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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Which is why allies should be a compliment, not a crutch.

Didn't you get the memo? If you have the ability to take imperial guard as an ally with your force, then your army is simply not intended to be played as a standalone faction.

Let me know when you are finished tearing up that strawman so we can have a real discussion.

It's kinda an exaggeration of what you've said, but the premise itself is in the spirit of your argument.

Is it?

Did I ever say Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Adeptus Mechanicus, or Sisters of Battle were not intended to be played as a standalone faction?

I did say that about Grey Knights and Deathwatch, but that's because I believe they're very much like Inquisition; i.e. capable of being played standalone within the detachment structure of the game, but certainly not in possession of all the options to do so.

Certain armies (i.e. Inquisition) can, but probably shouldn't, be standalone armies.

I'm reminded of that line in Jurassic Park: "You were so obsessed with whether or not you could you forgot to stop and think if you should!"

I mean heck I'm building a 2000 point Inquisition army, but I am stealing bits from other armies too because Acolytes, Jokaero, Daemonhosts, Inquisitorial Land Raider Prometheuses, and Inquisitors do not a whole army make, even if I could fill an number of Spearhead, Vanguard, or Supreme Command detachments to the brim!

SM falling in tourny standings certainly is evidence they aren't the strongest book.

And with Nids, if they are as scary as some people say (haven't even read their leaks, myself), that would drop SM from the top half of the books.

Still not worst by any reasonable approach, but sounds like not top half either.

bananathug wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2017/11/top-2-army-lists-in-8th-40k-from-warzone-atlanta.html

Add in results from SoCal open and SM are quickly falling off of all leader boards:
https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/hbfq5j03

Pure AM list won Warzone followed by chaos monster mash list. No SM in top 15 for the second large tournament in a row. This seems to be the hardest "proof" that SM are in a bad place competitively.

AdMech is supposedly getting some new Forged World goodies to help them. The newest codices seem to outclass what SM can offer (Eldar at least Ynnari and Nids).

GK and SM seem to be in a tough place. Deathguard at least have Morty to keep them in the mix although they probably require soup to compete but we are now seeing SM dropped out of the soup as well. Hell even GK have a role in soup armies that SM are quickly seeing themselves phased out of.

It's curiously absent from the spiky bits link, but that AM list took an invalid relic on the psyker in each of its games.

bananathug wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2017/11/top-2-army-lists-in-8th-40k-from-warzone-atlanta.html

Add in results from SoCal open and SM are quickly falling off of all leader boards:
https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/hbfq5j03

Pure AM list won Warzone followed by chaos monster mash list. No SM in top 15 for the second large tournament in a row. This seems to be the hardest "proof" that SM are in a bad place competitively.

AdMech is supposedly getting some new Forged World goodies to help them. The newest codices seem to outclass what SM can offer (Eldar at least Ynnari and Nids).

GK and SM seem to be in a tough place. Deathguard at least have Morty to keep them in the mix although they probably require soup to compete but we are now seeing SM dropped out of the soup as well. Hell even GK have a role in soup armies that SM are quickly seeing themselves phased out of.

I wonder seeing these results:
how many GK did the third place use?
Lots of Chaos, Ynnari and AM doesn't really tell you anything bedsides those having the top builds curently tough.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Which is why allies should be a compliment, not a crutch.

Didn't you get the memo? If you have the ability to take imperial guard as an ally with your force, then your army is simply not intended to be played as a standalone faction.

Let me know when you are finished tearing up that strawman so we can have a real discussion.

It's kinda an exaggeration of what you've said, but the premise itself is in the spirit of your argument.

Is it?

Did I ever say Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Adeptus Mechanicus, or Sisters of Battle were not intended to be played as a standalone faction?

I did say that about Grey Knights and Deathwatch, but that's because I believe they're very much like Inquisition; i.e. capable of being played standalone within the detachment structure of the game, but certainly not in possession of all the options to do so.

Certain armies (i.e. Inquisition) can, but probably shouldn't, be standalone armies.

