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.

the_scotsman wrote:


I do love that one of the two examples you can come up with for how wrong I am is essentially "even with the might of the primaris reinforcements the victory was hard fought!"

And the other begins with a reminder "in the wake of their defeat at Baal " :^)

And yet the Tyranids remain an unstoppable force, right? If that got carried through all the way there wouldn't be a setting left to play in so it kind of follows they have to lose sometimes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


I do love that one of the two examples you can come up with for how wrong I am is essentially "even with the might of the primaris reinforcements the victory was hard fought!"

And the other begins with a reminder "in the wake of their defeat at Baal " :^)

And yet the Tyranids remain an unstoppable force, right? If that got carried through all the way there wouldn't be a setting left to play in so it kind of follows they have to lose sometimes.

whataboutism.

The claim: Primaris space marines are not mary sues, mary sue does not just mean a character who is powerful or who you don't like. If Primaris were mary sues, you'd be seeing lots of people admiring them, and enemies begrudgingly admitting how great they are.

My response: Plenty of examples in post-primaris lore of allies admiring them, and enemies begrudgingly admitting how great they are.

Your rebuttal: By providing examples that directly contradict the initial claim being made you are, somehow, cherrypicking?

I need some help with the "Kellermorph is bad because player agency" argument. It makes no sense to me at all. As others have said, I can plunk down a Vindicaire in cover and snipe characters from the complete safety of the other side of the board. I can do the same thing to even stronger effect w/Eliminators. There are a multitude of units that I can just put down, barely have to move, and just roll dice, and there are relatively few people talking about "player agency" with regards to these. But then we get to a unit in the Kellermorph, that requires thought and timing in its use. You know it's only getting one crack at its intended target, and it will more than likely die immediately following the attempt. So you can't just plunk it down in a ruin and essentially roll dice mindlessly for several turns while your opponent takes models off the board. You have to plan it out. Pick the correct target to do the most damage, time it so that he comes down in the right spot at the right time, etc. But, somehow, the Kellermorph does not require "player agency"? A model that requires extremely careful timing and decision making to use, somehow goes against "player agency"? Are we sure we're using that term correctly here? lol

Tycho wrote:
I need some help with the "Kellermorph is bad because player agency" argument. It makes no sense to me at all. As others have said, I can plunk down a Vindicaire in cover and snipe characters from the complete safety of the other side of the board. I can do the same thing to even stronger effect w/Eliminators. There are a multitude of units that I can just put down, barely have to move, and just roll dice, and there are relatively few people talking about "player agency" with regards to these. But then we get to a unit in the Kellermorph, that requires thought and timing in its use. You know it's only getting one crack at its intended target, and it will more than likely die immediately following the attempt. So you can't just plunk it down in a ruin and essentially roll dice mindlessly for several turns while your opponent takes models off the board. You have to plan it out. Pick the correct target to do the most damage, time it so that he comes down in the right spot at the right time, etc. But, somehow, the Kellermorph does not require "player agency"? A model that requires extremely careful timing and decision making to use, somehow goes against "player agency"? Are we sure we're using that term correctly here? lol

Eliminators like just about all of codex Who cares about balance are so broken at a conceptual level to be their own issue entirely.
They also apparently are completely immune to this unit is totally destroying the fun in games WTF GW?

The problem is GW doesnt like new players getting mugged as they then go complain about unit X or Y to GW who then nerf said unit.
Also assasins that work seem very much an idiotic unit design in an edition based on aura hammer.

It's just another example of GW's schizophrenia when it comes to a design space for an edition. Early sniper/assasin units hit like wet noodles.
From the redesigned they hit like nuclear weapons.

Tycho wrote:
I need some help with the "Kellermorph is bad because player agency" argument. It makes no sense to me at all. As others have said, I can plunk down a Vindicaire in cover and snipe characters from the complete safety of the other side of the board. I can do the same thing to even stronger effect w/Eliminators. There are a multitude of units that I can just put down, barely have to move, and just roll dice, and there are relatively few people talking about "player agency" with regards to these. But then we get to a unit in the Kellermorph, that requires thought and timing in its use. You know it's only getting one crack at its intended target, and it will more than likely die immediately following the attempt. So you can't just plunk it down in a ruin and essentially roll dice mindlessly for several turns while your opponent takes models off the board. You have to plan it out. Pick the correct target to do the most damage, time it so that he comes down in the right spot at the right time, etc. But, somehow, the Kellermorph does not require "player agency"? A model that requires extremely careful timing and decision making to use, somehow goes against "player agency"? Are we sure we're using that term correctly here? lol

I mean, I basically just come to expect it when it comes to units like that. It's the same argument that gets trotted out in any kind of video game where you have any kind of "assassin/ambusher" style character or game piece, where there's very little you can do in the moment to counter their damage.

