Breton wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: again: IG can take maximum 3 SWS. Not 6.

I'll take Command Squads for 45 Alex. SWS are just one of the small Melta Squads that can be running around. Hell someone else already pointed out there could be 9 of the things running around if you mix and match Tempestus.

dude just give it up.
I think people are getting too worked up about eradicators but even I can see this line of argument isn't going to convince anyone.

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: again: IG can take maximum 3 SWS. Not 6.

I'll take Command Squads for 45 Alex. SWS are just one of the small Melta Squads that can be running around. Hell someone else already pointed out there could be 9 of the things running around if you mix and match Tempestus.

dude just give it up.
I think people are getting too worked up about eradicators but even I can see this line of argument isn't going to convince anyone.

I'm pretty sure pointing out Command Squads can take Melta Guns will convince some people, 6 Melta Gun squads can be taken.

I haven't been "trying" to convince anyone for a while. They ask a question - and entertainingly its almost always prefaced with "honest question", I answer, they get apoplectic over some falsehood or strawman they want to throw up - SWS are the only way to get a small team of melta running around - I correct it. They rinse and repeat.

Breton wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: again: IG can take maximum 3 SWS. Not 6.

I'll take Command Squads for 45 Alex. SWS are just one of the small Melta Squads that can be running around. Hell someone else already pointed out there could be 9 of the things running around if you mix and match Tempestus.

That was me by the way.

Command squads have BS 3+ and cost 6 Points/dude. So 24+ 40 = 64 points for 4 melta shots.
To do it again. If we take a look at the absolute Maximum Meltaspam IG can do:
3 SWS (135 Points) => 4.5 hits
3 CS (192 Points) => 8 hits
3 Tempestus CS (240 Points) => 8 hits
Full sized Tempestus Scions (each 190) => 2.66 hits each
So far everything at 12''

3x Servitors (72) with 2 MM each (6 x 35 = 210, right?) and a Techpriest (35) for BS 4+ (317 Points in total) => 6 hits, but at 24'' range

So in its extreme (you talked about spamming) we could fit in a 2000 Point batallion (we have to take 2 Commanders for 70 Points)
all of the above + 5.5 Tempestus Squads and reach 1999 Points (note that we would have to many elite choices but ignore that for the Moment.)
This extreme Meltaspam list would reach 35.17 melta HITS at 12'' and 6 at 24''.

So compare that to Marine Meltaspam that is possible:
3 x 6 Eradicators with MM (840 Points) => 32 melta HITS at 24'' range.
Add attack bikes, Land speeders and other infantry that can wield meltas and you see that marines can spam more Melta for less Points at higher range with more durability.

Breton wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: again: IG can take maximum 3 SWS. Not 6.

I'll take Command Squads for 45 Alex. SWS are just one of the small Melta Squads that can be running around. Hell someone else already pointed out there could be 9 of the things running around if you mix and match Tempestus.

Not sure how you're taking a Command Squad (regular or Tempestus) loaded with meltaguns for 45 points but ok.
Also that's 9 Elite slots, so you'll need a second Detachment.
Plus you need 1 Tempestor Prime per Tempestus Command Squad and 1 <Regiment> Commander per regular Command Squad.

Why is it that spending 1 Heavy Support slot on an Eradictor unit is seen as a massive detriment, but 3-6 HQs and 9-12 Elites (and a second Detachment) is not?

@ Matt.Kingsley: totally forgot that you need a Fitting commander for each Command squad. So my calculation in the last post is too high for a 2000 Points army. You would have to shave of one of the Tempestos Squads to fit in the 3 necessary Tempestors (120 Points) and the 3rd Commander (35 Points). So we would land at slightly less than 32 melta HITS at 12'' range. Or slightly less than the 3 x 6 Eradicators do at 24'' range for less than half the Points

EDIT But of course the IG army would still have thos 6 MM hits from the servitors that the SM army had to balance with one of their various other melter options.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: again: IG can take maximum 3 SWS. Not 6.

I'll take Command Squads for 45 Alex. SWS are just one of the small Melta Squads that can be running around. Hell someone else already pointed out there could be 9 of the things running around if you mix and match Tempestus.

Not sure how you're taking a Command Squad (regular or Tempestus) loaded with meltaguns for 45 points but ok.
Also that's 9 Elite slots, so you'll need a second Detachment.
Plus you need 1 Tempestor Prime per Tempestus Command Squad and 1 <Regiment> Commander per regular Command Squad.

Why is it that spending 1 Heavy Support slot on an Eradictor unit is seen as a massive detriment, but 3-6 HQs and 9-12 Elites (and a second Detachment) is not?

You're right they're not 45 - that was the number for something else. SWS? Something stuck in my head about 45 points.

I'ts not a massive detriment. HS slots for Marines are kind of thin right now anyway. But it's also not 6+ slots deep in a Batallion like Elite slot. And if I'm playing Guard I'm already likely taking a Brigade - which allows 12 Infantry Squads, 3+ HQ's, and a crapton of Elites.. Truth be told I'm probably taking a Brigade, and a Spearhead for some Leman Russ. If I take LR.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Matt.Kingsley: totally forgot that you need a Fitting commander for each Command squad. So my calculation in the last post is too high for a 2000 Points army. You would have to shave of one of the Tempestos Squads to fit in the 3 necessary Tempestors (120 Points) and the 3rd Commander (35 Points). So we would land at slightly less than 32 melta HITS at 12'' range. Or slightly less than the 3 x 6 Eradicators do at 24'' range for less than half the Points

EDIT But of course the IG army would still have thos 6 MM hits from the servitors that the SM army had to balance with one of their various other melter options.

That's OK, I was only "counting" 6 as a "pure" Guard instead of mix and match.

@ Breton: but do you see, that IG can not spam Melta for cheap compared with Marines? And that Command Squads and Scions have to pay 10 points per meltagun?

By the way just that I don't argument wrongly, is my memory correct that the new 2 shot MM are 35 points on platforms like Servitors?

Wow. Still going after the red text. That's dedication.

Just outright ban this Ultramarine fanboy guy, there's no point in arguing with a toxic troll that denies evidence for the sake of his argumentations

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Just outright ban this Ultramarine fanboy guy, there's no point in arguing with a toxic troll that denies evidence for the sake of his argumentations

I don't think that's necessary.

At this point I think it might be. He’s one of the biggest shot posters I’ve ever seen next to a couple of other select names.

There really is kind of an artform to figuring out what's really good, I think. It's more than just counting melta shots. I know that even three eradicators would change movement phase pretty significantly. That's really good.