I'm reminded of that line in Jurassic Park: "You were so obsessed with whether or not you could you forgot to stop and think if you should!"

I mean heck I'm building a 2000 point Inquisition army, but I am stealing bits from other armies too because Acolytes, Jokaero, Daemonhosts, Inquisitorial Land Raider Prometheuses, and Inquisitors do not a whole army make, even if I could fill an number of Spearhead, Vanguard, or Supreme Command detachments to the brim!

I'm ABSOLUTELY certain you made mention that evaluating mono-codex was pointless because of allies.

bananathug wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2017/11/top-2-army-lists-in-8th-40k-from-warzone-atlanta.html

Add in results from SoCal open and SM are quickly falling off of all leader boards:
https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/hbfq5j03

Pure AM list won Warzone followed by chaos monster mash list. No SM in top 15 for the second large tournament in a row. This seems to be the hardest "proof" that SM are in a bad place competitively.

AdMech is supposedly getting some new Forged World goodies to help them. The newest codices seem to outclass what SM can offer (Eldar at least Ynnari and Nids).

GK and SM seem to be in a tough place. Deathguard at least have Morty to keep them in the mix although they probably require soup to compete but we are now seeing SM dropped out of the soup as well. Hell even GK have a role in soup armies that SM are quickly seeing themselves phased out of.

Are you referring to Fires of Cyraxus as the "Admech goodies" that are coming "soon"?

*looks over at dusty Thallax, Thanatar, Magos Dominus, Castellax, Vorax and Triaros which have been sitting on a shelf since the last 30k game in the area dried up*

I'm putting "fires of cyraxus actually happens" behind "sisters of battle plastic release" in my catalogue of things that are likely actually coming soon. Think about that.

Bharring wrote:
SM falling in tourny standings certainly is evidence they aren't the strongest book.

And with Nids, if they are as scary as some people say (haven't even read their leaks, myself), that would drop SM from the top half of the books.

Still not worst by any reasonable approach, but sounds like not top half either.

Exactly as I predicted. Without powerful gimmicks like Gladius, marines are back to 5th ed status. Or worse.

A trajectory of a bool each generation after 2 generations isn't the safest bet. And the following generation has a 50/50 chance of going your way if the truth is independent of what you say. Further, it's suggested that Nids are better, but how long has that codex been out?

Bharring wrote:
A trajectory of a bool each generation after 2 generations isn't the safest bet. And the following generation has a 50/50 chance of going your way if the truth is independent of what you say. Further, it's suggested that Nids are better, but how long has that codex been out?

I don't need games played for the Nids. I read it once, and could immediately see how it dominates marines. Obviously, we can't say with CERTAINTY, but my prediction stands without games played.

Bharring wrote:
A trajectory of a bool each generation after 2 generations isn't the safest bet. And the following generation has a 50/50 chance of going your way if the truth is independent of what you say. Further, it's suggested that Nids are better, but how long has that codex been out?

Which is a good point. Every codex that comes out needs a couple of months or so for everyone to get used to it. That said, no real internal balance issues were blatantly obvious and there's some real killer traits and Strategems there.

I am excited for the Nids codex. The 8th Nids index proved to be a huge buildup for nothing but suck, epic amounts of suck. To date the best Nids lists have used the standard 1k points of imperial guard. I mean WTF is that. (Insert Guard players saying "Nids aren't meant to be a standalone army.")

I think it's a bit early to claim Nids are going to do well. The codex literally just dropped. They were doing AWFUL pre-codex, worse than Space Marines, Grey Knights, Orks, everybody.

Grey Knights are back to being codex: Dreadknight but at least it's a use. I refuse to buy the imperial guard needed to play my Grey Knights, so they're on the shelf.

