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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

In very typical fashion, I notice you're shifting goalposts and ignoring every point you can't shift or make an excuse for.

I can compare any faction in the edition. That's the idea here. The player created, completely arbitrary 7.5 only reinforces the point that marines got an excellent, powerful codex and other factions didn't. Its as genuine as any other comparison.

The point sitll remains that no matter how you try and shift the goal posts, Marines were a very, very powerful faction in the top 3 that consistently won tournaments with a variety of mono faction builds.

If you're going to claim that marines had the worst codex, you can't them shift the goal post to "except for the factions that didn't get a book after a certain period, and ignoring everything except for the last month of the edition" and somehow claim you're right. Everyone reading this thread sees through the nonsense, and the more you claim it, the more people will call you out on it and think less of your ability to see and identify balance and power among factions.

If you define '7.5' chonologically, there are obvious counterexamples, and it's a huge selection bias.

If you define '7.5' conceptually, it's tautalogical: the armies that got OP codecies are OP.

In either case, SM came out on top of everything but CWE and Chaos, came out at on the same level as those two, and Chaos was frequently Soup, which you discount anyways.

In none of those aspects does the argument appear to be true, and in each of those, even if it were, the constraints would have made the argument pointless. Even if it were the bottom of the top ~5 specific books out of ~20 (which is clearly not true), it'd still put you near the top. Yet they were in the top 3 books of the edition.

Remember that time that space marines had the only 7.5 codex and were spanking people with gladius. Marines were so OP then. Then Ynnari came out and could chain reaction kill the entire army of free razor backs in 2 turns and the tables turned.

Somehow this is a flawed reasoning to only think about the end result rather than before then before other armies reached their peak strength.

 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.

Context Xeno, context. Before you razored it down to the highly specialized 3W models, you guys were comparing tanks.

And arguably, the Predator can be better against 3 wound models in the end.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Remember that time that space marines had the only 7.5 codex and were spanking people with gladius. Marines were so OP then. Then Ynnari came out and could chain reaction kill the entire army of free razor backs in 2 turns and the tables turned.

Somehow this is a flawed reasoning to only think about the end result rather than before then before other armies reached their peak strength.

Reminder for you and everyone: You claimed literally that Marines had the single worst codex of 7th.

Marines were a top 3 book, the entire way through the edition.

You are blatantly, utterly, and completely incorrect on every level of everything you've claimed.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

In very typical fashion, I notice you're shifting goalposts and ignoring every point you can't shift or make an excuse for.

I can compare any faction in the edition. That's the idea here. The player created, completely arbitrary 7.5 only reinforces the point that marines got an excellent, powerful codex and other factions didn't. Its as genuine as any other comparison.

The point sitll remains that no matter how you try and shift the goal posts, Marines were a very, very powerful faction in the top 3 that consistently won tournaments with a variety of mono faction builds.

If you're going to claim that marines had the worst codex, you can't them shift the goal post to "except for the factions that didn't get a book after a certain period, and ignoring everything except for the last month of the edition" and somehow claim you're right. Everyone reading this thread sees through the nonsense, and the more you claim it, the more people will call you out on it and think less of your ability to see and identify balance and power among factions.

I've shifted the goal post to the relevant topic. Obviously space marines were better than armies that didn't get a 7.5 codex. I just assume when talking to intelligent people that my statements should only be taken in the context of what is relevant. If you want to talk about 7th edition before formations. My statement stands - space marines were the worst mono faction in the game.

Isn't it like claiming CWE was the worst 6.5 book? Of the books in it's league (just CWE), it was clearly the worst.

Ynnari were scary good. Just like Scatbikes. And Skyhammer. And Grav. And Cents. And Gladius.

SM stayed good. Most other books did not.

Your goalpost has a 2+ jink, but how 'bout you list each 7.5 Codex, and what each of them have that made the SM 7.5 Codex garbage?

Also claimed they had been the worst in every edition. At least since 3rd.

I prefer to think of every incarnation of marines in these terms: "How do they overcome the tactical marine THIS edition?"

Tactical marines are NOT cost effective. Some posters disagree, but I think this is largely a empirically true statement due to minimizing of this unit over the editions.

Consequently, I see marines as a whole built on a very shaky foundation. Sometimes, GW gives marines bling to stabilize the house like 7th. Other times, like 5th, marines don't get much to help with the problem of being a marine and things don't go so well.

What I'll say about the current marine dex is that I think it will be eclipsed by every xeno codex because no xeno codex is burdened by the tactical marine problem.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I've shifted the goal post

Continuously.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

In very typical fashion, I notice you're shifting goalposts and ignoring every point you can't shift or make an excuse for.

I can compare any faction in the edition. That's the idea here. The player created, completely arbitrary 7.5 only reinforces the point that marines got an excellent, powerful codex and other factions didn't. Its as genuine as any other comparison.

The point sitll remains that no matter how you try and shift the goal posts, Marines were a very, very powerful faction in the top 3 that consistently won tournaments with a variety of mono faction builds.

