the_scotsman wrote:
Space Marine players: vocally whiny whenever their list isn't both the first, AND the best, rules available.

Never mind that they just got their whole model range updated for the second time in a decade while most other factions use fourth Ed and older sculpts. Never mind that Forgeworld exists to create them models. That they got, as usual, the first codex and have two more upcoming. And furthermore that they've had several of the dominant meta lists in the still emerging 8th meta.

If space Marines don't have THE best version of EVERY rule at ALL TIMES, you will hear about how utterly unfair it is and how everything needs to stop until the Marines are buffed and made the best again.

I'm telling you as an AdMech player and Necron player they have it bad. I just GOT a codex too.

Well, I guess since the "worst" codex in the game is still winning tournaments on a reasonable rate, the game must be fairly balanced [/s]

Don't worry everyone, once the Blood Angels codex comes out no one will ever talk about the SM codex being the worst - BA has held that spot for at LEAST two editions now.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Don't worry everyone, once the Blood Angels codex comes out no one will ever talk about the SM codex being the worst - BA has held that spot for at LEAST two editions now.

The fact that it's being called the worst at all is a load of crap.

the_scotsman wrote:
Space Marine players: vocally whiny whenever their list isn't both the first, AND the best, rules available.

Only the sore losers among us SM players are like this in my experience. It is also my experience that the better non-SM Codeces such as the Xenos races are, the better the games are. Of course nobody needs to be as powerful as the Demi-Companies of 7th Ed. Space Marines or as overpowered as late-7th Edition Tau, but still.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
Don't worry everyone, once the Blood Angels codex comes out no one will ever talk about the SM codex being the worst - BA has held that spot for at LEAST two editions now.

The fact that it's being called the worst at all is a load of crap.

the_scotsman wrote:
Space Marine players: vocally whiny whenever their list isn't both the first, AND the best, rules available.

Only the sore losers among us SM players are like this in my experience. It is also my experience that the better non-SM Codeces such as the Xenos races are, the better the games are. Of course nobody needs to be as powerful as the Demi-Companies of 7th Ed. Space Marines or as overpowered as late-7th Edition Tau, but still.

Do you actually play BA?

 Frankenberry wrote:
Do you actually play BA?

Let me rephrase - I meant to say that the the SM Codex (not the BA Codex) being the worst codex is a load of crap.

I think what nails the marine codex is, now everyone is getting Obsec back, but who gets the objective between the two Obsec units depends on the number of model. Given that marine is naturally low model count and how weak T4 Sv3+ models are, they cannot even play around the mission well.

I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

Ruminations while eating my lunch: this edition massively favours hordes over elite armies. Space Marine infantry of any stripe are non-competitive owing to lacking durability in an era of save modifiers, Smite Spam, and no efficient anti-horde weaponry. But Codex Space Marines still features in a lot of competitive lists essentially as a vehicle for Guilliman to work with more dangerous Imperial books.

My proposition? Give every single Space Marine infantry/biker/non-vehicle the +1 A and +1 W that Primaris Space Marines get. Make no points increase to any of them (unless they prove to be suddenly dominant in which case increment up the points by minimal amounts, but given the performance of Primaris competitively I’d wager they wouldn’t).

This makes Marines twice as durable against the currently very efficient massed small-arms fire, halves their current over-susceptibility to Mortal Wounds/Smite Spam, and gives them a little more punch in close combat without making them into monsters (Tactical Marines would double in combat prowess from poor to... slightly less poor, while dedicated melee Marines with multiple attacks see a smaller percentage increase). And yet it offers them no protection against multi-damage anti-heavy-infantry weapons like autocannons that are actually designed to kill them.

You would need to give Primaris a little extra something to make them worthwhile - personally I’d just give them a points drop into line with the rest of the newly-upgraded marines and only differentiate by weapon loadout, but if GW wants them to still be super-special, maybe an extra point of movement and an additional attack to simulate their upgrades?

And then nerf-nuke Guilliman’s points cost from orbit. Keep him just as powerful, but make him so expensive that his inclusion for an army is purely for narrative or the fun of fielding a Primarch. Like an all-Dreadnought or all-Terminator army, a fun and powerful option, but not something that will see the light of day at the top tables of tournaments.

Suddenly the people who play non-Guilliman Space Marines don’t have to complain about their Codex being underpowered to people who have just come off the back of a tournament where every player has ‘Space Marines’ in the form of Guilliman. Win-win.

 Xenomancers wrote:
as long as you don't bring guilliman to the table

Eldar strategem is no better than marine one as long as you don't use it.

It's just odd that you purposefully and knowingly exclude the OP part of your codex out of equasion.

 koooaei wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
as long as you don't bring guilliman to the table

Eldar strategem is no better than marine one as long as you don't use it.

It's just odd that you purposefully and knowingly exclude the OP part of your codex out of equasion.

But shows it's not really codex: Space marines but codex: Guilliman. How well non-Guillimann armies do? Salamanders? White scars? Iron hands?

This guy gets one stratagem, compares it to one other stratagem, then submits it as "proof" SM have tge worst codex.
On another note, Militarium Tempestus have the exact same stratagem as that Space Marines one except it ontly costs one CP. That can be justified because it only works on scions and taurox primes, but still.

WTF... Eldar should be better at DSing than SM, different armies have different tricks...

"Hey look my army that not specialized in this 1 rule has it worth than this other army that specializes in that 1 rule, i think i got screwed over, let me QQ".

Yes Gman out shines everything in the book, but its still very solid I honestly am only mad about SM-WS, they screwed them over IMO, melee bikers that have 3 guns each and only.... 1 melee weapon per unit... OK yeah let me get right on that.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
WTF... Eldar should be better at DSing than SM, different armies have different tricks...

Hrm, deep striking armies are a pretty deep schtick with Space Marines, the whole "drop pod assault" thing and teleporting terminators and whatnot is all pretty iconic Space Marine deep-strikey stuff.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
WTF... Eldar should be better at DSing than SM, different armies have different tricks...

Hrm, deep striking armies are a pretty deep schtick with Space Marines, the whole "drop pod assault" thing and teleporting terminators and whatnot is all pretty iconic Space Marine deep-strikey stuff.

True that. From fluff point of view marines would be mostly doing shock attacks by waves of drop pods and thunderhawks. Ground war is realm of IG.

As broken as gladius was that's the most fluff-correct marine composition ever...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
WTF... Eldar should be better at DSing than SM, different armies have different tricks...

Hrm, deep striking armies are a pretty deep schtick with Space Marines, the whole "drop pod assault" thing and teleporting terminators and whatnot is all pretty iconic Space Marine deep-strikey stuff.

Though you still have drop pods.
And terminators.


The stratagem just lets you "deep strike" things you really shouldn't, like sternguard without a pod.

123ply wrote:
This guy gets one stratagem, compares it to one other stratagem, then submits it as "proof" SM have the worst codex.

such logic, much quality argument haha

 Xenomancers wrote:
-Only raven guard can use the infiltrate just before the beginning of the game stratagem.
-Any Eldar craft-world can use the webway portal.

From a Vanilla Marines standpoint, that makes a lot of sense. Why would let along should any other Chapter (assuming they're not Raven Guard or a Successor Chapter thereof) have access to this? It's like saying Ultramarines should Ignore Cover when shooting because Imperial Fists can.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Then we have Chapter tactics rule which only affects infantry bikers and dreads - Not our tanks...which are actually the only thing that is competitive in our codex. Which is also sad. Every other army? Unlimitted access to their army traits. The only thing the marines have is Guilliman. Is chapter approved going to fix all this?

There are strategems which only target Infantry or another specific type of unit, but the Chapter Tactics themselves apply to all unit types (since all models and units from tanks to bikes to infantry and all the rest of them) have either the '< Chapter >' keyword or a specific Chapter named in their key words, meaning all units in the codex benefit from Chapter Tactics. So.... You got this fundamentally wrong.

 IllumiNini wrote:
There are strategems which only target Infantry or another specific type of unit, but the Chapter Tactics themselves apply to all unit types (since all models and units from tanks to bikes to infantry and all the rest of them) have either the '< Chapter >' keyword or a specific Chapter named in their key words, meaning all units in the codex benefit from Chapter Tactics. So.... You got this fundamentally wrong.

Page 195 of the Space Marine Codex 8th Edition, 4th line after the Chapter Tactics header (1st non italicized line): If your army is Battle-forged, all Infantry, Biker and Dreadnought units in a Space Marines Detachment gain a Chapter Tactic...

So actually, you got this fundamentally wrong.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Worst compared to what?
What DG or GK have of comparable?

Are you joking?

DG is the BEST codex by far

1) Walking dead - strategem that basically gives you free points, lots of them, use cloud of flies on you Pox Walkers and have their starting number of 10 grow to a 100 in a few turns you will take to reach your opponent.

Up close with strategems and psychic powers they can hit on 2+ and wound Leeman Russes on 3+ (2+ if you have a Mortarion).

2) Mortarion + Deathshroud

3) 20 Plague Marines + cloud of flies to get close + Biologus Putrifier, then followed by 20D6 grenade attacks that do mortal wounds on a 5+ with rerolls since it's a plague weapon, can kill a Titan in 1 go

4) Demon Princes, best of them, jacked up with spells and relics and paired with their brothers from Chaos Demons index can wreck anything


A Detachment of cheap strategem points and a detachment of Death Guard is the most game breaking combo. You can have +9CP with under 650 points from renegade heretics, leaving plenty for your killy DG



Now Marine codex compared to that is utter garbage, nothing even comes close and guardsmen, which in any other case seem OP, in case they're vs DG, they actually end up increasing your points by the end game

tneva82 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
WTF... Eldar should be better at DSing than SM, different armies have different tricks...

Hrm, deep striking armies are a pretty deep schtick with Space Marines, the whole "drop pod assault" thing and teleporting terminators and whatnot is all pretty iconic Space Marine deep-strikey stuff.

True that. From fluff point of view marines would be mostly doing shock attacks by waves of drop pods and thunderhawks. Ground war is realm of IG.

As broken as gladius was that's the most fluff-correct marine composition ever...

There is a difference in types of DSing tho I didnt mean to say SM isnt a DS heavy army, i meant it in "alternative DS methods" like WWP's or Warp Jumps etc..., If DE gets a 3 CP WWP to place on the table for infinite DS use, who Eldar players be mad? Maybe but they shouldnt b.c it fits DE play style/Fluff.

Eldar is better at Warping than SM, so the CP for them should be a bit better, as DE should be the best.

 Melissia wrote:
Well, I guess since the "worst" codex in the game is still winning tournaments on a reasonable rate, the game must be fairly balanced [/s]

Cause of Gulliman, that's basically it, Ultramarines with their Primarch, other than that marines are the least competitive codex (of course we're not speaking of Grey Knights, they don't exist and so are even worse)

Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

 IllumiNini wrote:

There are strategems which only target Infantry or another specific type of unit, but the Chapter Tactics themselves apply to all unit types (since all models and units from tanks to bikes to infantry and all the rest of them) have either the '< Chapter >' keyword or a specific Chapter named in their key words, meaning all units in the codex benefit from Chapter Tactics. So.... You got this fundamentally wrong.

Go back and read your codex again. Chapter tactics apply to infantry and dreads only. You got this fundamentally wrong.

We've had I think six codexes released so far and the Space Marine one isn't even the worst out of them, It's a bit unreasonable to be making definitive statements like that based on selective data.

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

With only a few codex out?

Let's wait for 10-12 more codexes to say if the SM one is the worst. I bet they will remain top 3 even in this edition, maybe top 4 if chaos is allowed to bring FW malefic lords.

I really doubt that deathguard, grey knights and tyranids are better than SM.

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What SM do have are Scouts. 3 units of 5 Scouts cost 165 points and instead of numbers you can use their Infiltration rule to create a pretty big Deep Strike null zone with some clever deployment so you have less reason to fear an Alpha Strike on turn one.

This makes your point 1 void and I stand by my point that Roboute, while powerfull, isn't required in a SM tournament list.

Eligius wrote:

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What SM do have are Scouts. 3 units of 5 Scouts cost 165 points and instead of numbers you can use their Infiltration rule to create a pretty big Deep Strike null zone with some clever deployment so you have less reason to fear an Alpha Strike on turn one.

This makes your point 1 void and I stand by my point that Roboute, while powerfull, isn't required in a SM tournament list.

