Bharring wrote:
Killing Marines without AP3 takes 2-3x the firepower. Lasblasters against Marines are hilarious. 15 shots. Usually doesn't kill a single Marine.

Not terrible. Feels about right.

Dealing 50+ non AP 3 wounds a turn is completely viable as a way to scrub marines off the board. After about 3 turns, no more marines.

What do you play to make it viable to use 50+ shots to remove a single squad....

So if I field 75 Swooping Hawks, I can feel good because I killed 17 Marines in one round?

Honestly, man. Scale.

pm713 wrote:
What do you play to make it viable to use 50+ shots to remove a single squad....

50 wounds will kill about two squads of marines, actually. It doesn't matter what kind of marines, really. The more gear you give them, the more points you give away when they are shot to death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
So if I field 75 Swooping Hawks, I can feel good because I killed 17 Marines in one round?

Honestly, man. Scale.

No one is using swooping hawks to do this.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Fearless is better IMO. Can't be gunned off an objective unless you kill every model. I've actually lost a few points in tournaments for this exact reason. It's only advantage is not being able to be swept off the board vs a squad they got unlucky against. however most everything that gets into assualt with marines wrecks them easily so you really just want them to die most of the time. Chapter tactics are nice - wont dispute that - they aren't free bonuses though. You have to take crappy marines to take advantage of most of them and their benefits are only chapter wide...since you are basically forced to run allies to be competitive with marines it makes them even less important.

I disagree on your assessments for the most part. Fearless models are just as likely to be stuck in melee as Tact Marines, and I don't see Marines as "crappy". I see some people bitching about their models not getting enough bonuses on what is a very good all rounder option with no major drawbacks, but I don't see an actual bad option there.

The only reason I'm moving from Sisters to Eldar over Marines at this point is for a change of playstyles as Marines play almost identically with the differences coming down to weapon options. And I'm looking for a change of pace. It's been 5 years, I think it's a good time to shake things up for myself personally.

The situation you experienced is exactly what I was saying. It kept you from getting overrun by a squad that shouldn't have beat you in combat anyways - these situations are very rare. I've been playing marines for about 10 years. ATSKNF might as well not even exist - I'd prefer it that way - esp if it reduced the cost of the marine.

Fundamentally, the game has now moved to a place where unless you have elite defenses like a Riptide, Wraith or WS, it's almost always better to have more wounds to give than try to have quasi-protected units like tac marines.

Marines also run the risk where one turn of bad armor saves just cost you the entire match. Armies that lose their models more predictably and consistently don't have these unexpected surges in model losses.

Fine.

Let's say 30 ap4+ wounds.
Let's say DAs or Guardians don't have Bladestorm, and get in range.
30 wounds is 60 hits.
60 hits is 90 shots.
90 shots is 45 Avengers.

Or the Scatter Lasers you're so keen on.
30 wounds is 36 hits
36 hits is 44 shots
44 shots is 11 SLs
11 SLs is 5.5 WarWalkers
5.5 Warwalkers is 385 points of glass cannonry

And that's for 30 wounds, not 50. EV of exactly 10 Marines dying.
By no means reliably removing the squad.

Doesn't seem so wrong. And isn't troops.

Most shuriken weapons would be a joke without bladestorm with the short range they have and units that wont survive marching into firing range. People are just upset because they need something to be upset over

Martel732 wrote:
Fundamentally, the game has now moved to a place where unless you have elite defenses like a Riptide, Wraith or WS, it's almost always better to have more wounds to give than try to have quasi-protected units like tac marines.

Marines also run the risk where one turn of bad armor saves just cost you the entire match. Armies that lose their models more predictably and consistently don't have these unexpected surges in model losses.

Yep - wounds are a much better form of defense due to the "worst case scenario" such as 10 marines being wiped of the board froma flurry of blade storm 6's and some failed 3 plus...And due to cover giving your wounds defense almost equal and sometimes more powerful than power armor.

"glass cannonry "

Not so glassy fortuned in a ruins. Context is where the Eldar crush everyone.

Killing 10 marines a turn for 385 pts from 36" is pretty smooth, especially if the marines had any of this gear people keep assuming they have.

"Doesn't seem so wrong"

Until you are on the receiving end of it. For an entire game.

Redseer wrote:
Most shuriken weapons would be a joke without bladestorm with the short range they have and units that wont survive marching into firing range. People are just upset because they need something to be upset over

I agree theyd need something. is giving them AP2 shots really the answer? I don't think it should have been. It's too strong.

One bad turn of saves, and Tacs lose a bunch, break, and reform.

One bad turn of saves, DAs lose even more, and break. And probably never reform.

Bharring wrote:
One bad turn of saves, and Tacs lose a bunch, break, and reform.

One bad turn of saves, DAs lose even more, and break. And probably never reform.

I'm trying to remember the last time I actually got to shoot a DA. Again, context. It doesn't matter how fragile your units are if all they have to do is kick over the two straggling tac marines left after the rest of the list is done shooting. The marines themselves are the business end of a tac squad/rhino combo, whereas the DA are the icing for a DA/WS combo.

In a vacuum world, I'd agree that tacs are fine. But in practice, they are not. Hell, in a pure vacuum, the heavy bolter dominates DA. But no army uses the heavy bolter because of how terrible it is in practice.

Martel732 wrote:
"glass cannonry "

Not so glassy fortuned in a ruins. Context is where the Eldar crush everyone.

Killing 10 marines a turn for 385 pts from 36" is pretty smooth, especially if the marines had any of this gear people keep assuming they have.

"Doesn't seem so wrong"

Until you are on the receiving end of it. For an entire game.

Every discussion on dakka always breaks down into an argument about how worthless power armor is. I'm jumping ship to xenos in order to have fun playing the game. Tired of playing over-costed generalist that require OP spells and titans to actually win games.

Fortune on a unit in ruins is a 50% improvement of saves (was 50% fail, now 25% fail).

Invis on a unit anywhere is more than a 75% improvement vs a BS4 army.

Both are WC2 and not the primaris.

So it is glass cannon. Its just that certain powers (omg invis) are broken. Eldar don't have a monopoly on this (although Farseers are generally better than Librarians). SM can cast Invis.

Also, 5.5 warwalkers is at least 2 units. That's a huge investment to fortune them both.

But we digress.

Bladestorm.
Is Bladestorm doing those wounds to each Tac squad before Tacs can even fire? Almost certainly not.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"glass cannonry "

Not so glassy fortuned in a ruins. Context is where the Eldar crush everyone.

Killing 10 marines a turn for 385 pts from 36" is pretty smooth, especially if the marines had any of this gear people keep assuming they have.

"Doesn't seem so wrong"

Until you are on the receiving end of it. For an entire game.

Every discussion on dakka always breaks down into an argument about how worthless power armor is. I'm jumping ship to xenos in order to have fun playing the game. Tired of playing over-costed generalist that require OP spells and titans to actually win games.

And T4. Don't forget T4. All the units with real durability are T5 now. T4 is the new T3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Fortune on a unit in ruins is a 50% improvement of saves (was 50% fail, now 25% fail).

Invis on a unit anywhere is more than a 75% improvement vs a BS4 army.

Both are WC2 and not the primaris.

