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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Boo hoo. Is GW writing too many thematic rules for your liking?

Lol you are in the wrong hobby if you don't like it.

Where have i stated what i like or dislike in regards to the rules?

Your reading comprehension aswell as your general attitude need improvement, may i suggest a Knigge Course aswell as reading some more books?

I'd just ignore that comment, I read it and laughed pretty hard. As honestly, few of these rules do I find heavy in theme and more just similar traits rolled out over and over or current rules spliced and put out to build your own in a slighty different way. If you took each actual unique rule I doubt you'd be able to print one of the books on it.

Like Iron hands, pretty theme filled, being cyborgs means they can move and fire heavy fine, oh wait other more heavily augmented guys can't, hmm, it's ok, they get a plus one to hit with heavy weapons because you know, they love technology. As well as all the other things that somehow are for theme. I get the FNP or an invuln save, I'd even see them having some morale safety as they aren't emotional, maybe they hit harder in CC with their robot legs.

The problem is most of these theme filled rules aren't really themes as much as stacking killy buffs in the easiest way and mostly the rules that are heavy in the theme tend not to be the ones anyone uses or cares about save for the random player that just loves their faction.

True, I have ways to counter theirs, but I do think its a bit telling how many hoops I need to go through whilst they get that option, and like 5 times as many for being RG and bringing some CP which we all were doing anyway. I don't mind new marines, I hate how deep their toolbox is and how they've now taken identifying features off Xenos and do it better.

Also for the record same game Axe+ Shield wraithblades wrecked all in their path until the Warlock got sniped and I lost all sources of Protect. But it was glorious to actually kill assault cents

 Ishagu wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

Frankly, I don't think there is much point.

Completely agree. It used to be that differentiating your army was about a personal choice in playstyle. So if you wanted to play Iron Hands they were just a regular Space Marine chapter with more vehicles and a bit more of a tendency to field heavy weapons, probably with a few more Techmarines than a regular army. Salamanders would get more melta/flamer, White Scars more bikers and transports, etc. One of GW's biggest mistakes in the last 10-15 years or so, IMO, has been the explosion of rules for things that really don't need them. Not only is it a nightmare to balance it also stifles creativity. I rarely see people asking about someone's cool personal army now, like I did previously when someone showed up with a well-apinted Imperial Fists army (which was essentially SM with some self-imposed restrictions). Now the first thing anyone asks is "what rules you using", usually followed by some rolled eyes and muttering under their breath.

Lol anyone complaining about more variety should leave the hobby. Every faction is getting a supplement via psychic awakening creating extra variation - Scions have the exact same additional rule stacking as Astartes, as an example.

If you want to reduce faction variance go and play chess.

Or how about you knock off the constant gatekeeping and deciding for everyone else what "proper" 40k is? There are nuances between complete agreement and complete disagreement with an opinion but I don't think I've ever seen you display any understanding of that ever.

To reiterate, the game worked fine (well, it was OK I guess) before every chapter had a Codex worth of rules/stratagems/warlord traits/psychic powers added to it and also benefitted from more focus on creativity and individuality while simultaneously being easier to balance. I get the desire for more rules for more factions but I disagree that it's required or a good thing, especially with GW's track record with balance. We see that now with how utterly miserable it can be to play against SM nowadays. It's not even purely about power level, just the layers of rules upon rules which make it feel like you're playing a different game to them.

There is something to be said for the fact marines had a general feel before, now they feel more like they have their hands in everyones pie. That the generalist faction, which marines have always been are not the jack of all trade but the Masters of which ever ones their " Theme " says they should be and that was never Marines.

I mean being stronger is fun but they feel less like jack of all trades with maybe some flavor in their various avenues of interest but tough and with no weakness aside from not being specialist to being the best at say, sneaky stalking, Gun line, mobile warfare, , etc, etc. Now some of these are arguable but I actually feel they lost a good deal of flavor by becoming so good all around and specialized.

Though to be fair they currently lack some in CC as the primaris line really is all about the shooting when you break it down.

