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:
It's why no one creates a post like "am I ashamed to run my 3 hemlocks in an aliotoc fly wing?" Ofc they aren't

I hate Alaitoc and it's dominance over Craftworlds codex design.

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's why no one creates a post like "am I ashamed to run my 3 hemlocks in an aliotoc fly wing?" Ofc they aren't

I hate Alaitoc and it's dominance over Craftworlds codex design.

No one is going to shame you for playing it though. Its just kind of like...ofc you are going to. Why wouldn't you? With marines it's like sacrilege for some reason. GW knows that too...which makes disparity between chapters that much more frustrating.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Uhhh.. even if your 65% figure was accurate (its not - it's much higher)

Incorrect.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It would still represent the majority of tournament winning lists - you could make a bill law with those kinds of numbers.

Move them goalposts son! You went from "every fething ork lists uses KFFs, they're SUPER EFFECTIVE" to "yeah, so more often than not they get used, and even then only one in a list".

Consistency isnt your strong suit.

 Xenomancers wrote:

You have no argument. None.

Because I don't need one. I dont have a horse in the KFF/no-KFF race. I'm just sitting here lambasting your permanent state of hyperactive overreaction to any rule that you dont like.

 Xenomancers wrote:

You are pretty much wrong about everything - you don't even understand what cognitive dissonance means. Please show me which thought above is inconsistent with itself?

Starts paragraph: "I dont care that people run a specific faction to power up a specific unit"

Ends paragraph: "People running a specific faction to power up a specific unit makes me sick!"

Yeah, that's *perfectly* consistent with itself.

chef's kiss

 Xenomancers wrote:

Also the no desire to play a simulated game has a lot to do with the fact that I only play 40k on the table top. I don't want to play it any other way because that isn't how the game is supposed to be played.

I'm once again glad we have you here to lecture all of us on how we're playing the game wrong.

Remind me again why you only play the ITC ruleset instead of the myriad ways available to play 40k? And where those ITC rules are reflected in the core 40k ruleset?

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is going to shame you for playing it though. Its just kind of like...ofc you are going to. Why wouldn't you? With marines it's like sacrilege for some reason. GW knows that too...which makes disparity between chapters that much more frustrating.

That's because in their desire to sell everyone their own flavor of marines, GW turned chapters into different armies.

So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.

Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?

Bharring wrote:
So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.

Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?

Khorne Berzerkers are not legion specific though.
Any csm really can be turned into one, excluding they 3 other cult plebian types, of which pm and NS marines can also be created.

So Al zerkers isn't an issue.
It would potentially be one if they were an we paintjob but even that is debatable even from a fluff standpoint.

Bharring wrote:
So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.

Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?

Do you have a point? Lots of people responded about it and have opinions. Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here. OFC per the rules it is not an issue. Plus yes...there is a better legion trait to run certain chaos units but you don't have to give up your armies specific bonus for it. That will likely change with a new CSM codex BUT I will disagree with that too.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.

Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?

Khorne Berzerkers are not legion specific though.
Any csm really can be turned into one, excluding they 3 other cult plebian types, of which pm and NS marines can also be created.

So Al zerkers isn't an issue.
It would potentially be one if they were an we paintjob but even that is debatable even from a fluff standpoint.

"I feel like we've had this conversation before", he says sarcastically. Point being that there *were* discussions of such things.

(I still think that, while Zerkers could belong to any Legion, they can't be super stealth specialists with Infiltrate and AL tactics. But the point was only that such conversations do, in fact, happen.)

This isn't just a "Marine" issue.

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is going to shame you for playing it though. Its just kind of like...ofc you are going to. Why wouldn't you? With marines it's like sacrilege for some reason. GW knows that too...which makes disparity between chapters that much more frustrating.

That's because in their desire to sell everyone their own flavor of marines, GW turned chapters into different armies.

I agree - that is exactly what has happened.

Bharring wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.

Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?

Khorne Berzerkers are not legion specific though.
Any csm really can be turned into one, excluding they 3 other cult plebian types, of which pm and NS marines can also be created.

So Al zerkers isn't an issue.
It would potentially be one if they were an we paintjob but even that is debatable even from a fluff standpoint.

"I feel like we've had this conversation before", he says sarcastically. Point being that there *were* discussions of such things.

(I still think that, while Zerkers could belong to any Legion, they can't be super stealth specialists with Infiltrate and AL tactics. But the point was only that such conversations do, in fact, happen.)

This isn't just a "Marine" issue.

Bah, marines > csm
Because gw loves them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.

Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?

Do you have a point?

Yes. That this applies to a lot of factions

Lots of people responded about it and have opinions.

Good.

Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here.

"You don't exist, and nobody else who thinks like you does either" isn't a terribly persuasive argument.

