Xenomancers wrote: Autocannons are in a weird spot. I think they need more AP and less str.
They should be str 6 ap -3 flat 3 damage (the old index starcannon profile) - maybe with a reroll wounds vs vehicals with a t6 or less. IDK the right cost for such a weapon. Maybe 25 points?
no.
assault cannons are for S6 and not AC's
Few armies can take both. They were usually contemporaries of each other with similar roles and stat lines.
Xenomancers wrote: Autocannons are in a weird spot. I think they need more AP and less str.
They should be str 6 ap -3 flat 3 damage (the old index starcannon profile) - maybe with a reroll wounds vs vehicals with a t6 or less. IDK the right cost for such a weapon. Maybe 25 points?
no.
assault cannons are for S6 and not AC's
Just speaking IRL effectiveness of weapons. These weapons typically fire about the same caliber rounds (between 20-40mm) and are effective against the same targets. Typically aircraft and light vehicles. Essentially all vulcan/gatling cannons are autocannons if they are 20mm or higher (which the onslaught and assault cannons certainly are).
Xenomancers wrote: Autocannons are in a weird spot. I think they need more AP and less str.
They should be str 6 ap -3 flat 3 damage (the old index starcannon profile) - maybe with a reroll wounds vs vehicals with a t6 or less. IDK the right cost for such a weapon. Maybe 25 points?
no.
assault cannons are for S6 and not AC's
Just speaking IRL effectiveness of weapons. These weapons typically fire about the same caliber rounds (between 20-40mm) and are effective against the same targets. Typically aircraft and light vehicles. Essentially all vulcan/gatling cannons are autocannons if they are 20mm or higher (which the onslaught and assault cannons certainly are).
IRL carries only limted over into 40k.
and secondly one is agattling with obviously smaller calibre then the other which is basically just a dual layoug of an AC, so no again.
there is no need to water this weapon down.
Xenomancers wrote: Autocannons are in a weird spot. I think they need more AP and less str.
They should be str 6 ap -3 flat 3 damage (the old index starcannon profile) - maybe with a reroll wounds vs vehicals with a t6 or less. IDK the right cost for such a weapon. Maybe 25 points?
no.
assault cannons are for S6 and not AC's
Just speaking IRL effectiveness of weapons. These weapons typically fire about the same caliber rounds (between 20-40mm) and are effective against the same targets. Typically aircraft and light vehicles. Essentially all vulcan/gatling cannons are autocannons if they are 20mm or higher (which the onslaught and assault cannons certainly are).
IRL carries only limted over into 40k.
and secondly one is agattling with obviously smaller calibre then the other which is basically just a dual layoug of an AC, so no again.
there is no need to water this weapon down.
The autocannon already feels watered down to me. Maybe with 3 shots becoming the average it will perform better (ala suppressors).
Xenomancers wrote: Autocannons are in a weird spot. I think they need more AP and less str.
They should be str 6 ap -3 flat 3 damage (the old index starcannon profile) - maybe with a reroll wounds vs vehicals with a t6 or less. IDK the right cost for such a weapon. Maybe 25 points?
no.
assault cannons are for S6 and not AC's
Autocannons and Assault Cannons share little overlap in armies and its fine for both to be roughly the same area of stats.
Autocannons having str 6 is fine to take down its anti-vehicle use and it can have a bit less shots but more AP then an Assault Cannon. Tho I don't see why they would need 3 damage. 2 is plenty.
Xenomancers wrote: Autocannons are in a weird spot. I think they need more AP and less str.
They should be str 6 ap -3 flat 3 damage (the old index starcannon profile) - maybe with a reroll wounds vs vehicals with a t6 or less. IDK the right cost for such a weapon. Maybe 25 points?
no.
assault cannons are for S6 and not AC's
Autocannons and Assault Cannons share little overlap in armies and its fine for both to be roughly the same area of stats.
Autocannons having str 6 is fine to take down its anti-vehicle use and it can have a bit less shots but more AP then an Assault Cannon. Tho I don't see why they would need 3 damage. 2 is plenty.
Just because the HB already has 2 damage now. 2 is fine or d3.
Niiru wrote: Weirdly enough, I've been looking at eradicators and devastators, and... I'm actually not sure what you could do with eradicators that wouldn't make them irrelevant.
For less points per gun, you can have a unit of 4x multi-meltas. This gives you more shots, that can be split-fired, along with a signum and a cherub for bonus shots and 2+ to hit on a model.
The only advantage that eradicators have over that is T5 (the extra wounds are countered by devs being cheaper), and their rifle being assault vs heavy.
So the erads are a bit harder to kill, and are a bit more mobile (extra 6" without taking a hit penalty), which is good obviously but... I'm not sure how you'd 'fix' them.
If you dropped their double-fire ability, they'd be useless. They'd be half as good as devs, but for more points.
Someone said to raise their points to 60, but they're already more expensive than devs for less firepower. Maybe upping to 45 per model is viable...
(Sorry to drag this topic back onto... topic)
And that is the problem. And this isn't meant as an attack against you, because if you read the forums its a large number of Marine players with a similar mindset. "If you nerf eradicators than Devestators will be better, so why take eradicators!". Exactly. So instead of nerfing 1, nerf them all. because 1 unit being able to hose a heavy vehicle 2 or 3x its cost in 1 shooting phase is...stupid.
When people are saying a certain marine unit is OP, the go to response shouldn't be, well if you nerf it even a bit, then this other unit becomes the easy choice. to put it bluntly, the Marine codex having multiple OP units in the same job is ridiculous in and of itself.
What weakness do aggressors have? The only one I can think of is mobility, but at the same time, those meganobz are even slower.
No easy transport, limited access to invuln/FNP, and limited deepstrike options.
The supplements that favor Aggressors of a type (UM,SL) don't have infiltrate (WS,RG). The supplements handing out 5++ or 5+++ usually prefer other units. Salamanders have a 6+++ available, but realistically you're not putting all you're Aggressors in that bubble.
MANZ otherwise can get a 5++ (ranged), 6+++, easy access to a transport, deepstrike, swipe from a transport, the best version of reroll charges, still (at present) have fight twice, access to run & charge, and D3 killsaws (which when previously discussed makes 3 of them kill just about 4 aggressors).
Now I'm not excluding transhuman and other stuff available to Aggressors for the purpose of deceit. You asked about Aggressor weaknesses and I put them up against MANZ strengths. We agree that Aggressors are good. We don't agree that MANZ are bad by comparison.
No easy transport? Can they not use Primaris Transports? Pretty sure they can, you might not like the transport but it exists and is not that bad an option, i mean, for xenos armies its not bad.
As far as limited access to Invuln/FNP/Deep strike....you mean like basically everyone else? I have painboys for FNP and a KFF Big mek that can give them a 5++ but only if they stay really close to him. You have apothocaries that do the same thing as far as Invuln,
Vilehydra wrote: Do keep in mind that Psychic Fortress is now a 6" 5++ invuln save. So all marines have access to the 5++ if they bring a libby along. Your point still stands though
it appears you have just as much access as me. And for deepstrike, well i have to pay CP to put them in a "tellyporta" which is a defacto deep strike, I don't know but I assume SM have some way to deep strike them if they really want to.
From the rest of your comments you make a bunch of excuses why they wouldn't use other buffs, which is fine, but then you go on to mention absurd things manz would take, like the swipe from transport stratagem..nobody uses it because its both stupid and ineffectual. Every model may make 1 attack with a weapon. So 3 manz get 3 attacks at WS4, not worth paying CP for.
They do have access to run and charge...but so do aggressors don't they? I mean, depends on the chapter you choose to take but White scars can do that, Black Templars get full rerolls like orkz.
BrianDavion wrote: the weapons buffs are being applied to 3 areas. 1st are Meltaguns whom simply have proven not very effective at their task. no one was using melta in 8th edition, so clearly GW needed to revisit the rules for Melta. makes sense to me. the 2nd is heavy bolters. they weren't being used much when alternatives where avaliable because, yet again, they weren't all that great. with the expansion of marines to 2 wounds, the heavy bolter was changed to have a place as a "heavy infantry killer" lastly are power weapons, ultimately a lot of power weapons just wheren't working quite right, GW is hoping to get em tuned up.
Flamers where also given more range because the only people who used flamers where those able to extend their range.
we also saw astartes chainswords buffed because a lot of marine melee infantry units use chainswords but they where underperforming due to a lack of AP. the chainsword rules are an attempt to make units like assault marines etc actually usable
Why were melta guns not effective at their task? i'll give you a hint, they were, they just weren't the BEST option because cheap plasma became a thing, so instead of nerfing cheap plasma or whatever the other new hotness was the right answer is to buff Multi-meltas with 2 shots and give theme extra damage, and to create a unit that gets all that but also gets to shoot twice.... ridiculous honestly, and this is where powercreep comes from.
Same thing for Heavy bolters, why weren't they being taken? Because you had easy access to a host of cheap upgrades and weapons that put out a bunch of firepower and replaced the HB, i'll give you they needed a new target preference because you can't feasibly strip all those other weapons without a major rework of the entire faction but doubling their damage put them in contest with Auto-cannons. So now you fix 1 weapon and have to fix another, and i'll bet they either don't or they ham fist it like they did HBs so you have to fix another weapon type.
Of course, its more likely they just leave Auto-cannons to languish because who cares? you guys don't even use them, so my lootas will take the hit because they are the most common form of Auto-cannon in the game.
as far as power weapons and Chainswords....yeah, why? Because SM's weren't as good at assault as assault oriented armies so they had to increase their CC damage output. I'll wait for my choppas to get -1AP, but I think it will be a long wait, just a guess. We are quickly going from SM's being the jack of all trades army to the master of all trades army. What unit outperforms aggressors for that point value? What unit out performs eradicators for that point value? What faction has standard infantry as 2W 3+ saves, 2 shot weapon that is -1AP on a regular basis and all of that for what? 18pts a model?
And after a year of Marines being broken I don't think many Xenos players are happy to hear "wait another year and hope GW fixes you. And if they don't, guess you have another chance in 3-4 years?"
Well first of all since Feb most stores were closed, and opened a bit durning summer, and it looks like they are going to be closing back up again with the rise in people sick. So the year of OP marines isn't that comperable to eldar or castellans being powerful when people actualy got to play. And the second thing is people do get to wait years for GW to fix their codex. I was told it is the normal thing and how GW operates. 2 years to wait for an update that kind of a fixs your army doesn't sound strange to me. I played only in 8th and had to wait longer, and from what people told me If I started in 7th it could easier have been 3-4 years too.
I really want to highlight Karol here. The argument isn't "Wait and see" or "Marines aren't OP" the argument he makes is that he didn't get enough time being utterly bonkers broken OP at the end of 8th so its only fair that SM's continue to be head and shoulders better than anyone in 9th.
As far as fixing codexs in a timely manner....unless you are SMs that is. Completely ignoring sub factions and supplements like SW/BA/DA index and psychic awakening etc. SM's got a dex this month, they last got a codex August of 2019, before that it was July of 2017, June 2015, September 2013, october of 2008, November of 2004, october of 1998 and finally, "ultramarines" of 1995. So thats 8 editions (1st was rogue trader) and 9 codexs over a span of 25 years, or roughly 1 codex every 2.6ish years. For comparison, Orkz got codexs in November 2018, June 2014, January 2008, July 1999 and 1994. 8 Editions, 5 Codex or 1 codex every 5 years. Orkz were also the last major faction to receive a codex in 8th, we had the worst codex in 7th, didn't get one in 6th or 5th and we enjoyed a beautifully written codex in 4th.
Yes, that's the one. Sorry, forget the name right now. But what does that have to do with anything? They're heavy weapons, they can't fire if they advance anyway. The point is it allows the eradicators to reposition in order for a better shot at their chosen target without suffering the -1 to hit from moving with heavy weapons. The idea that if they did that they would be less effective due to hitting on 4s instead of 3s made the heavy meltas seem a little less ridiculous to me. That strategem kills that balancing mechanism.
If you're planning on moving and shooting, I think you'd stick with the basic (assault) melta rifle not the heavy.
You always have to plan on moving and shooting. Do you expect your opponent to simply move whatever target you want to hit right in front of your eradicators? You have to expect to need to maneuver the unit into position to take the shot. You're going to have to do that eventually, and the strategem removes the penalty for doing so. It looks like it was designed just for eradicaters with the heavy meltas, or devastators with multi-meltas.
No one should ever take the basic melta rifle. The -1 to hit is not a huge hindrance given the +2 damage. This is the point where I wish stacking negatives were back, but I'd honestly prefer they tweak Eradicators more and the Chatpers they thrive in.
Yes, that's the one. Sorry, forget the name right now. But what does that have to do with anything? They're heavy weapons, they can't fire if they advance anyway. The point is it allows the eradicators to reposition in order for a better shot at their chosen target without suffering the -1 to hit from moving with heavy weapons. The idea that if they did that they would be less effective due to hitting on 4s instead of 3s made the heavy meltas seem a little less ridiculous to me. That strategem kills that balancing mechanism.
If you're planning on moving and shooting, I think you'd stick with the basic (assault) melta rifle not the heavy.
You always have to plan on moving and shooting. Do you expect your opponent to simply move whatever target you want to hit right in front of your eradicators? You have to expect to need to maneuver the unit into position to take the shot. You're going to have to do that eventually, and the strategem removes the penalty for doing so. It looks like it was designed just for eradicaters with the heavy meltas, or devastators with multi-meltas.
No one should ever take the basic melta rifle. The -1 to hit is not a huge hindrance given the +2 damage. This is the point where I wish stacking negatives were back, but I'd honestly prefer they tweak Eradicators more and the Chatpers they thrive in.
So does this mean we have finally got to a point where every reasonable poster is agreeing that Eradicators are totally OP and need to be nerfed?
No easy transport? Can they not use Primaris Transports? Pretty sure they can, you might not like the transport but it exists and is not that bad an option, i mean, for xenos armies its not bad.
Well, they’re Gravis, so they can’t use the Impulsor, leaving only the Repulsors all at 300+ Points, or a Thunderhawk checking in at what? 1500+ points? Which one of those is “not bad”?
No one should ever take the basic melta rifle. The -1 to hit is not a huge hindrance given the +2 damage. This is the point where I wish stacking negatives were back, but I'd honestly prefer they tweak Eradicators more and the Chatpers they thrive in.
I’m taking the basic Melta rifle so I can shoot at all. Heavy can’t shoot if you advance. Basic rifle can. I’m not worried about the +2 damage, or the -1 to hit. Heck if you advance you still get the -1, and you don’t get the +2. But you still get roughly 67% of 50% of 3-12 D6 I’m worried about hot footing it to the next target and shooting something else along the way - assuming I can’t get in range of a preferred target in one turn with an advance roll.
The new boardsizes mean these lads can just camp in the middle and threaten the whole board.
What's even better is take the codex secondary and they can be earning 2CP per turn and killing them qith a Chief Appocothory to back them is going to be flat impossible for a lot of armies.
Yes, that's the one. Sorry, forget the name right now. But what does that have to do with anything? They're heavy weapons, they can't fire if they advance anyway. The point is it allows the eradicators to reposition in order for a better shot at their chosen target without suffering the -1 to hit from moving with heavy weapons. The idea that if they did that they would be less effective due to hitting on 4s instead of 3s made the heavy meltas seem a little less ridiculous to me. That strategem kills that balancing mechanism.
If you're planning on moving and shooting, I think you'd stick with the basic (assault) melta rifle not the heavy.
You always have to plan on moving and shooting. Do you expect your opponent to simply move whatever target you want to hit right in front of your eradicators? You have to expect to need to maneuver the unit into position to take the shot. You're going to have to do that eventually, and the strategem removes the penalty for doing so. It looks like it was designed just for eradicaters with the heavy meltas, or devastators with multi-meltas.
No one should ever take the basic melta rifle. The -1 to hit is not a huge hindrance given the +2 damage. This is the point where I wish stacking negatives were back, but I'd honestly prefer they tweak Eradicators more and the Chatpers they thrive in.
So does this mean we have finally got to a point where every reasonable poster is agreeing that Eradicators are totally OP and need to be nerfed?
Yeah they need to be nerfed. The heavy version of the weapon is just more silly and that is new information. Remaining the same price is asanine.
Just because the HB already has 2 damage now. 2 is fine or d3.
Just make HB D1 against vehicles/monsters. Fixed.
Yeah for the HB I think more shots with d1 would have been a more proper fix. Or give shred vs infantry. D 1 vs vehicals also would work but then they would have to drop it to 10 points.
Yeah for the HB I think more shots with d1 would have been a more proper fix. Or give shred vs infantry. D 1 vs vehicals also would work but then they would have to drop it to 10 points.
VladimirHerzog wrote: And armies like genestealer cults and imperial guard that are pretty dated.
There are a number of armies that probably shouldn’t be armies but instead sub factions. GSC started as a Nid subfaction and probably should have stayed there. Custodes probably should have been finagled like Agents of The Imperium. Imperial/Chaos Knights too.
All of which are massively powerful forces - Even the Custodes has 10,000.
Not when we have Chapters of a mere 1000 Marines somehow proclaimed and endlessly indulged as Factions (rather than Sub-Sub factions)...
We are not playing 30K where its JUST Marines no matter what some may want.
Yeah for the HB I think more shots with d1 would have been a more proper fix. Or give shred vs infantry. D 1 vs vehicals also would work but then they would have to drop it to 10 points.
VladimirHerzog wrote: And armies like genestealer cults and imperial guard that are pretty dated.
There are a number of armies that probably shouldn’t be armies but instead sub factions. GSC started as a Nid subfaction and probably should have stayed there. Custodes probably should have been finagled like Agents of The Imperium. Imperial/Chaos Knights too.
All of which are massively powerful forces - Even the Custodes has 10,000.
Not when we have Chapters of a mere 1000 Marines somehow proclaimed and endlessly indulged as Factions (rather than Sub-Sub factions)...
We are not playing 30K where its JUST Marines no matter what some may want.
The issue is more snowflake rules. More redundancy of elitism.
No easy transport? Can they not use Primaris Transports? Pretty sure they can, you might not like the transport but it exists and is not that bad an option, i mean, for xenos armies its not bad.
Well, they’re Gravis, so they can’t use the Impulsor, leaving only the Repulsors all at 300+ Points, or a Thunderhawk checking in at what? 1500+ points? Which one of those is “not bad”?
So you are mad because you have to take a 300pt transport that comes standard with Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannon, Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Krakstorm Grenade Launcher, Storm bolter, Twin heavy bolter and can upgrade basically all those to become anti-infantry, anti-heavy infantry or anti-vehicle. its also T8 w/ 16 wounds and 3+ save.
As opposed to orkz who can take a paper thin Trukk with no weapons except a single Big Shoota (ignorable) or a massive Battlewagon which is T8 16W 4+ save, but has ZERO guns for 135pts. And if you do equip it with guns you are actually hurting yourself because BS5 kind of sucks as do most of the weapons you can put on the stupid thing.
A great example of disparity between the two is Orkz have a fragstorm grenade launcher of sorts.
SM: 18' D6 shots, S4 Blast.
Ork: 12; D6 shots, S3 blast Can only be used if unit is embarked.
One assumes by scheduling their supplement for imminent release, just like the two special chapters that lost stuff and didn't get a big bump to tide them over..? Such *appalling* treatment.
Your response would make sense, if Blood Angels lost their Death Company and if Space Wolves lost all of their frost/helfrost based weapons and their wolf units in their index.
Spoletta wrote: I think that point was reached 10 minutes after the first indomitus spoilers.
And yet you still have Marine defenders in here saying its fine.
When was the last post from anyone saying they were fine?
You literally have players saying Aggressors aren't playable because they lost shoot twice, likewise you have players saying if you remove double shot from Eradicators they would be trash. What nerf is acceptable? I mean, someone a page ago or so said the best nerf would be to make them worse vs heavy infantry....
Niiru wrote: Weirdly enough, I've been looking at eradicators and devastators, and... I'm actually not sure what you could do with eradicators that wouldn't make them irrelevant. For less points per gun, you can have a unit of 4x multi-meltas. This gives you more shots, that can be split-fired, along with a signum and a cherub for bonus shots and 2+ to hit on a model. The only advantage that eradicators have over that is T5 (the extra wounds are countered by devs being cheaper), and their rifle being assault vs heavy. So the erads are a bit harder to kill, and are a bit more mobile (extra 6" without taking a hit penalty), which is good obviously but... I'm not sure how you'd 'fix' them. If you dropped their double-fire ability, they'd be useless. They'd be half as good as devs, but for more points. Someone said to raise their points to 60, but they're already more expensive than devs for less firepower. Maybe upping to 45 per model is viable... (Sorry to drag this topic back onto... topic)
And that is the problem. And this isn't meant as an attack against you, because if you read the forums its a large number of Marine players with a similar mindset. "If you nerf eradicators than Devestators will be better, so why take eradicators!". Exactly. So instead of nerfing 1, nerf them all. because 1 unit being able to hose a heavy vehicle 2 or 3x its cost in 1 shooting phase is...stupid.
When people are saying a certain marine unit is OP, the go to response shouldn't be, well if you nerf it even a bit, then this other unit becomes the easy choice. to put it bluntly, the Marine codex having multiple OP units in the same job is ridiculous in and of itself.
What weakness do aggressors have? The only one I can think of is mobility, but at the same time, those meganobz are even slower.
No easy transport, limited access to invuln/FNP, and limited deepstrike options. The supplements that favor Aggressors of a type (UM,SL) don't have infiltrate (WS,RG). The supplements handing out 5++ or 5+++ usually prefer other units. Salamanders have a 6+++ available, but realistically you're not putting all you're Aggressors in that bubble. MANZ otherwise can get a 5++ (ranged), 6+++, easy access to a transport, deepstrike, swipe from a transport, the best version of reroll charges, still (at present) have fight twice, access to run & charge, and D3 killsaws (which when previously discussed makes 3 of them kill just about 4 aggressors). Now I'm not excluding transhuman and other stuff available to Aggressors for the purpose of deceit. You asked about Aggressor weaknesses and I put them up against MANZ strengths. We agree that Aggressors are good. We don't agree that MANZ are bad by comparison.
