I don’t think marines should have two wounds

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Galas**

catbarf wrote:
Galas wrote:
I will also add that T5 W3 SV2+4++ custodes have not been a problem for 3 years. The balance problems around marines are not the statlines but the point costs associated with them, the durability and the damage output.

There are two significant factors to Custodes.

1. As noted, their shooting is minimal. Additionally, they lack board footprint, with the minimum size on their units being significantly more expensive than even Marines. These are both critical weaknesses that offset the inherently skewed nature of their multi-wound and strong-invuln statlines. In any engagement they show up in, they have the implicit advantage of being universally non-optimal target profiles, while simultaneously having the implicit weaknesses of lacking shooting and board control. Contrast this with Marines where they have much better shooting and significantly better board control, avoiding those weaknesses.

2. Custodes aren't anywhere close to the most popular faction- if they were, people would skew to counter them, which in turn would probably be great for some of the non-Custodes factions that would then be non-optimal targets for meta weapons, while Custodes would perpetually feel underpowered.

Basically the Custodes statline has the potential to be an issue, but because they're a niche faction with significant weaknesses that they have no way to overcome, they're kept in check. It's exactly the same for Knights- all-Knights is a skew list that benefits significantly from being skew, but having zero board control in an edition focused on objectives is a crippling weakness. If Knights were by far the most popular faction and could count their remaining wounds as that number of obsec models for the purpose of controlling objectives, the game would break wide open overnight. Obviously Marines represent much less skew than that, but the underlying issues are still there.

Edit: Hecaton is right about the baseline. Any concept of 'baseline' that doesn't reflect the fact that people tailor lists around countering the most common statline of the most commonly played faction is just debating semantics; Marines are the yardstick against which everything else is judged.

Your analisis is correct but I don't believe your conclusion is. You see an statline in a vacuum, as if by itself it was a problem. Your rule about Imperial Knights is just like Beatsclaw Raiders or Giants have in AoS were they count as 10 models to capture objetives, and they aren't winning any tournament. The reality is that if marines are a problem is not because a statline, because all kind of units with all kind of statlines have been problems over the years. The problem with marines is just that they have been overpowered with a ton of firepower and durability for their costs.

I can understand people that dont like space marines with 2 wounds specially compared with stuff like genestealers, eldar banshee, etc... but we need to stop bringing that theres something fundamendally flawed with those statlines because they have always existed in one form or another and they have by the most part not been a problem, specially not a bigger problem that many other units over the years.

The differente between a custode and a marine is that a basic custode is fething 45 ppm aprox were you have space marine terminators with the nearly the same statline that have double the firepower and are nearly the same in meele with native deepstrike for 30 points. Is just as simple as that.
If GW wants elite marines, they should be pointed like the elite units they are, and then the weakness will appear by themselves because they will always be outnumbered. The problem is GW wants marines to sell like hotcakes and you can't keep up your business on the back of marine sales if your marine army is made by 20 models and 2 dreadnoughts like a Custodes is.

**SemperMortis**

Mr Morden wrote:
Galas wrote:
As an ogre/minotaur player in fantasy/aos and custodes in 40k I'll admit that I love my infantry with a good bunch of wounds. And yeah, those armies work because they are the exceptions not the baseline. But whats the problem with the baseline of the game being heavy infantry with 2 wounds and squishy one with 1 (Ignoring all the variances , inmortals are 1w but in no way squishy), barring GW bad rules and codex release cicle?

No the Baseline for each faction is the standard line infantry.

Imperium: Guard
Orks: Boyz
Tyranids: Gaunts
Dark Eldar: Kabalites
Tau: Fire Warriors
Necrons: Warriors

etc

Marines are elite special forces.

So Space Marines aren't their own faction and fall under Codex "Imperium"? Interesting, i was unaware of this.

The reality is, you can play semantic games to your hearts content, but SM's are the most common faction in the game, and their "line" infantry is Tacs and intercessors.

