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.
But the thing is, BA are probably at the power level marines should be, same with the new DA too. Just getting doctrines and a super doctrine took the army to a better place, plus some of the marine strats that carried over. It just isn't on the same level as what some of the Codex Marines can get with their combos, which happens to be the biggest problem. I am a little disappointed that DA/BA didn't get access to Master of Sanctity, Chief Apothecary etc, but that's not the end of the world. I don't care about the lack of full rerolls as I feel that should not be a thing anyway. Chapter Master should be bumped to 3CP right off the bat.
My current focus is my DA and I love the flavour that they received with the PA book, especially the emphasis on improving RW and DW, which was almost the entire ruleset improvement and has zero Primaris marines.
An Actual Englishman wrote: top derailing the thread with this off topic rubbish of the legitimacy of ITC events.
"ITC is irrelevant" is probably one of the most stupid things I've ever heard considering it's the fastest growing competitive format that seems to have (as far as all data shows) the largest competitive playerbase.
And if those players insist breaking the game with houserules, that is not GW's fault, and it is utterly bizarre to to think that it would. I really cannot understand how this sort of thinking can make sense to anyone. GW is only responsible for the quality of the rules they publish (which admittedly could use some work) not someone's houserules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/07 13:56:17
An Actual Englishman wrote: top derailing the thread with this off topic rubbish of the legitimacy of ITC events.
"ITC is irrelevant" is probably one of the most stupid things I've ever heard considering it's the fastest growing competitive format that seems to have (as far as all data shows) the largest competitive playerbase.
And if those players insist breaking the game with houserules, that is not GW's fault, and it is utterly bizarre to to think that it would. I really cannot understand how this sort of thinking can make sense to anyone. GW is only responsible for the quality of the rules they publish (which admittedly could use some work) not someone's houserules.
I mean GW themselves feels differently considering they do make balance changes based off of ITC results. Also many of their play testers are top performing ITC players. So people can all rail on about how ITC is irrelevant all they want its just not even remotely factually true right now. Now I personally agree that GW should not have multiple different missions sets used to balance the game. But I also don't think the differences in missions are that big of a difference either. I can also see why they use ITC. ITC has almost all of their results published I did a google search for 40k tournament results and ITC is all I can find. I spent 2+ hours last night trying to google search non-ITC events and couldn't find results for any of them but the Caledonia uprising. I saw lots of advertisements for non-ITC events everywhere but now how they turned out. It was incredibly frustrating really as I want to see what the different metas look like. So if any knows something that I don't in how to find these non-ITC results help a brother out!
Spoletta wrote: We should learn to stop talking about "SM". The only SM faction out there is the generic chapter.
UM and IH are 2 different factions, they play with hugely different rules, with hugely different lists, just like DA and BA. While they have some in common, they have different psy powers, different relics, different warlord traits, different stratagems and even some different units.
Saying "IH being OP does not make SMOP" is a correct statement. No one ever said that SW were good because BA had smash captains.
And that's the thing that bothers me the most as a csm player who actually likes to play to the fluff. The different chapters are different. The legions not so much, especially when the cp runs out. I'd love for my Night Lords to be as different from other legions as the loyalist chapters are from each other. But gw apparently has decided csm need to soup.
I don't agree with this assessment too much. IH and UM affect list building choices. Similarly Night Lords, Iron Warriors, and so on promote different list building choices. Through those choices they play differently - CP or otherwise.
If you wrote a straight list irrespective of a legion and ran out of CP then, yea, I'd agree.
Spoletta wrote: We should learn to stop talking about "SM". The only SM faction out there is the generic chapter.
UM and IH are 2 different factions, they play with hugely different rules, with hugely different lists, just like DA and BA. While they have some in common, they have different psy powers, different relics, different warlord traits, different stratagems and even some different units.
Saying "IH being OP does not make SMOP" is a correct statement. No one ever said that SW were good because BA had smash captains.
And that's the thing that bothers me the most as a csm player who actually likes to play to the fluff. The different chapters are different. The legions not so much, especially when the cp runs out. I'd love for my Night Lords to be as different from other legions as the loyalist chapters are from each other. But gw apparently has decided csm need to soup.
I don't agree with this assessment too much. IH and UM affect list building choices. Similarly Night Lords, Iron Warriors, and so on promote different list building choices. Through those choices they play differently - CP or otherwise.
