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.

Niiru wrote:
Something I just thought of, and has stuck with me as it is very much the way some people in business/marketing think...

Someone at GW just needs to think "oh dear, I thought we did a good job at making a fun and strong IG codex this time, but look at all the outrage and complaints we are getting because of how good it is. Oh well, it's too late to do anything about it now. Eldar and Tyranids are next, lets make *DOUBLE* sure that we don't make this mistake again. Drop a bunch of those special rules we planned for them. Oh and add 1 point to every model. We don't want any more bad publicity!"

I have a horrible feeling that this is far too likely.

Most likely both of those books were finalized months ago and already have their first batch set to print. You don't do last minute changes like that so soon before release. Hell, most of the codices we have so far, including Guard, were probably finalized either before 8th launched, or shortly afterwards.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The space marine codex is worse than many indexes.

You are out of your brain.

In a discussion about pure armies, space marines do come up fairly short. Without support the parking lot list they are so famed for tends to fall apart to any sort of decent assault army, harlequins in particular can literally walk all over them for example. Without a strong screening unit, which the army just doesn't have in house, at lot of their stronger tactics fall apart. They also lack much else to their arsenal beyond a solid shooting game. Their assault elements are generally unimpressive as is their deepstrike ability, particularly if you look at CSM for comparison. The best I've seen them do solo was tough infantry and dreadnoughts (IH or RG) to maintain board presence while stormravens focused on cutting the enemy down as much as possible. It was not all that impressive truth be told.

So yes, stronger indices like harlequins, particularly ynnari, and IG could absolutely take down codex SM. Admittedly scions really pulled their weight against SM in the indices so that match up might not swing that badly.

Harlequins?

Surely you jest.

I mean, vs. the army with so many unit options it separates them out by FOC role?

 Insectum7 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The space marine codex is worse than many indexes.

You are out of your brain.

In a discussion about pure armies, space marines do come up fairly short. Without support the parking lot list they are so famed for tends to fall apart to any sort of decent assault army, harlequins in particular can literally walk all over them for example. Without a strong screening unit, which the army just doesn't have in house, at lot of their stronger tactics fall apart. They also lack much else to their arsenal beyond a solid shooting game. Their assault elements are generally unimpressive as is their deepstrike ability, particularly if you look at CSM for comparison. The best I've seen them do solo was tough infantry and dreadnoughts (IH or RG) to maintain board presence while stormravens focused on cutting the enemy down as much as possible. It was not all that impressive truth be told.

So yes, stronger indices like harlequins, particularly ynnari, and IG could absolutely take down codex SM. Admittedly scions really pulled their weight against SM in the indices so that match up might not swing that badly.

Harlequins?

Surely you jest.

And don't call me Shirley. *waggles cigar*

 Elemental wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If horde armies in 40k finally don't suck, that's fine by me. The high cost and effort of getting a horde army onto the table easily justifies any in-game advantage they might have.

You have just described pay to win.

Given that I have already paid for 100s of metal IG models, I have no problem with that.

Wakshaani wrote:
You can always use the Marine Codex *and* the Imperial Guard codex. The Ultramarines can always use 120 Conscripts running around.

Replace "can always use" with "absolutely require" and you are spot on.

Niiru wrote:
Something I just thought of, and has stuck with me as it is very much the way some people in business/marketing think...

Someone at GW just needs to think "oh dear, I thought we did a good job at making a fun and strong IG codex this time, but look at all the outrage and complaints we are getting because of how good it is. Oh well, it's too late to do anything about it now. Eldar and Tyranids are next, lets make *DOUBLE* sure that we don't make this mistake again. Drop a bunch of those special rules we planned for them. Oh and add 1 point to every model. We don't want any more bad publicity!"

I have a horrible feeling that this is far too likely.

I wouldn't say that is likely, if only because they don't appear to be quite that responsive. For example, codex admech looks to have been finalized shortly before codex space marine came out, judging by what was and wasn't addressed within the book. The community as a whole very much recognized our issues with detachments by that point as well as the lack of ability to put bodies on the field. However, people were still experimenting with destroyers and electro priests around then, hadn't yet decide they were totally useless. You can also tell because they caught one FAQ/errata change but missed another, so it was likely fairly close to crunch time for something like that to happen.