No easy transport? Can they not use Primaris Transports? Pretty sure they can, you might not like the transport but it exists and is not that bad an option, i mean, for xenos armies its not bad.
As far as limited access to Invuln/FNP/Deep strike....you mean like basically everyone else? I have painboys for FNP and a KFF Big mek that can give them a 5++ but only if they stay really close to him. You have apothocaries that do the same thing as far as Invuln,
Vilehydra wrote: Do keep in mind that Psychic Fortress is now a 6" 5++ invuln save. So all marines have access to the 5++ if they bring a libby along. Your point still stands though
it appears you have just as much access as me. And for deepstrike, well i have to pay CP to put them in a "tellyporta" which is a defacto deep strike, I don't know but I assume SM have some way to deep strike them if they really want to.
From the rest of your comments you make a bunch of excuses why they wouldn't use other buffs, which is fine, but then you go on to mention absurd things manz would take, like the swipe from transport stratagem..nobody uses it because its both stupid and ineffectual. Every model may make 1 attack with a weapon. So 3 manz get 3 attacks at WS4, not worth paying CP for.
They do have access to run and charge...but so do aggressors don't they? I mean, depends on the chapter you choose to take but White scars can do that, Black Templars get full rerolls like orkz.
BrianDavion wrote: the weapons buffs are being applied to 3 areas. 1st are Meltaguns whom simply have proven not very effective at their task. no one was using melta in 8th edition, so clearly GW needed to revisit the rules for Melta. makes sense to me. the 2nd is heavy bolters. they weren't being used much when alternatives where avaliable because, yet again, they weren't all that great. with the expansion of marines to 2 wounds, the heavy bolter was changed to have a place as a "heavy infantry killer" lastly are power weapons, ultimately a lot of power weapons just wheren't working quite right, GW is hoping to get em tuned up.
Flamers where also given more range because the only people who used flamers where those able to extend their range.
we also saw astartes chainswords buffed because a lot of marine melee infantry units use chainswords but they where underperforming due to a lack of AP. the chainsword rules are an attempt to make units like assault marines etc actually usable
Why were melta guns not effective at their task? i'll give you a hint, they were, they just weren't the BEST option because cheap plasma became a thing, so instead of nerfing cheap plasma or whatever the other new hotness was the right answer is to buff Multi-meltas with 2 shots and give theme extra damage, and to create a unit that gets all that but also gets to shoot twice.... ridiculous honestly, and this is where powercreep comes from.
Same thing for Heavy bolters, why weren't they being taken? Because you had easy access to a host of cheap upgrades and weapons that put out a bunch of firepower and replaced the HB, i'll give you they needed a new target preference because you can't feasibly strip all those other weapons without a major rework of the entire faction but doubling their damage put them in contest with Auto-cannons. So now you fix 1 weapon and have to fix another, and i'll bet they either don't or they ham fist it like they did HBs so you have to fix another weapon type.
Of course, its more likely they just leave Auto-cannons to languish because who cares? you guys don't even use them, so my lootas will take the hit because they are the most common form of Auto-cannon in the game.
as far as power weapons and Chainswords....yeah, why? Because SM's weren't as good at assault as assault oriented armies so they had to increase their CC damage output. I'll wait for my choppas to get -1AP, but I think it will be a long wait, just a guess. We are quickly going from SM's being the jack of all trades army to the master of all trades army. What unit outperforms aggressors for that point value? What unit out performs eradicators for that point value? What faction has standard infantry as 2W 3+ saves, 2 shot weapon that is -1AP on a regular basis and all of that for what? 18pts a model?
And after a year of Marines being broken I don't think many Xenos players are happy to hear "wait another year and hope GW fixes you. And if they don't, guess you have another chance in 3-4 years?"
Well first of all since Feb most stores were closed, and opened a bit durning summer, and it looks like they are going to be closing back up again with the rise in people sick. So the year of OP marines isn't that comperable to eldar or castellans being powerful when people actualy got to play. And the second thing is people do get to wait years for GW to fix their codex. I was told it is the normal thing and how GW operates. 2 years to wait for an update that kind of a fixs your army doesn't sound strange to me. I played only in 8th and had to wait longer, and from what people told me If I started in 7th it could easier have been 3-4 years too.
I really want to highlight Karol here. The argument isn't "Wait and see" or "Marines aren't OP" the argument he makes is that he didn't get enough time being utterly bonkers broken OP at the end of 8th so its only fair that SM's continue to be head and shoulders better than anyone in 9th.
As far as fixing codexs in a timely manner....unless you are SMs that is. Completely ignoring sub factions and supplements like SW/BA/DA index and psychic awakening etc. SM's got a dex this month, they last got a codex August of 2019, before that it was July of 2017, June 2015, September 2013, october of 2008, November of 2004, october of 1998 and finally, "ultramarines" of 1995. So thats 8 editions (1st was rogue trader) and 9 codexs over a span of 25 years, or roughly 1 codex every 2.6ish years. For comparison, Orkz got codexs in November 2018, June 2014, January 2008, July 1999 and 1994. 8 Editions, 5 Codex or 1 codex every 5 years. Orkz were also the last major faction to receive a codex in 8th, we had the worst codex in 7th, didn't get one in 6th or 5th and we enjoyed a beautifully written codex in 4th.
ok first off regarding agressors transport issues, the only transport they can take is the repulsor. which really is too expensive to be counted on as pure transport. you claim that "they'd be a fine transport via xenos standards" but I'm not sure that's true.
I mean wave serpants are about 150 points, (maybe 200 if you wanna take a buncha expensive weapons options) raiders and venoms are around the price of a rhino (maybe even less) the Ork Battlewagon is about 135 points. vs the repulsor being over 300 points. that's a LOT of points to sink into something to truck about agressors. I mean if you list includes one great, but I doubt any marine players sit back and say "Ok I'm gonna take a repulsor to transport my... anything" the only xenos transport similer to the repulsor is the monolith, whiiich is DOA being a combination of insanely expensive and a LOW choice.
Secondly the reason why Meltaguns wheren't well liked had more to do with reliability.
with Plasma you knew exactly what you where getting damage wise, you could bank on that dmg. Melta was too swingy. which, when combined with the fact that you had to get close made folks less intreasted in it. if you're sending a melta team up, chances are it's going to get one chance to do some damage (hence the concept of "sucide melta") if you're not sure that dmg'll be good then.. meh. so it was a concept of less efficant and less RELIABLE.
ok first off regarding agressors transport issues, the only transport they can take is the repulsor. which really is too expensive to be counted on as pure transport. you claim that "they'd be a fine transport via xenos standards" but I'm not sure that's true.
I mean wave serpants are about 150 points, (maybe 200 if you wanna take a buncha expensive weapons options) raiders and venoms are around the price of a rhino (maybe even less) the Ork Battlewagon is about 135 points. vs the repulsor being over 300 points. that's a LOT of points to sink into something to truck about agressors. I mean if you list includes one great, but I doubt any marine players sit back and say "Ok I'm gonna take a repulsor to transport my... anything" the only xenos transport similer to the repulsor is the monolith, whiiich is DOA being a combination of insanely expensive and a LOW choice
135pts for a vehicle that serves no purpose except as transport, has no guns, and even though its T7, is pretty easy to pop since its 4+. It has 6 attacks in CC but WS5+
So you are literally paying for transport capacity and not much else, so its a good transport and that is it, where as the repulsor can shoot a couple Battlewagons to death while dropping off its payload of infantry.
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
Spoletta wrote: I think that point was reached 10 minutes after the first indomitus spoilers.
And yet you still have Marine defenders in here saying its fine.
When was the last post from anyone saying they were fine?
You literally have players saying Aggressors aren't playable because they lost shoot twice, likewise you have players saying if you remove double shot from Eradicators they would be trash. What nerf is acceptable? I mean, someone a page ago or so said the best nerf would be to make them worse vs heavy infantry....
The aggressors statements aren't really valid, theyre still good, their owners just lost half their output which will feel bad. Eradicators wouldn't be trash, they'd just be lacklustre possibly.
Saying a proposed nerf is disagreeable doesn't mean anyone is saying they're fine as is though.
Ice_can wrote: I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
The aggressors statements aren't really valid, theyre still good, their owners just lost half their output which will feel bad. Eradicators wouldn't be trash, they'd just be lacklustre possibly.
Saying a proposed nerf is disagreeable doesn't mean anyone is saying they're fine as is though.
Then again, what is acceptable. So far the space marine defenders only retort has been to say "Make them less efficient against heavy infantry". That doesn't address the problem even remotely.
No easy transport? Can they not use Primaris Transports? Pretty sure they can, you might not like the transport but it exists and is not that bad an option, i mean, for xenos armies its not bad.
Well, they’re Gravis, so they can’t use the Impulsor, leaving only the Repulsors all at 300+ Points, or a Thunderhawk checking in at what? 1500+ points? Which one of those is “not bad”?
So you are mad because you have to take a 300pt transport that comes standard with Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannon, Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Krakstorm Grenade Launcher, Storm bolter, Twin heavy bolter and can upgrade basically all those to become anti-infantry, anti-heavy infantry or anti-vehicle. its also T8 w/ 16 wounds and 3+ save.
As opposed to orkz who can take a paper thin Trukk with no weapons except a single Big Shoota (ignorable) or a massive Battlewagon which is T8 16W 4+ save, but has ZERO guns for 135pts. And if you do equip it with guns you are actually hurting yourself because BS5 kind of sucks as do most of the weapons you can put on the stupid thing.
A great example of disparity between the two is Orkz have a fragstorm grenade launcher of sorts.
SM: 18' D6 shots, S4 Blast.
Ork: 12; D6 shots, S3 blast Can only be used if unit is embarked.
Same price, 5pts.
Put it this way --
6 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 1.8 wounding hits from Eradicators on a Trukk. At 5.5 damage average that kills the Trukk. One out of every three such incidents they'll ramshackle and take 6 damage and live.
That means 9 Eradicators can kill 2.5 trukks. You're out 120/130 points.
Those same 9 Eradicators -- 18 * .666 * .5 * 5.5 = 33 -- they kill two Repulsors. You're out 600+ points.
I fully expect the Repulsors to do some work when they're alive as Eradicators can't reach everything all at once, but the situation isn't as simple as you indicate.
VladimirHerzog wrote: And armies like genestealer cults and imperial guard that are pretty dated.
There are a number of armies that probably shouldn’t be armies but instead sub factions. GSC started as a Nid subfaction and probably should have stayed there. Custodes probably should have been finagled like Agents of The Imperium. Imperial/Chaos Knights too.
All of which are massively powerful forces - Even the Custodes has 10,000.
Not when we have Chapters of a mere 1000 Marines somehow proclaimed and endlessly indulged as Factions (rather than Sub-Sub factions)...
We are not playing 30K where its JUST Marines no matter what some may want.
And supposedly haven't left Earth in generations? Plus still have to guard the Imperial Palace and the Golden Throne? And don't have very many data sheets? IK are just inherently too skew as knight only.
So you are mad because you have to take a 300pt transport
300+. A lot plus. And it's bad. Just about everyone who isn't complaining about marines and trying to pretend the Gravis Transport options don't suck says so in multiple threads on here.
Xenomancers wrote: Autocannons are in a weird spot. I think they need more AP and less str.
They should be str 6 ap -3 flat 3 damage (the old index starcannon profile) - maybe with a reroll wounds vs vehicals with a t6 or less. IDK the right cost for such a weapon. Maybe 25 points?
no.
assault cannons are for S6 and not AC's
Autocannons and Assault Cannons share little overlap in armies and its fine for both to be roughly the same area of stats.
Autocannons having str 6 is fine to take down its anti-vehicle use and it can have a bit less shots but more AP then an Assault Cannon. Tho I don't see why they would need 3 damage. 2 is plenty.
Just because the HB already has 2 damage now. 2 is fine or d3.
Suppressors have special ones. You can give them the same rule of helping stop Overwatch and something additional like subtracting movement from hit units.
And supposedly haven't left Earth in generations? Plus still have to guard the Imperial Palace and the Golden Throne? And don't have very many data sheets? IK are just inherently too skew as knight only.
Actually they had been leaving earth the whole time, just not on mass.
Also seriously the skew angle when we have a wounding system that means everything hurts everything, before we even touch the auto wounding on 6's and the MW etc.
Ice_can wrote: I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
You don't NEED one, but it is one of the drawbacks. I'm not a fan of transporting much of anything at this point. You lose at least one turn of use from the unit you're transporting, more likely two.
Ice_can wrote: I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
5+ 18 for bolt fists. So 23' threat range
5+ D6" +18. Without shoot twice there's no reason not to Advance if necessary for range.
6 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 1.8 wounding hits from Eradicators on a Trukk. At 5.5 damage average that kills the Trukk. One out of every three such incidents they'll ramshackle and take 6 damage and live.
That means 9 Eradicators can kill 2.5 trukks. You're out 120/130 points.
Those same 9 Eradicators -- 18 * .666 * .5 * 5.5 = 33 -- they kill two Repulsors. You're out 600+ points.
I fully expect the Repulsors to do some work when they're alive as Eradicators can't reach everything all at once, but the situation isn't as simple as you indicate.
No, let him keep going. I'm entertained watching someone so intent on complaining about Marines they're trying to claim Repulsors (And Land Raiders) aren't bad.
One assumes by scheduling their supplement for imminent release, just like the two special chapters that lost stuff and didn't get a big bump to tide them over..? Such *appalling* treatment.
Your response would make sense, if Blood Angels lost their Death Company and if Space Wolves lost all of their frost/helfrost based weapons and their wolf units in their index.
But they didn't. So your response is nonsensical.
With the codex supplement coming out in time for Christmas, they sure aren't getting "squatted" which was the risible premise that started that tangent.
Ice_can wrote: I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
On planet bowling ball, yes. Often terrain impedes line of sight.
Ice_can wrote: I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
The idea is that you want to shoot first because you are going to be destroyed if you don't. In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable. Most lists are loading at least a few units capable of 1 shooting such a unit off the table without effort.
Ice_can wrote: I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
The idea is that you want to shoot first because you are going to be destroyed if you don't. In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable. Most lists are loading at least a few units capable of 1 shooting such a unit off the table without effort.
It’s a lot more durable than any similar Melta/anti-tank unit I can think of.
They can get wiped-but it will take more effort than taking out other units.
One assumes by scheduling their supplement for imminent release, just like the two special chapters that lost stuff and didn't get a big bump to tide them over..? Such *appalling* treatment.
Your response would make sense, if Blood Angels lost their Death Company and if Space Wolves lost all of their frost/helfrost based weapons and their wolf units in their index.
But they didn't. So your response is nonsensical.
With the codex supplement coming out in time for Christmas, they sure aren't getting "squatted" which was the risible premise that started that tangent.
Squatted, or legended, are just terms which can easily be used to refer to something that is being removed from the game in a meaningful sense.
The fluff and unique aspects of Deathwatch have been removed from the game, in their entirety. Whether some of it gets brought back in the supplement is anyones guess. They could well just end up as another bland flavour of generic space marines number 27.
Ice_can wrote: I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
The idea is that you want to shoot first because you are going to be destroyed if you don't. In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable. Most lists are loading at least a few units capable of 1 shooting such a unit off the table without effort.
It’s a lot more durable than any similar Melta/anti-tank unit I can think of.
They can get wiped-but it will take more effort than taking out other units.
Talking about aggressors at this point. Aggressors are worthless now. Even if they seem like a bargain for their price still. They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile. Errads are freaking bonkers. You pay the price to get them into position and they just kill too much for their cost.
Like if I want to shoot things with str 4 ap-0. I'm putting 6 tactical squads with a gravcannon and a combi flamer in 3 drop pods and completely controling the pace of the game - even if they all die at least they gave me something for it. Aggressors are predictable garbage now where before they were predictable overkill. OFC they nerfed them. New Heavy intercessors are coming. which have much better stock weapons and don't waste points on CC they have no real ability to use.
Xenomancers wrote:In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable.
Xenomancers wrote:They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile.
Do you make these kinds of statements based on
-How other factions in the game compare,
-How other units in the SM codex compare, or
-How top-tier meta tournament build min-max units compare?
Grounding your opinion would really help understand context here.
So we are back to Agressors are trash but be happy Xeno players you got 12 inch flamers too.
So for only 45 points I can make a crisis suit with 2 flamers with -1AP. Oh joy such balance.
Ice_can wrote: I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
The idea is that you want to shoot first because you are going to be destroyed if you don't. In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable. Most lists are loading at least a few units capable of 1 shooting such a unit off the table without effort.
It’s a lot more durable than any similar Melta/anti-tank unit I can think of.
They can get wiped-but it will take more effort than taking out other units.
Talking about aggressors at this point. Aggressors are worthless now. Even if they seem like a bargain for their price still. They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile. Errads are freaking bonkers. You pay the price to get them into position and they just kill too much for their cost.
Like if I want to shoot things with str 4 ap-0. I'm putting 6 tactical squads with a gravcannon and a combi flamer in 3 drop pods and completely controling the pace of the game - even if they all die at least they gave me something for it. Aggressors are predictable garbage now where before they were predictable overkill. OFC they nerfed them. New Heavy intercessors are coming. which have much better stock weapons and don't waste points on CC they have no real ability to use.
Harlequins and hordes winning tournaments because Space Marines are focussing to heavy on the anti-space marine meta are why you still want Aggressors.
And no your tactical marines are not more effective mass shooting then Aggressors, even without double shots.
Ice_can wrote: I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
The idea is that you want to shoot first because you are going to be destroyed if you don't. In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable. Most lists are loading at least a few units capable of 1 shooting such a unit off the table without effort.
It’s a lot more durable than any similar Melta/anti-tank unit I can think of.
They can get wiped-but it will take more effort than taking out other units.
Talking about aggressors at this point. Aggressors are worthless now. Even if they seem like a bargain for their price still. They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile. Errads are freaking bonkers. You pay the price to get them into position and they just kill too much for their cost.
Like if I want to shoot things with str 4 ap-0. I'm putting 6 tactical squads with a gravcannon and a combi flamer in 3 drop pods and completely controling the pace of the game - even if they all die at least they gave me something for it. Aggressors are predictable garbage now where before they were predictable overkill. OFC they nerfed them. New Heavy intercessors are coming. which have much better stock weapons and don't waste points on CC they have no real ability to use.
The bolded part is where we disagree.
9th edition absolutely requires you to engage in CC. You can't avoid it.
Without the aggressors, many lists are left with just a few support chars for CC.
Now that they have no reason to stand still, they will contribute even more to that aspect.
Put it this way --
6 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 1.8 wounding hits from Eradicators on a Trukk. At 5.5 damage average that kills the Trukk. One out of every three such incidents they'll ramshackle and take 6 damage and live.
That means 9 Eradicators can kill 2.5 trukks. You're out 120/130 points.
Those same 9 Eradicators -- 18 * .666 * .5 * 5.5 = 33 -- they kill two Repulsors. You're out 600+ points.
I fully expect the Repulsors to do some work when they're alive as Eradicators can't reach everything all at once, but the situation isn't as simple as you indicate.
6 shots implies 3 Eradicators. 3 Eradicators with Heavy get 6 shots, 4 hits for 2.66 wounds, no armor save, 1 out of 6 will end up getting ramshackle and suffer 1 dmg instead of D6+2 So lets lower the wounds from 2.66 to 2.4 to make you happy. D6+2 x2 = 11dmg, so 3 Eradicators pop 1 trukk by themselves without too much trouble. Those trukkz also have no chance of killing 1 Eradicator or Gravis model during the entire game.
6 shots with heavy vs repulsor = 4 hits, 2 wounds no armor save so 11 dmg, Still alive. wounded, but very much alive. That repulsor in contrast is killing 2-3 Eradicators a turn.
9 Eradicators can't kill 2 repulsors because you would have to split fire which means no double tap.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Talking about aggressors at this point. Aggressors are worthless now. Even if they seem like a bargain for their price still. They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile. Errads are freaking bonkers. You pay the price to get them into position and they just kill too much for their cost.
Like if I want to shoot things with str 4 ap-0. I'm putting 6 tactical squads with a gravcannon and a combi flamer in 3 drop pods and completely controling the pace of the game - even if they all die at least they gave me something for it. Aggressors are predictable garbage now where before they were predictable overkill. OFC they nerfed them. New Heavy intercessors are coming. which have much better stock weapons and don't waste points on CC they have no real ability to use.
enter Xeno to prove my point that Marine players think Aggressors are garbage because they don't make their points back in 1 turn
No, let him keep going. I'm entertained watching someone so intent on complaining about Marines they're trying to claim Repulsors (And Land Raiders) aren't bad.
Ironically I don't think the Repulsor is all that great, its not bad but in a codex as loaded as the SM one is, it won't see play because there are just too many better options to take.
Wouldn't aggressors also make an incredible distraction carnifex? They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right? If so move up the field on foot, pouring out a lot of anti infantry fire to annoy the enemy with the threat of capable melee.
They're too dangerous to ignore and are tough enough that it's a pain to remove them. And even with all that they're not massively expensive.
cody.d. wrote: They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right?
No, they did not.
Really? That's interesting. So they lost both the fire twice and the advance with no penalties. Almost like GW realized what a mess of a unit they'd created.
You can almost hear the cheezy 12PM infomercial about them previously. "It slices, it dices etc etc etc."
cody.d. wrote: Wouldn't aggressors also make an incredible distraction carnifex? They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right? If so move up the field on foot, pouring out a lot of anti infantry fire to annoy the enemy with the threat of capable melee.
They're too dangerous to ignore and are tough enough that it's a pain to remove them. And even with all that they're not massively expensive.
