# Too much Power Armour?



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

are there too many power armoured armies in 40k?


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

Basically yes, coming from a DA player myself. The latest GK, and soon to come SoB does the craze no favours, but I really think that GW put way too much emphasis on them, considering they feature in all the starter packs, when realistically it would be better to have IG, if they want the "good vs. bad" scenario.


----------



## Mannimarco (Apr 27, 2011)

Its a vicious circle: Marines sell so marines get pushed so they sell so they get pushed so they sell ad infinitum.

Yeah theres to much power armour out there, it seems like so many of todays games are SM joint training operations/paintball tournaments.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

As a Sisters of Battle player, I feel I must point out that the problem is not an excess of Power Armour - it's an excess of Space Marines.

(Be honest I'd bet more than half the members of this forum have never seen a Sisters army on the table.)

There are eight Power Armour armies in the game and seven of them are Marines. Necrons have more in common with Marines than Sisters.



spanner94ezekiel said:


> Basically yes, coming from a DA player myself.


And this is the reason why. Not you specifically, spanner94ezekiel, but the symptoms you display.

If you get ten Space Marine players together and ask them if they are fed up seeing Space Marines everywhere, then all of them will say yes and suggest those other nine people play something else. And then they'll go out and buy a second Space Marine army...

I have had one single game this year that wasn't against Marines - I've also only lost one game this year. It is massively dispiriting. I'd jump at the chance to fight another Sisters army - Sisters are very different to Marines - it'd force me to think about the game and switch up my tactics instead of another auto-pilot win against Marines.

I don't hate Marines, or Marine players, but I am getting very, very bored of playing nothing but different colours of Space Marine. And threads like this demonstrate that I'm not the only one who lies awake at night happily remembering that one time I got beaten by Dark Eldar.


----------



## DestroyerHive (Dec 22, 2009)

Yeah, but if they have to spam any one type of army, I'm glad it's Space Marines. Honestly, imagine if GW would've made many Eldar armies instead of Spess Mahreens...


----------



## Cato Sicarius (Feb 21, 2008)

If you mean the game itself, no. Eight races (including Chapter's with their own Codices, which really is all one race (which includes Grey Knights by the way)) are "Power Armoured", and there's sixteen races. That's half, yes, but take into account all of the different Chapters as "Space Marines", and you get just three out of eleven are "Power Armoured" ("Space Marines", Chaos Space Marines, and "Sisters of Battle", which are still Witch Hunters). The other Chapter codices add variety. Necrons have the same save, but aren't Power Armoured, only MEq.

So it's arguable, but I don't think so. Besides, I think the game itself is beside the point. The player base is what matters.

If you mean players themselves, that depends on where you live, but I reckon if there is overall then it's probably only by a small amount. There are a lot of Ork players, Imperial Guard players, Tyranid players, and Dark Eldar players, and with each new Codex the new army becomes newly competitive, gaining player strength.

So in my opinion, it depends on where you're talking about, but I doubt it overall. I'm soon going to switch to Necrons (the next codex, supposedly), and then Orks. Space Marines are a bit boring for me now.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

I get your point Azezel, but I didn't pick them up when the codex came out, but long after. And I have never played nilla, or any 3+ crazes. It just pisses me off when GW shove another power armour army down the newbies' throats. If I joined the hobby now, I would probably have ended up playing Guard because they would appeal to me more.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Im a CSM but played Eldar first. And after all the nonsense with MEQ everywhere, I began to save up for my IG. I played against DE, Eldar, IG, and Daemons alot. Once SoB, Tau. Never Nids or Necs. The one army I play every time against is a SM/CSM one. Gets old fast.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

It's true that they shove sm's down your throat since I joined a bit ago and when I joined they gave you marines for a starter game,for a first box set ETC, then picked up the tau battle force and beat a evolved blood angels army easy!


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

spanner94ezekiel said:


> I get your point Azezel, but I didn't pick them up when the codex came out, but long after. And I have never played nilla, or any 3+ crazes.


I didn't acuse you of playing Dark Angles because they were new and shiny or of codex hopping. (Although I wouldn't blame you for doing so - 'A new codex every nine months' would seem to be one of the key advantages of playing Marines).

I was simply saying that you:
A) Play Marines.
B) Think fewer people should play Marines.

And I'm really not trying to single you out - it's almost universal to Marine players: 'People should play more non-Marines - specifically _other_ people should play more non-Marines.



spanner94ezekiel said:


> It just pisses me off when GW shove another power armour army down the newbies' throats.


Again - is the problem an excess of Power Armour, or an excess of Space Marines?

Power Armour (which is to say a 3+ Armour Save) is shared by Marines, Sisters and Necrons.

In addition to the Armour Save, Sisters share boltguns with Marines, and Necrons share the 4/4/4/4 statline. However, both armies have radically different playstyles and tactics to Marines, and both are so rare as to be almost mythical.

In fact, so rare are they that I suspect that turel2 never even considered that there are non-Marine armies that have Power Armour.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

Fair point. In that case I divert my rant to being purely aimed at SMs


----------



## The Gunslinger (Apr 4, 2011)

well it is the future, you would expect shiney special armour to appear frequently, would'nt you?
iv only recently started the hobby, and the other 3 newbies in with me all did space marines, i was tempted by tyranids, but after reading posts on here went for a more "easy" to play army, one that is more forgiving to new players, and more importantly one that i could get a small army up and running quickly, but i didnt want to do the same as the other 3, so i went for chaos instead, arguably little difference but i like to think i tried to be different.
I guess its just that power armoured troops are easyer to paint to a basic standard, and play with at first.


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

Azezel said:


> In fact, so rare are they that I suspect that turel2 never even considered that there are non-Marine armies that have Power Armour.


I meant space marine, GK, SOB, CSM.

I do realise that there are MEQ.


----------



## Hammer49 (Feb 12, 2011)

I dont think theres two much power armour in 40k. This question almost sounds more like are there too many players using power armoured armies.


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

Hammer49 said:


> I dont think theres two much power armour in 40k. This question almost sounds more like are there too many players using power armoured armies.


I meant as a choice of armies.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

My opinion? No. 

I mean, you do have to be stupid if you live in the 40k universe, and haven`t got a suit of power armor in your *ward*robe.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Yes their is way to much damn power armor, part of the reason I started collecting daemons.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Yes there is too much... purely based on fluff description. Power Armour is awesome in the fluff, its immense beyond immense (ok, forget terminators for now)... but then you look at the various armies around and almost everyone has equal or better.