So it is glass cannon. Its just that certain powers (omg invis) are broken. Eldar don't have a monopoly on this (although Farseers are generally better than Librarians). SM can cast Invis.

Also, 5.5 warwalkers is at least 2 units. That's a huge investment to fortune them both.

But we digress.

Bladestorm.
Is Bladestorm doing those wounds to each Tac squad before Tacs can even fire? Almost certainly not.

No. It's not. As I said before, it's most unfair for the already dubious 2+ save models. Who can also be stomped flat by the WK. So many solutions in the Eldar codex. Trust me I know about invis. Almost every loss to another marine list involves invis. Which BA can't get , of course.

Martel732 wrote:


And T4. Don't forget T4. All the units with real durability are T5 now. T4 is the new T3.

Not that I'm directly arguing against that, but then what is T3 considered now?

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
One bad turn of saves, and Tacs lose a bunch, break, and reform.

One bad turn of saves, DAs lose even more, and break. And probably never reform.

I'm trying to remember the last time I actually got to shoot a DA. Again, context. It doesn't matter how fragile your units are if all they have to do is kick over the two straggling tac marines left after the rest of the list is done shooting. The marines themselves are the business end of a tac squad/rhino combo, whereas the DA are the icing for a DA/WS combo.

In a vacuum world, I'd agree that tacs are fine. But in practice, they are not. Hell, in a pure vacuum, the heavy bolter dominates DA. But no army uses the heavy bolter because of how terrible it is in practice.

My avengers get shot at plenty if I want to actually use them. Hop out of serpent, shoot to kill a couple marines, try to battle focus far enough to hide behind something that blocks line of sight for a 10 man squad, usually can't, lose plenty of dudes on my opponent's following turn. Sure, this wouldn't be an issue if I were spamming serpents and never disembarking, but my list usually features a single serpent, and bladestorm isn't really an issue in my games.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


And T4. Don't forget T4. All the units with real durability are T5 now. T4 is the new T3.

Not that I'm directly arguing against that, but then what is T3 considered now?

I don't know. For most single wound models, it doesn't matter. Things that wound T4 on a 2+ also wound T3 on a 2+. Multi-wound T3 does really stink because S6 is absolutely everywhere.

"Sure, this wouldn't be an issue if I were spamming serpents and never disembarking"

Welcome to my world. Why would they ever get out and let the mechanics Bharring is talking about come into play? AV 12 with 3+++ jink is so much better. It's the wall of AV 12 and WK and AV 10 walkers with 5++ or cover. Much tougher than some Rhino hulls and jump pack meqs.

So, the answer to 'is Bladestorm broken' 'Tac Marines suck'? Doesn't seem to address the question. We're going in circles:

-Is Bladestorm OP
-They would shred Marines (and tags)
-That's not what we see/what the math says
-But WS OP
-But, if I'm not fielding WS, is Bladestorm OP?
-GOTO 1

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Fearless is better IMO. Can't be gunned off an objective unless you kill every model. I've actually lost a few points in tournaments for this exact reason. It's only advantage is not being able to be swept off the board vs a squad they got unlucky against. however most everything that gets into assualt with marines wrecks them easily so you really just want them to die most of the time. Chapter tactics are nice - wont dispute that - they aren't free bonuses though. You have to take crappy marines to take advantage of most of them and their benefits are only chapter wide...since you are basically forced to run allies to be competitive with marines it makes them even less important.

I disagree on your assessments for the most part. Fearless models are just as likely to be stuck in melee as Tact Marines, and I don't see Marines as "crappy". I see some people bitching about their models not getting enough bonuses on what is a very good all rounder option with no major drawbacks, but I don't see an actual bad option there.

The only reason I'm moving from Sisters to Eldar over Marines at this point is for a change of playstyles as Marines play almost identically with the differences coming down to weapon options. And I'm looking for a change of pace. It's been 5 years, I think it's a good time to shake things up for myself personally.

The situation you experienced is exactly what I was saying. It kept you from getting overrun by a squad that shouldn't have beat you in combat anyways - these situations are very rare. I've been playing marines for about 10 years. ATSKNF might as well not even exist - I'd prefer it that way - esp if it reduced the cost of the marine.

From what I can tell, compared to Sisters or CSM it's already free.

Bharring wrote:
So, the answer to 'is Bladestorm broken' 'Tac Marines suck'? Doesn't seem to address the question. We're going in circles:

-Is Bladestorm OP
-They would shred Marines (and tags)
-That's not what we see/what the math says
-But WS OP
-But, if I'm not fielding WS, is Bladestorm OP?
-GOTO 1

Against meqs, bladestorm is a nice bonus, but not OP. Against teqs, it's straight up OP. But teqs were already known to suck. Against MCs, it's a nice equalizer, but do the Eldar even need that when they have so much S6/7? So does this let Bladestorm off the hook? In the end analysis, I'd say yes reluctantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Fearless is better IMO. Can't be gunned off an objective unless you kill every model. I've actually lost a few points in tournaments for this exact reason. It's only advantage is not being able to be swept off the board vs a squad they got unlucky against. however most everything that gets into assualt with marines wrecks them easily so you really just want them to die most of the time. Chapter tactics are nice - wont dispute that - they aren't free bonuses though. You have to take crappy marines to take advantage of most of them and their benefits are only chapter wide...since you are basically forced to run allies to be competitive with marines it makes them even less important.

I disagree on your assessments for the most part. Fearless models are just as likely to be stuck in melee as Tact Marines, and I don't see Marines as "crappy". I see some people bitching about their models not getting enough bonuses on what is a very good all rounder option with no major drawbacks, but I don't see an actual bad option there.

The only reason I'm moving from Sisters to Eldar over Marines at this point is for a change of playstyles as Marines play almost identically with the differences coming down to weapon options. And I'm looking for a change of pace. It's been 5 years, I think it's a good time to shake things up for myself personally.

The situation you experienced is exactly what I was saying. It kept you from getting overrun by a squad that shouldn't have beat you in combat anyways - these situations are very rare. I've been playing marines for about 10 years. ATSKNF might as well not even exist - I'd prefer it that way - esp if it reduced the cost of the marine.

From what I can tell, compared to Sisters or CSM it's already free.

Can we just get rid of it, then? Legally, I can't turn the ability off to my knowledge.

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


And T4. Don't forget T4. All the units with real durability are T5 now. T4 is the new T3.

Not that I'm directly arguing against that, but then what is T3 considered now?

I don't know. For most single wound models, it doesn't matter. Things that wound T4 on a 2+ also wound T3 on a 2+. Multi-wound T3 does really stink because S6 is absolutely everywhere.

Well, as a Necron, I have a lot of S5, which only wounds on 3s against T4. Would you rather be wounded on 3s or 2s? And the only armies with real spammable S6 is Eldar, Tau, and Nids. Otherwise, it's usually special weapons that there are a lot less of across their army.

Nope. It's a flavor rule. You're basically stuck with it.