Ironically I don't think the Repulsor is all that great, its not bad but in a codex as loaded as the SM one is, it won't see play because there are just too many better options to take.
Add in the smaller board size and why bother?
They approach knight prices for 2/3 the wounds and no invuln. Theyre bad. They’re bad even compared to other transports at a time when all transports are bad. The Executioner is more than 80% of the cost of a Knight Errant with less than 67% of the durability. The regular is 75% the the cost. Just about any options are better options. I mean my plan is to take a similarly priced Primarch, and just advance them all over the board instead of buy that hunk of junk Repulsor.
cody.d. wrote: They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right?
No, they did not.
Really? That's interesting. So they lost both the fire twice and the advance with no penalties. Almost like GW realized what a mess of a unit they'd created.
You can almost hear the cheezy 12PM infomercial about them previously. "It slices, it dices etc etc etc."
Except the advance rule wasn't breaking anything, and now we have an extreme inconsistency with how Marines interact with Grav armor.
So you are mad because you have to take a 300pt transport that comes standard with Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannon, Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Krakstorm Grenade Launcher, Storm bolter, Twin heavy bolter and can upgrade basically all those to become anti-infantry, anti-heavy infantry or anti-vehicle. its also T8 w/ 16 wounds and 3+ save.
As opposed to orkz who can take a paper thin Trukk with no weapons except a single Big Shoota (ignorable) or a massive Battlewagon which is T8 16W 4+ save, but has ZERO guns for 135pts. And if you do equip it with guns you are actually hurting yourself because BS5 kind of sucks as do most of the weapons you can put on the stupid thing.
A great example of disparity between the two is Orkz have a fragstorm grenade launcher of sorts.
SM: 18' D6 shots, S4 Blast.
Ork: 12; D6 shots, S3 blast Can only be used if unit is embarked.
Same price, 5pts.
Trukks and Battlewagons are much better than Repulsors my man. The Repulsor is literally over twice the price of the Battlewagon and more than five times the price of a Trukk. Do you think it's five times as durable as a Trukk? It's also slower than either a battlewagon or a trukk, which is a pretty big deal for a transport. Give the Battlewagon an 'ard case and it is just slightly less durable than the Repulsor while losing the ability to fire from it, still for 135 points. 1 CP to make it objectively more durable than the Repulsor.
The guns do not make it better either. If you're using it to caddy dudes to a point you're vastly overpaying for that purpose and by putting a unit of Aggressors in it you're making it a huge 600ish point fire magnet that won't last a turn of shooting against many lists
ok first off regarding agressors transport issues, the only transport they can take is the repulsor. which really is too expensive to be counted on as pure transport. you claim that "they'd be a fine transport via xenos standards" but I'm not sure that's true.
I mean wave serpants are about 150 points, (maybe 200 if you wanna take a buncha expensive weapons options) raiders and venoms are around the price of a rhino (maybe even less) the Ork Battlewagon is about 135 points. vs the repulsor being over 300 points. that's a LOT of points to sink into something to truck about agressors. I mean if you list includes one great, but I doubt any marine players sit back and say "Ok I'm gonna take a repulsor to transport my... anything" the only xenos transport similer to the repulsor is the monolith, whiiich is DOA being a combination of insanely expensive and a LOW choice
135pts for a vehicle that serves no purpose except as transport, has no guns, and even though its T7, is pretty easy to pop since its 4+. It has 6 attacks in CC but WS5+
So you are literally paying for transport capacity and not much else, so its a good transport and that is it, where as the repulsor can shoot a couple Battlewagons to death while dropping off its payload of infantry.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying the Repulsor is a BAD tank. but rather it's not exactly an ideal TRANSPORT because it's expensive eneugh that your not going to be using it to just shuttle troops around the board.
No but it did compliment the aggressors designed purpose. A melee unit with good short ranged weapons. Or a short ranged unit with good melee weapons. Either way they had the tools to deal with most targets and the ability to move at a decent pace. (Average move of 8.5 isn't half bad)
135pts for a vehicle that serves no purpose except as transport, has no guns, and even though its T7, is pretty easy to pop since its 4+. It has 6 attacks in CC but WS5+
So you are literally paying for transport capacity and not much else, so its a good transport and that is it, where as the repulsor can shoot a couple Battlewagons to death while dropping off its payload of infantry.
The main gun on the Repulsor does a whopping 1.78 wounds to a Battlewagon that hasn't been upgraded at all.
That Repulsor could fire 100 shots heavy onslaught gatling cannon at a Battlewagon and on average would only do about 15 wounds, failing to kill it.
The repulsor does not get 100 shots, and most of its shots are of lesser quality than the heavy onslaught gatling cannon. You're delusional my man.
Yes, that's the one. Sorry, forget the name right now. But what does that have to do with anything? They're heavy weapons, they can't fire if they advance anyway. The point is it allows the eradicators to reposition in order for a better shot at their chosen target without suffering the -1 to hit from moving with heavy weapons. The idea that if they did that they would be less effective due to hitting on 4s instead of 3s made the heavy meltas seem a little less ridiculous to me. That strategem kills that balancing mechanism.
If you're planning on moving and shooting, I think you'd stick with the basic (assault) melta rifle not the heavy.
You always have to plan on moving and shooting. Do you expect your opponent to simply move whatever target you want to hit right in front of your eradicators? You have to expect to need to maneuver the unit into position to take the shot. You're going to have to do that eventually, and the strategem removes the penalty for doing so. It looks like it was designed just for eradicaters with the heavy meltas, or devastators with multi-meltas.
No one should ever take the basic melta rifle. The -1 to hit is not a huge hindrance given the +2 damage. This is the point where I wish stacking negatives were back, but I'd honestly prefer they tweak Eradicators more and the Chatpers they thrive in.
But that strategem gets rid of even that small hindrance. Agreed they need some adjustments, and I still can't believe they didn't change the Salamanders super doctrine.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying the Repulsor is a BAD tank. but rather it's not exactly an ideal TRANSPORT because it's expensive eneugh that your not going to be using it to just shuttle troops around the board.
Don't be so modest. For its point cost it's laughably fragile and as such is a poor transport and its shooting is not nearly lethal enough to offset that. It's a poorly-designed tank with an identity crisis and is in fact a bad tank. I'd be very interested in hearing a well-reasoned (so not some garbage about how it can pop two battlewagons) argument against that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
This at least I think is true. Aggressors were wildly ridiculously overpowered before and are still strong now IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: Harlequins and hordes winning tournaments because Space Marines are focussing to heavy on the anti-space marine meta are why you still want Aggressors.
And no your tactical marines are not more effective mass shooting then Aggressors, even without double shots.
How do aggressors help against Harlequins? Harlequins are so fast that they can easily dictate the terms of engagement and proceed to wipe your Aggressor squad off the board with a single unit of Skyweavers charging into them. With murderous entrance and troupe master rerolls or, in a pinch, the +1 to wound Frozen Stars strat, that almost wipes a squad of Aggressors off the map. A single kitted out smash troupe master can also just about do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: They’re bad even compared to other transports at a time when all transports are bad.
Trukks and Battlewagons are much better than Repulsors my man. The Repulsor is literally over twice the price of the Battlewagon and more than five times the price of a Trukk. Do you think it's five times as durable as a Trukk? It's also slower than either a battlewagon or a trukk, which is a pretty big deal for a transport. Give the Battlewagon an 'ard case and it is just slightly less durable than the Repulsor while losing the ability to fire from it, still for 135 points. 1 CP to make it objectively more durable than the Repulsor.
The guns do not make it better either. If you're using it to caddy dudes to a point you're vastly overpaying for that purpose and by putting a unit of Aggressors in it you're making it a huge 600ish point fire magnet that won't last a turn of shooting against many lists
The BW is actually 155 because no one in the real world takes it without the rolla. 135 points for a pure transport is useless garbage, with some punch in CC it's a legit unit. The only list that placed in a GT that actually had BWs of all kinds had two bonebreaka with no cargo inside, just for the threat in CC.
Repulsors are utterly expensive but they also got tons of firepower, and in an army with lots of T5 models they add some redundancy. If SM get 1st turn they'll likely do serious damage and many armies have hard times even to wreck a single one of them by shooting. Most of the top ork lists can't reliably kill one of them outside melee. The BW, like all CC units, will likely fight 1-2 turns at most, 0 if it gets killed before reaching the target.
Sure they are. Maybe some open topped you can still shoot from aren’t, if you’re dragging around a very shooty unit protected by the transport stat line, but for the most part transports are bad. You give up 20-40% of the embarked troop’s opportunity every time they get in one.
Get in during the movement phase, move, no shooting no fighting (and units that would get in a transport are usually fight oriented), next turn move, get out, you still can’t fight very easily. You’re far better off using a shenanigan like deep strike or infiltrate etc. if possible.
Sure they are. Maybe some open topped you can still shoot from aren’t, if you’re dragging around a very shooty unit protected by the transport stat line, but for the most part transports are bad. You give up 20-40% of the embarked troop’s opportunity every time they get in one.
Get in during the movement phase, move, no shooting no fighting (and units that would get in a transport are usually fight oriented), next turn move, get out, you still can’t fight very easily. You’re far better off using a shenanigan like deep strike or infiltrate etc. if possible.
That's not the point of transports in 9th. Right now transports are good because you can grab a midfield objective Turn 1 and if your opponent pops the transport your ObSec guys jump out and hold the objective anyway. Alternatively, a bunch of more specialised, more dangerous guys jump out in midfield. If they leave the transport alone you can still jump said guys out next turn and, as a bonus, use the transport to charge into and tie up enemy units in Turn 2 while getting the points for holding the objective. A lot of this utlitiy is lost on SM because they still get to double-tap if they don't move so they don't quite get the same advantage as some other armies...except Impulsors have a rule allowing you to jump out after you move so SM, yet again, have a way around a minor drawback.
Void__Dragon wrote: How do aggressors help against Harlequins? Harlequins are so fast that they can easily dictate the terms of engagement and proceed to wipe your Aggressor squad off the board with a single unit of Skyweavers charging into them. With murderous entrance and troupe master rerolls or, in a pinch, the +1 to wound Frozen Stars strat, that almost wipes a squad of Aggressors off the map. A single kitted out smash troupe master can also just about do it.
Because you don't start them on the board waiting to get killed but outflank them? so you get to shoot and kill something before you die.
Ofc, they die. Everything can die, especially against a glass cannon army like Harlequins.
The BW is actually 155 because no one in the real world takes it without the rolla.
And is still less than half the price of a Repulsor.
The only list that placed in a GT that actually had BWs of all kinds had two bonebreaka with no cargo inside, just for the threat in CC.
By comparison, as far as I could find with a quick search not a single list that placed in a GT had a Repulsor.
And just so we're clear, I never claimed battlewagons are particularly good transports. Or good at all really. But they are not nearly as laughably overpriced as a Repulsor and the threat they pose in CC makes them more than just a caddy for something tough inside. It does carry the issue of having a bit of an identity crisis, but not nearly to the extent of the Repulsor.
Repulsors are utterly expensive but they also got tons of firepower, and in an army with lots of T5 models they add some redundancy. If SM get 1st turn they'll likely do serious damage and many armies have hard times even to wreck a single one of them by shooting. Most of the top ork lists can't reliably kill one of them outside melee. The BW, like all CC units, will likely fight 1-2 turns at most, 0 if it gets killed before reaching the target.
All of a Repulsor's shooting will on average kill 15 Boys, or 120 points, well below half of its cost. And that's in devastator doctrine as Iron Hands (so re-rolling hit rolls of 1), somehow in rapid fire range turn 1, me being too lazy to not give the grenades re-roll 1s to save time, and the Boys having no cover or KFF. If any of that is different then the numbers plummet.
Twenty pre-codex Necron Warriors in rapid fire range kill 13 Boys on average at 240 points. 17 pre-codex Necron Immortals with tesla cannons kill 19 with no buffs at 306 points (with mephrit in half range to make their guns AP1 they'd kill 23).
So against their best target arguably a Repulsor is outperformed by one of the worst armies in the game.
The Repulsor, in trying to be both a durable transport and a high volume of fire battle tank, fails at being acceptable at either role and even worse makes it a more attractive target. Its identity is flawed because it inherently puts all its eggs in one basket.
Might want to let all the players who are considerably better than you at the game placing in GTs using them then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: Because you don't start them on the board waiting to get killed but outflank them? so you get to shoot and kill something before you die.
Ofc, they die. Everything can die, especially against a glass cannon army like Harlequins.
Idk man, having less on the board when if the Harlequins go first they can easily turn one charge and kill pretty much anything that isn't a heavy vehicle might not work out too well (since on your first turn your ability to project threat will be even more limited) but it's not a match-up I'm familiar with. And for what it's worth, even with full chapter master re-rolls and lieutenant reroll 1s to wound you're only killing two bikes on average if they pop their 3++ strat (and they can do it to two bike units a battle round lmao).
The BW is actually 155 because no one in the real world takes it without the rolla.
And is still less than half the price of a Repulsor.
The only list that placed in a GT that actually had BWs of all kinds had two bonebreaka with no cargo inside, just for the threat in CC.
By comparison, as far as I could find with a quick search not a single list that placed in a GT had a Repulsor.
And just so we're clear, I never claimed battlewagons are particularly good transports. Or good at all really. But they are not nearly as laughably overpriced as a Repulsor and the threat they pose in CC makes them more than just a caddy for something tough inside. It does carry the issue of having a bit of an identity crisis, but not nearly to the extent of the Repulsor.
Repulsors are utterly expensive but they also got tons of firepower, and in an army with lots of T5 models they add some redundancy. If SM get 1st turn they'll likely do serious damage and many armies have hard times even to wreck a single one of them by shooting. Most of the top ork lists can't reliably kill one of them outside melee. The BW, like all CC units, will likely fight 1-2 turns at most, 0 if it gets killed before reaching the target.
All of a Repulsor's shooting will on average kill 15 Boys, or 120 points, well below half of its cost. And that's in devastator doctrine as Iron Hands (so re-rolling hit rolls of 1), somehow in rapid fire range turn 1, me being too lazy to not give the grenades re-roll 1s to save time, and the Boys having no cover or KFF. If any of that is different then the numbers plummet.
And a BW kills 0 points of enemy units in shooting as it has none. That's why it costs half points. Full kitted with harmless ork weapons and upgrades it can jump to 230 points, 250 for the bonebreaka, with very little killyness added to the model.
120 points back for a 300+ points transport means that it has to survive two turns to be good, getting most of its points back and giving a ride to slower units. Against most armies that's exactly what it does actually.
Might want to let all the players who are considerably better than you at the game placing in GTs using them then.
With a snip like that, I can see why all you had to follow up with was a false appeal to authority. Transporting something great enough to make up for transports being bad - or a "transport" that is good enough on it's own to used if it was transporting or not - doesn't make transports as a class good. How many of those players you're trying to speak for transported Assault Marines in a Rhino? Terminators in a Land Raider? Anything they had another decent movement option for? I know, I know, you snipped all the reasoning because you didn't want to argue on the merits, just sneer down your nose at someone. I'll let you get back to it.
How many points does a Repulsor kill in close combat? 0 you say? Sounds like it's time to cut the price of a Repulsor in half.
Doesn't the Repulsor shoot in close Combat now? Or are all of its weapons blast?
No, it doesn't. You can't shoot in the Fight Phase. As pointed out we're already paying for the shooting it does do, and the XXXXX is half price because it "only" fights. But the Repulsor doesn't fight, does it? Certainly not as good as a XXXX will shoot and that didn't count.
How many points does a Repulsor kill in close combat? 0 you say? Sounds like it's time to cut the price of a Repulsor in half.
Doesn't the Repulsor shoot in close Combat now? Or are all of its weapons blast?
No, it doesn't. You can't shoot in the Fight Phase. As pointed out we're already paying for the shooting it does do, and the XXXXX is half price because it "only" fights. But the Repulsor doesn't fight, does it? Certainly not as good as a XXXX will shoot and that didn't count.
I perhaps was not clear but it can shoot at enemies in close combat with it? Correct?
BIG GUNS NEVER TIRE A Vehicle or Monster model can make attacks with ranged weapons even when its unit is within Engagement Range of enemy units, but it can only make such attacks against enemy units that it is within Engagement Range of� In such circumstances, Vehicle and Monster models can target an enemy unit even if other friendly units are within Engagement Range of the same enemy unit
A vehicle without ranged weapons can NEVER shoot - correct?
Does it not have a base close combat stat? Most vehicles have something (*)
How many points does a Repulsor kill in close combat? 0 you say? Sounds like it's time to cut the price of a Repulsor in half.
Doesn't the Repulsor shoot in close Combat now? Or are all of its weapons blast?
No, it doesn't. You can't shoot in the Fight Phase. As pointed out we're already paying for the shooting it does do, and the XXXXX is half price because it "only" fights. But the Repulsor doesn't fight, does it? Certainly not as good as a XXXX will shoot and that didn't count.
That's like, the king of semantics my man.
No, giving it credit for the shooting it already got credit for, while claiming only getting one phase of attacks out of the other is why it's half the points is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: I perhaps was not clear but it can shoot at enemies in close combat with it? Correct?
BIG GUNS NEVER TIRE A Vehicle or Monster model can make attacks with ranged weapons even when its unit is within Engagement Range of enemy units, but it can only make such attacks against enemy units that it is within Engagement Range of� In such circumstances, Vehicle and Monster models can target an enemy unit even if other friendly units are within Engagement Range of the same enemy unit
A vehicle without ranged weapons can NEVER shoot - correct?
Does it not have a base close combat stat? Most vehicles have something (*)
(*) waiting for my 9th Ed Marine dex
As I already mentioned and you're now pretending I didn't - If the shooting upgrades didn't count, why should the pitiful fight of a Repulsor? You want to say XXXXX is half the points because it's half the value, go for it. You want to say it's half because it doesn't get any shooting attacks while whistling to the sky hoping nobody remembers it's designed to have more fight attacks instead, I'm going to laugh.
How many points does a Repulsor kill in close combat? 0 you say? Sounds like it's time to cut the price of a Repulsor in half.
Irrelevant. Shooting is always (far) superior to close combat as typically you can shoot from turn 1 until the unit dies, so even the full 5 turns, while you can only fight 1-2 turns at most and typically after losing some wounds because you need to get into close combat range, which is waaaay smaller than ranged weapons range. Not even against the ideal target if the opponent screens it properly.
A BW need to move more than a turn and then charge what there's in its way. A repulsor can fire from turn 1 even against a target that is screened by other units.
In real life a BW will likely fight 0-2 turns, typically 1, while a repulsor will fire 0-5 turns, typically 2 or 3.
cody.d. wrote: They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right?
No, they did not.
Really? That's interesting. So they lost both the fire twice and the advance with no penalties. Almost like GW realized what a mess of a unit they'd created.
You can almost hear the cheezy 12PM infomercial about them previously. "It slices, it dices etc etc etc."
I would argue that the fire twice while standing still was the problem. They are literally called "aggressors", and not "stand stillers". Rewarding them for standing still was always dumb.
Not sure why they removed the advance and fire without penalty rule--it perfectly fit what the intent obviously was for the unit: advance forward guns blazing then charge into combat with power fists.
cody.d. wrote: They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right?
No, they did not.
Really? That's interesting. So they lost both the fire twice and the advance with no penalties. Almost like GW realized what a mess of a unit they'd created.
You can almost hear the cheezy 12PM infomercial about them previously. "It slices, it dices etc etc etc."
I would argue that the fire twice while standing still was the problem. They are literally called "aggressors", and not "stand stillers". Rewarding them for standing still was always dumb.
Not sure why they removed the advance and fire without penalty rule--it perfectly fit what the intent obviously was for the unit: advance forward guns blazing then charge into combat with power fists.
Because GW doesn't know how to balance. And somehow just Eradicators know how to sit still and shoot twice instead of everyone else in Gravis armor. Consistency is too hard apparently.
Sure they are. Maybe some open topped you can still shoot from aren’t, if you’re dragging around a very shooty unit protected by the transport stat line, but for the most part transports are bad. You give up 20-40% of the embarked troop’s opportunity every time they get in one.
Get in during the movement phase, move, no shooting no fighting (and units that would get in a transport are usually fight oriented), next turn move, get out, you still can’t fight very easily. You’re far better off using a shenanigan like deep strike or infiltrate etc. if possible.
And now we have confirmation that you don't know what you're talking about. Transports havnt been as good as they are right now for a long long time. Advancing a rhino on an objective means that to get you off it your opponent needs to kill the rhino then kill its contents. And when the rhino is empty, you can still use it to movement block or hold a backfield objective. Making the game Objective-centric instead of kill-centric made them super valuable.
cody.d. wrote: They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right?
No, they did not.
Really? That's interesting. So they lost both the fire twice and the advance with no penalties. Almost like GW realized what a mess of a unit they'd created.
You can almost hear the cheezy 12PM infomercial about them previously. "It slices, it dices etc etc etc."
I would argue that the fire twice while standing still was the problem. They are literally called "aggressors", and not "stand stillers". Rewarding them for standing still was always dumb.
Not sure why they removed the advance and fire without penalty rule--it perfectly fit what the intent obviously was for the unit: advance forward guns blazing then charge into combat with power fists.
Because GW doesn't know how to balance. And somehow just Eradicators know how to sit still and shoot twice instead of everyone else in Gravis armor. Consistency is too hard apparently.
It is annoying to see Eradicators in their current form. Anything that doubles firepower is really hard to balance on a unit. They should have just given them +1 to hit or to wound if they shoot the same target. Makes them more consistent, but reigns in the possible spike damage. Much easier to balance with points.
Sure they are. Maybe some open topped you can still shoot from aren’t, if you’re dragging around a very shooty unit protected by the transport stat line, but for the most part transports are bad. You give up 20-40% of the embarked troop’s opportunity every time they get in one.
Get in during the movement phase, move, no shooting no fighting (and units that would get in a transport are usually fight oriented), next turn move, get out, you still can’t fight very easily. You’re far better off using a shenanigan like deep strike or infiltrate etc. if possible.
