So we've seen a number of threads become somewhat embroiled in a discussion around Marines of late and it seems to be annoying some (the marine) posters. To be fair and full disclosure, I have been guilty of getting sidetracked along this discussion myself in a few threads.
I've created this thread so we can all share our thoughts on nu-Marines, our stats from various sources, potentially what could fix them, our experiences etc. Marine players are welcome, feel free to defend your boys, offer counter-points or your own takes too.
Right so I'll go first, at the last stats centre I listened to (not this week, the one before) they broke down the post Supplement Marine meta (last 6 or 8 weeks or something). The results of that discussion and the stats are pretty telling, in my opinion (they tell me that Marines are busted);
Percentage of Marine players at tournaments; 25% of total tournament players.
Percentage of all 4-0 players that are Marines at tournaments; 45% of total 4-0 players. Almost half of the 4-0 lists at any given tournament are a flavour of Marine.
Percentage of Iron Hands players at tournaments; 10% (roughly).
Percentage of all 4-0 players that are Iron Hands; 27% of total 4-0 players. Almost a third of the 4-0 lists at any given tournament are Iron Hands. They're 10% of the player base. Damn.
These stats are from 40k stats centre and can be found on 40k stats.com. They have removed mirror matches for accuracy.
In other news; some factions have suffered greatly in terms of their competitive viability since Marines rose to prominence. Those factions are (in no particular order);
GSC Nids
Orks
Knights
Custodes
DG
Some factions have suffered in terms of their competitive viability since Marines appeared, but they haven't suffered quite as much as the factions above. Those factions are (in no particular order);
Chaos soup (aka Lord Disco lists)
CWE DE TS IG
Some factions have actually benefited from the nu-Marine Meta! Those factions are;
Chaos Daemons (the best win rate vs nu-Marines by far)
Tau
DA (have gone from a 32% win rate to 41% hot damn!)
BA SW Sororitas
I think that's enough to start a discussion. Have at it!
30" guns on standard infantry break the meta for mid-range shooting. That extra 6" allows them to kite MEQ and TEQ. Tactical Doctrine amplifies this effect, you can kind of get an extra turn of shooting with them.
Repulsors have too many guns for the points. Being able to put out 36+ shots on a tank at that cost is crazy. Triple Repulsor lists create a kill zone in the middle of the board that's very hard to beat with any melee army.
What we have to keep in mind and what is very hard to account for: Marines are simply more popular than other factions.
I'm not commenting on the tournament viability for now, but I want people to consider that if any kind of Codex compliant Chapter is getting strong rules, it is simply that more likely to see people taking Marines to tournaments than other armies.
If GSC would get totally broken rules over night, you would not nearly see as much players at any given tournament than with Marines. According to a poll on Dakka some time ago 35% of the playerbase owns Marines.
People are just ready to hit tournaments with it. GSC on the other hand is a niche army, popularity wise. Even if people would want to attend tournaments with them, they would take a much longer time first to finish a tournament collection.
Apart from meta chasers, regular collectors might not be interested in the army even if they like to go to a tourney every now and then.
The tournament stats tell a pretty compelling story, but I think it goes even further than that. One of the issues for more casual play is that fluffy, basic Marine units are very effective units now, so the power gap between a 'fluffy' Marine list and a cutthroat tournament list is smaller than it is with other armies.
This means that even if the meta is balanced such that Marines get a perfectly equal 50% winrate in tournaments, they will still overperform in casual play.
It's a shame, because on the face of it I kind of like the design approach they took to Marines- they made the basic units worth taking, and incentivized pure armies. I'd like to see other factions get the same treatment, and I was hoping Psychic Awakening would be the mechanism to do that, but it doesn't appear so far that that's the case.
I'm fine with Marines being super-powerful elites. They just need to be costed appropriately. A mild points increase on most units, with a bigger hike on some of the worse offenders, would be enough.
Normally NuMarines are a codeword for Primaris marines. Assuming that, Primaris marines aren't broken.They cost a ton of points and require multiple buffs to work correctly. They suffer from the marine statline problem, with players paying points to survive in melee but not to excel in it and still paying points for an only ok shooting model.
Strangely, oldMarines are doing better since they pay less points for the marine statline, but the single wound problem makes lists using them as risky as hell.
The new codex is a power boost, but the presence of sapce marines in tournament lists is for the eternal reason of 40k. Every player owns a marine list and they all bring them out when there are new marine goodies to try out.
I am less bothered by the rules to be honest that the constant, relentless Marine releases partly due to be spread across how many sub sub factions.....
In addition if there was any sign of them bothering to release a single supplement for a Sept, Craftworld, Dynasty, Hive Fleet, Order, Kabal, Kult, Coven, Masque..... it might be little more palatable.
Same if the new Campign books are obviously not just a series of appendix to the Marine Codex/s
catbarf wrote: The tournament stats tell a pretty compelling story, but I think it goes even further than that. One of the issues for more casual play is that fluffy, basic Marine units are very effective units now, so the power gap between a 'fluffy' Marine list and a cutthroat tournament list is smaller than it is with other armies.
This means that even if the meta is balanced such that Marines get a perfectly equal 50% winrate in tournaments, they will still overperform in casual play.
It's a shame, because on the face of it I kind of like the design approach they took to Marines- they made the basic units worth taking, and incentivized pure armies. I'd like to see other factions get the same treatment, and I was hoping Psychic Awakening would be the mechanism to do that, but it doesn't appear so far that that's the case.
I'm fine with Marines being super-powerful elites. They just need to be costed appropriately. A mild points increase on most units, with a bigger hike on some of the worse offenders, would be enough.
The repulsor and executioner could definitely use a point bump. The centurions and aggressors as well. I think the troops are good for their points right now, they are decent units but not broken. The eliminators are defiantly 20+ points undercosted.
Mr Morden wrote: I am less bothered by the rules to be honest that the constant, relentless Marine releases partly due to be spread across how many sub sub factions.....
In addition if there was any sign of them bothering to release a single supplement for a Sept, Craftworld, Dynasty, Hive Fleet, Order, Kabal, Kult, Coven, Masque..... it might be little more palatable.
Same if the new Campign books are obviously not just a series of appendix to the Marine Codex/s
They definitely irritated a large chunk of the players by stringing the 2.0 SM release over 3+ months, even many marine players hate it.
a_typical_hero wrote: What we have to keep in mind and what is very hard to account for: Marines are simply more popular than other factions.
I'm not commenting on the tournament viability for now, but I want people to consider that if any kind of Codex compliant Chapter is getting strong rules, it is simply that more likely to see people taking Marines to tournaments than other armies.
Before the new codex and supplements Marines represented 4-5% of the tournament lists.
I'll agree that marines are more popular than any other faction, but let's not pretend that every player has a hidden stash of Marines somewhere, it simply isn't the case. And even if they have a stash of Marines somewhere, the fact is that in normal situations they'd have to make a working list out of what they have (this list might not be optimal). The new supplements have provided Marine players with a wealth of many different, top tier competitive lists to create with almost any unit having a useful function.
ChargerIIC wrote: Normally NuMarines are a codeword for Primaris marines. Assuming that, Primaris marines aren't broken.They cost a ton of points and require multiple buffs to work correctly. They suffer from the marine statline problem, with players paying points to survive in melee but not to excel in it and still paying points for an only ok shooting model.
Strangely, oldMarines are doing better since they pay less points for the marine statline, but the single wound problem makes lists using them as risky as hell.
The new codex is a power boost, but the presence of sapce marines in tournament lists is for the eternal reason of 40k. Every player owns a marine list and they all bring them out when there are new marine goodies to try out.
Sorry, nuMarines in this instance refers to Nu-Codex Marines. Apologies if that was unclear.
Not every 40k player owns a Marine list and not every Marine list should be performing on the top tables all the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I predict this thread will be shut down by page 5-6
Why man? I've made this thread to try and stop the derailing of other threads so people have a place to discuss their Marine thoughts. It's kinda the hot topic at the moment and there was no centralised place to discuss it. Now there is. If people purposefully break rules in an attempt to get the thread locked, hopefully they are removed from the discussion.
a_typical_hero wrote: What we have to keep in mind and what is very hard to account for: Marines are simply more popular than other factions.
I'm not commenting on the tournament viability for now, but I want people to consider that if any kind of Codex compliant Chapter is getting strong rules, it is simply that more likely to see people taking Marines to tournaments than other armies.
Before the new codex and supplements Marines represented 4-5% of the tournament lists.
I'll agree that marines are more popular than any other faction, but let's not pretend that every player has a hidden stash of Marines somewhere, it simply isn't the case. And even if they have a stash of Marines somewhere, the fact is that in normal situations they'd have to make a working list out of what they have (this list might not be optimal). The new supplements have provided Marine players with a wealth of many different, top tier competitive lists to create with almost any unit having a useful function.
You are right but we know about 35% of players have a marine army but their 1.0 codex was aging horribly and they were not competitive at all. With a more competitive codex 2.0 came out more people started bringing their marines to tournaments. I have had a marine army for quite a while but I brought my Tau to tournaments because they were just so much better than my space marines.
It's pretty clear that the issue is iron hands from the data you have presented. That was pretty clear right from the start. I'd also wager that the remainder of space marine lists are majority CF with some RG/WS soups comprising the rest.
On Ironhands. Apart from just obviously having too many free rules on their models. They also cover the biggeest weakness of marines as well as make most of the options in the codex better than any other chapter can.
Weakness #1 - being forced to clump your forces together for buffs. Ironhands don't have to do this.
Weakness #2 - Being forced to stay still to deal maximum damage - Plus on units forced to move the penalty for moving is ignored making it essentially a +1 BS Reroll 1's upgrade for free before you even apply your army tactics and doctrines??? Utter insanity.
IF for some reason also get a 2 CP stratagem for free on every unit every turn...exploding 6's on units hitting on 5's is bad enough - but when they hit on 3's rerolling everything it is a massive buff (FOR FREE) Ignore cover is alread a suitable chapter tactic compared to the flied of tactics out there. (Flayed skull for example was one of the strongest mono armies you could make in the game as a whole. They also get reroll 1's but it's conditional and only affects a few units that can fly or ride in transports...The IF rule affects all units and heavy weapons too...Don't even get me started on +1 damage to vehicals blanket buff. LOL whoever came up with this rule needs to lose their job straight up. +1 Damage for free? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHA.
Saw a GT in England where the top 10 armies placed were marines and the top 5 where IF...The rest were Ironhands and Whitescar soup...MOTHER OF GOD.
Yep - no question these aremies are OP.
My suggested fix would be
Change dev doctrine to ignore move penalties for moving and shooting instead of AP -1.
Nerf IF super doctrine to only affect str 7+ weapons
Nerf IF/CF chapter tactics. IF only ignore cover and CF only have bolter drill.
Give Centurions vehicle keyword (with special rules to allow them to ride in certain transports)
Nerf DS/Infiltrate stratagems to affect only 1 unit.
If these changes were implements and marines still were dominating...(I don't think they would be) Then points increases would be needed without question.
Mr Morden wrote: I am less bothered by the rules to be honest that the constant, relentless Marine releases partly due to be spread across how many sub sub factions.....
In addition if there was any sign of them bothering to release a single supplement for a Sept, Craftworld, Dynasty, Hive Fleet, Order, Kabal, Kult, Coven, Masque..... it might be little more palatable.
Same if the new Campign books are obviously not just a series of appendix to the Marine Codex/s
I agree with this 100%. I'm more bothered that Marines just seem to be getting everything at the moment. The newest models. The newest rules. The best rules. The most in depth rules. The most varied rules. The most fun rules.
It would be nice for GW to show love elsewhere. I am certain it would lead to greater profits too, over time.
a_typical_hero wrote: What we have to keep in mind and what is very hard to account for: Marines are simply more popular than other factions.
I'm not commenting on the tournament viability for now, but I want people to consider that if any kind of Codex compliant Chapter is getting strong rules, it is simply that more likely to see people taking Marines to tournaments than other armies.
Before the new codex and supplements Marines represented 4-5% of the tournament lists.
I'll agree that marines are more popular than any other faction, but let's not pretend that every player has a hidden stash of Marines somewhere, it simply isn't the case. And even if they have a stash of Marines somewhere, the fact is that in normal situations they'd have to make a working list out of what they have (this list might not be optimal). The new supplements have provided Marine players with a wealth of many different, top tier competitive lists to create with almost any unit having a useful function.
Realistcally. Without knowing for sure. I wouldn't be surpised if over 50% of players have a marine army of at least 1000 points. 40% or more probably have complete armies. Probably up to a quarter of players marines are their largest army. OFC this is all just made up out of thin air but that is about what I believe to be true and it matches my group of players.
a_typical_hero wrote: What we have to keep in mind and what is very hard to account for: Marines are simply more popular than other factions.
I'm not commenting on the tournament viability for now, but I want people to consider that if any kind of Codex compliant Chapter is getting strong rules, it is simply that more likely to see people taking Marines to tournaments than other armies.
Before the new codex and supplements Marines represented 4-5% of the tournament lists.
I'll agree that marines are more popular than any other faction, but let's not pretend that every player has a hidden stash of Marines somewhere, it simply isn't the case. And even if they have a stash of Marines somewhere, the fact is that in normal situations they'd have to make a working list out of what they have (this list might not be optimal). The new supplements have provided Marine players with a wealth of many different, top tier competitive lists to create with almost any unit having a useful function.
Realistcally. Without knowing for sure. I wouldn't be surpised if over 50% of players have a marine army of at least 1000 points. 40% or more probably have complete armies. Probably up to a quarter of players marines are their largest army. OFC this is all just made up out of thin air but that is about what I believe to be true and it matches my group of players.
This wouldn't surprise me either. Marines have been in virtually every starter set for at least two decades (or maybe all of them?) - if you're interested in 40k, it's very easy to pick up a small collection of Marine models basically by accident. It's a lot easier to flesh out a list when you're not starting from scratch.
Xenomancers wrote: It's pretty clear that the issue is iron hands from the data you have presented. That was pretty clear right from the start. I'd also wager that the remainder of space marine lists are majority CF with some RG/WS soups comprising the rest.
Sorry Xeno I haven't bothered presenting the rest of the data, I thought it would come out from the discussion anyway.
Every Codex Marine subfaction is over-performing by quite a margin. Every single one. In order of popularity it goes; IH, UM, RG, IF, WS, Sallies.
I would argue that every subfaction of Codex Astartes is too powerful, including Ultramarines, as they are all over-performing (though some perform better than others, for sure).
Xenomancers wrote: It's pretty clear that the issue is iron hands from the data you have presented.
I don't have the data on-hand, but the recent tournament win percentages for the other supplements and the vanilla codex are high as well, and jump further when you exclude Marine-vs-Marine matchups.
My suggested fix would be
Change dev doctrine to ignore move penalties for moving and shooting instead of AP -1.
Nerf IF super doctrine to only affect str 7+ weapons
Nerf IF/CF chapter tactics. IF only ignore cover and CF only have bolter drill.
Give Centurions vehicle keyword (with special rules to allow them to ride in certain transports)
Nerf DS/Infiltrate stratagems to affect only 1 unit.
I agree with this for the most part. Would have to give the IH a new super doctrine, not sure what though. Why make centurions vehicles? Would make hem basically immune to poison.
ChargerIIC wrote: Normally NuMarines are a codeword for Primaris marines. Assuming that, Primaris marines aren't broken.They cost a ton of points and require multiple buffs to work correctly. They suffer from the marine statline problem, with players paying points to survive in melee but not to excel in it and still paying points for an only ok shooting model.
Strangely, oldMarines are doing better since they pay less points for the marine statline, but the single wound problem makes lists using them as risky as hell.
The new codex is a power boost, but the presence of sapce marines in tournament lists is for the eternal reason of 40k. Every player owns a marine list and they all bring them out when there are new marine goodies to try out.
Sorry, nuMarines in this instance refers to Nu-Codex Marines. Apologies if that was unclear.
Not every 40k player owns a Marine list and not every Marine list should be performing on the top tables all the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I predict this thread will be shut down by page 5-6
Why man? I've made this thread to try and stop the derailing of other threads so people have a place to discuss their Marine thoughts. It's kinda the hot topic at the moment and there was no centralised place to discuss it. Now there is. If people purposefully break rules in an attempt to get the thread locked, hopefully they are removed from the discussion.
Ohh most certainly, I don't disagree. And I hope you are right but I don't thik it will stop other threads from being derailed. Peeps will be peeps aaaaaight. Im just being realistically conservative given the observations as these hot topics always devolve into name calling and people just spewing bile at each other. I hope I'm wrong of course.
I just don't think there's anything that can be said/added. SM + Supplements is obviously broken OP ruleset because of layers and layers of free buffs...Well you don't need a genius to math hammer that one out. Its pretty obvious and all SM players eventually grudgingly agree "well yes I admit IH/IF stuff is pretty OP". Because it is and its not stopping... The latest buffs in BT supplement is yet another layer of buffs for master chaplains tech marines etc.. What could go wrong right ?
This turns the discussion into why its ok to be broken.. And that leads to name calling etc.
My suggestion would be to flat out remove doctrines or make them 3" aura. But that ship has sailed
An Actual Englishman wrote: I'll agree that marines are more popular than any other faction, but let's not pretend that every player has a hidden stash of Marines somewhere, it simply isn't the case. And even if they have a stash of Marines somewhere, the fact is that in normal situations they'd have to make a working list out of what they have (this list might not be optimal). The new supplements have provided Marine players with a wealth of many different, top tier competitive lists to create with almost any unit having a useful function.
Not everybody, but 35% of the playerbase is enough to skew attendance numbers by alot.
Let's assume we host a tournament and got 1000 Warhammer 40k players in our area.
Out of 1000 we have 35% Marines of some flavour, which means 350 Marine players and 650 Others. I just make a number up and say every tenth player is interested in going to tournaments.
This means in our tournament there will be 35 Marine armies and 65 armies that are distributed over 21 factions, for an average of 3 players per other faction. This will of course be different in reality, as not every army has the same popularity or tournament viability.
Reality is as well that there are not 35 Iron Hands, but ~5 players of each sub-faction. That would not be so bad compared to the 3 of other per faction, but we see Marines as one big group, even if their lists play very different from each other.
Marines have been around for long enough that everybody with enough interest could have made a 2000pts army. Thanks to the diverse playstyles of each sub-faction, people can pick the one that fits their collection the best.
I would start with making all super doctrine bonuses an alternative to the regular AP bonus. Turn by turn you can choose which one to apply for the whole army,
An Actual Englishman wrote: I'll agree that marines are more popular than any other faction, but let's not pretend that every player has a hidden stash of Marines somewhere, it simply isn't the case. And even if they have a stash of Marines somewhere, the fact is that in normal situations they'd have to make a working list out of what they have (this list might not be optimal). The new supplements have provided Marine players with a wealth of many different, top tier competitive lists to create with almost any unit having a useful function.
Not everybody, but 35% of the playerbase is enough to skew attendance numbers by alot.
Let's assume we host a tournament and got 1000 Warhammer 40k players in our area.
Out of 1000 we have 35% Marines of some flavour, which means 350 Marine players and 650 Others. I just make a number up and say every tenth player is interested in going to tournaments.
This means in our tournament there will be 35 Marine armies and 65 armies that are distributed over 21 factions, for an average of 3 players per other faction. This will of course be different in reality, as not every army has the same popularity or tournament viability.
Reality is as well that there are not 35 Iron Hands, but ~5 players of each sub-faction. That would not be so bad compared to the 3 of other per faction, but we see Marines as one big group, even if their lists play very different from each other.
Marines have been around for long enough that everybody with enough interest could have made a 2000pts army. Thanks to the diverse playstyles of each sub-faction, people can pick the one that fits their collection the best.
Let's not assume a dakka poll is some conclusive evidence on Marine numbers either. The fact is we simply don't know how many people own Marines and how many of those people own enough models to make a competitive list.
For example - I have been in the hobby since 2nd edition. I don't own a marine army. The only Marine models I own become decorations for my bases.
Either way I'm not sure I understand your point? Marines are currently 25% of the playerbase (at tournaments) and a way higher proportion of the top tables. That shows that they are OPIMO.
Xenomancers wrote: It's pretty clear that the issue is iron hands from the data you have presented. That was pretty clear right from the start. I'd also wager that the remainder of space marine lists are majority CF with some RG/WS soups comprising the rest.
Sorry Xeno I haven't bothered presenting the rest of the data, I thought it would come out from the discussion anyway.
Every Codex Marine subfaction is over-performing by quite a margin. Every single one. In order of popularity it goes; IH, UM, RG, IF, WS, Sallies.
I would argue that every subfaction of Codex Astartes is too powerful, including Ultramarines, as they are all over-performing (though some perform better than others, for sure).
Show me the data. I can't argue with data. Show me some data where Ultramarines/Sallies are dominating entire tournaments. It is also possible that more than 1 facet of marines doing well right now is overpowering rules. For example the change to reroll all hit instead of just failed hits makes -1 to hit a lot worse as a defensive stat. You can't argue that this wasn't a dominating stat before the CM change in nearly the same way as marines are dominating now (marines is admitably worse though). A good portion of people probably had to learn that the hard way. Also - the fact that some armies that aren't marines are getting an increase in win rate from the result of the marine meta is big too. Tau for example been slaughtering my marines all edition and nothing has changed and tau were terribly bad at killing -1 to hit spam. If tau was 10% of the armies at a tornament do you really think marines would still be dominating in this fashion? That is still doubtful to me but no way of really knowing.
Lets just compare what Ironahds get for free over ultramarines.
Turn 1 Ignore move pentalties for heavies/ Reroll 1's out of aura for free/ 6+ FNP/ half degrading profiles/ overwatch on 5's. Like....Seriously - they get all that for free. Without even going into the fact that dev doctrine does more damage than tactical ever could no mater how you look at it.
Fall back and shoot at -1 and +1 LD? Get outta here man...I'd take pretty much any non leadship based trait than this utter garbage.
To be fair, win rates alone aren't enough to justify calling something overpowered. It's the play rate that pairs with it that gives us enough evidence for most of the Space Marine supplements being over the top. Salamanders have a fairly low pick rate, and Ultramarines have an average win rate (50% is about as average at it gets) and low-ish pick rate, but could be that this win rate gets dragged down a bit by newer players (being the go-to army for beginners can have this effect). Still, Ultras and Salamnders are the least of the problems right now.
All of those are pretty damn high, bar Ultramarines and Salamanders (which didn't have their supplement for most of the data set).
I'd like to point out that those values get skewed somewhat in that they're also facing other SM players; if you filter out the SM-on-SM fights then all the percentages climb significantly.
Ultramarines have an average win rate because they get clubbed by IH/IF/WS/RG and in turn club everyone else; their ~50% does not reflect parity with the non-SM factions.
All of those are pretty damn high, bar Ultramarines and Salamanders (which didn't have their supplement for most of the data set).
Another way to look at this: win rates of other factions.
Only Sisters, Eldar, Mechanicus, Orks and Tau have > 50% win rates, the average is ~ 51% compared to 57% overall for Astartes.
If NuMarines were truly OP, I'd expect to see a larger margin. OTOH, from a subfaction perspective, Iron Hands are almost at a 70% win rate, and are the most frequently used sub-faction.
Have to think about what that means. Is it that Iron Hands really are that good, or that the rest of the meta hasn't adapted, or something else entirely?
Salamanders didn't have their suppliment and had the lowest win-rate, but Imperial Fist got their suppliment at the same time as Salamanders and they have the second highest win rate.
All of those are pretty damn high, bar Ultramarines and Salamanders (which didn't have their supplement for most of the data set).
Another way to look at this: win rates of other factions.
Only Sisters, Eldar, Mechanicus, Orks and Tau have > 50% win rates, the average is ~ 51% compared to 57% overall for Astartes.
If NuMarines were truly OP, I'd expect to see a larger margin. OTOH, from a subfaction perspective, Iron Hands are almost at a 70% win rate, and are the most frequently used sub-faction.
Have to think about what that means. Is it that Iron Hands really are that good, or that the rest of the meta hasn't adapted, or something else entirely?
Mr Morden wrote: I am less bothered by the rules to be honest that the constant, relentless Marine releases partly due to be spread across how many sub sub factions.....