This would also be more or less correct with guard from what I can tell, as I think I can spot elements of feedback from codex SM and CSM. For example, tallarn has a version of the black legion trait that actually works properly with RF weapons, ano some of the more popular WT and relics are mirrored. Not huge, but little things that could be due to fan feedback.

Both would indicate roughly two months from finalization to release, which is a fairly realistic window. Meaning whatever reactions there are, it won't touch the next couple

Wakshaani wrote:
You can always use the Marine Codex *and* the Imperial Guard codex. The Ultramarines can always use 120 Conscripts running around.

Well yes, that's what imperial soup is. It's merely worth pointing out that SM aren't that great on their own. I'd honestly say the SM codex is probably weaker than most of the codices we have seen, excluding grey knights.

Note that options, even bad ones, make you more powerfull. It's why imperium keyword is so powerfull, when half the game is availble. That's 50% chance the most powerfull is in your options. There's always some unforeseen consequence. So nerf conscripts and tehn ask: is AM stil overpowered?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Harlequins?

Surely you jest.

I mean, vs. the army with so many unit options it separates them out by FOC role?

You ever see harlequins play this edition? It's brutal. Particularly Ynnari harlequins, I've watched them chain kill three units during their opponent's turn, and if they punch a hole in your army you can suddenly find important tanks/characters getting charged/shot with fusion pistols.

They get shut down hard by a few armies though, particularly ones with really strong durable screens and lots of long range firepower, and are way more difficult to play correctly than anything else in the game imo.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Maybe Guard just need to suck again I guess, to return balance to the universe or some dumb crap.

There's a huge chunk of the fanbase who want anything that's not loyalist Space Marines to be worthless.

Remember it was only at the tail end of 7th that "CSM players still need to suffer for 3.5 being good" began to end.

I can't wait for the Tau/Eldar codex. It could be total crap, but there'll still be people insisting it needs nerfing to the dirt.

This victim complex needs to stop. Not everyone who sees the issues with Guard plays loyalist marines, and I'm sure that not everyone who plays loyalist marines just wants everything else to be bad. Just assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith is a terrible way to participate in a discussion.

Pask in a stationary Punisher kills around 8 marines. This is really good, but it's not "blow everything off the table."

 Insectum7 wrote:

Depend's on the definition of "decent" I suppose. My baseline for the Marine codex is 5 man, Grav-Cannon and Combi-plas, sooo:
(Conscripts get orders+Doctrines / Marines get Buffs+Traits - yadda yadda, leaving out for simplicity.)

Insectum's base Tac Squad vs. MEQ @ 24"
Grav Cannon (4x.666x.666x.83) = 1.47 unsaved wounds
Bolters (3x.666x.666x.666) = .333 unsaved wounds
C-Plasma (no overcharge 1x.666x.666x.83) = .36 unsaved wounds

Total = 2.1 @ 24" 2.85 @ 12"
------------------

108 points of Conscripts
Lasguns (36x.333x.333x.333) = 1.32 unsaved wounds

Total= 1.32 @ 24" 2.64 @ 12"
------------------

And this is where bias and opinion come in, obviously. But from my perspective I see the Tac Squad doing almost twice the damage at 24", and I think that's significant for two reasons (which you can disagree with, feel free). I like the 24" band because it means that squads are better able to support each other and decisively effect the right target at the right time. I also think it's difficult to get all those conscripts within 12". Incidentally, @ 24" The Gravcannon out shoots the Lascannon vs. vehicles too, which is why it's currently my preferred loadout.

That said, it depends a lot on what you're doing with the Conscripts. If you're spread out to guard against deep strikers, 12" is limiting, and you're only peppering units at 24". But if you're in a position where you can cram them up front and forward, using them offensively, 12" becomes more feasible and damage output jumps up.

All of this, and I'm a defender of Tac Squads being good. There are those that think their damage output is rubbish. If Tac Squads damage output is rubbish and Conscript damage output is worse. . . then Conscript damage output is terrible.

Like I said, heavily in the opinion zone.

