You thought Iron Hands were the "bad boyz" of vanilla astartes? Well, think again.

10 sternguards with flamers deal 30 mortal wounds with their combiflamers.

SmashCaptain with T7 (or even 8) 3++ S16 thunderhammer with 12 (!!!) Damage or -1 to wound against him.

Invincible agressors with 24 autohits flamers PER MODEL with optional +3 to wound.

So far so good, eh? What else did you notice in the new codex?

All im seeing is a whole lot of "melee and 8" range", which can be dunked on by a hard screen and a gunline.

They're strong, but IH were broken.

Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vaklor4 wrote:
All im seeing is a whole lot of "melee and 8" range", which can be dunked on by a hard screen and a gunline.

They're strong, but IH were broken.

Use "black dragons" successors with +3 range tactics + droppods.

Or footslog, since you are invincible thanks to their "self sacrifice" stratagem.

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vaklor4 wrote:
All im seeing is a whole lot of "melee and 8" range", which can be dunked on by a hard screen and a gunline.

They're strong, but IH were broken.

Use "black dragons" successors with +3 range tactics + droppods.

Or footslog, since you are invincible thanks to their "self sacrifice" stratagem.

True but still only on flamers and meltas

If Salamanders are better with flamers than the new Sisters, I'm going to riot.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If Salamanders are better with flamers than the new Sisters, I'm going to riot.

Well, IH "WERE" better at repairing their vehicles than ADEPTUS MECHANICUS THEMSELVES, so.... you can start in advance.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If Salamanders are better with flamers than the new Sisters, I'm going to riot.

Seems inevitable, honestly.

Were does the 12 damage come from?

Spoletta wrote:
Were does the 12 damage come from?

Relic hammer that on a 6 becomes 6 damage + stratagem that on the same six doubles the damage dealt. 6*2=12

...which is slightly different from DAMAGE 12 THUNDERHAMMER ZOMG!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
...which is slightly different from DAMAGE 12 THUNDERHAMMER ZOMG!

Not to mention all the other units, spells, stratagems, transports, etc to pull combos off.

Christ can we just wait before we freak out? Like one fething day?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
...which is slightly different from DAMAGE 12 THUNDERHAMMER ZOMG!

Not to mention all the other units, spells, stratagems, transports, etc to pull combos off.

Christ can we just wait before we freak out? Like one fething day?

Which units, spells, transports?

When did smashcaptains need all that?

At max you can take a librarian with "Might of Heroes" but everything else smashcaptain deals on his own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
...which is slightly different from DAMAGE 12 THUNDERHAMMER ZOMG!

A slightly "different" one, yes. But, this hammer has Str 16, so it wounds everything on 2+. And each 2-5 will be flat 3 damage. And since its AP-4... well, i think you get what i mean.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If Salamanders are better with flamers than the new Sisters, I'm going to riot.

Seems inevitable, honestly.

I’d like to see differently good myself, but starting from the same base weapon with only so many ways to boost it, I also suspect that Salamanders are going to burninate better than Sisters.

When you look at Salamanders from a design space, they are marines who like fire, and sideline in slightly better quality gear. So nearly all of their tricks and boosts are going to relate to that, to help establish them in their space.

Sisters also like to burn things, but have the third leg in the holy trinity with the bolter. So their weapon based boosts have to cover one more type. Plus they have the whole faith, zeal, purge the witch/heretic/mutant/etc thing that their codex is going to need to enhance. If we assume that every codex has roughly the same amount of traits/relics/stats to work with, Sisters is going to have fewer to dedicate to lighting things on fire or reducing them to slag.

Not to say that Sisters won’t be able to light things up, and do it well. They will probably pay less to get them on the table, so can spam more. The zeal aspect can probably be leveraged into getting them into range quicker. I suspect (or at least hope) that while the Salamanders might burn better the Sisters will burn more, quicker, and longer. They should be able to put more on the table, hopefully use tricks to push up the table, and have the numbers to take casualties and still keep the fire burning.

But we’ll find out in a month?

Hey! A new thing! Special issue wargear: 6" AoE 6+++ for everyone.

EricDominus wrote:
Hey! A new thing! Special issue wargear: 6" AoE 6+++ for everyone.

Wait a bubble for FNP?
Colour me intrigued.

EricDominus wrote:


A slightly "different" one, yes. But, this hammer has Str 16, so it wounds everything on 2+. And each 2-5 will be flat 3 damage. And since its AP-4... well, i think you get what i mean.

Which takes a warlord trait and relic and what else? How are you getting him to combat reliably?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EricDominus wrote:


A slightly "different" one, yes. But, this hammer has Str 16, so it wounds everything on 2+. And each 2-5 will be flat 3 damage. And since its AP-4... well, i think you get what i mean.

Which takes a warlord trait and relic and what else? How are you getting him to combat reliably?

In order to get the crazy high strength, high damage TH you need a relic, a warlord trait and a strat. For getting him into combat just put him on a bike.

Well, thats no small cost and snipers are a thing and you need the other strat for double damage, right. And if you want more than 1 relic another CP.

Take a captain.

Make him your warlord.

Give him WT for +2 str.

Give him a jump pack, thunder hammer and storm shield.

Give him the relic hammer.

Spend one CP to give a second wt (+2 T for example)

Whenever he successfully charges - spend 1 CP for +1 str and double damage stratagem.


Its 5 attack with str 14 AP-4 3damage, 12 damage on a 6.

To unleash maximum cheese- slap him with “Might of Heroes”. This will up his str to 16 (wound knights on 2+), make him attack 6 times and will make him T7/3++.

You do all realize that part of what makes a Smashcaptain good is the reliable Deep Strike charge, right? He'd not be Black Templars, so he won't have rerolls to charge, and he won't be Blood Angels, so he won't have 3D6 charge distance.

Further, even with Might of Heroes, the Stratagem, the Relic and all the bells and whistles you're doing 20.5 wounds to a Knight on average. That's good, but not something that other Smash Captains couldn't already do. You can pop Honour the Chapter for a truly comical 41 wounds on average to a Knight, but that's wasting a tonne of resources on overkill.

For comparison, a Black Templars Smash Captain does 13 wounds without Honour the Chapter, so while you have an edge in damage, you're also spending extra points on a Librarian and having to have both the Librarian and Captain in position to charge the Knight, whereas the Black Templars one can just drop in and reliably get the charge. I don't have the maths for the Blood Angels guy, but he's better. Without a Librarian a Salamanders Smashcaptain only does 17 wounds to a Knight on average before Honour the Chapter, so you're ahead by four damage at the cost of reduced deployment flexibility.

Tempest in a teacup.

Salamanders have become all about positioning. If you can control the board, you will immolate your opponents pretty fething hard. I play salamanders exclusively and was doing well before the supplement. Now? Now I'm scared of being TFG in any non-competitive setting.

Like sure IH was pretty brainless for what you had to do compared to this, but if you can move properly the damage output is going to be insane.

As for the captain, you guys are getting it all wrong. With salamanders its not about straight damage, its about threat. Time to bring out the terminator armor. Give him the -1 to wound relic. Give him either the Imperium's Sword and + 2 toughness. Then have a chappy meet him in the drop zone with canticles of hate (the rest of your army is going to be nearby anyways) have a Librarian nearby to cast fire-shield and drakeskin (sometimes not needed).

You now have a T7 2+/3++ Ignoring Ap1, -1 to hit and wound smash captain with a +2 to charge rolls. Rerolling and Str10/6 attacks on the charge.

For 2 CP spent at the beginning of the game.

Sure some resources are spent on the support characters, but you should be taking those anyways and they will get value out of assisting other units as well.

And then you get to kill 10 Guardsmen. Whoopee.

Overdone comboes are overdone for a reason.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And then you get to kill 10 Guardsmen. Whoopee.

Overdone comboes are overdone for a reason.

The captain doesn't just run into the guardsmen and disappear, your trying to overload threat and make it so he HAS to deal with that model, because he will have an inefficient time of doing so. That model can easily threaten tanks, and if you possess any board control he can't just run away as it will just put him right next to other threats. Turn 2 is when all your threats are going to come out, making those threats durable and forcing your opponent to make difficult decisions is going to only benefit you. Board space isn't infinite and choking out gunlines is a pretty viable way to win.

Although lets say that your right, and there is absolutely no way that the captain will be doing significant damage over the next two turns if I deepstrike him now. Fine, I can either Force my opponent to shoot at him with the strategem and protect all my other infantry. Or I could just keep him in DS for another turn while I use any aggregate fire for screen clearing and just get rid of the guardsmen. Then use the two character support elements for other parts of my army.