**Xenomancers**

Galas wrote:
catbarf wrote:
Galas wrote:
I will also add that T5 W3 SV2+4++ custodes have not been a problem for 3 years. The balance problems around marines are not the statlines but the point costs associated with them, the durability and the damage output.

There are two significant factors to Custodes.

1. As noted, their shooting is minimal. Additionally, they lack board footprint, with the minimum size on their units being significantly more expensive than even Marines. These are both critical weaknesses that offset the inherently skewed nature of their multi-wound and strong-invuln statlines. In any engagement they show up in, they have the implicit advantage of being universally non-optimal target profiles, while simultaneously having the implicit weaknesses of lacking shooting and board control. Contrast this with Marines where they have much better shooting and significantly better board control, avoiding those weaknesses.

2. Custodes aren't anywhere close to the most popular faction- if they were, people would skew to counter them, which in turn would probably be great for some of the non-Custodes factions that would then be non-optimal targets for meta weapons, while Custodes would perpetually feel underpowered.

Basically the Custodes statline has the potential to be an issue, but because they're a niche faction with significant weaknesses that they have no way to overcome, they're kept in check. It's exactly the same for Knights- all-Knights is a skew list that benefits significantly from being skew, but having zero board control in an edition focused on objectives is a crippling weakness. If Knights were by far the most popular faction and could count their remaining wounds as that number of obsec models for the purpose of controlling objectives, the game would break wide open overnight. Obviously Marines represent much less skew than that, but the underlying issues are still there.

Edit: Hecaton is right about the baseline. Any concept of 'baseline' that doesn't reflect the fact that people tailor lists around countering the most common statline of the most commonly played faction is just debating semantics; Marines are the yardstick against which everything else is judged.

Your analisis is correct but I don't believe your conclusion is. You see an statline in a vacuum, as if by itself it was a problem. Your rule about Imperial Knights is just like Beatsclaw Raiders or Giants have in AoS were they count as 10 models to capture objetives, and they aren't winning any tournament. The reality is that if marines are a problem is not because a statline, because all kind of units with all kind of statlines have been problems over the years. The problem with marines is just that they have been overpowered with a ton of firepower and durability for their costs.

I can understand people that dont like space marines with 2 wounds specially compared with stuff like genestealers, eldar banshee, etc... but we need to stop bringing that theres something fundamendally flawed with those statlines because they have always existed in one form or another and they have by the most part not been a problem, specially not a bigger problem that many other units over the years.

The differente between a custode and a marine is that a basic custode is fething 45 ppm aprox were you have space marine terminators with the nearly the same statline that have double the firepower and are nearly the same in meele with native deepstrike for 30 points. Is just as simple as that.
If GW wants elite marines, they should be pointed like the elite units they are, and then the weakness will appear by themselves because they will always be outnumbered. The problem is GW wants marines to sell like hotcakes and you can't keep up your business on the back of marine sales if your marine army is made by 20 models and 2 dreadnoughts like a Custodes is.

They are pointed like elite models.

How do they compare in cost to units like?
Tyranid warriors...
Dark Eldar Incubi...
Necron Preatorians...
Eldar Aspect warriors...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Galas wrote:
As an ogre/minotaur player in fantasy/aos and custodes in 40k I'll admit that I love my infantry with a good bunch of wounds. And yeah, those armies work because they are the exceptions not the baseline. But whats the problem with the baseline of the game being heavy infantry with 2 wounds and squishy one with 1 (Ignoring all the variances , inmortals are 1w but in no way squishy), barring GW bad rules and codex release cicle?

No the Baseline for each faction is the standard line infantry.

Imperium: Guard
Orks: Boyz
Tyranids: Gaunts
Dark Eldar: Kabalites
Tau: Fire Warriors
Necrons: Warriors

etc

Marines are elite special forces.

So Space Marines aren't their own faction and fall under Codex "Imperium"? Interesting, i was unaware of this.

The reality is, you can play semantic games to your hearts content, but SM's are the most common faction in the game, and their "line" infantry is Tacs and intercessors.