Like marines were never know for being the best snipers, now, I'd say they are easily the best if not one of the best. They kinda lacked good LOS ignoring barrage, Thunder fire really takes that away, CC they are kind of middle of the road but with all their buffs I'd say they make a mess of more than messes them up anymore, they could always gun line but now they can castle up and lower the pain train, they have high access to anti grav which was always a short coming. They are kind of morphing into the Mary Sues some always thought them to be and what theme most had is replaced with consistent ability stacking.

Marine characters before sure didn't have enough utility but now that utility is pretty much why you take them. Captains sitting back with the long guns just to give hit re rolls feels odd for a might hero of the universe, feels more like a techmarine should do that. Kind of a long rant but I just had to put out there that doesn't feel like theme and more it feels like just arbitrary power ramping.

Slipspace wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

Frankly, I don't think there is much point.

Completely agree. It used to be that differentiating your army was about a personal choice in playstyle. So if you wanted to play Iron Hands they were just a regular Space Marine chapter with more vehicles and a bit more of a tendency to field heavy weapons, probably with a few more Techmarines than a regular army. Salamanders would get more melta/flamer, White Scars more bikers and transports, etc. One of GW's biggest mistakes in the last 10-15 years or so, IMO, has been the explosion of rules for things that really don't need them. Not only is it a nightmare to balance it also stifles creativity. I rarely see people asking about someone's cool personal army now, like I did previously when someone showed up with a well-apinted Imperial Fists army (which was essentially SM with some self-imposed restrictions). Now the first thing anyone asks is "what rules you using", usually followed by some rolled eyes and muttering under their breath.

Lol anyone complaining about more variety should leave the hobby. Every faction is getting a supplement via psychic awakening creating extra variation - Scions have the exact same additional rule stacking as Astartes, as an example.

If you want to reduce faction variance go and play chess.

Or how about you knock off the constant gatekeeping and deciding for everyone else what "proper" 40k is? There are nuances between complete agreement and complete disagreement with an opinion but I don't think I've ever seen you display any understanding of that ever.

To reiterate, the game worked fine (well, it was OK I guess) before every chapter had a Codex worth of rules/stratagems/warlord traits/psychic powers added to it and also benefitted from more focus on creativity and individuality while simultaneously being easier to balance. I get the desire for more rules for more factions but I disagree that it's required or a good thing, especially with GW's track record with balance. We see that now with how utterly miserable it can be to play against SM nowadays. It's not even purely about power level, just the layers of rules upon rules which make it feel like you're playing a different game to them.

Yeah, except...scions kinda dont have the same rule stacking. You want one of those new scion doctrines? You give up the base scion doctrine. Like a big boy faction.

They for a few traits and relics, sure, but they also could not take the lion's share of the ones in the base guard book.

the_scotsman wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

Frankly, I don't think there is much point.

Completely agree. It used to be that differentiating your army was about a personal choice in playstyle. So if you wanted to play Iron Hands they were just a regular Space Marine chapter with more vehicles and a bit more of a tendency to field heavy weapons, probably with a few more Techmarines than a regular army. Salamanders would get more melta/flamer, White Scars more bikers and transports, etc. One of GW's biggest mistakes in the last 10-15 years or so, IMO, has been the explosion of rules for things that really don't need them. Not only is it a nightmare to balance it also stifles creativity. I rarely see people asking about someone's cool personal army now, like I did previously when someone showed up with a well-apinted Imperial Fists army (which was essentially SM with some self-imposed restrictions). Now the first thing anyone asks is "what rules you using", usually followed by some rolled eyes and muttering under their breath.

Lol anyone complaining about more variety should leave the hobby. Every faction is getting a supplement via psychic awakening creating extra variation - Scions have the exact same additional rule stacking as Astartes, as an example.

If you want to reduce faction variance go and play chess.

Or how about you knock off the constant gatekeeping and deciding for everyone else what "proper" 40k is? There are nuances between complete agreement and complete disagreement with an opinion but I don't think I've ever seen you display any understanding of that ever.

