Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Galas wrote: I have to fundamentally disagree with the people that says non-optimal units for armies that don't have that playstile should be just worse in a point by point basis.
Thats NOT how you make good games and choices. If you give Tau a meele unit and it sucks because of course Tau meele units can't be good , then literally no Tau will use it and your unit becomes worthless.
Bullgryns are an example of a good "unit out of context", they are good meele units. Very good units. But they are support choice. They can't be the core of your army or your strategy, and they lack the amount of support and sinergies proper meele armies have around playing meele. They offer a deffensive meele unit for Imperial Guard.
You can have armies having varied playstiles and they all be different. Necrons, Orks, Chaos Marines and Sisters of Battle all can have reasonable meele based armies and all play differently just like in Fantasy you had shooting armies like Dwarfs, the Empire, Wood Elves, some builds of High or Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, and they all played differently. And then most of those if not all of those armies could be also played in other styles!
This "each faction should have only ONE viable playstile and all others should be suboptimal" maybe works for AoS armies with 6 units but in warhammer 40k thats not only extremely boring but just bad design.
If you have given meele units for sisters of battle and sinergies for sister of battle meele units they SHOULD be an equal fighting force than a full meele khorne army. You know why? Because it doesnt matter that Sisters of Battle have shooting options if I don't use them and my army has enough units and synergies to support a meele playstile. If I'm using 2000 points of my army they should be balanced agaisnt 2000 of your army unless.
Of course that doesnt mean both armies play the same, maybe khorne meele units are individually more powerfull and sisters of battle need more tricks to be equal, etc... but asking for actual unbalance in the game is just... what?
For example, giving Tau a meele element based around Kroots: Of course they aren't gonna put up a fight 1vs1 agaisnt khorne berzerkers but they can still have a place as fast, skirmish, ambush, stealth based units with light shooting and capable meele. They would be completely different in how they are played, but they should not be just "bad" by points. Just don't give Tau elite meele units designeds to go toe to toe and kill primarchs in meele.
If I'm paying +600€ and spendings hundreds of hours un building and painting my army I want them to give me the most fun they can. If I can only play them one way because "lol mu shooting" (And you can have many different ways of playing a shooting army, for example T'au taus and Farsight taus are completely different ways of playing a pure shooting army), thats horrible.
I completely agree with you and catbarf. Armies should have their general theme, but have methods of bending out of them. Since Marines are supposed to be jack of all trades, they should be able to bend one way or the other more easily than more specialized armies, but not outspecialize the specialists while also retaining their flexibility in all other ways.
Like, for lack of better thought process, if all abilities are listed as D, C, B, A, and S rank, with B being in the center, you should be able to wiggle your build around so that you move yourself up from say B to A tier, while possibly dropping something else down a rank or half a rank. If on this scale Marines are B in everything and Deathguard/Nurgle Daemons are S in Toughness, the Marines should be able to bump up their ranking in Toughness to an A if built around that, but might lose out on another aspect - maybe less board control as tilting towards Toughness costs more than being a generalist, or maybe less access to buffs than a more mainline unit (which access to / lack of Core keyword could be used to tweak).
Long story short, being able to play out of the designated sweet spot of an army should be possible, but not without some sort of cost. The cost cannot though make said unit/build useless though, but should instead offer alternate abilities to the norm.
The Bullgryn example is very apt - they are expensive, and fairly small units that are not very good at shooting, but they have good melee capabilities and are tough - with good wounds, saves, and toughness. What they lack in board control they make up for by bringing something Guard wouldn't otherwise have. Sure for the same price as a min Bullgryn squad you could take almost 3 full Infantry Squads, but for that price you get access to a different set of abilities that compete with without overshadowing each other. And with unit limits and the price of them, you can use Bullgryn to give a much needed melee boost, but you cannot build a full list of them and overshadow the rest of the army.
