Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2020/10/27 21:43:41
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mentioned it earlier: the reason armies became so good at killing marines is Marines became the most common opponent
They are victims of their own success. Adding 2 wounds won't change that
TBH I don't believe thats a thing. Ok , yeah, dark eldar spamming disintegrator raiders is a hard counter for primaris spam just like plasma. But historically, space marines have been extremely vulnerable to most weapons in the game. You never needed to really specialized at killing space marines like you had to specialize to fight vehicle or heavy stuff lists or horde lists. Your anti horde weapons made marines fail saves fast enough and your anti medium and anti heavy weapons killed marines good enough to all be worth it.
Again this is not an argument in favour of 2 wound marines, just trying to explain why historically most marine players felt they have always been too fragile for their costs outside absurd invisible deathstars or stuff like nurgle bikers, wulfen, etc...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 21:44:45
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/10/27 22:16:20
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Which is fine. The state of the game now, everything would basically be fine if every old marine unit got up and disappeared. If you take ONLY the primaris marines at maybe a SLIGHT point increase (1-3 points) they would be a perfectly fine army with a diverse set of units that put options on the table and had a playstyle. It's primaris + old marines at 2w that is the issue.
Old marines and everything associated with them cannot be squatted fast enough.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2020/10/27 22:18:02
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mentioned it earlier: the reason armies became so good at killing marines is Marines became the most common opponent
They are victims of their own success. Adding 2 wounds won't change that
TBH I don't believe thats a thing. Ok , yeah, dark eldar spamming disintegrator raiders is a hard counter for primaris spam just like plasma. But historically, space marines have been extremely vulnerable to most weapons in the game. You never needed to really specialized at killing space marines like you had to specialize to fight vehicle or heavy stuff lists or horde lists. Your anti horde weapons made marines fail saves fast enough and your anti medium and anti heavy weapons killed marines good enough to all be worth it.
Again this is not an argument in favour of 2 wound marines, just trying to explain why historically most marine players felt they have always been too fragile for their costs outside absurd invisible deathstars or stuff like nurgle bikers, wulfen, etc...
And yet again, Facts > Feelings
The average Marine is about 3x more durable vs those anti-horde weapons. anti-horde as a general rule doesn't have AP. The only thing true about this argument is that Marine players would get destroyed by anti-light vehicle and some anti-medium vehicle weapons. S5+ with -1 or -2AP is actually fairly good at killing Marines and generally is relatively cheap. A Heavy Bolter is 10ish points and is kills SM's reasonably fast, but even then they are still 3x more durable pt for pt vs Ork boyz, its only when you get to -2AP and better that Marines become less durable point for point. So you are in the realm of specialized weapons at that point.
An old Heavy Bolter firing 3 S5 -1AP shots (all hits for argument sake) kills on average 1 Marine a turn. That same HB kills 2 boyz Under 8th edition points values, those boyz cost MORE than the SM did. And they have no save where as the SM has a 4+ save and theoretically could walk away unscathed.
Against bolter fire it takes 6 bolter HITS to kill 1 Old 1W Marine, to kill 1 Ork it takes 2.32 hits. So on a grander scale, it takes 60 bolter hits to kill 10 Tac Marines, that same level of firepower kills 25 boyz. 8th edition values, that is 130pts of dead Marines vs 175pts of dead Orkz. Again, point for point Marines were TOUGHER to kill than Boyz. When you start going into AP-2 weaponry that is where those Boyz become less cost efficient to kill than Marine Tacs.
12 wounds with -2 AP kill 8 Marines where as it kills 12 Boyz. 8th edition prices that was 104pts of dead SM and 84pts of dead Orkz.
Summary, SM's were more durable than Ork boyz by a large Margin vs AP -0 weapons, more durable vs AP-1 weapons and after that AP-2+ they were worse. So the feeling that tacs were "vulnerable" doesn't really work out to be true. In reality, in order for that feeling to be true, your opponent needs a plethora of AP-2+ weapons, or in other words, they need to list tailor. And why would competitive armies list tailor against SM values? Because SM's are the most popular army in the game by a large margin which means as someone else so eloquently put it, Marines are a victim of their own success. IE People build lists to deal with Marines at tournament levels because that is who they are most likely to face off against.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/27 22:20:34
Sempermortis you are trying to spin my argument agaisnt myself when you are saying the same I have said?
Anti horde weapons killed marines good enough, and then they are much more vulnerable to nearly all the other weapons from anti-medium weapons to heavy weapons, that are most of the game. No, the most popular weapons of the game are not S3-S4 AP0 (Or ap4 or over in old editions) weapons.
And on top of that, space marines for nearly all of the game had only one stat profile for 80% of their units, where for example stuff like orks, tyranids, imperial guard, necrons, had much varied profiles in toughtness, wound counts, saves, etc...
You all comparing 14ppm tac marines when devastators, veterans, etc... all had the same profile. Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Tyranid Warriors, Tyrant Guard, Hyve Guard, for putting and example, all have different profiles all being infantry (And I know for most of 40k history all have sucked).
So thats why for most of 40k history, most players have said space marines were never resilient for their cost, starting with tacticals and getting worse the more elite you did go because the base profile and resilience was the same. Even terminators.
Of course thats no longer true but when people come here and puts so many people complaints, justified in their context with more or less reason, as some kind of space marine victim complex, is quite disrespectfull both with history and with those players.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 22:34:30
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/10/27 22:36:57
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Galas wrote: Sempermortis you are trying to spin my argument agaisnt myself when you are saying the same I have said?
Anti horde weapons killed marines good enough, and then they are much more vulnerable to nearly all the other weapons from anti-medium weapons to heavy weapons, that are most of the game. No, the most popular weapons of the game are not S3-S4 AP0 (Or ap4 or over in old editions) weapons.