OFC per the rules it is not an issue. Plus yes...there is a better legion trait to run certain chaos units but you don't have to give up your armies specific bonus for it. That will likely change with a new CSM codex BUT I will disagree with that too.

So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons? I'm not sure that's accurate.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.

Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?

Do you have a point?

Yes. That this applies to a lot of factions

Lots of people responded about it and have opinions.

Good.

Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here.

"You don't exist, and nobody else who thinks like you does either" isn't a terribly persuasive argument.

OFC per the rules it is not an issue. Plus yes...there is a better legion trait to run certain chaos units but you don't have to give up your armies specific bonus for it. That will likely change with a new CSM codex BUT I will disagree with that too.

So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons? I'm not sure that's accurate.

Lol nobody knows what the different Craftworlds look like in terms of colors.

It's an exaggeration but I think you get the point. Marines have the iconic look AND the iconic colors. Eldar just have an iconic look.

Choas has literally been better than space marines the entire edition though - up to this point. Space marines are much better now no question about it but it's temporary. 8.5 edition is just starting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.

Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?

Do you have a point?

Yes. That this applies to a lot of factions

Lots of people responded about it and have opinions.

Good.

Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here.

"You don't exist, and nobody else who thinks like you does either" isn't a terribly persuasive argument.

OFC per the rules it is not an issue. Plus yes...there is a better legion trait to run certain chaos units but you don't have to give up your armies specific bonus for it. That will likely change with a new CSM codex BUT I will disagree with that too.

So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons? I'm not sure that's accurate.

You are being intentionally obtuse. You really don't believe that. It's an opinion so I can't say you are wrong. Just the reality is this is the way most players feel.

The reality is xenon every argument you've made and your premise article comes across as you just want to play a list with ultramarines having every super efficent rule available.


Don't tell me that's not your point

It's. How your argument seems to many people.

What it seems you want say to is to run your models and have a gt winning ruleset to do so. Ohh but it has to cover every model you like..... That doesn't happen. Relax if you are consistent that's fine. But if you jump codes every week people will not love it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's why no one creates a post like "am I ashamed to run my 3 hemlocks in an aliotoc fly wing?" Ofc they aren't

I hate Alaitoc and it's dominance over Craftworlds codex design.

I love Beil-tan and Iyanden. Ulthwe and Saim-Hann are awesome as well. Alaitoc was always of lesser impact. It's something to watch in the future.

You are being intentionally obtuse. You really don't believe that. It's an opinion so I can't say you are wrong. Just the reality is this is the way most players feel.

"Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here."
Is a statement of fact about others' opinions.

"No one is going to shame you for playing it though."
Another statement of fact regarding *everyone's* opinions.

"It's why no one creates a post like [...]"
Another statement of fact.

Each of these asserts specific facts about the way things are. They aren't defending your opinion. They're facts. And they're false, too. As you're bandying these about to denigrate those who disagree with you, don't be surprised when such "facts" don't get a free pass as "just my opinion".

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I could win with a selection of random units from that codex. It is a really good army and the KFF is literally the only unit should not consider not taking.

I'd like to take you up on that bet. You get as many KFF as you want and I provide you with the rest of the list, exclusively made of units you have claimed to be awesome in your posts since the codex dropped with the relevant posts provided as proof(this includes burnas, kanz and warbikers).

If I win that game you have to write a thorough apology about how you have no clue about orks and never lose a word about them ever again. If you win, I'll do the same.

I have no desire to play a simulated game.
http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

One need only look at the myriad of Tournament lists (several 1,2,3 Tournament finishes at GT's for orks also.) Heck...As many as imperial knights and Astra Militarium. It's pretty clear orks are top contenders. In almost every case they write their list with a KFF first and really the only ones that don't use one are the lists that are using 3 kultures which makes sense...Yet you claim the KFF is terrible and don't even include it...These guys are winning GT's with it...it is clearly great.

So you're saying you need a plane tkt.

 captain collius wrote:
The reality is xenon every argument you've made and your premise article comes across as you just want to play a list with ultramarines having every super efficent rule available.


Don't tell me that's not your point

It's. How your argument seems to many people.

What it seems you want say to is to run your models and have a gt winning ruleset to do so. Ohh but it has to cover every model you like..... That doesn't happen. Relax if you are consistent that's fine. But if you jump codes every week people will not love it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's why no one creates a post like "am I ashamed to run my 3 hemlocks in an aliotoc fly wing?" Ofc they aren't

I hate Alaitoc and it's dominance over Craftworlds codex design.

I love Beil-tan and Iyanden. Ulthwe and Saim-Hann are awesome as well. Alaitoc was always of lesser impact. It's something to watch in the future.

