Looking at Proposed Rules, there are always so many threads about giving IoM units (in particular SM) ridiculous buffs, such as:

Terminators gaining 1+ armour, 4++, FNP, point reductions etc.

Tactical Marines gaining FNP, 2W, Relentless etc.

Drop Pods gaining a point reduction.


I never see this level of complaining from other armies and it isn't as if IoM are a lower-tier army.

Why do you think many IoM players are like this?

Or, There's just more people that play space marines....

Hardly a mystery.

Deadnight wrote:
Or, There's just more people that play space marines....

Hardly a mystery.

So because they are the most popular they need massive buffs?

1. Everyone "wants" buffs for their faction

2. There are a lot of IoM players, and therefore, you should see more IoM... complaining... if you want to call it that.

3.Terminators really do suck.

4. Tactical marines are not really that great.

5. I'm not sure if I've seen anyone *seriously* asking for a point reduction on DP. If they do, well, they're just strange

Too many IoM players are probably too invested in the - most of the time - propaganda fluff. Even when it's not supposed to be propaganda, it's told from the point of view of a spess mehreen, who have a tendency of believing themselves to be truly all-mighty and righteous.

I would have no issue with tabletop marines having "movie marines" rules, as long as they paid for it. 2 wounds, FNP, relentless? Pay for it. Then keep complaining when meltas, battle cannons and anything else out there with F8 and FP3 keep turning your expensive super movie marines to shreds.

...because they always get them. Marine favorism has always been a thing.

 Talys wrote:
1. Everyone "wants" buffs for their faction

2. There are a lot of IoM players, and therefore, you should see more IoM... complaining... if you want to call it that.

3.Terminators really do suck.

4. Tactical marines are not really that great.

5. I'm not sure if I've seen anyone *seriously* asking for a point reduction on DP. If they do, well, they're just strange

1) I agree, however in my experience, whenever a non-IoM suggests massive buffs (like they love to suggest) they are called 'cheese', 'OP' or 'broken'.
There just seems to be a double standard.

2) Again I agree, however their buffs always seem to be ridiculous such as Terminators with a 1+ save...WTF? That's way too OP when other 2+ guys will still die to plasma.

3) They suck because they lost their purpose *cough* Centurions and Sternguard do it better *cough*

4) They are all-rounders, so they are as good as they should be.

5) Well many claim that it is OVERcosted (I accidentally put undercoated)... So I'd say that they do.

 Korinov wrote:
Too many IoM players are probably too invested in the - most of the time - propaganda fluff. Even when it's not supposed to be propaganda, it's told from the point of view of a spess mehreen, who have a tendency of believing themselves to be truly all-mighty and righteous.

I would have no issue with tabletop marines having "movie marines" rules, as long as they paid for it. 2 wounds, FNP, relentless? Pay for it. Then keep complaining when meltas, battle cannons and anything else out there with F8 and FP3 keep turning your expensive super movie marines to shreds.

I don't play marines but I really do believe they should be movie marines (and should pay for it) as well. At the moment on the tabletop they're nothing like the fluff and that disappoints me. I find them extremely lacklustre.

SGTPozy wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Or, There's just more people that play space marines....

Hardly a mystery.

So because they are the most popular they need massive buffs?

No, because they are more popular, there are more threads about them.

Were the game more balanced, such threads would be minimal in quantity. Alas, "model first"...

Loyalist terminators are awful (only 2 of my 5 armies are IoM before any hint of bias is thrown my way). Sternguard and centurions do not fill their roll better as they have an entirely different roll - termis are close combat specialists... unless you believe 5 stormbolters is worth 200pts.
Tacticals are really really poor, their damage output is pathetic for their points and they are not that durable for 14pts apiece.

Now what you have done is taken what people have said entirely out of context. The termis for example - NOBODY on that thread claimed they needed 1+ (which you didn't describe properly), 4++, FnP and a points reduction. Some of these ideas were suggested singularly NOT joint.
IMO 2W would be sufficient for termis to make them worth their points.

If people are saying a drop pod is UNDERcosted, they are saying it should cost MORE not less.

Tactical marines gaining FnP is not ridiculous. Check out the Red Scorpion rules (hint - Red Scorps are not considered in the slightest OP).

Why have you in at least 3 seperate threads now, catagorized all IoM players together? Stereotyping helps no-one and instead gets peoples backs up.

Another stellar poll from SGTPozy. IoM players are not some kind of hive mind collective, different players want different things, so not every player is asking for all those buffs, or even any buffs. Tac Squads and Terminators could do with a buff, and the thread about Drop Pods the general consensus was that DPs are undercosted, not that they need to be cheaper.

I don't know why you hate IoM players so much...

SGTPozy wrote:


Why do you think many IoM players are like this?

I know many IoM players are Not like this.



Maybe your next thread should be:

" Why are xeno players satisfied with their cheese when more cheese is better ?"

Also think about this. Eldar Guardians needed a buff - Eldar players were always saying this (and most would agree), they ended up getting +1bs, +1ws, psudo-rending and battle focus, for no increase in costs when the new dex came out... and they are still rarely taken.
Discussing a unit which is not worth its points and how you would improve it is not being spoilt. Your thread options would suggest you seem to believe this. In fact I don't belive IoM ARMIES need buffing - hardly anybody seriously does. But many believe some UNITS need buffing. Your poll does not really allow this option, being biased towards the 'spoilt' option.
CSM need buffing and I see many threads discussing this. Orks need a few buffs here and there and I see threads dicussing this. Dark Eldar buffs have been discussed in depth too. Eldar, Tau, Deamons and Necrons? They're doing pretty fine as they are, especially in corncern to troops.

I've just mentioned the 7 basic non-IoM armies. Here are the IoM ones:
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Grey Knights
Sisters of Battle
Space Marines
Astra Militarum
Militarum Tempestus
Imperial Knights
Inquisition

That's 10 Imperial armies. That's 59% of the available non FW armies out there. If you decide to put them all together under the name IoM - of course there will be more threads on the IoM units.

 1hadhq wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:


Why do you think many IoM players are like this?

I know many IoM players are Not like this.



Maybe your next thread should be:

" Why are xeno players satisfied with their cheese when more cheese is better ?"

Heh. Eldar, Daemon, and Necron cheese is totally fine! But that one thing IoM has, (grav star of the bike or cent variety) super op, proof that imperial players are all collectively GWs favorites, and do nothing but whine and cry about how they need buffs!

But on a serious note, just report the op for being inflammatory and move along. If you don't feed the troll, it starves.

No need to attack me.

All armies have their cheese but many (remember I did say 'many' in the OP and not 'all') IoM players want more.

They want their grav guns, they want invincible terminators and they want tacticals that are the best at everything, rather than being good/average at everything.

If people do not like the IoM being viewed as a single army then maybe people should stop playing them as a single army.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a unit is buffed and nothing gets nerfed, then the army got buffed. This means that my original statement is still correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poly Ranger, I see one Ork and one Chaos thread on Proposed Rules, yet there are more SM ones... So people still complain more about IoM ones when they don't need it.

If a thread was about buffing DA that would be fine since they need it, but the problem is that suggested buffs will affect all marine armies including those that do not need the help.

SGTPozy wrote:
No need to attack me.

All armies have their cheese but many (remember I did say 'many' in the OP and not 'all') IoM players want more.

