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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
LOL imagine thinking W2 Marines are OP

You mean they weren't OP in 8th edition when John Lennon placed in the top 8 at LVO in 2020 with not 1 not 2 but 40 intercessors? Weird, I could have sworn he did insanely well with that build in 2020 at LVO....anyway.
Ooops, my mistake, Richard Siegler had a similar build with 40 Intercessors in it as well
Oh! And Boris Michev ran 20 of them in 4 squads of 5. Can't forget Boris.
SO yeah...I mean, besides those 2 guys who ran 40 intercessors and finished in the top 8 at LVO yeah totally not OP and definitely not a reason why the game meta shifted to D2 weapons with decent AP.

* Obligatory post that several other Marine players finished in the top 8 and were running 15-20 2 wound troops as well.

Tyranids with their garbage 6th edition codex topped before but I'm guessing you didn't bat an eye to that when it happened as you decided to cherry pick a couple of examples out of how many?

So hold one. Talking specifically about how the meta adjusted to target 2W Marines because they became META DOMINANT at the end of 8th is completely relevant to 6th edition Tyranids?

Bud you either are misunderstanding what is being said in regards to the points being made....or you are lost in the sauce

End of 8th Marines dominated the game. People were spamming CHEAP 2W infantry with all the durability boosts they had easy access to. This was exacerbated by the fact that nobody was really spamming multi-dmg weapons except the heavy stuff that was used to target and slag Knights. And even back then, hitting a Marine squad with a lascannon wasn't a great use of its capacity.

So 9th came out, Marines got a new codex with new tricks and more importantly...more T5 3W Marines. Now, 2+ dmg weapons are the norm rather than the exception. Case and point the new Eldar Shuriken Cannon which is S6 -2AP and 2dmg. Its almost purpose built to feth up Marines.

So go ahead and increase Marine durability and then increase their dmg output, the game will then adjust because they are the most prevalent faction and as such they are the defacto measuring stick we grade against.

What Karol has constantly brought up concerning early 8th edition 2 wound marines (read: Primaris) is that 40k has had 2 Wound marines since 2017.

And in 2017, an Intercessor was 20pts, I believe Auto Bolt Rifles were Assault 2, practicallyno/no weapon options for the Sergeant. No Bolter Discipline, No Shock Assault, No Doctrines. Just +1 W, +1A and with RF Bolt Rifles: R: 30"/AP -1. I can't even remember if Stalker Bolt Rifles were D1 at first anymore. Point is, once a good chunk of other factions were out of their Index, Intercessors and their second wound wasn't impressive.

I know, the Chaos Space Marine codex (the same book I use today for games) also came out in 2017. After some adjusting to Primaris, my Chaos Space Marines usually won games versus loyalists that fielded even a couple of units of Primaris. For the record, CSM were 13pts ppm in 2017 when their codex was released. Standard GW over estimating the value of durability/defense.

Before the Codex: Space Marine 8.5 was released, Intercessors were down to 15pts (I believe, I might be confusing their cost for what it was in Kill Team at the time) and had Bolter Discipline/Shock Assault. They were still pretty bad. This was about the time I started getting in games with my Primaris only army (post-Shadowspear).

Post C:SM 8.5, Intercessors essentially had all the things they do now with a 17ppm price. Auto Bolt Rifles were still a point a piece in 8.5 (but Assault 3). Post 8.5, Intercessors and most Primaris (I can't speak for the Firstborn) basically had everything they have in 9th in C:SM 8.5. In many cases, such as Boltstorm Aggressors and Staying in the same Doctrine all game long, Primaris had more than they do now in 9th. At least at codex release.

As much as people want to point to 2 wound Intercessors breaking 40k, they seem to be forgetting how long space marines have had 2 wound marines. The reason C:SM 8.5 Intercessors did amazing, wasn't because they had two Wounds. Intercessors did amazing because they were underpriced, and for all intents and purposes, had AP -2 (for RF Bolt Rifles) all game long. In context of 9th, does that sound somewhat familiar?

I think part of the reason Karol mentions this is, if I am remembering correctly, they have a lot of Terminators (2W for 8th) in their army. And that didn't exactly allow Grey Knights to compete either. So other than GW having it in their heads that offensive abilities should be at most 0.75 the points of any 1 defensive ability, 2 wound marines are a red herring to what happened to 9th edition 40k.

2 Wound Marines didn't broke the game. What broke the game was Tactical Doctrines, Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault. 3/4 layers of free rules that greatly increased the Space Marines offensive output.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Marines troops need more durability, not more firepower.

The game is already far too killy, no need to add the bolters to the party.

