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.

Hey guys. So I was just thinking about the debate between MCs and Vehicles, and how MCs are obviously better. And of course, there are a ton of instances that just don't make sense, for example how a Melta explodes a vehicle in one shot, but does a single wound to an MC. So, I was thinking of a couple things that could fix this.

My first thought would be to make any weapon that has 2+ higher strength than the MCs toughness does D3 wounds per unsaved wound. For example, a melta would deal D3 wounds to a Carnifex or Riptide, whereas only a Railgun would deal D3 to a Wraithknight. Also, vehicles have a flat 4+ armor save and MCs need to be obscured just like vehicles to benefit from cover.

My second thought is to just have a table for wounds inflicted upon MCs. For every unsaved wound taken that has a higher strength than the toughness of the MC, you roll on this chart. AP2 and AP1 still give their benefits as normal.

1-3: Shaken - The MC is taken aback by the damage it just suffered, causing it to Snap Fire during it's next turn.
4: Stunned - The MC is stunned and cannot move during it's next turn. It is also forced to Snap Fire.
5: Weapon Destroyed - Randomly determine one weapon (can be either melee or ranged) and the MC loses all benefits of carrying that weapon.
6: Grievous Wound - Immediately roll a D6. On a 5+, the MC suffers 1 additional wound with no saves of any kind allowed.
7+: The MC is devastated by the received damage is immediately slain.


This is just an idea I had, figured I would share it with you guys. What do you think?

I'd vote for the former, with the additional wrinkle of adding the following to the vehicle save:

Resilient: Glancing hits against a vehicle with this rule are resolved with an AP value 1 point worse than usual (to a minimum of AP -). Penetrating hits function as usual.

My reasoning is that autocannons and Tau missile pods can put out enough shots at AP4 to still easily wreck most light vehicles, but a 3+ would be slightly too likely to ignore each individual hit.

It's mean on AV13, but AV13 Jinking skimmers already exist, and they're not overpowered. Nasty in large numbers, but that's true of tanks in general, so what else is new?

For example, given that, I'd pretty much never have a Raider Jink against bolters, gauss flayers, etc, but gauss blasters and heavy bolters (dur, pulse rifles are AP5!) might still give me some cause for concern. I'd have a Falcon Jink against a full volley by Missilesides, say, but probably not against a lone autocannon on a Chimera. Krak missiles, though, still manage to scare Hammerheads and Ghost Arks - they're AP4 even if they only glance. (And Land Raiders aren't shrugging off the fishing-for-sixes glance, either)

Cause my Nids need more nerfs?

Walkers vs MC in CC, another joke right there.

I like your table - its much better than what we have now

I also think that both MCs or vehicles should have a damage table or neither should.

I think that bonus wounds on MCs based on strength would be a good idea, but maybe a bit hard to balance. Maybe D2 wounds, not D3. The idea of, say, power klaws and rokkits doing D3 wounds on a carnifex sounds a little OP, but I like the idea in concept.

I also like the idea of vehicles getting saves - maybe based on the AP of the weapon? Like vehicles get no 'armor' save V AP1, a 6+ from AP2, 5+ from AP3, etc, etc?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I also think that both MCs or vehicles should have a damage table or neither should.

I think that bonus wounds on MCs based on strength would be a good idea, but maybe a bit hard to balance. Maybe D2 wounds, not D3. The idea of, say, power klaws and rokkits doing D3 wounds on a carnifex sounds a little OP, but I like the idea in concept.

I also like the idea of vehicles getting saves - maybe based on the AP of the weapon? Like vehicles get no 'armor' save V AP1, a 6+ from AP2, 5+ from AP3, etc, etc?

True, the Powerclawz would destroy MCs. But then again, they also wreck vehicles with ease, so....

I like the idea of vehicles having a form of save based on the AP. I think that makes sense, and wouldn't be too difficult to implement.

Isnt it just easier to gave a 3+ armor save?

What about 3+ versus glances, 5+ versus pens? (Obviously, if you'd have a better cover or invulnerable save, you'd use that.)

I understand most people seem to think that just because the riptide is stupidly durable and is literally the reason grav exists in wh40k, that all MC's are ueber durable wrecking machines. Truth is most die to plasma even easier than vehicles. This is due to the fact that T6 is the rough equivalent of AV9. Vehicles have melta, that has a good chance to ruin it in a single volley. Most MC's have grav, which has a good chance to ruin it in a single turn (non-Thirster daemon MC's being the exception there.)
I lose enough fexes/walkrants/trygons to krak missiles and plasma as it is. that EACH krak missile would now or be psuedo-StrD, lances would kill it in 2 shots, and every imperial army would spam lascannons even more to delete my MC's. No thanks..

