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.

This is something i noticed in 8th, but is harder to quantify now since firstborn and primaris both got two wounds. But i was thinking about it during the time, and did the drunken math, and i thought it was interesting to talk about. I will note that it is a specific time period, and put your gw coloured glasses on its better (tm) now!

5x fb marines cost like 13-15 points each
5x primaris marines (lets say intercessors) cost 18 points with 2 wounds (*1) each
So the primaris marines cost like less points per wound (13/1 vs 18/2).

Firstborn get better shooting, but primaris get better close combat attacks and meq resilience (per wound, with the whole 2.0. The value of s4 ap0 x2 is another topic).

Lets fast forwards to now, i know certain gravis models went up in price, but like my etb flamestorm aggressors(*2) are still 40ppm. That's about 13.3 ppw for a model that used to fire twice if stationary with either a single 2D6 autohit (although the range was borked) or 12 + 1D6 shots. I didn't entirely agree with how they buffed marine shooting/in general(*3) but yeah for the 'basic' marine profile, it costs w/e, 13-15 points per wound from addled memory, whereas look at at the ppw and the firepower. (*4) I think this is the problem people have with eradicators right now. (*5)

Now that 9th is here, and once i paint this dude i glued just this morning, i'll have a 1k list to field. (*6) (*7) But without having played a modern game (*9), it can get hard to sift through the hyperbole. But yeah, now everyone marine (except you know who because reasons) has 2w its harder to see.... unless, idk unless you play non-marine. Are they as powerful as i hear? I don't know, but i wan't to start fluffy and cheese up as needed, and i've always had great respect for brother slamguinius (rip 8th, i never knew you).



*1 and an extra attack, but thats apparently worth 2 points now
*2 (i got lucky and bought in right as gw was closing out dark imperium. Kicking myself i didn't get that one with the other inceptors and cost less, but i managed to snag what i wanted right before it stopped existing
*3 they needed a buff, outside specific builds of chapters i didn't play, they've always needed a buff, that's the camp i'm in
*4 I know they removed double-shot from aggressors, and halved the weapons they can shoot in overwatch, while outrider bike engines go: brrt, brrrrt brrrt brrrrt
*5 see my post in the proposed rules forum where i say: instead of giving all these 'shooty' units bespoke rules for shooting, just do like space marine primaris eliminators and give them +1 BS
*6 lets not talk about corona virus, whether you believe in it or not, it has been a total **** **** of a ******* **** that screwed up the playing environment
*7 painted to a tabletop standard. My vision isn't 20/20 anymore it seems, and i borrowed a pair of those miracle glasses to see up close to paint (*8)
*8 yes, yes i know, go to an optomotrist, its free
*9 or any chance in the forseeable future this year :(

I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.

And lo and behold, firstborn still sell. So GW just shrugged its shoulders, rewrote a bit of fluff and rules, and carried on.

And that's why the SM codex has like 100 data sheet entries. Plus all the supplements.

Not entirely sure what your question is, but if you are asking are marines powerful: I'd say yes in both casual and competitive environments. Not as overbearing as they used to be but they still pack a punch and are hard to shift. Some problem units like Bladeguards and Eradicators are still underpriced if you ask me but at least they are overall not nearly as cheesy as they used to be.
The one problem you might run into before everyone gets their codex is that even when making a fluffy list marines are just really, really good. As in, blowing certain other factions with an equally casual/fluffy list off the table good. Which was always my main problem with that 8.5 codex of theirs. Ripping up tournaments is bad enough but there I expect certain levels of min-maxing and cheese, but even their baseline was and still is so good some factions just can't compete.

 argonak wrote:
I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.

Age of Sigmar's launch was awful yes, but by the time 8e 40k came around it was doing well and its only gone from strength to strength since then. Its a fantastic game imo.

Eh.

Firstborn remain the more flexible option. Tacticals may have less basic firepower (Bolt Rifles being superior to Bolters), but with Heavy and Special weapon options, and the choice to Combat Squad, still bring something to the field that Primaris don’t.