To reiterate, the game worked fine (well, it was OK I guess) before every chapter had a Codex worth of rules/stratagems/warlord traits/psychic powers added to it and also benefitted from more focus on creativity and individuality while simultaneously being easier to balance. I get the desire for more rules for more factions but I disagree that it's required or a good thing, especially with GW's track record with balance. We see that now with how utterly miserable it can be to play against SM nowadays. It's not even purely about power level, just the layers of rules upon rules which make it feel like you're playing a different game to them.

Yeah, except...scions kinda dont have the same rule stacking. You want one of those new scion doctrines? You give up the base scion doctrine. Like a big boy faction.

They for a few traits and relics, sure, but they also could not take the lion's share of the ones in the base guard book.

Which is how it should be. You should sacrifice something to gain something. That's how it works in hh, rites of war and the like have downsides to go with the upsides. Why is it gw understood that concept for that game, and for most factions in 40k, but can't quite grasp it when they make rules for loyalist marines?

Yeah and thats an issue as well, as it feels like, marines are the shootiest, fightiest, most specialized when they want to be, easy access to lots of re rolls and plus 1s, extra attack phases in CC. While say Scions and most other factions have to give things up for other things and their rules only stack so far while marines can seemingly always have their cake and eat it too as the saying goes.

Though again apologies for off topic if any of this is, it's more speaking against all this varied nuance just giving flavor when it feels and looks more like power growing masked as flavor.

For most of 8th edition Astartes had the most bland rules, and the most boring and mundane playstyle.

Their new codex is a massive improvement, mostly so in regards to theme and playstyle for the various chapters.

In the meantime, if you guys are unhappy with them winning so much then play CA missions more and drop the ITC. At the GW events the codex is performing well but not winning events.
If you continue to complain about faction variety you should move to a different game that is more bland. With Psychic Awakening GW is actively giving all factions more variation in play.

 Ishagu wrote:
Boo hoo. Is GW writing too many thematic rules for your liking?

Lol you are in the wrong hobby if you don't like it.

Thematic=free power creep rules that actually discourage fluffy armies. The chapter traits are antithesis of thematic armies.

 Ishagu wrote:
For most of 8th edition Astartes had the most bland rules, and the most boring and mundane playstyle.

Their new codex is a massive improvement, mostly so in regards to theme and playstyle for the various chapters.

In the meantime, if you guys are unhappy with them winning so much then play CA missions more and drop the ITC. At the GW events the codex is performing well but not winning events.
If you continue to complain about faction variety you should move to a different game that is more bland. With Psychic Awakening GW is actively giving all factions more variation in play.

Honestly, this is kind of a solved problem at this point where I play. We've had our non-marine players slowly trickling back as more and more of the guys playing marines realize that the ability to table their opponents in two turns doesn't add flavor, it just makes them done with the game in 2 hours and forces them to stand around watching others. if you want to play with supplement stuff, it's pretty much understood that you'll end up playing someone else using a supplement or playing someone who is an avid tournament gamer looking for practice against them and bringing a competitive list.

PA is giving (most) factions variations in play (some are so bad you can't really call it variation tbh, drukhari and GSC say hi). That's a good thing. The other good thing is, for the most part they aren't really adding much to a faction's overall power budget unless they were performing really poorly before, like Grey Knights or super close-range Farsight Tau were. Variation is great, but marine supplements didn't add variation, they removed it by shoving out half the factions in the game.

Ask anyone if they'd rather be in a group with a marine player, an eldar player, an ork player, a necron player, a tyranid player and a sisters player or an ultramarines player, an iron hands player, a raven guard player, a salamanders player, an imperial fists player and a black templars player.

Who's getting tabled in two turns? Lol

Are all Marine players in your area playing Iron Hands tournament lists? I don't table people in two turns when I play Marines, and I don't get tabled when I play against them using other factions.

Maybe improve your terrain and play the CA missions.

 Ishagu wrote:
Who's getting tabled in two turns? Lol

Are all Marine players in your area playing Iron Hands tournament lists? I don't table people in two turns when I play Marines, and I don't get tabled when I play against them using other factions.

Maybe improve your terrain and play the CA missions.

Maybe 2 turns was hyperbole (maybe not though) but the fact remains I'm also seeing a general shift in attitude towards SM lists locally with people preferring not to play against them. It's not even due to the outright power of the lists as they're by no means tournament-level lists. It's more to do with the feeling you're playing a totally different game if you're using anything other than SM or a well-tuned list from a select few other codices. SM now have so many extra special rules, stratagems and various gotchas it's turning the game into an unfun exercise for enough people that it's causing problems. "Tabling" is alos quite often not a literal tabling, but can be that moment where th game spirals hopelessly out of control. I don't think I've ever literally been tabled in 2 turns in 8th edition but I've had a few games from both sides of the table where the game has effectively been over at that point.

This is on good, varied, terrain using CA19 missions.

Yeah when 90% of your army gets wiped in 2 turns then that's pretty much tabling right there and game is already decided. Marines can do that without suffering damage that really hurts. Particularly if they go first.

Problem with the faction rules is that they pigeonhole armies and effectively make balancing point costs impossible. Iron Hand vehicles are a perfect example. They're insanely much better than vehicles of other chapters, yet cost same amount of points. Same issue affects many different faction/unit combinations to lesser degree. So either the units are undercosted and thus OP for faction that buffs them or they are overcosted for everyone else. It also means that certain units simply are not worth using for certain factions. All units should be always be worth taking (and preferably not OP) for all factions. Then you can theme your army by your unit choices. If you play Raven Guard, you can tale more Phobos and more scouts, if you play IH you can take more vehicles and techmarines. Or not, it's your choice really.

Also, these supposedly thematic rules are often not so thematic. I don't think infiltrating Centurions are thematic for Raven Guard, it is just stupid. They should be using naturally stealthy units like Phobos. But they don't need to, as their rules allow making anything stealthy! Imperial Fist rules encourage taking multishot heavy weapons such as heavy bolters and assault cannons over actual bunker busters such as lascannons and missile launchers. Abd Iron Hands are now much more better at mobile warfare than the White Scars...

Somehow devastators have died out from blood angels and they bring instead allies. Or no bad moon boy carries slugga and pistol. And somehow lootas have turned from thematically death skull unit into exclusively bad moon unit...

 Ishagu wrote:
Who's getting tabled in two turns? Lol

Are all Marine players in your area playing Iron Hands tournament lists? I don't table people in two turns when I play Marines, and I don't get tabled when I play against them using other factions.

Maybe improve your terrain and play the CA missions.

We do play the CA missions predominantly. It's pretty much a split between those and the new build-a deck maelstrom.

And we have a ton of terrain - I know, I painted almost all of it. Part of the problem we're having is people playing the terrain rules out of the book with our official GW terrain, which means we've got these massive sector mechanicus assemblages that have basically zero ingame impact when you use them as the board centerpieces they're supposed to be, because gunlines just shoot right through 'em.

it's a mix of competitiveness. We've got a white scars, iron hands and ultramarines player in the tournament crowd, then 7 or 8 more casual players playing ultras, imp fists, salamanders and dark angels. Everything from optimized primaris gunlines to 40+ footslogging tacticals and classic one-gun one-arm dreads out of a 20 year old collection.

The trouble has mostly been with the casual guys, since they suddenly started running up against other casual lists that they would ordinarily have good games against and end up done in 1.5-2 hours. Just last week the tacticals 'n dreadnoughts guy faced off against some ork speed freeks and pulled out an honest to god turn 2 tabling by seizing the initiative. He had the extra 6" range on all his dudes with the DA doctrine and blew away 20 warbikes, 3 buggies and 2 trukks top of turn 1. He never even moved from where he deployed his models initially, just had to switch to Tactical turn 2 when all the ork stuff had moved up into 24" range.

You can look at that and say "Well why would someone play a list with tons of warbikes and buggies, those are terrible?" or "Why would he line all his stuff up on the deployment line instead of an extra 6" away?" but that's just how these kinds of silly games go. And it wasn't a problem until marines started pumping out firepower by the bucketload, before the DA got their supplement treatment those guys would have solid, back and forth games that would usually go to turn 4-5, which is realistically as long as pretty much any game of 8th tends to go given how deadly it is.

Yes but I can make a list of Ultramarines Tactical Terminators on foot that would be rubbish.
Thematic lists can have big weaknesses, and players should discuss in advance what kind of game they want.

I recently played against Orks using a Primaris army and the game was decided on turn 5.

Sounds like your local groups needs to discuss the kind of games they want to play. Don't just complain, you've got the power to improve things.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yes but I can make a list of Ultramarines Tactical Terminators on foot that would be rubbish.
Thematic lists can have big weaknesses, and players should discuss in advance what kind of game they want.

I recently played against Orks using a Primaris army and the game was decided on turn 5.

Sounds like your local groups needs to discuss the kind of games they want to play. Don't just complain, you've got the power to improve things.

We do. Like I said, this is a solved issue. it just never would have been an issue if GW hadn't decided to take a baseball bat to inter-factional balance, which is why I've been complaining about marines.

Now the only problem is you've got a solid 5 or 6 marine players stuck in a situation where they either play each other, play versus competitive opponents who are into a much different style of play than they are, or they don't use their fancy doctrines and such because enough of the casual non-marine players have gotten blown away by them and steer clear.

The list I'm talking about here is basically on "footslogging tactical terminators" tier. He's got tactical terminators, he just deep strikes them because he uses the rules for the stuff he's got. Saying footslogging tactical terminators would be bad is kind of like saying your dark eldar army is too immobile because you choose to not move them during the movement phase.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yes but I can make a list of Ultramarines Tactical Terminators on foot that would be rubbish.
Thematic lists can have big weaknesses,

But how that can be? With all these new thematic rules you have been gushing about, shouldn't the thematic lists be stronger than ever?

Faction theme and list theme are two different things.

 Crimson wrote:
Problem with the faction rules is that they pigeonhole armies and effectively make balancing point costs impossible. Iron Hand vehicles are a perfect example. They're insanely much better than vehicles of other chapters, yet cost same amount of points. Same issue affects many different faction/unit combinations to lesser degree. So either the units are undercosted and thus OP for faction that buffs them or they are overcosted for everyone else. It also means that certain units simply are not worth using for certain factions. All units should be always be worth taking (and preferably not OP) for all factions. Then you can theme your army by your unit choices. If you play Raven Guard, you can tale more Phobos and more scouts, if you play IH you can take more vehicles and techmarines. Or not, it's your choice really.

Also, these supposedly thematic rules are often not so thematic. I don't think infiltrating Centurions are thematic for Raven Guard, it is just stupid. They should be using naturally stealthy units like Phobos. But they don't need to, as their rules allow making anything stealthy! Imperial Fist rules encourage taking multishot heavy weapons such as heavy bolters and assault cannons over actual bunker busters such as lascannons and missile launchers. Abd Iron Hands are now much more better at mobile warfare than the White Scars...

There are alot of SM units that are undercoated with only the codex rules, because they have stat line, liabilities and stratagems that are over the top and when you add the extra factions rules they go to much over the top.
For instance thunderfire hit on 2++, have 72" range, have access to double fire and slow the opponent stratagem, heal itself and can easily get rerolls to 1 to hit and wound, but than you add IH and IF trait on over it.
Eliminators, able to deploy for free everywhere on the map, without any conditions, can shoot LOS, +2 to save when in cover, can target characters, can get +1 to hit and wound, have access to rerolls to 1 to hit and wound, but than you put RG, IH, IF, UM traits and tricks on them.

Eliminators can't set up wherever they want.

Removed - Rule #1 please

Hey guys, kindly stay on topic and stick to rule #1, that is, to be polite to one another. Thanks!

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

 Argive wrote:
And slap on the restrictions on prebattle deployment/scout move. Having 3+ units starting 9" away from you AND THEN moving/acting if you get first turn is absurd...

Apparently my CWE and their web way portal technology & rangers isn't as sneaky as a bunch of dreadnaughts XD

Dear god this please.

I just had no words when my opponent did this to me first time playing against his RG and plonked those damn dreadnoughts 9 " away and move, fired and charged. Felt really... Interactive...

One a bright side at least one of the dreadnoughts had an epic fist fight with a Wraithlord.

You need something in your list which can deploy outside your deployment zone to block this. I realise that Aeldari are short of choices in this regard but 80pts for a huge great Webway Gate of Nope for all those RG tricks could be points well spent. If their tricks are currently costing you more than 80pts in casualties then I'd say that is a good trade. At least it looks real pretty

Looks real pretty is all it's worth... 80pts for one? One wouldn't be enough half the time. In an already expensive army, 80-160 pts is huge... In a competitive setting would you really waste the pts if you take them in case you match up against RG? I understand taking things like night spinners as there is a lot primaris but they can kill other things. But the gate is just very acute tailoring.

Ishagu wrote:Yes but I can make a list of Ultramarines Tactical Terminators on foot that would be rubbish.
Thematic lists can have big weaknesses, and players should discuss in advance what kind of game they want.

I recently played against Orks using a Primaris army and the game was decided on turn 5.

Sounds like your local groups needs to discuss the kind of games they want to play. Don't just complain, you've got the power to improve things.

But doesn't this precisely highlight the problem? You had to come up with a very specific scenario & unit composition and play style to make the faction be bad..

This proves the guys point that in a casual setting if you just slap some units on the table, you will have the advantage over other casual non-marines armies and more often than not be better in some aspects than specialist armies.. You actually have to try to make a bad list which shows the problem no?

I mean I don't actually expect you to agree at this point... When faced with obvious logic you just call people names and tell them to go play something else. If this is the staple of marine players I don't think that attitude will do the game any good. Because you know, people will just go play something else as you want..

The fact is, that as stated by you around 50% of the top 10 GT lists are SM of some variety.. That trickles down massively to the casual setting whether you choose to believe it or not.

He might be listening. His stance has shifted from "Marines are fine if you don't use ITC" to "You should talk to your opponent about the type of game you want to play".

Marines are just an all-around strong Faction right now. Even their weakest Chapters still have an easy time of fielding a competitive army, and their strongest ones can go toe to toe with lists designed specifically to take out Marines.

Unless I make an efficient and considered Astartes list I will struggle most generic army lists.

This idea that I can throw together any combination of units and perform well against any army is rubbish.

There isn't some insane gap in power on a unit by unit basis across all the chapters compared to every other faction. People need to stop this hysterical exaggeration.

And yet...... reroll everything aura, doctrines/super doctrines benefits every unit in your books.

So you dont see SM placing in half of top 10 lists outside of ITC as an indicator of anything?

 Ishagu wrote:
Faction theme and list theme are two different things.

Part of the problem is that loyalists get so many free buffs that it greatly negates that. Those buffs along with the strong internal balance in their codex and the massive number of units available to them means they have lots of options on how to create lists.

Meanwhile gw wants to give many factions both flavor and power based almost entirely on strategems. So marines can run a variety of detachments without worrying about cp while others are forced into things like double battalions to keep up.

Do I think you could field literally anything and do well against everything you come up against? Of course not. But Marines have an incredibly strong "base" to build on, so they're very forgiving at the low levels and top-notch at the high levels.

And I don't think it's a bad thing for Factions to be this way. So, I'm not really complaining about it. I'm just hoping this is the sort of treatment everyone can expect to receive. And I think that's where most of the complaints come from: the fact that, for now, Marines have this really strong base and forgiving power structure, but no one else does.