In addition if there was any sign of them bothering to release a single supplement for a Sept, Craftworld, Dynasty, Hive Fleet, Order, Kabal, Kult, Coven, Masque..... it might be little more palatable.
Same if the new Campign books are obviously not just a series of appendix to the Marine Codex/s
I agree with this 100%. I'm more bothered that Marines just seem to be getting everything at the moment. The newest models. The newest rules. The best rules. The most in depth rules. The most varied rules. The most fun rules.
It would be nice for GW to show love elsewhere. I am certain it would lead to greater profits too, over time.
The campaign books are beginning to look like one big salt mine.
Pa1 didn't really do anything eldar players were looking for. Pa2 gave some great stuff to the legions but it was overshadowed by what gw gave to sm in the same book. I'd say that the next book is going to be worse for the tyranids when compared to the ba. Same for orks in the next book against sw.
It's starting to feel like chaos and xenos are fighting over space marine's crumbs.
a_typical_hero wrote: What we have to keep in mind and what is very hard to account for: Marines are simply more popular than other factions.
I'm not commenting on the tournament viability for now, but I want people to consider that if any kind of Codex compliant Chapter is getting strong rules, it is simply that more likely to see people taking Marines to tournaments than other armies.
Before the new codex and supplements Marines represented 4-5% of the tournament lists.
I'll agree that marines are more popular than any other faction, but let's not pretend that every player has a hidden stash of Marines somewhere, it simply isn't the case. And even if they have a stash of Marines somewhere, the fact is that in normal situations they'd have to make a working list out of what they have (this list might not be optimal). The new supplements have provided Marine players with a wealth of many different, top tier competitive lists to create with almost any unit having a useful function.
Realistcally. Without knowing for sure. I wouldn't be surpised if over 50% of players have a marine army of at least 1000 points. 40% or more probably have complete armies. Probably up to a quarter of players marines are their largest army. OFC this is all just made up out of thin air but that is about what I believe to be true and it matches my group of players.
This wouldn't surprise me either. Marines have been in virtually every starter set for at least two decades (or maybe all of them?) - if you're interested in 40k, it's very easy to pick up a small collection of Marine models basically by accident. It's a lot easier to flesh out a list when you're not starting from scratch.
Those starter kits also make marines significantly cheaper to buy on the secondary market. Lots of people join the hobby with space marines and if they don't stay around will probably sell their models which also floods the secondary market. Cheaper models lowers the barrier to competitive lists and chasing the meta. The different sub factions of marines don't always overlap on competitive units so the market dries up a lot slower than say Tau drones. Add in the fact that marines are already relatively money to point efficient and chasing the meta gets that much easier.
I agree though that if the supplements were released over say 3 weeks instead of 3 months then it would've been less irritating. Doesn't help that marine players complain that their codex is out of date because they got theirs first while everyone else was stuck on indexes. Its kind of like saying you deserve a second steak because yours got cold while everyone else was still waiting for their burger.
The point I want to make is that attendance numbers are likely to be inflated for Marines and not just because of strong rules.
If Genestealer Cults would get the exact same rules as Space Marines, there would likely still more Marine players attending tournaments because of faction popularity and availability.
All of those are pretty damn high, bar Ultramarines and Salamanders (which didn't have their supplement for most of the data set).
I'd like to point out that those values get skewed somewhat in that they're also facing other SM players; if you filter out the SM-on-SM fights then all the percentages climb significantly.
Ultramarines have an average win rate because they get clubbed by IH/IF/WS/RG and in turn club everyone else; their ~50% does not reflect parity with the non-SM factions.
Uhhh...I see where you are coming from but if Ultras loss at a high rate to ironhands it is clear they aren't anywhere near as powerful as ironhands. This also reduces their chance of winning against ANY army. Ultras are about where marines should be IMO through actually playing the game. Before Ultras were auto lose vs CWE - now I have a chance to win against CWE. Tau is still almost autowin unless I tailor a list. They are still at a top level of power but they stand on the same ground as other high powered armies like CWE/Tau/Knights...This is okay...IMO this is the level that every army should be balanced to.
Well the first buff all Marine players get is the Nu Marines. Primaris should be a seperate army, they play differently than the old line. Tougher units, flyi g and hovering, and all the funs are the same. Its a different army. Marine armies have access to both units. Having twice the choices as other factions is a huge buff.
They have their regular chapter tatics, then beta bolters, shock assult. Fine cool buffs. But doctrines and super doctrines on top of that is just too much.
Imagine if Xenos had doctrines and super doctrines.
Ultras should be baseline marines, I agree. They still feel like they're tipping the scales into "too good" right now.
Like I was doing pretty good before the book. Then my army got piles of free bonuses, free extra rules, point cuts, a replacement of stratagems with better/cheaper stratagems, some fantastic relic choices, etc.
The only things I can think of that got worse are Guilliman losing his wound rerolls and a Chaplain not automatically giving re-rolls to hit (which instead was replaced with some awesome abilities that I have to roll for instead).
a_typical_hero wrote: What we have to keep in mind and what is very hard to account for: Marines are simply more popular than other factions.
I'm not commenting on the tournament viability for now, but I want people to consider that if any kind of Codex compliant Chapter is getting strong rules, it is simply that more likely to see people taking Marines to tournaments than other armies.
Before the new codex and supplements Marines represented 4-5% of the tournament lists.
I'll agree that marines are more popular than any other faction, but let's not pretend that every player has a hidden stash of Marines somewhere, it simply isn't the case. And even if they have a stash of Marines somewhere, the fact is that in normal situations they'd have to make a working list out of what they have (this list might not be optimal). The new supplements have provided Marine players with a wealth of many different, top tier competitive lists to create with almost any unit having a useful function.
Realistcally. Without knowing for sure. I wouldn't be surpised if over 50% of players have a marine army of at least 1000 points. 40% or more probably have complete armies. Probably up to a quarter of players marines are their largest army. OFC this is all just made up out of thin air but that is about what I believe to be true and it matches my group of players.
This wouldn't surprise me either. Marines have been in virtually every starter set for at least two decades (or maybe all of them?) - if you're interested in 40k, it's very easy to pick up a small collection of Marine models basically by accident. It's a lot easier to flesh out a list when you're not starting from scratch.
Those starter kits also make marines significantly cheaper to buy on the secondary market. Lots of people join the hobby with space marines and if they don't stay around will probably sell their models which also floods the secondary market. Cheaper models lowers the barrier to competitive lists and chasing the meta. The different sub factions of marines don't always overlap on competitive units so the market dries up a lot slower than say Tau drones. Add in the fact that marines are already relatively money to point efficient and chasing the meta gets that much easier.
I agree though that if the supplements were released over say 3 weeks instead of 3 months then it would've been less irritating. Doesn't help that marine players complain that their codex is out of date because they got theirs first while everyone else was stuck on indexes. Its kind of like saying you deserve a second steak because yours got cold while everyone else was still waiting for their burger.
When the index they were using were superior to the codex marines got...your entire point moot. Marines were unquestionable bottom tier. Only greyknights were truely worse.
a_typical_hero wrote: What we have to keep in mind and what is very hard to account for: Marines are simply more popular than other factions.
I'm not commenting on the tournament viability for now, but I want people to consider that if any kind of Codex compliant Chapter is getting strong rules, it is simply that more likely to see people taking Marines to tournaments than other armies.
Before the new codex and supplements Marines represented 4-5% of the tournament lists.
I'll agree that marines are more popular than any other faction, but let's not pretend that every player has a hidden stash of Marines somewhere, it simply isn't the case. And even if they have a stash of Marines somewhere, the fact is that in normal situations they'd have to make a working list out of what they have (this list might not be optimal). The new supplements have provided Marine players with a wealth of many different, top tier competitive lists to create with almost any unit having a useful function.
Realistcally. Without knowing for sure. I wouldn't be surpised if over 50% of players have a marine army of at least 1000 points. 40% or more probably have complete armies. Probably up to a quarter of players marines are their largest army. OFC this is all just made up out of thin air but that is about what I believe to be true and it matches my group of players.
This wouldn't surprise me either. Marines have been in virtually every starter set for at least two decades (or maybe all of them?) - if you're interested in 40k, it's very easy to pick up a small collection of Marine models basically by accident. It's a lot easier to flesh out a list when you're not starting from scratch.
Those starter kits also make marines significantly cheaper to buy on the secondary market. Lots of people join the hobby with space marines and if they don't stay around will probably sell their models which also floods the secondary market. Cheaper models lowers the barrier to competitive lists and chasing the meta. The different sub factions of marines don't always overlap on competitive units so the market dries up a lot slower than say Tau drones. Add in the fact that marines are already relatively money to point efficient and chasing the meta gets that much easier.
I agree though that if the supplements were released over say 3 weeks instead of 3 months then it would've been less irritating. Doesn't help that marine players complain that their codex is out of date because they got theirs first while everyone else was stuck on indexes. Its kind of like saying you deserve a second steak because yours got cold while everyone else was still waiting for their burger.
When the index they were using were superior to the codex marines got...your entire point moot. Marines were unquestionable bottom tier. Only greyknights were truely worse.
What index armies consistently beat Codex armies? Even the Imperial Soup armies tended to lean on Gulliman before he got repeated nerfs. Malefic lords were souped in chaos lists, but CSM got the second codex. I guess ork boy spam lists were competitive, but generally armies weren't competitive until their codex came out.
All of those are pretty damn high, bar Ultramarines and Salamanders (which didn't have their supplement for most of the data set).
Another way to look at this: win rates of other factions.
Only Sisters, Eldar, Mechanicus, Orks and Tau have > 50% win rates, the average is ~ 51% compared to 57% overall for Astartes.
If NuMarines were truly OP, I'd expect to see a larger margin. OTOH, from a subfaction perspective, Iron Hands are almost at a 70% win rate, and are the most frequently used sub-faction.
Have to think about what that means. Is it that Iron Hands really are that good, or that the rest of the meta hasn't adapted, or something else entirely?
The win rates for those factions you've mentioned has (Eldar, Mechanicus, Orks) has dropped significantly in recent months. See above video - Orks went from 55% (ish) to 48%. That in itself isn't too bad (if it wasn't such a rapid drop) but their TWiP (aka percentage of 4-0 players) and first loss has gotten much worse also. Your stats seem from legacy wins, not October and November only.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The campaign books are beginning to look like one big salt mine.
Pa1 didn't really do anything eldar players were looking for. Pa2 gave some great stuff to the legions but it was overshadowed by what gw gave to sm in the same book. I'd say that the next book is going to be worse for the tyranids when compared to the ba. Same for orks in the next book against sw.
It's starting to feel like chaos and xenos are fighting over space marine's crumbs.
Agreed, the release and content of these PA volumes is actually having a negative impact on the community. There's only so often a faction can play second fiddle to Marines. It becomes too much. If Nids are screwed over in the next book compared to Marines, I fear Xenos players will walk (if they haven't already).
Something to think of on top of just the raw power levels here is how many new rules and interactions these supplements bring to the table, that everyone has to keep track of and analyze. In 4E/5E, I had pretty much every codex and FW book memorized, I could look at any model and tell you what every piece of WYSIWYG wargear did on it. I could tell you every army's special rules and know every statline and how all the different army's unique mechanics functioned.
At this point? You need about as much mental space dedicated to just the "codex adherent" Space Marine armies in 8E as you did the whole game in earlier editions, particularly given the length of interaction chains that abilities work from now (e.g. the new mono-army mechanics dictating use of new chapter trait abilities). What started relatively cleanly at the start of 8E has rapidly devolved back into adding gobs of power-ramping complexity portray "character" without adding much of anything to tabletop tactical depth, that makes it very hard to keep track of and remember everything even for relatively dedicated players.
a_typical_hero wrote: What we have to keep in mind and what is very hard to account for: Marines are simply more popular than other factions.
I'm not commenting on the tournament viability for now, but I want people to consider that if any kind of Codex compliant Chapter is getting strong rules, it is simply that more likely to see people taking Marines to tournaments than other armies.
Before the new codex and supplements Marines represented 4-5% of the tournament lists.
I'll agree that marines are more popular than any other faction, but let's not pretend that every player has a hidden stash of Marines somewhere, it simply isn't the case. And even if they have a stash of Marines somewhere, the fact is that in normal situations they'd have to make a working list out of what they have (this list might not be optimal). The new supplements have provided Marine players with a wealth of many different, top tier competitive lists to create with almost any unit having a useful function.
Realistcally. Without knowing for sure. I wouldn't be surpised if over 50% of players have a marine army of at least 1000 points. 40% or more probably have complete armies. Probably up to a quarter of players marines are their largest army. OFC this is all just made up out of thin air but that is about what I believe to be true and it matches my group of players.
This wouldn't surprise me either. Marines have been in virtually every starter set for at least two decades (or maybe all of them?) - if you're interested in 40k, it's very easy to pick up a small collection of Marine models basically by accident. It's a lot easier to flesh out a list when you're not starting from scratch.
Those starter kits also make marines significantly cheaper to buy on the secondary market. Lots of people join the hobby with space marines and if they don't stay around will probably sell their models which also floods the secondary market. Cheaper models lowers the barrier to competitive lists and chasing the meta. The different sub factions of marines don't always overlap on competitive units so the market dries up a lot slower than say Tau drones. Add in the fact that marines are already relatively money to point efficient and chasing the meta gets that much easier.
I agree though that if the supplements were released over say 3 weeks instead of 3 months then it would've been less irritating. Doesn't help that marine players complain that their codex is out of date because they got theirs first while everyone else was stuck on indexes. Its kind of like saying you deserve a second steak because yours got cold while everyone else was still waiting for their burger.
When the index they were using were superior to the codex marines got...your entire point moot. Marines were unquestionable bottom tier. Only greyknights were truely worse.
What index armies consistently beat Codex armies? Even the Imperial Soup armies tended to lean on Gulliman before he got repeated nerfs. Malefic lords were souped in chaos lists, but CSM got the second codex. I guess ork boy spam lists were competitive, but generally armies weren't competitive until their codex came out.
Beat marines?
Sisters and orks come to mind immediately. I'm sure tau did too. As index. Space marines codex was basically exactly the same as the index except a few units went UP in price and you got access to some of the worst relics warlord traits and stratagems the game has ever seen. Then once the other codex came out they lost to everyone. AM/CWE/DG/Tau all beat them without effort. Knights? LOL.
Nerf Iron Hands, let meta settle, nerf next applicable offender.
I don't think nerfing anything other than Iron Hands is called for until such a nerf has taken place. The presence of Iron Hands could be holding other lists back that would be much more viable if IH were out of the picture. One variable at a time, otherwise you're just flailing in the dark.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Nerf Iron Hands, let meta settle, nerf next applicable offender.
I don't think nerfing anything other than Iron Hands is called for until such a nerf has taken place. The presence of Iron Hands could be holding other lists back that would be much more viable if IH were out of the picture. One variable at a time, otherwise you're just flailing in the dark.
IF are obviously OP too. Blanket ignore cover - exploding 6's and +1 damage to vehicles is absurd. Ironhands too obviously to even more of a degree.
Yes I agree - Not to bee too fanboy like here but. Ultramarines superdoctrine should just be their chapter tactic...Because they have no fcking chapter tactic. It would even be okay if super-doctrines remained provided they were very limited in they things they effect.
Vaktathi wrote: Something to think of on top of just the raw power levels here is how many new rules and interactions these supplements bring to the table, that everyone has to keep track of and analyze. In 4E/5E, I had pretty much every codex and FW book memorized, I could look at any model and tell you what every piece of WYSIWYG wargear did on it. I could tell you every army's special rules and know every statline and how all the different army's unique mechanics functioned.
At this point? You need about as much mental space dedicated to just the "codex adherent" Space Marine armies in 8E as you did the whole game in earlier editions, particularly given the length of interaction chains that abilities work from now (e.g. the new mono-army mechanics dictating use of new chapter trait abilities). What started relatively cleanly at the start of 8E has rapidly devolved back into adding gobs of power-ramping complexity portray "character" without adding much of anything to tabletop tactical depth, that makes it very hard to keep track of and remember everything even for relatively dedicated players.
Vaktathi wrote: Something to think of on top of just the raw power levels here is how many new rules and interactions these supplements bring to the table, that everyone has to keep track of and analyze. In 4E/5E, I had pretty much every codex and FW book memorized, I could look at any model and tell you what every piece of WYSIWYG wargear did on it. I could tell you every army's special rules and know every statline and how all the different army's unique mechanics functioned.
At this point? You need about as much mental space dedicated to just the "codex adherent" Space Marine armies in 8E as you did the whole game in earlier editions, particularly given the length of interaction chains that abilities work from now (e.g. the new mono-army mechanics dictating use of new chapter trait abilities). What started relatively cleanly at the start of 8E has rapidly devolved back into adding gobs of power-ramping complexity portray "character" without adding much of anything to tabletop tactical depth, that makes it very hard to keep track of and remember everything even for relatively dedicated players.
“More complexity. Less depth.”
This is the 8th edition design mantra.
It also removes a lot of design space imo, due to turning the game into spam unit combinatiion X with subtrait y.
Headlss wrote: I normally call it complication vs complexity.
8th is played far more on the spreadsheet than at the table.
TBF 40k allways had that issue, and with formations in 7th it got exagerated to the point where many didn't want anyhting to do with it anymore.
7th however had the advantages of more mechanics, / terrain interactions. meanwhile 8th has nothing really in that regard, which exemplifies the issue alot more. Add Stratagems and traits to that mixture and a reckless powerspike or two and you have the salad we get now.
Vaktathi wrote: Something to think of on top of just the raw power levels here is how many new rules and interactions these supplements bring to the table, that everyone has to keep track of and analyze. In 4E/5E, I had pretty much every codex and FW book memorized, I could look at any model and tell you what every piece of WYSIWYG wargear did on it. I could tell you every army's special rules and know every statline and how all the different army's unique mechanics functioned.
At this point? You need about as much mental space dedicated to just the "codex adherent" Space Marine armies in 8E as you did the whole game in earlier editions, particularly given the length of interaction chains that abilities work from now (e.g. the new mono-army mechanics dictating use of new chapter trait abilities). What started relatively cleanly at the start of 8E has rapidly devolved back into adding gobs of power-ramping complexity portray "character" without adding much of anything to tabletop tactical depth, that makes it very hard to keep track of and remember everything even for relatively dedicated players.
“More complexity. Less depth.”
This is the 8th edition design mantra.
It also removes a lot of design space imo, due to turning the game into spam unit combinatiion X with subtrait y.
7th edition died for this... But really 8th was hailed as this great revival of 40k with cleaned up rules "the best 40k has ever been" and all that. Now it looks like it's falling back into bad habits hardcore.
Ravenguard re-deploy warlord strat is too good, nerf that and RG are reasonable.
Whitescars double move strat is too powerful. Get rid of that and they should be back to reasonable.
IF and IH get too much.
Exploding 6s, ignore cover and +1 damage vs vehicles is way too much. Limit +1 damage to bolt weapons. Ignore cover shouldn't be an army wide trait (eldar/dark eldar you guys need this nerfed too).
IH should get re-roll 1's for vehicle mounted heavy weapons and no movement penalty for infantry heavy weapons (not both).
Sallies need more because right now they have the least chapter identity. The +1 to wound strat is broken and non-thematic or fluffy. Remove it. Turn their protectors strat into the IH absorb wounds. Default chapter trait should include a range bonus to flame weapons and ability to advance and fire heavy flamers.
UM seem pretty reasonable. Even double shooting aggressors are not that scary without the extra -1 ap.
Re-work the successors. +3" range and master artisans should be chapter locked (or master artisans can't be combined with any other successor trait).
I don't like the idea of changing points of units because one chapter breaks them (assault cents/levi dreads). It was endlessly frustrating as a non-ultras player that everything was costed as if it were in a gulliman bubble. That being said I think TFCs and elems could use a point bump.
GW doesn't seem to understand the new system and how it works with AP (costing of 3+ armor and the new doctrine system).
While they are making changes marine plasma needs to do 1 MW to the unit on a natural 1.
I don't think any of this is going to happen. I'm not sure GW is that upset about it until bad rules impact their bottom line although I think that once the damage gets that far along it may be too late to fix.
I haven't gone to a tournament since the marine supplements dropped. I realized that playing my non-codex marines just wasn't viable so I decided to step away. I'm now finding harder and harder to get re-engaged with the game and I've seen the tournament numbers in my meta drop off as well. I've gone from buying a kit a month (at least) to just painting some of my backlog (and even that hobby engagement is reducing).
Vaktathi wrote: Something to think of on top of just the raw power levels here is how many new rules and interactions these supplements bring to the table, that everyone has to keep track of and analyze. In 4E/5E, I had pretty much every codex and FW book memorized, I could look at any model and tell you what every piece of WYSIWYG wargear did on it. I could tell you every army's special rules and know every statline and how all the different army's unique mechanics functioned.
At this point? You need about as much mental space dedicated to just the "codex adherent" Space Marine armies in 8E as you did the whole game in earlier editions, particularly given the length of interaction chains that abilities work from now (e.g. the new mono-army mechanics dictating use of new chapter trait abilities). What started relatively cleanly at the start of 8E has rapidly devolved back into adding gobs of power-ramping complexity portray "character" without adding much of anything to tabletop tactical depth, that makes it very hard to keep track of and remember everything even for relatively dedicated players.
“More complexity. Less depth.”
This is the 8th edition design mantra.
It also removes a lot of design space imo, due to turning the game into spam unit combinatiion X with subtrait y.
7th edition died for this... But really 8th was hailed as this great revival of 40k with cleaned up rules "the best 40k has ever been" and all that. Now it looks like it's falling back into bad habits hardcore.
122 rulesources sofar, that has 7th beat infact.
And yes 7th was a clusterfeth, but the core was less of an issue then in 8th , and now we more or less get the worst part of7th ontop of 8th core with his inadequacies.
As much as dakkadakka would make you believe, 8th is going strong and is absolutely fine to play it, both in a competitive and a casual setting.
Yeah the most OP stuff is always a pain in the arse to fight agaisnt but thats the same for all editions. The reality is that the balance of 8th, both in the medium and lower tiers is much better than in past editions, and makes casual playing much more enjoyable.
Galas wrote: As much as dakkadakka would make you believe, 8th is going strong and is absolutely fine to play it, both in a competitive and a casual setting.
Yeah the most OP stuff is always a pain in the arse to fight agaisnt but thats the same for all editions. The reality is that the balance of 8th, both in the medium and lower tiers is much better than in past editions, and makes casual playing much more enjoyable.
Specially when you factor player skill.
It's my anecdotal impression that this has been true... up until the current Marine meta. It was pretty easy to avoid playing against the Imperial Guard/Knight/Smashcaptain list or Ynnari if you stayed away from tournaments. Staying away from Marines entirely is quite a lot trickier, and they're noticeably more powerful than other armies to upset even casual players.
Galas wrote: As much as dakkadakka would make you believe, 8th is going strong and is absolutely fine to play it, both in a competitive and a casual setting.
Yeah the most OP stuff is always a pain in the arse to fight agaisnt but thats the same for all editions. The reality is that the balance of 8th, both in the medium and lower tiers is much better than in past editions, and makes casual playing much more enjoyable.
Specially when you factor player skill.
Sure, it's better. But the teasing of "way better" and semi-balance across most factions make the discrepancies glaring. Or to put it another way, the old "well you just can't balance 40K" argument from 7th has been cut to pieces this addition by seemingly good-faith efforts by GW that show you can, in fact, have a reasonably balanced game or at least the potential for one. Agree that the game is in a much better place.
Part of the issue with the space marine codecies is that they have strayed into "untouchable" territory...same as a lot of the OP 7th ed codecies and formations. Weapons that statistically always hit, basic troops that ignore most armor saves, free buffs, unkillable units, low points costs, abilities every other army has been restricted from...it's all there. The difference is that now, we (hopefully) have FAQs to fix problems but there is a lot of the same old concern popping up: that GW doesn't fully realize just how this game is played.
Mr Morden wrote: I am less bothered by the rules to be honest that the constant, relentless Marine releases partly due to be spread across how many sub sub factions.....
In addition if there was any sign of them bothering to release a single supplement for a Sept, Craftworld, Dynasty, Hive Fleet, Order, Kabal, Kult, Coven, Masque..... it might be little more palatable.