Remove Hull Points, vehicles become fixed again. How on earth you can advocate wounds without getting a save for losing them is beyond me.

Do like your table. I advocate anything that nerfs MC, despite Tyranids being one of my main armies. Would change last line to 'has the Instant Death special rule' for clarification purposes.

StarHunter25 wrote:
I understand most people seem to think that just because the riptide is stupidly durable and is literally the reason grav exists in wh40k, that all MC's are ueber durable wrecking machines. Truth is most die to plasma even easier than vehicles. This is due to the fact that T6 is the rough equivalent of AV9. Vehicles have melta, that has a good chance to ruin it in a single volley. Most MC's have grav, which has a good chance to ruin it in a single turn (non-Thirster daemon MC's being the exception there.)
I lose enough fexes/walkrants/trygons to krak missiles and plasma as it is. that EACH krak missile would now or be psuedo-StrD, lances would kill it in 2 shots, and every imperial army would spam lascannons even more to delete my MC's. No thanks..

Well, if you're losing that many TMCs, you're not using cover effectively. Or your dice hate you. That's part of the problem. MCs can stick a toe in cover and bam, cover save. Vehicles cannot. I can glance the crap out of a Land Raider, but a Wraithknight gets a 3+ save and then FNP (That of which vehicles have no equivalent).

Also, if Dark Lances suddenly became good at something and Imperials used more Lascannons instead of Grav, I would certainly not complain about those changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Do like your table. I advocate anything that nerfs MC, despite Tyranids being one of my main armies. Would change last line to 'has the Instant Death special rule' for clarification purposes.

Ah, yeah, that would be simpler. Derp.

StarHunter25 wrote:
I understand most people seem to think that just because the riptide is stupidly durable and is literally the reason grav exists in wh40k, that all MC's are ueber durable wrecking machines. Truth is most die to plasma even easier than vehicles. This is due to the fact that T6 is the rough equivalent of AV9. Vehicles have melta, that has a good chance to ruin it in a single volley. Most MC's have grav, which has a good chance to ruin it in a single turn (non-Thirster daemon MC's being the exception there.)
I lose enough fexes/walkrants/trygons to krak missiles and plasma as it is. that EACH krak missile would now or be psuedo-StrD, lances would kill it in 2 shots, and every imperial army would spam lascannons even more to delete my MC's. No thanks..

Mcs ARE super durable wrecking machines compared to vehicles. Even tyranid mcs. Everything you complained about is twice as bad with vehicles.

As a thought - vehicles should have hull points XOR the damage chart, not both. Likewise for MCs. Now I'd personally prefer to convert all vehicles to a toughness/wounds system instead of AV/HP, where they'd work more or less like infantry and MCs, but with Melta, Armourbane, Haywire etc adjusted to fit.

But if we're not doing that, something is probably needed to bring the two into parity. I'm not convinced that dumping hull points is the right solution, either - doesn't make Venoms and Raiders much harder to kill, does make things like Land Raiders pretty much unstoppable (with the current chart). Or at least, once all the meltas have been killed, it does - you're fishing for a 6 on the damage chart with a lascannon, which only has a 16% chance to punch in the first place...

All in all, some normalization is needed.

StarHunter25 wrote:
I understand most people seem to think that just because the riptide is stupidly durable and is literally the reason grav exists in wh40k, that all MC's are ueber durable wrecking machines. Truth is most die to plasma even easier than vehicles. This is due to the fact that T6 is the rough equivalent of AV9. Vehicles have melta, that has a good chance to ruin it in a single volley. Most MC's have grav, which has a good chance to ruin it in a single turn (non-Thirster daemon MC's being the exception there.)
I lose enough fexes/walkrants/trygons to krak missiles and plasma as it is. that EACH krak missile would now or be psuedo-StrD, lances would kill it in 2 shots, and every imperial army would spam lascannons even more to delete my MC's. No thanks..

Lost cause man. These people see MC and think of Riptides pounding their models to dust while it laughs with its "overpowered" 5+ cover save.

Scary Carnifex is going to start Smashing their models start of turn 4 and its impossible to kill the thing walking slowly across the map because the terrain is entirely made up of cover!. /s

The vehicle armor save seems to not really help against anything, Autocannons/Missiles/Meltas slice through it.

Save against Twin Linked Devourerers with Brainleech Worms I guess? Haywire?

Everything else is just a knee jerk nerf to all MCs for one or two problem children.