Void how, here is your errors in judgement:

1) you assumed deepstrike was necessary for anything and that denying the locations would somehow save you

> With a Chaos list you'd simply have troop choices strenching from one table end to the other and marching forward, no deepstrike for you, while none is necessary for them

2) Marines don't have powerful characters to do the heavy hitting, meaning you must invest in transports, so that your heavy hitters don't get wiped on turn 1 if you don't get to go 1st

> With Chaos, you can do the heavy hitting with any unit, due to strategems and spells, even a basic unit like Pox Walkers, can very effectively wound marine vehicles on 3+ and hit on 2+

3) After 2 turns of your shooting Chaos will have more points than they started with due to strategems and on turn 3 they will charge, table wide and table you by turn 4, turn 5 if you're very lcuky

Eligius wrote:

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What? You DO have access to cheap screens. One detachment slot and 200 points gets you FORTY ld 7 objsec bodies with orders AND 3 CP. Just because you choose not to use the tools doesn't mean they aren't there. If you want to play a fluffy mono faction army, thats fine, but if you're serious about being competitive, don't hamstring yourself with artificial restrictions. Play the game to its rules at that point and take advantage of the IMPERIUM key word to its fullest.

 Dovis wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Worst compared to what?
What DG or GK have of comparable?

Are you joking?

DG is the BEST codex by far

Is beyond the point. My criticism was " you cannot compare a codex to ONE faction and say is the worst".
AdMech players jumped in too, in addition to GK ones. I just picked up 2 factions.
Also, your points about DG are fine but you are over-selling it. Is a fine, awesome faction that I love but you still need soup to be on top, and then maybe.

RogueApiary wrote:

Eligius wrote:

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What? You DO have access to cheap screens. One detachment slot and 200 points gets you FORTY ld 7 objsec bodies with orders AND 3 CP. Just because you choose not to use the tools doesn't mean they aren't there. If you want to play a fluffy mono faction army, thats fine, but if you're serious about being competitive, don't hamstring yourself with artificial restrictions. Play the game to its rules at that point and take advantage of the IMPERIUM key word to its fullest.

This really is the crutch of GW's ally system, and why I really do hate it. Since they are making the Imperium all one mega-faction, they can't have any substantial strengths individually over other factions. If they did, it would make the Imperium a mega-faction with every major strength and none of the weaknesses. What this means is that armies like Marines or Ad Mech are designed around running other Imperium armies for competitive, and others like Grey Knights are only designed as a small allied detachment. If they would get rid of this ally system, they could make these armies individually more pronounced and more expressive, promoting their unique strengths without offering it to every other released imperium army, as well as offering some sort of weakness that would exist (say like 'lack of chaff' in marines/GK, lack of elite infantry for IG).

RogueApiary wrote:

Eligius wrote:

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What? You DO have access to cheap screens. One detachment slot and 200 points gets you FORTY ld 7 objsec bodies with orders AND 3 CP. Just because you choose not to use the tools doesn't mean they aren't there. If you want to play a fluffy mono faction army, thats fine, but if you're serious about being competitive, don't hamstring yourself with artificial restrictions. Play the game to its rules at that point and take advantage of the IMPERIUM key word to its fullest.

Exactly, you have to replace marines with IG, the more replacing you do - the stronger the list gets, that is exactly he point, Marines are weak for their points, very few units in their roster are worth the point cost

There's no evidence to suggest that marines need replacing to make stronger. Marines without guard are damn strong.

Eligius wrote:

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What SM do have are Scouts. 3 units of 5 Scouts cost 165 points and instead of numbers you can use their Infiltration rule to create a pretty big Deep Strike null zone with some clever deployment so you have less reason to fear an Alpha Strike on turn one.

This makes your point 1 void and I stand by my point that Roboute, while powerfull, isn't required in a SM tournament list.

Scouts are really squishy for their points. While they can prevent 1st turn deepstrike, they are easily killed by just about anything decent in the game. Basically, if Marine don't get 1st turn, the screen will not exist when Turn 2 comes when enemy deepstrike unit comes in and cannot stop the "move twice" fly units to jump over them (such as Flyrant (especially those supported by Swarmlord) or Daemon Princes) and / or fast moving assault units like Genestealers. By then the Razorbacks will be tied in combat and drag down under either the weight of attacks (Genestealers) or high quality of attacks (Flyrant / Daemon Princes), at minimum, it is gonna be silenced from Turn 2 onwards. That is what even Guiliman cannot stop, since it cannot fix the problem of how squishy marines on foot are in current edition environment for their overcosted points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

EDIT:

And the Annihilator doesn't even come out that badly. The Leman Russ Annihilator with Grinding Advance (its direct competitor) gets 5 BS4+ Lascannon shots, while the Pred gets 4 BS3+ lascannon shots. The only regimental doctrines that help the Leman Russ Annihilator are 1) Cadian (if it never moves) which is essentially the same as having it near a Captain or having Chronus, 2) Tallarn, so the think can fire it's 5th lascannon shot at 4+ even if it moves, instead of 5+. 3) Steel Legion (I guess?) that lets it ignore AP -1 on weapons that have that (meh), 4) Valhallan, who essentially keep it hitting on a 4+ when it should be a 5+ and a 5+ when it should be a 6+ (Since the Pred never drops below 5+ without being dead, this makes them about even) and 5) Mordian, so that it can overwatch on a 5+ if you bought another vehicle to go with it. woo.

The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

 Melissia wrote:
The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

I completely agree. That's what I was just looking at: Even without Grinding Advance, the quadlas predator is about on par with the Leman Russ Annihilator; it misses out on one Lascannon shot but has a higher BS, faster movement (both in the absolute sense and in the "doesn't have to move half speed to actually do anything" sense), and is cheaper.

 Lance845 wrote:
Is most eldar shooting on a 3+ or 4+?

Because most armys out there have their rank and file hitting on a 4+ normally. Which means the OP statment that space marines are not hitting anything on their -1 is nonsense.

If eldar are normally bs 4+ then the stratagem being the same cost without the penalty makes a lot of sense. For the same price you get the same chance to hit.

12" range is odd..... But why would anyone have a deepstrike unit they are not placing as close as possible?

Eldar don't have a single 4+ to hit unit in their army. Everything is BS 3+. These strategems are the same cost. The aim do to the same thing. One has a -1 to hit disadvantage and only allowed to use 12" range. To defend this is pretty absurd - it's a clear proof of gross imbalance. The other has 0 restrictions other than the unit you select has to be within 6" of a farseer. Which is going to be in possition to support your best shooting units anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
With only a few codex out?

Let's wait for 10-12 more codexes to say if the SM one is the worst. I bet they will remain top 3 even in this edition, maybe top 4 if chaos is allowed to bring FW malefic lords.

I really doubt that deathguard, grey knights and tyranids are better than SM.

They are all better. Unless it's ultra marines with guilliman in which case only the tyranids are going to be better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
WTF... Eldar should be better at DSing than SM, different armies have different tricks...

Hrm, deep striking armies are a pretty deep schtick with Space Marines, the whole "drop pod assault" thing and teleporting terminators and whatnot is all pretty iconic Space Marine deep-strikey stuff.

Though you still have drop pods.
And terminators.


The stratagem just lets you "deep strike" things you really shouldn't, like sternguard without a pod.

Ahh yes...the 87 point drop pods that can only deep strike an infantry unit with a max capacity of 10. While other units deep strike for free...or can pay 1 command point to deep strike...this codex is terrible.

Ah, yes, the old "directly-comparable things are different between codices and therefore they are imbalanced" argument.

Because nowhere in the history of gaming have there been two directly comparable options in two completely different situations and one was better.

Like wtf, why does a wizard get more spell slots than my fighter. The number of spell-slots is directly comparable but I get less! So unfair, much imbalance.

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

What are you even saying? If you can't win with space marines without guilliman you are a bad player? No...it's actually quite the opposite. If you can't win with space marines without guilliman - that's pretty much the expected result from any player.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ah, yes, the old "directly-comparable things are different between codices and therefore they are imbalanced" argument.

Because nowhere in the history of gaming have there been two directly comparable options in two completely different situations and one was better.

Like wtf, why does a wizard get more spell slots than my fighter. The number of spell-slots is directly comparable but I get less! So unfair, much imbalance.

I don't think dungeons and dragons is even supposed to be balanced. In this case though your fighter would have a higher strength characteristic which allows him to wield more powerful weapons or something like that. There would be a balancing factor or an attempt at one in the least. Anyways...I don't know RPG's. Here is a clear example of 2 strategems that do exactly the same thing - except one has 2 restrictions (to the point it becomes worthless) and the other essentially has no restriction(to the point that deep striking anything against this army is just giving away a unit) - is there a balancing factor here? Are marines so wildly better than eldar that eldar need their stratagems to be twice as good to beat them?

Its pretty easy to claim marines are the worst when we ignore all tournament results and make some baseless emotional, hyperbolic arguments not grounded in reality.

Its probably easier to just play the victim and ignore all the lists that have made it to the top tables without G-man.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ah, yes, the old "directly-comparable things are different between codices and therefore they are imbalanced" argument.

Because nowhere in the history of gaming have there been two directly comparable options in two completely different situations and one was better.

Like wtf, why does a wizard get more spell slots than my fighter. The number of spell-slots is directly comparable but I get less! So unfair, much imbalance.

I don't think dungeons and dragons is even supposed to be balanced. In this case though your fighter would have a higher strength characteristic which allows him to wield more powerful weapons or something like that. There would be a balancing factor or an attempt at one in the least. Anyways...I don't know RPG's. Here is a clear example of 2 strategems that do exactly the same thing - except one has 2 restrictions (to the point it becomes worthless) and the other essentially has no restriction(to the point that deep striking anything against this army is just giving away a unit) - is there a balancing factor here? Are marines so wildly better than eldar that eldar need their stratagems to be twice as good to beat them?

Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?

And your hyperbole is showing: one stratagem being better does not make "their stratagems twice as good." It makes one stratagem better, that's all we can say.

Yes, I concede that the Eldar anti-DS shooting stratagem is better than the Space Marine one.

I do not concede the point that we can somehow draw wholesale conclusions about the balance of the game from that singular fact.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

uhh what?

-Only raven guard can use the infiltrate just before the beginning of the game stratagem.
-Any Eldar craft-world can use the webway portal.

Then we have Chapter tactics rule which only affects infantry bikers and dreads - Not our tanks...which are actually the only thing that is competitive in our codex. Which is also sad. Every other army? Unlimitted access to their army traits. The only thing the marines have is Guilliman. Is chapter approved going to fix all this?

Some armies are still without Codexes - given that almost every codex so far has been some variety of Marines it is to be hoped that Chapter Approved does not waste even more time buffing the already codex blessed who already have their widespread points drops, free artefacts, unique stratagems, Chapter tactics etc etc.

Leave Chapter Approved to those who are still languishing in the land of the Index and might be still waiting 3, 6 months or even longer (never) for an actual dex.

On you specifics: If the tanks are in your own words "Competitive" well then they don't need further boosts do they?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

Effective against what targets:

Against another Russ (Assuming BS 4+):
3 Lascannons: 2.91 damage
Battlecannon: 1.16 damage

Marine players get criticized for playing soup list.

Then, when Marine players point out they don't have cheap screening units like Cultists, they get criticized for not playing soup lists.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ah, yes, the old "directly-comparable things are different between codices and therefore they are imbalanced" argument.

Because nowhere in the history of gaming have there been two directly comparable options in two completely different situations and one was better.

Like wtf, why does a wizard get more spell slots than my fighter. The number of spell-slots is directly comparable but I get less! So unfair, much imbalance.

I don't think dungeons and dragons is even supposed to be balanced. In this case though your fighter would have a higher strength characteristic which allows him to wield more powerful weapons or something like that. There would be a balancing factor or an attempt at one in the least. Anyways...I don't know RPG's. Here is a clear example of 2 strategems that do exactly the same thing - except one has 2 restrictions (to the point it becomes worthless) and the other essentially has no restriction(to the point that deep striking anything against this army is just giving away a unit) - is there a balancing factor here? Are marines so wildly better than eldar that eldar need their stratagems to be twice as good to beat them?

Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?

And your hyperbole is showing: one stratagem being better does not make "their stratagems twice as good." It makes one stratagem better, that's all we can say.

Yes, I concede that the Eldar anti-DS shooting stratagem is better than the Space Marine one.

