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.

Umbros wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The thing is the "competitive" meta matters absolutely zero to GW. they want you to buy something, you only buy it for rules, you morons buy it...lather, rinse repeat. Ergo, pendulums gotta swing. Cuz what was once OP yesterday will be "trash" tomorrow and vice-versa.

Not an attack on anyone, but if you think GW cares what you think(comp, garage, whatever)....you're wrong. As long as you keep gobbling up every.single.release, they have absolutely no incentive to make it better for that style of play. Cuz it behooves them not to.

I will never purchase a model for the rules, irrespective of how OP it may be.

This is factually not true - they have made a very clear effort to engage more with the competitive communities during 8th and especially in 9th.

It clearly isn't all they care about; nor should it be.

Not buying models for rules is the right idea though.

Engagement = caring???
They only care that the competitive types buy the OP stuff and sell it as soon as it's no longer so.
They engage and are you feel like they really care about what GT(insert city name)results are, but only such as to inform the next round of changes to get more people(whom are inclined by rules) to buy more models.

The only way to get me to buy more models is to make new units, new factions or refreshing old range designs. When CW get refreshed I'm on board & God help my wallet if Squats come back

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The local meta is more important, it's just harder to get data for.

Maybe to the person who’s in it, but it doesn’t mean jack to everyone else who isn’t. So how is it generally more important than the larger competitive meta? as there are a lot more people not in local scene then are.

Right now people are being told all over the place that marines are OP. Will local metas change due to them not being at all OP in the competitive scene? Yeah, it’s just takes longer for them to adjust. We already seeing a lot more “how do I counter DG” type topics popping up all over the internet, and it’s likely we’ll see the same for drukhari. Unlike in real economics, the trickle down economy is very much a thing In 40k.

Which is just as true for tournament play. Not everyone enjoys the spam (and seven of the exact same unit is spam) and meta chasing of tournament play. You shouldn't have to build a cutthroat tournament list to have a chance of winning against a casual loyalist list, but right now that's where a lot of factions are. I don't care if heavy melta rifle Eradicators aren't "meta" in the tournament scene right now. They exist, and can evaporate any but the toughest vehicles from full range. That forces people to leave models they want to play at home because no one wants to pick that favorite model up before it's had a chance to do anything. Having your army choices dictated by the existence of a single unit isn't fun. If you enjoy tournament games that's fine, but it isn't what everyone wants to play.

...except that there are tons of units that can do that out there. I can make a unit of aberrants or acolytes out of the single worst codex (by competitive wr anyway) that can supremely reliably delete any vehicle you've got on the table, just as easily as heavy melta rifle erads.

You don't need a hyper-competitive list to take on an actually casual space marine list. You need a competitive list to take on a competitive marine list. The reason it seems like you do is, surprise surprise, the units that everyone owns from all the starter boxes of primaris marines are basically the competitive marine choices right now. If you actually go up against someone taking a wider slice of the many many many many options in the marine codex, they're perfectly easy to deal with with the fluff-bunniest of lists. i've beaten marines with my "take 1 of each aspect warrior squad, 3 storm guardian squads and an avatar of khaine and go from there" Eldar list, and that's...never not been a joke.

......except you just compared two units that have to get into melee to do the job with one that does it from 24 away. It's a lot easier to screen out melee units than 24 inch range guns. It's not the existence of units that can reliably delete vehicles that's a problem, it's the ones that can do it with little counterplay. I have no problem with normal MMs or Eradicators, as they need to get close to do the job, it's the melta weapons that essentially get around the rules for melta that are an issue.

Agreed on your second point. The issue is that the best loyalists units are widespread and easily available, and therefore seen everywhere. Doesn't change the fact that they're everywhere.

I dunno, I guess I've just played against eradicators enough at this point that I'm so used to dealing with them and it doesn't bother me that much. I play tanks against them, and I've played against the heavy rifle version as well as the normal version.

They show up, turn 2, and generally if you've got a vehicle that doesn't have any kind of additional defenses just straight T7 3+ they kill it, then you kill them. If you do, they don't. The last time I played against them, I had a grot megatank loaded up with rokkits, so like 160 points, big expensive target. Turn 1 it rolled up and killed 3 aggressors, turn 2 eradicators showed up and shot at it, missed twice, failed to wound once, one shot got saved by the invuln, and one shot did 1 damage because of ramshackle, they took 6 out of 9 wounds off and then he had to direct a whole bunch of his longrange firepower into the GMT to finally take it out.

You're gonna lose models in warhammer 40k, and there's gonna be units with antitank weaponry that shoot your stuff. I'd actually rather the units that come down to destroy my vehicles:

-cost a cp to use properly
-don't show up until turn 2 so I get a chance to make some points back with my vehicle
-have T5 3+ instead of a vehicle statline
-lose 1/3 of their firepower every 3 wounds
-have 24" range instead of like 48" range
-have to turn up 9" from a board edge so I can protect really vital assets by placing them in the center and screening for them

Melta doesn't work on suicide units in the 8th+ framework because GW hasn't been able to jam the idea that transports should make units move faster into their brains since 7th. It has never been a thing that worked in 8th in basically any faction, and it was due to get a buff comparative to much longer range, safer weaponry. They overshot by like 5 points with base eradicators, and when analyzing heavy erads initially people didnt realize they were another 5pts, and they bumped their cost up pretty quick. The vehicles that you can actually make the argument eradicators make unusable...were already bad before. High cost low durability mediocre damage vehicles like the quad-las predator, land raider, and big nid monsters.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me melta has always equaled: Good at a distance, devastating up close. And those Heavy Melta-Rifles just seem to get around that. But I guess we can't be expecting loyalists to be moving around that much, can we? Maybe gw should just consider some points drops for vehicles without durability buffs and invuls like the ones you mentioned.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Title is inaccurate - marines have not been the boogeyman in 9th except in your own imaginations. The whole time it's just been ... sisters/custodes/daemons/quinn.

Marines just get played a lot. If you compare the play rate with expected win rate (top finish) at tournaments - it is fairly average.

8.5 was really problematic but the majority of the 8.5 rules are busted for all armies. Yall just don't know that cause nearly no one played during that period. (see pandemic)

9.0 marines is a little different. Everything costs more points but a few new units and a few got better. A few strats got better. Errads/Attack bikes are quite good but compared to a unit of quinn troopers -1 to hit and wound transport from a free auto include 9" aura....give me a GD break! It is not even in the same ballpark.

Ah, good ol Xenomancer, never misses the chance to shine. Marines have 50 Tournament Placements out of 161 on 40kstats. And that is without including grey knights or Custards as Space Marines because in my opinion those technically "aren't" space Marines. I would say almost 1/3rd of tournament placements going to Space Marines of one color or another is fairly significant. Some would even go as far as to put them in the same Category as Sisters with their 10 placements, Custards with their 14 placements, Daemons with their 13 placements and Harlies with their 12. In fact, i'll go as far as to agree with Goonhammer which lists Sisters of Battle,Death Guard, Harlequins,Dark Angels and Chaos Soup as the "Top tier" You will notice that Dark Angels are a Space Marine faction Don't worry though, Tier 2 contains 13 other factions, 6 of which are Space Marines of different colors (not including Custards)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

....Marines weren't good from 2017 all the way to Oct 2019.

