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.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.

Honestly, I think Insectum7 is right - the real issue is Marines doubling in wounds. That's what makes them ridiculously survivable against basic weapons.

It really isn't because Sisters and various Aspect Warriors don't benefit from cover either.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.

Honestly, I think Insectum7 is right - the real issue is Marines doubling in wounds. That's what makes them ridiculously survivable against basic weapons.

My argument has little to do with durability itself and more with how it interacts with modifiers. If Marines got their durability from their Toughness stat instead of their Save, it would make things less vulnerable to edge cases.

E.g T6 Sv4+ would be equivalent or even harder to wound by bolters and lasguns, and with far less potential for edge cases braking things.
And it doesn't need to be T6, another option could be reducing the strength of most small arms to get the same math.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.

Honestly, I think Insectum7 is right - the real issue is Marines doubling in wounds. That's what makes them ridiculously survivable against basic weapons.

As before but W1 marines --

Terminators vs Marines w/ W1 - in cover


Terminators vs Guard - in cover


Marines lose 20 points; Guard lose 30. Hey that looks better!

And now an Assault Cannon with Devastating Wounds --

vs Marines in cover


vs Guard in cover


Marines lose 20 points and Guard lose 13.

Whoops - broke it.

Am I missing something, or are you describing the model as 'broken' because a S6 weapon with Rending gets better returns against Marines than against Guardsmen in cover, like it did from 2nd-7th?

 catbarf wrote:
Am I missing something, or are you describing the model as 'broken' because a S6 weapon with Rending gets better returns against Marines than against Guardsmen in cover, like it did from 2nd-7th?

They go from 66% to 153% between those two weapons.

Now consider a heavy bolter would then be even better ( comparatively ) against marines.

Basically everything does well against marines and less so vs guard.

Well, yeah, the weapon that's two bolters strapped together is the better anti-GEQ weapon and the weapon that's a fusillade of historically anti-MEQ death is the better anti-MEQ weapon.

Framing it as 66% to 153% is a bit misleading, I think. Flip it to start with the Guard as the baseline and it's 150% to 65%. Hey, that's pretty much the same- the assault cannon is better against marines by the same margin that the storm bolter is better against Guard.

Not sure why you feel the heavy bolter would be better, considering as a D2 weapon its performance would be unaffected by W1 vs W2, and with AP-1 it isn't affected by this cover limitation either.

At 0.44 wounds vs Marines on average or 0.88 wounds vs Guardsmen on average. So, with 18pt Marines and 6.5pt Guardsmen, about 38% more efficient against Marines. Again, exactly as it currently is.

This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.

Honestly, I think Insectum7 is right - the real issue is Marines doubling in wounds. That's what makes them ridiculously survivable against basic weapons.

As before but W1 marines --

Terminators vs Marines w/ W1 - in cover


Terminators vs Guard - in cover


Marines lose 20 points; Guard lose 30. Hey that looks better!

And now an Assault Cannon with Devastating Wounds --

vs Marines in cover


vs Guard in cover

Marines lose 20 points and Guard lose 13.

Whoops - broke it.

Broken because . . . . ? A weapon has a better points return when shooting Marines than shooting GEQ? Like a Plasma gun? Like nearly any big gun? That seems fine to me. Not only fine, but it makes perfect f***ing sense.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

A 1w marine wouldn't be 18pts, you're looking more likely at 10? So the storm bolter goes back to 11-15 depending on point cost against the 30 of the guard. The ass cannon goes to being equal between the two.

The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.

I am confused how we can predict points returns of weapons against units that we have no points values for neither on the offensive nor defensive end of the equation

 alextroy wrote:
I am confused how we can predict points returns of weapons against units that we have no points values for neither on the offensive nor defensive end of the equation

Haha. Also a fine point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.

I confess I don't understand the problem you're trying to get at.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I am confused how we can predict points returns of weapons against units that we have no points values for neither on the offensive nor defensive end of the equation

Haha. Also a fine point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.

I confess I don't understand the problem you're trying to get at.

