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.

well how you guys talk about gak being OP it sure sounds like like that's what it means.

Which is my point, if anything undercosted is automatically OP, then what is a fair cost then? 150pts, 200, 250? or would different stats make the current price ok? or a limit of 1 unit per army? let's get down to brass tracks, what would it take to make the unit acceptable(to your narrow window)?
how much value do you put in a stat line? what makes adding 10pts(or whatever) all of the sudden OK or 20pts and it's the worst unit in the game?

I don't think they need to change, if they do big deal. y'all just complain about the next slightly less OP unit. AND THE NEXT AND THE NEXT ad infinitum. until it's time to talk about how trash they are and need a points decrease.

Slipspace wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Did one squad ever win the game? or was it spamming that's the issue? im pretty sure there is a huge difference between 1 squad and 6. so how is one squad OP, what makes them sooooo ridiculous? would you rather face 6 squads or just 1? If the possibility of taking 6 squads is the problem, the unit itself isnt OP, the ability to take that many would be the problem, which is a playstyle issue not a unit issue.

So how is the unit by itself OP? it that one single unit gonna win the game for you? they're fething 3 dudes, if 3 dudes win the game by themselves, then it is a unit issue.

If you guys are losing games due to a single unit, I really dont know what to tell you?

A unit is either OP or it isn't. One unit is OP, 3 are much, much worse because when a unit is OP it tends to get increasing returns rather than diminishing returns when you run multiples. I'm sure most armies could probably deal with 1 unit, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are disproportionately good for their points - their offense is absurd for the points they cost and their defense is very good too.

It's not even about losing or winning against 1 or 3 units of them, it's simply about how powerful the unit is compared to its cost. The entire thread explains this, it's genuinely puzzling you don't seem to understand the problem if you've read the whole thing.

Its really simple, Racerguy is a space marine player and he likes his new OP toys.

funny how I dont care if they're good or not(if you had read my post you'd know that). My Bloody Rose & Flawless Host dont care how good they are. My favorite adversary doesnt care how good they are.
The only reason people are complaining about them is in a tourney meta. why should that effect non-tourney metas?

still didnt answer what it would take to make them agreeable to you?

So how about instead of complaining about it, offer some real solutions to the (perceived) problem?

Racerguy180 wrote:
well how you guys talk about gak being OP it sure sounds like like that's what it means.

Which is my point, if anything undercosted is automatically OP, then what is a fair cost then? 150pts, 200, 250? or would different stats make the current price ok? or a limit of 1 unit per army? let's get down to brass tracks, what would it take to make the unit acceptable(to your narrow window)?
how much value do you put in a stat line? what makes adding 10pts(or whatever) all of the sudden OK or 20pts and it's the worst unit in the game?

I don't think they need to change, if they do big deal. y'all just complain about the next slightly less OP unit. AND THE NEXT AND THE NEXT ad infinitum. until it's time to talk about how trash they are and need a points decrease.

Am I misunderstanding, or are you outright dismissing the idea that a unit overperforming for its cost makes it unbalanced, with a side of 'nothing will ever be acceptable to you people'...?

Yeah, I think most people would argue that a higher cost would be fair, different stats (eg eliminating double-shoot) could make the current cost acceptable, and 1-per-army would be a band-aid to limit the collateral damage of an auto-take.

This really isn't super complicated. 50pts per model would make them still a very strong unit; at 60ppm they'd be on similar footing to most anti-tank platforms in the game.

Or just remove double shoot and we're done.

As I've said before, my problem isn't that they're too good.

It's that the closest equivalents my armies have available, are worse in every possible metric, while also being the same cost or more expensive.

Racerguy180 wrote:
funny how I dont care if they're good or not(if you had read my post you'd know that). My Bloody Rose & Flawless Host dont care how good they are. My favorite adversary doesnt care how good they are.
The only reason people are complaining about them is in a tourney meta. why should that effect non-tourney metas?

still didnt answer what it would take to make them agreeable to you?

So how about instead of complaining about it, offer some real solutions to the (perceived) problem?

With the way certain loyalist subfactions can boost them into absurdity? Make them 60 PPM. Get rid of that stuff and 50 PPM might be fair. So you can still take them in your fun, non-competitive lists, you just have to pay a fair price for them. Cool?

