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.

ccs wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Having played for around 25 years I van say that you're wrong.

Yeah, I think Xeno needs some more experience.

In fairness if Marines where last any good 26 years ago that is pretty bad.

eaither way right now the rules situation is they're amazing. no arguement there. I don't think I've ever felt this comfortable with "Grabbing and going" with my codex.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Having played for around 25 years I van say that you're wrong.

Dude you always think marines are strong and run tactical squads in every edition. You would lose every game playing like that around here. Literally - every game. What is your motive for saying marines have been strong when they really havn't been is the real question. It is not even up for debate whether they have been strong or not. There is a consensus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Having played for around 25 years I van say that you're wrong.

Yeah, I think Xeno needs some more experience.

In fairness if Marines where last any good 26 years ago that is pretty bad.

eaither way right now the rules situation is they're amazing. no arguement there. I don't think I've ever felt this comfortable with "Grabbing and going" with my codex.

I played some when I was younger too but didn't really understand the game like I do now. I don't include that. Though - there is no question in my mind that DE were superior to marines in the first edition I played. I think that was 3rd.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Marines will never be banned. They receive great rules in the supplements and perform well from what I understand- I imagine, don't play them.

At the end of the day SM will always be the movie hero of GWs line. Everything else is a whipping boy (barring Asuryianii - or whatever the feth they are called).

Xenos are the red headed stepchild who gets bullied so SM players can feel great about themselves.

OK, challenge to GW. Lets bring out 40K Dark Mech rules and make them obscenely good.

I am drunk and need sleep.

Space marines have basically never had good rules. Typically a low tier army. Maybe a few Gimmicks that can work over the years but not a strong overall army.

I think you don't understand what "never" means.

Or "low tier army".

Sure, several of their stints at the top of the pack have been based on gimmicks, but that's true of most stints at the top of the pack.

I don't consider super friends or a forgeworld libby that automatically gives you the most busted spell ever imagined a space marine list. They were naughty soup lists.

Invis Eldar Star = OP Eldar
Invis Marine Star = Gimmick

Gladius was quite strong but I find 7.5 edition to be rather forgettable...it was basically experimenting for 8th edition. If you wanted to grab a codex and pick up models in the store.

Marines in Tanks = gimmick, because tanks win not Marines
Eldar in DAVU Serpents = Eldar OP, despite tanks winnning not Eldar

Space marines have routinely been a terrible choice if you wanted a strong army. I should know I've been playing them for 10+ years.

I didn't realize it's been 10 years since pre-nerf Gman. Or Gladius. Or SuperFriends. Or CentStar. Or early-7th ObSec spam. Or Grav Bikers. or.... lots of things.

Eldar on the other hand (which I have also played for just as long) have routinely had VERY good rules. Even in the edditions they weren't uber busted - you could take them to a local and win just because you played good.

No argument that Eldar have been OP more often than Marines. But "There exists one other army, out of roughly 20 in the game, that has been OP more often" is a far cry from "Space marines have basically never had good rules".

In the past 6 years alone, Marines have been top-tier many times. If you've been playing for 10+ years, you must take an awful lot of awfully long breaks.

Pre nerf gman wasn't strong lol. Literally one of the least competitive builds in the existence of 8th edition meta armies.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Pre nerf gman wasn't strong lol. Literally one of the least competitive builds in the existence of 8th edition meta armies.

This interpretation is the why we keep disagreeing. I consider a build that won plenty of tournaments (in the period before the first CA) to be "strong". You consider that same standard as "Literally one of the least competitive builds in the existence of 8th edition meta armies.".

Sure, if you consider 99% of builds in the game "least competitive", that kinda-sorta possibly makes a twisted sort of sense.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Having played for around 25 years I van say that you're wrong.

Dude you always think marines are strong and run tactical squads in every edition. You would lose every game playing like that around here. Literally - every game. What is your motive for saying marines have been strong when they really havn't been is the real question. It is not even up for debate whether they have been strong or not. There is a consensus.

I've been at or near the top in every meta I've ever played in using vanilla marines. Marines have always had flexible enough options to weather meta changes, not necessarily making them top-tier, but far from bottom tier in the hands of a skilled player. Marines baseline is usually "middle of the road", but because of their options you can nearly always optimize something workable around them. At the end of the day my army is primarily a mix of dudes in power armor with some variety of weapons.

It's a stark contrast to Eldar which varies wildly from edition to edition (This year it's Warp Spiders!, This year it's Shining Spears!, This year it's Dark Reapers!, etc.)

