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.

I think the problem here is that a top tier tournament list is required.

IMO, lists shouldn't define tournament wins but rather players do. Hand Nick Nanavanti DKoK and he should still win vs modern SM. The fact that he can't is a travesty.

So instead of asking for top tier tournament results in the toxic competitive environment that GW has fostered by making the list the important facet, lets agitate for making the competitive environment into REAL competition by reducing the importance of the list.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

No, it hasn't. I literally summarized my arguments as they've related to this thread and my first post about the T4 W1 Sv3+ profile specified that it was bad in spite of units like Sterngaurd and Devestators. If you're unable to see that please quote me having changed my argument or concede the point.

As to 7th and 8th edition, and specific comparisons to Orks, I have to ask yes, and? For one it ignores prior editions which are part of my argument secondly it ignores every other army in the game. Your 'argument' reads more like whining about how orks were underpowered for two editions while ignoring that, unlike marines, they've had metas where their basic troops were among the best units in the game. I'm sorry if you never got to play those editions.

I figured 7th would be far enough back, 6 years of Marines being dominant in the game isn't enough? We can go back to 6th and 5th edition where Ork armies that won relied upon *shock* Gimmicks. Specifically Nob biker wound pools and skew lists for Kan Wall. Ironically, in neither 5th or 6th were ork Boyz "the best units in the game". So how far are you going back to make that statement that Ork boyz were one of the best units in the game? And are we now moving the goal posts for a unit to have to be the best in the game?

I am also not whining about orkz being under powered LOL, I am pointing to them as an example, as a measuring stick of how SM statlines compare, if you are viewing them as under powered by comparison that is your own thought process, not mine. In all those examples the "bad" Marine durability was point for point better than the comparable ork unit. We could probably do something similar with other armies, but I am most familiar with orkz.

Except for all the earlier metas where Orks won because they were durable, had killing power, and could deploy in 30 man foot blobs under a KFF or in trukks for a mobile threat. You can't just look at 7th and 8th edition when you talk about the marine stat line being awful

Where was this "durable" ork meta? what edition was this? I can remember skew horde lists that abused the KFF wording. I can even remember trukk spam, but according to you, that doesn't count because you can't make it a gimmick remember? But regardless, lets ask that question again, how does that "awful" marine durability statline compare to those Ork units you just named? Which is more durable the ork version or the marine version point for point?

I've literally posted winning Ork and DE lists from days gone past that didn't spam anything in particular and won major tournaments. Please show me a comparable SM list that managed the same thing.

And I can post you a SM list where they didn't spam anything in particular either and won major tournaments, doesn't prove a damn thing If you want examples you can literally go look up at 40kstats and see a host of 8th edition Tournament winning SM lists, same for 7th prior to decurion style formations, same for 6th where Marines tacs were probably at their worst but still did well in the tournament scene.

Ask yourself this. Would you prefer to pay for a marine or a BS 3+ veteran guardsman who can put out the same firepower for cheaper? Marine units are forced to pay for durability that doesn't make them tough, a melee stat that a suicide gunner unit couldn't use, while other armies can instead use a specialist unit that gets all the upsides of high firepower without paying for stats they don't use.

A BS 3+ Veteran guardsmen is criminally under costed at 6ppm right now, but even at 6ppm, I would still take the Marine, would you like to know why? Because T3 with a 5+ save dies incredibly fast, to kill 1 requires 1.5 bolter wounds or 2.5 hits. That Marine as mentioned takes 6. So the Veteran I openly admit is under priced and yet the Marine is still more than twice as durable. And in 9th edition, where holding an objective with troops has a lot of value, a T4 3+ save model that can do decent dmg in CC is more valuable than 3 BS3 guardsmen plinking away with lasrifles, especially when it should be closer to 2.3 vets, not 3.

Good units in 40k specialize at doing one thing and are supported by other units that do another specific thing. Being a mushy middle generalist is a terrible plan unless you're not paying points for your secondary role.

That very much used to be the case, now we have things like intercessors and tac marines who are criminally under priced who can do everything better than those "specialists".

Except that I can point to metas prior to 7th edition where that wasn't the case. Are metas older than 7th invalid now?

Ahh, so now the argument isn't that T4 W1 3+sv statlines are terrible, its that at some nebulous time, as yet to be defined by you, that the aforementioned statline was bad and therefore that justifies the hamfisted buffs SM got in 9th.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the problem here is that a top tier tournament list is required.

IMO, lists shouldn't define tournament wins but rather players do. Hand Nick Nanavanti DKoK and he should still win vs modern SM. The fact that he can't is a travesty.

So instead of asking for top tier tournament results in the toxic competitive environment that GW has fostered by making the list the important facet, lets agitate for making the competitive environment into REAL competition by reducing the importance of the list.

That's going to be an issue then because in the Rock, Paper, Scissors world of 40k Marines can beat the Pebbles, Post-It Notes, and Plastic Scissors but lose to the Boulders, Cardboard, and Box Cutters that other armies will have at the top of these roles. It's all well and good to want a system where you can use skill to expose the flaws in your enemy's plan but a simple D6 IGOUGO game like 40k that has been shedding rules depth for years isn't that system.