Racerguy180 wrote:

First of all, I've played Salamanders since RT and didnt jump on the bandwagon.
Secondly, I havent even been able to play a game(9th or otherwise)w them yet. (oh and by the way, I'd take them if they sucked)
Thirdly, I would have no issue playing w a handicap in points, so if someone wanted to discuss about monoliths being too "expensive", no problem. would 5 extra cp for you be disagreeable? how bout another 120pts for you then? Are they that overpowered if you have more pts/cp? not everything has to be even.

See that's what grownups do, compromise.

Buddy, no one gives a single gak about what you and your group do in a clumsy attempt to make things more fair.

That doesn't excuse GW releasing undercosted and overpowered models, and your apologist nonsense for this multi-million dollar company and attempt to deflect criticisms of poor balance in a thread about balance is, to sanitize my language for the carebears on this site, silly.

I play Custodes (top three army in the game right now), and I'd play Custodes even if they were bad (and did). Who cares?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

It's not even that I dislike the new marine codex. I think it's decent, got a lot of variety, and pretty much all of it is viable. Which is great.

Problem is that every other army doesn't have the same kind of codex. Not even close.

Yeah I agree. Some people will say that power creep is bad for the game, but when almost every codex has huge gaping holes in it that are dogshit and just a few competitively powerful options to skew towards, that isn't something to strive for. It's gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Yes of course, only those elite eldar players with their few rare units should be allowed to win tournaments. Heaven forbid someone buys two or three starter sets and gets a tournament worthy army out of it. How could one even rival the skill levels one had to achive playing a double dipping Inari army or a 6-7 flyers list.

And with majority of people playing marines, it is also the most natural thing for minority played armies to be always the OP ones. Nothing helps the game grow and be fun, then a minority bullying a majority.

Your victim complex is honestly out of this world my man.

No one said that the Eldar codices having OP units they could skew towards was ideal; ideally all units would be perfectly costed for their function and able to fulfill that function when used appropriately.

Your strawmanning bs is ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Did one squad ever win the game? or was it spamming that's the issue? im pretty sure there is a huge difference between 1 squad and 6. so how is one squad OP, what makes them sooooo ridiculous? would you rather face 6 squads or just 1? If the possibility of taking 6 squads is the problem, the unit itself isnt OP, the ability to take that many would be the problem, which is a playstyle issue not a unit issue.

So how is the unit by itself OP? it that one single unit gonna win the game for you? they're fething 3 dudes, if 3 dudes win the game by themselves, then it is a unit issue.

If you guys are losing games due to a single unit, I really dont know what to tell you?

\
People take three because they are so efficiently-costed that there is no reason to take anything else in that slot and no better use of 120 points.

One squad might not be enough to win the game if you then spend 240 points on poo poo doo doo garbage. So you take two or three because there is legitimately no better use of the points most of the time.You max out on them because there is no other unit at least of its function that is most likely to enable you to win the game.

Your insistence that they are only showing up competitively in three groups of three (technically wrong I think some have placed with just two) isn't a refutation of their strength but an affirmation of it.

It's not about just that one unit but about how easily it does its job and slots into that role. A single squad of Eradicators doesn't have the power output of a Knight Castellan obviously. But a Castellan is also twice as expensive as three squads of Eradicators.

It's all about point efficiency, which you seem to have trouble grasping.

 catbarf wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
well how you guys talk about gak being OP it sure sounds like like that's what it means.

Which is my point, if anything undercosted is automatically OP, then what is a fair cost then? 150pts, 200, 250? or would different stats make the current price ok? or a limit of 1 unit per army? let's get down to brass tracks, what would it take to make the unit acceptable(to your narrow window)?
how much value do you put in a stat line? what makes adding 10pts(or whatever) all of the sudden OK or 20pts and it's the worst unit in the game?

I don't think they need to change, if they do big deal. y'all just complain about the next slightly less OP unit. AND THE NEXT AND THE NEXT ad infinitum. until it's time to talk about how trash they are and need a points decrease.

Am I misunderstanding, or are you outright dismissing the idea that a unit overperforming for its cost makes it unbalanced, with a side of 'nothing will ever be acceptable to you people'...?

Yeah, I think most people would argue that a higher cost would be fair, different stats (eg eliminating double-shoot) could make the current cost acceptable, and 1-per-army would be a band-aid to limit the collateral damage of an auto-take.

