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.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Gladius wasn't that great ether - just another version of objective secured spam that only does good in time limited games. Razorbacks and tactical squads - literally the worst units in the game - when you get one for free though they come out being about decent. It's not like a razorback from today which is actually a decent tank.

SM were by far the most overpowered army in 7th along with eldar. Gladius, skyhammer formation, grav spam, invisiblitiy.... several SM lists were extremely cheesy.

Even now SM are quite competitive, two of their chapters at least. And also BA and DA which have their own codex are solid mid tiers at least.

So taking this at face value, how good would Marines be/have been without those formations? Which 8th has done, granted it was across the board.

I also expect that one of those two chapters are Raven guard, which even with that bumping a Tau player to BS5 still almost tabled me.

Erm, it was 7th, nobody was anything without their OP formations.

Outside Eldar who could run a tournament list without formations. You were better off with Aspect Shrine formations but hey as long as you had Scatterbikes and Wraithknights...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So we should only listen to the Eldar and IG players who say it's totally fine.

Your logic is bad.

No, and this might be a intricate concept to grasp based on how many times you've misunderstood it now, but to restate it once AGAIN, all I said in my post is that you shouldn't blindly accept anything SM players are saying about their dex, as they are notorious for downplaying it. Which is fine. What you choose to do with that advice is up to you. The only bad logic, is the train of comprehension that seems to have brought you from this statement to one that somehow sees me saying "IG and Eldar players are the only people you should listen to".

If you must ask, I'm a big supporter of the novel idea that is thinking critically and drawing your own opinions on a matter based on the facts (not opinions) you find given to you. Failing that though, blindly taking an SM player's opinion on the current state of the SM dex is probably the polar opposite on the scale of sensible ways to weight the merits of the army in competitive play.









Anyway, seeing that you immediately tried to find something else to complain about with my post after your first complaint was deflected as not being relevant, can you just accept that I didn't say what you thought I said and move on, instead of continuing to extend this just to avoid admitting you were wrong? Thanks

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So we should only listen to the Eldar and IG players who say it's totally fine.

Your logic is bad.

No, and this might be a intricate concept to grasp based on how many times you've misunderstood it now, but to restate it once AGAIN, all I said in my post is that you shouldn't blindly accept anything SM players are saying about their dex, as they are notorious for downplaying it. Which is fine. What you choose to do with that advice is up to you The only bad logic is the train of comprehension that seems to brought you from this statement to one that somehow sees me saying "IG and Eldar players are the only people you should listen to".

If you must ask, I'm a big supporter of the novel idea that is thinking critically and drawing your own opinions on a matter based on the facts (not opinions) you find given to you. Failing that though, blindly taking an SM player's opinion on the current state of the SM dex is probably the polar opposite on the scale of sensible ways to weight the merits of the army in competitive play.









Anyway, seeing that you immediately tried to find something else to complain about with my post after your first complaint was deflected as not being relevant, can you just accept that I didn't say what you thought I said and move on, instead of continuing to extend this just to avoid admitting you were wrong? Thanks

1. Make opinions based on facts
2. Make a whole post based on an opinion that can't be backed by facts

You have to pick one.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So we should only listen to the Eldar and IG players who say it's totally fine.

Your logic is bad.

No, and this might be a intricate concept to grasp based on how many times you've misunderstood it now, but to restate it once AGAIN, all I said in my post is that you shouldn't blindly accept anything SM players are saying about their dex, as they are notorious for downplaying it. Which is fine. What you choose to do with that advice is up to you The only bad logic is the train of comprehension that seems to brought you from this statement to one that somehow sees me saying "IG and Eldar players are the only people you should listen to".

If you must ask, I'm a big supporter of the novel idea that is thinking critically and drawing your own opinions on a matter based on the facts (not opinions) you find given to you. Failing that though, blindly taking an SM player's opinion on the current state of the SM dex is probably the polar opposite on the scale of sensible ways to weight the merits of the army in competitive play.









