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.
2020/10/27 16:16:37
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's 1 point more than a 5th-7th edition Plaguebearer.
You really want to make that comparison?
So you don't think tacs were that bad. So that probably means you think the 2W oldbois are a pretty poor idea as well. What's the point of rehashing this?
2W Firstborn is fine, provided they pay the appropriate point cost.
Very few Space Marine units are paying the proper points right now.
Xeno, do you think Space Marines are well-balanced, compared to the other existing Codecs right now? That includes the as-of-yet unupdated Codecs, since they're still valid to play.
First born gear needs to go up as well.
2020/10/27 16:26:55
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Insectum7 wrote: And that was in the same post where you challenged the idea that "power armor horde" could do well. A power armored horde that also contains Devastators, Sternguard, etc along with Tactical Squads.
Again, show me the lists and battle reports where these 'hordes' actually came together to find success. Without seeing the lists, the battle reports, and getting some understanding of the meta it's impossible to analyze how strong your idea of a power armour horde actually was.
We may also have a different definition of horde as well because even at their height lists would have been topping out at what 30 sternguard, likely in 6 combat squads because MSU meta, 15 devs, people rarely wanted to take the ablative wounds, and minimum units of tactical marines. The rest of your points would be tied up in HQ choices, drop pods, and razor backs and your 'horde' tops out at 55 marine bodies which.
If tripling down on damage-dealing Power Armor has a supporting theme of MOAR power armor that deals damage. . . that's the Power Armor Horde in a nutshell. Tacs aren't there as the high focus damage dealers, but in support of Devastators, etc. they bring the same types of weapons with greater longevity because the opponent is going to be dealing with the Devastators first. Deployed correctly, and this is the situation I aim for, four Tactical Squads bring the same firepower as three additional Devastator Squads, plus a lot more bolters, Ob Sec, and longevity.
A Devastator Squad is 10 Marines with 4 Heavy Weapons
A Tactical Squad is 10 Marines with 1 Heavy Weapon and 2 Special Weapons that hit like Heavy Weapons at close range.
Thus, just deliver the Tactical to close quarters, and you're hitting close to the power of another Devastator Squad, but are in a better position to use Bolters and Assault in order to gum up the opponents maneuvering/fire/whatever is necessary. Or, Combat Squad them and two Special Weapon crews will hit like 4 Heavy Weapons while still getting the benefit of being able to gum stuff up. Tac Squads are just Devastators-lite that you put on the front line to do Tac-Squad stuff. Playing UM it's great, because assaulting/being assaulted, then pulling out and gunning at stuff again is a fantastic ability that chews a lot of stuff up.
That's not how those lists played in practice though. What made Devs good, in the few metas they were good in, was dropping them on something important with drop pod assault and spamming Grav weapons into the key parts of your opponents army. The same thing goes for Sternguard who loved being Salamanders so they could drop in with their combi-meltas or combi-flamers and get a disgusting RoI. You weren't winning because you saturated the enemies ability to kill MEQs you won because you could easily put your best damage dealers into the enemy lines and put up enough threat that they never even shot at your guys on objectives.
Well that's literally how my lists played for 8th.
70 Marine bodies minimum. Loaded up on Heavies and Specials, possibly some supporting units along with transports to deliver them. The army varied a bit, but the best target any anti-vehicle weapon would have is a Razorback, although sometimes not even that. If I went full bore on firepower I could get 100 S5+ AP-3 D2+ (combination of Grav, Plasma, Las) shots with full CM + Lt. Rerolls. Realistically some Grav Cannons turned into Plasma Cannons for cost and range (and same damage output against many target types), but you get the idea. Unprepared armies melted. Prepared armies usually suffered gobs of damage and sometimes we got into brutal attrition games where we both dwindled pretty hard. It wasn't the "best" army, and arguably I could have optimized it further, but even against "max cheese" tourney lists like Eldar and IG soups at their respective heights I still had huge amounts of damage capability and didn't feel too far behind in the power curve. My really bad losses were usually because I did something boneheaded like forgot to play to the mission, etc.
That was BEFORE SM codex 2.0, mind you. Obviously the power level increased when that came out.
A couple additional points. My PA Horde relies a lot on UM tactics, being able to back out of combats and keep firing is really, really good, and it allows you to really mess with some opponents. Rhinos are probably some of the toughest models, point for point, in the game, paying only 7 points for a T7 3+. HK missiles (lots of them) are great. An army with the damage output tied up in troops doesn't care about opposing Lascannon-esque weapons. Heavies/Specials are Heavies/Specials regardless of what unit is carrying them. Don't forget your Krak Grenades. You could "transport" 20 Marines 9" with one Rhino.
So how did this work vs tripoint?
Well enough. Tripointing can go both ways, sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you. Although lots of times I had a Rhino in combat too, which increases the footprint of the units involved, making things harder to tripoint.
Insectum7 wrote: And that was in the same post where you challenged the idea that "power armor horde" could do well. A power armored horde that also contains Devastators, Sternguard, etc along with Tactical Squads.
Again, show me the lists and battle reports where these 'hordes' actually came together to find success. Without seeing the lists, the battle reports, and getting some understanding of the meta it's impossible to analyze how strong your idea of a power armour horde actually was.
We may also have a different definition of horde as well because even at their height lists would have been topping out at what 30 sternguard, likely in 6 combat squads because MSU meta, 15 devs, people rarely wanted to take the ablative wounds, and minimum units of tactical marines. The rest of your points would be tied up in HQ choices, drop pods, and razor backs and your 'horde' tops out at 55 marine bodies which.
If tripling down on damage-dealing Power Armor has a supporting theme of MOAR power armor that deals damage. . . that's the Power Armor Horde in a nutshell. Tacs aren't there as the high focus damage dealers, but in support of Devastators, etc. they bring the same types of weapons with greater longevity because the opponent is going to be dealing with the Devastators first. Deployed correctly, and this is the situation I aim for, four Tactical Squads bring the same firepower as three additional Devastator Squads, plus a lot more bolters, Ob Sec, and longevity.