This really isn't super complicated. 50pts per model would make them still a very strong unit; at 60ppm they'd be on similar footing to most anti-tank platforms in the game.

Or just remove double shoot and we're done.

what makes it overpreform for its cost? what is an appropriate performance level for a given units cost?

Racerguy180 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
well how you guys talk about gak being OP it sure sounds like like that's what it means.

Which is my point, if anything undercosted is automatically OP, then what is a fair cost then? 150pts, 200, 250? or would different stats make the current price ok? or a limit of 1 unit per army? let's get down to brass tracks, what would it take to make the unit acceptable(to your narrow window)?
how much value do you put in a stat line? what makes adding 10pts(or whatever) all of the sudden OK or 20pts and it's the worst unit in the game?

I don't think they need to change, if they do big deal. y'all just complain about the next slightly less OP unit. AND THE NEXT AND THE NEXT ad infinitum. until it's time to talk about how trash they are and need a points decrease.

Am I misunderstanding, or are you outright dismissing the idea that a unit overperforming for its cost makes it unbalanced, with a side of 'nothing will ever be acceptable to you people'...?

Yeah, I think most people would argue that a higher cost would be fair, different stats (eg eliminating double-shoot) could make the current cost acceptable, and 1-per-army would be a band-aid to limit the collateral damage of an auto-take.

This really isn't super complicated. 50pts per model would make them still a very strong unit; at 60ppm they'd be on similar footing to most anti-tank platforms in the game.

Or just remove double shoot and we're done.

what makes it overpreform for its cost? what is an appropriate performance level for a given units cost?

Can you name a single unit that performs a similar role as well as Eradicators, while still accounting for cost?

Because a unit should be balanced both externally (not significantly better or worse than other Codecs' units that fill a similar role) and internally (not significantly better or worse than other units in the same Codex that fill a similar role).

Which is not to say units should be identical-for instance, a glass cannon can be cheaper than a unit like Eradicators, even with the same damage output. Because they take less effort to remove. A Troops unit can be less durable than a similarly pointed Elites unit, because durable ObSec is more valuable than just plain old durable bodies.

Racerguy180 wrote:
what makes it overpreform for its cost?

The fact that its damage output is significantly higher than comparable, similar-cost competitors, without any attendant disadvantages in range, mobility, or durability to offset those capabilities.

As an objective metric: the fact that it regularly shows up in the maximum allowable quantity in tournament lists.

Racerguy180 wrote:
what is an appropriate performance level for a given units cost?

The one that puts it on par with the median performance of the rest of the game.

I can't tell if you're genuinely unfamiliar with Eradicators and game balance or if this is some weird solipsism exercise where we're supposed to all nod our heads and accept that game balance has no meaning.

Racerguy180 wrote:


First of all, I've played Salamanders since RT and didnt jump on the bandwagon.

I feel your pain. I've been playing Ultras since they took 5th place in a 4 horse race during 2nd.

 Ordana wrote:
Take a Space Marine army using only 1 of each unit and play against any other army only take 1 of each unit (ignore troops if you think that changes anything) and tell me how it goes. I bet the Marine player gets to take a lot more 'good' units then whatever they are facing and they will likely handily win because of the plethora of good units in the current Space Marine arsenal compared to everyone else having only a handful in total in their codex.

Now compare the points costs. SM rarely get to take 1 of "everything" (even if "everything" means broad categories/abilities let alone literally one of every unit) in any list.

Question: Would it be reasonable to increase the power/efficiency of similar units in other books and call for a smaller increase (or even no increase) in eradicator points?

Eradicators are quite a bit better than my fire dragons, but I also don't feel that my fire dragons have been especially good at their job for a while now. Similarly, melta chosen, tankbusters, blaster/haywire scourges, etc. seem to generally be considered inefficient these days.

If all those units had their efficiency increased (by either increasing their abilities or lowering their cost) to match the efficiency of eradicators, would the game be better overall? Or are eradicators too good in general for their efficiency to be a desirable goalpost?

TLDR; are eradicators too good, or are they reasonable but also the only melta unit that does its job efficiently?

Racerguy180 wrote:

The only reason people are complaining about them is in a tourney meta. why should that effect non-tourney metas?

