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.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
I'll have a 1k list to field when I finish my next model, painted to a tabletop standard due to my less than stellar eyesight. I am wondering if marines are as powerful and as prevalent as I hear or if it is mostly hyperbole, because of corona virus I have not been playing and don't plan to in the near future :(

In 8th edition a tactical marines cost like 13 points, an intercessors cost 18 points with 2 wounds and 2 attacks each. So the primaris marines used to cost less points per wound 13 vs 9. An extra attack is apparently worth 2 points now. Firstborn get better shooting, primaris get better close combat and durability.

In 9th my flamestorm aggressors, that I bought right as gw stopped selling dark imperium, are still 40ppm. That's 13.3 ppw for a model that used to fire twice if stationary with either a single 2D6 autohits at low range or 12 + 1D6 shots. I didn't entirely agree with how they buffed marines with codex 2.0, but I always thought they needed buffs. Tactical Marines are 9 ppw, Eradicators are 15 ppw but look at their firepower, Outriders are 12,5 ppw and go brrrrt brrrt brrrrt.

I don't think I speak your language OP, tell me if my quote got you right. That many citations made it hard for me to read your post, work it organically into your post instead, I don't understand why you wrote the post how you did.

In my opinion, Marines are overhyped in 9th, Youtubers cannot mention them without joining the chorus of Marine haters out of fear of being cancelled for not hating Marines enough. Marines were really freaking strong at their best in 8th edition and that is still causing a lot of hyperbole bleedover in 9th edition. Some factions got lots of weird nerfs in 9th edition and them being complete garbage does make Space Marines look a lot better, but Necrons, Orks, Daemons and especially Harlequins are super solid.

Or perhaps if everyone is saying it... there is somewhat of a problem?
But ohh boy you are right.. I'm just a marine hater.

Marines are still really high tier. Marines still have the most options. Marines still have the most rules. Have the most models releases.
Are they silly OP levels like in the early supplement days of 8e ? no. But are they one of the best factions still ? you bet..

And yeah. I think Necrons and DG have covered some ground.. The codex creep continues.

Personally I don't see problem with primaris beign a thing. I dont realy care.
But I think they should just be marines.. And old kits should be phased out to kill some of the bloat.
There just no need to have so many nearly identical things doing nearly identical stuff.. Its just not necessary.

 Argive wrote:

Or perhaps if everyone is saying it... there is somewhat of a problem?
But ohh boy you are right.. I'm just a marine hater.

Marines are still really high tier. Marines still have the most options. Marines still have the most rules. Have the most models releases.
Are they silly OP levels like in the early supplement days of 8e ? no. But are they one of the best factions still ? you bet..

And yeah. I think Necrons and DG have covered some ground.. The codex creep continues.

Only it is not everyone. It is generaly the people who had armies who are or were historicaly more powerful then marines, saying how marines being good is somehow killing the game. But when their factions are doing the breaking, even now with harlis being way higher up on the win rate scale then marines, we get a bunch of excusses on how it is warrented and okey, because fewer number of people play those armies, or how it is somehow a l2p issue on the size of marines players etc. And it really show what people think about power and balance when you look at the thread about what people want for their armies. And in eldar players cases this seems to be blanket +4 dodge saves on everything, exarchs being stronger then marine captins, and generaly aspect warriors being stronger then marines. Having just as many or even more special rules and examptions that marines have etc. Which only points out that this is not a case of marines being too OP or bad for the game, but people not playing them as a main army just wanting such power for themselfs, but not for others. And this somehow being turned in to a moral high ground about balance and playing fair.

and as the not needing similar things for different marines stuff. Imagine a marine player, saying that there isn't really that much difference between eldar, d eldar and harlquins, and you could just squish them in to one army book. Same with orks and nids. And tau can be phase in with ad mecha. Bloat removed like never before.

If we're on Primaris, they always were a cash grab to sell Marine players another Marine army that they already have, redundant by design and without the soul.

I also feel like Primaris was a missed opportunity to introduce the gender equality they're supposedly committing to; if Cawl can just wave magic wands and make bigger marines and new guns now, female Primaris would not have been a stretch. It could have at least partially redeemed them.

