I know this is going to sound overly negative, and I don't want it to be. I want everyone to play with their specially made models, and the idea of the supplements are fantastic. However, I think it's fair to say now that we have a decent amount of data that the new books are fairly overpowered. Even if Games Workshop release supplement style books at the same level for every faction (which, honestly, I wouldn't even entertain atm), the power level shown would be very unhealthy for the game as a whole. I also think the reason why the new Psychic Awakening books have been getting a lacklustre response from players is because the players are comparing it to the Space Marine supplements. I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks about this though.
Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"
Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.
I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.
Darsath wrote: I don't think the response would be as widespread as it seems to be if there wasn't something recent to compare it to.
I think the enhanced Chapter Traits and custom traits, new strats, WL traits, points reductions, new relics, all good, even necessary to a certain extent.
Doctrines in general, and the Super Doctrine buffs specifically were just way over the top.
The Space Marine supplements, and the codex, are obnoxious primarily because they add rules upon rules upon rules. They're bad, clumsy game design that force you to reference multiple sources to figure out what your army can do. Some degree of customization is desirable, but it should be limited to the army-wide trait and maybe an extra warlord trait or what have you; you shouldn't have to remember more than a couple of rules for your particular sub-faction.
(This is exacerbated by rules changes and errata being in different places, thereby more than doubling the number of documents you need to reference.)
Balance-wise, the new Marine rules seem to be a bit on the strong side but mostly balanced. There are, of course, some broken interactions, but as you heap rule upon rule upon rule it becomes increasingly likely that some of them are going to be broken, simply because it is very difficult for playtesters to predict all of the possible combinations.
What really vexes me is that most of the new rules increase the codex's killing power, when the last thing 40K needs is more offense. Offense needs to curtailed, sharply, and defensive states like saves and wounds need to be adjusted to the paradigm of the new rules so you don't remove half your army on turn one and the other half on turn two.
So I don't think the new Space Marine rules are inherently broken in the current context of 8th edition, but they do push every bad trend in the wrong direction.
Saber wrote: The Space Marine supplements, and the codex, are obnoxious primarily because they add rules upon rules upon rules. They're bad, clumsy game design that force you to reference multiple sources to figure out what your army can do. Some degree of customization is desirable, but it should be limited to the army-wide trait and maybe an extra warlord trait or what have you; you shouldn't have to remember more than a couple of rules for your particular sub-faction.
(This is exacerbated by rules changes and errata being in different places, thereby more than doubling the number of documents you need to reference.)
Balance-wise, the new Marine rules seem to be a bit on the strong side but mostly balanced. There are, of course, some broken interactions, but as you heap rule upon rule upon rule it becomes increasingly likely that some of them are going to be broken, simply because it is very difficult for playtesters to predict all of the possible combinations.
What really vexes me is that most of the new rules increase the codex's killing power, when the last thing 40K needs is more offense. Offense needs to curtailed, sharply, and defensive states like saves and wounds need to be adjusted to the paradigm of the new rules so you don't remove half your army on turn one and the other half on turn two.
So I don't think the new Space Marine rules are inherently broken in the current context of 8th edition, but they do push every bad trend in the wrong direction.
I would like to counter a point you made here, on that Space Marines are, in fact, in a balanced state. Statistically, Space Marines have an absurd win rate (somewhere in the 70+% bracket) and perform way above other factions at events. This is what I'm basing my statements on.
Darsath wrote: I would like to counter a point you made here, on that Space Marines are, in fact, in a balanced state. Statistically, Space Marines have an absurd win rate (somewhere in the 70+% bracket) and perform way above other factions at events. This is what I'm basing my statements on.
Minor point of pedantry but the win rate is down to a little over 60%, still pretty absurd though.
Darsath wrote: I would like to counter a point you made here, on that Space Marines are, in fact, in a balanced state. Statistically, Space Marines have an absurd win rate (somewhere in the 70+% bracket) and perform way above other factions at events. This is what I'm basing my statements on.
Minor point of pedantry but the win rate is down to a little over 60%, still pretty absurd though.
My statistic isn't just ITC. It's an average, since I wanted a larger data set.
You simply can't take a relatively balanced and decently powerful book like marine 2.0 and then tag on absurdly powerful universal buffs to them for no cost.
Marine vehicles were not costed to flat out ignore move and shoot penalties and have built-in captain reroll aka IH
Assault cents were not costed to flat out ignore their awful movement stat aka WS and RG
Dev cents were not costed to have damage 2 heavy bolters aka IF
There's a lot of problems involved with scaling as well.
When you have 1250pts on the boards and 4-6 objectives, you need to devote a significant amount of attention to playing the mission. At 2000pts with 4-6 objectives, you just end up adding those points as firepower to your army.
I think that competitive play is a mistake and listening to the tournament and math-hammer players was the wrong way to go. I like the supplements, I find the rules to be fun and engaging especially when you play the game as intended. In a narrative, scenario-based setting.
Hollow wrote: I think that competitive play is a mistake and listening to the tournament and math-hammer players was the wrong way to go. I like the supplements, I find the rules to be fun and engaging especially when you play the game as intended. In a narrative, scenario-based setting.
I disagree heavily with this sentiment. Ignoring statistical evidence is very short-sighted. Heavy imbalance will make players turn from the game. Just look at the numbers in 7th for evidence.
It wouldn't surprise me if the next company accounts state that GW will make Primaris nigh on unbeatable for the sake of our benificent shareholder overlords.
It wouldn't surprise me if the next company accounts state that GW will make Primaris nigh on unbeatable for the sake of our benificent shareholder overlords.
I don't think this is for sales. If you read what people's complaints about the new Psychic Awakening books are, you'll find a lot of people referencing the new Space Marine supplements. I can't help but expect that there was a contingent of players who didn't buy the new book because of how it compared to the supplements. If Games Workshop just wanted to make more money, they would have been trying to sell the multitude of Psychic Awakening books, not the Space Marine supplements.
DarknessEternal wrote: The power level stopped at Titan scale things being allowed in the game.
No one still playing 40k can ever care about what rules marine sized models have.
Bad hot take. Titans were derided as underpowered almost as soon as the edition dropped, and overcosted as soon as the first CA hit. Titans simply don’t get played outside Apocalypse, and hardly anyone owns them.
If referring to TITANIC keyword things like superheavies, outside of Knights they really haven’t been the meta, and the meta has moved on from Knights to Marines. So again, not a great hot take.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"
Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.
I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.
Uhh... you can use the custom chapter traits with the supplements.
They are broken as all hell though, and probably shouldn't work with custom chapter traits. They'd still be broken then, but uh, slightly less so.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"
Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.
I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.
Uhh... you can use the custom chapter traits with the supplements.
They are broken as all hell though, and probably shouldn't work with custom chapter traits. They'd still be broken then, but uh, slightly less so.
Pray tell all these super broken Successor traits. I'm looking forward to it.
I disagree: the supplements, for such a rich and popular faction as Space Marines, were a good idea. But poorly implemented maybe (as usual with GW). I have considered indeed not using my supplement while playing against older armies such as necrons for example. But think about that: how much fluff and pictures etc are they in those supplement ? Add a few rules like special characters, objective, Psy powers and a few stratagem and everything is fine. Rules aren't necessarily bad, and if you don't try too hard you can play space marines nicely.
But they went too far this time and you can easily go too far if you want to.
Dakka may have a very biased view because we focus so much on the competitive play that is such a small part of the hobby.
But I agree it's an issue for competitive play.
GW did this before. They did supplements. They got players of all factions to buy into lots of different books.
And then they invalidated all of them with an edition change, leaving you sitting on quite a big pile of suddenly worthless paper (if all you care about is rules, that is).
If you don't like them, just wait. GW will push something more powerful out for the next faction, or they'll make an edition change that'll make them all super weak. It'll be great, and then you'll be able to say, "HAH! At least I didn't waste my money on all that overpriced paper! I told you so!!" and your ego will love you for it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Pray tell all these super broken Successor traits. I'm looking forward to it.
Weeeelll...
Ranged Marksmen with Aggressors under the UM ability to hand out their super-tactical doctrine turn-one is kind of abusive.
Tactical Withdrawl combined with the RG handing out immunity to overwatch via warlord trait and psychic powers and getting units like Cents to just outside 9" before the game starts is also kind of abusive.
I actually kind of like that none of the founding chapter traits can be fully replicated out of the successor traits, and the successor traits mostly feel a little weaker, but there are still some power-combos in there.
I want to respond to a common criticism. It's one that's been raised a few times, both here and on other threads. I'd like to use godardc's comment as an example, where he makes the statement that the Space Marine supplements work fine so long as you don't try too hard, or that you tone down your list. This is true. No doubt. It was also true of Chaos Daemons and Space Wolves in 7th, as well as the Necron decurion-style detachments. My point, really, is it fails a defence if it works for even the worst of power issues of recent memory, and I feel that many of the people who make these comments would agree that my examples of 7th edition were at the least concerning from a power perspective.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"
Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.
I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.
Uhh... you can use the custom chapter traits with the supplements.
Really? I was under the impression that, unless you took the Inheritors of the Primarch custom trait or were playing the named Chapter of that supplement, you didn't get to use supplements.
I may need to reread my books.
EDIT: It appears you are correct, and I've been playing my custom Chapter without using any supplement rules for some time. Eh, feels wrong to use it, so I'll keep with only their Chapter traits, but thank you for bringing this to my attention!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"
Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.
I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.
Uhh... you can use the custom chapter traits with the supplements.
Really? I was under the impression that, unless you took the Inheritors of the Primarch custom trait or were playing the named Chapter of that supplement, you didn't get to use supplements.
I may need to reread my books.
It's at the beginning of the rules section in each of the codex suppliments. You can take any two sub-traits, or you can use Inheritors of the Primarch but you have to use the parent chapter's trait if you do. Once you've done that there are a bunch of text about how parent chapter super-doctrines and strats now apply to your successor chapter and which of the extra relics you're allowed to use.
The Newman wrote: It's at the beginning of the rules section in each of the codex suppliments. You can take any two sub-traits, or you can use Inheritors of the Primarch but you have to use the parent chapter's trait if you do. Once you've done that there are a bunch of text about how parent chapter super-doctrines and strats now apply to your successor chapter.
Just read it, yeah, turns out that you can just declare you're a successor of XYZ even if you didn't specify it specifically with Inheritors of the Primarch!
Not 100% sure how I feel about it, but all the same, I'm doing fine without using it, so I'll continue to play without it!
TBH I think the only problem are the super doctrines, desing wise. They are unneccesary.
Other things like a Relic or a stratagem being OP arent different that other examples of the same in the edition.
But super doctrines just add another layer of brokeness. And it is unnecesary. All the other rules are enough to make chapters fell different, specially stratagems.
The Dragon Ball Z levels of progression are hilarious. We have the Goku SSJ3 being unlocked (Ironhands) and we still have Yamcha (Greyknights) competing beside him.
Supplements should have REPLACEMENT special rules not additional ones. So that cool new chapter ability comes at the cost of losing generic ones. Having it replace the doctrine buffs entirely would have been a good way to slice it, though obviously not in the current state.
Make T1 more suited to anti alpha strike, slowing down assault armies and defining your tactical objectives. T2 --> T3 --> T4 as things are now. And you can't just stay in one doctrine for free AP bonuses or advance them without using CP to do so, this should be somewhat inflexible. That's why a lot of chapters don't follow the codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe I'll make a topic in proposed rules for this, could be fun.
Make T1 more suited to anti alpha strike, slowing down assault armies and defining your tactical objectives. T2 --> T3 --> T4 as things are now. And you can't just stay in one doctrine for free AP bonuses or advance them without using CP to do so, this should be somewhat inflexible. That's why a lot of chapters don't follow the codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe I'll make a topic in proposed rules for this, could be fun.
That sounds interesting in theory, but seeing how most games are over by turn two it would make the Assault doctrine even more irrelevant than it already is. Also (at least in my experience) a lot of the time a Marine army will have spent all it's CP on turn one, I'm not sure how forcing Marines to spend CP to advance their doctine each turn would work out.
The Newman wrote: That sounds interesting in theory, but seeing how most games are over by turn two
Well ideally after a bunch of rules tweaks, they wouldn't be!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Considering GW tried to tone down alpha strike by introducing Prepared Positions, it's bizarre they turned around and undid it with Combat Doctrines.
This feels a lot like the execs and sales working at cross-purposes to the design team.
Saber wrote: The Space Marine supplements, and the codex, are obnoxious primarily because they add rules upon rules upon rules. They're bad, clumsy game design that force you to reference multiple sources to figure out what your army can do. Some degree of customization is desirable, but it should be limited to the army-wide trait and maybe an extra warlord trait or what have you; you shouldn't have to remember more than a couple of rules for your particular sub-faction.
(This is exacerbated by rules changes and errata being in different places, thereby more than doubling the number of documents you need to reference.)
Balance-wise, the new Marine rules seem to be a bit on the strong side but mostly balanced. There are, of course, some broken interactions, but as you heap rule upon rule upon rule it becomes increasingly likely that some of them are going to be broken, simply because it is very difficult for playtesters to predict all of the possible combinations.
What really vexes me is that most of the new rules increase the codex's killing power, when the last thing 40K needs is more offense. Offense needs to curtailed, sharply, and defensive states like saves and wounds need to be adjusted to the paradigm of the new rules so you don't remove half your army on turn one and the other half on turn two.
So I don't think the new Space Marine rules are inherently broken in the current context of 8th edition, but they do push every bad trend in the wrong direction.
I would like to counter a point you made here, on that Space Marines are, in fact, in a balanced state. Statistically, Space Marines have an absurd win rate (somewhere in the 70+% bracket) and perform way above other factions at events. This is what I'm basing my statements on.
You may be right and Space Marines may be overly powerful; I think they're strong, but I hesitate to call them broken for a couple of reasons.
First, every new, powerful codex dominates at first until people figure out how to handle it, and the tournament scene usually settles down after a bit. Past experience suggests that Space Marines will not continue their current winning ways.
Second, Games Workshop is at least somewhat committed to balancing the game with rules and points changes. "Broken," to me, implies that a given rule cannot exist in its current state at a reasonable point level if the game is to be balanced. I think that most of the Space Marine toys can be fixed with a simple points adjustment. This may seem like an overly fine distinction to make, but I think it's important because there's a difference between something that can be integrated into the game and something that cannot.
Third, the real problem with the game is structural, the result of design failures reward offense and certain kinds of units. Most of the problems with Space Marines are simply expanding on this paradigm (although there are some new problems, too, like with Iron Hands) and so you can't "fix" Space Marines because the real problem is 8th Edition as a whole.
I haven't read the space marine stuff, so I may not have as much to contribute to the discussion.
1. People used to be bothered about soup, and from what I understand, the whole super doctrine thing prevents souping. I'm not sure if Marines were a part of the soup problem, but either way, soup denial is an opportunity cost of using super doctrines.
2. You're definitely right that people are getting some of their hate from comparing it to PA. I've always felt that this was a very unfair comparison. The Sisters dex will be the first to drop since the marine reboot. The rule previews have been pretty positive; I feel it will be the better reflection of balance in the new 2.0 meta.