The thing is a major part of this forum is people disagreeing over unit stats - in bad faith or otherwise. If they all eventually go, its just going to be "but I liked 5th edition" "but I didn't" "no but you don't get it - I really liked 5th edition" - repeat until heat death of the universe.

It would be great to try and stimulate some debate into how the going second disadvantage could be reduced for all armies beyond Harlequins and Slaanesh Daemons - but I don't think many posters are interested.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: but do you see, that IG can not spam Melta for cheap compared with Marines? And that Command Squads and Scions have to pay 10 points per meltagun?

6 Melta squads, each about half the price or less of an Erads squad. Most even cheaper than 1 MM AB "squad"? Sure sounds like they can.

By the way just that I don't argument wrongly, is my memory correct that the new 2 shot MM are 35 points on platforms like Servitors?

Not even with the Servitor included. At least according to CA2020.

Breton wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: again: IG can take maximum 3 SWS. Not 6.

I'll take Command Squads for 45 Alex. SWS are just one of the small Melta Squads that can be running around. Hell someone else already pointed out there could be 9 of the things running around if you mix and match Tempestus.

Not sure how you're taking a Command Squad (regular or Tempestus) loaded with meltaguns for 45 points but ok.
Also that's 9 Elite slots, so you'll need a second Detachment.
Plus you need 1 Tempestor Prime per Tempestus Command Squad and 1 <Regiment> Commander per regular Command Squad.

Why is it that spending 1 Heavy Support slot on an Eradictor unit is seen as a massive detriment, but 3-6 HQs and 9-12 Elites (and a second Detachment) is not?

You're right they're not 45 - that was the number for something else. SWS? Something stuck in my head about 45 points.

I'ts not a massive detriment. HS slots for Marines are kind of thin right now anyway. But it's also not 6+ slots deep in a Batallion like Elite slot. And if I'm playing Guard I'm already likely taking a Brigade - which allows 12 Infantry Squads, 3+ HQ's, and a crapton of Elites.. Truth be told I'm probably taking a Brigade, and a Spearhead for some Leman Russ. If I take LR.

If you're taking 12 Infantry Squads and all these Command Squads, SWS & duplicate Commanders, you're not going to have enough points for a proper Spearhead of Leman Russes, unless you want all the non-Tempestus Command Squads and the SWS to forgo their transports. At that point, you might as well just use the Leman Russes to fill out the HS slots of the Brigade (instead of something cheaper and less effective) and just take a Patrol or squeeze a Battalion in for your extra HQs and Elites.

At that point you have a bunch of squishy, short-ranged dudes with decent firepower that maybe has a transport; a couple of units of short ranged dudes that can deep strike but are easily screened; and maybe a few tanks with actual firepower. Everything else are just slow, paper-mache flashlights.

And after all that, the heavy firepower from the few non-vehicle units is still quite a bit worse than that of 3 full strength Eliminator units. And the marines have far more points to spare on other units that are just as good as the Eliminators while also not needing to spend points on tax units like Sentinels or the excessive Commanders.

SecondTime wrote:
There really is kind of an artform to figuring out what's really good, I think. It's more than just counting melta shots. I know that even three eradicators would change movement phase pretty significantly. That's really good.

More than just counting T5 and 3+ too. Nobody has even thought to point out armies like Nids could/would have the unit numbers to shoot the Infantry squads AND the Melta squads. And I've been waiting for it. But not holding my breath, knowing the Marine laser focus around here. Almost nobody REALLY wants to talk about balance, or improving someone ELSE's army for that balance. Watch the rare non-Marine thread. Everyone loves the Guard until you start talking about some of the problems they have and fixing those instead of how much worse off they are than Marines. Guard have issues, I've brought it up before. I've been thoroughly entertained to see the same people argue those problems don't need to be fixed (unless it can be swung around to fixing it by nerfing Marines). For Example: Guard and Tau have two of the worst Troop Point to Filled Detachment ratios. They also have a dearth of close combat units in a close combat edition. Guard have the worst/squishiest HQ's, period as GW tries/appears-to-be-trying to get a secondary game-within-the-game going with Snipers and Bodyguards.

How many months ago was I pointing out Eradicators were overhyped, and pointing at AB's, Speeders, and ATVs? Same-ish results, on a faster platform for Super Melta, in the even thinner FA slot opening up HS for Grav Devs that don't care about their "nerf" and still outshine Heavy Bolters 99% of the time. Nobody cared or listened. Must Nerf Eradicators. Hellblasters just got a boost. But they got a boost on the loads most people didn't make, so it's going to take a while (even compared to normal Covid "a whiles") for people to get more kits and build the "good" version(s). OC'able Assault 3 S6 -4 D1 that fits in an Impulsor with Assault Vehicle (which is probably overkill as they're Assault 3 and can just advance not Rapid Fire and slow)

Breton wrote:
Everyone loves the Guard until you start talking about some of the problems they have and fixing those instead of how much worse off they are than Marines.

Bruh, I'm a Guard player and I argued for most of 8th Ed that Guardsmen were underpriced. If we want to talk about changes to Guard, I also dislike the shoot-twice implementation of Grinding Advance, the artificiality and lopsided balance of Orders, how Commissars were nerfed into irrelevance, how Conscripts are the same price as Infantry Squads but just worse, and how Command Squads are just better Special Weapons Squads.

There are things I think should be nerfed, things I think should be buffed, and things I think should be changed for just about every faction. This whole 'everyone just hates Marines' shtick gets really tiresome.

Breton wrote:
How many months ago was I pointing out Eradicators were overhyped, and pointing at AB's, Speeders, and ATVs? Same-ish results, on a faster platform for Super Melta, in the even thinner FA slot opening up HS for Grav Devs that don't care about their "nerf" and still outshine Heavy Bolters 99% of the time. Nobody cared or listened.

Nobody missed that. Yes, those are all effective anti-tank now too.

But you seem to be under the impression that this indicates Eradicators are balanced units, and not that Marines now have a variety of over-the-top anti-tank options thanks to the huge multimelta buff. And yes, these are all overpowered, not the new standard that surely everyone else's codex will bring them up to- because a game where all units can delete their value of the enemy in one turn and games are over at the end of the second battle round is not a game that anyone wants to show up to, and given that Necrons didn't get that treatment, it seems unlikely to actually happen.

Eradicators are the focus because their stats were revealed before the melta change, so at that point these multimelta platforms weren't nearly as good. And because they're easy to compare to other anti-tank infantry. And because they don't pay for mobility like ABs, Speeders, and ATVs, so they have a much better chance to make their points back in one volley. And because they're a new unit explicitly designed with these capabilities, rather than a potential platform indirectly benefiting from a weapon buff. And because the people who defended them before keep defending them now.