I'm really struggling to see where you're coming from. Like, the Conscripts are doing nearly as well as your tactical squad when they get to rapid-fire, and of course they have easy access to generally cheaper and better buffs. You've kitted out the tactical squad for maximum anti-MEQ firepower. Surely it's pretty incredible that the Conscripts aren't getting crushed in damage output here at slightly less range (15" or 18" with doctrines), while bringing 36 wounds to the tac squad's 5 and being far better against GEQs.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways with tactical squads. Is their damage bad or not? Your 108 point tactical squad expects to kill about a third of its points in Marines, which doesn't seem that bad to me. You apparently like this loadout. Obviously it is very fragile -- you're paying over 20 points per wound. Surely the reasonable criticism of this loadout is that they're fragile and need a way to get into range without getting shot, not that once they're there they don't do any damage to MEQs. You personally must think the damage they do is worth it, right? I just have a very hard time believing that you think this tactical squad's damage is merely decent, yet nevertheless that it's very worth taking despite being so fragile.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Maybe Guard just need to suck again I guess, to return balance to the universe or some dumb crap.

There's a huge chunk of the fanbase who want anything that's not loyalist Space Marines to be worthless.

Remember it was only at the tail end of 7th that "CSM players still need to suffer for 3.5 being good" began to end.

I can't wait for the Tau/Eldar codex. It could be total crap, but there'll still be people insisting it needs nerfing to the dirt.

This victim complex needs to stop. Not everyone who sees the issues with Guard plays loyalist marines, and I'm sure that not everyone who plays loyalist marines just wants everything else to be bad. Just assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith is a terrible way to participate in a discussion.

Thank you for this post.

Considering the track record of previous editions, arguably IG is more justified in saying "it's about time" than Space Marines are in their crusade against anything not in power armor.

After all, historically the top three armies are more often than not a combination of Space Marines, Eldar, and one wildcard, not necessarily in that order. With Space Marines complaining loudly whenever they are in the #2 or #3 spot of course.

Right now, yeah AM is very likely in the wildcard slot. Probably even holding #1 as the wildcard, though SM hybrid lists have been apparently outperforming pure Guard. SM are still solidly up there right next to them, and right now we're basically waiting to see if Eldar will claim their usual seat at the top 3 or if this will be one of the unusual double-wildcard editions.

But of course it's SM players complaining when it's the Eldar who are most at risk of losing their top-3 spot.

And you know what, since IG is the wildcard that means they'll more likely than not get rotated out next edition. So you only have to deal with them for one edition, while Eldar and Space Marines will still be up there wondering who the next wildcard will be.

Of course, if all GW wants to do is avoid forum drama, probably the safest ordering they could go with is SM #1, CSM #2, Eldar #3. There'd be far less complaints because as far as the loudest complainers are concerned all will be right with the world, aside from CSM grumbling about being second fiddle to their non-spiky brethren.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Maybe Guard just need to suck again I guess, to return balance to the universe or some dumb crap.

There's a huge chunk of the fanbase who want anything that's not loyalist Space Marines to be worthless.

Remember it was only at the tail end of 7th that "CSM players still need to suffer for 3.5 being good" began to end.

I can't wait for the Tau/Eldar codex. It could be total crap, but there'll still be people insisting it needs nerfing to the dirt.

This victim complex needs to stop. Not everyone who sees the issues with Guard plays loyalist marines, and I'm sure that not everyone who plays loyalist marines just wants everything else to be bad. Just assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith is a terrible way to participate in a discussion.

That's rich.

 crimsondave wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Maybe Guard just need to suck again I guess, to return balance to the universe or some dumb crap.

There's a huge chunk of the fanbase who want anything that's not loyalist Space Marines to be worthless.

Remember it was only at the tail end of 7th that "CSM players still need to suffer for 3.5 being good" began to end.

I can't wait for the Tau/Eldar codex. It could be total crap, but there'll still be people insisting it needs nerfing to the dirt.

This victim complex needs to stop. Not everyone who sees the issues with Guard plays loyalist marines, and I'm sure that not everyone who plays loyalist marines just wants everything else to be bad. Just assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith is a terrible way to participate in a discussion.

That's rich.

But true.

It's not surprising that the Mary Sue army is played by people who have issues with not being the best of the best of the best.

Alcibiades wrote:
Pask in a stationary Punisher kills around 8 marines. This is really good, but it's not "blow everything off the table."

