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.

Rage about something that’s not even happened yet.
The mystics of dakka have spoken.


Don’t get me wrong, GW and balance don’t go together.
But throwing a preemptive tantrum won’t do a thing.

The sheer amount of times we’ve seen threads like this that just vanish over night once we get all the info speaks for its self.
It’s rare that there’s ever a rant thread that actually comes through (before official rules are out)

Really think GW drip feeding nuggets of info is doing more harm than good, the promise of jam tomorrow is of little comfort if its cold llama vomit soup today

A fair few of the faithful have suggested that a fair few Codexs are more or less good to go, dropping them in short order might be the best choice now

also other games exist some of them have no marines at all

@ CEO Kasen...avatar looks like brian J. mason from bubblegum crisis

I am not boycotting primaris, i use them in epic scale play with index 8th ed rules.

I am however boycotting 9th edition, just like i did 6th. a bad edition is a bad edition, better to play one i enjoy.

 aphyon wrote:
@ CEO Kasen...avatar looks like brian J. mason from bubblegum crisis

I am not boycotting primaris, i use them in epic scale play with index 8th ed rules.

I am however boycotting 9th edition, just like i did 6th. a bad edition is a bad edition, better to play one i enjoy.

little early to declare 9th edition a "bad edition"

Boycott, no. But I play other games, and have seen 40k just have players not bother to ever turn up.

If there are issues, then GW should be made aware.
But it’s very similar to players not wanting to play tournament lists, it’s just sucks if you find out after all the work is put in that no one wants to play you.
Before all these issues, WAAC was thrown around so much. Now it’s marines in top that seems to be fading away a lot ;-)

I don't play competitively, and thus don't feel compelled to play someone I don't know. As it stands I'm not particularly interested in playing (even if it were possible) against marine armies and won't do so unless it is an toned down list.

The "wait and see....we don't have the full picture of GW's genius" arguments are hilarious.

 harlokin wrote:
I don't play competitively, and thus don't feel compelled to play someone I don't know. As it stands I'm not particularly interested in playing (even if it were possible) against marine armies and won't do so unless it is an toned down list.

The "wait and see....we don't have the full picture of GW's genius" arguments are hilarious.

Well if you aren't going to wait and see, do tac squads definitely have 2 wounds in the 9th codex? If so what points are they? What do doctrines do now? Have they retained bolter discipline and shock assault? Are the points the same for other units?

None of those unknowns will change peoples opinion of their respective power or anything.

Dudeface wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I don't play competitively, and thus don't feel compelled to play someone I don't know. As it stands I'm not particularly interested in playing (even if it were possible) against marine armies and won't do so unless it is an toned down list.

The "wait and see....we don't have the full picture of GW's genius" arguments are hilarious.

Well if you aren't going to wait and see, do tac squads definitely have 2 wounds in the 9th codex? If so what points are they? What do doctrines do now? Have they retained bolter discipline and shock assault? Are the points the same for other units?

None of those unknowns will change peoples opinion of their respective power or anything.

I don't really care. I wasn't playing against marines much before, and unless they get hit with a nerf nuke, that situation for me isn't changing.

Marines are not an issue currently. At least, not one big enough.

Should they get the updated wound/damage treatment while all the other factions have to wait for their codex... wow that would be big and there would be no reason to play with them (barring some point cost changes obviously).

Yes, tell those GK players that went through 6th, 7th and 8th ed, that now when they army is actualy fun to play with, they should go out and either buy an orc or necron army, or they will never find anyone who wants to play them.

I wonder if in the future any other faction gets OP rules, the cries for ban of playing are going to come from those players that now call for a space marine boycott.

I have a feeling it may not happen, because I really can't remember Eldar soup players asking for Ynarri being baned from playing. Same with tau players and their shield drone armies. And if in any prior editions necron, tyranids or orcs were good, their players didn't ask for the boycott of their own armies too.

Thankfuly the number of marine players is large enough for marines to play against each other. And the platohora of rules makes it so, you don't play a mirror match every time.

 harlokin wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I don't play competitively, and thus don't feel compelled to play someone I don't know. As it stands I'm not particularly interested in playing (even if it were possible) against marine armies and won't do so unless it is an toned down list.