They gave them the durability then spent 2 years taking it away via increasing everone elses killyness.

Which is exactly what needed to happen, although it's still probably in the wrong areas.

If you immediately render the increased durability null, why increase it? You're going to have to explain this to me unless it's a "they never should have been 2w" stance.

It's both a "they never should have been 2w" stance, but also a "Marines shouldn't be making other infantry feel completely obsolete" stance.

Well most of 8th marines didn't have 2W, up till codex 2.0, and weren't making not just infantry, but nothing obsolete. They were a general mid to bad tier army , with which , just as with their chaos cousins, you wanted to run as few actual marines in the army as possible. Preferably non if one doesn't count characters.
Having a faction, which is a popular one, be brought to a point where playing it means not playing it, is not good design and linked to some very unfun moments for the players.

SemperMortis wrote:


And again, Marines are THE MOST POPULAR ARMY IN THE GAME! so, if you change their profile or make them more durable, the game will adjust fire to target them again since they are the most common statline in the game.

More specifically, lots of marine players would immediately complain that their weapons can't hurt enough the most common opponent they face, aka other marines. They'd demand a buff for their weapons and then their models would be "squishy" again .

Marines are fine guys.

yeah you go tell a Crimsion Fist or Imperial Fist player that his faction is fine. Or better yet tell him the thing I was told in 8th, that he should be happy, because DA and WS are good.

Makes as much sense as telling an ork player that his faction didn't get nerf, because tyranids are great.

Tyranids and orks are different factions.

Crimson fists and imperial fists are not factions. SM are. What I'm saying is like saying that a snakebite player is fine because orks are fine. Yes, that snakebite player is fine, just play with another klan's rule and problem solved. Those crimson and imperial fists can certainly play by using other chapters rules. They'd still play the same army and it's 100% legal to do so, they'd just have to remove some named characters eventually. Or play them as regular non named characters with the same loadout, still totally fine.

I bet there are chapter equivalents of admech, tau, drukhari, etc... that have always been lackluster and never taken. Would you consider those players in the need of getting some buffs? Who plays the Coven of Twelve drukhari? Does a coven of twelve drukhari need some buffs?

 Blackie wrote:
Tyranids and orks are different factions.

Crimson fists and imperial fists are not factions. SM are. What I'm saying is like saying that a snakebite player is fine because orks are fine. Yes, that snakebite player is fine, just play with another klan's rule and problem solved. Those crimson and imperial fists can certainly play by using other chapters rules. They'd still play the same army and it's 100% legal to do so, they'd just have to remove some named characters eventually. Or play them as regular non named characters with the same loadout, still totally fine.

I bet there are chapter equivalents of admech, tau, drukhari, etc... that have always been lackluster and never taken. Would you consider those players in the need of getting some buffs? Who plays the Coven of Twelve drukhari? Does a coven of twelve drukhari need some buffs?

1. You miss that Karol plays Grey Knights and yet was told not to complain.
2. If Coven Of Twelve sucks, absolutely.

1) I'm well aware, I was talking about marines.

2) No, I believe something else needs nerfs instead. Coven of twelve in particular is lackluster compared to other drukhari subfactions but still pretty good compared to the average 40k faction.

Karol wrote:
Well most of 8th marines didn't have 2W, up till codex 2.0, and weren't making not just infantry, but nothing obsolete. They were a general mid to bad tier army , with which , just as with their chaos cousins, you wanted to run as few actual marines in the army as possible. Preferably non if one doesn't count characters.
Having a faction, which is a popular one, be brought to a point where playing it means not playing it, is not good design and linked to some very unfun moments for the players.

You have been proven wrong on this very subject more times than I can remember Karol. At no point in 8th were Marines "Bad tier". You can argue they were mid tier and i'll gladly concede that once all the shenanigans appeared they were Mid Tier, but at NO POINT IN TIME were Marines Bad tier in 8th. Yeah, a specific chapter might have had a hard time of it, but that is it. You want to know what Bad tier is? Or Bottom tier? Orkz in 7th. Want to know what was Bottom Tier? Imperial Guard in 9th right now. Marines have had some struggles but since I have been playing the game, no point at all have the majority of Space Marine chapters ever been below Mid tier, and that goes back a long long time

Flashback to stupid 7th formation buffs.

Marine Super Formation Buff was.....Free Transports, which inevitably became Razorbacks with lots of guns.
Ork Super Formation Buff was....Impact hits on all Ork charges....so long as you rolled a 10+ for charge distance. Oh, and because GW, Impact hits for most Ork units was S3 no AP

Mental note - petition the Studio for more Ork nerfs, so they can sit below the Guard...