I do not concede the point that we can somehow draw wholesale conclusions about the balance of the game from that singular fact.

The eldar one is infinitely better in so far as no player with knowledge of marine stratagems would deep strike next to a big shooting unit. They will just deep strike farther away or deep strike withing 12 inches of a unit that can't hurt them much but out of 12 inch from anything that can hurt them. The eldar one has 0 counterplay - except coming in out of line of site which often means doing 0 damage that turn.

"Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?"
are you saying that the eldar can't use the strategem as well as the marines could? And so the marines strategem was double nerfed to prevent them from abusing it. When in fact - there is no better unit in the game to use this strategem on other than a unit of dark reapers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

uhh what?

-Only raven guard can use the infiltrate just before the beginning of the game stratagem.
-Any Eldar craft-world can use the webway portal.

Then we have Chapter tactics rule which only affects infantry bikers and dreads - Not our tanks...which are actually the only thing that is competitive in our codex. Which is also sad. Every other army? Unlimitted access to their army traits. The only thing the marines have is Guilliman. Is chapter approved going to fix all this?

Some armies are still without Codexes - given that almost every codex so far has been some variety of Marines it is to be hoped that Chapter Approved does not waste even more time buffing the already codex blessed who already have their widespread points drops, free artefacts, unique stratagems, Chapter tactics etc etc.

Leave Chapter Approved to those who are still languishing in the land of the Index and might be still waiting 3, 6 months or even longer (never) for an actual dex.

On you specifics: If the tanks are in your own words "Competitive" well then they don't need further boosts do they?

You should take comfort in the fact that your codex is probably already written and it's going to be better than the space marine codex when it comes out.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The eldar one is infinitely better in so far as no player with knowledge of marine stratagems would deep strike next to a big shooting unit. They will just deep strike farther away or deep strike withing 12 inches of a unit that can't hurt them much but out of 12 inch from anything that can hurt them. The eldar one has 0 counterplay - except coming in out of line of site which often means doing 0 damage that turn.

"Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?"
are you saying that the eldar can't use the strategem as well as the marines could? And so the marines strategem was double nerfed to prevent them from abusing it. When in fact - there is no better unit in the game to use this strategem on other than a unit of dark reapers?

Here's some food for thought:

The Eldar one, well, it's one use, and you just have to accept you're going to get shot by it. Doesn't affect my thinking at all. It's unavoidable, so may as well just bite the bullet.

The Space Marine one: you may think it's worthless and not use it at all! But if you do, then I might be in big trouble. So maybe I'll deep strike outside of 12", and then be outside of that crucial rapid-fire plasma range or completely out of meltagun range. Or maybe I can just take the losses - heck, it may be easier to just target a different unit entirely that can't kill me as well - ah crap, that unit is screened. Well, bugger.

Ta-da! The Space Marine one actually affects the opponents planning and psychology more than the eldar one. It can have a meaningful effect on the opponent's thinking and decision loop without costing any CP at all!

Not that I'd expect anyone that thinks mathhammer is the One True God to understand how important it is to affect the opponents planning and psychology...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

Effective against what targets:

Against another Russ (Assuming BS 4+):
3 Lascannons: 2.91 damage
Battlecannon: 1.16 damage

You know the battle cannon is 2d6 str 8 shots right? I can tell that math is wrong just by looking at the results. Here - I will help you.
The battle cannon averages close to 3 las cannons against a non optimal target. t8 is exceedingly rare. Vs t7 the results become laughable. that a 28 point weapon produces MORE damage than 75 points of las cannons against a rhino.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

What are you even saying? If you can't win with space marines without guilliman you are a bad player? No...it's actually quite the opposite. If you can't win with space marines without guilliman - that's pretty much the expected result from any player.

No, I'm saying that claiming Roboute is a defacto auto-include your SM army for tournaments is pure hyperbole.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

Effective against what targets:

Against another Russ (Assuming BS 4+):
3 Lascannons: 2.91 damage
Battlecannon: 1.16 damage

You know the battle cannon is 2d6 str 8 shots right? I can tell that math is wrong just by looking at the results. Here - I will help you.

You know that the 2d6 shots is incorporated in the cost of the platform and not the weapon, right? Because the platform has the special rule?

Or did you think that Malcador's battlecannon should go up in price because the Leman Russ can shoot it twice?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

With double firing against T7 or lower targets? Sure. A supercharged Executioner plasma cannon is even better against those targets however and is the same cost.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

Effective against what targets:

Against another Russ (Assuming BS 4+):
3 Lascannons: 2.91 damage
Battlecannon: 1.16 damage

You know the battle cannon is 2d6 str 8 shots right? I can tell that math is wrong just by looking at the results. Here - I will help you.

You know that the 2d6 shots is incorporated in the cost of the platform and not the weapon, right? Because the platform has the special rule?

Or did you think that Malcador's battlecannon should go up in price because the Leman Russ can shoot it twice?

Ofc it's cost should have gone up for shooting twice?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

Effective against what targets:

Against another Russ (Assuming BS 4+):
3 Lascannons: 2.91 damage
Battlecannon: 1.16 damage

You know the battle cannon is 2d6 str 8 shots right? I can tell that math is wrong just by looking at the results. Here - I will help you.

You know that the 2d6 shots is incorporated in the cost of the platform and not the weapon, right? Because the platform has the special rule?

Or did you think that Malcador's battlecannon should go up in price because the Leman Russ can shoot it twice?

Ofc it's cost should have gone up for shooting twice?

The special rule that lets it fire twice is on the Leman Russ, not the Battlecannon. The Leman Russ has a separate points cost, that presumably includes that special rule on it because the battlecannon can be taken by other units that do not fire twice. The battlecannon that can shoot twice (i.e. Rapid Fire Battle Cannon on the Knight) costs 100 points.

Why is this hard?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

Effective against what targets:

Against another Russ (Assuming BS 4+):
3 Lascannons: 2.91 damage
Battlecannon: 1.16 damage

You know the battle cannon is 2d6 str 8 shots right? I can tell that math is wrong just by looking at the results. Here - I will help you.

You know that the 2d6 shots is incorporated in the cost of the platform and not the weapon, right? Because the platform has the special rule?

Or did you think that Malcador's battlecannon should go up in price because the Leman Russ can shoot it twice?

Ofc it's cost should have gone up for shooting twice?

The weapon didn't change, a Battlecannon is the same weapon on a Defiler as it is on a Russ, same as a Demolisher cannon on a Russ or Vindicator. The platform it's being put on got a rule allowing it to double fire, not the gun itself. GW has decided to keep weapons profiles largely the same across all armies.

It's the Russ platform that got the double-firing rule, applied to any turret weapon regardless of what it is. It got that rule because, quite frankly, Russ tanks were dramatically underwhelming without it given what they cost in the Index, and they can only do that if they don't take advantage of the greatly expanded movement they've been given in 8E too.

You should take comfort in the fact that your codex is probably already written and it's going to be better than the space marine codex when it comes out.

But they are not out. They are not going to be out for months - if they all even get Codexes.

My Dark Eldar don't have cool artefacts like my Marines, My Sisters don't have cool Order tactics like my Marines, my Tau don't have special stratagems like my Marines, My Orks don't have points drops across the board like my Marines

How long have Marines had all theses bonuses?? but I forget - that's all fine - we should wait and it will all be fine - but obviously Marines need action now to make them better?

None of these armies have a whole new range of units and vehicles - like oh yeah Marines - one of these armies doesn't have plastic models....but that's fine cos look Marines.

We might get something in Chapter Approved, but not if its cluttered up with yet more Marine stuff.

GW are adjusting stuff as they go along so its possible some things may yet change - they have adjusted Guard recently and likely there will be some adjustments to Eldar and then Nids when they come out.

Ofc it's cost should have gone up for shooting twice?

Remind me which marine units got points increases when they got better in the Codex? In fact remind which Marine units got any kind of increase? Presumably this was rebalancing ? So the same is true of every other Codex?

Russ was not really underperfoming. It just wasn't playing because of manticores and basilisks being OP as gak.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The special rule that lets it fire twice is on the Leman Russ, not the Battlecannon. The Leman Russ has a separate points cost, that presumably includes that special rule on it because the battlecannon can be taken by other units that do not fire twice. The battlecannons that can shoot twice (i.e. Rapid Fire Battle Cannon on the Knight) costs 100 points.

Why is this hard?

I mean, it's pretty silly to talk like the platform and its weapons are separable. You can't figure out the appropriate cost of the full package except by considering the full package. "Grinding Advance" would be almost worthless if Russes were choosing between lasguns and bolt pistols for their turret weapon. It also makes absolutely no sense to try to compare weapon costs for weapons that have no overlap in terms of other weapons that can be taken instead. Like, obviously it's meaningless that a Shadowsword's volcano cannon is free. That doesn't reflect the balance team's judgment that it is weaker than a 2 point storm bolter. The RFBC is priced what it is because they wanted to keep the Knight chassis at (about?) the same price, with their cost differences due to their weapons, and so the RFBC needs to be priced as if competing directly with much less desirable options like the reaper chainsword. If you wanted to let Russes choose between lasguns and battle cannons for their turret weapon, you would have to significantly increase the price of their battle cannon (and lower the price of the platform) in order for players to have any reason at all to take the lasgun. As-is the model can get away with being expensive relative to its main gun because all of the main guns are comparably powerful.

 Mr Morden wrote:

You should take comfort in the fact that your codex is probably already written and it's going to be better than the space marine codex when it comes out.

But they are not out. They are not going to be out for months - if they all even get Codexes.

My Dark Eldar don't have cool artefacts like my Marines, My Sisters don't have cool Order tactics like my Marines, my Tau don't have special stratagems like my Marines, My Orks don't have points drops across the board like my Marines

How long have Marines had all theses bonuses?? but I forget - that's all fine - we should wait and it will all be fine - but obviously Marines need action now to make them better?

None of these armies have a whole new range of units and vehicles - like oh yeah Marines - one of these armies doesn't have plastic models....but that's fine cos look Marines.

We might get something in Chapter Approved, but not if its cluttered up with yet more Marine stuff.

GW are adjusting stuff as they go along so its possible some things may yet change - they have adjusted Guard recently and likely there will be some adjustments to Eldar and then Nids when they come out.

Ofc it's cost should have gone up for shooting twice?

Remind me which marine units got points increases when they got better in the Codex? In fact remind which Marine units got any kind of increase? Presumably this was rebalancing ? So the same is true of every other Codex?

You've got the crap end of of the stick for all your armies. I think we will have tau soon at least. I can sympathize with that. I'd rather be you though with my favorite army being complete trash except when I play with this giant gorillia that makes my stuff twice as good. Then people complain when I use him.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

With regards to the stratagem, I think a vital discussion part of it has been sorely missed out... (It may have been covered, I've only checked the first page and a half before the thread seemed to wander)

Eldar can only do it within 6 inches of a Farseer, No Farseer, no Stratagem.

Space marines applies for any space marine unit that may be within 12" of the unit that just came in, which means that you are within any rapid fire ranges you may have.

It's more balanced than people make out in my opinion because whilst Eldar get the better stick because they don't suffer penalties, they have a very short leash to play with.
Space marines get the smaller stick in terms of benefits, but ANY unit can do it without a leash attached, so spread your guys liberally across your field and dare your opponent to come close to that hell blaster unit or your intercessors for some rapid fire berating.

 Mr Morden wrote:

You should take comfort in the fact that your codex is probably already written and it's going to be better than the space marine codex when it comes out.

But they are not out. They are not going to be out for months - if they all even get Codexes.

My Dark Eldar don't have cool artefacts like my Marines, My Sisters don't have cool Order tactics like my Marines, my Tau don't have special stratagems like my Marines, My Orks don't have points drops across the board like my Marines

How long have Marines had all theses bonuses?? but I forget - that's all fine - we should wait and it will all be fine - but obviously Marines need action now to make them better?

None of these armies have a whole new range of units and vehicles - like oh yeah Marines - one of these armies doesn't have plastic models....but that's fine cos look Marines.

We might get something in Chapter Approved, but not if its cluttered up with yet more Marine stuff.

GW are adjusting stuff as they go along so its possible some things may yet change - they have adjusted Guard recently and likely there will be some adjustments to Eldar and then Nids when they come out.

Ofc it's cost should have gone up for shooting twice?

Remind me which marine units got points increases when they got better in the Codex? In fact remind which Marine units got any kind of increase? Presumably this was rebalancing ? So the same is true of every other Codex?

