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.

 Galas wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
My trust in GW's "Playtesting" is the same amount of trust I would place on a Cruise Ship Named Titanic reaching its intended destination.

I hate to bring it back up, but one of these "Playtesters" is the renowned Reece who is famous for being wrong...all the damn time.

Not gonna argue that; it's not much. But it's basically all we've got.

No it's fething not.

I don't understand this stockholm syndrome bull that people have with GW. You have your dollars and your time. Stop payng GW for a subpar product, take your plastic toys and your friends, and go play a different rule set with better rules. You don't owe GW gak and you absolutely do not have to eat their scraps of a crap product.

But what if I enjoy the game, have fun with it, and then go with my group of friends to big tournaments where everybody plays the same game? And , at the same time, I play other rulesets that are more balanced and I also like?

Is being critical with the game incompatible with having reasonable expectations about what it is and what isnt and having fun with it?
I'm sorry but when you, and many like you, reach the point of reducing all the reasons of playing GW games to emotional manipulation, attacking the people that enjoys playing those games, you lose all kind of moral ground you could claim.

That is not what I attacked. I attacked the idea of "it's all we've got". You enjoy what GW gives you? Good. Go enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it then you don't have to put up with it. There is no "it's all we've got".

 Lance845 wrote:
That is not what I attacked. I attacked the idea of "it's all we've got". You enjoy what GW gives you? Good. Go enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it then you don't have to put up with it. There is no "it's all we've got".

For a much broader value of "All we've got" than I had intended, but perhaps underarticulated.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
That is not what I attacked. I attacked the idea of "it's all we've got". You enjoy what GW gives you? Good. Go enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it then you don't have to put up with it. There is no "it's all we've got".

For a much broader value of "All we've got" than I had intended, but perhaps underarticulated.

Frankly in some regions it is all the playerbase has.
GW is rather dominant in the market sadly.

I don't think the two wounds is the problem.
Back as early as 6th edition, I remember "giving Space Marines 2 wounds" was one of the more common proposals to make Space Marines more competitive.

Space Marines might need a bit of a nudge upwards in points- or, alternatively, other armies might need a nudge downwards in points. We are, as I understand, seeing a massive change in various weapons across the board.

However as I understand it, there's some things to note:

1- Saying "X can wipe out Y too easily" is an argument, but not as much of one as before- especially considering the way points are scored now- 'kill the other guy better' isn't always a winning move.

2- Space Marines now have more restrictive 'Force Org'- in other words, max 1 Captain and 2 Lt's per detachment. Not seeing any other army with that, unless I missed something.

3- Deathwatch and some of the others don't even have signature strategems right now, only the base generic ones. I'm still rather confused about some of what Deathwatch can do.

4- People have complained for years that Space Marines aren't competitive. To a point where playing Space Marines was something that got a chuckle and a snort, because you were assumed to be an idiot that was still learning to play or an idiot that couldn't play 'a real army'. Well, now you might have to actually think when playing against Space Marines- and that probably sounds familiar, because some people with some pretty OP armies in the past used the same line about their army.

5- It's the first official codex. Just give it some time and wait for your army to get one. If it still sucks, then... well, complain to GW, find a way to balance it, or just quit.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

4- People have complained for years that Space Marines aren't competitive. To a point where playing Space Marines was something that got a chuckle and a snort, because you were assumed to be an idiot that was still learning to play or an idiot that couldn't play 'a real army'. Well, now you might have to actually think when playing against Space Marines- and that probably sounds familiar, because some people with some pretty OP armies in the past used the same line about their army.

Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.

8th Edition Space Marines 1.0, pre-Bolter Discipline, pre-Shock Assault, pre-Doctrines, pre-Transhuman, pre-Chapter-Tactics for vehicles, pre-multiple-WL-traits, pre-anything were in the LVO Top 10 and other top tournaments. Marines played by those rule were competitively well-balanced against many books still around today with few changes since then (e.g. all Eldar-variants, Nids, etc.., etc..).

Voss wrote:

Nothing in particular. Its a good gun, but they lose to hit and gain to wound. Their real value has always been that you can have more firewarriors than marines. That doesn't scream 'specialist' to me. It doesn't even hint at it.