Space marines by themselves are a middle of the road army. Solid, good saves and a huge range. Great for newbies since they are easy to paint and they have tools to at least damage any army they face. They don’t require as much skill to play as many armies since they rely on their stats, unlike more specialized finesse armies. Hordes on the other hand are even more forgiving due to weight of numbers. So they fall victim to being generic and middle of the road. An army tooled up for melee like chaos will always beat them in melee. A tooled up shooting army like guard will always outshoot them. Since their strength lies is being jack of all trades it makes them easy to pick up and play but difficult to win with unless their given some kind of buff or they ally in the specialists that they need. Thus the huge range. The problem with buffing their stats so that newbies have a good chance of winning with them is that in the hands of a skilled opponent they become pretty hard to beat.

Just my opinion. I feel like anyone who plays marines and is a good player should branch out to a different army that better suites their play style. This will allow them more growth as a player. Or at least incorporate more of the 300+ models in the range of imperials available so you can hone your list to a more conducive play style. By just falling back to the give us more special rules fix, it leads to considerable imbalance in the game.

 Marmatag wrote:
I am excited for the Nids codex. The 8th Nids index proved to be a huge buildup for nothing but suck, epic amounts of suck. To date the best Nids lists have used the standard 1k points of imperial guard. I mean WTF is that. (Insert Guard players saying "Nids aren't meant to be a standalone army.")

I think it's a bit early to claim Nids are going to do well. The codex literally just dropped. They were doing AWFUL pre-codex, worse than Space Marines, Grey Knights, Orks, everybody.

Grey Knights are back to being codex: Dreadknight but at least it's a use. I refuse to buy the imperial guard needed to play my Grey Knights, so they're on the shelf.

You sure Nidz being that bad? How about Trygon hole Genestealer supported by Swarmlord? Flyrants / Hive Crone supported by Swarmlord and psychic power? All those "move twice" ability??? The latter one would be even more threathening since they can just jump over the screen units and charge those Devastators or tanks sitting at the back to silence them for the entire game from Turn 1!!!!

You think they lack shooting ability? Just eat 12 Bio-plasma shots from that Exocrine, eat 9 mortal wound barrage from those Biovores.

I am not saying they are OP even before their codex drops. But I believe a proper built Nidz army would be on par against SM army that already with Codex, due to the fact that the survivability of marine units are just too low for their points costs. Buffed by Guilliman the marines firepower can be awesome and hardhitting, no doubt on that. However a dead unit would just have zero firepower output.

After the publication of Nidz Codex, I do think any Space Marine army should consider themselves lucky if they do not loss more than 40% of their number or effective firepower in Nidz 1st turn.

The Nids index looked really good on paper when the game launched but the fact of the matter is they were nowhere to be seen in the competitive scene, even before codexes started cropping up.

the_scotsman wrote:
when all I really hate is crappy arguments and hyperbolic crap.

it's only fair that Marine factions get chapter tactics on their vehicles because it just makes sense to keep it consistent.

But that is a crappy argument

Firstly because not every other codex released so far has its chapter tactics equivalent on all units.(nevermind the codexes we haven't seen yet)

In fact, we have four codexes where they apply to infantry and selected other models, one where it's everything except knights, one where it's everything but they have no vehicles, one where it's everything except aircraft, some other stuff and sometimes suoerheavies and one where it's everything.

I don't see this consistency that you think Marines are lacking.

Secondly because even if that premise were correct the simple fact of Marines being in some way inconsistent compared to the other codexes doesn't mean that a change is needed or desirable.

All <Forge World> models get dogmas, all <Regiment> models get doctrines, all <Craftworld> models get attributes, all <Hive Fleet> models get adaptations... Only <Chapter> and <Legion> are inconsistent here.

That's a great deflection - given that other codexes have models that don't get that keyword it's thoroughly disingenuous. You'd be fine with having it apply to all <chapter> models but we take <chapter> away from everything except infantry and dreads?

Also, not true - <regiment> units in a super heavy auxiliary detachment don't get their bonus.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
That's a great deflection - given that other codexes have models that don't get that keyword it's thoroughly disingenuous. You'd be fine with having it apply to all <chapter> models but we take <chapter> away from some stuff?

Also, not true - <regiment> units in a super heavy auxiliary detachment don't get their bonus.