So which armies dont have an equal or better armour for non-characters:
imperial guard
tyranids
dark eldar
... nope, thats it.
Who has equal or better:
well obviously all the marines of all types
necrons
orks
tau
eldar
even daemons...

If power armour is so immense and complicated that its almost a part of the person inside then why is is that an ork can just bolt on a few pieces of metal and have a better save, or a daemon can just grow a thicker skin to match it.

I think the game should have 4+ as the standard save, with 3+ being exceptional and 2+ being almost unheard of. Unlike what we have now of 3+ being common as muck and 2+ being quite accessible.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

if BT/DA were as popular as BA/SWs i think there would be a problem of boredom for players. but as a choice of playable factions i dont see much of a problem as long as each SM variant codex had a antithesis with a different SM codex.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I've only seen one SoB army and that was in a display in Nottigham. I think that there aren't too many, but I certainly wouldn't want any more power-armoured armies. I'd be hapy with them removing Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Black Templars, and having Ezekiel, Belial, Helbrecht and Grimaldus in the SM 'dex. They would be have unlockable units whilst locking others, or altering current units to make a standard SM army more Black Templar, Blood Angel or Dark Angel-ish. Space Wolves are so different to the 'standard' chapters they need a different book to incorporate all their extra troop types, rules etc.

Midnight


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Its interresting to ask the question 'why do people want to play space marines.'

I have 4 'proper' armies - Spacewolves (which include models from the late 80's) eldar (which include models from the early 90's), Imperial guard (all praetorian) and Crimson fists (all new models).

So my army history is space marines (because of the RT01 box set) which I just happened to pick space wolves (think it was the only colour I could paint...) and then eldar because of the fantastic metal aspect warrior models that were released in the early 90's with the codex in the white dwarf. The praetorians were a must because of my love of military history and so, why did I end up with another marine army?

Well that question is the same as if someone asked me 'If you were to start a new army tomorrow, what would it be' - well the answer would be another marine army.

So - why do people play marines? I think its because its the core of 40K - at least 50% of all the stories involve marines. Fantasy doesnt suffer from this - it doesnt have the focus on 'the empire' vs every one else.

I love the background to the marines, the unified colour schemes, the fact that I can get squad markings molded onto the shoulder pads and the fact that forgworld make the nicest looking marines ever called the red scorpions... Must resist....


----------



## The Gunslinger (Apr 4, 2011)

Maidel said:


> and the fact that forgworld make the nicest looking marines ever called the red scorpions... Must resist....


dont resist, just get a squad to satisfy the urge :grin:


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

The Gunslinger said:


> dont resist, just get a squad to satisfy the urge :grin:


problem is 1 is never enough.


----------



## The Gunslinger (Apr 4, 2011)

yea tell me about it, for my chaos im getting one squad or so from each legion, so i got the metal plague marines and got half way painting them, then i discovered forge world, i then discovered forge world's death guard conversion set, i nearly cried must resist urge to get a second squad


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> I've only seen one SoB army and that was in a display in Nottigham. I think that there aren't too many, but I certainly wouldn't want any more power-armoured armies. I'd be hapy with them removing Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Black Templars, and having Ezekiel, Belial, Helbrecht and Grimaldus in the SM 'dex. They would be have unlockable units whilst locking others, or altering current units to make a standard SM army more Black Templar, Blood Angel or Dark Angel-ish. Space Wolves are so different to the 'standard' chapters they need a different book to incorporate all their extra troop types, rules etc.
> 
> Midnight


Ah reminds me of the good old days of 2nd ed... where SW were the only seperate dex and BA/DA/UM were just different paint schemes in the marine dex.
Nah, the current lot of dexs is better then that, but I would like to see nice complicated dex. Hell, it wouldnt even be too complicated: have a page for each 'army' with the possible character and unit choices they have for each slots and mebbe a smaller armoury for each, then just 1 big section explaing all teh various units and their rules...


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Tim/Steve said:


> Ah reminds me of the good old days of 2nd ed... where SW were the only seperate dex and BA/DA/UM were just different paint schemes in the marine dex.


 
Ahem... 2nd edition had the blood angels and Dark angels sharing a codex called angels of death - was released the year after the normal marine codex...


----------



## maomolin (May 4, 2008)

I remember the good old black Deathwing!

There is too much early/mid emphasis on GW codex releases on MEq. Pointthe finger at me saying that and I'd gladly point to my deathwing army, no 3+ to be found, haha!

Back on a little more serious note, I really think they need to pry back on the 3+, make 4+ more the norm and even trim back on FNP. We have had two non-imperium codexes for 5th, with 5th being out and played, and neither are as dominant as the imperium releases, which amplifies the migration to more power armor. This is not to say my shelved Dark Eldar cannot win, or the wife's Tyranids cannot, but its a greater incline of fighting than taking the Marines (pick a variety) or IG.


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Power Hammered Armor 4000.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

There should be a massive 200pg dex for DA, BA and Generics, with an army list for each, a Dex for Wolves and a Dex for templars. I play 2 power armoured armies (World Eaters and SW) as well as necrons. ATM, i am using my wolves, because the single build CSM dex is boring. I collect my armies for the fluff and no other reason. I started SW when i read the new dex and found out about their background, which was quite appealing to me, with my fascination with the vikings. As for world eaters, well, a bunch of crazed butchers with chainsaw axes, what is their not to love. The necrons are my favourite race by a mile, they were my first army, and when i do play with them, i manage to win more often than not, mainly because my local GW consists of people who have never faced 2 deep-strinking monoliths before. one guy never even new what 'crons were. Yes, there are too many PA armies, i am sick of playing against blue marines and red marines. Any good games that i play are against non-marine armies. It is down to GW and their marketing strategy. Look at the starter boxes, shop windows, even when you go into a shop, the first thing they show you is marines. I never bought that shit, instead choosing an army that i thought was awesome (necrons). Go with the army you think is cool, that is the key. Now maybe everyone likes marines, but i think that GW deliberately blinkers people towards them. Now, I am the only SW player in my area, and people seem to relish battling me, even though i play a Power armoured army. I think people are just sick of playing against newbies who have no idea what good tactics are and whose armies consist of 2 tactical squads, a captain, a melta dreadnought and some devastators. Maybe its just me, but that seems to be the only marine build i ever play against
To be honest, its not the amount of Marine dexes that is the problem, its peoples inability to be creative with their lists and tactics using those dexes that is the problem.


----------



## ArmyC (Jan 22, 2010)

It totally screws up the balance of non SM armies.

All future codices ought to be written with the idea that you will play against Space Marines at least 75% of the time.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

I agree that there is too much power armour around but i hold the marine craze primarily responsible for this. And furthermore i hold the fifth edition responsible for this. 