And on top of that, space marines for nearly all of the game had only one stat profile for 80% of their units, where for example stuff like orks, tyranids, imperial guard, necrons, had much varied profiles in toughtness, wound counts, saves, etc...
You all comparing 14ppm tac marines when devastators, veterans, etc... all had the same profile. Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Tyranid Warriors, Tyrant Guard, Hyve Guard, for putting and example, all have different profiles all being infantry (And I know for most of 40k history all have sucked).
Galas, you and I are saying the same thing with different conclusions. Str 3-4 ap0 was never the most popular gun, you are right, and that is because it is bad against space marines.
Guns that were bad against Space Marines were never seen (unless they were mandatory), because Space Marines were the most common foe. This is what I mean by saying they were victims of their own success.
The fact that they didn't have any other profile I also call out in my earlier post in this thread pointing this fact out.
2020/10/27 22:40:34
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: Galas, you and I are saying the same thing with different conclusions. Str 3-4 ap0 was never the most popular gun, you are right, and that is because it is bad against space marines.
Guns that were bad against Space Marines were never seen (unless they were mandatory), because Space Marines were the most common foe. This is what I mean by saying they were victims of their own success.
The fact that they didn't have any other profile I also call out in my earlier post in this thread pointing this fact out.
I see the truth in this argument. I was just trying to explaing why people have historically always said marines were too fragile. And thats why we are now in this point.
Literally when GW revealed primaris they said, they are what most people expected marines to be. In one of their articles. Both in models and rules. And I don't disagree with that. I just believe all space marines should be more expensive and lose a ton of special rules. Marines should not be an army built on top of special upon special rules. They should be an army that wins by a combination of base good stats and tactical use of your forces agaisnt the weak points of your enemy.
Personally, I have always said Horus Heresy was the worst that happened to 40k. First, I said it in the fluff department. But now even in the rules and game, 40k has become 30k 2.0. And I know, in 30k marines aren't as oppresive (basically because it is a game in live support state), but this obsesion with bolter porn and primarch centered narrative has come from 30k to 40k.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/10/27 22:44:24
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/10/27 22:46:54
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Galas wrote: Sempermortis you are trying to spin my argument agaisnt myself when you are saying the same I have said?
Anti horde weapons killed marines good enough, and then they are much more vulnerable to nearly all the other weapons from anti-medium weapons to heavy weapons, that are most of the game. No, the most popular weapons of the game are not S3-S4 AP0 (Or ap4 or over in old editions) weapons.
And on top of that, space marines for nearly all of the game had only one stat profile for 80% of their units, where for example stuff like orks, tyranids, imperial guard, necrons, had much varied profiles in toughtness, wound counts, saves, etc...
You all comparing 14ppm tac marines when devastators, veterans, etc... all had the same profile. Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Tyranid Warriors, Tyrant Guard, Hyve Guard, for putting and example, all have different profiles all being infantry (And I know for most of 40k history all have sucked).
So thats why for most of 40k history, most players have said space marines were never resilient for their cost, starting with tacticals and getting worse the more elite you did go because the base profile and resilience was the same. Even terminators.
Of course thats no longer true but when people come here and puts so many people complaints, justified in their context with more or less reason, as some kind of space marine victim complex, is quite disrespectfull both with history and with those players.
Space Marines may not have been "resilient for their cost", but that's fine because you weren't just paying for their resilience. You were paying for good BS, WS, S, I, Frag and Krak grenades, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, ATSKNF, etc.
Armies that don't have all the other amenities would appropriately cost less even if they have the same durability, which few of them did anyways. So of course, if all you're going to measure by is durability, then Marines wind up looking less cost efficient for their durability. It's as simple as that. Comparing SMs to Orks, Orks had a low initiative, worse Ld. worse BS, etc. So, looking at them side by side purely from a durability standpoint Orks might wind up looking better. But it's basically beside the point.
In order to play Space Marines well, you need to be able to leverage all those other aspects appropriately. If you aren't doing that, then arguably you're not getting your points worth.
Galas wrote: Sempermortis you are trying to spin my argument agaisnt myself when you are saying the same I have said?
Anti horde weapons killed marines good enough, and then they are much more vulnerable to nearly all the other weapons from anti-medium weapons to heavy weapons, that are most of the game. No, the most popular weapons of the game are not S3-S4 AP0 (Or ap4 or over in old editions) weapons.
And on top of that, space marines for nearly all of the game had only one stat profile for 80% of their units, where for example stuff like orks, tyranids, imperial guard, necrons, had much varied profiles in toughtness, wound counts, saves, etc...
You all comparing 14ppm tac marines when devastators, veterans, etc... all had the same profile. Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Tyranid Warriors, Tyrant Guard, Hyve Guard, for putting and example, all have different profiles all being infantry (And I know for most of 40k history all have sucked).
So thats why for most of 40k history, most players have said space marines were never resilient for their cost, starting with tacticals and getting worse the more elite you did go because the base profile and resilience was the same. Even terminators.
Of course thats no longer true but when people come here and puts so many people complaints, justified in their context with more or less reason, as some kind of space marine victim complex, is quite disrespectfull both with history and with those players.
Space Marines may not have been "resilient for their cost", but that's fine because you weren't just paying for their resilience. You were paying for good BS, WS, S, I, Frag and Krak grenades, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, ATSKNF, etc.
Armies that don't have all the other amenities would appropriately cost less even if they have the same durability, which few of them did anyways. So of course, if all you're going to measure by is durability, then Marines wind up looking less cost efficient for their durability. It's as simple as that. Comparing SMs to Orks, Orks had a low initiative, worse Ld. worse BS, etc. So, looking at them side by side purely from a durability standpoint Orks might wind up looking better. But it's basically beside the point.
