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:

 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.

And half of Lasguns do nothing to a human. Clearly there's an issue in the game if a laser gun isn't wounding humans at more than half the rate they go through the armor.
Lasguns need to go to S4 confirmed.

 Insectum7 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.

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

That's not true, either.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

It's hard to read what you are saying without coming to the conclusion that you think that Astartes players deserve to have a massive advantage for picking the "right" army. Goalpost shifting and just disingenuous argumentation makes it look like you're just agitating for your favorite power armored bois to be overpowered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Why don't you prove to me that they were "utter garbage" like Xeno claims.

They won't, because they can't.

 Insectum7 wrote:
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.

Then show me these tweaks. If it's just so easy an obvious show me what you would have done instead.

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

Which means that T4 3+ was likely to underperform in that meta due to running into counters at a higher rate than other 'weaker' armies ran into their own counters. Hence the buff to the base MEQ profile.

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

Why should I prove a claim I didn't make? Especially given that you can't prove your claim that they 'work well'.

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

You don't see how "Start a marine army yourself" goes counter to "Find people who don't play marine armies"? Am I supposed to be excited about an army I don't get to play because my opponents are sick of them?
I don't want to play marines anyway, it's not an army that appeal to me...

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

T4 3+ was not actually everywhere. There was lots of AP2 and AP3 weapons everywhere though. Because these weapons are generally the best at killing everything. ESP in past editions if they could be given ignore cover. Some people blame it on these weapons being too cheap or plentiful but the reality is t43+ was never great against small arms ether - even in the event you actually got to take a save because you could get a 4+ cover save so easily. 8th did make marines better in this sense but at the same time plenty of weapons murder marines in cover even better than they used to...so it was a wash. Honestly though in 8th the marine profile actually did reasonably well with 2 wounds. It was more issues like...not having stratagem/ army traits not applying to half our units/ weak psychic phase/ vehicles being made of paper which were the biggest issues for marines in 8th.

8.5 pretty much fixed those issues all at once and buffed a bunch of units. It got out of hand pretty fast. When the supplements started dropping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

It's hard to read what you are saying without coming to the conclusion that you think that Astartes players deserve to have a massive advantage for picking the "right" army. Goalpost shifting and just disingenuous argumentation makes it look like you're just agitating for your favorite power armored bois to be overpowered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Why don't you prove to me that they were "utter garbage" like Xeno claims.

They won't, because they can't.

Nah that is not it at all. I am unhappy with the cron to marines comparison first out the gate in 9th edd. The marines codex is better in a lot of unfair ways. Mainly core making marine choices endless when cron choices are extremely limited. It is sure to create a big balance issue. Mini marines are over the top in a lot of places now. Primaris on the other hand...not the best choice at literally anything anymore (bad internal balance issue there).

Immortals vs intercessors is a pretty favorable matchup for immortals though. It's too bad we don't get more comparisons like that.

 Xenomancers wrote:

8.5 pretty much fixed those issues all at once and buffed a bunch of units. It got out of hand pretty fast. When the supplements started dropping.

This at least is something I'd agree with. I think the Marines 2.0 codex was, for the most part, reasonable (at least until you compare it to the CSM equivalent). It gave them a not-insignificant boost, but wasn't too bad.

But then we had a pile of dedicated Marine supplements.

And then another pile of Marine supplements thinly disguised as a universal campaign/story.

And then 9th dropped and Marines of course got a new codex immediately, plus even more new models, plus upgrades for a ton of their weapons. Oh, and many other armies got completely shafted with point increases, whilst Marines had their wounds doubled at virtually no cost.

I get that Marines were on the weaker end in early 8th, but by this point the pendulum had swung so far back the other way that its smashed a hole right through the side of the grandfather clock.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Then show me these tweaks. If it's just so easy an obvious show me what you would have done instead.

I'll throw this out there: Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, and Doctrines gave regular W1 Marines a new lease on life, fixing the most problematic aspect of their design, which was getting out-shot and generally not really feeling like a surgical assault unit.

