Lately when I have been showing up to my flgs to play a game of 40k, I have been getting a strange response. Usually I play guard/inquisition or grey knights. I recently (over the course of 6 months) built a space marine army... and now that I have been bringing this army to play, there is usually someone that makes a statement along the lines of "space marines, ugh!" Or "I can't stand space marines." It is never my opponent, but it is becoming really annoying. It is every. single. time.

I've actually stopped bringing my space marines that I dedicated time and money to play. I don't play a cheesy list. But it is still every time. Does anyone else deal with this?

When you play a top tier army that everyone and their brother owns, it gets really, REALLY boring seeing the same things over and over and over, which is why that response is frequently said. As someone that plays every non spess murrezn army in the game I get the same response, but for Eldar.

Sounds like weeboos to me. Space marines are about 80% of the content in this game so if you don't like space marines - you are playing the wrong game IMO.

Need a little more details about this problem. Is it your lists maybe? Too strong? Is it too weak? Are they playing an army that relies on fear? I don't know man. Space marines are always fun to play against for me.

They're the most common army in the game... there's always going to be someone who's going to be a little over them, as a result.

Having said that, I'm not sure what you feel you need to 'deal with'... People have their opinions. The world continues to turn.

Space Marines have been accused of being incredibly dull featureless-protagonist mary-sues that get too much attention and weaken the narrative of the setting simply by existing, let alone by featuring as the protagonists constantly.

To which I say "Space Marines aren't boring, but they're frequently made boring by bad writers." Go read the Horus Heresy books for good examples of Space Marines not being boring.

As to the gameplay problems I took account recently and discovered that there exist close to seventy distinct 'Space Marine' lists (between 40k, 30k, variations based on Chapter Tactics...), and I doubt your commenters manage to hate every single one of them equally.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sounds like weeboos to me. Space marines are about 80% of the content in this game so if you don't like space marines - you are playing the wrong game IMO.

And there's the problem. The setting has so many factions that aren't space marines, many of whom have been sorely in need of attention for years *cough* CSM, Tyranids, Orks, Sisters, Guard *cough*, some people just can't help but be bitter when one faction gets so much more love in every facet of the property.

I almost get sick looking at how much love spice marines get on Forgeworld and I actually somewhat like space marines.

 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sounds like weeboos to me. Space marines are about 80% of the content in this game so if you don't like space marines - you are playing the wrong game IMO.

And there's the problem. The setting has so many factions that aren't space marines, many of whom have been sorely in need of attention for years *cough* CSM, Tyranids, Orks, Sisters, Guard *cough*, some people just can't help but be bitter when one faction gets so much more love in every facet of the property.

I almost get sick looking at how much love spice marines get on Forgeworld and I actually somewhat like space marines.

I like Space Marines, but I don't have them as one of my primary armies because they are so frequently played and I think the game could use more diversity.

I can totally see someone getting bored by the amount of Space Marines out there, but I think that they shouldn't be making annoying comments to people who bring Space Marines to the FLGS. That's just rude.

Space Marines make up most of 40K gaming wise. It would be like complaining about someone bring Germans to a World War II game or even French to a Napoleonics game. They were all pretty much involved with everything.

I would argue that it's more like the British Commandos being popular because they're cool, so then they sell well and get a lot more models and more rule supplements. So many WW2 players get annoyed because most games end up being British Commandos vs British Commandos. Meanwhile, the regular British Army and the Soviet Army haven't had their rules or models upgraded in a really long time.

TBH, this will happen with any army that isn't trash, or an army you play well. I run grey knights and do well with grey knights. I get tons of people going "oh wow, your knights are cheese, nerf your tourney list ((" when I beat the dark eldar player with nothing but libbies, terminators and power armored grey knights.

If your good, or your army is good, you'll always have some salty noob who complains. This is the nature of life. Learn to just accept it, and move on. There is nothing OP about marines if your not doing dami company, or spamming sky hammers and grav bikes or centurion stars or super friends. If your doin friendly lists, than you should be fine.

Every time I see someone complain to a necron, tau, eldar, or space marine player for having cheese when they're running a bad or friendly list, I die a little inside.

I can see the issue, and it's honestly been like that for a long time. Seeing as the space marines are the "poster kids" of 40k, it makes sense that they are pushed as such.
Now, don't get me wrong, I used to play space marines. First army in fact. But, coming back they seem over saturated, and it then becomes another marine army Vs marine army etc. Eldar, Tau and Necrons also suffer thus, but in their case they are just very strong armies rather than "poster kids".

As long as your opponent doesn't care you use marines, then neither should you. So what people moan that more people use marines? You are free to use whatever army you want.

 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sounds like weeboos to me. Space marines are about 80% of the content in this game so if you don't like space marines - you are playing the wrong game IMO.

And there's the problem. The setting has so many factions that aren't space marines, many of whom have been sorely in need of attention for years *cough* CSM, Tyranids, Orks, Sisters, Guard *cough*, some people just can't help but be bitter when one faction gets so much more love in every facet of the property.

I almost get sick looking at how much love spice marines get on Forgeworld and I actually somewhat like space marines.

Oh Chaos certainly gets a ton of attention and care. The CSMs are disproportionately frequent antagonists for all their rarity in the actual setting and Forgeworld regularly showers them in releases and of course the CSMs recently got their big damn supplement. While they haven't been in a good spot crunch wise for nearly a decade they've never been lacking for attention from GeeDubs.

Meanwhile it seems that GeeDubs has just outright forgotten to make good dexes for the Orks, Tyranids, Guard, and Dark Eldar that aren't rife with amazingly terrible internal balancing more or less forcing them into being monobuilds or in the case of the Guard and DEldar; suffering the cruel fate of mostly being an allied detachment for some other army to get their better goodies. And of course poor external balancing that makes them quite weak; especially against the top tier armies who tend to have all the tools they need to utterly wipe the floor with them if they know they're facing those four. (Or for the fething craftworld Eldar and Ynnari; just bring the usual list and pulverize them anyway).

And it seems GW needs to be periodically reminded that the SoBs even exist. Though if the rumors are true the long night of no new models might be coming to an end soon at last.

As a Dark Eldar player it is a day of joyous occasion when I get to play against something that isn't sodding space marines. I get that they're the game sposter boys and I'm fine with that, something has to be after all, but we've reached a point where the community is badly over saturated with them and it can be very frustrating to go weeks or even months on end playing against almost nothing but Space Marines.

As someone scouting out a tabletop game to take up one of the draws for me to 40k is the sheer richness and variety of factions. X-Wing has just 3 distinct factions, Drop Zone Commander has 5 distinct factions (or 6 factions if you count resistance as being 2). 40k has:

IoM
- IG (rules wise 2 variants - vanila and DKoK)
- MT (half a IG variant?)
- SM (in half a dozen variants)
- Inquisition
- SoB
- Assassins
- Grey Knights
- Ad-mech (2 variants)
- Knights

Chaos
- CSM (in at least 4 variant?)
- Daemons
- Renegade knights

Orks (potential for half a dozen variants though not supported by rules currently)

Eldar
- Craftworld
- Corsairs
- Dark Eldar
- Harlequins
- Ynari ?

Necrons

Tau
- Regular
- Farsight Enclaves

Tyranids
- Regular
- Genestealer Cults

wow. However all that gorgeous variety is kind of moot if chances are in practice one will mostly be fighting space marines on the tabletop in which case one may as well be playing X-Wing.

I can't say I've ever run into this problem. I don't play SM, but I've never heard anyone at our store go "UGh, space marines..". Granted, my store has a good mix of armies.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sounds like weeboos to me. Space marines are about 80% of the content in this game

This is the problem. They are far and away the majority content in the game, but in terms of actual numbers all SM combined would be the smallest of any force in the 40K universe (well, except maybe Chaos Marines...). But hey, they are GWs poster boys...

My FLGS/club has just under 100 active members and out of all of these I can only think of 10 players whom do not run Marines or some variant thereof.
Of these three run Eldar, two run Tau, a couple run Mechanicus and I run Guard.
So yes, there is a massive overload/overburdening of marines.

It'd be like playing smash bros but 75% of every match up had you fighting Mario.

You'd get pretty tired of him pretty quickly.

I hate Space Marines so much I actually began a Black Legion force built around taking out MEQs out of sheer spite.

Hypocritical? Maybe, but at least it's fluffier than my Imperial Guard going up against loyalist Space Marines every other game..

You mean, when you start playing the most common army just like so many others, people often get bored that they're playing against yet another player who plays the same army?

Well... yeah. Variety is the spice of life.

It doesn't bother me too much, but about 2/3 of the armies at my FLGS are marines. The rest is Eldar or tau. We only have one demon player who also has nids, I'm the only guard player. We have a GK player but he very rarely plays, and a chaos player who also has marines that he uses far more often, and a skitarii/admech who far more often uses marines. We have no, whatsoever, DE, sisters, orks, necrons, or any of the small factions like harlequins. It's disappointing because I've only had one game ever against sisters, necrons, and orks, never up against any of the small factions or DE.

So yeah, it gets a little annoying when everyone uses marines. I'll never openly complain about it to them like the people at your store, although if I'm playing someone with a different army I'll ask if I can go up against not-marines. I will say that you should play whatever army you like the best though.

 Arbitrator wrote:
I hate Space Marines so much I actually began a Black Legion force built around taking out MEQs out of sheer spite.

Hypocritical? Maybe, but at least it's fluffier than my Imperial Guard going up against loyalist Space Marines every other game..

I also started a Black Legion army, which I enjoy. But it does grate on me a bit that they're still Space Marines, fundamentally.

I'll have to fill out my Eldar collection next.

 Arbitrator wrote:
I hate Space Marines so much I actually began a Black Legion force built around taking out MEQs out of sheer spite.

Hypocritical? Maybe, but at least it's fluffier than my Imperial Guard going up against loyalist Space Marines every other game..

Ironfather Smashfether: "Why, I'm with the iron Hands."

Lady General, as she narrows her eyes: "What kind of fool do you take me for?!"

Lady General: "HE'S AN IRON HANDS RENEGADE, HE'S AN IRON HANDS RENEGADE, YOU'RE AN IRON HANDS RENEGADE! I"M AN IRON HANDS RENEGADE!!! Are there any other iron hands renegades I should know about?"

Ironfather Smashfether the fourth: "THE FLESH IS WEAK!"

Lady General: "I'm out of here.."

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
I hate Space Marines so much I actually began a Black Legion force built around taking out MEQs out of sheer spite.

Hypocritical? Maybe, but at least it's fluffier than my Imperial Guard going up against loyalist Space Marines every other game..

I also started a Black Legion army, which I enjoy. But it does grate on me a bit that they're still Space Marines, fundamentally.

I'll have to fill out my Eldar collection next.

I'm hoping and praying they bring the Lost and the Damned back. As much as I like Heretics and Renegades they suffer too much from 'Forge World coodies' in many circles. Once that happens I can safely toss the spiky power armour into the furnace where they, and all marine armies, belong.

In all seriousness though, I don't even put Chaos Space Marines under the same banner as the loyalists. For all the LSM fanboys like to go "y-you got thousand sons! see?! gw does love you!" as some sort of justification for why we need ANOTHER frigging loyalist book, it's quite apparent that both from a lore and business standpoint that Chaos is viewed with almost (almost, not quite) as much disregard as Xenos armies are.

As several others have stated though, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that GW are blind to. Eldar and Tau were still sat rotting on that non-SM pile until they happened to receive overpowered codexes. So when everybody ran out to grab their Riptides and such, GW didn't look and go "Huh, it's a powerful codex and so it sells well?" they instead went "Wow, the kids sure do love Tau and Eldar! Lets release more stuff for them!"

The Necrons also got a similar treatment. After they got a solid codex after years of languishing in the bottom tiers they suddenly exploded in terms of in-universe prominence and in the number of goodies they got to themselves. And so they continued to receive more care and attention while they were on top of the heap only to once again seemingly fall out of GW's favor when 7e's extreme power creep cycle pushed even the "what even is dying anyway?" silliness of the Necron decurions to the merely good tiers instead of the god tiers.

LVO breakdown.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/02/04/las-vegas-open-40k-champs-faction-breakdown/

If you lump "Space Marines" to include all MEQ based armies (Chaos Space Marines, Space Wolves, etc) regardless of fluff, then yeah, there's a lot of MEQ.

Space Marines: 42
Space Wolves: 16
Tau Empire: 37
Chaos Space Marines: 28
Eldar: 48
Blood Angels: 9
Dark Angels: 20
Genestealer Cult: 11
Tyranids: 9
Eldar Corsairs: 7
Skitarii: 4
Necrons: 15
Dark Eldar: 10
Imperial Knights: 17
Astra Militarum: 8
Grey Knights: 8
Chaos Daemons: 29
Cult Mechanicus: 20
Khorne Daemonkin: 7
Orks: 14
Harlequins: 3
Adepta Sororitas: 5
Knights Renegades: 5
Renegades: 6
Officio Assassinorum: 2
Deathwatch: 1
Militarum Tempestus: 1

When people say they're sick of space marines, are they sick of 3+ saves, or what, specifically?

Maybe sick of drop pods. Although everyone in my group learned how to deal with those in 5th. SW drop lists in 5th were just as bad or WORSE than skyhammer is now.

 Kain wrote:
The Necrons also got a similar treatment. After they got a solid codex after years of languishing in the bottom tiers they suddenly exploded in terms of in-universe prominence and in the number of goodies they got to themselves. And so they continued to receive more care and attention while they were on top of the heap only to once again seemingly fall out of GW's favor when 7e's extreme power creep cycle pushed even the "what even is dying anyway?" silliness of the Necron decurions to the merely good tiers instead of the god tiers.

So I need to patiently wait for them to make all lasguns hotshot and let vet squads take 5 free special weapons apiece before they show us some love? Honestly all I want is an upgrade sprue with 3 meltas and plasmas on it.

I'm just wondering how not one, but two people played an assassins list.

As for the MEQ armies, it has to do with how basically you're receiving mostly the same kinds of shooting with some exceptions and are killing largely the same kinds of models. MEQs are really, really samey across the MEQ armies in terms of the firepower they tend to bring and their resilience to enemy fire. Whereas GEQs are generally speaking, an awful lot more varied (while Boyz, Guardsmen, Guardians, and Gants/Termagaunts are all labeled under GEQs; they're far more different than Chaos Space marines, Tacticals, and Grey Hunters are with power armored grey knights being perhaps the most divergent.)

 Smotejob wrote:

I've actually stopped bringing my space marines that I dedicated time and money to play. I don't play a cheesy list. But it is still every time. Does anyone else deal with this?

Bah.

Play what you like. If you enjoy your space marines, then bring them. Don't let people bully you.

usually someone that makes a statement along the lines of "space marines, ugh!" Or "I can't stand space marines." It is never my opponent,

This point is telling that you have a few knob heads at your game store. If you aren't playing in the game, why are you crapping over someone else's army and enjoyment of said game?

A person with no skin in the game has no say in how it is played.

Tell those jerks that Kronk said to "feth right the feth off."

 Marmatag wrote:
LVO breakdown.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/02/04/las-vegas-open-40k-champs-faction-breakdown/

If you lump "Space Marines" to include all MEQ based armies (Chaos Space Marines, Space Wolves, etc) regardless of fluff, then yeah, there's a lot of MEQ.

Why wouldn't you include Chaos Space Marines as Space Marines? It's in the name. They're Space Marines with Chaos added in. Thus, "Chaos" Space Marines.

Space Wolves are also Space Marines. Blood Angels are also Space Marines. So are Salamanders, and Dark Angels, and any of the other chaos legions and loyalist chapters. It's not about MEQ. MEQ includes more than Marines, that's even what it means-- "Marine EQuivalent". It's not about a 3+ save. Not just Space Marines get a 3+ save.

Chaos Space Marines are not "MEQ". They ARE Space Marines.

 Marmatag wrote:
When people say they're sick of space marines, are they sick of 3+ saves, or what, specifically?

Everyone I know plays SM almost identically. Vanilla marines it's pod spam (usually the formation I forget the name of right now), gladius, smashfether with heavy support (TFC and devs), or generic "tacs/devs/vets". SW it's TWC spam with min everything else or pod spam. DA it's lion's blade or RW 2+++ spam. Never see blood angels or GK.

After awhile you get sick of net list deathstars, razorback spam, or pod spam, and the CADs are always generic; I never see scouts, bikes, terminators, speeders, or tanks. It's always tacs, devs, vets, and maybe assault marines, that's it.

Other factions might not use varied lists either, it's just that you only see them once in a blue moon where half of your games are against the same marine lists.

" I never see scouts, bikes, terminators, speeders, or tanks"

My BA lists use scouts, bikes, speeders and tanks. Just not terminators. Although I'm building an OIF list.

I also have the tacs, devs, assault marines, DC, and sanguinary guard used in lists. I have full mech list, and a list with zero mech. My opponent never actually know how many deep strikers my BA will have, if any. The mech list for example has zero deep striking. My Lost brotherhood list has only a single deepstriking DC dread. (It also has an IK).

Martel732 wrote:
" I never see scouts, bikes, terminators, speeders, or tanks"

My BA lists use scouts, bikes, speeders and tanks. Just not terminators. Although I'm building an OIF list.

Sadly not at my store, so can't use you as an example. This was "I personally never see", which is why I'm saying I personally don't like the generic marine lists I always see.

The long time players at my store know how to stomp BA good. Although it's gotten a BIT harder. Many people not used to the ways of BA can be completely unprepared for the speed.

space marines are one of the most popular armies, always have been they're regularly supported (which is huge) their codex is great right now with a multitude of choices (most armies are lucky even to have ONE really good tourny build, space marines can proably manage a few) there are a wide varity of decent units in space marines so generally you don't feel oibligated to mono build. (thanks to the gladius even an army consisting of basic tac marines can be effective) in short space marines are popular because not only are they the posterboy, but they're in a really good place and would proably be popular even without it. GW should aspire to make all armies like space marines, with a solid mix of units and detachments that work nicely for them, as well as a distinct ability to give them some identity with chapter tactics. IMHO GW's brought CSM up semi close to that level, but some army books really need a revision to bring em up. imperial guard comes to mind

I have more of a problem with constant IoMvIoM battles than facing/playing Space Marines. I know Imperial faction infighting happens but it gets old.