The "wait and see....we don't have the full picture of GW's genius" arguments are hilarious.

Well if you aren't going to wait and see, do tac squads definitely have 2 wounds in the 9th codex? If so what points are they? What do doctrines do now? Have they retained bolter discipline and shock assault? Are the points the same for other units?

None of those unknowns will change peoples opinion of their respective power or anything.

I don't really care. I wasn't playing against marines much before, and unless they get hit with a nerf nuke, that situation for me isn't changing.

I've tried re-writing this 6 times and failed each time to not sounds a little short so I decided to not bother trying - that's an extremely arrogant view you have. Assuming an army you don't play against is too strong and you want it gutting before you'd even consider playing against it, despite clearly not knowing if it was too strong because you won't even try. It's not like it's impossible to write a crap marine list.

This is the most embarrassing thread I've seen on Dakka in awhile, and that really is saying something.

 blood reaper wrote:
This is the most embarrassing thread I've seen on Dakka in awhile, and that really is saying something.

Progressively day after day I wonder what the point is, I get bored between tasks and meetings at work so drop on here but I'm starting to think I have a masochism issue forming simply because I'm enjoying this weird childish mob mentality forming and screeching into the heavens about space marines now.

Yet again, people say they're sick of Marines or whatever, even despite being Marine players. However if you ask these people if they're going to be buying the new models, 9 times out of 10 the answer will be "Of course."

Pointless thread.

A lot of this thread reminds me of the players who refused to move on from 5th, but played stuff like mech guard while complaining about the newer editions they hadn't even tried.

BrianDavion wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
@ CEO Kasen...avatar looks like brian J. mason from bubblegum crisis

I am not boycotting primaris, i use them in epic scale play with index 8th ed rules.

I am however boycotting 9th edition, just like i did 6th. a bad edition is a bad edition, better to play one i enjoy.

little early to declare 9th edition a "bad edition"

Not at all, i can read the new editions rules

It only took a couple weeks to realize how bad 6th was and shelve my 40K stuff for other games, fortunately that edition was so bad GW killed it after 14 months.
I have 20 years of experience with 40K and i also play 9 other systems when it comes to table top so i can see all sorts of rule sets that are good/bad and different.

when it comes to 40K I am a lore/casual player who enjoys playing the game more than just winning the game. i want my games to reflect what the armies should do in the universe
things are bad to me when they:

.re-design the game via imput from tourney players
.have a terrible scoring system
.have a terrible terrain system
.have terrible table size "minimums" to try and force people to buy their tiles.
.retain stratagem spam
.rely on CP to do things that should be inbuilt rules for a faction/unit
.re-fix things that were already fixed in previous editions because they decided on a complete redesign in 8th.
.push primaris endlessly

Among other things,

I can look at it and say-yes it is a bad edition, i'll just be over here with my FLGS group playing 5th ed with some house rules, or infinity, or DUST, or warmachine, or battletech, or victory at sea, or battlefleet gothic, or B5 wars.....well you get the picture.

Not quite sure why the thread generates so much upset.

People did start to boycott Eldar in 7th. (And to a degree Space Marines+Tau).
Mostly this just meant fewer people turning up at the FLGS, or playing 40k in general, because when you know 1 in 3 players are going to be running a wraithknight and scat bikes, another 30-40%~ riptide wings/free razorbacks or superfriends, every game starts to be much the same, and goes to the same conclusion.

I think 8th has been much better - because while the forums focus on meta death lists, most of these before Marines 2.0 were soups, that are not natural/normal combos that turn up amongst normal friendly players. The average player didn't own a guard army+castellan+2-3 smash captains and 15 scouts. They didn't want to own it either, just to win some friendly games. Same with tri-faction Eldar soups. The most common toppish meta build I saw was trip-tide, because almost every Tau player had 2-3 riptides if they'd been playing Tau for any significant period of time, and picking up one more wasn't a huge evolution over years.

The fact *you can still play* is irrelevant. Yes, you could play Chaos Daemons in 7th Ed Fantasy. You could play Skaven in the edition they broke. But after a few times of getting creamed, whats the point?
Now you might say "no, just march back into the guns! You quitter, You weakling" - but its a two player game about two players having fun.

