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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines (Not Primaris) were balanced about right just before the 8.5 book, iirc. Tough as an Ork with the armor of an Eldar, with a Strength and Ld./discipline better than both.

But were they seeing any play at those stats and, of equal importance, were the people playing them having fun? The flipside of Marines being so much of the meta that you hate playing every second game against them is that if they're not happy it means a large number of your customers aren't happy.

 Strg Alt wrote:
SM are not fascists. They are warrior monks bordering on becoming religious nuts which the Black Templars already accomplished.
Thus they have more in common with the Spanish inquisition hunting down perceived threats. Targets would be the xenos, the traitor and the witch.

I really disagree, and being religious doesn't preclude fascism. But that's probably beyond the scope of this thread. The important thing is that they have no respect for human rights or morality as we understand it today.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines (Not Primaris) were balanced about right just before the 8.5 book, iirc. Tough as an Ork with the armor of an Eldar, with a Strength and Ld./discipline better than both.

But were they seeing any play at those stats and, of equal importance, were the people playing them having fun? The flipside of Marines being so much of the meta that you hate playing every second game against them is that if they're not happy it means a large number of your customers aren't happy.

You're barking up the wrong tree, lol. I was playing them and I was having fun. Post 8.5 it was less fun because they were eeeeaaassyy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Immortals are pretty equivalent now, to be honest. W2 isn't always the best way to represent being tougher.

Sure, but Immortals are elite. They should be on par with Astartes elites in the old paradigm.

Hecaton wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Immortals are pretty equivalent now, to be honest. W2 isn't always the best way to represent being tougher.

Sure, but Immortals are elite. They should be on par with Astartes elites in the old paradigm.

Agreed.

But now we get Heavy Intercessors with T5, 3W and a 3+ save making them even tougher than Tyranid Warriors.

Voss wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Back when I started playing 40k (*shakes cane), Astartes/Space Marines were head and shoulders better than most factions' other troops, but things like Bloodletters actually posed a challenge for them 1 on 1, and when Necrons were introduced they were actually tough for Astartes to take on. Thematically, this made the Astartes good antiheroes - sure, they were fascists, but the things they were up against were actually terrifying. Now that they've been power creeped to the moon, it's hard to take them as seriously - they're just this legion of super-powered fascists that are running around beating the crap out of everyone, they're not even sympathetic since they win all the time.

Your thoughts on this? If you were in charge of things, where would you put the Astartes profile with respect to things like demons and Necrons, which in other editions have either been their match or slightly their better?

Necron warriors should be close (durability), but not on par or flexible. Their condition makes them limited.

Daemons should be nowhere as feeble as they are. They're supposed to be creatures of other world horror, not bad jokes.
Orks should be closer than they currently are.

Eldar Guardians and tau are about right. (Points not withstanding). Aspect warriors are definitely not right, including Incubi. And wyches are just sad.

I disagree that an eldar guardian should be a guard vet with very slightly better offense and +1" of movement while the guard vet can be ordered to give him better offense or better movement.

That seems, in a word, dumb as feth. Exchanging..what was it, FOUR points of initiative and translating that stat into one single inch of movement in 8th edition was a joke.

 Huron black heart wrote:
To really bring everything back into line there would need to be a complete overhaul, and that would mean raising the stats of all units across the board.
For example currently everything is kept down to a range between 2-5 for strength and toughness for troops which is just too restrictive. Why not go as high as 7 or 8 for strength and toughness of marines, then use this as a yardstick for restatting everything else. Would it hurt the game if we started using bigger numbers?

You wouldn't even need to go that far, just start using d10s instead of d6s. Would allow for stuff to truly be impervious to low S firepower and other higher S stuff to be less effective against hordes.

Eldar guardians are shopkeepers and artists given a gun and sent out to 'hold the line' (die). There's a lot of things GW could do with them to make them better (like guns that don't put them in charge range), but the basic statline is not the major hurdle. They simply aren't a unit that I'd toss into the 'stat inflation' bucket.

Eldar guardians are shopkeepers of a race of space ninjas that have lived longer than most marine special characters, and have been sent out to "hold the line" over, and over and over again in the course of their thousands of years of life. An eldar guardian (let alone one from Ulthwe) would have more combat experience than Guiliman. People seem to forget that part.
They obviously can't take as much punishment as a marine, which is designed to get hit...a lot, but they should be able to dish it and not get hit cause again, race of space ninjas.