Oh they are a specialist. The SM is a generalist. He gets to shoot and fight. The Tau is only really going to shoot. That doesn't mean he's better at shooting than a Space Marine, just that he specializes in it. Similar but less extreme than a Shoota Boy of old.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who says they're living up to their fluff? If anything the individual Marine would basically be Custodes level and Custodes beyond even that.
You want to follow lore THAT strictly that's on all y'all.

No because lore-wise genestealer should be able to tear through marines in CC, for instance.
So either you upgrade the individual marine to custodes level and you upgrade EVERYONE ELSE and then you just reach the point where grots have two HP and it's ridiculous, or you stop making nonsensical statement likle this one.

 jeff white wrote:
Orks don’t have technology exactly and were not known as Uber tele porters until recently, snotguns aside.

When I started getting interested in 40k and got my first White Dwarf, there was this summer campaign going on, you may have heard of it. It was called 3rd war for Armageddon. And the orks where using tellyporta. Like, teleporting only the upper half of the enemy troops bodies, or teleporting the whole body, but several hundred meters high in the air.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.

8th Edition Space Marines 1.0, pre-Bolter Discipline, pre-Shock Assault, pre-Doctrines, pre-Transhuman, pre-Chapter-Tactics for vehicles, pre-multiple-WL-traits, pre-anything were in the LVO Top 10 and other top tournaments. Marines played by those rule were competitively well-balanced against many books still around today with few changes since then (e.g. all Eldar-variants, Nids, etc.., etc..).

To be honest, I did feel that Marines were weak on the basis of my casual play; those Top 10 lists were generally Guilliman bubblehammer lists, and I don't think it's fair to judge the entire army on the basis of one standout build. But Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault both made a huge difference, and it would have been nice if we had time to see how Marines perform on the whole with just those changes.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.

So help me out here-

Which whining on the internet is false?

All of it?
The part that you don't agree with?
Or maybe these more recent complaints?

Because right now it's starting to look to me like the major complaint is "Space Marines aren't a cake walk for my army to beat any more, this is obviously wrong".

I just would like a little help determining which batch of whinging I'm supposed to give any credit to at all.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.

So help me out here-

Which whining on the internet is false?

All of it?
The part that you don't agree with?
Or maybe these more recent complaints?

Because right now it's starting to look to me like the major complaint is "Space Marines aren't a cake walk for my army to beat any more, this is obviously wrong".

I just would like a little help determining which batch of whinging I'm supposed to give any credit to at all.

> you forgot the fact that GW does not maintain a stable ruleset, making factions not propperly balanced regardless if op or up.

just look at 8th marines. from Tournament winning to really meh to bad to broken. All within one singular edition.

Granted some factions and units have a lon standing tradition of sucking. Which only rarely improves. F.e. Possessed. Or factions that just got ignored b GW.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.

So help me out here-

Which whining on the internet is false?

All of it?
The part that you don't agree with?
Or maybe these more recent complaints?

Because right now it's starting to look to me like the major complaint is "Space Marines aren't a cake walk for my army to beat any more, this is obviously wrong".

I just would like a little help determining which batch of whinging I'm supposed to give any credit to at all.

I'm at the point where it doesn't matter. Regardless of which side they're on, if its whining, its probably wrong and not worth paying attention to.
It doesn't help that its the same 15 or so people constantly arguing back and forth about the same topics and derailing each thread with the same copypasta.

Voss wrote:
I'm at the point where it doesn't matter. Regardless of which side they're on, if its whining, its probably wrong and not worth paying attention to.
It doesn't help that its the same 15 or so people constantly arguing back and forth about the same topics and derailing each thread with the same copypasta.

I'd give you an exalt, but in truth you deserve the actual keys to this forum and a throne made of boobies.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
1- Saying "X can wipe out Y too easily" is an argument, but not as much of one as before- especially considering the way points are scored now- 'kill the other guy better' isn't always a winning move.

There are two pieces of "X can wipe out Y too easily", and they are often confused.
1. X can wipe out Y from a pure game balance/points efficiency/mechanical standpoint.

2. X can wipe out Y from a model-to-model/"unit identity" standpoint.

Both armies/units placing well in tournaments/being competitive only works for type 1. If you point a unit cheap enough it can still be competitive even though individual models are comparatively terrible vs. common opposing models.

