So I have a Blood Angel Army and a Nid army. U feel the Nids do better and for me are more fun to play. However, I want to start a new army and I'm not sure what to do. I'm looking for an Army or list that almost seems unfair to go against. HELP

So....are you basically asking for an army that feels OP? People will probably suggest a mix of the loyal 32 and castellan list, since that's the hot combo nowadays, but you may want to rethink your current position here. If you're chasing after army performance (which does matter to some degree), I think you'll be disappointed unless you're really into it competitively because you'll be basically hopping from list to list as things change over time. I highly suggest you decide your next army choice on something that draws you to an army, whether it be background, differing playstyle or just the models. Do your research on some of the basic stuff that makes them competitive but otherwise practice and experience are ultimately are the deciding factors once you understand the fundamentals of list building. That way even if its not exactly top tier level, you can at the very least enjoy its aesthetics or playstyle.

Eldar have always been the most consistently unfair.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Eldar have always been the most consistently unfair.

While true, what units that are the broken ones shift with every edition.

Although farseers and wave serpents have been doing well for a while now.

Ok so this is kinda what I mean. Some Armies have things that tend to have more options and do a lot more damage. For example look at patriarchs Mortation vs a barbed Hierodule. The Heirodule does way less but cost more points. The only thing it has going for it is that it had a lot of wounds. Certain Armies seem to have buffs that just make them ridiculous to beat. Another example of this I feel is an Imperial knights list. I would run a knight list but thats a list I go against and I dont want to just copy that list.

I gotta go with Imperial Knights. They really give that “wait, all I have are little guys, why are your guys giant robots?” feel to a new player, while older players will grump that “super heavy” units don’t belong in 40k proper. Finally, until that Castellan is laid low, there is a unit that’s actually considered OP in the army.

Here's what you do: You look at the people you play with, their play styles & their armies/what they use. And then you build whatever would give them the most trouble.

I would recommend against that. Even craftworld eldar who are perhaps the most consistently top tier faction (only time I played that they were sorta meh was 5th and that was mostly due to having a dated codex).

That said, as someone pointed out even what is good in the Eldar codex has changed each edition. Play an army that you like the background, models, and enjoy building and painting. What list wins changes constantly (especially this edition) the above generally doesn't

Grey Knights, they're so bad it feels unfair to fight them!

BrianDavion wrote:
Grey Knights, they're so bad it feels unfair to fight them!

Hmm.
My 2000 pt GK army manages to get out almost 200 shots in round two when the army (half of it which is on the board) manages to get enough cover in round one.
Not so bad if you ask me. The new bolter rule makes it possible.

 wuestenfux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Grey Knights, they're so bad it feels unfair to fight them!

Hmm.
My 2000 pt GK army manages to get out almost 200 shots in round two when the army (half of it which is on the board) manages to get enough cover in round one.
Not so bad if you ask me. The new bolter rule makes it possible.

Sounds like no army is black or white in terms of meta, but rather shades of grey.

Chasing the powerful armies is a dangerous game unless you're prepared to spend a lot of money keeping up to date with the meta. That said, Craftworld Eldar are pretty consistently top-tier, though even then the specific units that are good tend to change quite regularly.

I'd also ask why you want to play an "unfair" army? In my experience 40k is a game that is best played between like-minded people. It's such a poorly balanced game right now that you can very easily end up with mismatches in army power compeltely by accident. That may sound like what you want but I've found games like that to be mind-numbingly boring and if your army is vastly better than the ones you usually play against you may very well end up getting bored pretty quickly. There's nothing wrong with playing a powerful army, but unless those around you are doing the same I think you might find yourself growing bored of playing non-contests the whole time.

If you’re looking for powerful lists, you could try googling “tournament winning 40k lists” or something similar. If there are specific tournaments, like the LVO or more recent tourneys you could search for that and see what comes up.

I’ll echo the sentiments above. There’s nothing wrong with playing a powerful list, but things change and quite quickly these days with chapter approved and short edition cycles. Castellan + Loyal 32 may be good today, but next year Castellans may get a points hike. CP may be changed in terms of how you can spend them, or how they’re generated. Grey Knights May get a new Psychic Power that breaks the game... who knows?

Then you have the meta game to consider. Will you be able to consistently get games with a broken list? I like the challenge, but if you’re playing pickup games, will your opponents just play against someone else? Just something to think about.

 Nevelon wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Eldar have always been the most consistently unfair.

While true, what units that are the broken ones shift with every edition.

Although farseers and wave serpents have been doing well for a while now.

Yeah but they always have the majority of broken units lol

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Eldar have always been the most consistently unfair.

While true, what units that are the broken ones shift with every edition.

Although farseers and wave serpents have been doing well for a while now.

Yeah but they always have the majority of broken units lol

One of the perks of any army composed of specialists. Generally, you are going to have the right tools to leverage the exploitable aspects of the current edition. That and poor internal balance usually nets us 1d3 OP broken units to spam.

But I’d hate to be a long-term meta chasing eldar player. By now, they’d probably own 3-6 of every unit in the codex.

Eldar feels the most unfair to play against.
They activate twice, move after firing, "always hitting on 3s", Jinx affecting your save rolls, and they stop your stratagems.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Eldar have always been the most consistently unfair.

While true, what units that are the broken ones shift with every edition.

Although farseers and wave serpents have been doing well for a while now.

Yeah but they always have the majority of broken units lol

One of the perks of any army composed of specialists. Generally, you are going to have the right tools to leverage the exploitable aspects of the current edition. That and poor internal balance usually nets us 1d3 OP broken units to spam.

But I’d hate to be a long-term meta chasing eldar player. By now, they’d probably own 3-6 of every unit in the codex.

I'm jost joking (kinda)...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wibe wrote:
Eldar feels the most unfair to play against.
They activate twice, move after firing, "always hitting on 3s", Jinx affecting your save rolls, and they stop your stratagems.

I think GW attitude is try to make SM's upper middle tier and always make Eldar top tear and they don't care about the rest.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Grey Knights, they're so bad it feels unfair to fight them!

Hmm.
My 2000 pt GK army manages to get out almost 200 shots in round two when the army (half of it which is on the board) manages to get enough cover in round one.
Not so bad if you ask me. The new bolter rule makes it possible.

