They're all talk and no walk. Chainswords are weak, as are the little bolt pistols. The Evicerator only gets one attack now also (still for 22 points). Considering they can only take one hit before dying, it just seems to me they're literal suicide squads; jump into the enemy, inflict a wound or two, and in turn you die. Can't use flamers after insertion... So what have these guys got going for them?
They've been a bully unit, not a CC unit, for as long as I've played. As in, you don't charge Tacs or better with ASM. You charge backfield Heavy Weapons Teams or vehicles or Rangers or Broadsides with them.
That said, VV do everything they do better for only a couple more points.
Assault Marines are there to secure objectives quickly, harrass squishy units and finish off crippled units.
VV do their job better, but have to compete with an overcrowded Elites slot while the Assault Marine only has to compete with a less crowded FA slot, the biggest competition being the Bike Marines.
ShaunyP wrote: They're all talk and no walk. Chainswords are weak, as are the little bolt pistols. The Evicerator only gets one attack now also (still for 22 points). Considering they can only take one hit before dying, it just seems to me they're literal suicide squads; jump into the enemy, inflict a wound or two, and in turn you die. Can't use flamers after insertion... So what have these guys got going for them?
Do space marines get any good hack slashy squads?
Space Marines are still primaily a mid-range shooting force so you'll never see anything 'great' at melee without a high point cost. Assault marines and reivers are a good screening force that can be dropped to snarl up an enemy's advance, but still struggle to make their points back. The best thing about them is the fact they can't be ignored. Reveiers especially will continue to screw up your opponent's plans unless dealt with after their initial drop (once they can safely walk into shock grenade range).
Both are viable *if* you are going mono-faction. If you are splashing around the greater Imperial faction pool you might as well take some catachan+bullgryn instead.
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
If you are using Slamguinius as a screen or tactical foil you are using him wrong. Besides you only get one of him and he has 100+ pts to make back so you aren't going to drop him against most troop choices.
Bharring wrote: They've been a bully unit, not a CC unit, for as long as I've played. As in, you don't charge Tacs or better with ASM. You charge backfield Heavy Weapons Teams or vehicles or Rangers or Broadsides with them.
That said, VV do everything they do better for only a couple more points.
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Sadly they have been kinda a meh unit since 5th. This edition with the changes to deep strike and an old school marine stat line being at a low point they are not very good.
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Those "taxes" are stuff you're bringing anyway like Scouts and such. Then only a few elites are actually worth it.
The Elite slot isn't crammed and limited in number like you believe it is. If anything, Assault Marines need to fight against better units like Inceptors and Scout Bikers.
Also are you REALLY going with the "not everyone min-maxes" lazy argument? If a unit is bad, it's bad. That statement doesn't change that.
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Those "taxes" are stuff you're bringing anyway like Scouts and such. Then only a few elites are actually worth it.
The Elite slot isn't crammed and limited in number like you believe it is. If anything, Assault Marines need to fight against better units like Inceptors and Scout Bikers.
Also are you REALLY going with the "not everyone min-maxes" lazy argument? If a unit is bad, it's bad. That statement doesn't change that.
Again, not everyone is running armies of scouts like they're playing the a 10th company army. Or did you just ignore that not everyone plays those kinds of armies for the sake of being right?
Assault Marines aren't stellar, but they're a decent multi-tool style unit that can handle a number of roles easilly in a TAC list in less minmaxed settings.
I'm not advocating running 30+ of them or anything, but rather saying a single unit on the table (maybe two) can be used. There are units that are better at melee, and units better at shooting, but not many units can do both and be great at both so Assault Marines are a reasonable compromise for filling roles when you just run a premade list for pick up games instead of tooling your army for your opponent's faction all the time.
Basically, they're not great, but they're not horrible. They can be used for a few different roles and that's their niche: they're a flexible addition to an army for those who need it. They don't replace other options but rather compliment them.
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Those "taxes" are stuff you're bringing anyway like Scouts and such. Then only a few elites are actually worth it.
The Elite slot isn't crammed and limited in number like you believe it is. If anything, Assault Marines need to fight against better units like Inceptors and Scout Bikers.
Also are you REALLY going with the "not everyone min-maxes" lazy argument? If a unit is bad, it's bad. That statement doesn't change that.
Again, not everyone is running armies of scouts like they're playing the a 10th company army. Or did you just ignore that not everyone plays those kinds of armies for the sake of being right?
Assault Marines aren't stellar, but they're a decent multi-tool style unit that can handle a number of roles easilly in a TAC list in less minmaxed settings.
I'm not advocating running 30+ of them or anything, but rather saying a single unit on the table (maybe two) can be used. There are units that are better at melee, and units better at shooting, but not many units can do both and be great at both so Assault Marines are a reasonable compromise for filling roles when you just run a premade list for pick up games instead of tooling your army for your opponent's faction all the time.
Basically, they're not great, but they're not horrible. They can be used for a few different roles and that's their niche: they're a flexible addition to an army for those who need it. They don't replace other options but rather compliment them.
Once again you're using the "don't min-max" argument, which really isn't an argument.
They're not complimenting anything that Scout Bikers, Inceptors, and Vanguard aren't doing better. That doesn't exactly speak "multi-tool". Those units aren't even min-max either! That's just how bad Assault Marines are.
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Those "taxes" are stuff you're bringing anyway like Scouts and such. Then only a few elites are actually worth it.
The Elite slot isn't crammed and limited in number like you believe it is. If anything, Assault Marines need to fight against better units like Inceptors and Scout Bikers.
Also are you REALLY going with the "not everyone min-maxes" lazy argument? If a unit is bad, it's bad. That statement doesn't change that.
Again, not everyone is running armies of scouts like they're playing the a 10th company army. Or did you just ignore that not everyone plays those kinds of armies for the sake of being right?
Assault Marines aren't stellar, but they're a decent multi-tool style unit that can handle a number of roles easilly in a TAC list in less minmaxed settings.
I'm not advocating running 30+ of them or anything, but rather saying a single unit on the table (maybe two) can be used. There are units that are better at melee, and units better at shooting, but not many units can do both and be great at both so Assault Marines are a reasonable compromise for filling roles when you just run a premade list for pick up games instead of tooling your army for your opponent's faction all the time.
Basically, they're not great, but they're not horrible. They can be used for a few different roles and that's their niche: they're a flexible addition to an army for those who need it. They don't replace other options but rather compliment them.
Once again you're using the "don't min-max" argument, which really isn't an argument.
They're not complimenting anything that Scout Bikers, Inceptors, and Vanguard aren't doing better. That doesn't exactly speak "multi-tool". Those units aren't even min-max either! That's just how bad Assault Marines are.
I never say "don't" do anything. I said they're fine in lists that aren't min maxed, not that players should play one way or another, but rather that players who play a specific kind of 40k (namely casual pick up games with TAC style lists) the Assault Marine has a home as a support unit/distraction carnifex/objective grabber (for games you need to pop about to grab objectives at random due to card draws).
They compliment an army by always being able to provide -something- to the army be it a mop up melee, support shooting, harassing the opponent's back lines or just flushing out some guys camping on an objective. They're not the best thing ever (basically being Vanilla Marines with 12" movement and Fly), but they can do some work.
Scout bikes and Inceptors are shooting units with meh melee and Vanguard are Assault Marines +1 with a points cost to match, so you're comparing two shooting units (who don't do mop up melee worth a darn, meaning they don't fully replace everything the Assault Marines can provide), and using the buffed version of something to prove that the base version is bad is like proving vanilla ice cream is trash because you can have it with butterscotch. Yeah, sure it's better with butterscotch, but it's not the worst thing in the world on the world.
I basically feel like you can't comprehend the casual meta enough to understand that less competitive units can see some effective play in more casual games.
That said, if you're getting into Marines for the first time ever, just buy Primaris since they're likely going to replace the current Marines anyways.
Marine melee is, in general, very poor. If assault squads came stock with power fists that might be more suited to their role in the game, which is to tie up vehicles, as they won't win a flat out fight with any other unit.
This idea that marines are a 'jack of all trades' is kind of silly considering they are flat garbage at melee.
Although i do maintain that all marine problems could be fixed with better stratagems, better tactics (complete redesign), and better HQ to infantry synergy. Imagine if a captain within 12" gave +1 attacks to assault squads. Then, imagine if White Scars Chapter Tactics, in addition to a base army-wide buff, gave bike squads and assault squads +1 attack and +1 attack on the charge. Suddenly White Scars assault squads are super unique and pump out 5 attacks per marine on the charge.
None of that is game breaking, and would add a layer of depth to marines that isn't there. But GW would have to embrace this idea of units receiving different buffs based on their role.
Each squad would have to have a passive ability that says if they're within x" of a captain, they get this bonus, rather than the captain having the special rule. It would also help eliminate rerolls from the game, which (imho) is the way to go.
To start. In other words, almost all non-CC infantry.
They won't beat Zerkers or most dedicated CC unit in CC (Storm Guardians and Striking Scorpions, for example, are CC units that still lose to ASM). They *shouldn't* beat most dedicated CC units in CC, because they aren't dedicated CC - they're dedicated skirmishers (who use CC not guns).
Automatically Appended Next Post: (for clarity, I agree that ASM need a buff. Just correcting a particular claim.)
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Those "taxes" are stuff you're bringing anyway like Scouts and such. Then only a few elites are actually worth it.
The Elite slot isn't crammed and limited in number like you believe it is. If anything, Assault Marines need to fight against better units like Inceptors and Scout Bikers.
Also are you REALLY going with the "not everyone min-maxes" lazy argument? If a unit is bad, it's bad. That statement doesn't change that.
Again, not everyone is running armies of scouts like they're playing the a 10th company army. Or did you just ignore that not everyone plays those kinds of armies for the sake of being right?
Assault Marines aren't stellar, but they're a decent multi-tool style unit that can handle a number of roles easilly in a TAC list in less minmaxed settings.
I'm not advocating running 30+ of them or anything, but rather saying a single unit on the table (maybe two) can be used. There are units that are better at melee, and units better at shooting, but not many units can do both and be great at both so Assault Marines are a reasonable compromise for filling roles when you just run a premade list for pick up games instead of tooling your army for your opponent's faction all the time.
Basically, they're not great, but they're not horrible. They can be used for a few different roles and that's their niche: they're a flexible addition to an army for those who need it. They don't replace other options but rather compliment them.
Once again you're using the "don't min-max" argument, which really isn't an argument.
They're not complimenting anything that Scout Bikers, Inceptors, and Vanguard aren't doing better. That doesn't exactly speak "multi-tool". Those units aren't even min-max either! That's just how bad Assault Marines are.
I never say "don't" do anything. I said they're fine in lists that aren't min maxed, not that players should play one way or another, but rather that players who play a specific kind of 40k (namely casual pick up games with TAC style lists) the Assault Marine has a home as a support unit/distraction carnifex/objective grabber (for games you need to pop about to grab objectives at random due to card draws).
They compliment an army by always being able to provide -something- to the army be it a mop up melee, support shooting, harassing the opponent's back lines or just flushing out some guys camping on an objective. They're not the best thing ever (basically being Vanilla Marines with 12" movement and Fly), but they can do some work.
Scout bikes and Inceptors are shooting units with meh melee and Vanguard are Assault Marines +1 with a points cost to match, so you're comparing two shooting units (who don't do mop up melee worth a darn, meaning they don't fully replace everything the Assault Marines can provide), and using the buffed version of something to prove that the base version is bad is like proving vanilla ice cream is trash because you can have it with butterscotch. Yeah, sure it's better with butterscotch, but it's not the worst thing in the world on the world.
I basically feel like you can't comprehend the casual meta enough to understand that less competitive units can see some effective play in more casual games.
That said, if you're getting into Marines for the first time ever, just buy Primaris since they're likely going to replace the current Marines anyways.
You're...not serious are you?
They're not fine in ANY list. Vanguard, for 2 points more, have an extra attack and +1LD (or two extra attacks if you're going the double Chainsword route). That isn't just a "points cost to match". That's flat out making a unit irrelevant when at the same time that unit isn't even super good in the first place. What you SHOULD be saying is that Vanguard do well in lists that aren't min-maxed and to ignore the Assault Marine profile altogether. It's literally that pointless as is.
Once again, 11 attacks isn't gonna mop up anything. 21 attacks might do that though for only a 10 point increase. Nobody is being flushed out by either the 80 point unit or the 90 point unit, except one is at least gonna hit harder.
Scout Bikers have 2 attacks each, it's only 7 attacks vs 11 attacks for several more shots. 3 Scout Bikers with an extra Storm Bolter is only 77 points to the 80 points in the Assault Marines. For being a "shooting unit", you're sure not losing a lot of attacks are you?
So what I can't comprehend is you justifying the Assault Marine profile just by constantly shouting "don't min-max". If Vanguard are THAT much better for the price but aren't the greatest unit exactly, how are you gonna defend the significantly worse unit?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the vanilla ice cream argument is bad. Vanguard are already the Vanilla ice cream. Assault Marines are just an empty bowl.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: There are plenty of units that Assault Marines win a flat out fight against:
To start. In other words, almost all non-CC infantry.
They won't beat Zerkers or most dedicated CC unit in CC (Storm Guardians and Striking Scorpions, for example, are CC units that still lose to ASM). They *shouldn't* beat most dedicated CC units in CC, because they aren't dedicated CC - they're dedicated skirmishers (who use CC not guns).
Automatically Appended Next Post: (for clarity, I agree that ASM need a buff. Just correcting a particular claim.)
Assult marines can take melta bombs. That together with their jump pack makes them unique. Everything else they do is done better than other units because of internal balance of marines codex.
Gitdakka wrote: Assult marines can take melta bombs. That together with their jump pack makes them unique. Everything else they do is done better than other units because of internal balance of marines codex.
Melta Bombs are already bad in the first place. How is that an argument for Assault Marines?
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Those "taxes" are stuff you're bringing anyway like Scouts and such. Then only a few elites are actually worth it.
The Elite slot isn't crammed and limited in number like you believe it is. If anything, Assault Marines need to fight against better units like Inceptors and Scout Bikers.
Also are you REALLY going with the "not everyone min-maxes" lazy argument? If a unit is bad, it's bad. That statement doesn't change that.
Again, not everyone is running armies of scouts like they're playing the a 10th company army. Or did you just ignore that not everyone plays those kinds of armies for the sake of being right?
Assault Marines aren't stellar, but they're a decent multi-tool style unit that can handle a number of roles easilly in a TAC list in less minmaxed settings.
I'm not advocating running 30+ of them or anything, but rather saying a single unit on the table (maybe two) can be used. There are units that are better at melee, and units better at shooting, but not many units can do both and be great at both so Assault Marines are a reasonable compromise for filling roles when you just run a premade list for pick up games instead of tooling your army for your opponent's faction all the time.
Basically, they're not great, but they're not horrible. They can be used for a few different roles and that's their niche: they're a flexible addition to an army for those who need it. They don't replace other options but rather compliment them.
Once again you're using the "don't min-max" argument, which really isn't an argument.
They're not complimenting anything that Scout Bikers, Inceptors, and Vanguard aren't doing better. That doesn't exactly speak "multi-tool". Those units aren't even min-max either! That's just how bad Assault Marines are.
I never say "don't" do anything. I said they're fine in lists that aren't min maxed, not that players should play one way or another, but rather that players who play a specific kind of 40k (namely casual pick up games with TAC style lists) the Assault Marine has a home as a support unit/distraction carnifex/objective grabber (for games you need to pop about to grab objectives at random due to card draws).
They compliment an army by always being able to provide -something- to the army be it a mop up melee, support shooting, harassing the opponent's back lines or just flushing out some guys camping on an objective. They're not the best thing ever (basically being Vanilla Marines with 12" movement and Fly), but they can do some work.
Scout bikes and Inceptors are shooting units with meh melee and Vanguard are Assault Marines +1 with a points cost to match, so you're comparing two shooting units (who don't do mop up melee worth a darn, meaning they don't fully replace everything the Assault Marines can provide), and using the buffed version of something to prove that the base version is bad is like proving vanilla ice cream is trash because you can have it with butterscotch. Yeah, sure it's better with butterscotch, but it's not the worst thing in the world on the world.
I basically feel like you can't comprehend the casual meta enough to understand that less competitive units can see some effective play in more casual games.
That said, if you're getting into Marines for the first time ever, just buy Primaris since they're likely going to replace the current Marines anyways.
You're...not serious are you?
They're not fine in ANY list. Vanguard, for 2 points more, have an extra attack and +1LD (or two extra attacks if you're going the double Chainsword route). That isn't just a "points cost to match". That's flat out making a unit irrelevant when at the same time that unit isn't even super good in the first place. What you SHOULD be saying is that Vanguard do well in lists that aren't min-maxed and to ignore the Assault Marine profile altogether. It's literally that pointless as is.
Once again, 11 attacks isn't gonna mop up anything. 21 attacks might do that though for only a 10 point increase. Nobody is being flushed out by either the 80 point unit or the 90 point unit, except one is at least gonna hit harder.
Scout Bikers have 2 attacks each, it's only 7 attacks vs 11 attacks for several more shots. 3 Scout Bikers with an extra Storm Bolter is only 77 points to the 80 points in the Assault Marines. For being a "shooting unit", you're sure not losing a lot of attacks are you?
So what I can't comprehend is you justifying the Assault Marine profile just by constantly shouting "don't min-max". If Vanguard are THAT much better for the price but aren't the greatest unit exactly, how are you gonna defend the significantly worse unit?
Maybe if you stop building a strawman out of my posts by changing "for those who don't min max" by turning it into "don't min max ever" we'd actually come to an understanding in where the unit has some utility instead of forcefully changing an arguement in order to defeat it.
I've only said Assault Marines have a home in casual TAC lists where they can do some work. I never said they were the optimal choice, I never said not to min-max and I never said you can't pick other things, I just said they can work in a certain kind of meta for those who want to play them.
Seriously, stop trying to twist my posts in order to be right just because you can't accept that a unit that isn't good in a competitive setting can see the table and be okay in less min-maxed metas.
Gitdakka wrote: Assult marines can take melta bombs. That together with their jump pack makes them unique. Everything else they do is done better than other units because of internal balance of marines codex.
Melta Bombs are already bad in the first place. How is that an argument for Assault Marines?
Exactly. I said it makes them unique, not necessarily good.
Jump Packs in general feel a little lost in purpose. This isn't really anything new, but I find it interesting that the Primaris versions seem to have been designed largely around not assaulting.
To start. In other words, almost all non-CC infantry.
They won't beat Zerkers or most dedicated CC unit in CC (Storm Guardians and Striking Scorpions, for example, are CC units that still lose to ASM). They *shouldn't* beat most dedicated CC units in CC, because they aren't dedicated CC - they're dedicated skirmishers (who use CC not guns).
