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.
Wyldhunt wrote:You make good points. (And so does SemperMortis in a much more off-putting internet voice.) This is probably my own unreasonable and unpopular opinion, but I'm kind of okay with marines dying in droves to anti-marine weapons. If the narrative we're telling is that my marines charged an enemy with plasmaguns coming out their ears, then it's reasonable that they'd lose a lot of guys as part of that attack. I think there are interesting discussions to be had on perhaps limiting how heavily we can skew our weapon/unit selections and on the unhealthiness of GW promoting one faction so much more heavily than others, but those seem like their own topics to me. For what 40k is, plasma guns being pricey and also good at killing marines seems like it's working as intended.
Hey, that's reasonable. I'm just saying, a lot of Marine players don't seem to feel that way- they feel like their Marines are squishy overall, and they're right, because a TAC list is an anti-MEQ list and that means they're participating in a meta designed to kill them.
I'd also be open to revision on those ancillary factors like access to weaponry, but that's a very fine line to walk without it either becoming un-fun for the non-Marine armies ('What are we supposed to use, harsh language?') or having knock-on effects on balance (if anti-MEQ weapons become rare, how do you deal with Knights?).
And of course there's the looming background problem of GW trying to preserve legacy statlines while in the fiction, Marines have gone from transhuman special forces to nigh-invulnerable demigods with a heaping dash of Mary Sue.
Wyldhunt wrote:I feel like people are conflating "average" as in the average army a player faces when they go to the game store and "average" as in the power level of the faction compared to other factions. I don't mind marine armies being common or the meta being designed around them. I just want a tactical marine to feel appreciably more durable to small arms fire than a guardsman. To me, it's about the story that the stats and rules tell. At times, a W1 marine and a scion in carapace armor felt concerningly similar in terms of durability. A W2 marine and that same scion don't.
This is where I think GW screwed the pooch in the transition from 7th to 8th, because the changes to wounding and AP mechanics had a huge impact on relative durability and GW seemingly just ignored the implications.
In 7th Ed when a Guardsman gets hit by a bolter, it's a wound on 3+ and no save. A W1 Marine is wounded on 4+ and gets his 3+ save. The Marine's more durable by a factor of 4. In 8th/9th when a Guardsman gets hit with a bolt rifle, it's a wound on 3+ and he gets a 6+ save, while a Marine is wounded on 4+ and gets a 4+ save. The Marine is now only more durable by a factor of 2.22- a comparative durability of half what it used to be. So you give the Marine a second wound, and that makes up for it, except...
In 7th Ed a Scion gets hit with a heavy bolter. Wounds on 2+, no save. Splattered. A Marine is wounded on a 3+ and still gets a 3+ save. 3.75 times more durable. Now the Scion is only wounded on 3+ and gets a 5+ save, and the Marine gets a 4+ save, and the net result is the Marine is only 1.33 times more durable. This holds true even if the Marine has two wounds, because the heavy bolter is now D2.
The breakpoint system created much more distinction in actual, practical utility between a 3+ save, a 4+ save, and a 5+ save, carving out specific weapons that each level of protection was vulnerable to. With the modifier system that went out the window, and hitting that AP-1 breakpoint increases anti-MEQ effectiveness by a whopping 50%.
And more generally speaking the new wounding system creates much less of a differentiation between low-S and high-S weapons. That's more relevant to vehicles than Marines, but it's there too. I think if GW was less focused on trying to port over the 7th Ed statlines without changes, the logical thing to do would be to expand out both Strength/Toughness and saves, and they could do a lot to boost Marine durability (and that of heavy infantry in general) without needing W2 and creating that obvious weakness to D2 weapons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/31 23:00:03
1-2 dead marines is not irrelevant. That's 1-2 marines who don't get to swing back 1st.
You've also apparently never seen anyone supporting their would-be chargers with fire from other units to soften up a target.
And suddenly the comparison of 210pts of Orkz barely killing half a unit of Tac Marines in CC is now going to include shooting and apparently other parts of the army shooting....yeah no bud. The point being made was that Prior to 8th, Orkz lacked a lot of tools that we have now in regards to dealing with Power Armor. Most of our army was shooting based but it was terrible, the old meme of buckets of dice ring a bell?