With the tier rankings above, a hard tilt into Bullgryns might bump a Guard army's Melee from a C to B overall (possibly an A in areas they are concentrated), but will also reduce their shooting and board control by a notch in exchange, as well as losing certain boons other Guard units enjoy (Regiment traits, Orders, etc).
Galas wrote: I have to fundamentally disagree with the people that says non-optimal units for armies that don't have that playstile should be just worse in a point by point basis.
Thats NOT how you make good games and choices. If you give Tau a meele unit and it sucks because of course Tau meele units can't be good , then literally no Tau will use it and your unit becomes worthless.
Bullgryns are an example of a good "unit out of context", they are good meele units. Very good units. But they are support choice. They can't be the core of your army or your strategy, and they lack the amount of support and sinergies proper meele armies have around playing meele. They offer a deffensive meele unit for Imperial Guard.
You can have armies having varied playstiles and they all be different. Necrons, Orks, Chaos Marines and Sisters of Battle all can have reasonable meele based armies and all play differently just like in Fantasy you had shooting armies like Dwarfs, the Empire, Wood Elves, some builds of High or Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, and they all played differently. And then most of those if not all of those armies could be also played in other styles!
This "each faction should have only ONE viable playstile and all others should be suboptimal" maybe works for AoS armies with 6 units but in warhammer 40k thats not only extremely boring but just bad design.
If you have given meele units for sisters of battle and sinergies for sister of battle meele units they SHOULD be an equal fighting force than a full meele khorne army. You know why? Because it doesnt matter that Sisters of Battle have shooting options if I don't use them and my army has enough units and synergies to support a meele playstile. If I'm using 2000 points of my army they should be balanced agaisnt 2000 of your army unless.
Of course that doesnt mean both armies play the same, maybe khorne meele units are individually more powerfull and sisters of battle need more tricks to be equal, etc... but asking for actual unbalance in the game is just... what?
For example, giving Tau a meele element based around Kroots: Of course they aren't gonna put up a fight 1vs1 agaisnt khorne berzerkers but they can still have a place as fast, skirmish, ambush, stealth based units with light shooting and capable meele. They would be completely different in how they are played, but they should not be just "bad" by points. Just don't give Tau elite meele units designeds to go toe to toe and kill primarchs in meele.
If I'm paying +600€ and spendings hundreds of hours un building and painting my army I want them to give me the most fun they can. If I can only play them one way because "lol mu shooting" (And you can have many different ways of playing a shooting army, for example T'au taus and Farsight taus are completely different ways of playing a pure shooting army), thats horrible.
I completely agree with you and catbarf. Armies should have their general theme, but have methods of bending out of them. Since Marines are supposed to be jack of all trades, they should be able to bend one way or the other more easily than more specialized armies, but not outspecialize the specialists while also retaining their flexibility in all other ways.
Like, for lack of better thought process, if all abilities are listed as D, C, B, A, and S rank, with B being in the center, you should be able to wiggle your build around so that you move yourself up from say B to A tier, while possibly dropping something else down a rank or half a rank. If on this scale Marines are B in everything and Deathguard/Nurgle Daemons are S in Toughness, the Marines should be able to bump up their ranking in Toughness to an A if built around that, but might lose out on another aspect - maybe less board control as tilting towards Toughness costs more than being a generalist, or maybe less access to buffs than a more mainline unit (which access to / lack of Core keyword could be used to tweak).
Long story short, being able to play out of the designated sweet spot of an army should be possible, but not without some sort of cost. The cost cannot though make said unit/build useless though, but should instead offer alternate abilities to the norm.
The Bullgryn example is very apt - they are expensive, and fairly small units that are not very good at shooting, but they have good melee capabilities and are tough - with good wounds, saves, and toughness. What they lack in board control they make up for by bringing something Guard wouldn't otherwise have. Sure for the same price as a min Bullgryn squad you could take almost 3 full Infantry Squads, but for that price you get access to a different set of abilities that compete with without overshadowing each other. And with unit limits and the price of them, you can use Bullgryn to give a much needed melee boost, but you cannot build a full list of them and overshadow the rest of the army.
