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.

in fairness the problem with CSMs vs LSMs is as much on CSMs as it is LSMs. LSMs are a great army with a ton of rules written to keep the army both strong and thematic. meanwhile CSMs are written by someone who, best I can figure, is phoning it in

Depends how bad it gets.
Realistically the local meta is pretty calm. If that guy shows up with "the meta list" it tends to prompt a round of "can you beat this?" games. If the answer is "no, not a chance" finding games tends to get harder for the person running that list as people drop out.
Its been that way for a long time and beyond just 40k.

Given that *no* games are occurring in my area due to no gaming venues being open for play (just limited walk in shopping or curbside service), I suspect the point is moot. Either way, we'll have to see how the actual release looks. If it's anything like hideously broken books of yesteryear, people will just avoid it in friendly games and anything will go in tournaments.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given that *no* games are occurring in my area due to no gaming venues being open for play (just limited walk in shopping or curbside service), I suspect the point is moot. Either way, we'll have to see how the actual release looks. If it's anything like hideously broken books of yesteryear, people will just avoid it in friendly games and anything will go in tournaments.

Same. It does make it easier to sit on the sidelines while it gets sorted out (or doesn't).

I suspect it actually will get sorted out, but how it's going sure seems like a goofy way to do things.

Whiners gonna whine, I guess. Because acting like big man-babies over a game of toy soldiers solves everything. Never change, Dakka, never change...

In all seriousness, GW has done pretty well over the last few years as far as reeling in the problem armies and units, all throughout 8th. The Castellan list build was OP as balls for a while, then GW realized it and hit it with the nerf bat. CP farming? Nerfed. Iron Hands shenanigans? Nerfed. I could go on. Everyone needs to calm down, take a chill pill, and wait for the FAQs to reel in some of the more egregiously OP stuff. It'll happen, even if it's not as quick as we'd all like. The rules designers are human, after all.

No. Ridiculous idea....

Chess. I'm boycotting anyone playing a queen....

stroller wrote:
No. Ridiculous idea....

Chess. I'm boycotting anyone playing a queen....

I would if the only official source of Chess rules said White gets to make two moves per turn for no reason.

I mean, thats a way of clearly outing you guys as a toxic group lol
Like seriously, you are going to insist people come in, play at lower points values then you, because its "Fair"
Lol, Nope, great way to show how much winning matters to you.

Boycotting marines is pointless. If you were going to boycott something, boycott gw.

Nope. The fact that they are releasing more "Medieval" "Gothic" looking marines again and changing all marine stats (allegedly) to add wounds/attacks actually has me interested in Marines again after they killed my interest with Primaris initially.

Look man, you're fighting an avalanche with a snow shovel. You gotta know when to pick your battles and this ain't one of them. I get it, GW has pissed me off more times than I can count in the 20+ years I've been playing. Hell, I still play 8th edition Fantasy because it's my favourite game. Don't waste your time fighting against something you can't win, concentrate your efforts into building something of your own.

People around the same tier in my local gaming community are playing amongst themselves, yeah because it's just not fun playing against Primaris Marines. Luckily a lot of the people with marines have other armies but the rest, don't blame people for not wanting to play against you, blame GW for making your army for being unfun to play. Do I think an explicit boycott needs to happen, not unless I thought it would force GW to address problems and maybe finally give us a timetable on codex releases, but I don't think they will. Just do what you want, it's a game, if what you want means Space Marines players are playing against themselves. Then that's on the game designer.

Probably not. I'm not a soothsayer so I can't say what other people will do locally, but I very much doubt there would be an organized boycott.

More likely, if the balance got a lot worse, the casual non-Marine crowd wouldn't bother showing up to tournaments and the competitive players would just run their Marines instead of their other armies.

Boycotting Space Marines? If we boycotted every army that got a boost every now and again we'd never play anything.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Never change, Dakka, never change...