Anyway, seeing that you immediately tried to find something else to complain about with my post after your first complaint was deflected as not being relevant, can you just accept that I didn't say what you thought I said and move on, instead of continuing to extend this just to avoid admitting you were wrong? Thanks

1. Make opinions based on facts
2. Make a whole post based on an opinion that can't be backed by facts

You have to pick one.

Sigh. Another strawman? You REALLY have an issue with rewording everything I say.

I said that I build my opinions on the information and facts at hand, not that nobody must ever have an opinion on anything ever unless they have every possible fact on the matter, including those practically unobtainable. The information that I have to build the opinion that I shared here is that a.) there is a lot of SM players compared to other armies here and b.) they've shared opinions on the dex that are historically significantly lower than the reality, and c.) that I've been here for years to witness and verify this for myself. All statements I can easily support with sources. It's a pretty big reach to say that this is akin to blindly parroting someone else's opinion, as my post was advising against, or not making opinions based on the facts at hand, as my post was suggesting to do so. To make a further informed opinion on the topic I'd need to literally hold a mandatory census for SM players on dakka or some other ridiculous lengths to try quantify it just to satisfy your bullheadedness here.


Now if you don't mind, could you please stop harassing me with responses in here? I get it, you'll find something new to argue about in this response, because for you this isn't about what's being said it's about never backing down because that would mean admitting I was wrong, but at this point you are just derailing the topic over the emotional response my opinion made you have. Move on.

You just admitted that to base your post on actual data would involve a compulsory census of SM players, and hence that your position is based on opinion. It is your opinion, however, and naturally, you prefer it, and so call it 'information'.

You also seem to be under the impression that your 'witnessing and verifying' of your conclusion isn't subject to opinion and confirmation bias. I doubt that. You'd be alone among humanity if that were so.

Finally, please do share the easily supporyed evidence. Given that codex marines are by far the most common faction, they should have a comparative presence on GT toptables. I think we all eagerly await your evidence of this parity.

 grouchoben wrote:
You just admitted that to base your post on actual data would involve a compulsory census of SM players, and hence that your position is based on opinion. It is your opinion, however, and naturally, you prefer it, and so call it 'information'.

You also seem to be under the impression that your 'witnessing and verifying' of your conclusion isn't subject to opinion and confirmation bias. I doubt that. You'd be alone among humanity if that were so.

Finally, please do share the easily supporyed evidence. Given that codex marines are by far the most common faction, they should have a comparative presence on GT toptables. I think we all eagerly await your evidence of this parity.

He's not totally wrong. The people most likely to have a biased opinion on their army are the ones playing it.

Making top tables a GTs isn't terribly relevant right now since codexes are still developing and there have been extreme items that smothers everything else.

In top of that we have a big meta shift that still needs to shake out.

 grouchoben wrote:
You just admitted that to base your post on actual data would involve a compulsory census of SM players, and hence that your position is based on opinion. It is your opinion, however, and naturally, you prefer it, and so call it 'information'.

You also seem to be under the impression that your 'witnessing and verifying' of your conclusion isn't subject to opinion and confirmation bias. I doubt that. You'd be alone among humanity if that were so.

So you are of the belief that nobody should form their opinions based on actual information, and that everyone should just blindly trust that SM players have everyone's best interests at heart? Or are you saying that we aren't allowed to form an opinion at all in the face of everything we witness, unless we conduct a literal mandatory census somehow cross-referenced with the objective power level of the dex so that we have quantifiable research to wave about stating that Space Marine players, have in fact misrepresented the strength of their dex in the past?

With absurd conditions like this on what's needed to form an opinion, it sounds a fair bit like you just don't like what's being said. I think what I said about drawing educated opinions based on the information available would seem much more rational to 99% of the planet, but feel free to go through life with your eyes closed. Not that I think for a second you actually hold your own opinions to this same ridiculous standard of course.

Finally, please do share the easily supporyed evidence.

So, which of the 3 statements that I said I could support with sources, do you need a source for? The fact that SM players outnumber other armies on here? Statements from SM players downplaying Gladius as overrated? Or the fact that I've been here for years?