That's why every tournament winning list is some form of skew and why Marines have very rarely had a seat at top tables. Their very design doesn't lend themselves to working against the most special specialists that other armies want to play with.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the problem here is that a top tier tournament list is required.

IMO, lists shouldn't define tournament wins but rather players do. Hand Nick Nanavanti DKoK and he should still win vs modern SM. The fact that he can't is a travesty.

So instead of asking for top tier tournament results in the toxic competitive environment that GW has fostered by making the list the important facet, lets agitate for making the competitive environment into REAL competition by reducing the importance of the list.

That's going to be an issue then because in the Rock, Paper, Scissors world of 40k Marines can beat the Pebbles, Post-It Notes, and Plastic Scissors but lose to the Boulders, Cardboard, and Box Cutters that other armies will have at the top of these roles. It's all well and good to want a system where you can use skill to expose the flaws in your enemy's plan but a simple D6 IGOUGO game like 40k that has been shedding rules depth for years isn't that system.

That's why every tournament winning list is some form of skew and why Marines have very rarely had a seat at top tables. Their very design doesn't lend themselves to working against the most special specialists that other armies want to play with.

So instead of fixing the game, you think the correct answer is just Marine dominance? Or do you have no ideas for how to fix it? Because one could argue that generalists are actually quite good against specialists, since they will have the tools to exceed where the specialist does not - and therefore are able to exploit the weakness the specialists have. Conversely, the specialists have a single defining strength, and are therefore obvious and predictable.

SemperMortis wrote:
I figured 7th would be far enough back, 6 years of Marines being dominant in the game isn't enough?

I figured I'd just pick the only time since very early 3rd where Codex: Space Marine marines have been good... Not biased at all.

We can go back to 6th and 5th edition where Ork armies that won relied upon *shock* Gimmicks. Specifically Nob biker wound pools and skew lists for Kan Wall. Ironically, in neither 5th or 6th were ork Boyz "the best units in the game". So how far are you going back to make that statement that Ork boyz were one of the best units in the game? And are we now moving the goal posts for a unit to have to be the best in the game?

And yet we have the oft-repeated phrase 'Boyz before toys' and the advice to any new Ork player in 5th and 6th edition is that they need to run enough Boyz to compliment their Toyz. You didn't see top lists that ran minimum numbers of Boyz or skipped them entirely for grots like you did with Marines who took 5-man naked units or Scouts.

Tide was also always a threat that usually failed to find tournament space because of the time-limited nature of such events and not for power level reasons.

Where was this "durable" ork meta? what edition was this? I can remember skew horde lists that abused the KFF wording.

If the gimmick itself did all the lifing why wasn't that KFF list just as good with Nobz and Grots? Could it be that Boyz were actually good?

Which is more durable the ork version or the marine version point for point?

What's shooting at them? Orks are good against weapons waste strength and AP against their KFF/Cybork saves and low PPM costs that and MEQ are good against the basic small arms of most armies. It's hardly apples to apples.

And I can post you a SM list where they didn't spam anything in particular either and won major tournaments, doesn't prove a damn thing If you want examples you can literally go look up at 40kstats and see a host of 8th edition Tournament winning SM lists, same for 7th prior to decurion style formations, same for 6th where Marines tacs were probably at their worst but still did well in the tournament scene.

So why haven't you?

A BS 3+ Veteran guardsmen is criminally under costed at 6ppm right now, but even at 6ppm, I would still take the Marine, would you like to know why? Because T3 with a 5+ save dies incredibly fast, to kill 1 requires 1.5 bolter wounds or 2.5 hits. That Marine as mentioned takes 6. So the Veteran I openly admit is under priced and yet the Marine is still more than twice as durable. And in 9th edition, where holding an objective with troops has a lot of value, a T4 3+ save model that can do decent dmg in CC is more valuable than 3 BS3 guardsmen plinking away with lasrifles, especially when it should be closer to 2.3 vets, not 3.

In 9th, for most of 40k that hasn't been the case.

That very much used to be the case, now we have things like intercessors and tac marines who are criminally under priced who can do everything better than those "specialists".

Which is why I've focused on previous editions and have stated multiple times that Marines are currently too powerful.

Ahh, so now the argument isn't that T4 W1 3+sv statlines are terrible, its that at some nebulous time, as yet to be defined by you, that the aforementioned statline was bad and therefore that justifies the hamfisted buffs SM got in 9th.

Where have I stated that 9th edition Marines are okay as they are? My argument has been that them going to 2W and getting to feel tough isn't what's making them broken and that generalists are hard to balance.

Look at the thread I started in this subforum to see my point of view.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So to clarify, generalists can be competetive. Yes?

If you make them cost few enough points ANYTHING in 40k can be competitive. Current Marines are good generalists and you're complaining about them being too good. My point is that there's no elegant way to make a generalist feel good without making it feel WAY TOO GOOD because it appears to be OP at everything.
.