They want their grav guns, they want invincible terminators and they want tacticals that are the best at everything, rather than being good/average at everything.

If people do not like the IoM being viewed as a single army then maybe people should stop playing them as a single army.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a unit is buffed and nothing gets nerfed, then the army got buffed. This means that my original statement is still correct.

Okay, again with the most, it's not most players want more buffs, it's some players want more buffs. Most still gives it that hive mind feel, like most IoM players think the same. They don't. Some is accurate.

They want units that are good at everything but costed appropriately. Because that would fit the fluff.

No one said they didn't want them to be viewed as a single army? Why would people stop playing them with allies when it's in the rules and suits the fluff?

If a subpar unit gets buffed and nothing gets nerfed, the army didn't get buffed, you just might see more of that unit than before. It doesn't make the army any better overall, unless it suddenly becomes broken. But no one is asking for broken.

SGTPozy wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Or, There's just more people that play space marines....

Hardly a mystery.

So because they are the most popular they need massive buffs?

No, but because there are more of them in general, the same percentage of unhappy people comes across as being much larger.

It's like the old saying. "It's not that a lot of Americans are stupid, its just that there are a LOT of Americans."

It's not saying that Americans are stupid. Just that with so many people talking, the stupid ones are more obvious.

"Why have you in at least 3 seperate threads now, catagorized all IoM players together? Stereotyping helps no-one and instead gets peoples backs up."

How is it offensive? People combine CSM and Daemons all of the time as 'Chaos' and they don't get offended.

It isn't stereotyping, if I was stereotyping I would have said that they all take minimum troops, spam grav centurions, ally in TWC and dreadknights and then take a couple IK... I did not say that, all that I did was combine them since they are essentially the same army.

No, you've combined all IoM players together as if they all think/want the same thing. He doesn't mean 'why have you counted all IoM armies as one army' he means 'why have you counted all IoM players as if they all want the same thing'. For the third time in this thread, different people want different things. They don't all think the same.

 ImAGeek wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
No need to attack me.

All armies have their cheese but many (remember I did say 'many' in the OP and not 'all') IoM players want more.

They want their grav guns, they want invincible terminators and they want tacticals that are the best at everything, rather than being good/average at everything.

If people do not like the IoM being viewed as a single army then maybe people should stop playing them as a single army.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a unit is buffed and nothing gets nerfed, then the army got buffed. This means that my original statement is still correct.

Okay, again with the most, it's not most players want more buffs, it's some players want more buffs. Most still gives it that hive mind feel, like most IoM players think the same. They don't. Some is accurate.

They want units that are good at everything but costed appropriately. Because that would fit the fluff.

No one said they didn't want them to be viewed as a single army? Why would people stop playing them with allies when it's in the rules and suits the fluff?

If a subpar unit gets buffed and nothing gets nerfed, the army didn't get buffed, you just might see more of that unit than before. It doesn't make the army any better overall, unless it suddenly becomes broken. But no one is asking for broken.

I used 'most' since on those threads no IoM players said no to the buffs.

What's wrong with a Hive Mind? Tyranids are fine with it

So it is okay though for Chaos to be combined? Still a double standard; either allow the groups or refer to every single army separately.

If something one player in a football team got better then the team got better. Same goes for codices and units.


I'd argue that terminators that are immune to plasma are pretty broken...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:
No, you've combined all IoM players together as if they all think/want the same thing. He doesn't mean 'why have you counted all IoM armies as one army' he means 'why have you counted all IoM players as if they all want the same thing'. For the third time in this thread, different people want different things. They don't all think the same.

Yet again, why are Chaos combined then? They don't want the same things/ think the same.

By that logic, no comparisons can be made because no one is the same.

People are happy to call Eldar players cheesy, yet they clearly aren't all serpent spammers, so I hope you continue your crusade against generalism to xenos and chaos too.

Right so the players talking in those threads are every single IoM player in the world? And no one said no to those buffs because Terminators and Tac Squads could do with a buff. Not being broken, or OP, just good.

What do you mean it's okay for chaos to be combined? We aren't talking about grouping the armies together, stop grouping the players together.

Yes I do. There's no need for any generalisation. Not everybody does spam Serpents. When has anyone combined Chaos players past using 'Chaos' as CSM and Daemons. Again! The issue isn't that you're saying 'IoM' to cover all Imperium armies. It's that you're assuming every IoM player wants he same thing.

Countless times I've seen you say things like 'IoM players just want IK spam' and stuff like that. 'Why do IoM Players always want buffs?' Not every IoM player does.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Right so the players talking in those threads are every single IoM player in the world? And no one said no to those buffs because Terminators and Tac Squads could do with a buff. Not being broken, or OP, just good.

What do you mean it's okay for chaos to be combined? We aren't talking about grouping the armies together, stop grouping the players together.

Chaos is referred to by both Daeoms and CSM, but you don't hear them complaining since you quite often see the two together; just like with the IoM.

They don't need a buff though, they are fine how they are (I used to play SM and they are fine).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Yes I do. There's no need for any generalisation. Not everybody does spam Serpents. When has anyone combined Chaos players past using 'Chaos' as CSM and Daemons. Again! The issue isn't that you're saying 'IoM' to cover all Imperium armies. It's that you're assuming every IoM player wants he same thing.

Countless times I've seen you say things like 'IoM players just want IK spam' and stuff like that. 'Why do IoM Players always want buffs?' Not every IoM player does.

Yet Eldar players have a bad reputation for it because people generalise.

Yet again, I used the word 'most' and not 'all'.

When have I said about everyone wanting IK spam? I've said that many do use them, but not that they wanted them.

So DA players don't want buffs? GKs don't want more units? Sisters don't want to lose their monotonous?

It's not an Imperial player thing, it's a 40k player thing. Not all of them, or even half, but it's still a seriously vocal portion.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
It's not an Imperial player thing, it's a 40k player thing. Not all of them, or even half, but it's still a seriously vocal portion.

Exactly, so why are IoM players the most vocal? (Not directed at you personally)

Because there's a lot more of them. Simple as that.

Because there's more of them.

Its not that their more vocal, there's simply more players who have an IoM faction (marines in particular).

If you did more than a cursory glance at the proposed section, you'd also find plenty of threads looking to buff/fix all the other codices.

I saw 9 IoM buffing threads, yes there are 2 or 3 Ork ones and a CSM one but there are still far more IoM ones.

Because there's more people that play them. Cmon man...

stripeydave wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Then why do 53% of people agree that it is just because they are GW's favourites?

You'll get no more food from me.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Because there's more people that play them. Cmon man...

Just because more people play them it doesn't mean that theybhave to have the most 'fixing' threads that end up being ridiculous buffing threads.

Terminators are good. Storm bolter ones not so much but that's only because of the power that THSS ones bring.

Tacticals are all-rounders like they are supposed to be, therefore they are fine.

They do not need to be cheaper nor better.

Oh my god. There's more players so of course there'll be more threads about them. Tac Squads and Tac Termies aren great and could do with something to improve them.

This thread is ridiculous. You don't even listen to people's answers and it was flawed from the start. I'm done here.

SGTPozy wrote:

stripeydave wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Then why do 53% of people agree that it is just because they are GW's favourites?

I'm willing to believe they are 8 trolls out there. You are one, so just 7 more...