People will always adamantly be against the idea that the counterplay to that figure comes before their appearance - in the case of the kelermorph, that counterplay is primarily based around not giving him the target he wants to attack.

If a character is really truly essential to the makeup of your army, maybe add a durability upgrade to that character like a storm shield, or terminator armor, or a bike, or a durability-boosting stratagem like transhuman phys to allow him to survive the suicide unit's atacks?

Or use an interruption stratagem like auspex scan or forewarned to remove the suicide unit?

Or use transports, LOS blocking, or a screen to ensure the piece is not available to be targeted by the suicide unit?

The only assassin units people seem to be OK with existing are those that need incredible, phenomenal luck or crazy overwhelming numbers to remove even the most basic CHARACTER keyword unit from the board. 345pts of rangers to remove 1 basic 68pt marine captain. the special eldar sniper character who doesn't manage to kill a basic captain with 5 turns of average rolling. Lictors that do an average of 2 unsaved wounds to MEQ and have a 50/50 chance of making it in to combat in the first place.

People will always adamantly be against the idea that the counterplay to that figure comes before their appearance - in the case of the kelermorph, that counterplay is primarily based around not giving him the target he wants to attack.

And I would totally understand that if the Kellermorph were a "surprise". But since, in 40k, we share lists before the game so that you KNOW what's coming, you are given the chance right there, to counter it before it comes down. You know it's coming, you know what the likely targets for it will be, play accordingly. How is that not "player agency"?

As you say further down in your post, there are many potential counters to it.

gsc are kind of a gimick army right now. However - they are striking from safety with the kelpto. They are an ambush army - they come in with a whole force in front of them with their cult ambush.

Tycho wrote:
I need some help with the "Kellermorph is bad because player agency" argument. It makes no sense to me at all. As others have said, I can plunk down a Vindicaire in cover and snipe characters from the complete safety of the other side of the board. I can do the same thing to even stronger effect w/Eliminators. There are a multitude of units that I can just put down, barely have to move, and just roll dice, and there are relatively few people talking about "player agency" with regards to these. But then we get to a unit in the Kellermorph, that requires thought and timing in its use. You know it's only getting one crack at its intended target, and it will more than likely die immediately following the attempt. So you can't just plunk it down in a ruin and essentially roll dice mindlessly for several turns while your opponent takes models off the board. You have to plan it out. Pick the correct target to do the most damage, time it so that he comes down in the right spot at the right time, etc. But, somehow, the Kellermorph does not require "player agency"? A model that requires extremely careful timing and decision making to use, somehow goes against "player agency"? Are we sure we're using that term correctly here? lol

If you were talking to me, please quote me where I put up the Vindicare as a good example of player agency.

Ice_can wrote:

Tycho wrote:
I need some help with the "Kellermorph is bad because player agency" argument. It makes no sense to me at all. As others have said, I can plunk down a Vindicaire in cover and snipe characters from the complete safety of the other side of the board. I can do the same thing to even stronger effect w/Eliminators. There are a multitude of units that I can just put down, barely have to move, and just roll dice, and there are relatively few people talking about "player agency" with regards to these. But then we get to a unit in the Kellermorph, that requires thought and timing in its use. You know it's only getting one crack at its intended target, and it will more than likely die immediately following the attempt. So you can't just plunk it down in a ruin and essentially roll dice mindlessly for several turns while your opponent takes models off the board. You have to plan it out. Pick the correct target to do the most damage, time it so that he comes down in the right spot at the right time, etc. But, somehow, the Kellermorph does not require "player agency"? A model that requires extremely careful timing and decision making to use, somehow goes against "player agency"? Are we sure we're using that term correctly here? lol

Eliminators like just about all of codex Who cares about balance are so broken at a conceptual level to be their own issue entirely.
They also apparently are completely immune to this unit is totally destroying the fun in games WTF GW?