If it were up to me, I'd change Bolter Discipline to be one bonus shot at all ranges, give them an extra Attack on the base profile, and ditch Doctrines. That would make them more lethal at all ranges, allow them to move while maintaining maximum combat efficiency ('double shots at long range if you don't move' seems like the kind of rule Tau should have, not Marines), and avoid the systemic issues caused by bonus AP.

I'd playtest that extensively under 9th Ed rules, scenarios, and points values, and then assess if further changes are needed.

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Then show me these tweaks. If it's just so easy an obvious show me what you would have done instead.

I'll throw this out there: Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, and Doctrines gave regular W1 Marines a new lease on life, fixing the most problematic aspect of their design, which was getting out-shot and generally not really feeling like a surgical assault unit.

If it were up to me, I'd change Bolter Discipline to be one bonus shot at all ranges, give them an extra Attack on the base profile, and ditch Doctrines. That would make them more lethal at all ranges, allow them to move while maintaining maximum combat efficiency ('double shots at long range if you don't move' seems like the kind of rule Tau should have, not Marines), and avoid the systemic issues caused by bonus AP.

I'd playtest that extensively under 9th Ed rules, scenarios, and points values, and then assess if further changes are needed.

But doesn't fix the fact that they evaporate. Being awesome for a single turn then melting (along with all the gear you paid for) still plagued them. I thought GW would leave them like this to discourage their use. I can tell you that 2W marines with 2+ armor and 5+++ disintegrated if you didn't tripoint with them.

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Then show me these tweaks. If it's just so easy an obvious show me what you would have done instead.

I'll throw this out there: Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, and Doctrines gave regular W1 Marines a new lease on life, fixing the most problematic aspect of their design, which was getting out-shot and generally not really feeling like a surgical assault unit.

If it were up to me, I'd change Bolter Discipline to be one bonus shot at all ranges, give them an extra Attack on the base profile, and ditch Doctrines. That would make them more lethal at all ranges, allow them to move while maintaining maximum combat efficiency ('double shots at long range if you don't move' seems like the kind of rule Tau should have, not Marines), and avoid the systemic issues caused by bonus AP.

I'd playtest that extensively under 9th Ed rules, scenarios, and points values, and then assess if further changes are needed.

How does this fix their base stats issue? If the T4 Dv3+ profile is bad you can't fix that by heaping special rules on top of it. Otherwise we'd have seen mini marines running around at the end of 8th edition.

SecondTime wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Then show me these tweaks. If it's just so easy an obvious show me what you would have done instead.

I'll throw this out there: Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, and Doctrines gave regular W1 Marines a new lease on life, fixing the most problematic aspect of their design, which was getting out-shot and generally not really feeling like a surgical assault unit.

If it were up to me, I'd change Bolter Discipline to be one bonus shot at all ranges, give them an extra Attack on the base profile, and ditch Doctrines. That would make them more lethal at all ranges, allow them to move while maintaining maximum combat efficiency ('double shots at long range if you don't move' seems like the kind of rule Tau should have, not Marines), and avoid the systemic issues caused by bonus AP.

I'd playtest that extensively under 9th Ed rules, scenarios, and points values, and then assess if further changes are needed.

But doesn't fix the fact that they evaporate. Being awesome for a single turn then melting (along with all the gear you paid for) still plagued them. I thought GW would leave them like this to discourage their use. I can tell you that 2W marines with 2+ armor and 5+++ disintegrated if you didn't tripoint with them.

Can I ask what they're evaporating to?

Pick any army that can muster lots of AP -2 and better. For assault elements with 1W, they die to AP 0 unless they are 2+. I've lost all 15 DC in one turn to throwaway fire in 8th. This is why 8.5 BA were codex: tripoint. If I couldn't turn off your shooting phase entirely, I died. Bottom line is that AP0 works just fine on 3+ armor. Scatterlasers from 7th were effectively AP0 and they scooped marines by the handful.

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Then show me these tweaks. If it's just so easy an obvious show me what you would have done instead.

