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.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Klickor wrote:
So you Mr Armchair General who havent even played in a tournament is someones opinion we should listen to? I assume you havent played in one since you think its mostly cheaters and not just people who likes to play multiple rounds of 40k in a short period of time. Why is that narrow opinion more useful than the data we have?

Have hosted tournaments, and played in them. I work in a game shop. Nice assumption.

It's not 'mostly cheaters'. It's 'just enough cheaters' to soil the whole scene for me. I've watched people cheat when NOTHING is at stake, and then when 'little' is at stake- I'm not even shocked to hear that high-profile '40k news site' players cheat at major tournaments. Hell, I've seen tournament organizers do scummy stuff and lie.

That neither gives your position more authority, nor means that tournament data can be tossed out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wyches aren't some badass CC unit though.

Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.

. . .If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points. . .

Why?
Makes no sense. Marines get to be decent at CC and good at shooting for 20 points, as well as being durable. . . But something can't just be good at CC for 20 points? Even if it's not durable and can't shoot?

This sentiment is a big problem.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I won't enter in any debate but Space Marines were crap for most of 8th with the exceptions being were only them, DG and GK had codex and SM Codex 2.0 and onwards.

All space marine top placings before 2.0 were with Guilliman parking lot and even those lists didnt fare that good. It was much worse playing "casual" space marines because casual tiranids, imperial guard, eldar, dark eldar lists would absolutely destroy you.

Bad luck if you played Dark Angels (Like myself) that have been crap for all of 8th even when marines were OP with codex 2.0


And I'm not saying this to justify the absurdity of Codex 2.0 or the supplements but when the most popular faction of your game is crap at that level for so long , of course people will be angry and thats why GW, overcorrected.

2019 LVO, top placing SM list was 8th place. And while it was "Soup" it was exclusively SM soup. So in the middle of 8th, when SM were supposedly the worst, they had a top 8 finishing at one of the biggest tournaments.

Yeah, I remember that tournament because nearly half the lists were Imperial Guard and Imperial Knights
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2019/03/02/lvo-stats-part-1-lvo-faction-breakdowns-and-overall-analysis/

That list was a parking guilliman list with a smash captain. There were no more space marine lists on the top 25. That does not negate what I have said. Marines were crap. Others armies have been crap. Marines doesnt deserve to be OP now for being crap in that time, but is obvious that GW overcorrected because is not the same for Genestealer Cults to be crap than for marines to be crap.

I remember the 8th period of just before pre marine codex 2.0 but with shock assault and bolter discipline as a very good time of balance in the game,

 Galas wrote:
And I'm not complaining or anything, as I said, I have no problem playing underpowered factions , and I'm also quite bad (When you play 3-5 games each two months how can you become good at any game?), but there was very valid criticism about the most part of 8th when marines were crap. And also for the people that complained about the bad units of tau, eldar, etc... Theres no need to negate the experience of others. We are talking about GW, we all know even in the best of times at minimun 30-50% of a codex will be mediocre at best, stupidly bad at worst.

My point was more that Marines were hardly in a unique position in having a generally mediocre codex but one standout subfaction-based build. If someone is going to point to tournament results showing that only Guilliman castles placed well in tournaments, and then argue that this shows Marines were particularly weak, without doing the same kind of analysis for other factions, then that's not a very fair assessment. I think you'll find that there are/were a lot of factions- almost certainly a plurality- that had just one standout build.

I'm not trying to negate anyone's experience, but I think the perception that Marines were especially bad in early 8th comes primarily from Marine players comparing their own non-meta builds to the meta builds of other armies (and the couple of armies that were universally strong, eg Guard and Knights), rather than the factions as a whole. Like I said before I agree that they were weak and needed buffs, but I disagree with the common characterization as one of the worst or the worst army in early 8th.

 Galas wrote:
I mean if you look at tournament data you'll see that the Guilliman parking lot lists (With flyers and razorbacks before nerfs and with other stuff after) wasn't even that good, and it was not the "most" competitive SM list but the only one powerfull enough to compete. The rest of the codex was absolute crap when you had codex like Imperial Guard or Tyranids or Dark Eldar with duds here and there but with much more competitive flexibility even in a casual setting.