Bharring wrote:
So, the answer to 'is Bladestorm broken' 'Tac Marines suck'? Doesn't seem to address the question. We're going in circles:

-Is Bladestorm OP
-They would shred Marines (and tags)
-That's not what we see/what the math says
-But WS OP
-But, if I'm not fielding WS, is Bladestorm OP?
-GOTO 1

Thank you for pulling us back on track. That's a pretty good summary of the relevant parts of the discussion so far. Based on what we've discussed so far, I'm leaning towards my original stance that bladestorm is not, in fact, a problem. Could bladestorm be represented differently? Sure. Would avengers be worthless without bladestorm? Not really. They'd just be more cowardly and encourage people to spam serpents more since the avengers/guardians couldn't carry their own weight as well. Based on the numbers we've been pushing around, it seems like bladestorm is a noticable but minor advantage over certain targets. The only potential for it being OP that I'm seeing is that you might get lucky or pyschically manipulate your dice rolls into being too much stronger as a result of bladestorm.

If a unit had a 1 in 3 chance of generating 6 rends, for instance, that would be too much, but I'm pretty sure the likelihood of that happening is much lower. And again, bladestorm is mostly useful against heavily-armored targets who, if they're really noticing that bladestorm is causing them trouble, can go for some cover like the rest of us. Stick your toes on some ruins, and bladestorm goes from being a 1/9 chance per shot of killing you to a 1/9 chance per shot of making your save slightly worse.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


And T4. Don't forget T4. All the units with real durability are T5 now. T4 is the new T3.

Not that I'm directly arguing against that, but then what is T3 considered now?

I don't know. For most single wound models, it doesn't matter. Things that wound T4 on a 2+ also wound T3 on a 2+. Multi-wound T3 does really stink because S6 is absolutely everywhere.

Well, as a Necron, I have a lot of S5, which only wounds on 3s against T4. Would you rather be wounded on 3s or 2s? And the only armies with real spammable S6 is Eldar, Tau, and Nids. Otherwise, it's usually special weapons that there are a lot less of across their army.

IG can do it pretty well. S7, at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


And T4. Don't forget T4. All the units with real durability are T5 now. T4 is the new T3.

Not that I'm directly arguing against that, but then what is T3 considered now?

I don't know. For most single wound models, it doesn't matter. Things that wound T4 on a 2+ also wound T3 on a 2+. Multi-wound T3 does really stink because S6 is absolutely everywhere.

Well, as a Necron, I have a lot of S5, which only wounds on 3s against T4. Would you rather be wounded on 3s or 2s? And the only armies with real spammable S6 is Eldar, Tau, and Nids. Otherwise, it's usually special weapons that there are a lot less of across their army.

S5 is sufficiently rare that I'm not worried about it.

Until you play t3 armies. Then, it comes out of the woodwork.

Bharring wrote:
Until you play t3 armies. Then, it comes out of the woodwork.

How? Where? The Imperium isn't using them, I can tell you that. Who is using all this S5 stuff? I'm talking a non-list tailoring situation here. No prior knowledge of the opponent.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Nope. It's a flavor rule. You're basically stuck with it.

Well, it's possible that the effect could change.

What if ATSKNF became 'reroll failed morale and fear tests'? Would that be preferable for marine players?

 vipoid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Nope. It's a flavor rule. You're basically stuck with it.

Well, it's possible that the effect could change.

What if ATSKNF became 'reroll failed morale and fear tests'? Would that be preferable for marine players?

Xeno players seem to think it's a thing, so I'd rather just get rid of it and roll with LD 8. If a marine player really cares, they can get a vet sergeant. Dying is a much, much bigger problem than getting swept.

Well, speaking personally, the reason I dislike ATSKNF is that it auto-ignores Fear (which a ton of my units pay for from various sources), and also auto-ignores Soulfright weapons (making them worthless unless I know for a fact that I won't be playing against marines).

Umm. Ever charged with naked BA tacs?

I mean, plenty of answers, but from a BA player?

Granted, IoM is quite light on mid-S attacks, but even they have a bunch of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you can take my ATSKNF from my Marines when you pry it from their cold, dead fingers! A nerf might be called for, though.

(I imagine the Black Carapace makes it much harder...)

Bharring wrote:
Umm. Ever charged with naked BA tacs?

I mean, plenty of answers, but from a BA player?

Granted, IoM is quite light on mid-S attacks, but even they have a bunch of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you can take my ATSKNF from my Marines when you pry it from their cold, dead fingers! A nerf might be called for, though.

(I imagine the Black Carapace makes it much harder...)

I meant shooting attacks. The kinds of attacks that really matter in 7th. No one lets me assault them with tacs, anyway. They are either dead or get spoiling assaulted.

Again, why have ATSKNF at all? It just gives Xeno players ammo against marine players.

How? If you ignore the part that lets you not get swept (Which is incredibly annoying) then you still need to kill every model for the kill point rather than every other army where you can make them fall back and they'll run off the board.

pm713 wrote:
How? If you ignore the part that lets you not get swept (Which is incredibly annoying) then you still need to kill every model for the kill point rather than every other army where you can make them fall back and they'll run off the board.

My opponents don't leave unit remnants. At least, not often enough to make me care about ATSKNF.

A large chunk of tournament players are winning games by dominating the melee end of the game. 6th ed being a shooting edition was arguable, but 7th ed is certainly not a skeet shoot. If that were the case, tau and eldar would still dominate everyone else, as opposed to the marines of various flavors, and tyranids.

Well, IoM doesn't have a lot of s5/6 shooting, that's true.

For S5, its mostly the AP4 things like Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers. The first doesn't see much use, because, why take it when s4 is so cheap and plentiful for then? The second? If I could take them on my Tacs... Oh, the barbeques I'd have...
Same could be said for S6, though, who's spam is your point.

But Xenos?
Tau. Like, wow. Almost all their small arms (basic weapons, standard tank arms, support missile systems, etc) are s5. Lots. Huge VoF.
Necrons. Not too familiar, Immortals are a good example. Troop s5ap4 rapid fire? Costly per model, but yowsa.
Orkz, like Necrons, always seem to be throwing it around quite a bit. Can't name the weapon, though.

Its not exactly rare. And usually much higher volume than s6.

 vipoid wrote:
Well, speaking personally, the reason I dislike ATSKNF is that it auto-ignores Fear (which a ton of my units pay for from various sources), and also auto-ignores Soulfright weapons (making them worthless unless I know for a fact that I won't be playing against marines).

I agree. GW I passing out Fear left and right (Which, some units it makes sense for them to have it, and I'm grateful from a fluff perspective), but having a huge chunk of armies out there that just outright ignore it is a pain in the butt.

I'm not finding the heavy flamer on tactical squads a very useful thing really. It basically forces them into a pod, of which I am very leery. I don't think BA are good drop list because they need to assault to take advantage of their chapter tactics.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
How? If you ignore the part that lets you not get swept (Which is incredibly annoying) then you still need to kill every model for the kill point rather than every other army where you can make them fall back and they'll run off the board.

My opponents don't leave unit remnants. At least, not often enough to make me care about ATSKNF.

Then maybe you should ask them to cut you some slack. Because it sounds to me like they're so determined to get the most out of each unit (which is fine) they're sucking the fun out of things for you (which is not fine). Although I'm struggling to envisage what army is capable of having that much firepower without using too much to kill a single unit.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
A large chunk of tournament players are winning games by dominating the melee end of the game. 6th ed being a shooting edition was arguable, but 7th ed is certainly not a skeet shoot. If that were the case, tau and eldar would still dominate everyone else, as opposed to the marines of various flavors, and tyranids.

