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.

 Galas wrote:

But crisis suits are not mechas, and definetely, Stealth Suits aren't, and both give normal taus extra wounds. The same goes for the bike. If one extra wounds represents the bike taking extra damage, having a bigger armor why can't give an extra wound?

And I'm not even proposing for terminator armor to give an extra wound. GW thinks that it does, and I don't disagree with it being unreasonable. It can work and I can understand why. The difference in your perception is that bikes have always give an extra wound. Thats why most people tought the primaris biker with 4 wounds were extrange, because they should have had 3 wounds, 2+1 for the bike. It has nothing to do with balance or consistence, is just that people is more used to how things used to be. And in general I don't have that much liking for justifying things just because "tradition". Warhammer has always been many things but consistent has never been one of those.

Crisis suits are absolutely mechs. Where do you think the pilots legs and arms are? They have images of tau inside them with open cockpits. Because it's a cockpit. The "head" of a crisis suit is a camera on a swivel. It's not a helmet. Because it's not actually a suit of armor. A Tau's arms CAN'T be inside the arms of the crisis suit. 1) their shoulders would need to be where their ears are. 2) they would be sticking strait out from their body to reach the joint. 3) they would then need to bend at the elbow or wrist to go down into the fore arm of the suit?

It's POSSIBLE the taus legs are going down into the upper legs of the suit, but its more likely they are sitting in it fetal.

Basically a marine in armor is like iron man. A tau in a crisis suit is like iron monger. It's a very different thing.

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats it. Its a problem that it exists as as per the title of the thread I don't think marines should have 2w. It's mechanically bad without drastic other changes and the fluff doesn't justify it.

Prove that the second wound on mini-marines is a balance problem and that it must be a problem for the game's design long term. I want math.

Otherwise, this is a bunch of woe is me whining about marines and unlike usual this doesn't even seem to be based on them being too strong just that it doesn't feel fair or something... TBH I'm still not sure what your actual point of contention is.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

But crisis suits are not mechas, and definetely, Stealth Suits aren't, and both give normal taus extra wounds. The same goes for the bike. If one extra wounds represents the bike taking extra damage, having a bigger armor why can't give an extra wound?

And I'm not even proposing for terminator armor to give an extra wound. GW thinks that it does, and I don't disagree with it being unreasonable. It can work and I can understand why. The difference in your perception is that bikes have always give an extra wound. Thats why most people tought the primaris biker with 4 wounds were extrange, because they should have had 3 wounds, 2+1 for the bike. It has nothing to do with balance or consistence, is just that people is more used to how things used to be. And in general I don't have that much liking for justifying things just because "tradition". Warhammer has always been many things but consistent has never been one of those.

Crisis suits are absolutely mechs. Where do you think the pilots legs and arms are? They have images of tau inside them with open cockpits. Because it's a cockpit. The "head" of a crisis suit is a camera on a swivel. It's not a helmet. Because it's not actually a suit of armor. A Tau's arms CAN'T be inside the arms of the crisis suit. 1) their shoulders would need to be where their ears are. 2) they would be sticking strait out from their body to reach the joint. 3) they would then need to bend at the elbow or wrist to go down into the fore arm of the suit?

It's POSSIBLE the taus legs are going down into the upper legs of the suit, but its more likely they are sitting in it fetal.

Basically a marine in armor is like iron man. A tau in a crisis suit is like iron monger. It's a very different thing.

I have never seen a crisis suit official drawing showing how Tau fit inside.

I mean the only similarly sized concept art we have with the Tau biology showing clearly how it fits inside is the one of Shadowsun. But I agree. I believe Crisis suits are more mecha than suits. That still leaves us with Stealth suits giving an extra wound.



And I don't disagree a game can be made with resilient 1 wound units. I mean. Look at LOTR, Nazgul all have one wound or Ghost infantry and they are tought as nails. But with the volume of shots and attacks in warhammer having single wound units is a recipe for disaster because theres a very high chance of rolling 1's, that on a d6 kill anything. And theres just as much you can lower the ammount of shoots units can make because 1 is the minimun. But that ship has sailed long ago. Nerfing rerrolls is a first step to lower the offensive power of the game and GW is doing it, as the necron and SM codex show.
TBH all this afternoon of talking about warhammer and the problem with damage and wounds has made me want to play GW's LOTR game so bad. Man thats a good game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats it. Its a problem that it exists as as per the title of the thread I don't think marines should have 2w. It's mechanically bad without drastic other changes and the fluff doesn't justify it.

Prove that the second wound on mini-marines is a balance problem and that it must be a problem for the game's design long term. I want math.

Otherwise, this is a bunch of woe is me whining about marines and unlike usual this doesn't even seem to be based on them being too strong just that it doesn't feel fair or something... TBH I'm still not sure what your actual point of contention is.

I already did when I started showing the impact of weapons and the number of dice it took to have a meaningful impact in the game. The escalation of number of dice to impact is either going to get worse (needing even more dice) or weapons are going to get better (at which point any percieved durability gain will be mitigated so what was the fething point?).

 Lance845 wrote:
I already did when I started showing the impact of weapons and the number of dice it took to have a meaningful impact in the game. The escalation of number of dice to impact is either going to get worse (needing even more dice) or weapons are going to get better (at which point any percieved durability gain will be mitigated so what was the fething point?).