 Argive wrote:

Or perhaps if everyone is saying it... there is somewhat of a problem?
But ohh boy you are right.. I'm just a marine hater.

Marines are still really high tier. Marines still have the most options. Marines still have the most rules. Have the most models releases.
Are they silly OP levels like in the early supplement days of 8e ? no. But are they one of the best factions still ? you bet..

And yeah. I think Necrons and DG have covered some ground.. The codex creep continues.

I did not call you a marine hater, I have no idea about your opinions on the current state of the game. It just seems weird how many content creators liked SM 2.0 and failed to slam it for how unfair it was. Now that SM overall is just another top tier faction, albeit a popular one, everyone I have heard talk about them say they are clearly too strong despite it being more clear 14 months ago. My problem is that the response I have seen has not been proportional to the strength then vs now. There is also nothing wrong with having Marine fatigue, it's also not like Crons and DG are far from SM in terms of design.
*Edit: added that what I meant was that Crons and DG are similar to SM in how they have good armour, high toughness and decent shooting and melee.

Karol wrote:
Only it is not everyone. It is generaly the people who had armies who are or were historicaly more powerful then marines, saying how marines being good is somehow killing the game. But when their factions are doing the breaking, even now with harlis being way higher up on the win rate scale then marines, we get a bunch of excusses on how it is warrented and okey, because fewer number of people play those armies, or how it is somehow a l2p issue on the size of marines players etc. And it really show what people think about power and balance when you look at the thread about what people want for their armies. And in eldar players cases this seems to be blanket +4 dodge saves on everything, exarchs being stronger then marine captins, and generaly aspect warriors being stronger then marines. Having just as many or even more special rules and examptions that marines have etc. Which only points out that this is not a case of marines being too OP or bad for the game, but people not playing them as a main army just wanting such power for themselfs, but not for others. And this somehow being turned in to a moral high ground about balance and playing fair.

No. As people have mentioned here, when certain armies are overpowered people complain.

Karol wrote:
and as the not needing similar things for different marines stuff. Imagine a marine player, saying that there isn't really that much difference between eldar, d eldar and harlquins, and you could just squish them in to one army book. Same with orks and nids. And tau can be phase in with ad mecha. Bloat removed like never before.

Are any of those armies using the same armor and the same weapons as each other?

Spoletta wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
Not entirely sure what your question is, but if you are asking are marines powerful: I'd say yes in both casual and competitive environments. Not as overbearing as they used to be but they still pack a punch and are hard to shift. Some problem units like Bladeguards and Eradicators are still underpriced if you ask me but at least they are overall not nearly as cheesy as they used to be.
The one problem you might run into before everyone gets their codex is that even when making a fluffy list marines are just really, really good. As in, blowing certain other factions with an equally casual/fluffy list off the table good. Which was always my main problem with that 8.5 codex of theirs. Ripping up tournaments is bad enough but there I expect certain levels of min-maxing and cheese, but even their baseline was and still is so good some factions just can't compete.

This seems to be a feature of all the codici post SM 2.0.

They have good internal balance, so they can bring a fluffy list to the table and play without much handicap.

This is true for marines, for sisters, for necrons and now looks like this also for DG.

and thats how a codex SHOULD work, if every codex is more like codex space marines and less like many codices in the past that where strong (in that they're not all that strong, but there are just some bs builds you can do) then we're in a good position.

They need to consolidate profiles now. After Manlets were given W2 and they gave Vet Intercessors their own profile for no reason....it's time.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Or perhaps if everyone is saying it... there is somewhat of a problem?
But ohh boy you are right.. I'm just a marine hater.

Marines are still really high tier. Marines still have the most options. Marines still have the most rules. Have the most models releases.
Are they silly OP levels like in the early supplement days of 8e ? no. But are they one of the best factions still ? you bet..

And yeah. I think Necrons and DG have covered some ground.. The codex creep continues.