There has always been a slant in the favour of marines, even third edition had more than 10 varient lists for marines that could be used. 
Don't believe me?
Forces of the space marines
3rd edition
Chapter approved 2003: Deathwatch kill teams

codex space marines
Index astartes: White scars
Codex armageddon: The black templars
"" "" The Salamanders
Index astartes 2: The Imperial fists
Chapter approved 2004: Cursed founding chapters

codex blood angels
Index Astartes: Flesh tearers
Chapter approved: Death Company army 

codex dark angels

codex space wolves
Codex eye of terror: The space wolves 13th company

and that's without finding the other Index astartes lists that came out because by the time the later IA books were released forthe edition was already on the shelves. 

The problem has become a lack in variety for everyone else, whilst the xeno races were more or less sidlined when compared to SM they still had access to spin off lists to keep things fresh. Orks could field standard orks, speed freaks or feral orks. Dark eldar had a spin of wych army. Imperial guard had a hoard of different regimental specialities. 

The current edition has led to a stagnation of the army lists with marine players bouncing from one SM codex release to the next because it's the only faction that gets any sort of support. I would love to play against Sisters or Crons but the fact is that they've become stale because they've been unsupported for so long. Spin off lists gave new ways of playing with old armies and rejuvinated old interests. Currently marines are the only people getting given spin off lists. 

And before somone says it i know that there will be people out there that say " But blood angels and dark angels and space wolves are completely different and you can't mix and match them." That is only true if the player takes the time to paint his models, or decides to paint them a recognised colour scheme. no one would question a homebrew chapter that used the blood angels rules and i doubt a different opponent would notice that they are now acting as space wolves instead of blood angels if hes not played them before. Let's face it, the core squads are interchangable and when you can build a standardised army and just tailor the specialists you have in fact got an army that can use more than one codex to represent it. 

I'm currently running a tournament with 10 players in it. 1 ork (me), 2 nids, 1 tau, 1 imperial guard, 3 vanilla marines, 1 space wolf and one blood angel. That's 50% of the armies that we're playing against using marines and to be fair that's a pretty good total. Two of the non marine players switched from marines at the last moment and so added to the variety. 

The point i'm trying tto make is that whilst the number of lists that the marines have has not really increased since previous editions, in fact it has probabley decreased, the xeno races have decreased in variety as well, giving them no spin off options at all where the marines in theory can chop and change. The rest is just basic common sense. 
Do i buy an army that i can try a variety of different playstyles out before setting in my ways and which has expensive points sink units so i don't need to buy too many models? Or do i try and collect and army which has only a single list to play from and which if i don't like i'll have spent hundreds of £$ on?


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> And before somone says it i know that there will be people out there that say " But blood angels and dark angels and space wolves are completely different and you can't mix and match them." That is only true if the player takes the time to paint his models, or decides to paint them a recognised colour scheme. no one would question a homebrew chapter that used the blood angels rules and i doubt a different opponent would notice that they are now acting as space wolves instead of blood angels if hes not played them before.


Erm - what? that doesnt make much sense sorry.


> Let's face it, the core squads are interchangable and when you can build a standardised army and just tailor the specialists you have in fact got an army that can use more than one codex to represent it.


just a quick question - have you read codex space wolves or black templars? Neither of them have any standard units - nothing about them is interchangable with other codexes.

Blood angels and dark angels do indeed have standard troops (although blood angels take assault marines as troops as well) but with blood angels there are SO many options that they would double the unit count in the marine codex nearly.

Dark angels however are pretty much a codex chapter and could easily be re-absorbed into the main codex. However I susspect that next time around they will get the 'blood angels' treatment and be dragged further away from the stardard codex chapters.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Maidel said:


> Erm - what? that doesnt make much sense sorry.
> 
> 
> just a quick question - have you read codex space wolves or black templars? Neither of them have any standard units - nothing about them is interchangable with other codexes.


yes i have and i stand by my statement. if i had a unit of tac marines i could comfortabley represent tactical marines from codex sm, dark angels (with a spare marine wielding a plas cannon), initiates from Black templars and grey hunters from space wolves. A scattering of aditional models make the units fully interchangable. A squad equipped for close combat could rep death company, blood claws or cc initiates. 

the basic units of every list reguardless of their additional rules or whatever minor detail changes are applied to a model are bolter marines, cc marines, dev marines, scouts, assault marines and bikers. With a scattering of commanders and specialists like apothecaries. The organisation of these marines doesn't make them any less interchangable as models could quite easily be shifted from one unit to another between games. admittedly you might need to buy a few spares, plasma weapons for dark angels etc. but it's still a darn site cheaper than buying a whole new army. 




> Blood angels and dark angels do indeed have standard troops (although blood angels take assault marines as troops as well) but with blood angels there are SO many options that they would double the unit count in the marine codex nearly.


Agreed, the assault troop heavy method of the current BA dex does make collecting them a more difficult prospect aside from the assault troop flood that blood angels tend to use nowadays everythign else is more or less the same, same tanks (aside from baal pred), same hq's, same scouts, devestators, bikers. A standard space marines list supplimented with a couple of extra assault squads becomes a blood angels list.



> Dark angels however are pretty much a codex chapter and could easily be re-absorbed into the main codex. However I susspect that next time around they will get the 'blood angels' treatment and be dragged further away from the stardard codex chapters.


I'm not trying to argue that the rules or the method of play are different for each army, i am well aware that they all play completely differently and can be varied even further with the use of SC. What i am trying to point out is that a grey hunter is essentially just the same model as a standard bolter boy and that by building a generic army you can represent any of the more specialist army lists without having to fork out for a whole new army. 
Heck i have a 7000 point chaos army, most of the marines butchered from various loyalist kits and i could probabley run any one of the current marine armies using the counts as rules.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> yes i have and i stand by my statement. if i had a unit of tac marines i could comfortabley represent tactical marines from codex sm, dark angels (with a spare marine wielding a plas cannon), initiates from Black templars and grey hunters from space wolves. A scattering of aditional models make the units fully interchangable. A squad equipped for close combat could rep death company, blood claws or cc initiates.


Well you pretty much hit on my point - they ARENT interchangable. If I have a squad of grey hunters maxed out with a power weapon, plasma pistol and 2 special weapons and a wolf guard pack leader - I end up with 3 models that cannot be used in a regular tactical squad (not to mention all of my grey hunters are modeled with chainswords as all grey hunters come with CCW and bolt pistols). So they arent interchangable as a squad at all.



> Heck i have a 7000 point chaos army, most of the marines butchered from various loyalist kits and i could probabley run any one of the current marine armies using the counts as rules.