You didn't show it very comprehensively, nor did you show what was lost going from 7e to 8e in terms of durability so we had a point of comparison. You cherry-picked a few units that do especially badly against 2W marines and tried to make that the center of your argument.

So how many shots should it take to kill 10 man unit of marines and how many marines should a unit of gants kill per turn? Are there some weapons gants have access to that do a better job versus marines while their other options are better for hordes? If not are we happy to make one for them?

EDIT: Added an option to give gants a weapon with AP -1 to make them better versus marines.

It was an example I am intimately familiar with and shows the sheer volume of dice very well. This is not a unit who is particularly bad at fighting marines. This is the stock iconic infantry of a competing faction.

1) No there is not a better weapon. Termagants have a fleshborer 12" assault1 str3 d1 ap- or Devourer 18" assault3 str4 d1 ap-.

So 30 shots that would be even less successful per shot or 90 shots that still are not doing great. Lets remember that that is 270 points for a single max sized unit.

2) The point is volume of dice to effect.

You tell me, under the absolute worst scenario where a infantry to infantry weapon is being used, how many dice YOU think it should take to bring down 1 MEQ? 1 TEQ?

3) It's easy to see the difference going from 1w marines to 2w marines. You cut the effectiveness of model elimination in half.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats it. Its a problem that it exists as as per the title of the thread I don't think marines should have 2w. It's mechanically bad without drastic other changes and the fluff doesn't justify it.

Prove that the second wound on mini-marines is a balance problem and that it must be a problem for the game's design long term. I want math.

It doubles the resilience of marine toughness against every other regular infantry in the game, because all basic weapons and most CC attacks do 1 damage. Math 1x2 = 2

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
[I am in this thread debating these things specifically because I think about ramifications. All marines having 2 wounds has ramifications.

Nobody competitive took 1W mini-marines once Cawl's boys found their footing . . .

I did. They were plenty viable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

And I'm not even proposing for terminator armor to give an extra wound. GW thinks that it does, and I don't disagree with it being unreasonable. It can work and I can understand why. The difference in your perception is that bikes have always give an extra wound. Thats why most people tought the primaris biker with 4 wounds were extrange, because they should have had 3 wounds, 2+1 for the bike. It has nothing to do with balance or consistence, is just that people is more used to how things used to be. And in general I don't have that much liking for justifying things just because "tradition". Warhammer has always been many things but consistent has never been one of those.

For starters, it was consistent about 1W infantry for a long, long, long time.

It was consistent with a Marine being as tough as an Ork, with Armor equivalent to the heaviest Aspect Warriors, and stronger than both.

The new AP system is what broke alot of the balance of old, that on top of (pre coxex 2.0 buffs) the poor translation of AP5 AP 4 weapons to AP0.
Also currently marines at 18 ppm vrs 9ppm Firewarrior Kabalites etc are twice the points of other infantry.

IMHO the issue is less 2w marines vrs others its the Doctorines for free marine's vrs everyone else who gets no free bonuses.

Ice_can wrote:
The new AP system is what broke alot of the balance of old, that on top of (pre coxex 2.0 buffs) the poor translation of AP5 AP 4 weapons to AP0.

Not even sure that's true. A marine gets a save against higher AP level guns now, while during the prior paradigm they would have gotten none. Marines continue to get the same save against most infantry small arms.

Ice_can wrote:
The new AP system is what broke alot of the balance of old, that on top of (pre coxex 2.0 buffs) the poor translation of AP5 AP 4 weapons to AP0.
Also currently marines at 18 ppm vrs 9ppm Firewarrior Kabalites etc are twice the points of other infantry.

IMHO the issue is less 2w marines vrs others its the Doctorines for free marine's vrs everyone else who gets no free bonuses.

The new AP system effected everyone equally and arguably made the game more balanced by making each weapon capable of doing SOMETHING instead of always impacting some armies and more or less never impacting others.

Old Marines were SLIGHTLY over costs (by a point or 2) but everything else was fine until that tons of free upgrades codex 2.0.

My point here is that the AP system is fine and not an issue.

 Lance845 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The new AP system is what broke alot of the balance of old, that on top of (pre coxex 2.0 buffs) the poor translation of AP5 AP 4 weapons to AP0.
Also currently marines at 18 ppm vrs 9ppm Firewarrior Kabalites etc are twice the points of other infantry.

IMHO the issue is less 2w marines vrs others its the Doctorines for free marine's vrs everyone else who gets no free bonuses.

The new AP system effected everyone equally and arguably made the game more balanced by making each weapon capable of doing SOMETHING instead of always impacting some armies and more or less never impacting others.

Old Marines were SLIGHTLY over costs (by a point or 2) but everything else was fine until that tons of free upgrades codex 2.0.

My point here is that the AP system is fine and not an issue.

Nope definataly screwed my firewarriors over way harder than my buddy's guardsmen.

The new AP system is what it is but when the game system was changed up as drastically as it was from 7th to 8th it caused a lot of issues.