 Kain wrote:
I'm just wondering how not one, but two people played an assassins list.

As for the MEQ armies, it has to do with how basically you're receiving mostly the same kinds of shooting with some exceptions and are killing largely the same kinds of models. MEQs are really, really samey across the MEQ armies in terms of the firepower they tend to bring and their resilience to enemy fire. Whereas GEQs are generally speaking, an awful lot more varied (while Boyz, Guardsmen, Guardians, and Gants/Termagaunts are all labeled under GEQs; they're far more different than Chaos Space marines, Tacticals, and Grey Hunters are with power armored grey knights being perhaps the most divergent.)

Off topic: A guy at my club played OSC tau + double assassin execution force, after hearing the recaps it seemed to make for some fun games

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I have more of a problem with constant IoMvIoM battles than facing/playing Space Marines. I know Imperial faction infighting happens but it gets old.

just lpretend it's alpha legion.

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
LVO breakdown.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/02/04/las-vegas-open-40k-champs-faction-breakdown/

If you lump "Space Marines" to include all MEQ based armies (Chaos Space Marines, Space Wolves, etc) regardless of fluff, then yeah, there's a lot of MEQ.

Why wouldn't you include Chaos Space Marines as Space Marines? It's in the name. They're Space Marines with Chaos added in. Thus, "Chaos" Space Marines.

Space Wolves are also Space Marines. Blood Angels are also Space Marines. So are Salamanders, and Dark Angels, and any of the other chaos legions and loyalist chapters. It's not about MEQ. MEQ includes more than Marines, that's even what it means-- "Marine EQuivalent". It's not about a 3+ save. Not just Space Marines get a 3+ save.

Chaos Space Marines are not "MEQ". They ARE Space Marines.

There's a difference between Space Marines, and "Faction: Space Marines." This is the distinction i'm asking about.

Because it's a fundamentally different meta if you have:
1x Chaos Space Marine player
1x Grey Knights player
1x Blood Angels player
1x Space Wolves player

versus
4x Codex Space Marines players

And hey, saying that former marines who succumbed to the touch of chaos are Adeptus Astartes in good standing, is HERESY. Burn the witch!

But seriously, my question was directed towards the people experiencing this issue, to better understand what's going on. I fully understand everything you went through great lengths, bolding, underlining, to explain, but thank you for your effort

But they're all space marines in the end. And if that's all you see on the board every week, it gets pretty bland and repetitive.

No one is saying all Space Marines are equally competitive. Just that they're all, well... Space Marines. And Space Marines just aren't that interesting to see every week. Space Marines are most interesting in contrast to their opponents. And if all you see is Space Marines fighting Space Marines, it's just dull, no matter if one space marine is red and the next one is blue.

BrianDavion wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I have more of a problem with constant IoMvIoM battles than facing/playing Space Marines. I know Imperial faction infighting happens but it gets old.

just lpretend it's alpha legion.

I got some Inquisition bits (servo-skulls, cherubs and the like) in a bits box off of ebay. I was thinking about making an Istaanvanian Inquisitor named Generica Plot-Device. In any IoM vs IoM battle Generica could be subbed in for an existing unit or the other player could add a similar number of points. (Only if both players liked the idea, of course.) Or we could just set her up on some observation point as part of the scenery.

 Melissia wrote:
But they're all space marines in the end. And if that's all you see on the board every week, it gets pretty bland and repetitive.

No one is saying all Space Marines are equally competitive. Just that they're all, well... Space Marines. And Space Marines just aren't that interesting to see every week. Space Marines are most interesting in contrast to their opponents. And if all you see is Space Marines fighting Space Marines, it's just dull, no matter if one space marine is red and the next one is blue.

Well said

I think there is a natural tendency to lump all the various types of an army you don't care for together while seeing the various flavors of your favorite armies as highly distinct. Space Marine players see each chapter of Marines as highly distinct armies, while non-Marine players see them as just slightly different flavors of the same basic thing.

I've seen some people wonder why Astra Militarum players want more support for different regiments. They express sentiments along the lines of 'they're all just humans with lasguns, right? What more do you need?' which is infuriating to IG players.

Space Marines do tend to get way more books and units. This is partly because Space Marines are so cool, which makes them popular. However, if Tallarns and Mordians got as many supplemental books and units specific to them as Space Wolves and Blood Angels I think they would be a lot more popular. That's just a guess.

I got really annoyed that DKoK made Mordians look weak

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Space Marine players see each chapter of Marines as highly distinct armies

Most Space Marine players are able to at least see that the various flavors of Space Marines are, though different still Space Marines in the end, and get bored playing exclusively against them.

Since a lot of the people complaining about sameness are, themselves, marine players. And they get EXCITED whenever a Guard or Ork or Tyranid army shows up, because OH MAN gak'S GONNA GET FUN AGAIN! Because however different you'd like to think your blue Space Marines are from someone else's green Space Marines and that other guy's spiky Space Marines, you all know deep down inside that they're really not as different from each other as they are from other factions.

GodDamUser wrote:
I got really annoyed that DKoK made Mordians look weak

Uh?

 Melissia wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Space Marine players see each chapter of Marines as highly distinct armies

Most Space Marine players are able to at least see that the various flavors of Space Marines are, though different still Space Marines in the end, and get bored playing exclusively against them.

Since a lot of the people complaining about sameness are, themselves, marine players. And they get EXCITED whenever a Guard or Ork or Tyranid army shows up, because OH MAN gak'S GONNA GET FUN AGAIN! Because however different you'd like to think your blue Space Marines are from someone else's green Space Marines and that other guy's spiky Space Marines, you all know deep down inside that they're really not as different from each other as they are from other factions.

Until it turns out that those armies get tabled almost instantly because they're terribly weak and left horribly neglected in favour of creating more content for other Space Marine armies instead.

 Bobthehero wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
I got really annoyed that DKoK made Mordians look weak

Uh?

Just a silly thing.. before DKoK the Mordians were pretty much the most willing to lay down their lives without a care kinda thing..
But DKoK just do it so much better =D

Do remember reading one bit (from old gav) regiment of Mordian are marching along a road and they get strafed by air fire, but as the officers are taken out first they keep marching as they haven't been ordered to break formation, and they just keep marching as they are getting mowed down.

DKoK are just not silly =D

 Kain wrote:
I'm just wondering how not one, but two people played an assassins list.

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
LVO breakdown.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/02/04/las-vegas-open-40k-champs-faction-breakdown/

If you lump "Space Marines" to include all MEQ based armies (Chaos Space Marines, Space Wolves, etc) regardless of fluff, then yeah, there's a lot of MEQ.

Why wouldn't you include Chaos Space Marines as Space Marines? It's in the name. They're Space Marines with Chaos added in. Thus, "Chaos" Space Marines.

Space Wolves are also Space Marines. Blood Angels are also Space Marines. So are Salamanders, and Dark Angels, and any of the other chaos legions and loyalist chapters. It's not about MEQ. MEQ includes more than Marines, that's even what it means-- "Marine EQuivalent". It's not about a 3+ save. Not just Space Marines get a 3+ save.

Chaos Space Marines are not "MEQ". They ARE Space Marines.

Maybe in the fluff, but BA and CSM don't hold a candle to the kind of strength C:SM bring to the table. While BA and CSM are SM, they have wildly different unit types and are categorically weaker than SM. SW are SM, but they are so much different with all kinds of different units and capabilities. If I deploy my IG or DE and see who I'm lining up against, I will have very different reactions between SM, BA, CSM, and SW.

really the only thing the space marine factions have in common is the stat line on their basic troops.

BrianDavion wrote:
really the only thing the space marine factions have in common is the stat line on their basic troops.

Depends on what you mean by 'Space Marine factions'. If you take the 'Adeptus Astartes' label GW slaps on things to be relevant then yes, that's the only thing they've got in common (beyond storm bolters, Rhinos, and Land Raiders).

If you instead take 'Space Marine faction' to mean 'Codex descended from the First Founding Legions' (excluding the GK and the Deathwatch) they're mostly reskins; the formations change, the motor pool is slightly different, certain units get more or fewer special rules, but the units are the same, the organizational theory is the same, the armoury is the same, the models are virtually interchangeable...

(Personally I'd like to see a Space Marine book organized like the 3e CSM book or the Legion list, where you have one 'Space Marine' army list and a dozen appendixes describing how to add variant rules/units in for other Chapters.)

Yeah no matter what a Spacemarine is a Spacemarine...

And with Successor Chapters and such, you can easily say today I am using said chapter tactic or variant Spacemarine codex because except for a few units.. it is all pretty much compatible

I play Blood Angels. I like them. A lot. If you ask me to play I will put Blood Angels on the table. To me they are quite different than other Space Marines. If my army choice bothers you, well then that's your problem. A few people over the years have tried to shame me because I play Blood Angels. People should play the armies they want to play. It takes a lot of time, energy, and money to build a 40k army. I shouldn't have to defend my choice. If you don't like my army, don't ask me to play.

I've been told facing BA is more like facing speed freaks or DE than other marine lists. Yeah, they have 3+ armor, ATSKNF, and that's about it. They don't even have chapter tactics.

Martel732 wrote:
They don't even have chapter tactics.

Except for everyone having furious charge.

Yeah, the same ability Orks have lol.

They also have alot of jump pack-ey, melee formations. A death company army is definitely very orky in how shock-heavy it is: given furious charge, rage, and effectively shred and hatred on the charge (chaplain) theyre about four times as dedtructive as in a "normal" assault phase...

Ultimately, "oh, they're just marines" is no more valid than any sweeping generalization. You might as well say necrons are just marines with feel no pain.

You can make a "marine" army thats based on shock jump units, one thats made up completely of tanks, or one that uses marines only as command characters and primarily consists of chaos cultists. All of these armies play totally differently to each other.

I understand getting frustrated with a specific army list (oh, look, its an iron hands gladius again) but thats an issue with people who will slavishly take that-good-list-off-the-internet rather than give a crap about the setting or their army. We have one at our club, whose army is characterised by heraldry-less (squad markings only) khaki marines so he can (he is quite open about this) count them as whatever chapter or legion has the best rules at any given moment, and I'd rather eat my army model-by-model than play a game against him.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sounds like weeboos to me. Space marines are about 80% of the content in this game so if you don't like space marines - you are playing the wrong game IMO.

Need a little more details about this problem. Is it your lists maybe? Too strong? Is it too weak? Are they playing an army that relies on fear? I don't know man. Space marines are always fun to play against for me.

^Gosh, I wonder why people are sick and tired of space marines. It couldn't be the fact that multiple factions are sitting around with 3rd and even 2nd edition basic troop boxes while Space Marines now have three different brand new tactical squad boxes to choose from. It couldn't be that if the space marine player base isn't complaining that one of their 7 separate codexes isn't top-tier they're complaining that one of the non-marine factions is getting too much attention/is overpowered/doesn't belong in the game/all of the above.

People get sick of marines because everyone plays them, for the most part the lists are basic netlist copypastas, and GW has been cramming them down everyone's throats continuously for the past few decades.

GodDamUser wrote:
Yeah no matter what a Spacemarine is a Spacemarine...

And with Successor Chapters and such, you can easily say today I am using said chapter tactic or variant Spacemarine codex because except for a few units.. it is all pretty much compatible

Exactly. Sometimes its blue, sometimes its red, sometimes its green and sometimes its a furry, but in the end its just another marine.

Marines are just boring.

Even before being vastly over-represented, including the many variations (wolfy marines, bloody marines, spikey marines, holier-than-thou marines, girly marines....), they're just boring and bland.

Their identity is boredom itself and I can see how playing against Marines every day is just boring.

If I had spent six months putting my money and time into an army of space marines, I'd play them regardless of what other people had to say about them.

SG

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, the same ability Orks have lol.

What, USRs are too simple to be Chapter Tactics now? Hit and Run/Skilled Rider on White Scars, Crusader/Adamantium Will and conditional Counterattack/Rage on Black Templars? You can complain that base-Codex Chapters and the Dark Angels have more USRs than you do, but if Chapter Tactics had to be unique and unavailable to anyone else in the game you'd end up with a much, much more bloated system than we've got.

(Just checked on the Legion rules in 30k out of curiosity and I've discovered that the Blood Angels there do very close to the same thing (+1 to wound in all rounds of combat rather than just +1S in the first round, plus a few minor drawbacks), and I know they're regarded as quite strong. Come to the 31st Milennium. We have infantry, a no-Titans-allowed rule, and a Tau species that hasn't discovered spaceflight.)

I can still play Tau in 30k. Just need to dump some cheap caviar on the board.

locarno24 wrote:
They also have alot of jump pack-ey, melee formations. A death company army is definitely very orky in how shock-heavy it is: given furious charge, rage, and effectively shred and hatred on the charge (chaplain) theyre about four times as dedtructive as in a "normal" assault phase...

Ultimately, "oh, they're just marines" is no more valid than any sweeping generalization. You might as well say necrons are just marines with feel no pain.

Necrons are more different from marines than marines are from each other.


These are more different from each other than these:


You're trying desperately to stretch it arguing otherwise. If you honestly think necrons and marines are the same, you've lost all perspective in your attempt at defense of the massive proliferation of Space Marine rulesets. Might as well say "Orks and Guard are basically the same because they both have less than four ballistics skill", it's equally ridiculous and lore-ignoring as what you just said.

 Smotejob wrote:
and now that I have been bringing this army to play, there is usually someone that makes a statement along the lines of "space marines, ugh!" Or "I can't stand space marines." It is never my opponent, but it is becoming really annoying. It is every. single. time.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Space Marines are the posterboys for the setting, they also receive regular rules support and have an extensive miniature range that is relatively easy to paint and convert to varying degrees of complexity. With a solid blend of exposure to new players, consistent crunch and hobby versatility in a tabletop game that requires so much time and money, it's really not hard to see why people would choose to invest in Space Marines.

Variety is nice, but I wouldn't stop collecting CSM just because some other people are bored of playing against them and I don't see why Space Marine players should have to either. At the end of the day, it's not nice playing an under-supported faction and really it's up to Gee Dubz to make other factions more enticing (as they seem to have done with Tau and Eldar) rather than the community bullying their fellow hobbyists into collecting something else.

I'm not really a fan of games wit Space Marines where both players bring Space Marine. It's been tired for a few editions now those games quickly feel more like who brings the better/best Low AP weapons and who has better dice. It's also a reason I can't stay excited about games of 30K. Not saying the 30K games haven't been fun, they have. Mostly due to Maelstrom missions. I've played only one game of 30/40K this year. Not really sure when I'll be looking forward to either.

depends what you run. and if you accurately represent what you are bringing.

If you bring a "themed list" and a "fluffy game" that is librarian conclave, captain smashfetcher, and a gladius.... well I don't feel like bothering to play that game 2++ and an extra few hundred points in free trandports in your favor... no thanks.

if you are running a CAD or say upfront "I am bringing a high level list so bring your tournament level list" then sure lets throw some dice and have some fun.

its not that I hate playing them, its just that I'm spiteful. when you go to choose an army off of the games workshop site, and you look through the armies, you see a few things. one, space marines look kinda cool, and have like 10 pages of units. and you see the rest, which maybe you like better, but their unit choice is tiny. leaving you thinking "hmm should I have an army that has many different units, or an army with like 5." this gets even worse if you were to look into opinions and games a bit before deciding. on which you see that, "yeah if you don't choose Eldar, Tau, or Space Marines you might as well give up on competitive play" and so naturally people like the top tier army with many units (SM), opposed to something like tyranids which seems to be this trash tier reject of an army. so yeah, just annoyed on how biased GW is on their marketing.

[Edit] I should say however that playing SM shouldn't mean you are looked down upon, this game is built around community.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Space Marines have been accused of being incredibly dull featureless-protagonist mary-sues that get too much attention and weaken the narrative of the setting simply by existing, let alone by featuring as the protagonists constantly.

To which I say "Space Marines aren't boring, but they're frequently made boring by bad writers." Go read the Horus Heresy books for good examples of Space Marines not being boring.

As to the gameplay problems I took account recently and discovered that there exist close to seventy distinct 'Space Marine' lists (between 40k, 30k, variations based on Chapter Tactics...), and I doubt your commenters manage to hate every single one of them equally.

Because 30k marines are a totally different beast respect their successors in 40k. They weren't mind-wiped, brainwashed religious zealots with no-personality back then. It still doesn't mean that space marines in 40k lack personaloity since it's been lobotomized by and large.

IMO, 30k lore is trash compared to 40k. In fact, the main reason 40k is so bad is because 30k keeps leaking its crappiness out in to it.

Lumping all space marine categories together is certainly your call. I mean I wouldn't do it - it's just not accurate if you look at the units in terms of fluff / aesthetic / playstyle. Hence my comment about 3+ saves. If that's what's bugging you, I mean, that's a bummer, 3+ saves are everywhere.

 Melissia wrote:
IMO, 30k lore is trash compared to 40k. In fact, the main reason 40k is so bad is because 30k keeps leaking its crappiness out in to it.

That seems like a strange way to look at it. Unless you referring to 30K mini's and units being stuck into 40K on the table top?

warhead01 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
IMO, 30k lore is trash compared to 40k. In fact, the main reason 40k is so bad is because 30k keeps leaking its crappiness out in to it.

That seems like a strange way to look at it. Unless you referring to 30K mini's and units being stuck into 40K on the table top?

I'm no fan of the Horus Heresy series myself but 40k had plenty of egregious fluff before 30k was really a thing anyway. In any case, that's surely a problem with the 40k writers and editorial direction than 30k itself.

I'm glad for the miniatures though, they add some much needed visual variety to power-armoured armies.

 Marmatag wrote:
Lumping all space marine categories together is certainly your call. I mean I wouldn't do it - it's just not accurate if you look at the units in terms of fluff / aesthetic / playstyle. Hence my comment about 3+ saves. If that's what's bugging you, I mean, that's a bummer, 3+ saves are everywhere.

I personally wouldn't lump CSM in with LSM they are different enough, though there is a bit of overlap. The rest though are really are pretty much interchangable with each other with only BA and SW being significantly different from the rest (and then not by much). The difference between DA and Ultramarines is less than the difference between Tau and Farsight Enclave or IG and DKoK, in terms of playstyle and aesthetics.