Correct, just ignore the actual statistics and numbers and that would be a correct statement. But if you do look at the numbers and data in general, Marines in the 2017 LVO (LVO is held in January) Finished 2nd at one of the absolute largest tournaments of the year...if not the largest. In 2018 they finished with 4 top 10 placings. Now, I won't split hairs with you here, but I would argue that 40% of the top 10 belonging to Space Marines means they were somewhat good...dare I say...great? In 2019, the height of the Imperial Knight shenanigans the Marines still managed a top 8 placing. So when you say "Marines weren't good from 2017 all the way to Oct 2019" you mean they weren't the end all be all, best army in the game, because by tournament standards they were doing very well.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

It's more like you're saying,"Space Marines are the best faction in the game right now and are overpowered - well, as long as you play this one specific chapter in one or two specific ways (either leaning fully on Ravenwing or at least halfway on Ravenwing), and every other variation of loyalist Marine is very solid (White Scars, Black Templars) to dog gak (Imperial Fists, Deathwatch).

Dark Angels being top tier means absolutely nothing to an Imperial Fists player who only barely has a chapter tactic.

And no, comparing the various chapters of Marines to subfactions of Eldar or Necrons or whoever is a false equivalency and you know it friendo. There's more variance in how one can play a single chapter of Marine than there is in some entire non-Marine armies. Hate that all you wish, it's still true and as such lumping all Marines together when they are much more different from each other than any other army's subfactions is being intellectually dishonest.

You don't have to try to internally justify your bias against Marines my dude.

Yes...Goffs play much closer to Freebootas than say Ultramarines to Iron hands.... sure...

Also, Dark Angels being good is VERY important to all other Marine factions as well. Why? Because I just played against a beautifully painted army of Blue Dark Angels. A week or so ago I played against a similarly beautiful Green White Scars army that had some very interesting cloaks on instead of the traditional white scars attire....its almost like...Marine players will pick and choose which "faction" they are based on what is good. Weird right? How many units (outside of named characters) do White scars have that Smurfs don't? How many Units do Ironhands have that White Scars dont? there are some for sure, but not many and not noticeable enough to deter anyone from doing exactly what I have seen happen countless times at FLG and at tournaments.

 Xenomancers wrote:
"marines just get played a lot" I explained why.
We really need a real stat accumulation center. looking at all of 40k stats data...its saying there are only 8 iron hands list since the start of 9th...that is obviously not true. Where are you getting these stats?

Yeah, when 8.5 ended a lot of those "Iron Hands" players went on to play whatever the next best Space Marine chapter became.

How many Iron hands did you play against in 8.5 time frame? How many BEFORE 8.5? From the start of 9th edition in 2020 to the end of the year (5ish months) Dark Angels had 34 TOTAL primary lists in tournaments. From January 1st 2021 to the end of March(3 months) Dark Angels had 47. Its almost like Marine players will just randomly choose whatever is the best sub faction of Marines to play. Just to prove the point though, In those same time frames, Salamanders had 51 lists in 2020 9th and have 15 in 2021 so far.

 Blackie wrote:
SM were, are and always will be boogieman in some form. At the moment that form is Dark Angels.
In casual games anything SM related that is at least barely optimized is still very powerful. Which isn't true for many of the other top factions: their effectiveness drops dramatically outside the lists that heavily rely on their cheesiest combos.
The era has not ended at all.

Very true Blackie. How many posters here have called bolt gauntlet aggressors garbage since they were "nerfed"? The damn thing will still earn back its points against Ork boys in less than 3 turns without any buffs, stratagems, auras and without chapter tactics/Doctrines. So those un-optimized aggressors will be damn powerful still.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, ironically if hordes actually were good, not just a novelty, a lot of the problems with MM spam would go away.

1) MM is not spammed. 18 Smasha Guns is spam. 3 MM attack bikes is not.
2) MM would not go away, because there will always be people not taking hordes as is expected in a system where multiple kinds of lists are viable.

I mean....its already been covered somewhat heavily but Marines aren't taking 3 MM attack bikes. The last 2 Space Marine lists to place on 40k stats had 6 MM attack bikes and 3 Eradicators and the other list was 3 MM Attack Bikes and 4 MM Devestators.

I don't think there is any real argument from players that Melta weapons in general are under priced right now. A decent comparison would be the fact that a Multi-melta is a 10pt upgrade and gives the Marine 2 S8 -4 D6 dmg shots at BS3. And if the weapon is in half range its D6+2. An ork unit that upgrades a weapon to a Rokkit likewise costs 10pts. A rokkit is 1 shot S8 -2 and 3Dmg hitting on BS5. You could argue that MM's being Heavy vs Rokkitz being assault is at least somewhat part of the disparity but the fact is that Attack bikes aren't impacted by heavy weapon restrictions and Eradicators just use the stratagem to count as not moving if its that important.

Also, I do agree with you that 18 Smasha Guns is Spam. I do want to make a quick point though. 1 Smasha gun on GW's website is $50, so 18 costs you $900 On the flipside of this, 1 attack bike is $34 and you can only have 9 I believe, so to max out those bikes would cost you $306. And 9 Attack bikes (which in my opinion are under priced by 5-10pts) is equivalent to about 12 Smasha Guns.

The question remains whether GW will be able to dig themselves out of this particular hole and if not I can imagine players, who have no desire to play Space Marines, will eventually move onto other games. That is not necessarily a bad thing for the industry.

My thesis is that GW has great competence about Marines (rules, gaming).
However, the competence about Xenos has diminished over the last few years.
You can see this e.g. from the Ynnari rules.

It's not a coincidence that the elf standard bearer at GW moved from 40k to AOS at about the same time that space elves became boring cheap bargain basement trash spammers and space marines started getting all the kinds of tricky stuff that space elves used to specialize in.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The local meta is more important, it's just harder to get data for.

Maybe to the person who’s in it, but it doesn’t mean jack to everyone else who isn’t. So how is it generally more important than the larger competitive meta? as there are a lot more people not in local scene then are.

Right now people are being told all over the place that marines are OP. Will local metas change due to them not being at all OP in the competitive scene? Yeah, it’s just takes longer for them to adjust. We already seeing a lot more “how do I counter DG” type topics popping up all over the internet, and it’s likely we’ll see the same for drukhari. Unlike in real economics, the trickle down economy is very much a thing In 40k.

Which is just as true for tournament play. Not everyone enjoys the spam (and seven of the exact same unit is spam) and meta chasing of tournament play. You shouldn't have to build a cutthroat tournament list to have a chance of winning against a casual loyalist list, but right now that's where a lot of factions are. I don't care if heavy melta rifle Eradicators aren't "meta" in the tournament scene right now. They exist, and can evaporate any but the toughest vehicles from full range. That forces people to leave models they want to play at home because no one wants to pick that favorite model up before it's had a chance to do anything. Having your army choices dictated by the existence of a single unit isn't fun. If you enjoy tournament games that's fine, but it isn't what everyone wants to play.

