For the one reason that Space marines gets updated faster and more updated than the rest of the factions. This thread isnt to shame space marine players, it just saddens me that the balance is thrown out the window due to the amount of people playing Space Marines and how popular they are. The fault isnt with the player but with GW. There is money in space marine, not apparently in the rest of the factions.
Like GW give two farts about Xenos. We're going to suck untill our codex even comes out, where as space marines received many updates by the end of 8th.
And not only that but its boring that all boxes have to contain space marines one way or the other.
I just wished more people would play other factions than space marines to balance out what content gets released as well as when.
Beardedragon wrote: For the one reason that Space marines gets updated faster and more updated than the rest of the factions.
Like GW give two farts about Xenos. We're going to suck untill our codex even comes out, where as space marines received many updates by the end of 8th.
And not only that but its boring that all boxes have to contain space marines one way or the other.
I just wished more people would play other factions than space marines to balance out what content gets released as well as when.
Why play npc faction? Tim 12yo's would love though. More npc's to crush
auticus wrote: This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
im not interested in taking away space marines, i really just want GW to balance out what content they make rather than always focusing on space marines.
But i know they wont do anything for balance as they care too much about money to be bothered.
Like many things GW makes the Space Marines are a perfectly fine idea that has been borked by poor execution. In theory it's very useful for them to have a basic faction they can hand to the aforementioned Timmy the 12-year-old that doesn't require a huge investment to get started, is straightforward to paint, straightforward to play, and uses a wide enough variety of unit types/mechanics that they're not very sensitive to core rules changes. In practice their efforts to resculpt the faction without telling us that's what they're doing has led to a bloated range, the broken statline math of 8e left the poster faction pretty underwhelming for most of the edition and the extra special rules they tried to stack on to compensate were a massive overcorrection that badly broke the competitive meta, and the Sigmar designers that keep poking their heads in to copy-paste concepts from the Stormcast ("open another chamber!", prayers, character bloat) are just making things worse.
auticus wrote: This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
im not interested in taking away space marines, i really just want GW to balance out what content they make rather than always focusing in space marines.
But i know they wont do anything for balance as they care too much about money to be bothered.
They tried this a few times historically (stealer cults, admech, harlequins, deathwatch in recent-ish memory), some did well enough to warrant more releases, some didn't. It's not like they haven't introduced new factions or content elsewhere, but unless people buy into it, where is their incentive?
Does this forum really need a dedicated QQ-threads about "Stoopid Space Marines" and those who play them?
Seems those kind of posts have no problem infiltrating every and any topic on the board already.
/Space Marine-player who also plays 4 other factions, including Xeno's.
auticus wrote: This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
im not interested in taking away space marines, i really just want GW to balance out what content they make rather than always focusing in space marines.
But i know they wont do anything for balance as they care too much about money to be bothered.
Agreed. I have had Eldar for decades now and I have lead models which are still the same casts as ones still out today (Notably all the Pheonix Lords bar one, Warp Spiders, shining Spears, Warlocks, Avatar and fire dragons). Yet in that time, several models have been not only produced, but subsequently redesigned for other armies. Why? Money.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand it is a business and their business is making money - but diversity is definately lacking and sadly I think they are getting it right more for AOS than they are for 40k. At least some of that AOS Model design is starting to bleed into 40k.
auticus wrote: This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
im not interested in taking away space marines, i really just want GW to balance out what content they make rather than always focusing in space marines.
But i know they wont do anything for balance as they care too much about money to be bothered.
They tried this a few times historically (stealer cults, admech, harlequins, deathwatch in recent-ish memory), some did well enough to warrant more releases, some didn't. It's not like they haven't introduced new factions or content elsewhere, but unless people buy into it, where is their incentive?
What army(ies) do you play?
Yeah, the new marine releases sold so well, when GW did a big purge of the gak that didn't sell in their warehouse and packaged it up in a 50% of blind box liquidation, the contents of the boxes were:
-Space marine bikers
-Fenrisian wolves
-4 of the brand new space marine characters
-Arco-flagellants
and the other box was
-Space marine scouts
-Space marine sniper scouts
-2 of the new space marine characters
-Knight castellan.
Yup, marines must be really SELLING LIKE HOTCAKES amirite everyone must want em and buy em!
MinscS2 wrote: Does this forum really need a dedicated QQ-threads about "Stoopid Space Marines" and those who play them?
Seems those kind of posts have no problem infiltrating every and any topic on the board already.
/Space Marine-player who also plays 4 other factions, including Xeno's.
They're happening a lot right now because SM are overpowered and there are out-of-context leaks coming from GW implying that they're going to get buffs in the next book. This may change if the book comes out and fixes some of the OP stuff (I think it's highly unlikely the Marines will keep much of the stuff they got in the supplements). It may not if it doesn't.
auticus wrote: This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
im not interested in taking away space marines, i really just want GW to balance out what content they make rather than always focusing in space marines.
But i know they wont do anything for balance as they care too much about money to be bothered.
They tried this a few times historically (stealer cults, admech, harlequins, deathwatch in recent-ish memory), some did well enough to warrant more releases, some didn't. It's not like they haven't introduced new factions or content elsewhere, but unless people buy into it, where is their incentive?
What army(ies) do you play?
Yeah, the new marine releases sold so well, when GW did a big purge of the gak that didn't sell in their warehouse and packaged it up in a 50% of blind box liquidation, the contents of the boxes were:
-Space marine bikers
-Fenrisian wolves
-4 of the brand new space marine characters
-Arco-flagellants
and the other box was
-Space marine scouts
-Space marine sniper scouts
-2 of the new space marine characters
-Knight castellan.
Yup, marines must be really SELLING LIKE HOTCAKES amirite everyone must want em and buy em!
Ancient bikes and scouts flood the 2nd hand market and paid for themselves years ago, the characters probably don't sell that well, because not everyone uses them and those who do need 1 and 1 alone. The rest was probably just whatever they had most of. No way the castellan doesn't sell.
Problem is not only 12yo kids start SM, but also adults. To me they look in any possible way the army of a beginner 12yo old but unfortunately they are loved by most of the fan base.
SM are so popular that they should always be bottom tier; this way they'd be as common as other armies on the table. Not unplayable of course but with low chance of winning tournaments. Only way to balance a meta, SM would show up anyway as they are beloved by many. And in casual games they'd do ok, like they always did in any edition.
Blackie wrote: Problem is not only 12yo kids start SM, but also adults. To me they look in any possible way the army of a beginner 12yo old but unfortunately they are loved by most of the fan base.
SM are so popular that they should always be bottom tier; this way they'd be as common as other armies on the table. Not unplayable of course but with low chance of winning tournaments. Only way to balance a meta, SM would show up anyway as they are beloved by many. And in casual games they'd do ok, like they always did in any edition.
Inquisition are so uncommon and unpopular, if teamed up with sisters of silence, they should start the game with 95/100 vp, not impossible to play against, but you shouldn't beat them often
The Space Marines are somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. They've always been a very popular and considered to be the ideal starter faction, generally appeal to younger players just starting in the game and they've been in the starter box of every edition. So they sell well. GW are a major company driven by delivering profit to their shareholders, and the simple fact that space marines sell way better than any other faction means that releasing a new space marine kit is a financially better decision for GW than releasing a new kit for a less popular faction. So GW release new space marine kits. Then, because they have so much support as a faction and get so many kits, people buy more space marines, the gulf in sales between space marines and other factions grows wider and GW has even more reason to keep pumping marine kits out. Primaris pretty much exist because GW can't not release marine kits, and they didn't have much more room to manoeuvre in the classic marine line - nearly everything was fairly new/up-to-date or generally not in need of new kits, so there weren't really many more logical things to release. They'd resorted to creating bizarre new things like centurions to fill gaps that didn't need filling, such was the need to release more space marines.
Following that logic they would release nothing but space marines, but they will realise that A) not all customers like or want space marines, so there is room for other stuff too, and B) if there are only space marines it makes things more boring even for the marine players, because they only ever get to play against other marines. So they do release kits for other factions from time to time - but they're not as profitable as marines so they release fewer.
I think they've definitely been overdoing it since 8th. They're giddy with possibilities at having a complete new space marine line to fill in with no pre-existing lore to hamper the possibilities of new kits. Hopefully the marine releases will slow down and allow other factions some time in the spotlight, but I suspect we'll never go too long without a marine release.
Like the old MW2 Boycott Steam Group, the majority of people complaining about Space Marines will go out and still buy the new codex and all the new models and thereby help to continue the cycle.
If you are actually sick of it, then actually stop supporting it. Otherwise save your breath and just collect and play the Marine army that appeals to you and nobody can begrudge you for that. You just look really disingenuous otherwise.
Also unrelated, but for anyone who thinks they're some heroic martyr for only using Oldmarines and refusing to use Primaris you still play a busted, broken-ass army that is incredibly unfun to play against and has been rendered completely boring through oversaturation. Some of the worst, most oppressive units in the 2.0 Dex were Oldmarine units and you aren't slumming it with the other armies because you never used Intercessors. You're like the song "Common People" by Pulp.
Another point that bothers me about space marines is how they are generally not bad at anything. Sure there are different sub factions of space marines, but over all they arent really bad at neither shooting nor melee, they have good tanks, they have good heroes.
They have good everything. Where they used to be a master of none, a jack of all trades, they are now, pretty much the master of everything.
Balance wise, Space marines dont need a god damn thing for the next long time, but basically every other race does, especially Xenos.
Did GW forget that Eldar exists? I am not an Eldar player myself though, i play Orks.
For me as an ork player, i just see a massive tidal wave of nerfs hitting my ork shores, and the only thing that can redeem the orkish faction is really the new Codex. And not even that is a guarantee.
Nerfs here, nerfs there, nerfs to the KFF, cant use specialist detatchments, points changes that makes no god damn sense and changes to the over all meta with blast weapons, coherency rules, charges and all just makes orks and really, Tyranids too really tedious. I can literally play versus some space marine match ups that are close to unbeatable. thats just not fun.
The "good things" like overwatch being a CP thing and few other minor things dont at all make up for the clusterfeth that is the ork faction at this point. And im pretty sure Tyranids are facing a blunt force trauma too. Possibly many other Xenos factions too except for the Necrons im guessing.
And even if the Eldars were balanced (i dont really know) they could do with new models still.
But Xenos races are pretty bumped, at least untill the codexes comes out. Space marines are not the ones that need buffs, and the balance as we speak is thrown out the window.
And the dumb thing is, we all know those codexes are already done because they do them in advance. They are just waiting to release them. For proper balance, all codexes should be released at the same time, the moment 9th edition is officially started.
Mind all of you i dont care if people play space marine, i just had a tiny boys dream that GW would put less focus on making Space marines awesome, and more focus on them balancing the rest of the factions accordingly. Which they dont so far.
Beardedragon wrote: Another point that bothers me about space marines is how they are generally not bad at anything. Sure there are different sub factions of space marines, but over all they arent really bad at neither shooting nor melee, they have good tanks, they have good heroes.
They have good everything. Where they used to be a master of none, a jack of all trades, they are now, pretty much the master of everything.
I think nothing illustrates this better than the relationship between basic weapons, and how it's changed over the years.
Shuriken Catapult: Years ago, the Catapult being an Assault weapon meant that the wielder could fire it twice and Charge afterwards. Not to mention 2nd Edition incarnation. I'll stick to 3rd/4th ed comparisons because of the other weapons.
Tau Pulse Rifle: S5 with a 30 inch range. That was a big deal when the Bolter was only 24" max range.
Necron Gauss Rifle: Necrons didn't get Special weapons. Their Gauss ability made up for it by always being able to Wound/Glance on 6s
Each weapon had a distinct way that it was better than a Bolter, but in most cases they were wielded by lesser models.
These days the Intercessor Rifle has the Range of the Tau rifle, the extra bonus of the Necron Rifle, and there's no limit to Charging after firing it anymore. It's basically just each of those weapons slammed together into one super rifle, with Doctrines thrown on top of it. It's gross.
Actually what bothers me even more is, that those factions that are S rank factions, as in the highest tier and best factions, they arent even necessarily the factions being nerfed.
it often seem completely random how GW balances warhammer 40k.
Even a bottom feeder faction can receive nerfs and the top factions can receive buffs.
Who ever is in charge of balancing the game has clearly given up.
Beardedragon wrote: Another point that bothers me about space marines is how they are generally not bad at anything. Sure there are different sub factions of space marines, but over all they arent really bad at neither shooting nor melee, they have good tanks, they have good heroes.
They have good everything. Where they used to be a master of none, a jack of all trades, they are now, pretty much the master of everything.
I think nothing illustrates this better than the relationship between basic weapons, and how it's changed over the years.
Shuriken Catapult: Years ago, the Catapult being an Assault weapon meant that the wielder could fire it twice and Charge afterwards. Not to mention 2nd Edition incarnation. I'll stick to 3rd/4th ed comparisons because of the other weapons.
Tau Pulse Rifle: S5 with a 30 inch range. That was a big deal when the Bolter was only 24" max range.
Necron Gauss Rifle: Necrons didn't get Special weapons. Their Gauss ability made up for it by always being able to Wound/Glance on 6s
Each weapon had a distinct way that it was better than a Bolter, but in most cases they were wielded by lesser models.
These days the Intercessor Rifle has the Range of the Tau rifle, the extra bonus of the Necron Rifle, and there's no limit to Charging after firing it anymore. It's basically just each of those weapons slammed together into one super rifle, with Doctrines thrown on top of it. It's gross.
Exactly. Other factions have clear strengths they can utilize, and weaknesses that the enemy can capitalize on. They are good at some things and bad at others.
Space marines?
What the feth is even bad? That word no longer appears in their dictionary. they're basically good at everything. And the few things they do bad, they're so few in numbers.
I think partially you're making the mistake of seeing particular changes as intentional "nerfs" and not marketing decisions or simply mixups within the pipeline.
Take the recent orks stuff. It's much more plausible to me that whoever threw together the most recent "Big Mek with KFF" datasheet simply made mistakes, which then GW didn't get around to fixing until a FAQ that was delayed due to COVID downtime, than the KFF ceasing to work in melee was someone in GW going "Orks are too strong, we have to nerf them, change the KFF"
Same thing with the Ork Warboss on Warbike. GW announced that Forgeworld's new indexes were supposed to have launched with the launch of 9th, however, they are nowhere to be seen. Currently, Forgeworld's index from the dawn of 8th doesn't include a separated datasheet for the Ork Warboss on Warbike they sell - it was a unit that existed within the codex that they didn't NEED to make a separate Forgeworld datasheet for.
I find it personally more likely that that model was supposed to exist in a new Forgeworld index, but (again, probably the fact that the world ended for a solid 3 months there) something delayed the new index, and its point cost wound up in the munitorum manual accidentally. Rather than the alternative - that its removal was due to GW purposefully wanting to penalize ork players.
This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
It absolutely has not been a "plague" since the beginning
They were always popular, but never like this. Not even close. Let's not pretend like every edition has had a near constant stream of marine releases on an almost monthly (and sometimes WEEKLY) basis and that each release was even more OP than the last. Marines have always been popular, but GW really have set a new precedent lately. Even when xenos do get a release, there's almost always a slightly smaller marine release going with it. We've never seen a push like this, and we've also never been at a point where, despite an almost overwhelming pace of releases, with GW releasing things faster than they ever have before, we have many non-marine armies that have gone YEARS without an update (no PA does NOT count as most of those books were garbage) while Marines got not 1, but TWO codexes on top of I don't even know how many supplements. No. This has not been a "plague since the beginning".
We actually are seeing something pretty different. I mean I'm actually a marine player and I can't even stand it. I have actually shelved my Imperials. My HOPE is that once the Marine dex gets released in October, they will have gotten through all, or at least most of the new stuff for marines and can start going back to other factions for a while. Since they concentrated so hard to get the new Primaris stuff out, they should then be able to concentrate just as hard to fix the problems inherent in the armies that have been largely ignored, or actively damaged in the last few years. I hope anyway. About as optimistic as I can get here.
Beardedragon wrote: Actually what bothers me even more is, that those factions that are S rank factions, as in the highest tier and best factions, they arent even necessarily the factions being nerfed.
it often seem completely random how GW balances warhammer 40k.
Even a bottom feeder faction can receive nerfs and the top factions can receive buffs.
Who ever is in charge of balancing the game has clearly given up.
Beardedragon wrote: Another point that bothers me about space marines is how they are generally not bad at anything. Sure there are different sub factions of space marines, but over all they arent really bad at neither shooting nor melee, they have good tanks, they have good heroes.
They have good everything. Where they used to be a master of none, a jack of all trades, they are now, pretty much the master of everything.
I think nothing illustrates this better than the relationship between basic weapons, and how it's changed over the years.
Shuriken Catapult: Years ago, the Catapult being an Assault weapon meant that the wielder could fire it twice and Charge afterwards. Not to mention 2nd Edition incarnation. I'll stick to 3rd/4th ed comparisons because of the other weapons.
Tau Pulse Rifle: S5 with a 30 inch range. That was a big deal when the Bolter was only 24" max range.
