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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

You forgot reroll morale and rapid fire weapons out to full range and +1 attack if charged or charging and -1AP on all heavy weapons.

Just sayin'. Keep the list straight.

I think we have to distinguish what marines needed from what was overload. Reroll morale, double tap, +1A, and double damage table don't matter much at all to IH marines (for example).

I wouldn't balk at seeing supplements cost points to use though.

The chapter supplements should not cost points - that would be idiotic. Like why shouldn't every army be charged points to use their codex?

So your argument is "Bonus rules shouldn't cost"? Not sure I agree with you there.

The game also needs some general fixes to make it actually playable.

Some changes would make it more playable, sure.

Character targeting just needs to change - straight up remove it. You shoot at a character you suffer a -2 to hit to a max of -2 - unless they are not screened.

Sure, I miss the days of Reapers being OP. This'll be even more crazy-OP! Let's do it!

That is a start. No bodyguard abilities can be used against a shooting attack unless the bodyguard unit is in LOS to the shooting unit.

Awesome, so I can Rhinoblock all the bodyguards now? Sweet!

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is why I wish they went for the apporach to just make marine units cost less rather than a billion free rules.

Remove 2.0 marines rules
Make a tac cost 10
Make an intercessor cost 15
Reduce most units 15-20% in cost
and give some stratagems

Wow marines are balanced.

What? If you want a Power armoured horde I will direct you to Sisters!

These changes would be very silly, marines 2.0 was good in principle, but changes would need to be the Doctrine changes each turn. Heavy 1, Tactical 2 assault 3 and then repeat or go backwards. Supplements made it too over the top, not the codex itself which also needs to bump up in points for some key offenders.

Man 15 pt Intercessors even with marine 1.0 codex would be so crazy, does that mean my Tyranid warriors can go down to 16 points base? and 9 point dire avengers? The game needs points higher to allow for more granularity in gauging pts to strength of the model, not less.

Just saying these were their options. Make marines elite or reduce their cost. Marines previously were not worth their points. Clearly apparent.

I think it is clearly apparent that lots of nid units aren't worth their points ether. They deserve buffs or drops as well. GW had the opportunity...they completely missed the ball on that one. I hate to toote this horn but Xenos are getting hugely shafted compared to these marine releases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

You forgot reroll morale and rapid fire weapons out to full range and +1 attack if charged or charging and -1AP on all heavy weapons.

Just sayin'. Keep the list straight.

I think we have to distinguish what marines needed from what was overload. Reroll morale, double tap, +1A, and double damage table don't matter much at all to IH marines (for example).

I wouldn't balk at seeing supplements cost points to use though.

The chapter supplements should not cost points - that would be idiotic. Like why shouldn't every army be charged points to use their codex? Seems pretty obvious why they shouldn't. I don't think successor chapters should get access to them though. That would be a start to nerfing marines. The game also needs some general fixes to make it actually playable. Character targeting just needs to change - straight up remove it. You shoot at a character you suffer a -2 to hit to a max of -2 - unless they are not screened. That is a start. No bodyguard abilities can be used against a shooting attack unless the bodyguard unit is in LOS to the shooting unit. Any units that is firing using indirect fire suffers a natural -1 to hit.

A -1 for indirect fire would be a pretty hard nerf to guard. Not much for other factions. Guard artillery and mortars that big of a problem?

Nothing forcing these units to fire indirectly. It is an option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

You forgot reroll morale and rapid fire weapons out to full range and +1 attack if charged or charging and -1AP on all heavy weapons.

Just sayin'. Keep the list straight.

I think we have to distinguish what marines needed from what was overload. Reroll morale, double tap, +1A, and double damage table don't matter much at all to IH marines (for example).

I wouldn't balk at seeing supplements cost points to use though.

The chapter supplements should not cost points - that would be idiotic. Like why shouldn't every army be charged points to use their codex?

So your argument is "Bonus rules shouldn't cost"? Not sure I agree with you there.

The game also needs some general fixes to make it actually playable.

Some changes would make it more playable, sure.

Character targeting just needs to change - straight up remove it. You shoot at a character you suffer a -2 to hit to a max of -2 - unless they are not screened.

Sure, I miss the days of Reapers being OP. This'll be even more crazy-OP! Let's do it!

That is a start. No bodyguard abilities can be used against a shooting attack unless the bodyguard unit is in LOS to the shooting unit.

Awesome, so I can Rhinoblock all the bodyguards now? Sweet!

The shooting unit has to be in LOS of the bodygaurd unit. No rhino blocking. Even if you did that - you'd still be bringing another unit that I can shoot and kill to get to the bodygaurd...NOT AN ISSUE. bodyguard units outside of LOS forcing you to use the wrong weapons on the wrong targets removes the only real skill in this game. Target priority. It is pathetic mechanics like this were allowed past inception. Much less the sheild drone existing for this long. Much much less the released a more powerful version of sheild drones into the most bonkers OP supplement every written. Man this really feels like the end of 7th...Can't wait for the Ynnari type supplement where every unit can shoot twice per turn in your army for free.