If you're going to treat Dakka like some giant homogeneous hive mind of opinion, wouldn't that make you the same as those "whining"?

Obviously the original post is a bit of a joke, but it's true that people - especially Space Marines players themselves, ironically - have been getting sick to the back teeth of constantly playing other space marines. Show up to a game store (well, before Covid anyway) with an army other than space marines and you'd be mobbed by a bunch of space marine players desperate to play someone who isn't playing space marines.

It is a serious issue, and GW seems completely oblivious to it with the way they're lavishing even more attention on Space Marines than they ever have. It is really a bad thing for the game when 50% of the player base is playing the same overpowered faction.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Boycotting Space Marines? If we boycotted every army that got a boost every now and again we'd never play anything.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Never change, Dakka, never change...

If you're going to treat Dakka like some giant homogeneous hive mind of opinion, wouldn't that make you the same as those "whining"?

agreed. on the first bit. on the other hand I wonder how many people here actually PLAY instead of just crunch the numbers and scream "this army wins!"

As for Zergsmasher's comment on dakkadakka in general, he's got a point DakkaDakka is relentless negative, (to the point where it's got a bad rep outside of the site) and thats basicly become the culture here, focusing on what's disliked, rather then enjoying what we LIKE about the game

yukishiro1 wrote:
Obviously the original post is a bit of a joke, but it's true that people - especially Space Marines players themselves, ironically - have been getting sick to the back teeth of constantly playing other space marines. Show up to a game store (well, before Covid anyway) with an army other than space marines and you'd be mobbed by a bunch of space marine players desperate to play someone who isn't playing space marines.

No doubt for the easier win.

I really don't think so, to be fair. I think they're just bored to death of playing other space marines armies just like their own.

Of course, the fact that they'e so overpowered meant that the rare people not playing space marines were likely to want to play one another instead of one of the space marine players, compounding the issue.

Having one overpowered faction is always bad for a game, but it's especially toxic when it's by far the most popular faction too.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Don't think I've ever seen this amount of hyperbole on dakkadakka before.

Do people genuinely believe that several marine-units will get +1W without any changes to their pointcost? That we'll see 15 ppm Tacticals, 17 ppm Sternguard, etc, with 2 wounds?

I think a lot of people will feel dumb and end up being wrong in their predictions when the codex drops, but this being the internet they won't admit to having been wrong, they'll just go back to complain about something (else).

As for boycott, no, I don't plan on boycotting any army - I played against WFB Daemons in 7th, and if you did as well, you know the current SM Codex is nothing in comparison.

I do consider boycotting dakka until the codex drops though: the amount of hyperbole, salt and whine here (not to mention off-topic posts regarding SM OP:ness everywhere, even in topics who have nothing to do with SM in the first place) is just getting to a point where I just get tired, slightly depressed even, when I browse the forum.
Whineseer had some moments where it was really bad, but I wonder if the current state of the community on dakka doesn't beat it. The only thing that unites many of the members here at the moment is hate of a part of the game they claim to enjoy... Topics like this one.

It does get pretty hyperbolic but the hypocrisy created in response is delicious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Boycotting Space Marines? If we boycotted every army that got a boost every now and again we'd never play anything.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Never change, Dakka, never change...

If you're going to treat Dakka like some giant homogeneous hive mind of opinion, wouldn't that make you the same as those "whining"?

HNBC has some good points here!

I mean sabotaging demand for GW product by accelerating the toxicity of the game meta by refusing to play space marine players would crush demand for space marines, and hopefully push GW to tone down the bias in favor of loyalist marines when they catch on. It’s a rotten thing to do to some of the players but it is in effect a protest in the interest of everyone, truth be told. There never is a correct way to protest as well, and the end result would be very welcome. If your excuse is to wait and see, I’m not keen on waiting more than a decade And multiple 60$ rule books that get invalidated within a few years to see every army working the way it should and at the very least temporary Quick fix patches like point cost adjustments exist. “Instead of functioning rules you get your profiles at a discount!” It’s voting with your wallet taken to an extreme.