Yes, but thats not the same is it. I can run a blood angels (for the most part) and a dark angels army (appart from deathwing armies) without changing a single model using the standard space marine list - no counts as no moving of models.

You simply cannot do that with a spacewolf or black templar army.

What you are suggesting and implying would mean that equally you could role the chaos marines army list in with the normal marines - they actually share more weapon similarities to a standard tactical squad than grey hunters do!

As for 'counts as' armies - whats the point in arguing that - I can use a necron army to 'counts as' space marines - thats simply not an arguement that holds water - most tornaments require WYSIWYG and thus thats where I will always hold this arguement. under WYSIWYG neither space wolves nor black templars can be used under the normal space marine codex - the weapon options are far too different.


----------



## Rathios1337 (Jul 2, 2010)

mcmuffin said:


> There should be a massive 200pg dex for DA, BA and Generics, with an army list for each, a Dex for Wolves and a Dex for templars. I play 2 power armoured armies (World Eaters and SW) as well as necrons. ATM, i am using my wolves, because the single build CSM dex is boring. I collect my armies for the fluff and no other reason. I started SW when i read the new dex and found out about their background, which was quite appealing to me, with my fascination with the vikings. As for world eaters, well, a bunch of crazed butchers with chainsaw axes, what is their not to love. The necrons are my favourite race by a mile, they were my first army, and when i do play with them, i manage to win more often than not, mainly because my local GW consists of people who have never faced 2 deep-strinking monoliths before. one guy never even new what 'crons were. Yes, there are too many PA armies, i am sick of playing against blue marines and red marines. Any good games that i play are against non-marine armies. It is down to GW and their marketing strategy. Look at the starter boxes, shop windows, even when you go into a shop, the first thing they show you is marines. I never bought that shit, instead choosing an army that i thought was awesome (necrons). Go with the army you think is cool, that is the key. Now maybe everyone likes marines, but i think that GW deliberately blinkers people towards them. Now, I am the only SW player in my area, and people seem to relish battling me, even though i play a Power armoured army. I think people are just sick of playing against newbies who have no idea what good tactics are and whose armies consist of 2 tactical squads, a captain, a melta dreadnought and some devastators. Maybe its just me, but that seems to be the only marine build i ever play against
> To be honest, its not the amount of Marine dexes that is the problem, its peoples inability to be creative with their lists and tactics using those dexes that is the problem.


Because we all want to pay £30 for a codex :laugh:


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

The Gunslinger said:


> yea tell me about it, for my chaos im getting one squad or so from each legion, so i got the metal plague marines and got half way painting them, then i discovered forge world, i then discovered forge world's death guard conversion set, i nearly cried must resist urge to get a second squad


Yeah , they looks great.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I think this question needs to be phrased differently.

"Right now this thread asks, IS there a preponderance of power armor?"

It should be asking, "WHY is a preponderance of power armor bad?"

And it is bad.

The reason is the AP system, which promotes an all or nothing rock/paper/scissors game dynamic. It so largely mitigates weapons of AP4 and higher that they aren't often worth the points - unless you know you're playing a horde with poor saves.

40K needs to go back to having saving throw modifiers for shooting (and maybe close combat) weapons.

Fluff wise the widespread use of power armor might still be an issue, but the game play will improve, and weapons will be more useful.

Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Kreuger said:


> 40K needs to go back to having saving throw modifiers for shooting (and maybe close combat) weapons.


I completely agree. And I speak as a player of a toughness 3 PA army which utterly relies on low AP shooting to succeed.

Armour save modifiers would hurt my army more than any other and I'm still in favour.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Save modifiers were abandoned for two reasons:

1) It was often more beneficial to be a low/no armor save army like orks or eldar because powerful weapons did the same damage to you as standard ones.

2) It took longer to work out shooting and combat.

That said, I STILL want it back, with 95% of players playing Spess Muhreens this hobby has worked itself into a corner with it's rock-paper-scissors syndrome and continuous Marine hype from HQ that only continues to make it worse.

I give this hobby 10 years until GW has finally killed themselves by only ever hyping 1 type of army and attaining the following lack of variety.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

DestroyerHive said:


> Yeah, but if they have to spam any one type of army, I'm glad it's Space Marines. Honestly, imagine if GW would've made many Eldar armies instead of Spess Mahreens...


You'd have a lot of very varied looking Eldar armies and we'd be complaining about them.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> That said, I STILL want it back, with 95% of players playing Spess Muhreens this hobby has worked itself into a corner with it's rock-paper-scissors syndrome and continuous Marine hype from HQ that only continues to make it worse.


Even if you brough back save modifiers, it still wouldnt affect people playing space marines - space marines have ALWAYS been the most popular - even when save modifiers were in effect.

And it will just be annoying. And time consuming, and will require all models to be re-pointed as it will change nearly everything about how survivable an army is.



> I give this hobby 10 years until GW has finally killed themselves by only ever hyping 1 type of army and attaining the following lack of variety.


Why do people always say this? They were saying it 10 years ago, they were saying it 20 years ago and GW is now actually back in profit!


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

No Maidel, the amount of Marines player % outweighing all other armies is much worse now than it was 5, 10, 15 years ago. And it is getting worse by the year. GW needs spin-offs on other armies. Like they tried with the Fire Warrior playstation game. Though thatgame was really crappy and did more harm than good.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> No Maidel, the amount of Marines player % outweighing all other armies is much worse now than it was 5, 10, 15 years ago. And it is getting worse by the year. GW needs spin-offs on other armies. Like they tried with the Fire Warrior playstation game. Though thatgame was really crappy and did more harm than good.


Must be different in Norway.

When I worked in GW 10 years ago we actually kept track of sales - the only figures I remember were:

Total Sales
Space Marines - 40%
Other 40K - 20%
Fantasy - 15%
LOTRs - 10% (end of the bubble)
Other (modelling, paints and mail orders) - 15%

I always remember it because I stayed an hour late to check the figures because I simply couldnt believe them. I suppose it could be different store to store - that was only for the store in which I worked, but I cant see it being any different overall.

Back when I was at school (last year of primary begining of secondary - 19 years ago) I was the ONLY non marine player (that is until I bought my space wolves).


----------



## JelloSea (Apr 12, 2011)

I dont even have a problem with a Sisters army. I have a problem with S4 T4 3+ Its boring! Not to mention everyone going mech not, ITS BORING!


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv3+

That stat line is what bores me. So many armies have it that I just assume that almost everything follows it... personally its got to the point where I double take if Im facing something vaguely marine'y that doesn't have that stat line (ignoring Ld9).