3. Regarding PA: Having seen what's in PA 2, I have to say PA 1 is weak. Because they're both campaign books, and even from the same series, the comparison is absolutely fair, and Chaos and the Templars did better than the Eldar. The trade off is that CWE and DE each got a new character and a new unit. I don't think there are plans to release models for any of the factions in PA 2. I'm not saying that the models are an excuse for the lack of rules content; GW should be able to give us both.
4. Any existing faction could get super doctrine style rules in either CA2019, upcoming PA books, or even White Dwarf, Any subfaction could get the PA 2 treatment from the same sources. This won't solve the imbalance created by Marines 2.0, but it will begin to chip away at it.
5. Even as new content is developed to close the gap, I think that fears about the increasing lethality of the game are legit. Defensive buffs in the new content offer a way to address that, but we'll just have to wait and see.
Outside of the odd Smash-Captain Marines were never a big part of the Imperial Soup problem. Cheap Guard and AdMech Battalions generating CP to be spent by Knights was the big meta-pusher.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The Dragon Ball Z levels of progression are hilarious. We have the Goku SSJ3 being unlocked (Ironhands) and we still have Yamcha (Greyknights) competing beside him.
...at least that means the Grey Knights can look forward to a successful career in the Titan baseball league?
One thing I'm happy about the supplements is it enabled GW to flesh out the various chapters more, a lotta chapters are lucky to get more then a paragrah of text detailing them. and it never changes voer editions
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Pray tell all these super broken Successor traits. I'm looking forward to it.
Weeeelll...
Ranged Marksmen with Aggressors under the UM ability to hand out their super-tactical doctrine turn-one is kind of abusive.
Tactical Withdrawl combined with the RG handing out immunity to overwatch via warlord trait and psychic powers and getting units like Cents to just outside 9" before the game starts is also kind of abusive.
I actually kind of like that none of the founding chapter traits can be fully replicated out of the successor traits, and the successor traits mostly feel a little weaker, but there are still some power-combos in there.
None of those interactions are abusive in any way, shape, or form.
There are surely a lot of things that could have been done better with the supplements, like being able to claim the advantages of a particular doctrine only once per game.
One thing that i'm quite happy with though, is that they made all marine chapters into full factions.
Now about 50% of the game's factions are marines of some flavour (14 in total, without counting FW or minor ones like CFs and Blood Ravens). Considering that they are the image of the game, having most of the games centered around them feels right.
Now at the table you either play against marines or against one of the many others threats of the galaxy. Somehow i like this.
Spoletta wrote: There are surely a lot of things that could have been done better with the supplements, like being able to claim the advantages of a particular doctrine only once per game.
One thing that i'm quite happy with though, is that they made all marine chapters into full factions.
Now about 50% of the game's factions are marines of some flavour (14 in total, without counting FW or minor ones like CFs and Blood Ravens). Considering that they are the image of the game, having most of the games centered around them feels right.
Now at the table you either play against marines or against one of the many others threats of the galaxy. Somehow i like this.
You mean like in an unlimited immense galaxy, marines are the only playable character and everyone is just an accessory NPC?
People are complaining that there are too many flavours of marines that are competitive which makes them hard to counter. But that seems to be a good thing that all codex's want to achieve, outside of the skill cap being lowered a fair bit.
Triptide Tau is accepted due to the fact that its the sole army build that is viable. You should listen to all the other Tau players cry and having non viable armies.
Same with Necrons.
If only GW doesnt focus on wishwashly PA supplements, they could have really started developing 2.0 codex for other armies.
CA 2019 should see price drops so account for the 2.0 spike. New 2.0 codexes then get spike and priced up.
Smirrors wrote: New 2.0 codexes then get spike and priced up.
Dont be too sure. That's why centurions are gang busters - GW kept the pre buff pricing. Maybe they'll learn, but dont expect CA to account for marines in their entirely either.
Darsath wrote: I know this is going to sound overly negative, and I don't want it to be. I want everyone to play with their specially made models, and the idea of the supplements are fantastic. However, I think it's fair to say now that we have a decent amount of data that the new books are fairly overpowered. Even if Games Workshop release supplement style books at the same level for every faction (which, honestly, I wouldn't even entertain atm), the power level shown would be very unhealthy for the game as a whole. I also think the reason why the new Psychic Awakening books have been getting a lacklustre response from players is because the players are comparing it to the Space Marine supplements. I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks about this though.
You are absolutely right.
SM players are happy while every other faction got a massive 'FU' from GW with the release of the supplements.
GW won't release any supplements for other factions apart from potentially CSM. I'm pretty certain of that. They'll let Marines dominate the meta for 12-18 months (likely releasing more models that serve as keystones to a strategy) before buffing other factions to their level under the guise of 'slow, considered balance changes'.
Anecdotally I've noticed a drop in players locally, those who don't play Marine armies. Myself included.
Hollow wrote: I think that competitive play is a mistake and listening to the tournament and math-hammer players was the wrong way to go. I like the supplements, I find the rules to be fun and engaging especially when you play the game as intended. In a narrative, scenario-based setting.
It's the narrative scenario based people that would benefit most from balanced game. tournament players less so
First, every new, powerful codex dominates at first until people figure out how to handle it, and the tournament scene usually settles down after a bit. Past experience suggests that Space Marines will not continue their current winning ways.
No, they don't. The figures that Marines are spitting out put other 'powerful' codexes to shame. They are over performing. Big time.
Not every new book (even if it is strong) dominates at first. This is evidently false. Orks didn't. GSC didn't. No book has pit put the ridiculous stats that Marines are throwing out in terms of win percentages, first loss, average points taken and lost etc. They are so overpowered it is obvious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: One thing that i'm quite happy with though, is that they made all marine chapters into full factions.
Now about 50% of the game's factions are marines of some flavour (14 in total, without counting FW or minor ones like CFs and Blood Ravens). Considering that they are the image of the game, having most of the games centered around them feels right.
Now at the table you either play against marines or against one of the many others threats of the galaxy. Somehow i like this.
This is quite literally the worst thing about the game at the moment. I'm not too interested in having my army, that I've spent countless hours investing my time into, become an NPC joke faction thanks. I'd rather leave the hobby.
3. Regarding PA: Having seen what's in PA 2, I have to say PA 1 is weak. Because they're both campaign books, and even from the same series, the comparison is absolutely fair, and Chaos and the Templars did better than the Eldar. The trade off is that CWE and DE each got a new character and a new unit. I don't think there are plans to release models for any of the factions in PA 2. I'm not saying that the models are an excuse for the lack of rules content; GW should be able to give us both.
Arent chaos marines getting a new magus along side PA2?
I really like supplements for the thematic content and the ability to make your chapter a real force in the game but that is where the positives end for me.
They're too powerful in what is supposed to be an edition that is relatively balanced and that won't change post CA:2019. The rules bloat is also crazy and I can't fathom why they got rid of USR.
3. Regarding PA: Having seen what's in PA 2, I have to say PA 1 is weak. Because they're both campaign books, and even from the same series, the comparison is absolutely fair, and Chaos and the Templars did better than the Eldar. The trade off is that CWE and DE each got a new character and a new unit. I don't think there are plans to release models for any of the factions in PA 2. I'm not saying that the models are an excuse for the lack of rules content; GW should be able to give us both.
Just to be pedantic here but CWE and DE didn't get new characters or units, they got resculpts. Only the characters got minor rules tweaks, which really does not constitute a poor supplement/campaign book of their own. Xenos didn't get the love they need once again in favour of releasing more marines.
At what point of 8th ed was it balanced in any shape or form? it was either Inari eldar blowing everyone up, or IG+knight+smash domination. a lot of the armies couldn't even compete in the game, pre getting codex, and some ,like necron, are still bad even with one.
BrianDavion wrote: One thing I'm happy about the supplements is it enabled GW to flesh out the various chapters more, a lotta chapters are lucky to get more then a paragrah of text detailing them. and it never changes voer editions
Must've missed all of the Index Astartes articles near 20 years ago then...
Karol wrote: At what point of 8th ed was it balanced in any shape or form? it was either Inari eldar blowing everyone up, or IG+knight+smash domination. a lot of the armies couldn't even compete in the game, pre getting codex, and some ,like necron, are still bad even with one.
Relative is the key term you missed there.
Tournament representation before the new marine supplements coming in was actually pretty good for nearly all armies with a few exceptions. There were some exceptions to the rule where there were stronger armies but that is always expected as you can never get a game to be perfectly balance.
What will be really crazy to watch is the escalation. All the other armies will have to be buffed to be at the same level as the supplements over the next year and a half. I imagine everything in most codices will have extra hits/damage/re rolls/at least 5 extra rules for every unit. Then the Astartes codices will have to be made even stronger because "Marines will be trash by comparison" and to sell the moneymaker models.
beigeknight wrote: What will be really crazy to watch is the escalation. All the other armies will have to be buffed to be at the same level as the supplements over the next year and a half.
Not necessarily. Even the individual marines factions have significant gaps between them, releases like the SoS and Inquisition are nowhere close, and so far nothing about the sisters release suggests any kind of real marine-level power.
The only mistake about supplements was not including them as part of the core rules and given every chapter, craftworld, warband, legion, etc. of note their own extensive set of rules.
BrianDavion wrote: One thing I'm happy about the supplements is it enabled GW to flesh out the various chapters more, a lotta chapters are lucky to get more then a paragrah of text detailing them. and it never changes voer editions
Must've missed all of the Index Astartes articles near 20 years ago then...
I overheard some talk about how Doctrines were supposed to work. The original concept was basically the super doctrine and the regular Doctrines weren't supposed to stack. They were totally separate. But GW wanted to turn it up to 11 so they gave us what we have now. This came from someone who spoke to some playtesters in our area. So take that for what it's worth.
Spoletta wrote: There are surely a lot of things that could have been done better with the supplements, like being able to claim the advantages of a particular doctrine only once per game.
One thing that i'm quite happy with though, is that they made all marine chapters into full factions.
Now about 50% of the game's factions are marines of some flavour (14 in total, without counting FW or minor ones like CFs and Blood Ravens). Considering that they are the image of the game, having most of the games centered around them feels right.
Now at the table you either play against marines or against one of the many others threats of the galaxy. Somehow i like this.
I honestly thought this was a joke post. Are you serious?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Pray tell all these super broken Successor traits. I'm looking forward to it.
Weeeelll...
Ranged Marksmen with Aggressors under the UM ability to hand out their super-tactical doctrine turn-one is kind of abusive.
Tactical Withdrawl combined with the RG handing out immunity to overwatch via warlord trait and psychic powers and getting units like Cents to just outside 9" before the game starts is also kind of abusive.
I actually kind of like that none of the founding chapter traits can be fully replicated out of the successor traits, and the successor traits mostly feel a little weaker, but there are still some power-combos in there.
None of those interactions are abusive in any way, shape, or form.
I hope you're being sarcastic, because eating 228 bolter rounds out of what is supposed to be a short range unit or having 42 Thunder Hammer attacks reach the back of your deployment zone (before you get to do anything in either case) feels like something that shouldn't exist in the game.
chimeara wrote: I overheard some talk about how Doctrines were supposed to work. The original concept was basically the super doctrine and the regular Doctrines weren't supposed to stack. They were totally separate. But GW wanted to turn it up to 11 so they gave us what we have now. This came from someone who spoke to some playtesters in our area. So take that for what it's worth.
Wellp.
That seems great. If true then it would lend credence to :
New gw = old gw + PR department
chimeara wrote: I overheard some talk about how Doctrines were supposed to work. The original concept was basically the super doctrine and the regular Doctrines weren't supposed to stack. They were totally separate. But GW wanted to turn it up to 11 so they gave us what we have now. This came from someone who spoke to some playtesters in our area. So take that for what it's worth.
Wellp.
That seems great. If true then it would lend credence to :
New gw = old gw + PR department
Up until 2019 there was a definite track of improvement, in my eyes 2019 has been a backslide in balance and the community is/will suffer accordingly.
First, every new, powerful codex dominates at first until people figure out how to handle it, and the tournament scene usually settles down after a bit. Past experience suggests that Space Marines will not continue their current winning ways.
The only times this has actually been true to the extent that nu-marines have dominated has been:
1) The very first codex release (SM) when they were the only chapter tactics in town and we saw a very brief domination of marine flyer lists
2) the release of the Guard codex, which was head and shoulders stronger than anything that came out before it.
Since there is no indication from the rules content released since the supplements that GW is interested in giving other factions buffs to that level (They have even released rules for CSM that do not include many of the things the nearly identical loyalist SMs got) the assertion that this is part of the natural meta shift/power creep is a bit unfounded.
PA1 did not bring eldar Ynnari and drukhari up to SM-supplement levels.
PA2 is not bringing CSM up to SM-supplement levels
the new rules for SOS and Inquisition are not SM-supplement levels.
Spoletta wrote: There are surely a lot of things that could have been done better with the supplements, like being able to claim the advantages of a particular doctrine only once per game.
One thing that i'm quite happy with though, is that they made all marine chapters into full factions.
Now about 50% of the game's factions are marines of some flavour (14 in total, without counting FW or minor ones like CFs and Blood Ravens). Considering that they are the image of the game, having most of the games centered around them feels right.
Now at the table you either play against marines or against one of the many others threats of the galaxy. Somehow i like this.
I honestly thought this was a joke post. Are you serious?
Quite.
I know that it comes out as a bit strange, but I play the factions I play because I want to play the NPCs. Until now the so called "main characters" were nowhere to be seen, and it felt wrong. Yes, it was a huge shift in balance, but in terms of "feel" I like it better this way.
Argive wrote: You mean like in an unlimited immense galaxy, marines are the only playable character and everyone is just an accessory NPC?
I've recently been informed that this is actually an RPG game, which fits in to the feeling that I've been playing an NPC faction for awhile. Apparently we just need to learn to be happy with our place in the narrative.
I honestly feel like we should just make SM players play against each other for the time being. I have zero interest in wasting my time setting up models against them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
beigeknight wrote: What will be really crazy to watch is the escalation. All the other armies will have to be buffed to be at the same level as the supplements over the next year and a half. I imagine everything in most codices will have extra hits/damage/re rolls/at least 5 extra rules for every unit. Then the Astartes codices will have to be made even stronger because "Marines will be trash by comparison" and to sell the moneymaker models.
There are a lot of mechanics in the game that will break, or at least be put under extraordinary pressure if/as/when this happens. As lethality goes up first turn becomes more crucial for example, something GW had actually been working to mitigate over the past year or so.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I really like supplements for the thematic content and the ability to make your chapter a real force in the game but that is where the positives end for me.
They're too powerful in what is supposed to be an edition that is relatively balanced and that won't change post CA:2019. The rules bloat is also crazy and I can't fathom why they got rid of USR.