Given that codex marines are by far the most common faction, they should have a comparative presence on GT toptables. I think we all eagerly await your evidence of this parity.

That's an... interesting theory you have there. But why do I have to present evidence for your surface level analysis? That's not something I ever said or implied.

Gladius is NOT overrated. Esp White Scars grav cannon party. It was more SATISFYING to lose to than Eldar scatbike/WK rape trains, but in the end the result was the same for most lists.

Martel732 wrote:
Gladius is NOT overrated. Esp White Scars grav cannon party. It was more SATISFYING to lose to than Eldar scatbike/WK rape trains, but in the end the result was the same for most lists.

Absolutely. Every list that wanted to be competitive had to prepare to face Gladius. People calling it overrated or fotm really kinda shines a light on certain biases people have concerning their own race, that's all I'm gonna say.

No, I'm of the belief that noone should try to hide the fact that their opinion is of a relatively equal veridical value to other rational agents based on unverifiable claims about superior information and anecdotes. Please provide any evidence at all to support your claim. It doesn't have to be GT data.

Clearly data is required to support premise b): "they've shared opinions on the dex that are historically significantly lower than the reality."... A) seems fairly solid, and b) is neither here nor there.

Finally, play the ball, not the man.

It's a mishmash of misremembrance and pushing back on those who claim "marines have always been fine". I'm man enough to admit that BA in 3rd ed were mega-obnoxious because screening wasn't possible in 3rd like it is now. But BA have been miserable for going on three editions. I'm adding 8th since the new FAQ. We fell on our sword to stop the Flyrants. Fitting, I suppose.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

Annirak wrote:

* There's no fast-delivery close combat troop--an assault squad equivalent
* There's no infantry heavy support unless you count hellblasters
* The transport options are far too limited and too expensive: the Repulsor is a Primaris Land Raider, but the Primaris marines need a Rhino and a Razorback.
* The Primaris options are all so monochromatic: they're like aspect warriors, with no basic troops.

I'm pretty sure the line just isn't done yet. I'd expect to see at least some close combat options, more characters and options, more heavy support (at least an anti-tank variant), a cheaper transport and bikers (jet or normal).

I also don't see them like aspect warriors. Primaris so far have been specialized, but in a generalist sort of way. Aggressors mix ranged anti-infantry with anti-tank melee, Inceptors are shooty but have special rules on the charge, Hellblasters are relatively efficient shooting at anything, etc. Primaris squads feel very different from aspect warriors in practice to me.

As has been mentioned before, there's nothing akin to a modern fire-team, where there are at least 4 different weapons for different scenarios. The old tac-squads had that with 1 special, 1 combi/CCW, 1 heavy, 7 bolters. I dare say that they were modelled on modern fire teams.

The problem is that in game terms multiple weapons tends to mean that you've got a bunch of ablative wounds and the guys that really matter. That doesn't necessarily feel appropriate for marines to me.

If you really wanted it modeled after modern fire teams, 2 weapons total won't cut it. Lots of people flipped when I suggested them having a total of 3 weapons at 10 men, when armies already do that or more.

Marine units must be bad. IG vetrens must have more weapon options than tac squads. Bolters must be the baseline weapon in the game when tac squads are one of the most expensive troop units to pick from. Everything about them is set up to suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Gladius is NOT overrated. Esp White Scars grav cannon party. It was more SATISFYING to lose to than Eldar scatbike/WK rape trains, but in the end the result was the same for most lists.

Absolutely. Every list that wanted to be competitive had to prepare to face Gladius. People calling it overrated or fotm really kinda shines a light on certain biases people have concerning their own race, that's all I'm gonna say.

Every competitive list was already good at defeating gladius. Ynnari could ptactically table it in 2 turns and daemons could do the same probably without even losing a model. A farsite bomb could easily kill 8+ razors a turn. Riptide wing could easily blow it off the table and then charge and kill marines in CC.

It was literally - never that good. It only did well in objectives - which only matter in tournaments because the game is artificially shortend.

