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.

As I see it when Necrons became "Tomb Kings in Spaaace" the idea was that your generic Necron Warrior was basically a Skeleton Warrior, and so should be relatively spammable to facilitate Silver Tide*. If they were 20ish points each, bringing 80 plus some characters would basically be your entire list. Its not really a tide. Every edition they seem to go further into this archetype. Which is why we see arguments about say the new models - because them being half-repaired, half falling apart fits this sort of shambling horror but individually a bit crap idea, and not the "I'm basically an indestructible self-repairing Terminator, see me shiny and chrome." of earlier editions.

Creep meant Marines were going the same way, but GW decided they wanted to revert that.

*I think there's an interesting question to ask about which armies have an iconic "tide" and which don't. I just find it interesting that there's a view Orks for instance should be able to just spam Boyz and that's basically it (which has usually been a function of the rest of their codex being awful). I feel for example hordes of gaunts covering the table like confetti is iconic - but not convinced its ever been especially viable etc.

If however someone said spamming Guardians, or basic Sisters of Battle should be a viable archetype for those faction's lists, it would produce a collective "wot?" from all concerned. "That's not the fluff, or the game's history, or... something something something."

I think its a fair argument whether GW would have been better served creating "status" for certain unit types. I.E you'd have "Cheap chaff infantry", "Elite 1 wound infantry", "2 wound infantry", "3 wound infantry" "light tanks/monsters", "medium tanks/monsters" and finally Knight scale things - rather than trying to make almost every faction have its own special snowflake stat line. But equally it might be less fun if a grot, guardsman, termagaunt etc were literally identical with the same rules and points on the table.

Marines are heavy infantry, just like Tyranid Warriors, Grotesques, or Bullgrynes, and "basic" weapons shouldn't be efficient against heavy infantry. If you want to efficiently kill heavy infantry you should need something bigger than lasguns, bolters, or shurican catapults. Think autocannons, heavy bolters, plasma, and disintegrators. You shouldn't go hunting moose with a deer rifle.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
--This also causes immersion-breaking incongruities with the background, where Marine or different-Marine units are shot with lasguns or even strangled to death by Guardsmen.

Ok, share. Where in the background do guardsmen strangle astartes to death?

Daemonettes, not blood letters.

Unless you missed the earlier discussion on the thread which wouldn't surprise me.

But way to miss the point, 10/10


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ok, share. Where in the background do guardsmen strangle astartes to death?

Pre-bionics Straken strangles a Chaos Sorcerer Lord to death in the 5th edition IG codex Planetstrike battle book with a garotte.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Marines are heavy infantry, just like Tyranid Warriors, Grotesques, or Bullgrynes, and "basic" weapons shouldn't be efficient against heavy infantry.

If Marines are heavy infantry (despite their cost being half that of Bullgryns or Grotesques), what are Terminators and Centurions?

I would say Marines and Tyranid warriors would classify best as medium infantry. (One has more wounds the other better armour and they kinda balance each other)

Terminators, Gravis units, Lychguard, etc... are best described as heavy infantry.

Ogryns, Grotesques, Custodes, Tyrant Guard, are... are basically Monstruos Infantry.

 vipoid wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Marines are heavy infantry, just like Tyranid Warriors, Grotesques, or Bullgrynes, and "basic" weapons shouldn't be efficient against heavy infantry.

If Marines are heavy infantry (despite their cost being half that of Bullgryns or Grotesques), what are Terminators and Centurions?

Also heavy infantry? It takes 20 boltgun shots from tactical marines to bring down a 17pt necron immortal and not have him pop back up. that's pretty inefficient for sure - 180pts of models to kill 17.

36 lasgun shots to bring down a marine (a 55pt guard squad plus a 20pt platoon commander to issue them a FRFSRF order) is slightly more efficient, but still highlights the same, intended consequence. Those weapons are inefficient against heavy infantry, heavy infantry is intended to be brought down by heavier weaponry that any army that uses light ifnantry as its backbone (guard, Admech, GSC, etc) has available to them on all their basic squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I would say Marines and Tyranid warriors would classify best as medium infantry. (One has more wounds the other better armour and they kinda balance each other)

Terminators, Gravis units, Lychguard, etc... are best described as heavy infantry.