Some stuff got cheaper. As far as I know not a single unit got better and cheaper at the same time. Many AM units got this. Devastator centurions got more expensive whilst already being extremely over-costed.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The special rule that lets it fire twice is on the Leman Russ, not the Battlecannon. The Leman Russ has a separate points cost, that presumably includes that special rule on it because the battlecannon can be taken by other units that do not fire twice. The battlecannons that can shoot twice (i.e. Rapid Fire Battle Cannon on the Knight) costs 100 points.

Why is this hard?

I mean, it's pretty silly to talk like the platform and its weapons are separable. You can't figure out the appropriate cost of the full package except by considering the full package. "Grinding Advance" would be almost worthless if Russes were choosing between lasguns and bolt pistols for their turret weapon. It also makes absolutely no sense to try to compare weapon costs for weapons that have no overlap in terms of other weapons that can be taken instead. Like, obviously it's meaningless that a Shadowsword's volcano cannon is free. That doesn't reflect the balance team's judgment that it is weaker than a 2 point storm bolter. The RFBC is priced what it is because they wanted to keep the Knight chassis at (about?) the same price, with their cost differences due to their weapons, and so the RFBC needs to be priced as if competing directly with much less desirable options like the reaper chainsword. If you wanted to let Russes choose between lasguns and battle cannons for their turret weapon, you would have to significantly increase the price of their battle cannon (and lower the price of the platform) in order for players to have any reason at all to take the lasgun. As-is the model can get away with being expensive relative to its main gun because all of the main guns are comparably powerful.

So how would you handle a situation where a tank, like the Malcador, could take a Battlecannon, and so could your theoretical Russ.

Would the cost of the Malcador platform go down consummately with the Russ's, and the Battlecannon would be hugely expensive, making the 5-heavy-bolter Malcador variant ridiculously cheap?

Tristanleo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

With regards to the stratagem, I think a vital discussion part of it has been sorely missed out... (It may have been covered, I've only checked the first page and a half before the thread seemed to wander)

Eldar can only do it within 6 inches of a Farseer, No Farseer, no Stratagem.

Space marines applies for any space marine unit that may be within 12" of the unit that just came in, which means that you are within any rapid fire ranges you may have.

It's more balanced than people make out in my opinion because whilst Eldar get the better stick because they don't suffer penalties, they have a very short leash to play with.
Space marines get the smaller stick in terms of benefits, but ANY unit can do it without a leash attached, so spread your guys liberally across your field and dare your opponent to come close to that hell blaster unit or your intercessors for some rapid fire berating.

Why would an eldar player not bring a farseer?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

With regards to the stratagem, I think a vital discussion part of it has been sorely missed out... (It may have been covered, I've only checked the first page and a half before the thread seemed to wander)

Eldar can only do it within 6 inches of a Farseer, No Farseer, no Stratagem.

Space marines applies for any space marine unit that may be within 12" of the unit that just came in, which means that you are within any rapid fire ranges you may have.

It's more balanced than people make out in my opinion because whilst Eldar get the better stick because they don't suffer penalties, they have a very short leash to play with.
Space marines get the smaller stick in terms of benefits, but ANY unit can do it without a leash attached, so spread your guys liberally across your field and dare your opponent to come close to that hell blaster unit or your intercessors for some rapid fire berating.

Why would an eldar player not bring a farseer?

Maybe because they don't want it leashed to within 6" of their dark reapers like a dog?

Tristanleo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

With regards to the stratagem, I think a vital discussion part of it has been sorely missed out... (It may have been covered, I've only checked the first page and a half before the thread seemed to wander)

Eldar can only do it within 6 inches of a Farseer, No Farseer, no Stratagem.

Space marines applies for any space marine unit that may be within 12" of the unit that just came in, which means that you are within any rapid fire ranges you may have.

It's more balanced than people make out in my opinion because whilst Eldar get the better stick because they don't suffer penalties, they have a very short leash to play with.
Space marines get the smaller stick in terms of benefits, but ANY unit can do it without a leash attached, so spread your guys liberally across your field and dare your opponent to come close to that hell blaster unit or your intercessors for some rapid fire berating.

Just wanted to highlight that I think the Space Marine one can only be used on Infantry AND gives a -1 to Hit.

That said, I'm siding with the folks in the beginning who said Grey Knights have the worst. Did you know the Codex made our Terminators more expensive? Terminators.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ah, yes, the old "directly-comparable things are different between codices and therefore they are imbalanced" argument.

Because nowhere in the history of gaming have there been two directly comparable options in two completely different situations and one was better.

Like wtf, why does a wizard get more spell slots than my fighter. The number of spell-slots is directly comparable but I get less! So unfair, much imbalance.

I don't think dungeons and dragons is even supposed to be balanced. In this case though your fighter would have a higher strength characteristic which allows him to wield more powerful weapons or something like that. There would be a balancing factor or an attempt at one in the least. Anyways...I don't know RPG's. Here is a clear example of 2 strategems that do exactly the same thing - except one has 2 restrictions (to the point it becomes worthless) and the other essentially has no restriction(to the point that deep striking anything against this army is just giving away a unit) - is there a balancing factor here? Are marines so wildly better than eldar that eldar need their stratagems to be twice as good to beat them?

So requiring a farseer and being within 6" of said farseer aren't restricitons? Both deter deepstrike, and in order for the eldar one to be good you need to build specifically to use it unlike the marine version. The marine version is far from useless, it just isn't something you would build around.

Look at it this way, if I don't bring a farseer my opponent can deepstrike all they want. If I don't bring an ultra long range unit to go with that farseer it doesn't do much. You are looking at OMG imagine that with a 10 strong group of Dark Reapers!!! But now you are sinking 25% of your points into said unit for a stratagem that may only sometimes be useful.

The eldar one has the potential to be stronger, but is not always usable, the marine one is more flexible.

No problem - put it on a jetbike and it can move 20 inches every turn. It's spells also have good range. Plus nothing forces you to use the stratagem. Not including a farseer in your army is a pretty dumb idea though. They are are the staple eldar HQ.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

With regards to the stratagem, I think a vital discussion part of it has been sorely missed out... (It may have been covered, I've only checked the first page and a half before the thread seemed to wander)

Eldar can only do it within 6 inches of a Farseer, No Farseer, no Stratagem.

Space marines applies for any space marine unit that may be within 12" of the unit that just came in, which means that you are within any rapid fire ranges you may have.

It's more balanced than people make out in my opinion because whilst Eldar get the better stick because they don't suffer penalties, they have a very short leash to play with.
Space marines get the smaller stick in terms of benefits, but ANY unit can do it without a leash attached, so spread your guys liberally across your field and dare your opponent to come close to that hell blaster unit or your intercessors for some rapid fire berating.

Why would an eldar player not bring a farseer?

because they are not the auto-take HQ they used to be? As for not using the stratagem sure, you don't have to, neither do marines, but theirs makes the opponent think quite a bit more.

 Xenomancers wrote:
No problem - put it on a jetbike and it can move 20 inches every turn. It's spells also have good range. Plus nothing forces you to use the stratagem. Not including a farseer in your army is a pretty dumb idea though. They are are the staple eldar HQ.

Put it on a jetbike and have it masturbate by your Dark Reapers for 3 turns until your opponent is required to bring in their deep-strikers? Yeah, make it even more expensive and have it miss have the game with its 18" range psychic powers. Good plan.

Also, "you aren't forced to use the stratagem" isn't really a good defense.

The eldar one is infinitely better in so far as no player with knowledge of marine stratagems would deep strike next to a big shooting unit. They will just deep strike farther away or deep strike withing 12 inches of a unit that can't hurt them much but out of 12 inch from anything that can hurt them. The eldar one has 0 counterplay - except coming in out of line of site which often means doing 0 damage that turn.

Or focusing fire on a threatening unit standing right next to a farseer and killing them before dropping down. Or killing the farseer before dropping down. Or maybe having multiple units deep striking, and holding onto the one that you know your opponent is going to want to shoot, and then just opting not to drop the juicy unit at the end of all your other drops - Forewarning has to be used IMMEDIATELY after a unit drops down after all, if your opponent opts not to shoot the drop pod because he's waiting for the unit of Terminators, and instead of dropping the terminators you declare a shooting attack or psychic test, then it's no longer "Immediately after a unit deep strikes" and he can't retroactively go back and shoot the drop pod. Or, as you said, dropping somewhere out of LOS of the firing unit. I like that you have the same mentality of most video game players when you use the phrase "literally zero counterplay" - that if there isn't a large, red, glowing button labeled "OBVIOUS WEAKNESS" that you can slap to stop a counter from working, then there is LITERALLY nothing you can do against it. Sometimes the counterplay is "don't be in a situation where your opponent can trigger the stratagem".



"Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?"
are you saying that the eldar can't use the strategem as well as the marines could? And so the marines strategem was double nerfed to prevent them from abusing it. When in fact - there is no better unit in the game to use this strategem on other than a unit of dark reapers?

No better unit in the game. Not a single better unit. You know that theoretically you could have a superheavy use this stratagem, right? Or a whole unit of double-firing dakkastelans? I'm not saying Dark Reapers aren't a powerful unit, they absolutely are, but come on. If you want people to take what you say seriously, avoid this kind of stupid hyperbole.

Also of not Marines were the first codex, it is not improbable that they will get buffs in chapter approved.

Audustum wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

With regards to the stratagem, I think a vital discussion part of it has been sorely missed out... (It may have been covered, I've only checked the first page and a half before the thread seemed to wander)

Eldar can only do it within 6 inches of a Farseer, No Farseer, no Stratagem.

Space marines applies for any space marine unit that may be within 12" of the unit that just came in, which means that you are within any rapid fire ranges you may have.

It's more balanced than people make out in my opinion because whilst Eldar get the better stick because they don't suffer penalties, they have a very short leash to play with.
Space marines get the smaller stick in terms of benefits, but ANY unit can do it without a leash attached, so spread your guys liberally across your field and dare your opponent to come close to that hell blaster unit or your intercessors for some rapid fire berating.

Just wanted to highlight that I think the Space Marine one can only be used on Infantry AND gives a -1 to Hit.

That said, I'm siding with the folks in the beginning who said Grey Knights have the worst. Did you know the Codex made our Terminators more expensive? Terminators.

Greyknights are not actually as bad as marines. Also - as an allied force greyknights bring some really good stuff to the table - no one would allie a marine force for any reason - it would just make your army worse. It's okay though - we can ignore how bad the marine codex is because the greyknights codex is also bad.

LOL...no one would ally in a marine force..yeah ok. No one runs RG, no one runs storm ravens.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Greyknights are not actually as bad as marines.

Blood of Kittens 8th edition tournament results compendium.

Marines: 12 results in the Top 3.
GK: 1 result that came 2nd.

At least try and have some sort of logical argument when you claim nonsense like this.

the_scotsman wrote:

The eldar one is infinitely better in so far as no player with knowledge of marine stratagems would deep strike next to a big shooting unit. They will just deep strike farther away or deep strike withing 12 inches of a unit that can't hurt them much but out of 12 inch from anything that can hurt them. The eldar one has 0 counterplay - except coming in out of line of site which often means doing 0 damage that turn.

Or focusing fire on a threatening unit standing right next to a farseer and killing them before dropping down. Or killing the farseer before dropping down. Or maybe having multiple units deep striking, and holding onto the one that you know your opponent is going to want to shoot, and then just opting not to drop the juicy unit at the end of all your other drops - Forewarning has to be used IMMEDIATELY after a unit drops down after all, if your opponent opts not to shoot the drop pod because he's waiting for the unit of Terminators, and instead of dropping the terminators you declare a shooting attack or psychic test, then it's no longer "Immediately after a unit deep strikes" and he can't retroactively go back and shoot the drop pod. Or, as you said, dropping somewhere out of LOS of the firing unit. I like that you have the same mentality of most video game players when you use the phrase "literally zero counterplay" - that if there isn't a large, red, glowing button labeled "OBVIOUS WEAKNESS" that you can slap to stop a counter from working, then there is LITERALLY nothing you can do against it. Sometimes the counterplay is "don't be in a situation where your opponent can trigger the stratagem".



"Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?"
are you saying that the eldar can't use the strategem as well as the marines could? And so the marines strategem was double nerfed to prevent them from abusing it. When in fact - there is no better unit in the game to use this strategem on other than a unit of dark reapers?

