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.
2020/10/16 22:15:48
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
I agree, Marines are not, and should not be chaff. if a Unit is being fluffed as being a bad ass marine killer it shouldn't be a chaff killer. or if it IS a chaff killer should be such an absurdly good chaff killer it can take out marines by sheer weight of attacks.
What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
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.
2020/10/16 22:40:28
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
I agree, Marines are not, and should not be chaff. if a Unit is being fluffed as being a bad ass marine killer it shouldn't be a chaff killer. or if it IS a chaff killer should be such an absurdly good chaff killer it can take out marines by sheer weight of attacks.
What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
I second this question.
I propose a corresponding hypothetical. A Marine has about a 50% chance to kill a Genestealer in a round of firing while rapid-firing a Bolter, and about a 50% chance of killing a Genestealer in a round of combat with 2 attacks.
A Genestealer has a 5+ save, 1W, and no shooting. If a Genestealer had a 90% chance of killing a Marine in CC, how much should the Genestealer cost? (A Genestealer probably currently has about a 20-30% chance of killing a Marine right now.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/16 22:45:00
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
I agree, Marines are not, and should not be chaff. if a Unit is being fluffed as being a bad ass marine killer it shouldn't be a chaff killer. or if it IS a chaff killer should be such an absurdly good chaff killer it can take out marines by sheer weight of attacks.
What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
You misinterpreted my comment, my comment was more aimed at the fact that a Wych shouldn't BE simply a "chaff killer" or if it is a chaff killer it should be of such a degree that even elites are destroyed by a thousand paper cuts.
I mean, wych's are what 3 AP 0 S3 attacks each? that's CRAP for a supposed elite melee unit. what I'm saying is if Wyches are supposed to be scarey elite killers.. they eaither need a ton more attacks, or they need better weapons.
or even some mix of the two.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/10/16 23:55:22
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Alright, this is going to be a hot take - So I will try to be as clear as possible
Firstborn going to 2W and becoming more expensive is a meta-dependent nerf.
To describe my perspective - I play solely Firstborn Salamanders. That means that this is a relatively narrow perspective but I also have a big chunk of experience with firstborn.
The durability difference between Salamanders and other marines come down to ignoring ap1 and a +1 save vs 1 damage weapon strat, just important to note this for later.
There are three interactions to examine that have changed due to gaining the second wound:
1 - Interactions with 1 Damage weapons - This is what everybody seems to be annoyed with, that 1 Damage weapons just didn't do well vs firstborn. The thing is, 1 damage weapons NEVER did well against marines. The most common 1D weapons had AP0/1 and they were already super inefficient against Marines. Between playing with cover, and the Salamander rules I never factored enemy 1D weapons into my play - because they didn't really matter. In fact the only times I did have to worry about it was when I was dealing with mass intercessors or the perma-heavy doctrine TFC. The second wound doesn't really change that at all.
2 - Interactions with Multi Damage weapons - Against Multi-damage weapons, the firstborn were already almost as durable as primaris. Anything with 2+ fixed damage the firstborn were essentially MORE durable per point then primaris. Now this is no longer the case. There is a minor buff to durability against Dd3 and Dd6 weapons, but not enough to offset the cost increase. I've played 3 games with 2W marines so far, and my opponent brings their anti-primaris list and just wipes out entire squads with Str5+ -2 2D weapons. It's also not like these lists are tailored either, they can effectively deal with other armies because massed Str5+ -2 2D is one of the most cost effective damage profiles in the game (although this may change with more 3W models out on the field). One could also add the interaction of FNP here, and yes it does matter but not enough - otherwise you'd see everyone running firstborn IH.
3 - interactions with MW's - When I played 1W marines, MWs was one of the major drawbacks of keeping firstborn. Out of all three damage interactions, this is where getting a 2W gets most of its mileage. With the exception of certain match-ups, MW spam is relatively rare (and hopefully remains that way). This is pretty big increase in durability.
So when I say its meta-dependent, I mean it's dependent on what percentage of those categories you're running into. If everyone is fighting primaris - people are going to spam 2/3D weapons and the durability increase that your paying for does absolutely nothing. If suddenly the green tide gets super popular again and people are going to switch to mass 1D weapons to counter, then sure you get an increase in durability. These weapons never threatened me before hand but that could be the Salamander rules speaking. So I'm paying more for protection against something I didn't really fear in the first place. If MW machine-guns come back into play, then yes - I will absolutely adore that extra wound per model.
