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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I still like the move to W2 marines; I just don't love the way they power crept everything to accommodate it. Making basic marines W2 seemed like a move towards treating marines as the elite, durable fellows they're promoted as rather than making them the "baseline" "Mario" army. It always felt weird when a lucky laspistol took out a marine on its own, and the second wound is a decent way to address that. Boosting Toughness to 5 wouldn't have addressed that issue because the 'problem' with marine durability wasn't with their average performance so much as with how weird it felt for a bad Sv roll to make them feel oddly squishy.

What probably should have happened is GW should have given them a reasonable price increase that accounted for the new wound and the other buffs they got shortly after. Instead, they cancelled out the boost to marine durability (and lethality) by making everything more lethal.

VladimirHerzog wrote:Marines at 2wounds made sense, it's the buffing of so many weapons to D2 after that was a mistake

Marine players were complaining that their newly W2 Marines were still too squishy long before weapons started getting updated to D2 and bonus AP. Because it's not exactly rocket science: If 60+% of the armies you're going to see on the table are W2/3+ army-wide, you don't take D1 AP0 weapons that are now mostly worthless; you find whatever D2 AP1+ weapons you have in the codex and spam the crap out of them.

Revisionism as its finest.

Really? If you've forgotten threads with titles like 'The Power Armor Problem', let me refresh your memory. Here are some random quotes I have pulled from pre-SM2.0 on this very forum- I've tried to pick ones specifically about access to weapons or about Primaris, not single-wound Marines:

I think the MAIN issue with most MEQ units is the cheap cost for many high-AP multiple-shot devastating weapons that are available to most armies (including other MEQ armies). If access to such weapons was more expensive, or if they were simply less shots, then MEQ might be seen more.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/771045.page

Multi-wound infantry and bikes seem generally overcosted to me this edition. Their prices seem to assume that you're only ever shooting them with single-damage weapons. They're sort of perversely designed because usually they have good armor as well -- you already want to use a high-powered weapon to deny them their save, and lots of those don't care that they have multiple wounds. I'm not sure that such models are generally worth taking unless they come with a significant invulnerable save, at least 4++ for 2 wounds and 3++ for 3.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/728939.page

I have an entire shelf of freshly painted hellblasters, inceptors (plasma and bolter), intercessors (these actually get some run as deathwatch since I can only deepstrike in 3 vet squads and with the new bolter rule they are not terrible for backfield objective holders), aggressors, repulsor and redemptor. All of them are trash when played against any half decent army (eldar soups, imperial soups, tau, orcs, nids and now GSC).

2 wounds 3+ armor save isn't enough to protect units that cost as much as they do.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/770912.page#10337329

What is wrong with Space Marines is that 40K has turned into Epic, where you have a proliferation of tanks, vehicles and knights that make common infantry redundant, and the heavy armor of marines worthless.

In general, the issue is armor save modifiers returning. The last time there was armor save mods, it was 2nd edition. The game was very, very different back then. The Marine statline, while virtually identical (your heroes had S5/T5 though IIRC) meant a lot more back then.

Part of it is that they die easily, but are priced as though they are resilient. Before when you had the old AP system, it was all or nothing so most non-special/heavy weapons didn't affect your save. When most weapons now do affect your save, your survivability takes a hit but they haven't gotten anything to really compensate for the game-changing around them. They are priced/positioned the same way as they were in 3rd through 7th edition, but without the survivability since their armor is more easily reduced.

I still find it hillarious that 3+ is *obviously* the problem, especially at such a high PPM, after a year of people complaining about *Dark Reapers* and *Shining Spears*.

The problem isn't the Power Armor. It's that everyone and their dog has AP modifiers. If Ap-1/AP-2 were much rarer, Marines would do a lot better.

The problem with space marines has always been that they are over costed. Previously the problem was that MEQ's paid for a 3+ armour save that they rarely got because everyone took weapons that were AP3 or better - and GW needed to realize that lower their points. Sadly they didn't. Under 8th it isn't as easy as that anymore because most weapons modify armour saves now but marines remain expensive points wise.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/768146.page

IMHO there is nothing competitive about a primaris army. Gunlines with Gulliman are about as good as that's going to get, and some people have had some success with them, but for the most part, too expensive, too fragile, and not fast enough.