Necron Gauss Rifle: Necrons didn't get Special weapons. Their Gauss ability made up for it by always being able to Wound/Glance on 6s
Each weapon had a distinct way that it was better than a Bolter, but in most cases they were wielded by lesser models.
These days the Intercessor Rifle has the Range of the Tau rifle, the extra bonus of the Necron Rifle, and there's no limit to Charging after firing it anymore. It's basically just each of those weapons slammed together into one super rifle, with Doctrines thrown on top of it. It's gross.
Exactly. Other factions have clear strengths they can utilize, and weaknesses that the enemy can capitalize on. They are good at some things and bad at others.
Space marines?
What the feth is even bad? That word no longer appears in their dictionary. they're basically good at everything. And the few things they do bad, they're so few in numbers.
even fast attack isnt a bad thing for them.
I'd argue for board presence, they're seemingly about to go up in points with the incoming changes which leaves them with fewer bodies and toys on the board.
They are generally a bit too generally good and balanced currently but could be easily fixed and dialled back in a month.
They are WAY too good considering all other factions have clear weaknesses.
Space Marines have basically none and those they have are miniscule.
Also i cant stress enough how this thread isnt meant to shame Space Marine players. I just think it would be over all great if less people played them or bought their stuff in 9th edition only to maybe twist GWs arm around to make other content too and balance out the entirety of the 40k factions.
Because i know they wont just put a pause on Space marines themselves.
but i guess i also know that not so many players are going to put a pause on space marines that it would ever matter so i guess im asking for a Utopia..
Over all i just hate that there are so many space marine players because GW are greedy and cant stop pleasing those players, which results in GW throwing balance out the window.
And lets not forget, its not fun to constantly fight Space marine players balanced or not. Luckily many people that do collect space marines have other armies too for variation in your local friendly store.
Inquisition are so uncommon and unpopular, if teamed up with sisters of silence, they should start the game with 95/100 vp, not impossible to play against, but you shouldn't beat them often
Inquisition is not an army, it's another tool for SM lists
I think the thing is Space marines are really cool and most people really like them. The problem is that there are other factions that are just as cool and GW could make money off them if they invested in them more. If they bring out a new army and only make more releases if it sells well they aren’t taking into account the fact that people are already well invested in the current armies and the new armies will always be competing. You have to give people time to build up and become invested in an army and as time goes on GW can expand the range and sell more. That’s one of the reasons why SM do so well, they’ve been there form the start and they are so well developed that if you e been playing SM for years your really dug in and if your new to them there’s a whole world of options. But it seems to me that even though eldar have been around for years GW have just kept them operating around the same level as they were when I played as a kid in 2nd edition.
Ya know what I Hate? I hate people who judge other people for playing the army they want. Thats what I hate, Marines get the love they do because so many people "Want to play space marines" If Marines didn't sell well they'd not get this level of support.
seriously complaining that people play an army? that's childish. Marines have always been a top selling faction even when they've been middling tier at best.
Grow up people. focus on you doing you, and let others do them. and stop getting your panties in a twist because someone chooses to play an army thats *gasp* popular.
BrianDavion wrote: Ya know what I Hate? I hate people who judge other people for playing the army they want. Thats what I hate, Marines get the love they do because so many people "Want to play space marines" If Marines didn't sell well they'd not get this level of support.
seriously complaining that people play an army? that's childish. Marines have always been a top selling faction even when they've been middling tier at best.
Grow up people. focus on you doing you, and let others do them. and stop getting your panties in a twist because someone chooses to play an army thats *gasp* popular.
OP here.
Who is complaining that people is playing Space Marine? I sure didnt, nor was that the point of my thread. i even quite literally specified it wasnt an anger post about people actually playing space marines so i have no idea who you specifically refer to with your post.
Beardedragon wrote: ...Who is complaining that people is playing Space Marine? I sure didnt, nor was that the point of my thread. i even quite literally specified it wasnt an anger post about people actually playing space marines so i have no idea who you specifically refer to with your post.
"I hate that..." seems an excessive reaction. Space marines have always been the poster boys. Probably always will be - part of the "brand" - and painted blue at that.
They're popular. They're the saviours of the Imperium so of course they're stupidly good.
It's unlikely to change, so, harsh as this sounds, learn to deal with it.
Beardedragon wrote: ...Who is complaining that people is playing Space Marine? I sure didnt, nor was that the point of my thread. i even quite literally specified it wasnt an anger post about people actually playing space marines so i have no idea who you specifically refer to with your post.
Read the title of your thread again carefully.
If you only read the title and not any of the content then you're not really making a proper reply. In fact you're just blindly making a reply thats barely worth two grots in terms of content related to the topic, when you dont even read the opening post.
besides i said i hate that so many wants to play space marines. That doesnt mean i hate the player itself nor am i saying he cant play what the feth he wants.
I hate the situation, not the person; it causes an imbalance because GW refuses to acknowledge the rest of the factions as equals. So maybe you should read the opening post, carefully, yourself.
Beardedragon wrote: ...Who is complaining that people is playing Space Marine? I sure didnt, nor was that the point of my thread. i even quite literally specified it wasnt an anger post about people actually playing space marines so i have no idea who you specifically refer to with your post.
Read the title of your thread again carefully.
If you only read the title and not any of the content then you're not really making a proper reply. In fact you're just blindly making a reply thats barely worth two grots in terms of content related to the topic, when you dont even read the opening post.
besides i said i hate that so many wants to play space marines. That doesnt mean i hate the player itself nor am i saying he cant play what the feth he wants.
I hate the situation, not the person; it causes an imbalance because GW refuses to acknowledge the rest of the factions as equals. So maybe you should read the opening post, carefully, yourself.
The other factions arent equals. They should be in terms of balance, but they will never be in terms of popularity and model range. Those ships have sailed a long time ago.
SM aren't popular because of their rules, they were even popular despite their rules. It's not like SM are constantly a Tier 1 army or that the current (abyssmal) state of balance is a normal thing.
*edit*As a primarily SM player I'm probably just as pissed as or even more pissed than you at GW since it directly affects MY primary army, and I have to put in the work every single fething game to properly tune my list to whatever opponent I'm going to play so that we end up with a decent match, without me just going "lolyougoteradicatored/contemptored/aggressored" every time I bring my Salamanders to the table.
I've restricted myself from using Eradicators and most FW models right now due to the piss poor job GW did in the Field Manual, and I'd really like to get back to using those without feeling like an donkey-cave for bringing them.
I'm more annoyed the GW seem to have bought into their own marine power fantasy fan spank and and just keep 1-upping them every other week.
To me, marines are not meant to be these super powerful auto win trump cards up the imperium sleeve. They were made to subdue humanity and are therefore humanity +1, but against the other monstrous alien species of the galaxy, they're supposed to work hard to come out on top because of the aliens inherent inhumanity.
They're slower than the eldar. Weaker than an ork. Squishier than the Necrons. Less organised than the tyranids hive mind.
And against chaos, hoo boy, those are supposed to be marines +1.
Instead we get the space marine fan spank where marines are the bestest in the galaxy and better than everyone else at everything and it starts coming through in the rules.
So then we get people who play because marines are shoved down their throats 24/7. And people who play because they just want to have a horse in the race. And then some people who actually just like the look of them.
Isn't that exactly what Space Marines are portrayed as in the lore, though? I think one of the major issues with SM Lore vs rules was that for a VERY long time marines were depicted as these badass superhumans while they were just squishy necron warriors, weak ork boys or slow eldar on the tabletop ?
nekooni wrote: Isn't that exactly what Space Marines are portrayed as in the lore, though? I think one of the major issues with SM Lore vs rules was that for a VERY long time marines were depicted as these badass superhumans while they were just squishy necron warriors, weak ork boys or slow eldar on the tabletop ?
pretty much. thing is Marine players have been saying for ages that they want marines to be, and feel like an elite army. yet prior to 8.5 that wasn't the case. tactical marines where 3 times the points of a guardsman yet only about 33% as effective. GW's reponse prior to 8th edition was to keep lowering the points and frankly... marine players didn't like that (if we wanted a hoard army we'd be playing the guard) I think over all GW is still trying to tweek marines to be what they need to be
7th Edition Lord Of Change
Blodothirster
Herald Of Khorne
Thousand Sons Rubric Marines
Scarab Occult Terminators
Tzaangors
Thousand Sons Sorcerers
Ahriman
Magnus
Dark Apostle (Heresy Era)
Kharn
Blue and Brimstone Horrors
Cypher
Fallen
14 Total
8th Edition Abaddon
Lord Of Contagion
Noxious Blightbringer
Malignant Plaguecaster
Plague Marines
Poxwalkers
Bloat-Drones
Mortarion
Typhus
Tallyman
Biologious Putrifier
Plague Surgeon
Deathshroud Terminators
Blightlord Terminators
Blight Hauler
Plagueburst Crawler
Sloppity Bilepiper
Spoilpox Scrivener
Great Unclean One
Beast Of Nurgle
Tzaangor Enlightened
Tzaangor Shaman
Feculent Gnarlmaw
Horticulous Slimux
Mutilath Vortex Beast
Fiends Of Slaanesh
Flesh Hounds
Karanak
Master Of Possession
Chaos Space Marines
Venomcrawler
Obliterators
Greater Posessed
Skulltaker
Havocs
Bloodmaster
Infernal Enrapturess
Lord Discordant
Skull Altat
Noctilith Crown
Dark Apostle With Disciples
Master Of Executions
Chaos Terminators
Keeper Of Secrets
The Masque
Fury
Syll'Esske
Contorted Epitome
Chaos Knight
Fabius Bile
50 Total
Overall Total: 64
Excluding the Rogue Trader, Blackstone Fortress, and any incomplete unit releases.
Reducing any multi-build kits to a single entry.
Overall total might not look that bad... 50 SM releases to 64 Chaos ones.
But Chaos is an entire super faction, comprising CSM, Daemons, and should have R&H (but they're being squatted, is the rumour). If I run Nurgle Daemons (and I do) I got 7 releases. And one is Furies, who are generic Daemons.
Whereas for Marines, I left off anything that's not generic.
They were always popular, but tere's a case to be made that some of their popularity is due to the tail wagging the dog. The thing is GW seems to want to make the tail even stronger.
A Space Marine profit train for GW I suppose, but it sure seems like a death spiral from a game design perspective sometimes.
How do you make Eldar Aspect Warriors more appealing when the basic Space Marines will just roflstomp them?
JNAProductions wrote: I don't doubt that, in the hazy, far-away beginning, Marines were a popular army in their own right.
But now, regardless of power, they're the single most-supported army in all of 40k, and by a pretty wide margin to boot.
Yes, because they're popular. Releasing a Marine kit or book is safe, reliable profit. Much more profit that releasing any Xenos kit could ever bring.
Keep in mind GW is a incorperated company. they have share holders they answer to. Shareholders whom are intreasted in getting their money back. stepping back from my fandom and thinking like an investor (who proably basicly thinks he's invested in a toy company) "you're relasing orks? Marines sell much better, release marines" GW does have profit targets, this is why we get so many marines. because GW KNOWS Marines will meet or exceed targets
JNAProductions wrote: I don't doubt that, in the hazy, far-away beginning, Marines were a popular army in their own right.
But now, regardless of power, they're the single most-supported army in all of 40k, and by a pretty wide margin to boot.
Yes, because they're popular. Releasing a Marine kit or book is safe, reliable profit. Much more profit that releasing any Xenos kit could ever bring.
Keep in mind GW is a incorperated company. they have share holders they answer to. Shareholders whom are intreasted in getting their money back. stepping back from my fandom and thinking like an investor (who proably basicly thinks he's invested in a toy company) "you're relasing orks? Marines sell much better, release marines" GW does have profit targets, this is why we get so many marines. because GW KNOWS Marines will meet or exceed targets
How do you make Eldar Aspect Warriors more appealing when the basic Space Marines will just roflstomp them?
I mean the idea behind eldar is fast, hard hitting and fragile. problem is some of their aspects have just aged poorly. howling banshees for example just aren't hard hitting eneugh.. honestly I'd give Howling banshees' and strking scorpions a shock assault rule just as a start
How do you make Eldar Aspect Warriors more appealing when the basic Space Marines will just roflstomp them?
I mean the idea behind eldar is fast, hard hitting and fragile. problem is some of their aspects have just aged poorly. howling banshees for example just aren't hard hitting eneugh.. honestly I'd give Howling banshees' and strking scorpions a shock assault rule just as a start
I'd be more specific and say that Aspect Warriors are supposed to be rough equals to Space Marines, except more specialized. Excelling in their specialty against Space Marines, but vulnerable in their non-specialty field. This is what gives the Space Marines reason (and design space) around being generalists who "punch the shooty ones and shoot the punchy ones."
I think the only Aspects that actually compete in that way these days are Spears and Dark Reapers.
using lore as an excuse is disingenuous, as Eldar are sold to be better than marines (not needing armor to not die, silent, deadly, fast etc). Orks don't need armor either to not die, often being sewed back together and living.
Aside from the literal trash chickens like guardsmen and cultists everyone's fluff is exaggerated, except people who say "MaRinEs AmAZinG inFlUff" have only read marine fluff.
Quite frankly, if GW were competent at balancing it would not be a problem. Yeah Marines would get more model love, but people who liked other factions could still have good games that way.
However, GW is not competent at balancing (by intent, apathy, or both) which kicks other problems into the park. A big one that I see gets missed sometimes is the flexibility of the models. Any given Marines army is not OP all the time, but at any given point in time there is at least ONE marine army which is. And due to the nature of marine models it is relatively easy for a large swathe of the player base to shift over to a successor chapter of whoever's fotm (or at the least away from one that sucks). Couple with the update frequency and it is a recipe for, well...
Fact of the matter is Space Marines cannot be a top tier army and make up 50% of all armies if you want your game to work. They should be mid tier, not because Space Marines suck or because their players suck, but because 50% of games you play are against them. They're basically a core mechanic of the game and are the sea level of the game. You raise them up too high and most armies will simply drown. Give them all the model releases if that raises money for making models for other armies, give them a bunch of useful tools that they can use, but don't make them good at everything because then the game breaks. Nearly half of everyone else are playing on hard mode, and some armies are more or less unplayable against them, which means some armies are more or less unplayable in general because Space Marines are everywhere.
Blndmage wrote: I'm almost planning on continuing to use my xenos armies, but with then space marine rules.
We're actually pretty close to having a Primaris unit that functions like each aspect warrior. A Biel-Tan Swordwind army, using Primaris rules and all the cool third-party model sculpts, has crossed my mind.
Blndmage wrote: I'm almost planning on continuing to use my xenos armies, but with then space marine rules.
We're actually pretty close to having a Primaris unit that functions like each aspect warrior. A Biel-Tan Swordwind army, using Primaris rules and all the cool third-party model sculpts, has crossed my mind.
I'm basically advocating for this at the moment. People should just use counts as for their xenos army with the marine codex.
Scotsman did up a pretty good list using marine rules to represent an Eldar army.
You can even represent Orks with blood claws, as they have the worst BS of any marine unit.
Just counts as and.your army will feel far more interesting and useful...
Imagine how peaceful and positive these boards would be if everyone who has a problem with space marines were restricted to their own subforum.
Bit like a leavers queue in video games, you only get matched with people of similar temperament. There wouldn't be pages upon pages of threads and posts wasting space about space marines are op, space marines are too popular, space marines are too favoured by GW, space marines need banning, space marines make it so every race is an NPC, space marines make me feel like my army is trash, space marines got a range refresh in the tiny space of time I've been play and my army didn't, space marine players should be banned from this club etc etc.
Maybe all Space Marines should be packaged with a Xenos, or other non Space Marine, equivalent. So Space Marines are never sold separately. So every Space Marine player would have a secondary army as well.
"So you want to buy a unit of unit of Intercessors. Do you want the one with the Dire Avengers squad or the one with the Ork Mob?"
Note: I am not being serious. But it is fun to think about.
Tygre wrote: Maybe all Space Marines should be packaged with a Xenos, or other non Space Marine, equivalent. So Space Marines are never sold separately. So every Space Marine player would have a secondary army as well.
"So you want to buy a unit of unit of Intercessors. Do you want the one with the Dire Avengers squad or the one with the Ork Mob?"
Note: I am not being serious. But it is fun to think about.
in fairness Tygre, GW basicly does that. Most space marine players I suspect "bulk their army out" via battle boxes and then add a few specialists on.
Well, buying two Know no fears and a dark empire is a very good start to have a Primaris and DG army. So it does have its upsides, if someone can afford it, and wants more then one army.
Beardedragon wrote: For the one reason that Space marines gets updated faster and more updated than the rest of the factions.
Like GW give two farts about Xenos. We're going to suck untill our codex even comes out, where as space marines received many updates by the end of 8th.
And not only that but its boring that all boxes have to contain space marines one way or the other.
I just wished more people would play other factions than space marines to balance out what content gets released as well as when.
Why play npc faction? Tim 12yo's would love though. More npc's to crush
For the same reasons I'd play factions/lists others deride as weak/useless/etc in any other game.