I did not call you a marine hater, I have no idea about your opinions on the current state of the game. It just seems weird how many content creators liked SM 2.0 and failed to slam it for how unfair it was. Now that SM overall is just another top tier faction, albeit a popular one, everyone I have heard talk about them say they are clearly too strong despite it being more clear 14 months ago. My problem is that the response I have seen has not been proportional to the strength then vs now. There is also nothing wrong with having Marine fatigue, it's also not like Crons and DG are far from SM.

Oh for sure. The codex creep will leave marines in the dust, perhaps it already has with new crons and DG seeming to be really holding their own and its certainly like new marines are heads above the other dexes. I would still argue that they are still edging ahead due to easy to good units. Sadly still no games for us here so I can only look at bat reps and how things look are on paper so of course I could in fact be incorrect. All imperial factions have done really well out of the imperial FAQ not just marines. Custodes & sisters have done really well too.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
Not entirely sure what your question is, but if you are asking are marines powerful: I'd say yes in both casual and competitive environments. Not as overbearing as they used to be but they still pack a punch and are hard to shift. Some problem units like Bladeguards and Eradicators are still underpriced if you ask me but at least they are overall not nearly as cheesy as they used to be.
The one problem you might run into before everyone gets their codex is that even when making a fluffy list marines are just really, really good. As in, blowing certain other factions with an equally casual/fluffy list off the table good. Which was always my main problem with that 8.5 codex of theirs. Ripping up tournaments is bad enough but there I expect certain levels of min-maxing and cheese, but even their baseline was and still is so good some factions just can't compete.

This seems to be a feature of all the codici post SM 2.0.

They have good internal balance, so they can bring a fluffy list to the table and play without much handicap.

This is true for marines, for sisters, for necrons and now looks like this also for DG.

and thats how a codex SHOULD work, if every codex is more like codex space marines and less like many codices in the past that where strong (in that they're not all that strong, but there are just some bs builds you can do) then we're in a good position.

Oh yeas please I would like to have around 90 new data sheets and new models too! I agree..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:


Only it is not everyone. It is generaly the people who had armies who are or were historicaly more powerful then marines, saying how marines being good is somehow killing the game. But when their factions are doing the breaking, even now with harlis being way higher up on the win rate scale then marines, we get a bunch of excusses on how it is warrented and okey, because fewer number of people play those armies, or how it is somehow a l2p issue on the size of marines players etc. And it really show what people think about power and balance when you look at the thread about what people want for their armies. And in eldar players cases this seems to be blanket +4 dodge saves on everything, exarchs being stronger then marine captins, and generaly aspect warriors being stronger then marines. Having just as many or even more special rules and examptions that marines have etc. Which only points out that this is not a case of marines being too OP or bad for the game, but people not playing them as a main army just wanting such power for themselfs, but not for others. And this somehow being turned in to a moral high ground about balance and playing fair.

and as the not needing similar things for different marines stuff. Imagine a marine player, saying that there isn't really that much difference between eldar, d eldar and harlquins, and you could just squish them in to one army book. Same with orks and nids. And tau can be phase in with ad mecha. Bloat removed like never before.

Holy feth you're delusional

Dont waste your time..

My thing is, i don't necessarily begrudge marines of either flavour getting this level of support (although did we really need like 10+ lieutenants?), but that other factions should get this as well. Marines have shown it can be done, now the love should be shared.

I considered eldar back in the day, but finecast (i won't use the proper name) was in by then and put me right off.

The problem with the 10+ Primaris Lieutenants is that it's also a bunch of fixed loadouts based on what's in the clamshell, which is pathetic frankly.

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
and as the not needing similar things for different marines stuff. Imagine a marine player, saying that there isn't really that much difference between eldar, d eldar and harlquins, and you could just squish them in to one army book. Same with orks and nids. And tau can be phase in with ad mecha. Bloat removed like never before.

Are any of those armies using the same armor and the same weapons as each other?

Yeah, they're not remotely equivalent.

When every marine supplement can build an army using exactly the same models, so that literally the only difference is the colour scheme and the book you used, you know they're basically the same army....

Fun prediction I’ve had for almost two years or so:

As soon as GW is “done” with Primaris...firstborn will get all new kits. They’ve gotten a taste of regular “predictable” release schedules that all but guarantee money flows in. That with marines printing money; the only real option is to sell ALL marine players new models they will want.