On the previous page I posted a sample of high-placing tournament lists that feature Eradicators. If you're still convinced that Special Weapon Squads are just as good, show us the tournament lists that use them.

Breton wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
There really is kind of an artform to figuring out what's really good, I think. It's more than just counting melta shots. I know that even three eradicators would change movement phase pretty significantly. That's really good.

More than just counting T5 and 3+ too. Nobody has even thought to point out armies like Nids could/would have the unit numbers to shoot the Infantry squads AND the Melta squads. And I've been waiting for it. But not holding my breath, knowing the Marine laser focus around here. Almost nobody REALLY wants to talk about balance, or improving someone ELSE's army for that balance. Watch the rare non-Marine thread. Everyone loves the Guard until you start talking about some of the problems they have and fixing those instead of how much worse off they are than Marines. Guard have issues, I've brought it up before. I've been thoroughly entertained to see the same people argue those problems don't need to be fixed (unless it can be swung around to fixing it by nerfing Marines). For Example: Guard and Tau have two of the worst Troop Point to Filled Detachment ratios. They also have a dearth of close combat units in a close combat edition. Guard have the worst/squishiest HQ's, period as GW tries/appears-to-be-trying to get a secondary game-within-the-game going with Snipers and Bodyguards.

How many months ago was I pointing out Eradicators were overhyped, and pointing at AB's, Speeders, and ATVs? Same-ish results, on a faster platform for Super Melta, in the even thinner FA slot opening up HS for Grav Devs that don't care about their "nerf" and still outshine Heavy Bolters 99% of the time. Nobody cared or listened. Must Nerf Eradicators. Hellblasters just got a boost. But they got a boost on the loads most people didn't make, so it's going to take a while (even compared to normal Covid "a whiles") for people to get more kits and build the "good" version(s). OC'able Assault 3 S6 -4 D1 that fits in an Impulsor with Assault Vehicle (which is probably overkill as they're Assault 3 and can just advance not Rapid Fire and slow)

As a learning necron player, I can tell you that the eradicators will change my movement patterns way more than the IG melta squads. Assuming I ever see IG melta squads. To match the firepower, they have to get what? 8 melta guardsmen within 12" to match 3 eradicators at 24". That's much much harder. How are 8 melta guardsmen going to survive the gauss gauntlet?

Breton wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
There really is kind of an artform to figuring out what's really good, I think. It's more than just counting melta shots. I know that even three eradicators would change movement phase pretty significantly. That's really good.

More than just counting T5 and 3+ too. Nobody has even thought to point out armies like Nids could/would have the unit numbers to shoot the Infantry squads AND the Melta squads. And I've been waiting for it. But not holding my breath, knowing the Marine laser focus around here. Almost nobody REALLY wants to talk about balance, or improving someone ELSE's army for that balance. Watch the rare non-Marine thread. Everyone loves the Guard until you start talking about some of the problems they have and fixing those instead of how much worse off they are than Marines. Guard have issues, I've brought it up before. I've been thoroughly entertained to see the same people argue those problems don't need to be fixed (unless it can be swung around to fixing it by nerfing Marines). For Example: Guard and Tau have two of the worst Troop Point to Filled Detachment ratios. They also have a dearth of close combat units in a close combat edition. Guard have the worst/squishiest HQ's, period as GW tries/appears-to-be-trying to get a secondary game-within-the-game going with Snipers and Bodyguards.

How many months ago was I pointing out Eradicators were overhyped, and pointing at AB's, Speeders, and ATVs? Same-ish results, on a faster platform for Super Melta, in the even thinner FA slot opening up HS for Grav Devs that don't care about their "nerf" and still outshine Heavy Bolters 99% of the time. Nobody cared or listened. Must Nerf Eradicators. Hellblasters just got a boost. But they got a boost on the loads most people didn't make, so it's going to take a while (even compared to normal Covid "a whiles") for people to get more kits and build the "good" version(s). OC'able Assault 3 S6 -4 D1 that fits in an Impulsor with Assault Vehicle (which is probably overkill as they're Assault 3 and can just advance not Rapid Fire and slow)

I'm not sure you're making the point you want to make.

If you're trying to say "Marines are way too good, even if Eradicators were deleted wholesale!" then job well done. If you're trying to say Eradicators aren't an issue... Not so much.

Breton wrote:

Look at the entire argument. Retributors don't count because No Reason. Arguing Semantically was the "rules" of the argument. Even you're about to do it. T3 5+ that isn't shot at is a lot more durable than T5 3+ that is. I already pointed out a MEQ priced army could have (generally at best) 10 units to "act" (read shoot/fight) opposing units. With 12 Infantry squads on objectives, and 6 little melta units running around, something isn't being shot at. Well except for the guy who thinks his Vanguard Vet unit is going to be running around 6 different places wiping out 6 different units all at once.

When the premise of the argument is to change 20 points per melta shot to everyone else pays more for Multi Meltas - except for the only other unit he can think of that can take Multi Meltas so honestly there are no other candidates - How else BUT semantically is this argument supposed to play out? My little joke about left boots being larger than right boots and "doesn't count" was about this exact thing - using semantics and laser focused cherry picking to so limit the paradigm. No other T5 3+ Melta unit is as cheap as Erads because Erads are the only T5 3+ melta unit

And SWS are 1 Melta shot per 20ish points(less if you don't count the ablative wound), on a BS4 body nobody is shooting at because they're drowning in T3 1W 5+ bodies. There's more than one road to durability.

Yes but you are completely ignoring the fact their durability is significantly higher, and 2x the range as well as BS3 vs BS4. Well, I don't want to say completely ignoring, you are minimizing their importance dramatically which makes your argument look weaker by comparison because nobody actually thinks those are small details the way your argument is framing them.

12 Infantry Squads, 3 SWS and 3 Command Squads require 18 units to shoot at them. That's a special kind of durability all its own.

If you only upgrade the SWS and command squads with melta guns and nothing else, and keep SWS at minimum size thats 927pts for 150 T3 5+ save wounds. And in all honesty, I would be beside myself with joy if that was my opponents army, because I am going to gut it rather quickly. Your argument relies on your opponent being flooded by bodies and not being able to choose target priorities correctly due to force applied. The problem is, even my ork lists would prioritize those melta squads first, and do so at 3x the range of those melta guns. I don't need to worry about the guardsmen because without any meaningful upgrades they are just cannon fodder and ork boyz can easily hold an objective against them. So can SM for that matter. So why waste shots on them.