Eldar have always had a decent competitive level. Although they have had some bad times.

Space Marines have always been a fairly solid army usually a b+ to A- level (if someone can translate that for anyone who doesn't understand American grading vernacular thank you)

They just happen to.be strong now not unlike the days of the spiritual life Dex before BA and GK got released

Marines will have their time their time in the spotlight for now. In 12 months Dakka will be flooded again with posts dismissing them as overpriced and inefficient.

The meta is a harsh mistress and the tone has been set for the next cycle of codex releases

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Marines will have their time their time in the spotlight for now. In 12 months Dakka will be flooded again with posts dismissing them as overpriced and inefficient.

The meta is a harsh mistress and the tone has been set for the next cycle of codex releases

The hope is the meta does not swing quite this hard. And i think its bad :( since its great if you get your time, but it just sucks if you are sitting at or in the bottom tiers for years. GW does not cycle though everyone fast enough for this style of meta shift.

Apple fox wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Marines will have their time their time in the spotlight for now. In 12 months Dakka will be flooded again with posts dismissing them as overpriced and inefficient.

The meta is a harsh mistress and the tone has been set for the next cycle of codex releases

The hope is the meta does not swing quite this hard. And i think its bad :( since its great if you get your time, but it just sucks if you are sitting at or in the bottom tiers for years. GW does not cycle though everyone fast enough for this style of meta shift.

that mighta been the case awhile back, but GW's been able to supply everyone with a codex in what a little over a year?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Pre nerf gman wasn't strong lol. Literally one of the least competitive builds in the existence of 8th edition meta armies.

Your shovel is seeing a lot of wear and tear there. Want to borrow mine? I think that hill you're dying on needs a deeper hole.

But let me try and see what I can do to translate your ridiculous and inane hyperbole into actual, useful information so that the hidden point you're trying to make isn't lost among the ridiculous unsupported claims you often use to try and double down on a poorly communicated premise.

"Literally one of the least competitive builds in the existence of 8th edition meta armies" = Despite winning many events in the early days of 8th edition, and receiving multiple subsequent nerfs to address this imbalance, marines in 8th edition have not been as dominant (until now) as things like Knight Castellans, 7 Flyrant, Eldar Flying Circus, or Ynnari, which were all far more dangerous meta defining armies than the Gman and his Flyboys lists were.

But isn't Xeno saying that G-men lists are like that guy that comes in 4-5th in an wrestling event on a regular basis? no one is going to care about him, he will get no contracts, best he can hope for is a job as trainer, if he didn't get wrecked to much by the people that really were winning, and to to go to worlds or even the olympics.


I mean GK won like 3-4 events in 8th, does that mean that GK are a good and fun army to play?


Also stuff like eldar always were decent is a bit of an understatment about the past. Now I don't know about the rest of the world, but I did get to go through win ratios for Poland from 6th and 7th ed. And eldar specially in 6th were wrecking face, the number of people playing them and winning was incomperable. Because with marines, some people win with them, but there is also a lot of people that seem to go 2:3, or even worse with mono marines, eldar do at least a 50/50 split, and guys doing 2:3 were those that lost two mirror matchs, or played vs two skew lists back to back.

Karol wrote:
But isn't Xeno saying that G-men lists are like that guy that comes in 4-5th in an wrestling event on a regular basis? no one is going to care about him, he will get no contracts, best he can hope for is a job as trainer, if he didn't get wrecked to much by the people that really were winning, and to to go to worlds or even the olympics.

I mean GK won like 3-4 events in 8th, does that mean that GK are a good and fun army to play?

Pre-nerf Gman wasn't coming in 4th-5th regularly. It was winning or coming in second regularly.

Also stuff like eldar always were decent is a bit of an understatment about the past.

Actually an overstatement. They were almost always at least decent. They were usually OP, but not always decent.

Now I don't know about the rest of the world, but I did get to go through win ratios for Poland from 6th and 7th ed. And eldar specially in 6th were wrecking face, the number of people playing them and winning was incomperable.

After they got their book in 6th, they were indeed OP. Before their book, they weren't even decent. And their book came out over halfway through 6th. Which means that, despite beign the most OP gak of all of 6E, they spent most of it as not OP. So using 6E as the example to prove they were always much more than decent is quite off.

Because with marines, some people win with them, but there is also a lot of people that seem to go 2:3, or even worse with mono marines, eldar do at least a 50/50 split, and guys doing 2:3 were those that lost two mirror matchs, or played vs two skew lists back to back.

When discussing "Pre-Gman-nerf", Marines doing worse after the Gman nerf isn't all that relevant.