And now we have confirmation that you don't know what you're talking about. Transports havnt been as good as they are right now for a long long time. Advancing a rhino on an objective means that to get you off it your opponent needs to kill the rhino then kill its contents. And when the rhino is empty, you can still use it to movement block or hold a backfield objective. Making the game Objective-centric instead of kill-centric made them super valuable.
Dind ding ding
Exact same reason why the impulsor was in everyone and their mothers list in 8th. Now maybe less so coz fly and no 4++ (ohh nooo!)
Its was like a much betttr and cheaper rhino.
With a snip like that, I can see why all you had to follow up with was a false appeal to authority. Transporting something great enough to make up for transports being bad - or a "transport" that is good enough on it's own to used if it was transporting or not - doesn't make transports as a class good. How many of those players you're trying to speak for transported Assault Marines in a Rhino? Terminators in a Land Raider? Anything they had another decent movement option for? I know, I know, you snipped all the reasoning because you didn't want to argue on the merits, just sneer down your nose at someone. I'll let you get back to it.
You don't use transports to move something that can already move properly. You use it on obsec units. I put naked CSM squads in rhinos or naked vanguards in a dunerider. Needing to assign two units to wipe me off of a point instead of only one is why transports are so good. Youre missing the fundamental reason why they are good and youre focusing on "transports move fast so i'll use them to bring units into assault as fast as possible".
Sure they are. Maybe some open topped you can still shoot from aren’t, if you’re dragging around a very shooty unit protected by the transport stat line, but for the most part transports are bad. You give up 20-40% of the embarked troop’s opportunity every time they get in one.
Get in during the movement phase, move, no shooting no fighting (and units that would get in a transport are usually fight oriented), next turn move, get out, you still can’t fight very easily. You’re far better off using a shenanigan like deep strike or infiltrate etc. if possible.
And now we have confirmation that you don't know what you're talking about. Transports havnt been as good as they are right now for a long long time. Advancing a rhino on an objective means that to get you off it your opponent needs to kill the rhino then kill its contents. And when the rhino is empty, you can still use it to movement block or hold a backfield objective. Making the game Objective-centric instead of kill-centric made them super valuable.
Dunno about movement, but top players use them hidden behind walls as a +3" platform of launching attacks, like Nannavati does with his repentia (hides them in rhino, then launches out 9" + couple of miracle dice for a 27" charge threat range.
Transports are good. 300+ pt transports not so much. If people have a problem with the repulsor cost, they do have the impulsor still to transport their primaris.
As for the repulsor itself, as a Thousand Sons player I would trade it 100 times over with the silly land raider. Which kinda of says a lot when I would rather have what the marine players would rather shelf, but that's another question.
Sure they are. Maybe some open topped you can still shoot from aren’t, if you’re dragging around a very shooty unit protected by the transport stat line, but for the most part transports are bad. You give up 20-40% of the embarked troop’s opportunity every time they get in one.
Get in during the movement phase, move, no shooting no fighting (and units that would get in a transport are usually fight oriented), next turn move, get out, you still can’t fight very easily. You’re far better off using a shenanigan like deep strike or infiltrate etc. if possible.
And now we have confirmation that you don't know what you're talking about. Transports havnt been as good as they are right now for a long long time. Advancing a rhino on an objective means that to get you off it your opponent needs to kill the rhino then kill its contents. And when the rhino is empty, you can still use it to movement block or hold a backfield objective. Making the game Objective-centric instead of kill-centric made them super valuable.
Dunno about movement, but top players use them hidden behind walls as a +3" platform of launching attacks, like Nannavati does with his repentia (hides them in rhino, then launches out 9" + couple of miracle dice for a 27" charge threat range.
Transports are good. 300+ pt transports not so much. If people have a problem with the repulsor cost, they do have the impulsor still to transport their primaris.
As for the repulsor itself, as a Thousand Sons player I would trade it 100 times over with the silly land raider. Which kinda of says a lot when I would rather have what the marine players would rather shelf, but that's another question.
Yeah, thats also a viable strategy but it existed in 8th too. My stygies admech had many turn one charge with 20 fulgurites. Thats the beauty of transports, theyre super versatile and the changes to the mission only made them better.
And yeah, seeing people bitch that the repulsor/centurions arent good enough makes me cringe as a chaos player. I'd swap my land raiders/obliterators for them anyday.
Sure they are. Maybe some open topped you can still shoot from aren’t, if you’re dragging around a very shooty unit protected by the transport stat line, but for the most part transports are bad. You give up 20-40% of the embarked troop’s opportunity every time they get in one.
Get in during the movement phase, move, no shooting no fighting (and units that would get in a transport are usually fight oriented), next turn move, get out, you still can’t fight very easily. You’re far better off using a shenanigan like deep strike or infiltrate etc. if possible.
And now we have confirmation that you don't know what you're talking about. Transports havnt been as good as they are right now for a long long time. Advancing a rhino on an objective means that to get you off it your opponent needs to kill the rhino then kill its contents. And when the rhino is empty, you can still use it to movement block or hold a backfield objective. Making the game Objective-centric instead of kill-centric made them super valuable.
Dunno about movement, but top players use them hidden behind walls as a +3" platform of launching attacks, like Nannavati does with his repentia (hides them in rhino, then launches out 9" + couple of miracle dice for a 27" charge threat range.
Transports are good. 300+ pt transports not so much. If people have a problem with the repulsor cost, they do have the impulsor still to transport their primaris.
As for the repulsor itself, as a Thousand Sons player I would trade it 100 times over with the silly land raider. Which kinda of says a lot when I would rather have what the marine players would rather shelf, but that's another question.
Those eyesores don't belong in a csm army. No way in hell would I trade my Achilles for one of those floating G.I. Joe knockoffs.
135pts for a vehicle that serves no purpose except as transport, has no guns, and even though its T7, is pretty easy to pop since its 4+. It has 6 attacks in CC but WS5+
So you are literally paying for transport capacity and not much else, so its a good transport and that is it, where as the repulsor can shoot a couple Battlewagons to death while dropping off its payload of infantry.
The main gun on the Repulsor does a whopping 1.78 wounds to a Battlewagon that hasn't been upgraded at all.
That Repulsor could fire 100 shots heavy onslaught gatling cannon at a Battlewagon and on average would only do about 15 wounds, failing to kill it.
The repulsor does not get 100 shots, and most of its shots are of lesser quality than the heavy onslaught gatling cannon. You're delusional my man.
And for a few extra points it upgrades its weapons as I mentioned above to become able to pop vehicles significantly easier. 4 S9 shots, 2.66 hits 1.77 wounds and 6.22 wounds on average a turn. The other guns add on a couple more wounds, a bit more if devastator doctrine is on (smaller benefit for tactical). Definitely not nearly as good as devastator marines using melta guns or the broken eradicators but still not anything to ignore. Plus, most of its weaponry is designed to function against different targets. You can go full anti-horde on it and pump out 5D6 or 30 shots against hordes from fragstorms, 18 onslaught shots S5 -1AP, 6 HB shots (Same as onslaught) and 2 krakstorm shots S6 -1AP. that works out to about 20 dead Ork boyz or 160pts. So its actually fairly decent at wiping out hordes, 46% return on investment when shooting at boyz.
So, the question I have for Marine players, would you like the option to take a stripped down version of the Repulsor for Gravis models? I'd be fine with that option. Stripped off all its weapons its 230pts, take away Power of the Machine Spirit and call it 200pts flat? 65pts more than the standard empty BW, but you also get +1 Toughness and +1 save as well as hover. Plus of course, removing all those weapons increases standard troop capacity. Probably go up to 15 or 16? So you can take a maxed out Gravis squad of 6 and either 3 extra Marines or 1 Extra Gravis model and a standard marine.
And now we have confirmation that you don't know what you're talking about. Transports havnt been as good as they are right now for a long long time. Advancing a rhino on an objective means that to get you off it your opponent needs to kill the rhino then kill its contents. And when the rhino is empty, you can still use it to movement block or hold a backfield objective. Making the game Objective-centric instead of kill-centric made them super valuable.
Definitely increased their worth in my opinion. If trukkz weren't so easy to pop, or performed some kind of purpose besides being a brick I would love to use them for Nobz if they get a price cut this edition. Be nice to have a trukk die, use the strat and buff nobz into 3+ save models
Something else I noticed on some screen grabs of the Codex, another change to Aggressors. Now instead of ONE weapon called a PAIR of Auto Boltstorm Gauntlets they're now equipped with TWO weapons called Auto Boltstorm Gauntlet. So if they get the Shoot One Weapon before dying thing or similar, they only get "half" their shooting, not the double gauntlet shooting.
Those eyesores don't belong in a csm army. No way in hell would I trade my Achilles for one of those floating G.I. Joe knockoffs.
What if we just gave its rules to the current land raider model?
The Achilles or the Repulsive?
Give the Chaos Land Raider the rules of the Repulsor to make it better.
I don't really want that because of the pain of getting through a shooting phase of a repulsor with its 45 weapons
With the loss of fly the Repulsive is just an ugly Land Raider with too many guns. I'd rather standard Land Raiders get T9, with csm getting weapon options besides the twin lascannons. A pair of Hades or Butchers would be nice.
Those eyesores don't belong in a csm army. No way in hell would I trade my Achilles for one of those floating G.I. Joe knockoffs.
What if we just gave its rules to the current land raider model?
The Achilles or the Repulsive?
Give the Chaos Land Raider the rules of the Repulsor to make it better.
I don't really want that because of the pain of getting through a shooting phase of a repulsor with its 45 weapons
With the loss of fly the Repulsive is just an ugly Land Raider with too many guns. I'd rather standard Land Raiders get T9, with csm getting weapon options besides the twin lascannons. A pair of Hades or
Butchers would be nice.
Agreed, i was thinking more as a temporary fix to help the LR a bit.
I wish we could get the legion/csm stuff on them. The weapons you listed, volkite, c-beams, the big plasma weapons, the malignatas, etc.
Those eyesores don't belong in a csm army. No way in hell would I trade my Achilles for one of those floating G.I. Joe knockoffs.
What if we just gave its rules to the current land raider model?
The Achilles or the Repulsive?
Give the Chaos Land Raider the rules of the Repulsor to make it better.
I don't really want that because of the pain of getting through a shooting phase of a repulsor with its 45 weapons
With the loss of fly the Repulsive is just an ugly Land Raider with too many guns. I'd rather standard Land Raiders get T9, with csm getting weapon options besides the twin lascannons. A pair of Hades or
Butchers would be nice.
Agreed, i was thinking more as a temporary fix to help the LR a bit.
I wish we could get the legion/csm stuff on them. The weapons you listed, volkite, c-beams, the big plasma weapons, the malignatas, etc.
Yeah, those would be nice, and make sense as well. Why wouldn't the Dark Mechanicus change the design? And why do csm have fewer Land Raider variants than loyalists when they stole all the stc's before heading for The Eye?
6 shots implies 3 Eradicators. 3 Eradicators with Heavy get 6 shots, 4 hits for 2.66 wounds, no armor save, 1 out of 6 will end up getting ramshackle and suffer 1 dmg instead of D6+2 So lets lower the wounds from 2.66 to 2.4 to make you happy. D6+2 x2 = 11dmg, so 3 Eradicators pop 1 trukk by themselves without too much trouble. Those trukkz also have no chance of killing 1 Eradicator or Gravis model during the entire game.
6 shots with heavy vs repulsor = 4 hits, 2 wounds no armor save so 11 dmg, Still alive. wounded, but very much alive. That repulsor in contrast is killing 2-3 Eradicators a turn.
9 Eradicators can't kill 2 repulsors because you would have to split fire which means no double tap.
There's still more to that picture.
Any buffs on Eradicators are wasted when shooting on Trukks, but not so in Repulsors. Even if you had to split a unit killing two Repulsors is not difficult if the opponent positioned them poorly.
Eradicators are great against most everything marines will bring today. They're terrible versus large model counts or cheap models. If Orks focus down anything that is good at hurting them they can effectively ignore Eradicators. Trukks don't need to kill anything - especially not if they're carting a DKK. A Forktress BB will soak a couple units giving the marines a choice between being rolled over or being swamped.
Smasha effectively wound Gravis on 2s - that's a 40 point model killing a 45 point model every turn if you have good firing lanes.
Ice_can wrote: So we are back to Agressors are trash but be happy Xeno players you got 12 inch flamers too.
So for only 45 points I can make a crisis suit with 2 flamers with -1AP. Oh joy such balance.
On a unit that can fly/ deep strike naturally and has ap -1 for the whole game? Wow...no real advantages here for the crisis suit. This is the problem. Mobility aint free. Plus it's a know fact crisis suits are not good.
Ice_can wrote: So we are back to Agressors are trash but be happy Xeno players you got 12 inch flamers too.
So for only 45 points I can make a crisis suit with 2 flamers with -1AP. Oh joy such balance.
On a unit that can fly/ deep strike naturally and has ap -1 for the whole game? Wow...no real advantages here for the crisis suit. This is the problem. Mobility aint free. Plus it's a know fact crisis suits are not good.
So they're paying for buffs and not good, but agressors are also trash despite having even better stats and coating less points, that's before looking at the points for the 2 powerfists which crisis suits don't have.
And for a few extra points it upgrades its weapons as I mentioned above to become able to pop vehicles significantly easier. 4 S9 shots, 2.66 hits 1.77 wounds and 6.22 wounds on average a turn.
So now you've gotten rid of your still not very good but mostly mediocre 18 S5 AP1 1 damage shots for two lascannons and two 24" lascannons, making your over three hundred point unit still not good at anti-tank for its point cost but now also much worse at mulching through hordes.
The other guns add on a couple more wounds, a bit more if devastator doctrine is on (smaller benefit for tactical). Definitely not nearly as good as devastator marines using melta guns or the broken eradicators but still
not anything to ignore.
For its point cost its fairly anemic. A tank commander at a much lower point cost does almost as many wounds with its battle cannon alone if it fires twice. With a more proper anti-tank loadout like the demolisher cannon it does 12.7 wounds.
Three Lokhust Heavy Destroyers for 210 points (I think) do 9.33 wounds. Almost a hundred points less and from a unit most seem to think isn't very good.
Three Ridgerunners with no buffs on average do seven wounds with their lascannons at 210 points, and are much more durable for their cost than the repulsor, having 24 wounds with a 4+ and 6+++ for a squad of three at once again, over a hundred points less.
Plus, most of its weaponry is designed to function against different targets. You can go full anti-horde on it and pump out 5D6 or 30 shots against hordes from fragstorms, 18 onslaught shots S5 -1AP, 6 HB shots (Same as onslaught) and 2 krakstorm shots S6 -1AP. that works out to about 20 dead Ork boyz or 160pts. So its actually fairly decent at wiping out hordes, 46% return on investment when shooting at boyz.
Compare to five harlequin skyweavers who will kill on average 10 boys with their haywire cannon shooting, making back 32% of their points. They can then charge the boys, killing 7 more with no buffs. With 17 killed they've made back just shy of half their points cost back. And unlike the repulsor build you went with, they can threaten more than just hordes with their loadout and indeed, boys are actually some of their worst targets due to the high pen and damage 2 of their spears being wasted and their haywire effect doing nothing against them. About six of those would have haywired on average, with two of them being d3 mortals, so on average a battlewagon would take about ten wounds from their haywire cannons.
Also the skyweavers are faster, more maneuverable since they can still fly, more durable for their point cost, and pretty much better in every way except that they can't carry a few fatass gravis models to make them a much more attractive target.
So, the question I have for Marine players
You might want to save it for a Marine player but sure.
would you like the option to take a stripped down version of the Repulsor for Gravis models? I'd be fine with that option. Stripped off all its weapons its 230pts, take away Power of the Machine Spirit and call it 200pts flat? 65pts more than the standard empty BW, but you also get +1 Toughness and +1 save as well as hover. Plus of course, removing all those weapons increases standard troop capacity. Probably go up to 15 or 16? So you can take a maxed out Gravis squad of 6 and either 3 extra Marines or 1 Extra Gravis model and a standard marine.
Sure, make the repulsor just fatmarine transport and let the RepEx fill out the gunboat niche. Strip down all its guns other than like a storm bolter or two and point it appropriately for its durability and it might have some value. Its weird split identity of being both a gunboat but also a transport yet shittier than both needs to go.
Is there really any need for one though? No one wants to put Eradicators in transports. I don't think anyone really wants to do so with Aggressors. If they're not starting on the board they're being put in reserves to troubleshoot in a later battle round.
I'll cap off with this: your transport IMO should not cost more points than what it's transporting.
And a repulsor at its lowest is more than the five aggressors chilling inside of it.
Generally speaking Transports with a side role as a tank are massively over priced for their dual role. I'm convinced GW prices the Stompa idiotically because at some point in the distance future, transports will be OP and the stompa will finally be only slightly over priced.
I'll cap off with this: your transport IMO should not cost more points than what it's transporting.
If its primary role was to transport stuff then yes, it should definitely not cost more points that what it's transporting. If it's a gun boat or a melee threat with some transport capacity it's whole different story.
A bonebreaka is 180 points and can carry 90-116 points of ork boyz. A solid combo that works but the cargo is 50% cheaper than the vehicle.
A tank like the repulsor can't be related to a transport like a rhino, a trukk or even a battlewagon. It's mostly a gun boat, a proper shooting oriented unit, with some transport capacity. Make it 180-200 points but with only a couple of storm bolters as the only weapons it carries, or just a ram that gives some punch in CC with no ranged weapons, and SM players would revolt
I'll cap off with this: your transport IMO should not cost more points than what it's transporting.
If its primary role was to transport stuff then yes, it should definitely not cost more points that what it's transporting. If it's a gun boat or a melee threat with some transport capacity it's whole different story.
A bonebreaka is 180 points and can carry 90-116 points of ork boyz. A solid combo that works but the cargo is 50% cheaper than the vehicle.
A tank like the repulsor can't be related to a transport like a rhino, a trukk or even a battlewagon. It's mostly a gun boat, a proper shooting oriented unit, with some transport capacity.
The Repulsor (Non-Ex) was literally a Dedicated Transport. Both are the only thing allowed to transport Gravis that can't Deep Strike.
Make it 180-200 points but with only a couple of storm bolters as the only weapons it carries, or just a ram that gives some punch in CC with no ranged weapons, and SM players would revolt
Well Marine Players have been asking for a Gravis capable Transport that wasn't overpriced for a while, but you're absolutely right, if they make it roughly twice the cost of an Impulsor with even less damage output the players just might be unhappy. Were you the one who priced Repulsors in the first place?
Breton wrote: Were you the one who priced Repulsors in the first place?
I think they're good at 300+ points, in fact I even consider LR to be at least viable and I'll definitely use the crusader with my SW, especially now that it can carry 30 3+ obj sec wounds plus a character. Their problem is units like eradicators that shouldn't exist at all, and the fact that too many units have free or cheap access to deepstrike/outflank which is something that IMHO should also be removed. The majority of factions, even considering competitive lists, can't really 1shot a repulsor in first turn unless they list tailor.
I'll cap off with this: your transport IMO should not cost more points than what it's transporting.
If its primary role was to transport stuff then yes, it should definitely not cost more points that what it's transporting. If it's a gun boat or a melee threat with some transport capacity it's whole different story.
A bonebreaka is 180 points and can carry 90-116 points of ork boyz. A solid combo that works but the cargo is 50% cheaper than the vehicle.
A tank like the repulsor can't be related to a transport like a rhino, a trukk or even a battlewagon. It's mostly a gun boat, a proper shooting oriented unit, with some transport capacity. Make it 180-200 points but with only a couple of storm bolters as the only weapons it carries, or just a ram that gives some punch in CC with no ranged weapons, and SM players would revolt
How would you stat an Imperial Guard transport for moving around those 50point guard squads?
How would you stat an Imperial Guard transport for moving around those 50point guard squads?
45 points is not a lot to pay for a transport...
I'd do what they did with the Chimera. Make the Transport even more valuable when there's something inside it like the lasgun arrays (I'd just do it BETTER than the Lasgun arrays: both so one embarked 20 point dude isn't firing 6 different weapon stations a turn - and so it's better than lasguns). I'd also make them 70 point guard squads.
Tyel wrote: Guard are amongst the weakest factions in the game right now. The idea guardsmen need to be nerfed is crazy.
Other factions doing worse than guard had their basic infantry all see a 2 points per model increase at the start of 9th though.
Though in all honesty I dont this it's guardsmen letting down Guard it's Leman Russes in a world of eradicators are like an I want to loose button. Sadly that also doesn't meen the russ is over costed trash it just is hard countered by the most OP unit in the most played codex right of 9th. Yet the most efficent weapon IG have for gravis is probably demolisher cannons on russes
Tyel wrote: Guard are amongst the weakest factions in the game right now. The idea guardsmen need to be nerfed is crazy.
Other factions doing worse than guard had their basic infantry all see a 2 points per model increase at the start of 9th though.
Though in all honesty I dont this it's guardsmen letting down Guard it's Leman Russes in a world of eradicators are like an I want to loose button. Sadly that also doesn't meen the russ is over costed trash it just is hard countered by the most OP unit in the most played codex right of 9th. Yet the most efficent weapon IG have for gravis is probably demolisher cannons on russes
it's not the russes actually, it's vehicles without a invul save and the general lack of GW using the T value propperly or the SV for them aswell, that makes them way to easy pickings... that and a gakky wound table and you get the salad.
Tyel wrote: Guard are amongst the weakest factions in the game right now. The idea guardsmen need to be nerfed is crazy.
They need some of the antiquated rules holding them back removed/changed and then they need to be recosted. If Guard Infantry were costed to what they should be Guard would be even worse off than they are.
Tyel wrote: Guard are amongst the weakest factions in the game right now. The idea guardsmen need to be nerfed is crazy.
