Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ice_can wrote:
Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.

The “wait and see crew”? “Another epic fail”? Honestly, do people have to create ‘sides’ for everything? Is there a “panic and thrash about crew” you’re a part of? Seriously people, wind it in. Discuss civilly. This forum is becoming a damn cesspool.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.

The “wait and see crew”? “Another epic fail”? Honestly, do people have to create ‘sides’ for everything? Is there a “panic and thrash about crew” you’re a part of? Seriously people, wind it in. Discuss civilly. This forum is becoming a damn cesspool.

If only I could exalt a million times.

a_typical_hero wrote:
If you guys are so sure about the final rules for Eradicators, their point costs and how the new codex will interact with them, why don't you enlighten the rest of us?

Or MAYBE your opinion that they are overperforming is purely based on what they do right now in context of the current codex with rules that will be outdated in 2 weeks?

Since there is likely about 12 hours to go in general ignorance (assuming we get full codex reveals via youtube tonight, although I guess they could delay another week) - perhaps we could just talk about what might be?

I mean for the sake of argument, if Eradicators remain 40 points (or at the outside, 45), if you can take them in units of 3-6, if they are *Core* so can still be buffed, if CM has been nerfed to impact one unit rather than everyone in 6", if one Eradicator model (or who knows, 2 in a unit of 6) can take an MM to get 4(4.) shots - what do you think about them?
Because that's what I currently expect.
GW doesn't think these are a problem - because everyone (well, Imperium and a bit of chaos) can have 2 shot Multimeltas.

And who knows. Maybe they're right. Eradicator's won't be busted, because they'll sit alongside a whole range of other models bringing these ludicrously overtuned weapons.
Unfortunately, for all the factions that don't, I think its going to be a further six months of woe.

Now the alternative is they cost 50 points, they lose the 2 shot rule, they are not Core and can't be buffed and suddenly they look quite lame in the world of 2 shot MMs. But I don't see that happening.

If their profile and point costs don't change substantially like in the example given of what you expect, then they will be overperforming in my opinion.

I'd like to see double shoot moved to a stratagem. 2CP for 3 and 3CP for 6.This way you could still make something deader than dead if you put some ressources into it, but only one Eradicator unit per turn. And up them to 45 or 50 points.

In general I hope they will stay the exception in case of new unit performance. Not because I play Marines, but because hyper efficient units like them are taking away from my enjoyment of the game.


By the way, I appreciate your style of discussion.

If erdictors and other marine stuff wasn't tuned to be very good in 9th, but tuned against books from 8th ed, wouldn't this make marines kind of a bad or requiring another codex very soon after other armies get their own 9th ed codex?

Karol wrote:
If erdictors and other marine stuff wasn't tuned to be very good in 9th, but tuned against books from 8th ed, wouldn't this make marines kind of a bad or requiring another codex very soon after other armies get their own 9th ed codex?

It would make those units bad, yes. But nobody's saying SM should be tuned to be bad in 9th, just that they should be nowhere near as busted as they were for the latter part of 8th. I think the problem with SM is down to the sheer number of datasheets and sub-factions they have. It makes balancing them very difficult because the number of combinations is so high it's likely something is going to be broken if you mess up even slightly with the balance. We've seen that with 8th and early 9th where IH were completely broken, then got nerfed, which opened the way for the previously very good RG to become top dog. Then 9th comes along and Salamanders are well-placed to take over because of how their rules interact with the new units.

As another poster said earlier, it gets really tiring after a while.

Well but people seem to either talk about perfect situations or straight out want not their faction nerfed. GW doesn't do good and balanced fixs. They either over tune stuff to be good or bad, or the change is like the first 4-5 changes to dark reapers, where people playing against them didn't really notice the change that much.

I get that it takes me over 2 years to understand why GW does something, but I am not the fasters thinker and 8th was my first edition.

Do people really think that after the sm codex all the xeno ones are going to be bad, and that eldar aren't going to get some mind breaking super codex?