With the tier rankings above, a hard tilt into Bullgryns might bump a Guard army's Melee from a C to B overall (possibly an A in areas they are concentrated), but will also reduce their shooting and board control by a notch in exchange, as well as losing certain boons other Guard units enjoy (Regiment traits, Orders, etc).
That is simply the crux of the matter and do I wish that was the case. If this was how GW did their unit design for factions we would see a healthier game overall. But Avarice/Greed is an evil consuming force. It is selling models first over healthy enjoyable gameplay.
"In every condition, in sickness, in health, in poverty's vale, or abounding in wealth, home or abroad, on the land, on the sea, as thy days may demand, thy succor shall be."
"Fear not, I am with thee; be not dismayed, I am thy God & will still give thee aid. I'll strengthen, help thee, cause thee to stand, upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand."
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
They're not S-tier everywhere simultaneously, but they can be S-tier in nearly anything they want, frequently better than armies that specialize in or base their identities around that Thing, while simultaneously still remaining no worse than A or B in every other category, where other armies would have to make serious tradeoffs for their specialty.
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
They're not S-tier everywhere simultaneously, but they can be S-tier in nearly anything they want, frequently better than armies that specialize in or base their identities around that Thing, while simultaneously still remaining no worse than A or B in every other category, where other armies would have to make serious tradeoffs for their specialty.
So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
From what I understand, the issue isn't that they can do everything at once, but that they can veer into everything while still maintaining all of their jack of all trades boons. If being straight B tier (average) across the board with a little spillover into A tier is ideal, Marines are instead mostly A tier and can shift into S tier very easily without sacrificing much in other areas. I think very few people are arguing it is bad Marines can do everything, they are arguing that Marines can do everything, and in many cases far better than factions that are based around those specialties.
The ideal would be for them as jack of all trades would be for them to be able to shift their focus so that they can be good (but definitely not the best) at anything, while simultaneously not suffering as hard for overspecializing. For example, if a build bumps them into A tier in mobility and board control, they should perhaps be dropped to C tier in say firepower. Meanwhile a faction that specializes in mobility and board control might be S ranked in them while ranking a D in survivability - but can do specialty builds or have access to certain units that can say knock board control down to A rank and bumping survival up to C or lower B.
Sorry for the letter grades, for me at least it helps visualize things. For note it would be D, C, B, A, S - going worst to best. I know some people are familiar with that kind of ranking but I always feel the need to explain.
JNAProductions wrote: What do you consider a horde? How many models is a horse army, in a 2k list?
And I’d argue that invulnerable saves are not a playstyle. They’re a defensive tool, not an entire playstyle.
Well I use horde differently. In this case I was using it the way others do. And they’ve already told you it’s not.
And I would certainly argue an entire army of invulnerable saves is a play style. Being able to leverage or invalidate a game mechanic is absolutely a play style. It was for mortal wounds. It is for invuln saves.
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
They're not S-tier everywhere simultaneously, but they can be S-tier in nearly anything they want, frequently better than armies that specialize in or base their identities around that Thing, while simultaneously still remaining no worse than A or B in every other category, where other armies would have to make serious tradeoffs for their specialty.
So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
No, the idea is Marines who choose to focus on a particular area should NOT be better at it than the faction based around it. Even specializing into a certain area, Marines still are average to above average in most other aspects. The idea is that their peaks should be lower but their valleys also higher. No matter how you build them they shouldn't be the WORST at anything, but they also shouldn't be the BEST.
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
They're not S-tier everywhere simultaneously, but they can be S-tier in nearly anything they want, frequently better than armies that specialize in or base their identities around that Thing, while simultaneously still remaining no worse than A or B in every other category, where other armies would have to make serious tradeoffs for their specialty.
So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
How did you come to that conclusion based on what he said? Not mocking, honestly curious.
