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.

Also, with the 3W infantry argument is quite limited.

It's 2 3W weapons for 100% chance vs 3W models, and 1 d6 weapon, for same chance as a LC (lower S and range, though).

The Pred gets 4 d6 shots.

So for the Falcon to be better, 2 3W weapons need to outperform 3 D6 weapons. Last I checked, 3x66% was the same as 2.

But if you look at *any* other wound level, the Lascannon is simply better. Sure, you might do 1 or 2 wounds to a tank. .But you do an EV of 3.5 wounds/hit (and can CP It). Also, you get an additional hit.

Assuming they're both in range, and the target isn't T8+, and they both moved - a lot of assumptions in the Pred's favor - it's 4x(1/2)(2/3)(d6) vs 2x(1/2)(2/3)(3) + 1x(1/2)(2/3)(d6). Maths outs to an EV of 14/3 vs 19/6. So a 28:19 disadvantage in firepower vs fairly-big targets. In the best case for the Falcon. About 3:2 in favor of the vehicle that costs 4:3 - or 50% more firepower for 33% more cost on the Pred. Factor in Attribute, and it seems quite fair.

The Falcon can upgrade to a Shuriken Cannon - which is basically half an Assault Cannon. And Assault Cannons are good. THe Pred can upgrade to Storm Bolter + 1-use missile. WHich is better is debateable.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.

The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.

Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it).

Wat?

No, absolutely false. They were a competitive and top end army in 4th (did you forget chapter traits, asscannon rending spam, and las/plas?). They were a competitive army in 5th that was only overshadowed by *other* marine books got even sillier toys. Marines did very solidly in 6th (certainly better consistently than Orks, Sisters, DE, IG, BA, Nids, DA, etc) and were heavily dominant throughout 7th with multiple different builds. No, they weren't Eldar where they get to be #1 almost *all* the time, but they weren't too far behind, and certainly were never reached the levels of awful some armies have, nor been out in the doghouse as other armies have. They have always been capable of competing at the high ends in some form and have never languished for years or multiple editions at the bottom tournament tables.

The claim that Marines havent had a good codex since 3rd, or that they were one of the worst throughout these editions, is pure fantasy based on nothing to be found in reality. They certainly have faced the challenges armies such as Orks, DE, IG, Tyranids, or Sisters have in the competitive realm over many editions.

What's more, Marines have consistently had one of the most expansive, detailed, and well supported books, rulesets and model lines, and have actually gotten a codex in every single edition, unlike many other armies.

 Xenomancers wrote:

A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.

A Lascannon has a higher strength than a Pulse Laser, meaning it can wound T8 models on a 3+. A Lascannon averages 3.5 wounds, which is re-rollable with a command point, while a Pulse Laser maxes out at 3. A Predator has not one, not two, but access to FOUR Lascannons, while a Falcon can only have ONE Pulse Laser. FOUR IS BETTER THAN ONE. THIS IS FACT.


*All Pulse Laser Stats based off Index, I don't have Codex.

Agreed

Poor Marines. They don’t have any tools to get the job done. Seriously, your argument would be way more valid if you were arguing that eldar needed to be nerfed a bit instead of railing for better rules for yourselves. That just comes off as needy.

Insectum - the Pulse Lasers get 2 shots, and the Falcon can add a heavy weapon such as the Bright Lance (which is S8 36" range d6 damage - it's the CWE Lascannon, trading damage and range for Lance and being on Relentless platforms [neither of which are true anymore]).

Same stats between Index and Codex.

(Doesn't refute your argument, though.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Really? It would be pretty useful in a fight against a predator considering it has the fly keyword and the marine one doesn't. I have actually done this in game - with a serpent though - the reroll charge would make it even more effective.

If you say so. To be frank, my Baneblades are more afraid of Predator Annihilators than Falcons, even if the Falcon gets the army trait of re-rolling charge distances.

In fact, so are my Inquisition. And my SoB are more afraid of Predator Destructors than Falcons, eve if the Falcon gets said army trait.

I'm not sure it "puts it over the top" when compared to a Pred. I'm just not.

Though I do agree the base Predator could use a price drop; perhaps make it cost the same as a base Razorback? (unless they already do, then derp!)