Same if the new Campign books are obviously not just a series of appendix to the Marine Codex/s
I agree with this 100%. I'm more bothered that Marines just seem to be getting everything at the moment. The newest models. The newest rules. The best rules. The most in depth rules. The most varied rules. The most fun rules.
It would be nice for GW to show love elsewhere. I am certain it would lead to greater profits too, over time.
The campaign books are beginning to look like one big salt mine.
Pa1 didn't really do anything eldar players were looking for. Pa2 gave some great stuff to the legions but it was overshadowed by what gw gave to sm in the same book. I'd say that the next book is going to be worse for the tyranids when compared to the ba. Same for orks in the next book against sw.
It's starting to feel like chaos and xenos are fighting over space marine's crumbs.
Yeah it was kind of sad looking at the Chaos book. Now those were exciting strats and relics that were completely missing from PA.
Night Lords and Alpha Legion really stood out for the clever and fluffy rules they got. This is far better than PA, especially the Ynnari stuff where the designer tries to be "clever", ie its written the same way someone would write an insurance policy - too many clauses and conditions to be useful
Galas wrote: As much as dakkadakka would make you believe, 8th is going strong and is absolutely fine to play it, both in a competitive and a casual setting.
Yeah the most OP stuff is always a pain in the arse to fight agaisnt but thats the same for all editions. The reality is that the balance of 8th, both in the medium and lower tiers is much better than in past editions, and makes casual playing much more enjoyable.
Specially when you factor player skill.
This would be true if it weren't for the layers of doctrines and abilities giving every SM weapon ridiculously good profiles, ie your standard heavy bolter can be turned into a AP -2 lawnmower with rerolls and no moving penalty. Or exploding hits and extra damage for the other guys.
It's not a specific unit or synergy this time. it's the entire structure of the marine armies. Way too many modifiers.
Some guy in a beer and pretzels game no longer has any issue shifting your guys off cover and objectives when intercessors can throw out AP -2/3.
Yoyoyo wrote: Space Marines also have a problem with being boring.
Chaos in PA has so much flavor and identity. Space Marines have... rerolls and bonus AP?
Wait, what? Current codex marines have the most interesting and varied rules by far. If you think them boring, you should try a faction like necrons or nids.
Necrons do fun things like resurrecting, Nids go crazy when they're out of synapse. It's more interesting than a bunch of rerolls, AP buffs, and ignoring negative modifiers that other armies suffer IMO
Yoyoyo wrote: Necrons do fun things like resurrecting, Nids go crazy when they're out of synapse. It's more interesting than a bunch of rerolls, AP buffs, and ignoring negative modifiers that other armies suffer IMO
LOL go into the Necron Tactica thread and tell them how great RP is and how often you get to use it.
Please, it is such a non-rule you'll even forget to use it.
Yoyoyo wrote: Necrons do fun things like resurrecting, Nids go crazy when they're out of synapse. It's more interesting than a bunch of rerolls, AP buffs, and ignoring negative modifiers that other armies suffer IMO
I think you have different ideas on fun things than others on here. Necrons are about the most boring army I can imagine. Nids might be less so but I'm not sure if being outside synapse counts as " fun ".
As well if that was fun, you should have played old WHFB, if you played Orcs and goblins all your units could just randomly decide to stop doing things and fight with each other mid battle, that was pretty fun, at least thats what the O and G players told me.
AngryAngel80 wrote: As well if that was fun, you should have played old WHFB, if you played Orcs and goblins all your units could just randomly decide to stop doing things and fight with each other mid battle, that was pretty fun, at least thats what the O and G players told me.
Yoyoyo wrote: Necrons do fun things like resurrecting, Nids go crazy when they're out of synapse. It's more interesting than a bunch of rerolls, AP buffs, and ignoring negative modifiers that other armies suffer IMO
Can’t marines reanimate things with their Apothecaries? Nids act worse when out of synapse - you lose control of your own force.
I think we have very different ideas of what fun is. I think most people would not consider the things you’ve mentioned as fun.
Stratagems are fun. Tactical decisions are fun. Making a character an Uber character is fun. Having a variety of play styles true to your sub faction is fun.
Yoyoyo wrote: And yet everybody seems to be complaining about Marines, right?
Yea because it’s not fun when only one faction in the game has access to these things and therefore blows other factions off the table. Surely you’ve read the rest of the thread? I’ve never enjoyed my poor boys getting wiped to an Ork in previous editions where they did next to nothing to the opponent. In fact, I found it so unenjoyable I stopped playing and hobbying.
Yoyoyo wrote: Necrons do fun things like resurrecting, Nids go crazy when they're out of synapse. It's more interesting than a bunch of rerolls, AP buffs, and ignoring negative modifiers that other armies suffer IMO
Marines (Chaos and Imperium) are the reason that Nids are just not worth playing. Hateful Assault and Bolter Discipline is what put the final nail in the coffin.
As for Necrons - Necrons have a small handful of interesting things which are now so far behind everyone else's interesting things - the only reason to play them is that you don't like painting.
Yoyoyo wrote: Necrons do fun things like resurrecting, Nids go crazy when they're out of synapse. It's more interesting than a bunch of rerolls, AP buffs, and ignoring negative modifiers that other armies suffer IMO
Marines (Chaos and Imperium) are the reason that Nids are just not worth playing. Hateful Assault and Bolter Discipline is what put the final nail in the coffin.
As for Necrons - Necrons have a small handful of interesting things which are now so far behind everyone else's interesting things - the only reason to play them is that you don't like painting.
Yeah, those 2 rules did really bring the hurt for our poor bugs.
While i do appreciate on one hand that they are the fearsome enemies that they should have always been, both in shooting and in punching, on the other hand i'm finding myself quite out of options now when facing them.
I'm not that worried for nids though. The codex is well designed and offers huge ranges of playstyles, there is nothing lacking in our toolbox. We have only a point cost problem at the moment, and that is a nice problem to have with bugs, since you can decrease the point cost on them without going against the fluff or the "feel" of the army. They are supposed to outnumber you, so even if a termagant costed 1 point, it wouldn't feel narratively strange (no, i'm not suggesting to bring them to 1 point .
Yoyoyo wrote: Necrons do fun things like resurrecting, Nids go crazy when they're out of synapse. It's more interesting than a bunch of rerolls, AP buffs, and ignoring negative modifiers that other armies suffer IMO
Marines (Chaos and Imperium) are the reason that Nids are just not worth playing. Hateful Assault and Bolter Discipline is what put the final nail in the coffin.
As for Necrons - Necrons have a small handful of interesting things which are now so far behind everyone else's interesting things - the only reason to play them is that you don't like painting.
Nids got issues, but the argument that chaos now suddendly became problematic because they Gained hatetull assault (even though for the majority of the dexes CSM had allways 2 attacks due to getting a free melee weapon, pistol and boltgun for the lack of ATSKNF) i find that a bit lopsided argument.
Otoh, the standard marine profile needed a boost, but considering that GW once again showed that they lack the understanding to achieve "somewhat equal long pikes for everyone" and also the fact that their release pattern is just plain, stupid, these days atleast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: I think you would run out of space in your deployment zone
deployment zones are the bane of my R&H.
SO manny models nowadays needed against nu marines it isn't even funny. OTOH the matches are pure epic when it finaly works.
All of those are pretty damn high, bar Ultramarines and Salamanders (which didn't have their supplement for most of the data set).
Ynnari were at 58% win rate at their peak, IIRC.
We basically have three Chapters (and relative Successors) on broken-Ynnari level (IF, WS, RG), two chapters well balanced (a 50% win rate is what every army in a balanced game should be at) and then we have Iron Hands.
Yoyoyo wrote: Space Marines also have a problem with being boring.
Chaos in PA has so much flavor and identity. Space Marines have... rerolls and bonus AP?
I'd say that was true about a year ago when you looked at Marines and thought, well, it's a nice statline, but everyone else also has something special, some trick that makes their weaker statlines more interesting, SM have nothing like that. In earlier editions ATSKNF made them special as it made them ignore the morale phase and the most important part of the assault phase (terrible rule). DTTFE from CSM is nice against Imperium, but only that.
Now that SM and CSM gained Bolter Discipline and shock/hateful assault they became already as interesting as Xenos. Loyalists getting their additional doctrines was probably too much, or let's just say now Xenos/ Chaos have to step up again.
I don't mind those SM/CSM rules too much, they seem thematic and appropriate.
But for a gunline army? Even Tau has something like Markerlights. Guard have Orders. With Marines, everything is so passive. Officer rerolls. Combat Doctrines. Super Doctrines.
Yoyoyo wrote: I don't mind those SM/CSM rules too much, they seem thematic and appropriate.
But for a gunline army? Even Tau has something like Markerlights. Guard have Orders. With Marines, everything is so passive. Officer rerolls. Combat Doctrines. Super Doctrines.
It's a bit of a dull mechanic IMO.
it reminds me of 18th century musket warfare.In a way.
Not really what Shocktroops should feel like.
I'm interested to know how the new Marine codex and supplements have affected you personally / your local scene.
- Do your Marine players have trouble finding games?
- How do you personally fare against Marines with your army?
- Bonus question: Is your local scene competitive or casual?
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm interested to know how the new Marine codex and supplements have affected you personally / your local scene.
- Do your Marine players have trouble finding games?
- How do you personally fare against Marines with your army?
- Bonus question: Is your local scene competitive or casual?
1. Nope but they use the supplements only ever in tournament prep phase.
2. One of my csm armies,built around attrition and recycling does't work anymore against marines,the other one centered arround daemonengines and other such entities can pull decently thanks to a discolord pack.
My main r&h army turns into the omaha beach scene. On average against nu marines i lose about 40-50 fodder models and need to field about 250 models to have a figthing chance
3. Both, really but not split,you are just as likely to get a campaign in as you are a tournament match and everything in between .
It's really difficult for me to comment on how strong Primaris are. Because of scheduling and school I've only got in a single game! Which really sucks. Anyway the one game I played I tabled my friend, but it's worth noting that I can table him with GK so I'd call it a moot point.
So, I haven't had much of an opportunity here to tinker with the rules, so correct me if I'm wrong on any of the following points:
Vanilla marines sucked for a long while. Rarely ever in tournaments, even more rare that they won.
Biggest complaint for several years was "Soup".
New Marine rules make it so Doctrines are good, but your entire army has to be Marines of the same Chapter- incentivizing NOT using soup.
One subset of Vanilla Marines with a fairly new batch of rules doe really well in a few tournaments right after its release.
This is a game-wrecking crisis and there's no way to counter these doctrines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm interested to know how the new Marine codex and supplements have affected you personally / your local scene.
- Do your Marine players have trouble finding games? Nah, generally speaking most people at least wanna see what they can do now- with or against them.
- How do you personally fare against Marines with your army? I can still wreck them pretty easily with Alpha Legion. Deathwatch can be a bit of a challenge if I don't plop in an assassin.
- Bonus question: Is your local scene competitive or casual? Solid mix of both, most competitive play a lot with casuals to help them and most competitive players are willing to play narrative or goof-off games.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: One subset of Vanilla Marines with a fairly new batch of rules doe really well in a few tournaments right after its release.
This is a game-wrecking crisis and there's no way to counter these doctrines.
This is seriously underselling the issue. Most subsets of Marines have been doing exceptionally well in most tournaments. A couple of the supplements have already necessitated emergency balance fixes from GW, which have helped matters but don't seem to have brought Iron Hands into line (jury still out on Salamanders).
It's not just the case that one faction did kind of well for a bit because people hadn't figured out how to play against them yet.
Burnage wrote: This is seriously underselling the issue. Most subsets of Marines have been doing exceptionally well in most tournaments. A couple of the supplements have already necessitated emergency balance fixes from GW, which have helped matters but don't seem to have brought Iron Hands into line (jury still out on Salamanders).
It's not just the case that one faction did kind of well for a bit because people hadn't figured out how to play against them yet.
Right, but that has to be the ONLY faction you take in your army, right?
Burnage wrote: This is seriously underselling the issue. Most subsets of Marines have been doing exceptionally well in most tournaments. A couple of the supplements have already necessitated emergency balance fixes from GW, which have helped matters but don't seem to have brought Iron Hands into line (jury still out on Salamanders).
It's not just the case that one faction did kind of well for a bit because people hadn't figured out how to play against them yet.
Right, but that has to be the ONLY faction you take in your army, right?
If you want super doctrines, you need to run one specific chapter. You still get access to doctrines if you're running just Marines overall.
Some tournament winners have been running a mix of various chapters so it's not just super doctrines that are the issue.
I won't say that marines are balanced. As others have pointed out in multiple threads, they are just too much.
Even outside power combos, lists, etc... is insane how good the basic intercessor has become.
I mean, I love intercessors, they have great models, they feel rather powerfull on the table, etc...
But I play Dark Angels. I don't have doctrines or super doctrines, and intercessors with bolter Discipline and Shock Assault allready fell like the best troop of the game. They are a danger at 30", they are a danger in meele, they are extremely durable specially in cover, and they are cheap as chips.
I don't really feel like I need even more AP and then extra rules on top of them.
I can understand the idea of "mono-army" rules. They are very good! But compare the Sororitas one, they are varied, they allow you to addapt to your opponent, but aren't buffs as wide as "+1 ap to nearly all your army... and on top, even more buffs".
Doctrines should be something like
Heavy doctrine: Ignore the penalties of moving with heavy weapons
Tactical doctrine: Ignore the penalties for advancing and shooting with assault weapons
Assault Doctrine: This can remain the same because -1AP in meele and in turn 3 isn't that big of a deal. Or maybe make it +1" to run and charge rolls.
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm interested to know how the new Marine codex and supplements have affected you personally / your local scene.
- Do your Marine players have trouble finding games?
- How do you personally fare against Marines with your army?
- Bonus question: Is your local scene competitive or casual?
1) I haven't had a problem yet, although I'm probably going to start if I don't tone things down a bit for some of the newer players.
2) Considering that I'm playing marines... I have had some notable losses and close games even post-codex update. A DE have tended to be close games and at least one list that spammed Talos routed my IF pretty convincingly. Deathwatch continues to be a rough match if I don't have the right tools. I had one AdMech vs Ultramarines game that I probably would have lost if the other guy hadn't conceded due to fatigue. And as always the local IG player has a couple of lists that I still don't see any way to counter. Five Leman Russ Demolishers at 1000 points is just gross.
3) It's kind of hard to say since we have a number of people that haven't really got their head around the game yet. Those of us who know what they're doing are tending to build lists to explore the design space (for fun and so the newbs get to actuallly play the game) rather than just murder everything, but there also tends to be some overlap there.
I would LOVE the idea of linking all the Combat Doctrines together to make the whole idea of SM tactics hold a bit more water and give SM a bit more synergy and cohesion.
Your scouts and recon mark the targets for the Devastators, the Devastators disrupt enemy fire for the Tacticals, the Tacticals set the stage up for the Assaults. So while perhaps the bonuses are significant, they're contingent on taking a balanced army, and you're not just spamming heavy support units in your gun castle.
Burnage wrote: This is seriously underselling the issue. Most subsets of Marines have been doing exceptionally well in most tournaments. A couple of the supplements have already necessitated emergency balance fixes from GW, which have helped matters but don't seem to have brought Iron Hands into line (jury still out on Salamanders).
It's not just the case that one faction did kind of well for a bit because people hadn't figured out how to play against them yet.
Right, but that has to be the ONLY faction you take in your army, right?
Sub-Sub-Faction but yes
Yoyoyo wrote: I would LOVE the idea of linking all the Combat Doctrines together to make the whole idea of SM tactics hold a bit more water and give SM a bit more synergy and cohesion.
Your scouts and recon mark the targets for the Devastators, the Devastators disrupt enemy fire for the Tacticals, the Tacticals set the stage up for the Assaults. So while perhaps the bonuses are significant, they're contingent on taking a balanced army, and you're not just spamming heavy support units in your gun castle.
I have had no time to play anything for a long while,
but finally made it into the local GeeDubya for a quick 500pts with a local kid who, along with the manager, led me through the game. (I had played 8th before, a couple of years ago, one time... and had read the book and so many batreps on da tube and so on... so I knew what to expect more or less, but little things kept popping up contrary to old established expectations and this was the big thing, just changing old habits...).
I took an inquisitor and 500points of guard including scions devil dog chimera. It was a battalion but we played without command points and I didn't use any of the special rules for my units besides the arial deployment for the stormtroopers and the digital weapons on the Inquisitor.
The kid brought rievers and marines with devastators and snipers, all infantry. He used the rievers special rules - 4 attacks each in cc after they get charged? Wild, but ok... knives offered no AP modifier but they were able to get out of combat by jumping over one of the big shipping containers. Sort of harlequin level shift but whatevs, nu-marines out-Tau the tau, out-Dar the Dar, and out-Ork the Ork... I get it.
We played on a table section 2 feet wide and 4 feet across with lots of pretty GW ruined city stuff and cargo boxes.
The rievers were tough, and made some trouble, but the worst thing about the game for me was bolters stripping 8 wounds from a chimera, and shooting through enemy units even when line of sight cannot be drawn without crossing enemy bases... even though this was impossible, LoS was still affirmed which made no sense ... these are problems with core game mechanics that only favor bolt weapons and standard rifles at distance, e.g. intercessors I would guess. In other words, the core game rules make the standard nu-marine loadout especially effective. So, the kid didn't bring any of the stuff that could really take advantage of these core rules, e.g. intercessors.
Next time, he said that he would bring his aggressors and dreadnoughts and 30" rifles and so on, but why didn't he bring that stuff today?
He told me that it would be no fun.
As it was, I was able to win the game - it was simple, one objective. Focused firepower, denying him line of sight, this made a big difference.
And, I am looking forward to doing it again when he brings more nu-marines.
BUT, as a result, instead of buying more 40k stuff with my store credits (gift certificates) I asked the manager to order me Necromunda instead.
The rules are ... OK, I guess, some of them, but others are just just unwieldly unrealistic arbitrary magic nasty garbage that wrecks the whole thing, destroys the immersion, and in general makes me less interested.
For instance, when his bolters nearly one-turned the chimera I said that I wouldn't be playing 8th again. Then, when he started shooting through my infantry unit's model bases, claiming line of sight, I said the same thing... Then characters can snipe characters with storm bolters??? (wtf? seriously, what the actual duck is that all about criminey that is terrible rules wow... just nasty yuck OMG but this is beside the point).
As a result, I take the game less seriously, because as a game it is less serious - it is clearly a marketing vehicle for cards and poorly compiled books in support of nu-models, the flavor of the day is some stripe of nu-marine.
And in this context I understand why the kid said that the game would have been no fun with more Primaris units on his side of the field. I can only imagine that 2 wound re-roll masterbuffed nu-marines blowing up tanks from 30inches with rifles and nu-marine characters sniping characters from 30 inches with rifles and ... re-rolling everything with double shooting rapid fire regardless of range and... wow.
Long story short, it seems that the entire rules system was written in order to make room for OP nu-model marketing OP billshift.
So, I bought Necromunda. One game, one box, and I am done sending GW money for 40K books until they fix this dumpster fire.
Now, the young man and I have already made a promise to play again, give him a chance to show off all of his shiny nu-toys, and I will update this opinion on this thread at that time, but...
the guy didn't bring his Primaris stuff because he knows that they are OP relative the stormtroopers that I was bringing. Nuff said, that, no?
Ok, we all know that marines right now are a tad too much. Numbers and personal experiences tell us that much.
That said, your narration doesn't exactly get that point across.
So, let me recap what you just said. You played what is really interesting yet quite ineffective list against a marine list which didn't hold back in the slightest (10 intercessor squad + chapter master at 500 points).
You didn't use the special rules of your models and didn't use your command points, while he clearly did (shock assault, bolter doctrine, double shooting rapid fire intercessors, getting out of combat, nominating a chapter master, most likely combat doctrines or he wouldn't be able to put 8 wounds on a chimera even with 40 rerolled shots, and so on).
You played a scenario which gives the advantage to him (single objective in the center, a wet dream for marines).
One thought is that if marines are even just 5% better, maybe 20% of players will switch to them, which will include the most WAAC players who are willing to play the most nasty lists.
Perhaps marines are slightly better, but this attracts the sort of people to make every other possible marginal gain too, so it is not the list itself which is completely OTT, but the players who are attracted to marines who are completely OTT.
Btw, with this marine update, I can only imagine every other codex is going to follow suit soon. With the rumours of 9th edition coming as well from several different rumour guys, this marine book is probably intended to work with 9th and the other books will come along when 9th drops or whatever. It’s the usual cycle of scale creep. If the other factions don’t end up getting books, or they aren’t as interesting or good, then we can complain.
Also, I quite like 8th edition. I think the only things that’s hurt the game for me are how CP’s are handled, and also just how quickly things die. It’s a real shame when you roll the dice to see who goes first and know that if you go second, that swish tank you painted for hours isn’t going to be on the board when you get your turn.
Fifty wrote: One thought is that if marines are even just 5% better, maybe 20% of players will switch to them, which will include the most WAAC players who are willing to play the most nasty lists.
Perhaps marines are slightly better, but this attracts the sort of people to make every other possible marginal gain too, so it is not the list itself which is completely OTT, but the players who are attracted to marines who are completely OTT.
There is probably an element of truth to this, I'm not overly familiar with who the top 100 players are but I'd be curious how many of them play marines atm.
Tiberius501 wrote: Btw, with this marine update, I can only imagine every other codex is going to follow suit soon. With the rumours of 9th edition coming as well from several different rumour guys, this marine book is probably intended to work with 9th and the other books will come along when 9th drops or whatever. It’s the usual cycle of scale creep. If the other factions don’t end up getting books, or they aren’t as interesting or good, then we can complain.
Also, I quite like 8th edition. I think the only things that’s hurt the game for me are how CP’s are handled, and also just how quickly things die. It’s a real shame when you roll the dice to see who goes first and know that if you go second, that swish tank you painted for hours isn’t going to be on the board when you get your turn.
The wait and see approach to GW is a fruitless exercise. They have shown time and time again that they often don't really have a vision for the game or a level at which codexs are to be balanced, codexs are balanced at the whims of the writer and how much that writer cares about the faction. Remember when in 7th everyone thought that the Ork and Chaos codexs were going to be the new standard? Then Necrons happened and that jump in power is much like what we are experiencing now with Marines.
I am sure that GW will be slow to respond but eventually address this by updating some poor army with a "Balanced" codex that leaves them boring and flavorless but not address the SM codex/indexs for a few years.
Tiberius501 wrote: Btw, with this marine update, I can only imagine every other codex is going to follow suit soon. With the rumours of 9th edition coming as well from several different rumour guys, this marine book is probably intended to work with 9th and the other books will come along when 9th drops or whatever. It’s the usual cycle of scale creep. If the other factions don’t end up getting books, or they aren’t as interesting or good, then we can complain..
How long do we wait - simply compare what Marines got in their Codex and PA2 to what the Elda got in PA 1
PA3 is likely more of the same - Big Blood Angels supplement, More boosts for generic Marines and little of nothing for the Tyranids (or indeed the other combatants)
Even outside power combos, lists, etc... is insane how good the basic intercessor has become.
I mean, I love intercessors, they have great models, they feel rather powerfull on the table, etc...
Which is curious, because Intercessors are not largely more durable than before, so, it's just the damage they do. And the damage they do isn't largely increased immediately aside from Stalkers.
I don't think it's Intercessors, but Stalkers and just a subset of those within Iron Hands. People aren't otherwise running a ton of Intercessors. Its cents, flyers, stalkers, and TFCs. At least lat I was looking.
Spoletta wrote: Ok, we all know that marines right now are a tad too much. Numbers and personal experiences tell us that much.
That said, your narration doesn't exactly get that point across.
So, let me recap what you just said. You played what is really interesting yet quite ineffective list against a marine list which didn't hold back in the slightest (10 intercessor squad + chapter master at 500 points).
You didn't use the special rules of your models and didn't use your command points, while he clearly did (shock assault, bolter doctrine, double shooting rapid fire intercessors, getting out of combat, nominating a chapter master, most likely combat doctrines or he wouldn't be able to put 8 wounds on a chimera even with 40 rerolled shots, and so on).
You played a scenario which gives the advantage to him (single objective in the center, a wet dream for marines).
Yet you won...
No. You read wrong.
He didnt use CP or other stuff.