Old players get the true scale marines they’ve been bitching about for years on end and new players, who avoided firstborn (because they are OBJECTIVELY inferior models) will invest in those. Win win. Not to mention R&D costs are way lower these days due to CAD.

Probably be about a year or so before we see the first iteration (though it’s probably heavily contingent on old firstborn kit stocks they have on hand).

'problem' What just the one? Surely that should be plural

Karol wrote:
and as the not needing similar things for different marines stuff. Imagine a marine player, saying that there isn't really that much difference between eldar, d eldar and harlquins, and you could just squish them in to one army book. Same with orks and nids. And tau can be phase in with ad mecha. Bloat removed like never before.

Marines are literally a single codex, eldar are 2 codexes that have no unit or wargear in common (except for the powersword)

and thats how a codex SHOULD work, if every codex is more like codex space marines and less like many codices in the past that where strong (in that they're not all that strong, but there are just some bs builds you can do) then we're in a good position.

I'm torn on this. Codex Space Marines is clearly, head and shoulders beyond Codex Necrons. By what I think is a pretty wide margin. 'Crons have a few individual units (like Nightbringer) that are very strong, but in terms of the over-all codexes - IMO we have once again seen the classic GW move of extremely differing design directions. So, if every codex is like the marines, 'crons are going to end up being terrible again (my current prediction has them middle of the pack when it's all said and done), but if all the codexes are like Necrons, Marines are likely to end up dominating again.

Tycho wrote:

Firstborn remain the more flexible option. Tacticals may have less basic firepower (Bolt Rifles being superior to Bolters), but with Heavy and Special weapon options, and the choice to Combat Squad, still bring something to the field that Primaris don’t.

I feel like this is a negligible tradeoff. Given how much ap and D2 weapons Primaris can spam, do they really need the single heavy weapon? I don't think I've ever seen a game where anyone said "If my Intercessors could only take a missile launcher, this would have gone differently", and I doubt, when Heavy Intercessors finally come out, anyone will be lamenting the lack of ability to take a single flamer.

And combat squading? I don't know how much that matters anymore either? It's a MSU edition to begin with so most folks are going to take 5 man units from the jump anyway.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of the "advantages" we used to view firstborn as having, don't really amount to much anymore ...

Maybe my experience has been different from the average, but the advantages Firstborn had before the wound bump were being able to wrap ablative wounds around the attacks that mattered and having mobile CQC specialists, and the advantages Primaris had were feeling like they were made out of cerial-box cardboard instead of paper and not needing purpose-built melee squads to do CQC without embarrassing themselves.

Outriders, the Biker Chaplain, and W2 Firstborn have narrowed the distinction between the two, but it's still there.

True, until bladeguard gets an option to take jump packs primaris have nothing similar in efficiency to a Vanvet unit.

True, until bladeguard gets an option to take jump packs primaris have nothing similar in efficiency to a Vanvet unit.

But they don't need it. That's the point. Why bring in VanVets when you can just plop Plasma Inceptors down instead?

I think there are some things Firstborn have that Primaris don't, but more and more, it's feeling like Primaris don't really need those things.

I dont know. I have seen list from around the world that run both. And again fast moving resilient melee unit is something primaris do not do well. And classic marines can, TWC or Vangvets are good.

Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.

Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.

Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.

Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.

Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.

I'd rather just consolidate all the profiles possible. Intercessors with the option to add Heavy and Special weapons won't break anything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.

Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.

Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.

I'd rather just consolidate all the profiles possible. Intercessors with the option to add Heavy and Special weapons won't break anything.

I disagree for only 1 reason. Old marines as an army is a bloated mess. It's filled to the brim with redundant wargear options, redundant units, and a direct answer to everything and anything. Primaris are not. And by consolidating every old marine option into the primaris line you are inheriting all the issues of the old marines with the new marines. I don't want to see that happen.

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.

Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.

Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.

I agree with everything there save dropping the Firstborn.