Out of all the marine units, the ones that really benefitted from that extra wound are terminators. Those things are nasty now. The increase in durability against 2D weapons is huge, as 3D weapons are generally much more expensive or rare.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/16 23:58:58
2020/10/16 23:55:38
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: You are looking at outliers though. win% was really low. The issue for the army has always been durability. It's always done a lot of damage when you get to go first because of the reroll auras. Marines could win any game they go first - that was always true. Almost no chance to win going second. 8.5 doubled down on it by giving marines durable buffs like apoth and always counts in cover which gave them more staying power. Then they gave them even more damage. So it's no surpise they started to dominate.
Anyways...with lots of marine entries the chance of going first in most of their games - there should be a few that place high in any high volume event. This is a game of dice afterall. More tickets to the lotery increases your chances quite a bit. Which IMO is why you have to look at WR combined with top finishes.
The reason I look at the "outliers" as you put it, is because I have been to these tournaments and seen the Fluffy SM list with 6 squads of terminators/assault terminators walking up the board or Deep striking being led by the 1st company captain, beautifully painted etc. I've watched the SM player show up to these bigger events with one of the worst lists imaginable because hes doing it for fluffy fun, and more power to him. I've also watched the kids who just put together their start collecting space marine boxes and slap some black and silver with their chapter color and call it good enough, and show up to major events. SM are the largest faction by a significant portion, you guys get the bigger portion of newbies, hell, most players started with SM of some flavor, I started with Blood Angels before switching to Orkz. So when you compare W/L rates as opposed to top 4 top 8 or even top 12 finishes you are purposely skewing the data to fit your desired result. Go look at the 2017 LVO results when SM's were unarguably TOP tier with Tau triptides and Eldar shenanigans. What was the W/L ratio for those SM lists? i'll tell you this, in the bottom 100 players were a lot of SM players, does that mean that SM's were bad in 7th as opposed to being one of the best factions? No. it just means little timmy showing up with his first collection of badly painted marines got steam rolled by Triptide players and Marines bringing 10-20 Free Razorbacks.
I hear this point an awful lot. I don't think there is anything I could say to disprove it. Without going and looking at large events bottom 50 rosters of space marine armies and showing they have basically the same composition. Tournaments are mostly grown men and college age men each running essentially net lists or minor variations of net lists. That has been my experience with larger tournaments (50 plus or more). Locals might have some of the players you are talking about but most anyone knows it's not any fun to consistently get smashed against power lists with some kind of fluffy army. Sure there are some players like you describe at larger events but it is not the norm.
Simple answer? go look at 7th edition LVO after SM got their super formations. if ork/IG or DE players were beating the Marine player...that Marine player was not doing well to put it nicely. That or his dice were so bad they just automatically stayed on 1s and 2s. A SM running around with 10-20 free razorbacks with Twin Heavy bolters basically adding another 25-50% to his points legally shouldn't have lost to an Ork player running around with...what? Ork warbikes attempting to use "Da Lucky Stick" to keep them alive longer than 1 turn? Or were you scared of the 100-300 ork boyz in 1 massive mob, unable to do anything other than survive for a bit.
It doesn't take much to figure out why a SM with basically an extra 500-1k points is losing to Orkz/IG/DE. But the exact same list is also winning events.
SemperMortis wrote: Beyond the words being a bit mean i guess, how is he wrong? Anecdotally the worst players I see on average are Marine players. This might be because SM's are the beginners army, how many L2P starter boxes contain Marines vs dont? It might also be because they are the most popular and as such draw in the largest crowd of "casual" players whom tend to be less skilled than more frequent players. And of course, with the possible exception of Eldar, they tend to be the best faction edition to edition and easiest to swap out traits for.
"Oh no, green Marines are bad, well these Green Marines are now a chapter of Blue Marines! yay".
I believe you that you feel the worst players are Marines on average. But that is anecdotally and thus not relevant when asked about proof.
Its not "feel" its physically seen first hand as well as being able to read basic statistics from tournaments. Same thing I just told Xeno, if you see a SM with decurion losing to Orkz/IG or DE in 7th, it wasn't because those other codex's were good, it was because the SM player was trash.