Automatically Appended Next Post: (for clarity, I agree that ASM need a buff. Just correcting a particular claim.)
I would disagree with most of that list if anyone is paying attention with tau your assualt marines will die to overwatch. Most of the eldar stuff has some strategums to make your assualt marines whiff. And they realy lack in punch to compete with rubrics, plague marines etc.
They were supposed to be what you described but currently they lack in attacks and cost to much to even chew through screening units.
They are a bad unit. This is a game were i have finite points and choices that correspond with those points. Practically every FA choice is better than them, so why would I ever take them outside of I like the models.
Problem with assault marines is that they have lost their flexibility. In past editions I played them with flamers and melta bomb. (never used them for dedicated cc, assault marines in my eyes are and always where a harassment unit) They would either torch some light infantry or try to explode a vehicle. Or tie up a unit. Now I only use them for one thing: to get 3 plasma pistols where I want them. (and I only have them in list because I need 3 FA for 12 command points). But its much more boring to use them like that. Tying up is not as good as it used to be, melta bomb cant one shot a vehicle, flamers are to weak to do anything. I cant even try a suicidal deep strike any more
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Those "taxes" are stuff you're bringing anyway like Scouts and such. Then only a few elites are actually worth it.
The Elite slot isn't crammed and limited in number like you believe it is. If anything, Assault Marines need to fight against better units like Inceptors and Scout Bikers.
Also are you REALLY going with the "not everyone min-maxes" lazy argument? If a unit is bad, it's bad. That statement doesn't change that.
Again, not everyone is running armies of scouts like they're playing the a 10th company army. Or did you just ignore that not everyone plays those kinds of armies for the sake of being right?
Assault Marines aren't stellar, but they're a decent multi-tool style unit that can handle a number of roles easilly in a TAC list in less minmaxed settings.
I'm not advocating running 30+ of them or anything, but rather saying a single unit on the table (maybe two) can be used. There are units that are better at melee, and units better at shooting, but not many units can do both and be great at both so Assault Marines are a reasonable compromise for filling roles when you just run a premade list for pick up games instead of tooling your army for your opponent's faction all the time.
Basically, they're not great, but they're not horrible. They can be used for a few different roles and that's their niche: they're a flexible addition to an army for those who need it. They don't replace other options but rather compliment them.
Once again you're using the "don't min-max" argument, which really isn't an argument.
They're not complimenting anything that Scout Bikers, Inceptors, and Vanguard aren't doing better. That doesn't exactly speak "multi-tool". Those units aren't even min-max either! That's just how bad Assault Marines are.
I never say "don't" do anything. I said they're fine in lists that aren't min maxed, not that players should play one way or another, but rather that players who play a specific kind of 40k (namely casual pick up games with TAC style lists) the Assault Marine has a home as a support unit/distraction carnifex/objective grabber (for games you need to pop about to grab objectives at random due to card draws).
They compliment an army by always being able to provide -something- to the army be it a mop up melee, support shooting, harassing the opponent's back lines or just flushing out some guys camping on an objective. They're not the best thing ever (basically being Vanilla Marines with 12" movement and Fly), but they can do some work.
Scout bikes and Inceptors are shooting units with meh melee and Vanguard are Assault Marines +1 with a points cost to match, so you're comparing two shooting units (who don't do mop up melee worth a darn, meaning they don't fully replace everything the Assault Marines can provide), and using the buffed version of something to prove that the base version is bad is like proving vanilla ice cream is trash because you can have it with butterscotch. Yeah, sure it's better with butterscotch, but it's not the worst thing in the world on the world.
I basically feel like you can't comprehend the casual meta enough to understand that less competitive units can see some effective play in more casual games.
That said, if you're getting into Marines for the first time ever, just buy Primaris since they're likely going to replace the current Marines anyways.
You're...not serious are you?
They're not fine in ANY list. Vanguard, for 2 points more, have an extra attack and +1LD (or two extra attacks if you're going the double Chainsword route). That isn't just a "points cost to match". That's flat out making a unit irrelevant when at the same time that unit isn't even super good in the first place. What you SHOULD be saying is that Vanguard do well in lists that aren't min-maxed and to ignore the Assault Marine profile altogether. It's literally that pointless as is.
Once again, 11 attacks isn't gonna mop up anything. 21 attacks might do that though for only a 10 point increase. Nobody is being flushed out by either the 80 point unit or the 90 point unit, except one is at least gonna hit harder.
Scout Bikers have 2 attacks each, it's only 7 attacks vs 11 attacks for several more shots. 3 Scout Bikers with an extra Storm Bolter is only 77 points to the 80 points in the Assault Marines. For being a "shooting unit", you're sure not losing a lot of attacks are you?
So what I can't comprehend is you justifying the Assault Marine profile just by constantly shouting "don't min-max". If Vanguard are THAT much better for the price but aren't the greatest unit exactly, how are you gonna defend the significantly worse unit?
Maybe if you stop building a strawman out of my posts by changing "for those who don't min max" by turning it into "don't min max ever" we'd actually come to an understanding in where the unit has some utility instead of forcefully changing an arguement in order to defeat it.
I've only said Assault Marines have a home in casual TAC lists where they can do some work. I never said they were the optimal choice, I never said not to min-max and I never said you can't pick other things, I just said they can work in a certain kind of meta for those who want to play them.
Seriously, stop trying to twist my posts in order to be right just because you can't accept that a unit that isn't good in a competitive setting can see the table and be okay in less min-maxed metas.
They aren't okay in a different setting, because Vanguard are only good in that setting, and they're a strictly worse version of Vanguard.
Seriously people like you would defend Cultists if they were 10 points a pop by saying "It's how you use them" and "They can work in friendly games!!!1!"
That list of units ASM beat in CC was by points, not by model.
"I would disagree with most of that list if anyone is paying attention with tau your assualt marines will die to overwatch."
Typically. That's why ASM aren't good. But if they do get into CC with those Tau, they will kick their asses easily (per point).
"Most of the eldar stuff has some strategums to make your assualt marines whiff"
They have a -1-to-hit stratagem for one unit. So you're hitting on 4s, while wounding on 3s. The Eldar are hitting you, in turn, on 3s, but wounding you on 5s (with the exception of Scorpions). And they're saving on 5+ or 4+, or sometimes on 3+. ASM are saving on 3+. So, even if the stratagem were "free", the ASM are still beating those CWE units on points in CC, with only Scorpions getting close to even. So ASM still clearly win in CC against the listed CWE units.
"And they realy lack in punch to compete with rubrics, plague marines etc."
True. You tie them up, but may lose CC to some of the more tanky infantry. I should amend the "win CC against" statement from to "most ranged infantry".
Now, don't misunderstand me. I wholeheartedly agree with "They were supposed to be [your impression of my description] but currently they lack in attacks and cost to much to even chew through screening units."
They certainly need help to fill the role they are intended for. VV are usually a fairly direct upgrade - for only a few points more, you get more attacks and options. But to claim they can't beat anything in CC is just plain wrong.
For some more fun facts, consider 10 ASM charging 5 Shining Spears:
10 ASM vs Shining Spear:
10x2x(2/3)(1/2)(1/3) = 20x(1/9) kills
Shining Spear vs ASM:
5x2x(2/3)(1/3)(1) = 10x(2/9) kills
Considering you strike first, so only 4 are hitting back, and 10 ASM are cheaper than 5 Shining Spears, you're complaining about a unit being unable to beat anything in CC that, if it gets the charge, can actually outperform one of the stronger CC units in the game. Granted, getting the charge will be really hard before Spears drop their first target, and CWE have a bunch of other buffs, but the idea that ASM can't beat anything in CC is rediculous.
"You could literally use them as Vanguard if you wanted. That doesn't even work as a reason."
Since when do Vanguard Vets have Battle Brother markings? Or markings of a company other than 1st? Sure, I could counts-as my ASM as VV, but that's just a smaller jump than counts-as'ing my ASM as Striking Scorpions or Vespid. It's still a counts-as, and thus avoided by many. It'd be like using your Tacs as Sternguard or a LT.
Bharring wrote: "You could literally use them as Vanguard if you wanted. That doesn't even work as a reason."
Since when do Vanguard Vets have Battle Brother markings? Or markings of a company other than 1st? Sure, I could counts-as my ASM as VV, but that's just a smaller jump than counts-as'ing my ASM as Striking Scorpions or Vespid. It's still a counts-as, and thus avoided by many. It'd be like using your Tacs as Sternguard or a LT.
Ok that's a massive jump. A marine with a jump pack is a marine with a jump pack. Half of my tactical marines have Sternguard bits. There is a reason that all the kits are compatible.
They *are* compatible. But when you build and paint a model, don't you always know - and make it crystal clear - what model he is?
VV and ASM can be assembled from the same kit. Unpainted, you wouldn't necessarily know which it was unless it had a loadout that clarified. But once painted, it should be immediately obvious.
Same with Sternies (or other vets) vs Tacs. Unpainted, a bolter dood could be either. But it should be in no way ambiguous once painted.
The "As SS or Vespids" one, yeah, that was a huge leap.
Bharring wrote: "You could literally use them as Vanguard if you wanted. That doesn't even work as a reason."
Since when do Vanguard Vets have Battle Brother markings? Or markings of a company other than 1st? Sure, I could counts-as my ASM as VV, but that's just a smaller jump than counts-as'ing my ASM as Striking Scorpions or Vespid. It's still a counts-as, and thus avoided by many. It'd be like using your Tacs as Sternguard or a LT.
I paint all my stuff ambiguously. I use tacs as sternguard and LTs as well.
Assault Marines would be great if they were Blood Angels troop choices again. As it is, they aren't worth taking another slot for, even with them having plasma gun and meltagun access.
I've been toying with the idea of adding in some assault marines but am hard pressed to buy them.
My inceptors do the same thing but with 2 wounds and a ton of shots.
I don't play minmax and my local meta is pretty casual(1 or 2 tourney players).
Bharring wrote: "You could literally use them as Vanguard if you wanted. That doesn't even work as a reason."
Since when do Vanguard Vets have Battle Brother markings? Or markings of a company other than 1st? Sure, I could counts-as my ASM as VV, but that's just a smaller jump than counts-as'ing my ASM as Striking Scorpions or Vespid. It's still a counts-as, and thus avoided by many. It'd be like using your Tacs as Sternguard or a LT.
Actually my Mk3 and 4 dudes are used as Sternguard and Deathwatch Vets simply because I hate bling and I'm not terribly a fan of Mk8.
Which, of course, is no issue. Some chapters - including mine - don't bling out everything the way some GW kits do.
However, your Sternguard and Deathwatch Vet models themselves are not Tac models. They might have been the same plastic, and even indistingiushable before being painted, but don't they have any sort of marking on them or kit on them suggesting they're vets?
Similarly, I could pick up the CSM codex (or DA or BA or whatever), and play my Wings of Dawn models as CSM. But, even though each option would be rules-legal, they still wouldn't be my 'Wings of Dawn'. They would be counts-as, because Wings of Dawn are a loyalist chapter that descends from UM (homebrew chapter).
If I wanted a game where the models, paint, and fluff didn't matter, there's always Chess or Axis & Allies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "And, if you're half a decent painter (unlike me) painting those markings shouldn't be an issue."
So I should destroy my ASM because VV are better right now? Should I reverse it again when ASM get better than VV again?
If you're a half-decent modeller, you can chaosify up your Loyalists, and play them as Alpha Legion, letting you take infiltrating berzerkers. But going Chaos isn't the right answer to "how should I play my Marines?".
The point is I don't play this game to move around tokens and roll dice. I use it to fight my little plastic guys against your little plastic guys. If you're saying I shouldn't care about what my little plastic guy was supposed to be and instead declare him to be something else, what's the point of modelling/painting him to be that specific thing in the first place? And if there's no point in modeling/painting him to be a specific thing in the first place, why not just move around some poker chips and throw dice?
In other words, if I wanted to play a game where the minis don't matter, why would I play a game where most of the time involves building/painting the minis?
Again with the hyperbole. A Marine is a Marine and the only difference rule wise is what gun or other equipment. A tactical marine has a boltgun. A sternguard vet has a boltgun. How someone paints something has no bearing or even mention in the rules.
Bharring wrote: The point is I don't play this game to move around tokens and roll dice. I use it to fight my little plastic guys against your little plastic guys. If you're saying I shouldn't care about what my little plastic guy was supposed to be and instead declare him to be something else, what's the point of modelling/painting him to be that specific thing in the first place? And if there's no point in modeling/painting him to be a specific thing in the first place, why not just move around some poker chips and throw dice?
In other words, if I wanted to play a game where the minis don't matter, why would I play a game where most of the time involves building/painting the minis?
Because I just don't care that much about the plastic.
Bharring wrote: The point is I don't play this game to move around tokens and roll dice. I use it to fight my little plastic guys against your little plastic guys. If you're saying I shouldn't care about what my little plastic guy was supposed to be and instead declare him to be something else, what's the point of modelling/painting him to be that specific thing in the first place? And if there's no point in modeling/painting him to be a specific thing in the first place, why not just move around some poker chips and throw dice?
In other words, if I wanted to play a game where the minis don't matter, why would I play a game where most of the time involves building/painting the minis?
Because while l love modelling painting and playing, my time and money are not infinite. I'm not going to buy another box of models just so I can have specific marines for each data sheet. Sometimes I run my guns as tacticals, other times I use them as sternguard. depends on what list i felt like playing that day.
Bharring wrote: Which, of course, is no issue. Some chapters - including mine - don't bling out everything the way some GW kits do.
However, your Sternguard and Deathwatch Vet models themselves are not Tac models. They might have been the same plastic, and even indistingiushable before being painted, but don't they have any sort of marking on them or kit on them suggesting they're vets?
Similarly, I could pick up the CSM codex (or DA or BA or whatever), and play my Wings of Dawn models as CSM. But, even though each option would be rules-legal, they still wouldn't be my 'Wings of Dawn'. They would be counts-as, because Wings of Dawn are a loyalist chapter that descends from UM (homebrew chapter).
If I wanted a game where the models, paint, and fluff didn't matter, there's always Chess or Axis & Allies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "And, if you're half a decent painter (unlike me) painting those markings shouldn't be an issue."
So I should destroy my ASM because VV are better right now? Should I reverse it again when ASM get better than VV again?
If you're a half-decent modeller, you can chaosify up your Loyalists, and play them as Alpha Legion, letting you take infiltrating berzerkers. But going Chaos isn't the right answer to "how should I play my Marines?".
No. They're plain. I don't take Tactical Marines or Devastators as unit entries so it isn't an issue. For my own Plastics I don't borrow, I have the following:
2 squads of Mk3 with:
5 Vets with counts as Storm Bolters
3 Vets with Volkite Culverins for counts as Frag Cannons
1 Vanguard with Storm Shield + Chainsword
1 Terminator with Storm Bolter and Power Sword
1 squad of Mk4 with:
5 Vets with Shotguns
3 Vets with Volkite Culverins for counts as Frag Cannons
1 Vanguard with Storm Shield + Chainsword
1 Terminator with Storm Bolter and Power Sword
Then I'm working on, when I have free time, I bought 15 of the Mk3 Breacher Siege Marines for Counts As Primaris, either Intercessors or Hellblasters (I think I have enough Plasma Guns. I think).
It isn't terribly confusing for my opponents and those things aren't even painted yet!
Also you could just use your Assault Squads as Vanguard and you'd be fine. Whether you destroy all the markings you did is on you.
Hounds,
Yeah the post you're quoting was hyperbole.
The differences between a Loyalist Marine and a Chaos Marine are marginal. The same kit assembled the same way could be either. But once you've painted and fluffed a Loyalist unit, it isn't a Chaos Marine unit, and vice versa.
It certainly isn't mentioned in the rules. RAW, yes, you can play an ASM squad as a VV squad. But this is where the post becomes relevant: you can use a poker chip as an ASM or a VV. Or a drop pod. RAW, no problem with that. As long as GW sold you said poker chip, potentially. Can you find a rule that says my High Elf Wizard can't be Grimuldus, in a game of 40k?
Bharring wrote: The point is I don't play this game to move around tokens and roll dice. I use it to fight my little plastic guys against your little plastic guys. If you're saying I shouldn't care about what my little plastic guy was supposed to be and instead declare him to be something else, what's the point of modelling/painting him to be that specific thing in the first place? And if there's no point in modeling/painting him to be a specific thing in the first place, why not just move around some poker chips and throw dice?
In other words, if I wanted to play a game where the minis don't matter, why would I play a game where most of the time involves building/painting the minis?
Because while l love modelling painting and playing, my time and money are not infinite. I'm not going to buy another box of models just so I can have specific marines for each data sheet. Sometimes I run my guns as tacticals, other times I use them as sternguard. depends on what list i felt like playing that day.
This guy gets it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Hounds,
Yeah the post you're quoting was hyperbole.
The differences between a Loyalist Marine and a Chaos Marine are marginal. The same kit assembled the same way could be either. But once you've painted and fluffed a Loyalist unit, it isn't a Chaos Marine unit, and vice versa.
It certainly isn't mentioned in the rules. RAW, yes, you can play an ASM squad as a VV squad. But this is where the post becomes relevant: you can use a poker chip as an ASM or a VV. Or a drop pod. RAW, no problem with that. As long as GW sold you said poker chip, potentially. Can you find a rule that says my High Elf Wizard can't be Grimuldus, in a game of 40k?
LoS is something you forgot about with that argument.
Also if your High Elf Wizard had something that equated to being like a Crozius and a Plasma Pistol, I don't see the issue. More fitting for maybe one of the Eldar armies but yeah you're overall fine. It's an official GW product too!
Bharring wrote: Hounds,
Yeah the post you're quoting was hyperbole.
The differences between a Loyalist Marine and a Chaos Marine are marginal. The same kit assembled the same way could be either. But once you've painted and fluffed a Loyalist unit, it isn't a Chaos Marine unit, and vice versa.
It certainly isn't mentioned in the rules. RAW, yes, you can play an ASM squad as a VV squad. But this is where the post becomes relevant: you can use a poker chip as an ASM or a VV. Or a drop pod. RAW, no problem with that. As long as GW sold you said poker chip, potentially. Can you find a rule that says my High Elf Wizard can't be Grimuldus, in a game of 40k?
There is not and personally I would have no problem playing you with you using alternative models or conversions as long as it's clear what is what. additional it's no where near the same thing as using poker chips. Models have different sized and that's pretty important in a game that revolves around TLOS.
"Honestly I would be impressed by a Drop Pod made with Marine bodies. Totally something a Night Lords pod might be like!"
Now I want to see that! Almost makes me want to start a CSM army!