More like 11, if he's taken Heavy Bolter Sponsons. (Which are the most logical sponson choice, since they go well with the main turret.)
Also, it's worth pointing out that he kills 11 marines, but he's not a Marine killer - His gun is supposed to be anti-horde. In spite of that, he's killing 3 Terminators a turn, 11 Marines, putting 5-6 wounds on most tanks (That is, any tank with a 3+ save and T9 or lower,) and if you actually throw him against something like Orks, he's killing nearly an entire thirty-boy horde in a single volley. (26 boyz, to be precise.)
No matter what he shoots at, he's probably causing 100+ points of damage. If it's against an actual ideal target, he's causing nearly 200pts of damage. He's easily making back half his points every single turn against non optimal targets while also providing buffs.
That absolutely is "Blow everything off the table."

Oh, and he's ALSO throwing out buffs to other tanks, because his insanely high damage output isn't enough.

 ross-128 wrote:
Considering the track record of previous editions, arguably IG is more justified in saying "it's about time" than Space Marines are in their crusade against anything not in power armor.

Right now, yeah AM is very likely in the wildcard slot. Probably even holding #1 as the wildcard, though SM hybrid lists have been apparently outperforming pure Guard. SM are still solidly up there right next to them, and right now we're basically waiting to see if Eldar will claim their usual seat at the top 3 or if this will be one of the unusual double-wildcard editions.

But of course it's SM players complaining when it's the Eldar who are most at risk of losing their top-3 spot

Wow, I can't even begin to process the amount of garbage you just spewed.

First off, people who are complaining about guard, which is not just SM players no matter how many times you repeat that, want balance. We want an even playing field for everyone. We don't want to be able to point out the top three armies with ease, we want it to be difficult to rank them at all.

Which is the second point, it's not just that guard is strong, it's that guard for such a blatantly unbalanced codex. That's the issue. There will always be some degree of imbalance, but people still have decided which of the first five codices was the best and Alicia's it back forth. Yet we all knew immediately something was off with guard. That's not good.

Third, "SM hybrid armies outperforming guard"? Do you mean imperial soup? Because imperial soup is literally always partially guard, so labeling it SM hybrid would make no sense. I suppose you could mean mixing different SM chapters, but I have never heard of such a list doing anything of note, and it'd be largely pointless considering none of the SM's power units care about CT. So I'd want to know where you'd heard that.

Seriously, for people who toss about the insult whiny a lot, IG sure do like to martyr themselves. Which is impressive when you remember they weren't even one of the weakest armies last edition, they typically kept above CSM, nids, and orks even without allies.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The space marine codex is worse than many indexes.

You are out of your brain.

No, he's absolutely correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
Considering the track record of previous editions, arguably IG is more justified in saying "it's about time" than Space Marines are in their crusade against anything not in power armor.

After all, historically the top three armies are more often than not a combination of Space Marines, Eldar, and one wildcard, not necessarily in that order. With Space Marines complaining loudly whenever they are in the #2 or #3 spot of course.

Right now, yeah AM is very likely in the wildcard slot. Probably even holding #1 as the wildcard, though SM hybrid lists have been apparently outperforming pure Guard. SM are still solidly up there right next to them, and right now we're basically waiting to see if Eldar will claim their usual seat at the top 3 or if this will be one of the unusual double-wildcard editions.

But of course it's SM players complaining when it's the Eldar who are most at risk of losing their top-3 spot.

And you know what, since IG is the wildcard that means they'll more likely than not get rotated out next edition. So you only have to deal with them for one edition, while Eldar and Space Marines will still be up there wondering who the next wildcard will be.

Of course, if all GW wants to do is avoid forum drama, probably the safest ordering they could go with is SM #1, CSM #2, Eldar #3. There'd be far less complaints because as far as the loudest complainers are concerned all will be right with the world, aside from CSM grumbling about being second fiddle to their non-spiky brethren.

Marines are not historically that great. Your entire premise is flawed.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Depend's on the definition of "decent" I suppose. My baseline for the Marine codex is 5 man, Grav-Cannon and Combi-plas, sooo:
(Conscripts get orders+Doctrines / Marines get Buffs+Traits - yadda yadda, leaving out for simplicity.)