A Devastator Squad is 10 Marines with 4 Heavy Weapons
A Tactical Squad is 10 Marines with 1 Heavy Weapon and 2 Special Weapons that hit like Heavy Weapons at close range.
Thus, just deliver the Tactical to close quarters, and you're hitting close to the power of another Devastator Squad, but are in a better position to use Bolters and Assault in order to gum up the opponents maneuvering/fire/whatever is necessary. Or, Combat Squad them and two Special Weapon crews will hit like 4 Heavy Weapons while still getting the benefit of being able to gum stuff up. Tac Squads are just Devastators-lite that you put on the front line to do Tac-Squad stuff. Playing UM it's great, because assaulting/being assaulted, then pulling out and gunning at stuff again is a fantastic ability that chews a lot of stuff up.
That's not how those lists played in practice though. What made Devs good, in the few metas they were good in, was dropping them on something important with drop pod assault and spamming Grav weapons into the key parts of your opponents army. The same thing goes for Sternguard who loved being Salamanders so they could drop in with their combi-meltas or combi-flamers and get a disgusting RoI. You weren't winning because you saturated the enemies ability to kill MEQs you won because you could easily put your best damage dealers into the enemy lines and put up enough threat that they never even shot at your guys on objectives.
Well that's literally how my lists played for 8th.
70 Marine bodies minimum. Loaded up on Heavies and Specials, possibly some supporting units along with transports to deliver them. The army varied a bit, but the best target any anti-vehicle weapon would have is a Razorback, although sometimes not even that. If I went full bore on firepower I could get 100 S5+ AP-3 D2+ (combination of Grav, Plasma, Las) shots with full CM + Lt. Rerolls. Realistically some Grav Cannons turned into Plasma Cannons for cost and range (and same damage output against many target types), but you get the idea. Unprepared armies melted. Prepared armies usually suffered gobs of damage and sometimes we got into brutal attrition games where we both dwindled pretty hard. It wasn't the "best" army, and arguably I could have optimized it further, but even against "max cheese" tourney lists like Eldar and IG soups at their respective heights I still had huge amounts of damage capability and didn't feel too far behind in the power curve. My really bad losses were usually because I did something boneheaded like forgot to play to the mission, etc.
That was BEFORE SM codex 2.0, mind you. Obviously the power level increased when that came out.
A couple additional points. My PA Horde relies a lot on UM tactics, being able to back out of combats and keep firing is really, really good, and it allows you to really mess with some opponents. Rhinos are probably some of the toughest models, point for point, in the game, paying only 7 points for a T7 3+. HK missiles (lots of them) are great. An army with the damage output tied up in troops doesn't care about opposing Lascannon-esque weapons. Heavies/Specials are Heavies/Specials regardless of what unit is carrying them. Don't forget your Krak Grenades. You could "transport" 20 Marines 9" with one Rhino.
So how did this work vs tripoint?
Well enough. Tripointing can go both ways, sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you. Although lots of times I had a Rhino in combat too, which increases the footprint of the units involved, making things harder to tripoint.
I only need tripoint a single model. Your rhino doesn't help that much. I feel like you were playing against people bad at tripointing, but it really doesn't matter anymore. You have your position on it and we have ours. Both of which are wiped away by 9th edition completely.
2020/10/27 16:30:51
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's about the sort of comment I expect from Xeno at this point. I won many a game with 15 point 1w Marines. They were totally fine.
Insectum7 wrote: And that was in the same post where you challenged the idea that "power armor horde" could do well. A power armored horde that also contains Devastators, Sternguard, etc along with Tactical Squads.
Again, show me the lists and battle reports where these 'hordes' actually came together to find success. Without seeing the lists, the battle reports, and getting some understanding of the meta it's impossible to analyze how strong your idea of a power armour horde actually was.
We may also have a different definition of horde as well because even at their height lists would have been topping out at what 30 sternguard, likely in 6 combat squads because MSU meta, 15 devs, people rarely wanted to take the ablative wounds, and minimum units of tactical marines. The rest of your points would be tied up in HQ choices, drop pods, and razor backs and your 'horde' tops out at 55 marine bodies which.
If tripling down on damage-dealing Power Armor has a supporting theme of MOAR power armor that deals damage. . . that's the Power Armor Horde in a nutshell. Tacs aren't there as the high focus damage dealers, but in support of Devastators, etc. they bring the same types of weapons with greater longevity because the opponent is going to be dealing with the Devastators first. Deployed correctly, and this is the situation I aim for, four Tactical Squads bring the same firepower as three additional Devastator Squads, plus a lot more bolters, Ob Sec, and longevity.
A Devastator Squad is 10 Marines with 4 Heavy Weapons
A Tactical Squad is 10 Marines with 1 Heavy Weapon and 2 Special Weapons that hit like Heavy Weapons at close range.
Thus, just deliver the Tactical to close quarters, and you're hitting close to the power of another Devastator Squad, but are in a better position to use Bolters and Assault in order to gum up the opponents maneuvering/fire/whatever is necessary. Or, Combat Squad them and two Special Weapon crews will hit like 4 Heavy Weapons while still getting the benefit of being able to gum stuff up. Tac Squads are just Devastators-lite that you put on the front line to do Tac-Squad stuff. Playing UM it's great, because assaulting/being assaulted, then pulling out and gunning at stuff again is a fantastic ability that chews a lot of stuff up.
That's not how those lists played in practice though. What made Devs good, in the few metas they were good in, was dropping them on something important with drop pod assault and spamming Grav weapons into the key parts of your opponents army. The same thing goes for Sternguard who loved being Salamanders so they could drop in with their combi-meltas or combi-flamers and get a disgusting RoI. You weren't winning because you saturated the enemies ability to kill MEQs you won because you could easily put your best damage dealers into the enemy lines and put up enough threat that they never even shot at your guys on objectives.