Lets also keep in mind that this is one match-up. There are several others that don't have efficient screening mechanisms nor effective ways to kill such a unit. Consider that same model getting stuck in amongst Ravagers, venoms, knights, etc., and the only efficient option is for them is to literally abandon the position which can win games in it's own right.

Vilehydra wrote:Salamanders have become all about positioning. If you can control the board, you will immolate your opponents pretty fething hard. I play salamanders exclusively and was doing well before the supplement. Now? Now I'm scared of being TFG in any non-competitive setting.

Like sure IH was pretty brainless for what you had to do compared to this, but if you can move properly the damage output is going to be insane.

As for the captain, you guys are getting it all wrong. With salamanders its not about straight damage, its about threat. Time to bring out the terminator armor. Give him the -1 to wound relic. Give him either the Imperium's Sword and + 2 toughness. Then have a chappy meet him in the drop zone with canticles of hate (the rest of your army is going to be nearby anyways) have a Librarian nearby to cast fire-shield and drakeskin (sometimes not needed).

You now have a T7 2+/3++ Ignoring Ap1, -1 to hit and wound smash captain with a +2 to charge rolls. Rerolling and Str10/6 attacks on the charge.

For 2 CP spent at the beginning of the game.

Sure some resources are spent on the support characters, but you should be taking those anyways and they will get value out of assisting other units as well.

Same here, with Salamanders you really need to have more threats than your opponent has shooting. Positioning and how you use those units are far more important when you need to be in medium range. as opposed to a distraction carnifex, you have a distraction army. I think Terminators are an excellent unit to benefit from the supplement. now I feel like my flame Aggressors are actually worth a damn(borderline OP).

Racerguy180 wrote:
Same here, with Salamanders you really need to have more threats than your opponent has shooting. Positioning and how you use those units are far more important when you need to be in medium range. as opposed to a distraction carnifex, you have a distraction army. I think Terminators are an excellent unit to benefit from the supplement. now I feel like my flame Aggressors are actually worth a damn(borderline OP).

Yeah - the first thing I'm going to do when the books arrive is running 10 hammer and shield terminators , and hide a ton of marines behind that wall. fully buffed they should be able to tank for quite a bit, preventing any shots at the guys behind them.

right, add the flame shield pyromancy & spend the cp for sacrificial wounds and you have a pretty mean area of denial. it feels right. There is a ton of stuff that we use already, and now it really benefits us.
I think all forms of Termies & gravis are now actually thematic & effective for the 18th.
I do wish you could put flamestorms on Inceptors, even tho that would step on the toes of Seraphim.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If Salamanders are better with flamers than the new Sisters, I'm going to riot.

I fear you will have to riot. Space Marines will have better bolters, better flamers, better close combat and better vehicles.

I'm pretty sure Immolators & Exorcists are better than the Marine equiv.

I would kill to have my Helios do the damage that my buddy's Exorcist put out.

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

It's basically a meme at this point for some members of the forum to whine about anything new these days regardless of how it actually plays

hence the discussion about tactics between fellow Sons of Nocturne.

I've felt this entire addition that Salamanders work best when supporting frontline troops with mid table control. Now they have fluffy rules that bare that out. cant wait to get the fyreslayers endless spells and paint up fire shield & magmic eruption pyromancy effects. it looks so much better than putting the card next to the models.

Bray'arth is even more insane now if you give him the relic for regaining wounds/6+FNP and cast might of heroes, he should get some work done. properly supported.

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

No, it’s not. New GW wording. And RAW since you don’t pick a unit/ a model - it affects your whole army.

I mean they are good with flamers and meltas, seems alright. Though I feel kind of bad for none vanilla marines as what exactly do they do ?

Judging by the one PA book we got, I'm not sure I have high hopes for the other marines to be showcased in the books if they are anything like the new Eldar stuff. While it'll be good, it won't be successor super rules good.

That said, Salamanders seem really good and tough for what they do. I mean every codex should feel that way. If you run into a guard parking lot well used it should feel bad, same for a tooled up Sallies list, IH list, etc, etc.

The issue is not all books have that yet and they really should have at this point. It's all the schizo GW design train, they never follow through with a plan all the way they are the kings of the half arsed plans.

EricDominus wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

No, it’s not. New GW wording. And RAW since you don’t pick a unit/ a model - it affects your whole army.

I haven't seen the stratagem's wording but do you honestly think GW intended to make a 1 CP stratagem that gives your entire army's flamers a mortal wound on 4+?
For just 1 second think about that and realise that even if your right, and I doubt you are, its 100% going to get changed in the week 2 faq.

If that is accurate I once more wonder what the editor was doing, aside from not being there, as it seems like if its worded so that is accurate yeah it seems a little strong.

I say it seems strong when say, for 2 CP guard can roll a D6 for each enemy squad and on a 6 do 1 whole mortal wound to it.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just does not belong.

EricDominus wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

No, it’s not. New GW wording. And RAW since you don’t pick a unit/ a model - it affects your whole army.

That's not the intent and you know it. If you want to complain about the new Marine supplements being OP fine, but complaim about their actual strengths and abilities and not a stratagem that requires you to rules lawyer and interpret what was clearly intended one way as another for it to function how you want it to.


The stratagem verbatim for those that haven't seen it.

"Use this Stratagem in your shooting phase or in your opponents Charge phase, when a SALAMANDERS from your army shoots with a flame or melta weapon (see Codex Space Marines). Until the end of that Phase, when resolving an attack made with that weapon, on an unmodified wound roll of 4+ the target suffers 1 Mortal Wound in addition to any other damage."

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

No, it’s not. New GW wording. And RAW since you don’t pick a unit/ a model - it affects your whole army.

That's not the intent and you know it. If you want to complain about the new Marine supplements being OP fine, but complaim about their actual strengths and abilities and not a stratagem that requires you to rules lawyer and interpret what was clearly intended one way as another for it to function how you want it to.


The stratagem verbatim for those that haven't seen it.

"Use this Stratagem in your shooting phase or in your opponents Charge phase, when a SALAMANDERS from your army shoots with a flame or melta weapon (see Codex Space Marines). Until the end of that Phase, when resolving an attack made with that weapon, on an unmodified wound roll of 4+ the target suffers 1 Mortal Wound in addition to any other damage."

THAT weapon.
so once again people can't read and make stuff up in their head to be outraged about.
it points to a specific weapon, the one on a salamander model that you just selected to shoot with has. Not every flamer or melta weapon in your army from that point onwards.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
If that is accurate I once more wonder what the editor was doing, aside from not being there, as it seems like if its worded so that is accurate yeah it seems a little strong.

I say it seems strong when say, for 2 CP guard can roll a D6 for each enemy squad and on a 6 do 1 whole mortal wound to it.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just does not belong.

you think that is bad? how about a save vs mortal wounds, that you can can get against mw coming from spells, and not other sources, after you lose MW from a spell

 Ordana wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

No, it’s not. New GW wording. And RAW since you don’t pick a unit/ a model - it affects your whole army.

That's not the intent and you know it. If you want to complain about the new Marine supplements being OP fine, but complaim about their actual strengths and abilities and not a stratagem that requires you to rules lawyer and interpret what was clearly intended one way as another for it to function how you want it to.


The stratagem verbatim for those that haven't seen it.

"Use this Stratagem in your shooting phase or in your opponents Charge phase, when a SALAMANDERS from your army shoots with a flame or melta weapon (see Codex Space Marines). Until the end of that Phase, when resolving an attack made with that weapon, on an unmodified wound roll of 4+ the target suffers 1 Mortal Wound in addition to any other damage."

THAT weapon.
so once again people can't read and make stuff up in their head to be outraged about.
it points to a specific weapon, the one on a salamander model that you just selected to shoot with has. Not every flamer or melta weapon in your army from that point onwards.

"so once again people can't read and make stuff up in their head to be outraged about."

Don't fall from your high arse.

With this wording it clearly works on the whole army (You don't reroll only one hit roll from Chapter Master's aura only because it now says reroll THE HIT ROLL).

Butt.

I've got a full version of this stratagem and it as follows: Use this Stratagem in your shooting phase or in your opponents Charge phase, when a SALAMANDERS MODEL from your army shoots with a flame or melta weapon (see Codex Space Marines). Until the end of that Phase, when resolving an attack made with that weapon, on an unmodified wound roll of 4+ the target suffers 1 Mortal Wound in addition to any other damage.

With the full wording i might agree, that this is a one model only. But it still 12 mortal wounds (18 if He'Stan is nearby) from a single aggressor.

Not that it really matters.

If you got in range with flamer aggressors and spent those 2 CPs for maximum shots, the target was already toast without additional MWs.

Spoletta wrote:
Not that it really matters.

If you got in range with flamer aggressors and spent those 2 CPs for maximum shots, the target was already toast without additional MWs.