Ogryns, Grotesques, Custodes, Tyrant Guard, are... are basically Monstruos Infantry.

The only real distinction is woundcount. W2 infantry is specifically vulnerable to d2 weaponry, which is 2/3 efficient against W3 infantry. If we're really going to have a third class of "Super-heavy infantry" between infantry and light vehicles, its just a distinction between W2 (or W1 in occasional circumstances like necron immortals) and W3/W4 where antitank weapons start being usable and D2 anti-elite weapons become a bit less efficient.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

3 single attack marines can kill 1 mortal human in close combat...

Seems slow, I agree. The extra attack is nice.

It takes 40 1A Guardsman to kill a 2W Marine.

lol

The absolute state of people whining about 2W marines.

Thank God it takes forty guardsmen to kill a 2W marine in melee.

Should be like one hundred tbh.

Gross.
You must be blind from all the bolter porn.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ok, share. Where in the background do guardsmen strangle astartes to death?

Pre-bionics Straken strangles a Chaos Sorcerer Lord to death in the 5th edition IG codex Planetstrike battle book with a garotte.

Heh, I was expecting Sly Marbo.

vipoid wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Marines are heavy infantry, just like Tyranid Warriors, Grotesques, or Bullgrynes, and "basic" weapons shouldn't be efficient against heavy infantry.

If Marines are heavy infantry (despite their cost being half that of Bullgryns or Grotesques), what are Terminators and Centurions?

Heavier infantry? Super Heavy infantry? Do we need more categories? The point, as The_Scotsman points out, is those are units that can't be killed efficiently with "basic" weapons. They require something with more "oomph". But those "anti-heavy infantry" weapons are inefficient at killing lighter infantry, so you need some of both in a TAC list. And some decent AT as well. You shouldn't be able to just spam the "best weapon".

Spoletta wrote:
Also, if you are bothered by that, can I ask you:

What is the role of lasguns against a knight army?
What is the role of lasguns against a Custodes army?
What is the role of lasguns against a parking lot of any kind?
What is the role of lasguns against a monster mash?

Knights and Custodes are two armies out of a couple dozen. Parking lots and monster mash are skew lists.

Marines are the most common defensive profile in the game by faction, and the most-played by a good margin.

There's a big difference between a game having some factions that are resistant to common weapons and shake up the paradigm, versus a game where a majority of factions including the overwhelmingly most popular ones are resistant to common weapons.

And, to be clear, the latter has always been the case. W1 Marines were point-for-point some of the worst things you could shoot at with lasguns. It just wasn't as extreme as rolling buckets of dice to remove a single model, or even the special and heavy weapons struggling to kill Marines.

As it stands you either load up on plasma and heavy bolters specifically to deal with Marines- because in a Marine-dominated game, that's what a TAC list does- or you're ineffective. An Infantry Squad at 18" with a grenade launcher and an autocannon averages 1.33 wounds against Marines. Doesn't even kill a single model. Even if you take the approach that eight members of the squad are just there to cheerlead for the two who do the real killing, it doesn't work unless you specifically tailor to fight Marines.

Bonus round: That same squad is more efficient shooting at a Knight Crusader than it is shooting at Tactical Marines. Does that really seem right?

 catbarf wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Also, if you are bothered by that, can I ask you:

What is the role of lasguns against a knight army?
What is the role of lasguns against a Custodes army?
What is the role of lasguns against a parking lot of any kind?
What is the role of lasguns against a monster mash?

Knights and Custodes are two armies out of a couple dozen. Parking lots and monster mash are skew lists.

Marines are the most common defensive profile in the game by faction, and the most-played by a good margin.

There's a big difference between a game having some factions that are resistant to common weapons and shake up the paradigm, versus a game where a majority of factions including the overwhelmingly most popular ones are resistant to common weapons.