But that'd take away spotlight from the Marines, so it's not going to happen. Marines are the ultimate power fantasy for nerds, so they *can't* be overshadowed by anything. The space ninja race? They'll trip over their own shoelaces.
The cut-through-adamanitum, sneak-up-on-anything alien horrors that are genestealers? Well, they'll get mowed down by the hundreds as they blindly charge across the field.
The terror-tactics, speedy pain-freak space ninjas? A dozen marines will stomp into their city, do what they want and scare them to their pointy ears.

GW made sure to nerf every threat to the marines both in game and in lore and they will not change it, cause it'd offend the fans.

Cronch wrote:
Eldar guardians are shopkeepers of a race of space ninjas that have lived longer than most marine special characters, and have been sent out to "hold the line" over, and over and over again in the course of their thousands of years of life. An eldar guardian (let alone one from Ulthwe) would have more combat experience than Guiliman. People seem to forget that part.
They obviously can't take as much punishment as a marine, which is designed to get hit...a lot, but they should be able to dish it and not get hit cause again, race of space ninjas.

More than Marines? Sure.

More than the G-Man? That's pretty suspect.

Well i never found the idea of Space Marines as plot armored Mary Sues in the Lore/Novels very appealing to begin with, but to make that part of the in-game was really a ridiculous idea(and specifically several Xenos faction statlines/buffs,weapons feel just wrong in comparison). Marines need to go back to proficient in all but Masters of None(or at least almost none) theme, instead of their new Masters of All theme.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You're barking up the wrong tree, lol. I was playing them and I was having fun. Post 8.5 it was less fun because they were eeeeaaassyy.

So where are all your tournament trophies if the game is just that simple?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You're barking up the wrong tree, lol. I was playing them and I was having fun. Post 8.5 it was less fun because they were eeeeaaassyy.

So where are all your tournament trophies if the game is just that simple?

Because casual games don't exist, of course. Only Tournament players matter.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because casual games don't exist, of course. Only Tournament players matter.

In casual games, you're always free to do whatever you like to make a good game between unbalanced armies or unbalanced player skill. If you claim that some unit makes the game 'too easy' and it isn't crushing the tournament scene it just means you aren't finding appropriate levels of challenge for yourself.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

So where are all your tournament trophies if the game is just that simple?

Just because someone doesn't want to engage with 40k's toxic tournament community doesn't mean they lack the intellectual capacity to understand the game.

 Huron black heart wrote:
To really bring everything back into line there would need to be a complete overhaul, and that would mean raising the stats of all units across the board.
For example currently everything is kept down to a range between 2-5 for strength and toughness for troops which is just too restrictive. Why not go as high as 7 or 8 for strength and toughness of marines, then use this as a yardstick for restatting everything else. Would it hurt the game if we started using bigger numbers?

Dices would be more capped at 3+ and 5+ rolls. 2+ and 6+ would be hyper rare. Yes stats would look different. Dice rolls would be more samey though.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because casual games don't exist, of course. Only Tournament players matter.

In casual games, you're always free to do whatever you like to make a good game between unbalanced armies or unbalanced player skill. If you claim that some unit makes the game 'too easy' and it isn't crushing the tournament scene it just means you aren't finding appropriate levels of challenge for yourself.

Okay. But considering the premium GW charges for rules, we shouldn't really have to.

It's one thing to say "You're a new player, so I'll take a softer list." Nothing GW can do about new players needing time to learn the game.
It's quite another thing to say "Oh, you're bringing GSC against my Marines? Take an extra 30% points." GW should VERY MUCH not need that to be the case for a fair game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. But considering the premium GW charges for rules, we shouldn't really have to.

Neither are you obligated to purchase said rules.

It's one thing to say "You're a new player, so I'll take a softer list." Nothing GW can do about new players needing time to learn the game.
It's quite another thing to say "Oh, you're bringing GSC against my Marines? Take an extra 30% points." GW should VERY MUCH not need that to be the case for a fair game.

Even GSC can pull off some wins if they take their best units. Even if the other player doesn't have said units allow them room to proxy and you'll have closer games.

Hecaton wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

So where are all your tournament trophies if the game is just that simple?

Just because someone doesn't want to engage with 40k's toxic tournament community doesn't mean they lack the intellectual capacity to understand the game.