Okay so marines are common on the 40k table top. It has nothing to do with the armies identity and power level. If anything being common is a disadvantage on the table top. Because you can always expect weapons good at removing you to be in every army. WHICH HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR ALL OF 40k's HISTORY. Power armor has always been borderline useless because ap3/2 type weapons can be spammed and are by almost every army (the ones that can anyways).

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Xenomancers wrote:
Power armor has always been borderline useless because ap3/2 type weapons can be spammed and are by almost every army (the ones that can anyways).

Ahah what???
[edit]Spamming melta to deal with marine infantry, seems like a winning plan right?[/edit]

**Mr Morden**

SemperMortis wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Galas wrote:
As an ogre/minotaur player in fantasy/aos and custodes in 40k I'll admit that I love my infantry with a good bunch of wounds. And yeah, those armies work because they are the exceptions not the baseline. But whats the problem with the baseline of the game being heavy infantry with 2 wounds and squishy one with 1 (Ignoring all the variances , inmortals are 1w but in no way squishy), barring GW bad rules and codex release cicle?

No the Baseline for each faction is the standard line infantry.

Imperium: Guard
Orks: Boyz
Tyranids: Gaunts
Dark Eldar: Kabalites
Tau: Fire Warriors
Necrons: Warriors

etc

Marines are elite special forces.

So Space Marines aren't their own faction and fall under Codex "Imperium"? Interesting, i was unaware of this.

The reality is, you can play semantic games to your hearts content, but SM's are the most common faction in the game, and their "line" infantry is Tacs and intercessors.

Yes you can play semantics as you are doing

Notice I Said IMPERIUM Not Marines as Marines are elite forces in the IMPERIUM.

Marine are just one small element of the Imperial war machine.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Power armor has always been borderline useless because ap3/2 type weapons can be spammed and are by almost every army (the ones that can anyways).

Ahah what???
[edit]Spamming melta to deal with marine infantry, seems like a winning plan right?[/edit]

If it comes cheap absolutely.

**Voss**

Xenomancers wrote:Okay so marines are common on the 40k table top. It has nothing to do with the armies identity and power level.

Obviously it does. Every edition of the game has been tuned around space marines. Their statistics are chosen so that marines succeed more often than fail (66%), and 'weak units' fail against them more often than succeed (33%)

They designers have, in print, specifically stated they've increased the power level of space marines.

When they went from toughness 3 to 4 (and got several other buffs) the reasoning was literally that rules and models for their enemies had shifted the balance of power, and the

"once mighty space marines are now looking a little less heroic. Of course this is hardly appropriate!"

This was from 1990 or 1991 (a WD update that was reprinted in the WH40K Compilation in 1991). Its a flat statement that the space marine power level was low and that circumstance was entirely inappropriate for the game.

When they got 2 wounds... lets see some quotes

"If you’re playing Warhammer 40,000, you need a plan to kill Space Marines. With all fully fledged Adeptus Astartes going to 2 Wounds, tabletops are in for a considerable shake-up"

"That’s right – it won’t just be Primaris Marines on 2 Wounds anymore! All of a sudden, a lot of units that may have felt a bit left behind become very durable and appealing. From Battle Company units such as Assault, Devastator and Tactical Marines, to the elite Terminators of the 1st Company (who will be increased to 3 Wounds accordingly), the first born will be back to prove to their Primaris battle-brothers their great worth."

Considerable tabletop shakeup, and shifting 'left behind' Space Marine units to be more appealing.

On weapons changes:

The biggest and best-ever edition of Codex: Space Marines is on its way soon – you saw The Codex Show on Saturday, right? One of the biggest changes is that some of their most commonly used weapons are receiving upgraded profiles that are truly worthy of their potency in the lore.

Other armies benefited a little from this, but the major thrust of this change was _for Space Marines_.