1 - Interactions with 1 Damage weapons - This is what everybody seems to be annoyed with, that 1 Damage weapons just didn't do well vs firstborn. The thing is, 1 damage weapons NEVER did well against marines. The most common 1D weapons had AP0/1 and they were already super inefficient against Marines. Between playing with cover, and the Salamander rules I never factored enemy 1D weapons into my play - because they didn't really matter. In fact the only times I did have to worry about it was when I was dealing with mass intercessors or the perma-heavy doctrine TFC. The second wound doesn't really change that at all.
except those 1D weapons, of which 95%+ of troops are armed with, either at range or CC, just became 50% as effective. Not to mention, GW can't seem to invent any new ork models without throwing on a plethora of Big shootas, which are garbage to say the least, but I still have to pay for the damn thing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/17 00:02:27
Vaktathi wrote: What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
Space Marine players would have a severe NPE if that was the case. Look at how they reacted to the Kellermorph.
2020/10/17 01:47:20
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Vaktathi wrote: What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
Space Marine players would have a severe NPE if that was the case. Look at how they reacted to the Kellermorph.
yes, the fourms where filled with panic posts about keller morphs, with every thread being hijacked to complain about them... ohh wait no they weren't
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/10/17 02:18:24
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Vaktathi wrote: What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
Space Marine players would have a severe NPE if that was the case. Look at how they reacted to the Kellermorph.
yes, the fourms where filled with panic posts about keller morphs, with every thread being hijacked to complain about them... ohh wait no they weren't
Yes they were. The level of panic about the Kellermorph was both crazy and stupid. Maybe it didn't last as long, because the Kellermorph is only one model, it was nerfed, and GSC players are pretty rare.
Vaktathi wrote: What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
Space Marine players would have a severe NPE if that was the case. Look at how they reacted to the Kellermorph.
yes, the fourms where filled with panic posts about keller morphs, with every thread being hijacked to complain about them... ohh wait no they weren't
Yes they were. The level of panic about the Kellermorph was both crazy and stupid. Maybe it didn't last as long, because the Kellermorph is only one model, it was nerfed, and GSC players are pretty rare.
Space Marines are everywhere.
I dunno, maybe it is because I absolutely hate rogue/assassin archetypes, maybe it is because a single shot suicide unit should not be able to take out a key support character but i always thought the Kellermorph was dumb and should not have a place in this game. Leave assassins to the lore/small skirmishes, they don't belong in 40k proper just like LOW don't from the opposite end of the chart.
2020/10/17 02:32:16
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Castozor wrote: I dunno, maybe it is because I absolutely hate rogue/assassin archetypes, maybe it is because a single shot suicide unit should not be able to take out a key support character but i always thought the Kellermorph was dumb and should not have a place in this game. Leave assassins to the lore/small skirmishes, they don't belong in 40k proper just like LOW don't from the opposite end of the chart.
Having marksmen or specially trained troops target the enemy chain of command is something that happens all the time in war. It definitely belongs.
2020/10/17 02:49:26
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I think marines all at 2 wounds feels right and the increased points cost to go with it seems reasonable.
What I do expect however is a lot more units to get the increased wounds treatment when their books come out. I expect aspects to go to two wounds, I expect more wounds on tyranid creatures, I think the increased wound range of weapons and stats will allow for more granularity and ability to balance.
I like what they did with the Necron book and hope to see other factions get a similar treatment.
outside of 2-3 units I think the marine book does what it is supposed to do for the hobby, have a lot of options and be a fun introduction to a majority of the people who get into the hobby. They have a low skill requirement to do alright against everyone but can easily be outdone by skilled opponents who play other factions.
But mostly I think that because of covid, most people are still stuck in a 8th edition mentality because they have not had a chance to play 9th and realize that what wins missions has changed and that requires a different way of looking at units. There is a great tyranid player that posts here and on reddit and has dominated his local meta mainly through movement and controlling the board. His opponents are still stuck in the 8th edition mentality of killing being the primary way to win.
You can tell because of how people argue the value of unit solely by killing power and not objectives and board control/denial.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/17 02:56:32
People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer
Leth wrote: What I do expect however is a lot more units to get the increased wounds treatment when their books come out.