Sounds like no army is black or white in terms of meta, but rather shades of grey.

Nah, Grey Knights are honestly the worst codex written. Don't listen to fux. There's not a grey area with Grey Knights and any attempt to defend that atrocity of a codex needs to be ignored or shamed.

If by unfair you mean ingnores rules then one of the elfs is the most unfair.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Grey Knights, they're so bad it feels unfair to fight them!

Hmm.
My 2000 pt GK army manages to get out almost 200 shots in round two when the army (half of it which is on the board) manages to get enough cover in round one.
Not so bad if you ask me. The new bolter rule makes it possible.

Sounds like no army is black or white in terms of meta, but rather shades of grey.

Nah, Grey Knights are honestly the worst codex written. Don't listen to fux. There's not a grey area with Grey Knights and any attempt to defend that atrocity of a codex needs to be ignored or shamed.

Well, the codex is not the best in the 40k universe.
But theoretical statements don't help people here.

3++ Castellan just kinda skips all the normal rules, restrictions and weaknesses of other heavy support/fire power/etc.. units that exist.

Doesn't get any more "unfair" in having the cake and eating it too in 40K than the Castellan.

So... If I stick with my Nids is there any list that compete with an imperial Knight Army with a Castilian?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another example is a castellan vs the hyrophant biotitan. A catellan is around 700 points while a bio totan is 2060 how is that exactly balanced lol.

akillys wrote:
So... If I stick with my Nids is there any list that compete with an imperial Knight Army with a Castilian?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another example is a castellan vs the hyrophant biotitan. A catellan is around 700 points while a bio totan is 2060 how is that exactly balanced lol.

FW units aren't a good measuring stick to go by, not to mention super-heavies/Lords of War in general. An Ork stompa at 900 points is basically garbage compared to the Castellan, but that doesn't make Orks bad as an army. You don't need superheavies to take on superheavies. You want to optimize your army that either nullifies what a Castellan can do well (i.e. nuke high value targets) by taking mainly infantry or use stuff like Hive Guard that's out of LoS to do damage without exposing yourself. I'm not a Nid expert but there's no point in trying to beat an army's strength at their own game unless you have a mirror match basically.

akillys wrote:
So... If I stick with my Nids is there any list that compete with an imperial Knight Army with a Castilian?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another example is a castellan vs the hyrophant biotitan. A catellan is around 700 points while a bio totan is 2060 how is that exactly balanced lol.

Don't fight fire with fire against the Castellan. Lol. Take 720pts worth of Genestealers, around 3 units of 20 that is. Buff them with a Brood Lord and Venomthrope / Malanthrope. Have some Termagants and Hiveguards shoot those guardsmen screens off the table, then Rush the Knight T1. Then just Lol watching the Knight explode after your 240 attacks hitting on 2s.

Castellan is tough to deal with, But really it is not unbeatable for Tyranids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or even better is ally GSC, mind control that Castellan and make it shoot your opponent for you.

akillys wrote:
So... If I stick with my Nids is there any list that compete with an imperial Knight Army with a Castilian?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another example is a castellan vs the hyrophant biotitan. A catellan is around 700 points while a bio totan is 2060 how is that exactly balanced lol.

Emphasis mine.

akillys wrote:
...Another example is a castellan vs the hyrophant biotitan. A catellan is around 700 points while a bio totan is 2060 how is that exactly balanced lol.

Chapter Approved 2017 jumped all the proper Titans to or over 2,000pts whether or not they're worth it. The Revenant went from 1,200pts (sort of fair) to 2,000 (silly) with no actual rules changes.

If we are talking ever I'd have to say in no particular order.

Eldar in nearly every ed so far, they have always had the ability to just go full cheese
Necrons in 5th.... Dude... And 7th.
Tau "we ignore half the rulebook" of 5th and 7th fame
Guard in 8th can feel unfair but that's down to how cheap guardsman themselves are.
Heresy custodes, stupidly undercosted across the board and a contender for most broken army ever made.
Heresy mechanicum for a long while

 Formosa wrote:
If we are talking ever I'd have to say in no particular order.

Eldar in nearly every ed so far, they have always had the ability to just go full cheese
Necrons in 5th.... Dude... And 7th.
Tau "we ignore half the rulebook" of 5th and 7th fame
Guard in 8th can feel unfair but that's down to how cheap guardsman themselves are.
Heresy custodes, stupidly undercosted across the board and a contender for most broken army ever made.
Heresy mechanicum for a long while

HH Mech made most pure marine players in that community feel like they'd been kicked in the testicles. Anyone who has spent years foot slogging power armor and terminators, all of a sudden had their entire armies deleted from the board by the end of the second turn, often not ever killing a single big gribbly Ad Mech monster in the process due to the tech priest repairs and the monsters being T8 dreadnoughts ignoring most vehicle rules and melta.

Eldar in this edition seem pretty easy to handle, I've not had too much a problem with them, outside of dealing with their Reapers, though they're good, they're not invincible.

Personally I think Grey Knights get the "most unfair" tag in this edition. It's not fair for me to kick blind paraplegic puppies, leashed to fire hydrants.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

akillys wrote:
So... If I stick with my Nids is there any list that compete with an imperial Knight Army with a Castilian?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another example is a castellan vs the hyrophant biotitan. A catellan is around 700 points while a bio totan is 2060 how is that exactly balanced lol.

Don't fight fire with fire against the Castellan. Lol. Take 720pts worth of Genestealers, around 3 units of 20 that is. Buff them with a Brood Lord and Venomthrope / Malanthrope. Have some Termagants and Hiveguards shoot those guardsmen screens off the table, then Rush the Knight T1. Then just Lol watching the Knight explode after your 240 attacks hitting on 2s.

Castellan is tough to deal with, But really it is not unbeatable for Tyranids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or even better is ally GSC, mind control that Castellan and make it shoot your opponent for you.

Can you mind control the Castellan to walk off the board?
Personally I think that'd be even more entertaining than shooting with it.

Hmmm there's a thought

 AnomanderRake wrote:

akillys wrote:
...Another example is a castellan vs the hyrophant biotitan. A catellan is around 700 points while a bio totan is 2060 how is that exactly balanced lol.

