Switch Theme:

I don’t think marines should have two wounds  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".

GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.

Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.

Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Galas wrote:
The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".

GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.

Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.

Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.


The expansion of stats is actually a good thing.

But I am highly skeptical that things are appropriately costed. It's also a bit rough for a lot of armies who aren't getting *any* weapon updates or any meaningful buffs until their codex. If you're playing a more obscure xenos army, you're probably going to be relegated to getting your face smashed in (with the odd exception, like Harlequins) until you get your codex updated, which could easily be 12-24 months from now.
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut




 vipoid wrote:

They were okay in 5th. Not sure they did so well in 6th/7th.


They didn't, I played Deathwing in 6th/7th and it was awful. It was not so much durability than extremely poor damage output, however. 40 pts model for a Storm bolter is really not all that great. Or in close combat, 2 attacks which hit with 4+. Really, really not great.

Mr Vetock, give back my Multi-tracker! 
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall conclusion, but your rationale behind it is whack. Fluff is meaningless in regards to game mechanics. Space marines are not 2w because they're super humans, they're two wounds because they were not durable enough for the points that they costed (at least in theory). If Orks want 2w they're welcome to go up to 15 points per boy, or whatever.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






tulun wrote:
 Galas wrote:
The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".

GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.

Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.

Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.


The expansion of stats is actually a good thing.

But I am highly skeptical that things are appropriately costed. It's also a bit rough for a lot of armies who aren't getting *any* weapon updates or any meaningful buffs until their codex. If you're playing a more obscure xenos army, you're probably going to be relegated to getting your face smashed in (with the odd exception, like Harlequins) until you get your codex updated, which could easily be 12-24 months from now.
Raising the design space ceiling means more granularity, which then can be translated into 'more room to fairly cost units'.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Galas wrote:
The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".

GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.

Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.

Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
So the faults of 7th edition sit squarely on the shoulders of players who wanted "legacy" rules? That's a profoundly ridiculous assessment.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Insectum7 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".

GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.

Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.

Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
So the faults of 7th edition sit squarely on the shoulders of players who wanted "legacy" rules? That's a profoundly ridiculous assessment.
No, the fault is that GW thought it would work if they just squeezed in LOW class units above landraider equivalent units. It inflated the value of anti-titanic weapons which made the game lot more lethal than it used to. Then they diminished the effective defensive capabilities of elite units in a form of collateral damage with the new 'everything can wound anything' and wound chart and ap system, which was designed so that even the humble guardsmen have .000000001% chance of blowing up a knight.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






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.
By how much and with what weapons? And how has that relationship changed over time? Immortal durability is worse off compared to Marines than it has ever been.

3rd Ed
Immortal T5 3+ 4+RP Marine T4 3+

5th Ed
Immortal T4 3+ 5+RP Marine T4 3+

9th Ed
Immortal T5 3+ 5+RP Marine T4 3+ 2W

Immortals have gotten steadily worse in comparison. "But they're still ever so slightly better" doesn't really cut it, imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".

GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.

Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.

Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
So the faults of 7th edition sit squarely on the shoulders of players who wanted "legacy" rules? That's a profoundly ridiculous assessment.
No, the fault is that GW thought it would work if they just squeezed in LOW class units above landraider equivalent units. It inflated the value of anti-titanic weapons which made the game lot more lethal than it used to. Then they diminished the effective defensive capabilities of elite units in a form of collateral damage with the new 'everything can wound anything' and wound chart and ap system, which was designed so that even the humble guardsmen have .000000001% chance of blowing up a knight.
Among other things, yeah.

To the point, the faults of 7th had absolutely nothing to do with "legacy" rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
I don't think you even understand the argument in the first place.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/08 17:31:59


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Mr Morden wrote:
 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.


Then we are at an impasse.

Plot armor isn't something that belongs in a wargame, and it definitely doesn't belong on main line riflemen.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Galas wrote:
The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".

GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.

Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.

Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.
If we're talking about increasing granularity across the board, that's one thing. I don't think that's at play here, what we're seeing is (so far at least) a single-product line reaction to the lethality of the current game. Instead of using the start of 9th to re-reboot from 8th if this was their plan, they're going to try and do this haphazardly and in-motion without addressing the core problem (lethality).

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Insectum7 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
No, the fault is that GW thought it would work if they just squeezed in LOW class units above landraider equivalent units. It inflated the value of anti-titanic weapons which made the game lot more lethal than it used to. Then they diminished the effective defensive capabilities of elite units in a form of collateral damage with the new 'everything can wound anything' and wound chart and ap system, which was designed so that even the humble guardsmen have .000000001% chance of blowing up a knight.
Among other things, yeah.