 Dysartes wrote:
Mental note - petition the Studio for more Ork nerfs, so they can sit below the Guard...

Lol. Why? Orks have their own issues that need to be fixed. Like Boys going down to 8 points PPM and getting more morale buffs given back to them.

This is a topic about bolters, which are anaemic right now.

- Tactical's suck.
- Regular terminators suck.
- Battle Sisters suck.
- Celestian‘s suck.

If they had better bolters they might see more use and justify their point costs more.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Mental note - petition the Studio for more Ork nerfs, so they can sit below the Guard...

Lol. Why? Orks have their own issues that need to be fixed. Like Boys going down to 8 points PPM and getting more morale buffs given back to them.

This is a topic about bolters, which are anaemic right now.

- Tactical's suck.
- Regular terminators suck.
- Battle Sisters suck.
- Celestian‘s suck.

If they had better bolters they might see more use and justify their point costs more.

The main problem is that the general power level of the game has gone up quite a bit, and that means that very many infantry weapons just don't cut it compared to heavier weapons on other platforms. Generally, I would say that many of the more regular infantry units right now aren't much of a factor in the game. Individual such units might be elevated into it by giving them serious boosts, but that in turn leaves other infantry further behind. Which already was a factor because of the durability boost units like Space Marines got with their second wound. So, we're basically in a game where small arms no longer are relevant without incredible buffs. After all, Space Marines can easily get multiple points of AP on their bolters, and they're still not really being used. The only way to make them more serious contenders is giving them even more upgrades but those would have to be translated into even bigger upgrades for other small arms and that in turn just makes everyone even more glass cannon-y.

Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator. They gained -1AP in the Tactical doctrine and have a HOST of re-rolls to hit and wound from a number of sources.

In that same time frame the humble Shoota went from 2 shots at 18 to 2 shots at 18, or 3 at 9'. It also lost assault.

I was hoping the 9th edition Ork codex would bring my shootas up to at least the level of the bolter, instead they somehow made it worse. (Loss of DDD and assault).

SO when you complain that bolters need to increase in dmg, you had better be prepared for the inevitable result which will be "Marines aren't durable enough!" "Why are other factions weapons getting upgrades!" etc.

You can deny this to your hearts content, I have played the game and been on this forum long enough to have seen the cycle first hand ;P

SemperMortis wrote:
Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator. They gained -1AP in the Tactical doctrine and have a HOST of re-rolls to hit and wound from a number of sources.

In that same time frame the humble Shoota went from 2 shots at 18 to 2 shots at 18, or 3 at 9'. It also lost assault.

I was hoping the 9th edition Ork codex would bring my shootas up to at least the level of the bolter, instead they somehow made it worse. (Loss of DDD and assault).

SO when you complain that bolters need to increase in dmg, you had better be prepared for the inevitable result which will be "Marines aren't durable enough!" "Why are other factions weapons getting upgrades!" etc.

You can deny this to your hearts content, I have played the game and been on this forum long enough to have seen the cycle first hand ;P

You'd have a point if there were a bunch of people defending the new Ork shooting as a concept. The new Dakka weapon rule is trash and I don't think anyone has denied that.

IMO, Death Guard bolters should be plague weapons and CSM bolters should do two damage.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
IMO, Death Guard bolters should be plague weapons and CSM bolters should do two damage.

bolters should not get 2 damage.
more of the game should have the powerlevel of bolters, TONE DOWN the ridiculous weapon profiles that we have right now

SemperMortis wrote:
Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator. They gained -1AP in the Tactical doctrine and have a HOST of re-rolls to hit and wound from a number of sources.

In that same time frame the humble Shoota went from 2 shots at 18 to 2 shots at 18, or 3 at 9'. It also lost assault.

I was hoping the 9th edition Ork codex would bring my shootas up to at least the level of the bolter, instead they somehow made it worse. (Loss of DDD and assault).

SO when you complain that bolters need to increase in dmg, you had better be prepared for the inevitable result which will be "Marines aren't durable enough!" "Why are other factions weapons getting upgrades!" etc.

You can deny this to your hearts content, I have played the game and been on this forum long enough to have seen the cycle first hand ;P

Honestly. I'd rather see a Shooter Boy go down to 7 points per model, and a Choppa Boy go down to 8 points per model.

SemperMortis wrote:
Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator. They gained -1AP in the Tactical doctrine and have a HOST of re-rolls to hit and wound from a number of sources.

In that same time frame the humble Shoota went from 2 shots at 18 to 2 shots at 18, or 3 at 9'. It also lost assault.

