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.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:


So, similar matchup, except that the wyches charging means they get to actually win now, instead of a deadlock for 1 turn then losing the second turn.

If that's so, Wyches might be one of the few exceptions to the general "xenos decline".

Yeah, weird, its like since the marines got their universal 2nd wound and imperial weapon update we've had all of 2 xenos factions released or something.

Was that a "wait and see" scotsman?

Lets see, Necrons, Orks, and DE. . . So three. Two of those factions used to have the same basic toughness as Marines, aaaand, both of them have had their resilience drop in comparison to Marines, rather dramatically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I think that was part of the big change from Necrons being sort of T800 robots that were also cybermen but also kind of a lovecraftian ancient evil with egyptian overtones and undead themes (just typing that out shows how much gets layered into GW factions!) to more Tomb Kings in Space with lots of different agendas. I know that sounds flippant and negative, but I can really see why they made the change - it allows much more for players to make "their" necrons, a "your dudes" approach that allows for lots of different paint schemes and motivations for the leaders, and also stuff like necron vs necron civil wars, and it makes the individual necron lords the important movers and shakers rather than the C'taan special characters, also differentiating necrons from Tyranids.

But Pariah's were always more part of the creepy cybermen side of that, and didn't have as much to do with the space egyptian side of things, so they got cut.

I understand why they made the change, but A: I hate it and B: They could have left more space in there for 3rd ed style Crons. But sadly no.

Then they had the gall to release an expansion called "Pariah" and not re-introduce Pariahs. Talk about salt in the wound!

There's another aspect as well, which is that Marines haven't just improved in terms of toughness. Instead, it seems they've been eating into everyone else's design space.

If Marines had got a second wound and nothing else, then it would suck for Necrons but at least it would move Marines in just one direction and establish them as the poster-boys for being the 'durable' faction.

Instead, we have a "generalist" unit that seems to outperform specialist units (not just model-for-model but quite often point-for-point as well) in their chosen roles. It's one thing for Marines to outshoot Orks and Banshees but it's another thing altogether for them to outfight those units. Same goes for outshooting Fire Warriors.

I'm sure that there will be Marine players who'll say that this is exactly how things should be but to me it just seems excessive, not to mention bad for faction identity.


Honestly, though, I'd be less concerned about this sort of thing if GW would maybe deign to put even 20% of the effort and resources they put into Marines into other, non-Marine factions.

You've got factions like Eldar, whose models haven't been updated since 2nd edition. You've got armies like Dark Eldar, where every codex has consisted of GW taking the previous codex and ripping out a bunch of unit and wargear pages (and what they're left with is anaemic and half-arsed at best). You've got armies like Corsairs and R&H, which have basically ceased to exist. So what does GW release? More. Bloody Marines. Aside from that fact that the faction that already had new, plastic models got a brand new range of new, plastic models, GW seemed to finish making Primaris and then just kept going anyway, churning out unit after unit that did little but replace other Primaris units. Is it really unreasonable that some of those units could have been withheld in favour of giving much needed support to some other armies? Could, perhaps, some Primaris Lieutenants have been shelved in favour of giving DE some HQ choices, to replace the myriad that have been removed? Could not some of those Primaris sculpts have been used instead to bring some Eldar models into the current century?

Even in terms of rules, at the start of 9th GW released rules for all the SM factions so that they could all benefit from the new rules during the miniscule timeframe before all of them got their own supplements anyway. Meanwhile, CSM still appear to be waiting for any sort of update to put them in line with 2-wound Marines. Hell, Corsairs are still waiting (having already waited throughout the entirety of 8th) for rules that might restore them to being an actual, playable army. To say nothing of how much extra support Marines subfactions get, compared to those of other armies.

The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of people are probably just fed up of seeing Marines getting an entire banquet, whilst other factions are left to starve. And when those factions ask if they could maybe have a tiny bit more to eat, GW responds by bringing out a massive chocolate cake . . . for the Marines. They already spent most of 9th buffing Marines (including a whole new codex halfway through the edition) with extra rules and supplements and then extra rules on top of the extra rules. But fine. They got Marines into a good place. So now they'll finally move on to other armies, right? 'We'll of course we need to start 9th with even more new Marine releases and new rules to help Marines live up to the power fantasy even more than the already were.' Sigh.

The Necron fluff change brought us Trazyn the Infinite and just for that it was worth it.