For what it's worth, Intercessors are one of the few units that can win a standoff with Guardsmen. However, they will drop pretty quickly to fire from big guns, like Battle Cannons, or special weapons, like Plasmaguns. This is something you can work with, though. It's definitely part of why I wouldn't go all-primaris, though.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/774719.page#10429223

The perception that W2 Marines are fragile absolutely did not start in 9th Ed when GW started buffing non-Marine weapons, it's been there since the start of 8th. There are tons and tons and tons and tons of posts like these.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
None of the previous editions were anywhere nearly as balanced as the current one is, with no room to argue otherwise. They might have been more fun (which is subjective), but definitely not more balanced.

I think 9th has been some of the worst balance over all though, no other edition has there been so much tabling T1-T2 armies, or insane stated units like 90pt Voidweavers. I'd rather go back to TauDar and HIs 8th than first version of 9ths Orks, Admech, DE, Tau, Quins, etc..., not counting how strong Custodes and Nids where too.

Do I really need to explain to a native speaker what "current" means?

At least in 8th you can ignore silly ITC rules and play Maelstrom where HI were bad at,

9th has two massively popular game modes which do not have ITC rules, including the successor of maelstrom.

and for 7th at leat every army but 2 had broken stuff (and it was really only Daemons and 1 Corsairs formation with the real broken stuff).

Do you really believe that?
I mean, if you do, would you mind buying some crystals I charged with comic engery that make your dice roll better? For just $300 per crystal (which totally isn't a piece of a beer bottle that I picked up near a river), it's yours!

I'd like to chime in on the topic why I think Space Marines don't feel durable enough, even though I'm not playing 9th currently.

Everything is too cheap. A lascannon upgrade on a Tactical Marine costs less than either a Tactical or an Intercessor at 15p, while the weapon itself can reliably take out Gravis or Outrider models worth three times the price. At the same time there is no real need to bring dedicated anti-infantry weaponry, as you have so much lower tier weapons in everything, that you can take on the usual trash units from your opponent just fine.

Just for comparison's and argument's sake some unit costs from my Homebew:
- Marine with boltgun 45p
- Marine with a lascannon 100p
- Redemptor Dread with all the upgrades 530p
- Guardsman with a lasrifle 10p

You can't spam high tier weapons, as the cost is too prohibitive. You absolutely need them though, or else the Redemptor (and other combat vehicles) will tear you a new one (thanks to AV making it immune to most damage). But at the same time alot of armies have access to very cheap units that can easily overwhelm your damage output, if you dont account for it and bring at least some weapons with a higher rate of fire. Which in turn are useless against most vehicles.

This is missing from 9th edition. The difference between a heavy bolter and a lascannon are 5p. Who would ever bring the bolter, unless they just happen to have some points over and/or cant buy a better upgrade?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
None of the previous editions were anywhere nearly as balanced as the current one is, with no room to argue otherwise. They might have been more fun (which is subjective), but definitely not more balanced.

I think 9th has been some of the worst balance over all though, no other edition has there been so much tabling T1-T2 armies, or insane stated units like 90pt Voidweavers. I'd rather go back to TauDar and HIs 8th than first version of 9ths Orks, Admech, DE, Tau, Quins, etc..., not counting how strong Custodes and Nids where too.

Do I really need to explain to a native speaker what "current" means?

At least in 8th you can ignore silly ITC rules and play Maelstrom where HI were bad at,

9th has two massively popular game modes which do not have ITC rules, including the successor of maelstrom.

and for 7th at leat every army but 2 had broken stuff (and it was really only Daemons and 1 Corsairs formation with the real broken stuff).

Do you really believe that?
I mean, if you do, would you mind buying some crystals I charged with comic engery that make your dice roll better? For just $300 per crystal (which totally isn't a piece of a beer bottle that I picked up near a river), it's yours!

I hate current GT right now and feel its still not all that balanced, Nids and Quins are still destroying people, many armies below 40% win rates, lots of options are literally unplayable now, not weak but I mean actually unplayable, a couple armies were just given VP handicaps instead of being balanced. So I dont agree with "current" either.