I started my Primaris only army at the cusp of them being able to stand on their own. Primaris only armies are more than capable now. I could go as fare as Primaris are almost able to stand on their own based on armor configurations (Tactius, Phobos and Gravis) now. Primaris only have some minor (unless you really have to have jump packs) gaps in their collection now. I think of a few much older factions have bigger unit/role gaps than Primaris now. Doubly so with a number of no model, no rules happening.

I would like to think that space marine releases would cool some now that a player can go full Primaris only and cover most the bases of the first founding chapters' thing now. I would hope GW would go back and fill in options for the older factions and maybe even refresh some more decades old model kits.

I don't want players with Firstborn collections to feel like they are on outside. I don't like the idea of them having to either decide to best fit into the Primaris mold or consider going Codex: Chaos Space Marine but ignore the more Chao-sy stuff. One of the things I really like about Primaris is that my Chaos Space Marine army feels a lot different from my Space Marine army. Despite me staying pretty close to loyalist marine options but the spiky version. I don't think I am ready for that to go away via dropping Firstborn nor combining Primaris and Firstborn into one just yet. I kinda don't want that to happen ever. However, I do recognize that C:SM has a huge datasheet bloat issue. In three or so years time, something may have to give.

 Lance845 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.

Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.

Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.

I'd rather just consolidate all the profiles possible. Intercessors with the option to add Heavy and Special weapons won't break anything.

I disagree for only 1 reason. Old marines as an army is a bloated mess. It's filled to the brim with redundant wargear options, redundant units, and a direct answer to everything and anything. Primaris are not. And by consolidating every old marine option into the primaris line you are inheriting all the issues of the old marines with the new marines. I don't want to see that happen.

I gotta disagree. It would eliminate TONS of bloat. For instance, right now we have maybe TEN different Captain entries, and part of that is Primaris or Biker/Terminator. Bring Tacticals into the fold of Intercessors and Assault Marines into the fold of Assault Intercessors. We don't need a separate entry for Vet Intercessors if we have the appropriate stats for Sternguard and Vanguard.

It would solve a TON of issues and the whole squabble of Manlet Marine fans complaining about stats and Primaris fans complaining about options. Instead we currently have a codex with 100+ entries and many of which are redundant.

All of these units should have been marines from the beginning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.

Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.

Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.

Get rid of numarines and OG marines work fine.

For instance, I will never buy a restartes model. My marines are fine.
Restartes are heresy, and any true loyalist will never mix with the foul taint of heresy.
So, separate them. As it should be...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
If we're on Primaris, they always were a cash grab to sell Marine players another Marine army that they already have, redundant by design and without the soul.
.

So true^^


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bitharne wrote:
Fun prediction I’ve had for almost two years or so:

As soon as GW is “done” with Primaris...firstborn will get all new kits. They’ve gotten a taste of regular “predictable” release schedules that all but guarantee money flows in. That with marines printing money; the only real option is to sell ALL marine players new models they will want.

Old players get the true scale marines they’ve been bitching about for years on end and new players, who avoided firstborn (because they are OBJECTIVELY inferior models) will invest in those. Win win. Not to mention R&D costs are way lower these days due to CAD.

Probably be about a year or so before we see the first iteration (though it’s probably heavily contingent on old firstborn kit stocks they have on hand).

Why not make two separate factions, by setting up a fascist rift under RG and pushing OG marines to an admech style secondary faction status....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.

Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.

Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.

I'd rather just consolidate all the profiles possible. Intercessors with the option to add Heavy and Special weapons won't break anything.

I disagree for only 1 reason. Old marines as an army is a bloated mess. It's filled to the brim with redundant wargear options, redundant units, and a direct answer to everything and anything. Primaris are not. And by consolidating every old marine option into the primaris line you are inheriting all the issues of the old marines with the new marines. I don't want to see that happen.

I gotta disagree. It would eliminate TONS of bloat. For instance, right now we have maybe TEN different Captain entries, and part of that is Primaris or Biker/Terminator. Bring Tacticals into the fold of Intercessors and Assault Marines into the fold of Assault Intercessors. We don't need a separate entry for Vet Intercessors if we have the appropriate stats for Sternguard and Vanguard.

