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.

 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. T4 means a unit suffers 2/3 the wounds from S3 fire, or is 50% more durable. Good enough.

Except you're blatantly saying Orks are fine being wounded on a 5+ by a Lasgun and then just dying. Thats not appropriate for the lore at all.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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?

I imagine it comes from all kinds of places. Mainly people bored of playing against marines and envious of their model releases.

My advice - find some friends who play more than just marine armies. Maybe get a marine army for yourself so you can also get excited when new releases come out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 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.

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

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

Yes but you are a known primaris hater. I can't respect that. For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies. The tactical marine has always been bad too. I play lots of other armies now.

Marines suffered from their own success.

If a more normal army (specifically Imperial Guard) were the "line" faction, and everyone took flamers to kill blobs of light infantry and krak grenades / lascannons to kill medium tanks and heavy vehicles, then Space Marines would have shone.

However, SM were a "one trick pony" list when it came to their durability - 3+ armor, and that's it. The vehicles were so light that you could kill them with anything you fired at the infantry, so as long as you had the tools to mulch 3+, you could mulch marines.

This meant that, as marines grew in the number of people playing them, then the number of people spamming anti-3+ solutions went up. What's worse is that these options still have to be competitively priced since Imperial Guard, Tyranids, etc didn't stop existing, so you could still spam the anti-3+ weapons.

Now? To solve this problem, Marines are going to 2 wounds. Only, this doesn't solve the problem, because Marines are a one-trick pony still. What needs to happen is either:
1) Marines stop being so common in the meta
or
2) Marines need to be an actual army, with a wide variety of statlines varying like Nids do. Otherwise, take any multi-damage weapon that's good against T4 3+ saves and you've got the marines pegged, whether it's Gravis, Primaris, oldboi, Predator, or Repulsorthing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How are W1 Orks better gameplay when it doesn't reflect their toughness in lore?

In lore, Orks are frequently depicted as attacking in tidal waves of green. This imagery shows up again and again, from the Dawn of War intro to Fifteen Hours to any of the Ciaphas Cain novels. To reflect the lore in broad strokes, it is best for Orks to be individually more durable than humans but still able to be fielded in large numbers. Giving Orks a multi-wound statline like Marines would necessitate driving up their price and immediately turn them into an elite army, which is contrary to the lore.

From a purely gameplay standpoint, it would also increase their vulnerability to multi-wound weapons. While T3/W2 is a potential option to avoid pricing them out excessively, it increases their vulnerability to D2 weapons. With D2, low-AP weapons being the optimal profile for killing Marines, this would put Orks in the odd position of being hard-countered by the same weapons that kill Marines effectively.

Keeping them at T4/W1 allows them to be tougher than Guardsmen, while still retaining numbers. It also biases them towards offensive output (particularly in melee), which fits well the theme of trying to kill them at range before they can get close. It encourages them to get stuck in and maximize their damage.

More generally speaking, W2 infantry create unintuitive breakpoints that can make a game extremely frustrating depending upon the weapon access of the opposing army. Those with widespread access to D2 weapons can kill them easily and yield a lot of points, while those with primarily D1 weapons struggle to inflict any damage. It further devalues troops with D1 weapons, while allowing anti-meta skew lists to mitigate the ostensible increased durability. Allowing for tough and/or heavily armored W1 models provides the design space for units that are cheap enough not to be efficient targets for multi-damage heavy weapons, while still being resilient to common D1 weapons that lack the Strength or AP to mitigate their defensive profile. This is, of course, contingent on not giving out lots of AP to everyone and everything.

If consistency is necessary, I'd much rather see Marines brought down to W1 than every other race that thinks 'hey, I'm supposed to be as tough as them!' also brought up to W2. It makes for a much more solid design space when D1/D2 can be used as a hard breakpoint to distinguish anti-infantry weapons from anti-vehicle weapons.

If Orks need to be more durable- objectively, not just to be like Marines- I'd be completely fine with seeing them taken up to T5. That would increase their durability against bolters and heavy bolters (and analogues), without bumping up their price too far, and without lots of undesirable knock-on effects elsewhere.

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.

T4/W1/3+ Marines at 15pts apiece are 4.5 times harder to kill with lasgun fire and 4 times harder to kill with bolter fire than 5pt Guardsmen, while costing 3 times more. Against S5 they're just as durable as Guardsmen and at S6-7 they're tougher than Guardsmen again.