Beating bloodangels easily in 7th was hardly an achievement. Marines are actually very good at killing other marines because...marines have never been hard to kill.

 grouchoben wrote:
No, I'm of the belief that noone should try to hide the fact that their opinion is of a relatively equal veridical value to other rational agents based on unverifiable claims about superior information and anecdotes. Please provide any evidence at all to support your claim. It doesn't have to be GT data.

Clearly data is required to support premise b): "they've shared opinions on the dex that are historically significantly lower than the reality."... A) seems fairly solid, and b) is neither here nor there.

Finally, play the ball, not the man.

First paragraph is worded as obnoxiously as possible, that I'm not even sure what it is you are trying to say lol and while it's not my native tongue I do feel I have a fairly strong grasp of the English language, but I've never in my life heard anyone talk like that haha.



If you need proof of the the statement you quoted in your 2nd paragraph, look no further this page where people are literally STILL in 2018 arguing that Gladius was never good, and you'll realise that yes, SM can have a meta defining list and players will still come into threads like these downplaying the race. That's my opinion. I've told you the information that has drawn me, and many others, to hold this opinion, so I suggest you move on because this sort of pettiness just solidifies that perspective for people. If you think SM players are getting an unfair rap then call out downplay like that when you see it instead of getting mad at that people just calling it for what it is, you aren't doing yourself any favors

 SHUPPET wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
No, I'm of the belief that noone should try to hide the fact that their opinion is of a relatively equal veridical value to other rational agents based on unverifiable claims about superior information and anecdotes. Please provide any evidence at all to support your claim. It doesn't have to be GT data.

Clearly data is required to support premise b): "they've shared opinions on the dex that are historically significantly lower than the reality."... A) seems fairly solid, and b) is neither here nor there.

Finally, play the ball, not the man.

First paragraph is worded as obnoxiously as possible, I'm not even sure what it is you are trying to say lol and while it's not my native tongue I do feel I have a fairly strong grasp of the English language, but I've never in my life heard anyone talk like that haha.



If you need proof of the the statement you quoted in your 2nd paragraph, look no further this page where people are literally STILL in 2018 arguing that Gladius was never good, and you'll realise that yes, SM can have a meta defining list and players will still come into threads like these downplaying the race. That's my opinion. I suggest you move on because this sort of pettiness just solidifies that perspective for people. If you think SM players are getting an unfair rap then call out downplay like that when you see it instead of getting mad at that people just calling it for what it is, you aren't doing yourself any favors

Let me break it down for you. If you compared a gladius 5 man marine with a free razor with an assault cannon. It has an almost identical cost to a land speed storm with 5 scouts. The land speeder storm with 5 scouts was actually a decent unit (2 heavy weapons and 5 bolters compared to the razors twin heavy with 5 bolters) - the razor and tactical squads needed a 55 point or about a 40% drop in points to compete with it. It's actually a joke if you really think about it. I would run gladius with 11 razors and 5 lss I think. It was totally the best way to run marines - but it got beat quite often. Typically by getting tabled.

If I was running riptide wing with 2 SS - or ynnari - I'd beat opponents so bad I almost felt bad about it. I deliberately avoided the even more broken stuff - like wolfstars, superfriends, ect - because it was really not even fun to win with it because you basically couldn't lose models.

Razors were a waste of the Gladius. The strength of Gladius was open topped Rhinos and Grav.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Razors were a waste of the Gladius. The strength of Gladius was open topped Rhinos and Grav.

They had 2 firing point - yeah - that was great. Typically I'd put 4 gravs in 2 rhinos with the devestator squads. Grav was also overrated. 24" range is not good hit on 6"s if you move. Only really amazing on a cent or skyhammer - even then - worthless vs daemons. It was also like 38 points each I think - for that price you could have a las plas and a grav gun (which is better btw)

Bikestar and Censtar were the best lists back then IMO. But yeah I agree with SHUPPET and would go so far to say there is three to four posters who constantly knock SM and you see them in every SM thread saying the same things.

