Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Galas wrote:
I have to say for example in Fantasy stats were more arbitrary. You had empire captains with F4 and T4 for... no reason whatsoever, and characters or elite units with more strenght and toughtness without being physically different and nobody saw that as something strange.

Canoness used to be S5 T5 lol.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I have to say for example in Fantasy stats were more arbitrary. You had empire captains with F4 and T4 for... no reason whatsoever, and characters or elite units with more strenght and toughtness without being physically different and nobody saw that as something strange.

Canoness used to be S5 T5 lol.

Hell, basic SoB used to be T4.

Well, there's only three choices for infantry Toughness right now, and only five choices for armor.

The main problem with wounds creep (e.g. W4 infantry, with mega awesome infantry being W5, etc) is the required damage escalation.

Lascannons need now to be like 3+d6 damage to reliably one-shot a W4 meganob or terminator. That means Leman Russ tanks need to be like 20 wounds to have similar durability and Knights need like 40-50...

and we are moving into a world where damage is the only important stat. Lasguns are useless in a world of W3 and W4 infantry. In fact, I am beginning to question even rolling for lasguns in a W2 power armor environment. It takes SO MUCH TIME and does basically nothing.

And that is the problem. There were 2 solutions to the "lethality problem" - make stuff more durable, or reduce the amount of murder.

Reducing the amount of murder speeds the gameplay up, but slows the rate of death (leaving more alive at the end). This badly exposes the problem of IGOUGO where the first guy on the objective doesn't die and therefore wins.

However, increasing durability slows gameplay down (hold on, let me fire my 130 lasgun shots... Ok, 3 marines dead. Only 57 more to go...) but doesn't slow the rate of death meaningfully (heavy bolters are D2, people bring anti-MEQ) which means all we have done is made gameplay a slog. Mark my words, by the end of the edition, marines will not feel durable anymore, but D1 weapons will still be worthless also.

gibbindefs wrote:
You still don't get it. They aren't both "how hard a thing is to kill." Toughness and Wounds are completely different. Toughness is what strength of weapon is required to wound the creature. Wounds is how wounded can the creature get before it can no longer fight.

In every post so far I've acknowledged that this distinction is the usual explanation given, and then provided examples for why in practice it doesn't actually match up with the stats we see. Things often have high T when their durability doesn't actually come from being more resistant to fire, and things that in the lore can keep fighting after sustaining grievous injury still end up as T3/W1 or T4/W1 anyways.

If the stats we see don't actually reflect that distinction between strength of weapon required to wound and amount of damage they can sustain, our choices are either:
1. GW is so completely incompetent that for 30+ years they've never recognized misapplication of their own stat model, or
2. In practice, those stats aren't actually meant that literally, and a Plague Marine being T5/W1 has never actually literally meant that rotten flesh is somehow less physically damaged by bullets, or that Plague Marines are no better able to sustain wounds than a normal unaugmented human is.

gibbindefs wrote:
The difference between T3 and T4 is that you need a stronger attack to wound them. An example: You have a full grown man and a toddler, you punch each of them on the arm, full force. The full grown man might get a bruise or he might just feel a stinging pain for a couple seconds, whereas the baby will probably have its bone broken or have massive bruises and internal injuries. The same attack had different chances of wounding them, based on how tough they were. This is how Toughness stat works. Wounds is how much damage they can sustain before going down. You don't reach wounds until after you bypass toughness. The example above, the full grown man didn't get wounded at all but the baby did. If there were a metal baseball bat involved then they would have both probably been wounded because the strength of the attack would have been much higher.

Given that ordinary S3 lasguns kill Orks just fine- once you accumulate enough attrition on them- I'll take this as a point for T3/W2 Orks.

gibbindefs wrote:
An Ork has Toughness 4 because he is tougher to WOUND than a human.

See above, and I am happy to provide textual references. Orks are regularly zapped to death with lasguns, blown open by bolters, and killed with bayonets by regular humans in hand-to-hand, all depicted very similarly to when humans are on the receiving end. They don't seem any appreciably tougher to wound than a human; they just keep going even after sustaining massive trauma.

gibbindefs wrote:
You can't just arbitrarily change the stat balance of things. Are vehicles just going to be Toughness 15 and only have 1 wound? How about a Carnifex, Toughness 3 with 15 wounds? It doesn't make sense this way and is inconsistent with how the combat system has worked.