I responded to this is a post to JNAP but as I know most people don't read any post not quoted to them here it is again:

In casual games, you're always free to do whatever you like to make a good game between unbalanced armies or unbalanced player skill levels. If you claim that some unit makes the game 'too easy' and it isn't crushing the tournament scene it just means you aren't finding appropriate levels of challenge for yourself.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. But considering the premium GW charges for rules, we shouldn't really have to.

Neither are you obligated to purchase said rules.

This defence doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. The logic of "Don't Like. Don't Buy" to dismiss criticism is the same as dismissing film criticism with "Don't Like. Don't Watch" and I get the feeling you already knew this before you commented.

Darsath wrote:
[This defence doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. The logic of "Don't Like. Don't Buy" to dismiss criticism is the same as dismissing film criticism with "Don't Like. Don't Watch" and I get the feeling you already knew this before you commented.

I said don't pay not don't play. There's a world of difference between the two and you don't need to be a pirate to do it. Ask other players if you can read their codex, take notes (or better yet pictures with your phone) and you suddenly have the rules you need for free!

The background of the game as it stands only exists to provide a power fantasy for Marine players. You have plenty of people here basically saying that Marines should be the best at everything and that other specialists should only really be their equal. I have seen people arguing that 5 marines can take a planet, or that it should take hundreds of guardsmen to kill even one Marine, and if he has cover they basically cannot do it.

The power fantasy fiction sells really well. People love power fantasies. The other factions only exist as sidekicks or NPC punching bags for Marines in the background of this fiction.

The success of this fiction has lead to the game background distorting to make this the standard, and now the game rules have twisted too. So now not just the novels but the entire background of the game AND the mechanics of the game exist only to confirm and validate the power fantasy of marine players.

Do I think this is good? Uh, no? It's obviously terrible. I don't mind power fantasy fiction, but it should be recognised for what it is rather than taken at face value as gospel canon. Making this be the baseline of the game to pander to power fantasy fans is really terrible for the game and the themes the background is supposed to represent.

I mean, if Cawl can make a bajillion Primaris, and each Primaris is so powerful, and we have Primarchs back again, then...shouldn't the Imperium just be winning? Where's the theme any more?

However, it seems there are enough marine players who enjoy the power fantasy to sustain the game at a very high level of success for GW, so hey, what the hell do I know.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You're barking up the wrong tree, lol. I was playing them and I was having fun. Post 8.5 it was less fun because they were eeeeaaassyy.

So where are all your tournament trophies if the game is just that simple?

Irrelevant, Marine armies were taking trophies left and right post 8.5. Playing my firstborn after 8.5 felt like cheating against any non-marine army. It was gross.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Irrelevant, Marine armies were taking trophies left and right post 8.5. Playing my firstborn after 8.5 felt like cheating against any non-marine army. It was gross.

How about now? Have you played in 9th or are the hurt feelings chasing you from an edition that has been dead for close to a year now?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Irrelevant, Marine armies were taking trophies left and right post 8.5. Playing my firstborn after 8.5 felt like cheating against any non-marine army. It was gross.

How about now? Have you played in 9th or are the hurt feelings chasing you from an edition that has been dead for close to a year now?

That's rather rich, considering that you haven't played 9th yourself.

And pray tell, how have Marines gotten weaker? I can think of minor nerfs they've received, but overall, they're as strong as ever.

Thematically with Necrons I think their warriors should be glorified tripods for a gun. They can take on a human, but any aspect warrior, tyranid warrior, marine should suplex them into the ground(I'm also talking about melee, not shooting). But anything higher on the food chain like an immortal should be on par with a marine. They don't deploy those in droves like warriors.

As for demons I think they should stress that they don't die traditionally. Other than that I have no idea how demons function in the lore beyond them choosing to bring knives to a gun fight.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And pray tell, how have Marines gotten weaker? I can think of minor nerfs they've received, but overall, they're as strong as ever.

You mean aside from the nerfs which you just mentioned which make them at least slightly weaker than they have been? For one they're up against the new Necrons and Deathguard now with Dark Eldar on the way. Secondly, the changes to 9th have clearly been kind to other factions boosting them by proxy. In this case, the rising tide has risen some boats far higher than others, this doesn't hurt marines but it does mean that they aren't these massive outliers like they used to be.

Just look at the tournament scene in 9th and you'll see just how many different armies can easily take top places.