If you wrote a straight list irrespective of a legion and ran out of CP then, yea, I'd agree.
Well of course different lists play differently. But without strategems a jump troop oriented Night Lords list or a heavy support oriented iw list will behave just like the same list being played as black legion or renegades. All of the respective flavor of the legions is only represented by strategems, whereas the loyalists have good chapter tactics which represent their styles of warfare better and affect the way they're played even without strategems. The week legion traits are fairly useless and don't affect play style.
Loyalists have a book for each chapter, they are obviously going to have a greater characterization than CSM legions.
That is why i consider all SM chapters as different factions, but don't do the same for fleets/legions/septs whatever. They don't have dedicated books.
Spoletta wrote: Loyalists have a book for each chapter, they are obviously going to have a greater characterization than CSM legions.
That is why i consider all SM chapters as different factions, but don't do the same for fleets/legions/septs whatever. They don't have dedicated books.
Which is pretty gakky. The Chaos Legions differ more than Marine Chapters do, and the Legions are hardly the most divergent from one another.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Yeah, at this point GW has decided that the marine chapters are different armies (painting standards at GW tournaments, books, pushing faction identities, potential primarch returns).
Space wolves, death watch, blood angels, grey knights and dark angels are no longer the only "snowflake" chapters. GW has seen that they can make even more money from marines by separating them all out this way.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the same philosophy pushed onto CSM in 9th. With primarchs returning GW knows there's a lot of milk left in the marine cash cows and it's not like them to not try to go after it all.
The point is the LVO cannot be used to judge the state of the game. No ITC event can.
No one has once said that using the CA missions creates perfect faction equalibrium, but they do show a better level of balance. Yes, Astartes still perform well.
People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol
In the meantime, 3rd party homebrew rules cannot be used to gauge game balance because they fundamentally alter the game beyond what was designed officially.
People should not relax.
The reasons Marines are OP now goes beyond ain't having a good codex, they got a version of supplement rules that for free, no extra points, no Cp, stack ontop of their already good rules for units from the codex. No faction outside of Marines has gotten that treatment, getting side grades and strange alternative choices with restrictions that give up your normal bonuses is not the same. The reason people shouldn't relax is because at this point in order for GW to make non marine codexes balanced they will have to have layered rules like Marines for free, which is completely different than the normal codex model we have seen. Otherwise it will be like 7th where either your army has a decurion option or it doesn't and that alone decided if you have any chance to be competitive.
That is clearly not the case based on the data. Only some supplements are issues. Perhaps being able to assault turn 1 automatically with assualt cents is an oversite. Perhaps Ironhands super doctrine is absurd...Every army is getting a free supplement atm like eldar and TS...you are literally complaining about the direction of the game.
People need to relax about Marines. 6 months of being in top, years of being rock bottom prior to that. The sky isn't falling. Go play chess if you want a perfectly balanced experience right now, and homebrew it so white doesn't always go first lol
The sky isn't falling, the game isn't ruined, but there is a problem, and saying otherwise is
Space Marine players have definitely earned this, i never said otherwise. For years, and years and years they were the joke of the competitive scene. If any faction deserves it - they do, but other factions do need to be brought in line or some of the SM factions need adjustments.
If every SM chapter was as powerful as Ultramarines i doubt we'd even be talking about this.
No we wouldn't. I agree with that. Dakka has an anti SM bias..It is obvious.
Do you actually believe that what non sm factions are getting in pa is equal to what sm got? The internally balanced codex? Nope. Free buffs just for buying a supplement, no cp or points required? Nope.
C:sm is a change in codex design philosophy and until everyone has a codex that follows that philosophy it's not an even playing field.
And someone should tell Martel to copy that ba list in that tournament. Three squads of Sanguinary Guards and in the top ten. Sounds like ba ain't so bad after all.
Do you actually believe marines were at an even starting point? OFC not. The rules they got were a direct fix to the fact that they were terrible. Turns out the doctrines and new strats and such were s perfect fix as it puts an army like ultras/Salamnders/whitescars square in the middle. Just granted by what I have seen from DA - they will also be above the curve. If you can't acknowledge that you are blind. SM were hands down the worst army in the game. BY A LONG SHOT - with the exception of GK (who are basically just marines). You need to get used to marine armies not being a free win for once. Plus - you should really stop referring to the new supplement marines as a whole entity - each supplement is basically a different army just like TS/DG/and CSM are different armies.