Insectum's base Tac Squad vs. MEQ @ 24"
Grav Cannon (4x.666x.666x.83) = 1.47 unsaved wounds
Bolters (3x.666x.666x.666) = .333 unsaved wounds
C-Plasma (no overcharge 1x.666x.666x.83) = .36 unsaved wounds

Total = 2.1 @ 24" 2.85 @ 12"
------------------

108 points of Conscripts
Lasguns (36x.333x.333x.333) = 1.32 unsaved wounds

Total= 1.32 @ 24" 2.64 @ 12"
------------------

And this is where bias and opinion come in, obviously. But from my perspective I see the Tac Squad doing almost twice the damage at 24", and I think that's significant for two reasons (which you can disagree with, feel free). I like the 24" band because it means that squads are better able to support each other and decisively effect the right target at the right time. I also think it's difficult to get all those conscripts within 12". Incidentally, @ 24" The Gravcannon out shoots the Lascannon vs. vehicles too, which is why it's currently my preferred loadout.

That said, it depends a lot on what you're doing with the Conscripts. If you're spread out to guard against deep strikers, 12" is limiting, and you're only peppering units at 24". But if you're in a position where you can cram them up front and forward, using them offensively, 12" becomes more feasible and damage output jumps up.

All of this, and I'm a defender of Tac Squads being good. There are those that think their damage output is rubbish. If Tac Squads damage output is rubbish and Conscript damage output is worse. . . then Conscript damage output is terrible.

Like I said, heavily in the opinion zone.

I'm really struggling to see where you're coming from. Like, the Conscripts are doing nearly as well as your tactical squad when they get to rapid-fire, and of course they have easy access to generally cheaper and better buffs. You've kitted out the tactical squad for maximum anti-MEQ firepower. Surely it's pretty incredible that the Conscripts aren't getting crushed in damage output here at slightly less range (15" or 18" with doctrines), while bringing 36 wounds to the tac squad's 5 and being far better against GEQs.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways with tactical squads. Is their damage bad or not? Your 108 point tactical squad expects to kill about a third of its points in Marines, which doesn't seem that bad to me. You apparently like this loadout. Obviously it is very fragile -- you're paying over 20 points per wound. Surely the reasonable criticism of this loadout is that they're fragile and need a way to get into range without getting shot, not that once they're there they don't do any damage to MEQs. You personally must think the damage they do is worth it, right? I just have a very hard time believing that you think this tactical squad's damage is merely decent, yet nevertheless that it's very worth taking despite being so fragile.

Low on time, so two quick points.

A: The given tactical squad is the most damage output they can do in a five man squad to (I think) every target. The Grav Cannon is better than a heavy bolter against GEQ, better than a Lascannon against vehicles, and better than a Heavy Plasma Gun against elite types. Possibly the Multimelta outshines it at under 12" against some vehicles, but I'm not sure. The point is that it's not a specialist anti MEQ loadout, it's just the best loadout for damage of any type, so that's what I've been using.

B: If you think its decent damage, than Conscripts do less than decent damage and are more restricted by range. Conscripts are better against GEQs its true, I wont deny that. But my point is that their damage output is quite limited, because beyond GEQ targets and 12" range, they're outshined pretty easily. In my mind, thats not very good.

The tacs just cost too many points with that loadout. That's it.

Martel732 wrote:


Marines are not historically that great. Your entire premise is flawed.

Actually you're pretty much the poster boy for it. Sure they haven't always been #1, but they're always near the top and they're always fairly competitive, which is more than just about any other army can say.

But is that enough? Of course not. "Space Marines aren't the #1 codex, therefore they suck."

It tickles me that ANYONE would think a codex/army book would get fixed immediately after its release. And so they are going to sell RIDICULOUS amounts of AM/IG, which they were hurting moving earlier, and you think they are gonna fix it? lolno. The closest it'll come to being fixed is when the next OP army is released.

No, they haven't been, especially vanilla.

2nd ed: unplayably awful - saw them tabled several games before they got a TURN

3rd ed: super awesome at launch, only to be overshadowed by snowflake marines and eventually most xenos by the end

4th ed: unremarkably average

5th ed: solidly below average, even compared to many 4th ed codices

6th ed: Solidly below average units, relying on gimmicks like grav cents to stay relevant in the Taudar holocaust. Note that snowflake marines are now beginning to finally fall behind.