 SolarCross wrote:
The rest though are really are pretty much interchangable with each other with only BA and SW being significantly different from the rest (and then not by much). The difference between DA and Ultramarines is less than the difference between Tau and Farsight Enclave or IG and DKoK, in terms of playstyle and aesthetics.

I disagree with the SW bit, other than TWC and wulfen they're identical to DA/SM, it's just that most SW armies tend to spam TWC. In general, between the 4, they're all the same except for a handful of different units: BA have dreads and jump, DA have bikes and terminators, SW have wolfy wolf wolfers.... but everything else is a carbon copy of the main SM codex.

 Melissia wrote:
IMO, 30k lore is trash compared to 40k. In fact, the main reason 40k is so bad is because 30k keeps leaking its crappiness out in to it.

100% agree.

 Melissia wrote:
IMO, 30k lore is trash compared to 40k. In fact, the main reason 40k is so bad is because 30k keeps leaking its crappiness out in to it.

I don't think they're that easily separable. The '30k lore' consists of writers expanding on stories that have been intrinsic parts of 40k since at least 4e (possibly earlier, but that's when I started playing); there have certainly been bits of both that are gibberish/terrible messes, but that seems to me to depend on the writer rather than on whether it's 30k or 40k.

30k is certainly guilty of an excessive focus on Space Marines, but 40k is at least as guilty there. There's been enough nonsense, gibberish, deus ex machinas, unsympathetic characters, inconsistencies, bizarre decisions, and all-round bad writing on both sides to fill many, many books. Both sides have produced fabulous moments, engaging characters, iconic perspectives, things that will forever shape how I see and interact with the setting.

30k lore feels to me like it doesn't take the galaxy for granted the way 40k lore does; since 5e 40k lore has stepped outside of the minds of the characters and tried to be an omniscient narrator, and it's sort of wrecked the sense of the place you got from the first-person accounts, apocalyptic logs, and lower-level human narratives in older lore. It's become too sanitized, too organized, too neat, too explained; the writers are so worried you won't pick up on the weird twist they just thought of they'll have the narrator sit you down and walk you through exactly what's happening, regardless of whether it's even remotely necessary to the scene or whether what they're saying makes even a modicum of sense (see: the end of Wrath of Magnus). They've also lost sight of one of the cardinal rules of writing game lore; if you're trying to make sure your story is understandable as a battle report, you've missed the point of writing lore. Lore isn't there to tell you what happened on the table, it's there to give context, deal with the wider setting, tell us why things are happening on the table. 30k isn't afraid to show us things in the setting that don't exist on the tabletop; we get civilians, psykers who do things that aren't on a psychic-powers table in the rulebook, buildings, non-combat activities, people wearing things other than power armour, attempts to look at why the battles are happening rather than simply taking it for granted and moving on.

30k lore tries to put us into the heads of the characters, instead of sending an omniscient narrator to lecture us about how awesome his toys are who has to poke us and say "see what I did there?" every five minutes. I feel like it's doing the sort of things that 40k lore today has forgotten how to do; I gave up on reading the 'background' section of my Codexes around when they told me that my Salamanders worship Guilliman/aspire to be Ultramarines and that my Grey Knights slaughter their allies to paint their armour in blood, but I'm still reading the 30k books.

Not really. 30k is a story about godly gods amongst men bickering like children as they kill other godly gods amongst men and their godly gods that aren't quite as godly as them but still most certianly better than you you filthy puny human. And reading in-depth stories about them bickering like schoolyard brats does not appeal to me over the grand, dark narrative that permeated the setting before 30k became so dully and incompetently expanded upon and then shoveled in to 40k through things like Rise of the Primarch.

The primarchs are just plain... boring, outside of being legendary figures that we have forgotten more about than we currently know. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every 30k book is garbage, and (and I shouldn't even have to say this, but I do apparently because people get offended that I don't like the same crap they do) the fact that I don't like it shouldn't diminish your love for it. It just doesn't appeal to me .

I play a White Scars (successor) grav bike list, a Chaos Death Guard list, and a Trukk boyz Ork list. I love playing agaist Marines! Eapecally the Codex compliant ones. Thunder Wolf Space Wolves and Drop pod spam Blood Angels not so much...

Marine battles are usually more or less balanced. When you see Tau or Eldar, you know its gonna be an uphill battle from the start.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I play a White Scars (successor) grav bike list, a Chaos Death Guard list, and a Trukk boyz Ork list. I love playing agaist Marines! Eapecally the Codex compliant ones. Thunder Wolf Space Wolves and Drop pod spam Blood Angels not so much...

Marine battles are usually more or less balanced.

Codex: Space Marines are top tier alongside Eldar and Tau, you realize?

Even their weaker lists are still stronger than most non-Marine books.

 Melissia wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I play a White Scars (successor) grav bike list, a Chaos Death Guard list, and a Trukk boyz Ork list. I love playing agaist Marines! Eapecally the Codex compliant ones. Thunder Wolf Space Wolves and Drop pod spam Blood Angels not so much...

Marine battles are usually more or less balanced.

Codex: Space Marines are top tier alongside Eldar and Tau, you realize?

Even their weaker lists are still stronger than most non-Marine books.

only if you build very specific lists. it might shock you but not everyone runs bike spam with grav or Battlecompanies.

BrianDavion wrote:
only if you build very specific lists

Yawn.

 Melissia wrote:
Even their weaker lists are still stronger than most non-Marine books.

Already answered your objection.

BrianDavion wrote:
[
only if you build very specific lists. it might shock you but not everyone runs bike spam with grav or Battlecompanies.

The same might be said of Tau and Eldar.

"Even their weaker lists are still stronger than most non-Marine book"

This is patently false. Most marine unit entries are not that good without their gimmicks. Imperial heavy weapons outside grav are quite poor.

Compared to Eldar, Tau, and Marine top tier lists maybe.

No, lots of lists. Marines lose to Orks and DE all the time with the non-competitive builds.

Martel732 wrote:
No, lots of lists. Marines lose to Orks and DE all the time with the non-competitive builds.

Everyone can lose to everyone in Non-Competitive builds

Well, their "weaker builds" were being discussed. So, I figure that's pretty relevant. Weak marine builds are pretty damn weak. Roll out your tactical terminators and see how that goes for you.

Martel732 wrote:
Imperial heavy weapons outside grav are quite poor.

Marine heavy weapons are on par with or better than every other army. Outside of scatter lasers and HYMP (the two best heavy weapons from those armies) what heavy weapons are better than marine ones? Even my guard, who get the same weapons, suck in comparison because HWTs are garbage.

Mulitlasers. Anything Wraith.

I mean, I can roll over weak marine lists and I play pure CSM.

Marines aren't like Eldar. They rely on a few broken niche units and formations to compete. Most of the Marine codex is flat out bad.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I mean, I can roll over weak marine lists and I play pure CSM.

Marines aren't like Eldar. They rely on a few broken niche units and formations to compete. Most of the Marine codex is flat out bad.

...And...Eldar don't rely on a few broken units? Try using the 80% of the book that isn't Windriders, Wraithguard/Wraithlords, War Walkers, and Warp Spiders. You may find they get knocked out of the top tier rather quickly.

The top tier these days is entirely full of bad design decisions (Summoning + Pink Horrors + DP shenanigans, Riptides, full-heavy-weapon-density jetbike squads, grav-weapons, free Razorbacks...). The vast majority of the game doesn't work that way, but since GW refuses to review decisions once made tournament lists are stocked with their errors.

The average Eldar unit is considerably more competent than the average marine unit. 40K rewards specialization, not generalization. Eldar are reliant upon broken units, but not NEARLY as much as marines are on their few precious gimmicks. The marines are five or so rules away from being the BA.

Martel732 wrote:
The average Eldar unit is considerably more competent than the average marine unit. 40K rewards specialization, not generalization. Eldar are reliant upon broken units, but not NEARLY as much as marines are on their few precious gimmicks. The marines are five or so rules away from being the BA.

So you're telling me you'd rather have a 9ppm unit with T3, flak armour, and one heavy weapon per ten models over a 14ppm unit with T4, power armour, and one upgrade weapon per five models in Troops?

I know you love to heap s*** on your army but most of the Eldar Codex isn't that good.

Forget guardians. I'd rather have a dire avenger than a tac marine. Bladestorm is one of the few mechanics that MCs and GMCs can't just laugh off.

Striking scorpions are better than marines
Dark reapers are better than marines
Fire Dragons are better than marines
Wave serpent is a vehicle remotely worth its cost, so that's infinitely better than marines when they pay for their terrible vehicles
Fire prism is better than predators
Falcon is better than predators
Wraithlord is better than dreadnoughts because MCs OP compared to vehicles
Rangers are better than scouts
Farseers are better than librarians
Exarchs are better than sergeants
Warlocks are better than sergeants
War Walkers are better than any marine heavy support bar grav cents (marine heavy support is god awful outside grav cents, and even then, you have to make them invis to not die like little bitches)
Wraith guard are better than basically any marine unit without gimmicks

I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

Show me a marine unit that's actually scary and cost effective outside their gimmicks. The Eldar book is full of them. BA, like gimmickless marines, have basically zero.

Martel732 wrote:
Forget guardians. I'd rather have a dire avenger than a tac marine. Bladestorm is one of the few mechanics that MCs and GMCs can't just laugh off.

Striking scorpions are better than marines
Dark reapers are better than marines
Fire Dragons are better than marines
Wave serpent is a vehicle remotely worth its cost, so that's infinitely better than marines when they pay for their terrible vehicles
Fire prism is better than predators
Falcon is better than predators
Wraithlord is better than dreadnoughts because MCs OP compared to vehicles
Rangers are better than scouts
Farseers are better than librarians
Exarchs are better than sergeants
Warlocks are better than sergeants
War Walkers are better than any marine heavy support bar grav cents (marine heavy support is god awful outside grav cents, and even then, you have to make them invis to not die like little bitches)
Wraith guard are better than basically any marine unit without gimmicks

I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

Show me a marine unit that's actually scary and cost effective outside their gimmicks. The Eldar book is full of them. BA, like gimmickless marines, have basically zero.

now do price comparison with Marines, and maybe do a comparison with their equiv units are you are comparing a troop choice to mainly elite/fast/hvy choices

If you don't like space marines, maybe 40k isn't for you? Like no offense to the xenos players out there, I love ya, but Space marines ARE 40k.

GodDamUser wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Forget guardians. I'd rather have a dire avenger than a tac marine. Bladestorm is one of the few mechanics that MCs and GMCs can't just laugh off.

Striking scorpions are better than marines
Dark reapers are better than marines
Fire Dragons are better than marines
Wave serpent is a vehicle remotely worth its cost, so that's infinitely better than marines when they pay for their terrible vehicles
Fire prism is better than predators
Falcon is better than predators
Wraithlord is better than dreadnoughts because MCs OP compared to vehicles
Rangers are better than scouts
Farseers are better than librarians
Exarchs are better than sergeants
Warlocks are better than sergeants
War Walkers are better than any marine heavy support bar grav cents (marine heavy support is god awful outside grav cents, and even then, you have to make them invis to not die like little bitches)
Wraith guard are better than basically any marine unit without gimmicks

I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

Show me a marine unit that's actually scary and cost effective outside their gimmicks. The Eldar book is full of them. BA, like gimmickless marines, have basically zero.

now do price comparison with Marines, and maybe do a comparison with their equiv units are you are comparing a troop choice to mainly elite/fast/hvy choices

When I say marines, I mean tac marines, vanguard, sternguards, assault marines, and devastators. Everything with a marine stat line. Those units are all mediocre to poor without some kind of gimmick to give them teeth. I know this, because that's exactly what I have to work with. The marines stat line is a liability in 7th because there's too many guns that kill them like grots and they are paying for stats they rarely get to use, and never get to use when scooped up with a cropier stick en masse.

And if you kept reading, I did compare unit to equivalent unit as best I could.

 Catfiish wrote:
If you don't like space marines, maybe 40k isn't for you? Like no offense to the xenos players out there, I love ya, but Space marines ARE 40k.

Orks vs Imperial Guard is 40k. Space Marines are just a flashy side show.

Marines are a meh army without slowed gimmicks.

Once you ignore bike stars, lib conclaves, bikes of all sorts and, gladius' then its meh, hardly top tier.

Eldar are top tier because literally everything is good, theres like what, two, maybe three units that are meh, nothing that is plain bad.

Tau are sorta monobuild, in the same way marines are. You aren't gonna win spamming firewarriors and pathfinders + tanks

your not gonna win with eldar spamming guardians either...

 gummyofallbears wrote:
Marines are a meh army without slowed gimmicks.

Once you ignore bike stars, lib conclaves, bikes of all sorts and, gladius' then its meh, hardly top tier.

Eldar are top tier because literally everything is good, theres like what, two, maybe three units that are meh, nothing that is plain bad.

Tau are sorta monobuild, in the same way marines are. You aren't gonna win spamming firewarriors and pathfinders + tanks

I think you should try Eldar, every unit in the codex, before saying something like that.
Interestingly enough, every person who has done that knows that Eldar have units that are worse than firewarriors in devilfishes.

 Catfiish wrote:
If you don't like space marines, maybe 40k isn't for you? Like no offense to the xenos players out there, I love ya, but Space marines ARE 40k.

Some people like to rewatch the same episode of their favourite show over and over and over and over again, others just want to not watch another rerun.

morgoth wrote:
I think you should try Eldar, every unit in the codex, before saying something like that.
Interestingly enough, every person who has done that knows that Eldar have units that are worse than firewarriors in devilfishes.

Guardians, banshees, and wraithlords stand out as particularly bad. Granted I usually nuke a wraithknight with something like a librarian shriek and plasma talons, but good old lascannons (or even *gasp* missile launchers) eat them up, and this is the one case snipers (read "trash unit" here) are above mediocre.

Also not amazing are avatar, hawks (from my experience against them), and spears (although only seen them twice).

 kingbobbito wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I think you should try Eldar, every unit in the codex, before saying something like that.
Interestingly enough, every person who has done that knows that Eldar have units that are worse than firewarriors in devilfishes.

Guardians, banshees, and wraithlords stand out as particularly bad. Granted I usually nuke a wraithknight with something like a librarian shriek and plasma talons, but good old lascannons (or even *gasp* missile launchers) eat them up, and this is the one case snipers (read "trash unit" here) are above mediocre.

Also not amazing are avatar, hawks (from my experience against them), and spears (although only seen them twice).

Spears are incredibly bad, rangers are terrible, fire prisms ... please.
Wraithblades = Terminators that suck way more than real Terminators.

morgoth wrote:
Spears are incredibly bad, rangers are terrible, fire prisms ... please.
Wraithblades = Terminators that suck way more than real Terminators.

I'm not overly familiar with rangers, do they have any rules that make them not just T3 scouts?

Melissia wrote:
Orks vs Imperial Guard is 40k. Space Marines are just a flashy side show.

That may be your opinion but almost nothing significant happens in the 40k setting without the involvement of Space Marines, and as the the posterboys for the setting, a considerable chunk of the narrative focuses on them.

n0t_u wrote:
Some people like to rewatch the same episode of their favourite show over and over and over and over again, others just want to not watch another rerun.

People can play whatever they want to play. If the playerbase lacks army variety, it's up to Gee Dubz to make the other factions more enticing.

 kingbobbito wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Spears are incredibly bad, rangers are terrible, fire prisms ... please.
Wraithblades = Terminators that suck way more than real Terminators.

I'm not overly familiar with rangers, do they have any rules that make them not just T3 scouts?

They also have S3, 5+ armor, no ATSKNF. (they do have shrouded which is their only saving grace)
Their rifles are 36" Heavy 1 AP6 useless.

They may not be the worst snipers in the game, but snipers these days...

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I mean, I can roll over weak marine lists and I play pure CSM.

Marines aren't like Eldar. They rely on a few broken niche units and formations to compete. Most of the Marine codex is flat out bad.

...And...Eldar don't rely on a few broken units? Try using the 80% of the book that isn't Windriders, Wraithguard/Wraithlords, War Walkers, and Warp Spiders. You may find they get knocked out of the top tier rather quickly.

The top tier these days is entirely full of bad design decisions (Summoning + Pink Horrors + DP shenanigans, Riptides, full-heavy-weapon-density jetbike squads, grav-weapons, free Razorbacks...). The vast majority of the game doesn't work that way, but since GW refuses to review decisions once made tournament lists are stocked with their errors.

Most of the Eldar codex is very good. The number of dud units is tiny (Howling banshees, storm guardians, and... that's it?) and even they got buffed.

In the top tier, you see less variety, but aforementioned CSM lists that give non-niche SM builds a smacking struggle vastly more against a balanced Eldar list.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I mean, I can roll over weak marine lists and I play pure CSM.

Marines aren't like Eldar. They rely on a few broken niche units and formations to compete. Most of the Marine codex is flat out bad.

...And...Eldar don't rely on a few broken units? Try using the 80% of the book that isn't Windriders, Wraithguard/Wraithlords, War Walkers, and Warp Spiders. You may find they get knocked out of the top tier rather quickly.

The top tier these days is entirely full of bad design decisions (Summoning + Pink Horrors + DP shenanigans, Riptides, full-heavy-weapon-density jetbike squads, grav-weapons, free Razorbacks...). The vast majority of the game doesn't work that way, but since GW refuses to review decisions once made tournament lists are stocked with their errors.

Most of the Eldar codex is very good. The number of dud units is tiny (Howling banshees, storm guardians, and... that's it?) and even they got buffed.

In the top tier, you see less variety, but aforementioned CSM lists that give non-niche SM builds a smacking struggle vastly more against a balanced Eldar list.

Sad thing is I think the Howling Banshee's actually outperform some other codex assaults, think on that for a moment.

Their sheer speed, 4+ armor, power weapons and overwatch denial makes them surprisingly good, much better than they look outside of the top metas.

If you compare them to wyches the point should be clear.

Martel732 wrote:
Forget guardians. I'd rather have a dire avenger than a tac marine. Bladestorm is one of the few mechanics that MCs and GMCs can't just laugh off.

