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.

You'll get no more food from me.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Because there's more people that play them. Cmon man...

Just because more people play them it doesn't mean that theybhave to have the most 'fixing' threads that end up being ridiculous buffing threads.

Terminators are good. Storm bolter ones not so much but that's only because of the power that THSS ones bring.

Tacticals are all-rounders like they are supposed to be, therefore they are fine.

They do not need to be cheaper nor better.

Oh my god. There's more players so of course there'll be more threads about them. Tac Squads and Tac Termies aren great and could do with something to improve them.

This thread is ridiculous. You don't even listen to people's answers and it was flawed from the start. I'm done here.

SGTPozy wrote:

stripeydave wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Then why do 53% of people agree that it is just because they are GW's favourites?

I'm willing to believe they are 8 trolls out there. You are one, so just 7 more...

16 people is not a valid sample, champ.

Tactical squads and non storm shield terminators are pretty garbage. They could use changes to being them more inline with other options. Space marines that use tactical marines total 3: c:sm, BA, da. Drop da for tactical terminators.

There are 5 varieties of loyalist marine codices, with one being split up between a variety of chapters and play styles.. Is it any surprise that the most popular army, with the most codex support, would have the most people asking for some of the more iconic units of those armies to be field able in a competitive way?

The am, sob, ik, inquisition are non sm imperial armies. You rarely see any of the others on the forums by comparison, so even if you feel like clumping the variety of marine players together (which is still incorrect, as a Salamanders player might care more about getting tactical heavy flamers than a UM player about a tactical terminator change...) it is still way off base to lump all of the I peril armies player together.

Chaos marines are pretty bad, and the fact that squishy mortal humans are more competitive makes mean sad. Bloodletters and khorne in general. The non skull cannon chariots for daemons. Beasts of Nurgle.

Regardless, with every post it is more obvious that you are a troll, so I don't know why I bothered.

SGTPozy wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Because there's more people that play them. Cmon man...

Just because more people play them it doesn't mean that theybhave to have the most 'fixing' threads that end up being ridiculous buffing threads.

Well, technically, they do. If (hypothetically) 50% of people would make a fix/buff comment on their army, and you have 8 Space Marine players, 2 Tau players, and 3 Ork players and 4 Chaos Space Marine players, you would see that there are 4 SM threads, 1 Tau thread, 1/2 Ork threads and 2 CSM threads. Therefore, more SM threads. (For the record, all these numbers are hypothetical and based on assumption). And it's not hard to assume that, as IOM take up 10 out of 20 40k armies, there would be more primarily IOM players than the other factions.

Terminators are good. Storm bolter ones not so much but that's only because of the power that THSS ones bring.

**splutters**LIES**splutters** Terminators are too expensive for what they bring, for all variants. Please, if you wish, post a poll to vote if Terminators are good and cost effective. I dare you. Otherwise, for an in-depth explanation, please visit one of the many "Terminator fix threads" that dot the Proposed Rules forum.

Tacticals are all-rounders like they are supposed to be, therefore they are fine.

They do not need to be cheaper nor better.

Yes, Tactical marines are meant to be all rounders. Their rules are generally fine. But GW has this idea that a jack-of-all-trades unit should cost more than a unit that completely specialises in a certain field (READ: Tau Fire Warriors) and so marines pay a points privilege for being only mediocre and outclassed in every field. Fair? According to you, apparently so.

iv'e never heard of an imperium player saying he wanted his army to be buffed, but i have heared plenty of imperium players mentioning stuff which doesn't make sense. i have to concede that the 'sense' part was usually because the rules dont match the fluff (terminators coming up a lot) but once or twice someone will bring up a unit in comparison to another which does make you think "that needs fixed"

last night in another tread someone suggested that the range of the thunderfire cannon and the whirlwind should be exchanged - made total sense to me. however, i dont see myself as calling for space marines to be buffed.

ive said it before on dakka - GW seems to think that, if they make some rules which are too powerful for a race/model; that the best way to deal with it is to buff lots of other models in the hope 'balance' will be a result.

Does... Does he make these just to bump his post count? Never are the discussions worth the bandwidth they take... Ever..