Well that's literally how my lists played for 8th.
70 Marine bodies minimum. Loaded up on Heavies and Specials, possibly some supporting units along with transports to deliver them. The army varied a bit, but the best target any anti-vehicle weapon would have is a Razorback, although sometimes not even that. If I went full bore on firepower I could get 100 S5+ AP-3 D2+ (combination of Grav, Plasma, Las) shots with full CM + Lt. Rerolls. Realistically some Grav Cannons turned into Plasma Cannons for cost and range (and same damage output against many target types), but you get the idea. Unprepared armies melted. Prepared armies usually suffered gobs of damage and sometimes we got into brutal attrition games where we both dwindled pretty hard. It wasn't the "best" army, and arguably I could have optimized it further, but even against "max cheese" tourney lists like Eldar and IG soups at their respective heights I still had huge amounts of damage capability and didn't feel too far behind in the power curve. My really bad losses were usually because I did something boneheaded like forgot to play to the mission, etc.
That was BEFORE SM codex 2.0, mind you. Obviously the power level increased when that came out.
A couple additional points. My PA Horde relies a lot on UM tactics, being able to back out of combats and keep firing is really, really good, and it allows you to really mess with some opponents. Rhinos are probably some of the toughest models, point for point, in the game, paying only 7 points for a T7 3+. HK missiles (lots of them) are great. An army with the damage output tied up in troops doesn't care about opposing Lascannon-esque weapons. Heavies/Specials are Heavies/Specials regardless of what unit is carrying them. Don't forget your Krak Grenades. You could "transport" 20 Marines 9" with one Rhino.
So how did this work vs tripoint?
Well enough. Tripointing can go both ways, sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you. Although lots of times I had a Rhino in combat too, which increases the footprint of the units involved, making things harder to tripoint.
I only need tripoint a single model. Your rhino doesn't help that much. I feel like you were playing against people bad at tripointing, but it really doesn't matter anymore. You have your position on it and we have ours. Both of which are wiped away by 9th edition completely.
Right, but you have to surround a model. Keeping close base to base and denying the area to surround a model is the defensive play, and when you increase the overall footprint of a unit/group of units it's harder to cutoff the potential exits. It also depends hugely on the size of the units that are fighting, etc. It's not as easy as "move-tripoint-profit".
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's 1 point more than a 5th-7th edition Plaguebearer.
You really want to make that comparison?
So you don't think tacs were that bad. So that probably means you think the 2W oldbois are a pretty poor idea as well. What's the point of rehashing this?
2W Firstborn is fine, provided they pay the appropriate point cost.
Very few Space Marine units are paying the proper points right now.
Xeno, do you think Space Marines are well-balanced, compared to the other existing Codecs right now? That includes the as-of-yet unupdated Codecs, since they're still valid to play.
I don't think it's fair to claim that 9th ed codices should be balanced against 8th edition ones. I think the marines got over generous core keywords - a completely unnecessary buff to dreads - and have a few key units that need nerfs with some weapons going up in cost. To answer your question though - No - Marines are a step ahead of every army in the game right now. I fully expect by the middle of next they will be power creeped out (except maybe some snowflake chapter) Crons fair okay against marines by virtue of being good at killing marines because of their popular weapon profiles. Marines are better against the field though by a wide margin.
Clearly the MM needs a point increase. Eradicators. Imo a fair amount of units need reductions to. The new Gladiator tanks cost way too much. Lots of internal balance issues too. In general though it is a pretty high quality codex by GW standards and I like the 9th edition format.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 16:43:24
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/10/27 16:43:21
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's 1 point more than a 5th-7th edition Plaguebearer.
You really want to make that comparison?
So you don't think tacs were that bad. So that probably means you think the 2W oldbois are a pretty poor idea as well. What's the point of rehashing this?
2W Firstborn is fine, provided they pay the appropriate point cost.
Very few Space Marine units are paying the proper points right now.
Xeno, do you think Space Marines are well-balanced, compared to the other existing Codecs right now? That includes the as-of-yet unupdated Codecs, since they're still valid to play.
I don't think it's fair to claim that 9th ed codices should be balanced against 8th edition ones. I think the marines got over generous core keywords - a completely unnecessary buff to dreads - and have a few key units that need nerfs with some weapons going up in cost. To answer your question though - No - Marines are a step ahead of every army in the game right now. I fully expect by the middle of next they will be power creeped out (except maybe some snowflake chapter)
Clearly the MM needs a point increase. Eradicators. Imo a fair amount of units need reductions to. The new Gladiator tanks cost way too much. Lots of internal balance issues too. In general though it is a pretty high quality codex by GW standards and I like the 9th edition format.
Why not? I can play my Daemons against your Marines right now, if Covid wasn't stopping me.
If GW wanted to crank up the power, they should've charged appropriately for it, and then once EVERYONE got supercharged, they could bring the points down to old levels, but keep everyone on parity.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/27 16:48:58
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's 1 point more than a 5th-7th edition Plaguebearer.
You really want to make that comparison?
So you don't think tacs were that bad. So that probably means you think the 2W oldbois are a pretty poor idea as well. What's the point of rehashing this?
2W Firstborn is fine, provided they pay the appropriate point cost.
Very few Space Marine units are paying the proper points right now.
Xeno, do you think Space Marines are well-balanced, compared to the other existing Codecs right now? That includes the as-of-yet unupdated Codecs, since they're still valid to play.
I don't think it's fair to claim that 9th ed codices should be balanced against 8th edition ones. I think the marines got over generous core keywords - a completely unnecessary buff to dreads - and have a few key units that need nerfs with some weapons going up in cost. To answer your question though - No - Marines are a step ahead of every army in the game right now. I fully expect by the middle of next they will be power creeped out (except maybe some snowflake chapter)
Clearly the MM needs a point increase. Eradicators. Imo a fair amount of units need reductions to. The new Gladiator tanks cost way too much. Lots of internal balance issues too. In general though it is a pretty high quality codex by GW standards and I like the 9th edition format.