Yah, after seeing the Necron dex, GW is trying to add more melee to the game. Necrons can pull it off now, that tells you something.

Heavy Flamers work great for Sisters. Even without pods.

Bharring wrote:
Well, IoM doesn't have a lot of s5/6 shooting, that's true.

For S5, its mostly the AP4 things like Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers. The first doesn't see much use, because, why take it when s4 is so cheap and plentiful for then? The second? If I could take them on my Tacs... Oh, the barbeques I'd have...
Same could be said for S6, though, who's spam is your point.

But Xenos?
Tau. Like, wow. Almost all their small arms (basic weapons, standard tank arms, support missile systems, etc) are s5. Lots. Huge VoF.
Necrons. Not too familiar, Immortals are a good example. Troop s5ap4 rapid fire? Costly per model, but yowsa.
Orkz, like Necrons, always seem to be throwing it around quite a bit. Can't name the weapon, though.

Its not exactly rare. And usually much higher volume than s6.

Don't forget Destroyers, AP3 S5 with PE. =P If Necrons can do anything, it's certainly spam S5 shooting.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Heavy Flamers work great for Sisters. Even without pods.

How do you get close enough? Why don't enemy units move away?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
How? If you ignore the part that lets you not get swept (Which is incredibly annoying) then you still need to kill every model for the kill point rather than every other army where you can make them fall back and they'll run off the board.

My opponents don't leave unit remnants. At least, not often enough to make me care about ATSKNF.

Then maybe you should ask them to cut you some slack. Because it sounds to me like they're so determined to get the most out of each unit (which is fine) they're sucking the fun out of things for you (which is not fine). Although I'm struggling to envisage what army is capable of having that much firepower without using too much to kill a single unit.

According to ClockworkZion, my generalists can't be given a break because they might run up and use their S6 greandes. Why should they give me the chance?

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Heavy Flamers work great for Sisters. Even without pods.

How do you get close enough? Why don't enemy units move away?

By constantly working to close the gap when I can. And not always. I mean they want to hang out in their cover or hold objectives too or don't have places to go making it possible to cook them out of cover.

Movement is paramount in this game and capitalizing on it matters. I can get 18" turn one from my Rhinos, 6" turn 2 + 6" dismount. I can reach out and touch the my opponent's backline if need be in most games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In short I play very aggressive and try and leverage threats in too many places at the same time to be easily countered.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not finding the heavy flamer on tactical squads a very useful thing really.

I'd be happy to trade you my Liquifier Guns for them.

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not finding the heavy flamer on tactical squads a very useful thing really.

I'd be happy to trade you my Liquifier Guns for them.

I'm sure there are worse weapons out there. Also, I'm sure that sisters players have way more experience with heavy flamers than I do. The range is just so short.

Sisters heavy flamers were good in third edition until the nerf to acts of faith, because of rending on the wounds. But IIRC that rending never applied to vehicles, only to infantry or MC armor, so meh.

 Melissia wrote:
Sisters heavy flamers were good in third edition until the nerf to acts of faith, because of rending on the wounds. But IIRC that rending never applied to vehicles, only to infantry or MC armor, so meh.

They're still good. Mostly because they wound T4 on 3s and kill T3/4+ on 2s. Get PE off on Battle Sisters vs T3 models and you get to re-roll the 1s.

Not as good as rending on Retributors, but Retributors in general are just not as good as they used to be.

Which is sad considering they were still one of the worst units in the codex.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
A large chunk of tournament players are winning games by dominating the melee end of the game. 6th ed being a shooting edition was arguable, but 7th ed is certainly not a skeet shoot. If that were the case, tau and eldar would still dominate everyone else, as opposed to the marines of various flavors, and tyranids.

But the marines and tyranids that are competing with the tau and eldar are using their own awesome shooty units to do so. Centurions and dakka flyrants to be specific.

I mean, yeah melee is still in the game and it can still matter, but going so far as to say 7th is not a shooty edition is a stretch too far for me.

 Melissia wrote:
Which is sad considering they were still one of the worst units in the codex.

They were better in 5th when you could throw them a die to rend every turn.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Which is sad considering they were still one of the worst units in the codex.

They were better in 5th when you could throw them a die to rend every turn.

True. I still can't help but think that 3rd was the best era for Sisters though....

Wyldhunt wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So, the answer to 'is Bladestorm broken' 'Tac Marines suck'? Doesn't seem to address the question. We're going in circles:

-Is Bladestorm OP
-They would shred Marines (and tags)
-That's not what we see/what the math says
-But WS OP
-But, if I'm not fielding WS, is Bladestorm OP?
-GOTO 1

Thank you for pulling us back on track. That's a pretty good summary of the relevant parts of the discussion so far. Based on what we've discussed so far, I'm leaning towards my original stance that bladestorm is not, in fact, a problem. Could bladestorm be represented differently? Sure. Would avengers be worthless without bladestorm? Not really. They'd just be more cowardly and encourage people to spam serpents more since the avengers/guardians couldn't carry their own weight as well. Based on the numbers we've been pushing around, it seems like bladestorm is a noticable but minor advantage over certain targets. The only potential for it being OP that I'm seeing is that you might get lucky or pyschically manipulate your dice rolls into being too much stronger as a result of bladestorm.

If a unit had a 1 in 3 chance of generating 6 rends, for instance, that would be too much, but I'm pretty sure the likelihood of that happening is much lower. And again, bladestorm is mostly useful against heavily-armored targets who, if they're really noticing that bladestorm is causing them trouble, can go for some cover like the rest of us. Stick your toes on some ruins, and bladestorm goes from being a 1/9 chance per shot of killing you to a 1/9 chance per shot of making your save slightly worse.

To further nudge this back on track (since it seems to have taken a slight detour on HF uses in Sisters/BA armies), I would contend that the bolded part is part of the problem. That's not to say that DAs/Guardians "pulling their own weight" is bad, it by far isn't, IMO. It's to say that Eldar troops actually can do so. It unfortunately seems that Eldar Troops choices rely heavily on Bladestorm to do so, but that key fact that they can actually pull their own weight, instead of being a Troops tax, is the "big thing" if you will.

The reason it's a "problem" is because most armies don't have Troops choices that can actually contribute useful capability beyond "more bodies" or "Troops tax" status.

IG? Spam bodies till the Emprah wakes up, because it will at the very least take ages to kill all of them.
Orks? Same deal.
DE? Well, Warriors get Poison basic weapons, so they can contribute some against MCs, and they're kind of cheap (Wyches are terrible, unfortunately).
Tau? Yeah, FWs are pretty much there to hold a home objective, and maybe stuff a min-size squad into a Devilfish for some quick late-game objective grabs.
'Crons? They're ultra-durable by dint of WBB/RP (whatever it's called these days), and both Gauss and Tesla are pretty boss.
'Nids? I actually have no idea, as I've not even gone through whatever the most recent 'Nid book is.
Sisters? Not really sure; they have PA, so it seems like they'd get hurt by Bladestorm a lot... and I don't think Sisters are really that killy per point, but you can get a big blob of 20 PA bodies that's theoretically somewhat difficult to dig out.
Various flavors of Marines? Scouts are good because they're ultra-cheap, and of passable durability in cover with camo cloaks. Bikers are boss because they're T5, Bikes, and get Relentless grav weapons. Tactical Marines (and their equivalents) are lackluster because they aren't particularly killy (bolters are waaaay down on the spectrum of killy guns), they generally only get one special/heavy per 5 guys, that they always have to pay for if they pick one up, and any combi-weapons included are for all practical consideration a single-shot weapon.