The problem is GW doesnt like new players getting mugged as they then go complain about unit X or Y to GW who then nerf said unit.
Also assasins that work seem very much an idiotic unit design in an edition based on aura hammer.

It's just another example of GW's schizophrenia when it comes to a design space for an edition. Early sniper/assasin units hit like wet noodles.
From the redesigned they hit like nuclear weapons.

before they inevitably get nerfed into the ground . because feelsbad moments are bad.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


I do love that one of the two examples you can come up with for how wrong I am is essentially "even with the might of the primaris reinforcements the victory was hard fought!"

And the other begins with a reminder "in the wake of their defeat at Baal " :^)

And yet the Tyranids remain an unstoppable force, right? If that got carried through all the way there wouldn't be a setting left to play in so it kind of follows they have to lose sometimes.

whataboutism.

The claim: Primaris space marines are not mary sues, mary sue does not just mean a character who is powerful or who you don't like. If Primaris were mary sues, you'd be seeing lots of people admiring them, and enemies begrudgingly admitting how great they are.

My response: Plenty of examples in post-primaris lore of allies admiring them, and enemies begrudgingly admitting how great they are.

Your rebuttal: By providing examples that directly contradict the initial claim being made you are, somehow, cherrypicking?

Seeing as enemies were already begrudgingly admitting Loyalist Manlet Marines were powerful is that even really a point?
So yeah you're in the same boat as the people that call Cawl a Mary Sue. You don't actually understand the term and just apply it to powerful characters you don't like.

the_scotsman wrote:
The only assassin units people seem to be OK with existing are those that need incredible, phenomenal luck or crazy overwhelming numbers to remove even the most basic CHARACTER keyword unit from the board. 345pts of rangers to remove 1 basic 68pt marine captain. the special eldar sniper character who doesn't manage to kill a basic captain with 5 turns of average rolling. Lictors that do an average of 2 unsaved wounds to MEQ and have a 50/50 chance of making it in to combat in the first place.

Maybe having assassins easily remove heroes from a game that you are actively designing to revolve around heroes just is not a good design idea because it make people feel bad about the game?
I know playing orks against Illic and rangers is not a particularly fun thing to do when all your characters go splat in the first two turns.
To me this really sounds like the debate the MtG community was having when WotC started to take land destruction out of the game, a notoriously unfun strategy to play against. Except unlike GW, WotC told people what and why they were doing it.

I haven't ever seen a kellermorph on my table, and I don't even know what the nerf was, so this is directed at assassin and sniper units in general.

 Jidmah wrote:
Maybe having assassins easily remove heroes from a game that you are actively designing to revolve around heroes just is not a good design idea because it make people feel bad about the game?

This was what I was trying to say before.

I think that people have greatly exaggerated the risk-factor of the Kelermorph. 'Move to within 12" and open fire' is hardly genius-tier levels of strategic play. Yes, it will probably die afterwards regardless, but the whole point of that sort of assassin is that it doesn't matter. These models exist to be expendable.

And since people keep bringing the sodding thing up, yes, the Vindicare is even worse as you can skip the 'move to within 12"' step, and just open fire.

The whole point I was trying to make earlier was that 40k is a bad game for assassins because there's so little play/counterplay available to begin with. And 'put your character behind a wall for the entire game because your opponent brought a vindicare' is hardly a shining example of counterplay. I'm just not convinced that any of these models belong in a shallow game with TLoS. Because either you make them good assassins, in which case the only """counterplay""" available to opponents is to hide their characters for most of the game or watch them die, or you make them suck at their job in which case no one will bother taking them.

There's also the issue of fluff. Other games with assassins generally require you to utilise magic or similar powers in order to either get them to their target or to have them actually perform the run. e.g. you might use abilities to give them extra movement or buff them or debuff their target to greatly increase the chances of success. However, the assassins in 40k are made out to be lone-warriors. Hence, even though their factions tend to have significant psyker support, they're generally designed to not need it. This makes sense but removes another possible level of play/counterplay.

To reiterate once again, I have nothing against the Kelermorph specifically, I just don't think current 40k is a good game for assassin-type units in general.