No better unit in the game. Not a single better unit. You know that theoretically you could have a superheavy use this stratagem, right? Or a whole unit of double-firing dakkastelans? I'm not saying Dark Reapers aren't a powerful unit, they absolutely are, but come on. If you want people to take what you say seriously, avoid this kind of stupid hyperbole.

10 man squad with all with reaper-launchers...what unit in this game actually has more firepower than that?

 Mr Morden wrote:


Some armies are still without Codexes - given that almost every codex so far has been some variety of Marines it is to be hoped that Chapter Approved does not waste even more time buffing the already codex blessed who already have their widespread points drops, free artefacts, unique stratagems, Chapter tactics etc etc.

Leave Chapter Approved to those who are still languishing in the land of the Index and might be still waiting 3, 6 months or even longer (never) for an actual dex.

On you specifics: If the tanks are in your own words "Competitive" well then they don't need further boosts do they?

I want one page in Chapter Approved, to cover all the SM/CSM Legions and Chapters. I want it to provide Legion and Chapter traits to the rest of the army in some regard. Most of them can be flat out added to the other units in the army without issue, in a couple cases they would have to be tweaked to be applicable to vehicles, that's it. Index lists can have the entire rest of the book as far as I'm concerned. Apparently we're going to get some vehicle customization rules also, I'm sure nothing broken will come of that.

I don't really have a problem with the Eldar having a better anti-DS stratagem, it's fluffy, they have the oracular powers of the Farseers, rock on.

The fact that marines forget everything they learned in basic training the moment they strap on a seatbelt is dumb.

Anyhow, it seems this is devolving into tangent fest when people are arguing Predator vs LRBT, I think I saw one Predator at SCO, maybe, that should really tell you all you need to know. Then again, I have a low opinion of the Predator within the context of SM/CSM armies, transport > tank imho in this edition.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

The eldar one is infinitely better in so far as no player with knowledge of marine stratagems would deep strike next to a big shooting unit. They will just deep strike farther away or deep strike withing 12 inches of a unit that can't hurt them much but out of 12 inch from anything that can hurt them. The eldar one has 0 counterplay - except coming in out of line of site which often means doing 0 damage that turn.

Or focusing fire on a threatening unit standing right next to a farseer and killing them before dropping down. Or killing the farseer before dropping down. Or maybe having multiple units deep striking, and holding onto the one that you know your opponent is going to want to shoot, and then just opting not to drop the juicy unit at the end of all your other drops - Forewarning has to be used IMMEDIATELY after a unit drops down after all, if your opponent opts not to shoot the drop pod because he's waiting for the unit of Terminators, and instead of dropping the terminators you declare a shooting attack or psychic test, then it's no longer "Immediately after a unit deep strikes" and he can't retroactively go back and shoot the drop pod. Or, as you said, dropping somewhere out of LOS of the firing unit. I like that you have the same mentality of most video game players when you use the phrase "literally zero counterplay" - that if there isn't a large, red, glowing button labeled "OBVIOUS WEAKNESS" that you can slap to stop a counter from working, then there is LITERALLY nothing you can do against it. Sometimes the counterplay is "don't be in a situation where your opponent can trigger the stratagem".



"Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?"
are you saying that the eldar can't use the strategem as well as the marines could? And so the marines strategem was double nerfed to prevent them from abusing it. When in fact - there is no better unit in the game to use this strategem on other than a unit of dark reapers?

No better unit in the game. Not a single better unit. You know that theoretically you could have a superheavy use this stratagem, right? Or a whole unit of double-firing dakkastelans? I'm not saying Dark Reapers aren't a powerful unit, they absolutely are, but come on. If you want people to take what you say seriously, avoid this kind of stupid hyperbole.

10 man squad with all with reaper-launchers...what unit in this game actually has more firepower than that?

Baneblade with max sponsons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

The eldar one is infinitely better in so far as no player with knowledge of marine stratagems would deep strike next to a big shooting unit. They will just deep strike farther away or deep strike withing 12 inches of a unit that can't hurt them much but out of 12 inch from anything that can hurt them. The eldar one has 0 counterplay - except coming in out of line of site which often means doing 0 damage that turn.

Or focusing fire on a threatening unit standing right next to a farseer and killing them before dropping down. Or killing the farseer before dropping down. Or maybe having multiple units deep striking, and holding onto the one that you know your opponent is going to want to shoot, and then just opting not to drop the juicy unit at the end of all your other drops - Forewarning has to be used IMMEDIATELY after a unit drops down after all, if your opponent opts not to shoot the drop pod because he's waiting for the unit of Terminators, and instead of dropping the terminators you declare a shooting attack or psychic test, then it's no longer "Immediately after a unit deep strikes" and he can't retroactively go back and shoot the drop pod. Or, as you said, dropping somewhere out of LOS of the firing unit. I like that you have the same mentality of most video game players when you use the phrase "literally zero counterplay" - that if there isn't a large, red, glowing button labeled "OBVIOUS WEAKNESS" that you can slap to stop a counter from working, then there is LITERALLY nothing you can do against it. Sometimes the counterplay is "don't be in a situation where your opponent can trigger the stratagem".



"Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?"
are you saying that the eldar can't use the strategem as well as the marines could? And so the marines strategem was double nerfed to prevent them from abusing it. When in fact - there is no better unit in the game to use this strategem on other than a unit of dark reapers?

No better unit in the game. Not a single better unit. You know that theoretically you could have a superheavy use this stratagem, right? Or a whole unit of double-firing dakkastelans? I'm not saying Dark Reapers aren't a powerful unit, they absolutely are, but come on. If you want people to take what you say seriously, avoid this kind of stupid hyperbole.

10 man squad with all with reaper-launchers...what unit in this game actually has more firepower than that?

Baneblade with max sponsons.

Cool - just start listing off 500+ point lords of war please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No problem - put it on a jetbike and it can move 20 inches every turn. It's spells also have good range. Plus nothing forces you to use the stratagem. Not including a farseer in your army is a pretty dumb idea though. They are are the staple eldar HQ.

Put it on a jetbike and have it masturbate by your Dark Reapers for 3 turns until your opponent is required to bring in their deep-strikers? Yeah, make it even more expensive and have it miss have the game with its 18" range psychic powers. Good plan.

Also, "you aren't forced to use the stratagem" isn't really a good defense.

This is 8th edition...the game is over in 2 turns...what are we talking about 3 turns?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Eldar one, well, it's one use, and you just have to accept you're going to get shot by it. Doesn't affect my thinking at all. It's unavoidable, so may as well just bite the bullet.

The frustration with it is, in my original comment about it, it can nuke an entire GMDK before it even hits the table. I would think that would be an understandably difficult thing to have to accept. The general impression I'm getting is that you need to bring an extra 300 points worth of dreadknight in order to have one land on the table.

Combined with the general lack of terrain on most tournament tables? Has that gotten better? I'm not one to defend the "Space Marines are the worst" theory, but I really do think this one is kind of a problem. It's better than Coteaz was back in the day, and people screamed about him being "gamebreaking".

The Space Marine one: you may think it's worthless and not use it at all! But if you do, then I might be in big trouble. So maybe I'll deep strike outside of 12", and then be outside of that crucial rapid-fire plasma range or completely out of meltagun range. Or maybe I can just take the losses - heck, it may be easier to just target a different unit entirely that can't kill me as well - ah crap, that unit is screened. Well, bugger.

Ta-da! The Space Marine one actually affects the opponents planning and psychology more than the eldar one. It can have a meaningful effect on the opponent's thinking and decision loop without costing any CP at all!

IIRC, a squad of 10 tac marines using this has a 63% chance of killing 2-4 T3 4+ units. The SM one hurts some things, and someone could let that get in their head, but at the end of the day I'm struggling to think of a situation you could actually wipe out an entire unit with literally zero recourse. Maybe devastators with plasma cannons or something.

This isn't really affecting psychology at the table, but the eldar one affect psychology before the game even starts.

I think that the core of Xenomancer's argument is pretty accurate to be fair. Power Creep is a serious and very real problem for the balance of the game, and many codices have been balancing power around certain units and characters to make the armies competitive (such as Gulliman with marines, Celestine with sisters, Mortarion for Deathguard etc).

The whole design behind the codices, in fact, is entirely power creeping them in to line with the previous codices. This has been concerning me for a while. None of my armies have codices out yet, but I was hoping that having a codex wouldn't make your army so much more powerful than other non-codex armies.

the_scotsman wrote:

Or focusing fire on a threatening unit standing right next to a farseer and killing them before dropping down. Or killing the farseer before dropping down. Or maybe having multiple units deep striking, and holding onto the one that you know your opponent is going to want to shoot, and then just opting not to drop the juicy unit at the end of all your other drops - Forewarning has to be used IMMEDIATELY after a unit drops down after all, if your opponent opts not to shoot the drop pod because he's waiting for the unit of Terminators, and instead of dropping the terminators you declare a shooting attack or psychic test, then it's no longer "Immediately after a unit deep strikes" and he can't retroactively go back and shoot the drop pod. Or, as you said, dropping somewhere out of LOS of the firing unit. I like that you have the same mentality of most video game players when you use the phrase "literally zero counterplay" - that if there isn't a large, red, glowing button labeled "OBVIOUS WEAKNESS" that you can slap to stop a counter from working, then there is LITERALLY nothing you can do against it. Sometimes the counterplay is "don't be in a situation where your opponent can trigger the stratagem".

It's hard to take "just focus fire" seriously when one is a character, either can fairly trivially have a -2 to hit, and, unless I'm misunderstanding, can get at least a -3 if they really need to. Invisibility is back, you know.

Your deep-strike chicken idea is pretty awesome though. Could definitely backfire pretty hard though. One of the things I've always understood about the game, especially in the context of GK is "don't come in piecemeal."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

I completely agree. That's what I was just looking at: Even without Grinding Advance, the quadlas predator is about on par with the Leman Russ Annihilator; it misses out on one Lascannon shot but has a higher BS, faster movement (both in the absolute sense and in the "doesn't have to move half speed to actually do anything" sense), and is cheaper.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

Darsath wrote:
I think that the core of Xenomancer's argument is pretty accurate to be fair. Power Creep is a serious and very real problem for the balance of the game, and many codices have been balancing power around certain units and characters to make the armies competitive (such as Gulliman with marines, Celestine with sisters, Mortarion for Deathguard etc).

The whole design behind the codices, in fact, is entirely power creeping them in to line with the previous codices. This has been concerning me for a while. None of my armies have codices out yet, but I was hoping that having a codex wouldn't make your army so much more powerful than other non-codex armies.

Keep in mind that the SM and Craftworlds codices, despite being released months apart, were likely written at the same time, making this less an issue of power creep and more likely the game developers trying to give variation without gimping the toolbox of one army - which is what many players have been asking for for years.

strepp wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think that the core of Xenomancer's argument is pretty accurate to be fair. Power Creep is a serious and very real problem for the balance of the game, and many codices have been balancing power around certain units and characters to make the armies competitive (such as Gulliman with marines, Celestine with sisters, Mortarion for Deathguard etc).

The whole design behind the codices, in fact, is entirely power creeping them in to line with the previous codices. This has been concerning me for a while. None of my armies have codices out yet, but I was hoping that having a codex wouldn't make your army so much more powerful than other non-codex armies.

Keep in mind that the SM and Craftworlds codices, despite being released months apart, were likely written at the same time, making this less an issue of power creep and more likely the game developers trying to give variation without gimping the toolbox of one army - which is what many players have been asking for for years.

I agree they were probably written at the same time. Most codex probably are already written. (They'd just have to be in order to be put through the printing process.) This doesn't mean that there isn't power creep. They easily could have made some armies more powerful and release them in order of power regardless of when they were written.

strepp wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think that the core of Xenomancer's argument is pretty accurate to be fair. Power Creep is a serious and very real problem for the balance of the game, and many codices have been balancing power around certain units and characters to make the armies competitive (such as Gulliman with marines, Celestine with sisters, Mortarion for Deathguard etc).

The whole design behind the codices, in fact, is entirely power creeping them in to line with the previous codices. This has been concerning me for a while. None of my armies have codices out yet, but I was hoping that having a codex wouldn't make your army so much more powerful than other non-codex armies.

Keep in mind that the SM and Craftworlds codices, despite being released months apart, were likely written at the same time, making this less an issue of power creep and more likely the game developers trying to give variation without gimping the toolbox of one army - which is what many players have been asking for for years.