In all fairness. All super heavies struggle in this eddition. With the exception of the shadowsword - none of them are problematic and most probably pay too many points for how easy they are to kill. The shadowsword is a big problem though.

Really? I've essentially stopped playing my superheavies in the local area because of how too-good they are - right now, building an Inquisition list that's trying to be as close to mono-inquisition as possible (though unlike some players I acknowledge that a completely mono-list is essentially impossible).

Well there is a difference between taking 3 and 1. 1 can be focused down in a single turn. 3 is overloading your opponent anti tank ability and making 50% of his firepower useless. Try just taking one and you might see what I mean.

Bharring wrote:
Also, with the 3W infantry argument is quite limited.

It's 2 3W weapons for 100% chance vs 3W models, and 1 d6 weapon, for same chance as a LC (lower S and range, though).

The Pred gets 4 d6 shots.

So for the Falcon to be better, 2 3W weapons need to outperform 3 D6 weapons. Last I checked, 3x66% was the same as 2.

But if you look at *any* other wound level, the Lascannon is simply better. Sure, you might do 1 or 2 wounds to a tank. .But you do an EV of 3.5 wounds/hit (and can CP It). Also, you get an additional hit.

Assuming they're both in range, and the target isn't T8+, and they both moved - a lot of assumptions in the Pred's favor - it's 4x(1/2)(2/3)(d6) vs 2x(1/2)(2/3)(3) + 1x(1/2)(2/3)(d6). Maths outs to an EV of 14/3 vs 19/6. So a 28:19 disadvantage in firepower vs fairly-big targets. In the best case for the Falcon. About 3:2 in favor of the vehicle that costs 4:3 - or 50% more firepower for 33% more cost on the Pred. Factor in Attribute, and it seems quite fair.

The Falcon can upgrade to a Shuriken Cannon - which is basically half an Assault Cannon. And Assault Cannons are good. THe Pred can upgrade to Storm Bolter + 1-use missile. WHich is better is debateable.

The Predator Autocannon is 2d3 shots...

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.

A Lascannon has a higher strength than a Pulse Laser, meaning it can wound T8 models on a 3+. A Lascannon averages 3.5 wounds, which is re-rollable with a command point, while a Pulse Laser maxes out at 3. A Predator has not one, not two, but access to FOUR Lascannons, while a Falcon can only have ONE Pulse Laser. FOUR IS BETTER THAN ONE. THIS IS FACT.


*All Pulse Laser Stats based off Index, I don't have Codex.

The statement was refering to pulse lasers and shooting at 3 wound models. As a counter claim that las cannons were better against t8 targets....WOW. Context people. Are you really claiming that a lascannon is better at killing 3 wound models than a pulse laser? Because you automatically lose this argument because of math.

 sennacherib wrote:
Agreed

Poor Marines. They don’t have any tools to get the job done. Seriously, your argument would be way more valid if you were arguing that eldar needed to be nerfed a bit instead of railing for better rules for yourselves. That just comes off as needy.

I believe that the ideal way to do this would be for all the Craftworld/Legion/Chapters, etc... tactics to be like the Imperial Guard Regiment ones. With most of them having two buffs, one for Infantry/Cavalry and other for Vehicles. And no bonuses for Flyers or Superheavies. A squad of Guardians with -1 to hit is ok. A Wraithknight with it no. Even less a Flyer.

Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.

Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.

Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Really? It would be pretty useful in a fight against a predator considering it has the fly keyword and the marine one doesn't. I have actually done this in game - with a serpent though - the reroll charge would make it even more effective.

If you say so. To be frank, my Baneblades are more afraid of Predator Annihilators than Falcons, even if the Falcon gets the army trait of re-rolling charge distances.

In fact, so are my Inquisition. And my SoB are more afraid of Predator Destructors than Falcons, eve if the Falcon gets said army trait.

I'm not sure it "puts it over the top" when compared to a Pred. I'm just not.

Though I do agree the base Predator could use a price drop; perhaps make it cost the same as a base Razorback? (unless they already do, then derp!)

In all fairness. All super heavies struggle in this eddition. With the exception of the shadowsword - none of them are problematic and most probably pay too many points for how easy they are to kill. The shadowsword is a big problem though.

Really? I've essentially stopped playing my superheavies in the local area because of how too-good they are - right now, building an Inquisition list that's trying to be as close to mono-inquisition as possible (though unlike some players I acknowledge that a completely mono-list is essentially impossible).