Chapter Approved 2017 jumped all the proper Titans to or over 2,000pts whether or not they're worth it. The Revenant went from 1,200pts (sort of fair) to 2,000 (silly) with no actual rules changes.

I can attest to "silly". Before the points jump I played a gaks-and-giggles game with just a Warhound Titan (dual turbo-laser & titan vulcan mega bolter) vs 2 normal Knights (paladin w/ battlecannon/chainsword & errant w/ thermal cannon/chainsword) in a cityscape battlefield. The Warhound was dead by turn three when one of the knights was able to charge in. One of the knights was in it's bottom tier while the other was still in it's middle tier.

To the Site Admin. / Moderators: I like how my term was "auto-corrected" to "gaks"; gave me a laugh. =)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:

akillys wrote:
So... If I stick with my Nids is there any list that compete with an imperial Knight Army with a Castilian?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another example is a castellan vs the hyrophant biotitan. A catellan is around 700 points while a bio totan is 2060 how is that exactly balanced lol.

Don't fight fire with fire against the Castellan. Lol. Take 720pts worth of Genestealers, around 3 units of 20 that is. Buff them with a Brood Lord and Venomthrope / Malanthrope. Have some Termagants and Hiveguards shoot those guardsmen screens off the table, then Rush the Knight T1. Then just Lol watching the Knight explode after your 240 attacks hitting on 2s.

Castellan is tough to deal with, But really it is not unbeatable for Tyranids.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Or even better is ally GSC, mind control that Castellan and make it shoot your opponent for you.

Can you mind control the Castellan to walk off the board?
Personally I think that'd be even more entertaining than shooting with it.

Unfortunately, no movement, only firing or melee attacks. =(

What about running 2 neurothropes and 227 termagaunts with devourers. If I get firat turn and use the stratagem to allow 1 unit to shoot twice that would be a total of 771 shots being made. However, that many guants would cost 500 dollars and at that point I might as well just add two knights to my Blood angles.

akillys wrote:
What about running 2 neurothropes and 227 termagaunts with devourers. If I get firat turn and use the stratagem to allow 1 unit to shoot twice that would be a total of 771 shots being made. However, that many guants would cost 500 dollars and at that point I might as well just add two knights to my Blood angles.

That sounds like a very boring list to play.

How about you list what you currently have, what points you play to, what missions you play, what your regular opponents play, and what your usual builds are, and we can try and make them a little more competitive? Are you regularly getting curbstomped?

Clear resin against an opponent with vision problems.

Yes. My opponents usually plays death guard and runs something along the lines of typhus, deamon prince, foul blight spawn, cultis, plague marines, plague burst crawlers, and a unit or 2 of blight lord terminators. Thats the basics give or take a unit depending upon if he is using morty or his canis knight. We usually play 1600 point armies. However, he is making a second army using 3 knights and astra tank comanders unsure of which ones right now. When I play that list it will be a 2000 point game

At my disposal i have a hive tyrant, brood lord, zoanthropes that I usually run as neurothropes, 3 venomthropes, 24 genestelers, 24 gaunts, 6 ripper swarms, 6 hive guard, the red terror, Mawloc, 2 carnifex and 2 tyranofex.
For genestealers cults I have magus, primus, abominant and 5 abarrants. When I get some money im gonna puck up another box of abarants

We dont play with the rules where models have to actually have what they have equiped so I can swap out load outs or use my hive guard as tyrant guard if i really wanted to.

Also the game type we play most is where there are 3 objectives 1 and 3 are worth 1 point. Objective 2 is in the center and is worth 2 points. Not sure what the game type is called though.

You need Renegades & Heretics.

Easily the most powerful force on the tabletop, clear, concise, fluffy rules and super-cheap to build, too.

akillys wrote:
So... If I stick with my Nids is there any list that compete with an imperial Knight Army with a Castilian?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another example is a castellan vs the hyrophant biotitan. A catellan is around 700 points while a bio totan is 2060 how is that exactly balanced lol.

Yeah, an allied detachment of genestealer cultists will provide you a super cheap 5cp and give you the means to both mind control the castellan with a patriarch and nuke it off the board with acolyte heavy weapons buffed by a primus+Clamavus.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Grey Knights, they're so bad it feels unfair to fight them!

Hmm.
My 2000 pt GK army manages to get out almost 200 shots in round two when the army (half of it which is on the board) manages to get enough cover in round one.
Not so bad if you ask me. The new bolter rule makes it possible.

Sounds like no army is black or white in terms of meta, but rather shades of grey.

200 bolter shots is a rather meh damage output tbh. 20man guardsmen blobs times 6, and 3 order characters pump out about 480 shots at 12 inches and 240 at 24 inches.

The guard do it for only 570 points. 570 of guard chaff are both more durable than your grey knights and do more damage.

If I spam 20 man guard blobs, for 1710 points I'll shoot 1440 las shots and have points to spare.

Also deep strike and redeploys count as movement, meaning the bolter rule does not help grey knights as much as you would think.

Also deep strike and redeploys count as movement, meaning the bolter rule does not help grey knights as much as you would think.

You're wrong here. Its storm bolters, 4 shots within 12'' with the new bolter rule.

Don't underestimate the fact that the storm bolters come to bear in round 2 and the enemy cannot do anything against it.
This could be used to decimate the enemy troops in one volley.

 Togusa wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
If we are talking ever I'd have to say in no particular order.

Eldar in nearly every ed so far, they have always had the ability to just go full cheese
Necrons in 5th.... Dude... And 7th.
Tau "we ignore half the rulebook" of 5th and 7th fame
Guard in 8th can feel unfair but that's down to how cheap guardsman themselves are.
Heresy custodes, stupidly undercosted across the board and a contender for most broken army ever made.
Heresy mechanicum for a long while

HH Mech made most pure marine players in that community feel like they'd been kicked in the testicles. Anyone who has spent years foot slogging power armor and terminators, all of a sudden had their entire armies deleted from the board by the end of the second turn, often not ever killing a single big gribbly Ad Mech monster in the process due to the tech priest repairs and the monsters being T8 dreadnoughts ignoring most vehicle rules and melta.