We've just had a major update that is all about Space Marines being better on the table, and everyone else can go hang or wait. In some cases, it won't be a long wait, but there is no way to argue that it isn't about the power level of space marines.

**Bosskelot**

Xenomancers wrote:
They are pointed like elite models.

How do they compare in cost to units like?
Tyranid warriors...
Dark Eldar Incubi...
Necron Preatorians...
Eldar Aspect warriors...

Using Praetorians actually highlights the issue perfectly.

Praetorians get a significant discount on their "real" points cost because they lack Core and they lack a Dynastic Code, which severely limits their available synergies and upper ceiling for power. This is why, despite being overall superior in stats on average to Lychguard, Lychguard still cost more points.

The issue with a lot of Marine units is that they aren't really paying appropriate points costs for things like Angels of Death, Chapter Tactics and the Core keyword. AoD especially is an incredibly problematic rule that has lots of situational (although not very difficult to access) but powerful bonuses that catapult certain units into the fething stratosphere power-wise. However because the attack bonus is not constant (even though in practice it is) and the appropriate Doctrine is turn-locked (even though in practice it isn't) the units do not pay appropriately for these abilities. The various Chapter Tactics and Chapter-specific stratagems also make the problem more acute because in terms of versatility and damage output, some of them are truly insane and singlehandedly break certain units to a far greater degree than say, the Necron Dynastic Codes. Just as an example, WS or BA BGV are criminally undercosted* and probably need to go up like 20% points wise. But at the same time it's hard to justify raising the points that much for, say, an Ultramarines or Imperial Fist BGV unit.

*I would say though that BGV are probably too cheap currently in general, but when combined with certain Chapters they should be approaching Custodian Guard levels of expense. Like you can't look at a Custodes with a Shield and Blade at 56 points and a BA BGV at 35 points and think the BGV is sensibly priced.

**Slayer-Fan123**

The Shield Custodes is one of the few units left with a 3++, and math wise they aren't terribly far off. A Shield Custodes inflicts 1.67 wounds in melee and the the Bladeguard does 1.2. Thats not to mention that's the defense one too. Spears won't fare better for defense of course, but they already have that tank to begin with and one Strat to increase their wound roll. To say it's unfair is a bit silly when the Custodes doesn't need to go down in price that much to be frank.

**JNAProductions**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Shield Custodes is one of the few units left with a 3++, and math wise they aren't terribly far off. A Shield Custodes inflicts 1.67 wounds in melee and the the Bladeguard does 1.2. Thats not to mention that's the defense one too. Spears won't fare better for defense of course, but they already have that tank to begin with and one Strat to increase their wound roll. To say it's unfair is a bit silly when the Custodes doesn't need to go down in price that much to be frank.

And you can get nearly one and a half Bladeguard per Custodian Guard.

A Custodian Guard is 49 Points (Spear) or 56 Points (Sword and Board). Add 3 points for an extra S5 AP-2 D1 attack.
A Bladeguard Veteran is 35 points a pop. Can add 5 for a fancy pistol on Sarge, but... No.

So, let's compare three squads of BGV to two squads of Custodian Guard. BGV are base, Custodian Guard are one Sword and Board, two Spears per three-man squad. No Misericordias.
315 points to 348.

BGV get 30 attacks at WS3+ S5 AP-3 D2, plus 9 on the first round of combat.
Guard get 12 attacks at WS2+ S6 AP-3 Dd3, and 6 at S5 AP-3 Dd3. No bonuses unless you take a banner, but we're counting unit to unit right now.

BGV are clearly the winners on offense-they get more hits than the Guard have attacks, and while some of the Guard's hits are higher strength, their damage is d3 instead of 2, which is generally a disadvantage.
Custodian Guard are arguably the winners on defense, as they have T5 and 2+ (with two models having a 3++, not just a 4++) but they've got 18 wounds to the BGV's 27. So it might be a wash.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Why wouldn't you purchase the Miscordia? That's auto-purchase for all intents and purposes. I'll admit I didn't factor it earlier though since I forgot about it.

