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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is Iron Hands being too strong a benefit for me playing Black Templars, again?

Because a lot of what makes Iron Hands great comes directly from the Space Marine codex, a codex you share.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is Iron Hands being too strong a benefit for me playing Black Templars, again?

Because a lot of what makes Iron Hands great comes directly from the Space Marine codex, a codex you share.

But the thing taking it over the top is not shared. What makes Marine fliers good, for example, is the Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good. I get absolutely no benefit from Raven Guard being able to infiltrate their Assault Centurions or Imperial Fists being strong with their Siegebreaker Cohorts; what incentive do I have to defend them other than believing that they do not currently merit nerfing?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But that's not what I am saying, is it? See, you STILL haven't understood! What part of "nerf Iron Hands, let meta settle, nerf further if needed" precludes further nerfs? I'm explicitly saying that further nerfing could be acceptable.

It's really easy to say that when you know it hasn't and most likely won't happen.

The nerfs are done. This is what SM is at this point, it will be like this for the foreseeable future.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Personally, I'm really tired of people not understanding how metagames work...

The meta has settled. The 'adjustments' are done, this is it. Seriously, what pattern of GW releases makes you believe some mythical second round of balancing is coming anytime soon? There is literally ZERO evidence, historical or otherwise to support this blatantly Pollyanna point of view. It's like a fantasy conjured entirely out of nothing.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is Iron Hands being too strong a benefit for me playing Black Templars, again?

It's not, but who cares? You're right, nobody's complaining about Black Templars (other than people who thought World Eaters had a chance) currently, so what? I assume the concern stems from belief that BT could suffer collateral damage to their codex if GW actually tries to bring Marines back into some kind of competitive balance.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is Iron Hands being too strong a benefit for me playing Black Templars, again?

Because a lot of what makes Iron Hands great comes directly from the Space Marine codex, a codex you share.

But the thing taking it over the top is not shared. What makes Marine fliers good, for example, is the Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good. I get absolutely no benefit from Raven Guard being able to infiltrate their Assault Centurions or Imperial Fists being strong with their Siegebreaker Cohorts; what incentive do I have to defend them other than believing that they do not currently merit nerfing?

OMG stop making these pathetic excuses.

There's plenty of variation at "the top" insofar as different Marine builds and sub factions goes. You know this. I have literally provided you with proof that you asked for via PM. You also know that every Marine subfaction have been proven to be overperforming (excluding Sallies and IF who were released too soon to gather any real data).

The benefit you gain is quite obvious because you have made it painfully so. You have another subfaction nerfed so there is no impact on your own. Yours remains mega powerful while others are nerfed because "they" are the problem. It's a classic, and obvious, misdirection tactic often employed on these forums. There are now many units in the SM codex that are so points efficient they are OP. This is a benefit you all share, regardless of subfaction.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But the thing taking it over the top is not shared.

Right, but what makes all Space Marine chapters fundamentally broken is the new codex itself, specifically the doctrine system. Unless they make drastic changes none of the chapters are going to be balanced, now or in the future.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:


The meta has settled. The 'adjustments' are done, this is it. Seriously, what pattern of GW releases makes you believe some mythical second round of balancing is coming anytime soon? There is literally ZERO evidence, historical or otherwise to support this blatantly Pollyanna point of view. It's like a fantasy conjured entirely out of nothing.

What makes you think that's what I think? Seriously, our entire disagreement can be traced back to you confusing my normative statements for statements of fact. I haven't argued that I think GW WILL do something (other than that Iron Hands in their current form will be getting nerfed eventually), I've been making arguments about what I think GW OUGHT to do.

This is why I said you still haven't understood what I'm saying. You keep responding as though I believe GW is going to do any of what I argue. I don't.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But the thing taking it over the top is not shared.

Right, but what makes all Space Marine chapters fundamentally broken is the new codex itself, specifically the doctrine system. Unless they make drastic changes none of the chapters are going to be balanced, now or in the future.

If you gave Orks a rule that let them get -1AP in melee and autowounds on 6s to hit against non-vehicles in melee on a turn in which they charge, would that make them "fundamentally broken"? The existence of Doctrines in and of themselves is not broken.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


There's plenty of variation at "the top" insofar as different Marine builds and sub factions goes. You know this. I have literally provided you with proof that you asked for via PM.

