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.

Btw just want to say I think the game in it's state is utter gak. 7th and 6th was bad but all before that was way more imersive and better. To any who claim that dissapointed players are in a minority... I think you live in a dream world. I've seen many jump ship in 8th. Life long collections of 14000pts sold because the game betrays the old fans. Communitys not shut down, but replaced. The spirit of the game has changed. Those that are fans now are mostly into the hardcore ITC competative side of the game. Rules are a mess and the disputes are almost inpossible to resolve. Ive had rules discussions where someone refered to warhammer tv as a source. Or fb posts...

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.

Yeah that's not how you should design rules. You ether release all the rules at once (also not hard) or you use the same restraint on every codex.

Go and write a better codex, put your money where your mouth is. Show us how easy it is to do better!

Back on topic, though. I don't think we really need any super special rules to represent the abilities of the Space Marines. They're the go-to army for beginners so they should remain easy to understand. Better weaponry/armour or synergy would be a better fix, but Space Marines are far from the only unit that isn't accurately represented on the tabletop like they are in the lore. Heck, even in the stories Marines are represented vastly differently depending on the writer or era.

Gitdakka wrote:
Btw just want to say I think the game in it's state is utter gak. 7th and 6th was bad but all before that was way more imersive and better. To any who claim that dissapointed players are in a minority... I think you live in a dream world. I've seen many jump ship in 8th. Life long collections of 14000pts sold because the game betrays the old fans. Communitys not shut down, but replaced. The spirit of the game has changed. Those that are fans now are mostly into the hardcore ITC competative side of the game. Rules are a mess and the disputes are almost inpossible to resolve. Ive had rules discussions where someone refered to warhammer tv as a source. Or fb posts...

You're wrong. The "many" you've seen are a tiny minority of disgruntled gamers who can't adapt to change.

The rules at the moment are infinitely better than they were in 6th and 7th. The game has a far more varied meta. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

But hey, if you really love vehicle facings and blast markers so much go play 30k.

 Ishagu wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
Btw just want to say I think the game in it's state is utter gak. 7th and 6th was bad but all before that was way more imersive and better. To any who claim that dissapointed players are in a minority... I think you live in a dream world. I've seen many jump ship in 8th. Life long collections of 14000pts sold because the game betrays the old fans. Communitys not shut down, but replaced. The spirit of the game has changed. Those that are fans now are mostly into the hardcore ITC competative side of the game. Rules are a mess and the disputes are almost inpossible to resolve. Ive had rules discussions where someone refered to warhammer tv as a source. Or fb posts...

You're wrong. The "many" you've seen are a tiny minority of disgruntled gamers who can't adapt to change.

The rules at the moment are infinitely better than they were in 6th and 7th. The game has a far more varied meta. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

But hey, if you really love vehicle facings and blast markers so much go play 30k.

You're both wrong. It's very hard to judge player numbers based on anecdotes, and people are entitled to like/dislike whatever they want. There are perfectly valid reasons to like or dislike the current edition, and no one needs permission to have these positions.

It's very easy to judge player growth numbers actually. We have access to GWs profits and growth figures, and we have access to tournament involvement across the world.

Both are direct indicators of the popularity and growing participation. Of course, tournament players are only a small minority of the total hobbyists, meaning the growth is far greater still.

GW are literally selling out of kits month after month. That means lots of people are buying. Nothing anecdotal about it.

 Ishagu wrote:
It's very easy to judge player growth numbers actually. We have access to GWs profits and growth figures, and we have access to tournament involvement across the world.

Both are direct indicators of the popularity and growing participation. Of course, tournament players are only a small minority of the total hobbyists, meaning the growth is far greater still.

GW are literally selling out of kits month after month. That means lots of people are buying. Nothing anecdotal about it.

You are entirely incorrect. There are many players who do not attend Tournaments, or who already own most models (buying less). An increase in sales could easily represent newer players buying larger quantities of models. It doesn't show how many players who already owned armies or models stopped playing. Really, you're extrapolating your conclusion.

Prove to me that less people are playing.

Because it's pretty obvious that more are. No, I don't have the numbers, GW don't have the numbers of individual hobbyist either. I just have the power of observation and common sense.