**JNAProductions**

That gets you 24 attacks total, which IS more than the BGV get hits. But that does increase the cost to 372. So two S&B plus three Spear with the extra weapon are...

Did I goof my math? I did-the Guard are (the six man, no extras) are 308. 332 with the extras.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Also don't forget that, as little as it is, Custodian shooting is SO much better than the Bladeguard.

**Galas**

In this case I don't think the Custode is the one that is badly costed, TBH, even if I believe with most marines having 2 and 3 wounds custodes should go to 4w with 5w terminators.

**SecondTime**

Custodes should be 5 wounds to be above Grotesques. But then tanks need 20ish for medium tanks. It's a big mess.

**Bosskelot**

But did you take into account which Chapter the BGV are? That was my main point.

The comparison completely changes when they're getting even more attacks and a +1 to wound, or hitting at a flat 3 damage with the capability to advance and charge.

**Dudeface**

Bosskelot wrote:
But did you take into account which Chapter the BGV are? That was my main point.

The comparison completely changes when they're getting even more attacks and a +1 to wound, or hitting at a flat 3 damage with the capability to advance and charge.

But we get back to "but marines are 1 army since every competitive list uses whichever chapter tactic is best", so they're either white scars or salamanders.

**Tyel**

Dudeface wrote:
Bosskelot wrote:
But did you take into account which Chapter the BGV are? That was my main point.

The comparison completely changes when they're getting even more attacks and a +1 to wound, or hitting at a flat 3 damage with the capability to advance and charge.

But we get back to "but marines are 1 army since every competitive list uses whichever chapter tactic is best", so they're either white scars or salamanders.

The point is that the various Space Marine buffs are too powerful.

I mean you compare Marines to Necrons. They both get a chapter tactic - so lets call that a wash.
Necrons get Reanimation Protocols and Command Protocols.
Marines get: Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, And they shall know no fear, Combat Doctrines, Super Doctrines.

You can question the value of each of these on its own - but as a package, its pretty obvious whose winning. It could be that Marines are paying for all those buffs in inflated points costs versus base stats but its not obvious this is the case.

The result is that if any element of Marines is nerfed, the list just evolves into something else.

**Arson Fire**

JNAProductions wrote:
That gets you 24 attacks total, which IS more than the BGV get hits. But that does increase the cost to 372. So two S&B plus three Spear with the extra weapon are...

Did I goof my math? I did-the Guard are (the six man, no extras) are 308. 332 with the extras.

Actually only 22 attacks. Misericordias don't grant an extra attack when equipped alongside a shield. So there's only any point in putting them on the spear guys.

4 spear + 2 sword & board guys = 308. Adding 4 misericordias on the spear guys it comes to 320

**JNAProductions**

Arson Fire wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
That gets you 24 attacks total, which IS more than the BGV get hits. But that does increase the cost to 372. So two S&B plus three Spear with the extra weapon are...

Did I goof my math? I did-the Guard are (the six man, no extras) are 308. 332 with the extras.

Actually only 22 attacks. Misericordias don't grant an extra attack when equipped alongside a shield. So there's only any point in putting them on the spear guys.

4 spear + 2 sword & board guys = 308. Adding 4 misericordias on the spear guys it comes to 320

I’m just goofing everything, aren’t I?

Thank you for the knowledge.

**SemperMortis**

Mr Morden wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Galas wrote:
As an ogre/minotaur player in fantasy/aos and custodes in 40k I'll admit that I love my infantry with a good bunch of wounds. And yeah, those armies work because they are the exceptions not the baseline. But whats the problem with the baseline of the game being heavy infantry with 2 wounds and squishy one with 1 (Ignoring all the variances , inmortals are 1w but in no way squishy), barring GW bad rules and codex release cicle?

No the Baseline for each faction is the standard line infantry.

Imperium: Guard
Orks: Boyz
Tyranids: Gaunts
Dark Eldar: Kabalites
Tau: Fire Warriors
Necrons: Warriors
etc
Marines are elite special forces.