In order to play Space Marines well, you need to be able to leverage all those other aspects appropriately. If you aren't doing that, then arguably you're not getting your points worth.
I would arguee that historically, and now more than ever, 40k has not been a depth enough game to allow people to use complex tactics were mixed stats, units and strategies could be used for their full potential, thus always being a game much more built upon MTG mechanics, with over specialized, one trick pony units and options being better.
Space marines have stopped being a middle of the road army to become the best army at literally everything. Thats why they are so absurd.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/10/27 22:57:53
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mentioned it earlier: the reason armies became so good at killing marines is Marines became the most common opponent
They are victims of their own success. Adding 2 wounds won't change that
TBH I don't believe thats a thing. Ok , yeah, dark eldar spamming disintegrator raiders is a hard counter for primaris spam just like plasma. But historically, space marines have been extremely vulnerable to most weapons in the game. You never needed to really specialized at killing space marines like you had to specialize to fight vehicle or heavy stuff lists or horde lists. Your anti horde weapons made marines fail saves fast enough and your anti medium and anti heavy weapons killed marines good enough to all be worth it.
Again this is not an argument in favour of 2 wound marines, just trying to explain why historically most marine players felt they have always been too fragile for their costs outside absurd invisible deathstars or stuff like nurgle bikers, wulfen, etc...
Galas wrote: Sempermortis you are trying to spin my argument agaisnt myself when you are saying the same I have said?
Anti horde weapons killed marines good enough, and then they are much more vulnerable to nearly all the other weapons from anti-medium weapons to heavy weapons, that are most of the game. No, the most popular weapons of the game are not S3-S4 AP0 (Or ap4 or over in old editions) weapons.
And on top of that, space marines for nearly all of the game had only one stat profile for 80% of their units, where for example stuff like orks, tyranids, imperial guard, necrons, had much varied profiles in toughtness, wound counts, saves, etc...
You all comparing 14ppm tac marines when devastators, veterans, etc... all had the same profile. Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Tyranid Warriors, Tyrant Guard, Hyve Guard, for putting and example, all have different profiles all being infantry (And I know for most of 40k history all have sucked).
So thats why for most of 40k history, most players have said space marines were never resilient for their cost, starting with tacticals and getting worse the more elite you did go because the base profile and resilience was the same. Even terminators.
Of course thats no longer true but when people come here and puts so many people complaints, justified in their context with more or less reason, as some kind of space marine victim complex, is quite disrespectfull both with history and with those players.
Space Marines may not have been "resilient for their cost", but that's fine because you weren't just paying for their resilience. You were paying for good BS, WS, S, I, Frag and Krak grenades, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, ATSKNF, etc.
Armies that don't have all the other amenities would appropriately cost less even if they have the same durability, which few of them did anyways. So of course, if all you're going to measure by is durability, then Marines wind up looking less cost efficient for their durability. It's as simple as that. Comparing SMs to Orks, Orks had a low initiative, worse Ld. worse BS, etc. So, looking at them side by side purely from a durability standpoint Orks might wind up looking better. But it's basically beside the point.
In order to play Space Marines well, you need to be able to leverage all those other aspects appropriately. If you aren't doing that, then arguably you're not getting your points worth.
Opponents could short circuit most of that by killing you on their turn. Preferably by shooting, because of ATSKNF. Marines paid for WS they weren't using when advancing and then BS they weren't using when they were punching. Until very recently, 40K rewarded hyper specialization, not units that paid for a little bit of everything. Marines were paying for things that just weren't very useful IN PRACTICE only on paper. I know you think they were worth it, but against hard lists, I just don't see it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/27 23:07:28
2020/10/27 23:07:41
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Plasma isn't TAC in a meta dominated by Grots. Not more than Flamers or Frag Grenades.
But plasma was good against light and medium vehicles (marines + a few), monsters with no invulns (Tyranids), and Marines.
In an alternative universe where Marines of any flavor don't exist but everything else is the same, Plasma is good against light and medium vehicles, big Tyranids but not little ones, and ... what, Necrons?
They were TAC because the "all comers" part of TAC was Marines.
2020/10/27 23:08:03
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Galas wrote: Sempermortis you are trying to spin my argument agaisnt myself when you are saying the same I have said?
Anti horde weapons killed marines good enough, and then they are much more vulnerable to nearly all the other weapons from anti-medium weapons to heavy weapons, that are most of the game. No, the most popular weapons of the game are not S3-S4 AP0 (Or ap4 or over in old editions) weapons.
And on top of that, space marines for nearly all of the game had only one stat profile for 80% of their units, where for example stuff like orks, tyranids, imperial guard, necrons, had much varied profiles in toughtness, wound counts, saves, etc...
You all comparing 14ppm tac marines when devastators, veterans, etc... all had the same profile. Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Tyranid Warriors, Tyrant Guard, Hyve Guard, for putting and example, all have different profiles all being infantry (And I know for most of 40k history all have sucked).
So thats why for most of 40k history, most players have said space marines were never resilient for their cost, starting with tacticals and getting worse the more elite you did go because the base profile and resilience was the same. Even terminators.
Of course thats no longer true but when people come here and puts so many people complaints, justified in their context with more or less reason, as some kind of space marine victim complex, is quite disrespectfull both with history and with those players.
Space Marines may not have been "resilient for their cost", but that's fine because you weren't just paying for their resilience. You were paying for good BS, WS, S, I, Frag and Krak grenades, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, ATSKNF, etc.
Armies that don't have all the other amenities would appropriately cost less even if they have the same durability, which few of them did anyways. So of course, if all you're going to measure by is durability, then Marines wind up looking less cost efficient for their durability. It's as simple as that. Comparing SMs to Orks, Orks had a low initiative, worse Ld. worse BS, etc. So, looking at them side by side purely from a durability standpoint Orks might wind up looking better. But it's basically beside the point.