...except that there are tons of units that can do that out there. I can make a unit of aberrants or acolytes out of the single worst codex (by competitive wr anyway) that can supremely reliably delete any vehicle you've got on the table, just as easily as heavy melta rifle erads.

You don't need a hyper-competitive list to take on an actually casual space marine list. You need a competitive list to take on a competitive marine list. The reason it seems like you do is, surprise surprise, the units that everyone owns from all the starter boxes of primaris marines are basically the competitive marine choices right now. If you actually go up against someone taking a wider slice of the many many many many options in the marine codex, they're perfectly easy to deal with with the fluff-bunniest of lists. i've beaten marines with my "take 1 of each aspect warrior squad, 3 storm guardian squads and an avatar of khaine and go from there" Eldar list, and that's...never not been a joke.

......except you just compared two units that have to get into melee to do the job with one that does it from 24 away. It's a lot easier to screen out melee units than 24 inch range guns. It's not the existence of units that can reliably delete vehicles that's a problem, it's the ones that can do it with little counterplay. I have no problem with normal MMs or Eradicators, as they need to get close to do the job, it's the melta weapons that essentially get around the rules for melta that are an issue.

Agreed on your second point. The issue is that the best loyalists units are widespread and easily available, and therefore seen everywhere. Doesn't change the fact that they're everywhere.

I dunno, I guess I've just played against eradicators enough at this point that I'm so used to dealing with them and it doesn't bother me that much. I play tanks against them, and I've played against the heavy rifle version as well as the normal version.

They show up, turn 2, and generally if you've got a vehicle that doesn't have any kind of additional defenses just straight T7 3+ they kill it, then you kill them. If you do, they don't. The last time I played against them, I had a grot megatank loaded up with rokkits, so like 160 points, big expensive target. Turn 1 it rolled up and killed 3 aggressors, turn 2 eradicators showed up and shot at it, missed twice, failed to wound once, one shot got saved by the invuln, and one shot did 1 damage because of ramshackle, they took 6 out of 9 wounds off and then he had to direct a whole bunch of his longrange firepower into the GMT to finally take it out.

You're gonna lose models in warhammer 40k, and there's gonna be units with antitank weaponry that shoot your stuff. I'd actually rather the units that come down to destroy my vehicles:

-cost a cp to use properly
-don't show up until turn 2 so I get a chance to make some points back with my vehicle
-have T5 3+ instead of a vehicle statline
-lose 1/3 of their firepower every 3 wounds
-have 24" range instead of like 48" range
-have to turn up 9" from a board edge so I can protect really vital assets by placing them in the center and screening for them

Melta doesn't work on suicide units in the 8th+ framework because GW hasn't been able to jam the idea that transports should make units move faster into their brains since 7th. It has never been a thing that worked in 8th in basically any faction, and it was due to get a buff comparative to much longer range, safer weaponry. They overshot by like 5 points with base eradicators, and when analyzing heavy erads initially people didnt realize they were another 5pts, and they bumped their cost up pretty quick. The vehicles that you can actually make the argument eradicators make unusable...were already bad before. High cost low durability mediocre damage vehicles like the quad-las predator, land raider, and big nid monsters.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me melta has always equaled: Good at a distance, devastating up close. And those Heavy Melta-Rifles just seem to get around that. But I guess we can't be expecting loyalists to be moving around that much, can we? Maybe gw should just consider some points drops for vehicles without durability buffs and invuls like the ones you mentioned.

I'll take that a step further and point out the night inevitable "Marines stepping on other factions" thing again, and compare the Eradicators to Wraithguard. Back in the day Wraithguard had D weapons or rough equivalents, functioning as slower, tougher, super-Fire Dragons. The Eradicator's firepower blows them out of the water completely, with double the range, double the shots and wicked damage bonuses especially on the Heavy Melta Rifle.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's not a coincidence that the elf standard bearer at GW moved from 40k to AOS at about the same time that space elves became boring cheap bargain basement trash spammers and space marines started getting all the kinds of tricky stuff that space elves used to specialize in.

At least they didn't get Squatted.....

[/spoiler]

Primaris stuff trending towards having either extreme range or the ability to just turn up in your deployment zone does 100% make them one of the most boring opposing forces to face, I'm absolutely with you there. but I don't think a 55pt (i think) infantry model having a Heavy 2 S8 Ap-4 D6+2 24" range gun is the end of medium vehicles. Vehicles with points costs over 150, basic statline with no T8, no invuln, no other abilities definitely suffer against them...but they already suffered against everything else. Point drops would probably be helpful, but I think ultimately the thing that'll help them the most is the trend GW seems to be taking towards diversifying the kinds of defensive statlines you're seeing represented in the game, and pushing away from T7 3+ being basically every big thing and T4/T3 W1 being basically every small thing.

Roll on the Ork Codex and Rokkits will probably be 2 shots for reasons. Or damage 6.

Afaik the last time the marine boogeyman was dead it came back in an Iron Hands dreadnought...

Tyel wrote:
Roll on the Ork Codex and Rokkits will probably be 2 shots for reasons. Or damage 6.

4th edition Bolters vs Shootas:

Bolters: 1 shot at 24, 2 shots at 12 but only if they didn't move. If you did move you got 1 shot at 12.
Shootas: 2 shots at 18

9th edition Bolters vs Shootas:

Bolters: 2 shots at 24 or 1 shot at 24 if you move, 2 shots at 12 no matter what. Also 1/3rd of the game you get -1AP on your bolter.
Shootas: 2 shots at 18.

While I sincerely hope Ork ranged weapons get a buff of some kind, I am highly skeptical it will be as significant as DOUBLING the fire power of Space Marine Meltas while simultaneously buffing its dmg output as well. Especially when you factor in the above stats.

my bet would be:

-shoota the same
-big shoota now D2
-rokkit now AP-3

A man can dream about D3 power klaws but I doubt we'll ever see a return to the days when they were actually threatening. THeyll likely just be identical to power/chainfists.

the_scotsman wrote:
my bet would be:

-shoota the same
-big shoota now D2
-rokkit now AP-3

A man can dream about D3 power klaws but I doubt we'll ever see a return to the days when they were actually threatening. THeyll likely just be identical to power/chainfists.

For you non-ork players this translates to

-Shoota still being useless
-Big shoota remaining useless, but on units/vehicles we are required to take them on, they might actually accomplish something for a change
-Rokkit being a significantly worse version of the multi-melta for the same price.

SemperMortis wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
my bet would be:

-shoota the same
-big shoota now D2
-rokkit now AP-3

A man can dream about D3 power klaws but I doubt we'll ever see a return to the days when they were actually threatening. THeyll likely just be identical to power/chainfists.

For you non-ork players this translates to

-Shoota still being useless
-Big shoota remaining useless, but on units/vehicles we are required to take them on, they might actually accomplish something for a change
-Rokkit being a significantly worse version of the multi-melta for the same price.