If anything, this makes the disparity in power levels of codices (GKs vs Choas or IG) even more questionable to be honest.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

With regards to the stratagem, I think a vital discussion part of it has been sorely missed out... (It may have been covered, I've only checked the first page and a half before the thread seemed to wander)

Eldar can only do it within 6 inches of a Farseer, No Farseer, no Stratagem.

Space marines applies for any space marine unit that may be within 12" of the unit that just came in, which means that you are within any rapid fire ranges you may have.

It's more balanced than people make out in my opinion because whilst Eldar get the better stick because they don't suffer penalties, they have a very short leash to play with.
Space marines get the smaller stick in terms of benefits, but ANY unit can do it without a leash attached, so spread your guys liberally across your field and dare your opponent to come close to that hell blaster unit or your intercessors for some rapid fire berating.

Just wanted to highlight that I think the Space Marine one can only be used on Infantry AND gives a -1 to Hit.

That said, I'm siding with the folks in the beginning who said Grey Knights have the worst. Did you know the Codex made our Terminators more expensive? Terminators.

Greyknights are not actually as bad as marines. Also - as an allied force greyknights bring some really good stuff to the table - no one would allie a marine force for any reason - it would just make your army worse. It's okay though - we can ignore how bad the marine codex is because the greyknights codex is also bad.

Some others already addressed this but allying in a certain Blue Primarch plus your heavy dakka platform of choice is extremely common, much more so than GK. GK's are just a tag along to some AM lists.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I agree they were probably written at the same time. Most codex probably are already written. (They'd just have to be in order to be put through the printing process.) This doesn't mean that there isn't power creep. They easily could have made some armies more powerful and release them in order of power regardless of when they were written.

Which is weird, because logistically, I would expect that would have to be the case based upon printing run tunaround and all of that, but I feel like there feels like there was a fundamental change in design philosophy between the initial release and the ones that came after. Without comment on whether that's good or bad for any particular set of books, they feel like they weren't written by the same people or written at the same time, and maybe both.

360 points for a reroll 1's bubble when you can have reroll 1's for free from cadians trait....is not worth it. Guilliman is only worth it with an ultra marines army.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

I completely agree. That's what I was just looking at: Even without Grinding Advance, the quadlas predator is about on par with the Leman Russ Annihilator; it misses out on one Lascannon shot but has a higher BS, faster movement (both in the absolute sense and in the "doesn't have to move half speed to actually do anything" sense), and is cheaper.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

Because it's the one most directly comparable to a Predator Annhilator.

What, are you upset that predators don't get battle cannons? You know codices have different options and that's a good thing, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
360 points for a reroll 1's bubble when you can have reroll 1's for free from cadians trait....is not worth it. Guilliman is only worth it with an ultra marines army.

Your consistent comparisons of apples and oranges is not doing you any favors.

Unless you're going to somehow argue the Cadians get re-roll ones while moving, just like Guilliman has (they don't).

But sure, conveniently ignoring data that does not support your viewpoint is, I suppose, consistent with the anti-intellectual bent that some sects of modern American culture has. Fortunately, some of us don't outright ignore data when it doesn't support our narrative; I only pray that GW also uses data when balancing its books, instead of listening to folks like you.

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I agree they were probably written at the same time. Most codex probably are already written. (They'd just have to be in order to be put through the printing process.) This doesn't mean that there isn't power creep. They easily could have made some armies more powerful and release them in order of power regardless of when they were written.

Which is weird, because logistically, I would expect that would have to be the case based upon printing run tunaround and all of that, but I feel like there feels like there was a fundamental change in design philosophy between the initial release and the ones that came after. Without comment on whether that's good or bad for any particular set of books, they feel like they weren't written by the same people or written at the same time, and maybe both.

Well there is a clear power shift once AM was released. We started seeing things like...this gun shoots twice now and this is a rehashed stratagem but its better.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I agree they were probably written at the same time. Most codex probably are already written. (They'd just have to be in order to be put through the printing process.) This doesn't mean that there isn't power creep. They easily could have made some armies more powerful and release them in order of power regardless of when they were written.

Which is weird, because logistically, I would expect that would have to be the case based upon printing run tunaround and all of that, but I feel like there feels like there was a fundamental change in design philosophy between the initial release and the ones that came after. Without comment on whether that's good or bad for any particular set of books, they feel like they weren't written by the same people or written at the same time, and maybe both.

Well there is a clear power shift once AM was released. We started seeing things like...this gun shoots twice now and this is a rehashed stratagem but its better.

I feel like you constantly confuse the words better and different. I guarantee you if Marines got the Eldar stratagem and Eldar got the Marine stratagem, you'd be upset that yours ties your HQs down to the heavy shooting units instead of being forwards "where they belong" while the Eldar can just use theirs on anyone "without restriction" or some-such other completely mistaken bullgak.

If you guys think vanilla is bad, just wait until C:BA tries to force meqs to get into CC with like 12 models on the table, LOL.

While many of the codices were probably already more-or-less done when 8th launched, it's been long enough that newer codices are probably now incorporating feedback from the community. Like, the new Guard codex builds in the one command squad per officer rule that got FAQ'd early on. Grinding Advance (and the similar Fire Prism rule) seem like quick patch jobs in response to everyone noticing that Russes and Prisms were terrible.

The Marine, GK, Chaos, Death Guard, and probably AdMech codices were likely in basically their final form before 8th launched. These have only minor changes relative to the index (excepting DG, obviously), presumably due to playtesting that occurred pre-launch. Marines didn't really change (though they did get a lot of new Primaris stuff). Chaos got almost nothing except for better Obliterators. GKs got nerfed Terminators (lol). The AdMech codex is kind of bizarre in what it changes, which is relatively little, and really says to me that it's not based on any sort of community feedback.

But then the Guard codex has some really well-aimed changes that seem very responsive to what people were saying in the first month or so of 8th. Scion plasma and Conscripts were nerfed. Russes and Baneblades were buffed significantly. The stuff that they didn't hit is stuff that people weren't really talking about early on (like Smite spam). They seem to have quickly decided that the Conscript nerf was insufficient (which would make sense if they were basing this on what people were saying right after 8th, since it wasn't as obvious how dominant Conscripts would be).

The Eldar codex looks something like the Guard codex insofar as it's a very extensive set of price changes. Again I think there's a lot of reason to think that this is responsive to what people were saying early on. Dire Avengers, Rangers, Falcons, and Fire Prisms immediately jumped out at people as absolutely terrible units. It was less clear at the time how bad Windriders were, and they got a relatively modest buff. One really weird change is the Hemlock buff, but remember that early in 8th lots of people were (for some reason) pretty down on most non-Stormraven flyers. In the early Eldar tactics threads lots of people were overlooking the flyers entirely.

The good news for Marines is that they came out long enough ago that the Chapter Approved in December will likely have some good changes for them. Eldar and 'Nids should probably be a little worried about being stuck with what they've got for a year.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

I completely agree. That's what I was just looking at: Even without Grinding Advance, the quadlas predator is about on par with the Leman Russ Annihilator; it misses out on one Lascannon shot but has a higher BS, faster movement (both in the absolute sense and in the "doesn't have to move half speed to actually do anything" sense), and is cheaper.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

Because it's the one most directly comparable to a Predator Annhilator.

What, are you upset that predators don't get battle cannons? You know codices have different options and that's a good thing, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
360 points for a reroll 1's bubble when you can have reroll 1's for free from cadians trait....is not worth it. Guilliman is only worth it with an ultra marines army.

Your consistent comparisons of apples and oranges is not doing you any favors.

Unless you're going to somehow argue the Cadians get re-roll ones while moving, just like Guilliman has (they don't).

But sure, conveniently ignoring data that does not support your viewpoint is, I suppose, consistent with the anti-intellectual bent that some sects of modern American culture has. Fortunately, some of us don't outright ignore data when it doesn't support our narrative; I only pray that GW also uses data when balancing its books, instead of listening to folks like you.

I wan't presented data. I was presented an anecdote. From which I have a pretty good idea where it came from - being the first few tournaments results released and a few net lists that had guillimen and conscripts cheesing out with character dreads from forge world. Those are outclassed now by codexes with strategems. Guilliman does not show up in winning AM lists in any setting now.

I do think the CWE strat is a little better. But come on.

1) A 10-man Dark Reaper squad, on average dice, does not 1-round even a 10-man Tac squad (2x(2x3)(2x3)(2/3), worse in cover).
2) A 10-man reaper squad is a lot of points. Save your DS for a turn and shoot them (with boltguns, even). Or don't deepstrike. Or LOS. You can't ignore terrain/deployment like you usually could.
3) DSing freely is very scary for a CWE list. Getting your Tacs within doubletap range of a Dev squad and then shooting with no counterplay lets you do some damage. Getting your Tacs in doubletap range of Reapers or Fragons or Banshees does a *lot* more damage.

The CWE strat is still better. But that doesn't mean the book is better across the board.

As for traits, it is nicer to have it affect most of the army. But it's inaccurate to say the whole army. The majority of our Special Characters - our only Captain-level combat characters - can never get a Trait. Ever. Or a Warlord trait. Not even the core rules Warlord traits. I like it this way (Asurmen and Jain Zar don't belong to any Craftworld), but to say it affects everything is wrong. Still, better than RG in that vehicles and such are more common than Phoenix Lords.

The Infiltrate discussion is weird. Some points:
- You *cannot* DS both Infantry and Vehicles in the same game via strats. It is very, very clear on that. One or the other. You can pay 3 CP to do 2 Infantry or 2 Vehicles, but that's it. 2 units. For 3CP you get 3 for RG/Alpha Legion. And you don't stop there.
- RG/Alpha Legion Infiltrate is very different from Deep Strike. People disagree about which is better (actual infiltrate would probably be OP in Craftworlder hands - Fragons, ScytheGuard, Banshees, Specters and more would do so much more with that than Deep Strike).

I don't see how the CWE strats are worse than RG/Alpha Legion. Do you really want to Infiltrate/Deep Strike a Predator? Maybe a Rhino or Razorback. Maybe.

And those are only the chery-picked options where CWE is supposedly so obviously above SM. Consider these:

1) Lascannons and Brightlances. Lance vs S9, and 48" vs 36" on mostly Relentless platforms. Decent tradeoff. Until it lost Lance and Relentless. But kept S8 and 36".
2) Assault Cannons vs SL or SC
3) Gilly
4) Quad-las Pred vs BL Falcon
5) Storm Guardians

The CWE book seems overtooned. But to cherrypick two things as "Obviously OP", and to get the facts about them so wrong, doesn't help anything. See above for "proof" the other way (CWE may be more powerful than SM - just showing that there are examples in both directions).

Despite the problems, some things seem fair. Dread vs Wraithlord. Rhino vs Serpent. DA vs Tacs are close (should pay 10 pts for the Exarch, imo). ASM vs Scorpions. EML vs SM ML. Hopefully we get more of that, moving forward.

 daedalus wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Or focusing fire on a threatening unit standing right next to a farseer and killing them before dropping down. Or killing the farseer before dropping down. Or maybe having multiple units deep striking, and holding onto the one that you know your opponent is going to want to shoot, and then just opting not to drop the juicy unit at the end of all your other drops - Forewarning has to be used IMMEDIATELY after a unit drops down after all, if your opponent opts not to shoot the drop pod because he's waiting for the unit of Terminators, and instead of dropping the terminators you declare a shooting attack or psychic test, then it's no longer "Immediately after a unit deep strikes" and he can't retroactively go back and shoot the drop pod. Or, as you said, dropping somewhere out of LOS of the firing unit. I like that you have the same mentality of most video game players when you use the phrase "literally zero counterplay" - that if there isn't a large, red, glowing button labeled "OBVIOUS WEAKNESS" that you can slap to stop a counter from working, then there is LITERALLY nothing you can do against it. Sometimes the counterplay is "don't be in a situation where your opponent can trigger the stratagem".

It's hard to take "just focus fire" seriously when one is a character, either can fairly trivially have a -2 to hit, and, unless I'm misunderstanding, can get at least a -3 if they really need to. Invisibility is back, you know.

Your deep-strike chicken idea is pretty awesome though. Could definitely backfire pretty hard though. One of the things I've always understood about the game, especially in the context of GK is "don't come in piecemeal."