Why not? I can play my Daemons against your Marines right now, if Covid wasn't stopping me.
If GW wanted to crank up the power, they should've charged appropriately for it, and then once EVERYONE got supercharged, they could bring the points down to old levels, but keep everyone on parity.
It is impossible to release rules staggered like this and be balanced at the same time. I think it's best and tournaments really should take this format too. Have different divisions for 40k - the haves and the have nots.
Marines and crons can play 9th edd codex division - everyone else can play 8.5 codex eddition. In a friendly match - it doesn't matter anyways. If someone is playing marines against your daemons they should not spam their tournament builds against you. It's not fair.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 16:50:00
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/10/27 16:51:34
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's 1 point more than a 5th-7th edition Plaguebearer.
You really want to make that comparison?
So you don't think tacs were that bad. So that probably means you think the 2W oldbois are a pretty poor idea as well. What's the point of rehashing this?
2W Firstborn is fine, provided they pay the appropriate point cost.
Very few Space Marine units are paying the proper points right now.
Xeno, do you think Space Marines are well-balanced, compared to the other existing Codecs right now? That includes the as-of-yet unupdated Codecs, since they're still valid to play.
I don't think it's fair to claim that 9th ed codices should be balanced against 8th edition ones. I think the marines got over generous core keywords - a completely unnecessary buff to dreads - and have a few key units that need nerfs with some weapons going up in cost. To answer your question though - No - Marines are a step ahead of every army in the game right now. I fully expect by the middle of next they will be power creeped out (except maybe some snowflake chapter)
Clearly the MM needs a point increase. Eradicators. Imo a fair amount of units need reductions to. The new Gladiator tanks cost way too much. Lots of internal balance issues too. In general though it is a pretty high quality codex by GW standards and I like the 9th edition format.
Why not? I can play my Daemons against your Marines right now, if Covid wasn't stopping me.
If GW wanted to crank up the power, they should've charged appropriately for it, and then once EVERYONE got supercharged, they could bring the points down to old levels, but keep everyone on parity.
It is impossible to release rules staggered like this and be balanced at the same time. I think it's best and tournaments really should take this format too. Have different divisions for 40k - the haves and the have nots.
Marines and crons can play 9th edd codex division - everyone else can play 8.5 codex eddition. In a friendly match - it doesn't matter anyways. If someone is playing marines against your daemons they should not spam their tournament builds against you. It's not fair.
Why can't they? If the power level is 100, release new Dexes at 100.
Or, if they want to crank it up to 200, release the Dexes at the same time, or charge the new Dex the appropriate costs.
Moreover, Marines are really flipping good ACROSS THE BOARD. An ordinary, fluffy TAC list is significantly better from the Marine Dex than most any other Codex right now.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/27 16:52:19
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: It is impossible to release rules staggered like this and be balanced at the same time.
Remind me who's putting a gun to GW's head and demanding that they stagger rules releases in this manner in the first place?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2020/10/27 16:53:05
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: It is impossible to release rules staggered like this and be balanced at the same time.
Remind me who's putting a gun to GW's head and demanding that they stagger rules releases in this manner in the first place?
Beancounters and shareholders, because all quartals need nice numbers..
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/10/27 16:55:51
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: It is impossible to release rules staggered like this and be balanced at the same time.
Remind me who's putting a gun to GW's head and demanding that they stagger rules releases in this manner in the first place?
IMO it's the biggest issue for the game and always has been. Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%. What part do you think gets remembered?
That doesn't matter though. What matters is the games we play. I want 100% of my games to be balanced. Not 0% like this release format means.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/10/27 16:59:29
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: It is impossible to release rules staggered like this and be balanced at the same time.
Remind me who's putting a gun to GW's head and demanding that they stagger rules releases in this manner in the first place?
IMO it's the biggest issue for the game and always has been. Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%. What part do you think gets remembered?
That doesn't matter though. What matters is the games we play. I want 100% of my games to be balanced. Not 0% like this release format means.
Got anything to back that up?
but the lower part is just wishfull thinking disbalance sells, just like frustration, GW behaves alot like mobile feetoplay games.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/10/27 17:03:18
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
At no point in 8th were Marines the worst army. Even at the height of Ynnari and Castellans, they were still winning games and had some decent tournament placings.
The same cannot be said for Necrons or Grey Knights during the same period of time.
Nazi punks feth off
2020/10/27 17:07:03
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: It is impossible to release rules staggered like this and be balanced at the same time.
Remind me who's putting a gun to GW's head and demanding that they stagger rules releases in this manner in the first place?
Beancounters and shareholders, because all quartals need nice numbers..
I mean you are right....but it really irks me that quarterly stock prices and revenue quotas are impacting game balance in a bloody hobby. I deal with that stuff enough at work.
Looking for Durham Region gamers in Ontario Canada, send me a PM!
See my gallery for Chapterhouse's Tervigon, fully painted.
2020/10/27 17:08:45
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: It is impossible to release rules staggered like this and be balanced at the same time.
Remind me who's putting a gun to GW's head and demanding that they stagger rules releases in this manner in the first place?
IMO it's the biggest issue for the game and always has been. Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%. What part do you think gets remembered?
That doesn't matter though. What matters is the games we play. I want 100% of my games to be balanced. Not 0% like this release format means.
Got anything to back that up?
but the lower part is just wishfull thinking disbalance sells, just like frustration, GW behaves alot like mobile feetoplay games.
40% WR for most astartes factions on 40k stats is pretty irrefutable. Then again you could have just like...played against marine armies and figured it out pretty easily yourself...oh? You don't have any stratagems? Your tanks don't get army traits(you seem to play CSM so this also affected you) ...none of your units shoot twice? No access practically to -1 to hits. Practically no invune saves.