"Also you could just use your Assault Squads as Vanguard and you'd be fine."
I'd be fine. But the same is true if I ran Scouts as Wraithguard. I wouldn't take 4d6 corruption damage (save for half). But I wouldn't be playing the game I want to play.
To say about wanting to play the units as they were modelled/painted "That doesn't even work as a reason" just dismisses why I, and some others, play the game. It may have no value to you, but you are not everyone.
Also yeah. If you wanted to use Loyalist bitz for your Chaos Marines and vice versa, you're welcome to. If you wanted to just use those squads as opposites, who cares?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "Honestly I would be impressed by a Drop Pod made with Marine bodies. Totally something a Night Lords pod might be like!"
Now I want to see that! Almost makes me want to start a CSM army!
"Also you could just use your Assault Squads as Vanguard and you'd be fine."
I'd be fine. But the same is true if I ran Scouts as Wraithguard. I wouldn't take 4d6 corruption damage (save for half). But I wouldn't be playing the game I want to play.
To say about wanting to play the units as they were modelled/painted "That doesn't even work as a reason" just dismisses why I, and some others, play the game. It may have no value to you, but you are not everyone.
Once again you're forgetting LoS again. Wraithguard standins are fine as long as height and width are reasonable and you have a reasonable representation of wargear.
Some of my more extreme examples aren't properly living up to LoS. Although a stack of congealed greenstuff could stand in for any of them and fix the LoS issue.
It's not just about what you're willing to play against. It's about dismissing what I'm willing to play. A model painted as an ASM is not a counts-as VV. It's a proxy. Counts-as is stuff like Exodites or most Corsair models, where you use a datasheet that fits it's rules. With ASM as VV, the model is an exact fit in fluff and depiction as an ASM, but you're using VV rules because you want different rules.
Now, using an ASM kit to *make* VV is neither. It's scratchbuild or kitbash. That's very different from Countsas or Proxies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We aren't talking about using ASM bits to make VV. We're talking about using ASMs (whether they're made of ASM kit or VV kit), that are clearly marked as ASMs, and clearly intended to be ASMs, using the VV rules.
I'm 100% pro kitbash. I think counts-as is cool. I try to minimize proxying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "If you wanted to just use those squads as opposites, who cares?"
People who care about what their models are supposed to represent? I care that my ASM are ASM and not VV. Other people will see ASM markings, and some of them might care. Most may not, but to dismiss it as an argument that "doesn't even work" is insulting.
Ok so do they work well in any way? Would 20 assault marines huddled together do any good?
What about if teamed with HQ with re-rolls?
Or what about if team with Vanguard Veterans to sort of soak up shots?
OK, it is really not even a proxy, just some marines with wrong marking or no markings. All chapters do not even mark their veterans. I'm absolutely fine with other people doing this. It is just that I'm personally neurotic about this and I like to design logical marking schemes and it bothers me if my models have 'wrong' markings.
ShaunyP wrote: Ok so do they work well in any way? Would 20 assault marines huddled together do any good?
What about if teamed with HQ with re-rolls?
Or what about if team with Vanguard Veterans to sort of soak up shots?
Not really, they are not unplayable but they are a sub standard choice.
I'm fine with people doing it. I'm not fine with being told that not doing it is something "That doesn't even work as a reason."
ShaunyP - A blob of ASM isn't going to get you anywhere. If you're looking for a solid CC threat, Crusader Squads and Terminator Squads are the units for that. And they're bad right now.
ASM aren't good even at doing what they're made for - being skirmishers. They're even worse at other roles - such as a CC blob.
If you want to use them, I'd suggest a 5-man strike team to go vehicle hunting or go after small backfielders, or maybe a 10man squad if you think you'll be going after things like Devs (still in the backfield) or lone midfield threats.
-Moved to troops where they belong.
-Have 2 attacks base (all marines should, frankly)
-Special Rule: Death From Above: Assault Marines gain +1 attack on the turn they charge.
-Chainswords changed to: Strength: user/AP -1/Re-roll failed to wound rolls.
-2 Squad members gain access to power weapons/power fists/lightning claws
There are "numerous 'non-competitive' lists that would be rather difficult to face" with Shining Spears as well. That doesn't mean they don't have their uses.
ShaunyP wrote: Ok so do they work well in any way? Would 20 assault marines huddled together do any good?
What about if teamed with HQ with re-rolls?
Or what about if team with Vanguard Veterans to sort of soak up shots?
The thing is that the difference between Vanguard and Assault Marines is only 2 points.
To put that in perspective, 160 points is 10 Assault Marines. This is 8 Vanguard. You don't screen much when the difference is nil.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: There are "numerous 'non-competitive' lists that would be rather difficult to face" with Shining Spears as well. That doesn't mean they don't have their uses.
Like? You can't make that statement and not list those casual lists.
A list of pure Guardsmen - or even just mostly. Spears aren't going to do much there.
An Ork Boy horde.
I'm not saying ASM are a great unit. I'm just saying they aren't auto-lose. Some of us have gotten some mileage out of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (specifically, that you can get some mileage out of them in casual games, and what to do to try to get that mileage.)
Bharring wrote: Some of my more extreme examples aren't properly living up to LoS. Although a stack of congealed greenstuff could stand in for any of them and fix the LoS issue.
It's not just about what you're willing to play against. It's about dismissing what I'm willing to play. A model painted as an ASM is not a counts-as VV. It's a proxy. Counts-as is stuff like Exodites or most Corsair models, where you use a datasheet that fits it's rules. With ASM as VV, the model is an exact fit in fluff and depiction as an ASM, but you're using VV rules because you want different rules.
Now, using an ASM kit to *make* VV is neither. It's scratchbuild or kitbash. That's very different from Countsas or Proxies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We aren't talking about using ASM bits to make VV. We're talking about using ASMs (whether they're made of ASM kit or VV kit), that are clearly marked as ASMs, and clearly intended to be ASMs, using the VV rules.
I'm 100% pro kitbash. I think counts-as is cool. I try to minimize proxying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "If you wanted to just use those squads as opposites, who cares?"
People who care about what their models are supposed to represent? I care that my ASM are ASM and not VV. Other people will see ASM markings, and some of them might care. Most may not, but to dismiss it as an argument that "doesn't even work" is insulting.
They're both Marines with Jump Packs. You aren't making any sense with that argument. My packaged Captain is gonna be used as a Lieutenant at some point. Show me a non-Primaris Lieutenant that GW still sells.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: A list of pure Guardsmen - or even just mostly. Spears aren't going to do much there.
An Ork Boy horde.
I'm not saying ASM are a great unit. I'm just saying they aren't auto-lose. Some of us have gotten some mileage out of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (specifically, that you can get some mileage out of them in casual games, and what to do to try to get that mileage.)
They have 4 Shuriken shots each for one squad and then they charge another target. Assault Marines don't have a role that isn't already filled by Vanguard.
I'm not saying Spears are *bad*, but your analysis is extremely shortsighted.
Sure, 4 Shuriken shots and a Laser Lance. That's a lot of dakka per model. But those shots are costing you nearly 40 points each. Nearly a Squad of IG for each Spear. Congrats, your shooting kills about 2 Guardsmen per Spear. Your charge kills another 1, maybe 2. So it takes 3 Spears to kill one 10man squad of Guardsmen.
Conversely, it only takes 18 Guardsmen shooting at a Spear to kill one. 12 if you count CC.
Over 100 points of SPears kills 40 points of Guardsmen. 72 points of Guardsmen kills nearly 40 points of Spears.
"You aren't making any sense with that argument."
*I* want to field *my* units as what they were painted/modeled as. *I* want to field *MY* *ASM* as *ASM* not *VV*. Because I painted them that way. I'm not understanding how that makes no sense?
I get that you and some others don't care how they're painted. But you're not me. Why all this hostility to playing WSYWIG?
I have to say I can side with Bharring on this one. I play only WYSIWYG etc. While I don't necessarily paint squad markings, etc., I refuse to just declare models as another type of model, even if the wargear matches. That's not fun or appealing to me, nor interesting.
I get a lot of suggestions about my <Nurgle> Renegades which I used for my CSM. The fact is my personal background I developed means my units are just that. I know I 'could' benefit from changing my Obliterators to <Slaanesh> so they get the double-shoot stratagem, but they're not <Slaanesh> etc. I will not chase tournament-spec army lists just to gain a trick.
There's nothing stopping me from running my Dark Apostle as a Chaos Lord...short of...he's not a Chaos Lord, because I decided he's not, etc. That's not something to criticize, particularly if somebody has spent a lot of time and effort on something and they want to represent precisely what they built.
Bharring wrote: I'm not saying Spears are *bad*, but your analysis is extremely shortsighted.
Sure, 4 Shuriken shots and a Laser Lance. That's a lot of dakka per model. But those shots are costing you nearly 40 points each. Nearly a Squad of IG for each Spear. Congrats, your shooting kills about 2 Guardsmen per Spear. Your charge kills another 1, maybe 2. So it takes 3 Spears to kill one 10man squad of Guardsmen.
Conversely, it only takes 18 Guardsmen shooting at a Spear to kill one. 12 if you count CC.
Over 100 points of SPears kills 40 points of Guardsmen. 72 points of Guardsmen kills nearly 40 points of Spears.
"You aren't making any sense with that argument."
*I* want to field *my* units as what they were painted/modeled as. *I* want to field *MY* *ASM* as *ASM* not *VV*. Because I painted them that way. I'm not understanding how that makes no sense?
I get that you and some others don't care how they're painted. But you're not me. Why all this hostility to playing WSYWIG?
My analysis isn't shortsighted.
Shining Spears aren't fighting another unit for a particular role. Assault Marines are fighting Vanguard for the same role, a role that Vanguard massively outperform them in. You can claim Shining Spears have bad matchups, but there isn't a matchup Assault Marines do well in that Vanguard don't do better for the similar price.
Also I don't care if you want to play them as Assault Marines just because you painted them that way. That's your own fault. It's called giving bad advice to new players asking what to do with their box of Assault Marines. We don't have infinite money to say "Whoops. Guess Assault Marines aren't good and I should've bought the Vangaurd box instead. Lemme go rectify that."
So I'm gonna tell them what to do instead of you: keep the stuff from the box as extra bitz for your conversions/scenery, or build them and run them as Vanguard Veterans.
Gitdakka wrote: Assult marines can take melta bombs. That together with their jump pack makes them unique. Everything else they do is done better than other units because of internal balance of marines codex.
Melta Bombs are already bad in the first place. How is that an argument for Assault Marines?
Exactly. I said it makes them unique, not necessarily good.
So really SM fast attack units are few. Apart from the bikes and land speeders, the only infantry fast attack units are the ASMs and the Inceptors, which can’t specialise, or atleast fair well in melee because Primaris Marines aren’t very customisable at all.
It seems the only place I can get some decent melee with SMs is elite or HQ units. Sucks :(
ShaunyP wrote: Oh so you don’t actually need fast attack? As long as I’ve got a load of troops I can just replace fast attack slots with elites or heavies?
If you're not using FW, absolutely. You can make a case for Scout Bikers and Inceptors, but I feel most of our needs met via FW in that slot instead. Everyone here knows I'm a die-hard fan of Heavy Bolter Tarantula Guns.
I'm thinking of building an Assault Squad for my BA, in case I run out of Elites slots and still have points left. 2 special weapons to shoot and then some close combat stuff doesn't sound terrible. Plus, I kinda want to model the eviscerator on a guy.
Bharring wrote: There are "numerous 'non-competitive' lists that would be rather difficult to face" with Shining Spears as well. That doesn't mean they don't have their uses.
incorrect. Shinning spears have highest damage per point in the game and are really survivable and mobile. They are good against everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: A list of pure Guardsmen - or even just mostly. Spears aren't going to do much there.
An Ork Boy horde.
I'm not saying ASM are a great unit. I'm just saying they aren't auto-lose. Some of us have gotten some mileage out of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (specifically, that you can get some mileage out of them in casual games, and what to do to try to get that mileage.)
Intercessors make assault marines look like guardsmen. About double the damage potential and survivability for only a few more points. Out of a repulsor… They have about the same threat range turn 2 in assault too. Let me make this clear too - intersessors are an overcosted unit.
If you're factoring in a Repulsor you're looking at a -much- higher points cost to get a unit into assault that ASM would do on their own.
I find it interesting that there are basically two camps on this:
1. Feth them and run them as something else
2. I want to play my units and will use them as is and try to make them work
Personally I've always been in the second camp. During 5th I recall regularly seeing people saying to never run Repentia because they're overpriced and can't be used effectively but I'd cut a bloody path through the table with them and easily earn back 2-3x their points almost every game despite the issues that were bundled into them.
And that's always been my point: in a more casual setting subpar units can more than certainly be played at par, and sometimes move above par when played well.
Are their better options in a codex? Sure. Every codex has stuff like this (I mean I'm trying to build a list around putting Rubrics and SoT into a TS army without immediately shooting myself in the foot for not just running so many goats that my opponent wonders if I'm trying to open a farm), and while there are certainly more optimal choices, I don't feel that sub-optimal is the same thing as being completely useless.
If you like the models put them on the table and try different things for them. Maybe they'll do well, maybe they'll fall flat but at the end of the day you'll play what you want to play and the game will be more enjoyable for it.
Sure, Assault Marines have tons of uses! Especially with the updates in the latest red book with the price drop and jump-pack Apothecaries; a lot of Legions have pretty significant tricks that synergize with them, but the stand-out examples have to be the IXth (with Encarmine Fury for +1 to wound and Day of Revelation to Deepstrike all of them on the first turn), the XIIth (for chainaxes and Exhortation of Butchery to make sure something well and truly disappears under the weight of 80+ S5 attacks), and the VIIIth (where Very Bulky makes A Talent for Murder trivial to trigger)...
Assault Marines are perhaps the one unit in the SM book (or DA and BA for that matter) that might actually be worse than Tactical Marines. Honestly Blood Angels are the only chapter that might get any decent use out of them (due to Red Thirst), but even they have far superior units in the form of Death Company or Sanguinary Guard. Really all of the basic non-Primaris marines need an overhaul of some kind, mainly a points reduction for both the Marines and most of the special and heavy weapons (flamers, meltaguns, and gravguns are all overcosted, which is why all you see is plasma for days...).
They look neat and VV take an elites slot that competes with a bunch of other useful stuff. ASMs are a pretty cheap fast attack option and function as a harassment unit. In prior editions their flamers were worth a lot more, which is what I used them for traditionally. Fix flamers and you help Assault Marines a ton.
It's not like a cheap VV squad is writing home about how much damage it does anyways.
Bharring wrote: They've been a bully unit, not a CC unit, for as long as I've played. As in, you don't charge Tacs or better with ASM. You charge backfield Heavy Weapons Teams or vehicles or Rangers or Broadsides with them.
That said, VV do everything they do better for only a couple more points.
And jetpack VV aren't exactly stellar as is...
They were pretty legit in 3rd ed as CC threats.
Marines in general and especially BA were legit CC threats in 3rd - so much so that BA really didn't need assault marines; rhinos and tacticals did nicely.
In 5 blood angel assault marines were very good.
In 6 and 7 assault marines could be used more or less effectively as a cheapish chaff-clearing unit in a droppod with flamers.
Now they are there to kinda be there. Can still be used with good results to hop around, score points, eat overwatch, tie up units, disallow fallback moves. But like usual, don't expect them to kill much of anything that's at least meq level of toughness. Keep it in mind and use accordingly qnd they'll be ok.
Assault Marines have a whole host of problems, all of them mentioned somewhere in this thread. They're expensive, not actually good in melee (like almost all SM units) and the only advantage they have over VV is occupying a different slot, which is made irrelevant by 40k's army selection restrictions basically being non-existent. If you're just wanting to hold up enemy units either of the two bike units are better. Inceptors are better at actually killing things because they have an effective shooting attack.
At the very least an Assault Marine with a jump pack should cost the same as a Tactical Marine. You're trading range for movement in a game system with such high lethality that extra speed without extra durability is of dubious use.
koooaei wrote: In 5 blood angel assault marines were very good.
They weren't really assault marines though - they were deep striking melta carriers. Once they'd done that then they were back to mopping up weak things.
After seeing my River squad with knives struggle to kill some fire warriors in melee I've given up on the idea of assault marines as a choppy unit, flamers are really meh too since I can't drop and get a couple auto hit S4 shots off, and plasma pistols are kind expensive in the grand scheme. Though if I HAD to run them, it'd be with 3 plasma pistols to drop and get 3 shots off
fraser1191 wrote: After seeing my River squad with knives struggle to kill some fire warriors in melee I've given up on the idea of assault marines as a choppy unit, flamers are really meh too since I can't drop and get a couple auto hit S4 shots off, and plasma pistols are kind expensive in the grand scheme. Though if I HAD to run them, it'd be with 3 plasma pistols to drop and get 3 shots off
I really don't understand why GW is so afraid to give marines decent assault units. The art is full of pictures of marines hacking enemies with swords and axes, but that is discouraged in the game. It is even more bizarre in case of a new unit like Reivers. All shooty Primaris units got weapons that are improvement over their old counterparts, while the supposed melee specialist unit is stuck with useless knives. Not even the sergeant can have a proper melee weapon, while a sergeant of the shooty Intercessors can! Fun fact: five man Intercessor squad with a sergeant having a power sword kills just as many marines in melee than a five man Reiver squad does.
1. ASM are bad. VV are better, but not great. There is no use whatsoever for ASM.
2. ASM are bad. VV are better, but not great. There are some cases in which there might be limited reasons to use ASM instead of VV.
3. ASM are bad. You're bad for saying they might have some use. Your arguments are dumb. Screw WYSIWYG, if you don't proxy you're a terrible person.
ShaunyP,
There are restrictions, but the Detatchments are so flexible you can usually take whatever slots you want - just need to figure out how to fit it together.
I would *not* suggest lots of VV either. Same caveats apply to VV as ASM, except that they're marginally better. Still a bully unit not a CC unit. Still costly for a distraction. If you're just chain-charging vehicles or mopping up minor threats or whatnot, you'll see very little improvement, but for very few points. If you want a heavy hitting skirmisher, VV can be kitted to do that, but for quite a bit more points. But they aren't Berzerkers or Shining Spears. They won't perform as the backbone of your army.
I would suggest at least one VV or ASM squad. SM are more fun to play (with or against) when you have a little of each. So having 1 of those squads (or a Biker squad or Intercessors) would be a worthwhile addition.
Most of the CC threat in vanilla Marine lists are HQs or Sarges. SMHQs make decent beatsicks, and Sarges hide behind their squads. In either case, expect them to only work when fronted with PA doods (squaddies for the Sarge, or other squads for the HQs). HQs more for the aggressive threat, and sarges more for the countercharge/deterrence threat.