Bharring wrote:

Karol wrote:
But isn't Xeno saying that G-men lists are like that guy that comes in 4-5th in an wrestling event on a regular basis? no one is going to care about him, he will get no contracts, best he can hope for is a job as trainer, if he didn't get wrecked to much by the people that really were winning, and to to go to worlds or even the olympics.

I mean GK won like 3-4 events in 8th, does that mean that GK are a good and fun army to play?

Pre-nerf Gman wasn't coming in 4th-5th regularly. It was winning or coming in second regularly.

Also stuff like eldar always were decent is a bit of an understatment about the past.

Actually an overstatement. They were almost always at least decent. They were usually OP, but not always decent.

Now I don't know about the rest of the world, but I did get to go through win ratios for Poland from 6th and 7th ed. And eldar specially in 6th were wrecking face, the number of people playing them and winning was incomperable.

After they got their book in 6th, they were indeed OP. Before their book, they weren't even decent. And their book came out over halfway through 6th. Which means that, despite beign the most OP gak of all of 6E, they spent most of it as not OP. So using 6E as the example to prove they were always much more than decent is quite off.

Because with marines, some people win with them, but there is also a lot of people that seem to go 2:3, or even worse with mono marines, eldar do at least a 50/50 split, and guys doing 2:3 were those that lost two mirror matchs, or played vs two skew lists back to back.

When discussing "Pre-Gman-nerf", Marines doing worse after the Gman nerf isn't all that relevant.

LOL Gman list was not winning regularly. If you look at big events that are over 100 players people don't even bring marines because you'd have to be a fanboi to even play marines at a big Tournament. You are in complete denial about the game and it's sad. Aledari of all kinds are regularly winning events. Once in a blue moon an Ultramarines lists would place kind of high in a decent sized tournament. Basically you can get lucky with a glass cannon army. When an opponent rolls all 1's on d6 damage on your repulsors.

Gman list regularly lose casual games dude. WAKE UP. Imperial fist right now are numbers of factors more powerful than gman Ultramarines ever were. It's not even close.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Karol wrote:
But isn't Xeno saying that G-men lists are like that guy that comes in 4-5th in an wrestling event on a regular basis? no one is going to care about him, he will get no contracts, best he can hope for is a job as trainer, if he didn't get wrecked to much by the people that really were winning, and to to go to worlds or even the olympics.

I mean GK won like 3-4 events in 8th, does that mean that GK are a good and fun army to play?

Pre-nerf Gman wasn't coming in 4th-5th regularly. It was winning or coming in second regularly.

Also stuff like eldar always were decent is a bit of an understatment about the past.

Actually an overstatement. They were almost always at least decent. They were usually OP, but not always decent.

Now I don't know about the rest of the world, but I did get to go through win ratios for Poland from 6th and 7th ed. And eldar specially in 6th were wrecking face, the number of people playing them and winning was incomperable.

After they got their book in 6th, they were indeed OP. Before their book, they weren't even decent. And their book came out over halfway through 6th. Which means that, despite beign the most OP gak of all of 6E, they spent most of it as not OP. So using 6E as the example to prove they were always much more than decent is quite off.

Because with marines, some people win with them, but there is also a lot of people that seem to go 2:3, or even worse with mono marines, eldar do at least a 50/50 split, and guys doing 2:3 were those that lost two mirror matchs, or played vs two skew lists back to back.

When discussing "Pre-Gman-nerf", Marines doing worse after the Gman nerf isn't all that relevant.

LOL Gman list was not winning regularly. If you look at big events that are over 100 players people don't even bring marines because you'd have to be a fanboi to even play marines at a big Tournament. You are in complete denial about the game and it's sad. Aledari of all kinds are regularly winning events. Once in a blue moon an Ultramarines lists would place kind of high in a decent sized tournament.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/06/40k-8th-first-tourney-results-are-in.html - Boise Cup, Oct 2017
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/16/the-grand-tournament-heat-1-the-roundup/ - A GW tournament, results posted 10/17

First two tournament results I find by googling in that era show 2 Marines in the top 3. In two seperate tournaments. It's hard for me to consider that "weak".

These two specific tournaments may not be the biggest, but they were the first two I found. So biased towards impact, but not biased for/against either opinion.

Clearly, every clearly, marines *were* being taken to tournaments.

Basically you can get lucky with a glass cannon army. When an opponent rolls all 1's on d6 damage on your repulsors.

How many Repulsors did you see in 2017? I don't recall many.

