What Can Marines Not Do?

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.

**SecondTime**

I like how GW could have mined any number of reasonable marine tweaks off the internet, but this is what we get. I don't hate marines, I hate power armor saturation. And its so much worse now that marines are overtuned. I do hate SW, but that's irrelevant to this analysis.

**Xenomancers**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
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 wouldn't play marines is because theyre too easy and overtuned at the moment, it feels bad to play against.

For sure - stopped playing marines against my friends a while ago unless they got a top tier army. That is the way the game should be played.
-"Wanna fool around or have a cutt throat battle?" This game is not designed for tournament play.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SecondTime wrote:
I like how GW could have mined any number of reasonable marine tweaks off the internet, but this is what we get. I don't hate marines, I hate power armor saturation. And its so much worse now that marines are overtuned. I do hate SW, but that's irrelevant to this analysis.

They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update. Or historically they aren't more overtunned than say...eldar wraithknights or scatter bikes. It is a middling level of overtunned except for erradicators. They simply to do not math out in anyway. If I was a TO - I would ban them.

**Hecaton**

Xenomancers wrote:
That is just flat out untrue. I am often right with ether predictions or opinions. They sure come after me or take me out of context anytime I say something that ruffles their feathers. Like..."Stompa is not the worse unit in the game" or "Ork buggies are super strong" or "you know - people actually cheat at things if they can get away with it"...To most people it's common sense but on Dakka they will fight you for having common sense. So it's fun to me anyways.

I'm talking about how you hold different factions to different standards.

Some people do cheat at things if they can get away with it. But not everyone's a cheater. Most cheaters *think* that everyone's a cheater, so if everyone's doing it, what's wrong for them to do it?

**SecondTime**

"They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update"

Tell that to Necrons.

**Xenomancers**

SecondTime wrote:
"They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update"

Tell that to Necrons.

Well not all armies get overtunned. Some get undertunned. On the previous page I literally point out how crons got left in the dust compared to the marines here.

**Vaktathi**

Xenomancers wrote:
They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update. Or historically they aren't more overtunned than say...eldar wraithknights or scatter bikes.

Which were among some of the most heinous examples of awful balance that in the game's history and were immediately called out as such and railed against for the lifespan of the edition and heavily dominated tournament results. That said, not every army that gets a new codex or update shoots up to such levels of power, not by any means. It's generally held true for Eldar in all fairness, but certainly not for many others, who have often had new codex books drop and routinely may drop in competitiveness or just rejigger what works without enhancing their actual power level.

**Hecaton**

Xenomancers wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
"They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update"

Tell that to Necrons.

Well not all armies get overtunned. Some get undertunned. On the previous page I literally point out how crons got left in the dust compared to the marines here.

So why are you upset when *other* people point out this unfairness?

**SecondTime**

This codex is even more outrageous than the marines in 3rd. The near universality of CORE, free AP, and ubiquity of 2W models are just soul crushing.

Maybe I was more thirsty for revenge in 3rd, but after having "won" with BA towards the end of 8th with an abusive rule, I'm not really feeling like MOAR abusive rules.

**Xenomancers**

Hecaton wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
That is just flat out untrue. I am often right with ether predictions or opinions. They sure come after me or take me out of context anytime I say something that ruffles their feathers. Like..."Stompa is not the worse unit in the game" or "Ork buggies are super strong" or "you know - people actually cheat at things if they can get away with it"...To most people it's common sense but on Dakka they will fight you for having common sense. So it's fun to me anyways.

I'm talking about how you hold different factions to different standards.

Some people do cheat at things if they can get away with it. But not everyone's a cheater. Most cheaters *think* that everyone's a cheater, so if everyone's doing it, what's wrong for them to do it?

Seriously I am not going to get into that.

In regards to different faction standards...sure. I attack the false narratives. It has nothing to do with factions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update. Or historically they aren't more overtunned than say...eldar wraithknights or scatter bikes.
Which were among some of the most heinous examples of awful balance that in the game's history and were immediately called out as such and railed against for the lifespan of the edition and heavily dominated tournament results. That said, not every army that gets a new codex or update shoots up to such levels of power, not by any means. It's generally held true for Eldar in all fairness, but certainly not for many others, who have often had new codex books drop and routinely may drop in competitiveness or just rejigger what works without enhancing their actual power level.