SM do have some actual CC units, but they're generally considered garbage (for good reason) currently:
-Termies (both flavors)
-Assault Cents (lol @ their points)
-Dreads (not so much bad, but can't get where they need to be)
-Crusader Squads (see: Tac Marines)
If you want to do CC as SM, you're going to need to do a combined arms style. Which means use your shooting to force matchups you can win, and use your mobile skirmishers/bullies to tip the scales where and when the CC will be.
If you do get ASM, keep them cheap. I usually give Sarge a weapon, but a fully kitted ASM squad does very little an unkitted ASM squad doesn't do.
If you get VV, how much you kit them comes down to what you use them for. If they'll be exposed, you need ablaitive doods, with few weapon upgrades. If they're just a distraction, you want minimal upgrades on them because they're going to die anyways. If you have bigger threats and believe you can get them into CC before they get shot at, you can kit them with more and they can do decent damage - but that last strategy is hard for Marines.
Back to the side-conversation I seem to be having with a couple posters here:
Nowhere am I saying "You can't/shouldn't run your ASM as VV". I'm saying *I* shouldn't run *MY* ASM as VV. Those are very different claims.
Insectum7 wrote: They look neat and VV take an elites slot that competes with a bunch of other useful stuff. ASMs are a pretty cheap fast attack option and function as a harassment unit. In prior editions their flamers were worth a lot more, which is what I used them for traditionally. Fix flamers and you help Assault Marines a ton.
It's not like a cheap VV squad is writing home about how much damage it does anyways.
However what vanguard vets do is unlock a relic elite unit which can in itself ve useful.
Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?
"incorrect. Shinning spears have highest damage per point in the game and are really survivable and mobile. They are good against everything. "
Higher damage per point? A MG on an SM Biker does more damage (same number of Boltguns as Catapaults, but the MG has twice the range, S8 vs S6, and about twice the average damage). The Spear is better in many other ways, but that's got better firepower/pt.
Spears have great dakka for their point, but claiming they're the best dakka for their point is factually incorrect.
You asked what Shining Spears would be bad against. As I showed, Shining Spears actually *LOSE* to straight Guardsmen if that's all they could fight. Yes, they are OP. But there *are* things they aren't good against. Such as 1W disposable grunts with poor saves. There are many other matchups I'm sure they'd do bad against. Again, this isn't an arugment claiming Spears are bad. Clearly, despite how OP they are, there *are* things they're bad against.
Bharring wrote: ....Yes, they are OP. But there *are* things they aren't good against. Such as 1W disposable grunts with poor saves. There are many other matchups I'm sure they'd do bad against. Again, this isn't an arugment claiming Spears are bad. Clearly, despite how OP they are, there *are* things they're bad against.
Just a point of clarity, Spears are not OP by themselves. It does take a very specific combinations of Traits (Ynnari) and several Characters casting powers for a unit of Spears to be OP. Said Characters (Warlocks) are often only in the list for the Spears (unlike a Farseer that is useful all around and likely in the list anyway) and are rather expensive, essentially doubling the cost of the Spears. While I agree that 8E buffs can be assumed when discussing most unit combos, there is far more going on for Spears that other units. It also takes many Strats to make them work and CPs are not easy to come by in the "OP" lists that are focused on Spears. And you can't always rely on all the powers you need going off, even with Eldar trickery. The best powers for Spears are cast by Warlocks, which don't have inherent rerolls like a Farseer.
As for ASM vs VV, I agree with Martel. At the end of the day, both models are just Marines with jump packs. It doesn't matter how fancy they look. The kits are basically interchangeable. The important thing is to make it 100% clear what rules you are using each game. This is most easily shown by their loadout, although the "fancier" VV being more decorative helps. But even without all the fancy bling, if I saw a unit of jump Marines with shields or several melee weapon, I'd know they were VV. If they unit have the basic loadout of pistols/chainswords with no more than 2 Special weapons and maybe a Sgt with a melee weapon, it would be obvious those were ASM.
The problem isn't the bling. Some chapters' ASM are certainly more blinged than certain other chapters' VV.
The problem is that *my* models were built as certain models. Those certain models were ASM not VV. Sure, in some other chapters, perhaps the right shoulder designation marking for VV is the traditional ASM mark. Perhaps in some, the black shoulderpad borders doesn't mean Battle Brother. Perhaps in some, the number on the left shoulderpad doesn't refer to Copmany. But not in Wings of Dawn.
"You" can play "your" models the way "you" want to, sure. I don't have a problem if my opponent needs to run their ASM as VV. But I do have a problem with being told *I* have no valid reason to run *my* ASM as ASM.
Bharring wrote: The problem isn't the bling. Some chapters' ASM are certainly more blinged than certain other chapters' VV.
The problem is that *my* models were built as certain models. Those certain models were ASM not VV. Sure, in some other chapters, perhaps the right shoulder designation marking for VV is the traditional ASM mark. Perhaps in some, the black shoulderpad borders doesn't mean Battle Brother. Perhaps in some, the number on the left shoulderpad doesn't refer to Copmany. But not in Wings of Dawn.
"You" can play "your" models the way "you" want to, sure. I don't have a problem if my opponent needs to run their ASM as VV. But I do have a problem with being told *I* have no valid reason to run *my* ASM as ASM.
Ok, so I think I get it now. Your jump Marines are built with loadout X, which isn't something VVs can do (or are optimized for). That make sense. I can certainly see why you wouldn't want to cut up your existing models just to fit a loadout that VVs are optimized for.
It sucks when an edition makes your models "non-competitive". That's why I've started making 2 "core" lists. 1 with all the optimized competitive units for the edition and another with the units I want to play for fun. Sometimes the lists share several units, sometimes that are completely different.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
Well, previously, ASM weren't great but were mostly a better version of VV because of points. That got reversed, which leads to now. Which I find funny. But the Shining spears that were trash for 3+ books are now ... not bad ....
Things change. Build what you want. Who knows what'll be OP next year.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.
So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.
Bharring wrote: Things change. Build what you want. Who knows what'll be OP next year.
This is why I have a health stock of magnets and NEVER buy more than 3 of any unit. Not even Troops or Transports. I also always try to build my units with dual possible models: Eldar tanks that can be whatever I need, Windriders that can also be Spears, Characters that can be Farseers or Autarchs with a simple head swap, etc. It's even easier to do this with Marines since everything is basically just "Power Armour dude with X wargear"
But I can certainly sympathize with you wanting to run your ASMs as ASMs. I want to run my Windriders as Windriders, but I basically gimp myself by doing so instead of just using them as Spears.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
For a unit to function as a distraction/harassment unit it actually has to be able to do something useful. The problem with AM is they are simply terrible at doing any job, and too expensive to be considered a throwaway unit. If you invest around 200 points in a full unit of them they're too expensive to be a cheap distraction and if you take a small squad in the hope your opponent shoots them even though they're not actually threatening then you'll find that fails against any semi-decent opponent. Your AM can have al the freedom they want if they can't achieve anything.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.
So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.
See, that's the problem: I'm always points limited because I want to take a wide variety of toys into an army that tend to run some points. Heck, I'm looking at converting a Lascannon defiler for my TS army and am trying to figure out how to replace the little skull head with a combi-bolter.
Bharring wrote: Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?
"incorrect. Shinning spears have highest damage per point in the game and are really survivable and mobile. They are good against everything. "
Higher damage per point? A MG on an SM Biker does more damage (same number of Boltguns as Catapaults, but the MG has twice the range, S8 vs S6, and about twice the average damage). The Spear is better in many other ways, but that's got better firepower/pt.
Spears have great dakka for their point, but claiming they're the best dakka for their point is factually incorrect.
You asked what Shining Spears would be bad against. As I showed, Shining Spears actually *LOSE* to straight Guardsmen if that's all they could fight. Yes, they are OP. But there *are* things they aren't good against. Such as 1W disposable grunts with poor saves. There are many other matchups I'm sure they'd do bad against. Again, this isn't an arugment claiming Spears are bad. Clearly, despite how OP they are, there *are* things they're bad against.
I am also including the close combat attacks in the calculation. 3x str 6 ap-4 d2 and 4x str 4 bladestorm. The point remains that they are actually one of the best units in the game at killing guardsmen. Plus - spears have a very easy time tying up units in CC because they have such a high movement stat - Siamhan ones are almost always going to have automatic charges on multiple units. Realistically - spears can shred guardsmen all game without ever getting shot at. They are pretty good at doing this against any none dedicated CC unit.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
Except Assault Marines aren't harassing anything, and Assault Marines get ignored for good reason (freedom of movement only matters if you can do anything). 10 more points gets you a harassment unit of some kind.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.
So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.
If you can't decide what to do with 80 points and you can't spare 10, buy something else then. 2 Heavy Bolter Tarantula Guns are 74 points and go in the same slot. Buy another Devastator Squad with a Heavy Bolter and Cherub.
ClockworkZion wrote: If you're factoring in a Repulsor you're looking at a -much- higher points cost to get a unit into assault that ASM would do on their own.
I find it interesting that there are basically two camps on this:
1. Feth them and run them as something else
2. I want to play my units and will use them as is and try to make them work
Personally I've always been in the second camp. During 5th I recall regularly seeing people saying to never run Repentia because they're overpriced and can't be used effectively but I'd cut a bloody path through the table with them and easily earn back 2-3x their points almost every game despite the issues that were bundled into them.
And that's always been my point: in a more casual setting subpar units can more than certainly be played at par, and sometimes move above par when played well.
Are their better options in a codex? Sure. Every codex has stuff like this (I mean I'm trying to build a list around putting Rubrics and SoT into a TS army without immediately shooting myself in the foot for not just running so many goats that my opponent wonders if I'm trying to open a farm), and while there are certainly more optimal choices, I don't feel that sub-optimal is the same thing as being completely useless.
If you like the models put them on the table and try different things for them. Maybe they'll do well, maybe they'll fall flat but at the end of the day you'll play what you want to play and the game will be more enjoyable for it.
I always take a repulsor. It's the best tank in the codex (even though it's probably about 40 points over-costed). It's hugely expensive true. Just stating that if I wanted to make a turn 2 attack with 2 str 4 attacks on the opponents front line chaff. I can already do that with a unit that shoots better and survives better and is a troop choice - they assault the same (they both are terrible in assault - lol).
Skyhammer ASM were a different story. The only reason I have 20 of these guys. They do look awesome.
fraser1191 wrote: After seeing my River squad with knives struggle to kill some fire warriors in melee I've given up on the idea of assault marines as a choppy unit, flamers are really meh too since I can't drop and get a couple auto hit S4 shots off, and plasma pistols are kind expensive in the grand scheme. Though if I HAD to run them, it'd be with 3 plasma pistols to drop and get 3 shots off
I really don't understand why GW is so afraid to give marines decent assault units. The art is full of pictures of marines hacking enemies with swords and axes, but that is discouraged in the game. It is even more bizarre in case of a new unit like Reivers. All shooty Primaris units got weapons that are improvement over their old counterparts, while the supposed melee specialist unit is stuck with useless knives. Not even the sergeant can have a proper melee weapon, while a sergeant of the shooty Intercessors can! Fun fact: five man Intercessor squad with a sergeant having a power sword kills just as many marines in melee than a five man Reiver squad does.
Don't even get me started on Reivers not having any AP on their blades OR their Sergeant not having access to a Power Sword. Completely stupid and makes them almost pointless.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
Except Assault Marines aren't harassing anything, and Assault Marines get ignored for good reason (freedom of movement only matters if you can do anything). 10 more points gets you a harassment unit of some kind.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.
So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.
If you can't decide what to do with 80 points and you can't spare 10, buy something else then. 2 Heavy Bolter Tarantula Guns are 74 points and go in the same slot. Buy another Devastator Squad with a Heavy Bolter and Cherub.
Take 3 scout bikes. Same slot - more movement - actually have a decent stratagem - great firepower. Still gets wiped by dessie....but what doesn't?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.
So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.
If you can't decide what to do with 80 points and you can't spare 10, buy something else then. 2 Heavy Bolter Tarantula Guns are 74 points and go in the same slot. Buy another Devastator Squad with a Heavy Bolter and Cherub.
I would agree with you there actually. I can't imagine a list that feels it NEEDS to use its last 80pts on Assault Marines. Take some more scouts maybe if you want board control?
fraser1191 wrote: After seeing my River squad with knives struggle to kill some fire warriors in melee I've given up on the idea of assault marines as a choppy unit, flamers are really meh too since I can't drop and get a couple auto hit S4 shots off, and plasma pistols are kind expensive in the grand scheme. Though if I HAD to run them, it'd be with 3 plasma pistols to drop and get 3 shots off
I really don't understand why GW is so afraid to give marines decent assault units. The art is full of pictures of marines hacking enemies with swords and axes, but that is discouraged in the game. It is even more bizarre in case of a new unit like Reivers. All shooty Primaris units got weapons that are improvement over their old counterparts, while the supposed melee specialist unit is stuck with useless knives. Not even the sergeant can have a proper melee weapon, while a sergeant of the shooty Intercessors can! Fun fact: five man Intercessor squad with a sergeant having a power sword kills just as many marines in melee than a five man Reiver squad does.
Don't even get me started on Reivers not having any AP on their blades OR their Sergeant not having access to a Power Sword. Completely stupid and makes them almost pointless.
The limited primaris options are just icing on the cake for an absolute trash fest that is the space marine codex.
I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?
The Reiver thing really bugs me, as they're such a cool unit. And gimping them is so needless; even if they didn't want to give the knives AP (they're just knives after all) there was zero reason to not let the sergeant take a power sword. Sure, there is not one in the sprues, but neither there is one in the Intercessor sprues, yet their sergeant can have one. The sword bits from UM and DA Primaris upgrade sprues fit the Reivers just as well as they fit the Intercessors.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?
Narrative reasons, points restrictions, model restrictions, personal restrictions against proxying....
This is an endless list that has been talked about here before: not everyone like running stuff as other stuff. Points limits might keep VV from being viable in your army due to wanting to squeeze in a Lascannon Predator, or maybe you don't have the extra HQs needed to run another detachment for Elites and you already loaded up on other stuff.
Just because you can't think of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. People have been running less than optimal units for dozens of reasons for decades now, and just because ASM aren't as optimal as VV (who are less optimal that a better melee unit like Berserkers) doesn't mean they don't see table time basically everyday somewhere.
Wouldn't giving Chainswords AP-1 just make Tacs and Termies even worse? Do we really need even more AP in this game?
"I am also including the close combat attacks in the calculation. 3x str 6 ap-4 d2 and 4x str 4 bladestorm."
This is about whether Spears are the highest damage model per point in the game. Counting CC, where exactly do things like Zerkers fit in again? Spears are OP, and one of the best units in the game, and are glass-cannon-ish (twice the durability of a Tac, 3x the price, but with really good firepower), but there certainly are units that do more damage.
Also, Spears are about even with Guardsmen when they charge Guardsmen. They lose on any subsequent CC round. They lose worse if Guardsmen charge. And they lose in a shooting war. Spears outplay Guardsmen in a number of ways, but they don't actually beat Guardsmen by fighting them.
I don't really think that AP is the problem as much as the game not being adjust to allow for better saves to be purchased to mitigate AP.
That's why AP was better in WFB where you could set up a unit to have a 1+ (or better save) so they AP would drag them down to a 3+ and still give you a chance of saving.
Then again it was also a system set up to handle rolls of 7+ as well, something that 40k needs to bring in as well.
With the Reivers (and all Primaris) this whole "Not on sprue" thing is really killing it for me. What makes Tacs/ASM/Devs/etc so great is the customization.
Primaris feel like they're the DOWIII edition of Marines compared to PA Marines being the DOWII version. They're bigger! Better graphics! Moar gud! But they take away all that made it fun. "Streamlining" cover because it "engendered passive gameplay" basically just reduced the whole thing to meh.
Bringing Tac-style options to Primaris might go a long way to make Primaris more interesting.
But as for ASM's niche, the problem is the Tac doesn't do enough currently. And ASM pay too many points to be "Tacs, but with jetpacks and swords". So, of course they don't do enough either. However, there should be a clear difference between a skirmish ASM unit and a well-kitted vet unit that VV can be.
Hopefully, in the future of the game, they can make ASM useful again without just making them a strong CC unit or giving them a different role.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clockwork,
There are units that have 7+ armor saves, actually. Harlequins, for example.
Bharring wrote: Wouldn't giving Chainswords AP-1 just make Tacs and Termies even worse? Do we really need even more AP in this game?
"I am also including the close combat attacks in the calculation. 3x str 6 ap-4 d2 and 4x str 4 bladestorm."
This is about whether Spears are the highest damage model per point in the game. Counting CC, where exactly do things like Zerkers fit in again? Spears are OP, and one of the best units in the game, and are glass-cannon-ish (twice the durability of a Tac, 3x the price, but with really good firepower), but there certainly are units that do more damage.
Also, Spears are about even with Guardsmen when they charge Guardsmen. They lose on any subsequent CC round. They lose worse if Guardsmen charge. And they lose in a shooting war. Spears outplay Guardsmen in a number of ways, but they don't actually beat Guardsmen by fighting them.
Bezerkers are up there. Probably the only unit in power armor anyone actually fears. They get 6 attacks per turn if they fright twice with some decent quality attacks. 2 at str 6 ap-1 and 4 at str 5 ap 0. So we are talking point for point - 4 str 5 and 8 str 6 ap-1. Compared to 3 str 6 ap-4 2 damage and 4 str 4 ap-3 on 6's. It really depends what you are attacking.
Gaurdsmen really don't beat spears ether. They never will. It doesn't matter what the numbers look like on paper because the in game mechanics of (spears will always strike first) and spears will lock a unit in CC so they can't be shot at aren't factored. I've seen this happen too many times to hear it argued against. Spears move up - Probably kill 15-20 gaurds in shooting then kill 10 more in assault and are likely locked in combat with an officer that can't fall back. Even if you then charged with 40 catachan gaurds buffed by straken. You'd only kill 3 spears (IF THEY HAVE 0 BUFFS and use 0 STRATAGEMS).
ClockworkZion wrote: I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
You're not wrong. But just saying "I want to run them for narrative reasons" doesn't really lend itself to any useful discussion. You can say that about any unit, whether it's good or bad. If you want to do that, that's fine. But you can't really enter into any meaningful discussion at that point because the reasons for taking them are outside the scope of any objective analysis. That's why discussion boards pretty much always revolve around what's effective.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
You're not wrong. But just saying "I want to run them for narrative reasons" doesn't really lend itself to any useful discussion. You can say that about any unit, whether it's good or bad. If you want to do that, that's fine. But you can't really enter into any meaningful discussion at that point because the reasons for taking them are outside the scope of any objective analysis. That's why discussion boards pretty much always revolve around what's effective.