5 Intercessors are killing 3.7 Command squad or SWS guys a turn, A 3 man unit of Aggressors is popping 8+ a turn on average rolls, point being is that you don't need 18 units to kill this, you need 6. Because once those 6 melta squads are gone the guard player is left with 120 flashlights, which if every single one is in rapid fire range inflicts a grand total of 13.3 dmg to a marine player, or enough to kill just shy of 7 Marines. Not exactly frightening is it?

Breton wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: honest question: why do you think nobody would shoot at SWS because "they are drowning in T3 5+ bodies"?

If you are facing lots of T3 5+, isn't it pretty obvious that you should shoot at the dudes holding meltas (and trying to get into 12" range) first?
Why should anyone think he should better clear the lasgun holding infantry squads first?

EDIT: and please take BS into account when comparing price/Melta shot.

Well sure, you could shoot the meltas first. But you give up the Objectives and VPs. Who here isn't willing to trade 45 points for 5 VP?

And this is actually a decent argument, i agree, I would gladly give up a small squad of infantry if it netted me 5VP. The problem is though that those Marines can just as easily walk up the board, blast your melta unit into oblivion and than charge the guard squad holding the Obj and easily win there as well. 5 Intercessors kill about 5 guardsmen a turn in CC. So if they get onto the objective with a guard unit after nuking a Melta unit, they are either contesting or slightly losing but will win the following turn. Those 5 guardsmen left returning attacks basically bounce off the SM armor. And atm we are now talking about this 1 Intercessor unit gunning down 1 Command squad of melta guns (64pts) and then getting into a punching match with 50pts of guard, and they only cost 100pts. So in a single turn, they killed the Melta unit and 25pts or so of guardsmen, a 89pt return on investment for a 100pt unit, That is amazingly good.

You could change the opposing force to my orkz, or to necrons or whomever, the result stays the same, IG lose badly against any kind of remotely good list.

Long story short, no guard player in 9th is going to spam infantry like this unless they are going for a fluffy army, because if they bring this to a tournament they will get...eradicated (pun intended )

I know necrons are more than happy to push warriors into guardsmen with meltas.

" But you give up the Objectives and VPs. Who here isn't willing to trade 45 points for 5 VP?"

Again, VV with storm shields take the objective and laugh at the melta guardsmen. That's just one obvious counter to this. Or triple redemptor build just murder ALL the guardsmen.

A bit more back to topic what Marines can not do: I think (But again am willing to be convinced otherwise), that they cannot spam overcharged plasma as easily as for example guard. Each melta wearing dude in the example above can have a plasmagun/cannon instead, each officer or sergant a plasma pistol and Armored sentinels can also run around with plasmacannons for 45 points. And none of these units hurts as much when lost to overheating as a Marine.

I don't know to which extend this is mitigated by rerolls, but it is something that came to mind regarding the original question.

Sternguard, Helblasters, Inceptors and Ravenwing Knights disagree

 Jidmah wrote:
Sternguard, Helblasters, Inceptors and Ravenwing Knights disagree

If the question is - who spams this weapon type best. I think that answer is marines...hands down. If not solely for the fact the platforms aren't susceptible to light weapons. They also hit on 3's at a minimum.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sternguard, Helblasters, Inceptors and Ravenwing Knights disagree

If the question is - who spams this weapon type best. I think that answer is marines...hands down. If not solely for the fact the platforms aren't susceptible to light weapons. They also hit on 3's at a minimum.

This is true and something that Breton doesn't seem to understand at all. A very high value weapon like a plasma or melta gun is way more valuable on a durable chassis that doesn't die to a stiff breeze.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sternguard, Helblasters, Inceptors and Ravenwing Knights disagree

If the question is - who spams this weapon type best. I think that answer is marines...hands down. If not solely for the fact the platforms aren't susceptible to light weapons. They also hit on 3's at a minimum.

This is true and something that Breton doesn't seem to understand at all. A very high value weapon like a plasma or melta gun is way more valuable on a durable chassis that doesn't die to a stiff breeze.

Plasma a little less because 1s kill the unit from max W. I'd rather my plasma platform be point efficient above all else. Melta on the other hand, the enemy can't wait for me to kill myself.

Even then Marines have a lot of access to reroll auras to mitigate that.

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Just outright ban this Ultramarine fanboy guy, there's no point in arguing with a toxic troll that denies evidence for the sake of his argumentations

HE DISAGREES WITH ME! BAN HIM! BAN HIM!

*eye roll*

BrianDavion wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Just outright ban this Ultramarine fanboy guy, there's no point in arguing with a toxic troll that denies evidence for the sake of his argumentations

HE DISAGREES WITH ME! BAN HIM! BAN HIM!

*eye roll*

Theres a difference between disagreeing and arguing in bad faith.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Just outright ban this Ultramarine fanboy guy, there's no point in arguing with a toxic troll that denies evidence for the sake of his argumentations

HE DISAGREES WITH ME! BAN HIM! BAN HIM!

*eye roll*

Theres a difference between disagreeing and arguing in bad faith.

LOL bad faith... that's,, like,,, your opinion, man.

The quality of discussion around here would definitely be improved by the removal of a couple extremely dedicated shot posters on here. But you’re right it’s all hidden under a veil of “my opinion” so yeah there’s no real validation for a ban.

SecondTime wrote:
I know necrons are more than happy to push warriors into guardsmen with meltas.

" But you give up the Objectives and VPs. Who here isn't willing to trade 45 points for 5 VP?"

Again, VV with storm shields take the objective and laugh at the melta guardsmen. That's just one obvious counter to this. Or triple redemptor build just murder ALL the guardsmen.

The Melta Guardsmen aren't ON the objective. They have Infantry squads for that. So again, your VV are now in 12 different places (6 Objectives, 6 Melta squads) munching 12 different units at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sternguard, Helblasters, Inceptors and Ravenwing Knights disagree

Realize he posted this AFTER I made the point about Hellblasters and their Assault Incinerator at least twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Just outright ban this Ultramarine fanboy guy, there's no point in arguing with a toxic troll that denies evidence for the sake of his argumentations

HE DISAGREES WITH ME! BAN HIM! BAN HIM!

*eye roll*

Theres a difference between disagreeing and arguing in bad faith.

LOL bad faith... that's,, like,,, your opinion, man.

No, no. Its fact. One of us is posting facts and reference material. The rest of us say Retributors don't count, without a reason. Now if only I knew what Bad Faith meant....

Breton wrote:
Now if only I knew what Bad Faith meant....