True - some called them out.

I detected almost and equal reaction to defend them.

**Vaktathi**

I've had to delete multiple posts for breaking rule 1, any further such instances will incur warnings and suspensions. Let's please cool off or put people on ignore and move on or something, thanks!

**Xenomancers**

SecondTime wrote:
This codex is even more outrageous than the marines in 3rd. The near universality of CORE, free AP, and ubiquity of 2W models are just soul crushing.

Maybe I was more thirsty for revenge in 3rd, but after having "won" with BA towards the end of 8th with an abusive rule, I'm not really feeling like MOAR abusive rules.

I didn't play 3rd ed so I can't comment. 2 wound marines is not really an issue though. As evidence just look at 8th eddition marines before the 8.5 codex. How many lists even included primaris marines?

**SecondTime**

Xenomancers wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
This codex is even more outrageous than the marines in 3rd. The near universality of CORE, free AP, and ubiquity of 2W models are just soul crushing.

Maybe I was more thirsty for revenge in 3rd, but after having "won" with BA towards the end of 8th with an abusive rule, I'm not really feeling like MOAR abusive rules.

I didn't play 3rd ed so I can't comment. 2 wound marines is not really an issue though. As evidence just look at 8th eddition marines before the 8.5 codex. How many lists even included primaris marines?

Who cares? Those weren't THESE 2W marines. Devastators with 2W? DC with 2W?

**SemperMortis**

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.

GW started 9th by giving points changes to basically everything. That was their opportunity to balance the game. Instead they chose to unbalance the game. Balance is not based upon receiving a codex and any edition of 40k has proven that. Hell, Orkz went 2 full editions without even getting a codex, SoB went like 5 lol.

Balance could have been solved by simply giving non-codex armies a significant price reduction until their codex comes out and receives buffs....and then you can increase their points value.

TLDR: Your statement is false.

Xenomancers wrote:

True - some called them out.

I detected almost and equal reaction to defend them.

Than you need to go fix your detection software because the ONLY people defending the Eldar 7th edition shenanigans were a handful of Eldar players....kind of like how only a handful of Marine players are currently defending the SM book.

**JNAProductions**

SemperMortis wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

True - some called them out.

I detected almost and equal reaction to defend them.

Than you need to go fix your detection software because the ONLY people defending the Eldar 7th edition shenanigans were a handful of Eldar players....kind of like how only a handful of Marine players are currently defending the SM book.

Yeah, I joined Dakka around 7th edition, and I don't recall anyone at all defending Wraithknights or Scatterbikes.

**SecondTime**

It's worse in a way. 7th ed Eldar had the "wait and see" crowd, and then many of those defected once we saw what was happening.

We had already seen marine 8.5, and yes, some things have been toned down, but the ripple effect of 2W oldbois hasn't even been fully realized yet.

**Xenomancers**

SecondTime wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
This codex is even more outrageous than the marines in 3rd. The near universality of CORE, free AP, and ubiquity of 2W models are just soul crushing.

Maybe I was more thirsty for revenge in 3rd, but after having "won" with BA towards the end of 8th with an abusive rule, I'm not really feeling like MOAR abusive rules.

I didn't play 3rd ed so I can't comment. 2 wound marines is not really an issue though. As evidence just look at 8th eddition marines before the 8.5 codex. How many lists even included primaris marines?

Who cares? Those weren't THESE 2W marines. Devastators with 2W? DC with 2W?

The issue is the weapons are to cheap then. Not the wounds. Which I can totally agree with ESP in the case of melta and grav...compared to las and heavy bolter...completely out of wack.

**SecondTime**

JNAProductions wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

True - some called them out.

I detected almost and equal reaction to defend them.

