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 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Shock Assault is bloat - 90% of the time its +1 A for Marines - so just add it on to the stats.

But then they would actually have to price marines correctly and that would make them mad.

You mean primaris, no reason to be Mad at tacs or csm .

Yes because Primaris melee is such a huge issue LOL

You mean like Intercessors being AS GOOD point for point as Ork boyz in CC, while being significantly more durable and better at shooting?

Yeah, they can't spam CC units like horde factions, but a squad of 10 Intercessors are as good as a comparable value of ork boyz in CC and that is the problem.

SemperMortis wrote:

You mean like Intercessors being AS GOOD point for point as Ork boyz in CC, while being significantly more durable and better at shooting?

Yeah, they can't spam CC units like horde factions, but a squad of 10 Intercessors are as good as a comparable value of ork boyz in CC and that is the problem.

Oh I didn't even realize that. That's pretty terrible.

That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

Thats a whole other can of worms that will be opened at a later date.

I am fine with marines having 2 wounds, its mostly the bloat of the codex where they have too many units to keep track of. Centurions, Aggressors, Tacticals, Intercessors, Assault Intercessors, Intercessors with Knives, Intercessors with Sniper Bolters etc. We have too much in the codex. Some things need to be cut and or merged into a single sheet. Assault Intercessors for example can be combined with intercessors and just have a single option "This entire squad may exchange all of their bolt rifles for a bolt pistol and chainsword" Wow look at that we cut out one entire profile!

I think 2 wounds on marines is fine, because multi wound weaponry exists in spades in every army. (power creep ahoy!)

So giving marines 2 wounds in addition to their now medicore +3 save makes a ton of sense from a balance and design prespective, but thats because GW has literally written itself into the corner ruleswise.

But I am skipping 9th edition in general cause its not shapping up to my liking at all. (lore and ruleswise)

I think a different wounding table with perhaps auto wound on more than twice or thrice the strength and failur to wound if toughness is more than twice your strength would help without going up in dice size. Also remove most of the easy to get wound modifiers, including transhuman effects, so the actual difference in str and T matters. Lower the amount of invulnerable saves as well and instead increase toughness or wounds to compensate. A unit should also not have multiple different defensive traits that make them good against every type of weapon profiles. If high T and wounds then they shouldnt have good ++ saves and hit modifiers etc.

A big problem right now are units like blade guard veterans and terminators(in DA at least) that have good saves and multiple wounds. Multiple wounds and good saves arent a problem since weapons like melta guns should be able to handle that. The problem is the access of 4++ and transhuman. It makes it so even the heaviest anti tank weapon mounted on a do minus class knight for 600+pts that hits only have a 1/4 chance to even deal damage. Not even thunder hammers with flat 3 damage are very good since now those units also have an easy way to get a 6+ fnp that make it so half the time you need a second attack to go through. You need 10-15 thunder hammer attacks to kill a single model in those units. Not even 10 DC with Thunderhammers can kill 210pts of Blade Guard Veterans under transhuman + apothecary. Mass fire weapons also dont really work due to 3w and 0+/1+/2+ saves. Not even mortal wounds work well. If you can kill 6bgv with mortal wounds and fnp you could as well kill a friggin knight.

It doesnt really matter the amount of wounds most units have or how the wounding chart look or what dice we use when we have profiles that nothing are good against. There should be a clear winner against every unit. High T countered by high S. Good save by high AP. Hard to hit with invul but low t and w by massed fire or autohit weapons. Could have more units with different saves(regular and ++), hit modifiers and fnp depending on if it is against shooting or melee.

If this was fixed you could remove a lot of the shots in the game and lower the overall lethality so not everything gets vaporized unless they have insane defensive profiles. More like how it used to be. When you didnt need 20 melta shots because your target shrugged off 90% of them.

You are also saying these stats are not too big of an issue because "melta guns" can handle that. Another issue is not every faction has access to "melta guns". It's fine when like you say, you have multiple wounds, or good t or good save. It's even okay when you have 2 of the 3. But you can't have it all. But multiple wounds with good saves also need to be kept at a minimum to compare to other factions availability of weapons. Maybe that is a issue with the factions and they need to get more tools. But also maybe the SM need to have their tools stripped down too.