To the point, the faults of 7th had absolutely nothing to do with "legacy" rules.
That's his point. 7th edition brought forth the greatest power creep amongst all past iterations of the game. It was the right moment to introduce a new S/T/W scaling system which GW failed to do, hence faults of 7th ed failing to come up with a new system and sticking to the 'legacy' ruleset. Instead, they introduced counter-power creep system in forms of formations and 'free' stuff.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/08 18:09:19


 
   
Made in us
Cocky Macross Mayor




I feel like we are asking the wrong questions.

Maybe its less about "What do SM players get out of this change?" and more about "What does GW get out of this change?"

They entice new players into a new edition into their flagship line of models with the newest rules, the most wounds, and the newest products. They are also encouraging newer players to look back at older product sitting on shelves and collecting dust in the FLGS. Collecting dust because why would I field Tac marines who have 1 wound when I can field Intercessors who have 2. Then I can just buy the Impulsor, which is better than a rhino.

They can clear out older products on the shelves and make room for their newer line, which I foresee being ONLY primaris at some point.

Edit: To keep it onto OP's point. Do they deserve it? Maybe not, but it is opening the door for other factions to gain from a new rebalancing as well. Chaos marines for instance, who knows if Eldar Wraithguard could see a bump, or windriders.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/08 18:13:17


 
   
Made in gb
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator




 Sim-Life wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Fun Fact,

Terminators used to have one wound and they did just fine.


They were okay in 5th. Not sure they did so well in 6th/7th.


Maybe he meant 2nd Ed where they had a 3+ save on 2d6.


I did, yes, though they were fine in 3rd and 4th to when AP wasn't a thing in terms of reducing saves, and AP2 weapons were extremely rare.

Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





 BlaxicanX wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree with your overall conclusion, but your rationale behind it is whack. Fluff is meaningless in regards to game mechanics. Space marines are not 2w because they're super humans, they're two wounds because they were not durable enough for the points that they costed (at least in theory). If Orks want 2w they're welcome to go up to 15 points per boy, or whatever.

I don't understand this mentality to be perfectly honest. Yes fluff should not DICTATE game balance, especially when the fluff for all factions tend to be way over the top as in 40k. But fluff should certainly GUIDE game balance, why even have this wondrous amount of background material otherwise? Let's not pretend 40k is as popular as it is because it is a stellar wargame on its own merits. Balancing the game should come first but as stated, how are we even going to let Eldar live up to their fluff on the tabletop when every marine has 2W?
   
Made in gb
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator




Nurglitch wrote:
They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.


I played often and competatively during that edition, significantly more so than these days.

They were 100% fine and playable.


And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't terminators currently _Also_ die to Genestealers in Melee?
What infantry unit in the game doesn't die to Genestealers in melee, exactly?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/08 18:45:04


Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 skchsan wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
No, the fault is that GW thought it would work if they just squeezed in LOW class units above landraider equivalent units. It inflated the value of anti-titanic weapons which made the game lot more lethal than it used to. Then they diminished the effective defensive capabilities of elite units in a form of collateral damage with the new 'everything can wound anything' and wound chart and ap system, which was designed so that even the humble guardsmen have .000000001% chance of blowing up a knight.
Among other things, yeah.

To the point, the faults of 7th had absolutely nothing to do with "legacy" rules.
That's his point. 7th edition brought forth the greatest power creep amongst all past iterations of the game. It was the right moment to introduce a new S/T/W scaling system which GW failed to do, hence faults of 7th ed failing to come up with a new system and sticking to the 'legacy' ruleset. Instead, they introduced counter-power creep system in forms of formations and 'free' stuff.
Well then I disagree 100%. When you add bigger units to the table you don't just inflate other units. There are a myriad of options available to keep 1w infantry functional in a game that includes big war machines. Hit modifiers for war machines against infantry. Better CC rules for infantry against war machines. Fewer invulnerable saves. Damage values for weapons held by infantry so they could meaningfully damage war machines. It's not rocket science.

Heck, if they DID look at "legacy", Tankbustas would have all been able to use their Meltabombs in CC against Knights, giving Orks (and all sorts of other units) great options against LOWs. Legacy gives a Lascannon 2D6 damage capability. 1W models with weapons that can actually hurt LOWs changes the balance of that paradigm real fast and real easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:
They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.
That was like 4 months into 3rd. The vast majority of that edition they had their 5+. In 4th they got even better because the Assault Cannon got a massive boost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.