Than you need to go fix your detection software because the ONLY people defending the Eldar 7th edition shenanigans were a handful of Eldar players....kind of like how only a handful of Marine players are currently defending the SM book.
Yeah, I joined Dakka around 7th edition, and I don't recall anyone at all defending Wraithknights or Scatterbikes.

I do. They were there. But far less than the "wait and see" crowd.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
This codex is even more outrageous than the marines in 3rd. The near universality of CORE, free AP, and ubiquity of 2W models are just soul crushing.

Maybe I was more thirsty for revenge in 3rd, but after having "won" with BA towards the end of 8th with an abusive rule, I'm not really feeling like MOAR abusive rules.

I didn't play 3rd ed so I can't comment. 2 wound marines is not really an issue though. As evidence just look at 8th eddition marines before the 8.5 codex. How many lists even included primaris marines?

Who cares? Those weren't THESE 2W marines. Devastators with 2W? DC with 2W?
The issue is the weapons are to cheap then. Not the wounds. Which I can totally agree with ESP in the case of melta and grav...compared to las and heavy bolter...completely out of wack.

Or perhaps the weapons are too cheap because of the wounds. And yes the weapons are terribly balanced against each other.

**Xenomancers**

SecondTime wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

True - some called them out.

I detected almost and equal reaction to defend them.

Than you need to go fix your detection software because the ONLY people defending the Eldar 7th edition shenanigans were a handful of Eldar players....kind of like how only a handful of Marine players are currently defending the SM book.
Yeah, I joined Dakka around 7th edition, and I don't recall anyone at all defending Wraithknights or Scatterbikes.

I do. They were there. But far less than the "wait and see" crowd.

Maybe not the best example. How about AM when they first came out in 8.0...or people who legit defended 5 point infantry all edition? I think in general most people just defend the army they want to play. Which I get that and I probably do that same for space marines to some degree. I am not perfect but I can still see the big picture and give perspective.

**SemperMortis**

Xenomancers wrote:

Maybe not the best example. How about AM when they first came out in 8.0...or people who legit defended 5 point infantry all edition? I think in general most people just defend the army they want to play. Which I get that and I probably do that same for space marines to some degree. I am not perfect but I can still see the big picture and give perspective.

Guard in 8th were fine with 5ppm guardsmen. The issue was CP batteries. The guardsmen themselves weren't accomplishing a whole lot.

**SecondTime**

SemperMortis wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

Maybe not the best example. How about AM when they first came out in 8.0...or people who legit defended 5 point infantry all edition? I think in general most people just defend the army they want to play. Which I get that and I probably do that same for space marines to some degree. I am not perfect but I can still see the big picture and give perspective.

Guard in 8th were fine with 5ppm guardsmen. The issue was CP batteries. The guardsmen themselves weren't accomplishing a whole lot.

No, they were accomplishing quite a bit. Existing for starters. The CP was gravy, honestly. But that's not the issue here.

**SemperMortis**

SecondTime wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

Maybe not the best example. How about AM when they first came out in 8.0...or people who legit defended 5 point infantry all edition? I think in general most people just defend the army they want to play. Which I get that and I probably do that same for space marines to some degree. I am not perfect but I can still see the big picture and give perspective.

Guard in 8th were fine with 5ppm guardsmen. The issue was CP batteries. The guardsmen themselves weren't accomplishing a whole lot.

No, they were accomplishing quite a bit. Existing for starters. The CP was gravy, honestly. But that's not the issue here.

No, I agree, I am saying they weren't OP because they were killing things, they were just great at area denial and being a CP battery for better units

**Xenomancers**

SecondTime wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

Maybe not the best example. How about AM when they first came out in 8.0...or people who legit defended 5 point infantry all edition? I think in general most people just defend the army they want to play. Which I get that and I probably do that same for space marines to some degree. I am not perfect but I can still see the big picture and give perspective.

Guard in 8th were fine with 5ppm guardsmen. The issue was CP batteries. The guardsmen themselves weren't accomplishing a whole lot.

No, they were accomplishing quite a bit. Existing for starters. The CP was gravy, honestly. But that's not the issue here.

