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.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
My main issue is that taking actual space marines in a list in any form is hurting my list and has been for a long time. Even when the army was strong back in 7th, it was largely due to formations, HQs and our FA slots. MEQ are bad and don't play in a way that reflects their background in the slightest. I put a lot of that on the scale of 40k has been so warped that S4, T4 and a 3+ save don't mean anything and arn't worth the points I'm paying for them.

Actually, there's a lot of truth in that. Playing Kill Team you can actually appreciate T4, S4 with a 3+ save. Of course cover actually matters in Kill Team. As does movement. Primaris are particularly tough. A Kill Team of 2W guys is difficult to get rid of.

Yea even normal marines in kill team feel like they got the toughness and durability right, though that's in part to cover actually helping them and the game being entirely based around infantry. Between the armor save actually being a 3+ most of the time and ignoring the first flesh wound Marines are solid in KT.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".

Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?

Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.

I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.

"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.

Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?

You make no sense.

AA are just pretty bad right now the codex creep has left them woefully underpowered. I get that some foolish people just want to blame players for the codexs poor performance but that can't explain away all of it. Now that's not to say AA is the worst codex but it is pretty bad & the fact is that most AA variants suffer some form of subpar codex issue.

Banville wrote:

Actually, there's a lot of truth in that. Playing Kill Team you can actually appreciate T4, S4 with a 3+ save. Of course cover actually matters in Kill Team. As does movement. Primaris are particularly tough. A Kill Team of 2W guys is difficult to get rid of.

HoundsofDemos wrote:Yea even normal marines in kill team feel like they got the toughness and durability right, though that's in part to cover actually helping them and the game being entirely based around infantry. Between the armor save actually being a 3+ most of the time and ignoring the first flesh wound Marines are solid in KT.

KT feels like the perfect test bed for an inevitable drastic re-imagining of 40ks rules, with some really great ideas that I think would work phenomenally well in 40k writ large.

But until then, codex marines are in a bad place shackled to an admittedly clever MW focused strategy and a 400 point crutch. But the other flavours can still be pretty fun and effective depending on how competitive your local meta is.

dkoz wrote:
AA are just pretty bad right now the codex creep has left them woefully underpowered. I get that some foolish people just want to blame players for the codexs poor performance but that can't explain away all of it. Now that's not to say AA is the worst codex but it is pretty bad & the fact is that most AA variants suffer some form of subpar codex issue.

I know it's kind of subjective, but there's also a ton to be said about how boring the codex marine strategems, relics, and chapter traits are. There's not much there that encourages you to actually build specifically for them outside of maybe Sallies. I don't have an intimate knowledge of how everyone else's traits affect them, so I'm unsure if that's standard across most factions, but it seems to me like all the Ork ones encourage drastically different lists and stands as an example of how powerful fluffy effects can encourage army building in specific directions.

No dissy cannons in kt? I dont play it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".

Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?

Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.

I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.

"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.

Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?

You make no sense.

Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Well Grey Knights just suffer from codex creep at that point.

Tactical squads and other mainstays of space marine armies are not used at all.

Soup lists are just so contrary to how people have played for decades. I rather play monolist vs monolist as it is easier to play.

You know if there were 6-12 months between something like codex eldar and the GK codex I could blame stuff on a mythical creep. Only the gap between eldar and GK is 2 months, before GK and DG it is less then one. The only way for it to be true is, if codex GK was writen by an outside team or for 7th, or even worse was not writen at all, they just copy pasted stuff, because they had to stuff a month with them. It is the only way how I can explain the difference. Heck the GK codex the way it is should be better then the sm and chaos codex right? creep means your better then the books that came out before you?

Karol wrote:
It is the only way how I can explain the difference.

The current design of the GK is fundamentally flawed, their equipment is out of step with their statline.
They should either be more expensive and set up to make full use of their force weapons and psychic theme, or cheaper with less powerful weapons on the rank and file.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".

Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?

Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.

I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.

"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.

Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?

You make no sense.

Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.

It's literally what you wrote. Literally. In that quote.

Asherian Command wrote:
Soup lists are just so contrary to how people have played for decades.

Nyet.

Way back when in 1996 and the glory days of 2nd Ed. you could spend up to 25% (IIRC) of your point totals on Allies.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".

Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?

Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.

I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.

"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.

Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?

You make no sense.

Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.

Seriously it looks like you are trying to blame this guy for your bad argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

Karol wrote:
It is the only way how I can explain the difference.

The current design of the GK is fundamentally flawed, their equipment is out of step with their statline.
They should either be more expensive and set up to make full use of their force weapons and psychic theme, or cheaper with less powerful weapons on the rank and file.