Yeah you definitely don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Were you trying to say earlier that the real meta is Guardsmen vs Tyranids and top players haven't caught on yet? Was hard to decipher the actual point you were trying to make when you started sighing that nobody was intelligent enough to have mentioned that Tyranids have higher volume of fire or something. Which isn't really even the case in the first place but w.e.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Breton wrote:
Now if only I knew what Bad Faith meant....

Yeah you definitely don't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Were you trying to say earlier that the real meta is Guardsmen vs Tyranids and top players haven't caught on yet? Was hard to decipher the actual point you were trying to make when you started sighing that nobody was intelligent enough to have mentioned that Tyranids have higher volume of fire or something. Which isn't really even the case in the first place but w.e.

No, I was pointing out that there are more matchups out there than Marines vs. And that something that is true in a Marines vs isn't necessarily true in a Not Marines vs. I was pointing out this was a glaringly obvious flaw in my first round of reasoning, and I was pointing out that anyone cares about more than nerfing marines probably would have pointed that out. And nobody did. I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

Thanks for asking, so I could say it agian, Big Guy.

Breton wrote:
No, no. Its fact. One of us is posting facts and reference material. The rest of us say Retributors don't count, without a reason. Now if only I knew what Bad Faith meant....

You're repeatedly lying and misrepresenting facts. You dodge questions. You make absolutely ridiculous points and expect to be taken seriously. You are either absolutely incompetent at math and statistics or blatantly misrepresenting them.

You are a routine bad faith actor on this board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

There's no conspiracy here. Marines are overpowered, the game would be more balanced if they were nerfed. I'm sorry that you're so insecure and such a poor sportsman that you need your favorite army to have an unfair advantage to feel safe playing 40k.

Couldn’t have written it better myself ^

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
No, no. Its fact. One of us is posting facts and reference material. The rest of us say Retributors don't count, without a reason. Now if only I knew what Bad Faith meant....

You're repeatedly lying and misrepresenting facts. You dodge questions. You make absolutely ridiculous points and expect to be taken seriously. You are either absolutely incompetent at math and statistics or blatantly misrepresenting them.

You are a routine bad faith actor on this board.

You're saying a MM AB isn't roughly 55 points?

Breton wrote:
You're saying a MM AB isn't roughly 55 points?

No, I'm saying that taking into account the product of durability and offensive output, trying to compare IG special weapon squads to Eradicators is such a stupid idea that it's insulting to the people you're having a discussion with to assume they'd fall for so boldfaced a lie.

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
You're saying a MM AB isn't roughly 55 points?

No, I'm saying that taking into account the product of durability and offensive output, trying to compare IG special weapon squads to Eradicators is such a stupid idea that it's insulting to the people you're having a discussion with to assume they'd fall for so boldfaced a lie.

Funny, I've been told overloading a target bucket adds to durability. Now it doesn't. Imagine my surprise.

@ Breton: As you repeatedly said, that retributors are ignored we might have this conversation.
As far as I see retributors cost 12/dudette, come in Squads of 5-10 and can take 4 MM per unit. Currently MM are at 20 points (even though I suspect they go up, when the 2 shots are implied). Note that I don't have the codex, that's what I found in the net, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. As Eradicators and Rets both have BS3+ I will compare shots, not hits.

That would leave retributors at 140 points for 8 x 24'' MM shots at BS 3+. As far as I know Eradicators with a MM are 130 points for 8 x 24'' MM shots at BS3+.
The defensive profile would then be: Rets 5 x T3, W1, 3+, Eradicators: 3 x T5, W3, 3+. So so far I would say the Rets are more expensive for the same number of shots and a worse defense profile. But they don't suffer -1 to hit for moving with their MM, are 1 '' faster and can take more transports.

Also you can take up to three armorium cherubs for a single doubleshot each, so for the sake of the argument:
After the first round: Rets have shot 14 times for 155 points (11 per shot), Erads 8 times for 130 (16 per shot)
After the second round: 22 shots (7/shot) vs. 16 (8/shot)
after the 3rd: 30 shots (5.2/shot) vs. 24 shots (5.4/shot)
So I give you that, up to 2 rounds of shooting (which seems to be realistic for a high profile unit), the rets with Armorium cherubs are more points efficient on the offense. But with their worse defensive profile they struggle more to keep shooting at full efficiency.

Last but not least one can mention the possibility of acts of faith which go for the rets.

Then again as far as I see Rets cap out at 3 units with 4 MM each for 24 MM shots max (+ 18 in the first round with Cherubs)
thats the output of 3 x 3 Eradicators (+ another 6 in the first round if we account for the Cherubs), so those can still bring much more shots and are more likely to shoot more than one round.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

The defensive profile would then be: Rets 5 x T3, W1, 3+, Eradicators: 3 x T5, W3, 3+. So so far I would say the Rets are more expensive for the same number of shots and a worse defense profile.

And yet again, we go from "they get too many shots too cheaply", to "They get too many shots AND".

And yet again we go from where I pointed out adding the MM to Erads DOES make the math wonky, to totally ignoring what I said and giving the Erads a MM to prove something I didn't say is "wrong".

Breton wrote:


The math DOES get a little wonky when they take a MM upgrade instead of their special rule being their MM upgrade.

But it sure is fun to see people say I'm the bad faith one.

@ Breton: I did not want to imply you argued in bad faith or prove you specifically wrong. My post was directed towards you mentioning that Retributors are ignored. So I tried to engage you in this aspect of the discussion

Breton wrote:
No, I was pointing out that there are more matchups out there than Marines vs. And that something that is true in a Marines vs isn't necessarily true in a Not Marines vs. I was pointing out this was a glaringly obvious flaw in my first round of reasoning, and I was pointing out that anyone cares about more than nerfing marines probably would have pointed that out. And nobody did. I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

Thanks for asking, so I could say it agian, Big Guy.

Sorry but why do we need to be Tyranids to kill 120 guardsmen?

Tyel wrote:

Breton wrote:
No, I was pointing out that there are more matchups out there than Marines vs. And that something that is true in a Marines vs isn't necessarily true in a Not Marines vs. I was pointing out this was a glaringly obvious flaw in my first round of reasoning, and I was pointing out that anyone cares about more than nerfing marines probably would have pointed that out. And nobody did. I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

Thanks for asking, so I could say it agian, Big Guy.

Sorry but why do we need to be Tyranids to kill 120 guardsmen?

Cause Tyranids are awesome?

BrianDavion wrote:
Cause Tyranids are awesome?