It's against AP-1 and up that they lose that efficiency- although they can recover it to a degree by getting in cover. So if you feel W1 Marines are too easy to kill, the ubiquity of moderate AP is where you need to look. It's the #1 factor in Marines- and vehicles, and anything else with a 3+ save- feeling like they're made of glass.

Edit: And as Unit noted, this is also partly a factor of everyone optimizing to kill Marines, so the most-commonly-fielded weapons are the ones that counter them most effectively. Being W2 is cool until you run into an army that's all overcharged plasma and heavy bolters, and suddenly all your second Wound does is give up more points when you die.

There's nothing broken about a W2 Ork at the current price point though, or otherwise you'd have to concede that many T3 5+ models are too cheap per wound.

"4.5 times harder to kill with lasgun fire and 4 times harder to kill with bolter fire than 5pt Guardsmen, while costing 3 times more. "

That's not hugely impressive, and once you get to mortal wounds or any kind of non-basic weapon, it does down the drain FAST. People dont' want 80% of the game to be AP 0, so this analysis is largely academic. One wound marines are more fragile per point than guardsmen, even BEFORE expensive marine gear. Once you put gear on them, they bleed points incredibly fast. GW could have used this to push oldbois out of the game. Instead, we get super tiny marines.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except you're blatantly saying Orks are fine being wounded on a 5+ by a Lasgun and then just dying. Thats not appropriate for the lore at all.

Ciaphas Cain killed an Ork Warboss with a single laspistol shot through the eye.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except you're blatantly saying Orks are fine being wounded on a 5+ by a Lasgun and then just dying. Thats not appropriate for the lore at all.

If we want to take the game system completely literally, I will happily find you excerpts of Orks getting one-shotted by lasguns or bolters blowing their heads open, and then write a paragraph about how a bolter shot being completely unable to kill a W2 Ork doesn't fit the lore. I can even double-feature it with some speculation as to why someone would be so pedantic as to think that a single 'shot' in game terms actually literally means exactly one shot on a full-auto recoilless laser assault rifle, and perform some statistical analysis as to whether a 33% incapacitation rate matches with lore sources or not.

Design for effect. This is not a simulation.

I have readquired a liking for Fantasy 1 wound model with no damage stat for most weapons (With a couple having multi damage for each wound inflicted).

The problem I see with that stuff in 40k is basically that the broad range of units in 40k is much much bigger than in Fantasy. Going from a goblin to a dragon is big, but not as big as going from a gretchin to a Imperial Knight or Primarch, specially with Fantasy dragons being in the smaller side and not Smaug size side.
In Fantasy you had orc boyz and then black orcs but in 40k you have orcs and nobz that are substantially bigger and then you have meganobz and tyranid warriors and tyranid tyrant guard and terminators and centurions and custodes and a ton of different infantry units that cannot have 1 wound when in fantasy outside ogres and ogre sized units like trolls and Ushabti you just didnt had that variety, and most of those units had drawback rules (Something no longer exists in modern AoS or 40k. Only positive stuff!).

And weapons were normal weapons. Swords, spears, axes, bows, crossbows, outside magical weapons for characters and heroes. You didnt had a Imperial state troop armed with a melta rifle capable of one shoting Archaon the Everchosen.

I really believe 40K needs to expand the use of the stats to add much more variety of profiles to the game. That doesnt need to be only wounds. A redone of the "To Wound" table and actually using Toughtness, from 3 to maybe 10 even 12 instead of just 3-8, the same for Strenght, would also help. I now afterCatbarf has pointed it out with such elocuence have started to think about if we up wounds, how to make infantry with 1 damage weapons relevant without just giving them more shots and starting again the same problem.
Maybe making the To Wound table much bigger with interactions of 6/4+ , 6/5+ etc... to wound would help much more, like in the LOTR game.

Slayer-Fan123 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. T4 means a unit suffers 2/3 the wounds from S3 fire, or is 50% more durable. Good enough.

Except you're blatantly saying Orks are fine being wounded on a 5+ by a Lasgun and then just dying. Thats not appropriate for the lore at all.

Right, because 2/3s of lasgun hits simply do nothing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:There's nothing broken about a W2 Ork at the current price point though, or otherwise you'd have to concede that many T3 5+ models are too cheap per wound.