Ehhh - they should really just get better equiptment and rules and stay at their current price.

Don't forget that Daemonhunters and Witchhunters could do allies too. It clearly didn't break the system due to how bad those armies overall were (Sisters not so much of course but nobody wants to buy that much metal)

People honestly just need to help someone who wants to start a new army by walking them through the decision then. I agree that it's definitely a great idea to warn someone that rules may be drastically changing in the next six weeks or so, but don't just leave it there. Warn them, but then continue to help them as if the current rule set isn't changing anytime in the near future.

Karol wrote:
See because of people like you, telling me that everything is more or less fine, and it only depends on the "right meta" to play, I invested in to Grey Knights. Also some people, and I belong to this group, do not have the option to buy a bad army, find out that it is bad and then buy in to another . So yeah maybe for someone like you buying any army on a whim, is ok. If it is unfun, you just buy another one. Some people on the other hand get stuck with their armies, can't even resell them to get their money back. And trust me there is few things worse then starting an army, people around you having fun with theirs and you not having no with yours, and worse you not knowing if GW will ever fix your army, because they may as well phase it out as they did it to some armies.

From things you've said, & told me directly, you're problems with your army go beyond GK maybe not being the most awesome of forces. Your biggest hurdles aren't the rules, but your meta & your model selection. Neither GW nor people on-line are to blame. Both can be fixed, one easier than the other.

GW will not fix your army to whatever extent you want. (even reducing pt costs won't help you. GK in general, yes, you no - because $.)
And you've got several years before you'll have to worry about them being phased out (wich is possible, but not likely).

Karol wrote:
Or to not use me as an example. Imagine someone wanted a nice BA army, bought the cpts with scouts, the IG and the castellan, because mono BA doesn't work. And the nerf happened. And he maybe even did get the option to play with the army. They must feel great right now. Back to the even worse BA now, or should they switch to playing IG/knights, when all they wanted to play is some BA space marines ? Wonderful prospect for the future.

The BA/IG/Knight soup list will still work. The assault phase will have to work slightly differently, but that doesn't scrap the army.
The scouts will still be doing whatever the scouts were doing (my own would be infiltrated on objectives, sniping & being the troops requirement.....)
The IG will continue providing CP, screening the Knight (& mortar fire?).
The Castellan will still be shooting things up (& sucking up CPs)
Assaulting with the captains will change.

I like how so many people haven't yet figured out there's only 7 factions in this game for balance purposes in 8th.

Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Orks, Tau, Necrons, Tyranids

When you look at the game in those broad categories, 8th ed is in a relatively good place. Orks and Necrons being the only two major factions getting no representation in top 16.

If you expect any individual sub faction within those to be balanced against everything else to include it's parent soup faction, you're kidding yourself. If you somehow expect every sub sub faction (ie Craftworld/Chapter/Dynasty) to be balanced then you're absolutely off your rocker. Monolists are dead for competitive.

Also, lol @ the literally one of the best players in the world place high at a major with marines and say doing so with Necrons to be nearly impossible only for a dakkaite to say "nah Necrons are better than marines"

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".

Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?

Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.

I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.

"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.

Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?

You make no sense.

Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.

Seriously it looks like you are trying to blame this guy for your bad argument.

It can't be that bad if right after my first post someone picked up on the logic:

"Yup. I used to play another game based on star trek (Federation Commander) where the top competitive players would often note how the Feds were the one of the top factions; and they were in the standard tourney format. However, they had either the worst or second worst win rate in tourneys (out of about 16 factions). Lots of different people play in tourneys, and not all of them are competing for top spots (either by intent or hard reality) and if they have a tendency to play specific factions then that faction's win rate will look worse than it might be expected based on what the better competitive players think. When it comes to Star Trek based games the Feds are a faction that attracts a lot of newer players and in that game they were not a tourney friendly faction unless you knew what you were doing, in which case they were very good."

So it's not like the scenario I outlined wasn't understandable. All you need to do is find a counter argument. Note: Reducing it to "L2P" is not a counter argument. Saying an argument is "bad" isn't a counter argument. Explain why it's bad. There's a number of avenues you can take here.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehhh - they should really just get better equiptment and rules and stay at their current price.

Hello, Matt Ward.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:
Soup lists are just so contrary to how people have played for decades.

Nyet.

Way back when in 1996 and the glory days of 2nd Ed. you could spend up to 25% (IIRC) of your point totals on Allies.

Yup. Historical Soup:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".

Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?

Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.

I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.