The best rules available? Yeah...I'm pretty sure that is what most people want to use for their models.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.

Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?

Do you have a point?

Yes. That this applies to a lot of factions

Lots of people responded about it and have opinions.

Good.

Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here.

"You don't exist, and nobody else who thinks like you does either" isn't a terribly persuasive argument.

OFC per the rules it is not an issue. Plus yes...there is a better legion trait to run certain chaos units but you don't have to give up your armies specific bonus for it. That will likely change with a new CSM codex BUT I will disagree with that too.

So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons? I'm not sure that's accurate.

Lol nobody knows what the different Craftworlds look like in terms of colors.

It's an exaggeration but I think you get the point. Marines havoe the iconic look AND the iconic colors. Eldar just have an iconic look.

Yeahhhhhh..... No. Eldar are the most visible Xeno race. I know the craftworld by color...it's written in my brain. I don't even play them and haven't opened their book in 8 years. Traitor legions Eldar SM, AM models (The color doesn't visually stand out the model does)

Tyranids Necrons Tau Dark Eldar (personally i dont know admech or knights byt thats just cause when i stopped playing they werent a thing.)

 Xenomancers wrote:

 captain collius wrote:
The reality is xenon every argument you've made and your premise article comes across as you just want to play a list with ultramarines having every super efficent rule available.


Don't tell me that's not your point

It's. How your argument seems to many people.

What it seems you want say to is to run your models and have a gt winning ruleset to do so. Ohh but it has to cover every model you like..... That doesn't happen. Relax if you are consistent that's fine. But if you jump codes every week people will not love it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's why no one creates a post like "am I ashamed to run my 3 hemlocks in an aliotoc fly wing?" Ofc they aren't

I hate Alaitoc and it's dominance over Craftworlds codex design.

I love Beil-tan and Iyanden. Ulthwe and Saim-Hann are awesome as well. Alaitoc was always of lesser impact. It's something to watch in the future.

The best rules available? Yeah...I'm pretty sure that is what most people want to use for their models.

Nope.
Actually i don't in my average game.
I use the trait to fit my theme.

Also my main army hasn't even traits anymore and even when it had i didn't use the "best" because i am again mostly building decent /themed armies.
Ofcourse if someone wanted to prepare for tournaments i aswell would field the best traits and lists i could but that was explicitly for training purposes .
In day to day na.

And I rekon i am not the only one doing it that way.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 captain collius wrote:
The reality is xenon every argument you've made and your premise article comes across as you just want to play a list with ultramarines having every super efficent rule available.


Don't tell me that's not your point

It's. How your argument seems to many people.

What it seems you want say to is to run your models and have a gt winning ruleset to do so. Ohh but it has to cover every model you like..... That doesn't happen. Relax if you are consistent that's fine. But if you jump codes every time people ain't gonna like that

The best rules available? Yeah...I'm pretty sure that is what most people want to use for their models.

Simple question do you Love Ultras then play that way.

Also yes Iron Hands Techmarines are better than yours at their job.
Blood Angels Jump pack Units are better
Ravenguard are sneakier
Imperial Fists are the siege masters
White scars are supposed to be mobile (gw you missed a trick)
Dark Angels should have more missions than you and old tech
Salamanders....Fire
And Space Wolves should overuse the word Wolf.
Ultras are tactically rigid but very Organized.

That's how it is. Now do you wanna play Ultras or Hands.

It's that easy I play Dark Angels and I will beat you with my crap codex. That's how I play.

Also all opinions about chapters are my own if you disagree... good

Not Online!!! wrote:

Nope.
Actually i don't in my average game.
I use the trait to fit my theme.

Yeah, same. Though it is till kinda lame if some traits are massively better than others and the IH will be just as annoying to face regardless of how they're painted.

 Crimson wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Nope.
Actually i don't in my average game.
I use the trait to fit my theme.

Yeah, same. Though it is till kinda lame if some traits are massively better than others and the IH will be just as annoying to face regardless of how they're painted.

The internal balance is fethed imo.
The external even more so through the internal.

And I am more then willing to give leeway.
I would f.e never force a WB to use their trait
Or cry Foul against mordian guard using Cadia.

What i have an issue is when you allready have a decent enough trait for a normal round and switch like using purge instead of scourged even though your army is clearly scourged.

My ghost marines are of course al.

My pirates have no fixed trait but are run as everything renegade trait but mostly RC.

My r&h used to be bloody handed reaver grenadiers of Khorne.

Bharring wrote:
So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons?

It's not like technically different; it's like, do you care what are the guns Tyranids are carrying named, can you distinguish between them and will you be bothered if one is played count as another? What about plasmagun played as lascannon?

 Shadenuat wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons?