TIL a rokkit is a 20 point weapon.

MMs are only 10pts when they're replacing a weapon like a heavy bolter, which is 10pts. That's how GW does weapon options now as opposed to in 8th.

Assuming big shootas remain a 5pt weapon, having them be a slightly nerfed version of a heavy bolter would seem to make sense to me. Comparing to a marine heavy bolter, the BS of the model is worse, and the AP is worse, and comparing to a guard heavy bolter, the AP is worse but it's an assault weapon.

I dunno on a shoota. I guess you could make it 3 shots or strength 5 or something.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

....Marines weren't good from 2017 all the way to Oct 2019.

Correct, just ignore the actual statistics and numbers and that would be a correct statement. But if you do look at the numbers and data in general, Marines in the 2017 LVO (LVO is held in January) Finished 2nd at one of the absolute largest tournaments of the year...if not the largest. In 2018 they finished with 4 top 10 placings. Now, I won't split hairs with you here, but I would argue that 40% of the top 10 belonging to Space Marines means they were somewhat good...dare I say...great? In 2019, the height of the Imperial Knight shenanigans the Marines still managed a top 8 placing. So when you say "Marines weren't good from 2017 all the way to Oct 2019" you mean they weren't the end all be all, best army in the game, because by tournament standards they were doing very well.

*sigh* You're really reaching here.

Did you forget what those lists were and how soup works? A handful of models cherry picked from marine books backed up by the loyal 32 and/or knights or that revolve around tanks and Bobby does make marines great.

Let's look at 2019 LVO -

Castellan
Ynnari
Castellan
Castellan
Ynnai
T'au
Chaos
Eldar

Better yet here's the whole 2018 season:



And here's 2019 through September:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The local meta is more important, it's just harder to get data for.

Maybe to the person who’s in it, but it doesn’t mean jack to everyone else who isn’t. So how is it generally more important than the larger competitive meta? as there are a lot more people not in local scene then are.

Right now people are being told all over the place that marines are OP. Will local metas change due to them not being at all OP in the competitive scene? Yeah, it’s just takes longer for them to adjust. We already seeing a lot more “how do I counter DG” type topics popping up all over the internet, and it’s likely we’ll see the same for drukhari. Unlike in real economics, the trickle down economy is very much a thing In 40k.

Which is just as true for tournament play. Not everyone enjoys the spam (and seven of the exact same unit is spam) and meta chasing of tournament play. You shouldn't have to build a cutthroat tournament list to have a chance of winning against a casual loyalist list, but right now that's where a lot of factions are. I don't care if heavy melta rifle Eradicators aren't "meta" in the tournament scene right now. They exist, and can evaporate any but the toughest vehicles from full range. That forces people to leave models they want to play at home because no one wants to pick that favorite model up before it's had a chance to do anything. Having your army choices dictated by the existence of a single unit isn't fun. If you enjoy tournament games that's fine, but it isn't what everyone wants to play.

If you go back literally 1 eddition WG had literally had the best weapon in the game...D weapons...It is not fair to compare 9th edd changes to anything 8th eddition right now.

...except that there are tons of units that can do that out there. I can make a unit of aberrants or acolytes out of the single worst codex (by competitive wr anyway) that can supremely reliably delete any vehicle you've got on the table, just as easily as heavy melta rifle erads.

You don't need a hyper-competitive list to take on an actually casual space marine list. You need a competitive list to take on a competitive marine list. The reason it seems like you do is, surprise surprise, the units that everyone owns from all the starter boxes of primaris marines are basically the competitive marine choices right now. If you actually go up against someone taking a wider slice of the many many many many options in the marine codex, they're perfectly easy to deal with with the fluff-bunniest of lists. i've beaten marines with my "take 1 of each aspect warrior squad, 3 storm guardian squads and an avatar of khaine and go from there" Eldar list, and that's...never not been a joke.

......except you just compared two units that have to get into melee to do the job with one that does it from 24 away. It's a lot easier to screen out melee units than 24 inch range guns. It's not the existence of units that can reliably delete vehicles that's a problem, it's the ones that can do it with little counterplay. I have no problem with normal MMs or Eradicators, as they need to get close to do the job, it's the melta weapons that essentially get around the rules for melta that are an issue.

Agreed on your second point. The issue is that the best loyalists units are widespread and easily available, and therefore seen everywhere. Doesn't change the fact that they're everywhere.

I dunno, I guess I've just played against eradicators enough at this point that I'm so used to dealing with them and it doesn't bother me that much. I play tanks against them, and I've played against the heavy rifle version as well as the normal version.

They show up, turn 2, and generally if you've got a vehicle that doesn't have any kind of additional defenses just straight T7 3+ they kill it, then you kill them. If you do, they don't. The last time I played against them, I had a grot megatank loaded up with rokkits, so like 160 points, big expensive target. Turn 1 it rolled up and killed 3 aggressors, turn 2 eradicators showed up and shot at it, missed twice, failed to wound once, one shot got saved by the invuln, and one shot did 1 damage because of ramshackle, they took 6 out of 9 wounds off and then he had to direct a whole bunch of his longrange firepower into the GMT to finally take it out.

You're gonna lose models in warhammer 40k, and there's gonna be units with antitank weaponry that shoot your stuff. I'd actually rather the units that come down to destroy my vehicles:

-cost a cp to use properly
-don't show up until turn 2 so I get a chance to make some points back with my vehicle
-have T5 3+ instead of a vehicle statline
-lose 1/3 of their firepower every 3 wounds
-have 24" range instead of like 48" range
-have to turn up 9" from a board edge so I can protect really vital assets by placing them in the center and screening for them

Melta doesn't work on suicide units in the 8th+ framework because GW hasn't been able to jam the idea that transports should make units move faster into their brains since 7th. It has never been a thing that worked in 8th in basically any faction, and it was due to get a buff comparative to much longer range, safer weaponry. They overshot by like 5 points with base eradicators, and when analyzing heavy erads initially people didnt realize they were another 5pts, and they bumped their cost up pretty quick. The vehicles that you can actually make the argument eradicators make unusable...were already bad before. High cost low durability mediocre damage vehicles like the quad-las predator, land raider, and big nid monsters.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me melta has always equaled: Good at a distance, devastating up close. And those Heavy Melta-Rifles just seem to get around that. But I guess we can't be expecting loyalists to be moving around that much, can we? Maybe gw should just consider some points drops for vehicles without durability buffs and invuls like the ones you mentioned.

I'll take that a step further and point out the night inevitable "Marines stepping on other factions" thing again, and compare the Eradicators to Wraithguard. Back in the day Wraithguard had D weapons or rough equivalents, functioning as slower, tougher, super-Fire Dragons. The Eradicator's firepower blows them out of the water completely, with double the range, double the shots and wicked damage bonuses especially on the Heavy Melta Rifle.