Conversely, you don't make the generalists feel OP and you accept the fact that there are always going to be people who can't get the full potential out of the unit because it isn't just plug-and-play.

I'm not actually complaining about marines being too good from a competetive standpoint in terms of winning games. I'm complaining about marines continually evolving to be head and shoulders above units that were formerly comparable. 2W is a dramatic increase in power over Necrons, Aspect Warriors, Orks, etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So instead of fixing the game, you think the correct answer is just Marine dominance? Or do you have no ideas for how to fix it? Because one could argue that generalists are actually quite good against specialists, since they will have the tools to exceed where the specialist does not - and therefore are able to exploit the weakness the specialists have. Conversely, the specialists have a single defining strength, and are therefore obvious and predictable.

Da fuq? I have done exactly that on this message board.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I don't think it would work for 40k but one way this could work is as follows:

1) Remove HQs from the battlefield and instead purchase special rules, faction-specific mission objectives, buffs, etc. pregame based on which commander is in charge of your force.

2) Make enforced fog of war style effects where most units can see a shorter distance than they can shoot. Your other units can skip a turn to let another unit you control take a shot at something they can see but the firing unit cannot. Troops, ideally being a cheap unit that doesn't output a ton of damage would be ideal for this.

3) Make specialist units far more limited in what they can target. For example, an anti-tank missile launcher can only fire at tanks with any real probability of success. Some specialist units may not even deploy to the table and instead requiring called shots by troops to interact with the board; snipers, air support, and artillery come to mind.

4) With rare exceptions only small parts of your army start on the table with a flexible mix of other forces able to come in as the game progresses. For example, you may bring 1,500 points of models to a 1,000 point game and choose what comes on based on how the battle progresses. Some forces might get more extra points to work with, some might arrive faster, others might start with an extra unit on the field, etc.

I think all of this would do a lot to ensure the basic troop feels better while giving scope for various faction traits to shine through.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I think the better way to do Fog of War in 40k is by giving each datasheet a sight range of, for example, 18 inches. This means that you might not be able to use the full range of your weapons without a spotter. Some armies would pay extra points because they can shoot further without spotters, others might automatically share target call-outs without needing to take an action to do so, yet others might need to pull out a radio and hunker down if they want artillery support.

Not only does this give troops more of a use, but it also gives us another lever to differentiate and balance armies.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Man a lot of butthurt over the proposal of Orks needing to be W2.

Quite frankly stats aren't explored enough. Make Exarchs W3! Make Meganobz W4! What's with the hesitation?

This! If we aren't going to redesign the game from the ground up could we please explore what limited design space the game has?

Let's try wacky stuff like making some weapons just outright kill non-character multi-wound models on an unmodified hit roll of 6, this would make a unit like snipers terrifying for the new multi-wound units. We could try giving horde units modifiers where they get +1 to hit as long as they have more than 11 models, call it something like 'weight of fire'. I'm even down for half stats, like a 3.5 strength that wounds T3 like it's S4 and wounds T4 like it's S3. That way you can make something stronger, or tougher than a guardsman but weaker and less tough than a space marine.

40k might never be a deep game with loads of moment to moment tactical depth but it has scope to be far better than it is.

See this entire thread for my take on fixing vehicles in 40k: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/791901.page

Compared to a video game, like League, 40k has much less room for skill expression. Part of this is due to the heavy RNG inherent in a game that relies on rolling dice to determine outcomes and the other half is that the rules are fairly shallow and the implementation of IGOUGO is essentially non-interactive. The other half is that it's played out in turns rather than in real-time, so quick reactions and high levels of awareness aren't needed. There are also no drafts where you get to ban-pick-counter pick your opponent using a variety of units, no dynamic items to build or skills to rank up over the course of a single match, no timed objectives to shift the focus of the battle around the playspace in-game, and no real alternative strategies (lane swaps, flex picks, split push, dragon stacking versus focusing on rift scuttle and farming, early game versus scaling, etc.).

So unlike League where you can have champions that work well at each tier of play (Under Plat, Plat and Diamond, Challenger, Pro) there isn't really room to make units that work well at one tier but have a low skill cap or units that only a very skilled player can make use of. There also isn't an automated matchmaker for 40k and even if there were the relatively tiny player base and long game times mean that it would struggle to find even matches in a reasonable length of time.

All this basically says that we should raise the floor on bad units in 40k while lowering good units because everything has to fall into the same tier of play and compounding a skill imbalance because 40k does take skill to play well, with a list imbalance is going to result in many poor games.

I've made many suggestions for how to fix 40k and expressed frustration at its lack of depth. It's not my fault you've failed to see them.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Conversely, you don't make the generalists feel OP and you accept the fact that there are always going to be people who can't get the full potential out of the unit because it isn't just plug-and-play.

I'm not actually complaining about marines being too good from a competetive standpoint in terms of winning games. I'm complaining about marines continually evolving to be head and shoulders above units that were formerly comparable. 2W is a dramatic increase in power over Necrons, Aspect Warriors, Orks, etc.