Whoa! Back up the hyperbole train. Did sm need some help? Yup sure did. Were they the worst army in the game? Nope. Chaos daemons, gk (who were a separate army, as you point out about other factions), and r&h were fighting over that "honor ". The problem is that gw over corrected. And now everyone else has to play catch up. And yes, ih, rg, and if are stronger than the other chapters. That doesn't make those other chapters "mid tier " compared to other factions. Just other chapters.
As to your post below (I'm not quoting it. This chain is already long enough) yes csm players don't like souping. Or relying on gimmicks like the possessed bomb. Or always playing Alpha Legion because that's our only useful legion trait. But that's the thing. Sm have options other factions don't. Csm rely on gimmicks. Eldar have flyers. Tau triptide.
I've already said this is all due to gw changing design philosophy mid edition and it'll be corrected when we get more new codexes. Till then just accept that sm are top dogs. Stop denying and start enjoying.
And as far as you playing "choas" dude you literally just proved you can't spell it.
Martel732 wrote: Is IH stupid or the new normal? My money is on the new normal.
Among who?
Not everyone is a bandwagon-jumping meta-chasing list jumper.
I have an Ultramarine army. I don't care if Iron Hands are better. My army is an Ultramarine army.
Same. Night Lords or bust. Feth bandwagons.
Good for you that you have some decency about you and play the army you like. You have my respect. Some people in here claim that means you are probably a bad player though (not me) do you agree with that?
However. If you actually read my post youd see I mentioned GK as contenders for worst army all space marine factions were in the 40% WR area. Daemons are no where near that though. In fact they are one of the winningest armies in the game as a primary detachment on 40k stats. 52% for the entire eddition also 52% in the most recent data pull.
Spoletta wrote: Loyalists have a book for each chapter, they are obviously going to have a greater characterization than CSM legions.
That is why i consider all SM chapters as different factions, but don't do the same for fleets/legions/septs whatever. They don't have dedicated books.
Which is pretty gakky. The Chaos Legions differ more than Marine Chapters do, and the Legions are hardly the most divergent from one another.
I totally agree. I am a strong supporter of the idea of 1 marine book with maybe a few special stratagems and units that different chapters have access to. You can do that in 1 book. GW makes 10 times the money doing it this way. They will likely do the same with choas - CSM is also hugely popular and they can make 10x the money there too by making special books for each legion.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/07 23:57:58
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Marines are becoming more focused on Primaris, which is a less varied model line.
GW probably focused on bigger chapter rule diversity because in the long run there will be less model diversity. I imagine a Primaris only book in the future.
Alternatively none of this will matter in a few months once 9th edition comes out. There's a bit too much hysteria on this forum, especially considering that the greatest problems relating to the meta occur under a third party ruleset that doesn't use the official missions of the game. If you're not happy with the ITC, take it up with them. I'm sure they can homebrew the game some more.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/07 17:47:57
Ishagu wrote: Marines are becoming more focused on Primaris, which is a less varied model line.
GW probably focused on bigger chapter rule diversity because in the long run there will be less model diversity. I imagine a Primaris only book in the future.
Alternatively none of this will matter in a few months once 9th edition comes out. There's a bit too much hysteria on this forum, especially considering that the greatest problems relating to the meta occur under a third party ruleset that doesn't use the official missions of the game. If you're not happy with the ITC, take it up with them. I'm sure they can homebrew the game some more.
That is a very good point. 9th is coming and this is likely just cash grab at the end of 7th. Also a great point about ITC. It is house-ruled 40k no matter how you slice it. Kind of like taking kick boxers and having them fight using rules for traditional boxing. Wed find out who the best boxer was - but not even close to finding the best kickboxer.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
@Xenomancers
Does committing to a faction despite whether or not it currently does or doesn't have the strongest rules make you a bad player? Not in my opinion. It obviously takes more skill to win with r&h than ih for example. Obviously top players will seek out the factions with the strongest rules and most efficient units because they know their opponents will do the same but they would still be the best players without that. It's simply that at that level they can't afford to handicap themselves due to personal preference as they know their opponents are of an equal skill level.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/07 17:55:55
Daedalus81 wrote: You guys should probably stop talking like you definitively know "9th" is coming.
Anything that distracts, daed. Anything that can possibly distract.