It is the issue here though. AM infantry at 5 points were extremely OP. yet we have half of dakka saying its okay or not a big deal. I bet you if you looked at tournament placings - the winner of 8th edition was the IG infantryman. Almost all those infantryman defenders are anti marine now...the coin just keeps flipping. Haves and have nots.

**SemperMortis**

Xenomancers wrote:

It is the issue here though. AM infantry at 5 points were extremely OP. yet we have half of dakka saying its okay or not a big deal. I bet you if you looked at tournament placings - the winner of 8th edition was the IG infantryman.

They were OP, not because they were good. but because they fed good units CP. Nobody was winning LVO with a guard horde. They were winning by taking battalions of Loyal 32 to feed CP into Knights, smash captains etc.

**SecondTime**

Then they made cultists cost MORE. Oh, GW.

**Xenomancers**

SemperMortis wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

It is the issue here though. AM infantry at 5 points were extremely OP. yet we have half of dakka saying its okay or not a big deal. I bet you if you looked at tournament placings - the winner of 8th edition was the IG infantryman.

They were OP, not because they were good. but because they fed good units CP. Nobody was winning LVO with a guard horde. They were winning by taking battalions of Loyal 32 to feed CP into Knights, smash captains etc.

Nobody is an exaggeration. Most were using IG to feed their soup with CP. Which also makes them OP as they are almost worth their value in just command points. IG horde won warzone Atlanta one year and also IG horde was a pretty standard front line for lots of army builds cause it was so cheap - they might not have won tournments but they sure won lots of games - I'm talking about armies taking close to or over 1000 points of IG in competitive. Then we had command tanks...

**Tyel**

Is this a bad time to point out guardsmen were 4 points in 8th edition? My memory at least was wall to wall declarations that they were too good with just a few usual suspects disagreeing.

Also people did run lots of guard. This idea it was the loyal 32 only isn't true. See the lists that came top in 2019's LVO for instance - I mean "1400~ points of Guard+Castelan" won the whole thing. Other variants with fewer Guard points and more other things obviously existed - but just shy of half the points was still in Guard, not 180 or so points.

**Xenomancers**

Tyel wrote:
Is this a bad time to point out guardsmen were 4 points in 8th edition? My memory at least was wall to wall declarations that they were too good with just a few usual suspects disagreeing.

Also people did run lots of guard. This idea it was the loyal 32 only isn't true. See the lists that came top in 2019's LVO for instance - I mean "1400~ points of Guard+Castelan" won the whole thing. Other variants with fewer Guard points and more other things obviously existed - but just shy of half the points was still in Guard, not 180 or so points.

Thanks for clarification - they were actually 4 points. Still OP at 5 even IMO. Then again a 2 wound 20 point space marine...that is over the top?

**SecondTime**

Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Is this a bad time to point out guardsmen were 4 points in 8th edition? My memory at least was wall to wall declarations that they were too good with just a few usual suspects disagreeing.

Also people did run lots of guard. This idea it was the loyal 32 only isn't true. See the lists that came top in 2019's LVO for instance - I mean "1400~ points of Guard+Castelan" won the whole thing. Other variants with fewer Guard points and more other things obviously existed - but just shy of half the points was still in Guard, not 180 or so points.
Thanks for clarification - they were actually 4 points. Still OP at 5 even IMO. Then again a 2 wound 20 point space marine...that is over the top?

No, intercessors were crap at that price point in 8th.

**Tyel**

Intercessors were crap at the outset of 8th because they didn't have bolter discipline, hateful assault, doctrines, super doctrines, various stratagems and the generally boosted Chapter Tactics (recently just nerfed in some cases).

Metawise various 2 damage things were also nerfed which made them more survivable too.

**SecondTime**

Tyel wrote:
Intercessors were crap at the outset of 8th because they didn't have bolter discipline, hateful assault, doctrines, super doctrines, various stratagems and the generally boosted Chapter Tactics (recently just nerfed in some cases).

Metawise various 2 damage things were also nerfed which made them more survivable too.

Drukhari absolutely killed them early 8th.