He brought mostly old marines specifically stuff that doesnt move well like devs and snipers.
He has only played 8th. One year. I have been in the hobby for 35 years. In 40k since 1991.
We used almost no special combo buff biltshift rules ... neither he now i. Next time we will add complexity.
And yes i won the game but... i should have won.
As for the rest... i am not able to trouble shoot his use of special stuff but... i trust that he played fairly as well as he was able. Neither of us used CP or doctrines or any other ...
Fifty wrote: One thought is that if marines are even just 5% better, maybe 20% of players will switch to them, which will include the most WAAC players who are willing to play the most nasty lists.
Perhaps marines are slightly better, but this attracts the sort of people to make every other possible marginal gain too, so it is not the list itself which is completely OTT, but the players who are attracted to marines who are completely OTT.
I don't buy this. We have a rough idea of what percentage of tournament players will take the best list with Ynarri numbers. At their peak they were 6% or 7% of the player base and the lists getting played were almost identical.
In comparison marines make up 25% of the meta and have a massive variety of extremely successful builds.
Fifty wrote: One thought is that if marines are even just 5% better, maybe 20% of players will switch to them, which will include the most WAAC players who are willing to play the most nasty lists.
Perhaps marines are slightly better, but this attracts the sort of people to make every other possible marginal gain too, so it is not the list itself which is completely OTT, but the players who are attracted to marines who are completely OTT.
I don't buy this. We have a rough idea of what percentage of tournament players will take the best list with Ynarri numbers. At their peak they were 6% or 7% of the player base and the lists getting played were almost identical.
In comparison marines make up 25% of the meta and have a massive variety of extremely successful builds.
Out of curiosity at the height of castellan meta, how many people were band wagoning the castellan/ig/ba combos? I feel like it was more than the number of ynnari players.
there are more imperial players, I think, then eldar ones, so of course armies with castellans would be more popular then Inari lists, that were only played by eldar players.
Karol wrote: there are more imperial players, I think, then eldar ones, so of course armies with castellans would be more popular then Inari lists, that were only played by eldar players.
So logically its fair to assume more marine players hence higher turn out of competitive marine lists?
Even outside power combos, lists, etc... is insane how good the basic intercessor has become.
I mean, I love intercessors, they have great models, they feel rather powerfull on the table, etc...
Which is curious, because Intercessors are not largely more durable than before, so, it's just the damage they do. And the damage they do isn't largely increased immediately aside from Stalkers.
I don't think it's Intercessors, but Stalkers and just a subset of those within Iron Hands. People aren't otherwise running a ton of Intercessors. Its cents, flyers, stalkers, and TFCs. At least lat I was looking.
I don't know. As a Dark Angel having units of 5 intercessors in cover everywhere natively rerolling 1's popping out 2 shoots a piece at 30" feels really, really great.
Karol wrote: there are more imperial players, I think, then eldar ones, so of course armies with castellans would be more popular then Inari lists, that were only played by eldar players.
So logically its fair to assume more marine players hence higher turn out of competitive marine lists?
I am not sure about compatitive, as I never attended any big tournaments, but even if tournaments have half the imperial numbers stores have it still should be around 40-50% of all people playing.
fraser1191 wrote: 8 wounds off a chimera with bolters? That seems improbable
With chapter master rerolls and -2 bolt rifles I can see it happening
8 wounds definitely wouldn't be the statistical average with ~10 intercessors shooting at a chimera, but it's not "improbable"
Thing is that the young man brought no intercessors.
This was after two small squads of maybe 5 each including nobs with plasma pistols
and a heavy flamer in there which was out of range.
All I remember really is that the bolters did most of the work, I wanna say 6 wounds right away.
Some lucky dice, whatever, but... I won't watch Saving Private Ryan ever again (by choice) and the futility of such an enterprise is one of the many good reasons for this disposition. Should not be a winning strategy, in anyone's mind, ever.
Just, contrary to common sense.
Next time, he said that he will use his heavy hitters.
He's just starting out, computer science guy, patient. Comes in prepared. Was super informative.
Frankly, I played second, third, 4th, got interested again in 7th, anticipated 8th as a new 2nd...
GW failed to anticipate the buying power of
the old 'before I die I want to build an effin Thunderhawk' syndrome.
fraser1191 wrote: 8 wounds off a chimera with bolters? That seems improbable
With chapter master rerolls and -2 bolt rifles I can see it happening
8 wounds definitely wouldn't be the statistical average with ~10 intercessors shooting at a chimera, but it's not "improbable"
True it is a dice game after all. One time a GK wounded my friends kabalite and got 3D for the force weapon. He said "well he's dead" I told him to roll the dice anyway and he got 3 6s for his fnp. Very improbable but not impossible
Argive wrote: I'm calling it now. If you think SM are broken wait until new doctrines Eldar codex...(and other codexes)
Until then it's playing on hard for everyone
I say this is based on sisters codex which has doctrines sooooo it seems thats the direction we are goin..
If thats the case - why were they not in PA1. That might have been a better selling point.....
Sisters has some good stuff - It does not have doctrines at anything like the same level.
Do you think any Sept, Cult, Kabal, Dynasty, Order, Craftworld, Hive Fleet, Regiment etc will get a supplement?
I disagree. It has a mechanic which rewards you for not souping and buffs your entire army on top of traits. Its a doctrine.. Just called whatever as well as sisters miracle stuff which is basically the super doctrine equivalent... Sisters have always been the odd one out with their rules/mechanics so they are not the best example but follow a very similair format.
Im not painting SOB to be some sort of new OP hotness or be on par with the silliness that is SM supplements.
What I am saying this is the next wave of codexes which rewards you for having pure armies by having army wide buffs on top of traits for your Klans/craftworlds etc....will be is very very very similiar to doctrines. Just called something else.
So although new codexes are unlikely to get SM doctrines/superdoctrines clones and maybe not get supplements I believe this is the new trend for codexes.
Obviously this is speculation but it seems pretty obvious to me thats the direction, I'm no wizard I cant tell the future obviously.. But can you imagine new dexes NOT going this route? The power creep is real.
Thats my reasoning and only time will tell but I honestly feel like after SM dominating for the next xx months the next thing is going to have to be even more obnoxious lol.
Sisters are the next thing - if they are not as OP as Marines then that sets the tone for any other other non Marine codexs along with the latest PA campaign book
Which of course added new stuff to..........Marines.
Sisters are the next thing - if they are not as OP as Marines then that sets the tone for any other other non Marine codexs along with the latest PA campaign book
Which of course added new stuff to..........Marines.
Let's hope the BT supplement with a sprinkle of chaos i mean PA2 is the end of it... As I was typing I literally remembered the next one is BAs... Ohh well.. gues it will be more generic SM buffs just because.
Well let's hope once BA is done its over.. I know there's still SW/GK/DA/DW... but maybe.. just maybe.. that'll be it.
We could remove around half the Strats and the Super Doctrines. That would be a start.
yeah, i am not looking forward to learning the card game on top of the dice game on top of the list deck building game on top of the table.
just, a decent wargame.
Argive wrote: I'm calling it now. If you think SM are broken wait until new doctrines Eldar codex...(and other codexes)
Until then it's playing on hard for everyone
I say this is based on sisters codex which has doctrines sooooo it seems thats the direction we are goin..
If thats the case - why were they not in PA1. That might have been a better selling point.....
Sisters has some good stuff - It does not have doctrines at anything like the same level.
Do you think any Sept, Cult, Kabal, Dynasty, Order, Craftworld, Hive Fleet, Regiment etc will get a supplement?
I disagree. It has a mechanic which rewards you for not souping and buffs your entire army on top of traits. Its a doctrine.. Just called whatever as well as sisters miracle stuff which is basically the super doctrine equivalent... Sisters have always been the odd one out with their rules/mechanics so they are not the best example but follow a very similair format.
Im not painting SOB to be some sort of new OP hotness or be on par with the silliness that is SM supplements.
What I am saying this is the next wave of codexes which rewards you for having pure armies by having army wide buffs on top of traits for your Klans/craftworlds etc....will be is very very very similiar to doctrines. Just called something else.
So although new codexes are unlikely to get SM doctrines/superdoctrines clones and maybe not get supplements I believe this is the new trend for codexes.
Obviously this is speculation but it seems pretty obvious to me thats the direction, I'm no wizard I cant tell the future obviously.. But can you imagine new dexes NOT going this route? The power creep is real.
Thats my reasoning and only time will tell but I honestly feel like after SM dominating for the next xx months the next thing is going to have to be even more obnoxious lol.
Argive wrote: I'm calling it now. If you think SM are broken wait until new doctrines Eldar codex...(and other codexes)
Until then it's playing on hard for everyone
I say this is based on sisters codex which has doctrines sooooo it seems thats the direction we are goin..
If thats the case - why were they not in PA1. That might have been a better selling point.....
Sisters has some good stuff - It does not have doctrines at anything like the same level.
Do you think any Sept, Cult, Kabal, Dynasty, Order, Craftworld, Hive Fleet, Regiment etc will get a supplement?
No and I don't want them to. Making a mistake for one faction doesn't mean they should do it for all of them.
Disagree - I actually enjoyed reading the lore elements of these.
So you are in favour of getting rid of the Marine Supplement rules as well?
What's done is done, they need refining rather than removing, get them to a more balanced place so they become fair rather than overbearing.
You can have lore without rules, there's nothing wrong or stopping a faction fluff book and I'd quite welcome that.
Ohh yeah we need to ensure nobody else gets new toys while SM get to keep their... Because XX months of dominating will never be enough.
Yes, they get to keep the books that already published and available for purchase because nobody is going to tear their books up for them. I said it was worth dialing back the doctrines, get them lowered to everyone else's level, you can't undo what has been done and they have 6 supplement books and that won't change now.
Having more books =/= dominating everyone if they're set to the right tone. It's already abundantly clear that marines are the odd ones out and were given too much. Rather than bloating every faction with needless rules and making the last updated book under powered while they wait, just reduce marines power levels.
In other news; some factions have suffered greatly in terms of their competitive viability since Marines rose to prominence. Those factions are (in no particular order);
GSC
I think in the GSC's case it is less marines specifically and more the FAQ ruling that the infiltrators tactical scrambler overrides the ambush modification stratagems. Most competitive GSC lists rely on said stratagems to deliver threats safely and that ruling basically renders it impossible until all of the infiltrators have been killed off (which is admittedly not too tall an order for most lists, but an ambush heavy list generally doesn't have much in the way of fire support).
Spoletta wrote: Ok, we all know that marines right now are a tad too much. Numbers and personal experiences tell us that much.
That said, your narration doesn't exactly get that point across.
So, let me recap what you just said. You played what is really interesting yet quite ineffective list against a marine list which didn't hold back in the slightest (10 intercessor squad + chapter master at 500 points).
You didn't use the special rules of your models and didn't use your command points, while he clearly did (shock assault, bolter doctrine, double shooting rapid fire intercessors, getting out of combat, nominating a chapter master, most likely combat doctrines or he wouldn't be able to put 8 wounds on a chimera even with 40 rerolled shots, and so on).
You played a scenario which gives the advantage to him (single objective in the center, a wet dream for marines).
Yet you won...
The other poster isn't saying that Marines are unbeatable. They're complaining that the game mechanics of both 8th and the new SM book sacrifice immersion/verisimilitude in favor of abstract, overtly game-y design, and that their victory was in part due to the opponent deliberately taking weaker units.
I doubt they'll have a better experience with using stratagems, to be honest. Not only are the Guard stratagems borderline useless compared to the SM ones, but they also represent the epitome of CCG-esque gameplay, which is what jeff white seems to dislike.
I don't know. As a Dark Angel having units of 5 intercessors in cover everywhere natively rerolling 1's popping out 2 shoots a piece at 30" feels really, really great.
Sure, but all of that was available before the supplements sans the reroll 1s.
Definitely knights for me.
Marine lists tend to be more balanced in terms of units taken so require a range of weapons to take down making a take all comers list the optimal choice.
Knights require a load of anti tank making skew lists better.
I'd rather have take all comers lists be the standard rather than lists that makes any heavy armour lists that aren't knights subpar.
Marine lists being more varied is one of the things that makes me think the Marine meta is worse. The different chapters are all going to be bringing very different units and that makes it considerably harder to prepare for.
Burnage wrote: Marine lists being more varied is one of the things that makes me think the Marine meta is worse. The different chapters are all going to be bringing very different units and that makes it considerably harder to prepare for.
They don't have anything that is skew heavy like knights. If you can kill marines and you can kill flyers and tanks then you're covered. And most often it's centurions right now, anyway.
ChargerIIC wrote: Normally NuMarines are a codeword for Primaris marines. Assuming that, Primaris marines aren't broken.They cost a ton of points and require multiple buffs to work correctly. They suffer from the marine statline problem, with players paying points to survive in melee but not to excel in it and still paying points for an only ok shooting model.
Strangely, oldMarines are doing better since they pay less points for the marine statline, but the single wound problem makes lists using them as risky as hell.
The new codex is a power boost, but the presence of sapce marines in tournament lists is for the eternal reason of 40k. Every player owns a marine list and they all bring them out when there are new marine goodies to try out.
They don't require much, having units that give them buffs is a competitive option, but running MSU Intercessors without everyone having buffs all the time is pretty strong as well. They don't just survive in melee any longer, with 3 attacks in the first round of combat they can win against most units with the exception of Orks and elite melee units that don't have as much shooting as Intercessors. Assault Centurions have great shooting and great melee and pay for it with bad mobility, but that mobility can be boosted through various options. Saying they are merely ok in shooting is false, shooting two AP-2 shots at 30" is great for 17 pts. OldMarines are in no way doing better, I don't know what you are smoking.
Who has 2-3 Repulsor Executioners, 2 TFCs and 3 Tactical Warsuits lying around? No, Marines are popular because they are broken.
30" guns on standard infantry break the meta for mid-range shooting. That extra 6" allows them to kite MEQ and TEQ. Tactical Doctrine amplifies this effect, you can kind of get an extra turn of shooting with them.
They are too pts efficient because of the free rules.
The 30" guns weren't a problem when they were 7 pts more than a Tactical Squad, now they are only 5 pts more and they are busted, all the efficient options just need to go up 1-3 pts.
Vaktathi wrote: Something to think of on top of just the raw power levels here is how many new rules and interactions these supplements bring to the table, that everyone has to keep track of and analyze. In 4E/5E, I had pretty much every codex and FW book memorized, I could look at any model and tell you what every piece of WYSIWYG wargear did on it. I could tell you every army's special rules and know every statline and how all the different army's unique mechanics functioned.
At this point? You need about as much mental space dedicated to just the "codex adherent" Space Marine armies in 8E as you did the whole game in earlier editions, particularly given the length of interaction chains that abilities work from now (e.g. the new mono-army mechanics dictating use of new chapter trait abilities). What started relatively cleanly at the start of 8E has rapidly devolved back into adding gobs of power-ramping complexity portray "character" without adding much of anything to tabletop tactical depth, that makes it very hard to keep track of and remember everything even for relatively dedicated players.
“More complexity. Less depth.”
This is the 8th edition design mantra.
The core rules for 8th are much shorter and simpler than those for 5th-7th, on the other hand, they give the player much more agency and removes most of the artificial unintelligence from the game. You will not be forced to move towards the end of the table when you flee, 8th also allows you to take captives and do bad touch tactics in melee instead of forcing you to just blob up and brace for templates. Weapons are less black and white so it's often unclear exactly how to dedicate firepower, the ability to split fire also opens the possibility for under committing and maximizing damage by split-firing.
If GW moved Chapter Tactics and Combat Doctrines to non-Matched Play and limited the number of Stratagems people can bring with their list to 10 + any number of Specialist Detachments and nerf soup and the game is once again pretty simple and mostly about tactics on the table. The balance was excellent prior to the release of SM, we're talking perfect balance with CA19 if they at the same time updated and balanced Relics, WL traits and Stratagems. It has to be obvious that it's not fair that one faction pays the same amount of pts for a unit with heavy weapons as another faction when one cannot lose more than one model from a Morale test and can re-roll 1s when they don't move while the other gets re-roll 1s all the time as well as ignoring the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, -1 AP on those heavy weapons, 5+ OW and 6+ FNP. If it only came down to one faction having more synergistic Stratagems, Relics and WL traits that support them then it'd be a lot more balanced between those two units. Balanced games are more fun most of the time, almost nobody likes playing 1000 pts vs 2000 pts, even just an army that is overly efficient so it's worth 2300 pts vs an army that is less overly efficient and worth 2100 is a bit iffy, but then when that 2300 pt army counters your 2100 pt army or gets to go first on a table that isn't heavy with terrain it hurts an absolute tonne to play against.
But there are a lot of OP units and combos for other armies, even GK have GMNDKs, DA have plasma castle, Nids have hypersonic Genestealers etc. etc. I'd like to see every army nerfed in some capacity, because how are you going to make a relic that does a MW on a 6+ once per game to a unit for every model within 8" of the bearer with a relic that targets an enemy unit and lets friendly units within 6" re-roll hits and wounds against that target? Make it do MWs on 5+? 2+? What happens when you overly buff an item and you move the power curve up further? Now you need another full round of buffs to get things back into balance.
I don't know. As a Dark Angel having units of 5 intercessors in cover everywhere natively rerolling 1's popping out 2 shoots a piece at 30" feels really, really great.
Sure, but all of that was available before the supplements sans the reroll 1s.
DAs reroll 1s if they stand still. That has been their chapter tactic since their codex dropped well before the supplements.
Darsath wrote: What meta is worse: The Space Marine meta, or the Imperial Knight meta?
Define 'worse'?
The knight meta had a greater variety of other lists that could go toe to toe with it so I'd say it was healthier for the game. The current SM meta is very skewed in that only SM lists are really performing well.
Ran a few test games today-4 games, 1000, 1250 x 2, and 1500. Didn't want to ramp it up to 2k because the 1500 point game took long enough and I don't like being a table-hog.
Played against Guard, Drukhari, Necrons, and Chaos. Deliberately had a couple of guys bring in their armies so I could go up against a variety. Both the players of these armies are pretty competitive, and have won tournaments. However, I specifically asked they bring competent lists but nothing overwhelming as I needed to test what I had. Basically, it's what we call "A shop list" -Something to take the FLGS and play against generally any type of player without destroying them with too much ease but powerful enough to bring quite a bit of pain.
I brought pretty much everything I have for my Chapter (homebrew, testing a few different tactics), and mainly because I haven't played any Marines other than Deathwatch for a couple of years and I wanted to see how much better it was.
I certainly didn't put all of these in a list, and I don't have my lists handy- but here's a rundown of the stuff I brought. I managed to each of these more than once.
-Intercessors, 5-man squad. Bolt Rifles, grenade launcher, chainsword on sarge.
I tried to get a wide variety while also scheming on what works together. My personal opinion:
-This is one hell of a boost, and it will certainly favor some space marine sub-factions over the others.
-This should cut down on soup lists.
-It didn't seem OP, and me and the other players reviewed the game and noted what could work better or worse.
-The doctrine are predictable, and if your opponent is aware of the cycles then they can mitigate them.
-I still lost half of the games. And didn't win by a massive margin.
My overall theory:
-Space Marines seemed to struggle for a long time to be competitive and I can say that this is for the most part, a step in the right direction... just a bit of an overstep at certain point.
-Also I see this kind of reaction for every updated army, and it lasts for a little while before people find a way to counter it. For way too long Primaris-only armies were a joke but now they can be quite competitive and some people can't stand the idea that the 'easiest to beat, do it all the time' armies can stand on its feet.
-Still needs a bit of fine-tuning, and I don't think people who by default hate space marines should have their opinions taken as a grain of salt.
Mr Morden wrote: "Sigh" yeah we all hate Marines - thats why I have various Marine armies
Did I mention you by name? Is there something there that made you believe that was directed at you? If you took offense, that's because you were looking for it.
Mr Morden wrote: "Sigh" yeah we all hate Marines - thats why I have various Marine armies
Did I mention you by name? Is there something there that made you believe that was directed at you? If you took offense, that's because you were looking for it.
Well who exactly were you refering to with this provactive statement?
I don't think people who by default hate space marines should have their opinions taken as a grain of salt.
Not an expert on communication or english, but the statment seems to be directed to people that by default dislike marines. Ergo anyone who dislikes marines by default should be the person offended by that. If someone does not dislike them by default, they shouldn't be getting angry about it, as they are not the target of the statement.
But I could be wrong.
Well who exactly were you refering to with this provactive statement?
I don't think people who by default hate space marines should have their opinions taken as a grain of salt.
Let me correct that (I'm a bit groggy).
I think people who by default hate space marines should have their opinions taken with a grain of salt.
Sorry about that, brain and typing hands didn't connect well.
For clarification, there's people who simply don't like Space Marines and they pretty much seem as if they want them to be the most basic, easy-to-beat army and would be satisfied if their only special rule was "lose game". I've encountered quite a bit of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Not an expert on communication or english, but the statment seems to be directed to people that by default dislike marines. Ergo anyone who dislikes marines by default should be the person offended by that. If someone does not dislike them by default, they shouldn't be getting angry about it, as they are not the target of the statement.
But I could be wrong.
You're right. I'm just now rousing myself from a bit of a rest after being on my feet and gaming all day. Started at 9 AM and stopped just after midnight.
It is an interesting thing to point out that the people in this thread who played against Marines or do play Marines themselves report what sounds like even games.
Or at least it does not sound as if Marines are winning by a mile against every other army, as you might come to expect, given statements like "they are broken and OP".
Could it be that the new rules are only/mostly a problem for top competitive tournament players?
It's seeming like an extreme reaction to an additional -1 AP. That's really about all.
I'm pretty sure there's crazier things in the game at this time.
You see its statements like this that make people question how honest you are.
There are crazier things in the game at this time - its called the Iron Hands book. Or the Raven Guard book. Or even maybe the White Scars book etc etc.
Tyel wrote: You see its statements like this that make people question how honest you are.
Was there some meeting with all the people where this was addressed, or is it your opinion?
Personally, some random individual on the internet questioning my honesty over plastic war toys is about as traumatic to me as missing a Nickelback concert.
Tyel wrote: There are crazier things in the game at this time - its called the Iron Hands book. Or the Raven Guard book. Or even maybe the White Scars book etc etc.
You're having trouble with tanks and running a gunline, it seems.
a_typical_hero wrote: Could it be that the new rules are only/mostly a problem for top competitive tournament players?
It's seeming like an extreme reaction to an additional -1 AP. That's really about all.
I'm pretty sure there's crazier things in the game at this time.
I am more concerned about the constant, unrelenting tide of releases of Marine models rather than - well anything else.
In terms of Boosts - they also got a full 10 pages of brand new rules in PA2 - straight after the Codex and supplements - in fact there was only rules for some variety of Marines throughout and looks to be the same for the next half a dozen PA.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Ran a few test games today-4 games, 1000, 1250 x 2, and 1500. Didn't want to ramp it up to 2k because the 1500 point game took long enough and I don't like being a table-hog.
Played against Guard, Drukhari, Necrons, and Chaos. Deliberately had a couple of guys bring in their armies so I could go up against a variety. Both the players of these armies are pretty competitive, and have won tournaments. However, I specifically asked they bring competent lists but nothing overwhelming as I needed to test what I had. Basically, it's what we call "A shop list" -Something to take the FLGS and play against generally any type of player without destroying them with too much ease but powerful enough to bring quite a bit of pain.
I brought pretty much everything I have for my Chapter (homebrew, testing a few different tactics), and mainly because I haven't played any Marines other than Deathwatch for a couple of years and I wanted to see how much better it was.
I certainly didn't put all of these in a list, and I don't have my lists handy- but here's a rundown of the stuff I brought. I managed to each of these more than once.
-Intercessors, 5-man squad. Bolt Rifles, grenade launcher, chainsword on sarge.
I tried to get a wide variety while also scheming on what works together. My personal opinion:
-This is one hell of a boost, and it will certainly favor some space marine sub-factions over the others.
-This should cut down on soup lists.
-It didn't seem OP, and me and the other players reviewed the game and noted what could work better or worse.
-The doctrine are predictable, and if your opponent is aware of the cycles then they can mitigate them.
-I still lost half of the games. And didn't win by a massive margin.