1) Do they contain enough models that I like the look of? If so, sign me up & I'll worry about how to win/have fun with them. And I'll be fine.
2) For the challenge of it. Of course I can stomp you with the best stuff. That's not in doubt. Let's see what I can do with this stuff you all deride as garbage.....
3) Combining reasons 1 & 2, is there some weird twist I can put on the force?
Beardedragon wrote: For the one reason that Space marines gets updated faster and more updated than the rest of the factions.
Like GW give two farts about Xenos. We're going to suck untill our codex even comes out, where as space marines received many updates by the end of 8th.
And not only that but its boring that all boxes have to contain space marines one way or the other.
I just wished more people would play other factions than space marines to balance out what content gets released as well as when.
Why play npc faction? Tim 12yo's would love though. More npc's to crush
For the same reasons I'd play factions/lists others deride as weak/useless/etc in any other game.
1) Do they contain enough models that I like the look of? If so, sign me up & I'll worry about how to win/have fun with them. And I'll be fine.
2) For the challenge of it. Of course I can stomp you with the best stuff. That's not in doubt. Let's see what I can do with this stuff you all deride as garbage.....
3) Combining reasons 1 & 2, is there some weird twist I can put on the force?
I have tried doing this for years, It just wear me down in the end. I also was unlucky enough to have a few buffs and then nerfs, its a real pain. Its one of the reasons i got into other games, where these sort of issues not really much problem.
Space marines are popular for lots of reasons despite their rules. They are a primary part of the brand for sure and it wouldn’t surprise me if most plays have enough SM models knocking around to make a 500 point army ba us they come with every starter kit. But if GW put as much effort into hyping up other armies there would be more people playing those armies. It’s hype, it’s stories/cannon/ it’s cool factor and if GW invested time and effort In developing other faction like this then they would sell better
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and I think someone else said it, the people at GW clearly love SM and sometimes I think they are just developing the armies they like play best
I don't hate space marines, but I do get tired of seeing everyone around me gravitate towards Space Marines ending with me playing against Space Marines 24/7. This is a pitfall that GW is running towards with the brakes broken; a pitfall that might end up causing more damage than good in the long run.
Thankfully there are other games so if things become dull and boring I can take an extended break from 40k.
Karol wrote: Well, buying two Know no fears and a dark empire is a very good start to have a Primaris and DG army. So it does have its upsides, if someone can afford it, and wants more then one army.
It's funny, marines end up in so many box sets and board games that I almost wound up with a 2000pt list accidentally, by buying my Genestealer Cults army.
I started with their launch box which was Deathwatch Overkill, which got me
-A deathwatch Chaplain
-A deathwatch Librarian
-a 5-man veteran squad
-a biker
-2 vanvets
-A terminator
and then I got my purestrains because I had the Space Hulk box kicking around, which got me
-A terminator captain
-A terminator librarian
-~12-ish terminators?
I grabbed a box of sternguard and a box of the multipart veterans to play Kill Team and get all the gear that the deathwatch vets have access to in KT, and I was baaaasically there. Just added 1 more box of vanvets and I had a solid 2000pts army for a total of about a hundred bucks.
Marines should be good at everything, but they should also be great at nothing. I long time ago marines used to be able to out shoot melee and out punch ranged armies and thats where they sat.
today marines do everything at the A or S tier, Marines should be a B tier all around army. that would give you more design space to have armies that may be A or S tier in 1 or 2 things and C to F tier in others.
its ok for an army to be well rounded, have no weaknesses but no real strengths either, its not ok to have a faction with all strengths and no weaknesses.
its also ok to have a faction have an inherent weakness to another faction, in a giant game of rock paper scissors, but there should never be a faction that is the nuclear bomb of rock paper scissors.
Space marines are like that Empath that have no personality of their own but feeds off and mimics the personality of others, to such a degree that they now have every armies personality to themselves while those armies have lost their own identities.
auticus wrote: If Marines were a B tier all around army I don't see them as being as popular. People love them their busted.
GW knows this as well it would seem. Thats why they keep their cash cow in the A tier.
Only took them from 3rd to end of 8th edition to figure that out, huh?
Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.
Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...
Unit1126PLL wrote: Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.
Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...
3rd - Blood Angel Rhino Rush was a good list, but I would argue it was still below Chaos 3.5 and Eldar Star Cannon spam.
4th - Some fun with rending Assault cannons, but far from top tier
5th - Vanilla middle of the road. Wolves and BA were good, but so were Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Imperial Guard. Everybody who got a Codex had fun and flavourful rules. The general internet consensus hates Matt Ward, but I would take a Codex written by him any day compared to whoever comitted the crime of 4th edition CSM 6th - Meh?
7th - Meh? Outside of Skyhammer Assault and Decurion nothing noteworthy.
8th - Meh until 2.0
This looks more like the usual "sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss" with the rules that GW is known for to do with EVERY faction.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.
Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...
3rd - Blood Angel Rhino Rush was a good list, but I would argue it was still below Chaos 3.5 and Eldar Star Cannon spam.
4th - Some fun with rending Assault cannons, but far from top tier
5th - Vanilla middle of the road. Wolves and BA were good, but so were Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Imperial Guard. Everybody who got a Codex had fun and flavourful rules. The general internet consensus hates Matt Ward, but I would take a Codex written by him any day compared to whoever comitted the crime of 4th edition CSM 6th - Meh?
7th - Meh? Outside of Skyhammer Assault and Decurion nothing noteworthy.
8th - Meh until 2.0
This looks more like the usual "sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss" with the rules that GW is known for to do with EVERY faction.
With some rephrasing you get:
3rd: Space Marines are among the best (Rhino Rush is remembered to this day)
4th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (4th was a good edition)
5th: Space Marines are among the best (yay SW and GK and BA)
6th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (just 5th with some updates)
7th: Space Marines are among the best (yay formations)
8th: Space Marines are among the best (yay 2.0)
SM have never actually been bad. Like, Inquisition bad, or pre 5th Dark Eldar bad
Unit1126PLL wrote: Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.
Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...
3rd - Blood Angel Rhino Rush was a good list, but I would argue it was still below Chaos 3.5 and Eldar Star Cannon spam.
4th - Some fun with rending Assault cannons, but far from top tier
5th - Vanilla middle of the road. Wolves and BA were good, but so were Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Imperial Guard. Everybody who got a Codex had fun and flavourful rules. The general internet consensus hates Matt Ward, but I would take a Codex written by him any day compared to whoever comitted the crime of 4th edition CSM 6th - Meh?
7th - Meh? Outside of Skyhammer Assault and Decurion nothing noteworthy.
8th - Meh until 2.0
This looks more like the usual "sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss" with the rules that GW is known for to do with EVERY faction.
With some rephrasing you get:
3rd: Space Marines are among the best (Rhino Rush is remembered to this day)
4th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (4th was a good edition)
5th: Space Marines are among the best (yay SW and GK and BA)
6th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (just 5th with some updates)
7th: Space Marines are among the best (yay formations)
8th: Space Marines are among the best (yay 2.0)
SM have never actually been bad. Like, Inquisition bad, or pre 5th Dark Eldar bad
You could say they've had an average past of being "ok" hardly the OP steering force of 40k some people claim.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.
Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...
3rd - Blood Angel Rhino Rush was a good list, but I would argue it was still below Chaos 3.5 and Eldar Star Cannon spam. 4th - Some fun with rending Assault cannons, but far from top tier 5th - Vanilla middle of the road. Wolves and BA were good, but so were Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Imperial Guard. Everybody who got a Codex had fun and flavourful rules. The general internet consensus hates Matt Ward, but I would take a Codex written by him any day compared to whoever comitted the crime of 4th edition CSM 6th - Meh? 7th - Meh? Outside of Skyhammer Assault and Decurion nothing noteworthy. 8th - Meh until 2.0
This looks more like the usual "sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss" with the rules that GW is known for to do with EVERY faction.
With some rephrasing you get: 3rd: Space Marines are among the best (Rhino Rush is remembered to this day) 4th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (4th was a good edition) 5th: Space Marines are among the best (yay SW and GK and BA) 6th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (just 5th with some updates) 7th: Space Marines are among the best (yay formations) 8th: Space Marines are among the best (yay 2.0)
SM have never actually been bad. Like, Inquisition bad, or pre 5th Dark Eldar bad
You could say they've had an average past of being "ok" hardly the OP steering force of 40k some people claim.
*squints* 2/6 editions: average 4/6 editions: among the best
yeah, sure, they were "just okay" (while on average being among the best). I wish my armies were "just okay" if that means being top tier 66% of the time, lmao.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.
Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...
3rd - Blood Angel Rhino Rush was a good list, but I would argue it was still below Chaos 3.5 and Eldar Star Cannon spam.
4th - Some fun with rending Assault cannons, but far from top tier
5th - Vanilla middle of the road. Wolves and BA were good, but so were Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Imperial Guard. Everybody who got a Codex had fun and flavourful rules. The general internet consensus hates Matt Ward, but I would take a Codex written by him any day compared to whoever comitted the crime of 4th edition CSM 6th - Meh?
7th - Meh? Outside of Skyhammer Assault and Decurion nothing noteworthy.
8th - Meh until 2.0
This looks more like the usual "sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss" with the rules that GW is known for to do with EVERY faction.
With some rephrasing you get:
3rd: Space Marines are among the best (Rhino Rush is remembered to this day)
4th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (4th was a good edition)
5th: Space Marines are among the best (yay SW and GK and BA)
6th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (just 5th with some updates)
7th: Space Marines are among the best (yay formations)
8th: Space Marines are among the best (yay 2.0)
SM have never actually been bad. Like, Inquisition bad, or pre 5th Dark Eldar bad
You could say they've had an average past of being "ok" hardly the OP steering force of 40k some people claim.
*squints*
2/6 editions: average
4/6 editions: among the best
yeah, sure, they were "just okay" (while on average being among the best). I wish my armies were "just okay" if that means being top tier 66% of the time, lmao.
Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.
Dudeface wrote: Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s
Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)
I'm not denying that they had strong builds in the past editions and fair enough with the rewording.
Since we agree on what parts of Marines were good over the editions, it never was the complete range where you could take any unit from the dex and end up with a strong list as it is since 2.0.
Past editions had single tricks like formations or single sub-factions. For me this is not supporting the initial statement of
auticus wrote: If Marines were a B tier all around army I don't see them as being as popular. People love them their busted.
GW knows this as well it would seem. Thats why they keep their cash cow in the A tier.
Especially since Marines have been popular back then. Tac squad outselling the whole Fantasy range and such stuff.
Are they more popular with stronger rules? Most likely.
Do they need strong rules to be a cash cow? I would say no.
Fundamentally, the problem with Marines in earlier editions was the:
<Sometime in the depths of 5th edition> "What chapter do you play?" "The Emperor's Toothbrushes chapter, it's homebrew. Right now I am using Space Wolves." ~fast forward noise~ <Sometime in late 7th edition> "What chapter do you play?" "The Emperor's Toothbrushes chapter, it's homebrew. Right now I'm using Codex Marines with the Gladius formation."
That's why I fold them together. Because as a not-Marine player, they all disappear in a haze of homebrew armies, nonstandard paintschemes, and rules floppery.
And since there was basically never a time when they were not strong (i.e. Inquistion not strong, or pre-5th necrons not strong, or 7th Edition Sisters of Battle not strong), then of course they sold fine.
Dudeface wrote: Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s
Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)
No I think you've hit the nail on the head, despite having separate books and range refreshed at different points/different editions, some players refused to view them a unique entities. Your definition of a marine codex is too broad. Even now the meta isn't blood angels, dark angels or wolves doing well it's codex marines 2.0 that was the problem.
Dudeface wrote: Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s
Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)
Well if you pick examples like that then yes. But what is the difference between an annoying eldar and annoying tau list? Or slanesh demons and khorn demons?
On the other hand GK and marines have some weapons in common, and even those often worked or work different.
Also there is a huge difference between a faction being good and nice to play with, when majority of people play them, then when some fringe faction like eldar makes it unfun for majority of players. I haven't played in 6th or 7th, but from what I have been told everything bad that come in those edition came from the fact that GW made eldar rule, so crazy that they almost killed the game, and the only way for marines to come in even close to eldar in power is to be given hundreds of free point.
Dudeface wrote: Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s
Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)
No I think you've hit the nail on the head, despite having separate books and range refreshed at different points/different editions, some players refused to view them a unique entities. Your definition of a marine codex is too broad. Even now the meta isn't blood angels, dark angels or wolves doing well it's codex marines 2.0 that was the problem.
It's not that I refuse to view them as unique entities. It's that GW themselves doesn't do a good job of making them unique. The primary difference between DA, BA, and other SM is armor color. The major difference between SW and those 3 is armor color and fur. The major difference between GK and those 4 is wargear options and psykers.
GK is about as distinct as the SM would have to get in look, playstyle, etc. before I start to really be able to distinguish. Because they're the only faction that I can't just say "My Emperor's Toothbrushes are <best rules this edition> Space Marines"
Dudeface wrote: Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s
Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)
Well if you pick examples like that then yes. But what is the difference between an annoying eldar and annoying tau list? Or slanesh demons and khorn demons?
On the other hand GK and marines have some weapons in common, and even those often worked or work different.
Also there is a huge difference between a faction being good and nice to play with, when majority of people play them, then when some fringe faction like eldar makes it unfun for majority of players. I haven't played in 6th or 7th, but from what I have been told everything bad that come in those edition came from the fact that GW made eldar rule, so crazy that they almost killed the game, and the only way for marines to come in even close to eldar in power is to be given hundreds of free point.
Whilst you're not wrong, don't forget that they were a top tier army still because they had hundred of points of free razorbacks!
I write that sarcastically... yet the truth in it hurts on multiple levels.
Well if you pick examples like that then yes. But what is the difference between an annoying eldar and annoying tau list? Or slanesh demons and khorn demons?
On the other hand GK and marines have some weapons in common, and even those often worked or work different.
Also there is a huge difference between a faction being good and nice to play with, when majority of people play them, then when some fringe faction like eldar makes it unfun for majority of players. I haven't played in 6th or 7th, but from what I have been told everything bad that come in those edition came from the fact that GW made eldar rule, so crazy that they almost killed the game, and the only way for marines to come in even close to eldar in power is to be given hundreds of free point.
I didn't pick those examples, lol. That's rather my point. And the difference between an annoying Eldar list and an annoying Tau list is freaking huge. Eldar look different, play different, are OP in different ways - I mean hell, the Tau were OP with gigantic stompy robots while the Eldar were OP with tiny flying motorcycles. Why is that even a question? Of course they're different.
Your last argument boils down to "marines should be OP because many people play them" which is just... . No faction should be OP regardless of players. And you're right, it took SM hundreds of free points to match Eldar power in late 7th.
Do you know what Space Marines got in late 7th? wow hundreds of free points so they could match eldar, who could've suspected!? Do you know what other armies got in late 7th? nothing to match the Eldar, that's for damn sure
Funny how, when an army is unexpectedly overperforming, the first and last army to receive buffs to match them is Space Marines...
Dudeface wrote: Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s
Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)
No I think you've hit the nail on the head, despite having separate books and range refreshed at different points/different editions, some players refused to view them a unique entities. Your definition of a marine codex is too broad. Even now the meta isn't blood angels, dark angels or wolves doing well it's codex marines 2.0 that was the problem.
It's not that I refuse to view them as unique entities. It's that GW themselves doesn't do a good job of making them unique. The primary difference between DA, BA, and other SM is armor color. The major difference between SW and those 3 is armor color and fur. The major difference between GK and those 4 is wargear options and psykers.
GK is about as distinct as the SM would have to get in look, playstyle, etc. before I start to really be able to distinguish. Because they're the only faction that I can't just say "My Emperor's Toothbrushes are <best rules this edition> Space Marines"
Then the issue here is subjective and as you mentioned in another thread, better not to hinge on subjective discourse.
Dudeface wrote: Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s
Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)
No I think you've hit the nail on the head, despite having separate books and range refreshed at different points/different editions, some players refused to view them a unique entities. Your definition of a marine codex is too broad. Even now the meta isn't blood angels, dark angels or wolves doing well it's codex marines 2.0 that was the problem.
It's not that I refuse to view them as unique entities. It's that GW themselves doesn't do a good job of making them unique. The primary difference between DA, BA, and other SM is armor color. The major difference between SW and those 3 is armor color and fur. The major difference between GK and those 4 is wargear options and psykers.
GK is about as distinct as the SM would have to get in look, playstyle, etc. before I start to really be able to distinguish. Because they're the only faction that I can't just say "My Emperor's Toothbrushes are <best rules this edition> Space Marines"
Yeah, I'll echo this a hundred times.
In my Daemons Codex, Tzeentch Daemons and Nurgle Daemons are more distinct from each other than Blood Angels and Ultramarines are, for the most part.
Dudeface wrote: Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s
Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)
No I think you've hit the nail on the head, despite having separate books and range refreshed at different points/different editions, some players refused to view them a unique entities. Your definition of a marine codex is too broad. Even now the meta isn't blood angels, dark angels or wolves doing well it's codex marines 2.0 that was the problem.