Wounding chart totally different.
AP sysyem totally different
Cover save system totally different

Codex 2.0 was a massive over correction but pretending that 11point marines would have worked/been good for the game isn't true either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The new AP system is what broke alot of the balance of old, that on top of (pre coxex 2.0 buffs) the poor translation of AP5 AP 4 weapons to AP0.

Not even sure that's true. A marine gets a save against higher AP level guns now, while during the prior paradigm they would have gotten none. Marines continue to get the same save against most infantry small arms.

I'm not just talking pure marines, AP3 and AP4 wasn't all that common on basic infantry weapons while AP5 was.
People tended to go AP2 or meh.

While cover ment less for heavily armoured units and light units did, though it also create daft situations too.

Ice_can wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The new AP system is what broke alot of the balance of old, that on top of (pre coxex 2.0 buffs) the poor translation of AP5 AP 4 weapons to AP0.
Also currently marines at 18 ppm vrs 9ppm Firewarrior Kabalites etc are twice the points of other infantry.

IMHO the issue is less 2w marines vrs others its the Doctorines for free marine's vrs everyone else who gets no free bonuses.

The new AP system effected everyone equally and arguably made the game more balanced by making each weapon capable of doing SOMETHING instead of always impacting some armies and more or less never impacting others.

Old Marines were SLIGHTLY over costs (by a point or 2) but everything else was fine until that tons of free upgrades codex 2.0.

My point here is that the AP system is fine and not an issue.

Nope definataly screwed my firewarriors over way harder than my buddy's guardsmen.

Why? AP4 was mightily abundant.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The new AP system is what broke alot of the balance of old, that on top of (pre coxex 2.0 buffs) the poor translation of AP5 AP 4 weapons to AP0.

Not even sure that's true. A marine gets a save against higher AP level guns now, while during the prior paradigm they would have gotten none. Marines continue to get the same save against most infantry small arms.

There are a number of aspects to it.

First is that a lot of stuff that didn't used to degrade Marine armor now does. Getting a 6+ save against a plasma gun now is better than nothing, but going from 3+ to 4+ when you're hit by heavy bolters, disintegrators, autocannons, or any other AP-1/AP-2 weapons that wouldn't have been AP3 under the old system, is more impactful. You can viably spam those high-output, mid-strength weapons and kill a lot of Marines. The number of weapons with AP-1 or AP-2 drastically outweighs the number with exactly AP-3.

Second is that the game is chock full of high AP now, and bonus AP is a popular means of either marking a weapon as special (see: Marine autocannons at AP-2, plasma at AP-4) or as a force multiplier (eg Doctrines). Basic Intercessors in Tactical doctrine are throwing AP-2, outright halving the effectiveness of power armor.

If you do a straight conversion from the old system it looks like:
AP4 became AP-1
AP3 became AP-2
AP2 became AP-3
AP1 became AP-4

So we effectively are at basic Marines shooting what would have been AP3 under the old system. Can you imagine if basic Marines had AP3 back in the day? If Marine autocannons were AP3 as well? Marine plasma at AP1? I have no doubt we'd see the same kinds of complaints; armor would be basically irrelevant, and anything without an invuln would be dead meat.

And third, high AP can now be used to negate cover, which didn't used to be a thing. If you got hit by a plasma weapon, you could claim a 5+ or 4+ cover save. Now cover augments your 3+ armor to 2+, but it's super Cawl-pattern plasma in Tactical doctrine so it's AP-5, you get no save, bye-bye.

Put all three together, and it's no wonder that armor feels worthless.

 Lance845 wrote:
The new AP system effected everyone equally

This is absolutely not true. I mean, I like AP modifiers as a mechanic, but they affected different armies totally differently.

Like, my Guard love the new AP system. I never got to use my 5+ save before, because bolters just blew through it with AP5. But now I always get that 5+ save, and even things like heavy bolters and autocannons still let me fish for 6s. That's a huge buff to the durability of my troops. Then I can get cover for even more benefit. Sure, my cover save is now worse against high AP weapons, but I was never worried about plasma guns shooting my boys; it was high-volume AP5 fire that shredded me, and now I get a 4+ save in cover against AP0 rather than a 5+. If I'm up against Marines and they're AP-2 across the board, well, I'm not really any worse off than I was before.

Meanwhile Marines, as I said above in my reply to Insectum7, are now affected by a lot of stuff that didn't used to touch their 3+ save, and super-high-AP weapons deny them any benefit from cover. If you're facing an AP-2 army, your armor is now half as effective as it used to be, and high AP will prevent you from even saving your guys with cover.

And at the extreme end, mass heavy bolters are now great at killing Terminators. No more needing to take plasma guns and then hope they fail their invulns; just spam AP-1 fire and they go down.

The AP modifier system benefits units (and armies) with light armor and penalizes ones with heavy armor; I don't think GW properly appreciated just how much of an impact it would have.

 Lance845 wrote:
It was an example I am intimately familiar with and shows the sheer volume of dice very well. This is not a unit who is particularly bad at fighting marines. This is the stock iconic infantry of a competing faction.

1) No there is not a better weapon. Termagants have a fleshborer 12" assault1 str3 d1 ap- or Devourer 18" assault3 str4 d1 ap-.