 Primark G wrote:
Bikestar and Censtar were the best lists back then IMO. But yeah I agree with SHUPPET and would go so far to say there is three to four posters who constantly knock SM and you see them in every SM thread saying the same things.

WTF they were the best lists? They wern't even the best deathstars. Aren't you one of these guys that defends tactical squads as being good units and claim currently that marines don't suck?

So your response is to play the man?

I never said tactical squads are good but you can go double plasma for a five-man squad... not exactly terribad.

 grouchoben wrote:
So your response is to play the man?

Primark has a history of telling mono marine players to get good while actually playing a mainly custards list backed up with primaris models. And saying that mono marine players were playing wrongly.

"Primark has a history of telling mono marine players to get good while actually playing a mainly custards list backed up with primaris models. And saying that mono marine players were playing wrongly."

Link? My current list is over 50 percent smurfy goodness.

 Primark G wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Ok so what sort of list did you table in two turns with what from the vanilla marine codex, as quiet frankly while I am having sucess, its mostly with lots of forgeworld and very little actual vanilla marine codex.
I'm currently moving over to my tau army as I can play a much more varied lists with way more CP.

Tiggy
Primaris Lt (Burning Blade)

2x 5 Intercerssor (AGL & PS)
5x Scout

5x Hellblaster

4x Inceptor (plasma)

Trajann

Shield-Cpt on Dawneagle (3++)

3x Allarus (axes)
4x Warden (3x axe + spear)
Vexilla (5++ - spear)

Culexus

My army is very melee oriented so I don't think it is a stretch it can beat BA.

Thats 1040 points of custards
85 points of assasins
850 points of marines and saying you played a marine list.

That’s not my current list. I dropped Trajann even as much as I enjoyed using him.

So are we even discussing anything in this thread anymore? Or are we just getting into pointless arguments now?

Pointless arguments.

 SHUPPET wrote:
SM players can have a meta defining codex and still all you will hear from them is how overrated they are.

 SHUPPET wrote:
The dex could be so bad that it threw paint stripper over your deployment zone, and SM players would still say that it was literally napalm instead.

 SHUPPET wrote:
you shouldn't blindly accept anything SM players are saying about their dex, as they are notorious for downplaying it.

You appear to be trying to present what you’re saying in this thread as objective and based on information, and yet it seems to me that you’re just indulging a personal crusade against Space Marine players on this forum.

Making sweeping generalised statements like those above and then saying your views are information-based looks foolish if you can’t provide any data to support them. You’ve essentially lumped all SM players into the group of ‘nerf rock, paper is fine - scissors’ and then applied your own confirmation bias to only be able to recall people who downplay the strengths of the SM Codex.

I, for instance, am a SM player who doesn’t downplay the strength of the Marine Codex. The 7th Ed book was the second strongest in the edition after Eldar. You know what I see as both more common and more obnoxious than people who downplay the strength of the Marine book? People like you complaining about people who downplay the strength of the Marine book.

Your biased opinion is no more objective or factual than mine or grouchoben’s. Unless you can provide data to back up your views - which obviously nobody can - then your opinion isn’t any more information-based than anybody else’s.

kombatwombat wrote:

You appear to be trying to present what you’re saying in this thread as objective and based on information, and yet it seems to me that you’re just indulging a personal crusade against Space Marine players on this forum.

Making sweeping generalised statements like those above and then saying your views are information-based looks foolish if you can’t provide any data to support them. You’ve essentially lumped all SM players into the group of ‘nerf rock, paper is fine - scissors’ and then applied your own confirmation bias to only be able to recall people who downplay the strengths of the SM Codex.

I didn't say all SM players. That would be ridiculous, and thats once again putting words in my mouth. I AM a Marine player, so that makes zero sense, it's my second army and as a Marine player I still can recognise when people here are downplaying.