Eldar in this edition seem pretty easy to handle, I've not had too much a problem with them, outside of dealing with their Reapers, though they're good, they're not invincible.

Personally I think Grey Knights get the "most unfair" tag in this edition. It's not fair for me to kick blind paraplegic puppies, leashed to fire hydrants.

Oh god I know, I played world eaters at the time and it was brutal, I was lucky if I got across the table and then the big robots just caved my face in.

Now I play my heresy dark angels, and the tables have turned, now they know what it's like to be laughed at while ripping their army apart, dark angels hard counter mechanicum and now ruin storm deamons, can't wait for a full release

I belive the most unfair steems from skew lists, you either stomp or get stomped with them

realize that most any "unfair" army will be balanced or accounted for. look t the begiing of 8th where storm ravens, flyrants, crisis commander and demon prince spam were at the top of the meta.

trying to stay in the front of that curve will not only make you that guy... but even if you do keep up with buying the new models there is still painting them and learning to use them well. Even a Castellan, loyal 32, and ultramarines list is going to take time practicing to win. put Nick N or another world class player with a gray knights list and me with a loyal 32 +UM+castellan and he will still probably find a way to beat me and most anybody posting here.

a side note... do not be that guy buying the latest hotness and showing up with it half built and unpainted. always showingup with the try hardiest list that took 1st at the latest event despite never being seen playing that army before. Nobody likes that guy.

trying to stay in the front of that curve will not only make you that guy... but even if you do keep up with buying the new models there is still painting them and learning to use them well. Even a Castellan, loyal 32, and ultramarines list is going to take time practicing to win. put Nick N or another world class player with a gray knights list and me with a loyal 32 +UM+castellan and he will still probably find a way to beat me and most anybody posting here.

This.

Most unfair to play against:
Loyal32 + Cast + Beatsticks

Most frustrating to play against:
Eldar shenanigans

Feels the most unfair to play against:
Pure Knights

I don't play enough to really know, but from what I understand from at least one competitive player who also is a YouTuber I am subscribed to, Ynnari seem like the most "unfair" army... caveat being that you really have to know what you are doing as there are so many moving parts when it comes to Ynnari. From what I've gathered from a lot of sources, Ynnari have probably the highest skill floor and possibly the highest skill ceiling.

But, supposedly, Ynnari feel truly unfair to play against when the player really knows what they are doing.

SG

I would focus on integrating your nids and GSC, there are some good pointers for shenanigans in this thread. Good luck!

Can you point me to any specific links. I've been looking for different tactics, but i feel like nobody uses Nids any more.

There are Tyranid and GSC tactica threads in the 40K Tactics sub-forum.

The most unfair army was a 2k tzeentch daemon army summoning a 3k daemon army..., that I have seen.

Without some limitations we have in 8th. In previous editions Some Forgeworld stuff could break the game, Basically mass artillery army.
without rule of 3 and detachments. You prob could field an army of nothing but mortar heavy weapon squads, mathematically I would not care what you put on the board with 180 mortars [if my Math is not wrong], it will die.

 Jaxler wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Grey Knights, they're so bad it feels unfair to fight them!

Hmm.
My 2000 pt GK army manages to get out almost 200 shots in round two when the army (half of it which is on the board) manages to get enough cover in round one.
Not so bad if you ask me. The new bolter rule makes it possible.

Sounds like no army is black or white in terms of meta, but rather shades of grey.

200 bolter shots is a rather meh damage output tbh. 20man guardsmen blobs times 6, and 3 order characters pump out about 480 shots at 12 inches and 240 at 24 inches.

The guard do it for only 570 points. 570 of guard chaff are both more durable than your grey knights and do more damage.

If I spam 20 man guard blobs, for 1710 points I'll shoot 1440 las shots and have points to spare.

Also deep strike and redeploys count as movement, meaning the bolter rule does not help grey knights as much as you would think.

This was certainly not the question.
480 shots at 12” and 240 shots at 24”.
But the units must be in range to do so, and generally they are not simultaneously.

Here I can dish out 200 shots in turn 2 if in turn 1 everything goes well (i.e., the units are in or behind cover so that they are not annihilated).
Then this number of shots is guaranteed, while your count is only theoretical (and not helpful for the discussion).

 wuestenfux wrote:

Also deep strike and redeploys count as movement, meaning the bolter rule does not help grey knights as much as you would think.

You're wrong here. Its storm bolters, 4 shots within 12'' with the new bolter rule.

Don't underestimate the fact that the storm bolters come to bear in round 2 and the enemy cannot do anything against it.
This could be used to decimate the enemy troops in one volley.

I hate to break it to you, but storm bolters were 4 shots within 12" even with the old bolter rule. Literally nothing has changed about that, the only thing bolter drill does for GK is more shots at 12-24" when standing still or being a terminator or vehicle.

Stick with Tyranids. They are potentially in the top 5 mono factions and are one of the best internally balanced codexes. They also have probably the best combat unit in the game, Genestealers

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

I think GW attitude is try to make SM's upper middle tier and always make Eldar top tear and they don't care about the rest.

Hard to come to any other conclusion really. It's definitely not some cosmic accident that Eldar are always OP.

Cynista wrote:
Stick with Tyranids. They are potentially in the top 5 mono factions and are one of the best internally balanced codexes. They also have probably the best combat unit in the game, Genestealers

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

I think GW attitude is try to make SM's upper middle tier and always make Eldar top tear and they don't care about the rest.

Hard to come to any other conclusion really. It's definitely not some cosmic accident that Eldar are always OP.

.



Its how they are designed. Since they are fast and fragile they will be either wrecking shop or crumpling. Space Marines are tough so their design balance is a lot more forgiving.

Also Eldar have the aspect warriors, a half dozen different kind of elite specilists. Everytime the rules change, balance changes for every unit if they were disigning completely randomly you would expect most to be ok some to be trash and some to be great. Which is actully what we see for edition to edition.

I'm actually going with gsc just because of their mechanics. Followed closely by house raven castellan.

Headlss wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Stick with Tyranids. They are potentially in the top 5 mono factions and are one of the best internally balanced codexes. They also have probably the best combat unit in the game, Genestealers

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

I think GW attitude is try to make SM's upper middle tier and always make Eldar top tear and they don't care about the rest.