My overall theory:
-Space Marines seemed to struggle for a long time to be competitive and I can say that this is for the most part, a step in the right direction... just a bit of an overstep at certain point.
-Also I see this kind of reaction for every updated army, and it lasts for a little while before people find a way to counter it. For way too long Primaris-only armies were a joke but now they can be quite competitive and some people can't stand the idea that the 'easiest to beat, do it all the time' armies can stand on its feet.
-Still needs a bit of fine-tuning, and I don't think people who by default hate space marines should have their opinions taken as a grain of salt.
So you didint use supplements rules?
You used a hodge podge of units up to 1500 points without taking into account things like efficiencies, redundancies, duality etc. Which is how one mormaly builds a list and just picked what you liked rather than what works.. i.e. only 5 interecessors rievers incursors etc
And yet you still won half the games?
In case its not obvious im highlighting the sample size and control of you experiment.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Ran a few test games today-4 games, 1000, 1250 x 2, and 1500. Didn't want to ramp it up to 2k because the 1500 point game took long enough and I don't like being a table-hog.
Played against Guard, Drukhari, Necrons, and Chaos. Deliberately had a couple of guys bring in their armies so I could go up against a variety. Both the players of these armies are pretty competitive, and have won tournaments. However, I specifically asked they bring competent lists but nothing overwhelming as I needed to test what I had. Basically, it's what we call "A shop list" -Something to take the FLGS and play against generally any type of player without destroying them with too much ease but powerful enough to bring quite a bit of pain.
I brought pretty much everything I have for my Chapter (homebrew, testing a few different tactics), and mainly because I haven't played any Marines other than Deathwatch for a couple of years and I wanted to see how much better it was.
I certainly didn't put all of these in a list, and I don't have my lists handy- but here's a rundown of the stuff I brought. I managed to each of these more than once.
-Intercessors, 5-man squad. Bolt Rifles, grenade launcher, chainsword on sarge.
I tried to get a wide variety while also scheming on what works together. My personal opinion:
-This is one hell of a boost, and it will certainly favor some space marine sub-factions over the others.
-This should cut down on soup lists.
-It didn't seem OP, and me and the other players reviewed the game and noted what could work better or worse.
-The doctrine are predictable, and if your opponent is aware of the cycles then they can mitigate them.
-I still lost half of the games. And didn't win by a massive margin.
My overall theory:
-Space Marines seemed to struggle for a long time to be competitive and I can say that this is for the most part, a step in the right direction... just a bit of an overstep at certain point.
-Also I see this kind of reaction for every updated army, and it lasts for a little while before people find a way to counter it. For way too long Primaris-only armies were a joke but now they can be quite competitive and some people can't stand the idea that the 'easiest to beat, do it all the time' armies can stand on its feet.
-Still needs a bit of fine-tuning, and I don't think people who by default hate space marines should have their opinions taken as a grain of salt.
So you didint use supplements rules?
You used a hodge podge of units up to 1500 points without taking into account things like efficiencies, redundancies, duality etc. Which is how one mormaly builds a list and just picked what you liked rather than what works.. i.e. only 5 interecessors rievers incursors etc
And yet you still won half the games?
In case its not obvious im highlighting the sample size and control of you experiment.
yeah but going by the torrent of threads like this one and the previous 30-40 episodes mostly consisting of an echo chamber of the same people raging hard then surely he should have won every single game as marines are omgopwtf and some of the armies he fought were "auto lose" choices.
Now outside of 40kGen and ITC rules the marines are powerful and in some cases very powerful but no worse than a number of armies that have come before without causing people to eat there own livers.
I mean if you go a couple of subsections up to the battle reports you can see the reality of the actual situation which is if you dont use house rules and play the actual game marines are much improved but still lose often especially if you play to the objectives but hey ho I expect another couple of dozen threads like this a week until 9th drops.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Ran a few test games today-4 games, 1000, 1250 x 2, and 1500. Didn't want to ramp it up to 2k because the 1500 point game took long enough and I don't like being a table-hog.
Played against Guard, Drukhari, Necrons, and Chaos. Deliberately had a couple of guys bring in their armies so I could go up against a variety. Both the players of these armies are pretty competitive, and have won tournaments. However, I specifically asked they bring competent lists but nothing overwhelming as I needed to test what I had. Basically, it's what we call "A shop list" -Something to take the FLGS and play against generally any type of player without destroying them with too much ease but powerful enough to bring quite a bit of pain.
I brought pretty much everything I have for my Chapter (homebrew, testing a few different tactics), and mainly because I haven't played any Marines other than Deathwatch for a couple of years and I wanted to see how much better it was.
I certainly didn't put all of these in a list, and I don't have my lists handy- but here's a rundown of the stuff I brought. I managed to each of these more than once.
-Intercessors, 5-man squad. Bolt Rifles, grenade launcher, chainsword on sarge.
I tried to get a wide variety while also scheming on what works together. My personal opinion:
-This is one hell of a boost, and it will certainly favor some space marine sub-factions over the others.
-This should cut down on soup lists.
-It didn't seem OP, and me and the other players reviewed the game and noted what could work better or worse.
-The doctrine are predictable, and if your opponent is aware of the cycles then they can mitigate them.
-I still lost half of the games. And didn't win by a massive margin.
My overall theory:
-Space Marines seemed to struggle for a long time to be competitive and I can say that this is for the most part, a step in the right direction... just a bit of an overstep at certain point.
-Also I see this kind of reaction for every updated army, and it lasts for a little while before people find a way to counter it. For way too long Primaris-only armies were a joke but now they can be quite competitive and some people can't stand the idea that the 'easiest to beat, do it all the time' armies can stand on its feet.
-Still needs a bit of fine-tuning, and I don't think people who by default hate space marines should have their opinions taken as a grain of salt.
So you didint use supplements rules?
You used a hodge podge of units up to 1500 points without taking into account things like efficiencies, redundancies, duality etc. Which is how one mormaly builds a list and just picked what you liked rather than what works.. i.e. only 5 interecessors rievers incursors etc
And yet you still won half the games?
In case its not obvious im highlighting the sample size and control of you experiment.
yeah but going by the torrent of threads like this one and the previous 30-40 episodes mostly consisting of an echo chamber of the same people raging hard then surely he should have won every single game as marines are omgopwtf and some of the armies he fought were "auto lose" choices.
Now outside of 40kGen and ITC rules the marines are powerful and in some cases very powerful but no worse than a number of armies that have come before without causing people to eat there own livers.
I mean if you go a couple of subsections up to the battle reports you can see the reality of the actual situation which is if you dont use house rules and play the actual game marines are much improved but still lose often especially if you play to the objectives but hey ho I expect another couple of dozen threads like this a week until 9th drops.
Lets disagree on that one. I speak by experiance and bat reps ive seen. You are welcome to gak and spew venom on everyone who points out stacks and stacks of additional rules easily swing the power balance in the sm favour disproportionately. And its far far more prevailent than one or two builds "of what other got before".
I think that, statistically, there is evidence to support the overshot of the new Space Marine books. Anecdotal evidence is pretty poor evidence to counteract this regardless. It's also evident that not everyone will be getting a similar treatment. It's not really surprising that people will resent the new books. The issue is directing it at the players, and not Games Workshop, who are responsible.
All of those are pretty damn high, bar Ultramarines and Salamanders (which didn't have their supplement for most of the data set).
Another way to look at this: win rates of other factions.
Only Sisters, Eldar, Mechanicus, Orks and Tau have > 50% win rates, the average is ~ 51% compared to 57% overall for Astartes.
If NuMarines were truly OP, I'd expect to see a larger margin. OTOH, from a subfaction perspective, Iron Hands are almost at a 70% win rate, and are the most frequently used sub-faction.
Have to think about what that means. Is it that Iron Hands really are that good, or that the rest of the meta hasn't adapted, or something else entirely?
The win rates for those factions you've mentioned has (Eldar, Mechanicus, Orks) has dropped significantly in recent months. See above video - Orks went from 55% (ish) to 48%. That in itself isn't too bad (if it wasn't such a rapid drop) but their TWiP (aka percentage of 4-0 players) and first loss has gotten much worse also. Your stats seem from legacy wins, not October and November only.
Sorry for replying to a post from a few days ago, had to really think about the point I'd like to get across.
This is what I think about NuMarines / PEQ in general: they represent the end of TAAC lists. They have rules that fundamentally alter the mechanics of the game in a way to provide a slight statistical advantage over other factions. Regardless of how the opponent's list is constructed, they will win the majority of games just by playing an optimal strategy. Tournament results will continue to bear this out and, even though rules get FAQed, certain chapters will continue to outperform others based on how they skew these advantages.
In various editions of 40k, mid-range shooting has mostly been limited to 24". There have not been too many factions (besides Tau) with line troops that can fire beyond that range, and there haven't been too many that also have more than one wound. PEQ have both. It sets up an interesting situation, where you could have an Intercessor squad firing at a full 30", your opponent moves forward the next turn, then you move backwards with your Intercessors to stay out of range of their guns.
A thoughtful player could position Intercessors in such a way where they would always get to shoot at 30" before an opponent is in range to return fire. More importantly, by moving backwards, they will be preventing everything but the longest charges - which are statistically likely to fail in the majority of cases.
Complicating this situation is the second wound. Shooting scales linearly with the number of models in a unit, not the number of points per model. A unit composed of models with 2 wounds will outperform a similarly priced unit of models with 1 wound precisely because the later loses firepower faster.
I've seen this in my games against PEQ Ultramarines. Bolt Rifle strategies are becoming a form of kiting where a player masses their troops near the center of the board and simply moves backwards in later turns. It amplifies the power of small arms against traditional mid-range armies and diminishes the impact of hard-hitting melee units by whittling them down before they can get close. Ultramarines are not the most powerful NuMarine chapter, this is a general strategy that can be employed by any of them to great effect.
There's other things about PEQ armies that screw with the mechanics of the game, especially with Repulsors (all those guns make it the priority target in almost every situation) and Infiltrators (12" deep-strike deny means no more deep-strike and charge.) The point is, PEQ effectiveness is a result of lots of small changes to the mechanics that counter common tactics for mid-range armies. Cumulatively, these give them the edge in most match ups. Even if you played without Chapter Tactics and Doctrines, each PEQ unit would still have slight advantages that make them more effective than similarly priced units from other factions. It's pre-8th edition ATSKNF spread over the entire army.
Here's the interesting thing I realized about these changes. They have more of an impact in tournaments, TAAC lists will do worse against them than others. You can tailor a list to destroy Iron Hands when you're not trying to simultaneously optimize against every other faction in the game.
Currently, I'm playing Daemon Primarchs, with Magnus, Mortarion, Ahriman, a Daemon Prince, Nurgle Daemons and a Sicaran. Totally different from traditional CSM lists I've been using, focused on moving fast, laying down as much psychic damage as possible, killing tanks from distance, and sitting on points with troops that are hard to remove - even with negative AP modifiers. Most importantly, it screws with PEQ mechanics. Melee units moving 24" to get first turn charges while they're still on Devastator doctrine takes away some of their punch. Laying down enough smites to immediately kill Infiltrators allows Plaguebearers to deep strike where I want them. Sicarans have a couple turns of free shooting because everything in the NuMarine army is being poured into those Primarchs, giving me some time to deal with Redeemers and Repulsors from range.
I've played a couple Iron Hands PEQ armies that were hard but not impossible to beat. At the same time, I'd never think about bringing this list to a tournament, Orks and Tyranids could tear it apart with high model count and a massive number of attacks.
The point is, the advantages enjoyed by NuMarines / PEQ are more exaggerated in a tournament, where everyone is trying to beat anything else they might fact. NuMarines are just one faction where GW chose to skew the mechanics, imagine if this principle was applied across each faction - maybe Tyranid charge range changes to 3d6", Eldar get hit and run on all units, CSMs can cast any psychic power multiple times per turn without penalty, etc. And then they start doling out Doctrines on top of that.
Eventually, you won't be able to build TAAC lists any more. The mechanics would be so different between each faction you wouldn't be able to confidently plan for what to bring. Mid-range and melee oriented wouldn't mean as much because there's nothing consistent between each faction.
Argive wrote: You used a hodge podge of units up to 1500 points without taking into account things like efficiencies, redundancies, duality etc. Which is how one mormaly builds a list and just picked what you liked rather than what works.. i.e. only 5 interecessors rievers incursors etc
And yet you still won half the games?
In case its not obvious im highlighting the sample size and control of you experiment.
Considering that Intercessors and Hellblasters are the only Primaris SM units I've used in the last 2 years, I wanted to mess around with all the things.
I was testing things out, not trying to make an optimized tournament list.
SeanDrake wrote: yeah but going by the torrent of threads like this one and the previous 30-40 episodes mostly consisting of an echo chamber of the same people raging hard then surely he should have won every single game as marines are omgopwtf and some of the armies he fought were "auto lose" choices.
Hey, do you remember the Squats and how awesome they were? 8th edition sucks, they need to make it like 3rd Edition again.
I don't really have anything to back either of those things up, but it gets repeated on the internet enough so I just said it.
I mean, every time something new drops, it's OP.
Back when Space Marines got an actual Codex before everyone, it was OP (even though, you know, it really wasn't). Drukhari Codex was OP, too. Guard were OP.
None of this is a really new complaint. It comes out, it works well (and God forbid vanilla SM actually be decent without having to use Bobby G or requiring allied detachments), and people eventually develop a counter for it and adjust their tactics (God forbid people have to change up their lists to deal with a meta).
Darsath wrote: I think that, statistically, there is evidence to support the overshot of the new Space Marine books. Anecdotal evidence is pretty poor evidence to counteract this regardless. It's also evident that not everyone will be getting a similar treatment. It's not really surprising that people will resent the new books. The issue is directing it at the players, and not Games Workshop, who are responsible.
Alternative take:
Statistically, more Marine lists are winning. Statistically speaking, more players own Marines than any other faction.
Darsath wrote: You know, we can compare before and after to the release of the new Codex, right? Your alternative take is not supported by any evidence. Mine is.
More Marine lists are winning at tournaments after this new list. That's your evidence.
I posit that yes, they are. And the lager numbers of Marine tournament list winners is likely because there are a lot more people playing Marines out there. There always have been. That's why the poster boys for 40k are Space Marines, and not some Commissar or Tech Priest.
Marines got a (much needed) boosts and are now capable of actually winning without being souped. That is true.
Give it a little time, and this will change. I'm sure the extremely talented tactical minds will have their netlists up in no time at all, so people can find the counter.
This isn't new.
Remember- people still want FW models banned because they're OP, too.
Orks got 6 new buggies last year and GW even dedicated the entire month to that release calling it "orktorber"... and we actually got 4 average mediocre units and two absolute garbage ones.
Drukhari new incubi and Drazhar have no place in competitive lists.
Back when Space Marines got an actual Codex before everyone, it was OP (even though, you know, it really wasn't). Drukhari Codex was OP, too. Guard were OP.
I disagree. When SM played with a codex while other armies didn't they were OP, at least a couple of their most competitive builds. Guard were really OP only when everyone just played with indexes then they were maybe OP only for the same reason why SM were OP, because they had the advantage of a codex and other factions didn't. Drukhari were never really OP, they just surprised the other players for a couple of months because their codex really makes them play in a very different way than before, but pure drukhari aren't OP in the slightest and elves soups have never been superior than imperium ones.
The nu marines are so OP that I wouldn't be surprised if in casual metas SM players start struggling finding games, unless they give up on all the cheese they can bring. Truth is, SM don't even need optimized lists now, they just can field anything the average SM player has in his collection and he'll be good against lots of other players.
Blackie wrote: Guard were really OP only when everyone just played with indexes then they were maybe OP just like SM, because they had the advantage of a codex and other factions don't. Drukhari were never really OP, they just surprised the other players for a couple of months because their codex was really makes them play in a very different way than before, but pure drukhari aren't OP in the slightest.
This is exactly what's happening right now, with SM. It too shall pass.
Blackie wrote: The nu marines are so OP that I wouldn't be surprised if in casual metas SM players start struggling finding games, unless they give up on all the cheese they can bring. Truth is that SM don't even need optimized lists now, they just can field anything you have in your collection and you'll be good against lots of other players.
I've seen no problems at all, and we have groups that are competitive and groups that are casual.
I can even say it like this- I know quite a few WAAC gamers that obsessively chase the meta, to the point of financial struggle. I know that if they've swapped armies, it's because something is broken and they're exploiting a bad rule or nasty combo that the meta hasn't figured out how to counter. I watch what they do (they tend to drive off less-competitive players, and will target newer players). When I start seeing these guys buying Nu-Marines, I might come back in here and say, "OK, this needs to be adjusted". Because I assure you, these guys will sell off everything they have and overdraft themselves into financial oblivion with a stack of models at the cash register if the Nu-Marines are disgustingly OP.
Again, anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much here. And as I've said, Space Marines having both a high play rate and a high win rate (exceeding the Ynarri non-sense earlier in the edition) is pretty concrete evidence to disprove your theory.
... This is a pretty significant omission from your playtesting.
An opinion I'm hearing from lots of players is that Codex Space Marines by itself would put Marines in a strong, but not overpowered, place. It's when you add in the supplements that things get wonky.
Darsath wrote: Again, anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much here. And as I've said, Space Marines having both a high play rate and a high win rate (exceeding the Ynarri non-sense earlier in the edition) is pretty concrete evidence to disprove your theory.
And you couldn't say the win rate was somewhat proportional to the number of people playing SM?
I'm just saying, if there's a tournament out there with 10 people, probably 4-5 are playing SM. 2 are playing guard, 1 is playing Custodes, and the rest are playing Chaos or Xenos. Some armies will not even be on the tables at all.
So, sure- if the rules change... there's going to be an increase in wins. But unless those wins are extremely disproportionate- I wouldn't worry. So if there's 5 SM players and 4 of them are in the top place, and that one was a fluke because he has no idea how to play the game... yeah, that's a problem.
Darsath wrote: Again, anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much here. And as I've said, Space Marines having both a high play rate and a high win rate (exceeding the Ynarri non-sense earlier in the edition) is pretty concrete evidence to disprove your theory.
And you couldn't say the win rate was somewhat proportional to the number of people playing SM?
I'm just saying, if there's a tournament out there with 10 people, probably 4-5 are playing SM. 2 are playing guard, 1 is playing Custodes, and the rest are playing Chaos or Xenos. Some armies will not even be on the tables at all.
So, sure- if the rules change... there's going to be an increase in wins. But unless those wins are extremely disproportionate- I wouldn't worry. So if there's 5 SM players and 4 of them are in the top place, and that one was a fluke because he has no idea how to play the game... yeah, that's a problem.
My numbers are from 40kstats.com, and account for a significant proportion of tournament results to avoid skew. The proportion of players playing SM would decrease the win rate if anything.
Burnage wrote: ... This is a pretty significant omission from your playtesting.
Last I checked, the Iron Hands Codex Supplement wasn't required to play anything other than Iron Hands or their Successors, so... not sure why I would omit something that I didn't need or have a reason to use. I'd have specified if I had used it.
Just so you know, I didn't mention this- but I also didn't wear a Halloween costume while I played. I figure this would go without saying, but I didn't see a need for it.
Burnage wrote: ... This is a pretty significant omission from your playtesting.
Last I checked, the Iron Hands Codex Supplement wasn't required to play anything other than Iron Hands or their Successors, so... not sure why I would omit something that I didn't need or have a reason to use. I'd have specified if I had used it.
Just so you know, I didn't mention this- but I also didn't wear a Halloween costume while I played. I figure this would go without saying, but I didn't see a need for it.
All marines are successors of some legion. Marine armies are intended to use supplements. Not using a significant power boost available to you is of course a nice thing to do in a casual setting, but makes your playtesting utterly worthless for actually evaluating the power of the army.
All marines are successors of some legion. Marine armies are intended to use supplements. Not using a significant power boost available to you is of course a nice thing to do in a casual setting, but makes your playtesting utterly worthless for actually evaluating the power of the army.
So let me get this straight, I am required to use the Iron Hands, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, or Ravenguard supplement in order to play a generic chapter of SM?
SeanDrake wrote: yeah but going by the torrent of threads like this one and the previous 30-40 episodes mostly consisting of an echo chamber of the same people raging hard then surely he should have won every single game as marines are omgopwtf and some of the armies he fought were "auto lose" choices.
Hey, do you remember the Squats and how awesome they were? 8th edition sucks, they need to make it like 3rd Edition again.
I don't really have anything to back either of those things up, but it gets repeated on the internet enough so I just said it.
I mean, every time something new drops, it's OP.
Nope, just when it's OP, nobody complained that Necrons were OP when they were released, because they were below the power curve.
Back when Space Marines got an actual Codex before everyone, it was OP (even though, you know, it really wasn't). Drukhari Codex was OP, too. Guard were OP.
If you can't see how unfair it is for Chapter Tactics to be released in waves I don't know what to tell you. Whenever GW produces a product that increases imbalance or decreases the fluff value of the game people complain, this isn't rocket science. If GW only produced products that increased fluff value and balance very few people would complain. When people complain about Psychic Awakening being weak they are actually complaining about SM being OP, in part because a lot of people were saying that with the coming releases everything would be put up to IH levels of OP.
None of this is a really new complaint. It comes out, it works well (and God forbid vanilla SM actually be decent without having to use Bobby G or requiring allied detachments), and people eventually develop a counter for it and adjust their tactics (God forbid people have to change up their lists to deal with a meta).
Not everyone has access to things that are pts efficient enough to ever stand a chance at winning not only against the three or five different kinds of SM but also the ten or twenty other types of list that are common in the meta. SM got too many buffs too fast. Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines was badly implemented.
Darsath wrote: I think that, statistically, there is evidence to support the overshot of the new Space Marine books. Anecdotal evidence is pretty poor evidence to counteract this regardless. It's also evident that not everyone will be getting a similar treatment. It's not really surprising that people will resent the new books. The issue is directing it at the players, and not Games Workshop, who are responsible.
Alternative take:
Statistically, more Marine lists are winning. Statistically speaking, more players own Marines than any other faction.
Just a thought.
Space Marines win proportionately more than they should according to the number of SM participants in tournaments, this again isn't rocket science, if SM only had as many top placings as they had proportional participants there would be very few people that complain, maybe you'd know about the discrepancy if you knew anything about tournaments stats.
All marines are successors of some legion. Marine armies are intended to use supplements. Not using a significant power boost available to you is of course a nice thing to do in a casual setting, but makes your playtesting utterly worthless for actually evaluating the power of the army.
So let me get this straight, I am required to use the Iron Hands, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, or Ravenguard supplement in order to play a generic chapter of SM?
All marines are successors of some legion. Marine armies are intended to use supplements. Not using a significant power boost available to you is of course a nice thing to do in a casual setting, but makes your playtesting utterly worthless for actually evaluating the power of the army.
So let me get this straight, I am required to use the Iron Hands, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, or Ravenguard supplement in order to play a generic chapter of SM?
Not required, just intended. Just like you are not required to use stratagems but if you don't then your playtesting is worthless for assessing power.
Crimson wrote: Not required, just intended. Just like you are not required to use stratagems but if you don't then your playtesting is worthless for assessing power.
Are those books required if I am taking my Chapter Tactics from the list of options, and they fall under no particular First Founding chapter?
The answer is, "no".
So the complaint isn't SM in general.
It's over, honestly, what seems like one particular (IH) codex supplement.
Are those books required if I am taking my Chapter Tactics from the list of options, and they fall under no particular First Founding chapter?
The answer is, "no".
So the complaint isn't SM in general.
No one said it is required. But the are no 'generic chapters' all chapters are successors of someone. If you don't use half of your rules, then your playtesting is worthless. I really don't understand how this can be so hard to get.
Guys, we don't need huge posts full of anecdotal evidence about 'my first few games with codex 2.0 marines against random people at my club'. I have provided links to actual evidence and statistics that show how OP codex 2.0 Marines are. These stats have been gathered over 6000 games or so.
Doritos, your post on testing is an interesting read but unfortunately I fear you have wasted your time because it is unreliable. You didn't use supplement rules I gather? You played against 3 or 4 people. Your games were 1-1.5k in size. You picked units seemingly at random. In effect you didn't reproduce the tournament/competitive environment at all and your sample size is minute. I mean you didn't even use the full ruleset for nu-Marines.