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
They're not S-tier everywhere simultaneously, but they can be S-tier in nearly anything they want, frequently better than armies that specialize in or base their identities around that Thing, while simultaneously still remaining no worse than A or B in every other category, where other armies would have to make serious tradeoffs for their specialty.
So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
No, he said that marines who chose to focus on a particularly area should face the same drawbacks as an army who specializes in the same thing.
Currently, when marines focus on something, they do it just as good as the experts, while the general power of their army still keeps them above average in aspects they don't focus on.
When you can match dedicated melee experts in power while still being notably better than them in every other aspect, there is a problem.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Vulnerable to attrition?
erm, SM more or less just ignore attrition rolls though?
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.
From a marine point of view, now being able to lose a single model is a huge step down from decades of And They Shall Know No Leadership Characteristic.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote: From a marine point of view, now being able to lose a single model is a huge step down from decades of And They Shall Know No Leadership Characteristic.
it isn't though, as if they could just, ya know combat squad without disadvantage or MSU, like CSM, which btw would prefer bigger squads for stratagem efficency?
So that IS a bit hollow
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.
Leth wrote: Considering they are no longer immune to negative morale modifiers, it could possibly add up quick in the right builds.
Which you still bypass because you'd allready want to avoid big enough squads to be severly punished by attrition to that degree via MSU because you'd want to actively avoid blast?
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.
Add up to what? Two or three moral casualties over the course of a game?
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
I lack experience to have a well founded opinion on that therefore I'll just ask:
It was said (and from my limited understanding of the SM Codex it sounds not too far fetched) that for example White Scars do the fast attack thingy of Dark eldar better then them or that Marines can be geared to do the Deepstrike thing of GSC better then them etc.
Lets just assume a Marine army specializing in one of these areas that are typically associated with another faction. Is it correct to assume that they are still better in the other typical arreas than that specialized faction as they only have to give up pretty little? So if I would look at a White Scars army heavily geared towards lightning strikes to an extend they surpass what Drukhari can pull of, is it correct that they would still be much sturdier for example?
Or if I take Drop pods for turn 1 DS and lots of deepstrike options to an extend that the army is as good at that as GSC, that they are still better in Shooting, Durability and CC as they don't have to give up much for that?
Please see this as an honest question and not a rhethorical one. I don't know, I just see the datasheets and have a vague feeling that this might be the case.
On a peripherically related note: you can for example gear IG almost purely for CC just for the fun of it:
Spoiler:
DKOK Vanguard Detachment (only 1 Datasheet each, so that you can easily take multiples without Problems with Ro3:
DKOK Death Rider Commander (Demolition Charge, Powerfist) 60 points
Lord Commissar (Power Fist) 45 points
9 Bullgryns 387 points
Ogryn Bodyguard (Maul, Armor), 60 points
Ministorum Priest 40 points
DKOK Death Rider Command Squad 60 points
10 DKOK Death Riders 150points
together 820 Points, so you can take 2,5 of those in a 2000 Points game and would purely have CC dudes. Might be better to mix them another way, but it was just to demonstrate it. My main Point is: while you could by that push an army that Overall is maybe C Tier in CC to A, they have to give up almost everything for that. No Shooting, not non-LOS Shooting, no objective secured, just pure melee. And that is OK, because when you want to go that far out of your armies character it should - while possible - cost you.
Last but not least: @ slayer6 I read your comments and find them pretty good regarding the questions as you list various things they cannot do.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
BrianDavion wrote: So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
Sure. If by "suck" you mean "being A tier instead of S tier".
Anyone that isn't the number one very best sucks. I guess that means everyone on this board, me and you included, suck then.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
SemperMortis wrote: Its astounding how one person can be proven wrong so often by using facts and basic math, but keep coming in ranting about the same, easily disproved nonsense.
What's astounding is how much dakka hates marines. Valid points ignored. Always comes to...but but...I cant wipe 200 point infantry squads with cheaper units like I used to do in 7th eddition when space marines were garabge...then youll even argue marines werent garbage in 7th...