Necrons are beating Marines right now and also have tools that will work in a meta where Marines aren't top threats, other factions haven't been updated yet, this evolution has been a thing for what 18 months now in a game that spans decades. This too shall pass.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I figured I'd just pick the only time since very early 3rd where Codex: Space Marine marines have been good... Not biased at all.

My apologies for thinking the recent 6 YEARS of gaming was enough and apparently was unaware that this is "biased". And I 100% agree (sarcasm) that Marines were terrible in 4th,5th and 6th edition.

And yet we have the oft-repeated phrase 'Boyz before toys' and the advice to any new Ork player in 5th and 6th edition is that they need to run enough Boyz to compliment their Toyz. You didn't see top lists that ran minimum numbers of Boyz or skipped them entirely for grots like you did with Marines who took 5-man naked units or Scouts. Tide was also always a threat that usually failed to find tournament space because of the time-limited nature of such events and not for power level reasons.

Yes, because ork "toyz" also included units that were basically boyz with ...toyz. Kind of like devastators are Marines with toyz. And those "toyz" were generally sub par in comparison to similar units from other armies. Funny enough, in those editions you didn't see boyz spam winning events, and it wasn't because of the "time constraints" you mentioned. In fact, in 7th one of the formations we got in the horribly written Ork Supplement was 10 units of boyz for 100-300 models. And the only time it did well was when fielded with....a Gimmick, specifically a VSG that was later removed for all intents and purposes due to its nature of being a bit broken. In early 8th, ork boyz spam/kommando spam was the only way to compete and that was easily 180-240 models. No problem with time constraints back then, so why weren't they winning tournaments back in 4th-6th edition?

If the gimmick itself did all the lifing why wasn't that KFF list just as good with Nobz and Grots? Could it be that Boyz were actually good?

Because Nobz were terribly over priced and grotz are functionally useless. In 4-6th, tournament had a lot of kill point missions, and its a bit harder to remove a 30 boy blob under a KFF than a 10 Nob unit or a 30 blob of T2 grotz.

What's shooting at them? Orks are good against weapons waste strength and AP against their KFF/Cybork saves and low PPM costs that and MEQ are good against the basic small arms of most armies. It's hardly apples to apples.

Both are T4, both had 1 Wound, the only difference was their save stat, Orkz 6+ marines 3+. KFF's weren't everywhere and Cybork was only on nobz, not boyz and was relatively expensive. And in 4th-6th, massive damage output like we see today just didn't exist. What was the best anti-marine weapon in 4th-6th that most armies used? For my orkz it was getting into CC and using as much attacks as possible while the nob with his PK basically did the heavy lifting. Plus, if we are going to throw in buffing characters for durability, why not give those space marines an apothecary?

So why haven't you?

Why haven't i bothered to post a list of all the space marine winning lists from the last 6 years? mostly because its such a ridiculous request. Should I also prove to you that getting hit by a bus is a bad thing? or that breathing water isn't conducive to long term health in humans? But just for the sake of argument, here is a list space marine lists in 7th, https://bloodofkittens.com/7th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

In 9th, for most of 40k that hasn't been the case.

So lets move those goal posts to talk about the game from previous editions as opposed to your original question. If that is the case than I would probably take the cheaper model that puts out "Roughly" The same firepower, because in previous editions, playing to the mission wasn't as important as Killing lots of stuff.

Which is why I've focused on previous editions and have stated multiple times that Marines are currently too powerful.

Good, we can agree on that.



You can argue until your blue in the face the fact remains that SM's did very well for themselves for basically the entire game's existence, definitely within the last 12-14 years. In fact, they and maybe eldar stand apart from the rest of the game as having really never truly been bottom tier for 4-5 editions straight.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Conversely, you don't make the generalists feel OP and you accept the fact that there are always going to be people who can't get the full potential out of the unit because it isn't just plug-and-play.

I'm not actually complaining about marines being too good from a competetive standpoint in terms of winning games. I'm complaining about marines continually evolving to be head and shoulders above units that were formerly comparable. 2W is a dramatic increase in power over Necrons, Aspect Warriors, Orks, etc.

Necrons are beating Marines right now and also have tools that will work in a meta where Marines aren't top threats, other factions haven't been updated yet, this evolution has been a thing for what 18 months now in a game that spans decades. This too shall pass.

You missed the point.

SemperMortis wrote:
My apologies for thinking the recent 6 YEARS of gaming was enough and apparently was unaware that this is "biased". And I 100% agree (sarcasm) that Marines were terrible in 4th,5th and 6th edition.

Feth off with the high horse you rode in on.

Yes, because ork "toyz" also included units that were basically boyz with ...toyz. Kind of like devastators are Marines with toyz. And those "toyz" were generally sub par in comparison to similar units from other armies. Funny enough, in those editions you didn't see boyz spam winning events, and it wasn't because of the "time constraints" you mentioned. In fact, in 7th one of the formations we got in the horribly written Ork Supplement was 10 units of boyz for 100-300 models. And the only time it did well was when fielded with....a Gimmick, specifically a VSG that was later removed for all intents and purposes due to its nature of being a bit broken. In early 8th, ork boyz spam/kommando spam was the only way to compete and that was easily 180-240 models. No problem with time constraints back then, so why weren't they winning tournaments back in 4th-6th edition?

