The new Space Marine supplements were a mistake

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.

**Bharring**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Probably the late 80s?

If you want narrative-free tournaments, it's called chess/poker/flip-a-coin. "Narrative" vs "Crunch" isn't as absolutist as you think. Most games, metas, and players are part narrative/part crunch - even if they don't recognize it themselves. Perhaps the top 5 players at the biggest tournies are pure competitive players (perhaps, but I doubt it), but plenty of players at most tournaments care, to some degree at least, about narrative/fluff.

I don't really care how you play the game, I play the occasional narrative game also.

However, I don't show up in a rules discussion thread and apply narrative reasoning to the process then tell everyone they're stupid.

Play the game as you will. I have some beautiful armies that I field purely for the paint job. But you notice how I don't bring them up for a discussion about how the rules should change?

That would be fething stupid.

Not that I disagree with your callout of certain tones of posts - some things were said far too forcefully.

But

The new Space Marine supplements were a mistake

Isn't just a rules discussion. The form and structure of the rules was a bad direction from a fluff/narrative perspective as well.

**Yoyoyo**

Bharring wrote:
The form and structure of the rules was a bad direction from a fluff/narrative perspective as well.

Combat Doctrines annoy me the most.

Why would you hand out a flat bonus to AP with no connection to on-the-tabletop tactics?

**Bharring**

Karol wrote:
The counter clearly being, if it's 3-4 months average saleries, you shouldn't buy in unless you're sure it's worth that much money to you.

And you do, and then GW decides that Inari should be no more, or what ever other army was good at some point and you liked, and GW destroyed. this is practicaly forcing people in to the whole paint models, buy what you like and all the other stupid stuff. Because when the times come for your army to get the good rules, suddenly all those for fun players, that were supposably beating tournament lists with their casual stuff, get on how bad to for the game is your army having good rules, and how GW has to change it as soon as possible.

Reflect more on the "you shouldn't buy in unless you're sure it's worth that much money to you". I didn't say "Unless it's the army you'll be winning games with". I'd seriously caution anyone getting into the hobby and dropping hundreds of dollars that they should be sure they know what they're getting into. 40k has never been a great tactical challenge between strategic geniuses. It's always been a loose and not-well-balanced rulesset. A new player should be sure that they are up for a game like that; that what they're looking for is not something 40k does not (and never has) offered.

A prospective player should be made very aware that the game isn't fair. That if they'll only enjoy it if their army is "reasonably strong", they're in the wrong hobby. That 40k is a hobby/culture first, a game second, and a technical/competitive challenge a very distant third (if at all). At virtually any point in 40k's history, a due diligence glance at it's history should have made that obvious.

There is no "times come for your army to get the good rules". Balance is far more random than that. If that's what you're waiting for, you should probably get out. Not because we don't want you here, but because you don't want to be here. You're looking for something 40k has never been, and likely never will be.

**Adeptus Doritos**

40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).

**BrianDavion**

dotcomee wrote:
Salt donkey wrote:
I think it’s too early to call if whether or not marines are a mistake from GW’s perspective. Obviously the supplements are OP, but I’m reasonably certain that was GW’s intent from the very beginning. From their side they invested a ton in the new primarous line, only to not sell a lot because the original codex was weak. So make a newer version that is clearly strong (even if that means brushing off play tester concerns) to clear excessive space marine inventory and sell the new models. Space marines are top of the meta for a while, but then we get to the spring where space marines can get nerfed after GW’s sold the majority of product.

Juries out on whether this is a good idea though. First off is this will likely detour people from buying other armies new product (new chaos sorcerer, eldar box set. Ect) second is people are buying less non-marine armies stuff in general, not a huge deal but a factor non the less. Finally there’s a loss of public perception. As many posters have pointed out many communities are not happy with what happened with marines. This could mean some people will quite, but the bigger impact is of people slowing down their spending. “Oh I was going to start a GSC army, but now that Maries are so good I’ll just stick to tau.” And “I was going to try to play 40k more competitively, but I’d rather not just play marines so I’ll just keep what I have and continue to play casually.” This factor is the hardest to quantify, as GW won’t know the full impact of this until a couple of years pass.

So overall the supplements could have been a mistake, but just because it’s negatively impacting us non-marine players doesn’t mean it’s a mistake from GW’s perspective.

They had a great concept with the SM codex + supplements. It would have been great to apply that across the board to all factions. I would have happily bought all the codexes and all the over-priced supplements. There's no reason every faction couldn't have benefited from this system of book releases, except greed and laziness on GWs part.

I really don't understand how GW thought PA was going to compare in any way favorably to SM codex. PA1 was a disaster in comparison. PA2 was better, but also gave amazing buffs to SM (I mean c'mon already). That's going to be a consistent theme throughout PA. Yes, Xenos will get buffs but SM / Imperial soup is going to get stupidly strong along the way.