'Concede'? I will happily argue that many T3 5+ models are too cheap per wound. Get Guardsmen back up to 6ppm and a whole host of other one-wound models start looking more attractive in comparison, not least of which W1 Tacticals.

SecondTime wrote:"4.5 times harder to kill with lasgun fire and 4 times harder to kill with bolter fire than 5pt Guardsmen, while costing 3 times more. "

That's not hugely impressive, and once you get to mortal wounds or any kind of non-basic weapon, it does down the drain FAST. People dont' want 80% of the game to be AP 0, so this analysis is largely academic. One wound marines are more fragile per point than guardsmen, even BEFORE expensive marine gear. Once you put gear on them, they bleed points incredibly fast. GW could have used this to push oldbois out of the game. Instead, we get super tiny marines.

It's better efficiency, it doesn't need to be hugely impressive. And yes, you are illustrating my point: the game is largely driven by mortal wounds and special weapons, and the proliferation of both diminishes the value of the Marine statline. Again, Marines being the most common army means everyone tailors to kill Marines. Whatever their vulnerability is, it will be exploited. The best way to make Marines feel durable is to put them in a middle ground where nothing is really optimal against them.

Let's remember that in prior editions, things like autocannons and heavy bolters didn't degrade Marine saves at all. You had to get to the equivalent of current AP-2 to do anything to Marine armor. Furthermore, in cover they were able to get a 4+ or 5+ that you could not deny, which let them stand up even to those weapons that negated their armor. In theory, they were durable by being hard to kill with basic rifles and a waste to kill with lascannons. In practice, if you knew 80% of your games were going to be against Marines, you took as many plasma guns as possible. As long as Marines are the most popular army, there's no way to completely fix that.

With the changes to how AP works, GW screwed things up in leaving defensive profiles exactly the same during the transition to 8th. Giving Marines a 2+ save would have gone a long ways towards addressing their vulnerability; restricting AP similarly to Age of Sigmar (where AP-2 is a big deal and AP-3 is quite rare) would have been even better.

In sigmar...marines have 2 wounds. So do orks.

 Xenomancers wrote:
In sigmar...marines have 2 wounds. So do orks.

Yeah but in Sigmar damage jumps from one model to the other so units are less individuals and more ... a blob with stats. A 10 1w 1A unit is the same as a 10 wound 10Attack model.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yes but you are a known primaris hater. I can't respect that. For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies. The tactical marine has always been bad too. I play lots of other armies now.

So marines have to be top tier for you to play them? Why not "solid middle"? Which, btw, they're rarely been below "solid middle". Usually marines are around upper-middle tier.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but it could be said that you have your own history here.

 Xenomancers wrote:
In sigmar...marines have 2 wounds. So do orks.

As Galas noted, the difference in how Damage is handled makes a huge difference for AoS's design space, because there's no such thing as overkill.

In 40K, giving a unit a second wound is understood to not be literally doubling their durability for the simple reason that anything D2+ kills them just as easily as before. Whereas in AoS, it actually is a linear doubling in durability since D2 weapons would have previously killed two models for each failed save. I should also point out that AoS doesn't have comparative wounding either, which affects the math as well.

40K's system is designed to create breakpoints that optimize weapons for certain roles- high-power weapons overkill infantry, while high-ROF/low-power weapons have difficulty wounding vehicles and then don't inflict enough damage to be meaningful.

So adjustment to a W value in 40K has a much less consistent impact than it does in AoS, because you start messing with the breakpoints and how they interact with the armies. Going from W1 to W2 doesn't just mean you're twice as hard to kill and that's that; it means you're twice as hard to kill with small arms and just as easy to kill with anything heavier, which implies a lower cost (see: Marines only paying 3pts for an extra wound, when mathematically a raw doubling of resilience on a 15pt model should as a baseline cost around (15*sqrt(2))-15 or 6pts), which in turn makes them less efficiently killed by small arms and more efficiently killed by heavier weapons. That has substantial repercussions.

I'd also point out that if you look at AoS armies, Orruks there don't play as hordes the way they do in 40K. A Skaven army, or one composed of Freeguild, is going to outnumber them by a substantial margin. You could certainly balance W2 Boyz around the 9-10pt mark, but if fluff is a concern then being outnumbered 2:1 by Guardsmen should feel 'off'.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yes but you are a known primaris hater. I can't respect that. For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies. The tactical marine has always been bad too. I play lots of other armies now.