WG had D weapons in 7th eddition. Much better than a MM at that time. In fact MM has been utterly useless since 5th edition salamanders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

....Marines weren't good from 2017 all the way to Oct 2019.

Correct, just ignore the actual statistics and numbers and that would be a correct statement. But if you do look at the numbers and data in general, Marines in the 2017 LVO (LVO is held in January) Finished 2nd at one of the absolute largest tournaments of the year...if not the largest. In 2018 they finished with 4 top 10 placings. Now, I won't split hairs with you here, but I would argue that 40% of the top 10 belonging to Space Marines means they were somewhat good...dare I say...great? In 2019, the height of the Imperial Knight shenanigans the Marines still managed a top 8 placing. So when you say "Marines weren't good from 2017 all the way to Oct 2019" you mean they weren't the end all be all, best army in the game, because by tournament standards they were doing very well.

*sigh* You're really reaching here.

Did you forget what those lists were and how soup works? A handful of models cherry picked from marine books backed up by the loyal 32 and/or knights or that revolve around tanks and Bobby does make marines great.

Let's look at 2019 LVO -

Castellan
Ynnari
Castellan
Castellan
Ynnai
T'au
Chaos
Eldar

Better yet here's the whole 2018 season:

Spoiler:

And here's 2019 through September:

Spoiler:

Nothing I haven't pointed out 1000 times. Why even humor them?

[/spoiler]

All I learned from this was that the Dark Mechanicus had a codex in 2019, and had a 50% win rate... and none of the props they deserved for being a 50/50 army in the age of the Castellan and Loyal 32.

Going to look at Amazon now and see if I can find this unicorn of a Codex for my friend who has been wanting to do Dark Mechanicus for awhile

Edit: and broken Ynnari... geez, DM was rocking out hard!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The local meta is more important, it's just harder to get data for.

Maybe to the person who’s in it, but it doesn’t mean jack to everyone else who isn’t. So how is it generally more important than the larger competitive meta? as there are a lot more people not in local scene then are.

Right now people are being told all over the place that marines are OP. Will local metas change due to them not being at all OP in the competitive scene? Yeah, it’s just takes longer for them to adjust. We already seeing a lot more “how do I counter DG” type topics popping up all over the internet, and it’s likely we’ll see the same for drukhari. Unlike in real economics, the trickle down economy is very much a thing In 40k.

Which is just as true for tournament play. Not everyone enjoys the spam (and seven of the exact same unit is spam) and meta chasing of tournament play. You shouldn't have to build a cutthroat tournament list to have a chance of winning against a casual loyalist list, but right now that's where a lot of factions are. I don't care if heavy melta rifle Eradicators aren't "meta" in the tournament scene right now. They exist, and can evaporate any but the toughest vehicles from full range. That forces people to leave models they want to play at home because no one wants to pick that favorite model up before it's had a chance to do anything. Having your army choices dictated by the existence of a single unit isn't fun. If you enjoy tournament games that's fine, but it isn't what everyone wants to play.

If you go back literally 1 eddition WG had literally had the best weapon in the game...D weapons...It is not fair to compare 9th edd changes to anything 8th eddition right now.

...except that there are tons of units that can do that out there. I can make a unit of aberrants or acolytes out of the single worst codex (by competitive wr anyway) that can supremely reliably delete any vehicle you've got on the table, just as easily as heavy melta rifle erads.

You don't need a hyper-competitive list to take on an actually casual space marine list. You need a competitive list to take on a competitive marine list. The reason it seems like you do is, surprise surprise, the units that everyone owns from all the starter boxes of primaris marines are basically the competitive marine choices right now. If you actually go up against someone taking a wider slice of the many many many many options in the marine codex, they're perfectly easy to deal with with the fluff-bunniest of lists. i've beaten marines with my "take 1 of each aspect warrior squad, 3 storm guardian squads and an avatar of khaine and go from there" Eldar list, and that's...never not been a joke.

......except you just compared two units that have to get into melee to do the job with one that does it from 24 away. It's a lot easier to screen out melee units than 24 inch range guns. It's not the existence of units that can reliably delete vehicles that's a problem, it's the ones that can do it with little counterplay. I have no problem with normal MMs or Eradicators, as they need to get close to do the job, it's the melta weapons that essentially get around the rules for melta that are an issue.

Agreed on your second point. The issue is that the best loyalists units are widespread and easily available, and therefore seen everywhere. Doesn't change the fact that they're everywhere.

I dunno, I guess I've just played against eradicators enough at this point that I'm so used to dealing with them and it doesn't bother me that much. I play tanks against them, and I've played against the heavy rifle version as well as the normal version.

They show up, turn 2, and generally if you've got a vehicle that doesn't have any kind of additional defenses just straight T7 3+ they kill it, then you kill them. If you do, they don't. The last time I played against them, I had a grot megatank loaded up with rokkits, so like 160 points, big expensive target. Turn 1 it rolled up and killed 3 aggressors, turn 2 eradicators showed up and shot at it, missed twice, failed to wound once, one shot got saved by the invuln, and one shot did 1 damage because of ramshackle, they took 6 out of 9 wounds off and then he had to direct a whole bunch of his longrange firepower into the GMT to finally take it out.

You're gonna lose models in warhammer 40k, and there's gonna be units with antitank weaponry that shoot your stuff. I'd actually rather the units that come down to destroy my vehicles:

-cost a cp to use properly
-don't show up until turn 2 so I get a chance to make some points back with my vehicle
-have T5 3+ instead of a vehicle statline
-lose 1/3 of their firepower every 3 wounds
-have 24" range instead of like 48" range
-have to turn up 9" from a board edge so I can protect really vital assets by placing them in the center and screening for them

Melta doesn't work on suicide units in the 8th+ framework because GW hasn't been able to jam the idea that transports should make units move faster into their brains since 7th. It has never been a thing that worked in 8th in basically any faction, and it was due to get a buff comparative to much longer range, safer weaponry. They overshot by like 5 points with base eradicators, and when analyzing heavy erads initially people didnt realize they were another 5pts, and they bumped their cost up pretty quick. The vehicles that you can actually make the argument eradicators make unusable...were already bad before. High cost low durability mediocre damage vehicles like the quad-las predator, land raider, and big nid monsters.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me melta has always equaled: Good at a distance, devastating up close. And those Heavy Melta-Rifles just seem to get around that. But I guess we can't be expecting loyalists to be moving around that much, can we? Maybe gw should just consider some points drops for vehicles without durability buffs and invuls like the ones you mentioned.

I'll take that a step further and point out the night inevitable "Marines stepping on other factions" thing again, and compare the Eradicators to Wraithguard. Back in the day Wraithguard had D weapons or rough equivalents, functioning as slower, tougher, super-Fire Dragons. The Eradicator's firepower blows them out of the water completely, with double the range, double the shots and wicked damage bonuses especially on the Heavy Melta Rifle.

WG had D weapons in 7th eddition. Much better than a MM at that time. In fact MM has been utterly useless since 5th edition salamanders.

Yes Wraithcannons were D weapons, and before D weapons they had some special rules that were similar to D weapons. Not sure where you're going with that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The local meta is more important, it's just harder to get data for.