So Space Marines aren't their own faction and fall under Codex "Imperium"? Interesting, i was unaware of this.
The reality is, you can play semantic games to your hearts content, but SM's are the most common faction in the game, and their "line" infantry is Tacs and intercessors.

Yes you can play semantics as you are doing
Notice I Said IMPERIUM Not Marines as Marines are elite forces in the IMPERIUM.
Marine are just one small element of the Imperial war machine.

There are three ways to view this argument.

1: from the perspective of what is most common in the actual game. SM are the baseline.
2: From the perspective of what is most common in each army within the game. SM are most common and basic tacs/intercessors are baseline.
and finally 3: Lumping something like 50% of all the codex's in the game into 1 super faction and than comparing them to everyone else in a fluff perspective as opposed to a useful game perspective and saying "see, IG are the most populous in the fluff therefore they are the baseline".
You chose 3. Nobody else cares what the fluff says, we were talking about the actual game.

**NinthMusketeer**

My two cents is that when playing against marines the new stats are cool and makes them feel tough, elite, and generally awesome like they should. Taking down a unit of them is satisfying.

What makes me not want to play against them anymore is seeing just how much extra they get. It starts with chapter tactics that are just plain better than the equivalent faction bonuses from my codex. Then they get doctrines as a significant bonus on top of that, compared to my... nothing. Then they have twice as many stratagems to use, plus even more from whatever flavor of supplement is augmenting them. I am left feeling like my opponent might well as have a 25-50% points bonus because my points are worth less than a space marine's. It's extremely discouraging, unfun, and I can see why people quit 40k over it.

**jdouglas**

I think it makes sense, lore wise, since SM have undergone all of those troublesome surgical/genetic alterations (2 hearts, therefore 2 wounds).

**catbarf**

jdouglas wrote:
I think it makes sense, lore wise, since SM have undergone all of those troublesome surgical/genetic alterations (2 hearts, therefore 2 wounds).

Lore-wise, an Ork is a fungal mass with no discernible vital organs, so they're extremely difficult to kill. Don't need two hearts if you don't have a heart in the first place.

Lore-wise, a Tyranid Gaunt has multiply-redundant vital organs to ensure that they can keep functioning until totally obliterated.

Lore-wise, Drukhari Wracks have all sorts of unpredictable organ-grafting such that no two are the same, and relocating one's vital organs is practically a rite of passage in Haemonculus culture.

There are a lot of things with valid lore arguments to be tougher than humans; that's why the Toughness stat exists. Wounds were originally meant to represent plot armor for characters and really significant durability for larger-than-humanoid things, but now it's more or less redundant to Toughness and used interchangeably. Why's a Primaris T4/W2 but an Immortal is T5/W1? Who knows.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Except we have people here, including me, saying Orks would be great at W2

**catbarf**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except we have people here, including me, saying Orks would be great at W2

That's not solving an imbalance so much as just adding to the inconsistency.

Would Orks be bumped down to T3? Or would they be T4 and W2? If W2 represents how much harder to kill they are than a human, what does the T4 represent?

Should everything else that's harder to kill than a human be W2 as well? Aren't those all T4+ already? Should there not be anything T4/W1? How do we decide what should switch and what shouldn't?

Why is a Plague Marine soon to be T5/W2? Why not T4/W3? When should something be high-T-low-W and vice versa?

What the feth do these stats mean?

**SemperMortis**

And that doesn't even get into the fact that GW would than most likely incorrectly price that wound. Either by giving it a similar value to that of SM's I.E. 3pts extra or by going above and beyond and jumping them 5+ points at which point Ork boyz as a unit are dead as a horde and now rely on grotz to fill min requirements for a battalion in order to get more useful things that can actually kill enemies.