It would solve a TON of issues and the whole squabble of Manlet Marine fans complaining about stats and Primaris fans complaining about options. Instead we currently have a codex with 100+ entries and many of which are redundant.

for feths sake can you guys please not derail another fething thread with this?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 argonak wrote:
...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...

Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?

Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines will get their second wound when they get their codex.

Necrons don't get the second wound because GW wants them to be less elite than the beaky boys. I don't write the rules. It seems to me that GW has decided Necrons are mostly a horde army at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:

 argonak wrote:

Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops. I think two wounds was the right move. The bigger problem is that every gun and it’s mother has too much damn ap.

Fitzing with Toughness would have been the more sane way to go than more wounds, but the current Toughness algorithm is screwed up as it is.

Indeed. Thus Heavy intercessors. best of both worlds I guess.

 argonak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 argonak wrote:
...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...

Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?

Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines will get their second wound when they get their codex.

Necrons don't get the second wound because GW wants them to be less elite than the beaky boys. I don't write the rules. It seems to me that GW has decided Necrons are mostly a horde army at this point.

I think the problem is they worded the reanimation protocols in a really wierd way. Maybe a necron player can correct me, but it feels like they're worse than fnp when it comes to multiwound models. You have to lose a fair amount of models just to have a decent chance to bring one back. To me that's not the point, they all get back up at the same rate, big and small. I'm sure it can be done, although i know it won't (this edition at least).

BrianDavion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.

Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.

Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.

I'd rather just consolidate all the profiles possible. Intercessors with the option to add Heavy and Special weapons won't break anything.

I disagree for only 1 reason. Old marines as an army is a bloated mess. It's filled to the brim with redundant wargear options, redundant units, and a direct answer to everything and anything. Primaris are not. And by consolidating every old marine option into the primaris line you are inheriting all the issues of the old marines with the new marines. I don't want to see that happen.

I gotta disagree. It would eliminate TONS of bloat. For instance, right now we have maybe TEN different Captain entries, and part of that is Primaris or Biker/Terminator. Bring Tacticals into the fold of Intercessors and Assault Marines into the fold of Assault Intercessors. We don't need a separate entry for Vet Intercessors if we have the appropriate stats for Sternguard and Vanguard.

It would solve a TON of issues and the whole squabble of Manlet Marine fans complaining about stats and Primaris fans complaining about options. Instead we currently have a codex with 100+ entries and many of which are redundant.

for feths sake can you guys please not derail another fething thread with this?

It's good discussion. You don't need to participate if you want, but Lance and I are having a civil discussion. So you can bugger off with your attitude, thanks.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 argonak wrote:
...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...

Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?

Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines will get their second wound when they get their codex.

Necrons don't get the second wound because GW wants them to be less elite than the beaky boys. I don't write the rules. It seems to me that GW has decided Necrons are mostly a horde army at this point.

I think the problem is they worded the reanimation protocols in a really wierd way. Maybe a necron player can correct me, but it feels like they're worse than fnp when it comes to multiwound models. You have to lose a fair amount of models just to have a decent chance to bring one back. To me that's not the point, they all get back up at the same rate, big and small. I'm sure it can be done, although i know it won't (this edition at least).

Yes, reanimation is just flatly worse for multiwound models. The issue with multiwound models seems to be a bookkeeping one. For whatever reason, they choked on the idea that multiwound models could come back with a variable number of wounds (nevermind that multiwound models innately have a layer of bookkeeping).

I think its to prevent situations where multiple models can end up being damaged (one from damage that isn't enough to kill it, the other from 'rising' with 1 or 2 wounds), and for whatever reason the designers really felt this breaks the game. (It crops up with damage assignments in the basic rules- you absolutely must kill off a model before damaging another one). The obvious solution here is to heal an existing damaged model (if any) and then start bringing back 'dead' models, but apparently that wasn't something they wanted to go with, so its all a bit crap. (So if you had a model that had taken a wound and lost a couple others, if you got 3 successes on RP rolls, the wounded model would heal 1 (taking it to max) and another model would come back with 2 wounds remaining. It would prevent multiple damaged models existing in a unit, and not punish you for taking multi-wound models. Ta-dah.).