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.

tneva, you missed my point. No one takes them NOW but that doesn't mean no one will take them in the FUTURE. Making adjustments with the future of the game in mind is important too.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
tneva, you missed my point. No one takes them NOW but that doesn't mean no one will take them in the FUTURE. Making adjustments with the future of the game in mind is important too.

we know that NOW 20-man blobs are bad. Making it ~60pts more expensive for the second wound won't magically make them better. Killing a full sized bloodclaw unit is trivial, killing a 20-man crusader squad is trivial (yaya, 4+ on the bowlcuts). 20 man marines just take too much space on the board to hide them properly.

And theres no real FUTURE to set to since GW knew their codex wouldnt be out for that long, patching us up with some extra wounds instead of lowering points yet again in a hope that people start taking CSM instead of cultists is dumb. there is no world in which giving us a second wound would bring us to the ridiculous winrates of the new codexes

EviscerationPlague wrote:

What garbage logic. It doesn't matter how common the army is to play against, otherwise you're saying nobody in a casual setting should have a counter to Dark Eldar.

On the contrary its solid logic that you are misunderstanding. The most common defensive profile in the game is T4 3+, add in the similar profiles of T3 and T5 with 3+ and its ridiculously common. Marines of all flavors, Grey Knights, Custards, Sisters of Battle etc etc. So you build your army with the mindset that you are going to be facing a lot of good saved, multi-wound targets. And the best part? That mindset also builds into a relatively effective anti-tank unit as well. A heavy bolter, a single heavy bolter averages 3 shots, 2 hits and 0.66dmg to a T6-8 3+ vehicle a turn. That is with zero buffs. Not great, but compare that to say a Stormbolter which is 4 shots, 2.66 hits, against T6-7 its 0.88 wounds, against T8 its 0.44, against 3+ saves its 0.29 and 0.15dmg. So less than half the dmg against vehicles. So its better at killing Marines than a stormbolter and better at killing vehicles. its just a better all around profile than a D1 S4 weapon.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
What you're describing is ludonarrative dissonance. And no, the number of people playing a faction isn't a factor to how elite something feels, it's the rules that do that.

You are misunderstanding as well. Space Marines AREN'T elite in the playing of the game because they are the most common factor. They are supposed to feel elite, but since they are literally the measuring stick of the game, everything is built to how they compare to or against a Marine profile. Complain about it to your hearts content, but Marine buffs will never be sufficient to fulfill that powerfantasy without breaking the game, Iron Hands 8.5 as an example.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I disagree. They could just as easily use Guard, or a statline of all 4s if they want. There is no requirement to choose one faction over another just because it's more commonly played.

Yes, they absolutely could. So if T3 5+ begins to make up a massive percentage of the units in the game you'll see the meta shift towards that defensive profile. But since Ultramarines, Ravenguard, Salamanders, Iron Hands, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, Chaos Marines, Death Guard, Grey Knights, Custards etc etc all share a relatively similar defensive profile, you are going to have a long time to wait until they aren't the most common.

Karol wrote:
Marines are very rarely a top army. And it mostly happens at the start or very end of an edition. And some marines go through a whole edition or more without getting to stomp anyone.
And all of those things have their roots in rules of the game, and nothing else. In the lore Salamnders, Crimson Fists etc are doing great.

Karol you have been provably wrong on this subject for years now bud. In 7th edition Marines were top tier. In 8th edition you had Bobby G Gunlines, smaller success during the height of soup and then right into Iron Hands 2, Electric Boogaloo. In 9th Marines ran away with the tournament scene until GW put out Dark Eldar and Ad-Mech. I'll be utterly floored if Marines don't get a 2nd codex this edition.

Now if you want to argue that a specific sub faction doesn't do well, that's fine. DA suffered a lot in the recent decade or so. But that wasn't the argument you made.