The rest is GW problems with how they write rules or books. If they made free rules, which they won't, they could make salamander aggresors cost different then white scar ones etc A GM that can get a pack or a bike, shouldn't cost the same as one that doesn't have a codex option for those. But they won't do it, because for what ever reason they want a powerfist cost the same for a str 5 dude and a str 3 dude.

Slipspace wrote:
It makes balancing them very difficult because the number of combinations is so high it's likely something is going to be broken if you mess up even slightly with the balance. We've seen that with 8th and early 9th where IH were completely broken, then got nerfed, which opened the way for the previously very good RG to become top dog. Then 9th comes along and Salamanders are well-placed to take over because of how their rules interact with the new units.

As another poster said earlier, it gets really tiring after a while.

My personal moral of the story:
Play with people who share the same approach to the game as you do and who understand that both participants are supposed to have fun. That makes a lot of flaws that the game has less relevant/interrupting for me.

Karol wrote:
If erdictors and other marine stuff wasn't tuned to be very good in 9th, but tuned against books from 8th ed, wouldn't this make marines kind of a bad or requiring another codex very soon after other armies get their own 9th ed codex?

Other armies got their codex very early in 8th and never got their codex 2.0, now other armies will get their codex shortly after the SM one and no way they'll get a 2.0 in the same edition even if they will be kinda "left behind" at some point. I don't see why SM should be entitled to be top tier forever. I get that they sell a lot and I totally accept GW releasing tons of new SM kits for that reason, no problem about tham, but rulewise?

What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?

Oh you don't have to tell me about it. If it wasn't for PA, then I don't know for what GK rules were ment, because it wasn't 8th ed.

And marines are entitled to the treatments, because they are the best seller and the group of factions that are played the most.
And this is also why marine being bad is bad for GW. because if marines are bad, the majority of their buyers are unhappy.

If you have a company that makes pizza, then pizza eaters are your focus and they will get the most stuff. End those that like something else are not going to be getting as much focus. A pizza company ain't going to sacrifice its pizza buyers to make vegans happy. Well not if they want to make money.

I think a better analogy would be to have pizza with different toppings.

I assume a pizza "special" is the default one that most customers order, but you want to have others on your menu, too.

Having the same pizza everyday gets stale soon.

GW happily disagrees. They literally have a game system that is 100% marines vs marines. And people are playing it. Like, for real.

 Blackie wrote:


What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?

Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.

The “wait and see crew”? “Another epic fail”? Honestly, do people have to create ‘sides’ for everything? Is there a “panic and thrash about crew” you’re a part of? Seriously people, wind it in. Discuss civilly. This forum is becoming a damn cesspool.

You think that's creating sides, when their has been people in thia thread dismising people saying the make the game unenjoyable with LTP arguments, it doesn't matter this is just 2 months untill the new codex.
Followed by misrepresenting facts, unit justifications using incorrect points and then ignoring cross faction comparisons what else do you call that same group of 4-6 posters?

True a majority of the blame lies squarely with GW for the joke of game balance that they have allowed to persist for the last year, but when people deffend such imbalances as it is and can't see the hypocrisy of their position, heck we have one poster who continues to reference Taudar and Scatbikes as a justification for the current power level of marines like it's vengeance.

Breton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?

Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.

Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?

Also you seem to ignore the fact that the other half of the playerbase (the non marine players) get let down by GW all the time but apparently that's ok?

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?

Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.

Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?

Also you seem to ignore the fact that the other half of the playerbase (the non marine players) get let down by GW all the time but apparently that's ok?

Everyone gets let down by GW, marine players can never win with the rest of the player base, eldar can never have models as good as the rules, chaos marines never get things as nice as loyalists get, xenos never get enough rules/minis and if they do, its the wrong ones. Anyone who isn't in the above simply loses due to volume of whinging and price hikes.

Breton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?

Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.