I mentioned the ability to hit on a natural number is removed in the character targeting suggestion.

I have also suggesting nerfing the obviously OP tactics like Ironhands and IF. Or another option is to give Ulthwe the same tactic as Ironhands and give every army access to the OP tactics...I say nerf them. All tactics / esp accorss armies that do the exact same thing should be equal in power.

It's hard to call specific chapters bonus rules. They are basically seperate codex. Kind of like souping TS and CSM. This also gives you "bonus rules". Should that cost extra CP?

I remember distinctly that many people were describing that everyone have access to supplement style codexes that Space Marines have now. I think it's a reasonable time to ask when people believe these will be released. I'd imagine soon for Chaos either way, but what about everyone else?

To reply to the OP (TL/DR), Codex Creep is kind of a real thing.

Why kind of?

Well, first there’s the shock of the initial release. Some armies suddenly operate in quite a different way to others. And that means people need to adapt to the new ability.

Good example? 8th Ed Genestealer Cults. A slew of abilities seen nowhere else. And they’re pretty good, but mostly because they’re so unique.

Yet over time, people good at the game adapt, and find ways to mitigate or neutralise a given advantage.

This is natural, and I believe good for the game. Imagine 40k with an unchanging meta. What would be the point?

Next, we have some new Codecies which affect a given force negatively. Now, from my very limited knowledge, this mostly ( but not only affects lists written to exploit over powered rules and abilities. Because by the time a list becomes a NetList, it can become a crutch, elevating not very good players to the upper echelons.


Yet, in turn they’ll sometimes receive an FAQ, which reins it in. Some just go with it, some claim it’s the ‘dreaded nerf bat’, and everything in between.

Please note I am not attacking any individual here. I cast no aspersions, I’m just doing a chat.

Now, what really throws a cat amongst the pigeons? Often via trebuchet? The reaction to a previously genuinely OP list (3rs/4th Ed Blood Angels Rhino Rush) getting a much needed neutering, for example? That really upsets some hobbyists.

Because due to the opportunities being so rich, they never actually learned the game. Instead, their brilliance depended upon how how many phases and options for the opponent their list removed. And that can be done with relatively minor changes.

Suddenly, the ‘sure thing, only need to worry about the first couple of turns’ is right out the window. And as a result, they get their butts slapped six ways from Friday.

So......what is balance? Well, I’ll freely admit it is not 40k. But then, whilst that is a valid criticism, it’s only valid to a point. Look at the sheer number of armies, sub- factions and units. You cannot provide true balance to that. The variables are just too many.

Could they do a better job? Probably, and no stronger than that.

See, people often criticise a lack of play testing. Yet, the play testing pool is necessarily restricted. One, you don’t want stuff leaking early. Two, you need gamers capable of being neutral in their feedback. In short, massive fans of a given army are poor play testers, because of natural bias.

Then there’s inherently limited play testing time. It takes a while to write an initial draft. And between drafts, there’s a finite time for tweaking. But, the moment that Codex hits the shelf? Well. You’ve now got thousands of gamers taking it out for a whirl.

The early feedback I might venture is inherently useless. There’s either people butthurt their NetList (used here as a catch all term for lists that took advantage of previous rule weakness) no longer has the same benefits, or people playing against who haven’t had a chance (and fair enough) to get to grips with what the new rules can provide.

In short? For many, many reasons, I do not believe a game as sprawling as 40k can ever achieve genuine balance. Too many permutations. Too many variables. And the fact there’s at least some semblance of it is a small miracle and testament to the rules writers. Despite obvious stinkers. Like Grey Knights.

Xeno,
I'm not sure how to grok "The shooting unit has to be in LOS of the bodygaurd unit. No rhino blocking." With Rhino-sniping, if Rhinos (or anything else) block LOS from the shooter to the bodyguards, how does the shooter have LOS to the bodyguards?

Or are you saying you'd also require LOS to the bodyguards, in order to use the rule where only bodyguards in LOS can block shots. If so, how does that rule do anything? It only takes effect when it's effect does nothing?

I think you may have misunderstood Rhino Sniping. It always was a cheesy BS tactic. The *shooter* maneuvers so that they only have LOS on what they want to kill. Intentionally limiting their own LOS. It's called "Rhino Sniping" because Rhinos made it really, really easy.

Also,

I mentioned the ability to hit on a natural number is removed in the character targeting suggestion.

First, where is it in:

Character targeting just needs to change - straight up remove it. You shoot at a character you suffer a -2 to hit to a max of -2 - unless they are not screened.

Second, adding one-off fixes for all the corner cases makes it quite the bloated rule.

I do question their playtesting, but not the lack of it. I think their way of playtesting has some fundamental flaws. The most tested codexes and rules have a pattern for being the most out-of-line of the new releases. Not sure what the fix is without knowing how Games Workshop does their testing though.