It's not that I refuse to view them as unique entities. It's that GW themselves doesn't do a good job of making them unique. The primary difference between DA, BA, and other SM is armor color. The major difference between SW and those 3 is armor color and fur. The major difference between GK and those 4 is wargear options and psykers.
GK is about as distinct as the SM would have to get in look, playstyle, etc. before I start to really be able to distinguish. Because they're the only faction that I can't just say "My Emperor's Toothbrushes are <best rules this edition> Space Marines"
Yeah, I'll echo this a hundred times.
In my Daemons Codex, Tzeentch Daemons and Nurgle Daemons are more distinct from each other than Blood Angels and Ultramarines are, for the most part.
That's a given to be fair and at least as of October this whole debacle goes away since it will just be "marines + supplement".
Dudeface wrote: Then the issue here is subjective and as you mentioned in another thread, better not to hinge on subjective discourse.
It's not worth arguing about subjectivity, no, but what I want Marine players to see is that there is a point-of-view held by some (me) in which "Marines are Marines, whether Red, Blue, Green, Light Blue with Beards, etc." so saying "Marines weren't OP this edition because it was Blood Angels who were OP" just makes me go
warmaster21 wrote: Marines should be good at everything, but they should also be great at nothing. I long time ago marines used to be able to out shoot melee and out punch ranged armies and thats where they sat.
today marines do everything at the A or S tier, Marines should be a B tier all around army. that would give you more design space to have armies that may be A or S tier in 1 or 2 things and C to F tier in others.
its ok for an army to be well rounded, have no weaknesses but no real strengths either, its not ok to have a faction with all strengths and no weaknesses.
its also ok to have a faction have an inherent weakness to another faction, in a giant game of rock paper scissors, but there should never be a faction that is the nuclear bomb of rock paper scissors.
Space marines are like that Empath that have no personality of their own but feeds off and mimics the personality of others, to such a degree that they now have every armies personality to themselves while those armies have lost their own identities.
All armies should have strengths and weaknesses and the winner of the game should be down skill as a player the luck of the dice. The idea that one army should be better than another or they should be tiered is wrong, we aren’t playing against AI
Dudeface wrote: Then the issue here is subjective and as you mentioned in another thread, better not to hinge on subjective discourse.
It's not worth arguing about subjectivity, no, but what I want Marine players to see is that there is a point-of-view held by some (me) in which "Marines are Marines, whether Red, Blue, Green, Light Blue with Beards, etc." so saying "Marines weren't OP this edition because it was Blood Angels who were OP, honest" just makes me go
The blood angels player isn't responsible for you expanding your knowledge of other publications and factions though, that's up to you. Branding things you don't understand into a whole and sticking a problem label on it doesn't help.
I think GW are following the same sad route to profit as a lot of video game companies where if you pay more you can better at the game because you get better gear. If you keep buying the new releases they will come with buffed stats, pay to win
Automatically Appended Next Post: The problem is people also complain about game companies that do that but people still buy the games and the upgrade packs. People like to win
Well if you pick examples like that then yes. But what is the difference between an annoying eldar and annoying tau list? Or slanesh demons and khorn demons?
On the other hand GK and marines have some weapons in common, and even those often worked or work different.
Also there is a huge difference between a faction being good and nice to play with, when majority of people play them, then when some fringe faction like eldar makes it unfun for majority of players. I haven't played in 6th or 7th, but from what I have been told everything bad that come in those edition came from the fact that GW made eldar rule, so crazy that they almost killed the game, and the only way for marines to come in even close to eldar in power is to be given hundreds of free point.
Are you really comparing eldar to tau?
Eldar play a highly mobile army that wants to win with board control and positining.
Tau want to play a semi-mobile castle that takes the midfield, tries to table the opponent and win in the later rounds.
They have very different playstyles.
Slaanesh demons and Khorne demons are from the same codex, so i don't get why you're comparing them as if they weren't.
7th got fethed when they introduced formations that gave free units to armies. sure, scatterbikes were a thing for eldar.
I agree that an army being too good makes in unfun to play against it, which is basically what people are saying about space marines.
Dudeface wrote: The blood angels player isn't responsible for you expanding your knowledge of other publications and factions though, that's up to you. Branding things you don't understand into a whole and sticking a problem label on it doesn't help.
The problem isn't that I don't understand or am not aware. The problem is that understanding and awareness doesn't do much.
Like yes, I get that Thunderwolf guys have +1 wound and Rending over Bikes, who do not. But that's not significantly different enough that I don't just roll my eyes and say "okay, they're bikes with extra flash" And yeah, I get that Death Company are Black Templars angry marines that wear black, and they're so angry that they become Iron Hands able to shrug off wounds and get an extra attack, but like, that's just Black Templars with an apothecary. It's not different.
I am aware of the differences, and remain unconvinced. It's like if someone tried to argue that the sky was "Azure" and not "Blue". I'm like "sure, buddy...."
mrFickle wrote: I think GW are following the same sad route to profit as a lot of video game companies where if you pay more you can better at the game because you get better gear. If you keep buying the new releases they will come with buffed stats, pay to win
This has been proven wrong many times in the past. And just look at all the other threads on top right now. Vanguard Veterans, Vindicator, Command Squads, Terminators (in summary: old Marines that everybody already own) get buffs to their stats and weapons. Marine player have to pay 0$ extra for their old models to be stronger.
The problem isn't that I don't understand or am not aware. The problem is that understanding and awareness doesn't do much.
Like yes, I get that Thunderwolf guys have +1 wound and Rending over Bikes, who do not. But that's not significantly different enough that I don't just roll my eyes and say "okay, they're bikes with extra flash"
And yeah, I get that Death Company are Black Templars angry marines that wear black, and they're so angry that they become Iron Hands able to shrug off wounds and get an extra attack, but like, that's just Black Templars with an apothecary. It's not different.
I am aware of the differences, and remain unconvinced. It's like if someone tried to argue that the sky was "Azure" and not "Blue". I'm like "sure, buddy...."
Exactly, they mostly play the same units and have similar playstyles with some exceptions (white scar bikers which rely on mobility for example),
Compare the various space marine chapters to the Eldar craftworlds or the tau sept and you see pretty fast that the space marines chapters have less variety in the playstyles they encourage.
Biel-tan is about mass aspect warriors that use they specialisation to overrun the enemy.
Saim-Hann is about being fast as feth, boiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.
Iyanden is about having unrelenting vehicles.
Farsight enclave is about going in close to the enemy to unleash your firepower.
Bor'kan is about staying way the feth back and outranging the enemy.
Marines are basically :
Grey punchy dudes, Red punchy dudes, Black punchy dudes.
Black shooty dudes, Yellow shooty dudes, Green shooty dudes.
and then you have white scars that actually play a different angle.
Yes, the chapters can be customized more to give you more specific gameplay styles with the supplements. Sadly, we don't have non-marines supplements so other armies don't get to play how fluffy they want.
I'm all for using marines rules to make my eldar feel like eldars at that point
warmaster21 wrote: Marines should be good at everything, but they should also be great at nothing. I long time ago marines used to be able to out shoot melee and out punch ranged armies and thats where they sat.
today marines do everything at the A or S tier, Marines should be a B tier all around army. that would give you more design space to have armies that may be A or S tier in 1 or 2 things and C to F tier in others.
its ok for an army to be well rounded, have no weaknesses but no real strengths either, its not ok to have a faction with all strengths and no weaknesses.
its also ok to have a faction have an inherent weakness to another faction, in a giant game of rock paper scissors, but there should never be a faction that is the nuclear bomb of rock paper scissors.
Space marines are like that Empath that have no personality of their own but feeds off and mimics the personality of others, to such a degree that they now have every armies personality to themselves while those armies have lost their own identities.
All armies should have strengths and weaknesses and the winner of the game should be down skill as a player the luck of the dice. The idea that one army should be better than another or they should be tiered is wrong, we aren’t playing against AI
Thats not what i was trying to get at but i dont have the energy to clarify it right now
Dudeface wrote: Then the issue here is subjective and as you mentioned in another thread, better not to hinge on subjective discourse.
It's not worth arguing about subjectivity, no, but what I want Marine players to see is that there is a point-of-view held by some (me) in which "Marines are Marines, whether Red, Blue, Green, Light Blue with Beards, etc." so saying "Marines weren't OP this edition because it was Blood Angels who were OP" just makes me go
Ok, noted. You have an odd PoV that doesn't sync with reality.
Dudeface wrote: Then the issue here is subjective and as you mentioned in another thread, better not to hinge on subjective discourse.
It's not worth arguing about subjectivity, no, but what I want Marine players to see is that there is a point-of-view held by some (me) in which "Marines are Marines, whether Red, Blue, Green, Light Blue with Beards, etc." so saying "Marines weren't OP this edition because it was Blood Angels who were OP" just makes me go
Ok, noted. You have an odd PoV that doesn't sync with reality.
So when Chaos has a dominating tournament build that's a Thousand Sons Supreme Command, a Nurgle Daemons Battalion, and a Spearhead of CSM, I'm sure you were the first to say that none of them are OP on their own, and in fact, Chaos in general needs to be boosted, while reigning in only the outliers.
Beardedragon wrote: For the one reason that Space marines gets updated faster and more updated than the rest of the factions. This thread isnt to shame space marine players, it just saddens me that the balance is thrown out the window due to the amount of people playing Space Marines and how popular they are. The fault isnt with the player but with GW. There is money in space marine, not apparently in the rest of the factions.
Like GW give two farts about Xenos. We're going to suck untill our codex even comes out, where as space marines received many updates by the end of 8th.
And not only that but its boring that all boxes have to contain space marines one way or the other.
I just wished more people would play other factions than space marines to balance out what content gets released as well as when.
you know, I'm really going to laugh at threads like these when we get past November and learn that the next 18 months is going to be 90% Chaos and Xenos releases. Which is what will happen.
Togusa wrote: you know, I'm really going to laugh at threads like these when we get past November and learn that the next 18 months is going to be 90% Chaos and Xenos releases. Which is what will happen.
I'm sure that most people predicting otherwise would be utterly overjoyed to be proven wrong. They want to be able to tattoo "I was wrong!" on the side of their various genitalia, opposite an image of the best new Chaos or Xenos unit.
They just haven't been given a reason to do so quite yet.
Dudeface wrote: Then the issue here is subjective and as you mentioned in another thread, better not to hinge on subjective discourse.
It's not worth arguing about subjectivity, no, but what I want Marine players to see is that there is a point-of-view held by some (me) in which "Marines are Marines, whether Red, Blue, Green, Light Blue with Beards, etc." so saying "Marines weren't OP this edition because it was Blood Angels who were OP" just makes me go
Ok, noted. You have an odd PoV that doesn't sync with reality.
So when Chaos has a dominating tournament build that's a Thousand Sons Supreme Command, a Nurgle Daemons Battalion, and a Spearhead of CSM, I'm sure you were the first to say that none of them are OP on their own, and in fact, Chaos in general needs to be boosted, while reigning in only the outliers.
You'd be wrong. I don't give a damn about how bad your tourney scene sucks. (other than lamenting it's not bad enough to discourage people & GW from focusing on it) So I would never argue for rules changes +/- with that environment as a concern.
But you're problem doesn't come from the factions you've listed in that pile-o-Chaos. It comes from allowing multiple detachments in the 1st place. That's a basic rules flaw, followed by a flaw in your tourney organizations, not a Chaos or SM, etc problem.
Likewise if BA are OP? Then the problem most likely stems from the BA rules.
Dudeface wrote: Then the issue here is subjective and as you mentioned in another thread, better not to hinge on subjective discourse.
It's not worth arguing about subjectivity, no, but what I want Marine players to see is that there is a point-of-view held by some (me) in which "Marines are Marines, whether Red, Blue, Green, Light Blue with Beards, etc." so saying "Marines weren't OP this edition because it was Blood Angels who were OP" just makes me go
Ok, noted. You have an odd PoV that doesn't sync with reality.
It makes sense to me and I can see how it lines up with reality. Even if I am not totally in agreement. Maybe try looking at his position from a different perspective? At any rate, not understanding does not mean his position fails to sync with reality.
Well if you pick examples like that then yes. But what is the difference between an annoying eldar and annoying tau list? Or slanesh demons and khorn demons?
On the other hand GK and marines have some weapons in common, and even those often worked or work different.
Also there is a huge difference between a faction being good and nice to play with, when majority of people play them, then when some fringe faction like eldar makes it unfun for majority of players. I haven't played in 6th or 7th, but from what I have been told everything bad that come in those edition came from the fact that GW made eldar rule, so crazy that they almost killed the game, and the only way for marines to come in even close to eldar in power is to be given hundreds of free point.
I didn't pick those examples, lol. That's rather my point. And the difference between an annoying Eldar list and an annoying Tau list is freaking huge. Eldar look different, play different, are OP in different ways - I mean hell, the Tau were OP with gigantic stompy robots while the Eldar were OP with tiny flying motorcycles. Why is that even a question? Of course they're different.
Your last argument boils down to "marines should be OP because many people play them" which is just... . No faction should be OP regardless of players. And you're right, it took SM hundreds of free points to match Eldar power in late 7th.
Do you know what Space Marines got in late 7th? wow hundreds of free points so they could match eldar, who could've suspected!? Do you know what other armies got in late 7th? nothing to match the Eldar, that's for damn sure
Funny how, when an army is unexpectedly overperforming, the first and last army to receive buffs to match them is Space Marines...
ignoring Necrons who gave Decurions their name now are we?
they got what was it a 4+ FNP?
But hey, that's the poster boys for you. It's the same everywhere: the mostly advertised 'thing' gets the most publicity, so therefore makes the most money, which therefore receives the most support, and therefore is the most advertised 'thing'- and repeat.
Even when marines weren't meta 'good' (aside from specific cheese builds), lots and lots of people still wanted to play them. This would be the same for if any other faction were the true poster boys of 40k: but hey, it wouldn't be modern 40k without the boys in blue everywhere.
And now that marines are good and are continuing to get support to get even better? I mean what did we expect.
auticus wrote: This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
im not interested in taking away space marines, i really just want GW to balance out what content they make rather than always focusing on space marines.
But i know they wont do anything for balance as they care too much about money to be bothered.
Its not GW fault if people do not buy Eldar, you should be thankful so many people are willing to even try out the hobby by getting into it because of Space Marines. If everything you are complaining about did not keep sales up, then GW would not exist. This game would not exist. And this forum would not exist for you to complain on. So why don't you start saying " boy, I am sure glad people are throwing money at GW for Space Marines, otherwise I wouldn't get to play my Xenos armies when the new codex drops every few years ". You are sadly not wise to the way the world is and what has to be done to keep this hobby alive. You should be grateful.
auticus wrote: This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
im not interested in taking away space marines, i really just want GW to balance out what content they make rather than always focusing on space marines.
But i know they wont do anything for balance as they care too much about money to be bothered.
Its not GW fault if people do not buy Eldar, you should be thankful so many people are willing to even try out the hobby by getting into it because of Space Marines. If everything you are complaining about did not keep sales up, then GW would not exist. This game would not exist. And this forum would not exist for you to complain on. So why don't you start saying " boy, I am sure glad people are throwing money at GW for Space Marines, otherwise I wouldn't get to play my Xenos armies when the new codex drops every few years ". You are sadly not wise to the way the world is and what has to be done to keep this hobby alive. You should be grateful.
I should be happy that they do a lousy job at balancing? Making lots of models for space marines, which i dont care a ton about, has nothing to do with their skills at balancing the game and how they do it.
auticus wrote: This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
im not interested in taking away space marines, i really just want GW to balance out what content they make rather than always focusing on space marines.
But i know they wont do anything for balance as they care too much about money to be bothered.
Its not GW fault if people do not buy Eldar, you should be thankful so many people are willing to even try out the hobby by getting into it because of Space Marines. If everything you are complaining about did not keep sales up, then GW would not exist. This game would not exist. And this forum would not exist for you to complain on. So why don't you start saying " boy, I am sure glad people are throwing money at GW for Space Marines, otherwise I wouldn't get to play my Xenos armies when the new codex drops every few years ". You are sadly not wise to the way the world is and what has to be done to keep this hobby alive. You should be grateful.
I should be happy that they do a lousy job at balancing? Making lots of models for space marines, which i dont care a ton about, has nothing to do with their skills at balancing the game and how they do it.
Try again.
people don't join the hobby and decide to play space marines because space marines are the most powerful faction. New players come into 40k and typically pick up space marines because....
etc. Marines are, for better or worse, the most depicted faction in media outside of the table top. etc. basicly to the casual outsider Marines are the FACE of 40k
Well, I stopped playing loyal Marines as they are getting more and more boring.
There are some different builds out there but the variety is not large when you aim for a competitive army.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I stopped playing loyal Marines as they are getting more and more boring.
There are some different builds out there but the variety is not large when you aim for a competitive army.
in fairness do any armies have a TON of variety when you're trying to be super compeitive?
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I stopped playing loyal Marines as they are getting more and more boring.