7th ed: The era of vanilla getting all the things and snowflake marines getting the bone, except DA, who got a gladius equivalent. Powerful in the most unimaginitive way: free stuff. Free stuff was necessary because the rank and file marine unit was still BELOW average, and they needed to be spotted points to compete.

""Space Marines aren't the #1 codex, therefore they suck.""

I have never made any statement even close to this. I just want to live past turn 4 right now. Just like in 7th. Just like in 6th. Marine base units suck because this game punishes generalists very harshly. Not because they aren't #1. Get real.

Honestly I kind of do hope that the Sisters of Battle codex ends up being better than Space Marines and maybe even AM. They've got a shot at it, Acts of Faith are really strong in this edition, Celestine is Celestine, they have good vehicles and can put out a good deal of damage with their love of storm bolters, flamers, and meltas. If they get a strong codex to top it off they could go a long way.

The salt would be legendary, and to be honest I could be quite happy playing a second-strongest army while the usual suspects' ire is directed somewhere else.

Martel732 wrote:
No, they haven't been, especially vanilla.

2nd ed: unplayably awful - saw them tabled several games before they got a TURN

3rd ed: super awesome at launch, only to be overshadowed by snowflake marines and eventually most xenos by the end

4th ed: unremarkably average

5th ed: solidly below average, even compared to many 4th ed codices

6th ed: Solidly below average units, relying on gimmicks like grav cents to stay relevant in the Taudar holocaust. Note that snowflake marines are now beginning to finally fall behind.

7th ed: The era of vanilla getting all the things and snowflake marines getting the bone, except DA, who got a gladius equivalent. Powerful in the most unimaginitive way: free stuff. Free stuff was necessary because the rank and file marine unit was still BELOW average, and they needed to be spotted points to compete.

""Space Marines aren't the #1 codex, therefore they suck.""

I have never made any statement even close to this. I just want to live past turn 4 right now. Just like in 7th. Just like in 6th. Marine base units suck because this game punishes generalists very harshly. Not because they aren't #1. Get real.

I wasn't around for 2nd, but at the same time considering your perception of Marines in general I'm also not inclined to take your word for it. I'll mark 2nd down as "meh".

3rd: Snowflake Marines are still Marines. 3rd definitely counts as them being top tier.

4th: Just because they weren't the best doesn't mean they weren't good. I have a strong feeling "Snowflake Marines are still Marines" applies to this and 5th too, considering your comments on 6th.

5th: They were still fairly competitive in 5th, even if 5th was the Age of Leafblower. This was the Ward codex after all, especially when you consider Blood Angels (who are, in fact, Space Marines) and Grey Knights (who are just psyker-focused Space Marines). Snowflake Marines are still Marines.

6th: Ah, the short-lived 6th edition. I'd say grav still puts them up there, just because TauDar were ridiculous in 6th doesn't mean Space Marines were bad. They had it better than most non-TauDar armies, especially with the flyers they got in 6th, not to mention some of the deathstar prototypes (6th being when they introduced most of 7th's magic system).

7th: Free points, more grav, and superfriends lists. Remember Wolfstars? Being strong in a boring way doesn't make them not strong.

I'd say 6/7 (5/7 if you want to say 4th crosses the threshold of "not good enough") is "more often than not", wouldn't you?

And honestly, counting 7th as a "space marines sucked" edition says quite enough about your perception of them.

 ross-128 wrote:
Honestly I kind of do hope that the Sisters of Battle codex ends up being better than Space Marines and maybe even AM. They've got a shot at it, Acts of Faith are really strong in this edition, Celestine is Celestine, they have good vehicles and can put out a good deal of damage with their love of storm bolters, flamers, and meltas. If they get a strong codex to top it off they could go a long way.

The salt would be legendary, and to be honest I could be quite happy playing a second-strongest army while the usual suspects' ire is directed somewhere else.