I love that someone said they should be keeping playtesting limited because of potential leaks. Look at the leaks we got for Iron Hands and the fact the "playtesters" weren't listened to!

Karol wrote:
So what is suppose to make space marine armies different from each other? the way they are painted ?lol

How about they just aren't different? 40K really ran into trouble during the 3rd ed onward when they made a concerted effort to create difference for difference sake in marine armies.

What they ended up doing is stealing the distinctiveness of xenos armies to distinguish chapters from each other. We. Now have a run away effect of them recursively adding unique things that become marine generic and requires new unique units which then become genetic and so on.

Marines should have been regiments of colour not rules. Their differences would be the unit preferences not unique units.

But GW are now stuck in an endless cycle of special marines and players have an expectation that their colour of marine with 1000 people is somehow as significant and important as a species of billions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nothing forcing these units to fire indirectly. It is an option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

You forgot reroll morale and rapid fire weapons out to full range and +1 attack if charged or charging and -1AP on all heavy weapons.

Just sayin'. Keep the list straight.

I think we have to distinguish what marines needed from what was overload. Reroll morale, double tap, +1A, and double damage table don't matter much at all to IH marines (for example).

I wouldn't balk at seeing supplements cost points to use though.

The chapter supplements should not cost points - that would be idiotic. Like why shouldn't every army be charged points to use their codex?

So your argument is "Bonus rules shouldn't cost"? Not sure I agree with you there.

The game also needs some general fixes to make it actually playable.

Some changes would make it more playable, sure.

Character targeting just needs to change - straight up remove it. You shoot at a character you suffer a -2 to hit to a max of -2 - unless they are not screened.

Sure, I miss the days of Reapers being OP. This'll be even more crazy-OP! Let's do it!

That is a start. No bodyguard abilities can be used against a shooting attack unless the bodyguard unit is in LOS to the shooting unit.

Awesome, so I can Rhinoblock all the bodyguards now? Sweet!

The shooting unit has to be in LOS of the bodygaurd unit. No rhino blocking. Even if you did that - you'd still be bringing another unit that I can shoot and kill to get to the bodygaurd...NOT AN ISSUE. bodyguard units outside of LOS forcing you to use the wrong weapons on the wrong targets removes the only real skill in this game. Target priority. It is pathetic mechanics like this were allowed past inception. Much less the sheild drone existing for this long. Much much less the released a more powerful version of sheild drones into the most bonkers OP supplement every written. Man this really feels like the end of 7th...Can't wait for the Ynnari type supplement where every unit can shoot twice per turn in your army for free.

I mentioned the ability to hit on a natural number is removed in the character targeting suggestion.

I have also suggesting nerfing the obviously OP tactics like Ironhands and IF. Or another option is to give Ulthwe the same tactic as Ironhands and give every army access to the OP tactics...I say nerf them. All tactics / esp accorss armies that do the exact same thing should be equal in power.

It's hard to call specific chapters bonus rules. They are basically seperate codex. Kind of like souping TS and CSM. This also gives you "bonus rules". Should that cost extra CP?

Every post you comment on makes me glad you're not on the design team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hellebore wrote:

Karol wrote:
So what is suppose to make space marine armies different from each other? the way they are painted ?lol

How about they just aren't different? 40K really ran into trouble during the 3rd ed onward when they made a concerted effort to create difference for difference sake in marine armies.

What they ended up doing is stealing the distinctiveness of xenos armies to distinguish chapters from each other. We. Now have a run away effect of them recursively adding unique things that become marine generic and requires new unique units which then become genetic and so on.

Marines should have been regiments of colour not rules. Their differences would be the unit preferences not unique units.

But GW are now stuck in an endless cycle of special marines and players have an expectation that their colour of marine with 1000 people is somehow as significant and important as a species of billions.

Yeah, let's do that actually. No more different marines. Quit trying to make them snowflakes. Baseline CTs should be the most differentiation they have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hate how long Xenomances posts are so not gonna quote again but dude, you inderstand that even at -2, marines still have either a 55% or 75% chance to hit right? Thanks to their easy access to full rerolls? A leviathan doesn't give A GAK about minuses to hit.

Eldar can get -3 to hit on their planes and it STILL doesn't protect them for long, especially against marines. What is my little T3 4W buff character gonna do?

Eldar can get -3 to hit on their planes and it STILL doesn't protect them for long, especially against marines. What is my little T3 4W buff character gonna do?

yes, because those are 4-6 models per army. It would be way different, if all eldar models had them just by virtue of standing in the building.

How about they just aren't different? 40K really ran into trouble during the 3rd ed onward when they made a concerted effort to create difference for difference sake in marine armies.