That was my argument right up until Craftworld Eldar threw it out the window. All of the Auxilia crap that Guard has is just arbitrary; I would certainly hope you'd agree that Valkyries not getting doctrines while Hemlocks get attributes has nothing to do with balance.

It don't think it has anything to do with balance either way. That two things are not the same doesn't mean that they are or are not balanced.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
All <Forge World> models get dogmas, all <Regiment> models get doctrines, all <Craftworld> models get attributes, all <Hive Fleet> models get adaptations... Only <Chapter> and <Legion> are inconsistent here.

This is the inconsistency I'm referring to. You could either, as you say, remove the <chapter> and <legion> tags if you were looking at a marine rebalance, or you could add chapter tactics.

The existence of an inconsistency does not necessarily require a rebalance.

What does is evidence that Marines (and when I refer to Marines I mean space Marines grey knights and chaos Marines) are underperforming in a similar manner to the earliest AoS battletomes, which got a rebalance after a few more battletomes came out.

If we weren't getting the release of a gamewide rebalance book in a month, and if they weren't actually underperforming, my assessment would be different. But we are and they are, and the devs are likely looking for good small blanket buffs to apply to the army. Chapter tactics on vehicles make good sense as a way to do that, because there is arguably only one marine vehicle in one legacy wargear combinstion that's in any way problematic for balance.

That is the combination of factors that go into my hoping we see CTs on vehicles. It's a more interesting to give a customizable buff to different chapters/legions than just adjust points.

I'm not personally a marine fan. That doesn't mean I base my balancing opinions on spite. If all the remaining power armor dexes are based on codex space Marines they will all be underperforming.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Its not about hating marines....

Its about hating whiny marine players who can't stand that another faction might have access to something that marines don't. Marines already get more than everybody else. 'Balance' does not mean "Give the faction with the most even more."

This.

As a marine player, would it have been cooler to have vehicles with Chapter Tactics ? Sure.

Would it have been a balanced and good move ? I don't believe so.

Are Space Marines the worst? Absolutely not.

Is there any way to see the actual lists for SoCal? I'm willing to bet that the GK army that placed 3rd has a GK warlord and nothing else GK.

After reading all the pages on this thread, I think its safe to say that Space Marines aren't the worst army, but they sure are mid-tier... As for the argument on whether we should have chapter traits on our vehicles...I'm 50/50 on. Let me sum up my thoughts:

Reasons for:

-Vehicles are important for space marines, especially certain chapters that are renowned for having great armour (iron hands/ iron warriors). As a space marine player I was confused on why Iron Hands dont get their traits on vehicles. Im not asking for anything OP I'm just asking for something to distinguish between and Iron Hands Predator and an Imperial Fists Predator, besides their paint job.

-The consistency argument is a bit off to me. I remember when GW or Frontline Gaming (cant remember) promised the game would be balanced (ish) if they made the game consistent. This means that if one book has vehicle traits and infantry traits all the other books should have too. Its not an argument of space marine players wanting everything, its about having the same set of rules for all armies to make them balanced against each other. Oh and we space marine players are also advocating for our traitor brethren to have their traits too. There was a player here screaming about his Iron Warriors but most of them shut him out as another whiny space marine player.

Reasons against:

-Now I see the traits on vehicles as a valid argument, however, every time this comes up... I ask myself "was this what GW intended?". Let me explain, maybe space marines don't need to have everything because they designed them to be able to take other things from the imperium. For example, why have our scouts as chaff? When we get conscripts instead? Perhaps GW designed Space Marines as a codex that would use the imperium rather than be mono-build. Now, whether thats a smart design choice or not is up to you, but, we have to deal with it.

-As much as I hate to say this but.... I think the idea of having vehicle traits isnt going to buff our tanks. I believe that if we have price reductions and more stratagems or auras that buff vehicles is the right way about doing it.


So obviously I'm confused as to which side I lean more towards, hopefully I wasnt too biased regarding my opinions, but I think all of us need to be a bit mature about this and not go into hyperbolic territory.

