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.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Normally NuMarines are a codeword for Primaris marines. Assuming that, Primaris marines aren't broken.They cost a ton of points and require multiple buffs to work correctly. They suffer from the marine statline problem, with players paying points to survive in melee but not to excel in it and still paying points for an only ok shooting model.

Strangely, oldMarines are doing better since they pay less points for the marine statline, but the single wound problem makes lists using them as risky as hell.

The new codex is a power boost, but the presence of sapce marines in tournament lists is for the eternal reason of 40k. Every player owns a marine list and they all bring them out when there are new marine goodies to try out.

They don't require much, having units that give them buffs is a competitive option, but running MSU Intercessors without everyone having buffs all the time is pretty strong as well. They don't just survive in melee any longer, with 3 attacks in the first round of combat they can win against most units with the exception of Orks and elite melee units that don't have as much shooting as Intercessors. Assault Centurions have great shooting and great melee and pay for it with bad mobility, but that mobility can be boosted through various options. Saying they are merely ok in shooting is false, shooting two AP-2 shots at 30" is great for 17 pts. OldMarines are in no way doing better, I don't know what you are smoking.

Who has 2-3 Repulsor Executioners, 2 TFCs and 3 Tactical Warsuits lying around? No, Marines are popular because they are broken.

 techsoldaten wrote:
NuMarines are broken.

30" guns on standard infantry break the meta for mid-range shooting. That extra 6" allows them to kite MEQ and TEQ. Tactical Doctrine amplifies this effect, you can kind of get an extra turn of shooting with them.

They are too pts efficient because of the free rules.

The 30" guns weren't a problem when they were 7 pts more than a Tactical Squad, now they are only 5 pts more and they are busted, all the efficient options just need to go up 1-3 pts.

Pancakey wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Something to think of on top of just the raw power levels here is how many new rules and interactions these supplements bring to the table, that everyone has to keep track of and analyze. In 4E/5E, I had pretty much every codex and FW book memorized, I could look at any model and tell you what every piece of WYSIWYG wargear did on it. I could tell you every army's special rules and know every statline and how all the different army's unique mechanics functioned.

At this point? You need about as much mental space dedicated to just the "codex adherent" Space Marine armies in 8E as you did the whole game in earlier editions, particularly given the length of interaction chains that abilities work from now (e.g. the new mono-army mechanics dictating use of new chapter trait abilities). What started relatively cleanly at the start of 8E has rapidly devolved back into adding gobs of power-ramping complexity portray "character" without adding much of anything to tabletop tactical depth, that makes it very hard to keep track of and remember everything even for relatively dedicated players.

“More complexity. Less depth.”

This is the 8th edition design mantra.

The core rules for 8th are much shorter and simpler than those for 5th-7th, on the other hand, they give the player much more agency and removes most of the artificial unintelligence from the game. You will not be forced to move towards the end of the table when you flee, 8th also allows you to take captives and do bad touch tactics in melee instead of forcing you to just blob up and brace for templates. Weapons are less black and white so it's often unclear exactly how to dedicate firepower, the ability to split fire also opens the possibility for under committing and maximizing damage by split-firing.

If GW moved Chapter Tactics and Combat Doctrines to non-Matched Play and limited the number of Stratagems people can bring with their list to 10 + any number of Specialist Detachments and nerf soup and the game is once again pretty simple and mostly about tactics on the table. The balance was excellent prior to the release of SM, we're talking perfect balance with CA19 if they at the same time updated and balanced Relics, WL traits and Stratagems. It has to be obvious that it's not fair that one faction pays the same amount of pts for a unit with heavy weapons as another faction when one cannot lose more than one model from a Morale test and can re-roll 1s when they don't move while the other gets re-roll 1s all the time as well as ignoring the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, -1 AP on those heavy weapons, 5+ OW and 6+ FNP. If it only came down to one faction having more synergistic Stratagems, Relics and WL traits that support them then it'd be a lot more balanced between those two units. Balanced games are more fun most of the time, almost nobody likes playing 1000 pts vs 2000 pts, even just an army that is overly efficient so it's worth 2300 pts vs an army that is less overly efficient and worth 2100 is a bit iffy, but then when that 2300 pt army counters your 2100 pt army or gets to go first on a table that isn't heavy with terrain it hurts an absolute tonne to play against.