I was going to point out that it might still be useful if someone charged them with a rhino to eat the overwatch.

Then I started thinking about the numbers.

Auto hits
You are wounding on a 4+ due to the +1 from being Salamander
We’ll assume -1 AP from being in the tactical doctrine, so save on a 4+
So you need 40 shots to turn a metal box into a burnt out husk.
An aggressor with flamestorm gauntlets doubleshotting on overwatch gets ~14 each, 3 of them is 42.

Dead rhino. No CPs used. Just with the doctrines.

Most of what I've heard about salamanders isn't horrible. However I've heard they have a votlw equivalent strategem that works for all their units not just infantry. That's csm best strategem but better. That's gak.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

Serious answer - you have a unit. That unit is arbitrarily stronger depending on the colour it is painted. You can set one price for it - do you price it for red paint, green paint, blue paint, or silver?

I'd forgotten about the stratagem. That feels like a much more worthwhile usage of the tanking Captain than trying to squeeze him into a role that he's not relying able enough to do.

A.T. wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

Serious answer - you have a unit. That unit is arbitrarily stronger depending on the colour it is painted. You can set one price for it - do you price it for red paint, green paint, blue paint, or silver?

In an ideal world you could work something out army wide.

If all your units are a little overpriced, but the ones for your color are a little overpowered, it evens out. You are not going to spam 100% of your good units, as you still need to take some stock units, fill roles, etc. So each color army is rewarded to play to their strengths, but overall as an army everything is balanced.

Now, we are far from an ideal world. Some units start out overpowered and underpriced, some colors buffs synergies better with the overall meta, and not everything is even remotely created equal. And competitive play rewards exploiting the broken stuff.

In theory, I could be done in a fair way. In practice, there are far too many moving parts to get any sort of equal balance going on. Especially when people are aiming to maximize competitiveness.

 Nevelon wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

Serious answer - you have a unit. That unit is arbitrarily stronger depending on the colour it is painted. You can set one price for it - do you price it for red paint, green paint, blue paint, or silver?

In an ideal world you could work something out army wide.

If all your units are a little overpriced, but the ones for your color are a little overpowered, it evens out. You are not going to spam 100% of your good units, as you still need to take some stock units, fill roles, etc. So each color army is rewarded to play to their strengths, but overall as an army everything is balanced.

Now, we are far from an ideal world. Some units start out overpowered and underpriced, some colors buffs synergies better with the overall meta, and not everything is even remotely created equal. And competitive play rewards exploiting the broken stuff.

In theory, I could be done in a fair way. In practice, there are far too many moving parts to get any sort of equal balance going on. Especially when people are aiming to maximize competitiveness.

But should it? Do you really want to Flanderize all the SM Chapters into only being able to take the things they get buffs for because everything is kind of bad without the Chapter-specific buffs?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

In an ideal world you could work something out army wide.

If all your units are a little overpriced, but the ones for your color are a little overpowered, it evens out. You are not going to spam 100% of your good units, as you still need to take some stock units, fill roles, etc. So each color army is rewarded to play to their strengths, but overall as an army everything is balanced.

Now, we are far from an ideal world. Some units start out overpowered and underpriced, some colors buffs synergies better with the overall meta, and not everything is even remotely created equal. And competitive play rewards exploiting the broken stuff.

In theory, I could be done in a fair way. In practice, there are far too many moving parts to get any sort of equal balance going on. Especially when people are aiming to maximize competitiveness.

But should it? Do you really want to Flanderize all the SM Chapters into only being able to take the things they get buffs for because everything is kind of bad without the Chapter-specific buffs?

At the FLGS level, where you don’t need to squeeze every last ounce of power out of a list it works just fine. The problem is that 40k rewards skew lists and specialization. There is no mechanical reason not to embrace full flanderization, and only take things that double down on your strengths. However, once you step away from the bleeding edge of power, a host of other options open up. But both you and your opponent need to be on the same page.

My theory here is that people will take non-optimal units for assorted reasons. Your choppy chapter might need some fire support, your castle army needs someone to go out and grab objectives. You still need troops/HQs, even if you are not one of the optimal colors to get the most out of them. You might have a yellow player and a white player with very similar TAC lists, but the yellow will shoot a little better, and the white will be a little more mobile.

In practice, this will not happen outside of friendly relaxed play. It’s not “optimal”. 40k is casually easy to break, always has been. It’s best when everyone is on the same page on what kind of game they want to play.

Just a little thought experiment on how it could work, in an ideal world, over my morning coffee. As an idea I like the concept. Although with the bloat in 40k, it probably never could without a massive amount of work.

Squads doing 30 MW and Smash Captains with Damage 12 weapons? Who the Hell is writing this crap lol

 Elfric wrote:
Squads doing 30 MW and Smash Captains with Damage 12 weapons? Who the Hell is writing this crap lol

The 30 MW is a 4 CP strat I think, and it's only one unit doing the MW if I understood well.

WhiteDog wrote:

 Elfric wrote:
Squads doing 30 MW and Smash Captains with Damage 12 weapons? Who the Hell is writing this crap lol

The 30 MW is a 4 CP strat I think, and it's only one unit doing the MW if I understood well.

Agents of Vect is 4CP and is nowhere near as broke as that.

LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

 Elfric wrote:
Squads doing 30 MW and Smash Captains with Damage 12 weapons? Who the Hell is writing this crap lol

That many MW is fake news.
Its unmodifier 4+ to wound on 1 weapon from 1 model that causes MW.
So the most damage your doing is the 2d6 from the Aggressor Flamestorm gauntlet. stratagem for max shots and your doing 6 mortal wounds.
Which is a lot, but not nearly the same thing.

The fact that they got a superior version of votlw is what irks me. It's bad enough that sm get everyone else's stuff but they get better versions of it.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The fact that they got a superior version of votlw is what irks me. It's bad enough that sm get everyone else's stuff but they get better versions of it.

GW has no clue how to balance SM's as they are so the only option they see is to throw a gakload of special rules on it and hope it works.

Turns out throwing a load of special rules on an army that is mediocre might make them to good. Who could have known.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Im gonna keep running my Salamanders as Salamanders, that's for sure.

I don't see why they should receive a range buff. Maybe we should just lock the tactical doctrine bonus to the chapters themself instead of giving it to the successors as well (unless they're Inheritors).

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

The marine book itself is a functional army. Salamanders might not be top, but simply by being new Marines they will be good.

 Ordana wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The fact that they got a superior version of votlw is what irks me. It's bad enough that sm get everyone else's stuff but they get better versions of it.

GW has no clue how to balance SM's as they are so the only option they see is to throw a gakload of special rules on it and hope it works.

Turns out throwing a load of special rules on an army that is mediocre might make them to good. Who could have known.

well that's how GW's been buffing all the other armies. well that and making them much lower points cost. fact is GW could keep pushing marine points lower and lower, or they could start making marines feel elite. Personally I like that Marines feel elite, before hand they just felt like tough guys in power armor, but not partiuclarly elite, things like guard orders, etc really helped those armies feel their role, and now space Marines feel like they should.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

Salamanders are a functional army even without the Supplement. They're not top tier, but that's OK. The supplement let's them play more focused on their fluff, and boosts them in terms of general power. How far, I'm not sure. Not as far as IH pre nerf, but probably still top tier material.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

No, some people just like having some functional rules for their army is all.

Gadzilla666 wrote: Most of what I've heard about salamanders isn't horrible. However I've heard they have a votlw equivalent strategem that works for all their units not just infantry. That's csm best strategem but better. That's gak.

Gadzilla666 wrote:The fact that they got a superior version of votlw is what irks me. It's bad enough that sm get everyone else's stuff but they get better versions of it.

There's always the chance that they'll update our strat, if they ever update our codex. Rumors indicate we shouldn't expect that update in Psychic Awakening.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

I would advise against arguing with slayer in regards to Salamanders. He has some weirdly intense hate for them.

In regards to the Salamander CT vs the +3 and Master Artisans combo. It's actually surprisingly close for me, and I'll try both.
On the one hand +3 to range really helps the threat range of meltas and flamers (obviously) and allow for easier board control and deepstriking flamers (tasty but expensive)
On the other I recently went to a tournament, and in every single match-up (Necrons/Marines/Chaos/Knights/Tau) The ignore AP1 kept several more models on the board for longer. The ignoring AP1 is also going to help ameliorate the flamer bomb tactic from above.

Also interesting thought, With the first option ASM with 2 flamers and a combi-flamer become decent harassers/chaff clearers.

Vilehydra wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

I would advise against arguing with slayer in regards to Salamanders. He has some weirdly intense hate for them.