There are some different builds out there but the variety is not large when you aim for a competitive army.
in fairness do any armies have a TON of variety when you're trying to be super compeitive?
I worry a bit about the tourney scene.
Imagine you go with your IH army to a tourney and you play twice vs. IH, and once vs. RG, Salies, and IF.
Too boring if you ask me. The game would go in the wrong direction and we are not far away from it.
Even if there's little variety in some tournament lists, actually being able to play different factions is nice. Throughout 8th I went to plenty of tournaments and in the middle I had a couple where all my 5 games were vs Imperium Soup and towards the end of the edition I had plenty that were just 5 games vs Marines. Obviously there are lots of reasons to play tournaments; for the challenge, to meet new people, for the joy of competition... but having variety and interesting matches is actually really important too. In 8th I saw a lot of people try out local tournaments for the first time and initially really enjoyed them, especially because some of the local ones weren't super tryhard ITC-level play. Some of them even got deeper into comp play and tried out more and more "serious" tournament events. It was great to see.
But the Marine 2.0 dex basically just killed a lot of that. People were either not willing to go and play 3-5 games versus Marines in a day/weekend and get absolutely stomped in all of them and equally plenty of others were almost embarrassed by the power of their army and how braindead and autopilot it was. For the guys who used comp play as a way to meet new friends and have some cool interesting games, Marines have basically destroyed that for the foreseeable future. (even without COVID)
The best example of this was the local GT my club ran. In 2018 there were something like 60 spaces initially, but then the owner basically had to convert the entirety of the club over to 40k for the weekend because there was such huge demand. I think eventually 70-80 people took part in it? Fast forward to a post-Marine Dex GT and he couldn't even get 50 people interested. Final numbers were in the mid 40's or something.
Bosskelot wrote: Even if there's little variety in some tournament lists, actually being able to play different factions is nice. Throughout 8th I went to plenty of tournaments and in the middle I had a couple where all my 5 games were vs Imperium Soup and towards the end of the edition I had plenty that were just 5 games vs Marines. Obviously there are lots of reasons to play tournaments; for the challenge, to meet new people, for the joy of competition... but having variety and interesting matches is actually really important too. In 8th I saw a lot of people try out local tournaments for the first time and initially really enjoyed them, especially because some of the local ones weren't super tryhard ITC-level play. Some of them even got deeper into comp play and tried out more and more "serious" tournament events. It was great to see.
But the Marine 2.0 dex basically just killed a lot of that. People were either not willing to go and play 3-5 games versus Marines in a day/weekend and get absolutely stomped in all of them and equally plenty of others were almost embarrassed by the power of their army and how braindead and autopilot it was. For the guys who used comp play as a way to meet new friends and have some cool interesting games, Marines have basically destroyed that for the foreseeable future. (even without COVID)
The best example of this was the local GT my club ran. In 2018 there were something like 60 spaces initially, but then the owner basically had to convert the entirety of the club over to 40k for the weekend because there was such huge demand. I think eventually 70-80 people took part in it? Fast forward to a post-Marine Dex GT and he couldn't even get 50 people interested. Final numbers were in the mid 40's or something.
2018 was the launch year of 8th edition. that by itself would explain the heightened intrest
thing is, Marines got nerfed, but right around that time a global pandemic hit, I mean yeah no one in their right mind would claim iron hands was balanced. even without the codex supplements and super doctrines it was clear they had an edge over every other chapter.
Bosskelot wrote: Even if there's little variety in some tournament lists, actually being able to play different factions is nice. Throughout 8th I went to plenty of tournaments and in the middle I had a couple where all my 5 games were vs Imperium Soup and towards the end of the edition I had plenty that were just 5 games vs Marines. Obviously there are lots of reasons to play tournaments; for the challenge, to meet new people, for the joy of competition... but having variety and interesting matches is actually really important too. In 8th I saw a lot of people try out local tournaments for the first time and initially really enjoyed them, especially because some of the local ones weren't super tryhard ITC-level play. Some of them even got deeper into comp play and tried out more and more "serious" tournament events. It was great to see.
But the Marine 2.0 dex basically just killed a lot of that. People were either not willing to go and play 3-5 games versus Marines in a day/weekend and get absolutely stomped in all of them and equally plenty of others were almost embarrassed by the power of their army and how braindead and autopilot it was. For the guys who used comp play as a way to meet new friends and have some cool interesting games, Marines have basically destroyed that for the foreseeable future. (even without COVID)
The best example of this was the local GT my club ran. In 2018 there were something like 60 spaces initially, but then the owner basically had to convert the entirety of the club over to 40k for the weekend because there was such huge demand. I think eventually 70-80 people took part in it? Fast forward to a post-Marine Dex GT and he couldn't even get 50 people interested. Final numbers were in the mid 40's or something.
2018 was the launch year of 8th edition. that by itself would explain the heightened intrest
thing is, Marines got nerfed, but right around that time a global pandemic hit, I mean yeah no one in their right mind would claim iron hands was balanced. even without the codex supplements and super doctrines it was clear they had an edge over every other chapter.
No, 2017 was the launch of 8th. Even in early-mid 2019, local tournaments were heaving with players and in actual fact average numbers of people competing or just playing at the club were going up. Until Marines 2.0 came out.
I remember having a conversation with the owner of the club/shop and he said while he'd made a lot of money from the new Dex and models, he also got a lot of his business from people playing games at the club who would also decide to maybe pick up some models or paints while there, and how a lot of that had dried up because Marines had basically killed interest in playing the game for a lot of the local community.
And while the Codex and its Supplements have had nerfs, they're still obscenely strong and still not very enjoyable to play against at a competitive or casual level. Now with things opening up, people are still avoiding Marine armies on the whole unless they're specifically looking for competitive practice, or it's a Crusade campaign game. You can try and defend the armies all you want and just blame everything on IH, but there's plenty of problematic design choices in all of those books. When a Tyranid player sees that an Intercessor sergeant is more powerful in CC than their Hive Tyrant, it basically just kills their enthusiasm to play. And that's not even necessarily a balance issue; that's design and enjoyment-based.
I just want better balance and a better way of them balancing over all.
This whole crap where they make new over all rules for 9th edition that feths up many factions and then wait with releasing their respective codexes to make up for what ever rules they made is just slowed.
They should release the 9th edition rules along ALL codexes at the same time.
Like, i play orks, and i feel like, im pretty F'd untill i get my codexes out. Obviously marines got some pretty handy FAQs by the end of 8th so they're semi covered, but orks, tyranids, horde melee factions and other armies are screwed over untill we get that codex going.
They basically made a lot of terrible changes for ork players that made us limper along the way, hoping for the codex to drop soon so we can become whole again.
Because the Orks, and many other factions (but very much horde melee factions) are fighting fractured right now. Like we have half the rules but missing the other half.
auticus wrote: This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
im not interested in taking away space marines, i really just want GW to balance out what content they make rather than always focusing on space marines.
But i know they wont do anything for balance as they care too much about money to be bothered.
Its not GW fault if people do not buy Eldar, you should be thankful so many people are willing to even try out the hobby by getting into it because of Space Marines. If everything you are complaining about did not keep sales up, then GW would not exist. This game would not exist. And this forum would not exist for you to complain on. So why don't you start saying " boy, I am sure glad people are throwing money at GW for Space Marines, otherwise I wouldn't get to play my Xenos armies when the new codex drops every few years ". You are sadly not wise to the way the world is and what has to be done to keep this hobby alive. You should be grateful.
I should be happy that they do a lousy job at balancing? Making lots of models for space marines, which i dont care a ton about, has nothing to do with their skills at balancing the game and how they do it.
Try again.
So it is your opinion that GW is lousy at balancing. I think they are doing a good job. People decide to play Space Marines because they think they can win tournaments with them. There are people who have no imagination and just copy and paste what people tell them what is good on the internet. If these people actually decided to play the game for real, and came up with their own armies, you would see alot less Space Marines lists at tournaments and public events. Being a copy and paste player shows that you are a new player to the game, because you have to copy and paste what other people are doing to compete. This is nothing new, its been going on for a long time. I wish other people had more creativity and went for their own lists instead of looking at the internet and going " o m g Marines are the meta right now, lets copy/paste and win some tournaments lolrotfl ".
When's the last time someone won a super major with a super unique list nobody else took or thought of?
The "the game is balanced, everything works, people just don't realize it" thing is empirically false. If it was true, you'd see weird, unique lists winning super majors, and you just don't.
Now that is different from saying that you can do better with bad lists and factions than you might think. That bit is true. Things aren't usually as bad balance-wise as people say.
But there's a reason "netlists" are the ones that win the major tournaments most of the time. It's not that tournament players lack imagination; far from it, they are the ones who come up with the netlists by going through all the possibilities and settling on what works best most of the time. Broviathan didn't win LVO because everyone at LVO was lacking in imagination, it won because it was the strongest list in the game at the time. Siegler would be the first to admit that if he had taken something like GSC, he would not have won LVO, and almost certainly someone else taking Broviathan would have won instead.
auticus wrote: This has been a 40k plague since 40k became a thing. Space Marines are what makes 40k be 40k with its mega massive population.
Take away space marines and... that would be an interesting experiment.
im not interested in taking away space marines, i really just want GW to balance out what content they make rather than always focusing on space marines.
But i know they wont do anything for balance as they care too much about money to be bothered.
Its not GW fault if people do not buy Eldar, you should be thankful so many people are willing to even try out the hobby by getting into it because of Space Marines. If everything you are complaining about did not keep sales up, then GW would not exist. This game would not exist. And this forum would not exist for you to complain on. So why don't you start saying " boy, I am sure glad people are throwing money at GW for Space Marines, otherwise I wouldn't get to play my Xenos armies when the new codex drops every few years ". You are sadly not wise to the way the world is and what has to be done to keep this hobby alive. You should be grateful.
I should be happy that they do a lousy job at balancing? Making lots of models for space marines, which i dont care a ton about, has nothing to do with their skills at balancing the game and how they do it.
Try again.
So it is your opinion that GW is lousy at balancing. I think they are doing a good job. People decide to play Space Marines because they think they can win tournaments with them. There are people who have no imagination and just copy and paste what people tell them what is good on the internet. If these people actually decided to play the game for real, and came up with their own armies, you would see alot less Space Marines lists at tournaments and public events. Being a copy and paste player shows that you are a new player to the game, because you have to copy and paste what other people are doing to compete. This is nothing new, its been going on for a long time. I wish other people had more creativity and went for their own lists instead of looking at the internet and going " o m g Marines are the meta right now, lets copy/paste and win some tournaments lolrotfl ".
Well i dont think they are doing a good job.
They even release half assed armies like Khorne Daemons which barely works on their own without helping them with rules or buffs.
I think they do a bad job at balancing and i think they do a bad job at the way they balance too.
Like, why would you release new game rules, without releasing the codexes as well? Untill every faction has their first 9th edition codexes, the entire tournement aspect of warhammer 40k is basically the wild west. Many factions are unable to properly paticipate or to even try winning as it stands right now, BECAUSE GW didnt bother releasing the codexes along side the 9th edition rules. Playing with 8th edition codexes on a 9th edition rule set is just stupid.
BUT some factions, namely space marines get some neat updates before 9th came out. Im not really angry that they got that, but it just means they stand super strong versus the rest of us who are stuck in a mud right now. We aint getting anywhere untill the new codexes comes out.
And we both know the codexes are already finished, they're just waiting with the releases.GW makes these codexes ahead of time.
So tell me, what am i, an ork player who has a main focus on getting up close and personal horde style, supposed to do? Just lose most my battles and keep a straight face? We all know i wont be winning anything unless i play another faction thats gotten flipped the middle finger by GW like Genestealer cults or tyranids. OR unless my enemy cuts me some slack and actually deliberately picks a weak army setup to balance things out.
I dont mind losing, but i hate fighting unfair battles, and right now, its unfair for orks, and many other factions.
Horde based melee armies are in dire need of help after the 9th edition rule set was rolled out. And that help will most likely not arrive untill the codexes are released. at least i hope they will help.. i have to believe that.
And then the codexes probably wont even come out all at once, they'll bring out a codex at a time which ONCE AGAIN create unfair advantages for the races that receives codexes first. this is just another point to explain why GW sucks at balancing the game.
Why would GW want the game to be balanced when they can mess with the rules to get tourney players to buy the flavour of the month? Why wouldnt they go after that market? If competitive players are throwing money @ GW so they can ROLFSTOMP the next guy, GW would be remiss if they didn't.
Dont complain about how unfair it is, the best thing for you to do is vote with your $€£¥ AND STOP GIVING THEM MONEY IF YOU DONT LIKE WHAT THEY'RE DOING. It's the only way for customers to influence the corporation. Otherwise, shut up.
The new models look good and irrespective of their rules, normal people will still buy them. Rules have never(except my Squats being squatted) influenced my purchases and it shall continue in that way.
It really only is an issue for competitive players.
Because the tournament players are likely the minority and by catering to their perceived majority they could make more money? They'd likely do it anyway to push the new model as being good in order to push its sales either way.
Or they could just rely on the models looking good, cuz no body ever accused GW of making the bestest mostest balancedest rules. They should stick with what they're good at, HIPS mouldings of tiny toy soldiers.
yukishiro1 wrote: When's the last time someone won a super major with a super unique list nobody else took or thought of?
The "the game is balanced, everything works, people just don't realize it" thing is empirically false. If it was true, you'd see weird, unique lists winning super majors, and you just don't.
Now that is different from saying that you can do better with bad lists and factions than you might think. That bit is true. Things aren't usually as bad balance-wise as people say.
But there's a reason "netlists" are the ones that win the major tournaments most of the time. It's not that tournament players lack imagination; far from it, they are the ones who come up with the netlists by going through all the possibilities and settling on what works best most of the time. Broviathan didn't win LVO because everyone at LVO was lacking in imagination, it won because it was the strongest list in the game at the time. Siegler would be the first to admit that if he had taken something like GSC, he would not have won LVO, and almost certainly someone else taking Broviathan would have won instead.
Very well said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beardedragon wrote: To be fair, its not because of balance that people buy warhammer 40k figures and plays with them.
Doesnt matter how bad they balance things it will still be played.
I guess that loses the incentive to actually do proper balance but i really dont think it would hurt them to do balancing better.
I think it is less about good balance generating interest, and more that bad balance will damage interest. 40k as a setting and a miniatures line generates interest, having a game with rules to support ones own miniatures doing what they do on the tabletop generates interest. Good balance facilitates that by providing a framework where imbalance does not screw up the experience.
Beardedragon wrote: ...i really dont think it would hurt them to do balancing better.
This is why people are irritated. A better-balanced game would be better for everyone, better for newbies (fewer traps) and old hands (more things to do), better for narrative (easier to construct scenarios) and competitive (broader range of stuff to play), better for GW (everything would sell instead of some things selling and some things not), better for retailers (your stock would move and you wouldn't have to keep up with an evolving meta to stock Warhammer), but for some reason GW isn't that interested in actually going to the effort of doing it.
Beardedragon wrote: ...i really dont think it would hurt them to do balancing better.
This is why people are irritated. A better-balanced game would be better for everyone, better for newbies (fewer traps) and old hands (more things to do), better for narrative (easier to construct scenarios) and competitive (broader range of stuff to play), better for GW (everything would sell instead of some things selling and some things not), better for retailers (your stock would move and you wouldn't have to keep up with an evolving meta to stock Warhammer), but for some reason GW isn't that interested in actually going to the effort of doing it.
and thats probably because the figures are selling quite well even though their balancing act is absolute gak.
but also lets not kid outselves, untill a few years ago Games Workshop had a very stagnant growth that barely moved upwards if at all. Only recently have they started earning a ton and thats not because of their superb balancing skills. in fact they changed a few people out and got more involved with the community.
my point is, GW often makes terrible decisions even if they are better at making said decisions now than before. So im hopeful that they might do a better job at balancing somewhere in the future, but i dont have hopes its any time soon. If you already have bad leadership that aint doing anything revolutionary, and then suddenly your company starts getting a lot of money? you kind of lose incentive to try new things, such as actually investing in proper balancing.
they just do what they know works, namely making space marines.
Rebel4ever85 wrote: Games workshop neglects other factions that aren't selling as well...but how do they expect to sell them if they never update them?
Possibly this could be the result of short term thinking on their part? As in they want to get the low lying fruit by catering to Marines even if it means the expense of their other lines, and the long term health of the game. GW has gone back to pluck the low lying Marine fruit for so many editions now maybe they think they can keep on going without consequences.
I am reminded of how they stopped Epic after a couple of failed revisions after Titan Legions, apparently in the mistaken notion that the Epic players would spend their money on 40K instead. While some might have, there were also Epic players that reduced or stopped their spending on GW related stuff at all. Not all Epic players were interested in 40K, and some had Epic armies that at that time had no 40K representation at that point in time. So GW killing off Epic might have cost them, though without access to the accounting numbers, we wouldn't be able to say whether they saved more on development and production costs from killing Epic.
Since, apparently, people who can tell what’s good and what’s bad suck at the game.
I'd like to see him try with either of those...