I disagree, there should be analysis done on how to run basically anything, even if it basically sucks, because sometimes people don't have a lot to work with or have narrative reasons for running stuff and want to get the best bang for their buck, even if they exchange rate sucks.
Sure, they don't fit into LVO style metas where you need to use every single point on only the most optimal things based on the rules and missions they run, but in less strict settings there should be a look at every unit in the game and how to use them as effectively as possible, even if there are other choices that might work better in different slots entirely.
fraser1191 wrote: After seeing my River squad with knives struggle to kill some fire warriors in melee I've given up on the idea of assault marines as a choppy unit, flamers are really meh too since I can't drop and get a couple auto hit S4 shots off, and plasma pistols are kind expensive in the grand scheme. Though if I HAD to run them, it'd be with 3 plasma pistols to drop and get 3 shots off
I really don't understand why GW is so afraid to give marines decent assault units. The art is full of pictures of marines hacking enemies with swords and axes, but that is discouraged in the game. It is even more bizarre in case of a new unit like Reivers. All shooty Primaris units got weapons that are improvement over their old counterparts, while the supposed melee specialist unit is stuck with useless knives. Not even the sergeant can have a proper melee weapon, while a sergeant of the shooty Intercessors can! Fun fact: five man Intercessor squad with a sergeant having a power sword kills just as many marines in melee than a five man Reiver squad does.
Don't even get me started on Reivers not having any AP on their blades OR their Sergeant not having access to a Power Sword. Completely stupid and makes them almost pointless.
The limited primaris options are just icing on the cake for an absolute trash fest that is the space marine codex.
You don't need options if you're at least good at your job. Aspect Warriors are proof of that. They get their wargear for a specific job, and then they get special rules to make them better at those jobs.
Primaris (and Marines in general) are supposed to be relying on their raw stats for effectiveness (most people realize that, which is why there are always fixes regarding their stats instead of strictly price). For durability, you actually can't get much better than Intercessors and Reivers, as they tank D1 and the more expensive multiple damage weapons. The issue is offense, which the supposed offensive troop choice, Tactical Marines, don't make up for.
Also I'm annoyed that Intercessors and Hellblasters don't have Heavy Bolt Pistols! Whatever on that though. I'd be a fan of Intercessors at 17 points and they got Heavy Bolt Pistols standard, but this isn't the wishlist thread. I have that already going on in Proposed Rules.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?
Narrative reasons, points restrictions, model restrictions, personal restrictions against proxying....
None of which are valid. Wheres all my non-Primaris Lieutenant kits?
Also point restrictions are a LOL reason. Assault Marines aren't good at the job. Either fork up the extra 10 points for Vanguard, or realize you didn't need that role that bad and buy something else for 80 points. There's tons of options you can get.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?
Narrative reasons, points restrictions, model restrictions, personal restrictions against proxying....
None of which are valid. Wheres all my non-Primaris Lieutenant kits?
Also point restrictions are a LOL reason. Assault Marines aren't good at the job. Either fork up the extra 10 points for Vanguard, or realize you didn't need that role that bad and buy something else for 80 points. There's tons of options you can get.
They are plenty of valid for the people who make those choices. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid, it just makes your basis for decision making different than theirs.
Bharring wrote: You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.
But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.
It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.
Assault Marines don't make either of those units look bad.
Also Space Marine Bikers are bad because they're bad. You could nerf Shining Spears to kingdom come, and people will still tell you Scout Bikers > Regular Bikers
ClockworkZion wrote: I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?
Narrative reasons, points restrictions, model restrictions, personal restrictions against proxying....
None of which are valid. Wheres all my non-Primaris Lieutenant kits?
Also point restrictions are a LOL reason. Assault Marines aren't good at the job. Either fork up the extra 10 points for Vanguard, or realize you didn't need that role that bad and buy something else for 80 points. There's tons of options you can get.
They are plenty of valid for the people who make those choices. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid, it just makes your basis for decision making different than theirs.
Any arbitrary reason like you listed is basically a "just because", which isn't valid for discussion. Sorry.
You still haven't told me how to use my non-Primaris Lt. entry because I'm not seeing the kit on the GW site...
Bharring wrote: You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.
But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.
It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.
Assault Marines don't make either of those units look bad.
Also Space Marine Bikers are bad because they're bad. You could nerf Shining Spears to kingdom come, and people will still tell you Scout Bikers > Regular Bikers
Part of the reason Scouts are considered so much better than regular Marines is because they're cheaper thus full FOC easier for CP maximization. Change CP generation to something like AoS or KT and the need for cheap units to fill slots becomes less of a thing.
Bharring wrote: You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.
But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.
It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.
Assault Marines don't make either of those units look bad.
Also Space Marine Bikers are bad because they're bad. You could nerf Shining Spears to kingdom come, and people will still tell you Scout Bikers > Regular Bikers
Part of the reason Scouts are considered so much better than regular Marines is because they're cheaper thus full FOC easier for CP maximization. Change CP generation to something like AoS or KT and the need for cheap units to fill slots becomes less of a thing.
They're cheaper and actually fill a role of deployment shenanigans. Do a different CP system and it'll still be the same. Look at any non-Gladius list and you'd realize that.
That also has nothing to do with my post but okay.
They are plenty of valid for the people who make those choices. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid, it just makes your basis for decision making different than theirs.
Any arbitrary reason like you listed is basically a "just because", which isn't valid for discussion. Sorry.
You still haven't told me how to use my non-Primaris Lt. entry because I'm not seeing the kit on the GW site...
They don't have a Captain or Chapter Master kit either, they have a "Commander" kit which can make all three.
And are you seriously trying to say that someone choosing to not proxy assault marines, who are painted as Assault Marines, as Vanguard Vets is the same thing as using a Commander kit to make a LT? Because we've already talked about paint schemes and unique unit markings being the important thing here, not the source of bits.
And for an LT, the only important thing is painting him up to have a veteran colored helmet with a white stripe:
Bits source and kitbashing isn't the same as actually proxying models. Or are you pretending the Fast Attack and Elite markings are the same thing now? Or that First Company Space Marines don't have unique company markings from the rest of the Marines? I mean, you can paint your dudes however you want, but the point remains that those sorts of things matter to most armies and to a lot of players, even if you don't give a diddly about it.
It's like you are trying to strawman every post I make just so you can claim to be right based on some metric that doesn't exist.
Bharring wrote: You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.
But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.
It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.
Assault Marines don't make either of those units look bad.
Also Space Marine Bikers are bad because they're bad. You could nerf Shining Spears to kingdom come, and people will still tell you Scout Bikers > Regular Bikers
Part of the reason Scouts are considered so much better than regular Marines is because they're cheaper thus full FOC easier for CP maximization. Change CP generation to something like AoS or KT and the need for cheap units to fill slots becomes less of a thing.
They're cheaper and actually fill a role of deployment shenanigans. Do a different CP system and it'll still be the same. Look at any non-Gladius list and you'd realize that.
That also has nothing to do with my post but okay.
I was pointing out the reason Scouts are considered to be superior, because if CP generation is removed as a thing, then unit durability becomes more of a factor for many players. Wanting a unit that can stay around longer while doing as much damage can be more important if you don't need to use cheap chaffe units to fill slots just to unlock bonuses.
It wasn't a counter to your post, but more a comment about the state of the game and where the problem is regarding this Scouts>Marine thing.
And for an LT, the only important thing is painting him up to have a veteran colored helmet with a white stripe:
I agree with your overall point, but that is not a lieutenant, it is a veteran sergeant...
Fair point. I blame google and laziness for grabbing a poor image selection (and not actively dealing with Marine paint schemes enough. I'm too busy dusting off my paint set for Tzeentch's boys at the moment and am facing the same sort of arguments about Rubrics: basically useless in top tournament level competetive settings with no look at lower levels of play, or effective ways to use them if you want to field them anyways).
They are plenty of valid for the people who make those choices. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid, it just makes your basis for decision making different than theirs.
Any arbitrary reason like you listed is basically a "just because", which isn't valid for discussion. Sorry.
You still haven't told me how to use my non-Primaris Lt. entry because I'm not seeing the kit on the GW site...
They don't have a Captain or Chapter Master kit either, they have a "Commander" kit which can make all three.
And are you seriously trying to say that someone choosing to not proxy assault marines, who are painted as Assault Marines, as Vanguard Vets is the same thing as using a Commander kit to make a LT? Because we've already talked about paint schemes and unique unit markings being the important thing here, not the source of bits.
And for an LT, the only important thing is painting him up to have a veteran colored helmet
Bits source and kitbashing isn't the same as actually proxying models. Or are you pretending the Fast Attack and Elite markings are the same thing now? Or that First Company Space Marines don't have unique company markings from the rest of the Marines? I mean, you can paint your dudes however you want, but the point remains that those sorts of things matter to most armies and to a lot of players, even if you don't give a diddly about it.
It's like you are trying to strawman every post I make just so you can claim to be right based on some metric that doesn't exist.
Bharring wrote: You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.
But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.
It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.
Assault Marines don't make either of those units look bad.
Also Space Marine Bikers are bad because they're bad. You could nerf Shining Spears to kingdom come, and people will still tell you Scout Bikers > Regular Bikers
Part of the reason Scouts are considered so much better than regular Marines is because they're cheaper thus full FOC easier for CP maximization. Change CP generation to something like AoS or KT and the need for cheap units to fill slots becomes less of a thing.
They're cheaper and actually fill a role of deployment shenanigans. Do a different CP system and it'll still be the same. Look at any non-Gladius list and you'd realize that.
That also has nothing to do with my post but okay.
I was pointing out the reason Scouts are considered to be superior, because if CP generation is removed as a thing, then unit durability becomes more of a factor for many players. Wanting a unit that can stay around longer while doing as much damage can be more important if you don't need to use cheap chaffe units to fill slots just to unlock bonuses.
It wasn't a counter to your post, but more a comment about the state of the game and where the problem is regarding this Scouts>Marine thing.
Your fluff metric is the one that doesn't actually exist in game. My metric is unit entries which, ya know, are actually used in game. Seems like only one of those is concrete.
Also that's still not a non-Primaris Lt. In fact when I search the store I only get two Primaris options, both of which are for Blood and Dark Angels. What should I do as an Iron Hands player?
Also those are Commander kits. That's not an option in my codex. So I guess I'm stuck with Librarians and Chaplains huh?
Your fluff metric is the one that doesn't actually exist in game. My metric is unit entries which, ya know, are actually used in game. Seems like only one of those is concrete.
Also that's still not a non-Primaris Lt. In fact when I search the store I only get two Primaris options, both of which are for Blood and Dark Angels. What should I do as an Iron Hands player?
Also those are Commander kits. That's not an option in my codex. So I guess I'm stuck with Librarians and Chaplains huh?
No, it exists in the list building stage. The reasons why people choose X over Y are as numerous as the stars and only declaring yours as valid is a verbal slap in the face for everyone who doesn't agree with you. Which is outright stupid.
And again, paint scheme determines the LT, Captain or Chapter Master, not where you get the bits for your models from.
Or are you pretending there aren't guidelines out there on how you're supposed to mark units properly?
And before you try to say that GW hasn't given guidelines on how to mark things, here's an example of them showing you exactly how to mark things:
Your fluff metric is the one that doesn't actually exist in game. My metric is unit entries which, ya know, are actually used in game. Seems like only one of those is concrete.
Also that's still not a non-Primaris Lt. In fact when I search the store I only get two Primaris options, both of which are for Blood and Dark Angels. What should I do as an Iron Hands player?
Also those are Commander kits. That's not an option in my codex. So I guess I'm stuck with Librarians and Chaplains huh?
No, it exists in the list building stage. The reasons why people choose X over Y are as numerous as the stars and only declaring yours as valid is a verbal slap in the face for everyone who doesn't agree with you. Which is outright stupid.
And again, paint scheme determines the LT, Captain or Chapter Master, not where you get the bits for your models from.
Or are you pretending there aren't guidelines out there on how you're supposed to mark units properly?
List building stage is what goes into the game, not the fluff.
Assault Marines have no use over Vanguard. Simple as that. If you really want to, paint your Assault Marines with Vet markings or whatever. Just know not everyone dresses up their Vets with fancy markings and bling. Unit entry > silly fluff reasons that are made up barriers for yourself.
Paint scheme doesn't determine anything. Under your standards, I wouldn't even be able to paint Dante different because I'm not a fan of that much gold. If I paint over Calgar's Ultramarine design, he's clearly not an Ultramarine anymore!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: List building stage is what goes into the game, not the fluff.
*ahem*
Moving on, I've stated this MANY TIMES now: choices players make aren't limited to optimization based on numbers, or even what the internet claims. We've even had examples of that posted in this very thread. Just because there are better choices to put into a list doesn't mean things won't be put into a list because you want to play them, or they fit a narrative in your head.
Once again, I'm definitely this sort of player and insisted on running Repentia during 5th edition when they were considered useless due to the Rage special rule. And yet I found ways to funnel them into my enemy effectively and tear apart their toys with them. Optimization at the time would say to just replace them with a unit of melta gun Dominions for tank busting, but I intentionally choice a unit I felt was fluffy for the army I was running (as the way I view Sisters I feel they would always have some number of Repentia seeking redemption during a conflict). This is what fluff informing list building looks like. It's quite different than how you build lists, but it's no less valid in how to choose units to play.
Heck, some armies are only started because people like the look of a particular model and will go out of their way to include said model in a list, even if it basically sucks.
And list building is just as important in the game as anything else, because it is what forms the core of what your army is and how they fight on the table. It defines the narrative you craft for yourself on why things are being punched up for and what you're fighting over.
You know, the things we do outside of tournaments, like planning an army for campaigns.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Assault Marines have no use over Vanguard. Simple as that. If you really want to, paint your Assault Marines with Vet markings or whatever. Just know not everyone dresses up their Vets with fancy markings and bling. Unit entry > silly fluff reasons that are made up barriers for yourself.
Paint scheme doesn't determine anything. Under your standards, I wouldn't even be able to paint Dante different because I'm not a fan of that much gold. If I paint over Calgar's Ultramarine design, he's clearly not an Ultramarine anymore!
See how silly and far you can take it?
Paint scheme is what determines what is what on the table. If you choose to skimp out on the details just because you want to swap models around that's on you, but if someone takes the time to paint up their stuff to a high level and bothers with those unit markings, then it's understandable that they may not feel as comfortable as you regarding swapping units around willy nilly.
Your choice to play strictly from a point of optimization doesn't invalidate mine to play from one where I build based on a narrative and lore over what is the best of the best choice at every turn.
"if someone takes the time to paint up their stuff to a high level and bothers with those unit markings"
So I'm not allowed to not swap units around just because I'm not good enough at painting to get to a high level?
(That was a joke, it's obvious what you meant.)
Proxying an ASM for a VV is better than proxying an ASM for a Tac marine, sure. But why should I be required to proxy?
If you're dismissing options as "not even in the game" as they only have a niche potential role, where does it end?
-No ASM, because VV are better?
-No VV, because they aren't that useful competitively?
-No SM at all because they aren't top dog right now?
Granted, the meta is a lot more balanced than it was in 6e/7e, but only taking note of the top units or top books in the game sqashes it down to only a handful of entries in only a couple books. If you aren't trying to top-table a major tournament, clearly many more units can be used.
Isn't it useful to discuss what those uses may be? Isn't it useful to see what exactly the niche is instead of ignoring it as too small?
Bharring wrote: You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.
But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.
It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.
Banshees...yeah - they suck.
Scorpions...I'd take them over ASM but not VV. The exarch is pretty good they hit on 2's provided they are in cover. Plus the mortal wounds they can deal. They are just flat out better than ASM. They deep strike too so their chance of 2 turn charge is the same. VV can take storm sheilds and a few thunderhammers - totally outclasses all of these. Though at this point they are a pretty penny to field. I do sometimes drop them into a list at 2500 points just for SNG's. They usually die to overwatch.
Scorpions are an odd duck. Their rule technically gives them +1 to hit when their target is in cover (both shooting and melee, I haven't seen this FAQ'ed). So 2+ shuriken pistols and mediocre chainswords.
They do have 3+ armour which is nice, and somewhat rare in Eldar land. The Mortal Wound option is okay if you have enough models, and it triggers every Fight Phase which is nice if they stay in combat more than one turn. Their Exarch can have an okay quasi-power fist which doesn't suffer penalties to h it.
I'd take them over my Chaos assault marines though, I think. Banshees on the other hand...prove how questionable power swords are on a Strength 3 model.
I'd take ASM over Scoprions, easily.
They both have 2A S4 AP0 D1 for CC stats, but Scoprions have a 1/6 chance for a mortal wound. So Scorpoins do more damage. But how are you going to get them stuck in? ASM have a 12" move and Fly. Scorpions have 7" move.
The cover thing helps, but one enemy model out of cover means the unit is not in cover, thus no benefits. So you're usually only getting that if you can get into a small backfield unit. Moving 7" a turn, you're going to take quite a bit longer to get stuck in than a 12" move, even before factoring in Fly. So getting into a small backfield unit is a lot easier for the ASM.
The Exarch is good. Better than a PF Sarge.
But you're taking quite a bit more damage from any small arms (S3/S4) that comes your way.
You lose to more skirmishers in a head to head, though. You lose out in CC to ASM if you run into them, and the ASM will decide the enagement/get the charge, too.
Fly is a BFD. Especially on a skirmisher. Scoprions have their upsides, but ASM are better overall.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (I would take ASM, but I see how it's debateable.)
True, but again with 40K there are a bunch of other factors.
I run Biel-Tan (re-roll 1's for shuriken weaponry and +1 leadership to Aspect warriors)...BUT....I run Renegades with CSM so I can advance and charge (giving the ASM a crazy range).
My ASM can take special weapons, but seven of them cost more than 10 Scorpions (including an Exarch). I don't think either of them are prime units, but I find I enjoy my Scorpions a bit more than ASM.
I agree with everything you said though. I do think an ASM squad is much more versatile.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: List building stage is what goes into the game, not the fluff.
*ahem*
Moving on, I've stated this MANY TIMES now: choices players make aren't limited to optimization based on numbers, or even what the internet claims. We've even had examples of that posted in this very thread. Just because there are better choices to put into a list doesn't mean things won't be put into a list because you want to play them, or they fit a narrative in your head.
Once again, I'm definitely this sort of player and insisted on running Repentia during 5th edition when they were considered useless due to the Rage special rule. And yet I found ways to funnel them into my enemy effectively and tear apart their toys with them. Optimization at the time would say to just replace them with a unit of melta gun Dominions for tank busting, but I intentionally choice a unit I felt was fluffy for the army I was running (as the way I view Sisters I feel they would always have some number of Repentia seeking redemption during a conflict). This is what fluff informing list building looks like. It's quite different than how you build lists, but it's no less valid in how to choose units to play.