In regards to the Salamander CT vs the +3 and Master Artisans combo. It's actually surprisingly close for me, and I'll try both.
On the one hand +3 to range really helps the threat range of meltas and flamers (obviously) and allow for easier board control and deepstriking flamers (tasty but expensive)
On the other I recently went to a tournament, and in every single match-up (Necrons/Marines/Chaos/Knights/Tau) The ignore AP1 kept several more models on the board for longer. The ignoring AP1 is also going to help ameliorate the flamer bomb tactic from above.

Also interesting thought, With the first option ASM with 2 flamers and a combi-flamer become decent harassers/chaff clearers.

I don't hate the Salamanders. However, anyone arguing they're a strong army is not correct and just letting personal bias get in the way.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't hate the Salamanders. However, anyone arguing they're a strong army is not correct and just letting personal bias get in the way.

define strong.
Top 1? top 2? 5? 10?

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't hate the Salamanders. However, anyone arguing they're a strong army is not correct and just letting personal bias get in the way.

define strong.
Top 1? top 2? 5? 10?

They're the bottom of the Chapter Tactics with Crimson Fists. For strength itself, that's a tough call as it seems we are going through an iteration of Edition 8.5 and we need to see the Eldar release. In terms of Marines though, I wouldn't even think twice about building to counter Salamanders as an army. Per rumors they have done strong strats but that's mostly gimmicks and for whatever reason they're getting their own Slamguinus. No clever nickname for it yet

Thanks to several posters here, I'm now officially rioting. See me in the streets of Paris, turning cars over and setting them on fire!
(Maybe I should go do that in Nottingham? In GW's parking lot?)

Small note on the being salty about sallies getting votlw +1, Imperial Fists get it -2. Their's is only against one specific vehicle and costs 2 CP.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't hate the Salamanders. However, anyone arguing they're a strong army is not correct and just letting personal bias get in the way.

define strong.
Top 1? top 2? 5? 10?

They're the bottom of the Chapter Tactics with Crimson Fists. For strength itself, that's a tough call as it seems we are going through an iteration of Edition 8.5 and we need to see the Eldar release. In terms of Marines though, I wouldn't even think twice about building to counter Salamanders as an army. Per rumors they have done strong strats but that's mostly gimmicks and for whatever reason they're getting their own Slamguinus. No clever nickname for it yet

He is simply known as Godzilla

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

No, some people just like having some functional rules for their army is all.

Man, you've got a fethed up idea of what Salamanders are. Nobody said they're the best, I'll play them whether or not their rules are good. Absolutely zero other Marines even remotely interest me. You're mistaking flavour-of-the-month players for Salamanders.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't hate the Salamanders. However, anyone arguing they're a strong army is not correct and just letting personal bias get in the way.

define strong.
Top 1? top 2? 5? 10?

They're the bottom of the Chapter Tactics with Crimson Fists. For strength itself, that's a tough call as it seems we are going through an iteration of Edition 8.5 and we need to see the Eldar release. In terms of Marines though, I wouldn't even think twice about building to counter Salamanders as an army. Per rumors they have done strong strats but that's mostly gimmicks and for whatever reason they're getting their own Slamguinus. No clever nickname for it yet

He is simply known as Godzilla

That's fantastic. Let's make it happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

No, some people just like having some functional rules for their army is all.

Man, you've got a fethed up idea of what Salamanders are. Nobody said they're the best, I'll play them whether or not their rules are good. Absolutely zero other Marines even remotely interest me. You're mistaking flavour-of-the-month players for Salamanders.

Wanting your army to not suck =/= flavor of the month players. Nice virtue signaling though.

My Salamanders have not sucked all edition. They have always performed how I want them to.

not virtue signaling.

I don't know how you'vebeen playing them...but it must suck. Now if you meta is at go feth yourself levels then nothing but the most ridiculous whatever spam crap will do. But being a Salamanders commander requires more than just point and click.

A.T. wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

Serious answer - you have a unit. That unit is arbitrarily stronger depending on the colour it is painted. You can set one price for it - do you price it for red paint, green paint, blue paint, or silver?

Not even colour. Have it painted blue and still use salamanader rules in full. It's rather "which models I want to use today that decide which rules I use"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
If all your units are a little overpriced, but the ones for your color are a little overpowered, it evens out. You are not going to spam 100% of your good units, as you still need to take some stock units, fill roles, etc. So each color army is rewarded to play to their strengths, but overall as an army everything is balanced..

And that leads to unfluffy situations like we have now. Blood angels not having any devastators(despite fluff saying otherwise), bad moon slugga and choppa boyz don't exist etc. Armies dont' look at all how they are actually supposed to be.

And everybody spams 100% of your good units. Weak units? You take them from other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The fact that they got a superior version of votlw is what irks me. It's bad enough that sm get everyone else's stuff but they get better versions of it.

GW has no clue how to balance SM's as they are so the only option they see is to throw a gakload of special rules on it and hope it works.

Turns out throwing a load of special rules on an army that is mediocre might make them to good. Who could have known.

Who says they want to balance them rather than sell moah marines for moah £££££

I dont see how its meta chasing for going with the +3" trait to make the flamer/melta tactics more viable for a salamanders list. It feels like that is the trait they should have had since it makes their doctrine and stratagems work better. Unless you really want the special characters you dont really change anything. Still have Master Artisan, stratagems, traits, powers, relics and doctrine the same.

Why play "false" salamanders with bad flamers when you can play "true" with just a single chapter tactic change. Unless in a tournament I wouldnt even blink if an opponent wanted that and still play with Vulkan in his list. I would allow that.

Playing with 3" better flamers is probably more of a trap in list building if you want the actual best "Salamander" list. It makes more flamer units and builds viable but they are not what is gonna make Salamanders good anyway. Its the only way to play flamer units in a pod for example which I remember doing in 4th or 5th with a Vulkan list and it needs the 3" trait to work again.

How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

+3 range for flamers with all the flame bonus beats.

Nothing is good or bad on it's own. Only relatively something is good or bad

Salamander CT is a solid boost. But it’s not something that can be leveraged into a game breaking combo. Which is what you want at the competitive level to be “good”

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
My Salamanders have not sucked all edition. They have always performed how I want them to.

not virtue signaling.

I don't know how you'vebeen playing them...but it must suck. Now if you meta is at go feth yourself levels then nothing but the most ridiculous whatever spam crap will do. But being a Salamanders commander requires more than just point and click.

I love you have to use the whole "there's skill not point and click" as an argument in their benefit. Why can't you just admit at that point you really don't have an argument that really defends their rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
Salamander CT is a solid boost. But it’s not something that can be leveraged into a game breaking combo. Which is what you want at the competitive level to be “good”

They can't even be leveraged into a regular "okay" combo. It's just a bad trait all around. If they had the ignore AP-1 weapons and something better then we'd be talking.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Salamander CT is a solid boost. But it’s not something that can be leveraged into a game breaking combo. Which is what you want at the competitive level to be “good”

They can't even be leveraged into a regular "okay" combo. It's just a bad trait all around. If they had the ignore AP-1 weapons and something better then we'd be talking.

YMMV. I've been having tons of fun and exciting games since the codex came out, even when playing tournament level lists (Ars Bellica rules). They're not top tier, but they're a far cry from "not okay" as in "not viable".
I'm not a tournament player, but I'm somewhat used to the rule sets since I frequently stand in as a training partner for the guys in our club that are. I prefer more casual games, and it's honestly kinda hard to build lists now that ARE casual enough. Even with "not OK" Salamanders, oddly enough.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

They stacked it ontop of IronHands reroll all 1's when hitting on 2or 3 for that -1 to hit when you roll a problem number it wasn't just the artisans trait alone.

Salamander arn't exactlly OP and they arn't exactlly bad they should have some nasty combos once people have the actual wordings of the rules but I don't think anything with game breaking potential has been found day one which probably means that like Ultramarines ravenguard and whitescars they will probably be in the 40 to 60 % (balanced win ratio) Ultramarines and ravenguard are close to 50% white whitescars is a bit higher but I suspect that's because people playing whitescars are playing a more structured list with a plan and once people know their many tricks they might fall back into a more balanced win ratio.

People should probably be more worried about the fists rather than salamanders who while on paper sounding crazy have a lot of real gameplay issues such as short range expensive units vrs no overwatch units they will unfortunately likely be a rock, paper scissors army instead of a straight up win ratio vrs the field but they arn't likely to be meta defining OP.

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

When you have ironhands free reroll 1's it is a lot better.

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

Which was already made redundant because all those guys are being ran as, surprise surprise, Iron Hands! They could've gone with literally anything else and gotten better results.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

Which was already made redundant because all those guys are being ran as, surprise surprise, Iron Hands! They could've gone with literally anything else and gotten better results.