But there are a lot of OP units and combos for other armies, even GK have GMNDKs, DA have plasma castle, Nids have hypersonic Genestealers etc. etc. I'd like to see every army nerfed in some capacity, because how are you going to make a relic that does a MW on a 6+ once per game to a unit for every model within 8" of the bearer with a relic that targets an enemy unit and lets friendly units within 6" re-roll hits and wounds against that target? Make it do MWs on 5+? 2+? What happens when you overly buff an item and you move the power curve up further? Now you need another full round of buffs to get things back into balance.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
yeah but going by the torrent of threads like this one and the previous 30-40 episodes mostly consisting of an echo chamber of the same people raging hard then surely he should have won every single game as marines are omgopwtf and some of the armies he fought were "auto lose" choices.

Hey, do you remember the Squats and how awesome they were? 8th edition sucks, they need to make it like 3rd Edition again.

I don't really have anything to back either of those things up, but it gets repeated on the internet enough so I just said it.

I mean, every time something new drops, it's OP.

Nope, just when it's OP, nobody complained that Necrons were OP when they were released, because they were below the power curve.

Back when Space Marines got an actual Codex before everyone, it was OP (even though, you know, it really wasn't). Drukhari Codex was OP, too. Guard were OP.

If you can't see how unfair it is for Chapter Tactics to be released in waves I don't know what to tell you. Whenever GW produces a product that increases imbalance or decreases the fluff value of the game people complain, this isn't rocket science. If GW only produced products that increased fluff value and balance very few people would complain. When people complain about Psychic Awakening being weak they are actually complaining about SM being OP, in part because a lot of people were saying that with the coming releases everything would be put up to IH levels of OP.

None of this is a really new complaint. It comes out, it works well (and God forbid vanilla SM actually be decent without having to use Bobby G or requiring allied detachments), and people eventually develop a counter for it and adjust their tactics (God forbid people have to change up their lists to deal with a meta).

Not everyone has access to things that are pts efficient enough to ever stand a chance at winning not only against the three or five different kinds of SM but also the ten or twenty other types of list that are common in the meta. SM got too many buffs too fast. Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines was badly implemented.

Darsath wrote:
I think that, statistically, there is evidence to support the overshot of the new Space Marine books. Anecdotal evidence is pretty poor evidence to counteract this regardless. It's also evident that not everyone will be getting a similar treatment. It's not really surprising that people will resent the new books. The issue is directing it at the players, and not Games Workshop, who are responsible.

Alternative take:

Statistically, more Marine lists are winning. Statistically speaking, more players own Marines than any other faction.

Just a thought.

Space Marines win proportionately more than they should according to the number of SM participants in tournaments, this again isn't rocket science, if SM only had as many top placings as they had proportional participants there would be very few people that complain, maybe you'd know about the discrepancy if you knew anything about tournaments stats.

Intercessors are the best troops choice for the best faction in the game, increasing their cost is completely reasonable. I wouldn't call them broken, more than 2 pts increase would be too much and I think 1 pt on the best combinations would be most reasonable. Stalker BR WS Intercessors continue not being a problem just like previously.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well we also know now that GW values the -1 AP at 1 point on tacs.

Did you mean to say -1 pt on Tacticals for getting Tactical Doctrine?

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Non-marines: Nu-marines are ridiculous!'

Blood Angels: 'Hold my beer.'

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/25/blood-of-baal-chapter-focus-the-blood-angelsgw-homepage-post-2/

It's T3+ which is inherently less obnoxious than T1 and +1 A attack on the charge is generically awesome, +1 D on tonnes of D1/D2 weapons against vehicles is super insane if you are playing a vehicle-centric list. Losing out on cheap AM Battalions is pretty huge, their characters are basically staying power neutral, but their Smash Captains are becoming 24 pts more expensive most likely. If BA don't get any new insane relics I think they'll be about on-par with WS, but using a trio of BA Captains in soup will be weaker. It'll be exciting to see a lot of their unique Predators on the table... Oh wait, GW is only interested in the meme of armies, not the fluff. BA are Khorne Berzerkers now!