Tyel wrote:

I guess you can argue that Marines were so popular people would always spam the 2 damage weapons - but I'm not convinced that's automatically true. I don't think anyone putting a list together for tournaments today thinks "wait, can I beat space marines?" The issue is that GW failed to make 2 damage=the anti-marine choice, and bad against a range of other armies. Which is why in 9th I think they took another approach - with -1 damage on DG, Ork vehicles, dreadnoughts etc. This was meant to temper damage 2 spam. But again, codexes were not all written which this philosophy. Buffed up Fire Warriors can get 100% shooting returns into Intercessors. Buffed up Skitarri get 70% returns. Guardians are about 45% before buffs and rise quite rapidly etc. This is all 1 damage shooting. As always, GW does balance by throwing knives at a board.

As I mentioned above, it is true because D2 is also a useful profile when you are attempting to dmg vehicles as well. And its not just D2, its also D3+3 and even D6 and D6+2/4. A Multi-Melta against a Marine unit averages 2 shots , 1.33 hits and 1.1 wounds. It goes straight through Marine armor and averages 1 dead Marine a turn and it can spike and do 2 occasionally. That still isn't a bad return on investment for a 50-60pt model. And of course against their preferred targets, those MM's are doing work against Vehicles.

Karol wrote:
People don't build their armies around, can this beat marines, because most of the time marines aren't the army to be beat, if you want to do good. This does have the effect that games played outside of tournaments, become less fun for marine players. Because unless they play a close copy of tournament lists, they often are not having a good time vs basic weapons of other armies. And ad mecha or eldar players don't have to meta in to killing marines, even if his list is a casual one, it will happen by itself just by virtue of him taking stuff to take out tanks, monsters or stuff like custodes etc.

....Um....Yes, yes we do. I'm going to a GT this week, of the 27 players who have declared their faction so far, 12 of them are Power Armor. Of the 15 who have not declared I know 5 of them and I know for a fact they are running Marines/custards and a sole Grey Knights player. So out of 42 players at the very least 17 of them will be running Power Armor armies. I will not be even remotely surprised if it becomes 20 to 25 of them running Power Armored lists. So yes, we build around the concept of dropping Marines for the above stated reasons. Marines profiles are THE most common and they also double as ok(ish) anti-tank weapons.

There is a major misunderstanding between the type of army (horde, elite, ect) and how often you see it. Just because you see an army often doesn't make it not "elite" in type, it just means it's popular.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There is a major misunderstanding between the type of army (horde, elite, ect) and how often you see it. Just because you see an army often doesn't make it not "elite" in type, it just means it's popular.

This is the equivalent of saying "I want the average army to be above average!"

 vipoid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There is a major misunderstanding between the type of army (horde, elite, ect) and how often you see it. Just because you see an army often doesn't make it not "elite" in type, it just means it's popular.

This is the equivalent of saying "I want the most average army to be above average!"

No it's drawing a line in the sand between army types and army popularity. By the logic of people in this thread CUSTODES aren't an elite army. Which is fething bananas.

Just because an army is popular doesn't change it's type. A horde army is still a horde, an elite army is still elite. Just because the meta swings and you need to tailor towards one or the other or something else doesn't change the inherit nature of the size and playstyle of that army.

GW obliterated your 'line in the sand' decades ago.

IN 40k, on the table, 'elite' is standard. By design.

In 9th edition 40k, 'horde army' is almost extinct, also by design.

It isn't about 'popularity,' its about game design, and what counters the standard marine profile. Which happens to be the same things that counters.... nearly everything else (barring some remaining pea-shooters that didn't get buffs (or buffs yet when it comes to chaos, knight and guard weapons)

SemperMortis wrote:
As I mentioned above, it is true because D2 is also a useful profile when you are attempting to dmg vehicles as well. And its not just D2, its also D3+3 and even D6 and D6+2/4. A Multi-Melta against a Marine unit averages 2 shots , 1.33 hits and 1.1 wounds. It goes straight through Marine armor and averages 1 dead Marine a turn and it can spike and do 2 occasionally. That still isn't a bad return on investment for a 50-60pt model. And of course against their preferred targets, those MM's are doing work against Vehicles.