So marines have to be top tier for you to play them? Why not "solid middle"? Which, btw, they're rarely been below "solid middle". Usually marines are around upper-middle tier.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but it could be said that you have your own history here.

The space marine has always been below middle. Notable gimmicks have elevated marines to playable but it has always been mostly by avoiding the power armor marines. Because they have been notoriously bad for all of history. Because they pay for stats they don't or can't use. (WS3+ s4 on a 1 attack model - 3+ save which is easily ignored) It didn't take me long to figure out that if I wanted to win games I needed to take tiggy with grav cents and spam NDK if I wanted to win with "Space Marines".

honestly the 2 wound stat is easy to ignore too. The much bigger issue for marines is core. Is space marine core the norm is it necron? Core actually limits necron...which in the end is a buff to marines if every army is limited but they aren't.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yes but you are a known primaris hater. I can't respect that. For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies. The tactical marine has always been bad too. I play lots of other armies now.

So marines have to be top tier for you to play them? Why not "solid middle"? Which, btw, they're rarely been below "solid middle". Usually marines are around upper-middle tier.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but it could be said that you have your own history here.

The space marine has always been below middle. Notable gimmicks have elevated marines to playable but it has always been mostly by avoiding the power armor marines. Because they have been notoriously bad for all of history. Because they pay for stats they don't or can't use. (WS3+ s4 on a 1 attack model - 3+ save which is easily ignored) honestly the 2 wound stat is easy to ignore too. The much bigger issue for marines is core. Is space marine core the norm is it necron? Core actually limits necron...which in the end is a buff to marines if every army is limited but they aren't.

Name an army that was universally topping tournaments.

Not with one or two builds-every single unit in their Dex appeared in a tournament winning list.

One thing to add also is that Marines were only paying 3 extra points if all mini-marines were all "balanced" at their previous points cost with 1 wound.

I'm not sure how many 15 point tactical marines ever made the table.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yes but you are a known primaris hater. I can't respect that. For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies. The tactical marine has always been bad too. I play lots of other armies now.

So marines have to be top tier for you to play them? Why not "solid middle"? Which, btw, they're rarely been below "solid middle". Usually marines are around upper-middle tier.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but it could be said that you have your own history here.

The space marine has always been below middle. Notable gimmicks have elevated marines to playable but it has always been mostly by avoiding the power armor marines. Because they have been notoriously bad for all of history. Because they pay for stats they don't or can't use. (WS3+ s4 on a 1 attack model - 3+ save which is easily ignored) honestly the 2 wound stat is easy to ignore too. The much bigger issue for marines is core. Is space marine core the norm is it necron? Core actually limits necron...which in the end is a buff to marines if every army is limited but they aren't.

Name an army that was universally topping tournaments.

Not with one or two builds-every single unit in their Dex appeared in a tournament winning list.

Can you name an army with the same stat line and infantry model appearing across every battle field role being avoided like the plague? I am not talking about marine participating in tournments. I am speaking to the lack of use of power armor in the history of competitive play.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yes but you are a known primaris hater. I can't respect that. For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies. The tactical marine has always been bad too. I play lots of other armies now.

So marines have to be top tier for you to play them? Why not "solid middle"? Which, btw, they're rarely been below "solid middle". Usually marines are around upper-middle tier.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but it could be said that you have your own history here.

The space marine has always been below middle. Notable gimmicks have elevated marines to playable but it has always been mostly by avoiding the power armor marines. Because they have been notoriously bad for all of history. Because they pay for stats they don't or can't use. (WS3+ s4 on a 1 attack model - 3+ save which is easily ignored) honestly the 2 wound stat is easy to ignore too. The much bigger issue for marines is core. Is space marine core the norm is it necron? Core actually limits necron...which in the end is a buff to marines if every army is limited but they aren't.

Name an army that was universally topping tournaments.

Not with one or two builds-every single unit in their Dex appeared in a tournament winning list.

Can you name an army with the same stat line and infantry model appearing across every battle field role being avoided like the plague? I am not talking about marine participating in tournments. I am speaking to the lack of use of power armor in the history of competitive play.

Your argument is that Marines are, in general, subpar. But they have a few stand-out builds that let them compete. If that is not your argument, then I apologize for misunderstanding, and would appreciate you clearing it up.

My point is that that is not a unique thing. I can't think of a single Codex in my play experience that every unit was good. Even the current Marine Dex has some stinkers, like Scouts as an Elites choice.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yes but you are a known primaris hater. I can't respect that. For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies. The tactical marine has always been bad too. I play lots of other armies now.