It amazes me to see someone as horrifically petty and generally unpleasant as you being so open about it. Someone who would rather have other armies get screwed over to get some petty sense of victory than have an actual balanced edition for once. I'm just going to start linking to this post if anyone complains about eldar or Tau or space marine players being awful.

 ross-128 wrote:
3rd: Snowflake Marines are still Marines.

Then snowflake guard, also known as renegade and heretics, counts as imperial guard and you were the strongest army for a big part of the last edition, so stop whining constantly about how you deserve to stomp all those mean armies who were better than you.

So he's using like 5 codices and if one of them is top tier, then ALL are top tier?

/headdesk

The accurate phrase is "some power armor army" has almost always been towards the top. When there's 5 fething codices of power armor, yeah the chances are pretty good that one of them will be towards the top.

So he wants to look at all power armor armies as one army. Fine, but I don't generally look at them that way because due to gear differences, its actually hard for me to even field BA as vanilla. But sure.

"I'm also not inclined to take your word for it. I'll mark 2nd down as "meh". "

In 2nd, marines were 30 pts a model, and the Eldar chumpo gun had a -2 armor save on it. CSM had sonic blasters with 32" range, 2 sustained fire dice and -2 armor save. Shuriken cannons had a -3 armor save mod and 2 sustained fire dice. You tell me if that sounds viable. It's not my "perception".

"And honestly, counting 7th as a "space marines sucked" edition says quite enough about your perception of them."

The basal space marine units have always been bad except in early 3rd. What varies is what exceptions and gimmicks they are given in any given edition. To say vanilla marines were competitive in 5th is very, very generous. SW are not vanilla marines. BA were very divergent as well in 5th. GK were SUPER divergent. Counting them all as the same thing is not really fair, I think.

Yeah, the only guy I know who played 2nd talks about eldar's basic guns of doom all the time. 2nd was apparently a fairly hilarious mess balance wise, but beloved despite it.

No, I hate it.

SilverAlien wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Honestly I kind of do hope that the Sisters of Battle codex ends up being better than Space Marines and maybe even AM. They've got a shot at it, Acts of Faith are really strong in this edition, Celestine is Celestine, they have good vehicles and can put out a good deal of damage with their love of storm bolters, flamers, and meltas. If they get a strong codex to top it off they could go a long way.

The salt would be legendary, and to be honest I could be quite happy playing a second-strongest army while the usual suspects' ire is directed somewhere else.

It amazes me to see someone as horrifically petty and generally unpleasant as you being so open about it. Someone who would rather have other armies get screwed over to get some petty sense of victory than have an actual balanced edition for once. I'm just going to start linking to this post if anyone complains about eldar or Tau or space marine players being awful.

 ross-128 wrote:
3rd: Snowflake Marines are still Marines.

Then snowflake guard, also known as renegade and heretics, counts as imperial guard and you were the strongest army for a big part of the last edition, so stop whining constantly about how you deserve to stomp all those mean armies who were better than you.

Wanting a balanced game and wanting space marines to be salty are not mutually exclusive: space marines will be salty in a balanced game. However, I also don't harbor any illusions about 8th being the mythical perfectly balanced edition. The best we can hope for is that the good armies are armies we like, and that their advantage isn't too excessive. On that front, at least, 8th has been slightly better than previous editions so far.

I don't doubt that you will cling to your own biased interpretations to avoid any actual discussion though, just as you cling to your own skewed view of "balance".

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Codex isn't even out yet and the sky is falling.

Even if there were such a thing as "the new GW", it's the same old hyperbolic community overreacting at everything.

The sky was already falling. The game is effectively balanced without Imperial Guard and Astra Militarum. Then they were made worse.

I don't know. Too many lists abusing conscripts right now. Personally, I'm terrified of the Nid codex. They seem to be disproportionately awesome vs marines, though.

It's okay for an army to be strong against another army, provided they have other weaknesses.

AM is an army without weaknesses. And conscripts in imperium soup, and all of that imperial guard brigade nonsense in other armies is ridiculous.

"I've got my required 1000 points of AM, ok great, now, which army do i want to play with my remaining 1000 points?" - Every single Imperium player right now.

This. I went from "lets see what an all dreadnought army looks like, to - need some chaff, better add some scouts, to - well if i'm going to add chaff, i should add good chaff". On top of that, +9 command points and sentinels which fits the dreadnought theme.