And in the Necron Codex you have literally examples of Tomb Worlds that have been enslaved by their C'than Shards that are literally old-crons to justify to have that as the fluff of your dudes it thats what you want.


And I have to say that yeah, Marines get a ton of releases. But in the past 5 years we have received:
-Sisters of Battle becoming a proper army again
-A very big Necron rework
-A giant wave of ork units between speedfreaks and feral orkz
-A second wave of genestealer cult units rounding up the army
-A bunch of generic chaos marines stuff + Death Guard as a proper army

And if the basically confirmed leaks are correct theres the second wave of chaos marines coming, a good rework of many Craftworld Eldar Kits, fething Squats, a good bunch of new imperial guard infantry and some vehicles,etc...

And between all of that, we are gonna receive 2-3 more primaris waves. Thats a given. But GW needs to keep those stock levels pumping up.

Yeah, and there's even cooler (imo ofc) Necrons that are literally Terminator-expy units taken over by Artificial Intelligence (Empire of the Severed).

The downside is you lost the "lovecraftian" element. An army enslaved by a C'tan Shard that is fairly easy to bayonet off the table is not really as frightening as the Oldcron lore. I mean look at that Eldar Prophecy from the beginning of the Oldcron 3rd Edition codex. It's chilling, and it's utterly inapplicable to Newcrons.

but what we got really isn't that bad. Just not as spooky in a way I personally enjoy.

Also Tomb Kings are extremely cool and the Silent King has a ton to lear from Settra King of Kings the Unperishable the Breaker of the Giant the...

 Galas wrote:
The Necron fluff change brought us Trazyn the Infinite and just for that it was worth it.

Well we'll just have to agree to REALLY disagree on that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Instead, we have a "generalist" unit that seems to outperform specialist units (not just model-for-model but quite often point-for-point as well) in their chosen roles. It's one thing for Marines to outshoot Orks and Banshees but it's another thing altogether for them to outfight those units. Same goes for outshooting Fire Warriors.

^This, big time.

 Galas wrote:
The Necron fluff change brought us Trazyn the Infinite and just for that it was worth it.

I like Trazyn the Infinite but I fail to see why he necessitated Necrons becoming Tomb Kings . . . IN SPACE!!!

I'm fine with Necrons getting a little more personality but I feel the transition threw away far too much of the old lore and just replaced it with a boring, Egyptian theme and some of the worst model names I've ever heard.

If GW really needs to rip off some of their own fantasy lore, I think a far more interesting route would have been that of the Flesh Eater Courts.

Imagine if the army of deathless machines still believed that they were living beings, fighting a noble battle against the Old Ones, seemingly with no awareness of what they'd become. It would still allow for many esoteric personalities (either because certain Necrons are trying to maintain the grudges, ambitions or obsessions they had in life or because their minds have further degraded over the eons), but would also allow them to retain many of the horror elements they had previously.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, and there's even cooler (imo ofc) Necrons that are literally Terminator-expy units taken over by Artificial Intelligence (Empire of the Severed).

The downside is you lost the "lovecraftian" element. An army enslaved by a C'tan Shard that is fairly easy to bayonet off the table is not really as frightening as the Oldcron lore. I mean look at that Eldar Prophecy from the beginning of the Oldcron 3rd Edition codex. It's chilling, and it's utterly inapplicable to Newcrons.

but what we got really isn't that bad. Just not as spooky in a way I personally enjoy.

To be fair though, the way 3rd Edition suddenly made the Necrons and the C'tan - 2 factions that were virtually completely unknown before - be responsible for literally everything in the 40k universe, including but not limited to, the creation of Chaos, the Eldar and the Orks, being the true face of the Mechanicus creed, the true terrible mysteries described in the Black Library, the Pariah gene, the idea of death as the Grim Reaper and even the extinction of the bloody dinosaurs, was received with a backlash of epic proportions among 2nd Edition veterans, which was probably one of the reasons why they ret-conned it so decisively 2 editions later.
Basically they tried to make a newcomer faction into the original and final BBEG of the setting when that position had already firmly been taken for over 10 years.

 Galas wrote:
The Necron fluff change brought us Trazyn the Infinite and just for that it was worth it.

And in the Necron Codex you have literally examples of Tomb Worlds that have been enslaved by their C'than Shards that are literally old-crons to justify to have that as the fluff of your dudes it thats what you want.