Again, squatting Old Marines actually fixes or goes a long way towards fixing a ton of problems with how insane marines are. Both in the sheer volume of weapon/unit profiles and the broke ass way their units work at this point.

 Insectum7 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

You mean like Intercessors being AS GOOD point for point as Ork boyz in CC, while being significantly more durable and better at shooting?

Yeah, they can't spam CC units like horde factions, but a squad of 10 Intercessors are as good as a comparable value of ork boyz in CC and that is the problem.

Oh I didn't even realize that. That's pretty terrible.

Yeah, a lot of SM players want you to casually forget that their basic TAC troops choice is as good as dedicated CC options.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

If an army is out fought by one type of army and out shot by another type of army, then it will be a very bad army all in all. Because while others will be able to play their skews, the marine skew would be vs the majority of the field, not to mention what really good armies.

You are not going to be finding much sympathy among marine players telling them that their army should be bad vs all the ways other armies play their stuff. And only good if their opponents decide to play their army the wrong way. And I can tell you that with a large does of certanity that telling a marine player that his army is okey as long as his tau opponent plays a tau melee list, is not going to make the marine player happy or willing to want nerfs or changes to his rules.

Karol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

If an army is out fought by one type of army and out shot by another type of army, then it will be a very bad army all in all. Because while others will be able to play their skews, the marine skew would be vs the majority of the field, not to mention what really good armies.

You are not going to be finding much sympathy among marine players telling them that their army should be bad vs all the ways other armies play their stuff. And only good if their opponents decide to play their army the wrong way. And I can tell you that with a large does of certanity that telling a marine player that his army is okey as long as his tau opponent plays a tau melee list, is not going to make the marine player happy or willing to want nerfs or changes to his rules.

That is not what he said. He said the Marines should be pretty good but not the best at all things so that when they come up against somebody they can hit them in their weakness.

The Tau crumple in Melee and the SM should be able to capitalize on that because they can't match them in shooting. And the orks should thrive in melee (arguably...) and SM should capitalize on their weakness to shooting and beat them where they can't hold up. Jack of all trades, master of none, Good at each, and adaptable to whats needed. Middle of the road.

Karol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

If an army is out fought by one type of army and out shot by another type of army, then it will be a very bad army all in all. Because while others will be able to play their skews, the marine skew would be vs the majority of the field, not to mention what really good armies.

You are not going to be finding much sympathy among marine players telling them that their army should be bad vs all the ways other armies play their stuff. And only good if their opponents decide to play their army the wrong way. And I can tell you that with a large does of certanity that telling a marine player that his army is okey as long as his tau opponent plays a tau melee list, is not going to make the marine player happy or willing to want nerfs or changes to his rules.

But what about all non-marine armies? Should armies not have strengths and weaknesses? If I follow what you're saying, a Marine army should out-shoot a Tau army and out-punch an Ork army. So how do you design the Tau and Ork armies to make them compete?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

You see to think a marine is a guardsmen. That is why. Which is clearly not what a marine is. Middle of the road does not describe a marine.

But what about all non-marine armies? Should armies not have strengths and weaknesses? If I follow what you're saying, a Marine army should out-shoot a Tau army and out-punch an Ork army. So how do you design the Tau and Ork armies to make them compete?

Huh? what no thats not right at all you have it mixed up Orks should have better melee cause they are a melee faction, Tau should be better at shooting. Space marines have and always will be the vanillia faction not the best at everything but they have a solid jack of all trades approach meaning they excel at nothing and are a master of none.

Which is what marines should remain. Suggesting otherwise is balantly out of flavor for space marines.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

You see to think a marine is a guardsmen. That is why. Which is clearly not what a marine is. Middle of the road does not describe a marine.

Middle of the road ABSOLUTELY describes the marine in terms of entire armies capabilities. There are definitely more shooty armies. There are definitely more punchy armies. There are there are definitely some tougher armies (custodes) but nobody is tough, shooty, and punchy together. Being able to do it all means they can't do any of it the best. Not without extreme cost and reduced model count (again, see custodes). At the model count and cost marines are at they should be adaptable as their big strength.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

Thats a whole other can of worms that will be opened at a later date.