Well yeah - I think that's the problem.
GW seems torn between making D2 expensive - or throwing -1 damage on everything. Which would to be fair, fix issues for monsters/vehicles if you don't want them efficiently attacked by these guns. (Admittedly this sort of skews things - because to my mind the "Autocannon" stat line should be efficient against light vehicles/monsters, but GW doesn't seem to want that distinction.)

I think the bigger issue though is that efficient S5+ AP-2+ and 2 damage guns are also good versus 15-17+ point single wound infantry. And there's quite a lot of that in the game. GW's answer has to been to just throw out invuls everywhere - but I'm not sure if that really does enough. I don't think you regret shooting aspect warriors with such weapons - even if technically there may be better options in your book if you were to list tailor. Its only really harlequins where you might see some skew - and that's due to stacking defensive mechanic on defensive mechanic.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Game design, such as game balance takes different considerations in balancing than list building. One is a pursuit of making all options feel equally useful and balanced against each other and the various things they can be used against. The other is how you engage with the systems designed in the game.

It's not arbitrary to say that they're not identical things even if game design feeds into how people build lists.

HAHA! Balance! Ah, i just laughed so hard it hurt a bit. Harlequins have a Sniper at 70pts who ignores Look out Sir and who AVERAGES 7 hits a turn at S6 -2AP and 2dmg. And if he rolls a 6 to wound its -4AP. They also have Voidweavers lol. 90ppm, makes Chickenwalkers look balanced by comparison. 2 shots hitting on 3s S12 AP-4 2D3dmg, OR it can shoot 3D3 shots at S5 AP-3 1dmg. And of course it also gets a Shuriken cannon which are now just significantly better heavy bolters. S6 AP-1 2dmg and since shuriken, AP-3 on a 6 to wound.
LOL balance.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Well, considering how long it's taking to get the codex out, they must be doing a LOT of "consideration" and "playtesting".

LMAO! Please stop, i'm going to pee my pants if you guys keep making me laugh.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There is a major misunderstanding between the type of army (horde, elite, ect) and how often you see it. Just because you see an army often doesn't make it not "elite" in type, it just means it's popular.

No there isn't. You are just using the terms interchangeably when talking between perception and reality. You perceive them to be "Elite" elite generally means rare since if "everything" is elite then the default setting would be "elite" making it ...wait for it...not elite. So yes, in the fluff of the game Marines are elite. But likewise, in the fluff of the game there is like 1 Marine per Imperial planet, IE they are rare. In the game they are anywhere from 20-40% of the meta meaning they are dirt common and in other words, NOT elite.

Voss wrote:
GW obliterated your 'line in the sand' decades ago.

IN 40k, on the table, 'elite' is standard. By design.

In 9th edition 40k, 'horde army' is almost extinct, also by design.

It isn't about 'popularity,' its about game design, and what counters the standard marine profile. Which happens to be the same things that counters.... nearly everything else (barring some remaining pea-shooters that didn't get buffs (or buffs yet when it comes to chaos, knight and guard weapons)

Yeah no. I don't buy this arguement. You want to argue that 9th is MSU focused because people are scared of blasts? Fine. But it doesn't make Marines no longer an "elite" army when they only things aren't outnumbered by are Knights and Custodes. The game gives tools for a wide range of targets to every army, not just Marines. Leaning into the ones that counter Marines because MEQ is common isn't changing the core dynamic of the army, it's just showing us which match ups are common in the meta.

Conflating "popular to play" with "not-elite sized army" is ridiculous. By that definition it means Custodes aren't an elite army, which is patently absurb as well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:
GW obliterated your 'line in the sand' decades ago.

IN 40k, on the table, 'elite' is standard. By design.