Had they done the right thing and given all factions a codex + supplements update I would have been all in, gladly spending several more thousands of dollars on this hobby.

Now with PA and no announcement of any other codex plans, I will be doing all I can to not buy a single thing. Not a book or a single model. As a xenos player, I don't really understand why you would give another penny to GW after this. It really shows you how they feel about their customers - you're just a number, that's it.

GW was never billing PA as being "As good as the space marine codex" a supplement will NEVER be as good as a outright new codex release. I mean let's steps abck and go to an imaginary world where space marines didn't get a new codex, they still got the supplements and what they're getting in PA2. so no doctrines no super doctrtines, no new units and none of the new core book strats, JUST the new relics, strats etc in the supplement. they'd be betetr yes, but they'd still have a base codex filled with crap strats and no doctrines.

in fact when you factor tht in we have the perfect example in the form of CSMs. PA isn't going to fix armies who need a new CODEX.

**Insectum7**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).

I wonder why my decades-old models just got huge buffs then.

**Yoyoyo**

It's because they're part of the same faction which all that new Primaris plastic belongs to!!

**The Newman**

Bharring wrote:
Continuity wrote:
I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded

On a related point, "poor design" is a mostly seperate axis than "balance" as far as problems are concerned. It's not the power of the SM books that bothers me so much. It's the poor design. I'd rather Marines weren't so OP, but I'd much rather a more well-designed book that was just as OP than a poorly designed book. Even if the poorly designed book were less unbalanced.

Don't get me wrong; I'd prefer balance to not. But good design overall is much more important to me (but not to everybody, for reasonable reasons).

I have exactly the opposite reaction, I'd much rather have a poorly designed book right on the middle of the power curve.

I'm on the fence about whether the Marine codex and suppliments are well designed. There's a lot of interesting choices to make and I can build lists around a lot of different strategies. The stuff in the suppliments doesn't invalidate all the choices in the main codex. There's a lot of non-starter choices, but not any more than normal for a GW product and they're fairly evenly distributed.

I'm not at all on the fence about whether GW missed the mark on the power curve. Whether they did it out of incompetence or for the meta-chaser sales is up for debate, but you generally don't stay in business for as long as GW has been doing this if you're incompetent.

**BrianDavion**

Yoyoyo wrote:
It's because they're part of the same faction which all that new Primaris plastic belongs to!!

but surely they'd want him to replace those decades old models WITH Primaris!

**Eonfuzz**

Insectum7 wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).

I wonder why my decades-old models just got huge buffs then.

I'd say that is "Collateral Damage" in a way the buffs are handled.
GW couldn't just buff Primaris without being called p2w and product pushers, so they applied a buff to the whole army that would effect primaris more, and better.

Just remember that super doctrines weren't meant to stack and that GW told them to "Turn it up to 11" and thus they stacked (Rumor online apparently from a designer, don't shoot me)

**Insectum7**

Eonfuzz wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).

I wonder why my decades-old models just got huge buffs then.

I'd say that is "Collateral Damage" in a way the buffs are handled.
GW couldn't just buff Primaris without being called p2w and product pushers, so they applied a buff to the whole army that would effect primaris more, and better.

Just remember that super doctrines weren't meant to stack and that GW told them to "Turn it up to 11" and thus they stacked (Rumor online apparently from a designer, don't shoot me)

Sure seems like my Devastators with Heavy Weapons benefit more from my UM traits than Hellblasters do. Or that my actual treaded tanks benefit more from the UM fall-back and shoot more than the Primaris flying ones.

Nahh, it's a nu-model-pushing conspiracy.

**Eonfuzz**

Insectum7 wrote:
Eonfuzz wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).

I wonder why my decades-old models just got huge buffs then.

I'd say that is "Collateral Damage" in a way the buffs are handled.
GW couldn't just buff Primaris without being called p2w and product pushers, so they applied a buff to the whole army that would effect primaris more, and better.

Just remember that super doctrines weren't meant to stack and that GW told them to "Turn it up to 11" and thus they stacked (Rumor online apparently from a designer, don't shoot me)

Sure seems like my Devastators with Heavy Weapons benefit more from my UM traits than Hellblasters do. Or that my actual treaded tanks benefit more from the UM fall-back and shoot more than the Primaris flying ones.

Nahh, it's a nu-model-pushing conspiracy.

So why else has no other army seen such a bizarre amount of new rules being slapped on top?
I guess it's either terrifying incompetence or blatant favouritism.

**Insectum7**

^Favoritism =/= must-purchase-new-models.

**Yoyoyo**

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory that a commercial company would make decisions that help to sell its products!

**Insectum7**

Yoyoyo wrote:
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory that a commercial company would make decisions that help to sell its products!

That's different than the claim that the rules are to sell new kits.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Insectum7 wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory that a commercial company would make decisions that help to sell its products!

That's different than the claim that the rules are to sell new kits.