They need some of the antiquated rules holding them back removed/changed and then they need to be recosted. If Guard Infantry were costed to what they should be Guard would be even worse off than they are.
what antiquated rules are you thinking about specificly?
Tyel wrote: Guard are amongst the weakest factions in the game right now. The idea guardsmen need to be nerfed is crazy.
They need some of the antiquated rules holding them back removed/changed and then they need to be recosted. If Guard Infantry were costed to what they should be Guard would be even worse off than they are.
what antiquated rules are you thinking about specificly?
A lot of their infantry is limited per FOC slot. More than one Infantry Squad per troop, more than one 3 Team Squad per Heavy. Completely missing Troop slot CCW units - a lasgun+chainsword unit should be an option. No Doctrine etc on SHA's. Objective Secured being based on Model Count not some sort of cross faction stat that would benefit Leman Russ ObSec (points, power level, etc). Paying CP for more Dets. One Order/unit per turn 6" auras while others are getting all within 6" Auras.
Ice_can wrote: So we are back to Agressors are trash but be happy Xeno players you got 12 inch flamers too.
So for only 45 points I can make a crisis suit with 2 flamers with -1AP. Oh joy such balance.
On a unit that can fly/ deep strike naturally and has ap -1 for the whole game? Wow...no real advantages here for the crisis suit. This is the problem. Mobility aint free. Plus it's a know fact crisis suits are not good.
So they're paying for buffs and not good, but agressors are also trash despite having even better stats and coating less points, that's before looking at the points for the 2 powerfists which crisis suits don't have.
Tau don't have doctrines. Their closest thing only affects missiles. Crisis suits with missiles gravis marines BTW. The issue is basically crisis suits costing a little too much and aggressors getting a serious discount on powerlift considering they can't really use them (too slow - not durable enough to footslog to melee).
Breton wrote: Were you the one who priced Repulsors in the first place?
I think they're good at 300+ points, in fact I even consider LR to be at least viable and I'll definitely use the crusader with my SW, especially now that it can carry 30 3+ obj sec wounds plus a character. Their problem is units like eradicators that shouldn't exist at all, and the fact that too many units have free or cheap access to deepstrike/outflank which is something that IMHO should also be removed. The majority of factions, even considering competitive lists, can't really 1shot a repulsor in first turn unless they list tailor.
If you list struggles to kill a repulsor you just have a bad list. Or have just given up on shooting all together. Which with the way people seem to want to make tables in 9th that isn't even a bad idea.
@ Xenomancer: serious question as I lack experience: if T5, W3, 3+ is
not durable enough to footslog to melee
than what is?
I mean: Bullgryn are considered a really good CC unit and they have the same T/W/A,
The Bullgryns advantage is +1" movement, WS3+ instead of 4+ with the gauntlets, sv2+ OR 4++ instead of Aggressors 3+ and D2 instead of Dd3 which is slightly better against W2
Aggressors on the other hand have shockassault which is better than avalanche of muscle as it also triggers when being charged, are not exclude from chapter boni as the Bullgryns, they have +1 S, -2 better AP and CAN ALSO SHOOT. And they cost almost the same...
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Xenomancer: serious question as I lack experience: if T5, W3, 3+ is
not durable enough to footslog to melee
than what is?
I mean: Bullgryn are considered a really good CC unit and they have the same T/W/A,
The Bullgryns advantage is +1" movement, WS3+ instead of 4+ with the gauntlets, sv2+ OR 4++ instead of Aggressors 3+ and D2 instead of Dd3 which is slightly better against W2
Aggressors on the other hand have shockassault which is better than avalanche of muscle as it also triggers when being charged, are not exclude from chapter boni as the Bullgryns, they have +1 S, -2 better AP and CAN ALSO SHOOT. And they cost almost the same...
yeah, from my experience, aggressors make it into melee quite often considering theyre always on the frontlines due to their short range (compared to the rest of the SM army)
Breton wrote: Were you the one who priced Repulsors in the first place?
I think they're good at 300+ points, in fact I even consider LR to be at least viable and I'll definitely use the crusader with my SW, especially now that it can carry 30 3+ obj sec wounds plus a character. Their problem is units like eradicators that shouldn't exist at all, and the fact that too many units have free or cheap access to deepstrike/outflank which is something that IMHO should also be removed. The majority of factions, even considering competitive lists, can't really 1shot a repulsor in first turn unless they list tailor.
Land Raiders are still bad simply because they can't pass through even one Cultist to deliver a unit LOL
Breton wrote: Were you the one who priced Repulsors in the first place?
I think they're good at 300+ points, in fact I even consider LR to be at least viable and I'll definitely use the crusader with my SW, especially now that it can carry 30 3+ obj sec wounds plus a character. Their problem is units like eradicators that shouldn't exist at all, and the fact that too many units have free or cheap access to deepstrike/outflank which is something that IMHO should also be removed. The majority of factions, even considering competitive lists, can't really 1shot a repulsor in first turn unless they list tailor.
Land Raiders are still bad simply because they can't pass through even one Cultist to deliver a unit LOL
Just outflank your land raider filled with terminators
Just make sure your terminator delivery is as inefficient as possible
Lets say both units have charged and have therefore the same # of attacks (note that Agressors have one more per model if they were being charged):
3 Bullgryns (129 points) vs. 3 Agressors (135 points ?)
both have 13 attacks
Bullgryns hit 8.66 times, Agressors 6.5 times.
Damage against:
T4/W2/3+: Bullgryns: 2.88 ,Agressors 3.38 models killed
T5/W3/3+: B: 1.44 , A: 2.03 models killed
T7/3+: B:4.33, A: 7.22 damage done
T8/3+: B:2.88, A: 5.41 damage done
I won’t do the math for everything, but basically while Bullgryn hit 4/3 as often as Agressors, they wound worse against anything T4,T7,T8 get worse through saves better than 6+ and need more unsaved wounds (2 vs. 1.77) to kill a W3 model.
So this “shooty unit” is better in CC than the best CC unit in the IG codex, which is also one of the most competitive options IG has in general… And it can also shoot pretty good stil and costs almost the same. And regarding transports: while Bullgryn can take some, they occupy 3 seats…
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Xenomancer: serious question as I lack experience: if T5, W3, 3+ is
not durable enough to footslog to melee
than what is?
I mean: Bullgryn are considered a really good CC unit and they have the same T/W/A,
The Bullgryns advantage is +1" movement, WS3+ instead of 4+ with the gauntlets, sv2+ OR 4++ instead of Aggressors 3+ and D2 instead of Dd3 which is slightly better against W2
Aggressors on the other hand have shockassault which is better than avalanche of muscle as it also triggers when being charged, are not exclude from chapter boni as the Bullgryns, they have +1 S, -2 better AP and CAN ALSO SHOOT. And they cost almost the same...
Bulgrans have defensive buffs to help them get accross the table. There was a time they would be rolling with a -1 to hit and a 1+ armor save and a 3++. That was pretty unstoppable at the time. Bullgrens in front of a castellan knight or a bunch of shooty characters that you can't shoot because of character targeting rules. They were never taken because they slayed hard in melee. Though they do an okay job of that too - plus they can be taken in larger units.
Aggressors move 5 inches. Max 6 per unit. Have no access to an invulnerable save (suppose with the new codex they will from a librarian) and have 18" guns. So. Literally anything they shoot at or move into position to shoot can charge them.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Xenomancer: serious question as I lack experience: if T5, W3, 3+ is
not durable enough to footslog to melee
than what is?
I mean: Bullgryn are considered a really good CC unit and they have the same T/W/A,
The Bullgryns advantage is +1" movement, WS3+ instead of 4+ with the gauntlets, sv2+ OR 4++ instead of Aggressors 3+ and D2 instead of Dd3 which is slightly better against W2
Aggressors on the other hand have shockassault which is better than avalanche of muscle as it also triggers when being charged, are not exclude from chapter boni as the Bullgryns, they have +1 S, -2 better AP and CAN ALSO SHOOT. And they cost almost the same...
yeah, from my experience, aggressors make it into melee quite often considering theyre always on the frontlines due to their short range (compared to the rest of the SM army)
My experience is aggressors on the front line are dead the turn after they shoot.
You say "Anything they shoot can charge them" like that's supposed to matter. Aggressors WANT to be charged-they all have Powerfists and a bunch of attacks!
And yes, they can be killed-but it's considerably harder to kill three T5 3+ W3 models than a lot of other stuff in the game. They're not unkillable, but they are durable.
So they're paying for buffs and not good, but agressors are also trash despite having even better stats and coating less points, that's before looking at the points for the 2 powerfists which crisis suits don't have.
Tau don't have doctrines. Their closest thing only affects missiles. Crisis suits with missiles gravis marines BTW. The issue is basically crisis suits costing a little too much and aggressors getting a serious discount on powerlift considering they can't really use them (too slow - not durable enough to footslog to melee).
T5 3W 3+ save, easy access to strats to make them even more durable, not sure how you think they aren't "durable" enough. And most importantly and I really emphasize this; THEY HAVE 18' RANGE GUNS if they are too slow to get into CC than they are too slow to get into range to use their damn guns. If you are shooting someone with your bolt gauntlets than you are 18' range. If you move forward you are likely in charge range, unless everyone of your models is exactly 18' away. So if they are in range to shoot they are in range to at least attempt a charge and failing that they will definitely get the charge the next turn. If you start them close to the forward deployment edge they will be in range turn 1 to hose down anything that grabs an objective and will 100% be within charge range to finish them off should they not wipe them out in the shooting phase.
Xenomancers wrote: If you list struggles to kill a repulsor you just have a bad list. Or have just given up on shooting all together. Which with the way people seem to want to make tables in 9th that isn't even a bad idea.
The current Ork tournament winning list is Hordes of boyz backed by Ghaz. They are incapable of killing a Repulsor entirely. The Repulsor is faster with long ranged guns so it can basically elude them indefinitely and only has to worry about the random 1 mob of boyz getting Da Jumped (if they bring a weirdboy) but the repulsor also gets -2 to charge so its at a minimum a 11' charge good luck.
The other tournament list orkz seem to be bringing is Buggies, i personally think they are going to be hard up in the new meta of Eradicators and melta but we will see, regardless, Buggies CAN kill a repulsor but they have to get lucky, probably the premier anti-Repulsor unit would be the Scrap Jet. 2D3 Rokkitz and 1 Wing missile (4+ rokkit) On average 4 shots hitting on 5s and 1 hitting on 4s.
Works out to about 2 hits per turn, 1 wound and .66 wounds going through armor for 3 dmg. That works out to basically 2 dmg a turn. It can then hose it down with 12 Big shoota shots, half hitting on 4s for again about 6 hits, 2 wounds and .66 dmg. 2.66 dmg. per 110pt scrapjet. Of course they might also take a battery of Mek Gunz so 12 shots from Smashas for 7 hits, wounding on 8+ = about 3 wounds, goes through armor for 3D6dmg or 10.5 Still not dead yet, and we are making a lot of assumptions about the Mek gunz and scrapjet being in range and in LOS without -1 to hit or +1 to save.
Other Buggies:
BDSW: Mek Speshul, 9 shots, 4ish hits, 1.5ish wounds for 1 dmg also has a big shoota...but who cares?
KBB: Rivet Kannon: 6 shots, 2.3 hits .8ish wounds for .26 unsaved wounds or .52 dmg a turn
RTSB: Boom Squigs, 3D3 shots = 6, 2.3 hits .8ish wounds .26 unsaved wounds for .52 dmg a turn
SJD: 2 S8 shots hitting on 3. 1.33 hits .67 wounds -3ap so .55 wounds = 1.95 wounds a turn with a 1/6 chance the SJD hurts itself OR inflicts 1 MW on its target. Also 1 rokkit, .38 hits, .19 wounds -2AP for .126 unsaved wounds = .38 dmg a turn. Total 2.33 dmg a turn
Edit @Xenomancer:
@ Anything they shoot at can charge them: really? If they shoot at Bullgryns (from 18") those have to move 6" for a 12"charge... And there are no buffs to charge range for them. Oh and when they charge them each Agressor still gets +1A
Also: yes if you use 2 psychic powers you can make them much more durable but really: do you think its normal that a pure CC elite unit makes LESS damage in CC than a unit with BS3+ and 6+D6 shots?
I grant you that Bullgryns have the better defensive profile but their Offensive profile is much weaker. So even without shooting Agressors are (in my opinion) on par with them as CC unit.
The movement difference is 1"... And I'm sure somewhere in the Marine codex is a was to buff charge distance.
Aggressors move 5 inches. Max 6 per unit. Have no access to an invulnerable save (suppose with the new codex they will from a librarian) and have 18" guns. So. Literally anything they shoot at or move into position to shoot can charge them.
Ork boyz move 5 inches, have no access to invulnerable save (suppose with the codex they have one from a Big Mek) and have 12-18' guns. So. Literally anything they shoot at or move into position to shoot can charge them.
It takes 2.32 S4 hits to kill 1 ork boy at 8pts, it takes 27 S4 hits to kill 1 Aggressor at 45pts. So point for point those Aggressors are over 11x more durable than boyz but only cost about 5-6x as much. Shooting wise....well, lets not get into that, its too sad for orkz....you know, the official faction of DAKKA. in CC a choppa boy against a T4 target with 3+ save gets 3 attacks, 2 hits 1 wound for .33 dmg. The Aggressor gets 4 attacks, 2.66 hits, 2.22 wounds and 2.22 dmg x D3 so likely 4.44 dmg if targeting multi-wound models. 13x more dmg than the boy. The only weakness Aggressors have is against multi-dmg weapons. Against T4 hordes, aggressors and boyz are about equal, with the edge going to aggressors point for point in CC, at range its not even close.
I'm really still shocked how good Agressors are in CC... really if I as IG collector would be asked if I would trade the Bullgryns stats with the Agressors CC stats I... would tend towards it. That S8 -3 AP is really something and I'm not sure if 2+ OR 4++ is really worth more.
It just always slipped by, as the Agressors shooting was that extreme.
Pyroalchi wrote: Edit @Xenomancer:
@ Anything they shoot at can charge them: really? If they shoot at Bullgryns (from 18") those have to move 6" for a 12"charge... And there are no buffs to charge range for them. Oh and when they charge them each Agressor still gets +1A
Also: yes if you use 2 psychic powers you can make them much more durable but really: do you think its normal that a pure CC elite unit makes LESS damage in CC than a unit with BS3+ and 6+D6 shots?
I grant you that Bullgryns have the better defensive profile but their Offensive profile is much weaker. So even without shooting Agressors are (in my opinion) on par with them as CC unit.
The movement difference is 1"... And I'm sure somewhere in the Marine codex is a was to buff charge distance.
But you can have more of them, then a marine player can have aggresors by pure virtue of of a single troop IG option costing less then 5 intercessors.
Marine has to be better at everything, because it costs more, the army has fewer models and , unless it is something like a 8th ed thundercannon, the marine player can't really invest in to units that are only good vs one specific target. And IG or ork player can always fit in something that costs 100-150pts, a marine player won't, or at least not without messing up his support and scoring base.
Pyroalchi wrote: Edit @Xenomancer:
@ Anything they shoot at can charge them: really? If they shoot at Bullgryns (from 18") those have to move 6" for a 12"charge... And there are no buffs to charge range for them. Oh and when they charge them each Agressor still gets +1A
Also: yes if you use 2 psychic powers you can make them much more durable but really: do you think its normal that a pure CC elite unit makes LESS damage in CC than a unit with BS3+ and 6+D6 shots?
I grant you that Bullgryns have the better defensive profile but their Offensive profile is much weaker. So even without shooting Agressors are (in my opinion) on par with them as CC unit.
The movement difference is 1"... And I'm sure somewhere in the Marine codex is a was to buff charge distance.
But you can have more of them, then a marine player can have aggresors by pure virtue of of a single troop IG option costing less then 5 intercessors.
Marine has to be better at everything, because it costs more, the army has fewer models and , unless it is something like a 8th ed thundercannon, the marine player can't really invest in to units that are only good vs one specific target. And IG or ork player can always fit in something that costs 100-150pts, a marine player won't, or at least not without messing up his support and scoring base.
You don't get to use the points cost of other unrelated units when comparing the powerlevel of two units. Agressors are only 2pts more than bullgryns.
Aggressors move 5 inches. Max 6 per unit. Have no access to an invulnerable save (suppose with the new codex they will from a librarian) and have 18" guns. So. Literally anything they shoot at or move into position to shoot can charge them.
Ork boyz move 5 inches, have no access to invulnerable save (suppose with the codex they have one from a Big Mek) and have 12-18' guns. So. Literally anything they shoot at or move into position to shoot can charge them.
It takes 2.32 S4 hits to kill 1 ork boy at 8pts, it takes 27 S4 hits to kill 1 Aggressor at 45pts. So point for point those Aggressors are over 11x more durable than boyz but only cost about 5-6x as much. Shooting wise....well, lets not get into that, its too sad for orkz....you know, the official faction of DAKKA. in CC a choppa boy against a T4 target with 3+ save gets 3 attacks, 2 hits 1 wound for .33 dmg. The Aggressor gets 4 attacks, 2.66 hits, 2.22 wounds and 2.22 dmg x D3 so likely 4.44 dmg if targeting multi-wound models. 13x more dmg than the boy. The only weakness Aggressors have is against multi-dmg weapons. Against T4 hordes, aggressors and boyz are about equal, with the edge going to aggressors point for point in CC, at range its not even close.
The invune save bubble is a new psychic power in the marine codex that isn't even released yet. That is why I put it in quotations.
You are also missing the point. Compared to Bulgryns they can't be buffed to be defensive wall like bullgryns can. So the can't walk up the table shrugging off damage. Agressors DIE. Much like Scorpeth destroyers just die. Aggressors are a much better unit that Bullgryns but that doesn't mean Bullgryns aren't more useful with the right build.
Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.
The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.
But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.
Pyroalchi wrote: Edit @Xenomancer:
@ Anything they shoot at can charge them: really? If they shoot at Bullgryns (from 18") those have to move 6" for a 12"charge... And there are no buffs to charge range for them. Oh and when they charge them each Agressor still gets +1A
Also: yes if you use 2 psychic powers you can make them much more durable but really: do you think its normal that a pure CC elite unit makes LESS damage in CC than a unit with BS3+ and 6+D6 shots?
I grant you that Bullgryns have the better defensive profile but their Offensive profile is much weaker. So even without shooting Agressors are (in my opinion) on par with them as CC unit.
The movement difference is 1"... And I'm sure somewhere in the Marine codex is a was to buff charge distance.
But you can have more of them, then a marine player can have aggresors by pure virtue of of a single troop IG option costing less then 5 intercessors.
Marine has to be better at everything, because it costs more, the army has fewer models and , unless it is something like a 8th ed thundercannon, the marine player can't really invest in to units that are only good vs one specific target. And IG or ork player can always fit in something that costs 100-150pts, a marine player won't, or at least not without messing up his support and scoring base.
Point for point those Aggressors are significantly more durable that my ork boyz against anything except against anti-vehicle weapons. Point for point they are better at CC than my Ork boyz are. Point for point (you brought it up so here you go) in the shooting phase against NON horde units they do 9.5 shots for 45pts compared to my ork boyz who put out 10 shots for 40pts. Difference is i get 3 hits you get 6. So point for point those aggressors are twice as effective at shooting against their worst target and even more so against 11+ model units.
So yeah, I can bring a max squad of 30 to your 6, but we cost almost the exact same and you will destroy my boyz in every category.
A lot of people seem to think about some units, as in mostly those of other factions, starting in the perfect position, zero loses and max random rolls. Worse is that GW does it the same way, so they over value in point costs melee options. Making something like a unit of melee nobz on foot cost if they were always starting the game 9" away from the opponent with the ork player going first.
A unit that is just pure aggro has to be either very fast, like something droping turn 1 from a drop pod, or very cheap to be really broken. Otherwise it has to be spamed, and then it means the whole army is build around them.
And we did see salamander aggresor lists win big tournaments. But those were the pre nerf aggresors with the old salamander chapter trait.
Aggressors move 5 inches. Max 6 per unit. Have no access to an invulnerable save (suppose with the new codex they will from a librarian) and have 18" guns. So. Literally anything they shoot at or move into position to shoot can charge them.
Ork boyz move 5 inches, have no access to invulnerable save (suppose with the codex they have one from a Big Mek) and have 12-18' guns. So. Literally anything they shoot at or move into position to shoot can charge them.
It takes 2.32 S4 hits to kill 1 ork boy at 8pts, it takes 27 S4 hits to kill 1 Aggressor at 45pts. So point for point those Aggressors are over 11x more durable than boyz but only cost about 5-6x as much. Shooting wise....well, lets not get into that, its too sad for orkz....you know, the official faction of DAKKA. in CC a choppa boy against a T4 target with 3+ save gets 3 attacks, 2 hits 1 wound for .33 dmg. The Aggressor gets 4 attacks, 2.66 hits, 2.22 wounds and 2.22 dmg x D3 so likely 4.44 dmg if targeting multi-wound models. 13x more dmg than the boy. The only weakness Aggressors have is against multi-dmg weapons. Against T4 hordes, aggressors and boyz are about equal, with the edge going to aggressors point for point in CC, at range its not even close.
The invune save bubble is a new psychic power in the marine codex that isn't even released yet. That is why I put it in quotations.
You are also missing the point. Compared to Bulgryns they can't be buffed to be defensive wall like bullgryns can. So the can't walk up the table shrugging off damage. Agressors DIE. Much like Scorpeth destroyers just die. Aggressors are a much better unit that Bullgryns but that doesn't mean Bullgryns aren't more useful with the right build.
If your worried about your agressors dieing take a chief apocothory.
T5 3w 3+Sv 6+++, 3 wounds per turn and 1 model at full wounds.
Srategun to make them 2+Sv, or your invulnerable save is also an option.
They are plenty durable and if the marine player wants they have plenty of buffs to turn them into a wall.