In fact bringing up Fantasy is a bit weird - because most tournaments towards the end explicitly did start saying *Faction X? You get an extra 100-200 points* - because the armies available in 8th edition fantasy were so obviously tiered that it became near pointless to play otherwise.

If you are a better player, and its Timmy's first Primaris with all the Reivers (assuming they don't get 3 wounds 6 attacks at AP-3 2 damage because chain power knives) - sure. But the issue with Marines 2.0 is it made "just bring 30+ Intercessors and some shooty stuff" significantly superior to most factions non-meta lists. If Marines 3.0 are even worse, then yes, the salt is going to flow and people will just say "screw you all, I'm going home". Saying "haha, loser, whiner, haha" won't change that.

Dudeface wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I don't play competitively, and thus don't feel compelled to play someone I don't know. As it stands I'm not particularly interested in playing (even if it were possible) against marine armies and won't do so unless it is an toned down list.

The "wait and see....we don't have the full picture of GW's genius" arguments are hilarious.

Well if you aren't going to wait and see, do tac squads definitely have 2 wounds in the 9th codex? If so what points are they? What do doctrines do now? Have they retained bolter discipline and shock assault? Are the points the same for other units?

None of those unknowns will change peoples opinion of their respective power or anything.

I don't really care. I wasn't playing against marines much before, and unless they get hit with a nerf nuke, that situation for me isn't changing.

I've tried re-writing this 6 times and failed each time to not sounds a little short so I decided to not bother trying - that's an extremely arrogant view you have. Assuming an army you don't play against is too strong and you want it gutting before you'd even consider playing against it, despite clearly not knowing if it was too strong because you won't even try. It's not like it's impossible to write a crap marine list.

It's not arrogance, it's being well-informed on the current state of the rules. This thread wouldn't exist if there wasn't at least the semblance of an issue.

I didn't play against Alaitoc flyer spam either.

Spoletta wrote:
Marines are not an issue currently. At least, not one big enough.

Should they get the updated wound/damage treatment while all the other factions have to wait for their codex... wow that would be big and there would be no reason to play with them (barring some point cost changes obviously).

While I agree that "more wounds, better wargear but no other adjustments" would imbalance the game greatly until everybody got their update, I would try it out first with giving +1W to all models to see how it feels.

The prevalence of Marines amplifies any balance issues (perceived or actual) that people have.

Taudar was stupid in 7th, and it did stop people playing the game and push people out of the hobby, but Eldar and Tau are a tiny fraction of the playerbase total. Even before Marines 2.0, the majority of your games would still have been vs Marines and you were probably already sick of them then. Not because they were strong, but because they were all you ended up playing and they were just not very interesting to play against. Towards the middle of 8th Marine players couldn't pay people to play them in my local area, because people were just so bored of the army, and this was before the updated codex. This is what makes Marines a very real issue for the health of the game, despite most Marine lists not being as broken as old-Ynnari or despite armies like Custodes and Harlies looking stronger competitively (no matter what Dakka likes to whine about).

Like, I'm all for people collecting what they wanna collect and I am comfortable in my ability to win games vs Marine armies, especially as Custodes give me the real fear as an Eldar player right now. But even if the 9th Codex comes out and brings Marines back into line I'm not in a huge rush to go out and get games in vs the army. I'm totally bored of playing them, they're overdone and even if the rules get nerfed, the fact that even Tac Marines get about 12 special rules all stacked and benefiting each other just feels bad to play against, even if the actual power of the unit itself isn't oppressive.

And yeah, this applies to non-Primaris units too. You aren't a heroic martyr slumming it with the Xenos-plebs because you use Tactical Marines. Everything I said above about being boring and overdone applies and it applies doubly so. None of this is a Primaris specific issue and it didn't start in 2017. This has been an issue for a while now, but like I've said before it's pointless for you to call for boycotts or call for a more diverse release schedule if you're just going go out and buy all the new Marine units. Because you will go out and do that, no matter what you post on dakka, facebook or youtube. How can you not? The army you love is getting cool new models and rules, so of course you want to paint and use them, nobody can begrudge you for that.

 Bosskelot wrote:
The prevalence of Marines amplifies any balance issues (perceived or actual) that people have. .