If your city is smoggy it typically means there are lots of cars on the road. If a game is selling more it typically means there are more people buying.

Darsath wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
It's very easy to judge player growth numbers actually. We have access to GWs profits and growth figures, and we have access to tournament involvement across the world.

Both are direct indicators of the popularity and growing participation. Of course, tournament players are only a small minority of the total hobbyists, meaning the growth is far greater still.

GW are literally selling out of kits month after month. That means lots of people are buying. Nothing anecdotal about it.

You are entirely incorrect. There are many players who do not attend Tournaments, or who already own most models (buying less). An increase in sales could easily represent newer players buying larger quantities of models. It doesn't show how many players who already owned armies or models stopped playing. Really, you're extrapolating your conclusion.

That actually makes his point stronger. If GW sold X more units last month than the month before and out of the total existing player base Y% sold out and/or stopped playing and Z% ran out of things to buy in the same timeframe, then it means that X units represents an increase in overall sales that would have been higher if Y% were still playing and Z% hadn't topped out. X basically swamped Y and Z put together.

 Ishagu wrote:
Prove to me that less people are playing.

Because it's pretty obvious that more are. No, I don't have the numbers, GW don't have the numbers of individual hobbyist either. I just have the power of observation and common sense.

If your city is smoggy it typically means there are lots of cars on the road. If a game is selling more it typically means there are more people buying.

I never said that less people were playing. Don't make a strawman. And saying that you just know there's more people playing the game isn't going to convince anyone you're right either.

But I am right. It's pretty clear lol.

The Newman wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
It's very easy to judge player growth numbers actually. We have access to GWs profits and growth figures, and we have access to tournament involvement across the world.

Both are direct indicators of the popularity and growing participation. Of course, tournament players are only a small minority of the total hobbyists, meaning the growth is far greater still.

GW are literally selling out of kits month after month. That means lots of people are buying. Nothing anecdotal about it.

You are entirely incorrect. There are many players who do not attend Tournaments, or who already own most models (buying less). An increase in sales could easily represent newer players buying larger quantities of models. It doesn't show how many players who already owned armies or models stopped playing. Really, you're extrapolating your conclusion.

That actually makes his point stronger. If GW sold X more units last month than the month before and out of the total existing player base Y% sold out and/or stopped playing and Z% ran out of things to buy in the same timeframe, then it means that X units represents an increase in overall sales that would have been higher if Y% were still playing and Z% hadn't topped out. X basically swamped Y and Z put together.

It represents an increase in sales. Players with more complete collections gave less incentive to buy. I'm not arguing about business obviously. It's better for Games Workshop as a company if more kits are selling, and players with more complete collections will never spend in the same way. An increase in sales does not necessarily correlate to increase in number of players playing the game. Plenty of people play with models they've owned for years, and buy less kits. New players buy more kits. I think 8th edition seen an influx of new players, but how many previous players stuck around is a little hard to judge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it's pretty clear that Ishagu is just a Games Workshop Troll at this point. Just ignore him.

It doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that the hobby is more popular and more people are involved. It makes no difference if someone who completed his army 15 years ago is still playing or not.

Lol why am I a troll? Because the sky isn't falling in every one of my responses? Because I don't hate the hobby I chose to invest my time in? Wow, that's interesting.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.

Yeah that's not how you should design rules. You ether release all the rules at once (also not hard) or you use the same restraint on every codex.

Go and write a better codex, put your money where your mouth is. Show us how easy it is to do better!

No one plays Xeno's patch 40k. It doesn't matter if I write it. Do you disagree that Auspex scan and forwarding do the same thing and cost the same but forwarding is obviously better because it can be used on any target at any range and doesn't incure -1 to hits? If I suggest a change makes these 2 strats function in the same way and exchange the word farseer and eldar unit with captain and adept astartes unit. I have successfully created a better codex. It's an imaginary codex that no one will use but look. It's better than the GW trash. You can't dispute it. Was that difficult for me? Nope.

I agree the game isn't completely balanced. I don't care because it gets updated often.

 Ishagu wrote:
I agree the game isn't completely balanced. I don't care because it gets updated often.

