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.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Ragnar wasn't just some random character man. for feth's sake this has been explained eneugh when SOTB came out that if you don't know that by now I can only assume you're willfully ignoring that

Don't you understand Space Wolves are exactly the same as Codex: Space Marines, your unique units should be genericized so other factions can claim that design space, and your special characters aren't special because nobody read those books.

yeah I mean Ragnar's only appered in 7 novels, was the first space wolf character and has been the posterboy for space wolves from day 1! he's totally a nobody!

ahh, well hell, if hes been in 7 novels than I can understand how he would kill an Ork slightly less powerful than a fething Primarch. Can we expect Primarch Ragnar soon?

SemperMortis wrote:
ahh, well hell, if hes been in 7 novels than I can understand how he would kill an Ork slightly less powerful than a fething Primarch. Can we expect Primarch Ragnar soon?

Isn't Ghazy still around both in rules and fluff? If so how did Ragnar kill him?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
ahh, well hell, if hes been in 7 novels than I can understand how he would kill an Ork slightly less powerful than a fething Primarch. Can we expect Primarch Ragnar soon?

Isn't Ghazy still around both in rules and fluff? If so how did Ragnar kill him?

Well, for most people, getting your head chopped off is usually lethal, but since GW just pushed out a new model for him his plot armor was just thick enough to allow him to survive long enough to get his head sewn back on.

SemperMortis wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Ragnar wasn't just some random character man. for feth's sake this has been explained eneugh when SOTB came out that if you don't know that by now I can only assume you're willfully ignoring that

Don't you understand Space Wolves are exactly the same as Codex: Space Marines, your unique units should be genericized so other factions can claim that design space, and your special characters aren't special because nobody read those books.

yeah I mean Ragnar's only appered in 7 novels, was the first space wolf character and has been the posterboy for space wolves from day 1! he's totally a nobody!

ahh, well hell, if hes been in 7 novels than I can understand how he would kill an Ork slightly less powerful than a fething Primarch. Can we expect Primarch Ragnar soon?

Just because Ork players THINK Ghaz was equal to a primarch does not make him so.

SemperMortis wrote:
Well, for most people, getting your head chopped off is usually lethal, but since GW just pushed out a new model for him his plot armor was just thick enough to allow him to survive long enough to get his head sewn back on.

Ghazzy's entire shtick is that his head gets damaged and that makes him more powerful. It's literally a running joke at this stage.

BrianDavion wrote:


Just because Ork players THINK Ghaz was equal to a primarch does not make him so.

Ghaz is not equal to a Primarch. Currently Ghaz is a step below becoming a Primork. Which in the fluff IS as powerful/more powerful than a primarch.

Semper, please go dig up one of the old threads on this (I think beardeddragon started one of them). I've taken apart the story multiple times for people claiming the same things you do, and you are 100% wrong on this.

In short, Space Wolves got their asses handed in SotB by the orks in every way possible, Thrakka is nowhere as close to a primork as your headcanon makes him out to be.
Ragnar is both one of the strongest fighters among all space marines, an extremely famous character and still didn't stand a chance against Thrakka before he got his new suit of armor and ran from the second duel.

The only reason why you could claim that Thrakka was decapitated by a random space marine captain is because you didn't concern yourself with the story at all - at which point you also have no right to complain about it.

@BrianDavion: Semper is not the same as "ork players".

BrianDavion wrote:
Ragnar wasn't just some random character man. for feth's sake this has been explained eneugh when SOTB came out that if you don't know that by now I can only assume you're willfully ignoring that

Joe Ragnar, lord of the slippers.

SecondTime wrote:
Brandon Sanderson had a great lecture on why changing the rules of a universe TOO MUCH from what we live in causes problems. Logic doesn't stop working. Science exists, and scientific outcomes are by definition, rediscoverable and reproduceable. Even if the warp also exists and is a thing, that doesn't undo all of logic and science. It it were to, then everything is arbitrary, there are no stakes and nothing to relate to. This is why a satirical setting can't be played straight, but they do it anyway.

This is also why chapter sizes are immersion breaking because we know from own wars that one thousand troopers of any quality are too few and that's only on a planetary scale. But these sizes were determined in the satire era, not the straight era.