The models yes. The rules unfortunately not so much.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: I did not want to imply you argued in bad faith or prove you specifically wrong. My post was directed towards you mentioning that Retributors are ignored. So I tried to engage you in this aspect of the discussion

Which is fine, but you see the points I was making on top of the replies that preceded you? The topic was originally about damage output per point. Start comparing it to other damage output which turns out to be the same, and everyone wants to change the paradigm - in a VERY limited way - as if that was always the full topic. Plus the Multimelta thing for Erads I already said wasn't the best idea.

After the first round: Rets have shot 14 times for 155 points (11 per shot), Erads 6 times for 120 (20 per shot)
After the second round: 22 shots (7/shot) vs. 12 (10/shot)
after the 3rd: 30 shots (5.2/shot) vs. 18 shots (6.667/shot)

I'm usually careful about adding vehicles because they usually have a bunch of different weapons but the Immolator only has two, like the ABs/Speeders

The Immolator has 1 Melta Shot, and most of a HB shot per 35 points. It's also got T7 and 10 wounds.

Looking at it another way, the Immolator is a unit with 2MM's and 1HB for 145 with 10 T7 wounds per unit.

Erads are a unit with (most of 3) Multi Meltas, No HB, with what 9 T5 wounds for 120?


The new Hammerstrike has three so we're getting even further out of the comparison breakdown - especially as the third is that Krakstorm launcher that is both new-ish and not individually costed often if at all:

It's got 3 Melta Shots, and 2 more that are most of a melta shot - arguably better in some ways - for 170. 5-ish Melta shots, plus two Krakstorms for 170 aint bad either. The Krakstorms were about 5, so 2 are about 10, leaving 160 for 5 Melta-ish shots on T6 10W, not bad once you add the movement range. The old speeder probably has the edge though. Especially in the idea of a SM Brigade I'm toying with in my head.

I've also got to say, Sisters need the other half of their army released. Nuns with Guns would absolutely have some snipers. And there's no shortage of historical female sniper figures to use for content. They need a lascannon type option - Maybe the Fusils from Eliminators and Sentry Turrets (Sure lascanon suck now, but every edition has their preferred element, its just a matter of time until it rolls back around to las)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

Breton wrote:
No, I was pointing out that there are more matchups out there than Marines vs. And that something that is true in a Marines vs isn't necessarily true in a Not Marines vs. I was pointing out this was a glaringly obvious flaw in my first round of reasoning, and I was pointing out that anyone cares about more than nerfing marines probably would have pointed that out. And nobody did. I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

Thanks for asking, so I could say it agian, Big Guy.

Sorry but why do we need to be Tyranids to kill 120 guardsmen?

You don't, but in a discussion of balance, people who aren't marine focused instead of balance focused probably would have noticed a limitation on marine response wouldn't necessarily be a limitation on Nid or Ork response.

Thanks for another opportunity.

Tyel wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Cause Tyranids are awesome?

The models yes. The rules unfortunately not so much.

sisters marines and necrons have all gotten solid codices so I have faith for everyone else this edition!

BrianDavion wrote:

Tyel wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Cause Tyranids are awesome?

The models yes. The rules unfortunately not so much.

sisters marines and necrons have all gotten solid codices so I have faith for everyone else this edition!

The current rules for Nids are pretty bad - but its not so much a problem with Nids as the BRB making some sweeping changes that negatively impacted them more than Nids getting bad rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, from this thread (which is a bit of a trainwreck), it was said that Marines, as they are now, have basically every playstyle available to them, and not just "technically"-they can do it well.

I'm curious as to what everyone here thinks is a playstyle Marines CANNOT do-or at least, cannot do well.

They can't look look into their Father's eyes anymore without feeling shame.

Humble82 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, from this thread (which is a bit of a trainwreck), it was said that Marines, as they are now, have basically every playstyle available to them, and not just "technically"-they can do it well.

I'm curious as to what everyone here thinks is a playstyle Marines CANNOT do-or at least, cannot do well.

They can't look look into their Father's eyes anymore without feeling shame.

Play nicely together?

Share?

Thanks, Horus!

Breton 793392 10979099 wrote:

The current rules for Nids are pretty bad - but its not so much a problem with Nids as the BRB making some sweeping changes that negatively impacted them more than Nids getting bad rules.

Well that was always true, I feel. I mean lets knights to work in 9th, they either need many tiers higher resiliance and on top of it all they need more units.
The question is if we were suddenly to get something like, like a 250-260pts basic knight, would some armies suddenly feel to anti skewed.

Change to rules for smite or doubling on psychic powers, and armies full of casters could actualy get really scary, even with Abhore the Witch.

Harlis through no design of their own codex, I hope, are the top of the top armies in 9th. While other armies like GSC just have their books writen with very specific game play in mind, which doesn't exist in 9th. Can't have an army designed to work with area of terrain bunkers and long range shoting in mind, in an edition where going first and clearing up objectives at short to melee range is the most important thing.

"The Melta Guardsmen aren't ON the objective. They have Infantry squads for that. So again, your VV are now in 12 different places (6 Objectives, 6 Melta squads) munching 12 different units at once."

I never said they were. VV can obviously only take one objective at time. Point is they will massacre the relevant infantry squad, and you can't displace them with melta in a timely fashion.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sternguard, Helblasters, Inceptors and Ravenwing Knights disagree

Realize he posted this AFTER I made the point about Hellblasters and their Assault Incinerator at least twice.

Sorry, as I've explained to you some time ago, I put you on my ignore list for the same reasons outlined by quite a few posters on this thread. I usually don't read your stuff anymore unless someone wrote an interesting response to you, so I can't blame other people for doing the same.

Karol wrote:

Breton 793392 10979099 wrote:

The current rules for Nids are pretty bad - but its not so much a problem with Nids as the BRB making some sweeping changes that negatively impacted them more than Nids getting bad rules.

Well that was always true, I feel. I mean lets knights to work in 9th, they either need many tiers higher resiliance and on top of it all they need more units.
The question is if we were suddenly to get something like, like a 250-260pts basic knight, would some armies suddenly feel to anti skewed.

Change to rules for smite or doubling on psychic powers, and armies full of casters could actualy get really scary, even with Abhore the Witch.

Harlis through no design of their own codex, I hope, are the top of the top armies in 9th. While other armies like GSC just have their books writen with very specific game play in mind, which doesn't exist in 9th. Can't have an army designed to work with area of terrain bunkers and long range shoting in mind, in an edition where going first and clearing up objectives at short to melee range is the most important thing.