 Continuity wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Argive wrote:
just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..

The feth we will.

"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. I gte it.. its enough... stop now.. you win"

I imagine an avatar of angry marine (Representing GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a grunt guardsman "to get back in line. Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr" representing the large porion of non marine compliant hobbyistst.

I don't get it, I would gladly buy 3 boxes of the new CSM if they made them not terrible but GW refuses to do it

11 pt CSM are going to be quite good with the 3 bonus CP trait, Heretic Astartes have a lot of cool new Stratagems you'll want to power up and CSM do it relatively efficiently. The cheaper DPs are going to be amazing, running double Bat with 6x5 CSM, 3 Flying DPs and 1 Discolord for 16 CP is going to power anything you'd ever want to throw in that last Detachment. Three Berzerker Terminator Squads? Two EC Discolords on drugs? A Possessed Character, Specialist Detachment, bonus WL trait and 4 Relics?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Continuity wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Argive wrote:
just make it stop... somebody.. anybody.. That's enough.. we get... we will buy some marines... just stop already..

The feth we will.

"C'mon man.. just stop it...I will comply... *he says through his battered and bruised face spitting blood* .. I gte it.. its enough... stop now.. you win"

I imagine an avatar of angry marine (Representing GW) kicking the bejeezus out of a grunt guardsman "to get back in line. Your views don't matter NPC character #24!!!! Grrrrr" representing the large porion of non marine compliant hobbyistst.

I don't get it, I would gladly buy 3 boxes of the new CSM if they made them not terrible but GW refuses to do it

11 pt CSM are going to be quite good with the 3 bonus CP trait, Heretic Astartes have a lot of cool new Stratagems you'll want to power up and CSM do it relatively efficiently. The cheaper DPs are going to be amazing, running double Bat with 6x5 CSM, 3 Flying DPs and 1 Discolord for 16 CP is going to power anything you'd ever want to throw in that last Detachment. Three Berzerker Terminator Squads? Two EC Discolords on drugs? A Possessed Character, Specialist Detachment, bonus WL trait and 4 Relics?

Die, you are never getting 3 red butcher squads.
Bonus wl is also just for AL , so no.....

You can get a bonus WL trait if you are running a Specialist Detachment, like the Possessed Specialist Detachment. Fair enough on not being able to get 3 units of Red Butchers, guess you can just run a Battalion for extra CP and spend 5 CP to buff a Zerker unit each turn. Also, stop being a git.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Save the CSM discussion for the CSM tactica thread dudes.

Everything is relative, SM stop being broken if every faction is broken. I think lists using CSM squads will be able to compete if CSM don't get nerfs and SM don't get meaningful buffs. SM pay 255 for the Troops in a 5 CP Battalion, Heretic Astartes pay 165 for 8 CP. You have add HQs on top but I have some hope that SM will be relatively much less broken soon.

 Ishagu wrote:
They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.

Answer = don't play ITC

Well, that's your opinion, that doesn't make it fact.

 Ishagu wrote:
ITC should just drop their mission pack. And by pack I mean the one mission they have.

Their tournament tracking, hobby tracking, player listing etc is all amazing and should be kept of course.

That's not an argument, you still haven't proved how your precious missions are better for game balance or fun. Without house rules for ruins the GW terrain sets are useless, what great game-design that is! Sure is balanced when there are 2-3 shooty sub-factions all from the same faction and then the rest of the bazillion different lists are useless because they get removed T2 by SM gunlines.

Okay so Warhammer World uses an ITC house rule, why not just use all of them? Where is your proof that their missions create a more balanced environment than Champions Missions?

How am I supposed to destroy the enemy WL against an IH castle? I might not even get a kill T1 depending on terrain and everything. 3 IH Flyers can go almost anywhere and will almost certainly destroy a unit. Linebreaker is really hard to do if you've been wiped T2... Soooo.