Striking scorpions are better than marines
Dark reapers are better than marines
Fire Dragons are better than marines
Wave serpent is a vehicle remotely worth its cost, so that's infinitely better than marines when they pay for their terrible vehicles
Fire prism is better than predators
Falcon is better than predators
Wraithlord is better than dreadnoughts because MCs OP compared to vehicles
Rangers are better than scouts
Farseers are better than librarians
Exarchs are better than sergeants
Warlocks are better than sergeants
War Walkers are better than any marine heavy support bar grav cents (marine heavy support is god awful outside grav cents, and even then, you have to make them invis to not die like little bitches)
Wraith guard are better than basically any marine unit without gimmicks

I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

Show me a marine unit that's actually scary and cost effective outside their gimmicks. The Eldar book is full of them. BA, like gimmickless marines, have basically zero.

There is one undercosted unit in the entire marine codex! A land speeder storm!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kingbobbito wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Spears are incredibly bad, rangers are terrible, fire prisms ... please.
Wraithblades = Terminators that suck way more than real Terminators.

I'm not overly familiar with rangers, do they have any rules that make them not just T3 scouts?

For the same cost as a scout with a sniper rifle- they have shrouded, fleet, and battle focus. This allows them to fire their rifles and move in the same turn. Don't get me wrong - they aren't great - but they are better than scouts. Lets also consider this - scouts are one of the BEST units in the space marine codex.

 nurgle5 wrote:
That may be your opinion but almost nothing significant happens in the 40k setting without the involvement of Space Marines

Not true at all. Almost everything significant happens without Space Marines. They're quite rare.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I mean, I can roll over weak marine lists and I play pure CSM.

Marines aren't like Eldar. They rely on a few broken niche units and formations to compete. Most of the Marine codex is flat out bad.

...And...Eldar don't rely on a few broken units? Try using the 80% of the book that isn't Windriders, Wraithguard/Wraithlords, War Walkers, and Warp Spiders. You may find they get knocked out of the top tier rather quickly.

The top tier these days is entirely full of bad design decisions (Summoning + Pink Horrors + DP shenanigans, Riptides, full-heavy-weapon-density jetbike squads, grav-weapons, free Razorbacks...). The vast majority of the game doesn't work that way, but since GW refuses to review decisions once made tournament lists are stocked with their errors.

Most of the Eldar codex is very good. The number of dud units is tiny (Howling banshees, storm guardians, and... that's it?) and even they got buffed.

In the top tier, you see less variety, but aforementioned CSM lists that give non-niche SM builds a smacking struggle vastly more against a balanced Eldar list.

Sad thing is I think the Howling Banshee's actually outperform some other codex assaults, think on that for a moment.

They still suck absolute balls even compared to other CC units, including units which are considered not that great either.

Think on that for a moment.

You should really try them... they're so friggin awesome with their T3 and S3.

 nurgle5 wrote:

People can play whatever they want to play. If the playerbase lacks army variety, it's up to Gee Dubz to make the other factions more enticing.

If the player base lacks variety but GW already has provided many options for variety, then I think the remedy to the problem must come from the players actually. GW will emphasize whatever sells well that is what commercial enterprises must do to keep going. Vet players need to steer people especially newcomers away from SMs.

There are two approaches:

1) Boycott marines at games. "I've played against marines too many times, sorry chap I'll play against anything else". Suitable for the casual player who has a choice against who he plays. If it ever comes to pass that a marine player has literally no choice but to play against other marines all the time that may nudge some thinking towards taking up a new army that is anything but marine.

2) Tailor lists hard against marines even to the point where they are weak against non-marine lists. This will enable a good deal of wins because marines are as common as muck on the tabletop and it may get some marine players wondering if playing a common army is not a strategic weakness and look to take up something a bit anti-meta themselves. This is suitable for the competitive player who does not have the luxury of choosing his opponents very often.

morgoth wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Spears are incredibly bad, rangers are terrible, fire prisms ... please.
Wraithblades = Terminators that suck way more than real Terminators.

I'm not overly familiar with rangers, do they have any rules that make them not just T3 scouts?

They also have S3, 5+ armor, no ATSKNF. (they do have shrouded which is their only saving grace)
Their rifles are 36" Heavy 1 AP6 useless.

They may not be the worst snipers in the game, but snipers these days...

From about 30 entries in Codex: Craftworlds just under a half is problematic to use (sometimes beyond saving) and only six make reapeated appearance in netlists (not counting FW units here). From all of those, many aren't that good in TAC lilsts IF you play against various factions, but you don't have to worry about that, because meta IS all about Space Marines. Not only you are playing against Space Marines, but you are also playing against armies specialised in killing Space Marines. Eldar in the meta place so high mostly because they can easily tailor against predominantly SM meta and have three particularily broken units by the virtue of being totally universal and strong at the same time, so they can still win against anybody. My everyday group has no SM players at all, we are almost exclusively all xenos of different kinds (except for one AdMech) and most online tactics/lists suggestions/complaints are simpy non-applicable, because fearless hordes/whac-a-mole hordes/undying MSU/fast glass-cannon units are totally different beasts than MEQs. One of the most outstanding example of this bias is that Wraithguards against non-meta IoM-deathstar/IK/WK armies are almost ridiculously points inefficient and played-because-cool-factor type of unit.

One thing about SM players complaining about all strong xenos factions becomes quite clear after reading this thread, especially from this "90% of 100 players" example. It seems like most SM players lack any practical experience with xenos factions at all, they don't understand them, so when they loose to them, they automatically complain about them being entirely OP bullgak. What many of them miss, is that proficiency in 40K is not enemy faction (or even list) independent. If you have dozens of games worth of experience against various Space Marines armies and you feel good at 40K, then you might get very surprised when you lose to some rarely played armies you know absolutely nothing about. On the flip side, typical xenos player will almost exclusively play against iterations of your army, so will quite fast know everything about your weaknesses and how to exploit them.

They also typically don't understand non-Marine armies in general, not just Xeno armies.

Remember that thread a while back, where someone was asking "is it my responsibility to tell my oponent every single thing that my Sisters of Battle army can do, so there are zero surprises?" and such?

A lot of people literally were trying to argue that if you're not a Space Marine army you had an OBLIGATION to reveal all your strategies and tactics to your opponent because... prigilege and entitlement, really. Yeah.

morgoth wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I mean, I can roll over weak marine lists and I play pure CSM.

Marines aren't like Eldar. They rely on a few broken niche units and formations to compete. Most of the Marine codex is flat out bad.

...And...Eldar don't rely on a few broken units? Try using the 80% of the book that isn't Windriders, Wraithguard/Wraithlords, War Walkers, and Warp Spiders. You may find they get knocked out of the top tier rather quickly.

The top tier these days is entirely full of bad design decisions (Summoning + Pink Horrors + DP shenanigans, Riptides, full-heavy-weapon-density jetbike squads, grav-weapons, free Razorbacks...). The vast majority of the game doesn't work that way, but since GW refuses to review decisions once made tournament lists are stocked with their errors.

Most of the Eldar codex is very good. The number of dud units is tiny (Howling banshees, storm guardians, and... that's it?) and even they got buffed.

In the top tier, you see less variety, but aforementioned CSM lists that give non-niche SM builds a smacking struggle vastly more against a balanced Eldar list.

Sad thing is I think the Howling Banshee's actually outperform some other codex assaults, think on that for a moment.

They still suck absolute balls even compared to other CC units, including units which are considered not that great either.

Think on that for a moment.

You should really try them... they're so friggin awesome with their T3 and S3.

The reason you don't see banshees is because their delivery method is pathetic. If they actually make CC they are cleaning up MEQ like it's their job...wait...that is their job. No overwatch, I5 power weapons for 13ppm. Plus a baller ass exarch with 3 str 5 ap2 attacks on the charge at I6 WS5. They add 3 to their charge distance too - which means they can charge 15 inches + they have fleet too. They are a great assault unit. Overshadowed by another great assault unit in the same FOC - Striking Scorpions. Eldar lacking an assault vehicle need another method to deliver assault units and scorpions do just fine without one. Scorpians wreck anything that isn't a souped up assault unit.

 Melissia wrote:
They also typically don't understand non-Marine armies in general, not just Xeno armies.

Remember that thread a while back, where someone was asking "is it my responsibility to tell my oponent every single thing that my Sisters of Battle army can do, so there are zero surprises?" and such?

A lot of people literally were trying to argue that if you're not a Space Marine army you had an OBLIGATION to reveal all your strategies and tactics to your opponent because... prigilege and entitlement, really. Yeah.

O wow, I missed that. Seriously?

 Xenomancers wrote:

The reason you don't see banshees is because their delivery method is pathetic. If they actually make CC they are cleaning up MEQ like it's their job...wait...that is their job. No overwatch, I5 power weapons for 13ppm. Plus a baller ass exarch with 3 str 5 ap2 attacks on the charge at I6 WS5. They add 3 to their charge distance too - which means they can charge 15 inches + they have fleet too. They are a great assault unit. Overshadowed by another great assault unit in the same FOC - Striking Scorpions. Eldar lacking an assault vehicle need another method to deliver assault units and scorpions do just fine without one. Scorpians wreck anything that isn't a souped up assault unit.

Hyperbole here we come...

They're not even good at cleaning up MEQ, and that's a lot because of their crappy T3 and S3, very important stats that non-Eldar players take for granted at their base value of 4 for almost anything else.
Do you realize that T3 means that anyone wounds you 66% of the time instead of 50% of the time?
That's +33% wounds in your face.
S3... means that you wound others 33% of the time instead of 50% of the time.
That's 33% less wounds in their face.
Then you've got AP3, which does wonders strictly against 3+ armor, which nobody plays because supposedly it sucks - so we've got a unit that's decent at killing something that sucks, yay. it must be OP.


Overshadowed by scorpions ... which despite their crazy cover rules are still far from being a good unit, not just because it's lacking a delivery method but because the unit's impact can be summed up to that of an Ork boy.

Why am I mentioning the ork boy ? because he sucks. badly. and he's still a lot better in CC than a Striking Scorpion point for point - and gets to assault out of a truck which moves 18" in a turn.
Hell, I've seen my Scorpions get assraped by Genestealers - and even Necron Warriors - none of which are considered good in CC.

They're an assault unit that can't handle any other assault unit, and will even die to other regular units in CC, because their only CC prowess is to have S4, the base strength of every single other model in the game (almost).

Play what you want. Some people might complain, but assuming you're not bringing tourney level lists and stomping new players, you should be fine

Melissia wrote:]Not true at all. Almost everything significant happens without Space Marines. They're quite rare.

I can't think of a single 40k campaign book since 3rd ed. that wasn't Space Marine centric or heavily involved Space Marines. You could argue that Space Marines are a small force in the 40k universe, compared to trillions of Orks and IG, but they are a core part of the 40k setting.

SolarCross wrote:If the player base lacks variety but GW already has provided many options for variety, then I think the remedy to the problem must come from the players actually. GW will emphasize whatever sells well that is what commercial enterprises must do to keep going. Vet players need to steer people especially newcomers away from SMs.

Well if the problem isn't with Games Workshop's support for other factions, then people are entitled to collect and play Space Marines if they like. Bullying people into spending time and money on their second preference for a 40k army is wrong. In both of those suggested approaches the more likely outcome would be the local player community avoiding that particular player rather than changing faction. By all means, encourage people to play non-MEQ factions, but do it by positive example. Show newcomers that the other factions are fun and rewarding to collect and play rather than punishing them for choosing marines.

Warzone Valedor not only had no space marines, it had no humans at all. Which is something I'd like to see more of. 40k stories with no humans. No Chaos, no Imperials; just Xenos beating the gak out of each other.

 nurgle5 wrote:

Melissia wrote:]Not true at all. Almost everything significant happens without Space Marines. They're quite rare.

I can't think of a single 40k campaign book since 3rd ed. that wasn't Space Marine centric

GW focuses its storytelling around things that happen to Space Marines. What many people forget, including GW itself, is that most things in the galaxy, including major crusades of trillions of people fighting each other, happen without a single Astartes.

If you define "significant" as "includes a Space Marine", then that means wars in which planets are destroyed and billions of people die and massive amounts of territory changes hands are insignificant, but a battle where a few dozen Marines destroy a few thousand Orks is. And that's dumb.

 SolarCross wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

People can play whatever they want to play. If the playerbase lacks army variety, it's up to Gee Dubz to make the other factions more enticing.

If the player base lacks variety but GW already has provided many options for variety, then I think the remedy to the problem must come from the players actually. GW will emphasize whatever sells well that is what commercial enterprises must do to keep going. Vet players need to steer people especially newcomers away from SMs.

There are two approaches:

1) Boycott marines at games. "I've played against marines too many times, sorry chap I'll play against anything else". Suitable for the casual player who has a choice against who he plays. If it ever comes to pass that a marine player has literally no choice but to play against other marines all the time that may nudge some thinking towards taking up a new army that is anything but marine.

2) Tailor lists hard against marines even to the point where they are weak against non-marine lists. This will enable a good deal of wins because marines are as common as muck on the tabletop and it may get some marine players wondering if playing a common army is not a strategic weakness and look to take up something a bit anti-meta themselves. This is suitable for the competitive player who does not have the luxury of choosing his opponents very often.

Are you actually advocating being antisocial and making the game less fun for everyone simply because some people like to play Marines? You always have the choice to not play against someone, but how is bullying some hobbyists looking for some fun on their free time and attempting to make them spend possibly 100s of € to start a Tyranid army in any way conducive to fun?

gakky attitudes like this are the reason why many FLGS's die. Warhammer is a "beer and pretzels" game. Just have fun and roll some dice.

 nurgle5 wrote:

Well if the problem isn't with Games Workshop's support for other factions, then people are entitled to collect and play Space Marines if they like. Bullying people into spending time and money on their second preference for a 40k army is wrong. In both of those suggested approaches the more likely outcome would be the local player community avoiding that particular player rather than changing faction. By all means, encourage people to play non-MEQ factions, but do it by positive example. Show newcomers that the other factions are fun and rewarding to collect and play rather than punishing them for choosing marines.

GW's support is patchy for a lot of factions but it must be acknowledged that even the most neglected of factions only existed because GW punted them out in the first place. It is a pretty reasonable assumption that ongoing support is influenced strongly by sales and in this way the excessive popularity of Space Marines is robbing other factions of the oxygen of ongoing support. GW basically has two kinds of staffers: creative types and bean counters. I dare say the creative types would like to do more space nuns with guns or hive mind gene tweaking bugs or fungal football hooligans but keep getting told by the bean-counters to make "moar marines cos marines make dolla". I'd bet the creative types die a little inside every time they get told to punt up more cookie cutter marines. Perhaps the absurdity of the SW wolfy wolf wolf thing was exactly a passive aggressive revenge by a creative type on both Timmy the teenage space marine and the bean counters.

I don't see my two solutions as bullying but as feedback. The casual player plays for fun and at some point playing against marines again becomes samey samaey and unfun. The casual player is quite entitled to choose not to do that and explain why. For the tourney types it is about winning. In a game full of marines optimising against marines is a solid strat. It is only sporting to inform your opponent how he lost for it gives him an opportunity to remedy is poor tactical choices. By rights the tourney player could just opitmise against marines beat them soundly everytime and say nothing of how it was done.

 Melissia wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

Melissia wrote:]Not true at all. Almost everything significant happens without Space Marines. They're quite rare.

I can't think of a single 40k campaign book since 3rd ed. that wasn't Space Marine centric

GW focuses its storytelling around things that happen to Space Marines. What many people forget, including GW itself, is that most things in the galaxy, including major crusades of trillions of people fighting each other, happen without a single Astartes.

If you define "significant" as "includes a Space Marine", then that means wars in which planets are destroyed and billions of people die and massive amounts of territory changes hands are insignificant, but a battle where a few dozen Marines destroy a few thousand Orks is. And that's dumb.

I'd be inclined to draw a mental line between the overall 40k universe and the 40k setting of the tabletop miniatures game, to be honest. The tabletop mini setting is very much so focused on the Imperium.

nou wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Spears are incredibly bad, rangers are terrible, fire prisms ... please.
Wraithblades = Terminators that suck way more than real Terminators.

I'm not overly familiar with rangers, do they have any rules that make them not just T3 scouts?

They also have S3, 5+ armor, no ATSKNF. (they do have shrouded which is their only saving grace)
Their rifles are 36" Heavy 1 AP6 useless.

They may not be the worst snipers in the game, but snipers these days...

From about 30 entries in Codex: Craftworlds just under a half is problematic to use (sometimes beyond saving) and only six make reapeated appearance in netlists (not counting FW units here). From all of those, many aren't that good in TAC lilsts IF you play against various factions, but you don't have to worry about that, because meta IS all about Space Marines. Not only you are playing against Space Marines, but you are also playing against armies specialised in killing Space Marines. Eldar in the meta place so high mostly because they can easily tailor against predominantly SM meta and have three particularily broken units by the virtue of being totally universal and strong at the same time, so they can still win against anybody. My everyday group has no SM players at all, we are almost exclusively all xenos of different kinds (except for one AdMech) and most online tactics/lists suggestions/complaints are simpy non-applicable, because fearless hordes/whac-a-mole hordes/undying MSU/fast glass-cannon units are totally different beasts than MEQs. One of the most outstanding example of this bias is that Wraithguards against non-meta IoM-deathstar/IK/WK armies are almost ridiculously points inefficient and played-because-cool-factor type of unit.

One thing about SM players complaining about all strong xenos factions becomes quite clear after reading this thread, especially from this "90% of 100 players" example. It seems like most SM players lack any practical experience with xenos factions at all, they don't understand them, so when they loose to them, they automatically complain about them being entirely OP bullgak. What many of them miss, is that proficiency in 40K is not enemy faction (or even list) independent. If you have dozens of games worth of experience against various Space Marines armies and you feel good at 40K, then you might get very surprised when you lose to some rarely played armies you know absolutely nothing about. On the flip side, typical xenos player will almost exclusively play against iterations of your army, so will quite fast know everything about your weaknesses and how to exploit them.

OMG yes on the last paragraph. I played against a marines player (black Templar) last month with orks... ORKS and he said orks were OP. I ran 3 battlewagons of boyz, and 2 biker squads with a nob biker group. he went first, put all his rhinos and LR on the line, moved 6, got out 6, fired at bikers killing a few then said it was op they did not run and was surprised when the orks got out and smashed everything. note before the game I warned do not let me get off a charge because volume of attacks will drown you.

Kain wrote:Warzone Valedor not only had no space marines, it had no humans at all. Which is something I'd like to see more of. 40k stories with no humans. No Chaos, no Imperials; just Xenos beating the gak out of each other.

