The new Space Marine supplements were a mistake

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**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Continuity wrote:
I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded

It's a variation of the sunk cost logical fallacy. Basically it's the 'I suffered, so you should have to suffer too.' train of thought.

That is standard dakka discussion man. Almost every discussion boils down to. "OMG CSM indestructible bike squad in 4th" - "OMG 6th ed wave serpants and WK" "OMG 5th edd GK". It's basically because the way releases in this game work - we are always waiting for the next rules update to powercreep up and most of the time your army is below that curve or sometimes the codex is just a swing and a miss too. When that happens you have to wait for a who new edition to get an "OP codex". It is gross. I think wed all have a lot more fun if we just went back to index 40k.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Yoyoyo wrote:
I only do it for the fluff!

This is the only reason to play 40k.

If you're playing for any other reason, you're going to waste money and whinge on the internet. A lot.

**Darsath**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
I only do it for the fluff!

This is the only reason to play 40k.

If you're playing for any other reason, you're going to waste money and whinge on the internet. A lot.

Can you tone down your rhetoric a bit? I would prefer to have a civilised discussion on here.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Darsath wrote:

Can you tone down your rhetoric a bit? I would prefer to have a civilised discussion on here.

Civilized people don't cry and whine and call names.

Just as far as I've noticed.

I'd prefer you calm down.

**Darsath**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Darsath wrote:

Can you tone down your rhetoric a bit? I would prefer to have a civilised discussion on here.

Civilized people don't cry and whine and call names.

Just as far as I've noticed.

I'd prefer you calm down.

All I've done is ask you to be civil. This response is not what I would expect from someone being respectful.

**Adeptus Doritos**

I'm being quite civil. Just amused. Have I called names?

I've got to ask how civil it is when people have absolute meltdowns over rules for war toys that will be FAQ'd and trumped in a month. Same as always.

**TwinPoleTheory**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
This is the only reason to play 40k.

If you're playing for any other reason, you're going to waste money and whinge on the internet. A lot.

Man, can you point us to your fan-fiction blog? You must share stories with Yoyo! Are you guys Instagram besties?

But thanks for showing up and telling everyone they're playing wrong, I'm sure that's going to go over well.

**Darsath**

I don't think you're contributing anything to the conversation, nor are you convincing anyone to your point. And I believe you have already referred to players as whiners, and compared them to children taking tantrums rather than engage in what is said. I don't see anything civil.

**dotcomee**

Salt donkey wrote:
I think it’s too early to call if whether or not marines are a mistake from GW’s perspective. Obviously the supplements are OP, but I’m reasonably certain that was GW’s intent from the very beginning. From their side they invested a ton in the new primarous line, only to not sell a lot because the original codex was weak. So make a newer version that is clearly strong (even if that means brushing off play tester concerns) to clear excessive space marine inventory and sell the new models. Space marines are top of the meta for a while, but then we get to the spring where space marines can get nerfed after GW’s sold the majority of product.

Juries out on whether this is a good idea though. First off is this will likely detour people from buying other armies new product (new chaos sorcerer, eldar box set. Ect) second is people are buying less non-marine armies stuff in general, not a huge deal but a factor non the less. Finally there’s a loss of public perception. As many posters have pointed out many communities are not happy with what happened with marines. This could mean some people will quite, but the bigger impact is of people slowing down their spending. “Oh I was going to start a GSC army, but now that Maries are so good I’ll just stick to tau.” And “I was going to try to play 40k more competitively, but I’d rather not just play marines so I’ll just keep what I have and continue to play casually.” This factor is the hardest to quantify, as GW won’t know the full impact of this until a couple of years pass.

So overall the supplements could have been a mistake, but just because it’s negatively impacting us non-marine players doesn’t mean it’s a mistake from GW’s perspective.

They had a great concept with the SM codex + supplements. It would have been great to apply that across the board to all factions. I would have happily bought all the codexes and all the over-priced supplements. There's no reason every faction couldn't have benefited from this system of book releases, except greed and laziness on GWs part.

I really don't understand how GW thought PA was going to compare in any way favorably to SM codex. PA1 was a disaster in comparison. PA2 was better, but also gave amazing buffs to SM (I mean c'mon already). That's going to be a consistent theme throughout PA. Yes, Xenos will get buffs but SM / Imperial soup is going to get stupidly strong along the way.

Had they done the right thing and given all factions a codex + supplements update I would have been all in, gladly spending several more thousands of dollars on this hobby.

Now with PA and no announcement of any other codex plans, I will be doing all I can to not buy a single thing. Not a book or a single model. As a xenos player, I don't really understand why you would give another penny to GW after this. It really shows you how they feel about their customers - you're just a number, that's it.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Bharring wrote:
Continuity wrote:
I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded

On a related point, "poor design" is a mostly seperate axis than "balance" as far as problems are concerned. It's not the power of the SM books that bothers me so much. It's the poor design. I'd rather Marines weren't so OP, but I'd much rather a more well-designed book that was just as OP than a poorly designed book. Even if the poorly designed book were less unbalanced.