So if you're setting their craftworld to Alaitoc (ignoring the fact that Dark Reapers are always going to be Ynnari), giving them a dedicated warlock for Conceal, spending 2CP for Lightning Fast Reflexes, and another 2CP to trigger Forewarned, can I say that I'm just going to run White Scars, Saint Celestine or whoever else and just turn 1 charge them from downtown?

This is rapidly devolving into the mythical "Bullgryn 2++" situation where you bring 200+ point celestine, spend a CP, cast two psychic powers, play on a tuesday, be in cover, and you have an invincible unkillable abusive OP unit!!!!one!

Also, what unit could possibly have more firepower than 10 Reaper Launcher Reapers hitting on 3s with 20 S5 AP-2 2 damage shots or 10 S8 AP-2 D3 shots plus a Farseer, for 370 points?

I dunno, how about Pask in a punisher? 49 shots at BS2+.
3 Dakkastelans? 54 shots at BS3+.
A stormraven? A Land Raider? Most units of that point value purely focused on long-range shooting are going to put out a heavy amount of firepower. They're one unit. If you're not on a table where you can't either A, land your stuff out of their sight, or B, they are exposed enough that you can get in and focus them down, then I don't know what to tell you other than that you've probably earned the loss of a unit.

Also, for Grinding Advance:
1) Only the Fire Prism gets the similar rule
2) That similar rule doesn't remove the -1 to hit

So it's the better half of Grinding Advance. But still not as good. And only on one option.

Bharring wrote:
I do think the CWE strat is a little better. But come on.

1) A 10-man Dark Reaper squad, on average dice, does not 1-round even a 10-man Tac squad (2x(2x3)(2x3)(2/3), worse in cover).
2) A 10-man reaper squad is a lot of points. Save your DS for a turn and shoot them (with boltguns, even). Or don't deepstrike. Or LOS. You can't ignore terrain/deployment like you usually could.
3) DSing freely is very scary for a CWE list. Getting your Tacs within doubletap range of a Dev squad and then shooting with no counterplay lets you do some damage. Getting your Tacs in doubletap range of Reapers or Fragons or Banshees does a *lot* more damage.

The CWE strat is still better. But that doesn't mean the book is better across the board.

As for traits, it is nicer to have it affect most of the army. But it's inaccurate to say the whole army. The majority of our Special Characters - our only Captain-level combat characters - can never get a Trait. Ever. Or a Warlord trait. Not even the core rules Warlord traits. I like it this way (Asurmen and Jain Zar don't belong to any Craftworld), but to say it affects everything is wrong. Still, better than RG in that vehicles and such are more common than Phoenix Lords.

The Infiltrate discussion is weird. Some points:
- You *cannot* DS both Infantry and Vehicles in the same game via strats. It is very, very clear on that. One or the other. You can pay 3 CP to do 2 Infantry or 2 Vehicles, but that's it. 2 units. For 3CP you get 3 for RG/Alpha Legion. And you don't stop there.
- RG/Alpha Legion Infiltrate is very different from Deep Strike. People disagree about which is better (actual infiltrate would probably be OP in Craftworlder hands - Fragons, ScytheGuard, Banshees, Specters and more would do so much more with that than Deep Strike).

I don't see how the CWE strats are worse than RG/Alpha Legion. Do you really want to Infiltrate/Deep Strike a Predator? Maybe a Rhino or Razorback. Maybe.

And those are only the chery-picked options where CWE is supposedly so obviously above SM. Consider these:

1) Lascannons and Brightlances. Lance vs S9, and 48" vs 36" on mostly Relentless platforms. Decent tradeoff. Until it lost Lance and Relentless. But kept S8 and 36".
2) Assault Cannons vs SL or SC
3) Gilly
4) Quad-las Pred vs BL Falcon
5) Storm Guardians

The CWE book seems overtooned. But to cherrypick two things as "Obviously OP", and to get the facts about them so wrong, doesn't help anything. See above for "proof" the other way (CWE may be more powerful than SM - just showing that there are examples in both directions).

Despite the problems, some things seem fair. Dread vs Wraithlord. Rhino vs Serpent. DA vs Tacs are close (should pay 10 pts for the Exarch, imo). ASM vs Scorpions. EML vs SM ML. Hopefully we get more of that, moving forward.

The majority of a Reaper squads damage comes from it's multi damage weapons. It 1 rounds a grandmaster dreadknight. It 1 rounds a flying hive tyrant. It 1 rounds a summoned daemon.

Lightning Fast Reflexes are only for models with Fly. Dark Reapers can't Fly.

The Hemlock was sidegraded. Conceal was a large part of what made it OP. Now Conceal targets an infantry/biker unit, instead of an aura that affects the caster and infantry/bikers. Also, Hemlocks can't cast it (or any other buffs) now. Still probably too good, but it wasn't just a buff.

Bharring wrote:
Lightning Fast Reflexes are only for models with Fly. Dark Reapers can't Fly.

It also works on Infantry, so it ends up hitting pretty much everything that was worth taking in the first place.

Odd, my 5 Reapers failed to kill an Ork tank last night. It can 1-round things, sure. But then Asurmen can do 30 wounds to a Warhound Titan. If you roll perfectly. A Dev squad or Combi Sternies or such could 1-round those targets too, potentially.

the_scotsman wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Or focusing fire on a threatening unit standing right next to a farseer and killing them before dropping down. Or killing the farseer before dropping down. Or maybe having multiple units deep striking, and holding onto the one that you know your opponent is going to want to shoot, and then just opting not to drop the juicy unit at the end of all your other drops - Forewarning has to be used IMMEDIATELY after a unit drops down after all, if your opponent opts not to shoot the drop pod because he's waiting for the unit of Terminators, and instead of dropping the terminators you declare a shooting attack or psychic test, then it's no longer "Immediately after a unit deep strikes" and he can't retroactively go back and shoot the drop pod. Or, as you said, dropping somewhere out of LOS of the firing unit. I like that you have the same mentality of most video game players when you use the phrase "literally zero counterplay" - that if there isn't a large, red, glowing button labeled "OBVIOUS WEAKNESS" that you can slap to stop a counter from working, then there is LITERALLY nothing you can do against it. Sometimes the counterplay is "don't be in a situation where your opponent can trigger the stratagem".

It's hard to take "just focus fire" seriously when one is a character, either can fairly trivially have a -2 to hit, and, unless I'm misunderstanding, can get at least a -3 if they really need to. Invisibility is back, you know.

Your deep-strike chicken idea is pretty awesome though. Could definitely backfire pretty hard though. One of the things I've always understood about the game, especially in the context of GK is "don't come in piecemeal."

So if you're setting their craftworld to Alaitoc (ignoring the fact that Dark Reapers are always going to be Ynnari), giving them a dedicated warlock for Conceal, spending 2CP for Lightning Fast Reflexes, and another 2CP to trigger Forewarned, can I say that I'm just going to run White Scars, Saint Celestine or whoever else and just turn 1 charge them from downtown?

This is rapidly devolving into the mythical "Bullgryn 2++" situation where you bring 200+ point celestine, spend a CP, cast two psychic powers, play on a tuesday, be in cover, and you have an invincible unkillable abusive OP unit!!!!one!

Also, what unit could possibly have more firepower than 10 Reaper Launcher Reapers hitting on 3s with 20 S5 AP-2 2 damage shots or 10 S8 AP-2 D3 shots plus a Farseer, for 370 points?

I dunno, how about Pask in a punisher? 49 shots at BS2+.
3 Dakkastelans? 54 shots at BS3+.
A stormraven? A Land Raider? Most units of that point value purely focused on long-range shooting are going to put out a heavy amount of firepower. They're one unit. If you're not on a table where you can't either A, land your stuff out of their sight, or B, they are exposed enough that you can get in and focus them down, then I don't know what to tell you other than that you've probably earned the loss of a unit.

I see you have gone beyond defending the stratagem as being much better than the other versions of it in the game and gone on to just kill the dark reapers - which are in cover - most likely have -1 to hit and if they went first will most likely have fortune on them as well - if that is the clear target they much go for. They can get get a warlock to cast protect on them too. For 1+ saves in cover. Yeah...shoot bolters at them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Odd, my 5 Reapers failed to kill an Ork tank last night. It can 1-round things, sure. But then Asurmen can do 30 wounds to a Warhound Titan. If you roll perfectly. A Dev squad or Combi Sternies or such could 1-round those targets too, potentially.

Keep calm and do math.

 Xenomancers wrote:

10 man squad with all with reaper-launchers...what unit in this game actually has more firepower than that?

Hellblasters
Centurions loaded out
Sternguard with Combi-plasma within 12"
Obliterators rolling average

Note how 3 of those units are in the Marine codex. C'mon man, you're not even trying.

I did the math for a 10-man Tac squad. Granted, Tacs are quite durable. So is the problem that SM don't have anything as durable as Tacs?

Or is it that that 10-man Reaper squad puts out more dakka than anything SM could field? So perhaps SM should get access to Sternies? Centurions? Hellblasters?

No, it is better than the marine stratagem you listed.

You know what else?

The Iron Hands chapter tactic is a better version of the Graia Forgeworld Dogma. Does that make Marines OP? Does that make Iron Hands good? No, it just makes this one thing better than this other similar thing.

The Raven Guard chapter is better than the Alaitoc Craftworld, because they have the same Tactic but the Raven Guard stratagem is good and the Alaitoc Stratagem is hot trash. Therefore marines are OP, and Eldar are the worst codex? Is that how this works?

oh gosh, as it turns out, if I strip away all context from rules and compare two tiny elements of two different factions in context, then try to make the claim that one WHOLE FACTION is better than the other because of that single comparison, I am just wrong!

How bout that!

In this whole post, nobody has contested the assertion you seem to be defending, that this one thing is obviously better than this other thing.

They're contesting the straight up bonkers conclusions you've made based on that comparison, namely:

1) There is no single unit in the game with more firepower than 10-man dark reapers
2) This one comparison is PROOF that Codex Space Marines is the worst codex
3) There is literally zero counterplay to this stratagem available if you may be in a situation where your opponent could make use of it

How is the Iron Hands one better than Graia?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How is the Iron Hands one better than Graia?

It works on every wound, while Graia only works on the last wound before the model dies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

I completely agree. That's what I was just looking at: Even without Grinding Advance, the quadlas predator is about on par with the Leman Russ Annihilator; it misses out on one Lascannon shot but has a higher BS, faster movement (both in the absolute sense and in the "doesn't have to move half speed to actually do anything" sense), and is cheaper.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

Because it's the one most directly comparable to a Predator Annhilator.

What, are you upset that predators don't get battle cannons? You know codices have different options and that's a good thing, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
360 points for a reroll 1's bubble when you can have reroll 1's for free from cadians trait....is not worth it. Guilliman is only worth it with an ultra marines army.

Your consistent comparisons of apples and oranges is not doing you any favors.

Unless you're going to somehow argue the Cadians get re-roll ones while moving, just like Guilliman has (they don't).

But sure, conveniently ignoring data that does not support your viewpoint is, I suppose, consistent with the anti-intellectual bent that some sects of modern American culture has. Fortunately, some of us don't outright ignore data when it doesn't support our narrative; I only pray that GW also uses data when balancing its books, instead of listening to folks like you.

Are you purposely being obtuse or did the point fly right over your head? Lemme bullet point it for ya.
1. Annihilator is a lamer pattern of Russ.
2. Predator, with a similar loadout, is similarly lame.
3. You say it's fine for both of them.

I'm not asking for the fething Battle Cannon. I'm asking for a Predator that's good to run with my Iron Warriors lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How is the Iron Hands one better than Graia?

It works on every wound, while Graia only works on the last wound before the model dies.

And it helps with Morale losses. That's more even than anything.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

10 man squad with all with reaper-launchers...what unit in this game actually has more firepower than that?

Hellblasters
Centurions loaded out
Sternguard with Combi-plasma within 12"
Obliterators rolling average

Note how 3 of those units are in the Marine codex. C'mon man, you're not even trying.

Helblasters have less firepower and they cost more and in order to have reasonable firepower have to risk killing themselves.
Centurions loaded out are like 140 points a peice. - you would auto lose the game for taking the unit
guess i wont deep strike withing 12 inches of sterngaurd or hellblasters for that matter
oblits are max units of 3 - they wouldn't benefit much plus can't cover as much area with 24 inch range.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

I completely agree. That's what I was just looking at: Even without Grinding Advance, the quadlas predator is about on par with the Leman Russ Annihilator; it misses out on one Lascannon shot but has a higher BS, faster movement (both in the absolute sense and in the "doesn't have to move half speed to actually do anything" sense), and is cheaper.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

Because it's the one most directly comparable to a Predator Annhilator.