If you're going to claim that marines had the worst codex, you can't them shift the goal post to "except for the factions that didn't get a book after a certain period, and ignoring everything except for the last month of the edition" and somehow claim you're right. Everyone reading this thread sees through the nonsense, and the more you claim it, the more people will call you out on it and think less of your ability to see and identify balance and power among factions.

I've shifted the goal post to the relevant topic. Obviously space marines were better than armies that didn't get a 7.5 codex. I just assume when talking to intelligent people that my statements should only be taken in the context of what is relevant. If you want to talk about 7th edition before formations. My statement stands - space marines were the worst mono faction in the game.

Yep. Poor space marines. Just because eldar could beat you that makes you the worst army.
So this is how your perceived ranking of armies goes.

Eldar top tier.
Everyone else.
Space marines.

Is this accurate.

Martel732 wrote:
I prefer to think of every incarnation of marines in these terms: "How do they overcome the tactical marine THIS edition?"

Tactical marines are NOT cost effective. Some posters disagree, but I think this is largely a empirically true statement due to minimizing of this unit over the editions.

Consequently, I see marines as a whole built on a very shaky foundation. Sometimes, GW gives marines bling to stabilize the house like 7th. Other times, like 5th, marines don't get much to help with the problem of being a marine and things don't go so well.

What I'll say about the current marine dex is that I think it will be eclipsed by every xeno codex because no xeno codex is burdened by the tactical marine problem.

How, you don't even have to take them.

Just to make clear the tone of my statement. "Elaborate" Because I think I know what youre talking about.

Lets focus on 8th though guys. There is no point in arguing about past editions anyways.

The first big 7E tourny was won by SM monobuild ObSec spam. SM lists were one of the armies to beat. It wasn't the only top dex then, but it was certainly one of the best. In 7E before formations, SM were better than, for example:
-Necrons (one of the first formations)
-Orkz (one of the last reasonable 7E codecies)
-IG
-DE
-Harlies
-CSM
-Nids
-BA
-DA
-SW
-GK

Just to name a few.

The context of worst faction at any point is all factions, not "the best factions". Arguing the-worst-of-the-best is one of the least likely intetional discussions.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I've shifted the goal post to the relevant topic.

No, you shifted them you shown to be wrong in a pitiful attempt to salvage some shred of your argument. It wasn't very effective.

Obviously space marines were better than armies that didn't get a 7.5 codex.

And better than most armies with a 7.5 codex. Again, top 3 book. That means there were only 2 possible books better than marines.

I just assume when talking to intelligent people that my statements should only be taken in the context of what is relevant.

No, you were shown to be wrong when your statements were taken at face value because we assumed you were intelligent to write what you meant. And even when you tried to 'clarify', it was still shown to be blatantly false.

If you want to talk about 7th edition before formations.

You said 7th edition. No caveats. I simply followed suit. If anything, making the distinction further reinforces that not only were marines not the worst, they were one of the best.

My statement stands - space marines were the worst mono faction in the game.

Based on? Your imagination? Fiction? There is literally zero supporting evidence for this and tons that run exactly counter.

You can think what you like, but know that not only is it incorrect, it undermines your credibility when making any other claims about how terrible marines are or any other balance concerns.

THe focus on previous was because of the argument "Of course they're worst, they've always been". WE should probably not go too far down that road.

At any rate, I think it's clear LasPred vs Falcon is yet another piece of evidence purported to show SM inferiority that did nothing of the sort. If anything, it showed the Falcon needs the Attribute to compete.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets focus on 8th though guys. There is no point in arguing about past editions anyways.

You mean the same edition you claimed Marines were worse off than GK and Ad Mech?

I'm sure your analysis of the 8th power levels is as spot on as your analysis of 7th.

Focusing on 8th ed in a vacu,e and ignoring your previous statements then.

General consensus has it that grey knight, adeptus mechanicus And death Guard are all worse than space marines.

Martel732 wrote:
I prefer to think of every incarnation of marines in these terms: "How do they overcome the tactical marine THIS edition?"

Tactical marines are NOT cost effective. Some posters disagree, but I think this is largely a empirically true statement due to minimizing of this unit over the editions.

Consequently, I see marines as a whole built on a very shaky foundation. Sometimes, GW gives marines bling to stabilize the house like 7th. Other times, like 5th, marines don't get much to help with the problem of being a marine and things don't go so well.

What I'll say about the current marine dex is that I think it will be eclipsed by every xeno codex because no xeno codex is burdened by the tactical marine problem.

You mean like every infantry in your army pays a high price for defensive stats that are largely irrelevant? Yeah - it's a pretty big hurdle to overcome.

... With CWE, IG, and potentially CSM as better.

Nids are tipping towards above, but too early to be conclusive.

We're still seeing SM as middle-ish, but can't be exact middle (in a list with even number of elements).