The issue is, the very idea of "progress" is a subjective human idea, and at various points in human history the zeitgeist has been "things are bad now, they were better and more advanced in the past." The whole point of 40k is that the humans in 40k do not have modern values; they do not think that human rights, or artistic expression, or freedom of thought, or technological progress have any inherent value. There are people like this in the real world right now, but they're a minority the countries where Warhammer is predominantly played. Having people change their opinion on this topic in-universe without a massive philosophical realignment beggars belief.

SemperMortis wrote:

Pfft, next you are going to tell me that idiots writing codex's for GW are breaking the fluff by inventing "NEW" Marines, or having Grey Knights slaughter Sisters of Battle to soak their weapons in their blood...which somehow makes them better.

I mean Grey Knights historically have a hardon for teamkilling, so they don't even really need a justification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Don't you understand Space Wolves are exactly the same as Codex: Space Marines, your unique units should be genericized so other factions can claim that design space, and your special characters aren't special because nobody read those books.

Space Marines have legitimately intruded into other factions' design space in a way like none other, though. It's a unique situation.

BrianDavion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can do 94 bodies (90 Tacs, 4 HQs) in a 2k list. That's a horde to me.

MW Spam, true! Though who does that better?

sure you can run 90 tac marines and some HQs but that lists proably going to have some serious issues, Orks meanwhile can run more guys and have eneugh points left over to take heavy support, fast attack etc back up.

you can do Hoard with Marines, depending on how you define it, I suppose, but I'd argue you can't do it WELL.

Well, 90 Tac Marines, Turn 1 kill 50ish Ork boyz without rerolls or buffs of any kind. ATM that is 400pts dead, or about a 25-30% return on investment. In CC right now those Tac Marines are punching above their weight class, being able to kill the equivalent of 50 Ork boyz in CC as well, again, no buffs. Ironically, a Space Marine Tac Horde would do really well Vs. Ork hordes.

I believe the Ork "horde" right now is only about 120ish Boyz or 960pts, once you add in the required buffs like a warboss, painboy, weirdboy etc you have about 700-800pts left over for other things, but this is usually made up of specialists, either Kommandos/stormboyz etc rather than fast attack buggies or even heavy support, mostly due to 9th editions tournament requirements as far as scoring is concerned.

so what you're saying is a list with nothing but anti-infantry weapons is highly effective against an infantry army?!

NO WAY!?!

Ork Boyz are also anti infantry and they are against an entire infantry army. By your logic it should be even better for them.

Please try to think just the tiniest bit about what you’re saying, before seeing a thread about Marines and rushing in to downplay them.

The best part about this ( or worst) is that dakka posters suggested the extra wound years ago and were considered absolutelty insane. What did we get? Extra wound plus all the mary sue doctrines and such. And double shoot melta. But dakka posters are consideres extreme lol. Probably 95% of proposed marine changes are less extreme than what gw did.

SecondTime wrote:
The best part about this ( or worst) is that dakka posters suggested the extra wound years ago and were considered absolutelty insane. What did we get? Extra wound plus all the mary sue doctrines and such. And double shoot melta. But dakka posters are consideres extreme lol. Probably 95% of proposed marine changes are less extreme than what gw did.

That doesn't make those suggestions less insane, it only makes GW's implementation more insane.

Plus those were suggested in an era where weapons only did 1 damage, ever, whether it was a lascannon or a lasgun. That was part of the problem with Monstrous Creatures, actually.

SecondTime wrote:
The best part about this ( or worst) is that dakka posters suggested the extra wound years ago and were considered absolutelty insane. What did we get? Extra wound plus all the mary sue doctrines and such. And double shoot melta. But dakka posters are consideres extreme lol. Probably 95% of proposed marine changes are less extreme than what gw did.

I would think you would be quite happy about the buffs to melta weapons, as well as all fw dreads going to BS/WS3. Didn't those used to be at the top of your wishlist? The extra wound on terminators should be right up your alley as well.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
The best part about this ( or worst) is that dakka posters suggested the extra wound years ago and were considered absolutelty insane. What did we get? Extra wound plus all the mary sue doctrines and such. And double shoot melta. But dakka posters are consideres extreme lol. Probably 95% of proposed marine changes are less extreme than what gw did.

I would think you would be quite happy about the buffs to melta weapons, as well as all fw dreads going to BS/WS3. Didn't those used to be at the top of your wishlist? The extra wound on terminators should be right up your alley as well.