I'd say let vehicles fire all weapons at full BS even if they move 6", but vehicles can have 2-4 secondary weapons all shooting in addition to the S6+ main cannon they normally get. While MCs are hard set at 2 weapons.

You mean the Riptide with its shield that can be boosted to 3++

Tbh when we now play 40k we did the opposite:

So vehicles ignore all results on the damage table except "explode" and can overwatch - MC / GC play unchanged.

Seems to work well.

Obviously i went a bit to far into hyperbole last time. But here is a serious concern on this proposal. The reason most people see vehicles as squishy is because they have both a wound total mechanic (HP) and an incremental damage mechanic (damage table). The HP was added on because of Warhammer40,000 Parking Lot (5e) because throwing 10 meltaguns at a chimera only to manage crew stunned results with every penetrating hit was awful. Then GW hamfisted in the HP mechanic. This made vechicles not quasi-immortal metal bawxes for all armies without to envy. Instead it made them high toughness psuedo-infantry with extra punishment for being hit. This suddenly threw the competitive pendulum through the opposing wall. 5e, you used vehicles because they were annoyingly difficult to kill, as evident by the popular lists of the day of Razorspam and Psydread spam. Doing the same thing to MC's will put them into the same boat. We'll then be playing "infantry and LoW" edition. On that, I think the real kicker is the heavy removal of the ID usr from things. I can think of 3 things that cause ID offhand, those are force weapons, beast hunter shells on ABG russes, and daemon warlords who rolled the correct WLT.

Slightly more OT. If we're implementing a "MC's lose ability when taking wounds" mechanic, there needs to be a glancing hit equivilant. If you roll the minimum "to wound" no further harm than the lost wound. A railgun can still glance AV11. Furthermore, a blanket increase in toughness should be applied, and/or directional toughness to MC's to compensate for there new fragility. like, say, the lowest available toughness to be 7 on any MC, and let T11&12 be a thing, as AV15 now happens, and there needs to be a T value that Str10 only pens on 6's against. Extra addendum to this; I find multi-wound characters to be far to durable. Lets just apply this chart to any multiwound model. Suddenly every TWC, necron wraith, grey knight paladin and eldar exarch needs to worry about getting shot.

Will MC heavy armies have some sort of techmarine equivalent added to their faction to allow for severed limbs and wounds to be fixed?
How will EW interact with this chart?
Will over-strength weapons have a d3 HP effect VS vehicles?
Why are there two points of "you take more wounds because" on the MC damage chart?
Will there be another effect similar to haywire to balance against MC's vulnerability to sniper, poison, and fleshbane? How about something like "Metalophagic". Weapons with that rule auto-penetrate on a 2+ against anything with an AV.

And from a serious tactical perspective, your chart would allow a pair of meltaguns to basically 1 shot any t6 MC in the game, guaranteed. Lets put an IG veteran squad with 3 meltas against a carnifex and a dreadnought, assuming all 3 meltas are at 5" away, and that the firer is tactically smart enough to have the shots come from a no-cover angle.

3 melta shots, 2 hit. Meltaguns are Str8+2d6 vs AV12, so that is more than likely 2 pens. dread takes minimum 2 HP, with a 1/3 chance of being exploded per hit, potentially harming the aggressors. Has a slight chance of surviving
3 melta shots. 2 hit. Meltaguns are str 8 vs t6, so thats 2d3 wounds. Carnifex is likely dead from the on average 4 wounds. If it does survive somehow, further 50% chance of taking further wounds or being slain outright. Almost no chance of surviving.
I'm no pro at math-hammer, but a dreadnought seems to VASTLY outclass the fex. In CQC it's even more of a joke, as the dread will (even moreso than now) kill the fex before it swings, 4 attacks, hitting on 3+, causing d3 wounds each. Any space marine with a powerfist will eat t6 MC's for breakfast.

Then we get to Str-D. A single str-D shot will cause minimum 2d3 wounds vs any MC t8 or less, as Str-d is actually str10 with a wonky extra table.
Oh yeah, FMC are a thing. A failed grounding test will cause 1+d3 wounds to nearly every FMC in the game, as the only one I know of with access to more than t7 is a daemon prince that rolled iron arm.

All this change will do is to make CWE even more the master race of wh40k, as they are the only ones with access to baseline t8 MC, a plethora of s8+ and strD weapons, and have sniper, haywire, and melta out the . Tau will barely notice it, as the real kicker of riptides is their extreme range coupled with high mobility and high inv/armor save. So the pleb MC's of the game (Tyranids, Daemons, Dark Eldar) will all be sitting next to all the pre-7e space marine dreadnoughts.