And I have to say that yeah, Marines get a ton of releases. But in the past 5 years we have received:
-Sisters of Battle becoming a proper army again
-A very big Necron rework
-A giant wave of ork units between speedfreaks and feral orkz
-A second wave of genestealer cult units rounding up the army
-A bunch of generic chaos marines stuff + Death Guard as a proper army

And if the basically confirmed leaks are correct theres the second wave of chaos marines coming, a good rework of many Craftworld Eldar Kits, fething Squats, a good bunch of new imperial guard infantry and some vehicles,etc...

And between all of that, we are gonna receive 2-3 more primaris waves. Thats a given. But GW needs to keep those stock levels pumping up.

Don't forget AdMech's second wave.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:


So, similar matchup, except that the wyches charging means they get to actually win now, instead of a deadlock for 1 turn then losing the second turn.

If that's so, Wyches might be one of the few exceptions to the general "xenos decline".

Yeah, weird, its like since the marines got their universal 2nd wound and imperial weapon update we've had all of 2 xenos factions released or something.

Was that a "wait and see" scotsman?

Lets see, Necrons, Orks, and DE. . . So three. Two of those factions used to have the same basic toughness as Marines, aaaand, both of them have had their resilience drop in comparison to Marines, rather dramatically.
!

pre-8E boltgun into ork: .66 dead orks.
9E boltgun into ork: .36 dead orks.

pre-8E boltgun into marines: .22 dead marines
9E boltgun into marines: .11 dead marines

pre-8E heavy bolter into orks: 1.33 dead orks
9E heavy bolter into orks: 1 dead ork

Pre-8E heavy bolter into marines: .44 dead marines
9E heavy bolter into marines: .66 dead marines

i dont have to love the way GW parcels out updates 1 faction at a time...but it is how they do it if your pants dont clank for the emperor. Only the special treatment boys get instant updates.And save for Necrons, which were very obviously made less elite with their post-5e fluff update when GW wanted to sell more models to necron players. Necron warriors becoming less elite has way more to do with GW wanting to introduce deathmarks, and praetorians, and lychguard, and overlords, and phaerons, and szarekth the silent king of the known universe on a giant floating throne made of blackstone pylons that coalesce the chakra energy of the known universe into the infinite tsukuyomi than in their comparison with marines.

...Also i love that now that I've pointed out that actually, wyches and drukhari in general's stats have actually gone up vs marines in the damage department since their inception, zoop - the goalposts are over here now, now only durability vs marines matters!

You know what? Marines can be drastically more durable than my dark eldar. I, the famous marine-hating xenos-loving filthy heretical pope of the aliens decree: It is OK for the giant truck man wearing fifty foot space armor to have better durability than my spandex wearing BDSM elves.

 Esmer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, and there's even cooler (imo ofc) Necrons that are literally Terminator-expy units taken over by Artificial Intelligence (Empire of the Severed).

The downside is you lost the "lovecraftian" element. An army enslaved by a C'tan Shard that is fairly easy to bayonet off the table is not really as frightening as the Oldcron lore. I mean look at that Eldar Prophecy from the beginning of the Oldcron 3rd Edition codex. It's chilling, and it's utterly inapplicable to Newcrons.

but what we got really isn't that bad. Just not as spooky in a way I personally enjoy.

To be fair though, the way 3rd Edition suddenly made the Necrons and the C'tan - 2 factions that were virtually completely unknown before - be responsible for literally everything in the 40k universe, including but not limited to, the creation of Chaos, the Eldar and the Orks, being the true face of the Mechanicus creed, the true terrible mysteries described in the Black Library, the Pariah gene, the idea of death as the Grim Reaper and even the extinction of the bloody dinosaurs, was received with a backlash of epic proportions among 2nd Edition veterans, which was probably one of the reasons why they ret-conned it so decisively 2 editions later.
Basically they tried to make a newcomer faction into the original and final BBEG of the setting when that position had already firmly been taken for over 10 years.

Well I'm a little rusty on some of the older lore, but what single faction was the original BBEG then? Eldar? Because I know a lot of Eldar fans really hated the Crons.

Otherwise I think you're sorta overtating things. Necrons didn't create Orks, for example, the Old Ones did. And how did Necrons create chaos? Extinction of the Dinosaurs?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, and there's even cooler (imo ofc) Necrons that are literally Terminator-expy units taken over by Artificial Intelligence (Empire of the Severed).