The problem I was referring to was moving bonus attacks from actions (i.e charging, two weapons) to the weapons (choppa, chainsword, etc) themselves and later to army wide rules (i.e Shock/Hateful assault). That just killed Hormugants. Hopefully soon GW will backtrack the XXXXXX-Assault rules, and come up with a world-wide replacement for Charging/etc instead of Army Specific.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sternguard, Helblasters, Inceptors and Ravenwing Knights disagree

Realize he posted this AFTER I made the point about Hellblasters and their Assault Incinerator at least twice.

Sorry, as I've explained to you some time ago, I put you on my ignore list for the same reasons outlined by quite a few posters on this thread. I usually don't read your stuff anymore unless someone wrote an interesting response to you, so I can't blame other people for doing the same.

Yeah I quoted for the context not the directed reply

The problem I was referring to was moving bonus attacks from actions (i.e charging, two weapons) to the weapons (choppa, chainsword, etc) themselves and later to army wide rules (i.e Shock/Hateful assault). That just killed Hormugants. Hopefully soon GW will backtrack the XXXXXX-Assault rules, and come up with a world-wide replacement for Charging/etc instead of Army Specific.

I don't think that if GW has put down a rule set for multiple loyalist marine armies, it is wise to expect that the books after those are suddenly going to incorporate a big paradigma shift in design on a core rule level, for at least another 1-2 years. You can hope to get really powerful rules or combos, that can happen to any army, often without GW intention , but the stuff we see in the sm codex and the SW/DW supplements is the stuff to be expected in other books and supplements. It doesn't have to be the same quality of rules or the same power, but GW is not suddenly going to decide to switch. they are sooner, with lets say a new model kit, put out a totaly new unit with a separate set of rules. But who knows, maybe those guants are going to get an unexpected buff like DA termis.

Breton, you have yet to provide any explanation for why Eradicators are regularly showing up in tournament-winning lists while SWS, which you so strongly insist are just as good, don't.

Do you claim to know some secret truth that all the tournament players are missing?

Karol wrote:

The problem I was referring to was moving bonus attacks from actions (i.e charging, two weapons) to the weapons (choppa, chainsword, etc) themselves and later to army wide rules (i.e Shock/Hateful assault). That just killed Hormugants. Hopefully soon GW will backtrack the XXXXXX-Assault rules, and come up with a world-wide replacement for Charging/etc instead of Army Specific.

I don't think that if GW has put down a rule set for multiple loyalist marine armies, it is wise to expect that the books after those are suddenly going to incorporate a big paradigma shift in design on a core rule level, for at least another 1-2 years. You can hope to get really powerful rules or combos, that can happen to any army, often without GW intention , but the stuff we see in the sm codex and the SW/DW supplements is the stuff to be expected in other books and supplements. It doesn't have to be the same quality of rules or the same power, but GW is not suddenly going to decide to switch. they are sooner, with lets say a new model kit, put out a totaly new unit with a separate set of rules. But who knows, maybe those guants are going to get an unexpected buff like DA termis.

Oh I agree, we're far too early in 9th for it to be this edition. I'm hoping they fix it in 10th. "Soon" is relative I guess. But they need to roll back Shock/Hateful and tweak the units or the core rules to get Fight oriented units of all armies those attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Breton, you have yet to provide any explanation for why Eradicators are regularly showing up in tournament-winning lists while SWS, which you so strongly insist are just as good, don't.

Do you claim to know some secret truth that all the tournament players are missing?

Because Marines regularly show up in Tournament lists and Guard doesn't? Because Guard have a better option? Because Marines and Guard have different build paradigms and priorities for different slots and such?

Breton wrote:
Funny, I've been told overloading a target bucket adds to durability. Now it doesn't. Imagine my surprise.

And I have no idea what a "target bucket" is. But you're probably misinterpreting the idea, all other things being equal.

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
Funny, I've been told overloading a target bucket adds to durability. Now it doesn't. Imagine my surprise.

And I have no idea what a "target bucket" is. But you're probably misinterpreting the idea, all other things being equal.

Having a bunch of the same stat line targets. I.e. Making the repulsor more durable by taking a bunch of them, or taking other T7/T8 Dreads and vehicles and such. But I totally didn't see you try and lace that personal attack while admitting you didn't know what the concept was.

Breton wrote:
Because Marines regularly show up in Tournament lists and Guard doesn't? Because Guard have a better option? Because Marines and Guard have different build paradigms and priorities for different slots and such?

In other words, because Eradicators are very powerful, and SWS are not.

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
Because Marines regularly show up in Tournament lists and Guard doesn't? Because Guard have a better option? Because Marines and Guard have different build paradigms and priorities for different slots and such?

In other words, because Eradicators are very powerful, and SWS are not.

In other words, you have to lie about what was said because that's your best argument?

Breton wrote:
Having a bunch of the same stat line targets. I.e. Making the repulsor more durable by taking a bunch of them, or taking other T7/T8 Dreads and vehicles and such. But I totally didn't see you try and lace that personal attack while admitting you didn't know what the concept was.

The personal attack is still valid, considering your history on this board. Yes, you're misinterpreting it; running multiples of the same defensive statline can increase your army's durability *or* decrease it, depending on the statline and the meta. Since everything kills GEQs effectively, you're decreasing your army's durability by running lots of them. Since you need specialized tools to take on a Gravis statline cost-effectively, running lots of them *increases* your army's durability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
In other words, you have to lie about what was said because that's your best argument?

I don't have to lie about gak. It's very easy to make arguments against your points, because your points don't reflect reality.

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
Having a bunch of the same stat line targets. I.e. Making the repulsor more durable by taking a bunch of them, or taking other T7/T8 Dreads and vehicles and such. But I totally didn't see you try and lace that personal attack while admitting you didn't know what the concept was.

The personal attack is still valid, considering your history on this board. Yes, you're misinterpreting it; running multiples of the same defensive statline can increase your army's durability *or* decrease it, depending on the statline and the meta. Since everything kills GEQs effectively, you're decreasing your army's durability by running lots of them. Since you need specialized tools to take on a Gravis statline cost-effectively, running lots of them *increases* your army's durability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
In other words, you have to lie about what was said because that's your best argument?

I don't have to lie about gak. It's very easy to make arguments against your points, because your points don't reflect reality.

Yeah if you have to "In Other Words" into claiming I said something else, it was a lie, and it was yours.

Breton wrote:
Yeah if you have to "In Other Words" into claiming I said something else, it was a lie, and it was yours.

Nope! It was actually more truthful than your statement, because it's a fact that you're dancing around and trying to avoid saying. You're lying by omission, I'm telling the truth. If SWS squads aren't worth running at all, and Eradicators are worth running multiples of, than either top tournament players are idiots, or Eradicators are powerful and SWS aren't.