Currently only a few Space Marine subfactions have a win rate under 40%.

As in, even Astra Militarum has a win rate of 41%.

At the other side of the spectrum, Tyranids have a 58% win rate as the strongest faction, which is bad but far from the days of the same faction winning first, second and third place of every tournament.

You can not unring the bell.

 vict0988 wrote:

People take units more based on their looks and points cost, not their stats. Look at Ork Boyz as an example, do you see more of them with their improved stats? How about Drukhari Khymera? They weren't taken in 8th, got an AP and S, still not taken in 9th.

Ork boyz aesthetically haven't changed in some time, very few people have the "new" ork boyz models in any kind of number. The reason they fell off a cliff in 9th compared to 8th is because the rules dramatically changed which made them go from B tier units to F Tier units. For most of this edition they were 50% more expensive then they were in 7th (now only 33%) and yeah they gained T5 and Base S4 they also lost morale and a host of other buffs while point for point becoming less durable then they were in 7th.

 Jidmah wrote:

1) people with a hateboner for losing to orks

LMAO! Love it Jid

a_typical_hero wrote:

I don't have a problem with T5 Boys, but I wouldn't agree to the second part. Lore and stats are closely related, even if a 1:1 transition is not possible. It is a bit of a "hen or egg?" topic, but creatures in the fluff do what they do because of their stats (and the plot) and creatures on the table have the stats they have because of the fluff. T10 Gretchins for example would feel very awkward, regardless wether or not you could point them perfectly.

As pointed out already...the Lore is meaningless because it doesn't follow any kind of logic trail, nor is it consistent. In one story you have a single space wolf blood claw slaughtering orkz in their hundreds, in another story you have a single mob of Kommandos gutting the majority of a Space Wolf Company. Basing the game off bolter porn is a stupid premise to be blunt.

Tyel wrote:

There's also a bit of false marketing. "Orks are T5 wow" ran instantly into "nearly every weapon is getting a point of strength and AP or double the shots/reroll everything, so it works out essentially the same as T4 in older editions (possibly worse)."

It isn't "a bit" of false marketing, its a blatant avalanche of bullcrap. Orkz got T5, Mozrog Skragbad got some cool rules. You had the 40k outrage mob out in force. If Jidmah can find the clip I want him to share it, there is a reviewer having a literal melt down over Mozrog saying he would break the game and destroy any semblance of balance. You had SM players, some who are posting on this very thread, screaming the sky was falling because Orkz were T5, they were literally saying Ork boyz needed to be 10-15ppm think i'm lying? 41% of Dakka thought 10-15 was a good points cost of Ork boyz going into the Ork codex https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/798896.page and here we sit a month or more into the "buff" to ork boyz going down to 8ppm and still not seeing any real play....almost like they weren't worth 8pts, let alone the 15 some muppets were calling for.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

As for a better solution, personally i'd have just left them how they were, but if they must have a defensive buff, I'd say go for Toughness. If Orks can do it, so can marines, and while small-arms will have an even harder time bringing them down, your dedicated anti-MEQ platforms would still be able to kill them, if not quite as hard as before.

Love the Marine mindset, still not auto-winning your bolter porn fantasies? Better buff Marines even further. Since 7th edition Marines have doubled their ranged firepower, doubled their wounds, doubled their CC attacks turn 1, gained doctrines and super doctrines, lets not forget AoC so functionally 2+ armor (1+ in cover). still not enough though.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Marines at 2wounds made sense, it's the buffing of so many weapons to D2 after that was a mistake

You mean like Heavy Bolters? or do you mean like Melta going to D6+ or D6+4? Marines going to 2 wounds never made sense and it still doesn't because here is the news flash we have been trying to tell Marine players FOREVER! YOU ARE THE BASE LINE!!!!! I can't emphasize that point enough. Marines are by far the most common faction to play against, Power Armor is literally everywhere. When I build my competitive Grand tournament lists I base my stats off how they will size up against Marines because they will most likely be at least 1 of my 5 opponents that day. Hell, during the Custodes/Nidz/Harlequin hay day when they were running away with every event I still ran into a BA player on my 2nd or 3rd game.