Heck, some armies are only started because people like the look of a particular model and will go out of their way to include said model in a list, even if it basically sucks.
And list building is just as important in the game as anything else, because it is what forms the core of what your army is and how they fight on the table. It defines the narrative you craft for yourself on why things are being punched up for and what you're fighting over.
You know, the things we do outside of tournaments, like planning an army for campaigns.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Assault Marines have no use over Vanguard. Simple as that. If you really want to, paint your Assault Marines with Vet markings or whatever. Just know not everyone dresses up their Vets with fancy markings and bling. Unit entry > silly fluff reasons that are made up barriers for yourself.
Paint scheme doesn't determine anything. Under your standards, I wouldn't even be able to paint Dante different because I'm not a fan of that much gold. If I paint over Calgar's Ultramarine design, he's clearly not an Ultramarine anymore!
See how silly and far you can take it?
Paint scheme is what determines what is what on the table. If you choose to skimp out on the details just because you want to swap models around that's on you, but if someone takes the time to paint up their stuff to a high level and bothers with those unit markings, then it's understandable that they may not feel as comfortable as you regarding swapping units around willy nilly.
Your choice to play strictly from a point of optimization doesn't invalidate mine to play from one where I build based on a narrative and lore over what is the best of the best choice at every turn.
If we aren't crunching numbers, then what's the point of discussion? It boils down to "do whatever" otherwise. So no I'm not wrong. You putting magical handicaps on yourself had no merit when discussing a unit's usefulness. If someone wants to use their Assault Marines as is, just say the recruitment pool was THAT good that year and you use the Vangaurd stats. I don't get your imaginary restrictions.
"I'm not wrong."
"magical handicaps"
"no merit"
"imaginary restrictions."
Tacs hitting on a 3+ is an imaginary restriction, and a magical handicap. But it certainly has merit. And you need more than loaded terms to make it otherwise!
Saying "You liking ASM doesn't change whether they have a niche use" would be a valid argument. But that's not what you've been saying. Much of this huge 5-page digression comes from your claims that any such thought makes no sense or is not valid.
You've been refuting the validity of other peoples' preferences and viewpoints. If you had simply been showing or stating that they did not factor into the crunch, that would have been more productive. If that's what you were trying to say.
However, you've gone beyond just arguing the technical points, to the point where you consider the 1ppm to have 0 vaue. Not little to no value, but actually 0 value. Same with the Elite vs FA. There are many finer points that could be discussed about what actual value those differences have, but repeatedly shouting that you're right, it's 0, and everyone else is just stupid and their points don't make any sense doesn't get us anywhere.
When discussing the crunch, the fact that I have ASM certainly doesn't matter. The 1ppm and the FA vs Elite do matter, but not a lot. Those are valid statements. If you could stick to that instead of going off on hyperbolic fantasy claims, these threads might be more productive.
Bharring wrote: Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?
He still can't accept mutilators being decent in 7th despite the 6 mutilator list having a 75% win rate.
Nobody cares about your casual local meta. Seriously. Bringing up anecdotes of that nature doesn't even create good discussion.
see
I had Tyberos the Red Wake in 7th beat Abigail in melee once. Want me to start rambling about how great he is?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "I'm not wrong."
"magical handicaps"
"no merit"
"imaginary restrictions."
Tacs hitting on a 3+ is an imaginary restriction, and a magical handicap. But it certainly has merit. And you need more than loaded terms to make it otherwise!
Saying "You liking ASM doesn't change whether they have a niche use" would be a valid argument. But that's not what you've been saying. Much of this huge 5-page digression comes from your claims that any such thought makes no sense or is not valid.
You've been refuting the validity of other peoples' preferences and viewpoints. If you had simply been showing or stating that they did not factor into the crunch, that would have been more productive. If that's what you were trying to say.
However, you've gone beyond just arguing the technical points, to the point where you consider the 1ppm to have 0 vaue. Not little to no value, but actually 0 value. Same with the Elite vs FA. There are many finer points that could be discussed about what actual value those differences have, but repeatedly shouting that you're right, it's 0, and everyone else is just stupid and their points don't make any sense doesn't get us anywhere.
When discussing the crunch, the fact that I have ASM certainly doesn't matter. The 1ppm and the FA vs Elite do matter, but not a lot. Those are valid statements. If you could stick to that instead of going off on hyperbolic fantasy claims, these threads might be more productive.
I would argue the slots don't matter period. 100% don't. We have 2-3 detachments to work with. If you aren't terrible at list building it won't be an issue.
Also your point about Tactical Marines makes no sense because that's part of the game rules, not an imaginary handicap you're putting on yourself because you're unwilling to make use of the models you have in a better fashion. Also 100% not my problem and your own darn fault.
Part of the game rules... Were you one of those players who argued that FMCs in 6th had neither Monsterous or Smash because they had 'Monsterous Smash' instead? The game comes down to shared social constructs. Unless you believe everything can be mathed down to basic logic and numbers and proofs (hint: it cannot).
There is technically a rule that you use *the* datasheet that matches your model. Clearly, the Vanguard Vet datasheet matches the Vanguard Vet model, and the ASM datasheet matches the ASM model. A very technical reading would find that it would not actually be game-legal to kitbash VV from the ASM kit or vice versa! And that's a far cry from the counts-as you demean me for not wanting to do with my models. But I honestly know no-one who would play that rule.
At times, this game would break if players tied on the rolloff to go first, rerolled, and tied a second time. Not break as in one side autowon or it became a draw, but break as in no step forward, even for ending the game.
At some point, this game needs a social construct between players. So what is a rule and what is not a rule isn't as black-and-white as we sometimes like to think.
"Also 100% not my problem and your own darn fault."
My desire to play WYSIWYG is 100% not your problem. But your rage against players who do want to play WYSIWYG is your problem.
Sure, it's my own "fault" for wanting to play my models the way I made them. Except that I see that more as a "credit" than a "fault". Why can't you accept that people who see things differently from you are not inherently wrong and evil?
I get the WYSIWYG thing but I personally see no problems with:
1. Players who paint VV models like ASMs.
2. Players who paint ASM models like VVs.
3. Players who use a color scheme that doesn’t have as stark contrasts between veterans and line infantry.
4. Players who use VVs to represent veteran members of a company other than the 1st.
I would argue the slots don't matter period. 100% don't.
That would be a poor assertion. CPs matter. "Tax" matters. Just those two things plainly show that slots matter. You can build to mitigate the effects, but then they are affecting your build. And therefore matter again.
I loved Assault Marines in 2nd Edition. My Dark Angels Assault Marines from then have never been playable in subsequent editions because of their armament. Assault Marines have been kinda pointless since 1999, which is sad. I've made new squads and tried to make them work. Vanguard Veterans have somewhat of a point, and my old DA Assault Squad are now Flesh Tearer Vanguad Vets. They're still sub-optimal, but they have their odd moment of glory.
Bharring wrote: Part of the game rules... Were you one of those players who argued that FMCs in 6th had neither Monsterous or Smash because they had 'Monsterous Smash' instead? The game comes down to shared social constructs. Unless you believe everything can be mathed down to basic logic and numbers and proofs (hint: it cannot).
There is technically a rule that you use *the* datasheet that matches your model. Clearly, the Vanguard Vet datasheet matches the Vanguard Vet model, and the ASM datasheet matches the ASM model. A very technical reading would find that it would not actually be game-legal to kitbash VV from the ASM kit or vice versa! And that's a far cry from the counts-as you demean me for not wanting to do with my models. But I honestly know no-one who would play that rule.
At times, this game would break if players tied on the rolloff to go first, rerolled, and tied a second time. Not break as in one side autowon or it became a draw, but break as in no step forward, even for ending the game.
At some point, this game needs a social construct between players. So what is a rule and what is not a rule isn't as black-and-white as we sometimes like to think.
"Also 100% not my problem and your own darn fault."
My desire to play WYSIWYG is 100% not your problem. But your rage against players who do want to play WYSIWYG is your problem.
Sure, it's my own "fault" for wanting to play my models the way I made them. Except that I see that more as a "credit" than a "fault". Why can't you accept that people who see things differently from you are not inherently wrong and evil?
Weren't Flying Monstrous Creatures an entry that said they had all the rules of Monstrous Creatures with the following additions? If they weren't, you could argue it otherwise. I might be remembering 7th instead of 6th.
Also by your logic you aren't able to do several unit configurations. The Tactical Marine box doesn't have a Grav Cannon and yet they have it as an option, which you gotta buy from the Devastator box. Interchangeable kits, it seems, is an advantage here, unless you wanna keep saying you gotta use the correct boxes.
The game also shouldn't need a social contract. The only thing players should agree on is a point limit, and they shouldn't have to fix the damn game for GW themselves.
If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades on each individual Tactical Marine, the grenades on each individual Assault Marine and Vangaurd, the Plasma grenades on each individual Eldar infantry...
It's kinda unreasonable, wouldn't you agree, to ask someone that?
"The game also shouldn't need a social contract."
If we, as a species, can't do basic algebra without social contracts and constructs, how the hell are we going to play this game?
"Also by your logic you aren't able to do several unit configurations."
I don't think you follow. I'm not saying that that rule should be followed. I'm pointing out how absurd it would be to follow that rule. Reduction to the absurd.
"If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades"
Certainly! I'd never go that far in my modelling. I do what looks awesome and makes the representation clear (although the first occasionally trumps the second). But I *wouldn't* go around forums trying to bash people who *do*. How WYSIWYG *I* want to be should be up to me, not you. Why do you have so much of a problem with that?
To anyone saying the game shouldn't have a social contract, I agree that GW should write a tight rule set and fix any obvious errors or ambiguity. But what type of game your going to play is something that should be discussed briefly. Though this edition has technically broke the game up into different modes, two people playing should talk about how competitive of a game you want to play.
I would argue the slots don't matter period. 100% don't.
That would be a poor assertion. CPs matter. "Tax" matters. Just those two things plainly show that slots matter. You can build to mitigate the effects, but then they are affecting your build. And therefore matter again.
Tax only ever applies to troops and you know that. Luckily Marine variants have Scouts and Cultists to help avoid that for the most part, but some armies have good troops.
If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades on each individual Tactical Marine, the grenades on each individual Assault Marine and Vangaurd, the Plasma grenades on each individual Eldar infantry...
I would argue the slots don't matter period. 100% don't.
That would be a poor assertion. CPs matter. "Tax" matters. Just those two things plainly show that slots matter. You can build to mitigate the effects, but then they are affecting your build. And therefore matter again.
Tax only ever applies to troops and you know that. Luckily Marine variants have Scouts and Cultists to help avoid that for the most part, but some armies have good troops.
HQs are the taxes that stop me from double battalion, soo. . . Wrong again I guess.
If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades on each individual Tactical Marine, the grenades on each individual Assault Marine and Vangaurd, the Plasma grenades on each individual Eldar infantry...
Bharring wrote: "The game also shouldn't need a social contract."
If we, as a species, can't do basic algebra without social contracts and constructs, how the hell are we going to play this game?
"Also by your logic you aren't able to do several unit configurations."
I don't think you follow. I'm not saying that that rule should be followed. I'm pointing out how absurd it would be to follow that rule. Reduction to the absurd.
"If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades"
Certainly! I'd never go that far in my modelling. I do what looks awesome and makes the representation clear (although the first occasionally trumps the second). But I *wouldn't* go around forums trying to bash people who *do*. How WYSIWYG *I* want to be should be up to me, not you. Why do you have so much of a problem with that?
Numbers don't require social contracts. What you're thinking of is the language we communicate them in.
There's gonna be an overall universal rule for models. Overall correct wargear and similar model size is all you really need. If your Chapter just has Chainaxes instead of Chainswords, counts-as is fine as there actually isn't a Chainaxe option, though it'll go along the same principles as being a similar weapon. If you want to use the Assault Marine models as is, though, there isn't a point when using the actual Assault Marine unit entry. That's why you can just say that the recruits that year are just that good.
Fluff wise, you can justify a lot. Use Assault Marines all you want, just use them as a different unit entry for results that aren't terrible. If anything, try not to buy them to help GW realize they need to fix said unit.
I would argue the slots don't matter period. 100% don't.
That would be a poor assertion. CPs matter. "Tax" matters. Just those two things plainly show that slots matter. You can build to mitigate the effects, but then they are affecting your build. And therefore matter again.
Tax only ever applies to troops and you know that. Luckily Marine variants have Scouts and Cultists to help avoid that for the most part, but some armies have good troops.
HQs are the taxes that stop me from double battalion, soo. . . Wrong again I guess.
If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades on each individual Tactical Marine, the grenades on each individual Assault Marine and Vangaurd, the Plasma grenades on each individual Eldar infantry...
I totally do that...
Same
Aren't you the one that says to keep your HQ's bare bones so you can do PA swarm? No wonder they feel like a tax. However, it isn't hard to fit HQ units in. For your particular case, Techmarines are a cheap addition and you can get a Conversion Beamer if you felt like it. That's not a lot of points not a tax, though not supportive either.
If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades on each individual Tactical Marine, the grenades on each individual Assault Marine and Vangaurd, the Plasma grenades on each individual Eldar infantry...
I totally do that...
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Then why bother using the worse unit entry?
You've been given plenty of answers for this question before, but you refuse to accept anything other than running the most optimal list entries being a valid way to play and thus I don't think anyone needs to repeat things to you about how the game is more than just mathematical optimization for many of us.
What part of "if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans" you have trouble understanding? The models have been painted so ages ago.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Then why bother using the worse unit entry?
You've been given plenty of answers for this question before, but you refuse to accept anything other than running the most optimal list entries being a valid way to play and thus I don't think anyone needs to repeat things to you about how the game is more than just mathematical optimization for many of us.
It's an imaginary restriction on yourself though. It isn't a reason, let alone a GOOD reason.
What part of "if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans" you have trouble understanding? The models have been painted so ages ago.
So fluff wise the recruits were super good that year. It's not an excuse to use the worse unit entry at all.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
If you're not comfortable using the Vets using the appropriate markings, you shouldn't be comfortable using the models without modeling ALL Bolt Pistols and grenades. You either follow your own standard or you don't with WYSIWYG.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Then why bother using the worse unit entry?
You've been given plenty of answers for this question before, but you refuse to accept anything other than running the most optimal list entries being a valid way to play and thus I don't think anyone needs to repeat things to you about how the game is more than just mathematical optimization for many of us.
It's an imaginary restriction on yourself though. It isn't a reason, let alone a GOOD reason.
A reason, even if considered a poor reason is still a reason regardless of where it comes from. I don't know why you don't seem to get it, but let me try spelling it out for you:
Not every human being shares the same metric for decision making. As such the weight of our choices vary, leading to very different choices and reasons for making said choices.
So a choice you'd never make, because to you it's invalid as an option, to others is the first, and possibly only choice.
In short: your metric is useless to anyone who isn't you and forcing it on others while decrying how they approach the game as "wrong" isn't the kind of attitude anyone wants to deal with in this game. Good luck getting games when you're too busy telling people how to build their army "correctly" to let them do what they find fun.
Now I'm going to go back to building my Space Goats for Kill Team instead of trading blows with someone who can't understand the viewpoints of others much less respect the choices they choose to make in a game that is built completely around arbitrary choices based around self imposed restrictions in terms of army selection, unit selection and even the colors we choose to paint our models.
It's an imaginary restriction on yourself though. It isn't a reason, let alone a GOOD reason.
It is good reason for me! And of fething course it is imaginary, a big part of the appeal of this game is to partake the imaginary world the models represent.
If you're not comfortable using the Vets using the appropriate markings, you shouldn't be comfortable using the models without modeling ALL Bolt Pistols and grenades.
And I am not. I already said so. All my models have appropriate bolt pistols and grenades. Look, you can halfass your models if you want, but don't judge others for wanting it to do it properly.
I never thought I'd see the day where people were criticized for holding themselves to a higher level in a hobby or a game setting. It's more and more common on this site and a few others.
Bharring wrote: Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?
He still can't accept mutilators being decent in 7th despite the 6 mutilator list having a 75% win rate.
Nobody cares about your casual local meta. Seriously. Bringing up anecdotes of that nature doesn't even create good discussion.
see
Not to be that guy, but a 75% win rate in locals isn't very impressive. I mean, when you're clubbing baby-seals...
They've won vs lists featuring centstars, multiple ik, eldar standard scatbike+wk spam, even though they mainly scored and denied center vs eldar. Lost to fw artillery list with renegade knights. There were no crushing victories but at the same time no crushing defeats. I'd not call any of those lists casual.
So...that's more of a psychological problem going on. "If a unit is not auto-win or requires some tactics to be used, it's garbage".
Mutilators constantly outperformed obliterators. While being considered 'one of the worst units in the game'. Paradox.
There is technically a rule that you use *the* datasheet that matches your model. Clearly, the Vanguard Vet datasheet matches the Vanguard Vet model, and the ASM datasheet matches the ASM model. A very technical reading would find that it would not actually be game-legal to kitbash VV from the ASM kit or vice versa! And that's a far cry from the counts-as you demean me for not wanting to do with my models. But I honestly know no-one who would play that rule.
At times, this game would break if players tied on the rolloff to go first, rerolled, and tied a second time. Not break as in one side autowon or it became a draw, but break as in no step forward, even for ending the game.
Actually there is no such rule. WYSIWYG isn't a rule any more so you don't even need to have the correct equipment.
And no, the rules explicitly say that you keep re-rolling roll-offs until one player wins.
Designer Commentary, intended for how to play Index-only models/wargear. One *potential* overly-technical reading would suggest that you must use the appropriate datasheet, but not necessarily the appropriate wargear. In other words, if you give a Bolter Dood a combi-Plas and all sorts of bling, he can be a Tac Marine with Boltgun, but cannot be a Sternguard with Combi. Which is entertaining, but not the only way to read that rule, and nobody I know would ever play that way.
At times, the rules did *not* explicitly say that. They do now. However, the game didn't break back when they *did* say that.
The point on both of these is that some reasonability is necessary for the health of the game. If mathematicians can't even agree A+B = B+A without social constructs (postulates everyone agrees with), how could a complex-ish game like 40k work?
So, clearly, players need to agree on some 'imaginary restrictions' to make the game worth playing. What those are will vary between any pairing of players quite a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Crimson,
I'm tempted to say 'screenshot or it didn't happen'. Not because I don't believe you, but because I like the idea of seeing them. That said, I won't make that claim, because I won't be uploading pictures of my guys.
