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.

I know this is going to sound overly negative, and I don't want it to be. I want everyone to play with their specially made models, and the idea of the supplements are fantastic. However, I think it's fair to say now that we have a decent amount of data that the new books are fairly overpowered. Even if Games Workshop release supplement style books at the same level for every faction (which, honestly, I wouldn't even entertain atm), the power level shown would be very unhealthy for the game as a whole. I also think the reason why the new Psychic Awakening books have been getting a lacklustre response from players is because the players are comparing it to the Space Marine supplements. I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks about this though.

The power level stopped at Titan scale things being allowed in the game.

No one still playing 40k can ever care about what rules marine sized models have.

Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"

Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.

I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.

Phenix rusing would suck even if there were no other supliments.

At least there was something in the Marine books.

Headlss wrote:
Phenix rusing would suck even if there were no other supliments.

At least there was something in the Marine books.

I don't think the response would be as widespread as it seems to be if there wasn't something recent to compare it to.

Darsath wrote:
I don't think the response would be as widespread as it seems to be if there wasn't something recent to compare it to.

I think the enhanced Chapter Traits and custom traits, new strats, WL traits, points reductions, new relics, all good, even necessary to a certain extent.

Doctrines in general, and the Super Doctrine buffs specifically were just way over the top.

The Space Marine supplements, and the codex, are obnoxious primarily because they add rules upon rules upon rules. They're bad, clumsy game design that force you to reference multiple sources to figure out what your army can do. Some degree of customization is desirable, but it should be limited to the army-wide trait and maybe an extra warlord trait or what have you; you shouldn't have to remember more than a couple of rules for your particular sub-faction.

(This is exacerbated by rules changes and errata being in different places, thereby more than doubling the number of documents you need to reference.)

Balance-wise, the new Marine rules seem to be a bit on the strong side but mostly balanced. There are, of course, some broken interactions, but as you heap rule upon rule upon rule it becomes increasingly likely that some of them are going to be broken, simply because it is very difficult for playtesters to predict all of the possible combinations.

What really vexes me is that most of the new rules increase the codex's killing power, when the last thing 40K needs is more offense. Offense needs to curtailed, sharply, and defensive states like saves and wounds need to be adjusted to the paradigm of the new rules so you don't remove half your army on turn one and the other half on turn two.

So I don't think the new Space Marine rules are inherently broken in the current context of 8th edition, but they do push every bad trend in the wrong direction.

 Saber wrote:
The Space Marine supplements, and the codex, are obnoxious primarily because they add rules upon rules upon rules. They're bad, clumsy game design that force you to reference multiple sources to figure out what your army can do. Some degree of customization is desirable, but it should be limited to the army-wide trait and maybe an extra warlord trait or what have you; you shouldn't have to remember more than a couple of rules for your particular sub-faction.

(This is exacerbated by rules changes and errata being in different places, thereby more than doubling the number of documents you need to reference.)

Balance-wise, the new Marine rules seem to be a bit on the strong side but mostly balanced. There are, of course, some broken interactions, but as you heap rule upon rule upon rule it becomes increasingly likely that some of them are going to be broken, simply because it is very difficult for playtesters to predict all of the possible combinations.

What really vexes me is that most of the new rules increase the codex's killing power, when the last thing 40K needs is more offense. Offense needs to curtailed, sharply, and defensive states like saves and wounds need to be adjusted to the paradigm of the new rules so you don't remove half your army on turn one and the other half on turn two.

So I don't think the new Space Marine rules are inherently broken in the current context of 8th edition, but they do push every bad trend in the wrong direction.

I would like to counter a point you made here, on that Space Marines are, in fact, in a balanced state. Statistically, Space Marines have an absurd win rate (somewhere in the 70+% bracket) and perform way above other factions at events. This is what I'm basing my statements on.

Darsath wrote:
I would like to counter a point you made here, on that Space Marines are, in fact, in a balanced state. Statistically, Space Marines have an absurd win rate (somewhere in the 70+% bracket) and perform way above other factions at events. This is what I'm basing my statements on.