Are you saying these guys were just too stupid to go "oh. ANYTHING ELSE is better, let's take one of those" ?
I mean, I'm pretty fething sure that I've been able to roll quite a lot of rolls due to MA, even though I normally do run the reroll 1 HQs, so it's clearly not useless. Most Marine stuff doesn't hit and wound on 2+ after all. And 'literally anything' would include stuff like Indomitable or Born Heroes. Are you sure about that?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

Which was already made redundant because all those guys are being ran as, surprise surprise, Iron Hands! They could've gone with literally anything else and gotten better results.

Well if you are outside a full re-roll bubble being able to re-roll misses besides one is useful and always re-rolling a wound is great. It's especially good for fliers. Not every single unit is always going to be within 6 of a re-roll aura.

For a small unit like eliminators that have only 3 shots MA almost acts like full rerolls. A smash captain only need reroll 2s to hit and wounds most things on 2s or 3s so a single reroll to wound is also almost like having full rerolls. An Invictor warsuit in melee have 5 attacks but the MA is about the same as giving it 2 free attacks. Also really helpful in shooting if using auto cannons.

SM is mostly run MSU so MA shouldnt be underestimated. And even for a unit like Vanguard veterans its like having an extra TH veteran in the squad for free.

If you run units that are not killing stuff only by sheer amount of str 4 hits MA is super strong. And it even works well with reroll 1 abilities since you can always reroll the 2s for free.

For normal repulsors, 10 man intercessors, leviathans, redemptors, heavy bolter devastators, centurions/aggressors etc its a bad trait but you probably dont build a list around those units with master artisan.

Think of it like this. Ironhands successors were able to reroll all 1's and one 2. Then reroll one failed wound roll. There is a good chance this trait gets you 2 additional wounds through. That is pretty big and they get the always counts in cover trait too. It's not the way I would do it but it is an effective strategy. 6+FNP and 5+ overwatch is just too good to give up. I'd just take a chapter master for my main units and my units outside the aura would just wound a little less. No biggy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
My Salamanders have not sucked all edition. They have always performed how I want them to.

not virtue signaling.

I don't know how you'vebeen playing them...but it must suck. Now if you meta is at go feth yourself levels then nothing but the most ridiculous whatever spam crap will do. But being a Salamanders commander requires more than just point and click.

I love you have to use the whole "there's skill not point and click" as an argument in their benefit. Why can't you just admit at that point you really don't have an argument that really defends their rules?
The rules seem to work just fine

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
Salamander CT is a solid boost. But it’s not something that can be leveraged into a game breaking combo. Which is what you want at the competitive level to be “good”

They can't even be leveraged into a regular "okay" combo. It's just a bad trait all around. If they had the ignore AP-1 weapons and something better then we'd be talking.

"good" is relative. they've been working for me for 2 plus years.

Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to

It sounds to me like all you do is park your marines around a Capt/Lt, why would you do that when you dont need their reroll all the time. Salamanders benefit from being aggressive, how else do you get your flamer & melta in range?
I think at that point you are not playing Salamanders at all. Your playing a successor chapter, which is why I said Salamanders players wont be doing that. Also how would He'stan, Bray'arth, Mir'san, etc... work in a non Salamanders army?

I have zero interest in playing a successor, I couldn't give 2 scheiss if it would make them "better" Salamanders. Who the feth cares about what "good" players are doing. hey wait, the cool kids just said they're all smoking crack, does that sound like something you'd want to do?

Are you really equating having a good army to smoking crack? That's an argument made by a kid not putting thought into their point of view if I've ever seen one.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you really equating having a good army to smoking crack? That's an argument made by a kid not putting thought into their point of view if I've ever seen one.

You mean like someone claiming Salamanders are 'not functional' just because they are not the best possible combination of chapter tactics?

No, what I'm saying is that they've been functional the entire edition and are not useless, as you've stated many times. Since the lenses you look thru are tinged with an all or nothing view, it is impossible for you to see anything else. Forest thru the trees.

I have never said they were OP, good, bad or anything other than working fine. need some buffs but not useless.

And the analogy fits for the way you seem to play.
If there is a change that is "better" than what you have you will drop it like it's on fire. seems pretty fickle to me. or fairweather. or whatever fits.

Not very Salamander like.

Slayer- Fan like many on Dakka has a binary view of the game. It's either OP or Trash, there is no middle ground. He can't be convinced otherwise.

 Sentineil wrote:
Slayer- Fan like many on Dakka has a binary view of the game. It's either OP or Trash, there is no middle ground. He can't be convinced otherwise.

that may be true, but sometimes they might have a moment of clarity....extremely wishful thinking.

Also, I'm beginning to doubt they play Salamanders, oh wait...not beginning to...

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:
Slayer- Fan like many on Dakka has a binary view of the game. It's either OP or Trash, there is no middle ground. He can't be convinced otherwise.

that may be true, but sometimes they might have a moment of clarity....extremely wishful thinking.

Also, I'm beginning to doubt they play Salamanders, oh wait...not beginning to...

Why would I play with a Chapter that has trash rules? I don't have to be a chef to know if the food I'm tasting tastes like gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you really equating having a good army to smoking crack? That's an argument made by a kid not putting thought into their point of view if I've ever seen one.

You mean like someone claiming Salamanders are 'not functional' just because they are not the best possible combination of chapter tactics?

They're the second worst besides Crimson Fists, and we already know Eldar are in the middle of getting a rework, which means 8.5th is abound.

^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

A single Heavy weapon with those rerolls wasn't good last codex, period, and the armor bonus didn't change that. If that's really your best defense, you honestly never had one to begin with.

Imo artisans is a great benefit if you're building for it. The armor save bonus is definitely interesting as well. I'm not keeping up with the rest of their bonuses, but I'm curious. On tge face of it they seem to be good at building for board control as they don't have to aura as hard.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

A single Heavy weapon with those rerolls wasn't good last codex, period, and the armor bonus didn't change that. If that's really your best defense, you honestly never had one to begin with.

And there is your lack of imagination showing. Seriously 1 special 1 combi. Toss them in a rhino. The package is versatile, dangerous, and - thanks to the salamander re-roll - reliable on performing specific rolls without the need for constant babysitting.
You keep mentioning that they where trash before codex, and I'm curious if you ever actually tried playing with them. Myself and many others have reported success with them, I took them to my first two GT's ever, and scored a respectable 3-3 (during codex 1.0) and 3-2 (during codex 2.0 with UM IH RG WS).

And the even more important take away from every match-up that I lost was that I made a poor tactical decision, either due to fatigue or misunderstanding a rule (or just plain old screwing up). It wasn't my list that lost those game, it was how I played it. I came away from all of those games knowing I had a way to win it from the start

If your point is its not as plug and play as IH was for example. Your right.
If your point is that you can't get enough leverage out of the CT to make it worth it. Then that's on you.

Master artisans is a CT that you to build into, if not it is not going to net you much advantage.

If you do though, it's the most poweful CT out there.

For units like eliminators/attack bikes/stalkers/vindicators/whirlwinds it is close to a +50% buff.

Racerguy180 wrote:

I have zero interest in playing a successor, I couldn't give 2 scheiss if it would make them "better" Salamanders. Who the feth cares about what "good" players are doing. hey wait, the cool kids just said they're all smoking crack, does that sound like something you'd want to do?

So you admit for you it isn't about good or bad and are happy to use inferior rules just cause it's named salamanders. Ok. Don't try then to claim it's good rules and mislead others.

Salamander's rules are good rules by any standard.

Sure, if you want to maximize your flame combos then going successor could work better, but there is more to Salamanders than just flames.

Spoletta wrote:
Master artisans is a CT that you to build into, if not it is not going to net you much advantage.

If you do though, it's the most poweful CT out there.

For units like eliminators/attack bikes/stalkers/vindicators/whirlwinds it is close to a +50% buff.

With a 3+ to hit and 3+ to wound it's around an 80% buff.

.666 x .666 = .44
.888 x .888 = .78

The percentage of improvement actually gets higher the worse the rolls are. Like a 3+ 5+ gets a 110% boost. The limiting factor is that each reroll only works on one shot. The fun bit is having a Captain and Lt around anyways for multi-heavy squads, and they can pick up the 1s while the CT picks up 2s.

Spoletta wrote:Salamander's rules are good rules by any standard.

Sure, if you want to maximize your flame combos then going successor could work better, but there is more to Salamanders than just flames.

They are incredibly versatile. you just need to know what your doing

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

A single Heavy weapon with those rerolls wasn't good last codex, period, and the armor bonus didn't change that. If that's really your best defense, you honestly never had one to begin with.

What defense, that they're not useless?

cuz they're not.