If you were talking to me, please quote me where I put up the Vindicare as a good example of player agency.

So I don't see where you said that (I guess I missed it?), but I brought it up w/out singling anyone out because it's a common argument that makes no sense to me. And if you're trying to argue the Vindicare, a unit that can be played with almost no thought what-so-ever, as an example of "good player agency", then we definitely have different ideas.

Can the Vindicare involve a ton of decision making? Yeah, it can, but you can also just blindly dunk it in cover and walk away. You said you didn't think "getting into range" counts as good gameplay - at least you HAVE to worry about getting into range w/the Kellermorph. Not so w/the Vindicare on the new board sizes. Is the Vindicare in range? Let me see - he's on the board so ... yep."

With the Kellermorph, you literally can't play it without a lot of careful decision making and that's the literal definition of agency here.


EDIT:

Looks like we posted at the same time. I hadn't this when I posted the above response:

And since people keep bringing the sodding thing up, yes, the Vindicare is even worse as you can skip the 'move to within 12"' step, and just open fire.

So it looks like we're generally on the same page but you're not targeting the Kellermorph specifically, but assasins in 40k more broadly. I can see your point in that.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Maybe having assassins easily remove heroes from a game that you are actively designing to revolve around heroes just is not a good design idea because it make people feel bad about the game?

This was what I was trying to say before.

I think that people have greatly exaggerated the risk-factor of the Kelermorph. 'Move to within 12" and open fire' is hardly genius-tier levels of strategic play. Yes, it will probably die afterwards regardless, but the whole point of that sort of assassin is that it doesn't matter. These models exist to be expendable.

And since people keep bringing the sodding thing up, yes, the Vindicare is even worse as you can skip the 'move to within 12"' step, and just open fire.

The whole point I was trying to make earlier was that 40k is a bad game for assassins because there's so little play/counterplay available to begin with. And 'put your character behind a wall for the entire game because your opponent brought a vindicare' is hardly a shining example of counterplay. I'm just not convinced that any of these models belong in a shallow game with TLoS. Because either you make them good assassins, in which case the only """counterplay""" available to opponents is to hide their characters for most of the game or watch them die, or you make them suck at their job in which case no one will bother taking them.

There's also the issue of fluff. Other games with assassins generally require you to utilise magic or similar powers in order to either get them to their target or to have them actually perform the run. e.g. you might use abilities to give them extra movement or buff them or debuff their target to greatly increase the chances of success. However, the assassins in 40k are made out to be lone-warriors. Hence, even though their factions tend to have significant psyker support, they're generally designed to not need it. This makes sense but removes another possible level of play/counterplay.

To reiterate once again, I have nothing against the Kelermorph specifically, I just don't think current 40k is a good game for assassin-type units in general.

There's certainly scope and room for a character removing unit niche, oldschool snipers fill that nicely in that they can do it but rarely in 1 volley. The suicide assassins and snipers +1 are more of the issue than the niche of the unit.

 Jidmah wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The only assassin units people seem to be OK with existing are those that need incredible, phenomenal luck or crazy overwhelming numbers to remove even the most basic CHARACTER keyword unit from the board. 345pts of rangers to remove 1 basic 68pt marine captain. the special eldar sniper character who doesn't manage to kill a basic captain with 5 turns of average rolling. Lictors that do an average of 2 unsaved wounds to MEQ and have a 50/50 chance of making it in to combat in the first place.

Maybe having assassins easily remove heroes from a game that you are actively designing to revolve around heroes just is not a good design idea because it make people feel bad about the game?
I know playing orks against Illic and rangers is not a particularly fun thing to do when all your characters go splat in the first two turns.
To me this really sounds like the debate the MtG community was having when WotC started to take land destruction out of the game, a notoriously unfun strategy to play against. Except unlike GW, WotC told people what and why they were doing it.

I haven't ever seen a kellermorph on my table, and I don't even know what the nerf was, so this is directed at assassin and sniper units in general.

it was a nutcase pts hike i believe.

and the issue is indeed communitcation with GW balance beeing just non existent.

Dudeface wrote:
There's certainly scope and room for a character removing unit niche, oldschool snipers fill that nicely in that they can do it but rarely in 1 volley. The suicide assassins and snipers +1 are more of the issue than the niche of the unit.