Type 2 is the lore/setting side of it. A unit being competitive has nothing to do with it. Banshees might be a great competitive model if they were 6 points each, but the idea of requiring 3-4 Banhees to take out an Intercessor in CC breaks the setting/faction identity/unit dignity.

Genestealers bouncing off Terminators sucks, regardless of how well they fare in a competitive sense.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.

So help me out here-

Which whining on the internet is false?

All of it?
The part that you don't agree with?
Or maybe these more recent complaints?

Because right now it's starting to look to me like the major complaint is "Space Marines aren't a cake walk for my army to beat any more, this is obviously wrong".

I just would like a little help determining which batch of whinging I'm supposed to give any credit to at all.

The part is false where we have tournament data to show it is false.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
The part is false where we have tournament data to show it is false.

Considering I've yet to hear about a tournament that isn't saturated with cheaters (and that's just the ones getting caught), I'll take that 'data' with a very, very, very fine grain of salt.

No, screw that. Salt has worth.

I'll take it with a grain of Splenda.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
1- Saying "X can wipe out Y too easily" is an argument, but not as much of one as before- especially considering the way points are scored now- 'kill the other guy better' isn't always a winning move.

There are two pieces of "X can wipe out Y too easily", and they are often confused.
1. X can wipe out Y from a pure game balance/points efficiency/mechanical standpoint.

2. X can wipe out Y from a model-to-model/"unit identity" standpoint.

Both armies/units placing well in tournaments/being competitive only works for type 1. If you point a unit cheap enough it can still be competitive even though individual models are comparatively terrible vs. common opposing models.

Type 2 is the lore/setting side of it. A unit being competitive has nothing to do with it. Banshees might be a great competitive model if they were 6 points each, but the idea of requiring 3-4 Banhees to take out an Intercessor in CC breaks the setting/faction identity/unit dignity.

Genestealers bouncing off Terminators sucks, regardless of how well they fare in a competitive sense.

I is important to reiterate this post.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
The part is false where we have tournament data to show it is false.

Considering I've yet to hear about a tournament that isn't saturated with cheaters (and that's just the ones getting caught), I'll take that 'data' with a very, very, very fine grain of salt.

No, screw that. Salt has worth.

I'll take it with a grain of Splenda.

So you Mr Armchair General who havent even played in a tournament is someones opinion we should listen to? I assume you havent played in one since you think its mostly cheaters and not just people who likes to play multiple rounds of 40k in a short period of time. Why is that narrow opinion more useful than the data we have?

Tournament data isnt everything but at least it shows something. There are many peoples thoughts thrown against each other in the form of list building and then played against other players. You could see the data as a non verbal discussion on the game from hundreds of people.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.

So help me out here-

Which whining on the internet is false?

All of it?
The part that you don't agree with?
Or maybe these more recent complaints?

Because right now it's starting to look to me like the major complaint is "Space Marines aren't a cake walk for my army to beat any more, this is obviously wrong".

I just would like a little help determining which batch of whinging I'm supposed to give any credit to at all.

This part

4- People have complained for years that Space Marines aren't competitive. To a point where playing Space Marines was something that got a chuckle and a snort, because you were assumed to be an idiot that was still learning to play or an idiot that couldn't play 'a real army'. Well, now you might have to actually think when playing against Space Marines- and that probably sounds familiar, because some people with some pretty OP armies in the past used the same line about their army.

So 9th, Space Marines are top tier, not a fair point because nobody else really has a codex yet, but still top tier, massively over represented in the tournament scene. End of 8th they were regarded not only as top tier, but god tier, broken OP. middle of 8th the "Dark ages" as far as some of the posters here are concerned, SM still had decent placings in tournaments, they were over shadowed by broken lists like the Knight/smashCaptain/loyal 32 or the eldar flyer list but still not that bad. Beginning of 8th, top tier, Girlyman parking lot dominated the meta as did other lesser builds. 7th....Space Marine Demi-company free razorbacks. yeah again top tier.

So when you say people complained for years, which years are you talking about? because I am already going back 5-6 years here. I mean, you can make an argument for a specific color of Marine being bad during that time frame but not really as a whole. So I am honestly curious where you are getting this notion that Space Marines were noncompetitive for years.