Tbf for the last one he won't even be allowed to enter anymore soonish, since i expect them to be yeeted to legends, if anything.
Slaanesh demons are decent in the new edition at least. And anyway, Slaanesh demons isnt a codex, its a subfaction.
When Slaanesh daemons are exactly as mechanically separated from Tzeentch Daemons as Deathwatch are from Space Marines, then they are expected to perform as a complete faction.
Since, apparently, people who can tell what’s good and what’s bad suck at the game.
I'd like to see him try with either of those...
Tbf for the last one he won't even be allowed to enter anymore soonish, since i expect them to be yeeted to legends, if anything.
Slaanesh demons are decent in the new edition at least. And anyway, Slaanesh demons isnt a codex, its a subfaction.
When Slaanesh daemons are exactly as mechanically separated from Tzeentch Daemons as Deathwatch are from Space Marines, then they are expected to perform as a complete faction.
Deathwatch and SM are two different codexes right now, Slaanesh and Tzeentch are a single one.
Thats like saying that Wych cult drukhari and Coven drukhari are two different codexes.
I get what you mean but its pretty clear to me that the demon codex is mean to be played with multiple subfactions, just like drukhari.
Since, apparently, people who can tell what’s good and what’s bad suck at the game.
I'd like to see him try with either of those...
Tbf for the last one he won't even be allowed to enter anymore soonish, since i expect them to be yeeted to legends, if anything.
Slaanesh demons are decent in the new edition at least. And anyway, Slaanesh demons isnt a codex, its a subfaction.
When Slaanesh daemons are exactly as mechanically separated from Tzeentch Daemons as Deathwatch are from Space Marines, then they are expected to perform as a complete faction.
Deathwatch and SM are two different codexes right now, Slaanesh and Tzeentch are a single one.
Thats like saying that Wych cult drukhari and Coven drukhari are two different codexes.
I get what you mean but its pretty clear to me that the demon codex is mean to be played with multiple subfactions, just like drukhari.
(I totally wish you didnt need to)
Drukhari get a unique mechanical advantage that incentivizes them being played as a diverse force within Codex Drukhari.
You have a trade-off (You must take 3 Patrol detachments, which mean you have to take more mandatory HQs than a Battalion in a codex notorious for its terrible waste-of-time HQs, and also that means in organized play THAT'S your army, you get no more detachments than that)
and in exchange for that trade-off, you get a unique benefit (You get to choose 3 different Subfaction traits with none of the usual CP cost for allying)
Chaos Daemon armies have NO mechanical benefit for allying in other forms of daemons.
Next to no auras, abilities, powers, traits, or stratagems cross over. the only ones that do, like Skarbrand's aura, only do so because they're completely open - Skarbrand's aura also affects your OPPONENT'S models. Or, any other allies you may choose to take, for that matter.
In fact, some of the most critical stratagems in the book, like the one that grants you +1 to your invuln, are exclusive. If you take a detachment of Khorne Daemons and a detachment of Slaanesh Daemons, you get ONE use of the +1 Invuln strat.
Mechanically speaking, Slaanesh Daemons and Khorne daemons are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.
Drukhari get a unique mechanical advantage that incentivizes them being played as a diverse force within Codex Drukhari.
You have a trade-off (You must take 3 Patrol detachments, which mean you have to take more mandatory HQs than a Battalion in a codex notorious for its terrible waste-of-time HQs, and also that means in organized play THAT'S your army, you get no more detachments than that)
and in exchange for that trade-off, you get a unique benefit (You get to choose 3 different Subfaction traits with none of the usual CP cost for allying)
Chaos Daemon armies have NO mechanical benefit for allying in other forms of daemons.
Next to no auras, abilities, powers, traits, or stratagems cross over. the only ones that do, like Skarbrand's aura, only do so because they're completely open - Skarbrand's aura also affects your OPPONENT'S models. Or, any other allies you may choose to take, for that matter.
In fact, some of the most critical stratagems in the book, like the one that grants you +1 to your invuln, are exclusive. If you take a detachment of Khorne Daemons and a detachment of Slaanesh Daemons, you get ONE use of the +1 Invuln strat.
Mechanically speaking, Slaanesh Daemons and Khorne daemons are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.
You do get a mechanical benefit from mixing gods. You fill out the other god's weaknessess.
Nurgle gives you tough objective holders.
Tzeentch gives you shooting.
Slaanesh/khorne give you solid melee.
Hmm, that reminds me of something..
Coven gives you tough objective holders.
Kabal gives you shooting.
Cult gives you melee.
Drukhari also don't have cross-subfations auras and a similar amount of cross subfaction stratagems, drukhari get 9 truly global strats (the other global ones are locked to units only coven/cult/kabals can take) and demons get 7 global stratagems.
You use warp surge as an example, i give you lightning fast reflexes or cruel deception as another one.
The only real difference between demons and drukhari is that drukhari forces you to run 3 patrols because of raiding party, if you want to have more fast/elite/heavy/flyer slots, you're gak out of luck and even then, running them that way means you can't soup at all (unlike other armies).
Mechanically speaking, Cults and Coven are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.
Again, i understand WHY people want to treat each god as its standalone army and really wish it worked, but as the codex stands, its pretty clearly meant to be internally souped.
You actually lose mechanical benefit by mixing gods.
You either spend CP to bring a new detachment, or you lose a locus.
Losing the Slaanesh locus far outweighs any mechanical benefit you get from Tzeench's terrible, terrible shooting or Nurgle's toughness, because being able to advance and charge is godlike on a tiny board.
"Filling out the other god's weaknesses" isn't a mechanical benefit at all - there's no game mechanic to that. It may be an emergent benefit of interacting mechanics (though I disagree that it isn't a net loss) but there's literally no game mechanic whatsoever that gives you a bonus for mixing gods.
Also, let's be real. If Dark Eldar or Daemons were treated the same as Marines, they would have a Codex for each subfaction, or at least a big ol' supplement.
AoS does it well. The 40k equivalent would be a codex each for DG/DoN, TS/DoT, WE/DoK, and EC/DoS, then the regular codex for CSM with any marked units able to be taken by the god-specific codex.
Drukhari get a unique mechanical advantage that incentivizes them being played as a diverse force within Codex Drukhari.
You have a trade-off (You must take 3 Patrol detachments, which mean you have to take more mandatory HQs than a Battalion in a codex notorious for its terrible waste-of-time HQs, and also that means in organized play THAT'S your army, you get no more detachments than that)
and in exchange for that trade-off, you get a unique benefit (You get to choose 3 different Subfaction traits with none of the usual CP cost for allying)
Chaos Daemon armies have NO mechanical benefit for allying in other forms of daemons.
Next to no auras, abilities, powers, traits, or stratagems cross over. the only ones that do, like Skarbrand's aura, only do so because they're completely open - Skarbrand's aura also affects your OPPONENT'S models. Or, any other allies you may choose to take, for that matter.
In fact, some of the most critical stratagems in the book, like the one that grants you +1 to your invuln, are exclusive. If you take a detachment of Khorne Daemons and a detachment of Slaanesh Daemons, you get ONE use of the +1 Invuln strat.
Mechanically speaking, Slaanesh Daemons and Khorne daemons are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.
You do get a mechanical benefit from mixing gods. You fill out the other god's weaknessess.
Nurgle gives you tough objective holders.
Tzeentch gives you shooting.
Slaanesh/khorne give you solid melee.
Hmm, that reminds me of something..
Coven gives you tough objective holders.
Kabal gives you shooting.
Cult gives you melee.
Drukhari also don't have cross-subfations auras and a similar amount of cross subfaction stratagems, drukhari get 9 truly global strats (the other global ones are locked to units only coven/cult/kabals can take) and demons get 7 global stratagems.
You use warp surge as an example, i give you lightning fast reflexes or cruel deception as another one.
The only real difference between demons and drukhari is that drukhari forces you to run 3 patrols because of raiding party, if you want to have more fast/elite/heavy/flyer slots, you're gak out of luck and even then, running them that way means you can't soup at all (unlike other armies).
It's true, Drukhari does suffer some of the same unique disadvantages that daemons get, being an arbitrarily split codex. However, you're being dishonest (or just ignorant, and that's OK) in a couple ways here.
Raiding Party is completely optional. Nothing within the drukhari codex forces you to run 3 patrols. It's an additional option that you have, that CAN be very powerful - it gives you the ability to have as many slots total as a Brigade and gives you 3 different choices of subfaction tactic. Those things largely make up for the lack of unity in the book, and somewhat cancels out the natural disadvantage you have going up against a codex that's more holistic. But if you dont' want it, you can bring drukhari as (usually) a part of an eldar soup army, and they work just as well.
In order to actually work, a codex that splits its units in to parts has to provide some benefit to correspond with what you give up. Daemons and Genestealer Cults don't do that - they just lack synergy with large chunks of the book, and get basically nothing in return for it. Daemons even uniquely have additional problems, like fixed traits, and the traits being 12" auras for no adequately explored reason.
If you can't understand the distinction, I'm just not sure how to help you. My drukhari listbuilding affords me the freedom to give my melee units a melee trait, and my shooty units a shooty trait, and my durable units a durable trait, AND I get full CP. If I want to do that with daemons, it costs me minimum 1/3 of my CP pool, or it costs me my subfaction traits entirely.
Drukhari get a unique mechanical advantage that incentivizes them being played as a diverse force within Codex Drukhari.
You have a trade-off (You must take 3 Patrol detachments, which mean you have to take more mandatory HQs than a Battalion in a codex notorious for its terrible waste-of-time HQs, and also that means in organized play THAT'S your army, you get no more detachments than that)
and in exchange for that trade-off, you get a unique benefit (You get to choose 3 different Subfaction traits with none of the usual CP cost for allying)
Chaos Daemon armies have NO mechanical benefit for allying in other forms of daemons.
Next to no auras, abilities, powers, traits, or stratagems cross over. the only ones that do, like Skarbrand's aura, only do so because they're completely open - Skarbrand's aura also affects your OPPONENT'S models. Or, any other allies you may choose to take, for that matter.
In fact, some of the most critical stratagems in the book, like the one that grants you +1 to your invuln, are exclusive. If you take a detachment of Khorne Daemons and a detachment of Slaanesh Daemons, you get ONE use of the +1 Invuln strat.
Mechanically speaking, Slaanesh Daemons and Khorne daemons are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.
You do get a mechanical benefit from mixing gods. You fill out the other god's weaknessess.
Nurgle gives you tough objective holders.
Tzeentch gives you shooting.
Slaanesh/khorne give you solid melee.
Hmm, that reminds me of something..
Coven gives you tough objective holders.
Kabal gives you shooting.
Cult gives you melee.
Drukhari also don't have cross-subfations auras and a similar amount of cross subfaction stratagems, drukhari get 9 truly global strats (the other global ones are locked to units only coven/cult/kabals can take) and demons get 7 global stratagems.
You use warp surge as an example, i give you lightning fast reflexes or cruel deception as another one.
The only real difference between demons and drukhari is that drukhari forces you to run 3 patrols because of raiding party, if you want to have more fast/elite/heavy/flyer slots, you're gak out of luck and even then, running them that way means you can't soup at all (unlike other armies).
It's true, Drukhari does suffer some of the same unique disadvantages that daemons get, being an arbitrarily split codex. However, you're being dishonest (or just ignorant, and that's OK) in a couple ways here.
Raiding Party is completely optional. Nothing within the drukhari codex forces you to run 3 patrols. It's an additional option that you have, that CAN be very powerful - it gives you the ability to have as many slots total as a Brigade and gives you 3 different choices of subfaction tactic. Those things largely make up for the lack of unity in the book, and somewhat cancels out the natural disadvantage you have going up against a codex that's more holistic. But if you dont' want it, you can bring drukhari as (usually) a part of an eldar soup army, and they work just as well.
In order to actually work, a codex that splits its units in to parts has to provide some benefit to correspond with what you give up. Daemons and Genestealer Cults don't do that - they just lack synergy with large chunks of the book, and get basically nothing in return for it. Daemons even uniquely have additional problems, like fixed traits, and the traits being 12" auras for no adequately explored reason.
If you can't understand the distinction, I'm just not sure how to help you. My drukhari listbuilding affords me the freedom to give my melee units a melee trait, and my shooty units a shooty trait, and my durable units a durable trait, AND I get full CP. If I want to do that with daemons, it costs me minimum 1/3 of my CP pool, or it costs me my subfaction traits entirely.
I think you're misunderstanding my tone.
I agree with you that drukhari have more of a bonus for playing multiple subfactions compared to demons (you don't lose CP for doing it).
I agree that to have a multigod army, you lose a lot of CP for the privilege of being allowed to take everything in the codex.
What i meant to say but poorly communicated was that i don't think monogod armies should be considered as individual codexes since the 4 gods complement themselves in the roles that they have. Even if 9th's listbuilding structure makes it a disadvantage and actually impossible to run one of each gods (while keeping their loci).
When i saw Slaanesh demons and GSC's winrate compared as if they were two individual codexes it felt wrong to me. If it had been Slaanesh vs Rusted Cog then it wouldve felt fair.
Now, i personally feel like demons really need a rule like raiding party to allow multi god lists to be ran. Or loci that don't stop working if you mix gods in a detachment, or anything to help them. Personally i'd love a rule that did something like that :
A chaos demon army may include up to 4 patrols if every patrol is aligned to a different god
With possibly a unique CP cost for that special rule (3-4CP?) or a different type of detachment.
The problem with the "Slaanesh vs. Rusted Cog" example is that if you dropped the Rusted Cog rules from the list, there are still bonuses to be had.
For example, you don't have to be "Rusted Cog" to take an Astra Militarum detachment or to get GSC infiltration rules. In fact, you could have no subfaction keyword at all and still get SOME rules from your army.
If you drop Slaanesh from the Daemons list, you get nothing. Daemons have no armywide special rule - so in that way, Slaanesh is the faction rather than the subfaction. If you drop the God keyword, then Daemons get no benefit from their army at all.
Drukhari get a unique mechanical advantage that incentivizes them being played as a diverse force within Codex Drukhari.
You have a trade-off (You must take 3 Patrol detachments, which mean you have to take more mandatory HQs than a Battalion in a codex notorious for its terrible waste-of-time HQs, and also that means in organized play THAT'S your army, you get no more detachments than that)
and in exchange for that trade-off, you get a unique benefit (You get to choose 3 different Subfaction traits with none of the usual CP cost for allying)
Chaos Daemon armies have NO mechanical benefit for allying in other forms of daemons.
Next to no auras, abilities, powers, traits, or stratagems cross over. the only ones that do, like Skarbrand's aura, only do so because they're completely open - Skarbrand's aura also affects your OPPONENT'S models. Or, any other allies you may choose to take, for that matter.
In fact, some of the most critical stratagems in the book, like the one that grants you +1 to your invuln, are exclusive. If you take a detachment of Khorne Daemons and a detachment of Slaanesh Daemons, you get ONE use of the +1 Invuln strat.
Mechanically speaking, Slaanesh Daemons and Khorne daemons are JUST as separated as any other two codexes that share a keyword. The fact that they are printed in the same book is just irrelevant. they are as mechanically separated as Deathwatch and Ultramarines. They have the exact same penalty for being taken in the same detachment (no Subfaction traits) and the exact same cost to be taken together as allies. And the exact same amount of ability crossover: I.e., next to none.
You do get a mechanical benefit from mixing gods. You fill out the other god's weaknessess.
Nurgle gives you tough objective holders.
Tzeentch gives you shooting.
Slaanesh/khorne give you solid melee.
Hmm, that reminds me of something..
Coven gives you tough objective holders.
Kabal gives you shooting.
Cult gives you melee.
Drukhari also don't have cross-subfations auras and a similar amount of cross subfaction stratagems, drukhari get 9 truly global strats (the other global ones are locked to units only coven/cult/kabals can take) and demons get 7 global stratagems.
You use warp surge as an example, i give you lightning fast reflexes or cruel deception as another one.
The only real difference between demons and drukhari is that drukhari forces you to run 3 patrols because of raiding party, if you want to have more fast/elite/heavy/flyer slots, you're gak out of luck and even then, running them that way means you can't soup at all (unlike other armies).
It's true, Drukhari does suffer some of the same unique disadvantages that daemons get, being an arbitrarily split codex. However, you're being dishonest (or just ignorant, and that's OK) in a couple ways here.
Raiding Party is completely optional. Nothing within the drukhari codex forces you to run 3 patrols. It's an additional option that you have, that CAN be very powerful - it gives you the ability to have as many slots total as a Brigade and gives you 3 different choices of subfaction tactic. Those things largely make up for the lack of unity in the book, and somewhat cancels out the natural disadvantage you have going up against a codex that's more holistic. But if you dont' want it, you can bring drukhari as (usually) a part of an eldar soup army, and they work just as well.
In order to actually work, a codex that splits its units in to parts has to provide some benefit to correspond with what you give up. Daemons and Genestealer Cults don't do that - they just lack synergy with large chunks of the book, and get basically nothing in return for it. Daemons even uniquely have additional problems, like fixed traits, and the traits being 12" auras for no adequately explored reason.