Maybe to the person who’s in it, but it doesn’t mean jack to everyone else who isn’t. So how is it generally more important than the larger competitive meta? as there are a lot more people not in local scene then are.

Right now people are being told all over the place that marines are OP. Will local metas change due to them not being at all OP in the competitive scene? Yeah, it’s just takes longer for them to adjust. We already seeing a lot more “how do I counter DG” type topics popping up all over the internet, and it’s likely we’ll see the same for drukhari. Unlike in real economics, the trickle down economy is very much a thing In 40k.

Which is just as true for tournament play. Not everyone enjoys the spam (and seven of the exact same unit is spam) and meta chasing of tournament play. You shouldn't have to build a cutthroat tournament list to have a chance of winning against a casual loyalist list, but right now that's where a lot of factions are. I don't care if heavy melta rifle Eradicators aren't "meta" in the tournament scene right now. They exist, and can evaporate any but the toughest vehicles from full range. That forces people to leave models they want to play at home because no one wants to pick that favorite model up before it's had a chance to do anything. Having your army choices dictated by the existence of a single unit isn't fun. If you enjoy tournament games that's fine, but it isn't what everyone wants to play.

If you go back literally 1 eddition WG had literally had the best weapon in the game...D weapons...It is not fair to compare 9th edd changes to anything 8th eddition right now.

...except that there are tons of units that can do that out there. I can make a unit of aberrants or acolytes out of the single worst codex (by competitive wr anyway) that can supremely reliably delete any vehicle you've got on the table, just as easily as heavy melta rifle erads.

You don't need a hyper-competitive list to take on an actually casual space marine list. You need a competitive list to take on a competitive marine list. The reason it seems like you do is, surprise surprise, the units that everyone owns from all the starter boxes of primaris marines are basically the competitive marine choices right now. If you actually go up against someone taking a wider slice of the many many many many options in the marine codex, they're perfectly easy to deal with with the fluff-bunniest of lists. i've beaten marines with my "take 1 of each aspect warrior squad, 3 storm guardian squads and an avatar of khaine and go from there" Eldar list, and that's...never not been a joke.

......except you just compared two units that have to get into melee to do the job with one that does it from 24 away. It's a lot easier to screen out melee units than 24 inch range guns. It's not the existence of units that can reliably delete vehicles that's a problem, it's the ones that can do it with little counterplay. I have no problem with normal MMs or Eradicators, as they need to get close to do the job, it's the melta weapons that essentially get around the rules for melta that are an issue.

Agreed on your second point. The issue is that the best loyalists units are widespread and easily available, and therefore seen everywhere. Doesn't change the fact that they're everywhere.

I dunno, I guess I've just played against eradicators enough at this point that I'm so used to dealing with them and it doesn't bother me that much. I play tanks against them, and I've played against the heavy rifle version as well as the normal version.

They show up, turn 2, and generally if you've got a vehicle that doesn't have any kind of additional defenses just straight T7 3+ they kill it, then you kill them. If you do, they don't. The last time I played against them, I had a grot megatank loaded up with rokkits, so like 160 points, big expensive target. Turn 1 it rolled up and killed 3 aggressors, turn 2 eradicators showed up and shot at it, missed twice, failed to wound once, one shot got saved by the invuln, and one shot did 1 damage because of ramshackle, they took 6 out of 9 wounds off and then he had to direct a whole bunch of his longrange firepower into the GMT to finally take it out.

You're gonna lose models in warhammer 40k, and there's gonna be units with antitank weaponry that shoot your stuff. I'd actually rather the units that come down to destroy my vehicles:

-cost a cp to use properly
-don't show up until turn 2 so I get a chance to make some points back with my vehicle
-have T5 3+ instead of a vehicle statline
-lose 1/3 of their firepower every 3 wounds
-have 24" range instead of like 48" range
-have to turn up 9" from a board edge so I can protect really vital assets by placing them in the center and screening for them

Melta doesn't work on suicide units in the 8th+ framework because GW hasn't been able to jam the idea that transports should make units move faster into their brains since 7th. It has never been a thing that worked in 8th in basically any faction, and it was due to get a buff comparative to much longer range, safer weaponry. They overshot by like 5 points with base eradicators, and when analyzing heavy erads initially people didnt realize they were another 5pts, and they bumped their cost up pretty quick. The vehicles that you can actually make the argument eradicators make unusable...were already bad before. High cost low durability mediocre damage vehicles like the quad-las predator, land raider, and big nid monsters.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me melta has always equaled: Good at a distance, devastating up close. And those Heavy Melta-Rifles just seem to get around that. But I guess we can't be expecting loyalists to be moving around that much, can we? Maybe gw should just consider some points drops for vehicles without durability buffs and invuls like the ones you mentioned.

I'll take that a step further and point out the night inevitable "Marines stepping on other factions" thing again, and compare the Eradicators to Wraithguard. Back in the day Wraithguard had D weapons or rough equivalents, functioning as slower, tougher, super-Fire Dragons. The Eradicator's firepower blows them out of the water completely, with double the range, double the shots and wicked damage bonuses especially on the Heavy Melta Rifle.

WG had D weapons in 7th eddition. Much better than a MM at that time. In fact MM has been utterly useless since 5th edition salamanders.

Yes Wraithcannons were D weapons, and before D weapons they had some special rules that were similar to D weapons. Not sure where you're going with that.

Going at it's probably the first time in the history of the MM it was prefered over a wraith cannon and that might change when...Eldar get their 9th edition codex.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

*sigh* You're really reaching here.

Did you forget what those lists were and how soup works? A handful of models cherry picked from marine books backed up by the loyal 32 and/or knights or that revolve around tanks and Bobby does make marines great.

2018: 2nd place LVO list contained 1085pts of Blood Angels. So I guess over 50% of a list is now "A handful of models" . The irony being that even assuming your premise was correct (it wasn't) you still miss the point that in SOUP you take THE BEST you can take that is legal, and Space Marines fit that bill in sufficient force to be considered the "Primary" force in all those Soup lists. So yes, Space Marines did wonderful, they, like every other army in the fething game wasn't as strong as a standalone force as they were a SOUP but that was Gdubz terrible design mechanism that let 70%ish of the game take allies to grab the best from while ignoring the worst. But on top of all of that, you had a PURE Blood angels army in the top 8,

2019: Again height of the Imperial Knights and soup land and yet Space Marines finished in 8th place with a list containing a triple detachment featuring "Space Marines", Blood angels and Papa smurf.

So your original premise which was

....Marines weren't good from 2017 all the way to Oct 2019.

isn't correct. In smaller tournaments there are always outliers and the random list that just completely confounds the other players (i've done this with my old Kommando Horde in 8th). But at major events where the attendees are measured in their hundreds rather than their dozens, its extremely unlikely you bluff your way onto the top tables. And in my opinion, if your army can get to the top 8...hell the top 12 or even 15 at LVO, your army has to be doing ok. It might only have one or two builds but it at least can compete.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The local meta is more important, it's just harder to get data for.