I'm no pro-player by any metric and in some team tournaments I had some success with Azrael pre nerf with 3 predators with 4++ even agaisnt triple baneblade lists when those were very scary. But playing Space Marines in casual games in that time was an excercise of frustration. Thats why I played them, and when I stopped they were buffed to the strathospere, but by that time I was playing Custodes that were also crap. And now with 9th I play Tau. I don't know why, I always end up playing the army of the ones I own that is in a worse state

The best part is we have nearly 2 years of marines under 8th edd with 40ish % win rate. Demonstrating the craptastic army condition...Many thought the army/armies were fine and didn't need to be buffed then. Most marine players can admit where the issue are...Really all the supplements except for Ultramarines were pretty effing bonkers. Really though - just the ending of an eddition...pretty standard for GW to release insane rules at the end of an eddition...Think...Greyknights...gladius...Demonic incursion...

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Have hosted tournaments, and played in them. I work in a game shop. Nice assumption.

It's not 'mostly cheaters'. It's 'just enough cheaters' to soil the whole scene for me. I've watched people cheat when NOTHING is at stake, and then when 'little' is at stake- I'm not even shocked to hear that high-profile '40k news site' players cheat at major tournaments. Hell, I've seen tournament organizers do scummy stuff and lie.

The cheating is very much a result of GW's policy towards game design. GW doesn't want a game that's balanced, they don't want a game where skill matters. They want a game where the solution to a loss isn't "get good," it's "buy MOAR PRIMARIS" because that makes them money. So they *want* a game where certain units/models are powerful in an unbalanced way, and where the game is absolutely braindead once you sit down at the table. This creates a situation where the players know the game is rigged, and know they have very little control over what happens at the table, and so feel much better about cheating. It's the same reason why crime runs rampant in societies where the legal authority is capricious and arbitrary - there's no understanding that everyone gets a fair shake at the gaming table, so how does cheating make it worse?

Anyway, other than that, you're wrong, Astartes have been powerful for a while, it's just that their playerbase veers more towards the incompetent than other factions.

Hecaton wrote:


Anyway, other than that, you're wrong, Astartes have been powerful for a while, it's just that their playerbase veers more towards the incompetent than other factions.

This does not help anyone. Lets be real here. Most of the people that play this game is very bad (Myself included and many posters of Dakka that probably think are much better than what they are). Compare a game like league of legends were even the worst but minimally "regular" players play normally what. 12-15 games a week? Who plays so many games of warhammer a week? A month?

We spend much more time talking about warhammer than playing it, and as much as people say Warhammer doesnt require skill (And it is not a very intense game in that front) theres still place to show it. I'm very bad, and I know many players and friends of mine that are much better than me and even then admit they are quite mediocre at the game. As much as you have people on dakka claiming that they could win agaisnt Navanati if they had the list the pro players use (And lets not start the pro player with horrible list vs bad player with OP list tangent), theres still place for some skill to make a difference.

 Galas wrote:


Yeah, I remember that tournament because nearly half the lists were Imperial Guard and Imperial Knights
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2019/03/02/lvo-stats-part-1-lvo-faction-breakdowns-and-overall-analysis/

That list was a parking guilliman list with a smash captain. There were no more space marine lists on the top 25. That does not negate what I have said. Marines were crap. Others armies have been crap. Marines doesnt deserve to be OP now for being crap in that time, but is obvious that GW overcorrected because is not the same for Genestealer Cults to be crap than for marines to be crap.

I remember the 8th period of just before pre marine codex 2.0 but with shock assault and bolter discipline as a very good time of balance in the game,

Correct, because other more broken combinations were in play. During that horrible era where SM were crap you had a TOP 8 PLACING in probably the biggest tournament of the year. But that doesn't count because there were no other Marines in the top 25.

You can not have a CRAP codex while simultaneously having a top 8 finishing at LVO. You would have a point with lesser tournaments but not LVO.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The best part is we have nearly 2 years of marines under 8th edd with 40ish % win rate. Demonstrating the craptastic army condition...Many thought the army/armies were fine and didn't need to be buffed then. Most marine players can admit where the issue are...Really all the supplements except for Ultramarines were pretty effing bonkers. Really though - just the ending of an eddition...pretty standard for GW to release insane rules at the end of an eddition...Think...Greyknights...gladius...Demonic incursion...

Enter Xeno with the missing context comment. Marines weren't good in 8th because ummm...Timmy from down the street who picked up a start playing box last week lost at a 8-12 person tournament. Now go measure Top 4 and top 8 finishes, how did they do compared to everyone else? Now do that math for major events and not little 10 man events. SMs were the best faction at the start of 8th, they were the most broken OP at the end of 8th, The WORST you guys had it was in the middle of 8th where you had a top 8 finish at the biggest tournament of the year. Same year you had an Ultrasmurf finishing 6th at Adepticon. Yeah, totally a garbage time for SM players.