16 people is not a valid sample, champ.

Tactical squads and non storm shield terminators are pretty garbage. They could use changes to being them more inline with other options. Space marines that use tactical marines total 3: c:sm, BA, da. Drop da for tactical terminators.

There are 5 varieties of loyalist marine codices, with one being split up between a variety of chapters and play styles.. Is it any surprise that the most popular army, with the most codex support, would have the most people asking for some of the more iconic units of those armies to be field able in a competitive way?

The am, sob, ik, inquisition are non sm imperial armies. You rarely see any of the others on the forums by comparison, so even if you feel like clumping the variety of marine players together (which is still incorrect, as a Salamanders player might care more about getting tactical heavy flamers than a UM player about a tactical terminator change...) it is still way off base to lump all of the I peril armies player together.

Chaos marines are pretty bad, and the fact that squishy mortal humans are more competitive makes mean sad. Bloodletters and khorne in general. The non skull cannon chariots for daemons. Beasts of Nurgle.

Regardless, with every post it is more obvious that you are a troll, so I don't know why I bothered.

SGTPozy wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Because there's more people that play them. Cmon man...

Just because more people play them it doesn't mean that theybhave to have the most 'fixing' threads that end up being ridiculous buffing threads.

Well, technically, they do. If (hypothetically) 50% of people would make a fix/buff comment on their army, and you have 8 Space Marine players, 2 Tau players, and 3 Ork players and 4 Chaos Space Marine players, you would see that there are 4 SM threads, 1 Tau thread, 1/2 Ork threads and 2 CSM threads. Therefore, more SM threads. (For the record, all these numbers are hypothetical and based on assumption). And it's not hard to assume that, as IOM take up 10 out of 20 40k armies, there would be more primarily IOM players than the other factions.

Terminators are good. Storm bolter ones not so much but that's only because of the power that THSS ones bring.

**splutters**LIES**splutters** Terminators are too expensive for what they bring, for all variants. Please, if you wish, post a poll to vote if Terminators are good and cost effective. I dare you. Otherwise, for an in-depth explanation, please visit one of the many "Terminator fix threads" that dot the Proposed Rules forum.

Tacticals are all-rounders like they are supposed to be, therefore they are fine.

They do not need to be cheaper nor better.

Yes, Tactical marines are meant to be all rounders. Their rules are generally fine. But GW has this idea that a jack-of-all-trades unit should cost more than a unit that completely specialises in a certain field (READ: Tau Fire Warriors) and so marines pay a points privilege for being only mediocre and outclassed in every field. Fair? According to you, apparently so.

iv'e never heard of an imperium player saying he wanted his army to be buffed, but i have heared plenty of imperium players mentioning stuff which doesn't make sense. i have to concede that the 'sense' part was usually because the rules dont match the fluff (terminators coming up a lot) but once or twice someone will bring up a unit in comparison to another which does make you think "that needs fixed"

last night in another tread someone suggested that the range of the thunderfire cannon and the whirlwind should be exchanged - made total sense to me. however, i dont see myself as calling for space marines to be buffed.

ive said it before on dakka - GW seems to think that, if they make some rules which are too powerful for a race/model; that the best way to deal with it is to buff lots of other models in the hope 'balance' will be a result.

Does... Does he make these just to bump his post count? Never are the discussions worth the bandwidth they take... Ever..

 Crazyterran wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:

stripeydave wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Then why do 53% of people agree that it is just because they are GW's favourites?

The am, sob, ik, inquisition are non sm imperial armies. You rarely see any of the others on the forums by comparison, so even if you feel like clumping the variety of marine players together (which is still incorrect, as a Salamanders player might care more about getting tactical heavy flamers than a UM player about a tactical terminator change...) it is still way off base to lump all of the I peril armies player together.

And what percentage of complete fandexes on there are for the Sororitas? Does that make Sisters players whiny?

I'm a little amused that the title is about the IoM but the complaining is all Marine focused.

I voted other because for the stuff I see requesting buffs for it's all come down strictly to options. With Sisters it's unit selection and feeling like all the units are equally useful, and with Inquisition it's the fact that the most powerful organization in the Imperium apparently has such a limited selection of options (and overpays for a lot of them) that really bugs players.

I'm not going to claim that every army out there needs a lot of "buffs" but their are valid reasons to want to see your army get some love.

Because they are generally overcosted. Tac Marines should cost the same as most troops that are specialized (as Marines are jack-of-all-trades) and if that Marine squad wants to specialize, then they pay for the upgrades (maybe the same or a bit more than what they cost now, since they'll still be decent at what they didn't specialize in).

I play Xenos and IoM armies shouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg for something that is done cheaper by other armies.

I, who has a Loyalist Marine army, a Guard army, and a HH IF Army with only Eldar for a non-IOM force, do not want my faction to be buffed to Eldar-like levels. I want Eldar and Tau nerfed to a sensible and balanced level.

Before you make threads like this you should do a more conclusive study than just cursory glance at the proposed rules section.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I, who has a Loyalist Marine army, a Guard army, and a HH IF Army with only Eldar for a non-IOM force, do not want my faction to be buffed to Eldar-like levels. I want Eldar and Tau nerfed to a sensible and balanced level.

Hear, hear, these are the only two Xenos armies that I don't play More so Eldar IMO, Tau lost out considerably when they lost BB allies

The only IoM army I play is GK, and while there are a few thing I think need changed its not because I think they need buffed. It's because I think they need options. When 90% of the people who play an army simply spam the same 2 units (terminators and DKs) because everything else is either over costed, underpowered, or simply isn't as good as one of thepreviously mentioned units for that slot then something should be changed.

I'm not saying I never run a fluffy list. I just don't see any way of running a competitive list without making it the boring cookie cutter list we "all" are bored with.

SGTPozy wrote:

stripeydave wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Then why do 53% of people agree that it is just because they are GW's favourites?

Because it's a terrible poll.

I didn't even answer it. At a minimum, there should have been an option for: "I don't think IoM Players Want Buffs Any More than Other Factions."

Imagine the Poll question, "Why does Obama Hate America?" followed by 3 reasons, and then, you say, "Look! 50% of respondents think that he's a Muslim terrrorist! See, half of America believes it! FACT!" Well, that just half the people who hate Obama picked that in glee, perhaps as a random answer. The people who like Obama and the ones who dislike him but are more reasonable and don't think that he hates America, don't dignify the poll with a response.

does anyone agree with me that termies, Tac marines and dreads of both loyalist and chaos sides should get a 5+ FNP?

Fonsio wrote:
does anyone agree with me that termies, Tac marines and dreads of both loyalist and chaos sides should get a 5+ FNP?

While it'd be fluffy, they'd need a points bump for that because there is no way in hell a 14pt troop model with ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics needs buffs with no points increase.

Personally I think tacs would be better if they could take 2 specials instead of a spec+heavy and were all given a chainsword/ccw. This would actually make them all rounders without being ott. Lets face it - with 1A they are not all rounders!
CSM can get this and they are considered very underpowered.

Therefore with the two changes and combination of CTs and ATSKNF tacs become decently costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then I would still take my BA scouts...

Poly Ranger wrote:
Personally I think tacs would be better if they could take 2 specials instead of a spec+heavy and were all given a chainsword/ccw. This would actually make them all rounders without being ott. Lets face it - with 1A they are not all rounders!
CSM can get this and they are considered very underpowered.