So 30 shots that would be even less successful per shot or 90 shots that still are not doing great. Lets remember that that is 270 points for a single max sized unit.

Let's get stuck in!

Devourer Gants vs TEQ:
90 shots
45 hits
~26 wounds
4.33 unsaved wounds
1 dead terminator worth between 33 and 50 points

Devourer Gants vs 2W MEQ:
90 shots
45 hits
~26 wounds
8.74 unsaved wounds
4 dead marines worth between 72 and 82 points (I assumed a 5 man squad with melta and combi-melta for the 82 points)

Devourer Gants vs 1W MEQ:
90 shots
45 hits
~26 wounds
8.74 unsaved wounds
5 dead marines worth between 75 and 95 points (Capped at 5 because who was taking 10 man mini-marines and not squading them in 8th)

Devourer Gants vs Boyz:
90 shots
45 hits
~26 wounds
~21.67 unsaved wounds
4 dead boyz worth 168 points

Devourer Gants vs Devourer Gants:
90 shots
45 hits
40 wounds
33.33 unsaved wounds
30 dead gants worth 270 points

We can see here that devourer armed hormagants are a pretty decent (if expensive) anti-horde option that are going to be difficult to make work if you see a lot of PEQ or MEQ models. The thing is, they weren't good against 1W MEQ anyway because they'd never see 10 man squads where they might have been almost efficient. They could use a buff, but they would have been just as awful against PEQ and 5-man MEQ in our last meta so has much actually changed with them?

2) The point is volume of dice to effect.

You tell me, under the absolute worst scenario where a infantry to infantry weapon is being used, how many dice YOU think it should take to bring down 1 MEQ? 1 TEQ?

I don't care that much about dice to wound ratios. If the points efficiency is reasonable and units have a use that's all I care about.

3) It's easy to see the difference going from 1w marines to 2w marines. You cut the effectiveness of model elimination in half.

Only in cases where there were more wounds to take. As stated above if you weren't against PEQ before those same shots simply overkilled the 5-man scouts or Tac Marines they were shooting at and had around the same points efficiency due to the lower point costs of their targets. Against PEQ you have the exact same situation as we have now so nothing has changed.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It doubles the resilience of marine toughness against every other regular infantry in the game, because all basic weapons and most CC attacks do 1 damage. Math 1x2 = 2

*slow clap* That's great, how many mini-marines were you seeing in 8th edition once primaris had taken hold? I ask because unless you saw people playing MEQ instead of PEQ you won't see a change. Things might actually be worse for marines now if they have to take troops because the minimum cost for a Tac squad is now 90 points versus the 75 scout squad they could have used before.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I did. They were plenty viable.

Show us your tournament record then if you were competitive. I can believe you did well at a store level, but I have doubts that you were doing well at any larger events if you were using a lot of MEQ bodies.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, marines are still over-tuned with units that are a little too good at everything and doctrines on top of that I just don't think it's the 2W MEQ that are the issue.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The new AP system is what broke alot of the balance of old, that on top of (pre coxex 2.0 buffs) the poor translation of AP5 AP 4 weapons to AP0.

Not even sure that's true. A marine gets a save against higher AP level guns now, while during the prior paradigm they would have gotten none. Marines continue to get the same save against most infantry small arms.

There are a number of aspects to it.

First is that a lot of stuff that didn't used to degrade Marine armor now does. Getting a 6+ save against a plasma gun now is better than nothing, but going from 3+ to 4+ when you're hit by heavy bolters, disintegrators, autocannons, or any other AP-1/AP-2 weapons that wouldn't have been AP3 under the old system, is more impactful. You can viably spam those high-output, mid-strength weapons and kill a lot of Marines. The number of weapons with AP-1 or AP-2 drastically outweighs the number with exactly AP-3.

Second is that the game is chock full of high AP now, and bonus AP is a popular means of either marking a weapon as special (see: Marine autocannons at AP-2, plasma at AP-4) or as a force multiplier (eg Doctrines). Basic Intercessors in Tactical doctrine are throwing AP-2, outright halving the effectiveness of power armor.

If you do a straight conversion from the old system it looks like:
AP4 became AP-1
AP3 became AP-2
AP2 became AP-3
AP1 became AP-4

So we effectively are at basic Marines shooting what would have been AP3 under the old system. Can you imagine if basic Marines had AP3 back in the day? If Marine autocannons were AP3 as well? Marine plasma at AP1? I have no doubt we'd see the same kinds of complaints; armor would be basically irrelevant, and anything without an invuln would be dead meat.

And third, high AP can now be used to negate cover, which didn't used to be a thing. If you got hit by a plasma weapon, you could claim a 5+ or 4+ cover save. Now cover augments your 3+ armor to 2+, but it's super Cawl-pattern plasma in Tactical doctrine so it's AP-5, you get no save, bye-bye.

Put all three together, and it's no wonder that armor feels worthless.

I understand the foundation but disagree with the conclusions. The statement "So we effectively are at basic Marines shooting what would have been AP3 under the old system." Doesn't ring true because Space Marines actually GET a save where they used to NOT get a save. That's the very definition of an improvement.