And, to be clear, the latter has always been the case. W1 Marines were point-for-point some of the worst things you could shoot at with lasguns. It just wasn't as extreme as rolling buckets of dice to remove a single model, or even the special and heavy weapons struggling to kill Marines.

As it stands you either load up on plasma and heavy bolters specifically to deal with Marines- because in a Marine-dominated game, that's what a TAC list does- or you're ineffective. An Infantry Squad at 18" with a grenade launcher and an autocannon averages 1.33 wounds against Marines. Doesn't even kill a single model. Even if you take the approach that eight members of the squad are just there to cheerlead for the two who do the real killing, it doesn't work unless you specifically tailor to fight Marines.

I think it's pretty clear from...most of 8th, that heavy infantry lists arent always all the opponents that you'll face.

And also, 40k is at the end of the day a game about holding objectives first, and killing your opponent's army second. There has always been a role for units that are cheap and may not fight particularly efficiently but do hold objectives.

And if opponents do spam anti-elite weaponry, you see these light infantry skew lists showing up and winning tournaments.

For what it's worth when I dabbled with a guard infantry heavy list it never went through my head that I can defeat my opponents with lasguns.

I had squads with heavy weapons, special weapons, all with the idea that these weapons had more viable targets than a lasgun and added versatility to the unit.

I also obviously had tanks, transports, sentinels all to support the infantry. The infantry are the focus, but they're not gonna win on their own. I say the same thing about my marines too. I don't plan on my intercessors tabling anyone with bolt rifles.

I think this lasgun argument is a weak. That being said I do expect hot shot lasguns to do something. Elite weapons on an elite unit killing other elite units. (even still I'd take the volley gun)

 fraser1191 wrote:
For what it's worth when I dabbled with a guard infantry heavy list it never went through my head that I can defeat my opponents with lasguns.

I had squads with heavy weapons, special weapons, all with the idea that these weapons had more viable targets than a lasgun and added versatility to the unit.

I also obviously had tanks, transports, sentinels all to support the infantry. The infantry are the focus, but they're not gonna win on their own. I say the same thing about my marines too. I don't plan on my intercessors tabling anyone with bolt rifles.

I think this lasgun argument is a weak. That being said I do expect hot shot lasguns to do something. Elite weapons on an elite unit killing other elite units. (even still I'd take the volley gun)

Exchange Lasguns for Hormagaunts. Hormagaunts cannot give their Sergeant a Powerfist, or purchase a Plasms gun. How many Hormagaunts should it take to down a Marine? How many Shuriken Catapult shots?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
For what it's worth when I dabbled with a guard infantry heavy list it never went through my head that I can defeat my opponents with lasguns.

I had squads with heavy weapons, special weapons, all with the idea that these weapons had more viable targets than a lasgun and added versatility to the unit.

I also obviously had tanks, transports, sentinels all to support the infantry. The infantry are the focus, but they're not gonna win on their own. I say the same thing about my marines too. I don't plan on my intercessors tabling anyone with bolt rifles.

I think this lasgun argument is a weak. That being said I do expect hot shot lasguns to do something. Elite weapons on an elite unit killing other elite units. (even still I'd take the volley gun)

Exchange Lasguns for Hormagaunts. Hormagaunts cannot give their Sergeant a Powerfist, or purchase a Plasms gun. How many Hormagaunts should it take to down a Marine? How many Shuriken Catapult shots?

Their Sergeants are those with Synapse.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
For what it's worth when I dabbled with a guard infantry heavy list it never went through my head that I can defeat my opponents with lasguns.

I had squads with heavy weapons, special weapons, all with the idea that these weapons had more viable targets than a lasgun and added versatility to the unit.

I also obviously had tanks, transports, sentinels all to support the infantry. The infantry are the focus, but they're not gonna win on their own. I say the same thing about my marines too. I don't plan on my intercessors tabling anyone with bolt rifles.

I think this lasgun argument is a weak. That being said I do expect hot shot lasguns to do something. Elite weapons on an elite unit killing other elite units. (even still I'd take the volley gun)

Exchange Lasguns for Hormagaunts. Hormagaunts cannot give their Sergeant a Powerfist, or purchase a Plasms gun. How many Hormagaunts should it take to down a Marine? How many Shuriken Catapult shots?