Given that basic Necrons - a troop type that, when introduced, was unequivocally more durable than Astartes - don't have it, I wouldn't hold my breath. Everyone's been nerfed, relatively, to make room for more marine spank.
2020/10/17 03:11:03
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
I agree, Marines are not, and should not be chaff. if a Unit is being fluffed as being a bad ass marine killer it shouldn't be a chaff killer. or if it IS a chaff killer should be such an absurdly good chaff killer it can take out marines by sheer weight of attacks.
What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
You misinterpreted my comment, my comment was more aimed at the fact that a Wych shouldn't BE simply a "chaff killer" or if it is a chaff killer it should be of such a degree that even elites are destroyed by a thousand paper cuts.
I mean, wych's are what 3 AP 0 S3 attacks each? that's CRAP for a supposed elite melee unit. what I'm saying is if Wyches are supposed to be scarey elite killers.. they eaither need a ton more attacks, or they need better weapons.
or even some mix of the two.
Ah ok, my mistake then.
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.
2020/10/17 03:29:56
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Pretty sure new reanimating protocols is a different type of durability increase. With the increase in the number of d,g 2 and 3 Weapons as well as the way reanimating functions I think necrons came out alright in the increased durability section.
People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer
Leth wrote: Pretty sure new reanimating protocols is a different type of durability increase. With the increase in the number of d,g 2 and 3 Weapons as well as the way reanimating functions I think necrons came out alright in the increased durability section.
I'm talking about when they first droped in 2e. They had a similar statline to Astartes, but reanimation protocols and they fethed with your technology and so on. Now they're weaker than marines. So no, you're wrong, they used to be tougher, now they're weaker. If they had the T4 3+ save 2W statline, *and* reanimation protocols (that wasn't horrible for multi-wound units), then we're talking.
2020/10/17 04:21:03
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Sure, and that means nothing without factoring in points costs or how the rules of the game have changed.
Necrons have had a complete lore revamp since then so yeah, it is kinda grampa to "back in my day errrrrr" as a counter point to a change that has occurred between something that came out like 3 years ago and now.
If I am talking about 3 years ago, and you start talking about 20 as if it is relevant? Gonna call you a grampa.
But anyway, get your rebuttal in and then I will drop the conversation. It is getting off topic.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/17 05:08:57
People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer
except those 1D weapons, of which 95%+ of troops are armed with, either at range or CC, just became 50% as effective. Not to mention, GW can't seem to invent any new ork models without throwing on a plethora of Big shootas, which are garbage to say the least, but I still have to pay for the damn thing.
I feel like the point I was trying to make was missed
From a mathhammer perspective - you're completely correct. The firstborn marines just got 100% more wounds for a 38% increase in cost (13 -> 18) which seems like a good deal (and when it comes to dealing with MW's it is)
The point is that in my experience the effect of those 1D weapons we're talking about was already negligible. They didn't alter my planning or tactics and while there was some attrition from 1D weapons - and even some squad wipes caused by mass. Sometimes I spent a CP to mitigate a little bit of damage here or there, but outside of edge cases likes mortifiers or mass intercessors they didn't affect the gameplan. This change made them more negligible - but if the effect they had was already negligible to begin with then so what? This wound wasn't free either - If I keep running into what I've been running into (mass -2 2D weapons or better) then the durability increase essentially doesn't matter whilst the price increase does. Hence why I call it a meta-dependent nerf because the interactions are reliant on what other armies are bringing. And pretty much every army has a way to bring massed 2D weapons into play now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/17 08:34:35
2020/10/17 07:58:16
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Leth wrote: So you are comparing necrons 20 years ago to what they are now?
Alright grandpa.
Yup. That's my point. A basic Necron warrior should be a match for an Astartes. Thematically, they're supposed to be.
When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/17 09:03:14
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
Hecaton wrote: Yup. That's my point. A basic Necron warrior should be a match for an Astartes. Thematically, they're supposed to be.
I'm afraid things have changed and now they are not.
GW want marines to be tougher. There isn't much point giving them 2/3 wounds if they then intend to boost the damage output of just about everything in the game so they die just the same as before.
This may upset the fluff but its what is desired on the tabletop.
2020/10/17 10:47:48
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Leth wrote: So you are comparing necrons 20 years ago to what they are now?
Alright grandpa.
Yup. That's my point. A basic Necron warrior should be a match for an Astartes. Thematically, they're supposed to be.