3. Regarding PA: Having seen what's in PA 2, I have to say PA 1 is weak. Because they're both campaign books, and even from the same series, the comparison is absolutely fair, and Chaos and the Templars did better than the Eldar. The trade off is that CWE and DE each got a new character and a new unit. I don't think there are plans to release models for any of the factions in PA 2. I'm not saying that the models are an excuse for the lack of rules content; GW should be able to give us both.
Just to be pedantic here but CWE and DE didn't get new characters or units, they got resculpts. Only the characters got minor rules tweaks, which really does not constitute a poor supplement/campaign book of their own. Xenos didn't get the love they need once again in favour of releasing more marines.
Thanks for adding clarity to my post, and also to the poster who pointed out the chaos sorcerer model. However Incubi did gat a HUGE rules buff; in the dex, 6's only do massive extra damage on the klaivex attacks; in PA it's the whole unit. On a lucky roll, that actually translates into a fair bit of extra damage. It doesn't make a difference against 1w infantry, but it helps with vehicle killing and multi-wound elites. It also justifies taking a unit of ten Incubi instead of five in order to get more sixes.
Eh. I think the supplements, conceptually, are a good idea. GW just went a bit too far with the added benefits, rules, etc. this time.
We had codex supplements in 6th and 7th edition also. I remember some of them caused quite a stir as well. Coincidentally, the SM's Angels of Death supplement I recall caused the most.
This time around I think, at the moment, the issue is with the Doctrines. Again, conceptually, they're great. It's a reward for playing mono-faction. The core of the issue is that the doctrines enhance the most problematic aspect of the game; the AP system.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"
Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.
I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.
Uhh... you can use the custom chapter traits with the supplements.
They are broken as all hell though, and probably shouldn't work with custom chapter traits. They'd still be broken then, but uh, slightly less so.
Pray tell all these super broken Successor traits. I'm looking forward to it.
Master of artisans is pretty broken dude. It's so good lots of people take it over the iron hands tripple whammy trait which is easily the best trait ever released for an army. It just scales way to well with an army that can already natively reroll 1's and with an LT giving reroll 1's to wound. Plus like...oh - now my heros all hit like trucks too! It's dumb.
Spoletta wrote: There are surely a lot of things that could have been done better with the supplements, like being able to claim the advantages of a particular doctrine only once per game.
One thing that i'm quite happy with though, is that they made all marine chapters into full factions.
Now about 50% of the game's factions are marines of some flavour (14 in total, without counting FW or minor ones like CFs and Blood Ravens). Considering that they are the image of the game, having most of the games centered around them feels right.
Now at the table you either play against marines or against one of the many others threats of the galaxy. Somehow i like this.
I honestly thought this was a joke post. Are you serious?
oni wrote: Eh. I think the supplements, conceptually, are a good idea. GW just went a bit too far with the added benefits, rules, etc. this time.
We had codex supplements in 6th and 7th edition also. I remember some of them caused quite a stir as well. Coincidentally, the SM's Angels of Death supplement I recall caused the most.
This time around I think, at the moment, the issue is with the Doctrines. Again, conceptually, they're great. It's a reward for playing mono-faction. The core of the issue is that the doctrines enhance the most problematic aspect of the game; the AP system.
The problem is twofold imo. First GW lacks the ability to moderate their own rules writing so they very easily take things off the rails. More concerning is that they don't seem to play test or listen to their play testers because very obvious balance problems come out of almost every single release. That being said, looking at formations in 7th, there was a ton of extremely cool formations that made some really interesting gameplay opportunities but the only stuff that got played was the extremely broken ones. Great ideas and concepts in there (for some armies) but almost zero concern for balance.
Second its once again apparent that GW shot themselves in the foot with the core rules for 8th which has necessitated the need for rapid power/feature creep because the core mechanics are so limited. There isn't a whole lot they can really do with the base rules other than +/- modifiers to rolls/profiles or adding more dice. A more fleshed out core rule set with more mechanics would give more design choices and variety to units and allow for more opportunities to tweak units or give more utility bonuses instead of just stacking on more raw power.
oni wrote: Eh. I think the supplements, conceptually, are a good idea. GW just went a bit too far with the added benefits, rules, etc. this time.
We had codex supplements in 6th and 7th edition also. I remember some of them caused quite a stir as well. Coincidentally, the SM's Angels of Death supplement I recall caused the most.
This time around I think, at the moment, the issue is with the Doctrines. Again, conceptually, they're great. It's a reward for playing mono-faction. The core of the issue is that the doctrines enhance the most problematic aspect of the game; the AP system.
The problem is fundamentally with the fact that the supplements are not exclusive with the benefit of the 2.0 codex.
If taking the special Iron Hands devastator doctrine swapped out the standard, and taking the Iron Hand supplement swapped out your standard psychic power list, or swapped out your stratagems, or swapped out your WL traits/Relics, it'd be perfectly fine.
The problem is that they add another layer on top, giving marines twice as many psychic powers, stratagems, relics, wl traits, etc of other factions to work with, AND they get to pick their chapter tactics, AND they get doctrines nobody else gets.
Eldar custom chapter traits don't get to pick a craftworld to emulate, giving them the strat/trait and relic of that craftworld. Neither do drukhari - you have to give up the best relic and stratagem from Black Heart if you want the dubious benefit of maybe a very slightly better army trait combo, so nobody is ever going to use that.
It is the exact same problem Decurions had: the layering of the buff from formations with the buff from decurions shoved those factions with good combos into over-the-moon OP territory.
Vankraken wrote: More concerning is that they don't seem to play test or listen to their play testers because very obvious balance problems come out of almost every single release.
Big organizations don't act of one mind. Executives that are focused on returns have very different priorities than designers or playtesters.
Vankraken wrote: More concerning is that they don't seem to play test or listen to their play testers because very obvious balance problems come out of almost every single release.
Big organizations don't act of one mind. Executives that are focused on returns have very different priorities than designers or playtesters.
That is what a project lead or doing a design by committee is for as it helps create a more unified end result. Problem is that the process GW uses has resulted in fairly major balance issues for a LONG time. End of the day GW is an organization that sells game rules and have been historically bad at writing said game rules. It doesn't matter which cog in the machine that you want to blame as the end result is the same.
skchsan wrote: As long as knights don't get doctrine-esque buffs I'm ok with that.
even if they did you'd never see them in use. Doctrines only come into play if you're running a pure army. how many people do you figure run pure knights?
The new preview article I think highlights one little beautiful gem.
It's the Word Bearers preview. The rule that they chose to highlight as the special thing that the Word Bearers get is to upgrade a Dark Apostle to "level 2" letting him cast 2 litanies per turn.
in the exact same book, they went ahead and gave every single loyalist marine chapter that ability, not just on Chaplains, but on librarians and techmarines as well. AND gave them chapter-specific litanies. AND gave them special relics for the Lv2 characters.
So if you play Word Bearers, you have as your special chapter tactics and chapter specific stratagems LESS than a loyalist space marine player who decides to bring a Chapterless Adeptus Astartes detachment.
Huehuehuehuehuehuehue.
Like at this point, I cannot help but think someone at GW is deliberately trolling with the word bearers' rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: They absolutely weren’t a mistake in concept, but they’re clearly a smidge too strong.
Space marines were pretty terrible before and they just went a bit too far with some of the doctrines to compensate.
I hope you make a note for yourself to never again complain about any new rules released into the game as broken if you're calling this supplement release that completely demolished the competitive meta as a smidge too strong.
The last time a faction went from basically zero percent of winning competitive lists to 60-75% of them in a single release was Necrons in 7th with the release of the decurion. And even then, the releases that followed very clearly were intended to shift the meta up a peg and were made to compete with the new necrons.
I hate jumping on the complain-train while I'm enjoying the new rules, but I kind of agree with the sentiment.
I never thought Marines needed more hitting power, I wanted their rules to match up to their fluff better. Marine Codex 1.0 with twice the wound count on everything (add damage tracks where needed) with no other changes, now you have something that feels like a Marine army in the fluff. They aren't depicted obliterating the field, they're depicted as weathering the worst that can be thrown at them while surgically destroying the targets that matter.
Other than some brutal combos, of course, I think the biggest issue is probably properly costed units.
Given how much more powerful some units are when fielded as a different chapter but they pay the same regardless, this makes balancing a bunch of these units nigh impossible.
The chapters should absolutely not pay the same costs for all of these units.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Pray tell all these super broken Successor traits. I'm looking forward to it.
Weeeelll...
Ranged Marksmen with Aggressors under the UM ability to hand out their super-tactical doctrine turn-one is kind of abusive.
Tactical Withdrawl combined with the RG handing out immunity to overwatch via warlord trait and psychic powers and getting units like Cents to just outside 9" before the game starts is also kind of abusive.
I actually kind of like that none of the founding chapter traits can be fully replicated out of the successor traits, and the successor traits mostly feel a little weaker, but there are still some power-combos in there.
None of those interactions are abusive in any way, shape, or form.
I hope you're being sarcastic, because eating 228 bolter rounds out of what is supposed to be a short range unit or having 42 Thunder Hammer attacks reach the back of your deployment zone (before you get to do anything in either case) feels like something that shouldn't exist in the game.
Dude - aggressors are still bad lol. They can't advance and shoot twice even with the stratagem and only with ultramarines super doctrine can you move and shoot twice with them. That is somewhat a powerful combo BUT it is still pretty short ranged. even with the +3" range. 21+5 = 26.
So really - most deployments the closest you can start is 24" so you deploy 3 inches off the front line and they can't shoot you. Typically if I am going second I am deploying at least 6" back for actually threatening things (like assault units that can charge turn 1 like shinning spears) . For their point aggressors still die pretty easy so just kill them first and they will never shoot if you are smart. I hate to say if but if you are losing to aggressors it's because you aren't playing against them right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tulun wrote: Other than some brutal combos, of course, I think the biggest issue is probably properly costed units.
Given how much more powerful some units are when fielded as a different chapter but they pay the same regardless, this makes balancing a bunch of these units nigh impossible.
The chapters should absolutely not pay the same costs for all of these units.
Dude you are almost there...You realize the abilities of these chapter traits are not balanced yet you want to blame the units for some reason. The problem is the abilities. A few units got point drops in the codex but other than assault cents...nothing dropped meaningfully in price. Suppressors (no one uses them) and a few other units no one cares about. The issue is unbalanced abilities. Units like Centurions should not have the ability to deep strike turn 1 - it is legit broken as they pay less points per model for being slow and short ranged with limited transport options. There is no reason why a super-doctrine that starts active on the first turn should be more powerful than one that has to wait until turn 2 or 3 to be useful. Plus honestly - the devastator doctrine is way to powerful to begin with.
Pre-supplements, Space Marines were horribly weak. GW's best seller is Space Marines. People realized how bad Space Marines were and stopped buying them. GW creates and releases Space Marine Supplements which makes Space Marines viable on the battlefield. Space Marines begin selling again.
I'm very confident that the above reasoning was the only motivation for the Space Marine supplements.
If you're deploying 6" back to avoid the Aggressors and your opponent isn't using the other UM strat to redeploy them he's playing them wrong, and you're also giving up objectives.
Also, the Raven Guard version of that trick has a 37" threat range, so there's that too.
I'm not going to try to claim they don't have significant weaknesses, but if you're not building your list to mitigate those weaknesses why are you even using them?
Saber wrote: The Space Marine supplements, and the codex, are obnoxious primarily because they add rules upon rules upon rules. They're bad, clumsy game design that force you to reference multiple sources to figure out what your army can do.
It also makes those of us that have been awhile start suspecting there is a new edition coming around.
1. Paperback expansion? *Check
2. Overpowered rules for popular faction? *Check
3. Sloppy rules generation? *Check
Put money on it, we are going to hear about "9th edition" in the next couple months to "fix" the issues in 8th.
I have no doubt about the rumour of a new edition coming next summer being at least somewhat accurate. They won't call it a new edition, but it's what it will be.
I think the supplements will turn out to be a financial mistake for GW.
People online are furious. Even on their Facebook page. This forum is known for it's negativity, so here it's somewhat expected, but when it's prevalent all over the place, there is a problem.
Only SM players are "happy" with these supplements and the more generous rules in Faith and Fury. And even they are becoming sick of having to carry so many books to play their faction (cry me a river). GW have really, really fethed up this PA release and the supplements play a part in the reason we see this related negativity.
People online are furious. Even on their Facebook page. This forum is known for it's negativity, so here it's somewhat expected, but when it's prevalent all over the place, there is a problem.
Only SM players are "happy" with these supplements and the more generous rules in Faith and Fury. And even they are becoming sick of having to carry so many books to play their faction (cry me a river). GW have really, really fethed up this PA release and the supplements play a part in the reason we see this related negativity.
The guy in our play group who plays Orks has already bought an SM army so that he can actually put something competitive on the table. Sadly, I'm 30 years into my toxic relationship with Chaos, so I'm vacillating between lighting them on fire, selling them on eBay or just storing them in the basement.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: The guy in our play group who plays Orks has already bought an SM army so that he can actually put something competitive on the table. Sadly, I'm 30 years into my toxic relationship with Chaos, so I'm vacillating between lighting them on fire, selling them on eBay or just storing them in the basement.
Out of curiosity, how are the factions represented in your group? Does he only have Space Marines to play against?
The Newman wrote: If you're deploying 6" back to avoid the Aggressors and your opponent isn't using the other UM strat to redeploy them he's playing them wrong, and you're also giving up objectives.
Also, the Raven Guard version of that trick has a 37" threat range, so there's that too.
The ravengaurd version can't move and shoot twice. So it's basically the same thing except with an advance roll on your scout move and they can't go into the tactical doctrine for ap-1. Plus - they have been able to do this since for the beging if time. They used to be able to infiltrate with them and it was mildy okay but ap-0 is pretty effing worthless. Agressors really aren't good man. An Ironhands punisher siciarian is much better choice and you don't see those dominating the meta ether.
People online are furious. Even on their Facebook page. This forum is known for it's negativity, so here it's somewhat expected, but when it's prevalent all over the place, there is a problem.
Only SM players are "happy" with these supplements and the more generous rules in Faith and Fury. And even they are becoming sick of having to carry so many books to play their faction (cry me a river). GW have really, really fethed up this PA release and the supplements play a part in the reason we see this related negativity.
The guy in our play group who plays Orks has already bought an SM army so that he can actually put something competitive on the table. Sadly, I'm 30 years into my toxic relationship with Chaos, so I'm vacillating between lighting them on fire, selling them on eBay or just storing them in the basement.
Orks are one of the few armies that can compete with marines.
From my point of view, the bigger issue is that the core rules for 8th edition are paper-thin.
Hence, there's really very little you can do outside of just dumping rules upon rules upon rules.
Not that I'm defending the godawful SM supplements. Rather, GW basically wrote themselves into a corner right from the start by making a shallow, one-dimensional game that is wholly reliant on gimmicks and endless special rules to keep up any pretence of complexity.
Spoletta wrote: There are surely a lot of things that could have been done better with the supplements, like being able to claim the advantages of a particular doctrine only once per game.
One thing that i'm quite happy with though, is that they made all marine chapters into full factions.
Now about 50% of the game's factions are marines of some flavour (14 in total, without counting FW or minor ones like CFs and Blood Ravens). Considering that they are the image of the game, having most of the games centered around them feels right.