What they ended up doing is stealing the distinctiveness of xenos armies to distinguish chapters from each other. We. Now have a run away effect of them recursively adding unique things that become marine generic and requires new unique units which then become genetic and so on.

dude you sound like someone who plays a non marine army, and does not like the fact that people that do are having fun playing them. The whole good thing about marines is that they are first cheaper to get then other armies and second that they are so many different versions of them.

IMO the whole setting should be about marines vs chaos, with other factions being narrative only options or just exist in the lore.

Karol wrote:

Eldar can get -3 to hit on their planes and it STILL doesn't protect them for long, especially against marines. What is my little T3 4W buff character gonna do?

yes, because those are 4-6 models per army. It would be way different, if all eldar models had them just by virtue of standing in the building.

How about they just aren't different? 40K really ran into trouble during the 3rd ed onward when they made a concerted effort to create difference for difference sake in marine armies.

What they ended up doing is stealing the distinctiveness of xenos armies to distinguish chapters from each other. We. Now have a run away effect of them recursively adding unique things that become marine generic and requires new unique units which then become genetic and so on.

dude you sound like someone who plays a non marine army, and does not like the fact that people that do are having fun playing them. The whole good thing about marines is that they are first cheaper to get then other armies and second that they are so many different versions of them.

IMO the whole setting should be about marines vs chaos, with other factions being narrative only options or just exist in the lore.

Well you sound like a troll. Xenos armies have been in the game since before unique marine chapters rules existed.

If the only reason you play marines is because your chosen colour has unique rules, then that says more about you than me.

I don't get the colour part, most models GW makes are the same grey colour plastic. Only nurgle and some marines stuff is blue and green. What does the army colour have to do with picking an army. People pick specific ones because of the rules. Good stuff is popular and played by many people, less popular stuff is in general weaker. then only other influence is the army cost.

As for the past I don't know since when marines had separate different rules. In 8th they all have different rules, considering my GK get the hate for 4th or 5th ed, this probably means that they had different rules back then too. this means what 10+years of having specific rules? I don't care about xeno armies or their players. just like they didn't care for the enjoyment of marine players, when their armies were rolling everything over. I also don't care how long they had their rules. Marines seem to have had different rules for , at least, as long as I live. If something is a thing for almost as long as I live, I am okey with it. saying that all marines should now have one set of rules. Now that is a stupid thing to say, because the counter argument to this is that all xeno should have a single rule set too.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nothing forcing these units to fire indirectly. It is an option.

You do understand what artillery does right? It sits in the backfield and drops ordnance on things it can't see.

Artillery is one of the guard's strongest tools. It's one of the things that makes the guard what they are. You're rule would eliminate that. But you don't care because you only worry about "balance " when it helps whatever army you're currently playing which I guess isn't guard at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
[quAutomatically Appended Next Post:

Hellebore wrote:

Karol wrote:
So what is suppose to make space marine armies different from each other? the way they are painted ?lol

How about they just aren't different? 40K really ran into trouble during the 3rd ed onward when they made a concerted effort to create difference for difference sake in marine armies.

What they ended up doing is stealing the distinctiveness of xenos armies to distinguish chapters from each other. We. Now have a run away effect of them recursively adding unique things that become marine generic and requires new unique units which then become genetic and so on.

Marines should have been regiments of colour not rules. Their differences would be the unit preferences not unique units.

But GW are now stuck in an endless cycle of special marines and players have an expectation that their colour of marine with 1000 people is somehow as significant and important as a species of billions.

Yeah, let's do that actually. No more different marines. Quit trying to make them snowflakes. Baseline CTs should be the most differentiation they have.

Yeah let's do that. No more special snowflake sm chapters. Or legions. No more clans. No more septs, dynasties, regiments, forge worlds, or gods.

No more craftworld or dark eldar.

Just.

Fething.

Eldar.

How about no factions? No species?

Let's just make it all easy.

Two sides.

White.

Black.

There. Balanced game.

I love when people strawman the moment even a small amount of streamlining is suggested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And ERJAK is right. There isn't a need for endless "unique" units and Special Characters. Keep it at 3-5 per Chapter at most and lose the unnecessary bloat. No, just because you think Corbulo, Asmodai, and Tellion are neat does not mean they fulfill a purpose existing in the game whatsoever.

I wouldn't be bothered by the various named characters if they weren't so heavily bloated towards a few specific subfactions. I'd love to have a named character for each of the Orders of the Sororitas, for example, but right now we only really have Our Martyred Lady characters, the canoness, and the oddity that is the Triumph.

 Melissia wrote:
I wouldn't be bothered by the various named characters if they weren't so heavily bloated towards a few specific subfactions. I'd love to have a named character for each of the Orders of the Sororitas, for example, but right now we only really have Our Martyred Lady characters, the canoness, and the oddity that is the Triumph.

There's too many named characters as is. 1-3 is fine. Ultramarines, the Angels, and Wolves are examples of too much, which both gets in the way of using generic options AND creating bloat when they don't fill a role (The Blades of Treason could easily just be an artifact. That's been the only thing Asmodai had to differentiate him basically for his existence until forced Aurahammer, and even then he really doesn't do much).