 Ishagu wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Okay so Warhammer World uses an ITC house rule, why not just use all of them? Where is your proof that their missions create a more balanced environment than Champions Missions?

How am I supposed to destroy the enemy WL against an IH castle? I might not even get a kill T1 depending on terrain and everything. 3 IH Flyers can go almost anywhere and will almost certainly destroy a unit. Linebreaker is really hard to do if you've been wiped T2... Soooo.

Because not all ITC rules are good? The missions are poor, as an example. I use the plural generously here because it's basically one missions with different secondaries when you really break it down.

The "Magic Boxes" are not good for the game, and create some pretty janky situations. Do terrain rules need some changes? Yes. Should they adopt more ITC rules? Hell no.

The CA2018 EW missions are already a far superior way to actually play the game, and over half of the community is ignorant to this fact because most of the ITC is still ignoring the GW mission design. Were the ITC missions necessary in 7th edition and start of 8th? Yes. Are they now? No!

Of course CA2018 doesn't solve all problems, but Eldar flyers and the Castellan both used to be massive problems, and in CA missions these units were no-where near as useful. As for the power of Marines, they aren't beyond fixes - the power comes from a few rule combinations that can be altered.

-IH Doctrine - too good, remove the re roll 1s
-Leviathan needs a keyword change, make it a "Heavy Dreadnough" so it no longer benefits from the strats that make it invulnerable.
-Remove all Vigilus detachments from working with the new codex
-Remove some Stratagem interaction for Assault Centurions

That would fix most of the issues, and I'm really not concerned at this stage, especially as a new edition is on the horizon.

Lots of statements of facts, yet no data or even reason to back up these facts, makes me think they are not facts and just opinions of someone with an irrational hate-on for Frontline. Take a look at Andrew Helland's winning list from Fresno Smackdown.


Which mission is the list weak in? What all-rounder list is going to be more well-rounded and win a higher percentage of games than this list at an Eternal War event? You might have lists that do better or worse in single missions, but in the majority of missions? Is your goal really just that once in a while IH or IF will lose a match against a Nids or Harlequins because they got a bad mission for that one specific match-up? Let's assume there is that one in six magical mission where the above list sucks against Nids or Harlequins, what then? What's the likelihood that exactly this mission will be the one you play in the first round against them? The one magical mission where IH suck might not even be used at an event. You're not going to see Assault Marines or Tactical Squads regardless of mission format. I really don't understand what kind of list you think can only be found at an Eternal War event?

I'm hoping Frontline nerfs the grossest things available to SM, I got caught out by a few Ultramarine Stratagems and lost my first game against them, but I'm confident I can win a very healthy chunk of my games against them with Necrons after I thoroughly read all the rules available to them, you are right that it's mostly a few bad apples that are making the pie very sour. I really should have figured UM would have some tricks up their sleeve being the doctrine for every situation chapter, it was actually a fun game. I also had several very fair games against pre-WD Black Templars with my casual list because they were sort of good at both melee and shooting and my opponent wasn't just a big clump of shooting but brought an actual balanced list. I managed to win a couple of ITC games against IH (yes ITC, boooh spoooky) because I was able to hide in ruins (that blocked LOS) and sit on objectives, win on secondaries both games. But trying to win a straight battle against IH is a nightmare and some missions are going to force that to a greater degree than any ITC mission is.

It is actually super fluffy that IH win straight match-ups I just think these sorts of rules belong in narrative battles and maybe if everyone got rules like this more people would have a reason to play narrative, add in some rules for vehicle facings and I'd be totally into doing that sometimes. But right now I just play Maelstrom for fun or ITC for competitive. The dislike I have for these supplements is really that I'm more or less forced to play against them and forced to learn a bazillion new Stratagems before the game starts unless I want to get caught out. I've had to deal with that from both UM and RG now, those are the most tacticool chapters so hopefully none of the other have anything else I'll get sniped by before I sit down and bother to read all the Stratagems.

How is discussion of whether ITC makes Marines OP or more OP not relevant to this thread? If Marines were super pts-effective in terms of killing but somehow lost every game they were used in then they wouldn't be good. The question is whether the mission format changes Marine win-rates.