 Crazyterran wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:

stripeydave wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Then why do 53% of people agree that it is just because they are GW's favourites?

The am, sob, ik, inquisition are non sm imperial armies. You rarely see any of the others on the forums by comparison, so even if you feel like clumping the variety of marine players together (which is still incorrect, as a Salamanders player might care more about getting tactical heavy flamers than a UM player about a tactical terminator change...) it is still way off base to lump all of the I peril armies player together.

And what percentage of complete fandexes on there are for the Sororitas? Does that make Sisters players whiny?

I'm a little amused that the title is about the IoM but the complaining is all Marine focused.

I voted other because for the stuff I see requesting buffs for it's all come down strictly to options. With Sisters it's unit selection and feeling like all the units are equally useful, and with Inquisition it's the fact that the most powerful organization in the Imperium apparently has such a limited selection of options (and overpays for a lot of them) that really bugs players.

I'm not going to claim that every army out there needs a lot of "buffs" but their are valid reasons to want to see your army get some love.

Because they are generally overcosted. Tac Marines should cost the same as most troops that are specialized (as Marines are jack-of-all-trades) and if that Marine squad wants to specialize, then they pay for the upgrades (maybe the same or a bit more than what they cost now, since they'll still be decent at what they didn't specialize in).

I play Xenos and IoM armies shouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg for something that is done cheaper by other armies.

I, who has a Loyalist Marine army, a Guard army, and a HH IF Army with only Eldar for a non-IOM force, do not want my faction to be buffed to Eldar-like levels. I want Eldar and Tau nerfed to a sensible and balanced level.

Before you make threads like this you should do a more conclusive study than just cursory glance at the proposed rules section.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I, who has a Loyalist Marine army, a Guard army, and a HH IF Army with only Eldar for a non-IOM force, do not want my faction to be buffed to Eldar-like levels. I want Eldar and Tau nerfed to a sensible and balanced level.

Hear, hear, these are the only two Xenos armies that I don't play More so Eldar IMO, Tau lost out considerably when they lost BB allies

The only IoM army I play is GK, and while there are a few thing I think need changed its not because I think they need buffed. It's because I think they need options. When 90% of the people who play an army simply spam the same 2 units (terminators and DKs) because everything else is either over costed, underpowered, or simply isn't as good as one of thepreviously mentioned units for that slot then something should be changed.

I'm not saying I never run a fluffy list. I just don't see any way of running a competitive list without making it the boring cookie cutter list we "all" are bored with.

SGTPozy wrote:

stripeydave wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Then why do 53% of people agree that it is just because they are GW's favourites?

Because it's a terrible poll.

I didn't even answer it. At a minimum, there should have been an option for: "I don't think IoM Players Want Buffs Any More than Other Factions."

Imagine the Poll question, "Why does Obama Hate America?" followed by 3 reasons, and then, you say, "Look! 50% of respondents think that he's a Muslim terrrorist! See, half of America believes it! FACT!" Well, that just half the people who hate Obama picked that in glee, perhaps as a random answer. The people who like Obama and the ones who dislike him but are more reasonable and don't think that he hates America, don't dignify the poll with a response.

does anyone agree with me that termies, Tac marines and dreads of both loyalist and chaos sides should get a 5+ FNP?

Fonsio wrote:
does anyone agree with me that termies, Tac marines and dreads of both loyalist and chaos sides should get a 5+ FNP?

While it'd be fluffy, they'd need a points bump for that because there is no way in hell a 14pt troop model with ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics needs buffs with no points increase.

Personally I think tacs would be better if they could take 2 specials instead of a spec+heavy and were all given a chainsword/ccw. This would actually make them all rounders without being ott. Lets face it - with 1A they are not all rounders!
CSM can get this and they are considered very underpowered.

Therefore with the two changes and combination of CTs and ATSKNF tacs become decently costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then I would still take my BA scouts...

Poly Ranger wrote:
Personally I think tacs would be better if they could take 2 specials instead of a spec+heavy and were all given a chainsword/ccw. This would actually make them all rounders without being ott. Lets face it - with 1A they are not all rounders!
CSM can get this and they are considered very underpowered.

Therefore with the two changes and combination of CTs and ATSKNF tacs become decently costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then I would still take my BA scouts...