Of all the many wrong things you've said in this thread this is probably the most misguided. The problem with OP units extends way beyond top-level tournament play. I'd argue OP units can have a much greater effect on non-competitive metas and groups. If everyone's a cutthroat competitive player then they'll probably acknowledge units are OP while working to formulate a plan to deal with them. In some case units will be so OP that isn't possible and the only options are to take the OP thing yourself (this happened at the last LVO with the winning Iron Hands list) or hope you don't have to face something.

However, in more casual settings, the effect of OP units can be much worse for the game. OP units and Codices make the game miserable for people not using them because they make the game feel unfair if you don't have the counters (and sometimes there are no effective counters if units are extremely OP). The current SM Codex is like that. It's so much better than everything else that pretty much any reasonable army from it is likely to stomp all over an army from another Codex that hasn't been specifically tuned to compete against it. The same applies to units that are OP. In a more casual meta a unit that destroys whatever it points at that is also extremely tough for its cost is disheartening and not fun to play against for most people. This can push newer players away from the hobby if all they're going to do is lose all the time.

I've seen it happen with new players who choose, say, Necrons because they think they look cool and they love the idea of a resilient implacable host of automatons slowly advancing across the board. Their friend starts playing too and he chooses Space Marines. Then every single game, through no real fault of either player, the SM player wins because his Codex is simply massively more powerful than the Necron one. What's quite likely to happen is the Necron player gets disheartened not just at losing all the time but feeling like he has no chance to win at all while also being annoyed that the army doesn't really reflect the background either. In this scenario the SM player having a single unit of Eradicators is not in itself a game-breaking problem because single units rarely are. It is contributing to the overall problem and the only solution to that is for each individually OP unit to be better balanced.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Question: Would it be reasonable to increase the power/efficiency of similar units in other books and call for a smaller increase (or even no increase) in eradicator points?

Eradicators are quite a bit better than my fire dragons, but I also don't feel that my fire dragons have been especially good at their job for a while now. Similarly, melta chosen, tankbusters, blaster/haywire scourges, etc. seem to generally be considered inefficient these days.

If all those units had their efficiency increased (by either increasing their abilities or lowering their cost) to match the efficiency of eradicators, would the game be better overall? Or are eradicators too good in general for their efficiency to be a desirable goalpost?

TLDR; are eradicators too good, or are they reasonable but also the only melta unit that does its job efficiently?

This is a pertinent question, the issue is that the 120 pt unit clears 200+ tanks too well, their defensive profile means they can actually take some punishment as well.

If you start giving fire dragons double tap etc. They're slagging tanks like it's nobodies business assuming they don't get a price hike, but when a unit of 6 fire dragons at w/e they cost start dropping knights reliably we have a disparity again.

The downside to these melta units should be a combination of short range, frailty and that they're wasted against infantry based armies. Eradicators skirt being too good at all of those.

Wyldhunt wrote:

TLDR; are eradicators too good, or are they reasonable but also the only melta unit that does its job efficiently?

Depends on if you like a King of the Mountain Last Man Standing on Turn 4 wins kind of battle, or a lower casualty more about goals, points, scoring etc type things.

Gettysburg was one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War with casualties of about 28%. If you're looking for that kind of "realism" then yeah they're probably over powered.

Or Tanks and vehicles are way way way too expensive. Freeman and Crandall made something like 36 flights between them into Ia Drang. A total of 59 or so Helicopters made who knows how many flights, only 4 were shot down.

In the Second Battle of El Alamein The Allies had 1029 tanks and 1,451 anti-tank guns. while the Axis forces had 547 tanks and 496 anti-tank guns while losing only 500 of them while the Allies lost 332 to 500 tanks. The Axis had more "Land Raiders" and "Eradicators" than the Allies had Predators, and still the Allies still only lost a third to a half of them. Some of that is the Allies had more "Eradicators" alone than the Axis had Land Raiders AND Eradicators, but they still didn't clear the field.

Breton wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

TLDR; are eradicators too good, or are they reasonable but also the only melta unit that does its job efficiently?

Depends on if you like a King of the Mountain Last Man Standing on Turn 4 wins kind of battle, or a lower casualty more about goals, points, scoring etc type things.

Gettysburg was one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War with casualties of about 28%. If you're looking for that kind of "realism" then yeah they're probably over powered.

Or Tanks and vehicles are way way way too expensive. Freeman and Crandall made something like 36 flights between them into Ia Drang. A total of 59 or so Helicopters made who knows how many flights, only 4 were shot down.