How many should it take? Then balance the points by the extra movement of Hormagaunts, the cheapness for screening, the ignoring morale when in synapse range, and effectiveness against non-MEQ... And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!

Spoletta wrote:
Or pull marines into close range where they can actually hurt them quite well (2 squads in FRFSRF have a 54% return on intercessors. Yes, I'm considering the cost of the orders).

74 Lasgun shots (Rapid Fire, FRFSRF, and the two Pistols from Sergeants) kills two Marines. That's 40 points of Intercessors.

Two squads without orders costs 110 points. How on earth are you getting a 54% return in a shooting phase?

brainpsyk wrote:
And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!

Yes, I suppose it probably is difficult to balance Hormagaunts to be effective against Marines when Marines are now so tough that low-S D1 weapons are more efficient against Knights. For the record: 30 Hormagaunts (180pts) kill 1.93 Tacticals (35pts), or inflict 1.93 wounds to a Crusader (38.5pts).

So now we're in a state where we have units that despite being reasonably good at combat in prior editions are outright inefficient against the most common defensive profile in the game, and if made efficient against Marines will then also be efficient anti-LoW units.

I would hope, though, that your takeaway would be that this is a problem for design, rather than a 'not so simple!' handwave non-answer.

 catbarf wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:
And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!

Yes, I suppose it probably is difficult to balance Hormagaunts to be effective against Marines when Marines are now so tough that low-S D1 weapons are more efficient against Knights. For the record: 30 Hormagaunts (180pts) kill 1.93 Tacticals (35pts), or inflict 1.93 wounds to a Crusader (38.5pts).

So now we're in a state where we have units that despite being reasonably good at combat in prior editions are outright inefficient against the most common defensive profile in the game, and if made efficient against Marines will then also be efficient anti-LoW units.

I would hope, though, that your takeaway would be that this is a problem for design, rather than a 'not so simple!' handwave non-answer.

hey cmere I'll let you in on a little secret.

1 - you could increase their strength to 4 if you wanted and that would not increase their effectiveness vs knights

2 - removing "38.5" points of one knight from the board...is doing nothing. The knight remains, unscathed and unaffected in damage output. It can even fall back and just act as if your hormagants were not there.

removing 40pts of marines removes 2 marines, and then those that remain may no longer target any of the rest of your stuff.

Yes, Hormagants and Eldar Guardians absolutely need to have some more TAC capabilities built into them since they dont really have weapon options available. with Eldar, I fully suspect there will be a balance pass of their weapon options and, hopefully, some boosts to the core eldar statlines. I think Sv4+ is a pretty solid place to start personally, with 2+ heavy aspect and 3+ aspect armor, though since Incubi stayed at 3+ I would also accept across-the-board 3+ for aspects and just remove the distinction between heavy and light aspect armor.

Also, I generally agree that vehicles should basically be across the board tougher than they are. If damage output is to stay the same, id prefer to see vehicles gain access to all types of cover and gain some extra wounds. Ideally all at once, in a game-wide pass. As all good changes to the game should be done.

I do not agree that marines should be made artificially weaker just to appease the desire for everything in the game to feel like it is equally made of paper.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Holy gak every time I leave this thread it gets sillier. Whole ARMIES unable to kill marines? Oh those poor necron warriors, how will they possibly down the big stwong space marines with their only...strength 5 AP-2 gun? What weapon could they POSSIBLY TAKE?? O woe betide the blootletter, so weak and pathetic in comparison to the unstoppable space marine, why 240pts of them barely manages to muster the strength to kill...284pts of primaris marines in one round of melee combat? What are they to doooo?

Talk about disingenuous argumentation.

It's not the points, yo. That should be made real clear. Would you be making the same "points argument" if Marines were competetive at 6ppm but T3 W1 and Sv6+? No you wouldn't.

Here's the deal, 240 points of Bloodletters is 30 Bloodletters. You're saying it takes 30 Bloodletters to kill 14 Marines . . . Well guess what? There was a time when that took HALF the amount of Bloodletters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:
I do not agree that marines should be made artificially weaker just to appease the desire for everything in the game to feel like it is equally made of paper.