Excellent point. Thanks.

 harlokin wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I don't play competitively, and thus don't feel compelled to play someone I don't know. As it stands I'm not particularly interested in playing (even if it were possible) against marine armies and won't do so unless it is an toned down list.

The "wait and see....we don't have the full picture of GW's genius" arguments are hilarious.

Well if you aren't going to wait and see, do tac squads definitely have 2 wounds in the 9th codex? If so what points are they? What do doctrines do now? Have they retained bolter discipline and shock assault? Are the points the same for other units?

None of those unknowns will change peoples opinion of their respective power or anything.

I don't really care. I wasn't playing against marines much before, and unless they get hit with a nerf nuke, that situation for me isn't changing.

I've tried re-writing this 6 times and failed each time to not sounds a little short so I decided to not bother trying - that's an extremely arrogant view you have. Assuming an army you don't play against is too strong and you want it gutting before you'd even consider playing against it, despite clearly not knowing if it was too strong because you won't even try. It's not like it's impossible to write a crap marine list.

It's not arrogance, it's being well-informed on the current state of the rules. This thread wouldn't exist if there wasn't at least the semblance of an issue.

I didn't play against Alaitoc flyer spam either.

You're basing your judgements of your opponents list on solely your assumption and other players results. It is arrogant to write off another players marine list without at least looking at it or trying to play against it first on the grounds you know better.

Dudeface wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I don't play competitively, and thus don't feel compelled to play someone I don't know. As it stands I'm not particularly interested in playing (even if it were possible) against marine armies and won't do so unless it is an toned down list.

The "wait and see....we don't have the full picture of GW's genius" arguments are hilarious.

Well if you aren't going to wait and see, do tac squads definitely have 2 wounds in the 9th codex? If so what points are they? What do doctrines do now? Have they retained bolter discipline and shock assault? Are the points the same for other units?

None of those unknowns will change peoples opinion of their respective power or anything.

I don't really care. I wasn't playing against marines much before, and unless they get hit with a nerf nuke, that situation for me isn't changing.

I've tried re-writing this 6 times and failed each time to not sounds a little short so I decided to not bother trying - that's an extremely arrogant view you have. Assuming an army you don't play against is too strong and you want it gutting before you'd even consider playing against it, despite clearly not knowing if it was too strong because you won't even try. It's not like it's impossible to write a crap marine list.

It's not arrogance, it's being well-informed on the current state of the rules. This thread wouldn't exist if there wasn't at least the semblance of an issue.

I didn't play against Alaitoc flyer spam either.

You're basing your judgements of your opponents list on solely your assumption and other players results. It is arrogant to write off another players marine list without at least looking at it or trying to play against it first on the grounds you know better.

I'm not, and it's not. You are talking out of your hat.

All in all I've never "boycotted" an army, just refused to play against certain lists or armies when, after a few games against them, it's been settled I'll never have fun. It happened in 8th when I played against a Nurgle army with 60 unkillable Plaguebearers, after two games I said stop, even if the player is great fun it's just frustrating killing three models all game. Same when the best player at my store looks for a game I don't sign up anymore because he's purely playing for competitive purposes and his lists are never fun to face as they're always some different flavour of cheese. Haven't played against Marines since their codex 2.0 and all supplements that made a particular 2v2 game an atrocious slog that I'd rather never do again in my life.

Manous wrote:
Hey Folks,

Many of the frequent customers in my local gaming store are already boycotting games against (Primaris) Space Marines or are planning to do so in the near future especially under consideration of the new leaks.

Others are enforcing artificial restraints (2000pts game, marines get only 1750). Is my area an exception or are we going to see this modus operandi being more and more acceptable?

No, I'm not a douchebag.

 Aaranis wrote:
All in all I've never "boycotted" an army, just refused to play against certain lists or armies when, after a few games against them, it's been settled I'll never have fun. It happened in 8th when I played against a Nurgle army with 60 unkillable Plaguebearers, after two games I said stop, even if the player is great fun it's just frustrating killing three models all game. Same when the best player at my store looks for a game I don't sign up anymore because he's purely playing for competitive purposes and his lists are never fun to face as they're always some different flavour of cheese. Haven't played against Marines since their codex 2.0 and all supplements that made a particular 2v2 game an atrocious slog that I'd rather never do again in my life.