It gets updated often and leaves critical errors untouched. As a space marine player is there any justification that vehicals don't get chapter tactics? Is this a hard problem to solve? Is it unknown to general 40k that space marine tanks suck extra hard because they don't get chapter tactics? You literally just errata it to change the wording of chapter tactics. You don't even have to wait for a big errata to do it. It is a digital document. EASY, NOT HARD.

 Ishagu wrote:
It doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that the hobby is more popular and more people are involved. It makes no difference if someone who completed his army 15 years ago is still playing or not.

Lol why am I a troll? Because the sky isn't falling in every one of my responses? Because I don't hate the hobby I chose to invest my time in? Wow, that's interesting.

Besides the “This shows growth, but we can’t be sure scenario, but I’m pretty sure anyway” and the “show us how good you are and write a better rule set post,” among other things, make you sound like a troll.

If want to talk about rules qualities and such, we should probably look at various solutions proposed in the actual proposed rules forum. Some of them are bad, and some are good. I think a lot of people are hung up on when other people saying that “they could write better rules.” I believe most of these people think they can look at where GW has failed and rectify it to something satisfactory while maintaining the core we have. I think the hung up people are just getting pissy, especially when the idea of a counter is “oh yeah, go and make your own rule set.”

Whilst I agree that eight is the best edition of 40K ever, marines regardless are in a pretty bad spot. I am really looking forward to the new codex which seems pretty likely. I think marines were hurt by being so early in the editions when the writers were not yet so familiar with the quirks of the new system, so there is a good chance that a new codex will be a clear improvement. Though of course the most exiting thing will be the accompanying new Primaris models.

I don't have much hope in GW fixing marines in a significant way after the semi dud that was chaos 2.0 that was largely just a house keeping reprint that added new data sheets to the book and didn't do much else.

8th edition's core rules are the second best I've played under ( I personally preferred 5th edition since it had a good deal more nuance and complexity with movement, cover and vehicles). However my issue with 40k at this point is something that GW can't/won't fix because you can't put the knight/flier/primarch genie back in the bottle with out pissing off a lot of people.

40k in 8th tries to do to much and largely not successful at either being an a good skirmish game or large scale battle. I was hoping with the advent of Apoc as an entirely different gaming system that superheavies might be removed from base line 40k but that was a pipe dream.

That combined with the limits on stat differences using a d6 means that to many units are to close together in ability and makes it difficult to have real differences between things that should have a huge gap in ability.

My other main critique is the game favors offense way more than defensive abilities and that's one of the core reasons a vast majority of marine units are just flat out bad.

 Ishagu wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
Btw just want to say I think the game in it's state is utter gak. 7th and 6th was bad but all before that was way more imersive and better. To any who claim that dissapointed players are in a minority... I think you live in a dream world. I've seen many jump ship in 8th. Life long collections of 14000pts sold because the game betrays the old fans. Communitys not shut down, but replaced. The spirit of the game has changed. Those that are fans now are mostly into the hardcore ITC competative side of the game. Rules are a mess and the disputes are almost inpossible to resolve. Ive had rules discussions where someone refered to warhammer tv as a source. Or fb posts...

You're wrong. The "many" you've seen are a tiny minority of disgruntled gamers who can't adapt to change.

The rules at the moment are infinitely better than they were in 6th and 7th. The game has a far more varied meta. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

But hey, if you really love vehicle facings and blast markers so much go play 30k.

You would seem more reasonable if you read the posts you are replying to. I in no way defended 6th or 7th, in fact they almost made me quit the game.

As to what i liked, no it's not blast markers or vehicle facings that I miss most. For my primary faction marines it's the lack of a sane design direction I miss in the faction rules. All rules push you into being a a statc gunline. Auras, heavy weapon penalties, the cost of transports, lack of ability to shoot out of said transport, lack of efficiency for short range weapons, even lack of damage on the melee weapons. Hell sergeants can do up to 6 dmg with power fists, but vs tansk his dmg is like 1 or 2 average while you loose entire squads going in. Also every targets marines face has gone up in durability (see ap rules change, monsterous creatures going from roughly 4-6 wounds to 10-12

The only way marines can pose a treat is by buying a heavy weapon and camp in a corner ruin. Gone are the days of drop pods, rhinos, usefull deep strike, marines actually killing stuff, and the movement phase. This is why the game sucks.