When it took 20 lasgun shots to kill a Marine, and only 6 to kill a Guardsman, that's not "equally made of paper".

 catbarf wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:
And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!

Yes, I suppose it probably is difficult to balance Hormagaunts to be effective against Marines when Marines are now so tough that low-S D1 weapons are more efficient against Knights. For the record: 30 Hormagaunts (180pts) kill 1.93 Tacticals (35pts), or inflict 1.93 wounds to a Crusader (38.5pts).

So now we're in a state where we have units that despite being reasonably good at combat in prior editions are outright inefficient against the most common defensive profile in the game, and if made efficient against Marines will then also be efficient anti-LoW units.

I would hope, though, that your takeaway would be that this is a problem for design, rather than a 'not so simple!' handwave non-answer.

And I hope your takeaway is that it's not just a matter of how many marines you can kill (a handwaving of "but X! but X! but !"), and that there are other aspects of the game that marines just don't do well. Marines can't screen like my guard can, marines aren't as fast as hormugaunts, and they aren't as numerous as Guardians. So the argument that "X can't kill 5 marines" really isn't a valid argument, because it's only 1 piece of a much larges puzzle.

I play guard, and they are lagging quite a ways behind, mostly because they still have an 8th edition codex, same for hormugaunts and guardians, even knights! Since they haven't been updated to the lethality of 9th yet, the answer isn't rolling back marines (a C-tier codex) to 8th edition standards, to make it a valid comparision, we need to bring those other codexes forward to 9th, and then we can make a comparison.

To make this a valid 9th comparison using your standard, let's ask how many Incubi should it take to kill 5 marines? 5 Incubi kill 6.9 marines. I'd argue that with baseline marines being a C-Tier codex, and people tailor their armies to fight marines, that marines aren't durable enough (remember, i play guard).

I think the 2W statline represents the novel background for space marine novels pretty well. It's just weird that people don't want the imperial guard rules to match their background, for example in the Gaunt's Ghosts series, where one squad of guard vets can take out an entire squad of marines with no casualties.

brainpsyk wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:
And, if it's a lot of attacks, balance the points against it's effectiveness against tanks & monstrous creatures. Not so simple anymore, is it!

Yes, I suppose it probably is difficult to balance Hormagaunts to be effective against Marines when Marines are now so tough that low-S D1 weapons are more efficient against Knights. For the record: 30 Hormagaunts (180pts) kill 1.93 Tacticals (35pts), or inflict 1.93 wounds to a Crusader (38.5pts).

So now we're in a state where we have units that despite being reasonably good at combat in prior editions are outright inefficient against the most common defensive profile in the game, and if made efficient against Marines will then also be efficient anti-LoW units.

I would hope, though, that your takeaway would be that this is a problem for design, rather than a 'not so simple!' handwave non-answer.

And I hope your takeaway is that it's not just a matter of how many marines you can kill (a handwaving of "but X! but X! but !"), and that there are other aspects of the game that marines just don't do well. Marines can't screen like my guard can, marines aren't as fast as hormugaunts, and they aren't as numerous as Guardians. So the argument that "X can't kill 5 marines" really isn't a valid argument, because it's only 1 piece of a much larges puzzle.

I play guard, and they are lagging quite a ways behind, mostly because they still have an 8th edition codex, same for hormugaunts and guardians, even knights! Since they haven't been updated to the lethality of 9th yet, the answer isn't rolling back marines (a C-tier codex) to 8th edition standards, to make it a valid comparision, we need to bring those other codexes forward to 9th, and then we can make a comparison.

To make this a valid 9th comparison using your standard, let's ask how many Incubi should it take to kill 5 marines? 5 Incubi kill 6.9 marines. I'd argue that with baseline marines being a C-Tier codex, and people tailor their armies to fight marines, that marines aren't durable enough (remember, i play guard).