The downside is you lost the "lovecraftian" element. An army enslaved by a C'tan Shard that is fairly easy to bayonet off the table is not really as frightening as the Oldcron lore. I mean look at that Eldar Prophecy from the beginning of the Oldcron 3rd Edition codex. It's chilling, and it's utterly inapplicable to Newcrons.

but what we got really isn't that bad. Just not as spooky in a way I personally enjoy.

To be fair though, the way 3rd Edition suddenly made the Necrons and the C'tan - 2 factions that were virtually completely unknown before - be responsible for literally everything in the 40k universe, including but not limited to, the creation of Chaos, the Eldar and the Orks, being the true face of the Mechanicus creed, the true terrible mysteries described in the Black Library, the Pariah gene, the idea of death as the Grim Reaper and even the extinction of the bloody dinosaurs, was received with a backlash of epic proportions among 2nd Edition veterans, which was probably one of the reasons why they ret-conned it so decisively 2 editions later.
Basically they tried to make a newcomer faction into the original and final BBEG of the setting when that position had already firmly been taken for over 10 years.

Well I'm a little rusty on some of the older lore, but what single faction was the original BBEG then? Eldar? Because I know a lot of Eldar fans really hated the Crons.

Otherwise I think you're sorta overtating things. Necrons didn't create Orks, for example, the Old Ones did. And how did Necrons create chaos? Extinction of the Dinosaurs?

The War in the Heavens between the Necrontyr and the Old Ones caused the Warp to become as dangerous as it did that would eventually spawn the Chaos Deities. Also The Deceiver had led and helped Abbadon to receive his blade from what I remember too.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, and there's even cooler (imo ofc) Necrons that are literally Terminator-expy units taken over by Artificial Intelligence (Empire of the Severed).

The downside is you lost the "lovecraftian" element. An army enslaved by a C'tan Shard that is fairly easy to bayonet off the table is not really as frightening as the Oldcron lore. I mean look at that Eldar Prophecy from the beginning of the Oldcron 3rd Edition codex. It's chilling, and it's utterly inapplicable to Newcrons.

but what we got really isn't that bad. Just not as spooky in a way I personally enjoy.

To be fair though, the way 3rd Edition suddenly made the Necrons and the C'tan - 2 factions that were virtually completely unknown before - be responsible for literally everything in the 40k universe, including but not limited to, the creation of Chaos, the Eldar and the Orks, being the true face of the Mechanicus creed, the true terrible mysteries described in the Black Library, the Pariah gene, the idea of death as the Grim Reaper and even the extinction of the bloody dinosaurs, was received with a backlash of epic proportions among 2nd Edition veterans, which was probably one of the reasons why they ret-conned it so decisively 2 editions later.
Basically they tried to make a newcomer faction into the original and final BBEG of the setting when that position had already firmly been taken for over 10 years.

Well I'm a little rusty on some of the older lore, but what single faction was the original BBEG then? Eldar? Because I know a lot of Eldar fans really hated the Crons.

Otherwise I think you're sorta overtating things. Necrons didn't create Orks, for example, the Old Ones did. And how did Necrons create chaos? Extinction of the Dinosaurs?

Chaos was the original BBEG, duh.

They were responsible in that the Eldar and the (Kr)orks where explicitedly stated to have been designed as anti-Necron weapons, and that Chaos came about by all the mass killing caused by the War in Heavens, which stopped roughly 65 million years before the present, a time period that is popularly associated with the extinction of the dinosaurs. I do believe that putting the beginning of the great Necron slumber at exactly that specific number, rather than say, 20 million or 1 million, or 100,000 years before our time was meant as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the dinosaur extinction event.

And yeah, I also remember Eldar fans being salty about bits like the Eldar having known about the Necrons for those 65 million years and not doing much to avert their inevitable return - not even when they controlled the entire galaxy - and the Eldar pantheon myth being dumbed down to Khaine, not the Avatar, the real deal, fighting an equally matched duel against the Nightbringer, despite one of them being completely warp-based and the other completely non-warp-based.

 Esmer wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, and there's even cooler (imo ofc) Necrons that are literally Terminator-expy units taken over by Artificial Intelligence (Empire of the Severed).

The downside is you lost the "lovecraftian" element. An army enslaved by a C'tan Shard that is fairly easy to bayonet off the table is not really as frightening as the Oldcron lore. I mean look at that Eldar Prophecy from the beginning of the Oldcron 3rd Edition codex. It's chilling, and it's utterly inapplicable to Newcrons.

but what we got really isn't that bad. Just not as spooky in a way I personally enjoy.