1) The buff to melta weapons was the worst possible implementation. Double shots is hamfisted and has many unintended consequences, and only MAHREENS get it, and on a single unit to boot.
2) Yes, FW changes were quite good for BS/WS. Too bad they left the ven dread. It never felt right to me.
3) In general, I oppose giving the oldbois extra wounds. It is more appropriate for terminators than for the power armor guys though.

SecondTime wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
The best part about this ( or worst) is that dakka posters suggested the extra wound years ago and were considered absolutelty insane. What did we get? Extra wound plus all the mary sue doctrines and such. And double shoot melta. But dakka posters are consideres extreme lol. Probably 95% of proposed marine changes are less extreme than what gw did.

I would think you would be quite happy about the buffs to melta weapons, as well as all fw dreads going to BS/WS3. Didn't those used to be at the top of your wishlist? The extra wound on terminators should be right up your alley as well.

1) The buff to melta weapons was the worst possible implementation. Double shots is hamfisted and has many unintended consequences, and only MAHREENS get it, and on a single unit to boot.

Eradicators would be ok if they just costed at least 50% more. Otherwise I'm cool with the change to meltas.

2) Yes, FW changes were quite good for BS/WS. Too bad they left the ven dread. It never felt right to me.

Agreed on ven dreads "just being better", especially compared to the relic dreads. I'd be fine with the changes to the fw dreads if they'd remove the 1CP tax on chaos Contemptors (it makes some sense for the others), gave Leviathans T8 back (seriously, just look at the things), and gave Contemptors back +1 attack for having two cc weapons. I like my dreadnoughts punchy, not as walking artillery pieces, and that should be encouraged.

3) In general, I oppose giving the oldbois extra wounds. It is more appropriate for terminators than for the power armor guys though.

I think it's more a consequence of bringing csm more up to par with loyalists, its just that loyalists are getting all of the benefits right now. And terminators needed something.

Give the CSM the wounds and leave oldbois at 1W. Explain it as being "chaos infused".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Eradicators would be ok if they just costed at least 50% more. Otherwise I'm cool with the change to meltas.

If that was the case, people would not be taking them, and the anti tank would take the form of spamed units of primaris and regular attack bikes, and Multi Melta devastators in drop pods.

Karol wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Eradicators would be ok if they just costed at least 50% more. Otherwise I'm cool with the change to meltas.

If that was the case, people would not be taking them, and the anti tank would take the form of spamed units of primaris and regular attack bikes, and Multi Melta devastators in drop pods.

Most of which still cost more points than eradicators do currently.
Heck a dev with a multi melta costs 38 points take a -1 to hit if it moves and fires, has -1W, -1T a T4 3+ Save wound GW just told us is worth 3 points a T5 3+ save wound is definitely worth more than 3 points to to mention those origonal 2 wounds go from T4 to T5.
The worst part is Multi Melta devistators are actually cheaper than most other Codex's options for anti tank the fact they eradicators have rendered them meh to trash in Marine players minds highlights the massive issue.

50% of the game is playing a totally incomparable game in terms of costing and powerlevel.

Well, aside for marines and necrons no one has a 9th ed codex or rule set. And still armies like harlequin, custodes or orks have high win %, much higher then some of the marine sub faction for sure. Although it is going to be interesting to see if 5 erdictors as troop choice in a DW army, teleporting in termintor style, are going to help the DW rise their low win ratios.

Aside for hard squating my army, GW can not do anything worse to me they did through out most of 8th. Making 9th actualy enjoyable to play. Well on top of people with good armies having bad time now, but this is a local thing to enjoy. I doubt many non polish people would understand it.

Karol wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Eradicators would be ok if they just costed at least 50% more. Otherwise I'm cool with the change to meltas.

If that was the case, people would not be taking them, and the anti tank would take the form of spamed units of primaris and regular attack bikes, and Multi Melta devastators in drop pods.

Any of those units are easier to deal with and are currently better balanced than 40 PPM eradicators. But they're still a little too cheap, just like most loyalist units. 60 PPM eradicators wouldn't be bad, they'd just be bad by the current standards of loyalists, any other faction would be thrilled to have a unit with those stats and abilities for 60 PPM.

And could you please give the schadenfreude stuff a rest?

Karol wrote:
Well, aside for marines and necrons no one has a 9th ed codex or rule set.

What are you talking about? There's more factions to play than Astartes or Necrons. GW already adjusted points with the new edition. This is the game state as it is now, and Eradicators are vastly undercosted.

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well, aside for marines and necrons no one has a 9th ed codex or rule set.