You are probably right about GW wanting it to be this way. If it makes them the most money how could you blame them. Then again...it's hard to imagine why you'd ever made a new models rules bad...which GW does all the time. Models with good rules fly off the shelves even if they are old.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/10/27 17:10:30
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: It is impossible to release rules staggered like this and be balanced at the same time.
Remind me who's putting a gun to GW's head and demanding that they stagger rules releases in this manner in the first place?
Beancounters and shareholders, because all quartals need nice numbers..
I mean you are right....but it really irks me that quarterly stock prices and revenue quotas are impacting game balance in a bloody hobby. I deal with that stuff enough at work.
there are industries out there, gaming industry and entertainment in general, that should NOT and NEVER be beholden to the stockmarket...
here you are seeing what happens when they do..
it turns the company hypocritical..
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/10/27 17:14:40
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Bosskelot wrote: At no point in 8th were Marines the worst army. Even at the height of Ynnari and Castellans, they were still winning games and had some decent tournament placings.
The same cannot be said for Necrons or Grey Knights during the same period of time.
Incorrect. WR shows they were the worst. 40k is a dice game. You try enough with any army you can become a statistical outlier. The only thing that matters is how many times it was attempted and the attempt average. As any college professer would do when determining the curve on a test. You cutt off the lowest and highest points on a test and then average the ones in the middle to figure the curve.
Also just a hint...GK are basically just space marines with a few unique units. Yeah - they were also bad but I am including them in all astartes. Which were all hella bad. Unlike sisters which have been good even as an index. With a high win rate.
Necrons were pretty bad to - Maybe at times were worse off than marines. But if I recall they weren't in the 40% WR area.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 17:16:50
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/10/27 17:22:09
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Insectum7 wrote: And that was in the same post where you challenged the idea that "power armor horde" could do well. A power armored horde that also contains Devastators, Sternguard, etc along with Tactical Squads.
Again, show me the lists and battle reports where these 'hordes' actually came together to find success. Without seeing the lists, the battle reports, and getting some understanding of the meta it's impossible to analyze how strong your idea of a power armour horde actually was.
We may also have a different definition of horde as well because even at their height lists would have been topping out at what 30 sternguard, likely in 6 combat squads because MSU meta, 15 devs, people rarely wanted to take the ablative wounds, and minimum units of tactical marines. The rest of your points would be tied up in HQ choices, drop pods, and razor backs and your 'horde' tops out at 55 marine bodies which.
If tripling down on damage-dealing Power Armor has a supporting theme of MOAR power armor that deals damage. . . that's the Power Armor Horde in a nutshell. Tacs aren't there as the high focus damage dealers, but in support of Devastators, etc. they bring the same types of weapons with greater longevity because the opponent is going to be dealing with the Devastators first. Deployed correctly, and this is the situation I aim for, four Tactical Squads bring the same firepower as three additional Devastator Squads, plus a lot more bolters, Ob Sec, and longevity.
A Devastator Squad is 10 Marines with 4 Heavy Weapons
A Tactical Squad is 10 Marines with 1 Heavy Weapon and 2 Special Weapons that hit like Heavy Weapons at close range.
Thus, just deliver the Tactical to close quarters, and you're hitting close to the power of another Devastator Squad, but are in a better position to use Bolters and Assault in order to gum up the opponents maneuvering/fire/whatever is necessary. Or, Combat Squad them and two Special Weapon crews will hit like 4 Heavy Weapons while still getting the benefit of being able to gum stuff up. Tac Squads are just Devastators-lite that you put on the front line to do Tac-Squad stuff. Playing UM it's great, because assaulting/being assaulted, then pulling out and gunning at stuff again is a fantastic ability that chews a lot of stuff up.
That's not how those lists played in practice though. What made Devs good, in the few metas they were good in, was dropping them on something important with drop pod assault and spamming Grav weapons into the key parts of your opponents army. The same thing goes for Sternguard who loved being Salamanders so they could drop in with their combi-meltas or combi-flamers and get a disgusting RoI. You weren't winning because you saturated the enemies ability to kill MEQs you won because you could easily put your best damage dealers into the enemy lines and put up enough threat that they never even shot at your guys on objectives.
Well that's literally how my lists played for 8th.
70 Marine bodies minimum. Loaded up on Heavies and Specials, possibly some supporting units along with transports to deliver them. The army varied a bit, but the best target any anti-vehicle weapon would have is a Razorback, although sometimes not even that. If I went full bore on firepower I could get 100 S5+ AP-3 D2+ (combination of Grav, Plasma, Las) shots with full CM + Lt. Rerolls. Realistically some Grav Cannons turned into Plasma Cannons for cost and range (and same damage output against many target types), but you get the idea. Unprepared armies melted. Prepared armies usually suffered gobs of damage and sometimes we got into brutal attrition games where we both dwindled pretty hard. It wasn't the "best" army, and arguably I could have optimized it further, but even against "max cheese" tourney lists like Eldar and IG soups at their respective heights I still had huge amounts of damage capability and didn't feel too far behind in the power curve. My really bad losses were usually because I did something boneheaded like forgot to play to the mission, etc.
That was BEFORE SM codex 2.0, mind you. Obviously the power level increased when that came out.
A couple additional points. My PA Horde relies a lot on UM tactics, being able to back out of combats and keep firing is really, really good, and it allows you to really mess with some opponents. Rhinos are probably some of the toughest models, point for point, in the game, paying only 7 points for a T7 3+. HK missiles (lots of them) are great. An army with the damage output tied up in troops doesn't care about opposing Lascannon-esque weapons. Heavies/Specials are Heavies/Specials regardless of what unit is carrying them. Don't forget your Krak Grenades. You could "transport" 20 Marines 9" with one Rhino.
So how did this work vs tripoint?
Well enough. Tripointing can go both ways, sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you. Although lots of times I had a Rhino in combat too, which increases the footprint of the units involved, making things harder to tripoint.