I'll throw this out there: Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, and Doctrines gave regular W1 Marines a new lease on life, fixing the most problematic aspect of their design, which was getting out-shot and generally not really feeling like a surgical assault unit.

If it were up to me, I'd change Bolter Discipline to be one bonus shot at all ranges, give them an extra Attack on the base profile, and ditch Doctrines. That would make them more lethal at all ranges, allow them to move while maintaining maximum combat efficiency ('double shots at long range if you don't move' seems like the kind of rule Tau should have, not Marines), and avoid the systemic issues caused by bonus AP.

I'd playtest that extensively under 9th Ed rules, scenarios, and points values, and then assess if further changes are needed.

You're basically suggesting to consolidate Manlet Marines into Primaris which most people won't object to.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're basically suggesting to consolidate Manlet Marines into Primaris which most people won't object to.

They're going to have to do it eventually. Better sooner than later.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
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.

Then show me these tweaks. If it's just so easy an obvious show me what you would have done instead.

As catbarf stated. Bolter Discipline, Doctrines, etc. were very valuable. Personally I think 1W marines were in a great spot after Codex 2.0, and didn't need the super-Doctrines.

Additionally, I'd reapply the older rules where each model in CC could use a grenade, that way they could attack vehicles with Krak in CC as they did in earlier editions.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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

Which means that T4 3+ was likely to underperform in that meta due to running into counters at a higher rate than other 'weaker' armies ran into their own counters. Hence the buff to the base MEQ profile.

Depends on how you ran it. If you skewed hard to Power Armor and put the effort in they could do quite well. If you took a couple token units and didn't commit they could be blasted off the table.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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

Why should I prove a claim I didn't make? Especially given that you can't prove your claim that they 'work well'.

If they weren't "top tier" and they weren't "hot garbage", then they were in a reasonably balanced position where minor tweaking would be enough.

"If they weren't "top tier" and they weren't "hot garbage", then they were in a reasonably balanced position where minor tweaking would be enough."

Nah, not exactly. They spent a LOT of time in the bottom 1/3. A big part of that was terrible troops in editions that required troops to score. Yes, this could have all been fixed with point changes, but that's usually true.

I think shifting to primaris marines with 2W with limited wargear was as good shift over 1W make-your-own-marines. But 2W guys with gear options is turning out to be just nuts. I think the game would have been better with oldbois softsquatted.

 Insectum7 wrote:
As catbarf stated. Bolter Discipline, Doctrines, etc. were very valuable. Personally I think 1W marines were in a great spot after Codex 2.0, and didn't need the super-Doctrines.

If they were the only option in the codex that might have been okay, unfortunately, there were Cawl's beefy bois and the mini-marines didn't compete.

Additionally, I'd reapply the older rules where each model in CC could use a grenade, that way they could attack vehicles with Krak in CC as they did in earlier editions.

Was that an issue people were having with their mini-marines? Even if it was, I'm not calling 4 grenades plus a melta bomb reliable anti-tank.

Depends on how you ran it. If you skewed hard to Power Armor and put the effort in they could do quite well. If you took a couple token units and didn't commit they could be blasted off the table.

That sounds incredibly meta dependent, can you link us to battle reports and army lists that you felt this skew worked against? How about the lists that worked yours over? How would you have handled Knights if a player using them had joined your group?

If they weren't "top tier" and they weren't "hot garbage", then they were in a reasonably balanced position where minor tweaking would be enough.

You've asserted this repeatedly. Do you have any proof?

SecondTime wrote:
"If they weren't "top tier" and they weren't "hot garbage", then they were in a reasonably balanced position where minor tweaking would be enough."

Nah, not exactly. They spent a LOT of time in the bottom 1/3. A big part of that was terrible troops in editions that required troops to score. Yes, this could have all been fixed with point changes, but that's usually true.