So....
your point is that you now need a 3++ to be competitive?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I prefer to think of every incarnation of marines in these terms: "How do they overcome the tactical marine THIS edition?"

Tactical marines are NOT cost effective. Some posters disagree, but I think this is largely a empirically true statement due to minimizing of this unit over the editions.

Consequently, I see marines as a whole built on a very shaky foundation. Sometimes, GW gives marines bling to stabilize the house like 7th. Other times, like 5th, marines don't get much to help with the problem of being a marine and things don't go so well.

What I'll say about the current marine dex is that I think it will be eclipsed by every xeno codex because no xeno codex is burdened by the tactical marine problem.

How, you don't even have to take them.

Just to make clear the tone of my statement. "Elaborate" Because I think I know what youre talking about.

The problems of the tac marine trickle down to many marine units. Paying for stats they can't use. Paying for gear they can't use. In previous editions, common, cheap weapons that ignored the toughness, common weapons that ignored their armor, etc. The game has ALWAYS rewarded specialists, EXCEPT in cases like 5th ed GK, who were massively undercosted.

Again, BA have done a maginificent job of showing how good the basis of marines truly is: not good.BA have been SM without the required bling for two editions, have been the list that Xeno is describing.

I don't know it's that high a price when you've got a 5-man in cover with a Lascannon.

Their damage output is in the same league per point as plenty of troops with worse durability, if you give them a special/heavy and/or combi.

Bharring wrote:
I don't know it's that high a price when you've got a 5-man in cover with a Lascannon.

Their damage output is in the same league per point as plenty of troops with worse durability, if you give them a special/heavy and/or combi.

Not on a per point basis after equipment. The equipment is killer. 5 man tac squads with a lascannon are a joke against Eldar and Nids now. Too much bling bling on the Xenos.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets focus on 8th though guys. There is no point in arguing about past editions anyways.

You mean the same edition you claimed Marines were worse off than GK and Ad Mech?

I'm sure your analysis of the 8th power levels is as spot on as your analysis of 7th.

GK are better than marines IMO. I have both armies - GK are really my main army. They are higher skill cap for sure. Standing around guilliman and shooting people with assault cannons is easy mode. With GK you have almost unlimited mobility - a skilled player can make it work better. AD mech IDK. They are pretty good against marines and GK but will get destroyed by nid/eldar than can just shove units into your lines with no real counter.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets focus on 8th though guys. There is no point in arguing about past editions anyways.

You mean the same edition you claimed Marines were worse off than GK and Ad Mech?

I'm sure your analysis of the 8th power levels is as spot on as your analysis of 7th.

GK are better than marines IMO. I have both armies - GK are really my main army. They are higher skill cap for sure. Standing around guilliman and shooting people with assault cannons is easy mode. With GK you have almost unlimited mobility - a skilled player can make it work better. AD mech IDK. They are pretty good against marines and GK but will get destroyed by nid/eldar than can just shove units into your lines with no real counter.

No they don't, imo. They give up too many points too quickly.

The Assault Cannon ignores neither their toughness nor their armor. The Reaper Launcher negates their T advantage, but not their armor advantage. THe Lasgun ignores neither their armor nor their toughness.

If you field them as IG, you're ignoring their advantages. From what I've seen, most people find a use for them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets focus on 8th though guys. There is no point in arguing about past editions anyways.

You mean the same edition you claimed Marines were worse off than GK and Ad Mech?

I'm sure your analysis of the 8th power levels is as spot on as your analysis of 7th.

GK are better than marines IMO. I have both armies - GK are really my main army. They are higher skill cap for sure. Standing around guilliman and shooting people with assault cannons is easy mode. With GK you have almost unlimited mobility - a skilled player can make it work better. AD mech IDK. They are pretty good against marines and GK but will get destroyed by nid/eldar than can just shove units into your lines with no real counter.

Tournament data shows that Marines are dramatically outperforming GK. Skill isn't a good argument because we tend to assume the top table at tournaments will have skilled players.

GK and Ad Mech have vastly lower tournament standings and results. Your own anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much.

Look.
You have the largest faction in the game. Imperial soup includes 300+ unique entries covering the gamut of possible buffs, special rules and wargear. This gives your faction the greatest tactical flexibility.

Let’s assume you REFUSE to play imperial soup and then GW buffs space marines just for you becuase your argument is so poignant. Mono faction SM need a buff to be better. Ok.

Then everyone else who Utilises imperial soup gets a massive buff. Hmmmm.

Bharring wrote:
The Assault Cannon ignores neither their toughness nor their armor. The Reaper Launcher negates their T advantage, but not their armor advantage. THe Lasgun ignores neither their armor nor their toughness.

If you field them as IG, you're ignoring their advantages. From what I've seen, most people find a use for them.

From what I've seen, people avoid them whenever possible. Old tournament lists support this. The BA wardex supports this. It was an meq codex that didn't have to take tacs. How many tacs were seen in 5th ed BA lists? Zero,because they could.