It's weird, though, I don't remember ITC data being invalid when Guard stuff needed nerfs...or Eldar stuff...or GSC stuff...or Tau stuff..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/07 18:10:03
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
9th will be an updated ruleset from 8th. Likely to be released alongside an updated starter set with a new rulebook.
GW won't refer to it as 9th, just as they they didn't refer to 8th as 8th.
Whisperings in the right places have hinted that it's coming. I'm very confident it will be released after psychic awakening ends, in the same vain as 8th following gathering storm.
I think its unlikely we will get a new edition this summer.
A new edition means a new starter box.
Almost certainly with new models in it.
Which in turn almost certainly means a new Primaris line.
And we just had a big Primaris release last year. Its all new and hardly needs replacing.
Although I guess they could just roll out a new Intercessor kit with all the custom options (and maybe some new ones) that have become available over the years.
so I will get new rules in 3 weeks, then in 3-4 month 9th will come out and my GK are going to be bad again? I don't know, if I should laugh or cry.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
"ITC is irrelevant" is probably one of the most stupid things I've ever heard considering it's the fastest growing competitive format that seems to have (as far as all data shows) the largest competitive playerbase.
Sounds like cancer.
ITC is entirely irrelevant when it comes to "balancing" the game. Now, if ITC came up w points adj, rules tweaks(for units/char, etc...), limits on types of units, then you can use it to balance. Unfortunately (for ITC) they dont. Since GW makes the rules/game(which functions fine i.e. their own tournaments) they shouldn't factor it in. CA19 is their product improved "tourney" mission pack. GW should further make overt suggestions that the game is balanced for their missions, not anyone elses
Karol wrote: so I will get new rules in 3 weeks, then in 3-4 month 9th will come out and my GK are going to be bad again? I don't know, if I should laugh or cry.
IF we get a "new" edition it will most likely be a rules cleanup and update. Current codexes and supplements would still apply. Gw have done this before.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/07 18:54:59
the_scotsman wrote: It's weird, though, I don't remember ITC data being invalid when Guard stuff needed nerfs...or Eldar stuff...or GSC stuff...or Tau stuff..
Never a truer word spoken.
I also don't remember people calling for a nerf of "Twisted Helix" instead of "GSC" or "Farsight Enclaves" instead of "Tau". Weird.
Karol wrote: so I will get new rules in 3 weeks, then in 3-4 month 9th will come out and my GK are going to be bad again? I don't know, if I should laugh or cry.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet and don't get carried away with conclusions based on no info. You'll life will be much better for it.
If the definition of a new edition is GW putting out new rules and fixing up their old stuff, then we've been in 9th edition for awhile. SM got a new Codex, GW announced a revision of FW, PA has put new options out on the table, etc.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Klickor wrote: We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.
Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?
For no reason. GK just can't have cool things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Klickor has more patience than I. But yes, thats all correct.
Since my group hates the old chapter master language, we have playing dante as an updated chapter master. Its far from game breaking.
Honestly its the way it should have been forever. A -1 to hit puts you right back where you started with the old aura.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/07 20:20:14
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Klickor wrote: We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.
Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?
Dont use FW so dont have the actual book but couldnt find it on battlescribe. I might have just missed it though. Its not that good as BA anyway since we dont have that many buffs for it and there will probably be better priority targets that need to be killed first so the not targetable thing doesnt matter as much. And if you take 500pts of chaplain dreads you should probably just play a codex marine chapter instead of BA to get better use out of points spent.
Ishagu wrote: Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.
If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.
Spoiler: They don't.
Spoiler, they absolutely fething do, and you beating this horse to death is asinine.
CA MISSIONS BENEFIT IH, RG, AND IF EVEN MORE THAN ITC DOES. Sorry your army is OP, STFU about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: 9th will be an updated ruleset from 8th. Likely to be released alongside an updated starter set with a new rulebook.
GW won't refer to it as 9th, just as they they didn't refer to 8th as 8th.
Whisperings in the right places have hinted that it's coming. I'm very confident it will be released after psychic awakening ends, in the same vain as 8th following gathering storm.
Considering you still haven't figured out that missions revolving around blowing your enemy off the board to sit on objectives heavily favor armys that are good at blowing the enemy off the board to sit on objectives yet, I take anything you say to be massively suspect.
BTW, they Called AoS 2, aos 2. How do you know this won't be the same? This might be "new 40k revision B sigma" for all you know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/07 20:51:00
Well of course different lists play differently. But without strategems a jump troop oriented Night Lords list or a heavy support oriented 