@Catbarf:
Well-put. I pretty much agree with all of that. The only thing I'd nitpick is that the old wound/save system, although it differentiated between marines and guardsmen much better, still resulted in guardsmen one-shotting marines sometimes. Which, that's not the end of the world, but with W2 marines, it just feels more "earned"? This definitely isn't a hill I want to die on, but it is less frustrating when a single lasgunner manages to get two unsaved wounds through versus just the one. For me, I think it's because getting unlucky and dying to a single unsaved wound (even if your average durability against lasguns is reasonable) feels like it "ignored" your Toughness and Save (even though it didn't) through a quirk of the system.
Basically, caveman brain no like averages. Caveman brain want see lasgun earn kills by getting through second hitpoint.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Wyldhunt wrote: I feel like people are conflating "average" as in the average army a player faces when they go to the game store and "average" as in the power level of the faction compared to other factions.
We are, because the two are inherently linked. When one faction (in its various different colors) makes up 75% of the game that faction is by definition the average. No matter how much you stat creep all of that one faction's rules it will never feel elite. At best you can push down some of the other factions from "below average" to "wow this cannon fodder is trash" but the only way you're ever going to make marines feel elite is to make the basic GEQ stat line the most common faction and marines an occasional guest star.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: @Catbarf:
Well-put. I pretty much agree with all of that. The only thing I'd nitpick is that the old wound/save system, although it differentiated between marines and guardsmen much better, still resulted in guardsmen one-shotting marines sometimes. Which, that's not the end of the world, but with W2 marines, it just feels more "earned"? This definitely isn't a hill I want to die on, but it is less frustrating when a single lasgunner manages to get two unsaved wounds through versus just the one. For me, I think it's because getting unlucky and dying to a single unsaved wound (even if your average durability against lasguns is reasonable) feels like it "ignored" your Toughness and Save (even though it didn't) through a quirk of the system.
Basically, caveman brain no like averages. Caveman brain want see lasgun earn kills by getting through second hitpoint.
That seems like a very particular personal preference thing that doesn't apply generally, and TBH that kind of preference shouldn't dictate game design.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/01 01:29:21
I don't feel like a Gauss Flayer should take two failed armor saves to kill a Marine. I don't feel like a Marine should be able to effectively ignore Lasguns.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
Wyldhunt wrote: I feel like people are conflating "average" as in the average army a player faces when they go to the game store and "average" as in the power level of the faction compared to other factions.
We are, because the two are inherently linked. When one faction (in its various different colors) makes up 75% of the game that faction is by definition the average. No matter how much you stat creep all of that one faction's rules it will never feel elite. At best you can push down some of the other factions from "below average" to "wow this cannon fodder is trash" but the only way you're ever going to make marines feel elite is to make the basic GEQ stat line the most common faction and marines an occasional guest star.
Respectfully, I think we might be talking past each other. I get that marines are the most common faction and that, on a meta level, they are the mode opponent that you will face. All I'm really saying is that I want marines to have a low model count, significantly better offense/defense than a guardsman, and an appropriately high points cost to match. To me, the 1W marines (especially in 8th edition) seemed like they were falling short in the "significantly better defense" category. At 2W, I'm pretty happy with how they feel. Your mileage may vary.
That seems like a very particular personal preference thing that doesn't apply generally, and TBH that kind of preference shouldn't dictate game design.
That's fair. W1 marines weren't the worst thing ever. I just very much notice the upsides of them now being W2.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I don't feel like a Gauss Flayer should take two failed armor saves to kill a Marine.
Oh? Why not? To be fair, gauss weapons do kind of feel like they've translated poorly into 8th and 9th from previous editions, but surviving a gauss wound doesn't seem out of the question. In the lore, it seems like gauss is kind of all over the place in terms of how long the disintegration effect keeps going. Is it unreasonable to think that gauss might be prone to putting big holes in marines but not quite taking them out of the fight?