Minor point of pedantry but the win rate is down to a little over 60%, still pretty absurd though.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I would like to counter a point you made here, on that Space Marines are, in fact, in a balanced state. Statistically, Space Marines have an absurd win rate (somewhere in the 70+% bracket) and perform way above other factions at events. This is what I'm basing my statements on.

Minor point of pedantry but the win rate is down to a little over 60%, still pretty absurd though.

My statistic isn't just ITC. It's an average, since I wanted a larger data set.

You simply can't take a relatively balanced and decently powerful book like marine 2.0 and then tag on absurdly powerful universal buffs to them for no cost.

Marine vehicles were not costed to flat out ignore move and shoot penalties and have built-in captain reroll aka IH

Assault cents were not costed to flat out ignore their awful movement stat aka WS and RG

Dev cents were not costed to have damage 2 heavy bolters aka IF

Yeah I think OP is right. I defended the supplements after they were initially released but I'm having to revise that opinion now.

There's a lot of problems involved with scaling as well.

When you have 1250pts on the boards and 4-6 objectives, you need to devote a significant amount of attention to playing the mission. At 2000pts with 4-6 objectives, you just end up adding those points as firepower to your army.

I think that competitive play is a mistake and listening to the tournament and math-hammer players was the wrong way to go. I like the supplements, I find the rules to be fun and engaging especially when you play the game as intended. In a narrative, scenario-based setting.

 Hollow wrote:
I think that competitive play is a mistake and listening to the tournament and math-hammer players was the wrong way to go. I like the supplements, I find the rules to be fun and engaging especially when you play the game as intended. In a narrative, scenario-based setting.

I disagree heavily with this sentiment. Ignoring statistical evidence is very short-sighted. Heavy imbalance will make players turn from the game. Just look at the numbers in 7th for evidence.

Gotta sell those Spacemarines though.

It wouldn't surprise me if the next company accounts state that GW will make Primaris nigh on unbeatable for the sake of our benificent shareholder overlords.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Gotta sell those Spacemarines though.

It wouldn't surprise me if the next company accounts state that GW will make Primaris nigh on unbeatable for the sake of our benificent shareholder overlords.

I don't think this is for sales. If you read what people's complaints about the new Psychic Awakening books are, you'll find a lot of people referencing the new Space Marine supplements. I can't help but expect that there was a contingent of players who didn't buy the new book because of how it compared to the supplements. If Games Workshop just wanted to make more money, they would have been trying to sell the multitude of Psychic Awakening books, not the Space Marine supplements.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The power level stopped at Titan scale things being allowed in the game.

No one still playing 40k can ever care about what rules marine sized models have.

Bad hot take. Titans were derided as underpowered almost as soon as the edition dropped, and overcosted as soon as the first CA hit. Titans simply don’t get played outside Apocalypse, and hardly anyone owns them.

If referring to TITANIC keyword things like superheavies, outside of Knights they really haven’t been the meta, and the meta has moved on from Knights to Marines. So again, not a great hot take.

here we go again

I've been saying it from the get-go that the Supplements were a mistake.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"

Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.

I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.

Uhh... you can use the custom chapter traits with the supplements.


They are broken as all hell though, and probably shouldn't work with custom chapter traits. They'd still be broken then, but uh, slightly less so.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"

Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.

I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.

Uhh... you can use the custom chapter traits with the supplements.


They are broken as all hell though, and probably shouldn't work with custom chapter traits. They'd still be broken then, but uh, slightly less so.

Pray tell all these super broken Successor traits. I'm looking forward to it.