In 9th edition 40k, 'horde army' is almost extinct, also by design.

It isn't about 'popularity,' its about game design, and what counters the standard marine profile. Which happens to be the same things that counters.... nearly everything else (barring some remaining pea-shooters that didn't get buffs (or buffs yet when it comes to chaos, knight and guard weapons)

Yeah no. I don't buy this arguement. You want to argue that 9th is MSU focused because people are scared of blasts? Fine. But it doesn't make Marines no longer an "elite" army when they only things aren't outnumbered by are Knights and Custodes. The game gives tools for a wide range of targets to every army, not just Marines. Leaning into the ones that counter Marines because MEQ is common isn't changing the core dynamic of the army, it's just showing us which match ups are common in the meta.

Conflating "popular to play" with "not-elite sized army" is ridiculous. By that definition it means Custodes aren't an elite army, which is patently absurb as well.

You are arguing against a non-existent argument. yes Marines and custards are "Elite" in the fluff and in their army size. But they AREN'T elite in the sense that we measure the entire game off of them because they are so COMMON. SO please stop making this ridiculous argument where you conflate elite, popular and battle size.

@Semper: again, your argument means that Custodes are not "elite" since they're currently so commonly seen in the meta.

Army types are broken up based on scale, durability and predominant unit type, not popularity. It's why we describe foot Guard as a horde army while the vehicle heavy guard is considered to be a different animal. These distinctions make it easier for us to communicate the way an army is put together, the approximate model count and how durable it is.

To ignore that in favor of pushing a nonsense argument that the META determines if something is "elite" is asinine and undermines the ability to communicate ideas about different army types.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Semper: again, your argument means that Custodes are not "elite" since they're currently so commonly seen in the meta.

Army types are broken up based on scale, durability and predominant unit type, not popularity. It's why we describe foot Guard as a horde army while the vehicle heavy guard is considered to be a different animal. These distinctions make it easier for us to communicate the way an army is put together, the approximate model count and how durable it is.

To ignore that in favor of pushing a nonsense argument that the META determines if something is "elite" is asinine and undermines the ability to communicate ideas about different army types.

And continue to miss the entire point. Roger.

SemperMortis wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Semper: again, your argument means that Custodes are not "elite" since they're currently so commonly seen in the meta.

Army types are broken up based on scale, durability and predominant unit type, not popularity. It's why we describe foot Guard as a horde army while the vehicle heavy guard is considered to be a different animal. These distinctions make it easier for us to communicate the way an army is put together, the approximate model count and how durable it is.

To ignore that in favor of pushing a nonsense argument that the META determines if something is "elite" is asinine and undermines the ability to communicate ideas about different army types.

And continue to miss the entire point. Roger.

No, I get your "point" but your conflating terminology and it muddles the way we discuss army types. If you want to argue that Marines are common that's fine, but I don't agree that it changes the type of army it is.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:
GW obliterated your 'line in the sand' decades ago.

IN 40k, on the table, 'elite' is standard. By design.

In 9th edition 40k, 'horde army' is almost extinct, also by design.

It isn't about 'popularity,' its about game design, and what counters the standard marine profile. Which happens to be the same things that counters.... nearly everything else (barring some remaining pea-shooters that didn't get buffs (or buffs yet when it comes to chaos, knight and guard weapons)

Yeah no. I don't buy this arguement. You want to argue that 9th is MSU focused because people are scared of blasts? Fine.

Uh... Nope. Didn't say that. Didn't write that. Re-reads post again. Yep. Not there.

But it doesn't make Marines no longer an "elite" army when they only things aren't outnumbered by are Knights and Custodes.

Didn't... mmm. No, didn't say this either.

The game gives tools for a wide range of targets to every army, not just Marines.

Well, no, actually. Some armies are missing tools, or only get them in bad slots on bad units. Especially compared to marines. But... I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion.