Long story short, buffing Marines has no impact on the game because every other faction will adapt to face the new Marine profiles. Or do you think its just a coincidence that Marines got AoC and most factions are now dropping AP-1 weapons unless they can be buffed to AP-2?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I think 9th has been some of the worst balance over all though, no other edition has there been so much tabling T1-T2 armies, or insane stated units like 90pt Voidweavers. I'd rather go back to TauDar and HIs 8th than first version of 9ths Orks, Admech, DE, Tau, Quins, etc..., not counting how strong Custodes and Nids where too.

Orkz had 1 tabling at a top table and the community screamed so much hate and vitriol that GW pushed through a first of its kind, an emergency "FETH ORKZ" patch. Keep in mind that at the time of the nerf to orkz, they were still a lower win/loss rate then Ad mech and DE and were not placing nearly as highly. Its almost like competitive players got butt hurt and screamed at mommy to nerf the big bad orkz who aren't supposed to ever win. As far as going back to 8th....that just shows how little you remember 8th. IH were running away with top placings at events at the end of 8th. I'll happily admit that 9th has its moments, but nowhere near how bad 7th and 8th were.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
and for 7th at leat every army but 2 had broken stuff (and it was really only Daemons and 1 Corsairs formation with the real broken stuff).

Yeah...that isn't remotely correct. Tau had Triptide wing, Marines had 600pts of free vehicles, Necrons had Decurion, Eldar had...well basically their entire fething codex. Then you had the "have nots" like IG, DE and Orkz. The Ork super formation was 90% of your list in mostly useless units and it gave you....Impact hits on the charge...but only if you rolled a 10+ to charge. So no, 7th was the worst edition i've ever played...literally.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I hate current GT right now and feel its still not all that balanced, Nids and Quins are still destroying people, many armies below 40% win rates, lots of options are literally unplayable now, not weak but I mean actually unplayable, a couple armies were just given VP handicaps instead of being balanced. So I dont agree with "current" either.

Last 5 GTs:
Alberta Classic: Eldar, Quins, Quins, Quins.
Hometown 40k: Sisters, Orkz Custards, nidz
Power 9: Quins, Knights, Blood Angels, Custards
Trashtics: Nidz, 1k sons, Necrons, Chaos.
Rise of Kings: Death Guard, Orkz, Necrons Chaos.

So yeah no, Quins had 1 event where they placed well, other than that they have been about average. And nidz? 2 top 4 finishes in 5 GTs is not "Destroying people".

 catbarf wrote:

The perception that W2 Marines are fragile absolutely did not start in 9th Ed when GW started buffing non-Marine weapons, it's been there since the start of 8th. There are tons and tons and tons and tons of posts like these.

In concurrence I'd like to point out that I could build a Marine army in 8th that could spit something like 90+ AP-3 D2/D-D3 shots in a turn. There was already a tremendous amount of weapons that one could spam for anti-MEQ profiles. The 2w thing hit basic weapons and many, many other infantry really hard though, and it's only proper that there be corrections, because certain other units (Banshees, Genestealers, Dire Avengers, Necron Warriors) should absolutely be able to compete with Marines in their respective ways.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I'd like to chime in on the topic why I think Space Marines don't feel durable enough, even though I'm not playing 9th currently.

Everything is too cheap. A lascannon upgrade on a Tactical Marine costs less than either a Tactical or an Intercessor at 15p, while the weapon itself can reliably take out Gravis or Outrider models worth three times the price. At the same time there is no real need to bring dedicated anti-infantry weaponry, as you have so much lower tier weapons in everything, that you can take on the usual trash units from your opponent just fine.

Just for comparison's and argument's sake some unit costs from my Homebew:
- Marine with boltgun 45p
- Marine with a lascannon 100p
- Redemptor Dread with all the upgrades 530p
- Guardsman with a lasrifle 10p

You can't spam high tier weapons, as the cost is too prohibitive. You absolutely need them though, or else the Redemptor (and other combat vehicles) will tear you a new one (thanks to AV making it immune to most damage). But at the same time alot of armies have access to very cheap units that can easily overwhelm your damage output, if you dont account for it and bring at least some weapons with a higher rate of fire. Which in turn are useless against most vehicles.