This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.
The majority of what you are talking about is imperial soup.
While some effective hero hammer type armies could really do well and even dominate the game. That really has nothing to do with the space marine codex. Invisibility was a spell that every army had access too and pretty much every winning army was abusing it in some way shape or form...Just some broken forge world option let you pick your power...(also...not in the space marine codex) ofc.
Bark star...thunder star...Cent star...Super friends? Space marines right? Actually no...we call that hero hammer for a reason. It was a broken game.
Xenomancers wrote:This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
Xenomancers wrote: For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies.
Xenomancers wrote: Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%.
So to summarize, Thousand Sons are in a great place in 8th and 9th because they can soup with Chaos and do well. But Space Marines, while winning tournaments and placing extremely well in LVO and Adepticon, were trash because they had to soup, and had a low W/L rate. Also, SM's were only the best in 8th edition for "15%" of the time. Just ignore the index phase, change the definition of "Worst" from meaning the most terrible option to "Not the best" and than ignore Tournament results and assume that SM 2.0 was only 15% of the game
But to get back on your main point of "everyone hates my speese mehreens!". No, nobody "hates" space marines. What people hate is BROKEN SPACE MARINES. And what you have done for page after page is defend broken game mechanics and units because they belong to Marines. You've defended Intercessors being better at range than Firewarriors while simultaneously being better in CC than ork boyz because Orkz can kill genestealers and genestealers can kill Marines....and then when I did the math for you showing you wrong you moved the goalposts or happily ignored the fact that your basic troops choice is better at a specialist troops units specialty, Point for point that is. Pretty sure it was you who also said Aggressors are now garbage because they lost shoot twice. Apparently your 135pt unit isn't good if it can't wipe out 160pts of enemy models in 1 turn.
BrianDavion wrote: So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
Sure. If by "suck" you mean "being A tier instead of S tier".
Anyone that isn't the number one very best sucks. I guess that means everyone on this board, me and you included, suck then.
I have made this exact point before Ox. Certain Marine players think if they aren't the very best army in the game they are garbage. Xenos and others saying SM's were bottom tier in 8th as an example of exactly this.
I don't want any faction to languish like Orkz did in 7th, but maybe a dose of what bottom tier actually is would have given them some perspective.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 17:56:09
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
that list has 132 bodies. a little bit more then "only about 100"
IMHO a horde army isn't even defined by the exact bodycount (although over 100 bodies is almost required) but rather a army for whom "the bulk of it's fighting force is made up of cheap disposable units whose durability comes from simply being able to absord more casualties then the enemy is capable of dishing out" (sort of a 'more bodies then we have bullets' situation)
this is rough as a horde is really a bit like obscenity. you know it when you see it.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
that list has 132 bodies. a little bit more then "only about 100"
IMHO a horde army isn't even defined by the exact bodycount (although over 100 bodies is almost required) but rather a army for whom "the bulk of it's fighting force is made up of cheap disposable units whose durability comes from simply being able to absord more casualties then the enemy is capable of dishing out" (sort of a 'more bodies then we have bullets' situation)
this is rough as a horde is really a bit like obscenity. you know it when you see it.
With 2 W do you get a "more wounds than bullets situation?
150 Gaunts would be 150 wounds at T3 6+ would be a horde. But 80 Marines would be 160 wounds at T4 3+. You have more wounds, and those wounds are much less vulnerable to anti-infantry fire, although more vulnerable to 2D+ weapons.
Fair on the body count-I didn't look that closely after the slightly less than 90 Skarboys.
But I'll hang with Insectum here and say that that's not a very good horde definition. I mean, if you saw 90 MEQ on the table against you, what would you call it?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Apparently Give up some of their Rules stack to make theirbpointa seem fair or pay for the benifit of stacking 3 or more layers of rules on stuff.
Genuinely go and try and loose a game with marines now without making it obvious your throwing the game against a new player now, it's borderline impossible, without "forgetting" half the rules or strategums.