I only need tripoint a single model. Your rhino doesn't help that much. I feel like you were playing against people bad at tripointing, but it really doesn't matter anymore. You have your position on it and we have ours. Both of which are wiped away by 9th edition completely.
Right, but you have to surround a model. Keeping close base to base and denying the area to surround a model is the defensive play, and when you increase the overall footprint of a unit/group of units it's harder to cutoff the potential exits. It also depends hugely on the size of the units that are fighting, etc. It's not as easy as "move-tripoint-profit".
Well, anyone can pay 2 CP now, so tripoint protection is gone anyway.
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's about the sort of comment I expect from Xeno at this point. I won many a game with 15 point 1w Marines. They were totally fine.
Your last statement doesn't necessary follow from the second to last statement; just because YOU won doesn't automatically make them fine. But its now completely irrelevant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 17:24:16
2020/10/27 17:41:49
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Bosskelot wrote: At no point in 8th were Marines the worst army. Even at the height of Ynnari and Castellans, they were still winning games and had some decent tournament placings.
The same cannot be said for Necrons or Grey Knights during the same period of time.
Incorrect. WR shows they were the worst. 40k is a dice game. You try enough with any army you can become a statistical outlier. The only thing that matters is how many times it was attempted and the attempt average. As any college professer would do when determining the curve on a test. You cutt off the lowest and highest points on a test and then average the ones in the middle to figure the curve.
Also just a hint...GK are basically just space marines with a few unique units. Yeah - they were also bad but I am including them in all astartes. Which were all hella bad. Unlike sisters which have been good even as an index. With a high win rate.
Necrons were pretty bad to - Maybe at times were worse off than marines. But if I recall they weren't in the 40% WR area.
Necrons were statistically worse and from what I remember never actually won a major tournament. At least not pre-Marines 2.0.
And GK had basically no overlap with regular Marines ruleswise, not least of all because they had different units and stratagems. If you're going to place them under the Codex Marines umbrella then do CSM get to come to? Where is the cut-off point?
And again, GK and Necrons still performed worse than Codex Marines throughout the edition. Even after Necrons got their Codex they were performing worse than Codex Marines. Crucially, pre-PAGK only won 2 tournaments in total (and one of those was a non-competitive, fluff-based event), Necrons won none. Various flavours of Ultramarines and Raven Guard won tournaments through two-thirds of the edition using the initial 8th Codex.
And looking at absolute winrates is incredibly misleading because it discounts how people choose to play tournaments in 40k. Marines winrates got pushed down because a lot of newer, less experienced players were taking them to tournaments for the first time because 8th made the playerbase explode in size. So you had a large representation for the Faction/Codex made up of a lot of inexperienced competitive players, many of whom it must be said were not playing hyper-comp in the first place (as a lot of comp 40k players don't anyway to be fair) and also playing an army which everyone knew well and had long figured out. But even amongst this, you had good players placing well with the army still, even at its lowest points. This is in stark contrast to good, experienced Necron and GK players who were not placing well or who straight up switched to other armies.
Hell, it wasn't until like CA2018 that I felt I could even stand a chance as Necrons vs Raven Guard or Guilliman gunline armies.
Nazi punks feth off
2020/10/27 17:54:26
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I don't hold my personal record with ultras or Gk to be extremely relevant in how the army performs. I've probably won more than I've lost with ether army over multiple editions. I've won local tournaments with GK many times in 5/7th as well as team tournaments. It's cause I know how to make a skew list - not because I am a particularly skillful player. I play 40k like Admiral nelson. Or alexander. When I succeeded I knew it was because I was lucky.
what's funny is I played eldar and tau to in these editions where I have to do dumb stuff just to keep the game interesting. Played Ynnari one time in 7th and we still have stories about how I literally beat 4k of deathwatch in drop pods with a 2k Ynnari list. SOULBURST!!!! one guy at the shop literally calls me that everytime he sees me. Even though I rarely play eldar anymore.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/10/27 17:59:18
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: I don't hold my personal record with ultras or Gk to be extremely relevant in how the army performs. I've probably won more than I've lost with ether army over multiple editions. I've won local tournaments with GK many times in 5/7th as well as team tournaments. It's cause I know how to make a skew list - not because I am a particularly skillful player. I play 40k like Admiral nelson. Or alexander. When I succeeded I knew it was because I was lucky.
what's funny is I played eldar and tau to in these editions where I have to do dumb stuff just to keep the game interesting. Played Ynnari one time in 7th and we still have stories about how I literally beat 4k of deathwatch in drop pods with a 2k Ynnari list. SOULBURST!!!! one guy at the shop literally calls me that everytime he sees me. Even though I rarely play eldar anymore.
Well they do hold personal records to relevant. So that basically ends the analysis. Which is irrelevant anyway. It's clear GW thought marines were too weak, and so they turned it up to "11" and broke off the dial.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 18:00:00
2020/10/27 18:00:49
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's about the sort of comment I expect from Xeno at this point. I won many a game with 15 point 1w Marines. They were totally fine.
Your last statement doesn't necessary follow from the second to last statement; just because YOU won doesn't automatically make them fine. But its now completely irrelevant.
If you think 10 point marines for 5th-7th is fair you are insane.
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's about the sort of comment I expect from Xeno at this point. I won many a game with 15 point 1w Marines. They were totally fine.
Your last statement doesn't necessary follow from the second to last statement; just because YOU won doesn't automatically make them fine. But its now completely irrelevant.
If you think 10 point marines for 5th-7th is fair you are insane.
I didn't say that. Someone else said that. This isn't an either/or proposition. I can think both positions are inaccurate. There is a lot of design space between "They're fine" and "make 'em 10 pts". Making them 10 pts is just about what Gladius ended up doing in 7th, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 18:05:40
2020/10/27 18:09:03
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's about the sort of comment I expect from Xeno at this point. I won many a game with 15 point 1w Marines. They were totally fine.
Your last statement doesn't necessary follow from the second to last statement; just because YOU won doesn't automatically make them fine. But its now completely irrelevant.