This is missing from 9th edition. The difference between a heavy bolter and a lascannon are 5p. Who would ever bring the bolter, unless they just happen to have some points over and/or cant buy a better upgrade?

^I think this is a really good observation. If the fancier equipment was more expensive, you'd see less of it. If there was less of the fancy stuff around, lethality would go down and basic units/infantry vs. infantry would be more of the game. Some tuning for that meta would be required of course, but the broad strokes argument here is really solid imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Lore and stats are absolutely not closely related - first of all lore is wildly inconsistent and second the game is not granular enough to properly portrait it anyways.

The best versions of the rules (scattered throughout the editions) are the ones where the "outlandish" narratives told in books still remain plausible within the framework of the game. And there's a lot of wiggle room in there, specifically because the game involves dice. Because of the fact that the storyteller is often telling an "extraordinary" story, the average dice results aren't the odds being portrayed in a novel.

The problem arises when readers of the books think that these extraordinary narrative circumstances should be the norm. Looking at Marine players, specifically . . .


There's also a dissonance between the story narratives and the scenario that constitutes a typical 2K PUG.

Like "Marines should be able to take on 100,000 Guardsmen!" but then on the tabletop Marines get blown away by a small Guard army. Why is that? It's not because the Marines are statted poorly, it's because 50 Marines decided to start an engagement in front of half a company of battle tanks with gobs of anti-MEQ firepower with clean LOS lines. (That's more of an 8th ed thing but it illustrates the dissociation)

SemperMortis wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
and for 7th at leat every army but 2 had broken stuff (and it was really only Daemons and 1 Corsairs formation with the real broken stuff).

Yeah...that isn't remotely correct. Tau had Triptide wing, Marines had 600pts of free vehicles, Necrons had Decurion, Eldar had...well basically their entire fething codex. Then you had the "have nots" like IG, DE and Orkz. The Ork super formation was 90% of your list in mostly useless units and it gave you....Impact hits on the charge...but only if you rolled a 10+ to charge. So no, 7th was the worst edition i've ever played...literally.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I hate current GT right now and feel its still not all that balanced, Nids and Quins are still destroying people, many armies below 40% win rates, lots of options are literally unplayable now, not weak but I mean actually unplayable, a couple armies were just given VP handicaps instead of being balanced. So I dont agree with "current" either.

Last 5 GTs:
Alberta Classic: Eldar, Quins, Quins, Quins.
Hometown 40k: Sisters, Orkz Custards, nidz
Power 9: Quins, Knights, Blood Angels, Custards
Trashtics: Nidz, 1k sons, Necrons, Chaos.
Rise of Kings: Death Guard, Orkz, Necrons Chaos.

So yeah no, Quins had 1 event where they placed well, other than that they have been about average. And nidz? 2 top 4 finishes in 5 GTs is not "Destroying people".

Quins and Nids are dominating, they have a 58-60% win rate and basically auto win vs 1/2 the armies in the game (literally), just bc they dont hit top 1st place doesn't mean they are not wrecking people (Edit, you seem to think you have to win every event to destroy a large group of players on the tables, no you dont need to win every event to do this. There are times you have a 56-60% win rate and not finish as the top player but still make it impossible for the majority of armies to beat you, it just means the other 2-3 top armies can beat you, but good luck if you are not one of them). Maybe look at the whole picture Here are more games from the last weekend with Nids doing extremely well. https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/x0n74n/meta_monday_82911_the_age_of_man_is_over/
Here are more detailed stats too https://www.stat-check.com/the-meta . 13 armies are below 45% that is something like 40% of armies are below what is consider acceptable low.

Also about 7th, I say broken, Daemons screamer star was broken, TauDar compare to that was nothing, heck my DE could handle Trip Riptides, if DE can handle that then it wasn't that bad (they were awful in 7th), the other formation was a Corsairs 3 Warp Hunter Apoc Blast D-weapon formation, yeah have fu with a 10" pie plate D weapon shooting you while Insiv and all the Corsair trickery, but I am guessing you have not idea that was even a thing.