Snipers have issues on a completely different level. I have both DG and orks, a plague surgeon can walk through sniper fire for three turns and beat them to death with his sword, while an ork painboy implodes with the first volley. You'd think snipers would care a lot less about armor.

Characters being functionally invulnerable such that one of the game's meta strategies involves stacking 2CP plus your warlord trait into a butt-naked 68pt captain to allow your entire 2000pt list to reroll hit rolls is, and has been since the dawn of 8th, dirt stupid.

I play orks.

I apparently talk about how orks need better rules enough that people make claims about me like my sig.

I think the intellectual stress of having to figure out how to hide a character out of LOS for the turn it will take me to either get the use out of them that I would have gotten or remove my opponent's sniper unit is not enough to give me a stroke.

Character removal options are an incredibly important balancing factor in 40k and absolutely need to be made more universal, not less.

the_scotsman wrote:
Characters being functionally invulnerable such that one of the game's meta strategies involves stacking 2CP plus your warlord trait into a butt-naked 68pt captain to allow your entire 2000pt list to reroll hit rolls is, and has been since the dawn of 8th, dirt stupid.

I play orks.

I apparently talk about how orks need better rules enough that people make claims about me like my sig.

I think the intellectual stress of having to figure out how to hide a character out of LOS for the turn it will take me to either get the use out of them that I would have gotten or remove my opponent's sniper unit is not enough to give me a stroke.

Character removal options are an incredibly important balancing factor in 40k and absolutely need to be made more universal, not less.

Anything that can quickly take out a chapter master in one turn will render any other support character unplayable. If the chapter master remains a problem despite their next codex, then the chapter master needs fixing. Cranking all assassins up to eleven and pushing all characters less survivable than captains out of the game is not a good solution.

 Jidmah wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Characters being functionally invulnerable such that one of the game's meta strategies involves stacking 2CP plus your warlord trait into a butt-naked 68pt captain to allow your entire 2000pt list to reroll hit rolls is, and has been since the dawn of 8th, dirt stupid.

I play orks.

I apparently talk about how orks need better rules enough that people make claims about me like my sig.

I think the intellectual stress of having to figure out how to hide a character out of LOS for the turn it will take me to either get the use out of them that I would have gotten or remove my opponent's sniper unit is not enough to give me a stroke.

Character removal options are an incredibly important balancing factor in 40k and absolutely need to be made more universal, not less.

Anything that can quickly take out a chapter master in one turn will render any other support character unplayable. If the chapter master remains a problem despite their next codex, then the chapter master needs fixing. Cranking all assassins up to eleven and pushing all characters less survivable than captains out of the game is not a good solution.

Things that can quickly take out chapter masters in one turn exist, and have not rendered every other support character unplayable.

A squad of eliminators with average rolls deals 3 unsaved wounds on average to a totally unprotected, unarmored ork support model, who are pretty much the most extreme characters in the game I can come up with when it comes to their points cost vs their lack of defenses. Maybe GSC characters are worse, I'm not sure.

If my opponent takes whatever 160pts of eliminators, and I'm dumb enough to not try to do anything to keep him hidden or protected in any way, I'm 100% A-OK with losing 75pts of..weirdboy, or something. 50% points return with what is regarded the most cRaZiEsT OP sniper unit in the game vs the most unprotected character in the game does not seem either crazy or unreasonable.

again I have to bring up here examples of the competition to these assassin type units which are smash characters/units like the killa klaw bikeboss, the TH blood angels jump captain, Bloodletter bombs, etc.

These units tend to be just as reliable at getting into melee as melee assassin type units, and tend to deal vastly more damage vs characters while also being vastly more flexible. Before you do anything at all to increase his damage output, a blood angels captain with a regular thunder hammer does 3x the damage in melee to multiwound targets than an eversor assassin. And he's even better at getting in with a 3d6+1 charge roll. I also have to ask just how often your support characters actually stay alive the entire game rather than what seems to me the incredibly common scenario of "everything they're buffing gets whacked, then they get whacked by regular firepower."

The gulf between "sniped early" and "just regular ol' killed by their entire section of the board getting blown away" seems to be a difference of, usually, one single turn.