I am fine with marines having 2 wounds, its mostly the bloat of the codex where they have too many units to keep track of. Centurions, Aggressors, Tacticals, Intercessors, Assault Intercessors, Intercessors with Knives, Intercessors with Sniper Bolters etc. We have too much in the codex. Some things need to be cut and or merged into a single sheet. Assault Intercessors for example can be combined with intercessors and just have a single option "This entire squad may exchange all of their bolt rifles for a bolt pistol and chainsword" Wow look at that we cut out one entire profile!

I think 2 wounds on marines is fine, because multi wound weaponry exists in spades in every army. (power creep ahoy!)

So giving marines 2 wounds in addition to their now medicore +3 save makes a ton of sense from a balance and design prespective, but thats because GW has literally written itself into the corner ruleswise.

But I am skipping 9th edition in general cause its not shapping up to my liking at all. (lore and ruleswise)

Which is why I think we need consolidation of Primaris and Manlet Marine profiles soon.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

Marines are Nobz.
Guardsmen are Boyz.
Exarchs are Nobz.
Guardians are Boyz.
Marines have no grots.
Grots are a strength.

 Asherian Command wrote:

But what about all non-marine armies? Should armies not have strengths and weaknesses? If I follow what you're saying, a Marine army should out-shoot a Tau army and out-punch an Ork army. So how do you design the Tau and Ork armies to make them compete?

Huh? what no thats not right at all you have it mixed up Orks should have better melee cause they are a melee faction, Tau should be better at shooting. Space marines have and always will be the vanillia faction not the best at everything but they have a solid jack of all trades approach meaning they excel at nothing and are a master of none.

Which is what marines should remain. Suggesting otherwise is balantly out of flavor for space marines.

This does not work in practice and is actually not what marines are. Marines excell at everything. The way you handle it is by giving them less models to work with. Thats why we call them elites.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

But what about all non-marine armies? Should armies not have strengths and weaknesses? If I follow what you're saying, a Marine army should out-shoot a Tau army and out-punch an Ork army. So how do you design the Tau and Ork armies to make them compete?

Huh? what no thats not right at all you have it mixed up Orks should have better melee cause they are a melee faction, Tau should be better at shooting. Space marines have and always will be the vanillia faction not the best at everything but they have a solid jack of all trades approach meaning they excel at nothing and are a master of none.

Which is what marines should remain. Suggesting otherwise is balantly out of flavor for space marines.

This does not work in practice and is actually not what marines are. Marines excell at everything. The way you handle it is by giving them less models to work with. Thats why we call them elites.

Then their cost needs to increase to give them the correct amount of models. Right now they can field too many models for what they can do.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

You see to think a marine is a guardsmen. That is why. Which is clearly not what a marine is. Middle of the road does not describe a marine.

Middle of the road ABSOLUTELY describes the marine in terms of entire armies capabilities. There are definitely more shooty armies. There are definitely more punchy armies. There are there are definitely some tougher armies (custodes) but nobody is tough, shooty, and punchy together. Being able to do it all means they can't do any of it the best. Not without extreme cost and reduced model count (again, see custodes). At the model count and cost marines are at they should be adaptable as their big strength.

Adaptable how? By getting outshot in gunfights? Getting out hacked in melee? It doesn't work. The only way to compete in an area is to be as good as your opponent in that area.

The way it works in this game is points efficiency of removing models. Plasma guns and dissie cannons can make a really good living removing marines. Where they get a fraction of the points shooting orks.

SemperMortis wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Shock Assault is bloat - 90% of the time its +1 A for Marines - so just add it on to the stats.

But then they would actually have to price marines correctly and that would make them mad.

You mean primaris, no reason to be Mad at tacs or csm .

Yes because Primaris melee is such a huge issue LOL

You mean like Intercessors being AS GOOD point for point as Ork boyz in CC, while being significantly more durable and better at shooting?

Yeah, they can't spam CC units like horde factions, but a squad of 10 Intercessors are as good as a comparable value of ork boyz in CC and that is the problem.