What, the podcast that said people weren't playing Salamanders because they were waiting for the FAQ, which promptly showed up and didn't let them do what people feared they wouldn't be allowed to do?

Remove the biggest outlier, reiterate data, remove biggest outlier. Rinse, repeat. This is really, really basic methodological stuff.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


The benefit you gain is quite obvious because you have made it painfully so. You have another subfaction nerfed so there is no impact on your own. Yours remains mega powerful while others are nerfed because "they" are the problem. It's a classic, and obvious, misdirection tactic often employed on these forums. There are now many units in the SM codex that are so points efficient they are OP. This is a benefit you all share, regardless of subfaction.

There's not even any data for us to disagree about on Black Templars. You've just already made up your mind about how the world is, and damn anyone saying anything else. Only one of us is actually driving a narrative: you're saying all Marines are OP regardless of supplement, I'm saying you can't prove that. That is not the same as saying Marines are balanced.

Find me anywhere where I've said that the Marine Codex is not overpowered, as opposed to arguing against someone using shoddy methodology.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Remove the biggest outlier, reiterate data, remove biggest outlier. Rinse, repeat. This is really, really basic methodological stuff.

Then why isn't it being done? Could there be another reason? I mean, if this is 'really basic methodological stuff' and GW isn't doing it, doesn't that make them basically idiots at best or basically biased at worst?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Find me anywhere where I've said that the Marine Codex is not overpowered, as opposed to arguing against someone using shoddy methodology.

But just before this you make an argument that the fundamental mechanic of the new SM codex is not the problem, rather definitively you stated it in fact. So is it just a unit or two? Was it that 1 point drop on Marines? (I was pretty sure that was the problem too...) It must be something relatively minor and easy to fix if it's not the core mechanics of the new SM codex, stunning that GW hasn't gotten around to clearing up what must be a minor discrepancy.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Remove the biggest outlier, reiterate data, remove biggest outlier. Rinse, repeat. This is really, really basic methodological stuff.

Then why isn't it being done? Could there be another reason? I mean, if this is 'really basic methodological stuff' and GW isn't doing it, doesn't that make them basically idiots at best or basically biased at worst?

Yep.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Find me anywhere where I've said that the Marine Codex is not overpowered, as opposed to arguing against someone using shoddy methodology.

But just before this you make an argument that the fundamental mechanic of the new SM codex is not the problem, rather definitively you stated it in fact. So is it just a unit or two? Was it that 1 point drop on Marines? (I was pretty sure that was the problem too...) It must be something relatively minor and easy to fix if it's not the core mechanics of the new SM codex, stunning that GW hasn't gotten around to clearing up what must be a minor discrepancy.

Super Doctrines can be overtuned without being fundamentally broken. If GW released a unit with Toughness 27, we wouldn't say it's the Toughness system that's fundamentally broken, it's GW's application of said system that's pants.

For example, if you had a Super Doctrine that triggered in the Tactical Doctrine that gave you +2 Leadership it'd be absolute rubbish. If you got, say, +1" to charges in the Assault Doctrine it'd be good, and if you got +5T to all your models in the Devastator Doctrine it'd obviously be busted. None of this is inherent in the Super Doctrine as a concept.

It looks to me, an outsider, like there's a lot of people who have their minds made up about their position, and anyone who disagrees with them is either a GW apologist or a salt-miner. Maybe this discussion has run its course? Just a thought.

My dark angels, space wolves and death watch would love some of that all colors opness...The new marine supplements have forced me off of the table top as putting down the SAME FRICKIN MODEL but paying more for it doing so much less is just a bridge too far.

As for cheating at tournaments, I've played the best of the best and dozens of tournaments and haven't had a bad game
yet (maybe one with some clock shenanigans but part of that was my fault for not being more familiar with using clocks). Even against TFG of my LGS, being clear about my intent, clarifying my opponents intent, speaking up if something makes me uncomfortable and not being a jerk has served me well.