I skipped 7th, like every sensible player of 40k did. If you played that mess, that's on you.

As for works using masses of Boyz to win, they did that. It wasn't uncommon to see Orks lists with multiple 30 model blobs that also brought other stuff that worked alongside them. Contrast this to Marine lists where that never happened with Marines, even their gimmicks were stand-alone and abused drop pods and high damage guns with zero interaction from the rest of their list required, that's what I mean by a gimmick. Using 90 boyz, plus Nobz, plus Battlewagons, plus HQs isn't a gimmick, its an army list.

Because Nobz were terribly over priced and grotz are functionally useless. In 4-6th, tournament had a lot of kill point missions, and its a bit harder to remove a 30 boy blob under a KFF than a 10 Nob unit or a 30 blob of T2 grotz.

So Boyz were a good durable unit that had a role in winning lists...

Both are T4, both had 1 Wound, the only difference was their save stat, Orkz 6+ marines 3+. KFF's weren't everywhere and Cybork was only on nobz, not boyz

Mad Dok Grotsnik disagrees with you...

What was the best anti-marine weapon in 4th-6th that most armies used? For my orkz it was getting into CC and using as much attacks as possible while the nob with his PK basically did the heavy lifting. Plus, if we are going to throw in buffing characters for durability, why not give those space marines an apothecary?

It depends on your army. Everything from Devourers to Grav to FRFSRF lasguns was used to mow down Marines.

Why haven't i bothered to post a list of all the space marine winning lists from the last 6 years? mostly because its such a ridiculous request. Should I also prove to you that getting hit by a bus is a bad thing? or that breathing water isn't conducive to long term health in humans? But just for the sake of argument, here is a list of LVO winners in 7th, https://bloodofkittens.com/7th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

I was asking for a list or two, similar to what I've posted. Also, feth 7th, nobody sane played 7th and it nearly killed the game. Let's talk 3rd through 6th and 8th and 9th and keep that mess in the past where it belongs.

So lets move those goal posts to talk about the game from previous editions as opposed to your original question. If that is the case than I would probably take the cheaper model that puts out "Roughly" The same firepower, because in previous editions, playing to the mission wasn't as important as Killing lots of stuff.

I've always been talking about the broad sense and not just one edition. If you've missed that I don't know what to say.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You missed the point.

I don't think that I have.

My argument is that Marines feel right at 2W, kill too much stuff for their cost, that other factions need buffs, and that it's tough to make a generalist codex that has a top tier list without making the whole thing too strong. Look a few posts up and you can literally see me quoting myself saying those things!

I've also argued that the current Marine codex isn't sure to be an issue going forward as we haven't seen any other 9th edition rules aside from Necrons yet. If we get more books at the same power level as Necrons I don't think Marines will be that much of an issue even if Marines don't catch any nerfs. Marines aren't at Iron Hands levels any more, they won't effortlessly dominate top tables at tournaments, and that's the meta I care about. If you feel like they're an issue casually even after we get more 9th edition books I'll sympathize but it won't bother me all that terribly much.

I've always thought marines should be at least 2 wounds, I rejoiced years back when the legion of the damned were 2 wounds, then they made them elites and you could only take ten of them!
In today's game I think they need it. When you consider all the giant units that are now in many armies that can deal out a lot of punishment, I think you'll find that marine players will take all the help they can get! I know some may say "ah but marines can take (detachments?) like some of the walkers etc, but I think you need to bear in mind that not all marine players will have access to these units, simply because they can't afford to buy them. I suspect that may factor into GW thinking. So, what do they do? Make them a little tougher to take out.
Remember, marines are meant to be the spearpoint, first in last out, they need to be tough.
Ho-hum.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Feth off with the high horse you rode in on.

getting a bit rude aren't you?

I skipped 7th, like every sensible player of 40k did. If you played that mess, that's on you.

yeah that was for orkz in previous editions as well good for you though skipping 7th, it was a feth show.

As for works using masses of Boyz to win, they did that. It wasn't uncommon to see Orks lists with multiple 30 model blobs that also brought other stuff that worked alongside them. Contrast this to Marine lists where that never happened with Marines, even their gimmicks were stand-alone and abused drop pods and high damage guns with zero interaction from the rest of their list required, that's what I mean by a gimmick. Using 90 boyz, plus Nobz, plus Battlewagons, plus HQs isn't a gimmick, its an army list.

it wasn't uncommon to see it, but it was incredibly rare to see them win anything at tournaments. Nob biker shenanigans and kan wall are what carried the Ork 4th edition codex through 5th and 6th edition.

So Boyz were a good durable unit that had a role in winning lists...

The other troops choice was garbage and Nobz are elites...so by comparison yes, but compared to the rest of the game? still less durable/useful than the Marines you are complaining about.

Mad Dok Grotsnik disagrees with you...