Now at the table you either play against marines or against one of the many others threats of the galaxy. Somehow i like this.
I honestly thought this was a joke post. Are you serious?
Quite.
I know that it comes out as a bit strange, but I play the factions I play because I want to play the NPCs. Until now the so called "main characters" were nowhere to be seen, and it felt wrong. Yes, it was a huge shift in balance, but in terms of "feel" I like it better this way.
I can't . . . I don't . . .
I mean, a lot of people really like their chosen factions and don't think of them as simply targets for Space Marines. Tyranids and Necrons I can understand that a bit, but Eldar, Tau, Chaos and Orks? Those are factions with lots of personality and flavor to love as a primary interest/touchstone into the hobby. There are good stories to be told in the universe that don't involve Space Marines.
I love me my Space Marines and all, but seriously suggesting all other factions are appropriately relegated to NPCs is awful, imo. I'd much prefer more variation and texture in my 40K setting.
People online are furious. Even on their Facebook page. This forum is known for it's negativity, so here it's somewhat expected, but when it's prevalent all over the place, there is a problem.
Only SM players are "happy" with these supplements and the more generous rules in Faith and Fury. And even they are becoming sick of having to carry so many books to play their faction (cry me a river). GW have really, really fethed up this PA release and the supplements play a part in the reason we see this related negativity.
I'm furious with the Supplements as a Marine player, as Super Doctrines should never have been a thing.
Also you can blame the people that support the Angels having separate codices. They keep defending GW in releasing unnecessary printed material, so what else are they gonna do with other Chapters? You guessed it: release unnecessary printed material!
vipoid wrote: From my point of view, the bigger issue is that the core rules for 8th edition are paper-thin.
Hence, there's really very little you can do outside of just dumping rules upon rules upon rules.
Not that I'm defending the godawful SM supplements. Rather, GW basically wrote themselves into a corner right from the start by making a shallow, one-dimensional game that is wholly reliant on gimmicks and endless special rules to keep up any pretence of complexity.
I sorta disagree. Imo the game would function pretty well after dropping super-special rules and Stratagem mechanics. Then all you need is appropriate terrain/better terrain rules and you have something pretty solid.
Xenomancers wrote: Orks are one of the few armies that can compete with marines.
No, they're not. They have one of, if not THE worst win rate against them. Please stop commenting about things that you have no knowledge of.
Popped into my local FLGS the other day and the owner was telling me about the game he had recently against the Ork player there. He wiped him out to a man and the amount of models he lost you can count on one hand. He was using DE. The guy is one the least competitive people I've ever met and he just felt sorry for the Ork player. Nuff said.
People online are furious. Even on their Facebook page. This forum is known for it's negativity, so here it's somewhat expected, but when it's prevalent all over the place, there is a problem.
Only SM players are "happy" with these supplements and the more generous rules in Faith and Fury. And even they are becoming sick of having to carry so many books to play their faction (cry me a river). GW have really, really fethed up this PA release and the supplements play a part in the reason we see this related negativity.
I'll say this. I am happy with my supplement with chapter specific lore and such, I'm sure everyone would say something similar. However given the recent "space marine why you need faith and Fury" article which showcases essentially a bunch of things that simply could have been crammed into the V2 codex. I'd give it a pass if it came out half a year later but it didn't....
So I'm not really mad but I'm not impressed with this decision
Xenomancers wrote: Orks are one of the few armies that can compete with marines.
No, they're not. They have one of, if not THE worst win rate against them. Please stop commenting about things that you have no knowledge of.
Right...because an army that has blanket 5++ saves really cares about -1 AP being handed out for free. They don't.
Please stop assuming you are smarter than me. You know...Orks are still one of the top placing armies...how is that possible in a marine dominated meta?
Ork Artillery armies can obliterate marines. Why? Marines dont have invune saves for the most part and orks have stupid amounts of ap-4 and 5 shooting attacks that deal d6 damage. Even with nu marines coming out the smasha gun is still a top tier choice. Don't even get me started about SAG.
People online are furious. Even on their Facebook page. This forum is known for it's negativity, so here it's somewhat expected, but when it's prevalent all over the place, there is a problem.
Only SM players are "happy" with these supplements and the more generous rules in Faith and Fury. And even they are becoming sick of having to carry so many books to play their faction (cry me a river). GW have really, really fethed up this PA release and the supplements play a part in the reason we see this related negativity.
I'm furious with the Supplements as a Marine player, as Super Doctrines should never have been a thing.
Also you can blame the people that support the Angels having separate codices. They keep defending GW in releasing unnecessary printed material, so what else are they gonna do with other Chapters? You guessed it: release unnecessary printed material!
I agree it is unnecessary but it's also a huge cash cow for GW. It's not going anywhere.
Xenomancers wrote: Right...because an army that has blanket 5++ saves really cares about -1 AP being handed out for free. They don't.
Please stop assuming you are smarter than me. You know...Orks are still one of the top placing armies...how is that possible in a marine dominated meta?
They're still sitting at a sub-50% win rate over the past couple months though.
Once you dig into the numbers, that win rate against Adeptus Astartes is down to ~33%, this is also the matchup with the largest data set, go figure.
Once you factor in non-SM opponents their percentages definitely go up, but the data set is a fraction of the SM data set:
80% win rate vs BA 80% win rate vs Daemons
70% win rate vs CSM 70% win rate vs GSC 68% win rate vs DE 77% win rate vs RK
69% win rate vs IK
So is it hopeless? Of course not, you might cruise through a tourney and get a lot of favorable matchups, but eventually SM is going to come to collect.
Xenomancers wrote: Right...because an army that has blanket 5++ saves really cares about -1 AP being handed out for free. They don't.
Please stop assuming you are smarter than me. You know...Orks are still one of the top placing armies...how is that possible in a marine dominated meta?
They're still sitting at a sub-50% win rate over the past couple months though.
Once you dig into the numbers, that win rate against Adeptus Astartes is down to ~33%, this is also the matchup with the largest data set, go figure.
Once you factor in non-SM opponents their percentages definitely go up, but the data set is a fraction of the SM data set:
80% win rate vs BA 80% win rate vs Daemons
70% win rate vs CSM 70% win rate vs GSC 68% win rate vs DE 77% win rate vs RK
69% win rate vs IK
So is it hopeless? Of course not, you might cruise through a tourney and get a lot of favorable matchups, but eventually SM is going to come to collect.
This really makes me want to play an anti MEQCWE list. Spam WG and auto win.
vipoid wrote: From my point of view, the bigger issue is that the core rules for 8th edition are paper-thin.
Hence, there's really very little you can do outside of just dumping rules upon rules upon rules.
Not that I'm defending the godawful SM supplements. Rather, GW basically wrote themselves into a corner right from the start by making a shallow, one-dimensional game that is wholly reliant on gimmicks and endless special rules to keep up any pretence of complexity.
I sorta disagree. Imo the game would function pretty well after dropping super-special rules and Stratagem mechanics. Then all you need is appropriate terrain/better terrain rules and you have something pretty solid.
I have to disagree.
It would would be technically functional but lacking in depth, lacking in unique mechanics, and lacking in just about anything that could be expanded on by individual armies.
I think the best way of describing it would be that it feels like free/basic rules that new players can use to get an idea of the game before they buy the full rules. Except that these are the full rules.
Quasistellar wrote: They absolutely weren’t a mistake in concept, but they’re clearly a smidge too strong.
Space marines were pretty terrible before and they just went a bit too far with some of the doctrines to compensate.
I hope you make a note for yourself to never again complain about any new rules released into the game as broken if you're calling this supplement release that completely demolished the competitive meta as a smidge too strong.
Oh please spare me. The doctrines/super doctrines are just too much free power is all. The supplements as a concept are fine and are great for giving the chapters more flavor.
So much hyperbole by the same usual suspects over and over and over.
What’s more concerning than the buffs Marines keep getting lately is the distinct lack of love for the other factions. The Phoenix Rising book was, frankly, insulting when compared to what’s coming in faith and fury. And I’ll go on record that having Space Marines get these new faith and fury character upgrades so soon after the codex and before other factions get love IS a mistake. The timing I mean. Again, the concept is cool and fluffy, but the execution is really messed up!
You know, I wonder if the timing of these Psychic Awakening books relative to the SM Codex and Supplements got messed up somehow due to some issues we don’t know about. Releasing these things in this order and so close together just seems really strange. And something like the Ironstone with Feirros and double heals combined with that IH doctrine was clearly overpowered. Was there some weird delay in play testing? Did books get printed too quickly before proper testing was complete? Was the new codex/supplements meant to release after Psychic Awakening and Chapter Approved? Was Psychic Awakening delayed so they had to release marines sooner? The whole situation seems really weird.
We know there was printing delay issues regarding the Sylvaneth release, and we’ve seen the packaging mistakes for the white scars/salamanders dice. I wonder if there was more supply chain and production issues than we know?
Or maybe GW really are just dumb? Incompetent? Occam’s Razor?
Xenomancers wrote: That is all I mean by blanket. A 9" aura is like a blanket. Doctrines do very little against an ork army utilizing KFF. ESP with the 18" stratagem.
RG smoke the Big Mek on turn 2 like clockwork, he's toast. So, again, it's very matchup dependent. Honestly, Eliminators in general put a woop on the Big Mek. You can put it on a Morkanaut, but then you're counting on it surviving first turn devastator doctrine alpha strike, also probably dead.
RG in general just utterly dismantle Orks. KFF is also very particular, models have to be entirely within the bubble, not touching it, so if you start putting any vehicles, artillery or anything bigger than Boyz in there you run out of space very quickly.
Also, it's a 5++, it still fails more than it succeeds.
Quasistellar wrote: What’s more concerning than the buffs Marines keep getting lately is the distinct lack of love for the other factions.
It’s probably due to the fact there aren’t things like Primaris Death Company. GW is going full tilt on replacing everything previous and rules are the incentive.
Xenomancers wrote: That is all I mean by blanket. A 9" aura is like a blanket. Doctrines do very little against an ork army utilizing KFF. ESP with the 18" stratagem.
RG smoke the Big Mek on turn 2 like clockwork, he's toast. So, again, it's very matchup dependent. Honestly, Eliminators in general put a woop on the Big Mek. You can put it on a Morkanaut, but then you're counting on it surviving first turn devastator doctrine alpha strike, also probably dead.
RG in general just utterly dismantle Orks. KFF is also very particular, models have to be entirely within the bubble, not touching it, so if you start putting any vehicles, artillery or anything bigger than Boyz in there you run out of space very quickly.
Also, it's a 5++, it still fails more than it succeeds.
Ork armies are typically brining like 80+ Gretchen. Snipers get shut down by Gretchen. Plus they can just hide it and they can heal up against the ILOS shots. Don't get me wrong - eliminators are very good - they also get olbiterated by smasha guns. The point here is that marines get a lot of free AP from their new rules and also close combat power. It doesn't help you one bit in a gunline fight against invune saves.
Xenomancers wrote: Ork armies are typically brining like 80+ Gretchen. Snipers get shut down by Gretchen. Plus they can just hide it and they can heal up against the ILOS shots. Don't get me wrong - eliminators are very good - they also get olbiterated by smasha guns. The point here is that marines get a lot of free AP from their new rules and also close combat power. It doesn't help you one bit in a gunline fight against invune saves.
Ok, so the Grot Shields strat has a 6" range. What are you stacking under your KFF Xeno? Because right now it sounds like you've got a Big Mek and a bunch of Grots. The Grots have to be between the target and the shooter also, so orientation is very important. So you're stacking 3 full 30 man squads of Gretchin in front of your Big Mek? Let's assume you do some janky daisy chain crap so you can squeeze a few other thing under the bubble though. It's pretty easy to make the Ork player burn Grot Shields on something else, and if they don't, you're methodically dismantling their entire HQ, at which point, keep your Big Mek, enjoy.
Xenomancers wrote: That is all I mean by blanket. A 9" aura is like a blanket. Doctrines do very little against an ork army utilizing KFF. ESP with the 18" stratagem.
RG smoke the Big Mek on turn 2 like clockwork, he's toast. So, again, it's very matchup dependent. Honestly, Eliminators in general put a woop on the Big Mek. You can put it on a Morkanaut, but then you're counting on it surviving first turn devastator doctrine alpha strike, also probably dead.
RG in general just utterly dismantle Orks. KFF is also very particular, models have to be entirely within the bubble, not touching it, so if you start putting any vehicles, artillery or anything bigger than Boyz in there you run out of space very quickly.
Also, it's a 5++, it still fails more than it succeeds.
Ork armies are typically brining like 80+ Gretchen. Snipers get shut down by Gretchen. Plus they can just hide it and they can heal up against the ILOS shots. Don't get me wrong - eliminators are very good - they also get olbiterated by smasha guns. The point here is that marines get a lot of free AP from their new rules and also close combat power. It doesn't help you one bit in a gunline fight against invune saves.
Xenomancer oh divine ork strategist please bless me with your infinite wisdom. How does one tiny little green booger stop eliminators or snipers?
Xenomancers wrote: Ork armies are typically brining like 80+ Gretchen. Snipers get shut down by Gretchen. Plus they can just hide it and they can heal up against the ILOS shots. Don't get me wrong - eliminators are very good - they also get olbiterated by smasha guns. The point here is that marines get a lot of free AP from their new rules and also close combat power. It doesn't help you one bit in a gunline fight against invune saves.
Ok, so the Grot Shields strat has a 6" range. What are you stacking under your KFF Xeno? Because right now it sounds like you've got a Big Mek and a bunch of Grots. The Grots have to be between the target and the shooter also, so orientation is very important. So you're stacking 3 full 30 man squads of Gretchin in front of your Big Mek? Let's assume you do some janky daisy chain crap so you can squeeze a few other thing under the bubble though. It's pretty easy to make the Ork player burn Grot Shields on something else, and if they don't, you're methodically dismantling their entire HQ, at which point, keep your Big Mek, enjoy.
iircKFF requires the WHOLE unit to be within range. So congrats, you bait out grot shields against the big mech. Now you can go kill the SSAG gits with your S8 d3 weapons or whatever degree of unfairness they are.
Eonfuzz wrote: iircKFF requires the WHOLE unit to be within range. So congrats, you bait out grot shields against the big mech. Now you can go kill the SSAG gits with your S8 d3 weapons or whatever degree of unfairness they are.
Oh you're right, I forgot that, the unit has to be under, not the model. Yeah, no daisy chain, so currently, Xeno has a Big Mek and a truckload of Grots under the KFF, I think I'd safely ignore that castle.
skchsan wrote: As long as knights don't get doctrine-esque buffs I'm ok with that.
even if they did you'd never see them in use. Doctrines only come into play if you're running a pure army. how many people do you figure run pure knights?
You get doctrines for running a single chapter detachments. You just dont get extension if youre not single chapter army.