Hard to come to any other conclusion really. It's definitely not some cosmic accident that Eldar are always OP.

.



Its how they are designed. Since they are fast and fragile they will be either wrecking shop or crumpling. Space Marines are tough so their design balance is a lot more forgiving.

Also Eldar have the aspect warriors, a half dozen different kind of elite specilists. Everytime the rules change, balance changes for every unit if they were disigning completely randomly you would expect most to be ok some to be trash and some to be great. Which is actully what we see for edition to edition.

To expand on this, consider the following table:
Unit | 6E | 7E | 8E
Dire Avenger | OK | Meh | Meh
Fire Dragons | Meh | OK | Meh
Swooping Hawks | Meh | OK | OK
Spiders | Meh | Great | Bad
Banshees | Trash | Bad | Bad
Scorpions | Bad | Meh | Bad
Spectres | Bad | Meh | Great
Spears | Trash | Trash | Great
Reapers | Meh | OK | Great

AFAIR, no single Aspect has been great fro more than one of the last 3 editions. That looks like a reasonable distribution, to me.

Banshees are not bad at all, they are good lockdown unit.

This edition is the best for Aspect Warriors in years. Before, many of them were literally unplayable, due to no charging from transports, or rules making shining spears charge into terrain at initiative = 1, list goes on. And I am not talking tournaments here; you would lose casual pickup games if you tried to run some of those.

 Lord Clinto wrote:

I can attest to "silly". Before the points jump I played a gaks-and-giggles game with just a Warhound Titan (dual turbo-laser & titan vulcan mega bolter) vs 2 normal Knights (paladin w/ battlecannon/chainsword & errant w/ thermal cannon/chainsword) in a cityscape battlefield. The Warhound was dead by turn three when one of the knights was able to charge in. One of the knights was in it's bottom tier while the other was still in it's middle tier.

To the Site Admin. / Moderators: I like how my term was "auto-corrected" to "gaks"; gave me a laugh. =)

In fairness, that was bad luck - a warhound so armed should on average erase a 24 wound knight in a single volley, so one surviving two turns is quite an achievement. The other one is still going to beat the warhound silly, though.

I'm not sure exactly why they hauled the price up so much. I could accept the argument of 'trying to price superheavies out of matched play games" if it wasn't near simultaneous with guard superheavies getting cheaper and nastier and the knight dominus chassis being added.

As someone who'd love to field stompa mob it's doubly annoying.

 Shadenuat wrote:
Banshees are not bad at all, they are good lockdown unit.

This edition is the best for Aspect Warriors in years. Before, many of them were literally unplayable, due to no charging from transports, or rules making shining spears charge into terrain at initiative = 1, list goes on. And I am not talking tournaments here; you would lose casual pickup games if you tried to run some of those.

Really? 7th was pretty good for Aspects between the Aspect Hosts and Matchless Agility.

And 6th was dominated by DAVU (although the relevant aspect was just there to unlock the Serpents).

Aspects have been in top-tier lists for the last 3 editions, but generally not the same aspects.

Un-fair? Salamanders!

Headlss wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Stick with Tyranids. They are potentially in the top 5 mono factions and are one of the best internally balanced codexes. They also have probably the best combat unit in the game, Genestealers

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

I think GW attitude is try to make SM's upper middle tier and always make Eldar top tear and they don't care about the rest.

Hard to come to any other conclusion really. It's definitely not some cosmic accident that Eldar are always OP.

.

Its how they are designed. Since they are fast and fragile they will be either wrecking shop or crumpling. Space Marines are tough so their design balance is a lot more forgiving.

That would be true if Marines weren't made out of paper.

The Newman wrote:

Headlss wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Stick with Tyranids. They are potentially in the top 5 mono factions and are one of the best internally balanced codexes. They also have probably the best combat unit in the game, Genestealers

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

I think GW attitude is try to make SM's upper middle tier and always make Eldar top tear and they don't care about the rest.

Hard to come to any other conclusion really. It's definitely not some cosmic accident that Eldar are always OP.

.

Its how they are designed. Since they are fast and fragile they will be either wrecking shop or crumpling. Space Marines are tough so their design balance is a lot more forgiving.

That would be true if Marines weren't made out of paper.

They didn't used to be. I don't think the designers really understood how the new ap system was going to affect power armor troops.

Headlss wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Headlss wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Stick with Tyranids. They are potentially in the top 5 mono factions and are one of the best internally balanced codexes. They also have probably the best combat unit in the game, Genestealers

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

I think GW attitude is try to make SM's upper middle tier and always make Eldar top tear and they don't care about the rest.

Hard to come to any other conclusion really. It's definitely not some cosmic accident that Eldar are always OP.

.

Its how they are designed. Since they are fast and fragile they will be either wrecking shop or crumpling. Space Marines are tough so their design balance is a lot more forgiving.

That would be true if Marines weren't made out of paper.

They didn't used to be. I don't think the designers really understood how the new ap system was going to affect power armor troops.

Their design is clearly not to be made of paper. And they're about twice as durable as what they're being compared to here.

Their design is tough, but the rules just don't leverage that.

Yes, they have always been paper for their points going back to at least 5th ed. They were good in 3rd until the Xenos all got codices.

Only if you define "paper" as "despite being more durable, they can't compete for other reasons". Which is a rather strange definition of "paper".

Bharring wrote:
Only if you define "paper" as "despite being more durable, they can't compete for other reasons". Which is a rather strange definition of "paper".

Are they more resilient per point or less than most infantry?

Bharring wrote:
Only if you define "paper" as "despite being more durable, they can't compete for other reasons". Which is a rather strange definition of "paper".

Durability per point. Not absolute durability.

Bharring wrote:
Only if you define "paper" as "despite being more durable, they can't compete for other reasons". Which is a rather strange definition of "paper".

Actually I define paper as "very seldom survives being attacked". Most other infantry is made of napkins. Sure Marines are about twice as tough, but they pay three times as much for the privilege and in practical terms that extra toughness doesn't matter very much.

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Only if you define "paper" as "despite being more durable, they can't compete for other reasons". Which is a rather strange definition of "paper".

Are they more resilient per point or less than most infantry?

Depends on what you term "most infantry".