One of the best things that could be done for Riptides is to nerf the everloving snot out of the ion accelerator.

I've seen a couple of variants, but I'd go with this: make it exactly equal to the Ghostkeel's cyclic ion raker (which is powerful but not overpowered), but add a Nova-charged profile as follows:

24" S10 AP2 Ordnance 1 Large Blast, Gets Hot, Nova-Charge

Then remove Gets Hot from the nova-charged profile of the Heavy Burst Cannon and possibly bump it up to Heavy 12 base and Heavy 16 Nova'd - S6 AP4 isn't that terrifying without Rending. Admittedly, 16 shots with Rending is scary, and 36" range can be nasty, but I think most armies can either survive that (Necrons, Space Marines, Tyranids sometimes) or make the Riptide pay for being dumb enough to get that close (Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, etc).

Now that highly durable beastie has to get up close where it's subject to all kinds of abuse - including things like Tank Shock. (Everyone at my local shop remembers the Great Invincible Hellhound Incident...)

Uh, while i agree with the IA change (since thats basically what ive been saying needs to happen, not change prices on anything) the change to the HBC is ...no lol. 16 S6 AP4 Rending w/o Gets Hot? Thats just insane, considering even 12 Rending shots is scary enough as it is.
People take the IA over the HBC not because the IA is overall stronger, but because its more reliable due to Blast and AP2 static and zero Nova test risks. HBC when it actually PASSES the nova, is way stronger - but if it doesnt pass, it kinda sucks balls.

Ive always said it makes no sense for a tank dedicated to bringing its main cannon would have a weaker cannon than the giant mecha suit. Same strength value, but less ap. IA should be AP4 like every other damn Ion we have outside the Cannon, with the Nova being AP2 like you said so then it forces the Nova damage risk vs reward.

Hmm, in that case, leave the profile on the HBC as it is, but drop Gets Hot. My complaint is that you already are risking (33% chance) of a self-inflicted wound just to nova-charge it, Gets Hot on top of that makes it almost not worth using - unless you marker yourself up to BS6 or use the Command-Link Drone, in which case it becomes next thing to irrelevant.

It seems like the risk is very small, (2+ armor plus maybe FNP) but I've killed myself with that more than once, not counting all the times I've killed myself with the nova reactor.

No mc or gmc should have a 2+ save. We can start there in the balancing.

"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

 Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd.

Vehicles are easier to kill than most tougher nonMC models. THAT is the problem.

Vehicles need a severe buff. MCs as a whole are fine, WK/Riptide need tweaks but thats specific not general.

I've always gone with the suggestion that vehicle HP needs to be doubled. Vehicles are immune to infantry guns (for the most part) but the problem comes in with Autocannon or Missilepod level of firepower - they glance to death too quickly since they have no save against it and its too reliable.
Doubling the HP makes glancing to death significantly harder to pull off, but still possible - making the 1shot weapons more favorable because of the Explode chances.

I also feel vehicles should have a minor save against non AP1 or AP2 weapons. Nothing huge since they have the AV backing it up, but even something like a 5+ would be awesome across the board. Skimmers already have a 4+ jink if we chose to use it, so leave that alone, and make the vehicles with 5++ a 4++. Vehicles that already have a 4++ get nothing, as i feel having more than a 4++ that doesnt impose snapfire on an AV model is a bit overkill. (Yes my hammerheads have a 3+ save, but i REALLY dont want to do that because then i basically waste my next shot)

Martel732 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd.

If most MCs were Riptides or DKs then sure.

Most, however, are T5/6 3+/4+ Sv models with 3/4 wounds.

You can't say an MC doesn't die to massed fire then also claim that Space Marines are bad because they do.

Martel732 wrote:
No mc or gmc should have a 2+ save. We can start there in the balancing.

QFT.

Personally I'd make various things (dreadknights, riptides) have a USR called "mechanical" or some such nonsense:

-Immune to poison and fleshbane
-Haywire wounds on a 2+ and gains Rending
-Meltaguns and weapons with Armorbane deal an additional wound with no saves of any kind allowed on a to wound roll of 6.

Also, remove the ability for these units to take a built in FNP (Stim Injectors).

As for 'Nid MC's, most of them need a price drop, better movement, and better rules for Synapse. 'Nids should be the only ones who should get FNP thrown around on MCs (besides Daemons).

I like this, especially the armour save related to AP of the weapon

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd.

If most MCs were Riptides or DKs then sure.