Well there is a difference between taking 3 and 1. 1 can be focused down in a single turn. 3 is overloading your opponent anti tank ability and making 50% of his firepower useless. Try just taking one and you might see what I mean.

I do see what you mean - the reason I started taking 3 is taking 1 is essentially just asking for it to get alpha-struck, which means if I actually want to play with the superheavy, instead of seeing it sit on the table for one enemy movement phase and a portion of the enemy shooting phase, I'd better bring more!

 Blacksails wrote:
Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.

Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.

Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.

Is very hard to try to argument about the real problems that Space Marines have (Every Codex has them. Or are anyone saying that GW are perfect at ruleswritting? ), when you are dumped in the same group as that kind of unreasonable and hyperbolic people

They don't autolose that argument. Depends on context. One pulse laser + 1 Brightlance vs 4 Lascannons is the context. Sure, the Pulse Laser outperforms 2 LasCannons in a contrived example, but the package does not outperform 4 Lascannons, even with the contrived example.

For every 3W unit out there, there's a T8+ unit. And scores of 4W+ units. And even more 2-or-less-W units. And what about the 3W units with FnP of some sort?

THere is a technically correct statement of 1 Pulse Laser outperforming 2 LasCannons vs 3W no-FNP T7-or-less units at the same rate to hit, but that is an extremely specific case. If that were the context, you'd be technically correct. But even in the 3W argument, the context was Falcon vs Pred - 3 shots vs 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer,
THe math I showed was the quad-Las Pred vs the BL Falcon, not the Autocannon. I've seen a *LOT* more of those than Autocannon Preds.

The math is quite clear that, even against 3W no-FNP T7-or-less units in the Falcon's best case, the Pred still outkills it, per model and per point.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.

A Lascannon has a higher strength than a Pulse Laser, meaning it can wound T8 models on a 3+. A Lascannon averages 3.5 wounds, which is re-rollable with a command point, while a Pulse Laser maxes out at 3. A Predator has not one, not two, but access to FOUR Lascannons, while a Falcon can only have ONE Pulse Laser. FOUR IS BETTER THAN ONE. THIS IS FACT.


*All Pulse Laser Stats based off Index, I don't have Codex.

The statement was refering to pulse lasers and shooting at 3 wound models. As a counter claim that las cannons were better against t8 targets....WOW. Context people. Are you really claiming that a lascannon is better at killing 3 wound models than a pulse laser? Because you automatically lose this argument because of math.

Well you are talking about the effectiveness of shooting pulse lasers at 3w models vs. lascannons... I agree with you the pulse laser wins but then ask yourself this:

-What about models with 2w? 4w? and more?
-What about toughness? saves? You ignored everything but wounds
-What model besides oblits have 3w, that you see in comp?
-What about the autocannon and lascannon sponson pred? Doesnt it beat the falcon?
-Why are you shooting 3w models with lascannons when its meant to shoot at bigger things? Leave that to your plasma and ass-cannons

 Galas wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.

Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.

Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.

Is very hard to try to argument about the real problems that Space Marines have (Every Codex has them. Or are anyone saying that GW are perfect at ruleswritting? ), when you are dumped in the same group as that kind of unreasonable and hyperbolic people

Most people are happy to have this discussion with most other marine players. I don't dismiss groups of people, I just dismiss the ramblings of those who demonstrate a lack of understanding on the topic.

There's a good argument to be made that a good chunk of the Marine book could use some help so that top tables aren't dependent on a handful of units - but this is the same issue that plagues most other codices anyways. It doesn't help any when the title of the thread is as ridiculous as this one. If someone had a thread like, say, Vindicators could use Grinding Advance, well that's a sensible buff and something worth discussing.

If the Chapter Approved rumours are true, it seems like most of the Primaris line will get a decent buff.

@Galas,
I know what you mean. I still get some flakk for defending DAs in 6th and 7th becasue Serpents and Spiders and Scatbikes, Oh My.

Bharring wrote:
@Galas,
I know what you mean. I still get some flakk for defending DAs in 6th and 7th becasue Serpents and Spiders and Scatbikes, Oh My.

You forgot WKs.

Silly Eldar apologist.

joking, of course

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.

The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.

Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)

ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.