"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.

Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?

You make no sense.

Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.

Seriously it looks like you are trying to blame this guy for your bad argument.

It can't be that bad if right after my first post someone picked up on the logic:

"Yup. I used to play another game based on star trek (Federation Commander) where the top competitive players would often note how the Feds were the one of the top factions; and they were in the standard tourney format. However, they had either the worst or second worst win rate in tourneys (out of about 16 factions). Lots of different people play in tourneys, and not all of them are competing for top spots (either by intent or hard reality) and if they have a tendency to play specific factions then that faction's win rate will look worse than it might be expected based on what the better competitive players think. When it comes to Star Trek based games the Feds are a faction that attracts a lot of newer players and in that game they were not a tourney friendly faction unless you knew what you were doing, in which case they were very good."

So it's not like the scenario I outlined wasn't understandable. All you need to do is find a counter argument. Note: Reducing it to "L2P" is not a counter argument. Saying an argument is "bad" isn't a counter argument. Explain why it's bad. There's a number of avenues you can take here.

You're asking for them to reasonably debate your argument?! But how will they stick to their SM martyrdom if you do that?

But, seriously, without the sarcasm - it's clear that there are a number of players here who simply want SM to be the top faction, full stop, and will complain until the Eye of Terror swallows Terra itself until that happens.

Oh yeah. Asking for BA to have viable melee units is absolutely asking them to be the top faction. Instead, IG are better at shooting AND cc. Totally fair and balanced.

I guess I just imagined being burned off the table by ravagers all those times. I guess I just want to be the top faction.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".

Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?

Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.

I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.

"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.

Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?

You make no sense.

Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.

Seriously it looks like you are trying to blame this guy for your bad argument.

It can't be that bad if right after my first post someone picked up on the logic:

"Yup. I used to play another game based on star trek (Federation Commander) where the top competitive players would often note how the Feds were the one of the top factions; and they were in the standard tourney format. However, they had either the worst or second worst win rate in tourneys (out of about 16 factions). Lots of different people play in tourneys, and not all of them are competing for top spots (either by intent or hard reality) and if they have a tendency to play specific factions then that faction's win rate will look worse than it might be expected based on what the better competitive players think. When it comes to Star Trek based games the Feds are a faction that attracts a lot of newer players and in that game they were not a tourney friendly faction unless you knew what you were doing, in which case they were very good."

So it's not like the scenario I outlined wasn't understandable. All you need to do is find a counter argument. Note: Reducing it to "L2P" is not a counter argument. Saying an argument is "bad" isn't a counter argument. Explain why it's bad. There's a number of avenues you can take here.

That's literally the L2P argument.
X Faction is fine. You can't listen to those statistics or the math behind it. It's just all the bad players using it.

I mean that's really what that Star Trek post boils down too.

That's literally the L2P argument.
X Faction is fine. You can't listen to those statistics or the math behind it. It's just all the bad players using it.

I mean that's really what that Star Trek post boils down too.

I have no idea what the situation is in 40k and marines in tourneys, I don't play it that much and don't overly care about tourney balance for this game.

However, the star trek post was because I do recognise the argument and that it might be an issue. Win rate is not always a good indicator of whether something is good in a tourney or not, If good in a tourney is taken to mean a good player has a good chance of doing well with them, vs a generalised win rate of ~50% of across all player abilities.

This is an argument I always used to have in that trek game. What is your definition of balance? If we went by win rate in tourneys then Feds with their 22% win rate (it was the bottom of the pack, I went and checked) needed a serious boost, except the top players saw them as being one of the top factions already (with good reason). Why is that, because tourneys are supposed to be about the best players win, and that implies that no matter how you cut it there is very much the possibility of the L2P argument (if that is really how you want to phrase it). That is especially true for any faction which may be attracting newer players for reasons that have nothing to do with tourney power (e.g franchise recognition, or poster boys of the game).

A.T. wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehhh - they should really just get better equiptment and rules and stay at their current price.

Hello, Matt Ward.

I'm not suggesting indestructible paladin squads. Just suggesting a reasonable price for a unit that will likely only last 1 turn when it gets into the gak.

Really there was nothing wrong with a 1 attack marine having a power sword and a storm bolter for the price they were paying. They just had OP psychic powers and wound shenanigans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:

That's literally the L2P argument.
X Faction is fine. You can't listen to those statistics or the math behind it. It's just all the bad players using it.

I mean that's really what that Star Trek post boils down too.

I have no idea what the situation is in 40k and marines in tourneys, I don't play it that much and don't overly care about tourney balance for this game.