In order to play Space Marines well, you need to be able to leverage all those other aspects appropriately. If you aren't doing that, then arguably you're not getting your points worth.
Opponents could short circuit most of that by killing you on their turn. Preferably by shooting, because of ATSKNF. Marines paid for WS they weren't using when advancing and then BS they weren't using when they were punching. Until very recently, 40K rewarded hyper specialization, not units that paid for a little bit of everything. Marines were paying for things that just weren't very useful IN PRACTICE only on paper.
Following that same logic, Orks pay for a high S4 and WS3 while not being in melee, making them terrible and overcosted.
2020/10/27 23:09:43
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Galas wrote: Sempermortis you are trying to spin my argument agaisnt myself when you are saying the same I have said?
Anti horde weapons killed marines good enough, and then they are much more vulnerable to nearly all the other weapons from anti-medium weapons to heavy weapons, that are most of the game. No, the most popular weapons of the game are not S3-S4 AP0 (Or ap4 or over in old editions) weapons.
And on top of that, space marines for nearly all of the game had only one stat profile for 80% of their units, where for example stuff like orks, tyranids, imperial guard, necrons, had much varied profiles in toughtness, wound counts, saves, etc...
You all comparing 14ppm tac marines when devastators, veterans, etc... all had the same profile. Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Tyranid Warriors, Tyrant Guard, Hyve Guard, for putting and example, all have different profiles all being infantry (And I know for most of 40k history all have sucked).
So thats why for most of 40k history, most players have said space marines were never resilient for their cost, starting with tacticals and getting worse the more elite you did go because the base profile and resilience was the same. Even terminators.
Of course thats no longer true but when people come here and puts so many people complaints, justified in their context with more or less reason, as some kind of space marine victim complex, is quite disrespectfull both with history and with those players.
Space Marines may not have been "resilient for their cost", but that's fine because you weren't just paying for their resilience. You were paying for good BS, WS, S, I, Frag and Krak grenades, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, ATSKNF, etc.
Armies that don't have all the other amenities would appropriately cost less even if they have the same durability, which few of them did anyways. So of course, if all you're going to measure by is durability, then Marines wind up looking less cost efficient for their durability. It's as simple as that. Comparing SMs to Orks, Orks had a low initiative, worse Ld. worse BS, etc. So, looking at them side by side purely from a durability standpoint Orks might wind up looking better. But it's basically beside the point.
In order to play Space Marines well, you need to be able to leverage all those other aspects appropriately. If you aren't doing that, then arguably you're not getting your points worth.
I would arguee that historically, and now more than ever, 40k has not been a depth enough game to allow people to use complex tactics were mixed stats, units and strategies could be used for their full potential, thus always being a game much more built upon MTG mechanics, with over specialized, one trick pony units and options being better.
I'll counter by reminding you that "punch the shooty stuff and shoot the punchy stuff" has always been a thing, and while one-trick-pony units can be attractive, you quickly get into rock-scissors-paper territory which has it's own inherent risks. Imo it's purely a playstyle preference. Me? I like units that can give me the most options in any given turn.
Galas wrote: Space marines have stopped being a middle of the road army to become the best army at literally everything. Thats why they are so absurd.
I agree that now marine design is just becoming "ThE BeStEsT EvAr!!11!" And that's really a shame.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Plasma isn't TAC in a meta dominated by Grots. Not more than Flamers or Frag Grenades.
But plasma was good against light and medium vehicles (marines + a few), monsters with no invulns (Tyranids), and Marines.
In an alternative universe where Marines of any flavor don't exist but everything else is the same, Plasma is good against light and medium vehicles, big Tyranids but not little ones, and ... what, Necrons?
They were TAC because the "all comers" part of TAC was Marines.
I think its because the math of plasma was just better than melta/flamer most of the time. Plasma could kill two 2+ armor targets, not just one like melta. Flamers were replicated by small arms. But maybe you are right. But I know for huge stretches of at least my play area, no one was gaming against marines.
Galas wrote: Sempermortis you are trying to spin my argument agaisnt myself when you are saying the same I have said?
Anti horde weapons killed marines good enough, and then they are much more vulnerable to nearly all the other weapons from anti-medium weapons to heavy weapons, that are most of the game. No, the most popular weapons of the game are not S3-S4 AP0 (Or ap4 or over in old editions) weapons.
And on top of that, space marines for nearly all of the game had only one stat profile for 80% of their units, where for example stuff like orks, tyranids, imperial guard, necrons, had much varied profiles in toughtness, wound counts, saves, etc...
You all comparing 14ppm tac marines when devastators, veterans, etc... all had the same profile. Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Tyranid Warriors, Tyrant Guard, Hyve Guard, for putting and example, all have different profiles all being infantry (And I know for most of 40k history all have sucked).
So thats why for most of 40k history, most players have said space marines were never resilient for their cost, starting with tacticals and getting worse the more elite you did go because the base profile and resilience was the same. Even terminators.
Of course thats no longer true but when people come here and puts so many people complaints, justified in their context with more or less reason, as some kind of space marine victim complex, is quite disrespectfull both with history and with those players.
Space Marines may not have been "resilient for their cost", but that's fine because you weren't just paying for their resilience. You were paying for good BS, WS, S, I, Frag and Krak grenades, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, ATSKNF, etc.
Armies that don't have all the other amenities would appropriately cost less even if they have the same durability, which few of them did anyways. So of course, if all you're going to measure by is durability, then Marines wind up looking less cost efficient for their durability. It's as simple as that. Comparing SMs to Orks, Orks had a low initiative, worse Ld. worse BS, etc. So, looking at them side by side purely from a durability standpoint Orks might wind up looking better. But it's basically beside the point.