Similar experience, but for me it depends on what i bring vs what is brought:
I play atm 2 armies, Renegades and heretics aswell as CSM.
1 CSM army is a mass tac list, it's designed to be a bit of a punching bag with 60 + marine bodies and a slew of elite csm units. It's there for the joke so to speak so if i field it i don't really care particulary either way.
The other CSM army was built around a ghost theme (heh that one went bad really quickly in 9th ) And with that i felt confident enough to play against semi comp primaris at an somewhat equal pike length level. it was still a matchup in favour of Marines don't get me wrong but so long i have a 35% chance of a win i don't complain.

With my renegades though, oof, i don't even need to show up if any kind of marine shows up, even GK. Doesn't matter in the slightest, i can't do jack with the rules of the faction and whilest i still can field a skew list or the other to have a fighting chance against alot of factions, marines just throw that out the window.the later part is especially depressing to me, mostly because in the same time Marines got a gakton of re-releases to primaris everything and their aunt, that faction got ignored, and in a way i feel bad about marine players too, because there is not one actual decent leutnant kit with the options for it, but a bunch of monopose mono equipment ones.

It 's also funny a friend of mine loves his IH to bits, at the day the supplement released we went to the store, he took one look at the book, started laughing put it back.

The problem, in my view, is that GW seem compelled to release new models supported by buffed stats or rules as an incentive to buy them. This could resolve a weakness but can create over powered unit. As SM get more new releases than every other army it seems obvious that there will be a significant imbalance in the favour of SM.

The new primaris models are largely very very nice, better than most of the old marine models. I think people would have bought them if they had the same stat line are old marines.

Whatever people complain about sales just keep going up, look at indomitus.

If you don’t think your non SM army can compete with SM then I don’t see it being wrong if you choose not to play against them but a boycott? That is never going to happen because people are buying loads of new SM models that they will want to use

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Manous wrote:
Hey Folks,

Many of the frequent customers in my local gaming store are already boycotting games against (Primaris) Space Marines or are planning to do so in the near future especially under consideration of the new leaks.

Others are enforcing artificial restraints (2000pts game, marines get only 1750). Is my area an exception or are we going to see this modus operandi being more and more acceptable?

No, I'm not a douchebag.

I wouldn't say it's a douchebag move - if the consensus within a group is that a faction (or factions) aren't fun to play against, they can take houserule steps to ensure they're enjoying their games.

I would say that doing so before the book comes out is a little hasty, as these instruction sheets only provide a partial picture, and stat changes from them shouldn't be being used with the current book (and current points values from the MFM).

Of course, if these rebalancing efforts are coming out because of SM8.5 + supplements + PA content, then that's more reasonable.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Nope. The fact that they are releasing more "Medieval" "Gothic" looking marines again and changing all marine stats (allegedly) to add wounds/attacks actually has me interested in Marines again after they killed my interest with Primaris initially.

Look man, you're fighting an avalanche with a snow shovel. You gotta know when to pick your battles and this ain't one of them. I get it, GW has pissed me off more times than I can count in the 20+ years I've been playing. Hell, I still play 8th edition Fantasy because it's my favourite game. Don't waste your time fighting against something you can't win, concentrate your efforts into building something of your own.

Great to see another person who loves 8th ed Fantasy! I still play every chance I can. Can't boycott playing Marines (not that I'd ever want to boycott them) since my Army is Primaris Ultramarines. Old Marines have been retired to a display case, GKs as well. I also have Custodes but not enough to play them as their own army.

 harlokin wrote:
I don't play competitively, and thus don't feel compelled to play someone I don't know. As it stands I'm not particularly interested in playing (even if it were possible) against marine armies and won't do so unless it is an toned down list.

The "wait and see....we don't have the full picture of GW's genius" arguments are hilarious.

Adding additional words that don’t exist to prove a point are useless.
No one said GW are a genius, they just said wait to see what happens when we have actual rules in front of us.

What is hilarious though is someone basing their entire point of view on speculation and rumours and nothing more.


If that were the case, squats would be back, plastic sisters would have been here years ago, a plastic thunderhawk would be released in several variations.


The only people that know the actual facts aren’t saying anything.
But if your crystal ball says other wise then by all means, crack on with half cocked assumptions.