I don't feel like a Marine should be able to effectively ignore Lasguns.
Ignore? Definitely not. Exactly how effective do you feel lasguns should be against marines though? Because I feel like it should take more than one or two dudes to reliably pew pew a marine out of the fight.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/01 02:01:43
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Wyldhunt wrote: Because I feel like it should take more than one or two dudes to reliably pew pew a marine out of the fight.
Er, I get not liking the possibility of a random Commissar one-shotting a Marine, but even when Marines were W1 it took an entire squad of Guardsmen all rapid firing within 12" to average killing a single Marine (with still a ~35% chance of doing nothing at all).
The situation now is that you need two squads rapid firing or four squads not-rapid-firing to kill one W2 Marine, hence why we have escalatory buffs like FRFSRF straight-up doubling fire output, and HotE throwing out mortal wounds as a kludge fix.
And even then, you roll an absolute gakload of dice for not a lot to happen. Discounting HotE, it takes an average of ~61 dice rolls between both players to resolve the shooting of a basic Infantry Squad under FRFSRF, with the average end result of a single model being removed from the table- exactly as it was with W1 Marines, except it takes longer to get there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/01 02:24:18
Wyldhunt wrote: Respectfully, I think we might be talking past each other. I get that marines are the most common faction and that, on a meta level, they are the mode opponent that you will face. All I'm really saying is that I want marines to have a low model count, significantly better offense/defense than a guardsman, and an appropriately high points cost to match. To me, the 1W marines (especially in 8th edition) seemed like they were falling short in the "significantly better defense" category. At 2W, I'm pretty happy with how they feel. Your mileage may vary.
No, I get what you're saying, my point is that all of these things are influenced by how common a faction is. Take "low model count" for example. Let's say you have 20 marines = 40 guardsmen. Marines feel like a normal army, guard feels like a horde army. Now let's make the marines more elite so that it's 10 marines = 80 guardsmen. Marines still feel like a normal army, except guard are now an extreme and barely playable horde of useless cannon fodder. The only way to make marines feel like a low model count army instead of a typical army in a low model count skirmish game is to make marines a minority so that when they have half the model count of the enemy it feels like a low model count army vs. a normal army.
The same thing is true for all the other stuff. When marines are 75% of the game no amount of defense will feel "significantly better", a positive statement about the marines. It will always be perceived as "wow that other faction sucks" with marines still feeling average. Marines will never feel like they have a high point cost because marine point costs set the reference for what is perceived as high vs. low. Marines at 100ppm would still feel like an average-cost army, it would just be that GW re-scaled the point system so that 20,000 points is a normal game instead of 2000. And yeah, marines might feel really durable against lasguns in one sense because now the guard player is rolling twice as many dice to kill one, but you're still losing the same number of marines per turn because they're rolling twice as many dice. It just takes longer for the guard player to play with their dice and tell you how many marines to remove.
Wyldhunt wrote: Because I feel like it should take more than one or two dudes to reliably pew pew a marine out of the fight.
Er, I get not liking the possibility of a random Commissar one-shotting a Marine, but even when Marines were W1 it took an entire squad of Guardsmen all rapid firing within 12" to average killing a single Marine (with still a ~35% chance of doing nothing at all).
The situation now is that you need two squads rapid firing or four squads not-rapid-firing to kill one W2 Marine, hence why we have escalatory buffs like FRFSRF straight-up doubling fire output, and HotE throwing out mortal wounds as a kludge fix.
And even then, you roll an absolute gakload of dice for not a lot to happen. Discounting HotE, it takes an average of ~61 dice rolls between both players to resolve the shooting of a basic Infantry Squad under FRFSRF, with the average end result of a single model being removed from the table- exactly as it was with W1 Marines, except it takes longer to get there.
Yeah, I'd like to know what Wyldhunt feels is the "appropriate" amount of Lagun shots here.
One of the biggest issues here is also the assumed default marine 'lens' everything is seen through. I'm not talking about the game average, I'm talking about the qualitative perspective.