I think it’s too early to call if whether or not marines are a mistake from GW’s perspective. Obviously the supplements are OP, but I’m reasonably certain that was GW’s intent from the very beginning. From their side they invested a ton in the new primarous line, only to not sell a lot because the original codex was weak. So make a newer version that is clearly strong (even if that means brushing off play tester concerns) to clear excessive space marine inventory and sell the new models. Space marines are top of the meta for a while, but then we get to the spring where space marines can get nerfed after GW’s sold the majority of product.
Juries out on whether this is a good idea though. First off is this will likely detour people from buying other armies new product (new chaos sorcerer, eldar box set. Ect) second is people are buying less non-marine armies stuff in general, not a huge deal but a factor non the less. Finally there’s a loss of public perception. As many posters have pointed out many communities are not happy with what happened with marines. This could mean some people will quite, but the bigger impact is of people slowing down their spending. “Oh I was going to start a GSC army, but now that Maries are so good I’ll just stick to tau.” And “I was going to try to play 40k more competitively, but I’d rather not just play marines so I’ll just keep what I have and continue to play casually.” This factor is the hardest to quantify, as GW won’t know the full impact of this until a couple of years pass.
So overall the supplements could have been a mistake, but just because it’s negatively impacting us non-marine players doesn’t mean it’s a mistake from GW’s perspective.
_SeeD_ wrote: Any news on what GW's next big move is?
It seems they're pretty much trying to squat all the other armies in the game so it's just 30K 2.0.
So I'm going with...More Marine stuff, then after that, more marines, followed by more marines, then maybe one Xenos model to let the White Knights have something to go "SeE tHEy dOnT OnLy Do MArinES!"
_SeeD_ wrote: Any news on what GW's next big move is?
It seems they're pretty much trying to squat all the other armies in the game so it's just 30K 2.0.
So I'm going with...More Marine stuff, then after that, more marines, followed by more marines, then maybe one Xenos model to let the White Knights have something to go "SeE tHEy dOnT OnLy Do MArinES!"
Followed by a new Marine thing.
That's a bald-faced lie and you know it!
GW is obviously going to keep releasing new xenos otherwise us marine players will run out of exotic enemies to job in the novels!
You can only slap Chaos around for so long before the taste becomes too one note.
_SeeD_ wrote: Any news on what GW's next big move is?
It seems they're pretty much trying to squat all the other armies in the game so it's just 30K 2.0.
So I'm going with...More Marine stuff, then after that, more marines, followed by more marines, then maybe one Xenos model to let the White Knights have something to go "SeE tHEy dOnT OnLy Do MArinES!"
Followed by a new Marine thing.
This is so true it hurts. We’ve already seen the “B b b but Necrons had that one character in that boxed set that one time which is the same as what my [Chapter] has had really!!!!one” argument made by some of the more....creative Marine white knights.
I love the way the community is kicking off on Facebook, it’s about time GW had some feedback about their idiotic release schedule and preference for all things power armour. Hopefully they shelve the next 15 Marine models they were no doubt going to release next year and give Xenos factions a little love. Doubtful, but they can’t claim to be listening to the community otherwise.
_SeeD_ wrote: Any news on what GW's next big move is?
Not sure about "big" move, but the next PA book is meant to be BA vs. Tyranids - your guess is as good as mine as to how well that turns out, for either faction.
It does sounds like we might be getting Pri-Mephiston, though.
_SeeD_ wrote: Any news on what GW's next big move is?
Well Sisters of Battle 2 week preorder prior to new army sold out in about a minute and crashed their website so that was a next big thing badly handled.
_SeeD_ wrote: Any news on what GW's next big move is?
Not sure about "big" move, but the next PA book is meant to be BA vs. Tyranids - your guess is as good as mine as to how well that turns out, for either faction.
It does sounds like we might be getting Pri-Mephiston, though.
I look forward to Tyranids getting to pick their 'pick 2' trait list while BA's get a new powered up Mephiston, doctrines, super doctrine and a bunch of new relics and stratagems and probably something else because that is clearly not enough.
_SeeD_ wrote: Any news on what GW's next big move is?
Not sure about "big" move, but the next PA book is meant to be BA vs. Tyranids - your guess is as good as mine as to how well that turns out, for either faction.
It does sounds like we might be getting Pri-Mephiston, though.
I look forward to Tyranids getting to pick their 'pick 2' trait list while BA's get a new powered up Mephiston, doctrines, super doctrine and a bunch of new relics and stratagems and probably something else because that is clearly not enough.
Don't forget that the Codex Space Marines will "need" new stuff as well - they might as well just call them Marine Campaign books
Wait for the new Eldar codex, then you will see what overpowered means.
Too much moaning about Marines, they were in the same opposite situation months ago, when Drukhari, Astra or Craftworld were all much more better than Marines
Codex Supplements was a good idea with a bad implementation, this could be said for the entirety of 8th edition though. marines are mathematically badly designed. GW chose to stack rules on top of rules to mitigate this design flaw, it was super effective, however inconsistent between sm factions.
The design of having some factions, White Scars, etc Chapter rules trigger in the assault doctrine completely shows how for whatever reason taking this game seriously is just going to lead into bad times. Without anyway to start in the Assault Doctrine (Assault>Tactical>Devastator.)
_SeeD_ wrote: Any news on what GW's next big move is?
It seems they're pretty much trying to squat all the other armies in the game so it's just 30K 2.0.
So I'm going with...More Marine stuff, then after that, more marines, followed by more marines, then maybe one Xenos model to let the White Knights have something to go "SeE tHEy dOnT OnLy Do MArinES!"
Followed by a new Marine thing.
This is so true it hurts. We’ve already seen the “B b b but Necrons had that one character in that boxed set that one time which is the same as what my [Chapter] has had really!!!!one” argument made by some of the more....creative Marine white knights.
I love the way the community is kicking off on Facebook, it’s about time GW had some feedback about their idiotic release schedule and preference for all things power armour. Hopefully they shelve the next 15 Marine models they were no doubt going to release next year and give Xenos factions a little love. Doubtful, but they can’t claim to be listening to the community otherwise.
They don’t listen. They claimed 8th was the edition “we asked for”. Shoot twice, fight twice, move twice, character targeting rules, 75+ autohits, who the hell were they listening to?
The Deer Hunter wrote: Wait for the new Eldar codex, then you will see what overpowered means.
Too much moaning about Marines, they were in the same opposite situation months ago, when Drukhari, Astra or Craftworld were all much more better than Marines
And it will still be a bad thing.
The problem with "everyone else will get this buff in time" is that not only can you not say this for certain as GW has a bad track record. Its also a problem that 8th edition, through power creep was (and is) already entering into the area of 'to lethal'.
Stuff was already dying to fast before the new Marine codex dramatically upped the power level.
Its seen by GW having to try and fix it several times already with deepstrike limitations, the turn 1 cover stratagem for the player going 2nd ect.
The last thing 8th edition needed was stuff dying even faster as everyone gets buffed to compete with new Marines.
The fundamental thing I feel GW has got wrong: "the player base always wants new rules". Well, no, not if those new rules completely imba the game the players love. Rules are constantly leveraged to move product, rather than as an end in themselves. Until they start to treat their rules as an end in themselves, the game will suffer.
Having had such a massive success on their hands since the 8th reboot, GW need to tread a little more lightly because, especially in share prices, what goes up fast can also come down with a *bang*.
If I had any say GW would invest some of its huge profits on 1) an expert, autonomous, internal review team that oversaw the design process, the managers' role in that process, and a rigorous testing scheme; 2) a fantastic root-and-branch living game portal for list building and rule maintenance with a subscription system and; 3) honest-to-goodness competitive support along the lines X-Wing gets - close integration with the scene, fantastic prize support, etc. If they carry on down their current path, I have to say I am a bit worried that they'll cook the golden goose...
Lots of flavour, some extremely powerful synergies and no stacking passive Legion buffs that radically alter how powerful units perform without some kind of opportunity cost like CP. It's a shame SM don't exist along exactly those same lines.
The new supplements add a lot of variety and distinctiveness to Space Marines making them feel much more than "Oh, these are Red or Blue or Yellow or Green or Black or Grey Space Marines" all using the same rules. It's like Skittles- they all look different, but taste the same. Now, it's much more like Starburst candy. Every color tastes different.
Its unfortunate that the other factions in the game don't get a similar treatment. Chaos comes close, and falls a bit short. Wouldn't it be great to see an Ork Clan book? Eldar Faction books? GW has proven they can give a faction a real identity, flavor and rules to match. They can also go a little too far with the rules (cough cough Iron Hands cough).
Tamwulf wrote: The new supplements add a lot of variety and distinctiveness to Space Marines making them feel much more than "Oh, these are Red or Blue or Yellow or Green or Black or Grey Space Marines" all using the same rules. It's like Skittles- they all look different, but taste the same. Now, it's much more like Starburst candy. Every color tastes different.
Its unfortunate that the other factions in the game don't get a similar treatment. Chaos comes close, and falls a bit short. Wouldn't it be great to see an Ork Clan book? Eldar Faction books? GW has proven they can give a faction a real identity, flavor and rules to match. They can also go a little too far with the rules (cough cough Iron Hands cough).
I wonder when 9th edition will be announced?
Faith and fury looks like it will make the legions feel distinct. At least until you run out of cp.
Tamwulf wrote: The new supplements add a lot of variety and distinctiveness to Space Marines making them feel much more than "Oh, these are Red or Blue or Yellow or Green or Black or Grey Space Marines" all using the same rules.
Combat Doctrines is terrible. It's just a flat AP buff with no decision making or counterplay.
Well, the somewhat sad thing is, in a non-competitive environment where people don't min/max and just sort of field their gak, the new SM and their supplements are not only fine, but dare I say it, possibly fun. They introduce a lot of different builds for SM to field, making them a more interesting army in general.
But once you start cranking your army up to 11, they are meta warping to the point of being miserable to play against.
Goes full circle and re-introduces the 'Age of Decurion'
With CA, FAQs, Errata, etc., at this point someone new would pick up the BRB and respective codex and it is immediately out of date.
Face it, GW are addicted to rules bloat because it sells new books...I give you the complete gak show that is Psychic Awakening as an example.
Its a problem with GW's limited business model. Once they have released a codex for each army they are out of options and they need to either release a new edition with enough differences to redo all the codexes or they need to think of something else to bolt ontop of the game
To be fair in among all the wailing and gnashing of teeth with people tearing clumps of there hair out and flogging themselves with there own torn up xenos/cms codex it seems to have been forgotten that for the majority of there existence space marines have been decidedly mediocre and that’s being generous.
Yes they have been some good periods for marines but they tend towards boring monobuilds caused by unintended rules interactions unrelated to the actual codex.
A big chunk of the time Marines have been gak has been parallel to a xenos/csm army being hideously broken normally for months and sometimes years. Pretty much every army has had its period in the sun Necrons,Elder,Tau,CSM, GSC even Orks some of these have had multiple periods of glory others just crushed entire editions.
Yet marines get there first good rules for quite sometime and within hours every xenos player collectively lost there gak, I’m not counting CSM because there always like that. Watching Elder players whine was delightfully hypocritical and entertaining at the same time considering the then current flying circus meta and the fact they have been breaking the game in various ways for years.
There seems to have been some kind of mass hysteria but other than sour grapes I cannot see why, I mean I guess some tournament players are upset that playing against marines is no longer free victory points. Also some people who invested heavily in cheese armies that are hard countered by some marines would be unhappy. Ahhh actually yeah ok nvm it makes sense now
I think Space Marines have been good this edition already. Plus they were good last edition too (12 free razorbacks wtf). That's more than most factions have had in the spotlight.
To be fair in among all the wailing and gnashing of teeth with people tearing clumps of there hair out and flogging themselves with there own torn up xenos/cms codex it seems to have been forgotten that for the majority of there existence space marines have been decidedly mediocre and that’s being generous.
Yes they have been some good periods for marines but they tend towards boring monobuilds caused by unintended rules interactions unrelated to the actual codex.
A big chunk of the time Marines have been gak has been parallel to a xenos/csm army being hideously broken normally for months and sometimes years. Pretty much every army has had its period in the sun Necrons,Elder,Tau,CSM, GSC even Orks some of these have had multiple periods of glory others just crushed entire editions.
Yet marines get there first good rules for quite sometime and within hours every xenos player collectively lost there gak, I’m not counting CSM because there always like that. Watching Elder players whine was delightfully hypocritical and entertaining at the same time considering the then current flying circus meta and the fact they have been breaking the game in various ways for years.
There seems to have been some kind of mass hysteria but other than sour grapes I cannot see why, I mean I guess some tournament players are upset that playing against marines is no longer free victory points. Also some people who invested heavily in cheese armies that are hard countered by some marines would be unhappy. Ahhh actually yeah ok nvm it makes sense now
No one here has denied that Space Marines needed a buff. The problem is the size of the buff is to big.
Aside from how false 'first good rules in quite sometime' is. Having a 60+% winrate is not good. Regardless of which faction has it.
To be fair in among all the wailing and gnashing of teeth with people tearing clumps of there hair out and flogging themselves with there own torn up xenos/cms codex it seems to have been forgotten that for the majority of there existence space marines have been decidedly mediocre and that’s being generous.
Yes they have been some good periods for marines but they tend towards boring monobuilds caused by unintended rules interactions unrelated to the actual codex.
A big chunk of the time Marines have been gak has been parallel to a xenos/csm army being hideously broken normally for months and sometimes years. Pretty much every army has had its period in the sun Necrons,Elder,Tau,CSM, GSC even Orks some of these have had multiple periods of glory others just crushed entire editions.
Yet marines get there first good rules for quite sometime and within hours every xenos player collectively lost there gak, I’m not counting CSM because there always like that. Watching Elder players whine was delightfully hypocritical and entertaining at the same time considering the then current flying circus meta and the fact they have been breaking the game in various ways for years.
There seems to have been some kind of mass hysteria but other than sour grapes I cannot see why, I mean I guess some tournament players are upset that playing against marines is no longer free victory points. Also some people who invested heavily in cheese armies that are hard countered by some marines would be unhappy. Ahhh actually yeah ok nvm it makes sense now
Are you quite finished disgorging more verbal diarrhoea than Papa Nurgle?
Okay, good.
First of all, yes, Space marines weren't great for most of 8th and were in need of a fix. However, they were far from the *only* faction that was struggling and in need of a fix.
To take a particularly pertinent example, CSMs haven't exactly been lighting the world on fire either. Especially if your idea of CSMs isn't 'pick the best units from about 6 different books and ignore everything else - including most of the actual Chaos Space marines'. Indeed, Chaos Space Marines suffered basically all the same problems as their non-spiky brethren.
However, whilst Space Marines got a spanking new codex that provided sweeping improvements across the board, CSMs were given a "new" codex that changed almost nothing, failed to include any of the improvements SMs had received and was little more than a compilation book for a few extra rules and models that had been added since the initial book launched.
Hence, whilst I'm not a CSM player myself, I can understand CSM players feeling rather slighted.
But let's get back to Space marines. Okay, they got a new, super-codex with a bunch of improvements that no other faction has access to. You say that they needed the power boost. Fine.