SemperMortis wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

As for a better solution, personally i'd have just left them how they were, but if they must have a defensive buff, I'd say go for Toughness. If Orks can do it, so can marines, and while small-arms will have an even harder time bringing them down, your dedicated anti-MEQ platforms would still be able to kill them, if not quite as hard as before.

Love the Marine mindset, still not auto-winning your bolter porn fantasies? Better buff Marines even further. Since 7th edition Marines have doubled their ranged firepower, doubled their wounds, doubled their CC attacks turn 1, gained doctrines and super doctrines, lets not forget AoC so functionally 2+ armor (1+ in cover). still not enough though.

You completely misunderstand the point of that statement. I am Against 2w marines, or buffing them at all. What my statement says (especially if you include the context) is that if we are to take the 8th statline and buff them, don't give them two wounds, give them a toughness point.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
13 armies are below 45% that is something like 40% of armies are below what is consider acceptable low.

I need to note that of those 13 "armies", 1 is Imperial soup and 8 are Space Marine subfactions (not counting Grey Knights who actually are their own army).

So it is actually 5 armies below what is considered acceptable (IG, Admech, Daemons, Space Marines and Grey Knighs), with Space Marines being debatable because Blood Angels, Iron Hands and Dark Angels are above 45%.

 Jidmah wrote:
None of the previous editions were anywhere nearly as balanced as the current one is, with no room to argue otherwise. They might have been more fun (which is subjective), but definitely not more balanced.

This is a very bold statement, have you been active in 40k since Rogue Trader days in a continious manner?

Without that historical perspective your claim has very little weight.

Also balance is a polysemic word and can be understand in different ways... Without further explanation your claim is senseless.

SemperMortis wrote:
Marines going to 2 wounds never made sense and it still doesn't because here is the news flash we have been trying to tell Marine players FOREVER! YOU ARE THE BASE LINE!!!!!

But to be fair, I don't think most marine players want marines to be the baseline. Or at least, they don't want them to be statted like they're "average." They want marines to feel special, powerful, and few in number because that's the marine power fantasy/sales pitch. They (we) want marines to feel tough; we don't want to describe their durability as "average." Basically, we want marines to feel a lot like custodes. Which makes the existence of custodes as a faction kind of frustrating.

Tac Marines has always been the baseline for 40K, at least since 2nd edition... Thats at least my memory.

Marines can be the baseline due to the high amount of people playing them and still feel special compared to more hord-y armies. It's just a matter of stats, points and a special rule here and there.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Marines going to 2 wounds never made sense and it still doesn't because here is the news flash we have been trying to tell Marine players FOREVER! YOU ARE THE BASE LINE!!!!!

But to be fair, I don't think most marine players want marines to be the baseline. Or at least, they don't want them to be statted like they're "average." They want marines to feel special, powerful, and few in number because that's the marine power fantasy/sales pitch. They (we) want marines to feel tough; we don't want to describe their durability as "average." Basically, we want marines to feel a lot like custodes. Which makes the existence of custodes as a faction kind of frustrating.

Sure, but every faction also wants their cool elite troops to feel cool and elite too. I mean, no Guardsman player expects miracles from Guardsmen, but those who play Genestealers, Aspect Warriors or Necrons want those things to also be elite and cool in their own ways. And there's enough units like that out there that the Marine profile shouldn't really be all that outlandish in comparison.

And bolter porn is brain rot.

SemperMortis wrote:
It isn't "a bit" of false marketing, its a blatant avalanche of bullcrap. Orkz got T5, Mozrog Skragbad got some cool rules. You had the 40k outrage mob out in force. If Jidmah can find the clip I want him to share it, there is a reviewer having a literal melt down over Mozrog saying he would break the game and destroy any semblance of balance. You had SM players, some who are posting on this very thread, screaming the sky was falling because Orkz were T5, they were literally saying Ork boyz needed to be 10-15ppm think i'm lying? 41% of Dakka thought 10-15 was a good points cost of Ork boyz going into the Ork codex https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/798896.page and here we sit a month or more into the "buff" to ork boyz going down to 8ppm and still not seeing any real play....almost like they weren't worth 8pts, let alone the 15 some muppets were calling for.