If you can't understand the distinction, I'm just not sure how to help you. My drukhari listbuilding affords me the freedom to give my melee units a melee trait, and my shooty units a shooty trait, and my durable units a durable trait, AND I get full CP. If I want to do that with daemons, it costs me minimum 1/3 of my CP pool, or it costs me my subfaction traits entirely.
I think you're misunderstanding my tone.
I agree with you that drukhari have more of a bonus for playing multiple subfactions compared to demons (you don't lose CP for doing it).
I agree that to have a multigod army, you lose a lot of CP for the privilege of being allowed to take everything in the codex.
What i meant to say but poorly communicated was that i don't think monogod armies should be considered as individual codexes since the 4 gods complement themselves in the roles that they have. Even if 9th's listbuilding structure makes it a disadvantage and actually impossible to run one of each gods (while keeping their loci).
When i saw Slaanesh demons and GSC's winrate compared as if they were two individual codexes it felt wrong to me. If it had been Slaanesh vs Rusted Cog then it wouldve felt fair.
Now, i personally feel like demons really need a rule like raiding party to allow multi god lists to be ran. Or loci that don't stop working if you mix gods in a detachment, or anything to help them. Personally i'd love a rule that did something like that :
A chaos demon army may include up to 4 patrols if every patrol is aligned to a different god
With possibly a unique CP cost for that special rule (3-4CP?) or a different type of detachment.
You correctly identified the biggest issues with both the codex and its perception. It amuses me that we have a community that just lumps 5-6 books under "marines" but then separates 4 subfactions out of a single codex and expects them to function independently.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with the "Slaanesh vs. Rusted Cog" example is that if you dropped the Rusted Cog rules from the list, there are still bonuses to be had.
For example, you don't have to be "Rusted Cog" to take an Astra Militarum detachment or to get GSC infiltration rules. In fact, you could have no subfaction keyword at all and still get SOME rules from your army.
If you drop Slaanesh from the Daemons list, you get nothing. Daemons have no armywide special rule - so in that way, Slaanesh is the faction rather than the subfaction. If you drop the God keyword, then Daemons get no benefit from their army at all.
I see your point of view, basically genestealer cult exists while "Daemons" doesn't really exist.
I still don't agree with that point of view but to each their own.
I would absolutely love it if we got AoS-like god codexes.
Those 5-6 books under "marines" have better synergy with each other than the Daemons subfactions in the single codex.
You still get the cool rules for being "Adeptus Astartes" if you bring two units with the Angels of Death rule from any mix of codexes even in the same detachment....
...while Daemons actually lose all their rules if you do same.
You correctly identified the biggest issues with box the codex and its perception. It amuses me that we have a community that just lumps 5-6 books under "marines" but then separates 4 subfactions out of a single codex and expects them to function independently.
Yeah, and demons are really the only one we keep hearing about being split up into 4. Theyre in a very similar situation than drukhari (hence me bringing them up). yet drukhari is always treated as a whole.
Again, i would love AoS-like god codexes that really expand on the rules and feel fluffy.
When i learned of depravity points, my fluff-o-meter went off the charts (even if it was/is? overtuned)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Those 5-6 books under "marines" have better synergy with each other than the Daemons subfactions in the single codex.
You still get the cool rules for being "Adeptus Astartes" if you bring two units with the Angels of Death rule from any mix of codexes even in the same detachment....
...while Daemons actually lose all their rules if you do same.
don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Those 5-6 books under "marines" have better synergy with each other than the Daemons subfactions in the single codex.
You still get the cool rules for being "Adeptus Astartes" if you bring two units with the Angels of Death rule from any mix of codexes even in the same detachment....
...while Daemons actually lose all their rules if you do same.
Oh the daemons book is hot trash from a design perspective, but arguing that X daemons deserve to have their own progress and competitive rates compared against a lumped marines faction is just daft.
Because of how they wrote daemons, a codex daemons force is so unlikely to ever be fielded imo that they're just a tag on to other chaos forces by default.
Oh the daemons book is hot trash from a design perspective, but arguing that X daemons deserve to have their own progress and competitive rates compared against a lumped marines faction is just daft.
Because of how they wrote daemons, a codex daemons force is so unlikely to ever be fielded imo that they're just a tag on to other chaos forces by default.
Theres so much potential for a fun demons codex too, theyre the ones that should be getting weird rules. Really eager to see if it it gets better in 9th when their new codex gets released.
The exalted greater demon stuff from PA was a step in the good direction IMO. I'd love for demons to become ultra customisable.
VladimirHerzog wrote: don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?
Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.
So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).
Let me put it this way: Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.
VladimirHerzog wrote: don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?
Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.
So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).
Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.
Yeah, thats what i thought, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't playing something wrong with my Tzeentch/Nurgle detachment.
For some reason i had in mind that the god "bonuses" were a global thing (+1 invuln to tzeentch, always fight first for slaanesh, disgustingly resilient and whatever khorne gets) but theyre just abilities on the datasheets.
As dudeface said : the whole codex is a mess that needs a rewrite,
Demons should be more customizable than space marines IMO
VladimirHerzog wrote: don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?
Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.
So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).
Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.
Yeah, thats what i thought, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't playing something wrong with my Tzeentch/Nurgle detachment.
For some reason i had in mind that the god "bonuses" were a global thing (+1 invuln to tzeentch, always fight first for slaanesh, disgustingly resilient and whatever khorne gets) but theyre just abilities on the datasheets.
As dudeface said : the whole codex is a mess that needs a rewrite,
Demons should be more customizable than space marines IMO
Oddly I'd rather double down on the existing design choice and not have a daemons codex. They already print the relevant gods daemons in the relevant chaos legion book, just push out emps children and world eaters, put daemons rules in each, then expand undivided daemons slightly and leave those in generic chaos space marines.
Gives the legion codecies more merit for existing, stops awkward reprinting of rules for "summoning purposes" and gives fluffy mono god armies easy access. Arguably multi God daemon armies are no worse off than they are now, maybe the hq equivalent for the undivided daemons could have a rule that facilitated mixed detachments.
VladimirHerzog wrote: don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?
Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.
So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).
Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.
Yeah, thats what i thought, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't playing something wrong with my Tzeentch/Nurgle detachment.
For some reason i had in mind that the god "bonuses" were a global thing (+1 invuln to tzeentch, always fight first for slaanesh, disgustingly resilient and whatever khorne gets) but theyre just abilities on the datasheets.
As dudeface said : the whole codex is a mess that needs a rewrite,
Demons should be more customizable than space marines IMO
Oddly I'd rather double down on the existing design choice and not have a daemons codex. They already print the relevant gods daemons in the relevant chaos legion book, just push out emps children and world eaters, put daemons rules in each, then expand undivided daemons slightly and leave those in generic chaos space marines.
Gives the legion codecies more merit for existing, stops awkward reprinting of rules for "summoning purposes" and gives fluffy mono god armies easy access. Arguably multi God daemon armies are no worse off than they are now, maybe the hq equivalent for the undivided daemons could have a rule that facilitated mixed detachments.
Hmm thats an interesting approach.
So basically you'd have Codex: Deathguard/ThousandSons/EmpChildren/worldEater with the demons included in them?
I'm not so thrilled about that honestly. Demons and CSM are very different armies. If anything, the demon entries shouldnt be present in the CSM books. I've seen so many new players show up with demons in their CSM lists and not understand that they can't actually use them to fill slots in teir army.
I mean, you could always look at the Slaanesh Daemons book from AOS. It has exactly the same model line as 40k Slaanesh Daemons (except for one unit which is just male seekers instead of female seekers) and yet manages to be diverse and competitive - and for a time, overpowered. (perhaps we shouldn't copy that part )
NinthMusketeer wrote:AoS does it well. The 40k equivalent would be a codex each for DG/DoN, TS/DoT, WE/DoK, and EC/DoS, then the regular codex for CSM with any marked units able to be taken by the god-specific codex.
VladimirHerzog wrote: don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?
Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.
So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).
Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.
Yeah, thats what i thought, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't playing something wrong with my Tzeentch/Nurgle detachment.
For some reason i had in mind that the god "bonuses" were a global thing (+1 invuln to tzeentch, always fight first for slaanesh, disgustingly resilient and whatever khorne gets) but theyre just abilities on the datasheets.
As dudeface said : the whole codex is a mess that needs a rewrite,
Demons should be more customizable than space marines IMO
Oddly I'd rather double down on the existing design choice and not have a daemons codex. They already print the relevant gods daemons in the relevant chaos legion book, just push out emps children and world eaters, put daemons rules in each, then expand undivided daemons slightly and leave those in generic chaos space marines.
Gives the legion codecies more merit for existing, stops awkward reprinting of rules for "summoning purposes" and gives fluffy mono god armies easy access. Arguably multi God daemon armies are no worse off than they are now, maybe the hq equivalent for the undivided daemons could have a rule that facilitated mixed detachments.
Hmm thats an interesting approach.
So basically you'd have Codex: Deathguard/ThousandSons/EmpChildren/worldEater with the demons included in them?
I'm not so thrilled about that honestly. Demons and CSM are very different armies. If anything, the demon entries shouldnt be present in the CSM books. I've seen so many new players show up with demons in their CSM lists and not understand that they can't actually use them to fill slots in teir army.
This is my point, remove that barrier, make it so you can have a cohesive tzeentch or w/e list with mortal, posthuman and daemon units. I'm more fed up of the answer to any chaos problem being "ally in x from y", when each book should be able to stand on its own merits.
VladimirHerzog wrote: don't you only lose the loci? which is the same as marines losing their chapter tactic bonuses?
Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.
So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).
Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.
Yeah, thats what i thought, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't playing something wrong with my Tzeentch/Nurgle detachment.
For some reason i had in mind that the god "bonuses" were a global thing (+1 invuln to tzeentch, always fight first for slaanesh, disgustingly resilient and whatever khorne gets) but theyre just abilities on the datasheets.
As dudeface said : the whole codex is a mess that needs a rewrite,
Demons should be more customizable than space marines IMO
Oddly I'd rather double down on the existing design choice and not have a daemons codex. They already print the relevant gods daemons in the relevant chaos legion book, just push out emps children and world eaters, put daemons rules in each, then expand undivided daemons slightly and leave those in generic chaos space marines.
Gives the legion codecies more merit for existing, stops awkward reprinting of rules for "summoning purposes" and gives fluffy mono god armies easy access. Arguably multi God daemon armies are no worse off than they are now, maybe the hq equivalent for the undivided daemons could have a rule that facilitated mixed detachments.
Hmm thats an interesting approach.
So basically you'd have Codex: Deathguard/ThousandSons/EmpChildren/worldEater with the demons included in them?
I'm not so thrilled about that honestly. Demons and CSM are very different armies. If anything, the demon entries shouldnt be present in the CSM books. I've seen so many new players show up with demons in their CSM lists and not understand that they can't actually use them to fill slots in teir army.
This is my point, remove that barrier, make it so you can have a cohesive tzeentch or w/e list with mortal, posthuman and daemon units. I'm more fed up of the answer to any chaos problem being "ally in x from y", when each book should be able to stand on its own merits.
fair enough, it doesnt really change much when i think of it. it would be an elegant fix to chaos's problems (soup.faction) right now. Actually yeah, i'm on board with 40k inspiring itself from AoS for its chaos codexes.
Basic CSM Thousand sons / Tzeentch
Deathguard / Nurgle
World Eaters / Khorne
Emperor's children / Slaanesh
Chaos Knights
and i guess belakor would be an entry in the basic CSM codex?
That would fix Tzeentch DPs being worse than Thousand sons DPs.
That would fix the Detachment tax for Chaos.
So basically you'd have Codex: Deathguard/ThousandSons/EmpChildren/worldEater with the demons included in them?
I'm not so thrilled about that honestly. Demons and CSM are very different armies. If anything, the demon entries shouldnt be present in the CSM books. I've seen so many new players show up with demons in their CSM lists and not understand that they can't actually use them to fill slots in teir army.
Sort of? The problem is that there's already a lot more synergy between, say, Tzeentch CSM and Tzeentch Daemons than there is between Tzeentch Daemons and Nurgle Daemons or Tzeentch CSM and Khorne CSM, because of the Daemon Engine/Possessed support that works on the Daemons.
Xenomancers wrote: If you hate marine players so much. Why don't you just play tau against them?
Multiple possible reasons.
I don't own the army.
The playstyle of the army doesnt interest me.
I want to play what i already enjoy playing.
I don't even hate marines, i've changed my stance on that ever since going 100% casual with warhammer
NinthMusketeer wrote:AoS does it well. The 40k equivalent would be a codex each for DG/DoN, TS/DoT, WE/DoK, and EC/DoS, then the regular codex for CSM with any marked units able to be taken by the god-specific codex.
This would kick ass
Yeah, I would love this. I would ESPECIALLY love if my lords of change, basically demi-gods of psychic might, had anywhere near the diversity of psychic power options of my Thousand Sons Daemon Princes, who have their choice of 18 powers + 1 bonus power for each of 9 cults.
Xenomancers wrote: If you hate marine players so much. Why don't you just play tau against them?
Multiple possible reasons.
I don't own the army.
The playstyle of the army doesnt interest me.
I want to play what i already enjoy playing.
I don't even hate marines, i've changed my stance on that ever since going 100% casual with warhammer
I am with you. I am also going casual. I can't/ have no desire to keep up with a meta changing every month. With entire armies becoming invalid on a monthly basis and new armies becoming the new hotness. Tired of it.
I am assuming these people are coming from a competitive prospective with all the marine hate...Unless someone is playing a TFG new hotness chapter (Pre nerf Ironahnds/IF)(9th edd salis) marines aren't even that bad anyways and if they are doing that. Just ask them to play their raven gaurd painted marines as ravengaurd and not spam new undercosted eradicators with salamdanders rules...jezz. It's the same nonsense with people playing aliotoc flyers with their siamhan army...This game requires an agreement between players for both players to have fun. If you aren't having talks with your mates before games work about power level. It is going to be a bad experience regardless of armies selected. My suggestion to just play tau is aimed at the people who chase meta.
I am with you. I am also going casual. I can't/ have no desire to keep up with a meta changing every month. With entire armies becoming invalid on a monthly basis and new armies becoming the new hotness. Tired of it.
I am assuming these people are coming from a competitive prospective with all the marine hate...Unless someone is playing a TFG new hotness chapter (Pre nerf Ironahnds/IF)(9th edd salis) marines aren't even that bad anyways and if they are doing that. Just ask them to play their raven gaurd painted marines as ravengaurd and not spam new undercosted eradicators with salamdanders rules...jezz. It's the same nonsense with people playing aliotoc flyers with their siamhan army...This game requires an agreement between players for both players to have fun. If you aren't having talks with your mates before games work about power level. It is going to be a bad experience regardless of armies selected. My suggestion to just play tau is aimed at the people who chase meta.
I definitely agree with this sentiment.
I think the hard thing is that Space Marines are so overtuned that even casual lists can curb stomp -- So many full re-rolls removes variance from one side, frankly -- but if you aren't talking about how hardcore to go before a game with friends, you're doing it wrong.
Some people wanna practice for a tournament. For the love of god let me know before I play you, then I can prepare. The fun factor of the game goes up when people are both trying to play the appropriate game.
Xenomancers wrote: If you hate marine players so much. Why don't you just play tau against them?
Multiple possible reasons.
I don't own the army.
The playstyle of the army doesnt interest me.
I want to play what i already enjoy playing.
I don't even hate marines, i've changed my stance on that ever since going 100% casual with warhammer
I am with you. I am also going casual. I can't/ have no desire to keep up with a meta changing every month. With entire armies becoming invalid on a monthly basis and new armies becoming the new hotness. Tired of it.
I am assuming these people are coming from a competitive prospective with all the marine hate...Unless someone is playing a TFG new hotness chapter (Pre nerf Ironahnds/IF)(9th edd salis) marines aren't even that bad anyways and if they are doing that. Just ask them to play their raven gaurd painted marines as ravengaurd and not spam new undercosted eradicators with salamdanders rules...jezz. It's the same nonsense with people playing aliotoc flyers with their siamhan army...This game requires an agreement between players for both players to have fun. If you aren't having talks with your mates before games work about power level. It is going to be a bad experience regardless of armies selected. My suggestion to just play tau is aimed at the people who chase meta.
Welcome to the Light Side.
The Dark Side might offer cookies, but you'll have more fun over here.
I remember that at the beginning of 8th edition after the first set of codex comes along, everything was about castellan knights behind masses of guardsmen and bright lances and dark reapers spam in innari lists and everybody hates it because all the meta chasers build up they cheese armies around this 2 concepts.
It wasn't till the end of 8 the edition when the space marines come out that the meta chasers didn't switch back to marines, especially IH and Raven guard. Before everybody complained that was almost impossible to fight against an iconic 40k army like the space marines because they used to be garbage before they got their codex.
Are space marines the problem? or the meta chasers spamming the one or 2 best armies in the game in every moment?
In a casual context, it was much easier to say "Hey knight player, don't take guard" or "hey guard player, don't take the knight" for games than it is to turn to a SM player and say "hey don't take your whole army"
Well, I will actually play my old-school Marines when they get 2W's.