It really seems like most Troops units are lackluster- they aren't very deadly, and they aren't very tough. Some armies compensate by being able to flood the board with bodies (IG/Orks), while most seem to kind of just get stuck with being 'meh'. Necrons and Eldar feel like the outliers- Crons have very durable and flexible dudes, but said dudes are also only Initiative 2, don't have much in the way of very-long-range firepower to back them up, and also don't carry the potential to invalidate any infantry armor in the game. Eldar, OTOH... a good counter-Troops unit for fighting Eldar comes down to "bring more mans than they can kill in a practical timeframe".

I'm not entirely sure of how to fix this, but I do think that there's a reason that even in 5th Edition a tourney build for vanilla Marines usually started with the mandatory two Troops units, which were two "meltabunker" Tac squads, and only ever two of those. Of course, a lot has changed since 5th, but the concept of taking the minimum number of Troops before filling out the rest of a list seems to have stuck around for a reason.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Heavy Flamers work great for Sisters. Even without pods.

How do you get close enough? Why don't enemy units move away?

By constantly working to close the gap when I can. And not always. I mean they want to hang out in their cover or hold objectives too or don't have places to go making it possible to cook them out of cover.

Movement is paramount in this game and capitalizing on it matters. I can get 18" turn one from my Rhinos, 6" turn 2 + 6" dismount. I can reach out and touch the my opponent's backline if need be in most games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In short I play very aggressive and try and leverage threats in too many places at the same time to be easily countered.

Except Rhinos die to a stiff breeze, seriously. you either have the best luck ever, or your opponents haven't heard of prioritizing targets properly.

 Melissia wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Which is sad considering they were still one of the worst units in the codex.

They were better in 5th when you could throw them a die to rend every turn.

True. I still can't help but think that 3rd was the best era for Sisters though....

AoF where their closest to broken broken then, but the high cost for everything helped balanced that out because we couldn't take too much of anything and run too much of a muck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Heavy Flamers work great for Sisters. Even without pods.

How do you get close enough? Why don't enemy units move away?

By constantly working to close the gap when I can. And not always. I mean they want to hang out in their cover or hold objectives too or don't have places to go making it possible to cook them out of cover.

Movement is paramount in this game and capitalizing on it matters. I can get 18" turn one from my Rhinos, 6" turn 2 + 6" dismount. I can reach out and touch the my opponent's backline if need be in most games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In short I play very aggressive and try and leverage threats in too many places at the same time to be easily countered.

Except Rhinos die to a stiff breeze, seriously. you either have the best luck ever, or your opponents haven't heard of prioritizing targets properly.

Rhinos only die easily when properly focused on and even 12" of movement and then losing it is better than 6" of walking. Also move 12", pop smoke is a pretty decent option for turn 1. Especially if you use one Rhino to screen a second (meaning the second needs doesn't need to pop smoke as it has a 5+ cover save from the potential burning wreck in front of it). ALSO, Sisters pay 5 more points for their vehicles for a reason: a 6++ standard. It doesn't always help, but negating even one glance can make a different sometimes.

But like I mentioned, I play aggressive. It's never 1 Rhino running up on it's own. It's 2-3 Rhinos, a unit of Seraphim with Celestine and 3 Exorcists (basically 3 Predators for the statline) threatening my opponent at the same time (that's basically my 1.5k list).

I'd rather play aggressive and watch my army go down in flames then playing it safe and get picked apart because I didn't even try to bring my army into range.

Whiskey144 wrote:

I'm not entirely sure of how to fix this, but I do think that there's a reason that even in 5th Edition a tourney build for vanilla Marines usually started with the mandatory two Troops units, which were two "meltabunker" Tac squads, and only ever two of those. Of course, a lot has changed since 5th, but the concept of taking the minimum number of Troops before filling out the rest of a list seems to have stuck around for a reason.

I think there are a couple of problems that apply to most of the 'bad' troops:

- Their weapons don't scale. The troops generally regarded as 'good' have weapons that scale in some way (as in. they can affect more than just infantry) - Eldar can hurt MCs and TEQ thanks to Bladestorm, DE warriors can hurt MCs and bikes, Necrons can torrent down vehicles, Tau have long-range S5, GK terminators have force weapons etc. In contrast, most 'bad' troops are stuck with weapons that have little utility outside of killing infantry (some aren't even good at that role). So, they're reliant on special weapons for versatility, and can usually only take one per squad. It generally just makes them very inefficient of their Elite versions, who can typically take multiple special weapons. Or, they compete with vehicles and/or MCs - which are durable, often fast, and can not only take powerful weapons but also fire them on the move.

- They serve very little purpose outside of firepower. In 5th and 6th, only troops could score - so all troops automatically had a purpose that didn't relate to their damage output. And, by taking few troops, you were both limiting the number of objectives you could capture and also making it easier for your opponent to focus fire and wipe them out. But, now that every unit is scoring, there's very little advantage to taking troops if your other units have better damage output.

Basically:
-Good troops can do something to the big threats in the meta
-Big threats in the meta need to be immune to small arms, or they wouldn't be a big threat

A noticeable problem with the meta, IMO. But if Bladestorm units *were* a threat, wouldn't other troops become not-bad?

The eldar are one of a few armies that perform better, the more powerful the enemy army(dark eldar and necrons are the others). The primary counter to these armies are horde armies. The reason people don't take those is time limits in tournaments. If I am toughness 7or lower, and have 5+ armor, then bladestorm does absolutely nothing to me. Also, eldar struggle with msu. They are elite costed units, but, don't have the survivability to withstand return fire. So small units can more than earn their points back with a single round of shooting.

Now,in regards to internal balance, the blade storm rule is there to allow other craft world's to be able to compete with Iyanden due to them being impossible to kill without it.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The eldar are one of a few armies that perform better, the more powerful the enemy army(dark eldar and necrons are the others).

Not sure about that with regard to DE.

They're good against *some* tough armies (bikes, MCs with 3+ saves), but really bad against others. Mechanised lists are a real struggle, and WS-spam will eat them alive.

They're also, by nature of not being SMs, usually better against things designed to be hard for SMs to kill.

Many armies have access to snipers as troops.
Bladestorm auto wounds on 6, fake-rends on 6
Sniper auto wounds on 4, fake-rends on 6

Snipers are usually are heavy 1, but 2x-3x the range.

Bladestorm is better against t3-, but worse against t5+. A lot worse (not double unless t6+ and the AS is twice or less the alternative save).

Most snipers are only a little cheaper than DAs, but if Bladestorm were really rocking peoples' socks so hard, wouldn't we see more snipers? Sitting 36" away from the target is amazing for survivability, especially on frail models.

Ranges past 24" tend to be worth heavy, and fewer shots. That said, half the shots is kinda a stretch. But so is 36" vs 12"/18".

So, if Bladestorm were enough to make Guardians/DAs 'worth it', while Marines and Guardsmen aren't, why don't we see more Snipers?