Therefore with the two changes and combination of CTs and ATSKNF tacs become decently costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then I would still take my BA scouts...

CCWs are an upgrade that both Space Wolves and CSM have to actually pay for. I mean. It's not a horrible ide a but as with the FnP one the points need to reflect the idea.

SGTPozy wrote:

 Talys wrote:
1. Everyone "wants" buffs for their faction

2. There are a lot of IoM players, and therefore, you should see more IoM... complaining... if you want to call it that.

3.Terminators really do suck.

4. Tactical marines are not really that great.

5. I'm not sure if I've seen anyone *seriously* asking for a point reduction on DP. If they do, well, they're just strange

1) I agree, however in my experience, whenever a non-IoM suggests massive buffs (like they love to suggest) they are called 'cheese', 'OP' or 'broken'.
There just seems to be a double standard.

2) Again I agree, however their buffs always seem to be ridiculous such as Terminators with a 1+ save...WTF? That's way too OP when other 2+ guys will still die to plasma.

3) They suck because they lost their purpose *cough* Centurions and Sternguard do it better *cough*

4) They are all-rounders, so they are as good as they should be.

5) Well many claim that it is OVERcosted (I accidentally put undercoated)... So I'd say that they do.

1. There is no double standard.
2. Nobody has been calling for those buffs at once. They were all separate suggestions.
3. Terminators wouldn't be taken even if Sternguard and Centurions didn't exist. We have been over this, and you constantly ignore that.
4. Jack Of All Trades sucks unless you're above average in everything. Tactical Marines have been shown, via math, to not be good at any role. That's not a matter of being okay at everything, especially when specialization gets the job done in other armies and in this one as well. Bikers could be 25 a pop and they'd still be taken as troops over Tacticals because of their poor design. Same can be said with Vanilla CSM squads. Taking anything that isn't Cultists, Plagues, or Noises is a death wish.
5. Nobody ever said the Drop Pod was overcosted. It is costed appropriately for the army that uses them. Other armies use them better.

"They are used to being GW's favourite"

I lol'd hard.

5th edition was indeed what one would call "The Imperial Edition" but when you look at every single other edition ever published, ever, there have never once been a time were IoM armies have been quite as disgustingly overpowered as non-IoM armies. Ever. Period.

Honestly, this feels like a bad troll bait thread, especially when the OP highlights legitimate complaints about powerlevels of Tac Marines/Termies and then proceeds to mock those suggestions by blantantly lying through his teeth.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Personally I think tacs would be better if they could take 2 specials instead of a spec+heavy and were all given a chainsword/ccw. This would actually make them all rounders without being ott. Lets face it - with 1A they are not all rounders!
CSM can get this and they are considered very underpowered.

Therefore with the two changes and combination of CTs and ATSKNF tacs become decently costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then I would still take my BA scouts...

CCWs are an upgrade that both Space Wolves and CSM have to actually pay for. I mean. It's not a horrible ide a but as with the FnP one the points need to reflect the idea.

And Wolf/CSM players will tell you that the CCW upgrade is one point too expensive.

Correlation/causation. Marine players tend to be younger/newer/less experienced on average because that's what's always been pushed as the starting army and is on all the posters, younger/newer/less experienced players who got all pumped on the promises of the fluff and then found that the real game didn't match up to the hyperbole and exaggeration are the sort who are then going to go to Proposed Rules and complain that their army should be cooler.

This is a broad generalization intended to describe a pattern, not an overarching condemnation of Imperial players, kids, or folks who think the fluff is cool. Anyone who reads the first few sentences and jumps down to knee-jerk accuse me of all sorts of horrible sins, this is your queue.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Personally I think tacs would be better if they could take 2 specials instead of a spec+heavy and were all given a chainsword/ccw. This would actually make them all rounders without being ott. Lets face it - with 1A they are not all rounders!
CSM can get this and they are considered very underpowered.

Therefore with the two changes and combination of CTs and ATSKNF tacs become decently costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then I would still take my BA scouts...

CCWs are an upgrade that both Space Wolves and CSM have to actually pay for. I mean. It's not a horrible ide a but as with the FnP one the points need to reflect the idea.

Fair enough. Whilst I personally think those two changes would make them appropriately costed, would you be open to the idea of them being able to take 2 specs at 10 man and a ccw option for +1pt?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Correlation/causation. Marine players tend to be younger/newer/less experienced on average because that's what's always been pushed as the starting army and is on all the posters, younger/newer/less experienced players who got all pumped on the promises of the fluff and then found that the real game didn't match up to the hyperbole and exaggeration are the sort who are then going to go to Proposed Rules and complain that their army should be cooler.

This is a broad generalization intended to describe a pattern, not an overarching condemnation of Imperial players, kids, or folks who think the fluff is cool. Anyone who reads the first few sentences and jumps down to knee-jerk accuse me of all sorts of horrible sins, this is your queue.

This actually makes a lot of sense. The younger/less experienced the player, the more likely they are to be a SM player I've found in general. I had been thinking the same thing but wondered how to state it without causing offense. That being said - Tac marines and Termis are still definitely overcosted and are a legitimate point of contention.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
have been over this, and you constantly ignore that.
4. Jack Of All Trades sucks unless you're above average in everything. Tactical Marines have been shown, via math, to not be good at any role. That's not a matter of being okay at everything, especially when specialization gets the job done in other armies and in this one as well. Bikers could be 25 a pop and they'd still be taken as troops over Tacticals because of their poor design. Same can be said with Vanilla CSM squads. Taking anything that isn't Cultists, Plagues, or Noises is a death wish.

Jack of All Trades sucks even more when you're above average at NOTHING. Like Terminators, Tactical marines' most valuable asset is that they are fun to model, because they are soldiers on mean-looking, football inspired armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Correlation/causation. Marine players tend to be younger/newer/less experienced on average because that's what's always been pushed as the starting army and is on all the posters, younger/newer/less experienced players who got all pumped on the promises of the fluff and then found that the real game didn't match up to the hyperbole and exaggeration are the sort who are then going to go to Proposed Rules and complain that their army should be cooler.

This is a broad generalization intended to describe a pattern, not an overarching condemnation of Imperial players, kids, or folks who think the fluff is cool. Anyone who reads the first few sentences and jumps down to knee-jerk accuse me of all sorts of horrible sins, this is your queue.

I think that almost everyone who has played 40k long enough owns a space marine army

My first army was SM, primarily because at the time there was the space marine plastic box set, and I thought that being able to pose and customize your models was the coolest thing. I think SM and Imperial Guard were the only armies with pastics when I started 40k, with Orks coming in after that. Or Space Orks, as the box called them back then

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Personally I think tacs would be better if they could take 2 specials instead of a spec+heavy and were all given a chainsword/ccw. This would actually make them all rounders without being ott. Lets face it - with 1A they are not all rounders!
CSM can get this and they are considered very underpowered.

Therefore with the two changes and combination of CTs and ATSKNF tacs become decently costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then I would still take my BA scouts...

CCWs are an upgrade that both Space Wolves and CSM have to actually pay for. I mean. It's not a horrible ide a but as with the FnP one the points need to reflect the idea.

And Wolf/CSM players will tell you that the CCW upgrade is one point too expensive.