What are you talking about? There's more factions to play than Astartes or Necrons. GW already adjusted points with the new edition. This is the game state as it is now, and Eradicators are vastly undercosted.

Legaly play other factions, yes you can do that. But you are not going to tell me that armies like GSC, tau or knights fit anywhere inside the core rules of 9th ed. And it ain't anything new, 8th had armies that had rules that didn't fit the 8th ed paradigma too.

Point adjustments can help or hinder an army, but unless knights start running around costing 200pts each they are not going to interact with the 9th rules that all seem to be centered around taking and holding objectives, getting first turn and not giving up easy secondaries.

Karol wrote:
Legaly play other factions, yes you can do that. But you are not going to tell me that armies like GSC, tau or knights fit anywhere inside the core rules of 9th ed. And it ain't anything new, 8th had armies that had rules that didn't fit the 8th ed paradigma too.

Point adjustments can help or hinder an army, but unless knights start running around costing 200pts each they are not going to interact with the 9th rules that all seem to be centered around taking and holding objectives, getting first turn and not giving up easy secondaries.

Well, the whole point is that the game is unbalanced (and Eradicators are part of that imbalance). You're just agreeing here... but you claim you're not.

GW does not get a pass on balance because they haven't put out a given codex yet. They rewrote the 9e rules and adjusted points values at the same time.

Teh game is always unbalanced, GW isn't interested in writing balanced rules, people that work or worked for them clearly said that.

So yeah some armies are good and some armies are bad, asking people that they should want or support the nerfing of their armies when they are actualy nice and fun to play, is a stupid thing to do. Specialy when it comes from people that played armies which were historicaly powerful, and often designed to be marine killers, making them very unfun to play against as space marine player.

My dudes don't have erdictors. I don't play marines. But the idea of asking or wanting GW to nerf someone else armies, just so later I can get a book that makes my army better or even more powerful is something that I don't get.


What do people want ? SM the way they were start of 8th ed, where only gulliman lists were played. Or sm being the 15scouts+2smash hammers+ 1200pts of ally in a supposed sm 2000pts army ? And on top of that they want rules for klans, septs, craftworlds, corsairs, chaos IG etc Realy that is what people want? well they can, it is their right. But it boggles my mind that they somehow are suprised that marine players do not want it.

I always have problems with understanding other people feelings. But I don't think a DA players whose army was kind of a bad all through out 8th ed, is happy that people who don't play marines, call out in every thread that marines should not be getting books, have weapon and unit options squated, And that their good units should be nerfed. But who knows, maybe I am wrong.

Karol wrote:
Teh game is always unbalanced, GW isn't interested in writing balanced rules, people that work or worked for them clearly said that.

So yeah some armies are good and some armies are bad, asking people that they should want or support the nerfing of their armies when they are actualy nice and fun to play, is a stupid thing to do. Specialy when it comes from people that played armies which were historicaly powerful, and often designed to be marine killers, making them very unfun to play against as space marine player.

My dudes don't have erdictors. I don't play marines. But the idea of asking or wanting GW to nerf someone else armies, just so later I can get a book that makes my army better or even more powerful is something that I don't get.


What do people want ? SM the way they were start of 8th ed, where only gulliman lists were played. Or sm being the 15scouts+2smash hammers+ 1200pts of ally in a supposed sm 2000pts army ? And on top of that they want rules for klans, septs, craftworlds, corsairs, chaos IG etc Realy that is what people want? well they can, it is their right. But it boggles my mind that they somehow are suprised that marine players do not want it.

I always have problems with understanding other people feelings. But I don't think a DA players whose army was kind of a bad all through out 8th ed, is happy that people who don't play marines, call out in every thread that marines should not be getting books, have weapon and unit options squated, And that their good units should be nerfed. But who knows, maybe I am wrong.

Marines do have different Chapters.

There are singular Marine Chapters that have more unique datasheets than my Nurgle Daemons.

And no one is saying "Marines should get NOTHING! They deserve to be squatted!" What's being said is "Marines get way too much attention, relative to the other factions, and are also OP right now." The two aren't wholly unrelated, but aren't directly connected either.

Ah and regerding the 2 9th ed codex, it doesn't matter what kind of rules GW writes. But is kind of hard to compare armies with rules writen and ment for 9th ed, and armies that are writen for 8th. If marines were to be balanced vs lets say tau or knights, then it just means they would have to be worse then those armies when they get their 9th ed codex. And while I understand that this is a good thing, if you don't happen to play marines. Because large pool of armies weaker then yours means easier wins and more fun, it is kind of a strange to expect it both from GW and from the marine players.