Basic Necron Warriors haven't been a match for a proper tactical marine in a long time. Inmortals at 2 wounds would be my preference just for feeling but it would be a nerf with how RP work right now. Now Necrons have two troops, the basic warriors for a silver tide army, that works and feels right, and the elite inmortals that are more resilient tactical and intercessors, worse in mele and with better guns for nearly the same cost. (I'm not saying an Inmortal is better than an Intercessor, but just by their basic statlines I would say they are equal with the edge going for the Inmortal even if I would prefer for inmortals to have 2wounds just for "feel")
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/17 10:48:32
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.
2020/10/17 14:05:47
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Leth wrote: Sure, and that means nothing without factoring in points costs or how the rules of the game have changed.
Necrons have had a complete lore revamp since then so yeah, it is kinda grampa to "back in my day errrrrr" as a counter point to a change that has occurred between something that came out like 3 years ago and now.
If I am talking about 3 years ago, and you start talking about 20 as if it is relevant? Gonna call you a grampa.
But anyway, get your rebuttal in and then I will drop the conversation. It is getting off topic.
I guess I'm gonna start to refer to 2W marines as "kiddie pool" marines then.
"Mawines need to be the bestest evar wike I wead in Bwack Wibwary. . ."
except those 1D weapons, of which 95%+ of troops are armed with, either at range or CC, just became 50% as effective. Not to mention, GW can't seem to invent any new ork models without throwing on a plethora of Big shootas, which are garbage to say the least, but I still have to pay for the damn thing.
I feel like the point I was trying to make was missed
From a mathhammer perspective - you're completely correct. The firstborn marines just got 100% more wounds for a 38% increase in cost (13 -> 18) which seems like a good deal (and when it comes to dealing with MW's it is)
The point is that in my experience the effect of those 1D weapons we're talking about was already negligible. They didn't alter my planning or tactics and while there was some attrition from 1D weapons - and even some squad wipes caused by mass. Sometimes I spent a CP to mitigate a little bit of damage here or there, but outside of edge cases likes mortifiers or mass intercessors they didn't affect the gameplan. This change made them more negligible - but if the effect they had was already negligible to begin with then so what? This wound wasn't free either - If I keep running into what I've been running into (mass -2 2D weapons or better) then the durability increase essentially doesn't matter whilst the price increase does. Hence why I call it a meta-dependent nerf because the interactions are reliant on what other armies are bringing. And pretty much every army has a way to bring massed 2D weapons into play now.
First, They didn't go from 13 to 18. They went from 15 to 18, But, even if you go back to 7th edition, SM's used to be 14pts and were one of the factions that saw their basic troops go DOWN in price while also receiving a fethload of buffs (Doctrines, bolter discipline etc) So between 8th and the very beginning of 9th GW realized that with all the increases in their ability a tactical Marine was worth 15pts, but when they gave it the further buff of a 2nd wound they had to add 20% to its price. So your 2nd wound actually costs you 3ppm.
Secondly, you play a SM/Elite army heavy meta. In other words, yeah, for you, those SM's aren't much more durable because everyone was already spamming D2+ weapons because Primaris, custodes etc. The problem with that line of thinking is you are excluding the plethora of other factions which don't have spam access to D2+ weapons or -1 and -2 AP weapons. The best way for me to deal with those SM's wasn't to hit them with my Mek gunz, it was to just slam a mob of boyz into them and watch them soak up 60-90 S4 AP0 1D CC attacks. Now though those 60-90 attacks are only killing HALF of what they were before, and at the same time, those tactical Marines are now significantly better at gunning down my boyz with -1AP from doctrines and bolter discipline giving them 2 shots at 24' most of the time.
So I get the point you are making, the problem is you are viewing the problem from a point of view of the most heavily supported faction in the game who has more data sheets than basically any other 2 factions put together and who has access to a plethora of weapons and abilities which make the your basic troop weapon into an 2 shot AP-2 weapon.
Side Note: The only common 2D weaponry in my codex is Lootas....which do not synergize with ork play styles right now. They are too expensive for what little they do and they are the definition of glass cannons D3 S7 -1 AP 2D shots hitting on 5s with T4 6+ save 1 wound. All for 20ppm, they are literally hard countered by basic infantry fire.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/17 14:20:42
I understand the Marines VS Marines point of view, the changes are not a big deal for them. And they have a point indeed.