I didn't say it should be 2ppm like it is now, just that it needs to be factored into their points. Otherwise they're just getting a free buff and we really don't need to be giving Marines anymore of those.

So you agree that +1pt for a ccw option would be ok? Two specs at 10men ok too?

Poly Ranger wrote:
So you agree that +1pt for a ccw option would be ok? Two specs at 10men ok too?

Generally, yeah. I mean some playtesting would be needed, but as a concept it doesn't come off as all that unreasonable.

When we're imperials ever gws favs, as far back as I remember they have always been mid tier to xenos armies, crons, eldar, tau, nids have all been better in their respective eds

 Formosa wrote:
When we're imperials ever gws favs, as far back as I remember they have always been mid tier to xenos armies, crons, eldar, tau, nids have all been better in their respective eds

The only "favorite" part comes in regarding the marketing. Marines get marketed harder than other armies.

it's worth noting BTW that when discussing why Terminators could use some improvements, CSM players are proably involved in that discussion.

as someone noted, a lot of the core units for space marines are core units across something like half the armies in the game.

start thread titled "gee I think Ork Boyz could use a buff" and you're just gonna get less reponses.

Poly Ranger wrote:
So you agree that +1pt for a ccw option would be ok? Two specs at 10men ok too?

Well, it's worth pointing out that SW Grey Hunters can take two specs per 10 man squad, and itbdefinitely doesn't break the game. And in the last codex, Grey Hunters cose 15ppm and came with a CCW, in the new dex, they're 14ppm, and you can take a CCW for another 2ppm. So, in essence +1ppm for a CCW and two specs per squad have been play tested, and as far as I know, nobody had a problem with old GH being OP.

I will say, though, that I personally think GH should get +1ppm CCWs like they used to, but other marine armies should get +2ppm CCWs. Not to OP Wolves, but just to maintain distinction between armies (e.g., Wolves get cheaper CCWs because they are a CC centric army, whereas other armies would get their own special upgrades that reflect their personal strengths). But that's just my opinion, and it would't bother me if every marine army got +1ppm CCWs for their tacs.

Lots of people complained about the old GH actually. :p

That was mainly due to counter attack though right? (They did have counter attack didn't they? I forget)

Yay, another Hate Poll! 3 pages in less than 1 day, nice!

I marked "Other", because the armies are being rebalanced, and Imperial armies have been getting nerfed this edition. So have some non-Imperials. We shall see how it works out.

SJ

Poly Ranger wrote:
That was mainly due to counter attack though right? (They did have counter attack didn't they? I forget)

Yeah, they had and still have counter attack (all non-vehicle SW units do). I really don't get all the hate on Wolves for having CA and Acute Senses, though. In essence, they take the place of the Chapter tactics that C: SM chapters have. It's what makes them Wolves. And considering SW are consistently among the lowest if not the lowest overall tiered of all SM armies, I'd say CA isn't exactly giving them a huge advantage.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
That was mainly due to counter attack though right? (They did have counter attack didn't they? I forget)

Yeah, they had and still have counter attack (all non-vehicle SW units do). I really don't get all the hate on Wolves for having CA and Acute Senses, though. In essence, they take the place of the Chapter tactics that C: SM chapters have. It's what makes them Wolves. And considering SW are consistently among the lowest if not the lowest overall tiered of all SM armies, I'd say CA isn't exactly giving them a huge advantage.

Grey Hunters were one of the best troops in the game in 5th edition iirc though.

I agree. Counter attack isn't that broken. Counter attack isn't as good as fnp (6+) on all infantry and IWND on all vehicles. Neither is it as good as Hit and Run, Scout (from Khan) and skilled rider. Or scout on all infantry (and DTs) and rending bolters if going FW.
Plus CSM can get CA and bp&ccw (and rage and FC) but aren't considered OP (quite the opposite).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.s. I love how this thread has evolved into a serious discussion rather than what it set out to be ;-).

AnFéasógMór wrote:
. And considering SW are consistently among the lowest if not the lowest overall tiered of all SM armies, I'd say CA isn't exactly giving them a huge advantage.

Lies! SW have TWC, what do DA have?

True, TWC does indeed put SW in a good position.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I agree. Counter attack isn't that broken. Counter attack isn't as good as fnp (6+) on all infantry and IWND on all vehicles. Neither is it as good as Hit and Run, Scout (from Khan) and skilled rider. Or scout on all infantry (and DTs) and rending bolters if going FW.
Plus CSM can get CA and bp&ccw (and rage and FC) but aren't considered OP (quite the opposite).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.s. I love how this thread has evolved into a serious discussion rather than what it set out to be ;-).

What was it that made Grey Hunters so good back in 5th then? Because I remember them being one of the better troops in the game, but CA isn't that great...

It was the double special weapons + the ability to give a random mook a plasma pistol, effectively making them the most plaspammy army in the game.

SGTPozy wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
. And considering SW are consistently among the lowest if not the lowest overall tiered of all SM armies, I'd say CA isn't exactly giving them a huge advantage.

Lies! SW have TWC, what do DA have?

An assload of bikes that move fast enough to stay away from my TWC! Damn DA. I just want to be your friend and make you drown in your own blood. Why do you run from me??!

But seriously, yeah, TWC are nasty. But frankly, they're balanced nasty. They're expensive, both pointswise and moneywise, and they don't rely on cheap tricks, they fight a fair fight. They're just good at that fair fight. I think it's fair for every squad to have a big, nasty unit or two. It's the power combo, gravstar, I-don't-even-have-to-get-stuck-in-to-win stuff that drives me mad.

SGTPozy wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
. And considering SW are consistently among the lowest if not the lowest overall tiered of all SM armies, I'd say CA isn't exactly giving them a huge advantage.

Lies! SW have TWC, what do DA have?

Black Knights.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
It was the double special weapons + the ability to give a random mook a plasma pistol, effectively making them the most plaspammy army in the game.

Yeah, you can still do that, too.

IoM have some very legitimate complaints, and I don't even like using my IoM armies nowadays.

Consider dreadnauts- when was the last time you saw someone seriously take an assault cannon? Right, because it's almost exactly twice as good as a TL autocannon, but costs 6 times more - that's even accepting that they aren't overcosted as base. Compare them to the new, nerfed Annihilation barges which have an extra gun, generate more hits due to tesla and have 1 higher AV on every side plus they get junk as skimmers. What do they pay for this? 5 points less than a 2 autocannon dread. They really should be getting an invulnerable save if they're ever going to be taken again.

Consider terminators. For 40 points, you get 2 S8 AP2 attacks, a 2+/5++ and 2 S4 AP5 shots, plus deep striking and no ability to sweeping advance. Now look at Necron Praetorians. They have a 3+ followed by a 5+, though in a Decurian that's a 4+. A 3+ then 4+ is mathematically equivalent to a 2+/4++ in terms of protection. Then, they get a 12" S5 AP2 shot rather than 2 S4 AP5 (better vs everything with a 4+ save or better), are T5, jump infantry, S5 AP2 but at I2 rather than I1, and no restriction on sweeping advance. In a fight between the two, Praetorians win, will usually get the charge, require no help getting to combat and are significantly more dangerous outside of combat too. Sure, terminators can buy assault cannons, but these are 30 points - way overcosted, and doesn't make up for anything anyway, as Praetorians still outshoot and out assault you. They need help to be taken again, which needs to either be a hefty points drop or 2 wounds, maybe even a little of both.