If Siegler and Nanavati can have a classy game with 5k on the line it's not the good players you need to worry about. Those reports stem from such a small % of actual tournament games played that 40k tournaments are a much friendlier environment than any "competitive" event I've gone to in my life (literal stabbings at MtG events: https://kotaku.com/man-stabbed-seven-times-during-magic-the-gathering-gam-1797380701)

If you run into any shady behavior at an event channel the spirit of the late great Geoff Robinson and stand up for yourself. You don't have to be a jerk but just mentioning that you are uncomfortable about the way someone is doing something works 99% of the time.

I agree with the too much, too quickly. But nerfing marines across the board just turns us back into the days of guilliman or nothing. You nerf all marines to bring IH, IF & RG in line then everyone else suffers too hard.

I don't think the game is in a good place right now. There are a lot of things that need to change with marines: thunderfire cannons, stacking super docs on top of regular docs, some ravenguard strats, master of artisans and stealthy, eliminators, seigebreaker cohort all seem to be currently breaking the game and seem to be things GW is reluctant about changing as they are the linchpins of the new 35$ supplements they just sold thousands of.

As bad as the external balance of the codexes is the internal balance of the codexes is so bad I can't believe that GW calls themselves professionals. Not every unit has to be meta defining but there are so many terrible units out there that the barrier to entry building a good/competitive force is really high for any new players. With constant nerfs/changes and the cost/time of minis this is inexcusable.

I don't know how GW digs themselves out of this hole without disappointing a lot of customers by basically invalidating a ton of their very recent purchases (SM supplements) or upping the other armies to a level where games that go beyond turn 3 will be quite the anomalies.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If you cannot understand the difference between "Nerf Iron Hands, let meta shake out, nerf further if needed" and "Marines are fine!" then perhaps you shouldn't be part of a discussion you clearly do not understand?

I understand it completely, I just think it's a joke. GW has had months to 'let the meta shake out' and have done nothing. Thinking that they're going to suddenly come around to seeing the problem and actually doing something about it is the very definition of Pollyanna.

This farcical belief that it's just IH that's the problem is simply a refusal to acknowledge the obvious in the interest of catering to the favored PoV faction.

It hasn't been a week since CA19 dropped. GW nerfed IH within a month, do you mean they didn't implement a nerf within a month of implementing the first nerf?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
==If you gave Orks a rule that let them get -1AP in melee and autowounds on 6s to hit against non-vehicles in melee on a turn in which they charge, would that make them "fundamentally broken"?

If you gave Orks flat -1AP across the board there would be riots in the streets, not to mention rerolling both your charge rolls and auto hitting auto wounding.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What, the podcast that said people weren't playing Salamanders because they were waiting for the FAQ, which promptly showed up and didn't let them do what people feared they wouldn't be allowed to do?

Yes, point? People wanted to know whether to build around Self Sacrifice or not, the answer is no so they've built different lists.

Remove the biggest outlier, reiterate data, remove biggest outlier. Rinse, repeat. This is really, really basic methodological stuff.

But what you're conveniently forgetting/ignoring is that there are several outliers at the minute that all need "removing" - IH, WS, IF, RG and UM.

There's not even any data for us to disagree about on Black Templars. You've just already made up your mind about how the world is, and damn anyone saying anything else. Only one of us is actually driving a narrative: you're saying all Marines are OP regardless of supplement, I'm saying you can't prove that. That is not the same as saying Marines are balanced.

Not at all, I'm simply sick of people, such as yourself, pretending this is an IH only problem when it obviously isn't. You said all this before I sent you my podcast of proof. You continue to say it now, despite the knowledge (assuming you listened to it all) that all sub factions released at that point were/are over-performing. This isn't a "narrative", this is a fact.

Find me anywhere where I've said that the Marine Codex is not overpowered, as opposed to arguing against someone using shoddy methodology.

you wrote:But the thing taking it over the top is not shared. What makes Marine fliers good, for example, is the Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good. I get absolutely no benefit from Raven Guard being able to infiltrate their Assault Centurions or Imperial Fists being strong with their Siegebreaker Cohorts; what incentive do I have to defend them other than believing that they do not currently merit nerfing?

Above, literally right there you tried to claim that it was the "Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good". You aren't arguing about bad methodology at all, your arguing in bad faith to protect your strong units/builds/combos.

 vict0988 wrote:
It hasn't been a week since CA19 dropped. GW nerfed IH within a month, do you mean they didn't implement a nerf within a month of implementing the first nerf?