I definitely remember the internet meltdown on Mozrog that... didn't seem to translate to the table at all. Its kind of the reverse, but there was that weird claim Marines were getting S5 Heavy Intercessors to counter T5 Orks... which clearly didn't happen (they sucked at 28 points per model - and still do).

I'm not sure it actually goes anywhere good - but I think there's clear evidence that the "Professional scene" having clear factional biases and blind spots. And GW seem to listen since they are online making content every week. I think it has made the game more balanced - but also makes the "???" decisions more obvious.

I remember the outcry when Tau were originally released because 30" range guns on basic troops were going to blow every other army off the table.

 Jidmah wrote:
T5 orks are fine for everyone but two kinds of people:
1) people with a hateboner for losing to orks
2) people who use tabletop stats to measure and compare the power of units in the lore

Neither is worth arguing with.

Or Ork players who realize that it made Boyz worse.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Marines going to 2 wounds never made sense and it still doesn't because here is the news flash we have been trying to tell Marine players FOREVER! YOU ARE THE BASE LINE!!!!!

But to be fair, I don't think most marine players want marines to be the baseline.

Then about 80-90% of them need to play different armies until Eldar or Tau or Orks or whatever displace Marines as the de facto baseline.

Can they creep our freaking Warriors back to 3+ saves? They finally gave Immortals their T5 back.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Marines going to 2 wounds never made sense and it still doesn't because here is the news flash we have been trying to tell Marine players FOREVER! YOU ARE THE BASE LINE!!!!!

But to be fair, I don't think most marine players want marines to be the baseline. Or at least, they don't want them to be statted like they're "average." They want marines to feel special, powerful, and few in number because that's the marine power fantasy/sales pitch. They (we) want marines to feel tough; we don't want to describe their durability as "average." Basically, we want marines to feel a lot like custodes. Which makes the existence of custodes as a faction kind of frustrating.

Sure, but every faction also wants their cool elite troops to feel cool and elite too. I mean, no Guardsman player expects miracles from Guardsmen, but those who play Genestealers, Aspect Warriors or Necrons want those things to also be elite and cool in their own ways. And there's enough units like that out there that the Marine profile shouldn't really be all that outlandish in comparison.

And bolter porn is brain rot.

You'd have a point if "Bolter porn" wasn't the baseline for the last two decades. That's the standard and y'all need to get over it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Marines going to 2 wounds never made sense and it still doesn't because here is the news flash we have been trying to tell Marine players FOREVER! YOU ARE THE BASE LINE!!!!!

But to be fair, I don't think most marine players want marines to be the baseline. Or at least, they don't want them to be statted like they're "average." They want marines to feel special, powerful, and few in number because that's the marine power fantasy/sales pitch. They (we) want marines to feel tough; we don't want to describe their durability as "average." Basically, we want marines to feel a lot like custodes. Which makes the existence of custodes as a faction kind of frustrating.

Sure, but every faction also wants their cool elite troops to feel cool and elite too. I mean, no Guardsman player expects miracles from Guardsmen, but those who play Genestealers, Aspect Warriors or Necrons want those things to also be elite and cool in their own ways. And there's enough units like that out there that the Marine profile shouldn't really be all that outlandish in comparison.

And bolter porn is brain rot.

You'd have a point if "Bolter porn" wasn't the baseline for the last two decades. That's the standard and y'all need to get over it.

I'll still mercilessly mock anyone who takes it unironically. Not using Armor of Contempt for our narrative league was a great decision; most of the Astartes players left.

Hecaton wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Marines going to 2 wounds never made sense and it still doesn't because here is the news flash we have been trying to tell Marine players FOREVER! YOU ARE THE BASE LINE!!!!!

But to be fair, I don't think most marine players want marines to be the baseline. Or at least, they don't want them to be statted like they're "average." They want marines to feel special, powerful, and few in number because that's the marine power fantasy/sales pitch. They (we) want marines to feel tough; we don't want to describe their durability as "average." Basically, we want marines to feel a lot like custodes. Which makes the existence of custodes as a faction kind of frustrating.