That the most common infantry ranged weapon in the game is gathering a 3x higher return against baseline humans compared to a 3+ model.

Capping cover effects to max of 3+ turns that into a 2x return, which still isn't great but is more manageable. Not sure why this is such a hard concept tbh.

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

A 1w marine wouldn't be 18pts, you're looking more likely at 10? So the storm bolter goes back to 11-15 depending on point cost against the 30 of the guard. The ass cannon goes to being equal between the two.

The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.

Which immediately shows that it would be a worse system.

We all HATED horde marines. The current marines lists which deploy around 40-50 models feel "right" on the table. This is one of the biggest successes of the last editions, making marines field marine like lists instead of gimmick or hordes.

Any system which doesn't put the value of the basic marine around 20 points has already failed in my opinion.

Now, can a marine be worth 20 points without 2 wounds? Discuss.

Spoletta wrote:
Now, can a marine be worth 20 points without 2 wounds? Discuss.

I guess this provokes "we are talking about tacticals" - but given how we've gone through:
"Intercessors are not great on release and get worse over time despite points cuts, generally avoid" (2017 to 2019)
"Intercessors are amongst the most broken things in the game, take 30-40 and feel fine" (mid 2019-2020)
"Marines are bad" (later 2021-22)
To now: "Intercessors are pointless because for 10 points more you get Infiltrators with the Helix Gauntlet, no reinforcements in 12" and infiltrate"

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with 2 wound marines for about 20 points. They just need to be worth that relatively to everything else in 40k.

CSM had 1 wound Marines in a world where they could get 2+ cover saves. They weren't exactly popular. Things may admittedly be different in an environment of lower AP weapons - but we'll have to see how that breaks down in practice.

Instead of marines being 3+ save and 2w, i think 2+ save and 1 wound would be a more elegant design. Similar stats in many ways. But less tedious with small arms and wound tracking

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

A 1w marine wouldn't be 18pts, you're looking more likely at 10? So the storm bolter goes back to 11-15 depending on point cost against the 30 of the guard. The ass cannon goes to being equal between the two.

Yes - thank you.

 alextroy wrote:
I am confused how we can predict points returns of weapons against units that we have no points values for neither on the offensive nor defensive end of the equation

Precisely. Now we've opened a can of worms again, right? We have to make marines cheap again -- then you have to contend with the problems that creates.

The concept of 'just change this "simple" thing' and there are no consequences is folly. "But I played in that system and it worked great!" Nostalgia is a fickle beast. ( not quoting anyone in particular here )

 Gitdakka wrote:
Instead of marines being 3+ save and 2w, i think 2+ save and 1 wound would be a more elegant design. Similar stats in many ways. But less tedious with small arms and wound tracking

That could easily smother terminators - especially depending on how terrain gets handled.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.

 Gitdakka wrote:
Instead of marines being 3+ save and 2w, i think 2+ save and 1 wound would be a more elegant design. Similar stats in many ways. But less tedious with small arms and wound tracking

Same averages, but much greater variance. That can lead to feels-bad moments when a squad passes all its saves or loses half its number from an inconsequential bit of shooting.

It's also, tying back to what Tyran said, more vulnerable to significant swings with modifiers. A simple AP-1 outright doubles effectiveness.

 catbarf wrote:
I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.

Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The concept of 'just change this "simple" thing' and there are no consequences is folly.

Every new edition in a nutshell.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.

Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.

...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.

 catbarf wrote:


Same averages, but much greater variance. That can lead to feels-bad moments when a squad passes all its saves or loses half its number from an inconsequential bit of shooting.

Clearly if a squad just lost 1/2 its #s that was NOT an inconsequential bit of shooting.....

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The concept of 'just change this "simple" thing' and there are no consequences is folly.

Every new edition in a nutshell.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.

Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.

...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.

Yet we have people in this thread telling us we're narrow minded idiots for thinking this, because "making good rules isn't hard".

ccs wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


Same averages, but much greater variance. That can lead to feels-bad moments when a squad passes all its saves or loses half its number from an inconsequential bit of shooting.