To be fair though, the way 3rd Edition suddenly made the Necrons and the C'tan - 2 factions that were virtually completely unknown before - be responsible for literally everything in the 40k universe, including but not limited to, the creation of Chaos, the Eldar and the Orks, being the true face of the Mechanicus creed, the true terrible mysteries described in the Black Library, the Pariah gene, the idea of death as the Grim Reaper and even the extinction of the bloody dinosaurs, was received with a backlash of epic proportions among 2nd Edition veterans, which was probably one of the reasons why they ret-conned it so decisively 2 editions later.
Basically they tried to make a newcomer faction into the original and final BBEG of the setting when that position had already firmly been taken for over 10 years.

Well I'm a little rusty on some of the older lore, but what single faction was the original BBEG then? Eldar? Because I know a lot of Eldar fans really hated the Crons.

Otherwise I think you're sorta overtating things. Necrons didn't create Orks, for example, the Old Ones did. And how did Necrons create chaos? Extinction of the Dinosaurs?

Chaos was the original BBEG, duh.

Not at all. Chaos had essentially no presence in Rogue Trader until the Realm of Chaos Books. Warp Entities get mentioned, but its more Enslavers, Astral Spectres, Psychneuein and Vampires. 'Warp Entities' have a generic random profile and there's no mention of the chaos gods. Mutants are from biological, chemical or nuclear waste, not chaos.

40k started out as a pretty generic kitchen sink setting. There was no BBEG, just a ruleset of Fantasy Races in Space, with a loose playground of a setting. The implicit 'default setting' in RT was in the Eye of Terror, which was just a region of space with warpstorms that cut worlds off from the Imperium for years at a time, so factions would have a reason to have conflict, but no overwhelming force could be applied.

It took years for 40k to develop into the setting-specific canon monster it is now. Even in the RoC books (Slaves to Darkness), the first version of the Heresy has Horus as simply a general, not a Primarch (that concept isn't even introduced until later Space Marine (the boxed set with first 'Epic' rules and models) and Roc: Lost and the Damned)

The cosmogeny of the 41st millenium wasn't really explored until the Old Ones / Necrontyr lore.

Adding in a cosmogeny didn't ruin anything; the Krorks being created by the Old Ones as a weapon is a much neater story than "orks exist in the galaxy because.... we thought porting over fantasy races was funny haha"

 Esmer wrote:

Chaos was the original BBEG, duh.

Heh. Fair.

I guess I never interpreted Chaos as quite the same endgame, as Chaos is still dependent on mortal consciousness to exist. But also, why can't there be multiple potential big bad end games? Chaos for the victory of warp entities over mortal realms. C'tan/Necrontyr for the separation of warp from realspace, causing mortals to be soulless, and exist as cattle to be slaughtered endlessly by the C'tan, and Tyranids, scouring all life from the galaxy.

And I guess Orks, whose endgame is a pan-galactic mosh pit.

Personally I liked the C'tan existing as realspace counterparts to the warp-based Chaos gods.

 Esmer wrote:

They were responsible in that the Eldar and the (Kr)orks where explicitedly stated to have been designed as anti-Necron weapons, and that Chaos came about by all the mass killing caused by the War in Heavens, which stopped roughly 65 million years before the present, a time period that is popularly associated with the extinction of the dinosaurs. I do believe that putting the beginning of the great Necron slumber at exactly that specific number, rather than say, 20 million or 1 million, or 100,000 years before our time was meant as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the dinosaur extinction event.

Right. . . but as the Necrons aren't one one's actually doing the creating of the "Young Races", I don't make so direct a connection. The Old Ones are the creators of the other races out of response to the C'tan/Necrons, so there definitely is a connection, sure. But the Necrons are indirectly responsible, rather than directly. These "Young Races" in turn also fostered the spawning of Chaos through their greater connection to the Warp, which again, was authored by the Old Ones.

I know it's all very related, and all written out in that 3rd ed Necron book, but the primary agent is still the Old Ones. In my eyes the C'tan Necrontyr book does a good job of "what happened to the Old Ones"?

As for the dinosaurs thing, it's not explicit. Being not-explicit is critically important, imo.