Lol, I wasn't agreeing with you but I got your position in the first half. Then you used a hyper optimized unit designed to kill Marines from a very overtuned codex to claim Marines aren't durable enough. A much larger puzzle, indeed.

brainpsyk wrote:

How many (hormagaunts) should it take?

Well, lets see. . .
In 2nd edition Hormagaunts had a WS4 and 2S4 attacks. For translation, they had the same WS as a Marine, the same S as a Marine, but twice the attacks. It's a little tricky to calculate CC results for 2nd ed, but the Hormagaunts had a slight advantage with the 2 attacks. The Space Marine had nice armor though, so I'd estimate 2-3 Hormagaunts to really take a Space Marine down.

By 4th edition, Hormagaunts had dropped to S3, but still had WS4+ (equal to a Space Marine). On the charge they got a bonus attack, for 3 total. It took about 6 Hormagaunts on a charge.

By 8th edition, Hormagaunts WS has dropped to less than a Space Marine, but CC works differently. No extra attacks are awarded for charging anymore. It took 9 Hormagaunts to kill a Marine in CC.

9th ediiton, Space Marines are 2W. It takes 18 Hormagaunts to kill a Space Marine.

So we've gone from 2-3, all the way to 18 Hormagaunts to kill a Marine, and people are just cheering it on.

 the_scotsman wrote:
1 - you could increase their strength to 4 if you wanted and that would not increase their effectiveness vs knights

Yes, at this point a boost to S4 is pretty much the only lever for increasing effectiveness versus Marines without also increasing effectiveness versus Knights... But simultaneously doubles their effectiveness against T6 and T7, making them better at killing Predators than killing Marines. There's collateral no matter what approach you take, and in part it's because the delta between a Marine's multi-wound/3+ defensive profile and a tank's multi-wound/3+ defensive profile isn't that big. More wounds on tanks would certainly help.

In any case, Hormagaunts needing to move to S4 to effectively combat Marines would be a perfect example of how W2 Marines has contributed to the lethality escalation of the game.

 the_scotsman wrote:
2 - removing "38.5" points of one knight from the board...is doing nothing. The knight remains, unscathed and unaffected in damage output. It can even fall back and just act as if your hormagants were not there.

removing 40pts of marines removes 2 marines, and then those that remain may no longer target any of the rest of your stuff.

That's a nonsensical objection. If we're concocting scenarios, maybe those are the last two wounds on the Knight and it goes from still functional to kaput. I could just as easily say that the last two Marines in a squad aren't likely to accomplish much, but any whittling down of a Knight so my Hive Guard and Exocrines can finish the job is helpful. Damage is damage and it all adds up; no list plans to kill a Knight with a single shot from a single weapon.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I do not agree that marines should be made artificially weaker just to appease the desire for everything in the game to feel like it is equally made of paper.

I never said Marines should 'be made artificially weaker'. I'm saying it's a design issue for the most common defensive profile in the game to be essentially a hard skew that devalues the basic infantry of every other faction. I would rather see Marines be a little more vulnerable to small arms, but less hard-countered by D2 high-volume modest-AP weapons. The issue as it stands is that W2 makes for a key breakpoint where D1 weapons underperform, but multishot D2 weapons blow away 20pt models in one hit (for reference: currently, a heavy bolter does 80% more damage to Tacticals than it did in 4th), and then balancing weapons to be effective against T4/W2/3+ Marines without also being prime anti-vehicle weapons is clearly difficult.

If you're Marines and I'm Guard, a game where I'm playing fluffy light infantry is going to be frustrating for me, and a game where I'm cramming in as many heavy bolters, battle cannons, and plasma guns as I can is going to be frustrating for you. I'd rather meet in the middle. W1 Marines with the old AP system did that better, but with that AP system dead and buried I'm open to alternatives. I agree entirely about rebalancing vehicles, but there's a core optimization issue here with the Marine statline that will continue to produce unsatisfying outcomes until it is addressed.

To be honest hormagaunts have been laughably weak for a while.

GW has tried many times to power them up (BA gave them so many conditional buffs that they can get to AP -5!). It never really worked, but I guess that we can safely assume that GW does not consider the current Hgaunts to be correctly represented. I mean, they punch you as hard as a normal human...