Breton wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Breton wrote:
No, I was pointing out that there are more matchups out there than Marines vs. And that something that is true in a Marines vs isn't necessarily true in a Not Marines vs. I was pointing out this was a glaringly obvious flaw in my first round of reasoning, and I was pointing out that anyone cares about more than nerfing marines probably would have pointed that out. And nobody did. I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

Thanks for asking, so I could say it agian, Big Guy.

Sorry but why do we need to be Tyranids to kill 120 guardsmen?

You don't, but in a discussion of balance, people who aren't marine focused instead of balance focused probably would have noticed a limitation on marine response wouldn't necessarily be a limitation on Nid or Ork response.

Thanks for another opportunity.

To.... embarrass yourself? What competitive Tyranid build is outshooting Marines? Seriously?

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
Yeah if you have to "In Other Words" into claiming I said something else, it was a lie, and it was yours.

Nope! It was actually more truthful than your statement, because it's a fact that you're dancing around and trying to avoid saying. You're lying by omission, I'm telling the truth. If SWS squads aren't worth running at all, and Eradicators are worth running multiples of, than either top tournament players are idiots, or Eradicators are powerful and SWS aren't.

If a unit that tables your opponent on Turn 2 isn't worth taking because you took one that tables your opponent on Turn 1, units that automatically table your opponent on Turn 2 aren't powerful! Look, you can't be honest. You're just trying to antagonize me by lying about what I said, but you're not. You're just boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

To.... embarrass yourself? What competitive Tyranid build is outshooting Marines? Seriously?

Outshooting Marines? vs Guard? The ones with 3 shots per 5 points instead of 2 shots per 20 points. Seriously, the lying you guys have to do isn't even that subtle. Marines have fewer units and thus can shoot at fewer units per turn isn't a difficult concept. Nids/Orks can have more units and thus may not see the same challenge in 18ish small T3 1W units Marines would is not a difficult concept. Lying about that concept by suggesting I said there was some overall shooting advantage being claimed instead of a situational one is also not a difficult concept.

Breton wrote:
If a unit that tables your opponent on Turn 2 isn't worth taking because you took one that tables your opponent on Turn 1, units that automatically table your opponent on Turn 2 aren't powerful!

Compared to the one that tables turn 1, no it isn't. All balance is relative, which is something you are apparently incapable of understanding.

Breton wrote:
Look, you can't be honest. You're just trying to antagonize me by lying about what I said, but you're not. You're just boring.

The truth is boring sometimes. But I'm still right, no matter how much you dance around things. Any claim you make about Eradicators is going to be easily falsifiable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
The ones with 3 shots per 5 points instead of 2 shots per 20 points.

What's their expected wounds inflicted/point vs. a T4 3+ save statline? (the most common defensive statline in the game.)

Hecaton wrote:


The truth is boring sometimes.

How would you know? You're about to lie (again) about my point regarding Nids shooting Guard by asking about the Marine stat-line?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
The ones with 3 shots per 5 points instead of 2 shots per 20 points.

What's their expected wounds inflicted/point vs. a T4 3+ save statline? (the most common defensive statline in the game.)

First off, I fumble fingered on the keypad it's 3 per 9 points. And these T3 Guard I was talking about as the target pool don't have a T4 3+. But we already covered your dishonesty on this point.

But I will say I was wrong, you bringing a point about Nids vs Guard back to the Marine stat line totally doesn't go back to my point that its about nerfing Marines not balance. Totaly.

Breton wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

To.... embarrass yourself? What competitive Tyranid build is outshooting Marines? Seriously?

Outshooting Marines? vs Guard? The ones with 3 shots per 5 points instead of 2 shots per 20 points. Seriously, the lying you guys have to do isn't even that subtle. Marines have fewer units and thus can shoot at fewer units per turn isn't a difficult concept. Nids/Orks can have more units and thus may not see the same challenge in 18ish small T3 1W units Marines would is not a difficult concept. Lying about that concept by suggesting I said there was some overall shooting advantage being claimed instead of a situational one is also not a difficult concept.

... I did literally nothing but ask you a question in that post? It’s objectively impossible for that to be a lie. It’s a question. If you think the answer is obvious That’s easily proven by... just answering the question. Which you didn’t do. What are you talking about?

YOU made a claim and I’m asking you to please explain yourself.

What competitive Tyranid list is outshooting Space Marines? Also an additional question since you made a additional claim in this response, what unit gets 3 shots per every 5 pts?

Seriously answer both those questions. Show me this unit and show me this competitive Tyranid list that outshoots Spce Marines vs Guardsmen, since you’ve made this claim and acted like everyone else were imbeciles for not mentioning it. Don’t handwave it, don’t be vague, don’t respond with further misdirection, don’t continue the gish gallop by making further accusations towards posters - just answer. The. Question. Or this is the irrefutable example of you once again, arguing in completely bad faith.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

To.... embarrass yourself? What competitive Tyranid build is outshooting Marines? Seriously?

Outshooting Marines? vs Guard? The ones with 3 shots per 5 points instead of 2 shots per 20 points. Seriously, the lying you guys have to do isn't even that subtle. Marines have fewer units and thus can shoot at fewer units per turn isn't a difficult concept. Nids/Orks can have more units and thus may not see the same challenge in 18ish small T3 1W units Marines would is not a difficult concept. Lying about that concept by suggesting I said there was some overall shooting advantage being claimed instead of a situational one is also not a difficult concept.

... I did literally nothing but ask you a question in that post?

That dishonestly and inaccurately re/mis-stated my claim.

It’s objectively impossible for that to be a lie. It’s a question. If you think the answer is obvious That’s easily proven by... just answering the question. Which you didn’t do. What are you talking about?

YOU made a claim and I’m asking you to please explain yourself.

I made a claim, and you're asking me to explain the claim I didn't make.

strawman (noun)
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

What competitive Tyranid list is outshooting Space Marines? Also an additional question since you made a additional claim in this response, what unit gets 3 shots per every 5 pts?

Already answered: First off, I fumble fingered on the keypad it's 3 per 9 points.

Seriously answer both those questions. Show me this unit and show me this competitive Tyranid list that outshoots Spce Marines vs Guardsmen, since you’ve made this claim and acted like everyone else were imbeciles for not mentioning it. Don’t handwave it, don’t be vague, don’t respond with further misdirection, don’t continue the gish gallop by making further accusations towards posters - just answer. The. Question. Or this is the irrefutable example of you once again, arguing in completely bad faith.

Ugh, we're done here