I really feel bad for you, it must suck to be that narrow, like mail slot narrow.

Am I missing something here or do Salamanders also have all the Boni that have been added to Marines plus their supplement Boni - how then can their Chapter tactic turn them from one of the strongest factions right now into "Trash" ? I'm not getting that argument.

Yeah. Salamanders having the basic Master Artisan and VotlW for everything on 1 CP makes them pretty gnarly right out of the gate, even if you don't build into any of the flame/melta stuff and self sacrifice get's nerfed into oblivion.

Vilehydra wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

A single Heavy weapon with those rerolls wasn't good last codex, period, and the armor bonus didn't change that. If that's really your best defense, you honestly never had one to begin with.

And there is your lack of imagination showing. Seriously 1 special 1 combi. Toss them in a rhino. The package is versatile, dangerous, and - thanks to the salamander re-roll - reliable on performing specific rolls without the need for constant babysitting.
You keep mentioning that they where trash before codex, and I'm curious if you ever actually tried playing with them. Myself and many others have reported success with them, I took them to my first two GT's ever, and scored a respectable 3-3 (during codex 1.0) and 3-2 (during codex 2.0 with UM IH RG WS).

And the even more important take away from every match-up that I lost was that I made a poor tactical decision, either due to fatigue or misunderstanding a rule (or just plain old screwing up). It wasn't my list that lost those game, it was how I played it. I came away from all of those games knowing I had a way to win it from the start

If your point is its not as plug and play as IH was for example. Your right.
If your point is that you can't get enough leverage out of the CT to make it worth it. Then that's on you.

I didn't NEED to test the Chapter Tactic in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Strat in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Relic in the old Codex either. The whole package was bad compared to Ultramarines and Raven Guard just like everyone else. All I needed to do was a little reading and that was it. Even the old Iron Hands was better for the straight up survivability and their Strat and Relic were straight up garbage (queue the people that wanna say "u jus haf to no how 2 use it L2P").

With the new codex there's still no comparison. The armor bonus is still better than the reroll bonus. Strats are also only gonna be once a turn, so I look at that the same way people tout VotLW: with a big "So what?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:Salamander's rules are good rules by any standard.

Sure, if you want to maximize your flame combos then going successor could work better, but there is more to Salamanders than just flames.

They are incredibly versatile. you just need to know what your doing

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

A single Heavy weapon with those rerolls wasn't good last codex, period, and the armor bonus didn't change that. If that's really your best defense, you honestly never had one to begin with.

What defense, that they're not useless?

cuz they're not.

I really feel bad for you, it must suck to be that narrow, like mail slot narrow.

We would have people defending 10 point Cultists with the whole "You just have to know how to use them", so color me not impressed. Those L2P equivalent arguments are never good and anyone attempting them should feel bad about it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I didn't NEED to test the Chapter Tactic in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Strat in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Relic in the old Codex either. The whole package was bad compared to Ultramarines and Raven Guard just like everyone else. All I needed to do was a little reading and that was it. Even the old Iron Hands was better for the straight up survivability and their Strat and Relic were straight up garbage (queue the people that wanna say "u jus haf to no how 2 use it L2P").

With the new codex there's still no comparison. The armor bonus is still better than the reroll bonus. Strats are also only gonna be once a turn, so I look at that the same way people tout VotLW: with a big "So what?"


.

And there we have it. You admit to having no experience on the subject, you did some reading and that's great. But when it comes down to it your just not credible.
You want to math hammer or theorycraft some counter point? Great, we all do thought experiments.

But when it comes to if the Salamander CT has actual merit, you should generally cede to people who are experienced with them.
Exactly the same way I may go talk to an experienced GSC or Admech player about interesting combos and setups, but generally trust them when they give reasons why something would (or wouldn't) work on the tabletop.

Anyways I'm out, I don't really see the point in continuing this.
You'll keep saying Salamanders can't work,
I'll keep making them do so.

Last word is yours

Ohh gee slayer-fan telling fans of a chapter whom are all quite happy with their rules how aweful their rules are and how insulted they should feel by them. well golly gee it's almsot like a sense of deja vu here!

BrianDavion wrote:
Ohh gee slayer-fan telling fans of a chapter whom are all quite happy with their rules how aweful their rules are and how insulted they should feel by them. well golly gee it's almsot like a sense of deja vu here!

day that ends in ¿why?

The old CT wasnt bad but you didnt really have as many good units to use it on and it alone wasnt strong enough to uplift the whole marine codex. Now you get it + another strong chapter tactic and it also works on your vehicles + a bunch of new or buffed units.

MA is great on both the new warsuit and eliminators, 2 unit you didnt even have access to before. Its really good on whirlwinds and TFC, 2 units that were buffed, who you might not want to have a bunch of characters baby sitting far away in a corner.

SM artillery is much stronger in this book compared to the last. The new space marines also have much stronger fighting characters and giving each of them an extra hit and wound reroll is really good. It maths out to be giving them 1-2 extra attacks in melee.

MA not having good targets because marines in general sucked before didnt make it a bad CT.

As soon as I saw the build your own CT section and saw it and stealthy being options I knew how I would build my lists. I was only waiting for the supplement to decide who I wanted to be a successor of. Not surprised at all that many others who placed good in tournaments thought the same thing.

At a glance it might look weak since it doesnt do anything new unlike some other CT or open up some nice combos. But it makes every unit in your list more reliable and perform better. There isnt a unit it doesnt buff. It buffs all your units almost all the time. Its one of the few that is good on both a character and a TFC, so the buff is never "wasted".

Stealthy doesnt really do anything against a melee army or much on your own melee units half the time or if facing "ignore cover". Exploding bolters is only on bolters in the shooting phase. IH doesnt gain anything on its artillery hiding out of LOS and if overwatch isnt useful and their opponent kills each tank instead of just damage it you only get the 6+++. Extra advance/charge distance which is also a strong CT isnt active on most units or in most turns and will be irrelevant in some matchups were you already are much faster and it isnt needed. MA is always on and always giving you value on every unit every turn.

Much more subtle than most of the other CT but also stronger than all of them. Even if not built around it is still one of the strongest CT available to marines. The better marines are the better it gets. And current marines are much stronger than a few months ago.

Klickor wrote:

Spoiler:

The old CT wasnt bad but you didnt really have as many good units to use it on and it alone wasnt strong enough to uplift the whole marine codex. Now you get it + another strong chapter tactic and it also works on your vehicles + a bunch of new or buffed units.

MA is great on both the new warsuit and eliminators, 2 unit you didnt even have access to before. Its really good on whirlwinds and TFC, 2 units that were buffed, who you might not want to have a bunch of characters baby sitting far away in a corner.

SM artillery is much stronger in this book compared to the last. The new space marines also have much stronger fighting characters and giving each of them an extra hit and wound reroll is really good. It maths out to be giving them 1-2 extra attacks in melee.

MA not having good targets because marines in general sucked before didnt make it a bad CT.

As soon as I saw the build your own CT section and saw it and stealthy being options I knew how I would build my lists. I was only waiting for the supplement to decide who I wanted to be a successor of. Not surprised at all that many others who placed good in tournaments thought the same thing.

At a glance it might look weak since it doesnt do anything new unlike some other CT or open up some nice combos. But it makes every unit in your list more reliable and perform better. There isnt a unit it doesnt buff. It buffs all your units almost all the time. Its one of the few that is good on both a character and a TFC, so the buff is never "wasted".

Stealthy doesnt really do anything against a melee army or much on your own melee units half the time or if facing "ignore cover". Exploding bolters is only on bolters in the shooting phase. IH doesnt gain anything on its artillery hiding out of LOS and if overwatch isnt useful and their opponent kills each tank instead of just damage it you only get the 6+++. Extra advance/charge distance which is also a strong CT isnt active on most units or in most turns and will be irrelevant in some matchups were you already are much faster and it isnt needed.

MA is always on and always giving you value on every unit every turn.

No need to HQ babysit troop squads and can save them for melee combat or fire support.
Master Artisans has changed the outcome of the game many, many times for me.

been the diff between letting that knight survive to shoot a giant and punching it to death with a Relic Contemptor.

Its helped soften up a carnifex before charging Tartaros finish it off.

More than once turning my opponents joy at a crappy roll with no CP left to Haha Multimelta to the face.

etc...etc...etc... Maybe if Slayer has actually played the 18th they might understand...but most likely not.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Klickor wrote:

Spoiler:

The old CT wasnt bad but you didnt really have as many good units to use it on and it alone wasnt strong enough to uplift the whole marine codex. Now you get it + another strong chapter tactic and it also works on your vehicles + a bunch of new or buffed units.