SemperMortis I disagree in clasifying the quality of a codex based in if it can have a top placing on a tournament, even a one as big as LVO. And when that faction is your most popular one, it will affect much more people. And thats what I'm saying: GW doesnt particularly likes when marines are even in a casual context, pretty horrible. Even if other , many other codex and armies are and were weak (Marines weren't the weaker codex in 8th, that place goes to Dark Angels and then Ynnary post nerf, both worse than even pre PA GK).

I consider Tyranid 7th codex utter crap even when spamming flyrants was a competitive list.

 Galas wrote:
SemperMortis I disagree in clasifying the quality of a codex based in if it can have a top placing on a tournament, even a one as big as LVO. And when that faction is your most popular one, it will affect much more people. And thats what I'm saying: GW doesnt particularly likes when marines are even in a casual context, pretty horrible. Even if other , many other codex and armies are and were weak (Marines weren't the weaker codex in 8th, that place goes to Dark Angels and then Ynnary post nerf, both worse than even pre PA GK).

I consider Tyranid 7th codex utter crap even when spamming flyrants was a competitive list.

You can disagree to your hearts content. But the fact remains that the SM codex had the tools necessary to field a top 8 finishing army in LVO and a top 6 at Adepticon while being claimed to be "Terrible" By that same token, my Orkz had their best edition since 4th and at LVO that same year we had the previous LVO WINNER playing orkz....and he didn't make it into the top 12, and I would consider the ork codex at that time to be better than it had been in over a decade.

while internal balance might have been bad in your opinion, it was still good enough to carry at least 1 list to top finishes.

I admit my perception is sweked as a DA player, but things never looked much better until 2.0 in the vanilla codex. In that LVO Orks made 2 top 25 placements, for example. People is a little too fast to take in a 600 person tournament only the top 8 or 10 as relevant when with those lists and player skill level, theres a ton of chance in who fights who when determining those rankings. Remember in LVO 2020 Navanati had a competitive lists and in the first round he faced and hard counter and he just retired, for example. (Or was it adepticon, I don't remember)

Man, looking back at that top 25, just look at the distribution. Ok, AM and Imperial Knights were OP but look at that faction representation. Fething marines. Stop buffing them GW!

SemperMortis wrote:
Correct, because other more broken combinations were in play. During that horrible era where SM were crap you had a TOP 8 PLACING in probably the biggest tournament of the year. But that doesn't count because there were no other Marines in the top 25.

You can not have a CRAP codex while simultaneously having a top 8 finishing at LVO. You would have a point with lesser tournaments but not LVO.

I think we're nominally on the same side, but I'd caution against this. Outliers and unusual occurrences happen; you have to look at overall performance. Someone can just be rolling red hot fire on a few crucial rolls or have amazing matchups that day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
This does not help anyone. Lets be real here.

Well, you gotta say it if it's accurate. It's part of the issue with the narrative of "Buy into 40k with Astartes, lose, then buy another army and succeed." A big part of that is player skill increasing in the interim. Less serious, and therefore less skilled, players are more likely to own Astartes because they're easier to access.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wyches aren't some badass CC unit though.

Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.

They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.

They didn't need gobs of AP weapons or to be 20pt models in order to be effective against Marines of various flavors in previous editions. They were able to beat marines in CC while being cheaper than them at the cost of having no relevant shooting capability and dying like Guardsmen to shooting attacks, that worked just fine.

By that token, should Genestealers be 20+ points too?

The idea that something needs to be that expensive and equipped that lavishly to be able to best a (cheaper and far more flexible) Space Marine in CC is absurd. Simple as.

 Galas wrote:
I admit my perception is sweked as a DA player, but things never looked much better until 2.0 in the vanilla codex. In that LVO Orks made 2 top 25 placements, for example. People is a little too fast to take in a 600 person tournament only the top 8 or 10 as relevant when with those lists and player skill level, theres a ton of chance in who fights who when determining those rankings.

Man, looking back at that top 25, just look at the distribution. Ok, AM and Imperial Knights were OP but look at that faction representation. Fething marines. Stop buffing them GW!