What about the slew of subfaction books that added even more additional rules and power increases that were by this point wholly unnecessary?
What about the fact that they are getting even more rules and bonuses in the upcoming Faith and Fury book, whilst Eldar and DE got virtually nothing, and CSMs will be lucky to even break even with Marines before all their extra supplements?
Moreover, even if you think SMs getting a million, billion extra rules is somehow justifiable even as their power creeps so high that other factions have to strain their necks just to keep it in sight, what about the endless model releases for them? If you think that new rules should prioritise the faction that is currently the worse for wear, then surely that should also hold true when it comes to models? But whilst there are plenty of factions with rather pitiful model ranges, all we seem to see are endless waves of new bloody marine models.
I know that GW employees swear oaths of eternal obedience towards marines, but even by their own awful standards the level of marine releases have been obnoxious beyond all reason.
There is also this odd "something had to smash the Eldar all flyers meta!!11!!"
But... it hasn't. Eldar Flyers - as I see it - is one of the few lists that is viable versus Marines. Its just more and more obvious how clear this is what all flavours of Eldar have.
But then I guess CA can't be that far away. Perhaps then we can have a year of total 100% undisputed Marine domination.
Considering that eldar Flyers still Are there whilest Chaos has seemingly dropped out,i'd say that marines more likely kicked out Chaos rather then the"Flyers"
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering that eldar Flyers still Are there whilest Chaos has seemingly dropped out,i'd say that marines more likely kicked out Chaos rather then the"Flyers"
Yeah but I get the feeling alaitoc may be getting a nerf to go along with the disappointment that was Phoenix rising.
Along with the one legion whose trait gw may actually update.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering that eldar Flyers still Are there whilest Chaos has seemingly dropped out,i'd say that marines more likely kicked out Chaos rather then the"Flyers"
Yeah but I get the feeling alaitoc may be getting a nerf to go along with the disappointment that was Phoenix rising.
Along with the one legion whose trait gw may actually update.
Tbf DG probably need it the most.
Still in a Way this is now beyond wierd.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering that eldar Flyers still Are there whilest Chaos has seemingly dropped out,i'd say that marines more likely kicked out Chaos rather then the"Flyers"
Yeah but I get the feeling alaitoc may be getting a nerf to go along with the disappointment that was Phoenix rising.
Along with the one legion whose trait gw may actually update.
Tbf DG probably need it the most.
Still in a Way this is now beyond wierd.
Nope. It'll be alpha legion. Cause if sm can't have -1 to hit nobody can. Once rg lost it you knew everyone would.
From what I've seen the amount of complaints/criticism lines up much more with HOW op a faction is rather than which. Some skew towards more complaints against shooty armies, but generally speaking the amount of criticism of marines currently lines up with their win %.
Tamwulf wrote: The new supplements add a lot of variety and distinctiveness to Space Marines making them feel much more than "Oh, these are Red or Blue or Yellow or Green or Black or Grey Space Marines" all using the same rules. It's like Skittles- they all look different, but taste the same. Now, it's much more like Starburst candy. Every color tastes different.
Its unfortunate that the other factions in the game don't get a similar treatment. Chaos comes close, and falls a bit short. Wouldn't it be great to see an Ork Clan book? Eldar Faction books? GW has proven they can give a faction a real identity, flavor and rules to match. They can also go a little too far with the rules (cough cough Iron Hands cough).
I wonder when 9th edition will be announced?
I kind of feel its the other way, all the space marines have a bunch of unique that all blends into one big mess. And marines that should be just as capable as others end up sidelined since the rules are not subtle enough to be used in such a way.
They are all just Blue, Red, Yellow or green. As there is no flavor to be had when there really is no reason not to just play the rules that are best, Marines are Supposed to be a veteran force able to adapt to situations rabidly and with efficiency.
If they really want to show chapters as different, they should be focusing on what units and weapons and tech they have available to each chapter. And how they can outfit there units.
Special and None Special unique HQ and other things.
Not flat rule buffs that would make sense for basically any army or faction of its type, let alone just any marine specialist force.
Tamwulf wrote: The new supplements add a lot of variety and distinctiveness to Space Marines making them feel much more than "Oh, these are Red or Blue or Yellow or Green or Black or Grey Space Marines" all using the same rules. It's like Skittles- they all look different, but taste the same. Now, it's much more like Starburst candy. Every color tastes different.
Its unfortunate that the other factions in the game don't get a similar treatment. Chaos comes close, and falls a bit short. Wouldn't it be great to see an Ork Clan book? Eldar Faction books? GW has proven they can give a faction a real identity, flavor and rules to match. They can also go a little too far with the rules (cough cough Iron Hands cough).
I wonder when 9th edition will be announced?
I kind of feel its the other way, all the space marines have a bunch of unique that all blends into one big mess. And marines that should be just as capable as others end up sidelined since the rules are not subtle enough to be used in such a way.
They are all just Blue, Red, Yellow or green. As there is no flavor to be had when there really is no reason not to just play the rules that are best, Marines are Supposed to be a veteran force able to adapt to situations rabidly and with efficiency.
If they really want to show chapters as different, they should be focusing on what units and weapons and tech they have available to each chapter. And how they can outfit there units.
Special and None Special unique HQ and other things.
Not flat rule buffs that would make sense for basically any army or faction of its type, let alone just any marine specialist force.
I'm guessing you don't play Marines. because the only way all marines feel samey after this 'dex is if you don't play em and thus haven't taken the time examing the subtlies of the codex (this is normal, most people who don't play an army just here hyperbolic "they can do this this and this!")
the supplements now actually make the marine chapters really stand out. for a start due to the wide varity of strats, relics, WL traits etc ALL chapters are viable. If you play Ultramarines you are in for a fairly differant experiance from Iron Hands. your army will synergize better with differant units etc. Iron Hands for example want to focus on big guns on tanks. Ultramarines are going to be a more mobile rapid movement infantry army.
Tamwulf wrote: The new supplements add a lot of variety and distinctiveness to Space Marines making them feel much more than "Oh, these are Red or Blue or Yellow or Green or Black or Grey Space Marines" all using the same rules. It's like Skittles- they all look different, but taste the same. Now, it's much more like Starburst candy. Every color tastes different.
Its unfortunate that the other factions in the game don't get a similar treatment. Chaos comes close, and falls a bit short. Wouldn't it be great to see an Ork Clan book? Eldar Faction books? GW has proven they can give a faction a real identity, flavor and rules to match. They can also go a little too far with the rules (cough cough Iron Hands cough).
I wonder when 9th edition will be announced?
I kind of feel its the other way, all the space marines have a bunch of unique that all blends into one big mess. And marines that should be just as capable as others end up sidelined since the rules are not subtle enough to be used in such a way.
They are all just Blue, Red, Yellow or green. As there is no flavor to be had when there really is no reason not to just play the rules that are best, Marines are Supposed to be a veteran force able to adapt to situations rabidly and with efficiency.
If they really want to show chapters as different, they should be focusing on what units and weapons and tech they have available to each chapter. And how they can outfit there units.
Special and None Special unique HQ and other things.
Not flat rule buffs that would make sense for basically any army or faction of its type, let alone just any marine specialist force.
I'm guessing you don't play Marines. because the only way all marines feel samey after this 'dex is if you don't play em and thus haven't taken the time examing the subtlies of the codex (this is normal, most people who don't play an army just here hyperbolic "they can do this this and this!")
the supplements now actually make the marine chapters really stand out. for a start due to the wide varity of strats, relics, WL traits etc ALL chapters are viable. If you play Ultramarines you are in for a fairly differant experiance from Iron Hands. your army will synergize better with differant units etc. Iron Hands for example want to focus on big guns on tanks. Ultramarines are going to be a more mobile rapid movement infantry army.
I do, I have been playing them that way for 15 years. And I think you missed my point, I just switch around the rules as suit my current needs for my marines. The special snowflake rules mean zero when they should really just be within how different units and commanders would go about command on the battlefield.
It’s a lot of rules just for marines, and less for other army’s that should have access to them.
Also it’s cool when they do the cool rules for marines that follow the codex much less, but that’s not really what i am talking about.
grouchoben wrote: The fundamental thing I feel GW has got wrong: "the player base always wants new rules". Well, no, not if those new rules completely imba the game the players love. Rules are constantly leveraged to move product, rather than as an end in themselves. Until they start to treat their rules as an end in themselves, the game will suffer.
Having had such a massive success on their hands since the 8th reboot, GW need to tread a little more lightly because, especially in share prices, what goes up fast can also come down with a *bang*.
If I had any say GW would invest some of its huge profits on 1) an expert, autonomous, internal review team that oversaw the design process, the managers' role in that process, and a rigorous testing scheme; 2) a fantastic root-and-branch living game portal for list building and rule maintenance with a subscription system and; 3) honest-to-goodness competitive support along the lines X-Wing gets - close integration with the scene, fantastic prize support, etc. If they carry on down their current path, I have to say I am a bit worried that they'll cook the golden goose...
Yeah, having played a few games now that have relatively static rulesets, I DO NOT want a continuous stream of new rules. It's so refreshing, feeling like I'm able to breathe, build a solid list and play with that for a while.
Well, it does seem to be a bit of a roll of the dice to spend huge time on making your armies look good and hope and pray they get to have good rules.
It seems funny that the GW "poster child" armies of 40k are the ones that do not seem to get much love.
The "standard" armies need the fast release but the "fringe" armies get that one-up codex creep that has the unintended consequence of making odd-balls the better armies.
I think I gave up on CSM since around 6th edition and they still have not seen much love yet, Nurgle was beginning to look like something for a time.
I think I have some 5000 points worth of these guys collecting dust.
Do we even want to talk about Grey Knights? They have a consistent smell to them for how long now?
When I wanted to have something to fight my CSM I had no idea these guys stank up the place worse.
Got almost all the metal models and a fair bit of the plastic... again gathering dust.
Deathwatch... had a moment there with the interesting Primaris squad mix rules... too bad their flyers are really bad.
These guys need some serious updates to even make a passing appearance to be space marines.
Again, not doing all that great with these dudes either.
Inquisition, I have pretty much everything they have out there except the dreadnaught Inquisitor guy (Karamazov I think).
There may be a hope with the new codex coming out.
So, I have a fair bit of Primaris, so I have decided I would go Ultramarines. Yeah, they have that cool rule of treating them like they are standing still for shooting. Remember the caveat for them is no "soup" so no other army can mix in with their greatness.
I have a fully painted Black Templar "Squat-marine" force which is looking doubtful with what is coming up of them getting much "OP" rules especially when everyone else is getting psychically "awakened".
So, my Imperial Guard have taken some nerf hits and i am arriving late to the field with Imperial Knights, so who knows?
I feel like the smarter business decision for GW would have been to release the crazy OP marine dexes and then force everyone else to pay up with PA focused on the Xenos.
Throw a little SM love in there (faction specific litanies in one book, upgraded characters in another) but put the real meat in there for Xenos who can't compete outside of 1-2 builds.
Instead, GW seems to have chosen to alienate (ha) the Xenos players that are not playing the 1-2 hyper competitive meta builds and really isn't offering any hope. Power creep moves units (I swear this is a GW mantra) I just think they are missing the boat on cashing in on Xenos wanting to catch-up with marines 2.0
bananathug wrote: Instead, GW seems to have chosen to alienate (ha) the Xenos players that are not playing the 1-2 hyper competitive meta builds and really isn't offering any hope. Power creep moves units (I swear this is a GW mantra) I just think they are missing the boat on cashing in on Xenos wanting to catch-up with marines 2.0
Apparently we're all supposed to carry an SM army as a backup for when our codex sucks.
Would have been helpful if this disclaimer had been on the front of the book really.
Deathwatch... had a moment there with the interesting Primaris squad mix rules... too bad their flyers are really bad.
These guys need some serious updates to even make a passing appearance to be space marines.
Again, not doing all that great with these dudes either.
[/snip]
If you're playing Deathwatch and even acknowledging that Primaris exist you're doing it wrong, the money unit there is Storm Shield/Stormbolter Veterans. Rigging for any "normal" Marine army and then running into one with SIA and four shots per model that also wastes all your AP and all your D2 is painful.
Tamwulf wrote: The new supplements add a lot of variety and distinctiveness to Space Marines making them feel much more than "Oh, these are Red or Blue or Yellow or Green or Black or Grey Space Marines" all using the same rules. It's like Skittles- they all look different, but taste the same. Now, it's much more like Starburst candy. Every color tastes different.
Its unfortunate that the other factions in the game don't get a similar treatment. Chaos comes close, and falls a bit short. Wouldn't it be great to see an Ork Clan book? Eldar Faction books? GW has proven they can give a faction a real identity, flavor and rules to match. They can also go a little too far with the rules (cough cough Iron Hands cough).
I wonder when 9th edition will be announced?
I kind of feel its the other way, all the space marines have a bunch of unique that all blends into one big mess. And marines that should be just as capable as others end up sidelined since the rules are not subtle enough to be used in such a way.
They are all just Blue, Red, Yellow or green. As there is no flavor to be had when there really is no reason not to just play the rules that are best, Marines are Supposed to be a veteran force able to adapt to situations rabidly and with efficiency.
If they really want to show chapters as different, they should be focusing on what units and weapons and tech they have available to each chapter. And how they can outfit there units.
Special and None Special unique HQ and other things.
Not flat rule buffs that would make sense for basically any army or faction of its type, let alone just any marine specialist force.
I'm guessing you don't play Marines. because the only way all marines feel samey after this 'dex is if you don't play em and thus haven't taken the time examing the subtlies of the codex (this is normal, most people who don't play an army just here hyperbolic "they can do this this and this!")
the supplements now actually make the marine chapters really stand out. for a start due to the wide varity of strats, relics, WL traits etc ALL chapters are viable. If you play Ultramarines you are in for a fairly differant experiance from Iron Hands. your army will synergize better with differant units etc. Iron Hands for example want to focus on big guns on tanks. Ultramarines are going to be a more mobile rapid movement infantry army.
bananathug wrote: Instead, GW seems to have chosen to alienate (ha) the Xenos players that are not playing the 1-2 hyper competitive meta builds and really isn't offering any hope. Power creep moves units (I swear this is a GW mantra) I just think they are missing the boat on cashing in on Xenos wanting to catch-up with marines 2.0
Apparently we're all supposed to carry an SM army as a backup for when our codex sucks.
Would have been helpful if this disclaimer had been on the front of the book really.
In my mind this is really the dividing line between "veteran players" and everyone else; the moment it really sinks in that every army has been jank at some point and will be jank again at some point in the future.
bananathug wrote: Instead, GW seems to have chosen to alienate (ha) the Xenos players that are not playing the 1-2 hyper competitive meta builds and really isn't offering any hope. Power creep moves units (I swear this is a GW mantra) I just think they are missing the boat on cashing in on Xenos wanting to catch-up with marines 2.0
Apparently we're all supposed to carry an SM army as a backup for when our codex sucks.
Would have been helpful if this disclaimer had been on the front of the book really.
In my mind this is really the dividing line between "veteran players" and everyone else; the moment it really sinks in that every army has been jank at some point and will be jank again at some point in the future.