The original solid argument for Chapter Tactics only being on actual Marine models worked, as it was special rules for a special force, which used everything but Marines as just support.

That was fine while their rules were unique. If all other factions also had unique rules (with the exception of reflecting most SM Chapter Tactics to their Legion counterpoint), it would still be valid.

But the Craftworld Attributes and Regimentals and such are also frequently just reflections of Chapter Tactics. And it'd be very weird to only give it to Infantry/Biker CWE models, becuase there's no fluff for that. So, we either need to have fluff-ignoring rules to balance (CT on Preds and such, or no CTs on Serpents and such), or the rules need to be asymetric.

Asymetry can work well. But when the rules are carbon copies like IH/Uthwe (6+++), the asymatries will be very, very hard to balance (and always leaving people complaining). Other asymetric rules work. Look at Iyanden's rule. IG would kill for that rule. CWE (or SM) wouldn't touch it. CWE would love the UltraMarine CT, but IG wouldn't care for it.

So asymetry can work, but needs better-written rules than they currently use.

I'd actually be just fine if they dropped Craftworld attributes. They don't feel necessary. I like Chapter (/legion) Tactics, but shoehorning that into other factions just feels like a "Me Too" (even though they've had it previously) that hasn't added anything to the game. Just IMO.

Bharring wrote:
The original solid argument for Chapter Tactics only being on actual Marine models worked, as it was special rules for a special force, which used everything but Marines as just support.

That was fine while their rules were unique. If all other factions also had unique rules (with the exception of reflecting most SM Chapter Tactics to their Legion counterpoint), it would still be valid.

But the Craftworld Attributes and Regimentals and such are also frequently just reflections of Chapter Tactics. And it'd be very weird to only give it to Infantry/Biker CWE models, becuase there's no fluff for that. So, we either need to have fluff-ignoring rules to balance (CT on Preds and such, or no CTs on Serpents and such), or the rules need to be asymetric.

Asymetry can work well. But when the rules are carbon copies like IH/Uthwe (6+++), the asymatries will be very, very hard to balance (and always leaving people complaining). Other asymetric rules work. Look at Iyanden's rule. IG would kill for that rule. CWE (or SM) wouldn't touch it. CWE would love the UltraMarine CT, but IG wouldn't care for it.

So asymetry can work, but needs better-written rules than they currently use.

I'd actually be just fine if they dropped Craftworld attributes. They don't feel necessary. I like Chapter (/legion) Tactics, but shoehorning that into other factions just feels like a "Me Too" (even though they've had it previously) that hasn't added anything to the game. Just IMO.

I don't feel like any of the regiment rules are the same as any of the chapter tactics. Like, 0.

It's really not a stretch of the brain to see that not every copy and paste trait is as useful for every army. However - since there are 6+ copy and paste traits that every army seems to be getting access to - what it really comes down to is what units can use it. If some armies have all their units having access - all armies should have all units having access. This is not debatable. To defend the position is literally defending unbalance. Which is mostly attributable to what army you play and what advantages you want over the other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The original solid argument for Chapter Tactics only being on actual Marine models worked, as it was special rules for a special force, which used everything but Marines as just support.

That was fine while their rules were unique. If all other factions also had unique rules (with the exception of reflecting most SM Chapter Tactics to their Legion counterpoint), it would still be valid.

But the Craftworld Attributes and Regimentals and such are also frequently just reflections of Chapter Tactics. And it'd be very weird to only give it to Infantry/Biker CWE models, becuase there's no fluff for that. So, we either need to have fluff-ignoring rules to balance (CT on Preds and such, or no CTs on Serpents and such), or the rules need to be asymetric.

Asymetry can work well. But when the rules are carbon copies like IH/Uthwe (6+++), the asymatries will be very, very hard to balance (and always leaving people complaining). Other asymetric rules work. Look at Iyanden's rule. IG would kill for that rule. CWE (or SM) wouldn't touch it. CWE would love the UltraMarine CT, but IG wouldn't care for it.