Likewise Devastators. You can either specialise (eg, four of one weapon type) or hedge your bets (perhaps most useful in smaller point games, where flexibility is arguably more desirable, even more affordable).

Specialist Primaris units also seem to be short on numbers. Eliminators and that come in units of 3, and so far as I’m aware (don’t have the current Codex) only 3. So whilst at first glance they are pretty powerful? It doesn’t take a huge amount of damage to see them taken down, or at least suitably weakened. So the question is whether or not they can do worthwhile damage before being damaged in turn.

 Castozor wrote:
Not entirely sure what your question is, but if you are asking are marines powerful: I'd say yes in both casual and competitive environments. Not as overbearing as they used to be but they still pack a punch and are hard to shift. Some problem units like Bladeguards and Eradicators are still underpriced if you ask me but at least they are overall not nearly as cheesy as they used to be.
The one problem you might run into before everyone gets their codex is that even when making a fluffy list marines are just really, really good. As in, blowing certain other factions with an equally casual/fluffy list off the table good. Which was always my main problem with that 8.5 codex of theirs. Ripping up tournaments is bad enough but there I expect certain levels of min-maxing and cheese, but even their baseline was and still is so good some factions just can't compete.

This seems to be a feature of all the codici post SM 2.0.

They have good internal balance, so they can bring a fluffy list to the table and play without much handicap.

This is true for marines, for sisters, for necrons and now looks like this also for DG.

 argonak wrote:
I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.

And lo and behold, firstborn still sell. So GW just shrugged its shoulders, rewrote a bit of fluff and rules, and carried on.

And that's why the SM codex has like 100 data sheet entries. Plus all the supplements.

This.

The marine codex could use some culling, but with the state of everything, who knows when or if it will happen.

I still think it was a grave mistake for marines to go to 2 wounds, and it will continue to be a thorn in GW's side affecting power creep for years to come.

As an aside, 2nd and subsequent wounds aren't as valuable as the first wound. While additional wounds add to longevity, you lose on firepower because it's one model instead of several's worth of firing. A marine with 5 wounds is certainly worth more than than one with 1 wound, but not as valuable as five marines with 1 wound apiece.

 Stux wrote:

 argonak wrote:
I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.

Age of Sigmar's launch was awful yes, but by the time 8e 40k came around it was doing well and its only gone from strength to strength since then. Its a fantastic game imo.

That has nothing to do with what I said. Avoiding the dumpster fire of that games launch was a good,move. People were pissed off by primaris enough as it was.

I don’t care what they do to Age of Sigmar I will always despise it for the insulting and despicable murder of war hammer fantasy battle so they could steal a whatever names that they’d already copy righted. Only reason to do what they did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:

 argonak wrote:
I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.

And lo and behold, firstborn still sell. So GW just shrugged its shoulders, rewrote a bit of fluff and rules, and carried on.

And that's why the SM codex has like 100 data sheet entries. Plus all the supplements.

This.

The marine codex could use some culling, but with the state of everything, who knows when or if it will happen.

I still think it was a grave mistake for marines to go to 2 wounds, and it will continue to be a thorn in GW's side affecting power creep for years to come.

As an aside, 2nd and subsequent wounds aren't as valuable as the first wound. While additional wounds add to longevity, you lose on firepower because it's one model instead of several's worth of firing. A marine with 5 wounds is certainly worth more than than one with 1 wound, but not as valuable as five marines with 1 wound apiece.

Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops. I think two wounds was the right move. The bigger problem is that every gun and it’s mother has too much damn ap.

 argonak wrote:
...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...

Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?

The problem with so called primaries is that they should have simply been designed and sold as the new marine kits. Then GW should have done similarly with eldar and with guard... instead, GW is in wholesale IP protection mode e.g. kangaroo riding very high elves. Make something ridiculous enough that no one would want to infringe on the copyright... works for me. I typically buy used, and will never collect primaris weenies.

 argonak wrote:

Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops. I think two wounds was the right move. The bigger problem is that every gun and it’s mother has too much damn ap.