Surely some MEQwould be better/worse in combat, some would be higher/lower initiative... easy things to change to give more characters to armies without massive impacts on the game.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Maidel said:


> Even if you brough back save modifiers, it still wouldnt affect people playing space marines - space marines have ALWAYS been the most popular - even when save modifiers were in effect.
> 
> And it will just be annoying. And time consuming, and will require all models to be re-pointed as it will change nearly everything about how survivable an army is.


Oh, I wasn't suggesting that bringing save mods back would change the popularity of marines. Sorry if it came across that way. I was trying to say that save modifiers create a more finely graded game, and would help to balance out the preponderance of power armor.

I played for the entirety of 2nd ed. Save mod's didn't slow the game down much. 

A little arithmetic never killed anyone. We could do 1500-2000 points in about 2 hours.

Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Kreuger said:


> A little arithmetic never killed anyone. We could do 1500-2000 points in about 2 hours.
> 
> Cheers,
> Kreuger


Yea - but the difference was back then 2000 points was 1 squad of tactical marines, 1 squad of assault marines, 1 squad of devistators, 1 rhino and a couple of characters.

For the same 2000 points now you can have 10 tactical squads (1700 points) a commander and a dreadnought.

Its economies of scale - GW decreased the points values so you would need more models, but then had to simpify the rules to allow that to play in less time.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

It's much of a meh for me. there are plently of others but just a few to many Marine "factions" I count a total of 7 coex just for Marines (Incuding chaos) It should be more 4-5 really.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Maidel said:


> Yea - but the difference was back then 2000 points was 1 squad of tactical marines, 1 squad of assault marines, 1 squad of devistators, 1 rhino and a couple of characters.
> 
> For the same 2000 points now you can have 10 tactical squads (1700 points) a commander and a dreadnought.
> 
> Its economies of scale - GW decreased the points values so you would need more models, but then had to simpify the rules to allow that to play in less time.


Fantasy has save modifiers (based on strength) and Skaven armies regularly field _hundreds_ of slaves. (No, I don't know how they find time to paint them either.)

As an added advantage, Save Mods allow a wider range of possible saves. Fantasy models can have a 1+ save - which sounds crazy to a 40k player, but simply means you need Strength 4 or better to hurt it.


However, GW will never do anything to adversely affect Marines. Why do you think Vespids are so overpriced?

I'm not saying 40k will be dead in ten years. What I am saying is that when it does die it'll be because both non-marine players quit and everyone else got bored of mirror matches.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Azezel said:


> Fantasy has save modifiers (based on strength) and Skaven armies regularly field _hundreds_ of slaves. (No, I don't know how they find time to paint them either.)


I havent found time to paint mine... Sob


and just to explain the difference - fantasy has huge blocks of troops - but they are all irrelavent appart from the front rank (or two depending on weapon types).

40K allows all models to shoot/fight - hence why save modifiers simply slow the game down.


----------



## SlamHammer (Mar 28, 2011)

Also saves make the game more tactical due to the interaction between Armor Save and Armor Penetration (AP). If we had save modifiers it would be just shoot at whatever with less tactical consideration, or take the highest strength weapons every time dumbing down the game. Marine Armor balances the game by setting a baseline AP value in relation to Strength and Point Cost. Without the 3+ save, this game would be far less interactive. It would always benefit the guy who shoots first and would discourges Close Combat becuase you would just be able to kill without worring about saves and the enemy's surviablity.

Whether you like it or not, the game is hinged upon Power Armor; and without drastic changes to the way 40k operates, that is the way it needs to stay.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

SlamHammer said:


> Also saves make the game more tactical due to the interaction between Armor Save and Armor Penetration (AP). If we had save modifiers it would be just shoot at whatever with less tactical consideration, or take the highest strength weapons every time dumbing down the game. Marine Armor balances the game by setting a baseline AP value in relation to Strength and Point Cost. Without the 3+ save, this game would be far less interactive. It would always benefit the guy who shoots first and would discourges Close Combat becuase you would just be able to kill without worring about saves and the enemy's surviablity.
> 
> Whether you like it or not, the game is hinged upon Power Armor; and without drastic changes to the way 40k operates, that is the way it needs to stay.


Hey, here's an idea: go try play a Tau army at a tournament with nothing but marine opponents. Let me know, and I'll be there watching as you "tactically" find a good way to combat power armor heavy armies and end up in the top half of the results.

Tau has at it's disposal 5 weapons that can effectively do well against marines, not counting anti tank weapons.

-Ion Cannon (S7 AP3, Heavy 3 - but competes with the Railgun for the Hammerhead turret)

-Neutron Blaster (S5 AP3 Assault 1 - is only 12" range and attached to the very shittiest and overcosted unit in the entire game, the Vespid)

-Rail Rifle (S6 AP3, Heavy 1 Pinning - costs 10 points and you're losing a markerlight and carbine off your Pathfinder squad + you can have max 3.)

-Plasma Rifle (S6 AP2, Rapid Fire - this is the only competitively viable option, but goes on an expensive elite or HQ unit only)

-Cyclic Ion Blaster (S3 YES STRENGTH THREE - AP D6, Assault 5 - I lol'd)

You can waffle on about tactical ways of playing against power armor, but the fact is that many armies do not have at their disposal good ways of dealing with them at all.

Hell, I haven't played tourneys in 5 years, and if I go to a club I feel like wearing a T-shirt that says "I do not play vs. Space Marines"

So either you're full of shit, or you just don't know that _this game is rigged_ as it is.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Maidel said:


> fantasy has huge blocks of troops - but they are all irrelavent appart from the front rank (or two depending on weapon types).


Or five, if you play High Elves...

Which is sort of beside the point. Fantasy armies are capable of throwing out crazy numbers of wounds (magic, template weapons, 50 High Elf Spearmen) and people manage to work out the save, apparantly.

It can be done.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

Ion blasters AP isn't D6-it's 4 and on a 6 to wound is AP1


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Hey, here's an idea: go try play a Tau army at a tournament with nothing but marine opponents. Let me know, and I'll be there watching as you "tactically" find a good way to combat power armor heavy armies and end up in the top half of the results.
> 
> Tau has at it's disposal 5 weapons that can effectively do well against marines, not counting anti tank weapons.
> 
> ...


Well you at least have more options than:

Dark Reapers (can't move)

Meltaguns

Granted, Eldar can generally hold their own in assault (just not the units that have those guns), so it's hardly as bad for us. Marine armor and the 3+sv really does render a lot of AP4/AP5 weapons as irrelevant as AP6, and there's so many marines.