The lens is always how tough marines should be, or how effective they should be and the imagery is based on the ridiculous wankery GW has produced for them.
ie, it's all seen from a marine=protagonist perspective and everything else should be balanced against how protagonisty they are.
But put an ork as the protagonist and you're asking, why should a single bolt wound kill an ork when they can live without limbs, where their healing systems are better than marines?
Why don't they knock their enemies to the ground when they charge them because they're so big and heavy. Why is it than an ork choppa, thicker than a human forearm, can't cleave a marine's arm off when swung with the force of a monstrous ork?
or an eldar aspect who is so fast and accurate, that they should be able slice a marine's head off, 2 wounds or not. Or step out of the way of incoming fire and so on.
There are innumerable ways in which you can justify any one army being as or more effective than another.
It's just everyone defaults to making sure marines and marine players' feelings are taken care of and everyone else is left to clean up the slops and be happy with it.
So I say either treat every army like they're the protagonists and give them rules commensurate with their individual awesomeness, or treat none of them like that and abstractify them into balanced armies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/01 04:31:53
Hellebore wrote: One of the biggest issues here is also the assumed default marine 'lens' everything is seen through. I'm not talking about the game average, I'm talking about the qualitative perspective.
The lens is always how tough marines should be, or how effective they should be and the imagery is based on the ridiculous wankery GW has produced for them.
ie, it's all seen from a marine=protagonist perspective and everything else should be balanced against how protagonisty they are.
But put an ork as the protagonist and you're asking, why should a single bolt wound kill an ork when they can live without limbs, where their healing systems are better than marines?
Why don't they knock their enemies to the ground when they charge them because they're so big and heavy. Why is it than an ork choppa, thicker than a human forearm, can't cleave a marine's arm off when swung with the force of a monstrous ork?
or an eldar aspect who is so fast and accurate, that they should be able slice a marine's head off, 2 wounds or not. Or step out of the way of incoming fire and so on.
There are innumerable ways in which you can justify any one army being as or more effective than another.
It's just everyone defaults to making sure marines and marine players' feelings are taken care of and everyone else is left to clean up the slops and be happy with it.
So I say either treat every army like they're the protagonists and give them rules commensurate with their individual awesomeness, or treat none of them like that and abstractify them into balanced armies.
In fairness, I do think that this is at least partially a result of Marines being the benchmark. In essence, you need to establish how the eliteness of a Marine will be represented, then you can start balancing other factions' elites around that.
The problem is that we usually spend so long arguing about what the benchmark should be, the edition changes before we can even get on to what other factions should be like.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Marine armies are currently composed of 30-40 models.
Can't get more elite than that.
But that's because Marines have ended up being 20-40 points each, which happened because they got extra wounds, damage output boosts etc, which people are saying they shouldn't have got.
I mean I'm fairly happy where things are.
Not really sure on benchmarks and so on. We've had periods where Marines are top tier and we've had periods when they've been kind of weak. The fact they are the poster boys doesn't change - the fact the meta probably has an anti-marine slant due to their preponderance doesn't change (and its usually most preponderant when they are most overpowered).
Marine armies are currently composed of 30-40 models.
Can't get more elite than that.
But that's because Marines have ended up being 20-40 points each, which happened because they got extra wounds, damage output boosts etc, which people are saying they shouldn't have got.
I mean I'm fairly happy where things are.
Not really sure on benchmarks and so on. We've had periods where Marines are top tier and we've had periods when they've been kind of weak. The fact they are the poster boys doesn't change - the fact the meta probably has an anti-marine slant due to their preponderance doesn't change (and its usually most preponderant when they are most overpowered).
The rules however do.
Honestly they should have gotten that stuff and should be a smaller army, we should not see 90+ marines on the table (I would say even 60 is too high). The problem is the damage is so high in the game even 40-50 models doesn't feel like enough at times.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/01 14:45:36
Tyel 806411 11426121 wrote:
But that's because Marines have ended up being 20-40 points each, which happened because they got extra wounds, damage output boosts etc, which people are saying they shouldn't have got.
I mean I'm fairly happy where things are.