macluvin wrote:
I mean sabotaging demand for GW product by accelerating the toxicity of the game meta by refusing to play space marine players would crush demand for space marines, and hopefully push GW to tone down the bias in favor of loyalist marines when they catch on. It’s a rotten thing to do to some of the players but it is in effect a protest in the interest of everyone, truth be told. There never is a correct way to protest as well, and the end result would be very welcome. If your excuse is to wait and see, I’m not keen on waiting more than a decade And multiple 60$ rule books that get invalidated within a few years to see every army working the way it should and at the very least temporary Quick fix patches like point cost adjustments exist. “Instead of functioning rules you get your profiles at a discount!” It’s voting with your wallet taken to an extreme.

It isn't voting with your wallet at all. Its just being That Guy to another player, because you have a different beef with GW. 'Accelerating the toxicity' just makes the people involved unpleasant, it doesn't do anything at all to the sales of Space Marines, and doesn't push GW anywhere.

The only 'end result' is the people doing this will quickly find that no one wants to put up with their crap and everyone else goes on gaming without them.

Hassling Timmy about his army choice doesn't fix any problems at GW. It just creates problems at the local shop/club. And that problem is easily fixed by getting rid of the hassler.

macluvin wrote:
I mean sabotaging demand for GW product by accelerating the toxicity of the game meta by refusing to play space marine players would crush demand for space marines, and hopefully push GW to tone down the bias in favor of loyalist marines when they catch on. It’s a rotten thing to do to some of the players but it is in effect a protest in the interest of everyone, truth be told. There never is a correct way to protest as well, and the end result would be very welcome. If your excuse is to wait and see, I’m not keen on waiting more than a decade And multiple 60$ rule books that get invalidated within a few years to see every army working the way it should and at the very least temporary Quick fix patches like point cost adjustments exist. “Instead of functioning rules you get your profiles at a discount!” It’s voting with your wallet taken to an extreme.

The rule book I got with indomitus (which is why i bough indomitus to sell the models and get a free rulebook) which costs £40 in the store is already incorrect and has been incorrect and in need of errata since day 1.
If I paid money for it Id certainly be pissed.

I'd rather a few lines out of thousands be incorrect in my rulebook than GW not fix it at all.

Of course I would more rather it not need fixing, but one step at a time...

Voss wrote:

macluvin wrote:
I mean sabotaging demand for GW product by accelerating the toxicity of the game meta by refusing to play space marine players would crush demand for space marines, and hopefully push GW to tone down the bias in favor of loyalist marines when they catch on. It’s a rotten thing to do to some of the players but it is in effect a protest in the interest of everyone, truth be told. There never is a correct way to protest as well, and the end result would be very welcome. If your excuse is to wait and see, I’m not keen on waiting more than a decade And multiple 60$ rule books that get invalidated within a few years to see every army working the way it should and at the very least temporary Quick fix patches like point cost adjustments exist. “Instead of functioning rules you get your profiles at a discount!” It’s voting with your wallet taken to an extreme.

It isn't voting with your wallet at all. Its just being That Guy to another player, because you have a different beef with GW. 'Accelerating the toxicity' just makes the people involved unpleasant, it doesn't do anything at all to the sales of Space Marines, and doesn't push GW anywhere.

The only 'end result' is the people doing this will quickly find that no one wants to put up with their crap and everyone else goes on gaming without them.

Agreed, especially when most people buying models don't actually play the game much, if at all, particularly competitively in any sense.

40k has gone through previous eras where one faction or another was clearly, unequivocally, insanely broken. Basically every edition this happens, and Space Marines historically aren't even the worst consistent offenders (Looking at you Eldar). It's also not the first time this has been suggested, people brought up the same ideas regarding Eldar in 7E for instance. One can refuse to play against specific lists or unpleasant players, by all means, but to simply bag on anyone playing X army just for its own sake isn't going to get anyone anywhere, and isn't going to impact GW's bottom line, it'll just make one look like a jerk.