In order to play Space Marines well, you need to be able to leverage all those other aspects appropriately. If you aren't doing that, then arguably you're not getting your points worth.
I would arguee that historically, and now more than ever, 40k has not been a depth enough game to allow people to use complex tactics were mixed stats, units and strategies could be used for their full potential, thus always being a game much more built upon MTG mechanics, with over specialized, one trick pony units and options being better.
I'll counter by reminding you that "punch the shooty stuff and shoot the punchy stuff" has always been a thing, and while one-trick-pony units can be attractive, you quickly get into rock-scissors-paper territory which has it's own inherent risks. Imo it's purely a playstyle preference. Me? I like units that can give me the most options in any given turn.
Galas wrote: Space marines have stopped being a middle of the road army to become the best army at literally everything. Thats why they are so absurd.
I agree that now marine design is just becoming "ThE BeStEsT EvAr!!11!" And that's really a shame.
I think the math was behind the specialists for a long time, but it doesn't matter now.
Galas wrote: Sempermortis you are trying to spin my argument agaisnt myself when you are saying the same I have said?
Anti horde weapons killed marines good enough, and then they are much more vulnerable to nearly all the other weapons from anti-medium weapons to heavy weapons, that are most of the game. No, the most popular weapons of the game are not S3-S4 AP0 (Or ap4 or over in old editions) weapons.
And on top of that, space marines for nearly all of the game had only one stat profile for 80% of their units, where for example stuff like orks, tyranids, imperial guard, necrons, had much varied profiles in toughtness, wound counts, saves, etc...
You all comparing 14ppm tac marines when devastators, veterans, etc... all had the same profile. Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Tyranid Warriors, Tyrant Guard, Hyve Guard, for putting and example, all have different profiles all being infantry (And I know for most of 40k history all have sucked).
So thats why for most of 40k history, most players have said space marines were never resilient for their cost, starting with tacticals and getting worse the more elite you did go because the base profile and resilience was the same. Even terminators.
Of course thats no longer true but when people come here and puts so many people complaints, justified in their context with more or less reason, as some kind of space marine victim complex, is quite disrespectfull both with history and with those players.
Space Marines may not have been "resilient for their cost", but that's fine because you weren't just paying for their resilience. You were paying for good BS, WS, S, I, Frag and Krak grenades, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, ATSKNF, etc.
Armies that don't have all the other amenities would appropriately cost less even if they have the same durability, which few of them did anyways. So of course, if all you're going to measure by is durability, then Marines wind up looking less cost efficient for their durability. It's as simple as that. Comparing SMs to Orks, Orks had a low initiative, worse Ld. worse BS, etc. So, looking at them side by side purely from a durability standpoint Orks might wind up looking better. But it's basically beside the point.
In order to play Space Marines well, you need to be able to leverage all those other aspects appropriately. If you aren't doing that, then arguably you're not getting your points worth.
Opponents could short circuit most of that by killing you on their turn. Preferably by shooting, because of ATSKNF. Marines paid for WS they weren't using when advancing and then BS they weren't using when they were punching. Until very recently, 40K rewarded hyper specialization, not units that paid for a little bit of everything. Marines were paying for things that just weren't very useful IN PRACTICE only on paper.
Following that same logic, Orks pay for a high S4 and WS3 while not being in melee, making them terrible and overcosted.
Well, melee-focused units have suffered more often than not in this game. So, kinda. Orks seems to be chronically overcosted.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/27 23:13:49
2020/10/27 23:18:06
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Opponents could short circuit most of that by killing you on their turn.
That's why I spent points on Rhinos and Pods a lot of the time. Rhinos are very tough, point for point, and can help protect models. Pods are great because you can't shoot what's not yet on the table. Both of which help ensure a strong alpha strike, which preferably brings me the advantage.
SecondTime wrote: Preferably by shooting, because of ATSKNF. Marines paid for WS they weren't using when advancing and then BS they weren't using when they were punching. Until very recently, 40K rewarded hyper specialization, not units that paid for a little bit of everything. Marines were paying for things that just weren't very useful IN PRACTICE only on paper. I know you think they were worth it, but against hard lists, I just don't see it.
It's really easy. Models that can shoot and fight, can do both in the same turn, and thus output more damage than a unit that does only one or the other. Plus you get to tangle up enemy units, AND if you're like me, you can often back out of CC and shoot again if it's the thing to do. It's all about maximizing damage up front, reducing options for the opponent, and sticking out the fight longer.
I think the math was behind the specialists for a long time, but it doesn't matter now.
The math for Specialists should be better when we're talking about their specialty. The math for the generalist works out when opposing a specialist in an area that's not their specialty. That's the balance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 23:20:38
Opponents could short circuit most of that by killing you on their turn.
That's why I spent points on Rhinos and Pods a lot of the time. Rhinos are very tough, point for point, and can help protect models. Pods are great because you can't shoot what's not yet on the table. Both of which help ensure a strong alpha strike, which preferably brings me the advantage.
SecondTime wrote: Preferably by shooting, because of ATSKNF. Marines paid for WS they weren't using when advancing and then BS they weren't using when they were punching. Until very recently, 40K rewarded hyper specialization, not units that paid for a little bit of everything. Marines were paying for things that just weren't very useful IN PRACTICE only on paper. I know you think they were worth it, but against hard lists, I just don't see it.
It's really easy. Models that can shoot and fight, can do both in the same turn, and thus output more damage than a unit that does only one or the other. Plus you get to tangle up enemy units, AND if you're like me, you can often back out of CC and shoot again if it's the thing to do. It's all about maximizing damage up front, reducing options for the opponent, and sticking out the fight longer.
I think the math was behind the specialists for a long time, but it doesn't matter now.