Klickor wrote:
So you Mr Armchair General who havent even played in a tournament is someones opinion we should listen to? I assume you havent played in one since you think its mostly cheaters and not just people who likes to play multiple rounds of 40k in a short period of time. Why is that narrow opinion more useful than the data we have?

Have hosted tournaments, and played in them. I work in a game shop. Nice assumption.

It's not 'mostly cheaters'. It's 'just enough cheaters' to soil the whole scene for me. I've watched people cheat when NOTHING is at stake, and then when 'little' is at stake- I'm not even shocked to hear that high-profile '40k news site' players cheat at major tournaments. Hell, I've seen tournament organizers do scummy stuff and lie.

When you say 'there's cheating at major tournaments'- it's at that point you're telling me I might get shot in Compton for wearing a Rolex after I've watched someone get a full mag dumped into them for wearing a taped-together Livestrong bracelet. Yeah, I'm pretty damned sure it's inevitable.

Why is my narrow opinion more useful than the data you have? Your data from last edition, before the current overhaul of the rules and a new codex, sans the supplements to said codex is about as valuable as said grain of Splenda.

If you're uncertain on the worth of Splenda, go have a whole mouthful of it and get back to me.

The Codex is out- and it's just these two Codexes, and everyone that didn't get the Codex for their army right out of the gate is crying because "It's too OP" before the sun went down on Saturday. Jesus Christ, wait a damned minute for the others to come out. It ain't like you've got some big tournament you're gonna lose because of it- thank the 'Rona. Calm down. Wait for your book. Wash your hands.

Personal observation:

Wasps sting. They always sting if you grab one. You're grabbing one and saying, "Oh my God, it stung me!"

Now, when was the last time GW ever made a -balanced game-? This isn't even new, this is the same. Damned. Thing. Every. TIme. Every Codex. Every. Edition.

Ah, yes, the "wait and see" combined with "GW is always imbalanced so asking for a balanced game is silly."

Heard it before, where's the NEXT button?

SemperMortis wrote:
So when you say people complained for years, which years are you talking about? because I am already going back 5-6 years here. I mean, you can make an argument for a specific color of Marine being bad during that time frame but not really as a whole. So I am honestly curious where you are getting this notion that Space Marines were noncompetitive for years.

Do you have a halloween costume to go with the role you're playing? Does it have jingle bells.

My dude, would you like me to get you cited quotes from individuals? Peer-reviewed papers?

Or you could just....

...use this website.

It's here. Trust me.

I wouldn't lie to you to make you feel worse. The truth does well enough.

But, go ahead. "Well I never made that complaint or believed that!" OK, good for you, sit down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ah, yes, the "wait and see" combined with "GW is always imbalanced so asking for a balanced game is silly."

Heard it before, where's the NEXT button?

"I've heard it all before, if you bend over you'll get shafted and shouldn't be shocked. Enough already!" -Guy, being bent over

The definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

>Literally one Codex has dropped
>No one is even playing in this pandemic
>You'll buy Space Marines anyway

I won't enter in any debate but Space Marines were crap for most of 8th with the exceptions being were only them, DG and GK had codex and SM Codex 2.0 and onwards.

All space marine top placings before 2.0 were with Guilliman parking lot and even those lists didnt fare that good. It was much worse playing "casual" space marines because casual tiranids, imperial guard, eldar, dark eldar lists would absolutely destroy you.

Bad luck if you played Dark Angels (Like myself) that have been crap for all of 8th even when marines were OP with codex 2.0


And I'm not saying this to justify the absurdity of Codex 2.0 or the supplements but when the most popular faction of your game is crap at that level for so long , of course people will be angry and thats why GW, overcorrected.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
So when you say people complained for years, which years are you talking about? because I am already going back 5-6 years here. I mean, you can make an argument for a specific color of Marine being bad during that time frame but not really as a whole. So I am honestly curious where you are getting this notion that Space Marines were noncompetitive for years.

Do you have a halloween costume to go with the role you're playing? Does it have jingle bells.
My dude, would you like me to get you cited quotes from individuals? Peer-reviewed papers?
Or you could just....
...use this website.
It's here. Trust me.
I wouldn't lie to you to make you feel worse. The truth does well enough.
But, go ahead. "Well I never made that complaint or believed that!" OK, good for you, sit down.