Doritos, your post on testing is an interesting read but unfortunately I fear you have wasted your time because it is unreliable. You didn't use supplement rules I gather? You played against 3 or 4 people. Your games were 1-1.5k in size. You picked units seemingly at random. In effect you didn't reproduce the tournament/competitive environment at all and your sample size is minute. I mean you didn't even use the full ruleset for nu-Marines.
I went for what seemed effective, and I'm sensible enough to synergize what works. And yeah, small size- literally my entire force was a few things I've built over a few months but never used, and a few things that I had never assembled.
And what I want clarification on- actual REAL clarification is this:
-I wanna make my own chapter. I wanna chose my chapter tactics. I want to use the most up-to-date rules and options. Do I need to buy the [insert chapter] Codex Supplement? Or just the Adeptus Astartes Codex?
Dumb Smart Guy wrote: He's just being deliberately obtuse. That seems to be his entire shtick
No.
I just... did not see a need to purchase a book for a subfaction that I'm not using. I'm not sure how that's obtuse, seems pretty common sense to me.
And people are complaining about Marines in general, rather than the specific supplements. That's a new animal altogether.
Because 'no supplement' is not an actual way anyone who isn't intentionally gimping themselves or just being chronically stupid is playing. Now we can certainly discuss the fact that some supplements seem to be much more powerful than others, but 'no supplement' army is not a thing in any competitive or even semi-competitive setting.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: -I wanna make my own chapter. I wanna chose my chapter tactics. I want to use the most up-to-date rules and options. Do I need to buy the [insert chapter] Codex Supplement? Or just the Adeptus Astartes Codex?
If you want the most up-to-date rules and options, then yes, you need to pick a Founding Chapter and buy that Supplement. There's no such thing as a "generic" or "vanilla" Marine chapter currently.
And what I want clarification on- actual REAL clarification is this:
-I wanna make my own chapter. I wanna chose my chapter tactics. I want to use the most up-to-date rules and options. Do I need to buy the [insert chapter] Codex Supplement? Or just the Adeptus Astartes Codex?
You don't need to, but there is no reason besides showing mercy to your opponents not to.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: -I wanna make my own chapter. I wanna chose my chapter tactics. I want to use the most up-to-date rules and options. Do I need to buy the [insert chapter] Codex Supplement? Or just the Adeptus Astartes Codex?
If you want the most up-to-date rules and options, then yes, you need to pick a Founding Chapter and buy that Supplement. There's no such thing as a "generic" or "vanilla" Marine chapter currently.
I just want you to know that I have, out loud, alone in my own house, uttered three consecutive expletives.
...I don't wanna buy more books, dammit.
FINE. I'll... get the Ravenguard one or something. This is dumb.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: And what I want clarification on- actual REAL clarification is this:
-I wanna make my own chapter. I wanna chose my chapter tactics. I want to use the most up-to-date rules and options. Do I need to buy the [insert chapter] Codex Supplement? Or just the Adeptus Astartes Codex?
You'll want to get a (or multiple) supplement book(s) assuming you're using a successor chapter. They contain all of the rules you'll need to play. You can play without but you have more rules, more options with.
Marines in general are complained about because marines in general are too strong. The supplements are part and parcel of this OP package.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Marines in general are complained about because marines in general are too strong. The supplements are part and parcel of this OP package.
Seems to me without those supplements, they seem to be pretty decent but not OP.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Marines in general are complained about because marines in general are too strong. The supplements are part and parcel of this OP package.
Seems to me without those supplements, they seem to be pretty decent but not OP.
This indeed probably is the case. Supplements were just too much.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Guys, we don't need huge posts full of anecdotal evidence about 'my first few games with codex 2.0 marines against random people at my club'. I have provided links to actual evidence and statistics that show how OP codex 2.0 Marines are. These stats have been gathered over 6000 games or so.
Doritos, your post on testing is an interesting read but unfortunately I fear you have wasted your time because it is unreliable. You didn't use supplement rules I gather? You played against 3 or 4 people. Your games were 1-1.5k in size. You picked units seemingly at random. In effect you didn't reproduce the tournament/competitive environment at all and your sample size is minute. I mean you didn't even use the full ruleset for nu-Marines.
No you provided lists of a self selecting minority who play a heavily house ruled game that skews tactics and strategy differently to the actual game and as such is irrelevant to any discussion of overall balance.(or should be at least)
Also unless you deliberately skew the statistics the marines have 57% win rate which is not that bad if you go back a few months to when elder were pulling a win rate in the high 60% mark or even further back to Knights and there high to mid 70% win rate.
Besides all 6000 games were technically not even 40k games so theres no way they can be used to balance the game, as I said you only have to look at the battle report sub forum when this circus started and it took me longer to find a IH game in which they won and that was ITC than the half dozen they lost. It maybe different now but I doubt it but honestly I don't care anymore there is nothing going to stop the whining until marines are nerfed bac into easy wins for the tournament players.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: -I wanna make my own chapter. I wanna chose my chapter tactics. I want to use the most up-to-date rules and options. Do I need to buy the [insert chapter] Codex Supplement? Or just the Adeptus Astartes Codex?
If you want the most up-to-date rules and options, then yes, you need to pick a Founding Chapter and buy that Supplement. There's no such thing as a "generic" or "vanilla" Marine chapter currently.
There obviously is there's pages dedicated to them in the codex if you don't want to play a 1st founding or successor chapter then there is no need to but that's a choice not a requirement.
SeanDrake wrote: a self selecting minority who play a heavily house ruled game
This is literally the major tournament circuit
Yes, and them playing with their own houserules is certainly a problem as the results do not necessarily directly correlate to the proper 40K. Though a win boost this big certainly tells about something.
SeanDrake wrote: a self selecting minority who play a heavily house ruled game
This is literally the major tournament circuit
Who play a heavily house ruled game and still make up an insignificant percentage of the player base overall, now there a very very vocal minority but that doesn't change the fact.
An army that is 20% of the field and is very strong cant really have much more than a 55-60% winrate unless its completely broken. Since marines will play at the top tables more and face other marines mostly if they have good lists and good players playing them. So in the later rounds marines will get 50% winrate since they sre playing mostly marines.
IH pre nerf is the exception since they were extremely broken and IF/RG werent out yet.
Same way almost no army can get below 40% winrate since the bad armies are duking it out against each other at the bottom of the rankings getting 50% winrates against each other.
IH isnt getting their 60% winrate against DA/BA/GK etc. If they faced those list only it would probably be closer to a 90% winrate.
All the winrates pver 50% of such a popular army is a much larger problem than people seem to understand. They get that winrate despite getting lots of 50/50s against other marines. An army that is 5% of the field getting 58% is much weaker than an army that is closer to 25% of the field getting the same number.
After all. If everyone plays marines, marines will have 50% winrate in all matchups in tournaments and be balanced
Darsath wrote: Again, anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much here. And as I've said, Space Marines having both a high play rate and a high win rate (exceeding the Ynarri non-sense earlier in the edition) is pretty concrete evidence to disprove your theory.
Let's take a stroll down memory lane.
These are 4 week periods of armies 51% or better from Feb to Aug from 40kstats.com (that's as far back as he goes).
Literally the ONLY marine faction doing better than all of these results is Iron Hands @ 65% - even IF are 56%. So attacking Astartes in general may be a bad idea.
And consider that this isn't even the height of Ynnari and Castellans.
Klickor wrote: An army that is 20% of the field and is very strong cant really have much more than a 55-60% winrate unless its completely broken. Since marines will play at the top tables more and face other marines mostly if they have good lists and good players playing them. So in the later rounds marines will get 50% winrate since they sre playing mostly marines.
IH pre nerf is the exception since they were extremely broken and IF/RG werent out yet.
Same way almost no army can get below 40% winrate since the bad armies are duking it out against each other at the bottom of the rankings getting 50% winrates against each other.
IH isnt getting their 60% winrate against DA/BA/GK etc. If they faced those list only it would probably be closer to a 90% winrate.
All the winrates pver 50% of such a popular army is a much larger problem than people seem to understand. They get that winrate despite getting lots of 50/50s against other marines. An army that is 5% of the field getting 58% is much weaker than an army that is closer to 25% of the field getting the same number.
After all. If everyone plays marines, marines will have 50% winrate in all matchups in tournaments and be balanced
Darsath wrote: Again, anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much here. And as I've said, Space Marines having both a high play rate and a high win rate (exceeding the Ynarri non-sense earlier in the edition) is pretty concrete evidence to disprove your theory.
Let's take a stroll down memory lane.
These are 4 week periods of armies 51% or better from Feb to Aug from 40kstats.com (that's as far back as he goes).
Literally the ONLY marine faction doing better than all of these results is Iron Hands @ 65% - even IF are 56%. So attacking Astartes in general may be a bad idea.
And consider that this isn't even the height of Ynnari and Castellans.
That’s not fair using the real statistics,history and reality against them
It’s a shame it’s not easier to remove the mirror matchup data on 40k stats. Because unless we’re comparing subfactions, the auto 50% win rate really confuses the data.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Guys, we don't need huge posts full of anecdotal evidence about 'my first few games with codex 2.0 marines against random people at my club'. I have provided links to actual evidence and statistics that show how OP codex 2.0 Marines are. These stats have been gathered over 6000 games or so.
Doritos, your post on testing is an interesting read but unfortunately I fear you have wasted your time because it is unreliable. You didn't use supplement rules I gather? You played against 3 or 4 people. Your games were 1-1.5k in size. You picked units seemingly at random. In effect you didn't reproduce the tournament/competitive environment at all and your sample size is minute. I mean you didn't even use the full ruleset for nu-Marines.
No you provided lists of a self selecting minority who play a heavily house ruled game that skews tactics and strategy differently to the actual game and as such is irrelevant to any discussion of overall balance.(or should be at least)
Also unless you deliberately skew the statistics the marines have 57% win rate which is not that bad if you go back a few months to when elder were pulling a win rate in the high 60% mark or even further back to Knights and there high to mid 70% win rate.
Besides all 6000 games were technically not even 40k games so theres no way they can be used to balance the game, as I said you only have to look at the battle report sub forum when this circus started and it took me longer to find a IH game in which they won and that was ITC than the half dozen they lost. It maybe different now but I doubt it but honestly I don't care anymore there is nothing going to stop the whining until marines are nerfed bac into easy wins for the tournament players.
Wrong on so many levels.
1. The statistics I provided are for ITC, ETC and any other format a tournament would like to follow, including "standard" 40k.
2. Deliberately skew statistics? You mean show how different sub factions are performing? 57% is a broken win rate. There are other stats that confirm that the codex and supplements are broken good. TWiP. First loss. Points for and against. Neither IK nor Ynnari had a "high 60% or mid 70%" win rate. That is an entirely made up fantasy. Their win rates were both around 60% too.
3. Again. Those 6000 games are from all manner of tournaments using all manner of different rule sets. Your Battle Report sub-forum is not useful data.
That’s not fair using the real statistics,history and reality against them
Well, be careful. There are a lot of factors to these issues. Marines are likely super strong, because they're easily accessible. Ynnari took some coordination to play and Castellans could be subject to bad rolls.
Marines need toning down, but it matters which pieces of it. It disturbs me quite a bit that people are talking about bolt rifle intercessors like they haven't been in their current state since January.
That’s not fair using the real statistics,history and reality against them
Well, be careful. There are a lot of factors to these issues. Marines are likely super strong, because they're easily accessible. Ynnari took some coordination to play and Castellans could be subject to bad rolls.
Marines need toning down, but it matters which pieces of it. It disturbs me quite a bit that people are talking about bolt rifle intercessors like they haven't been in their current state since January.
There was a guy on here that said people got too complacent with marines being an easy win. I genuinely think that theory holds water
That’s not fair using the real statistics,history and reality against them
Well, be careful. There are a lot of factors to these issues. Marines are likely super strong, because they're easily accessible. Ynnari took some coordination to play and Castellans could be subject to bad rolls.
Marines need toning down, but it matters which pieces of it. It disturbs me quite a bit that people are talking about bolt rifle intercessors like they haven't been in their current state since January.
It's probably important to run discussions of Marines through a mental filter of "non-Marine players are probably going to make mistakes about the names of Primaris units" - without double checking I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a Bolt Rifle, Auto Bolt Rifle and Stalker Bolt Rifle. I think it's the Stalker version that's become quite a bit scarier recently thanks to Doctrines and some of the Chapter tactics.
fraser1191 wrote: There was a guy on here that said people got too complacent with marines being an easy win. I genuinely think that theory holds water
For years a lot of competitive tournament players have gloated about how easy it is for their army to crush space marines.
Suddenly it's not so easy and we're in a crisis.
This is, quite honestly, absolutely hilarious to me.
Who here can honestly say that their local scene where they regularely play got overtaken and destroyed by Marines? At least nobody caring enough to join the conversation so far has stated it. There is nobody saying "I'm a hardcore tournament player and Marines honestly killed the fun for me there" either.
The whole discussion wether Marines are OP and if so, how OP they are compared to OP armies in the past seems very academic to me. We can talk about percentages for another 7 pages, but if nobody is actually feeling these numbers on their day to day (game) life, why are we complaining about it in the first place?
I hope people also understand in this discussion that in casual, or semi-casual play, most codices are fine.
If you're just literally fielding your models without much account for maximizing your ability to destroy your opponent, space marines (and even the supplements) are likely fine, or fine enough to not really care about.
All this discussion is about tournament playing, or WAAC.
a_typical_hero wrote: Who here can honestly say that their local scene where they regularely play got overtaken and destroyed by Marines? At least nobody caring enough to join the conversation so far has stated it. There is nobody saying "I'm a hardcore tournament player and Marines honestly killed the fun for me there" either.
The whole discussion wether Marines are OP and if so, how OP they are compared to OP armies in the past seems very academic to me. We can talk about percentages for another 7 pages, but if nobody is actually feeling these numbers on their day to day (game) life, why are we complaining about it in the first place?
That is just blatant missrepresantaion of the points made
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tulun wrote: I hope people also understand in this discussion that in casual, or semi-casual play, most codices are fine.
If you're just literally fielding your models without much account for maximizing your ability to destroy your opponent, space marines (and even the supplements) are likely fine, or fine enough to not really care about.
All this discussion is about tournament playing, or WAAC.
This, you can feel some power discrepancies in casual,but only the extreme ones are realized in a laid back environment of the game.
Otoh i'd say ih have reached that Position as have raven guard against more charachter centric factions.
tulun wrote: I hope people also understand in this discussion that in casual, or semi-casual play, most codices are fine.
If you're just literally fielding your models without much account for maximizing your ability to destroy your opponent, space marines (and even the supplements) are likely fine, or fine enough to not really care about.
All this discussion is about tournament playing, or WAAC.
This is also true of many of the most broken factions Games Workshop have released in the past 10 years or so. Even a mess of game balance could still be balanced out in casual games. It's pick-up games where you'll see the biggest issues, and where balance issues feel the worst. Competitive players aren't actually the worst affected, since chasing the meta, and dealing with overpowered units/weps is expected there.
tulun wrote: I hope people also understand in this discussion that in casual, or semi-casual play, most codices are fine.
If you're just literally fielding your models without much account for maximizing your ability to destroy your opponent, space marines (and even the supplements) are likely fine, or fine enough to not really care about.
All this discussion is about tournament playing, or WAAC.
I think the issue is the opposite. It is easy for a casual player to be oppressive with marines, which drives the perception even more.
It's probably important to run discussions of Marines through a mental filter of "non-Marine players are probably going to make mistakes about the names of Primaris units" - without double checking I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a Bolt Rifle, Auto Bolt Rifle and Stalker Bolt Rifle. I think it's the Stalker version that's become quite a bit scarier recently thanks to Doctrines and some of the Chapter tactics.
But then it makes it problematic for them to discuss what makes marines OP when they don't understand the units or the history.
SeanDrake wrote: ... there is nothing going to stop the whining until marines are nerfed bac into easy wins for the tournament players.
You're not wrong.
But literally no one is saying "nerf mehreens so the armies that never see releases always win!!!!1one"
People are just saying that mehrons should be balanced and not a broken pile of gak.
It really isn't that hard to understand, get this victim complex out of your psyche.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Tbf sm are also more of a point and Click faction then f.e. gsc.
Skillceilling and such.
A problem of 8e's design, if everything's a glass cannon the cannon with the longest range and most glass always wins.
1. The statistics I provided are for ITC, ETC and any other format a tournament would like to follow, including "standard" 40k.
2. Deliberately skew statistics? You mean show how different sub factions are performing? 57% is a broken win rate. There are other stats that confirm that the codex and supplements are broken good. TWiP. First loss. Points for and against. Neither IK nor Ynnari had a "high 60% or mid 70%" win rate. That is an entirely made up fantasy. Their win rates were both around 60% too.
3. Again. Those 6000 games are from all manner of tournaments using all manner of different rule sets. Your Battle Report sub-forum is not useful data.
I hope that helps?
Evidence and data wont work if people don't want to read evidence and data.
fraser1191 wrote: There was a guy on here that said people got too complacent with marines being an easy win. I genuinely think that theory holds water
For years a lot of competitive tournament players have gloated about how easy it is for their army to crush space marines.
Suddenly it's not so easy and we're in a crisis.
This is, quite honestly, absolutely hilarious to me.
I too find it funny, mostly because all the "how to fix marines" threads did a 180, not to mention all the well marines have X so we should have X, but that'll never go away
fraser1191 wrote: There was a guy on here that said people got too complacent with marines being an easy win. I genuinely think that theory holds water
For years a lot of competitive tournament players have gloated about how easy it is for their army to crush space marines.
Suddenly it's not so easy and we're in a crisis.
This is, quite honestly, absolutely hilarious to me.
I too find it funny, mostly because all the "how to fix marines" threads did a 180, not to mention all the well marines have X so we should have X, but that'll never go away
In this thread: Resident Marine Player Surprised That Other People Want Unique Rules For Their Unique Factions
Darsath wrote: Again, anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much here. And as I've said, Space Marines having both a high play rate and a high win rate (exceeding the Ynarri non-sense earlier in the edition) is pretty concrete evidence to disprove your theory.
Let's take a stroll down memory lane.
These are 4 week periods of armies 51% or better from Feb to Aug from 40kstats.com (that's as far back as he goes).
Spoiler:
And this is the latest 4 week period:
Spoiler:
- SNIP -
That faction spread is disgusting, if this game was "Balanced" we'd see a lot more even spread.
Marines are three times as popular as the next popular list. I'm going to barf.
tulun wrote: I hope people also understand in this discussion that in casual, or semi-casual play, most codices are fine.
If you're just literally fielding your models without much account for maximizing your ability to destroy your opponent, space marines (and even the supplements) are likely fine, or fine enough to not really care about.
All this discussion is about tournament playing, or WAAC.
I think the issue is the opposite. It is easy for a casual player to be oppressive with marines, which drives the perception even more.
It’s an S tier army, but what is oppressive here?
Like, if casual players are just fielding the crap they own, including tactical marines and stuff, not sure it’s all that bad.
That’s not fair using the real statistics,history and reality against them
Well, be careful. There are a lot of factors to these issues. Marines are likely super strong, because they're easily accessible. Ynnari took some coordination to play and Castellans could be subject to bad rolls.
Marines need toning down, but it matters which pieces of it. It disturbs me quite a bit that people are talking about bolt rifle intercessors like they haven't been in their current state since January.
The Heavy Weapon level AP (doctrines) and additional trait/super doctrine buff have been in place since the new year. Huh. Odd.
fraser1191 wrote: There was a guy on here that said people got too complacent with marines being an easy win. I genuinely think that theory holds water
For years a lot of competitive tournament players have gloated about how easy it is for their army to crush space marines.
Suddenly it's not so easy and we're in a crisis.
This is, quite honestly, absolutely hilarious to me.
I too find it funny, mostly because all the "how to fix marines" threads did a 180, not to mention all the well marines have X so we should have X, but that'll never go away
In this thread: Resident Marine Player Surprised That Other People Want Unique Rules For Their Unique Factions
I guess I shouldn't have used marines specifically. No matter which faction it is someone will talk about how faction X has something they don't. This time it happens to be marines
fraser1191 wrote: I guess I shouldn't have used marines specifically. No matter which faction it is someone will talk about how faction X has something they don't. This time it happens to be marines
Willing to bet we'll see something like it in the future for other factions, and there will be complaints about Marines still.
I very much doubt they'll get "Codex Supplement: Biel Tan/Tau Sept Boogaloo/Necron Dynasty Skelewankh like we have with chapters, maybe more stuff consolidated into a single book.
And that will STILL get complaints.
Imagine their complaint being that they don't have to spend more money on multiple books.
Like, if casual players are just fielding the crap they own, including tactical marines and stuff, not sure it’s all that bad.
One executioner is tough. 3 is oppressive.
It's going to be more on the IH and IF end, really. It creates a dynamic where most units have no downside.
Marines are supposed be a swiss army knife, but yeah. You won't get much argument from me the army is ridiculous, especially when you combo super doctrines with the supplements.
Optimization does make a big difference, though. Casual lists can be downright bad in overall synergy. But I will grant a casual list with an S tier army (or SS tier like Iron Hands seems to be) could accidentally be really good. This is probably less true of many other armies.
I think what people are conveniently forgetting is that a casual marine player who brings an unoptimised list will be playing against, we should assume, another casual player that has also brought an unoptimised list. Surely we aren't doubting that the marine books are powerful even when taken in "worse" lists?
I've seen it a few times now where I play - none marine players are starting to dwindle. It might be for a number of reasons such as the relentless marine model releases, the primary focus on marines by GW and the fact that when they bring their list to play they get rekd by Marines. Even when they aren't obliterated it seems as though players just don't feel that the game is balanced when playing against marines. We must have all overheard the same sort of questions getting asked during games at our clubs right? "They get HOW MANY buffs now?" "They can do that too?" "This seems silly, [insert marine unit] should have died." "I didn't realise they did that and that." "Wow, that's one of your stratagems, I wish [insert none marine faction here] did that."
Regardless, we should always assume as a minimum when discussing balance that the players are of equal skill. I've experienced more casual marine lists and they have felt very, very obnoxious. The problem isn't unique to tournament play.
Also this notion that their sudden appearance and dominance is due to the ubiquity of collections is nonsense. Tournament goers will gravitate to what is most egregious.
I would accept it as a reason back in the summer but it is far more prevalent and systemic at this point.
The Heavy Weapon level AP (doctrines) and additional trait/super doctrine buff have been in place since the new year. Huh. Odd.
Except that isn't what some people have been referencing. Feel free to read up.
I don't know what you're referring to. The closest thing I could find was a post detailing how all the excessive buffs given to marines make PEQ dominant at owning the mid table and stating that even if reverted would still hold a slight edge.
Your statement that they exist now as they did 11 months ago remains absurd.
Eldarain wrote: Also this notion that their sudden appearance and dominance is due to the ubiquity of collections is nonsense. Tournament goers will gravitate to what is most egregious.
I would accept it as a reason back in the summer but it is far more prevalent and systemic at this point.
This is only half the reason that was debated. The sudden appearance is because a popular and readily available army got strong rules. Would you argue that if GSC would get the exact same rules as Iron Hands tomorrow, that we would see that many GSC armies at the next tourney?
Eldarain wrote: Also this notion that their sudden appearance and dominance is due to the ubiquity of collections is nonsense. Tournament goers will gravitate to what is most egregious.
I would accept it as a reason back in the summer but it is far more prevalent and systemic at this point.
This is only half the reason that was debated. The sudden appearance is because a popular and readily available army got strong rules. Would you argue that if GSC would get the exact same rules as Iron Hands tomorrow, that we would see that many GSC armies at the next tourney?
Considering how tournament players switch armies regularly , yeah.
All marines are successors of some legion. Marine armies are intended to use supplements. Not using a significant power boost available to you is of course a nice thing to do in a casual setting, but makes your playtesting utterly worthless for actually evaluating the power of the army.
So let me get this straight, I am required to use the Iron Hands, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, or Ravenguard supplement in order to play a generic chapter of SM?
The biggest prove SMs are a problem. Player bringing random units, not using most of his rules and fighting probably opponent with decent optimized list and units.
If i build random CWE army i wont be able to win a game and i`m sure most armies will have problems of doing it.