Don't get me wrong; I'd prefer balance to not. But good design overall is much more important to me (but not to everybody, for reasonable reasons).

So the real question is if Super Doctrines, or Doctrines in general, are good game design. As you've probably seen me rant, I don't think Super Doctrines are good design at all and border on being like the Super Formations basically that killed 7th basically.

**Adeptus Doritos**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
This is the only reason to play 40k.

If you're playing for any other reason, you're going to waste money and whinge on the internet. A lot.

Man, can you point us to your fan-fiction blog? You must share stories with Yoyo! Are you guys Instagram besties?

But thanks for showing up and telling everyone they're playing wrong, I'm sure that's going to go over well.

"You're enjoying your toys wrong" is 70% of 40k discussions online.

Taking war toys this seriously is a sign of a severe problem.

Darsath wrote:
I don't think you're contributing anything to the conversation, nor are you convincing anyone to your point. And I believe you have already referred to players as whiners, and compared them to children taking tantrums rather than engage in what is said. I don't see anything civil.

Wrong.

Now, use the ignore feature if people aren't posting what you like to read.

**TwinPoleTheory**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
"You're enjoying your toys wrong" is 70% of 40k discussions online.

Taking war toys this seriously is a sign of a severe problem.

So you're not going to share your fan fiction blog?

**Adeptus Doritos**

Doctrine should cost CP. And only be for monofaction marines.

**Continuity**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Continuity wrote:
I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded

On a related point, "poor design" is a mostly seperate axis than "balance" as far as problems are concerned. It's not the power of the SM books that bothers me so much. It's the poor design. I'd rather Marines weren't so OP, but I'd much rather a more well-designed book that was just as OP than a poorly designed book. Even if the poorly designed book were less unbalanced.

Don't get me wrong; I'd prefer balance to not. But good design overall is much more important to me (but not to everybody, for reasonable reasons).

So the real question is if Super Doctrines, or Doctrines in general, are good game design. As you've probably seen me rant, I don't think Super Doctrines are good design at all and border on being like the Super Formations basically that killed 7th basically.

Anything can work if priced correctly. Marine vehicles are NOT priced to have IH super doctrines, hence why they are busted, the same way assault centurions are not priced to get easy deep strikes.

So no, just bolting extra rules to a book that was clearly written without those rules in mind is mathematically unbalanced and wrong and it should be self evident

**TwinPoleTheory**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
I only do it for the fluff!

This is the only reason to play 40k.

If you're playing for any other reason, you're going to waste money and whinge on the internet. A lot.

Man I'm confused now, because you just started actually discussing how to make the rules better.

Still not sharing the fan fiction blog? I feel like that might be your strong suit.

**Manchu**

Folks, just keep in mind, it’s only toy soldiers after all. Thanks!

**Not Online!!!**

guys. i know you want to call each other out, but could you solve that via PM's Instead?

i am only asking because there is no popcorn available here.

**Adeptus Doritos**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Still not sharing the fan fiction blog? I feel like that might be your strong suit.

It's got adult material with Eldar and Ultramarines.

Also, you imply that playing for fluff is "fan fiction".

LOL okay.

If you're concerned about fair and balanced games, be smart and go with blackjack. You'll spend less than you would with 40k. And win some back, too.

Also. Not sure why this is a big deal. Happens every edition, and gets fixed-ish.

**Yoyoyo**

Moderators need to start banning those who can't control themselves. Dakka's policy is far too lenient.

**Karol**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

"You're enjoying your toys wrong" is 70% of 40k discussions online.

Taking war toys this seriously is a sign of a severe problem.

In any place where a normal army with books, and paint supplies cost between three and four months of avarge saleries, it is going to always going to be serious stuff. w40k is not serious only for people that can tell themselfs, that if they don't like the army the play right now, they can just buy a new one or switch games.

**TwinPoleTheory**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Also, you imply that playing for fluff is "fan fiction".

LOL okay.

Cool, let me know when the narrative mode tournament starts.

I mean, you show up and tell everyone they're playing the game wrong and I'm supposed to treat you as anything but a troll?

LOL okay.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Karol wrote:

n any place where a normal army with books, and paint supplies cost between three and four months of avarge saleries, it is going to always going to be serious stuff. w40k is not serious only for people that can tell themselfs, that if they don't like the army the play right now, they can just buy a new one or switch games.

I hate to be that guy, but if the hobby causes that kind of stress, then you don't have a hobby. That's an addiction.

My army is kinda decent. I don't intend to buy a new one because something else is better.

None of this is a concern because I don't obsess with winning and play against people who want a good game, not a competitive crowd.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Also, you imply that playing for fluff is "fan fiction".