It's not like technically different; it's like, do you care what are the guns Tyranids are carrying named, can you distinguish between them and will you be bothered if one is played count as another? What about plasmagun played as lascannon?

I do if i dont know you guns, bc then i can quickly get familiar with it and know what i'm against.

ccs wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I could win with a selection of random units from that codex. It is a really good army and the KFF is literally the only unit should not consider not taking.

I'd like to take you up on that bet. You get as many KFF as you want and I provide you with the rest of the list, exclusively made of units you have claimed to be awesome in your posts since the codex dropped with the relevant posts provided as proof(this includes burnas, kanz and warbikers).

If I win that game you have to write a thorough apology about how you have no clue about orks and never lose a word about them ever again. If you win, I'll do the same.

I have no desire to play a simulated game.
http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

One need only look at the myriad of Tournament lists (several 1,2,3 Tournament finishes at GT's for orks also.) Heck...As many as imperial knights and Astra Militarium. It's pretty clear orks are top contenders. In almost every case they write their list with a KFF first and really the only ones that don't use one are the lists that are using 3 kultures which makes sense...Yet you claim the KFF is terrible and don't even include it...These guys are winning GT's with it...it is clearly great.

So you're saying you need a plane tkt.

He is going to find a reason to not play me, even if I would show up at his doorstep with all the models he needs and a folding table to play. Just as expected.

Many thanks to sterling for completely dismantling his arguments about orks and backing it up with facts.

 Shadenuat wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons?

It's not like technically different; it's like, do you care what are the guns Tyranids are carrying named, can you distinguish between them and will you be bothered if one is played count as another? What about plasmagun played as lascannon?

But then how is "Do you care if my Blue Upsidedown-Omega Marines are Iron Hands" that different from "Do you care if my Black&Bone Guardians are Biel-Tan?"

It's not really a question of viability - it'd be just as weird to have Green&White Uthwe or Black&Metal UltraMarines. If a force is clearly built & painted one way (say, UM), and you play it another way (IH), it's a negative. Not necessarily a strong one, though. And there are degrees. A well-painted UltraMarine army playing as Iron Hands is much better than "All my Flamers are Missile Launchers". Which, in turn, is better than an unpainted half-assembled horde. And even that's better than TFG, regardless of his army.

What I mean and what you concur, is that it's all quite subjective. Some people would be more okay with flamers as missile launchers than a Guilliman painted into another chapter color. Can you easily distinguish between all the types of Tau drones?

 Shadenuat wrote:
What I mean and what you concur, is that it's all quite subjective. Some people would be more okay with flamers as missile launchers than a Guilliman painted into another chapter color. Can you easily distinguish between all the types of Tau drones?

.

Yes there are shield, and specialty. Gun drones and marker drones are lies.

Just go ahead and be a WAAC 40K player. Everyone else is doing it.

How has this thread made it to twelve pages?! We had the answer I think on the first or second page.

Simply put; the only shame anyone feels is dependent on themselves and how they view their hobby. If you're a die-hard competitive player always chasing the meta and eager to field only the "best" army (there's nothing wrong with this) then you should (and will) feel no shame switching your Marines to Iron Hands. If you're more of a fluffy player who just loves the background of the XVII legion of Emperor's Buttcheeks and really enjoys that aspect of the hobby then switching to IH would probably disgust you.

In reality we're all a mix of these archetypes. Likely we want a competitive army that will dominate on the tournament scene but because of the time investment this hobby takes up we end up getting attached to our little plastic peeps and sometimes end up running something 'just because it's cool' or 'because I'm proud of the paint-job' or any other subjective, irrational reason. Alternatively your primary driver may be to create a fun, themed army but after a few (hundred) stompings from your opponents you decide that perhaps the theme needs to wax to accommodate a more competitive list.

I daresay even the most hardcore player has an attachment to some models depending on a criteria known only to them and indeed even the most fluff bunny player has some rough idea of tactics and how to play the game to win.

I fall into the latter of these camps, stubbornly refusing to drop my Warbikers, Buggies and Meks and refusing to add some of the most competitive choices such as the fabled Mek Guns (Smasha flavour, of course) because I see them as breaking the theme of my army, which is important to me personally. That doesn't mean I expect every opponent to steamroll me. Nor does it mean I'm happy to get steamrolled. Quite the opposite, I believe I have to play smarter than most because my army is immediately less efficient than others.

Regardless the answer to this question is entirely personal and impossible for anyone but the person asking it to answer, so I'm amazed that the thread is still going on.

There's no shame in going for the strongest sub-faction of any army, regardless of how your army is painted, if that is your primary driver. Just as there's no shame picking a weaker sub-faction because you think it's cool, or any other subjective opinion.