MA is great on both the new warsuit and eliminators, 2 unit you didnt even have access to before. Its really good on whirlwinds and TFC, 2 units that were buffed, who you might not want to have a bunch of characters baby sitting far away in a corner.

SM artillery is much stronger in this book compared to the last. The new space marines also have much stronger fighting characters and giving each of them an extra hit and wound reroll is really good. It maths out to be giving them 1-2 extra attacks in melee.

MA not having good targets because marines in general sucked before didnt make it a bad CT.

As soon as I saw the build your own CT section and saw it and stealthy being options I knew how I would build my lists. I was only waiting for the supplement to decide who I wanted to be a successor of. Not surprised at all that many others who placed good in tournaments thought the same thing.

At a glance it might look weak since it doesnt do anything new unlike some other CT or open up some nice combos. But it makes every unit in your list more reliable and perform better. There isnt a unit it doesnt buff. It buffs all your units almost all the time. Its one of the few that is good on both a character and a TFC, so the buff is never "wasted".

Stealthy doesnt really do anything against a melee army or much on your own melee units half the time or if facing "ignore cover". Exploding bolters is only on bolters in the shooting phase. IH doesnt gain anything on its artillery hiding out of LOS and if overwatch isnt useful and their opponent kills each tank instead of just damage it you only get the 6+++. Extra advance/charge distance which is also a strong CT isnt active on most units or in most turns and will be irrelevant in some matchups were you already are much faster and it isnt needed.

MA is always on and always giving you value on every unit every turn.

No need to HQ babysit troop squads and can save them for melee combat or fire support.
Master Artisans has changed the outcome of the game many, many times for me.

been the diff between letting that knight survive to shoot a giant and punching it to death with a Relic Contemptor.

Its helped soften up a carnifex before charging Tartaros finish it off.

More than once turning my opponents joy at a crappy roll with no CP left to Haha Multimelta to the face.

etc...etc...etc... Maybe if Slayer has actually played the 18th they might understand...but most likely not.

I even forgot to mention how you can spend less on buff characters and more on threats and how your whole army is more mobile and doesnt need to be inside of 6" auras to get some rerolls. You can still start the game in a castle and have rerolls like you had a primarch there, reroll 1s still work nice with MA, and then start moving around. Thanks for reminding me of that.

Klickor wrote:
The old CT wasnt bad but you didnt really have as many good units to use it on and it alone wasnt strong enough to uplift the whole marine codex. Now you get it + another strong chapter tactic and it also works on your vehicles + a bunch of new or buffed units.

Yea if it was the same CT I'd be kinda "meh", but now it works on vehicles while is nice on top of the new units mentioned it has a place in well constructed lists.

Slayer, i'm cringing hard reading your posts here.

The reroll on salamanders is excellent, it just means you dont need to play bubblehammer with units that shoot like crazy.

it helps low shot weapons like lascannons/melta/missiles.

It wants you to run a MSU type of army that plays on the board control since they are not bound to their captain/lieutenant aura and they still get rerolls.

Its basically getting 2 free command point per unit in your shooting phase (unless you already hit with everything).

e

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Those L2P equivalent arguments are never good and anyone attempting them should feel bad about it.

Public Service Announcement: Nobody actually feels bad about 'L2P' when you tell them to.

Vilehydra wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I didn't NEED to test the Chapter Tactic in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Strat in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Relic in the old Codex either. The whole package was bad compared to Ultramarines and Raven Guard just like everyone else. All I needed to do was a little reading and that was it. Even the old Iron Hands was better for the straight up survivability and their Strat and Relic were straight up garbage (queue the people that wanna say "u jus haf to no how 2 use it L2P").

With the new codex there's still no comparison. The armor bonus is still better than the reroll bonus. Strats are also only gonna be once a turn, so I look at that the same way people tout VotLW: with a big "So what?"


.

And there we have it. You admit to having no experience on the subject, you did some reading and that's great. But when it comes down to it your just not credible.
You want to math hammer or theorycraft some counter point? Great, we all do thought experiments.

But when it comes to if the Salamander CT has actual merit, you should generally cede to people who are experienced with them.
Exactly the same way I may go talk to an experienced GSC or Admech player about interesting combos and setups, but generally trust them when they give reasons why something would (or wouldn't) work on the tabletop.

Anyways I'm out, I don't really see the point in continuing this.
You'll keep saying Salamanders can't work,
I'll keep making them do so.

Last word is yours

Sorry, but I would NEED to play them to make the statements I'm making?

Would I need to actually play with 10 point Cultists to tell you they're terrible? Yes or no?

Maybe not in that case but you are the only one saying MA is bad AND you havent even tried it. You say its bad. I and many others say its really good.

I would say that the MA is easily one of the 3 best codex marine CTs. The ignore ap 1 will depend a lot on the meta though. If its mainly armies with ap 0 or ap2+ its worthless. If not then its incredible but it depends on the opponents list. MA doesnt its always good.

Klickor wrote:
Maybe not in that case but you are the only one saying MA is bad AND you havent even tried it. You say its bad. I and many others say its really good.

I would say that the MA is easily one of the 3 best codex marine CTs. The ignore ap 1 will depend a lot on the meta though. If its mainly armies with ap 0 or ap2+ its worthless. If not then its incredible but it depends on the opponents list. MA doesnt its always good.

If you are building around a reroll all hits aura and reroll 1's to wound aura - it is extremely worthless. When you are Ironhands and get a captains aura for free it just makes sense...You will not see Crimson fists doing this. They will be taking a chapter master and a LT and murding you off the table with cents and stalker bolt rifles.

It's almost like everyone has forggoten -2 to hit spam. It still exists and you WILL lose to it without a reroll all hits aura

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sorry, but I would NEED to play them to make the statements I'm making?

Would I need to actually play with 10 point Cultists to tell you they're terrible? Yes or no?

You're just making strawmen now. TH Vets are quite useful and benefit greatly from rerolls as do many other units.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sorry, but I would NEED to play them to make the statements I'm making?

Would I need to actually play with 10 point Cultists to tell you they're terrible? Yes or no?

You're just making strawmen now. TH Vets are quite useful and benefit greatly from rerolls as do many other units.

A unit of TH vets is gonna want a Chapter Master with them anyway because 3 hits hitting on a 4 with a single reroll is pretty damn unreliable.

And no it isn't a strawman. I'm saying you don't have to play certain rules to know they're garbage. I didn't HAVE to use units with Fear in 6th-7th to tell you it was a useless rule, right?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Klickor wrote:
Maybe not in that case but you are the only one saying MA is bad AND you havent even tried it. You say its bad. I and many others say its really good.

I would say that the MA is easily one of the 3 best codex marine CTs. The ignore ap 1 will depend a lot on the meta though. If its mainly armies with ap 0 or ap2+ its worthless. If not then its incredible but it depends on the opponents list. MA doesnt its always good.

If you are building around a reroll all hits aura and reroll 1's to wound aura - it is extremely worthless. When you are Ironhands and get a captains aura for free it just makes sense...You will not see Crimson fists doing this. They will be taking a chapter master and a LT and murding you off the table with cents and stalker bolt rifles.

It's almost like everyone has forggoten -2 to hit spam. It still exists and you WILL lose to it without a reroll all hits aura

How many of your units are gonna be in that reroll all hits aura? And MA works really well with reroll 1s to wound since few weapons wounds on 2s. Its mostly 3s-5s. So even with a CM in the list it isnt bad. Just not as good.

But sure, if you are building a castle it isnt the best but it is still good for the other units that are not with your CM.

I'm still not even close to sold on CF atm due to the siegebreaker cohort being Fist only. It's just so good for centurions that it holds them up above their successors. If CF did get access to it however now we're talking.

If you lack experience and those that have said experience disagree with you...and not in a mild disagreement ..maybe your "know how" isnt so knowing? Or maybe they should gain said experience and then join a fruitful discussion. I mean really, math only gets you so far. At some point you need to put down the spreadsheet and smell the promethium.

but why spend cp on chaptermaster when you can use that for more beneficial stratagems. since you dont need HQ babysitters for every unit, a world of possibilities reveals itself.

They have never played a game, let alone many games as a commander of the 18th, so I would rate their argument as....lacking.

Using master Artisan and stealthy instead of salamanders CT?

IMO the reroll is the perfect type of faction bonus, it changes how you play the faction, marines are a gunline army that want to be next their reroll bubble. playing them as salamanders means you can break apart your castle and play a more mobile role. is the reroll worse than a chapter master reroll, definitly. Is it complete garbage? no, because your chapter master can only buff so many units and it costs you CP to do it.

and yes, comparing their trait with literally doubling the pts cost of a gakky unit is a strawman. The salamander traits requires thinking outside the norm to make full use of it, its really when you start testing it that it makes more sense. Heck, even running hunter killers on rhinos becomes more interesting now that rhino can also get the reroll (not saying its good but its that kind of logic you gotta apply)

If you take an iron hands list and chose to use them as sallies, sure it wont be optimal. because the traits reward different things.