More durable per point than:
-Scouts
-Rangers
-Guardian Defenders
-Storm Guardians
-Dire Avengers
-Necron Warriors
-Ork Boyz
-PAGK

Less durable per point than:
*Guardsmen*
Kabalites
Fire Warriors

"Most Infantry" is taken to mean "Guardsmen" in most discussions - so it would be true. But I take exception to that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Only if you define "paper" as "despite being more durable, they can't compete for other reasons". Which is a rather strange definition of "paper".

Durability per point. Not absolute durability.

1) They are, compared to many troops in the game. Probably compared to most.

2) From a theme/design perspective, "points" don't exist yet; being "durable" is about individual models surviving more firepower. From theme/design perspective, a Guardsman is paper, but an IG regement is rock-solid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Only if you define "paper" as "despite being more durable, they can't compete for other reasons". Which is a rather strange definition of "paper".

Actually I define paper as "very seldom survives being attacked". Most other infantry is made of napkins. Sure Marines are about twice as tough, but they pay three times as much for the privilege and in practical terms that extra toughness doesn't matter very much.

Most infantry don't pay 1/3 the price of Marines. In fact, the list of infantry that pays 4ppm (the only ones wher eMarines pay three times as much) or less is very short.

In a game where anything short of a Castellan dies Turn 1, there shouldn't be "basic soldiers" that *can* survive most attacks.

For better or for worse, guardsmen are the standard by which infantry is judged. Also, old marines frequently have equipment that makes them EXTREMELY fragile per point, since none of that equipment is defensive.

Bharring wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Only if you define "paper" as "despite being more durable, they can't compete for other reasons". Which is a rather strange definition of "paper".

Actually I define paper as "very seldom survives being attacked". Most other infantry is made of napkins. Sure Marines are about twice as tough, but they pay three times as much for the privilege and in practical terms that extra toughness doesn't matter very much.

Most infantry don't pay 1/3 the price of Marines. In fact, the list of infantry that pays 4ppm (the only ones wher eMarines pay three times as much) or less is very short.

In a game where anything short of a Castellan dies Turn 1, there shouldn't be "basic soldiers" that *can* survive most attacks.

Three times the points or twice the points or "substantially more" isn't really relevant to "a sheet of paper and a napkin are equally useless against a bullet". And you made basically the same point. The game shouldn't exist in a state where nothing softer than a Castillian can reliably survive being targetted turn one. That's not a counter-argument, that's the problem.

As represented on the tabletop, marines would never be fielded, much less be the poster boy for the entire franchise. They are pointless when IG can easily field 20+ plasma weapons each game.

Why are Marines the only infantry judged by "Compared to a Guardsman"?

In this case, you're arguing that Marines are always bad because they're paper per-point compared to 4ppm Guardsmen; a little more than twice as durable for a little more than triple the cost.

The faction being contrasted with Marines is CWE. Their basic infantry is *exactly* as durable as Guardsmen, for exactly *TWICE* the points.

The (Marines:Guardsmen):(Guardians:Guardsmen) still exists. Even with Guardsmen as the touchstone, Marines are more durable per point.

CWE infantry sucks. But good CWE lists just don't rely on them to any extent. Marines are hard to not include in a marine codex. It really helps to get chapter tactics on vehicles. Just sayin.

Also, marines are way less durable once AP starts coming in. So, combine equipped marines with AP, and they can easily be losing points 5 times faster than IG. And faster than CWE infantry.

Guardians don't suck. They just aren't built for durability.

That is not really true. Guardians can take a shield platform that has a 3+ save - if you put it in cover - you have a 2+ save. Granted you just have 2 wounds with it - the whole unit gets a substantial durability buff from ap-0 weapons. Plus you can always choose to put high AP weapons on an ablative wound if the platform is undamaged.

Plus the unit can get a 4++ for 1 CP. You can even protect them to get a 3++ and a 1+in cover. Marines don't have access to any of this crap. DA do and DW do I guess...but they are just marines plus 1.


There are things marines are more durable against but so many more weapons kill marines at a higher point efficiency than cheaper infantry. Plus almost every weapon that is good at killing infantry - kills marines better.

When you combine all this stuff....
Lack of durability from stratagems and psychic powers
Lack of inun saves
Lack of defensive options for gear

And overall lack of mobility

You get one of the least durable armies in the whole game. One that pays a substantial premium on all it's infantry for defense.

The problem isn't lack of invul saves on Marines. The problem is too many other units have them.

And I play Dark elfs (in spaaace). Why the feth does a grotesque have an Invulnerable save?

(Conversely I like it on Wytches, and I like the shadow field.)

Grotesques are basically DE custodes for fewer points.

 Xenomancers wrote:
That is not really true. Guardians can take a shield platform that has a 3+ save - if you put it in cover - you have a 2+ save. Granted you just have 2 wounds with it - the whole unit gets a substantial durability buff from ap-0 weapons. Plus you can always choose to put high AP weapons on an ablative wound if the platform is undamaged.

And Marines can take Marines that have a 3+ save - if you put it in cover - you have a 2+ save. Granted you just have 100% of your wounds with it....

Plus the unit can get a 4++ for 1 CP. You can even protect them to get a 3++ and a 1+in cover. Marines don't have access to any of this crap. DA do and DW do I guess...but they are just marines plus 1.

So Guardians can use a strat for a 4++, but Marines only have an aura that only gives a 4++?

More seriously, no argument that you can buffstack a single CWE unit to be more durable than the average Marine unit, but you can only do that to one unit. Overall, the Eldar units are still less durable than Marine units.

After all, Storm Shields?

There are things marines are more durable against but so many more weapons kill marines at a higher point efficiency than cheaper infantry. Plus almost every weapon that is good at killing infantry - kills marines better.

So Lasguns are bad? Heavy Bolters? Bullgryns? The Talons you've been complaining about? Most wounds inflicted in most games do not have S8+ or AP-4.

When you combine all this stuff....
Lack of durability from stratagems and psychic powers
Lack of inun saves
Lack of defensive options for gear

Storm Shields? And what Invuln gear do Guardians have again?

And overall lack of mobility

So not being mobile makes you paper? More seriously, that has nothing to do with the topic.