As many have said, it's really common to see on here, especially since SM players are the largest faction. That doesn't mean hey you play space marines you must be a liar, that would be like getting at myself. You recognised I was making a generalization, which is the opposite of what you then went on to rant about, you KNOW I'm not saying every SM player, yet and still you just chose to get salty about the generalization I made on the whole. I even said if you're not one of these people, if you want to change this negative yet accurate reputation players of the race have, you need to do stuff like call out blatant downplay like I do. Instead you get mad at the people calling it for what it is which just solidifies the opinion.

There's no grudge against SM players here, I can quote myself saying the similar things about Tau, IG, and most of all my own main race Tyranids in the past. In fact I believe I opened this very thread with a post saying its just players in general who do it, but SM players outnumber the rest of armies on here so you see it the most of it. Theres no crusade - I literally made like a two line post in here, and every response since has been me defending my statements against the emotional responses of players like you it hit a sore spot with. That being said - it's threads like these that do give SM players the extra terrible reputation they have for it.

I, for instance, am a SM player who doesn’t downplay the strength of the Marine Codex. The 7th Ed book was the second strongest in the edition after Eldar.

Cool, then you should be agreeing with me, or calling out the guy on this very page, still ranting in 2018 that Gladius was never any good, that it only got played because it was the best option SM had. But instead here you are, whining at the guy who said a lot of SM players downplaying on this site, in spite of it literally happening in front of your eyes. Why do I not believe you?

Your biased opinion is no more objective or factual than mine or grouchoben’s. Unless you can provide data to back up your views - which obviously nobody can - then your opinion isn’t any more information-based than anybody else’s.

I'm not presenting anything as objective, I'm presenting it as the conclusion and opinion I've personally drawn from the facts and information I have. I've probably said this 30 times over now, but it seems difficulty of reasoning goes hand in hand with downplay on here.

Unless you can provide data to back up your views - which obviously nobody can - then your opinion isn’t any more information-based than anybody else’s.

That's great for you. The only OPINION I have given was that SM players as a whole are a notoriously unreliable source to blindly believe when it comes to the power level of their units. You are free to have a different opinion on it, I don't care, remember that you're the ones who quoted me to argue that MY opinion was invalid, not the other way around, and have asked my to defend it by having to justify with opinion with ridiculous prerequisites enforced by you three at every turn. You can go on break now and take that laughable hypocrisy along with you.

The burden of proof is on the person making a claim, Shuppet, not the person talking to them. Feeling persecuted and insulting those people you're talking to doesn't really help anyone.

In a discussion opinions are open to criticism, and we should be happy to defend & substantiate them, not to just throw our hands up and say 'You are free to have a different opinion on it, I don't care.'

Apologies to everyone who's here to read about the status of regular marines - it's all gone a bit meta!

 grouchoben wrote:
The burden of proof is on the person making a claim, Shuppet, not the person talking to them. Feeling persecuted and insulting those people you're talking to doesn't really help anyone.

In a discussion opinions are open to criticism, and we should be happy to defend & substantiate them, not to just throw our hands up and say 'You are free to have a different opinion on it, I don't care.'

Apologies to everyone who's here to read about the status of regular marines - it's all gone a bit meta!

Cool, well, you asked why I felt the way I did and I gave you my reasons, and if showing examples people doing exactly what I claim isn't valid enough to substantiate it then by all means, feel free be more meticulous in forming your own opinions. Which you've made evident you don't, but whatever - I don't care.

Drop the persecution complex and complaining that I shared the information that shaped my beliefs, if you are then going to turn around and state that the act ALONE of sharing what I based my opinion is the same as inferring that others opinions are less informed than mine, while at the same time finishing it off by saying people should be willing to defend and substantiate their beliefs. This is probably the most hypocritical nonsense I've seen on here.


I don't NEED to form a committee to say that I believe many SM players downplay heavily - I've been on here 5 years and have seen it a million times with my own eyes at a far higher frequency than other other race, so I'm sharing my opinion. When does any other opinion on here get held to this same meticulous standard? The comments I've pointed to on this page alone make it a hard sell that I'm wrong. You don't like hearing that? Well, thats okay as well, it doesn't invalidate my opinion. Have a nice day. Stop bothering me about it