There is technically a rule that you use *the* datasheet that matches your model. Clearly, the Vanguard Vet datasheet matches the Vanguard Vet model, and the ASM datasheet matches the ASM model. A very technical reading would find that it would not actually be game-legal to kitbash VV from the ASM kit or vice versa! And that's a far cry from the counts-as you demean me for not wanting to do with my models. But I honestly know no-one who would play that rule.
At times, this game would break if players tied on the rolloff to go first, rerolled, and tied a second time. Not break as in one side autowon or it became a draw, but break as in no step forward, even for ending the game.
Actually there is no such rule. WYSIWYG isn't a rule any more so you don't even need to have the correct equipment.
And no, the rules explicitly say that you keep re-rolling roll-offs until one player wins.
There are some rules I am totally okay with not enforcing. Like...I have no problem with models on jet bikes attacking units on the second floor if they don't have any room to stand there...cause they are freaking flying.
WYSIWYG may not be an explicit rule, but it is a form of social contract in many games. I mean most of us are willing to let you proxy an Exalted Sorceror as Ahriman if you just want to try him out (or vice versa if you just want to play a cool model as a generic dude) but if every game you have to say your flamers are actually plasma and all of your grenade launchers are meltas, it's going to cause people to stop playing you eventually.
The markings on a model and its wargear are to allow both players to quickly identify what they're looking at without needing to stop and study the models. This is why painted models tend to be better to play against than grey plastic: it makes playing easier because you can more easily recognize what you're looking at instead of stopping to ask or need to take a closer look at the models.
Basically it stopped being a rule because it's become an expectation that when you look at a model that it'll be modeled to represent itself properly. There are exceptions (like if you want chainsword bayonetted bolters on your Assault Marines for a cool conversion to represent bolt pistol and chainsword, or if you don't model grenades on your basic guys when the entire squad comes with them), but when it comes to special equipment (vox, banners, icons, special weapons, ect) there is definitely an expectation that the models will be accurate representations of what they should be.
Likewise, if you paint your assault marines as a FA choice with the markings but spend every game telling people they're actually VVs, then eventually people are going to wonder when you're going to repaint them to represent the first company and the correct markings, or just get some actually VVs to play instead because they're going to get tired of spotting AM markings on your vets and needing to mentally correct themselves constantly.
If you have a simplier paint scheme that ignores such things (despite the Codex Astartes not approving this action), then the fact remains that you're going to need to make sure however you mark your models is still distinct enough that units can be told apart if they end up in a mixed melee or when setting them up next to each other to ensure you grab the correct models for casualties and movement. Which still means markings will remain important regardless of claims otherwise.
While i'll never ding anyone for going into painting things in great detail, no one in my area is going to expect someone to repaint a model when war gear wise there is practically no difference between the models standard wargear. If you have five guys with jump packs and BP/CS then play them as either is normal in my area. If someone expected different to me that's insane when most people do not paint their models to that level.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While i'll never ding anyone for going into painting things in great detail, no one in my area is going to expect someone to repaint a model when war gear wise there is practically no difference between the models standard wargear. If you have five guys with jump packs and BP/CS then play them as either is normal in my area. If someone expected different to me that's insane when most people do not paint their models to that level.
But this is was about personal standards, not about imposing those standards on others.
The poster above said people would stop playing you if you didn't repaint your assault marines as VV. This seems a step too far. I wouldn't do that.
I find the whole "my melta is a plasma gun" more annoying, because it can feel like list tailoring.
On the other hand if I was playing a friend and he wanted 4 missile launchers say in a devastator squad, but the box forced him to have a hodgepodge of guns, I'd be okay with it rather than insisting he buys sufficient boxes to make it happen.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While i'll never ding anyone for going into painting things in great detail, no one in my area is going to expect someone to repaint a model when war gear wise there is practically no difference between the models standard wargear. If you have five guys with jump packs and BP/CS then play them as either is normal in my area. If someone expected different to me that's insane when most people do not paint their models to that level.
Congrats on having an environment where people don't push their painting as hard as some do?
It wasn't an argument to have people constantly repaint things, but more a point that if you paint to a high level with unit markings then it becomes like wargear: the occasional proxy is fine, but a constant proxy should be backed by the proper kit. Be it a flamer on your guy properly, or the right unit marking to promote your assault marines to vets then you should take the time to do it if you're going to constantly be using that proxy.
I mean no one appreciates constantly needing to remember that your flamers are plasma, your grenade launchers are meltas and all your power fists are actually power axes every week, like wise no one wants to have to constantly remember what unit is filling in for what this week just because you don't want to update the unit markings to reflect their new unit role.
That said, if you don't care to mark stuff out like that (which makes me wonder why you play Marines since that's part of the appeal: all the icongraphy they have), as long as your opponent can tell units apart when they're next to each other then your doing fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: The poster above said people would stop playing you if you didn't repaint your assault marines as VV. This seems a step too far. I wouldn't do that.
I find the whole "my melta is a plasma gun" more annoying, because it can feel like list tailoring.
On the other hand if I was playing a friend and he wanted 4 missile launchers say in a devastator squad, but the box forced him to have a hodgepodge of guns, I'd be okay with it rather than insisting he buys sufficient boxes to make it happen.
It was specificially in relation to having a high level of painting and then constantly proxying one unit as another, something that can cause the same level of confusion as proxies if it slips someone's mind during the middle of a game. If you have FA markings on your shoulder pads but proxy as VV all the time, then it's possible for someone to forget that they're actually VV and end up making a tactical mistake based on your proxy, which can cause people to be less likely to play you if you constantly do this kind of thing.
Also, if you want 4 missile launchers and play Marines you can get them easily from the Tactical box (same for Heavy Bolters) The real pain is getting 4 Lascannons for devastators.
This is where the social contract becomes necessary:
A new player's HB/LC/MM/etc being a Grav Cannon once to give it a try before he buys, of course that's fine.
A guy who comes every week and plays popcans as droppods and little plastic army men as Marines, I'm not nearly as interested in spending my time in a game with that.
There really isn't one breakpoint that everyone shares in what they'll enjoy, or at least accept.
The argument in this thread, for the last 6 pages at least, is whether a player can reasonably hold *themselves* to *their own* standards on *their own* models. I don't get the hate and vitrol for those who hold themselves to higher WYSIWYG standards.
Bharring wrote: This is where the social contract becomes necessary:
A new player's HB/LC/MM/etc being a Grav Cannon once to give it a try before he buys, of course that's fine.
A guy who comes every week and plays popcans as droppods and little plastic army men as Marines, I'm not nearly as interested in spending my time in a game with that.
There really isn't one breakpoint that everyone shares in what they'll enjoy, or at least accept.
The argument in this thread, for the last 6 pages at least, is whether a player can reasonably hold *themselves* to *their own* standards on *their own* models. I don't get the hate and vitrol for those who hold themselves to higher WYSIWYG standards.
Oh I agree, holding yourself to a higher standard should be applauded, I was just pointing out that in some respects that paint schemes can be as important as wargear, and it's possible for it to cause the same confusion as any proxy, meaning that it can become harder to proxy if you have higher standards about your painting.
I do a lot of conversion work. Some much so that it is very, very rare for me to assemble a model out of the box using the suggested instructions. One of my goals is to always ensure my opponent can look at my models and know what they are and what they are equipped with nearly 0 explanation.
That's a standard we can all strive for, I think, regardless of our personal standards for our own models
I think you would find that, more often than not, those who go through the trouble of doing company/squad markings, or model every pistol and grenade, would be *more* appreciative of such conversions, rather than less.
I wouldn't want to run my ASM as Vanguard Vets. However, I have a Harlequin with no pistol. It's flipping over a rock springing up with one hand, bringing a weapon down in the other - so no hand for the pistol. I love that model. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
My point is that I model my models to be something specific. And to be clear about what they are at a glance. In the Harlequins case, it's clear he doesn't have a Fusion or Neuro pistol, so it's assumed equipped stock (Shuriken pistol). Never had a problem with that. Doubt I'll ever run into someone with a problem with that.
The desire is for the model to be evocative of what they represent on the table. Technical accuracy (vet markings, company markings, grenades, pistols) all help. But technical accuracy comes after evocation, which in turns comes after Rule of Cool (yes, no longer in the rulebook - but it was actually a rule in 6th).
Playing my ASM as VV violates the technical accuracy, sure (markings). It also violates evocation - as they clearly evoke "ASM squad". And does nothing for "Rule of Cool".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Side note - I hope everyone has the pleasure of going up against Nid-riding Orkz or the like. I don't have such an army (closest is a couple Exodite models, but not enough for a full list). So much creativity goes into making it clear what each unit is, while building some awesome and creative models.
Cool conversions are always welcome as long as the conversions are consistent. If you're using pole axes as power axes across the entire army on your biker Marines, don't suddenly say some of them are actually power swords.
And Bharring hits the point well I feel about the whole technical accuracy < evocation < rule of cool. If you take the time to convert something cool, as long as it follows some kind of logic that stays consistent across your army you can have Orks riding Marines piggy back style as your bikers and I'd be okay with it.
The thing is at the end of the day for those of us who take the time to personalize and tweak our models beyond the bare minimum unit proxies become less and less likely because in some cases the unit stops being able to be used outside of the thing is was made for due to how specific the conversions are.
On a different note, after thinking about Devastators earlier, I'm kind of disappointed that I can't have a Rubric squad of Havocs with Soulreaper Cannons (or Heavy Warpflamers) as a heavy support. Grass is always greener I guess.
ClockworkZion wrote: The thing is at the end of the day for those of us who take the time to personalize and tweak our models beyond the bare minimum unit proxies become less and less likely because in some cases the unit stops being able to be used outside of the thing is was made for due to how specific the conversions are.
Yeah, 2 of my favorite conversions ever have suffered this:
Spoiler:
I originally made these back when the WraithKnight first came out and was basically 2x the wounds and speed of a Wraithlord with better guns. WKs were Heavy Support MCs back then, so being jetbike themed, I put 2 Wratihlords on Vypers. 2x wounds? Check, 2x Movement? Check Better guns? Check Then the WK became a LoW GMC and could stomp. I didn't feel my conversions represented WKs very well anymore. So I made slight alterations to use them "Prototype anti-daemon constructs" using the rules for GK Dreadknights:
Spoiler:
Note that I took the time to A) paint the head silver and B) give it a Heavy Psycannon. I also had 6 "Wraith guard" altered with the appropriate wargear to be 5 GKTs and a Libbie so I could use the Allied detachment
Fast forward to 8E and I can't even use them as GKs because you can't mix Imperials with Eldar anymore. I modeled them back with yellow heads and added bigger wing fins (the first pic above) and now I use them as Hemlocks.
They are are supposed to be recruits. Tactical squads naturally have been around longer. and served in the 8th company. They basically have more experience and would naturally last longer. They should cost little more than scouts.
The Allfather wrote: They are are supposed to be recruits. Tactical squads naturally have been around longer. and served in the 8th company. They should cost little more than scouts.
Considering the extra mobility and identical statline to Tacticals, I'd say 1-2 points more than a Tactical since they can bop about the board faster and benefit from the fly key word.
The real issue then is what Tacticals should cost to fix them.
The Allfather wrote: They are are supposed to be recruits. Tactical squads naturally have been around longer. and served in the 8th company. They should cost little more than scouts.
Considering the extra mobility and identical statline to Tacticals, I'd say 1-2 points more than a Tactical since they can bop about the board faster and benefit from the fly key word.
The real issue then is what Tacticals should cost to fix them.
You're forgetting the bolter. There's no reason to bop anywhere when you can drop in 2 to three squads of tacticals cutting a field in half. Hard to reach objectives when you're openent drops in a phalix infront of your intended bopping point.
The Allfather wrote: They are are supposed to be recruits. Tactical squads naturally have been around longer. and served in the 8th company. They should cost little more than scouts.
Considering the extra mobility and identical statline to Tacticals, I'd say 1-2 points more than a Tactical since they can bop about the board faster and benefit from the fly key word.
The real issue then is what Tacticals should cost to fix them.
At times, this game would break if players tied on the rolloff to go first, rerolled, and tied a second time. Not break as in one side autowon or it became a draw, but break as in no step forward, even for ending the game.
False - there is not a single point in this game where the rules break.
Why? Because of The Most Important Rule: There may be times when you are not sure how to resolve a situation like tieing the second roll off, for example. A rule may not exist to explicitly tell you what to do, so when this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you. If no single solution presents itself (and to be honest, in your example the easiest and simplest solution is to bloody well try rolling again, gents) then roll off and decide on that. Keep invoking this rule until you're satisfied every conflict is resolved.
Then get on with the game.
This is the single most powerful and important rule of the game and everybody with a rules issue where the game supposedly 'breaks' seems to 'conveniently' forget this. It's the coverall rule that ensures the game CAN'T break, because per the rules, if something isn't clear how it should resolve, you discuss it and resolve it this way.
Bharring wrote: Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?
He still can't accept mutilators being decent in 7th despite the 6 mutilator list having a 75% win rate.
Nobody cares about your casual local meta. Seriously. Bringing up anecdotes of that nature doesn't even create good discussion.
see
Not to be that guy, but a 75% win rate in locals isn't very impressive. I mean, when you're clubbing baby-seals...
They've won vs lists featuring centstars, multiple ik, eldar standard scatbike+wk spam, even though they mainly scored and denied center vs eldar. Lost to fw artillery list with renegade knights. There were no crushing victories but at the same time no crushing defeats. I'd not call any of those lists casual.
So...that's more of a psychological problem going on. "If a unit is not auto-win or requires some tactics to be used, it's garbage".
Mutilators constantly outperformed obliterators. While being considered 'one of the worst units in the game'. Paradox.
Cent stars? Scatter bikes? What is this, 7th ed?
I could beat a cent star list with my grey Knights dude. Also the argument isn’t that they require know how, it’s that there is a unit that is 1:1 better.
Lemon,
There are technical points where, if both players were being complete tools and hyperliteral, even that rule breaks. For instance, "I assert that I'm $faction, therefore, on a 2+ I win, on a 1+ you lose.". Do you just 4+ that? What if both players assert the same thing, but for their own faction - what order do you resolve that in? Do you 4+ to decide the order?
Yes, it does get pedantic and stupid. I'd just concede long before it got to that point. But The Most Important Rule solves almost all rules problem, and is a great guideline for solving any remaining issues.
It is a good callout that all the other examples in this thread *did* forget this rule (sorry, my bad).
But then lets try to apply it to the points that were brought up: on a 4+, must I rewrite my list to make my ASM who are modeled as ASM be VV? Do you mind if I just concede and play someone else at that point?
Bharring wrote: Lemon,
There are technical points where, if both players were being complete tools and hyperliteral, even that rule breaks. For instance, "I assert that I'm $faction, therefore, on a 2+ I win, on a 1+ you lose.". Do you just 4+ that? What if both players assert the same thing, but for their own faction - what order do you resolve that in? Do you 4+ to decide the order?
Yes, it does get pedantic and stupid. I'd just concede long before it got to that point. But The Most Important Rule solves almost all rules problem, and is a great guideline for solving any remaining issues.
It is a good callout that all the other examples in this thread *did* forget this rule (sorry, my bad).
But then lets try to apply it to the points that were brought up: on a 4+, must I rewrite my list to make my ASM who are modeled as ASM be VV? Do you mind if I just concede and play someone else at that point?
If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.
I try to refrain from commenting on how people play the game, but honestly that attitude is fething atrocious.
If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Because I've never won a game with ASM in it?
And never gotten value (learned something or had fun, usually the latter) out of a game I didn't win?
What, really then, is the point of playing Warhammer instead of Candyland?
I've won games in 6th/7th with Tyberos and you have Koo rambling about how great his Mutilators did. None of that matters in the long run. At all.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.
I try to refrain from commenting on how people play the game, but honestly that attitude is fething atrocious.
If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.
Your attitude of looking down your nose at people for making choices that don't line up with being the beardiest goon in the room seem frankly is the sort of toxicity that no hobby group should ever have pushed onto it. Frankly how you get games outside of tournaments treating people this poorly amazes me.
If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.
When people talk about 'toxic competitive attitude' this is what they mean.
I hope I wind up running into more players like Clockwork than Slayer, I guess.
We're probably both better off if we don't play eachother, because we're clearly playing different games.
I would appreciate if you'd stop calling me stupid, stop rejecting my reasons as "not reasons", and such.
I'd also suggest you check out StarCraft and DOTA. Those games seem to be much more in line with caring more about the crunch than putting models together and painting them. They also have "ladder" modes so you can avoid people you feel are beneath you.
Bharring wrote: I hope I wind up running into more players like Clockwork than Slayer, I guess.
I want to say thanks, but the 'I guess" has me worried that I'm seen as the less toxic alternative here.
I admit I can be a bit strong headed about stuff like this, but that's only because I feel that anyone who buys models should be able to play them, even if they're not great. If you want to throw down a hard list against me, great! I'll play those too, especially in tournaments, but it isn't the only thing I play and my enjoyment of this hobby isn't solely rooted playing games (especially since I only get to game about once or twice a week but have a lot more time to paint and model or pour over lore). Basically it's because of this that I have such a strong feeling about putting stuff you think is cool on the table as you see fit. I mean no one wants to be told that they basically can't play something they spent several hours building, and several more painting, because it isn't good enough to be worth playing against.
The "I guess" was an attempt to just kinda let that statement float and offer an end to this madness. Nothing about you has come across as toxic. I was just trying to minimize the criticism of Slayer in my statement.
Bharring wrote: The "I guess" was an attempt to just kinda let that statement float and offer an end to this madness. Nothing about you has come across as toxic. I was just trying to minimize the criticism of Slayer in my statement.
It's fair, I guess I was just still keyed up from Slayer's attitude of "my way or feth off out of the hobby".
Bharring wrote: I hope I wind up running into more players like Clockwork than Slayer, I guess.
We're probably both better off if we don't play eachother, because we're clearly playing different games.
I would appreciate if you'd stop calling me stupid, stop rejecting my reasons as "not reasons", and such.
I'd also suggest you check out StarCraft and DOTA. Those games seem to be much more in line with caring more about the crunch than putting models together and painting them. They also have "ladder" modes so you can avoid people you feel are beneath you.
Well at least star craft has really good custom games. DOTA is just a recreation of a warcraft3 minigame (really that minigame was the best of it's kind - better than LOL and DOTA2).
So no it's not more about the crunch in those games. They just can test things a lot easier. Simulations can really test 1000's of scenarios at a time in a computer game. Plus they constantly balance the game with micro tweeks too.