(When Tau last updated, people went crazy for 7ppm snipers at 24", but I don't see them all that frequently.)

Bharring wrote:

Most snipers are only a little cheaper than DAs, but if Bladestorm were really rocking peoples' socks so hard, wouldn't we see more snipers? Sitting 36" away from the target is amazing for survivability, especially on frail models.

Well, possibly it depends on what snipers people have available and their opportunity cost. e.g. Any snipers that aren't Troops are already competing for FoC slots and, considering the hefty nerfs to sniper rifles, may simply not be worth it (contrast with DAs and Guardians - who are troops and thus can provide AP2 without needing to compete with more specialised units).

Another example is IG - they have access to cheap snipers in the form of SWSs (which I believe are used), but these are only available if you're taking a Platoon. So, any army taking only veterans won't include any.

There's also mobility - DAs and Guardians can advance and still fire, whilst snipers are basically stuck in place if they want to shoot.

Finally, some armies just don't have good sniper options. My cheapest option is an unit of 5 elites who can take all of 1 sniper rifle between them (and cost 70pts minimum). If I want a second sniper rifle, I need to add another 70pt unit or an 80+pt HQ.


Also, virtually all snipers (with the possible exception of the Vindicare and Deathmarks) seem to suffer from confused roles. Sniper rifles are generally 1-shot weapons, yet their profiles basically demand that they be taken in large quantities in order to be effective. This is rarely an option. Contrast that with Guardians and DAs, who can put out far more shots.

Yeah, comparisons to Deathmarks and Sniper Drone Teams are a bit off.

But what about Kroot?
Scouts?
Rangers?
(Not sure what slot Ratlings are)

I'm not saying they are necessarily as effective as Guardians or DAs, but I'd think they'd be in the same league?

When shooting things that boltguns are good against, sure, twice the shots, but if the point is that its a tax because you don't need anything that's good at what boltguns are good at, wouldn't the argument further state that that comparison doesn't matter?

On the other hand, for the things Bladestorm hurts that Bolters don't?
Against t6+ 3+/5++ (cover or invuln), Sniper is 2x Bladestorm
Against t6+ 3+/4++ snipers win by even more
Against things like Demons, at t6+ 5++ -or anywhere else armor doesn't matter -, Snipers do 3x what Bladestorm does.

The problem is the meta is heavy with 2+/5++, which Bladestorm does do more than half what Sniper does.

And, in all these situations, Snipers are much further away than Bladestorm. And then there is always Precision.

Bladestorm can be taken en masse, sure, but usually at less than 2x the shots.

I'm not saying Snipers are great or Bladestorm is terrible. I'm saying that, if it really were because Bladestorm lets them do something, while other 'troop tax' units don't, you'd see more snipers.

And their absence, to me, makes me think that that isn't the reason. But that perception may be the reason.

(Yes, it may be +5/10 ppm over 'least tax', but DAs are +14points and Guardians are +39points over 'least tax'.)

Ratlings are Elites.

Tactical marines are embarrasingly bad. I dont think Ive ever lost a game to a marine/ terminators based army and I play medium power list at best. I won a game against a list that had too many tacs using (afair) one venomthrope, a CC carnifex, swarmlord with guard, warriors some gants genestealers and broodlords in 6th edition... on a completly empty table. And no he wasnt shooting melta at gants or running to assault the swarmlord which are the only serious mistake he could make I think. We played on an empty table because the game before he lost as well but there was a huge ass home made ruin in the middle and I said 'it's all terrain man, let's play without it and you'll see'. I had no words of comfort the second time.

Seeing tac marines I think easy mode. Bolter ones are just dead weight and one heavy weapon per 10 is not enough. Black templars squads for example make more sense with 1 HW per 5 but it still doesnt fix them, which imo makes standard ones quite pathetic from that perspective.

And how does that compare to Guardians/DAs?

@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

More than 50% of the time when I list swap, I table my own BA. Of course, the counter argument to this is that I know BA inside and out.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

More than 50% of the time when I list swap, I table my own BA. Of course, the counter argument to this is that I know BA inside and out.

They should also know their list inside and out, and if they regularly win with said list versus your army and then you do the same, then the issue is more likely to be with your army (at least in the context of dealing with that list).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

More than 50% of the time when I list swap, I table my own BA. Of course, the counter argument to this is that I know BA inside and out.

They should also know their list inside and out, and if they regularly win with said list versus your army and then you do the same, then the issue is more likely to be with your army (at least in the context of dealing with that list).

It depends. When I swap with meq lists, I can usually win on either side. Swapping with Eldar/Tau has been a disaster for BA on both sides.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

More than 50% of the time when I list swap, I table my own BA. Of course, the counter argument to this is that I know BA inside and out.

They should also know their list inside and out, and if they regularly win with said list versus your army and then you do the same, then the issue is more likely to be with your army (at least in the context of dealing with that list).

It depends. When I swap with meq lists, I can usually win on either side. Swapping with Eldar/Tau has been a disaster for BA on both sides.

Issue might be how you're building your army then. Or how they're building theirs. We've seen you complain about issues with the folks you play against though, so any one of those problems could also the source of the issue.

And that leads to my point (again): Bladestorm, in a vacuum isn't bad. Most things, on their own, aren't bad. It's when a whole stack of things pile up together (like well kitted out Riptides plus a lack of LOS blocking terrain) that things get bad.

I won't deny somethings are stronger than others, but I think some people get overly focused on hating a codex as a whole that they ignore the things the codex isn't doing wrong, or actually has working against it.

Is any unit with JSJ or battle focus easier or harder to deal with if there is LOS blocking terrain? I feel that convincing people to use more LOS blocking terrain wont' help vs JSJ or battle focus units.

Also, I let them rebuild the BA how ever they like because I have like 6000 pts of them. We more codex swap than straight army swap.

Martel732 wrote:
Is any unit with JSJ or battle focus easier or harder to deal with if there is LOS blocking terrain? I feel that convincing people to use more LOS blocking terrain wont' help vs JSJ or battle focus units.

Also, I let them rebuild the BA how ever they like because I have like 6000 pts of them. We more codex swap than straight army swap.

LOS Blocking terrain would prevent the Riptide from getting a full 5' LoS anywhere on the board. When you restrict how many units it can potentially engage at once you can force it to take less optimal targets.

Same for Battle Focus, there is a limit to how far out they can effect in a turn and if you're using your own maneuverability properly you can reduce or negate their targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RE: Codex Swap might be the issue. If they aren't proficient in building a list they could be building a sub-optimal BA list to fight their own army without knowing it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is any unit with JSJ or battle focus easier or harder to deal with if there is LOS blocking terrain? I feel that convincing people to use more LOS blocking terrain wont' help vs JSJ or battle focus units.

Also, I let them rebuild the BA how ever they like because I have like 6000 pts of them. We more codex swap than straight army swap.

LOS Blocking terrain would prevent the Riptide from getting a full 5' LoS anywhere on the board. When you restrict how many units it can potentially engage at once you can force it to take less optimal targets.

Same for Battle Focus, there is a limit to how far out they can effect in a turn and if you're using your own maneuverability properly you can reduce or negate their targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RE: Codex Swap might be the issue. If they aren't proficient in building a list they could be building a sub-optimal BA list to fight their own army without knowing it.