I played often and competatively during that edition, significantly more so than these days.

They were 100% fine and playable.


And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't terminators currently _Also_ die to Genestealers in Melee?
What infantry unit in the game doesn't die to Genestealers in melee, exactly?
At the moment Terminators are more resilient than they've ever been vs. Genestealers.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/08 18:47:43


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Castozor wrote:
 BlaxicanX wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree with your overall conclusion, but your rationale behind it is whack. Fluff is meaningless in regards to game mechanics. Space marines are not 2w because they're super humans, they're two wounds because they were not durable enough for the points that they costed (at least in theory). If Orks want 2w they're welcome to go up to 15 points per boy, or whatever.

I don't understand this mentality to be perfectly honest. Yes fluff should not DICTATE game balance, especially when the fluff for all factions tend to be way over the top as in 40k. But fluff should certainly GUIDE game balance, why even have this wondrous amount of background material otherwise? Let's not pretend 40k is as popular as it is because it is a stellar wargame on its own merits. Balancing the game should come first but as stated, how are we even going to let Eldar live up to their fluff on the tabletop when every marine has 2W?


I would agree with this. It's fair to say that the gulf between supposedly elite Eldar units and even basic Marines is growing increasingly wide.

Also, the core rules and themes of 8th really don't help in this matter. For example, how would you go about making Eldar units feel appropriately Elite without artificially inflating their statlines to the point where they're all but indistinguishable from marines?
- Movement doesn't mean a whole lot because moving 1" more is simply irrelevant in a game with M12" Jump packs, M14" bikes, and M16" vehicles. The only way in which this could be a relevant stat is if either Eldar infantry zoom across the board faster than bikers, or else they're given the ability to move again after shooting/combat. And since JSJ has been all but removed from the game beyond stratagems, I don't see that happening.
- Initiative doesn't exist any more, and even if you were to give them the Always Strikes First rule, the fact that chargers always go first regardless means it wouldn't be worth a whole lot (incidentally, I quite liked the old WHFB system wherein ASF gave you rerolls to hit if your initiative was already higher than your opponent's).
- You could give them rerolls, but those are already common across virtually all armies - nowhere moreso than Marines.
- You can give them good weapons, but historically GW has been leery of giving Eldar meaningful strength values, and (as Banshees have proved for decades) AP only counts for so much.

It just seems like they're writing themselves into a corner, as there's going to be no way to represent Eldar elites without adding a dump-truck of special rules.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






IMO, 8" move + advance and charge or advance and shoot assault weapons (and equip them predominantly with assault weapons obviously) is plenty to make eldar infantry feel mobile.

I think one of the corners GW is in with eldar in general right now is, really, the best way to model a "mobile" force would be - to hit rules...and they did just go ahead and nerf those TO THE GROUND with 9th ed.

If they decide "ok, the eldar equivalent to the new W2 marines is, all eldar are -1 to hit all the time" then the problem becomes suddenly having that ability on your whole army grants your opponent the following rules:

1) Ignore Dense Cover
2) infantry move and fire heavy
3) Advance and fire assault
4) Vehicles fire into melee without penalty

because gak's capped yo! Might as well advance, move with your heavy weapons, ignore that dense cover, etc.

-1 to hit REALLY REALLY should be capped at -1 from rules applying to the FIRER, and -1 from rules applying to the TARGET.

that way, if I have a -1 to hit rule or strat on myself, and you've moved and shot a heavy, or you're firing through dense cover, or you're advancing and firing assault, you're at -2. And then obviously keep the "6s always hit" rule to avoid Ork Feelbads.

I would vastly vastly prefer a game where you've got:

-Some tough units who are tough because they have lots of wounds
-Some tough units who are tough because they have high saves
-Some tough units who are tough because they have Ignore Wounds/Invulns
-Some tough units who are tough because they put you at - to hit

That in my eyes is much much much better than "everything that is tough gains Sv, T, and W at approximately the same rate" because it means you can effectively spcialize your army against EVERYTHING that exists.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

I'd totally be down for Aeldari 'elite and mobile' infantry to get an Invuln/Dodge save that's based upon how far they moved that turn.

So if say Banshees, Swooping Hawks, Hellions, Harlequins moved half their value? They get a +1 to whatever Invuln they have. Move their full value? +1 to Invuln, -1 to be hit.