Oh, and please tell me the odds of something like "Once in a blue moon an Ultramarines lists would place kind of high in a decent sized tournament." happening to happen twice out of three checked slots? And then doing the same thing the second tournament too? Back-of-the-envelop math puts it at around one in *ten thousand*.

Gman list regularly lose casual games dude. WAKE UP. Imperial fist right now are numbers of factors more powerful than gman Ultramarines ever were. It's not even close.

I'm not sure how post-many-nerfs Gman in a greatly-buffed SM book shows that pre-nerf Gman, from two years prior, wasn't any good. They're very different rulessets in very different metas.

2017 was a different game dude. Basically index 40k. Before opponents had well rounded stratagems which basically removed marines from the map entirely. You have to look at the edition as a whole - not in segments. Marines are OP as crap now BUT if over the next year 4-5 much stronger codex come out - marines aren't actually strong and never were. The releases are just staggered...that is all it is. As the releases come out it becomes clear what power actually is.

Gman and marines 1.0 from a competitive standpoint was in the bottom 20% WR in tournaments. By whatever metric you choose marines are on the bottom. It is a travesty to call Ultramarines OP with these numbers.

 Xenomancers wrote:
2017 was a different game dude. Basically index 40k. Before opponents had well rounded stratagems which basically removed marines from the map entirely. You have to look at the edition as a whole - not in segments. Marines are OP as crap now BUT if over the next year 4-5 much stronger codex come out - marines aren't actually strong and never were. The releases are just staggered...that is all it is. As the releases come out it becomes clear what power actually is.

Gman and marines 1.0 from a competitive standpoint was in the bottom 20% WR in tournaments. By whatever metric you choose marines are on the bottom. It is a travesty to call Ultramarines OP with these numbers.

2017 was, last I checked, within the last 10 years.

Marines not being OP - or even good - at later points doesn't mean they were weak then. And strongly suggests they were *not* bottom 20% then.

You keep citing Marines being terrible for one period of time as proof that Marines were never good. Does not follow.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
2017 was a different game dude. Basically index 40k. Before opponents had well rounded stratagems which basically removed marines from the map entirely. You have to look at the edition as a whole - not in segments. Marines are OP as crap now BUT if over the next year 4-5 much stronger codex come out - marines aren't actually strong and never were. The releases are just staggered...that is all it is. As the releases come out it becomes clear what power actually is.

Gman and marines 1.0 from a competitive standpoint was in the bottom 20% WR in tournaments. By whatever metric you choose marines are on the bottom. It is a travesty to call Ultramarines OP with these numbers.

2017 was, last I checked, within the last 10 years.

Marines not being OP - or even good - at later points doesn't mean they were weak then. And strongly suggests they were *not* bottom 20% then.

You keep citing Marines being terrible for one period of time as proof that Marines were never good. Does not follow.

If your argument is that marines did well against index armies then I condeed. They sure did. It is irrelevant 8th eddition developed into a real game (a game where armies actually had rules) Marines proved to be dog crap by literally every metric. Including the "OP" Gman builds. I should know man. I've lost plenty of games with 1.0 gman against very casual armies. Because ultimately Gman 1.0 marines were not very good. Unlike playing Castellan knights against a casual army is basically an auto win condition.

I'm fine with the gman nerf too. I just wish they made him an HQ choice so you could actually use him in an army. As a LOW he is basically useless now because he isn't special at buffing like he used to be. He costs way too much. No reason he should cost more than the Yncarnne who is now 280...a psyker and an HQ.

People need to drop the “Marines have always been bad” narrative. While vanilla marines have struggled throughout the years, their specialist versions have dominated in past editions...BA, Wolves, and GK have all been king at one time. Even in 7th edition one of the most powerful lists was marine soup (the Barkstar). While they haven’t had the “every edition except 5th” goodness eldar has had, there have still been top tier marine variant builds in a lot of the game’s editions.

Marines get decent for the first time in years and people start wanting them removed from tournaments.

Say the same about their army- especially Tau or Eldar- and I bet the Shrieking would have the Howling Banshees telling them to cool it.

There were tournaments banning eldar and/or tau during 6th and 7th.

 Jidmah wrote:
There were tournaments banning eldar and/or tau during 6th and 7th.

Not to mention that Taudar is STILL banned.

 Jidmah wrote:
There were tournaments banning eldar and/or tau during 6th and 7th.

To be fair, banning Tau is just the right thing to do.

Because I hate them.

To be fair, banning marines is just the right thing to do.

Because I hate them.

It depends of the region but SM are most common so its hard to find honestly.