That aside I think the issue is a complete lack of weakness.
JNAProductions wrote: Fair on the body count-I didn't look that closely after the slightly less than 90 Skarboys.
But I'll hang with Insectum here and say that that's not a very good horde definition. I mean, if you saw 90 MEQ on the table against you, what would you call it?
Baffling?
but yeah, obviously it can be done. any army can horde in that they take a bunch of their cheapest troops and spam them (BTW because I was curious I tried seeing how many bodies you can fit into a custodes list if you just want as many dudes as possiable, 2000 point "horde" of custodes is a "huge" 37 guys...) but the effectiveness of it goes up as the cost of your infantry goes down.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
That statement about TS primary was to help people find the choas armies I was talking about in 40k stats. No other reason. TS have a great win rate in 8th when you consider all choas armies that include them in their army. You could say the same thing about blood angels too I suppose or custodians. If you seriously don't think marine players don't know what it's like to be bottom tier you live in an alternate reality. The have been bottom tier in literally every eddition of 40k since 4th eddition.
7th (7.5) they had some success before they were power creeped by ynnari and daemonic incursion quit palying after ynnari in 7th because in all honesty the game had become a joke. 8th comes and during index time (before armies had any function rules or stratagems) they did pretty well for a few months until other amries started getting rules and they floundered all the way to the bottom. Then they had dominating success at the end of the edition after getting essentially their 9th eddition codex early. Revisionist historians man...scum of the earth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 18:57:32
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
That statement about TS primary was to help people find the choas armies I was talking about in 40k stats. No other reason. TS have a great win rate in 8th when you consider all choas armies that include them in their army. You could say the same thing about blood angels too I suppose or custodians. If you seriously don't think marine players don't know what it's like to be bottom tier you live in an alternate reality. The have been bottom tier in literally every eddition of 40k since 4th eddition.
7th (7.5) they had some success before they were power creeped by ynnari and daemonic incursion quit palying after ynnari in 7th because in all honesty the game had become a joke. 8th comes and during index time (before armies had any function rules or stratagems) they did pretty well for a few months until other amries started getting rules and they floundered all the way to the bottom. Then they had dominating success at the end of the edition after getting essentially their 9th eddition codex early. Revisionist historians man...scum of the earth.
Why do you insist of not counting index era as a legitimate period of time? Marines were top tier then.
JNAProductions wrote: Fair on the body count-I didn't look that closely after the slightly less than 90 Skarboys.
But I'll hang with Insectum here and say that that's not a very good horde definition. I mean, if you saw 90 MEQ on the table against you, what would you call it?
Baffling?
but yeah, obviously it can be done. any army can horde in that they take a bunch of their cheapest troops and spam them (BTW because I was curious I tried seeing how many bodies you can fit into a custodes list if you just want as many dudes as possiable, 2000 point "horde" of custodes is a "huge" 37 guys...) but the effectiveness of it goes up as the cost of your infantry goes down.
But the effectiveness also goes up as durability increases.
It takes 30 points of Bolt Rifles rapid firing outside the Tactical Doctrine to kill an Ork Boy. 60 without Rapid Fire.
It takes 120 points of the same to kill a single Tactical Marine.
Cover changes the numbers to 36 and 180 respectively.
Tactical Doctrine changes the numbers to 30 and 90 respectively.
Marines are 3-5 times as durable as Orks against small arms fire, while only being 2.25 times as expensive.
That statement about TS primary was to help people find the choas armies I was talking about in 40k stats. No other reason. TS have a great win rate in 8th when you consider all choas armies that include them in their army. You could say the same thing about blood angels too I suppose or custodians. If you seriously don't think marine players don't know what it's like to be bottom tier you live in an alternate reality. The have been bottom tier in literally every eddition of 40k since 4th eddition.