And the observation that Intercessors get AP-2 . . . well I'd chalk that up to a mistake in Intercessor/Doctrine design rather than a change in the core system. Intercessors are the outlier among standard infantry, unfortunately they're just really, really popular. But Imo Intercessors/Primaris are the mistake here, again, not the AP rules.

The final point I'd have is that marine resilience against small arms became much better, since cover actually gives them a bonus. If a marine is in cover it takes (in your comparison) the "equivalent" of AP3 to reduce their save below a 3+, right? Leaving a 4+ "cover save". An AP-3 weapon still leave marines with a 5+ "cover save". 4+ and 5+ are right in line with the cover saves of 3-7th. So Marines get their 4+ and 5+ like 3-7, but also get a 2+ against small arms. That's either similar or an improvement for the vast majority of weapons.

Your example though, is telling. Cawl super-plasma with Doctrines. That's not a core rule issue. That's a PRIMARIS issue.

Honestly, Classic Marines with book 2.0 and no supplements was just about perfect balance for marines. Ignore Primaris and ignore the supplement books and you had a solid, high tier and pretty balanced book for the last stages of 8th.

Edit again:
The shocker for marines, for like the first two years, was that Guardsmen got a save when Marines just pummeled them into the ground in prior editions. Imo Doctrines+Bolter Discipline provided a decent fix for that. But the other problem fighting against the new GEQ hordes was that Blast and Template weapons took such a hit going into 8th. So that could be seen as less of an AP issue and more of a Blast/Template issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It doubles the resilience of marine toughness against every other regular infantry in the game, because all basic weapons and most CC attacks do 1 damage. Math 1x2 = 2

*slow clap* That's great, how many mini-marines were you seeing in 8th edition once primaris had taken hold? I ask because unless you saw people playing MEQ instead of PEQ you won't see a change. Things might actually be worse for marines now if they have to take troops because the minimum cost for a Tac squad is now 90 points versus the 75 scout squad they could have used before.

Numerous people playing classic marines. I saw Space Wolves, Blood Angels and my UM successors. I also saw CSM, which were 1W Space Marines.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I did. They were plenty viable.

Show us your tournament record then if you were competitive. I can believe you did well at a store level, but I have doubts that you were doing well at any larger events if you were using a lot of MEQ bodies.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, marines are still over-tuned with units that are a little too good at everything and doctrines on top of that I just don't think it's the 2W MEQ that are the issue.

Pffft. Show us your credentials to make such broad statements.

The shift to two wounds is less of an army-competetive balance issue and more of a "feels bad" issue for non-marines. Genestealers, Fire Warriors, Orks, Eldar, etc just got a lot worse at killing Marines.

Dice to wound ratios ARE point effeciency and units having a use.

A PEQ has 3 guns and every 2 wounds removes 1 gun which is a significant hit to damage output for a unit that starts at 3 models.

MEQ can kill 8 models removing 8 guns vs 4 models removing 4 guns from a up to 10 model unit.

TEQ it removes a single gun now that they have 3 wounds but would have removed 4 models when they were 1 wound. A significant difference.

This perfectly illustrates my point. The DRASTIC change in durability do to the increase in wounds is going to require a change to the weapons or giving similar buffs to all the other armies. At which point either the buff was pointless or everyone can start throwing more dice to 1/2 effect.

 Lance845 wrote:
Dice to wound ratios ARE point effeciency and units having a use.

A PEQ has 3 guns and every 2 wounds removes 1 gun which is a significant hit to damage output for a unit that starts at 3 models.

MEQ can kill 8 models removing 8 guns vs 4 models removing 4 guns from a up to 10 model unit.

TEQ it removes a single gun now that they have 3 wounds but would have removed 4 models when they were 1 wound. A significant difference.

This perfectly illustrates my point. The DRASTIC change in durability do to the increase in wounds is going to require a change to the weapons or giving similar buffs to all the other armies. At which point either the buff was pointless or everyone can start throwing more dice to 1/2 effect.

only if GW wants to return the the status quo before this change

I don't really care whether regular Space Marines have 2 wounds or 20. So long as they consistently apply this rule to all factions and similar units. Which, they haven't been. The inconsistency, and the lack of updates to certain factions and favouritism towards others has always been a problem with Games Workshop, and will continue to be my biggest issue with them.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I understand the foundation but disagree with the conclusions. The statement "So we effectively are at basic Marines shooting what would have been AP3 under the old system." Doesn't ring true because Space Marines actually GET a save where they used to NOT get a save. That's the very definition of an improvement.

And the observation that Intercessors get AP-2 . . . well I'd chalk that up to a mistake in Intercessor/Doctrine design rather than a change in the core system. Intercessors are the outlier among standard infantry, unfortunately they're just really, really popular. But Imo Intercessors/Primaris are the mistake here, again, not the AP rules.

The final point I'd have is that marine resilience against small arms became much better, since cover actually gives them a bonus. If a marine is in cover it takes (in your comparison) the "equivalent" of AP3 to reduce their save below a 3+, right? Leaving a 4+ "cover save". An AP-3 weapon still leave marines with a 5+ "cover save". 4+ and 5+ are right in line with the cover saves of 3-7th. So Marines get their 4+ and 5+ like 3-7, but also get a 2+ against small arms. That's either similar or an improvement for the vast majority of weapons.