Leaning into the ones that counter Marines because MEQ is common isn't changing the core dynamic of the army, it's just showing us which match ups are common in the meta.

Yes, indeed. It doesn't change the 'dynamic' of the army. Whatever you happen to think that is.
But leaning into the ones that counter marines does tell you something about the game design and that it _is_ centered around marines.

Conflating "popular to play" with "not-elite sized army" is ridiculous. By that definition it means Custodes aren't an elite army, which is patently absurb as well.

Not sure where this size thing came from. I've seen marine hordes and teeny-tiny model count marine armies. It doesn't change the way the game design is centered on marines as 'the standard'

I'd stick to the original guns. Marines are an elite army mainly because they are (usually anyway) not run as a blob of T4 3+ 2 wound guys.

Although I don't really know what (if anything) Marines can do into Custodes, Tau and now Harlequins. I kind of feel Redemptor Dreadnoughts are not what they were.

The trend seems to be going the way where they would have 'earned' a boost due to fluff and other faction power creeping but I think there's bigger issues to tackle than the power of the humble bolter.

Tyel wrote:You can run 20 possessed now if you want to?
CSM infamously do not run CSM and have not for ages - and its unlikely they would today if you could take them for say 17-18 points but with 2 wounds. Marine armies often have say 1 squad of Intercessors (or Infiltrators etc) and that's about it.

Unfortunately no one will take them "unless they become good" and since being good is a relative thing, making them "good enough to be taken" drives codex creep.

People also avoid guardians and guard infantry, and these days shoota boyz. The custodes bolter troops are also marginal in the game, even though they are depicted in the most famous illustration of the most famous fight. Basic infantry with basic gun doesn’t have rules to do any job. So the alternative is to power creep or not.

ClockworkZion wrote: Changes aren't made in a vacuum

Yes when there’s something popular with players GW see it and enact a monkey’s-paw half measure version of it. People were making truescale marines and other people were complaining about marine scale, so GW did primaris and all the strange effects of not-terminator units, not sharing transports etc etc. People wanted overwatch and so GW added over watch but only as a charge reaction and only on 6s. People wanted cross fire so only Genestealer cultists can do it. For four editions the really weak Howling Banshees have been getting stacks of special rules that didn’t actually make them good. You don’t have to anticipate or compromise with what GW is likely to do. You can only go strongly and one direction and hope the needle moves half as far as you want it to.

SemperMortis 804013 11330930 wrote:....Um....Yes, yes we do. I'm going to a GT this week, of the 27 players who have declared their faction so far, 12 of them are Power Armor. Of the 15 who have not declared I know 5 of them and I know for a fact they are running Marines/custards and a sole Grey Knights player. So out of 42 players at the very least 17 of them will be running Power Armor armies. I will not be even remotely surprised if it becomes 20 to 25 of them running Power Armored lists. So yes, we build around the concept of dropping Marines for the above stated reasons. Marines profiles are THE most common and they also double as ok(ish) anti-tank weapons.

If someone has an army that has to spec in to marines to counter them, then they are not going to win the event or end up in top 8. Save for some real good luck with match ups.

Karol wrote:

SemperMortis 804013 11330930 wrote:....Um....Yes, yes we do. I'm going to a GT this week, of the 27 players who have declared their faction so far, 12 of them are Power Armor. Of the 15 who have not declared I know 5 of them and I know for a fact they are running Marines/custards and a sole Grey Knights player. So out of 42 players at the very least 17 of them will be running Power Armor armies. I will not be even remotely surprised if it becomes 20 to 25 of them running Power Armored lists. So yes, we build around the concept of dropping Marines for the above stated reasons. Marines profiles are THE most common and they also double as ok(ish) anti-tank weapons.

If someone has an army that has to spec in to marines to counter them, then they are not going to win the event or end up in top 8. Save for some real good luck with match ups.