You are so close to getting it. You're right, it would be less game-effective to have vehicles at absurdly high T but very low W, and Carnifexes at low T with very high W, wouldn't it? In fact, both have very similar combat profiles in the real game, despite being very different conceptually. Carnifexes in the fluff are regularly brought down by weight of fire from small arms (low-T/high-W), while vehicles need heavy weapons but can be knocked out in very few hits (high-T/low-W). Clearly this isn't actually how they're modeled in-game.

So what does this tell you about the validity and consistency of the supposed 'T = hard to hurt, W = amount of hurt' paradigm? And what does this tell you about how GW designs statlines, as far as rigidly applying their stat model to the lore versus designing for gameplay effect? Do you think they sat down with a stack of Carnifex references in the fluff and used those to objectively assess what strength of weapon is required to wound them and how wounded they can get before they can no longer fight, or did they just start with a tank profile because that's its gameplay role and go from there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I have to say for example in Fantasy stats were more arbitrary. You had empire captains with F4 and T4 for... no reason whatsoever, and characters or elite units with more strenght and toughtness without being physically different and nobody saw that as something strange.

Perfect example right there. Higher T made characters to be a little less likely to be chopped down by rank-and-file, while still dying to cannonballs to the face. It was never in the lore that Empire Captains were downing enough steroids to make them comparably tough to Orcs.

That's design for effect, and that's how it should be, and people don't really notice those things as long as they play well. But as soon as someone has a lore argument for why [thing] should be better, suddenly these stats are treated as ISO Standard measurements and are expected to line up 1:1 with the fluff.

Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

The difference can't be that large going from S3 AP0 -> S4 AP0. The authors are paid to tell stories and sell books, so I don't think their input is useful in a game. GW needs to write a definitive history to be a stand in for real-life history in historical games. Panzer III's don't magically become better than IS-2's in an edition change because we have battle records and such to refute this idea. GW needs a definitive equipment hierarchy that game devs are compelled to follow.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

You're basically agreeing with me, in a roundabout way: lore is inconsistent and often biased by perspective or authorial fiat, so shouldn't be taken as game design gospel.

That's been my main point, far removed from it as we are. This argument over exactly how lore translates into game stats, and whether there actually is a consistent model for doing so, is an offshoot.

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

You're basically agreeing with me, in a roundabout way: lore is inconsistent and often biased by perspective or authorial fiat, so shouldn't be taken as game design gospel.

That's been my main point, far removed from it as we are. This argument over exactly how lore translates into game stats, and whether there actually is a consistent model for doing so, is an offshoot.

Great, so for some slight consistency we should have W2 Marines and Orks. Thanks for playing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Great, so for some slight consistency we should have W2 Marines and Orks. Thanks for playing.

Nope. For greater consistency and better gameplay we should have W1 Marines and Orks.

If you want to keep restating the same opinions without adding any argument we can do this all day.

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Great, so for some slight consistency we should have W2 Marines and Orks. Thanks for playing.

Nope. For greater consistency and better gameplay we should have W1 Marines and Orks.

If you want to keep restating the same opinions without adding any argument we can do this all day.

How are W1 Orks better gameplay when it doesn't reflect their toughness in lore?

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

You're basically agreeing with me, in a roundabout way: lore is inconsistent and often biased by perspective or authorial fiat, so shouldn't be taken as game design gospel.

That's been my main point, far removed from it as we are. This argument over exactly how lore translates into game stats, and whether there actually is a consistent model for doing so, is an offshoot.

When lore fails - look to real life. A rapid fire grendade launcher (bolter 70mm) kills even intrenched infantry in swaths and tee shirts don't actually offer any protection against laser beams. But armor plates actaully do offer protection against a number of weapons depending on how thick it is. A quarter inch steel plate can stop a standard rifle round. An inch thick plate (like a marine) is basically impervious to rifle rounds and requires anti tank firepower to penetrate.

Lets get real here. A space marine is a hand picked human specimen which receives gene enhancements/and exoskeleton and special organs which basically turn it into a bipedal silverback gorilla. Are we honestly saying that a 180 lb human should have the same T and wounds value as a 700 lb gorilla in 1inch plate armor? No. Just stop.

Marine hate is disgusting. It is rampant on dakka. What always makes me wonder how so many players of 40k hate the protagonist so much they belittle them to be useless and thereby make their favorite factions even more pathetic as a result. Marines win a lot of battles.

I think the second wound is necessary to differentiate primaris marines from other units. It just turns out that its so much more effective than T or Sv that they felt compelled to give it to oldbois I guess.