LOL okay.

Cool, let me know when the narrative mode tournament starts.

I mean, you show up and tell everyone they're playing the game wrong and I'm supposed to treat you as anything but a troll?

LOL okay.

Good luck with your 1st place tourney prize that doesn't cover the cost of most boxed kits.

**Bharring**

Karol wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:

"You're enjoying your toys wrong" is 70% of 40k discussions online.

Taking war toys this seriously is a sign of a severe problem.

In any place where a normal army with books, and paint supplies cost between three and four months of avarge saleries, it is going to always going to be serious stuff.

The counter clearly being, if it's 3-4 months average saleries, you shouldn't buy in unless you're sure it's worth that much money to you.

w40k is not serious only for people that can tell themselfs, that if they don't like the army the play right now, they can just buy a new one or switch games.

Or those who don't spend too much on it before realizing if the game - and their unit choices - is for them.

**Xenomancers**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Continuity wrote:
I don't get the logic of "a faction used to be bad due to poor design therefore it's okay for them to be overpowered now due to poor design", or vice versa. Seems vindictive and narrow-minded

On a related point, "poor design" is a mostly seperate axis than "balance" as far as problems are concerned. It's not the power of the SM books that bothers me so much. It's the poor design. I'd rather Marines weren't so OP, but I'd much rather a more well-designed book that was just as OP than a poorly designed book. Even if the poorly designed book were less unbalanced.

Don't get me wrong; I'd prefer balance to not. But good design overall is much more important to me (but not to everybody, for reasonable reasons).

So the real question is if Super Doctrines, or Doctrines in general, are good game design. As you've probably seen me rant, I don't think Super Doctrines are good design at all and border on being like the Super Formations basically that killed 7th basically.

That is a great comparison. How many free rules can I get for these units I was going to take anyways?

**Bharring**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Also, you imply that playing for fluff is "fan fiction".

LOL okay.

Cool, let me know when the narrative mode tournament starts.

Probably the late 80s?

If you want narrative-free tournaments, it's called chess/poker/flip-a-coin. "Narrative" vs "Crunch" isn't as absolutist as you think. Most games, metas, and players are part narrative/part crunch - even if they don't recognize it themselves. Perhaps the top 5 players at the biggest tournies are pure competitive players (perhaps, but I doubt it), but plenty of players at most tournaments care, to some degree at least, about narrative/fluff.

**Adeptus Doritos**

If not for customization and narrative, I wouldn't bother with 40k.

I'd be playing some variation of poker in Vegas.

Because anything that causes this much stress better come with prize money that can put a new car in the garage.

**Yoyoyo**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Good luck with your 1st place tourney prize that doesn't cover the cost of most boxed kits.

I think most serious tourney players accept they are going to have to chase the meta. There is zero point in complaining about it. They're going to simply adjust and change up their army as necessary.

**TwinPoleTheory**

Bharring wrote:
Probably the late 80s?

If you want narrative-free tournaments, it's called chess/poker/flip-a-coin. "Narrative" vs "Crunch" isn't as absolutist as you think. Most games, metas, and players are part narrative/part crunch - even if they don't recognize it themselves. Perhaps the top 5 players at the biggest tournies are pure competitive players (perhaps, but I doubt it), but plenty of players at most tournaments care, to some degree at least, about narrative/fluff.

I don't really care how you play the game, I play the occasional narrative game also.

However, I don't show up in a rules discussion thread and apply narrative reasoning to the process then tell everyone they're stupid.

Play the game as you will. I have some beautiful armies that I field purely for the paint job. But you notice how I don't bring them up for a discussion about how the rules should change?

That would be fething stupid.

**Karol**

The counter clearly being, if it's 3-4 months average saleries, you shouldn't buy in unless you're sure it's worth that much money to you.

And you do, and then GW decides that Inari should be no more, or what ever other army was good at some point and you liked, and GW destroyed. this is practicaly forcing people in to the whole paint models, buy what you like and all the other stupid stuff. Because when the times come for your army to get the good rules, suddenly all those for fun players, that were supposably beating tournament lists with their casual stuff, get on how bad to for the game is your army having good rules, and how GW has to change it as soon as possible.

At the same time if someone points out when their lore friendly faciton were top tier, they didn't play with the good models, you just have used more terrain or just use ally, or if all is bad concentrate on painting. Yet somehow when their stuff ain't top tier, they don't find the idea of being only painting and no longer playing for a few years unacceptable.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Yoyoyo wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Good luck with your 1st place tourney prize that doesn't cover the cost of most boxed kits.

I think most serious tourney players accept they are going to have to chase the meta. There is zero point in complaining about it. They're going to simply adjust and change up their army as necessary.

It's like being in a band. You play because you love it. If you're pissed off that your music is less popular this year than another band, and worried about making money... Well, trying to keep up is gonna cost a lot and be frustrating.