I would only say this is half right. You can't just build to optimize against marines and expect to be able to podium or even make it to the top tables. That said you also cannot just ignore power armor when building your list. I have played in tournaments since 4th edition and have never not faced at least one space marine player in a tournament, generally it is 2+ marines lists on the way up the ladder.

All the good lists right now, tau, nids, custodes and eldar just breeze through marine match ups. A custodes player is not going to have to train or test much what happens, if he faces the best DA or WS build. He does have to learn to play a high risk game vs tau, and I have no idea what he does vs eldar. Probably nothing.

It is like in sports. I don't ask myself what are guys 2 years younger going to do, same way 2-3 years ago no one older then me care what I would do. Marines are like that. They can be annoying, if someone goes insane and brings a knight or IG lists to the event. Because those marine match up are the ones that those armies could , with luck and skill involved, win. They ain't going to win any eldar or tau match ups. So maybe those people try to meta in to marines. But then complaining about marines in a tournament setting would be the same as me being unhappy that termintors are bad for GK.

Tau, custodes and craftworlds/harlies are the big bads right now, all 3 are in need of nerfs. Anybody not playing those 3 books currently is starting with a disadvantaged position sadly.

On Tyranids, Crusher stampede is good but looking at tournament results and having played against it not ready to call it broken and marines from watching games seem to have some of the better tools to deal with them. i doubt Crusher stampede rules stay with the new book though so we will see how it stacks up. The book leaked but it might be fake (pretty elaborate if a fake though). They are looking strong but i would put them in current reading around the black templar and dark eldar for power level from my initial thoughts, this may change with seeing them on the table though.

A lot of what works well against custodies also happens to be what is good against marines and tau battlesuits though so I think thier codex is being incedentally countered , but if it were eldar dark eldar and admech still you would have do rework to consider them as a possible opponent.

bat702 wrote:
serious question, I could totally see either in 10th edition or maybe for basic bolters in Chaos Space Marines Codex, that bolters will get significant upgrades to keep up with how killy 40k is getting

I do not think so. I play GSC and SM. Shotguns are S4. But to get acces to S4 i need to drop into the Heavy 3 gun. I really enjoy that a bolter is just as deadly as an close ranged shotgun or a longrange heavy guns.

Just replace your primitive bolters with farms and fleshborers!

Karol wrote:

SemperMortis 804013 11330930 wrote:....Um....Yes, yes we do. I'm going to a GT this week, of the 27 players who have declared their faction so far, 12 of them are Power Armor. Of the 15 who have not declared I know 5 of them and I know for a fact they are running Marines/custards and a sole Grey Knights player. So out of 42 players at the very least 17 of them will be running Power Armor armies. I will not be even remotely surprised if it becomes 20 to 25 of them running Power Armored lists. So yes, we build around the concept of dropping Marines for the above stated reasons. Marines profiles are THE most common and they also double as ok(ish) anti-tank weapons.

If someone has an army that has to spec in to marines to counter them, then they are not going to win the event or end up in top 8. Save for some real good luck with match ups.

Well Karol, you pretty much only have to spec into Marines now because so many complained about hordes that cheap chaff infantry are basically useless now. If Boyz, gants, Guardsmen actually became useful/good than it would likely help Marines indirectly by actually giving opponents a reason to spec into D1 weapons which Marine's get their benefits off of as opposed to just running MORE anti-marine weapons because as I stated, a MM is actually getting a decent return on investment every turn in which it kills a Marine or two.

So this upcoming event, I know for a fact i'm going to run into a host of Tau battlesuits who are all T5-6 with 2+ and 3+ saves. I'm going to run into a host of power armored opponents who are all T3-T5 with 2+ and 3+ saves and mostly multi-wounds. So, with that in mind, why would I bring anti-infantry weapons when I know they are mostly useless against the majority of the game right now when I could instead bring multi-dmg weapons with lots of -AP?