TIL a 20 point Primaris is the same per point as 2 Orks when it comes to melee, even though the latter obviously has way more attacks even with the range loadout

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

You see to think a marine is a guardsmen. That is why. Which is clearly not what a marine is. Middle of the road does not describe a marine.

Middle of the road ABSOLUTELY describes the marine in terms of entire armies capabilities. There are definitely more shooty armies. There are definitely more punchy armies. There are there are definitely some tougher armies (custodes) but nobody is tough, shooty, and punchy together. Being able to do it all means they can't do any of it the best. Not without extreme cost and reduced model count (again, see custodes). At the model count and cost marines are at they should be adaptable as their big strength.

Adaptable how? By getting outshot in gunfights? Getting out hacked in melee? It doesn't work. The only way to compete in an area is to be as good as your opponent in that area.

The way it works in this game is points efficiency of removing models. Plasma guns and dissie cannons can make a really good living removing marines. Where they get a fraction of the points shooting orks.

You don't compete in their arena of mastery. You hit them in their arena of weakness.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

But what about all non-marine armies? Should armies not have strengths and weaknesses? If I follow what you're saying, a Marine army should out-shoot a Tau army and out-punch an Ork army. So how do you design the Tau and Ork armies to make them compete?

Huh? what no thats not right at all you have it mixed up Orks should have better melee cause they are a melee faction, Tau should be better at shooting. Space marines have and always will be the vanillia faction not the best at everything but they have a solid jack of all trades approach meaning they excel at nothing and are a master of none.

Which is what marines should remain. Suggesting otherwise is balantly out of flavor for space marines.

This does not work in practice and is actually not what marines are. Marines excell at everything. The way you handle it is by giving them less models to work with. Thats why we call them elites.

Then their cost needs to increase to give them the correct amount of models. Right now they can field too many models for what they can do.

Okay good then - at least we agree in principle now. Certain marine units cost too little. Agreed. I think the real issue though is that most horde units cost too much.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That just goes back to the classic fluff discussion. "How powerful should a Marine be?"

IMHO, very middle of the road. Outfought by orks, outshot by tau, but able to outshoot the orc and outfight the tau.

Clearly, others disagree.

There's another issue here with Eldar that I won't get into...

You see to think a marine is a guardsmen. That is why. Which is clearly not what a marine is. Middle of the road does not describe a marine.

Middle of the road ABSOLUTELY describes the marine in terms of entire armies capabilities. There are definitely more shooty armies. There are definitely more punchy armies. There are there are definitely some tougher armies (custodes) but nobody is tough, shooty, and punchy together. Being able to do it all means they can't do any of it the best. Not without extreme cost and reduced model count (again, see custodes). At the model count and cost marines are at they should be adaptable as their big strength.

Adaptable how? By getting outshot in gunfights? Getting out hacked in melee? It doesn't work.

Ostensibly by being elite veteran super warriors with the experience, tools, and capabilities to shape the battle and react to opponents such that they don't find themselves trying to outshoot shooty opponents or outchop choppy opponents, not by literally being the best at everything all the time. There have always been things that will outfight Marines in certain types of combat, even "elite" marines, like Genestealers, where that imbalance is an inherent fundamental cornerstone of Space Hulk, where the ultra-experienced and lavishly equipped 1st Company Terminators get absolutely hosed if a Genestealer gets within claws reach, only specialists with purpose built melee weaponry and additional skills can stand against the Genestealers in melee.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

But what about all non-marine armies? Should armies not have strengths and weaknesses? If I follow what you're saying, a Marine army should out-shoot a Tau army and out-punch an Ork army. So how do you design the Tau and Ork armies to make them compete?

Huh? what no thats not right at all you have it mixed up Orks should have better melee cause they are a melee faction, Tau should be better at shooting. Space marines have and always will be the vanillia faction not the best at everything but they have a solid jack of all trades approach meaning they excel at nothing and are a master of none.

Which is what marines should remain. Suggesting otherwise is balantly out of flavor for space marines.

This does not work in practice and is actually not what marines are. Marines excell at everything. The way you handle it is by giving them less models to work with. Thats why we call them elites.