Fitzing with Toughness would have been the more sane way to go than more wounds, but the current Toughness algorithm is screwed up as it is.

^Agreed. T5 for Primaris and a fixed wound chart would have been better.

 jeff white wrote:
The problem with so called primaries

... so called? That's their name, not sure what's "so called" about it. When talking about Space Marines, do you call them "so called Space Marines"?

instead, GW is in wholesale IP protection mode e.g. kangaroo riding very high elves.

God forbid anyone try new concepts in a fantasy magic setting.

Lore and rules put asside. I have a full firstborn and a full primaris space wolves armies. Gotta say those Primaris sculpts are a lot sharper than any of the firstborn marines, and the proportions are a lot nicer.

I can't see myself ever buying a non-primaris kit moving forward, just due to how much I enjoyed building and painting them over any first born.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
The problem with so called primaries

... so called? That's their name, not sure what's "so called" about it. When talking about Space Marines, do you call them "so called Space Marines"?

instead, GW is in wholesale IP protection mode e.g. kangaroo riding very high elves.

God forbid anyone try new concepts in a fantasy magic setting.

nah you don't get it, Jeff here is the pro when it comes to opinions. Everything sucks except for what they likes.

Just some quick observations from some games I have played in 9th. The Primaris marines are lacking something. I play Necrons and I am finding it pretty easy to delete entire squads of Primaris marines because I have a good deal of high AP weaponry and a ton of multi wound stuff as well. I agree T5 is the new way to differentiate elite troops because it is just so hard to wound them. The Marines being T4 and 2 wounds isn't that scary anymore. Making the old school marines 2w seemingly makes the Primaris unnecessary and inferior at their points cost.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
God forbid anyone try new concepts in a fantasy magic setting.

When they are made strange and wierd just for the sake of being strange and wierd, there is some some problem with it IMO.

AoS has a ton of models where clearly someone was doing design on the model and someone higher up came in and said, this looks to much like a pegasus, replace it with an ugly dog goat head or turn all those models in to cows. W40k has it too. GW makes a perfectly fine model and then someone comes, and add smoke or some other unneeded detail, effectivly making the model not only worse looking, but even harder to use as a gaming pice.

Century old concepts are good, because they are known and people like them. It takes some serious genius level of writing to add something new to culture or literature. Just making stuff new and different doesn't cut it. That is while so many movie remakes are bad recived or worse flop financialy. Even GW knows it to a degree, because their sales departament is dead against female custodes, mariens and wierd lore changes. And they are even cut ties with people working for them, if they even hint, that they maybe trying to pull such changes anyway.

 LesPaul wrote:
Just some quick observations from some games I have played in 9th. The Primaris marines are lacking something. I play Necrons and I am finding it pretty easy to delete entire squads of Primaris marines because I have a good deal of high AP weaponry and a ton of multi wound stuff as well. I agree T5 is the new way to differentiate elite troops because it is just so hard to wound them. The Marines being T4 and 2 wounds isn't that scary anymore. Making the old school marines 2w seemingly makes the Primaris unnecessary and inferior at their points cost.

Nah. They are both useful. The primaris have stratagems that makes them superior actually. Plus they all have a bonus attack which is pretty relevant.

A 10 Man with stalker bolters using rapid fire....is just disgusting. Plus Transhuman is pretty useful at times. Plus they have a better standard weapon too. True most the time a single gravcannon will out damage them but in certain situations the better basic weapon does more damage.

Karol wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
God forbid anyone try new concepts in a fantasy magic setting.

When they are made strange and wierd just for the sake of being strange and wierd, there is some some problem with it IMO.

Is fantasy not supposed to be outlandish and bizarre? Is it not supposed to invoke, well, fantasy?