 Esmer wrote:

And yeah, I also remember Eldar fans being salty about bits like the Eldar having known about the Necrons for those 65 million years and not doing much to avert their inevitable return - not even when they controlled the entire galaxy - and the Eldar pantheon myth being dumbed down to Khaine, not the Avatar, the real deal, fighting an equally matched duel against the Nightbringer, despite one of them being completely warp-based and the other completely non-warp-based.

To be fair I'm not too familiar with this area of it, but isn't Slaanesh the entity that broke Khaine into a thousand shards, etc?

 the_scotsman wrote:

pre-8E boltgun into ork: .66 dead orks.
9E boltgun into ork: .36 dead orks.

pre-8E boltgun into marines: .22 dead marines
9E boltgun into marines: .11 dead marines

pre-8E heavy bolter into orks: 1.33 dead orks
9E heavy bolter into orks: 1 dead ork

Pre-8E heavy bolter into marines: .44 dead marines
9E heavy bolter into marines: .66 dead marines

***Cant remember if Marines in 7th were 15ppm or not, but all math is based on that assumption***

This is a bit...misleading to say the least. For starters, that dead Ork was 6pts in 7th edition, in 9th he is 9pts. Next, depending on the turn that Marine could be -1AP and it takes 1/6th less to kill 1 Ork. And Finally, all of this ignores other factors like Morale and the difference in price between the two units.

To kill 10 orkz in 7th edition took 30 Marines or 15 if they were at half range, 30 shots, 20 hits, 10 wounds for 10 dead Orkz. Thats 225-450pts of Marines to kill 60pts of Ork.

To kill 10 orkz in 9th edition it takes 27 Marines double tapping at any range (Or 22.5 on Tac Turns) , 54 shots, 36 hits, 12 wounds and 10 dead Orkz.That is now 486pts of Marines to kill 90pts of Ork.

And of course as mentioned, that ignores Morale. But the main point here is that those Marines are now MORE efficient at killing Orkz on a point for point basis than they were in 7th edition. They are also now twice as durable to small arms fire, twice as deadly in CC and most importantly, all of that ignores the fact that nobody takes Tacs anymore and even their newer/better counter-part (Intercessors) are rarely taken.

Yeah, and I do seem to recall orks being S3. S4 on the charge, and no AP with 3 attacks in previous editions ..also I2 so anything you got into got to swing at you first... and if you're factoring in doctrines we can also talk about waaagh.


But I kind of don't have to, because 225pts to kill 60pts is more efficient than 486pts (or 411pts which is intercessor numbers) to kill 90pts.

Something is actually MORE durable in 9th than 7th and earlier, which is kind of unusual.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
At the end of the day I just don't see moving to w2 and 20ppm as actually doubling marines "eliteness." It made them twice as good vs anti geq weaponry, and more vulnerable vs anti meq weaponry, which my armies bottom out with their defensive profiles. If people are taking plasma and battle cannons and disintegrators that's good for me as a not-MEQ player. If spamming assault cannons and punishers and lasguns is efficient to destroy marines, that's more stuff that's going to be spammed in my opponents lists to kill my stuff.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, and I do seem to recall orks being S3. S4 on the charge, and no AP with 3 attacks in previous editions ..also I2 so anything you got into got to swing at you first... and if you're factoring in doctrines we can also talk about waaagh.


But I kind of don't have to, because 225pts to kill 60pts is more efficient than 486pts (or 411pts which is intercessor numbers) to kill 90pts.

Something is actually MORE durable in 9th than 7th and earlier, which is kind of unusual.

More durable against certain weapons. They are in fact no more durable against Lasguns.

Marines on the other hand became twice as durable against both bolters AND lasguns.

At the end of the day I just don't see moving to w2 and 20ppm as actually doubling marines "eliteness." It made them twice as good vs anti geq weaponry,

Aka twice as durable against all other infantry, it seems.

If spamming assault cannons and punishers and lasguns is efficient to destroy marines, that's more stuff that's going to be spammed in my opponents lists to kill my stuff.

It just changes the optimal weapons. Assault Cannons kill Marines just as good as Heavy Bolters, and Orks got no tougher against Assault Cannons, while Marines doubled their resilience.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines on the other hand became twice as durable against both bolters AND lasguns.

I still don't see this as a bad thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines on the other hand became twice as durable against both bolters AND lasguns.

I still don't see this as a bad thing.

In isolation it might not be if it didn't mean that core units of other factions weren't left in a comparatively much worse spot.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, and I do seem to recall orks being S3. S4 on the charge, and no AP with 3 attacks in previous editions ..also I2 so anything you got into got to swing at you first... and if you're factoring in doctrines we can also talk about waaagh.