Yep, in that tournament we had the previous LVO winner Nick Nanavati and Steve Pampreen (Arguably one of the best players in the game) finish 16th and 17th. So again, repeating the issue here, you have people claiming SM's were god awful, dark ages, worst in the game during the middle of 8th, while at the same time finishing higher in MAJOR tournaments like LVO and Adepticon than most other factions. IS this because SM's were terrible with a single competitive build or is this because SM's are the starter faction with the most New/casual players (They are the biggest faction hands down) and as such, unless things are OP they tend to get their butts kicked by players who have more experience/practice with their chosen armies?

On a strictly army vs army comparison, SM's were as good as my ork codex, the biggest difference, most Ork players i am familiar with knew to avoid the bad units like Burna boyz or Warbiker nobz etc. And since most of those tournament ork players are long time veterans, we tend to have rather large collections comparatively and can choose not to take the bad units to events.

The fact is that SM's were given tools in their original codex that were amazing and didn't really get nerfed. You still had units like Aggressors double tapping units, didn't have the blast rule yet but 19 shots a turn from a relatively cheap model is amazing.

The only real detriment I can see for SM players was the brokeness of other codex like Eldar and Imperial Knights which had to be nerfed because they were OP. But other factions being OP (units not entire armies) doesn't mean that a codex is weak.

Hecaton wrote:
Anyway, other than that, you're wrong, Astartes have been powerful for a while, it's just that their playerbase veers more towards the incompetent than other factions.

Hecaton wrote:
Well, you gotta say it if it's accurate. It's part of the issue with the narrative of "Buy into 40k with Astartes, lose, then buy another army and succeed." A big part of that is player skill increasing in the interim. Less serious, and therefore less skilled, players are more likely to own Astartes because they're easier to access.

Wait, let me try it, too: Marines have been balanced even after 2.0 dropped. Players of other factions just don't have what it takes to win without a leg up.

Got anything to back up your lowkey insult of other players, or are you just making things up as you post?

a_typical_hero wrote:
Wait, let me try it, too: Marines have been balanced even after 2.0 dropped. Players of other factions just don't have what it takes to win without a leg up.

Got anything to back up your lowkey insult of other players, or are you just making things up as you post?

You, sir, get a throne made of boobies and a shovel full of Splenda to hurl in the quivering mouths of your foes.

I'll say it.

Space Marines aren't the 'easy win' any more, there's no 'one specific list with a specific unit' to make two specific flavors of Space Marine a concern on the tabletop, now they have the means to compete. Which means you'll need to get better at making your lists. You might have to plan on ways to mitigate that. Maybe figure out a way to keep those Eradicators away from your shooty box/stompy bot.

You're all smart(ish) people. Figure it out. Wait for you know, your actual Codex. Don't worry, it's not hard- there's a Pandemic.

You can't lose the games you aren't playing anyway. Paint your damned models. Wash your hands.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Wait, let me try it, too: Marines have been balanced even after 2.0 dropped. Players of other factions just don't have what it takes to win without a leg up.

Got anything to back up your lowkey insult of other players, or are you just making things up as you post?

The difference is, I'm factually right and you're factually wrong.

I'm sorry SemperMortis but I can agree with "The codex was good but players were just bad".
The codex was not the worst of 8th. It was quite horrible and overcosted tought, and badly designed. In a time were everybody had subfaction traits in their whole armies marines and csm had them on infantry, bikers and dreadnoughts, for example.


Anecdotically the worst player I know is an ork one, and whats worse of him is that he never admits that he has made a mistake. Great painter tought, one of the best I personally know. The truth is, even if Space Marines have the bigger % of "new" players, not for being a veteran you are a good or better player, quite the contrary, the worst players I know are not the newest ones but normally the oldest ones that just don't want to improve.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Galas wrote:


Yeah, I remember that tournament because nearly half the lists were Imperial Guard and Imperial Knights
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2019/03/02/lvo-stats-part-1-lvo-faction-breakdowns-and-overall-analysis/

That list was a parking guilliman list with a smash captain. There were no more space marine lists on the top 25. That does not negate what I have said. Marines were crap. Others armies have been crap. Marines doesnt deserve to be OP now for being crap in that time, but is obvious that GW overcorrected because is not the same for Genestealer Cults to be crap than for marines to be crap.

I remember the 8th period of just before pre marine codex 2.0 but with shock assault and bolter discipline as a very good time of balance in the game,

Correct, because other more broken combinations were in play. During that horrible era where SM were crap you had a TOP 8 PLACING in probably the biggest tournament of the year. But that doesn't count because there were no other Marines in the top 25.