If you think 10 point marines for 5th-7th is fair you are insane.
All it does is shoot a bolter. What you gonna do - roll over the 2+ deathstarts with bolter fire? Give me a break.
Xenomancers wrote: Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.
That's about the sort of comment I expect from Xeno at this point. I won many a game with 15 point 1w Marines. They were totally fine.
Your last statement doesn't necessary follow from the second to last statement; just because YOU won doesn't automatically make them fine. But its now completely irrelevant.
If you think 10 point marines for 5th-7th is fair you are insane.
I didn't say that. Someone else said that. This isn't an either/or proposition. I can think both positions are inaccurate. There is a lot of design space between "They're fine" and "make 'em 10 pts". Making them 10 pts is just about what Gladius ended up doing in 7th, though.
DING DING DING. We have a winner! Which is why Gladius wasn't auto win. 2450 points vs 2000 points should be auto win. Turns out - nothing in the army was worth it's points so it only turned out to be a high tier skew list that was still totally beatable.
Good luck beating an eldar army in 7th that got 3-4 free wave serpents.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 18:11:29
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/10/27 19:48:53
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
My arguments in this thread have been that the issue with 2W marines isn't that they're too tough, but that marine lists have too much firepower from specialist units, that toughness isn't that good at making units feel tough on the table in 8th and 9th edition, and "The argument is that the T4 W1 Sv3+ statline has always been bad enough to require a gimmick to make it worth taking. Most good marine lists take as few T4 W1 Sv3+ bodies as they can in favour of literally anything else. The exceptions to these rules generally involve units that are taken for their offense rather than their defensive profile past examples include Sterguard Vets, Devastators, 5-man tac squads with twin special weapons in Razorbacks. In all cases you didn't expect these models to be durable, you expected them to kill things and hopefully trade up." This was my first post talking about the old MEQ statline.
Your argument has changed a number of times when proven false with facts. A Marine stat line by itself is durable compared to most of the game, this isn't a "marine" problem, its a 40k problem that you seem to think effected Marines more than anyone else in the entire game. I had Horde armies in 7th and 8th getting gunned off the table before turn 3 was over. So likewise does that mean that my T4 W1 6+ save was the issue and only the issue? no it was because some genius decided to hand out dmg buffs like it was christmas. That doesn't mean your "Marine" statline was less durable than everyone elses basic troops/infantry. Again, your statline (pre 9th) was roughly 3x more durable than the ork statline but you were barely more than 2x as expensive. Ork Boy = 7pts in 8th edition, SMTac was what? 13-15? How about those Devestators? My Lootas were 18ppm compared to a Devestator with a missile launcher who was what? 33? so more than 3x as durable but less than half the cost. Factor in them always being in cover for a 2+ vs my Lootas usually not being able to fit in cover, but if they somehow managed, only getting a 5+.
I think you might be confusing me for Martel given that my first post on the issue called out sternguard and devs by name.
No, you have said specifically the "Marine stat line" and than I asked about sternguard/devs etc you said they don't count because they relied on damage not durability. Ok, well here is the thing, they functioned and won tournaments with that stat line. So yeah they relied on dmg but almost every unit in the game relies on damage to win. Pre SM buffs the Ork horde didn't win by being durable but by being able to beat anyone off an objective using a plethora of S4 melee attacks.
There were metas where they did well, but that usually wasn't because of their stats. It was due to rhino rush, grav pods, sternguard salamander drop pods, formations, etc. there weren't metas where taking space marines because they had 'the best stats in the game' was actually viable. They weren't always the worst, but a list that relied on power-armoured bodies was rarely even a mid-tier threat.
You mean like every other tournament winning list in the game not relying on the basic statline of any unit but instead relying on some sort of gimmick to win....like Ork boyz appearing in massive numbers turn 2 in charge range? or a SM Smash captain? Or an IK castellan being able to shoot at full capacity the whole game regardless of dmg? Or hell, the death star build relying on several buffs from several characters to make them super durable? I can keep going dude. No list won because the basic statline of their infantry was amazing....except maybe Eldar scatbikes in 7th , but even than, basically the entire game acknowledged how broken that unit was.
"The argument is that the T4 W1 Sv3+ statline has always been bad enough to require a gimmick to make it worth taking. Most good marine lists take as few T4 W1 Sv3+ bodies as they can in favour of literally anything else. The exceptions to these rules generally involve units that are taken for their offense rather than their defensive profile past examples include Sterguard Vets, Devastators, 5-man tac squads with twin special weapons in Razorbacks. In all cases you didn't expect these models to be durable, you expected them to kill things and hopefully trade up."This has been the crux of my argument since I weighed in on the matter. Are you even reading what I post or are you just assuming I'm saying the same thing as Martle and arguing against that?
Yes, we acknowledge this argument, and enjoy watching you contradict yourself in your own post. Stat line isn't good...except for these tournament winning lists that used those stat lines...but they don't count because I only care about durability and everything else can be forgotten......and please don't apply this bad logic to LITERALLY EVERY OTHER ARMY IN THE FETHING GAME.
Again, show me the lists and battle reports where these 'hordes' actually came together to find success. Without seeing the lists, the battle reports, and getting some understanding of the meta it's impossible to analyze how strong your idea of a power armour horde actually was.
We may also have a different definition of horde as well because even at their height lists would have been topping out at what 30 sternguard, likely in 6 combat squads because MSU meta, 15 devs, people rarely wanted to take the ablative wounds, and minimum units of tactical marines. The rest of your points would be tied up in HQ choices, drop pods, and razor backs and your 'horde' tops out at 55 marine bodies which.
That's not how those lists played in practice though. What made Devs good, in the few metas they were good in, was dropping them on something important with drop pod assault and spamming Grav weapons into the key parts of your opponents army. The same thing goes for Sternguard who loved being Salamanders so they could drop in with their combi-meltas or combi-flamers and get a disgusting RoI. You weren't winning because you saturated the enemies ability to kill MEQs you won because you could easily put your best damage dealers into the enemy lines and put up enough threat that they never even shot at your guys on objectives.