In the Second Battle of El Alamein The Allies had 1029 tanks and 1,451 anti-tank guns. while the Axis forces had 547 tanks and 496 anti-tank guns while losing only 500 of them while the Allies lost 332 to 500 tanks. The Axis had more "Land Raiders" and "Eradicators" than the Allies had Predators, and still the Allies still only lost a third to a half of them. Some of that is the Allies had more "Eradicators" alone than the Axis had Land Raiders AND Eradicators, but they still didn't clear the field.

Battles are NOT games are they????

If you are playing a GAME of 40K then most of the time most people use power or points to make sure they have roughly equal forces so they can have a good game.#

IF then you have a unit that its obviuously better than others and its equivalent then it damages the experience.

Its not rocket science and it does not matter if its a Wave Serpent, Riptide or a Eradicator. Overpowered units damage the game.

Again if you two are claiming that balance does not matter then WHY are you worried about changes to a single unit - WHY do you need that unit in your army at the level or power?

 Mr Morden wrote:


Again if you two are claiming that balance does not matter then WHY are you worried about changes to a single unit - WHY do you need that unit in your army at the level or power?

It boggles the mind how often I say things on here I've never said on here.

Breton wrote:
Depends on if you like a King of the Mountain Last Man Standing on Turn 4 wins kind of battle, or a lower casualty more about goals, points, scoring etc type things.

Gettysburg was one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War with casualties of about 28%. If you're looking for that kind of "realism" then yeah they're probably over powered.

Or Tanks and vehicles are way way way too expensive. Freeman and Crandall made something like 36 flights between them into Ia Drang. A total of 59 or so Helicopters made who knows how many flights, only 4 were shot down.

In the Second Battle of El Alamein The Allies had 1029 tanks and 1,451 anti-tank guns. while the Axis forces had 547 tanks and 496 anti-tank guns while losing only 500 of them while the Allies lost 332 to 500 tanks. The Axis had more "Land Raiders" and "Eradicators" than the Allies had Predators, and still the Allies still only lost a third to a half of them. Some of that is the Allies had more "Eradicators" alone than the Axis had Land Raiders AND Eradicators, but they still didn't clear the field.

Can you find the word balance in the text above? Can you find any comment on what the right balance is, aside from pointing out the "right balance" OF THE GAME OVERALL as THE QUESTION WAS ASKED depends on what kind of simulation and "casualty level" the player(s) are looking for?

Can you please point to the part where I or the guy I was replying to for that matter said balance doesn't matter?

Wyldhunt wrote:Question: Would it be reasonable to increase the power/efficiency of similar units in other books and call for a smaller increase (or even no increase) in eradicator points?

Eradicators are quite a bit better than my fire dragons, but I also don't feel that my fire dragons have been especially good at their job for a while now. Similarly, melta chosen, tankbusters, blaster/haywire scourges, etc. seem to generally be considered inefficient these days.

If all those units had their efficiency increased (by either increasing their abilities or lowering their cost) to match the efficiency of eradicators, would the game be better overall? Or are eradicators too good in general for their efficiency to be a desirable goalpost?

TLDR; are eradicators too good, or are they reasonable but also the only melta unit that does its job efficiently?

Asking if Eradicators are too strong or if everything else is too weak not only doesn't say Balance Doesn't Matter the very foundation is not only that balance matters, but asks where that balance should be.

Breton/Racer Maybe you could answer some straight questions?

IS the Eradicator a much much better unit than equivalents in other Codex - yes or no.
IS it a good or bad thing to have such units in the game?

Most importantly
WHY is it a bad thing to question if Units are too good (or too bad)?

Talking about real life battles in the context of game balance and rules is very very different to a game - its like disucssing medievil warfare and saying it relates to Chess.

In 40k we don't incorporate logistics, weather, overall army morale, tiredness, quality of army commander, confideence or lack of same by his or her officers or rank and file, the mainatiance and realiability of the machines and warriors, time of day.... etc etc

You can try and do this in a narrative based game but having a base rules structure that at least tries to be balanced is surely a good thing.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Breton/Racer Maybe you answer some straight questions?

You first? Where did I say balance didn't matter? And what the hell does Racer have to do with it? I replied to a person named Wyldhunt. I QUOTED a person named Wyldhunt, and did so in such a way it LITERALLY said "Wyldhunt wrote:"... Are you frothing so hard you didn't even read who or what you were replying do? Do you need to take a break? Maybe a little naptime?

