Round Two of Winners and Losers: Now that we've had some time.

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.

**Darkmatter**

Karol wrote:
ProfSrlojohn wrote:

My point is that people thought deathwatch would be dominant when they were to come out, they are not. The Deathwatch detachment is dominant, but only a couple of DW units are actually seeing use. That is what I'm trying to get out.

People, especialy those who didn't play the army claimed GK were up there with eldar in being broken, asked for nerfs. There is still call out for marine nerfs and OotM being too powerful, when marine are on sub 50% win rates. When it comes to marine armies and marine rules, a lot of "people" use their dislike of the factions as guides, rather then actual army strenght.

I'll be the first to admit that the community raising red flags on OOM were wrong, however most of the other red flags raised did turn out to be pretty valid concerns and rather prophetic considering the current meta numbers. It is what it is, I hope the numbers help guide the mighty hand of nerfs and buffs and that Marines are left alone.

**Bosskelot**

OOM is definitely a problematic rule at lower points levels and if Marine armies build around it. For the most part GW played it very safe with Marine points values, probably to account for OOM, so it stops it from being too nuts at 2k points.

Full re-rolls in hits and wounds will always be a strong mechanic on its own.

**tneva82**

Bosskelot wrote:
OOM is definitely a problematic rule at lower points levels and if Marine armies build around it. For the most part GW played it very safe with Marine points values, probably to account for OOM, so it stops it from being too nuts at 2k points.

Full re-rolls in hits and wounds will always be a strong mechanic on its own.

Game isn't designed to be played on non-2k though.

**A Town Called Malus**

tneva82 wrote:
Bosskelot wrote:
OOM is definitely a problematic rule at lower points levels and if Marine armies build around it. For the most part GW played it very safe with Marine points values, probably to account for OOM, so it stops it from being too nuts at 2k points.

Full re-rolls in hits and wounds will always be a strong mechanic on its own.

Game isn't designed to be played on non-2k though.

Blatantly untrue. Open up your rulebook at page 55 (at least on the PDF) and tell me what it says under the section of "Select battle size".

Now, you could argue that it is designed badly for those points levels, but that is an entirely different argument.

**Karol**

Well if it runs bad or worse at something else then 2000pts, and we know how good the 2000pts was designed, then the chance is that other size games did not get any design time.

Combat Patrol, as a separate play form probably got more testing then how armies function at 1500pts.