As long as they can get one target, they are good to go, I think. Or don't you agree? I mean, the Riptide vaporizes every unit in the BA codex.

"If they aren't proficient in building a list they could be building a sub-optimal BA list to fight their own army without knowing it."

No one can even agree what an optimal BA list even is. Be honest, how scared of BA are you with Sisters? I'm guessing not very.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is any unit with JSJ or battle focus easier or harder to deal with if there is LOS blocking terrain? I feel that convincing people to use more LOS blocking terrain wont' help vs JSJ or battle focus units.

Also, I let them rebuild the BA how ever they like because I have like 6000 pts of them. We more codex swap than straight army swap.

LOS Blocking terrain would prevent the Riptide from getting a full 5' LoS anywhere on the board. When you restrict how many units it can potentially engage at once you can force it to take less optimal targets.

Same for Battle Focus, there is a limit to how far out they can effect in a turn and if you're using your own maneuverability properly you can reduce or negate their targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RE: Codex Swap might be the issue. If they aren't proficient in building a list they could be building a sub-optimal BA list to fight their own army without knowing it.

As long as they can get one target, they are good to go, I think. Or don't you agree? I mean, the Riptide vaporizes every unit in the BA codex.

"If they aren't proficient in building a list they could be building a sub-optimal BA list to fight their own army without knowing it."

No one can even agree what an optimal BA list even is. Be honest, how scared of BA are you with Sisters? I'm guessing not very.

Blood Angels scare the crap out of my tank company because of the Assault after Deepstrike formation if you bring 3 flyers and 3 tactical squads.

I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

Martel732 wrote:
I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

It isn't crappy against 10 LRBTs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

It isn't crappy against 10 LRBTs.

Without a priori knowledge that 10 LRBTs are coming, I maintain that it is indeed a crappy formation. You have to consider the entire field in such an analysis.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

It isn't crappy against 10 LRBTs.

Without a priori knowledge that 10 LRBTs are coming, I maintain that it is indeed a crappy formation.

It is crappy in some situations and good in others.

All it takes to disprove a general statement is a specific counter example.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

It isn't crappy against 10 LRBTs.

Without a priori knowledge that 10 LRBTs are coming, I maintain that it is indeed a crappy formation.

It is crappy in some situations and good in others.

All it takes to disprove a general statement is a specific counter example.

That's not really true. If it is crappy in 80% of situations, and good in 20%, that means it's crappy because the odds are stacked so heavily against you. Each specific data point just adds to the data set, and disproves nothing.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

It isn't crappy against 10 LRBTs.

Without a priori knowledge that 10 LRBTs are coming, I maintain that it is indeed a crappy formation.

It is crappy in some situations and good in others.

All it takes to disprove a general statement is a specific counter example.

That's not really true. If it is crappy in 80% of situations, and good in 20%, that means it's crappy because the odds are stacked so heavily against you. Each specific data point just adds to the data set, and disproves nothing.

I maintain that crappy is still an overgeneralization.

I think there are far too many opposing lists where the three tactical squads will just drag you down too much to be competitive. That, and the Stormravens aren't really that good at supplying consistent firepower, as they have the flier movement restrictions. It's around 1000 pts of units that don't really contribute much.

Interestingly, if the formation had 30 models with bladestorm, that would at least bring efficacy vs monstrous creatures.

A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

And what do you mean "doesn't contribute much?!" They contribute the ability to assault after deep-striking, literally skipping over the problem that assault armies have with getting shot on the way in.

Like, that's pretty incredible.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

Fair enough. That's my main point rephrased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

And what do you mean "doesn't contribute much?!" They contribute the ability to assault after deep-striking, literally skipping over the problem that assault armies have with getting shot on the way in.

Like, that's pretty incredible.

Except they are tac squads. And there are too many lists that don't care about being assaulted by tac marines. Yes, LRBTs care about the krak grenades, but lists like Orks and Tyranids are just licking their chops. And as I said, those Stormravens aren't doing that much damage to an enemy list.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

Fair enough. That's my main point rephrased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

And what do you mean "doesn't contribute much?!" They contribute the ability to assault after deep-striking, literally skipping over the problem that assault armies have with getting shot on the way in.

Like, that's pretty incredible.

Except they are tac squads. And there are too many lists that don't care about being assaulted by tac marines. Yes, LRBTs care about the krak grenades, but lists like Orks and Tyranids are just licking their chops.

The assaulting units don't have to be tac squads. They could be assault terminators or vanguard veterans or anyone who deepstrikes. Hell, they could be any BA model in a pod.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

Fair enough. That's my main point rephrased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

And what do you mean "doesn't contribute much?!" They contribute the ability to assault after deep-striking, literally skipping over the problem that assault armies have with getting shot on the way in.

Like, that's pretty incredible.

Except they are tac squads. And there are too many lists that don't care about being assaulted by tac marines. Yes, LRBTs care about the krak grenades, but lists like Orks and Tyranids are just licking their chops.

The assaulting units don't have to be tac squads. They could be assault terminators or vanguard veterans or anyone who deepstrikes. Hell, they could be any BA model in a pod.

That's true, but you don't have that many points left over to work with. There's also some debate about the legality of how this formation works, which is a super headache and just not worth it to me.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

Fair enough. That's my main point rephrased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

And what do you mean "doesn't contribute much?!" They contribute the ability to assault after deep-striking, literally skipping over the problem that assault armies have with getting shot on the way in.

Like, that's pretty incredible.

Except they are tac squads. And there are too many lists that don't care about being assaulted by tac marines. Yes, LRBTs care about the krak grenades, but lists like Orks and Tyranids are just licking their chops.

The assaulting units don't have to be tac squads. They could be assault terminators or vanguard veterans or anyone who deepstrikes. Hell, they could be any BA model in a pod.

That's true, but you don't have that many points left over to work with. There's also some debate about the legality of how this formation works, which is a super headache and just not worth it to me.

My friend runs the 1st Company detachment and that Formation, so he brings the formation (3 ravens and 3 tac squads) and 4 terminator squads with captain (iirc). He deploys nothing, goes second. Bottom of 1, rolls for the formation, boosts the stormravens in 36". I can't shoot him because I lack AA weapons. Top of 2, 4ish deep striking terminator squads and 3 tac marine squads hit my tanks.

That doesn't sound like "not enough points for alot). Hell, last game he brought even more terminators, because we played 2500.

Martel732 wrote:
Be honest, how scared of BA are you with Sisters? I'm guessing not very.

I fear no army. I go into every game with the intent of giving it my all and at the very least trying to learn where I can improve.

Besides, they're little plastic (or metal, or resin) people. What do I realistically have to be afraid of them over?

30 Bladestorm models as a 'tax' would be good against slow MCs, sure. But 30 Tacs as a tax are good against 30 Bladestorm models. Or 10 Rhinos.

Lots of things in the BA codex scares the hell out of my footdar.

(And only a few models can battle focus after shooting 24". Only things shooting farther and battle focusing are large-footprint War Walkers, and certain never-seen HQ options.)

Martel732 wrote:
Is any unit with JSJ or battle focus easier or harder to deal with if there is LOS blocking terrain? I feel that convincing people to use more LOS blocking terrain wont' help vs JSJ or battle focus units.