 JNAProductions wrote:
That's rather rich, considering that you haven't played 9th yourself.

I'm also not using claimed play experience to lend weight to my opinion. If you're going to do that you'd best make it clear when that experience happened and in what sort of setting.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And pray tell, how have Marines gotten weaker? I can think of minor nerfs they've received, but overall, they're as strong as ever.

You mean aside from the nerfs which you just mentioned which make them at least slightly weaker than they have been? For one they're up against the new Necrons and Deathguard now with Dark Eldar on the way. Secondly, the changes to 9th have clearly been kind to other factions boosting them by proxy. In this case, the rising tide has risen some boats far higher than others, this doesn't hurt marines but it does mean that they aren't these massive outliers like they used to be.

Just look at the tournament scene in 9th and you'll see just how many different armies can easily take top places.

So Necrons and Death Guard are (assumed to be) on par with Marines.

What if you play GSC?
Or Daemons? (Especially, say, Khorne.)
Or ordinary CSM?
Or Dark Eldar?
Or regular Eldar?

I'm not saying they cannot compete-but I will damn well say that their competitive builds are much, MUCH narrower in scope than Loyalist Marines' builds are.

If you take two players who are more interested in the fluff than the rules (not that they ignore rules, mind you-they're just more focused on bringing what's thematic than what's good), one playing Loyalists and the other CSM, the CSM player is going to get wrecked.

Hell, just look at the basic troop. For 4 points, Tactical Marines get +1 wound, better chapter tactics, Doctrines, Super Doctrines, and better buff access. For 6 points you get an Intercessor, who's rocking all that, plus an additional attack, +6" range, and -1 AP on their basic gun.

You can say "Tournaments are varied!" all you want, and I'll tell you that that doesn't matter for casual games. I'd also hazard a guess that Marine lists are far more varied in top tables than lists from other factions.

Hecaton wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Immortals are pretty equivalent now, to be honest. W2 isn't always the best way to represent being tougher.

Sure, but Immortals are elite. They should be on par with Astartes elites in the old paradigm.

Eh, the Immortals were the solidery of the Necrontyr. I think it's actually a more apt comparison. Lychguard/Praetorians are the elite.

Warriors were just the left overs of the lower class, farmers, children, etc.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
In casual games, you're always free to do whatever you like to make a good game between unbalanced armies or unbalanced player skill levels. If you claim that some unit makes the game 'too easy' and it isn't crushing the tournament scene it just means you aren't finding appropriate levels of challenge for yourself.

Yeah, I can follow the conversation. My point still stands.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So Necrons and Death Guard are (assumed to be) on par with Marines.

Necron results in competitive events suggest that they are.
Death Guard were solid before their update so I doubt they're worse now.

What if you play GSC?

GSC are one of the worst armies at the moment. My suggestion is to look at how winning tournament lists operate and try running them that way. If you lack the models see if people will agree to let you proxy stuff as required.

Or Daemons? (Especially, say, Khorne.)

You mean one of the best armies in the game... As for pure mono-faction lists, I've always said the book isn't designed for it and that you should either mix gods or mix Daemons with Chaos Marines.

Or ordinary CSM?

Are doing rather well if they take some in faction support.

Or Dark Eldar?

Spam the new 10 point hotness until your new codex drops. Proxy the models if required.

Or regular Eldar?

Hmm. Soup with Harlies?

I'm not saying they cannot compete-but I will damn well say that their competitive builds are much, MUCH narrower in scope than Loyalist Marines' builds are.

If you take two players who are more interested in the fluff than the rules (not that they ignore rules, mind you-they're just more focused on bringing what's thematic than what's good), one playing Loyalists and the other CSM, the CSM player is going to get wrecked.

Hell, just look at the basic troop. For 4 points, Tactical Marines get +1 wound, better chapter tactics, Doctrines, Super Doctrines, and better buff access. For 6 points you get an Intercessor, who's rocking all that, plus an additional attack, +6" range, and -1 AP on their basic gun.

This is always the case when some armies have new rules and others are still waiting. Aside from the start of 3rd and 8th when have we ever had a time in 40k where every army is at the same point in the codex cycle at once?

You can say "Tournaments are varied!" all you want, and I'll tell you that that doesn't matter for casual games. I'd also hazard a guess that Marine lists are far more varied in top tables than lists from other factions.

You don't need to guess. The data is out there so please look at it before making these terrible arguments.