Maybe to the person who’s in it, but it doesn’t mean jack to everyone else who isn’t. So how is it generally more important than the larger competitive meta? as there are a lot more people not in local scene then are.

Right now people are being told all over the place that marines are OP. Will local metas change due to them not being at all OP in the competitive scene? Yeah, it’s just takes longer for them to adjust. We already seeing a lot more “how do I counter DG” type topics popping up all over the internet, and it’s likely we’ll see the same for drukhari. Unlike in real economics, the trickle down economy is very much a thing In 40k.

Which is just as true for tournament play. Not everyone enjoys the spam (and seven of the exact same unit is spam) and meta chasing of tournament play. You shouldn't have to build a cutthroat tournament list to have a chance of winning against a casual loyalist list, but right now that's where a lot of factions are. I don't care if heavy melta rifle Eradicators aren't "meta" in the tournament scene right now. They exist, and can evaporate any but the toughest vehicles from full range. That forces people to leave models they want to play at home because no one wants to pick that favorite model up before it's had a chance to do anything. Having your army choices dictated by the existence of a single unit isn't fun. If you enjoy tournament games that's fine, but it isn't what everyone wants to play.

If you go back literally 1 eddition WG had literally had the best weapon in the game...D weapons...It is not fair to compare 9th edd changes to anything 8th eddition right now.

...except that there are tons of units that can do that out there. I can make a unit of aberrants or acolytes out of the single worst codex (by competitive wr anyway) that can supremely reliably delete any vehicle you've got on the table, just as easily as heavy melta rifle erads.

You don't need a hyper-competitive list to take on an actually casual space marine list. You need a competitive list to take on a competitive marine list. The reason it seems like you do is, surprise surprise, the units that everyone owns from all the starter boxes of primaris marines are basically the competitive marine choices right now. If you actually go up against someone taking a wider slice of the many many many many options in the marine codex, they're perfectly easy to deal with with the fluff-bunniest of lists. i've beaten marines with my "take 1 of each aspect warrior squad, 3 storm guardian squads and an avatar of khaine and go from there" Eldar list, and that's...never not been a joke.

......except you just compared two units that have to get into melee to do the job with one that does it from 24 away. It's a lot easier to screen out melee units than 24 inch range guns. It's not the existence of units that can reliably delete vehicles that's a problem, it's the ones that can do it with little counterplay. I have no problem with normal MMs or Eradicators, as they need to get close to do the job, it's the melta weapons that essentially get around the rules for melta that are an issue.

Agreed on your second point. The issue is that the best loyalists units are widespread and easily available, and therefore seen everywhere. Doesn't change the fact that they're everywhere.

I dunno, I guess I've just played against eradicators enough at this point that I'm so used to dealing with them and it doesn't bother me that much. I play tanks against them, and I've played against the heavy rifle version as well as the normal version.

They show up, turn 2, and generally if you've got a vehicle that doesn't have any kind of additional defenses just straight T7 3+ they kill it, then you kill them. If you do, they don't. The last time I played against them, I had a grot megatank loaded up with rokkits, so like 160 points, big expensive target. Turn 1 it rolled up and killed 3 aggressors, turn 2 eradicators showed up and shot at it, missed twice, failed to wound once, one shot got saved by the invuln, and one shot did 1 damage because of ramshackle, they took 6 out of 9 wounds off and then he had to direct a whole bunch of his longrange firepower into the GMT to finally take it out.

You're gonna lose models in warhammer 40k, and there's gonna be units with antitank weaponry that shoot your stuff. I'd actually rather the units that come down to destroy my vehicles:

-cost a cp to use properly
-don't show up until turn 2 so I get a chance to make some points back with my vehicle
-have T5 3+ instead of a vehicle statline
-lose 1/3 of their firepower every 3 wounds
-have 24" range instead of like 48" range
-have to turn up 9" from a board edge so I can protect really vital assets by placing them in the center and screening for them

Melta doesn't work on suicide units in the 8th+ framework because GW hasn't been able to jam the idea that transports should make units move faster into their brains since 7th. It has never been a thing that worked in 8th in basically any faction, and it was due to get a buff comparative to much longer range, safer weaponry. They overshot by like 5 points with base eradicators, and when analyzing heavy erads initially people didnt realize they were another 5pts, and they bumped their cost up pretty quick. The vehicles that you can actually make the argument eradicators make unusable...were already bad before. High cost low durability mediocre damage vehicles like the quad-las predator, land raider, and big nid monsters.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me melta has always equaled: Good at a distance, devastating up close. And those Heavy Melta-Rifles just seem to get around that. But I guess we can't be expecting loyalists to be moving around that much, can we? Maybe gw should just consider some points drops for vehicles without durability buffs and invuls like the ones you mentioned.

I'll take that a step further and point out the night inevitable "Marines stepping on other factions" thing again, and compare the Eradicators to Wraithguard. Back in the day Wraithguard had D weapons or rough equivalents, functioning as slower, tougher, super-Fire Dragons. The Eradicator's firepower blows them out of the water completely, with double the range, double the shots and wicked damage bonuses especially on the Heavy Melta Rifle.

WG had D weapons in 7th eddition. Much better than a MM at that time. In fact MM has been utterly useless since 5th edition salamanders.

Yes Wraithcannons were D weapons, and before D weapons they had some special rules that were similar to D weapons. Not sure where you're going with that.

Going at it's probably the first time in the history of the MM it was prefered over a wraith cannon and that might change when...Eldar get their 9th edition codex.

You think Wraithcannons will double their range and get two shots? I won't hold my breath.

But we weren't talking about the Multimelta, and instead the Heavy Melta Rifle, which in the hands of Eradicators is actually even better than a (non-eradicator) Multimelta. It exists for 'reasons'. ($$) Point remains though. Yet again we have a Marine unit that mirrors a Xenos unit in function except is just plain better.

Got to love dakka, where people who barely play the game complain about it non-stop. The fact that somehow people are complaining that marines pre 2.0 were powerful is absolutely insane. Scouts, Bobby G, smash captains. Those where the competitive units marines brought to the table with their 1.0. Dex. There where a few rogue builds that popped up from time to time (usually abusing the above units) and marines had good soup lists during the Wild West index era (again by abusing Bobby G and how broke the game was at that time.)

Anyone who argues otherwise is making logical fallacies to prove a bad point. We can all agree that 2.0 was too powerful, there’s no need to go further than that. If you want to argue something contentious, go join the “are eradicators OP” discussion.

Edit: well looking at this more it appears people are arguing that marines where competitive in 8th before 2.0. That’s true but again they where mainly carried by the above 3 units. My bad for strawmanning that argument though,

Salt donkey wrote:
Got to love dakka, where people who barely play the game complain about it non-stop. The fact that somehow people are complaining that marines pre 2.0 were powerful is absolutely insane. Scouts, Bobby G, smash captains. Those where the competitive units marines brought to the table with their 1.0. Dex. There where a few rogue builds that popped up from time to time (usually abusing the above units) and marines had good soup lists during the Wild West index era (again by abusing Bobby G and how broke the game was at that time.)