Sure, but every faction also wants their cool elite troops to feel cool and elite too. I mean, no Guardsman player expects miracles from Guardsmen, but those who play Genestealers, Aspect Warriors or Necrons want those things to also be elite and cool in their own ways. And there's enough units like that out there that the Marine profile shouldn't really be all that outlandish in comparison.

And bolter porn is brain rot.

You'd have a point if "Bolter porn" wasn't the baseline for the last two decades. That's the standard and y'all need to get over it.

I'll still mercilessly mock anyone who takes it unironically. Not using Armor of Contempt for our narrative league was a great decision; most of the Astartes players left.

Thats the fluff for the last two decades. You having a hissyfit and deciding to not include a rule that became necessary due to AP creep is all on you.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You'd have a point if "Bolter porn" wasn't the baseline for the last two decades. That's the standard and y'all need to get over it.

Oh I'm over the fact that BL novels kinda suck.

And up until Primaris the Marine statline was a nice T4W1. That was like just 5 years ago?

Two decades is 2002. That's Necron Warriors at 18 ppm to Marine 15, and Bloodletters at 26ppm iirc.

I don't know what you're on about.

Define nice. Because 1W marines of any kind were so bad, that any marine army that could do it would play a few of those nice 1W marines as possible.

Wyldhunt wrote:But to be fair, I don't think most marine players want marines to be the baseline. Or at least, they don't want them to be statted like they're "average." They want marines to feel special, powerful, and few in number because that's the marine power fantasy/sales pitch. They (we) want marines to feel tough; we don't want to describe their durability as "average." Basically, we want marines to feel a lot like custodes. Which makes the existence of custodes as a faction kind of frustrating.

If Marines were T7 and had 4 wounds apiece and 2+ saves, they still wouldn't be elite. You'd just be setting a new baseline, and Marines would still feel mundane and average at that new point. Custodes, assuming they also got buffed to keep up, would still be the army that feels like 'elites' in comparison. And all the non-Marine, non-Custodes factions would just feel horde-ier than ever.

You literally cannot stat your way out of this. The average is 'whatever Marines are'. If you want that to change, they need to stop being, well, the norm.

Karol wrote:
Define nice. Because 1W marines of any kind were so bad, that any marine army that could do it would play a few of those nice 1W marines as possible.

Blame the context, not the staline.

If Marines dont hold up against a leafblower guard list, or a 7th ed Eldar Warp Spider Scatbike list, it's not the Marines that needed to be addressed.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Marines going to 2 wounds never made sense and it still doesn't because here is the news flash we have been trying to tell Marine players FOREVER! YOU ARE THE BASE LINE!!!!!

But to be fair, I don't think most marine players want marines to be the baseline. Or at least, they don't want them to be statted like they're "average." They want marines to feel special, powerful, and few in number because that's the marine power fantasy/sales pitch. They (we) want marines to feel tough; we don't want to describe their durability as "average." Basically, we want marines to feel a lot like custodes. Which makes the existence of custodes as a faction kind of frustrating.

Sure, but every faction also wants their cool elite troops to feel cool and elite too. I mean, no Guardsman player expects miracles from Guardsmen, but those who play Genestealers, Aspect Warriors or Necrons want those things to also be elite and cool in their own ways. And there's enough units like that out there that the Marine profile shouldn't really be all that outlandish in comparison.

And bolter porn is brain rot.

You'd have a point if "Bolter porn" wasn't the baseline for the last two decades. That's the standard and y'all need to get over it.

A useless/unhealthy standard should never be accepted.

Bolter porn (IE the flanderisation of marines and 40K as a whole) shouldnt be endorsed, even if GW is fully onboard.

If GW publicly and explicitly promoted antisemitism (or any other variety of hate speech) it dosent matter if it did it during many years, its shouldnt be "accepted".

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Thats the fluff for the last two decades. You having a hissyfit and deciding to not include a rule that became necessary due to AP creep is all on you.

It's been the fluff that the Imperium is a bunch of ignorant degenerates for longer than that.

Also, whether or not that rule is a good idea is subjective. There's also no secondaries in narrative play, so that changes the dynamic a lot...