They were bad before codex 2.0 that was over a year ago, they were bad for what 6 months a year tops. Does that really justify the level of bais GW is currently pumping into the rules?
Do GSC get to become the next marines and unbeatable for an entire year qhen they get their 9th edition codex? as where have they been for the last year?

Ice_can wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?

Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.

They were bad before codex 2.0 that was over a year ago, they were bad for what 6 months a year tops. Does that really justify the level of bais GW is currently pumping into the rules?
Do GSC get to become the next marines and unbeatable for an entire year qhen they get their 9th edition codex? as where have they been for the last year?

Why can't SM be bad?

They were, remember?

It wasn't for long enough!

Breton wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?

Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.

They were bad before codex 2.0 that was over a year ago, they were bad for what 6 months a year tops. Does that really justify the level of bais GW is currently pumping into the rules?
Do GSC get to become the next marines and unbeatable for an entire year qhen they get their 9th edition codex? as where have they been for the last year?

Why can't SM be bad?

They were, remember?

It wasn't for long enough!

That's not the point in that post at all, you said they were bad, people now complain their good(you mean OP as feth)

Being bad in the past doesnt justify being broken, because lets be honest they aren't good they are downright gamebreaking currently and the new codex leaks don't appear to be changing that.

The issue isnt marines can't be good it's that they are so far beyond good it's rediculous when people claim they are just balanced.

Ice_can wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.

The “wait and see crew”? “Another epic fail”? Honestly, do people have to create ‘sides’ for everything? Is there a “panic and thrash about crew” you’re a part of? Seriously people, wind it in. Discuss civilly. This forum is becoming a damn cesspool.

You think that's creating sides, when their has been people in thia thread dismising people saying the make the game unenjoyable with LTP arguments, it doesn't matter this is just 2 months untill the new codex.
Followed by misrepresenting facts, unit justifications using incorrect points and then ignoring cross faction comparisons what else do you call that same group of 4-6 posters?

True a majority of the blame lies squarely with GW for the joke of game balance that they have allowed to persist for the last year, but when people deffend such imbalances as it is and can't see the hypocrisy of their position, heck we have one poster who continues to reference Taudar and Scatbikes as a justification for the current power level of marines like it's vengeance.

REMOVED - Rule #1 please
people who say "wait and see" aren't defending GW, they're just saying "we won't know the full picture until the complete codex is out"

Look the days when you can look at one or two units in isolation are, well I'm not gonna say they're gone, but they're on the decline, with stratigiums, auras etc one doesn't know the full story until we have the whole codex.

Breton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?

Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.

The point is they were never really bad, and even if they were it was just for a short period. They were mid tiers at worst, and I'm only talking about competitive gaming. In casual metas they have always been good in 8th.

I wish my armies that were considered "bad" in 3rd-7th were just as "bad" as those space marines pre codex 2.0.

No reason to feel irritated with a codex like the 1.0 version: the competitive players don't care about the faction they bring as they're switching armies after short periods anyway and the casual ones were never really left behind. I played with firstborn SW the entire edition, no allies, no doctrines until the last couple of months, and never felt they were bad; in fact I though they were way better than orks despite tournament results said otherwise, because in real life lists are not the same as those ones that place high at GTs. Unless they are "average" collections of models, like codex 2.0 Space Marines.

It seems like there is a portion of the player base that feels irritated if they don't autowin against anyone, those kind of players should be avoided like plague, and they're definitely not half GW's costumer base.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I think a better analogy would be to have pizza with different toppings.

I assume a pizza "special" is the default one that most customers order, but you want to have others on your menu, too.

Having the same pizza everyday gets stale soon.

No company is going to focus on those that think pine apple or anchovies are a good toping, comparing to those that want extra cheese and extra cheese+.


What do people think about relics and upgrades to characters/units costing points now?
Even if erdictors stay the same point costs, the marine armis still seem to take a big points hit from their masters of sancticity, chapter master and aggresors going up in points.

At the end of the day it comes to equality and the same standards applied in terms of rule support.

Model support is one thing, we all know Space Marines sell well and it's accepted they get priority in terms of models.