Razorbacks are what I like and will be playable again.
I'm not really font of Primaris Marines and their related models (tanks).
I'm toying to sell the Primaris stuff asap.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I will actually play my old-school Marines when they get 2W's.
Razorbacks are what I like and will be playable again.
I'm not really font of Primaris Marines and their related models (tanks).
I'm toying to sell the Primaris stuff asap.
I'd hang onto it until we see what the new codex is gonna be like before selling anything.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I will actually play my old-school Marines when they get 2W's.
Razorbacks are what I like and will be playable again.
I'm not really font of Primaris Marines and their related models (tanks).
I'm toying to sell the Primaris stuff asap.
I'd hang onto it until we see what the new codex is gonna be like before selling anything.
Seconded.
Nevertheless, my intention is to sell Primaris at the earliest convenience.
Unit1126PLL wrote: In a casual context, it was much easier to say "Hey knight player, don't take guard" or "hey guard player, don't take the knight" for games than it is to turn to a SM player and say "hey don't take your whole army"
"Hey marine player, can you not upgrade your captain to a chapter master?" fixes a part of the problem with marines. I plan on making myself a patrol of steel confessors to go with my admech and i plan on playing a reanimated (admech style) chapter master Avonis, I won't be giving him full rerolls to represent his weakened state from being in a tank. I doubt that the army is gonna be overbearing.
Not everything marines have is OP. They have many strong choices but its possible to build a casual list easily.
Unit1126PLL wrote: In a casual context, it was much easier to say "Hey knight player, don't take guard" or "hey guard player, don't take the knight" for games than it is to turn to a SM player and say "hey don't take your whole army"
"Hey marine player, can you not upgrade your captain to a chapter master?" fixes a part of the problem with marines. I plan on making myself a patrol of steel confessors to go with my admech and i plan on playing a reanimated (admech style) chapter master Avonis, I won't be giving him full rerolls to represent his weakened state from being in a tank. I doubt that the army is gonna be overbearing.
Not everything marines have is OP. They have many strong choices but its possible to build a casual list easily.
I prefer to let them spend the 2CP and then as soon as I get anything within 18 say "Vox Scream, he's now a paperweight".
Unit1126PLL wrote: In a casual context, it was much easier to say "Hey knight player, don't take guard" or "hey guard player, don't take the knight" for games than it is to turn to a SM player and say "hey don't take your whole army"
"Hey marine player, can you not upgrade your captain to a chapter master?" fixes a part of the problem with marines. I plan on making myself a patrol of steel confessors to go with my admech and i plan on playing a reanimated (admech style) chapter master Avonis, I won't be giving him full rerolls to represent his weakened state from being in a tank. I doubt that the army is gonna be overbearing.
Not everything marines have is OP. They have many strong choices but its possible to build a casual list easily.
I prefer to let them spend the 2CP and then as soon as I get anything within 18 say "Vox Scream, he's now a paperweight".
Well i only ask when im not playing night lords, lol.
Unit1126PLL wrote: In a casual context, it was much easier to say "Hey knight player, don't take guard" or "hey guard player, don't take the knight" for games than it is to turn to a SM player and say "hey don't take your whole army"
"Hey marine player, can you not upgrade your captain to a chapter master?" fixes a part of the problem with marines. I plan on making myself a patrol of steel confessors to go with my admech and i plan on playing a reanimated (admech style) chapter master Avonis, I won't be giving him full rerolls to represent his weakened state from being in a tank. I doubt that the army is gonna be overbearing.
Not everything marines have is OP. They have many strong choices but its possible to build a casual list easily.
I prefer to let them spend the 2CP and then as soon as I get anything within 18 say "Vox Scream, he's now a paperweight".
Well i only ask when im not playing night lords, lol.
That's not an issue for me since my other army got squatted in 9th. It's In Midnight Clad or nothing for me.
Also SM are far more unbalanced for casual gaming than competitive anyway lol.
how so? at least in a casual environment you can have a discussion before the game to iron out any (perceived) issues. Now go try that in a tourney/feth you game environment.
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: In a casual context, it was much easier to say "Hey knight player, don't take guard" or "hey guard player, don't take the knight" for games than it is to turn to a SM player and say "hey don't take your whole army"
"Hey marine player, can you not upgrade your captain to a chapter master?" fixes a part of the problem with marines. I plan on making myself a patrol of steel confessors to go with my admech and i plan on playing a reanimated (admech style) chapter master Avonis, I won't be giving him full rerolls to represent his weakened state from being in a tank. I doubt that the army is gonna be overbearing.
Not everything marines have is OP. They have many strong choices but its possible to build a casual list easily.
I've never upgraded anyone to chapter master, Tu'shan doesnt have a model so I'd feel weird turning Adrax into one for a game, sounds lame.
Also SM are far more unbalanced for casual gaming than competitive anyway lol.
I think this confirms it. You are officially the most unlikable poster on dakka. You win the award.
What kind of ass clown goes around telling people "you aren't competitive" in a game of toy soldiers? You hate marines...we get it - you don't need to keep commenting on it. We will automatically assume you hate marines from here on out? K?
I had no desire to play marines until the supplements came out, because it was the first time that they seemed interesting to play with the way that the doctrines work.
Also SM are far more unbalanced for casual gaming than competitive anyway lol.
I think this confirms it. You are officially the most unlikable poster on dakka. You win the award.
What kind of ass clown goes around telling people "you aren't competitive" in a game of toy soldiers? You hate marines...we get it - you don't need to keep commenting on it. We will automatically assume you hate marines from here on out? K?
I mean, you also said Stompas and Squig buggies were secretly op and competitive.
Also SM are far more unbalanced for casual gaming than competitive anyway lol.
I think this confirms it. You are officially the most unlikable poster on dakka. You win the award.
What kind of ass clown goes around telling people "you aren't competitive" in a game of toy soldiers? You hate marines...we get it - you don't need to keep commenting on it. We will automatically assume you hate marines from here on out? K?
casual players spend their time whining and bitching about their army being too weak.
Ask yourself what you spend the majority of your time doing.
I don't hate Space Marines, I fething love Space Marines. Every piece of lore I read is Space Marine focused, my most expensive collection is my SM army and also my biggest prize. You're projecting your own insecurities about yourself as a player here.
Bruh, people complaining != casual.
There's many a thing you could've said there but calling him a normie because he complains is well, not one of them.
Eonfuzz wrote: Bruh, people complaining != casual. There's many a thing you could've said there but calling him a normie because he complains is well, not one of them.
I'm sorry but if your army is currently the most dominant army in the competitive meta, winning most events, and you're spending your time on message boards making 30 posts a day complaining about them not actually being very good, then you are pretty much by every definition, not a very competitive player (especially when you're calling gak like Orks OP at the same time).
Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.
So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).
Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.
If you mix gods Khorne Daemons still get unstoppable ferocity, Nurgle disgustingly resilient, Tzeentch ephemeral form, and Slaanesh quicksilver swiftness. All you lose is the Daemonic Loci detachment rule which, to be perfectly blunt, is not worth going mono-god most of the time. The Tzeentch one in particular sucks big balls and isn't worth considering at all. Either go mixed detachments or tack a patrol on to shore up weakness, because mono Slaanesh can run up the board and flip objectives fine, but when it comes to actually holding them down? Slaanesh Daemons are going to get fething shredded by bolter fire. Twenty bolter shots fired at a squad of Daemonettes kills eight of them usually (56 points), which is easily achievable.
Adding a patrol with Nurglings or whatever to actually hold them (by turn 1 even) is a must. Those same bolters firing on Nurglings will kill one model (or 18 points) on average.
Also SM are far more unbalanced for casual gaming than competitive anyway lol.
I think this confirms it. You are officially the most unlikable poster on dakka. You win the award.
What kind of ass clown goes around telling people "you aren't competitive" in a game of toy soldiers? You hate marines...we get it - you don't need to keep commenting on it. We will automatically assume you hate marines from here on out? K?
I mean, you also said Stompas and Squig buggies were secretly op and competitive.
Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.
So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).
Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.
If you mix gods Khorne Daemons still get unstoppable ferocity, Nurgle disgustingly resilient, Tzeentch ephemeral form, and Slaanesh quicksilver swiftness. All you lose is the Daemonic Loci detachment rule which, to be perfectly blunt, is not worth going mono-god most of the time. The Tzeentch one in particular sucks big balls and isn't worth considering at all. Either go mixed detachments or tack a patrol on to shore up weakness, because mono Slaanesh can run up the board and flip objectives fine, but when it comes to actually holding them down? Slaanesh Daemons are going to get fething shredded by bolter fire. Twenty bolter shots fired at a squad of Daemonettes kills eight of them usually (56 points), which is easily achievable.
Adding a patrol with Nurglings or whatever to actually hold them (by turn 1 even) is a must. Those same bolters firing on Nurglings will kill one model (or 18 points) on average.
I had to re-read that a couple of times to realize you weren't dismissing the Locus of Swiftness out of hand along with the others.
The Slanneshi Locus is incredibly powerful, it is absolutely worth a mono-god detachment to activate it. If you are trying to make a mono-god Slanneshi list work for the style points (and not taking a CSM patrol like a sensible person) then you're not going to try to hold objectives with Daemonettes in the first place, you're going to park Soul Grinders on them and if they get shot down then at least that firepower wasn't going into your combat units.
The general wisdom is that Nurgle and Tzeentch can kind of stand on their own while Slannesh and Khorne cannot, and I disagree. Slannesh wouldn't turn down a small boost but it does not belong in the same bucket as Khorne.
Also SM are far more unbalanced for casual gaming than competitive anyway lol.
I think this confirms it. You are officially the most unlikable poster on dakka. You win the award.
What kind of ass clown goes around telling people "you aren't competitive" in a game of toy soldiers? You hate marines...we get it - you don't need to keep commenting on it. We will automatically assume you hate marines from here on out? K?
I mean, you also said Stompas and Squig buggies were secretly op and competitive.
I assumed he was drunk he said that.
Xeno once told me that plants breathe in through their roots and out through their leaves, and insulted my intelligence when I attempted to correct him. I think some people just live in a different reality, and trying to explain how stompas work in ours will be fruitless.
Also SM are far more unbalanced for casual gaming than competitive anyway lol.
I think this confirms it. You are officially the most unlikable poster on dakka. You win the award.
What kind of ass clown goes around telling people "you aren't competitive" in a game of toy soldiers? You hate marines...we get it - you don't need to keep commenting on it. We will automatically assume you hate marines from here on out? K?
I mean, you also said Stompas and Squig buggies were secretly op and competitive.
Never said that. I said buggies were good and implied they were good enough to build a competitive army around (honestly to some people that definition makes them OP - and realistically that is accurate if 80% of the models in the game can't do that) Turns out I am right because they have placed in some events. Stompas I was only defending as "not that bad" and quite good when built around the more dakka stratagem and freebootas. Made no predictions about stompa taking competitive events. The reality is - titans in general are pretty bad in this game as a titan - stompa is not uniquely bad as ork players LOVE to complain about. Go ahead though - misconstrue what I've said in the past. Makes no difference.
Not sure why you defend someone which all they do is spout vitrol and make personal attacks.
Also SM are far more unbalanced for casual gaming than competitive anyway lol.
I think this confirms it. You are officially the most unlikable poster on dakka. You win the award.
What kind of ass clown goes around telling people "you aren't competitive" in a game of toy soldiers? You hate marines...we get it - you don't need to keep commenting on it. We will automatically assume you hate marines from here on out? K?
I mean, you also said Stompas and Squig buggies were secretly op and competitive.
I assumed he was drunk he said that.
Xeno once told me that plants breathe in through their roots and out through their leaves, and insulted my intelligence when I attempted to correct him. I think some people just live in a different reality, and trying to explain how stompas work in ours will be fruitless.
Very funny. I'd love to get a fact check on that. Yes dude...we were talking about plants and I'm and so incredibly stupid that basic first grader knowledge of how plants respirate is foreign to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alcibiades wrote: I had no desire to play marines until the supplements came out, because it was the first time that they seemed interesting to play with the way that the doctrines work.
Well before that - marines in 8th were literally bottom teir even from the time their first codex came out. Case can be made they were the least competitive faction in the entire game. Their win rate was in the 40% area. GKSMDABA...whatever...they all basically were using the same overcosted models.
GKSMDABA...whatever...they all basically were using the same overcosted models.
GK had no over lap, at least as far as armies pre PA goes. DA were running Raven Wing and its specific units no other marine has access to. BA did use units other could use, but through mechanics the faction had they were vastly superior to regular marine ones, even if in the end BA armies were mostly smash captins, 15 scouts and a ton of IG, often with a castellan for a lot of 8th ed.
Pre their PA books IH didn't exist as a playable army, and WS/RG/IF etc were just weaker versions of ultramarines. So even in the case of those armies and technicaly the same faction, people weren't playing the same thing.
The PA came, and IF fists armies were different from WS or RG ones. Not everyone was running assault centurions, not everyone was running bolter focused armies. Even weaker marine armies like CF had nice gimmiks, that opened some units to being viable for them.
It would certainly be nice if more people starting the hobby looked at Xenos factions and thought oh they are cool, that's my army. It would be even nicer if GW incentivised that with fairer release schedules.
As for Marines being OP.. well they are, whether or not SM players want to admit that or not. Now I don't care if Marines are amazing. Sure, fine. But they must be appropriately pointed. Currently just about everything is still undercosted by at least 20% even after the points adjustments. Their codex balance is going to be make or break for 9th edition as a whole.
Yes, you do only lose the loci - which is literally the only special rules available to a Daemons army.
So you go from Marines, who lose Chapter Tactics but keep a whole host of rules, to Daemons, who lose every single rule period if they bring another god. The only difference between Slaanesh and Tzeench in the same detachment and a completely unbound army is that you get to keep some CP (but you only have like 4 stratagems so whatever).
Let me put it this way:
Bringing Tzeench and Slaanesh in the same detachment has more in common with bringing Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than with bringing Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment.
If you mix gods Khorne Daemons still get unstoppable ferocity, Nurgle disgustingly resilient, Tzeentch ephemeral form, and Slaanesh quicksilver swiftness. All you lose is the Daemonic Loci detachment rule which, to be perfectly blunt, is not worth going mono-god most of the time. The Tzeentch one in particular sucks big balls and isn't worth considering at all. Either go mixed detachments or tack a patrol on to shore up weakness, because mono Slaanesh can run up the board and flip objectives fine, but when it comes to actually holding them down? Slaanesh Daemons are going to get fething shredded by bolter fire. Twenty bolter shots fired at a squad of Daemonettes kills eight of them usually (56 points), which is easily achievable.
Adding a patrol with Nurglings or whatever to actually hold them (by turn 1 even) is a must. Those same bolters firing on Nurglings will kill one model (or 18 points) on average.
Right, and if you took Tyranids and Eldar in an Unbound army they'd still get Synapse and Battle Focus respectively.
Taking multiple gods in the same detachment is more akin to taking Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than it is to taking Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment. That was the point and I stand by it.
Well before that - marines in 8th were literally bottom teir even from the time their first codex came out. Case can be made they were the least competitive faction in the entire game. Their win rate was in the 40% area. GKSMDABA...whatever...they all basically were using the same overcosted models.
Let's not forget Bobby G and his Stormravens of doom, or Bobby G and his Razorbacks ... of doom ... Lists that were so initially dominant they were squashed in near record time by GW.
Yeah, the book as a whole was weak, but even with the weak book, marines STILL had one or two OP builds ....
Just because the iconic models of GK are unique doesn't mean they dont have overlap with other marines.
I'd argue the Terminators and Apothecary are different (GK Termies don't get power fists or twin LC/THSS combos, and GK Apothecaries wear Terminator armour, unlike regular Marines).
However, very much agreed on the rest. Still, I'd say that GK aren't the same as all the other Marine types, due to psychic powers, a very different core to their army, and no access to Primaris units.
Right, and if you took Tyranids and Eldar in an Unbound army they'd still get Synapse and Battle Focus respectively.
Taking multiple gods in the same detachment is more akin to taking Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than it is to taking Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment. That was the point and I stand by it.
Sorry, then you're just wrong, and no, you can't just sweep the fact that they lose CP under the rug, especially in a post-Engine Wars world my man.
Right, and if you took Tyranids and Eldar in an Unbound army they'd still get Synapse and Battle Focus respectively.
Taking multiple gods in the same detachment is more akin to taking Eldar and Tyranids in the same detachment than it is to taking Ultramarines and Blood Angels in the same detachment. That was the point and I stand by it.
Sorry, then you're just wrong, and no, you can't just sweep the fact that they lose CP under the rug, especially in a post-Engine Wars world my man.
Ultramarines + Angel's = CP, a huge number of stratagems, and some bonus rules
Tyranids + Eldar = No benefit
Daemon + Different Damon = CP, a few stratagems
Saying he is "just wrong" is to misunderstand the subjective nature of his argument. And regardless, he would still have a point in daemons of different gods getting notably less for working together than marines from entirely different codex.