Tau really don't seem that bad off normally (best guns, decent troops, solid vehicles), it's just the game is getting to the point where assaults happen faster and faster, than that completely throws the balance. No one gets hit harder by that than Tau.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Tau has at it's disposal 5 weapons that can effectively do well against marines, not counting anti tank weapons.


Whats wrong with pulse rifles?

12 fire warriors (120 points) against the same points value of marines (6 marines) will kill on average 3 marines each turn in rapid fire range.

The same 6 marines firing back at those 12 fire warriors will on average kill 3 of them.

Im not really sure how this is anything accept a win win senario for the fire warriors - couple that with the fact that the fire warriors will be able to shoot them front across the table, rapid fire from out of the marines charge range AND 24 shots from fire warriors will on average produce 2 glancing hits on the standard marine transport.

Im at a loss as to why these are not 'effective' weapons against marines.


----------



## Tossidin (Dec 10, 2008)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Hell, I haven't played tourneys in 5 years, and if I go to a club I feel like wearing a T-shirt that says "I do not play vs. Space Marines"


_- MetalHandkerchief on game balance_

This made my day!


----------



## SlamHammer (Mar 28, 2011)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Hey, here's an idea: go try play a Tau army at a tournament with nothing but marine opponents. Let me know, and I'll be there watching as you "tactically" find a good way to combat power armor heavy armies and end up in the top half of the results.
> 
> Tau has at it's disposal 5 weapons that can effectively do well against marines, not counting anti tank weapons.
> 
> ...


You completely missed the point because of your personal bias versus Space Marines. Does your army not have 3+ Armor saves counted among their numbers? Your ability as a battlefield commander should allow you situations where you exploit the survivability of the Armor Save and put your units in places where they have an inherent advantage against the enemy. You have situations where you can exploit Space Marine Armor, just as they have situations where they can exploit yours. It is up to you and your tactical skill to maximize these situations in your favor. 

The point I was making is that we have this back and forth of tactical situations because of the Power Armor Baseline. Without it, you would just throw out whatever at the situation with less regard to strategy (because now a tactical element is missing) making the game less interactive.

Now you can keep saying I am full of shit, or you can stop complaining, man up, and become a better player.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Whats wrong with pulse rifles?
> 
> 12 fire warriors (120 points) against the same points value of marines (6 marines) will kill on average 3 marines each turn in rapid fire range.
> 
> ...


Oh wow. 1 and a half marine on 30" range and 3 at rapid fire.

I don't know how often you've seen Tau in rapid fire range of marines in 5th edition, but the following turn all 12 FW's will be dead.

This used to be not the case in 4th edition, when fish of fury worked more consistantly. Toss in the fact that Fire Warriors are a point or two over cost now with 5th edition, and you have yourself a unit you won't be bringing more than the minimum of to a tournament. (If you bother taking Tau at all)

By the next codex I expect Heavy 6 or 7 Ion Cannons, A larger version of the Cyclic Ion blaster, cheaper and non-redundant-statted Vespid, Plasma Rifles for much cheaper Stealth Suits that are selectable as troops, or plasma rifle gun drones. Anything.

It makes little sense that one of the races to most adapt technologically are also the ones who most frequently face Space Marines - yet haven't made more portable weapons that can kill them without luck factor.



SlamHammer said:


> You completely missed the point because of your personal bias versus Space Marines. Does your army not have 3+ Armor saves counted among their numbers? Your ability as a battlefield commander should allow you situations where you exploit the survivability of the Armor Save and put your units in places where they have an inherent advantage against the enemy. You have situations where you can exploit Space Marine Armor, just as they have situations where they can exploit yours. It is up to you and your tactical skill to maximize these situations in your favor.
> 
> The point I was making is that we have this back and forth of tactical situations because of the Power Armor Baseline. Without it, you would just throw out whatever at the situation with less regard to strategy (because now a tactical element is missing) making the game less interactive.
> 
> Now you can keep saying I am full of shit, or you can stop complaining, man up, and become a better player.


I am an amazing player, and I'm not talking out my ass. But the odds are stacked against many xeno armies - and flaunting how you can use "tactics" to overcome bad odds is idiocy, when in fact the player with the odds in their favor has that exact same opportunity.

Go hide behind your steel wall or bring some reason into your statements.


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Hell, I haven't played tourneys in 5 years, and if I go to a club I feel like wearing a T-shirt that says "I do not play vs. Space Marines"


A larger variety of opponents would improve the game in general.


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Hell, I haven't played tourneys in 5 years, and if I go to a club I feel like wearing a T-shirt that says "I do not play vs. Space Marines"
> 
> So either you're full of shit, or you just don't know that _this game is rigged_ as it is.


You do seem to have a pretty short fuse when it comes to marines, that much is aparent from your latest postings. Starting to call people names is however a pretty bad habbit...

And in case you hadn't noticed, 3+ Armour save isn't exactly restricted to only marines. If you are moaning about the lack of AP3 weapons, that's not something that will only get you in marine matchups. 

Also, I don't know how monotone your local meta scene is, but I'm pretty sure you are convinced that the "90% of all armies are marines" is a global thing. It's not, in fact... our little gaming group only has a few marines in it to start with. I can understand it's frustrating if you only ever get to fight meq, but there is absolutely no need for namecalling. 

Also, if you do want to boycot marines by acting like a special little snowflake, you are free to do so. But it's starting to reach a point where it's almost pure social satire. Though I can totally imagine somebody sitting in the corner of the gameing club in a tight T-shirt that says

"I'm the only none-marine player in the village..." :laugh:


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

elmir said:


> You do seem to have a pretty short fuse when it comes to marines, that much is aparent from your latest postings. Starting to call people names is however a pretty bad habbit...
> 
> And in case you hadn't noticed, 3+ Armour save isn't exactly restricted to only marines. If you are moaning about the lack of AP3 weapons, that's not something that will only get you in marine matchups.
> 
> ...


Marines are 90% of the 3+ army save troop selection armies, the other being Necrons (that noone plays) and Sisters (that noone plays)

I did tell that guy he was full of shit, and I did so because I raised a valid concern of a problem that several armies are faced with, and his reply to me assaulted my "tactical skill". In fact "tactical skill" goes both ways. Sure I can be an amazing player and beat marines, but if the marines player is amazing too how does it help? I am guaranteed a loss.

Anyway. Yes, I do have a short fuse when it comes to marines. Over 15 years I've seen the amount of Xenos being played in WH40K dwindle to the point of insignificance in all 5 cities I've played in.