Friendly reminder, as of right now, it takes 31 Shoota shots or 16 Ork boyz shooting, to kill 1 TAC Space Marine in the shooting phase. ATM that is 128pts to kill 18pts. If you give them a 2nd wound and jump their value up to 11 or 13pts than the math goes up to 176-208pts to kill 1 Tac Marine. In CC Those same boyz only inflict 3.55dmg to a Marine.

While I do agree ork boyz are going to need a hefty durability boost to exist in the same meta as SM's currently do, I don't trust GW to correctly value that 2nd wound or T5 or hell, even giving them an army wide 6+ FNP that can be boosted by Painboyz.

**vipoid**

Following on from what catbarf said, it strikes me that we have three different values to represent a model's durability (toughness, wounds, and save), but no value to represent how difficult a model is to hit.

**Void__Dragon**

catbarf wrote:

Lore-wise, an Ork is a fungal mass with no discernible vital organs, so they're extremely difficult to kill. Don't need two hearts if you don't have a heart in the first place.

And get punched to death by Marines one on one with little effort.

Lore-wise, a Tyranid Gaunt has multiply-redundant vital organs to ensure that they can keep functioning until totally obliterated.

And get punched to death by Marines one on one with even less effort.

Lore-wise, Drukhari Wracks have all sorts of unpredictable organ-grafting such that no two are the same, and relocating one's vital organs is practically a rite of passage in Haemonculus culture.

All right I'll be honest, I have literally never once in my life read any fluff containing a Wrack, so you've got me here.

Do you see the difference? An Ork Boy is harder to inflict a grievous wound on than a human due to their robust physiology. But when something like a Marine does so, they tend to immediately die, and get cut down by the dozen.

This isn't typically the case when Marines fight each other. Marines are practically tougher than Ork Boys, per the fluff, especially since the extra wound seems to come with placing such a durable chassis inside of powered armour.

Making those units more durable and elite also doesn't fit the look of the army at all. Gaunts are a wave of chitinous monsters who drown you in sheer numbers. Orks are the same.

Marines are few in number but a daunting challenge each. Every Marine is a hero in their own right.

The problem isn't more wounds, the problem is that they're pointed way too efficiently for what you get throughout most of the codex. Marines are broken, and the more I see of the new codex the more I realize how fething stupid the codex is despite having some token nerfs here and there. Space Marines should be elite and hard to kill, but they should be outnumbered far more than they currently are.

**Galas**

catbarf wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except we have people here, including me, saying Orks would be great at W2

That's not solving an imbalance so much as just adding to the inconsistency.

Would Orks be bumped down to T3? Or would they be T4 and W2? If W2 represents how much harder to kill they are than a human, what does the T4 represent?

Should everything else that's harder to kill than a human be W2 as well? Aren't those all T4+ already? Should there not be anything T4/W1? How do we decide what should switch and what shouldn't?

Why is a Plague Marine soon to be T5/W2? Why not T4/W3? When should something be high-T-low-W and vice versa?

What the feth do these stats mean?

I always understand T as how hard is something to wound and the wounds the ammount of punishement it can take before going down.

For example, both Boyz and Nobz are equally hard to wound. Nobz don't have harder muscles or skin than boyz, but they are larger and take more punishement. Wounding a Plague Marine is harder than a normal marine basically because he's rotten flesh, and then he can take even more punishement (Represented in this case by their FNP not by having more wounds, so even another layer). In this case the same can be said about Wracks, they chosed to represent their durability with an invulnerable save, a little extrange but eeeh I can accept it.

Now, stats are just too small to represent the broad narrative difference in all the models in the game, just like a S4 Catachan isn't as strong as a S4 ork or a S4 marine by fluff. Probably a normal human would be T3, a Gaunt T3,4 an ork boyz 3,8T a space marine T4, but this isn't an RPG. Is a Wargame with stats that should translate some sense of fluff adderence but be ultimately made to be balanced. Having everyone with 1 wound and characters with 2-3 can work, it worked in Fantasy. In 40k ... it kinda worked because stufff like instant death was trash, and instead of removing it they added things like eternal warriors in typical GW way of fixing errors with bandages.