Yes, CA19, the great white hope. Also known as the 'holy crap we've completely fethed the game let's desperately throw out a bunch of points changes that make no sense and hope it fixes the problem' codex.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Find me anywhere where I've said that the Marine Codex is not overpowered, as opposed to arguing against someone using shoddy methodology.

you wrote:But the thing taking it over the top is not shared. What makes Marine fliers good, for example, is the Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good. I get absolutely no benefit from Raven Guard being able to infiltrate their Assault Centurions or Imperial Fists being strong with their Siegebreaker Cohorts; what incentive do I have to defend them other than believing that they do not currently merit nerfing?

Above, literally right there you tried to claim that it was the "Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good". You aren't arguing about bad methodology at all, your arguing in bad faith to protect your strong units/builds/combos.

The Marine Codex as a whole can be overpowered without individual parts of it being so. The Marine Codex is overpowered because Iron Hands are overperforming. It might also be overpowered because of other factors.

You didn't see people calling for nerfs to the Deathstrike Missile Launcher when the Imperial Guard were in their prime.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You aren't arguing about bad methodology at all, your arguing in bad faith to protect your strong units/builds/combos.

Which is?

No, really. Tell me: what are the strong units/builds/combos for Black Templars? While we're at it, how do you know?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Remove the biggest outlier, reiterate data, remove biggest outlier. Rinse, repeat. This is really, really basic methodological stuff.

But what you're conveniently forgetting/ignoring is that there are several outliers at the minute that all need "removing" - IH, WS, IF, RG and UM.

One of them is a much bigger outlier (as in, almost three times as far from the ideal of 50% as number two, discounting Crimson Fists with a sample size of 2). There's a vast difference.

I wouldn't mind these "the meta evolves!!!" takes if they could provide examples.

Because in my experience 40k is not very meta driven. You just have lists which are "good" (i.e. you get "greater than X" probability to kill/survive for so many points). This changes over time as GW release new stuff, update stuff and so on.

40k has very rarely - if ever - been a rock paper scissors game. It doesn't have a "aha, 60% of people play rock, I'll bring paper" sort of meta you can sometimes get in Card Games.

We don't really see "anti-meta" lists. Mainly because they don't exist. What build for instance existed which was kind of crap versus X, but gave you a 75% win rate versus say Castelan builds, or Eldar flying circuses, or any of the meta dominant choices we have since throughout 8th?

Basically, what "list" is currently not viable, because its auto-lose 30% win rate versus Iron Hands, but at the same time racks up a 60-70% win rate versus Ravenguard? White Scars? Etc?

I don't think it exists - because by and large, good builds in 40k are good against everything.

This isn't to say if you bring your non-optimised mech list and your friend builds a list with all the lascannons/melta etc he isn't skewing the game - but that sort of thing, as a rule, does not happen with top competitive lists.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, really. Tell me: what are the strong units/builds/combos for Black Templars? While we're at it, how do you know?

I would assume any that perform well without requiring psykers, which is plenty.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
One of them is a much bigger outlier (as in, almost three times as far from the ideal of 50% as number two, discounting Crimson Fists with a sample size of 2). There's a vast difference.

Yet, still performing admirably, with more Chapters to come to reinforce a system of already demonstrably broken mechanics. I mean, it was perfectly obvious to the rest of us what adding -1 AP to entire categories of weapons was going to do to the game, but Marine players love to say 'just let the meta shake out' while they curbstomp 90% of their non-Marine opponents.

Then they wonder why everyone's got a bad attitude about it.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, really. Tell me: what are the strong units/builds/combos for Black Templars? While we're at it, how do you know?

I would assume any that perform well without requiring psykers, which is plenty.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
One of them is a much bigger outlier (as in, almost three times as far from the ideal of 50% as number two, discounting Crimson Fists with a sample size of 2). There's a vast difference.

Yet, still performing admirably, with more Chapters to come to reinforce a system of already demonstrably broken mechanics. I mean, it was perfectly obvious to the rest of us what adding -1 AP to entire categories of weapons was going to do to the game, but Marine players love to say 'just let the meta shake out' while they curbstomp 90% of their non-Marine opponents.

Then they wonder why everyone's got a bad attitude about it.