When you are a Xenos player though, it forces you to play tailored/skew lists or just resign and lose, as the rest of your "common weaponry" just became twice as bad.
If your army wasn't specially killy in 8th... Now you are even in a worse spot. I have to bring 6-10 Disintegrators or just play DT Venom spam if I want to compete vs Primaris lists... If I don't I'll probably have a hard time. And it's not going to be even fun.
The Bloody Sails
2020/10/17 18:18:19
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Denegaar wrote: I understand the Marines VS Marines point of view, the changes are not a big deal for them. And they have a point indeed.
When you are a Xenos player though, it forces you to play tailored/skew lists or just resign and lose, as the rest of your "common weaponry" just became twice as bad.
If your army wasn't specially killy in 8th... Now you are even in a worse spot. I have to bring 6-10 Disintegrators or just play DT Venom spam if I want to compete vs Primaris lists... If I don't I'll probably have a hard time. And it's not going to be even fun.
The other aspect is that disintegrators are generally taken as anti-vehicle weapons. So you're forced to split your anti-tank fire against marines and their tanks, because your anti-infantry weapons are such utter garbage against their infantry.
Really doesn't seem like good design.
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.
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.
2020/10/17 18:27:51
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Denegaar wrote: I understand the Marines VS Marines point of view, the changes are not a big deal for them. And they have a point indeed.
When you are a Xenos player though, it forces you to play tailored/skew lists or just resign and lose, as the rest of your "common weaponry" just became twice as bad.
If your army wasn't specially killy in 8th... Now you are even in a worse spot. I have to bring 6-10 Disintegrators or just play DT Venom spam if I want to compete vs Primaris lists... If I don't I'll probably have a hard time. And it's not going to be even fun.
I know you already know this, but damn do DE ever need help...
At the very least splinter cannons need to go up to D2 the way heavy bolters did.
2020/10/17 18:54:48
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Leth wrote: So you are comparing necrons 20 years ago to what they are now?
Alright grandpa.
Necrons have always had Marine-like stats, having a nearly identical profile until 5th Ed dropped them from a 3+ save to 4+. Even then, a Necron Warrior remained comparable to a Tactical Marine well into 8th- the Marine had 1" more move and a slightly better save (3+ vs 4+), but the Warrior had AP-1 on its gun.
Marines being twice as good as Necrons is a very recent change.
except those 1D weapons, of which 95%+ of troops are armed with, either at range or CC, just became 50% as effective. Not to mention, GW can't seem to invent any new ork models without throwing on a plethora of Big shootas, which are garbage to say the least, but I still have to pay for the damn thing.
I feel like the point I was trying to make was missed
From a mathhammer perspective - you're completely correct. The firstborn marines just got 100% more wounds for a 38% increase in cost (13 -> 18) which seems like a good deal (and when it comes to dealing with MW's it is)
The point is that in my experience the effect of those 1D weapons we're talking about was already negligible. They didn't alter my planning or tactics and while there was some attrition from 1D weapons - and even some squad wipes caused by mass. Sometimes I spent a CP to mitigate a little bit of damage here or there, but outside of edge cases likes mortifiers or mass intercessors they didn't affect the gameplan. This change made them more negligible - but if the effect they had was already negligible to begin with then so what? This wound wasn't free either - If I keep running into what I've been running into (mass -2 2D weapons or better) then the durability increase essentially doesn't matter whilst the price increase does. Hence why I call it a meta-dependent nerf because the interactions are reliant on what other armies are bringing. And pretty much every army has a way to bring massed 2D weapons into play now.
First, They didn't go from 13 to 18. They went from 15 to 18, But, even if you go back to 7th edition, SM's used to be 14pts and were one of the factions that saw their basic troops go DOWN in price while also receiving a fethload of buffs (Doctrines, bolter discipline etc) So between 8th and the very beginning of 9th GW realized that with all the increases in their ability a tactical Marine was worth 15pts, but when they gave it the further buff of a 2nd wound they had to add 20% to its price. So your 2nd wound actually costs you 3ppm.