You are also missing the point. Compared to Bulgryns they can't be buffed to be defensive wall like bullgryns can. So the can't walk up the table shrugging off damage. Agressors DIE. Much like Scorpeth destroyers just die. Aggressors are a much better unit that Bullgryns but that doesn't mean Bullgryns aren't more useful with the right build.
Yes Bullgryns are useful, especially with their good defensive profile. But really Agressors being THAT good in CC, and outperforming a clearly pure CC unit while still being a very efficient shooty unit that can kill 50-80% of its points in the shooting phase unassisted (as shown multiple times) is just over the top.
And @ Bullgryns walking up the table shrugging off damage: can they though? With Psychic barrier we can give ONE unit +1sv, but then we can not give this buff to our tanks. And with 6'' movement without any means to increase movement or charge range, they take their good time. If you take them in bigger units than 4, while possible, they don't fit in any non-LOW transport, while 5 Aggressors fit in a Repulsor for example.
Edit: and I'm sure there are as many ways to buff Aggressors defensivly as Bullgryn. We have exactly two: Psychic barrier (+1 sv) and Nightshroud (-1 to hit) which can only be applied to one unit per turn and have no 100% chance to work as they need some really flimsy psykers to cast them
Second Edit: sorry, I was somehow convinced each Psychic power could only be cast once per turn, it was once per Psyker, my bad. Ignore the part with "than we cannot put it on a tank"
You are also missing the point. Compared to Bulgryns they can't be buffed to be defensive wall like bullgryns can. So the can't walk up the table shrugging off damage. Agressors DIE. Much like Scorpeth destroyers just die. Aggressors are a much better unit that Bullgryns but that doesn't mean Bullgryns aren't more useful with the right build.
Yes Bullgryns are useful, especially with their good defensive profile. But really Agressors being THAT good in CC, and outperforming a clearly pure CC unit while still being a very efficient shooty unit that can kill 50-80% of its points in the shooting phase unassisted (as shown multiple times) is just over the top.
And @ Bullgryns walking up the table shrugging off damage: can they though? With Psychic barrier we can give ONE unit +1sv, but then we can not give this buff to our tanks. And with 6'' movement without any means to increase movement or charge range, they take their good time. If you take them in bigger units than 4, while possible, they don't fit in any non-LOW transport, while 5 Aggressors fit in a Repulsor for example.
Edit: and I'm sure there are as many ways to buff Aggressors defensivly as Bullgryn. We have exactly two: Psychic barrier (+1 sv) and Nightshroud (-1 to hit) which can only be applied to one unit per turn and have no 100% chance to work as they need some really flimsy psykers to cast them
Second Edit: sorry, I was somehow convinced each Psychic power could only be cast once per turn, it was once per Psyker, my bad. Ignore the part with "than we cannot put it on a tank"
A repulsor is like...350ish points and dies in a single round of shooting. It is unplayable. There is also a stratagem to give +1 to armor that used to be able to stack with bullgryns. After that got nerfed everyone stopped taking them.
You are correct about everything you are saying. I agree with you that Agressors are better than Bullgryns in melee. Agressors also shoot better than Bullgryns. So I'd recommend not taking Bullgryns. Nothing stops you from including agressors in your IG army as well (though they will lose all their special doctrines) You could however bring in some electro shock priests or an imperial knight or anything else you want from an imperial faction and not shut off your Imperial guard traits. It will just cost you CP. Space marines are a mono only force essentially.
You are also missing the point. Compared to Bulgryns they can't be buffed to be defensive wall like bullgryns can. So the can't walk up the table shrugging off damage. Agressors DIE. Much like Scorpeth destroyers just die. Aggressors are a much better unit that Bullgryns but that doesn't mean Bullgryns aren't more useful with the right build.
Yes Bullgryns are useful, especially with their good defensive profile. But really Agressors being THAT good in CC, and outperforming a clearly pure CC unit while still being a very efficient shooty unit that can kill 50-80% of its points in the shooting phase unassisted (as shown multiple times) is just over the top.
And @ Bullgryns walking up the table shrugging off damage: can they though? With Psychic barrier we can give ONE unit +1sv, but then we can not give this buff to our tanks. And with 6'' movement without any means to increase movement or charge range, they take their good time. If you take them in bigger units than 4, while possible, they don't fit in any non-LOW transport, while 5 Aggressors fit in a Repulsor for example.
Edit: and I'm sure there are as many ways to buff Aggressors defensivly as Bullgryn. We have exactly two: Psychic barrier (+1 sv) and Nightshroud (-1 to hit) which can only be applied to one unit per turn and have no 100% chance to work as they need some really flimsy psykers to cast them
Second Edit: sorry, I was somehow convinced each Psychic power could only be cast once per turn, it was once per Psyker, my bad. Ignore the part with "than we cannot put it on a tank"
No, you're right. Psychic Focus is once per turn-you cast Psychic Barrier on Bullgryns, it can't go on anything else. Fail to cast it? It's not going on ANYTHING, period.
Xenomancers wrote: A repulsor is like...350ish points and dies in a single round of shooting. It is unplayable.
You are correct about everything you are saying. I agree with you that Agressors are better than Bullgryns in melee. Agressors also shoot better than Bullgryns. So I'd recommend not taking Bullgryns. Nothing stops you from including agressors in your IG army as well (though they will lose all their special doctrines) You could however bring in some electro shock priests or an imperial knight or anything else you want from an imperial faction and not shut off your Imperial guard traits. It will just cost you CP. Space marines are a mono only force essentially.
Oh no, if you soup, you lose your massive amount of otherwise free bonuses that no other Codex even comes close to.
Guard has some really good bonus. But they suffer greatly from the power creep though.
It wasn't long ago that double shooting aggressors with guilliman rerolling everything was a bottom tier tournament list while IG command tanks combined with knights were staple high performing tournament builds.
Lets say both units have charged and have therefore the same # of attacks (note that Agressors have one more per model if they were being charged):
3 Bullgryns (129 points) vs. 3 Agressors (135 points ?)
both have 13 attacks
Bullgryns hit 8.66 times, Agressors 6.5 times.
Damage against:
T4/W2/3+: Bullgryns: 2.88 ,Agressors 3.38 models killed
T5/W3/3+: B: 1.44 , A: 2.03 models killed
T7/3+: B:4.33, A: 7.22 damage done
T8/3+: B:2.88, A: 5.41 damage done
I won’t do the math for everything, but basically while Bullgryn hit 4/3 as often as Agressors, they wound worse against anything T4,T7,T8 get worse through saves better than 6+ and need more unsaved wounds (2 vs. 1.77) to kill a W3 model.
So this “shooty unit” is better in CC than the best CC unit in the IG codex, which is also one of the most competitive options IG has in general… And it can also shoot pretty good stil and costs almost the same. And regarding transports: while Bullgryn can take some, they occupy 3 seats…
Now do the math of Eradicators shooting Aggressors and 4++/1+ Bullgryns.
"Aggressors aren't broken! They're more vulnerable to a definitely broken Space Marine unit!"
The only difference would be saves-same Toughness, same Wound count.
Against a 2+ Bullgryn, they take 1/6th less damage (6+ save versus 7+).
Against a 1+ Bullgryn, they take 1/3rd less damage (5+ versus 7+).
Against a 0+ or 4++ Bullgryn, they take half the damage (4+ versus 7+).
There is also a stratagem to give +1 to armor that used to be able to stack with bullgryns. After that got nerfed everyone stopped taking them.
Again: no... OK, I don't play tournament, but I doubt that "everybody" stopped taking them. They are by far or best (and only real) CC unit.
Just talking about competitive showings in tournaments. For IG melee you are correct. They are your best option. That or hordes of catachans with straken.
Unless you go outside of your codex and into custodians. 3x captains on jetbikes, ect.
"Aggressors aren't broken! They're more vulnerable to a definitely broken Space Marine unit!"
The only difference would be saves-same Toughness, same Wound count.
Against a 2+ Bullgryn, they take 1/6th less damage (6+ save versus 7+).
Against a 1+ Bullgryn, they take 1/3rd less damage (5+ versus 7+).
Against a 0+ or 4++ Bullgryn, they take half the damage (4+ versus 7+).
Sisters, IG tanks that are about to pack on melta, power fists, thunder hammers, doomsday cannons, smasha guns...need more?
So they're paying for buffs and not good, but agressors are also trash despite having even better stats and coating less points, that's before looking at the points for the 2 powerfists which crisis suits don't have.
Tau don't have doctrines. Their closest thing only affects missiles. Crisis suits with missiles gravis marines BTW. The issue is basically crisis suits costing a little too much and aggressors getting a serious discount on powerlift considering they can't really use them (too slow - not durable enough to footslog to melee).
T5 3W 3+ save, easy access to strats to make them even more durable, not sure how you think they aren't "durable" enough. And most importantly and I really emphasize this; THEY HAVE 18' RANGE GUNS if they are too slow to get into CC than they are too slow to get into range to use their damn guns. If you are shooting someone with your bolt gauntlets than you are 18' range. If you move forward you are likely in charge range, unless everyone of your models is exactly 18' away. So if they are in range to shoot they are in range to at least attempt a charge and failing that they will definitely get the charge the next turn. If you start them close to the forward deployment edge they will be in range turn 1 to hose down anything that grabs an objective and will 100% be within charge range to finish them off should they not wipe them out in the shooting phase.
Xenomancers wrote: If you list struggles to kill a repulsor you just have a bad list. Or have just given up on shooting all together. Which with the way people seem to want to make tables in 9th that isn't even a bad idea.
The current Ork tournament winning list is Hordes of boyz backed by Ghaz. They are incapable of killing a Repulsor entirely. The Repulsor is faster with long ranged guns so it can basically elude them indefinitely and only has to worry about the random 1 mob of boyz getting Da Jumped (if they bring a weirdboy) but the repulsor also gets -2 to charge so its at a minimum a 11' charge good luck.
The other tournament list orkz seem to be bringing is Buggies, i personally think they are going to be hard up in the new meta of Eradicators and melta but we will see, regardless, Buggies CAN kill a repulsor but they have to get lucky, probably the premier anti-Repulsor unit would be the Scrap Jet. 2D3 Rokkitz and 1 Wing missile (4+ rokkit) On average 4 shots hitting on 5s and 1 hitting on 4s.
Works out to about 2 hits per turn, 1 wound and .66 wounds going through armor for 3 dmg. That works out to basically 2 dmg a turn. It can then hose it down with 12 Big shoota shots, half hitting on 4s for again about 6 hits, 2 wounds and .66 dmg. 2.66 dmg. per 110pt scrapjet. Of course they might also take a battery of Mek Gunz so 12 shots from Smashas for 7 hits, wounding on 8+ = about 3 wounds, goes through armor for 3D6dmg or 10.5 Still not dead yet, and we are making a lot of assumptions about the Mek gunz and scrapjet being in range and in LOS without -1 to hit or +1 to save.
Other Buggies:
BDSW: Mek Speshul, 9 shots, 4ish hits, 1.5ish wounds for 1 dmg also has a big shoota...but who cares?
KBB: Rivet Kannon: 6 shots, 2.3 hits .8ish wounds for .26 unsaved wounds or .52 dmg a turn
RTSB: Boom Squigs, 3D3 shots = 6, 2.3 hits .8ish wounds .26 unsaved wounds for .52 dmg a turn
SJD: 2 S8 shots hitting on 3. 1.33 hits .67 wounds -3ap so .55 wounds = 1.95 wounds a turn with a 1/6 chance the SJD hurts itself OR inflicts 1 MW on its target. Also 1 rokkit, .38 hits, .19 wounds -2AP for .126 unsaved wounds = .38 dmg a turn. Total 2.33 dmg a turn
First of all I literally state here that the only way you can fail to kill a repulsor is to ignore shooting altogether. Those ork lists do. Because the game has evolved into fighting in a junkyard where you can't draw LOS anywhere. Can't blame them.
An ork list with 9+ smasha/custommega blasta will annihilate a repulsor as fast as any army with lascannons. It is trivially easy to destroy and cost nearly 1/5 of your army. An utterly garbage unit far worse than any unit being discussed in this thread.
"Aggressors aren't broken! They're more vulnerable to a definitely broken Space Marine unit!"
The only difference would be saves-same Toughness, same Wound count.
Against a 2+ Bullgryn, they take 1/6th less damage (6+ save versus 7+).
Against a 1+ Bullgryn, they take 1/3rd less damage (5+ versus 7+).
Against a 0+ or 4++ Bullgryn, they take half the damage (4+ versus 7+).
Sisters, IG tanks that are about to pack on melta, power fists, thunder hammers, doomsday cannons, smasha guns...need more?
Sisters die a lot easier to Aggressors than Bullgryns-weight of no AP fire at S4 or AP-3/better weapons are the way to kill Sisters, if Valorous Heart. You only need AP-2 if they're not or out of range of their Imagifier... But guess what Bullgryns DON'T have?
IG Tanks can take one multi-melta, correct? Or can they take sponson ones too?
Per multi-melta, at BS 4+, they can expect to kill one about 40% of the time or two 5% of the time. Increase that to 55% and 11% respectively, if in Melta Range, but that puts them in easy charge range of the powerfist-equipped Aggressors.
Power Fists are only AP-3, meaning they get a 6+.
Thunder Hammers are going to AP-2, meaning they get a 5+.
Doomsday Cannons are good, true.
Smasha Guns are also good, but bleed secondary points like crazy.
"Aggressors aren't broken! They're more vulnerable to a definitely broken Space Marine unit!"
The only difference would be saves-same Toughness, same Wound count.
Against a 2+ Bullgryn, they take 1/6th less damage (6+ save versus 7+).
Against a 1+ Bullgryn, they take 1/3rd less damage (5+ versus 7+).
Against a 0+ or 4++ Bullgryn, they take half the damage (4+ versus 7+).
Sisters, IG tanks that are about to pack on melta, power fists, thunder hammers, doomsday cannons, smasha guns...need more?
My necron force will quite literally murderize any space marine force.
Oh cute...you have lots of str 4 shots? Most my army is t5 or more.
Oh you have lots of 3+ save? The lowest AP I field in more than single numbers is -2 (and theres lots of that...oh and it's str 5)
have you seen a doomsday cannon before?
How about a deathray?
BYE BYE GRAVIS
"Aggressors aren't broken! They're more vulnerable to a definitely broken Space Marine unit!"
The only difference would be saves-same Toughness, same Wound count.
Against a 2+ Bullgryn, they take 1/6th less damage (6+ save versus 7+).
Against a 1+ Bullgryn, they take 1/3rd less damage (5+ versus 7+).
Against a 0+ or 4++ Bullgryn, they take half the damage (4+ versus 7+).
Sisters, IG tanks that are about to pack on melta, power fists, thunder hammers, doomsday cannons, smasha guns...need more?
Sisters die a lot easier to Aggressors than Bullgryns-weight of no AP fire at S4 or AP-3/better weapons are the way to kill Sisters, if Valorous Heart. You only need AP-2 if they're not or out of range of their Imagifier... But guess what Bullgryns DON'T have?
IG Tanks can take one multi-melta, correct? Or can they take sponson ones too?
Per multi-melta, at BS 4+, they can expect to kill one about 40% of the time or two 5% of the time. Increase that to 55% and 11% respectively, if in Melta Range, but that puts them in easy charge range of the powerfist-equipped Aggressors.
Power Fists are only AP-3, meaning they get a 6+.
Thunder Hammers are going to AP-2, meaning they get a 5+.
Doomsday Cannons are good, true.
Smasha Guns are also good, but bleed secondary points like crazy.
Only DKOK tanks can take a hull Multimelta, but all can take one in each sponson.
Aside from that IG can take MM on Servitors (questionable) and Devildogs.
Edit: but it's again the same game as usual. Someone compares an SM unit (in this case even an "offlabel use" of a shooty unit) to a good unit of his own codex and immediatly it is stated "that unit isn't taken anyway because it is bad" (ooookay...?) and stated that the much better damage output does not count because they are weaker defensivly, especially if the compared unit packs 2 psychic powers.
Also stating that they are much more likely (1'' faster...) to get into CC, while they don't have any means to buff charge distance (while Marines have). And the statement "yeah, then just take some Armigers/Custodes" is... again... oookay...?
Bullgryns and Aggressors are a bad comparison. Bullgryns arent in the list to dish out damage but to prevent the opponent to get to the ranged threats and hold parts of the table.
You could(when IG was good under 8th rules) easily win a game due to bullgryns without them doing a single wound.
Guard have cheaper chaff units and cheaper glasscannons(melta squads) and also more and better vehicle options than SM. One of the things the army lack is good CC units. That their unit that can bridge that obvious weakness in their design costs more is quite understandable. Its good for armies to have weaknesses and still give you the option to compensate for it at a premium price.
Guard as a whole probably needs a buff and some marine units still need more balancing. Eradicators mostly. They are just too good for their price without having a real weakness. But you still shouldnt compare vastly different units in very different armies to each other straight up. You cant really get much of a conclusion from such an excercise.
Units that try to do the same thing in lists/armies that are quite similar can be compared and get you more out of it. But exact points isnt very important since different armies still pay a bit different for similar things. Pure SM melee dread lists vs pure melee tyranid monsters could probably be compared in a good way. Or main tanks in pure mech lists. Aggressive combined melee/shooting unit in an elite army vs a control melee unit in a shooty horde or mech army is a rather pointless discussion.
Klickor wrote: Bullgryns and Aggressors are a bad comparison. Bullgryns arent in the list to dish out damage but to prevent the opponent to get to the ranged threats and hold parts of the table.
You could(when IG was good under 8th rules) easily win a game due to bullgryns without them doing a single wound.
Guard have cheaper chaff units and cheaper glasscannons(melta squads) and also more and better vehicle options than SM. One of the things the army lack is good CC units. That their unit that can bridge that obvious weakness in their design costs more is quite understandable. Its good for armies to have weaknesses and still give you the option to compensate for it at a premium price.
Guard as a whole probably needs a buff and some marine units still need more balancing. Eradicators mostly. They are just too good for their price without having a real weakness. But you still shouldnt compare vastly different units in very different armies to each other straight up. You cant really get much of a conclusion from such an excercise.
Units that try to do the same thing in lists/armies that are quite similar can be compared and get you more out of it. But exact points isnt very important since different armies still pay a bit different for similar things. Pure SM melee dread lists vs pure melee tyranid monsters could probably be compared in a good way. Or main tanks in pure mech lists. Aggressive combined melee/shooting unit in an elite army vs a control melee unit in a shooty horde or mech army is a rather pointless discussion.
What unit would you compare agressors too then as the argument at the moment boils down to "Agressors are overcosted why did GW over nerf them. Xeno players but thwy are better than X,Y,Z unit.
Ah but unit x,y,z is just bad you can't compair them to that. So they are better than one of codex in questions better units but they're not good enough for marine's.
It kinda sums up the problem the codex's arnt even on the same continent power level wise.
Klickor wrote: Bullgryns and Aggressors are a bad comparison. Bullgryns arent in the list to dish out damage but to prevent the opponent to get to the ranged threats and hold parts of the table.
You could(when IG was good under 8th rules) easily win a game due to bullgryns without them doing a single wound.
Guard have cheaper chaff units and cheaper glasscannons(melta squads) and also more and better vehicle options than SM. One of the things the army lack is good CC units. That their unit that can bridge that obvious weakness in their design costs more is quite understandable. Its good for armies to have weaknesses and still give you the option to compensate for it at a premium price.
Guard as a whole probably needs a buff and some marine units still need more balancing. Eradicators mostly. They are just too good for their price without having a real weakness. But you still shouldnt compare vastly different units in very different armies to each other straight up. You cant really get much of a conclusion from such an excercise.
Units that try to do the same thing in lists/armies that are quite similar can be compared and get you more out of it. But exact points isnt very important since different armies still pay a bit different for similar things. Pure SM melee dread lists vs pure melee tyranid monsters could probably be compared in a good way. Or main tanks in pure mech lists. Aggressive combined melee/shooting unit in an elite army vs a control melee unit in a shooty horde or mech army is a rather pointless discussion.
What unit would you compare agressors too then as the argument at the moment boils down to "Agressors are overcosted why did GW over nerf them. Xeno players but thwy are better than X,Y,Z unit.
Ah but unit x,y,z is just bad you can't compair them to that. So they are better than one of codex in questions better units but they're not good enough for marine's.
It kinda sums up the problem the codex's arnt even on the same continent power level wise.
Compare them to shining spears. Then realize they are vastly inferior to shining spears.
Bullgryns and Aggressors are a bad comparison. Bullgryns arent in the list to dish out damage but to prevent the opponent to get to the ranged threats and hold parts of the table
Ok, but Aggressors can do that almost as well as Bullgryns. That is my point
Its T5,W3,2+ OR 4++ vs. T5,W3,3+ for almost the same cost. If you argue that Bullgryns are taken for their defensive profile, than the argument can be made that even if Agressors could not shoot and would not significantly outperform Bullgryns in damage output, they can perform in the Bullgryns staying power role almost as good.
Sure you can argue that Bullgryns can be buffed by two defensive Psyker powers (which have to be cast... by T3 Psykers... and not denied... and can only be cast once per turn), but I'm sure somewhere in the enormous SM codex are ways to buff Aggressors defensivly.
I compare them because I want to highlight that even if they could not shoot at all instead of 6+D6Blast S4 shots, they are still superior to a CC unit of another codex and can fill that units defensive roll almost as good.
And regarding the argument that it's OK and important that armies have weaknesses and pay for some roles more than other armies: Again as a serious and honest question: is there really the feeling that IG is currently better in shooting output than Marines with their Bolter Discipline? Sure we have our Tanks, but none off them have InvSvs and in an age of 2 shots MM they will likely die like flies.
Xenomancers wrote: Compare them to shining spears. Then realize they are vastly inferior to shining spears.