Well today I learned.

Melissia wrote:
GW focuses its storytelling around things that happen to Space Marines. What many people forget, including GW itself, is that most things in the galaxy, including major crusades of trillions of people fighting each other, happen without a single Astartes.

Ork vs Imperial Guard conflicts, and so on, may be more widespread in the 40k universe, but when so much of the storytelling, the narrative and the most significant events of the setting center on Space Marines; when they are 40k's most iconic, most played, most collected faction, I really don't think it's unfair to say Space Marines are the defining part of Warhammer 40k. Certainly more so than Orks vs IG, Space Marines are literally the posterboys for the game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:

I don't see my two solutions as bullying but as feedback. The casual player plays for fun and at some point playing against marines again becomes samey samaey and unfun. The casual player is quite entitled to choose not to do that and explain why. For the tourney types it is about winning. In a game full of marines optimising against marines is a solid strat. It is only sporting to inform your opponent how he lost for it gives him an opportunity to remedy is poor tactical choices. By rights the tourney player could just opitmise against marines beat them soundly everytime and say nothing of how it was done.

It absolutely is bullying. You're not talking about list tailoring for competitive advantage, or simply refusing games that you don't want to play, but excluding players or tailoring against them with the hostile intent of discouraging your fellow hobbyists from their faction of choice because you don't like it. I don't see how doing either of these things, especially with new players, is a productive and positive way forward.

It absolutely is bullying. You're not talking about list tailoring for competitive advantage, or simply refusing games that you don't want to play, but excluding players or tailoring against them with the hostile intent of discouraging your fellow hobbyists from their faction of choice because you don't like it. I don't see how doing either of these things, especially with new players, is a productive and positive way forward.

Or will likely have the effect of people simply just avoiding said players who list tailor to begin with or exclude others.

 SolarCross wrote:
I don't see my two solutions as bullying but as feedback.

Excluding people until they spend money on a new army is just 'feedback' and not bullying?

Quinzy wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

People can play whatever they want to play. If the playerbase lacks army variety, it's up to Gee Dubz to make the other factions more enticing.

If the player base lacks variety but GW already has provided many options for variety, then I think the remedy to the problem must come from the players actually. GW will emphasize whatever sells well that is what commercial enterprises must do to keep going. Vet players need to steer people especially newcomers away from SMs.

There are two approaches:

1) Boycott marines at games. "I've played against marines too many times, sorry chap I'll play against anything else". Suitable for the casual player who has a choice against who he plays. If it ever comes to pass that a marine player has literally no choice but to play against other marines all the time that may nudge some thinking towards taking up a new army that is anything but marine.

2) Tailor lists hard against marines even to the point where they are weak against non-marine lists. This will enable a good deal of wins because marines are as common as muck on the tabletop and it may get some marine players wondering if playing a common army is not a strategic weakness and look to take up something a bit anti-meta themselves. This is suitable for the competitive player who does not have the luxury of choosing his opponents very often.

Are you actually advocating being antisocial and making the game less fun for everyone simply because some people like to play Marines? You always have the choice to not play against someone, but how is bullying some hobbyists looking for some fun on their free time and attempting to make them spend possibly 100s of € to start a Tyranid army in any way conducive to fun?

gakky attitudes like this are the reason why many FLGS's die. Warhammer is a "beer and pretzels" game. Just have fun and roll some dice.

Again it is not bullying or being anti-social it is just feedback. I like marines they are okay they are medieval knights in shining armour in spaaace and what is not to like about that? but I literally do not need to face off against them every single time I play especially if I play guard (lol).

Also FLGS don't die because some of us are bored of spam marines. FLGS die because high street retail is a business with brutally thin margins and because game stores in particular have fairly slow moving stock with even thinner margins than average to deal with. That and online shopping is particularly competitive in this market. It is kind of pathetic trying to blame me for FLGS's going out of business.

nou wrote:

One thing about SM players complaining about all strong xenos factions becomes quite clear after reading this thread, especially from this "90% of 100 players" example. It seems like most SM players lack any practical experience with xenos factions at all, they don't understand them, so when they loose to them, they automatically complain about them being entirely OP bullgak. What many of them miss, is that proficiency in 40K is not enemy faction (or even list) independent. If you have dozens of games worth of experience against various Space Marines armies and you feel good at 40K, then you might get very surprised when you lose to some rarely played armies you know absolutely nothing about. On the flip side, typical xenos player will almost exclusively play against iterations of your army, so will quite fast know everything about your weaknesses and how to exploit them.

Man, aren't generalizations great? Also, most SM players own at least one other army, usually some Xenos variant, so complaining about SM vs. Xenos players is hilarious when someone owns both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
They also typically don't understand non-Marine armies in general, not just Xeno armies.

Remember that thread a while back, where someone was asking "is it my responsibility to tell my oponent every single thing that my Sisters of Battle army can do, so there are zero surprises?" and such?

A lot of people literally were trying to argue that if you're not a Space Marine army you had an OBLIGATION to reveal all your strategies and tactics to your opponent because... prigilege and entitlement, really. Yeah.

I read that thread. It was not about entitlement or "privilege", it was the fact that if you don't tell me what weapons/stats your army has and then proceed to beat me, I'm going to get pissed. One of the relevant examples was that an Exorcist looks like a Rhino, but surprise, can put out 1d6 S8 AP1 shots. If I just went in and treated it like a Rhino, I'd get absolutely wrecked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:

Again it is not bullying or being anti-social it is just feedback. I like marines they are okay they are medieval knights in shining armour in spaaace and what is not to like about that? but I literally do not need to face off against them every single time I play especially if I play guard (lol).

Also FLGS don't die because some of us are bored of spam marines. FLGS die because high street retail is a business with brutally thin margins and because game stores in particular have fairly slow moving stock with even thinner margins than average to deal with. That and online shopping is particularly competitive in this market. It is kind of pathetic trying to blame me for FLGS's going out of business.

It is absolutely bullying. If someone did the same to your army or Eldar or CSM across the board, wouldn't you be pissed?

 SolarCross wrote:


Again it is not bullying or being anti-social it is just feedback. I like marines they are okay they are medieval knights in shining armour in spaaace and what is not to like about that? but I literally do not need to face off against them every single time I play especially if I play guard (lol).

Also FLGS don't die because some of us are bored of spam marines. FLGS die because high street retail is a business with brutally thin margins and because game stores in particular have fairly slow moving stock with even thinner margins than average to deal with. That and online shopping is particularly competitive in this market. It is kind of pathetic trying to blame me for FLGS's going out of business.

You have the right to not play anyone. Nobody denies that right. However, you advocated for refusing to play against them at all in order to force players to buy a new army so you can play something else.

FLGS often die because people don't want to go in because the regulars are awful. When they succeed it's no doubt it's by a thin margin, but an FLGS cannot survive if there is not a high volume of repeat customers. gakky regulars that bully others are a leading factor in turning people off spending money in a store. You don't think everyone refusing to play with a guy because he brought his Imperial Fists with him will put him off coming back? I sure as feth wouldn't like to spend any time in a place where the players have an attitude like that, I'd even be disinclined to spend money there if the staff allowed that sort of carryon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


I read that thread. It was not about entitlement or "privilege", it was the fact that if you don't tell me what weapons/stats your army has and then proceed to beat me, I'm going to get pissed. One of the relevant examples was that an Exorcist looks like a Rhino, but surprise, can put out 1d6 S8 AP1 shots. If I just went in and treated it like a Rhino, I'd get absolutely wrecked.

Aye, if it's freely readable in the codex then what's the problem telling people what it is and does? Nobody is saying you should tell them your battle strategy, but if you refuse to reveal the statline of a weapon then you're being a gowl.

 jreilly89 wrote:

nou wrote:

One thing about SM players complaining about all strong xenos factions becomes quite clear after reading this thread, especially from this "90% of 100 players" example. It seems like most SM players lack any practical experience with xenos factions at all, they don't understand them, so when they loose to them, they automatically complain about them being entirely OP bullgak. What many of them miss, is that proficiency in 40K is not enemy faction (or even list) independent. If you have dozens of games worth of experience against various Space Marines armies and you feel good at 40K, then you might get very surprised when you lose to some rarely played armies you know absolutely nothing about. On the flip side, typical xenos player will almost exclusively play against iterations of your army, so will quite fast know everything about your weaknesses and how to exploit them.

Man, aren't generalizations great? Also, most SM players own at least one other army, usually some Xenos variant, so complaining about SM vs. Xenos players is hilarious when someone owns both.

You do realise, that it is not a generalisation about EVERY SM player, but a statistical POV on the whole SM-oversaturated community? In FLSG with 90 people playing almost exclusively marines and only 10% SOMETIMES bringing anything else, discrepancy of experience against SM and non SM armies will be MASSIVE.

 jreilly89 wrote:


It is absolutely bullying. If someone did the same to your army or Eldar or CSM across the board, wouldn't you be pissed?

No I wouldn't be pissed just surprised because none of the those armies are spammed to the same extent. If I played Eldar and the local meta was ripe with Eldar then without needing any encouragement I would look to diversifying away from Eldar and I wouldn't cry at all if some other player said he'd had enough of Eldar and wanted to play against something else. That is just the way it is, no need to cry.

 jreilly89 wrote:

It is absolutely bullying. If someone did the same to your army or Eldar or CSM across the board, wouldn't you be pissed?

People bully Eldar players all the fething time and nobody cares, people generally just gang up and join the beating.

 SolarCross wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


It is absolutely bullying. If someone did the same to your army or Eldar or CSM across the board, wouldn't you be pissed?

No I wouldn't be pissed just surprised because none of the those armies are spammed to the same extent. If I played Eldar and the local meta was ripe with Eldar then without needing any encouragement I would look to diversifying away from Eldar and I wouldn't cry at all if some other player said he'd had enough of Eldar and wanted to play against something else. That is just the way it is, no need to cry.

You literally advocated every veteran player in an FLGS to boycott playing SM armies. It's not just one person saying "I'm bored with SM for now, but thanks " and more a case of every grognard in the room refusing to play you until you buy 2000pts of Tau.

nou wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

nou wrote:

One thing about SM players complaining about all strong xenos factions becomes quite clear after reading this thread, especially from this "90% of 100 players" example. It seems like most SM players lack any practical experience with xenos factions at all, they don't understand them, so when they loose to them, they automatically complain about them being entirely OP bullgak. What many of them miss, is that proficiency in 40K is not enemy faction (or even list) independent. If you have dozens of games worth of experience against various Space Marines armies and you feel good at 40K, then you might get very surprised when you lose to some rarely played armies you know absolutely nothing about. On the flip side, typical xenos player will almost exclusively play against iterations of your army, so will quite fast know everything about your weaknesses and how to exploit them.

Man, aren't generalizations great? Also, most SM players own at least one other army, usually some Xenos variant, so complaining about SM vs. Xenos players is hilarious when someone owns both.

You do realise, that it is not a generalisation about EVERY SM player, but a statistical POV on the whole SM-oversaturated community? In FLSG with 90 people playing almost exclusively marines and only 10% SOMETIMES bringing anything else, discrepancy of experience against SM and non SM armies will be MASSIVE.

It's almost as if SM is the widest available army in terms of kits, second hand models, ease of use, etc. That's like playing Street Fighter and getting mad that everyone plays Ryu when he's the easiest character to learn.

And I don't think you know what the word generalization means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

It is absolutely bullying. If someone did the same to your army or Eldar or CSM across the board, wouldn't you be pissed?

People bully Eldar players all the fething time and nobody cares, people generally just gang up and join the beating.

Dude, I've seen plenty of other threads on "How can I play Eldar/Tau without being cheesy?" and "No one wants to play me because I play Eldar". How about we just not boycott armies?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


It is absolutely bullying. If someone did the same to your army or Eldar or CSM across the board, wouldn't you be pissed?

No I wouldn't be pissed just surprised because none of the those armies are spammed to the same extent. If I played Eldar and the local meta was ripe with Eldar then without needing any encouragement I would look to diversifying away from Eldar and I wouldn't cry at all if some other player said he'd had enough of Eldar and wanted to play against something else. That is just the way it is, no need to cry.

Okay, how about if I refused to play you because you play Guard? Do you get it now?

 jreilly89 wrote:


Okay, how about if I refused to play you because you play Guard? Do you get it now?

I'd be fine with that. If you play SM it makes perfect sense to not play against Guard as they are supposed to be on the same side, why would they fight each other? It is a bit counter-narrative.

But if you play SM you probably won't refuse just be delirious with joy that for once in your gaming experience your beloved SMs aren't being forced to shoot up other Space Marines.

 SolarCross wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Okay, how about if I refused to play you because you play Guard? Do you get it now?

I'd be fine with that. If you play SM it makes perfect sense to not play against Guard as they are supposed to be on the same side, why would they fight each other? It is a bit counter-narrative.

But if you play SM you probably won't refuse just be delirious with joy that for once in your gaming experience your beloved SMs aren't being forced to shoot up other Space Marines.

A) I don't really care about it being counter intuitive, there's plenty of in lore battles where SM fight traitor Guard, or vice versa. B) I also own Guard and used to own Orks and Daemons as well, but thanks for proving my point C) I'd only ever refuse a game if my opponent was being TFG, I'd never refuse it based on an army

 SolarCross wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Okay, how about if I refused to play you because you play Guard? Do you get it now?

I'd be fine with that. If you play SM it makes perfect sense to not play against Guard as they are supposed to be on the same side, why would they fight each other? It is a bit counter-narrative.

But if you play SM you probably won't refuse just be delirious with joy that for once in your gaming experience your beloved SMs aren't being forced to shoot up other Space Marines.

Either you're willfully missing the point or you need someone to spell it out in as simple terms as possible. :/

morgoth wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The reason you don't see banshees is because their delivery method is pathetic. If they actually make CC they are cleaning up MEQ like it's their job...wait...that is their job. No overwatch, I5 power weapons for 13ppm. Plus a baller ass exarch with 3 str 5 ap2 attacks on the charge at I6 WS5. They add 3 to their charge distance too - which means they can charge 15 inches + they have fleet too. They are a great assault unit. Overshadowed by another great assault unit in the same FOC - Striking Scorpions. Eldar lacking an assault vehicle need another method to deliver assault units and scorpions do just fine without one. Scorpians wreck anything that isn't a souped up assault unit.

Hyperbole here we come...

They're not even good at cleaning up MEQ, and that's a lot because of their crappy T3 and S3, very important stats that non-Eldar players take for granted at their base value of 4 for almost anything else.
Do you realize that T3 means that anyone wounds you 66% of the time instead of 50% of the time?
That's +33% wounds in your face.
S3... means that you wound others 33% of the time instead of 50% of the time.
That's 33% less wounds in their face.
Then you've got AP3, which does wonders strictly against 3+ armor, which nobody plays because supposedly it sucks - so we've got a unit that's decent at killing something that sucks, yay. it must be OP.


Overshadowed by scorpions ... which despite their crazy cover rules are still far from being a good unit, not just because it's lacking a delivery method but because the unit's impact can be summed up to that of an Ork boy.

Why am I mentioning the ork boy ? because he sucks. badly. and he's still a lot better in CC than a Striking Scorpion point for point - and gets to assault out of a truck which moves 18" in a turn.
Hell, I've seen my Scorpions get assraped by Genestealers - and even Necron Warriors - none of which are considered good in CC.

They're an assault unit that can't handle any other assault unit, and will even die to other regular units in CC, because their only CC prowess is to have S4, the base strength of every single other model in the game (almost).

Funny you don't even mention the mandiblasters which are basically the best part about striking scorpions. Not only are they auto hits that wound anything on a 4+ at I10 every turn. They are allocated to models of your choice in base. Scorpions aren't gods but they are better than any Codex Space marine assault unit that I am aware of.

 Quinzy wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
I don't see my two solutions as bullying but as feedback.

Excluding people until they spend money on a new army is just 'feedback' and not bullying?

You mean like what happens every time there's a new codex that excludes options you previously used and makes your army build non-viable? Is GW bullying when that happens, and are people bullying whenever they refuse to play against the old army list that is no longer legal in the current rules?

I find it downright funny that it's considered "bullying" to say "screw it, I'm in it to win".

 Melissia wrote:

 Quinzy wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
I don't see my two solutions as bullying but as feedback.

Excluding people until they spend money on a new army is just 'feedback' and not bullying?

You mean like what happens every time there's a new codex that excludes options you previously used and makes your army build non-viable? Is GW bullying when that happens, and are people bullying whenever they refuse to play against the old army list that is no longer legal in the current rules?

I find it downright funny that it's considered "bullying" to say "screw it, I'm in it to win".

A company has a right to change and modify what they want when they release a new version of the game. But guess what, people can continue to play old versions too! The same thing happened with AoS, there's still people playing WFHB under the old rules.

But yes, it is bullying when you say "I don't want to play you because you play X army" and "I'm going to get everyone to boycott X army because I don't like it", assuming it's current edition and rules legal. If you want to play something older/modified, that's fine, but understand some people won't want to.

Melissia wrote:If you define "significant" as "includes a Space Marine", then that means wars in which planets are destroyed and billions of people die and massive amounts of territory changes hands are insignificant, but a battle where a few dozen Marines destroy a few thousand Orks is. And that's dumb.

I mean big events that got a lot of narrative attention and community traction, like Armageddon, Eye of Terror, Medusa V, and all the other campaign supplements which are centered around Space Marines or heavily involve them (which seems to be all of them with the exception of Warzone Valedor, as Kain pointed out). So to say that nameless, faceless, anonymous battles taking place all around the galaxy are somehow more significant to the 40k setting than the events that the narrative and lore focus on is dumb. To suggest that Space Marines are a flashy sideshow in a setting where they participate in so many of its defining and key moments is dumb. Space Marines may not be involved in every single battle in the galaxy, and what interests you most about the 40k universe might differ, but there's no denying that Space Marines are a definitive part of the 40k setting.

GW has made the marines not a side show, even though at only 1K per chapter, they would TOTALLY be a side show. For the fluff to make any sense, there would have to be millions of marines per chapter. Fighting over a planet would require millions of guardsmen and tens of thousands of marines PER PLANET. Just because GW doesn't write the battles that way, doesn't that's what it would logically require. Their scale in insanely bad.