Clearly if a squad just lost 1/2 its #s that was NOT an inconsequential bit of shooting.....

The way I'm reading it is one of those "ill just fire these 10 lasguns/autoguns/shootas into them because I have nothing better to shoot them at" scenarios rather than "I'm committing a decent amount of firepower because I really need them to die".

I may be wrong though.

ccs wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


Same averages, but much greater variance. That can lead to feels-bad moments when a squad passes all its saves or loses half its number from an inconsequential bit of shooting.

Clearly if a squad just lost 1/2 its #s that was NOT an inconsequential bit of shooting.....

i shoot 5 skitarii vanguards at these theoretical marines
15 shots
7 hits
3 wounds

Marine player is unlucky and rolls 3 1's, loses 3 marines....

now don't tell me that 5 unbuffed vanguards have impactful shooting usually

Dudeface wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The concept of 'just change this "simple" thing' and there are no consequences is folly.

Every new edition in a nutshell.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.

Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.

...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.

Yet we have people in this thread telling us we're narrow minded idiots for thinking this, because "making good rules isn't hard".

It isn't, especially when they're supposed to get paid to do it, and y'all are still ignoring the point regarding Sisters and various Aspect Warriors.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The concept of 'just change this "simple" thing' and there are no consequences is folly.

Every new edition in a nutshell.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.

Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.

...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.

Yet we have people in this thread telling us we're narrow minded idiots for thinking this, because "making good rules isn't hard".

It isn't, especially when they're supposed to get paid to do it, and y'all are still ignoring the point regarding Sisters and various Aspect Warriors.

You can pay me to make a plane, I still would never get on it though. What is your point about sisters/aspect warriors exactly? We're all largely talking in the context of bolters and 3+ saves, which ticks off sisters as a minimum, it also isn't universal to all aspects to have a 3+.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The concept of 'just change this "simple" thing' and there are no consequences is folly.

Every new edition in a nutshell.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.

Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.

...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.

Yet we have people in this thread telling us we're narrow minded idiots for thinking this, because "making good rules isn't hard".

It isn't, especially when they're supposed to get paid to do it, and y'all are still ignoring the point regarding Sisters and various Aspect Warriors.

Then you do it. It's so easy, make a fixed 40k.

LOL- Today's Warcom New 40k article is about how much Ultramarines hate Tyranids.

Funny, because based on what we've been told, on the table it isn't going to matter whether you're Ultramrines or Salamanders.

The only thing that's going to matter on the table is whether whichever chapter you're playing as sends a Gladius or some other detachment.

So does a Gladius hate Tyranids more than a Spearhead or a Vanguard?

(Note: As hypothesized elsewhere, Marines might get exceptions to the "no rules from subfaction" - but I suspect even if this is the case, only SOME chapters will get these rules)

PenitentJake wrote:
LOL- Today's Warcom New 40k article is about how much Ultramarines hate Tyranids.

Funny, because based on what we've been told, on the table it isn't going to matter whether you're Ultramrines or Salamanders.

The only thing that's going to matter on the table is whether whichever chapter you're playing as sends a Gladius or some other detachment.

So does a Gladius hate Tyranids more than a Spearhead or a Vanguard?

(Note: As hypothesized elsewhere, Marines might get exceptions to the "no rules from subfaction" - but I suspect even if this is the case, only SOME chapters will get these rules)

Absolutely neither, the mental state and shared history of the forces you're depicting isn't related to their rules and never should be. Long may preferred enemy and similar rules remain dead. Also, your force, your narrative etc.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
It isn't, especially when they're supposed to get paid to do it, and y'all are still ignoring the point regarding Sisters and various Aspect Warriors.

The mathematical outcomes for their units will really depend on what considerations they make for them in their points and datasheets. We're all working with pretty limited data still, but Eldar would certainly suffer with their glass cannon style aspects ( all elites or fast for the 3+ ).

If Aspects are W1 and a 3+ with no other mitigating circumstances then the whole picture changes. If instead Eldar Battle Focus allows a unit to move before being shot at then it's a whole different thing again.