IS the Eradicator a much much better unit than equivalents in other Codex - yes or no.

I'm not impressed with them, but I'm in the minority, and I acknowledge a lot of my dislike isn't balance based - I'm the one who asked the question about why everyone hyped them so hard in the first place.

IS it a good or bad thing to have such units in the game?

Most importantly
WHY is it a bad thing to question if Units are too good (or too bad)?

I do love straight questions like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and "When did you kick your cocaine habit?".

Your victim complex is honestly out of this world my man.

No one said that the Eldar codices having OP units they could skew towards was ideal; ideally all units would be perfectly costed for their function and able to fulfill that function when used appropriately.

Your strawmanning bs is ridiculous.

So the balancing is suppose to start now, when tau and eldar, who were much better then marines in the past, are having less fun. And the starting is not suppose to be made by making other armies better, but by making marines weaker. Just so when xeno players get their books they would double dip on power buffs, because not only would their books be made better, but also marines were made weaker. Yeah, I don't even play marines, I call bs on that. How about xeno player wait till they get their codex to have claims about power level of 9th, and then if those are unbalanced they can wait for a CA or FAQ to fix those problems. You know the way they were saying this to marine players in 8th.

Karol wrote:

Your victim complex is honestly out of this world my man.

No one said that the Eldar codices having OP units they could skew towards was ideal; ideally all units would be perfectly costed for their function and able to fulfill that function when used appropriately.

Your strawmanning bs is ridiculous.

So the balancing is suppose to start now, when tau and eldar, who were much better then marines in the past, are having less fun. And the starting is not suppose to be made by making other armies better, but by making marines weaker. Just so when xeno players get their books they would double dip on power buffs, because not only would their books be made better, but also marines were made weaker. Yeah, I don't even play marines, I call bs on that. How about xeno player wait till they get their codex to have claims about power level of 9th, and then if those are unbalanced they can wait for a CA or FAQ to fix those problems. You know the way they were saying this to marine players in 8th.

I understand the perspective Karol but you're too hard line on it, every army should have a chance at being top dog simultaneously. Marines being too good now isn't the fault of eldar players, nor a slight against them, indeed they may not be grwat in a months time for all we know.

Its better to achieve parity and equality ASAP, there doesn't always have to be an army that craps on the others.

Karol wrote:

So the balancing is suppose to start now, when tau and eldar, who were much better then marines in the past, are having less fun. And the starting is not suppose to be made by making other armies better, but by making marines weaker. Just so when xeno players get their books they would double dip on power buffs, because not only would their books be made better, but also marines were made weaker. Yeah, I don't even play marines, I call bs on that. How about xeno player wait till they get their codex to have claims about power level of 9th, and then if those are unbalanced they can wait for a CA or FAQ to fix those problems. You know the way they were saying this to marine players in 8th.

Again? Past mistakes do not justify current mistakes.

Your logic is flawed and it actually justifies having imbalances in the game.

Grey40k wrote:


Again? Past mistakes do not justify current mistakes.

But it does typify Human Nature. Sympathy for people suffering from the same thing they let you suffer from is in short supply.

Breton wrote:

Grey40k wrote:


Again? Past mistakes do not justify current mistakes.

But it does typify Human Nature. Sympathy for people suffering from the same thing they let you suffer from is in short supply.

Here is the thing the player's didnt set the point or codex imbalances GW did, plent of people who played both sides of that codex power band said GW did a bad job.

Karol's current attitude stinka of aww pure you, shut up and take it.

Expect that's exactly what won't happe people playing with 20 year old sculpts and kits that are so old and terrible they have more warping issues than Resin kits will walk away and new players won't bother to pick up those armies.
40k will become the new 30k it'll be all Power armour all the time, some people may like that and it might just be with GW ability to actually balance but once the people who have invested in these xeno armies go you'll have nothing else but marines to play.

Ice_can wrote:


Karol's current attitude stinka of aww pure you, shut up and take it.

Expect that's exactly what won't happe people playing with 20 year old sculpts and kits that are so old and terrible they have more warping issues than Resin kits will walk away and new players won't bother to pick up those armies.
40k will become the new 30k it'll be all Power armour all the time, some people may like that and it might just be with GW ability to actually balance but once the people who have invested in these xeno armies go you'll have nothing else but marines to play.