Your example though, is telling. Cawl super-plasma with Doctrines. That's not a core rule issue. That's a PRIMARIS issue.

Honestly, Classic Marines with book 2.0 and no supplements was just about perfect balance for marines. Ignore Primaris and ignore the supplement books and you had a solid, high tier and pretty balanced book for the last stages of 8th.

Edit again:
The shocker for marines, for like the first two years, was that Guardsmen got a save when Marines just pummeled them into the ground in prior editions. Imo Doctrines+Bolter Discipline provided a decent fix for that. But the other problem fighting against the new GEQ hordes was that Blast and Template weapons took such a hit going into 8th. So that could be seen as less of an AP issue and more of a Blast/Template issue.

I may not have stated my position clearly. I agree that it's a problem with implementation, not with the core concept of armor modifiers- but mechanically, armor modifiers rather than all-or-nothing changes the relative value of saves. A 6+ save under the old system was completely worthless; now it (especially with cover) can actually help out against small arms. Bad armor is better and good armor is easier to mitigate (again, Terminators), meaning there's been a 'convergence' of effectiveness. 3+ and 5+ are a lot more similar to one another than they used to be.

I think the biggest problem was GW's unwillingness to touch statlines. If it were me, I'd put Terminator armor at a 1+, power armor at 3+, and Guardsmen flak armor at 6+ (everything currently 6+ going up to 7+), and fill in from there. Then don't give anyone AP-2 on basic weapons, or bonus AP as a faction trait, or bonus AP for being Cawl-pattern. At the very least, this would make 3+ armor feel a bit more special, reduce the need for invulns (Terminators being at 4+ when hit with lascannons), and provide more intermediate steps between Cadian flak armor and Space Marine power armor.

Lets put it this way.

If right now it takes a 30 model unit with a 4 point gun upgrade to kill a single terminator then it takes 150 god damn models shooting 450 times to kill a single 5 man unit of infantry.

Thats like regular guardsmen trying to kill an imperial knight with lasguns.

Who thinks thats balanced?

 Lance845 wrote:
Lets put it this way.

If right now it takes a 30 model unit with a 4 point gun upgrade to kill a single terminator then it takes 150 god damn models shooting 450 times to kill a single 5 man unit of infantry.

Thats like regular guardsmen trying to kill an imperial knight with lasguns.

Who thinks thats balanced?

Arguably that could be made balanced via points but the point is also: who even wants this to be the game? I stopped playing my Orkz for several reasons but one of them was having to roll 80+ dice just to see, maybe 4 or so, Primaris keel over. It's just absolutely terrible to play this way, rolling hundreds of dice each round for little to no effect. Having such (a) popular faction(s) with base 2 wounds makes the game feel so bad to play if you have mostly 1dmg weapons for your anti-infantry. If it was just Custodes with 30 guys max on the field fair enough, but marine players of both spikey and loyalist kind can and will run easily 60+ model count armies.

 Lance845 wrote:
Lets put it this way.

If right now it takes a 30 model unit with a 4 point gun upgrade to kill a single terminator then it takes 150 god damn models shooting 450 times to kill a single 5 man unit of infantry.

Thats like regular guardsmen trying to kill an imperial knight with lasguns.

Who thinks thats balanced?

I understand what you're saying, but I do have issues:

1) Hormagants and Termagaunts probably shouldn't be taking an upgrade that makes them cost 9 points, running them at 5 points per model and using them as a means of gaining board control seems like what they should be used for and even that is iffy.

2) Tyranids as a faction need some help and have for most of their existence. It's gakky but Nids will probably look bad against even a mid tier faction let alone a faction that's over-tuned like SMs are.

3) You shouldn't be using AP0 guns against power armor. In a weak codex, you don't have a ton of good options, but things like Tyrant Guard, Hive Tyrants, etc. are what should do your killing. Your little bigs tie things up so fewer guns point at the big stuff.

These factors are why I wanted you to look at things as other factions would see them and not just from the perspective of a Tyranid player. Your faction needs help and I hope your next codex delivers.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Lets put it this way.

If right now it takes a 30 model unit with a 4 point gun upgrade to kill a single terminator then it takes 150 god damn models shooting 450 times to kill a single 5 man unit of infantry.

Thats like regular guardsmen trying to kill an imperial knight with lasguns.

Who thinks thats balanced?

I understand what you're saying, but I do have issues:

1) Hormagants and Termagaunts probably shouldn't be taking an upgrade that makes them cost 9 points, running them at 5 points per model and using them as a means of gaining board control seems like what they should be used for and even that is iffy.

Okay. So if they don't get the upgrade then not only do they have to get 6" closer but they shoot 1 time per model and have str 3. So a unit of 30 can deal less than 1 wound on average to a terminator. So now it takes 450 MODELS to kill a single 5 man unit of terminators.

2) Tyranids as a faction need some help and have for most of their existence. It's gakky but Nids will probably look bad against even a mid tier faction let alone a faction that's over-tuned like SMs are.

When the nid dex came out in 8th they were basically the poster boy for internal and external balance. They had some very few dud units but for the most part they had MANY viable play styles and were balanced well against other codexes of the time that were not drastically over or under powered. But thats not the point. Imperial guard with lasguns are going to face the same problems. It's not the nids who are out of line with the game. It's the marines who are out of line with everyone else.