CCWs are an upgrade that both Space Wolves and CSM have to actually pay for. I mean. It's not a horrible ide a but as with the FnP one the points need to reflect the idea.

SGTPozy wrote:

 Talys wrote:
1. Everyone "wants" buffs for their faction

2. There are a lot of IoM players, and therefore, you should see more IoM... complaining... if you want to call it that.

3.Terminators really do suck.

4. Tactical marines are not really that great.

5. I'm not sure if I've seen anyone *seriously* asking for a point reduction on DP. If they do, well, they're just strange

1) I agree, however in my experience, whenever a non-IoM suggests massive buffs (like they love to suggest) they are called 'cheese', 'OP' or 'broken'.
There just seems to be a double standard.

2) Again I agree, however their buffs always seem to be ridiculous such as Terminators with a 1+ save...WTF? That's way too OP when other 2+ guys will still die to plasma.

3) They suck because they lost their purpose *cough* Centurions and Sternguard do it better *cough*

4) They are all-rounders, so they are as good as they should be.

5) Well many claim that it is OVERcosted (I accidentally put undercoated)... So I'd say that they do.

1. There is no double standard.
2. Nobody has been calling for those buffs at once. They were all separate suggestions.
3. Terminators wouldn't be taken even if Sternguard and Centurions didn't exist. We have been over this, and you constantly ignore that.
4. Jack Of All Trades sucks unless you're above average in everything. Tactical Marines have been shown, via math, to not be good at any role. That's not a matter of being okay at everything, especially when specialization gets the job done in other armies and in this one as well. Bikers could be 25 a pop and they'd still be taken as troops over Tacticals because of their poor design. Same can be said with Vanilla CSM squads. Taking anything that isn't Cultists, Plagues, or Noises is a death wish.
5. Nobody ever said the Drop Pod was overcosted. It is costed appropriately for the army that uses them. Other armies use them better.

"They are used to being GW's favourite"

I lol'd hard.

5th edition was indeed what one would call "The Imperial Edition" but when you look at every single other edition ever published, ever, there have never once been a time were IoM armies have been quite as disgustingly overpowered as non-IoM armies. Ever. Period.

Honestly, this feels like a bad troll bait thread, especially when the OP highlights legitimate complaints about powerlevels of Tac Marines/Termies and then proceeds to mock those suggestions by blantantly lying through his teeth.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Personally I think tacs would be better if they could take 2 specials instead of a spec+heavy and were all given a chainsword/ccw. This would actually make them all rounders without being ott. Lets face it - with 1A they are not all rounders!
CSM can get this and they are considered very underpowered.

Therefore with the two changes and combination of CTs and ATSKNF tacs become decently costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then I would still take my BA scouts...

CCWs are an upgrade that both Space Wolves and CSM have to actually pay for. I mean. It's not a horrible ide a but as with the FnP one the points need to reflect the idea.

And Wolf/CSM players will tell you that the CCW upgrade is one point too expensive.

Correlation/causation. Marine players tend to be younger/newer/less experienced on average because that's what's always been pushed as the starting army and is on all the posters, younger/newer/less experienced players who got all pumped on the promises of the fluff and then found that the real game didn't match up to the hyperbole and exaggeration are the sort who are then going to go to Proposed Rules and complain that their army should be cooler.

This is a broad generalization intended to describe a pattern, not an overarching condemnation of Imperial players, kids, or folks who think the fluff is cool. Anyone who reads the first few sentences and jumps down to knee-jerk accuse me of all sorts of horrible sins, this is your queue.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Personally I think tacs would be better if they could take 2 specials instead of a spec+heavy and were all given a chainsword/ccw. This would actually make them all rounders without being ott. Lets face it - with 1A they are not all rounders!
CSM can get this and they are considered very underpowered.

Therefore with the two changes and combination of CTs and ATSKNF tacs become decently costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then I would still take my BA scouts...

CCWs are an upgrade that both Space Wolves and CSM have to actually pay for. I mean. It's not a horrible ide a but as with the FnP one the points need to reflect the idea.