Karol wrote:dude you sound like someone who plays a non marine army, and does not like the fact that people that do are having fun playing them. The whole good thing about marines is that they are first cheaper to get then other armies and second that they are so many different versions of them.

As a Marine player, I agree with their point: Space Marines were popular before they had subfaction traits, and remain popular since.

Even if we went back to 5th, and had only Codex Marines, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels (personally I feel that could all be folded into one, but that's another topic), Marines would *still* be more popular than any other faction. Them being subfaction traits wasn't a key feature of that.

IMO the whole setting should be about marines vs chaos, with other factions being narrative only options or just exist in the lore.

Suffice to say, many people disagree with that. I'd suggest 30k to you, because it's largely pretty much that (with some token AdMech, Knights, cult, daemon and auxilia forces too), but I get the impression it's not big in your area.

Karol wrote:I don't get the colour part, most models GW makes are the same grey colour plastic. Only nurgle and some marines stuff is blue and green.

The Kill Team starter kits and Space Marine Heroes range are in coloured plastic too.

What does the army colour have to do with picking an army.

Because people might want to paint their models in their favourite colour, or just like the look of a particular colour scheme?

When there was no mechanical difference between Ultramarines and Imperial Fists, can you not see why people might choose to paint their models in a certain way, unrelated to the game rules?

People pick specific ones because of the rules.

Demonstrably disproven by every edition prior to Space Marine Chapters getting subfaction rules.
In 5th, when there was no rules difference between Iron Hands and Ultramarines, why did people pick Iron Hands?

As for the past I don't know since when marines had separate different rules. In 8th they all have different rules, considering my GK get the hate for 4th or 5th ed, this probably means that they had different rules back then too.

No, they didn't. Barring the cases of separate Codexes like Black Templars, Dark Angels etc etc, there was no rules difference between Ultramarines and Imperial Fists and any other of the Codex: Space Marine Chapter prior to 6th. In both 4th and 5th, there was no tangible difference between them, aside from colour scheme and lore. You could even play Imperial Fist characters and Ultramarines characters in the same detachment, and paint them whatever colour you liked!

this means what 10+years of having specific rules?

No more than 8, surely? Compared to the decades prior to that? All Marines having their own unique rules is a relatively new thing, not a long established feature.

I don't care about xeno armies or their players.

That's clear to see.

just like they didn't care for the enjoyment of marine players, when their armies were rolling everything over.

Yes, I too remember when Marines never won games ever and were completely trash- oh, hang on, that's not what it was like at all.

Sure, Eldar and Tau were pretty good in 5th and beyond, and DE certainly had their strengths in places, but Marines were hardly the weakest army out there.

I also don't care how long they had their rules. Marines seem to have had different rules for , at least, as long as I live.

So, you're under ten years old?

If something is a thing for almost as long as I live, I am okey with it. saying that all marines should now have one set of rules. Now that is a stupid thing to say, because the counter argument to this is that all xeno should have a single rule set too.

No, that would be like saying all Imperium should be a single ruleset. Space Marines are a single faction, like how Tyranids are a single faction. "Xenos" as a faction on it's own does not exist.

I don't think anyone calling for Marines to be reduced doesn't expect the same for every other faction as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
I wouldn't be bothered by the various named characters if they weren't so heavily bloated towards a few specific subfactions. I'd love to have a named character for each of the Orders of the Sororitas, for example, but right now we only really have Our Martyred Lady characters, the canoness, and the oddity that is the Triumph.

Agreed. It's all about fairness - either everyone gets a wealth of special characters for every subfaction, or no-one should get so much.

As an Ultramarines player, I feel bad for other Space Marine Chapters who don't have the same wealth of characters we have, and even more so for factions that literally get nothing (hi Dark Eldar!)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's too many named characters as is. 1-3 is fine. Ultramarines, the Angels, and Wolves are examples of too much, which both gets in the way of using generic options AND creating bloat when they don't fill a role (The Blades of Treason could easily just be an artifact. That's been the only thing Asmodai had to differentiate him basically for his existence until forced Aurahammer, and even then he really doesn't do much).

This.

One of the most annoying consequences of 8th's streamlining is that the generic wargear options for most characters have been cut to the bone, whilst most special characters can barely move for special rules and unique wargear.

IMO, Special Characters should just be generic characters with specific loadouts (including artefacts and warlord traits, as appropriate).

Karol wrote:
I don't get the colour part, most models GW makes are the same grey colour plastic. Only nurgle and some marines stuff is blue and green. What does the army colour have to do with picking an army. People pick specific ones because of the rules.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the game's history doesn't agree. Those color schemes existed and were widely used long before any special rules were associated with them.

Good stuff is popular and played by many people, less popular stuff is in general weaker. then only other influence is the army cost.