But I kind of don't have to, because 225pts to kill 60pts is more efficient than 486pts (or 411pts which is intercessor numbers) to kill 90pts.

Something is actually MORE durable in 9th than 7th and earlier, which is kind of unusual.

225pts at HALF range, or another way to look at that is 450pts to kill 60pts most of the time. Kind of an important detail to not leave out. And Yes, Orkz became more deadly in later rounds of combat with the buff to S4 base and AP-1. Marines likewise doubled their ROF at max range, gained a bunch of buffs like doctrines, super doctrines, chapter tactics, etc while we gained...waaaagh. Its not really a contest at this point. A Tac Marine gained a lot more for a lot less points increase than an Ork boy did, there is no way to deny that. We went up 50% and gained Base T5, S4 and AP-1 on our choppas, our morale went to crap, our ere we go got nerfed, our unit bonus of +1 attack got taken away. Marines went up 20% and doubled their wounds, doubled their # of attacks, doubled their ROF at max range. Both units are hot garbage right now so its not really a contest like I said. But lets not pretend like Boyz gained more since 7th.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines on the other hand became twice as durable against both bolters AND lasguns.

I still don't see this as a bad thing.

I mean, I think there is a problem with basic weapons becoming less and less effective even against basic infantry.

We're increasingly getting to the stage where weapons like Bolters, Lasguns and the like simply have no function and are little more than a lightshow.

I'm sure that's fine for armies whose troops and such can instead have Gatling Mega-Bolters as their basic weapons, but far less so for armies where 80-90% of squads are stuck with basic weapons.

I'm not desperate to step on the toes of those desperate to live out Marine power-fantasies, but I'd also like my guardsmen to be more than just bubble-wrap for vehicles.

The problem with that too is there is always a chance the lasgun will do SOMETHING so you don't want to just skip it, but rolling well over a hundred shooting dice for like 150pts of models to such little effect is just silly and a waste of time.

When I said I wanted a lethality reduction, I meant "I want to roll fewer attack dice" not "I enjoy rolling 1e13 dice, but I don't actually want them to do anything."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem with that too is there is always a chance the lasgun will do SOMETHING so you don't want to just skip it, but rolling well over a hundred shooting dice for like 150pts of models to such little effect is just silly and a waste of time.

Yeah, it's why I always hated Overwatch.

Most of the time it would do nothing at all, but there was always that chance so you ended up with a ton of dice rolling that just exists to waste everyone's time.

 the_scotsman wrote:

[...] It made them twice as good vs anti geq weaponry, and more vulnerable vs anti meq weaponry, which my armies bottom out with their defensive profiles.[...]

I read that repeatedly and wonder if I misunderstand something. In which sense did Marines become "more vulnerable" against anti MEQ weaponry? How can anything become more vulnerable by doubling it's wounds? Or is this meant in the sense that with Heavy Bolters going to D2, the W2 Marines are still exactly as vulnerably as W1 Marines were to D1 Heavy Bolters, but because they became much more resilient against D1 weaponry it "feels" as if they became more vulnerable?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, and I do seem to recall orks being S3. S4 on the charge, and no AP with 3 attacks in previous editions ..also I2 so anything you got into got to swing at you first... and if you're factoring in doctrines we can also talk about waaagh.


But I kind of don't have to, because 225pts to kill 60pts is more efficient than 486pts (or 411pts which is intercessor numbers) to kill 90pts.

Something is actually MORE durable in 9th than 7th and earlier, which is kind of unusual.

More durable against certain weapons. They are in fact no more durable against Lasguns.

Marines on the other hand became twice as durable against both bolters AND lasguns.

At the end of the day I just don't see moving to w2 and 20ppm as actually doubling marines "eliteness." It made them twice as good vs anti geq weaponry,

Aka twice as durable against all other infantry, it seems.

If spamming assault cannons and punishers and lasguns is efficient to destroy marines, that's more stuff that's going to be spammed in my opponents lists to kill my stuff.

It just changes the optimal weapons. Assault Cannons kill Marines just as good as Heavy Bolters, and Orks got no tougher against Assault Cannons, while Marines doubled their resilience.

its really strange after two full editions and the entirety of the launch of primaris that the fact that D2 weapons kill W2 marines extremely efficiently is somehow escaping you.