So marines have to be top tier for you to play them? Why not "solid middle"? Which, btw, they're rarely been below "solid middle". Usually marines are around upper-middle tier.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but it could be said that you have your own history here.

The space marine has always been below middle. Notable gimmicks have elevated marines to playable but it has always been mostly by avoiding the power armor marines. Because they have been notoriously bad for all of history. Because they pay for stats they don't or can't use. (WS3+ s4 on a 1 attack model - 3+ save which is easily ignored) honestly the 2 wound stat is easy to ignore too. The much bigger issue for marines is core. Is space marine core the norm is it necron? Core actually limits necron...which in the end is a buff to marines if every army is limited but they aren't.

Name an army that was universally topping tournaments.

Not with one or two builds-every single unit in their Dex appeared in a tournament winning list.

Can you name an army with the same stat line and infantry model appearing across every battle field role being avoided like the plague? I am not talking about marine participating in tournments. I am speaking to the lack of use of power armor in the history of competitive play.

The power armor horde has always done well when handled correctly.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The power armor horde has always done well when handled correctly.

Show us those tournament results. If you're talking about how they faired in casual play show us the meta, lists, and bat reps so we can see what 'well' actually means.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Your argument is that Marines are, in general, subpar. But they have a few stand-out builds that let them compete. If that is not your argument, then I apologize for misunderstanding, and would appreciate you clearing it up.

My point is that that is not a unique thing. I can't think of a single Codex in my play experience that every unit was good. Even the current Marine Dex has some stinkers, like Scouts as an Elites choice.

The argument is that the T4 W1 Sv3+ statline has always been bad enough to require a gimmick to make it worth taking. Most good marine lists take as few T4 W1 Sv3+ bodies as they can in favour of literally anything else. The exceptions to these rules generally involve units that are taken for their offense rather than their defensive profile past examples include Sterguard Vets, Devastators, 5-man tac squads with twin special weapons in Razorbacks. In all cases you didn't expect these models to be durable, you expected them to kill things and hopefully trade up.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yes but you are a known primaris hater. I can't respect that. For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies. The tactical marine has always been bad too. I play lots of other armies now.

So marines have to be top tier for you to play them? Why not "solid middle"? Which, btw, they're rarely been below "solid middle". Usually marines are around upper-middle tier.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but it could be said that you have your own history here.

The space marine has always been below middle. Notable gimmicks have elevated marines to playable but it has always been mostly by avoiding the power armor marines. Because they have been notoriously bad for all of history. Because they pay for stats they don't or can't use. (WS3+ s4 on a 1 attack model - 3+ save which is easily ignored) honestly the 2 wound stat is easy to ignore too. The much bigger issue for marines is core. Is space marine core the norm is it necron? Core actually limits necron...which in the end is a buff to marines if every army is limited but they aren't.

Name an army that was universally topping tournaments.

Not with one or two builds-every single unit in their Dex appeared in a tournament winning list.

Can you name an army with the same stat line and infantry model appearing across every battle field role being avoided like the plague? I am not talking about marine participating in tournments. I am speaking to the lack of use of power armor in the history of competitive play.

Your argument is that Marines are, in general, subpar. But they have a few stand-out builds that let them compete. If that is not your argument, then I apologize for misunderstanding, and would appreciate you clearing it up.

My point is that that is not a unique thing. I can't think of a single Codex in my play experience that every unit was good. Even the current Marine Dex has some stinkers, like Scouts as an Elites choice.

Happy to clarify and Ill make it simple. Power armor marines have always been subpar and something drastic had to be done to make them playable. Scouts have always been a stinker choice. Just wasted less points than power armor tacticals. True - plenty of armies aren't trying to bring anything but the minimum troop expenditure - but typically its so they can bring some other better infantry choice - 90% of all marine entries are power armor based...it is a much bigger issue for marines when their base unit profile is garbage. Esp when that garabe choice is more limiting due to cost than other armies garbage required picks.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The power armor horde has always done well when handled correctly.

Show us those tournament results. If you're talking about how they faired in casual play show us the meta, lists, and bat reps so we can see what 'well' actually means.

Tournament lists tend to be won with statistical outlier units, which power armor units are not, since they are functionally the baseline. But a collection of units don't need to be topping tourney results to be solid middle tier. Also, being the baseline, they're not bottom tier, despite what certain posters would like to claim.