At top end tournament levels? Sure. Anywhere else, this is an absolute fallacy of an assertion. I started playing Guard in 4E, an edition where they were absolute garbage. Orks have been competitive garbage in most editions, and people still play them, and in fact Orks have their own color schemes and subfactions that have existed without rules for the bulk of the game's existence.

As for the past I don't know since when marines had separate different rules. In 8th they all have different rules, considering my GK get the hate for 4th or 5th ed, this probably means that they had different rules back then too. this means what 10+years of having specific rules? I don't care about xeno armies or their players. just like they didn't care for the enjoyment of marine players, when their armies were rolling everything over. I also don't care how long they had their rules. Marines seem to have had different rules for , at least, as long as I live. If something is a thing for almost as long as I live, I am okey with it. saying that all marines should now have one set of rules. Now that is a stupid thing to say, because the counter argument to this is that all xeno should have a single rule set too.

Most Xenos armies aren't 80-95% identical units and wargear that the Space Marine books are. Given that Chaos Marines made do with a single book until the tail end of 7E through several decades of the game's existence, with forces that are vastly more divergent according to the background than their loyalist equivalents, the idea that loyalist Marines couldn't just use one combined book is...absurd.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the game's history doesn't agree. Those color schemes existed and were widely used long before any special rules were associated with them.

you actually made me asked about this. It turns out that different marines had different rules since at least 2ed. This means 7ed out of 8th that were. I don't know how long the first edition was, no one played here durning that one, so I couldn't get any info. So it turns out that marines had different rules for over 20 years now. I think the ship to give them one rule set sailed a long time ago.

At top end tournament levels? Sure. Anywhere else, this is an absolute fallacy of an assertion. I started playing Guard in 4E, an edition where they were absolute garbage. Orks have been competitive garbage in most editions, and people still play them, and in fact Orks have their own color schemes and subfactions that have existed without rules for the bulk of the game's existence.

And I started playing with GK in 8th. How is that an argument against the fact that most people play marines or that good stuff sells the best? In fact I think that that non human armies would have even fewer players, without good rules. And even with bad armies like my GK, people don't pick up terminators to play, they pick strikes to play with. Why? because terminators are much worse, for more points. Am sure orcs have the same. I don't know enough about them, but the warlord on bike seems to be a big problem. orks have other HQs even a new mounted one, but they are just worse then the biker warlord.

Most Xenos armies aren't 80-95% identical units and wargear that the Space Marine books are. Given that Chaos Marines made do with a single book until the tail end of 7E through several decades of the game's existence, with forces that are vastly more divergent according to the background than their loyalist equivalents, the idea that loyalist Marines couldn't just use one combined book is...absurd

how are marinse the same when all of them have different rules ? As the chaos things go. Maybe GW doesn't want people to play one specific marine army, but a soup, just to force chaos people in to buying more codex and more models. Just like they were trying to make everyone buy an IG book and some IG dudes to fuel CP consumption.

Karol wrote:

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the game's history doesn't agree. Those color schemes existed and were widely used long before any special rules were associated with them.

you actually made me asked about this. It turns out that different marines had different rules since at least 2ed. This means 7ed out of 8th that were. I don't know how long the first edition was, no one played here durning that one, so I couldn't get any info. So it turns out that marines had different rules for over 20 years now. I think the ship to give them one rule set sailed a long time ago.

Go on then - what mechanical difference were there between Iron Hands and Ultramarines in 5th edition? After all that was about 10 years ago - if Marines have been distinct for so long, what was the distinction?

Actually, I can tell you! There wasn't. There wasn't even unique characters - Marneus Calgar could be taken in an Iron Hands army alongside Lysander, Shrike, Vulkan and Khan.

Most Xenos armies aren't 80-95% identical units and wargear that the Space Marine books are. Given that Chaos Marines made do with a single book until the tail end of 7E through several decades of the game's existence, with forces that are vastly more divergent according to the background than their loyalist equivalents, the idea that loyalist Marines couldn't just use one combined book is...absurd

how are marinse the same when all of them have different rules ?

Tell me again how a Genestealer is just as similar to a Fire Warrior as an Ultramarine is to an Imperial Fist.

In 5th edition and prior, when the only difference between an Ultramarine and Imperial Fist was how you painted him, where were these "different rules" back then?

Karol wrote:

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the game's history doesn't agree. Those color schemes existed and were widely used long before any special rules were associated with them.

you actually made me asked about this. It turns out that different marines had different rules since at least 2ed. This means 7ed out of 8th that were. I don't know how long the first edition was, no one played here durning that one, so I couldn't get any info. So it turns out that marines had different rules for over 20 years now. I think the ship to give them one rule set sailed a long time ago.

Some did, most did not, and I have my 2E "Angels of Death" codex here for BA and DA, it's 99% identical to Codex Ultramarines except has some extra characters and Death Company (which were basically just insane Tac marines). It was not something that needed its own rulebook in terms of gameplay (as opposed to keeping flagship product in the marketing pipeline every year), and playing Angels of Death over Ultramarines didn't offer any competitive benefits or vice versa.