Secondly, you play a SM/Elite army heavy meta. In other words, yeah, for you, those SM's aren't much more durable because everyone was already spamming D2+ weapons because Primaris, custodes etc. The problem with that line of thinking is you are excluding the plethora of other factions which don't have spam access to D2+ weapons or -1 and -2 AP weapons. The best way for me to deal with those SM's wasn't to hit them with my Mek gunz, it was to just slam a mob of boyz into them and watch them soak up 60-90 S4 AP0 1D CC attacks. Now though those 60-90 attacks are only killing HALF of what they were before, and at the same time, those tactical Marines are now significantly better at gunning down my boyz with -1AP from doctrines and bolter discipline giving them 2 shots at 24' most of the time.
So I get the point you are making, the problem is you are viewing the problem from a point of view of the most heavily supported faction in the game who has more data sheets than basically any other 2 factions put together and who has access to a plethora of weapons and abilities which make the your basic troop weapon into an 2 shot AP-2 weapon.
Side Note: The only common 2D weaponry in my codex is Lootas....which do not synergize with ork play styles right now. They are too expensive for what little they do and they are the definition of glass cannons D3 S7 -1 AP 2D shots hitting on 5s with T4 6+ save 1 wound. All for 20ppm, they are literally hard countered by basic infantry fire.
Your making assumptions that are not necessarily true - or relevant to the point but I feel its necessary to refute them anyways.
- The meta I played in when there wasn't a pandemic going on was pretty health, and in fact had a fluctuation between a 20-25% marine players (although this number went up markedly during the IH fiasco) with a healthy mix of both xenos and non-marine imperium players. We'd commonly max out at 36 players during league nights with most codices seeing play. 2D weapons were common in the meta not because it was primaris heavy - but because it was an effective all-rounder damage type.
- Do remember that at the beginning of 8th the tactical marine was considered pretty garbage by most people. Two shots at AP0 and 1 attack in CC just didn't really cut it. Until SM2.0 I struggled to make Tacs work. It was an uphill fight against pretty much every codex. Shock Assault made them much more viable, and honest question - when was the last time you got hit by bolter disciplined firstborn? It's a great rule for intercessors, not for firstborn who need to be much closer anyways and generally tend towards more aggressive play.
- I can see the delineation between 13 - 15 - 18 points. But I feel it disingenuous to say that they went from 15 to 18 for the second wound when there were so many points being juggled around in the interim. In fact there was some evidence (the MM cost) to support that there was some possible overarching plan to shift Marines to 2 wounds, but they wanted to increase the price slowly to instead of a singular jump.
Remember the specific scope of the statement - This is not directly about Primaris - because I agree that the SM codex has way too many options and some poor rules. Primaris have some particularly egregious design decisions (hence why I stick to pure firstborn). Heavy intercessors just shouldn't exists. Intercessors themselves shouldn't be able to doubletap at 30" out, and eradicators shouldn't be able to one-round a knight ~50% of the time. But that isn't the topic being discussed here
This is specifically about the implications of firstborn getting an additional wound for the current cost. To which I'm currently thinking is a nerf, again more input will be required before a final judgement but we've waited a long enough time.
If your army was capable of dealing with Primaris beforehand, they should be capable of dealing with firstborn now. If your army wasn't capable of dealing with Primaris before hand, It didn't threaten my firstborn either.
But lets talk about the options Orks have available to them - because its not just lootas
Off the top of my head they have:
Battletruck w/ Deffrollaz
Flashgitz
Killsawz/Powerklaws
Tankbustas
Scrapjet? (one of the buggies but I can't remember the name - it just throws out D2 shots and moves pretty quickly)
Lootaz still work with gretchin shield right?
Each of those unit encompasses different strengths in how they deliver the damage - I'm pretty sure an ork player like yourself could supplement a list with these to mitigate any shortcomings.
Or you could design a list that doesn't need to kill much to win, because with 9thed it is a completely viable tactic to just own the board and just focus on gumming up the works.
Because honestly the part that really irritates me is how everyone is already shouting "Muhriinez OP" when really the codex actually plays far healthier than 8th barring two aberrations (eradicators and reviving ATV's)
My old lists don't work at all - and that's perfectly fine. Expecting old tactics to work exactly the same in the new edition is silly. If throwing 60-90 CC attacks doesn't work, start thinking about other potential tactics that can achieve the same desired effect, because I can assure you they exists.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/17 19:40:12
The Bloody Sails 