Consider Marines. For 14 points, you get a solid stat lines. Compare them to Necron Warriors. Warriors are as durable against everything which isn't exactly AP4, even outside of a Decurian. Against AP3, they're more durable. Now, you trade ATSKNF for LD10 which is a big deal, but you also get the following:
-1 point cheaper
-Guns can glance any tank (roughly as effective as a 10 man squad with a free meltagun)
-Access to a vehicle which repairs models to the unit
Is combat squads or special weapon access enough to make up the difference? You're outgunned, out survived and, barring your 1 special weapon and 1 heavy weapon, have no advantage at shooting. Solution? Let tactical marines have 2 special weapons and maybe even cost 1 point less per squad. I feel terrible for CSM who can't even begin to compare to Warriors for the same points. Now consider in a Decurian where warriors are always more survivable, get move through cover, relentless and usually reroll 1s to reanimate. I think tacticals are a bit undersold by people, but that's just how 7e is with the silly detachment rules - there's no reason to buy troops any more, just fill those slots with crud and take good stuff in other slots.

Marines suffer from legacy - their points don't shift much and they're very much stuck with their stats, having had them for 5 editions now. Whereas with xenos, it doesn't matter as much if the basic guns change, marines are pretty much stuck with S7 AP2 gets hot plasma or S4 AP5 bolters forever. People dislike that because, hey, marines barely use marines any more. Adding what is effectively rending to all basic bloody Eldar guns didn't help either. All tournament lists are taking scouts or bikes, because why wouldn't you? They're much better. All tacticals really have over them is drop pods. Marines are in a sad position where basically every other army's troops outshoot them for the points. In a game where assault is not close to good enough, does that seem good? For a game where in the background tacticals can beat stuff in combat out of choice, they're actually better standing 1 inch away and shooting instead.

Basically, marines are in a situation where they're carried by scouts and bikes, plus exceptional heavy support+storm talons. They're less "jack of all trades, master of none" and more "jack of just bikes, master of centurions". Terminators are effectively unuseable. Assault marines are not good at all. Vanguard veterans are a farce. Razorbacks are overcosted (should cost 40 points max, the trade of transport space is more than balanced vs the rhino), the weapon upgrades worse still. Assault cannons and lascannons are universally overcosted. Dreadnauts are too easy to kill and don't shoot well enough. The special characters are hugely overcosted. Tacticals are weaker than most troops in the game. Centurion assault squads are a total joke unit. Hunters can't even do the one job they're designed to do. Land Raiders are awful, and would be bad at 150 points too which is almost half what they currently are. LRCs are overcosted. LRRs are overcosted. The entire book is like the old Necron codex - mediocre, most units worse than other comparable units from other armies, but the whole book sees play because 2 builds are worth using in it.

So yeah, I really dislike marine armies, but let's not pretend they're in a spot where they don't need help.

BrianDavion wrote:
it's worth noting BTW that when discussing why Terminators could use some improvements, CSM players are proably involved in that discussion.

as someone noted, a lot of the core units for space marines are core units across something like half the armies in the game.

start thread titled "gee I think Ork Boyz could use a buff" and you're just gonna get less reponses.

Oh yeah, when you improve CSM Terminators, all they need is just a couple points shaved off. In general, the conclusion is that Terminators with a Power Weapon and Storm Bolter is worth 30 points, and then the Power Fist might be worth 5. That's what my locals came to the conclusion to, anyway...

 ImAGeek wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
I agree. Counter attack isn't that broken. Counter attack isn't as good as fnp (6+) on all infantry and IWND on all vehicles. Neither is it as good as Hit and Run, Scout (from Khan) and skilled rider. Or scout on all infantry (and DTs) and rending bolters if going FW.
Plus CSM can get CA and bp&ccw (and rage and FC) but aren't considered OP (quite the opposite).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.s. I love how this thread has evolved into a serious discussion rather than what it set out to be ;-).

What was it that made Grey Hunters so good back in 5th then? Because I remember them being one of the better troops in the game, but CA isn't that great...

Free special weapon, second (same as first) special 5 points cheaper than any other army (5 point meltaguns, 10 point plasma guns), well priced lasplas Razorbacks, cheaper than other armies. They also had counterattack+FC which used to stack in 5th, plus pistol+cc weapon, so 3 attacks when charged at S5, S4 in 6th. Their rune priests were exceptional too. Basically, they were true all rounders - extremely capable in assault (they actually beat wraiths on average, so probably too good), they got 2 plasma guns for 10 points effectively (160 for a squad of marines with 2 plasma guns is sweet, as is 155 for 2 meltaguns) and their Razorbacks were solid support. To be honest, I miss that codex. I wish all marines got 2 special weapons, the first free. You might actually see marines on tables outside of friendly games again.

EDIT: also, long fangs had 10 point missile launchers, so a unit of 5 MLs was 140 points (yes, 5).

Plus flyers kinda cooked the space wolf goose, they have little to deal with them and, let's face it, flak should be free.

I feel like 90% of this applies only to SM players. We humble IG players just wish that we had a bit of reason to dig the ogryns and rough riders out from the bottom of the drawer.

 TheSilo wrote:
I feel like 90% of this applies only to SM players. We humble IG players just wish that we had a bit of reason to dig the ogryns and rough riders out from the bottom of the drawer.

Meh, I want my alternative firing mode Vanquisher cannons with coaxial weapons back.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's worth noting BTW that when discussing why Terminators could use some improvements, CSM players are proably involved in that discussion.

as someone noted, a lot of the core units for space marines are core units across something like half the armies in the game.

start thread titled "gee I think Ork Boyz could use a buff" and you're just gonna get less reponses.

Oh yeah, when you improve CSM Terminators, all they need is just a couple points shaved off. In general, the conclusion is that Terminators with a Power Weapon and Storm Bolter is worth 30 points, and then the Power Fist might be worth 5. That's what my locals came to the conclusion to, anyway...

That would make them 35 points, so only 5 points less. That's still bad. Compare them to TWC or Wraiths or Lychguard - they die too easily, can't get into assault to use their biggest asset in the first place and still pay through the nose for upgrades. Compare them to 2 tacticals - you lose the power weapon and one attack, but 2 marines of stats is effectively 2+/4++, fires the same shots at range, fires 2 more at 12", gets grenades, can sweep, has more options and costs 28 points. Suppose a power fist is worth 5 points (it's not, maybe 2 points on a single wound model) - even at 33 points you would be worse than 2 tacticals. I personally don't think they should be even 25 points with their current stats, especially not if they're paying for special guns. My preferred fix would be 2 wounds for all terminators, with heavy flamers costing 5, assault cannons costing 10, missile launcher 10. Then, armies are incentivised to take them. In my experience, these are the costs to make them viable. Assault terminators should be 35 base with 2 wounds, otherwise unchanged. Let's face it, they should be able to beat flayed ones, or at least give them a fight - they currently can't.