There's, as they said in prior streams, a few levers they can pull.
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'd totally be down for Aeldari 'elite and mobile' infantry to get an Invuln/Dodge save that's based upon how far they moved that turn.

So if say Banshees, Swooping Hawks, Hellions, Harlequins moved half their value? They get a +1 to whatever Invuln they have. Move their full value? +1 to Invuln, -1 to be hit.

There's, as they said in prior streams, a few levers they can pull.


Def an interesting way to go and makes them different to the Imperial style

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.


I played often and competatively during that edition, significantly more so than these days.

They were 100% fine and playable.


And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't terminators currently _Also_ die to Genestealers in Melee?
What infantry unit in the game doesn't die to Genestealers in melee, exactly?

If you actually played competitively that edition then you wouldn't be making that statement LOL

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






2 wound primaris was fine. 2 wound migdet marines is an insult to the primaris.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Xenomancers wrote:
2 wound primaris was fine. 2 wound migdet marines is an insult to the primaris.

Primaris are an insult to the lore of 40k
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.


I played often and competatively during that edition, significantly more so than these days.

They were 100% fine and playable.


And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't terminators currently _Also_ die to Genestealers in Melee?
What infantry unit in the game doesn't die to Genestealers in melee, exactly?

If you actually played competitively that edition then you wouldn't be making that statement LOL

The terminator was good for 1 eddition. I think it was 4th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
2 wound primaris was fine. 2 wound migdet marines is an insult to the primaris.

Primaris are an insult to the lore of 40k
Why is that? Is 40k lore consistent in any way?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/08 20:54:16


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Xenomancers wrote:
2 wound primaris was fine. 2 wound migdet marines is an insult to the primaris.


Good.

I hope every person who exclusively plays primaris has their feelings hurt.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
They weren't fine, that's why they got the 5+ invulnerable save, because people were very unsatisfied with how they died to power-weapon-wielding Genestealers, etc.


I played often and competatively during that edition, significantly more so than these days.

They were 100% fine and playable.


And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't terminators currently _Also_ die to Genestealers in Melee?
What infantry unit in the game doesn't die to Genestealers in melee, exactly?

If you actually played competitively that edition then you wouldn't be making that statement LOL
Iirc you didn't even play in 3rd.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
 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.


Then we are at an impasse.

Plot armor isn't something that belongs in a wargame, and it definitely doesn't belong on main line riflemen.


This is interesting, you are correct but the limitation of being tied to a d6 is the issue, why have a lasgun as capable of killing a warlord titan, land raider, carnifex, trukk w/e


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
2 wound primaris was fine. 2 wound migdet marines is an insult to the primaris.


Good.

I hope every person who exclusively plays primaris has their feelings hurt.


I'll take my leftover indomitus marines and cry myself to sleep.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/08 21:15:40


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Xenomancers wrote:
The terminator was good for 1 eddition. I think it was 4th.
False. GK paladin lists DOMINATED 4th AND 5th edition. And they didn't have special stats. They had special rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/08 21:18:35


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






tulun wrote:
 Galas wrote:
The reason Warhammer40k has been such a bad game trought all this years is mostly because like many posters here, they have been keeping "legacy" rules because "they were always like that" or "they feel right".

GW actually using the full range of wound stats and damage stats is great! The problem is they are too coward to defy all this cumberstome legacy statlines and rules.

Like "Yeah, now stats can go further than 10!" but then every S and T value has remained nearly the same when most problems of vehicles fragility could be fixed upping Toughtness values and Wounds values.

Much more infantry should have 2 wounds and 3 wounds, like ork nobz.


The expansion of stats is actually a good thing.

But I am highly skeptical that things are appropriately costed. It's also a bit rough for a lot of armies who aren't getting *any* weapon updates or any meaningful buffs until their codex. If you're playing a more obscure xenos army, you're probably going to be relegated to getting your face smashed in (with the odd exception, like Harlequins) until you get your codex updated, which could easily be 12-24 months from now.
Completely agreed, this is where I'm at. I always thought that if a basic human is S3/T3/W1 a basic marine should be S5/T5/W2. Given where things are nowadays I'd be more for reducing the base statline for humans to S2/T2 which would give a tabletop effect much more representative of the fluff. The issue comes in practicality of dealing with the 100+ count swarm armies which would result in appropriately balancing such, but IMO such a change should come with armies like guard, orks, and nids getting a 'free respawn' mechanic on their base infantry to allow them to deal with less models IRL while still maintaining the effect of a swarm.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: