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.

Marines should be good at everything, but they should also be great at nothing. I long time ago marines used to be able to out shoot melee and out punch ranged armies and thats where they sat.

today marines do everything at the A or S tier, Marines should be a B tier all around army. that would give you more design space to have armies that may be A or S tier in 1 or 2 things and C to F tier in others.

its ok for an army to be well rounded, have no weaknesses but no real strengths either, its not ok to have a faction with all strengths and no weaknesses.

its also ok to have a faction have an inherent weakness to another faction, in a giant game of rock paper scissors, but there should never be a faction that is the nuclear bomb of rock paper scissors.

Space marines are like that Empath that have no personality of their own but feeds off and mimics the personality of others, to such a degree that they now have every armies personality to themselves while those armies have lost their own identities.

If Marines were a B tier all around army I don't see them as being as popular. People love them their busted.

GW knows this as well it would seem. Thats why they keep their cash cow in the A tier.

 auticus wrote:
If Marines were a B tier all around army I don't see them as being as popular. People love them their busted.

GW knows this as well it would seem. Thats why they keep their cash cow in the A tier.

Only took them from 3rd to end of 8th edition to figure that out, huh?

a_typical_hero wrote:

 auticus wrote:
If Marines were a B tier all around army I don't see them as being as popular. People love them their busted.

GW knows this as well it would seem. Thats why they keep their cash cow in the A tier.

Only took them from 3rd to end of 8th edition to figure that out, huh?

Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.

Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...

I cannot imagine owning a space marine army and not feeling incredibly embarrassed by that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.

Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...

3rd - Blood Angel Rhino Rush was a good list, but I would argue it was still below Chaos 3.5 and Eldar Star Cannon spam.
4th - Some fun with rending Assault cannons, but far from top tier
5th - Vanilla middle of the road. Wolves and BA were good, but so were Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Imperial Guard. Everybody who got a Codex had fun and flavourful rules. The general internet consensus hates Matt Ward, but I would take a Codex written by him any day compared to whoever comitted the crime of 4th edition CSM
6th - Meh?
7th - Meh? Outside of Skyhammer Assault and Decurion nothing noteworthy.
8th - Meh until 2.0

This looks more like the usual "sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss" with the rules that GW is known for to do with EVERY faction.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
I cannot imagine owning a space marine army and not feeling incredibly embarrassed by that.

Good for you, I guess?

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.

Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...

3rd - Blood Angel Rhino Rush was a good list, but I would argue it was still below Chaos 3.5 and Eldar Star Cannon spam.
4th - Some fun with rending Assault cannons, but far from top tier
5th - Vanilla middle of the road. Wolves and BA were good, but so were Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Imperial Guard. Everybody who got a Codex had fun and flavourful rules. The general internet consensus hates Matt Ward, but I would take a Codex written by him any day compared to whoever comitted the crime of 4th edition CSM
6th - Meh?
7th - Meh? Outside of Skyhammer Assault and Decurion nothing noteworthy.
8th - Meh until 2.0

This looks more like the usual "sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss" with the rules that GW is known for to do with EVERY faction.

With some rephrasing you get:
3rd: Space Marines are among the best (Rhino Rush is remembered to this day)
4th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (4th was a good edition)
5th: Space Marines are among the best (yay SW and GK and BA)
6th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (just 5th with some updates)
7th: Space Marines are among the best (yay formations)
8th: Space Marines are among the best (yay 2.0)

SM have never actually been bad. Like, Inquisition bad, or pre 5th Dark Eldar bad

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.

Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...

3rd - Blood Angel Rhino Rush was a good list, but I would argue it was still below Chaos 3.5 and Eldar Star Cannon spam.
4th - Some fun with rending Assault cannons, but far from top tier
5th - Vanilla middle of the road. Wolves and BA were good, but so were Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Imperial Guard. Everybody who got a Codex had fun and flavourful rules. The general internet consensus hates Matt Ward, but I would take a Codex written by him any day compared to whoever comitted the crime of 4th edition CSM
6th - Meh?
7th - Meh? Outside of Skyhammer Assault and Decurion nothing noteworthy.
8th - Meh until 2.0

This looks more like the usual "sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss" with the rules that GW is known for to do with EVERY faction.

With some rephrasing you get:
3rd: Space Marines are among the best (Rhino Rush is remembered to this day)
4th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (4th was a good edition)
5th: Space Marines are among the best (yay SW and GK and BA)
6th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (just 5th with some updates)
7th: Space Marines are among the best (yay formations)
8th: Space Marines are among the best (yay 2.0)

SM have never actually been bad. Like, Inquisition bad, or pre 5th Dark Eldar bad

You could say they've had an average past of being "ok" hardly the OP steering force of 40k some people claim.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.

Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...

3rd - Blood Angel Rhino Rush was a good list, but I would argue it was still below Chaos 3.5 and Eldar Star Cannon spam.
4th - Some fun with rending Assault cannons, but far from top tier
5th - Vanilla middle of the road. Wolves and BA were good, but so were Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Imperial Guard. Everybody who got a Codex had fun and flavourful rules. The general internet consensus hates Matt Ward, but I would take a Codex written by him any day compared to whoever comitted the crime of 4th edition CSM
6th - Meh?
7th - Meh? Outside of Skyhammer Assault and Decurion nothing noteworthy.
8th - Meh until 2.0

This looks more like the usual "sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss" with the rules that GW is known for to do with EVERY faction.

With some rephrasing you get:
3rd: Space Marines are among the best (Rhino Rush is remembered to this day)
4th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (4th was a good edition)
5th: Space Marines are among the best (yay SW and GK and BA)
6th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (just 5th with some updates)
7th: Space Marines are among the best (yay formations)
8th: Space Marines are among the best (yay 2.0)

SM have never actually been bad. Like, Inquisition bad, or pre 5th Dark Eldar bad

You could say they've had an average past of being "ok" hardly the OP steering force of 40k some people claim.

*squints*
2/6 editions: average
4/6 editions: among the best

yeah, sure, they were "just okay" (while on average being among the best). I wish my armies were "just okay" if that means being top tier 66% of the time, lmao.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Depending which marine you talk about, of course. There's usually a Marine codex on top (e.g. Space Wolves for a good long while in 5th, yay Jaws of the World Wolf) and to Xenos, the fact that they're a separate book than the other exactly-the-same-but-somehow-different armies dissolves a bit in the wash. It's still tactical marines (with beards this time!), devastator marines (with fangs this time!), Space Marine Librarians (but "not psychic we swear" this time!), Space Marine Captains (but with ... well it really is just a different captain), Space Marine Lieutenants (who instead of being leaders of battle are Battle Leaders!) and Space Marine Dreadnoughts, which are just dreadnoughts.

Like sure, they have wolves and wulfen, but to me or another player who doesn't play Marines? It's just Bikes with an excuse for an extra wound and Rending. Wulfen are just Vanguard Veterans with 50 special rules tacked on, but no jump pack. The flyers are just storm ravens with frostylaserwolfguns...

3rd - Blood Angel Rhino Rush was a good list, but I would argue it was still below Chaos 3.5 and Eldar Star Cannon spam.
4th - Some fun with rending Assault cannons, but far from top tier
5th - Vanilla middle of the road. Wolves and BA were good, but so were Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Imperial Guard. Everybody who got a Codex had fun and flavourful rules. The general internet consensus hates Matt Ward, but I would take a Codex written by him any day compared to whoever comitted the crime of 4th edition CSM
6th - Meh?
7th - Meh? Outside of Skyhammer Assault and Decurion nothing noteworthy.
8th - Meh until 2.0

This looks more like the usual "sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss" with the rules that GW is known for to do with EVERY faction.

With some rephrasing you get:
3rd: Space Marines are among the best (Rhino Rush is remembered to this day)
4th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (4th was a good edition)
5th: Space Marines are among the best (yay SW and GK and BA)
6th: Space Marines fit in with everyone else (just 5th with some updates)
7th: Space Marines are among the best (yay formations)
8th: Space Marines are among the best (yay 2.0)

SM have never actually been bad. Like, Inquisition bad, or pre 5th Dark Eldar bad

You could say they've had an average past of being "ok" hardly the OP steering force of 40k some people claim.

*squints*
2/6 editions: average
4/6 editions: among the best

yeah, sure, they were "just okay" (while on average being among the best). I wish my armies were "just okay" if that means being top tier 66% of the time, lmao.

Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.

Dudeface wrote:
Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s

Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)

I'm not denying that they had strong builds in the past editions and fair enough with the rewording.

Since we agree on what parts of Marines were good over the editions, it never was the complete range where you could take any unit from the dex and end up with a strong list as it is since 2.0.

Past editions had single tricks like formations or single sub-factions. For me this is not supporting the initial statement of

 auticus wrote:
If Marines were a B tier all around army I don't see them as being as popular. People love them their busted.

GW knows this as well it would seem. Thats why they keep their cash cow in the A tier.

Especially since Marines have been popular back then. Tac squad outselling the whole Fantasy range and such stuff.

Are they more popular with stronger rules? Most likely.
Do they need strong rules to be a cash cow? I would say no.

Fundamentally, the problem with Marines in earlier editions was the:

<Sometime in the depths of 5th edition>
"What chapter do you play?"
"The Emperor's Toothbrushes chapter, it's homebrew. Right now I am using Space Wolves."
~fast forward noise~
<Sometime in late 7th edition>
"What chapter do you play?"
"The Emperor's Toothbrushes chapter, it's homebrew. Right now I'm using Codex Marines with the Gladius formation."

That's why I fold them together. Because as a not-Marine player, they all disappear in a haze of homebrew armies, nonstandard paintschemes, and rules floppery.

And since there was basically never a time when they were not strong (i.e. Inquistion not strong, or pre-5th necrons not strong, or 7th Edition Sisters of Battle not strong), then of course they sold fine.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s

Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)

No I think you've hit the nail on the head, despite having separate books and range refreshed at different points/different editions, some players refused to view them a unique entities. Your definition of a marine codex is too broad. Even now the meta isn't blood angels, dark angels or wolves doing well it's codex marines 2.0 that was the problem.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s

Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)

Well if you pick examples like that then yes. But what is the difference between an annoying eldar and annoying tau list? Or slanesh demons and khorn demons?

On the other hand GK and marines have some weapons in common, and even those often worked or work different.

Also there is a huge difference between a faction being good and nice to play with, when majority of people play them, then when some fringe faction like eldar makes it unfun for majority of players. I haven't played in 6th or 7th, but from what I have been told everything bad that come in those edition came from the fact that GW made eldar rule, so crazy that they almost killed the game, and the only way for marines to come in even close to eldar in power is to be given hundreds of free point.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s

Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)

No I think you've hit the nail on the head, despite having separate books and range refreshed at different points/different editions, some players refused to view them a unique entities. Your definition of a marine codex is too broad. Even now the meta isn't blood angels, dark angels or wolves doing well it's codex marines 2.0 that was the problem.

It's not that I refuse to view them as unique entities. It's that GW themselves doesn't do a good job of making them unique. The primary difference between DA, BA, and other SM is armor color. The major difference between SW and those 3 is armor color and fur. The major difference between GK and those 4 is wargear options and psykers.

GK is about as distinct as the SM would have to get in look, playstyle, etc. before I start to really be able to distinguish. Because they're the only faction that I can't just say "My Emperor's Toothbrushes are <best rules this edition> Space Marines"

Karol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s

Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)

Well if you pick examples like that then yes. But what is the difference between an annoying eldar and annoying tau list? Or slanesh demons and khorn demons?

On the other hand GK and marines have some weapons in common, and even those often worked or work different.

Also there is a huge difference between a faction being good and nice to play with, when majority of people play them, then when some fringe faction like eldar makes it unfun for majority of players. I haven't played in 6th or 7th, but from what I have been told everything bad that come in those edition came from the fact that GW made eldar rule, so crazy that they almost killed the game, and the only way for marines to come in even close to eldar in power is to be given hundreds of free point.

Whilst you're not wrong, don't forget that they were a top tier army still because they had hundred of points of free razorbacks!

I write that sarcastically... yet the truth in it hurts on multiple levels.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
I cannot imagine owning a space marine army and not feeling incredibly embarrassed by that.

I cannot imagine feeling embarrassed over owning something I like.

But then I don't have the mindset of a teenager either.

Karol wrote:

Well if you pick examples like that then yes. But what is the difference between an annoying eldar and annoying tau list? Or slanesh demons and khorn demons?

On the other hand GK and marines have some weapons in common, and even those often worked or work different.

Also there is a huge difference between a faction being good and nice to play with, when majority of people play them, then when some fringe faction like eldar makes it unfun for majority of players. I haven't played in 6th or 7th, but from what I have been told everything bad that come in those edition came from the fact that GW made eldar rule, so crazy that they almost killed the game, and the only way for marines to come in even close to eldar in power is to be given hundreds of free point.

I didn't pick those examples, lol. That's rather my point. And the difference between an annoying Eldar list and an annoying Tau list is freaking huge. Eldar look different, play different, are OP in different ways - I mean hell, the Tau were OP with gigantic stompy robots while the Eldar were OP with tiny flying motorcycles. Why is that even a question? Of course they're different.

Your last argument boils down to "marines should be OP because many people play them" which is just... . No faction should be OP regardless of players. And you're right, it took SM hundreds of free points to match Eldar power in late 7th.

Do you know what Space Marines got in late 7th? wow hundreds of free points so they could match eldar, who could've suspected!?
Do you know what other armies got in late 7th? nothing to match the Eldar, that's for damn sure

Funny how, when an army is unexpectedly overperforming, the first and last army to receive buffs to match them is Space Marines...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s

Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)

No I think you've hit the nail on the head, despite having separate books and range refreshed at different points/different editions, some players refused to view them a unique entities. Your definition of a marine codex is too broad. Even now the meta isn't blood angels, dark angels or wolves doing well it's codex marines 2.0 that was the problem.

It's not that I refuse to view them as unique entities. It's that GW themselves doesn't do a good job of making them unique. The primary difference between DA, BA, and other SM is armor color. The major difference between SW and those 3 is armor color and fur. The major difference between GK and those 4 is wargear options and psykers.

GK is about as distinct as the SM would have to get in look, playstyle, etc. before I start to really be able to distinguish. Because they're the only faction that I can't just say "My Emperor's Toothbrushes are <best rules this edition> Space Marines"

Then the issue here is subjective and as you mentioned in another thread, better not to hinge on subjective discourse.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s

Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)

No I think you've hit the nail on the head, despite having separate books and range refreshed at different points/different editions, some players refused to view them a unique entities. Your definition of a marine codex is too broad. Even now the meta isn't blood angels, dark angels or wolves doing well it's codex marines 2.0 that was the problem.

It's not that I refuse to view them as unique entities. It's that GW themselves doesn't do a good job of making them unique. The primary difference between DA, BA, and other SM is armor color. The major difference between SW and those 3 is armor color and fur. The major difference between GK and those 4 is wargear options and psykers.

GK is about as distinct as the SM would have to get in look, playstyle, etc. before I start to really be able to distinguish. Because they're the only faction that I can't just say "My Emperor's Toothbrushes are <best rules this edition> Space Marines"

Yeah, I'll echo this a hundred times.

In my Daemons Codex, Tzeentch Daemons and Nurgle Daemons are more distinct from each other than Blood Angels and Ultramarines are, for the most part.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well since you're generalising the prior codex (blood angels, space wolves, marines and grey knights) under "marines" if you put daemons, craftworld eldar, tau, knights/admech under "other" then other has 100% uptime of being a top tier army.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. /s

Space Wolves are to Space Marines as Slaanesh Daemons are to Tau.
....
(and people wonder why Space Marine players sometimes catch flak)

No I think you've hit the nail on the head, despite having separate books and range refreshed at different points/different editions, some players refused to view them a unique entities. Your definition of a marine codex is too broad. Even now the meta isn't blood angels, dark angels or wolves doing well it's codex marines 2.0 that was the problem.

It's not that I refuse to view them as unique entities. It's that GW themselves doesn't do a good job of making them unique. The primary difference between DA, BA, and other SM is armor color. The major difference between SW and those 3 is armor color and fur. The major difference between GK and those 4 is wargear options and psykers.

GK is about as distinct as the SM would have to get in look, playstyle, etc. before I start to really be able to distinguish. Because they're the only faction that I can't just say "My Emperor's Toothbrushes are <best rules this edition> Space Marines"

Yeah, I'll echo this a hundred times.

In my Daemons Codex, Tzeentch Daemons and Nurgle Daemons are more distinct from each other than Blood Angels and Ultramarines are, for the most part.

That's a given to be fair and at least as of October this whole debacle goes away since it will just be "marines + supplement".

Dudeface wrote:
Then the issue here is subjective and as you mentioned in another thread, better not to hinge on subjective discourse.

It's not worth arguing about subjectivity, no, but what I want Marine players to see is that there is a point-of-view held by some (me) in which "Marines are Marines, whether Red, Blue, Green, Light Blue with Beards, etc." so saying "Marines weren't OP this edition because it was Blood Angels who were OP" just makes me go

 warmaster21 wrote:
Marines should be good at everything, but they should also be great at nothing. I long time ago marines used to be able to out shoot melee and out punch ranged armies and thats where they sat.

today marines do everything at the A or S tier, Marines should be a B tier all around army. that would give you more design space to have armies that may be A or S tier in 1 or 2 things and C to F tier in others.

its ok for an army to be well rounded, have no weaknesses but no real strengths either, its not ok to have a faction with all strengths and no weaknesses.

its also ok to have a faction have an inherent weakness to another faction, in a giant game of rock paper scissors, but there should never be a faction that is the nuclear bomb of rock paper scissors.

Space marines are like that Empath that have no personality of their own but feeds off and mimics the personality of others, to such a degree that they now have every armies personality to themselves while those armies have lost their own identities.

All armies should have strengths and weaknesses and the winner of the game should be down skill as a player the luck of the dice. The idea that one army should be better than another or they should be tiered is wrong, we aren’t playing against AI

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Then the issue here is subjective and as you mentioned in another thread, better not to hinge on subjective discourse.

It's not worth arguing about subjectivity, no, but what I want Marine players to see is that there is a point-of-view held by some (me) in which "Marines are Marines, whether Red, Blue, Green, Light Blue with Beards, etc." so saying "Marines weren't OP this edition because it was Blood Angels who were OP, honest" just makes me go

The blood angels player isn't responsible for you expanding your knowledge of other publications and factions though, that's up to you. Branding things you don't understand into a whole and sticking a problem label on it doesn't help.

I think GW are following the same sad route to profit as a lot of video game companies where if you pay more you can better at the game because you get better gear. If you keep buying the new releases they will come with buffed stats, pay to win


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The problem is people also complain about game companies that do that but people still buy the games and the upgrade packs. People like to win

Karol wrote:


Well if you pick examples like that then yes. But what is the difference between an annoying eldar and annoying tau list? Or slanesh demons and khorn demons?

On the other hand GK and marines have some weapons in common, and even those often worked or work different.

Also there is a huge difference between a faction being good and nice to play with, when majority of people play them, then when some fringe faction like eldar makes it unfun for majority of players. I haven't played in 6th or 7th, but from what I have been told everything bad that come in those edition came from the fact that GW made eldar rule, so crazy that they almost killed the game, and the only way for marines to come in even close to eldar in power is to be given hundreds of free point.

Are you really comparing eldar to tau?
Eldar play a highly mobile army that wants to win with board control and positining.
Tau want to play a semi-mobile castle that takes the midfield, tries to table the opponent and win in the later rounds.

They have very different playstyles.

Slaanesh demons and Khorne demons are from the same codex, so i don't get why you're comparing them as if they weren't.

7th got fethed when they introduced formations that gave free units to armies. sure, scatterbikes were a thing for eldar.

I agree that an army being too good makes in unfun to play against it, which is basically what people are saying about space marines.

Dudeface wrote:
The blood angels player isn't responsible for you expanding your knowledge of other publications and factions though, that's up to you. Branding things you don't understand into a whole and sticking a problem label on it doesn't help.

The problem isn't that I don't understand or am not aware. The problem is that understanding and awareness doesn't do much.

Like yes, I get that Thunderwolf guys have +1 wound and Rending over Bikes, who do not. But that's not significantly different enough that I don't just roll my eyes and say "okay, they're bikes with extra flash"
And yeah, I get that Death Company are Black Templars angry marines that wear black, and they're so angry that they become Iron Hands able to shrug off wounds and get an extra attack, but like, that's just Black Templars with an apothecary. It's not different.

I am aware of the differences, and remain unconvinced. It's like if someone tried to argue that the sky was "Azure" and not "Blue". I'm like "sure, buddy...."

Wow, this thread is the worst.