I'll say it:
Imperium and Imperium centric armies (Marines of all kinds, Daemons, Guard, SoB, Chaos Marines) tend to have way less cheese.
-Eldar now have 3+ armor (da fuq? Our 7ft 600lb gorillas only have that), the MC with the most ridiculous stat block outside of Apoc (Really Wraithknight? 6 wounds and T:8?), and simply mindless levels of dakka (AP:2 and Twin linked are like dirt)
-Necrons have the most powerful MCs with the Shards, Ridiculously good troops with the 4+ FNP warriors, even more dakka than the Eldar, the best shock assault troops in the game with Wraiths, and can excel in anything even World Eaters style Charge Everything! tactics.
-Tau have the most dakka of any army, are the easiest and most boring to play, have a better MC than any Imperium army with the Riptide, great elite troops with the Suits, and the best vehicles.

 Sigvatr wrote:
...because they always get them. Marine favorism has always been a thing.

Blatantly not true. In fact, marines have steadily gotten worse since 3rd ed.

 ThePrimordial wrote:
I'll say it:
Imperium and Imperium centric armies (Marines of all kinds, Daemons, Guard, SoB, Chaos Marines) tend to have way less cheese.
-Eldar now have 3+ armor (da fuq? Our 7ft 600lb gorillas only have that), the MC with the most ridiculous stat block outside of Apoc (Really Wraithknight? 6 wounds and T:8?), and simply mindless levels of dakka (AP:2 and Twin linked are like dirt)
-Necrons have the most powerful MCs with the Shards, Ridiculously good troops with the 4+ FNP warriors, even more dakka than the Eldar, the best shock assault troops in the game with Wraiths, and can excel in anything even World Eaters style Charge Everything! tactics.
-Tau have the most dakka of any army, are the easiest and most boring to play, have a better MC than any Imperium army with the Riptide, great elite troops with the Suits, and the best vehicles.

Eldar I can agree with, though I'd rather they changed the Wave Serpent and Wraithknight over the troops - Eldar infantry are pretty fair.
Necron shards? Is that a joke? Have you seen Dreadknights, or really any other MC in the game? Shards are one of the worst units in 40k at the moment, because you pay 240 points for something with a 4++ and 4 wounds - necrodermis is apparently made of paper mâché and hope. They have nowhere near the firepower of Eldar - what they do have is the most durable everything, whilst being on par with/better than marines otherwise.
Tau don't have the best vehicles either, that honour goes to either Eldar, just for the incredibly broken Serpent, or Imperial Knights. I think they outshoot everyone but Eldar though (notice the pattern of Eldar being better at everything than everybody - I expect them to be swatted with the nerf bat like Grey Knights because of it).

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
That was mainly due to counter attack though right? (They did have counter attack didn't they? I forget)

Yeah, they had and still have counter attack (all non-vehicle SW units do). I really don't get all the hate on Wolves for having CA and Acute Senses, though. In essence, they take the place of the Chapter tactics that C: SM chapters have. It's what makes them Wolves. And considering SW are consistently among the lowest if not the lowest overall tiered of all SM armies, I'd say CA isn't exactly giving them a huge advantage.

z

It's because it makes them immune to many assault schemes. Or at least it did. I don't know if it means anything against Wraiths now.

Martel732 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
...because they always get them. Marine favorism has always been a thing.

Blatantly not true. In fact, marines have steadily gotten worse since 3rd ed.

Not entirely true, 5e was also the hay day of marines, especially space wolves who would probably stand up well today given their old codex back+the new units. Rhino rush really was something though.

SGTPozy wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Because there's more people that play them. Cmon man...

Just because more people play them it doesn't mean that theybhave to have the most 'fixing' threads that end up being ridiculous buffing threads.

Terminators are good. Storm bolter ones not so much but that's only because of the power that THSS ones bring.

Tacticals are all-rounders like they are supposed to be, therefore they are fine.

They do not need to be cheaper nor better.

The fact that you typed the words "terminators are good" makes everything else you say completely suspect. Just sayin'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
...because they always get them. Marine favorism has always been a thing.

Blatantly not true. In fact, marines have steadily gotten worse since 3rd ed.

Not entirely true, 5e was also the hay day of marines, especially space wolves who would probably stand up well today given their old codex back+the new units. Rhino rush really was something though.

5e was the heyday of vehicles, not marines. SW were special because they were insane if deployment via drop pod. The rest of the marines were basically garbage in 5th. Also, did no one here play 2nd? The marines were the low of the low in that edition, and so they've had their time on the bottom of the heap. BA arguably STILL are on the bottom of the heap with DA. Both codices are super weak.

SGTPozy wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
. And considering SW are consistently among the lowest if not the lowest overall tiered of all SM armies, I'd say CA isn't exactly giving them a huge advantage.

Lies! SW have TWC, what do DA have?

Yeah, well he clearly hasn't been keeping track of the general meta for very long, he also thinks that GH are considered weak by and large. From my understanding, Marines go: C:SM>SW>BA>DA

 Talys wrote:
1. Everyone "wants" buffs for their faction

2. There are a lot of IoM players, and therefore, you should see more IoM... complaining... if you want to call it that.

3.Terminators really do suck.

4. Tactical marines are not really that great.

5. I'm not sure if I've seen anyone *seriously* asking for a point reduction on DP. If they do, well, they're just strange

Seriously. Troll post. But OT, go on any part of Dakka and you'll see people clamoring for buffs to DE/CSM/Tau/Nidz/Orkz. About the only people who don't clamor for buffs are Eldar lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
. And considering SW are consistently among the lowest if not the lowest overall tiered of all SM armies, I'd say CA isn't exactly giving them a huge advantage.

Lies! SW have TWC, what do DA have?

Yeah, well he clearly hasn't been keeping track of the general meta for very long, he also thinks that GH are considered weak by and large. From my understanding, Marines go: C:SM>SW>BA>DA

Given some of the new formations, I think SW and BA are close to being on par, with SW edging them out a little. DA are still underpowered, even with the dataslates.

Martel732 wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Because there's more people that play them. Cmon man...

Just because more people play them it doesn't mean that theybhave to have the most 'fixing' threads that end up being ridiculous buffing threads.

Terminators are good. Storm bolter ones not so much but that's only because of the power that THSS ones bring.

Tacticals are all-rounders like they are supposed to be, therefore they are fine.

They do not need to be cheaper nor better.

The fact that you typed the words "terminators are good" makes everything else you say completely suspect. Just sayin'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
...because they always get them. Marine favorism has always been a thing.

Blatantly not true. In fact, marines have steadily gotten worse since 3rd ed.

Not entirely true, 5e was also the hay day of marines, especially space wolves who would probably stand up well today given their old codex back+the new units. Rhino rush really was something though.

5e was the heyday of vehicles, not marines. SW were special because they were insane if deployment via drop pod. The rest of the marines were basically garbage in 5th. Also, did no one here play 2nd? The marines were the low of the low in that edition, and so they've had their time on the bottom of the heap. BA arguably STILL are on the bottom of the heap with DA. Both codices are super weak.

Marines had the cheapest vehicles and most widely available methods for dealing with them, so were the best. Not entirely sure how that's contradicting them being the best in 5th. SW lived off lasplas Razorbacks too, not just pods - they were the shootiest army when they wanted to be. I'm not sure you played the same 5e as the rest of us if you think that one of the armies consistently doing well was "garbage" - especially not Blood Angels who were wrecking face for months until they were figured out. The top 6 armies in order in 5e were Space Wolves, then Grey Knights (or, realistically, Coteaz+henchmen in psybacks+psyrifledreads+Dreadknights), then Imperial Guard (aka vets in chimeras with meltas+vendettas: the codex: the movie:the game), then Necrons (aka wraiths and annihilation barges with bargelords), then BA, then SM. If you don't believe me, just look up tournament results and see which armies were consistently top of the pile. SM were in no way bad, and if you think they were you clearly didn't try to play with orks, Eldar, SoB, tau, da, bt, nids, etc.