7th (7.5) they had some success before they were power creeped by ynnari and daemonic incursion quit palying after ynnari in 7th because in all honesty the game had become a joke. 8th comes and during index time (before armies had any function rules or stratagems) they did pretty well for a few months until other amries started getting rules and they floundered all the way to the bottom. Then they had dominating success at the end of the edition after getting essentially their 9th eddition codex early. Revisionist historians man...scum of the earth.
SemperMortis wrote: Its astounding how one person can be proven wrong so often by using facts and basic math, but keep coming in ranting about the same, easily disproved nonsense.
What's astounding is how much dakka hates marines. Valid points ignored. Always comes to...but but...I cant wipe 200 point infantry squads with cheaper units like I used to do in 7th eddition when space marines were garabge...then youll even argue marines werent garbage in 7th...
This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.
The majority of what you are talking about is imperial soup.
While some effective hero hammer type armies could really do well and even dominate the game. That really has nothing to do with the space marine codex. Invisibility was a spell that every army had access too and pretty much every winning army was abusing it in some way shape or form...Just some broken forge world option let you pick your power...(also...not in the space marine codex) ofc.
Bark star...thunder star...Cent star...Super friends? Space marines right? Actually no...we call that hero hammer for a reason. It was a broken game.
Xenomancers wrote:This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
Xenomancers wrote: For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies.
Xenomancers wrote: Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%.
So to summarize, Thousand Sons are in a great place in 8th and 9th because they can soup with Chaos and do well. But Space Marines, while winning tournaments and placing extremely well in LVO and Adepticon, were trash because they had to soup, and had a low W/L rate. Also, SM's were only the best in 8th edition for "15%" of the time. Just ignore the index phase, change the definition of "Worst" from meaning the most terrible option to "Not the best" and than ignore Tournament results and assume that SM 2.0 was only 15% of the game
But to get back on your main point of "everyone hates my speese mehreens!". No, nobody "hates" space marines. What people hate is BROKEN SPACE MARINES. And what you have done for page after page is defend broken game mechanics and units because they belong to Marines. You've defended Intercessors being better at range than Firewarriors while simultaneously being better in CC than ork boyz because Orkz can kill genestealers and genestealers can kill Marines....and then when I did the math for you showing you wrong you moved the goalposts or happily ignored the fact that your basic troops choice is better at a specialist troops units specialty, Point for point that is. Pretty sure it was you who also said Aggressors are now garbage because they lost shoot twice. Apparently your 135pt unit isn't good if it can't wipe out 160pts of enemy models in 1 turn.
BrianDavion wrote: So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
Sure. If by "suck" you mean "being A tier instead of S tier".
Anyone that isn't the number one very best sucks. I guess that means everyone on this board, me and you included, suck then.
I have made this exact point before Ox. Certain Marine players think if they aren't the very best army in the game they are garbage. Xenos and others saying SM's were bottom tier in 8th as an example of exactly this.
I don't want any faction to languish like Orkz did in 7th, but maybe a dose of what bottom tier actually is would have given them some perspective.
Your posts come off as very hypocritical, Xeno.
What's good for TSons is apparently not good enough for Loyalist Marines.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 19:02:12
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Ice_can wrote: Apparently Give up some of their Rules stack to make theirbpointa seem fair or pay for the benifit of stacking 3 or more layers of rules on stuff.
Genuinely go and try and loose a game with marines now without making it obvious your throwing the game against a new player now, it's borderline impossible, without "forgetting" half the rules or strategums.
That aside I think the issue is a complete lack of weakness.
It would be pretty easy actually. Don't use your character auras or more than one unit. don't take eradicators.
Take lots of primaris units like...hell blasters/ inceptors/ reviers/ infiltrators
Take lots marine armor like...predator's/razorbacks/rhinos/repuslors/exectuioners/lanraiders/storm ravens
You will struggle to win games with those units I assure you. The majority of those units are new too. The primaris everyone complains about. Which have been nerfed so hard or were never actually good - you'll never see these units on the table...cept maybe infiltrators.
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
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