ITT Daemon princes are better than guilliman and the SM codex has been Hands down the worst IN EVERY EDITION ROFL.
Man dude. You are delusional. Funny but delusional.

 Blacksails wrote:
Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.

Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.

Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.

Well it was...if we are talking about mono faction - which you people seem to not understand what that is. When you say a codex is bad - you are referring to is mono faction ability. Not it's ability to mix and match with allies. You also have to keep in context of time. When you look back on an eddition - you don't look at it chronologically. You look at it in it's final form. Space marine armies in 7th were exceptionally trash - when compared to the later 7th eddition army rules. Heratics- daemons - ynnari - it might have been a short lived final version of the game but that is what I am referring to.

Unless monofaction means Rhinos and Tac Marines are not in the same faction, SM monofaction out performed most monofactions - even most soup factions - in 7E.

Gladius was winning tournies without soup. Grav Cents backed by pure SM was winning tournies. Scout spam was single faction. SM didn't just regularly place well monofaction. It did so with many different builds in 7E.

Sure, ScatBikes were better. Demons, too, sometimes. But that still leaves you top 3.

So many other armies have seen what Trash really was. Even CWE did for over half of 6th before GW fixed the game with their codex.

 sennacherib wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.

The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.

Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)

ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.

ITT Daemon princes are better than guilliman and the SM codex has been Hands down the worst IN EVERY EDITION ROFL.
Man dude. You are delusional. Funny but delusional.

Since you are going back in this thread looking for ways to discredit me - you might want to notice that I retracted that statement to not include Guilliman. However - I think you'll see a lot more daemon princes than guilliman showing up at final tables in recent and future tournaments than you will guilliman. So maybe it's wasn't that crazy of a statement after all.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.

Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.

Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.

Well it was...if we are talking about mono faction - which you people seem to not understand what that is. When you say a codex is bad - you are referring to is mono faction ability. Not it's ability to mix and match with allies. You also have to keep in context of time. When you look back on an eddition - you don't look at it chronologically. You look at it in it's final form. Space marine armies in 7th were exceptionally trash - when compared to the later 7th eddition army rules. Heratics- daemons - ynnari - it might have been a short lived final version of the game but that is what I am referring to.

This is some extreme revisionism and deliberate ignorance. 7th was the realm of the Gladius, a distinctly mono-Marine detachment and army. There were at least half a dozen factions that were legitimate trash tier - Orks notably were awful, who benefited neither from a powerful mega formation, nor from any other smaller formations or strong individual units. Marines had a half a dozen strong support formations and an incredibly strong, edition defining mega formation in the Gladius. Marines were consistently topping tournaments throughout the edition.

Your claim they were trash is laughable and the stuff of fiction.

Again, you seem to have a poor understanding of all of this if you seriously and honestly think marines have been trash tier for several codices. This really does not lend any credibility to your arguments about how strong or weak marines are if you can't identify when they were among the top 3 in an edition that wasn't even a year ago.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.

Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.

Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.

Well it was...if we are talking about mono faction - which you people seem to not understand what that is. When you say a codex is bad - you are referring to is mono faction ability. Not it's ability to mix and match with allies. You also have to keep in context of time. When you look back on an eddition - you don't look at it chronologically. You look at it in it's final form. Space marine armies in 7th were exceptionally trash - when compared to the later 7th eddition army rules. Heratics- daemons - ynnari - it might have been a short lived final version of the game but that is what I am referring to.

OK, I dont even know...You have drifted into fairy tale land where GW is good at rules and sisters are the poster girls of the 40k universe. Let me try to understand what you just said...

1. You dont look at the edition as a whole, but only at the very end? So by that same logic...Chaos was busted in 7th because of what they got at the end? Not what they had through the ENITRE edition
2. And by that same logic...white scars battle company and Iron hands deathstar demi company (which were monobuild) werent busted because they didnt do well in tournies?
3. and finally by using your logic, if you think the space marine codex is bad doesnt that make you a hypocrite? Cause you only measure how good a codex is at the end of the edition, and we are at the beginning of ours?

Bharring wrote:
Unless monofaction means Rhinos and Tac Marines are not in the same faction, SM monofaction out performed most monofactions - even most soup factions - in 7E.

Gladius was winning tournies without soup. Grav Cents backed by pure SM was winning tournies. Scout spam was single faction. SM didn't just regularly place well monofaction. It did so with many different builds in 7E.