Generic marines were garbage compared to the power builds. That was my point that you made for me. SM could have just as easily been put in the list with the Orks, Eldar, SoB, Tau, etc. I personally had a lot more problems with Eldar and Orks than vanilla marines in 5th.

The BA marines themselves weren't good. It was all the crazy Wardism in the codex. And even those were just mere gimmicks that could be easily trumped with experience by SW, Eldar, GK, Necrons.

What was it that made Grey Hunters so good back in 5th then? Because I remember them being one of the better troops in the game, but CA isn't that great...

Back in the days of 4th edition I liked Grey Hunters well enough, but I liked Grey Slayers in my 13th Company army more.

I feel like 90% of this applies only to SM players. We humble IG players just wish that we had a bit of reason to dig the ogryns and rough riders out from the bottom of the drawer.

Pfft...put that kind of logic away, sir!

......of course sometimes I feel like 90% of 40K players are Space Marine players.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
It was the double special weapons + the ability to give a random mook a plasma pistol, effectively making them the most plaspammy army in the game.

You can still do that, it just costs more.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
It was the double special weapons + the ability to give a random mook a plasma pistol, effectively making them the most plaspammy army in the game.

You can still do that, it just costs more.

That's the thing though; they were better than everyone else because they were 1 PPM cheaper, had cheaper specials AND had the BP/CCW combo. Now they're not cheaper anymore, so they're just better, as opposed to completely superior in almost every way.

 Talys wrote:

3.Terminators really do suck.

 ThePrimordial wrote:
.
-Tau have the most dakka of any army, are the easiest and most boring to play, have a better MC than any Imperium army with the Riptide, great elite troops with the Suits, and the best vehicles.

Tau are the worst at CC so the should have the best dakka.

How are they the easiest? Surely SM are since they have the same statlines and they Ignore the most rules.

How are they boring? I'd argue that GKs are since they only ever alpha strike. I'm assuming that you are referring to gun lines (which are pretty ineffective in 7th) and why single Tau out? AM do gunlines just as well as Tau do.

They have a better MC since IoM armies shouldn't have MCs due to their style (and the Dreadknight is far better than people make them out to be).

I'll counter the MC argument by saying that SMs have better CC, better vehicles, better allies etc.

Great elites; well yes, 2/3 are great. Sternguard are great too.

Tau vehicles are average:
Devilfish cost too much.
Piranhas are Bs 3.
Hammerheads do not have enough fire power.
Skyrays have limited anti-air.
Flyers are just terrible.

Well, there are a few things to consider:

- A lot of people seem to think that units should only ever be buffed - never nerfed. i.e. if few units are made OP, then the rest of the game should escalate around those units, rather than just nerfing those specific units.

- There seems to be a line of thinking amongst some marine players that nothing should be tougher than marines. So, if a Xeno unit has T5, terminators should be T5 with FNP 4+. If a Xeno unit has a 2+ save, Terminators should have a 1+ save (or some variant thereof).

- Similar to the above, some people seem to think that units have to be broken to be competitive. So, if a marine unit isn't as good as a Wraith or WS, it's terrible and needs to be buffed. This goes back to my first point, whereby some people seem to think that no unit should ever be nerfed - we should just endlessly buff units to bring them up to the highest possible level.

- Marine armies share a lot of units. Let's say a DE player and an Eldar player both have problems with their Elite units and decide to make threads on the subject. Well, whichever units they fixate on, their threads will be entirely different. One might be about Incubi, the other about Howling Banshees.

In contrast, since all marine armies have terminators, any of them could start a thread about terminators sucking (well, probably not SWs or GKs, but you get the idea). So, in addition to there being a lot of marine players, they also have similar (even identical) units to complain about.

- GW hates infantry. With a passion. I don't know if they're just too focussed on selling big kits, but in recent editions most infantry have been left behind in favour of Knights, MCs of various flavours, and some fliers/skimmers. Whilst most armies have suffered from this, I can see many Marine players being more annoyed that the heart of their army is being made redundant by crap rule design.

SGTPozy wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:
.
-Tau have the most dakka of any army, are the easiest and most boring to play, have a better MC than any Imperium army with the Riptide, great elite troops with the Suits, and the best vehicles.

Tau are the worst at CC so the should have the best dakka.

How are they the easiest? Surely SM are since they have the same statlines and they Ignore the most rules.

How are they boring? I'd argue that GKs are since they only ever alpha strike. I'm assuming that you are referring to gun lines (which are pretty ineffective in 7th) and why single Tau out? AM do gunlines just as well as Tau do.

They have a better MC since IoM armies shouldn't have MCs due to their style (and the Dreadknight is far better than people make them out to be).

I'll counter the MC argument by saying that SMs have better CC, better vehicles, better allies etc.

Great elites; well yes, 2/3 are great. Sternguard are great too.

Tau vehicles are average:
Devilfish cost too much.
Piranhas are Bs 3.
Hammerheads do not have enough fire power.
Skyrays have limited anti-air.
Flyers are just terrible.

But you said terminators are good. It's really hard to live that down. Now you want us to believe that the Dreadknight is somewhow some kind of death machine, despite all evidence to the contrary. And your very trollish attitude to your posts.

Martel732 wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:
.
-Tau have the most dakka of any army, are the easiest and most boring to play, have a better MC than any Imperium army with the Riptide, great elite troops with the Suits, and the best vehicles.

Tau are the worst at CC so the should have the best dakka.

How are they the easiest? Surely SM are since they have the same statlines and they Ignore the most rules.

How are they boring? I'd argue that GKs are since they only ever alpha strike. I'm assuming that you are referring to gun lines (which are pretty ineffective in 7th) and why single Tau out? AM do gunlines just as well as Tau do.

They have a better MC since IoM armies shouldn't have MCs due to their style (and the Dreadknight is far better than people make them out to be).

I'll counter the MC argument by saying that SMs have better CC, better vehicles, better allies etc.

Great elites; well yes, 2/3 are great. Sternguard are great too.

Tau vehicles are average:
Devilfish cost too much.
Piranhas are Bs 3.
Hammerheads do not have enough fire power.
Skyrays have limited anti-air.
Flyers are just terrible.

But you said terminators are good. It's really hard to live that down. Now you want us to believe that the Dreadknight is somewhow some kind of death machine, despite all evidence to the contrary. And your very trollish attitude to your posts.

What has this got to do with what I said? So because I believe that Terminators are good then I am not allowed to say anything else? Why can't I give my own opinion?

Terminators are good, and Dreadknights are very powerful (check many threads about them, Riptides and Wraithknights)

By calling me a troll you are simply posting spam; your post added nothing other than to personally attack me.

I could say the same about you; all you ever do is complain abut Tau and about how you are incapable of using drop pods (which is the easiest and most point-and-click tactic in the game).

I'm not sure that this thread, given how it started, ever really had a chance.

In the future, broad brush generalizations and starting off so negative are things which are best avoided.