Theres a reason marine flyers are basically only ran as iron hands and are mediocre as other chapters.

Racerguy180 wrote:
If you lack experience and those that have said experience disagree with you...and not in a mild disagreement ..maybe your "know how" isnt so knowing? Or maybe they should gain said experience and then join a fruitful discussion. I mean really, math only gets you so far. At some point you need to put down the spreadsheet and smell the promethium.

but why spend cp on chaptermaster when you can use that for more beneficial stratagems. since you dont need HQ babysitters for every unit, a world of possibilities reveals itself.

They have never played a game, let alone many games as a commander of the 18th, so I would rate their argument as....lacking.

I play the game. Have you not seen my posts?
The Chapter Master Strat is only 2CP now and counters anything with a negative hit modifier like Fliers.

Sallie have veteran of the long War stratagem. Who cares about rerolls xd

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
If you lack experience and those that have said experience disagree with you...and not in a mild disagreement ..maybe your "know how" isnt so knowing? Or maybe they should gain said experience and then join a fruitful discussion. I mean really, math only gets you so far. At some point you need to put down the spreadsheet and smell the promethium.

but why spend cp on chaptermaster when you can use that for more beneficial stratagems. since you dont need HQ babysitters for every unit, a world of possibilities reveals itself.

They have never played a game, let alone many games as a commander of the 18th, so I would rate their argument as....lacking.

I play the game. Have you not seen my posts?
The Chapter Master Strat is only 2CP now and counters anything with a negative hit modifier like Fliers.

I didnt ask if you ayed the game, I asked if you played as Salamanders? All of the others play differently, so the experience is not directly correlated across the codecies.

How many games have you played as Salamanders? I'd rather spend that cp on something more beneficial than buffing one dude.

CapRichard wrote:
Using master Artisan and stealthy instead of salamanders CT?

I don't think they compliment each other at all. One allows you to spread across the board, the other wants you to be immobile in your DZ.

Zustiur wrote:

CapRichard wrote:
Using master Artisan and stealthy instead of salamanders CT?

I don't think they compliment each other at all. One allows you to spread across the board, the other wants you to be immobile in your DZ.

Not really. You can spread out with stealthy quite well. On a dread/invictor you dont really need the cover save against a guardsmen screen as long as you stay 12" away from the guard players tanks. You dont have to be 12" away from every unit, only the units that you actually need that save for. Stealthy also makes it easier to move around the board instead of hugging cover in your deployment. Makes scoring those mid field objectives much safer.

When I was poking at the custom CTs I was beginning to lean towards Artisans and the one that allows you to Fall Back and Charge. You could always be swinging embedded Thunder Hammers at the extra attack with rerolls, chasing targets of your choice. That seemed kinda interesting.

Klickor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Klickor wrote:
Maybe not in that case but you are the only one saying MA is bad AND you havent even tried it. You say its bad. I and many others say its really good.

I would say that the MA is easily one of the 3 best codex marine CTs. The ignore ap 1 will depend a lot on the meta though. If its mainly armies with ap 0 or ap2+ its worthless. If not then its incredible but it depends on the opponents list. MA doesnt its always good.

If you are building around a reroll all hits aura and reroll 1's to wound aura - it is extremely worthless. When you are Ironhands and get a captains aura for free it just makes sense...You will not see Crimson fists doing this. They will be taking a chapter master and a LT and murding you off the table with cents and stalker bolt rifles.

It's almost like everyone has forggoten -2 to hit spam. It still exists and you WILL lose to it without a reroll all hits aura

How many of your units are gonna be in that reroll all hits aura? And MA works really well with reroll 1s to wound since few weapons wounds on 2s. Its mostly 3s-5s. So even with a CM in the list it isnt bad. Just not as good.

But sure, if you are building a castle it isnt the best but it is still good for the other units that are not with your CM.

Almost every unit will be in that aura. Heck in an ironhands army with 3 powerful units YEAH - your entire army will be in that aura. The trait is not entirely useless in this situation BUT wouldn't you much rather have ignore cover on all your shots or have a 6+ FNP? For Salamanders you'll always be taking 3" range bonus so the thing that benefits you the most is probably fall back and shoot or the +1 armor ability.

Not gonna worry too much about an army that has to get within 8" to be really effective.

In a castle sure. Its not that great but I dont think that is the best or the most interesting way to play the game. If enough terrain on the table you lose on objectives if you castle against a more mobile army. And just sitting there in auras usually dont make for very engaging games. Its more of a simulation at that point and I already do my mathhammer before deployment.

I play way more spread out, mobile and aggresssive so MA is just amazing for what I do.

I would say its stronger than any single one of IH traits but they get 3 so not really comparable. For a melee list MA is better than both stealthy and ignore cover I think. Im not sure its THE best CT but its without a doubt one of the best and pairs well with any other CT and isnt useless in any army.

Like ravenguard doesnt really do much against IF and IF doesnt do much if you play without many bolters and against demons or other ++ save units. You cant even build a list that doesnt benefit from MA in every game.

Have you guys already fought Salamanders-like using these rules ?
And when is the Faq due already ?

MA is a great CT to me. Playing MSU with classic marines carrying special weapons or honoured sergeants, these free reroll all game long on every units are golden especially as SM armies are now so PC heavy.

I think the problem for Salamander is, although once they get into flamer range, pretty much nothing short of a Knight or Daemon Primarch could withstand their fire power. But the problem is how to get those"old marines" in there. Everyone could easily evade them or shoot them dead quickly.

 godardc wrote:
Have you guys already fought Salamanders-like using these rules ?
And when is the Faq due already ?

MA is a great CT to me. Playing MSU with classic marines carrying special weapons or honoured sergeants, these free reroll all game long on every units are golden especially as SM armies are now so PC heavy.

The supplements will be out on Saturday, and FAQs are usually out a few weeks later.

I've been playing Salamanders all throughout 8th and the new Codex is really good,im a bit afraid that with the supplement on top it'll be hard to build weaker lists to have fun when playing against armies that aren't top tier.

Neophyte2012 wrote:
I think the problem for Salamander is, although once they get into flamer range, pretty much nothing short of a Knight or Daemon Primarch could withstand their fire power. But the problem is how to get those"old marines" in there. Everyone could easily evade them or shoot them dead quickly.

Old Marines have far more and better transport options than Primaris.

Banville wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:
I think the problem for Salamander is, although once they get into flamer range, pretty much nothing short of a Knight or Daemon Primarch could withstand their fire power. But the problem is how to get those"old marines" in there. Everyone could easily evade them or shoot them dead quickly.

Old Marines have far more and better transport options than Primaris.

Word. We can practically land on top of the opponent if we want to.

So how telling is it everyone stopped posting in this thread once the full book came out?

 AduroT wrote:
So how telling is it everyone stopped posting in this thread once the full book came out?

It's almost as if it was all a big nothing burger but I'm sure someone will complain that salamanders are OP because they decided to smash into a 6 man squad of flame agressors as "evidence".

 Dr. Mills wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
So how telling is it everyone stopped posting in this thread once the full book came out?

It's almost as if it was all a big nothing burger but I'm sure someone will complain that salamanders are OP because they decided to smash into a 6 man squad of flame agressors as "evidence".

Kind of what I figured.

 AduroT wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
So how telling is it everyone stopped posting in this thread once the full book came out?

It's almost as if it was all a big nothing burger but I'm sure someone will complain that salamanders are OP because they decided to smash into a 6 man squad of flame agressors as "evidence".

Kind of what I figured.

Par for the course on Dakka.

I still remember the mass hysteria around the Ork codex pre-release and how they were going to be unbeatable. Sure they aren't a bad codex, but hardly top tier and for competitive are locked to limited builds

I think they will prove to be very strong once the elite players start to go through the codex and build lists properly, not just trying to get as many flamer aggressors in the list as possible which is potentially insane but not very practical.
Being able to give any unit +1 to wound is incredibly strong for one cp, that doesn't need to get close range and makes their repulsors and Leviathans arguably the best in the game.

kingheff wrote:
I think they will prove to be very strong once the elite players start to go through the codex and build lists properly, not just trying to get as many flamer aggressors in the list as possible which is potentially insane but not very practical.
Being able to give any unit +1 to wound is incredibly strong for one cp, that doesn't need to get close range and makes their repulsors and Leviathans arguably the best in the game.

Which is why votlw was limited to infantry. That's gak. Either that strategem needs to be nerfed or votlw needs to lose the restriction.

*laughs in Deathwatch*