Sorry dorito but you are the one making the claim here that Marines were bad for years and were considered an easy win. In the last half decade that hasnt been the case. Unless you are using SM players on Dakka as a more definitive source for information that tournament results...but since we literally have SM defenders here saying Aggressors are garbage...I wouldn't even give them the value of splenda.

So, unless you are basing your opinion on the competitiveness of SM on the handful of Dakka posters who constantly complain that SM aren't powerful enough you have to provide some kind of proof.

edit - removed

I mean if you look at tournament data you'll see that the Guilliman parking lot lists (With flyers and razorbacks before nerfs and with other stuff after) wasn't even that good, and it was not the "most" competitive SM list but the only one powerfull enough to compete. The rest of the codex was absolute crap when you had codex like Imperial Guard or Tyranids or Dark Eldar with duds here and there but with much more competitive flexibility even in a casual setting.

I'm no pro-player by any metric and in some team tournaments I had some success with Azrael pre nerf with 3 predators with 4++ even agaisnt triple baneblade lists when those were very scary. But playing Space Marines in casual games in that time was an excercise of frustration. Thats why I played them, and when I stopped they were buffed to the strathospere, but by that time I was playing Custodes that were also crap. And now with 9th I play Tau. I don't know why, I always end up playing the army of the ones I own that is in a worse state

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
The part is false where we have tournament data to show it is false.

Considering I've yet to hear about a tournament that isn't saturated with cheaters (and that's just the ones getting caught), I'll take that 'data' with a very, very, very fine grain of salt.

No, screw that. Salt has worth.

I'll take it with a grain of Splenda.

'Objective and consistent data from tournaments is worthless because cheaters exist' is the spiciest hot take I've seen this week.

Galas wrote:I won't enter in any debate but Space Marines were crap for most of 8th with the exceptions being were only them, DG and GK had codex and SM Codex 2.0 and onwards.

All space marine top placings before 2.0 were with Guilliman parking lot and even those lists didnt fare that good. It was much worse playing "casual" space marines because casual tiranids, imperial guard, eldar, dark eldar lists would absolutely destroy you.

Bad luck if you played Dark Angels (Like myself) that have been crap for all of 8th even when marines were OP with codex 2.0

You're not wrong about Guilliman parking lot being the one really successful build pre-2.0, but nobody seems to buy that T'au sucked all of 8th because T'au sept triptide gunlines were the only viable build, or that Eldar sucked because Alaitoc flyer spam was the only viable build. Lots of factions have had only one viable build and then been held up as competitively viable and therefore strong as a faction- that I think is a legitimate criticism of tournament data, or at least the competitive mindset.

Yeah at the end of the day most codex end up with only one competitive lists because after months of optimization is like the recipe for success. The thing is, with space marines, even your most competitive lists was... I remember winning a Guilliman Parking lot with custodes infantry.

And I'm not complaining or anything, as I said, I have no problem playing underpowered factions , and I'm also quite bad (When you play 3-5 games each two months how can you become good at any game?), but there was very valid criticism about the most part of 8th when marines were crap. And also for the people that complained about the bad units of tau, eldar, etc... Theres no need to negate the experience of others. We are talking about GW, we all know even in the best of times at minimun 30-50% of a codex will be mediocre at best, stupidly bad at worst.

 Galas wrote:
I won't enter in any debate but Space Marines were crap for most of 8th with the exceptions being were only them, DG and GK had codex and SM Codex 2.0 and onwards.

All space marine top placings before 2.0 were with Guilliman parking lot and even those lists didnt fare that good. It was much worse playing "casual" space marines because casual tiranids, imperial guard, eldar, dark eldar lists would absolutely destroy you.

Bad luck if you played Dark Angels (Like myself) that have been crap for all of 8th even when marines were OP with codex 2.0


And I'm not saying this to justify the absurdity of Codex 2.0 or the supplements but when the most popular faction of your game is crap at that level for so long , of course people will be angry and thats why GW, overcorrected.

2019 LVO, top placing SM list was 8th place. And while it was "Soup" it was exclusively SM soup. So in the middle of 8th, when SM were supposedly the worst, they had a top 8 finishing at one of the biggest tournaments.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wyches aren't some badass CC unit though.

Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.

They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.

@ Lance845 That's a really long, 10+ pages of roundabout way to say "AA is the only way to fix the game".