Sure, ScatBikes were better. Demons, too, sometimes. But that still leaves you top 3.

So many other armies have seen what Trash really was. Even CWE did for over half of 6th before GW fixed the game with their codex.

Again you are thinking chronologically and not final form. Lots of armies didn't even get 7.5 codex updates. They are naturally excluded from the discussion. Just as armies that don't have a codex are not included in this one.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.

The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.

Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)

ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.

ITT Daemon princes are better than guilliman and the SM codex has been Hands down the worst IN EVERY EDITION ROFL.
Man dude. You are delusional. Funny but delusional.

Since you are going back in this thread looking for ways to discredit me - you might want to notice that I retracted that statement to not include Guilliman. However - I think you'll see a lot more daemon princes than guilliman showing up at final tables in recent and future tournaments than you will guilliman. So maybe it's wasn't that crazy of a statement after all.

Do you even play marines. Jk.
Seriously, if this is really how you feel maybe you should try a different army. I mean if you’ve been struggling with poor little bottom tier space marines since 3rd edition, you should probably try something better. Like ad mech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Unless monofaction means Rhinos and Tac Marines are not in the same faction, SM monofaction out performed most monofactions - even most soup factions - in 7E.

Gladius was winning tournies without soup. Grav Cents backed by pure SM was winning tournies. Scout spam was single faction. SM didn't just regularly place well monofaction. It did so with many different builds in 7E.

Sure, ScatBikes were better. Demons, too, sometimes. But that still leaves you top 3.

So many other armies have seen what Trash really was. Even CWE did for over half of 6th before GW fixed the game with their codex.

Again you are thinking chronologically and not final form. Lots of armies didn't even get 7.5 codex updates. They are naturally excluded from the discussion. Just as armies that don't have a codex are not included in this one.

Like CSM. They got no 7.5 bump. But why are they naturally excluded from discussion. If they played in 7th then they played in 7th. Marines was so much better than CSM it was ridiculous.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.

Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.

Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.

Well it was...if we are talking about mono faction - which you people seem to not understand what that is. When you say a codex is bad - you are referring to is mono faction ability. Not it's ability to mix and match with allies. You also have to keep in context of time. When you look back on an eddition - you don't look at it chronologically. You look at it in it's final form. Space marine armies in 7th were exceptionally trash - when compared to the later 7th eddition army rules. Heratics- daemons - ynnari - it might have been a short lived final version of the game but that is what I am referring to.

This is some extreme revisionism and deliberate ignorance. 7th was the realm of the Gladius, a distinctly mono-Marine detachment and army. There were at least half a dozen factions that were legitimate trash tier - Orks notably were awful, who benefited neither from a powerful mega formation, nor from any other smaller formations or strong individual units. Marines had a half a dozen strong support formations and an incredibly strong, edition defining mega formation in the Gladius. Marines were consistently topping tournaments throughout the edition.

Your claim they were trash is laughable and the stuff of fiction.

Again, you seem to have a poor understanding of all of this if you seriously and honestly think marines have been trash tier for several codices. This really does not lend any credibility to your arguments about how strong or weak marines are if you can't identify when they were among the top 3 in an edition that wasn't even a year ago.

How can you compare armies that didn't get 7.5 codex codex- with decurian formations against armies that never got those updates? Why would you? It's not genuine. There is a reason they called it 7.5 - because it was a different game. GW pulled the plug on it and started 8th and here we are.

Bharring wrote:
Insectum - the Pulse Lasers get 2 shots, and the Falcon can add a heavy weapon such as the Bright Lance (which is S8 36" range d6 damage - it's the CWE Lascannon, trading damage and range for Lance and being on Relentless platforms [neither of which are true anymore]).

Same stats between Index and Codex.

(Doesn't refute your argument, though.)

Oh for sure, that's all true. And thanks for the stat confirmation.

But to continue with the unfortunate theme: FOUR IS STILL A BIGGER NUMBER THAN THREE

Saying marines have been “the worst in every edition” is just a joke. True fantasy if you ask me.

Marines have been up and down. I think many posters on here severely overrate their 5th ed incarnation, but that leaves 4th and 6th as decent showings.

And lots of 7th. Winning LVO is a pretty significant win.