The math for Specialists should be better when we're talking about their specialty. The math for the generalist works out when opposing a specialist in an area that's not their specialty. That's the balance.
As i said, none of this matters now does it? I guess GW's motivations are really perplexing to you as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 23:22:45
2020/10/27 23:25:39
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Perplexing how? "Marines uber alles" isn't at all perplexing. They sell the bolter-porn, they sell the models. They're just sacrificing other factions to do it.
Insectum7 wrote: Perplexing how? "Marines uber alles" isn't at all perplexing. They sell the bolter-porn, they sell the models. They're just sacrificing other factions to do it.
I mean to those of us who thought marines are were on the weak side power increases weren't THAT surprising. GW just showed their usual restraint, which is none. But to you, there's not even that motivation. Because everything was fine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 23:28:18
2020/10/27 23:30:43
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: I think the math was behind the specialists for a long time, but it doesn't matter now.
Possibly, but I don't think the answer was to make the supposed generalists better specialists than the actual specialists.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2020/10/27 23:31:14
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Insectum7 wrote: Well that's literally how my lists played for 8th.
70 Marine bodies minimum. Loaded up on Heavies and Specials, possibly some supporting units along with transports to deliver them. The army varied a bit, but the best target any anti-vehicle weapon would have is a Razorback, although sometimes not even that. If I went full bore on firepower I could get 100 S5+ AP-3 D2+ (combination of Grav, Plasma, Las) shots with full CM + Lt. Rerolls. Realistically some Grav Cannons turned into Plasma Cannons for cost and range (and same damage output against many target types), but you get the idea. Unprepared armies melted. Prepared armies usually suffered gobs of damage and sometimes we got into brutal attrition games where we both dwindled pretty hard. It wasn't the "best" army, and arguably I could have optimized it further, but even against "max cheese" tourney lists like Eldar and IG soups at their respective heights I still had huge amounts of damage capability and didn't feel too far behind in the power curve. My really bad losses were usually because I did something boneheaded like forgot to play to the mission, etc.
That was BEFORE SM codex 2.0, mind you. Obviously the power level increased when that came out.
A couple additional points. My PA Horde relies a lot on UM tactics, being able to back out of combats and keep firing is really, really good, and it allows you to really mess with some opponents. Rhinos are probably some of the toughest models, point for point, in the game, paying only 7 points for a T7 3+. HK missiles (lots of them) are great. An army with the damage output tied up in troops doesn't care about opposing Lascannon-esque weapons. Heavies/Specials are Heavies/Specials regardless of what unit is carrying them. Don't forget your Krak Grenades. You could "transport" 20 Marines 9" with one Rhino.
How did you deal with skew lists like Knights + Loyal 32, Triple Skulltaker, Plague Bearer Bomb, etc? How did you deal with ITC and European style tournament missions?
More to the point, what was your meta actually like in terms of armies and missions? I ask this because your list could have simply found a soft spot in a small meta among players who rarely bought new models and just played with whatever they happened to have. One semi-static local meta isn't something GW can or should balance for. They need to balance around their paying customers, not leeches who buy a codex and maybe 1 new unit per year.
2020/10/28 00:24:06
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Insectum7 wrote: Well that's literally how my lists played for 8th.
70 Marine bodies minimum. Loaded up on Heavies and Specials, possibly some supporting units along with transports to deliver them. The army varied a bit, but the best target any anti-vehicle weapon would have is a Razorback, although sometimes not even that. If I went full bore on firepower I could get 100 S5+ AP-3 D2+ (combination of Grav, Plasma, Las) shots with full CM + Lt. Rerolls. Realistically some Grav Cannons turned into Plasma Cannons for cost and range (and same damage output against many target types), but you get the idea. Unprepared armies melted. Prepared armies usually suffered gobs of damage and sometimes we got into brutal attrition games where we both dwindled pretty hard. It wasn't the "best" army, and arguably I could have optimized it further, but even against "max cheese" tourney lists like Eldar and IG soups at their respective heights I still had huge amounts of damage capability and didn't feel too far behind in the power curve. My really bad losses were usually because I did something boneheaded like forgot to play to the mission, etc.
That was BEFORE SM codex 2.0, mind you. Obviously the power level increased when that came out.
A couple additional points. My PA Horde relies a lot on UM tactics, being able to back out of combats and keep firing is really, really good, and it allows you to really mess with some opponents. Rhinos are probably some of the toughest models, point for point, in the game, paying only 7 points for a T7 3+. HK missiles (lots of them) are great. An army with the damage output tied up in troops doesn't care about opposing Lascannon-esque weapons. Heavies/Specials are Heavies/Specials regardless of what unit is carrying them. Don't forget your Krak Grenades. You could "transport" 20 Marines 9" with one Rhino.
How did you deal with skew lists like Knights + Loyal 32, Triple Skulltaker, Plague Bearer Bomb, etc? How did you deal with ITC and European style tournament missions?
More to the point, what was your meta actually like in terms of armies and missions? I ask this because your list could have simply found a soft spot in a small meta among players who rarely bought new models and just played with whatever they happened to have. One semi-static local meta isn't something GW can or should balance for. They need to balance around their paying customers, not leeches who buy a codex and maybe 1 new unit per year.
Pretty bold of you to assume the only paying customers are tournament players lol. And by using your own hyperbole against you, meta-chasers who probably just buy the latest meta-list second-hand instead of buying units they like and love like real casual players.
2020/10/28 00:26:37
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Insectum7 wrote: Well that's literally how my lists played for 8th.