However, the star trek post was because I do recognise the argument and that it might be an issue. Win rate is not always a good indicator of whether something is good in a tourney or not, If good in a tourney is taken to mean a good player has a good chance of doing well with them, vs a generalised win rate of ~50% of across all player abilities.

This is an argument I always used to have in that trek game. What is your definition of balance? If we went by win rate in tourneys then Feds with their 22% win rate (it was the bottom of the pack, I went and checked) needed a serious boost, except the top players saw them as being one of the top factions already (with good reason). Why is that, because tourneys are supposed to be about the best players win, and that implies that no matter how you cut it there is very much the possibility of the L2P argument (if that is really how you want to phrase it). That is especially true for any faction which may be attracting newer players for reasons that have nothing to do with tourney power (e.g franchise recognition, or poster boys of the game).

Not sure how you can loss with federation in star trek battles. Quantum torpedo's are massively OP.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That's literally the L2P argument.
X Faction is fine. You can't listen to those statistics or the math behind it. It's just all the bad players using it.

I mean that's really what that Star Trek post boils down too.

Not really.
His point (disregarding the fact that such point has some basis or not) is that you are comparing 2 different populations of players, the marine one having a greater percentage of "noobs". Therefore, his point is: "you are comparing apples to oranges".
I have no data to state if he is right or wrong - but for sure you cannot undermine the argument with "lol is just L2P".

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not sure how you can loss with federation in star trek battles. Quantum torpedo's are massively OP.

Federation Commander was the game (as noted in earlier post). What Quantum torpedoes? Or was that just sarcasm that missed on the internet

puree wrote:
I have no idea what the situation is in 40k and marines in tourneys, I don't play it that much and don't overly care about tourney balance for this game.

However, the star trek post was because I do recognise the argument and that it might be an issue. Win rate is not always a good indicator of whether something is good in a tourney or not, If good in a tourney is taken to mean a good player has a good chance of doing well with them, vs a generalised win rate of ~50% of across all player abilities.

This is an argument I always used to have in that trek game. What is your definition of balance? If we went by win rate in tourneys then Feds with their 22% win rate (it was the bottom of the pack, I went and checked) needed a serious boost, except the top players saw them as being one of the top factions already (with good reason). Why is that, because tourneys are supposed to be about the best players win, and that implies that no matter how you cut it there is very much the possibility of the L2P argument (if that is really how you want to phrase it). That is especially true for any faction which may be attracting newer players for reasons that have nothing to do with tourney power (e.g franchise recognition, or poster boys of the game).

Back in 7th the most overpowered faction was generally considered to be... Eldar.
And yet typically the worst performing faction in a tournament in terms of results by faction - was Eldar.
Because about 1/3rd of people going to any given Tournament ran Eldar, so lists with an eye for the meta were pretty much about how you could cope with Eldar, and plenty of people who were not very good just grabbed them because FOTM.

But Eldar also used to win tournaments - because the good players could play them well. Meanwhile they mopped the floor with casual lists at gaming clubs all over the world.

Marines are not winning tournaments. Aside from being elements in an Imperial Soup they barely feature at all.
Most "good players" would not claim they are good. They might claim they are not as awful as certain people on forums - but that isn't saying much.

Back in 7th the most overpowered faction was generally considered to be... Eldar.
And yet typically the worst performing faction in a tournament in terms of results by faction - was Eldar.
Because about 1/3rd of people going to any given Tournament ran Eldar, so lists with an eye for the meta were pretty much about how you could cope with Eldar, and plenty of people who were not very good just grabbed them because FOTM.

haha, yes that could also be an issue - ohhh that is the OP list of the month, I'll grab that. Mm shame no one said you actually need to be good at playing it!

 Asherian Command wrote:
I have lost every game with space marines at my store. Its not because of luck, its just that everything out paces space marines.

Guardsmen can kill space marines in droves. In Droves.

They need help in all regards to their weaponry.

Guardsmen? With lasguns? 1 in 18 shots kills a Marine.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I have lost every game with space marines at my store. Its not because of luck, its just that everything out paces space marines.

Guardsmen can kill space marines in droves. In Droves.

They need help in all regards to their weaponry.

Guardsmen? With lasguns? 1 in 18 shots kills a Marine.

Unless I am mistaken, 1 FRFSRF ordered guardsman kills 0.222 marines within 12" in normal conditions.

So each time a unit of Guardsmen fires with FRFSRF at marines, it on average, makes it's points back?

When a Marine is nearly 3 times the cost of a Guardsmen - and barely more lethal, issues start to surface.