What, are you upset that predators don't get battle cannons? You know codices have different options and that's a good thing, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
360 points for a reroll 1's bubble when you can have reroll 1's for free from cadians trait....is not worth it. Guilliman is only worth it with an ultra marines army.

Your consistent comparisons of apples and oranges is not doing you any favors.

Unless you're going to somehow argue the Cadians get re-roll ones while moving, just like Guilliman has (they don't).

But sure, conveniently ignoring data that does not support your viewpoint is, I suppose, consistent with the anti-intellectual bent that some sects of modern American culture has. Fortunately, some of us don't outright ignore data when it doesn't support our narrative; I only pray that GW also uses data when balancing its books, instead of listening to folks like you.

Are you purposely being obtuse or did the point fly right over your head? Lemme bullet point it for ya.
1. Annihilator is a lamer pattern of Russ.
2. Predator, with a similar loadout, is similarly lame.
3. You say it's fine for both of them.

I'm not asking for the fething Battle Cannon. I'm asking for a Predator that's good to run with my Iron Warriors lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How is the Iron Hands one better than Graia?

It works on every wound, while Graia only works on the last wound before the model dies.

And it helps with Morale losses. That's more even than anything.

It...really isn't. Admech only has 4 units total with only one wound. For every other unit, this 6++ save only applies on half their wounds or less. Also, it comes with a drawback for some reason - kill any characters and the whole army can't fall back anymore.

I love pedantic objections as much as the next guy, but how about a different example so you can try again, but maybe with a response to the actual argument presented: Iyanden and Valhalla. Iyanden is a straight up upgrade over the Valhalla trait - same for vehicles, better for infantry. Does that make Guard the single worst codex?

The key here is that it doesn't actually matter if the conclusion is wrong or right: Your reasoning is such that you can't even get to the point of being right. If your argument is "9/11 was an inside job, and the space aliens put mind control drugs in the drinking water, therefore the sky is blue" you are wrong, even if the sky is in fact blue.

Somone just told me to take devestator centurions. I am shocked.

the_scotsman wrote:

So if you're setting their craftworld to Alaitoc (ignoring the fact that Dark Reapers are always going to be Ynnari), giving them a dedicated warlock for Conceal, spending 2CP for Lightning Fast Reflexes, and another 2CP to trigger Forewarned, can I say that I'm just going to run White Scars, Saint Celestine or whoever else and just turn 1 charge them from downtown?

Alaitoc is probably one of the best craftworlds unless the -1's stacking gets faq'd, and then it's probably one of the worst, i just watched a game where the dark reapers weren't Ynnari, the warlock doesn't have to be dedicated, just within range when it seems like it's a good idea, and it's not like you're just not going to have a warlock, with the rest being reactive options. It's not an difficult setup to have, and it's still effective even if you're missing parts of it.

Meanwhile the imperial setup requires everything to be set up in list building for all of that.

This is rapidly devolving into the mythical "Bullgryn 2++" situation where you bring 200+ point celestine, spend a CP, cast two psychic powers, play on a tuesday, be in cover, and you have an invincible unkillable abusive OP unit!!!!one!

I'm not sure what all went into that combo, but I believe this one is significantly more useful. And from the sounds of it, vastly less contrived.

Also, what unit could possibly have more firepower than 10 Reaper Launcher Reapers hitting on 3s with 20 S5 AP-2 2 damage shots or 10 S8 AP-2 D3 shots plus a Farseer, for 370 points?

I dunno, how about Pask in a punisher? 49 shots at BS2+.
3 Dakkastelans? 54 shots at BS3+.
A stormraven? A Land Raider? Most units of that point value purely focused on long-range shooting are going to put out a heavy amount of firepower. They're one unit. If you're not on a table where you can't either A, land your stuff out of their sight, or B, they are exposed enough that you can get in and focus them down, then I don't know what to tell you other than that you've probably earned the loss of a unit.

And you know what? I'm 100% okay with that. I've been saying that pure GK and SM players have been playing the game fundamentally wrong by only playing with one fraction of Codex: Imperium. I can totally accept that and live with the ramifications of that. I'm just saying that if that's the solution, then I don't want to hear any more whining about the solution..

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

I completely agree. That's what I was just looking at: Even without Grinding Advance, the quadlas predator is about on par with the Leman Russ Annihilator; it misses out on one Lascannon shot but has a higher BS, faster movement (both in the absolute sense and in the "doesn't have to move half speed to actually do anything" sense), and is cheaper.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

The Annihilator is actually probably one of the better variants, particularly for tank hunting, especially against T8 targets. Against a T8 3+sv tank target, the FW Annihilator is putting out 4.86 wounds for 192pts, a las Vanq is outputting....2.83 for 167pts (3.45 wounds against a T7 target), a Quadlas Predator is doing 5.2 wounds against T7 and T8 targets for 190pts.

Yes, the Annihilator is a lame tank pattern, in it's Malcador variety, Leman Russ variety, and Predator variety.

If only (renegades and heretics) there was a way for your (renegades and heretics) iron warriors (renegades and heretics) to use Leman (renegades and heretics) Russ tanks (renegades and heretics).

 Xenomancers wrote:
Somone just told me to take devestator centurions. I am shocked.

These guys were only good in 7th because you could pair them with a lead blocker, and deep strike with pods. Both of these things are gone.

Who knew people would easily destroy 2 wound models with no invuln?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, the Annihilator is a lame tank pattern, in it's Malcador variety, Leman Russ variety, and Predator variety.

If only (renegades and heretics) there was a way for your (renegades and heretics) iron warriors (renegades and heretics) to use Leman (renegades and heretics) Russ tanks (renegades and heretics).

I don't want a Russ. I want a Predator.

If you're telling people the solution is to ally, you don't get the fundamental issues with internal and external balance.
Allies are supposed to be a supplement, not a crutch. Do you understand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Somone just told me to take devestator centurions. I am shocked.

These guys were only good in 7th because you could pair them with a lead blocker, and deep strike with pods. Both of these things are gone.

Who knew people would easily destroy 2 wound models with no invuln?

3 wounds, but they're 85 points without any gear I think so if you can't kill that you have issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

I completely agree. That's what I was just looking at: Even without Grinding Advance, the quadlas predator is about on par with the Leman Russ Annihilator; it misses out on one Lascannon shot but has a higher BS, faster movement (both in the absolute sense and in the "doesn't have to move half speed to actually do anything" sense), and is cheaper.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

The Annihilator is actually probably one of the better variants, particularly for tank hunting, especially against T8 targets. Against a T8 3+sv tank target, the FW Annihilator is putting out 4.86 wounds for 192pts, a las Vanq is outputting....2.83 for 167pts (3.45 wounds against a T7 target), a Quadlas Predator is doing 5.2 wounds against T7 and T8 targets for 190pts.

There's nothing T8 being ran that anyone should fear in the first place. It's a niche that doesn't get used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

I completely agree. That's what I was just looking at: Even without Grinding Advance, the quadlas predator is about on par with the Leman Russ Annihilator; it misses out on one Lascannon shot but has a higher BS, faster movement (both in the absolute sense and in the "doesn't have to move half speed to actually do anything" sense), and is cheaper.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

Because it's the one most directly comparable to a Predator Annhilator.

What, are you upset that predators don't get battle cannons? You know codices have different options and that's a good thing, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
360 points for a reroll 1's bubble when you can have reroll 1's for free from cadians trait....is not worth it. Guilliman is only worth it with an ultra marines army.

Your consistent comparisons of apples and oranges is not doing you any favors.

Unless you're going to somehow argue the Cadians get re-roll ones while moving, just like Guilliman has (they don't).

But sure, conveniently ignoring data that does not support your viewpoint is, I suppose, consistent with the anti-intellectual bent that some sects of modern American culture has. Fortunately, some of us don't outright ignore data when it doesn't support our narrative; I only pray that GW also uses data when balancing its books, instead of listening to folks like you.

Are you purposely being obtuse or did the point fly right over your head? Lemme bullet point it for ya.
1. Annihilator is a lamer pattern of Russ.
2. Predator, with a similar loadout, is similarly lame.
3. You say it's fine for both of them.

I'm not asking for the fething Battle Cannon. I'm asking for a Predator that's good to run with my Iron Warriors lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How is the Iron Hands one better than Graia?

It works on every wound, while Graia only works on the last wound before the model dies.

And it helps with Morale losses. That's more even than anything.

It...really isn't. Admech only has 4 units total with only one wound. For every other unit, this 6++ save only applies on half their wounds or less. Also, it comes with a drawback for some reason - kill any characters and the whole army can't fall back anymore.

I love pedantic objections as much as the next guy, but how about a different example so you can try again, but maybe with a response to the actual argument presented: Iyanden and Valhalla. Iyanden is a straight up upgrade over the Valhalla trait - same for vehicles, better for infantry. Does that make Guard the single worst codex?

The key here is that it doesn't actually matter if the conclusion is wrong or right: Your reasoning is such that you can't even get to the point of being right. If your argument is "9/11 was an inside job, and the space aliens put mind control drugs in the drinking water, therefore the sky is blue" you are wrong, even if the sky is in fact blue.

Seeing as they need those 1 wound units for screening and grabbing CP, yeah that's pretty good. Dragoons only get you so far.

Also I'm not saying that the Marine codex is the worst one, but it's definitely near GK and AdMech as we are slowly discovering.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, the Annihilator is a lame tank pattern, in it's Malcador variety, Leman Russ variety, and Predator variety.

If only (renegades and heretics) there was a way for your (renegades and heretics) iron warriors (renegades and heretics) to use Leman (renegades and heretics) Russ tanks (renegades and heretics).

I don't want a Russ. I want a Predator.

If you're telling people the solution is to ally, you don't get the fundamental issues with internal and external balance.
Allies are supposed to be a supplement, not a crutch. Do you understand?

Yeah, I understand.

From my point of view, predators are adequate tanks. If you don't want Leman Russes, what do you want? The Predator is not and never has been as good of a tank as a Leman Russ, so if you want a tank as good as a Leman Russ, then you can't (and never have been able to) use a Predator.

That's a deliberate design choice based in the fluff.

In the vaunted 3.5e Chaos codex, Iron Warriors could take Basilisks - not because "allying was a crutch" but because as the siege specialist Space Marines they needed artillery on par with the Imperial Guard. So they got the Imperial Guard's artillery. It's not hard.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



There's nothing T8 being ran that anyone should fear in the first place. It's a niche that doesn't get used.

Other Russ tanks, Land Raiders, LoW's like Knights and Shadowswords, etc.

Even without the T8 niche, focusing mainly on T7 units, the LR Annihilator is actually still generally by far the best performing tank hunter Russ, and the Pred Annihilator is notably better than every other equivalent tank short of the absurd doubleshotting reroll everything twin fire prism combo that now appears to be mandatory in every Eldar list

 Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

So the good players just "feel like taking Guillimann for fun" despite not needing it? NOT related at all that it's pretty much competive build marines can have.

You indicated marines don't need Guillimann so if you don't win without it you are bad player. On this logic there should be good players without Guillimann on tournament top standings(not neccessarily even win but on say top 10) but there isn't. Therefore either all marine players suck or Guillimann IS essential for any competive marine player. Or good SM players all take Guillimann "just for fun" despite top tournament lists not really being known for being "just for fun" element lists but minmaxed to death lists.

There's saying "where there is smoke there is fire". There's precious few if any marine lists without Guillimann that gets to top spots. That's very clear sign of smoke so about that fire....

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Greyknights are not actually as bad as marines.

Blood of Kittens 8th edition tournament results compendium.

Marines: 12 results in the Top 3.
GK: 1 result that came 2nd.

At least try and have some sort of logical argument when you claim nonsense like this.

I'm going to bring attention to this one because it ignores entirely what was brought in those lists without actually bringing any actual tournament info to the bar.

There's a major difference between a pure SM list and one that's just Guilliman + few tanks and the rest soup.

 Eligius wrote:
This makes your point 1 void and I stand by my point that Roboute, while powerfull, isn't required in a SM tournament list.

Prove it. Show those teeming hordes of top ranking marine lists without Guillimann. I'm waiting. Not holding breath while doing it though.