Yeah, and in 7th, when it was "Eldar is OP, everything else is trash" people were similarly pissed.
More so, honestly. The hate here seems mostly directed at Games Workshop and their towering stupidity, or at worst directed at the "mary-sueness" of the (fictional) space marine characters. Nobody is yelling that marine PLAYERS are some scum of the earth WAAC douchebags because suddenly they received a half-dozen OP codexes all at once.
Throughout 7th, during the Eldar >Everyone era, people who played eldar were pretty much universally cast as "the problem."
bananathug wrote: Instead, GW seems to have chosen to alienate (ha) the Xenos players that are not playing the 1-2 hyper competitive meta builds and really isn't offering any hope. Power creep moves units (I swear this is a GW mantra) I just think they are missing the boat on cashing in on Xenos wanting to catch-up with marines 2.0
Apparently we're all supposed to carry an SM army as a backup for when our codex sucks.
Would have been helpful if this disclaimer had been on the front of the book really.
What this and alot of other similar minded comments fail to convey, is to what kind of game it applies. The power ceiling (and floor) of the factions is all over the place and you can not expect to come to a random table with a random opponent, just throw your models down without communication and have a close game.
This is not how the game has worked for the past 20 years that I experienced it. If this is what you expect, then sorry to tell you, but Warhammer 40k is not the game you are going to get happy with. You are not wrong for wanting it, just saying you won't find it in Games Workshop.
I want to emphasize that from the comments alone, as a reader, you get the impression that you either can't play certain armies at all or that every army is reduced to 4-5 units from their complete roster. This is true if you play in tournaments or high competitive environments. It is not true if you are having a beer&pretzels gaming group where people are less focused on individual performance of a unit and more into aesthetic, army theme or simply rolling buckets of dice. Tau can have fun and even games without three Commanders and three Riptides and 500 shield drones, just as Chaos can have fun and even games without bringing the mother of all soups led by three Discolords.
That was well said hero. GW has never put out a game that you could play pick-up with a random stranger without a high probability of one of you having a bad time, and the vast majority of them have suffered from "win at list design, not at the table" syndrome.
Also I like how basic SM were "meh" for years and now when they get their buff all the IG and TauDar players are upsetti spaghetti.
...Did you come here from some sort of late 5th/ early 6th edition time warp where the meta is IG and Taudar?
I think it shouldn't be all that controversial to say that when a new book comes out and suddenly out of nowhere it is over 50% of top placing lists for several weeks, it is overpowered. Because that doesn't happen with most new books. With most books, we get a leaked blurry photo of rules and it spawns a 40-page thread about how Kelermorph is going to dominate the meta and is the most OP thing to ever enter the game...then the book drops and in the two week window following it landing people aren't expecting its tricks and it pulls in 25-30% of top placings before adjusting back down.
That ain't happening with nu-marines. The only bump we've seen in their dominance has been from the IHfaq, where they dropped from 75-80% of top placings to 55-65%.
Also I like how basic SM were "meh" for years and now when they get their buff all the IG and TauDar players are upsetti spaghetti.
I'd be curious how many people who are complaining so viciously about space marines had no issues running wraith knights back in the day
"Nobody is yelling that marine PLAYERS are some scum of the earth WAAC douchebags because suddenly they received a half-dozen OP codexes all at once.
Throughout 7th, during the Eldar >Everyone era, people who played eldar were pretty much universally cast as "the problem."
I really have to thank you, I feel like for the past couple of weeks you've been popping into threads just to prove me right. People are going to start accusing you of being my strawman alt.
Also I like how basic SM were "meh" for years and now when they get their buff all the IG and TauDar players are upsetti spaghetti.
I'd be curious how many people who are complaining so viciously about space marines had no issues running wraith knights back in the day
"Nobody is yelling that marine PLAYERS are some scum of the earth WAAC douchebags because suddenly they received a half-dozen OP codexes all at once.
Throughout 7th, during the Eldar >Everyone era, people who played eldar were pretty much universally cast as "the problem."
I really have to thank you, I feel like for the past couple of weeks you've been popping into threads just to prove me right. People are going to start accusing you of being my strawman alt.
Conversely, though, this is the first time I've seen Marines be on top, and not too many people complaining about how trash Marines are. I'm plesantly surprised.
Also, I think you'd be surprised about how many Eldar players complained about Eldar being so bonkers OP.
I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded
Continuity wrote: I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded
On a related point, "poor design" is a mostly seperate axis than "balance" as far as problems are concerned. It's not the power of the SM books that bothers me so much. It's the poor design. I'd rather Marines weren't so OP, but I'd much rather a more well-designed book that was just as OP than a poorly designed book. Even if the poorly designed book were less unbalanced.
Don't get me wrong; I'd prefer balance to not. But good design overall is much more important to me (but not to everybody, for reasonable reasons).
Continuity wrote: I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded
It's a variation of the sunk cost logical fallacy. Basically it's the 'I suffered, so you should have to suffer too.' train of thought.
Continuity wrote: I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded
I find it absolutely hilarious, actually.
Especially since it induces name-calling and frothing at the mouth. That's my favorite part.
Also I like how basic SM were "meh" for years and now when they get their buff all the IG and TauDar players are upsetti spaghetti.
I'd be curious how many people who are complaining so viciously about space marines had no issues running wraith knights back in the day
LOL - literally none of them. I think I firmly remember people saying things like...Scatter bikes are "okay". It's whatever man. Some of these complaints are warranted. Like Ironhands are just laughable the amount of free rules they get...Ultramarines though...? Come on. You could play Ironhands vs ultras and ironahnds would win 90% of the games. That is the difference in power.
Continuity wrote: I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded
It's a variation of the sunk cost logical fallacy. Basically it's the 'I suffered, so you should have to suffer too.' train of thought.
That is standard dakka discussion man. Almost every discussion boils down to. "OMG CSM indestructible bike squad in 4th" - "OMG 6th ed wave serpants and WK" "OMG 5th edd GK". It's basically because the way releases in this game work - we are always waiting for the next rules update to powercreep up and most of the time your army is below that curve or sometimes the codex is just a swing and a miss too. When that happens you have to wait for a who new edition to get an "OP codex". It is gross. I think wed all have a lot more fun if we just went back to index 40k.
I don't think you're contributing anything to the conversation, nor are you convincing anyone to your point. And I believe you have already referred to players as whiners, and compared them to children taking tantrums rather than engage in what is said. I don't see anything civil.
Salt donkey wrote: I think it’s too early to call if whether or not marines are a mistake from GW’s perspective. Obviously the supplements are OP, but I’m reasonably certain that was GW’s intent from the very beginning. From their side they invested a ton in the new primarous line, only to not sell a lot because the original codex was weak. So make a newer version that is clearly strong (even if that means brushing off play tester concerns) to clear excessive space marine inventory and sell the new models. Space marines are top of the meta for a while, but then we get to the spring where space marines can get nerfed after GW’s sold the majority of product.
Juries out on whether this is a good idea though. First off is this will likely detour people from buying other armies new product (new chaos sorcerer, eldar box set. Ect) second is people are buying less non-marine armies stuff in general, not a huge deal but a factor non the less. Finally there’s a loss of public perception. As many posters have pointed out many communities are not happy with what happened with marines. This could mean some people will quite, but the bigger impact is of people slowing down their spending. “Oh I was going to start a GSC army, but now that Maries are so good I’ll just stick to tau.” And “I was going to try to play 40k more competitively, but I’d rather not just play marines so I’ll just keep what I have and continue to play casually.” This factor is the hardest to quantify, as GW won’t know the full impact of this until a couple of years pass.
So overall the supplements could have been a mistake, but just because it’s negatively impacting us non-marine players doesn’t mean it’s a mistake from GW’s perspective.
They had a great concept with the SM codex + supplements. It would have been great to apply that across the board to all factions. I would have happily bought all the codexes and all the over-priced supplements. There's no reason every faction couldn't have benefited from this system of book releases, except greed and laziness on GWs part.
I really don't understand how GW thought PA was going to compare in any way favorably to SM codex. PA1 was a disaster in comparison. PA2 was better, but also gave amazing buffs to SM (I mean c'mon already). That's going to be a consistent theme throughout PA. Yes, Xenos will get buffs but SM / Imperial soup is going to get stupidly strong along the way.
Had they done the right thing and given all factions a codex + supplements update I would have been all in, gladly spending several more thousands of dollars on this hobby.
Now with PA and no announcement of any other codex plans, I will be doing all I can to not buy a single thing. Not a book or a single model. As a xenos player, I don't really understand why you would give another penny to GW after this. It really shows you how they feel about their customers - you're just a number, that's it.
Continuity wrote: I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded
On a related point, "poor design" is a mostly seperate axis than "balance" as far as problems are concerned. It's not the power of the SM books that bothers me so much. It's the poor design. I'd rather Marines weren't so OP, but I'd much rather a more well-designed book that was just as OP than a poorly designed book. Even if the poorly designed book were less unbalanced.
Don't get me wrong; I'd prefer balance to not. But good design overall is much more important to me (but not to everybody, for reasonable reasons).
So the real question is if Super Doctrines, or Doctrines in general, are good game design. As you've probably seen me rant, I don't think Super Doctrines are good design at all and border on being like the Super Formations basically that killed 7th basically.
If you're playing for any other reason, you're going to waste money and whinge on the internet. A lot.
Man, can you point us to your fan-fiction blog? You must share stories with Yoyo! Are you guys Instagram besties?
But thanks for showing up and telling everyone they're playing wrong, I'm sure that's going to go over well.
"You're enjoying your toys wrong" is 70% of 40k discussions online.
Taking war toys this seriously is a sign of a severe problem.
Darsath wrote: I don't think you're contributing anything to the conversation, nor are you convincing anyone to your point. And I believe you have already referred to players as whiners, and compared them to children taking tantrums rather than engage in what is said. I don't see anything civil.
Wrong.
Now, use the ignore feature if people aren't posting what you like to read.
Continuity wrote: I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded
On a related point, "poor design" is a mostly seperate axis than "balance" as far as problems are concerned. It's not the power of the SM books that bothers me so much. It's the poor design. I'd rather Marines weren't so OP, but I'd much rather a more well-designed book that was just as OP than a poorly designed book. Even if the poorly designed book were less unbalanced.
Don't get me wrong; I'd prefer balance to not. But good design overall is much more important to me (but not to everybody, for reasonable reasons).
So the real question is if Super Doctrines, or Doctrines in general, are good game design. As you've probably seen me rant, I don't think Super Doctrines are good design at all and border on being like the Super Formations basically that killed 7th basically.
Anything can work if priced correctly. Marine vehicles are NOT priced to have IH super doctrines, hence why they are busted, the same way assault centurions are not priced to get easy deep strikes.
So no, just bolting extra rules to a book that was clearly written without those rules in mind is mathematically unbalanced and wrong and it should be self evident
"You're enjoying your toys wrong" is 70% of 40k discussions online.
Taking war toys this seriously is a sign of a severe problem.
In any place where a normal army with books, and paint supplies cost between three and four months of avarge saleries, it is going to always going to be serious stuff. w40k is not serious only for people that can tell themselfs, that if they don't like the army the play right now, they can just buy a new one or switch games.
n any place where a normal army with books, and paint supplies cost between three and four months of avarge saleries, it is going to always going to be serious stuff. w40k is not serious only for people that can tell themselfs, that if they don't like the army the play right now, they can just buy a new one or switch games.
I hate to be that guy, but if the hobby causes that kind of stress, then you don't have a hobby. That's an addiction.
My army is kinda decent. I don't intend to buy a new one because something else is better.
None of this is a concern because I don't obsess with winning and play against people who want a good game, not a competitive crowd.
"You're enjoying your toys wrong" is 70% of 40k discussions online.
Taking war toys this seriously is a sign of a severe problem.
In any place where a normal army with books, and paint supplies cost between three and four months of avarge saleries, it is going to always going to be serious stuff.
The counter clearly being, if it's 3-4 months average saleries, you shouldn't buy in unless you're sure it's worth that much money to you.
w40k is not serious only for people that can tell themselfs, that if they don't like the army the play right now, they can just buy a new one or switch games.
Or those who don't spend too much on it before realizing if the game - and their unit choices - is for them.
Continuity wrote: I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded
On a related point, "poor design" is a mostly seperate axis than "balance" as far as problems are concerned. It's not the power of the SM books that bothers me so much. It's the poor design. I'd rather Marines weren't so OP, but I'd much rather a more well-designed book that was just as OP than a poorly designed book. Even if the poorly designed book were less unbalanced.
Don't get me wrong; I'd prefer balance to not. But good design overall is much more important to me (but not to everybody, for reasonable reasons).
So the real question is if Super Doctrines, or Doctrines in general, are good game design. As you've probably seen me rant, I don't think Super Doctrines are good design at all and border on being like the Super Formations basically that killed 7th basically.
That is a great comparison. How many free rules can I get for these units I was going to take anyways?
Cool, let me know when the narrative mode tournament starts.
Probably the late 80s?
If you want narrative-free tournaments, it's called chess/poker/flip-a-coin. "Narrative" vs "Crunch" isn't as absolutist as you think. Most games, metas, and players are part narrative/part crunch - even if they don't recognize it themselves. Perhaps the top 5 players at the biggest tournies are pure competitive players (perhaps, but I doubt it), but plenty of players at most tournaments care, to some degree at least, about narrative/fluff.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Good luck with your 1st place tourney prize that doesn't cover the cost of most boxed kits.
I think most serious tourney players accept they are going to have to chase the meta. There is zero point in complaining about it. They're going to simply adjust and change up their army as necessary.
If you want narrative-free tournaments, it's called chess/poker/flip-a-coin. "Narrative" vs "Crunch" isn't as absolutist as you think. Most games, metas, and players are part narrative/part crunch - even if they don't recognize it themselves. Perhaps the top 5 players at the biggest tournies are pure competitive players (perhaps, but I doubt it), but plenty of players at most tournaments care, to some degree at least, about narrative/fluff.
I don't really care how you play the game, I play the occasional narrative game also.
However, I don't show up in a rules discussion thread and apply narrative reasoning to the process then tell everyone they're stupid.
Play the game as you will. I have some beautiful armies that I field purely for the paint job. But you notice how I don't bring them up for a discussion about how the rules should change?
The counter clearly being, if it's 3-4 months average saleries, you shouldn't buy in unless you're sure it's worth that much money to you.
And you do, and then GW decides that Inari should be no more, or what ever other army was good at some point and you liked, and GW destroyed. this is practicaly forcing people in to the whole paint models, buy what you like and all the other stupid stuff. Because when the times come for your army to get the good rules, suddenly all those for fun players, that were supposably beating tournament lists with their casual stuff, get on how bad to for the game is your army having good rules, and how GW has to change it as soon as possible.
At the same time if someone points out when their lore friendly faciton were top tier, they didn't play with the good models, you just have used more terrain or just use ally, or if all is bad concentrate on painting. Yet somehow when their stuff ain't top tier, they don't find the idea of being only painting and no longer playing for a few years unacceptable.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Good luck with your 1st place tourney prize that doesn't cover the cost of most boxed kits.