Mobility SS: 16" move, auto-advance 6" Agg: 5" move Winner: Shining Spears by a long shot
Durability SS: 2W at T4 3+, 4++ against ranged attacks. Exarch has +1 Wound and can get a 3++ against ranged weapons Agg: 3W at T5 3+, no invuln. Winner: Depends on your exact matchup, but generally Aggressors
Shooting SS: 1 shot at 6" S6 AP-4 D2, 4 at 12" S4 AP0 (-3 on 6s to-wound) D1 Agg: 6+d6 at 18" S4 AP0 (-1 on turn 2 and optionally 3) D1 Winner: Again, depends on your exact match-up, but generally Aggressors due to superior range and rate of fire
Melee SS: 2 WS3+ attacks (3 on Exarch) at S3 AP-4 D2, S6 on the charge only. Agg: 3 attacks WS4+ effectively (4 on Sergeant) at S8 AP-3 Dd3, plus one attack on the first turn of combat no matter what Winner: Aggressors by a country mile. Especially once Fists are changed to D2 flat, instead of d3, they get more attacks at a higher Strength and similar damage. Sure, one less AP, but AP-3 is enough.
The Aggressors are 10 PPM more, but they're more durable, more shooty, more punchy... Their only disadvantage is that they're slower, but with the midfield gaining more value in 9th, that's less relevant. The only time they're less durable would be against mid-strength (6 or 7 especially), very high AP, very high damage weapons. So... Heat Lances?
Xenomancers wrote:In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable.
Xenomancers wrote:They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile.
Do you make these kinds of statements based on
-How other factions in the game compare,
-How other units in the SM codex compare, or
-How top-tier meta tournament build min-max units compare?
Grounding your opinion would really help understand context here.
And you never replied, but it's becoming apparent with examples like this that your baseline for a 'good unit' is holding it up against the standout, top-performing units of other factions as your baseline.
You're not comparing them to Wraithguard.
You're not comparing them to Grotesques.
You're comparing them to a tournament staple of the Eldar codex, and using that comparison to say that they're horrifically bad. To be 'decent', would they merely have to be as good as one of the top units in the Eldar codex?
It is really surprising to me how quickly Marine players got accustomed to being the very top of the pack, to the point where having a unit nerfed down to 'still really goddamn good compared to common non-Marine units, just not as good as top tournament-meta units' is perceived as unplayable trash.
Edit: Also, if you're going to claim that Bullgryns are way better than the straight performance comparison implies because they can rely on a psyker (more points) to cast a particular spell on them (no guarantee it succeeds), I'm going to start listing all the stratagems, doctrines, auras, litanies, and subfaction traits Aggressors can benefit from. In terms of ability to force-multiply through buffing, it ain't even close.
The Spears out shoot the agressors but are worse at CC against everything even on the charge. Ignoring doctorines or any other buffs.
TLDR Agressors as white scars scream blender.
First of all I literally state here that the only way you can fail to kill a repulsor is to ignore shooting altogether. Those ork lists do. Because the game has evolved into fighting in a junkyard where you can't draw LOS anywhere. Can't blame them.
An ork list with 9+ smasha/custommega blasta will annihilate a repulsor as fast as any army with lascannons. It is trivially easy to destroy and cost nearly 1/5 of your army. An utterly garbage unit far worse than any unit being discussed in this thread.
i'll give you the Horde list not being shooty because it absolutely isn't which is the point I was trying to make. The #1 list for orkz has almost no shooting.
But the 2nd list? At a minimum its spamming 9 buggies and a wartrike, or likely 12-15 + wartrike which is most of your list. These guys are good in melee but they are just as good in ranged combat, but they aren't very good at killing T8 3+. Also if you take 12-15 buggies and a wartrike, you don't really have room for 9 Smasha gunz let alone KMKs which are 25ppm more expensive. 9 KMKs would run you just shy of 600pts and 9 Smashas would be 360. 1 Full battery of 6 is doable, 9 or more...not so much, not in a buggy list, and especially not if you want to win the game since you want to talk about slow? Mek gunz have 3' movement.
Why won’t Xenomancers post his Necron list that he claims will decimate any Space Marine list? Seems the easiest way to support that claim would just be to post it, I’m confused here. It’s really difficult to believe that you’re doing anything other than bs’ing.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Why won’t Xenomancers post his Necron list that he claims will decimate any Space Marine list? Seems the easiest way to support that claim would just be to post it, I’m confused here. It’s really difficult to believe that you’re doing anything other than bs’ing.
hes probably running some squigbuggies in it.
but yeah, its not the first times he's made these kind of controversial claims without backing them up with lists, just tune them out
Ice_can wrote: Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.
The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.
But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.
except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.
Ice_can wrote: Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.
The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.
But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.
except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.
Yeah and surprise surprise one of the other factors is CC ability to contest objectives (idealy with obsec)
Which factions troops do well at Shooting, Fighting and Durability as you do have to survive an opponents turn on the objective to score.
Shooty, fighty, durable troops with the ability to win most obsec fisty cuffs. Sounds shockingly like someone describing Marines unit concept.
Ice_can wrote: Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.
The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.
But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.
except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.
Yeah and surprise surprise one of the other factors is CC ability to contest objectives (idealy with obsec)
Which factions troops do well at Shooting, Fighting and Durability as you do have to survive an opponents turn on the objective to score.
Shooty, fighty, durable troops with the ability to win most obsec fisty cuffs. Sounds shockingly like someone describing Marines unit concept.
so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once
BrianDavion wrote: except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.
In practice there is little cost to board control, because mobility and board control do not generally come at the cost of firepower or durability. You're just as tough and just as shooty chilling in your deployment zone as you are moving up the board.
It does have impact on auras, but that's not part of a unit profile.
JNAProductions wrote: You say "Anything they shoot can charge them" like that's supposed to matter. Aggressors WANT to be charged-they all have Powerfists and a bunch of attacks!
And yes, they can be killed-but it's considerably harder to kill three T5 3+ W3 models than a lot of other stuff in the game. They're not unkillable, but they are durable.
No they don't. They have more shooting than they have punching. Only in a few certain scenarios do they want to be charged or charge. Otherwise they want to be >1.1 inches away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Oh no, if you soup, you lose your massive amount of otherwise free bonuses that no other Codex even comes close to.
The reward for not souping is so good people don't want to soup anymore! And even though I hate soup, I hate people playing other armies getting a reward for not doing it even more!
Ice_can wrote: Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.
The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.
But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.
except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.
Yeah and surprise surprise one of the other factors is CC ability to contest objectives (idealy with obsec)
Which factions troops do well at Shooting, Fighting and Durability as you do have to survive an opponents turn on the objective to score.
Shooty, fighty, durable troops with the ability to win most obsec fisty cuffs. Sounds shockingly like someone describing Marines unit concept.
so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once
I don’t think he should have to. His points stand on its own and hold regardless of who he plays. Giving you guys an opening to scream that his Harlequins or whatever army he plays is also OP in response to every point he makes, as we all know you are angling for, doesn’t seem productive at all. I don’t think Marines are the only overtuned army either, that doesn’t make anything he’s saying any less correct
Compare them to shining spears. Then realize they are vastly inferior to shining spears.
The idea that every army must have a comparable analogue is silly to me. Different armies have their own strengths and weaknesses. Marine strength is fewer weaknesses, but they're not pushing out amazing spells or hordes or (at this point) strong backfield artillery, etc.
Compare them to shining spears. Then realize they are vastly inferior to shining spears.
The idea that every army must have a comparable analogue is silly to me. Different armies have their own strengths and weaknesses. Marine strength is fewer weaknesses, but they're not pushing out amazing spells or hordes or (at this point) strong backfield artillery, etc.
ditto, why the hell does everything have to be the same? sounds pretty frickin lame to me.
But that was not the (or at least not my) argument. The question of the threat was basically why other players think Eradicators were overpowered and got a bit extended to Aggressors as other Gravis unit. Especially as they have been nerfed. I don't claim that every army has to have everything, but my argument is that an anti-horde unit that even nerfed beats out other armies anti horde unit AND other armies best CC unit AND has a defensive profile of 5/3/3+ AND is in a codex with massive buffing potential is here - by some players - deemed bad or unplayable because they were a little downgraded (but still superior as l mentioned)
Ice_can wrote: Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.
The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.
But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.
except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.
Yeah and surprise surprise one of the other factors is CC ability to contest objectives (idealy with obsec)
Which factions troops do well at Shooting, Fighting and Durability as you do have to survive an opponents turn on the objective to score.
Shooty, fighty, durable troops with the ability to win most obsec fisty cuffs. Sounds shockingly like someone describing Marines unit concept.
so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once
I don’t think he should have to. His points stand on its own and hold regardless of who he plays. Giving you guys an opening to scream that his Harlequins or whatever army he plays is also OP in response to every point he makes, as we all know you are angling for, doesn’t seem productive at all. I don’t think Marines are the only overtuned army either, that doesn’t make anything he’s saying any less correct
I asked him because the guy hasn't posted a post that isn't a "MARRRRINES SUCK" in months. it's exhausting to deal with people who literally can't seem to discuss anything else
i get it but that goes two ways. Note that there isn't a bunch of argumentative threads about the current state of Harleys or other top tier armies. Do you know why I see this being so different? It's because there isn't a bunch of people who spend their time on here just denying and downplaying the faction. Harley players came up out the bottom end of the tier list to the top, when we talk about the faction now, almost all the players are generally like "yeah, we're pretty good now lol". Marine threads on the other hand have these constant aggregators such as Xenomancers, Daedulus, Martel, breton, even yourself, who are just loathe to concede that ANY aspect of your dex might be too much, and will argue all day how even a good unit is "dead" or "weak" now. You guys create the pushback that you recieve. Nobody would feel the need to be repeatedly arguing against this "marines aren't even that strong!" narrative bs if you guys didn't constantly push it, and cause threads like to this to reach 50 pages through sheer stubborness. That's my view on the matter anyway.
Nitro Zeus wrote: i get it but that goes two ways. Note that there isn't a bunch of argumentative threads about the current state of Harleys or other top tier armies. Do you know why I see this being so different?
Because its different when you and the people you agree with do it?
It's because there isn't a bunch of people who spend their time on here just denying and downplaying the faction. Harley players came up out the bottom end of the tier list to the top, when we talk about the faction now, almost all the players are generally like "yeah, we're pretty good now lol". Marine threads on the other hand have these constant aggregators such as Xenomancers, Daedulus, Martel, breton, even yourself, who are just loathe to concede that ANY aspect of your dex might be too much, and will argue all day how even a good unit is "dead" or "weak" now.
I said some unit was dead or weak now? When was this? I mean I'm sure some of them are - The Thundercannon feels kind of lame if you compare it to the special ammo version of yore but it's not bad or dead. It's probably better than it was because most of the special ammo wasn't even that good, just funny. Land Raiders and Repulsors are bad, but just about everyone who isn't clamoring to nerf nearly every datasheet in the Marine Codex agrees with that, especially if you expand it to Vehicles in general are bad.
You guys create the pushback that you recieve.
And we're back to its different when we do it.
Nobody would feel the need to be repeatedly arguing against this "marines aren't even that strong!" narrative bs if you guys didn't constantly push it,
Just ask the guy continually pushing the Nerf Marines BS.
and cause threads like to this to reach 50 pages through sheer stubborness.
The thread that has had several different topics after the original one played out, but you're going to pretend it hit 50 pages on the one topic because Nerf Marines?
This thread is an excellent microcosm for one of the reasons why people are actually mad at Marine dominance and prevalence.
It's not that they are overwhelmingly powerful for a large swathe of factions to deal with, or that they're far too common on the tabletop and so you get burned out on facing them. It's that there's a significant portion of the LSM playerbase that just refuses to believe there is an issue with the army and will not only refuse to acknowledge imbalance but will try and argue in the opposite direction. I have legitimately seen people arguing (not so much on Dakka to be fair) that Salamanders and Iron Hands are not overpowered but that they're actually bad armies. This is despite both of them ripping through the tournament scene at the moment. Even discounting empirical evidence you can understand how strong the armies are just through stats and mathhammering.
But there's a significant part of the LSM playerbase that just outright refuses to understand the problem or even acknowledge there is one.
I never saw Craftworld players in 8th saying Altaioc Flyers or Ynnari Spears/Reapers were underpowered units. At most they would point to the rest of the Codex being sub-optimal and wanting to rely on the broken gak in order to win games and they might try and offer counterplay ideas. Same with Drukhari players and mass Venom, Grotesque and Talos spam, and triple Dissy Ravagers. Everyone acknowledged they were good and tournament results reflected that.
The current situation with Space Marines is unique in recent memory because you have OVERWHELMING empirical evidence of Marines being dominant and opinions from top-tier incredibly skilled players stating again and again and again that the army needs a redesign somehow. You have 3x3 Eradicators showing up in every single top list and absolutely crushing everything. And yet here we are. People in this thread trying to somehow argue that Marines are not dominant and not even wanting to maybe consider that there might be a problem with Eradicators or the Codex and its supplements in general.
It's absurd. This is actually why there's so much backlash against Marines. Because of people like this.
Also with regards to Aggressors still; isn't it weird how Aggressors and Eradicators having double shoot is perfectly fine, but Ynnari Dark Reapers double shooting was totally unacceptable? How do these ardent Marine simps square that circle?
An ork list with 9+ smasha/custommega blasta will annihilate a repulsor as fast as any army with lascannons. It is trivially easy to destroy and cost nearly 1/5 of your army. An utterly garbage unit far worse than any unit being discussed in this thread.
Very few players own 9+ mek gunz actually. Even less of them bring those mek gunz all together in 9th because HS slots are limited and gunlines are not the flavor of the edition. For the record 10 Smasha gunz are 400 points, for 10D3 BS4+ shots with extra hits on 6s. Which means an average of 17-18 hits. To wound T8 they need to roll an 8 on a 2D6, which is below 50%. So in the end those 400 points can barely kill a 360 points tank. Appropriate targets for Smasha Gunz are actually T4-5 high save multiwounds models. 10 Kustom mega kannons are 650 points, and 5 of them (325) can't kill a repulsor rolling with average results.
To bad that the ork player needs to buy 500$ of artillery (and 60 models to paint) to kill an 80-100$ vehicle. In real life it's an unlikely scenario. Many SM players will have their big tank and most of the ork ones will have 2-3 mek gunz at most, probably even 0.
Compare them to shining spears. Then realize they are vastly inferior to shining spears.
The idea that every army must have a comparable analogue is silly to me. Different armies have their own strengths and weaknesses. Marine strength is fewer weaknesses, but they're not pushing out amazing spells or hordes or (at this point) strong backfield artillery, etc.
I agree, different factions should be different. But the overall power level should be very close. At the moment SM are able to dominate both competitive metas and casual ones, because average collections of SM models are easily good but they can also build some very competitive lists with little effort in terms of listbuilding, money invested and time/skills required to get everything battleready.
That's the reason why people complain about marines. If they only had a single skew list that dominates tournament, like the ork goff horde, it would be a different story. I certainly wouldn't mind a SM list with a 80% winning rate at tournaments that is also unlikely to show up everyday in real life, because only a few people would settle with buying and playing 5 stormravers for example. Or even a soup adding units from 2 other different books like the loyal32+castellan combo in 8th, which in my area not a single SM player wanted to bring and in fact I've never seen it in real life.
Unfortunately SM lists could be very powerful just by bringing units from starter boxes, and one of each of their most recent kits.
This thread is an excellent microcosm for one of the reasons why people are actually mad at Marine dominance and prevalence.
It's not that they are overwhelmingly powerful for a large swathe of factions to deal with, or that they're far too common on the tabletop and so you get burned out on facing them. It's that there's a significant portion of the LSM playerbase that just refuses to believe there is an issue with the army and will not only refuse to acknowledge imbalance but will try and argue in the opposite direction. I have legitimately seen people arguing (not so much on Dakka to be fair) that Salamanders and Iron Hands are not overpowered but that they're actually bad armies. This is despite both of them ripping through the tournament scene at the moment. Even discounting empirical evidence you can understand how strong the armies are just through stats and mathhammering.
But there's a significant part of the LSM playerbase that just outright refuses to understand the problem or even acknowledge there is one.
I never saw Craftworld players in 8th saying Altaioc Flyers or Ynnari Spears/Reapers were underpowered units. At most they would point to the rest of the Codex being sub-optimal and wanting to rely on the broken gak in order to win games and they might try and offer counterplay ideas. Same with Drukhari players and mass Venom, Grotesque and Talos spam, and triple Dissy Ravagers. Everyone acknowledged they were good and tournament results reflected that.
The current situation with Space Marines is unique in recent memory because you have OVERWHELMING empirical evidence of Marines being dominant and opinions from top-tier incredibly skilled players stating again and again and again that the army needs a redesign somehow. You have 3x3 Eradicators showing up in every single top list and absolutely crushing everything. And yet here we are. People in this thread trying to somehow argue that Marines are not dominant and not even wanting to maybe consider that there might be a problem with Eradicators or the Codex and its supplements in general.
It's absurd. This is actually why there's so much backlash against Marines. Because of people like this.
Also with regards to Aggressors still; isn't it weird how Aggressors and Eradicators having double shoot is perfectly fine, but Ynnari Dark Reapers double shooting was totally unacceptable? How do these ardent Marine simps square that circle?
This is half accurate, even if someone does feel marines aren't a problem or doesn't understand the current situation, that isn't an invalid opinion - as none are.
What is a problem is if 1 poster claims they're happy with A it doesn't need 50 borderline offensive posts from group B all saying the same thing.
Ultimately too many people, myself included, can't just let something go when they see what they perceive as an injustice, right or wrong.
Breton is 100% right, it's different for their statements because they're not part of the mob with the popular opinion. Likewise, maybe not antagonising the larger group is in everyones best interests. State it once and move on.
This thread is an excellent microcosm for one of the reasons why people are actually mad at Marine dominance and prevalence.
It's not that they are overwhelmingly powerful for a large swathe of factions to deal with, or that they're far too common on the tabletop and so you get burned out on facing them. It's that there's a significant portion of the LSM playerbase that just refuses to believe there is an issue with the army and will not only refuse to acknowledge imbalance but will try and argue in the opposite direction. I have legitimately seen people arguing (not so much on Dakka to be fair) that Salamanders and Iron Hands are not overpowered but that they're actually bad armies. This is despite both of them ripping through the tournament scene at the moment. Even discounting empirical evidence you can understand how strong the armies are just through stats and mathhammering.
But there's a significant part of the LSM playerbase that just outright refuses to understand the problem or even acknowledge there is one.
I never saw Craftworld players in 8th saying Altaioc Flyers or Ynnari Spears/Reapers were underpowered units. At most they would point to the rest of the Codex being sub-optimal and wanting to rely on the broken gak in order to win games and they might try and offer counterplay ideas. Same with Drukhari players and mass Venom, Grotesque and Talos spam, and triple Dissy Ravagers. Everyone acknowledged they were good and tournament results reflected that.
The current situation with Space Marines is unique in recent memory because you have OVERWHELMING empirical evidence of Marines being dominant and opinions from top-tier incredibly skilled players stating again and again and again that the army needs a redesign somehow. You have 3x3 Eradicators showing up in every single top list and absolutely crushing everything. And yet here we are. People in this thread trying to somehow argue that Marines are not dominant and not even wanting to maybe consider that there might be a problem with Eradicators or the Codex and its supplements in general.
It's absurd. This is actually why there's so much backlash against Marines. Because of people like this.
Also with regards to Aggressors still; isn't it weird how Aggressors and Eradicators having double shoot is perfectly fine, but Ynnari Dark Reapers double shooting was totally unacceptable? How do these ardent Marine simps square that circle?
The tumble weeds are deafening...
I can hear a "whhhhheeelllll ahhhctuallllyyy" spooling up..
And apparently comparing a jetbike to a heavy infantry unit and saying "same!!!!" Is frankly bananas... and yet not a single usual suspect marine defenders called it out as BS.. nitro summed it up pretty well.. and yet... here we are..
so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once
I don't have just 1 army that's why actually have 3 and if you had actually looked at my post history you'd have been able to figure it out.
Marines
Knights
Tau
I did look at your post history Ice, after 15 pages of every post being about marines and how aweful they are I thought I'd just ask.
I've been posting in the Knights tactics thread constantly, the Tau one is dead as they simply don't work in 9th edition. As for marine's the OP 2.0 codex and denialist mentality, they suck to play and play against. It's either effectively a mirrior match or easy winning.
so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once
I don't have just 1 army that's why actually have 3 and if you had actually looked at my post history you'd have been able to figure it out.
Marines
Knights
Tau
I did look at your post history Ice, after 15 pages of every post being about marines and how aweful they are I thought I'd just ask.
I've been posting in the Knights tactics thread constantly, the Tau one is dead as they simply don't work in 9th edition. As for marine's the OP 2.0 codex and denialist mentality, they suck to play and play against. It's either effectively a mirrior match or easy winning.
Gotta love that for Tau players, shell out for a new edition and your faction's basically unworkable in it. GW has the playerbase by the balls and they know it.
GW has the tourney playerbase by the balls and they know it.
fixed it for ya
Nah he was right, 9th is such an imbalanced mess.
Nothing short of playing less than 1500 points of Marines or Harliquines in a 2000 point game will make some factions work against them.
GW has the tourney playerbase by the balls and they know it.
fixed it for ya
Nah he was right, 9th is such an imbalanced mess.
Nothing short of playing less than 1500 points of Marines or Harliquines in a 2000 point game will make some factions work against them.
Don't bother ice, racer is of the opinion that competitive 40k is the worst thing in the world, possibly up there with punching babies and kicking kittens. The idea of balance in tournament scene reflecting in casual games is a foreign concept to him.
I dislike competitive 40K out of sheer principle, but I spent long enough in-industry to know that tournaments are a reasonably reliable way of spotting issues that creep into normal play.
The idea that tournament play is some completely different beast that has no bearing on casual play is just as wrong as the idea that tournament play is wholly representative of casual play.
GW has the tourney playerbase by the balls and they know it.
fixed it for ya
Nah he was right, 9th is such an imbalanced mess.