But rules are a very different thing and when Space Marines had a period of time, less than a year, where they weren't considered very good and were considered to show a lot of problematic design elements on early 8th edition, GW decided to go about giving them beta rules updates and then an entirely new Codex. Which, if Covid hadn't happened, would have come out less than a year before the new Edition and the NEXT Marine Codex.

Meanwhile CSM had ALL of the same issues as the old Marine codex, but they never got any actual structural rules update to address them. They got new models, but these didn't "fix" the army. Necrons Reanimation Protocols were functionally unusable in the game through the entire edition and they got no little beta rules update in an FAQ, Errata or a White Dwarf article. But Marines did. And then they got a new Codex too.

I don't expect every army to get 30 new sculpts released every 2 years, but there is NO reason to have a policy of Marine exceptionalism when it comes to providing free Beta rules changes. It costs literally nothing, you can even put it in WD to push sales of that, but otherwise it's a pdf that goes on the official WarCom site. Necron RP rules are busted? Don't wait 3 years for a new Codex and new Edition, just put an amended version in a PDF, call it a beta rule, and allow people to use and test it. If all goes well then when the next Codex rolls around you can THEN include it in an actual book.

Well I just waited almost 3 years for a codex amendment and I am happy about the rules change, specialy whent he other options to waiting seems to be not getting any updates at all. Specialy for factions that get 1 new model every 5-6 years.

most of the balance issues comes still from the fact that GW and the vast ammount of the community think:

- selling rules is good ,

- spreading them to pad quartal numbers is great,

- saving money through laymens and amateurs for designers in regards to rules is acceptable quality

- as is supposedly the clear lack of a proofreading editor.

- and intervening for sales reason is acceptable (wraithknight).

Not Online!!! wrote:

- and intervening for sales reason is acceptable (wraithknight).

Oh how I wish they would do that more often for units like Banshees

Karol wrote:

What do people think about relics and upgrades to characters/units costing points now?
Even if erdictors stay the same point costs, the marine armis still seem to take a big points hit from their masters of sancticity, chapter master and aggresors going up in points.

I think not enough people had enough time with Master of Sanctity etc as a CP cost instead of a point cost for this to be a thing. I think it probably should have always been a point cost instead of a CP cost. Are aggressors going up in points? Someone said they were staying the same? Relics costing points has the potential to be silly. Either you're still limited to the one or so per... or you can go hog wild, or worst of all, you're limited to the one or so per, have to buy the regular plasma power pistol sword in order to pay more points to get the Plasma Power Pistol Sword of Doom and you'll think GW should have at least bought you dinner first.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I would suggest that anyone who needs the rest of the codex to judge has completely missed the point with Eradicators. It has been shown time and time again that they overperform with no buffs whatsoever; that they become ridiculous when buffed is exacerbating the problem, not the problem in and of itself.

Next thing you know the codex is going to come out and the same people will be saying 'We can't judge yet; we don't know the full details of all the other codices, for all you know they'll be more resistant to Eradicators!'.

It's really tiring.

SemperMortis wrote:
And it will be the same people who were saying IH's aren't that strong and BA Smash captains aren't broken etc etc.

If you guys are so sure about the final rules for Eradicators, their point costs and how the new codex will interact with them, why don't you enlighten the rest of us?

Or MAYBE your opinion that they are overperforming is purely based on what they do right now in context of the current codex with rules that will be outdated in 2 weeks?

Not sure at all about the final product, but some of us have a long history with GW and can guess the general trend based on leaks and current rule sets. As far as comparing it based on a 9th perspective. I will tell you how I "GUESS" this will turn out, based on my experience.