I think most serious tourney players accept they are going to have to chase the meta. There is zero point in complaining about it. They're going to simply adjust and change up their army as necessary.
It's like being in a band. You play because you love it. If you're pissed off that your music is less popular this year than another band, and worried about making money... Well, trying to keep up is gonna cost a lot and be frustrating.
If you want narrative-free tournaments, it's called chess/poker/flip-a-coin. "Narrative" vs "Crunch" isn't as absolutist as you think. Most games, metas, and players are part narrative/part crunch - even if they don't recognize it themselves. Perhaps the top 5 players at the biggest tournies are pure competitive players (perhaps, but I doubt it), but plenty of players at most tournaments care, to some degree at least, about narrative/fluff.
I don't really care how you play the game, I play the occasional narrative game also.
However, I don't show up in a rules discussion thread and apply narrative reasoning to the process then tell everyone they're stupid.
Play the game as you will. I have some beautiful armies that I field purely for the paint job. But you notice how I don't bring them up for a discussion about how the rules should change?
That would be fething stupid.
Not that I disagree with your callout of certain tones of posts - some things were said far too forcefully.
But
The new Space Marine supplements were a mistake
Isn't just a rules discussion. The form and structure of the rules was a bad direction from a fluff/narrative perspective as well.
The counter clearly being, if it's 3-4 months average saleries, you shouldn't buy in unless you're sure it's worth that much money to you.
And you do, and then GW decides that Inari should be no more, or what ever other army was good at some point and you liked, and GW destroyed. this is practicaly forcing people in to the whole paint models, buy what you like and all the other stupid stuff. Because when the times come for your army to get the good rules, suddenly all those for fun players, that were supposably beating tournament lists with their casual stuff, get on how bad to for the game is your army having good rules, and how GW has to change it as soon as possible.
Reflect more on the "you shouldn't buy in unless you're sure it's worth that much money to you". I didn't say "Unless it's the army you'll be winning games with". I'd seriously caution anyone getting into the hobby and dropping hundreds of dollars that they should be sure they know what they're getting into. 40k has never been a great tactical challenge between strategic geniuses. It's always been a loose and not-well-balanced rulesset. A new player should be sure that they are up for a game like that; that what they're looking for is not something 40k does not (and never has) offered.
A prospective player should be made very aware that the game isn't fair. That if they'll only enjoy it if their army is "reasonably strong", they're in the wrong hobby. That 40k is a hobby/culture first, a game second, and a technical/competitive challenge a very distant third (if at all). At virtually any point in 40k's history, a due diligence glance at it's history should have made that obvious.
There is no "times come for your army to get the good rules". Balance is far more random than that. If that's what you're waiting for, you should probably get out. Not because we don't want you here, but because you don't want to be here. You're looking for something 40k has never been, and likely never will be.
40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).
Salt donkey wrote: I think it’s too early to call if whether or not marines are a mistake from GW’s perspective. Obviously the supplements are OP, but I’m reasonably certain that was GW’s intent from the very beginning. From their side they invested a ton in the new primarous line, only to not sell a lot because the original codex was weak. So make a newer version that is clearly strong (even if that means brushing off play tester concerns) to clear excessive space marine inventory and sell the new models. Space marines are top of the meta for a while, but then we get to the spring where space marines can get nerfed after GW’s sold the majority of product.
Juries out on whether this is a good idea though. First off is this will likely detour people from buying other armies new product (new chaos sorcerer, eldar box set. Ect) second is people are buying less non-marine armies stuff in general, not a huge deal but a factor non the less. Finally there’s a loss of public perception. As many posters have pointed out many communities are not happy with what happened with marines. This could mean some people will quite, but the bigger impact is of people slowing down their spending. “Oh I was going to start a GSC army, but now that Maries are so good I’ll just stick to tau.” And “I was going to try to play 40k more competitively, but I’d rather not just play marines so I’ll just keep what I have and continue to play casually.” This factor is the hardest to quantify, as GW won’t know the full impact of this until a couple of years pass.
So overall the supplements could have been a mistake, but just because it’s negatively impacting us non-marine players doesn’t mean it’s a mistake from GW’s perspective.
They had a great concept with the SM codex + supplements. It would have been great to apply that across the board to all factions. I would have happily bought all the codexes and all the over-priced supplements. There's no reason every faction couldn't have benefited from this system of book releases, except greed and laziness on GWs part.
I really don't understand how GW thought PA was going to compare in any way favorably to SM codex. PA1 was a disaster in comparison. PA2 was better, but also gave amazing buffs to SM (I mean c'mon already). That's going to be a consistent theme throughout PA. Yes, Xenos will get buffs but SM / Imperial soup is going to get stupidly strong along the way.
Had they done the right thing and given all factions a codex + supplements update I would have been all in, gladly spending several more thousands of dollars on this hobby.
Now with PA and no announcement of any other codex plans, I will be doing all I can to not buy a single thing. Not a book or a single model. As a xenos player, I don't really understand why you would give another penny to GW after this. It really shows you how they feel about their customers - you're just a number, that's it.
GW was never billing PA as being "As good as the space marine codex" a supplement will NEVER be as good as a outright new codex release. I mean let's steps abck and go to an imaginary world where space marines didn't get a new codex, they still got the supplements and what they're getting in PA2. so no doctrines no super doctrtines, no new units and none of the new core book strats, JUST the new relics, strats etc in the supplement. they'd be betetr yes, but they'd still have a base codex filled with crap strats and no doctrines.
in fact when you factor tht in we have the perfect example in the form of CSMs. PA isn't going to fix armies who need a new CODEX.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: 40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).
I wonder why my decades-old models just got huge buffs then.
Continuity wrote: I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded
On a related point, "poor design" is a mostly seperate axis than "balance" as far as problems are concerned. It's not the power of the SM books that bothers me so much. It's the poor design. I'd rather Marines weren't so OP, but I'd much rather a more well-designed book that was just as OP than a poorly designed book. Even if the poorly designed book were less unbalanced.
Don't get me wrong; I'd prefer balance to not. But good design overall is much more important to me (but not to everybody, for reasonable reasons).
I have exactly the opposite reaction, I'd much rather have a poorly designed book right on the middle of the power curve.
I'm on the fence about whether the Marine codex and suppliments are well designed. There's a lot of interesting choices to make and I can build lists around a lot of different strategies. The stuff in the suppliments doesn't invalidate all the choices in the main codex. There's a lot of non-starter choices, but not any more than normal for a GW product and they're fairly evenly distributed.
I'm not at all on the fence about whether GW missed the mark on the power curve. Whether they did it out of incompetence or for the meta-chaser sales is up for debate, but you generally don't stay in business for as long as GW has been doing this if you're incompetent.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: 40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).
I wonder why my decades-old models just got huge buffs then.
I'd say that is "Collateral Damage" in a way the buffs are handled.
GW couldn't just buff Primaris without being called p2w and product pushers, so they applied a buff to the whole army that would effect primaris more, and better.
Just remember that super doctrines weren't meant to stack and that GW told them to "Turn it up to 11" and thus they stacked (Rumor online apparently from a designer, don't shoot me)
Adeptus Doritos wrote: 40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).
I wonder why my decades-old models just got huge buffs then.
I'd say that is "Collateral Damage" in a way the buffs are handled.
GW couldn't just buff Primaris without being called p2w and product pushers, so they applied a buff to the whole army that would effect primaris more, and better.
Just remember that super doctrines weren't meant to stack and that GW told them to "Turn it up to 11" and thus they stacked (Rumor online apparently from a designer, don't shoot me)
Sure seems like my Devastators with Heavy Weapons benefit more from my UM traits than Hellblasters do. Or that my actual treaded tanks benefit more from the UM fall-back and shoot more than the Primaris flying ones.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: 40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).
I wonder why my decades-old models just got huge buffs then.
I'd say that is "Collateral Damage" in a way the buffs are handled.
GW couldn't just buff Primaris without being called p2w and product pushers, so they applied a buff to the whole army that would effect primaris more, and better.
Just remember that super doctrines weren't meant to stack and that GW told them to "Turn it up to 11" and thus they stacked (Rumor online apparently from a designer, don't shoot me)
Sure seems like my Devastators with Heavy Weapons benefit more from my UM traits than Hellblasters do. Or that my actual treaded tanks benefit more from the UM fall-back and shoot more than the Primaris flying ones.
Nahh, it's a nu-model-pushing conspiracy.
So why else has no other army seen such a bizarre amount of new rules being slapped on top?
I guess it's either terrifying incompetence or blatant favouritism.
If I say, "Wow, you're right and I am wrong", will it stop you from being deliberately obtuse for the sake of being right? I'm willing to throw you a whole bone here.
If I say, "Wow, you're right and I am wrong", will it stop you from being deliberately obtuse for the sake of being right? I'm willing to throw you a whole bone here.
I'm just not going to mean it.
See i had already done that, pick your battles man.
If I say, "Wow, you're right and I am wrong", will it stop you from being deliberately obtuse for the sake of being right? I'm willing to throw you a whole bone here.
I'm just not going to mean it.
I'm just pointing out that this statement:
Adeptus Doritos wrote: 40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).
Isn't correct when I can be competitive with a collection of models that wouldn't have looked out of place in an army from two decades ago.
We've already seen that the Sisters are getting a mono-codex/faction buff set for their release, it's just that GW did it poorly, as is tradition with Sisters.
I'll reserve judgment until after we see the Tau and Eldar versions down the line.
Insectum7 wrote: Isn't correct when I can be competitive with a collection of models that wouldn't have looked out of place in an army from two decades ago.
I think you missed a pretty crucial statement I made.
But good job, you're so right and awesome, I'm so wrong. I guess I should have never dared to question your infinite wisdom.
Now, just pretend everything I say after this to the contrary is me playing devil's advocate or opposite day or something.
Insectum7 wrote: Isn't correct when I can be competitive with a collection of models that wouldn't have looked out of place in an army from two decades ago.
I think you missed a pretty crucial statement I made.
Nah, I think I'll let you do the legwork on this one.
Just remember: the Ultramarines Doctrine helps one unit slightly more than the other, therefore he's right.
Outside the fact that Heavy Hellblasters being able to benefit doesn't matter as nobody takes them compared to Devastators. Not that they're very popular either besides for mortal wounds.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Outside the fact that Heavy Hellblasters being able to benefit doesn't matter as nobody takes them compared to Devastators. Not that they're very popular either besides for mortal wounds.
And you can't even get Devastators any more, they don't put them on the shelves or sell them. Only old school players have access to them, and there's no way possible anyone could ever buy them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Outside the fact that Heavy Hellblasters being able to benefit doesn't matter as nobody takes them compared to Devastators. Not that they're very popular either besides for mortal wounds.
And you can't even get Devastators any more, they don't put them on the shelves or sell them. Only old school players have access to them, and there's no way possible anyone could ever buy them.
Just poking at your theory, that's all. 'Everybody's got to buy the latest kits in order to have a chance at 40K', and so forth.
I like how creative you are, while some would call that hyperbole or a straw man argument. I say you just took what I didn't say, and decided to express yourself and make some changes to it.
as oit is the whole "it's pay to win!" arguement is rediculas, EVERYONE has to buy their models and codex so of cour se it is. the whole "pay to win is bad" thing is with regards to FREE TO PLAY ONLINE GAMES.
it's like screaming about doping in 40k. yes doping in physical atheletics is bad but it's so far outside the model of 40k, using the word in a 40k discussion is frankly intellectually dishonest.
Just poking at your theory, that's all. 'Everybody's got to buy the latest kits in order to have a chance at 40K', and so forth.
I like how creative you are, while some would call that hyperbole or a straw man argument. I say you just took what I didn't say, and decided to express yourself and make some changes to it.
You said:
Adeptus Doritos wrote: 40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).
Phrase "Pay 2 Win" and saying new kits will outperform old kits by design. Seems like a pretty straight forward statement to me.
I'm just calling bull because lots of old units got buffed, some more than new units, and GW is generally pretty inconsistent about making new kits great performers.
Naturally there's churn in the game, and having a larger collection can help weather meta changes, but that's quite a different paradigm than the traditional definition of "pay 2 win" and "new units perform better than old units".
Phrase "Pay 2 Win" and saying new kits will outperform old kits by design. Seems like a pretty straight forward statement to me.
I guess you're wrong.
It's obviously outperforming other factions, right? So if you want to win, theoretically, you would buy the new buffed faction- old models included, right?
BrianDavion wrote: it's not pay to win, you're just throwing around terms you learned in a MMO general chat without understanding that 40k isn't a MMO
And so the knight in shining armour arrived to save the petite damsel from distress, his hair flailing in the wind behind him.
If games workshop is using rules to push models, which they are by the way. Then it is THE definition of Pay To Win.
Pay To Win = Designing the game so people that pay money directly have an advantage.
inb4 BUT GAMES WORKSHOP NEVER DO THAT
So? Who cares, it's done in a totally incidental way. It's still pay 2 win.
BrianDavion, the fastest knight with the shiniest or armours - even you must agree that Space Mehereeeeeeens are the strongest army right now, and dont give me any of that YE BUT ELDA FLIYAS gak.
Phrase "Pay 2 Win" and saying new kits will outperform old kits by design. Seems like a pretty straight forward statement to me.
I guess you're wrong.
It's obviously outperforming other factions, right? So if you want to win, theoretically, you would buy the new buffed faction- old models included, right?
This isn't complicated.
Since the book buffs the marine army basically across the board there's little incentive to buy new models. It'd be pay 2 win if the old models were made functionally obsolete, competitively speaking, with the new rules (thus forcing new purchases), but the book hardly does that. In some cases quite the opposite. If anything, it's made more Space Marine units and builds viable, allowing for a wide range of already existing collections to compete favorably. Making currently existing collections more competitive is basically the opposite of P2W.
Dai wrote: Remember when this forum was pretty civil? It's resembling a chan bratfest more and more with each passing day.
it really is the past few months have been pretty bad, there's always been some neigitvity on these fourms but of late you can't have a conversation at all here without it being derailed by the same tired arguments from the same half dozen people.
Dai wrote: Remember when this forum was pretty civil? It's resembling a chan bratfest more and more with each passing day.
it really is the past few months have been pretty bad, there's always been some neigitvity on these fourms but of late you can't have a conversation at all here without it being derailed by the same tired arguments from the same half dozen people.
Civil or not has nothing to do with negativity though. IMO the negativity is justified to a certain degree, the uncivilised name-calling attitude isn't.
Dai wrote: Remember when this forum was pretty civil? It's resembling a chan bratfest more and more with each passing day.
it really is the past few months have been pretty bad, there's always been some neigitvity on these fourms but of late you can't have a conversation at all here without it being derailed by the same tired arguments from the same half dozen people.
Civil or not has nothing to do with negativity though. IMO the negativity is justified to a certain degree, the uncivilised name-calling attitude isn't.
right I'm refering to negitive ADDITUDES, not negitive OPINIONS.