Power armor swarm is essentially it's own skew build, and it's been serving some of us well for at least 15 years.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The power armor horde has always done well when handled correctly.

Show us those tournament results. If you're talking about how they faired in casual play show us the meta, lists, and bat reps so we can see what 'well' actually means.

Tournament lists tend to be won with statistical outlier units, which power armor units are not, since they are functionally the baseline. But a collection of units don't need to be topping tourney results to be solid middle tier. Also, being the baseline, they're not bottom tier, despite what certain posters would like to claim.

Power armor swarm is essentially it's own skew build, and it's been serving some of us well for at least 15 years.

It's hard to read what you are saying without coming to the conclusion that you don't think marines should be winning tournaments...I don't think that is what you are saying but it seems like it.

 Galas wrote:
A 10 1w 1A unit is the same as a 10 wound 10Attack model.

Uh? If you inflict 9 wounds to the 10 1w 1a unit, it can only make 1a for the rest of the game. If you inflict 9 wounds to the 10 wounds 10 attacks model, it can still inflicts 10 attacks. I mean, I know AoS has degrading profiles, but does it have this kind of degrading profile, where you lose attacks every time you lose a wound?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I imagine it comes from all kinds of places. Mainly people bored of playing against marines and envious of their model releases.

My advice - find some friends who play more than just marine armies. Maybe get a marine army for yourself so you can also get excited when new releases come out.

Did you notice how your two solutions directly counter each other ?
If only there was a better way...

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tournament lists tend to be won with statistical outlier units, which power armor units are not, since they are functionally the baseline. But a collection of units don't need to be topping tourney results to be solid middle tier. Also, being the baseline, they're not bottom tier, despite what certain posters would like to claim.

Power armor swarm is essentially it's own skew build, and it's been serving some of us well for at least 15 years.

So 'works well' means does okay in metas where nobody builds to counter it, loses to anything that got randomly buffed in your opponent's formerly fluffy list, not worth considering if you enjoy list optimization. That sounds like the worst of all worlds, not good enough to be worth playing, not terrible enough to be a fun challenge to build around, and uninteresting on the tabletop too.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Galas wrote:
A 10 1w 1A unit is the same as a 10 wound 10Attack model.

Uh? If you inflict 9 wounds to the 10 1w 1a unit, it can only make 1a for the rest of the game. If you inflict 9 wounds to the 10 wounds 10 attacks model, it can still inflicts 10 attacks. I mean, I know AoS has degrading profiles, but does it have this kind of degrading profile, where you lose attacks every time you lose a wound?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I imagine it comes from all kinds of places. Mainly people bored of playing against marines and envious of their model releases.

My advice - find some friends who play more than just marine armies. Maybe get a marine army for yourself so you can also get excited when new releases come out.

Did you notice how your two solutions directly counter each other ?
If only there was a better way...

I don't see how it counters. I can assure you - marine players don't want to play against marines ether.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tournament lists tend to be won with statistical outlier units, which power armor units are not, since they are functionally the baseline. But a collection of units don't need to be topping tourney results to be solid middle tier. Also, being the baseline, they're not bottom tier, despite what certain posters would like to claim.

Power armor swarm is essentially it's own skew build, and it's been serving some of us well for at least 15 years.

So 'works well' means does okay in metas where nobody builds to counter it, loses to anything that got randomly buffed in your opponent's formerly fluffy list, not worth considering if you enjoy list optimization. That sounds like the worst of all worlds, not good enough to be worth playing, not terrible enough to be a fun challenge to build around, and uninteresting on the tabletop too.

sure thing mr. glass half full.

It could also mean that the foundation of the unit is solid, and minor tweaks could put it on the top. It could also mean the adjustments that actually need to be made are against the statistical outlier units, and that 1W marines are perfectly fine.

Also, everybody built to counter T4 3+, because it was still everywhere.

Lets flip it around. Why don't you prove to me that they were "utter garbage" like Xeno claims.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yes but you are a known primaris hater. I can't respect that. For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies. The tactical marine has always been bad too. I play lots of other armies now.

So marines have to be top tier for you to play them? Why not "solid middle"? Which, btw, they're rarely been below "solid middle". Usually marines are around upper-middle tier.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but it could be said that you have your own history here.

This is not true. But it doesn't excuse 9th ed.