There are a few marine chapters with the right tactics, doctrine and buffs that average up to4,9-5,4damage to t4 3+ profile with enough buffs. Raven Guard successor can do it against 3+/5++ and IF against 3+ in cover for example. 3 squads would do 3x that. You probably wouldnt take eliminators in a list that cant use them very welll so using unbuffed eliminators isnt really a good point.

Just have to say that to compare a BA smash captain the BA player have invested about as many points as 1,5 assassins, 1 HQ slot and a bunch of CP(minimum 3 and up to 12). Its not even a good unit anymore and it mostly leads to boring games way too often. I have used actual assassins more than smash captains so far in 9th with my BA even. But people seem to forget how damn expensive a BA smash captain is in both points and CP, and now HQ slots as well. People get too hung up on the old 124pt(+literally all the BA players CP in a cp hungry army) captain killing 600pt knights and not looking at anything else.

Klickor wrote:
There are a few marine chapters with the right tactics, doctrine and buffs that average up to4,9-5,4damage to t4 3+ profile with enough buffs. Raven Guard successor can do it against 3+/5++ and IF against 3+ in cover for example. 3 squads would do 3x that. You probably wouldnt take eliminators in a list that cant use them very welll so using unbuffed eliminators isnt really a good point.

Just have to say that to compare a BA smash captain the BA player have invested about as many points as 1,5 assassins, 1 HQ slot and a bunch of CP(minimum 3 and up to 12). Its not even a good unit anymore and it mostly leads to boring games way too often. I have used actual assassins more than smash captains so far in 9th with my BA even. But people seem to forget how damn expensive a BA smash captain is in both points and CP, and now HQ slots as well. People get too hung up on the old 124pt(+literally all the BA players CP in a cp hungry army) captain killing 600pt knights and not looking at anything else.

This is a game with nearly infinite variations of possible traits, relics, skills, stratagems, subfactions, etc. People get hung up on the ideal situation, the ideal perfect combo of traits and buffs and strats and whatever in a game that's pretty much always changing.

When I use an example, you can be pretty sure it's stripped down to the barest minimum it can be. If I talk about a BA captain with a thunder hammer and a jump pack using 1 particular stratagem, I'm not assuming anything beyond those parameters. If i talk about Eliminators targeting an ork character, I'm not assuming the Eliminators are in this doctrine or that chapter or this aura or that stratagem, just like I'm not assuming that every ork character is in a 5++ and has a 6+FNP, or is wearing mega armor, or has Biggest Boss up, or is near gretchins.

I'm pointing out an alternative, with similar threat reliability, the same arrival time, similar points bracket, that can deal more damage and has existed in the game since the start of 8th without causing the death of the subcategory of units called out as 'dead'.

the_scotsman wrote:
Your rebuttal: By providing examples that directly contradict the initial claim being made you are, somehow, cherrypicking?

...but are you a *true* Scotsman?

Some things are played vanilla but most really are not. Most boys will probably not have invul or fnp and instead just use numbers so its kinda fair to use them naked in examples. Eliminators after nerfed arent really seen much at all anymore and should be expected to have some synergies involved. Same with a BA smash captain. You dont take a 155pt captain without spending 3 cp upgrading him so its not 1 stratagem for 2cp but 4 (relic, trait, DC, delivery strat) for 5cp. The other 3-6cp you might use could probably be ignored but the first 3 before he is even set up should be accounted for.

I think you should try to use units in examples the way they are likely to show up in games. Perhaps not with all the buffs since they arent likely to have them all the time but at least some. Very few units are a problem on their own without any buffs at all and comparing them in a complete vaccum says nothing.

Its mostly this pet peeve I have with people mentioning BA smash captains like they are cheap and of no cost to the BA player by ignoring the insane amount of CP they cost. They might have been a problem in soup and a symptom of some of the things that were wrong in 8th but they are mostly just misrepresented.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Denegaar wrote:
.A Mary Sue doesn't have to be a flawless character, alter ego of the author. Trekkies Tale is 50 years old...
GW wants their customers to be identified by the human race of their universe, and thats a form of Mary Sue, clearly. They couldn't use Firstborn because they were losing, so they created a character that is better in every role, with no real flaws, that could rescue Firstborn marines and be real heros in a context where heros shouldn't exist, the Primaris. It's a marketing practice for sure, but IMO it has a lot of features of a modenized Mary Sue.