I think the following solves every problem in this thread:
1. Q: Are assault Marines good? A: No. See any Marine thread for more on why.
2. Q: But what if I want to play with them anyway? A: Go for it, but they aren't good.
3. Q: Can I play them as something else? A: VV or DC, probably.
4. Q: What if I don't want to do that? A: Then don't.
jcd386 wrote: I think the following solves every problem in this thread:
1. Q: Are assault Marines good? A: No. See any Marine thread for more on why.
2. Q: But what if I want to play with them anyway? A: Go for it, but they aren't good.
3. Q: Can I play them as something else? A: VV or DC, probably.
4. Q: What if I don't want to do that? A: Then don't.
5. Q: How many Heretics could an Assault Marine kill if the assault marine was Sanguinius?
jcd386 wrote: I think the following solves every problem in this thread:
1. Q: Are assault Marines good? A: No. See any Marine thread for more on why.
2. Q: But what if I want to play with them anyway? A: Go for it, but they aren't good.
3. Q: Can I play them as something else? A: VV or DC, probably.
4. Q: What if I don't want to do that? A: Then don't.
If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.
When people talk about 'toxic competitive attitude' this is what they mean.
I'm looking for a good game, not just a game. That's the primary difference between you and me.
I think the difference is in that definition. I think just about everyone on this board is looking for a "good" game, but our definitions of "good" vary a lot.
If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.
When people talk about 'toxic competitive attitude' this is what they mean.
I'm looking for a good game, not just a game. That's the primary difference between you and me.
"Good" is relative. Or are narrative campaign games built around an escalation league not "good" if they don't try and fall into being as hard as the LVO meta?
Bharring wrote: I hope I wind up running into more players like Clockwork than Slayer, I guess.
We're probably both better off if we don't play eachother, because we're clearly playing different games.
I would appreciate if you'd stop calling me stupid, stop rejecting my reasons as "not reasons", and such.
I'd also suggest you check out StarCraft and DOTA. Those games seem to be much more in line with caring more about the crunch than putting models together and painting them. They also have "ladder" modes so you can avoid people you feel are beneath you.
I was actually hardcore about Starcraft enough that one of my old buddies was gonna hook me up with some players that apparently go from here to Korea, but life has a way of interfering with cool stuff.
I think the difference is in that definition. I think just about everyone on this board is looking for a "good" game, but our definitions of "good" vary a lot.
I'm looking for a game where my opponent challenges me rather than doing silly stuff for the "lolz".
If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.
When people talk about 'toxic competitive attitude' this is what they mean.
I'm looking for a good game, not just a game. That's the primary difference between you and me.
"Good" is relative. Or are narrative campaign games built around an escalation league not "good" if they don't try and fall into being as hard as the LVO meta?
"Narrative" armies are absolutely bad, yes. They're boring and don't look cohesive on the tabletop.
"I'm looking for a game where my opponent challenges me rather than doing silly stuff for the "lolz". "
So your definition of a good game is a tactical challenge. My definition is more about how much fun is had by all, although a tactical challenge is positive. But then, I've found other games are much, much better *for me* to find tactical challenges in. Everyone is after different things.
I would suggest you not dismiss anything short of a tight and difficult tactical challenge as "silly stuff" or "for the lolz". First, because there's a lot more to it than that, so you're being dismissive and insulting for a false sense of superiority. Secondly because 40k is not a difficult tactical challenge in almost every case.
""Narrative" armies are absolutely bad, yes."
Gladius was plently narrative.
White Scars Gravspam was, too.
Current CWE lists seem somewhat fluffy.
IG providing tactical flexibility to elite Custodes seems fluffy.
Those armies seem to be fluffy and certainly not bad.
"They're boring ..."
Boring is relative. Knowing the end of a game before the first dice roll is boring to me. Playing against the same units and lists again and again is boring to me. Narrative tends to shake those things up.
"and don't look cohesive on the tabletop."
Why does a half-painted mass of plastic look more cohesive than a fully detailed demicompany? Does a Soup list really look more cohesive than a Necron Silver Tide? What makes the "good" armies - as you rank them - look more cohesive than the "narrative" armies you hate so much?
I think the difference is in that definition. I think just about everyone on this board is looking for a "good" game, but our definitions of "good" vary a lot.
I've done a lot of thinking about this and it's very difficult to pin down.
Essentially, on a case by case basis - which is all the discussion ever is on Dakka Dakka - it's impossible, because there's always at least one contrarian. Like Insectum7 saying that we can't assume standardized terrain for the purposes of balance discussions. Maybe that's true, but it makes discussion impossible if we don't have a baseline.
In any case, contrarians aside, I would say a good game is one where both players have fun. In a general sense, people enjoy close games more than blowouts. Unpacking "close game," I would say that it's one wherein both players feel like they have the power to win the game, and it comes down to decisions and rolls.
A list heavily leaning on units like assault marines reduce the impact of decisions and rolls. You can put them in the perfect position and it probably won't matter. You can roll like fire with them and in the end it probably won't matter. So, they don't contribute to a good game.
Slayer-Fan, you sound like the sort of person who thinks copying netlists is the height of skill. I'd like to think I have pretty good grasp of which units are good and which are bad, yet sometimes I still include 'bad' units because I liked the models or they fit the army thematically etc. This doesn't mean that once the game starts, I don't play to win. Of course I do. And if my army selection effectively resulted a self-inflicted handicap, so be it. It is more of a challenge then.
I think the difference is in that definition. I think just about everyone on this board is looking for a "good" game, but our definitions of "good" vary a lot.
I've done a lot of thinking about this and it's very difficult to pin down.
Essentially, on a case by case basis - which is all the discussion ever is on Dakka Dakka - it's impossible, because there's always at least one contrarian. Like Insectum7 saying that we can't assume standardized terrain for the purposes of balance discussions. Maybe that's true, but it makes discussion impossible if we don't have a baseline.
In any case, contrarians aside, I would say a good game is one where both players have fun. In a general sense, people enjoy close games more than blowouts. Unpacking "close game," I would say that it's one wherein both players feel like they have the power to win the game, and it comes down to decisions and rolls.
A list heavily leaning on units like assault marines reduce the impact of decisions and rolls. You can put them in the perfect position and it probably won't matter. You can roll like fire with them and in the end it probably won't matter. So, they don't contribute to a good game.
Insert dakka-dakka contrarian stance here:
Well since we need a Tzeentch's Advocate here:
The above is true unless both players are playing the same level of list. Which is true for all of 40k. If you both grab less than optimized choices in your lists the game can be just as close, though it could take longer since you may end up in less of a hard punch out and in more of a pillow fight for dominance.
And to play Khorne's Advocate here:
If you're fielding a bad list, and still winning over 50% of your games, wouldn't fielding a less bad list *reduce* the challenge?
Bharring wrote: And to play Khorne's Advocate here:
If you're fielding a bad list, and still winning over 50% of your games, wouldn't fielding a less bad list *reduce* the challenge?
If you're fielding a good list and losing 100% of your games, wouldn't fielding a terrible list be essentially equivalent? We can do this nonsense all day.
Bharring wrote: And to play Khorne's Advocate here:
If you're fielding a bad list, and still winning over 50% of your games, wouldn't fielding a less bad list *reduce* the challenge?
Yep. I really don't like completely one sided games, not even if it is me winning. The best games are those where the battle is hard-fought and every turn matters. I really don't want to win in the list building stage.
Bharring wrote: And to play Khorne's Advocate here:
If you're fielding a bad list, and still winning over 50% of your games, wouldn't fielding a less bad list *reduce* the challenge?
Yep. I really don't like completely one sided games, not even if it is me winning. The best games are those where the battle is hard-fought and every turn matters. I really don't want to win in the list building stage.
Then just play 5 tac marines with no special weapons versus another squad of 5 tac marines with no special weapons.
There is more to it. Decisions need to matter.
But this is dakka, and it's impossible to have a discussion in a general sense as that requires a baseline set of assumptions.
One is someone who's clearly at par for his meta, where changing up his list may make most games have no difficulty at all.
The other is someone who's not even challenging anyone in his meta already, and then makes it even easier for his opponent.
Discounting draws, the average W/L rate in an NvN game is 50/50. That's inescapeable. The further a subset deviates from 50%, the less likely the games involved are to be a challenge.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A game with 50/50 odds doesn't need to be a bland mirror match.
It's possible to have an Aspect Host, Demi Company, Silver Tide, Speed Freaks, and more all in a meta, each with a very different army, yet still have each player be within a couple percent of eachother in W/L/D.
Then just play 5 tac marines with no special weapons versus another squad of 5 tac marines with no special weapons.
Sounds kinda boring.
There is more to it. Decisions need to matter.
And once the game begins they will. But seriously, trying to build best possible list doesn't require skill; they're not even your decisions, you can just copy tournament winning lists from the net. Or even without doing so, experienced players just know which units are good and that dictates the optimal list for them.
In 6e, I had the choice of playing DAVU spam. Sure, I liked the models. But if I picked that choice, suddenly 95% of all my choices in-game either went away or didn't matter.
So perhaps there are, at times, tradeoffs between having choices that matter in list prep, and choices that matter in-game?
I think the difference is in that definition. I think just about everyone on this board is looking for a "good" game, but our definitions of "good" vary a lot.
I think a good game goes something like this.
I put a dedicated assault unit into assault with a non dedicated assault unit - This should more or less create a beneficial situation for me. If it's assault marines though - it's doing the damage of a tactical squads shooting in melle. It's going to produce a few wounds - they will fall back and the ASM will be blasted off the table but chaff units. That is not a good game.
My point earlier (while giving the obligatory counter-point) was that any game can be a close one. If you know you're playing someone who doesn't play super hard lists, toning yours down doesn't hurt either of you and can let you dust off some units that used to be good but now suck while giving both of you a good game.
Crimson wrote: Slayer-Fan, you sound like the sort of person who thinks copying netlists is the height of skill.
Oh look, the netlist argument! The height of laziness in arguments for games! People have done this crap with "netdeck" in Yugioh and Magic The Gathering. When the card is bad, it's really just a bad card. At minimum MTG has past format games, and you STILL have people in Yugioh that sometimes do "Goat Format", but otherwise your old cards are SOL unless you get new support.
Crimson wrote: Slayer-Fan, you sound like the sort of person who thinks copying netlists is the height of skill.
Oh look, the netlist argument! The height of laziness in arguments for games! People have done this crap with "netdeck" in Yugioh and Magic The Gathering. When the card is bad, it's really just a bad card. At minimum MTG has past format games, and you STILL have people in Yugioh that sometimes do "Goat Format", but otherwise your old cards are SOL unless you get new support.
Copying a net list often isn't an act of creative thinking or problem solving and too often it's done without understanding of the deeper mechanics behind why certain units are included in an army.
Sure, it gets you to Crunchtown the fastest, but it isn't always the best way for people to play certain armies due to particular habits or ways they approach the game.
Crimson wrote: Slayer-Fan, you sound like the sort of person who thinks copying netlists is the height of skill.
Oh look, the netlist argument! The height of laziness in arguments for games! People have done this crap with "netdeck" in Yugioh and Magic The Gathering. When the card is bad, it's really just a bad card. At minimum MTG has past format games, and you STILL have people in Yugioh that sometimes do "Goat Format", but otherwise your old cards are SOL unless you get new support.
I haven't the foggiest about this card game nonsense and I have never argued that Assault Marines are not a bad unit. You just completely missed my point, which is probably why you cut it from the quote. I know which units are bad, if I choose a bad unit, I do it intentionally.
Essentially, on a case by case basis - which is all the discussion ever is on Dakka Dakka - it's impossible, because there's always at least one contrarian. Like Insectum7 saying that we can't assume standardized terrain for the purposes of balance discussions. Maybe that's true, but it makes discussion impossible if we don't have a baseline.
Is that observation really contrarian though? Tournament tables seem really different to the tables I often play on, and different than tables displayed in White Dwarf magazines. The density of terrain at tournaments is, I think, generally considered more sparse, and that will absolutely have an effect on unit performance.
Now if this thread was posted in the tournament subforum, or headed with a title that said "tournament" or the OP mentioned tournament play, then you'd have more of a claim. But it doesn't, and this is 40K General, which includes all sorts of players and metas.
Nor does this make discussion impossible, all it does is require a qualifier to statements made. "In context A, unit has more value than context B." instead of lazy statements like "Trash tier, unuseable." Which I'd argue are far worse for discussion than a simple acknowledgement of context dependency.
Essentially, on a case by case basis - which is all the discussion ever is on Dakka Dakka - it's impossible, because there's always at least one contrarian. Like Insectum7 saying that we can't assume standardized terrain for the purposes of balance discussions. Maybe that's true, but it makes discussion impossible if we don't have a baseline.
Is that observation really contrarian though? Tournament tables seem really different to the tables I often play on, and different than tables displayed in White Dwarf magazines. The density of terrain at tournaments is, I think, generally considered more sparse, and that will absolutely have an effect on unit performance.
Now if this thread was posted in the tournament subforum, or headed with a title that said "tournament" or the OP mentioned tournament play, then you'd have more of a claim. But it doesn't, and this is 40K General, which includes all sorts of players and metas.
Nor does this make discussion impossible, all it does is require a qualifier to statements made. "In context A, unit has more value than context B." instead of lazy statements like "Trash tier, unuseable." Which I'd argue are far worse for discussion than a simple acknowledgement of context dependency.
There isn't a context where Assault Marines have a use over Vanguard though. If you need to fill Fast Attack slots, you have better options. If you honestly NEED the supposed harassment unit, you'd fork up the extra 10 points or realize you didn't need that role in your army at all because, let's face it, Assault Marines don't harass anyone.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There isn't a context where Assault Marines have a use over Vanguard though. If you need to fill Fast Attack slots, you have better options. If you honestly NEED the supposed harassment unit, you'd fork up the extra 10 points or realize you didn't need that role in your army at all because, let's face it, Assault Marines don't harass anyone.
Based on how you react to the idea of putting them on the table, they harrass you pretty well.
Jokes aside, the benefits of the Fly keyword on a unit are still good, and extra mobility makes them less pants than tacticals for board utility.
And this is just a though, based on a thing I remembered just recently (and I'm not laying out as a thing just yet as I'd have to dig into some math with codexes I don't have on me at the moment): has anyone looked at them as a means for dealing with flyers like the Hemlock?
Again Vangaurd do it better if they make it in as flailing chainswords against vehicals isn't great at producing results.
Also Vanguard can equip storm shields to hopefully weather the overwatch
Ice_can wrote: Again Vangaurd do it better if they make it in as flailing chainswords against vehicals isn't great at producing results.
Also Vanguard can equip storm shields to hopefully weather the overwatch
So Vanguard do it better by being a heck more expensive to take Storm Shields?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And my question wasn't "who does it best" but rather a "can they be used for X?"
Ice_can wrote: Again Vangaurd do it better if they make it in as flailing chainswords against vehicals isn't great at producing results.
Also Vanguard can equip storm shields to hopefully weather the overwatch
So Vanguard do it better by being a heck more expensive to take Storm Shields?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And my question wasn't "who does it best" but rather a "can they be used for X?"
Seeing as Hemlocks fly, no they don't do that.
Also the ability to take a single Storm Shield or two is pretty awesome for tanking. Not that expensive per model too.
Ok so thinking about the VVs, if I gave them the jump packs and kept them close to a Chaplain with the jump pack, using Templar tactics, I could gain from:
-Litanies of Hate: re-roll failed fight phase hits,
-Righteous Zeal: re-roll failed charges,
If I had Chaplain Grimaldus, I could also gain from extra attack on 6+ hit rolls for units within 6”, however he can’t have a jump pack, can he? If not I couldn’t deep strike nor get around as fast.
He also can’t change his gear can he? The generic chaplain can have a power fist, bolt gun, pistol or combi.
So, which would be better? Generic chaplain or Grimaldus?
Also, best load outs for VVs with chaplain, and the chaplain himself?
Generic Chaplain can get access to the Crusaders Helm. It isn't as good as giving it to a generic Chapter Master, but it WOULD increase the LD buff as well if that was important to you.
Grimaldus just doesn't fulfill a need for the army I find.
What equipment should I give the generic chaplain then?
Also I was thinking of giving the crusader helm to another hq, possibly one running around with 2/3 crusader squads...
I don’t know I’m confused. I’m not sure what units to team up with what HQs. Could give crusader squads grimaldus because he can’t have jump packs anyway, then maybe team up a Captain with some termies or honour guard or idk
The issue as I see it is that assault Marines were left behind in the changes of the last few editions.
To start with, their weapon options no longer make much sense when you can't flame something after you deepstrike, and a single eviscerator or melta bomb can't kill a vehicle in one turn. In previous editions two mobile flamers were actually pretty scary to hordes, and a single melta bomb or round of combat with an eviscerator could kill a land raider. The core rules of the edition have moved on (and probably for the best) but the assault marine squad loadout never evolved along with it.
They also suffer from the nerfs in durability that came with the new AP system. This has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum, but i think it's worth bringing up since assault Marines are typically not protected by transports and are expected to see some close combat, so they definitely feel the reduction in durability as much or more than any other Marine.
Additionally, there is another unit that does everything assault Marines do but better, the VV. In previous editions this was okay because the VV were elites and FoC slots had to be budgeted. It was entirely possible in other editions for one unit to be better than another, but used less frequently because it competed for a more valuable FoC slot with other units. Now that we have practically unlimited FoC slots, units are either the best unit that can do their job, or they aren't used. And with allies, this is exacerbated to the point where this is on a per faction basis rather than a per codex one. Why take assault Marines if you can take VV? And really, why take VV when you can take DC or Scions? You can do this with most units that don't see any play.
I think the only solution to these issues is either to give these lackluster or redundant units new abilities that let them fill useful roles in unique ways, and/or to return to more limitations in what is allowed for list building with things like a single FoC.
The easiest way to fix the VV issue would be to clarify their roles. For example, reduce VV to 5 man squads max and remove the double chainsword option, but let them drop in 4+D3" away instead of 9" (so they usually make the charge and sometimes even get into melta range). Then give assault Marines +1 attack on the turn they charge, and make the eviscerator do 2d3 damage against vehicles and monsters. This would clarify the role of VV to a precision deepstrike unit and assault Marines to large mobile assault units with lots of attacks. Then let BA take them as troops.
ShaunyP wrote: What equipment should I give the generic chaplain then?
Also I was thinking of giving the crusader helm to another hq, possibly one running around with 2/3 crusader squads...
I don’t know I’m confused. I’m not sure what units to team up with what HQs. Could give crusader squads grimaldus because he can’t have jump packs anyway, then maybe team up a Captain with some termies or honour guard or idk
If you aren't gonna go for the Crusaders Helm for him, maybe go for the Armor Indomitus I guess. That's assuming you're going the Jump Pack route and you want to increase his durability.
Power Fist is generally an okay buy now thanks to the more consistent rerolls to hit and having more attacks base than last edition. They're a less dangerous weapon than before but honestly I don't think that matters too much now.