That said, if one was playing Iron Hands, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, Salamanders, White Scars, Black Templars, etc, there were no special rules or characters for them. They were just paint schemes. People still played them. Subfaction rules only started to slowly get introduced and were substantially less powerful than they are now (e.g. in 4E marines had mix-n-match chapter traits coupled with drawbacks, named chapters simply had theirs chosen for them).

And I started playing with GK in 8th. How is that an argument against the fact that most people play marines or that good stuff sells the best?

I never disputed that Marines were the most popular army, however you said the only thing that matters was cost and power, which isn't true across the board (only in some places), GW sells lots of kits for competitively garbage units and armies all the time, people play these armies and units. Your own entrance to GK in an edition where they are suboptimal proves that as well. Even in times where marines were competitively poor, they sold well.

In fact I think that that non human armies would have even fewer players, without good rules.

Why are we lumping them all together when they have no reason to be? The Ork playerbase is not the same as the Eldar playerbase. Eldar are an aesthetically pleasing army and have been powerful every edition, Orks are directly the opposite, yet Ork armies and players are still around. Hell, Orks only recently got subfaction rules, despite those subfactions existing back to RT/2E, and that never seemed to matter.

Powerful rules will push sales, but that's not the only thing that does so, and tying that to color schemes has been a consistent bane of balance since its inception.

And even with bad armies like my GK, people don't pick up terminators to play, they pick strikes to play with.

The 20+ GK Terminators I own for my own GK army say otherwise

Yes, for a subset of the playerbase, what you say absolutely holds true, but not across the board, and should not hold as a guiding game design philosophy.

how are marinse the same when all of them have different rules ?

You're being intentionally obtuse here. Let's not try and make it out like the overwhelmingly vast majority of the content isn't identical. 90% of the units are the same or have minor wargear or special rule swaps, and many of the differences between Marine armies are less substantial than differences between the same army in different editions.

Going from Codex: Space Marines to Codex: Dark Angels or Codex: Space Wolves isn't the same thing as going from Codex: Necrons to Codex: Craftworld Eldar, and anyone trying to make that assertion is being disingenuous.

As the chaos things go. Maybe GW doesn't want people to play one specific marine army, but a soup, just to force chaos people in to buying more codex and more models. Just like they were trying to make everyone buy an IG book and some IG dudes to fuel CP consumption.

If we want to go back in time, Chaos, in its entirety, was in fact was one book. Daemons, Marines, everything, for many editions. Where the rarest, least numerous, and most rigorously regimented and disciplined faction in the game universe, Loyalist Space Marines, got multiple variant books, the full panoply of the realm of Chaos and the infinite impossibilities of the Warp did just fine in a single book

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I wouldn't be bothered by the various named characters if they weren't so heavily bloated towards a few specific subfactions. I'd love to have a named character for each of the Orders of the Sororitas, for example, but right now we only really have Our Martyred Lady characters, the canoness, and the oddity that is the Triumph.

There's too many named characters as is. 1-3 is fine. Ultramarines, the Angels, and Wolves are examples of too much, which both gets in the way of using generic options AND creating bloat when they don't fill a role (The Blades of Treason could easily just be an artifact. That's been the only thing Asmodai had to differentiate him basically for his existence until forced Aurahammer, and even then he really doesn't do much).

I think characters are cool, and I'd like to see more for non marine factions.

To non-marine players [which is me, by the way] it feels like all marines are the same. But I bet that if you are a spacewolf player, or a blood angels player, only space wolves "feel" like your army. And I bet there's a very sentimental attachment to the characters that really transcends the mere mechanics of the game. I think all players should get to experience that for their faction.

My favourite types of characters who represent leaders of a particular unit type, like Telion and his whole scout thing. I'd love to see a dominion character model for sisters who can give her immo the scout move, since regular doms don't anymore. It would be a cool ability, in line with fluff, and aligned to a previous rule, so not too OP. I would think Argent Shroud would be the appropriate Order.

And of course, DE need all of our characters back- two of the ones we lost are those unit-types I love so much; Baron Sathonyx is a Hellion Leader and Keradruahk is a Mandrake.

Some characters are more than rules. Let me tell you a true, and personal story to illustrate the point.

In 2008, I played my Sister's Army in its first apocalypse battle. It was an 8 player game on an L-shaped table, 12' on the long side, 8' on the short side; somewhere upwards of 20,000 points of models on the table in total. Each player created a narrative objective, in addition to 3 more randomly determined, generic objectives. For me, I had to get beneath the altar of a shattered chapel to Saint Katherine in order to retrieve the Praesidium Protectiva born into battle by Saint Katherine herself as the shieldbearer of Alicia Dominica. During that battle, an entire Celestian squad was martyred by an Ork Warboss and his boys, which allowed Palatine Jahalla Athebraxis to enter the chapel unseen and emerge with a priceless artifact that hadn't seen the sun in 3000 years. After the battle, I converted a model to represent Jahalla after her promotion to Canoness, carrying the shield she discovered in that battle.