I'm hoping for more Xenos vs Xenos battles because the Valedor novel was one of the most interesting I've ever read out of 40k. Xenofiction is rare enough in fiction in general, so more of it is never a bad thing.

 nurgle5 wrote:
To suggest that Space Marines are a flashy sideshow in a setting where they participate in so many of its defining and key moments is dumb.

Quite simply, it's not "dumb". Space Marines are a mere million amidst untold trillions of Imperial humans, who aren't even the totality of all humanity, and are outnumbered by the untold quadrillions of Orks and Tyranids and other xenos, and the endless legions of demons. Their accomplishments are a propaganda piece pushed by the Imperium, and there are NEVER enough Marines to go around. Their victories distracting the masses of the Imperium from the fact that we live in a dark galaxy of sin, surrounded by things that want to destroy us. There is no peace amongst the stars, bought by the lives and blood spilled by Space Marines. There is no progress, and understanding, there is no technological advance, no respite and no justice. There is only war.

On the countless billions of worlds in the Milky Way rage countless billions of battles, only a fraction of a fraction being "blessed" by the presence of a Space Marine. The whims and egos of the Astartes chapters often even make them AVOID pivotal battles that would save so many of the Imperium's planets and people, for they decide that they have other priorities instead so they'll go do those rather than respond to requests for reinforcements so that they can go participate in some minor battle elsewhere for some minor selfish pursuit that benefits their chapter, instead.

For such is the state of the galaxy. Its stories go far beyond what GW is willing to provide, never mind what it is able. 40k is more than Space Marines and always has been. I was of course intentionally being provocative when I described them as a "flashy side show", but it does have some truth to it-- they're legends that most people will never get to see, after all, and legends that never participate in most battles, even battles that determine the fate of entire sectors often have not a single Marine in them.

40k is more than Space Marines. It is a vast and expansive universe. So since apparently all of 40k is dumb and irrelevant to you unless it includes Space Marines, I suggest you just don't actually like the setting.

edited by moderator

Back to the original complaint, GW has made a few select vanilla gimmicks WAY better than anything else in the book. That's one problem. SW have two units way better than anything else. DA have ravenwing, which is WAY better than greenwing or deathwing. Ironically, the BA have the best internal balance, as we can field many, many mediocre to poor lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:
To suggest that Space Marines are a flashy sideshow in a setting where they participate in so many of its defining and key moments is dumb.

Well feth you too, then.

Quite simply, it's not "dumb". Space Marines are a mere million amidst untold trillions of Imperial humans, who aren't even the totality of all humanity, and are outnumbered by the untold quadrillions of Orks and Tyranids and other xenos, and the endless legions of demons. Their accomplishments are a propaganda piece pushed by the Imperium, and there are NEVER enough Marines to go around. Their victories distracting the masses of the Imperium from the fact that we live in a dark galaxy of sin, surrounded by things that want to destroy us. There is no peace amongst the stars, bought by the lives and blood spilled by Space Marines. There is no progress, and understanding, there is no technological advance, there is no peace amongst the stars. There is only war.

On the countless billions of worlds in the Milky Way rage countless billions of battles, only a fraction of a fraction being "blessed" by the presence of a Space Marine. The whims and egos of the Astartes chapters often even make them AVOID pivotal battles that would save so many of the Imperium's planets and people, for they decide that they have other priorities instead so they'll go do those rather than respond to requests for reinforcements so that they can go participate in some minor battle elsewhere for some minor selfish pursuit that benefits their chapter, instead.

For such is the state of the galaxy. Its stories go far beyond what GW is willing to provide, never mind what it is able. 40k is more than Space Marines and always has been. I was of course intentionally being provocative when I described them as a "flashy side show", but it does have some truth to it-- they're legends that most people will never get to see, after all, and legends that never participate in most battles, even battles that determine the fate of entire sectors often have not a single Marine in them.

40k is more than Space Marines. It is a vast and expansive universe. So, Mr Nancy Pantsy Space Marine lover, since apparently all of 40k is dumb and irrelevant to you unless it includes Space Marines, I suggest you just don't actually like the setting.

I find it easier to reject GW's printed chapter strengths than reject all the battles that allegedly had space marines at them. Magically.

Martel732 wrote:
I find it easier to reject GW's printed chapter strengths than reject all the battles that allegedly had space marines at them. Magically.

I find it easier to point out that "all the battles that allegedly had Space Marines at them" is a mere fraction of a fraction of all the battles in the galaxy. But you know, you could instead just pretend I said that other thing if it makes you feel better and you want to be direspectful.

 Melissia wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I find it easier to reject GW's printed chapter strengths than reject all the battles that allegedly had space marines at them. Magically.

I find it easier to point out that "all the battles that allegedly had Space Marines at them" is a mere fraction of a fraction of all the battles in the galaxy. But you know, you could instead just pretend I said that other thing if it makes you feel better and you want to be direspectful.

I"m not being disrespectful. You read that the wrong way. I also find it absurd that marines are in so many battles at a chapter strength of 1K. Yet, they magically seems to be everywhere. All the time. Doing things by themselves. With 1K members.

One might argue that GW just doesn't bother to talk about the other battles, but even with the ones they list in the canon, it's beyond my suspension of disbelief.

Martel732 wrote:
Back to the original complaint, GW has made a few select vanilla gimmicks WAY better than anything else in the book. That's one problem. SW have two units way better than anything else. DA have ravenwing, which is WAY better than greenwing or deathwing. Ironically, the BA have the best internal balance, as we can field many, many mediocre to poor lists.

Martel, you and I have the same feeling. Even tac marines in general are bad, the only thing that makes them decent is either the Gladius spam, throwing them on bikes, or just spamming Grav after Grav.

Tac marines have poor offense/pt, and giving them more offense hurts their durability/pt considerably. That's why dire avengers are better. They aren't paying for bladestorm as far as I can tell. It's like a tac squad not paying for a plasma/combi-plas.

As others have stated, the gladius is GW admitting that base marines need a handicap to compete. The White Scar/Khan absurdity is just another unintended consequence.

Fine, sorry Martel. Previous posts post put me on edge.

 jreilly89 wrote:

But yes, it is bullying when you say "I don't want to play you because you play X army" and "I'm going to get everyone to boycott X army because I don't like it", assuming it's current edition and rules legal. If you want to play something older/modified, that's fine, but understand some people won't want to.

So it is not bullying when someone doesn't want to play with older or modified rules but is bullying when someone doesn't want to play against SMs because of the boredom factor?

Why you can't "understand that some people won't want to" play against marines all the fething time?

Would it not also be bullying to force people to play against marines?

Some people don't like to play against unpainted armies for obvious aesthetic reasons with the idea that will also encourage people to paint them. Is that bullying?

 SolarCross wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

But yes, it is bullying when you say "I don't want to play you because you play X army" and "I'm going to get everyone to boycott X army because I don't like it", assuming it's current edition and rules legal. If you want to play something older/modified, that's fine, but understand some people won't want to.

So it is not bullying when someone doesn't want to play with older or modified rules but is bullying when someone doesn't want to play against SMs because of the boredom factor?

Why you can't "understand that some people won't want to" play against marines all the fething time?

Would it not also be bullying to force people to play against marines?

Some people don't like to play against unpainted armies for obvious aesthetic reasons with the idea that will also encourage people to paint them. Is that bullying?

It's not unreasonable to expect people to play a current edition of the game because 75% of the players will have moved to the new edition. You don't want to play against SM? Fine, don't. But calling for an all out boycott on SM players is bullying, and I'd argue the same if you were trying to boycott all unpainted armies.

 Melissia wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

Melissia wrote:]Not true at all. Almost everything significant happens without Space Marines. They're quite rare.

I can't think of a single 40k campaign book since 3rd ed. that wasn't Space Marine centric

GW focuses its storytelling around things that happen to Space Marines. What many people forget, including GW itself, is that most things in the galaxy, including major crusades of trillions of people fighting each other, happen without a single Astartes.

If you define "significant" as "includes a Space Marine", then that means wars in which planets are destroyed and billions of people die and massive amounts of territory changes hands are insignificant, but a battle where a few dozen Marines destroy a few thousand Orks is. And that's dumb.

Melissa if GW focuses heavily on marines in the stories etc, use them as their postyer boy, etc. you don't have a leg to stand on in claiming they are some sort of side show to proper 40k. in the background fluff are "Orks vs Imperial guard" proably the most common fight? absolutely, but that doesn't mean it's the FOCUS

To loop back to the main post, it's easy to forget something that I have found common among nerds. We humans, as social creatures, love getting validation from other humans. It makes us feel like good, productive members of society. "God, can you believe manager Rob is such a tool?" Other co-workers laugh, we feel validated.

The same thing goes in the gaming world. We're in a social setting and that means that we will look for ways to feel validated in it. The quickest and easiest way to feel validated is to complain about something you know someone else will likely complain about, due to the fact that people love complaining and they love being validated while they complain. So if I say "oh, boy, more Space Marines! Ugh, don't you just get tired of seeing them all the time?" That is an invitation for ANYONE in the room to both complain and invite themselves for further validation. It's a circle-jerk of validation which humans love.

So combine that with the fact that we know from the internet that Space Marines are ominpresent (fluff, in-game, modelling, rules, tournament lists, etc) with the fact that people love validation circle-jerks, we have the scenario you describe. I guarantee that anyone playing Eldar, Necrons or Tau gets the same response. Even I jokingly quip "Ooph, Wraith-knight, eh? Bet you're tired of having friends" when I see someone put one on the table, after which I quickly clarify that I'm kidding. (I'm aware I really need to stop doing it)

So don't validate those people and they'll go looking for it somewhere else. Ignoring them is the easy route. A quick "yup" and focus on your game/ opponent. The more engaged they are, the harder they'll try to get validated. It's a silly instinct we humans have, but also a predictable one. The more satisfying response in my opinion is to turn the conversation from a negative one to a positive, by retorting with "Oh, man, absolutely, I bloody love Space Marines, been waiting so long to get this army on the table and ready to kick some arse." I guarantee your enthusiasm for your army, if expressed properly, will out-weigh your heckler's enthusiasm for hatred. Simply because your opponent is not expressing a truly held belief, your heckler is just fishing for social brownie-points.

Martel732 wrote:
I"m not being disrespectful. You read that the wrong way. I also find it absurd that marines are in so many battles at a chapter strength of 1K. Yet, they magically seems to be everywhere. All the time. Doing things by themselves. With 1K members.

Well we are talking about closer to 1million marines 1k size chapters and 1k chapters..

But really we are also talking about battles within a 2000/3000 year if not longer period (M39 to M42 gernerally), in a galaxy that is entirely filled with war the amount of stories out there are pretty low

One million marines is still a tiny number in a galactic level conflict. You'd lose tens of thousands on a losing front alone.

Martel732 wrote:
Tac marines have poor offense/pt, and giving them more offense hurts their durability/pt considerably. That's why dire avengers are better. They aren't paying for bladestorm as far as I can tell. It's like a tac squad not paying for a plasma/combi-plas.

As others have stated, the gladius is GW admitting that base marines need a handicap to compete. The White Scar/Khan absurdity is just another unintended consequence.

DA vs tac marine

profiles
Da 1 point less, minus 1 S minus 1 T plus 1 I plus 1 L 4+ instead of 3+

weapons
DA gun is 18 inch range assault 2 and pseudo rend as opposed to 24 inch rapid fire same, space marines get krak grenades
tac marines can take special weaposn or heavy weapons per 5. DA do not get special weapons outside of exarch and those are melee or Tl on a BS5. SM has beter melee weapon option outside the diresword, but DA can get a 5++ for unit (for 20 points)

special rules
DA get battle focus and a anti slaneesh rule, SM get ATSKNF chapter tactics, and combat squads

I might agree with you that Tac marines are not worth 14 points compared to other models, but by that same token they are at least a point better than DA (DA are really not one of the OP elder units they are just decent troops)... now if you want to talk op elder for points look at windriders and scatterlaser bikes

We were ruling those out.

I think the pseudo rending and battle focus make the DA better than tac marines.

Martel732 wrote:
One million marines is still a tiny number in a galactic level conflict. You'd lose tens of thousands on a losing front alone.

It is also why you rarely see marines go in full force even in the stories except for the most crucial battles. otherwise they are generally hitting a specific target and then getting out.

And while you can lose tens of Thousands of Guard on a losing front, that I more because they are thrown into the meat grinder, while marines will fall back if they think their position is unattainable.

The table top game is not a great representation of warfare, neither are PC games, in which marines get thrown around like candy

GodDamUser wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
One million marines is still a tiny number in a galactic level conflict. You'd lose tens of thousands on a losing front alone.

It is also why you rarely see marines go in full force even in the stories except for the most crucial battles. otherwise they are generally hitting a specific target and then getting out.

And while you can lose tens of Thousands of Guard on a losing front, that I more because they are thrown into the meat grinder, while marines will fall back if they think their position is unattainable.

The table top game is not a great representation of warfare, neither are PC games, in which marines get thrown around like candy

I understand that's how GW says it would work, but falling back doesn't always work. You can't always hit a specific target and then get out. Things go wrong. 1K strong chapters not only can't get any coverage on a planet, they can't tolerate anything going wrong, either. I think the PC games and tabletop are actually closer to what it would be like than GW's fiction.

Martel732 wrote:

I understand that's how GW says it would work, but falling back doesn't always work. You can't always hit a specific target and then get out. Things go wrong. 1K strong chapters not only can't get any coverage on a planet, they can't tolerate anything going wrong, either. I think the PC games and tabletop are actually closer to what it would be like than GW's fiction.

Well no.. for Guard maybe

But Marines are not a blunt instrument. They wouldn't attack something if they didn't have the advantage, they are not suicidal. While sometimes there are situations where they don't have the choice due to tactical importance, but normally in those cases they only send in a squad or two.

Also it is rare even in the stories where you see an entire Chapter deployed, normally at most you will see a Company.. and when they are mentioning multiple chapters being present.. you would still likely be look at a couple hundred marines

I can only think of maybe 5 Stories where an entire Chapter has taken the field (excluding Horus Herey era, but then again they are legions), and then normally they are desperate defensive hold at all cost actions in which they do take heavy losses and make it through by the skin of their teeth against superior forces

Ultimately people get mad their special snowflake army doesn't get as much attention.

Granted, Dark Angels and Blood Angels should really be rolled in the Vanilla Codex, but otherwise Space Wolves, Death Watch, and Grey Knights function super differently than regular Chapters.

GodDamUser wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I understand that's how GW says it would work, but falling back doesn't always work. You can't always hit a specific target and then get out. Things go wrong. 1K strong chapters not only can't get any coverage on a planet, they can't tolerate anything going wrong, either. I think the PC games and tabletop are actually closer to what it would be like than GW's fiction.

Well no.. for Guard maybe

But Marines are not a blunt instrument. They wouldn't attack something if they didn't have the advantage, they are not suicidal. While sometimes there are situations where they don't have the choice due to tactical importance, but normally in those cases they only send in a squad or two.

Also it is rare even in the stories where you see an entire Chapter deployed, normally at most you will see a Company.. and when they are mentioning multiple chapters being present.. you would still likely be look at a couple hundred marines

I can only think of maybe 5 Stories where an entire Chapter has taken the field (excluding Horus Herey era, but then again they are legions), and then normally they are desperate defensive hold at all cost actions in which they do take heavy losses and make it through by the skin of their teeth against superior forces

They might THINK they have the advantage, but end up not having the advantage. Those things happen. It's war. A squad or two means nothing to a planetary conflict. Logically, an entire chapter probably would make no difference at all. But that's not the fluff, I know. The fluff is wrong.

Did I really just see Eldar players whining about something not being good in their codex? You guys have literally an entire codex of good to amazing choices.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I mean, I can roll over weak marine lists and I play pure CSM.

Marines aren't like Eldar. They rely on a few broken niche units and formations to compete. Most of the Marine codex is flat out bad.

...And...Eldar don't rely on a few broken units? Try using the 80% of the book that isn't Windriders, Wraithguard/Wraithlords, War Walkers, and Warp Spiders. You may find they get knocked out of the top tier rather quickly.

The top tier these days is entirely full of bad design decisions (Summoning + Pink Horrors + DP shenanigans, Riptides, full-heavy-weapon-density jetbike squads, grav-weapons, free Razorbacks...). The vast majority of the game doesn't work that way, but since GW refuses to review decisions once made tournament lists are stocked with their errors.

Most of the Eldar codex is very good. The number of dud units is tiny (Howling banshees, storm guardians, and... that's it?) and even they got buffed.

In the top tier, you see less variety, but aforementioned CSM lists that give non-niche SM builds a smacking struggle vastly more against a balanced Eldar list.

Banshees. Storm Guardians. Rangers. Fire Dragons. Shining Spears. Vypers. Autarchs. Warlock Conclaves. Wraithblades. Falcons. An argument could be made for Guardian Defenders as well.

The issue with being the 'highly specialized army' is that units with too narrow a focus find themselves utterly pointless in all-comers lists. Fire Dragons are quite worthwhile if the other guy has a superheavy tank or a Land Raider, and are an overpriced suicide unit otherwise. Shining Spears require (quite specifically) 3+-armour units with lower than 5 Initiative.

Autarchs do quite close to nothing, Vypers are a schizoid and inefficient heavy weapon platform, Warlock Conclaves haven't figured out that they're paying the same price per model as Warlock squad leaders without the ability to generate and use a power per model, Falcons are running on the Predator problem where a Pulse Laser was enough to make it a main battle tank in 4e and the loadout has been grandfathered in despite the fact that the entire game has gotten much bigger around them, Rangers suffer from the continuous stack of nerfs that have been getting piled onto snipers every edition since 3rd, Wraithblades are slow, have no good delivery mechanism, and don't have enough attacks...

(If you compare the Vyper's weapon load to the Land Speeder's you'll get some picture of why it's a dumb unit; a Land Speeder has guns (multi-melta, heavy flamer) that benefit from being brough up close to the enemy, a Vyper is an assortment of plain ordinary long-ranged support heavy weapons that happen to have gotten stuck onto a Fast Skimmer for no good reason.)

"Shining Spears require (quite specifically) 3+-armour units with lower than 5 Initiative. "

That's what? 66% of the game?

I prefer long range weapons on skimmers. Getting close is a death sentence.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Did I really just see Eldar players whining about something not being good in their codex? You guys have literally an entire codex of good to amazing choices.