So asymetry can work, but needs better-written rules than they currently use.

I'd actually be just fine if they dropped Craftworld attributes. They don't feel necessary. I like Chapter (/legion) Tactics, but shoehorning that into other factions just feels like a "Me Too" (even though they've had it previously) that hasn't added anything to the game. Just IMO.

I don't feel like any of the regiment rules are the same as any of the chapter tactics. Like, 0.

No AM is strictly better - they got custom army traits that affect their infantry and tanks differently. Cadian triat show up in the nid book as the kronos army trait.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The original solid argument for Chapter Tactics only being on actual Marine models worked, as it was special rules for a special force, which used everything but Marines as just support.

That was fine while their rules were unique. If all other factions also had unique rules (with the exception of reflecting most SM Chapter Tactics to their Legion counterpoint), it would still be valid.

But the Craftworld Attributes and Regimentals and such are also frequently just reflections of Chapter Tactics. And it'd be very weird to only give it to Infantry/Biker CWE models, becuase there's no fluff for that. So, we either need to have fluff-ignoring rules to balance (CT on Preds and such, or no CTs on Serpents and such), or the rules need to be asymetric.

Asymetry can work well. But when the rules are carbon copies like IH/Uthwe (6+++), the asymatries will be very, very hard to balance (and always leaving people complaining). Other asymetric rules work. Look at Iyanden's rule. IG would kill for that rule. CWE (or SM) wouldn't touch it. CWE would love the UltraMarine CT, but IG wouldn't care for it.

So asymetry can work, but needs better-written rules than they currently use.

I'd actually be just fine if they dropped Craftworld attributes. They don't feel necessary. I like Chapter (/legion) Tactics, but shoehorning that into other factions just feels like a "Me Too" (even though they've had it previously) that hasn't added anything to the game. Just IMO.

I don't feel like any of the regiment rules are the same as any of the chapter tactics. Like, 0.

That's true. All the regiment rules are different from Space Marine chapter tactics, AFAIK. Also, no Craftworld Attributes are the same as Tyranid Hive Fleet rules. But there IS a chapter trait that's the same as a Craftworld Attribute... and a Hive Fleet rule that's the same as a CSM legion trait...and a CSM legion trait that's the same as an Admech Dogma...hmm.....could this mean....

....nothing, really?

It *is* debateable. If an army's units were pointed such that Infantry were upcharged for a rule and Tanks weren't, and another army upcharged everything for it, clearly it would be unfair for both armies to have it on everything (or both to only have it on Infantry). Not not saying that's what's happening here, but to state such an opinion, not back it up, then claim it's not debatable gets us nowhere (productive).

As I stated, I wouldn't mind if CWE - my main faction - lost *ALL* it's Attributes. So, clearly, we're not all just arguing in support of our own factions simply being better than other factions.

The flaw in your premise is asymetry. Would you be cool if SMs got their traits on all vehicles, for balance, but traits all turned into stuff like "Infantry can never be wounded on less than a 4+, Tanks can fire 1 weapon a turn at full BS after moving", with no points or other rules changes? Clearly, that rule is much, much better for CWE than SM. Does that not prove that symetric CTs/Attributes and their application is not necessarily balanced?

Again, would you be totally fine if IG could field Iyanden's trait (free pre-nerf Comissars on all squads for free, and tanks don't degrade nearly as quickly)? Or would you think it'd be OP on all those CWE squads that, when you kill 3 or 4 models, lose 1 model on a 6 instead of 1 model on a 6? That rule simply would be much more powerful on IG than CWE.

Further, look at RG/AL's Infiltrate. That thing rocks on Berzerkers. CSM can make great use of it. Loyalists can do good things with it, but nothing on that level. Now imagine giving that stratagem to CWE. First turn Scythegaurd to the face (among other shenanigans). If the armies aren't symetric, then symetric buffs aren't necessarily balanced.

First turn scytheguard to the face means nothing to the good lists because they will force you to nuke chaff and then your scytheguard dies.

^^ Having traits available to all units for every codex is not balanced.