Nothing short of playing less than 1500 points of Marines or Harliquines in a 2000 point game will make some factions work against them.
Don't bother ice, racer is of the opinion that competitive 40k is the worst thing in the world, possibly up there with punching babies and kicking kittens. The idea of balance in tournament scene reflecting in casual games is a foreign concept to him.
nope, I totally get the idea. it's just ridiculous when applied to 40k, which as far as anyone that has paid attention to the rules put out by GW, is obviously not a tournament style game AT ITS CORE DESIGN PRINCIPLES. It's like tournament Necromunda, which is as ridiculous as it sounds.
Racerguy180 wrote: nope, I totally get the idea. it's just ridiculous when applied to 40k, which as far as anyone that has paid attention to the rules put out by GW, is obviously not a tournament style game AT ITS CORE DESIGN PRINCIPLES. It's like tournament Necromunda, which is as ridiculous as it sounds.
It's all well and good to say this when you only ever play basement/garage hammer with a close group of friends. However, you can't pretend that every meta is going to be that friendly and cooperative. Even a 'casual' player who drops by a gaming store to play could face-off against a tournament grinder, a meta-chaser, or even just the guy who brought a fluffy list that just got a massive power increase due to an edition change.
Better balance at all ends, high, low, and middle benefit all levels of play.
GW has the tourney playerbase by the balls and they know it.
fixed it for ya
Nah he was right, 9th is such an imbalanced mess.
Nothing short of playing less than 1500 points of Marines or Harliquines in a 2000 point game will make some factions work against them.
Don't bother ice, racer is of the opinion that competitive 40k is the worst thing in the world, possibly up there with punching babies and kicking kittens. The idea of balance in tournament scene reflecting in casual games is a foreign concept to him.
nope, I totally get the idea. it's just ridiculous when applied to 40k, which as far as anyone that has paid attention to the rules put out by GW, is obviously not a tournament style game AT ITS CORE DESIGN PRINCIPLES. It's like tournament Necromunda, which is as ridiculous as it sounds.
Tournament necromunda sounds pretty straightforward. 2 gangs enter, 1 gang leaves, survivors go up the tournament ladder. It'd be pretty fun to be honest.
I get that people don't _like_ 40k tournaments. But that fact is its been a tournament game for 30 years. Imperfections and all, it works. It has worked when supported by GW (with official tournaments and everything), it has worked when GW ignored the tournament scene. Its a reality no matter how you feel about it.
Racerguy180 wrote: they should go back to ignoring it then. if it worked well without their input and leads to problems like Eradicators when they don't.
When has 40k balance, even at a casual level, ever been good? Things haven't changed since the old days, we just get a faster problem to response loop now.
Racerguy180 wrote: they should go back to ignoring it then. if it worked well without their input and leads to problems like Eradicators when they don't.
I'm kinda curious how you figure eradicators are the fault of GW trying to be involved with tournaments.
How does that work?
If they were completely insistent on 'casual games only' (whatever that means), GW wouldn't have written up a broken unit? Is that a hypothesis you're putting forward?
Racerguy180 wrote: it's only broken when you don't give a gak about the person you're playing WITH, not against.
Does the model have different rules when it's used with the power of friendship or do you just browbeat your friends into not using certain units because your list can't handle them?
At any time, GW could decide to come out with a dedicated tourney ruleset with rules that are equitable and I would be perfectly fine with that.
As long as there is the option to use fun/thematic rules for units when not playing 40k: Tourney Edition! I have zero interest in competitive feth you style, so if there isn't a way to play otherwise I'd probably lose interest in "contemporary(MTG wombo combo)" 40k.
Before you ask, I don't care about what the most powerful for the points unit in the game is, rules have never driven any purchase of a model, I take gak cuz I like how it looks and fits how I want to use it on the tabletop. if someone else does, that's perfectly fine, i will just never play them.
Racerguy180 wrote: it's only broken when you don't give a gak about the person you're playing WITH, not against.
Does the model have different rules when it's used with the power of friendship or do you just browbeat your friends into not using certain units because your list can't handle them?
why would I dictate what models someone else brings, sounds pathetic.
how can you not handle them???? I can handle any model thrown my way, and I don't care what units my friends bring. Challenging myself is fun.
we play unbalanced games quite often, 1500 vs 2k, endless reserves, acid rain, instant win conditions, etc...
but we still play on 6x4s and 8x4s with tons of LOS blocking terrain so our style is not yours.
Racerguy180 wrote: they should go back to ignoring it then. if it worked well without their input and leads to problems like Eradicators when they don't.
Are you suggesting GW didn't design unbalanced units until they started recognising tournament-style gaming? That's not a position that is anywhere near consistent with reality.
I'd also say that broken units are often more of a problem for casual gamers than tournament gamers. Tournament players often know what they're getting into and know what to expect and try to plan around it. As a casual gamer coming up against something like Eradicators (or the whole of the 8.5 SM Codex) can be a nightmare because of how unbalanced they make the game. I ended up not using my SM towards the end of 8th in a casual setting because it was so difficult to build an army I considered fun and fair against some of the more casual players at my club. Almost regardless of what I took it would be so much more powerful than anything they had it was like playing a different game.
Racerguy180 wrote: At any time, GW could decide to come out with a dedicated tourney ruleset with rules that are equitable and I would be perfectly fine with that.
As long as there is the option to use fun/thematic rules for units when not playing 40k: Tourney Edition! I have zero interest in competitive feth you style, so if there isn't a way to play otherwise I'd probably lose interest in "contemporary(MTG wombo combo)" 40k.
Before you ask, I don't care about what the most powerful for the points unit in the game is, rules have never driven any purchase of a model, I take gak cuz I like how it looks and fits how I want to use it on the tabletop. if someone else does, that's perfectly fine, i will just never play them.
Racerguy180 wrote: it's only broken when you don't give a gak about the person you're playing WITH, not against.
Does the model have different rules when it's used with the power of friendship or do you just browbeat your friends into not using certain units because your list can't handle them?
why would I dictate what models someone else brings, sounds pathetic.
how can you not handle them???? I can handle any model thrown my way, and I don't care what units my friends bring. Challenging myself is fun.
we play unbalanced games quite often, 1500 vs 2k, endless reserves, acid rain, instant win conditions, etc...
but we still play on 6x4s and 8x4s with tons of LOS blocking terrain so our style is not yours.
A tournament version ey, you mean like the Chapter Approved Grand Tournament book they brought out...
and yes the notion that Eradicators only exist because of tournament players is beyond laughable.
eradicators exist cuz they're a cool looking model that gives primaris a melta option, which is exactly how GW designs stuff. rules are secondary. overpowered rules will sell models to those that only care about crushing their enemies and hearing the lamentations of their women.
Rules have never and will never influence any model I purchase.
So if WAAC dicks will throw money at GW for overpowered rules, GW would be stupid not to exploit them. but that doesn't make it right.
If you're buying them for their rules(which can/will change) that is exactly the kind of moron GW wants to buy 18 of them(I wonder why the squads are a max of 6 instead of 3...hmmmm?)...and ditch them ASAP when they're nerfed into oblivion.
lather rinse repeat.
just wait till the next OP models to come out to prove me wrong. GW operates on imbalance, always has & always will. At some point I want GW to sell a solid brick of plastic with bonkers rules, just to see how many people would play with it.
Do you mind answering the questions which have been asked of you multiple times:
Does GW having an interest in tournament play change how they design models? Has it changed things for the worse? If it has changed things for the worse how do you explain broken models of editions past where GW didn't have a tournament focus?
Racerguy180 wrote: it's only broken when you don't give a gak about the person you're playing WITH, not against.
Does the model have different rules when it's used with the power of friendship or do you just browbeat your friends into not using certain units because your list can't handle them?
I´ll have to second Cadian here, some units (like aggressors and eradicators) are unbalanced by virtue of just their data sheet alone. For example one of my friends knows SM are a bit nutty so he didn't always take a chaptermaster or the most optimal relics/traits. Okay fine that is one way to tone down your list, but for aggressors/eradicators just taking them is unbalancing the game, they are just that good. There is no way to be friendly with them unless you insist on shooting your aggressors into vehicles and the eradicators into grots. At which point I'd question the sanity of my opponent.
Nitro Zeus wrote: i get it but that goes two ways. Note that there isn't a bunch of argumentative threads about the current state of Harleys or other top tier armies. Do you know why I see this being so different? It's because there isn't a bunch of people who spend their time on here just denying and downplaying the faction. Harley players came up out the bottom end of the tier list to the top, when we talk about the faction now, almost all the players are generally like "yeah, we're pretty good now lol". Marine threads on the other hand have these constant aggregators such as Xenomancers, Daedulus, Martel, breton, even yourself, who are just loathe to concede that ANY aspect of your dex might be too much, and will argue all day how even a good unit is "dead" or "weak" now. You guys create the pushback that you recieve. Nobody would feel the need to be repeatedly arguing against this "marines aren't even that strong!" narrative bs if you guys didn't constantly push it, and cause threads like to this to reach 50 pages through sheer stubborness. That's my view on the matter anyway.
Yea, so, I don't play marines and its telling that you think I'm attempting to defend "my" codex.
Not to mention that it felt like ever since 8.5 got released, there was a post about Marine imbalance in every thread within the first 5 posts regardless of the topic.
This is the first topic I recall noticing that was created defending a Marine unit. Compare it to a dozen or so topics where people just complain about one faction. And people don't argue objectively.
"Little Timmy has to beat the NPC faction", "Marine players usually suck at the game outside of their OP Codex" and other insults are thrown around regularely.
Maybe it is not only the topic but the discussion culture that leads to such a backlash?
Nitro Zeus wrote: i get it but that goes two ways. Note that there isn't a bunch of argumentative threads about the current state of Harleys or other top tier armies. Do you know why I see this being so different? It's because there isn't a bunch of people who spend their time on here just denying and downplaying the faction. Harley players came up out the bottom end of the tier list to the top, when we talk about the faction now, almost all the players are generally like "yeah, we're pretty good now lol". Marine threads on the other hand have these constant aggregators such as Xenomancers, Daedulus, Martel, breton, even yourself, who are just loathe to concede that ANY aspect of your dex might be too much, and will argue all day how even a good unit is "dead" or "weak" now. You guys create the pushback that you recieve. Nobody would feel the need to be repeatedly arguing against this "marines aren't even that strong!" narrative bs if you guys didn't constantly push it, and cause threads like to this to reach 50 pages through sheer stubborness. That's my view on the matter anyway.
Yea, so, I don't play marines and its telling that you think I'm attempting to defend "my" codex.
I didn't say you did, you're still doing the exact same thing whether its your dex or not?
I will say it's definitely suspicious how basically every thread you create and every post you make is related to downplaying Marines though no matter the circumstances, but even if it is the case I'm sure you'll never admit it so whatever. It's fine, I don't like broadcasting that I'm a Marine player either, they have a well earned reputation on this site and it's unfortunately not a positive one.
a_typical_hero wrote: Not to mention that it felt like ever since 8.5 got released, there was a post about Marine imbalance in every thread within the first 5 posts regardless of the topic.
This is the first topic I recall noticing that was created defending a Marine unit. Compare it to a dozen or so topics where people just complain about one faction. And people don't argue objectively.
"Little Timmy has to beat the NPC faction", "Marine players usually suck at the game outside of their OP Codex" and other insults are thrown around regularely.
Maybe it is not only the topic but the discussion culture that leads to such a backlash?
Sums it up, whether warranted or not, there is an immediate aggressive knee jerk comment about them.
I think it's down to simply knowing your audience, the most vocal on Dakka generally are negative with a skew towards anti-marine.
This may be due to years of GWs man handling of the game and player base, might be that this is their way of venting or w/e. Nevertheless they're almost always there, ready to make out of context pot shots at whatever is being said.
I do think this thread has run its course weeks ago.
a_typical_hero wrote: Not to mention that it felt like ever since 8.5 got released, there was a post about Marine imbalance in every thread within the first 5 posts regardless of the topic.
This is the first topic I recall noticing that was created defending a Marine unit. Compare it to a dozen or so topics where people just complain about one faction. And people don't argue objectively.
"Little Timmy has to beat the NPC faction", "Marine players usually suck at the game outside of their OP Codex" and other insults are thrown around regularely.
Maybe it is not only the topic but the discussion culture that leads to such a backlash?
Sums it up, whether warranted or not, there is an immediate aggressive knee jerk comment about them.
I think it's down to simply knowing your audience, the most vocal on Dakka generally are negative with a skew towards anti-marine.
This may be due to years of GWs man handling of the game and player base, might be that this is their way of venting or w/e. Nevertheless they're almost always there, ready to make out of context pot shots at whatever is being said.
I do think this thread has run its course weeks ago.
That's pretty rich, coming from the usual suspects. Before Marine 2.0 came out for 8th, it was practically guaranteed that any thread in general would be derailed with a bemoaning about how overpowered guardsmen were and how bad marines were. Regardless of how well marines were doing in the meta itself (Any victory at a tournament hand waved as "not a space marine army, but a guiliaman/ultramarine/raven guard army") with pages of tears dedicated to crying over how unfair it was. Even when Iron Hands was breaking the meta over it's knee, there was always people willing to jump in to tell us how bad marines were.
If there's any resentment towards the marine player base, it's not out of nowhere and it's ceraintly not "the most vocal" group.
So what do the xeno and non marine players really want?
nerf marines, no matter if they were good or bad in 8th, and then get powerful books of their own?
And then tell marines that they should learn to play, use more terrain , find people that don't play for power and wait for the next CA or FAQ?
Because that is how it went in 8th ed, And considering 9th, I have a feeling that before 8th it went down the same way.
Karol wrote: So what do the xeno and non marine players really want?
nerf marines, no matter if they were good or bad in 8th, and then get powerful books of their own?
And then tell marines that they should learn to play, use more terrain , find people that don't play for power and wait for the next CA or FAQ?
Because that is how it went in 8th ed, And considering 9th, I have a feeling that before 8th it went down the same way.
For all Codecs to have good internal and external balance, and to be released in very short order at the start of a new edition, so no one is left waiting.
Karol wrote: So what do the xeno and non marine players really want?
nerf marines, no matter if they were good or bad in 8th, and then get powerful books of their own?
And then tell marines that they should learn to play, use more terrain , find people that don't play for power and wait for the next CA or FAQ?
Because that is how it went in 8th ed, And considering 9th, I have a feeling that before 8th it went down the same way.
Yeah - the standard anti marines stuff.
Though I think this time. With GW changing as a company and more interested in making lots of money. Investors are demanding more marine release and better rules because it make them more money. The days of marines being bad because they are a "starter army" are gone. They are gonna have some of the best rules until it stops making GW record money.
Karol wrote: So what do the xeno and non marine players really want?
nerf marines, no matter if they were good or bad in 8th, and then get powerful books of their own?
Are you only capable of looking at this hobby as a zero-sum game where somebody has to be the winner and somebody has to be the loser? Like, it's pretty telling when the only apparent alternative you have to 'have Marines be overpowered' is 'have Marines be underpowered'. I don't think I've ever seen another poster with so much sheer spite; this is a toy soldier game for nerds, not the national Polish wrestling competition or whatever.
I'd want Marines toned down to the average power level of the other factions (at a general/casual level, not equal to their top-tier competitive builds), then address the non-Marine codices- not to make them universally more powerful, but to rein in their internal balance by nerfing their most powerful units and buffing the weakest ones. Do this in stages if needed, with beta rules a la Bolter Discipline to test out changes.
Get everyone to have the same generally good internal balance as the Marine codex, while also addressing external balance so they're all on equal footing.
Nitro Zeus wrote: i get it but that goes two ways. Note that there isn't a bunch of argumentative threads about the current state of Harleys or other top tier armies. Do you know why I see this being so different? It's because there isn't a bunch of people who spend their time on here just denying and downplaying the faction. Harley players came up out the bottom end of the tier list to the top, when we talk about the faction now, almost all the players are generally like "yeah, we're pretty good now lol". Marine threads on the other hand have these constant aggregators such as Xenomancers, Daedulus, Martel, breton, even yourself, who are just loathe to concede that ANY aspect of your dex might be too much, and will argue all day how even a good unit is "dead" or "weak" now. You guys create the pushback that you recieve. Nobody would feel the need to be repeatedly arguing against this "marines aren't even that strong!" narrative bs if you guys didn't constantly push it, and cause threads like to this to reach 50 pages through sheer stubborness. That's my view on the matter anyway.
Yea, so, I don't play marines and its telling that you think I'm attempting to defend "my" codex.
I didn't say you did, you're still doing the exact same thing whether its your dex or not?
I will say it's definitely suspicious how basically every thread you create and every post you make is related to downplaying Marines though no matter the circumstances, but even if it is the case I'm sure you'll never admit it so whatever. It's fine, I don't like broadcasting that I'm a Marine player either, they have a well earned reputation on this site and it's unfortunately not a positive one.
You clearly don't read my posts.
Oh no - I made a post discussing how marines can fail morale - I MUST be downplaying marines!
And a post about "interesting changes for marines" where I groaned about Gravis getting a +1 save strat. But I didn't just say marines were the best evar so, REEEEEEEEEEEE.
Or in the CORE discussion, I said "Relax, Xeno. Marines were not struggling." when he complained about the units needing a re-costing.
But screw me for making counterpoints that don't massage your ego.
Everything is a zero sum thing. Someone is going to be the best, and as always with everything the majority is going to end up as losers. The way GW writes and sells their models, there is zero entice to want a balanced rule set for ones army.
Eldar weren't balanced, and eldar players had fun playing their armies almost through out their the whole 8th ed. And if stories about their power in prior ones are true, then they had fun playing their armies through out most of every other edition too. At the same time I know what a balanced GW books feels like, when GW playtesters explained their mind set working on my army book, it was full of we didn't want this and that too feel too powerful, we wanted those things to feel equal. And they achived that.
There were times in 8th ed when it did not matter what out of my codex you took, the games was always unfun, specialy against power lists, you had to practicaly bring a tournament lists to casual games, and you got called out on that too.
But what is really bizzar to me is how all this marine out rage makes no sense to me. Through out all 8th all the castella, Inari, eldar , tau etc players were talking how they don't play in bad enviroments like my old store. How they do not use the power lists or power units or combos. How they could not understand why, I with my bad expiriances playing other armies, just don't move to play in a place where people play casual.
But as soon as 8th started to end, and suddenly their armies weren't the top of the top or worse had a contender in form of marines, suddenly hell broke out. Edition is at its end, but it is unacceptable for IH too be too powerful for a few months. It was okey for their armies to be, but not the marines. 9th starts, marines are the ones with the new codex, if they were really broken they should have 70%+ top placings in events. But when one checks the data it is split. The only army with a 9th ed book only breaks 50% of the placment, and a variaty of armies like orks, harlis etc are winning events too. But we don't see a 50 page thread on how clearly someone wrote the harli book and the PA book very much with 9th in mind. My dudes got a PA book that came later, I think, and it was clearly thought through only how it worked with 8th ed rules.
And If that is a thing. Then this means that there is no balance, there never will be balance. Neither the players nor GW wants it. Or to be more precise. The players very much wish balanced books for their opponets. They seem to love them. A thread about how to fix knights in 9th probably wouldn't have broken 10 pages here. But army X better then my army, nah that is unacceptable. And then what really irks me too, is the moral grand standing. That somehow the xeno or non marine players were done wrong, as if all prior editions didn't happen. they didn't even see their own books. But they already want all the good marine units to get balanced. And if GW does balance them, and their books are better then marines ones, not a peep squeek is going to come from them about balance of their stuff.
So yeah to me , it is borderline un understandable considering how people act and how GW creates their rules, and how the game gets updated.
Nitro Zeus wrote: i get it but that goes two ways. Note that there isn't a bunch of argumentative threads about the current state of Harleys or other top tier armies. Do you know why I see this being so different? It's because there isn't a bunch of people who spend their time on here just denying and downplaying the faction. Harley players came up out the bottom end of the tier list to the top, when we talk about the faction now, almost all the players are generally like "yeah, we're pretty good now lol". Marine threads on the other hand have these constant aggregators such as Xenomancers, Daedulus, Martel, breton, even yourself, who are just loathe to concede that ANY aspect of your dex might be too much, and will argue all day how even a good unit is "dead" or "weak" now. You guys create the pushback that you recieve. Nobody would feel the need to be repeatedly arguing against this "marines aren't even that strong!" narrative bs if you guys didn't constantly push it, and cause threads like to this to reach 50 pages through sheer stubborness. That's my view on the matter anyway.
Yea, so, I don't play marines and its telling that you think I'm attempting to defend "my" codex.
I didn't say you did, you're still doing the exact same thing whether its your dex or not?
I will say it's definitely suspicious how basically every thread you create and every post you make is related to downplaying Marines though no matter the circumstances, but even if it is the case I'm sure you'll never admit it so whatever. It's fine, I don't like broadcasting that I'm a Marine player either, they have a well earned reputation on this site and it's unfortunately not a positive one.
You clearly don't read my posts.
Oh no - I made a post discussing how marines can fail morale - I MUST be downplaying marines!
And a post about "interesting changes for marines" where I groaned about Gravis getting a +1 save strat. But I didn't just say marines were the best evar so, REEEEEEEEEEEE.
Or in the CORE discussion, I said "Relax, Xeno. Marines were not struggling." when he complained about the units needing a re-costing.
But screw me for making counterpoints that don't massage your ego.
You always have to plan on moving and shooting. Do you expect your opponent to simply move whatever target you want to hit right in front of your eradicators? You have to expect to need to maneuver the unit into position to take the shot. You're going to have to do that eventually, and the strategem removes the penalty for doing so. It looks like it was designed just for eradicaters with the heavy meltas, or devastators with multi-meltas. 
as do most of the weapons you can put on the stupid thing.
Its apparently wierd to some people that you can play an army and still be critical about the power of specific elements.