You get one of the least durable armies in the whole game. One that pays a substantial premium on all it's infantry for defense.

Non sequitor.

First, you claim Guardians are more durable than Marines because they can take a 2W model with a 3++, making them more durable than a whole unit of T4 3+.
You argue that one of the dozens of units on the board in a CWE list can have a 3++ by combining strats and powers, therefore the entire army is more durable. As if you must attack the one target. And as if those buffs were free/automatic.
Then you argue that most weapons kill 13ppm T4 3+ more efficiently than 8ppm T3 5+; most weapons most certainly do not.
Then you rant about how SM have no defensive gear options, as if all other infantry does.
Finally, your kicker is that *they lack mobility*, and therefore are less durable.

WTF?

Not being mobile means more turns of being shot. That's what he means.

Storm shields are only on certain units, and many of those already have severe problems, like terminators.

Marines are a mess. A giant mess. They haven't really conceptually worked for a long time.

"Overall, the Eldar units are still less durable than Marine units."

I don't think this is true at all. At least, not the Eldar units I see on the table. Alaitoc says "hello".

Martel732 wrote:
Not being mobile means more turns of being shot. That's what he means.

In other words, he doesn't mean "Not durable". He means "not competitive".

To be clear, when I say "durable", I don't mean "competitive".

Storm shields are only on certain units, and many of those already have severe problems, like terminators.

And Black Guardians isn't only on certain units?

Marines are a mess. A giant mess. They haven't really conceptually worked for a long time.

"Overall, the Eldar units are still less durable than Marine units."

I don't think this is true at all. At least, not the Eldar units I see on the table. Alaitoc says "hello".

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that Alaitoc Guardians with -1-to-hit were so much more durable than Raven Guard Marines with -1-to-hit.

There are Eldar units that are more durable (Serpent, Wraith Constructs, Covens), but most are not.

Hemlocks? Wave Serpents? Shining Spears?

For the record; the guy saying Marines are made of paper is not the same guy saying their mobility issues hurt their durability.

Also for the record; I didn't say Marines weren't more durable than most other troops. I didn't even really say that they're not more durable per point than other troops. (They're not in a lot of cases, but certainly not in all cases.) What I said was that the game is too lethal for their extra durability to matter most of the time, and they do pay a premium for that durability.

The Newman wrote:
For the record; the guy saying Marines are made of paper is not the same guy saying their mobility issues hurt their durability.

Also for the record; I didn't say Marines weren't more durable than most other troops. I didn't even really say that they're not more durable per point than other troops. (They're not in a lot of cases, but certainly not in all cases.) What I said was that the game is too lethal for their extra durability to matter most of the time, and they do pay a premium for that durability.

Durable means high toughness good armor lots of wounds and an extra save, either invul or feel no pain.

Unless you are playing wraith guard or covens space elfs are the opposite of that. Elfs have tricks. When the tricks fail, elfs die.

Elfs are supposed to die, but kinda dont.

I agree that the game is too lethal. Thats why I quoted you above.

Martel732 wrote:
Elfs are supposed to die, but kinda dont.

Elves are supposed to die if you can hit them solidly where they don't want to hit.

They're not supposed to die if you can't hit them.
They're not supposed to die if you hit them in the shield, or hit their tanks/APCs.
And their constructs (vehicles, Wraiths, Covens) aren't Elves.

In this way, the game measures up; Elf units are *very* fragile per-model compared to Marines, unless the above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Headlss wrote:
I agree that the game is too lethal. Thats why I quoted you above.

Quoted for truth.

Headlss wrote:

The Newman wrote:
For the record; the guy saying Marines are made of paper is not the same guy saying their mobility issues hurt their durability.

Also for the record; I didn't say Marines weren't more durable than most other troops. I didn't even really say that they're not more durable per point than other troops. (They're not in a lot of cases, but certainly not in all cases.) What I said was that the game is too lethal for their extra durability to matter most of the time, and they do pay a premium for that durability.

Durable means high toughness good armor lots of wounds and an extra save, either invul or feel no pain.

Unless you are playing wraith guard or covens space elfs are the opposite of that. Elfs have tricks. When the tricks fail, elfs die.

In all fairness, tricks matter just as much, often more, than armor or toughness. Eldar, at least Craftworld Eldar, have often been among the most resilient armies in the game through history. Wounds and Armor are only one aspect of resiliency, and are usually the most straightforward to defeat. Rerollable saves, invuls, cover, to hit penalties, damage mitigation wargear (e.g. serpent field, Holofields, etc), and mobility to take advantage of LoS blocking terrain have made them far harder to kill than ostensibly beefier foes in many instances. Slightly less so in 8E, there's no unkillable Holofalcons or rerollable 2++ seer councils, but they're still not a particularly squishy army unless one really builds them to be such.

I appologize that I derailed the thread a bit down the "Marines themselves are more durable than Space Elves themselves" rabbit hole. I still believe my premise, but that conversation went off the rails and doesn't really matter to the point at hand.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Headlss wrote:

The Newman wrote:
For the record; the guy saying Marines are made of paper is not the same guy saying their mobility issues hurt their durability.

Also for the record; I didn't say Marines weren't more durable than most other troops. I didn't even really say that they're not more durable per point than other troops. (They're not in a lot of cases, but certainly not in all cases.) What I said was that the game is too lethal for their extra durability to matter most of the time, and they do pay a premium for that durability.

Durable means high toughness good armor lots of wounds and an extra save, either invul or feel no pain.

Unless you are playing wraith guard or covens space elfs are the opposite of that. Elfs have tricks. When the tricks fail, elfs die.

In all fairness, tricks matter just as much, often more, than armor or toughness. Eldar, at least Craftworld Eldar, have often been among the most resilient armies in the game through history. Wounds and Armor are only one aspect of resiliency, and are usually the most straightforward to defeat. Rerollable saves, invuls, cover, to hit penalties, damage mitigation wargear (e.g. serpent field, Holofields, etc), and mobility to take advantage of LoS blocking terrain have made them far harder to kill than ostensibly beefier foes in many instances. Slightly less so in 8E, there's no unkillable Holofalcons or rerollable 2++ seer councils, but they're still not a particularly squishy army unless one really builds them to be such.

But is that, necessarily, an antipattern?