Also yes the sales have increased but the cost of every box is wqy high now. A box of intercessor costs a lot. Starting boxes are like 150% cost compared in content and price to just some years back. Your epic sales fugures might just be less people buying more expensive batches. Who knows?

 Ishagu wrote:
I find it hilarious that people on this forum actually claim they can outright do better than GW, and also seem to actually misunderstand the meaning of the term "professional"

They also quote statements made in past editions as if they still apply now, even though GW playtests new units by dozens of testers over dozens of hours, and amends the game with FAQs after looking at player data over thousands of games.

The absolute lack of humility is staggering. I have many personal flaws but a distorted view of reality is not one of them. The lack of understanding of the sheer time it takes to get a book from concept to printing also shows how immature some of these "critics" are.

Please, grow up.

Every damn thread on this board that has anything to do with marines has these two clowns derailing it as soon as they can.

They're so in tune with the trolling that not even ignoring them helps because they get multi-quoted to infinity.

It's really getting sad seeing the same argument and message from the same posters almost verbatim in every thread. "Waaaaahhhh I could do better".

Then put up or shut up.

Please keep the conversation polite and on topic.
Thanks,
ingtaer.

Sadly the SM 2.0 probably will be reprint of the core codex + vigilus part + faq + new primaris. Much like chaos 2.0, because GW policy is to not completely invalidate old books now. So the strategems and statline will stay the same, but maybe we will get the crutch like the chaos get with their red corsairs to make army semi-competitive in one wierd way.
Overall I just wait 9ed.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

*Starts spraying Anti-RAW spray**** GO! Git! Git! Shoo! No one wants to debate with you as to what the meaning of "is" is!

it won't be with me, I'll be too busy with my popcorn. I'm a good for the goose is good for the gander person. For the most part, I'll mirror whatever you want to do for rules flexibility.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
So should they:
A. Include every bit you could possibly use to kit out your squad in the kit - meaning a 10man Tac box includes:

D: Sell far more upgrade sprues so you can turn one Rhino Chassis into a Whirlwind, Predator, etc. buy buying one Rhino, and as many upgrade sprues as you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Which ones specifically? Cause I'm sure mortiarian can knock a knight out in melle in fluff and in game terms.
I consider CP free - because they are.

No they're not. Especially for Marines and elite armies. For Marines at 1500 points they cost about a third of your army you will have next to zero flexibility with during selection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Any waaay do people think this new rule is just bolter discipline and atsknf rolled together or do you think there's an actual rule change?

I'd like to see one where marines always contest an object. Custodes have one to always control one so I figure marines should have one to contest it. Marine troop are generally out numbered on an objective unless there's a monster or something there which will just slice through regardless

Well this is Intercessors, who have that anyway.

But regardless, that probably wouldn't be handled as a datasheet ability - the Custodes one isn't.

The new ability isn't a datasheet rule. Its on the datasheet ant points to a global army rule you'll probably find in front of the data sheets


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I think thunder hammers on infantry is stupid and unnecessary. I dont care how long its been.

Aren't Terminators infantry?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Does anyone see Frags and Kraks getting some sort of re-design?

Absolutely. GW can't figure out what they want to do with grenades. Do I see the redesign becoming an improvement? No.

Silver144 wrote:
Sadly the SM 2.0 probably will be reprint of the core codex + vigilus part + faq + new primaris. Much like chaos 2.0, because GW policy is to not completely invalidate old books now. So the strategems and statline will stay the same, but maybe we will get the crutch like the chaos get with their red corsairs to make army semi-competitive in one wierd way.
Overall I just wait 9ed.

I would like to see one change to the Vigilus rules: Vexatrix Guard should not take up a slot when taken with either Calgar or Guilliman.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also - if jump packs were as good as there were in "Space Marine" I don't think ASM would be avoided like the plague.

Its not the jump packs, its the close combat rules. They removed almost all the bonus attacks which were there to balance out the downtime between close combats vs the frequently available shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Kraks are better against T3-T6 and T8-T11 multi-wound targets. That's actually quite a range in theory. In practice there aren't a lot of T4- multi-wound targets and a lot of armor is clustered at T7.