You can not have a CRAP codex while simultaneously having a top 8 finishing at LVO. You would have a point with lesser tournaments but not LVO.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The best part is we have nearly 2 years of marines under 8th edd with 40ish % win rate. Demonstrating the craptastic army condition...Many thought the army/armies were fine and didn't need to be buffed then. Most marine players can admit where the issue are...Really all the supplements except for Ultramarines were pretty effing bonkers. Really though - just the ending of an eddition...pretty standard for GW to release insane rules at the end of an eddition...Think...Greyknights...gladius...Demonic incursion...

Enter Xeno with the missing context comment. Marines weren't good in 8th because ummm...Timmy from down the street who picked up a start playing box last week lost at a 8-12 person tournament. Now go measure Top 4 and top 8 finishes, how did they do compared to everyone else? Now do that math for major events and not little 10 man events. SMs were the best faction at the start of 8th, they were the most broken OP at the end of 8th, The WORST you guys had it was in the middle of 8th where you had a top 8 finish at the biggest tournament of the year. Same year you had an Ultrasmurf finishing 6th at Adepticon. Yeah, totally a garbage time for SM players.

What you are calling the middle here is literally 90% of the edition time wise.

If we can stay on topic instead of getting off into great text walls of personal attacks, fecal analogies, and accusations, and other similar unproductive conversation leads, it will help keep this thread active longer, thanks!

a_typical_hero wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Anyway, other than that, you're wrong, Astartes have been powerful for a while, it's just that their playerbase veers more towards the incompetent than other factions.

Hecaton wrote:
Well, you gotta say it if it's accurate. It's part of the issue with the narrative of "Buy into 40k with Astartes, lose, then buy another army and succeed." A big part of that is player skill increasing in the interim. Less serious, and therefore less skilled, players are more likely to own Astartes because they're easier to access.

Wait, let me try it, too: Marines have been balanced even after 2.0 dropped. Players of other factions just don't have what it takes to win without a leg up.

Got anything to back up your lowkey insult of other players, or are you just making things up as you post?

Beyond the words being a bit mean i guess, how is he wrong? Anecdotally the worst players I see on average are Marine players. This might be because SM's are the beginners army, how many L2P starter boxes contain Marines vs dont? It might also be because they are the most popular and as such draw in the largest crowd of "casual" players whom tend to be less skilled than more frequent players. And of course, with the possible exception of Eldar, they tend to be the best faction edition to edition and easiest to swap out traits for.

"Oh no, green Marines are bad, well these Green Marines are now a chapter of Blue Marines! yay".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Space Marines aren't the 'easy win' any more, there's no 'one specific list with a specific unit' to make two specific flavors of Space Marine a concern on the tabletop, now they have the means to compete. Which means you'll need to get better at making your lists. You might have to plan on ways to mitigate that. Maybe figure out a way to keep those Eradicators away from your shooty box/stompy bot.

And if Fire Dragons were point-for-point as destructive and durable as Eradicators, you'd be crying for them to be nerfed. This isn't rocket science.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
You're all smart(ish) people. Figure it out. Wait for you know, your actual Codex. Don't worry, it's not hard- there's a Pandemic.

Plenty of people are still getting games in, and they expected an edition that was actually functional. On the one hand you're saying vote with your wallet, and on the other you're saying that people who expect a balanced game don't deserve it. Pick one.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If we can stay on topic instead of getting off into great text walls of personal attacks, fecal analogies, and accusations, and other similar unproductive conversation leads, it will help keep this thread active longer, thanks!

Well, that really flushes my next reply.

Why the hell are we even indulging these threads? You guys shut down threads for less than this 'derailing'.

FFS, let's summarize this thread and the five or six other identical ones:

"ME ARMY NO GET CODEX. ME MAD. BIG BIG MAD." - Guy, sitting in his home for the next few months with nothing better to do than paint and build models and wait for his Codex

Because that's literally the thread. We could just delete them all, make one post that says that, and call it a day.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Anyway, other than that, you're wrong, Astartes have been powerful for a while, it's just that their playerbase veers more towards the incompetent than other factions.

Hecaton wrote:
Well, you gotta say it if it's accurate. It's part of the issue with the narrative of "Buy into 40k with Astartes, lose, then buy another army and succeed." A big part of that is player skill increasing in the interim. Less serious, and therefore less skilled, players are more likely to own Astartes because they're easier to access.