And how can we say what is and isn't "for the sake of strange and weird" - perhaps that's the point, because they're showing how something is so alien and fantastical.

AoS has a ton of models where clearly someone was doing design on the model and someone higher up came in and said, this looks to much like a pegasus, replace it with an ugly dog goat head or turn all those models in to cows. W40k has it too. GW makes a perfectly fine model and then someone comes, and add smoke or some other unneeded detail, effectivly making the model not only worse looking, but even harder to use as a gaming pice.

Worse looking is subjective, and at least in the case of smoke, it's easier to remove. For people who might only have the models for the painting and spectacle, the flashy models appeal much more to them.

Century old concepts are good, because they are known and people like them.

Which is fine, but ONLY sticking to those concepts quickly leads to repetitive tropes and eventually stagnation. Look at some of WHFB's most unique factions - Lizardmen and Skaven. I'm not exactly sure I can point to similar concepts and tropes around during their creation, they very much seem like the beginnings of their own trend. And look where they ended up - two very popular factions!

It takes some serious genius level of writing to add something new to culture or literature. Just making stuff new and different doesn't cut it.

Not really - you don't need to be a genius, it just has to be engaging and inspirational, and there are some pretty flawed trends that have become their own tropes through simple engagement.

That is while so many movie remakes are bad recived or worse flop financialy.

Movie *remakes* - not original movies. What you're describing supports my point that "old concepts are good" isn't true. If old concepts were good, these movie remakes would be well received.

Of course, that doesn't factor in the sheer amount of production issues these films have, but that's another topic.

Even GW knows it to a degree, because their sales departament is dead against female custodes, mariens and wierd lore changes. And they are even cut ties with people working for them, if they even hint, that they maybe trying to pull such changes anyway.

You say GW are against "weird lore changes", but I'm seeing plenty of people calling AoS or Primaris themselves "weird lore changes" - so which way around is it? Also, did we miss the part where in a mainline 40k novel, a Space Wolf character outright wonders why women can't be Astartes, and how that might need to change with the coming wars to be? Because that's not been retconned, to my understanding.

Karol wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
God forbid anyone try new concepts in a fantasy magic setting.

When they are made strange and wierd just for the sake of being strange and wierd, there is some some problem with it IMO.

AoS has a ton of models where clearly someone was doing design on the model and someone higher up came in and said, this looks to much like a pegasus, replace it with an ugly dog goat head or turn all those models in to cows. W40k has it too. GW makes a perfectly fine model and then someone comes, and add smoke or some other unneeded detail, effectivly making the model not only worse looking, but even harder to use as a gaming pice.

Century old concepts are good, because they are known and people like them. It takes some serious genius level of writing to add something new to culture or literature. Just making stuff new and different doesn't cut it. That is while so many movie remakes are bad recived or worse flop financialy. Even GW knows it to a degree, because their sales departament is dead against female custodes, mariens and wierd lore changes. And they are even cut ties with people working for them, if they even hint, that they maybe trying to pull such changes anyway.

I'd rather they experiment with new stuff rather than stick to medieval + tolkien fantasy. The idoneth deepkin is a super cool design IMO, the new elf cavalry is dope as feth. Just because you like the aestetic of the GK doesnt mean thats the only valid "fantasy" aesthetic.

You can present the same comment you did by emphasising that this is only your opinion instead of presenting it like a fact and then i couldnt nitpick about it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I'd rather they experiment with new stuff rather than stick to medieval + tolkien fantasy. The idoneth deepkin is a super cool design IMO, the new elf cavalry is dope as feth. Just because you like the aestetic of the GK doesnt mean thats the only valid "fantasy" aesthetic.

Agreed, and absolutely. GW have the opportunity for a totally unique IP. Let's try out new concepts and ideas. Dwarves who fly in battle blimps? Awesome idea! Sea elves who are actually alien and feel detached from their land dwelling cousins? Great! Skeleton warriors but they have a more Persian style than Egyptian? Nice break from the trend! Elves with a totem warrior of a cow instead of eagles or another kind of bird? Can't say I've seen that before.