As I stated in the other thread, chaos should have been given the second wound because *chaos* and leave loyalist oldbois at one.

"the protagonist so much they belittle them to be useless"

Marines didn't start off the protagonist. But players have been conditioned to expect marines to be scooped up wholesale by the flavor of the edition. It's too bad GW went overboard in 9th.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

You're basically agreeing with me, in a roundabout way: lore is inconsistent and often biased by perspective or authorial fiat, so shouldn't be taken as game design gospel.

That's been my main point, far removed from it as we are. This argument over exactly how lore translates into game stats, and whether there actually is a consistent model for doing so, is an offshoot.

When lore fails - look to real life. A rapid fire grendade launcher (bolter 70mm) kills even intrenched infantry in swaths and tee shirts don't actually offer any protection against laser beams. But armor plates actaully do offer protection against a number of weapons depending on how thick it is. A quarter inch steel plate can stop a standard rifle round. An inch thick plate (like a marine) is basically impervious to rifle rounds and requires anti tank firepower to penetrate.

Lets get real here. A space marine is a hand picked human specimen which receives gene enhancements/and exoskeleton and special organs which basically turn it into a bipedal silverback gorilla. Are we honestly saying that a 180 lb human should have the same T and wounds value as a 700 lb gorilla in 1inch plate armor? No. Just stop.

Marine hate is disgusting. It is rampant on dakka. What always makes me wonder how so many players of 40k hate the protagonist so much they belittle them to be useless and thereby make their favorite factions even more pathetic as a result. Marines win a lot of battles.

Has anyone said the Marines should be T3? Or 5+?

Or are you making that up?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

You're basically agreeing with me, in a roundabout way: lore is inconsistent and often biased by perspective or authorial fiat, so shouldn't be taken as game design gospel.

That's been my main point, far removed from it as we are. This argument over exactly how lore translates into game stats, and whether there actually is a consistent model for doing so, is an offshoot.

When lore fails - look to real life. A rapid fire grendade launcher (bolter 70mm) kills even intrenched infantry in swaths and tee shirts don't actually offer any protection against laser beams. But armor plates actaully do offer protection against a number of weapons depending on how thick it is. A quarter inch steel plate can stop a standard rifle round. An inch thick plate (like a marine) is basically impervious to rifle rounds and requires anti tank firepower to penetrate.

Lets get real here. A space marine is a hand picked human specimen which receives gene enhancements/and exoskeleton and special organs which basically turn it into a bipedal silverback gorilla. Are we honestly saying that a 180 lb human should have the same T and wounds value as a 700 lb gorilla in 1inch plate armor? No. Just stop.

Marine hate is disgusting. It is rampant on dakka. What always makes me wonder how so many players of 40k hate the protagonist so much they belittle them to be useless and thereby make their favorite factions even more pathetic as a result. Marines win a lot of battles.

Has anyone said the Marines should be T3? Or 5+?

Or are you making that up?

This thread is literally called - I don't think marines should have 2 wounds. It is a direct statement that marines should be less durable. Tired of it. 1 w marines sucked hells balls for the entirety of 40k.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

You're basically agreeing with me, in a roundabout way: lore is inconsistent and often biased by perspective or authorial fiat, so shouldn't be taken as game design gospel.

That's been my main point, far removed from it as we are. This argument over exactly how lore translates into game stats, and whether there actually is a consistent model for doing so, is an offshoot.

When lore fails - look to real life. A rapid fire grendade launcher (bolter 70mm) kills even intrenched infantry in swaths and tee shirts don't actually offer any protection against laser beams. But armor plates actaully do offer protection against a number of weapons depending on how thick it is. A quarter inch steel plate can stop a standard rifle round. An inch thick plate (like a marine) is basically impervious to rifle rounds and requires anti tank firepower to penetrate.

Lets get real here. A space marine is a hand picked human specimen which receives gene enhancements/and exoskeleton and special organs which basically turn it into a bipedal silverback gorilla. Are we honestly saying that a 180 lb human should have the same T and wounds value as a 700 lb gorilla in 1inch plate armor? No. Just stop.

Marine hate is disgusting. It is rampant on dakka. What always makes me wonder how so many players of 40k hate the protagonist so much they belittle them to be useless and thereby make their favorite factions even more pathetic as a result. Marines win a lot of battles.

Has anyone said the Marines should be T3? Or 5+?

Or are you making that up?