Also, I let them rebuild the BA how ever they like because I have like 6000 pts of them. We more codex swap than straight army swap.

Please not with the LOS blocking terrain! It literally solves nothing. All it does is mitigate the advantage of turn 1 which hurts you 50% of the time too. As martel has pointed out repeatedly - UNITS THAT CAN MOVE AFTER THEY SHOOT GAIN MORE BENEFIT FROM LOS BLOCKING TERRAIN THAT UNITS THAT DON'T. To my knowledge not a single space marine units can do this (minus a few formations that can do it conditionally and 1 time only). Tau and Eldar have tons of units that can do this...stop trying to convince martel more cover, more LOS blocking is good. In reality. Marines would function best in a 0 cover environment because their basic armor save is good. Before games start I always argue for less cover...mainly because I don't think it's fair that weak 5 point model roll the same denial dice as my expensive 20 point strike squads do or even my 32 point terms in most cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
30 Bladestorm models as a 'tax' would be good against slow MCs, sure. But 30 Tacs as a tax are good against 30 Bladestorm models. Or 10 Rhinos.

Lots of things in the BA codex scares the hell out of my footdar.

(And only a few models can battle focus after shooting 24". Only things shooting farther and battle focusing are large-footprint War Walkers, and certain never-seen HQ options.)

30 blade-storm models ace MC before they get to you usually.

Riptide? Outranges anything with Bladestorm. So sits in the back dropping pieplates.

Oh, and survives 30 Bladestorm shooters.

DK? Heavy Flamer + Shunt is a *lot* of dead Bladestormers.
And the Psycannon outranges them.
And can sweep them all if it comes to melee.
On the plus side, if all 30 shoot it in one go, they might kill it. If they're all still alive.

Bladestorm models are unlikely to get more than 1 round of shooting.

And 30 DAs is 390 points.

They aren't bad against MCs, but they're no trump card.

And your answer to occasionally-AP2 shooting is to not use cover? Wow.

LOS blocking can still help against battle focus. Stand near it. They shoot you? Can't battle focus far enough not to get charged. And even on the rends, you probably get cover.

LOS blocking terrain is about reducing the number of units that can effectively engage your army. Even if it mitigates it for a single turn that increases the amount of stuff you can still keep in the game.

Never underestimate the advantage of reducing how much firepower is coming in, even for a single turn.

The divergent LOS blocking views are interesting. A lot of disagreement seems to come from engagement range. Bharring is assuming BA can get significant army elements close enough to Eldar to actually assault them. Or maybe that's just my perception.

When playing against footdar, certainly.

Bharring wrote:
When playing against footdar, certainly.

I don't think I've played a footdar list since 3rd. That was last century.

I think I misunderstood you.
Do you think BA should reliably get significant army elements into assault?
Isn't that nearly the same as thinking BA should autowin against squishier armies?

At any rate, haven't we established Bladestorm isn't a big thing in armies you face now?

So aren't armies that you don't face now more relevant?

(And I field footdar all the time. Its not 'last century'.)

Bharring wrote:
And how does that compare to Guardians/DAs?

So this isn't the weekly "marines are crap' thread?

On a serious note, in my personal experience rending is ussualy more efficient against infantry/MCs in gameplay than on paper. A small fluke on 12 dice and 3 termies gone etc, also it's not a big deal when it fails (as it's only troops shooting) but when it works it really hurts. Id say bolters make marines worse as troops because they are not a serious threat on a table, thats excluding transport options ofc heh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

Yes I even proposed a list swap but the guy had enough then. I didnt notice any major mistakes in his play though, his target priority wasnt 100% perfect and obviously Im a genius but still I should have lost that game imo.

Black templar squad gets a special and a heavy in 5 guys and I still dont think they are good enough, much better than standard tacs though.

Bharring wrote:
I think I misunderstood you.
Do you think BA should reliably get significant army elements into assault?
Isn't that nearly the same as thinking BA should autowin against squishier armies?

At any rate, haven't we established Bladestorm isn't a big thing in armies you face now?

So aren't armies that you don't face now more relevant?

(And I field footdar all the time. Its not 'last century'.)

The BA aren't that great at assault compared to the real assault units in the game. It's far from an auto win.

"At any rate, haven't we established Bladestorm isn't a big thing in armies you face now? "

Pretty much. It would just be really nice against Daemons and GK, though.

Bladestorm isn't a big deal and if it was we would see more footdar. Currently serpents are king with wraithknight support. (wraithknights are competitive but not over the top)(serpents need a point reduction and a weapon reduction-maybe assault option)

But think of the basic troop without a vehicle will die to a stiff breeze. if combined with a vehicle it could survive but then your sacrificing the vehicle and have less damage out put by bladestorm.
(and honestly how many people actually fill out their serpents with da or guardians)

You do realize, Martel, that 5 Tacs will beat 10 DAs? That 3 will beat 10 Guardians?

Bharring wrote:
You do realize, Martel, that 5 Tacs will beat 10 DAs? That 3 will beat 10 Guardians?

Beat them at what?

In melee. You don't need TH/SS to beat things. You just need to be marginally better in the matchup.

I think footdar might be one of the few things that tacs are efficient against in melee.

 Slayer222 wrote:
Bladestorm isn't a big deal and if it was we would see more footdar.

Why?

Bladestorm does not matter to me at all.

In the Eldar i face the Dire Avengers don't even get out of their Wave Serpent, so bladestorm is more or less a moot point..
I hardly ever see Eldar infantry except for the fire dragons coming out of a wave serpent or swooping Hawks pinpoint deep striking on an objective.

Don't you see DA hoping out of their transport late game to finish of squads with 2-3 models left or when there is a MC with 1-2 wounds left and they gang up on it ? Am not saying they hop out turn 1-2, but DA do get out of their transport.

Bharring wrote:
Riptide? Outranges anything with Bladestorm. So sits in the back dropping pieplates.

Oh, and survives 30 Bladestorm shooters.

DK? Heavy Flamer + Shunt is a *lot* of dead Bladestormers.
And the Psycannon outranges them.
And can sweep them all if it comes to melee.
On the plus side, if all 30 shoot it in one go, they might kill it. If they're all still alive.

Bladestorm models are unlikely to get more than 1 round of shooting.

And 30 DAs is 390 points.

They aren't bad against MCs, but they're no trump card.

And your answer to occasionally-AP2 shooting is to not use cover? Wow.

LOS blocking can still help against battle focus. Stand near it. They shoot you? Can't battle focus far enough not to get charged. And even on the rends, you probably get cover.

Riptides survive anything - almost no point in ever bringing them up in a discussion about ballance. Eldar basically always have the upper hand...they outshoot your transports at range and ignore their cover with serpant shields. They get +1 covers saves. This is a situation that you are FORCED to bull rush them to combat their weakness (assualt). Then they shoot you down more often than not. Not saying I can't make a list that beats serpant spam with a ton of bladestorm. It just requires 150 dollar tanks from England and I'm just not paying that.

Just what, exactly, is Bladestorm outranging?

Infernus Pistols?

I'm actually... reasonably sure that Tacs statistically beat an equal points of value of pretty much any non-assault-specialist unit in the game in melee, except maybe Immortals in the Decurion.