70 Marine bodies minimum. Loaded up on Heavies and Specials, possibly some supporting units along with transports to deliver them. The army varied a bit, but the best target any anti-vehicle weapon would have is a Razorback, although sometimes not even that. If I went full bore on firepower I could get 100 S5+ AP-3 D2+ (combination of Grav, Plasma, Las) shots with full CM + Lt. Rerolls. Realistically some Grav Cannons turned into Plasma Cannons for cost and range (and same damage output against many target types), but you get the idea. Unprepared armies melted. Prepared armies usually suffered gobs of damage and sometimes we got into brutal attrition games where we both dwindled pretty hard. It wasn't the "best" army, and arguably I could have optimized it further, but even against "max cheese" tourney lists like Eldar and IG soups at their respective heights I still had huge amounts of damage capability and didn't feel too far behind in the power curve. My really bad losses were usually because I did something boneheaded like forgot to play to the mission, etc.
That was BEFORE SM codex 2.0, mind you. Obviously the power level increased when that came out.
A couple additional points. My PA Horde relies a lot on UM tactics, being able to back out of combats and keep firing is really, really good, and it allows you to really mess with some opponents. Rhinos are probably some of the toughest models, point for point, in the game, paying only 7 points for a T7 3+. HK missiles (lots of them) are great. An army with the damage output tied up in troops doesn't care about opposing Lascannon-esque weapons. Heavies/Specials are Heavies/Specials regardless of what unit is carrying them. Don't forget your Krak Grenades. You could "transport" 20 Marines 9" with one Rhino.
How did you deal with skew lists like Knights + Loyal 32, Triple Skulltaker, Plague Bearer Bomb, etc? How did you deal with ITC and European style tournament missions?
More to the point, what was your meta actually like in terms of armies and missions? I ask this because your list could have simply found a soft spot in a small meta among players who rarely bought new models and just played with whatever they happened to have. One semi-static local meta isn't something GW can or should balance for. They need to balance around their paying customers, not leeches who buy a codex and maybe 1 new unit per year.
Pretty bold of you to assume the only paying customers are tournament players lol. And by using your own hyperbole against you, meta-chasers who probably just buy the latest meta-list second-hand instead of buying units they like and love like real casual players.
agreed. the idea that casual players buy less is silly.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/10/28 00:38:27
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SemperMortis wrote: Your argument has changed a number of times when proven false with facts. A Marine stat line by itself is durable compared to most of the game, this isn't a "marine" problem, its a 40k problem that you seem to think effected Marines more than anyone else in the entire game. I had Horde armies in 7th and 8th getting gunned off the table before turn 3 was over. So likewise does that mean that my T4 W1 6+ save was the issue and only the issue? no it was because some genius decided to hand out dmg buffs like it was christmas. That doesn't mean your "Marine" statline was less durable than everyone elses basic troops/infantry. Again, your statline (pre 9th) was roughly 3x more durable than the ork statline but you were barely more than 2x as expensive. Ork Boy = 7pts in 8th edition, SMTac was what? 13-15? How about those Devestators? My Lootas were 18ppm compared to a Devestator with a missile launcher who was what? 33? so more than 3x as durable but less than half the cost. Factor in them always being in cover for a 2+ vs my Lootas usually not being able to fit in cover, but if they somehow managed, only getting a 5+.
No, it hasn't. I literally summarized my arguments as they've related to this thread and my first post about the T4 W1 Sv3+ profile specified that it was bad in spite of units like Sterngaurd and Devestators. If you're unable to see that please quote me having changed my argument or concede the point.
As to 7th and 8th edition, and specific comparisons to Orks, I have to ask yes, and? For one it ignores prior editions which are part of my argument secondly it ignores every other army in the game. Your 'argument' reads more like whining about how orks were underpowered for two editions while ignoring that, unlike marines, they've had metas where their basic troops were among the best units in the game. I'm sorry if you never got to play those editions.
No, you have said specifically the "Marine stat line" and than I asked about sternguard/devs etc you said they don't count because they relied on damage not durability. Ok, well here is the thing, they functioned and won tournaments with that stat line. So yeah they relied on dmg but almost every unit in the game relies on damage to win. Pre SM buffs the Ork horde didn't win by being durable but by being able to beat anyone off an objective using a plethora of S4 melee attacks.
Except for all the earlier metas where Orks won because they were durable, had killing power, and could deploy in 30 man foot blobs under a KFF or in trukks for a mobile threat. You can't just look at 7th and 8th edition when you talk about the marine stat line being awful
You mean like every other tournament winning list in the game not relying on the basic statline of any unit but instead relying on some sort of gimmick to win....like Ork boyz appearing in massive numbers turn 2 in charge range? or a SM Smash captain? Or an IK castellan being able to shoot at full capacity the whole game regardless of dmg? Or hell, the death star build relying on several buffs from several characters to make them super durable? I can keep going dude. No list won because the basic statline of their infantry was amazing....except maybe Eldar scatbikes in 7th , but even than, basically the entire game acknowledged how broken that unit was.
I've literally posted winning Ork and DE lists from days gone past that didn't spam anything in particular and won major tournaments. Please show me a comparable SM list that managed the same thing.
Yes, we acknowledge this argument, and enjoy watching you contradict yourself in your own post. Stat line isn't good...except for these tournament winning lists that used those stat lines...but they don't count because I only care about durability and everything else can be forgotten......and please don't apply this bad logic to LITERALLY EVERY OTHER ARMY IN THE FETHING GAME.
Ask yourself this. Would you prefer to pay for a marine or a BS 3+ veteran guardsman who can put out the same firepower for cheaper? Marine units are forced to pay for durability that doesn't make them tough, a melee stat that a suicide gunner unit couldn't use, while other armies can instead use a specialist unit that gets all the upsides of high firepower without paying for stats they don't use.
Good units in 40k specialize at doing one thing and are supported by other units that do another specific thing. Being a mushy middle generalist is a terrible plan unless you're not paying points for your secondary role.