Its -1 AP for a whole codex of units that were overcosted. With marines having something between 40-45% win rates. There is no question 1.0 marines needed large fixes being decidedly bottom tier for the greater part of 2 years.

Ultra marines even have a decent super doctrine plus the -1 AP bonus and +1 attack bonus and some decent stratagems and they are only able to muster a win rate on par with eldar (who were nerfed massively with the ynnari rules changes, yet also recently received a minor buff which likely isn't showing up in the stats - we will know probably in a month where Eldar truly stand) and tau (who just received a massive buff). For Ultramarines(and successors) I would say they are performing "well" to be competing at the level tau and eldar (a place where I wish more armies would be elevated to). It is clear who the overperformers are and I knew it the second I saw their rules. For RG/WS the removal of a single stratagem or WL trait would bring them in line. For Ironhands and Crimson fists - a complete rewrite of their super doctrines is required...+1 damage to vehicles or +1 to hit and reroll 1's for heavies on the move is just straight up ludacris. I only hope GW fixes the problem correctly. A nerf to marine units will result in my Ultras being unplayable even in casual games (just like before). I would be hugely baffled if GW (even with their history of sheer incompotence) wouldn't soon hotfix CF and IH at the very least. I believe at the last GW major event at GW - 10 marine armies took top with the top 5 being CF. That is a message that even GW can't miss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
I wouldn't mind these "the meta evolves!!!" takes if they could provide examples.

Because in my experience 40k is not very meta driven. You just have lists which are "good" (i.e. you get "greater than X" probability to kill/survive for so many points). This changes over time as GW release new stuff, update stuff and so on.

40k has very rarely - if ever - been a rock paper scissors game. It doesn't have a "aha, 60% of people play rock, I'll bring paper" sort of meta you can sometimes get in Card Games.

We don't really see "anti-meta" lists. Mainly because they don't exist. What build for instance existed which was kind of crap versus X, but gave you a 75% win rate versus say Castelan builds, or Eldar flying circuses, or any of the meta dominant choices we have since throughout 8th?

Basically, what "list" is currently not viable, because its auto-lose 30% win rate versus Iron Hands, but at the same time racks up a 60-70% win rate versus Ravenguard? White Scars? Etc?

I don't think it exists - because by and large, good builds in 40k are good against everything.

This isn't to say if you bring your non-optimised mech list and your friend builds a list with all the lascannons/melta etc he isn't skewing the game - but that sort of thing, as a rule, does not happen with top competitive lists.

Absolutely - a measure of a strong tournament list is it's ability to defeat any kind of list. Ultimately this boild down to how much damage you can do - how much you can take - and how you have to move your units to do this. Ironhands excel at all these factors.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is clear who the overperformers are and I knew it the second I saw their rules.

I mean, you also say that Squiggoth is great and that the squigbuggy is the best 100 point unit in the game, both unironically too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
It hasn't been a week since CA19 dropped. GW nerfed IH within a month, do you mean they didn't implement a nerf within a month of implementing the first nerf?

Yes, CA19, the great white hope. Also known as the 'holy crap we've completely fethed the game let's desperately throw out a bunch of points changes that make no sense and hope it fixes the problem' codex.

It's almost like we need a living ruleset

You guys are frickin' hilarious at times.

For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.

But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?

The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.

Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.

The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.

Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.

 bullyboy wrote:
You guys are frickin' hilarious at times.

For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.

But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?

The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.

Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.

The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.

Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.

I think a big part of the problem is that gw is taking its time getting to that "low hanging fruit " in other armies.

Obviously everyone will eventually get new rules. But until then it feels like everyone else is an edition behind.

Especially if your army is supposed to be loyalist marine's "dark mirror ".

 bullyboy wrote:
You guys are frickin' hilarious at times.

For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.

But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?

The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.

Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.

The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.

Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.

ITT: Poster Is Surprised That Different People On The internet Have Different Opnions

 bullyboy wrote:
You guys are frickin' hilarious at times.

For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.

But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?

The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.

Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.

The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.

Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.

I mainly wanted points drops. Not.. this. Because marines were very overpriced before.

 bullyboy wrote:
You guys are frickin' hilarious at times.

For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.

But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?

The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.

Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.

The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.

Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.