Wait, let me try it, too: Marines have been balanced even after 2.0 dropped. Players of other factions just don't have what it takes to win without a leg up.

Got anything to back up your lowkey insult of other players, or are you just making things up as you post?

Which faction does GW push the hardest? Which faction is the most popular among new players?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Space Marines aren't the 'easy win' any more, there's no 'one specific list with a specific unit' to make two specific flavors of Space Marine a concern on the tabletop, now they have the means to compete. Which means you'll need to get better at making your lists. You might have to plan on ways to mitigate that. Maybe figure out a way to keep those Eradicators away from your shooty box/stompy bot.

Sure they aren't. Need to kill Tough troops/Vehicles, best unit in the entire game = Eradicators. Take 3-18 of them in 1 to 6 squads (Combat squads) Need to kill hordes of infantry, one of the best, if not the best P4P is Aggressors, even post nerf. Take 3-18 of them in 1 to 6 squads. Need to hold an objective? Here, take intercessors, P4P better than Tau firewarriors at range while also being better than Genestealers in CC.

I mean, this is still based on the fact that we don't have any other codex's out yet, but since we know the release schedule we are talking about 6 months minimum before we start seeing most of the game getting theirs.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


"ME ARMY NO GET CODEX. ME MAD. BIG BIG MAD."[/b] - [i]

The Necron book came out too. Some people look at the two books side by side and see some eyebrow raising things.

Hecaton wrote:
And if Fire Dragons were point-for-point as destructive and durable as Eradicators, you'd be crying for them to be nerfed. This isn't rocket science.

No, I'll be laughing because they're still Finecast and a stiff breeze just amputated 3 of your guys. The least I can do is let you blow up a tank or something. Damn, get the unpainted one and drop it on the floor if you want after that.

Hecaton wrote:
lenty of people are still getting games in, and they expected an edition that was actually functional.

Functional, or completely optimal? I think you need to look up what these words mean.

Hecaton wrote:
On the one hand you're saying vote with your wallet, and on the other you're saying that people who expect a balanced game don't deserve it. Pick one.

I'm saying as long as you guys are dumping your money onto the counter for poo- er, garbage- and eating said garbage by the fistfull- you can complain about the taste all your like, but as long as you keep doing what you do- Yes, you deserve it.

I picked both. Have some Splenda.

 Xenomancers wrote:
What you are calling the middle here is literally 90% of the edition time wise.

Index was what 6 months? other factions didn't even get their codex until the end of 2018, and then in 2019 you guys got your 2nd codex that was broken levels of good. But regardless, you aren't arguing that the Marine codex wasn't good for 90% of the time, you are basically arguing it wasn't the MOST OP in the game for 90% of the time. Because yet again, tournament results show SM players still pulling out wins and victories, maybe not 1st place against the OP broken castellan loyal 32 combo with smash captains to flavor, but I haven't seen anyone defending those combos.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
And if Fire Dragons were point-for-point as destructive and durable as Eradicators, you'd be crying for them to be nerfed. This isn't rocket science.

No, I'll be laughing because they're still Finecast and a stiff breeze just amputated 3 of your guys. The least I can do is let you blow up a tank or something. Damn, get the unpainted one and drop it on the floor if you want after that.

Destructive AND durable.

So, not T3 W1 3+.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The Necron book came out too. Some people look at the two books side by side and see some eyebrow raising things.

A lot of people will find problems if they go looking for them. And 'the army that I don't play and beat me' is always OP. The one that I beat all the time is perfectly fine, leave it alone. My army ALWAYS needs a buff desperately.

SemperMortis wrote:
I mean, this is still based on the fact that we don't have any other codex's out yet, but since we know the release schedule we are talking about 6 months minimum before we start seeing most of the game getting theirs.

Good. Plenty of time to paint and build and wait for this 'Rona thing to blow over so you can, you know, actually congregate.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I'm saying as long as you guys are dumping your money onto the counter for poo- er, garbage- and eating said garbage by the fistfull- you can complain about the taste all your like, but as long as you keep doing what you do- Yes, you deserve it.

I picked both. Have some Splenda.

Except you're being two-faced about this. You're saying Eradicators are fine, but then saying people deserve to have bad game balance. It honestly sounds like you're one of those players who wants bad game balance so they can meta-chase to secure easy wins, and is unremittingly angry at people who want a balanced game.