And it's infuriating that little kids who dips their marines in a different color paint every year to represent their newly released army can beat seasoned Eldar and Tau players mostly without knowing a lot of rules through pure, sheer mathematical impossibilities.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I am an amazing player, and I'm not talking out my ass. .


 
I dont mean to be funny but 'amazing' players dont whine and bitch about everything being unfair and fixed and set up to beat them - its a symptom of people who arent very good at the game.

Now, I am a TERRIBLE player - mainly because I only ever make fluffy armies and I include models simple because it looks good, and only 50% of my armies are marines - the other two are eldar and guard (and the guard one has no tanks and no heavy or special weapons in the squads - talk about shooting myself in the foot....)

Ive read about 20 of your posts today and every single one of them is a moan and bitch about space marines - so Im going to leave it alone for a while to let you sort out your marine hate in private.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I don't hate Space Marines, I hate the paradigms of our game.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

SlamHammer said:


> The point I was making is that we have this back and forth of tactical situations because of the Power Armor Baseline. Without it, you would just throw out whatever at the situation with less regard to strategy (because now a tactical element is missing) making the game less interactive.
> 
> Now you can keep saying I am full of shit, or you can stop complaining, man up, and become a better player.


I fail to see how having one army almost omnipresent in the game is anything but a massive blow to all tactical elements in the game.

Case in point, the one time I've lost a game _this year_ was the one time I didn't fight Space Marines. I've fought Vanilla, Chaos, Dark Angels (Death and Ravenwing), Blood Angels (Regular and Sanguinary Guard), Space Wolves, Grey Knights (Old and New) and used the same lists and tactics against the lot of them and won.

The only one that gave me any trouble was the regular BA player last year - and that's because the player was much better than me, not because the army was different to all the others.

There is no longer any element of tactics to these games. I could do it in my sleep. Sometimes I think I am - I suddenly realise that my mind has wandered and I can't really remember the last turn or two.

This should not be the case!

The omnipresence of Marines means that, as soon as I learned how to beat Marines all sense of tactics went out the window. Eldar and Dark Eldar give me a real run for my money It's massively fun, but I haven't seen either in months. Guard and 'nids are fully capable of humiliating me I love them, but I haven't fought them in even longer.

I've never had the chance to fight Tau or Orks.

And I bet I'm not the only one. In fact, I'm sure there are Marine players reading this who have the same problem.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I don't hate Space Marines, I hate the paradigms of our game.


Im sure you are miss using that work because it could equally apply to any army that is used alot - eg - 2 lash/ obliterator chaos armies.

And to hate that, is basically to hate the game itself.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Azezel said:


> The only one that gave me any trouble was the regular BA player last year - and that's because the player was much better than me, not because the army was different to all the others.
> 
> There is no longer any element of tactics to these games. I could do it in my sleep. Sometimes I think I am - I suddenly realise that my mind has wandered and I can't really remember the last turn or two..


 
Well thats interresting on two levels - level 1 is that there is a person in this thread arguing blind that marines have it too easy and you are arguing that they have it hard.

the second level to this arguement is that you are obviously playing people who are really bad and one dimensional at the game, rather than the armies themselves being intrinsically bad, because as you said you were almost beaten by a player who is a lot better than you.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

@ Slamhammer - We do agree that the game balance of weapons in 40K is based on a marine's armor save of 3+. However, the AP system was created for exactly the opposite reason you cite. Prior to 3rd ed all close combat weapons and ranged weapons had an armor saving throw modifier. When 3rd edition was written the goal was to reduce the marine players need for cover saves. In that edition cover saves were much harder to get, and the best cover save you could get was a 4+. A marine's save of 3+ was therefore superior except against ap 1 and 2 weapons. The armor save was even more important because at the time there was no mechanized meta-game. Transports were unilaterally deathtraps.

Adding in a more liberal definition of cover, allows power armor equivalents to save significantly better, offering the 2nd best armor save followed frequently by a secondary invulnerable-cover save.


Claiming that saving throw modifiers 'removes tactical play' is quite backward. The better your units armor saves the less reliant you are on cover for protection. Ask Tyranid players how important cover is and see what kind of a response you get - and then ask a marine players. Armies without strong armor saves are required to use more careful tactics and deployment to survive and win.

The AP system was designed to simplify shooting as Maidel noted, but the chief side effect, when combined with the preponderance of 3+ saves - was to weight the usefulness of weapon load outs very unevenly. A situation made even more lopsided by the strength and widespread use of mechanized armies. 

A weapon with a high strength and a low AP value became much more useful. The statistical reliability of a weapon say a plasma gun of killing a marine vs a boltgun (or equivalent) are wide apart. And encourage players (marine or not) to weight their armies towards these weapons at the expense of others. Using the previous save mod system they weren't so far apart. The average trooper, marine or otherwise had a more viable weapon when they had a save modifier. 

What we as players lose is the flexibility of weapons in multiple roles. Heavy bolters for instance are pretty useless against marines, but still quite handy against orks, tau, eldar, guard, and tyranids. With a save modifier of -2 (based on its strength of 5) a heavy bolter would by useful against all armies. The simple boltgun would be more useful marine v. marine.

Making marines vulnerable to more ranged weapons makes the game much MORE tactical, not less. 

@Maidel - Save mods in 40k wouldn't be debilitating even with the larger scale. I know where you're coming from. I'm not recommending we bring back dark millennium or the old close combat system or wargear cards. But I think save modifiers would be a smart addition at this point. Sure the game is larger, but saving throws are taken based on the largest common denominator in a unit. 

So I shoot your marines with two heavy bolters, score 4 hits, 3 wounds, you roll 3 saves at -2. 1 passes 2 fail. Next shooting. It wouldn't be very different than normal. Or I make those shots you take a 4+ cover save etc.

Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

This is a strange thing to say but...
I have only played 3 games against marines. All GKs.
I play Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau and Orks regularly but marines very rarely.


P.S. If you want to know where this magical place is: Portola Plaza CA.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Kreuger said:


> @Maidel - Save mods in 40k wouldn't be debilitating even with the larger scale. I know where you're coming from. I'm not recommending we bring back dark millennium or the old close combat system or wargear cards. But I think save modifiers would be a smart addition at this point. Sure the game is larger, but saving throws are taken based on the largest common denominator in a unit.
> 
> So I shoot your marines with two heavy bolters, score 4 hits, 3 wounds, you roll 3 saves at -2. 1 passes 2 fail. Next shooting. It would be very different than normal. Or I make those shots you take a 4+ cover save etc.
> 
> ...


Ok - ill give you that, it probably wouldnt slow the game down too much. Anyone recommending the old close combat system needs a new brain however.