Some people prefer the Rogue Trader iteration apparently, which was T3 and not super human, so you're actually not far off the mark.

Or that they are paying too little for their second wound. But no, the oldbois shouldn't have two wounds.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

You're basically agreeing with me, in a roundabout way: lore is inconsistent and often biased by perspective or authorial fiat, so shouldn't be taken as game design gospel.

That's been my main point, far removed from it as we are. This argument over exactly how lore translates into game stats, and whether there actually is a consistent model for doing so, is an offshoot.

When lore fails - look to real life. A rapid fire grendade launcher (bolter 70mm) kills even intrenched infantry in swaths and tee shirts don't actually offer any protection against laser beams. But armor plates actaully do offer protection against a number of weapons depending on how thick it is. A quarter inch steel plate can stop a standard rifle round. An inch thick plate (like a marine) is basically impervious to rifle rounds and requires anti tank firepower to penetrate.

Lets get real here. A space marine is a hand picked human specimen which receives gene enhancements/and exoskeleton and special organs which basically turn it into a bipedal silverback gorilla. Are we honestly saying that a 180 lb human should have the same T and wounds value as a 700 lb gorilla in 1inch plate armor? No. Just stop.

Marine hate is disgusting. It is rampant on dakka. What always makes me wonder how so many players of 40k hate the protagonist so much they belittle them to be useless and thereby make their favorite factions even more pathetic as a result. Marines win a lot of battles.

Has anyone said the Marines should be T3? Or 5+?

Or are you making that up?

This thread is literally called - I don't think marines should have 2 wounds. It is a direct statement that marines should be less durable. Tired of it. 1 w marines sucked hells balls for the entirety of 40k.

Marines are pretty blatantly OP right now.

And I, for one, am fine with 2W Marines. But, two things should be done if they are to stay that way:

1) Other models should get the same treatment. Ork Boys, for instance.
2) Marines should pay appropriate prices for their performance. They currently are not.

Besides, even at 1W, they're a hell of a lot more durable than Guardsmen. T4 3+ is more durable against literally anything short of a Melta Gun than T3 5+. And if you get cover? T4 3+ is STILL more durable against a Melta than T3 5+.

"Besides, even at 1W, they're a hell of a lot more durable than Guardsmen. "

Not more durable per point though. That's where it all falls apart. Model by model is EASY in comparison.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

You're basically agreeing with me, in a roundabout way: lore is inconsistent and often biased by perspective or authorial fiat, so shouldn't be taken as game design gospel.

That's been my main point, far removed from it as we are. This argument over exactly how lore translates into game stats, and whether there actually is a consistent model for doing so, is an offshoot.

When lore fails - look to real life. A rapid fire grendade launcher (bolter 70mm) kills even intrenched infantry in swaths and tee shirts don't actually offer any protection against laser beams. But armor plates actaully do offer protection against a number of weapons depending on how thick it is. A quarter inch steel plate can stop a standard rifle round. An inch thick plate (like a marine) is basically impervious to rifle rounds and requires anti tank firepower to penetrate.

Lets get real here. A space marine is a hand picked human specimen which receives gene enhancements/and exoskeleton and special organs which basically turn it into a bipedal silverback gorilla. Are we honestly saying that a 180 lb human should have the same T and wounds value as a 700 lb gorilla in 1inch plate armor? No. Just stop.

Marine hate is disgusting. It is rampant on dakka. What always makes me wonder how so many players of 40k hate the protagonist so much they belittle them to be useless and thereby make their favorite factions even more pathetic as a result. Marines win a lot of battles.

Has anyone said the Marines should be T3? Or 5+?

Or are you making that up?

This thread is literally called - I don't think marines should have 2 wounds. It is a direct statement that marines should be less durable. Tired of it. 1 w marines sucked hells balls for the entirety of 40k.

Marines are pretty blatantly OP right now.

And I, for one, am fine with 2W Marines. But, two things should be done if they are to stay that way:

1) Other models should get the same treatment. Ork Boys, for instance.
2) Marines should pay appropriate prices for their performance. They currently are not.

Besides, even at 1W, they're a hell of a lot more durable than Guardsmen. T4 3+ is more durable against literally anything short of a Melta Gun than T3 5+. And if you get cover? T4 3+ is STILL more durable against a Melta than T3 5+.

Marines are OP for other reasons. They pay a fair amount of points for their durability.
They are OP because of over generous core keywords compared to crons and being 1 of 2 9th edition codex released of of what 25 codex?