LMAO! Very true, you could take a 160pt character so that you could give your Ork boyz a 5+ Invuln save....for 5pts PER MODEL. Suddenly that 180pt Mob is now 330pts...and you upgraded their save from a 6+ armor save to a 5+ invuln save. Under the old rules, Mad Dok I believe had to join a Mob so therefore his FNP only conferred to 1 unit, so you had basically 500pts in a 1500pt tournament army (I think that was the average battle size in 4th-6th but its been a long time) tied up in 1 troop choice that for all intents and purposes is still LESS durable that a similar value of Tac Marines.

I was asking for a list or two, similar to what I've posted. Also, feth 7th, nobody sane played 7th and it nearly killed the game. Let's talk 3rd through 6th and 8th and 9th and keep that mess in the past where it belongs.

Ah, i keep forgetting, you get to randomly decide which editions, models and rules we use in our analysis. So, I either have to go back over a decade to find you battle reports or I could just say...8th edition. Where SM's were arguably the most dominant army in the entire game at the start of the edition and after Codex 2.0 unarguably the most broken OP army in the game Do you really want me to post winning lists for you or do you feel this is an established fact we can agree on?

I've always been talking about the broad sense and not just one edition. If you've missed that I don't know what to say.

Except when you are talking about specific models in specific editions but also don't count in other editions because meh.

My argument is that Marines feel right at 2W, kill too much stuff for their cost, that other factions need buffs, and that it's tough to make a generalist codex that has a top tier list without making the whole thing too strong. Look a few posts up and you can literally see me quoting myself saying those things!

Sure they feel right, they are literally the most powerful troop choice in the game point for point right now. Which is hilarious because they are actually better than Intercessors who themselves are currently out shooting Firewarriors at range and out fighting genestealers in CC. So yeah I am sure they feel right and I do give you credit though for saying they kill too much and other factions need buffs...but that is the issue. You "FEEL" they are right at 2W, but when you reduce their damage output OR buff other factions to similar levels where they can deal with those 2W Marines, guess what is going to happen? They will no longer "FEEL" right.

I've also argued that the current Marine codex isn't sure to be an issue going forward as we haven't seen any other 9th edition rules aside from Necrons yet. If we get more books at the same power level as Necrons I don't think Marines will be that much of an issue even if Marines don't catch any nerfs. Marines aren't at Iron Hands levels any more, they won't effortlessly dominate top tables at tournaments, and that's the meta I care about. If you feel like they're an issue casually even after we get more 9th edition books I'll sympathize but it won't bother me all that terribly much.

At the current moment, SM's and Custodes are dominating the meta. We haven't had any major tournaments recently but we did have a Spanish GT where 28 people showed up. Marines Had 2 top 5 placings, and 4 in the top 10. Notably 2 Salamanders a Blood Angel and a Crimson Fist. Sadly, nobody showed up with Necrons for a comparison :( So maybe they are doing well, I personally don't think they are going to fair well against the new 9th edition SM codex but I am at least honest in saying we don't have any real data points yet.

Flyrants were not OP. Flyrants got spammed because they were one of the only viable units in the codex for over 2 editions. Nids were not dominating tourney scenes or anything. Yes. Some good players with nids won tourneys. But they were not surrounded by other nid armies all covering the top ranks. It was 1 or 2 nids surrounded by eldar and SM.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the problem here is that a top tier tournament list is required.

IMO, lists shouldn't define tournament wins but rather players do. Hand Nick Nanavanti DKoK and he should still win vs modern SM. The fact that he can't is a travesty.

So instead of asking for top tier tournament results in the toxic competitive environment that GW has fostered by making the list the important facet, lets agitate for making the competitive environment into REAL competition by reducing the importance of the list.

That's going to be an issue then because in the Rock, Paper, Scissors world of 40k Marines can beat the Pebbles, Post-It Notes, and Plastic Scissors but lose to the Boulders, Cardboard, and Box Cutters that other armies will have at the top of these roles. It's all well and good to want a system where you can use skill to expose the flaws in your enemy's plan but a simple D6 IGOUGO game like 40k that has been shedding rules depth for years isn't that system.

That's why every tournament winning list is some form of skew and why Marines have very rarely had a seat at top tables. Their very design doesn't lend themselves to working against the most special specialists that other armies want to play with.

So instead of fixing the game, you think the correct answer is just Marine dominance? Or do you have no ideas for how to fix it? Because one could argue that generalists are actually quite good against specialists, since they will have the tools to exceed where the specialist does not - and therefore are able to exploit the weakness the specialists have. Conversely, the specialists have a single defining strength, and are therefore obvious and predictable.

To fix the game you need a whole rewrite, period. Thats difficult though when people here are vehemently against changing IGOUGO because "muh legacy rules it's change and i don't like the idea of a proper depth game" and against changing the dice to a slightly higher system because of something as absurd as "i can't read the numbers as quick".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To fix the game you need a whole rewrite, period. Thats difficult though when people here are vehemently against changing IGOUGO because "muh legacy rules it's change and i don't like the idea of a proper depth game" and against changing the dice to a slightly higher system because of something as absurd as "i can't read the numbers as quick".