Darsath wrote: I think you might have missed something. The play rates. You're comparing the late Knight meta, not the Ynarri meta from a year ago.
I just went and counted up the games for Ynnari players at LVO 2018.
120 games. 87 wins. 72%.
Why people continue to post wrong info that is easily check.
Even at LVO Ynnari had like 60% WR and should have in mind that numbers was going to be counted aeldar soup by the new rules.
For instance Harrison had like 800 pts Ynnari and the rest was CWE and DE flyers, but the main faction was counted as Ynnari.
Eldarain wrote: Also this notion that their sudden appearance and dominance is due to the ubiquity of collections is nonsense. Tournament goers will gravitate to what is most egregious.
I would accept it as a reason back in the summer but it is far more prevalent and systemic at this point.
This is only half the reason that was debated. The sudden appearance is because a popular and readily available army got strong rules. Would you argue that if GSC would get the exact same rules as Iron Hands tomorrow, that we would see that many GSC armies at the next tourney?
Probably not, because GSC army is expensive, need a lot of painting and you cant ask everyone to just give you couple of models.
There is a reason frontline are implementing color rules without washes for LVO, because at SoCal most space marines armies are just bundled together models, got from multiple places.
Why people continue to post wrong info that is easily check.
Even at LVO Ynnari had like 60% WR and should have in mind that numbers was going to be counted aeldar soup by the new rules.
For instance Harrison had like 800 pts Ynnari and the rest was CWE and DE flyers, but the main faction was counted as Ynnari.
But isn't this just cuting a hair in to four? An ~1100pts IG army with a castellan was an IG army, and not castellan army? The corner stone of the list was over laping buffs and rule sets and being able to use CWE stratagems on Inari units, through taking a CWE detachment.
The biggest prove SMs are a problem. Player bringing random units, not using most of his rules and fighting probably opponent with decent optimized list and units.
If i build random CWE army i wont be able to win a game and i`m sure most armies will have problems of doing it.
well the same could have been said about eldar soups pre Inari and castellans. Didn't really matter if the army was just reapers, reapers with spears, reapers with flyers. I remember that one event was one by someone who had units of regular jetbikes, and those are suppose to be very bad.
And back then all eldar players were saying that others have to L2P, build proper list and that not everyone is bringing the good units. Well am sure that those marines players that started in 8th, and whose primaris armies were being beaten over by the eldar steam roller, are more then happy to give all eldar players the same advice, and that they also aren't running super optimised tournament list.
Every power armor faction WR is rising, GK are doing better than ever, compared to Nids who have something like 35% WR.
Eldarain wrote: Also this notion that their sudden appearance and dominance is due to the ubiquity of collections is nonsense. Tournament goers will gravitate to what is most egregious.
I would accept it as a reason back in the summer but it is far more prevalent and systemic at this point.
This is only half the reason that was debated. The sudden appearance is because a popular and readily available army got strong rules. Would you argue that if GSC would get the exact same rules as Iron Hands tomorrow, that we would see that many GSC armies at the next tourney?
I would not. It is entirely reasonable to handwave some of the first post C:SM insanity events as closets of marine models trying out the new rules.
It's been months. They've dominated the entire time. Calls for letting the meta settle are pointless. Calling the variety of Marine subfactions doing well a sign of health is asanine.
The community would completely meltdown if we were in a 6 Eldar subfactions rule the game meta.
The same ubiquity that Marines enjoy also fuels their ascendancy in apologists.
The true sign this is unhealthy is the number of posts/real life occurances of Marine players stepping away from that force because facerolling their friends isn't fun.
The community would completely meltdown if we were in a 6 Eldar subfactions rule the game meta.
If ANY faction and its sub faction rules the meta it's awful all around. Marines don't get a pass because they're the most popular. It's awful games design and what makes it worse is there's a 50/50 chance the marines will continue to dominate and people will defend them because they were bad in the past (I applaud you to go check the 5th ed chaos daemon codex and wonder how we used it competitively... We didn't...) and now they're strong it's fine.
On the other hand, I don't endorse over the top marine bashing. Let people enjoy their army is strong! The issue is now they're game warping levels of strong who can do whatever other armies can normally better than they can, from a army who is supposed to be generalist.
Speaking as someone who's played against Ravenguard and White Scars in a narrative campaign recently, I can tell you that neither game was much fun. For every die my Dark Angels rolled, it felt like my opponent was rolling four or more, and as fun as my game against the Tyrannids was - I still lost, but it was an enjoyable loss - I think I might drop out of the campaign, as getting tabled by turn two really just isn't a fun experience.
Why people continue to post wrong info that is easily check.
Even at LVO Ynnari had like 60% WR and should have in mind that numbers was going to be counted aeldar soup by the new rules.
For instance Harrison had like 800 pts Ynnari and the rest was CWE and DE flyers, but the main faction was counted as Ynnari.
But isn't this just cuting a hair in to four? An ~1100pts IG army with a castellan was an IG army, and not castellan army? The corner stone of the list was over laping buffs and rule sets and being able to use CWE stratagems on Inari units, through taking a CWE detachment.
The biggest prove SMs are a problem. Player bringing random units, not using most of his rules and fighting probably opponent with decent optimized list and units.
If i build random CWE army i wont be able to win a game and i`m sure most armies will have problems of doing it.
well the same could have been said about eldar soups pre Inari and castellans. Didn't really matter if the army was just reapers, reapers with spears, reapers with flyers. I remember that one event was one by someone who had units of regular jetbikes, and those are suppose to be very bad.
And back then all eldar players were saying that others have to L2P, build proper list and that not everyone is bringing the good units. Well am sure that those marines players that started in 8th, and whose primaris armies were being beaten over by the eldar steam roller, are more then happy to give all eldar players the same advice, and that they also aren't running super optimised tournament list.
Every power armor faction WR is rising, GK are doing better than ever, compared to Nids who have something like 35% WR.
Awesome, good to hear that.
Hey, if marine players are proposing they're willing to replace their supplement rules with a similar treatment to what Ynnari got, 100% fairs fair mate. You want a trait that's worse than almost all chapter tactics that you still have to do something to turn on?
Regardless, my main point of frustration is the sheer amount of cake marines are now allowed to have and eat too. EVERYTHING from the new vanilla codex they get to keep AND get all the incredibly amazing broken gak out of the supplements, even if they choose custom chapter traits.
Marines get a whole psychic power discipline, 6 relics, 6 Warlord traits, a super doctrine and a half dozen odd stratagems, even if they pick custom chapter traits.
Meanwhile, the custom traits I got for my eldar and drukhari five seconds later? I don't even get to keep the measley 1 relic, 1 WLT and 1 strat that comes with a standard chapter tactic.
Dorito's argument basically boils down to a 7th ed era "Well I don't use the broken decurion formation so the army isn't broken!" Which like...great? Obviously nobody is saying that it's the individual unit rules making marines busted, because they were among the worst armies in the game with basically the same unit rules. It's just the fact that they have access to 5 times the stratagems, warlord traits, relics, psychic powers and chapter traits that everybody else gets - of COURSE there's going to be something broken in there when you have your pick of like 54 psychic powers when other factions are working with fething SIX. Of course when someone has to come up with sixty stratagems for marines, somewhere in there you're going to have derpy gak like "my whole army is characters now " salamanders or "let me just deploy these centurions 9" from your deployment zone" raven guard.
And it sucks, because yeah, assault centurions kinda fething suck outside of raven guard. but I don't know how to rebalance that stratagem to make them not a problem other than just "Whoops, I guess there was a reason we went through the entire goddamn game before we lost our minds with nu-marines and tried to remove the turn 1 deep striking!" If I was going to bet on it, I'd say asscents are more likely to receive a point nerf than raven guard are to see a nerf to that stratagem. That's just realistic considering GW's history with this stuff, and it sucks ass. If the game's meta is ever balanced again, barring supplements going to narrative-only or something which I doubt, it's likely to be with stupid point nerfs that make a bunch of SM units only work in one chapter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ginjitzu wrote: Speaking as someone who's played against Ravenguard and White Scars in a narrative campaign recently, I can tell you that neither game was much fun. For every die my Dark Angels rolled, it felt like my opponent was rolling four or more, and as fun as my game against the Tyrannids was - I still lost, but it was an enjoyable loss - I think I might drop out of the campaign, as getting tabled by turn two really just isn't a fun experience.
Yeah, watching like 1/3 of a white scars army just tear basically my entire GSC army a new donkey-cave this weekend has convinced me to drop out of going to an upcoming event. There's going to be like 20 people there and 14 are using marine supplements.
fraser1191 wrote: I guess I shouldn't have used marines specifically. No matter which faction it is someone will talk about how faction X has something they don't. This time it happens to be marines
Willing to bet we'll see something like it in the future for other factions, and there will be complaints about Marines still.
I very much doubt they'll get "Codex Supplement: Biel Tan/Tau Sept Boogaloo/Necron Dynasty Skelewankh like we have with chapters, maybe more stuff consolidated into a single book.
And that will STILL get complaints.
Imagine their complaint being that they don't have to spend more money on multiple books.
Bet we DONT see Supplements for non marine factions and RIGHTlY there will still be complaints. Just because a Faction (well sub Faction) gets lots of cool stuff should not mean you want to deprieve others of the enjoyment of having the same - but hey - I guess some people are like that - sad really.
I would def buy supplements for various Craftworlds/Regiments/Orders/Hive Fleets/Dynasty's/Cult /Kabals etc just like I bought Supplements for the Chapters that intersted me.
Why would GW want to do extended supplements to factions that are smaller then marines in number of units boughts? that would be like trying to pander to american football in europe.
Marines get updates, because for the same work and effort GW gets out more out of it. Lets say the last eldar updated was marine tier. The number of players playing eldar may rise, but it is nothing comparing to the number of marines players, that are going to stop buying models. non marine factions are like WFB to GW, good if it sells, but they ain't going in the red if it doesn't. If marines suddenly stoped being bought, they would be in big trouble.
Karol wrote: Why would GW want to do extended supplements to factions that are smaller then marines in number of units boughts? that would be like trying to pander to american football in europe.
Marines get updates, because for the same work and effort GW gets out more out of it. Lets say the last eldar updated was marine tier. The number of players playing eldar may rise, but it is nothing comparing to the number of marines players, that are going to stop buying models. non marine factions are like WFB to GW, good if it sells, but they ain't going in the red if it doesn't. If marines suddenly stoped being bought, they would be in big trouble.
Yeah people said that crap about Sisters - oh look the TWO WEEK pre-sales were gone in less than 20 MINUTES -
So let me get this right - if any other (actual) faction gets a supplement people like you will table flip and stop buying GW products because they are not making enough Marines for you. Like I said some people just hate other people getting nice stuff. Really Really sad attitude.
If you only make stuff for one army then hey guess what sells.
Hey, if marine players are proposing they're willing to replace their supplement rules with a similar treatment to what Ynnari got, 100% fairs fair mate. You want a trait that's worse than almost all chapter tactics that you still have to do something to turn on?
Am not sure what marine players are proposing, besides telling all non marine player to stuff themself. But I doubt there are many people who are willing to have their armies get worse rules, just so others have fun. The better the codex and rules now, the longer it will last. Codex that are balanced become bad very fast. GK were like that, super balanced, every rule was put there with design thinking how to not make it too over powered. Fast Forward 2 years, the the book is laughable comparing to other. Eldar on the other hand, who were mind blowing strong through a lot of 8th ed, still have a flyer list. And still can soup stuff up.
Regardless, my main point of frustration is the sheer amount of cake marines are now allowed to have and eat too. EVERYTHING from the new vanilla codex they get to keep AND get all the incredibly amazing broken gak out of the supplements, even if they choose custom chapter traits.
Then play marines if you want to have good rules. I have been told that a lot of times.
Meanwhile, the custom traits I got for my eldar and drukhari five seconds later? I don't even get to keep the measley 1 relic, 1 WLT and 1 strat that comes with a standard chapter tactic.
being a mono GK player I am to a large degree immune to seeing the plight of eldar players of various sort. Am not sure how marine players feel about the same things. I think they do not care how good or bad eldar players have it. It is not like eldar players were killing themselfs to nerf their armies when those were good.
And it sucks, because yeah, assault centurions kinda fething suck outside of raven guard. but I don't know how to rebalance that stratagem to make them not a problem other than just "Whoops, I guess there was a reason we went through the entire goddamn game before we lost our minds with nu-marines and tried to remove the turn 1 deep striking!" If I was going to bet on it, I'd say asscents are more likely to receive a point nerf than raven guard are to see a nerf to that stratagem. That's just realistic considering GW's history with this stuff, and it sucks ass. If the game's meta is ever balanced again, barring supplements going to narrative-only or something which I doubt, it's likely to be with stupid point nerfs that make a bunch of SM units only work in one chapter.
am not sure how and why, marine players being told to soup up loyal 32 and a castellan was a learn to play issue and not enough terrain problem. But eldar players having it bad right now, being GW fundamentaly making errors that destroy the game.
Do eldar players somehow feel entitled to have good rules? Because I can tell you that, if marines who make up the majority of all players, didn't get good rules. And they are the money makers for GW, then anything that brings in less money is not going to be getting good rules either. I know that maybe the guy who wrote eldar rules for seven editions, no longer writes rules. Who knows.
I mean it is of course it is good to have good rules, it sure beats out having bad rules. And of course the game is better when more people have good rules then those that have bad rules. And GW just did that. Marines make a huge part of the player base. Maybe making marines good at everything and vs every army just did give the majority of players a good army. With smaller investment too. sure someone can load up on executioners and flyers etc. But a marine army with basic troops, eliminators and hellblasters is working more then fine. And no longer gets bullied by something like flyer spam.
Mr Morden wrote: So let me get this right - if any other (actual) faction gets a supplement people like you will table flip and stop buying GW products because they are not making enough Marines for you. Like I said some people just hate other people getting nice stuff. Really Really sad attitude.
If you only make stuff for one army then hey guess what sells.
That is not his argument and I'm not reading that mindset of his out of the statement. Karol says that Marines get supplements because there are enough fans for it to be financially viable. Of course, if you don't give a faction any love then it is difficult to have a large enough fanbase to make supplements viable in the first place.
Karol wrote: Why would GW want to do extended supplements to factions that are smaller then marines in number of units boughts? that would be like trying to pander to american football in europe.
Marines get updates, because for the same work and effort GW gets out more out of it. Lets say the last eldar updated was marine tier. The number of players playing eldar may rise, but it is nothing comparing to the number of marines players, that are going to stop buying models. non marine factions are like WFB to GW, good if it sells, but they ain't going in the red if it doesn't. If marines suddenly stoped being bought, they would be in big trouble.
Yeah people said that crap about Sisters - oh look the TWO WEEK pre-sales were gone in less than 20 MINUTES -
So let me get this right - if any other (actual) faction gets a supplement people like you will table flip and stop buying GW products because they are not making enough Marines for you. Like I said some people just hate other people getting nice stuff. Really Really sad attitude.
If you only make stuff for one army then hey guess what sells.
Everyone and their dog expected sisters to sell out quickly, tbh I'm likely to flip my shiz if all my stuff got supplements because I don't want to buy or carry all the extra books when they should be optional and not a power boost stop assuming that anyone who disagrees you is a marine player (hint, they're not always), or that people expect you exist a squalid incomplete existence because there's a white scars book but there isn't an expansion on the extensive fluff and rules for bor'Kan tau.
Mr Morden wrote: Wow thats a mighty big anti-Eldar chip on the shoulder....
There people here who play other stuff other than Eldar and do play marines that disagree with you.
Yeah I play Eldar, Orks, Thousand Sons, Genestealer Cult and marines. My marines are 20 deathwatch guys I built for Kill Team, 10 jump pack marines I got for Kill Team Elites and a set of Terminators from Space Hulk I had in my basement. Despite having constructed all my other armies with an eye to them being reasonably competitive in most metas, and my deathwatch pretty much solely for Kill Team with at least one copy of every legal KT loadout, since the addition of Shock Assault my Deathwatch have been the nastiest army I have.
Deathwatch haven't even gotten supplement-tier broken yet (tbh I don't know if they ever will) and already I feel like it's the only army I can bring to the table against marines and hope to have anything resembling a good game. At least with Deathwatch I have those sweet busted 2 point 3++ saves so when my opponent goes "OK turn 2 this book right here says if I haven't tabled all your infantry yet I can just decide to have an extra AP on all my basic weapons - lets see how many hours of painting I can make you scoop up in a single shooting phase!"
Sure, my guys only have one wound, and sure, to deal the same damage an intercessor deals at 30" range squatting in his deployment zone I have to be 18" away, but I'll take a fist fight with one hand tied behind my back over both hands, both legs, blindfold and my opponent gets a gun.
Karol wrote: Why would GW want to do extended supplements to factions that are smaller then marines in number of units boughts? that would be like trying to pander to american football in europe.
Marines get updates, because for the same work and effort GW gets out more out of it. Lets say the last eldar updated was marine tier. The number of players playing eldar may rise, but it is nothing comparing to the number of marines players, that are going to stop buying models. non marine factions are like WFB to GW, good if it sells, but they ain't going in the red if it doesn't. If marines suddenly stoped being bought, they would be in big trouble.
Yeah people said that crap about Sisters - oh look the TWO WEEK pre-sales were gone in less than 20 MINUTES -
So let me get this right - if any other (actual) faction gets a supplement people like you will table flip and stop buying GW products because they are not making enough Marines for you. Like I said some people just hate other people getting nice stuff. Really Really sad attitude.
If you only make stuff for one army then hey guess what sells.
Everyone and their dog expected sisters to sell out quickly, tbh I'm likely to flip my shiz if all my stuff got supplements because I don't want to buy or carry all the extra books when they should be optional and not a power boost stop assuming that anyone who disagrees you is a marine player (hint, they're not always), or that people expect you exist a squalid incomplete existence because there's a white scars book but there isn't an expansion on the extensive fluff and rules for bor'Kan tau.
I really hope they just roll the supplement material into codecs for the other factions, I wish they would have done this for marines as well, having to use 3 books now to run a basic mono faction army is annoying.
At least when it was CWE pulling off the absurd special rules shenanigans, it was a faction known for shenanigans. Still ugly, bad for the game, and unfun. But they were those dirty knife-ears pulling dirty tricks. But now it's Marines pulling the shenanigans.
Because nothing says "Extremely Tricksy" like Marines. Nothing says "Extremely fast" like Marines. Nothing says "Extreme Firepower" like Marines. Nothing says "Extremely specialized" like Marines. Nothing says "Extremely Durable" like Marines. Because Marines.
The Heavy Weapon level AP (doctrines) and additional trait/super doctrine buff have been in place since the new year. Huh. Odd.
Except that isn't what some people have been referencing. Feel free to read up.
I don't know what you're referring to. The closest thing I could find was a post detailing how all the excessive buffs given to marines make PEQ dominant at owning the mid table and stating that even if reverted would still hold a slight edge.
Your statement that they exist now as they did 11 months ago remains absurd.
That wasn't my statement. It was that people are representing Intercessors as somehow being wildly better, but their points are all things that existed in January. Here you go:
Dark Angel having units of 5 intercessors in cover everywhere natively rerolling 1's popping out 2 shoots a piece at 30" feels really, really great.
Saying they are merely ok in shooting is false, shooting two AP-2 shots at 30" is great for 17 pts.
The 30" guns weren't a problem when they were 7 pts more than a Tactical Squad, now they are only 5 pts more and they are busted
30" guns on standard infantry break the meta for mid-range shooting
Primaris have been two 30" shots at 17 points since January. Adding reroll 1s or exploding hits didn't suddenly make them murder machines especially given that devastator doctrine isn't benefiting Intercessors other than Stalkers and the chapters that like Stalkers aren't switching to Tactical.
My problem / concern is that people are suddenly paying attention to marines, but wind up muddying the discussion about where the problems lie.
Karol wrote: Why would GW want to do extended supplements to factions that are smaller then marines in number of units boughts? that would be like trying to pander to american football in europe.
Marines get updates, because for the same work and effort GW gets out more out of it. Lets say the last eldar updated was marine tier. The number of players playing eldar may rise, but it is nothing comparing to the number of marines players, that are going to stop buying models. non marine factions are like WFB to GW, good if it sells, but they ain't going in the red if it doesn't. If marines suddenly stoped being bought, they would be in big trouble.
Yeah people said that crap about Sisters - oh look the TWO WEEK pre-sales were gone in less than 20 MINUTES -
So let me get this right - if any other (actual) faction gets a supplement people like you will table flip and stop buying GW products because they are not making enough Marines for you. Like I said some people just hate other people getting nice stuff. Really Really sad attitude.
If you only make stuff for one army then hey guess what sells.
Everyone and their dog expected sisters to sell out quickly, tbh I'm likely to flip my shiz if all my stuff got supplements because I don't want to buy or carry all the extra books when they should be optional and not a power boost stop assuming that anyone who disagrees you is a marine player (hint, they're not always), or that people expect you exist a squalid incomplete existence because there's a white scars book but there isn't an expansion on the extensive fluff and rules for bor'Kan tau.
Same way some people say all those who dare to raise objections to Marines are Xenos(well Eldar) players?
I collect and play all factions - except Halflings - hate the little $&($(^^.
His intent was extremely clear to me - it was Just make stuff for Marines and F everyone else,.
Bharring wrote: At least when it was CWE pulling off the absurd special rules shenanigans, it was a faction known for shenanigans. Still ugly, bad for the game, and unfun. But they were those dirty knife-ears pulling dirty tricks. But now it's Marines pulling the shenanigans.
Because nothing says "Extremely Tricksy" like Marines. Nothing says "Extremely fast" like Marines. Nothing says "Extreme Firepower" like Marines. Nothing says "Extremely specialized" like Marines. Nothing says "Extremely Durable" like Marines. Because Marines.
Out-orking the Ork, out-'darring the 'Dar, out-tauing the Tau, out-DGing the Deathguard... nu-weenies, badassedestest since 2019!
The Heavy Weapon level AP (doctrines) and additional trait/super doctrine buff have been in place since the new year. Huh. Odd.
Except that isn't what some people have been referencing. Feel free to read up.
I don't know what you're referring to. The closest thing I could find was a post detailing how all the excessive buffs given to marines make PEQ dominant at owning the mid table and stating that even if reverted would still hold a slight edge.
Your statement that they exist now as they did 11 months ago remains absurd.
That wasn't my statement. It was that people are representing Intercessors as somehow being wildly better, but their points are all things that existed in January. Here you go:
Dark Angel having units of 5 intercessors in cover everywhere natively rerolling 1's popping out 2 shoots a piece at 30" feels really, really great.
Saying they are merely ok in shooting is false, shooting two AP-2 shots at 30" is great for 17 pts.
The 30" guns weren't a problem when they were 7 pts more than a Tactical Squad, now they are only 5 pts more and they are busted
30" guns on standard infantry break the meta for mid-range shooting
Primaris have been two 30" shots at 17 points since January. Adding reroll 1s or exploding hits didn't suddenly make them murder machines especially given that devastator doctrine isn't benefiting Intercessors other than Stalkers and the chapters that like Stalkers aren't switching to Tactical.
My problem / concern is that people are suddenly paying attention to marines, but wind up muddying the discussion about where the problems lie.
"Ok can I have exploding hits on my basic infantry too please ? Or auto wound if hit scored? Or AP-2 guns if I choose to ? Or make them all snipers with re-roll everything? Or a myriad of other combinations of traits, startegems and relics to fill a nieche in my list so that there is no downside to playing my faction?" Sincerly, All NPC players around the world. Thanks.
They are absolutely part of the problem package. The basic troop got way better for gods sake and has far more utility and options than it ever did, it's just a tip of the rules iceberg. Iflitrating T1 Ds for units that have no business being able to do those things compared to other factions scout units. Yeah those centurions and dreadnaughts are really good at sneaking up to the battle lines of super advanced alien races. Nope cant detect them at all. Its stupid.
For the record, I've been saying intercessors were bloody good troops choice before this gak storm of a rules dump. And now its been dialed up to 11.
Like lets try and be real here... The genie is out the bottle. You'd have to do a huge FAQ nerfhammer to counter all the countless strategems and rules combos to claw it back. Which means the next wave of codexes is going to be more obscene and nobody is loking forward to that.