IMO though mini marines should not have gotten a 2nd wound but a point decrease. At 12 points a mini marine with 1 wound woulda have been fine. Now all the specialist like stren and devs are now 2x as durable to small arms...yeah...that is OP. Because the points is off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SecondTime wrote:
"Besides, even at 1W, they're a hell of a lot more durable than Guardsmen. "

Not more durable per point though. That's where it all falls apart. Model by model is EASY in comparison.

Even less durable vs heavy firepower on points return. As in less durable. In other words a waste of points.

"They pay a fair amount of points for their durability."

No, they don't. They are paying 9ppw for T4 3+. Not to mention mortal wounds only removing 9 points a pop.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Great, so for some slight consistency we should have W2 Marines and Orks. Thanks for playing.

Nope. For greater consistency and better gameplay we should have W1 Marines and Orks.

If you want to keep restating the same opinions without adding any argument we can do this all day.

How are W1 Orks better gameplay when it doesn't reflect their toughness in lore?

T4 vs T3 is enough for Orks and Marines. Extra wound is unnecessary. T4 means a unit suffers 2/3 the wounds from S3 fire, or is 50% more durable. Good enough.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Great, so for some slight consistency we should have W2 Marines and Orks. Thanks for playing.

Nope. For greater consistency and better gameplay we should have W1 Marines and Orks.

If you want to keep restating the same opinions without adding any argument we can do this all day.

How are W1 Orks better gameplay when it doesn't reflect their toughness in lore?

T4 vs T3 is enough for Orks and Marines. Extra wound is unnecessary.

Not in the era of weapon damage.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Marine hate is disgusting. It is rampant on dakka.

Marine hate is the most disgusting kind of hate.





I really hate marines. I hate them so much that I hope they kick their bolters on the morning and feel pain in their toes all day! Seriously though, where do you think kind of hate (TOES HURTING!) comes from, Xenomancer?

GW doubles and triples and quadruples down on marines. Especially recently.

SecondTime wrote:
Not in the era of weapon damage.

Weapon damage literally doesn't change anything to the durability of 1W models. Except with FNP I guess...

SecondTime wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Great, so for some slight consistency we should have W2 Marines and Orks. Thanks for playing.

Nope. For greater consistency and better gameplay we should have W1 Marines and Orks.

If you want to keep restating the same opinions without adding any argument we can do this all day.

How are W1 Orks better gameplay when it doesn't reflect their toughness in lore?

T4 vs T3 is enough for Orks and Marines. Extra wound is unnecessary.

Not in the era of weapon damage.

weapon damage doesnt mean a thing if they're both 1w like they should be.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Not in the era of weapon damage.

Weapon damage literally doesn't change anything to the durability of 1W models. Except with FNP I guess...

Didn't say it did. But it creates design space that should probably be used to create more meaningful differences between models. The downside being that the units are even harder to cost, which is the last thing GW needs.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ordinary Lasguns killing Orks just fine? Thats just silly Lasgun porn and shouldn't be looked at for any serious game discussion.

Or does this just apply to Bolters?

You're basically agreeing with me, in a roundabout way: lore is inconsistent and often biased by perspective or authorial fiat, so shouldn't be taken as game design gospel.

That's been my main point, far removed from it as we are. This argument over exactly how lore translates into game stats, and whether there actually is a consistent model for doing so, is an offshoot.

When lore fails - look to real life. A rapid fire grendade launcher (bolter 70mm) kills even intrenched infantry in swaths and tee shirts don't actually offer any protection against laser beams. But armor plates actaully do offer protection against a number of weapons depending on how thick it is. A quarter inch steel plate can stop a standard rifle round. An inch thick plate (like a marine) is basically impervious to rifle rounds and requires anti tank firepower to penetrate.

Lets get real here. A space marine is a hand picked human specimen which receives gene enhancements/and exoskeleton and special organs which basically turn it into a bipedal silverback gorilla. Are we honestly saying that a 180 lb human should have the same T and wounds value as a 700 lb gorilla in 1inch plate armor? No. Just stop.

Marine hate is disgusting. It is rampant on dakka. What always makes me wonder how so many players of 40k hate the protagonist so much they belittle them to be useless and thereby make their favorite factions even more pathetic as a result. Marines win a lot of battles.

No marine hate here. They've been my primary army for over 20 years.

Maybe an elite army requires better generals though. . . .

It's always been the starter army though. That was hard to play against players in the know. Not a good combo in many ways.