I think shifting to primaris marines with 2W with limited wargear was as good shift over 1W make-your-own-marines. But 2W guys with gear options is turning out to be just nuts. I think the game would have been better with oldbois softsquatted.

yes yes the bottom 1/3.
at the start of the index edition they had guymanboat rowdude and razorbacks
at the start of codex they gak on everyone within a firehose because they were the only army with stratagems and relics
mid way through codex they had a sad time, but during that sad time they were NOT "bottom 3" as other armies didn't have codexes yet
once all armies had codexes they were "bottom 3" for MAYBE a month or two before they got their next edition
once mehreeens had codex 2.0 they were top tier
once mehreeeens had psychic marineneing they were topper tier
once mehreeeeeeeeeeeens had codex 3.0 they were the toppest of tiers and now here we are


Stop talking through your nose with rose tinted glasses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
As catbarf stated. Bolter Discipline, Doctrines, etc. were very valuable. Personally I think 1W marines were in a great spot after Codex 2.0, and didn't need the super-Doctrines.

If they were the only option in the codex that might have been okay, unfortunately, there were Cawl's beefy bois and the mini-marines didn't compete.

Additionally, I'd reapply the older rules where each model in CC could use a grenade, that way they could attack vehicles with Krak in CC as they did in earlier editions.

Was that an issue people were having with their mini-marines? Even if it was, I'm not calling 4 grenades plus a melta bomb reliable anti-tank.

Depends on how you ran it. If you skewed hard to Power Armor and put the effort in they could do quite well. If you took a couple token units and didn't commit they could be blasted off the table.

That sounds incredibly meta dependent, can you link us to battle reports and army lists that you felt this skew worked against? How about the lists that worked yours over? How would you have handled Knights if a player using them had joined your group?

If they weren't "top tier" and they weren't "hot garbage", then they were in a reasonably balanced position where minor tweaking would be enough.

You've asserted this repeatedly. Do you have any proof?

Lets play a game, name the 66% of the game's troop choices that are "better" than mahreen troop choices.
I'll wait here with bated breath.

"yes yes the bottom 1/3."

Going back to 2nd. Not just in 8th.

"Lets play a game, name the 66% of the game's troop choices that are "better" than mahreen troop choices."

I guess you had to be there. The troops were only part of the problem .

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Lets play a game, name the 66% of the game's troop choices that are "better" than mahreen troop choices.
I'll wait here with bated breath.

I wasn't talking about just tactical marines though, I was talking about how the T4 W1 Av3+ profile with one wound was always a bad profile that people only took if it had overwhelming firepower or free stuff attached to it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Lets play a game, name the 66% of the game's troop choices that are "better" than mahreen troop choices.
I'll wait here with bated breath.

I wasn't talking about just tactical marines though, I was talking about how the T4 W1 Av3+ profile with one wound was always a bad profile that people only took if it had overwhelming firepower or free stuff attached to it.

But it isnt. T4 W1 Av3+ A2 profile was the best troop profile in the game.
Only to get surpassed by the new and improved T4 W2 Av3+ A3 murhen profile

I don't really see how the highest numbers in the game profile wise is the worst.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Lets play a game, name the 66% of the game's troop choices that are "better" than mahreen troop choices.
I'll wait here with bated breath.

I wasn't talking about just tactical marines though, I was talking about how the T4 W1 Av3+ profile with one wound was always a bad profile that people only took if it had overwhelming firepower or free stuff attached to it.

But it isnt. T4 W1 Av3+ A2 profile was the best troop profile in the game.
Only to get surpassed by the new and improved T4 W2 Av3+ A3 murhen profile

I don't really see how the highest numbers in the game profile wise is the worst.

Marines had A1, not A2. Highest numbers don't matter. Units have to be good for their cost.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
But it isnt. T4 W1 Av3+ A2 profile was the best troop profile in the game.
Only to get surpassed by the new and improved T4 W2 Av3+ A3 murhen profile

I don't really see how the highest numbers in the game profile wise is the worst.

Why are you fixated on troops when there are more than just tactical marines in the codex?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
But it isnt. T4 W1 Av3+ A2 profile was the best troop profile in the game.
Only to get surpassed by the new and improved T4 W2 Av3+ A3 murhen profile

I don't really see how the highest numbers in the game profile wise is the worst.

Why are you fixated on troops when there are more than just tactical marines in the codex?