When I saw the Triumph of Saint Katherine model, it actually took my breath away. Not even the whole thing- just that one model leading the procession with Saint Katherine's Paesidium Protectiva. I have literally waited 13 years for that model. Its appearance validated a decade worth of stories told with the help of great friends. It justified every dollar I have ever spent on this hobby and every dollar that I will spend. GW could charge me any amount of money and stick me with the crappiest set of rules and I would STILL bring that model to every game I play.

And I don't begrudge people the chance to feel that when Mephiston crosses the Rubicon, or when everyone's suddenly talking about how awesome Ironhands are at last when you're the one who's been faithfully fielding them for a decade. You already had an amazing army fully built when the dex dropped, and while everyone else was scrambling to build their own Ironhands Army, you charged out of the gate and started crushing your enemies on day one. Enjoy your time in the sun. You won't be the new hotness forever.

I do think GW should make an equivalent of Kill Team Arena for 40k, because I think the people who like balanced, streamlined, competitive play are important to the life of the hobby, and they should be able to enjoy the game as much as I do. I think that's the only real way to keep everyone happy, because if the game was as balanced and streamlined as some players want it to be, it wouldn't be worth playing for me personally.

As a primarily marine player for 25 years now, there are too many marine rules.

Hellebores observation that marines have just taken rules from Xenos in order to diversify is spot on.

The level of attention marines get compared to other factions is gross. Since the codex+supplements came out I'm more drawn to my Tyranids simply because they're not marines.

 vipoid wrote:
In theory, you're correct.

In practise, GW are (and have always been) utterly abysmal at understanding and balancing their own game. Hence, even if they did add point costs to Chapter Tactics and the like, i have absolutely no faith in them to make said costs remotely balanced or reflective of power.

I also have no faith in them to not screw up the costing system itself. e.g. by making each Chapter Tactic +Xpts more per model. So that you would, for example, pay 1pt extra per guardsman and 1pt extra per Baneblade.

This is my sentiment exactly.

I feel like Stratagems should be once per game rather than once per turn. Then you could give each army 1 standard stratagem that allows them to add the cost to redo 1 and only one of their signature stratagems.

Lately my friends and I have been playing the game without stratagems at all and the balance seems (seems) a lot better to us.

I also think reroll auras need to go. Rerolling is so prevalent right now, that a lot of armies have basically a 90% chance of hitting their targets. It slows down the game.

This one is likely going to be pretty controversial, but I think AP needs a total rework. AP 3 should be hella hard to get and AP 4 should be nearly no-existent.

We were talking last night, a friend and I about melta for example.

Why not make it AP 3, that bumps to AP 4 when you are hitting a vehicle with it?

Any thoughts?

There's nothing wrong with having rules that make factions feel different from similar factions. The sm supplements simply went too far. And many of the rules have nothing to do with the flavor of the chapters and actually go against it. Why do the super stealthy and tactical Raven Guard suddenly have so much love for big, loud, clunky centurions?

What I find surprising is that instead of arguing that the more op sm rules be reined in and other factions given similar fluffy but not OP rules many seem to be arguing that what we need is less flavor for the factions they don't play.

Dark eldar need their characters back. The legions need to be able to play like themselves even after the cp runs out. Everyone should have a codex that is internally balanced enough that they're not forced into one or two builds.

Instead of trying to tear everyone else down how about some suggestions on building up the struggling factions?

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Instead of trying to tear everyone else down how about some suggestions on building up the struggling factions?

There's so much new content since the index days. I think GW needs to do a comprehensive balance pass not just through every codex, but they need to look at issues like CP and stratagems and terrain to take the game where they want to go. That's a bigger project than you can take on in a web forum IMO. They need to put a huge whiteboard in a conference room, keep copies of every book and rules supplement in the game on their table, and make some sense out of it all.

 Togusa wrote:
I feel like Stratagems should be once per game rather than once per turn. Then you could give each army 1 standard stratagem that allows them to add the cost to redo 1 and only one of their signature stratagems.

Lately my friends and I have been playing the game without stratagems at all and the balance seems (seems) a lot better to us.

I also think reroll auras need to go. Rerolling is so prevalent right now, that a lot of armies have basically a 90% chance of hitting their targets. It slows down the game.

This one is likely going to be pretty controversial, but I think AP needs a total rework. AP 3 should be hella hard to get and AP 4 should be nearly no-existent.

We were talking last night, a friend and I about melta for example.

Why not make it AP 3, that bumps to AP 4 when you are hitting a vehicle with it?

Any thoughts?

Melta Gun inconsistency was stupid silly. For what you want, a Melta would ignore the armor of a Rhino but not a Carnifex or Wraithlord. That's dumb to be honest. This isn't something like Haywire where that makes sense.