Say the design of Marines is durable generalists.
Say the design of Space Elf Ascetics (CWE) are squishy individuals, who focus on perfection, advanced tech, tricksiness, and using the right tool for the job.

Consider the Wave Serpent. It's an advanced piece of tech designed to be hard to kill, so the easy-to-kill precious Space Elves can be safe inside.
This is probably just about the only vehicle in 40k that would have a 5-star Crash Raitingin the game - remember, every single Eldar is worth more than the planet you were born on!
It focuses on protection. It uses all the advanced tech, tricksiness, and perfection the Eldar people have.
It is not, itself, a squishy Space Elf.
Shouldn't it be durable?

The individual Elves should be easy to kill when you catch them with their pants down.
However, even if a Ranger is squishy, if it's an expert at fieldcraft hiding at max range from a poorly-trained target, while being concealed from the minds of the enemy and has had a Farseer read it's fortune, how easy should it be to kill?
It *should* be hard to kill that ranger. Not because you can't wound it or it has a great armor save. But because it's very hard to hit, or because it's been told the future.

So shouldn't there be times CWE has things more durable than Marines? They're obsessed with perfection, not speed/spectacle/durabilty (that's DE). Part of perfection is dodging. Part is blocking. Part is avoiding. So they should be able do these things, at cost.

Now, where it all goes wrong is cost/balance.

Consider the ranger. Even with Alaitoc, on it's own, it's not particularly egregious; it's hard to kill from across the map, but is very easy to kill close up (especially for a 12ppm model), and has rather meh firepower (single BS3+ sniper shot). This is what CWE should be - specialists. He's perfected hiding in cover, and trades meh firepower for situationally excellent durability. A real tradeoff.

Now consider the 6E coded Wave Serpent. It clearly focuses on defense and is suitably really hard to kill - reasonable for a vehicle who's purpose is to be so hard to kill and to help CWE get into position to unleash the stuff that *can* kill. It would have done that well - but GW gave it firepower, too. Absurdly good firepower. The problem here isn't the concept - the concept works and is fair. The problem is the execution. If the Serpent Shield didn't provide the insane dakka it did, the Wave Serpent in that book would have been entirely reasonable.

The idea was that CWE are hard to kill until they engaged, but couldn't hurt you until they engaged - and are paper afterwards. So a list mounted up in Serpents should be more durable than Marines, but shouldn't be blowing them off the table. And units not protected by some shenanigans should die quickly. Unfortunately, the game makers biffed that. It *has* been to easy for CWE, historically and currently, to be both more durable than they should be and more killy than they should be *at the same time*.

Nobody is saying CWE aren't or weren't broken. Or that, historically, the army as a whole when used correctly hasn't been harder to kill at times. What's being said is that the "Marine" is designed to be more durable than the "Space Elf" (note - "Space Elf" not "Slow and durable construct" or "super-advanced tank"). And that the counterpoint that Space Elves have tricksiness/tech/mobility/etc to not die isn't a problem - as long as it's counterbalanced (which it isn't currently/hasn't been).

This is all fine, but Eldar underpay for their tricks and marine overpay for their nontricks. I guess you already said that.

It's basically sour grapes from marines not getting what they pay for. Basically ever in the history of the game.

Headlss wrote:
I agree that the game is too lethal.

When you play 5 rounds and nothing dies, this would certainly be a strange game.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Headlss wrote:
I agree that the game is too lethal.

When you play 5 rounds and nothing dies, this would certainly be a strange game.

But to be fair, games that are over in 2 turns are just as strange (or should be).

The best games I've personally experienced are those that go 3-4 turns with no clear "winner" until the end. That happens very infrequently when the firepower exists to wipe a whole army in 2 turns.

-

 wuestenfux wrote:

Headlss wrote:
I agree that the game is too lethal.

When you play 5 rounds and nothing dies, this would certainly be a strange game.

When player 2 can deploy their entire army into cover and still regularly lose 25%-50% of it before their first turn the game is also in a strange state.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Headlss wrote:
I agree that the game is too lethal.

When you play 5 rounds and nothing dies, this would certainly be a strange game.

I don't think anyone suggested that.

Bharring wrote:

Nobody is saying CWE aren't or weren't broken. Or that, historically, the army as a whole when used correctly hasn't been harder to kill at times. What's being said is that the "Marine" is designed to be more durable than the "Space Elf" (note - "Space Elf" not "Slow and durable construct" or "super-advanced tank"). And that the counterpoint that Space Elves have tricksiness/tech/mobility/etc to not die isn't a problem - as long as it's counterbalanced (which it isn't currently/hasn't been).

I don't really have an issue with most of what you posted, I was primarily addressing that resiliency is not armor and toughness alone, and are usually the easiest aspects of resiliency to get around.

Eldar infantry are, by their lonesome, generally pretty squishy of course, but as an army Eldar are usually a pretty hard to kill force as a result of those other factors. In theory, that's perfectly fine, but the ostensibly hardier infantry of other factions is often irrelevant with the firepower common to the game at this point

All very valid and accurate points. I should have been more clear on those points.

You said in one line what I said in paragraphs.

S5 ap -1 to -3 is available in huge numbers and removes marines crazy fast. It also happens to work vs iks.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Grey Knights, they're so bad it feels unfair to fight them!

Hmm.
My 2000 pt GK army manages to get out almost 200 shots in round two when the army (half of it which is on the board) manages to get enough cover in round one.
Not so bad if you ask me. The new bolter rule makes it possible.

Sounds like no army is black or white in terms of meta, but rather shades of grey.

Nah, Grey Knights are honestly the worst codex written. Don't listen to fux. There's not a grey area with Grey Knights and any attempt to defend that atrocity of a codex needs to be ignored or shamed.

Well - apart from strike squads which are pretty okay and in need of a few points drop. The rest of the codex is flipping garbo. Agreed - cast shame. Except - hes talking about strike squads.

BA might be worse after beta bolter. Not sure, but maybe. That its an issue says a lot. Both are really bad.

Martel732 wrote:
BA might be worse after beta bolter. Not sure, but maybe. That its an issue says a lot. Both are really bad.

Pure Marine armies seem not to be (too) unfair.
There is worse out there in the 40k universe.