Sure, and a strawman doesn't have to be an artificial construct to more easily support ones' argument. You know what as much as either of those terms are used on Dakka, using a term with only a slight connection to what it means sounds about right.

A Mary/Marty/Gary/etc. Sue is far more than a character with no flaws. That's a flawless character, period. A Mary Sue is also a character that is generally beloved my all without really earning it. Often to include grudgingly respect even from their enemies. Which sounds about as far from Primaris in and out of the setting.

What

what

WHAT

WHAAAAAAAT

Just off the top of the ol' noggin:

And unsuprisingly given your negitivity re anything astartes your noggen is filled with half facts, inaccuracies etc.

[/quote[

-The dark angels begrudgingly allowing the Primaris to be the first inductees into their super-secret inner circle after seeing how great they are

You can't reason with the Primaris haters in the same way you cant reason with the people that say Cawl is a Mary Sue.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


I do love that one of the two examples you can come up with for how wrong I am is essentially "even with the might of the primaris reinforcements the victory was hard fought!"

And the other begins with a reminder "in the wake of their defeat at Baal " :^)

And yet the Tyranids remain an unstoppable force, right? If that got carried through all the way there wouldn't be a setting left to play in so it kind of follows they have to lose sometimes.

whataboutism.

The claim: Primaris space marines are not mary sues, mary sue does not just mean a character who is powerful or who you don't like. If Primaris were mary sues, you'd be seeing lots of people admiring them, and enemies begrudgingly admitting how great they are.

My response: Plenty of examples in post-primaris lore of allies admiring them, and enemies begrudgingly admitting how great they are.

Your rebuttal: By providing examples that directly contradict the initial claim being made you are, somehow, cherrypicking?

The actual definition of a "mary sue" is that the universe bends to their will/ submits to their needs to the extreme point that it breaks the universal reality. not just powerful or admired.

 aphyon wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


I do love that one of the two examples you can come up with for how wrong I am is essentially "even with the might of the primaris reinforcements the victory was hard fought!"

And the other begins with a reminder "in the wake of their defeat at Baal " :^)

And yet the Tyranids remain an unstoppable force, right? If that got carried through all the way there wouldn't be a setting left to play in so it kind of follows they have to lose sometimes.

whataboutism.

The claim: Primaris space marines are not mary sues, mary sue does not just mean a character who is powerful or who you don't like. If Primaris were mary sues, you'd be seeing lots of people admiring them, and enemies begrudgingly admitting how great they are.

My response: Plenty of examples in post-primaris lore of allies admiring them, and enemies begrudgingly admitting how great they are.

Your rebuttal: By providing examples that directly contradict the initial claim being made you are, somehow, cherrypicking?[/quote

]
The actual definition of a "mary sue" is that the universe bends to their will/ submits to their needs to the extreme point that it breaks the universal reality. not just powerful or admired.

Sounds like Cawl and Primaris to a 'T'.

 aphyon wrote:
The actual definition of a "mary sue" is that the universe bends to their will/ submits to their needs to the extreme point that it breaks the universal reality. not just powerful or admired.

The actual definition of a "Mary Sue" is a highly complicated and much-debated topic. TV Tropes alone lists what I would reasonably describe as 12 possible definitions (The 13th appears to be a reminder of the fact that despite falling into one or more of these categories, a Mary Sue can still be genuinely entertaining) for what referring to something as a "Mary Sue" could mean.

Poorly Written
Author Avatar
Idealized Character
Power Fantasy
Infallible
Center of Attention (Which is the definition the quote brought up)
Somebody's Fanfic OC
An "alien" element out of place for the setting
Fit the Classic Mary Sue Type
Fit the Classic Marty Stu Type
Heavily Cliched
Someone you Don't Like

Those last two more questionable ones have further diluted the meaning of the term, but the point is what is and is not a Sue is heavily subject to debate, perspective and taste. You could evaluate Belisarius Cawl or Roboute Gulliman on each of those criteria individually and say they are or are not a Sue on the basis of one of these.

^most interesting post in this thread so far

the Mary Sue debate is off topic for here, so best we drop this tangent.

Ta.