If you never experiment, you just stagnate - but as long as you enjoy whatever it is, that's the main thing.

Firstborn remain the more flexible option. Tacticals may have less basic firepower (Bolt Rifles being superior to Bolters), but with Heavy and Special weapon options, and the choice to Combat Squad, still bring something to the field that Primaris don’t.

I feel like this is a negligible tradeoff. Given how much ap and D2 weapons Primaris can spam, do they really need the single heavy weapon? I don't think I've ever seen a game where anyone said "If my Intercessors could only take a missile launcher, this would have gone differently", and I doubt, when Heavy Intercessors finally come out, anyone will be lamenting the lack of ability to take a single flamer.

And combat squading? I don't know how much that matters anymore either? It's a MSU edition to begin with so most folks are going to take 5 man units from the jump anyway.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of the "advantages" we used to view firstborn as having, don't really amount to much anymore ...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I'd rather they experiment with new stuff rather than stick to medieval + tolkien fantasy. The idoneth deepkin is a super cool design IMO, the new elf cavalry is dope as feth. Just because you like the aestetic of the GK doesnt mean thats the only valid "fantasy" aesthetic.

Agreed, and absolutely. GW have the opportunity for a totally unique IP. Let's try out new concepts and ideas. Dwarves who fly in battle blimps? Awesome idea! Sea elves who are actually alien and feel detached from their land dwelling cousins? Great! Skeleton warriors but they have a more Persian style than Egyptian? Nice break from the trend! Elves with a totem warrior of a cow instead of eagles or another kind of bird? Can't say I've seen that before.

If you never experiment, you just stagnate - but as long as you enjoy whatever it is, that's the main thing.

Funny enough, elves riding dinosaurs IS Games Workshop retreading old ground. Just not in the correct tent-pole game. I do wonder how these models would have been received if they were Exodites instead. Because there's a good chance dinosaur in 40k would be as different as Ork is to mushroom.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?

Or even just Necron Warriors, which used to be more elite than basic space marines.

 Stux wrote:

 argonak wrote:
I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.

Age of Sigmar's launch was awful yes, but by the time 8e 40k came around it was doing well and its only gone from strength to strength since then. Its a fantastic game imo.

This is literally, and I mean totally honestly literally, the first time I've heard anyone say anything even remotely good about AOS.

To put this in context, I am completely out of the loop as far as GW games go, so you can safely take it with a huge grain of salt. Just saying.

The only problem with primaris is the continued existence of old marines. Eliminate the old marines from the codex/game and you have a concise and (about as much as anything else) balanced army that functions within a concept/theme for the army and a range of options to bring to the table.

Stormonu wrote:

 argonak wrote:
I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.

And lo and behold, firstborn still sell. So GW just shrugged its shoulders, rewrote a bit of fluff and rules, and carried on.

And that's why the SM codex has like 100 data sheet entries. Plus all the supplements.

This.

The marine codex could use some culling, but with the state of everything, who knows when or if it will happen.

I still think it was a grave mistake for marines to go to 2 wounds, and it will continue to be a thorn in GW's side affecting power creep for years to come.

As an aside, 2nd and subsequent wounds aren't as valuable as the first wound. While additional wounds add to longevity, you lose on firepower because it's one model instead of several's worth of firing. A marine with 5 wounds is certainly worth more than than one with 1 wound, but not as valuable as five marines with 1 wound apiece.

True, i'm thinking on the marine profile as a whole and how they scale up, compared to what other races pay per wound. A second wound for marines seems more valuable to me than a second wound for a non-marine profile depending on who ends up getting it Thats another thing i've noticed, they seem to be opening up some interesting rules for marines that could be useful in other armies.

AnomanderRake wrote:

 argonak wrote:
...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...

Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?