More shots is almost always better except in very nitch situations...basically t5. Even if you are getting a little better odds on a krak it's still practically better because you average more hits.

You are mistaken. All other things being equal a Heavy 1, Dd6 is mathematically identical to a Heavy d6, D1 provided you're shooting at something with more than one wound, and multi-wound targets are hardly a niche situation. The reason multi-shot weapons are considered better is that most of them are not over-paying for a high AP that they won't get to use on account of all the invuln saves and because you won't always have a target with more than one wound. More shots is better on average, but not due to any inherent mathematical advantage when calculating expected damage.

The average damage of any given weapon on any given target is [to-hit %] x [average shots] x [to-wound %] x [failed save %] x [average damage]. It doesn't matter what order those are in if the numbers are the same (basic transitive property) so if your math is saying a Heavy 1, Dd6 does less average damage than a Heavy d6, D1 with the other stats being equal then you've done something wrong. Since a Bolt Rifle is 2 shots, 1 damage and a Krak grenade is 1 shot, 2 damage average with the same AP then the only number that matters for average damage over time is the to-wound %, and I shouldn't have to spell out how an S4 and an S6 compare on that front to anyone here.

Not quite. The D D6 will do 3.5 on average. The D6 D1 will do 3.5 shots. So vs two wound models -say Intercessors, I'd rather shoot the D6 D1's and take out one and a half intercessors over REALLY taking out the one. Your theory is right, but you didn't account for multi-wound above the average wound characteristic. Vs a 20 wound tank model, you're right, it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. When the wound number is lower than the average - not just 1 - there is a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haanz wrote:
Is it just me that feels a little sad not to see ATSKNF on there?

Feel like that rule and the name of it is as iconic for Space Marines as the boltgun and chainsword.

I suspect we'll see it threaded. Angels of Death is ATSKNF and BD together, while some other unit - say Servitors just to pick something from a Marine Codex that isn't Marine - Might only get ATSKNF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
The current 40k rules are the best they have probably ever been, and the success of the game is a testament to that.

You might not like them personally and that's absolutely fine. Not everyone likes the same thing, but those who dislike how things are going are a minority.

The 2nd Ed Rules were probably the best they've ever been. 8th borrows from 2nd heavily. But I still miss the Swarming in close combat mechanic offsetting the Herohammer icons, and psychology. I miss psychology a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Double the output" is highly contextual. That's a pretty difficult thing to quantify in terms of army vs. army.

Yes it incredibly hard to determine value since arguably you could say the game is more about staying power since you need to hold objectives to score point. Or say value is about killing power since they can't claim objectives if they're dead

In a perfect world, it would be nice IF GW was able to balance it so the elite armies that lasted longer and the horde armies that kill faster end up getting to the objective scoring phase at the same time with the same potency. They haven't done that yet.

Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)

 lonewolf81 wrote:
Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)

What kind of "casual" games do you play?

 Ishagu wrote:
I find it hilarious that people on this forum actually claim they can outright do better than GW, and also seem to actually misunderstand the meaning of the term "professional"

They also quote statements made in past editions as if they still apply now, even though GW playtests new units by dozens of testers over dozens of hours, and amends the game with FAQs after looking at player data over thousands of games.

The absolute lack of humility is staggering. I have many personal flaws but a distorted view of reality is not one of them. The lack of understanding of the sheer time it takes to get a book from concept to printing also shows how immature some of these "critics" are.

Please, grow up.

Yeah, but in all honesty, this is a hobby marketed towards the over-priveldged....

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lonewolf81 wrote:
Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)

What kind of "casual" games do you play?

In my meta i mostly play against eldar ,dark eldar, imperial guard, orks... with my wolves. I must be really lucky not to get wiped of the board. If i go second and my opponets dont roll bad i will loose most of the time because they field more units than me.

Their lists got toned down by using highlander house rules so they cant spam their best units and to have more variety on the board but still an uphill battle simply because they have more effective units for less points

PS : i strongly believe that marines are not getting point decreases because of guiliman's reroll everything aura. The minute a unit gets cheaper, it will be spammed next to guiliman in the tournament scenes (which then affects everyone through FAQ changes etc). They should rework his aura to reroll 1s to wound and not every failed wound roll