So are we just ignoring all of 7th where Marines were top tier because they took a ton of SM bodies that got them free transports? OMG They required a gimmick to win? same argument, same bad logic. Yeah, go figure infantry don't win tournaments by themselves without a gimmick or some kind of extra damage potential. And since an ork Horde is usually 120+ models with 1/3rd the durability as SM's I would call any SM list with 40+ models a Power Armor Horde. So 55 models is absolutely a "horde" of power armor.
And straight back into the bad argument that the Marine stat line requires a gimmick to win events...yes we know, so does everyone else.
SecondTime wrote: I guess that's why I saw so many naked squads then. So maybe it is a non-problem. Maybe the inefficiency of other marine weapon platforms forced the weapons onto the marines and other armies were using bare minimum units to shield their superior weapon platforms. Pre 9th marines with gear just seem to play incredibly fragile and I know others can attest to this.
This isn't a "Marine" problem, it was a problem for basically everyone. I never took Special weapons in my ork units because they never did much and usually detracted from the Unit. At least with a Min squad of Tac Marines(even at 15ppm) you could plop them on an objective and have a Las cannon or Missile launcher with 4 ablative wounds. For the same price I could take like 10 boyz and a big shoota. Less durable vs most enemy fire and significantly less useful at ranged combat.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think it's fair to claim that 9th ed codices should be balanced against 8th edition ones. I think the marines got over generous core keywords - a completely unnecessary buff to dreads - and have a few key units that need nerfs with some weapons going up in cost. To answer your question though - No - Marines are a step ahead of every army in the game right now. I fully expect by the middle of next they will be power creeped out (except maybe some snowflake chapter) Crons fair okay against marines by virtue of being good at killing marines because of their popular weapon profiles. Marines are better against the field though by a wide margin.
9th edition codexs should be balanced against what they are playing against. This isn't Marines fault, it was GW's fault. And the fact is, in 7th Orkz had the first codex and were...actually WORSE than they were before, and at that point they were playing 6th edition with a 4th edition codex. In fact, if you remember, at the time the community was using the ork codex to suggest 7th would be an edition of lower power levels, of less damage output....right before Necrons got decurion and eldar got the super codex and the game went to hell. Also, the argument that the game is ok to be imbalanced until everyone gets a codex isn't a good argument either since 8th took 18ish months before the major factions all got a codex.
Xenomancers wrote: IMO it's the biggest issue for the game and always has been. Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%. What part do you think gets remembered?
Wow and right back into another falsehood. No, Marines did not have "The worst army in 40k for 85% of the edition" no matter how you want to judge the codex this is completely BS. your go to defense of this falsehood is Tournament W/L ratio but you always so conveniently leave out Top placings. "Marines had a bad W/L rate therefore they were bad" in those same tournaments they usually had a top 4-6 placing and usually at least 2 in the top 20 for big events like LVO. So again, no they didn't suck. But for you and others, if Marines aren't super OP they are garbage, which i'll prove by the next quote.
DING DING DING. We have a winner! Which is why Gladius wasn't auto win. 2450 points vs 2000 points should be auto win. Turns out - nothing in the army was worth it's points so it only turned out to be a high tier skew list that was still totally beatable.
Good luck beating an eldar army in 7th that got 3-4 free wave serpents.
LMAO! Marines were bad because they didn't auto-win! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Eldar didn't need 3-4 free wave serpents because their Scat bikes, WK, Spiders, Reapers etc were dramatically UNDER PRICED. And guess what? Nobody denied that except a couple of Die hard WAAC Eldar players. Yeah go figure Marines required a huge gimmick to beat the other top contenders that were either massively OP or required a gimmick of their own to win events (Triptides) Sorry bud, SM's have not been bottom tier at all for the last few editions, and they are currently massive over powered compared to basically every other codex in the game.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't hold my personal record with ultras or Gk to be extremely relevant in how the army performs. I've probably won more than I've lost with ether army over multiple editions. I've won local tournaments with GK many times in 5/7th as well as team tournaments. It's cause I know how to make a skew list - not because I am a particularly skillful player. I play 40k like Admiral nelson. Or alexander. When I succeeded I knew it was because I was lucky.
what's funny is I played eldar and tau to in these editions where I have to do dumb stuff just to keep the game interesting. Played Ynnari one time in 7th and we still have stories about how I literally beat 4k of deathwatch in drop pods with a 2k Ynnari list. SOULBURST!!!! one guy at the shop literally calls me that everytime he sees me. Even though I rarely play eldar anymore.
And then everyone stood up and clapped?
Are these the same people that run the meta bending mind breakingly powerful squigbuggies and stompas?
2020/10/27 21:37:47
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
The problem I experimented playing T4 1w sv3+ models in the past both 8th and previous editions is that yeah, ok, lasguns and lass cannons yada yada but most weapons in the game are some form of medium rate of fire, medium strenght, some ap (this is more relevant in 8th) weapons.
So ok, a space marine historically was much more resilient to both bolters, lasguns, shootas, etc... than a guardsmen or other light infantry, but agaisnt 70% of the weapons in the game, even not the ones specialized to killing marines, space marines had a astronomically bad resilience.
That does not mean that marines were bad yada yada, but I just want to make clear than when most people have complained for decades that marines always felt too fragile specially for their costs, thats what they were talking about.
And yeah, ok, if you play SM hordes with 100-120 marines if you lose 40 marines a turn is not that big of a deal but 40 marines is what most space marine players of all flavours used as all of their infantry.
EDIT: And of course there was a ton of units in other armies that were expensive and just as fragile (poor tyranid warriors) but unlike marines not that many armies share one single profile for 80% of their units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/27 21:39:54
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/10/27 21:40:37
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
, but even than, basically the entire game acknowledged how broken that unit was.