Fair enough. Whilst I personally think those two changes would make them appropriately costed, would you be open to the idea of them being able to take 2 specs at 10 man and a ccw option for +1pt?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Correlation/causation. Marine players tend to be younger/newer/less experienced on average because that's what's always been pushed as the starting army and is on all the posters, younger/newer/less experienced players who got all pumped on the promises of the fluff and then found that the real game didn't match up to the hyperbole and exaggeration are the sort who are then going to go to Proposed Rules and complain that their army should be cooler.

This is a broad generalization intended to describe a pattern, not an overarching condemnation of Imperial players, kids, or folks who think the fluff is cool. Anyone who reads the first few sentences and jumps down to knee-jerk accuse me of all sorts of horrible sins, this is your queue.

This actually makes a lot of sense. The younger/less experienced the player, the more likely they are to be a SM player I've found in general. I had been thinking the same thing but wondered how to state it without causing offense. That being said - Tac marines and Termis are still definitely overcosted and are a legitimate point of contention.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
have been over this, and you constantly ignore that.
4. Jack Of All Trades sucks unless you're above average in everything. Tactical Marines have been shown, via math, to not be good at any role. That's not a matter of being okay at everything, especially when specialization gets the job done in other armies and in this one as well. Bikers could be 25 a pop and they'd still be taken as troops over Tacticals because of their poor design. Same can be said with Vanilla CSM squads. Taking anything that isn't Cultists, Plagues, or Noises is a death wish.

Jack of All Trades sucks even more when you're above average at NOTHING. Like Terminators, Tactical marines' most valuable asset is that they are fun to model, because they are soldiers on mean-looking, football inspired armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Correlation/causation. Marine players tend to be younger/newer/less experienced on average because that's what's always been pushed as the starting army and is on all the posters, younger/newer/less experienced players who got all pumped on the promises of the fluff and then found that the real game didn't match up to the hyperbole and exaggeration are the sort who are then going to go to Proposed Rules and complain that their army should be cooler.

This is a broad generalization intended to describe a pattern, not an overarching condemnation of Imperial players, kids, or folks who think the fluff is cool. Anyone who reads the first few sentences and jumps down to knee-jerk accuse me of all sorts of horrible sins, this is your queue.

I think that almost everyone who has played 40k long enough owns a space marine army

My first army was SM, primarily because at the time there was the space marine plastic box set, and I thought that being able to pose and customize your models was the coolest thing. I think SM and Imperial Guard were the only armies with pastics when I started 40k, with Orks coming in after that. Or Space Orks, as the box called them back then

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Personally I think tacs would be better if they could take 2 specials instead of a spec+heavy and were all given a chainsword/ccw. This would actually make them all rounders without being ott. Lets face it - with 1A they are not all rounders!
CSM can get this and they are considered very underpowered.

Therefore with the two changes and combination of CTs and ATSKNF tacs become decently costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then I would still take my BA scouts...

CCWs are an upgrade that both Space Wolves and CSM have to actually pay for. I mean. It's not a horrible ide a but as with the FnP one the points need to reflect the idea.

And Wolf/CSM players will tell you that the CCW upgrade is one point too expensive.

I didn't say it should be 2ppm like it is now, just that it needs to be factored into their points. Otherwise they're just getting a free buff and we really don't need to be giving Marines anymore of those.

So you agree that +1pt for a ccw option would be ok? Two specs at 10men ok too?

Poly Ranger wrote:
So you agree that +1pt for a ccw option would be ok? Two specs at 10men ok too?

Generally, yeah. I mean some playtesting would be needed, but as a concept it doesn't come off as all that unreasonable.

When we're imperials ever gws favs, as far back as I remember they have always been mid tier to xenos armies, crons, eldar, tau, nids have all been better in their respective eds

 Formosa wrote:
When we're imperials ever gws favs, as far back as I remember they have always been mid tier to xenos armies, crons, eldar, tau, nids have all been better in their respective eds

The only "favorite" part comes in regarding the marketing. Marines get marketed harder than other armies.

it's worth noting BTW that when discussing why Terminators could use some improvements, CSM players are proably involved in that discussion.

as someone noted, a lot of the core units for space marines are core units across something like half the armies in the game.

start thread titled "gee I think Ork Boyz could use a buff" and you're just gonna get less reponses.