They are one model that I'm 100% sure that will be heavily buffed when the moment arrives.

I have to say the problem of stuff being more efficient at killing vehicles than infantry is because infantry has been upgrade to 2W and 3W or T5 or other stuff in multiple codices but vehicles are still with 10-12 wounds profiles from 8th index. The same goes for 24 wound knights.

But I'll say that 400 points of an imperial knight accomplish much more than 20 intercessors.

Spoletta wrote:
To be honest hormagaunts have been laughably weak for a while.

GW has tried many times to power them up (BA gave them so many conditional buffs that they can get to AP -5!). It never really worked, but I guess that we can safely assume that GW does not consider the current Hgaunts to be correctly represented. I mean, they punch you as hard as a normal human...

They are one model that I'm 100% sure that will be heavily buffed when the moment arrives.

Fair enough, but would you like to hazard a guess as to how many Hormagaunts it'll take to kill a Space Marine once the codex comes out? I'd love it if it dropped back to something like 6, which I think is reasonable. But let's see, that would take something like. .

WS 3+, S4, 3 Attacks. A buff to three stats. I'm not going to hold my breath for that. . .

Honestly, I'm just not particularly interested in seeing more updates to marines now that we're so near the end of the tunnel on this two year seemingly endless parade of marines taking up release slots.

Eldar, Guard, Tau, Nids, so many armies are sitting around on what are very nearly unaltered Index 8th statlines. Heck, every codex 'nids monster is still walking around with a statline from when you used to be able to randomly one-shot a vehicle, so a big monster having like 3 WS4+ attacks at like Strength 16 was a quasi-viable setup.

The obsession with re-litigating statlines and core abilities for factions that JUST got updates is getting a little bit frustrating. I get it, GW is now willing to re-look at things in a way that they never were before, its great, but itd be great if it didnt mean we had to sit around for fething 14 marine codex release slots because gw goes "you know what, you're right, W1 2+ IS a better idea after all! Yeah!!"

Meanwhile, Wraithlords can still swing gigantic swords at targets and roll a fething '1' for damage, every nid monster is the same profile, eldar guardians are still nearly identical to guardsmen, tau are clinging desperately to an old mechanic from last edition to be usable, genestealers in the goddamn genestealer army dont get subfaction traits like GW is tryign to discourage you from using them like cultists in the CSM dex.

W1 marines obviously feel like crap. Ask any CSM player. Any of them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
To be honest hormagaunts have been laughably weak for a while.

GW has tried many times to power them up (BA gave them so many conditional buffs that they can get to AP -5!). It never really worked, but I guess that we can safely assume that GW does not consider the current Hgaunts to be correctly represented. I mean, they punch you as hard as a normal human...

They are one model that I'm 100% sure that will be heavily buffed when the moment arrives.

Fair enough, but would you like to hazard a guess as to how many Hormagaunts it'll take to kill a Space Marine once the codex comes out? I'd love it if it dropped back to something like 6, which I think is reasonable. But let's see, that would take something like. .

WS 3+, S4, 3 Attacks. A buff to three stats. I'm not going to hold my breath for that. . .

Nah, just making the scytal +1S -1AP will bring that number to 8, which is reasonable.

 the_scotsman wrote:
W1 marines obviously feel like crap. Ask any CSM player. Any of them.

There are larger issues at play. I know you know this because you're also one of the voices on the "game is too lethal" subject. 1w Marines worked a lot better when the game was less lethal. More lethality comes from all sorts of places, like weapon proliferation, LOS and cover rules, etc. 1w Marines "feeling like crap" is a symptom of other issues, and just moving Marines to 2w is I nice way to provide excuses for increasing lethality in other areas even more.

Also I played 1W Marines all through 8th and rather enjoyed it.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly, I'm just not particularly interested in seeing more updates to marines now that we're so near the end of the tunnel on this two year seemingly endless parade of marines taking up release slots.

Indeed. Now that Marines are done, I can't wait to see what new models Dark Eldar get for their new codex after a mere 11 years of waiting.

Oh.