I haven't met anyone that protests the former as it comes up, and the latter isn't actually relevant because you can achieve any probability with any size dice - what matters are the permutations it is put through by the rules. After all, for an 8% chance for X to succeed, you can either roll a 12 on a D12, or you can roll a 6 on a D6 and then a 4+.

Slipstream wrote:
In today's game I think they need it. When you consider all the giant units that are now in many armies that can deal out a lot of punishment, I think you'll find that marine players will take all the help they can get!

Cool. I guess every other army's infantry should get 2-wounds as well, then?

I mean, it's not as if giant units in other armies cease to exist when you play an army other than Space Marines.

The issue with changing the dice is purely availability of dice.

Mini d12s are a nightmare to come by in any sizable amount. Go try to buy just 10 of them. Contact dice manufacturers. Good luck.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To fix the game you need a whole rewrite, period. Thats difficult though when people here are vehemently against changing IGOUGO because "muh legacy rules it's change and i don't like the idea of a proper depth game" and against changing the dice to a slightly higher system because of something as absurd as "i can't read the numbers as quick".

I haven't met anyone that protests the former as it comes up, and the latter isn't actually relevant because you can achieve any probability with any size dice - what matters are the permutations it is put through by the rules. After all, for an 8% chance for X to succeed, you can either roll a 12 on a D12, or you can roll a 6 on a D6 and then a 4+.

There are people protesting it all the time. We literally have a bunch of protests in one thread right now simply because of "muh legacy I want it to work even if I admit it's outdated" and literally "I want to sit for half an hour" in previous threads this has been brought up. It's literally all because that's how it's always been done and they've literally never played any other game in their lives.

And while you CAN achieve various effects on different dice, the difference is the power of those modifiers themselves, which in turn made modifiers and rerolls too important and people whined. Even a single -1 to hit got a lot of people complaining it was broken (even though technically the +1 to the armor save instead is actually better in most circumstances), or the fact that a straight up +1 to Wound doesn't scale in any correct manner whatsoever. Even a Warlord Titan gets wounded on a 5+ if either a Slamguinus charges OR an Eldar Guardian got a +1 to wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
The issue with changing the dice is purely availability of dice.

Mini d12s are a nightmare to come by in any sizable amount. Go try to buy just 10 of them. Contact dice manufacturers. Good luck.

You can scale up to D8 or D10. That would require significantly less fiddling with stats, and as well the availability of D8 is pretty easy.

Right on with your points, but the problem isn't the whole concept of modifiers, the problem is GW's implementation.

A +1 to-wound on a different Toughness/Strength chart can matter less or more depending on how those rules are written.

Conversely, a +1 to-hit or -1 to-hit through some different permutation (such as an Attack skill and a Defense skill comparison) can be more or less effective, even with a d6.

Game design tools exist to make the D6 wonderful, wild, and flexible. GW won't use those tools. There's no indication they'd be better if you stuffed a bunch of D12s in their toolbox instead of D6s.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right on with your points, but the problem isn't the whole concept of modifiers, the problem is GW's implementation.

A +1 to-wound on a different Toughness/Strength chart can matter less or more depending on how those rules are written.

Conversely, a +1 to-hit or -1 to-hit through some different permutation (such as an Attack skill and a Defense skill comparison) can be more or less effective, even with a d6.

Game design tools exist to make the D6 wonderful, wild, and flexible. GW won't use those tools. There's no indication they'd be better if you stuffed a bunch of D12s in their toolbox instead of D6s.

But the rerolls are still an issue because of that singular power of lack of granularity. Would the Captain aura be as powerful if you just rolled 1s on a D8 or a D10 compared to a D6? Absolutely not. Would people have complained about Chapter Master rerolls if it was just effectively rerolling 2s and 3s on a D10 and Marines still were BS4+ in such a system? Probably not (but I'd still expect complaints because Marines).
Granularity with the D8 or D10 also helps with a better wounding Chart instead of wondering why Lasguns just stopped working on Mortarion (using T7 vs S3 in the previous system) or why they wound Carnifexes and Imperial Knights at the same rate. One might argue that "Lasguns shouldn't hurt Knights to begin with" but weapons doing absolutely nothing leads to skew lists to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the limit on the D6 made the BS chart for all the previous editions really fething silly

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Would the Captain aura be as powerful if you just rolled 1s on a D8 or a D10 compared to a D6? Absolutely not. Would people have complained about Chapter Master rerolls if it was just effectively rerolling 2s and 3s on a D10 and Marines still were BS4+ in such a system? Probably not (but I'd still expect complaints because Marines).

The Captain and Chapter Master auras would be easier to balance if they had something to do with command rather than being incremental variants of yelling at your dudes to make them shoot better. This implies a game system that has some modeling for what command actually is and does and how having your CO on the field helps you fight better, providing another dimension for unit differentiation beyond ever-more-infinitesimal raw combat ability.