GW can never win, several people on this board will never be happy with whatever they do. Watch how much of a minor footnote SM become in 6 months once other books receive their 2.0 treatment - it's the typical codex cycle.

 bullyboy wrote:
You guys are frickin' hilarious at times.

For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.

But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?

The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.

Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.

The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.

Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.

There's such a thing as going overboard, and the units most in need of assistance largely didn't change. Insane army-wide buffs are a really poor hamfisted way to try and fix those issues.

All on top of unnecessary rules bloat.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
You guys are frickin' hilarious at times.

For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.

But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?

The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.

Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.

The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.

Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.

There's such a thing as going overboard, and the units most in need of assistance largely didn't change. Insane army-wide buffs are a really poor hamfisted way to try and fix those issues.

perhaps, but you can't argue that GW didn't address the core issue of marines not really feeling like an elite, killer army. If you go for points drops, then they become the hoard...and that doesn't make sense.
They didn't go overboard on everything, some things feel right. Others, I agree, probably too much and hopefully they will get addressed in time if shown to be repeatedly OTT. I do hope that they now start looking at the other factions in more detail. That's why I think it's going to be an interesting few months.
Chaos is a tough one, they really shouldn't have received that codex update....it didn't really do anything. They have a ton of tools at their disposal, but I haven't taken the time to really look into all the combos after Faith and Fury plus CA.

Cut the hyperbole down guys. The supplements made marines broken, but they were absolutely good before those books were released. They were even ok with the version 1.0 actually. A BT army will do fine in any real meta, if it's well optimized for 8th edition. Copy-paste lists from 5th or older editions will struggle, of course, I don't see any issue in that and it's true for all armies, not just BT or other SM uncommon chapters.

Standalone chapters like SW, BA and DA are far from being terrible either, especially after CA19.

So yeah, the chapters that didn't get the doctrine are also competitive, just not as broken as the current nastiest ones.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
You guys are frickin' hilarious at times.

For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.

But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?

The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.

Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.

The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.

Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.

There's such a thing as going overboard, and the units most in need of assistance largely didn't change. Insane army-wide buffs are a really poor hamfisted way to try and fix those issues.

perhaps, but you can't argue that GW didn't address the core issue of marines not really feeling like an elite, killer army. If you go for points drops, then they become the hoard...and that doesn't make sense.
They didn't go overboard on everything, some things feel right. Others, I agree, probably too much and hopefully they will get addressed in time if shown to be repeatedly OTT. I do hope that they now start looking at the other factions in more detail. That's why I think it's going to be an interesting few months.
Chaos is a tough one, they really shouldn't have received that codex update....it didn't really do anything. They have a ton of tools at their disposal, but I haven't taken the time to really look into all the combos after Faith and Fury plus CA.

Dropping points without better rules makes an army that's supposed to be elite feel more like a horde huh?

Good thing gw doesn't seem to be doing that to any other armies compromised of power armoured transhumans.

 Blackie wrote:
Cut the hyperbole down guys. The supplements made marines broken, but they were absolutely good before those books were released. They were even ok with the version 1.0 actually. A BT army will do fine in any real meta, if it's well optimized for 8th edition. Copy-paste lists from 5th or older editions will struggle, of course, I don't see any issue in that and it's true for all armies, not just BT or other SM uncommon chapters.

Standalone chapters like SW, BA and DA are far from being terrible either, especially after CA19.

So yeah, the chapters that didn't get the doctrine are also competitive, just not as broken as the current nastiest ones.

That is not true. Comparing to eldar or tau, who both run the same lists they are running now, they were very bad, and required souping and over focus on certain units. Right now a space marine player can play, maybe not every option out of his codex, but a lot of them. They have 4 troop choices alone, which don't make the list automaticlly bad. There is more then one heavy, FA and elite unit worth taking. Multiple characters are valid. Pre the new sm book and supplements , some armies didn't even exist. Who played IH pre buff? BA were technicly played, but BA armies were max smash hammers 15 scouts and the rest of something else. With SW am not even sure what units are run in their armies, because no one seems to be playing them. DA have some very efficient units, but it is hard to make an army out of DA without a soup. Now a marine player doesn't have to soup and play armies, he doesn't want to play. He pics a successor and tinkers the army rules, or picks one of the established chapters, and stuff just works.

Ah and when that happens, tau still beat them in shoting and long game objective taking.