So are we just ignoring all of 7th where Marines were top tier because they took a ton of SM bodies that got them free transports? OMG They required a gimmick to win? same argument, same bad logic. Yeah, go figure infantry don't win tournaments by themselves without a gimmick or some kind of extra damage potential. And since an ork Horde is usually 120+ models with 1/3rd the durability as SM's I would call any SM list with 40+ models a Power Armor Horde. So 55 models is absolutely a "horde" of power armor.
And straight back into the bad argument that the Marine stat line requires a gimmick to win events...yes we know, so does everyone else.
Except that I can point to metas prior to 7th edition where that wasn't the case. Are metas older than 7th invalid now?
Castozor wrote: And by using your own hyperbole against you, meta-chasers who probably just buy the latest meta-list second-hand instead of buying units they like and love like real casual players.
Way to miss the point... The point is you can't balance around a given static meta or you risk imbalance in less static metas where people are quick to purchase new units and where lists are optimized ruthlessly.
Insectum7 wrote: I'll counter by reminding you that "punch the shooty stuff and shoot the punchy stuff" has always been a thing, and while one-trick-pony units can be attractive, you quickly get into rock-scissors-paper territory which has it's own inherent risks. Imo it's purely a playstyle preference. Me? I like units that can give me the most options in any given turn.
That's a terrible way to play which is why you never see lists doing this performing at top tables. The best army is an army of specialists that have their weaknesses covered by other specialists or a list that's so good at a single-specialty that it can win before its weakness is exploited. Tournament results from all of 40k's history bear this out.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/28 00:45:35
2020/10/28 00:54:46
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Calling the tournament meta less static I find laughable considering it only changes with balance changes just like MOBA's. Consider also you maybe get less hostile responses if you don't call people like me leeches for no good reason.
2020/10/28 01:10:28
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Castozor wrote: Calling the tournament meta less static I find laughable considering it only changes with balance changes just like MOBA's. Consider also you maybe get less hostile responses if you don't call people like me leeches for no good reason.
I don't care about a hostile response. If anything I'd prefer less tone policing so people can say what they really think.
Your assessment of tournament metas is also completely off both for 40k and MOBAs. For 40k certain strategies may remain king, but the supporting cast does change in response to the results of additional playtesting and potential counter-play. For MOBAs just look at the region pick/ban/play rates among the major regions and you'll see that on the same patch different metas developed and then look at how those metas collided at worlds to create an entirely new meta.
2020/10/28 02:22:17
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Insectum7 wrote: I'll counter by reminding you that "punch the shooty stuff and shoot the punchy stuff" has always been a thing, and while one-trick-pony units can be attractive, you quickly get into rock-scissors-paper territory which has it's own inherent risks. Imo it's purely a playstyle preference. Me? I like units that can give me the most options in any given turn.
That's a terrible way to play which is why you never see lists doing this performing at top tables. The best army is an army of specialists that have their weaknesses covered by other specialists or a list that's so good at a single-specialty that it can win before its weakness is exploited. Tournament results from all of 40k's history bear this out.
Nonsense, lots of lists feature all-rounder units. Flyrants would be a good example, so would Intercessors. In fact what would you say is more "specialist" Tacticals or Intercessors?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/28 02:22:58
Insectum7 wrote: Nonsense, lots of lists feature all-rounder units. Flyrants would be a good example, so would Intercessors. In fact what would you say is more "specialist" Tacticals or Intercessors?
Don't Flyrants fall into the same category that Scatbikes do in that they're OP as hell? Or do we have different standards for good units in bad books compared to good units in good books?
Tacs and Intercessors are both generalists in that they're designed to be good at a few things at the same time. Tacs because they can take different load-outs with their special weapons, have access to cheap transport options, and can combat squad; Intercessors because they can shoot better than most troop choices and melee better than most troop choices making a mismatch. If Intercessors weren't so aggressively undervalued in terms of their point cost they'd be awful because it's tough to be good when you're paying full price for being good in two distinct roles at once.
2020/10/28 03:09:11
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Insectum7 wrote: Nonsense, lots of lists feature all-rounder units. Flyrants would be a good example, so would Intercessors. In fact what would you say is more "specialist" Tacticals or Intercessors?
Don't Flyrants fall into the same category that Scatbikes do in that they're OP as hell? Or do we have different standards for good units in bad books compared to good units in good books?
Tacs and Intercessors are both generalists in that they're designed to be good at a few things at the same time. Tacs because they can take different load-outs with their special weapons, have access to cheap transport options, and can combat squad; Intercessors because they can shoot better than most troop choices and melee better than most troop choices making a mismatch. If Intercessors weren't so aggressively undervalued in terms of their point cost they'd be awful because it's tough to be good when you're paying full price for being good in two distinct roles at once.
So to clarify, generalists can be competetive. Yes?
Insectum7 wrote: So to clarify, generalists can be competetive. Yes?
If you make them cost few enough points ANYTHING in 40k can be competitive. Current Marines are good generalists and you're complaining about them being too good. My point is that there's no elegant way to make a generalist feel good without making it feel WAY TOO GOOD because it appears to be OP at everything.
1W Marines could be good if they cost 10PPM but then you'd have Marine armies with nearly as many Tacs that Ork armies have Boyz or Nidz have Gants/Gaunts and that would be equally terrible for 40k. The tightrope you need to walk is making Marines *feel* tough while not making them too cheap but also making sure they're only the slightest hair worse than a specialist at that niche so they can be fluffy, good, and 'balanced' at the same time and until the end of 7th when GW threw in the towel, gave them a ton of free units and prayed it would make them at least okay, that balance has fallen to the weak side of the scale.
So how can Marines be able to build top tier tournament lists that use their iconic power armored units without being too strong for the casual meta? That's what this discussion boils down to.
, but even than, basically the entire game acknowledged how broken that unit was.