Intercessors are the best troops choice for the best faction in the game, increasing their cost is completely reasonable. I wouldn't call them broken, more than 2 pts increase would be too much and I think 1 pt on the best combinations would be most reasonable. Stalker BR WS Intercessors continue not being a problem just like previously.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well we also know now that GW values the -1 AP at 1 point on tacs.
Did you mean to say -1 pt on Tacticals for getting Tactical Doctrine?
Intercessors are perfectly balanced now. Before they were worth about 15 points and were paying 17. Instead of dropping them points they gave them +1 AP and +1 attack - which makes them worth 17.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: Intercessors are the best troops choice for the best faction in the game, increasing their cost is completely reasonable. I wouldn't call them broken, more than 2 pts increase would be too much and I think 1 pt on the best combinations would be most reasonable. Stalker BR WS Intercessors continue not being a problem just like previously.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well we also know now that GW values the -1 AP at 1 point on tacs.
Did you mean to say -1 pt on Tacticals for getting Tactical Doctrine?
The stalker bolt gun could do with a 2 point increases.
vict0988 wrote: Intercessors are the best troops choice for the best faction in the game, increasing their cost is completely reasonable. I wouldn't call them broken, more than 2 pts increase would be too much and I think 1 pt on the best combinations would be most reasonable. Stalker BR WS Intercessors continue not being a problem just like previously.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well we also know now that GW values the -1 AP at 1 point on tacs.
Did you mean to say -1 pt on Tacticals for getting Tactical Doctrine?
access to doctrines = 1 pts, comparatively to CSM, if it stays that, maybee they are daft enough to also lower tacs again.
Argive wrote: Yeah those centurions and dreadnaughts are really good at sneaking up to the battle lines of super advanced alien races. Nope cant detect them at all. Its stupid.
as an admech player, this really pisses me off. Our clandestine infiltration stratagem got completely changed because it was too OP for alpha strikes, same with alpha legion and raven guard. Now marines get it back. Tell me how fulgurites or dragoons charging in turn 1 is worse than assault centurions or invictors? At least we had to pay CP to do it, now its just a warlord trait or built-in the unit.
It's T3+ which is inherently less obnoxious than T1 and +1 A attack on the charge is generically awesome, +1 D on tonnes of D1/D2 weapons against vehicles is super insane if you are playing a vehicle-centric list. Losing out on cheap AM Battalions is pretty huge, their characters are basically staying power neutral, but their Smash Captains are becoming 24 pts more expensive most likely. If BA don't get any new insane relics I think they'll be about on-par with WS, but using a trio of BA Captains in soup will be weaker. It'll be exciting to see a lot of their unique Predators on the table... Oh wait, GW is only interested in the meme of armies, not the fluff. BA are Khorne Berzerkers now!
vict0988 wrote: It's T3+ which is inherently less obnoxious than T1 and +1 A attack on the charge is generically awesome, +1 D on tonnes of D1/D2 weapons against vehicles is super insane if you are playing a vehicle-centric list. Losing out on cheap AM Battalions is pretty huge, their characters are basically staying power neutral, but their Smash Captains are becoming 24 pts more expensive most likely. If BA don't get any new insane relics I think they'll be about on-par with WS, but using a trio of BA Captains in soup will be weaker. It'll be exciting to see a lot of their unique Predators on the table... Oh wait, GW is only interested in the meme of armies, not the fluff. BA are Khorne Berzerkers now!
It's currently turn 3, Black Templars can put a squad into Assault on any turn, I'd be pretty surprised if BA weren't able to do the same or better. Given that you only really care about getting DC into Assault doctrine for the most part, I'd say that'll do.
Uh...I've already spotted a ignore up to ap-2 combo...The whole army shoots when it dies on a 5+ for free...Yeah...They are gonna be fine. Top tier even. Miracle dice is amazing.
What exactly are people seeing in the BAPA that is so upsetting?
Litanies will boost the power of BA for sure. Just getting those will bring BA up in power significantly but no where near where nu-marines are as far as I can tell.
+1 attack on the charge isn't powerful if you have to wait until t3 to do it and without a way to get units into melee who cares. Without a bunch of new strats (deepstrike, advance and charge, something like trans-human, something to protect the dreads), an ability to skip to assault doctrine and reduction on costs of existing strats (pre-game move, 3d6 charge are done cheaper by vanilla) BA are still SM -1 (which probably is a good thing given how broken SM are).
BA suffer from trying to turn a shooting army into a melee army. Without dedicated primaris CQC units (which will be broken as all get out) I think BA will get a mild boost but without something a lot more broken than what has been previewed I don't see what the worries are.
bananathug wrote: What exactly are people seeing in the BAPA that is so upsetting?
Litanies will boost the power of BA for sure. Just getting those will bring BA up in power significantly but no where near where nu-marines are as far as I can tell.
+1 attack on the charge isn't powerful if you have to wait until t3 to do it and without a way to get units into melee who cares. Without a bunch of new strats (deepstrike, advance and charge, something like trans-human, something to protect the dreads), an ability to skip to assault doctrine and reduction on costs of existing strats (pre-game move, 3d6 charge are done cheaper by vanilla) BA are still SM -1 (which probably is a good thing given how broken SM are).
BA suffer from trying to turn a shooting army into a melee army. Without dedicated primaris CQC units (which will be broken as all get out) I think BA will get a mild boost but without something a lot more broken than what has been previewed I don't see what the worries are.
This book is looking just like a supplement. So how do we know they won't get access to the c:sm strategems? We already know they're getting vanguard marines.
bananathug wrote: What exactly are people seeing in the BAPA that is so upsetting?
Litanies will boost the power of BA for sure. Just getting those will bring BA up in power significantly but no where near where nu-marines are as far as I can tell.
Well, they're a better Assault army than World Eaters and Black Templars, but they get to keep their psykers. A 5 man squad of Death Company fully buffed can get upwards of I think 40 attacks on the charge? Who needs to attack twice at that point?
bananathug wrote: +1 attack on the charge isn't powerful if you have to wait until t3 to do it and without a way to get units into melee who cares.
It is unlikely (to the point of absurdity) that they will have to wait until turn 3 to put a squad into Assault Doctrine. Black Templars can do it for one squad any time they want, I seriously doubt BA won't be able to do the same or better.
bananathug wrote: Without a bunch of new strats (deepstrike, advance and charge, something like trans-human, something to protect the dreads), an ability to skip to assault doctrine and reduction on costs of existing strats (pre-game move, 3d6 charge are done cheaper by vanilla) BA are still SM -1 (which probably is a good thing given how broken SM are).
I guess it's a good thing they mention that there are new warlord traits and strats and such in the new supplement, might have had something less than amazing for an SM chapter. Whew!
bananathug wrote: What exactly are people seeing in the BAPA that is so upsetting?
Litanies will boost the power of BA for sure. Just getting those will bring BA up in power significantly but no where near where nu-marines are as far as I can tell.
+1 attack on the charge isn't powerful if you have to wait until t3 to do it and without a way to get units into melee who cares. Without a bunch of new strats (deepstrike, advance and charge, something like trans-human, something to protect the dreads), an ability to skip to assault doctrine and reduction on costs of existing strats (pre-game move, 3d6 charge are done cheaper by vanilla) BA are still SM -1 (which probably is a good thing given how broken SM are).
BA suffer from trying to turn a shooting army into a melee army. Without dedicated primaris CQC units (which will be broken as all get out) I think BA will get a mild boost but without something a lot more broken than what has been previewed I don't see what the worries are.
It comes down to the cost and flexibility of DC. A 6+++ is handy on Primaris. If they can go to 15 models and they're cheap and they have the same wargear flexibility...gonna be a bit scary.
Argive wrote: just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..
The feth we will.
"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. Ok I get it.. that's enough enough... stop now.. you win.. I learned my lesson"
I imagine a a scene where an angry marine (The avatar of GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a lowly grunt scrub guardsman(the avatar of non marine compliant fan base) telling him "to back in line! Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr!!! marines rulez mofo!!! now stfu!!"
Argive wrote: just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..
The feth we will.
"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. I gte it.. its enough... stop now.. you win"
I imagine an avatar of angry marine (Representing GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a grunt guardsman "to get back in line. Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr" representing the large porion of non marine compliant hobbyistst.
I don't get it, I would gladly buy 3 boxes of the new CSM if they made them not terrible but GW refuses to do it
Argive wrote: just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..
The feth we will.
"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. I gte it.. its enough... stop now.. you win"
I imagine an avatar of angry marine (Representing GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a grunt guardsman "to get back in line. Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr" representing the large porion of non marine compliant hobbyistst.
I don't get it, I would gladly buy 3 boxes of the new CSM if they made them not terrible but GW refuses to do it
The point was a tongue in cheek joke A dig at GW where its a mantra of "Buy and play marines or GTFO !!!" As the last xx months of models release and rules updates seem to have made painfully clear.
Argive wrote: just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..
The feth we will.
"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. I gte it.. its enough... stop now.. you win"
I imagine an avatar of angry marine (Representing GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a grunt guardsman "to get back in line. Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr" representing the large porion of non marine compliant hobbyistst.
I don't get it, I would gladly buy 3 boxes of the new CSM if they made them not terrible but GW refuses to do it
The new csm are okay, well except you only get 8 standard equipments.
Argive wrote: just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..
The feth we will.
"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. I gte it.. its enough... stop now.. you win"
I imagine an avatar of angry marine (Representing GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a grunt guardsman "to get back in line. Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr" representing the large porion of non marine compliant hobbyistst.
I don't get it, I would gladly buy 3 boxes of the new CSM if they made them not terrible but GW refuses to do it
The new csm are okay, well except you only get 8 standard equipments.
That's a hell of a lot better than the chaos terminators.
Argive wrote: just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..
The feth we will.
"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. I gte it.. its enough... stop now.. you win"
I imagine an avatar of angry marine (Representing GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a grunt guardsman "to get back in line. Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr" representing the large porion of non marine compliant hobbyistst.
I don't get it, I would gladly buy 3 boxes of the new CSM if they made them not terrible but GW refuses to do it
11 pt CSM are going to be quite good with the 3 bonus CP trait, Heretic Astartes have a lot of cool new Stratagems you'll want to power up and CSM do it relatively efficiently. The cheaper DPs are going to be amazing, running double Bat with 6x5 CSM, 3 Flying DPs and 1 Discolord for 16 CP is going to power anything you'd ever want to throw in that last Detachment. Three Berzerker Terminator Squads? Two EC Discolords on drugs? A Possessed Character, Specialist Detachment, bonus WL trait and 4 Relics?
Argive wrote: just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..
The feth we will.
"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. I gte it.. its enough... stop now.. you win"
I imagine an avatar of angry marine (Representing GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a grunt guardsman "to get back in line. Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr" representing the large porion of non marine compliant hobbyistst.
I don't get it, I would gladly buy 3 boxes of the new CSM if they made them not terrible but GW refuses to do it
11 pt CSM are going to be quite good with the 3 bonus CP trait, Heretic Astartes have a lot of cool new Stratagems you'll want to power up and CSM do it relatively efficiently. The cheaper DPs are going to be amazing, running double Bat with 6x5 CSM, 3 Flying DPs and 1 Discolord for 16 CP is going to power anything you'd ever want to throw in that last Detachment. Three Berzerker Terminator Squads? Two EC Discolords on drugs? A Possessed Character, Specialist Detachment, bonus WL trait and 4 Relics?
de rien, you are never getting 3 red butcher squads.
Bonus wl is also just for AL , so no.....
Argive wrote: just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..
The feth we will.
"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. I gte it.. its enough... stop now.. you win"
I imagine an avatar of angry marine (Representing GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a grunt guardsman "to get back in line. Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr" representing the large porion of non marine compliant hobbyistst.
I don't get it, I would gladly buy 3 boxes of the new CSM if they made them not terrible but GW refuses to do it
11 pt CSM are going to be quite good with the 3 bonus CP trait, Heretic Astartes have a lot of cool new Stratagems you'll want to power up and CSM do it relatively efficiently. The cheaper DPs are going to be amazing, running double Bat with 6x5 CSM, 3 Flying DPs and 1 Discolord for 16 CP is going to power anything you'd ever want to throw in that last Detachment. Three Berzerker Terminator Squads? Two EC Discolords on drugs? A Possessed Character, Specialist Detachment, bonus WL trait and 4 Relics?
Die, you are never getting 3 red butcher squads. Bonus wl is also just for AL , so no.....
You can get a bonus WL trait if you are running a Specialist Detachment, like the Possessed Specialist Detachment. Fair enough on not being able to get 3 units of Red Butchers, guess you can just run a Battalion for extra CP and spend 5 CP to buff a Zerker unit each turn. Also, stop being a git.
Everything is relative, SM stop being broken if every faction is broken. I think lists using CSM squads will be able to compete if CSM don't get nerfs and SM don't get meaningful buffs. SM pay 255 for the Troops in a 5 CP Battalion, Heretic Astartes pay 165 for 8 CP. You have add HQs on top but I have some hope that SM will be relatively much less broken soon.
Everything is relative, SM stop being broken if every faction is broken. I think lists using CSM squads will be able to compete if CSM don't get nerfs and SM don't get meaningful buffs. SM pay 255 for the Troops in a 5 CP Battalion, Heretic Astartes pay 165 for 8 CP. You have add HQs on top but I have some hope that SM will be relatively much less broken soon.
This discussion is around marines of a loyalist flavour. I don't mind comparisons between units but the last few posts (basically this page) have simply been discussions of CSM units and nothing more. Its off topic and doesn't belong here.
End it.
Argive wrote: just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..
The feth we will.
"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. I gte it.. its enough... stop now.. you win"
I imagine an avatar of angry marine (Representing GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a grunt guardsman "to get back in line. Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr" representing the large porion of non marine compliant hobbyistst.
I don't get it, I would gladly buy 3 boxes of the new CSM if they made them not terrible but GW refuses to do it
11 pt CSM are going to be quite good with the 3 bonus CP trait, Heretic Astartes have a lot of cool new Stratagems you'll want to power up and CSM do it relatively efficiently. The cheaper DPs are going to be amazing, running double Bat with 6x5 CSM, 3 Flying DPs and 1 Discolord for 16 CP is going to power anything you'd ever want to throw in that last Detachment. Three Berzerker Terminator Squads? Two EC Discolords on drugs? A Possessed Character, Specialist Detachment, bonus WL trait and 4 Relics?
Die, you are never getting 3 red butcher squads.
Bonus wl is also just for AL , so no.....
You can get a bonus WL trait if you are running a Specialist Detachment, like the Possessed Specialist Detachment. Fair enough on not being able to get 3 units of Red Butchers, guess you can just run a Battalion for extra CP and spend 5 CP to buff a Zerker unit each turn. Also, stop being a git.
Scuse me, just realized my autocorrect, fethed up.
Everything is relative, SM stop being broken if every faction is broken. I think lists using CSM squads will be able to compete if CSM don't get nerfs and SM don't get meaningful buffs. SM pay 255 for the Troops in a 5 CP Battalion, Heretic Astartes pay 165 for 8 CP. You have add HQs on top but I have some hope that SM will be relatively much less broken soon.
those points of troops on the C:SM side actually can do a hell of a lot more for their points than the chaos side.
I really wanted CSM troops to gain traits to help give them strength where needed and their own doctrine type bonus, maybe not the exact same way but something to give them extra oomph. I love my CSM, have done since 4th ed but they're just not fun to play right now. My beloved CSM are inferior to tacticals/primaris (Im so used to having bolt gun + bp/chainsword as standard).
Even with the recent reveal of 11 pt CSM vs tactical 12 and Intercessors at 17... Well we still fall FAR short since loyalists get it all for taking their choices, if we take the CR for +3 cp we lose access to our best strat, veterans of the long war. It's give and take for us chaos space marine lads, and loyalists have all of it and the kitchen sink.
Everything is relative, SM stop being broken if every faction is broken. I think lists using CSM squads will be able to compete if CSM don't get nerfs and SM don't get meaningful buffs. SM pay 255 for the Troops in a 5 CP Battalion, Heretic Astartes pay 165 for 8 CP. You have add HQs on top but I have some hope that SM will be relatively much less broken soon.
those points of troops on the C:SM side actually can do a hell of a lot more for their points than the chaos side.
I really wanted CSM troops to gain traits to help give them strength where needed and their own doctrine type bonus, maybe not the exact same way but something to give them extra oomph. I love my CSM, have done since 4th ed but they're just not fun to play right now. My beloved CSM are inferior to tacticals/primaris (Im so used to having bolt gun + bp/chainsword as standard).
Even with the recent reveal of 11 pt CSM vs tactical 12 and Intercessors at 17... Well we still fall FAR short since loyalists get it all for taking their choices, if we take the CR for +3 cp we lose access to our best strat, veterans of the long war. It's give and take for us chaos space marine lads, and loyalists have all of it and the kitchen sink.
Not to mention, that mark locked bands and legions inherently are NOT picked if they have not access to slaanesh, beyond purge, which only get allied in really. (also because the purge trait is nuts)
The point was a tongue in cheek joke
A dig at GW where its a mantra of "Buy and play marines or GTFO !!!" As the last xx months of models release and rules updates seem to have made painfully clear.
How is it different from l2p or use more terrain eldar players were using at marine players when marines were a mid to bad army?
The Heavy Weapon level AP (doctrines) and additional trait/super doctrine buff have been in place since the new year. Huh. Odd.
Except that isn't what some people have been referencing. Feel free to read up.
I don't know what you're referring to. The closest thing I could find was a post detailing how all the excessive buffs given to marines make PEQ dominant at owning the mid table and stating that even if reverted would still hold a slight edge.
Your statement that they exist now as they did 11 months ago remains absurd.
That wasn't my statement. It was that people are representing Intercessors as somehow being wildly better, but their points are all things that existed in January. Here you go:
Dark Angel having units of 5 intercessors in cover everywhere natively rerolling 1's popping out 2 shoots a piece at 30" feels really, really great.
Saying they are merely ok in shooting is false, shooting two AP-2 shots at 30" is great for 17 pts.
The 30" guns weren't a problem when they were 7 pts more than a Tactical Squad, now they are only 5 pts more and they are busted
30" guns on standard infantry break the meta for mid-range shooting
Primaris have been two 30" shots at 17 points since January. Adding reroll 1s or exploding hits didn't suddenly make them murder machines especially given that devastator doctrine isn't benefiting Intercessors other than Stalkers and the chapters that like Stalkers aren't switching to Tactical.
My problem / concern is that people are suddenly paying attention to marines, but wind up muddying the discussion about where the problems lie.
"Ok can I have exploding hits on my basic infantry too please ? Or auto wound if hit scored? Or AP-2 guns if I choose to ? Or make them all snipers with re-roll everything? Or a myriad of other combinations of traits, startegems and relics to fill a nieche in my list so that there is no downside to playing my faction?" Sincerly, All NPC players around the world. Thanks.
bananathug wrote: What exactly are people seeing in the BAPA that is so upsetting?
Litanies will boost the power of BA for sure. Just getting those will bring BA up in power significantly but no where near where nu-marines are as far as I can tell.
+1 attack on the charge isn't powerful if you have to wait until t3 to do it and without a way to get units into melee who cares. Without a bunch of new strats (deepstrike, advance and charge, something like trans-human, something to protect the dreads), an ability to skip to assault doctrine and reduction on costs of existing strats (pre-game move, 3d6 charge are done cheaper by vanilla) BA are still SM -1 (which probably is a good thing given how broken SM are).
BA suffer from trying to turn a shooting army into a melee army. Without dedicated primaris CQC units (which will be broken as all get out) I think BA will get a mild boost but without something a lot more broken than what has been previewed I don't see what the worries are.
This book is looking just like a supplement. So how do we know they won't get access to the c:sm strategems? We already know they're getting vanguard marines.
In fact, we know they will. In the preview they show they're giving BA their own version of the Bolt Rifles stratagem, to show the superior training and precision of the new Intercessor Death Company
addnid wrote: BA seem broken as feth to me, and they are obscuring the skies for our beloved bugs. Feth off powered plot amour boys, we want some tyranid previews !
Hopefully we get some news on Nids today, I am hoping the changes are good.
addnid wrote: BA seem broken as feth to me, and they are obscuring the skies for our beloved bugs. Feth off powered plot amour boys, we want some tyranid previews !
They're far from broken. Nids should still be able to handle them given the BA's poor chapter tactic.
The point was a tongue in cheek joke
A dig at GW where its a mantra of "Buy and play marines or GTFO !!!" As the last xx months of models release and rules updates seem to have made painfully clear.
How is it different from l2p or use more terrain eldar players were using at marine players when marines were a mid to bad army?
The difference is that now it comes from the company producing the game instead of the playerbase.
Also, eldars get a bad reputation because they had ynnari and now airwing spam, take away these and you'll see quick enough that elfs dont have busted codexes.
The problem with the new marines is that they get so many free rules that basically all their units become undercosted.
Also, most people wanted marines to get a new codex to prop them up to the level of the more recent one, the problem is that GW fethed up and went all-in on marines, effectively creating a tier 0 army whose only counter is ... more marines.
addnid wrote: BA seem broken as feth to me, and they are obscuring the skies for our beloved bugs. Feth off powered plot amour boys, we want some tyranid previews !
They're far from broken. Nids should still be able to handle them given the BA's poor chapter tactic.
Yeah because there's no way gw will give ba a stratagem to skip to the assault doctrine.
Not to mention the fact that they're now "compliant " and will probably get access to most if not all the c:sm stuff.
addnid wrote: BA seem broken as feth to me, and they are obscuring the skies for our beloved bugs. Feth off powered plot amour boys, we want some tyranid previews !
Hopefully we get some news on Nids today, I am hoping the changes are good.
probably not, today was all about marines again, we got some random army display of EC and BT, and yet another announcement on the start collectings. Tyranids can feth off, we'll learn about them after the book is out.
The point was a tongue in cheek joke
A dig at GW where its a mantra of "Buy and play marines or GTFO !!!" As the last xx months of models release and rules updates seem to have made painfully clear.
How is it different from l2p or use more terrain eldar players were using at marine players when marines were a mid to bad army?
Because it's a dig at GW's poster boys getting so much support. Eldar players have had similarly OP rules, but have never had Marine-level support.
Marines have always been, and probably always will be, GW's favored faction. This dig is about how much attention they got, not just how powerful their rules are.
CWE gets more attention than, say, Nids. But not notably more than most other factions. Only Marines have had this kind of attention.
And what's this fixation with "eldar players"? Am I missing scads of threads where self-professed Eldar messiahs are proclaiming that anyone but IG/Knights/CSM/Demons/1ksons/DG/Marines/CWE/DE/Harlies/Ynnari/Custodes/etc need to "L2P"? And why only Eldar and not IoM or Chaos?
addnid wrote: BA seem broken as feth to me, and they are obscuring the skies for our beloved bugs. Feth off powered plot amour boys, we want some tyranid previews !
They're far from broken. Nids should still be able to handle them given the BA's poor chapter tactic.
Yeah because there's no way gw will give ba a stratagem to skip to the assault doctrine.
Not to mention the fact that they're now "compliant " and will probably get access to most if not all the c:sm stuff.
Blood and Dark Angels are always noted as being mostly Codex Compliant in the actual Lore save for a few special bits and pieces (like pretty much every Chapter in the same Lore)
Because it's a dig at GW's poster boys getting so much support. Eldar players have had similarly OP rules, but have never had Marine-level support.
Marines have always been, and probably always will be, GW's favored faction. This dig is about how much attention they got, not just how powerful their rules are.
CWE gets more attention than, say, Nids. But not notably more than most other factions. Only Marines have had this kind of attention.
And what's this fixation with "eldar players"? Am I missing scads of threads where self-professed Eldar messiahs are proclaiming that anyone but IG/Knights/CSM/Demons/1ksons/DG/Marines/CWE/DE/Harlies/Ynnari/Custodes/etc need to "L2P"? And why only Eldar and not IoM or Chaos?
Wait so all of the outrage is about the fact that eldar models are finecast and old? Why should eldar players be entitled to big model support, when they don't make the majority of players. I am in the wrestling club, I don't dislike it. But even not smart me, knows that expecting my club to have support the same as the football class or hand ball team would be odd.
And fixation comes from the fact that I don't see necron or tyranid players go on and on how new marine rules are the most evil thing in game, and how it destroys the game.
.