3) You shouldn't be using AP0 guns against power armor. In a weak codex, you don't have a ton of good options, but things like Tyrant Guard, Hive Tyrants, etc. are what should do your killing. Your little bigs tie things up so fewer guns point at the big stuff.

No. Orks, guard, tau, eldar, and nid infantry should be able to match marine infantry. Its volume of bodies that allow them to compete versus the tougher lower body count of the marines. It's only the increase in wounds thats thrown it all out of whack. Again. 30 termagants could kill 4 terminators before.

These factors are why I wanted you to look at things as other factions would see them and not just from the perspective of a Tyranid player. Your faction needs help and I hope your next codex delivers.

K.

Necron warriors. BS 3+ 24" Str4 AP-1 D1.

20 models = 20 shots = 13.33 hits. 6.88 wounds. 3.44 dmg vs MEQ 2.3ish damage vs TEQ. They can kill 1.5 marine or hurt but not kill 1 terminator. It takes 60-80 necron warriors to kill a 5 man unit of old marines or 180 of them to wipe out a single 5 man unit of terminators. Of course you can halve those numbers if they can get within 12" to be in rapid fire range. But also of course the marines don't need to get into 1/2 range to rapid fire they just have to stand still or pull some other bull gak.

Oh, and since you wanted comparison numbers. It would take 30-40 necron warriors to kill a 5 man unit of MEQ before or 60 to kill TEQ, with again being able to cut those numbers in half if they got to rapid fire range. And for fluff they are using a gun that by the fluff breaks down all mater into it's constituent atoms and should be slicing through marine armor like it doesn't exist.


I repeat. 2w old marines is BAD FOR THE GAME.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I understand the foundation but disagree with the conclusions. The statement "So we effectively are at basic Marines shooting what would have been AP3 under the old system." Doesn't ring true because Space Marines actually GET a save where they used to NOT get a save. That's the very definition of an improvement.

And the observation that Intercessors get AP-2 . . . well I'd chalk that up to a mistake in Intercessor/Doctrine design rather than a change in the core system. Intercessors are the outlier among standard infantry, unfortunately they're just really, really popular. But Imo Intercessors/Primaris are the mistake here, again, not the AP rules.

The final point I'd have is that marine resilience against small arms became much better, since cover actually gives them a bonus. If a marine is in cover it takes (in your comparison) the "equivalent" of AP3 to reduce their save below a 3+, right? Leaving a 4+ "cover save". An AP-3 weapon still leave marines with a 5+ "cover save". 4+ and 5+ are right in line with the cover saves of 3-7th. So Marines get their 4+ and 5+ like 3-7, but also get a 2+ against small arms. That's either similar or an improvement for the vast majority of weapons.

Your example though, is telling. Cawl super-plasma with Doctrines. That's not a core rule issue. That's a PRIMARIS issue.

Honestly, Classic Marines with book 2.0 and no supplements was just about perfect balance for marines. Ignore Primaris and ignore the supplement books and you had a solid, high tier and pretty balanced book for the last stages of 8th.

Edit again:
The shocker for marines, for like the first two years, was that Guardsmen got a save when Marines just pummeled them into the ground in prior editions. Imo Doctrines+Bolter Discipline provided a decent fix for that. But the other problem fighting against the new GEQ hordes was that Blast and Template weapons took such a hit going into 8th. So that could be seen as less of an AP issue and more of a Blast/Template issue.

I may not have stated my position clearly. I agree that it's a problem with implementation, not with the core concept of armor modifiers- but mechanically, armor modifiers rather than all-or-nothing changes the relative value of saves. A 6+ save under the old system was completely worthless; now it (especially with cover) can actually help out against small arms. Bad armor is better and good armor is easier to mitigate (again, Terminators), meaning there's been a 'convergence' of effectiveness. 3+ and 5+ are a lot more similar to one another than they used to be.

I think the biggest problem was GW's unwillingness to touch statlines. If it were me, I'd put Terminator armor at a 1+, power armor at 3+, and Guardsmen flak armor at 6+ (everything currently 6+ going up to 7+), and fill in from there. Then don't give anyone AP-2 on basic weapons, or bonus AP as a faction trait, or bonus AP for being Cawl-pattern. At the very least, this would make 3+ armor feel a bit more special, reduce the need for invulns (Terminators being at 4+ when hit with lascannons), and provide more intermediate steps between Cadian flak armor and Space Marine power armor.

Ok, ok, I getcha.

The 3+ save is not the same magnitude of difference when compared to the 5+ save that it was under the 3-7th paradigm. That I definitely agree with, hence my mention of the jump in value of the GEQ 5+. I agree that the change that should have happened there is to push the Guard back to a 6+ like it was* in 2nd Ed. It wasn't that Space Marines became more fragile, it's that Guardsmen became weirdly tough for 8th. Terminators going to a 1+ would work too, although I think they should still have a chance to fail a 1+ save against an AP0 weapon. Unsure.

*Guard had a 6+ save, but it became a 5+ against Blast weapons iirc. For the record, Termagants had NO save in 2nd ed.