What will impact GW's bottom line is if people just stop buying and playing in general, as happened in 6E/7E as that era drove itself straight off the rails, but that wasn't related to any one specific faction either. Want to make your displeasure felt? Just don't buy anything period, Space Marine related or not. That will have far more impact than being mean to Space Marine players specifically.

At my FLGS there are mixed views, but one TO who uses the story regularly is going to do a tournament for first born vs primaris armies.

Others are generally chill, unless you bring a super 'meta' list to a chill game or low-key tournament. Once all the changes are known, that might change.

I do know that some *good* Nid and CSM players are feeling it is hard to win against primaris-heavy lists.

I didn't boycott Necrons and Tau in 7th when it was a serious uphill battle for my CSM. We realized though that it wasn't possible to kill a single model when they used their decurion, so our Necron player stopped using that formation.
We'll see what's up with Marines now, but noone really has a Primaris heavy force in our group, it's mainly old Marines using many units that noone plays according to the internet. What's being told in forums like these usually has little to do with reality and is more relevant for top tables in tournaments, which only a tiny fraction of the playerbase ever plays. And even then you have repeatedly winning lists in tournaments using units that according to dakka are trash (remember that tactical Marines list in 8th before the 2.0 Codex).
So, make up your own mind, play the mission if you think your opposing army is too strong to be killed and if that doesn't work, adjust where you think it's necessary. As in every 40K Edition.

I think him asking if people will boycott IS people making up their own minds, lol.

What is this about? Perceived future imbalance because of 2-wound firstborn and 4damage thunderhammers? Anything else? Or is it right now like one poster said, because I don't think non-successor Salamanders are OP right now, maybe the opponent's list and playstyle were just poor. Tournament data so far seems to indicate that there are armies other than Marines that can perform quite unlike IH at their top.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also you have literally no info about the codex so why bother to boycott playing against someone that happened to choose the good army? That's like refusing to play against Genestealer cults because they suck.

Boycott buying GW's printed materials if you want to actually make a difference. You won't though.

I don't think it's a novel concept to refuse to play against OP or UP lists, for now Tacs and Scouts are pretty bad and TFCs are spicy pricy. I don't like the idea of just firstborn getting another wound, I do think Primaris ought to have more durability than firstborn and my Necrons would feel relatively too squishy compared to Marines. I've seen people post requests for battles against specific OP armies to train and requests for casual battles with the understanding that people that accepted brought an uncompetitive list. If GSC was really super terrible and I was looking to train with my competitive high-tier list then I could totally see myself refusing, maybe do a game with a casual list if I wasn't able to find the type of game I was looking for.

If you don't count Indomitus then I've been boycotting GW rules since the 7th edition Necrons Codex came out, I was going to buy the updated 8th edition ruleset, but it didn't get updated, it only got smaller but it didn't get any Errata implemented. I was going to buy PA Pariah but it didn't include Pariahs, slave armies, new relics, Stratagems or custom Dyanasties and it included recycled art and only a few Necron dioramas and an allegedly bad story.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
GW has done pretty well over the last few years as far as reeling in the problem armies and units, all throughout 8th. The Castellan list build was OP as balls for a while, then GW realized it and hit it with the nerf bat. CP farming? Nerfed. Iron Hands shenanigans? Nerfed. I could go on. Everyone needs to calm down, take a chill pill, and wait for the FAQs to reel in some of the more egregiously OP stuff. It'll happen, even if it's not as quick as we'd all like. The rules designers are human, after all.

You have to acknowledge the role of internet rage in getting the game into a better place sooner rather than later, we got balance patches way ahead of schedule because of rage in 8th and I managed to get in a few more fun 8th games because IH were not left at full power for 6 months before changes were made and Marines never got their second or third nerf. There are parts of the community that are fine with leaving the game totally skewed as long as it's skewed in their direction or it's a radical change to the previous meta. I started working on a fandex when my faction was at its strongest throughout 40k history, how many can say the same?

stroller wrote:
No. Ridiculous idea....