"Its different when I do it or it happens to me" doesn't generate a lot of sympathy either. Balance would be lovely. Expecting people to have a whole lot of sympathy for people who told SM players to suck it up and learn2play when Marines sucked - or worse told Marine players their armies deserved to suck because GW gave them all the cool models - well, I wouldn't hold my breath. Now you could say Karol should think further ahead, and realize the sucky army today will be the power house tomorrow who could support his complaints to GW, or tell him to learn2play again. As for me, I've seen too many GW cycles to worry if Marines go in the tank again for a year or two, and too much human nature to expect the people who don't care about Marine armies to care when it does. There's plenty of time for all kinds of long views.

Karol wrote:

So the balancing is suppose to start now, when tau and eldar, who were much better then marines in the past, are having less fun. And the starting is not suppose to be made by making other armies better, but by making marines weaker. Just so when xeno players get their books they would double dip on power buffs, because not only would their books be made better, but also marines were made weaker. Yeah, I don't even play marines, I call bs on that. How about xeno player wait till they get their codex to have claims about power level of 9th, and then if those are unbalanced they can wait for a CA or FAQ to fix those problems. You know the way they were saying this to marine players in 8th.

No, the balancing is supposed to start whenever there is an imbalance. You know that, but because your army is currently on the top arc of the pendulum, you dont care and would rather gak on anyone who you can now look down on.

How about you stop being a complete narcissist and realize that maybe, just maybe, your poster army steamrolling everyone and everything isnt an ideal state for the game to be in?

Sterling191 wrote:No, the balancing is supposed to start whenever there is an imbalance. You know that, but because your army is currently on the top arc of the pendulum, you dont care and would rather gak on anyone who you can now look down on.

How about you stop being a complete narcissist and realize that maybe, just maybe, your poster army steamrolling everyone and everything isnt an ideal state for the game to be in?

Karol doesn't play SM, he plays GK. Which are not the "top dogs" by any stretch. Also they can't take eradicators.

Karol is a troll and it is high time we stop engaging with his troll posts. Ignore him entirely or only engage with him when he makes a reasonable point. He's just poking people where he knows he'll get a reaction.

 vict0988 wrote:
Karol is a troll and it is high time we stop engaging with his troll posts. Ignore him entirely or only engage with him when he makes a reasonable point. He's just poking people where he knows he'll get a reaction.

Anyone mentioning anything pro-marine on here will get heckled, I understand why they are frustrated but if someone posts "I really like new eldar releases" they'll get a pat on the back. Post "I'm looking forwards to a blood angels supplement" and you'll get raged at endlessly.

This thread is an excellent microcosm for one of the reasons why people are actually mad at Marine dominance and prevalence.

It's not that they are overwhelmingly powerful for a large swathe of factions to deal with, or that they're far too common on the tabletop and so you get burned out on facing them. It's that there's a significant portion of the LSM playerbase that just refuses to believe there is an issue with the army and will not only refuse to acknowledge imbalance but will try and argue in the opposite direction. I have legitimately seen people arguing (not so much on Dakka to be fair) that Salamanders and Iron Hands are not overpowered but that they're actually bad armies. This is despite both of them ripping through the tournament scene at the moment. Even discounting empirical evidence you can understand how strong the armies are just through stats and mathhammering.

But there's a significant part of the LSM playerbase that just outright refuses to understand the problem or even acknowledge there is one.

I never saw Craftworld players in 8th saying Altaioc Flyers or Ynnari Spears/Reapers were underpowered units. At most they would point to the rest of the Codex being sub-optimal and wanting to rely on the broken gak in order to win games and they might try and offer counterplay ideas. Same with Drukhari players and mass Venom, Grotesque and Talos spam, and triple Dissy Ravagers. Everyone acknowledged they were good and tournament results reflected that.

The current situation with Space Marines is unique in recent memory because you have OVERWHELMING empirical evidence of Marines being dominant and opinions from top-tier incredibly skilled players stating again and again and again that the army needs a redesign somehow. You have 3x3 Eradicators showing up in every single top list and absolutely crushing everything. And yet here we are. People in this thread trying to somehow argue that Marines are not dominant and not even wanting to maybe consider that there might be a problem with Eradicators or the Codex and its supplements in general.

It's absurd. This is actually why there's so much backlash against Marines. Because of people like this.