequences, they get RP in between.

**Vaktathi**

pelicaniforce wrote:
Axxion51 wrote:
One thing I think a lot people forgot with this update.

We already had 2 wound marines. They're called Primaris. With tournament lists being composed of something like 3-4 impulsors with intercessors in them, these were already problems other factions had to face. Toughness 5, 3w Agressors and inceptors. This struggle hasn't changed.

All this has done is given marine players more license to use their older models and hopefully add some list diversity.

Do I wish my CWE would have some sweet updates? For sure. I'd love to see 2W dire avengers or something. But by building reserving those updates for a new codex instead of FAQ or errata, they build the suspense for buying the "new hotness" and therefore get more dolla dolla bills. If you think GW actually cares about the lore just for the lore's sake. Then you're dreaming. Its about selling more product.

Yeah this is so true, w1 marines partly stopped existing in actual games.

War hammer needs a firefight skill / dodge save. There’s really only one skill for shooting ATM, which is hitting on 4+/3+/2+. It’s pretty bs in a shooting based game. There should be a dodge save mechanic for all armies and eldar should be the best at it. Like, if your model has more attacks than the model shooting it that means it’s more veteran/elite and it gets a 5++ on top of its normal save. Then eldar can have 2a, or 3a for aspect warriors and wyches, and dodge primaris shooting. They’re still strength 3 it doesn’t exactly make them monsters.

Of course primaris also become good at dodging lasgun and pulse rifle shots, which seems fine for an elite army.

I'm going to be real honest, I don't see anyone dodging laser fire, no matter how elite they are

More to the point, matrix-dodging gunfire in small arms engagements like this isn't really a thing, you put a putz every day person and a Navy Seal or Olympic gold medal gymnast at the wrong end of a 100 yard rifle range and the number of trigger pulls needed to tag any of em probably isn't any different.

Now, Flames of War had a concept something like what you're talking about, where the better trained/experienced an opponent was, the harder they were to hit. Conscripts are hit on a 2+, Trained troops on a 3+, Veteran troops on a 4+, with various modifiers for range, cover, etc. The shooter's skill doesn't matter as everyone is just setting the range on their sight and pulling the trigger and most of the process is mechanized, it's the ability of the target to know when to move between MG bursts, how to properly utilize cover, recognize incoming shell fire, knowledge of likely fire patterns, etc that determines hit rates. However it's still not a comparative thing, both Veteran Troops and Recruits will hit the same target at the same rate.

**Axxion51**

Now that mechanic sounds pretty interesting.

edit: messed up the quote.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

I don't think W2 infantry should be a thing period. I don't think wounds should exist period, except maybe to directly represent plot armor for characters. Toughness vs. Strength represents the ability of a shot to generate a casualty. A hit that is not blocked by armor but doesn't wound already represents injuries that don't immediately result in a casualty. Wounds don't represent anything except plot armor [and you can know this from the fact that an IG Major is the exact same body as an IG Private, but has like 4 times the wounds, and the same is true of almost every character], they're just a terrible mechanic in general.

**Denegaar**

Aeldari (and maybe other races like some kind of daemons) should be in general harder to hit than Armoured Marines. They are smaller and faster so making them -1 to hit would be fluffy and welcomed by us Xenos players

**Slayer-Fan123**

Denegaar wrote:
Aeldari (and maybe other races like some kind of daemons) should be in general harder to hit than Armoured Marines. They are smaller and faster so making them -1 to hit would be fluffy and welcomed by us Xenos players

Only if we move the game to D8 or D10

**skchsan**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Denegaar wrote:
Aeldari (and maybe other races like some kind of daemons) should be in general harder to hit than Armoured Marines. They are smaller and faster so making them -1 to hit would be fluffy and welcomed by us Xenos players

Only if we move the game to D8 or D10

This x1,000,000,000. Raising the arbitrary ceiling GW set themselves under is a way better fix than 2W buff, making board smaller, etc. It will also be better fix than uprooting the whole game for implementing AA system.

**Siegfriedfr**

Giving 2 wounds to human-sized infantry units was a huge design mistake.
They should have scaled damage back, priced units and weapons according to their stats, and heavily nerf auras/army buffs.

**skchsan**

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Giving 2 wounds to human-sized infantry units was a huge design mistake.
They should have scaled damage back, priced units and weapons according to their stats, and heavily nerf auras/army buffs.

The simplest fix would've been to make GEQ units/models less point efficient. Expendability is still too strong of an element in the game.

**Vaktathi**

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Giving 2 wounds to human-sized infantry units was a huge design mistake.
They should have scaled damage back, priced units and weapons according to their stats, and heavily nerf auras/army buffs.

Aye.

When your game gets to the point that higher toughness and substantially better armor save don't mean enough to differentiate units that have been differentiated that way for a quarter century and through 8 editions, its probably a signal that the firepower available has become a wee bit over the top and is in dire need of scaling down. When you're introducing T5 W3 units as normal infantry to an army that used to be predominantly T4 W1, you know you've borked your scaling and sense of balance.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Vaktathi wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Giving 2 wounds to human-sized infantry units was a huge design mistake.
They should have scaled damage back, priced units and weapons according to their stats, and heavily nerf auras/army buffs.
Aye.

When your game gets to the point that higher toughness and substantially better armor save don't mean enough to differentiate units that have been differentiated that way for a quarter century and through 8 editions, its probably a signal that the firepower available has become a wee bit over the top and is in dire need of scaling down. When you're introducing T5 W3 units as normal infantry to an army that used to be predominantly T4 W1, you know you've borked your scaling and sense of balance.

Once again this is under the assumption of a game that used to not have a damage stat for weapons. Were we still stuck with the old Instant Death system you might have a point.

**Mr Morden**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I don't think W2 infantry should be a thing period. I don't think wounds should exist period, except maybe to directly represent plot armor for characters. Toughness vs. Strength represents the ability of a shot to generate a casualty. A hit that is not blocked by armor but doesn't wound already represents injuries that don't immediately result in a casualty. Wounds don't represent anything except plot armor [and you can know this from the fact that an IG Major is the exact same body as an IG Private, but has like 4 times the wounds, and the same is true of almost every character], they're just a terrible mechanic in general.

Nothing wrong with plot armour IMO

I like that Marines are more durable - as long as pts reflect that I can't see any issue - esepcially since we have guns that can still kill them in one hit or weight of fire.

Now also IMO ALL Marines and relevant Imperial/Xenos equivalent should have got the boost at the same time not just the ones getting a supplement in a month or so anyway.

**Backfire**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Backfire wrote:
All infantry should be 1W outside of very few 'superheavy' infantry models like Ogryns, Tyranid Warriors, Ork Nobz etc.
Why? And the answer can't just be "bookkeeping".

Backfire wrote:
Wound bookkeeping became too laborous already in the 8th.
It's that hard to remember that one model in the unit has a wound less than the rest of them? That hard to put a small dice next to the unit, or something to remind that there's a wound?

Bookkeeping.
Yes.

Basically, 2 wound Marines and Terminators are a response to vastly increased firepower of the armies. It is extremely easy to see that eventually firepower advantage will be restored, and then we need 3 wound Marines, and so on...