So far we have 8th Marines being OP as hell, the apology committee comes out and says "Wait and see". Next we have several leaks about 9th which show those broken units being broken still but GW adding in more broken elements to buff or increase the level of OP, and the apology committee comes out and says "Wait and see". Now we have confirmed leaks showing problematic units not receiving a nerf at all or so minor as too be negligible, but we don't have the full context of the codex so the apology committee says "Wait and see". This is where we currently are. Next, when the codex comes out and shows all the likely broken units being relatively unchanged and powerful you will have the apology committee come out and say "Well, we don't know what the rest of the codex's are going to be like, wait and see". Which is a wonderful apology because for some factions it could take upwards of 2 years to get their new rules, so they can just suck it up and take the L for those 2 years. Every codex that comes out after SM's will be excused for not being as powerful or the SM codex will be excused for being too powerful by the apology committee coming out and saying "Wait until the CA or FAQ".

is this all guaranteed to happen? Nope, just my opinion based on past experience with GW.

Karol wrote:
If erdictors and other marine stuff wasn't tuned to be very good in 9th, but tuned against books from 8th ed, wouldn't this make marines kind of a bad or requiring another codex very soon after other armies get their own 9th ed codex?

Not necessarily, just because we change editions does not mean a codex has to be upgraded to be more lethal in every category. in fact a lot of players would argue, over tuning a codex because of an edition change is just bad for the game in general. Parking lots aren't fun to play against, but neither is losing your entire army by turn 3.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I think a better analogy would be to have pizza with different toppings.
I assume a pizza "special" is the default one that most customers order, but you want to have others on your menu, too.
Having the same pizza everyday gets stale soon.

Fair is fair, good analogy.

Ice_can wrote:

Breton wrote:


What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?

Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.

And this is the mindset that annoys players the most. Space marines were never "Bad" in 8th edition. The worst they had it was they were "average" and for SM players who are used to being handed OP rules this felt like hell because they couldn't start the game with an immediate advantage over their opponents.

Speaking strictly from personal experience (anecdotal) playing against SM players has shown me that the vast majority of SM players at tournaments are not that good at the game. This opinion was encapsulated in 7th edition where I had a better than 80% win/loss ratio at tournaments playing Orkz who were arguably the weakest army in the game. I managed to win games against Space Marine players who were allowed to bring upwards of 300-400pts of extra vehicles for free, So my games were 1750 Orkz vs 2050-2150 Space Marines.

GW literally handed SM players an amazing codex filled with good units and then gave them a super formation that allowed them to take a Razorback for every squad for free, and I was still able to beat them regularly in tournament settings with one of, if not THE weakest codex in the game.

Why bring that up? because in my opinion SM players think having a balanced/average codex is "bad" because they are so used to playing people while having +1 to everything their opponent can bring.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

- and intervening for sales reason is acceptable (wraithknight).

Oh how I wish they would do that more often for units like Banshees

Rather not, especially to that degree...

Not necessarily, just because we change editions does not mean a codex has to be upgraded to be more lethal in every category. in fact a lot of players would argue, over tuning a codex because of an edition change is just bad for the game in general. Parking lots aren't fun to play against, but neither is losing your entire army by turn 3.

Oh I am sure eldar or tau players would have loved if codex marines, DG and BA/SW/DW brought the power down , only to have it brought up when their codex comes up. That is exactly what happened in 8th. The first books were all about nerf and lower damage, and then someone at the design team thought that having double activation for dark reapers is the way to go.

Same way a lot of marines players wouldn't mind the stream line and less kill power to happen after their codex drops.

- selling rules is good ,

- spreading them to pad quartal numbers is great,

- saving money through laymens and amateurs for designers in regards to rules is acceptable quality

- as is supposedly the clear lack of a proofreading editor.

- and intervening for sales reason is acceptable (wraithknight).

I think there is one more. They often drop rule sets in to an edition the rule set isn't really ment for. I am not sure if it was true to prior editions, besides stories about it being told, but stuff like 2.0 marines clearly was tested and designed for 9th ed.

IH traits at the end of 8th were very good, but in 9th having a +5 overwatch is kind of a meh.

But what is worse, it feels like some books are writen or copy pasted from older projects or projects from prior editions. Some books are really hard to explain, when they miss all the things books ment for edition have.