Not really sure on benchmarks and so on. We've had periods where Marines are top tier and we've had periods when they've been kind of weak. The fact they are the poster boys doesn't change - the fact the meta probably has an anti-marine slant due to their preponderance doesn't change (and its usually most preponderant when they are most overpowered).
The rules however do.
Only the look of marine armies didn't happen because of the extra wound. It happened because the regular intercessor, scout, tactical marine are very bad. And basing your army on them is a very bad idea. That is why marine armies are based around termintors, sang guard, venguard veterans etc Oddly enough the most horde marine army are the fringe marine ones like BT or GK. Specialy GK are an example of a "horde" army and they would be even more horde, if the rule of 3 wasn't a thing for infantry.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Wyldhunt wrote: Because I feel like it should take more than one or two dudes to reliably pew pew a marine out of the fight.
Er, I get not liking the possibility of a random Commissar one-shotting a Marine, but even when Marines were W1 it took an entire squad of Guardsmen all rapid firing within 12" to average killing a single Marine (with still a ~35% chance of doing nothing at all).
The situation now is that you need two squads rapid firing or four squads not-rapid-firing to kill one W2 Marine, hence why we have escalatory buffs like FRFSRF straight-up doubling fire output, and HotE throwing out mortal wounds as a kludge fix.
And even then, you roll an absolute gakload of dice for not a lot to happen. Discounting HotE, it takes an average of ~61 dice rolls between both players to resolve the shooting of a basic Infantry Squad under FRFSRF, with the average end result of a single model being removed from the table- exactly as it was with W1 Marines, except it takes longer to get there.
Yeah, I'd like to know what Wyldhunt feels is the "appropriate" amount of Lagun shots here.
You know, 10 lasguns killing one dude does seem about right. I'll have to reconsider my stance. The second wound still "feels right" on the marine side of things, but I do want the humble lasgunners to be relevant.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Backspacehacker wrote: Calling it now, we are going to see super wounds that cant be saved at all, they will be like mortal wounds but even more powerful.
The Nightbringer gives you a cheery wave.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Tyel 806411 11426121 wrote:
But that's because Marines have ended up being 20-40 points each, which happened because they got extra wounds, damage output boosts etc, which people are saying they shouldn't have got.
I mean I'm fairly happy where things are.
Not really sure on benchmarks and so on. We've had periods where Marines are top tier and we've had periods when they've been kind of weak. The fact they are the poster boys doesn't change - the fact the meta probably has an anti-marine slant due to their preponderance doesn't change (and its usually most preponderant when they are most overpowered).
The rules however do.
Only the look of marine armies didn't happen because of the extra wound. It happened because the regular intercessor, scout, tactical marine are very bad. And basing your army on them is a very bad idea. That is why marine armies are based around termintors, sang guard, venguard veterans etc Oddly enough the most horde marine army are the fringe marine ones like BT or GK. Specialy GK are an example of a "horde" army and they would be even more horde, if the rule of 3 wasn't a thing for infantry.
Small clarification: the Ro3 doesn't apply to Troops. And GK have great troops.
Backspacehacker wrote: Calling it now, we are going to see super wounds that cant be saved at all, they will be like mortal wounds but even more powerful.
The Nightbringer gives you a cheery wave.
This stuff bothers me more then stat creep.
Armor saves, damage that ignores armor, invulnerable saves, things that ignore invulns. MWs, etc. etc. it’s a game of one upmanship and power creep that’s getting wildly out of hand.
Backspacehacker wrote: Calling it now, we are going to see super wounds that cant be saved at all, they will be like mortal wounds but even more powerful.
The Nightbringer gives you a cheery wave.
While the Nightbringer is the bane of my Custodes, I can tolerate it since severing the mortal cord is kind of its thing. Really hope that ability doesn't start to seep into other units.
Backspacehacker wrote: Calling it now, we are going to see super wounds that cant be saved at all, they will be like mortal wounds but even more powerful.
The Nightbringer gives you a cheery wave.
While the Nightbringer is the bane of my Custodes, I can tolerate it since severing the mortal cord is kind of its thing. Really hope that ability doesn't start to seep into other units.