The only thing a 1+ save does in the current rules is effectively ignore AP1, as rolls of 1 still fail regardless.

So I don't see a problem with 1+ being an armour save in the game for the likes of terminators, wraithlords etc.


What they really shouldn't be doing is giving AP to standard infantry guns, except maybe under special conditions (the shuriken 6s for example, or only within 6" or something).

And if guardsmen went back to 6+ saves, then that would make guardians actually seem comparatively better like they used to with 5+ mesh armour...

 Lance845 wrote:
Okay. So if they don't get the upgrade then not only do they have to get 6" closer but they shoot 1 time per model and have str 3. So a unit of 30 can deal less than 1 wound on average to a terminator. So now it takes 450 MODELS to kill a single 5 man unit of terminators.

You don't take them because they kill things. You take them to gain board control and win the game via objectives.

When the nid dex came out in 8th they were basically the poster boy for internal and external balance. They had some very few dud units but for the most part they had MANY viable play styles and were balanced well against other codexes of the time that were not drastically over or under powered. But thats not the point. Imperial guard with lasguns are going to face the same problems. It's not the nids who are out of line with the game. It's the marines who are out of line with everyone else.

Didn't the rule of 3 come out mainly because Nid players were bringing nothing but Flyrants to games?

No. Orks, guard, tau, eldar, and nid infantry should be able to match marine infantry. Its volume of bodies that allow them to compete versus the tougher lower body count of the marines. It's only the increase in wounds thats thrown it all out of whack. Again. 30 termagants could kill 4 terminators before.

How often were terminators taken in winning lists even after they gained two wounds? How many threads have there been on Dakka over the years asking about fixing terminators?

Necron warriors. BS 3+ 24" Str4 AP-1 D1.

20 models = 20 shots = 13.33 hits. 6.88 wounds. 3.44 dmg vs MEQ 2.3ish damage vs TEQ. They can kill 1.5 marine or hurt but not kill 1 terminator. It takes 60-80 necron warriors to kill a 5 man unit of old marines or 180 of them to wipe out a single 5 man unit of terminators. Of course you can halve those numbers if they can get within 12" to be in rapid fire range. But also of course the marines don't need to get into 1/2 range to rapid fire they just have to stand still or pull some other bull gak.

Let's just ignore that you can deep strike that 20 strong brick of warriors for a single pregame CP, or veil them forward to kneecap a threat or hold a table quarter. Beyond that, warriors aren't just limited to gauss flayers anymore, they can take gauss reapers which are Assault 2 12" S5 AP-2.

So when they get into range they can do this to those terminators you're so fixated on:

40 shots
26.67 hits
17.78 wounds
8.88 unsaved wounds
2 or 3 dead terminators

You also have options to buff those warriors with 2+ shooting if you veiled them over with an overlord:

40 shots
33.33 hits
22.22 wounds
11.11 unsaved wounds
3 dead terminators with a chance to catch a 4th

That's a pretty good return for a tough unit that that'll get back a 3rd of the models you knockdown.

Looking at those numbers, what's the point of bringing regular Troop weaponry if you are playing vs Marines?

I need like 50 Kabalite rifles to kill a 5 man Intercessor squad in Rapid Fire range.

Of course you have to bring different weaponry to fight different threats, but when I'm facing SMs, I have to bring a couple card decks so my Troops have something to do during the game.

I'm not experienced enough to come with a solution, but increasing the lethality of Xenos basic weaponry to compete with Space Marines could bring a lot of problems to the general balance of the game...

 Denegaar wrote:
Looking at those numbers, what's the point of bringing regular Troop weaponry if you are playing vs Marines?

I need like 50 Kabalite rifles to kill a 5 man Intercessor squad in Rapid Fire range.

Of course you have to bring different weaponry to fight different threats, but when I'm facing SMs, I have to bring a couple card decks so my Troops have something to do during the game.

I'm not experienced enough to come with a solution, but increasing the lethality of Xenos basic weaponry to compete with Space Marines could bring a lot of problems to the general balance of the game...

This guy gets it.

 Denegaar wrote:
Looking at those numbers, what's the point of bringing regular Troop weaponry if you are playing vs Marines?

I need like 50 Kabalite rifles to kill a 5 man Intercessor squad in Rapid Fire range.

Of course you have to bring different weaponry to fight different threats, but when I'm facing SMs, I have to bring a couple card decks so my Troops have something to do during the game.

I'm not experienced enough to come with a solution, but increasing the lethality of Xenos basic weaponry to compete with Space Marines could bring a lot of problems to the general balance of the game...

The problem I see is that "poison" is a really lacklustre rule to have in its current implementation. Outside of Harlys, Eldar are really chaff troops, which does not fit (my) canon for them.
Forcing a second wound on a to wound roll of 6 would equalise Kabalites against Intercessor under the current rules.

Of course Poisonous Weapon is really underpowered, but it was just an example of a weapon that hits on 3s, wounds of 4s, no AP and D1.

The most basic weapon profile that has become lackluster vs the most played Troop choice in the game.

We can buff Poison, Shuriken and Gauss, but that feels like patches. Why buff durability of Primaris if then you have to change all other weapon choices so the rest of the factions can fight?