Most, however, are T5/6 3+/4+ Sv models with 3/4 wounds.

You can't say an MC doesn't die to massed fire then also claim that Space Marines are bad because they do.

Unfortunately, this is the problem. People aren't listening because - unfortunately - they don't care about tyranid monstrous creatures. Whenever anyone says "monstrous creature" they think Riptide, Dreadknight, Wraithknight and now Ghostkeel. And as long as they can point at these, they don't care that the problems are these units, not the monstrous creature rules as a whole.

The 'toe in terrain' phrase which gets trotted out at every opportunity is the same. Fine if you're a flying artillery piece, but if you're a walking assault unit, you have to close on the enemy to hurt them, which means (normally) coming out of cover. In addition, you either get your cover save or your armour save - against a lot of mid-strength firepower, you're not going to get the cover save regardless because a 3+ armour/carapace is better.

T6, 3+ save monsters (like, notably, dreadnoughts used to be in 1st edition) do not 'die easily to massed fire. I'm not going to say they do, and I'm not sure anyone's claiming they die easily. But the point is that a tactical squad rapid-firing into them and bunging a krak grenade at the same time will do a wound as often as not. Heavy bolters can hurt them, and so can pulse weapons, burst cannons, splinter weapons, shuriken catapults and so on. As a result, any army facing primarily monstrous creatures has probably 30 or so guys that can actually hurt them that would be nothing but warm bodies against a similar AV12/13 walker force. They don't go down easily, and shouldn't, but losing a few extra wounds per turn matters when your force is built around a small number of high toughness models, just like losing 'a few hull points' wrecks vehicles.


I'll be fair - I don't like 2+ save monstrous creatures either. I can just about forgive the tyrannofex - trying not to be biased - because it doesn't get an invulnerable save, it's incompetent in close combat and it's essentially supposed to be a walking weapons bunker, but I'd be perfectly happy with it having a 3+ save - the tervigon is based on the same model, after all - and making it a touch cheaper. The idea of monstrous creatures being easier to wound but harder to put down permanently than a tank is fine, but whilst a 3+ save is okay, a 2+ save is pushing it as it makes krak missiles - supposed to be a standard anti-tank weapon - irrelevant.

Equally, I would be perfectly happy removing the 'area terrain' exception for vehicles. The point of area terrain is that it's supposed to be dense forest, or ruins, or whatever, that's full of far more and far thicker scenery than is practical to put on the table and still move your models around - hence anything fully inside it should get a cover save, regardless of its unit type, and anything not fully inside it (because it wouldn't fit because it's a baneblade or a hierophant) won't.

I don't mind dropping or simplifying the damage table on tanks, but there should still be some 'overkill' mechanic - for the same reason Instant Death weapons scare a monstrous creature; a librarian with a force staff, or someone with an ichor injector or paragon blade has a fighting chance of killing a monster in one blow - there should be a way to do the same to walkers.

Frankly, if someone wants to revert dreadnoughts to (essentially) monstrous creatures, I don't mind, provided that they don't then try (as they usually do) to insist that they have a 2+ save and by T8 or 9 in order to be immune to anti-personnel weapons.

Vehicle VS MC in M41 rules:

- removed unit types (replaced them with a trait system), all weapons work against all models (eg. Instant Death), all models treat terrain the same, etc

- Vehicle Armour is treated like toughness but those models have no armour save (value from 6-16)

- Anti Vehicle weapons (replaces armour & flesh bane) add 7-AP to their strength against Vehicle Armour.

- some weapons remove 2 wounds instead of one (eg lasercannons)

- All models above a specific size use the same damage table:
1-2: Glancing Hit: the models shooting attacks suffer a -1 to hit
3-4: Weapon damage: 1 weapon cannot shoot the next turn (owner choose)
5-6: Drive/Tracks/Legs damaged: the model cannot move the next turn

- the number of weapons fired is fixed to the size of the model

- some other tweaks/traits to take the other "old" rules into account

Martel732 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd.

I think you just failed at maths. My Mawlocs (T6, W6, 3+) have died in a single round of fire more often than not thanks to mass bolter fire and a few heavy weapons. Occaisonally they'll last just long enough for someone to get into close combat and take that last wound off them since most Tyranid MC's are actually quite bad at close combat.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd.

If most MCs were Riptides or DKs then sure.

Most, however, are T5/6 3+/4+ Sv models with 3/4 wounds.

You can't say an MC doesn't die to massed fire then also claim that Space Marines are bad because they do.

Except marines get wounded at triple the rate by S4 and about double the rate by S6. So, yeah I can.