Oo
it already has, there are several other models and relics that do the same.
Reaper of Oblitrax for Nids being the most obvious example.
The soon to be released Voltann have a normal HQ that has a weapon that ignores wound ignoring effects
and I'm probably forgetting another way somewhere in some army.
Backspacehacker wrote: Calling it now, we are going to see super wounds that cant be saved at all, they will be like mortal wounds but even more powerful.
The Nightbringer gives you a cheery wave.
This stuff bothers me more then stat creep.
Armor saves, damage that ignores armor, invulnerable saves, things that ignore invulns. MWs, etc. etc. it’s a game of one upmanship and power creep that’s getting wildly out of hand.
Wyldhunt wrote: Because I feel like it should take more than one or two dudes to reliably pew pew a marine out of the fight.
Er, I get not liking the possibility of a random Commissar one-shotting a Marine, but even when Marines were W1 it took an entire squad of Guardsmen all rapid firing within 12" to average killing a single Marine (with still a ~35% chance of doing nothing at all).
The situation now is that you need two squads rapid firing or four squads not-rapid-firing to kill one W2 Marine, hence why we have escalatory buffs like FRFSRF straight-up doubling fire output, and HotE throwing out mortal wounds as a kludge fix.
And even then, you roll an absolute gakload of dice for not a lot to happen. Discounting HotE, it takes an average of ~61 dice rolls between both players to resolve the shooting of a basic Infantry Squad under FRFSRF, with the average end result of a single model being removed from the table- exactly as it was with W1 Marines, except it takes longer to get there.
Yeah, I'd like to know what Wyldhunt feels is the "appropriate" amount of Lagun shots here.
You know, 10 lasguns killing one dude does seem about right. I'll have to reconsider my stance. The second wound still "feels right" on the marine side of things, but I do want the humble lasgunners to be relevant.
Cool.
My follow up question is how many Marines (firing bolters) should it take to kill a Marine?
Wyldhunt wrote: Because I feel like it should take more than one or two dudes to reliably pew pew a marine out of the fight.
Er, I get not liking the possibility of a random Commissar one-shotting a Marine, but even when Marines were W1 it took an entire squad of Guardsmen all rapid firing within 12" to average killing a single Marine (with still a ~35% chance of doing nothing at all).
The situation now is that you need two squads rapid firing or four squads not-rapid-firing to kill one W2 Marine, hence why we have escalatory buffs like FRFSRF straight-up doubling fire output, and HotE throwing out mortal wounds as a kludge fix.
And even then, you roll an absolute gakload of dice for not a lot to happen. Discounting HotE, it takes an average of ~61 dice rolls between both players to resolve the shooting of a basic Infantry Squad under FRFSRF, with the average end result of a single model being removed from the table- exactly as it was with W1 Marines, except it takes longer to get there.
Yeah, I'd like to know what Wyldhunt feels is the "appropriate" amount of Lagun shots here.
You know, 10 lasguns killing one dude does seem about right. I'll have to reconsider my stance. The second wound still "feels right" on the marine side of things, but I do want the humble lasgunners to be relevant.
Cool.
My follow up question is how many Marines (firing bolters) should it take to kill a Marine?
Well marines are both unkillable and can kill everything... So when a marine tries to kill a marine, the setting resets (IE implodes).
Backspacehacker wrote: Calling it now, we are going to see super wounds that cant be saved at all, they will be like mortal wounds but even more powerful.
The Nightbringer gives you a cheery wave.
This stuff bothers me more then stat creep.
Armor saves, damage that ignores armor, invulnerable saves, things that ignore invulns. MWs, etc. etc. it’s a game of one upmanship and power creep that’s getting wildly out of hand.
Sounds like Warhammer?
I get that rules can have exceptions. But how many layers deep do we need to go? We are stacking exceptions on top of exceptions. It’s one thing if it’s a special rule on a named character or unique relic. Should “ignore invulns” be a basic tag on standard gear? I don’t think it should, but that’s obviously my opinion. YMMV.
60PL 
12PL 
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