The idea of needing more granular dice to better handle damaging Carnifexes and Knights- in a game system where a Knight standing three feet in front of you is exactly as difficult to hit as an Eldar jet a half mile away moving at two hundred miles per hour- is downright ludicrous. Switching to a more granular dice type to add functionally meaningless nuance to shallow game mechanics would be the epitome of missing the forest for the trees. Games with fewer sequential rolls and less granular tuning of individual outcomes on D6s still manage to accomplish deeper gameplay and real differentiation between forces as compared to 40K.

And if an effect really is so subtle and minor that adjusting one of the current 3-7 rolls required to resolve a single shot from a single weapon on a single model is insufficient granularity to represent it in the game stats? You don't represent it in rules, because it clearly isn't significant enough to be worth the added cognitive burden and design overhead to account for. If I'm fielding ICBMs and tank platoons I don't care if your combat knife is 5% sharper or your chaplain makes your riflemen 3% more accurate or your CO is carrying a hammer instead of a sword. None of that gak matters at the scale I'm playing at, and 40K continuously suffers from getting so caught up in its own chrome that it doesn't look at the big gaps where basic mechanics ought to be.

I think Rites of Battle made more sense when they allowed loyalists to use their leaders LD for all their units, back when LD actually mattered. When you needed it to get around things like target priority, being forced to fall back (back when falling back was a bad idea), etc. Way better than just yelling at anything within 6 to "Shoot better!".

 Lance845 wrote:
The issue with changing the dice is purely availability of dice.

Mini d12s are a nightmare to come by in any sizable amount. Go try to buy just 10 of them. Contact dice manufacturers. Good luck.

they're also hard to roll in large quantities.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The issue with changing the dice is purely availability of dice.

Mini d12s are a nightmare to come by in any sizable amount. Go try to buy just 10 of them. Contact dice manufacturers. Good luck.

they're also hard to roll in large quantities.

Step 1) Hold dice

Step 2) Let go of dice.

At the quantities of dice that 40K currently needs to play some factions (such as orks) no physical die is easy to roll because our hands cupped together have a finite volume and the dice exceed that volume.

 Lance845 wrote:
The issue with changing the dice is purely availability of dice.

Mini d12s are a nightmare to come by in any sizable amount. Go try to buy just 10 of them. Contact dice manufacturers. Good luck.

Is this a problem in the USA ?

If anyone needs dice sets of any size, number, or sides, its pretty easy to come by. Most LGSs in sweden can contact a distributor or manufacturer and order sets of any make up and even large amounts of loose bags of various sizes... I have done this myself... I called the distributor because my friend owns the store I did it through. Is it possible your LGS just doesnt want to put the leg work in ?

not sure what we are talking about... but I really do not think this is a kind of limitation.

It's not a problem. They just like to pretend it is.

SecondTime wrote:
It's not a problem. They just like to pretend it is.

That and the whole "I can't read numbers fast enough compared to pips!!!!1!" like seriously if you are that slow use an app.

 Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The issue with changing the dice is purely availability of dice.

Mini d12s are a nightmare to come by in any sizable amount. Go try to buy just 10 of them. Contact dice manufacturers. Good luck.

Is this a problem in the USA ?

If anyone needs dice sets of any size, number, or sides, its pretty easy to come by. Most LGSs in sweden can contact a distributor or manufacturer and order sets of any make up and even large amounts of loose bags of various sizes... I have done this myself... I called the distributor because my friend owns the store I did it through. Is it possible your LGS just doesnt want to put the leg work in ?

not sure what we are talking about... but I really do not think this is a kind of limitation.

No I am talking through experience contacting dice manufacturers both in europe and america. Ordering dice that are not d6s and d10s in larger quantities is difficult especially if you are looking for particular colors. It gets exponentially worse if you are looking for minis. (8-10mm scale as opposed to the standard 16mm scale). You know those cubes of 36 mini d6s people buy for like 10-15 bucks? Easy to come by. Want to get 30 d12s at the same scale? Again. Good luck. If you can find a manufacturer that would even be willing to sell you 100 as a minimum order I would love to hear about it. I have been told by multiple manufacturers that their molds for the dice come in the basic sets (d4/d6/d8/d10/d%/d12/d20) and they cannot manufacture d12s alone.

Again, if you can find something that does otherwise I would love to hear about it. I have a project that would really benefit from finding a supplier.

I don't let my opponents use the mini D6s due to legibility reasons. I also don't let them use GW specialty dice. Gravity dice are preferred if possible.

I can go to most game stores and just pick 12 D12s out of a bucket and play with them. I do most of my rolls in 10s or 12s anyway. Just use regular scale. I suspect that that's the reason for the differing experiences.

SecondTime wrote:
I don't let my opponents use the mini D6s due to legibility reasons. I also don't let them use GW specialty dice. Gravity dice are preferred if possible.

I can go to most game stores and just pick 12 D12s out of a bucket and play with them. I do most of my rolls in 10s or 12s anyway. Just use regular scale. I suspect that that's the reason for the differing experiences.

Well some of my units roll 40-90 dice at a time. I refuse to roll anything but mini dice. Good luck telling other people what dice they can use.