Then their cost needs to increase to give them the correct amount of models. Right now they can field too many models for what they can do.

Okay good then - at least we agree in principle now. Certain marine units cost too little. Agreed. I think the real issue though is that most horde units cost too much.

I disagree on that point. For multiple reasons.

1) The turn structure. As long as the game is IGOUGO your attacks is not what a unit can do but what your army can do. If marines are good at everything then their points need to increase to put less bodies on the board so that their total army at x point level is not capable of putting out the output they do each turn. Right now marines are too much. They need a lower body count if they are going to stay as capable on a per model basis.

2) Giving me another 10 horde models isn't going to kill any more marines. Giving me another 20 horde models MIGHT start killing 1 more marine a turn. The gap between capability is too high. I don't need more models to hit with I need less bodies to kill.

3) It's bad game play to hurl so many dice for so little effect. It's better for the actual game for marines to get weaker or have less bodies so each actual impact has greater effect.

Not sure about Orks, but I'm pretty sure you need 10 Wyches to kill a Primaris Intercessor. Maybe 8 of them if they are high.

That's roughly 90-110 pts of melee based models to kill a 20 pts dude.

 Denegaar wrote:
Not sure about Orks, but I'm pretty sure you need 10 Wyches to kill a Primaris Intercessor. Maybe 8 of them if they are high.

That's roughly 90-110 pts of melee based models to kill a 20 pts dude.

A 20% return isn't terrible

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Denegaar wrote:
Not sure about Orks, but I'm pretty sure you need 10 Wyches to kill a Primaris Intercessor. Maybe 8 of them if they are high.

That's roughly 90-110 pts of melee based models to kill a 20 pts dude.

A 20% return isn't terrible

Okay. So a single primaris model can kill 4 points worth of enemies in a turn? Seems unlikely that it's that small.

Xenomancers wrote:You see to think a marine is a guardsmen. That is why. Which is clearly not what a marine is. Middle of the road does not describe a marine.

Xenomancers wrote:This does not work in practice and is actually not what marines are. Marines excell at everything. The way you handle it is by giving them less models to work with. Thats why we call them elites.

I think you've completely misunderstood Unit's point, because that's exactly what they were suggesting. Individually Marines should be better at fighting than Orks and better at shooting than Tau. Collectively, meaning for the points, Marines should be worse than Orks at melee and worse than Tau at shooting. As an army, they should be middle of the road.

As far as I can tell- and I couch it that way because it seems utterly ridiculous on the face of it- some Marine players expect that their Marines will be not only individually superior, but collectively just as strong as more specialized armies, and bristle at the idea of Orks being able to out-fight them and Tau being able to out-shoot them.

You cannot reasonably expect a generalist army to be as good as a specialist army in their area of specialty. Beating them in their area of weakness is a necessity.

 Denegaar wrote:
Not sure about Orks, but I'm pretty sure you need 10 Wyches to kill a Primaris Intercessor. Maybe 8 of them if they are high.

That's roughly 90-110 pts of melee based models to kill a 20 pts dude.

Sounds like power armor is doing it's job. How many gaurdsmen do whyches kill compared to primaris marnes per point?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Denegaar wrote:
Not sure about Orks, but I'm pretty sure you need 10 Wyches to kill a Primaris Intercessor. Maybe 8 of them if they are high.

That's roughly 90-110 pts of melee based models to kill a 20 pts dude.

A 20% return isn't terrible

No, it's not. But...

If it's the other way around, 10 Primaris Intercessors (the shooty ones) kill at least 5 Wyches. thats 200 to 55 points, more or less a 28% return. Your shootty Troops are better in combat than my melee ones.

Intercessors are probably undercosted, and wyches are probably overcosted. That's how it is... and it doesn't feel fair. But Wyches are way cooler than Intercessors, that's for sure.

 catbarf wrote:

But right now the pendulum has swung too far, and we have generalist units like Intercessors out-fighting Boyz or Wyches while out-shooting Tau, which is nuts.

And wouldn't be the most insane thing in the world if they were more reasonable in their durability. But they are not. They have the wounds, the armor save, the toughness, and the Ld. Effectively they have no weakness.