Or even the necrons who have. In fact in don't really get the ultra hate against just marines. there armies with better win ratios in 9th then marines, yet somehow no on is asking for an imidiated nerf to harlequins or ork skew lists.

Karol wrote:
Teh game is always unbalanced, GW isn't interested in writing balanced rules, people that work or worked for them clearly said that.

So yeah some armies are good and some armies are bad, asking people that they should want or support the nerfing of their armies when they are actualy nice and fun to play, is a stupid thing to do. Specialy when it comes from people that played armies which were historicaly powerful, and often designed to be marine killers, making them very unfun to play against as space marine player.

No. Balance is a good thing; you are wrong. If you think unbalanced games are better, that's literally a personal failing.

Karol wrote:
My dudes don't have erdictors. I don't play marines. But the idea of asking or wanting GW to nerf someone else armies, just so later I can get a book that makes my army better or even more powerful is something that I don't get.

Apparently. You seem to not understand the idea of fairness as something laudable or worth pursuing.

Karol wrote:
What do people want ? SM the way they were start of 8th ed, where only gulliman lists were played. Or sm being the 15scouts+2smash hammers+ 1200pts of ally in a supposed sm 2000pts army ? And on top of that they want rules for klans, septs, craftworlds, corsairs, chaos IG etc Realy that is what people want? well they can, it is their right. But it boggles my mind that they somehow are suprised that marine players do not want it.

Who says they want that? Nobody does. You're just blatantly lying.

Karol wrote:
I always have problems with understanding other people feelings. But I don't think a DA players whose army was kind of a bad all through out 8th ed, is happy that people who don't play marines, call out in every thread that marines should not be getting books, have weapon and unit options squated, And that their good units should be nerfed. But who knows, maybe I am wrong.

You're wrong both factually and morally. You seem to be the kind of person who is only happy when your army is overpowered, when you have an unfair advantage, and don't understand why anyone would want it any other way.

GW might not be looking for a balanced game but that doesnt mean we can't comment on it.
Personally, i hate playing top tier armies because i have empathy for my opponent, getting assblasted from across the map isnt fun for anyone.
I stopped playing admech because at the level where i play, their strong firepower and strong melee was too much for people to handle. I started playing Night Lords, Demons, Craftworld Wraith Host and actual Thousand sons because i didnt enjoy blasting people away.

The main reason i wouldnt play marines is because theyre too easy and overtuned at the moment, it feels bad to play against.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Personally, i hate playing top tier armies because i have empathy for my opponent, getting assblasted from across the map isnt fun for anyone.

For me, I don't like feeling like I have any sort of unfair advantage over my opponent, as otherwise it means my victory is very hollow.

Karol wrote:
Ah and regerding the 2 9th ed codex, it doesn't matter what kind of rules GW writes. But is kind of hard to compare armies with rules writen and ment for 9th ed, and armies that are writen for 8th. If marines were to be balanced vs lets say tau or knights, then it just means they would have to be worse then those armies when they get their 9th ed codex. And while I understand that this is a good thing, if you don't happen to play marines. Because large pool of armies weaker then yours means easier wins and more fun, it is kind of a strange to expect it both from GW and from the marine players.

Or even the necrons who have. In fact in don't really get the ultra hate against just marines. there armies with better win ratios in 9th then marines, yet somehow no on is asking for an imidiated nerf to harlequins or ork skew lists.

Karol what is not to get? It is incessant. They do not care about the actual results - they will ignore the results they don't like an focus on a 2 month history in a 2 year period. All I can say is welcome to Dakka. Where everyone hates marines. Marine players don't really exist on Dakka. They all went to other forums because they don't want every other topic to be about marine bashing. Me - I like to get all sorts of perspectives. I've got my few gaming groups and dakka and can look at tournament data all the time. In the end GW is so unpredictable it's anyones guess as to whos on the right track. My personal experience which is usually spot on has identified the issues with the marine book. These issues have nothing to do with how 9th edd is played though - simply evaluating unit power per price eradicators are to strong. Dreads -1 damage is to strong. Plus core keyword is on way too many units and not influencing unit cost. Where as opposed to unit cost. Core keyword is rare and units that don't have it could use some points reductions or get core keyword.