...We have a Codex that's about 1/4 grotesquely overpowered, 1/4 merely good, 1/4 okay, and 1/4 actually bad.

Internal balance in this book is terrible, despite popular opinion on the subject.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"Shining Spears require (quite specifically) 3+-armour units with lower than 5 Initiative. "

That's what? 66% of the game?

EXPENSIVE 3+ armour units with lower than 5 Initiative. Point a Shining Spear unit in the direction of most Space Marine lists and it'll have a serious challenge making its points back.

Eldar are better than that. Your bar is too high. Also, consider that every choice in the marine codex that a) has the marine stat line and b) doesn't have a gimmick is basically bad.

Martel732 wrote:
Eldar are better than that. Your bar is too high. Also, consider that every choice in the marine codex that a) has the marine stat line and b) doesn't have a gimmick is basically bad.

You're the one who claims Drop Pods and Rhinos aren't that good and spends all his time on Proposed Rules telling people that anything below S6 is basically pointless.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Did I really just see Eldar players whining about something not being good in their codex? You guys have literally an entire codex of good to amazing choices.

...We have a Codex that's about 1/4 grotesquely overpowered, 1/4 merely good, 1/4 okay, and 1/4 actually bad.

Internal balance in this book is terrible, despite popular opinion on the subject.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"Shining Spears require (quite specifically) 3+-armour units with lower than 5 Initiative. "

That's what? 66% of the game?

EXPENSIVE 3+ armour units with lower than 5 Initiative. Point a Shining Spear unit in the direction of most Space Marine lists and it'll have a serious challenge making its points back.

You mean a quarter that's grotesquely overpowered, then half of choices that are just as good or better than other codex equivalents, and then a quarter of bad units.

It's a little more complex than that. For example, bladestorm really helps out a S4 weapon. S5 on a firewarrior is great. S5 on an imperial heavy weapon? Not so great.

The units the Eldar get just work better in the 7th ed meta than what non-gimmick marines get. Same for tau.

If you can't beat non-free drop pods and non-free rhinos with xeno shooting, I can't help you. The gimmicks make the marines go, nothing else. Their baseline costing is not favorable.

Martel732 wrote:
It's a little more complex than that. For example, bladestorm really helps out a S4 weapon. S5 on a firewarrior is great. S5 on an imperial heavy weapon? Not so great.

The units the Eldar get just work better in the 7th ed meta than what non-gimmick marines get. Same for tau.

How many points, exactly, do you think you need to dump into a Guardian Defender unit to make Bladestorm remotely worthwhile?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ultimately people get mad their special snowflake army doesn't get as much attention.

Granted, Dark Angels and Blood Angels should really be rolled in the Vanilla Codex, but otherwise Space Wolves, Death Watch, and Grey Knights function super differently than regular Chapters.

Space wolves can just be another option that represents the less codex compliant descendants.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ultimately people get mad their special snowflake army doesn't get as much attention.

Granted, Dark Angels and Blood Angels should really be rolled in the Vanilla Codex, but otherwise Space Wolves, Death Watch, and Grey Knights function super differently than regular Chapters.

Space wolves can just be another option that represents the less codex compliant descendants.

You might also get Tactical Squads allowed the pistol/CCW loadout again more generally. And Cleanse and Purify from the 4e book (two special weapons instead of one special/one heavy in Tactical Squads) could come back. And power weapon/storm bolter could become the generic basic loadout for Terminators like it should be.

Are there any good codicies?

I will say Eldar have obscenely undercosted sergeant upgrades. For comparison:

Deldar pay 10pts to upgrade a regular joe into a sergeant equivalent (SEQ), what does that get you?
+1 A, +1 Ld and that is it.

Tau pay 10pts for their SEQ and they also get:
+1 A (pointless considering Tau fighting style) and +1 Ld

Eldar also pay 10pts for a SEQ upgrade but they get:
+1WS, +1BS, +1W, +1I, +1A !!!!!!!!!

That is pretty sick.

Eldar, can we swap codexes?

 master of ordinance wrote:
Eldar, can we swap codexes?

There's a difference between "my Codex is strong" and "the s*** units in my Codex are strong". And if you really want to start an Eldar army nobody's stopping you.

(The party line among Space Marine players seems to be "the Eldar do all things better than everyone else, in that I've defined 'all things' to be things Eldar do and 'things that don't matter' to be things Space Marines do".)

Let's be real here. The close combat stats on a tac marine don't help them at all. The special rules for the Eldar S4 gun is FAR more useful. The ONLY thing the marine has is a 3+ vs a 4+. T4 is still kinda nice, but we are in the era of T4 being wounded on a 2+ constantly.

Just putting a couple reliable wounds on an MC (even 2+ MCs!) without having to buy expensive guns like plasma makes them a much more meta relevant troop.

Yes, bladestorm does nothing to vehicles. But 7th ed has made sure that non-free vehicles are mostly bad, so you don't need the help there.

Also, I'm not talking guardians. I'm talking about dire avengers. With dire avengers, there's no reason to ever take the guardians. Although BS 4 guardians do bring a lot more pain than tac marines on a per point basis once you get them in range.

Martel732 wrote:
Let's be real here. The close combat stats on a tac marine don't help them at all. The special rules for the Eldar S4 gun is FAR more useful. The ONLY thing the marine has is a 3+ vs a 4+. T4 is still kinda nice, but we are in the era of T4 being wounded on a 2+ constantly.

Just putting a couple reliable wounds on an MC (even 2+ MCs!) without having to buy expensive guns like plasma makes them a much more meta relevant troop.

Yes, bladestorm does nothing to vehicles. But 7th ed has made sure that non-free vehicles are mostly bad, so you don't need the help there.

Also, I'm not talking guardians. I'm talking about dire avengers. With dire avengers, there's no reason to ever take the guardians. Although BS 4 guardians do bring a lot more pain than tac marines on a per point basis once you get them in range.

Problem bolded for emphasis. How many of your 12pt T3/4+ models are going to get in 18" range to 'get a couple of reliable wounds' on an MC? Three? Four?

The supposed efficiency of Bladestorm is utterly killed by the fact that you need a 110pt transport to make any use of it.

First, it's a damn nice transport that is very capable of finishing off said MC.

Secondly, I constantly use 11 pt models with a 4+ on foot that have to get EVEN closer to the enemy. At least DA can stay much further away from the dreaded heavy flamer.

morgoth wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:
Marines are a meh army without slowed gimmicks.

Once you ignore bike stars, lib conclaves, bikes of all sorts and, gladius' then its meh, hardly top tier.

Eldar are top tier because literally everything is good, theres like what, two, maybe three units that are meh, nothing that is plain bad.

Tau are sorta monobuild, in the same way marines are. You aren't gonna win spamming firewarriors and pathfinders + tanks

I think you should try Eldar, every unit in the codex, before saying something like that.
Interestingly enough, every person who has done that knows that Eldar have units that are worse than firewarriors in devilfishes.

I think that most of my experience with eldar comes from Ynari, so I might be a bit biased in saying that wraithblades aren't bad with Yvraine and the Visarch tanking for them.

spears were a decent countercharge unit in the one proxy game I played them in, but yeah I'll agree that wraithlords, banshees, and rangers all bad, but there are so many worse units in the game.

Oh and fire prisms are not the best, but definitely far from the worst tank in the game.

 Melissia wrote:

 Quinzy wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
I don't see my two solutions as bullying but as feedback.

Excluding people until they spend money on a new army is just 'feedback' and not bullying?

You mean like what happens every time there's a new codex that excludes options you previously used and makes your army build non-viable? Is GW bullying when that happens, and are people bullying whenever they refuse to play against the old army list that is no longer legal in the current rules?

I find it downright funny that it's considered "bullying" to say "screw it, I'm in it to win".

An army not supported by an edition change is not the same as categorically refusing to play anyone using an army because of your boredom. If you cannot see the difference then I don't know what more I can say.
A games company not updating a product is not the same as someone, in person, organising a group boycott of other players simply because of boredom. If you cannot see the difference then I don't know what more I can say.
Exclusion is bullying. Building an army list for tournament play is not what we're talking about. What is being talked about is active and categorical exclusion of players based on army choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

Melissia wrote:]Not true at all. Almost everything significant happens without Space Marines. They're quite rare.

I can't think of a single 40k campaign book since 3rd ed. that wasn't Space Marine centric

GW focuses its storytelling around things that happen to Space Marines. What many people forget, including GW itself, is that most things in the galaxy, including major crusades of trillions of people fighting each other, happen without a single Astartes.

If you define "significant" as "includes a Space Marine", then that means wars in which planets are destroyed and billions of people die and massive amounts of territory changes hands are insignificant, but a battle where a few dozen Marines destroy a few thousand Orks is. And that's dumb.

Melissa if GW focuses heavily on marines in the stories etc, use them as their postyer boy, etc. you don't have a leg to stand on in claiming they are some sort of side show to proper 40k. in the background fluff are "Orks vs Imperial guard" proably the most common fight? absolutely, but that doesn't mean it's the FOCUS

Melissia has shown multiple times the inability to distinguish between something being common in the background lore versus what is actively pushed by the company who owns the lore. I'm sure for Melissia, vampires aren't the focus of the Vampire LARP because there are more normal humans than vampires in the setting background.

Martel732 wrote:
First, it's a damn nice transport that is very capable of finishing off said MC.

Secondly, I constantly use 11 pt models with a 4+ on foot that have to get EVEN closer to the enemy. At least DA can stay much further away from the dreaded heavy flamer.

If you're talking about Scouts they've got this thing called Infiltrate that lets them shortcut a reasonable chunk of table that Dire Avengers need to walk across.

And I don't know where you're getting your ideas about the Wave Serpent. Your glorious miracle MC-killing 228-pt twelve Guardian Defenders in a Wave Serpent with an extra shuriken cannon is going to deal (between the 30+d6 attacks you're rolling) a grand total of one Wound to a Riptide, by my math, in the exceedingly unlikely edge case where the Wave Serpent has made it that far without Jinking and is still otherwise intact. Two, if the Riptide hasn't overcharged its Ion Shield.

Yes, it has better price-performance against Riptides than assault-cannon Land Speeders (though the 325pts of assault-cannon Land Speeders it takes to equal that unit's performance do have 3x the hull points, twice the range, and don't die immediately after firing, so it may be a fairer trade-off than it sounds), but that doesn't make twelve Guardian Defenders in a Wave Serpent any good at killing Monstrous Creatures.

How about this comparison:

Vehicles dying too quick? No problem there are vehicle upgrades for that!

Imperial Guard can pay 15pts for camo netting to give their vehicle a cover save stronger by 1 point so 6+ in the open.

Tau can pay 15pts for disruption pods with do exactly the same thing as guard camo-nets.

Eldar can pay 15pts for holo-fields which give a 5++...

Does anyone think a 5++ is not loads better than a 6+ cover save?

 SolarCross wrote:
How about this comparison:

Vehicles dying too quick? No problem there are vehicle upgrades for that!

Imperial Guard can pay 15pts for camo netting to give their vehicle a cover save stronger by 1 point so 6+ in the open.

Tau can pay 15pts for disruption pods with do exactly the same thing as guard camo-nets.

Eldar can pay 15pts for holo-fields which give a 5++...

Does anyone think a 5++ is not loads better than a 6+ cover save?

Does anyone think the ability to sit behind an ADL for a 3+ cover save is not loads better than a 5++?

How about the ability to have higher than AV12? Or low-AP Blast weapons? Fire points?

Dark Eldar get to spend 15pts for a 5++ on their vehicles too, why are you not arguing that we need to rethink our estimates of that Codex?

..Did we just hit the point where Eldar vehicles are now being said to be worse then Imperial Guards?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
..Did we just hit the point where Eldar vehicles are now being said to be worse then Imperial Guards?

No, we're still in the middle of running around in circles waving our arms above our heads screaming about how all the stuff the Eldar do is better because it's stuff the Eldar do.

I thought I was pointing out that Holofields are worse than Camo-Netting, not that all Eldar vehicles are worse than all Guard vehicles.

Camo nets also stack with actual cover.

Ninja'd. That said I still think 5++ is better.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
How about this comparison:

Vehicles dying too quick? No problem there are vehicle upgrades for that!

Imperial Guard can pay 15pts for camo netting to give their vehicle a cover save stronger by 1 point so 6+ in the open.

Tau can pay 15pts for disruption pods with do exactly the same thing as guard camo-nets.

Eldar can pay 15pts for holo-fields which give a 5++...

Does anyone think a 5++ is not loads better than a 6+ cover save?

Does anyone think the ability to sit behind an ADL for a 3+ cover save is not loads better than a 5++?

How about the ability to have higher than AV12? Or low-AP Blast weapons? Fire points?

Dark Eldar get to spend 15pts for a 5++ on their vehicles too, why are you not arguing that we need to rethink our estimates of that Codex?

Sadly DE can't buy holofields anymore, it just comes base on venoms

I still gotta agree AnomanderRake

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
How about this comparison:

Vehicles dying too quick? No problem there are vehicle upgrades for that!

Imperial Guard can pay 15pts for camo netting to give their vehicle a cover save stronger by 1 point so 6+ in the open.

Tau can pay 15pts for disruption pods with do exactly the same thing as guard camo-nets.

Eldar can pay 15pts for holo-fields which give a 5++...

Does anyone think a 5++ is not loads better than a 6+ cover save?

Does anyone think the ability to sit behind an ADL for a 3+ cover save is not loads better than a 5++?

How about the ability to have higher than AV12? Or low-AP Blast weapons? Fire points?

Dark Eldar get to spend 15pts for a 5++ on their vehicles too, why are you not arguing that we need to rethink our estimates of that Codex?

ADLs cost extra and not much use to vehicles that need to move. There are a lot of ways to ignore cover but almost nothing ignores invulns (lucky hit with D is about it I think).

Dark Eldar can buy Night Shields for 15pts but they just give Stealth making them basically the same as camo-nets and disruption pods. The flickerfield which gives a 5++ is only available on the Venom and is bundled into its cost so it's pretty hard to say how much they are paying for it but it could be 15pts since the 55pt venom is otherwise pretty similar to a Vyper at 40pts. So that is a fair point.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
First, it's a damn nice transport that is very capable of finishing off said MC.

Secondly, I constantly use 11 pt models with a 4+ on foot that have to get EVEN closer to the enemy. At least DA can stay much further away from the dreaded heavy flamer.

If you're talking about Scouts they've got this thing called Infiltrate that lets them shortcut a reasonable chunk of table that Dire Avengers need to walk across.

And I don't know where you're getting your ideas about the Wave Serpent. Your glorious miracle MC-killing 228-pt twelve Guardian Defenders in a Wave Serpent with an extra shuriken cannon is going to deal (between the 30+d6 attacks you're rolling) a grand total of one Wound to a Riptide, by my math, in the exceedingly unlikely edge case where the Wave Serpent has made it that far without Jinking and is still otherwise intact. Two, if the Riptide hasn't overcharged its Ion Shield.

Yes, it has better price-performance against Riptides than assault-cannon Land Speeders (though the 325pts of assault-cannon Land Speeders it takes to equal that unit's performance do have 3x the hull points, twice the range, and don't die immediately after firing, so it may be a fairer trade-off than it sounds), but that doesn't make twelve Guardian Defenders in a Wave Serpent any good at killing Monstrous Creatures.

I'm talking about the T6 3+ variety. Almost nothing in the game is good at killing stimtides. Not grav. Not even D if they nova their shield. That's why I hate them so much. But against say DKs, or Tyranids, who can't make your serpent jink, it's significant. There's also a thing called a starcannon. I know Eldar are spoiled by D to the point that they don't normally consider taking actual AP2, but I'd actually kill for the starcannon on BA vehicles.

Scouts can't really do anything important till turn 2 because of infiltrate. I'm willing to be that DA can get within firing range of something by turn 2 in most games. They've got an average turn 2 threat range of at least 31".

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
First, it's a damn nice transport that is very capable of finishing off said MC.

Secondly, I constantly use 11 pt models with a 4+ on foot that have to get EVEN closer to the enemy. At least DA can stay much further away from the dreaded heavy flamer.

If you're talking about Scouts they've got this thing called Infiltrate that lets them shortcut a reasonable chunk of table that Dire Avengers need to walk across.

And I don't know where you're getting your ideas about the Wave Serpent. Your glorious miracle MC-killing 228-pt twelve Guardian Defenders in a Wave Serpent with an extra shuriken cannon is going to deal (between the 30+d6 attacks you're rolling) a grand total of one Wound to a Riptide, by my math, in the exceedingly unlikely edge case where the Wave Serpent has made it that far without Jinking and is still otherwise intact. Two, if the Riptide hasn't overcharged its Ion Shield.

Yes, it has better price-performance against Riptides than assault-cannon Land Speeders (though the 325pts of assault-cannon Land Speeders it takes to equal that unit's performance do have 3x the hull points, twice the range, and don't die immediately after firing, so it may be a fairer trade-off than it sounds), but that doesn't make twelve Guardian Defenders in a Wave Serpent any good at killing Monstrous Creatures.

I'm talking about the T6 3+ variety. Almost nothing in the game is good at killing stimtides. Not grav. Not even D if they nova their shield. That's why I hate them so much. But against say DKs, or Tyranids, who can't make your serpent jink, it's significant. There's also a thing called a starcannon. I know Eldar are spoiled by D to the point that they don't normally consider taking actual AP2, but I'd actually kill for the starcannon on BA vehicles.

Scouts can't really do anything important till turn 2 because of infiltrate. I'm willing to be that DA can get within firing range of something by turn 2 in most games. They've got an average turn 2 threat range of at least 31".

Which T6/3+ MCs? The flying ones, the sub-100pt ones, or the melee ones with 2+ Jink?

It doesn't matter. They still cause way more damage than a tactical squad.

Which goes back to the original point of base marine units being rather poor in the scheme of things. How good Eldar units actually are or aren't isn't that important to the overall point. There's still firewarriors and necron warriors, etc. Marine tanks are not really good, and any unit with the marine statline is not that good, either.

Martel732 wrote:
It doesn't matter. They still cause way more damage than a tactical squad.

Do they though..

having 10 standard marines standing across from 10 guardians 12' away from each other.. I could see the maries winning

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Let's be real here. The close combat stats on a tac marine don't help them at all. The special rules for the Eldar S4 gun is FAR more useful. The ONLY thing the marine has is a 3+ vs a 4+. T4 is still kinda nice, but we are in the era of T4 being wounded on a 2+ constantly.