I mentioned them as an example of a contributing factor to marine's problems in the past.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
As catbarf stated. Bolter Discipline, Doctrines, etc. were very valuable. Personally I think 1W marines were in a great spot after Codex 2.0, and didn't need the super-Doctrines.

If they were the only option in the codex that might have been okay, unfortunately, there were Cawl's beefy bois and the mini-marines didn't compete.

Additionally, I'd reapply the older rules where each model in CC could use a grenade, that way they could attack vehicles with Krak in CC as they did in earlier editions.

Was that an issue people were having with their mini-marines? Even if it was, I'm not calling 4 grenades plus a melta bomb reliable anti-tank.

Depends on how you ran it. If you skewed hard to Power Armor and put the effort in they could do quite well. If you took a couple token units and didn't commit they could be blasted off the table.

That sounds incredibly meta dependent, can you link us to battle reports and army lists that you felt this skew worked against? How about the lists that worked yours over? How would you have handled Knights if a player using them had joined your group?

If they weren't "top tier" and they weren't "hot garbage", then they were in a reasonably balanced position where minor tweaking would be enough.

You've asserted this repeatedly. Do you have any proof?

I don't need proof when it simply stands to reason. If your positi6in is that they weren't "hot garbage" and my position is simply that they weren't top tier, then we agree that they were somewhere in the middle.

Most of their successful builds in the past were in spite of T4 3+ at their price point, not because of. Early 3rd is an exception. It doesn't really matter. I think GW mostly came to the conclusion that I'm more correct and then they completely overreacted over the course of 8th and going into 9th.

Looking back, I think that marines were only playtested in a very casual environment, because they were priced to always get a 3+ save against only a moderate number of wounds.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't need proof when it simply stands to reason. If your positi6in is that they weren't "hot garbage" and my position is simply that they weren't top tier, then we agree that they were somewhere in the middle.

Except that's not actually my position. My position is that the marine stat line was regularly a detriment for mainly meta reasons.

There were metas where they did well, but that usually wasn't because of their stats. It was due to rhino rush, grav pods, sternguard salamander drop pods, formations, etc. there weren't metas where taking space marines because they had 'the best stats in the game' was actually viable. They weren't always the worst, but a list that relied on power-armoured bodies was rarely even a mid-tier threat.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't need proof when it simply stands to reason. If your positi6in is that they weren't "hot garbage" and my position is simply that they weren't top tier, then we agree that they were somewhere in the middle.

Except that's not actually my position. My position is that the marine stat line was regularly a detriment for mainly meta reasons.

There were metas where they did well, but that usually wasn't because of their stats. It was due to rhino rush, grav pods, sternguard salamander drop pods, formations, etc. there weren't metas where taking space marines because they had 'the best stats in the game' was actually viable. They weren't always the worst, but a list that relied on power-armoured bodies was rarely even a mid-tier threat.

And are Marines unique like that?
Or is every tournament list just the best bits of a Codex, relying on the best gimmicks and whatnot to do well?

 JNAProductions wrote:
And are Marines unique like that?
Or is every tournament list just the best bits of a Codex, relying on the best gimmicks and whatnot to do well?

Did I ever imply that they were? If so, please quote me as saying such. This thread isn't about every other stat line and codex entry, its about marines having two wounds. Single wound marines were never good and could never rely on their stats, now they can.

But lets' talk other units. I want other lacklustre unit entries to get buffs as well some of them should get durability bumps, others should get buffs to damage output, a rare few could get a new gimmick entirely. One idea I'd like to see is mobz of boyz getting a +1 to hit while they have 11 or more models in a unit because 'dis many boyz can't miss'. Gants/gaunts might get -1 to hit while above 11 models in a unit because they're a 'ceaseless swarm' and it's hard to focus enough fire on any given gant to bring them down. DE poison weapons might deal mortal wounds on 6s.

I don't just want marine toughness negated because I think it feels good that they're tough but I also don't want one-sided stomps.

Marines had the unfortunate position of paying a lot to fail instead of paying a little to fail.