I was hoping the 9th edition Ork codex would bring my shootas up to at least the level of the bolter, instead they somehow made it worse. (Loss of DDD and assault).

SO when you complain that bolters need to increase in dmg, you had better be prepared for the inevitable result which will be "Marines aren't durable enough!" "Why are other factions weapons getting upgrades!" etc.

You can deny this to your hearts content, I have played the game and been on this forum long enough to have seen the cycle first hand ;P

It's crazy that a bunch of Ork weapons lost Assault. That's so unnecessary and just dumb.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's crazy that a bunch of Ork weapons lost Assault. That's so unnecessary and just dumb.

But how could you make some kind of silly bespoke "Dakka" rule without wrecking the ork arsenal? They might be good otherwise!

Hecaton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's crazy that a bunch of Ork weapons lost Assault. That's so unnecessary and just dumb.

But how could you make some kind of silly bespoke "Dakka" rule without wrecking the ork arsenal? They might be good otherwise!

They COULD fix it with an Errata that says "Treat Dakka weapons as Assault weapons" with the caveat of getting extra shots at those designated ranges.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's crazy that a bunch of Ork weapons lost Assault. That's so unnecessary and just dumb.

But how could you make some kind of silly bespoke "Dakka" rule without wrecking the ork arsenal? They might be good otherwise!

They COULD fix it with an Errata that says "Treat Dakka weapons as Assault weapons" with the caveat of getting extra shots at those designated ranges.

They won't. Whichever designer came up with dakka would take too big a hit to their ego.

Dakka should've been a weapon keyword that granted you under half range +50% of the Base shots rounded up. (3-->5 for Big shoota, etc ) whilest remaining assault.
Bolters, honestly are fethed thanks to the A4 page full with boltguns+1 that is the primaris arsenal due to upward heavily limited design space.
Shame for non sm factions though, because they will suffer for it.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Dakka should've been a weapon keyword that granted you under half range +50% of the Base shots rounded up. (3-->5 for Big shoota, etc ) whilest remaining assault.
Bolters, honestly are fethed thanks to the A4 page full with boltguns+1 that is the primaris arsenal due to upward heavily limited design space.
Shame for non sm factions though, because they will suffer for it.

Hence why we need consolidation of Marine profiles.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
IMO, Death Guard bolters should be plague weapons and CSM bolters should do two damage.

bolters should not get 2 damage.
more of the game should have the powerlevel of bolters, TONE DOWN the ridiculous weapon profiles that we have right now

For future editions, yes. But for now, I think it would be simpler to just ramp up the power. Instead of two damage, maybe it could be that an extra roll of six generates on extra hit for bolt weapons.

SemperMortis wrote:
Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator. They gained -1AP in the Tactical doctrine and have a HOST of re-rolls to hit and wound from a number of sources.

In that same time frame the humble Shoota went from 2 shots at 18 to 2 shots at 18, or 3 at 9'. It also lost assault.

I was hoping the 9th edition Ork codex would bring my shootas up to at least the level of the bolter, instead they somehow made it worse. (Loss of DDD and assault).

SO when you complain that bolters need to increase in dmg, you had better be prepared for the inevitable result which will be "Marines aren't durable enough!" "Why are other factions weapons getting upgrades!" etc.

You can deny this to your hearts content, I have played the game and been on this forum long enough to have seen the cycle first hand ;P

Bolters do not innately fire twice at 24", they do not innately have tactical doctrine. Would you swap the shoota for a rapid fire1 24" s4 ap- d1 gun on shoota boys? If you did, would you use them?

SemperMortis wrote:
Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator.

I've seen people reference vehicles getting full rapid fire several times... but I can't find that rule. Regular Rapid Fire and Bolter Discipline don't mention vehicles, and vehicles aren't treated as remaining stationary for shooting.
Am I just missing a nested rule or something?

The original version buffed vehicles but the newest version excluded them. I remember getting excited and actually using my land raider crusader for a couple of games for that very reason.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Mental note - petition the Studio for more Ork nerfs, so they can sit below the Guard...

Lol. Why? Orks have their own issues that need to be fixed. Like Boys going down to 8 points PPM and getting more morale buffs given back to them.

A, So Guard aren't bottom of the pile.
B, To see if certain posters' heads explode.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They COULD fix it with an Errata that says "Treat Dakka weapons as Assault weapons" with the caveat of getting extra shots at those designated ranges.

Might need to do a quick review of weapon types after such a change, in case some should gain Dakka and some should lose it, but it's a change that'd make sense.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Hence why we need consolidation of Marine profiles.

The first thing we need to do is consolidate all the Dakka accounts of those who push for consolidation of profiles into one single account, as a test case...