A Sister is 11 points and would take 3 wounds ( from SB ) for 33 points of damage. Guard take 4.4 for ~29 total. That's pretty damned even ( if points stay in that ballpark ). Marines take only ~20, but then are susceptible to D2+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Absolutely neither, the mental state and shared history of the forces you're depicting isn't related to their rules and never should be. Long may preferred enemy and similar rules remain dead. Also, your force, your narrative etc.

Yea the article is just a fluff piece with no connection to in-game rules.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I am confused how we can predict points returns of weapons against units that we have no points values for neither on the offensive nor defensive end of the equation

Haha. Also a fine point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.

I confess I don't understand the problem you're trying to get at.

That the most common infantry ranged weapon in the game is gathering a 3x higher return against baseline humans compared to a 3+ model.

Capping cover effects to max of 3+ turns that into a 2x return, which still isn't great but is more manageable. Not sure why this is such a hard concept tbh.

Uhhhh. . . why is any of this a problem? You write as though this is some self-evidently appalling situation, but I guess I just don't. The "hard concept" is that baseline anti-Infantry weapons are effective against baseline infantry?

Spoletta wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

A 1w marine wouldn't be 18pts, you're looking more likely at 10? So the storm bolter goes back to 11-15 depending on point cost against the 30 of the guard. The ass cannon goes to being equal between the two.

The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.

Which immediately shows that it would be a worse system.

We all HATED horde marines. The current marines lists which deploy around 40-50 models feel "right" on the table. This is one of the biggest successes of the last editions, making marines field marine like lists instead of gimmick or hordes.

Any system which doesn't put the value of the basic marine around 20 points has already failed in my opinion.

Now, can a marine be worth 20 points without 2 wounds? Discuss.

1: Honestly, since I'm not paying for Wargear on my models anymore I'm probably still looking at lists with 70+ Marines. And personally I just like the way the army looks.
2: Here's an alternative solution: Make Land Raiders (and other Marine vehicles) great again. You'll get less Marines on the table if there are other competitive options. For a long time the reason I personally fielded so many Marines is just because that was the solution, competitively.
3: Can Marines be worth it at 20 points without 2 wounds? Sure! There are two ways that come to mind immediately.
---3a: You can simply rebalance the entire game around them at that price point, by re-pricing everything else.
---3b: You can grow their capabilities in other directions, such as offensive capability, improved morale within a different Morale framework throughout the game, or revised game mechanics. In 2nd edition, Marines cost 30 points per model. But they were the only faction capable of Rapid Firing. They could see through Smoke. They were protected against Gas and Virus attacks. They had much better Morale mechanics than other armies. They could each use a Krak Grenade in CC against a vehicle. They could each throw a Grenade, resulting in amazing anti-horde ability by virtue of lobbing up to 10 4" diameter blast markers (effective, although painfully time consuming). In short, they had a lot of other bonuses other than "bullet sponge".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The concept of 'just change this "simple" thing' and there are no consequences is folly. "But I played in that system and it worked great!" Nostalgia is a fickle beast. ( not quoting anyone in particular here )

Never once have I claimed that this change be made in isolation. And painting evidence of 1w Marines functioning in prior systems as purely nostalgic is pretty low.

Question to all:
How many Marines, Rapid Firing, should it take to kill a Marine? Basic Bolters here. Same thing with CC. How many Marines should it take to kill a Marine in CC?

Why ask this? Because S4 AP-0 is a pretty common offensive profile for infantry, or if not common, a reasonable middle ground. The related consideration being "How gakky do you want other Infantry to feel against Marines?". 2W Marines themselves have a high possibility of making other infantry feel useless..
. . . of course, GWs gone and corrected for that by further inflating other characteristics or adding newer special rules. Guardsmen dealing Mortal Wounds via Lasfire. Dire Avengers carrying Shuriken Catapults with 3 attacks at S 4 AP -2 . . . and the inflation leads to other funny stuff. . .