Just putting a couple reliable wounds on an MC (even 2+ MCs!) without having to buy expensive guns like plasma makes them a much more meta relevant troop.

Yes, bladestorm does nothing to vehicles. But 7th ed has made sure that non-free vehicles are mostly bad, so you don't need the help there.

Also, I'm not talking guardians. I'm talking about dire avengers. With dire avengers, there's no reason to ever take the guardians. Although BS 4 guardians do bring a lot more pain than tac marines on a per point basis once you get them in range.

Problem bolded for emphasis. How many of your 12pt T3/4+ models are going to get in 18" range to 'get a couple of reliable wounds' on an MC? Three? Four?

The supposed efficiency of Bladestorm is utterly killed by the fact that you need a 110pt transport to make any use of it.

Oh yeah, you and your poor Wave Serpents, which are one of the most durable transports in the game for the points, on top of you already being able to run and shoot...

Eldar hate is way too strong in this thread.

Remember the part about bullying?

That's what I see here.

morgoth wrote:
Eldar hate is way too strong in this thread.

Remember the part about bullying?

That's what I see here.

Regardless of that the eldar "hate" is off-topic as this thread is about SM stigma rather than Eldar stigma. It isn't even the same kind of stigma, people have problems with Eldar for being strong cheese whereas people have problems with SMs because they are spam, (although they do have some cheese of their own to be fair).

 SolarCross wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Eldar hate is way too strong in this thread.

Remember the part about bullying?

That's what I see here.

Regardless of that the eldar "hate" is off-topic as this thread is about SM stigma rather than Eldar stigma. It isn't even the same kind of stigma, people have problems with Eldar for being strong cheese whereas people have problems with SMs because they are spam, (although they do have some cheese of their own to be fair).

The Space Marines have the cheesiest cheese of all with electro displacement deathstars and bs conclaves.
The only difference is that with all the SM players whining about Eldar and being 10x more numerous and being oblivious of their own OP gak, the echo chamber is mostly Eldar hate and SM denial.
That's how you end up with nonsense like "a drop pod for 35 points is not better than a wave serpent for 110 points" - which every good player knows to be absolutely wrong since codex craftworlds.

The problem people have in this thread with Space Marines is that SM are everywhere and boring by nature, boring by omnipresence on top.

And the problem we have on these forums, is that SM are everywhere and vehemently defending how everything good and not SM is disgustingly OP while pretending that SM is nowhere that good.


What's for dinner today? Space Marines.


So in a way, this is entirely on-topic: there are way too many space marines players and it isn't always a good thing.

Melissia wrote:40k is more than Space Marines. It is a vast and expansive universe. So since apparently all of 40k is dumb and irrelevant to you unless it includes Space Marines, I suggest you just don't actually like the setting.

Acknowledging the emphasis GW places on Space Marines is not the same as liking it. Acknowledging that GW places them at the center or heavily involves them in nearly every major narrative event or campaign is not the same as me having a disregard for other aspects of the 40k universe. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Quinzy wrote:
Melissia has shown multiple times the inability to distinguish between something being common in the background lore versus what is actively pushed by the company who owns the lore. I'm sure for Melissia, vampires aren't the focus of the Vampire LARP because there are more normal humans than vampires in the setting background.

An illustrative example might be the Avengers, who aren't involved in the every single thing in the Marvel universe, and are tiny fraction of Earth's population, nevermind the galaxy -- yet they remain an important and defining element of that setting. Plenty of people enjoy Marvel comics and characters that have very little to do with the Avengers, but there's no denying their importance to the setting.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Space wolves can just be another option that represents the less codex compliant descendants.

This is a complete aside, but I recall a few Iron Hands players using the Space Wolves book (during 5th ed iirc) because it actually presented their lore a bit better on the table. Always thought that was hilariously odd.

morgoth wrote:
The problem people have in this thread with Space Marines is that SM are everywhere and boring by nature, boring by omnipresence on top.

And the problem we have on these forums, is that SM are everywhere and vehemently defending how everything good and not SM is disgustingly OP while pretending that SM is nowhere that good.

What's for dinner today? Space Marines.

So in a way, this is entirely on-topic: there are way too many space marines players and it isn't always a good thing.

Rock is imbalanced according to Scissors

For as long as I've been in the hobby, which is nearly 18 years at this point, there have always been too many Space Marine players and I don't ever see it fully going away. Probably a symptom of Space Marines being the posterboys and being in every starter box (though longer term players might appreciate their consistent rules and hobby versatility). Getting a powerful codex does wonders for boosting a faction's numbers, I've noticed a lot more Tau and Eldar players recently, but positive examples in the community can a little too. I played Orks for the better part of 3rd ed. simply because there was a local Ork player who had a beautiful army and always had a raucously good time playing. But at the end of the day, everyone can play Space Marines if they like, it's their hobby too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Let's be real here. The close combat stats on a tac marine don't help them at all. The special rules for the Eldar S4 gun is FAR more useful. The ONLY thing the marine has is a 3+ vs a 4+. T4 is still kinda nice, but we are in the era of T4 being wounded on a 2+ constantly.

Just putting a couple reliable wounds on an MC (even 2+ MCs!) without having to buy expensive guns like plasma makes them a much more meta relevant troop.

Yes, bladestorm does nothing to vehicles. But 7th ed has made sure that non-free vehicles are mostly bad, so you don't need the help there.

Also, I'm not talking guardians. I'm talking about dire avengers. With dire avengers, there's no reason to ever take the guardians. Although BS 4 guardians do bring a lot more pain than tac marines on a per point basis once you get them in range.

Problem bolded for emphasis. How many of your 12pt T3/4+ models are going to get in 18" range to 'get a couple of reliable wounds' on an MC? Three? Four?

The supposed efficiency of Bladestorm is utterly killed by the fact that you need a 110pt transport to make any use of it.

Oh yeah, you and your poor Wave Serpents, which are one of the most durable transports in the game for the points, on top of you already being able to run and shoot...

Let me try and rephrase that.

Would you take a suicide-melta squad if Drop Pods cost 110pts?

(Wave Serpents are pretty good (they're in the 1/4 of the Codex that is merely good rather than grotesquely OP), but trying to claim they're good because they enable suicide-Bladestorm-rushes is dumb.)

Martel732 wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I understand that's how GW says it would work, but falling back doesn't always work. You can't always hit a specific target and then get out. Things go wrong. 1K strong chapters not only can't get any coverage on a planet, they can't tolerate anything going wrong, either. I think the PC games and tabletop are actually closer to what it would be like than GW's fiction.

Well no.. for Guard maybe

But Marines are not a blunt instrument. They wouldn't attack something if they didn't have the advantage, they are not suicidal. While sometimes there are situations where they don't have the choice due to tactical importance, but normally in those cases they only send in a squad or two.

Also it is rare even in the stories where you see an entire Chapter deployed, normally at most you will see a Company.. and when they are mentioning multiple chapters being present.. you would still likely be look at a couple hundred marines

I can only think of maybe 5 Stories where an entire Chapter has taken the field (excluding Horus Herey era, but then again they are legions), and then normally they are desperate defensive hold at all cost actions in which they do take heavy losses and make it through by the skin of their teeth against superior forces

They might THINK they have the advantage, but end up not having the advantage. Those things happen. It's war. A squad or two means nothing to a planetary conflict. Logically, an entire chapter probably would make no difference at all. But that's not the fluff, I know. The fluff is wrong.

well logically [in the fluff since this is all fictional, and makes no sense to compare to real life in any way], when you have super human warriors, who heal like wolverine [almost] can fight without stopping for months at a time, have special organs and other biological upgrades that make them stronger, faster than master chief in halo, who can survive in the vacuum of space unprotected for x amount of time, are immortal and are all geniuses AND on top of that, they wear armour that is resistant to most weapons, and further enhances their speed, endurance and strength, it makes sense that just a 100 marines could take a planet over with the support of the Guard - Guard holds the ground/provides bodies and the marines take out HVT's. In the fluff the are so many instances of marines literally wading through enemies like they are just strolling through the surf at the beach. I just read a short story about 30 marines dropping onto a [human] planet that had been corrupted by chaos and them, plus the remaining Guard regiment, managed to hold back the entire planet for 6 months before the marines evacuated. [10 million men verses like 10,000 + 30] they lost all the Guard and half their number, but killed millions in return.

Also fictional fluff cant be wrong, because its not real. its not supposed to make "logical" sense. Thats like saying Harry potter cant be magic because magic isnt real and therefore JK is a liar........

 FEARtheMoose wrote:
...well logically [in the fluff since this is all fictional, and makes no sense to compare to real life in any way], when you have super human warriors, who heal like wolverine [almost] can fight without stopping for months at a time, have special organs and other biological upgrades that make them stronger, faster than master chief in halo, who can survive in the vacuum of space unprotected for x amount of time, are immortal and are all geniuses AND on top of that, they wear armour that is resistant to most weapons, and further enhances their speed, endurance and strength, it makes sense that just a 100 marines could take a planet over with the support of the Guard - Guard holds the ground/provides bodies and the marines take out HVT's. In the fluff the are so many instances of marines literally wading through enemies like they are just strolling through the surf at the beach. I just read a short story about 30 marines dropping onto a [human] planet that had been corrupted by chaos and them, plus the remaining Guard regiment, managed to hold back the entire planet for 6 months before the marines evacuated. [10 million men verses like 10,000 + 30] they lost all the Guard and half their number, but killed millions in return.

Also fictional fluff cant be wrong, because its not real. its not supposed to make "logical" sense. Thats like saying Harry potter cant be magic because magic isnt real and therefore JK is a liar........

Follow-up to this point (and trying to make logical sense of it, yes) consider that a 'planet' in 40k doesn't always mean 'a Hive World with a population of ten billion people', it might be 'a mining outpost with a population of five million people, three million of whom are servitors', and 'conquering the planet' could just mean 'taking over the spaceport and leaving a Guard occupation force to establish a PDF and beat any remaining resistance into submission while most of the Guardsmen and the Space Marines bugger off back to space'.

Consider also that in stories where Marines win glorious victory killing millions of enemies the millions of enemies are too poor to have even flak armour and lasguns. We're talking armies of Chaos Cultists on the 1942 Red Army logistics plan ("one man drops the rifle, the other man picks it up!") or using crossbows.

Then why aren't ba drop pods good? If pods are op for 35 pts. Pods are quite often a 35 pt suicide machine. A wave serpent gives you way more tactical options.

Electrodisplacement as the biggest cheese? Please. You have to roll the power ( which loth can't take btw) and then cast it and then not be denied. And against cheese eldar lists if 's a one way ticket to CC with a wk.

Again let me repeat that i'm talking about gimmickless marines. And that's definitely a gimmick.

Martel732 wrote:
Then why aren't ba drop pods good? If pods are op for 35 pts. Pods are quite often a 35 pt suicide machine. A wave serpent gives you way more tactical options.

Electrodisplacement as the biggest cheese? Please. You have to roll the power ( which loth can't take btw) and then cast it and then not be denied. And against cheese eldar lists if 's a one way ticket to CC with a wk.

Again let me repeat that i'm talking about gimmickless marines. And that's definitely a gimmick.

Drop Pods are very good. You just don't like them.

(They may also be part of the reason the rest of your army is less good. Giving Eldar short-range D-weapons on Wraithguard is slightly balanced out by the expensiveness of the delivery mechanism (and by the relative ease of doing something about it), if they gave Space Marines infantry D-weapons the ability to plop them with zero risk anywhere on the table on turn one would make them horrendous and absurd.)

 FEARtheMoose wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I understand that's how GW says it would work, but falling back doesn't always work. You can't always hit a specific target and then get out. Things go wrong. 1K strong chapters not only can't get any coverage on a planet, they can't tolerate anything going wrong, either. I think the PC games and tabletop are actually closer to what it would be like than GW's fiction.

Well no.. for Guard maybe

But Marines are not a blunt instrument. They wouldn't attack something if they didn't have the advantage, they are not suicidal. While sometimes there are situations where they don't have the choice due to tactical importance, but normally in those cases they only send in a squad or two.

Also it is rare even in the stories where you see an entire Chapter deployed, normally at most you will see a Company.. and when they are mentioning multiple chapters being present.. you would still likely be look at a couple hundred marines

I can only think of maybe 5 Stories where an entire Chapter has taken the field (excluding Horus Herey era, but then again they are legions), and then normally they are desperate defensive hold at all cost actions in which they do take heavy losses and make it through by the skin of their teeth against superior forces

They might THINK they have the advantage, but end up not having the advantage. Those things happen. It's war. A squad or two means nothing to a planetary conflict. Logically, an entire chapter probably would make no difference at all. But that's not the fluff, I know. The fluff is wrong.

well logically [in the fluff since this is all fictional, and makes no sense to compare to real life in any way], when you have super human warriors, who heal like wolverine [almost] can fight without stopping for months at a time, have special organs and other biological upgrades that make them stronger, faster than master chief in halo, who can survive in the vacuum of space unprotected for x amount of time, are immortal and are all geniuses AND on top of that, they wear armour that is resistant to most weapons, and further enhances their speed, endurance and strength, it makes sense that just a 100 marines could take a planet over with the support of the Guard - Guard holds the ground/provides bodies and the marines take out HVT's. In the fluff the are so many instances of marines literally wading through enemies like they are just strolling through the surf at the beach. I just read a short story about 30 marines dropping onto a [human] planet that had been corrupted by chaos and them, plus the remaining Guard regiment, managed to hold back the entire planet for 6 months before the marines evacuated. [10 million men verses like 10,000 + 30] they lost all the Guard and half their number, but killed millions in return.

Also fictional fluff cant be wrong, because its not real. its not supposed to make "logical" sense. Thats like saying Harry potter cant be magic because magic isnt real and therefore JK is a liar........

Then there's nothing to discuss. Let's just leave it at i reject the fluff and im glad the crunch basically has nothing to do with it. Tac marines don't wade through anything and that's the tabletop reality that actually matters to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Then why aren't ba drop pods good? If pods are op for 35 pts. Pods are quite often a 35 pt suicide machine. A wave serpent gives you way more tactical options.

Electrodisplacement as the biggest cheese? Please. You have to roll the power ( which loth can't take btw) and then cast it and then not be denied. And against cheese eldar lists if 's a one way ticket to CC with a wk.

Again let me repeat that i'm talking about gimmickless marines. And that's definitely a gimmick.

Drop Pods are very good. You just don't like them.

(They may also be part of the reason the rest of your army is less good. Giving Eldar short-range D-weapons on Wraithguard is slightly balanced out by the expensiveness of the delivery mechanism (and by the relative ease of doing something about it), if they gave Space Marines infantry D-weapons the ability to plop them with zero risk anywhere on the table on turn one would make them horrendous and absurd.)

I don't like them for a reason. I'm not stupid. And you are giving gw way too much credit when skyhammer exists. Drop pods, like every marine unit, needs a special snowflake gimmick to compete with an eldar cad.

Come play a pod based ba list and see how well you do vs eldar. You know you are dropping into a slaughter so if course you wouldn't do that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
Eldar hate is way too strong in this thread.

Remember the part about bullying?

That's what I see here.

Very sick of losing to them because gw says so.

Martel732 wrote:
...I don't like them for a reason. I'm not stupid. And you are giving gw way too much credit when skyhammer exists. Drop pods, like every marine unit, needs a special snowflake gimmick to compete with an eldar cad.

Come play a pod based ba list and see how well you do vs eldar. You know you are dropping into a slaughter so if course you wouldn't do that...

Don't be so sure. I'll build a pod-based BA list and you'll build an Eldar list using the bottom 50% of the Codex (I'll provide you the list of units), we'll meet on Vassal, see what happens?

 kingbobbito wrote:

 Kain wrote:
The Necrons also got a similar treatment. After they got a solid codex after years of languishing in the bottom tiers they suddenly exploded in terms of in-universe prominence and in the number of goodies they got to themselves. And so they continued to receive more care and attention while they were on top of the heap only to once again seemingly fall out of GW's favor when 7e's extreme power creep cycle pushed even the "what even is dying anyway?" silliness of the Necron decurions to the merely good tiers instead of the god tiers.

So I need to patiently wait for them to make all lasguns hotshot and let vet squads take 5 free special weapons apiece before they show us some love? Honestly all I want is an upgrade sprue with 3 meltas and plasmas on it.

I'm trying not to be a jackass here.... but you do know you can get those in packs of 5? Ok they're metal but they're easily avaliable. Simply file to size or chop the SM hand off and use the balancing army from the grenade launcher/flamer and you have you melta's + plasma's right there.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:

 Kain wrote:
The Necrons also got a similar treatment. After they got a solid codex after years of languishing in the bottom tiers they suddenly exploded in terms of in-universe prominence and in the number of goodies they got to themselves. And so they continued to receive more care and attention while they were on top of the heap only to once again seemingly fall out of GW's favor when 7e's extreme power creep cycle pushed even the "what even is dying anyway?" silliness of the Necron decurions to the merely good tiers instead of the god tiers.

So I need to patiently wait for them to make all lasguns hotshot and let vet squads take 5 free special weapons apiece before they show us some love? Honestly all I want is an upgrade sprue with 3 meltas and plasmas on it.

I'm trying not to be a jackass here.... but you do know you can get those in packs of 5? Ok they're metal but they're easily avaliable. Simply file to size or chop the SM hand off and use the balancing army from the grenade launcher/flamer and you have you melta's + plasma's right there.

Just as good if not better, you can get nice melta and plasma proxies from a lot of other mini manufacturers. Kromlech in particular have nice plasmas and meltas ("magma rifles").





They are resin too so easier to cut than GW's ancient metals.

Honest to the Emperor, if you get this much hate for playing the longest running, Highest appealing army, then you play with a bunch of crybabies. My war convocation is all but undefeated against space marines, and I forget to do my special once per turn stuff 75% of the time. Space marines are omnigood, and get the attention that fits the biggest sellers. I play Death Korps, people whine all goddamn day about 9 thudd guns, doesn't mean I'm going to stop playing them when the one guy I play against runs bel'akor and a Lord of Skulls. Ask yourself how much fun I have against invisible D weapons when I'm a pieplate throwing army.