Well Karol, you pretty much only have to spec into Marines now because so many complained about hordes that cheap chaff infantry are basically useless now

Tau run kroots and DE run kabalites. Same as tyranids run their guants. And other armies being better doesn't help marine. Because either marines are in those rare 2.0 moments, when they don't care if guants or anything else just became a bit better. Or the army is not popular enough or worse impossible to counter without losing army efficiency.

As someone said in this thread, one of the problems all meq have is that all anti tank is generally efficient or super efficient against them. And if neither tanks, nor monsters are run, then we are in the middle of a horde meta which then makes it moot what ever the marine runs.

So, with that in mind, why would I bring anti-infantry weapons when I know they are mostly useless against the majority of the game right now when I could instead bring multi-dmg weapons with lots of -AP?

No one takes melta or plasma to counter marines. Marines get countered by stuff in addition to specific weapons or unit formations being good vs something else.

A lot of what works well against custodies also happens to be what is good against marines and tau battlesuits though so I think thier codex is being incedentally countered , but if it were eldar dark eldar and admech still you would have do rework to consider them as a possible opponent.

Lets say you have to counter harlis or DE, a lot of their power comes from the skimers their run. So you need high number of shots good D weapons , because of all the -1 to hit, invs etc. The same kind of a weapon also happens to be extremly good at a killing marines of all kind.

Karol has a point that you REALLY don't need to spec an army into killing Marines. 3rd-7th kinda showed that via how AP3 was somehow rarer than AP2. It doesn't matter if you face Marines or not when the Fleshborer is ridiculous now and wounding any tank on a 5+. The AP-1 is just the icing on the cake.

SemperMortis wrote:
If Boyz, gants, Guardsmen actually became useful/good than it would likely help Marines indirectly by actually giving opponents a reason to spec into D1 weapons which Marine's get their benefits off of as opposed to just running MORE anti-marine weapons.

Well yeah so how do you get useful guardsmen boys and gants, also guardians? They each have some limitations on where they can go, and it would be hard to rebalance all of them individually. It’s probably infantry until general that should be rebalanced.

If lasguns were s4 they wouldn’t be that useful, and also at the moment that’s just a bolt gun. It’s not roll more dice, because they’re already at saturation both from lasgun shots and from number of models per square foot of board space. Maybe more special weapons, but then it’s still to fix boyz gants guardians and potentially others if something takes away the strats or abilities that make coffee horde or t3 type units work.

Karol wrote:

Tau run kroots and DE run kabalites.

Those don’t run as hordes. They don’t work just on the weight of their bodies.

This whole thread is hilarity itself...
'We should give Space Marines a second wound to reflect on the tabletop the resiliency of Space Marines in the fluff.'

'We need more deadly weapons to deal with the 2W Space Marines.'

'Space Marines no longer hit like they used to. Let's make their bog standard weapons more deadly.'

Is anyone willing to consider that this upward spiral of damage and lethality can be laid squarely at the feet of those same people who wanted Space Marines to be more durable?

After all, it isn't like Space Marines should demean themselves on the tabletop by using cover, when THEIR BEST ARMOR IS CONTEMPT?!?

 carldooley wrote:
This whole thread is hilarity itself...
'We should give Space Marines a second wound to reflect on the tabletop the resiliency of Space Marines in the fluff.'

'We need more deadly weapons to deal with the 2W Space Marines.'

'Space Marines no longer hit like they used to. Let's make their bog standard weapons more deadly.'

Is anyone willing to consider that this upward spiral of damage and lethality can be laid squarely at the feet of those same people who wanted Space Marines to be more durable?

After all, it isn't like Space Marines should demean themselves on the tabletop by using cover, when THEIR BEST ARMOR IS CONTEMPT?!?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I don't think the answer is giving bolters -1AP. I think the answer is taking an AP off all small arms weapons base. And if that still leaves bolters uninteresting make them D2 so at least MEQ mirror matches are more interesting.