I suppose the main issue to bringing back sv modifiers is that you would have to consider repointing every single model, because things like terminators are costed to consider that they ignore 5/6s of all normal shots and close combat attacks.


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

Maidel said:


> Ok - ill give you that, it probably wouldnt slow the game down too much. Anyone recommending the old close combat system needs a new brain however.
> 
> I suppose the main issue to bringing back sv modifiers is that you would have to consider repointing every single model, because things like terminators are costed to consider that they ignore 5/6s of all normal shots and close combat attacks.


Anyone reccomending the old combat system should dust off their old books! :biggrin:


----------



## SlamHammer (Mar 28, 2011)

Kreuger said:


> @ Slamhammer - We do agree that the game balance of weapons in 40K is based on a marine's armor save of 3+. However, the AP system was created for exactly the opposite reason you cite. Prior to 3rd ed all close combat weapons and ranged weapons had an armor saving throw modifier. When 3rd edition was written the goal was to reduce the marine players need for cover saves. In that edition cover saves were much harder to get, and the best cover save you could get was a 4+. A marine's save of 3+ was therefore superior except against ap 1 and 2 weapons. The armor save was even more important because at the time there was no mechanized meta-game. Transports were unilaterally deathtraps.
> 
> Adding in a more liberal definition of cover, allows power armor equivalents to save significantly better, offering the 2nd best armor save followed frequently by a secondary invulnerable-cover save.
> 
> ...


I think we are arguing different perspectives here. The Tyranid example is exactly the point I was making. Because the less then 3+ save, the Tyrannid can choose to go to cover and maybe be slowed down or chance it and try to withstand the fire with overwhelming numbers. The Space Marine player would then decide whether to rely on their superior armor save in the open or move to cover where they will still get a cover save vs AP3 weapons. The trade off here is the amount of points cost per model that you are risking per each choice. If there was no Power Armor Baseline (Point cost, AP Value, Squad Options), these type of interactions would not occur as frequently. Everyone would just take the same cover save and the points would seem unbalanced when armies take the field.

I will agree that it seems unhealthy that everything is based off the Power Armor Baseline (mostly Space Marines) and that is the template starting point for most armies available. That many army points, upgrades, and stats are created via this Baseline was the point I was making, and that the game hinges on these Power Armored Dudes.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Maidel said:


> Well thats interresting on two levels - level 1 is that there is a person in this thread arguing blind that marines have it too easy and you are arguing that they have it hard.


I'm not saying that Marines are underpowered - I'm saying I've had far too much practice at fighting them. 



Maidel said:


> the second level to this arguement is that you are obviously playing people who are really bad and one dimensional at the game, rather than the armies themselves being intrinsically bad, because as you said you were almost beaten by a player who is a lot better than you.


First of, that person with the BA _did_ beat me. In fact he almost always beats me with any army he plays, because he is a lot better than me. I haven't had the chance to play him this year, though. I wish I had, I learn a lot every time.

Secondly, the people I play with are not fools, not by a long chalk, and all of them have been playing longer than me. And I'm not exactly a tactical genius. The chap with the Grey Knights used to play Eldar and beat me regularly. Then he sold his Eldar and I've been whipping his Marines ever since. Feels bad.

I've simply fought Marines too often. Marines are _not_ intrinsically bad. If 1/8 games I played were against Marines (16 codices, two Marine as it should be) then you're damn straight I'd have a tough time winning - but when it's every damned game then yes, I'm going to learn to fight Space Marines.

The only point I've been trying to make throughout this thread is that the omnipresence of Marines hurts _everyone_.


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

I voted meh simply because you can't blame Games Workshop for what armies people choose to use. While GW may exacerbate the situation by focusing heavily on them they do not hold guns to peoples heads and demand them to play Power Armour. It is still up to the individual to make a choice.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Abomination said:


> I voted meh simply because you can't blame Games Workshop for what armies people choose to use. While GW may exacerbate the situation by focusing heavily on them they do not hold guns to peoples heads and demand them to play Power Armour. It is still up to the individual to make a choice.


Well thats the age old debate - what came first, the chicken or the egg.


Do people play space marines because they are so cool and therefore GW make more armies and more models and push them more.

Or

Did GW push them heaviliy and therefore people end up playing them more?


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Slamhammer said:


> If there was no Power Armor Baseline (Point cost, AP Value, Squad Options), these type of interactions would not occur as frequently. Everyone would just take the same cover save and the points would seem unbalanced when armies take the field.


I wasn't suggesting that the baseline would change from power armor. We would still have power armor in droves. That some armies don't need to worry about cover with the AP system is the real problem - not that many armies have power armor.

I think a system with more variation is more interesting and makes for a better game. In a system that includes save modifiers, cover is more important to everyone, and therefore maneuvering is far more important. My thesis is essentially, that some armies don't need (much, if any) cover and that reduces the tactical nature of the game. Less emphasis on the table-top aspect perforce places more emphasis on the army-writing-meta part of the game.



Maidel said:


> I suppose the main issue to bringing back sv modifiers is that you would have to consider repointing every single model, because things like terminators are costed to consider that they ignore 5/6s of all normal shots and close combat attacks.


Yeah, points would need to be re-assessed. I'm not suggesting we return to save mods mid-edition, that would be a horrendous mess. But hey, maybe for 6th! I'm fine with leaving invulnerables as they are. If a Terminator would get hit with a -4 modifier weapon and would otherwise save on a 6, I'm fine if they use the 5+ instead. I don't think that's imbalanced at all. (I also remember the days of toughness 3 marines who saved on 4's, and terminators saving on a 3+ on a D6.)

Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Kreuger said:


> Yeah, points would need to be re-assessed. I'm not suggesting we return to save mods mid-edition, that would be a horrendous mess. But hey, maybe for 6th! I'm fine with leaving invulnerables as they are. If a Terminator would get hit with a -4 modifier weapon and would otherwise save on a 6, I'm fine if they use the 5+ instead. I don't think that's imbalanced at all. (I also remember the days of toughness 3 marines who saved on 4's, and terminators saving on a 3+ on a D6.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Kreuger


I also vaguely remember something about terminators having a 2+ save on two dice - or was that some horrible delusion...


The point is - they wont ever do that - they will never invalidate all the codexes with a new edition - the game will change slowly, but we will never see the likes of the jumps from second to third.


----------



## razcalking (Jul 14, 2008)

No. Because the Warhammer 40K universe is about the Imperium of Man struggling to hold onto a crumbling empire, and their front-line elite soldiers are the Space Marines.

Everyone else is just there to provide allies and enemies for that story.


----------