Chess. I'm boycotting anyone playing a queen....

Are your opponents willing to roll off to see who plays the OP faction? Would you play against someone who was better at chess if they would only play white against black? How far are you willing to take this ridiculous analogy? Everyone plays a queen in chess and if your opponent wanted to use one while banning you from doing that then it would be a totally different thing compared to if you were playing variant chess rules where queens were optional for both players. I still think there are bigger problems in 9th pts than 2W 15 pt Tacs, like a lack of internal balance for many factions.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Voss wrote:

macluvin wrote:
I mean sabotaging demand for GW product by accelerating the toxicity of the game meta by refusing to play space marine players would crush demand for space marines, and hopefully push GW to tone down the bias in favor of loyalist marines when they catch on. It’s a rotten thing to do to some of the players but it is in effect a protest in the interest of everyone, truth be told. There never is a correct way to protest as well, and the end result would be very welcome. If your excuse is to wait and see, I’m not keen on waiting more than a decade And multiple 60$ rule books that get invalidated within a few years to see every army working the way it should and at the very least temporary Quick fix patches like point cost adjustments exist. “Instead of functioning rules you get your profiles at a discount!” It’s voting with your wallet taken to an extreme.

It isn't voting with your wallet at all. Its just being That Guy to another player, because you have a different beef with GW. 'Accelerating the toxicity' just makes the people involved unpleasant, it doesn't do anything at all to the sales of Space Marines, and doesn't push GW anywhere.

The only 'end result' is the people doing this will quickly find that no one wants to put up with their crap and everyone else goes on gaming without them.

Agreed, especially when most people buying models don't actually play the game much, if at all, particularly competitively in any sense.

40k has gone through previous eras where one faction or another was clearly, unequivocally, insanely broken. Basically every edition this happens, and Space Marines historically aren't even the worst consistent offenders (Looking at you Eldar). It's also not the first time this has been suggested, people brought up the same ideas regarding Eldar in 7E for instance. One can refuse to play against specific lists or unpleasant players, by all means, but to simply bag on anyone playing X army just for its own sake isn't going to get anyone anywhere, and isn't going to impact GW's bottom line, it'll just make one look like a jerk.

What will impact GW's bottom line is if people just stop buying and playing in general, as happened in 6E/7E as that era drove itself straight off the rails, but that wasn't related to any one specific faction either. Want to make your displeasure felt? Just don't buy anything period, Space Marine related or not. That will have far more impact than being mean to Space Marine players specifically.

I agree in general, but there also is the issue that when you stop buying your faction, GW currently responds by supporting that faction less instead of analyzing the problem and making it more attractive to players. In the end, it just means that marines get even more stuff.

Hecaton wrote:
Boycotting marines is pointless. If you were going to boycott something, boycott gw.

It depends on what are you seeking from 40k.

To me the current state of 40k is amazing, competitive marines aside. Why would I need to boycott the entire game when I could have a very satisfying experience just limiting a single faction? That specific faction has 10000000 of units to choose from so playing against OP marines is pointless, for both players. I've always toned down my (non SM) lists if they were too powerful for the meta, I don't see any issue if SM players are currently required to do so if they want other people to play with them.

Funny, in my local meta players are getting turned off by Necrons as a whole more than by Marines.

I have only been asked not to bring Mephiston in my purely melee Primaris list as he is perceived to be too points efficient. I did it and we moved on with our games.
Apart from me there is only one other Marine player, but he brings Death Guard just as often. The remaining players all are Eldar, Chaos, Demons, Tau, Nids and Necrons.


As usual when there is rage on Dakka about something, I see no problem in my local gaming environment and continue to enjoy pushing my toy soldiers.