The updated rules are there to sell new kits.

They also hope that non-Marine players will take a further plunge and buy older kits as well.

I am blatantly making this claim, with absolutely zero doubts.

Calling this a 'conspiracy theory' is like claiming it's hogwash that the pictures on the menu are more appealing to entice you to buy them.

I'm not sure what's so odd about this or why it ruffles so many jimmies. It's common sense and it's been done repeatedly.

**Insectum7**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory that a commercial company would make decisions that help to sell its products!

That's different than the claim that the rules are to sell new kits.

The updated rules are there to sell new kits.

They also hope that non-Marine players will take a further plunge and buy older kits as well.

I am blatantly making this claim, with absolutely zero doubts.

Calling this a 'conspiracy theory' is like claiming it's hogwash that the pictures on the menu are more appealing to entice you to buy them.

I'm not sure what's so odd about this or why it ruffles so many jimmies. It's common sense and it's been done repeatedly.

So are Howling Banshees flying off the shelves because of their amazing new rules?

**Adeptus Doritos**

Insectum7 wrote:
So are Howling Banshees flying off the shelves because of their amazing new rules?

Are they sold outside of that highly overpriced kit?

I'd imagine they'll sell quite well when they do. And I wouldn't be shocked if we saw another update for them by then, too.

**Insectum7**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
So are Howling Banshees flying off the shelves because of their amazing new rules?

Are they sold outside of that highly overpriced kit?

I'd imagine they'll sell quite well when they do. And I wouldn't be shocked if we saw another update for them by then, too.

So the answer is currently no.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Insectum7 wrote:
So the answer is currently no.

If I say, "Wow, you're right and I am wrong", will it stop you from being deliberately obtuse for the sake of being right? I'm willing to throw you a whole bone here.

I'm just not going to mean it.

**Eonfuzz**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
So the answer is currently no.

If I say, "Wow, you're right and I am wrong", will it stop you from being deliberately obtuse for the sake of being right? I'm willing to throw you a whole bone here.

I'm just not going to mean it.

See i had already done that, pick your battles man.

**Insectum7**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
So the answer is currently no.

If I say, "Wow, you're right and I am wrong", will it stop you from being deliberately obtuse for the sake of being right? I'm willing to throw you a whole bone here.

I'm just not going to mean it.

I'm just pointing out that this statement:

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
40k is the biggest example of "Pay 2 Win" games. People shouldn't be shocked when the new toys they want you to buy are performing better than other things (temporarily).

Isn't correct when I can be competitive with a collection of models that wouldn't have looked out of place in an army from two decades ago.

**Crazyterran**

We've already seen that the Sisters are getting a mono-codex/faction buff set for their release, it's just that GW did it poorly, as is tradition with Sisters.

I'll reserve judgment until after we see the Tau and Eldar versions down the line.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Insectum7 wrote:
Isn't correct when I can be competitive with a collection of models that wouldn't have looked out of place in an army from two decades ago.

I think you missed a pretty crucial statement I made.

But good job, you're so right and awesome, I'm so wrong. I guess I should have never dared to question your infinite wisdom.

Now, just pretend everything I say after this to the contrary is me playing devil's advocate or opposite day or something.

**Insectum7**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Isn't correct when I can be competitive with a collection of models that wouldn't have looked out of place in an army from two decades ago.

I think you missed a pretty crucial statement I made.

Which was?

**Adeptus Doritos**

Insectum7 wrote:
Which was?

Nah, I think I'll let you do the legwork on this one.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Which was?

Nah, I think I'll let you do the legwork on this one.

Just remember: the Ultramarines Doctrine helps one unit slightly more than the other, therefore he's right.

Outside the fact that Heavy Hellblasters being able to benefit doesn't matter as nobody takes them compared to Devastators. Not that they're very popular either besides for mortal wounds.

**Insectum7**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Which was?

Nah, I think I'll let you do the legwork on this one.

Then I'll accept your gracious surrender.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Outside the fact that Heavy Hellblasters being able to benefit doesn't matter as nobody takes them compared to Devastators. Not that they're very popular either besides for mortal wounds.

And you can't even get Devastators any more, they don't put them on the shelves or sell them. Only old school players have access to them, and there's no way possible anyone could ever buy them.

Insectum7 wrote:
Then I'll accept your gracious loss.

I bet all the women are just throwing their panties at you because you tell them you won an internet argument about space marines

**Insectum7**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Outside the fact that Heavy Hellblasters being able to benefit doesn't matter as nobody takes them compared to Devastators. Not that they're very popular either besides for mortal wounds.

And you can't even get Devastators any more, they don't put them on the shelves or sell them. Only old school players have access to them, and there's no way possible anyone could ever buy them.

Insectum7 wrote:
Then I'll accept your gracious loss.

I bet all the women are just throwing their panties at you because you tell them you won an internet argument about space marines

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Devastator-Squad-2017?_requestid=117111