Remember? the 80% of the edition when primaris were absolute gak?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

[...] It made them twice as good vs anti geq weaponry, and more vulnerable vs anti meq weaponry, which my armies bottom out with their defensive profiles.[...]

I read that repeatedly and wonder if I misunderstand something. In which sense did Marines become "more vulnerable" against anti MEQ weaponry? How can anything become more vulnerable by doubling it's wounds? Or is this meant in the sense that with Heavy Bolters going to D2, the W2 Marines are still exactly as vulnerably as W1 Marines were to D1 Heavy Bolters, but because they became much more resilient against D1 weaponry it "feels" as if they became more vulnerable?

because when I shot a plasma gun at a marine before it used to kill 15pts of model and now it kills 18? Or 20, if we're talking primaris marines, or more if we're talking about the common units like vanguard veterans?

Also an absolute gak ton of weapons non-coincidentally moved from D1 or Dd3 to D2 with the universal shift of marines to a W2 heavy infantry profile?

I was not aware that the Marine price increased. Now I understand what I was missing. Thanks for clearing that up, Scotsman

SemperMortis wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, and I do seem to recall orks being S3. S4 on the charge, and no AP with 3 attacks in previous editions ..also I2 so anything you got into got to swing at you first... and if you're factoring in doctrines we can also talk about waaagh.


But I kind of don't have to, because 225pts to kill 60pts is more efficient than 486pts (or 411pts which is intercessor numbers) to kill 90pts.

Something is actually MORE durable in 9th than 7th and earlier, which is kind of unusual.

225pts at HALF range, or another way to look at that is 450pts to kill 60pts most of the time. Kind of an important detail to not leave out. And Yes, Orkz became more deadly in later rounds of combat with the buff to S4 base and AP-1. Marines likewise doubled their ROF at max range, gained a bunch of buffs like doctrines, super doctrines, chapter tactics, etc while we gained...waaaagh. Its not really a contest at this point. A Tac Marine gained a lot more for a lot less points increase than an Ork boy did, there is no way to deny that. We went up 50% and gained Base T5, S4 and AP-1 on our choppas, our morale went to crap, our ere we go got nerfed, our unit bonus of +1 attack got taken away. Marines went up 20% and doubled their wounds, doubled their # of attacks, doubled their ROF at max range. Both units are hot garbage right now so its not really a contest like I said. But lets not pretend like Boyz gained more since 7th.

i guess it depends on the context of how you're using ork boyz. I've always used them as trukk boyz, as my orks have always been a speed freeks army. to me, morale went from something that on a bad 2d6 roll basically removed my unit from the game to a D6 roll that if im unlucky removes 2 models, and where I'm standing it seems like marines KEPT chapter tactics, you know, like they had in 7E and we GAINED them. At least, I dont think that my orks used to go up to 2+ to hit in melee after I'd killed the first thing in the assault phase.

And I do think that the +1A for having 20+ models wasnt something that we had in 7e either. Or an army-wide reroll to charges, that's new since 7e.

Marines being A1 was always a joke. Like, I almost always made fun of space marine players when I got into combat with their stuff in 7e and they got to swing before me, like "cmon, finest soldiers of the imperium, do your stuff! Oooooh, only 11 attacks huh?"

 the_scotsman wrote:
Marines being A1 was always a joke. Like, I almost always made fun of space marine players when I got into combat with their stuff in 7e and they got to swing before me, like "cmon, finest soldiers of the imperium, do your stuff! Oooooh, only 11 attacks huh?"

Just a quick question: do you think the number of attacks defines how "fine" a soldier is? Is it possible to have infantry that are good but also only have 1 attack per model?

It's a genuine question, as I think there's some element of the game designers themselves forgetting what their abstractions mean. The "number of attacks" a model makes has very little to do with whether or not it is a good soldier; conversely, some of the worst troopers in the game had plenty of attacks back in the day (mutants/mutant brutes).

I think there's a general trend in modern 40k that "elite" armies aren't elite because they're well trained and equipped, but rather because they have excellent statlines and biggo numbers. It's an interesting shift, and I think largely provoked by how gakky 40k's 8th edition rules were at handling things other than "kill the enemy and be killed." If all that matters is how well you kill people, it's hard to feel elite without biggo numbers. And to an extent, 40k has always had this problem, but it's a good bit worse now than it used to be, imho. At least back in the day, it was things like leadership and unique ways of commanding your troops on the board that made Marines feel unique and elite by comparison to other factions.