Anyone who argues otherwise is making logically fallacy to prove a bad point. We can all agree that 2.0 was too powerful, there’s no need to go further than that. If you want to argue something contentious, go join the “are eradicators OP” discussion.

So why is "Marines only had one or two good builds, propped up by a couple of units!" the argument, but when other factions have only one or two good builds, propped up by a couple of units, that faction is considered to be doing fine?

I mean, you started a thread about how space marines aren't a problem any more. Did you actually expect people not to argue about it?

SemperMortis wrote:
isn't correct. In smaller tournaments there are always outliers and the random list that just completely confounds the other players (i've done this with my old Kommando Horde in 8th). But at major events where the attendees are measured in their hundreds rather than their dozens, its extremely unlikely you bluff your way onto the top tables. And in my opinion, if your army can get to the top 8...hell the top 12 or even 15 at LVO, your army has to be doing ok. It might only have one or two builds but it at least can compete.

You're killing me.

So out of one thousand two hundred and ninety seven games in 30 man ( or more ) tournaments that Blood Angels could not break a 39% WR because there wasn't enough super major tournaments to bring it back up?

I will agree they could be competitive in a very narrow setup. That doesn't make them "good" in the same sense that they are now.

I think its a whinge in a whinge.

I think you'd be a brave man to suggest Marines were top tier in late 2018->2019. It was fairly clear whole swathes of the codex were terrible.

But we constantly hear how it was woe upon woe. While GK and Necrons (and possibly other factions tbh - Orks for example were massively hyped up for the LVO and well...) were standing right there.

I mean it feels like this thread title. Marines - no longer a bogeyman. Sure - but probably still winning a third or something of tournaments (not checked, don't @ me). Its not as if they've become GSC overnight.

A lot has to go wrong before you're as bad as GSC. For what it's worth I think they're paying for the sins of the 7th Edition codex. I'm still calling that one of the most broken codices to have been created.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
A lot has to go wrong before you're as bad as GSC. For what it's worth I think they're paying for the sins of the 7th Edition codex. I'm still calling that one of the most broken codices to have been created.

No GSC player ever asked to be shackled to a mechanic that basically is like "all your gak shows up anywhere you want, and then there's a 33% chance your opponent gets absolutely hosed with zero counterplay and a 66% chance they stand around doing fething nothing!"

Redesign Cult Ambush to be something with actual counterplay and interactivity - I've proposed before a system with the blips similar to Space Hulk, where you get to place blips down on your turn to signal to your opponent that *something* is there and if they get within a certain range you either have to remove the blip or put a unit down that they can target, but if they dont you get to deploy a unit there in your next command phase - and just please for the love of god give GSC decent statlines for their points already.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


I get the impression you are discarding data that does not fit with your argument. Are you saying that competitive lists will not be successful in random games? There are bad match-ups out there, but that is also true at a tourney. Plus list-tailoring when you don't know exactly what you are facing can be a blind alley of list design. Part of the whole challenge of list design for a tourney is not knowing/controlling what you will face. You can guess and plan for "gate keeper" archetypes, but over-tailor for one and you get punished by another. That is why I do believe that tournament data is important. It needs to be analyzed to become information, but its what we have to work with.

In my little meta (before this latest lockdown) I certainly see Orks with Green Tide, others with lots of buggies and still others with lots of (counts-as) artillery. Indeed, the same guy can and does run all three. Harlies are powerful and draw from a limited model pool, so I am not convinced that there is a massive difference between a "competitive" and "casual" Harelquin list.

I discard data from lists that aren't real. 18 mek gunz aren't real, especially where "count as" are banned or avoided. Even 10-12 are extremely uncommon. Data must be put into context as numbers aren't info: when the numbers are elaborated you get the info. And harlequins are very good in tournaments because not only they have a solid codex but mostly because they're not extremely common, so if among 30 players one or two are harlequins or orks and 15 are SM on any flavour people will still tailor against SM, not the clowns or the greenskins. Which is part of the reason why some lists do very well in competitive metas.

So the grot list can be very well against lots of opponent but if in real life there's basically no chance to play against it, of course I discard those data. 18 mek gunz are just 720 points, but also 18 kits that costs 50$ each and also 18 light vehicles + 90 infantry models to assemble and paint. It's not the same of things like 3x5 termies which are just 3-5 kits to buy and 15 infantry models to assemble and paint. Smasha Gunz have been extremely good since 3 years now, and yet they're still uncommon in large numbers.

And I'm also not sure about the real potential of that list as many players still use 8th edition oriented tables, and it's very counter meta oriented. It may beat some top SM, necrons, etc... lists but all those armies can easily adapt and counter it if they need to. Just stop tailoring against marines. Bring more aggressors instead of eradicators and other melta platforms for starters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


So out of one thousand two hundred and ninety seven games in 30 man ( or more ) tournaments that Blood Angels could not break a 39% WR because there wasn't enough super major tournaments to bring it back up?

I will agree they could be competitive in a very narrow setup. That doesn't make them "good" in the same sense that they are now.

BA couldn't break a 39% WR because half the lists they went against were mirror matches against chapters that had better rules/combos. How many Boomboyz, Snakebites or Blood Axes lists will defeat top Deathskulls, Evil Sunz or Goffs lists? What WR would they have in the competitive scene? Definitely not something as high as 39%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:


Assuming big shootas remain a 5pt weapon, having them be a slightly nerfed version of a heavy bolter would seem to make sense to me. Comparing to a marine heavy bolter, the BS of the model is worse, and the AP is worse, and comparing to a guard heavy bolter, the AP is worse but it's an assault weapon.

Which is almost irrelevant since vehicles don't suffer penalties from firing heavy weapons and HB have a 36'' range anyway. A footslogger with HB will likely be fine without moving the entire game, a vehicle with HB will fire like it was an assault weapon, and Big shootas on infantries is something we don't see since 3rd edition, the fact that they're assault weapons really means nothing.

Tyel wrote:
I think its a whinge in a whinge.

I think you'd be a brave man to suggest Marines were top tier in late 2018->2019. It was fairly clear whole swathes of the codex were terrible.

But we constantly hear how it was woe upon woe. While GK and Necrons (and possibly other factions tbh - Orks for example were massively hyped up for the LVO and well...) were standing right there.

I mean it feels like this thread title. Marines - no longer a bogeyman. Sure - but probably still winning a third or something of tournaments (not checked, don't @ me). Its not as if they've become GSC overnight.

Amazingly, marines are actually doing worst than their representation. Over the last 5 weeks, they've been nearly a third of the list but only a quarter of the list manage to go 4-0 in tournaments. They were also only 2 of 11 undefeated list over that period. Collective win rate for the Codex: Space Marines factions was 47.93%.

Space Marines have definitely been dethroned as the kings of Warhammer 40K. Even their best performing supplements (Black Templars and Iron Hands) are low representation factions and getting only 56% win rates.