It seems like a missed opportunity to me. Although its harder with necrons due to their reanimation protocols if i understand correctly, adding a second wound might actually hurt them their chances of coming back when killed (although they could change the rule).

 jaredb wrote:
Lore and rules put asside. I have a full firstborn and a full primaris space wolves armies. Gotta say those Primaris sculpts are a lot sharper than any of the firstborn marines, and the proportions are a lot nicer.

I can't see myself ever buying a non-primaris kit moving forward, just due to how much I enjoyed building and painting them over any first born.

Yeah i agree, i know its all subjective but i like the primaris sculpts more just for their proportions, although i still feel something is off where the hips and legs join.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
The only problem with primaris is the continued existence of old marines. Eliminate the old marines from the codex/game and you have a concise and (about as much as anything else) balanced army that functions within a concept/theme for the army and a range of options to bring to the table.

I was thinking myself that they could really split them into two books now or at some point in the future: codex firstborn marines and codex primaris marines. I don't think it'll happen though.

 Lance845 wrote:
The only problem with primaris is the continued existence of old marines. Eliminate the old marines from the codex/game and you have a concise and (about as much as anything else) balanced army that functions within a concept/theme for the army and a range of options to bring to the table.

I'm down with this, but I will continue to use both in the same list since it fit the fluff for my Salamanders.

Karol wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
God forbid anyone try new concepts in a fantasy magic setting.

When they are made strange and wierd just for the sake of being strange and wierd, there is some some problem with it IMO.

AoS has a ton of models where clearly someone was doing design on the model and someone higher up came in and said, this looks to much like a pegasus, replace it with an ugly dog goat head or turn all those models in to cows. W40k has it too. GW makes a perfectly fine model and then someone comes, and add smoke or some other unneeded detail, effectivly making the model not only worse looking, but even harder to use as a gaming pice.

Century old concepts are good, because they are known and people like them. It takes some serious genius level of writing to add something new to culture or literature. Just making stuff new and different doesn't cut it. That is while so many movie remakes are bad recived or worse flop financialy. Even GW knows it to a degree, because their sales departament is dead against female custodes, mariens and wierd lore changes. And they are even cut ties with people working for them, if they even hint, that they maybe trying to pull such changes anyway.

The second passage made me laugh.
The third is insightful.

In terms of movie remakes, primaris feel like the remake of Total Recall.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I'll have a 1k list to field when I finish my next model, painted to a tabletop standard due to my less than stellar eyesight. I am wondering if marines are as powerful and as prevalent as I hear or if it is mostly hyperbole, because of corona virus I have not been playing and don't plan to in the near future :(

In 8th edition a tactical marines cost like 13 points, an intercessors cost 18 points with 2 wounds and 2 attacks each. So the primaris marines used to cost less points per wound 13 vs 9. An extra attack is apparently worth 2 points now. Firstborn get better shooting, primaris get better close combat and durability.

In 9th my flamestorm aggressors, that I bought right as gw stopped selling dark imperium, are still 40ppm. That's 13.3 ppw for a model that used to fire twice if stationary with either a single 2D6 autohits at low range or 12 + 1D6 shots. I didn't entirely agree with how they buffed marines with codex 2.0, but I always thought they needed buffs. Tactical Marines are 9 ppw, Eradicators are 15 ppw but look at their firepower, Outriders are 12,5 ppw and go brrrrt brrrt brrrrt.

I don't think I speak your language OP, tell me if my quote got you right. That many citations made it hard for me to read your post, work it organically into your post instead, I don't understand why you wrote the post how you did.

In my opinion, Marines are overhyped in 9th, Youtubers cannot mention them without joining the chorus of Marine haters out of fear of being cancelled for not hating Marines enough. Marines were really freaking strong at their best in 8th edition and that is still causing a lot of hyperbole bleedover in 9th edition. Some factions got lots of weird nerfs in 9th edition and them being complete garbage does make Space Marines look a lot better, but Necrons, Orks, Daemons and especially Harlequins are super solid.