I disagree: the supplements, for such a rich and popular faction as Space Marines, were a good idea. But poorly implemented maybe (as usual with GW). I have considered indeed not using my supplement while playing against older armies such as necrons for example. But think about that: how much fluff and pictures etc are they in those supplement ? Add a few rules like special characters, objective, Psy powers and a few stratagem and everything is fine. Rules aren't necessarily bad, and if you don't try too hard you can play space marines nicely.
But they went too far this time and you can easily go too far if you want to.
Dakka may have a very biased view because we focus so much on the competitive play that is such a small part of the hobby.
But I agree it's an issue for competitive play.

Yes, and?

GW did this before. They did supplements. They got players of all factions to buy into lots of different books.

And then they invalidated all of them with an edition change, leaving you sitting on quite a big pile of suddenly worthless paper (if all you care about is rules, that is).

If you don't like them, just wait. GW will push something more powerful out for the next faction, or they'll make an edition change that'll make them all super weak. It'll be great, and then you'll be able to say, "HAH! At least I didn't waste my money on all that overpriced paper! I told you so!!" and your ego will love you for it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Pray tell all these super broken Successor traits. I'm looking forward to it.

Weeeelll...

Ranged Marksmen with Aggressors under the UM ability to hand out their super-tactical doctrine turn-one is kind of abusive.

Tactical Withdrawl combined with the RG handing out immunity to overwatch via warlord trait and psychic powers and getting units like Cents to just outside 9" before the game starts is also kind of abusive.

I actually kind of like that none of the founding chapter traits can be fully replicated out of the successor traits, and the successor traits mostly feel a little weaker, but there are still some power-combos in there.

I want to respond to a common criticism. It's one that's been raised a few times, both here and on other threads. I'd like to use godardc's comment as an example, where he makes the statement that the Space Marine supplements work fine so long as you don't try too hard, or that you tone down your list. This is true. No doubt. It was also true of Chaos Daemons and Space Wolves in 7th, as well as the Necron decurion-style detachments. My point, really, is it fails a defence if it works for even the worst of power issues of recent memory, and I feel that many of the people who make these comments would agree that my examples of 7th edition were at the least concerning from a power perspective.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"

Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.

I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.

Uhh... you can use the custom chapter traits with the supplements.

Really? I was under the impression that, unless you took the Inheritors of the Primarch custom trait or were playing the named Chapter of that supplement, you didn't get to use supplements.

I may need to reread my books.

EDIT:
It appears you are correct, and I've been playing my custom Chapter without using any supplement rules for some time.
Eh, feels wrong to use it, so I'll keep with only their Chapter traits, but thank you for bringing this to my attention!

BrianDavion wrote:
here we go again

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Definitely see what you're saying. The problem with the supplements is "okay, Space Marines get them - where's ours?"

Honestly, I don't think Marines needed the power spike they gave, and in the process made taking the custom Chapter traits (which I adore) pointless if your sole objective was to win.

I love the lore and the extra focus the supplements give that a Codex can't, but in terms of gameplay additions, I feel they go too far, to the point where I feel dirty using them. Hell, I routinely ignore the Combat Doctrines abilities for this same reason.

Uhh... you can use the custom chapter traits with the supplements.

Really? I was under the impression that, unless you took the Inheritors of the Primarch custom trait or were playing the named Chapter of that supplement, you didn't get to use supplements.

I may need to reread my books.

It's at the beginning of the rules section in each of the codex suppliments. You can take any two sub-traits, or you can use Inheritors of the Primarch but you have to use the parent chapter's trait if you do. Once you've done that there are a bunch of text about how parent chapter super-doctrines and strats now apply to your successor chapter and which of the extra relics you're allowed to use.

The Newman wrote:
It's at the beginning of the rules section in each of the codex suppliments. You can take any two sub-traits, or you can use Inheritors of the Primarch but you have to use the parent chapter's trait if you do. Once you've done that there are a bunch of text about how parent chapter super-doctrines and strats now apply to your successor chapter.

Just read it, yeah, turns out that you can just declare you're a successor of XYZ even if you didn't specify it specifically with Inheritors of the Primarch!

Not 100% sure how I feel about it, but all the same, I'm doing fine without using it, so I'll continue to play without it!